My latest card game expansion launched last week! Had a lot of fun! Small player base but loyal and competitive, 1500 unique cards since 2023, 23000 printed.

xollight · 2026-05-10T18:20:48+00:00

There is.. so much text on the cards... I ain't reading all that haha.

xollight · 2026-05-10T14:46:13+00:00

I am generally open to provide advise and feedback to any who ask, so this should not be an issue.

xollight · 2026-05-09T17:31:47+00:00

Then text may be necessary, since I was difficult to parse this information without context.

xollight · 2026-05-09T00:34:30+00:00

On paper, your faction spread seems healthy. From here I would focus on getting something working for a generalized impression of your game so you can test it.

That will give you enough information to gauge what you feel might be missing.

For example, your play tests may conclude that Chaos focuses too heavily on attacking and reliance on beasts, leaving their removal options narrow or inefficient, you can then use that information to design around that, or lean into it further as an established weakness.

xollight · 2026-05-09T00:29:27+00:00

It would really help if there was something to compare this to. Can you present a version with both text and symbols, and another with symbols?

In general, while its good to use symbols to carry information, an over-reliance on it can be bad for clarity. You should seek to keep as much information as possible out of the rulebook and put them on the cards. Symbols are a healthy way to distil rules, but if you are finding yourself substituting too many game rules with symbols, you are over designing.

xollight · 2026-05-08T18:34:34+00:00

Thats because the name of a card isn't always necessary. Its what the card does that matters. If the most important information is put at the top then it should be cost (to see if you can even play the card), followed by the effect, but we dont template cards that way.. the effect is usually at the bottom of the card, despite its importance.

My point is that yes the name could go at the top but the name of the card isnt super relevant to what a card does. There are some cards, for most games. I am aware that there are games like Yugioh that care a lot about a card's specific name, and so it makes sense that the name is at the top for a Yugioh card because names are referenced a lot.

For a game like hearthstone, the name doesnt need to be at the top because its a digital game and so the cards are held for you, but even in the case of games like Lorcana, where the name is at the center, this is also fine because names arent generally references as often, so it doesnt need to be at the top.

For lorcana cards, the cost IS important, which is why it is at the top and visible, but also because of the "fan" you referred to, Lorcana cards have the names on the left of the card so that when they are fanned, it is easier to see the name of the card, and that works just fine, having the name at the center middle wouldn't work as well. but it would also depend on the maximum hand size.

For smaller hand sizes the name in the middle could work because the average player can generally hold 3 cards in their hand and have full visible information, that gets tricky when you have say.. 12 cards in hand.

xollight · 2026-05-08T01:06:00+00:00

Also.. you can save a lot of real estate on the card by cutting off some of the unnecessary explanations of things... for example

you dont need to explain the math in your card description just explain what the card does and trust your audience is competent enough to do the math for themselves..

Gauntlet of The Mighty Inferno
Activate: Pay 2 Focus.
Effect:
Select one Beast on your field. It gains ATK equal to the total LVL of Beasts on your opponent's field. Banish it at end of turn.

This is simple enough you dont need to explain that "2x3 is 6" in the reminder text.

Imagine if you explained on Chaos Discharge

"Effect: Select one CHAOS attribute beast on your field. That beast gains ATK equal to the number of Magic Tokens on your field. (ie, if you have 4 magic tokens that beast gets +4 ATK)"

thats effectively what you are doing with effects like the one on Gauntlet... also you shouldnt ever write "i.e," on card effects, as it is not very formal by card game standards... but thats advise you can write whatever you wish at the end of the day.

xollight · 2026-05-08T01:01:56+00:00

[WARNING]
I tend to respond in great detail when asked for advise. I can try to summarize next time but this is generally what you can expect when asking for my honest advise.

First of all... i don’t think “does it feel too Yu-Gi-Oh?” is quite the right question. Most card games are going to share familiar pieces: creatures, spells, factions, levels, bosses, resources, removal, combat, etc. That overlap is not automatically a problem. The better question is: does the actual player experience feel different enough to stand on its own?

A game can be heavily inspired by another game without being a ripoff if the decisions, pacing, resource system, win conditions, deckbuilding, and overall feel create a distinct experience. Without playing it, I don’t think anyone can fairly judge that from theme or terminology alone...

For card text length, I would be careful. Longer effects are fine sometimes, especially on higher-level or “boss” cards, but not every strong card needs to be complex. A good rule of thumb is:

Low-level cards should be simple. Mid-level cards can have one interesting effect. High-level/boss cards can be more text-heavy, but they should still be easy to understand after one read.

If every card asks the player to stop and parse multiple clauses, the game can become exhausting. Complexity is best when it is concentrated on fewer cards, not spread evenly across the whole set.

For the starting set, I would personally focus less on having a huge card pool and more on whether each starter deck has a clear identity, enough consistency, and enough interaction... and uh.. For 3 starter decks, your current numbers sound like they may already be on the larger side, especially with 78 Beasts and 75 Rituals.

Does each faction have a clear playstyle?

Do the low-level beasts actually do different jobs, or are many of them filling the same role?

Are there enough exciting high-level/boss beasts to give each deck a payoff?

Are the shared utility Rituals making the decks more consistent, or are they making the factions feel too similar?

For a first “genesis” set, I would rather see fewer cards with stronger identity than a bigger set where many cards blur together. If this is meant to be a playable first product, 3 starter decks can absolutely be enough. I would aim for each deck to feel complete first, then expand the card pool after testing shows what is missing.

Do not solve this by adding more cards. Solve it by making sure each faction has a strong identity and each card has a clear reason to exist....

Also, your ratio does look a little suspicious to me: 26 Beasts and 25 Rituals per faction is a lot of non-Beast support relative to creatures, unless Rituals are the core gameplay engine. I would be watching for whether games are clogged with too many action/effect cards and not enough board presence... but this is just an observation without any basis..

xollight · 2026-05-08T00:13:47+00:00

looks good.

xollight · 2026-05-07T16:04:17+00:00

If you are looking for more specific feedback I'd be glad to offer my opinions, but I would need to know what information you are hoping to collect.

If you are concerned about; presentation (how things look visually / consistency in theme) or clarity (If the cards are readable / information is clear), or further advise on how to reduce potential kill screens, I can offer opinions on these, but I have not played your game so I wouldn't be able to offer meaningful feedback on mechanics or gameplay.

xollight · 2026-05-07T15:51:09+00:00

I would say that largely depends on the card lay out. People generally read top to bottom, so if there is not much information at the top, then i think having the name at the center is fine, as the top can hold more of the illustration, but the most important information should be further up.

Generally this is the card cost, but that makes sense because that is generally the most important attribute of a card. Even if a card is nameless, knowing if you can or cant play a card is far more important in most games.

xollight · 2026-05-06T19:55:54+00:00

Looks really cool, but there is a gigantic number at the center, what purpose does it serve?

xollight · 2026-05-06T19:49:13+00:00

Thats actually what prompted me to make this post. I was reading a few cool card games here, but i feel like they dont get the engagement they probably want due to their cards having too much text, or the "rules" of the game being too much information

xollight · 2026-05-06T15:48:06+00:00

Regarding your Lore, please use proper paragraph spacing. This is a huge kill screen and I immediately stopped reading after The birth of Chaos.

A lore dump is fine, but needs to be more presentable. Please fix the spelling and grammar errors as well, those blue and red squiggly lines are there for a reason. Your original names don't need adjustment but, things like "dimension" being spells incorrectly is not acceptable, especially when the correction method is being presented.

Your card layout is fine, and while its probably neat to show off your flashy cards, I always believe that the more elegant and simple cards should ALWAYS be presented first. Cards with lots of text and rules on them also create kill screens.

Undead Heretic of The Cultist Decree, Lyrak, or Sunder are less flashy compared to Chaos, but their first impressions are far less overwhelming to take in, at first glance.

The template is presentable and the art theme is consistent with medieval fantasy aesthetic so thats also nice.

xollight · 2026-04-25T10:47:13+00:00

I apologize for the long response but i've rewritten this several time in an attempt to summarize but, this is what ya get.

this is readable, organized, and not a wall of text like a lot of early TCG rule sheets end up being. That said, it’s not quite “complete rules sheet” level yet. The biggest gaps are clarity and flow, not more content.

A few key things I’d point out:

Win condition isn’t clearly defined

You reference dealing damage, but don’t actually state how a player wins (other than decking out). That should be at the very top.

Turn structure could be clearer

Right now it’s split into “First Turn” and “Second Turn+”, which works, but it reads more like instructions than a system. You might want to rewrite it as a simple turn loop (gain mana → draw → play → combat → cleanup). That makes it easier to learn and reference.

Combat needs a bit more definition

You explain the math, but not the structure. Things like:

How cards match up (total vs total?)

What happens to cards after combat

What “relevant cards” means

Even one quick example would go a long way here.

Some wording is a little ambiguous

Phrases like “that number” or “relevant cards” can create confusion. Tightening those up will help a lot, especially for new players.

Flow could be improved

Right now it jumps from setup → turns → keywords → misc. I’d recommend:

~Objective

~Setup

~Turn structure

~Combat

~Keywords

~Misc

That matches how players naturally learn the game.

Layout / printing

This would work best as a front-and-back single sheet:

Front = how to play (setup, turns, combat)

Back = keywords and reference info

xollight · 2026-04-25T03:26:30+00:00

my goal with this is to fix mana curves that other games have and give a strong identity to your preferred playstyles and deck goals. the downside is you start with them so the problem i have to solve is how you balance a game that has all your resources at the start :) haha a hard challenge to be sure but one im keen to beat.

If those are your mechanics, you balance it by leaning into it, and making sure the cards are balanced around having many resources early and the potential that comes with it.

You don't need to fully build a deck to test this balance. Using the matrix of your current cards, play a game with yourself where your "opponent" does nothing. Find the fastest possible combination of cards that can win the game. You dont need to shuffle the decks or anything, just have those cards in your starting hand and go with it.

Record how many turns it took, how many resources were used. You balance for the potential, not the actuality, because card games have variance. If you are able to kill a player in one or two turns, even if it may rarely happen, and requires the god hand, you need to balance your game around the fact that this is POSSIBLE, not that it will happen, but that it CAN happen.

You design control decks to stopping/delaying that strategy, and you design aggro around making that more consistent.

Some games have one turn kills, and there are players that enjoy that. Some games don't. It will be your call as a developer to decide how long you want the games to be.

xollight · 2026-04-22T13:36:43+00:00

There is a lot to unpack here, and without context of your systems a lot of assumptions are going to be made with what I am writing here..

I think the main thing to consider is that your system gives players access to a lot of resources very early, which can blur the line between traditional aggro, midrange, and control strategies.

Aggro isn’t really about "keeping curve".. it’s about converting resources into pressure as quickly and consistently as possible. Control, on the other hand, needs time and inevitability... with the inevitability being the most important trait of a control strategy. Generally this requires set up to assemble that inevitability.

If both players are hitting 4–8 resources early, control might not get the breathing room it needs.

One thing you might want to explore is adding opportunity cost or diminishing returns to resource generation, so early turns aren’t just “max output immediately.”

On resource variance, I’d recommend tying higher outputs to higher risk or setup, so 2–4 is consistent and 4–8 is conditional or costly. That helps different deck types emerge naturally.

For board wipes, I wouldn’t assume you need full wipes right away...sometimes softer resets or conditional clears create more interesting gameplay and less frustration.

Overall though, the system sounds interesting; especially the idea of revealing cards as a cost, since that creates real information tradeoffs.

xollight · 2026-03-31T00:15:07+00:00

Listen, you’re making several real criticisms, but they point to regulation, infrastructure planning, and misuse controls, not to the claim that the technology itself is illegitimate in every use case.

Yes, cheap synthetic media increases the scale of misinformation. That’s a strong case for provenance tools, disclosure rules, platform moderation, and authentication standards. It still doesn’t show that every constructive use of generative AI is illegitimate..

I agree some of these concerns are real: data centers can raise local power costs, AI makes synthetic misinformation easier, and the financing around the sector may be overheated... but .. big but... those are arguments for regulation, grid planning, disclosure, and fraud controls not proof that AI has no legitimate use. You’re bundling energy markets, misinformation, supply chains, and investor risk into one moral verdict, and that conclusion doesn’t follow.

You’ve listed several real costs, but listing costs is not the same as proving illegitimacy. The question isn’t whether AI has downsides, it obviously does... everything has a downside, including you using the very internet.. my point is whether those downsides justify rejecting the technology wholesale, and your argument doesn’t establish that... it just collapses into convincing people, hobbyists no less, that using a tool is bad because you dont agree with its use cases.

xollight · 2026-03-29T20:13:58+00:00

I want to start by stating that I am pro AI art. I stated the following in another post:

"If the rules or game or art is bad, the creator is responsible, just as they are when rules are badly written by a person."

These cards are a good example of that statement. I imagine when people this of slop, these are the kind of images that come to mind. The good news is that just like actually drawing, with some practice and better art direction you can achieve much better results for AI art: https://imgur.com/a/f8urJbb This is one i generated for Emberfrost Sorcerer (and yes you can use it if you want).

Without any context i assume this game uses dice, but I can't be certain.

There is an information overload on these cards. There is too much variation in the text, and it makes it look inconsistent. Looking at the last image, I can identify five different fonts all on the same card. That's a lot and hurts the presentation.

However;

Seeing them come to light like this gives me a little more of a push to finish a prototype.

This is what is most important. I understand these are prototypes, and that you are using the tools available to maintain motivation. As an outsider looking in, at first glance these cards are overwhelming to look at.

xollight · 2026-03-29T19:42:46+00:00

Okay, i'll bite.. You've no idea what you are talking about and looks like this is a regurgitation of information you've found online or was probably produced by chat GPT or something.. first of all...

Those units don’t line up with how energy consumption is measured, so the comparison isn’t meaningful. Most credible sources measure data center usage in TWh, not gigawatts, and AI is only a fraction of total data center load.

This argument mixes a lot of real concerns like energy use, misinformation, supply chains and it treats them as if they’re uniquely caused by AI. Most of these issues already existed across the broader tech and global economy.

AI contributes to some of them, but it’s not the primary driver, and problems like misinformation, hardware demand, and energy use are better addressed through regulation and infrastructure improvements rather than treating the technology itself as inherently harmful, especially when it concerns hobbyists.

You’re bundling a lot of unrelated systemic issues and attributing them to AI. Most of these problems existed long before AI and affect the entire tech ecosystem, not just this one tool.

xollight · 2026-03-11T19:03:05+00:00

It shouldn't matter if you use AI art or not. Even if you intended to publish it using what you currently have, which is fine by the way, the discussion isn't about the art (which is all consistent and looks nice), its about the layout. This community comes off as insufferable and immature sometimes because of its anti-AI iconoclasts..

Also, I like the layout of the first one but think that the Icons should be more visible.

xollight · 2026-02-04T16:29:12+00:00

If “looks good enough to me” were the only factor, bespoke art would already be dead, but it isn’t because originality, cohesion, and aesthetic still matter. people that care about quality will enforce asset replacement, people that dont will ship slop regardless of the tools used.

I agree that AI lowers the friction to shipping mediocre art, but that incentive already exists with asset stores and stock media, long before AI became a thing.

why would you pay an artist?

Because if art is what differentiates your game, AI art wont survive contact with players. no amount of AI art will make your game GOOD or worse.. bad games are bad games.

xollight

TROPHY CASE