Let's make some Towers rules

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

Welcome! I made this because this thread (it's in the full-cosmere spoiler section, but it doesn't actually have any spoilers) appears to be abandoned, with none of the creators still present. So, let's start anew!

First off, I feel like playing Towers with standard 52-card decks would be a little difficult. Instead, I feel like it could be something that you Print and Play.

Second, I will be borrowing some rules from the old rulebook. For example, I really like the idea of formations. 

Now, let's brainstorm some rules!

Some cards I want in it:

• Spearman
• Cavalry
• Shardbearers
• Pikeman
• Bridge Crews
• Archers
• Shardbearer support squads
• Lighteyed swordsmen squads
• Half-shard shields?
• Ryshadium?

I do also like the way the attack, movement and defense rules work in the old rules, so I want to keep the same system. However, instead of pieces being impervious to attack, it could be so that they are more difficult to attack and instead of being destroyed, and can have them flip to a different orientation to show the injured state. 

Now, the with the old rules, it wasn't very clear but I assumed that you randomly draw cards at the start of each turn. The in-world Towers was made by Vorins, and that means there can't be any luck. So maybe you have all the cards with you?

Let me know any ideas you have.

@LordHathsin_Surviv0r

[al_lan_mandragoran]

Hi

I agree that a lot of people are no longer on there. I also agree that it was very convoluted and getting too complicated. I want to say thank you for speaking up, and deciding to strike off on your own, because the other thread was not getting anywhere.

I think that you have too many units. 

• Half shards are most likely not part of the original game - maybe have them as a variant?
• From the books, we learn very little about swordsmen squads
• Shardbearer support squads? 
• Bridge crews are only really relevant for the Shattered Plains - again, maybe use it in a different variant

Also:

Someone else has created a card game like towers.

I still think that Towers could be a bit more complicated, but here is a simple card game for any who wants it

I think this thread will be good for the discussion

[DarthGancho]

Thanks for the redirection, it was indeed a little neglected. I do believe there was some valuable insight in the ruleset that had been described in that Google sheet and I like some of the concepts in the basic game posted here as well. 

I am on the same page that using a basic 52-card deck would be a bit difficult but there are plenty of print-play games that map back to a 52-card deck for accessibility after development.

 

The basic game hits many good points including:

- health and defense for each unit

- placement being key to the strategy

But it lacks some complexity that would add to the representation:

- ability to maneuver units

- ability to withdraw effectively saving a unit from defeat but loving it in the current skirmish

- terrain? I was thinking something akin to "memoir 44"

 

To keep the required material limited we can use only the cards and identify specific abilities/interactions for each unit. The most basic version, according to Adolon, was flat face. So we should start by working that out before moving to "modern" Rosharan variants that include things like bridges and half shards.

 

To that point, my proposed roster (to be tested, no stats or abilities noted) would look something like:

1x shardbearer (high value, high stat, loses effectiveness when alone)

2x shard support (swordsmen squad, specializing in supporting shards)

2x swordsmen squad (higher attack but less defense, benefits from protected flanks)

3x spear squads(high defense unit, reinforces neighbors)

1x archer (middling damage but susceptible to attack at melee)

2x cavalry (maneuverable, high attack, low defense, susceptible to spear Frontline)

1x general (support unit, stats rely on terrain and ally units, provides benefits to ally units)

1x tower (FOB) (immobile range unit, key to winning outright)

 

Obviously numbers for stats and specific abilities aren't noted but that would need tested. I also kept the number of units limited in order to facilitate use of the standard deck but these numbers could be changed. (Could also double the effective number of units by essentially mapping each army to red vs black. But keeping it to the standard deck size is not strictly needed.)

 

What's the thoughts?

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

17 hours ago, DarthGancho said:

Thanks for the redirection, it was indeed a little neglected. I do believe there was some valuable insight in the ruleset that had been described in that Google sheet and I like some of the concepts in the basic game posted here as well. 

I am on the same page that using a basic 52-card deck would be a bit difficult but there are plenty of print-play games that map back to a 52-card deck for accessibility after development.

 

The basic game hits many good points including:

- health and defense for each unit

- placement being key to the strategy

But it lacks some complexity that would add to the representation:

- ability to maneuver units

- ability to withdraw effectively saving a unit from defeat but loving it in the current skirmish

- terrain? I was thinking something akin to "memoir 44"

 

To keep the required material limited we can use only the cards and identify specific abilities/interactions for each unit. The most basic version, according to Adolon, was flat face. So we should start by working that out before moving to "modern" Rosharan variants that include things like bridges and half shards.

 

To that point, my proposed roster (to be tested, no stats or abilities noted) would look something like:

1x shardbearer (high value, high stat, loses effectiveness when alone)

2x shard support (swordsmen squad, specializing in supporting shards)

2x swordsmen squad (higher attack but less defense, benefits from protected flanks)

3x spear squads(high defense unit, reinforces neighbors)

1x archer (middling damage but susceptible to attack at melee)

2x cavalry (maneuverable, high attack, low defense, susceptible to spear Frontline)

1x general (support unit, stats rely on terrain and ally units, provides benefits to ally units)

1x tower (FOB) (immobile range unit, key to winning outright)

 

Obviously numbers for stats and specific abilities aren't noted but that would need tested. I also kept the number of units limited in order to facilitate use of the standard deck but these numbers could be changed. (Could also double the effective number of units by essentially mapping each army to red vs black. But keeping it to the standard deck size is not strictly needed.)

 

What's the thoughts?

I feel like Soulcaster unit to build fortifications is a good idea. It could add some extra strategy. Also, even though they aren't in in-world Towers, adding Knights Radiant would be super cool. 

I do think that we need damage counters for this game. A card's health means the number of soldiers, and if you have two damaged cards you could merge them to create a full card again. Except that for the Shardbearer, it'll be the state of their Shardplate. Also I feel like the ability to take the Shards someone drops on death would be useful, if not mid-battle then giving your opponent an extra Shardbearer the next round, as it is played in three rounds.

[DarthGancho]

I'm thinking the mentioned would be good for a variant. The idea of spring for flat faces first is to get the basic ruleset established then we can create variants that incorporate more complex rules and modern units. 

I think damage counters could be a good supplementary tool, while not a necessity, folks would like have some chips to use this way in a pinch, and if not then the culture is so honor prevelant they'd like be okay with going on memory.

 

But as we can see by the previous thread and the direction this one is going everyone will have an opinion and it'll likely ultimately come down to someone posted a near complete ruleset and calling for playtesters. Will post back if I can get time to make that first step.

[I am Adonalsium He/Him]

Hers my ruleset: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wEIv8VI8XqgonopQXlLOB9Ogbbu2h83o9S66pbk2H4/edit?gid=346805256#gid=346805256

I would love to have some play testers on so I can see different strategy's people use. I don't have a shard bearer or any types of shards because in play testing they were earth overpowered or inaccurate. I added a rule to retreat cards and made the scout actually useful. Hope this helps you guys.

Btw, this is a 52 card deck one, as the print out thing would be harder to get people to play. Additionally, I like the damage counter idea, but I think the game is better simple than complicated. 

[KaladinsSenseOfHumourSpren He/Him]

6 hours ago, I am Adonalsium said:

Hers my ruleset: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-wEIv8VI8XqgonopQXlLOB9Ogbbu2h83o9S66pbk2H4/edit?gid=346805256#gid=346805256

I would love to have some play testers on so I can see different strategy's people use. I don't have a shard bearer or any types of shards because in play testing they were earth overpowered or inaccurate. I added a rule to retreat cards and made the scout actually useful. Hope this helps you guys.

Btw, this is a 52 card deck one, as the print out thing would be harder to get people to play. Additionally, I like the damage counter idea, but I think the game is better simple than complicated. 

I think a Soulcaster should be able to get rid of another Soulcaster's terrain.

[Riino He/Him]

Yo I read the whole OG towers post, so thnx for making this more concise.

I think dmg counters would be very useful but can be made be people personally.

[Born of Mist He/Him]

The vibe I got from towers was a Warhammer-like card game, so idk about pieces.

[TSYXY]

I just want to add, there is a reason why swordsman squads are not mentioned in the book. That's because those don't exist in any semirealistic scenario, other than a few very special groups like royal bodyguards sometimes. Swords are a sidearm. On a battlefield, you use sword if you are a specialist in a unit, like an officer, or a doppelsoldner with a zweihander. Or, well, a shardbearer. The other case when you would use a sword on a battlefield is after losing your primary weapon