Looking for Feedback: Are these rules laid out such that they are usable?

Ok, some pointers.

I got confused, reading the rules, as suddenly they said that you are working as a team with someone.
So, is it a 4 player FFA or some kind of 2v2. Or is it playable 2v2v2v2?

And "Continuing clockwise, players continue to either pass or play cards face up until play
has reached the original passing player, or a player plays an Assassin (Note: An Assassin may be played
only if there is at least one card already played towards controlling the trick)."

Do you mean that as soon as 1 player passes, and it's him again, it's over? So it's not until each player has passed/assassin comes out?

And these cards that you put face down, are they turned face up and destroys the "face-up cards that counts to the tally". Or what happens too them?

Ristora, you said the rules have been updated and that you placed a diagram in the rules about the teams. I can't see it, but maybe I'm too rushed to take note at the moment. Are you positive, we have the most recent links?

I mean the other cards that are put face down. I get that the original card is set under the targeted king, but the other cards?

I'm still confused. But I guess it makes sense when you have the game infront of you.
Or it's just me who's dumb ^^

So at the start of the turn, a lead card is assigned face down. Each other player, in a rotating order, assigns either cards face up or down. The face up cards are counted towards tally, and the face down cards are then assigned WITH the lead card to the targeted king.

When the game is "over", each face down card (this includes the Lead AND the other cards that were put face down during the rounds prior) attached to each king is revealed, and effects on the cards resolve.

Just saw that. Great, now it makes SO much more sense.
Seems like an interesting game, I'd try it for sure. But I'm more of a CCG player, so I get bored quite easily by board games in general. So my opinions shouldn't matter :D

I guess you just want the rules to be easily understood? So I guess you've playtested it.

Isn't it quite unfair if a single team gets all the assassins? Cuz they seem to be the best card, UNLESS an opponents plays a inquisitor or in general a high scoring card.

I'll take a closer look to see if the rules are absolutely clear now. :)

Here are my latest thoughts:

1) I would shorten the introduction section (especially if that means you can limit your rulebook to 4 pages).
2) I would format the cards section in 3 rows of 3 cards (again to save space, but also to make the rulebook a little more aesthetically pleasing).
3) In the gameplay phases section, I would refer to point 5 as "assignment" rather than "assign". All sections have nouns as names, with this one as the only exception.
4) The last line of section 2b is confusing. I would simplify: "After dealing, the number of cards in each players' hand should not differ more than 1 card."
5) For the section on Play. Would it make sense to place each scoring pile in front of a player of that team, rather than the way you drew it?
6) In "determining winners" you should open with "Assigned cards' end game abilities", because you're referring to multiple cards that have such abilities.
7) The king description in the card overview lists king and queen alive as 3 points, but doesn't say what happens if you have just a king or a knight and a queen.
8) Hemlock is not included in the playable cards section here.
9) I would format that last section in a sort of two column thing. Card name to the left and all the scoring and abilities to the right. No spaces in the horizontal line next to the name.

Hi Ristora,

Is it okay if I bother you with some nitpicks again.

1) I notice that not every section has the same letter size or header formatting. It looks a lot cleaner if the formatting is consistent throughout. Any chance of adding actual bullet points to the list of game components?

2) Since they're listed underneath, I don't think you need the list of gameplay phases. Just call that header gameplay and go ahead by listing each step as it comes up.

3) It looks like point 1 is indented more than the others in that section.

4) Instead of bolding and underlining the titles of the columns in the tables, I think it looks cleaner to only bold and have the titles in a cell on the table as well. (Keep playable and un-playable cards in separate tables though).

Do you know what booklet or document size you intend to use already? Do you want to release on TheGameCrafter are is this heading for game publishers?

If you're not planning on publishing with thegamecrafter, I don't have a template recommendation. The best way to go here is to choose a printer first, then pick the template that goes with whatever they print. I suggest asking Printers Studio if they have a template available if it is possible for them to print a rulebook along with the cards...

P.S. You've got a PM.

From what I've seen in version 2.0, I've noticed some things you could adjust in your game rules.

Before I go on, I just want to establish that people normally go to the rules on two separate occasions: When they are learning the game and when they are referencing the game to clarify the rules.

I know this is fairly obvious and I don't want to sound belittling, but I just want to use this as a platform for my suggestions.

1) Right after your introduction, you should probably talk about any new terms you want to introduce and an explanation of the components including symbols, a card anatomy, and board layout (not setup).

2) Right after your explanation of the components, you should lay out the sequence of play. Don't go into an explanation yet, just let them know how the game is going to flow.

The first two suggestions put the player in a sort of "safe island", where there's nothing demanded of the player yet. In a way, you are letting them "smell" the game and getting their anticipation going to play the game. This will also be a place where a player can easily see the sequence of play and be reminded of how the game is played without having to hunt every part down.

3) The next section should have a very detailed explanation of the sequence of play, step by step. This will be the place your players will read when they are learning the game AND reference during the game to seek out answers to questions. Here is where you would insert the play example, diagrams, and setup as it directly pertains to the detailed explanation of the sequence of play.

Then, at the end, you can put in a glossary of terms and/or variants of play. These can be referenced by the player later on.

This is not something that I'm taking out of my butt. It's called the Case System (developed in 1970) and it was a way of explaining complex war game rules. In addition, you'll notice a lot of board/card game rules have this format.

Hope this helps.