.... some serious blank faces when trying to explain the rules. Seemed to lift once play was started - and two of the three new players seemed to get it. I don't think it ever clicked for the less gamer of the three - and well they did ok they were pretty passive.
One player called it "oddly complicated and oddly simple". Which did not strike me as a good thing - although is suspect some of that is unclear terminology making things confusing.
We had two player eliminations - and the winning player was once again the person that ignored giant stone heads and went for resources. Not as bad as the time Cuss broke it - as they gambled on a long game and got it rather then Cuss massive one round swing - and if the game had ended quicker they would have lost.
The trouble is being an early stone head builder drags you down - and taking an early lead in Victory points means ending up with a bad turn position. But when the person at the back does not use that to catch up but rather focuses on resources they turn into a bit of steam roller of exactly the sort you don't want.
And after a while a player starts spiraling inwards - and unless player combine the problems can spiral out of control. In this game - I'm pretty sure I could have stopped the one player taking a dominate physical position but I needed to protect my own villages to much because I was going first and I was not sure the other player would have left me alone....
So what I'm thinking - and I'm mainly getting these ideas down in written form to get something more solid for my subconscious to tick over.....
Resources turn into cards - which turns into a direct advantage - leading to the possibility of a card gap. Worse a player can end up without the resources/people to take the actions they need to do anything.
There is also still a lack of giant stone head building which in a game about building giant stone heads is a bit of a problem.
So what to do?
The idea kicking around my head at the moment is that resources give you first pick from some sort of card row - in which each card provides a bunch of different values. So many new men, so many cards, so many stone heads. So yes more resources gets you "the best card" but the gap between best and worst in terms of resources is not so great - and players will be more inclined to build stone heads because they won't suffer so much from the act especially if there getting the stone heads "for free" - there not diverting resources into building them.....
This of course fundamentally impacts on the purpose of "renown" - which was meant to be used to encourage players to attack - because they had to attack to build stone heads. With a mechanism for rewarding you for hitting a player doing well - rather then kicking the weaker player. But it's not really worked - it's complicated things - and the last two players have just used it to power war machines to crush everybody else.
Also cards become - well cards - not a resource to be spent and so a slightly more situational card might be worth holding onto......
The role of villages fundamentally changes as well since they'd no longer be the force that controls the flow and supply of warriors.
If I'm honest with a change of this sort - I'd be keeping.....
1) The combat
2) The cards
3) The hexes and resources.
4) Events
And not a lot else - which is a major change and a half....
Which is an odd design decision - when the last couple of play tests have been described as "fundamentally playable" and change of this sort run the risk of throwing so very much other stuff out of wack.
Time to let my subconscious think on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment