PDA

View Full Version : Unique Troops Rules Questions for CZE staff



Ashran
09-23-2013, 05:18 AM
Hello again, creatrixes of Hex. This round of questions is about the mechanics of Unique troops in Hex. It also occurs to me that other people may have different questions on the same subject. If a question I also want answered is asked in the Reply thread, I'll edit my OP to include it.

1. Are troops Unique across both my and my opponent's battlefield, or just mine? In other words, if my opponent drops a Lord Alexander before me, what happens when I cast mine?

2. Exactly what happens when a second copy of a Unique troop is cast? Is the attempted second troop interrupted? Immediately destroyed? Or is it the first that takes the hit? Or both?

3. Te'talca was recently revised to be a Unique creature, which makes perfect sense. What other spoiled troops will we be seeing a new Unique tag on? Likely candidates I am personally curious about:

Lady Cassandra
Princess Victoria
Xarlox, the Brood Lord

4. This question isn't about Uniques, in fact just the opposite, but I just happened to think about it. In the KS alternate art card for Pack Raptor it is shown with Swiftstrike. However, I've seen a pic of a 'normal' Pack Raptor which did not have Swiftstrike. Which is true? I will be sad if you nerf my Raptors, but understanding. As Swiftstrikers they are a very nice first turn play that can stay relevant the whole game and can be an almost accidental win-con. Not bad for 1cc.

Thanks again!

Kitt_
09-23-2013, 05:41 AM
My guess is similar to MTG in the fact that you can only have 1 per side (since the rules changed recently) and any other new ones coming out are automatically discarded to have a maximum of 1. No longer do both legendary creatures die like the rule stated before. The reason I would imagine this is some over powered nature. Te'talca isn't a great example because you can't do double damage multiple times. I don't have time to remember nor look up others, but that's just my 2 cents.

Chiany
09-23-2013, 05:57 AM
1) Unique only applies to your side of the field, so both players can have the same Unique card into play without violating the Uniqueness rule.

2) When a 2nd copy of a Unique card enter your side of the field, you get to choose which one will stay on the field.
The other one will get destroyed immediately.

Into play effects (like Uruunaz) will still trigger, even if you choose to destroy the new copy.

3) No idea

4) I think it will still have Swiftstrike, but haven't seen the 2nd version you are talking about.

ossuary
09-23-2013, 05:59 AM
Check here, under "Restriction:" http://hextcg.com/card-overview/

Shadowelf
09-23-2013, 06:49 AM
If hex will be following M14 rules on uniques, then Chiany is absolutely right at both cases

(m14 rules on uniques http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/248e)

Ashran
09-23-2013, 06:54 AM
Thanks for the quick answers with references. The second Unique entering into play and then choosing which to kill could make for subtle strategy with Uniques. And if I'm understanding everything correctly, the second time you play Uruunaz it should mill your opponent for 14 cards, since the abilities of both copies would activate before you had to bury one of them.

MoikPEI
09-23-2013, 06:54 AM
Excellent questions Ashran. Good eye. Between this and the Inspire questions, I expect you might end up being the bugfinder to beat. :)

Punk
09-23-2013, 08:31 AM
Check here, under "Restriction:" http://hextcg.com/card-overview/

+1

"Restriction: You’ll find card restrictions here. If a card is Unique, each player may only have 1 of that particular card in play. Any others must be immediately sent to the graveyard."

vickrpg
09-23-2013, 08:49 AM
4. This question isn't about Uniques, in fact just the opposite, but I just happened to think about it. In the KS alternate art card for Pack Raptor it is shown with Swiftstrike. However, I've seen a pic of a 'normal' Pack Raptor which did not have Swiftstrike. Which is true? I will be sad if you nerf my Raptors, but understanding. As Swiftstrikers they are a very nice first turn play that can stay relevant the whole game and can be an almost accidental win-con. Not bad for 1cc.

Thanks again!

There's a non-KS pack raptor spoiled? Where?

Ashran
09-23-2013, 09:36 AM
There's a non-KS pack raptor spoiled? Where?
Oh, right. Here you go:

1049

There's also a larger version of the pic here:

http://www.thehexvault.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Pack-Raptor-Extended-Art.jpg

ossuary
09-23-2013, 09:53 AM
+1

"Restriction: You’ll find card restrictions here. If a card is Unique, each player may only have 1 of that particular card in play. Any others must be immediately sent to the graveyard."

Yes, and the key here to me is where it says "any others." This implies that you don't get to choose which one to keep if a 2nd enters play, the new one always gets graveyarded. Of course, as always, this is subject to official rules interpretation, but that's how it reads, based purely on the wording.

Punk
09-23-2013, 11:30 AM
Yes, and the key here to me is where it says "any others." This implies that you don't get to choose which one to keep if a 2nd enters play, the new one always gets graveyarded. Of course, as always, this is subject to official rules interpretation, but that's how it reads, based purely on the wording.

What really stands out to me is: "If a card is Unique, each player may only have 1.."

Each player may have 1 copy of the same unique card in play.

The "any others" term does give the implication that you would not get to choose.. but then there will always be the situation where a game state will put two or more copies of the same unique in play at the same time. Would all or none of the "come into play" effects trigger? -- I have my on theory's on this, but it doesn't matter until they give us the Comprehensive Rules. They should really do this before Alpha so we know exactly how the interactions should work before we start testing them.

ossuary
09-23-2013, 11:45 AM
The "any others" term does give the implication that you would not get to choose.. but then there will always be the situation where a game state will put two or more copies of the same unique in play at the same time. Would all or none of the "come into play" effects trigger? -- I have my on theory's on this, but it doesn't matter until they give us the Comprehensive Rules. They should really do this before Alpha so we know exactly how the interactions should work before we start testing them.

We know from the Q&A with Ben Stoll that if things resolve "simultaneously," you choose which actually takes effect first. So if you cast an Eye of Creation for 5 cards, you could have the 5th card revealed take effect before the 1st card revealed if it's strategically superior to do so (whereas in Magic, you have no choice at all, and they all resolve literally at the same time).

If something made two copies of a Unique enter play "simultaneously," you would still get to choose which of those actually hit the table first (and the 2nd would then get toasted when IT enters play).

MoikPEI
09-23-2013, 12:16 PM
We know from the Q&A with Ben Stoll that if things resolve "simultaneously," you choose which actually takes effect first. So if you cast an Eye of Creation for 5 cards, you could have the 5th card revealed take effect before the 1st card revealed if it's strategically superior to do so (whereas in Magic, you have no choice at all, and they all resolve literally at the same time).

If something made two copies of a Unique enter play "simultaneously," you would still get to choose which of those actually hit the table first (and the 2nd would then get toasted when IT enters play).

O_O
Shadowelf quote pls?

houjix
09-23-2013, 12:43 PM
We know from the Q&A with Ben Stoll that if things resolve "simultaneously," you choose which actually takes effect first. So if you cast an Eye of Creation for 5 cards, you could have the 5th card revealed take effect before the 1st card revealed if it's strategically superior to do so (whereas in Magic, you have no choice at all, and they all resolve literally at the same time).

If something made two copies of a Unique enter play "simultaneously," you would still get to choose which of those actually hit the table first (and the 2nd would then get toasted when IT enters play).

Those are two different situations.

The first requires you to choose an order in which the cards are played. The do no resolve all at the same time. They will use the stack and resolve one at a time with a chance to respond in between each resolution. In Magic it works exactly the same way and WoW TCG too. Very rarely is anything truly simultaneous.

The second, both would enter play at the exact same time. Then the game would force you to get rid of one before things can continue.

In WoWTCG if you played a second copy of a unique card, you could choose which one got destroyed. It wasn't automatically the older copy.

Punk
09-23-2013, 01:47 PM
If something made two copies of a Unique enter play "simultaneously," you would still get to choose which of those actually hit the table first (and the 2nd would then get toasted when IT enters play).

This didn't really answer the example question I had:


Would all or none of the "come into play" effects trigger?

Regardless, I was not looking for an answer to this question, but instead was using it as a segue into the point that they should seriously consider having the Comprehensive Rules out soon.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-23-2013, 02:04 PM
I for one, being new to TCGs and only playing about 3 MTG matches in my entire life, am THRILLED that the computer will figure out all the rules for me. I wouldn't find it any fun to argue about rules with someone or become surprised when my plan of action was based on a rules misunderstanding.

+1 to everyone for bringing these topics up, even if they go over my head.

Gwaer
09-23-2013, 05:40 PM
Are they going to release an comprehensive rules document like magic? All card interactions are arbitrated by the interface, there is nothing to quibble or clarify, cards work the way the game makes them work.

Kami
09-23-2013, 06:00 PM
Yeah the system knows but it affects your decision making if you don't know. I remember even in the early days of MTG, they included printed manuals (thick ones too).

Aradon
09-23-2013, 06:02 PM
The game still needs a rulebook, so that players can tell what will happen before the game enforces the interaction. I don't want to cast my spell, only to find out that the abilities didn't stack the way I thought they would. There'd be a lot of ruined draft matches as a result, and that's not really fair. People should be able to understand how the game works without having to resort to experimentation.

That being said, digital games are great for showing you the way the game works. It tends to be very easy to pick up when everything is always correctly handled.

Skirovik
09-23-2013, 06:04 PM
The reason a comprehensive rules document is required is that you want players to figure out how the rules interact without always having to use trial & error. Especially since someone may see a card on the AH, spend lots of money, but due to not having a rules document handy, misinterpret a rules interaction, therefore (in their eyes) wasting their money.

It is essential all players can figure out what a card will do before they spend any money on buying said card.

Gwaer
09-23-2013, 07:12 PM
Wouldn't a simple community based wiki/question answer thing handle those situations? It's not like asking for rules advice in MTG. "Hey, when you play this card does it work like this" seems pretty straightforward. What card text doesn't make clear, a simple google search should?

Skirovik
09-23-2013, 07:17 PM
I think Hex should at least try to be wholly self-sufficient. I know most people are ok to google things, but others want to find that information without having to leave the game. Not everyone wants to alt-tab or has 2 screens (especially tablet users).

Gwaer
09-23-2013, 08:04 PM
An extended rules document would force you to leave the game to read it. It's not much different, just more front loaded work for CZE. You could just as easily ask in HEX about card interactions as you can pull up a document.

houjix
09-23-2013, 08:17 PM
An extended rules document would force you to leave the game to read it. It's not much different, just more front loaded work for CZE. You could just as easily ask in HEX about card interactions as you can pull up a document.

A rules document maintained by CZE is essentially to the credibility of the game and it's not really that much more work. And as much as I trust other players as to how things work, I and most others prefer to see it in writing as well.

Gwaer
09-23-2013, 08:35 PM
It just seems strange to me. You can go into any ai game and test your card interactions, you can do a nominal amount of research before you buy a card. *shrug* I guess we'll see what they do, but I for one am not awaiting a rules doc with baited breath.

houjix
09-23-2013, 08:54 PM
It just seems strange to me. You can go into any ai game and test your card interactions, you can do a nominal amount of research before you buy a card. *shrug* I guess we'll see what they do, but I for one am not awaiting a rules doc with baited breath.

It's not about any specific card, it's about knowing how and why a game works. Most people don't have the time or desire to trial and error their way through card interactions. If you know how cards and the game are supposed to work on more than just a basic level, your play becomes that much better. It also lets you know if something is bugged in the game. You should never just assume the programming is correct.

At the very least they have to have basic rules availabe in some text form. And since they have experience developing a comprehensive rules document for the WoW TCG, creating one for Hex won't be a massive undertaking. In fact, one probably existing in some for, otherwise how would the programmers know what to make the cards and game do.

Kami
09-23-2013, 10:48 PM
You also can't assume the system to be infallible. Without knowing the exact rules, you also have no idea whether you're being cheated by the system or not through an unintentional bug/error.

Gwaer
09-24-2013, 02:34 AM
Does any other digital tcg have comprehensive rules documents like mtg and wow tcg? I've never heard of that. But I guess I could have missed it. Seems like an antiquated concept to me.

I assume the PVE MMO aspects are not expected to be included? Or do they need stuff for the 1500 pieces of equipment as well?

BlueRider
09-24-2013, 02:41 AM
A properly written Comprehensive Rules document will only need to include specific cards for example purposes only. There's no need to list 1500 equipment.

Kingrags
09-24-2013, 02:55 AM
Does any other digital tcg have comprehensive rules documents like mtg and wow tcg? I've never heard of that. But I guess I could have missed it. Seems like an antiquated concept to me.

I assume the PVE MMO aspects are not expected to be included? Or do they need stuff for the 1500 pieces of equipment as well?

Well, I haven't seen any other digital game that provides a comprehensive rules document (Except Mtg). I do however expect HEX to do a better job than mtg on all points (yeah, I have high expectations). And I do expect to be able to predict future interactions based on comprehensive rules (like: if they make a card that does this... this wierd thing will happen).

If I get to chose I'd like a official comprehensive rules wiki. Moderated by trusted community members and CZE staff.

ossuary
09-24-2013, 04:28 AM
I don't think there's any reason to assume there WON'T be a rulebook. Of course there will. There just isn't a publicly available one yet.

Shadowelf
09-24-2013, 04:38 AM
I don't think there's any reason to assume there WON'T be a rulebook. Of course there will. There just isn't a publicly available one yet.

This is what Ben said ;


I'm not sure about exact official rule book plans just yet.



But since the game is digital, and the Alpha will be a testing ground, am i wrong to believe that with game's guidance (assuming that since the game is digital, it will make sure that you won't miss effects/triggers), you will be able to learn by playing ??

ossuary
09-24-2013, 04:58 AM
There will still have to be some sort of "this is how shit works" document somewhere, so you can understand how the game works without being inside it, and so you can plan out a deck. It would be just stupid to not have SOME kind of documentation.

Gwaer
09-24-2013, 10:51 AM
They have massive tutorial plans. So you learn the game like every other video game since nes. I understand where you're coming from for a rules doc. MTG's and WOWTCG's were absolutely necessary. But most of that pressure is relieved in a Digital-TCG. They certainly could release one. But its by no means required. Especially not by alpha.

houjix
09-24-2013, 11:29 AM
They have massive tutorial plans. So you learn the game like every other video game since nes.

You mean by reading the instruction manual and getting the strategy guide? ;)


I understand where you're coming from for a rules doc. MTG's and WOWTCG's were absolutely necessary. But most of that pressure is relieved in a Digital-TCG. They certainly could release one. But its by no means required. Especially not by alpha.

I don't think anyone was truly clamoring for a comprehensive document to be released by alpha. Basic rules need to be ready of course, as who knows if the tutorial will be ready by then. Plus when they do, a tutorial is not going to cover everything in depth enough for some people that want to master the game. And as we have said, the digital environment may take care of the enforcement, but knowing how the game works is important for both transparency of the system and as a tool for players to improve their game.

ossuary
09-24-2013, 11:52 AM
They have massive tutorial plans. So you learn the game like every other video game since nes. I understand where you're coming from for a rules doc. MTG's and WOWTCG's were absolutely necessary. But most of that pressure is relieved in a Digital-TCG. They certainly could release one. But its by no means required. Especially not by alpha.

Oh I wasn't talking about before alpha. I just meant before release. :)

I understand that the tutorials will teach you how the game works... but you still need some kind of reference material to let you understand (or plan) how cards / rules will interact. That's all I'm saying.

EmraldArcher
09-24-2013, 12:18 PM
I think something that is being overlooked here is that there already IS a comprehensive rules document for this game.

It might not be called that and it might not even be all in one place but in order to code the game to work as they wanted they had to set out exactly how the game rules work in one form or another.

Having someone compile that information into a single word document really shouldn't be that difficult.

houjix
09-24-2013, 12:27 PM
I think something that is being overlooked here is that there already IS a comprehensive rules document for this game.

It might not be called that and it might not even be all in one place but in order to code the game to work as they wanted they had to set out exactly how the game rules work in one form or another.

Having someone compile that information into a single word document really shouldn't be that difficult.

Ya, I already mentioned that.

The_Wine_Gnat
09-26-2013, 12:30 PM
And if I'm understanding everything correctly, the second time you play Uruunaz it should mill your opponent for 14 cards, since the abilities of both copies would activate before you had to bury one of them.

That's insane if it's true. Do we have an answer yet?

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 12:32 PM
Yea, it's true.

Aradon
09-26-2013, 12:57 PM
Actually, referencing the rules answer we have regarding the Genesis Hydra not triggering when dealt lethal damage, I could imagine this not working either. In Magic, both the legendary rule and creatures dying from lethal damage are handled as state-based actions. Before state-based actions are checked, abilities from events trigger. Then, state-based actions are checked and resolved, then triggers are placed on the stack. In Hex, apparently if the source of the trigger dies, it interferes with the triggered ability actually being triggered. Since the timing in both the Urunaaz and Genesis Hydra question is the same (state-based actions), I could see the dragon dying before triggering abilities.

I don't like that, and wish we could get some real clarification on this issue. Hence the desire for a real rules book.
My current theory is that the question was either misunderstood or misanswered. It seems far more plausible to me that the Genesis Hydra ability would trigger, but have no effect when it resolves, rather than simply not trigger at all.

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 01:19 PM
Or. Since the game is digital it doesn't need to treat all similar actions as identical. Or one of those cards is an exception to the normal rule. Ben Stoll said unequivocally to me that both urunaaz trigger if a second is played. It's absolutely possible that has since changed of course. I've got no official word on genesis hydra personally.

houjix
09-26-2013, 01:36 PM
Or. Since the game is digital it doesn't need to treat all similar actions as identical. Or one of those cards is an exception to the normal rule. Ben Stoll said unequivocally to me that both urunaaz trigger if a second is played. It's absolutely possible that has since changed of course. I've got no official word on genesis hydra personally.

Actually it should treat all similar actions as identical. If they carry similar wordings, they should work the same. That is one of the fundamentals that a TCG is built upon. No one ever wants to go into a game expecting one thing based upon wording and get a totally different result.

With Genesis Hydra, it has a triggered ability that needs to resolve before adding the counter. However, the game will destroy it if it has fatal damage before that ability has a chance to resolve. It should still trigger however and just do nothing upon resolution.

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 01:47 PM
That is how all past tcg's have worked. That's certainly true. It's how any paper TCG where what happens is up to the players/judges has to work, that's also certainly true. They should try to keep to a codified system where like things work the same way. However, they don't strictly speaking have to. They could code each individual card to function how they see the card functioning. We don't know if the mechanisms upon which the cards run are even similar to MTG's state-based actions. We literally have no idea. We'll find out in alpha.

Looking at a card and intuitively knowing how it works is required in paper TCG's (and even there they often get it wrong) With a digital TCG, there is space to have cards that work in ways that are not entirely clear by just looking at it. That is an option, you may not like it. I may not like it. It's certainly available to them though if that's how they want to do things.

houjix
09-26-2013, 02:07 PM
That is how all past tcg's have worked. That's certainly true. It's how any paper TCG where what happens is up to the players/judges has to work, that's also certainly true. They should try to keep to a codified system where like things work the same way. However, they don't strictly speaking have to. They could code each individual card to function how they see the card functioning. We don't know if the mechanisms upon which the cards run are even similar to MTG's state-based actions. We literally have no idea. We'll find out in alpha.

Looking at a card and intuitively knowing how it works is required in paper TCG's (and even there they often get it wrong) With a digital TCG, there is space to have cards that work in ways that are not entirely clear by just looking at it. That is an option, you may not like it. I may not like it. It's certainly available to them though if that's how they want to do things.


Why do you keep espousing this idea that it's ok that since this game is digital that they can throw all the rules out the window whenever they see fit? If they want a card to function differently then it has to have different wording. The ability to code it differently is irrelevant. It would be like having one card say it deals 2 damage and it deals 2 damage, then another saying it deals 2 damage but instead it draws you a card. Everything should be clear as to how a card works just from it's wording.

Yes, this is a digital game. Yes, that allows them to use design space not easily implemented in a physical game. However, game fundamentals and rules still have to follow a physical TCG to a large extent. If you want to kill a game fast, have a lot of invisible mechanics that follow no discernable pattern and see how the masses take to that.

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 02:50 PM
The part that lets them throw the normal card rules out the window is the fact that there is a machine running every single card interaction. People have nothing to do with it. So the cards rules don't have to be cut and dry in all instances. You could play in a game mode where all cards are blank, and you see nothing. The game highlights which cards are playable. you click on them, they go to a spot on the board that you can infer they are resources, constants or troops, and then it highlights other cards that are available to play. The players do not need to fully grasp anything about a card to play it correctly because the computer will play the card correctly for you.

That mode would likely not be very fun. But they can literally set card design anywhere between magic and that. The game fundamentals and rules do not have to follow physical TCG to a large extent. Should they? Probably, but they certainly don't have to. I agree with you that having a lot of invisible mechanics that have no discernable pattern will be bad, but having some might not be. You can not say definitively that there will be none, just as you can not say with absolute certainty that multiple uruunaz, and genesis hydra have to function the same. All I'm saying is stop speaking in absolutes about a game you have no more understanding of than the rest of us.

Aradon
09-26-2013, 03:01 PM
I'm 100% with Houjix on this one. A game's rules can't be ambiguous. Just because a computer can do something without a player understanding why doesn't mean the player shouldn't be able to understand why if they understood the rules. Making exceptions to rules on a per-card basis is a terrible idea, because then players will have no idea what to expect when they play their card. Are we going to be expected to memorize the dev's intended reaction on a case-by-case basis, or can we just get a unified ruleset from which all interactions can be derived?

malloc31
09-26-2013, 03:01 PM
Gwaer, even in your example the rules are still cut and dry, they are just not displayed during the game. The only way rules can be not cut and dry is if the rules are constantly changing; I do not think any of us want that. So then the question is only weather they want us to know all the rules or keep some hidden. I see no reason they would want to hide any rules, it may be fun to figure stuff out at first but it would make it much harder for new people to play. Also trying to figure card interactions when there are only a few hundred cards is annoying but doable. Once many sets have been released and there are 1,000 or even 10,000 cards it would be impossible, you would never know how to rate new cards untill people tried all the combinations for months.

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 03:33 PM
It's less about keeping rules hidden, or constantly changing the rules. In the actual example we're discussing how the interaction between Genesis Hydra dying, and playing two Uruunaz. Houjix is exactly right. If this were MTG one of those cards has to function differently than it apparently does. This not being MTG it's not the case. As long as all genesis hydras function the way that one does every time, it's not ambiguous. It's just a function of the card that you have to learn. As long as both Uruunaz goes off every time, that's just something that you have to learn. All cases where two uniques come out should mean that both uniques effects trigger, just like Uruunaz, Likewise anytime a card has an effect like Genesis hydra, it should function how genesis hydra's effect functions. But Uniques don't necessarily have to function the same way as effects like genesis hydra function, because hex may not deal with statebased actions identically, or it may not have state-based actions at all and instead has a class for each different interaction. There could be thousands of different checks that hex does after every single card that just wouldn't make sense in a physical TCG. As long as they happen in the same order, every single time one class does not need to be tied to another class.

Aradon
09-26-2013, 03:43 PM
Put it this way: would it be okay if uniques were not marked on the card, but instead you played one, and the game client told you "Oh yeah, that's a unique, I'ma put it into the graveyard since you already had one?" Because this is a similar level of hidden information: it's card-specific information that should be apparent on the card. Theoretically, the client could know this and not explicitly state it to the player, but there's no reason we should be expected to memorize information about how specific cards work. There will be way too many cards for the average player to become familiar with. Furthermore, how would that affect drafts or prerelease events. You could draft a card with one expectation, but if you've never played with it before, it could act in a way you haven't had a chance to 'learn.'

houjix
09-26-2013, 03:44 PM
I was never said that Genesis Hydra and Uruunaz should act the same. I said two similar action should resolve similarly. Those cases have different timings and will be dealt with under different parts of the rules.

Bottom line, you don't make a game that is 99% the same as Magic and expect the rules to be significantly different from that game.

Gwaer
09-26-2013, 03:54 PM
Hex is far from 99% MTG, Inspired by certainly, but there's quite a lot of differences once you play. Just the small changes to the resource system make a huge difference. The fact that computers are responsible for card interactions open up the possibility for a much more complex timing system on the back end, that would be extraordinarily impractical to implement in a physical TCG. I certainly don't know that they aren't using the MTG technology to run their card interactions. They're most definitely not limited to it is pretty much the only point I'm trying to make. I personally don't think throwing everything out is the best plan. Certainly there's a lot more room to improve than what we have seen them improve on, though. Time will tell.

malloc31
09-26-2013, 04:04 PM
That's all fine, I agree that rules can have exceptions. I just want them written down so they can be considered while we are making decks.


It's less about keeping rules hidden, or constantly changing the rules. In the actual example we're discussing how the interaction between Genesis Hydra dying, and playing two Uruunaz. Houjix is exactly right. If this were MTG one of those cards has to function differently than it apparently does. This not being MTG it's not the case. As long as all genesis hydras function the way that one does every time, it's not ambiguous. It's just a function of the card that you have to learn. As long as both Uruunaz goes off every time, that's just something that you have to learn. All cases where two uniques come out should mean that both uniques effects trigger, just like Uruunaz, Likewise anytime a card has an effect like Genesis hydra, it should function how genesis hydra's effect functions. But Uniques don't necessarily have to function the same way as effects like genesis hydra function, because hex may not deal with statebased actions identically, or it may not have state-based actions at all and instead has a class for each different interaction. There could be thousands of different checks that hex does after every single card that just wouldn't make sense in a physical TCG. As long as they happen in the same order, every single time one class does not need to be tied to another class.

Tinuvas
09-27-2013, 12:55 PM
The part that lets them throw the normal card rules out the window is the fact that there is a machine running every single card interaction. People have nothing to do with it. So the cards rules don't have to be cut and dry in all instances.

It took me awhile to wrap my brain around this, but I get it now. Even in Magic there are interactions that are undetermined before they are brought up during play. At such a point they post rulings and whatnot, but not ALL interactions are defined before release.

As a side note, I can easily see a fan site devoted to off the wall interactions with cards, but I've played a number of online games where I didn't know the rules before I played the card. The rules freaks (of which I will be one I'm sure) will know how the cards work far more than a ruleset can tell them about it. Don't get me wrong, I would love a comprehensive rule book, but it's not as needed as I thought it would be.

nylian
09-27-2013, 01:35 PM
I for one, being new to TCGs and only playing about 3 MTG matches in my entire life, am THRILLED that the computer will figure out all the rules for me. I wouldn't find it any fun to argue about rules with someone or become surprised when my plan of action was based on a rules misunderstanding.

+1 to everyone for bringing these topics up, even if they go over my head.

Not having to argue is a huge plus.
I would like to point out that players that know the rules well will have an advantage because they know how the game will handle the actions before they happen.

Like the example in this thread... Do I get the citp ability from a second unique? Good stuff to know. 8)

Ashran
09-30-2013, 11:30 PM
Bump. I would still like to see an answer from CZE on the finer mechanics of my second question, as well as 3 and 4. I would also be curious to get their response to the discussion about the need for a comprehensive Rules document detailing all the game mechanics. I would think that a document clearly expressing how things *should* work is a prerequisite to Alpha testing. Without it, how do we know if any game behavior is as intended, especially in the finer points of timing and the stack?

Ashran
09-30-2013, 11:34 PM
I apologize for the post above. I was unaware that bumping was against the CoC for the forum.

Gwaer
09-30-2013, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure testing card interaction is a job for us. By just playing games they can keep detailed logs of everything if necessary and run analytical on that pile of data. You could make a valid argument for client testing and feedback. Usability as well. But card behavior is something I'm pretty sure they have locked down.

Ashran
10-01-2013, 12:00 AM
But card behavior is something I'm pretty sure they have locked down.

Having worked at a decent amount of pre-release technical QA, I would say that there's often more distance between 'pretty sure' and 'locked down' than any developer would like. I will concede your point that it is the least likely type of bug to catch in this product, but if I see something questionable I would like a clear description of intended behavior to compare to the possible issue.

It is not difficult, for instance, to explain in simple terms how on-play effects from a troop should interact with the stack. Then when someone Burns my Nelebrin Scout as I apply his on-play ability to himself, I'll know what should happen. It really isn't *that* much work to put together a document with that information, especially compared to the amount of time they could save on erroneous bug reports that were first answered in the Rules.

Gwaer
10-01-2013, 12:21 AM
It also really isn't *that* necessary because the majority will likely be reporting bugs when they disagree with something document or no. I'm going to speak very plainly here. No alpha test in the world has contained 17000+ people. Most not even a tenth of that. There will be such a high signal to noise ratio to be virtually useless in all respects. This is not an alpha test. It's just alpha access thinking of it like you're going to be providing meaningful feedback is just going to lead to wasted time. If I were them I'd just be dumping all of the bug reports.

funktion
10-01-2013, 12:25 AM
There's nothing unique about this question...

Har har, back on topic, I definitely think that it's important to know how cards are "expected to function within the rules" or else we are not able to really test whether they are working correctly. It just turns into whether the user perceives whether they work correctly rather than whether the rules do.

Regarding the individual case here questioning how unique troops work, I really don't like the possibility of there being multiple copies of the same "unique" troop in play. Honestly I really liked the way MTG had done it up until recently, it made sense from a flavor standpoint that there can only be one. I don't care if it upset casual players when they weren't able to play their special snowflake card because someone else had the same snowflake in play. I like that you could clone something to blow it up etc.

Gwaer
10-01-2013, 12:37 AM
If we just can't move past the misconception that's we're alpha testers, I really don't think people are realizing the undertaking with a rules document. Not only does it have to be created the first time it has to be updated for every single change. If it gets even a little out of date then cards behaving in accordance with the changes but not yet outlined in an updated rules document causes even more confusion and bug reports. Motds, and change logs are the alpha testers bread and butter. In depth instructions come much later down the pipe.

Skirovik
10-01-2013, 12:47 AM
I believe it was mentioned in this thread that CZE would already have a "rulebook" so to speak. They would use it to test interactions between cards and to write the code in the first place.

I know it's a big ask to write a rulebook but they already have the rules, it's now just a matter of presentation. :)

Not really expecting this by Alpha, but hopefully sometime into the Alpha and certainly before Beta.

Ashran
10-01-2013, 02:43 AM
I'm going to speak very plainly here. No alpha test in the world has contained 17000+ people. There will be such a high signal to noise ratio to be virtually useless in all respects.

I hate to say it, but that's a finely made point. I see now that my techy background had me mentally prepped to be the best alpha tester I could be so as to contribute to The Cause. But the harsh light of your truth has exposed the emptiness and putrefaction at the core of my naive intentions.

Or maybe it's just your superior beard. Either way, I'll focus on coming up with slightly off-beat deck ideas and see if any of them have a wrench to throw into the prime deck builds. I might report a bug now and again just for old times sake.

ossuary
10-01-2013, 04:14 AM
While it's true that there will be a large signal to noise ratio, it's also true that a large majority of traditional "testers" are actually just gawkers, and these people (who are only actually there for the early access and don't provide constructive feedback of ANY kind) are generally easy to identify and then discount anything they have to say, from a programming perspective.

It is also possible to identify people who DO have something to contribute, even amongst all that noise, and those people can be extremely helpful in testing and identifying issues. Several years ago when I was working for an upstart gaming company, we were going to an early alpha phase of testing with just staff and about 100 volunteers that we had already vetted, and we then expanded to our modest forum community of 3,000 people. It only took us about 2 weeks to identify the 200 or so people out of that 3,000 that were worth listening to, and they provided us with invaluable information and feedback that made a real difference in our development progress. Everyone else was just along for the ride.

Xenavire
10-01-2013, 04:45 AM
I think Oss is right, that they will weed out the useless people pretty fast. I intend to report everything, whether it is listened to or not, because you never know what might be overlooked, or what might break things.

If everyone else is gawking, then so be it.

Gwaer
10-01-2013, 07:52 AM
If it took 2 weeks to weed through 3000 people that extrapolates out to around 12 weeks just to weed out people if you don't include the slowdown from slogging through a much larger deluge. Not to mention that no one signed up for this kickstarter to be an alpha tester. There are likely some of us with experience, I myself have participated in a great number of alphas. Generally the number of alpha testers is closer to 100 than 1000. It's a huge waste of resources to spend 12 weeks trying to identify potentially useful alpha testers. In my heart of hearts I hope the have an alpha test team that has been already testing, that will continue to test while we all are just playing around. Any bug report we files is logged but ignored, the alpha test team can continue to submit bugs for review as normal and they can take our bug reports to use just as reference or trying to track down the causes of difficult to find bugs.

Xenavire
10-01-2013, 08:08 AM
and they can take our bug reports to use just as reference or trying to track down the causes of difficult to find bugs.

This is more than enough to justify reporting bugs myself.

Gwaer
10-01-2013, 08:30 AM
Reporting bugs when you see them is great. Just don't expect to be fully briefed like an alpha tester is about what needs to be tested and it's intended function. We're little more than a glorified algorithm playing games as a test bed to be analyzed later. Not fully functioning people in that scenario.

ossuary
10-01-2013, 09:19 AM
For the most part, unless someone does something in particular to stand out, yes.

Tinuvas
10-01-2013, 11:09 AM
We're little more than a glorified algorithm playing games as a test bed to be analyzed later.

LOL. If it wasn't for the fact that I am going to be having the time of my life as a 'glorified algorithm', this would almost depress me!

mudkip
10-01-2013, 12:58 PM
Reporting bugs when you see them is great. Just don't expect to be fully briefed like an alpha tester is about what needs to be tested and it's intended function. We're little more than a glorified algorithm playing games as a test bed to be analyzed later. Not fully functioning people in that scenario.

Win-win!

I'm sure people would rather be treated as a number than be treated like an unpaid intern.