How to Play Towers (or a version of it) with a Standard 52 Card Deck

[al_lan_mandragoran]

I'm sorry for taking such a long time to respond @whatsagarnet. 

Yes, the battlefield is a grid. As for size, I believe we settled on a 10 by 16 grid (holy numbers).

Any other questions?

[Markedzebra]

Hi guys me and a friend tried this game out and came to some conclusions of our own based on the rules. Thought I’d share them here for those who do want to try it as a non grid 52-card deck game. Movement (M), Attack (A), Defense (D), Range (R), Flank Defense (FD) with movement and range measured in card lengths.
Shard bearers(Ace) -M3 A10 D30 R n/a

Light infantry (2-4) -M2 A(2-4) D(2-4) FD (1-3) R n/a

Archers (5-6) -M2 A(5-6) D1 R(2+1 for high ground)

Heavy Infantry (7-8) -M1 A(7-8) D(7-8) FD(6-7) 

Cavalry (9-10) - M3 A(9-10) D(9-10) FD(6-7) 
 

We did upto three movements per turn with one reaction movement from the opponent if more than one move is made. This enables flanking and more complicated maneuvers aswell as conjoined attacks. 
Archers, when attacking formations of atleast 2 infantry, will “pin” infantry for one turn if the same archer attacks the pinned infantry it is destroyed. This infantry cannot move for one turn and is rotated 90 degrees. 
On a normal archers attack against solo light infantry, it is destroyed immediately. 
Archers will also pin solo cavalry for one turn but will need an extra third attack to destroy cavalry. Cavalry formations cannot be pinned 

When infantry formations are used each troop gains +1 Attack and +1 Defense. each adjacent troop in formation adds an additional +1 Attack, Defense, and Flank Defense

IE an infantry formation would look like this.

Li 4 - Hi 8 - Li 4

A(6)D(6)- A(10) D(10) - A(6) D(6) 

only both flank light infantry would need FD and would also receive a boost. 

cavalry formations will only get an offensive bonus to the front troops. 
 

We allowed shard bearers to join formations as-well however they do not receive bonuses. 

When a formation attacks another the attacker chooses one troop to attack with and one to attack. the closest adjacent controlled troop adds its attack and if higher than targets defense with adjacent support, will destroy that troop. IE

8-4-4  8 attacks with the support of adjacent 4 for a total of 16 attack

   Vs

4-8-2 4 FD4 defends with support from 8 D11 for a total of 15.

the result is a loss of the Defending light infantry. 

In the case of a “draw” the defending infantry is “vulnerable” and rotated 90° and if attacked again on the next turn will be destroyed if a draw or greater. 

If the center is attacked all the Defense and Attack of the formation is added against one another 

7-8-4 Attacks from 8 with support for total 26 Attack

vs

8-7-4 Defends from 7 with support for total  25 defense.

Result is loss of 7 and shattering of formation. 

When multiple ranks are used in formation any troops in back rank will be filled into the new vacant frontline spot. This made formations a lot more useful for us and infantry more hefty while keeping it balanced. 
If a cavalry formation attacked an infantry formation it would look like this

10-10

-9- attacks right 8 with support for 32

vs 

7-8-8 defends with support for 31 and 

-4- is destroyed. Since the center remains it stays a formation.

 

i don’t want to throw a huge wall of text but let me know if this makes sense at all. 

[al_lan_mandragoran]

Okay, @Markedzebra. That looks pretty dense. I couldn't understand all of it, but I believe your intention was that it would be more tactical in placement, which I believe is definitely an improvement. However, it does look a little too complicated. 

And majorly - there's very little luck involved. As in 0.

I think a game has to have a little bit of luck to be fun.

I'm not saying your version is bad - it looks like you put a lot of work into it, and it looks good - I just think it needs some editing.

[al_lan_mandragoran]

@KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

16 hours ago, al_lan_mandragoran said:

@KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren

Ah I'd forgotten about this

I have an idea though: instead of using a square grid, we use a hex grid. I know it's supposed to be easy to play, but it doesn't even need to actually have hexagons, just squares that're aligned in a way that, for the purposes of the game, basically make them hexes. 

[al_lan_mandragoran]

I do like a good hex grid battle map. It makes manoeuvring more interesting.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

46 minutes ago, al_lan_mandragoran said:

I do like a good hex grid battle map. It makes manoeuvring more interesting.

Indeed. And this way you don't have to worry about the pesky diagonals being sqrt(2) tiles in length.

[al_lan_mandragoran]

6 minutes ago, KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren said:

Indeed. And this way you don't have to worry about the pesky diagonals being sqrt(2) tiles in length.

Good old Pythagoras.

I actually have an idea for a dice-based war game that would be ideal on a hex-based grid map, and it would encompass the classic medieval archetypal units - spearmen, heavy spearmen, swordsmen, heavy swordsmen, archers, crossbowmen, light cavalry, heavy cavalry, and cavalry archers. The idea is that different units have different bonuses to their attacks based on who they are fighting - i.e. cavalry have negative to their attacks against spearmen, and spearmen have positive to their attacks. They all also have a defense value bonus that remains constant.

PM me if you want more details.

[FlameOutsideOfStaf]

If you draw cards from the top of the deck at RANDOM at the start of each round, that would not be acceptable to Vorinism.

[blownmindedRC It/Thing]

Yo! I opened an account just to get involved with the development of this game concept, this is fascinating and awesome that you guys are actually working on bringing a fictional game to life using descriptions in the books. I also apologize if I retread anything, I read the rules doc but have only skimmed this thread.

I am partial to games that are less crunchy to make it easier to onboard new players, so I wanted to submit an idea that rounds the corners a little bit for accessibility. Flatface variant? Winedrunk Cousin variant?

The idea is simple, and in part it's because I find the terrain setup and execution to be a little cumbersome, especially since the terrain cards are the same size as the army cards and you're meant to pick up and move units throughout the game. A simple card game called Lacorsa uses a pretty similar mechanic to this game, in that it uses a basic 13-card suit decks to function as a game with metaphor. And with expansions they added a really cool, simple mechanic: Track cards! Though the game is still played on the same incredibly simple board, the track cards add a new condition and little bit of narrative to the game. For example, if you are playing at Monaco, a track that is notoriously hard to overtake on, players can only make one overtake per round, etc... So that's kind of where I am deriving this idea.

So instead of building the terrain piece by piece every game, I suggest assigning a Battlefield to every face card. You either draw it randomly or agree upon the battlefield before playing, and just have that sucker face up next to the play area, with a little cheat sheet printed out to remind players of the condition. Your conditions could be something like this: Shattered plains: Unit movement limited except for Shardbearers (turn the 2 card into a bridge crew that must be crossed?); Lowlands: Attack bonus to cavalry; Unclaimed Hills: Shardbearers have reduced defense, etc... I'm just rattling these off the top of the dome, but that's the idea! This gives 12 battlefields per deck and potentially adds some RNG/OP balancing and will force players to mix it up with their strategies.

Another thought I had concerns Shardbearers. That killing these guys is a win condition is kind of a game breaker concept, because as soon as they come out the opponent will obviously be gunning for them single mindedly. I haven't playtested it yet but the idea of having a "General" unit that is easy to defend but can be killed at a lose condition instead of the shardbearer, creating a chess King/Queen dynamic. That way killing a sharbearer is like a shiny temptation when the base objective remains to the capture/protection of respective generals. Also, if the opponent kills a shardbearer in an early round, I think that unless it would break the game they should be allowed to field it in a following round. After all, that's what any Alethi army worth its salt would do!

Anyways I'm not a professional game designer or anything, just a hobbyist whose imagination got lit up reading this thread and wanted to bang ideas around with anyone interested. Excited to talk more about this!