|
Funzo posted:How about hidden/simultaneous movement? Everyone assigns their moves in secret, then reveal and move all at once. I’m not quite sure how I would work this, since there is a lot of dice rolling involved though I feel like it becomes hard to manage. It’s an interesting idea though, maybe I could work something together CodfishCartographer posted:You could also try something similar to Kemet's card system to add some hidden info and guessing at player priorities. I’ve actually never played Kemet somehow!
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
How Kemet's card system works is everyone starts with the same 6(?) cards, each card having various defense and attack ratings. Since everyone has the same starting card pool, you always have a vague idea of what other players are capable of - but the gameplay is trying to predict what the other player's priorities are, and when they'll use their strongest cards. Some of the cards are blatantly weaker than others as well, so if you see one player use their strong cards against another, you know you can attack that player with a greater chance of winning. Of course, Kemet is a war game so the number of units a player is attacking / defending with modify these numbers, but the core gameplay is more or less as described. e: also, when a player runs out of cards, they just pick up all of them over again, in a way "reloading" You could probably wind up making something similar, and it would work out well in the theme of a FPS - trying to predict enemy motivations, priorities, ammo, etc. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jul 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
I was reading something today and thinking how it applies to this specifically. Blocking/dodging mechanics in games show up a lot in prototypes but very rarely in final products. Most of the time, “defenders” eat damage thrown at them by attackers and it is mitigated by preparing ahead of time (having some sort of defense built ahead of time) or healed away. It helps games move forward rather than be a slow down. I’m thinking maybe to try a game without dodging as a mechanic. Rely on the dice the attacker roles to determine damage and the defending player may be able to retaliate or something. Triggering a “fire fight” seems fun. Guy with a shotgun runs into the range of a guy with a pistol; he goes to attack pistol guy but is now within his range. Attacker still has a bit of advantage by being the one to choose the engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Deterministic firefighting sounds fun af. The pc game Frozen Synapse might have some neat ideas on that front. A sniper set up stationary will get his shot off on anybody moving into his field of fire, but can't react to flankers. A shotgunner rounding a corner at close range on an assault rifle user will get the drop on him, but can't do anything outside of close range, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Snipers are actually my biggest concern at the moment, huge damage and range, but extremely low mobility. I’m liking the directional idea, that’s come up here and in testing a bit. Maybe use one of the mobility dice to rotate around in the same space. Guaranteed success(no rolling) vs normal movement where you need to roll dice and get successes to move. That could be interesting
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Sniping should be a counter to standing still. Make it so that snipers fire after everyone acts so anyone who is still in a kill zone gets hit. Thematically it represents the real world caveats of sniping having to account for environmental factors and spotting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
I feel like that only works in a game where everyone moves at the same time or there is a defined turn set. I’m having problems with even thinking of how to implement synchronized turns with the amount of dice rolling and card drawing/playing in this game so I will stick with individual turns at the moment. Less real world, more 360 no scope headshot lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
How about snipers are a counter to not having cover, assuming that's a mechanic? Maybe taking cover and losing some mobility options or not is a risk/reward, and snipers gently caress people up if they are in the open?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I feel like that only works in a game where everyone moves at the same time or there is a defined turn set. I’m having problems with even thinking of how to implement synchronized turns with the amount of dice rolling and card drawing/playing in this game so I will stick with individual turns at the moment. Less real world, more 360 no scope headshot lol Use cards/dials/some other means of pre-programming turns, then players reveal simultaneously and activate their characters one by one. Or make it a caveat that snipers must first aim before firing (perhaps using the aiming action multiple times depending on range/movement/character traits).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:How about snipers are a counter to not having cover, assuming that's a mechanic? Maybe taking cover and losing some mobility options or not is a risk/reward, and snipers gently caress people up if they are in the open? Like, I am absolutely not an expert on how guns or firefights work, but snipers seem like the type of gun *least* likely to be affected by cover  . If it's the kind of cover bullets can fly through, then sniper weapons have the biggest strongest bullets, and if it's the kind of cover that stops bullets, it's a sniper that might land a shot on the 1/8th of your body that is exposed.Whereas in no cover, spray-and-praying a dozen bullets with a different weapon will be quick and have a greater chance to succeed than an equally rushed sniper shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Like, I am absolutely not an expert on how guns or firefights work, but snipers seem like the type of gun *least* likely to be affected by cover I was thinking more along the lines of being able to see targets. "Cover" can be "around the corner of a building".
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I’m thinking that removing dodge may end up solving way more problems than I thought. Now I can have sniper have a single attack die (for example) instead of 5/6 to counter dodging. Now they have a singular attack die that is extremely powerful if it hits. They can effectively only shoot every other turn. It may sort itself out, I’ll find out Monday when I test
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
So things got modified a bit. Crossing over a weapon pickup lets you draw a card from a weapon deck. Regular weapons are either discarded to reload or you can swap weapons out at the start of your turn by discarding your current weapon. Specials provide a variety of effects and can be played whenever you are active (so during your turn or in combat). That way, combat is a mix of deterministic and random. You still roll dice to move and shoot, but you can know if "hm that guy with the pistol has no ammo right now let me go mess him up" only to get ganked when you don't kill him and on his next turn he unloads a rocket launcher in your face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Frustratingly thinking about deckbuilder designs. I say frustratingly because I dislike the genre but I'm always thinking about ideas for my ideal deckbuilder. The only game I could really tolerate was Time of Crisis but even that game turns into an exercise of thinning your deck. I've also gotten into Ortus Regni, a "deck construction" game where you build a deck then play it out and that got the gears turning a little bit. I was thinking of a deckbuilder (hand builder?) set in some medieval feudal period. You play cards to perform actions and like Concordia there's a card that lets you pick up your discard. Your lord's life is tied to your hand, so when you pick up your discard (representing your legacy) the current lord dies and bequeaths their legacy to an heir. You lose all special cards from hand which represents influence the former lord has, but if your legacy was large enough (e.g. it had a certain threshold of cards) then you get to upgrade one of the starting cards which represents an ancestral gift. The things I want to avoid from deck builders are market rows, deck thinning, disparity in card play, and "garbage" cards that clog your deck. Everyone has the same basic cards and can pick up new cards by conquering territory, marrying off your children, dealing with barbarians, hiring mercenaries, aiding the king in foreign wars, influencing the church, and other generic medieval European happenings. Everyone will play the same number of cards throughout the game: your hand gets bigger, but it never gets smaller than the starting size. The only permanent change is the ancestral gift. Couple pitfalls I can see happening is the rush to play the bare minimum to get your permanent upgraded cards. The balancing feature is that you're basically losing a turn, not unlike playing Tribune in Concordia, and you lose unplayed special cards. Cards that you buy or win in the game can either be placed in the discard (to be passed on to your heir) or added to your hand. Special cards played from hand are removed from the game, so adding cards to your discard pile for future play or to your hand for immediate play is the balancing act. You might need some influence now to sue for peace against an opponent rampaging through your lands, but if instead you add that influence to your discard to grow your legacy your heir could get a better army to fight back in a future turn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
I have thoughts on yours al-azad but I want to be at a PC to write them Playtesting went well! The key issue that came up is that there is a bit too much randomness and there was not enough incentive to shoot people. I have a few ideas on how to resolve but nothing for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I have thoughts on yours al-azad but I want to be at a PC to write them I don't know what style of game you're aiming for, but there is a board game called Adrenaline that's styled after old school arena FPS games. Instead of doing a kill based scoring system, it works almost like an area control game where you're graded for how much damage you do. Whoever does the most damage to someone when they die gets bonus points but their bonus value decreases with each kill so you're incentivized to spread your damage to multiple players to maximize your score rather than pick on the weakest person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
The closer I get to crowdfunding time for this design the more stressed out and nervous I get. I was hoping I would be more confident about it, but as more eyes get on your game and rules it just makes me nervous. Anyway, my rules editor is working through things which is great. I am very curious to see how they are going to come out once through the editing process. Also, BGG finally posted the overview video I shot with them at Origins. Glad its out there, but also makes me wonder if I am communicating the basics of the game and rules well enough in these kinds of things. Talking about your game effectively is more difficult than you would think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWMk4RcKfQ
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
I think I get it. The rules make sense mostly. Edit: I think I figured out how to articulate my issue with the video explanation, even though I have no idea how to fix it. You're very good at explaining the what, but not the why. As in why I should play Bees over something I already know is good, or from a company with an existing and solid track record. The only major arguments I can see right now are theme (definitely a strong one, put this and Hive together on a shelf and you've started a Bug Games collection (maybe including Ants in the Pants and/or Dominant Species too)), and that it's goonmade (which is also strong, but far from universal). Basically, you need to figure out how to tackle the question of "why would I play this instead of Dungeon Pets", even if you don't quite phrase it that way. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Jul 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:Deterministic firefighting sounds fun af. The pc game Frozen Synapse might have some neat ideas on that front. A sniper set up stationary will get his shot off on anybody moving into his field of fire, but can't react to flankers. A shotgunner rounding a corner at close range on an assault rifle user will get the drop on him, but can't do anything outside of close range, etc. Having played too much Frozen Synapses, I've spent some time thinking about a way to make a similar boardgame. Something like a hex-based modular map, both/all players simultaneously playing a few cards per unit with commands like Turn, Move Forward, Duck, Stand, Aim, Shoot. Different units have different max ranges, and a shotgun will always win at super-short range, but at regular short range an assault rifle will win if it's aiming and shooting or in cover. Maybe a unit that's just aiming will shoot automatically if an enemy unit has been in sight for 2-3 turns even without a Shoot command. Or just drop the Shoot command altogether, but I felt like it could possibly be useful for a bit more variety if it gave a bonus besides the aiming. I think something along these lines might work as a game, but I haven't tried prototyping it at all. Maybe some day. In other news, I gave a prototype of another game to a publisher last week, might know in a few weeks whether they're interested or not. The initial reaction of the person I showed it to seemed positive, complimenting the simplicity. But we'll see what the decision makers think. Here's hoping. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
So came back to my bluffing based cyberpunk game idea after a long hiatus for a multitude of reasons. I came up with what I think is a really solid mechanic: it lets you use you Actions in more ways — previously you could only use Actions to either gain $2 or buy a card. Now cards you buy have once per turn abilities that allow you to spend an Action to get a unique effect, which opens up a ton of design space and allowed me to re-implement cards I had cut due to complexity and confusion in a cleaner way. Unfortunately on this coming back to this game I realized I needed to do an intensive rewrite of the rules, so that's intimidating. Definitely something I can do, but a little frustrating that something I'd worked on shows such obvious issues on reflection. Also digging the idea of a Frozen Synapse card game. Though I have no insight to offer, I'm definitely interested!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Done a ton of revisions since my first playtest a few weeks back. I've tried to trim some of the components down a bit and I stumbled onto an idea that I think is going to take some fine-tuning but has cool potential. Instead of having health and dice for doing various actions, the dice have become the player health pool. This really incentives players being on the offensive, as even though defenders can retaliate, they will be working with less dice in doing so. Getting the drop on your opponent has some better defined meaning to it in this situation. It needs some rules tweak to compensate so that the defender just doesn't insta-lose any combat, but I think the idea has some legs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
I dig this idea. It does seem like it could really disadvantage defense, but seems flavorful as well. What rules changes are you considering doing to make it fit? Good luck! And a Frozen Synapse styled tabletop sounds legit. If... tricky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I dig this idea. It does seem like it could really disadvantage defense, but seems flavorful as well. What rules changes are you considering doing to make it fit? One of the things I am thinking of doing is setting it so that every 3 dice you lose, you add a modifier to all of your rolls. Since dice control both your ability to move and your ability to attack, you will still have less resources to work with and need to be careful about spending your dice in the wrong place, but you have better opportunity to be successful on your fewer rolls. At the current set up, you are always successful when you have a single die left, representing the fact that you can only really do a single thing each turn, but your character will at least do that thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:One of the things I am thinking of doing is setting it so that every 3 dice you lose, you add a modifier to all of your rolls. Since dice control both your ability to move and your ability to attack, you will still have less resources to work with and need to be careful about spending your dice in the wrong place, but you have better opportunity to be successful on your fewer rolls. At the current set up, you are always successful when you have a single die left, representing the fact that you can only really do a single thing each turn, but your character will at least do that thing. Interesting! So less flexibility as you enter a loss state, but more certainty. That definitely seems like it could lead to some intriguing game states!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
Looking at my new copies of Mint Works and Mint Delivery got me thinking about a possible mechanic that might fit into one of the designs I've been slowly chipping at.... Has anyone ever seen a game with a WP-style mechanic (put a resource on a space to take an action) where players build the board as they go - a la The Colonists - but that board is built out of cards from their hands?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
that seems really interesting. Do you get new cards in your hand? Is it like a deck you play with? It'd be kinda crazy to have a deckbuilder WP where you build the board with the cards you buy for your deck, but I'd be super intrigued. I need to start sticking to one design. The whole "diminishing resources as you get weaker" thing I've been toying with for my PvP combat game has found its way into a competitive co-op rogue-like dungeon crawler idea I was messing with before. Everything in the rogue game is controlled by cards. Everyone starts with the same 10 card hand, but as you go through the dungeon you may find new abilities (cards). When you're out of cards, you can rest to pick up the cards you've used, but for each point of damage you take your hand size decreases by 1. Once you die, you start back at the entrance but with your full 10 cards including any modifications you've made by getting new abilities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Looking at my new copies of Mint Works and Mint Delivery got me thinking about a possible mechanic that might fit into one of the designs I've been slowly chipping at.... Well, there are a lot of tableau builders that have concessions for other players to pay some sort of cost to access your tableau. Which is pretty close to the spirit of that. Here's a question - for a game where players are sort of civil administrators, what sort of mechanics lend themselves to representing "internal diplomacy"? Ie, not diplomacy between players, but a co-op game where players are trying to balance various factional interests. Cards being used to represent the kinds of PROBLEMS that occur makes sense, but I think representing the players resources as cards is kind of a thematic mistake, because the feeling should be "We need to stretch too-few resources across too-many demands", not "Ah nuts, I didn't draw being a good listener when I needed it." So I was thinking maybe something more like the X-COM board game, which has the sort of general feel I'm looking for - there are lots of problems, we can solve some of them by making tough decisions about what we can spare. However, that heavily embraces dice because of the RNG theme. Dice seem like a not-great tool for what I want because if Faction A demands X food, it's a lot more interesting to have Y food and decide if you can spare X, not "Roll for food and see if you get X". (Rolls could maybe work for "unrest" in that you roll a number of dice equal to the resources you're short and see what bad result happens.) So basically I can think of what mechanics WOULDN'T work but I'm drawing a blank on how to make it more interesting than just a simple cube pusher. Curious if anyone has any favorite games that they think represented this kind of give-and-take really well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
I think for that idea you definitely need a solid decision on *how* you gather resources. If there is a limited number of a resource available to gather/it takes a certain amount of time to gather, I think one of the best ways to do that is to have a sort of timer. Let's say you have 5 food and you have two task that require 4 food. If you aren't already setting someone out to get more food, they may gather the resource too late to assign it across both of them. You may have ways to turn resources into other resources, but then you need to decide if that's worth it to get both of those factions fulfilled. Failing to meet a faction's request could have some morale issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
Hey, that's a really good idea - gathering resources *yourself* only gets them for next turn, but any benefits you get from appeasing a faction apply right now. Actually, that might be enough to get started prototyping if there's also an action that lets you anticipate faction demands. The dynamic tension of "gathering as many resources as possible" vs. "learning what resources you will need" feels very in theme. (But of course still happy to hear any other ideas or good example games to check out.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
Honestly, I'm thinking of it for the 2p judo card game I've been contemplating and poking at for the last 18 months. The very short version of this is that it's a hand management game with tete-a-biche cards, and each card half of the card corresponds to a particular game phase, which players move between. The game isn't about scoring points as much as pushing for a victory threshold (and these are the details that have stalled me - but when I get a new idea and get talking about it stuff develops). Cards in-hand are the primary resource, and they can be played at variable rates, but recover at a slower fixed rate, to model exhaustion. Now what I'm imagining with the tableau cards is that forming the tableau would be a side effect of all or some cards - to get this card's effect when you play it you must add it to the tableau, which then makes it accessible to your opponent, but perhaps less strategically viable as it is now open information and players can reserve counter-move cards for plays that are open on the table. This in turn opens up a whole bluffing, trapping, and counter-play game that goes well beyond "I was lucky enough to draw the right card," which was one of the two things that stalled me out on development last time I tinkered with it. Or something. That you guys go "hmm that's a bit new" means there's something for me to play with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Has anyone ever seen a game with a WP-style mechanic (put a resource on a space to take an action) where players build the board as they go - a la The Colonists - but that board is built out of cards from their hands? I had a similar thought a while ago! It's not quite the same, but Friedmann Friese's Copycat kind-of sort-of does this, if you're interested in seeing a real-world implementation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Are there any combat-based card games out there with a reactive system where your card has different results based on what your opponent plays? I am toying with a system at the moment and I'm curious what else is out there. Trying to plug words into google isn't getting many results. More detail/example of what I mean: Cards have keywords like "attack", "defense", or "support". Each card also has a basic ability, plus some number of 'reaction' abilities like "if your opponent is attacking, [bonus]" or "if you opponent is defending, [drawback]". Both the basic ability plus any/all reactions occur. Cards are selected in secret and played simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
HazCat posted:Are there any combat-based card games out there with a reactive system where your card has different results based on what your opponent plays? I am toying with a system at the moment and I'm curious what else is out there. Trying to plug words into google isn't getting many results. This is more or less how Fury of Dracula 3rd edition resolves combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:Good luck! And a Frozen Synapse styled tabletop sounds legit. If... tricky. I finally made a quick prototype:  Modular playfield, 3 green and red units, a possible rocket template to destroy everything near a wall. I thought the commands could be something like what's shown there: move, double move, turn left/right, aim, fire, strafe left/right, stay still. The way this could work and not just end up in camping battle is that you only have two of each command, and each turn you must assign 5 commands to each unit (numbered units, play the cards upside down in a stack on your external "unit X" markers), so you can't just stand still with all units. The winner is whoever kills all enemies or gets to the opponent's starting hex first. But… For some reason I don't really feel like testing this any further, so if anyone gets inspired, feel free to steal and modify it. Not sure what my problem with it is, haven't even bothered playing against myself. Maybe I just wanted to get it out of my system so I can focus on another design that's been in my head lately. I might get back to this if FS2 puts me in the right mood for this kind of game, but not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
So I may have brainstormed something for ROOT and then realized that, having never played it I am probably not qualified to do that and instead designed a new game around that thing. Basically you play as different types of bugs vying for supremacy inside a rotting log. Filled with self-centered Centipedes, invasive wasps, hungry Spiders, and self-destructive Ants. 1. Centipedes Centipedes get points for having Nests. 1.2 Unique Rules 1.2.1 Nests. Centipedes can place Nests. They gain points each turn as determined by the number of Nests they have placed. 1.3 Setup 1.3.1 Fortify. Place a Nest on each of the outer territories. Place a Soldier in each Territory other than the center territory. 1.4 1.4.1 Scoring. Gain points as indicated by your Nests track. 1.4.2 Spawn. Gain a Soldier in each territory that contains a Nest for each Nest in that territory. 1.5 1.5.1 Actions. Take three of the following actions in any order and sequence. (You can repeat actions.) 1.5.1.1 March. Move any number of Soldiers either from a space you rule to an adjacent space or from an adjacent space to a space you rule. 1.5.1.2 Battle. Initiate a battle in a space you rule. 1.5.2 Bonus Actions. You may sacrifice a Soldier to take 1.5.1.1 or 1.5.1.2 starting in the space the Soldier was sacrificed. You may repeat this as much as you can afford. 1.6 1.6.1 Nest. You may sacrifice 4 Soldiers in a territory you rule to place a Nest. You may do this any number of times. 2. Wasps Outside invaders that lay eggs in their enemies. 2.2 Unique Rules 2.2.1 Invaders. At the start of each turn you get to place Soldiers in an external territory. 2.2.2 Eggs. When you kill an Enemy Soldier, place an Egg from your supply. Eggs can be killed in battle as if they were Soldiers but otherwise do not count as Soldiers. 2.3 Setup 2.3.1 Not from around here. You start with nothing. 2.4 2.4.1 Invasion. Place 3 Soldiers from your Supply in an external territory. Then initiate a battle in that territory. 2.4.2 Hatch. Replace each Egg with a Soldier from your Supply. 2.5 2.5.1 Fly Home. You may return any number of Soldiers in external territories to your Supply. Next round during 2.4.1 place 3 Soldiers plus an additional soldier for each Soldier you returned to the Supply in this way instead of 3. 2.5.2 March. For each Soldier, you may move that Soldier into an adjacent space. 2.5.3 Battle. Initiate a Battle in each space you have Soldiers. 2.6 2.6.1 Score. Lose all points. Then gain points equal to the amount of Soldiers you returned to your Supply during Fly Home. 3. Spiders Spiders get points for placing Webs. 3.2 Unique Rules 3.2.1 Webs. You can place Webs. When Soldiers die in a space with a Web place them on your Hunger box. Webs cannot be destroyed. 3.2.2 Hunger. Soldiers in your Hunger box are used to pay Hunger costs by returning them to their owners supply. 3.3 Setup 3.3.1 Fortify. Place a Web in the center territory with 6 Soldiers. 3.3.2 Gluttony. Place 5 of your Soldiers from your Supply into your Hunger box. 3.4 3.4.1 Feast. If your Hunger box is empty, gain 2 Hunger. 3.5 You can spend Hunger to take the following actions in any order and combination. 3.5.1 March. Spend 1 Hunger to move any number of Soldiers from one space to an adjacent space. 3.5.2 Battle. Spend 1 Hunger to initiate a battle. 3.5.3 Recruit. Spend 1 Hunger to place a Warrior in any clearing with a Web. 3.5.4 Spin Web. Spend 2 Hunger to place a Web in any territory you rule. 3.6 3.6.1 Score. Lose all Points. Gain 2 points for each Web. Gain points equal to your Hunger. 4. Ants Ants get points for ruling territory. 1.2 Unique Rules 4.2.1 Wasteland. Ants can place Wastelands. Only Warriors can be placed in a Wasteland. You always rule territory with a Wasteland. 4.3 Setup 4.3.1 Swarm. Place a Soldier in each territory. 4.3.2 Lay Waste. Place a Wasteland in an empty Territory. 4.4 4.4.1 Spawn. For each territory with a Wasteland. Place 2 Soldiers in that space. 4.5 4.5.1 March. Move any number of Ants from spaces you rule to a space you don’t rule. 4.5.2 Battle. Initiate a battle in the space which contains the most Ant Soldiers. If multiple places are tied, chose one. 4.5.2.1 Strip Clean. If there are no enemy Soldiers in the place where you initiated a battle. Destroy all non-Soldiers in that territory and place a Wasteland. 4.5.3 Short Sighted. You may destroy a Wasteland on your player board. If you do, restart this phase at 1.5.1. 4.6 4.6.1 Score. Lose all points. Then gain 2 Points for each Wasteland in a territory. Then gain a point for each territory you rule. If you're wondering how a thing works, its safe to guess ROOT did it first. Neofelis posted:I finally made a quick prototype: Played this any since your last post? It seems neat, but yeah, I know the abandoning prototypes life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
I'm sure this question comes up periodically, but: what's the best way to prototype modular hexagon boards? I want something uniform (so they can be randomized face down) that's reasonably quick and easy to put together. I could do psuedo-hexes by using rectangles laid out in an offset pattern, but the easiest way to do that is sleeved cards, and that makes them too slippery to hold pieces well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Depending on size, you could probably use something like miniature bases for pretty cheap. Not sure about the best way to mark them in a way that makes them reusable, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
A friend of mine cut some out of poster board. They aren't ~perfectly uniform~ but for playtesting purposes they're fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:I'm sure this question comes up periodically, but: what's the best way to prototype modular hexagon boards? I want something uniform (so they can be randomized face down) that's reasonably quick and easy to put together. https://www.amazon.com/Value-Pack-30-Hexagon-Counters/dp/B074T4RN8S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1535910226&sr=8-4 I use these things all the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
How much hidden information is too much? My worker placement/tile placement game from last year has finally, after 9 months, evolved into something I like. basically, an RTS in a board game by complete accident. Players start with a board that is mostly empty, and 1 'villager' as it were. that villager can explore tiles around them to reveal resources that can be gathered and brought back to the start tile, the town hall. Resources a villager has are public info, until they are dropped off at the town hall where they go behind a screen. In addition, players can have their villagers carry resources *from* the town hall to a different tile (again, public once it leaves the hall) to build a building (which is public info). They can also build military buildings which will allow them to create troops. Different military buildings give access to different troops. Right now, a player can spend any number of resources from their town hall to create a military. They move a villager to the military building, and then get a small 'warrior' token that goes on the map. The army is represented by a number of face down cards. The number of cards is public, but the actual military is hidden. I am concerned there is no way to mount a proper counter to an incoming army because you have no idea what's coming, but maybe that's a good thing? It forces both players to diversify a bit, like you don't want all swordsmen and then turns out the opponent stomps you with a bunch of archers. You can get a rough idea by how many cards a player adds to their army from different military buildings what they have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 13:09
|
|