2 player mode: Play as usual, but each player chooses a color. The players then take turns drawing from the deck and killing each other's royals while also trying to protect their own. Wipe out the enemy royals to win. 4 players. Every player has a suit and as long as they have a royal alive (either on the field or in the deck) they keep playing. I'd assume this would lead to interesting alliances and betrayals. I'd also suggest changing the function of the jokers. I have a few ideas that I think could all work together. Upon drawing a joker choose one of the following actions: 1) They trigger a reset of armor on a selected royal after which the armor card(s) and joker return to the bottom of the deck. 2) They allow you to switch the places of any two royals (armor goes with a royal and a dead royal is still a viable choice) on the field and then place the joker on the bottom of the deck. 3) They can be placed on a royal and act as a one-use shield with a health of 10. Upon a successful hit, they are returned to the bottom of the deck. 4) The joker can be placed atop any stack, triggering any adjacent cannons and setting the value to 2. 5) Shuffle the deck and then place the joker on the bottom. I'd also disable the hard reset rule. An unplayable card always becomes armor according to standing rules (to the most similar royal). The joker mods I suggested would prevent cards from being indestructible as they will usually be returned to the deck and allow the possibility of an armor reset. One final rule edit (for multiplayer only) is if it comes to your turn and the deck is empty you must choose one of your royals to sacrifice and then take up the adjacent stack to use as the deck. This would guarantee a bloody and intense finally to the game, as well as open up opportunities for interesting strategy. (Forgive any grammar issues or terrible formatting. I typed this up on my phone)
Just an idea if making the game multiplayer becomes too hard. Try reversing the roles of the king and jack whilst keeping each’s royal’s health the same
I was thinking making jokers the only 2 cards that'll put a stack back in the deck (making that an extremely important decision) and aces just go on any stack you want them to
I can immediately tell when I've seen a good game when 5 minutes after having the rules explained to me by the creator, I'm already invested enough to start yelling "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! PLAY THERE! PLAY THERE!!"
Holy moly. I came here from clear the dungeon, and I heard 3 seconds of the voice before I realised. Absolute legend Tom! Thanks for all your amazing crate and crowbar work! Not to mention the awesome PC games!
@לביא גלזמן no problem it is just so weird, everytime i stop it puts the cursor at another position and it is almost mirroring everywhere :D when i do signs like a .,!?it first displays them on the completely other side . also my dog was adfenestrated beforemorrow you fool :P
Well, the game is fun, but it needs a few losing conditions. For example: >The deck somehow runs out. >There's 8 or more armour in the field. >The royals have received 12 or more armour throughout the whole game. >There are 6 or more shame points in the shame zone. At least these are the ones I've been using.
Haven't tried yet, but you could choose to remove either the jokers or the aces from the deck for fewer opportunities to reset piles, right? As long as you have two resets you can always recover, albeit with a very limited deck if you want to continuously recover the other ace/joker. You could perhaps say each pile can only be reset once? Without setting an arbitrary limit, the amount of armor on a single royal for a guaranteed loss varies for value and suit, but so long as any royal has 20 or more health, it's a guaranteed loss. You could treat armor as adding twice the value of the card in health so that a 4 or higher is a likely loss. Just a few ideas.
I just gave it a shot and I agree. I think the jokers make the game a bit too easy. Though perhaps you could just say that you will always beat the game, but your remaining deck count is your score. I just finished a game with 8 cards remaining in my deck for example.
Isely Mills so you would remove the value of shame cards from that number. So, if you shamed a 3 of diamonds, and had 5 cards at the end, your score would be 2. Maybe add a multiplier for removing the jokers.
I have a better idea, there is only one loss condition and that is the deck running out of cards. Shame no longer is a point system that counts against you but is more of a dead pile. When you put a card in that pile you reset the stack with the most cards in it by adding it to that pile. So as the game goes on you end up with less and less cards to use especially if you can’t kill the royals before they start getting armour.
here's a thought: If you reset a stack that already has a reset card in it (either through a reset card or a hard reset), the reset card in that stack goes into the shame pile. Takes out the infinite sustain while not putting a harsh limit on the length of the game - the goal of the game is a significant enough task that I feel your harsh restrictions will too often force plays that make the game progress slowly and thus potentially make the game unwinnable. This way there's also further strategy to resets - you have a limited number of non-hard resets, but resetting large stacks gives you more resources to work with
I don't know how I found this video (thanks TH-cam algorithm!) but I love the idea of this game, especially being a single player card game, and I can't wait to give it a try!
The extras I’ve used are: Can’t reset a pile twice (stops infinites), no shame piling (have to armour), and if the deck runs out, you lose. Rather difficult actually.
This game is super cool and elegant! I especially like it with the rule changes you posted. I think another cool twist on the game (probably too complicated without a specialized deck, but we) would be using a tarot deck, and then each of the Major Arcana could have their own special effect.
Fun game! It has a surprising amount of deck building involved since the aces/joker's let you control what is left in your deck toward the end. This allows you to increase the density of joker's as the game goes on so that you don't run out of options. I think long term this would need something incentivizing risk taking. Maybe giving score for destroying armor since that gives incentive to have high-numbered stacks early which makes joker hoarding less rewarding? Currently keeping joker's in small piles early to cycle then back in seems like the dominant strategy.
Here is my variant: Aces do not reset, but you can place them on top of any stack. Both Jokers are royals, they are placed in the upper corners before the game starts. A joker is killed when you have 3 cards of identical rank on its diagonal. (Note that in this case you do not need to place the opposite side last.) The card just played also counts towards the payload. You cannot shoot a cannon if one of the payloads is empty. You may chose not to kill a royal even if you could. Whenever a royal is killed, the three top cards of its row/column/diagonal (including the one you just played) are removed and put on a seperate discard-pile. You can kill multiple royals with the same play. There is no shame pile. If there is no living royal besides jokers, armor will be attached to the next royal that shows up. Jokers can not get armor, armor goes in the discard pile after its royal is defeated. Once the draw pile is empty you can shuffle the discard pile and continue playing with it. Win condition: Defeat all royals including both jokers. Your score is the total amount of cards in your draw and discard pile. Lose conditions: Running out of cards. A royal has more than 30 health. Unable to play a card when all non-joker royals are defeated. I made some more adjustments to the health system and a neat combo system, but for starters just giving all royals 18 health works fine.
@@TheBasikShow Combos: If this allows you to defeat 2 or more enemies simultaneously, the card played being the middle card of a line is also okay. If this allows you to defeat 3 or more enemies simultaneously, the last card can be any card in the line. Chains: Whenever one or more royals are killed, if after removing all relevant cards there appears a valid line that did not deal enough damage before, it is also triggered.
I feel like the shame pile should represent damage to the player. Like a casualty during a battle or something. You could maybe take 2 or 3 damage before you lose the game.
Say you run out of cards and there is a King, a Queen, a Jack and 2 cards in the SHAME Pile... Jack +1 point. Queen +2 points. King +3 points. SHAME cards 2 x 1 point. In total 8 points and winner (if you were playing side-by-side with a friend for instance) is decided by golf rules, in other words, the LEAST points wins. Arguably the SHAME cards could be modified slightly point-wise - considering this example game, they maybe should be worth 2 points instead - or perhaps they scale? 1 SHAME card is only 1 point, but 2 SHAME cards means each is worth 2 points (i.e. a total of 4 points) - this would then mean that SHAME is exponentially damaging... which I think fits quite well... In other words - 1 SC - 1 point / 2 SC - 4 points / 3 SC - 9 points / 4 SC - Instant loss. NOTE: 4 SC would equate to 16 points, which is equal to all four Kings AND all four Jacks still being left alive - there is not point in even continuing with 4 SC.
This is quite good! I’ve played 2 games so far! If you lay a joker or an ace during the setup phase, I think they should always go straight to the bottom of the deck.
This is a brilliant solitaire game! It's got simple rules and involves a good amount of strategy and doesn't feel like you are simply beholden to luck.
I've played quite a few rounds by now and I must say, this is really fun. Although I think it is a bit too easy to win with this set of rules, so I started to include a scoring system in my games. Here's what I came up with: -unplayable cards allways get used as armor -excess damage is being counted towards your score For example: a Jack has an additional armor of 2 (hp=13). You kill him with 10+7 damage, so your point total for this attack is 17-13=4 -different royals give different score multipliers: Jack has a multiplier of x1, Queen x1.5, King x2 E.g.: A king has no armor and you deal 16 damage to him. (16-13)*2=6. So your total score for this attack is 6 -at the end of the game you just add together the scores of your attacks. the maximum score you can get is therefore 132. You lose if: -you run out of cards -a royal has more hp than you can deal damage to him. With a scoring system, the player is more incentivised to play risky, as it is not only about winning, but also about scoring. I've played 2 rounds with this scoring system, and couldn't win either, because I got way too greedy :P In my opinion it is alot more fun this way.
Don't read this if you don't want strategies to make the game easy. Well, I've played several games, winning all but the first without shame cards. The trick is to use Ace and Joker cards on each other over and over, keeping three or four in the deck until absolutely necessary, while piling every unneeded card on the ones in play. It Lets you stall while the royalty is coming out. Makes the game really easy. Also, when you are wasting other cards, keep them on as few piles as possible, so that you can pick them up with just a couple Ace/Jokers. The way you pick cards back up organizes cards from small to large, which makes this easy to sustain. Maybe "easy mode" can be as described in the video, "medium" can be remove one joker, and "hard" can be no jokers. Haven't tried those modifications out yet, though.
I wonder if reversing the order you pick up reset cards would solve this. It would put the older Ace/Joker on the bottom of the deck below the high cards, and prevent you from re-stacking the picked up cards in the same order. Reversing a pile is less fiddly than shuffling. Here are some other ways to increase difficulty: -- Start the game with a joker in the center of the grid. -- Armor cards count for *all* royals for the rest of the game, and killing a royal clears all armor of that royal's suit. -- Aces can still be played onto any pile, and still have a value of 1, but they don't return cards to your deck. Or, they only return cards to your deck if playing the ace kills a royal.
That's a great solitaire, had to jump straight to playing a hand, which I only just won with 5 cards left in the hand. My personal twist for the future might be to score each round on the total of my remaining cards, minus any shame.
I’m currently on holiday in Spain and wanted to play a card game, suddenly I remembered this from Reddit like 2 years ago. I look forward to playing it, I hope this is the latest version of the rules :)
Pretty clever, I like it! I've been kicking around a competitive game with a functionally similar 'add two cards to eliminate the royal' mechanic for a decade now. I need to try to work mine out. I would love to see some rule variations that could turn this into a competitive game. Perhaps taking turns with each player guarding their color royal. I think you would need more reset conditions, two's as well, perhaps. Anyway, I'm just spitballing. Great work!
You would need more rules surrounding armor too. It would be possible to put a 9 on a king, and it would be impossible to kill it. Maybe you could leverage that though, since it would be a lot harder to do that.
@@Alex-wl1sp Destructoid made a post about this and Ricky Namara made some good suggestions for competitive variant in the comments as well. www.destructoid.com/the-creator-of-gunpoint-and-heat-signature-has-made-a-strategy-game-using-a-regular-deck-of-cards-564503.phtml
@@Alex-wl1sp Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the highest value of armour that can possibly be played is 7, because the highest possible board value is four 10s, four 9s, and an 8, which means you can play the other three 8s on the 8 that's already on the board. If you're playing with it where pieces of armour add up, then that can be a problem, but I think if you're playing where each royal can only have 1 piece of armour, there's no chance that something becomes un-killable.
I feel so lucky. I was looking for a solitaire game that would work with my deck that is missing a card... found this video. If i had been two months earlier I might never have found this excellent game!
As I kept playing this awesome game, I made my own variation with a more present losing condition. Instead of having Armor/Shame when you have a card to low, there is a "blood pile." If a card is too low for your board, it goes there automatically. One way to get rid of them is each time you kill a royal, you get one back (your choice). However, when you draw an ace/joker, you have to use it on one of your bleed cards FIRST, then use that card for the replacement. Those aces/jokers go to a "ruin pile" and they cannot be retrieved by any means. If you bleed too much you will run out of cards with no way to get them back, and when you run out of cards, you lose the game. I think it makes the game much more fun because, since you never shuffle the deck, you are trying to manipulate it so that you don't bleed. (I also took out Jokers for more challenge)
Great idea for a solo game! My only suggestion would be to nix the Shame pile and instead Revive a Royal if you don't want to add armor to a living one. Then you would place the unplayable card underneath your deck. If you don't remember which dead royal was where, this could be a real gotcha moment if you accidentally revive a King.
played with it a bit, it's fun, but I needed extra chalage so I changed it a bit: - you loose when you have 3 shame cards - health of royals is doubled - when you trigger a payload the trigger card value also counts towards the attack, and it's color and suit also matters - when you run out of the cards (which I did twice in one of the games) you loose unless you scored a kill on that turn. If you did, you may reset a cell on the grid and use those cards to continue.
Oh my good gracious me. This game is just… I love it. Regicide, single player, (optional multiplayer from one of the comments), and a really interesting and unique game! It’s so cool!
I just found them! Search 'Joyoldelf 54Pcs Poker Playing Cards Black Deck of Poker Card with Rose Pattern' on amazon (seems to nbe the only place they sell)
A great theme for this would be French Revolution. All the lower class need to rise up and work together to eliminate the royals, with more important royals requiring more strategy
You’ve inspired me, I’m currently working on making a simple p5 based web app to play this game. It won’t be much, but the goals are to simply replicate what was show here Stretch goals are to implement some of the losing conditions suggested in the comments as options, whether or not I get to this is based on how much I enjoy making it. I may even make a full unity based version if the p5 prototype turns out well
Wow, I am so in love with this game concept. Suggestions: 0. Reclaimed cards go to a spare deck to be reshuffled when the current one is finished instead of the bottom (avoids sequence repeat) 1. After killing one of the royals, allow to pick one of the 3 cards used to be removed into a points stack. Player can get more points and lose a powerful card or fewer but less chance of giving armor. Also frees one space. 2. Allow the armors to be chipped away. If a king gets a 5+ armor it will be a pain to beat him in one shot. So you could use successive strikes to win. E.g. K+5 gets a canonball worth 11, it loses the +5 but the extra 6 damage is lost. 3. Chipped armor counts as negative points BUT royals defeated with armor in single shot give the armor as bonus points. Added challenge for players wanting higher scores.
It also can have a "planned" mode, just by adding a hand with X cards, I think 3 would be nice to add some strategy but not completely bust the gambling part of having to chose a placement with incomplete information.
I've been playing a variant where you split the royals from the deck and place all the royals around the grid from the start. I think this simplifies the game a lot and makes the winning condition killing all the royal before you run out of cards. Ive been scoring by adding the total of my unused cards together after a win and just giving a loss if you cant play a card or run out of cards without killing all the royals
I watching the video I was thinking that would the end just cycle infinitely with aces until a win, then when I tested I won with my last card, well done sir
You just came up with this recently? This is fantastic! I think I might try to borrow/piggyback some of the mechanics to help with my card game I’m working on.
Love the game man. Honestly, it's brilliant. The Shame pile seems odd as a solitaire game is really more so a puzzle. A point system doesn't serve a purpose. the armor system i think fits perfect. Adds a penalty for drawing a dead card, which makes the player has to play around keeping stacks low. If you added a system in which the lowest hitpoint, similar, royal gets the armor it sort of automates the mechanic evenly. So if a Jack already has 2 armor and the dead card is a same suit 3, it would go on the queen. IDK if that'd work exactly, but something along those lines. It'll need some testing. Awesome concept!
James Mueller I was looking at it and I think he was trying to keep the top left a spade so he could kill the king which, as you may know, is much harder to kill than a jack
@@metaljesus6667 the OP is talking about the move he actually made, it should have killed both of the jacks, but he just missed it (he also misses a kill on the king of clubs at 13:35)
2 moves later he kills both those jacks when he places a 10 in the same spot. Yes, the 6 would have killed them, but in this game him forgetting to do it didn't change anything in the long run. It was just a minor slip up on his end, and he makes similar mistakes at other points in the video.
This looks like a really badass game! Definitely putting this into my repertoire for those times when I want to play a card game and solitarie just won't do!
At 13:36 when the reset triggered the kill on the Queen of Diamonds, didnt it also trigger the kill of the King of Clubs ? As you had 18 points of payload in clubs lined up at that point to. I ask as you did a double shot later in the game.
I think it had something to do with the colour of the payload, as he seems to mention that without explaining it. Hopefully we will get an answer to this one because I’m not sure.
Tried a couple of games. Another idea / variant for you: No shame pile, so placing armour is mandatory (I prefer the name "support") when a card can not be played in the centre, however the player has a choice of where to play the support, and support cards can be stacked on a royal even if it makes them impossible to kill. Jokers do not reset centre piles, and must be placed as armour (of value 1), however Jokers can be used to reset existing support piles, setting the support value to 1. In practice, if you get 2 jokers very early you might be stuck, but when this does happen, you can use one joker to reset the other.
Cool. I like it. Interesting decision to return cards to the bottom without shuffling. I'll have to play a few that way, and shuffling all cards once running out to see the difference.
Tom "take a break from developing your game to develop a game" Francis Also, I feel like Jokers should let you pick up the stack, but Aces just go on top. Might be an interesting alternate rule
I told another guy here as well, but it seems like he's using www.amazon.co.uk/Joyoldelf-Playing-Pattern-Backing-Classic/dp/B077YWNN6L (not advertising, I was looking myself, and annoyed no one had posted a link/clue)
that looks to be really fun. thank you for sharing : D there is not a lot of single player games of cards or board games, that i know of this is so cool : D
Amazing game idea, I absolutely loved it and will be trying it soon, I'd love to play several matches to test bad deals, and might even change a couple rules to make it harder to win, since it seems you can win 100% of the time :)
A friend and I played this with a split deck cooperatively he had final say on his stack I had final say on ours. We counted our turns played so that as soon as the deck was out we lost but if we killed all royals our score equals the number of turns it took to kill all the royals. Also I agree Regicide would be a much better name.
Another thing you could do is set the difficulty from easy to hard. Let me explain: For those having a hard time beating the game, like myself, just lower the difficulty until you feel comfortable enough to raise it. I haven't won a game yet which is what gave me the idea. Sure, it may make it easier but that's the point. You can set the difficulty in a lot games, this should be no different. That and making sure you're having fun. Easy - You can take out every royal the same way you take out a Jack; as long as the numbers add up to the appropriate rank of the royal you're trying to assassinate regardless of suit. Medium - You can take out every royal the same way you take out a Queen; as long as the numbers add up to the appropriate rank of the royal you're trying to assassinate while matching the color of the suit (not to get it confused with matching the suit itself, that's different). Hard - Taking every royal out regularly. Jacks; as long as the numbers add up regardless of suit. Queens; as long as the numbers add up while matching the color of the suit. Kings; as long as the numbers add up AND match the suit. Again, its just an idea I had. In theory it should work. Happy hunting!
Three rules to defeat royals is perfect along with the simple payload mechanic. I’d try to keep the rules at that. Royals, as they turn up, can be placed around the grid however you see fit. Shame/armor cards can be placed on top of existing royals or in blank royal spaces. You can clear unassigned armor cards before a royal for that spot is upturned. If you win, you sum up defeated armor cards and add 24 for a total score. Twenty-four is devised from jacks = 1 point each, queens = 2 points each, and Kings = 3 points each. If you lose, you sum the defeated and undefeated armor and royal cards. The difference is your final score. Only rule I would add is that an ace/joker should go to the bottom of the deck if one is upturned during the setup. Not sure if leaving the center open is fun or annoying. I do like the jokers too. I would call this game Trebuchet. I’ll certainly be playing this again.
When playing with my variations I could only place armor cards when there wasn’t any other moves left. If I could cover a card with the same number I would have to do that first before placing armor. Key strategy is to recycle those aces in order to systematically reopen the grid. Top score 44, but it is tough.
I made some slight adjustments to make it a little harder. 1st: no shame pile, only armor. If a piece gets more than 20 points in armor you lose automatically. Also no jokers, so you only have the 4 aces to reset piles. That made it much more strategic.
I like to count the cards left in my deck when i finish and count that as my score (every card in the pile of shame is a negative one to the score) and that gives a new motive to try to reset the big piles and sometimes even hard reseting can help you in the long run.
if you dont get in contact with him, or if it doesnt pan out/he doesnt like it, you should still post it here so others can try your idea if they like it
The fun thing about playing cards is you can make the game however you like. Implement your ideas, if it's fun than play it. No contact needed. I had an idea of Assasin mode, where you try to kill all Royals except the suits you work for. This is my version of Multiplayer, each person is assigned a suit and assisinates the others. Two players get two suits, four players get one suit. Three players get one suit, and the killed royals of remaining suit get to be used as resetters for the Assasin who killed it.
@@MrSirFluffy that sounds like an amazing multiplayer idea. Maybe if you're playing with one other person you both only get one suit and you still have to kill all other suits but yours but this way you can lead the other player on by pretending to defend a different suit so they won't attack your suit
*very interesting, fun and thoroughly thought through game!* ill definitively try this out myself *the only thing that seems kinda weird and useless is the shame-pile* because you said it kinda acts like a minus point at the end of the game but there are no points or something like that so it seems like *the shame pile doesnt really punish you for the hard reset which is very powerful* -> i feel like *the armor rule should always be applied!* this can lead to situations where you can actually lose the game (when the royal has too much armor on it)! (the armor checks in this order: [suit -> color and then on the lowest royal] right? cause when the armor goes on the lowest royal first then you wont lose too fast cause the armor wont go on kings immediately - it goes on jacks and queens first which is way easier to manage this also makes focusing kings more important and rewarding because that way they have less time on the board = less chances they get armor) with the hard reset rule it seems kinda impossible to actually lose the game (not sure cause i never played it but with the reset rule you can always just clear the boars as often as you need) sure its RNG if you pull too many low cards etc - but its more interesting if you can actually lose the game
Rule Suggestion: For the Same Pile, right now it doesn't seem to do anything. So if you're shameless you won't care. But what about if when you put something in the shame pile, then it is automatically added to the next Royal of that matching suit that comes up. That way there are consequences to the shame pile. Awesome game BTW
I like the basis of the game, however I have modified it a bit, since I found it too easy. Here are my new rules for anyone interested: + The royals are laid out from the beginning. I couldn't see any good reason for having them show up along the way, and I found myself having to skip to the next too often. + The middle field should also be filled from the beginning. I found it conflicting that this field could sometimes be empty, and I don't think the rule was necessary. + The payloads are used up and added to the bottom on the deck once they are triggered, the trigger remains. This adds an element of planing sequences where the below cards will be beneficial after a shot. Also this means the you cannot use high cards to kills several royals in succession. + The jokers are no longer resets, they now convert royals into super-royals. You kill a super-royal like normal at first, but when it is killed a normal royal remains with the armor of the lowest card used to kill the super-royal. This added an element of trying to minimize redundant extra damage, and I really like this addition. The jokers are also placed at the beginning along with the royals, and are added to a black and red king of your choosing. + When you cannot place a card in the grid, you must add it as armor, the "shame" pile does not exist. If the highest royal already has armor, choose the next highest. If all have armor choose the highest again. You lose when: + You cannot draw a card + A royal is unkillable. This happens if it's armor is too high, >19 for kings and >20 for queens and jacks. (Edited as a result of Kyle Ng's comment).
This can be tweaked into a neat 2 player competitive game by adding score to the player who kills a royal, say, 1 point for the jack, 2 for the queen, and 3 for the king. Neat game though! I'll add it to my repertoir.
I played a few rounds and added a "3 strikes/shame cards and you lose" option. Makes it a little more intense. especially with the running out of cards in your deck deal. makes you want to play armor more as well.
Here's an alternative to the shame pile rule: - Each player start with 3 cards on hand. This can be considered your "lives". - At your turn, you draw a card to your hand and then play a card from your hand. This doesn't have to be the card you drew. - If you are unable to play a card, you have to discard two cards from your hand, face up (to show that they can't be played). Now you only have 2 cards on hand. - If you have to discard 3 times you run out of cards and you lose. It should be noted for 2 or more players, that playing armour on your own royals is often beneficial, so there should be a rule against that. Maybe you can only play armour on your opponent's royals?
Seems like a fun game, some of the rules would help to be laid out in the beginning, but by the end I think I got all the important rules, seems like the trigger card doesn't matter/count per value/suit as long as you can place it by having a higher/equal value of the card it's being placed on (and the atk power is only based on the middle cards), and every corner shot always fires in two directions
just played this after watching, and ive got to say, its dope. the only thing missing is scoring. i noticed that thered be times the discard pile was maybe two 4s, and other times the leftover cards were a lot, so i think the goal would be to get x points, the leftover cards being worth face value while shame cards are minus 3 times face value. also, you should get bonus points for having leftover royals (maybe call them pow's), although there are some games where you only kill one royal before sorting through to force another. either way its a lot of fun and has some strategy potential.
You can make this multiplayer if you want! It can be turn based. If you have 2 players, one player can be clubs&spades while the other can be diamonds&hearts. You can make up a rule for how to lay out a random but even amount of royals for each player. It's turn-based, so you have to think about where you're placing cards to benefit yourself without benefitting your opponent too much. You can also play this with 4 players (3 might be hard) if you designate a suit to each player.
There's a really simple way to make this game two player! Play as normal with a second deck for the other player. Every time either player draws a card they can put it on the opponents grid with no restrictions! With a royal this can be done as well, however the normal play restrictions for Royals stay in place.
I love this game. Though I've lost a handful of times already haha. If you run out of cards with a royal still alive, it is like they got away. Or if a royal gains too much armour to beat, I play with no shame pile, forcing every unplayable card to be armour with no hard resets from a shame card. Seems to be pretty consistent. Should implement a shuffle somewhere in there though lol.
Heh, I remember I used to play a similar "game" that I invented using Tarot Cards where the Major Arcana that didn't start with X was trying to kill the one with X, and the other cards were used as weapons or armor, with royals being allies that could use other cards themselves... This video made me realize that a flaw with my "game" is that the player ends being an observer of what happens between the arcana, because if one takes one side it's easy to outplay the other, so it's about playing neutral moves and seeing who wins... so I guess it was just a toy, and I also guess I didn't like losing, so just seeing what side won was entertaining. I attempted to play a version of it that was multiplayer, but it turned to be something boring where the optimal move was obvious every time and the outcome was entirely luck-based, so, eh, perhaps creating card games is not for everyone.
This was randomly recommended to me by TH-cam by I’m glad I clicked.
same
Same
dude same
@@phoenixplasma1065 dudes shut the fuck up nobody gives a shit
it took me 6 minutes to realise it was Tom Francis
"You know we're trying to kill the Royals" - Tom Francis, 2k19
january 5th, remember
-french basically always
The British Crown would like to know your location.
@@NoNameAtAll2 was this filmed January the fifth?
@@andrepaulsen2660
Google "queen January 5th"
2 player mode: Play as usual, but each player chooses a color. The players then take turns drawing from the deck and killing each other's royals while also trying to protect their own. Wipe out the enemy royals to win.
4 players. Every player has a suit and as long as they have a royal alive (either on the field or in the deck) they keep playing. I'd assume this would lead to interesting alliances and betrayals.
I'd also suggest changing the function of the jokers. I have a few ideas that I think could all work together. Upon drawing a joker choose one of the following actions:
1) They trigger a reset of armor on a selected royal after which the armor card(s) and joker return to the bottom of the deck.
2) They allow you to switch the places of any two royals (armor goes with a royal and a dead royal is still a viable choice) on the field and then place the joker on the bottom of the deck.
3) They can be placed on a royal and act as a one-use shield with a health of 10. Upon a successful hit, they are returned to the bottom of the deck.
4) The joker can be placed atop any stack, triggering any adjacent cannons and setting the value to 2.
5) Shuffle the deck and then place the joker on the bottom.
I'd also disable the hard reset rule. An unplayable card always becomes armor according to standing rules (to the most similar royal). The joker mods I suggested would prevent cards from being indestructible as they will usually be returned to the deck and allow the possibility of an armor reset.
One final rule edit (for multiplayer only) is if it comes to your turn and the deck is empty you must choose one of your royals to sacrifice and then take up the adjacent stack to use as the deck. This would guarantee a bloody and intense finally to the game, as well as open up opportunities for interesting strategy.
(Forgive any grammar issues or terrible formatting. I typed this up on my phone)
Just tried it with my wife... It got annoying when all the stack values got too high. I'll try to reconfigure the rules to make the flow better
Just an idea if making the game multiplayer becomes too hard. Try reversing the roles of the king and jack whilst keeping each’s royal’s health the same
I was think of just spitting the deck in half randomly
I was thinking making jokers the only 2 cards that'll put a stack back in the deck (making that an extremely important decision) and aces just go on any stack you want them to
What if the Joker is still just like the Ace but just doesn't trigger any cannons? This would probably be better for single player.
I can immediately tell when I've seen a good game when 5 minutes after having the rules explained to me by the creator, I'm already invested enough to start yelling "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! PLAY THERE! PLAY THERE!!"
Every card game can be singleplayer if you're insane enough
Lmao
my favourite is single player hold 'em
After some single-player monopoly you would start hating youself more than you did before.
Me playing 12 man poker:
Me: "Check"
Myself: "All in."
The rest of me's: "Whhhyyyy??"
*reluctantly places all chips into middle*
Spoilers, I lost.
I am insane enough. I even did some variations to solitaire and pyramid so that I always win them.
This is a sweet proof of genuine passion for gamedesign :))
I submitted your game on Boardgamegeek and gave full credit to you and Chris! I hope you don't mind.
Hope he sees this
Gridcannon (alternate title: Regicide) seems super cool!
What about Get Down Mr. President?
Anoni Mouse I was thinking more like GridLocked, to keep the original name and essentially you can lock yourself and become unable to defeat a royal
@@jonsta_6486 that title works, but unfortunately loses the whole "eat the rich" angle i was going for, so seems a bit mixed results to me
Guillotine
@@wesfreneaux9728 YES! Instant yes.
Wow, this is really cool! I think I've found my new favorite solitaire game.
13:40 - You got the King of Clubs here, not on your next play!
17:12 - And the Jack of Diamonds here!
Neat card game dude.
I think 17:12 is a double kill on Jack of Diamonds and the Jack of Clubs, aye?
@@naxospade Yep! I missed that too, hahaha.
@@naxospade Yup!
I was really frustrated by this when watching
Dude this confused me the whole vid, I thought I was missing a rule. Glad to know it was just an error.
I watched the whole thing thinking you were explaining a neat cardgame; you should have led with the fact that you INVENTED this. So cool!
"A single player game with regular playing cards." That's some AAA rebranding of patience right there.
Your profile picture looks like the dude from "Her"
@@claytopiaw485 oh hey it IS Joaquin Phoenix!!
Joaquin!!!
@@senoreverything6366 okay, okay, keep it down. I don't want the whole world to know.
@@DorkingtonHacker my b my b
Holy moly. I came here from clear the dungeon, and I heard 3 seconds of the voice before I realised. Absolute legend Tom! Thanks for all your amazing crate and crowbar work! Not to mention the awesome PC games!
Really like the look of this. To really fit in the Tom Francis theme though, when you win the game the royals get defenestrated
You gotta love the english language for having a word like defenestration, but no word for the day after tomorrow.
@לביא גלזמן from what i've heard noone uses it tho
@לביא גלזמן lol this is so weir i think because of your username youtube makes me write right to left
@לביא גלזמן no problem it is just so weird, everytime i stop it puts the cursor at another position and it is almost mirroring everywhere :D
when i do signs like a .,!?it first displays them on the completely other side .
also my dog was adfenestrated beforemorrow you fool :P
@@NinjarioPicmin There is a word for beforemorrow. Today.
Well, the game is fun, but it needs a few losing conditions. For example:
>The deck somehow runs out.
>There's 8 or more armour in the field.
>The royals have received 12 or more armour throughout the whole game.
>There are 6 or more shame points in the shame zone.
At least these are the ones I've been using.
Haven't tried yet, but you could choose to remove either the jokers or the aces from the deck for fewer opportunities to reset piles, right? As long as you have two resets you can always recover, albeit with a very limited deck if you want to continuously recover the other ace/joker. You could perhaps say each pile can only be reset once? Without setting an arbitrary limit, the amount of armor on a single royal for a guaranteed loss varies for value and suit, but so long as any royal has 20 or more health, it's a guaranteed loss. You could treat armor as adding twice the value of the card in health so that a 4 or higher is a likely loss. Just a few ideas.
I just gave it a shot and I agree. I think the jokers make the game a bit too easy. Though perhaps you could just say that you will always beat the game, but your remaining deck count is your score. I just finished a game with 8 cards remaining in my deck for example.
Isely Mills so you would remove the value of shame cards from that number. So, if you shamed a 3 of diamonds, and had 5 cards at the end, your score would be 2. Maybe add a multiplier for removing the jokers.
I have a better idea, there is only one loss condition and that is the deck running out of cards. Shame no longer is a point system that counts against you but is more of a dead pile. When you put a card in that pile you reset the stack with the most cards in it by adding it to that pile. So as the game goes on you end up with less and less cards to use especially if you can’t kill the royals before they start getting armour.
here's a thought: If you reset a stack that already has a reset card in it (either through a reset card or a hard reset), the reset card in that stack goes into the shame pile. Takes out the infinite sustain while not putting a harsh limit on the length of the game - the goal of the game is a significant enough task that I feel your harsh restrictions will too often force plays that make the game progress slowly and thus potentially make the game unwinnable. This way there's also further strategy to resets - you have a limited number of non-hard resets, but resetting large stacks gives you more resources to work with
I don't know how I found this video (thanks TH-cam algorithm!) but I love the idea of this game, especially being a single player card game, and I can't wait to give it a try!
The extras I’ve used are: Can’t reset a pile twice (stops infinites), no shame piling (have to armour), and if the deck runs out, you lose. Rather difficult actually.
This game is super cool and elegant! I especially like it with the rule changes you posted.
I think another cool twist on the game (probably too complicated without a specialized deck, but we) would be using a tarot deck, and then each of the Major Arcana could have their own special effect.
Fun game! It has a surprising amount of deck building involved since the aces/joker's let you control what is left in your deck toward the end. This allows you to increase the density of joker's as the game goes on so that you don't run out of options.
I think long term this would need something incentivizing risk taking. Maybe giving score for destroying armor since that gives incentive to have high-numbered stacks early which makes joker hoarding less rewarding?
Currently keeping joker's in small piles early to cycle then back in seems like the dominant strategy.
Hantuchblau , you may want to check out my comments in this thread
Here is my variant:
Aces do not reset, but you can place them on top of any stack.
Both Jokers are royals, they are placed in the upper corners before the game starts. A joker is killed when you have 3 cards of identical rank on its diagonal. (Note that in this case you do not need to place the opposite side last.)
The card just played also counts towards the payload. You cannot shoot a cannon if one of the payloads is empty. You may chose not to kill a royal even if you could.
Whenever a royal is killed, the three top cards of its row/column/diagonal (including the one you just played) are removed and put on a seperate discard-pile. You can kill multiple royals with the same play.
There is no shame pile.
If there is no living royal besides jokers, armor will be attached to the next royal that shows up.
Jokers can not get armor, armor goes in the discard pile after its royal is defeated.
Once the draw pile is empty you can shuffle the discard pile and continue playing with it.
Win condition: Defeat all royals including both jokers. Your score is the total amount of cards in your draw and discard pile.
Lose conditions:
Running out of cards.
A royal has more than 30 health.
Unable to play a card when all non-joker royals are defeated.
I made some more adjustments to the health system and a neat combo system, but for starters just giving all royals 18 health works fine.
Zilvarro Out of interest, what is this “neat combo system” you speak of?
@@TheBasikShow
Combos:
If this allows you to defeat 2 or more enemies simultaneously, the card played being the middle card of a line is also okay.
If this allows you to defeat 3 or more enemies simultaneously, the last card can be any card in the line.
Chains:
Whenever one or more royals are killed, if after removing all relevant cards there appears a valid line that did not deal enough damage before, it is also triggered.
Something you didn't go over in the video is how do you calculate your points at the end of the game and how does the shame pile lose you the game?
Id assume the shame pile is like a score but you want to get the lowest score possible
I feel like the shame pile should represent damage to the player. Like a casualty during a battle or something. You could maybe take 2 or 3 damage before you lose the game.
I believe that the best score you can get in Gridcannon is 0. You can only lose points, using the aforementioned shame pile.
Say you run out of cards and there is a King, a Queen, a Jack and 2 cards in the SHAME Pile...
Jack +1 point.
Queen +2 points.
King +3 points.
SHAME cards 2 x 1 point.
In total 8 points and winner (if you were playing side-by-side with a friend for instance) is decided by golf rules, in other words, the LEAST points wins.
Arguably the SHAME cards could be modified slightly point-wise - considering this example game, they maybe should be worth 2 points instead - or perhaps they scale? 1 SHAME card is only 1 point, but 2 SHAME cards means each is worth 2 points (i.e. a total of 4 points) - this would then mean that SHAME is exponentially damaging... which I think fits quite well...
In other words - 1 SC - 1 point / 2 SC - 4 points / 3 SC - 9 points / 4 SC - Instant loss.
NOTE: 4 SC would equate to 16 points, which is equal to all four Kings AND all four Jacks still being left alive - there is not point in even continuing with 4 SC.
Nexus Void
What if you play against someone and you both get no shame. You need a tiebreaker
This is awesome! Can't wait to see it on Shut Up & Sit Down. Quinns would love this.
Definitely a card game that doesn’t suck!
This is quite good! I’ve played 2 games so far!
If you lay a joker or an ace during the setup phase, I think they should always go straight to the bottom of the deck.
I watched this video a couple weeks ago and now I am OBSESSED with this game. It’s so much fun! Thank you for this.
This is a brilliant solitaire game! It's got simple rules and involves a good amount of strategy and doesn't feel like you are simply beholden to luck.
Saw this video in my recommended. Happened to have my deck of cards next to me. It’s 12:08 at night and this is my new favourite game
I've played quite a few rounds by now and I must say, this is really fun.
Although I think it is a bit too easy to win with this set of rules, so I started to include a scoring system in my games.
Here's what I came up with:
-unplayable cards allways get used as armor
-excess damage is being counted towards your score
For example: a Jack has an additional armor of 2 (hp=13).
You kill him with 10+7 damage, so your point total for this attack is 17-13=4
-different royals give different score multipliers:
Jack has a multiplier of x1,
Queen x1.5,
King x2
E.g.:
A king has no armor and you deal 16 damage to him. (16-13)*2=6. So your total score for this attack is 6
-at the end of the game you just add together the scores of your attacks. the maximum score you can get is therefore 132.
You lose if:
-you run out of cards
-a royal has more hp than you can deal damage to him.
With a scoring system, the player is more incentivised to play risky, as it is not only about winning, but also about scoring.
I've played 2 rounds with this scoring system, and couldn't win either, because I got way too greedy :P
In my opinion it is alot more fun this way.
Don't read this if you don't want strategies to make the game easy.
Well, I've played several games, winning all but the first without shame cards. The trick is to use Ace and Joker cards on each other over and over, keeping three or four in the deck until absolutely necessary, while piling every unneeded card on the ones in play. It Lets you stall while the royalty is coming out. Makes the game really easy. Also, when you are wasting other cards, keep them on as few piles as possible, so that you can pick them up with just a couple Ace/Jokers. The way you pick cards back up organizes cards from small to large, which makes this easy to sustain. Maybe "easy mode" can be as described in the video, "medium" can be remove one joker, and "hard" can be no jokers. Haven't tried those modifications out yet, though.
Hard mode: When you reset a pile, shuffle it before adding it the back of your deck.
I wonder if reversing the order you pick up reset cards would solve this. It would put the older Ace/Joker on the bottom of the deck below the high cards, and prevent you from re-stacking the picked up cards in the same order. Reversing a pile is less fiddly than shuffling.
Here are some other ways to increase difficulty:
-- Start the game with a joker in the center of the grid.
-- Armor cards count for *all* royals for the rest of the game, and killing a royal clears all armor of that royal's suit.
-- Aces can still be played onto any pile, and still have a value of 1, but they don't return cards to your deck. Or, they only return cards to your deck if playing the ace kills a royal.
That's a great solitaire, had to jump straight to playing a hand, which I only just won with 5 cards left in the hand.
My personal twist for the future might be to score each round on the total of my remaining cards, minus any shame.
Subtract shame, add defeated armor?
I did the same, but I won on literally the last card left.
I’m currently on holiday in Spain and wanted to play a card game, suddenly I remembered this from Reddit like 2 years ago. I look forward to playing it, I hope this is the latest version of the rules :)
Pretty clever, I like it! I've been kicking around a competitive game with a functionally similar 'add two cards to eliminate the royal' mechanic for a decade now. I need to try to work mine out.
I would love to see some rule variations that could turn this into a competitive game. Perhaps taking turns with each player guarding their color royal. I think you would need more reset conditions, two's as well, perhaps. Anyway, I'm just spitballing.
Great work!
You would need more rules surrounding armor too. It would be possible to put a 9 on a king, and it would be impossible to kill it. Maybe you could leverage that though, since it would be a lot harder to do that.
@@Alex-wl1sp Destructoid made a post about this and Ricky Namara made some good suggestions for competitive variant in the comments as well. www.destructoid.com/the-creator-of-gunpoint-and-heat-signature-has-made-a-strategy-game-using-a-regular-deck-of-cards-564503.phtml
@@Alex-wl1sp Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think the highest value of armour that can possibly be played is 7, because the highest possible board value is four 10s, four 9s, and an 8, which means you can play the other three 8s on the 8 that's already on the board. If you're playing with it where pieces of armour add up, then that can be a problem, but I think if you're playing where each royal can only have 1 piece of armour, there's no chance that something becomes un-killable.
I feel so lucky. I was looking for a solitaire game that would work with my deck that is missing a card... found this video. If i had been two months earlier I might never have found this excellent game!
As I kept playing this awesome game, I made my own variation with a more present losing condition.
Instead of having Armor/Shame when you have a card to low, there is a "blood pile." If a card is too low for your board, it goes there automatically.
One way to get rid of them is each time you kill a royal, you get one back (your choice).
However, when you draw an ace/joker, you have to use it on one of your bleed cards FIRST, then use that card for the replacement. Those aces/jokers go to a "ruin pile" and they cannot be retrieved by any means.
If you bleed too much you will run out of cards with no way to get them back, and when you run out of cards, you lose the game.
I think it makes the game much more fun because, since you never shuffle the deck, you are trying to manipulate it so that you don't bleed. (I also took out Jokers for more challenge)
Quote. I like this.
@@bluburroni7615 Thanks. :p
Great idea for a solo game! My only suggestion would be to nix the Shame pile and instead Revive a Royal if you don't want to add armor to a living one. Then you would place the unplayable card underneath your deck. If you don't remember which dead royal was where, this could be a real gotcha moment if you accidentally revive a King.
Fun-looking single player card game that only requires a regular deck of cards? I'm in! We need more stuff like this on the internet!
This is a great game. I have designed a few games with a standard deck of cards, and it has been a difficult but rewarding process. Thanks!
played with it a bit, it's fun, but I needed extra chalage so I changed it a bit:
- you loose when you have 3 shame cards
- health of royals is doubled
- when you trigger a payload the trigger card value also counts towards the attack, and it's color and suit also matters
- when you run out of the cards (which I did twice in one of the games) you loose unless you scored a kill on that turn. If you did, you may reset a cell on the grid and use those cards to continue.
Yay! A single player card game that is actually fun! (And not just a version of solitare!) Thank you for this video!
Oh my good gracious me. This game is just… I love it. Regicide, single player, (optional multiplayer from one of the comments), and a really interesting and unique game! It’s so cool!
What a neat card game! Love finding new solitaire games - and what are the cards you use? They look beautiful!
I just found them! Search 'Joyoldelf 54Pcs Poker Playing Cards Black Deck of Poker Card with Rose Pattern' on amazon (seems to nbe the only place they sell)
A great theme for this would be French Revolution. All the lower class need to rise up and work together to eliminate the royals, with more important royals requiring more strategy
Yeah. Maybe the card game could simply be called "revolution"?
"Red, the blood of angry men! Black, the dark of ages past!"
@@Bobstew68 that's what i'm gonna call it if i show it to anyone. xD
You’ve inspired me, I’m currently working on making a simple p5 based web app to play this game. It won’t be much, but the goals are to simply replicate what was show here
Stretch goals are to implement some of the losing conditions suggested in the comments as options, whether or not I get to this is based on how much I enjoy making it. I may even make a full unity based version if the p5 prototype turns out well
My friend, you just taught me my new favorite solitaire. Thank you so much
Wow, I am so in love with this game concept.
Suggestions:
0. Reclaimed cards go to a spare deck to be reshuffled when the current one is finished instead of the bottom (avoids sequence repeat)
1. After killing one of the royals, allow to pick one of the 3 cards used to be removed into a points stack. Player can get more points and lose a powerful card or fewer but less chance of giving armor. Also frees one space.
2. Allow the armors to be chipped away. If a king gets a 5+ armor it will be a pain to beat him in one shot. So you could use successive strikes to win. E.g. K+5 gets a canonball worth 11, it loses the +5 but the extra 6 damage is lost.
3. Chipped armor counts as negative points BUT royals defeated with armor in single shot give the armor as bonus points. Added challenge for players wanting higher scores.
It can be made into a 2 player mode if each one gets the beaten cards into his own score. Added competition for locking some hits for late game.
It also can have a "planned" mode, just by adding a hand with X cards, I think 3 would be nice to add some strategy but not completely bust the gambling part of having to chose a placement with incomplete information.
And a quick or learning game mode with cards 5 to 10 in a grid 2x2, in which the trigger would also count into the payload.
Just gave this a try. Very cool and fun! Was on the ropes several times but ended up winning on my first try. Thanks!
Wonderful premise and well thought out execution. I can definitely see myself playing this as a fun alternative to Solitaire.
I've been playing a variant where you split the royals from the deck and place all the royals around the grid from the start. I think this simplifies the game a lot and makes the winning condition killing all the royal before you run out of cards. Ive been scoring by adding the total of my unused cards together after a win and just giving a loss if you cant play a card or run out of cards without killing all the royals
I watching the video I was thinking that would the end just cycle infinitely with aces until a win, then when I tested I won with my last card, well done sir
Wow super surprised that this doesn't have millions of views. Love the video and super interesting idea
You just came up with this recently? This is fantastic! I think I might try to borrow/piggyback some of the mechanics to help with my card game I’m working on.
Thank you Mr. Tom Francis. I'm one step closer towards enlightened
What a cool original game. Thanks guys. Finally an alternative to solitare! Nice instructive vid too, you've earned a subscriber here.
Love the game man. Honestly, it's brilliant. The Shame pile seems odd as a solitaire game is really more so a puzzle. A point system doesn't serve a purpose. the armor system i think fits perfect. Adds a penalty for drawing a dead card, which makes the player has to play around keeping stacks low. If you added a system in which the lowest hitpoint, similar, royal gets the armor it sort of automates the mechanic evenly. So if a Jack already has 2 armor and the dead card is a same suit 3, it would go on the queen. IDK if that'd work exactly, but something along those lines. It'll need some testing. Awesome concept!
Wouldn't playing that 6 of Clubs at around 17:00 kill one or both of the Jack of Diamonds // Jack of Clubs?
Really cool game!
James Mueller I was looking at it and I think he was trying to keep the top left a spade so he could kill the king which, as you may know, is much harder to kill than a jack
@@metaljesus6667 the OP is talking about the move he actually made, it should have killed both of the jacks, but he just missed it (he also misses a kill on the king of clubs at 13:35)
2 moves later he kills both those jacks when he places a 10 in the same spot. Yes, the 6 would have killed them, but in this game him forgetting to do it didn't change anything in the long run. It was just a minor slip up on his end, and he makes similar mistakes at other points in the video.
@@Syrahl696 i dont think the OP was trying to criticize or anything, they just wanted clarification for when they play the game themselves
Thank you, an excellent way to make a use of my playing cards since I have no friends
This looks like a really badass game!
Definitely putting this into my repertoire for those times when I want to play a card game and solitarie just won't do!
Kill the royals! Vive la proletariat! Brilliant game~
Also Tom, where'd you get that snazzy black deck of playing cards?
You can find a lot of decks that look like it on Amazon for quite cheap, and by all accounts are good quality, I've been meaning to grab a set myself.
Le prolétariat*
www.amazon.co.uk/Joyoldelf-Playing-Pattern-Backing-Classic/dp/B077YWNN6L seems like a fair bet.
It's not assassination, it's surprise Gridcannon.
At 13:36 when the reset triggered the kill on the Queen of Diamonds, didnt it also trigger the kill of the King of Clubs ? As you had 18 points of payload in clubs lined up at that point to. I ask as you did a double shot later in the game.
... and Great game by the way, will be trying it myself later., Also thats a cool deck of cards :)
I think it had something to do with the colour of the payload, as he seems to mention that without explaining it. Hopefully we will get an answer to this one because I’m not sure.
Yes, it should've. He just forgot
Just tried this game out. It's as fun as it looks! Great game, Tom!
I absolutely love solitaire card games and this is a good one. Please make more. Thank you!
Tried a couple of games. Another idea / variant for you: No shame pile, so placing armour is mandatory (I prefer the name "support") when a card can not be played in the centre, however the player has a choice of where to play the support, and support cards can be stacked on a royal even if it makes them impossible to kill. Jokers do not reset centre piles, and must be placed as armour (of value 1), however Jokers can be used to reset existing support piles, setting the support value to 1. In practice, if you get 2 jokers very early you might be stuck, but when this does happen, you can use one joker to reset the other.
Ffs TH-cam recommendations good job recommending me this
Cool. I like it.
Interesting decision to return cards to the bottom without shuffling. I'll have to play a few that way, and shuffling all cards once running out to see the difference.
Tom "take a break from developing your game to develop a game" Francis
Also, I feel like Jokers should let you pick up the stack, but Aces just go on top. Might be an interesting alternate rule
That's a very nice design, a lot of push and pull in the game's mechanics, great job!
Can you give me a link to where you brought those cards? I love them.
Dark mode cards (I think the game should be called French revolution)
I told another guy here as well, but it seems like he's using www.amazon.co.uk/Joyoldelf-Playing-Pattern-Backing-Classic/dp/B077YWNN6L (not advertising, I was looking myself, and annoyed no one had posted a link/clue)
that looks to be really fun. thank you for sharing : D
there is not a lot of single player games of cards or board games, that i know of
this is so cool : D
Amazing game idea, I absolutely loved it and will be trying it soon, I'd love to play several matches to test bad deals, and might even change a couple rules to make it harder to win, since it seems you can win 100% of the time :)
This is like a better solitaire for me. Can't wait to try it out and maybe add my own twist to it. Thanks!
A friend and I played this with a split deck cooperatively he had final say on his stack I had final say on ours. We counted our turns played so that as soon as the deck was out we lost but if we killed all royals our score equals the number of turns it took to kill all the royals.
Also I agree Regicide would be a much better name.
Another thing you could do is set the difficulty from easy to hard.
Let me explain: For those having a hard time beating the game, like myself, just lower the difficulty until you feel comfortable enough to raise it. I haven't won a game yet which is what gave me the idea. Sure, it may make it easier but that's the point. You can set the difficulty in a lot games, this should be no different. That and making sure you're having fun.
Easy - You can take out every royal the same way you take out a Jack; as long as the numbers add up to the appropriate rank of the royal you're trying to assassinate regardless of suit.
Medium - You can take out every royal the same way you take out a Queen; as long as the numbers add up to the appropriate rank of the royal you're trying to assassinate while matching the color of the suit (not to get it confused with matching the suit itself, that's different).
Hard - Taking every royal out regularly. Jacks; as long as the numbers add up regardless of suit. Queens; as long as the numbers add up while matching the color of the suit. Kings; as long as the numbers add up AND match the suit.
Again, its just an idea I had. In theory it should work. Happy hunting!
Three rules to defeat royals is perfect along with the simple payload mechanic. I’d try to keep the rules at that. Royals, as they turn up, can be placed around the grid however you see fit. Shame/armor cards can be placed on top of existing royals or in blank royal spaces. You can clear unassigned armor cards before a royal for that spot is upturned. If you win, you sum up defeated armor cards and add 24 for a total score. Twenty-four is devised from jacks = 1 point each, queens = 2 points each, and Kings = 3 points each. If you lose, you sum the defeated and undefeated armor and royal cards. The difference is your final score. Only rule I would add is that an ace/joker should go to the bottom of the deck if one is upturned during the setup. Not sure if leaving the center open is fun or annoying. I do like the jokers too. I would call this game Trebuchet. I’ll certainly be playing this again.
When playing with my variations I could only place armor cards when there wasn’t any other moves left. If I could cover a card with the same number I would have to do that first before placing armor. Key strategy is to recycle those aces in order to systematically reopen the grid. Top score 44, but it is tough.
Oh and if the game goes really bad. The game is over when all undefeated royals have armor totaling more than twenty.
I made some slight adjustments to make it a little harder. 1st: no shame pile, only armor. If a piece gets more than 20 points in armor you lose automatically. Also no jokers, so you only have the 4 aces to reset piles. That made it much more strategic.
I like to count the cards left in my deck when i finish and count that as my score (every card in the pile of shame is a negative one to the score) and that gives a new motive to try to reset the big piles and sometimes even hard reseting can help you in the long run.
really cool game! Almost had a perfect round in my first try but eh I screwed up. It's quite simple and fun. Thanks TH-cam for showing me this
Dark mode is best mode.
Hey I was wondering how I might contact you I think i have a pretty cool idea for turning this into a multiplayer game.
if you dont get in contact with him, or if it doesnt pan out/he doesnt like it, you should still post it here so others can try your idea if they like it
The fun thing about playing cards is you can make the game however you like. Implement your ideas, if it's fun than play it.
No contact needed.
I had an idea of Assasin mode, where you try to kill all Royals except the suits you work for.
This is my version of Multiplayer, each person is assigned a suit and assisinates the others. Two players get two suits, four players get one suit. Three players get one suit, and the killed royals of remaining suit get to be used as resetters for the Assasin who killed it.
i found his twitter twitter.com/Pentadact also post your idea here so we can learn it too!
@@MrSirFluffy that sounds like an amazing multiplayer idea. Maybe if you're playing with one other person you both only get one suit and you still have to kill all other suits but yours but this way you can lead the other player on by pretending to defend a different suit so they won't attack your suit
Take turns placing cards, one team is red, one is white/black?
*very interesting, fun and thoroughly thought through game!*
ill definitively try this out myself
*the only thing that seems kinda weird and useless is the shame-pile*
because you said it kinda acts like a minus point at the end of the game but there are no points or something like that
so it seems like *the shame pile doesnt really punish you for the hard reset which is very powerful*
-> i feel like *the armor rule should always be applied!*
this can lead to situations where you can actually lose the game (when the royal has too much armor on it)!
(the armor checks in this order: [suit -> color and then on the lowest royal] right? cause when the armor goes on the lowest royal first then you wont lose too fast cause the armor wont go on kings immediately - it goes on jacks and queens first which is way easier to manage
this also makes focusing kings more important and rewarding because that way they have less time on the board = less chances they get armor)
with the hard reset rule it seems kinda impossible to actually lose the game (not sure cause i never played it but with the reset rule you can always just clear the boars as often as you need)
sure its RNG if you pull too many low cards etc - but its more interesting if you can actually lose the game
Rule Suggestion: For the Same Pile, right now it doesn't seem to do anything. So if you're shameless you won't care.
But what about if when you put something in the shame pile, then it is automatically added to the next Royal of that matching suit that comes up.
That way there are consequences to the shame pile.
Awesome game BTW
Cool looking game, I'll try this out. I'm glad to see innovation with limited components.
I like the basis of the game, however I have modified it a bit, since I found it too easy. Here are my new rules for anyone interested:
+ The royals are laid out from the beginning. I couldn't see any good reason for having them show up along the way, and I found myself having to skip to the next too often.
+ The middle field should also be filled from the beginning. I found it conflicting that this field could sometimes be empty, and I don't think the rule was necessary.
+ The payloads are used up and added to the bottom on the deck once they are triggered, the trigger remains. This adds an element of planing sequences where the below cards will be beneficial after a shot. Also this means the you cannot use high cards to kills several royals in succession.
+ The jokers are no longer resets, they now convert royals into super-royals. You kill a super-royal like normal at first, but when it is killed a normal royal remains with the armor of the lowest card used to kill the super-royal. This added an element of trying to minimize redundant extra damage, and I really like this addition. The jokers are also placed at the beginning along with the royals, and are added to a black and red king of your choosing.
+ When you cannot place a card in the grid, you must add it as armor, the "shame" pile does not exist. If the highest royal already has armor, choose the next highest. If all have armor choose the highest again.
You lose when:
+ You cannot draw a card
+ A royal is unkillable. This happens if it's armor is too high, >19 for kings and >20 for queens and jacks. (Edited as a result of Kyle Ng's comment).
Technically you can kill a royal with 19hp. A 10 and a 9(of suit as well). A royal needs to have 21 hp to be unkillable (or 20 for kings).
@@SwampHeatRG That's true, I have edited the comment. :)
I love you, Tom. Thanks for sharing this with us :D
This can be tweaked into a neat 2 player competitive game by adding score to the player who kills a royal, say, 1 point for the jack, 2 for the queen, and 3 for the king. Neat game though! I'll add it to my repertoir.
I'd definitely try that out. Maybe give each player a hand of 2 or 3 cards as well, instead of top-decking.
@@udenost yeah, I thought of that too, so it has more elements of strategy
this is the coolest thing ever !!! you sir are a genius !! such a cool idea !! this may as well be the best solo card game ever
Thank you TH-cam recommendations!
Actually pretty fun game to be honest. Super impressed
I played a few rounds and added a "3 strikes/shame cards and you lose" option. Makes it a little more intense. especially with the running out of cards in your deck deal.
makes you want to play armor more as well.
i now have another game i can play on my own. thank you
*_i fear the shame pile_*
Here's an alternative to the shame pile rule:
- Each player start with 3 cards on hand. This can be considered your "lives".
- At your turn, you draw a card to your hand and then play a card from your hand. This doesn't have to be the card you drew.
- If you are unable to play a card, you have to discard two cards from your hand, face up (to show that they can't be played). Now you only have 2 cards on hand.
- If you have to discard 3 times you run out of cards and you lose.
It should be noted for 2 or more players, that playing armour on your own royals is often beneficial, so there should be a rule against that. Maybe you can only play armour on your opponent's royals?
Seems like a fun game, some of the rules would help to be laid out in the beginning, but by the end I think I got all the important rules, seems like the trigger card doesn't matter/count per value/suit as long as you can place it by having a higher/equal value of the card it's being placed on (and the atk power is only based on the middle cards), and every corner shot always fires in two directions
just played this after watching, and ive got to say, its dope. the only thing missing is scoring. i noticed that thered be times the discard pile was maybe two 4s, and other times the leftover cards were a lot, so i think the goal would be to get x points, the leftover cards being worth face value while shame cards are minus 3 times face value. also, you should get bonus points for having leftover royals (maybe call them pow's), although there are some games where you only kill one royal before sorting through to force another. either way its a lot of fun and has some strategy potential.
This is great, and WAY easier to reset than solitaire!
You can make this multiplayer if you want! It can be turn based. If you have 2 players, one player can be clubs&spades while the other can be diamonds&hearts. You can make up a rule for how to lay out a random but even amount of royals for each player. It's turn-based, so you have to think about where you're placing cards to benefit yourself without benefitting your opponent too much. You can also play this with 4 players (3 might be hard) if you designate a suit to each player.
Okay, good. When I saw the thumbnail, I thought you'd invented the same game I had. But nope, completely different. Looks like fun, too, though :)
There's a really simple way to make this game two player! Play as normal with a second deck for the other player. Every time either player draws a card they can put it on the opponents grid with no restrictions! With a royal this can be done as well, however the normal play restrictions for Royals stay in place.
Finally, I game where all of my friends can play.
Ah bless, a single player card game besides solitaire.
Technically this is solitaire.
I love this game. Though I've lost a handful of times already haha. If you run out of cards with a royal still alive, it is like they got away. Or if a royal gains too much armour to beat, I play with no shame pile, forcing every unplayable card to be armour with no hard resets from a shame card. Seems to be pretty consistent. Should implement a shuffle somewhere in there though lol.
Heh, I remember I used to play a similar "game" that I invented using Tarot Cards where the Major Arcana that didn't start with X was trying to kill the one with X, and the other cards were used as weapons or armor, with royals being allies that could use other cards themselves... This video made me realize that a flaw with my "game" is that the player ends being an observer of what happens between the arcana, because if one takes one side it's easy to outplay the other, so it's about playing neutral moves and seeing who wins... so I guess it was just a toy, and I also guess I didn't like losing, so just seeing what side won was entertaining.
I attempted to play a version of it that was multiplayer, but it turned to be something boring where the optimal move was obvious every time and the outcome was entirely luck-based, so, eh, perhaps creating card games is not for everyone.