As you all know, I have decided to REMOVE the "symbols" off the cardbacks because I felt they were too "intrusive". The good news is that some Actions like "Soul Gaze" (1 AP) and "Bury Dead" (2 AP) can be done at any time.
However the "Traps" which require 2d6s and an 8 or higher to collect loot were still undecided (how would they be handled?!) Well I have good news that I have found a "simple" mechanic to make traps work.
5 Green Cubes are added to the Loot bag. When a player randomly choose loot for a conquest, if a Green Cube is drawn all the loot for that conquest is "trapped".
All it takes is ONE (1) Green Cube and the loot is protected by "traps".
And with regards to the Loot bag, I have also added three (3) Purple Cubes (5 for Multiplayer). I call these the "Chaos" Gems. Once all of these gems have been drawn from the Loot bag, the game ends and the player in the Lead is the winner. If there is a tie, it's the player with the most "Chaos" Gems is the victor.
This is an alternate victory condition and serves to speed-up 4 Multiplayer games...
Comments
Interesting way to add a
Interesting way to add a reasonable end condition. I like it.
Another quick comment
They are called "Chaos Gems" because they are "Purple" and that color is associated with the "Dark Elves" which represent the race of "Chaos". Ergo the name...
After some careful analysis
I have yet again playtested the game and I come to the very REAL conclusion:
If I stick with the original design and combine BOTH "Traps" and "Chaos Gems", the game has sufficient variance and depth of strategy without leading to some kind of "infinite loop" (that could occur with "Discarding" cards from the play area).
I will continue to playtest this version, as I need to write-up the rules for the game (since there have been some changes since the previous written version). But overall, I am "Happy" with how the design plays... Still very similar to the original version with the extra layer of "Loot".
The only thing that I have yet to playtest is the Four (4) Multiplayer game.
Maybe sometime later this or next week...
questccg wrote:As you all
However the "Traps" which require 2d6s and an 8 or higher to collect loot were still undecided (how would they be handled?!) Well I have good news that I have found a "simple" mechanic to make traps work.
> 5 Green Cubes are added to the Loot bag. When a player randomly choose loot for a conquest, if a Green Cube is drawn all the loot for that conquest is "trapped".
All it takes is ONE (1) Green Cube and the loot is protected by "traps".
And with regards to the Loot bag, I have also added three (3) Purple Cubes (5 for Multiplayer). I call these the "Chaos" Gems. Once all of these gems have been drawn from the Loot bag, the game ends and the player in the Lead is the winner. If there is a tie, it's the player with the most "Chaos" Gems is the victor.
This is an alternate victory condition and serves to speed-up 4 Multiplayer games...
So are there 5 green and 3 purple (total of 8) cubes in the loot bag? I really like the mechanic of picking cubes out of a bag. Kids would absolutely love this aspect. Great way for a parent to involve younger kids that can't play but want to be on Mom or Dad's team. That also goes for flipping over cards in the Keep (if I understand the game so far).
Please send me the rules when you complete them.
The "LOOT" bag is cool ... it's the game's tactical layer
Plus 12 of each LOOT: Food (Red), Gold (Yellow) and Equipment (Blue).
Indeed the artwork and illustrations are geared towards younger players too. A little bit "cartoon-ish" and a bit "realism"... The art is FUN.
Yes, players flip a card when it has been "conquered" (this is like attacking provided you have enough Attack to defeat the opponent). And then the player chooses the specified amount of random LOOT from the "Loot bag" and place it on the flipped card... If during that process a SINGLE "Green" cube is drawn, all the Loot is TRAPPED and players need to roll 8+ (2d6s) to collect loot.
Like I said in my PM, I don't have a "rulebook" yet. But I do have a .TXT file with the abridged version to keep my own thoughts on the game consistent. Get back to me and we'll see what we can work out!
Some clarifications
I know I stated that "Carcassonne" (CAR) is one of the games that "inspired" Monster Keep (MK). And while this is TRUE... Some of you noted that I am not following the "connectivity" between tiles. And this was majorly due to the fact that I did NOT want it to look like a "copy" of CAR. CAR is such a vaste game with so many editions and expansions ... and it's core is the "connectivity" between the tiles.
As such MK will still be inspired by CAR but will not replicate the game.
The Tile Laying and Area Control are two (2) aspects important to MK. Other inspiration can be seen from games like "Tic-Tac-Toe" and "Chess". One lighter in Area Control and the other deeper levels of strategy.
Overall MK will be a refreshing take on the "CCG" genre and offer something very unique to gamers who like (or love) card games... And can appreciate more strategy given the "tactical" layer played above the game tiles.
Lot of "WORK" ahead...
I have to say all the re-designing and re-working "Monster Keep" (MK) has led to documents being "out-dated" or out-of-sync with the current version of the rules. I've tried to keep a "Notebook" with thoughts and a .TXT file with the general rules as recorded by me.
Obviously the "Notebook" contains all kinds of "earlier information" and is very "out-dated" but at the same time, it has pages concerning the "Chaos Gems" and "Traps" which are partially documented in the .TXT file.
Bottom line is that I will need to WORK on the .TXT file and bring it up-to-date. It's been something that I have neglected a bit...
I've also had to revise the financials and see what the project looks like from a monetary stand point-of-view. Not as impressive as it was (I decided to cut back on things and to save some production for a later time)... I had more planned for the first crowdfunding. But there were things that I WANTED to remove ... because sometimes LESS is BETTER.
Yeah, the financials are much tighter with extra dice, more components and other categories (for rewards). For example I had a $10 CAD PNP version that I was going to offer. Because of how the game has EVOLVED, that is no longer possible because you NEED the Parts Bag with tokens to play.
This meant that I needed ANOTHER "type" of lower tiered perk. I am opting for a "collector" version with only one (1) of each card. This at $15 CAD seems reasonable and very interesting with more than the "base" cards that will come with the game.
So I'm definitely "working" on things. Trying to make everything "make sense" and not feel "out-of-place" either.
Anyway that is enough for tonight... Definitely going to TRY a FOUR (4) Multiplayer game THIS WEEK! Maybe Monday or Tuesday. Cheers!
50% done making another Prototype Deck
I've completed another Prototype Deck ... So Now I have three (3) Prototype Decks and am missing one (1) for a 4 Multiplayer Playtest session. The cards are printed but have not yet been cut and sleeved. Takes me about 1 hour to cut and sleeve the cards (when I'm in the mood! LOL)
I plan to finish the fourth (4th) Prototype Deck tonight and be able to conduct some 4 Multiplayer Playtest sessions either tomorrow or Tuesday.
I'm REAL HAPPY that I got rid of the online tools: Calculator and Scoresheet. The game was too "clunky" (heavy and boring) and neither of those two tools made the game more "accessible" to average players.
I'll post back some feedback on the Playtests soon...
Conducted one "partial" playtest
I set-up for the 4 Multiplayer Playtest session and ran it about half way... And I wanted to have feedback with regards to PLAYING the game, not only with four (4) players ... But also overall.
Some of my conclusions:
1. The Dice Rolling for "Traps" needs to improve in terms of ODDS. It's very annoying to ROLL and ROLL and ROLL and get ZERO (0) "Loot"!
2. The game is way more "OPEN" in terms of when there are four (4) players versus only two (2) players. What I mean is that it's much EASIER to play cards down to attack opposing cards. It's a BATTLE GAME... This has got to be a PLUS! (LOL)
3. I still need to TIME a 4 Multiplayer game to see how LONG it takes to play the game with that amount of players. It's important because this was supposed to be a "LITE" game (45 to 60 minutes only). So that's something else to concern myself with also!
I will get on to another Playtest session some time this week. I'll report back with the results that I get... Also timing the game also!
Some clarifications
Okay ... So I've decided that instead of requiring players to COLLECT "Chaos Gems", it's the player who is DRAWING the LOOT from the "Loot Bag" that gets the gem(s). So if Player #2 conquered Player #3 unit, and a "Chaos Gem" is drawn by Player #2... He gets to collect and keep it.
This makes it better than having to WAIT for someone to "decide" they will be the one "collecting" the "Chaos Gem(s)".
It also doesn't contribute to the Loot Count. If you are supposed to LOOT four (4) items, if you get a "Chaos Gem", you set it aside and draw an ADDITIONAL LOOT item.
This has zero effect on TRAPS which seem to be working fine. The newest idea is to ROLL 3d6s and have a PAIR (41.7%) to collect ONE (1) LOOT of the player's choice OR a triple to collect TWO (2) LOOTS (again of the player's choice)!
Very interesting indeed!
Another idea...
Instead of EVERYONE being able to LOOT from a conquered unit, the OTHER players may "collect" LOOT. This means that the owner of the conquered unit MAY NOT get LOOT from HIS/HER OWN cards. This is done by drawing an "Orange" LOOT. And there would be six (6) of these in the LOOT bag.
This adds a bit of a "wrench" to the LOOT-ing methodology.
Why do I want this???
Because it becomes INDIFFERENT if all players may "collect" LOOT from ANY conquered unit/card. What I mean is that the player who LOST a unit was still able to "collect" LOOT (previously). And this set up a sort of attitude of: "Who cares which cards/units die, I can collect from any dropped pile..."
Now with this *NEW* rule, it means that you must collect from OPPOSING units/cards and not from your OWN, if an "Orange" cube is drawn.
This is a GOOD way of making the 1st part of the game MORE IMPORTANT. Why should you care IF your unit/card is conquered... Either way you used to be able to collect LOOT from it anyways. This is the usual method, meaning that anyone can LOOT from any pile.
Now you need to be more strategic and understand the IMPORTANCE of conquering cards for your OWN LOOT. This is a bit obvious in a two (2) player duel... But a four (4) Multiplayer game would add some "spice" to the game!
Please feel free to share your thoughts and/or comments!