Colour? Region? Guild? oO

[OneLeafClover]

Magic have colours... Pokemons have types... Magi-nation have regions....

The Spoils have Bankers, Warlords, Arcanists, Gearsmiths and Rogues... but... what are they? Race? Guild? Civilization?

[Great White Nothing]

Good question sir.

From what I gather, the rules never once refferences what exactly the card 'types' are, and calling them types does not work since the term TYPE refers to the sub types of characters and items.

[gitwer]

Considering they're called faction cards, I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they're called... factions? :D

Personally, I vote for MSI's, or Motivated Self-Interests :P

[Great White Nothing]

Factions are actually the figurehead card of your deck that determines how much influence you start with, and how and when you draw and play resources, faction cards, and the apparent different groups of cards, are different animals.

[Secran]

Professions? and the associated 'stereotype' on the card (bankers and greed)

[Great White Nothing]

Yeah, stereotypes like bankers with Greed. Still, now that I think about it, I am shocked they did not give these super types a collective name.

[jedibcg]

I still think they represent the different factions of The Spoils world. Hey what is this world called anyway. Anyone?

[Great White Nothing]

I don't think they are factions, the only faction card we have is The Tournament Faction, and it's not one of the five. I do not think they are related.

[jedibcg]

But it would make sense that they are the various factions of the world. Just because we have only seen one faction card doesn't mean anything. Who knows maybe The Tournament Faction is that Faction. Maybe there will be a Tournament Faction. The resources are just the methods the various factions use to achieve their goals. I dunno I am just guessing.

[Great White Nothing]

That's a good point, I assumed the five we saw would be all there would be.

Even so, I think that the groups ( Bankers Gearsmiths, etc.) will not be referred to as Factions, that would over complicate things. But you do raise good points, it could turn out to be the way you theorized.

[jedibcg]

It is also possible that "The Tournament Faction" is just the name they are using for one Faction (the only one we will see in Open Beta) but it belongs to Gears/Bankers or someone. Because it does somelike there will be different faction cards. If not then why have them? It could just be part of the inherit rules of the game.

[Great White Nothing]

I was thinking that may be possible too. I guess we'll have t wait and find out.

[Blades]

I'm quite certain that the "colors" we have, [R]age, [O]bsession, [E]litism, [G]reed, and [D]eception, are better described as "Traits."

When you go about constructing a deck, you'll probably first select your faction.

Lets say, we have a measly 3 factions: The [T]ournament faction, Faction [X], and Faction [3].

Once you have selected your faction, you will go on to pick what Traits your particular deck exemplifies out of that faction(Remember: factions are not monolithic entities, they have very real sub-factions, and sub-sub-factions, and sub-sub-sub...)

So, if we look at deck types(restricting to mono- and duel- trait decks) a massive 45 decktypes are possible before we even consider the strategy a deck will use. If we add on that each possible combination of traits could have 3 possible strategies([A]ggro, [C]ontrol, Co[M]bo) then the possible number of deck types rises to 135. Each additional faction added in will tack another 45 deck types onto this total.

And that leaves out variations within one strategy.

Basically, this all works out to a really ingenious way of providing raw choice. Thinning the good combinations from the bad ones will be the trick(For example, I'm will to bet that the [R] trait of say, the "Peaceful" faction will be bad at Aggro strategies, but hey, I could be wrong.)

In conclusion:

We WILL see more Factions(I.e. The Tournament Faction.)

We will NOT see more Traits (I.e. Rage) as these are universal to the factions..

[Great White Nothing]

In conclusion:

We WILL see more Factions(I.e. The Tournament Faction.)

We will NOT see more Traits (I.e. Rage) as these are universal to the factions..

I agree, I was merely saying, it's not impossible.

Excellent breakdown by the way, given what we know, I'd say almost all of what you said should hold true in open beta testing.

[Blades]

Sorry if that came off a little hard. I was just trying to be firm.

Thanks for thinking I'm right too. :)

[Great White Nothing]

No need to apolgize, I wasn't offended or anything. ;)

I really hope they balance the other factions right, that's going to be one of the key points of this game's success.

[Blades]

We're gonna need at least 3 Tier1 factions. To allow for at least a RPS environment.

Anything less will be tragic.

Anything more will be better.

Hopefully, it'll be around 50% of the factions. If we're lucky, maybe as high as 75%.

[Great White Nothing]

I would expect around ten factions, maybe three or four good ones, four or more okay ones, and two or three unplayable ones.

[OneLeafClover]

"We will NOT see more Traits (I.e. Rage) as these are universal to the factions.."

but "non-basic lands"... will we see? ^^

"We're gonna need at least 3 Tier1 factions. To allow for at least a RPS environment.

Anything less will be tragic.

Anything more will be better."

he is right = ]

[Great White Nothing]

I think we will definately see some nonbasic resources, since I believe the basic ones were specifiaclly labled as being 'basic' in the rules, or something to that extent any way.

[Blades]

"Staple." But yes, I expect to see non-Staple resources too.

The attach-deattach mechanic leaves room for a lot of weirdness in the resources. As they can be used as a resource, and then also depleted for an ability, among numerous other things.

[Great White Nothing]

Staple, yeah that was the word they used. Thanks.

I don't really like the Attach rule, but I could grow to like it if some nonstaples led to some crazy hijinks, which as you pointed out is quite likely.

The fact they come nto play sideways leads me to thin kthey cannot be depleted, nonstaple or other wise however.

[Xionc]

No, I think the rule states that any depleted card becomes repleted at the beginning of the turn, thus causing non-staple resources to act the same way as staple resources.

[SubtleThunder]

Just for the record:

Our game currently has 5 Trades. Bankers, Arcanists, Rogues, Gearsmiths and Warlords. I have it on good authority that this list will change over time.

Each of those trades has a Resource. Greed, Obsession, Deception, Eliteism, and Rage, respectively.

There are Faction cards in the game. Factions represent a group of people made up from one or more trades. Initially, there is just the one you've all seen. There will be many of these introduced over time.

[jedibcg]

That is what I was about to get to. Each of the current staple resources tie itself to one of the Trades (ST called them Trades that is good enough for me). With more trades with will have more resources. Now it is possible some trades will use some of the same resources (the politicians could use greed too) and that sometime in the future the current trades will use new resources (bankers use greed and corruption). Just my two cents worth. Just about anything is possible so putting out these absolute rules seems a little hasty to me.

[Great White Nothing]

I'm just waiting to snag Beta Test edition 'Duals' in Limited formats. I am expecting nonstaple resources which could be multiple Trades.

IE, Greed + Deception = Politic Resources

Or something like that.

Any way, I like the Term trade, makes sense now, Thanks Subtle Thunder.

[Xionc]

Trade is basically a Tribe, I suppose.

[Blades]

Well, I guess that rules out my statement that we won't see any more Traits. But eh, you can't get them all right.

It opens up some interesting expansions, I'll say.

[Xionc]

Are ther eeven going to be non-staple resources?

[Secran]

why would they make the staple function if there werent going to be non staple resources?

[jedibcg]

First thing that comes to my mind is resources that have multiple resource icons on them for being non-staples. Either two of the same or two different. They still only count as one resource, but they help to satisfy the threshold requirement on cards. Or resources when used gain you certain bonuses. If this resource was used this turn with this resource all your chracters gain +1 str....I dunno...again anything is possible till we know.

[Emerson Pereira]

Just for the record:

Our game currently has 5 Trades. Bankers, Arcanists, Rogues, Gearsmiths and Warlords. I have it on good authority that this list will change over time.


I just hope the game is not flooded with Trades like Magi Nation was with Regions... MND started with 5 Regions and ended up with 12 plus the Universal.

Not to mention it will be difficult for the new Trades to catch up the others, since the original 5 will have more card pool to work with.

[Secran]

To be honest, what other trades could there be?

All 5 that we have can pretty much absorb any new ability added, like warriors with ninjas, or ninjas riding t-rexes(specially gene modified small dragons, see, explained perfectly). Each Trade is broad enough (imo) to prevent a "oh look, 5 new trades in this expansion, and like 12 new cards total for the last 5" problems.

[Emerson Pereira]

I would also preffer Spoils to stay with just the 5 Trades it has now... look what had happened to l5r: the game got so many clans they ended up killing some.

But it seems Subtle Thunder apparently confirmed there will be more Trades on the future, so I just hope they don't exagerate like happened with MND, specially because some MND guys are involved with The Spoils as it was already mentioned.

[Blades]

On Non-Staple Resources: It is entirely possible that we won't ever see non-Staple Resources. The mechanic might simply have been created so as to leave open design space that they never intend to use.

I find that highly unlikely, as the amount of space opened with that one word is friggin huge.

On Trades = Nations: No. They do not. Think more along the lines of creature types from Magic.

On More Trades: Once again, a gigantic amount of space to be explored here. So far the five we have cover, basically, five archetypal fantasy professions: fighter(Warlord), mage(Arcanist), rogue(Rogue), merchant(Bankers), and artificer(Gearsmith). Think for a while, (All of 3 seconds should be plenty) and it'll become apparent that there is, again, a gigantic amount of space left for such a system to expand easily, without sprawling. The first thing that pops to mind is an analogy for the archetypal cleric.

[Great White Nothing]

The first thing that came to my mind was Necromancers, but Bankers seem to have that going for them already.

[OneLeafClover]

the attach rule makes my table a chaos! = /

TRADES! thanks, it's that i wanted to know ^^

[Great White Nothing]

Attaching is actually pretty cool, but it is a little irritating to Restore them.

[OneLeafClover]

"But it seems Subtle Thunder apparently confirmed there will be more Trades on the future"

more trades will f*ck the game (MND it's a great example of that!)
5 trades it's enough!
please! 5 trades only! = ]

[Great White Nothing]

He said they would CHANGE, wether this means they will be renamed or reworked or if new Trades will be added is unknown.

But I must agree with OLC and others, more than five trades is almost enough clause to stop playing the game. I would probably stop plaing magic if they introduced a sixth colour.

[OneLeafClover]

oh... change... right ^^
but i like the names/pictures... just the vulcan-head of "rage" is a little childish (looks like the disney's goofy when anger ^^)

[Xionc]

I don't think this game will be much like Magi-Nation, it's much simpler.

[Zubumba]

Please, don't ADD new trades! Ô.Ô
In my opinion, more trades = small number of mechanisms/strategies for each trade = a game with simple trades, and above all a boring game.

(i'm not talking about replacing trades)

[OneLeafClover]

more trades = less cards per set = /

[Great White Nothing]

More importantly, more trades would make constructed chaotic, plus limited events would be harder to play.

[Secran]

/concur with all statements that encourage focus on 5 trades, and the minor evolution/expansion of those trades.

Having Sub-trades, like warrior monks that use focus instead of rage would be FINE ^_^

[Great White Nothing]

Oh, on the thing about small expansions, I'm all for smaller expansions. The 300 card starter set is fine, but I'd prefer if subsequent releases were mostly smaller.

[plmrelm]

The only way to add a new trade, IMHO, is to get rid of one we already have. Through tournaments or whatnot, get rid of the most underplayed Trade and introduce a new one. (Which of course, leads to revenge for the defeated trade...)

[Emerson Pereira]

The only way to add a new trade, IMHO, is to get rid of one we already have. Through tournaments or whatnot, get rid of the most underplayed Trade and introduce a new one. (Which of course, leads to revenge for the defeated trade...)

This is absurd... the new Trade would not have enough cards to even start competing with the already stablished ones... the older Trades would have more cards to construct decks.

If a Trade starts to be underplayed, it is a sign there is an unbalace amongst them and should be corrected; killing the underplayed Trade is not the best way to deal with the problem... imagine if Magic killed green back on the days it was not a color of choice?

One thing that would be really cool but it is too late now, was to use the 7 Sins to represent the Resources... it seems Pride would be perfect for Gearsmiths (read 31\/35). Starting with 5 Trades, the other 2 could be introduced later for diversity and it would be not hard for them to catch the original 5, releasing an expansion with more cards for these last 2 Trades.

Other than that, I preffer not to especulate about the future of The Spoils but one things is for certain... more Trades to be added later is definitely a factor that will influence me to NOT start playing The Spoils, or at least spend less money into it.

[Great White Nothing]

The only way to add a new trade, IMHO, is to get rid of one we already have. Through tournaments or whatnot, get rid of the most underplayed Trade and introduce a new one. (Which of course, leads to revenge for the defeated trade...)
That is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Does the word balance mean nothing to you? Killing off a trade and replacing it is a sure fire way to piss off fans and ruin the game's competetive play.


One thing that would be really cool but it is too late now, was to use the 7 Sins to represent the Resources... it seems Pride would be perfect for Gearsmiths (read 31\/35). Starting with 5 Trades, the other 2 could be introduced later for diversity and it would be not hard for them to catch the original 5, releasing an expansion with more cards for these last 2 Trades.

When I saw Greed in the rule book, I was really hoping they would use the Seven Deadly Sins as resources, I agree, it would have been cool. I'm not so sure it's too late though, we're still in the Beta period.

[Xionc]

Killing Green to put Purple in is a bad idea.

[Blades]

I'm more than a little irritated by the people who are worked up over the fact that Magi-Nation got to 12 nations. The reason? It was stated from the very beginning of the game that there was going to be all tweleve nations. They simply decided to introduce them over sets. So all these people who seem to have gotten blindsided by the introduction of "new" nations need to actually pay attention.

[/rant]

Anyway. It would probably be best to ignore the rediculous suggestions, knee-jerk reactions, hate, and fear posted above. No where did ST say they were going to continuously add new Trades. He said we will have new ones. He did not say we will have infinite new ones.

CALM DOWN.

Stop thinking in your little Magic box. It is possible for a game to have more than 5 colors and survive. Ex. L5R. Which still has a rediculous number of tournaments despite maintaining at least ten factions over its history.

Now, I doubt Spoils will get to ten Trades. I could see 7 being a reasonable number. And that's only 2 more. Assuming the guys at Tenacious aren't fools(A reasonable assumption, all things considered) it is certainly possible for them to add as many Trades as they wish without screwing their game up.

Also, everyone seems to be assuming that every new trade will demand a new Trait. This is patently absurd. It is entirely possible for them to add new Trades using the already extant Traits. As someone previously suggested. Assuming that they only go up to dual-Trait cards, they end up with 15 Trades(5 mono, 10 dual.) A number I would say is too large, but could, conceivably, be pulled off.

On the 7DS: I too had that thought when I saw Rage and Greed. Interesting.

Wrath, Lust, Avarice, Sloth, Vanity, Envy, Gluttony.

Rage, Deception?, Greed, ???, Elitism, Obsession?, ???.

Fun to think about.

[OneLeafClover]

"It is possible for a game to have more than 5 colors and survive. Ex. L5R"

¬¬
no comentz

"the new Trade would not have enough cards to even start competing with the already stablished ones..."

magi-nation... the 3 top tier regions - cald, arderial, orothe... from base set

new "colours" after the first set are always weak than olders

[jedibcg]

I just have to say that if we get to the point that MtG is. Things are rotated out of standard (sets). Trades could be rotated out of The Spoils. I for one do not see it the end of the world as long as Tenacious does it right. Anyway that is my two cents worth.

[Xionc]

They can't rotate out trades, are you insane? It's the whole point of the gasme, to build sets AROUND trades. You take a trade away, you ELIMINATE a resource!

[jedibcg]

Right but if you have other trades and resources to replace them... I am talking in the far far future. How long did it take MtG to start rotating sets? Remember you can always bring them back to piss ppl off....lol....pissing ppl off is funny....though not very not a good idea if you want to take money from them....hmmm.

[Emerson Pereira]

So all these people who seem to have gotten blindsided by the introduction of "new" nations need to actually pay attention.

I knew MND would get 12 regions but honestly... some of them are almost copies of previous ones... Naroom and Paradwyn for example, or Cald and d'Resh. There were no need for all that. I am merely saying The Spoils will be better with few regions and if I am told right now it will get 3 or more Trades given time, I am not even starting to play it.


Anyway. It would probably be best to ignore the rediculous suggestions, knee-jerk reactions, hate, and fear posted above.

I am not given ridiculous suggestions, nor I am speculating about the game as much people are doing here...


No where did ST say they were going to continuously add new Trades.

ST said, and I quote: "Our game currently has 5 Trades. Bankers, Arcanists, Rogues, Gearsmiths and Warlords. I have it on good authority that this list will change over time."

Is my English that bad or just I noticed the message? As you said... lets assume the guys at Tenacious aren't fools to actually change the list by killing some Trades... this means the number of Trades will increase, no?


CALM DOWN.

Guess you should follow your own advice... I am no the one writing on all caps... leetspeek is needed for the game if you want to understand elvish and some netiquete would be good for the forums. (-;


Stop thinking in your little Magic box. It is possible for a game to have more than 5 colors and survive. Ex. L5R.

L5R didn't survive here in my country... now if you want The Spoils to just survive on the USA box, go ahead... (-;

[OneLeafClover]

"L5R didn't survive here in my country... now if you want The Spoils to just survive on the USA box, go ahead... (-;"

i agree... i'm brazilian too, and i never see this game here :(

[Great White Nothing]

I live in America and I've never heard of it either.

[jedibcg]

L5R is Legend of the 5 Rings. It is a pretty big game. Not as big as MtG or Yu-gi-oh. But is has a strong and faithful following.

[Blades]

I knew MND would get 12 regions but honestly... some of them are almost copies of previous ones... Naroom and Paradwyn for example, or Cald and d'Resh. There were no need for all that. I am merely saying The Spoils will be better with few regions and if I am told right now it will get 3 or more Trades given time, I am not even starting to play it.


Do you play magic?

Because the Trades are more analogous to, say, block mechanics, than to colors. The Traits, on the other hand, are analogous to colors. And there is nothing to suggest that the way the Trades are currently linked to the Traits is the only way they could be linked. New Trades could easily use the same Traits, and thus, make no more of an impact on playable card count per deck than adding new cards to each color does to Magic.

This is all hypothetical, but the point I'm making is that it is certainly possible for them to add new Trades without them being weak(for lack of cards) compared to the old ones.

Remember: Decks need cards. Trades don't.



I am not given ridiculous suggestions, nor I am speculating about the game as much people are doing here...


That statement was a general reference to the general tone of the previous posts. In no way was I particularly talking about any certain person.



ST said, and I quote: "Our game currently has 5 Trades. Bankers, Arcanists, Rogues, Gearsmiths and Warlords. I have it on good authority that this list will change over time."

Is my English that bad or just I noticed the message? As you said... lets assume the guys at Tenacious aren't fools to actually change the list by killing some Trades... this means the number of Trades will increase, no?


Yes. Note that I never said they wouldn't add trades. See above.



Guess you should follow your own advice... I am no the one writing on all caps... leetspeek is needed for the game if you want to understand elvish and some netiquete would be good for the forums. (-;


Putting a grand total of two words in all caps does not qualify as "bad netiquette" (a word I despise, by the way.) Caps was used simply for emphasis. In the future, I shall try to avoid offending you by using the bold, italic, and underline commands.

[color]
L5R didn't survive here in my country... now if you want The Spoils to just survive on the USA box, go ahead... (-;[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry you seem to think that a game that appeals to me can't appeal to the rest of the world. (ex. Magic. Man, what an unpopular game outside of the US.) L5R is still quite strong where I live(Michigan being a very active area for CCGs) so, for me, it was a valid analogy.

Point is, why are you complaining about buying cards, when they're free until November?

[OneLeafClover]

why are you complaining about buying cards, when they're free until November?

because only a great game could survive after november, when we have to buy the cards ^^

a game with 12 colours don't work (everyone knows that!)
i think 6 trades is enought... but i like the game with 5

i agree with zubumba and emerson (the brasilians are always right ^^) ...less trades give more mechanism to that trades...

please, 5 trades = ]


Remember: Decks need cards. Trades don't.

YUPIIII! pokemon's world champion deck use 3 types \o/ (lol)
we want an intelligent game, not a comercial clone like pokemon or magi-nation... decks with 9873984239874298 colours (like pure energy) are funny, but a top tier deck with 4 colours?! ridiculous = p

the spoils have all to be superior of magic... the combat system needs more intelligence of the players, is great... turn this game full of "silly things" will make spoils a "yu gi oh 2: the revenge"

and remember: magic is the best-ever card game because have a standard/type 2 mode... will be impossible create future sets with 8 trades... look at "traitor's reach" of magi-nation... have 2 cards for each region (lol)

[OneLeafClover]

my english sucks... i hope someone understands what i wrote :D

[Great White Nothing]

There is nothing to suggest that the way the Trades are currently linked to the Traits is the only way they could be linked.

Actually, on top of rach Resource card, it says the name of the Trade it is asociated with.

[SubtleThunder]

This thread kinda got out of hand. There is a lot of speculation about what may or may not happen, and angry words flying about. Although not due to the topic, One Leaf Clover wins the first locked thread award.