|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 2, 2007 21:56:20 GMT -5
James you mentioned removing the must do/ may do phase. I disagree with this because yes it will only affect a limited number of cards in 2ed, however that edition is still new. From what Mike Sager stated in one of his posts was that 1ed and 2ed will be compatible. If you go to change the 2ed part that would be against him. From what I have seen from new and old players is that they like DIVERSITY!!! So much that they want and are buying not only 2ed but also 1ed cards. That is why I stated what I did. In 1ed stuff this will cause a lot of complications. For both editions this can as well cause problems because if you do away with the must/do may/do phase and solve everything as it happens then how are you to counter anything for starters? Headswillroll
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 3, 2007 6:11:19 GMT -5
What do you mean "how will you counter things"? You'd counter them the same as you do now, with discard to use cards. Additionally, the removal of the must/may phase would allow for cards to be played on other peoples' turns, opening up vast avenues of expansion for the game and its tactics.
Must Do/May Do is a silly system implemented because Mike thought it would make programming an online game system easier. It does, but only marginally, and the cost to the game in useless complexity and restricted tactics isn't worth it IMO.
2e would still be vcompatible, as you just declare that all "start of your turn effects" occur during must/may. But, if it means a better 2e, I'll happily watch 1e fall by the wayside, despite owning a full playset of almost everything but the rarest of promos. Living in the past will only hurt the game.
|
|
|
Post by evilnuff on Apr 3, 2007 8:08:12 GMT -5
...Additionally, the removal of the must/may phase would allow for cards to be played on other peoples' turns, opening up vast avenues of expansion for the game and its tactics. ... This would also add all sorts of timing issues and complicate/confuse things far more than may/must do phases. Timing issues are not something we want the headache of. Playing cards only on your turn is one of the game mechanics I like about HL as it is so different from other games.
|
|
Donald
Ancient Immortal
Posts: 359
|
Post by Donald on Apr 3, 2007 8:15:56 GMT -5
What do you mean "how will you counter things"? You'd counter them the same as you do now, with discard to use cards. Additionally, the removal of the must/may phase would allow for cards to be played on other peoples' turns, opening up vast avenues of expansion for the game and its tactics. How hard will that make it to keep track if you've played a Special card? I played one on my turn, do I get to play a counter to one you just played? Can I play another on my next turn? That being said, there are no Police (event) cards for 2nd ed yet. Could they be printed as Edges to get around the above? Keeping all the countering cards as Edges or discard to use Situations would be needed to keep things straight. I do like the "only play on your turn" mechanic as well. It does streamline things and speed up game play. Donald
|
|
|
Post by evilnuff on Apr 3, 2007 8:18:22 GMT -5
... That being said, there are no Police (event) cards for 2nd ed yet. ... huh? Set 1 has police event "Remove a Situation from play."
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Apr 3, 2007 12:23:02 GMT -5
No, he means Police (Event Damage). That one hasn't been made.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 3, 2007 16:33:32 GMT -5
You could restrict specials, make counters edges, or have a new card type "Counter" that can only be played in response to a very specific occurrence printed on the card.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 3, 2007 18:33:31 GMT -5
You could restrict specials, make counters edges, or have a new card type "Counter" that can only be played in response to a very specific occurrence printed on the card. But none of those things SIMPLIFY the game, which would be the only real reason to DROP the may do/must do. I think as long as Mike Sager owns the license to this game, we arent going to see the basic rules change, considering he is the one who made them.
|
|
|
Post by pseudosoldier on Apr 3, 2007 19:46:14 GMT -5
You could restrict specials, make counters edges, or have a new card type "Counter" that can only be played in response to a very specific occurrence printed on the card. I knew there was a reason I disliked Counter as the new name for Jumps and Ducks...
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Apr 3, 2007 21:55:46 GMT -5
Well James, by the reasoning you gave I would say that by changing all of the things which seems to be the intent it sounds like you have a game like everyone else. I will agree with the others on their responses to the fact that Mike Sager still owns the game and this system was created for a reason. I strongly believe that 1ed should be compatible with 2ed, but understand that they want to make 2ed stand alone if they want which is where we are now. It covers the older clientel as well as newer clientel, which lets face it it is a business. Reguardless of which edition whoever likes better in the 1ed the main problem was cheese and stall, well they already hampered both of those deck styles by restricting the deck size (between 50 and 75 cards). Well guess what the biggest problem with the 2ed is, oh gee it is cheese and stall. I think it is a good start on the deck restriction, however I believe they need a "seperate from the designers" rules committee to break the game and adjust the rules accordingly, and be the only "Official Word". I wouls say if the thing is to speed up the game then fix the endgame situation. If you want to talk about complicated gaming then 2ed has one up on 1ed with the ridiculously restricted deck building guideline with the gems. Headswillroll
|
|
|
Post by RusselMerchant on Apr 4, 2007 8:42:39 GMT -5
I have not seen much problem with cheese and stall. I play Slan ussualy so obviously I do not play those styles. The most winning decks right now are Slan, then DUncan, then Grayson. Grayson is the closest to stall but realy he is a very fast burn deck (I once went through my whole slan lean and mean deck by the beginning of turn two).
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 5, 2007 6:15:29 GMT -5
Even with the addition of counters it still simplifies the game.
1) You no longer queue up effects until later.
2) We already have counters, except they're discard to use situations that instead of playing as soon as they're used have to be played, wait for your opponent to play a card, then can be used.
3) Must Do/May do is a source of huge amounts of questions. Removing it removes those.
Even if it didn't simplify the game, I'd still be for it. It would streamline the game (which IIRC was the original topic). Also, it would open up many more options, making the game much more versatile. More options = more fun.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 5, 2007 16:29:14 GMT -5
Even with the addition of counters it still simplifies the game. 1) You no longer queue up effects until later. 2) We already have counters, except they're discard to use situations that instead of playing as soon as they're used have to be played, wait for your opponent to play a card, then can be used. 3) Must Do/May do is a source of huge amounts of questions. Removing it removes those. Even if it didn't simplify the game, I'd still be for it. It would streamline the game (which IIRC was the original topic). Also, it would open up many more options, making the game much more versatile. More options = more fun. 1. The game is BUILT around queing up effects, it is the way the entire engine operates. 2. So you propose to do away with may do/must do in exchange for Situations that have to be discarded? Your example would lead to most EVERYTHING going through because people generally dont want to give up thier ONE SPECIAL PER TURN just to put out a counter card they may not ever use. Your proposal would lead to the game taking TWICE as long as decks grind to a halt as players spend the first dozen or so turns getting all thier counter cards in play. I think there is a reason the MAJORITY of counter cards are Edges and not Discard To Use Special cards. 3. May Do/Must Do is a huge source of questions because it has never been thoroughly explained properly. More Options = More Fun ? That doesnt seem to be the general consensus, given the absolute LOVE AFFAIR people seem to have with the Gem System that 2ed is using, which restricts more than it expands.
|
|
|
Post by jamesmcmurray on Apr 5, 2007 17:49:21 GMT -5
1) We're talking about chanign the game, right?
2) No, I'm saying counters are their own card type. They're not discard to use effects, they come out of your hand at the time you play them. Whether they count as a special or not is a design decision that would have to be made. My suggestion is that they wouldn't count as specials. If they needed a limitiation they could be limited to one counter per turn.
3) May/Must has been explained a lot, but that doesn't help new players.
I love the gems too, even though they restrict options somewhat. They make up for it in other ways. More options = more fun is a guideline, not a constant rule.
|
|
|
Post by prowler7 on Apr 5, 2007 20:42:00 GMT -5
1) We're talking about chanign the game, right? 2) No, I'm saying counters are their own card type. They're not discard to use effects, they come out of your hand at the time you play them. Whether they count as a special or not is a design decision that would have to be made. My suggestion is that they wouldn't count as specials. If they needed a limitiation they could be limited to one counter per turn. 3) May/Must has been explained a lot, but that doesn't help new players. I love the gems too, even though they restrict options somewhat. They make up for it in other ways. More options = more fun is a guideline, not a constant rule. 1. That was a different forum and a different set of circumstances. Nobody official here has said ANYTHING about changing the game. 2. Well, similiar to trap cards, time cards and unexpected cards from Raven and MLE , these are extra card types that bring with them all new rules and complexities, and quite frankly take up room in your deck better served by other things.* For one thing, with the gem rules, many immortals BARELY have enough gems to do the few things you WANT them to do, now you propose to take that away with the addition of a whole NEW card that they will need to put into thier deck. Also, with the maximum deck size, even if the counter cards DONT count towards gem count (which I doubt), you are now pushing the deck sizes toward maximum. PLUS, 2ed doesnt really have any cycle, so you are going to be STUCK with these cards if your clever opponent plays a deck that doesnt call for thier use. 3. The reason may do/must do still confuses people is that it has never been explained WELL. 2ed is going a long way towards solving this in printing "Play during your may do/must do phase" onto the relevant cards. *On a side note, the unexpected cards in MLE are different in this case in that they enter play as soon as they are drawn, so they arent taking up room in your hand
|
|
|
|