Page 1 of 1

DC Poll: Flippable Versions; do we want them?

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:15 pm
by Thorsten the Traveller
To all dreamcard fans, now's your moment to influence the features of the next set: The Necromancer.

In First Folk some startable missions were introduced, like Towers Destroyed and Drive back the Shadow. Most people thought this a neat idea, you can start working on your mission immediately, and opponent can start working on obstructing you.

In many cardsgames (Starwars ccg, LotR lcg, etc), such "objectives" have a flipside-effect. When you complete the first part of the quest, you flip the card over, with possibly an effect and/or the second part of the mission.

Middle-earth: The Necromancer has a few mission cards that you can start the game with. The question is, do we want flipside versions in meccg as well? See the examples below, where the second versions are the front and backside of the same card.

1. it can speed up your game (less cards to draw, no timing issues), thus makes complicated missions more interesting and doable, so we'll see more of them.
2. double the space for text on 1 card, thus more text possible or better readable text.
3. less card-slots needed.

1. having double-sided cards is not a feature of meccg
2. drawing cards (in order to play them) is also a central mechanic of meccg.

thanks for participating, and share your thoughts!

Eric & Nicolai

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:19 am
by dirhaval
It is true exhausting a deck is part of the game mechanics. Some may want to have opponent exhaust
his deck so to discard events giving him assistance like Tokens to Show. Or exhaustion can help
the other call to end the game or avoid automatic-attack enhancement with a site card in the discard pile.

My first response is to just play longer games. But I am willing to try it. I like to see the two decks
side-by-side to glimpse the differences. It can be tactical to force opponent to use his recycling
events like Smoke Rings to instead fetch a resource discarded prematurely.
May be instead of flipping, direct the first event to fetch the second from the sideboard. This will
take up space as a cost. May be fetch the first event via the second event if the latter is discarded too?

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:33 pm
by Thorsten the Traveller
So that's a no for you Bill?
To play Dark Spires one probably doesn't need to exhaust, though you would have to add 2 to deck to avoid a late draw, yes. 2 more slots for other (support) cards, that's beneficial to the quest. But playing them from the sideboard, that could also work.

If those voting no would share their insights with us, that would be much appreciated. (edit: same for yes as well :-)

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 3:22 am
by dirhaval
I voted "no" then posted my response.

Keep in mind I have only played ten games of MECCG (gccg and "live") in ten years.
I am happy to playtest against the three variants:
1. current
2. flip
3 current, but allow fetching from sideboard

Also, I just realize a risk in my Fate decks of those mission cards.
I use Wizards for most of them, which is vulnerable to Stormcrow.
How do flip cards unbalance the idea of playing a resource on minion companies
while heroes risk losing a mission from Stormcrow? I am guessing the Lords are affected by Stormcrow too.

I like the idea to darken Mordor. But the idea of these specific flip cards has the minion player safely in Mordor
away from free people creatures and cvcc in a manner of speaking.
The question can be: Do you want to test flip cards?

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:20 am
by Thorsten the Traveller
great, after 20 years of playing meccg I didn't realise that Fate of the Ithil Stone was in danger of Stormcrow !???
If so, a ruling would be better to change that, obviously. The missions in ME:NE are not played on the company though.

This particular mission, Foundations Remain, makes Mordor more dangerous for minions, as all sites become [-me_rl-]. Also Mordor squat is more difficult as you cannot play unique resources at sites in Gorgoroth/Udun (though it seems there's still plenty to do at sites in Imlad Morgul/Nurn).

Bring in from sideboard is an option, but the difference with flipping isn't big in terms of cardmanagement, you just use up 1 more slot of the sideboard.

Yes, of course we will test it, but it's good to see what the general opinion is, if the whole idea of double-sided cards in meccg is disliked, then why go for it in the first place?

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:06 am
by Shapeshifter
I had to think about it for a while. Finally I voted YES.

This wouldn't be the only new thing DC adds to MECCG. Look at dual-cards or the new icons for MP, CC etc. for example.

Flippable cards make missions much easier to handle and thus more attractive.

As I see no way how a flippable card - granted that it can be used as a starting event card only - could be drawn from play deck it also doesn't matter that it has no backside with a burning eye/map on it.

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:00 pm
by Logain
Objectives were a big change in the Star Wars CCG. They are like starting missions, with a flippable side. All decks could have an Objective.
Before, players played with "Main and Toys" : the most powerful characters, and their sabers. Games were very alike, about Luke battling Vader. And somewhat boring after a time.
After, there was a wider array of decks played, and many forgotten cards saw play. Games were more theme centered, less based on the "play the biggest characters and biggest items". More fun, more variety.

Here is an example, were the light player gets Luke to accomplish the Jedi Tests, and when it's done the player gets a big boon (and has a big Luke).


I think Middle Eartyh card game can greatly profit from this, and ICE was working on "Quests" for its second edition, it's not that far.
At the moment, community plays either optimized decks (i suppose they won't lke it) or fun / Tolkien themed decks (scenario games, cool play, dc about getting misc cards on the table, etc...).

For those theme formats, those Starting Events (i'd call them Starting Quests) can be a boon.

Being a starting card, you can give conditions and advantages that function like a timed errata for the deck. For example, you could have a MECCG mission centered on killing Smaug giving a prowess bonus to Bard. You could have tutor effects for unplayed cards that had a nice theme.

Being a flippable cards, you can also have A side about conditions to flip the card, and a B side about rewards and game changes when the card is flipped. For example, if Smaug is killed card is flipped, and Lonely Mountain becomes a dwarven hold with 2@10 vs minion companies.

Sure, it also allows for more text on a card ^^.

We can also imagine some more developments for such a concept. For example allow for one Major starting quest for all players / alignments, and 2 minor starting quests for hero and minions alignments (to compensate for DC's starting stage cards). We could even say minor starting events give extra MPs & minor advantages, while a Major starting quest could give you a decisive victory. Destroying the One Ring could be a Major Starting Hero Quest, with all the rules for dunking written on it instead of in the rules. We could add other Major Starting Quests, for example a Dwarf one about killing Smaug / Balrog, playing King under the moutain / Moria counterpart, Returned Exiles, and either Arkenstone / Book of Mazarbul to win the game.


Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:34 pm
by Thorsten the Traveller
Thanks for the extensive (visual) imput! The opinion on flippable missions seems to have turned.

That King under the Mountain mission looks good, but DC is not about re-writing cards of course, we have to content ourselves with new cards. But they might bring older ones new purpose and popularity.

Making missions a game-winning condition for that reason is not wise I think, there are just not enough missions around and we'll be forced to all play the same ones. But given enough options, it could be cool to award completed missions extra tournament points in a DC tournament.

I think we can add a Quest keyword (or something similar) and define in rules what that amounts to. Sounds more Middle-earthy than Objective ;-)

Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2016 11:57 am
by Ranger of the north
I voted yes :D I really loved the mission cards in FF and I think flippable ones can speed up the game and add much fun about completing missions (even if I adore the backside with the burning eye and the moment I cannot imagine a MECCG card without it! :roll: )


Re: Flippable Versions: do we want them?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:21 am
by Thorsten the Traveller
Thanks all who voted, as Nicolai mentioned the startable and flippable missions are added to gccg, in the folder appropriately named Necromancer Missions.
We'll test them, and if feedback is good they'll make it into MENE.