Subject: Guardians Problems
From: khayman@earthlink.net
Date: 1995/09/05
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
Okay, I know, I love this game too. But, we can't just flood Joe and FPG with compliments. Let's take a constructive look at some things we'd like to see improved:
1) The card stock is not the greatest. They are a little thin, and dull looking. Yes, the art is superior to most CCG's, but something a little sturdier and/or glossier would be nice.
2) The humor. Sure, I love it! I have a Major Party Animal, an Idiot (still don't know how to effectively use him), and Pink Flamingos. They're great fun, and they're good cards. It adds something to the game for me. Still, I've heard many people complain. Just thought I'd point it out.
3) There is no cost for getting cards out. I concede that most of the strategy comes in movement and combat, but even combat involves a little luck of the draw. I think some sort of energy pool or cost system (perhaps based on the guardian itself) would be beneficial to the game overall. It would add strategy in deck building and in army building. As it is now, you just bring your armies out when you draw them. The strategy now is based on how you decide where to place the units.
4) No cost for magic. This is a big complaint for me. The above complaint is one that I'm making as pure observation, I can live with it the way it is, but no cost for magic?! This seems ridiculous the way the game works. Especially with some of the cards. I think that at the very least, only certain cards/creatures should be able to cast certain spells/items. Or, perhaps a cost system based on the Guardian's Magic power. You shouldn't just be allowed to play them.
5) Channeling is a bit of a mystery. I may not be doing it right, but the way we're playing it now, channeling is only good for primary combat. The bonus is lost during secondary. This seems odd, because channeling is a relatively uncommon power (and rightfully powerful) that you don't always see. There are also specific cards that stop channeling. So why limit it? It should be something to fear, and not easily defeated by a secondary attack.
6) There doesn't seem to be much difference/variety in Guardians and/or Strongholds. Of course, I may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg, but I've only seen 4 different Guardians and 2 Strongholds. Also, among those I've seen, there is really little difference. Playing with any guardian does not seem to alter a strategem at all.
7) On that note, are there any rare terrains? I haven't seen any, and that's a disappointment. I think it's another aspect that could add a lot of fun.
8) There are only bribery, magic items/spells, Stronghold improvement cards that add to the battle aspect of this game, and these are just played "whenever" (see #3). I think adding more cards, such as interesting terrains, atmosphere/situational modifiers, terrain modifiers, weapons, items and more will open up the game as a whole. They would add more variety as well as a distinct role-playing aspect to this game. And, of course, I think they should all have a cost attached. ;-D
9) Keeping in the vein of #8, I would like to see a political aspect brought to this game. I think the game is set up to handle such an expansion, and it would make for some spectacular multi-player games.
All in all, I think the game is great fun! These are just some suggestions that I think would make it perfect. BTW, we played 3 and 5 player games using the same basic set-up as the 4 player game variant. It's simple to do, and plays out well. I know most people think this is a 2 player only game, but I must say that multi-player works great.
Subject: Re: Guardians Problems
From: locjlb@telerama.lm.com
Date: 1995/09/05
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
Okay, I know, I love this game too. But, we can't just flood Joe and FPG with compliments. Let's take a constructive look at some things we'd like to see improved:
Your comments have been seen and noted. I'll respond to a few...
3) There is no cost for getting cards out. I concede that most of the strategy comes in movement and combat, but even combat involves a little luck of the draw. I think s ome sort of energy pool or cost system (perhaps based on the guardian itself) would be beneficial to t he game overall. It would add strategy in deck building and in army building. As it is now, you jus t bring your armies out when you draw them. The strategy now is based on how you decide where to place the units.
You've missed the biggest point: the 30 Vitality limitation per space. This forces players to build stacks of Creatures of the same power level, but with different amounts and types of Creatures underneath. There's a tremendous amount of strategy in building up those armies, and a lot more in tactics once they're out. I can have a 5 Creature, 27 points worth of Vitality under a Shield--and you can have four Creatures with 29 Vitatlity. If we match them up, chances are pretty good that the results will be very different depending on when we play the cards. And since combat is a series of blind match-ups, there's no way to know what's going to happen.
4) No cost for magic. This is a big complaint for me. The above comp laint is one that I'm making as pure observation, I can live with it the way it is, but no cost for ma gic?! This seems ridiculous the way the game works. Especially with some of the cards. I think that at t he very least, only certain cards/creatures should be able to cast certain spells/items. Or, perh aps a cost system based on the Guardian's Magic power. You shouldn't just be allowed to play them.
Want to play Magic--play MagicTM(WOTC). Guardians isn't about casting, its about crushing your opponent and outmaneuvering on the field.
5) Channeling is a bit of a mystery. I may not be doing it right, but the way we're playing it now, channeling is only good for primary combat. The bonus is lost during secondary. This seems odd, because channeling is a relatively uncommon power (and rightfully powe rful) that you don't always see. There are also specific cards that stop channeling. So why limit it? It should be something to fear, and not easily defeated by a secondary attack.
There's balances in the game for everything. Channeling is very potent. But it costs stones and it can be countered and it isn't going to make up for not having the right mix of Creatures. But give me four Channelers to your four non-Channelers, and I'll win the Combat. Question is, do I spend four stones and collect the Shield as well? Or do I just kill off one Creature. Its not so simple.
7) On that note, are there any rare terrains? I haven't seen any, and that's a disappointment. I think it's another aspect that could add a lot of fun.
Whoosh!!!! Look at the answer to #4.
8) There are only bribery, magic items/spells, Stronghold improvement cards that add to the battle aspect of this game, and these are just played "whenever" (see #3). I think adding more cards, such as interesting terrains, atmosphere/situational modifiers, terrain mod ifiers, weapons, items and more will open up the game as a whole. They would add more variety as well as a distinct role-playing aspect to this game. And, of course, I think they should all have a cost attach ed. ;-D
Please tell me you aren't looking to build a power deck....Cause it won't happen with Guardians.
Thanks for your input..
Joe
Subject: Re: Guardians Problems
From: clamjack@aol.com (Clamjack)
Date: 1995/09/05
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
I'll let Joe handle the other comments - many of which I just put into my "cool ideas for expansions folder" (I'm Luke Peterschmidt - co-developer of Guardians). Great feedback. One of our design goals was to make a game really different when we started with Guardians, so we tried to stay away from focusing too heavily on "resource management" as a game balancer. Not that resource stuff isn't fun, but it's been done by nearly every other card game. This simple desicion was one of the biggest factors in why the game took 16 months to design and playtest! When you have a resource game, the more powerful cards are simply harder to cast. With that design crutch gone, we had to look for other ways to even the playing field.
Another design crutch we tried to eliminate was any artificial deck limitations. It's easy to make a real powerful card then limit it to "one per deck" or something. Our playtesters were allowed to make any deck they could think of, even if it consisted of 45 of the same card (and don't think they didn't do this!). Again, I don't think deck limitations are be design "bad" - but we wanted to make sure that players could use any cards in their collections. We have some "official" tournament rules which limit card to no more than 5 of a kind, but that is to make the games interesting (while playing a deck with 45 of the same card may be fun, playing AGAINST one would be boring as all get out). I strongly encourage players to go as deviant as they can.
So, my point - I wouldn't expect to see a resource system in Guardians...but new lands...hmmm...more strongholds....more card interactions....Dagger Isle....hmmm...could happen...
Subject: Re: Guardians Problems
From: lilzero@astral.magic.ca (LittleZero)
Date: 1995/09/05
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
1) The card stock is not the greatest. They are a little thin, and dull looking. Yes, the art is superior to most CCG's, but something a little sturdier and/or glossier would be nice.
After a few full games, I have only a couple cards showing any whitening, but I guess I agree here. All trading card games should have to live up to the quality one would expect from a pack of Bicycle playing cards. 2) The humor. Sure, I love it! I have a Major Party Animal, an Idiot (still don't know how to effectively use him), and Pink Flamingos. They're great fun, and they're good cards. It adds something to the game for me. Still, I've heard many people complain. Just thought I'd point it out.
You know, I was going to write something about this myself. The comment which most took me back about the game was "the game doesn't look like it has a coherent theme". Some cards were totally serious, some cards are humourous. To some, the two don't mesh. Me, I love it. On the other hand, another comment which I think should be looked at is that some people think that the game is totally aimed at guys. Why isn't there a "Stud" or "Ahnold" card with which you can bribe the Female Titan? This might be a fun "magic item" for a future set.
3) There is no cost for getting cards out. I concede that most of the strategy comes in movement and combat, but even combat involves a little luck of the draw. I think some sort of energy pool or cost system (perhaps based on the guardian itself) would be beneficial to the game overall.
Well this I disagree with. While I have adamantly stomped on previous games which didn't use costs, the Gaurdians system already limits creatures, by limiting what goes under each shield. Big creatures are not inherently more powerful than small creatures, as in Magic, or Doomtrooper or any other CCG. In Guardians, a single Big creature can easily be taken out by three or four small creatures. As only two big creatures can fit under a shield, your opponent will likely have the upper hand in most battles.
4) No cost for magic. This is a big complaint for me.
Again, I disagree. Magic is powerful but risky. Magic is always a one shot deal, and it only helps if you have a good quantity of creatures on the playing field. I'd much prefer to get two creatures and a land in a draw than a Holy Grail, Pepe's Slow Down and a Beer Bribery. Unlike Magic and other games, there is absolutely no way you can win on Magic alone, therefore every Spell or Bribery you add to your deck, is one less creature you'll have to defend and attack.
5) Channeling is a bit of a mystery. I may not be doing it right, but the way we're playing it now, channeling is only good for primary combat. The bonus is lost during secondary. This seems odd, because channeling is a relatively uncommon power (and rightfully powerful) that you don't always see.
Check out my message on this very subject. The way I interpret the rule is that channeling helps determine who is the up-card for that battle. If you channel above your opponent's creature's Vitality, your creature goes on top, signifying you have won that battle. Even though that Vitality may go down when secondary attackers are played, the battle has already been won. Basically, if you can't channel to win, don't channel at all, use a secondary attacker(s) instead.
6) There doesn't seem to be much difference/variety in Guardians and/or Strongholds.
Well, this I'm sort of glad about. I'd hate to think that there was some Guardian out there which I just HAD to have, or I just couldn't win. You know, Jean-Luc Picard syndrome. All of the Guardians have been built to be balanced. If you get a lot of stones, you can't use them as easily. If you have a huge Vitality, you have fewer stones. Of course, I do figure we'll see new Gaurdians in the expansion sets, and there has already been mention of new Strongholds in future sets, which, as I've said elsewhere, I think is a bad idea unless they are a sort of "Chase Set" where you get all three pieces at the same time.
7) On that note, are there any rare terrains? I haven't seen any, and that's a disappointment. I think it's another aspect that could add a lot of fun.
I agree entirely. New exapnsions should definitely have new terrain types and cratures that work in them. Valleys, Deserts, Islands, Open Plains, Foothills, Rain Forests (think BIG SNAKES...), all could add variety to the game.
8) There are only bribery, magic items/spells, Stronghold improvement cards that add to the battle aspect of this game, and these are just played "whenever" (see #3). I think adding more cards, such as interesting terrains, atmosphere/situational modifiers, terrain modifiers, weapons, items and more will open up the game as a whole.
Again, I agree entirely. In the Scrye article about the game, one of the designers said that for the first expansion, he's created two new "types" of cards (to expand multiplayer play no less), so I figure that FPG is open to these sort of suggestions. I particularly want to see fortifications, which take up space under your shield, but can be left behind to defend disputed lands after you've moved your shield to another space. About your cost problem, any new cards which move with your shield should definitely take up space like a creature.
And hey, we both agree it's a great game...
Karl.
Subject: Re: Guardians Problems
From: khayman@earthlink.net
Date: 1995/09/07
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc
> You've missed the biggest point: the 30 Vitality limitation per space....
You're absolutely right on this one, Joe. As I said, card cost is not a big complaint with me. The strategy behind setting up an army and reinforcing is complicated and fun. Especially when you start losing units through attrition. And of course, since combat is blind, there is always attrition...
Want to play Magic--play MagicTM(WOTC). Guardians isn't about casting, its about crushing your opponent and outmaneuvering on the field.
Geez, Joe. I'm saddened to see you get so defensive. First off, let me say - I HATE MtG. I don't play it, and I never will again. Great idea - bad follow through. And, frankly, I'm bored with it. Guardians is my favorite new game, but let's face it: If you have spells and magic items in the cards, then it IS about casting. I would hate to see this game become a 2-dimensional battle game for people to test out new armies and blindly pound each other and outmaneuver each other.
This game is supposed to be about a fantasy world, and it feels that way to me. I just think that there could be more strategy and depth to a magic aspect that, quite frankly, doesn't feel completely thought through. I definitely feel cost is one thing that could affect magic in a fun and challenging way. The guardians already have a Magic Power # as well as stones...
There's balances in the game for everything. Channeling is very potent. But it costs stones and it can be countered and it isn't going to make up for not having the right mix of Creatures....
I think you miss my point here. Take a look at the other posts regarding Channeling. My worry is that if my Witch Lord with 26 vitality (17+9 channelling) whips your Elemental (15) in primary combat, then should a pesky Varmit be allowed to cruise in and waste the Lord in secondary combat? Shouldn't the Witch Lord be able to be badass still? I know the answer is no. I'm just voicing my lowly opinion. I felt that paying a stone should last a little longer.
Whoosh!!!! Look at the answer to #4.
Again, I'm disappointed you've gotten defensive. I don't like MtG! I like Guardians! I just thought that rare terrain could add different aspects to the game (look at Spires!). This game is set in a magical fantasy world. Are you telling me that FPG doesn't want to add to that flavor? Terrain modifiers would add to maneuvering strategies as well at terrain placement strategies.
Please tell me you're not looking to build a power deck.
Nope. I'm not looking for power, I'm looking for flavor and depth! Isn't this what you had in mind when you created Bribery, Stronghold Modifiers, Spells, and Items? All I'm saying is that I hope we see a lot more! The art in this game really brings the world to life, I'm just suggesting ways to make the game do the same.
Again, I'm sorry that you feel so defensively. I'm not knocking this game! I love it! I think it's a fantastic game, but I think it could be near-perfect. This game could never become a MtG clone, it already surpasses it too far! I'd just like to see the world brought to life. Add to the role-playing aspects. I even think politics could add a lot of fun. Fighting with armies doesn't have to be the only way to wield power over disputed lands......
Send email at cjburke@io.com.
Return to Guardians page.
All other content are copyright by their authors.