by Craig Robertson
Tower Siege
Published by Arcane Games
Artwork by Colin McCulloch
Non-collectible, customizable card game
176 full-color cards
$20.00
The basic concept of Tower Siege is remarkably simple: You are a wizard. Your
sworn enemy is a wizard. Using your mystical and material resources, you summon
arcane powers and craven minions to serve you in your efforts to destroy your
opponent. A simple formula, but unfortunately, it's already been done. You see,
the great-grandpappy of all CCGs, Magic: the Gathering, uses the exact same
scenario. To be fair, most other CCGs also use the exact same scenario. Your
opponent is a rival wizard (or warlord, emperor, rabid mutant dingo) whom you
must destroy using your monsters (or troops, starships, rabid mutant dingoes) and
mystic lore (or booby-traps, covert assets, rabid mutant dingo droppings). There
is a good reason why WotC holds a valid patent on many aspects of CCG design.
Therefore, the true question is this: does Tower Siege do a superior job of
using that scenario to create an entertaining game?
The game has a
number of things going for it. The art by Colin
McCulloch is colorful and attractive. The basic dice
mechanic just happens to be my personal favorite: a
simple percentile roll using two D10s. A success
occurs when you roll under a card's skill level, as
seen in Call of Cthulhu and almost anything by Palladium. The
rest of combat is equally simple: the attacker rolls
his attack skill, while the defender rolls hers. If
they both succeed, there's no effect. If the attack
succeeds and the defense fails, the defender takes one
point of damage (fatal to most minions). If the
defense succeeds against a failed attack roll, the
defender may immediately make a counter-attack, or a
riposte. There are also provisions for critical hits
and fumbles, as well as saving throws provided by
other game effects. The basic mechanics, therefore,
are sound, and have the potential for supporting a
great game.
Unfortunately, the rest of the game does not live up to the mechanics. Tower
Siege is marketed as a non-collectible, customizable card game. This pretty much
means that what you see is what you get. And what you see is not a lot. After
subtracting multiple resource cards (think basic lands), variant Mages, multiple
Towers (identical except for card art), and reference cards, you are left with
only 41 different minion, relic, item and scroll cards. This would not be so bad
if the two decks offered in the basic set were not identical. Since you
currently cannot count on more than 45 cards TOTAL in the new expansions, the
game cannot possibly provide the infinite diversity in infinite combinations that
even a minor CCG can. M:TG offered 290 different non-land cards in the Alpha set
alone.
Another staple of CCGs sadly lacking in Tower Siege is that of faction
affiliations. You are given six different mages to choose from, but each one
possesses the exact same starting spells and abilities. The only differences are
in overall skill level and starting resources. The basic minions are all
generic. There is absolutely nothing to distinguish one wizard from another. I
am not a big fan of excessive background, but affiliations are a great way of
adding depth to a game. By limiting certain abilities to specific factions, your
opponent's style of play is reflected in his pre-game choices. For instance, the
choice to build a Crab deck instead of a Crane deck in Legend of the Five
Rings is more than a strategic option. It becomes an expression of the player's
personality.
While it is possible to create an enjoyable game using a limited number of cards,
to do so requires an elegance throughout the entire design. Bruno Faidutti's
Citadels has that elegance. Tower Siege does not. From the almost
algebraic notation of minion special abilities to the dense and almost unreadable
rules sheet, this game has too many difficulties standing in the way of too few
rewards. Although the basic mechanics are workable, the lack of variety in the
cards and the unnecessary similarities to M:TG make this game almost unpleasant
to learn and play.