Battle Bash - how to make it more interesting?

Nice job. Here are some general comments and questions for your consideration.

1) Substitute "letters" (i.e., letter cards) for something more thematic. Represent the theme with icons. For example...you could use the elements, or the seasons...and have logical iconography to aid in gameplay and resolution. Similarly, you probably want to spruce up the terminology to suit the theme--e.g., instead o "Pre-Action Phase" maybe something like "Energize Phase" or simply "Power Phase." You probably already thought of this for the future.

2) I like the blind decision action. It's got that Rock-Paper-Scissors feel which is familiar, plays fast, and still feels like combat. But R-P-S is best when random, and no player acts randomly. I think there is more to do here...I explain furhter below.

How may of each DICE (attack and grab) are there per player? My only thought is that if you have special dice per character, you could end up with a lot of dice. This is maybe where you standard your dice with icons, but relate your results more specifically to the character...in other words a result of "4" (or a "lightning bolt") is not the same for one character to the next. Only the player knows the power per result. Do you even need the dice if the card mechanics work out well enough? Also, I note that you call out "Attack" and "Grab" dice but then also "Speed" dice. Clarify.

3) How are you keeping track of VPs/scoring to know who gets to their VP target first? Is there a track or something? It also seems like you need a scoring pile separate from the letter cards for use in combat. Also, does anything work to set opponent's VP backwards (lose VP)?

4) It seems to me that some player information you make known should remain hidden or otherwise unknown. Is the player's character card exposed? If so, I think you should consider dividing up some power to give some depth and replayability to each character. Think Smallworld and how the race and power go together...but keep one aspect unknown until you activate it.

5) Help me understand the Letter Cards. I am fuzzy on how they really play out. The letter cards are played face up? There is only one showing at any time, right? First, I don't like drawing a single card and adding it to the top of the pile. No choice there. I would rather create a card drafting mechanic out of the Letter Cards. Then use my Decision cards as part of that drafting mechanism.

This is partly because I feel that they contain VP, attack and hit information, which could be a giveaway to either player's strategy depending on the two cards showing? I couldn't tell from the description, but I thought, for example, "why would I expose that my future action is worth 2 hits and 3 VP?" If there is only 1 card, then my potential strategy is easier to spot. However, if you like face up I feel that it would be better to see an array of results. In other words, keep the results of the DECISION cards strictly to the LETTER cards but apply my DECISION to only one of them in the array. Maybe that would make it more interesting. Some suggested ideas:
- Each "letter card" shows three possible results, one result for each of the 3 possible decisions played. So the other player sees my array of choices, but really doesn't know if I am going for the Block on Card A vs the Grab on Card B, etc. Maybe the Block on A has more VP, but the Grab on B discards more opponent's cards. I think there is suspense if I know which card they are going after, but not exactly which result. For example, I go for Card B which says: ATTACK - Gain 3 VP; BLOCK - Opponent loses 2 VP; GRAB- take top card from Opponent's Scoring Pile.

Now let's take that another step by laying out more than one card to choose from. Let's say 3 letter cards--A, B, C (ignore having a D card for now). Now if each ATTACK, BLOCK, and GRAB result is different, this arrangement gives a player 9 choices rather than 3. You can still apply the same original mechanic, but the choices feel like I have more to do. The results are simply how you which to play off the other aspects of the game.

Another way would be to play the cards head-to-head. Each player deals out an A, a B and a C card. Each player then plays a DECISION on each card--ATTACK, BLOCK, or GRAB. Resolve the cards in order. Again...you have 9 choices total, but you decide 3 times rather than just once. There is more player interaction either way. I think that would help with fixing the "boring" you said. Also, you might not even need the dice in this case.

If you can use a common set of card that you deal out you can make each character's deck thematically/mechanically unique.

I think you could abandon some of the preset VP awards for more interaction based on the card results. If you keep the preprogrammed VP results, it seems like Blocking could do more to be more interesting or at least more rewarding, unless of course you both block at the same time--which is boring.

Lastly, why play VP each round, but then make winning depending on rounds? Why not simply VP? Does something "reset" with each round? Just the cards?

Wow! Your game got me really thinking! Good luck! I look forward to the next iteration.

Having the letter cards face-up is okay, you just don't want to give up strategy if the information is known. Also, depending on the mechanics, decide if you need the added mechanic of tie-breaking.

Just to clarify my examples in the earlier post. First, let's assume each Letter card can resolve 3 ways, based on the 3 decisions. Using 3 letter cards (A,B,and C) face-up as you would like, you could place either 1 of the decision cards on one of those letter cards which gives 3 Letter card choices x 3 Decision choices = 9 choices to compare. That is reasonable set of choices each turn. The other alternative example I proposed was use all 3 of your decision cards...one on each of the 3 letter cards. So you Attack with one letter card, Block with another, and Grab with another. You can add dimension to this mechanic by decided how they resolve...attacker vs defender goes first? Or Attacks first, Blocks second, Grabs third? or A, then B, then C? Lots of ways to work this. Also, I like the simplicity of your hand being only 3 cards--the Decisions. But the letter cards might be their own deck(s) which you draft and then make the decision(s) on. I don't think you need a "hand of cards."

I wasn't proposing that you don't have character selection. I was suggesting that you consider a way to keep character from being static.

I think knowing your opponents cards is okay...just as long as they really cannot tell what your decision will be. Just be carefull you are not making something akin to "deck building." I thought your concept was more original than that.

Good luck!

Wow you have changed this a lot. Before it was very similar to a game design Im working on, not anymore! I think I see where you're going with the pile. I had an idea for a game where players have rps like cards in hand, each turn players simultaneously select there action, the winner leaves there card face up in play as momentum, the loser takes there card back to their hand. In this way, the winner has less options next round, but potentially a boost from the momentum.
I could see you doing the reverse of this. What if your letter cards were in your hand and used as your move type. Whenever you won a round, the letter card is added to your pile. So the more you win, the more obvious your strategy, but you have stronger abilities and potential.