Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I don't understand how it would help anything or how they would work. Can I use 5 BGs and select one before the game? 1 per deck?

I actually really like this idea.  It is a very different card type that doesn't change the game completely (at least based on your two examples), but adds another layer to the game and makes it more interesting at the same time.

If I'm reading what you're saying right, each player would pick a battleground and place it in a pile, then one would be randomly selected?  Then it affects each player on their first upkeep?

I'd worry about some being too powerful and influencing things too much ("Ha! My battleground that lets me put 2 angels in play is selected and here comes Sam!", for example).  Otherwise, it could really help and also encourage certain cards be played.

For example, if the battlegrounds let you do something defensively (like the site one), decks would be encouraged to run it in case that battleground is chosen.  It could actually end up being a boost for defense, which is desperately needed.

I like this idea a lot to, it could solve Sam and FTM at the same time! Total win.

Seeded means played before the game start. Everything you'd need to know about these cards is in the explanation of how they work.

I kind of like the idea of things that happen and then don't affect the rest of the game.  Having a card that cannot be removed under any circumstances and doing something like adding CBN status, protection, or negation to anything the whole game would not be something I'd like to see.

For streamlining, I'd like to say 2 things: 1) "Battlefield" in the identifiers is superfluous if there is a battlefield icon, and 2) I think either there should be some concise non-ability indication somewhere on the card (identifier line perhaps) of how long the ongoing ability lasts, or there should be a rule that makes it always last until second upkeep.

I first started thinking the game needed exactly this a month or so ago.  I brainstormed a few ideas, but they were things like:

"Anytime a player uses a draw ability, he/she selects an opponent.  That opponent may discard a card at random from player's hand, or a card (except a lost soul) from player's territory."

I called these "Attributes", and they were to be active from the beginning of the game and untargetable.  They were designed to counter speed/TGT/whateverdecktypeeveryonehates, and to be active from the beginning so they could actually "counter" instead of sitting in deck waiting to be drawn.

In conclusion, I love this idea.  I think one per player is perfect.

I like this idea.

This sounds a lot like what Bases are in a game that I made up. (They have inherent differences but it still sounds a lot like it)
I'm interested to see this kind of an idea, if that would help the game or not. It might be me, But I'd be a little sceptical of some card that would let something as crazy as Nazzy out 1st turn. I think the idea of Nazzy was that it was for more mid-game then the start of a game. But I also understand why people would want it out 1st turn too. I just think that we still need some counters to it.

I'm mixed on this idea, but I have a few ideas that would really excite me for it. My main concern is that, as megamanlan mentioned, the idea of having Nazareth out on the first turn in every game a person plays seems a bit much. It would be an astoundingly huge counter to speed for sure, but I think it would force the game to go in a direction I'm not 100% comfortable with. My first idea is that Battlegrounds should be limited to one per deck, and that Battleground you chose for your deck is the one that's activated at the beginning of the game. My second idea is going to be controversial, but I think it's the only way I could get behind the idea: one of the Battlegrounds should be able to negate other Battlegrounds. Now to balance this, have other Battlegrounds that do a lot less than pull a site or artifact out of the deck, but are also CBN. I'm not sure where to draw the line on this, but I think it would be a good balancing act. Out of curiosity Pol, what are your feelings on characters or other cards being able to target Battlegrounds, especially if some Battlegrounds were printed with ongoing abilities? Here are a few ideas I had for Battlegrounds that might be fun; I didn't put much thought into them, so one or two are bound to be overpowered:

"Choose who will have the first turn of the game. If your opponent also has this Battleground activated, follow normal rules. Cannot be Negated."

"Protect your hand and deck from opponent's cards for the first 5 rounds of the game."

"Restrict all players from using draw and search abilities except for Battlegrounds for the first 3 rounds of the game."

"Draw three cards. Cannot be negated."

"Each time you draw a Lost Soul, draw a card."

"Negate all Battlegrounds, cannot be negated."

"If an opponent uses the "negate" Battleground, search their deck for a character and remove it from the game. Cannot be negated."

Actually, the more I think about this idea, the more I like it.

I created a tangent on another thread thanks for the inspiration Pol. I like the idea is solid.

Quote

"Choose who will have the first turn of the game. If your opponent also has this Battleground activated, follow normal rules. Cannot be Negated."

Why wouldn't the opponent have a battleground? I don't see this card ever doing anything.

The second part says, "this Battleground;" it's just clarification text that, if both players have that Battleground activated, normal rules are followed.

Regarding my idea of the Negate Battleground (and cards that would target people using it), I don't think it so much adds a coin flip element as it does a strategic element, something the idea currently lacks. I don't like the idea of having cards like Nazareth out first turn, and my feeling is there needs to be a way to stop that. However, I agree that simply having that is a bit much, and I think the best way to balance it would be to have cards that target the user of that Battleground. Alternatively, I suppose that Battleground could balance itself out, ("Negate all Battlegrounds. You may not start a battle for two rounds. Cannot be negated.") What do you think about something like that?

I think Battlefields should be part of deck size. Otherwise, love the idea.

I still don't quite understand how we're going to differentiate what determines a card as a battlefield rather than a site or fortress, but titles are unimportant, so here are some random ones.

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Fixed my link. I'd like to make Jerusalem so you it doesn't count the first upkeep, but am unsure of how without making it too wordy.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 29, 2012, 06:39:22 PM

"Protect your hand and deck from opponent's cards for the first 5 rounds of the game."

This card should never ever be a Battleground.  A Sam deck/hand, or even a Disciples deck/hand, that is CBN protected from Naz/Mayhem/RBD/etc. for 5 turns gives it all it needs to search/draw like crazy.  The protection should last for 2, maybe 3 rounds at most.

The goal in mind was to protect from Mayhem, Confusion, etc. I hadn't considered Nazareth, and I'd resubmit the SA as, "Protect your hand and deck from opponent's cards except from other protect abilities for the first 5 rounds of the game."