In Redline, as with most expandable card games, two players build decks prior to play and sit down for a duel. Decks are 60 cards in size and are comprised of cards a player would expect to find in such a game: units (in this case called efreets, i.e. mechwarriors), upgrades (cannons, lasers, missiles, etc.), resources, and tactics (event cards for one-time effects). Spread out between the players is the 'redline': five missions drawn randomly from a deck of twenty possible missions, each with their own capture amount and bonus. The player's goal is to control all five missions, but they can also win by eniterly razing their opponent's HQ (reducing the deck to zero cards).
In order to take control of a mission a player needs efreets. These are contructed in the deploy phase and afterwards, with the use of location dials, players simultaneously select in secret which mission each efreet will be assigned that round. Once revealed, efreets are assigned to the redline per the mission selected. If the opponent has no efreets at the same mission, the player can role a capture die to attempt to capture the mission. If the opponent has one or more efreets at the same mission, a battle ensues. The last man standing at the mission gets the chance to capture it. This is not set in stone, however. While it is more difficult for an opponent to capture a mission that you have already captured, it is entirely possible, something which both players must use their best tactics to do properly. If all five missions have been captured by one player, they win.
Unlike the Battletech CCG, efreet combat is not as straightforward as comparing stats. Efreets can be upgraded - arguably one of the funnest and most satisfying aspects of the game. So while combat is decided using a d12 die, the die roll is not always one and done. Missiles, lasers, cannons, targeting computers, pilots - a player's deck is laced with equipment which influences and manipulates the d12 to the player's advantage. On top of this, the efreets and upgrades often have one or more of a handful of keywords which add flavor. Sharpshooter, Ambush, Precision, etc. mean that the skirmishes can be quite dynamic. The other highly satisfying aspect of combat is the critical hit. Hitting a natural 12 on the die, or rolling precisely the targeted efreet's speed result in a Critical Hit. Borrowing from the idea from the X-Wing Miniatures game, after a critical hit the damaged player draws a card from a side deck which describes an additional catastrophic bit of damage - slower speed, reduced accuracy, and others. Overall, this mix of upgrades, keywords, and critical hits feels properly 'battlemech.' Alongside the mind games of deploying efreets to missions, combat is the shining star of Redline.
Taking all this into consideration, Redline is a combination of a few games on the market blended together to form an identity of its own. Take the main concept of Battletech TCG (generate resources to build mechs to fight) but give players the dual win conditions of Warhammer: Conquest (destroy the other player's HQ or capture a set number of locations lined up between the players). From Conquest, Redline also borrows the secret selection of locations. Add the critical hit deck from X-Wing Miniatures Game and you've got a game that when it sings, it sings. But it's not without an off-key note or two.
First spot of trouble are resources. Redline handles resources similar to Magic, Battletech, etc. Resources are cards shuffled in players' decks that must be drawn to be used. Unlike Magic, Battletech, etc., however, randomness is reduced. There are no colors or letters that need to match other card types. The resources, called supply drops, are generic. They can be spent on anything. But this does not eliminate one critical problem in Magic et al. Resources still clog players' decks and create the potential for one player to draw a lot more or a lot less than they need. It happens more often than is fun for one player to draw mostly resources and the other player to draw mostly playable cards. Neither side can do much, which is not fun for ether side. We have taken to using a house rule in which resources are kept in a separate deck from which players can draw one per round in addition to their main deck. When the opponent razes your HQ, you can choose which deck, the resource or non-resource deck, to raze. On top of making things significantly more fair, the resource deck likewise acts as a nice early-game buffer to razing, and heightens the tension when players need to start razing their non-resource deck mid- to late-game. I can't understand why TCG/CCGs in 2024 are still mixing resource-only cards into decks...
There are two additional things to critique, one more important, the other less so. The important one is the rules, both as they are found in the rulebook (or not) and as they play on the table. The rulebook, while it gets players 90% to the finish line, the last 10%—the devil in the details that decides many a situation—is sometimes not there. For players who have years of TCG/CCG experience, they can most often agree with their opponent how to proceed and be fair. But that doesn't take away from the fact a tigher attention to detail and layout would have improved the learning and judging experience. One item of note is that the online version of the rules has improved a bit from the version included in the core box.
Going further about the rules, they do not feel fully tested on every occasion. For as truly fun and dynamic as gameplay can be, it can sometimes feel too dynamic, too swingy. There are cards which feel OP, limitations which don't feel reasonable, and an overall sense that another six months of focused group testing would have arrived at a more streamlined product - without sacrificing the fun. More than just how resources are handled, we have added rule tweaks here and there that even the playing field while offering more satisfying gameplay. We switch initiative back and forth, for example, rather than giving it to one player the entire game. We construct efreets and upgrades simultaneously (as opposed to turn-based), as another example. To be clear, the game works exceptinally well on the kitchen table. But for two people who take games seriously and want to see their deckbuilding and strategic play pay off, a tweak here and there is needed to tighten up competition.
The second critique, and one that I personally do not feel hinders the game but others may, is production quality. To state this directly: Redline is a step down from other famous expandable card games on the market in terms of the quality of card stock. The cards are flimsy.* They can be sleeved, of course, but even with such protection they do not lie 100% flat on the table. And the mission dials are a bit - just a bit - flimsy, the plastic bits not forming a tight join. To be clear, all the pieces play perfectly fine. It's just that we have been spoiled by the likes of Wizards of the Coast, Living Legend Studios, FFG, and other companies over the years, and now expect such production quality card stock from similar games. Redline comes from an indie studio, and the expectations for production need to follow. Moreover, the second and third card cycles have noticeably improved card stock. Regardless, the core box quality does not not distract from fun at our house. But if you care, be aware.
But does production effect the art?!?! With so much of a TCG/CCG's success dependent on graphics, is Redline's card art also a step down? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I disagree with the template used for the efreets. Rather than being pictured in action (as with Battletech), they are instead pictured like butterflies pinned to a board - specimens rather than active agents. And some of the card art is a bit inconsistent. But overall the art is standard to good, with a few even being inspiring (heat-seeking missiles, cannons, radar systems, supply drops, for example). If there is an overarching issue with the graphics it would be the wording: it's too small. Increased font size would have improved things.
The one other thing I will mention that others may find a negative which I do not is the limited amount of content. The core set contains enough cards for two starter decks plus, the mission and critical hit decks, and the bits and bobs (tokens, dials, dice, etc.) players need to play. It's a standard two-player starter set with a little extra. It's an LCG-style game. The release (and the subsequent two releases as of the writing of this post) are fixed. There are some alternate art cards for Kickstarter backers, but nothing more in terms of a larger cycle of cards to make your decks bigger and badder, or legendary or rare cards to collect. This is not an issue for me, but for players who care about collectibility be aware this would be something more in line with a Fantasy Flight Games release than Wizards of the Coast or Living Legend Studios.
But enough of my whining. In the end, Redline is a solid expandable card game that with a couple of house rules becomes a good, fun, robots-shooting-lasers-and-missiles-at-one-another-in-tactical-fashion card game. An interesting crossroads of other popular CCGs, the game is absolutely worth a shot as long as the players who are accustomed to Wizards of the West Coast and Fantasy Flight Games caliber productions lower their cardboard expectations. Gameplay-wise it provides that chewy degree of card game dueling that every such gamer strives for, more so than many of the big name games on the market today (Lorcana, Star Wars Unlimited, etc.). From a more specific angle, people looking for an updated version of Battletech CCG with better toys and economy, absolutely try this.
*Note: The flimsy cards appeared only in the first printing of Redline. The core sets sold now feature standard, non-warped cards.
No comments:
Post a Comment