Animal symbiosis

Has anyone mentioned animal partnerships as something to include in the game or as an extension?

Some animals could not survive without thier partner like the Honeyguide Bird and Ratel. The Honeyguide finds the food (witch the Ratel cannot do) and the Ratel opens it(witch the Honeyguide cannot do).

I think for such partnerships when a card is drawn, lets say the Ratel, it cannot be put into play with out the Honeyguide to accompany it. Or have the person search through thier deck for the Honeyguide.

Could be another keyword, whereby two species cards are required together to play. CON - need both of them, PRO can play both with a single action?

I was thinking about this also. There are different kinds of symbiosis, and I think it would be benifical to explore them all, albiet in a simplified fashion. It would make the most sense to group everything into "Mutualism" "Commensalism" or "Parasitism," with special text on cards that have specific requirements, such as neither can exist without the other, etc.

From a gameplay prosective, there needs to be some benefit to trying to play two species that require another connection, in essence another vulnerability to attack from the opponent. I believe that making Mutualist relationships count as 4 species (each counts as 2 when together, because they both benefite from the relationship) commensalists count as 3 (One benefits and counts as 2, while the other is neither harmed nore helped and counts as 1) and parasitism counts as it does already in the ruleset would create a good risk vs. reward senario.

True symbiotes that need each other to survive might be best represented as two species on one card - and if possible, to have both of their size numbers habitats, and strengths/weaknesses together. It would make a very cramped card, potentially, though, but some CCG cards have very small text on them as it is.

Ones that can survive on their own but do better with compatible species around might need a Keyword and, say, the appropriate Latin of who they are compatible with? (ex, "Symbiote - when within X distance units of a Mammalia card, both cards counts as one unit with the combined Scale #s, food requirements, and weaknesses of both cards.")

Parasites, I think, are a keyword, and can be a standalone card describing what they use as hosts (ex. "Parasite - Preys on Mammalia - Kills target card after X turns.")

I disagree that mutualists that cannot survive without the other should be represented on a single card. I think you're over estimating the amount of space that a card can hold, as single species cards are already pushing it limit on overcrowding. The simpler solution would be to either allow play of the card only if both species are in the hand, or to allow the player to search the deck for the related species card.

From a gameplay standpoint, there is a good risk/reward mix that follows. If I were to draw one related species, I get the benefit of going through my deck and playing another card, raising my species count by 2 in one move (Or 3, depending on if we decide these relationships give bonus points). The risk is that now, should my opponent succeed in removing any one of those species from play, the other will be lost as well.

The way to handle symbiotic relationships: On a symbiote's species-card, we stat it out the way it would be *without* its symbiotic partner -- but! The Special Powers section describes all the stuff the symbiote gets when its partner is around.

Cubist wrote:The way to handle symbiotic relationships: On a symbiote's species-card, we stat it out the way it would be *without* its symbiotic partner -- but! The Special Powers section describes all the stuff the symbiote gets when its partner is around.

I like this idea for self-sufficient organisms that merely benefit from each other, but some organisms truly can't live alone. This wouldn't make any sense for them.

I like this idea for self-sufficient organisms that merely benefit from each other, but some organisms truly can't live alone. This wouldn't make any sense for them.

Why can't we add something like this:
Requires: Must be played to a habitat with Genus Homarus in play.

Wootfish wrote:

Cubist wrote:The way to handle symbiotic relationships: On a symbiote's species-card, we stat it out the way it would be *without* its symbiotic partner -- but! The Special Powers section describes all the stuff the symbiote gets when its partner is around.

I like this idea for self-sufficient organisms that merely benefit from each other, but some organisms truly can't live alone. This wouldn't make any sense for them.

Sure it would. It means that if you have one of those species which truly cannotmake it on its own, you simply don't bother playing that species unless and until you also have its symbiotic partner-species -- at which point, you play both spec ies-cards at once.

Why don't we just simply make it removed from play next turn when it is not adjacent to the needed species to survive?