Guards of Atlantis is funded! Wohooo!

The only thing that kinda bugged me is that "MOBA" wasn't defined. This is a game that's supposed to be catering to both the MOBA and the board game groups, but you can't assume that all board game people know what MOBA means. Even if it's a lower-thirds title at the bottom of the screen.

The video is concise, the goals and presentation look sharp, and the page is clean. Having BGB on board means it will probably have regular mentions on Dice Tower. It's a lot easier to read than last time.

I think it's great. Good luck man!

I'd say both in the "about project" section and in the video. I was thinking about the video, but many may not watch the vid, so it would be better to cover all the bases.

On first glance, the only issues I see are;

- Product images look washed out, except for the cards in the foreground of your setup picture. Is there a reason for this? The rest of your images are bold and look fantastic.

-The "Shipping" section isn't very clear for a backer. I don't know about others but I really like to know the full cost going into backing a Kickstarter. The rather nebulous "Shipping will be charged after the Kickstarter concludes based on the actual costs incurred to ship" could mean anything!

-In Risks and CHallenges "we have more than a hundred of hero cards in total" should maybe read "we have more than a hundred hero cards in total" (drop the "of")

I like that there are only 2 reward tiers, and they are for exactly the same thing. The $10 discount for 600 (!!) earlybirds is not game breaking, especially with such a high number of spots available.

Having the rules downloadable is excellent

The add ons could probably be described better ..

I've clicked to be reminded when this one goes live!

I love the elegant way you guys managed to transfer MOBA mechanics to a board game (the leveling and the focus on having to push the minions are especially nice), but my one concern as a potential customer is champion balance: The 14 minute in-depth video didn't talk about this much (in fact, the only real commentary I got from it beyond the helpful mechanical overview was "I liked it, and if you like these genres you will too"), and I wish it did because the fear that some specific champion or strategy might be unbalanced and then make the game unfun is my biggest concern, especially because the miniatures make the game a high priced investment. If you could find a way to include some more discussion of the champion balance (a link to design blog like Secret Hitler did recently; some mention of the extent of play testing), that would do much to answer my worries; right now I can't be sure that I trust champion/strategy balance because I'm not sure how the balancing of it all works.

For any project, I recommend Googling all of your central names. Chemshay seems alright. The closest I can come to a criticism is that it sounds like sashay. Swift works better than Swallow. It's a shame, but outside of bird watchers and ornithologists, few Americans reflexively associate the word "swallow" with birds. Thanks to Monty Python, a lot of gamers think of them in comical terms, so I'm sure someone would wonder if Swallow the Sniper is a ladened or unladened sniper, African or European? Is he carrying any coconuts?

You can .. but most people (for whatever reason) won't unless it's there in front of them.

Add it in! Always, always have a $1 pledge level.

It's hard not to pull a Heston when you are marketing globally. After all, an entire chain of Mexican restaurants was somehow named after the Mexican vulgate for a woman's breasts (unlike Hooters, which delivers on its double entendre).

Congratulations on your impressive funding progress!

By the way, HEY! I just noticed you are from Latvia! My mother is from Latvia. She emigrated as a child with her parents to the U.S. after WWII. I have distant relations in Riga still and have always wanted to visit.

Elkbold,

I went ahead and reviewed the rulebook. It seems like a really interesting game. I thought I would give you some feedback so maybe you can improve it.

By the way, I am assuming you are not a native speaker? Is that correct? From this thread it seems you are from Latvia. The reason I ask, is that I do think the grammar and English in some places can be slightly improved. I would encourage you maybe to find someone who can proof read the English and grammar a little more just to make it a little clearer. From my comments, I think you can a gist of what I mean.

Page 1
------
1. The first page of the rule picture showing the board, board game box, and rules look a little washed out.
2. Typically a rules book shows a list of components which you don't have.
3. I would consider putting some disclaimer in the rules to indicate this is a version 0 or work in progress rules version.

Page 2
------
This is a nice summary of the basics of the game. It would be neat to have some thematic description so as to ignite a player's imagination as to why these two sides are fighting. For example, "Set in a dying world, two sides have come together to duel to the death to become the ultimate overloads of the universe." I think you get the idea.

Page 3
-------
1. Usually there is a big picture showing the overall board layout. Might be helpful here.
2. I was confused how one knows what a hero is. Is it a card or a miniature? Also if a hero is a card, is there a icon on the card on it? Just an extra bit of information in rules can maybe clarify this.
3. How do you know that all five Tier 1 cards are for his/her hero. Is it because of matching pictures? Some clear explanation here might help.
4. The sentence that has "The logo on the card back . . ." has the misspelt word, "depictng."
5. Do not like the name "Fat" minion. I just think avoiding any descriptions doing with weight is a good idea. Why not jazz it up a bit and use "elite" or "master" or "boss" minion?

Page 4
-------
1. The word "corresponding" is broken over two lines. When doing this, it is required that you place a "-" after the first syllable as in "cor-"
2. Not clear when the rule states, "When it's you initiative," is it referring to the card with the initiative of the controlling player? I would consider rewording this as it sounds that maybe players have initiatives besides cards. Maybe it is better to just say, "The player with the card with the highest initiative chooses one of the available actions and resolves it."
3. I am not so sure the usage of "-" in regards to minions is used correctly. Dashes are used to set off loosely related comments and sudden breaks in thought. This does not seem to be the case here. I would just say here, "Resolve minion combat by removing . . ."

Page 5
------
1. Instead of having paragraphs separated with the convention, "Action:[action]", why not just have a larger header called, "Action" and then a smaller header for each action which would consist of a subsection. Under the general action header state here the key rule that applies to all actions, "You may only resolve one action from the card you've played."
2. For the regular move action, you mention a mountain space and a water space. I would try to make it explicit here what a mountain and water space is by describing it briefly (a grey space) or have a separate picture explicitly identifying it.
3. I would also mention that one cannot move a figure off the board.
4. The sentence, "a hero may fast travel" does not sound like good English. Also if you are going to use "fast travel" please capitalize it to "Fast Travel." A "Travel Fast" action sounds better.
5. My understanding that the "Fast Travel" action has to do with areas. It would be nice to show a picture with each of the different areas highlighted.
6. I think instead of "Fast Travel" action, why not just call it "Area Movement." That essentially is what is is. So you have "Regular Movement" and "Area Movement."
7. I am a little confused here. There appears to be Skill actions and Attack actions. However, there is a rule about Skills and Attacks under the Skill action which talks about a range and radius. If this rule is for *both* Skills and Attacks I would place under a new general "Skills and Attacks" section or a side bar rule as has been done through out the rule book.
8. I cannot really see in the card pictures the text or numbers clearly. Is it possible to expand the card size picture so as to better see the information?
9. The definition of "ongoing" appears to be just floating there and does not really seem to have anything with actions or attacks. If so why not say, "Any action or skill can be ongoing . . ."

Page 6
------
1. Please capitalize Ranged. The sentence should be, "Attacks can be Melee or Ranged."
2. As for ranged attacks it is not made clear whether you can use a ranged attack to attack an adjacent target.
3. All of a sudden now a hold card is talked about. Can you instead have a "hold" action like the regular movement action and specify can only be initiated when a hold card is played? That way it makes it consistent.
4. Again instead of having a "Reaction:Defense" have a "Reaction" section with a subsection on "Defense."
5. Sentence says, "and only from the player's hand." Can make it more explicit. Is it the *opposing* player's hand?

Page 7
------
1. The "Pushing the Lane" just does not sound right. A lane is usually a narrow corridor or something. I think you should have something more like pushing the "area."
2. Has the "Throne" been defined and explicitly pointed to on the board?

Page 9
------
1. Do you want to mention explicitly on page 4 for end of round that you gain one coin? This is what is sounds like happens. If so, the overall structure needs to mention this.

Page 10
-------
In FAQ, be consistent and capitalize "Throne."

I think everything is there. Just a little clean up of the English and a couple of places to make it more explicit should help greatly in rule clarity and readability.

Thanks,

--DarkDream