If you're anything like me, sometimes you look at a game and notice things in the game that don't matter ... and perhaps should. Options a player is given that are often overlooked or taken for grantite.

This is one of the things mechanics are made of.

It's in this spirit that I start this thread, in hopes that people will bring up elements of the game we take for grantite so that we can conceptualize mechanics that could make these descisions more relevant, "Proto-Mechanics" if you will.

Also, in this line, I will bring up the play-element that I think is taken for grantite:

Resource Row Order.

Really, with a possible few exceptions, it rarely makes a difference in what order cards are put into your resource row. If you have two plot-twists in your hand, neither of which you'll be using this turn, does it usually matter which you put down this turn for your resource? Again, with a few exceptions, no.

I think that another small layer of strategy could easily be added to the game by the making of cards that directly effect the order in which resources are laid.

Here are some incredibly rough examples. These examples aren't necessarily anything I'm presenting as a finished mechanic, but an example of ways these things could be made more relevant. Again, "Proto-Mechanics".

The easiest way to make resource row important, is to make a "safety zone". For example,

Choose one of an opponents first 3 resources. Replace that resource.

A mechanic of this nature would directly effect the order in which you played resources, and could lead to more interesting play decisions. What if you only drew characters and a vital location/ongoing-plot-twist like a team-up. Should you put down the team-up so early and risk it getting replaced or should you bit the bullet and waste a non-reservist character as a resource?

Also, what if the safe zone was the other way around, and the safe zone was say, the first three resources? Should you put that high-cost location into play so early to keep it safe, or should you put down the plot-twist you intend to use this turn to avoid having to waste an extra card by playing it from your hand?

(EDIT: Later posts reveal that the following "conceptual rules clarifications" are already on the books.)

Now, this concept has two big issues with it right now. First of all, I don't think there are currently specific rules regarding resource row order. This is an easy fix, as all players tend to build their resource row from left to right anyways. Also, there are tons of cards that replace a resource. Conceptually, and for rules simplicity, I would imagine that when a resource is replaced, the resource becomes KO'ed and the new resource appears at the END of the resource row. Not only does this keep replacing consistent within the rules, but allows for "resource shifts", allowing resources to move down the line towards the front.

This resource shifting brings in my next Proto-Mechanic idea, "built plot-twists". Essentially, they would work as such.

Effect. Play this card only if it is the first or second card of your resource row.

Or

Effect. If this card is the first or second card of your resource row, get this super-happy fun bonus.

(For the second example, I would imagine it having a cost greater than it's required position, so that it also rewarded a more patient, long-term strategy)

Now, at first, a card like this would seem extremely limited, until you realize that as you replace resources ahead of it, it would move further down the line towards the position of 1st resource. In, for example, a reservist deck, it would conceptually easy to imagine getting such a plot twist on the 3rd turn and then recruiting reservists from your resource row to move it down to the position that is needed to play it; essentially "building" it by replacing the resources ahead of it and letting it slide down. If this was the case though, playing it in such a deck would require some strategy before hand as well. Putting down reservist characters that could be recruited early enough to slide the plot twist down far enough when it came up.

Combine this with the first example of this "Proto-Mechanic" (safety zone), and you have some really interesting interaction. "I want to put my drop for next turn down here so I can slide down my plot twist if it comes up, but playing my character this early would be putting it in the danger zone, and what if my opponent plays his card that would replace this resource - I'd have to underdrop".

This concept also adds a layer of "blind" strategy, or "bluffing".

"If he's playing how I think he is, should I replace his first resource assuming it's in that position for a reason, or was the way it moved down the resource row like that a coincidence?"

"I can replace the face down resource he played on turn 1. Did he put down his important plot-twist because he can only play it from there, or is he saving it because he thinks I'm going to fall for his plan. Heck, if I assume taking out this resource is worth it, and I'm wrong, I could be moving everything else in his resource row down 1 more and possibly enable some bonuses on his plot-twists."

"I know he's playing Avengers. If he didn't draw any of his locations, then he probably put down characters he intends to recruit so he can get his locations down into his resource row when he draws them. But then again, that 2nd card in the resource row hasn't even twitched since it was played. Is it a higher-drop character waiting to come out, or something useless he had to put down because he had to waste a card as a resource? What should my play be?"

So that's it, there's my Proto-Mechanic.

I really wish I had more complex and developed ideas on it, but again, as a Proto-Mechanic it's still in it's Ameobic stage of evolution.

Please tell me what you think about such a concept, and post any play-elements that you think should be conceptualized into a Proto-Mechanic here as well.

I hope you all find this interesting enough to spark enough conversation that more player-initiated ideas can flow to the game designers.

you are not allowed to rearange the order of your resource row, new resources are always placed to the right of the right most resource. when you "replace" a resource it technically is suposed to go at the end of your row, not in the spot of the card replaced.

EDIT:: here is the exact rule

Wow, the rules work perfectly for the concept then already, lol.

I always thought resource adjacency would be important, for locations in particular. Like...

Bludhaven (3 cost Location)
Activate --- Target Gotham Knights character gets +2 ATK this attack. If Bludhaven is adjacent to Gotham City, that character gets an additional +2 DEF this attack.

or

Penguin's Mayoral Estate (2 cost)
As an additional cost to flip Pengiun's Mayoral Estate, reveal an Arkham Inmates character card from your hand.
Replace Pengiun's Mayoral Estate --- Ready target Location adjacent to Pengiun's Mayoral Estate.

i have to admit I was going to post a question wondering why there would be a need to complicate the resource row so much but from what Latuki Joe just said that sounds kinda cool

Leader-esque effects in the resource row, as LJ suggested would probably be the best way to go.

Heck, a team could even get a mechanic where they needed to get a count down in their row [i.e. 1-2-3-4-5-6] ... to acheive some sort of win condition. Giving them a replacement effect to 'shift' stuff around and possibly allowing them to reveal characters or equipment from the resource row to fill out the numbers.

A location that benefits adjacent locations, and also allows you to replace resources adjacent to it could allow you to nudge other locations closer to it over the course of a game, for example.

And, ultimately, it would give much more reason to enforce the existing rules. In general, the need to track the resource row is so that the opponent can 'track' when each card went down, etc.

Darkseid cares sometimes what order the resources are. I remember once when someone started shifting their resources around and it annoyed me because I had flipped some down and knew what they were. After they were re-arranged, it ruined opportunities to destroy some face-down resources that I knew would be future threats.

The closest thing we have right now, besides the rules on resource order would probably be;

Two World, which has a bonus if it is the second one you played.

Path of Destruction, while not limited to the resource row, it does count other copies of itself.

Now personally I don't think what I posted complicates the resource row at all. Really it's just cards that say

"Choose one of an opponents first 3 resources. Replace that resource."

or

"Effect. If this card is one of your first two resources, get this bonus."

As far as actual mechanics go, that seems really straight forward and simple to me. Everything else I was talking about in the post was just the reasoning, implications, and interactions of the mechanic. On top of that, the rules clarifications I was "conceptualizing", as pointed out by Togorian, are already on the books, I was simply unaware of their existence.

Latuki Joe's idea definetly has some flavor to it, but they don't really have much strategical relevance, they're simply cards you want to put right down next to other cards (although I admit I like how it could give a cool starter-box location, Gotham City, more relevance).

Now personally, I like the pre-stated examples of "implied safety zones" and "placement bonuses" because, honestly, I think they add alot more subtle strategical interaction into the game then just making sure you put down a resource right before or right after another one and are, as I've stated before, really very simple.

However, if everyone else likes the "adjacent resource" concept more, I think a more interesting idea might be a more generic effect; like something that you can flip that protects an adjacent resource.

"I want to Kaboom! his team-up location, but it has a face-down resource next to it ... if it's that Latuki Joe card (I just didn't have a name, hope he doesn't mind me conceptualizing a further development of his idea with his name), then it'll just be negated and I'll lose 5 endurance."

Again, still not an idea that appeals to me, but one that makes your resource row order relevant to your opponent, not just yourself. If it's only relevant to yourself, and there's no interaction to prevent something from simply being obviously the best order to lay them down in, or the order being irrelevant, then we're just back where we started.

I think on the one-player side of things, the idea would be to make such an effect long term enough, that the player is again interacting with something - his deck. He doesn't know (barring effect) which cards he'll draw next and in what order, but he has to make his decisions on at least what to put into the resource row first right now, which with a more position-based resource card leads to more interesting strategical decisions.

I have more to say, but I think I should start to wrap it up, because I think one of the reasons people apparently think what I believe to be simple ideas to be "complicated" might be because I go into moderate length about the implications of such mechanics, which could be complicated themselves (but simple mechanics that have potential for complicated strategy are something I think we should embrace).