by Jlerpy
KAM1138 wrote:
As for what I would change. Well, that depends how far you want me to go back. The short answer is that I'd probably have an entirely different game. I like deck-building games, and I don't mind a super-hero themed one, but I wouldn't have chosen to apply the DC Universe to a generic and simple one. So, the answer really is...everything.
Assuming that I was sticking with a Deck building game, my first thing would be to separate "buying" from "fighting." The One-attribute nature of this game really limits it. From a concept standpoint I would also significantly increase the building to key off of the Hero cards. They included specific hero cards into the game, but it didn't go very far. I would have treated it more as a fully-developed "faction" if you will.
Assuming that I was sticking with a Deck building game, my first thing would be to separate "buying" from "fighting." The One-attribute nature of this game really limits it. From a concept standpoint I would also significantly increase the building to key off of the Hero cards. They included specific hero cards into the game, but it didn't go very far. I would have treated it more as a fully-developed "faction" if you will.
I must admit I do find it odd that the game is all about simply "Power". It does rather limit the strategic options.
I don't mind that Flash can be in the same deck with the Batmobile, but I think building to a tighter theme (based on the hero) should have been a component of the game (reduced cost, increased benefit, etc). But, I'd also have liked to see a viable merging of two (or more) heroes. Let's say you go for a Superman/Batman build with each of them having a more developed set of advantages/disadvantages.
Making it about volitional strategic development, rather than adaptive use of whatever character you draw? It could be interesting, but could stifle the replay boost that the random characters provide.
Of course to do this, the nature of the villains would have to be different. Defeating them would entail more than "buying" them. There might have to be more than one villain available at a time. I'd also probably not have had villains in the draw-deck, but maybe villain "action" cards that provided some sort of intermediate threat (perhaps not unlike when they are played from hand).
I don't think it's necessary. Ascension gets by fine without requiring that there be Monsters in the middle. *shrug*
This could be an entire topic, and these are just thoughts off the top of my head. You could go an entirely different route just as easily. I happen to love the old Wildstorms CCG, and while that wouldn't work for a boxed game quite as well, you could do something conceptually closer to that.
I think I played it once back in the day, but I don't remember much about it. Could you elaborate?
If I assume that we start with the basic concept of this game, and just change a few things: I'd probably have more variety in starting cards, and have vulnerability do more than take up space.
That would be nice. I can see why they put Vulnerability cards in (to speed-bump your starting deck so there's some variation in what you can do in the first couple of turns), but it's pretty clumsy. They don't even have the minimal elegance of Estates, where trashing them costs you a victory point, so you need to ask whether you'll make an eventual profit on the thinning effect you're getting (yeah, you probably will, but it IS still a consideration). Vulnerability is just a dead card, good for nothing but destroying or passing off to someone else. And it doesn't have to be all that far into the game before a Punch is almost as frustrating, so the point seems lost.
An alternative that I just thought of:
Secret Identity- Destroy a card in your hand or discard pile.
So it's still an early game speed-bump, but you can very rapidly turn over your new cards and ditch your Punches. You can't use your last Secret Identity to get rid of itself, but it may be worth keeping around to clear Weaknesses.
I'd probably rework "weakness/vulnerability" to have more variation, rather than being all the same. I think it could be interesting to have a Kryptonite card for example, that negates the power of kryptonians (Superman, Supergirl, Krypto, etc) while in hand, but does something less to other heroes (maybe just negative VP). Similarly, I'd have other negative cards for other heroes.
This may work with the model you described above, but if it's based of your character card, this is just completely luck-based, which bugs me.
I'd also have an inherent "rest" action that allows you to subtract cards from your deck, and along with this make the game significantly harder--with the goal being that you really have to build carefully to succeed in fighting the super-villains.
That seems to have been a good inclusion in Thunderstone. I like the idea someone mentioned for that of combining Rest and Prepare, so if you do nothing else in a turn you can destroy a card from your hand and put as many cards on top of your deck as you like, to help craft a better hand for next turn.