Game design general /gdg/

Yes that picture was more of an example, but first I guess ill need to work on Hex scale and how the weapons reflect that. I'm not striving for utmost realism as I am for appropriate attack LoS, such as a pistol may only be able to shoot at greatest accuracy at 2 hexes or less, sniper rifles will not be able to target unless 3 or more hexes away, but then there are accuracy penalties for engaging at the closest possible range.

I guess more arcadey than simulation for this version of the game if that makes sense.

For LoS, I always advocate abstraction. I use size categories for my own projects (Things of the same or larger size block LoS to things behind it, give cover to everything else otherwise).

Any.

Yes, introducing cover mechanics, and as you state "abstraction" to my system is important. I am also working on a customizable play board where tiles such as cover etc. can be added or removed depending on the players inclination.

First i must work on the battle system, then work on the procedural map creation/ map integration.

Check out how Battletech does it

Well, let me ask this: Considering one of the flaws of deckbuilding games is a lack of meaningful player interaction, in what ways can a deckbuilding game be built to remedy that?

One such idea I had was an auction system. After each player takes a turn, an Auction Turn occurs, where each player secretly chooses a card to buy and openly spends any amount of resources (let's say Coins) to attempt to get a card for its Bid cost (which is lower than its Buy cost) or higher. The upshot is that the player can essentially get a card for less Coins than if he/she had bought it. The consequence is that multiple players could bid on the same card, and thus be forced to try to outbid the other player for said card.

There anything here for designing card games ?

Spending some time working on a class centric DnD 5e ripoff called Desks and Directives, a tabletop in which the players are workers on permanent shift in a megacorp building.

The idea is each class describes the job and roleplay aspects of said job e.g. janitor is the sneaky notrogue because he can pass anywhere unseen.

Later on users can "prestige" into Tier 2 classes such as corporate lawyer, head chef etc.

What do you guys think about this? I'm also really unsure how to deal with the prestige class type of system, whether it should be after 5 levels in a class or ten or suchlike. In short I'm conflicted between sticking to the 5e OGL or diverging from it.

Got a question about dice pool probabilities.

I'm working with some other Veeky Forumsanons on a homebrew system based on the video game The World Ends With You, over here . Out core mechanic is based on the resolution system in Tenra Bansho Zero, where you take a pool of dice (in our case d10s) based on one of your Stats, and try to roll at or under a target number based on one of your Skills (1-7). Each die that comes up under that TN counts as a success.

Is there an Anydice function which can help me map out the probabilities of success, or any other resources that can help me?

The more you diverge more work you will have to do. But if that's good or bad . . .

reposting this yet again, you guys have been giving me some great ideas so I figured I'd ask for some more feedback. Might dump PDF for more feedback if there is interest.

I'm making an RPG where the characters are part of a village in a post-black-plague fantasy zombie apocalypse with tons of weird undead out there.

I want to make mechanics that focus on the village with characters spending downtime and having Downtime abilities to improve the village.

Population basically functions as hit points for the village and each month there is a roll on the Fortune table to see what happens (Drought, raids, etc)

One thing I am trying to decide is whether to use boring old spell points, or to do an at-will / daily system for spellcasting. Spell points are nice but you have to remember different costs for different spells and you also have to erase and rewrite the number of points almost constantly.

The at-will / daily system would be basically you know X spells, the daily spells are shit like light and magic missile type of spells, as well as some slightly more powerful attack spells (obviously no healing since they can be done at will), and then daily spells can each be cast only once. You cannot double up on a daily spell. So if you cast a Fireball or a Time Stop, that'd be it for the day for that particular spell. Also a lot of the more powerful spells have downsides. Like the only kill spell in the game has a pretty significant chance of also killing the caster, and there is no resurrection.

Basically I am going for low fantasy with lots of resource management and stuff. Any advice? Yes I have read the Quiet Year I've got a 50 page work in progress game but I always appreciate ideas and feedback.

here use this as a base and if you have problems, try looking up on the articles and basic commands...
anydice.com/program/8d45

>>Obviously there are systems where you level up individual skills instead of one all-encompassing number
Yes, there are plenty of them

>> the party votes on what each character's "big moment" was, and depending on that moment, different level up rewards are available.
Said systems with individual level up usually leave it to the GM choice what and how PCs can level up, the recommendation is to only allow skills that the player tried to learn or use in game.

>>The immediate problem I see is that, as campaigns progress, characters that didn't specialize in a given field are going to have a hard time breaking into that field.
the last edition of Urban Armies uses the opposite of this rule, you only get to level up your skill when you fail in a significant test, meaning that the better you get the harder it will be for you to level up a skill. Which btw makes lots of sense as we tend to learn more from our failures rather than from our successes

The system I'm working with relies on "soft" levels, where you have to "gather" a few skill/power points in order to reach your next level and unlock new powers/higher skill caps

I don't remember if there are card-games-specif stuff on the resources, but you can ask more specific stuff around here and someone probably will answer sooner or later...

Thanks

Any thoughts on how to make a Savage Worlds esque damage system without using exploding dice?

Made a skeleton for the card game I'm thinking about making. I though about it having a progressive increment of resources, like in hearthstone but instead of it being used to pay for cards like in mtg, it would be the number of actions you could perform kinda like in yugioh. Something like, you can play 2 card on your first turn, 3 on the second, 4 on third and then it would stop incrementing. But I'm not entirely sure yet.

>>like in hearthstone but instead of it being used to pay for cards like in mtg, it would be the number of actions you could perform kinda like in yugioh.
Mechanically there's no difference, increasing "action points" as resource would work exactly like mana in Hearthstone...I would recommend naming it this way if there are other non-card-related actions a player can do with those points. (E.g drawing cards being an action you need to pay for)...

As for the skeleton, it looks pretty default, and you gonna probably need to resize some of those boxes

It though about it having 3 or 4 main card types:

Units, damage dealers no difference from either mtg's creatures or hearthstone's minions
Arts, temporary effects like instants or sorceries in mtg.
Charms, continuous effects like in either artifacts or enchantments in mtg. I don't like the name charm, its not generic enough but its all that I could think of.
Ruler, they would represent the player and should be meaningful, I though before about not allowing them to be affected by cards but I'm not so sure now. They should not feel like commanders or planeswalkers from mtg but more like character cards from vanguard.

>Mechanically there's no difference,
Actually there is, both in hearthstone or magic cards have costs based around how "advantageous" their effect is supposed to be. You can't just play ancient one, em'rakul or any big spell on your first turn (without some sort of convoluted combo).

In the game I propose you could because you can play any 2 cards on your first turn, but the deal is that such cards should never exist or if they did, they would need to be properly taxing in some other way (paying LP, sacrificing units, etc...).

And I just realize that the skeleton do have a cost box . . . Huh, must have been a freudian slip.

>As for the skeleton, it looks pretty default, and you gonna probably need to resize some of those boxes
Yup, it looks really bland and average. I though about diminishing the atk/def and type/subtype boxes, and increasing the image box, or having just art on the whole card, except in the box parts of course.

Well since bricking is one of the worst situations it can happen in a card game I though handling it this way.

The max hand size would be six, and when a player would draw, they have two options:
He can either draw cards until he or she hits max hand size or mulligan a new one. It would have some conditions like you must draw up to max if you have 1 or 0 cards in your hand.

>>And I just realize that the skeleton do have a cost box
I think this made for most of the confusion...

>>Ruler, they would represent the player and should be meaningful

Which kind of game modifiers they would have?What would be the difference between playing with William III or Salazar as my Ruler?

>Which kind of game modifiers they would have?What would be the difference between playing with William III or Salazar as my Ruler?
Kek, while a ruler's effect don't necessarily need to be big, it should change the fundamentals of the game, in a way that can't be easily emulated with the other cards types.

One example I was thinking earlier.
>Your max hand size is 8
>Your max action modifier is -1
>You may choose to skip your Draw Phase. If you do, put any 1 card from your Deck into your Hand.
>Once per turn, you may discard 2 cards. If you do, draw 1 card.

Some cards may be able to achieve some of those effects, but not a single card could have all of them nor would give the player them from the game start.

What kind of apsect ratio and page size do you folks like for your pdfs? I've been thinking of switching to a 16:10 ratio but I'm unsure on what the proper page size should be.

Are there any cards games that have something like a second life total that can't be recovered and is used as a resource for certain abilities?

Like you could have Life and Soul. There could be a cheap and powerful Life gain card that incurs some Soul loss, and certain powerful sources that inflict Soul damage.

you have auction mechanic in spartacus board game

at least give core mechanics its hard to say anything like this

pic somewhat related, though you are talking about a game that has this mechanic at its core.

It's certainly doable for a Life/Soul mechanic, though I'd imagine that the best balance would be, like you said, to create an powerful effect at the cost of Soul. Cards that directly damage Soul would upset any reliability of Soul costs, even ones that dealt the source's controller Soul damage in exchange.

I'm also running on the assumption that starting Soul would be a much smaller amount than Life. On top of that, I'm figuring it's not represented by anything on the board; it's just a number that can be changed.

I'll have to look at that game. It looks long, which has been a bit of a turnoff for me (short attention span means library of >1h games).

If I can poke everyone's brain here, or at least those who have played deckbuilding games (Dominion, Ascension, 'Cerebrus Engine,' Tanto Cuore, Legendary, etc), what do you like about them? What is it you hate? For me, the concept of putting together a strategy over the course of the game is nice, but it kills me that many of the games become 3+ people playing Solitaire.

>3+ people playing Solitaire
That's a big one about deck building games for me. Rarely does it feel like you're interacting with the other players.

Bleh, I should really remeber to keep my name on these things.

even though I keep having trouble exporting fonts

drive.google.com/open?id=0BypY9idoJAJxd1RNdGlQUU0zcWs

another!

got a wargame way on the backburner. Atlantean-esque elitists led by philosopher kings (customizable by philosophy) are the central human faction.

For me, it's expression through customization. That could be through strategy, theme, or gimmick.
Pretty sure one the magic player names (timmy, johnny,etc) describe this kind of player more or less

>3+ people playing Solitaire
Is there any easy way to avoid this or is it literally the main challenge?

My rough idea is that the game builds up to a point and then soul effects start being used and it changes completely. Not sure how to accomplish that.

I've felt Dominion was on the right track; by having all the available cards known throuought the game, players can build their decks with consideration as to the opponent's strategy. I don't have much experience with the expansions, so I can't say if they actually took advantage of it in that way; the original still played like Solitaire.

Keep in mind that players will gravitate towards cards that can end games, regardless of how much Soul it costs. Therefore, I'm actually going to suggest something contradicting to earlier; make Soul abundant, maybe Soul 40 / Life 20 for a start, but have it be used commonly as a resource. Think of it as Hearthstone's Mana in reverse; Players start with a lot of Soul, but it's finite. If it runs dry, they lose. If they run out of life, they lose. Make plenty of cards that use Soul, and balance the game around that.

>While I'm still on a roll...

Look at different mechanics that can take advantage of it. Small soul costs to flood the board with multiple spells and minions. Big costs for stuff that's hard to get rid of. Effects that lead to wasted Soul (Not actually taking Soul away, but rather making players waste Soul to accomplish something. Taxing comes to mind, though it should be part of its own faction.) Revisiting 'Soul Damage,' a counterspell card could be considered a good way to cause 'Soul damage' by denying the opponent the card without refunding the cost. Just keep in mind that the tradeoff needs to have some sting.

And of course there are going to be cards that do not cost Soul, but the main point of them is that they either exist as very niche answers or are overall weaker cards versus ones that cost Soul.

>Final note, then bed

Actually, I went a bit too low with that Soul. Soul 100 / Life 20 would work better. Of course, whether that remains constant or not is up to you; having Identities (ala Netrunner) that have different starting Soul / Life is also appealing but requires its own tuning.

So here's my first idea:

Lets say we use Duel Masters resource system. For each card you have in your mana zone, soul costs are reduced by 1. So it's a question of how long you wait for those cards to become affordable. Many cards could also be played from the mana zone with an added soul cost. Soul damage cards would exist as a way to punish people who start spending soul too soon.

not 100% sure if i should be asking this here but i was wondering how to stat a lever action pistol like pic related that could allow the use of spread bullets in pathfinder

Also, this would be how you balance cards that grant burst mana, since you're usually incurring a greater soul cost by jumping ahead.

Hi /gdg/, I was hoping you'd help me with this game I'm attempting to come up with.

In a larger scope, I wish to develop a complete RPG system but for now I want to focus on the Combat mechanics. I wanted to make a game that was a sort of "Boss Rush" where a team of 4 players go up against a single powerful enemy. Basically BBEG all the time. Most of my inspiration to do such a thing stems from the fact that no one seems to have developed a Monster Hunter tabletop RPG. I've also drawn influences from Evolve and Dark Souls.

Here are some of the Key points I want this combat system to hit:

>1v4 Asymmetrical Battle System

>For the team of 4, different weapons

>For the 1, increased Health and damage and special attacks

>Hopefully minimal RPG

>For now no character creation. Players will pick from a roster of pre-determined characters.

>Use of miniatures and Grids.

To attain these points I've thought of the following mechanics.

>Players have a Stamina pool. Each action expends stamina. Actions range from attacking, dodging and moving. Larger weapons obviously have higher stamina costs to swing around so swinging larger weapons would mean less options for the player.

>Set amount of stamina will return per game round.

>Movement is based on how much stamina a player will spend while dodging would make a player move a set distance.

>For the 1, localized damage. The 1 will have specific hitzones that take differing amounts of damage and have are harder or easier to hit.

>The 1 will have telegraphed movements when using an ability. For example a charge special ability for the 1 will make the 1 travel a specific distance. It falls on the four to figure out what tell telegraphs what ability.

>Each attack, both for the team of 4 and the 1 have specific ranges. For example a sword will be hitting a straight line in front of the players. An explosion will cover a specific amount of tiles etc.

cont..

Cont…

>Each turn the players queue up their actions spending Stamina points. When everyone has spent their stamina points, or have passed their turns all the actions resolve at the same time. If a player swings a sword in an arc, and the monster ends up in a space where the damage arc resolves, the monster will take a hit and vice versa.

That’s about all I’ve thought up. Please give me any feedback or criticisms and generally what you think of what I’ve thought up.

Been a while so I'm dropping off the asset sheets I've been making for Grid-Lock Combat, a side-scrolling skirmish with a character-action appeal. Would have slapped this into a .pdf but the program used (paint.net) doesn't allow for it (as far as I know)

Sorry about forgetting to remove the tripcode. Here are the race skills, with demonstration sprites showing what visual cues would take place when using each skill in particular.

The armory so then players know which items do what and how to best employ them. I don't have a glossary set up on the page yet but that's next on the docket.

And some of the enemies not shown in the demonstration section. These ones are naturally element-based, so using their parts in a crafting recipe holds a high chance of the result being of the same element.

Looks great!

Edited the skeleton a bit, mostly just resized the stats and type boxes, and added then added it into MSE.
I though about using nanDECK but I though it was too simple.

MSE?

What's the public opinion on wound tables?

Magic Set Editor.

So to review:
-Soul is like life but there are no ways to recover it.
-You lose if it reaches 0.
-Every mana cost comes with a soul cost.
-Each card in your mana zone reduces soul costs by 1 in addition to providing mana.
-Any card can be placed into the mana zone.
-Every card has "recovery cost", which is an amount of extra soul you can pay to play it from the mana zone.

So this system makes "land destruction" much more interesting because the mana zone is like a second hand. Cards that generate burst mana also enable playing more cards rather than playing bigger cards, and burning soul from somebody limits the effectiveness of their mana zone as a second hand.

I don't even believe Mana should exist in this game; that is what Soul is for.

Card games without incremental resources don't work.

what games have this mechanic?
Skills determinate size of dice pool of d6, you take best result and all 6 are +1, sum that to your attribute and compare to DC

what's the most reasonable solution to keeping track of ammunition in my spacey rp?
It might be to just keep track of it normally, but I've been thinking lately that there might a better choice design-wise. Ammunition running out isn't supposed to be a big part or a big problem, so maybe there's no need to keep track of it, just let the players have practically infinite (unless they try to abuse it)? Maybe just keeping track of magazines? Rolling die to determine ammo spent?
On one hand I really feel there might be a good solution to this that isn't "just keep track of the god damn ammunition"
on the other hand, I'm starting to think there isn't
input?

One solution somebody had for tracking ammo in 3.5 was to roll an extra die to determine whether you had the ammo a concept also used for abstract wealth systems. A 1 usually signified you didn't have ammo. You could use that idea with ammo by attaching a die size to magazine size (pistols have d6 ammo, SMGs have d8, LMGs have d10 etc,). if you roll a one you need to reload. Once you've burned through your available mags, you'll have to buy a refill. Statistically it should work well. It shouldn't cause much issue if you are luckier than average according to your post, but there is a chance someone could be particularly unlucky, causing them to burn through more ammo than expected.

Been working on a cardgame for a fucking long time, and we're finally putting shit together to hopefully fund in September. Anyone have any experience kickstarting? Any feedback?

Kickstarter is damn near a total fucking crapshoot. All the success stories don't give the whole story and even if you have everything go right, it can still fail.

Go to conventions.
Talk about the game to people.
Get a fan base going.
THEN launch a kickstarter.

On top of that, take every piece of advice that works for you.
>Don't do anything cringeworthy.
>Don't try to be funny.
>No one cares about you or your team, only the product.

We haven't been able to take it to conventions, but we mention the game to a lot of people, and we're demoing at local stores. The reason the kickstarter is in September is for the exact reason of we've been spending an entire summer trying to get momentum going.

As far the advice:
>Don't do anything cringeworthy
We don't plan on it
>Don't try to be funny
I straight up told our marketing/PR person to take a hike if they try to get cutesy
>No one cares about you
We only plan on briefly talking about ourselves, like less than a minute. The rest is entirely about the product.

Thanks user!

So, I've been working on a resolution mechanic for wargame melee combat, and I've found something I really like. It's for a pre-ww2 tech level game, nothing alien or supernatural, and the focus really isn't on the infantry, so I decided on something simple, diceless, and brutal to make it go fast.

An infantryman kills another infantryman by moving through him. It's assumed that he speared the other guy on his bayonet or killed him with an entrenching tool and kept running. You can only charge in a straight line, and if you hit a second enemy infantryman in one turn, you stop.

How does this sound as the basis of a melee system? Any obvious problems?

Note that cannons and artillery are present and have areas of effect, so you won't want to bunch up your infantry into pike blocks.

It'll depend on the scale. Biggest glaring issue is it can make combat more appealing than shooting, so it may turn into a rush to get close, but not too close, to the enemy in order to "run them over".

apge 10 bump. After a full scrapping of my previous project, I'm still working on a minimum before I post.

I might just try to rewrite a project stuck on a malfunctioning computer. It'll be easier to get something comment worthy.

>After a full scrapping of my previous project
That's a shame.

I almost have my second game ready for public playtesting. It's exciting. My first one is in a final revision state, then I'm going to have a limited printing so I can demo it at cons before launching a kickstarter for a full printing. Every group I playtested it with loved it so far. This is the game I posted about in a thread about a month ago about a friend ripping it off at a company he works for. I sent them a cease and desist and as far as they claim they won't be pursuing any such project.

This second one is way more ambitious and I haven't seen a game with this gimmick before. If testing works out we'll do a few revision rounds and then take it on tour for like 5-6 months while doing twice monthly public test nights.

Exciting.

Atrributes are ranked 1-5, Skills are ranked 1-10. Attributes cost a little bit more to increase. All rolls are made by 2d10, pick the higher one + relevant attribute and skill. Does this sound like shit?

I can't stress getting something in a tangible presentable state that real people get to mess with before going to kickstarter enough.

I did work with a company that does board game development and publishing and they had a kickstarter project that was funded pretty fast.

They hadn't worked out most everything.

Their marketing people offered all this stuff as stretch goals that the designers never would have wanted to add on.

It was a colossal mess for them to jame all that crap in to one game and it really hurt the game in a lot of ways.

On that end, don't have wild stretch goals you haven't at least already worked out enough to know if they are viable.

We have it mostly put together. All that needs finishing is the rest of the art, and getting actual high-quality print/production done. Graphically the frames, logos, and symbols are done. Designing, and developmentally the first set is entirely completed and we have been doing playtests with groups to tweak balance issues.

We have admittedly subpar printed proxies done and templated, so it's not like we are totally going in blind. Like I said we've been working on this for a fucking long time (I first started designing the game three years ago).

Related to this, can some helpful person tell me if any dice calculators can give you a curve on the "roll x, pick highest" formula? How?

What exactly do you want ?

well, for example, what kind of an curve would 2d10, pick the higher one, give?

anydice.com/program/8d7c

Quick question, trying to design a game where 3-6 players control fantasy gangs in a city trying to stop the police/government from creating a device that'll STOP ALL CRIME. Among many issues, I'm not sure how best to do the map. Should I have a bunch of hexes/squares to represent locations/adjacency? Should I have locations represented on a grid? Should I make a graph where each node represents a location?

I'm leaning towards the first with districts so you can guarantee certain nodes will be roughly in a certain area. Thoughts?

Changed the skeleton again, made skeletons for the other card types besides units.

The first one is for ethers (temporary effects) & techs (continuous effects), the second one is for units and the last one is for rulers.

I though about handling combat like this:

The attacker chooses what units he wishes to attack with from those units who can attack, and divide them into 2 groups. A group can consist of 0 up to N, where N is the total number of possible attacking units.

One group will attack the defending player's units and the other will attack the defending player's ruler.

The attacker decides which group will strike first.

If the group is attacking the ruler the defending player can choose what units will block and how. But if the group is attacking the units the attacking player will decide how it will go

Hello again guys. I've managed to finish the basic skeleton of this system.

Can I ask you guys to look through it and offer some criticisms? Thanks.

It's a 28mm game. And I kind of want to encourage melee because it's a trench warfare game

What is the basic resolution mechanic?

None that I know so far, but it's interesting, making attributes contribute with fixed and skills adding the variance is quite nice...you just have to be careful with balancing, otherwise it makes for some great times, for instance, a high agility may auto-evade most area-attacks whereas slower characters need to roll their skill....

That depends a lot on what is most relevant for the game, for instance should this be a "mission-based" game an approach close to pic would be good

Okay, I need some math help. Say you have five options, of which you can pick any unique combination two (order does not matter, ie AB=BA).

Say each of these has three choices of three options apiece (ie choose one of ABC, one of DEF and one of GHI, again order doesn't make them different).

My thinking is the first problem is 10 combinations and the last is 3^3=27, so the total is 270 combinations.

Is this correct?

Sitting duck for a whole queuing phase for surprise seems a bit extreme (supposing players have a bigger pool of SP in late game)...
>>Actions that displace a
combatant may only be added the Combat Queue once per Queuing Phase.
Does this means that you can only move, run or dodge in a given turn? Other than that the only thing I can recommend is to use "instant" resolution as announce first resolve latter can get messy (queuing itself would require an order or it would need to be simultaneous/blind for balance issues)

It seems correct, assuming you can't repeat an option on the first one (e.g: AA) and that in the second step all options are different (each one of those three choices offer three unique options)

Ops...the thing about sitting duck is about surprise turns...

Okay, and say you have one slot with five options, three slots with 22 options and one slot with 4 options?

>5
>22
>22
>22
>4

30800 possibilities, assuming those 22 options are the same the three times, without repetitions and the order doesn't matter....why are you calculating those odds/numbers, just to know the amount of possible characters available at a given system?

Yeah. It's blatantly ripped from Guild Wars 2

What would be some good sci-fantasy classes?

Is there a way to do d% opposed rolls without the entire game bogging down into shit?

>rolls d100, checks for degrees of success
>opponent rolls d100, checks for degrees of success
>compare results

At least with a d20 system you can just assume the other guy rolled a 10 and have static values.

Have the players roll at the same time.

Eclipse Phase has an interesting mechanic, where:
1) The winner of an opposing roll is the one who rolls higher (or crit) while INSIDE their respective skill tests.
2) You have Moxie (Fate points basically) that you can use to inverse your roll (Meaning 73 turns to 37).
This ensures that the one with higher skill wins more often, but it still comes down to the dice.

So basically if two players both succeed, with, say, 40 and 70 in their respective skills, if the player with higher skill rating rolls more than 40 but less that 70, they basically win automatically, unless the other rolls a crit (which is doubles). Same applies if they roll anything that can be inverted to a higher number than 40 but less that 70.

Of course, my view of the Moxie system is lopsided because I have a character who can use that 6 times every play session.

So far I've decided that SP will be set throughout the game. It can only be increased with consumables and for a limited amount of time only.

The Surprise is based off of the D&D 5e where a surprised character cannot participate in the first game turn.

Move, Run, Dodge is limited to one each per turn. But for example you have a weapon that can swing with little SP, you can keep adding Attack to the Combat queue.

The queuing itself would be blind. One side of the conflict will not be able to see the queue of the opponent. I wanted to use cards for this system so it's like you make a "deck" out of your cards and that's your combat queue.

I really really appreciate the feedback. I'll cleanup some wording so it's a bit clearer.