http://www.livewiregames.net/members/superish/quark.pdf
Ok boys here is the low down on this little number. It’s an abstract two player that right now is so meaty it could choke a pride of lions. I need to make it thinner and more relaxing to play. I have a few ideas how I could handle this but I want to here what you people have to say first. As my ideas involve knocking off a few play concepts that inspired me to invent it in the first place.
ps: sorry about the odd verbiage I just watched Dick Tracy and am now all hyped up on 20-30's organized crime and pulp fiction. What happened to fiction anyway? Can’t heroes just be guys in yellow trench coats that punch people and get the girl?
This looks like a very neat game, and I like the quark theme! I wonder, though, if it'd be possible to expand the types of quarks to reflect the number that is currently known about sub-atomic particles (6...up, down, top, bottom, strange, and charmed...and a nice little resource here). Each quark could have a particular move and capture mechanism...
...but I digress. First comment (and this is nit-picky, but a comment nonetheless): I think the rules could use some polish. There were numerous sentence fragments and what appeared to be interrupted thoughts which made it a little more difficult to understand what you were trying to get across. Maybe teach the game to someone else and have them write the rules as they understand them? That way you can get an inkling if any of the rules are a little confusing or easily misunderstood.
Moving on, in your "How To Play" section you say:
The first sentence is unclear. Do you move all your push quarks once or do you move all your push quarks? The second "sentence" is a fragment and should be combined with the first (clarified) sentence with a comma.
I'm guessing that when you move a quark, you can do one of three things: pivot, move, or transform, is that correct? You should probably say so explicitly in the rules. Very good description of each of the moves. VERY good illustrations!
I appreciate the structure in which you organized your rules. I always prefer to learn a game by knowing "how do I win" first and then "how do I accomplish that" later. That way, as I read the rules, I can see how the rule relates to and formulate strategies towards the victory conditions.
Insanely simple rules, yet I suspect complex strategy...excellent characteristics of a good, abstract strategy game. I like it!
Other comments:
Have you considered letting the players set up their quarks as they see fit?
Have you considered putting "terrain" on the playing field? Say, spaces that cannot be pushed and cannot be hopped over (if you push against a blocking terrain, either no quarks move or the last quark in line gets squished into oblivion)? Maybe some blocking terrain can actually get pushed around the board such that you can have some terrain that can be hopped but not pushed and other terrain that can be pushed but not hopped.
Did you have way too many spare Risk pieces floating around? :wink:
A hop quark can onlu hop over another piece, right? And in the process, it destroys that piece? How about if hop quarks can hop over (one) blank space, but then their move ends?
You should probably also specify that a push quark can only push other quarks if they are adjacent and in the direction that it may otherwise move (aligned with its axis). Your illustration shows that, but the rules should make it explicitly clear.
Looks like a neat game! If I give it a playtest I'll let you know how it goes!