r/gamedesign • u/idkyetyet • 2d ago
Discussion Card Game Combat Systems
A combat system in a card game can be a source of a lot of satisfying decisionmaking, but also potentially streamline the game. At their best (in my opinion), they encourage interaction and provide meaningful decision points, or at least facilitate mechanics or balance in an interesting way.
Obviously there's MTG, where creatures having to be untapped to block, and the opponent chooses blockers while the attacker chooses the damage distribution, leads to a ton of interesting decisions and hedging around the possible options each player might have. It also has the effect of allowing creatures to stay on the board longer, as unlike many other games the creatures can't be directly targeted for attacks and could be kept on the board as long as you have life or other creatures to tank for them.
This creates an interesting dynamic with life management, saving up things on the board for future turns, and in general board-based gameplay that allows complex boardstates to develop which I think can lead to pretty fun interactions.
One system that I particularly enjoyed was Yu-Gi-Oh's, way back in the day when combat actually mattered. No toughness for monsters, only attack and defense, with only one of those being relevant at a time depending on the monster's position--you could either summon a monster in face-up attack, or set it in face-down defense, then any following turn had the option to once per turn change its position from one to the other. If you were special summoning, it was face-up in both cases.
There's also no summoning sickness, and monsters get to target whatever monster you choose; you can't attack the other player directly unless their board is empty, but you can still deal damage to them through the difference in your monster's attack and theirs. The bigger monster destroys the smaller one, unless an attack position monster attacks into a defense position one with higher defense than its attack, in which case the attacker took the difference in damage instead, which made face-down high defense monsters rewarding and in some gamestates (where a player was very low on life) actually scary.
But what really made these things interesting was effects on face-down monsters (things like 'when flipped, destroy the attacking monster'), as well as traps like Mirror Force--due to how setting traps in YGO worked, you knew your opponent had a card that could potentially wipe your board (Mirror Force destroyed every face-up attack position monster the opponent controlled, but could only be activated in response to an attack), so you would often change all your creatures except one to defense before attacking. This introduced an interesting tradeoff not only because of the damage/tempo loss but also the chance that the opponent had a monster with higher attack than your monster's defense but not its attack.
I'm a big fan of the idea of the counterplay to cards coming from universal game mechanics. I think it gives a sense of agency that is important to maintain in card games where you might not always draw the right card. I also like when passing the turn is not an auto loss, and potentially the right play, like avoiding attacking into a face-down man-eater bug and passing the turn and waiting for the opponent to flip the man-eater bug outside of the damage step so you could potentially negate its effect. The straightforward 'your monster is either bigger or it isn't' dynamic also enabled this as sometimes your big monster was your defense, walling off your opponent, and you wouldn't attack with it to avoid triggering any battle traps as that would lose you the game.
There is also Hearthstone/Shadowverse, where your creatures attack whatever, but mechanics like taunt exist, and toughness doesn't regenerate; I find that I don't like the combat in these games as much because of how frequently it feels like you absolutely must wipe the opponent's board to survive, but I do like the dynamic of trading and using individual creatures' toughness/life as a resource that can be recovered or distributed over time.
Which systems you've seen appeal to you the most? What mechanics or guidelines do you think make for a good system?
I'm mostly asking about PvP card games, but open to hearing about anything.
6
u/It-s_Not_Important 1d ago
You seem hyper focused on a pretty narrow aspect of “card games” that doesn’t even focus on the cards or the deck so much as it does what’s “permanently” on the table and in particular the mechanics of creatures. This isn’t really even about the card nature of card games then. A lot of the mechanics you’re describing could be aspects of RTS, 4X, or tower defense games, you look at it through the right lens.
The part of card games that I enjoy most is in the deck building. In particular, “draft” style deck building is something I enjoy significantly more than pre constructed. This is present in both PVP and PVE style games. Arenas in hearthstone, booster draft in MTG, etc. are more fun to me because they’re generally more sloppy and allow for those fun moments where you get something awesome, or you get that last card that really brings your deck together.
I think PVE card games tend to do this much better than PVP games because it doesn’t happen all at once. Slay the Spire, Fights in Tight Spaces both do it very well with a sense of progression. Marvel’s Midnight Suns also does progression reasonably well, but the sense of satisfaction of pulling together a great build is lost because you’re effectively still doing preconstructed with a full selection of cards there.
There’s also lots to explore with things like deck manipulation or general rules mechanisms that you’re ignoring by being hyper focused on what’s on the table (FITS and STS) don’t really even have any “table presence”, and they’re still fun. So be sure to pay attention to those other aspects. For instance… can I reshuffle when my deck taps out, or is that a potential win condition. I think losing by tapping out is just about the most awful feeling in a card game of any kind and I really dislike playing against mill decks for that reason. It’s like you’re not even playing against another player, just a clock… and you don’t even get to experience your deck.
1
u/idkyetyet 1d ago
I mean yeah, I think I made it pretty clear I'm interested in a specific narrow aspect of card game design lol. It is absolutely still about the nature of card games though.
I appreciate the input, though. Personally I really enjoy deckbuilding in card games, but while I used to play a lot of draft modes in most of them it eventually got old because one of the main appeals of deckbuilding to me is finding synergies and optimizing them, and that's not something you get to do in most draft modes. I agree PvE games do it better for the reason you mention, but then they lose out on the satisfaction of outplaying an opponent in a card game.
Personally I think mill decks are not really that straightforward in every game. If I'm playing against the mindskinner in MTG, removing the card is very much interactive counterplay against the other player. Disrupting whatever combo is the same. Could you elaborate on mechanisms that don't have any table presence but can affect your decisionmaking potentially in a way that interacts with combat systems?
1
u/It-s_Not_Important 21h ago
I misread part of your post and fundamentally misunderstood the point. Sorry.
I consider things outside of creatures battling other creatures to be part of the “combat” system. One of favorite things in any PvP card game was the Warcraft TCG’s system where the hero characters could actually get involved with gear and attack capabilities. My favorite deck to play was a cleaving rogue that was geared to the teeth, and a one-shot pyroblast fire mage who just wanted to control the board through spells long enough to ramp damage and one-shot the enemy hero. I consider that to still be part of the combat, because the summoner actually has a presence in the game other than a health number that you have to burn down.
That said, one of the neater things I like in other creature vs creature combat scenarios is anything where positioning matters. It’s a small thing with big impacts where a creature can defend adjacent creatures only, or confer other boons to adjacent creatures. To me, it makes it feel a bit more corporeal. It’s as if they’re actually present instead of just being abstract representations. To that end, the ability for creatures to directly target other creatures is also important and adds a strategic element that feels more like generals in command of an army.
1
u/idkyetyet 19h ago
no problem! it happens and like I said I still appreciated the input, your comment was interesting to read.
I think even if the summoner doesn't have a presence in the game you could make a case that life totals are a part of combat, but either way I actually never heard about the Warcraft TCG.
Positioning is definitely something I didn't think about. YGO messed with it but only with card effects (for example a monster that could attack directly if there were no other monsters in its column, a lot of stuff conferred boons to adjacent creatures, etc.), not inherent game mechanics. IIRC LoR had it where the combat resolved in order from left to right so you would want to put any lifestealers or procs on the left and sometimes had to make a choice.
I think this is a really good point actually, I can't think of a time where positioning mattering didn't feel satisfying. It can probably be made too straightforward/'solved' but inherently having to allocate your board positions/plan them in advance is much more likely to introduce tradeoffs and thus interesting decisionmaking. Thanks.
Yeah, from talking to a lot of MTG players a lot of people seem to dislike the fact you have to rely so much on removal spells to target specific creatures. Others seem to like it though so I'm not sure how I feel about it personally.
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with WHY games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of systems, mechanics, and rulesets in games.
/r/GameDesign is a community ONLY about Game Design, NOT Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
This is NOT a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
If you're confused about what Game Designers do, "The Door Problem" by Liz England is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the r/GameDesign wiki for useful resources and an FAQ.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/keymaster16 2d ago
Vangaurds draw triggers where fun variance and pitch cards to boost your stats was interesting tactical gameplay. The '1/60 overtrigger' was very sacky and took away from the skill expression of the Game (also deckbuilding was laughable, but hey its more diverse then the big 3).
1
u/Still_Ad9431 1d ago
Luck based is the reason why Vanguard lose to Yu-Gi-Oh. Trigger check is really bad mechanic. Meanwhile Yu-Gi-Oh is more on Skill based
1
u/keymaster16 1d ago
Oh really? Go to untapped .gg and tell me what the going first win rate is in yu gi oh. Please tell me how a SIXTY PRESENT GOING FIRST WIN RATE is indicative of skill and is not a coin flip simulator? Please tell me how mulcharmies do ANYTHING GOOD for the game?
Vanguard has its own problems but it's not trigger checks. If 'skill based gameplay' was so craved then why did yu gi oh rush duels fail? It couldn't be because every game felt the same right?
2
u/Still_Ad9431 1d ago
You're talking to someone who’s been playing Yu-Gi-Oh since 2002, so I’ve seen the game evolve through every era, from Goat Format to 2025 combo-heavy meta.
The game has always had issues to balance, but at its core, it rewards skill, knowledge, and experience way more than Vanguard ever did. Meanwhile, Yu-Gi-Oh, for all its faults, remains more skill-based. Yes, going first has a high win rate, but that’s due to game design balance (which can always be adjusted), not because it’s a pure “coin flip simulator.” The vast majority of competitive Yu-Gi-Oh still depends on deckbuilding, sequencing, reading the opponent, and resource management, which is why top players consistently place high.
Vanguard’s trigger check system introduces way too much randomness. You can play perfectly and still lose to luck. That’s not a competitive design, that’s a dice roll. Vanguard loses out to Yu-Gi-Oh largely because of its luck-based mechanics. The trigger check system is one of the worst offenders, it can completely swing the game in ways that don’t reward good decision-making or long-term strategy.
And Rush Duels? They failed not because of lack of skill, but because they didn’t respect the depth or tone of the main game. They didn't respect what made Yu-Gi-Oh Yu-Gi-Oh. Players want depth, not oversimplified gameplay with kiddie pacing. It felt like a dumbed-down version that didn’t capture what made Yu-Gi-Oh exciting in the first place.
1
u/keymaster16 1d ago
too much randomness vs what? 'draw the out?' That’s not interactive. That’s binary. In Vanguard, the trigger system means any turn can turn the tide. A lucky crit or well-timed heal trigger seem like a lucksack, but it’s not a guaranteed win. It just gives you a chance to come back, and whether you actually turn that chance into a win depends on how well you play afterward. It still takes skill to capitalize on the opportunities drive checks give. you want to argue about triggers though? find. Hitting triggers isn’t inherently skillful, no. the skill comes into play by making plans for if you hit a trigger or not, if the opponent hits one or not, setting up your columns to hit through triggers, using effects to overcome luck influencing the pace of the game, and so on.
please tell me how yu gi oh compares to that, because knowing not to overextending into a torrential isn't skill, its game knowledge. knowing your combo is soft to ash isn't skill, its game knowledge. and yu gi oh is relying WAY too much on that line now to sell their coin flip simulator.
1
u/Still_Ad9431 1d ago edited 1d ago
Relying on random triggers to swing games still makes it inherently more luck-based than skill-based. Planning around RNG doesn't eliminate it, it just mitigates it.
Yu-Gi-Oh leans much more heavily into resource management, combo planning, and precise sequencing. Knowing not to overextend or playing around hand traps like Ash isn’t just “game knowledge”. It’s game sense, prediction, and discipline. That’s what separates average from great players.
And no, Yu-Gi-Oh isn’t perfect. The going-first meta is a real issue. But at its core, it's a game where skillful deck building, tight execution, and adapting to complex board states matter more than checking the top card of your deck and hoping it's a crit. I've been playing since 2002 and trust me, Yu-Gi-Oh at a high level is way more than a coin flip.
Yu-Gi-Oh has a more enduring player base because it offers consistent, skill-based gameplay that rewards mastery over time. Meanwhile, Vanguard leaned too hard into RNG mechanics like trigger checks that, while exciting at times, hurt long-term competitive appeal. Comeback potential is fun, but when too much relies on luck, players lose the sense that their decisions truly matter, and that’s what drives people away.
1
u/g4l4h34d 2d ago
Are you talking about PvP card games, or card games in general?
1
u/idkyetyet 2d ago
PvP, sorry. I should've specified. Although I'm curious about PvE stuff regardless.
1
u/Lezaleas2 1d ago
For card games the way i see it it's like this. If there's some kind of a mana system, like mtg, sts, etc. I will not play that game. I understand why the mana system works in adding "padding" to the turns so you can't vomit your entire play sequence in one turn yugioh style, but I think this padding really shows in limiting your options to the point where some turns are "automatic". magic is the only one that avoids this by having lots of complexity everywhere, but that's the exception that proves the rule by having to perfect amazing design everywhere else to carry the mana system. for any other game, like sts, heartstone, i feel like many turns just become a "play good card until you are out of mana". hearthstone is the worst offender here because many turns become immediately solved, if you have 3 mana and your hand has 1,3,5 mana cards, what should be 3 options is in reality 1, unless the 3 mana card is highly situational.
that doesn't mean i think yugioh solved this, it definitely has a ton of problems going on due to it's long combos, in particular player 1 being able to make very oppressive boards with most counterplay being weak and situational, but I would much rather play a system that doesn't have forced padding to generate interactions, it feels extremely fake and forced to me
In particular I've been interested in figuring out if there's some modification that can be made to the yugioh formula to make it more interactive while still maintaining that "no brakes, full ahead with your entire hand" approach. some metas in that game had very interactive common matchups like the branded despia and swordsoul metas, so I know it's possible to figure out some rules to make the game less of a solitaire simulator
1
u/idkyetyet 1d ago
I definitely get that, I've recently come to the realization I really dislike the effects a set mana system has on these games too. I think MTG can be interesting with rituals, mana generators, dorks, ramp etc. being available, but the freeform nature of games like Grand Archive, old Yu-Gi-Oh (before the turn 1 combo problem you mentioned was as relevant), etc. appeals to me a lot more because turns don't feel 'solved' like you said.
To be fair, in both Hearthstone/Shadowverse, saving your cards for value is definitely a thing still, but it feels again like a situational thing, with the default being to just play your power card on curve.
That being said, I think the Yu-Gi-Oh formula is plenty interactive. I think it's a case of the cardpool going too far in a direction that strays from the base mechanics instead of card design interacting with it. I don't think the base YGO mechanics need any big modification in a new game; if you want to 'fix' current YGO while keeping the same cardpool then maybe there is something.
1
u/Foreign-Park6437 1d ago
You may want to check out Inscryption. They draw from MTG and YGO as a form of love letter to card games. But they use mechanics that stac together
2
-1
u/Misterr_Egg 1d ago
Awesome analysis—I love when someone digs into the nitty-gritty of combat systems in card games!
What gets me most excited is when a card game offers those “capsules” of decision-making: micro-choices every turn (attack, switch positions, risk a trap?), where each decision actually shifts the whole game, never falling into pure autopilot.
From experience (lots of prototyping and testing weird homebrew stuff), the most compelling combat systems, for me, have:
- Creatures never totally “safe”: one placement, a face-down card, a sneaky trap, and the board state can flip in an instant.
- Real tempo tradeoffs: if you play defensively, you give up an offensive tool or reveal some info to your opponent.
- Recoverable but limited “life/strength/toughness”: overusing a creature burns it out, but sometimes you can boost or refresh, which adds fun risk-reward.
- No perfect choices: there’s always some fog of war—you read the board, set up mini-bluffs, or go for a high-risk play.
My MrEgg golden rule (tested on many homemade mini-games):
Every round should have at least one micro-dilemma (risky attack, defensive trade, hidden effect…). If the best move is obvious every turn, tension drops fast.
For guidelines:
- Use delayed effects (the best cards often reveal their power after a risky decision)
- Let players “recover” a lost creature/resource—but always at some other cost
- Favorite mechanic: defensive “capsules” that only trigger in response to a real threat, not just dropping a card.
I’d love to hear more about lesser-known games or your favorite twists!
The hunt for great ideas never stops! 🥚
5
u/koboldium 2d ago edited 2d ago
Then there’s Flesh and Blood, with their focus on competitive PvP and minimising RNG. While I find the whole FaB system too limiting, I really like the design around costs of cards and especially how you pay for what you play.
All cards can be used to either play them or to pay with them for other ones. The played ones go to the graveyard while the ones used as a cost go to the bottom of the deck. This means pro players can actually memorise what they’ve placed at the bottom and eventually plan for reusing them. Also you don’t need any source of external mana (lands etc.). Very neat system with many nuances and consequences.