Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Instead of trying to do all points of the hit list at once, I think it would be best to start with one thing at a time, and then add the other layers. In this case, start with the basic movement/tile placement (if this doesn't work, it makes no sense to worry about gathering equipment). So, here's what I propose as a starting point:

Start with the 3X3 'base camp'. And assume everyone starts with 3 AP (just an arbitrary number).

You can use an AP to do one of the following:
1. 1AP-Place a tile into your hand. you can hold a maximum of five. Tiles can be playedd to the "board" or to the discard pile.
2. 1AP-Move on a path segment or cave segment.
3. 2AP-investigate a search chit in a cave that is connected to the path you are currently on.

Rules for moving:
A single move consists of "transfering' from a path to a cave, or vice versa. So a path segment that is 5 tiles long is simply, 1 move.

If a cave is not complete, you may not enter that cave.

When a cave is complete, a Search chit is placed face down on that cave. If the Search chit is an award, you may show it the the other players, and collect it. All players may now enter the cave. If the Discovery chit is an obstacle, you may not enter the cave until you 'defeat' the obstacle (whatever menas that maybe, equipment, AP, etc.)

Defeating the obstacle awards you cards drawn from the Discovery card stack, the number of cards you draw equals how many tiles the cave is composed of. These are hidden face down in your hand, and can be anything, points, zeros, special action cards, equipment, cool discoveries that only matter in sets, etc. The Search chit is discarded from the cave and now anyone can move into that cave.

Possible end game conditions:
No more discovery cards.
No more Search chits.
Drawing an earthquake card: everyone back to home base as soon as possible, however, the last person out automatically loses (how's that for risk/reward).

Other interesting plays:
I think players should be able to share spaces: this could allow them to trade things with each other, which would be a fun component, especially if you are trying to complete sets of things.

Maybe equipment can be bought at the base camp with "gold" or some other counter that you find (maybe that's what the award Search chits are, while the Discovery cards are purely Win points) that isn't associated with Win Points.

As far as I can tell, this seems to simply capture a lot of the ideas that have been floating around. Any opinions?

Right about cave size. In what I outlined above, you get XXXX Discovery cards for caves that are XXXX tiles big. YOu must've missed it.

Let's get this clear from the start: there are Discovery/Obstacle chits and Search/Event cards!

I certainly don't see any problems with multiple chits depending upon the size of the cave, although I reckon that a "minimum:1, maximum: 3" rule would probably be advisable.
I'm not convinced that drawing cards depending upon the size of the cave is appropriate though - I think the "pay 1 AP: draw one card, pay 2 APs: draw 2 cards, pay 4 APs: draw 3 cards; then choose one" is still a better option.
Storing APs is a great idea if it can be implemented without fiddly bookkeeping - adding more markers to the game seems like a bad idea to me. I think I'd rather have a "bonus APs from turning in discoveries" option (which adds a nice choice moment - do you cash your card in now for APs, or save it for the end for VPs, which are, after all, what matter?)

One note I would make about movement, which is that a junction (but not just a bend) on a passageway tile should count as a "stop" point, as well as caves. That will make for some more subtle movement options, since it's clear that we want to allow explorers to "block" passageways (and there are ways of making Event cards use this too.) I must admit that I like the idea that a cave is full if there are explorers equal to the number of tiles in the cave.
I like "pay an AP to draw a tile then play a tile from your 'hand'".

Hmmm. I think it's time to revisit some formal rule-set proposals...

Um, yes it will. Especially when you only have one explorer - at the moment, anyway, although I think we've really rejected the multiple explorers option at present.

But it's useful to be able to offer the option in the rules, even if 99.9% of the time it will be an entirely redundant one :) Again, the more flexible the ruleset, the more room you have for designing event cards that may reward players for e.g. standing around in passageways... Likewise, the rules we are working with at the moment don't seem to me to rule out multiple explorer variants even though we aren't specifically offering that yet.

I want to stress that I like the idea of trading items (although it would slow the game down far more than players standing in strategic corridors!) and was merely suggesting that there should be a "capacity" for passages of 1 and for caves of #tiles. That way, everyone could theoretically get into a large cave, but only one or two in a small one.

This I completely disagree with. I understand that the game is to be flexible but it's a mistake to add a rule that will virtually never be used and won't be missed if it's not in the rules.

I'm all for flexible but I think it's also a mistake to make the game too flexible. The deck modification thing is great (and probably would work along with a chit modification thing as well), but I think it would be bad to go too far in the flexibility direction. In my opinion the fewer rules that change between versions the better.

Seems to me that the same feature could be handled by adding, say, 1 AP for passing through a tile with another explorer in it, and you can't land on another explorer. If you want to slow someone down then just stand in the entrance of the cave. Cave maximums are handled without adding another rule by the sheer fact that no one can land in a place where there's another explorer, so max explorers = # of tiles is automatic.

Well since I don't know what we're arguing about, it's not easy to see what the problem is :)

I said that a passageway junction should count as a "stop" for movement - i.e. a player wishing to move from cave A to cave B but via a junction should have to pay 2 APs, not 1. And I'm keen on this because it means that alternate routes would often be available but probably more expensive to use.
I also observed that this allows players to stop in the middle of passageways which, if there is a rule about obstruction, makes for a tactical decision if there are good reasons for it. One reason I suggested was an Event card. Another would be if the players had more than one explorer. Neither of these conditions are likely to apply to what I should call the "standard" version of the game.
However, if there is going to be a rule about junctions costing an extra AP then the rules need to include a clause which specifically states that a player may stop their explorer moving at a junction (thus blocking all connecting passages.) As I said, in a "standard" game, this situation may never arise, but I can see it being a standard question, that's all.

Does that make it any clearer?

We're approaching this from different sides. A "move past an explorer standing at a junction as long as you've paid enough" rule is appropriate in an exploring game since you don't want "blocking" to be an issue. But a "you can't move past an explorer blocking a junction" rule is needed for a game that may have tactical implications. For instance, if we went with the scoring system that scored a player more if fewer other people saw their discovery, then I could see passage blocking being a viable tactic. I don't think it would help the blocking player much (unless the scoring potential was large) but it should be an option.
And finally, for verisimillitude, I prefer not allowing players to "pass through" other explorers as it makes them sound like ghosts or something :)

What do you want, Darke? Blood? :)

AFAICS, the current status is:

A starting 3x3 tile. A round of placements (to start the cave off).
During a turn, a player gets a free placement (and draw). They may pay an AP to place (and draw) a second tile but no more.

The tile set is going to roughly conform to FastLearner's sample set, although quantities are unclear at the moment.

Now on to the controversial stuff ;) - this is not agreed, but simply thrown out at random.

When a cave is entered, a "discovery/obstacle" chit is drawn and placed on the tile.
If a cave is larger than 2 tiles, then When the cave is completed another discovery chit is drawn.
(this is a compromise to prevent silly caves being full of stuff, but still encouraging people to finish them off.)

Junctions in passages are marked.
A tile may only be occupied by one explorer at a time. This means that a cave has a maximum capacity of a number of explorers equal to the size of the cave.

A single AP move will take an explorer from a junction or a cave along a passageway to the next junction or cave encountered. An explorer cannot stop in an occupied space (see rule above!)

Thus, if an explorer was in a cave and there was a single passage to the next cave with a junction in the middle, it would cost 1AP to travel from the cave to the junction or 2APs to travel from the cave to the cave. If, however, there was an explorer at the junction, the player would be forced to pay 2APs to go from cave to cave since they couldn't stop at the junction (and, likewise, if the destination cave was full, they may have to pay additional APs to continue on to the next available junction or cave.)
[Phew - sounds complex but is pretty simple really.]

Does that sound right?

Yes, they are great diagrams - pretty much exactly what I was envisioning. I think you may be missing one point however, which is that players do not have to go down different passages!

i.e. there is nothing to stop a player going down "someone else's" passageway on their first turn. Obviously they are likely to have to pay extra APs for the privilege (since it's reasonable to expect some passages to have explorers standing in them, or caves being full!) but it still has to be an option. For instance, player A has placed a half-cave and moved into it. Player B then places the other half of that cave and decides to move into it themselves, regardless of where "their" passage/cave leads.

Again, this is something that doesn't have to be spelled out in the rules as such, but you also don't want to explicitly forbid it.

I think the "start tile" has to be considered a cave for purposes of movement, so that you have to spend an AP to move to it and them another one to move from it later in the game. But it also has to be considered a 9-tile cave so that there is effectively no capacity limit on it.
I know this seems self-evident, but it may need to be stated explicitly.

Well that's why I wasn't bothered about how many players could fit - I really don't think you need anything that specifies where players must place their first tile, beyond a rule that says it must be adjacent to an existing tile (which therefore includes the starting tile) and cannot block the cave system. I suspect, however, that you will have to specify that tiles must continue the system - i.e. no Carc style placing of a tile that can't be reached immediately. (I know I thought this might be possible in an earlier version, but it now seems much more logical to forbid this; otherwise players will be reluctant to place tiles that will help their opponents.