Card Limits

Has anyone brought up the topic of card limits, as in how many of one species you can have in a single deck? I'm sure there’d be exceptions for some cards, mostly smaller or lower food chain organisms.

But is it currently possible for someone to have a food chain set up where there are larger scale/food chain animals than prey would allow them to survive on?

If I set this up right (don't know the game that well):



Then in addition to overpopulation of a species there is also a lot of misinformation being given out, especially towards the location and diets of animals.

I dont think we can do much against the diet wrongs that will come from the game without severely restricting the card combinations available for the player and reducing game variability. Personally, I dont find the idea of lions eating black footed ferrets that problematic. It's a card game, and if we make sure to state that these chains dont have to make realistic sense, the kids should be able to draw the necessary conclusions.

As to card limits, the standard limit is 4 copies of any unique card for card games. I think it's reasonable to limit things to 4 for now and after playtesting see how things pan out.

Personally, I'd go for more than 4. Maybe, say, 6. I suppose it's a number best determined by playtesting.

It's a great point brought up here (I especially like the mention of how unrealistic having higher food chain organisms outnumber the lower ranked ones). However, I think in any ways, this would be a very poor way of building your cards from a strategic angle (i.e. everything hinges not only on the single habitat, but also the "few" foodrank#1's, etc). In some ways, it actually highlights why such an ecosystem would not be robust at all in the real world!

I'm sure someone may be capable of building a larger scale with more habitats and possible 'secure’ lower food chain organisms, but I through this together to point out the misinformation of: habitat, diet, sustainability, location, ect.

I know were trying to keep the game simple but if were going to leave it as is; shouldn't we at least put something on the cards relating to where that organism is found in the real world?

Personally, I dont find the idea of lions eating black footed ferrets that problematic.

Those are actually Ringtails not ferrets. They live in trees and how a lion would be able to get one and live off this sole food supple is a mystery to me :/

Although the game Xeko has the same thing occur, with species that would never cross paths meeting and in Xeko it's actually encouraged that you mix species in such a way.

Forbidding wrote:

Those are actually Ringtails not ferrets. They live in trees and how a lion would be able to get one and live off this sole food supple is a mystery to me :/

I wasnt looking at your chain specifically, I was using an example of two species that should never interact.

I think that putting in stipulations that result in accurate representations of food chains would result in stifled gameplay and deck building. For one, decks would become limited in how they would develop, as once a chain has been started, the end result is more or less determined with perhaps three or four choices. Also, gameplay between players would be greatly hindered. I think this is the most problematic point for accurate chains, since unless the two players bring similar decks to the table, there will be little to no interactions between their cards. It will basically boil down to who can make the most robust individual ecosystem while avoiding the occasional challenge.

Maybe there could be a relation between the scale of a species and the copies one can have in a deck. I know it isn't a general rule, but the smaller a animal is, the more common it will be.

OTapia wrote:Maybe there could be a relation between the scale of a species and the copies one can have in a deck. I know it isn't a general rule, but the smaller a animal is, the more common it will be.

This seems like a good idea. Since there need to be low-rank cards before high-rank ones can be played, it makes a lot of sense to encourage weighting the probabilities of getting various cards so that people won't be as likely to be stuck with a lot of high-rank cards and nowhere to play them.

OTapia wrote:Maybe there could be a relation between the scale of a species and the copies one can have in a deck. I know it isn't a general rule, but the smaller a animal is, the more common it will be.

That's such a simple but awesome idea!

On that point, how about the rule is 10-Scale # copies, so that the 1s can have up to 9 of the same, but the 9 size has only one? (That's 45 creatures, if they're all the same type all the way through - still 15 cards to fill with environmental challenges and the like.)

I'd add a few to that, just for the sake of flexibility -- if for some strange reason someone wants to pump up a deck with high-ranks, they should be able to at least kinda make it work. Perhaps 10 - scale + 1 or 2 or so. Not a very big offset for the lower ranks, but once you get to very high scales it really would make a difference.

Having just playtested this game, all that needs to happen there is for the Habitat at the base to change due the various Event cards and the WHOLE thing collapses. So card limit would be more relevant to low value cards than high values. High ranked cards get offed a LOT.

I think a 'starting card' perhaps with a picture of the world or something should be played first at the start of every game and any habitat/species can be played from there; it'll be like a wild card.

This perhaps may eliminate the issue of different decks.

Forbidding wrote:I think a 'starting card' perhaps with a picture of the world or something should be played first at the start of every game and any habitat/species can be played from there; it'll be like a wild card.

This perhaps may eliminate the issue of different decks.

Hasn't this already been discussed at great length elsewhere? It sounds rather a lot like the home card idea that we've already worked through thoroughly and integrated into the rule-set on the website.

Hasn't this already been discussed at great length elsewhere? It sounds rather a lot like the home card idea that we've already worked through thoroughly and integrated into the rule-set on the website.

To me it seems placing a random environment card and saying it’s a 'wild' card is a little confusing, especially it the card layout gets as large as has been mentioned in the play testing.

You're right -- that would be confusing. That's why we don't do it. You've clearly got a major misunderstanding. The game rules do not say to put down a random environment card as a wildcard. Each player puts down a "Home" card, and habitat cards are played around them. It's basically the same thing as your idea, except with two cards instead of just one, which allows greater variation. Didn't you ever read this thread?

I have but it was quite a while ago (maybe a week?) and it is basically the same thing anyway and still confusing.

Here's the Home card:
http://phylogame.org/2010/05/12/home-card-2/



Here's the diagram


Home card starts in play and is not a Habitat. It's a neutral. (when I was playesting, I honestly forgot to print Home cards and used two boxes of Gloom as Home cards. they do nothing other than space)

Ok that makes sense now. I'm usally good at looking and reading through all the cards too. Don't know how I missed that one.

davehwng wrote:It's a great point brought up here (I especially like the mention of how unrealistic having higher food chain organisms outnumber the lower ranked ones). However, I think in any ways, this would be a very poor way of building your cards from a strategic angle (i.e. everything hinges not only on the single habitat, but also the "few" foodrank#1's, etc). In some ways, it actually highlights why such an ecosystem would not be robust at all in the real world!

What about no card limits at all? It would make each player have to decide by themselves whether it is a good idea to put ten bullfinches in his, and see what happens. The consequence of no card limits is that all cards have to be balanced to make sure none of them are overpowered in numbers. Some cards could be unique, allowing only one copy of the card in play at the same time (this mechanic is seen in the vampire ccg). Playing another copy would result in the destruction of both, or it would simply not be possible.

But when it comes to events, I suppose no card limit would be devastating, since there is no restriction on how many events you can play.

Lundefaul wrote:

davehwng wrote:It's a great point brought up here (I especially like the mention of how unrealistic having higher food chain organisms outnumber the lower ranked ones). However, I think in any ways, this would be a very poor way of building your cards from a strategic angle (i.e. everything hinges not only on the single habitat, but also the "few" foodrank#1's, etc). In some ways, it actually highlights why such an ecosystem would not be robust at all in the real world!

What about no card limits at all? It would make each player have to decide by themselves whether it is a good idea to put ten bullfinches in his, and see what happens. The consequence of no card limits is that all cards have to be balanced to make sure none of them are overpowered in numbers. Some cards could be unique, allowing only one copy of the card in play at the same time (this mechanic is seen in the vampire ccg). Playing another copy would result in the destruction of both, or it would simply not be possible.

But when it comes to events, I suppose no card limit would be devastating, since there is no restriction on how many events you can play.

The current rules work as you suggest -- no limits. Generally that's considered a bad idea in games, because balance is never perfect, and so some cards will be better than others. Putting a limit on the quantity of a card that you can have reduces the impact of this. This topic gives a good example of the stuff that can happen otherwise. You touch on this problem when you mention event cards, but the issue extends beyond those.`

And besides that, decks without much variety are usually pretty predictable to play against. And it's not like the rules are 100% set in stone -- if someone really wants to see how it would work, they could just get a friend to agree to play them without card limits.

Oh, and by the way, welcome! Nice to see a new face around here

Rather than card limit, I suggest point limit system like the one being used in Yu-Gi-Oh! The Sacred Cards and Match Attax. So, say, for example, a deck can only has 250 maximum point. This will prevent Carnivore Spam in the players' decks.