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.

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?

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.