Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Hand of Fate: Ordeals» Forums » General

Subject: Word or two regarding "Food" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michał Murawski
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Actually there are more than two words here ;P

So currently, putting aside basic card "Forage", there are only two ways to produce food in the game: "Hunt" and "Harvest".

Quote:
Hunt – copies 4 , cost 3, fame 1, FOOD 1
Draw a card

Harvest – copies 3, cost 4, fame 1, FOOD 2
Draw a card


I like those cards they are plain and simple they do a unique thing in the game - they grant so much needed food! There is quite a lot of them actually if you think about it! I mean, together they make 1/3 of entire "adventurer type" of cards and yet it seam like there is not enough of them!

If they come out late game, you are struggling to do anything! When you are stuck with forage entire game, suddenly moving is a problem, you can't push during combat, in one word - you are on the best way to lose. It gets even worse, if you are facing Plague Royalties (with Queen of Plague you are basically immobile. Nothing wrong about it though, I love her ability!).

So technically speaking there should be more of food granting cards in the game to give everybody equal chances to get them. I think 10 would be a good amount.

My concern is that it already "eats up" a lot of adventure card type "card slots" - hindering it significantly by focusing on food production instead of "encounter interaction" where the main focus should be for ADVENTURER, card type!

So here is a small idea:

What if we made out of „Hunt” a COMMON card, like „Flourish”?

On first glance than is a GREAT IDEA... but if you think about it, it has some concerning consequences:

If there would be deck consisting of let's say 5 to 10 COMMON „HUNT” cards that anyone can buy anywhere (as they can buy "flourish"), then every reasonably thinking player with any amount of foreseeing would buy at least one or two in their first rounds of game! A Mean player could try to buy as much of those cards as he can, in order to deny access to them for other players. This way gaining an advantage over them, what is actually a sound strategy in a competitive play! No doubt, other players (not interested in buying those cards at this moment) would figure out what is going on and as a response would try to buy as many as they can!

In the end, considering that, players who actually played the game once or twice, would always have that in mind and go for the "hunt" cards first. That would mean that each game would actually start after 2-3 uneventful rounds of players buying entire stock of available "hunts", before "the real game starts". So why add this extra, annoying, grueling and slowing step to the game? Why not give one or two of those cards into starting deck instead of forage in the first place?

That is not an easy subject, and in fact a problem not so easy to solve!

On one hand it is fine as it is right now. Balance is pretty good, food is not overabundant and is an important factor in the game that each player is concerned with. Having more than necessary stock of food helps to quickly get somewhere, as well as during hard battles. On the other hand lack of food SLOWS THE GAME! Instead of doing interesting things, player sits on one encounter and the only thing they can do is buy more cards - what makes playing basic forage card in even grater intervals = even less food. All that makes those cards in high demand, so much so that anyone who can afford one, will buy at least one immediately the moment it hits the table.

Those cards have very narrow usage, yet they are universally good and every player can appreciate at lest one copy in his deck! Although it actually does very good job on very scarce food department I still would like to see some more interesting skill than "draw one card" on that!


FEW IDEAS ON FOOD ACQUIRING


First easy solution - since balance of food is more or less good at the moment making the overall Mechnic an important factor to take into account during game. In order to not to destroy this carefully crafted balance we can’t make big changes...
So why not make „Hunt” and „Harvest” a COMMON cards instead of ADVENTURER? But with a small twist! Instead of being always available (waiting on the table to be bought like „flourish”), why not put those cards into a dealer’s row deck!

This way they would be in the deck as they are right now, but they would’t use up adventurer card slots which could be filed in with something more exiting and „adventurous” than "gain 1 food, draw 1 card, next"!


SECOND IDEA EMPHASIZING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARCHETYPES:

We could make 3 food producing cards in every card type (3 in Warrior, 3 in Trickster, 3 in Adventurer), that collects food in different way.

In example:
ADVENTURER – could have card associated with „hunting” in the wilderness, "survivalism" and similar "ranger type of stuff"

TRICKSTER – could collect food from not exactly legal sources, like "thieving", "pick pocketing", generally "rouge" way of doing things. (maybe even stealing from other players?)

WARRIOR – could get food from mugging other players, in some sort of intimidation contest, or looting ”campsite” of defeated monsters.

Proposition of how those cards could work:


Quote:
ADVENTURRER: - „Hunt” – Pay any amount of EFFORT from your hand to discard top card of the minion deck. If EFFORT you payed is equal or grater than the STRENGTH of the discarded minion, gain FOOD equal to that minions printed SHARDS.


The idea is that you might either get more food or less – depending "how did the hunt go”. Also now you have to actually use effort for hunt „to sneak”, „set traps”, „track the animals” and so on. On average you’ll get 1 food, sometimes you’ll get none or 2 that seams fair to me.

There could be an additional restriction for example - „play only on a card which allows to buy Adventurer cards” meaning green „A” symbol on encounter cards – implicating „the wilderness”.

Quote:
TRICKSTER: „Pick pocket” – choose a player on the same encounter as you. Pay any numer of EFFORT. Chosen player discards 2-3 cards from his deck. If EFFORT payed is grater than EFFORT discarded, steal amount of FOOD from chosen player, equal to the difference in EFFORT.


That card has some negative interaction here. I’m not sure if that is what you want in this game, but it can have some interesting tactics here. Also if that is to powerful the „attacked” player could chose cards from his hand to defend (instead of random discard - what I find fitting thematically), and spend his effort to „guard his belongings”. So even if „pick pocketing” player does not get any food, the defending player will have fewer cards on his turn. That can be interesting, right?

Alternatively if above example is too extreme and hate inducing (which to be honest, I don’t enjoy in games at all) here is less player interactive card:

Quote:
TRICKSTER: „Petty Theft” -Or- „Market Stall Pilfering” – Pay any amount of EFFORT from your hand. Discard the top card of the dealer’s row deck. If EFFORT you payed is equal or grater than the cost of discarded card, gain FOOD equal to the FAME value of discarded card, otherwise lose 1 HEALTH (and 1 FAME?).


Now player have to put some "effort" into getting food (Similar to the "hunting" card proposed above)! So player can get at least 1 food, almost every time he plays this card, quite often get 2 and rarely up to 3. However player will have to overpay with EFFORT as a precaution, since he don't know what he will find in that "purse he just cut" and also if he doesn't have enough EFFORT on hand and still wants to push his luck being too careless or impatient, he risks that he fails (gets caught) and then he’ll lose 1 life (receive punishment for his crimes – i.e. Flogging).

Also we can add here restriction – „Can only be played on encounters where trickster cards can be bought” So with Blue T symbol on the flags on the left - that implies there is actually "someone" to steal from


Quote:
WARRIOR: „spoils of victory” ATTACK 2 - If you win this combat gain 1-2 FOOD.


Nothing out of ordinary here so just a regular ATTACK card that can be attached to your weapon that could work EXACTLY the same as „Warriors King’s Skill” but instead of shards you could get food! Simple, elegant, worth considering. As far as theme goes - you have defeated all the minions in combat - that is a lot of effort already - you search their belongings, loot their bodies, or the stash made after dispatching unfortunate souls that previously fell victim to this "bandit group" As a warrior I would give that card a try!


There could be "Mugging" as well on the "negative interaction" side of things

Quote:
WARRIOR - "mugging" - Chose a player on the same encounter as you. You and chosen player may play any amount of attack cards from your hands. If strength on cards played by you is grater than the strength on cards played by chosen player gain all of his food, otherwise loose 1 health. (you lose 1 fame and he gains 1 fame as well?)


Simple and funny, since you don't know what other players have on their hand, you can only assume that you can overpower them. But If you were wrong, not only you retreat empty handed but with bleeding nose as well

SUMMARY

Making above or similar cards a reality you achieve two things:
You disperse food production among the decks, so that every archetype gets a way to gain food and adventurer deck is not dominated by food production so there is space for more interesting action cards influencing encounters!

Secondly it drives the story much better! Every attempt in making food is „an adventure” on its own, possibility to gamble, you can win, you can lose, It ads to uncertainty!

You know what The Dealer would say?
Quote:
You don’t get anything for granted IN THE GAME OF FATES! You have to fight for every, smallest victory you get!



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Octavius
Canada
Chilliwack
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kapitan Chrum wrote:

What if we made out of „Hunt” a COMMON card, like „Flourish”?


Two things about this section:
First, the reason to not buy out all the hunt cards would be the fact that if you have a lot in your deck most of the cards you draw to your weapon at the start of combat would be useless. (Food cards do not generate attack, only effort converts.)

Secondly, if making sure food cards are available is a concern, a common supply card that supplies 2 food with no other effect (ie. no card draw) should suffice without upsetting game balance. Unless, of course, the designers want the struggle to get food to be an important part of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sea
Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur
Wilayah Persekutuan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
players who actually played the game once or twice, would always have that in mind and go for the "hunt" cards first.


I actually don't think that's the case. While hunt is definitely a good card as it cycles itself, IMO the combat mechanic would serve as the limiting factor as you wouldn't wanna draw them for combat; which is quite common when your deck is thin during early game.

After playing multiple games I've also come to see health as just another resource for saving turns, & cards like hunt / harvest are significantly less useful after the board's been explored fully (you'd want to gear up for the combat by then). Thus I've learned to see harvest & hunt as less important. I've even tried culling forage cards from the deck & explored through expending health, which gets me on the board slightly faster.

IMO the food mechanic is quite balance (if not very slightly too plenty) right now, with just enough food to prevent pushing combat for days. There was 1 game where my opponent had so much food that he could explore & push the King thrice with more to spare, & at that point I realize that I was too cautious with my health & should've played more aggressively. Food promotes turtling, which is a valid strategy but not one that's mandatory in excess for everyone.

That said, I wouldn't shy away from new action cards that made use of food like harvest (they'll serve as food sinks). Your first 'easy' solution basically means "give us more cards", which I'm sure is everyone's dream

However, I'm not so keen of the effort > food thing, since it adds another layer of randomness. Players generally generate abour 3-5 effort per round early game, & baring uncommon situations around 6-7 effort during mid-late game. To require to spend effort for a chance of food just seems like too much randomness. It also makes buying cards slower as effort are spent on chances for food, which also promotes a "big money" style of play: Buy cards that grant effort, roll that money so you could afford food AND buy multiple cards. Not exactly healthy for the game IMO.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał Murawski
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Maebon wrote:
Kapitan Chrum wrote:

What if we made out of „Hunt” a COMMON card, like „Flourish”?


Two things about this section:
(...) (Food cards do not generate attack, only effort converts.)


Yes that is true - food doesn't generate attack when drawn to your weapon during combat. However that is the only moment and factor of uncertainty during combat. Other than food there is only handful of cards that doesn't provide you bonus during combat (namely - "push your luck" and "Consult the Map" - total 5 cards). And that is an important mechanic of the game adding to uncertainty and randomness of the game, so that combat won't become predictable. And even if you have so many food cards that you consistently draw them during combat, you have as many food as well, that means you can push yourself easily and often. Pushing while not the best way to win combats, certainly is a thing. So that balances combat ineffectiveness (to a degree) of food cards. Of course we can argue that "while pushing you can draw more food cards". That is true but so is fate

Nonetheless I agree with you Maebon that players should avoid to many food cards in their decks. But due to overabundant "destroy card" abilities, it is easy to get rid of less useful "forages" from your deck. My point with "sound strategy" with buying up the common stock of food cards in competitive play (lets say in 4 player game buying 6 out of 10 cards at least), was that after getting them you can destroy them fairly easily to the point you have 2-3 in the deck so you are happy.

Maebon wrote:
Secondly, if making sure food cards are available is a concern, a common supply card that supplies 2 food with no other effect (ie. no card draw) should suffice without upsetting game balance. Unless, of course, the designers want the struggle to get food to be an important part of the game.


Yes I think that is the point, and actually I like the idea the food is scarce. If everyone is sitting on 6 food at least every moment of the game that is no longer interesting nor relevant game mechanic and can (and should) be cut out from the game entirely.

We should play sometime! Playdate with Barantas anyone?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał Murawski
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
genesyx wrote:
Quote:
players who actually played the game once or twice, would always have that in mind and go for the "hunt" cards first.


By this statement I was referring to scenario I have described earlier - "HUNT COMMON DECK" laying next to Flourish deck on board. And I think We can all agree you would want to replace your forages with hunts and/or harvests as fast as you can (The same way you want to replace "Hack" with better attack cards as well as you want to replace "strives" with more effort gaining cards). So each player would want to get at least one or two better food gaining cards. If the stock would be limited to 10 or 5 cards - that would trigger "food wars" described by me as well. and players already familiar with this possibility - would in fact go for food cards first

genesyx wrote:
IMO the food mechanic is quite balance (if not very slightly too plenty) right now, with just enough food to prevent pushing combat for days. There was 1 game where my opponent had so much food that he could explore & push the King thrice with more to spare, & at that point I realize that I was too cautious with my health & should've played more aggressively. Food promotes turtling, which is a valid strategy but not one that's mandatory in excess for everyone.


True. I agree. Sometimes you have to "starve" to get somewhere before other player does. However if you are low on health (due to lost battles or other effects) doing that is very risky. I wouldn't hurt myself on purpose, if I'm below 5 health, unless this is last hail marry run for the win or for the defeat. [/q]

genesyx wrote:
That said, I wouldn't shy away from new action cards that made use of food like harvest (they'll serve as food sinks).


You meant "feast", right?


genesyx wrote:
Your first 'easy' solution basically means "give us more cards", which I'm sure is everyone's dream


Yeah! Cards! MOAR CARDS! CARDS FOR EVERYONE!!!1!!11!1ONE1!!!


genesyx wrote:
However, I'm not so keen of the effort > food thing, since it adds another layer of randomness. Players generally generate abour 3-5 effort per round early game, & baring uncommon situations around 6-7 effort during mid-late game.


regarding that, I had player spamming 9-15 effort every turn and only thing he did was buying cards to get fame for his deck, at the end of the game. :/

genesyx wrote:
To require to spend effort for a chance of food just seems like too much randomness. It also makes buying cards slower as effort are spent on chances for food, which also promotes a "big money" style of play: Buy cards that grant effort, roll that money so you could afford food AND buy multiple cards. Not exactly healthy for the game IMO.


You might be right on that. But players already view high effort cards as the best and first option to buy. So "big money" style of play IS already very prominent option of play. Simply put Effort has no downside! It allows you to buy cards, it works during combat, and it has some additional effect. WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT AS MUCH EFFORT AS YOU CAN'T? Moreover, cards granting effort are the most numerous in the deck! Setting aside Warrior cards (which are all about the attack), 2/3 of Trickster cards provide effort (5 attack cards + push your luck don't) and 1/2 Adventure cards as well ("hunt", "harvest", "cautious strikes", and "consult the map" don't). On top of that there always is "flourish" and you start with 7/10 cards granting effort. No wonder Effort is so prominent and the game is EFFORT heavy!

So idea "Spend Effort for food" is in fact a "Effort sink" - which is not that bad idea when you think about it. You have to chose either you want to get this card or food? what is more important for you at THIS moment? That ads to decisions during the game and makes game more exiting, doesn't it? And on the other hand making it a little bit random (as in my propositions of possible cards) prevents overabundance of food. We all agree amount of food available in the game is in more or less good spot at the moment.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sea
Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur
Wilayah Persekutuan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hahaha yes I meant feast, oops

And wow 9 - 15 effort every turn?? Guess our games are quite different - which is a good thing! I would definitely wanna see what one would have to do to achieve that (& IMO winning through fame from cards is something that should totally be possible, which I don't think is right now)

Also it's true that effort is always good to have given its versatility in everything (I would like to see effort cards that CAN'T be used in combat). However I don't think doubling down (promoting more effort gathering) on that is necessarily good.

However I do see your point on having to choose between buying cards or gathering food. I still wouldn't want all food to be gathered this way (IMO still too random), & IMO currently its quite balanced at 1 food per card (hunt, harvest, forage).

However I do see a certain viability in effort > food mechanic being used to steal food from other players. In fact it could even be expanded to more than just food, though again just 1 or 2 types of such card would be sufficient. It would give players some ability to directly target others, which seems like a good thing to do in competitive games. However these cards would be significantly less viable in cooperative games, which means less variety.

... easiest solution? Just give us more cards R&M
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Mosher
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
How about adding a rule that if a combat is won, the player gains food equal to what they would have gained from playing the food cards they drew during the combat? Corpses looted. Balance intact. More food per player achieved.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michał Murawski
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
There is this new interesting card


"Camp" 2 effort
discard 1 food, gain 1 health.

Maybe that is the way to proceed? Cards that allow you to spend food on different other effects?


How about shield/offhand equipment that is not a shield but rather some kind of daemon/elemental/djinn/loyal pet/familiar/shadow or something. It would work without hands so you could use two hand or dual wield weapon, but for each damage soaked you have to pay 1 food? And if you don't pay it doesn't work?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.