Hello Visionaries!

In this blog, I want to focus in on a big change coming to Foundry in patch 0.8.0: the functional swapping of Relics and Schematics. I'm going to talk about why this change happened, in a rough bullet point format:

• Relics (outside of maybe Gold tier) functionally acted as tech cards - things like Veil Shard or Null-Shield or Execution Drone were somewhat generically good, but really became useful in certain situations.

  • It was incredibly frustrating to spend Actions to roll for a tech card you want and miss. When playing against a human, they could "snipe" all your work and just buy the Relic if it finally got the one you needed.

  • The tiering system was a bandage, but ultimately not enough. Yes, managing your priority and Actions was skill intensive, but not fun enough. For these tech cards, we ultimately don't want a system with randomness. But having easy access to whatever tech card you needed also isn't fun since the game devolves into "don't do anything massive and pass priority."

  • Relics were too game-warping. A random Execution Drone or Nuclear Power Cell demanded answers and were incredibly important to buy up. It was reducing the strategy component of your own deck.

  • Our good ol' Relics needed to become something:

    • Hard to access.

    • But once accessible, it is reliable.

    • With opportunity for counterplay from your foe.

    • Gold Relics maybe change the game a bit and are a big reward for doing something hard.

• Schematics on the other hand, are the epitome of randomness. They were introduced to add a unique deckbuilding format to the game, rewarding you for modifying your strategy, finding insane combos in a match, or just amplifying your deck's strengths. They shine in making each game feel different and add replay-ability to the game. However, having them as a Crisis Reward was awkward.

  • Schematics aren't "guaranteed" strength. Yes, they were usually pretty good and having the option to play them for a small benefit helped mitigate the randomness, but it wasn't always clear that you would get one that would significantly help your game-plan, and you didn't have a lot of choice. So Solving your Crisis didn't really feel like a core part of the game - just something you maybe wanted to do if you were losing and needed some randomness to save you.

  • Schematics weren't available every game. If both players failed their Crises, Schematics basically were out of the game. That doesn't help with making each game feel different.

  • Chaining together Schematics was pretty awkward as you would spend a fixed amount to get nothing, and then have to play it to actually figure out what you were getting. Yes, you got a few choices, but it felt like a "please save me moment."

  • Game-changing Schematics needed to become something that:

    • Were visible upfront, so you know what you were getting if you spent the Actions & Influence to get them.

    • Were part of every game to make each game feel different.

    • Were hard to manipulate into exactly what you wanted - you need to adapt to what options are available.

    • New Schematics could keep getting added to the game with expansions.

Once I realized these strengths, the idea hit me: Schematics and Relics needed to be swapped. Now the Galactic Ruins becomes a real treasure trove of odd Relics that keeps shifting and changing in the barren, deserts of the fallen Empire. While your reward for Solving a Crisis is a powerful game piece that gives you access to tech that can hamper your opponents. 

Now, the implementation and finer details are trickier, and that's where I expect more balancing efforts in the future, but I am confident this will be a huge improvement to gameplay. I may rename things and adjust the art to help with the flavor, intuitiveness, and look and feel of the game, but this is the core reasons for why this functionality change was made.

On an unrelated note, as I prepare for the big Core Set rebalance in patch 0.9.0, I recently realized that Foundry shares quite a bit of DNA with Dominion. I'm trying to see what lessons I can take from this to designing Foundry cards and gameplay.

Let me know what you think!

Hello Visionaries!

For the past few months, you and I have been on a journey together, building the foundations of Foundry. We started with a core question: can we build a CCG that rewards deep strategic planning over random draws and pay-to-win? Your feedback from countless matches has been a resounding "yes." But it has also shined a light on the hairline fractures in that foundation.

Today, I want to pull back the curtain on our design process, talk frankly about the challenges we've faced, the problems we've identified, and how we're reworking the Core Set in Patch 0.9.0 to truly deliver on the promise of a "10,000 Year Plan."

The Challenge of Forging a New Universe

Designing Foundry has been unlike any other project. In many ways, we're writing the formula from scratch.

One of the biggest hurdles is simple: a three-in-one card is devilishly hard to design. Every character isn't just one card; it's a triad of abilities that need to feel distinct yet cohesive. This complexity is multiplied by our unique provision system, where a card's starting Influence is both its "cost" to include in your deck and a component of your final score. It’s a delicate balancing act on a knife's edge.

Compounding this is the fact that there isn't much inspiration to draw from. Foundry is a unique beast. The Core Set has to introduce players to these brand-new mechanics and feel eternal—powerful and foundational—without being boring. And frankly, our most common opponent right now is the simple AI, which can't replicate the cunning and brilliant unpredictability of a human opponent. We need more PVP games to truly stress-test these designs.

The Chaos of the Alpha: What We've Learned

The Alpha has been a lot of fun so far. You've all played hundreds of games, and that data has been like a Visi-Sonar Lens pointed directly at our design's weak points. You've shown us what's fun, what's frustrating, and what's flat-out broken.

Here are the core problems we're looking to fix in the upcoming Core Set Rework:

• Linear Play Patterns: We've all seen it. The opponent activates their Imperial, and you know with 90% certainty they will click their Frontier next. These repetitive turns and "solitaire" gameplay, where you're just racing to execute your plan faster than the opponent, can be fun in a way as you get to execute your 10,000 year plan. But plans need to be response to the universe.

• Two-Card Combos: Simple A+B combos are currently too efficient. They've overshadowed the deeper, more satisfying multi-step plans. We want to reduce their power to make room for true strategic genius.

• Hyperjump is Underwhelming: The data is clear: spending one of your two precious Actions on a Hyperjump for a minor +2 Influence bonus or a charge just doesn't feel worth it (looking at you Era Nomad!). The value proposition is off. While some Momentum Schematics can create explosive turns, the core mechanic needs more love and more design space to truly shine.

• Everything is a Bit… OP: Card efficiency is through the roof, and final scores are often much higher than our target of around 50 Influence. This is actually a good problem for an Alpha to have! It's shown us exactly what design space is dangerous (hello, repeatable "doubling" effects!) and what needs to be toned down. By lowering the overall power level, your initial deckbuilding choices and starting Influence will feel much more impactful.

• Not everything is doom and gloom! The recent rework to Predict has been a nice success. Players are Predicting more often, and the mechanic feels much more balanced and efficient. We're using this as a model. 

Principles Forged in Fire: The New Design Philosophy

Through this chaotic but insightful testing period, a clearer design philosophy has emerged. The biggest philosophical shift is this: choice is a luxury, and it must come at a cost.

Right now, too many cards let you choose your target from anywhere on the board. This slows down gameplay and adds a lot of meaningless analysis/choice. I almost never pick anything but the highest Influence card from hand with my Thesis Defender, for example. More importantly, it devalues positioning. Your Hyperjump should be more than just a way to change your card's ability; it should be a critical strategic decision that impacts the entire board.

Moving forward, the default for targeting will be streamlined: "the highest," "the lowest," or "the card across from me" (these may become keywords). You've started to see this reflected in new cards like The Darling and Brother Corbin - when they Steal or Grant, its by default the card across from you. Cards that grant you the flexibility to choose any target will let you know clearly and will have their raw power reduced. A generic buff might be +4 Influence, but a flexible, targeted buff might only be +3. This makes positioning matter immensely and rewards players who can outmaneuver their opponents. It also has the side benefit of reducing the wordiness of the Core Set, without going the Marvel Snap route of no target specified = random target.

Finally, I am going back to the drawing board on how to reward long-term, predictive play. A combo that takes three or four carefully sequenced steps must be more powerful than a simple two-card trick. A player who correctly predicts their opponent is secretly buffing a card in hand should have the tools to counteract that plan efficiently. And information should matter more, knowing your foe's Ascendant early should give you the tools to defeat them.

This brings us to the concept of Anchors vs Supporters. Right now, too many cards like Viceroy Isha or Frontier Surveyor are their own complete combo. All three of their forms are just steps in their own personal plan. This can be fun because you have to figure out how to shift the card between Eras and it ensures every card is viable. However, while this is fine for some "Anchor" cards, the ecosystem needs more "Supporters"—cards that are powerful but incomplete, requiring synergy with other pieces to reach their full potential. This increases the fun of each deck and lets you swap in and out supporting cards and anchors instead of making every deck a hodge-podge of the most powerful game-plans. I am keeping a watch out on leaning too hard towards this.: too much and it can feel like Runeterra deck prescription instead of deck discovery.

Your Plan, Your Design

Foundry has always been a collaborative project, and now we want to take that to the next level. Our play-testers understand the "10,000 Year Plan" on an instinctual level. We want to take this moment to remind you of the Alpha-Playtester Reward Program. We believe the best person to design great cards is you! Each month, through our Discord and Reddit channels, we will select a card to add to the game, officially. You can submit your ideas to the Reddit or Discord and popular ones will get my highest attention.

You are the ones forging these grand plans. Now, you have the chance to leave your permanent mark on the galaxy. And if you'd like to step into card design as a more formal role, contact me!

Show us your vision. I'll see you in the Ruins.

For the past few weeks, a single question has dominated my design sessions: What is the purpose of the Galactic Ruins? Is it a "sideboard" full of tactical tools and tech cards? This on its own is pretty unique and revolutionary in the CCG space. But as I thought about it more, I wondered: what if the Ruins were the main event? What if they were a dynamic strategic well that forces you to adapt your entire strategy? What if it was a system that combined the best of modern rogue-likes such as Slay the Spire or Balatro, with the PVP competitiveness we love from CCGs?

Your feedback has been invaluable here. Many of you love how your 6-card deck feels like your 10,000 year plan. You come in with a plan. You know your Anchors, you know your Engines, and the Ruins are where you grab a specific wrench or screwdriver to deal with your opponent's strategy. This is the "pre-determined strategy" I wanted to support.

But others have expressed interest in something a bit different. Your deck as a curated "toolkit." You've discovered the thrill of playing flexibly, of letting the state of the Ruins dictate your path to victory. Of every game playing out differently as you go on an adventure in real-time against your opponent. This is the emergent "rogue-like" experience that I find so exciting.

The dilemma was: which path should Foundry follow? Do we lean into the tight, strategic, chess-like planning of the deck, or the adaptive, poker-like reads of the shop?

My answer, after many sleepless nights, is: Why not both?

The New Galactic Ruins: Relics and Schematics

So, I have a proposal for you all to test. A new system for the Ruins I'm tentatively calling "Relics & Schematics."

The idea is to introduce a new type of artifact into the Ruin shop, that will show up at higher frequency or potentially have its own dedicated slot in the Ruins:

• Relics: These are your familiar, tactical tools. Your Null-Shield Matrix, your Execution Drone. Quick, efficient, single-problem solvers.

• Schematics: This is new. These are persistent, game-warping artifacts designed to be combined together to support new strategies on the fly. They are meant to synergize with each other and with your deck, allowing you to build your strategy over several rounds.

But what does this actually feel like in a match? Let's walk through a couple of scenarios.

Scenario 1: Barter a Plan

The Board State:

It's Round 3. You're playing a Trader deck. Your deck isn't built around a single, powerful Engine or a high-Influence Anchor. Instead, you've built a "toolkit" deck full of flexible, economic tools like Dita and Creditor. Your strategy is simple: survive the early game, accumulate as much Barter as possible, and wait for the Ruins to reveal a path to victory. Your opponent, playing Scholars, has a clear plan: protect their Principal Investigator and scale into the late game.

The Ruins open. There are a few Relics: a Wormhole and a Nuclear Power Cell. Useful, but not what you're looking for. You're hunting bigger game. Now you look at the Schematic offerings:

1. Hyperlane Franchise (Cost: 6)

   • While this is in hand, The first time you Hyperjump a character each round, gain Barter 3.

2. Scrap-Work Actuator (Cost: 5)

   • While this is in hand, whenever you Swap a card, grant your other characters of the same Faction +1 Influence.

3. Visionary's Blueprint (Cost: 7)

   • An ally's abilities cost 0 Actions, but can only be used once per game.

The Decision:
This is where your game truly begins. This isn't one obvious choice; it's a menu of possibilities. You have enough Barter from your early game to afford one of these comfortably. Which path do you choose?

• Path 1: The Hyperlane Engine. You buy the Hyperlane Franchise. It synergizes perfectly with your Wayfinder. Now, that one action generates a huge economic swing. Your plan becomes clear: you need more ways to Hyperjump. You'll use your economic advantage to hunt for Starship Thrusters in the Tech slots. Your deck, which started as a generic "barter" deck, has just been given a clear direction: become a high-velocity, perpetual motion machine.

• Path 2: The Swapping Engine. This seems less immediately powerful, but you look at your hand. You have three cards. Trader, Trader, Trader. What if you lean into that? Your new strategy is to constantly swap cards from hand to board. Every swap is now a small board-wide buff. You start looking at Tech Relics differently. How do I get more charges and swap triggers, you wonder. Your plan solidifies around a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy, leveraging your hand as a resource.

• Path 3: The "One-Punch" Engine. You buy the Visionary's Blueprint. This is a riskier, more focused plan, but could save you 3 whole Actions - a huge amount of Tempo. You can set up for one, perfect turn.

Let's say you chose Path 1 and bought the Hyperlane Franchise. Your engine is started, but it's not complete. New Schematics and Relics are on the board.

1. Recycling Contract (Cost: 5)

   • While in hand, whenever you gain Barter, grant your Frontier ally +1 Influence.

2. Kinetic Amplifier (Cost: 6)

   • While in hand, the second time you Hyperjump a character each round, get a Relic.

3. Era Lock (Cost: 7)

   • Choose an Era. Enemy characters in that Era cannot use activated abilities next round.

Now your previous choice informs this one. The Recycling Contract is a perfect second piece for your engine. Every time you trigger your Hyperlane Franchise, you now also get a small bonus to your board presence. The Kinetic Amplifier is even more ambitious, offering to turn your Hyperjumps into pure card advantage.

You buy the Recycling Contract. Your engine is now: Hyperjump -> Gain Barter -> Gain Influence.

By the end of Round 5, you haven't won because you bought one super-Relic. You've won because you used the flexibility of your Trader deck to purchase two or three synergistic Schematic pieces that no one could have predicted at the start of the match. You built your win condition from scratch, using the Ruins as your workshop. The Scholar player, meanwhile, might have bought the Scrap-Work Actuator to synergize with their hand-buffs, creating a completely different engine. The two of you didn't just play your decks; you built them, live, in response to each other and to the opportunities presented by the Ruins.

This is the rogue-like experience I want to capture. It’s not about one big swing. It's about a series of small, smart, synergistic choices that build upon each other until your cobbled-together plan roars to life in the final rounds.

Scenario 2: The Loyalist's Vengeance

The Board State: Round 3. You're playing a Loyalist "Purge" deck, but your opponent is a cagey Cultist player. They're keeping their Influence low and their key cards in hand, giving you no good targets for The Final Sanction. Your board is strong, but your core strategy is stalled. The Foundation Workshop offers a new set of choices:

1. Sanctioned Markets (Cost: 6)

   • While in hand, when you Purge an enemy character, you may pay half its starting Influence to add an equal cost Relic to your hand.

2. Imperial Edict (Cost: 5)

   • All characters with 0 or less Influence lose all passive abilities for the rest of the round.

3. Bounty Ledger (Cost: 7)

   • While in hand, at the start of each round, place a Bounty on the enemy character with the highest Influence. If you Purge a character with a Bounty, gain +5 Influence.

The Decision: The Bounty Ledger immediately catches your eye. It gives you a clear target every round and a direct reward for doing what your deck already wants to do. You purchase it. Your stalled Purge strategy now has renewed purpose.

The Engine Assembly: Your opponent's Entropy Acolyte has been a thorn in your side. Now, at the start of Round 5, the Bounty Ledger slaps a target on their highest-Influence character—the Herald of the Anomaly. You now have a clear priority. You use your Action to Purge it, gaining the +5 Influence bonus. You see the Sanctioned Markets is still there. This is the moment your strategy clicks. You realize these two Schematics work together. You purchase the Sanctioned Markets.

Now, when you Purge the Herald, you not only get +5 Influence from your Bounty Ledger, but you can also pay 3 Influence (half of the Herald's 6 SI) to get a free Relic. Suddenly, your Purge isn't just a removal tool; it's an economic engine that generates points and card advantage. Your opponent's strategy of playing high-value characters is now actively feeding your machine. You've transformed from a stalled aggressor into an avenging bounty hunter who gets richer with every takedown.

The Nitty-Gritty: How Do We Make This Work?

A vision is one thing; implementation is another. Shifting the Ruins from a simple "tech shop" to a core engine-building mechanic presents some real design challenges. This is where I need your focused feedback most. I'm wrestling with a few key questions on how to best present these options to you.

1. How many slots should there be?

• 3 total slots (2 Relics, 1 Schematic). This is clean, but is it enough? If you want to build an engine, you need to see enough pieces.

• An Expanded Model: What if we went up to 4 slots? Perhaps 2 for Relics and 2 for Schematics? This would give players more choices each round and increase the odds of finding synergistic pieces, but it could also lead to analysis paralysis or make the UI too cluttered.

2. Should slots be specialized?

• Right now, the idea is to have dedicated slots for "Relics" and "Schematic." This guarantees you always have access to both tactical answers and strategic building blocks.

• But what if all slots could pull from any Relic pool, but with different probabilities? Maybe one slot has a high chance of offering Foundations, while others are mostly Tech. This adds another layer of excitement, encourages cycling, and is easier to code, but reduces player certainty. Which feels better?

3. How do we balance the economy?

• Building an engine requires multiple purchases. This means the core tension of spending your Influence (your score!) becomes even more critical.

• Should Costs be lowered across the board? If an engine requires 3 pieces, their combined cost needs to be achievable. But if they're too cheap, the "sacrifice" of spending your score is lost.

These aren't rhetorical questions—I genuinely don't know the perfect answers yet. The "right" choice depends entirely on how these systems feel in your hands during a real match.

So, What Do You Think?

These are the kinds of stories and decisions I want this system to create. It's designed to ensure no two games of Foundry ever feel the same. Your 6-card deck is your plan, but the Ruins are the chaotic, universe-altering events that test the true strength of that plan.

But this is a huge change. And I need your help to figure out if it's the right one. I’m rolling out this new "Relics & Schematics" system in a few weeks, but before then, I want you to dive in and tell me what you think.

• Does this split between create more exciting choices?

• Does it feel like a fair system, or does it feel like one player gets lucky and wins off a single powerful Relic?

• Most importantly: Is it fun?

Your feedback here is critical. This could become a core pillar of Foundry's identity, or an interesting experiment we learn from. You're the ones forging this future with me.

Now, go build a 10,000 year plan. I’ll see you in the Ruins.

If you're reading this, you are likely one of the first Visionaries to ever set foot in the Foundry Alpha. Welcome back! I’m Aditya, the solo developer of Foundry, and in this blog, I want to pull back the curtain on a brand-new experimental system I’m incredibly excited (and a little nervous) about: Galactic Sectors.

Foundry is built on a foundation of low-RNG, high-strategy gameplay. The six-round structure, the three Eras, and the guaranteed boons for Era Control are designed to create a predictable canvas on which you, the player, paint your masterpiece of a plan. But what happens when the canvas itself starts to change? How do we add replayability and texture to every match without betraying the core promise of a skill-based duel?

That's the question that led me to Sectors.

The Problem: The Familiar Path

In the current design, the boons for controlling an Era are fixed: a Free Vision for controlling Imperial, a Free Salvage for Frontier, and so on. This is great for creating a stable, learnable baseline. You always know what you're fighting for.

However, after many, many games, a risk emerges: the "solved" opening. Certain strategies might become dominant simply because they are the most efficient at capturing that first Free Vision. The story of each match, while unique in its details, could start to follow the same narrative arc. My goal is for every 10,000-year plan to feel like a genuinely different history, not a re-run.

So, the design challenge was this: how do we alter the strategic landscape of each game in a meaningful way that rewards adaptation, without introducing the kind of randomness we’ve worked so hard to eliminate?

Exploring the Alternatives: The Roads Not Taken

Before landing on Galactic Sectors, I wrestled with several other ideas. It's often just as important to know why you didn't do something.

1. The "Loser's Choice" Boon: One idea was to let the player who lost control of an Era pick from a few boons as a comeback mechanic. While interesting, this created a "rubber-banding" effect that felt punishing to the player who executed their plan well. Winning control of the Imperial Era only to have your opponent pick the perfect counter-boon felt like it devalued your early-game success.

2. Pure Random Boons: What if the Era boon was just a random pull from a big list? This would certainly make every game different! But it would also violate Foundry's soul. A game being decided because one player randomly got a "Super-Hyperjump" boon while the other got a dud is exactly the kind of top-deck lottery feeling I want to avoid. You can't plan around pure chaos.

3. Equippable Boons (Deckbuilder): Another path was letting players choose their own Era boons during deckbuilding. This gives players maximum agency, but it also creates problems. It adds another layer of pre-game complexity, potentially leading to "must-have" boon loadouts that would reduce diversity, not increase it. More importantly, it shifts the challenge from in-game adaptation to pre-game theorycrafting. I want players to be rewarded for reading the board state, not just for picking the "meta" boon set.

The Solution (For Now): Galactic Sectors

This led me to the system we have today. Each game takes place in a unique Galactic Sector, which is revealed to both players at the start of the match. The Sector dictates what the "End of Era" boons will be for the entire game. It's a new set of rules for the match, but they are known, universal, and consistent.

Here are the first five Sectors you'll be fighting over:

• The Energy Sector: Home to the Dyson Swarms and fusion refineries that power the entire Empire. Supercharge your plans.

• The Mimir Nebula: A roiling nebula of dark matter and rogue data-havens. It's the nerve center of the whisper network.

• The Asteroid Field: A vast asteroid field containing the wreckage of a precursor civilization. A chaotic gold rush.

• The Core Sector: The heavily fortified seat of Imperial bureaucracy and law. Life here is rigid.

• The Jump Sector: A volatile border region where overuse of jump-drives has frayed the fabric of spacetime. Reality itself is thin.

This system hits what I believe is the sweet spot. It provides the replayability of changing rulesets, but it's not random—it's a fixed condition you can plan around from Round 1. It will hopefully increase deck diversity, as a deck built to dominate the late game might suddenly find itself incredibly powerful in the Mimir Nebula, where information is key. Most of all, it rewards high-skill players who can look at the Sector's rules, look at their hand and their opponent's deck, and truly "tell where the story is going."

A Work in Progress

Let me be clear: this is an experiment. The Sectors might not be balanced. The rewards might be too strong or too weak. The UI is functional, not beautiful—gameplay comes first. I will be watching the data and your feedback like a hawk. Does this system feel good? Does it make games more interesting? Or does it just feel like a weird constraint? Your experiences will shape its future.

This is the joy and terror of building something new. We get to lay the foundations together.

Now go see what history you can write. I’ll see you across the Sectors.

If you're reading this, you are likely one of the first Visionaries to ever set foot in the Foundry Alpha. Welcome! I’m Aditya, the solo developer of Foundry, and this blog will be an informal space for me to share my thoughts on the design, the universe, and all the interesting decisions that keep me up at night.

Foundry is a different beast from other CCGs, so I want to kick things off by talking about the easiest part of card design: Card Balance.

Kidding, of course. Balance is notoriously difficult, even for games with massive teams and decades of history. Players are creative, intelligent, and will always find fascinating ways to break mechanics. I’m sure Foundry will be no exception. Plus, we can't lean back on tried and tested tools like the Mana Curve, so Foundry's balance has to be novel and creative. However, our unique structure gives us a powerful framework for creating a fair, deep, and fun strategic experience. Here’s how.

Commitments to Players

1. Balance for Fun, Not Just for Power. We will make fast balance changes to address "un-fun" play patterns. This goes beyond just nerfing "overpowered" cards. If a strategy is dominant because it locks the opponent out of the game or creates non-interactive scenarios, we will address it, even if its win rate isn't sky-high. Your enjoyment is the ultimate metric.

2. Every Card Has a Home. In a game with only 6 character cards per deck, every single slot matters. There will be no "pack fillers," no "noob traps," and we will fight power creep at every turn. Every card is designed to be a viable puzzle piece in the right strategy. The "three-in-one" card design is key here, allowing a single card to serve different functions as the game progresses through the Eras.

3. The Galactic Ruins: Your Strategic Toolbox. The shared shop is one of our most important balancing tools. It allows us to move narrow "tech" or "hate" cards out of your deck and into a universal pool. You don't need to dilute your deck with a card that's only good against one strategy; if you need an answer, you can try to find it in the Ruins. This keeps deckbuilding focused on proactive strategies and core synergies.

The 10,000 Foot Overview

So, how do we ensure every card has a home? We do it by breaking the linear idea of "good card" vs. "bad card." In Foundry, a card’s power isn't a single number; it's a combination of its role, its timing, and its synergy. We primarily balance cards along three axes: Starting Influence, Ability Strength, and Reveal/Timing. This combines to give you a sense of a card's Strategic Role.

The Starting Influence Cap (currently 16 for your 6 cards + Crisis) is our foundational constraint. Think of it like the provisions systsem in Gwent. You can't just field a team of all-stars; you have to make tough choices. This system forces every deck to have a mix of different card types. This brings us to our core card archetypes:

1. The "Anchors": Your Foundation

• What they are: High Starting Influence cards (4-10 SI).

• Their Job: To establish board presence simply by existing. An Anchor’s strength isn't in its activated ability, which is often simple or defensive. Its power is passive. It saves you Actions by forcing the opponent to spend their Actions to overcome its raw stats. It's the rock that secures an early Era Control boon, like the Era Imperial "Free Vision," without you lifting a finger.

• The Trade-off: The high SI cost means you have less "budget" for other powerful cards, and their abilities are less flashy.

• Example: Magistrate Mallow or Warmother Thyra. They hit the board with a huge presence, demanding an answer.

2. The "Value": Your Threats

• What they are: Low Starting Influence cards (0-2 SI).

• Their Job: To be the explosive heart of your strategy. An Engine's power is purely active. They have weak starting stats, making them vulnerable, but their abilities can generate massive, game-winning swings in Influence, resources, or board state.

• The Trade-off: They are fragile. They can't hold a lane on their own and often need an Anchor or a protective card to survive long enough to do their job. If your Engine gets Purged before it activates, your plan can fall apart.

• Example: Imperial Prefect or Lord Dorwin. They start as nothing, but with the right setup, they can single-handedly win you the game.

3. The "Specialists": Your Tactical Tools

• What they are: Mid-range Influence cards (2-4 SI) with unique, situational abilities.

• Their Job: To execute a specific function that no other card can. They might be a Disruptor like Speaker Isaac who repositions enemy units, a Utility piece like The Wayfinder who enables your core strategy, or a Protector like Aegis Legionary who keeps your key Engine safe.

• The Trade-off: Their power is highly contextual. In the right situation, they are the best card in your deck. In the wrong one, they can feel inefficient. These cards are often great to keep in hand until the right moment.

• Example: Aegis Legionary doesn't win the game on its own, but by Shielding your Viceroy Isha, it enables your deck to perform.

By thinking in terms of Anchors, Engines, and Specialists, no card is ever just "filler." A 5-SI card with a "weak" ability isn't a bad card; it's an Anchor doing its job, paving the way for your 0-SI Engine to deliver the finishing blow. Of course, there's LOTS of fun design space to mess with these basic principles. I want decks of all types to be interesting and strong. I'm already imagining a deck of all anchors, decks that go under the influence cap, and more. What if there's an Anchor meant to stay in your hand the whole game? All these creative options get my heart pumping! But not all of that space can be explored in the core set, so we need to make smart choices about what mechanics to teach to players in this foundational set.

The Core Set and Beyond

For this initial play-test, the core set is designed to teach these fundamental roles. The Loyalists excel with powerful Anchors. The Scholars are masters of the slow-burn Engine. Intuits are the ultimate Specialists. As you play, I encourage you to think about these roles. When you build a deck, ask yourself: Who is my Anchor? Who is my Engine? How do I protect it?

Humility

Balance is always an evolving consideration. I have thought about other ways to balance cards including mathematical formulas that valuate each ability on a card, a more Gwent-like provisions focus, and a Marvel Snap-like archetype focus. The current system may turn out to be terrible - who knows! But I am committed to adapting quickly, listening to feedback, and taking help where needed. I encourage you to theorycraft, design cards, and engage with the balance process.

This is just the beginning of our journey. Your feedback, your broken combos, and your brilliant strategies will be the data that helps us forge this game into the deep, fair, and endlessly replayable experience we all want it to be.

Now, go build a 10,000 year plan. I’ll see you in the Ruins.