8 August 2014
Blind Playtest Session 1
2 & 3 players
A friend of mine from upstate New York was kind enough to carry out a couple blind playtests for me. I've added notes from his second session that he passed along: a 3-player game. No photos are included in this update, unfortunately.
His notes are here, and are followed by my responses.
Smaller Home Tokens
Make the Home Tokens smaller so it's easier to see the point values of their attendant hexes during the game.
My Answer: Not a high priority at this point, as it's an easily addressed cosmetic issue. The player may count the mole holes on a hex to determine point values if the Home Token still covers the number.
The Order of Effects
If multiple effects result from a card combo, is there an order to them, or can the player decide? We assumed that the player could choose the order.
My Response: Your assumption is correct. The Active Player may choose the order of effects. I will clarify this in the rules.
Broken Networks
This could have happened, but it didn't. What if your network breaks into two, or more? Is movement limited within each network? I don't think this is covered in the rules.
My Response: The Cave Network has been separated, most often remedied by a well-placed HAWK ATTACK card. If a player has a Claimed Hex separated from a larger mass of their own Claimed Hexes, it still operates normally. Again, this is something I ought to cover in the ruleset revisions.
Our Score
For the three player game, it was 29, 28, 26. When Liza and I played, I think it was something like 29 to 28. Somehow, I won both. It's interesting that it's so close.
My Response: That's good news. :)
Game Time
Our game took approximately 50 mins, and that included instructions. It looks like 15 minutes per player is about right. Pacing is quite good.
My Response: Again, more good news. Either that, or I am a lucky guesser. Either way, I'll keep it listed the same in the ruleset. This is also in-line with a "light-strategy" game, which is what I was aiming for.
Mulligan for First Hand?
One of the players had an entire +# hand. Although you wisely allow for a total hand discard, and redraw, this is a painful start. How about one freebie if your 1st hand is horrible?
My Response: I don't see a problem with that. It's a house rule that can be made a regulation game rule, or maybe just list it as an optional rule at the end of the ruleset.
Hawk attack should have a die?
Okay, I'm NOT for this, but the other two players thought this would be a good house rule.
My Response: Not interested. I'd rather keep dice out of this game. A d4 is the only option I'd consider, and that's not worth the added expense. Besides, I want players to use their NUMBER CARDS to factor in as the risk-reward of attacking their opponents. The question of, "Should I use this 4 NUMBER CARD for this attack, or should I keep it for myself?" is a legitimate concern when the HAWK CARD is considered for a next play.
More Home Cards
There were a lot of unclaimed homes on the board. I purposely ended the game by giving majority to each of the players because I had no home cards to cash in after a full redraw. I am not sure if this is a bad thing, but I'm just passing along their feelings.
My Response: I think this will vary between players and with their experience in the game, as well as the strategy they choose. However, this may also change if Make-A-Home is the only option on the card (aside from a stackable Populate action). Save it for the next card revision.
Error on my part!
My players commented that tunnel networks were too big, and their instincts were right. I was counting hexes adjacent to empty claims as part of the network, but it isn't. I don't think this had a huge effect, since I don't recall many completely abandoned claims in contested territory, but it could have.
My Response: Again, this can be addressed in the next ruleset revision. I'll add in some pictorial examples of Tunnel Networks, including instances where a Network can be cut-off.
The Tactical Retreat Strategy
My buddy moved to a claim, by taking one mole from here, and one from there. Later, I realized that he was taking moles from 3 point hexes that he hadn't claimed. He was hoping that we didn't see, so that he could sneak back in, and take majority. Oh, I saw.
My Response: Good catch, I suppose. But again, maybe there was some rule misunderstanding that I can clarify in the ruleset revision.
Non-Variable Home Points
One last point, I feel like the home points are too random. The game already has a decent random element. The home points could really shift a score. Why not just make it 3 points for every 2 home tokens?
My Response: This takes away from the hidden-information component of the game: an aspect of the current iteration of the Home Tokens I like. Hidden information can also keep players invested even if they have fewer Claimed Hexes and/or options available (which would be a serious issue if the game ran longer, in my opinion). This is the first I've heard of this complaint. Maybe in future playtests I'll request that players remove the 3-point Home Tokens from the mix, or just add a few to the lot of possible tokens. We'll see about this one.
To sum up, it's pretty clear I need more images in my ruleset and better iconography/more clarity in the cards. These revisions are the project for the next week. There's also a fair amount of positivity in this report too, which pleases me immensely. It could have gone FAR worse... :)
