Warmonger update - 3/9/12

I have been playing with the most recent tweaks, and I feel like I'm getting an even better understanding of where I want these new cards to go. Here are my latest thoughts on the Warmonger expansion cards that have been in flux:

Fleet Tile

I like the Improved Fleet idea, though it clearly needs some tweaks. I am waffling back and forth on whether it should give VPs just for flipping the tile, and then more VPs if you also have your Dreadnaught at game end - or if all the VPs should come from having your Dreadnaught in play.

A new idea is to add a defensive aspect to the Dreadnaught. This may be more specific to the Military Campaign card, but the idea is that a player could discard their Dreadnaught in order to cancel an attack on their planet. this would of course occur after the attacker has discarded their Dreadnaught.

e.g. "I will play a Warfare card for my action to attack. Since I have Military Campaign, I will attack your Advanced planet with a Research symbol. I discard my Dreadnaught and 3 fighters (because your planet is worth 3vp)... do you discard your Dreadnaught, or do I get your planet?"

Also, I think I'll take the 'discard a Dreadnaught in lieu of Fighters' text off of the standard fleet side to save text space. It's so costly to get your Dreadnaught in the first place (without flipping the tile) that I figure it's unlikely to happen much anyway.

Finally, I think that the Improved side is a little too good - it becomes too easy to get a dreadnaught, I think. Unimproved it costs 6 fighters and 3 actions to get a Dreadnaught in play. Improved it only costs 2 fighters and 2 actions. I feel like that's too much of a discount. What are the options for Improved Fleet then?
Option 1:
3 Fighters -> Destroyer
1 Destroyer -> Dreadnaught
(total: 3 Fighters + 2 actions, discount of 3 Fighters + 1 Action)

Option 2:

2 Fighters -> Destroyer
2 Destroyers -> Dreadnaught

(total: 4 Fighters + 3 actions, discount of 2 Fighters)


Option 3:

2 Fighters -> Destroyer
1 Destroyer + 2 Fighters -> Dreadnaught

(total: 4 Fighters + 2 actions, discount of 2 Fighters + 1 Action)


The intent was to make it easier to get both Destroyers as well as your Dreadnaught by upgrading the tile, which implies that Option 3 is the way to go.


Start Planets

I continue to be very happy with the expensive Start planets, despite some reports of players feeling like they were set back too far (by not being able to do Research as early). In most of those reports, the player with the expensive Start planet even won the game, but still felt disadvantaged in the early game. In my games however it feels exactly right, and the player with the expensive planet is only delayed in Researching by about 1 round if they try hard enough.

I have made 3 more expensive Start planets - the same as the first, but with the costs flipped - in order to try it out. I would like to provide at least enough for each player to have a choice between a cheap and an expensive start planet, and I intend to add a 5th player to the mix, so that implies I should use all 6 expensive Start planets. 6 is not a bad number, as there are 6 starting planets in the base game as well.

I've also tried the Utopian planets with Symbols on them, and they seem pretty much fine so far. I might not include them at all, or I might only include the 3 weaker symbols on them (Trade/Produce/Survey), but they're definitely an improvement on the previous cheap planets with icons!

I played with a cheap Prestige planet (Cost: 2/2, 4vp, no other use), and it was pretty neat as well. You CAN flip it quickly, but it does not help you to do so. To compensate you for that, it's worth an extra couple of points. I like it, but I don't know if I'll include it this time - mostly because I'm not sure how many Start planet tiles I really want to have in the box!

Tech Cards

I'm happy with all the tweaks I made to the tech cards such as Destroyer Technology, Dreadnaught Technology, Utillity, Freedom of Trade, and Biosphere. I've also tweaked a couple of other cards since my last post, which I'll discuss below...


Peace Treaty + Warfare Tech: This continues to be strong, but not broken as far as I can tell. Some players suggest that it is too good (and in fact 1 group has said they think the Peace Treaty by itself is so good as to be an auto-purchase every game) - but I haven't seen the player who gets this winning the game in my own experience... so I'm still hesitant on this one.

I could consider separating the Peace Treaty and the Warfare Tech abilities, putting them back to back. In that case I worry the Peace treaty by itself is too weak, so I could add a symbol - Survey/Trade/Produce for the Metallic/Advanced/Fertile versions. If I did this, I'd need to come up with a new level 1 permanent tech to go opposite Utility, Freedom of Trade, and Thorough Scanning, because I like those three!

Scientific Method: I was concerned that Scientific Method (Permanent tech - buy 1 additional tech card during Research roles) was not strong enough, because it's difficult to have enough symbols to buy 2 things at a time (if you have 6 symbols to buy 2 level 1 techs, you'd still rather have 1 Level 2 because it's worth VPs). So I added a Research icon to the card. It seemed far and useful, and so far it's been used several times to good effect! This might seem a little too good in conjunction with Warfare Tech, but I think that's more of a comment on Warfare Tech than on Scientific Method.

Scientific Discovery: Since I upgraded Scientific Method, I also had to upgrade Scientific Discovery. It suffered from another problem as well - Scientific Discovery has a Research icon on it, and it only offers a discount of 1 symbol per tech card purchased (and the ability to purchase 1 additional tech card). Therefore if you're only buying 1 tech card, it's better to not play the action and simply use the card for the symbol. You'd only play the action if you were going to buy two Level 1 techs (for 4 symbols), two level 2 techs (for 8 symbols), or a level 1 and a level 2 (for 6 symbols). That sounded OK to me at the time, but the purpose was supposed to be to allow a player to EITHER get 2 smaller techs OR help them get 1 bigger tech. So I tried upping the discount to 2 symbols per card purchased... this makes it similar to a card with 2 Research symbols (like Data Network) when going for a big (level 2 early, level 3 later) tech, and it makes getting two Level 2 techs fairly easy in the mid-game (you still need to have the right planets).

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure how much I like this bigger discount. It certainly seems to work, but I'm also considering some alternate effects for this card:

Action: Take any 3-cost Tech card into your hand. This includes tech cards you do not have access to normally, as well as Double Time.

OR

Action: Remove a standard Role card from the game [or maybe return it to the Stacks]: Take an Improved tech of that type into your hand. So like remove a Survey card from the game, take any Improved Survey into hand (including one you haven't got the planets for, or one that costs Fighters instead of Research symbols). This one is a little more limited (no Double Time, and you have to have the right card in hand), but it also allows you to trim a lesser card from your deck.

I welcome any thoughts you may have on this, please leave a comment!

Other ideas - maybe for another expansion or maybe for this one:
I kinda like the idea of a tech card that gives you an extra Role phase. I figure there could be 2...
1. Level 2: Action: Choose a Role (other players may Follow or Dissent)
2. Level 3 Permanent: Choose an additional Role during your Role Phase each turn.

I might also like to see more tech that costs a Destroyer, tech that costs a Dreadnaught, and a tech that has a Fighter printed on it (like the Hostile planets).

If I were to make the 'take 2 Roles' tech above and have it cost Dreadnaught/7 Research, what should be on the back side of it? A card with a Destroyer printed on it (like the Fighters on Hostile planets - a Destroyer you could spend once each turn)? Also, what could these techs be called? I think they'd be in the "1 of each planet" pile.

Further Warmonger thoughts

A couple of things that came to mind which I'd like to get down before I forget them...

* There should probably be some VP for having your Dreadnaught mini in play - probably 2 or 3. I'll note that this could have an effect when you 'spend' a Dreadnaught to attack a planet (or for a Military Campaign) - if you never get it back, that 'costs' you some VP. However, if you do get it back later (since you can only have 1 Dreadnaught) then it doesn't cost VP.

Edit: I'm thinking 2vp for Dreadnaught, up that to 4vp on the Upgraded Fleet side - see below

* I could put an 'upgrade' cost listed at the bottom of the Fleet tile, then on the back I could have an upgraded Fleet tile on which it only costs only 2 Fighters to get a Destroyer and only 1 Destroyer to get a Dreadnaught. I like the sound of that. For a player who wants to use their Dreadnaught for things, they can upgrade their fleet instead of getting a Level 2 technology (The cost would be "5 Fighters / 5 Research" like the other level 2 Warfare tech, and you'd do this as a Research role - so it's just a tech card that everyone has access to). There wouldn't be any points on the back, except for those which apply when you have your Dreadnaught in play. Or maybe there could be 2vp simply for flipping your tile (like other L2 techs), and additional VP for getting your Dreadnaught. Either way.

Edit: As above, I'm thinking 0vp for flipping, but 2vp for Dreadnaught and 2 more vp for Flip + Dreadnaught

I think I could still have the Destroyer Tech and Dreadnaught Tech cards in the stacks, I think they're still interesting.

* The more I think about the expensive start planets the more I don't want to decrease their cost. I think instead I'll create 3 more with the opposite cost (6 Colonize/5Warfare) which are otherwise the same, and then say that during setup you get 1 random cheap planet and 1 random expensive planet, choose 1 for the game.

* The more I think about cheap Start planets with symbols the more I don't want them in the game. They defeat the entire purpose of early game surveying. I suppose I could add some cheap planets that are not a Type and therefore do not do research (maybe cheap Utopian planets, or cheap Prestige planets?) Would that be interesting?

* I COULD add something like Utopian Start Planets, which have a symbol but don't (by themselves) help with research, and potentially Prestige starting planets which are worth 3 or 4 vp but are otherwise useless.

Exhibit: Purple tiles - the name's the thing!

One of the few items left to check off before Exhibit is ready for publication is to sort, stage, and name the tiles from the Purple auction stack. I'll list them here in approximate order of strength (weakest to strongest), describe their ability, and suggest a name where I have an idea. I welcome all feedback, especially if you've played the game, about staging the tiles. Of course if you can think of a thematic thing the tile could represent, please say so!

#1 - Government Grant
"1-shot 2 purple weapons" - this helps you win any 1 auction later, as you discard it as if it were 2 weapons of the color of the auction you're resolving.


#2 -Research Assistants
This tile gives you 2 additional dice to roll, thereby giving you more information to bid with.


#3 - Expert? Consultant? Expert Consultant?
"Power Tool" - this tile allows you to set the facing of any 1 die each turn (when tools are used - after rolling but before bidding).

#4 - ??? Backroom Deal?
"Dumpster Dive" - this tile allows you to swap it for any tile in the auction blocks.
This tile is worth 2vp (3vp total) at game end.


#5 - Expanded Storeroom
"Hand size +1" - this tile allows you to store 2 additional artifacts, but it takes up 1 storage slot itself, thereby giving you net hand size +1.

#6 - ???
This tile makes opponents outbid you by at least 2.
Is this functionally different than a purple weapon? Not really - they do the exact same thing! But it FEELS different in play.

#7 - Angel Investor?
"Purple weapon" - this tile acts like a weapon for all colors, including purple. Weapons allow you to overbid by 1 and still win the auction.

#8 - Fancy Display Case
"Wild Artifact" - this tile can go into any set. This is really good, and is frequently worth 4, 5, or 6 points if used to increase a set to 4/5/6 tiles. I think of it fancy display case because it can go with any Exhibit.

#9 - 3vp (4vp total, since tiles in your store room are with 1vp each at game end).
Things that are worth straight VP are Art, so maybe some kind of famous or unique art item?
Since this has no game use, it's always the last tile on the stack (it comes out in round 9 every game).

The List - revisited

It's been a while since I've given any thought to old game design ideas. Last night I had the opportunity to recount some of them to a friend, and it reminded me how awesome some of them are! So I thought I'd revisit The List:

Old Standbys - games which have been around, 1/2 done and untouched, for years:
- 8/7 Central
- Hot & Fresh
- Dynasty
- Odysseus: Winds of Fate
- Kilauea
- Reading Railroad

Old Ideas that Haven't gone Anywhere Yet, But Probably Should - some of these have been getting stale as well:
- Investigative/Tabloid Journalism
- Red Colony
- Clash of the Kingpins
- Time = Money
- Dating Game
- Ticket Please
- Moctezuma's Revenge

I have lots of ideas for several of these games, so many that I think I'm overwhelmed and am not making any progress on any of them! The good news is that I have at least made SOME progress on my games, like Exhibit, Alter Ego, and The Knights Templar.

I think the best of the bunch are:

Dynasty: The Spread of Culture in Ancient China
Build villages and learn advances, assimilating opponents' cultures as you go. Your villages give you access to resources to spend on things like advances. If you cannot afford what you want, you can "trade" with an opponent (they cannot say no) - but if you do then you must take one of their Culture Chits onto your player board. This is both good and bad, as filling up your player board gives you benefits, but each of those Culture Chits represents scoring for your opponents. The first player to fully fill their board becomes the Emperor (and scores a small bonus), but it's the player who's culture is best represented who is the real winner!

Hot & Fresh
Delivering pizza can be frantic work! Plan your route and push your luck with the traffic laws to make deliveries and earn tips. There is a simple set of traffic laws, and the more laws you break, the more likely you will get busted. Driving safe for a while will turn the heat down, but your tips decrease over time so you're encouraged to press your luck at least a little bit. Originally the routes were intended to change as traffic lights turn from green to yellow to red - a newer development involves placing tiles between the main roads to represent shortcuts that you know about but your opponents do not.


Red Colony
Players build colonies on Mars, first by claiming property (building tubes and domes), then constructing various buildings under those domes. Income is customizable and ranges from early game building materials to late game higher level materials, to people. You'll have to spend time and effort to modify income over the course of the game. The goal will be to house as many people as possible in your Colony by the end of the game. A lot of the ideas for this game came directly from The Case For Mars.


Alter Ego
Cooperative deck building game of vigilante heroism. Save the city from Arch Villains - but as you become a stronger hero, you'll need to neglect some aspect of your Alter Ego life. In the early game you start with Family, Job, and Community cards which each give you some benefit. Each turn you must take another card, either another Alter Ego card or a Hero card. You'll need Hero cards to defeat henchmen, but you can only play so many cards per turn... so playing more Hero cards necessarily means playing fewer Alter Ego cards! This game will have a Cooperative mode, and possibly a Competitive mode as well where each player has a personal Nemesis in addition to the Arch Villains.

The Knights Templar
After hearing about Trajan's Rond-cala mechanism I had a guess as to how it would work. I was wrong, but I thought my idea might make an equally good game, so I combined that main mechanism with an older idea I had for a Knights Templar theme. In this game you'll Move your knights, Crusade against Moors and other enemies, Erect buildings, and spread the Influence of the Order of the Temple. But when the Order gets strong enough, King Philip will become nervous and issue arrest orders for the Templars! Race to Portugal (and maybe Scotland) where you'll be safe while a wave of destruction radiates from Paris, destroying buildings as it goes. When a building is destroyed, players with that type of building still standing earn some points, so it could matter which buildings you erect and where you erect them.

EmDo: Warmonger progress

I've sent out Warmonger to a number of volunteers to playtest, and I'm starting to get some reports back. I'm looking forward to seeing more feedback from them.

I've been playing the expansion quite a bit myself, and tonight I went through the new tech cards to evaluate how I currently feel about them. I have some adjustments I'd like to make to some of them:

* Destroyer Technology: This card gives you a Destroyer as an action, and also itself counts as a Destroyer. That doesn't really make sense... you could save the action and just hold onto the card. I'm going to change that Destroyer icon to 2 Fighter icons instead, I think that would be more interesting.

* Dreadnaught Technology: Similar problem, why spend an action and a Destroyer to get your Dreadnaught mini when you could instead just hold onto the card and discard it as a Dreadnaught - the only thing you lose is the Warfare discount doing it that way. Also, I don't like Level 2 cards having Dreadnaughts on them anyway. I think I'd like to change that one to a Destroyer - so Dreadnaught Technology IS a Destroyer, and it allows you to turn a Destroyer into a Dreadnaught mini.

* Utility and Freedom of Trade: I added a Produce Symbol to Utility and a Trade symbol to Freedom of Trade in order to make them good enough... I do not think that Utility needs it though, it's a pretty powerful as it is with just a little effort. Freedom of Trade however is very possibly useless, so it did need a symbol, and in fact I might try adding a 2nd Trade symbol just to see how that goes. I don't want to have both a Produce AND a Trade icon, because that feels wrong to me (too easy). 2 Trade icons might be interesting though.

* Biosphere: I had added a Produce symbol to Biosphere because just 2 Resource slots does not seem to be on par with other Level 2 techs. It's been a thematic oddity that you'd need a Biosphere in order to store Iron and Silicon, but the point of the card is to allow a Fertile Empire to produce all 4 resource types. John suggested I make those slots hold "Any Resource" instead, which would (a) fix that thematic oddity, and (b) improve the card a bit because it supports Specialization and Specialized Production in addition to Genetic Engineering and Diverse Markets.

* Spoils of War: I seem to have accidentally left the 2vp off of this Level 2 card. That was an oversight, that card should be worth 2vp like the other Level 2 cards.

* New Start planets: I have been trying out some Start planets which cost the same as the ones in the base game, but are worth 0vp (or in some cases, -2vp) but come with one of the 6 Role symbols on them. Originally I had tried putting role symbols on the start planets, but I did not like it because flipping your Start planet first became a no-brainer. I preferred the choice between flipping the Start planet in order to do Research and Surveying up a better planet first. Admittedly, I get the impression that most players simply flip their Start planet first anyway, but that ignores some of the strategic space that I actually very much like. There's a trick I used to use wherein I would follow another player's Colonize role ad tuck my starting Colonize cards under my start planet, pursue Warfare to flip other planets, and only flip the Start planet at the end of the game with a Colonize role for the 2vp! So I'm seriously considering NOT including the cheap Start planets in the expansion, or at the very least, increasing the cost to 3/3 or so.

Edit to add:
I am actually very happy with the expensive planets, but I've heard back from a couple of playtesters that they think they're too expensive. I fear that players prefer to blindly flip their start planet before doing anything else, rather than consider Surveying first. this is true for the expensive planets (Survey for a cheaper one, or commit to flipping then get 2 planets worth of benefits) - and it also applies to the regular stat planets (flip cheaply to start researching, or Survey up a planet that will be more useful to flip first). This is why I didn't put symbols on the start planets in the first place, and why I'm leaning toward cutting the new ones with symbols (or at least increasing their price to 3/3).

Games on BGG - follow up

Last time I mentioned that I'd submitted Dice Works, Alter Ego, and Exhibit to the BGG database. All three have been approved and now have BGG entries, so if you have played, do play, or are interested in information about those games, feel free to use the power of the internet! Now that the entries exist, I still intend to post Print and Play files for each of these games (eventually) for people to play until the games are published.

Dice Works
My last post contained a crappy rules draft for Dice Works, and I'm still interested in help writing a succinct but complete set of rules down before I upload the files. I should probably be able to upload that one soon. I think Dice Works will make a good Print and Play game because all you need are a couple of player boards, a couple of markers per player, and a grip of standard 6-sided dice.

Exhibit
I got a chance to play a few games of Exhibit lately, and I have implemented a couple of tweaks which I think have had a positive effect on the game:

* Leave un-taken tiles for next round: if everyone overbids on an auction (so nobody gets the tile), that tile used to be discarded. Now I have been leaving it in play so that there are *2* tiles for that particular auction. When there is more than 1 tile for an auction, the winner of the auction gets their choice of tile, and then the next highest bid gets the remaining tile and so on. On the down side, when there are auctions with multiple tiles, it cuts down on the tension of the bidding a little bit (if you're happy to get 2nd place then you don't fight). However I think on the whole this is a positive change and I like it.

* Grants: My friend Andrew, who has played Exhibit several times at various conventions over the last few years, suggested that players be allowed Grants, which are effectively 1-shot weapons. The game used to have 1-shot weapons in it's very early incarnations, but they didn't do exactly this, and the game has changed a bit since then. The current plan is that each player starts the game with 1 Grant for each Culture (i.e. 1 per color but no purple). They can be discarded when resolving an auction to add 1 virtual die of that color that only you can see (like the Weapon ability). I suspect the net effect of this will be two-fold...
    - It gives a player some small recourse from being bullied by players with weapons. The ability for a player with weapons to simply outbid you by 1, making it impossible for you to win the auction, occasionally left a bad taste in people's mouths. On one hand, that's kind of what weapons are for, but on the other hand I don't want the game to be disappointing. This may be a good compromise.
    -It softens the blow of overbidding when a crazy distribution of colors is rolled. Like with 20 dice, you bid 3 Yellow, and this time it so happens there's only 1 Purple and only 1 Yellow (for a total of 2). The Grant allows you to win that bid as long as you've only overbid by 1, and only once per color. This could be especially important in the early game where there aren't a lot of dice out there and it's easier to get shafted that way.

I have only played with Grants once so far, and I thought it was OK... I'd like to try it some more. I wonder if 5 Grants is too many, and if it would be better to limit it to 3, they could be generic rather than color specific, and you could be allowed to use only 1 per auction on any auction except purple. Another possibility could be to discard 2 Grants to get +1 Purple as well (graphically, the grants could show 1/2 a Purple die on the back for example).

* Consolation = Extra bid Token: I've been using this rule for a while now, and I am very happy with the result.

* Tweaked Purple tile abilities: I have tweaked a couple of the purple tiles, and I think I like the results. I will need to re-examine them and figure out how I want to stage that stack.

Perhaps I'll get print and play files for this one together as well and post them on BGG. I think the game is very close to done, and hopefully this means it'll be on Kickstarter some time soon, perhaps later this year!

Alter Ego
I'm less far along with Alter Ego, but I'm happy with how it's progressing, and I eagerly await having more time to work on it. I have a pretty strong vision of where I want to go with the game, and I just need to get some time to work on it. When I get that done, I'll probably post it as well - as a card game (with just cards and some tokens) it could make a good Print and Play game as well.

Games on BGG, also Dice Works Rules

Two things to report...

1. I have submitted 3 of my games to the BoardGameGeek database. I did this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a game I know of was NOT in the database (even though it's almost done and is under consideration by a publisher), and recently another game with the very same title was announced by another publisher. It's too bad, too, because that game had an awesome title, and it' been around for years in the designer's blog.

So that spurred me to add some games I've been meaning to add, although I'm not too worried about my titles being used - they're not as good as that example was:

Dice Works
Alter Ego (not accepted yet)
Exhibit (not accepted yet)

2. I decided I would make Dice Works available for print and play though the BGG entry, so I was putting together a PDF of the player boards and the rules. It occurred to me that I had not written down (or could not find anyway) the latest version of the rules - the only set I could find was very out of date. I am astonished by how much space this is taking for how few rules it seems like the game has. I think I'm just being thick and that this could be much more succinct. So I'm going to ask you, faithful readers, to take a look and tell me how to rewrite this so it'll fit on 1 page! Is that possible? Here they are:

DICE WORKS

A fast and furious dice game of invention for 2-4 tinkerers.

Components
80 Standard six-sided dice (best if they have squared corners, not rounded)
- 20 each in 4 colors (Red, Green, Blue, Yellow)
4 Player boards
4 Worker markers per player

Each player board shows several Invention Tracks. Each track space is labeled with some combination of die faces. Sometimes only the color of the die will matter (solid colored square), and sometimes both the color and the value will matter. There is one track for each color of die in the game. One side of the player board only has 3 columns - if using that side, only use Red, Green, and Blue dice. If using the side with 4 columns, all dice are used.

Dice Works is played over a series of rounds. Each round players will contribute some number of dice to the pool, the pool of dice will be rolled, players will draft dice out of the pool in real time to place on their player boards, and once all of the dice have been drafted, players will update their Worker markers to show their progress. The game is over when a player’s marker reaches the top space in 1 or 2 of their Invention columns, depending on which side of the player board you are using. That player is the winner! If more than 1 person accomplishes this in the same round, the tie is broken by the level of advancement of the next highest marker.

Round Structure
1. Contribute and Roll Dice
Each player notes the number of dice of each color that they contribute, based on the location of their Workers on their Invention tracks, and takes that number from the supply. All of these dice are rolled together.

2. Draft Dice
Players grab dice in real time (no turns) to complete sets on their player board. The following rules apply:
2a. Only 1 hand can be used to grab dice
2b. Only 1 die can be taken at a time
2c. Once a die is touched, it must be taken and placed on your board before another die can be taken
2d. Dice may only be placed in the lowest possible space in each column (the space ABOVE your Worker) - until that is full. Once a space is full, a player may begin placing dice into the next space up.
2e. Once placed, a die on your board may never be moved.
2f. Legal placements include:
* The die color matches the space it is placed on, and if the space indicates a particular number, that must match as well.
* For spaces where number is not specified but there exists an equal sign (=) between the spaces, the value of the first die placed does not matter, but the value of other dice must match it.
* No die can be placed in a box unless
a. It is the box directly above the player’s Worker in that column, or
b. It is a box directly above a series of boxes which are full oif dice.

3. Resolve Round
After all dice have been drafted and placed, players first check for illegal plays, and then advance their Workers on their player board for each column that qualifies.
3a. Any die that is not placed legally is moved to the Scrapyard of that die’s color.
3b. After checking for legal plays (and moving illegal plays to Scrap), any worker directly below a box that is full of dice moves up - discard those dice to the supply. Repeat this until all Workers have advanced as much as possible.
3c. Next, players may use dice in their scrapyard. The least advanced worker on your player board defines your scrap rate (on the left). You may discard that number of dice from any 1 Scrapyard in order to turn it onto a die of that color with the value you choose and place it in any legal space. You may repeat this as much as you like, and any time you complete a box, advance the worker below it.

Eminent Domain: Warmonger Expansion - Playtesters Needed!

A couple of months ago I posted about Print and Play files for Eminent Domain expansions, and while some people did join the folder, I haven't heard back from very many of them. So I thought I'd try again, in a more organized fashion. So if you're interested in playtesting the upcoming expansion to Eminent Domain, read on...

There will be 1, possibly 2 expansions for Eminent Domain coming out this year: "Warmonger" and "Exotic." That's what I've been calling them anyway, I'm open to suggestions for their titles! I've been given the green light to send out the prototype files to people interested in helping us playtest the prototype.

The expectation if you sign up would be that you do indeed get at least one playtest session in, and that you complete a simple form that will give us feedback about how it went. We couldn’t have any public reviews made about the playtest sessions until we’ve finalized all the rules of course. The file will be simple to print out - just a bunch of cards - and could be compatible with a printed copy of the game if you use sleeves. I'll include a prototype copy of the basic game as well for those who haven't got sleeves, or who would prefer the art match the expansoin prototype art :)

So if you’re interested – send me (seth) an email (AT tastyminstrelgames DOT com) and I'll send you the files in about a week!

Good news about For The Win!

Tasty Minstrel Games' latest Kickstarter project, For The Win, has passed the funding goal of $15,000!

With 2 weeks remaining in the funding period Michael has announced an overfunding goal as well. If funding reaches $25,000, then all supporters pledging $15 or more will receive additional tiles in different colors in order to play the game with up to 4 players.

This project had an interesting reward structure - the first 200 supporters were allowed to pledge as little as $5 (though many pledged more than that), and the next 500 "pay what you want" supporters pledged a minimum of $10. The regular pledge level for 1 copy of the game is $20, and retail price will be $25.

This overfunding goal presents the early adopter with an option that later supporters do not have:

1. Keep my pledge the same, and receive a 2 player game for an extraordinarily low price.

2. Up my pledge to $15+ and receive everything I was going to receive, plus tiles for 3-4 players.

Both of these are good deals, depending on the desire of the supporter. And it makes sense that there be a minimum pledge level for the overfunding reward, because doubling the number of tiles will severely increase the shipping costs. I don't see how $5 could cover that!

Print and play tiles
So if you're a supporter already, then thanks very much! Depending on your pledge level you might have a choice to make (super low price vs 4 player game). If not, consider jumping in - any of the reward levels above $15 will come with one set of the tiles for 3-4p for every copy of the base game!

And if you haven't seen them yet, there are several very positive reviews of FTW popping up around the 'net:
Ryan Metzler's video preview for The Dice Tower
The Little Metal Dog Show
Grim Tree Games: For The Win is Full of Win!
Meet The Meeples
Father Geek

Knights Templar - Rules outline

The Knights Templar
A game of influence and scandal for 2-4 Crusaders

Components

• 64 Building tiles (16 in each of 4 player colors)
  
  • 16 Churches
    
  • 16 Castles
    
  • 16 Farms
    
  • 16 Banks
    
• 4 Player boards
  
• 48 Action cubes (12 in each of 4 player colors)
  
• 16 Knight figures (4 in each of 4 player colors)
  
• 1 Game board
  
• XX Enemy tokens
  
  • XX Slav
    
  • XX Saracen
    
  • XX Prussians
    
• XX Troop tiles
  
• XX Influence tokens
  
• XX Gold coins
  

Setup

• Each player receives the following in their player color:
  
  • Player board
    
  • 4 Knight figures
    
  • 16 Building tiles (place them in the indicated spaces on the player board)
    
    • 4 Churches
      
    • 4 Castles
      
    • 4 Farms
      
    • 4 Banks
      
  • 12 Action cubes (place 2 in each Action bin on the Player board)

Lay out the Game board and distribute the Enemy tokens to the regions indicated by icons. Each player takes their Level 1 Castle building and places it on their indicated starting region along with one of their Knight figures.

Place the Gold coins, Influence tokens and Troop tiles in supply piles. Choose a starting player at random and you are ready to begin!

Game Play
Starting with the Start player, play will progress clockwise throughout the game. A player's turn consists of the following sequence:

1. Choose any one Action bin on your player board.
2. Resolve the action associated with that Action bin.
3. Distribute the Action cubes from the chosen bin.

1. Choose an Action
Select any one of the six Actions on the Rondel that has at least 1 Action cube in its bin.

2. Resolve the Action
There are six Action spaces on the Rondel, though 2 of them are the same. Each of the Actions resolves differently. In each of the following descriptions, "X" refers to the number of Action cubes in the Action bin.

• MOVE: There are 2 different MOVE spaces on the Rondel. The move action allows you to move your Knights on the game board, and it also adds gold to the Communal Coffer as your Knights collect charity.
  
  • Add X Gold coins to the Communal Coffer space on the board.
    
  • Move your Knight figure(s) up to X regions total.
    
• BUILD: The build action allows you to erect buildings worth influence. Buildings confer benefits when resolving the various actions in the game.
  
  • Erect a Building tile of level X or less from your player board onto a region on the board occupied by one of your Knights. You must be able to afford this (see below).
    
  • Each Bank you have built increases the maximum level of building you may erect.
    
  • Remove Gold coins from the Communal Coffers equal to the level of the building.
    
  • Each Bank you have built reduces the number of Gold coins you must spend.
    
  • Only the lowest un-built level of each building may be erected.
    
  • Only 1 building can occupy each region.
    
  • Collect Influence tokens according to the level of the building erected.
    
    • Building Types:
      
      • Bank: Pay less Gold when using the build action.
        
      • Farm: Collect additional Troops when using the muster action.
        
      • Castle: Place an additional Knight token into play at the new Castle.
        
      • Church: Collect additional Influence when using the influence action.
• MUSTER: The muster action allows you to muster troops to take crusading with your knights.
  
  • Collect up to X Troop tokens from the supply. You must be able to afford each (see below).
    
  • Remove 1 Gold coin from the Communal Coffer for each Troop tile collected.
    
  • Collect 1 additional Troop token for each Farm you have erected (you need not pay for these additional Troops).
    
• CRUSADE: The crusade action allows you to fight Enemies, scoring influence and clearing regions to make space for more buildings.
  
  • Choose 1 region containing one of your (any player's?) Knight figures and an Enemy token.
    
  • Determine the Enemy Strength by checking the Enemy Strength track for the appropriate enemy type.
    
  • Each Knight figure (no matter which player's) in the region reduces the Enemy Strength by 1.
    
  • If the Enemy Strength is less than X, then discard Troop tokens equal to the Enemy Strength.
    
  • Collect Influence tokens equal to the Enemy Strength.
    
  • Move the Enemy token to the appropriate Enemy Strength track.
    
• INFLUENCE: The influence action allows you to gain Influence tokens by spreading the word of the Order.
  
  • Collect X Influence tokens from the supply.
    
  • Collect 1 additional Influence token for each Church you have erected.
    

3. Distribute Action cubes
Take all Action cubes from the bin associated with the chosen Action and distribute them, 1 at a time, clockwise around the Rondel. See example diagram

End Game Phase
"God is not pleased. We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom"
When the last Influence token is taken from the supply, finish out the round so that each player has had the same number of turns*. At this point, the Order of the Temple has become so powerful that King Philip, threatened by the Order and deeply in debt to it, issues an arrest order for all Templar Knights and begins to have the Order disbanded.

* Players may still collect influence after the supply runs out. Keep track of this influence using Troop tokens.

After all players have finished their turn in the round in which the Influence supply runs out, the End Game phase begins. Flip the starting Castle buildings (in the Paris region) face down - they are considered destroyed. Whenever a building is destroyed, each player collects 1 Influence for each building of that type they still have in play.

At the end of each round during the End Game Phase, destroy all buildings in regions adjacent to a region that's already been destroyed. Flip the destroyed buildings face down (simultaneously) and collect influence for like buildings each time.

During the End Game Phase the Community Coffers are emptied, and Gold Coins are no longer added during move actions. [The build action turns into a third move action (?)] The build, muster, and crusade actions no longer have any effect.

Game End
The game ends when one of two things happens:

• All Knights on the board have reached Portugal (or Scotland?)
  
• The wave of destruction reaches Portugal (6 rounds after the End Game Phase begins).
  

When one of these triggers occurs, the game ends. Any player without at least 1 Knight figure safely in Portugal (or Scotland?) (ALL Knight figures?) is disqualified from winning. Of players reaching safety, the player with the most Influence is the winner.

Revisiting the Templar Knights

A few years ago I had the idea that a euro game about the Knights Templar ought to be doable. I haven't put too much thought into the idea since then, but recently it's popped back up on my radar as something I'd like to think about. Here's the fruit of that thought:

* I still like the idea of players dealing with a communal coffer
* I like the idea of players building structures on the board which will give them points and benefits
* I like the idea of player actions boosting the overall influence of The Order of the Temple, and that eventually triggering the End Game Phase (Friday 13, 1307 - when King Phillip IV issued an arrest order for all members of the Order of the Templar)
* I like the idea of an End Game Phase where players must flee and make a last ditch effort to score points, potentially losing flat out if they do not make it to safety in time
* I like the idea that the End Game Phase represents the destruction of buildings players had built, and that buildings closer to the 'epicenter' of destruction are worth more points while buildings further away will last longer (and confer their benefit longer)
* I like the idea of both militaristic and economic viable strategies
* And most recently I like the idea of using a Rondel mechanism to drive the game. Specifically, a "Rond-cala" mechanism (combination of Rondel and Mancala) similar to that in Stefan Feld's recent Trajan

I've mentioned before that upon reading about the Rondcala mechanism in Trajan, my guess was that you would choose an action and it's intensity would be based on the number of bits in that actions bin... then you would Mancala those bits around the Rondel. It turns out I had it backwards - instead you pick a bin and Mancala the bits from it, and you take the action at the end of the line. That's a lot harder to wrap your head around, and I wondered if it wouldn't be worth trying my mistaken guess out as a main mechanism in some game of my own - and now I'm going to give that a try.

I currently don't have a complete game, rather I have various parts of a game and ideas about how I'd like them to go together. The purpose of this blog post is to help chronicle them and facilitate putting the pieces of this design together to see if I can come up with the game I've got described in my head.

I suppose I could start with a title... since the game is about the Knights Templar it seems fitting to name the game Knights Templar, Templar Knights, or Order of the Temple. The subtlety of tricky or clever titles such as Friday the 13th or Order 66 would likely be lost on most players, and would cause more harm than good. I am open to suggestions on this, I'm leaning toward those first three - I like Order of the Temple but I also like the word Templar...

Players will be members of the Order of the Temple, and as such they would have gifted all of their personal wealth to the Order. Therefore players will not have personal holdings. They will act on behalf of the Order, spreading the Order's influence throughout Europe by building infrastructure and fighting in the Crusades. Players WILL however have personal Influence, representing their standing in the Order - the escaping player with the most influence will win the game.

My version of the Rondcala:
Actions in the game will include things like...
* Moving pawns on the board
* Constructing buildings
* Mustering troops
* Crusading (attacking a hostile region on the board)
* Spreading influence (collecting VP)

Each player will have a personal Rondel, and each of these actions will have an action space ("bin") on that Rondel. Each bin will begin with some number of bits in it (probably 2). On your turn you choose any action for which there is at least 1 bit in it's bin, resolve that action according to the number of bits in the bin, and then "mancala" those bits around the Rondel - that is to say take all of the bits and distribute them, one at a time, clockwise around the Rondel. In this way, the relative strength of each action will rise and fall over the course of the game. If you want to do a strong action (one with several bits in it), you must first do the actions preceding that one in order to build up enough bits in your chosen action's bin.

In addition, and I'm not entirely sure this is necessary, I thought it might be interesting to have money in the game. But as above, that money is in a communal coffer and accessible to all players. This means that one player could spend money, and not leave enough money for the next player (which could be good or bad I suppose) - and it also means that there needs to be a way to add money to the coffers. My old thought was that there'd be an action to "collect charity" or something, which would add money to the coffers. My current thought might be a bit better though... Each time a player chooses an action, an amount of Gold is added to the coffers equal to the number of bits in that action's bin. This way, the bigger or more powerful your action is, the more money you make available for your opponents to use. That dynamic sounds interesting to me.

In order to simplify the discussion, I'm going to define a variable X to be "the number of bits in an action's bin" - so the paragraph above translates to "when taking an action, add X Gold to the coffers."

Now that I've got a pretty good idea of how the main mechanism in the game might work, I probably ought to consider the rest of the game...

Actions:
Here are some of the actions I expect to want to use in the game. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list. It seems like +/- 6 actions seems to work well for a Rondel game.

* Move: Move your pawn up to X spaces. Or perhaps split X movement points between all of your pawns on the board. I expect that other actions such as Build and Attack will take place where your pawn is, so moving around the board may become important in order to take your other actions.

* Build: Construct a building of level X or lower. I expect to use a variety of buildings, each conferring a specific benefit, and each coming in different levels (say, 1-4). The higher the level, the stronger the benefit of the building. In order to build a Level 3 building, you would need 3 bits in your Build bin, AND the Level 1 and level 2 buildings of that type must already be on the board. It's possible that the buildings will also cost some amount of Gold, in which case that Gold must be available in the coffer... though with the scheme outlined above you'd be adding Gold to the coffer before building anyway, which should help.

Possible buildings and what they might do include...
* Bank: allowing you access to more money in some way
* Church: helps you score Influence with the Influence action perhaps
* Castle: helps you with attacking perhaps? Or makes troops stronger (more Knights for example)? Or maybe when you build a Castle, you get a new Knight pawn on the board, making your movement options better/more versatile.
* Farm: helps muster or maintain troops (you have to feed them)

* Influence: Collect X influence (plus additional influence from each Church in play?) I like when a game has a 'straight VP' action, usually weaker than other actions, unless you work really hard to make it good. In this case, perhaps by building Churches you can choose this action more often and make out ahead while doing so.

* Muster: Collect X troops (plus additional troops from each Castle in play? Limited by number of Farms in play?) Troops will be needed to attack regions. I expect there could be Knights, a special kind of troop that is stronger somehow.

* Crusade: Attack a region with up to X troops, or maybe with strength X (or X per troop). I expect the board will have some spaces (region) that are empty at the beginning of the game, and others that are defended by enemies. Each region should have some number of building spaces (no 2 like buildings in any region), so in order to continue expanding players may have to clear out Enemies via Crusading. This would earn them influence as well as open up new Building spaces.

Interesting idea: suppose you attack 1 region with this action, and if costs you X troops, meaning for this particular action, you want X to be small, not large. There could be a building that reduces the troop cost to attack (hospital?) In this way, the more often you attack, the less it costs each time - rewarding a warmonger for attacking often.

* Move: Perhaps another Move bin, since movement may be key to positioning your pawns.

Influence track and game end timer:
I envision an Influence track across the top of (or around) the board, which records influence each player brings to the order (which will be their score), as well as the overall influence of the order itself - which I envision to simply be the running total of the player' influence. So whenever a player scores Influence, they adjust both their marker and the Order's marker on the Influence track. When the Order's influence marker reaches a certain point, marked on the board, that will indicate Friday 13, 1307, the time at which King Philip issues the order to arrest all members of the Knights Templar. At this point the Order's marker on the influence track would cease to represent the combined influence of the players, and instead would turn into a countdown timer of sorts. In some way the marker would decrement, and when it reaches certain spaces (marked on the track), buildings in the region(s) indicated by that space would be destroyed. Perhaps as well, Knights in those regions would be captured. Players would need to move their Knights to Portugal, the only European country where the Knights Templar were safe, before they are captured. When all knights are safely in Portugal (or captured), then the game will end. Perhaps there could be more than 1 (I want to say 3) different possible 'epicenters' of this destruction, so you don't know which it'll be, and it could be different from game to game.

Building tech tree:
I've got a couple of different ideas about this... it could be the case that there is 1 big set of buildings, with 1 or 2 tiles of each, and when all the Level 1 Farms (for example) are gone, then it'll be a little harder to get a Farm (need to build Level 2)... then the benefits would probably be related to the total number of the appropriate buildings on the board, meaning everybody has the same tech upgrades (though in theory you'll build the buildings that support your strategy more than someone else's).

Another idea is for each player to have their own supply of building tiles. While this requires more bits, it could be better because (a) players could differentiate their player profiles based on which buildings they build (only 1 building of each type would be allowed per region, and only 1 building per player would be allowed per region as well) - and (b)there could be 2 copies of each, and when built, 1 could go onto the board, and the other could go onto the player's Rondel so it's easy to calculate and not miss the benefit. In this case, for each player it will get harder and harder to specialize in a particular building (each one will be a little harder to build), which is a neat dynamic. On the other hand it would be relatively easy to build several different level 1 and level 2 buildings, giving the player a variety of bonuses, but no action that is super powerful. This scheme sounds best to me at the moment.

That's about all I have for now. I'm working on some thoughts for the game board. I'm sure I'll keep you posted on any progress this game sees. In the meantime I'd be interested in any comments you may have on it!

EmDo Warmonger Expansion - some thoughts

I have invited some people to share the DropBox folder with EmDo expansion files, and I hope to see some reports after the new year as to what those people think of the new stuff, especially if they printed it out and played with it. I have played a bit (mostly 2-player) in the last couple of weeks, and as John and I gain familiarity with the cards, we are definitely improving.

I was worried that the Warmonger stuff - Warfare Technology, benefits of having a dreadnaught, and the necessity to get Destroyers to attack some planets - would overemphasize the Warfare role rather than simply be another option of something to pursue. I tried to balance this out by including planets that cannot be attacked*, and then I went 1 step further and made the effect of those planets be "collect 1 VP when dissenting a Warfare role." So far I don't think it's been a problem, but my latest thought is that I should make Tech cards that also give a VP if you dissent a Warfare role - probably put them on the back of the Warfare Technology tech cards (which allow you to discard fighters as if they were Research symbols).

The Warfare Technology is currently a level 1 permanent tech in each of the tech stacks (i.e. there are 3 of them), with an interesting new technology on the back. In some games I think it may be too strong to be able to pay an unlimited number of Research costs with Fighters, so I'm considering turning those Warfare Technology techs into Level 2 techs - making them at least a little harder to obtain. Other games though I'm not so sure that's necessary.

* As an aside, I think I might change that to simply be "requires infinite fighters" - so the card cost can stay consistent (put an infinity sign for the Warfare cost), and those planets can still be attacked if you do the work to get a Dreadnaught (which you can discard in lieu of any number of fighters when attacking a planet).

Sedjtroll's Gaming Year In Review - 2011

It's that time of year, and I see a lot of "year in review" and "best of 2011" posts floating around. I've never done that, but I thought I'd take a look at what I've played this year and do some sort of "year in review" post myself...

Games Played
According to BoardGameGeek.com stats, I have recorded 436 games played - about 36 games per month on the average, and more than 1 per day! This is actually somewhat low for me in comparison to recent years. Let's take a look at some of the more notable games I was into this year:

Unpublished Prototype: 88 plays
This entry is a combination of all the prototypes I played, 34 different games including Tasty Minstrel submissions (some of which are now published, such as Martian Dice, and some are in the process, such as Kings of Air and Steam), my own designs (such as Alter Ego, Exhibit, and Eminent Domain expansions), and other people's games I played at Spielbany, Protospiel, and BGG.con among other places.

Eminent Domain: 56 plays
This includes some recent plays of the expansion stuff I've been working on, since then I started recording it in the normal EmDo entry. I'm starting to be more comfortable with the Warmonger expansion stuff. Like the base game though, I suspect it may take players several plays to sort of "get it" - and if they don't persevere they might find the expansion wildly broken.

As a side note, I've played over 150 games of Eminent Domain over the last 2 years or so, and I'm not sick of it. That makes me happy!

Hanabi: 29 plays
Hanabi is by far the most cooperative feeling cooperative game I have ever played. I think it's the crowning acheivement of the genre, at least so far, and I look forward to playing some more. The only down side to Hanabi is "The Great Convention Debate." The people who taught me the game are bridge players, and they had 3 pages of conventions such as "If I tell you you have "Zero 4's" that means your 1st and 3rd cards are playable." If you ask me, that kind of convention is specifically prohibited by the rules! There are more tame conventions though, such as "I keep my oldest cards to the left of my hand, and always place the newest card on the right" - which is a logical convention that sort of evolves naturally... however it leads to other conventions which become borderline cheating - like "When I discard, I always discard the card furthest to the left." Which then begets " "I know if they discard it'll be a safe card, so I won't give that player a clue, I'll look at the next player's hand..." which translates to "They just passed over giving me a clue, therefore my leftmost card is a safe discard..." Just how much of that info transfer is 'legal'? Certainly all of it is more legal than using the bids as code for other pre-agreed upon language.

Sobek: 21 plays
I got Sobek as a throw-in on a trade, and I ended up liking i better than the game I had traded for! I especially like Sobek as a 2-player game, and the only thing I wish were different is the "oasis" tiles - I wish you could hold onto them and use them later, so that they are always a reward rather than occasionally a penalty (you play a set to avoid drafting a card, but if all that's left is Oasis tiles, you'll still have to draft a card).

Kings of Air and Steam: 17 plays
I have been working on Kings of Air and Steam for Tasty Minstrel Games since February, and I really enjoy it. In the last weeks I've gotten a number of plays (mostly 2 player) in to fine tune the character abilities. After the successful Kickstarter campaign, this game's production is in full swing, Josh is hard at work on the visuals, and I look forward to an awesome looking game next summer.

Glen More: 15 plays
Glen More is a fantastic little game that I'm very glad I was able to trade for. The guy I got it from even pimped it out with fancy aftermarket bits! Though I would be just as happy to play with the standard bits. The market mechanism in Glen More is inspired, and the game offers several viable paths to victory. I am always a little disappointed that the special tiles overlap so much, but that doesn't keep the game from being really cool :)

7 Wonders: 11 plays
7 Wonders won all kinds of awards including the big one (Kennerspiel des Jahres), and it's a very popular and well liked game. I am not as enamored with the game as all that. It's a solid little card drafting game, but I think people are more excited that it plays 7 players and has a short play time than they are excited whether or not it's any good. It IS good, but I don't know if it's as good as it's cracked up to be.

Kingdom Builder: 6 plays
Kingdom Builder is the new hotness from the creator of Dominion. I can see a lot of Donald X's style in the variable scoring conditions and power tiles, and the game is an OK diversion, but I don't see it as being really skill based enough to really satisfy me. I'd much rather play Glory to Rome or EmDo, each of which is about the same scope/timeframe (though to be fair, they're both heavier and more complicated, so they only count as the same scope if you have experienced players).

Navegador: 5 plays
I first played this game at BGG.con last year, and played it 5 times in 2011. It's definitely my favorite Mac Gerdts game to date! I hope to play this one a few more times before I forget about it.

Pantheon: 4 plays
I played Pantheon at BGG.con this year, and really enjoyed it.

Grave Business: 3 plays
Grave Business is by a friend of mine, and if it weren't for that I might never have played it - a Zombie theme and blind bidding are both things that generally turn me off in games. but Andy's games are always well thought out, so I thought I'd see how his first published title played. I was surprised at how much I liked it! It's a solid, well thought out game, and one I've played a couple of times this year - more than I can say about any other game with a Zombie theme!

Quarriors!: 3 plays
Quarrior's is a standout game in that it was very popular, riding on the recent popularity of the deck building genre as well as the recent popularity of dice games - and almost nothing else. All 3 of these recorded plays were a result of me waling up when people were already explaining the rules and it was either play or watch (in some cases it seems like those are the same thing). I will note that the designer/publisher recently posted official variant rules which apparently they playtested for a year and made for what *I* would consider a better game - though maybe not "better" for their target market... I haven't tried the game with those variant rules, but I highly suspect they're an improvement.

Shipyard: 3 plays
I first played Shipyard at BGG.con 2009, and soon after that I bought a copy (buying games is actually quite rare for me). I have not played it nearly as much as I'd have liked, but finally I've picked it back up and gotten it back to the table a couple of times, and that reminds me why I like it so much! It has a lot of fiddly bits, but all of it goes together prefectly - nothing is extraneous. There are various approaches to get things done, and I like the various Rondels which govern most of the actions in the game.

Shipyard is really a standout game and I look forward to playing it again. Rumors that the end-game bonus cards are not properly balanced have been greatly exaggerated - those people just like to compare apples to oranges.

The Castles of Burgundy: 1 plays
I played The Castles of burgundy at KublaCon last May, and I really enjoyed it. I have not had the opportunity to play it again, but I thought it deserved mention as a standout game of 2011. Stefan Feld had an outstanding year, and while it was his other games that got all of the attention, I think this one might be one of his actual best.

The Manhattan Project: 1 plays
I saw some posts about The Manhattan Project before it was picked up to be published, and it sounded very interesting. I was kind of hoping to get my hands on it for possible Tasty Minstrel release, but James grabbed it up at Protospiel. And I'm glad he did, I got a chance to play it at BGG.con and it's every bit as cool as I thought it would be! This might be a game I purchase, which (again) is rare for me - though it's sort of contingent on my play group wanting to play it... I hope they do!

Trajan: 1 plays
I got a chance to play Trajan at BGG.con, and it's every bit as interesting as I thought it would be, though perhaps not as good as I hoped it would be. Managing the colors on the Rondel sort of obfuscates the playing of the game, which is a little annoying - if I didn't think the Trajan tiles were such a big deal I could more easily ignore it. I'd like to play again, but if that part doesn't get more pleasant with experience then I'm afraid I won't want to play it too much. Shame, because I really like how the rest of the game fits together - many different approaches, and they overlap so you may be in contest with someone for an action even though you're both pursuing different strategies!

Walnut Grove: 1 plays
I hadn't heard anything about this one until Snowden brought it to game night, and he described it as a light sort of Agricola. After playing the game I rather enjoyed it and would like to play again, albeit with one small variant rule.

Kings of Air and Steam - Kickstarted!

It's official, with 626 backers (representing almost 1000 copies of the game) and $41,722 in pledges, the Kings of Air and Steam Kickstarter project has funded! That was sort of a foregone conclusion, as it reached the initial funding level within a week... the bigger question is which Ovrefunding goals were reached? Answer: at $40k+, every copy of Kings of Air and Steam will have custom molded airships that look something like this:

They'll also have a 7th team (2 additional characters) which were not originally going to be in the game. I'm really looking forward to playing this game with the final art and components!

In true Tasty Minstrel fashion, Michael tried some new and innovative things with this project. Taking some of my advice, instead of offering exclusive game content or upgrading only Kickstarter copies with stretch goals, he used stretch goals to improve the production quality for the entire print run. I've posted before why I think this is the way to go - the long and short of it is that while these 626 kickstarters did support the game, the thousands of people who buy up the remainder of the print run, and any future print runs going forward, are supporters as well.

Aside: Certainly people need some incentive to pre-order on Kickstarter, committing money well in advance of the release date, and taking the chance that they might not even like the game without having had a chance to play it. I don't disagree with this at all. However, as indicated in the post I linked above, I am a fervent supporter of those incentives NOT being Exclusive Game Content. Exclusive bling is better, depending on what it is. I believe that some types of bling should be just put into the full print run of the game. Other types of bling such as an alternate cover, or fancier dice (provided the standard dice are nice enough) is more acceptable as a physical exclusive for KS supporters.

This choice to not offer exclusive benefits for supporters faced some resistance online, with a common sentiment seeming to be that "supporters need/want/deserve exclusive content!" I have been surprised at the number of those types of posts, and the relative lack of more rational "if the incentive isn't good enough, people will not support the project" posts. In any case, I was curious to see how well this project would do, given the distinct lack of exclusives and trinkets...

In the end Kings of Air and Steam garnered over $40,000 in support. Not quite as much as Eminent Domain, but close. EmDo had some advantages over KoA&S with respect to funding viability - it was a more accessible theme, a lower price point, and a hot mechanism. However, KoA&S had some advantages over EmDo as well - Kickstarter is more well known now, more people are using it to fund board games, and therefore more board game players are aware of and are looking for it. Also, with the success of EmDo, TMG had a stronger brand and more fans going into this project.

That KoA&S could garner as much support as it did is strong evidence that exclusive items (and especially exclusive game content) are not, strictly speaking, necessary. This is a huge relief, and I think it bodes very well for the longevity of KS as a board game funding platform.

Could the project have raised more funds if it had included other rewards? I'm sure it could have, and I'm certain that the next TMG kickstarter project will build on the success of the first two projects and find some creative ways to encourage support. I'm personally happy that the results of this project show how overfund goals can apply to the entire print run!

Tasty Minstrel is now 2-for-2 with Kickstarter projects in the Top 10 Funded Board Game Kickstarter projects! I won't say it was all because of the genius of the reward structure - I think the success of KoA&S was based largely on the TMG fan base, brand, and track record for publishing outstanding games. Many thanks tot he TMG fans who helped push Kings of Air and Steam into the Top 10!

Another new and innovative thing TMG is trying out is a new distribution model for this game. KoA&S will be part of the Game Salute Select Exclusive program, meaning that these games will only be available though brick and mortar stores who sign up for the program, or online directly from the publisher through Game Salute's or the publisher's websites. As a result of this program, the retail price of the game can be reduced from $60 to $50 (%16 discount across the board), but it will not be available for the usual 30%+ discount ($40) that online retailers would normally sell it for. Nobody has seen this program in action yet, and I'm sure it'll have advantages and drawbacks compared to traditional distribution... we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. I believe the reasoning behind the whole program is noble, and a number of other publishers are on board with it as well, you can see a list of Game Select Exclusive games on Game Salute's website.

Characters and player pieces in games

If you're playing a game with player pieces on the board, and variable player characters such as Pandemic has:

How important is it that the character pawn color is tied to the character card color?

Case 1:
A player likes to play Green. When playing Pandemic, he either cannot play green (unless dealt the Operations Expert), or else he always chooses Green and therefore always plays the Operations Expert.

Case 2:
A player likes to play Green. When playing Pandemic, he uses the green pawn no matter which role he is dealt. Therefore in one game the Green pawn can represent the Operations Expert, while in another game it could represent the Medic.

I can see benefits and drawbacks to each of these cases. As a game player, which case do you think is better? Leave a comment and let me know!

Benefits of Case 1:
* It's always clear by looking at the board which character ability is associated with which pawn, no referencing must be done to figure out whether that Green Pawn is really the Medic (and can therefore more easily treat diseases near him), or the Operations Expert (and can't).
* Potentially more thematic - always being Green gives both the green pawn and the Operations Expert role some identity.

Drawbacks of Case 1:
* Players may not get to play the color they want, or if they insist on it, they will play the same character every game.
* More pawns are required - 1 per character rather than 1 per player. Additional pawns are required for each expansion that adds additional Roles.

Benefits of Case 2:
* Players can always play the color they want
* Only 1 pawn required per player not 1 per character.

Drawbacks of Case 2:
* Loss of identity as described above.
* Potential confusion or annoyance when players must do multiple cross references to determine which piece on the board belongs to which player and therefore which abilities that pawn may be capable of. This could be amplified if, unlike Pandemic, the game is competitive rather than cooperative.

EmDo Expansion Print and Play

I've updated my current prototype files for the latest EmDo expansions (under construction!) and placed them in a DropBox folder. If you read this blog, then you probably have an idea what's in there.

If you are interested in printing the expansion stuff and trying it out, please send me your email address and I'll invite you to share the folder.

Please note that at this time I'm not intending to preview this as if it were a final product, rather I'm interested in getting opinions on the content so far so I can determine what should be in the expansion, what should be left out, and what tweaks should be made to the content I have so far.

I've got 2 Expansions in there - the Exotic Expansion (which I've posted about a long time ago), and the newer Warmonger Expansion. There's also prototype files for the base game in there.

I reformatted the prototype planets to look more like the published version.

Thanks!

Rating one's own game

Every once in a while a thread erupts on BGG in which somebody complains that the designers/developers/publishers of a game have rated it a "10" - sometimes they call it "shilling," other times they just say it turns them off. Some go as far as to suggest that a high rating from the publisher of a game negates any interest they had in the game, even if that were considerable based on what they'd read or seen before examining the ratings.

Obviously everyone's entitled to their opinion, and one could argue that if ANYBODY is turned off by the practice of a designer rating their own game then I ought not rate my own games. No need to turn anybody off unnecessarily. However, I find that sentiment repugnant...

I am a gamer. I've been playing, tracking and rating games on BGG for years, and that pre-dates any of my game design or publication efforts. All the while my ratings have been biased toward games I enjoy. Of course when it came time to rate my own games I would be biased toward them as well. The very idea that I should have to censor myself and not rate the game is abhorrent!

Giving a high rating to a game you design, or a game you publish, is not shilling. Shilling is opening fake accounts in order to give additional ratings and other non-genuine props to a game, posing as somebody else. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but only one of them. The problem with shilling is that it's duplicitous - it's an attempt to fool somebody into thinking that more people like the game than really do. Rating a game that you designed is not duplicitous, provided you really do like that game.

Having to hold back your rating is like negative shilling and it's equally duplicitous - representing that FEWER people like the game than really do. I am not interested in artificially anti-shilling my own game for any reason.

I understand the arguments against rating one's own game, but frankly they just don't hold water. If other designers want to refrain from rating their own games, then that's fine for them - I don't care. It's the principle of the thing. I absolutely refuse to change my behavior in this case just because other people are unreasonable. If that means some guy I've never met decides he's going to predispose himself against my game, then so be it!

EmDo popularity at BGGcon

I was happy to wander the ballroom at BGG.con and see groups of people in the middle of a game of Eminent Domain. It made me feel good when people would say how much they liked the game:)

I just saw a post at BGG listing how many times each game was checked out of the library at the convention, and Eminent Domain was 5th on the list!

I continue to really enjoy how well the game has gone over so far. It's rating at BGG is 7.35, which is a really good average rating! It's ranked 290 overall, and 157 in the Strategy game category!

Awesome! :)

My campaign against Exclusive Game Content

Kickstarter has been around for a while now, and it's use as a platform for funding board game projects has grown in popularity and exposure, leading to record levels of funding. Last year, Tasty Minstrel Games raised over $48,000 on Kickstarter to publish my game Eminent Domain. About a month ago, Richard Bliss (who follow this stuff closely and reports on it in his Game Whisperer podcast and on PurplePawn.com) reported that Kickstarter had raised $1.1 million for board and card game projects so far this year, and that amount has only increased from there. A project called D-Day Dice (a cooperative dice game) has raised over $114,000 all by itself.

Chris Shreiber has started a series of LESSONS LEARNED threads in the Kickstarter guild at BGG. Each thread intends to cover some aspect of running a Kickstarter project, with the goal to be an overall improvement in how the KS process benefits the gaming community as a whole, so that everyone (project authors and backers) get more out of it.

In one of those threads Chris requested suggestions for Card & Board Game relevant reward levels. In that thread I posted a request to future authors of Kickstarter game projects. My request is that authors avoid using exclusive game content to entice people to back the project. I then cross posted that request into a thread specifically about exclusive offers and stretch goals, and it generated some response and discussion.

Here is the request, copied verbatim from those threads:

There is a very strong incentive that has thus far worked well in soliciting pledges that I would like to address: Exclusive game content. I implore all publishers (established, first-timers, and self-publishers alike) to please consider NOT including exclusive game content as an incentive to pledge support for a game! Because I feel this is a very important point, I'll say it again, succinctly and in bold type:

Please do not use exclusive game content to solicit pledges.

Here are some reasons why, as well as some alternatives that I think ought to work just as well:

* First and foremost, everyone who buys the game is a supporter, not just the Kickstarters. That is super important, so here it is again...

Everyone who buys the game is a supporter, not just the Kickstarters.

Unless you are only going to produce just enough copies of the game to satisfy kickstarter orders and no more (this is not common), then the number of Kickstater supporters is very small compared to the total number of supporters the game will see over it's lifetime. For the thousands of people who find out about the game AFTER the Kickstarter campaign, it totally sucks that they cannot have the entire game experience, or that they have to scour eBay and pay extra for the right to do so. Some players are so turned off by not being allowed access to the entire game they won't bother to play it in the first place.

* When there exist different versions of a game, it creates confusion in the marketplace. Right now there is the possibility of a game store stocking 2 copies of Eminent Domain side by side, one from the initial print run with Bonus Planets included and one from the 2nd run without them. This is very unfortunate, and I wish it were not the case. With any exclusive content, buying or trading for any game on the used market is suddenly complicated. Does it have the exclusive content? Is it therefore worth more?

* When 1 group has content that another group does not, then the 2 groups aren't even playing the same game! It becomes difficult or impossible for players to compare game experiences from 2 separate sessions (for those that care to do so), and it can be very disappointing when a player is in a new area and sits down to play a familiar game only to find it's not the same game he expects because there's exclusive content.

In my opinion, exclusive game content is bad for hobby gaming as a whole. While offering it as an incentive to pledge will excite a handful of people, it will disappoint a far larger (and ever growing) number of fans of the game.

Alternatives to exclusive game content:
* Exclusive game pieces are something that people can get excited about, but that do not change the game itself. I personally think that any such upgraded component should probably just be made part of the print run rather than an exclusive, but this is at least an acceptable alternative to exclusive game content.

* Provide widely available (or to-be widely available) content for free to Kickstarters, while it will cost extra down the road. For example, if you have a mini expansion (or a full expansion) prepared, include it for free with Kickstarter orders, but make it available via BGG store, distribution, website sales, or whatever for a cost to those who do not kickstart the project.

* Provide increased production value for the entire print run, rather than only for the Kickstarters. I think this is a good use of Overfunding or Stretch Goals. Kickstarter orders will be upgraded, but so will all future copies of the game which will be on game store shelves. This is effectively just restating the whole purpose of using Kickstarter in the first place. Nobody says "if we reach our funding goal, we will ONLY provide games to our Kickstarter supporters" - instead it's "If we reach our funding goal we'll print X,000 copies of the game" - so obviously there's no exclusivity there. I believe the stretch goals should work the same way: "If we reach X additional funding, we will print X,000 copies of the upgraded version of the game."

* Guarantee early delivery. This can be tricky because of the vagaries of production and shipping timelines, but if you can manage it then it allows Kickstarter supporters the opportunity to both be the first on the block to play the new hotness, as well as trade or sell it if they find it's not to their liking (or if they got multiple copies) before the game hits the shelves. Some Kickstarter supporters are in it to speculate, and this gives them the opportunity to do so without having to disappoint all future fans of the game.

* Offer significant discounts to Kickstarters (akin to large pre-order discounts you would normally see from publishers who have pre-order promotions). Kickstarter is essentially a pre-order system, so it should work like one. This in combination with the previous bullet point increases the value of speculation for those supporters for whom that's important.

I hope that future Kickstarter publishers will consider this. I know it's a hard sell considering how well exclusive game content seems to work as an incentive to pledge. However, I suspect that the main reason most people pledge is NOT just to get exclusive game content. I think most of the supporters will still support without exclusive game content, provided there are attractive reward levels - and my list above is NOT exhaustive, I'm sure there are more ways to entice support!

Alter Ego rules update

Alter Ego v2.3
A cooperative deck building game of vigilante heroism

You won't see Crime City on any map, but that's how people have come to know your hometown. Sadists, Anarchists, and the Mafia each carving out portions of the city they call their own. Hundreds of innocent bystanders caught up every day in their turf wars, or held under their oppressive thumbs. Precious few have the time, the money, the guts, or the wherewithal to do anything about it. You're one of those few... Of course it means you'll have to give up that happy home life, or that cushy job. The paper paints vigilantism in a negative light - you'd be viewed by the community as a monster. But your city bleeds... the city bleeds and it calls your name. Will you answer?

You're a vigilante hero, one of the few in Crime City who have come together to put an end to the reign of terror the city's been trapped under. Banding together, you'll fight through a swath of henchmen in order to find and defeat several Arch Villains. But as you get stronger as a hero, you'll have to neglect some parts of your Alter Ego life - your family, your job, and your community.

Components:
XX Hero cards (5 types)
XX Alter Ego Cards
- XX Family Cards
- XX Job Cards
- XX Community Cards
XX Henchmen Cards
XX Arch Villain Cards (3 types)
XX Nemesis Cards
XX Equipment Cards
XX Civilian (CIV) Tokens (3 types)
XX Teamwork Tokens
XX Cop Tokens

Setup:
1. Shuffle the Henchmen cards to create the henchmen deck. Place this deck in the middle of the table.
2. Randomly choose 1 Arch Villain of each type. Those will be the Arch Villains used this game, put the rest back into the box.
3. Sort the Hero and Equipment cards by type and place them in piles in the center of the table, accessible by all players.
4. Give each player 4 of each Alter Ego card (Family, Job, and Community). Sort the rest of the Alter Ego cards by type and place them alongside the Hero cards.
5. Each player shuffles his deck of 12 Alter Ego cards and deals 4 cards face up into his "display" area, then draws a hand of 4 from the remaining cards in his deck.
6. Sort the Civ tokens by type and create pools of each. Also create a pool of Teamwork tokens.
7. Deal each player 1 Nemesis card, which they keep hidden from other players.

Turns:
Players take turns one at a time resolving each phase of their own turn before the next player plays.
Patrol phase: On your turn you must first bring a henchman into play:
* Draw 1 card from the Henchmen deck.
* If you have any face up Community cards in your display, draw 1 additional Henchman card for each Community card.
* If you have at least 1 [Should this be "For each"?] Community card in your display, draw 1 additional Henchman card for each Community icon on henchman you have defeated (in your play area).
* Choose 1 Henchman card to put into play, and discard the rest in a face down discard pile.
* If you have at least 3 Community icons in play and played at least 1 Community card, then you may "Call the Cops" - discard a Cop token from the group's supply and remove 1 Henchman card in play from the game. Any hostages on that henchmen are considered rescued and are returned to their supply pools. No player takes the Henchman card into their play area.

When a henchman comes into play he takes some number of civilians hostage! Place CIV tokens on the Henchman card as indicated. If a CIV token must be taken but the supply is empty, then the game is over and the Villains win!

Support phase: After a henchman has come into play, you may gain support from your family, allowing you to draw cards from your deck:
* For each Family card in your display, draw 2 cards from your deck.
* If you have at least 1 [Should this be "For each"?] Family card in your display, also draw 1 card from your deck for each Family icon on henchman you have defeated (in your play area).
* If you have at least 3 Family icons in play and played at least 1 Family card, then you may collect 1 Teamwork token from the supply.

Equip phase: You may spend money on fancy equipment to make you a stronger hero:
* For each Job card in your display, collect $1
* If you have at least 1 [Should this be "For each"?] Job card in your display, collect $1 for each $ icon on henchmen you have defeated (in your play area).
You may spend these $s to buy or activate Equipment this turn.

Crime-fighting phase: Now that you have geared up and garnered the support of your friends and family, it's time to go fight some crime!
* Hero cards in your display may be spent to rescue CIV tokens currently being held on a Henchman card. Hero cards spent must match the icons depicted on the Henchman card. The rescued CIV token is returned to the supply.
* If you have at least 1 [Should this be "For each"?] Hero card of a particular type in your display, you may use the matching Hero icons on henchman you have defeated (in your play area).
* You may "request help" from another player. Give an opponent 1 Teamwork token in order to use one of the Hero cards in their display (they need not discard it). You can only request help from each other player once per turn, and each request requires a Teamwork token.
* You may discard 2 Teamwork tokens to the general supply in lieu of any 1 Hero symbol.
* If the last CIV token on a henchman is rescued, that henchman is DEFEATED, and the you may keep that henchman in your play area and gain the printed benefit (usually an icon).
* Whenever a henchman is defeated, check to see if it has any Arch Villain icons. For each Arch Villain icon, place a token on the matching Arch Villain card. When enough tokens are placed on an Arch Villain card, that Arch Villain will come into play and terrorize the city by KILLING civilians (removing CIV tokens from the game) until he is defeated!

Recoup phase: After you're all spent from fighting crime, you get a chance to recuperate and plan your next turn.
* Discard all cards in your display.
* Play 4 cards from your hand face up into your display.
* For each Display icon on henchmen you have defeated (in your play area), you may play an additional card face up into your display.
* Choose a Hero or Alter Ego card from the supply stacks and place it face up in your display.
* Discard the rest of your hand, and draw 4 new cards from your deck (shuffle your discard pile as needed) plus 1 card for each Hand Size icon on henchmen you have defeated (in your play area).

Play continues with the next player in clockwise order.

When the last Arch Villain is defeated, then the game is over. The Heroes have saved Crime City from the clutches of evil and everybody wins!

OR...

When the last Arch Villain is defeated, then the game is over. The Heroes have saved Crime City from the clutches of evil! Any player who has defeated their Nemesis wins a Personal Victory, while all players win a Cooperative Victory.

OR...

When the last Arch Villain is defeated, then the game is over. If all players have defeated their Nemesis, then the Heroes have saved Crime City from the clutches of evil and everybody wins! Otherwise, the Nemeses who were not defeated rise up and overtake Crime City!

OR...

When any player defeats their Nemesis OR the last Arch Villain is defeated, then the game is over. If the game ended because a Nemesis was defeated, then the player defeating their Nemesis wins. If the game ended because an Arch Villain was defeated, then the Heroes have saved Crime City from the clutches of evil and everybody wins!

If at any time a CIV token must be taken but the supply is empty, then the game is over and the Villains win!