Ask @sedjtroll

I mentioned online today that I didn't think I was using Twitter enough, so I posted a tweet asking my followers to let me know what sorts of tweets they'd be interested in. I figure I might as well aggregate and post the questions and responses here on my blog.

@toddderscheid: what are you playing these days? What games have pushed others out of circulation?

Here's my response. I realized my responses would be far too long for a 140 character post, so I used Twitlonger. This may defeat the purpose of my original comment (not using Twitter enough), but I did tweet the link :)

@benny275 says he'd like to hear about design inspiration and how to turn a prototype into something publishers would want to produce.

Here's my response to that one. I took a look at a few of my designs to see what inspired them.

I'll try to remember to update this post as I answer additional questions.

One of thee days I'd like to utilize VYou.com to answer people's question via video. I think that's a really neat format, and I'd like to see it utilized more.

YANGI: Yet Another New Game Idea

I had meant to work on Alter Ego today, but like many of my game designs, instead of the design I wanted to work on, I thought of a whole new game. It's a card drafting game, and I even designed a bunch of cards (108 of them), printed them up, and sleeved them. I also made mats to put between neighboring players...

Perhaps I should explain the game a bit. I'm not sure what prompted it, but I was thinking about card drafting - M:tG Booster draft style, like is used in Fairy Tale, Notre Dame, and 7 Wonders. I thought it would be cool if there were 2 sets of cards - two different types - that were being drafted, and you passed 1 set in one direction around the table, and passed the other set in the other direction. I imagined a play-mat between a player and each neighbor with an image of the card backs for the different sets of cards, and a big arrow indicating which direction to pass that set. It might be the idea of that mat which really inspired me to work on the game! I made the mats double sided, so between rounds of the game you could flip them over to reverse the direction of passing for each set.

So what is this game about? How does it work? It's rare that I design a game completely
"mechanics first," but this time that's all I've actually got! I haven't thought of a theme that would fit. But I do have cards and mechanics :) Here's how it works:

As I mentioned, there are two sets of cards: Action cards, and Building cards. Each round of the game will consist of a Draft phase followed by an Action and Building phase.

Draft phase
Players will draft some Action and Building cards to play later:

1. Deal 4 of each Action and Building cards to each player.
2. Players choose 1 card from each set of 4 to keep, and then passes the rest in the direction indicated by player aids (placed between neighboring players). Place drafted cards in a face down pile in front of you.
3. Repeat until all of those cards have been drafted.

Action and Building phase
In turn, each player will play as many Action cards as they like, followed by at most 1 Building card.

1. Play any number of Action cards.
2. Spend coins provided by Action cards to play 1 Building card

Action cards have 2 aspects: Coins to be spent on building, and a game effect. No matter how many Action cards are played, only 1 game effect will be resolved - the one on the card with the smallest number of coins on it! The fewer coins on an Action card, the stronger the game effect on that card, so stronger effects mean less coins to spend on building.

Building cards have a cost, a point value, and a game effect. Currently the Building cards get better (more points and stronger game effects) as they get more expensive, but I'm not sure that's the correct way to go. Generally speaking the point value of the Building cards are equal to the cost of the card in coins. I think perhaps the stronger game effects should be on the cheaper buildings so that players will have to choose between stronger effects and higher scores.

The effects I mocked up for my prototype are fairly straightforward for the most part...
Action card effects:

• 0 coins: Tuck this card under any building, that building is worth an additional 2 points. Do not play a Building card this turn.
• 0 coins: Tuck this card under any building, that building provides 1 coin each turn.
• 0 coins: Discard any building in play and replace it with a Building card from your hand.
• 1 coins: Take any Building card from the discard pile.
• 1 coins: Take any Action card from the discard pile.
• 1 coins: Discard any building in play of value 2 or less.
• 1 coins: Each player (including you) must discard 1 building card from their hand.
• 1 coins: Tuck this card under any building, that building is worth an additional 1 point. Do not play a Building card this turn.
• 1 coins: Take any building in play into your hand and replace it with a Building card of equal or greater value from your hand.
• 2 coins: Discard any building in play and replace it with a Building card of equal or greater value from your hand.
• 2 coins: Discard any building in play of value 1 or less.
• 2 coins: Discard a card: Take any Action card from the discard pile into your hand.
• 2 coins: Discard a card: Take any Building card from the discard pile into your hand.
• 2 coins:Put a Building card of value 1 or less into play. This does not count as your Building card for the turn.
• 2 coins: Discard a card: Draw 5 Building cards from the deck, put 1 into your hand and return the rest in any order.
• 3 coins: No game effect

Building card effects:

• 0 cost/0vp: Discard this building from play: +1 coin this turn.
• 0 cost/1vp: No game effect.
• 1 cost/1vp: Play this card from your hand as if it were an Action card (provides 1 coin)
• 1 cost/2vp: No game effect.
• 2 cost/2vp: After drafting: Draw 1 Action card.
• 2 cost/2vp: After drafting: Draw 1 Building card.
• 2 cost/2vp: Discard this building from play: +2 coin this turn.
• 2 cost/3vp: No game effect.
• 3 cost/3vp: Play this card from your hand as if it were an Action card (provides 5 coin)
• 3 cost/3vp: Discard this building from play: Take any Action card from the discard pile into your hand.
• 3 cost/3vp: Discard this building from play: Take any Building card from the discard pile into your hand
• 3 cost/4vp: No game effect.
• 3 cost/?vp: Book icon. If you have 1/2/3 Book icons, this card is worth 2/3/4vp.
• 3 cost/?vp: Guard icon. If you have 1/2/3 Guard icons, this card is worth 2/3/4vp.
• 4 cost/3vp: +1 coin to spend each turn.
• 4 cost/4vp: Play this card from your hand as if it were an Action card (provides 2 coins)
• 4 cost/5vp: No game effect.
• 5 cost/6vp: No game effect.

After 4 rounds of player turns, the Action and Building phase is over. All players discard any cards they still have in hand and Round 2 begins by switching the passing direction for each type of card (flip the player aids over). The game will end after a certain number of rounds based on the number of players:

• 2 players: 6 rounds
• 3 players: 4 rounds
• 4 players: 3 rounds

I don't know if this game will pan out to be any fun or not, and I'm not sure if the double draft mechanism will prove to be too confusing or not, but who knows? I already know that the building effects are not balanced properly, and there are some timing questions about some of them. But maybe with some tweaking this could turn out to be a good game :)

Tasty News from Tasty Minstrel, and other stuff

Here are a few things that are going on in Tasty Minstrel Land:

Ground Floor preview video by Tom Vasel

We sent a copy of the prototype with the end artwork over to The Dice Tower, and Tom Vasel did a preview video of Ground Floor.Check it out if you'd like to see how to play, and catch a glimpse of what Tom thinks of the game.

Ground Floor Kickstarter status

The Kickstarter project for Ground Floor is going strong. With $30,388 in funding now (624 copies of the game!), and 38 days left in the project, the 3rd Stretch goal has been met - so all backers will receive the first three Stretch rewards:

1. 2 additional Specialty tiles: Social Media and Inheritance
2. 2 additional Economic Forecast cards: Great Depression and Windfall
3. Niche Market TI

And now we're shooting for $35,000 to add goal #4: 5 Economic Forecast Scenario cards. I think that we are likely to get to the $75,000 needed for Skyline, but we aren't there yet...  we still need you help!

Michael Mindes "Ask Me Anything" on Reddit

Reddit is a social news site similar in function of Digg, and people have been doing these "AMA" things on there. AMA stands for "Ask Me Anything," and in practice people can come and ask whatever questions they want of the person holding the AMA. By the time you read this it might be over, but you can read the thread here.

Mike says he will be devoted to answering from 1PM-4PM PST, but throughout the day he will stop in and still provide answers, so go ask Mike those burning questions you've got on your mind!

Eminent Domain: Escalation

Formerly "Warmonger," the EmDo expansion is about done. I'm still making final tweaks to some of the cards, but the gameplay is determined, and the art is underway! Eric Carter and Ryan Johnson are on board again, and after their awesome illustrations in the base game I'm really looking forward to seeing what their work for the expansion (spoiler alert: so far, it's AWESOME!). Gavan Brown is on board again as well, so I'm looking forward to an all around awesome looking expansion :)

Alter Ego

I'm on the verge of wrapping up everything that I need to do for Escalation, Kings of Air and Steam, and Ground Floor (in fact, the final art files for Ground Floor just went to the printers! Horray!) - and I'm looking forward to getting back to my other designs. Next on the list is Alter Ego. I'm really excited to finally get back to working on that game, as I think it really has a lot of potential, not only potential to be a fun game, but also potential to have really cool art, and e very well received by players.

Recent Gaming

I recently got a few new games. It's unusual for me to buy games, but there were a few I was interested in playing, and when my interest hit critical mass, I went ahead and picked up a few titles...

• The Manhattan Project
• Lords of Waterdeep
• Venture Forth

I have yet to play Venture Forth, but I did play it once at Gama last year (before it was published) and I enjoyed that play. I really, really like The Manhattan Project, and I also very much like Lords of Waterdeep. Two very good Worker Placement games that people are comparing lately - both are worth playing!

That's about it for now. Thanks for reading, and feel free to leave comments!

What's in a name?

A situation has arisen to which I don't know what the appropriate response is. There's a game that's slated to be produced by TMG which is a very good, very solid economic game that I've only briefly mentioned in this blog (Oct 2010). In addition to the game being top quality, I really, really like the title. It's a game that the designer has been working on for 4 years, and a google search for the title mostly brings up the designer's blog posts about his playtests.

The thing is that another, entirely different game has recently sprung up on Kickstarter using that same title! I played the Kickstarter game last July at Protospiel, when it was called something else. The game was in pretty good shape last summer, and is likely been improved since then. I'm sure it's a fine game and people will like it, but the thing I'm concerned about is this: what do I do about the great title of the game TMG is coming out with? Must we change it? That kinda sucks, as our game had that title first. But at the same time, it would cause some confusion in the marketplace if we released another game with the same title, wouldn't it? I know the designer of the game isn't thrilled with the idea of having to change the title, after using it for 4 years. He's been looking for a new title, but nothing's near as good as the one he had.

So, that's the dilemma - what can be done? What should be done? And how annoyed should I allow myself to be that this unfortunate thing happened? I'm open to suggestions...

Update: As I suppose I knew the whole time, we of course will have to change the title of the game we'll be releasing. We have it narrowed down to about 4 fair alternatives. The question will be which alternative is the best!

Ground Floor: Live on Kickstarter!

This morning marked the beginning of a 55 day long Kickstarter campaign for Ground Floor - a game I've mentioned before in this blog.

I think it's fair to say that Michael has learned a lot about running a Kickstarter campaign, and it shows in the superb organization he's got going on this time, and the incredible support the game has garnered in it's first hours! At the time I'm writing this, the project is at 177 backers, and $10,940 in support! That's really awesome, and I offer a hearty "thank you!" to everyone who has pledged for a copy of the game already.

If you haven't pledged, then what are you waiting for..?

I didn't know it was live!

Well, now you do! If you don't want to be left out in the cold in the future, consider signing up for Tasty Minstrel's newsletter - you'll receive all the inside info you'll require about upcoming TMG releases and deals. You'll also be offered the opportunity to join sub-lists for specific projects (such as this Kickstarter project), so the extra project-specific emails only go out to those who want them, not the entire TMG mailing list. I think Michael does email marketing right!

What is this game about?

This description is copied verbatim from my blog post (December 2009), and it remains a good description of the game:

Ground Floor is a game about being an Entrepreneur. Each player has just started a company. All they have is 7 Information, their ground floor office (representing certain basic actions they can take), $9 income per round from investors, and their time (4 marker discs representing units of time). As the game progresses, players can hire employees (which reduce your $ income but increase the number of time units you can use), upgrade their ground floor actions, and add floors to their building, gaining abilities and Prestige. To finance this, players "do business" in town by scheduling meetings, advertising, shopping at outlets and making products to sell to the public. They must do this in the face of a volatile economic atmosphere - in a Boom economy more products will sell, but noone will be looking for work. In a Depression you will be hard pressed to sell any products, but the job market will be full of potential employees who can be hire on the cheap. You can see the Economic Forecast, but can never be sure exactly how many consumers to expect in a round, so how you price your products matters a lot, as does your popularity level.

The crux of the game is balancing 2 resources - money and information. In the early game players have an income of $9, and it's difficult to get an appreciable amount of info. As you hire employees though, your income goes down (you have to pay their salaries), and the only really good way to make money is through selling products. Selling products is tricky, as it depends heavily on your popularity, the amount of products being sold by players, and the number of consumers for the round. You need to find a way to make both money and information because it costs a significant amount of each to add on to your business. Your score (Prestige) will be based on the floors and abilities of your company. A 6 story skyscraper is more impressive than a 3 story building for example, but there's something to be said about having a better operation on your ground floor as well.

I've never heard of Ground Floor - how do I know if I'll like it?

Well, if you're reading this blog, it's possible you've heard of the game here before. But even if that's not the case, there are several resources available to learn about the game:

• Official rulebook
• Print and Play prototype files
• Session Reports and Reviews on BGG
• Video overview of how to play by designer David Short

Please check out those sources of information, and if Ground Floor looks like your kind of game, then please take a moment to check out the Kickstarter Campaign and pledge your support by pre-ordering a copy (or three!) of the game.

Why pre-order instead of waiting for the game to come out and then buying it online at a discount?

Good question! There has been a lot of discussion online about Kickstarter, who should be allowed to use it, and whether people should be charging full price for products being kickstarted. In this case however, you can get 1 copy of Ground Floor for $50, or if you go in with a couple of friends and get 3 copies, they're only $40 apiece! Retail price of this game will be about $60, so these prices are already discounted - on the order of what you'd pay online, and if you live in the US then that includes shipping!

On top of that, Kickstarter supporters will receive all of the overfunding incentives as the project raises more and more funds! Michael has a number of cool extras planned, which will come for free with your copy of the game if you are a Kickstarter. Most of these have not been announced, but he did mention that if the project raises at least $75,000, he'll be including a copy of a whole nother game! David Short has created another game called Skyline - a lighter dice game which shares the theme of constructing buildings. If the project hits $75k, that other game will be included for all of the supporters!

*Check your funding level - at the time I wrote this, it was true for all of the levels, but it's possible more have been added since, and they may not all qualify for the overfunding goals!

So as you can see, it's a really good deal. And I can tell you that it's a really good game as well. David has come up with a lot of clever mechanisms, and I've put a lot of development work into the game. We're both very proud of it, and if you follow my blog, then I think there's a good chance it'll be your kind of game too! Check it out, and tell your friends!

Tons of Warmninger/Escalation testing!

I am happy to report that I have had a lot of opportunity to playtest Warmonger (I think I'll start calling it Escalation and see how I like it) this week, and it's been very productive!

In addition, I have received some playtest reports from people who have printed out the Print-n'-Play files, and they have been very useful as well. So a great big THANK YOU to everyone who has tried the game out!

For those following along at home, here are a few card comments and potential tweaks. I'll be updating my PDFs again tonight and tomorrow to take some of these into account. Also, at the end of this post there'll be a sneak peak at a new piece of the expansion that is, frankly, pretty awesome!

Card Tweaks:
Scientific Method: This card has seemed to be much too powerful for my liking. The next tweak is to allow the additional tech card purchase on your own turn only. Perhaps I'll phrase it like this: "You may follow your own Research role."

Midnight Oil: I had put 2 Exotic icons on Midnight Oil - pretty much because I didn't know what else to put there. After playing with it, I feel like that's not useful or fun at all - so I will replace those Exotic icons with a Destroyer. For the most part, Midnight Oil hasn't proven to be terribly useful, but I like that it exists, and maybe people will buy it for the Destroyer.

Civilized Planets: I have changed the Colonize cost of each of the Civilized planets to 4.

Action Planets: I have changed the Colonize cost of each of the planets with Actions on them to 4.

Diverse Tech Cards: I would like to try increasing the cost of the L2 Diverse techs to 2 Destroyers rather than 1 Destroyer. 1 Destroyer seems too easy to get. I am still waffling on whether I want the other L2 cards to cost Destroyers or not. Improved Fleet would probably still cost 5 Fighters I think...

Destroyer Technology: I don't like how easily Destroyer Tech chains into other techs by providing the destroyers necessary to obtain other Diverse techs, which you obviously already qualify for. Therefore I think I'll move Destroyer Tech back to the Metallic stack.

Dreadnaught Technology: It appears that Dreadnaught Technology is a bit too powerful. The thing about Dreadnaughts is that they are supposed to be difficult to get - on par with a L3 tech card. So a L2 tech card that just GIVES you one seems a bit too good.

One idea instead is to put a Dreadnaught in the corner, rather than allow it to put your Dreadnaught into play. But frankly, I'm not sure that's any better. Making the card into a Dreadnaught still means you can buy one for the cost of an L2, and I don't like that. Annex has a Dreadnaught on it, and it's a L3. So I think either Dreadnaught tech should not exist, or it should be a L3 tech. Probably L3 in the Diverse stack.

Utility: I fear that Utility might be a bit too good for a L1 tech. Thorough Scanning and Freedom of Trade seem about right - but Utility can ramp a player up to L2 tech very quickly. Comparing to Warfare Tech just confirms that Utility should be a L2 tech. The question is, is it good enough on its own to be L2? Or should it get a Resource Slot, or maybe a Production symbol?

If I do add a Production symbol, then I might consider adding a Warfare symbol to Warfare Tech. Though I don't really feel that's necessary, so maybe Utility is OK as is? Fighters are not limited by Resource Slots like Resources are, so maybe that's justification for Utility having something extra.

Biosphere: I think I'll swap this with Utility, making it a level 1 tech. I will probably remove either the Production icon, or the Resource slot. Whichever I remove, maybe I'll add to utility, so both in play together will have 2 slots and a Produce icon, just like currently. Frankly that combo, while it seems pretty good, does not seem to compete with other strategies.

Annex: Mike suggested I make Annex a L2 tech, with a Destroyer rather than a Dreadnaught on it. I'm not sure if I like that or not. Maybe I'll give it a shot.

Scenarios:
There's a new aspect of the expansion that I think people will really dig. I don't want to spill all of the beans about it, but here's a hint... they're called Scenarios. Specific custom starting setups which we think make for a really interesting game :)

EmDo Expansion - Planets

As I posted last time, I have been looking at the current incarnation of the cards for the EmDo expansion. Today I took a closer look at the new planets to see how I felt about them. for reference, here's the details for the new planets:

New Planets
Hostile Planets: Cost- 1 Destroyer, effect- 1 Fighter icon.
I really like these. Thus far I've been saying you can only use them once per turn - that's sort of how the other icons work (but admittedly only because you never had the opportunity to count them more than once in a turn). But I'm beginning to think that's too fiddly. It would certainly make them more powerful, but would it be TOO powerful to use them more than once in a turn (for example if you attack 2 different planets in a turn, via War Path, or one in your Action phase and another in your Role phase)? Also, I believe I only have 3 of these (one of each type). Should I make another 3 (so 6 total)? Or is 3 enough?

Civilized Planets: Each of the Civilized planets has the Peace treaty effect on it. I like these. I believe I have 6 of them (2 of each type). I might like to decrease the cost of at least half of them - I think I've increased the average planet costs a little too much. So maybe 3 of them are worth fewer points and only cost 3, while the other three are worth more points and cost 5?

"Action" Planets: There are 6 planets which each have one of the basic actions on it:

• Draw 2 cards
• Attack 1 Planet
• Settle 1 planet
• Produce 1 Resource
• Trade 1 Resource for 1 Influence
• Remove up to 2 cards in hand from the game

I like these, and have been able to make good use of them, especially in combination with Double Time. But I wonder if their effect shouldn't be amplified a little bit - why not make them the Improved versions..? At least some of them, like the Survey and the Produce action seem so weak on their own. However, every time I have this thought, I decide in the end to keep them as-is.

In looking at the planets again today I think I've decided the following:
Hostile Planets: I'm debating the merits of using the fighter once per turn vs once per Action/Role. I'm not sure which is easier to explain and I'm also not sure whether more than once per turn would be too good or not.

Civilized Planets: I changed the Colonize cost of three of the planets to 3, leaving the others at 5 to Colonize.
Action Planets: I have reduced the Colonize cost of those planets to 4 instead of 5. I didn't mean to increase the average planet cost as much as I did, and 4 is probably closer in value to a Destroyer anyway. I think I have decided to keep the effects as they currently are.

EmDo Expansion - Detailed update

I need to finalize the EmDo expansion pretty soon and get the thing into production, so to that end I thought I'd list all the new tech cards and other aspects out and comment on them here... hopefully this will help identify what needs to be done before this expansion can go to print!

Title
I've been calling this expansion "Warmonger," but have recently been leaning away from that so as not to raise inaccurate expectations. Currently considering "Escalation," which seems to fit the feel of the expansion a little better (even if the word is not as cool).

End Game Dynamic
I mentioned in a previous post that I was considering a new game end dynamic - when the game end is triggered, you finish out the round and then play 1 full round (rather than just finishing the round and being done right there). I have been liking this more and more, so I'm leaning toward making that the rule for the expansion (and an approved variant for the base game).

Fleet Tile
I do like the fleet tile, but I'm not positive this is exactly how it'll work. It's close though:

Fleet
Action: Discard 3 Fighters to collect a Destroyer.
Action: Discard 2 Destroyers to put your Dreadnaught into play.
While your Dreadnaught is in play, your Warfare costs are -1.
Research Role: Pay 5 Research or 5 Fighters to flip Fleet to Improved Fleet

Improved Fleet
Action: Discard Fighters, collect 1 Destroyer for every 2 Fighters discarded.
Action: Discard 2 Destroyers to put your Dreadnaught into play.

While your Dreadnaught is in play, your Warfare costs are -2.
During an Attack, you may discard a Dreadnaught to satisfy the Warfare Cost of any planet.

5 players
I have been planning to expand the game to accommodate a 5th player. The following changes will be required to support that:

• Add 4 cards to each stack. These cards will be marked as "For 5p only"
• Include a 5th Politics card
• Add the 8 blue Influence tokens to the supply
• When the game end trigger occurs, finish the current round and then play 1 final round

I do not believe any further changes need to be made. I added the new end game dynamic discussed above - probably even more important with more players.

New Tech Cards
I am fairly happy with most of the new tech cards, but I've still got some decisions to make. For example, I like the idea of L1 tech cards costing 3 fighters, L2 costing 5 fighters, and L3 costing 7 fighters - it mirrors the Research cost and is therefore easily internalized and remembered. However, I also like the idea of L2 techs costing a Destroyer and L3 techs costing a Dreadnaught. Currently the Advanced/Fertile/Metallic tech cards follow the first format - 3/5/7 fighters (or 3/5/7 Research), and the Diverse tech cards (requiring A+F+M) follow the latter format - 3Fighters/Destroyer/Dreadnaught (or 3/5/7 Research, of course).

• Should all new L2 costs be the same (either 5F or 1D)? Or is it acceptable to have some cost 5F while others cost 1D? I think the consistency is good to have.
• Which should it be? 3F/5F/7F, or 3F/1D/1Dn?
• If Tech cards cost 1 Destroyer or 1 Dreadnaught, does that make it too easy to, say, obtain Annex 1 turn, then immediately use Annex to pay for Well Oiled Machine? I currently have them at 3vp (not 5), but does that make up for it?

L1 Double Time (2 in each stack): Action: Play 2 additional Actions during this Action phase.
I'm very happy with the effect of this card, and the number of copies in the game. I'm not sure about the Exotic icon - should I include that for integration with the Exotic expansion? Or should I just leave that off altogether? I think I am happy with these cards having a Resource on them as well.
L1 Peace Treaty (P) (1 in each stack): Collect 1 Influence when Dissenting a Warfare role.
I am happy with this card. I have decided that the power of Warfare Tech is more appropriate at Level 2, and that the power of Peace Treaty by itself is appropriate for Level 1. I fully expect to hear complaints from both sides - those who complain the card is too weak, since their opponents simply stopped taking Warfare roles and then it wasn't worth any points, and those who complain the card is too strong, because their opponent scored a lot of points off of it. In either case, that's a fairly high level of interaction that some say is missing from the game, and I'll note that the purpose of the Peace Treaty is not to be a big point scorer - it's to slow down a Warmongering opponent! In that respect, if your Peace Treaty scores no points because you're opponent stopped calling Warfare, then it did its job!

Advanced
L1 Improved Research: Action: Draw 1 card, then remove up to 3 cards in hand from the game.
Originally I had made these purchasable only with Fighters. More recently I standardized the costs for all of the new tech cards, because it's a PITA when each card has some individual cost - I much prefer the ease of play when the costs are easily internalized and remembered. I am fairly happy with these incarnations, and I like having L1 cards with Fighters on them.
L1 Improved Trade: Action: Collect 1 Influence from the supply.
See Improved Research, above.
L1 Freedom of Trade (P): [2 Trade icons] You may follow Trade roles as if they were Produce, and you can Follow Produce roles as if they were Trade.
Since adding 2 trade symbols to this card, I have been happy with it. It's difficult to make good use out of it in the early game, but that's OK with me. I think it has potential to be good later, but that means you either have to take it early and then pursue making it good, or you have to consider taking it later in the game, when you might be able to get a L2 tech instead. With only 1 Trade symbol I don't think it would be attractive enough, so I think I like it as-is. Does it really need TWO trade icons? Is 1 good enough?
L2 Scientific Discovery: Action: Take any tech card costing 3 or less into your hand. Play another action.
This is significantly different than the original version, but it accomplishes what I wanted to accomplish - it lets players get more L1 techs into their decks. I like the "Play another Action" part because I don't think it would be too desirable to just get some Improved tech into your hand to maybe use next turn - instead the card acts as if it IS the new card you just got (by giving you the chance to play it). This card lets you get tech you don't have access to due to your planets, maybe most importantly Double Times. I am fond of this card, and I think I will keep this version of it.
L2 Soldiers of Fortune: Action: Trade a destroyer for 3vp.
I have yet to see this one work very well, but I recently took steps to make Destroyers more important in the game, so I think this card will be reasonable. 3vp is nothing to scoff at.
L2 Scientific Method (P): [Research icon] You may buy 1 additional tech card during a Research role. Costs and prerequisites must be paid for each tech card separately.
Being able to purchase 2 tech cards at a time isn't amazing by itself, but as an ancillary benefit on a card that gives you a Research icon it's not so bad. Especially when you consider that you can purchase 1 card with Research symbols and another with Fighters... I'm pretty happy with this card as-is.
L2 Defense Contract (P): Once per turn: Trade 1 Resource or Fighter for 1 Influence.
A play tester insisted that this card was too powerful. I am not sure I've ever seen it in play in its current incarnation. It definitely seems like a decent enough card, and I think I'm happy with it, but I suppose I should force myself to get it into play more often and see how it feels.

Fertile
L1 Improved Colonization: Action: Settle 1 planet. Then Settle another planet or +1 Colony.
See Improved Research, above.
L1 Improved Production: Action: Produce 2 Resources.
See Improved Research, above.

L1 Utility (P): You may spend Resources as if they were symbols to Boost or Follow any role.
I had added a Produce icon to this, but then decided that was way too powerful for a L1 tech. This card is good enough without the icon, and has actually seen some good use in my test games. I'm happy with it.
L2 Specialized Production: Action: +1 Influence for each resource of a particular type.
Seems like a no-brainer. Parallel with Specialization. I'm happy with this one.
L2 Spoils of War: Action: Discard any number of Fighters. Produce 2 Resources for each Fighter discarded this way.
This one I'm not so sure about. I upgraded it to be "get 2 resources per Fighter you discard" - and the fact that you can produce a handful of resources as an action (which could be followed by a Trade role) seems like it should be decent. Yet I have not really seen this card used well. I would think it could combo well with Freedom of Trade and Utility. Does this card seem more like a Metallic tech? My thought was that it would be Fertile because it's effect produces Resources, and that's kind of a Fertile thing to do.
L2 Biosphere (P): [Produce icon] [Any Resource Slot] [Any Resource Slot]
I changed the resource slots on this to "Any Resource," which makes it combo well with either Specialized Production/Specialization OR Genetic Engineering/Diverse Markets. That made it a little bit stronger. That and a Production icon and I think I'm happy with this one.
L2 Colony Ship (P): Once per turn and during Colonize actions and roles: You may tuck cards under Colony Ship as if it were a planet. During a Colonize role you may rearrange all Colonies in your Empire.
This card never seemed to get used, until I added "Once per turn..." - allowing you to slowly 'streamline' Colonize cards out of your deck, and then in a Colonize role, use them to flip a planet. Now I think this card is really cool and I'm happy with it. Not sure about the wording though. My intent was that players could tuck colonies under it just as if it were a planet, including during a Colonize Action or Role. Should that be the case? Or should you ONLY get to tuck colonies once per turn, then get them all off at once with a colonize role? In either case, what's the best wording for this, and how will it fit on the card?

Metallic
L1 Improved Warfare: Action: Collect 2 Fighters or Attack 1 Planet.
See Improved Research, above.

L1 Improved Survey: Action: Draw 3 cards.
See Improved Research, above.

L1 Thorough Scanning (P): You may draw 2 fewer cards during a Survey role. If you do, you may keep 1 additional Planet.
I've been happy with this all along, and still am.
L2 Deep Space Probes: Action: Search the Planet deck and discard pile for any 1 planet. Shuffle the planet deck and discard and place the chosen planet on top. Play another action.
This one is a little tricky to use well, which is why I added the "play another action" clause. It would work nicely with Survey Team or Mobilization, but that's not the point... is it useful on it's own? I think it's useful enough. It's one of those cards where you have to really know what you're doing to use it well, and will therefore probably not see a lot of use, but I think it's OK to have some cards like that.
L2 Dreadnaught Technology: Action: Collect your Dreadnaught.
I think I like this one as-is. I'm considering improving it by not making you trade in a Destroyer. Frankly, if you have Improved Fleet, then you can already change Dreadnaught Tech and another Destroyer into a Dreadnaught - but this card is still a discount if you haven't flipped your Fleet tile. I don't know if that's good enough, and most of the time this is purchased I think it's just for the Destroyer icon. Yeah, maybe I'll just make it "Get a Dreadnaught" - you can only have 1 at a time anyway. A lot of the time that will translate to "Action: get 2VP, once." which is probably fair.

Edit: I have decided to change this to "Collect your Dreadnaught."

L2 Warfare Technology (P): You may spend Fighters as if they were research symbols during Research roles.
I have seen this in play, when it was combined with Peace Treaty. It can be really good. The effect is definitely L2 in power, so I've made it a L2 tech. I think I'm happy with that.
L2 Wealth of Knowledge (P): You may use standard Survey cards to Boost (not Follow) any role.
I continue to like this one a lot as-is.

Diverse
L2 Synthesize: Action: Search your deck and discard pile for any card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your deck and discard pile to create a new deck. Play another action.
I continue to like this a lot as-is. Currently it has "Any Resource" in the corner - should I add a Fighter as well? I suspect people will use it for the action more than anything else anyway.
L2 Destroyer Technology: Action: Collect 2 Destroyers.
After upping this to 2 Destroyers rather than just 1, I really like it.
L2 Midnight Oil: Action: Choose a Role. Opponents may Follow or Dissent as normal.
This is a new one, and hasn't been in play too much yet, but it seems cool. I currently have 2 Exotic icons on the card, but that's probably not too good. Maybe I should put a resource and a Fighter instead?
L2 Oversight Committee (P): Hand Size +2
I like this card. I moved it tot he Diverse stack to make room for Warfare Tech, which struck me as a Metallic tech (while Oversight Committee strikes me as a Diverse tech).
L2 Military Campaign (P): You may attack FACE UP planets in opponents' Empires. Spend 1 Dreadnaught and Fighters equal to the Influence value of the Planet. Opponent may discard a Dreadnaught to cancel this attack. If they don't, they collect 2 Influence ("Reparations") from the supply.
This has proven to be a fairly interesting dynamic in some of our 2p games. I haven't really seen it in 3 or 4 player games, but the Reparations seems to make it good and fair. I recently added that a player can discard a Dreadnaught to cancel the attack, and I'm not sure if I like that or not. I may remove it.
L3 Annex: Action: Attack a FACE DOWN planet in an opponent's Empire and put it face up in yours. They collect 2 Influence ("Reparations") from the supply.
I think this is good and fair as well. I like it. And I like that it's a Dreadnaught that you can hold in your hand.
L3 Well Oiled Machine (P):You may take an additional Role during your Role phase.
I like this one. That the opponents can follow or dissent keeps it from being broken at all.
L3 Wingman (P): [Destroyer icon]
I like the idea of a Destroyer you can spend every turn, but I haven't really seen this in play yet. Is it good enough for a L3 tech?

New Planets
Hostile Planets: Cost- 1 Destroyer, effect- 1 Fighter icon. I really like these. Thus far I've been saying you can only use them once per turn - that's sort of how the other icons work (but admittedly only because you never had the opportunity to count them more than once in a turn). But I'm beginning to think that's too fiddly. It would certainly make them more powerful, but would it be TOO powerful to use them more than once in a turn (for example if you attack 2 different planets in a turn, via War Path, or one in your Action phase and another in your Role phase)? Also, I believe I only have 3 of these (one of each type). Should I make another 3 (so 6 total)? Or is 3 enough?

Civilized Planets: Each of the Civilized planets has the Peace treaty effect on it. I like these. I believe I have 6 of them (2 of each type). I might like to decrease the cost of at least half of them - I think I've increased the average planet costs a little too much. So maybe 3 of them are worth fewer points and only cost 3, while the other three are worth more points and cost 5?

"Action" Planets: There are 6 planets which each have one of the basic actions on it:

• Draw 2 cards
• Attack 1 Planet
• Settle 1 planet
• Produce 1 Resource
• Trade 1 Resource for 1 Influence
• Remove up to 2 cards in hand from the game

I like these, and have been able to make good use of them, especially in combination with Double Time. But I wonder if their effect shouldn't be amplified a little bit - why not make them the Improved versions..? At least some of them, like the Survey and the Produce action seem so weak on their own. However, every time I have this thought, I decide in the end to keep them as-is.

EmDo End game Variant

I'm considering a slightly different end game dynamic for the expansion, which could be used as a variant for the standard game as well:

When the game end triggers, finish out the round as normal, then play 1 full round.

This way all players will know for a fact whether it's their last turn or not. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

4/29/12 Update: The more I play this variant, the more I dislike it for 2 players. I think it's a good idea for 3-4 players though. I do not know if it'll end up in the rulebook or not.

Warfare Tech too strong for Level 1 Tech

When I first made the Warfare Tech cards I worried that they'd be too strong for level 1 cards. At the same time I thought Peace Treaty was too weak, and that combining those 2 didn't really make Warfare Tech any stronger - instead I thought it would be more interesting because more different players would be interested in those cards.

Playtester feedback has been pretty universal that Warfare Tech is too strong. On one hand, this confirms a suspicion I had in the beginning. On the other hand, having played many times as-is, I have not seen the player with Warfare Tech winning regularly, or even more than their fair share. So I was hesitant to weaken the card, thinking perhaps that Warfare Tech was one of those things that looks stronger than it really is.

At this point I've become more of the opinion that the effect of Warfare Tech is on the order of a Level 2 power, not Level 1. Furthermore, while I was worried that players would not want to "waste" a Research role on "just" a Peace Treaty (because it would be "useless" if the opponent simply stops calling Warfare), it occurred to me that forcing your opponent to stop or slow down their Warfare calls (or making them give you a VP if they don't) is far from a waste! So I'm looking at removing the Warfare Tech portion and leaving just Peace treaty on the level 1 permanent techs. Perhaps I'll add a level 2 tech that has the Warfare Tech power (probably in the Metallic stack).

But wait - doesn't that destroy a big. fundamental goal of the expansion? Didn't I want players to be able to get Tech cards without having to fill their decks with Research cards? Well, that's true, but I think the better way accomplish that is to make sure that all (or at least most) of the new tech cards are purchasable with Fighters (or Destroyers) - which is what I've done. I've gone through all of the new Tech cards and made sure that all of them (except Double Time, currently, but I might change that) can be purchased with Fighters instead of Research symbols.

I also wanted Destroyers to be a bigger deal, so I actually made more of the tech cards cost a Destroyer instead of some Fighters. And finally, I made all of the level 3 techs (Annex, and the new permanent techs Well Oiled Machine/Wingman*) cost a Dreadnaught instead of 7 Research symbols. I am completely open to name suggestions for these by the way.

* Did I not mention? I made a couple more tech cards for the Diverse stack:
Well Oiled Machine: You may take an additional Role phase each turn. Opponents may Follow or Dissent as normal.
Cost: 7 Research OR Dreadnaught
Wingman: [Destroyer icon] (A Destroyer you can spend once per turn, like the Fighter cons on the hostile planets)
Cost: 7 Research OR Dreadnaught
Midnight Oil: Action: choose a Role. Players may Follow or Dissent as normal.

Cost: 5 Research OR Destroyer

In other news, I thought Oversight Committee might be too powerful at "+2 Hand Size" - so I tried adjusting it to "+1 Hand Size" and added "Action: Draw 3 Cards" - I like the idea of tech cards with actions on them. however, I kinda liked the simplicity and strength of "+2 Hand Size," so I might switch it back. Or more specifically, I could make the back side of Wealth of Knowledge be "Warfare Technology," and replace Combat Maneuvers with Oversight Committee. It seems like Combat Maneuvers is never used, and I'm not sure whether it's really very useful. Of course, I've taken steps to make Destroyers a bigger deal, so maybe that card will improve a bit..?

At any rate, I'm enjoying the expansion, and i like the direction it's taken. I think it's nearing completion. I'd love to hear some more playtest reports from people, especially if they've been keeping up with the adjustments I've been making.

Speaking of playtesters, I'd like to give a big thanks out to those who have printed out the expansion and provided feedback! All of it is very useful and helpful. Thanks for being part of the process :)

Another round of Warmonger updates

I went through the Warmonger tech cards again and made a few more tweaks...

Philosophically, I thought it might be good to make it so that EACH of the new tech cards could be bought with Fighters (before there were some that had the normal Research cost, no fighters), so I went through and added "/ [Fighter icon]" to all of the new tech cards.

I also wanted Destroyers to be a bigger deal. Thus far they haven't had as much impact as I'd like. So I made a couple of tweaks to that end:
* All of the level 2 Diverse Tech cards cost 5 Research or 1 Destroyer now
* Destroyer Tech card now gives 2 Destroyers instead of 1 (it was not being used, and generally speaking not too useful)
* Annex now costs 7 Research or 1 Dreadnaught (I also wanted to see more Dreadnaughts in costs)

A few more tweaks to strengthen/weaken a few tech cards that seemed too weak/too strong:
* Oversight Committee: "+1 Hand Size, Action: Draw 3 cards" (instead of Hand Size +2). I'm not sure that's necessary, but hand size +2 is pretty darn good. I also wanted to see Actions on permanent tech cards.
* Colony Ship: I love the idea, but it does not seem to be useful enough, or useful often enough... now it reads "Once per turn (and during Colonize roles) you may tuck a Colonize card under Colony Ship as if it were a planet. During a Colonize Role you may redistribute all of the Colonies in your Empire." That wording isn't perfect - the intent is that once per turn you can 'streamline' a colonize card out of your deck by placing it under Colony Ship, and also when tucking colonies during a Colonize role (or action, I guess) you can treat Colony Ship as if it were a planet - then later you can use those to Colonize by shifting them over. I think this additional benefit will help enough to make this card desirable.
* Scientific Discovery: I'm going to try this version next: "Action: Take any Tech card costing 3 or less and put it into your hand. Play an additional action this turn."
* I haven't changed it at all, but I wonder if Combat Maneuvers isn't useful enough - I don't think I've ever seen it in play.
* Military Campaign: Added a clause that the opponent can discard a Dreadnaught to cancel the attack. The intent is that they'd choose to do that after the costs are paid (Fighters and Dreadnaught discarded by the Attacker). If they cancel the attack, they get no Reparations.

Status of Improved Fleet: I'm leaning toward 2vp for flipping the tile, and 2 more VP for having your Dreadnaught in play. Also, the Improved exchange rate I'm trying is:
* Action: 2 Fighters -> 1 Destroyer (as many times as you want)
* Action: 2 Destroyers -> 1 Dreadnaught

Also, I removed the "discard in lieu of fighters" ability from the Fleet side of the Fleet tile, mostly to make room for the Improved Fleet text.

There were a few more tech cards I wanted to add. I'm open to name suggestions on each of these by the way:
Midnight Oil
Diverse Level 2 (5 Research/1 Destroyer)
2 Exotic symbols (I wasn't sure what to put on there)
Action: Choose a Role. Opponents can Follow or Dissent as normal.
2vp

Well Oiled Machine
Diverse Level 3 Permanent (7 Research/1 Dreadnaught)
You may take an additional Role phase each turn. If you do, opponents can Follow or Dissent as normal.
3vp

Wingman
Diverse Level 3 Permanent (7 Research/1 Dreadnaught)
[Destroyer icon] (A Destroyer you can spend once per turn, like the fighters on the Hostile planets)

Positive and Negative Feedback Loops - Positive or Negative for a game?

I saw this post on BGG today, quoting something very interesting from some online game design course (?). I wish I could link to or credit the original author, and read more of that type of stuff, but I do not know where it came from. I hope that the link above will suffice - I wanted to re-post it here, mostly so I can find it again! If you know where this came from, please let me know!

Feedback Loops

One kind of dynamic that is often seen in games and deserves special attention is known as the feedback loop. There are two types, positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops. These terms are borrowed from other fields such as control systems and biology, and they mean the same thing in games that they mean elsewhere.

A positive feedback loop can be thought of as a reinforcing relationship. Something happens that causes the same thing to happen again, which causes it to happen yet again, getting stronger in each iteration – like a snowball that starts out small at the top of the hill and gets larger and faster as it rolls and collects more snow.

As an example, there is a relatively obscure shooting game for the NES called The Guardian Legend. Once you beat the game, you got access to a special extra gameplay mode. In this mode, you got rewarded with power-ups at the end of each level based on your score: the higher your score, the more power-ups you got for the next level. This is a positive feedback loop: if you get a high score, it gives you more power-ups, which make it easier to get an even higher score in the next level, which gives you even more power-ups, and so on.

Note that in this case, the reverse is also true. Suppose you get a low score. Then you get fewer power-ups at the end of that level, which makes it harder for you to do well on the next level, which means you will probably get an even lower score, and so on until you are so far behind that it is nearly impossible for you to proceed at all.

The thing that is often confusing to people is that both of these scenarios are positive feedback loops. This seems counterintuitive; the second example seems very “negative,” as the player is doing poorly and getting fewer rewards. It is “positive” in the sense that the effects get stronger in magnitude on each iteration.

There are three properties of positive feedback loops that game designers should be aware of:

They tend to destabilize the game, as one player gets further and further ahead (or behind).
They cause the game to end faster.
The put emphasis on the early game, since the effects of early-game decisions are magnified over time.
Feedback loops usually have two steps (as in my The Guardian Legend example) but they can have more. For example, some Real-Time Strategy games have a positive feedback loop with four steps: players explore the map, which gives them access to more resources, which let them buy better technology, which let them build better units, which let them explore more effectively (which gives them access to more resources… and the cycle repeats). As such, detecting a positive feedback loop is not always easy.

Here are some other examples of positive feedback loops that you might be familiar with:

Most “4X” games, such as the Civilization and Master of Orion series, are usually built around positive feedback loops. As you grow your civilization, it lets you generate resources faster, which let you grow faster. By the time you begin conflict in earnest with your opponents, one player is usually so far ahead that it is not much of a contest, because the core positive feedback loop driving the game means that someone who got ahead of the curve early on is going to be much farther ahead in the late game.
Board games that feature building up as their primary mechanic, such as Settlers of Catan. In these games, players use resources to improve their resource production, which gets them more resources.
The physical sport Rugby has a minor positive feedback loop: when a team scores points, they start with the ball again, which makes it slightly more likely that they will score again. The advantage is thus given to the team who just gained an advantage. This is in contrast to most sports, which give the ball to the opposing team after a successful score.
Negative feedback loops are, predictably, the opposite of positive feedback loops in just about every way. A negative feedback loop is a balancing relationship. When something happens in the game (such as one player gaining an advantage over the others), a negative feedback loop makes it harder for that same thing to happen again. If one player gets in the lead, a negative feedback loop makes it easier for the opponents to catch up (and harder for a winning player to extend their lead).

As an example, consider a “Kart-style” racing game like Mario Kart. In racing games, play is more interesting if the player is in the middle of a pack of cars rather than if they are way out in front or lagging way behind on their own (after all, there is more interaction if your opponents are close by). As a result, the de facto standard in that genre of play is to add a negative feedback loop: as the player gets ahead of the pack, the opponents start cheating, finding better power-ups and getting impossible bursts of speed to help them catch up. This makes it more difficult for the player to maintain or extend a lead. This particular feedback loop is sometimes referred to as “rubber-banding” because the cars behave as if they are connected by rubber bands, pulling the leaders and losers back to the center of the pack.

Likewise, the reverse is true. If the player falls behind, they will find better power-ups and the opponents will slow down to allow the player to catch up. This makes it more difficult for a player who is behind to fall further behind. Again, both of these are examples of negative feedback loops; “negative” refers to the fact that a dynamic becomes weaker with iteration, and has nothing to do with whether it has a positive or negative effect on the player’s standing in the game.

Negative feedback loops also have three important properties:

They tend to stabilize the game, causing players to tend towards the center of the pack.
They cause the game to take longer.
They put emphasis on the late game, since early-game decisions are reduced in their impact over time.
Some examples of negative feedback loops:

Most physical sports like Football and Basketball, where after your team scores, the ball is given to the opposing team and they are then given a chance to score. This makes it less likely that a single team will keep scoring over and over.
The board game Starfarers of Catan has a negative feedback loop where every player with less than a certain number of victory points gets a free resource at the start of their turn. Early on, this affects all players and speeds up the early game. Later in the game, as some players get ahead and cross the victory point threshold, the players lagging behind continue to get bonus resources. This makes it easier for the trailing players to catch up.
My grandfather was a decent Chess player, generally better than his children who he taught to play. To make it more of a challenge, he invented a rule: if he won a game, next time they played, his opponent could remove a piece of his from the board at the start of the game (first a pawn, then two pawns, then a knight or bishop, and so on as the child continued to lose). Each time my grandfather won, the next game would be more challenging for him, making it more likely that he would eventually start losing.
Use of Feedback Loops

Are feedback loops good or bad? Should we strive to include them, or are they to be avoided? As with most aspects of game design, it depends on the situation. Sometimes, a designer will deliberately add mechanics that cause a feedback loop. Other times, a feedback loop is discovered during play and the designer must decide what (if anything) to do about it.

Positive feedback loops can be quite useful. They end the game quickly when a player starts to emerge as the winner, without having the end game be a long, drawn-out affair. On the other hand, positive feedback loops can be frustrating for players who are trying to catch up to the leader and start feeling like they no longer have a chance.

Negative feedback loops can also be useful, for example to prevent a dominant early strategy and to keep players feeling like they always have a chance to win. On the other hand, they can also be frustrating, as players who do well early on can feel like they are being punished for succeeding, while also feeling like the players who lag behind are seemingly rewarded for doing poorly.

What makes a particular feedback loop “good” or “bad” from a player perspective? This is debatable, but I think it is largely a matter of player perception of fairness. If it feels like the game is artificially intervening to help a player win when they don’t deserve it, it can be perceived negatively by players. How do you know how players will perceive the game? Playtest, of course.

Eliminating Feedback Loops

Suppose you identify a feedback loop in your game and you want to remove it. How do you do this? There are two ways.

The first is to shut off the feedback loop itself. All feedback loops (positive and negative) have three components:

A “sensor” that monitors the game state;
A “comparator” that decides whether to take action based on the value monitored by the sensor;
An “activator” that modifies the game state when the comparator decides to do so.
For example, in the earlier kart-racing negative feedback loop example, the “sensor” is how far ahead or behind the player is, relative to the rest of the pack; the “comparator” checks to see if the player is farther ahead or behind than a certain threshold value; and the “activator” causes the opposing cars to either speed up or slow down accordingly, if the player is too far ahead or behind. All of these may form a single mechanic (“If the player is more than 300 meters ahead of all opponents, multiply everyone else’s speed by 150%”). In other cases there may be three or more separate mechanics that cause the feedback loop, and changing any one of them will modify the nature of the loop.

By being aware of the mechanics causing a feedback loop, you can disrupt the effects by either removing the sensor, changing or removing the comparator, or modifying or removing the effect of the activator. Going back to our The Guardian Legend example (more points = more power-ups for the next level), you could deactivate the positive feedback loop by either modifying the sensor (measure something other than score… something that does not increase in proportion to how powered-up the player is), or changing the comparator (by changing the scores required so that later power-ups cost more and more, you can guarantee that even the best players will fall behind the curve eventually, leading to a more difficult end game), or changing the activator (maybe the player gets power-ups through a different method entirely, such as getting a specific set of power-ups at the end of each level, or finding them in the middle of levels).

If you do not want to remove the feedback loop from the game but you do want to reduce its effects, an alternative is to add another feedback loop of the opposing type. Again returning to the kart-racing example, if you wanted to keep the “rubber-banding” negative feedback loop, you could add a positive feedback loop to counteract it. For example, if the opposing cars get speed boosts when the player is ahead, perhaps the player can go faster as well, leading to a case where being in the lead makes the entire race go faster (but not giving an advantage or disadvantage to anyone). Or maybe the player in the lead can find better power-ups to compensate for the opponents’ new speed advantage.

 So, what's your opinion? Are feedback loops in general good for a game, or bad? I suppose it depends on the game and the type of feedback loop! I'll be more specific - is a Negative Feedback Loop an acceptable thing to have in a strategy game? Should Positive Feedback Loops be avoided for their potential to create a runaway leader?

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.