>>96369155
I'd play the shit out of a game that's a cooking competition card game.
>best of three games
>in the beginning of each game the players draw a random card from a second deck of 20 different cards: that's the recipe both players compete to cook
>Each player presents a recipe deck of his own before the first game and they randomly decide which one to draw the recipe card from first. Then for the second game they draw from the other deck, then for the third game from the first deck again.
>both players compete to nail the recipe as close as possible, the recipe card dictates the scoring method to judge it by in the end (the score can be judged objectively)
>there's a time limit written on the recipe card when whatever the players cook has to be submitted
>the cards in the main deck are ingredients, tools, cokking technique and sabotage cards to fuck with your opponent
>the players start the game with 5 cards and draw two at the beginning of each turn
>there are turns, the player can only play cards in his own turn that aren't sabotage cards
>The submission process is very lenient: You can submit an omlette cooked with only carrots by heating them up inside of a pot stirrer machine too, it'll just lower your final score.
>but you only need to run faster than the slowest guy running away from the bear chasing you, or in other words even if you submit trash that's still better than your opponent's submission, you win
>the trading card element would be the various ingredients in each set
>similar to MTG's stupid land variants there could be a nigh infinite amount of ingredient combos
>The deck building would be tilted towards finding the best deck for the recipe deck that you brought along with you, but obviously it should still be possible to complete every recipe even with an unoptimized deck.
>and if the sabotage cards come up perfectly, it won't matter too much that you weren't minmaxed for those kinds of recipes