Skip to Content

First version of rules - Untitled game - Abstract Strategy

14 replies [Last post]
Joined: 07/29/2008

This topic has become obsolete as there is a new revision to the rules that is significant enough to deserve it's own thread. Please head over to "Second version of Rules - Quadra - Abstract Strategy" for those rules. The rules have been removed from here in order to not create confusion but may return at a later date. The feedback in this topic is still valued but I will address them in the new thread. Thank you.

The attachment provided below is the third and newest version of the rules for an abstract strategy board game that I have developed. No new additional pictures (yet) but wording has been significantly altered in places in an attempt to bring clarity to the rules. A minor rule change has been added.

Original post text below which may be slightly obsolete.

Here is a new version of the rules for an abstract strategy board game that I have developed. This version now includes pictures for additional clarity of rule concepts. The prior version has been removed as it is now considered obsolete.

It is a 2-player game using a 7x7 grid. Players must complete a 4-piece sequence of the same color without completing 3-piece sequences of any color. The game is untitled because I haven't thought of a name yet; I'm open to suggestions.

All feedback is welcome. Please understand that graphical formatting of the rules itself is a work-in-progress. Thank you.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Thank you for updating the Link/URL to the File

I took a quick look and the format of the rulebook is VERY "presentable". At first glance it seems clear and concise which is great because often times a rulebook becomes harder to write given terms and keywords used in the game.

I'm thinking about some names...

I won't proof the entire rulebook (I hate doing that even for my own games).

But we do have some excellent members who LIKE reviewing rulebooks...

Let's hope they show!


Note #1: I must admit I'm having a hard time following the logic of the game. It's level of play must be more "head-strong" than I am used to... Or perhaps I'm just being dumb and am not understanding either the WIN CONDITION or the METHOD OF PLAY.

The WIN is having FOUR SAME COLORED pieces? (Am I correct?) Obviously with NO 3 piece SEQUENCES...

On PAGE #3, it shows TWO (2) DIAGRAMS:

The one on the LEFT says: "Enough space for a 4-piece sequence." And then...
The one on the RIGHT says: "Not enough space for a 4-piece sequence".

And the only difference is ONE (1) GREEN piece... at (7, 3).


I COLUMN #1 and ROW #6 is BLANK in BOTH diagrams and to ME, I think you could put a GREEN piece there...! And make a FOUR SEQUENCE: G-R-B-B...

Am I understanding correctly??? It's very analytical and I would prefer something EASIER (less thinking) because situations like this ARISE and it's like: "Am I right? Or is there something I don't see or understand correctly?"

Please clarify...!

Cheers mate.

Joined: 07/29/2008
This is a post to denote that

This is a post to denote that a new version of the rules has been created and is in the original post. The old version has been removed due to obsolescence and the original post changed to reflect that. Please note that statements in the second post are obsolete now that the file is hosted natively (this message board) and not from an outside source.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
The name ... I have been thinking about it!

And I came up with:

Quadra Match

(Also please review my Note #1 to see if there MAY be an error on Page 3...)

Why I think the name is COOL... Because you are TRYING to MATCH FOUR... to WIN!

And you are making four colored sequences during the MATCH too (as in Game)...

I checked and BGG doesn't have ANYTHING for THAT NAME... There is ALSO no DOMAIN by the name:

So I think you should buy the domain and worry about it later... I THINK(!) the name is COOL and very SUITABLE for YOUR GAME.

But it's your game mate... You choose what works for you!


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm ... Found another SPOT?!

Column #1 and Row #1 (1, 1): You can play RED, GREEN, or BLUE...

Still unsure about the VICTORY CONDITION... And the exactitude of the diagrams and captions on Page 3...

Correct me what I am wrong and how any of this "makes sense" or NOT???

I might have this A-HA moment (when you explain why either [1, 1] or [1, 6] are not positions you can PLAY a piece in ...)

Sorry... I'm just trying to understand and see if I can HELP you out!


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm going to review more of the rule tomorrow...

But I'm not sure about the whole "MATCH FOUR" to WIN (Victory Condition).

You can maybe simplify the game to become something like a VERY ADVANCED Tic-Tac-Toe game... Where by ALL PLAYERS (there can be from 2 to 4) play SCORING their 4-Way Matches...

Each COLORED piece: Red (1 Point), Green (2 Points) and Blue (3 Points).

You goal is to be the PLAYER with the HIGHEST AMOUNT of POINTS when the number of positions available for a FOURTH (4th) MATCH are none... And the game ends.

Again the player with the HIGHEST SCORE WINS. Not necessarily the player with the most MATCHES.

The NAME "Quadra Match" still applies and makes it even MORE RELEVANT in that the primary goal of the MATCH (Game) is to MATCH FOUR (Quadra)...

Ergo, the name "Quadra Match"...

I'll read more... I know you have something to do with REMOVING MATCHES and such... I just thought that that seemed a bit EVEN MORE "Head-strong".

Right now I'm just trying to see how to SETUP the game... I will READ MORE tomorrow... And share with you whatever I "discover".

Let me know what you think about the NAME, VICTORY CONDITION and so forth...

The GRID is (7 x 7) so what could be useful ... Is SOME SETUP CARDS... I don't know like 18 Cards with different PRE-GAME SETUPS which allows players to go around the board and try to OUT-SCORE their opponents.

Again just IDEAS... You don't need to like any of them. They may just give you another perspective in how you continue working on the game. No pressure, whatever works for YOU!


questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Game play ideas...

The following are some alternate ideas for you to consider. Keep what you like and ignore what you don't like.

#1. Sequence of play dictates that you MUST play four pieces. But you Score by REMOVING pieces.

So if I have 1 Blue... and I play Green, Green, Red... I remove the Blue piece and I score 3 points

#2. The game ends when players can no longer place a Sequence of 4 pieces. Or when there are insufficient pieces

#3. You have pre-set cards with SETUPS of the area of play. This allows for more replayability and provides some kind of reference point.

#4. You MUST play a Sequence of 4... but you may ONLY remove one piece at a time from the area of play.

I will read further tomorrow... And see how complicated the next set of rules are.

Again it's your design... I'm just getting ideas as I read.


Joined: 07/29/2008
Thank you for all of your feedback so far

Thank you for your feedback so far.

I can't address all of your feedback immediately but I can address some of it now.

There appears to be confusion as to what a "winning condition" (my term, admittedly). A winning condition is to create a line of 4 (or more) pieces of the same color, either horizontally, vertically or diagonally WITHOUT having a line of 3 pieces that are all of a same color. I think that part of the confusion is the word "sequence" which I also use to describe what you place down.

You have only two moves: To place down a 4-piece line comprised of varying colors or to move a piece. The winning condition must be a solid color; What you place down is of varied colors.

I am uncertain of what the term "head-strong" means in your context. I don't follow board game terminology closely so I am unfamiliar with that term.

I will address other feedback later and encourage others to have their own feedback. Thank you.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Joined: 02/07/2011

Thanks for posting your rulesheet, Steve.

I think I completely understand the rules of how to play. There are a few places where the rules - and in particular, the diagrams - serve to confuse and seem longer than they need to be. That said, I like how the two players are attentive throughout, and the opponent can win the game on the active player's turn provided they're paying attention to the board.

Maybe this back-and-forth is what questccg is referring to when he mentions "head strong." To me it's a cerebral game that demands the players' attention at all times.

Anyhow, I like it. I have a couple suggestions for you.

It may speed up players' turns if you have small groupings of four pieces set at the start of the game, making sure that each group has at least one tile of each of the three different colours. This may reduce some possibility of "analysis paralysis," and bring players' attention to the board instead of worrying about what colours they'll pick for their sequence.

Think of the "factories" in Azul, and you might understand my suggestion a bit better.

I have a question about the diagrams that indicate the removal of a three- and five-piece sequence simultaneously. This is on page 5. After staring at it for a while the move was made clear to me, but perhaps having some shaded or half-tone tiles, or a glow around newly-placed tiles can help a reader understand at a glance what you're trying to communicate.

Is there an incentive to remove as few pieces as possible? Or as many pieces as possible? I've not played this but I'm certain you have, so I figured you would have some opinions. Spending more time in consideration of five- versus three-piece removal on a turn makes me wonder. This could also be a situational thing, of course.

Keep working on your word-economy, and you'll be able to trim down these rules to fewer pages and more-evocative diagrams. Best of success to you...! :)

Joined: 07/29/2008
More response to Feedback

Quadra Match title: I like it. Buying domain names? As ambitious as I am, my first priority is to create a set of rules that doesn't confuse people.

Scoring: I have played games where you need to keep score and I enjoy some games where you need to keep score. Maybe I'll think about a variant where such score-keeping is necessary but, for now, I really want to focus on communicating clearly the rule set for the current version.

Small clusters of pieces on the board initially: Having solo-playtested this game to the point of a Geneva Convention violation, I can't really find a first-player, second-player bias. I have won games with both types of moves from both players. Does that rule out having pieces added to the game board initially? No. Having this variant might be handy for faster games and I will take a look at that.

Diagrams: The diagrams can be improved and they will be. I was trying to get a second version of the ruleset (the first one with pictures) out as quickly as possible in order to begin the process of feedback. Additional pictures are forthcoming and, hopefully, both the quantity and quality of them will clarify concepts further.

Removal incentives: In playtesting, I have had one 'player' constantly remove pieces in an effort to see how that would stress the game. I found that capriciously removing pieces helps the other player win more often than not. You can use strategic removals to force a player to make a conventional move which would not win a game on that turn as opposed to moving a single piece that would or vice versa. I had two 'very strategic' player simulations and, the bottom line is-- Be careful when removing pieces because you may be occasionally surprised at what opens up and allows your opponent to win on the very next turn. It really is challenging to "see the whole board" at times and this invites sudden victories.

I'd like to thank everyone so far concerning the feedback. A third version of the rules is forthcoming.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
No worries...

I was just suggesting IF (and it's YOUR game) you want there to be SCORING, that could CHANGE the "Victory Condition" which is even by your OWN admission easier to do when "removing" pieces.

So IF you do something like the following (and just bare with me):

1> You PLAY THREE (3) pieces and ONE (1) in-play to make a Sequence of FOUR.

2> The only piece in-play is REMOVED from play after a match.

3> You SCORE based on the color of the piece that was removed.

4> You COLLECT pieces to ensure that at the end (when it is NOT possible to MATCH any more Sequences) ... You can manage to compute your SCORE.

5> The player with the HIGHEST SCORE Wins. This means that the game can be 2 to 4 players.

This is just because even by your OWN "admission" removing pieces makes it risky in that the opponent can match FOUR more easily. Again these are JUST IDEAS. I am fully aware that it's YOUR Game... But IF you would want to change the GOAL a bit (Victory Condition) and make it Point Scoring... Well then a couple things happen:

A> The GOAL on each turn is to REMOVE a piece and SCORE points.

B> You do so by MATCHING 4-Sequences (3 colors pieces get added) and one (1) piece is removed (1 = Red, 2 = Green, 3 = Blue) For example!

C> You CANNOT WIN by "matching four of the same".

This is just MY opinion. In that I would TRY to simplify the game a little. Sure it may play a bit more like "GO" (The Chinese game) but in "GO" you only have Black & White pieces and the scoring is identical.

A few things happen with this way of thinking (or playing). The game is a bit more SIMPLE and more FOCUSED on MATCHING FOUR Sequences.

So you PLAY 3 pieces and REMOVE 1 (to SCORE POINTS).

I'd TRY this and you can use PRESET SETUPS as I mentioned and you seem to believe that this could SPEED-UP play a bit... I just suggested it because it could be interesting to VARY the game and make games DIFFERENT from each other given starting pieces in-play.

I realize that it's YOUR game. I'm just suggesting what you could TRY. To streamline the game a bit. Because you are CORRECT (and what "@let-off studios" explained), what I meant by "head-strong" means that it requires a HIGH amount of concentration... And that also means that SOME of the Diagrams are a bit MISLEADING in that there MAY be move(s) left over... etc.

Work on your rulebook and the diagrams and get it so that WE CAN understand all the different aspects PER TURN and how to WIN!

I'm just saying if you find it hard to document... You can TRY stuff and still have a game which is FUN and ABSTRACT.


Note #1: And I wanted to EXPLAIN that MATCHING will allow you to take the game to as much as 4-Players. The MATCHING of FOUR may make it hard to stop a WIN (in your version). Like when to STOP matching and focus on MOVING and/or a Victory Sequence...?!

Again no worries if you want to keep the EXISTING Victory Condition... I just wanted to describe another METHOD of WINNING and PLAYING which is a bit more "streamlined".

Maybe just give it a TRY and SEE if it works or not. And is it more FUN because it is SIMPLER and makes the game a bit TIGHTER.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
There is only ONE (1) Drawback ...

And that is that you NEED to have a PRESET board WITH pieces to START WITH.

How many and so forth is debatable.

But you can't go with EMPTY because you NEED the 3 + 1: (Red, Green, Blue) + 1.

Three (3) to ADD and One (1) in-play to be REMOVED and used for SCORING.

This SIMPLE "technique" of playing FOUR (4) pieces per term still lives up to the spirit of "Quadra Match" ... Because that's what you're doing: playing and matching FOUR (4) pieces.

Just wanted to explain this... Because it's not a reason to SPEED UP the game... But it is a REQUIREMENT to allow for there to be some INITIAL plays when more pieces get added making there more possibilities to MATCH!


Joined: 07/29/2008
Third version of Rules

This is a post to denote a third version of the rules. Additions include altered text in an effort to create clarity where some confusion exists (what is a winning condition, etc.). There is a minor rule change that, potentially, gives the player a bit more freedom in moving a piece. There are no additional pictures yet.

All feedback is welcome. Please understand that graphical formatting of the rules itself is a work-in-progress. Thank you.

questccg's picture
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just to explain a bit better...

@Steve... take your time, nobody is going anywhere. It's better that you rework all the rules (and that includes the diagrams too...) I'm not saying this to prevent people from reviewing the rules... but... it would be easier if you updated "everything" so it would be easier to proof... Know what I mean???

Like they say a picture says a 1,000 words.

If people want to review the 3rd version that's okay too... but if the diagrams are misleading... it may cause more confusion and make it harder to proof.

Just be aware of this fact.

Cheers all!

Joined: 07/29/2008
I continue to work on the

I continue to work on the game although I've taken a step back from it to work on other projects.

Changes/Progress made:

** Swapped green pieces for yellow ones due to recommendation.
** Game board will be light gray with black dots (to be reflected in future pictures).
** Game pieces are slightly different shapes based upon color to aid those who are colorblind or otherwise sight-impaired.
** Continuing to pare down instructions in light of feedback from here and playtesting.
** Looking into various manufacturing technologies to see what might work best for a really good prototype (although I haven't done a lot in this area due to time constraints).

That's it for now; Thank you to everyone for your feedback.

Syndicate content

forum | by Dr. Radut