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

[Dalluminum he/him]

All in all, I think whatever deck you want to use is great. I think a special deck could be helpful for learning the game, but let's remember that the point is to come up with something playable with a standard 52-card deck.

 

(And you're right; sitelen sitelen li nasa suli.)

[jan_Komawi]

I actually made the sitelen pona ones as a placeholder while I worked on making better drawings.

I wanted to play with my son, but it was not very intuitive with regular playing cards. So I get it.

 

Just now, Dalluminum said:

All in all, I think whatever deck you want to use is great. I think a special deck could be helpful for learning the game, but let's remember that the point is to come up with something playable with a standard 52-card deck.

 

(And you're right; sitelen sitelen li nasa suli.)

You are right.  pona tawa sina

lukin e jan toki la, ni li pona tawa mi.  :}

[al_lan_mandragoran]

yeah, i kinda hate all of the ones i did, except the knight, and the shardbearers are ok. 

oh, and the high ground is ok, but I toatally get where you're all coming from.

They're really horrible, aren't they?

I was flicking through WaT just now, looking for towers references, and I saw the fact that they use glyphs. I agree - that would be a whole lot better. 

@jan_Komawi, your glyphs are cool, but some of them i don't get. also, your "here are some more" post doesn't have any images on it. or at least, i can't see them.

 

[jan_Komawi]

I used the toki pona hieroglyphs.

 

wawa for shard bearers.

soweli for cavalry

alasa for archers

utala for infantry

nena for mountain

lupa for chasm

sewi for highground

tomo palisa suli for tower

[jan_Komawi]

I finally got to try to play a game with my kid.  Had no idea what we were doing but tried.

So, do archers have a range? or can they just shoot anywhere on the field?

also, what counts as a flank attack on cavalry? do diagonals count? or just 90 degress from the side?

We ended up unable to complete a round because we couldn't resolve these questions.

But we had fun trying.  I would be super stoked to see a game play video if someone would be willing.

[al_lan_mandragoran]

I know how you feel. The game itself is great, but some of the rules are unclear. I've read the entire discussion, and it seems that the rules for cavalry flanking are based off the previous idea that all the cards would have orientations. i.e. you can turn them 90 degrees as your move action. That idea was discarded, but I believe that is where the cavalry rules come from. If you're using playing cards, the long edge is the flank. 

Archers are also not explained properly, like you said, so according to the current rules, they have unlimited range.

The tabletop being an indefinite size is probably also something that needs changing - perhaps make it 10 by 16 (holy numbers) so that it is long but not too long? I know, that goes against what Adolin says about how the location of the battle can change, but that is sort of what happens at the end of a round? I don't know.

In WaT, it also mentions that different troops change based on who they're next to, troops can 'rest on back lines,' have energy, and can heal. 

Is this viable? Or is it making it too complicated. I know, I'm the one who was saying its already too difficult to teach, but I still personally would like a genuine Towers experience. 

[al_lan_mandragoran]

 

@I am Adonalsium, can you please give me access to the google doc that you put up, so that I can look at your take on the rules of Towers?

[I am Adonalsium He/Him]

I'm sorry. I thought I had shared it with everyone, but obviously not. I have update that and here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wEIv8VI8XqgonopQXlLOB9Ogbbu2h83o9S66pbk2H4/edit?gid=0#gid=0

I also think advantage/disadvantage cards are a good idea whoever brought that up (sorry can't really quote as I am new to this website). It's also something I looked at about drawing new cards. I know earlier in this thread the conscious was that there would be no new cards, but a draw pile with new cards, advantage, and disadvantage cards would be helpful to remove the immediate lose you gain when you draw only horrible troops (I know that sone of Adolin's lesson), but still a luck based component would be nice in the game.

To do a luck based could we also have a dice role? Comment your ideas.

[Riino He/Him]

13 hours ago, I am Adonalsium said:

I'm sorry. I thought I had shared it with everyone, but obviously not. I have update that and here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wEIv8VI8XqgonopQXlLOB9Ogbbu2h83o9S66pbk2H4/edit?gid=0#gid=0

I also think advantage/disadvantage cards are a good idea whoever brought that up (sorry can't really quote as I am new to this website). It's also something I looked at about drawing new cards. I know earlier in this thread the conscious was that there would be no new cards, but a draw pile with new cards, advantage, and disadvantage cards would be helpful to remove the immediate lose you gain when you draw only horrible troops (I know that sone of Adolin's lesson), but still a luck based component would be nice in the game.

To do a luck based could we also have a dice role? Comment your ideas.

I have grinded my day away reading this whole post, and I really love how this is progressing, but I honestly think that adding in dice will just increase the complicatedness of this game, where it shouldn't be too hard to pick up, as per @NotLiamRoss original ideas. 

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

Alright I've just read the rules and I want to play test this, but there are some things I don't get. 

From the rules for the Sheildbearer:

Quote

When deployed, place a token of different color than terrain on defender. If this troop were to be destroyed, remove the token instead. If there is no token on his card, destroy the card when attacked.

What is it referring to by 'defender'? Is it the Sheildbearer itself, the Defender card, or something else?

From the rules for the Defender:

Quote

Cannot attack adjacent troops if the defender is adjacent to the emporer or another defender or Infantry: Sheildbearer.

Does this mean that it can attack adjacent troops if it is not adjacent to the Emperor, another Defender or a Sheildbearer?

Also, in Section Four, Turn Structure, it says the movement rules twice instead of attacking rules. I would have assumed that you only attack one troop, except that the Scout's rules imply otherwise:

Quote

The scout may also move even if another troop has already moved this turn, but can only attack if no other troop has this turn.

Does this mean that, unless you are attacking with the scout, you can attack multiple times a turn?

In Section 1, General, it says you need 'five tokens per player divided into four colors with 3 groups of 1 and 1 group of 2'. There are four kinds of tokens, but there are only 3 types of Terrain. Is the fourth for the defense tokens form the Sheildbearer?

[jan_Komawi]

I am not sure what you are talking about....Shieldbearer? Emperor? Defender card? Are you looking at the google doc rules or something else?

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

On 5/6/2025 at 11:51 PM, jan_Komawi said:

I am not sure what you are talking about....Shieldbearer? Emperor? Defender card? Are you looking at the google doc rules or something else?

This one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wEIv8VI8XqgonopQXlLOB9Ogbbu2h83o9S66pbk2H4/edit?gid=0#gid=0

[jan_Komawi]

oh! I haven't seen that before! thank you,

[Armadillo]

Hi everyone, new here. Just skimmed the discussion. Looks really fun!

Has someone gone through WAT (and the rest of the series) and made a list of the in-universe rules and details? I feel like that would be helpful for determining some broader details of the game.

I've seen quotes here and there, but is there like a master document that just lists all of the quotes from WAT? Maybe we could put it in the google sheet on another tab.

[al_lan_mandragoran]

I like the idea, but when I was actually going through WaT the other day, I found a lot of things that could make the game needlessly complicated, so I ended up not doing it. And now I don't have WaT on my shelf anymore, so I can't check over it anymore. 

Basically, though, the rules in WaT said vague stuff like "the abilities of each card change based on what they're next to," and "when you're surrounded, you can't rest your troops as effectively, so they get tired quicker." Both of these sound a bit too complicated. Remember, we're trying to make a game that is quick and easy, so that it can be played by even those who don't know about it. 

I know we want it to be accurate, but as a writer myself, I know that Brandon wasn't exactly planning an actual game. He just dropped enough hints about it to seem like a realistic game. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that the game we're making doesn't have to line up exactly with everything that Brandon has said. Otherwise, it will end up not being something you can play with a standard deck of cards, which is what we originally set out to do

[DarthGancho]

While I am way behind and only now getting to parts in WaT where Adolin teaches some of the game, it instantly made me interested in the idea of a playable version. With that, and after reading what has been said already, I have a thought that may be worthwhile. As Brandon loves Magic, and since this is a tactical card game, I could see the use of values such as Health, Attack, Defense, etc. that are affected by what units (cards) are around another card. This would mean that any unit could potentially get a chance to make a strategic difference (or "claim a shard") as you could potentially surround and beat down a shard bearer, who would only be able to recover by retreating and resetting somewhat. It would allow for a very base setup such as "Flat Face" with 1 or more "scenarios" that define battle map specifics, but would also allow for expanded rules that either add abilities to units or make things happen differently.

 

I have some vacation time incoming so I may take the google sheet posted and play around with that as a baseline, who knows.

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

I feel like this is falling apart as none of the original creators of the rules appear to be here anymore.

So, I feel like we should move here: 

6 minutes ago, DarthGancho said:

While I am way behind and only now getting to parts in WaT where Adolin teaches some of the game, it instantly made me interested in the idea of a playable version. With that, and after reading what has been said already, I have a thought that may be worthwhile. As Brandon loves Magic, and since this is a tactical card game, I could see the use of values such as Health, Attack, Defense, etc. that are affected by what units (cards) are around another card. This would mean that any unit could potentially get a chance to make a strategic difference (or "claim a shard") as you could potentially surround and beat down a shard bearer, who would only be able to recover by retreating and resetting somewhat. It would allow for a very base setup such as "Flat Face" with 1 or more "scenarios" that define battle map specifics, but would also allow for expanded rules that either add abilities to units or make things happen differently.

 

I have some vacation time incoming so I may take the google sheet posted and play around with that as a baseline, who knows.

Welcome to the Shard! I suggest you make an introductory post here.

Edited May 28, 2025 by KaladinsSenseOfHumorSpren

[Someonewhoisnoone]

On 12/21/2024 at 5:35 AM, NotLiamRoss said:

Here's a first pass at what each of the various cards in the deck would do in-game. Anyone have any thoughts on these? Anything obvious that I'm missing? I also think that while each player would play with half the deck, each player would only have a single Ace (1 shardbearer) to keep things balanced because that troop is pretty OP. I'll do a little write up of the rules in a bit here, but I think I've got a solid core of what it might look like just need some time to actually type it out and beautify it.

Add the other ace as the soulcaster

[TSYXY]

Hey guys!
We've played this version with some friends, and it seems like a game worth trying, easy to learn, hard to master type of thing.
It's based on one of the first versions that was put in here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W2nWxElo4cUhz6-14Wdjt3QvS28F3cZraokkokBSYIo/edit?usp=sharing
I'mreasonably sure that it's fit for competitive play as is, altough there are some quirks still. The next step would be to add rules for different people, and possibly to take into cosideration the numbers on the cards when determining wether something can be taken or not

[CrazyKieran19]

i am going to make a copy of the google sheet to make a version with purely radiants

[al_lan_mandragoran]

That could get... messy. All those powers to remember and create? I don't know how well that'll go

[Mart1n]

To solve the scale issue, you could just say that each card represents about 10 of that type of card, so every artillery card actually is supposed to be a squadron of 10 archers (except the shardbearer). That way it could fix the scale issue of each unit being the size of a chasm or the size of a mountain, and it would make sense as a shardbearer controls a lot more space then one unit. The only problem is that the movement of all cards is then exaggerated. 

There is also something in the book that would be good to include. They mention that when there are uneven forces (120 soldiers vs 100 soldiers) the difference in soldiers creates a multiplicative difference, leading to the 120 soldiers crushing the smaller force. That would be cool to include, but I am unsure how this could be implemented.

I noticed that with the current rules, the infentry can go crazy. If you arrange your infantry in a square, then they can't be attacked except by a shardbearer and the artillery that has to be on high ground, which could be quite powerful

Also, when it says that artillery can attack in a straight line, I am guessing it can it shoot at something from an angle, such as 27 degrees and whatever. And can it shoot over enemys? How would determining what a creature that it can hit work?

Possible Solution: If it cant shoot over enemies or isnt on high ground, I think a line of sight system could be good if it is done well with eventually well defined rules instead of "eyeballing." Imperial Assult, a somewhat niche game, has an awesome line of sight system, but it is best on a grid. Essentially you draw an imaginary line from a corner of your card, and if it can draw two non-parellel lines to two of the enemies corners, it can target it. If the lines are overlapping another blocking thing (creature) it can't target it. 

[Blitz]

Just as a slight correction here, I'm pretty sure the card that makes you lose the game when you lose it is a King, not a shardbearer

[al_lan_mandragoran]

Yeah, we know, but we decided to make it a shardbearer because shardbearers are op and hard to take down and sorta fit the role better.

[whatsagarnet]

I'm sorry if this is a dumb question but is the battlefield a grid? And if so what are its dimensions?