[Proof Read/Feedback] Factions - Rule Book

3 replies [Last post]
Kirkatronics
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2016

Hi, I'm hoping someone could help me here.
I need someone to have a read through my rule book (it's quite short) and point out any spelling or grammatical errors.

I would also like feed back on anything you would change, add, or remove.

https://goo.gl/Z1PRNT

I would be incredibly grateful for any help.

ElKobold
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Ughh... Bidding combat.Did

Ughh... Bidding combat.

Did you blind test this yet? In my experience bidding combat is usually worse than it looks on paper. It's rather time-consuming and stressful.

Any special reason why you have to use 150 fortitude, as opposed to 15 fortitude?

Why do you need separate sections for rounds 1,3/2,4 ? Wouldn't it be enough to say that players alternate who is the first player and the game lasts 4 rounds?

Consider changing the tiebreaker from whoever has more fortitude left, to whoever has more potions left. It will create an interesting dynamic where overcommitting is dangerous and if you do go heavy on spending potions, you have to make sure that you do breach that castle before the end.

Consider introducing partial successes for each card. Something like "if you won, do X Y", if you've lost, do Z. I imagine that playing a card and doing nothing at all will be extremely frustrating.

Kirkatronics
Offline
Joined: 09/12/2016
ElKobold wrote:Ughh...

ElKobold wrote:
Ughh... Bidding combat.

Did you blind test this yet? In my experience bidding combat is usually worse than it looks on paper. It's rather time-consuming and stressful.

Any special reason why you have to use 150 fortitude, as opposed to 15 fortitude?

Why do you need separate sections for rounds 1,3/2,4 ? Wouldn't it be enough to say that players alternate who is the first player and the game lasts 4 rounds?

Consider changing the tiebreaker from whoever has more fortitude left, to whoever has more potions left. It will create an interesting dynamic where overcommitting is dangerous and if you do go heavy on spending potions, you have to make sure that you do breach that castle before the end.

Consider introducing partial successes for each card. Something like "if you won, do X Y", if you've lost, do Z. I imagine that playing a card and doing nothing at all will be extremely frustrating.

Hi Elkobold, thank you for reading my rules.

It has been played by me, my partner, and a few friends so far. So far the bidding combat seems to work, but when i start getting more feedback that may change.

There is no real reason for fortitude to be 150 other than the thought it might be easier to balance later. It has been brought up a few times that 15 may be easier to use.

I like your tie-breaker idea, a lot. It would make you choose between trying to smash your opponent to pieces or conserve potions just in case you can't quite do it. I will seriously think about adding this idea.

I have noted your comment on the rounds 1/3 and 2/4 and will make the change for my next update. I wasn't sure how much detail would be needed but i agree that needs changing.

I will also think about adding 'partial success' too, but i'm not sure yet.

Thank you for your honest feedback.

ElKobold
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Kirkatronics wrote: Thank you

Kirkatronics wrote:

Thank you for your honest feedback.

You're welcome. Good luck!