What is a compelling game need?

alek wrote:

with gargoyles it's very tricky because with every card that makes them better you need to remember about tupdog.

Well, you can apply the sledgehammer of "Requires a unique Gargoyle" if you want. A capacity restriction would also work - perhaps for the whole card, or perhaps for a particular level - so vampires below 4 capacity get a clone of an ability that Tupdog already has access to (e.g. a strike), and bigger vampires get something more awesome, so it's not really adding much to a deck with 95% Tupdog.

However, because Tupdogs are temporary, you can do much the same thing in slightly more subtle ways, through permanents or delayed action cards. e.g.

- an action that gives the Gargoyle with this card a boost is harder to exploit with Tupdog, because they don't have good access to an untap card (and I imagine the shrieks would be heard on Pluto if one were given to them). Give the Gargoyles access to, say, an action akin to Skaald (some sort of permanent political meddling) and Tupdogs mostly won't want to play it anyway, even if it didn't have a capacity restriction.

- equipment can be given to them with, say, Heidelberg, but if you leave the equipment on them then they'll burn. Having to faff around with taking the equipment off with a cardless equip action might well counter-balance any power gain

- cards like Spying Mission. Doesn't require an action itself, but is cashed in on future actions, which are probably after the Tupdog is burned.

- abilities requiring or affecting non-slaves, perhaps like the permanent suggestion above; slaves get something Tupdogs can already do, non-slaves get something different, so a mixed slave/non-slave deck has new options but a 95% Tupdog deck is left alone.

- reactions, or similar out-of-turn cards, or cards that a Tupdog might play but which would activate out of turn (e.g. a card that helps you block). As Tupdogs burn after your minion phase, giving them a Visceratikan Sport Bike-alike won't help them.

jamesatzephyr wrote:

- an action that gives the Gargoyle with this card a boost is harder to exploit with Tupdog, because they don't have good access to an untap card (and I imagine the shrieks would be heard on Pluto if one were given to them). Give the Gargoyles access to, say, an action akin to Skaald (some sort of permanent political meddling) and Tupdogs mostly won't want to play it anyway, even if it didn't have a capacity restriction.

I think people consider As the Crow both an untap card and a good untap card.

Anyway, as for the OP's list, it seems strange to me in that #8 is by far the most important when it comes to compelling *game* need, and the first five all roll into the category of "Does the card fit the thematic and/or mechanical themes the game has put forth to date?"

Restated, why design any new cards? To change the game. Change the game how? How = the game want. When does a want become a need? Should be based on evidence that something is wrong about the game, but it's typically a judgment call. Or, a need is just to have any new cards at all to sustain interest. When does a game need become compelling? When players stop playing because of the card pool and not for numerous other reasons.

ICL wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

- an action that gives the Gargoyle with this card a boost is harder to exploit with Tupdog, because they don't have good access to an untap card (and I imagine the shrieks would be heard on Pluto if one were given to them). Give the Gargoyles access to, say, an action akin to Skaald (some sort of permanent political meddling) and Tupdogs mostly won't want to play it anyway, even if it didn't have a capacity restriction.

I think people consider As the Crow both an untap card and a good untap card.

From the point of view of a Tupdog, I'd rank it as decent but also somewhat annoying. Nine of their chums can play superior Freak Drive, which is much better - no need to be successful, and Tupdogs have annoying stealth options. If you exclude Soar (undirected), it's mostly only Skin of the Chameleon. Stealth is tricky to balance anyway if you're expecting a lot of vampires to die - no would-be blockers means no normal stealth is playable, so you need to carefully consider the amount you play. If you go digging through Tupdog-focused Gargoyle TWDA entries, Skin of the Chameleon often turns up only a few times - 3-5 isn't a lot of stealth.

Also, though, there are fairly simple things you can do meddling with cost. If the card costs blood to put in play (taking into account, or working round, the Tupdog's cost reducer(*)), untapping with zero blood isn't much good for you. Yay, I have a card that will make me more powerful, untap, mandatory hunt. Even in the case of a successful combat, you might be knocking the opponent into torpor with Raking Talons, meaning no blood to Taste back, and they may hit you back with hands. You can - of course - add extra cards to that (extra damage etc.), but there is a lot to be said for a relatively short chain.

(*) With their built-in Visceratika reducer, if such a card required vis/VIS, it could cost 1 blood and they'd untap with it, but two would leave them empty. If you play around with Flight or Gargoyle cards, just one blood would cause Tupdog some issues using it. If you toss in Fortitude, you can do fun things there too - Flight+for is 16 vampires (15 Gargoyles), Flight+FOR is 10 (9 Gargoyles). For Visceratika, vis+for is 15 Gargoyles, and VIS+FOR is 7 - four of those in group 2 (three if you discount Ferox-ADV) and three in 4-5. Since the Tupdogs lack Fortitude, you could spice up Gargoyle strategies that way.




You can also make such cards have counters, or gain power over time. A card that borrowed mechanics from Call the Great Beast or Seal of Veddartha wouldn't be good for them. Similarly, Renewed Vigor's fallback level is great, but as it triggers during your untap phase, a Tupdog-accessible card with similar timing wouldn't really matter to them.



So I genuinely think there are a lot of optiosn for library-based ways to spice up the Gargoyles without worrying too much about Tupdogs setting the world on fire with them. You would, of course, have to be think hard and playtest deviously to try and break things, but...

ICL wrote:

jamesatzephyr wrote:

Anyway, as for the OP's list, it seems strange to me in that #8 is by far the most important when it comes to compelling *game* need, and the first five all roll into the category of "Does the card fit the thematic and/or mechanical themes the game has put forth to date?"

Restated, why design any new cards? To change the game. Change the game how? How = the game want. When does a want become a need? Should be based on evidence that something is wrong about the game, but it's typically a judgment call. Or, a need is just to have any new cards at all to sustain interest. When does a game need become compelling? When players stop playing because of the card pool and not for numerous other reasons.

Good questions to ask when deciding whether to publish a card or not. I wouldn't want to use them to discourage design, however. The flood gates are open, let all the sewage wash through!