Card Playability vs Intent

by Scott Hagarty

When designing new talent cards, one of the biggest balancing acts is playability vs intent. During a recent deck design moment this dichotomy was clearly revealed to me and illustrated just how important the balancing act is. Getting your intent across in a card, while at the same time making it playable and easy to understand can sometimes be a very difficult thing.

As an example, I'll use my Acklay and Nexu deck, with the specific card "Swipe". My original Swipe read as follows:

"A4, Playing this card does not count as an action, unless a Nexu card was played immediately prior to this one."

At first glance there is nothing wrong with this card, and it wasn't until I started playtesting it with someone else that I noticed a problem. Consider the following card play scenarios:

1. Play Swipe (it counts as a non-action)

2. Play a Nexu 5/1 (counts as first action)

3. Play a second Swipe (counts as second action as per the wording on the card)

4. Turn ends

There is nothing wrong with this scenario. But try this one:

1. Play Swipe (it counts as a non-action)

2. Draw a card (counts as 1st action)

3. Play a second swipe...

Now what? Does the second swipe count as a non-action? The last card I played was a Nexu card, so probably not...but wait a minute, the last action I took immediately prior was to draw a card, so maybe it should count as a non-action. At this point I realized the wording was not clear. So, what is my intent with this card?

My intent is to try to portray the fact that Nexu is extremely quick, but tires quickly. So, I wanted Swipe to count as a non-action, but with a penalty if Nexu played a card right before Swipe was played. So, it would count as a non-action if it was the first card played, or if you drew a card before playing it, or if a non-nexu card was played right before it. But, that intent isn't clear on the wording. So, I tried all kinds of wordings from adding "previous action" to "previous card play", etc. But nothing made it any clearer. Previous action would imply an action that counted, so if I played two swipes back to back, since the first swipe didn't count as an action, does that count as a "previous action"? Here are the possible turn scenarios I wanted to work for Swipe:

1. Play Swipe (non-action)

2. Play non-nexu card or draw a card (1st action)

3. Play Swipe (non-action)

4. Play or draw a card (2nd action)

1. Play a non-nexu card or draw (1st action)

2. Play Swipe (non-action)

3. Play or draw a card (second action)

1. Play Swipe (non-action)

2. Play Swipe (1st action)

3. Play or draw a card (2nd action)

You get the idea now.

Finally, it was suggested I move the "non-action" part of the effect away from Nexu and onto the "next" action that happens. So, an alternative wording could have been this:

"A4, After resolving this attack, you may either draw a card or play a non-Nexu card without using an action."

This allows all of the above scenarios to happen and with a clearer wording. However, now the original intent of the card is lost. My intent was for it to portray the fact that Nexu is extremely quick and fast, thus Swipe doesn't count as an action, but he tires quickly, so Swipe has a conditional in that if a Nexu card is played immediately prior, then it DOES count as an action. As the above wording solution takes that "quickness" out of Swipe and moves it to the action of playing a non-nexu card or drawing card, it ends up having nothing to do with Nexu. So, I settled on this wording to make the card as clear as possible while still retaining my intent:

"A4, If this was your first action this turn, or you previously either just drew a card or played a non-nexu card, then playing this card does not count as an action."

I'm done right? Wrong. This wording is complicated and requires you to think about what it means. There are very few cards in the Hasbro dozen that require a person to sit there and think about "how" to play the card. In most cases you read the card and do what it says, plain and simple. This wording is convoluted and complicated. While it does retain my original intent, and the wording is clear, it is complicated, and therefore decreases the playability of the card. So, after some reflecting I ultimately went with this wording:

"A4, Playing this card does not count as an action, unless a Swipe has already been played this turn."

So, I sacrificed some of my original intent for the sake of playability. However, the card is MUCH simpler in its design, much easier to understand and still *basically* retains my intent of wanting Nexu to be quick, but tire quickly. Nexu can always play at least one swipe for a non-action each turn. There are less scenarios for the card, which reduces the flexibility of the card, but the new wording simplifies the card and makes it much easier to play in the following scenarios:

1. Play Swipe (non-action)

2. Play or draw a card (1st action)

3. Play or draw a card (2nd action)

1. Play or Draw a card (1st action)

2. Play Swipe (non-action)

3. Play or Draw a card (2nd action)

In summary, the balancing act between intent and playability is always tricky. Sometimes we tip the scales more toward intent and less on playability, but when we do that, we must be mindful of what is being sacrificed. If the intent is so complex that any wording renders it unclear, then something needs to give to make the card clear and playable. Coming up with a card that portrays a "move" that is seen on screen or in canon print can be great for a deck, but if the intent of that "move" in the card wording is unclear or unplayable, then the card and the deck as a whole suffers because of it. In general simpler cards are easier to play, thus increasing the plability of any given deck. Complicated cards aren't bad necessarily, but they should be used with caution.

back to Component Design