MArcomage

So, I did a quick check of the cards section. There are 8 pages of gems only cards, 8 pages of recruits only cards, and 4 pages of bricks only cards. Anyone else think this is slightly problematic?

I think one cause might be that our current idea of bricks tightly constricts what cards can have that cost. For example, it doesn't really make sense for a mage, or barbarian, or soldier, or beast (Stone minotaur excepted), or brigand... all their cards are supposed to represent living things. Right now, Unliving is the only keyword in the game that has anything like a focus on bricks. There are a lot of keywords that are predominantly gems (e.g. Mage, Illusion), predominantly recruits (E.g. Barbarian, Soldier), or predominantly gems/recruit (E.g. Burning, Dragon).

Should we try to work bricks into more of the existing keywords in some way? Design more brick-focused keywords? Unliving already has the niche market covered, so what other kinds of forms could brick keywords take?
- Something mech-based or steampunk-ish? Too anachronistic?
- Some kind of war machines keyword for catapults, battering rams, ballistae etc.?
- A keyword with a city-building flavour, focusing on civic buildings like banks, markets, town halls, monuments, etc.?

What about changing "brick" with something more general like "ore"?
I can see mages and soldier using ore to make staffs and swords

Arcomage always had it as bricks, and I think it would be too odd to change that for MArcomage.

I think that it makes sense that there are fewer cards that use bricks. Several attack cards are extremely similar (in terms of cost and effect) but for their keywords. Because of keyword synergy, they aren't redundant. Having more similar cards in the bricks pool would create redundant cards unless we found ways to give them more specific keyword synergy. It's because of this that we already have bricks-only cards that build a little and influence the next draw or give other resources.

I don't think that it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but a logical result of having so many attack-oriented keywords.

If one truly felt that something should be done about it, I'm interested in hearing ideas for new keywords with a focus on bricks-and-X. Titan needn't be the only bricks-and-gems keyword in the game, and I'm sure someone can come up with a good reason for bricks-and-recruits.

DPsycho wrote:
I don't think that it's a problem that needs to be addressed, but a logical result of having so many attack-oriented keywords.

Okay, well isn't that a problem then? When it comes to keywords, why the asymmetry between destruction and construction? It seems arbitrary that we would have only one keyword that is kinda geared toward construction (though, really, you're better off going keywordless if you're going for a tower victory) compared to like 10 keywords that focus on destruction.

I think it's only a problem if you're arbitrarily using every different keyword in different decks and becoming bored by the similarities rather than playing favorites. Having this level of variety among attack options (even if they utilize similar but differently-branded cards) is a positive thing, in my opinion.

But then, the other side of the coin would be to try to match that variety with more construction-oriented keywords. If people could make interesting suggestions that don't overlap existing concepts, I see no harm in doing that.

I'll add that I'm not very optimistic, though. I think we'd end up with a new keyword that gives you more construction when you have more of it on hand, and then also a new alternative to Unliving with a slightly different premise.

Well, I don't think we need more brick cards. Basically bricks are used in defence whereas recruits in offence and gems are everything else and something between offence and defence. Understandably there can be more variations of recruits and gems cards, but bricks card serve only one purpose, therefore it is understandable here as well that they are not so varied as cards taking from the other 2 resource types. One could argue that recruit cards also serve only 1 purpose, but there are 4 keywords that specifically use recruits (Brigand, Barbarian, Beast, Soldier) and another 5 keywords that rely greatly on recruits (Nature, Alliance, Holy attack cards, Undead, Aqua). On the other hand there are only 2 keywords specific for brick cards (Unliving and Titan) and only 1 that relies greatly on bricks (Alliance). Therefore, if we wish to add more brick-cards, perhaps we should create more keywords. Already the addition of Far Sight has seen the creation of several brick-costing cards (e.g. Lighthouse) to serve the purpose of the keyword. Maybe we could add more cards like that (i.e. I propose a keyword called Mine could give brick production increase or +1 quarry, sort of like Mage)

We could split alliance into Elves and Dwarfs. Elves would be using the old Alliance effect and Dwarfs would have some construction effect.

I like this proposed change!

Mojko wrote:
We could split alliance into Elves and Dwarfs. Elves would be using the old Alliance effect and Dwarfs would have some construction effect.

This. I really like it.

yes that sounds really good!

I could add some new cards that have both Dwarf and Unliving, since Dwarfs are famous for creating golems and such.

+1 for Mojko's proposal. Maybe instead of "Dwarves" and "Elves", we can call the keywords "Dwarven" and "Elven". That way they can include structures (like Dwarven Fortress, etc.) and not just the dwarves and elves themselves.

I agree, although maybe we could keep a mild "Alliance" effect .If both keywords in one card then do a chain effect, like Aqua? Maybe instead of enemy stock reduction like Aqua, have own stock increase?

You could have the two keywords linked, where Elven triggers if previous card was Dwarven and visa versa?

Specifically linking keywords as Spoon suggests sounds interesting at first, but upon further thought, I strongly disagree with it. I think it will stifle the good feeling that comes from building decks in MArcomage.

To explain what I mean, think about when you build a Holy deck. Does anyone really like how the Holy keyword specifically attacks Undead? I get the flavor and appreciate it on that level, but doesn't it bother other people that, when building a Holy deck, you can't really use the keyword's abilities unless an opponent lets you? There is no reason why creative deck builders should feel badly whenever they make Holy decks. When building a game, the game maker should avoid creating situations where players feel bad about being creative w/ deck building.

Let me be clear here: I'm not trying to go on a crusade against Holy. The Holy effect is established as a tradition in this game, and I don't mind it continuing to exist as is. But I think the way it stifles deckbuilders by making them feel badly for making a Holy deck is something we don't want to repeat in new keywords. Dwarf lovers should not feel obligated to put elves in their deck, nor should elf lovers feel obligated to include dwarves. In many lores, such as Tolkien's, dwarves and elves do not even get along very well.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with allowing a card to reference another card -- my Hidden treasure Dragon card concept should be enough to show I am not against this. However, linking keywords to other keywords is not the same thing as linking a single card to another single card. Magic designer Mark Rosewater calls these "parasitic keywords" in that they force deckbuilders into certain other cards, and do not allow more creative deck building choices to be made.

In short, I am strongly opposed to linking Elven and Dwarven keywords together mechanically.

I see your point. I suggest we link them but have them give a mediocre effect that combines both of their effects when they are together, but to give a superior specific effect when they activate on their own. i.e if Dwarf gives + bricks and elf gives +recruits or +gems, then both of them could increase stock C-1, U-2, R-3. Whereas if they are by themselves, they could increase their respective resource production by C-2, U-3, R-4. In such a way, they would be very versatile keywords, to be used together or alone, suiting the deck's needs. I.e. if I am playing tower building, then I would only use Dwarf, there would be no need for Elf or the combined effect of Dwarf/Elf. If I play Legend, Illusion or Destruction, I could use only Elf. If I play resource deck I could use both.

Now that I think about it, we could also add a keyword named Men, which could give recruits and include it in the combined effect. That way we broke down Alliance to Dwarves, Men and Elf, each one with their respective resource bonus and we keep the combined effect as well. We could apply the same logic to other keywords and link them, or even create new keywords, which can serve as "support" keywords, whereas keywords like Undead, Soldier etc. would be "main" keywords.

EricHerboso wrote:
. Magic designer Mark Rosewater calls these "parasitic keywords" in that they force deckbuilders into certain other cards, and do not allow more creative deck building choices to be made.

Nice link. thanks for sharing. desing good mtg cards it's quite hard I suppose.
we are lucky: we can change cards whenever we want if they aren't funny. we are so web 2.0

about dwarven/elven keyword I have some doubt: does splitting an almost weak keyword create two really weak new keywords?
And what about ent, giant bear, griffin and roc? they will be elven, dwarven or neither?
by the way I like this idea and I already have some dwarven/elven concepts in my mind.

I say we leave Alliance as it is now. If you want you could introduce new keyword(s). But Alliance is pretty good as it is now in my opinion.

Mojko wrote:
We could split alliance into Elves and Dwarfs. Elves would be using the old Alliance effect and Dwarfs would have some construction effect.

I proposed this a few posts above. After a short analysis I came to conclusion that if we do this, we get two very weak keywords. We would need more cards with these two new keywords (dwarven would be needed more).

I like the idea of having partial effects for elven, dwarven and soldier (representing Men) and for some special effect when combined as alliance.