Rules feedback needed - Watch Out, Grenade!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).