 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Steve Burge writes:
> Hmmm, of course you could go for the idea of everyone builds one unit at the
> start, stats it up and then you place your case (with it's remaining pieces)
> on the board. You own this case. Each turn you can take 1D6 pieces from each
> case you own and start building new units with them. You can also capture
> other players cases.
Yes - I like this idea - equivalent to your deck in a CCG. Capturing pieces
might be a problem as it would be tough to remember exactly who owned what.
Your case could represent your base, or the remaining parts could be built
into a base. Instead of attacking other bots, you could directly attack the
base (perhaps you would first need to outmaneouvre the defending bots). If
you hit the base they lose pieces from it, and they are out of the game if
they run out. This would create an interesting game dynamic - if you spend
too many resources on bots, your base will be weak.
> I like the idea of different colours representing different types of attacks
> too, although getting hold of certain weapons in certain colours would be
> tricky :)
True. This highlights one of the problems a lot of people have with CCGs -
the better cards are harder to get hold of, and give an unfair advantage to
those who spend more money. If the parts were grouped this would be less of
a problem if e.g. any sticky out part could represent a gun. I can see
problems with certain parts though, like chainsaw blades - I've only ever
seen them in grey and trans orange.
It would be good if the game could extend easily to multiple players. Games
to me are about socialising as much as anything else.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> Yes - I like this idea - equivalent to your deck in a CCG. Capturing pieces
> might be a problem as it would be tough to remember exactly who owned what.
Yeah, unless you introduced a ruling that a unit can only be built from
pieces from a specific base - you could have a staging area by the base
where your unit sits while it is being constructed. That way all you have to
do is mark which unit was built with whose pieces. I keep forgetting about
the piece mix-up problems in lego-based games as I'm the only one in my
gaming community who owns a large amount of lego, so I'm usually the
supplier of all bits for games (Hence my large pirate collection...)
Which means you could also introduce the ruling that only one unit can
be produced at a time from a base but you can scrap a unit currently under
construction and just put the pieces back in the base (or maybe just 1/2 of
them... hehehe...)
> Your case could represent your base, or the remaining parts could be built
> into a base. Instead of attacking other bots, you could directly attack the
> base (perhaps you would first need to outmaneouvre the defending bots). If
> you hit the base they lose pieces from it, and they are out of the game if
> they run out. This would create an interesting game dynamic - if you spend
> too many resources on bots, your base will be weak.
Ooh, I also like this one too. It's a nice way of giving a base 'hit
points' too. Maybe you could just put the pieces removed to one side and
then once it has no pieces left you have captured the base and get those
pieces back in order to build with.
> True. This highlights one of the problems a lot of people have with CCGs -
> the better cards are harder to get hold of, and give an unfair advantage to
> those who spend more money. If the parts were grouped this would be less of
> a problem if e.g. any sticky out part could represent a gun. I can see
> problems with certain parts though, like chainsaw blades - I've only ever
> seen them in grey and trans orange.
Yeah that would be a problem.
> It would be good if the game could extend easily to multiple players. Games
> to me are about socialising as much as anything else.
Definitely. One of the thing that really annoys me about most CCGs is
that you can only have two players. If we go with base capturing, then lots
of players will be best although you will probably have to add Neutral Bases
to make it up to a number divisible by two (So that when it gets down to two
players, one player won't have too large an advantage over the other).
Having a minimum number of bases (like 4) would be good, or else two player
games will just become capture-the-other-guy's-base games.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Burge writes:
> One of the thing that really annoys me about most CCGs is
> that you can only have two players
Steve, that's not true. Most rules are indeed set up in the
"two-player" frame of mind, as was M:TG, but this is where creativity comes
in. We used to play Magic with tables full of people, sometimes in a
pattern (you could only attack those to either side), sometimes free-f'rall.
Some of our best times were like that. We also had 1 on 1 tourneys
together, with the "all-of-us" game being the tourney itself.
You're only limited, as with playing with Lego bricks, to your
imagination. A game using Lego pieces could be just as creative, and should
be just as infinitely different for each of us, as is a really good CCG,
which I think makes a great model for a game of this sort.
Peace and Long Life,
Tony Alexander
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Every game needs a good working title, so considering the thread which
started this off, how about the Portable Patented Plastic Building Brick Bot
game? P3B3 for short?
James
| | | | | | |
