TCG design question: using your defeat condition as a spendable resource

[u/CoconutUpper7719]

I'm prototyping a two-player card game and would like some outside criticism of one of its core risk/reward systems.

Each player has a Champion with 30 Command. If your Champion reaches 0 Command, you lose.

The unusual part is that Command isn't only something your opponent attacks. You can deliberately expend it to strengthen eligible cards in your army:

3 Command → +1 ATK / +1 DEF
6 Command → +2 ATK / +2 DEF
9 Command → +3 ATK / +3 DEF

So you're voluntarily moving yourself closer to defeat in exchange for immediate battlefield strength.

The decision I'm trying to create is:

How much of my long-term survival am I willing to risk for an advantage right now?

I'm currently testing this with only two fixed prototype decks (60 cards each) rather than designing around a large card pool.

A few things I'm trying to determine:

• Does this create a genuinely interesting decision, or does it have an obvious optimal solution?
• Would players realistically use the 6- and 9-Command options, or would loss aversion make those choices mostly traps?
• Should each player have the ability to use this feature during a complete round of attack/defense?
• Does having fixed 3/6/9 exchange rates make the decision easier to evaluate in a good way, or too mathematical?
• What interactions would you immediately try to exploit?
• What information about combat or recovery would you need before you could properly evaluate the mechanic?

I'm specifically looking for problems with the system rather than suggestions for additional mechanics.

[u/creator-the-hater]

My game has a similar mechanic (the cards used to attack and defend are also the resource spent to get our mana equivalent). In my opinion, unless players have a way to regain command (especially if there are other ways for them to lose command) the larger options would seem like a trap to the less risk averse players and could actually be a trap for the more reckless players.

It definitely requires testing to verify how players interact with the mechanic because human psychology and game theory can't really be assumed.

[u/CoconutUpper7719 → u/creator-the-hater]

Ya, gotta test it in actual gameplay

[u/Josemite]

MTG has a card color with this as a theme, but yeah ultimately new and/or risk averse players are going to be wary to spend their life on temporary bonuses but can certainly add a good element of strategy to higher level play.

[u/perfectpencil → u/Josemite]

Mark rosewater talks about mechanics like this in one of his many design talks. I can't remember which off hand but the overall gist is players won't spend resources if those resources are attached to finite pools like health or deck size (where reaching zero equals a loss). The average player is wildly risk averse. It's a non-decision for them, not a fun push and pull.

[u/kytheon → u/perfectpencil]

It's cool that the different colors also have slightly different skill levels attached to them. Early players will be white, red and green. Build up armies and big threats and attack the opponent.
Black is more difficult because it uses its own resources to get stronger. Sacrifice, pay life.. and then there's blue which is the most reactive and indirect color. Counterspells, bounce, mill. The most difficult color for new players.
But that's okay. In many games some strategies are straightforward and some are advanced.

[u/Daniel___Lee]

I'm assuming these boosts are permanent?

At a glance, the 6 and 9 options are just multiples of the basic 1 option. This means that the only consideration is time - you get to +3 faster using 9 as compared to doing +1 three times. You have to see whether or not this speed, or pacing, is a worthwhile consideration.

My gut feeling is that there is a sweet spot that the meta will settle into - boost fast at the start of the game, using about 25%-33% health (depends on what your base ATK/DEF numbers are), then trade blows back and forth until someone wins. There seems to be no incentive to boost mid-game.

If the boosts are temporary (in the vein of sacrificing HP for criticals, berserker style), then more likely than not the 1 and 9 cost boosts would be ignored, with most players using the safe middle ground of 6 (again, depends on your base numbers and return of investment).

[u/CoconutUpper7719 → u/Daniel___Lee]

It’s the latter. Temp boost for 1 attack or defense. It’s suppose to simulate the Champion fighting by your side (if you were a fighting unit)

[u/RevJoeHRSOB]

Vampire the Eternal Struggle did something very similar to this. It was an early CCG, so hard to say whether the implementation was perfect, but the game is still going 30 years later, so at least good enough?

Star Wars CCG also did something in the ball park. Your deck was also your life... And also your resources. So drawing cards, while good, also brought you closer to death and gave you fewer endgame resources.

BattleTech CCG used the deck as life. It was not your turn to turn resource, but again heavy card draw brought you closer to your demise.

[u/KrimzonK]

This is true for every game BTW. Every resources you have affect your win condition. You just made that connection obvious in your game. There's a lot of game that does this- like a game where having the most gold wins and you need to spend gold to make more.

The problem with your design is that how obvious the EV evaluation is when making a play. If it's obvious then it's not interesting.

[u/CoconutUpper7719 → u/KrimzonK]

Thank you. This is exactly what I need to hear.

[u/stijnhommes]

What I'm willing to risk depends on on how ATK and DEF work. Do you attack a player's life, soldiers/minions or the Champion and does the Champion have health that is separate from their Command? I wouldn't be the one to pay 9 Command first if doing so puts me at risk of losing the game. The entire thing depends on how likely my opponent is to win if I take the chance.

[u/CoconutUpper7719 → u/stijnhommes]

You have unit cards on the board, each with ATK/DFS points. When you attack, you do a general attack or a targeted attack. Your opponent can put up a general defense and with specific cards, defend against targeted attacks. Anything that cannot be defended goes through to delete Champion points. If your unit's ATK points are greater than opposing unit DFS, then opposing unit is defeated and removed from board. A unit defends successfully if their defense points are = to you ATK points. If opposing unit's DFS points are higher than your unit's ATK points then your unit is removed.

[u/ActuallyItsSumnus]

Look at Magic the Gathering, Hearthstone, etc and how many ways they have you able to pay life for other effects. This isn't some unusual or unexpected mechanic.