I just invented a game. It hasn't been playtested, so feel free to point out flaws.Rules 0.5:Two wizards start on opposite corners of a 5x5 grid made up of random numbers between 1 and 4.During your turn, you must move and then cast a spell. A spell increases or decreases a tile's number by 1. A number can go above 4 but not below 0. You may target any tile except the one on which you stand, the one on which your opponent stand, and the one you just moved off of.If you land on a number greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (freeze magic)
sounds neat, also possible multiplayerI'll sure pirate that at home and check with my friends
Here's a strategy I thought of.Blue Wizard is caught in a loop between two 3's, ooooh!Red Wizard increases a 3, and Blue Wizard is pushed against the ropes.Red Wizard summons a deadly fire dragon to defeat Blue Wizard!
Or if you really wanted to make it sting you could see how long you can drag it out and...It's a game of movement restriction and setting traps, basically. I mean it doesn't really have to be about wizards; you can fluff it any way you want.
Okay, who wants to be the first playtester?For ease of editing, let's just color the whole tile instead of having a "piece."Also, new rule I forgot to think of: You can't move to the tile the opponent is on.
>>8941795Red wizard, lower tile above by 1, step onto it.
>>8941867Illegal move. You cast a spell AFTER you move, and you can't target the space you are standing on.
>>8941795Move one square up, increase tile to the right of blue wizard
Oh, and hey, you might want to don a temporary tripcode so trolls don't disrupt the game with fake moves.
I wanna play a dorf berserker.also 4e is bettar
>>8941921SO...RED WIZARD'S ALREADY LOST.
>>8942012No, it's distance to FURTHEST edge, not closest. 2 is still less than the maximum distance between an edge and that tile.
>>8941985this is fun.
Are you allowed to move diagonally or must all movement be orthogonal?
>>8941465How many spaces can you move?
>>8942059Whoops. I didn't exactly state it in the OP, but the tile you're standing on is the number of spaces you move.That's why zeroes and high numbers make you lose, because you literally cannot move.So... Three up, three down, three left, or three right. Straight lines only.
>>8942141Ah, I see... That's pretty cool, actually.
>>8942076Diagonals are something to think about, but for now, let's say orthagonal only.
Someone make this in to a flash game or some shit. READYGO
This is actually a pretty fun lookin' little timewaster. I'm tempted to quickly knock up a Java version to make playing easier.
This is weird.I'm using a very similar idea to represent name related. You should definitely keep this as short, seems like a perfect time-waster.
Okay so, >>8942059 doesn't count.And I'll warn you, you don't want to put a zero where you just did. You'll be committing suicide.
So this random number generation doesnt work because you could get instakill and whatnot :x
>>8942233I agree, the board should have a set 'state' at the beginning with numbers 1-4
Of course, it doesn't seem like it has to be two-player only. You could make it hex-based rather than square-based, and then it more easily supports greater numbers of players.
So... it's a spell card duel?Because that's exactly what this looks like.
>>8942233Show me an example of an insta-killing board?
>>8942233>>8942253No. The way he's set it up you CANNOT die on your first turn; there is no possible way that you would be forced to move to a losing tile on your first move.However, the randomness does present the inherent possibility of the board setup screwing one guy over, but it will never be immediate loss.
>>8942276Because, you know, you've got curtain fire everywhere and both combatants grazing until one of them gets hit by stepping on the wrong number.
I think I've won?
>>8942287Well, I'll just argue that random set-ups are the bane of intellect and skill. If the board is going to be random, then it should be symmetrical for each player's corner so that no one has an unfair advantage.
>>8942253the outer edges start at 3, next row in starts at 2, and the middle square begins at 1?
Okay, here's the updated rules for posterity.Rules 0.6:Two wizards start on opposite corners of a 5x5 grid made up of random numbers between 1 and 4.During your turn, you must move and then cast a spell.Whatever tile you're on at the beginning of your turn, that's how many spaces you can move left, right, up, or down. You cannot move off the board, and you can't move onto the tile occupied by the opponent.A spell increases or decreases a tile's number by 1. A number can go above 4 but not below 0. You may target any tile except the one on which you stand, the one on which your opponent stand, and the one you just moved off of.If you land on a number greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (freeze magic)
>>8942330Yup, you've won. good game
>>8942330red moves right and zaps the 4 to the south down to 3 to save self
Board ought to be color coded in some way in regards to deadliness. Unless that's 'casual' or something and you want part of the game to be trying to figure out what the hell you need to be doing.
>>8942353They wizards go around in circles until their spells have shifted the board's makeup to the point that they have greater mobility.
Blue wizard is OP, needs nerf plz
>>8942383Read the comics to find out what happens then.
Are diagonals allowed? Or is it lateral moves only?
>>8942411Orthagonal. See >>8942362
>>8942383Then blue moves up one and zaps Red's square. Instagib. Right?
>>8942424no, I'm retarded.
>>8942330Anybody care to explain how blue won?Red can move right, and that would require him to move down on the next turn. Blue can anticipate and block red's move by moving right as well. But if red moves right and lowers the number below him (the one right of blue), then it's illegal for blue to move to that square.
>>8942424I don't believe you can shoot tiles that players are standing on. Blue has game anyways, the 3's heavily restrict red to the point where Blue just uses the 1's to stay safe while burning Red's only escape tile.
I think the 'ice magic' part is kind of silly. It's really hard to recognize a pattern that will lead you to a 'fire' death, but an 'ice' death is so obvious (And easy to counter) that it seems almost unnecessary.
>>8942439hmm. I think I see it now. Blue has to respond by turning the bottom 4 into a 5 and then Red's fucked.
>>8942362>Whatever tile you're on at the beginning of your turn, that's how many spaces you can move left, right, up, or down. You cannot move off the board, and you can't move onto the tile occupied by the opponentShould be "must move" not can move. Can move implies that you could move up to that amount.
>>8942439Blue doesn't need to block red (although it doesn't say anything about blocking he path of movement in rules)Also that tile is already a 4, which is lose anyways.He just has to keep Red on those 2 #4s and win
>>8941465Playtesting wizard battle for ya!
>>8942512Those aren't wizards, son.
>>8942482If you're on a tile where you are forced to move, say, 3 squares, and all your movement options would lead to death, I say that's an ice death. So say you land on a 3, and your only move choices were a 0 tile and a 5 tile, ice death. Just for flavor.
>>8942531Who's to say what can or can't be a wizard?
>>8942554Wizards wear hats. Give the snake a hat.
>>8942476Yeah. Once he moves right, he's restricted to vertical movement and it'll be very easy to herd him into that 0.
>>8942567HATS!?Anyway, let's see if I can't get this working in Maptools.
>>8942535But then there would be no such thing as a fire death, since that requires you to move onto a killing tile, and the prior state to doing so would be ice death in your system.>>8942469Eh, not necessarily. I still think it's a worthwhile mechanic.
>>8942570exactlyeven if he tries to fix his tiles to save himself, blue has the absolute advantage and will win while remaining safe on the 1 tiles
>>8942476Red can change the bottom 4 to a 3.
>>8942482Rules 0.61:Two wizards start on opposite corners of a 5x5 grid made up of random numbers between 1 and 4.During your turn, you must move and then cast a spell.Whatever tile you're on at the beginning of your turn, that's how many spaces you must move left, right, up, or down. You cannot move off the board, and you can't move onto the tile occupied by the opponent.A spell increases or decreases a tile's number by 1. A number can go above 4 but not below 0. You may target any tile except the one on which you stand, the one on which your opponent stand, and the one you just moved off of.If you land on a number greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (freeze magic)Thanks.
>>8942330>>8942330>>8942330Why don't we finish the game? I don't wanna leave anybody hanging. Who knows, I might've overlooked something.
Can I see a map of the values needed for a fire death?
>>8942535Nono! I'm open to mechanical suggestions, but it's my game, I get to make the fluff, and I say that counts as fire magic.
>>8942606Just condense the lose condition to "If you find yourself unable to move", since that accurately describes being on a zero tile and a tile with a number greater than the highest edge.
>>8942628Now THOSE are wizards.
CAN WIZARDS BE ON THE SAME SPACE?
>>8942671Cannot move onto tile occupied by opponent, so no, there should never a situation arise where more than one player is on the same tile.
Playtester here. Can wizards be on the same space?You see, I can't move backwards or to the left because those spaces will kill me, but I could move on the the snake wizard's space.IF that's allowed.
>>8942606WHAT THE FUCK?0.61 Dumbed down Wizard Battle. MONEY GRUBBIN' WHORES.It's just like WoW.
rolled 2 = 2>>8942662Not fluffy enough.Rolling 1 for ice magic, 2 for fire magic.
>>8942728>you can't move onto the tile occupied by the opponent
>>8942728I think Snake wins.They can't share a square, but OP needs to clarify if you can move through the other wizard's space.
>>8942684Okay then. Snake wizard wins.
>>8942641Fuck you man, you shared it on /tg/ it's ours now, it stopped being yours a long time ago.
rolled 1 = 1>>8942728 Can wizards be on the same space?Says in the rules that you can't move onto a space occupied by opponent, so no.Somebody call 911, shorty fiyah burnin' on the danceflo, woah-oh!
>>8942764Through, yes. Onto, no.
>>8942793this is still intense!
>>8942793Okay, Red's dead. Just making sure broseph!
>>8942834No, you're screwed. Your only valid move is up, and blue's about to turn that three into a four.
Can you cast a spell on your own square? Let's say I could move onto a 3 square, but it can only move 2, can I move onto it and then make it a 2?
You have three turns to live. Use them wisely.
>>8942852>>8942869... or maybe he's feeling stylish. Who knows!
>>8942869Bro you could have won, why you goin' so easy on him
>>8942896Still wins. Look closely.
>>8942869Oh god I love you
>>8942852 turn that three into a four.oh jeepers why didn't I think of that>>8942863Nope. Says it in the original rules, you can't target the tile you landed on.
WIZARD BATTLE ROUND 2
Actually looks awesome. Nice one, OP.
>>8942869fffffuuu 2 turns
Can we make spell range and move range the same? So either it's one and one, or it's value of tile and value of tile?
FUUUUUUU Skeleton wizard loses again.
>>8942982HOLD ON TO YOUR SEATS...
>>8941465This game is pretty sweet, but >>8941577 makes it even better
>>8942984Maybe we can just have several variant rulesets. Move 1 shoot 1, move x shoot 1, move x shoot x, move 1 shoot up to x...the list goes on!
>>8943035OP, you better make some art of a wizard being eaten by a dragon for this
>>8943035Didnt you move through that 0? Wouldnt that freeze you?
Come on, you're supposed to be trying to slip me up. That was a bad way to spend your last turn, and I didn't get to show off the cool 6 I drew!
>>8943105I think moving is treated more like 'teleporting' from square to square.
>>8943127Are we in some deadlock where it's a fight between maintaining his only available move?Turn 5 into 4, move. Other wizard turns the old 4 that the First wizard was on into a 5.First wizard turns it back, moves...
>>8943175 Turn 5 into 4, moveDoesn't work that way. Move THEN spell.
>>8943198I guess that's checkmate, then.
This is cute but difficult to keep track of with two games going on at once.
this is a fairly awesome minigame.I may have to use it in games I run occasionally to represent battle of wills. Better than a few opposed tests, certainly. More intense, more actual will involved, certainly more fun than letting a couple of die rolls decide a DBZ two-lasers-pushing-each-other wizards in a tight spot thing.
>>8943260DBZ...RPG? With dice?
>>8943127I think you beat me, but then I beat you one turn later?
OP, I challenge you!Draw us up a new board and let me smear your ugly red wizard face.
>>8943291You got it. Right after I finish my drink.Aaah, nothing like a nice hot beverage made from the charred remains of your worst enemy.
>>8943270what I mean is two mostly equally matched casters / psychics / laser clerics fire the sum and total of their magic at each other. Instead of a single roll to determine who wins, you play a minigame of wizard battle; it seems to be short enough to not throw the pace off, intense enough to get people into it, and enough thought to actually feel like you're fighting with wits.I fucking love the idea.
I just noticed that this hasn't been archived yet. Maybe we should do something about that?
>>8943362Ah. I knew a DBZ RPG was too good to be true.
>>8943291I hope you aren't afraid of the dark, because that's where we're dueling. The same battlefield, at night.Pick your color (I'm still blue) and your corner. My corner will be the one opposite yours. Choose if you go first or I.
>>8943369Nothing's stopping you, champ.
/tg/ doesn't need 4chanarchive, because it's already auto-archived on easymodo.
Alright, it's on. I'm yellow, you're blue.
rolled 3 = 31, 3, 5 you go first2, 4, 6 i go first
>>8943600I assume you want me to go first?
>>8943658Nope, rules say you cannot.To reiterate, the three tiles you can't target with magic are:The one your opponent is currently on.The one you are currently on. The one you were on just before.
>>8943672wait a crap I can't add, my mistake! hah.
>>8943672Can't do that. See revision 0.61.>Whatever tile you're on at the beginning of your turn, that's how many spaces you must move left, right, up, or down.>must
>>8943708He fixed it.
Well that was quick.
>>8943563suptg is the proper archive for /tg/http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/requestinterface.html?
>>8943749P.S. in case it isn't obvious I changed it to a 5.
Actually that was lame. He never even had a chance to begin with.
>>8943801see:>>8942287There you go. :PI'll let someone else have a turn if they want, otherwise I'll challenge you again.
>>8943819I gotta go, so maybe another time.Maybe the numbers should be weighted or something. Like, 1's and 4's are less common than 2's and 3's, or the odds are different for the edge, inner, and center, or something? I dunno, some math whiz on /tg/ can figure it out. I pretty much just made this game up in ten minutes.
How about instead of random or preset numbers the game starts with a blank board and the players take turns in adding a number onto the board (between 1-4 naturally) THEN the match starts.
>>8943941You could just make it so that the random number has to be such that landing on the tile will not make you lose immediately, so that no tile on the starting board can cause a loss. That could make games last a little longer.
Or make the starting numbers 1-3, but keep the 5x5 board.
>>8943970So 1-2 for the center square,1-3 for the middle ring of squares,And 1-4 for the outer edges?Works.
>>8944042Well, you could say it explicitly like that, but I prefer to design my rules more generally. It makes games easier to expand later.
Just did a quick number crunch, and according to my calculations (which are probably wrong because I suck at math) the odds of a Yellow vs. Blue scenario are like 2%.That's far from negligible. Rules need a generation reform.
Damn my lazy ways. This is as far as I got before I got bored.
Some stuff I drew.
Man, I just realized I could go to Staples and buy a $2 erase board w/ dry erase pack (black, green, red) and Permanent Marker the squares. Dry erase numbers and circle the number of where you are.FUN!!!
Going to bring this up tomorrow and play this with a couple people before we do our Campaign.Might make this a side-game for warring rulers to settle differences without casualties.
I am up for a game of this. I'll make the board, if somebody's interested in challenging me.
....dude, you're trying to remake Wiz-War.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiz-WarSometimes I despair of our new generation of gamers.
>>8946094Wiz-War looks like a board game. This is a simple number/wits game.
>>8946094>Each player has two treasures>Each player begins the game with fifteen life points>A player wins by (1) placing two treasures belonging to other players on his or her home base>Each player starts with a hand of seven cards>Each player can ordinarily move up to three squares per turnI see absolutely no similarity, other than the fact that both games are about wizards and take place on a grid.Risk and Warhammer are both on a map and you roll dice! They're totally the same game, I fear for this generation of gamers you guys!
Wizard War 3!In 3-D.
>>8944091You can do both you know.
>>8946402Should probably re-Trip
Then I'm in the lower-right, and I think you'd better go first this time.
The fire magic idea makes sense if you make the whole game set inside a volcano, the platform magically suspended over lava.
>>8946564Y'know, when you have time to study the map, this is a bit too simple.I think it should be 1-3 per square.
>>8946651Well, I think it was my mistake. I probably could've handed my opening better if I saw this coming.
>>8946761Game needs some work.
Little more streamline, little less fluff?>Two wizards start on opposite corners of a 5x5 grid made up of random numbers between 1 and 4.>During your turn, you must move and then "cast a spell".>The number on your tile is how many squares you must move on your turn. You can move left, right, up, or down.If you move off the board you lose. If you end your move on a 0 tile you lose.>The spell you cast after moving raises or lowers a single tile's number by 1 (but never lower than 0). You can target any tile other than the tiles occupied by you and your opponent, and the tile you started your turn on.
>>8947052forgot>You win when your opponent loses.
Playing this game with friends now to test further.
OP, try to work this out on a hex map. This one's 9x9, but any size may do.
>>8947329Fuuuuuck, I could've survived that! If I had inc'd THAT tile we'd still be playing...
>>8947052>You can move through your opponents Tile, but you can't make a move where you would end on your opponents tile.
>>8947357I have the feeling a hex-based variant would be too long and drawn out.
>>8947357Reduced to better size.
I'd like to play this where the spells power is determined by a d4, but you'd need a slightly larger board (by about 1 around all sides).
>>8947395If this was being played IRL, I'd impose a 15- or 20-second time limit per turn. Speeding the game up would prevent excessive studying of the board.
>>8947416We should try something like this.
Last one for the night.
I got a good feeling about this one. :3
Friend of mine hacked up a client for playing the game that randomly generates the board, and we stumbled upon a situation where the random generation really screws one player.Pic related.
>>8947765>Red Wizard's move>Blue Wizard vs Green Wizard
OP, how about expanding the board size, so that the board is less likely to fuck you?
Gaah I keep messing up! But here's my move.
Yo, you there?
OP, consider making it random numbers between 1 and 3 instead of 1 and 4.Or, increase size to six by six.
Uh oh, man, it's the dreaded time loop special!
Seems like it.
I still like the variant where players take turns placing numbers on the board.Maybe do that, but have a fixed pool of numbers to start with, so it's not just 1's and 4's everywhere.
>>894831325 squares, so perhaps:1 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 4>>8948355That's a 2, not a 3, so you couldn't've raised it to a 4.
>>8948383Oh, whoops. I misread the thumbnail.But you can't lower it because you were just on it, so it's gonna be a 4, and you have to pick another spell.
>>8948463Mm, that's right. Forgot about that. Let's backtrack to this one, my move.
>>8948565I mean, your move*
The post delete time limit was a terrible idea.
>>8948692That's over. I can't move.
>>8948716Does OP win every time?
>>8948791I've won like twice.>>8943749This one doesn't count.
>>8948808There have been three games in this thread, and you won every single one of them.Now I challenge you.Do you accept?
>>8948716You're yellow, right?You can go plenty of places if I'm understanding this right.
>>8948866He can only go down to the 4, and after that it's up to the 0 and he loses.
>>8948933What if he changes the 0 to a 1?
>>8948933Ah, I see now.>>8948950Then Blue changes it back to a 0 on his turn.
>>8948950Because then on blue's turn it just turns back into a 0.
Is it possible to stand on the only tile an opponent could move to and have them lose because they can't stand on the same tile as you?
hmm, the problem starting with random 1-4 is you have some squares that are instant nukes.How fast should this be played?There could be a slower version where its random 2 and 3 squares to start with, so you can't have a game-ending square on turn 1
>>8948847You...are incorrect, sir. I won twice.
>>8949010They have to move, if they can't move onto the occupied square they have to move off the board and losecould merit a mention in the rules though
>>8949053You did? Which ones?Also, since OP seems to have disappeared, I challenge you.
rolled 3 = 3>>8949083See:>>8946840>>8947329Very well.1, 3, 5 I go first2, 4, 6 You go first
>>8949067I decided it's simpler to word it so that instead of landing on the opponent being an illegal move, it's a losing move.Rules 0.7:Two wizards start on opposite corners of a 5x5 grid made up of random numbers between 1 and 3.During your turn, you must move and then cast a spell.Whatever tile you're on at the beginning of your turn, that's how many spaces you must move left, right, up, or down. You cannot move off the board.A spell increases or decreases a tile's number by 1. A number can go above 4 but not below 0. You may target any tile except the one on which you stand, the one on which your opponent stands, and the one you were on previously.If you land on a number greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (freeze magic)If you land on the opponent, you lose (disqualified for unwizardly conduct)
>>8949232Oh, so we've gotta start on opposite sides now. Okay.
>>8949246That was always a rule.
>>8949265...I knew that.
>>8949173>>8949173Sorry about long response time, was tabbed out and then I had trouble with my paint program...Also, I think this is checkmate.
>>8949311I also forgot my tripcode, apparently.Also yeah, gotta start in opposite corner, didn't even notice you were doing that wrong...
>>8949311It is. I couldn't tell what that number was, hence the ? next to it.I started off in an improper square anyhow.Good game.
>>8949347Yeah it was a 3, but my handwriting is shit so it took me a bit to figure that one out.
Well OP has officially invented an awesome game. I am adding this thread to my personal archive of threads I will never read again but like to have saved anyway, and I will likely adopt the idea one Anon or another suggested, where you use this to simulate a battle of raw magical/psionic power instead of an arbitrary die roll. Not sure how often this will come up, but it's great to know I've got a way to deal with it if it does.One last bump to show this to anyone who may have missed it.
what if... if you land on the opponent wizard you win!?!??!
>>8949483No, you lose.Originally it was an illegal move and a fire death.OP's new fluff makes it a losing move and a disqualification for being a dick.
>>8949500What if you force an opponent to land on YOU? What happens then?
>>8949512oh god yes
>>8949560If you, for any reason, land on your opponent, you are "disqualified for unwizardly conduct.">>8949232
>>8949580So I can technically reverse checkmate the shit out of my opponent by area denial? SWEET.
>>8949609It says quite clearly in the rules that if you would land on the space the opponent is in, you lose.
>>8949624Giving the opponent nowhere else to move except my space counts as moving onto him? damn.
Hopefully I didn't miss someone already mentioning this but say you did this board game style I was thinking of an easy board-gamey way to randomize the tiles.5x5 = 25 spots. Each must be 1-4. 4 is the major killer so we'll relegate him to the odd man out. So I'm thinking 7 1s 7 2s 7 3s and 4 4s written on pieces of paper/cardboard what have you. Shuffle the pieces, place on 5x5 grid. Then you'd probably have a few extras of each number for "spells" as well as a few 5s and 0s. So you'd end up with maybe 40 or so of these little paper numbers.Or if you're a lazy anon I guess you could use dice on a corner of a chess board like Dr. Mr. Stark.
>>8949651...No. You'd be fine in such a case.If the opponent has no legal moves, he loses.Illegal moves are moves that:Take you off the boardEnd in a square marked 0End in a square occupied by an opponent.
Rules issues.>A spell increases or decreases a tile's number by 1 (minimum 0). You may target any tile except the one on which you stand, the one on which your opponent stands, and the one you started your turn on.Simplified spells. Changed "and the one you were on previously" to "started your turn on" to remove possible confusion that you can't target a square you've occupied since the start of the gameIf you land on a number greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)vs.If you move off the board you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (freeze magic)If you land on the opponent, you lose (disqualified for unwizardly conduct)Just wonderin'
>>8949512Well done, that looks classy as fuck
>>8949681Holy shit, I just realized my sister has some fancy glass sudoku set. I'm so giving this game a try.
>>8949512Consider this stolen.
What about making the whole board have value 2. On top of that, the value you land on determines how many raise/lower points you get. So it's worth it to hit 3s and 4s, but also more riskier.
>>8948716Can't you move to the 4, and make the 0 a 1?
>>8949939The opponent would then turn the 1 into a 0 again, resulting in a loss
so, the game is cool and all, but what wizard would ever choose to do this? Why not cast directly onto the enemy, and why waste so many spells? If I challenge you to a duel, I don't then go "...of Chinese checkers!". While there is the whole fire/ice thing for an element of danger, this might be something an insane and powerful wizard might force a player to do, or maybe some apprentice just messing around, but not any serious wizard
A fire death is a fire death because the arena is surrounded by a wall of fire.
>>8950148The wizards be teleportin'. Ya gotta lay traps for them, so they will have no choice but to teleport into your fire magic or frost magic.
>>8950167Or, your magic directly affects the speed of the opponent's molecules. Too fast, and they burn up. Too slow, and they freeze.
>>8950148Both the wizards are teleporting around too fast to be directly targeted. So you try and manipulate the magic around to shoot them somewhere hazardous, like into the fire wall, or into the ice pits you make. Iunno?
>>8950200Cont.If you stand still they will facerape you, so there's that.
> why would wizards _____You know all the times you say "wizard did it?"Well, that's not all wizards do. They also do this shit.for kicks.
So can we get a flashfag to turn this into a flash game? It's not terribly complex, it could easily be pulled off.
>>8950264Priority for the game goes to having two human players. AI is a secondary concern, if it appears at all. I would be totally happy not even having a computer enemy thingy.
>>8950299Agreed, I just want to be able to challenge other fags to automated games of WIZARD BATTLE. We could turn to this to resolve all conflict. Edition wars? Settle them with WIZARD BATTLE. Chapter arguments? WIZARD BATTLE. Who has the right to murder Matt Ward? WIZARD BATTLE
>>8950329We'll need updates to Wizard Battle then. Wizard Battle Hex Edition and Wizard Battle 0.8 should add variety and reduce the change of screwy boards.
Hmm... was thinking about the rules.You can't move onto your opponents square.You can't move off the board.If you can't move off your square on your turn, you lose the game.Outlast your opponent and win!This should cover all the lose conditions, since a zero means you can't move off your current square.
rolled 4, 4, 1, 2, 1, 4, 4, 1, 3, 4, 2, 1, 2, 4, 3, 4, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3 = 66>>8950373Wouldn't using a hexgrid be a little to complicated?
>>8950393Not necessarily. It would take longer; however, that makes it better for multiplayer.>>8950384This means someone could land on a 0 square and not lose til their next turn.
>>8950299It would be nice to at least have an automatic board generator.
>>8950440Kinda like it that way. It could be used as a tactic, like your opponents only move is to land on a 5, then you could use a 0 to knock them off the board, and it only hurts you if it comes back to your turn.
>>8950486But the lose just takes one more turn to happen, it doesn't really change any outcomes.
>>8950499It's very much worth noting. Like way back when you didn't lose until the end of the turn when you life total hits 0 or below in Magic, instead of losing immediately.
>>8950499This.If you're on a losing space, there's nothing you can do about it, because even if you have a spell that can beat the opponent, they'll still have until THEIR next turn, and then it's your turn again and you lose.All this does it make the game last a turn longer than it needs to. It's not possible to win once you've landed on a losing tile. That's why it's a losing tile.
Holy SHIT this is awesome.
I'm leaving for the night. I went back and reread the thread, and I cannot follow the first game I played with OP. I don't know how I got through that.
ARCHIVE THIS SHIT NOW
I feel like both players should get to pick the number they start out standing on after the other tiles have been randomly generated. This means nobody ever starts out being completely fucked over by random generation.Both players choose their starting tile number simultaneously, so as not to give the person who picks second the advantage. (or perhaps the play order should be "W1: Choose start tile, W2: Choose start tile., W1: Move" so as to try and rebalance the slight advantages of knowing your opponent's start tile number when choosing your own and the advantage of being first to take your move against each other.)Just a thought.
this thread is win
So yeah, I think the starting numbers should be only 1-3. The board starts out pretty easy, (The wizards are measuring eachother), but pretty soon the board turns into a fuckfest of 4's and 5's everywhere.
We've been playing 4 player games on a 6x6 grid (with numbers 1-4) using gametable. It's fun and pretty frantic thus far, though people die quick.
>>8952367It's not a flash client, but it works
>>8950181Could also count as time magics, 0(or less) as if time has stopped (and if less divided by zero) and 5(or more) you hit the arena walls and go splat.
Is someone able to make a flash out of this? It looks freakin intense, and there is a problem irl with the numbers, they must be either dices or cardboard tokens with numbers
This needs some work but it's awesome already
What do you think of this? Possible update:If you land on a number greater than the board width, you lose (thunder magic)If you land on a number no greater than the board width, but greater than its distance to the furthest edge, you lose (fire magic)If you land on a zero, you lose (ice magic)If you become trapped in a loop between two spaces from which you cannot possibly free yourself, you lose (wind magic)If you land on the opponent, you lose (disqualified for unwizardly conduct)Maybe there should be a point system where some finishers are worth more than others.
>>8957472No, it's fine as-is.
>>8957472So you think 0.7 is pretty much perfect?Alright. Although I would like to play on a 6x6 board sometime to see what that's like.
How often do non-3loop deaths occur in 1v1?
rolled 13, 12, 4 = 29>>8957542Is rolling 25d4 an okay method of randomly generating boards, or should there be conditions like>>8949681said?
>>89578840.7 says you should use numbers 1-3 instead of 1-4, but as for the actual board generation process, I left that unspecific for a reason. The main reason being that I don't think any algorithm is "perfect," so it should be left up to the players. Hell, you can even throw in 4's and 0's if you feel like it.25d3 is the de facto standard though.
thread's going to hit autosage fairly soon, you might want to start a new one.
>>8957563Not very. But maybe in time someone will discover a counterstrategy.
>>8949733Hey, good point. I'm rewriting a few parts and I'm gonna repost it as 0.71.It's still the same as 0.7, just worded differently.
>>8958664Why? Wizard Battle 0.7 is shit edition.RIP Wizard Battle. 2010-2010Killed by WizardBattleGuy's greed.
>>8959956Hey you.You're a faggot.