I hope there is no forum rules violation to discuss alternative for the abandoned product.
I never played any CCG except MtG, but I think it is time to leave.

My personal preferences:
0) F2P. I can pay but I want to have freedom to decide.
1) Steam PC client (with Android shared account if possible).
2) Less items, less RNG but deep strategy with not so long game session. Texas Holdem Poker is close to ideal.

https://www.playgwent.com/en/

Game is still in the beta phase so the steam version isn't available yet, you have to play through GOG for now. If you have an Xbox One you can get the game on there and eventually they will release a Windows 10 version of the game and you can share your account across Xbox/PC, though that's probably not Steam (not sure how "play anywhere" works).

The game is confirmed to be available on Steam once it goes into final release, though I'm not sure if you'll be able to transfer any progress you make if you start playing now.

Steam Confirmation Link

Someone at a board game group I go to highly recommended a game called Duelist. From how he described it, it prolly meets all your criteria except maybe the last one. I don't remember if he talked about game duration.

Gwent seems to have very good recommendations everywhere. It will probably win, but I want to explore more titles before I make my final bet.
Duelist is an interesting new subject, thank you for suggestion.

This is purely tangential to your request, but I enjoy playing Asphalt 8: Airborne. It and Magic Duels were the only games on my late iPad. It's not a card game, but is free to play, does have Android support, and is super fun to play.

I highly recommend it as a fun racing game and all-around time-eater.

I hate fast racing games because I feel myself sick when everything is shaking. I play Armored Warfare when I need to kill somebody.

Hmm I forgot I have Gwent to play (friend gave me beta access but I've not played a single game), will try that, thanks for reminder!

Gwent, like most other TCGs, is sadly lacking in depth. There really isn't any other game that comes close to Magic.

That said there are other ways to play Magic. If Wizards sees fit to treat part of their player base like sh*t then I have no problem in recommending xmage: http://xmage.de/

It doesn't have a pretty interface like Duels but it does have a rules engine, all the cards, supports most if not all of the available formats and even has tournaments. And it's free! It's what I'll be using to play Magic from now on.

I recommend not playing Asphalt 8: Airborne. Trying to clean the vomit out of your charger jack on your tablet/phone will probably void your warranty.

Would you kindly back up this claim? If you've not played or watched much of it I'm sure it could appear to be just slamming vanilla numbers on a backgammon board, but that is absolutely not what the game is about. The depth is there but it's not visible until you start getting into it. Positioning, sequencing, tempo, and card advantage, are all important concepts and you have very little room for error. Better players will beat you 90% of the time or more, depending on the skill gap.

Also, unlike other "deeper" CCGs, you always get to play a game of Gwent. Mulligan to 4? Guess I'm dead. Opponent has Mana Wyrm, Coin, Mana Wyrm? Yep, just dead. In Gwent you build a gameplan and you consistently get to execute it to the best of your ability. It's so refreshing and it's tremendously difficult for me to play anything else having experienced it.

I can't recommend it enough.

You'll get to back your position on Friday, Hakeem.

The basics of Gwent:

http://www.twinstickgaming.com/2015/06/08/witcher-3-how-to-play-gwent-a-beginners-guide/

The basics of Magic:

https://www.wizards.com/magic/rules/EN_MTGM11_Rulebook_LR_Web.pdf

One is 34 pages long and doesn't even begin to cover every mechanic. The other is a single crappy webpage that pretty much covers every major point needed to play the game. I've played a good many games of Gwent, both in game it's full fledged spawn. Complex it most assuredly is not. Many of your 'concepts' were basically invented by Magic and are mainstrays of the game on top of its already wide depth of play.

Gwent, much like Heartstone before it, is a watered down pale imitation for more mainstream consumption, which is fine; it's just not what many people who have played and enjoyed Magic are looking for.

Would you show that "basic" document to your buddy who has never played before? You're reaching by calling that "basic". The level of depth that Magic offers is a function of its cardpool size and not its inherent ruleset.

Don't get me wrong, Magic is a great game. I've played my fair share. It's 25 years old and Gwent is in open beta. How big was that beginner document in Alpha? How much of that depth is just a function of it simply having existed for a long time? More importantly, how much of that depth is actually relevant to the average player who plays Standard and booster draft?

My buddy wrote a good blog about Gwent, you might like it. Seems fitting in this time when everyone is trying to figure out what to do next

http://eriktwice.com/en_GB/2017/06/14/g ... copy-name/

It's A LOT more basic than the Magic one. I've got a broken arm at the minute, so I'm not inclined to go into a long argument (it took me longer than I care to mention to type my last post). But the depth of Magic is not just a function of the cardpool size (although obviously it plays a big part) and has everything to do with the inherent ruleset. It's about understanding the concept, order and resolution of the stack. It's about knowing the optimal timings for interacting on your opponents turn and other functions that Gwent doesn't come close to emulating. The depth of Magic is built into the core gameplay. If you reduce both games to the rules you need to grasp to be able to play the game effectively then Magic is unquestionably more complex to explain and understand.

Why does Gwent or any other CCG have to emulate Magic in order to have depth and complexity? That just smacks of elitism. It seems that your opinion is that since Magic is the first and oldest TCG/CCG that everything else automatically pales in comparison and isn't even worth playing.

Magic is a great game, it wouldn't have lasted this long if it weren't. But the basic rules, stack, priority, zones, steps and phases, etc., are all relatively simple to learn. The core underlying gameplay is pretty basic, the depth comes from the cards themselves. That 34-page rulebook wouldn't exist without them. If the only set ever released was Alpha, what would the rulebook look like? You need to realize that the core gameplay and the rulebook are separate entities if you want to try to have the same conversation about depth that I'm having.

I'm not disputing that Magic is harder to teach to someone than Gwent, but the disparity isn't nearly as large as you think it is. It's the sheer amount of cards that creates the depth you're talking about, and there's really no argument I can present on that front because I'd be foolish to try to suggest a game with 300 cards can present as much depth as one with over 9000.

The foundation is what matters and Gwent has got a great one in my ever so humble opinion.

TL;DR Claiming Magic has more depth than other card games is basically just saying that it's older and has a much bigger library of cards. That's no reason not to play and enjoy new games which will necessarily add that depth over time.

The beginner document in Alpha was 39 pages in length.

And to a degree, you are right; size does matter (don't tell your wife that). However, from what I've seen and tried, there is a wide expanse between most other games and Magic irregardless of comparative card pools. If you were to look at a single block of Magic vs. most other completed games, Magic still have way more to offer. Your premise is not recognized by the majority.

That being said, I highly encourage people to try Gwent, HS, Eternal, and any other card game they want to try. It may be that it scratches your CCG itch.

And Hakeem, I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle; Sjok isn't necessarily saying a game has to emulate MTG to be good, but it needs to have similar complexity for HIM and many, many others.

There's a lot of fluff in those 39 pages, Kryder, do you think Hasbro would release that if the game were created today? They'd cut it to the bare bones to save on paper costs. There sure as hell wouldn't be a full page explaining the five colors of mana, a page which has no actual impact on gameplay whatsoever. Remonds of the good old days when video games came with comprehensive booklets. That was my favorite part!

I'm just trying to say that depth will come over time and dismissing stuff outright because it's new makes absolutely no sense to me.

When I play Gwent it's very challenging to play correctly. It's very satisfying to win a game and it's never really frustrating to lose because you have a degree of control over your gameplan that other games don't even come close to having. It's refreshing to play so seeing this fun and challenging new game dismissed because it's "not Magic" is kinda irritating to me.

I agree on principle with Hakeem but let's not forget this is a thread about alternatives to Magic that scratch the same itch. Lacking X thing that Magic has is a valid point.

I'm looking forward to watch Hakeem playing Gwent on friday.