Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
The robot hacking, computer programming card game.
The robot hacking, computer programming card game.
329 backers pledged $15,444 to help bring this project to life.

Use this space to cheer the creator along, and talk to your fellow backers.

Have a question?

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Src:Card Games Creator on January 10, 2017

      @Harold Li, finally got the Behind the Scenes back up - download at srccard.com/docs/bts.pdf :D

    2. Src:Card Games Creator on January 1, 2017

      Hi Harold. Merry Christmas :P The BTS is no longer available online. However, I've asked our designer if he still has a copy I can provide you. Can't promise he does, but if so I'll let you know in a few days :)

    3. Harold Li on December 27, 2016

      Is there a way for me to download the BTS file? The link I had doesn't work and I seem to have lost it on my computer.

    4. Src:Card Games Creator on August 26, 2016

      @Anthony Probably won't be happening soon! At this stage we've become pretty busy with other projects (our designer just won the Kiwi GameJam for a game called Tackleball - https://www.youtube.com/watch…). Erwin is in Penang on placement and I'm stuck in Android dev.

      So the chances of another expansion are slim. BUT....not impossible!!!! I want to keep expectations low (appropriately so) but I (Sam - gameplay developer) will be doing local (Malaysian) research on Engagement and Education. Part of that involves a proposal to put Src:Card online here in Malaysia for the education department (who just signed a bill to promote computer education tools) as part of a larger education project. If that happens it would push some sales toward the box product. If that happens then there will definitely be an expansion. That is a bunch of ifs.

      Basically post-Kickstarter we recieved mixed reviews. Those with some programming background really liked the game (as far as we could tell) but non-programmers did not find it as accessible as we thought it would be - which is where we really wanted to shine. Lesson learnt, but it means that the broad appeal we hoped to have wasn't there. That's not to say it can't be enjoyed by neophytes, it just has a learning curve that wasn't properly managed in the box product.

      So, there should be further development beginning this september. So it is in its embryonic stages, however there is a very good potential that the Src:Card idea will be pushed forward as part of a larger education project. Primarily we would look to reduce the learning curve. But any advancement could lead to expansion, especially if we get government backing.

      TL;DR there is a 90% chance that Src:Card will become an online game (which will incorporate new features). With that there is about a 10% chance that further print expansions will exist. Hope that makes sense. Also, sepetember is a soft start date as I (Sam) am currently working on a project the department of education would not approve - but should be finished in 4 weeks.

    5. Antonio Campos Jr from McAllen Texas
      Superbacker
      on August 26, 2016

      Sam! Maybe a new expansion?

    6. Src:Card Games Creator on August 10, 2016

      Cool, send through an email as soon as you can. Thanks @neko_cam - Src:Card

    7. neko_cam on August 9, 2016

      @Creator: Thanks for the response. I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks and basically forgot to get back to you. I'll try and pop together the details for you when I get time this weekend. Cheers :)

    8. Src:Card Games Creator on July 21, 2016

      Hi neko_cam - sorry not too active on the comments. The version of rules shouldn't make a difference as it doesn't alter what the mechanics of the board - just changes the speed of the game. Send me an email at admin@srccard.com and give me a few more details about what your game state was - I'm still a bit unclear about the situation that occurred. If you could clarify what you mean by "collaborating to grab X cards". You can post here, but I promise a quicker response via email (and I'll post the final answer here for others either way). Thanks neko_cam

    9. neko_cam on July 21, 2016

      Further clarification: We were using v2 of the instructions. I've had another quick read of the rules and haven't found anywhere we glaringly misread or misunderstood them.

    10. neko_cam on July 19, 2016

      Just played my first game. We both read through the manual together completely and discussed it as we encountered anything we were unsure of. The game still went for more than twice the estimated playing time and half way through we both realised that there was no way we could possibly end the game without collaborating to grab all the Branch and Execute If cards to stop fatal errors. Did we miss something? It felt really, really broken.

    11. Src:Card Games Creator on June 13, 2016

      @Pietro Can you count the cards? There should be 111 playable cards. Blank cards is totally a manufacturing mistake. If you have less than 111, let us know, we'll send you a new copy!

    12. Src:Card Games Creator on June 13, 2016

      @Txabier We put the "Power Keys" and the "Functions" expansion in the same box. The box is about 70% of the expense for the smaller expansions. Instead of print the "Power Keys" as a separate expansion (which would have cost about 80% more than the "Functions" expansion alone) we decided to expand the "Functions" expansion with the “Power Keys” which our manufacturer actually did at no extra cost.

      The other option was to wrap the “Power Keys” in a flimsy envelope which we didn’t like. So the “Battle Programmer Upgrade” is the "Power Keys" and the "Functions" Expansion and won’t be printed again (in fact we don’t have any copies left - not even in our donations box!). Hope that makes sense Txabier and glad that it made it to Mexico, sorry it took so long :P

    13. Pietro Esposti on June 12, 2016

      I opened my copy yesterday.
      Everything seems fine, but I wonder about 4 blank cards I found in the base set..
      Are those card replacements if you lose any or it was a printing problem?
      These blank cards weren't all together at the top or the bottom of the deck, but were individually spread out throughout it.

    14. Francisco J. Barriopedro on June 11, 2016

      Hello, guys!

      I have just received my package today (Mexico City), and it was a bit crushed (nothing too drastic), but the contents are all right.

      However, I seem to be missing the Functions expansion, as I pledged at the Winnitude level and just found three boxes (base, 3-4 player expansion and the limited edition Battle Programer Upgrade).

      Did I mis and update or something else dealing with a change in the date to deliver the Functions expansion?

      Thanks and congrats, again!

      Cheers,
      Txabier.

    15. Src:Card Games Creator on June 7, 2016

      @SirSiggi Awesome, glad to hear its arrived! Code away :D

    16. SirSiggi on June 7, 2016

      Received my replacement today. Todally unsquished an in perfect condition. Thanks for this quick and unbureaucratic response!

    17. Src:Card Games Creator on May 26, 2016

      @Miscillo We're really sorry to hear that your copy arrived damaged. We have identified a shipping problem affecting about 2-3% of shipments. I am not sure what you mean by the presentation of the cards in the box, but would be glad to know in detail how we can improve - seriously.

      I also, completely understand what it is like to wait months and have a damaged package arrive. We'll put a replacement copy in the mail today. We don't want you to feel cheated. As a backer you are kind of, sort of, part of the team - we will get you a new replacement copy.

      Also, please read our last update. It outlines the issue we have had with the boxes and our new single-wall cardboard reinforced shipping insert (nothing fancy, but it works). Again, we are really sorry your package arrived damaged, we will have something in the mail to you within a few hours. Unfortunately we do not have replacements of the "Battle Programmer Upgrade" as it was limited edition, but we will replace the Main Game and 3-4 Player expansion.

      @Miscillo - I will message you in the next 24 hours with a track and trace code for the replacement games.

    18. Miscillo on May 26, 2016

      I've just received my copy of src:card.
      I am shocked and disappointed by the boxes. first of all they are very poor, poor quality. Also you can not put in a decent way the cards in thej box, without having to then spend a lot of time to reorganize everything.
      In addition, the boxes were delivered damaged in a no suitable package.

    19. Src:Card Games Creator on May 23, 2016

      @Joe. Also - since according to page 11 of the rules "you may also change indentation of any card to accommodate a new card" - you could actually move your cross connector back when you add another card (as long as you don't effect ordering). In short, moving to parallel is a form of indentation. Page nineteen refers to "in parallel" and "indented" under the "Branch" as forms of indentation.

      But no, thanks for the question, if it is not completely obvious in the rules or on the cards, we need to know. I'll add this question to the FAQ and we'll decide if we want to clarify it in the instructions. Thanks Joe :P

    20. Src:Card Games Creator on May 23, 2016

      @Joe - Hi Joe, yes you can.

    21. Joe Carroll on May 21, 2016

      Thank you for the reply to my previous comment. I have another question, this time about the Branch (I did actually read the card this time as compared to my previous Cross Connector question). When played above a section of code, can any portion of the code below it be placed in the parallel section? Example: I have a Defeat 2 Hardware Levels followed by a Cross Connector. Can I place the Branch above both, then indent the Defeat 2 Hardware Levels and move the Cross Connector to the parallel?

    22. Src:Card Games Creator on May 20, 2016

      @Anthony - so true! Any photos or vids and we'll definitely tweet them! https://twitter.com/SrcCard

    23. Antonio Campos Jr from McAllen Texas
      Superbacker
      on May 20, 2016

      I was thinking there should be more game play videos to encourage more to pick up the game aside from word of mouth. Post those vids, ladies and gents!

    24. Src:Card Games Creator on May 19, 2016

      Thanks @Anthony for the feedback, great to hear from you. You're not the first person to ask about a box (or modded main box that can hold all expansions). Definitely something we are thinking about! Cheers - S

    25. Antonio Campos Jr from McAllen Texas
      Superbacker
      on May 19, 2016

      @Src:Card Games Sam, I received my cards a week ago and the boxes were smooshed. But I didn't buy for the box and the cards were in proper shape. You've gone out of your way to assist me and others that I can find no other way to thank you! I love the game and will start demoing it at the local university when I get a chance! I look forward to the expansions! I only ask that you take into consideration creating a sorta deck box for better storage in the not so distant future! Wish you the best!

    26. Src:Card Games Creator on May 18, 2016

      @All, I've added an FAQ on our website (just scroll to the footer of our webstie to find a link, or head directly to http://srccard.com/sc/faq/). Should answer and collate the questions below - but keep them coming!

      @Joe Carroll There were a couple branching options we didn't include because they would create undesirable effects (the allowance of strategy that would dominate gameplay - see the "Execute Code If..." example mentioned a few comments back). Also, strictly speaking, the "if attacks are not allowed" card would be unnecessary (I believe) given the functionality of the "Defeat X" cards. The "Branch" card incorporates an else :P Also we have two new expansions packs that we have cleared with our manufacturer if we get to that stage. If enough people ask for more branching, we'll definitely include more of it. TLDR; basically we had to be very purposeful about branching to avoid imbalanced play. Hope that makes sense. Head over to the FAQ. I've included an answer to your second question as we have received it before. :P

      @Jeremy Koenen. I'm pretty sure I've answered your question in the FAQ. Let me know if you feel otherwise. Thanks Jeremy.

    27. Joe Carroll on May 17, 2016

      Just want to confirm somethings. All the Execute Code If.. cards are for "if attacks are allowed". Why no "if attacks are NOT allowed" cards (or ELSE cards)? If you use a Cross Connector on a Defense Core, doesn't it cause an error?

    28. Jeremy Koenen on May 17, 2016

      If an attack is made on a defense core that is not vulnerable to that type of attack, does that do nothing, or does it cause an aborting error? Also, if you execute a "Defeat X Security Levels" card against a non-defense core (such as a connector), does that do nothing, or error?

    29. Src:Card Games Creator on May 17, 2016

      @Richard Woodward Yeah! you definitely have to overhand shuffle or mash shuffle the cards (links below).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch…

    30. Missing avatar

      Richard Woodward on May 16, 2016

      My boxes took a bit of a hit also, but I'm with Angel: game inside is pristine. A little massaging and pushing got them back into the right shape and the cards are great (if incredibly hard to shuffle and deal due to their size :) )

    31. Angel Baker on May 16, 2016

      My box was mashed to heck, but I don't play with the box. The cards were still in prime condition, so that's no big deal. The game plays perfectly fine, smashed box or not

    32. Src:Card Games Creator on May 15, 2016

      @Seeburger Achim. Good call. Our shipments where right up against the limits in terms of weight. We had 10 grams to work with in both our primary shipping class brackets (despite more conservative customs declarations). 20 grams extra of cardboard mailer would have cost 100% more. Ex. Defcon 2 would have cost $35->$40. Based on research we did with previous Kickstarters we determined that we had an increased chance of shipping success due to the size of our product (the smaller the more likely to not get squished.) Unfortunately the air in our main game - necessary to accommodate readable instructions - has allowed for squishing. Obviously, we are trying to accommodate a number of factors; shipping weight, box size, void space versus necessary components, price, aesthetics.

      I want to justify our decision and say "hey we picked the best combination of factors possible" but for backers who have been waiting 6 months to get a damaged product is just not acceptable, I understand that. Which is why we are willing to replace all severely damaged packages. We have remedied the problem. We are using a single wall one-fold card wrap for future shipments (which we where unaware of earlier). Again though, as we have said before, as backers we feel you guys have put your trust in us to produce what you were expecting and we plan to honour that as best we can. So again, anyone with a severely damaged box or a box significantly damaged such that you feel cheated, email us and we will replace it (admin@srccard.com). We have put aside some of our own money to see this happen, so we can't replace every unit, but we will attempt to replace as many as possibly needed. From my emails, about 3% of you have receiving squished boxes (with the damage all being focused around specific regions ex. Georgia - US, Australia, Germany. Damn you Atlantean, Australian, Germanic Postman!!! :P ).

    33. Achim Seeburger on May 15, 2016

      Hey, Received my game (Ger), the box is a little bit squashed but that’s ok ;)
      I wouldn't have payed 2$ more (10%^^) for a better shipping so to take the risk seems logic and I’m fine with it.
      Eager to play it ;)
      Many thanks

    34. SirSiggi on May 14, 2016

      Received mine in Germany today. Sadly the boxes are in a sad squashed state. The game seems fine though, but packaging - as much as I understand the need to spend as few money as possible on it - could have been better...

    35. Michael Rose on May 13, 2016

      Haha no worries -- I'm sort of a coder (Computer Science degree, work for a game publisher) so I love messing around with codey things. Name adding is fine by me :)

    36. Src:Card Games Creator on May 13, 2016

      From Twitter - Awesome Question
      @SrcCard thanks for the response! Quick additional question: Could I put an "execute code if" with the cross connector to fix my code?
      @SrcCard not entirely sure if I'm allowed to use cross connectors with "execute code if"

      @Mike Rose ok, first up, if you were playing with me, used that strategy and hedged against errors with an "execute code if..." card, I'd give you the win hands down. Seriously that is good code and there is NOTHING in the rules or on the cards against it. So let’s fix that.

      When we designed the game "execute code if..." was only allowed to be utilised against defense cores. In real code, I guess you would think of it at typing, the boolean operator could only function on the Defense Core class. So if you want to play the game without this strategy, make the "execute code if..." card only functional against defense cores (error otherwise). It was our intention, but is mentioned nowhere in the rules. We will add it.

      But Mike, I'd like to add your name to the special thanks section of our rules, if you're cool with? Let me know, finding these bugs in the rules is a big help.

    37. Src:Card Games Creator on May 13, 2016

      "...even in *code* that would execute..."

    38. Src:Card Games Creator on May 13, 2016

      @Michael Rose My brain is melting! First of all, I am totally aware of this situation, but I was sweating bullets because I thought you had actually found a valid error! Admittedly the rules are ambiguous, but I’ll clarify here.

      Ok, so first of all, the situation you described is something we anticipated in design, but looking at your strategy I had thought we had defeated our safeguards when we added the 0, 1, or 2 damage actions for the Defeat Hardware or Defeat Security cards (and I hadn’t examined the Branch card). That said, the game is safe from this strategy, but ambiguous on why.

      Ok, so the conditions for winning are that you need to reach the core without error. Now this is written VERY ambiguously, but the intentions of the designers is that error conditions are program wide, not just at the time of reaching the core. An analogy would be you can not preform surgery on a heart patient successfully and then repeatedly stab him or her (silly example). Reaching the core is not enough, error condition can not occur, even in could that would execute on the core (and no code can execute on the core, hence no superfluous code cards, unless properly handled). This is also valid from an actual programming sense (in most cases) where the code needs to have integrity after accomplishing its goal. This means that if you have a loop with many iterations, you would eventually execute the branch on the primary core and the “Not Defense Core (Parallel)” portion of the code would execute on the core (most likely a cross connector card), possibly multiple times with many iterations. This would cause an error as you are attempting to execute a “Cross Connector” card on the Primary Core which is illegal (as it causes an error). For this reason it is very difficult to use the Branch card in a loop with many iterations.

      Now if you read the rules as, “just needing to reach the primary core” then your strategy is very powerful. Again, the rules do appear very ambiguous on this point and that is our fault. We were trying to communicate in the rules that the entirety of your code most contain no errors - even code that would execute once the primary core is reached. We will make this clearer in the online rules.

      But definitely thanks for the question Mike - Phew (“brain, back to sleep!”)

    39. Src:Card Games Creator on May 13, 2016

      Yippe ki-yay, comment time! As stated everyone on the Src:Card team is wearing two hats right now (except Jacob who doesn't have Kickstarter access), so responses will be a bit slow this week and next.

      @David Moore you should receive your copy very shortly. I have, in the last two days, begun to receive confirmation of US delivery. We have now (as of 2 days ago) received confirmation of at least a single delivery to every region the game was backed from - except South America (i.e. Brazil). So if anyone has not received their copy yet, it should be arriving soon.

      @Ron James You are absolutely right. Our gamble was that the packaging had enough rigidity to compensate for the air pockets. In most cases it does, but not all, which is not enough. All future games are shipped with a 3-4mm single wall cardboard one-fold liner. So we have solved the shipping problem, but unfortunately too late. If your shipment is not severely crushed, but damaged anyway, please do reach out to us by email. We may not be able to replace the damaged components in this case, but we can try and give some consideration. If you’re not happy with your product, contact us!

      @Michael Rose I’ll respond to you in a seperate comment bubble - since it’s a gameplay issue and not similar to these logistic questions :P

      Thanks for you patience everyone. If you need an immediate response, please email us at admin@srccard.com or me directly at sam.boychuk@srccard.com

      Plus for no reason, here is a robot - by Mike Yamada - https://www.instagram.com/p/BBSytCTKbsk/

    40. Giancarlo Tambone
      Superbacker
      on May 11, 2016

      @David Moore Got mine today.

    41. Missing avatar

      David Moore on May 10, 2016

      Have US backers begun to receive their copies? Just curious if I should be expecting mine any time soon...

    42. Michael Rose on May 10, 2016

      Hey! So I got the game in the post, really nice stuff. The only thing is that when we played it last night, we think we maybe came up with a way to break the game? But maybe we just misunderstood something, so wanted to check with you.

      If you build code that is a loop in a loop in a loop, and then have a branch inside that that has a couple of "beat 2 hardware levels", and a "cross connector" in parallel, doesn't that beat any possible bot? As it essentially just repeats "if defence core, beat hardware levels, if not, beat a connector" if I understand the game correctly, and you can only just defense cores and connectors in your bot.

      Again, maybe we just misunderstood how some of the rules work, but it seems like that is code that will beat literally any bot that anyone can build, and it's relatively simple to get the cards needed to build that code by dumping any code cards that aren't part of that code so you get to pick up loads more, and then just attaching any defence cores you find to existing defence cores so you reach a bot depth of 8 much more slowly.

    43. Ron James
      Superbacker
      on May 9, 2016

      Got my cards. The boxes were slightly bent up, but all cards are fine. I'm not worried about getting any replacement card boxes. But I would have paid a little extra for the game to be shipped in a rigid shipping box.

    44. Src:Card Games Creator on May 9, 2016

      @All Erwin and I will be working on academic ventures these next few weeks (Erwin on his honours project and I on my master's thesis proposal). We're still around, but it make take us more than one business day to respond in the next few weeks - but we are definitely still monitoring comments, feedback and email. FYI

    45. Src:Card Games Creator on May 9, 2016

      Ha ha! We already have your money!!! Too bad for you all :P

      Joking! Like I said in the update, "We want to be absolutely clear; we could not have done this without you! Our current success is your story as much as ours.". Currently all of our damaged packages are coming from Australia. Best guess is that something crushed them in transit to Aus. I have contacted each of the individuals who have received a severely damaged box. It's our goal to work out a solution. I can't go into too much detail openly or make promises, however, if you have a crushed box, contact us, so that we can work something out.

      It is our desire to see that everyone has a playable copy of the game they are happy with. Again, we don't see our initial Kickstarter backers as just a source of cash. It is our goal to meet your expectations for the game. I you have problems, message, comment or email (admin@srccard.com).

    46. Missing avatar

      ThomasDN
      Superbacker
      on May 8, 2016

      Copy arrived in Denmark. Not squished very mush.

    47. neko_cam on May 6, 2016

      My copy arrived here in Melbourne, Australia. Like Ben in the comment below my box was all but irreparably smooshed but thankfully the cards themselves are fine.

      Is the main box as large as it is to house the cards from the 3-4 Player Expansion and the Functions Expansion? If it were a more suitable size for its contents then I expect it would have held up better, but if the extra room was for that solid reason then that's understandable.

    48. Ben Turner
      Superbacker
      on May 5, 2016

      My copy arrived today - excited to give it a go.

      Shame that the box was thin card, and the packaging a thin bubble envelope - afraid that combination means it didn't really stand a chance in international shipping, and has been rather crushed on arrival. No doubt the cards within are going to be OK, but might have to find a new box for them :(

    49. Paul Clark on May 5, 2016

      Very happy backer, looking forward to giving the single player scenario a try to get myself accustomed to the rules.

    50. Andrew Dickinson
      Superbacker
      on May 5, 2016

      Aaaah! Single player bots! So awesome. :-D I have downloaded, and will check them out properly after work! You rock for producing these!

Show older comments