Skip to Content
 

Rules feedback needed - Watch Out, Grenade!

11 replies [Last post]
sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015

Please have a look at my rulebook for my new game project, Watch Out, Grenade!

It's a fast-paced card game for 2-6 players in which players throw grenades at each other. Molotov Cocktails, Mortars and C-4 are also attending the party. Chain explosions are a common occurrence too. Players can build walls to protect themselves and use special weapons like a Laser Defence System that shoots grenades out of the sky.

I would love your feedback: does the game look fun to you? Are the rules clear? Is there anything that does not make any sense?

I have started play-testing and I refine my prototype as I try to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Thanks!

EDIT: I updated the rulebook based on comments I received here. The link above is to the new version, which is much shorter!

A listing of the cards in the game is available.

tuscansun
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2015
Neat concept! I like the fact

Neat concept! I like the fact that you're trying to blow each other up and that's kind of it. That being said, I'm not too hype about the rules. Keep in mind this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to trash your game I promise. It'll likely sound like that. I just want to be honest. Also I felt baited and switched by the rules a little, which will make more sense later ( because I read all of this over and it sounds bad, sorry :/ ).

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but you have to play an explosion card on an explosive before it can go off, right? Because there's only 10 of them in the 127 card deck. And I can throw cards 31 times? Am I just reading this wrong or do they go off when thrown? Because if not then the game becomes a lot less "hooray I'm throwing explosives" and more "well I guess I gotta wait for my turn to draw from the deck again to maybe get some stuff to happen."

It seems like it's not super fast paced from what I read. I'm probably wrong, and you know better than I do obviously. I feel like there's a lot of arbitrary rules standing in between me and throwing grenades at my friends. I'm sure it's all carefully balanced and that. But it feels TOO carefully balanced. Like there's a counter to a counter in most instances. And that's the only purpose that one card serves.

I thought I was going to get something different about two pages into the rules. I thought it might have been "throw grenades, stop grenades being thrown at you by putting up a wall, grenades are thrown at walls to knock them down, dud cards are played to stop explosions from hurting me." Instead it feels like I have to work REALLY hard to earn and throw and defend and diffuse. Then a couple hit points go down. I felt like "there's a lot of numbers involved that don't need to be. I came here to blow stuff up! I wanna see the boom!"

Also (and this is just kinda nit picky and unfair and I realize that so the grain of salt you take this with should be LARGE) I didn't feel connected to it at all. Like after all the wrong wires and strength of throws I didn't really care that I was blowing up my friend. Also the fact that I'm throwing a grenade at a person and not killing them immediately feels unreal and not like something that would ever happen. And yes I'm aware it's just a card game, but still. I wanted to see each player have like a puppy orphanage card in front of them they were trying to save from grenades. Or something really worth saving like that. Not that I have no self-preservation, but I might be more inclined to defend my own pups in that case and convince myself that my friend's pony hospital is actually run by Nazi equine doctors (don't stop me I'm already too far). I want to connect on the right scale and the right emotions. People who are just my friends that don't die in big explosions seems unreal and it pulls me out of it.

I'm mostly just a little irked at the fact that I feel like these rules are limiting me arbitrarily. I want them to feel like they're empowering me, if that makes sense. Or have a common sense reason for existing. Like I came here to make grenades explode on my friend's face, not count strength numbers to see if my wall covering was destroyed by the chain explosion.

Maybe it's the theme? I'm totally spitballing now so bear with me. Like grenades and explosions promise me a game, subconsciously, that I want to play in 10 minutes, not think too hard about, explode some stuff, then be kinda mad but happy when I lose because I threw mad stick grenades at my friend's face and almost won. If your game was about staving off infection in your city and the best way to do it was to put up walls and increase the spread to everyone else, I'd have little complaint. But suddenly I feel cheated and bait and switched? Which is extreme but my expectations were defeated. I don't want future potential customers to do the same thing. Because then it's bad reviews and bargain bins.

So in conclusion, I feel like I was hit over the head with disabling rules that made me feel powerless. I was seeing too many numbers and types of cards, rather than actual grenades. And I didn't actually FEEL like I was blowing up my friends, so I didn't really care.

You have something here. Everything is going very well for you right now. Hopefully you see that everything works perfectly while play testing and I'm wrong about it all. Or hopefully you see that there are cards that can be cut. Or hopefully you see that the game has a flaw in mechanics. My ONLY hope that the game keeps telling you what it needs above all else. And that you won't be afraid to fail. And you won't be afraid to succeed.

The end.

Nazi horse doctors.

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Steamline

My first impression was similar to Tuscansun: Cool, a game where I get to throw grenades at my friends. This is going to be fun.

By the time I got through to page 14 of 19 my enthusiasm had diminished to almost nothing. If I have to read 19 pages of rules to play a "fast paced" game, there's something intrinsically wrong. This is the kind of game that should fit onto 1 double-sided piece of paper and I can explain the rules in the same amount of time that it takes to shuffle the deck.

So, my feedback in dot points:

Good stuff:
- Grenades.
- Chain explosions.
- Lasers.
- Walls.
- Mortars.

Bad stuff:
- Different values of Throw. If you want to keep this mechanic, just make a throw a throw.
- Different heights of Wall. A wall should be a wall, and that's it.
- Different types/strengths of Wall. In a game about tossing grenades and setting off chain explosions, I don't want to be dealing with strength ratings on walls vs damage ratings on the secondary blast radius. It's enough that walls block grenades, C4 destroys walls, mortars shoot over walls.
- Different damages, primary and secondary blast radius. Make a basic grenade do 1 damage. A super grenade does 2 damage. That's it.
- 20 hit points. The method of counting HP is clunky, and unnecessary. Give players 4 or some other small number of life cards (representing health, or kittens, or layers of unobtainium plating), and each time they take a hit they lose 1 life card.

So overall, I'd make one of the following recommendations depending on what your core attraction to the game is:
- If the key thing is the theme, then do a major simplification and cut out everything that doesn't need to be there.
- If the key thing is the mechanics, then change the theme.

Regards,
kos

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
Thanks for your thorough

Thanks for your thorough analysis Tucsansun, it's very generous of you.

I have to come to terms with your main point: the rules do not deliver the game that the tagline promises. Players will be put off by such a thick rulebook considering it's supposed to be a light game about explosions.

In wanting to add depth to the game I ended up over-complicating it. The variety should not come from the number of mechanics, but rather from the absurd cards with silly art you draw every turn. So that will be my next step: cut the fat.

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, but you have to play an explosion card on an explosive before it can go off, right? Because there's only 10 of them in the 127 card deck. And I can throw cards 31 times? Am I just reading this wrong or do they go off when thrown?

Just to be clear regarding grenades, throw and explode cards:

- there are a lot of throw cards because you need to combine more of them to throw a single grenade over a wall. Exceptions: stick grenades require no throw cards.
- grenades do not explode on impact (except for the Molotov Cocktail). They stay where they fall for now.
- an explode card is used to detonate a grenade. The reason explode cards are so rare is to allow grenades to accumulate in the play area. Then when somebody plays one: CHAIN EXPLOSION! And if you don't draw an explode card to detonate your own grenade, another player probably will. The way grenades accumulate around players is one of the key components of the game; it generates suspense and excitement.

But it feels TOO carefully balanced. Like there's a counter to a counter in most instances.

I've made sure that the counter cards are rare. So when you attack another player, there is a small possibility he will counter but he probably won't.

I felt like "there's a lot of numbers involved that don't need to be.

Agreed. Can you believe the math used to be even more complicated?

In his comment below yours, kos suggested to get rid of height and strength values for walls. I think he's on to something. I could do this.

- a grenade can be thrown by itself (no throw card)
- there is only one type of Wall and no Wall modifiers
- a grenade played alone cannot be thrown over a wall
- a grenade played with a throw card (rare) will go over a wall
- when an explosion occurs next to wall, damage is absorbed but the wall gets destroyed

So no need to compare throw power vs. wall height or explosion damage vs. wall strength. And with that simplification, I could probably cut the rule-book by half.

I got a suggestion from a user on Reddit. Rather than using Explode cards, use counters on the grenades instead. A typical grenade might say: "explodes in 3 turns". So you put 3 counters on it and take one off every turn. When you remove the last one: BOOM!

I'm totally spitballing now so bear with me. Like grenades and explosions promise me a game, subconsciously, that I want to play in 10 minutes, not think too hard about, explode some stuff, then be kinda mad but happy when I lose because I threw mad stick grenades at my friend's face and almost won.

Overall, I do need to embrace the theme, make it more outrageously fun, rather than forcing too many mechanics in it. It needs to play in 10 minutes or less, and players should want to play another one, then another one. But I don't want the game to be completely mindless either. It's hard to strike that balance!

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
Thanks for reading and

Thanks for reading and commenting kos, it's really appreciated.

If I have to read 19 pages of rules to play a "fast paced" game, there's something intrinsically wrong.

You are absolutely right, the rules should be much, MUCH shorter. Too much fat, not enough stuff blowing up. As I explained to Tuscansun above, I tried to add depth to the game, but ended up stuffing too many mechanics in what should be a simple "Take That!" game.

Though play-testing is really where I can see what works and what doesn't, if players get turned off by looking at the rulebook, then there is something inherently broken with my game.

I did address some of your suggestions above. Here is what I think I should do:

A wall should be a wall, and that's it
AGREED. No height/strength values, no wall modifier cards. A wall blocks grenades from being thrown in your area and it protects you from damage coming from outside (but gets destroyed in the process). No more numbers to compare.

Just make a throw a throw
AGREED. You should be able to toss a grenade without a throw card anyway. But if you want to toss it over a wall, you have to use a throw card. There is no power value on a throw card.

Different damages, primary and secondary blast radius
I still love the idea that a grenade might hurt more than one player. I like that trying to blow up an adjacent player is going to hurt me too. I'm not sure how I can keep that simple however.

20 hit points. The method of counting HP is clunky, and unnecessary. Give players 4 or some other small number of life cards (representing health, or kittens, or layers of unobtainium plating), and each time they take a hit they lose 1 life card
AGREED. That's more elegant than using my Hit Point cards. Playtesting will determine how many points players should get, but yes, you are on to something. Maybe players could leave their Health cards in a pile so it's not obvious how many points they have left?

Next up: playtesting a simpler version of the game and see how it goes.

Thanks.

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
Rulebook update

I rewrote the rules according to the comments I received here. The new rule-book is much shorter (it went from 3500 words to 2100). The rules are simpler, there is no longer any math involved. I hope to playtest this version soon.

Link to the rulebook

Stajin Imaizumi
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
I cannot agree more with the

I cannot agree more with the other two posts. You've got something here. After reading the 'Overview' paragraph I was ready to shell out $10 for the deck of cards. However, upon further reading, my enthusiasm waned. And come to find out, I read the trimmed version.

(These comments are coming from a quick, parital read of the rules. So here are a couple of my first impressions. I'll be back soon, to add some stuff after I take a closer look.)

I am an English Teacher so forgive me a bit. If you keep this name, change the punctuation to 'Watch Out! Grenade!' What you have now is a half-hearted exclamation to a person possibly named, 'Grenade'. The complete sentences of your title are: (You)watch out! It's a Grenade!

That being said. I suggest a name change to something like 'INCOMING!' I am not a solider, however, I didn't feel that 'Watch out,' conveyed any urgency or transported me to a field of battle. Here is an interesting post I found following my first quick reading of your rules.

http://www.quora.com/In-combat-do-trained-soldiers-really-do-all-the-yel...

I'm not sure why you chose the youngest player to start. Like a previous post noted, it sounds like an arbitrary rule. Why is this important? You want a quick ten minute playing time, so players will probably play two or three times consecutively in one session. I am part of an avid group of gamers who play very often. We often mix a light game with longer heavier games. The lighter, ten-minute games are usually played two or three times per session in the span of an hour. We would immediately discard your first player rule with our own: like 'the dealer plays first'.

I think you can trim a lot from your rules without losing the complexity you want. (More about this soon.) One trim you can make is lose the graphics about wall placement and over complicated explanations of "players' zones" with an easy one line explanation. "Walls can be built and placed between players." Tell me if I'm wrong, this explains it all and there's no need for two graphics or complex explanations.

Stajin Imaizumi
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
Some Questions

Before I pass on some suggestions, let me ask a few questions where I found problems and if you don't decide to take any of my further suggestions, then my questions should help you make a better game.

In which situation will a player have more cards than the hand limit? If a player starts with five cards, then plays some cards and at the start of his/her next turn the player draws a card, does the player have to wait five rounds in order to have some cards. So, player A plays the String Grenade on player B and player B discards his/her entire hand. Then at the start of Player B's next turn, player B draws one card and only plays with one card?

Why in a four-player game are the players only limited to a four-card hand?

Why do you have bounce cards when you have throw cards? If you keep the bounce, can a player throw a grenade back if the player has a throw card?

If player A has c4 and player B doesn't have a wall between them, can player A use the c4 to blow up health? Why not?

Do you even have Mortar Rounds? They're not mentioned anywhere. Why can't a player throw a Mortar round like the characters in the movie 'Saving Private Ryan'?

If I'm trying to win the game as the last player standing, why would I use my LDS to destroy any grenade not thrown at me? If a grenade or any explosive device not targeted at me can 'do damage' to me or my defenses, why can't I use my LDS to destroy that explosive device?

You've got the foundation for an exciting game, with some inherent complexity making for interesting decisions and varied
strategies. You don't need to over-complicate it. Let me know if you would like some of the rules suggestions that I have for you.

Keep Gaming

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
Stajin, I would definitely be

Stajin, I would definitely be open to your rule suggestions. As for your questions:

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
In which situation will a player have more cards than the hand limit?

In the early rounds, players might be wary of attacking (they don't want to become the main target). The hand limit is to keep them from hoarding cards.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Why in a four-player game are the players only limited to a four-card hand?

In a 2-player game, if I throw a grenade, I'll need to use an explode card to detonate it. In a 4-player game, it's possible that another player has the Explode card and will make my grenade explode. In a 4-player game, I'm less likely to need to combine a grenade with a Throw card, as there is probably an area unprotected by a wall somewhere.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Why do you have bounce cards when you have throw cards? If you keep the bounce, can a player throw a grenade back if the player has a throw card?

A throw card is used to play a grenade from your hand over a wall, on your turn. You can't use it on a grenade that is already in play. I'm afraid it would make it too easy to get rid of a grenade.

You can use bounce any grenade when it is being played, whether it was tossed with a throw card or not. Bounce cards are rare, so it does not happen often, but a player must be aware that it could happen. I might choose to throw a grenade at a player with no cards, rather than one with a full hand, just in case.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
If player A has c4 and player B doesn't have a wall between them, can player A use the c4 to blow up health? Why not?

C-4 can only be played on a wall. My thinking is that you could walk up stealthily to a wall and stick C-4 on it, but you could not get close enough to the player to place it next to him.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Do you even have Mortar Rounds? They're not mentioned anywhere. Why can't a player throw a Mortar round like the characters in the movie 'Saving Private Ryan'?

There are no Mortar Round cards. You must discard a card from your hand to shoot the Mortar.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
If I'm trying to win the game as the last player standing, why would I use my LDS to destroy any grenade not thrown at me? If a grenade or any explosive device not targeted at me can 'do damage' to me or my defenses, why can't I use my LDS to destroy that explosive device?

A grenade thrown at my left neighbour might be a threat to me if I have no wall on that side. But the LDS can only shoot grenades that get close enough. It cannot lock on to grenades that are thrown far away from my zone.

Stajin Imaizumi
Offline
Joined: 01/30/2015
Design POV

Hey.

Over the weekend, I realized that this game is similar to a game named 'Bang'. Are you familiar with it? Moreover, I mentioned
your idea of this game to my gaming group this weekend and one of them said it sounded very similar to another 'grenade'/'tank' game that he has heard of. We are going to find the name of that game and pass it on to you.

You misunderstood the direction of my a questions a bit, because I was coming more from a design point of view than a lack of understanding the rules or lack of understanding strategies. However, I believe my questions are going to be questions you will have to address over and over again if the rules remain unchanged.

The first question, I didn't ask you 'why' players have a hand limit. My question is when do players draw more than 1 card?
I didn't see when players draw more than 1 card in the rules. What I read is that if player A plays more than 1 card on his/her turn and then next turn only draws one card, then players would not have a hand over the hand limit unless the player took no actions for five rounds. Personally, I don't want to play a game where players do nothing for 5 rounds. So, your #3 in the 'Turn Overview' seems useless.

Now speaking of your #3 in Turn Overview, here's the way I read it, 'if I have 8 cards in my hand, then I discard 1 card.'

Which leads me to your answer of my first questions, 'attack' is the only action within the game. Do players want to play an
attack game and not attack? Remember the comment from Tuscansun? Players playing your game 'wanna blow shit up'!

As for the rest of the questions, revisit and imagine that I am asking from a design perspective and not a lack of understanding perspective.

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
Thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments Stajin, I really appreciate the time you take to discuss this game.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Over the weekend, I realized that this game is similar to a game named 'Bang'. Are you familiar with it?

I wasn't aware of Bang!, so thanks for pointing it out. From a quick reading of the rules, there are indeed similarities in mechanics. I am not surprised though. For any new idea for a game anyone comes up with, there is bound to exist something somewhat similar. At least the theme of my game is different from Bang's and I feel the mechanics are different enough for it to stand on its own. Still, I will keep that in mind from now on.

Initially, I did try to find out if there were any other grenade tossing games and I found none. There are a lot of military games with grenades in them, but it tends to be a minor part of those games.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
You misunderstood the direction of my a questions a bit, because I was coming more from a design point of view than a lack of understanding the rules or lack of understanding strategies. However, I believe my questions are going to be questions you will have to address over and over again if the rules remain unchanged.

I tried to address some of my design justifications, but maybe I was too brief so here is more about some of theses questions:

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Do you even have Mortar Rounds? They're not mentioned anywhere. Why can't a player throw a Mortar round like the characters in the movie 'Saving Private Ryan'?

If the Mortar requires Mortar Round cards, which I did consider early on, then it's only useful if there are enough Mortar Round cards in the deck. But then, the deck would be diluted with Mortar Rounds that are only useful to a player with the Mortar. And the Mortar is rare because it is powerful. Now, I could allow you to throw Mortar Rounds, but that would turn Mortar Rounds into Grenades with another name. I already have a Grenade Launcher that uses Grenades, so I don't want another weapon that works the same way. I designed the Mortar to have a different ability, that comes at a different cost (discarding a card). I'd rather get rid of the Mortar if it's problematic than add rounds to the deck.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
I'm not sure why you chose the youngest player to start. Like a previous post noted, it sounds like an arbitrary rule. Why is this important? You want a quick ten minute playing time, so players will probably play two or three times consecutively in one session. I am part of an avid group of gamers who play very often. We often mix a light game with longer heavier games. The lighter, ten-minute games are usually played two or three times per session in the span of an hour. We would immediately discard your first player rule with our own: like 'the dealer plays first'.

I forgot to answer this the first time around. Some people say that it's a pet peeve of theirs when the rules do not provide a way to choose the starting player. For instance, Puerto Rico says "the players choose a starting player using any method they choose". Starting with the youngest player is a common method. Then again, Settlers of Catan has the oldest player starting. Love Letter has: whoever was last on a date starts. It's all arbitrary. I could say "whoever won the last game", like some other games do.

"Dealer plays first": how do you choose the dealer?

In my group, we generally ignore the starting player rule and use a spinning top: whoever it points to when it stops is the starting player.

I could say "roll a die" but a game should never require a component that is not in the box. The best starting player rules use game components. But I can't think of a way that wouldn't be convoluted for my game.

Anyway, to me this is not much of an issue, as it's something we find in most games. The exception being games where players go simultaneously (like 7 Wonders).

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
I think you can trim a lot from your rules without losing the complexity you want. (More about this soon.) One trim you can make is lose the graphics about wall placement and over complicated explanations of "players' zones" with an easy one line explanation. "Walls can be built and placed between players." Tell me if I'm wrong, this explains it all and there's no need for two graphics or complex explanations.

I agree that I could trim some of the text without losing any complexity. But I disagree about the graphics. I can guarantee you that if I say "Walls can be built and placed between players", there will be groups who do it improperly. Graphics always get the point across more clearly than words, as they leave no place for wrongful interpretation. In fact, if anything, I feel I should add more graphics in order to reduce the text.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
The first question, I didn't ask you 'why' players have a hand limit. My question is when do players draw more than 1 card?

It's always one card at the beginning of the turn. It's possible that I add an "Event" card that allows a player to draw more cards, but there is no such thing for now. Could be something like "Weapon Cache": discard your hand and draw cards until you reach the hand limit.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
What I read is that if player A plays more than 1 card on his/her turn and then next turn only draws one card, then players would not have a hand over the hand limit unless the player took no actions for five rounds. Personally, I don't want to play a game where players do nothing for 5 rounds. So, your #3 in the 'Turn Overview' seems useless.

On his first turn, if Player A chooses not to play any cards, then he is over the hand limit and must discard one. No need to wait five rounds for that to happen. I think most players will attack as soon as they can, so it will not be an issue for them. But I can imagine a game where nobody wants to be the first one to attack, because being the first might mean that everyone will turn on you. I call that the Slow Start problem, where players start accumulating cards in their hands instead of playing them. The discard rule is meant to be an incentive to play cards rather than hold on to them. If you don't play them, you lose them.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Which leads me to your answer of my first questions, 'attack' is the only action within the game. Do players want to play an
attack game and not attack? Remember the comment from Tuscansun? Players playing your game 'wanna blow shit up'!

While I do believe that most players will play the game as it is meant to be played (blow other players up), I also want to prevent players from playing it in a way that goes against its design. This is why I disagree that the discard rule is useless, in fact, it is absolutely necessary.

One thing I could consider would be: rather than drawing just one card at the beginning of the turn, players would draw up to the hand limit + 1. So if you played all of your cards, you draw 5/6 new cards at the beginning of your next turn. It would be an additional incentive to play as many cards as possible on your turn. And if you have a bad hand, you can discard everything to get a fresh full hand. It could make the game faster. However, it would screw the "discard cards to prevent damage" rule. If you know you will draw a full hand then you should always discard as much as possible to prevent damage. It's no longer a tough decision to make.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
I am an English Teacher so forgive me a bit. If you keep this name, change the punctuation to 'Watch Out! Grenade!' What you have now is a half-hearted exclamation to a person possibly named, 'Grenade'. The complete sentences of your title are: (You)watch out! It's a Grenade!

That being said. I suggest a name change to something like 'INCOMING!' I am not a solider, however, I didn't feel that 'Watch out,' conveyed any urgency or transported me to a field of battle.

I never answered your suggestion about the title. I did wonder initially if I should had a second exclamation point (Watch Out! Grenade!). But I thought it looked strange to have 2 exclamation marks in the title. It's very likely the name will change anyway. I am in no way attached to this one. Another suggestion I got is "Fire in the Hole!" which is actually what a soldier would shout when tossing a grenade in an enclosed space like a bunker, though not when throwing it far away in an open space (that would be "Frag Out!", which is another cool name). Incoming! is also a good one. I should make a poll!

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Why in a four-player game are the players only limited to a four-card hand?

Are you implying that the hand limit is too low? Hand limit is going to be what works best for the game, as determined by play-testing. I haven't done enough play-testing since the latest rule changes to be sure, but 4 seems to be about right. It will change if I find otherwise.

Stajin Imaizumi wrote:
Why do you have bounce cards when you have throw cards? If you keep the bounce, can a player throw a grenade back if the player has a throw card?

Throw cards are actions that can only be played during your own turn, not as a counter. It would beat he purpose of having an action/counter distinction, which is a common trope in card games, and one that all players are used to. In Magic The Gathering, I can't play a creature from my hand to block an enemy creatures attack during the other player's turn: I can only summon a creature on my turn.

The question might be: if there is a Grenade in my zone, why can't I throw it back? I could allow you to use a Throw card to throw it back, but only on your turn. I'm afraid it would make it too easy to get rid of grenades. If my opponent can always (or almost always) turn my attack against me, the game will become annoying and no fun at all. Initially, I had too many counter cards in the game and it got frustrating to see most attacks fail. That's another reason for the low hand limit. My rule of thumb is that an attack must be successful most of the time. An actual counter that turns my attack against me should be possible less than 25% of the time. Maybe if you try to throw back a grenade, there is a possibility it will explode in your hands. But then I need a way to calculate probability and there is no die to toss or token to flip in the game.

The more I streamline the game's mechanics, the more I think the game needs "Event" cards: special cards that perform unusual, one-time actions. The Weapon Cache mentioned above is one of them. They would spice the game up a bit, make every game different. They should not be too powerful though. And they should involve some kind of decision about selecting the right time to play them, or maybe offer 2 options to choose from. They should not be directly offensive cards (unless there is one like Air Raid that deals damage to all players).

sushiRavioli
Offline
Joined: 03/05/2015
I've been thinking about

I've been thinking about another mechanic to determine when a grenade detonates. Right now a player must play an Explode card for that to happen.

Here is another mechanic I've been thinking of:

Add a new game component: a Detonation Token that can be flipped (one side for detonation, the other for no detonation). At the end of his turn, a player must flip the token for each grenade inside his zone. So there is a 50% probability that a grenade in your zone will detonate on your turn. That might be too high, especially if you have more than one grenade in your zone. For 2 grenades, that's a 75% probability (and then both detonate because of Chain Explosions). Maybe it should be a die instead of a token, detonation occurs on 1 or 2 (33% probability).

There is also the issue of grenades in the centre area or in-between two players. Who rolls for them? For grenades in-between players I could say that we roll for them when the turn goes from one player to the next, passing over the grenade. But what about the centre area? All players roll for it? Then those grenades are more likely to detonate than grenades in a player zone, which makes no logical sense. Maybe we should roll for it at the end of a full round, but then we have to mark who is the starting player.

Another idea: when you put a grenade in play, put a single counter on it. When you roll a die for detonation, it will detonate on a "1". If it doesn't, then add one counter on it. Next time, it will explode on a "1" or "2". With every round, the probability of detonation goes up. I like the idea of this, but maybe it's convoluted. I will have to play-test this!

If I do implement this idea, I could allow the use of the Throw card to get rid of a grenade from your zone. When you attempt to throw it, you must add a token on it and then roll for detonation.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut