Peter
Canada
Port Coquitlam
British Columbia
Makers of Battlefields of Olympus
MoFo Max Payne Yo
-
Hi Folks,
Given the depth and breadth of knowledge here on BGG, I would like to call upon your expertise in our relentless pursuit of perfection.
If you have played Battlefields of Olympus, and/or you have read the rules, could you please answer our poll below.
Thank you in advance.
Peter Grant
www.smartassgames.com
RULES:
http://www.smartassgames.com/Rules/SagBoO_17.pdf
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE:
http://www.smartassgames.com/Rules/SagBoO_QRG_15.pdf
OPTIONAL RULES:
http://www.smartassgames.com/Rules/OptionalRulesEnglish.pdf
|
Poll |
|
Help us improve our game rules
|
|
Poll |
|
Help us improve Battlefields of Olympus gameplay
|
-
-=[Ran Over]=-
United States
Pleasant Grove
Utah
-
I just read the rules, and I found them adequate (having not played the game, so I'm assuming). The biggest problem I saw was the "pile" situation, which seemed woefully underexplained, but not totally incomprehensible. I get that there is an Ares Pile and a Land Pile, and I get that cards in these piles are "in play," but the "in play" phrase is not directly connected to these piles, which is confusing. Also, the wording does sort of imply a Land Pile per land type (and per Ares card, but that seems nonsensical). A setup diagram would help here: there is more to the play area than just the Warrior and Fate decks. The complete play area includes the two draw decks, a discard pile for warriors and Ares cards, the Ares and Land "in play" piles, and a reserve pile and a won lands pile per player. In all, that's 10 piles, not two.
Another issue is: does the defender really win without playing a single card if the attacker passes immediately? The rules say yes. Because you can be forced to attack, this situation seems egregiously unfair and therefore wrong. A first-pass reading makes me feel like I've misunderstood the rule, which makes me feel more confused than I really am.
Without having played, the rest of the rules seem pretty straightforward and serviceable.
-
-
Have read the rules and didn't have to much trouble understanding them in combination with the quick reference guide. I haven't played the game yet, as I haven't found anywhere to buy it in the UK.
I filled in the Poll and here are some more thoughts on the questions.
Clarity - I had to re-read certain bits to fully understand them.
There seemed to be enough detail.
The Language was clear enough.
I would have liked a Pictorial example of the Battles as well as a written one.
I was a bit confused by the Diagram of the defeated action cards.
Unsure as to what was ment by the More Variation Quesion, as later you ask if want more cards different warriors etc.
Would like to see Land Trophy cards that gave bonuses to the warrior cards.
Would like to see a Standard Bearer card.
Would like to see different Action cards in combination with different Warrior decks i.e. The Tortoise and The Wedge with the Romans.
What!, No! War Elephants!!!
-
Peter
Canada
Port Coquitlam
British Columbia
Makers of Battlefields of Olympus
MoFo Max Payne Yo
-
Hi James,
Thank you for the feedback! I will put your information to good use.
I am actively talking to a distributor for the UK. Hopefully I will hear back from them soon.
The variations question applies to gameplay variants using the existing decks. Given that Battlefields of Olympus is a card game, it lends itself to customizable rules. I already have a couple in the works.
The Elite card is a sort of Standard bearer. How do you see it being used?
No elephants, how about a rhino? 
Peter
Rindel wrote: Have read the rules and didn't have to much trouble understanding them in combination with the quick reference guide. I haven't played the game yet, as I haven't found anywhere to buy it in the UK. I filled in the Poll and here are some more thoughts on the questions. Clarity - I had to re-read certain bits to fully understand them. There seemed to be enough detail. The Language was clear enough. I would have liked a Pictorial example of the Battles as well as a written one. I was a bit confused by the Diagram of the defeated action cards. Unsure as to what was ment by the More Variation Quesion, as later you ask if want more cards different warriors etc. Would like to see Land Trophy cards that gave bonuses to the warrior cards. Would like to see a Standard Bearer card. Would like to see different Action cards in combination with different Warrior decks i.e. The Tortoise and The Wedge with the Romans. What!, No! War Elephants!!!
-
Peter
Canada
Port Coquitlam
British Columbia
Makers of Battlefields of Olympus
MoFo Max Payne Yo
-
Hi Ran Over,
Thank you for your feedback.
As for your suggestion about defender wins when attacker passes, I definitely see your concern. During initial development, I felt there had to be a resolution that guarantees one player or the other ends up with the land card. Basically to inhibit reluctance to battle (or player turtling). Besides acting as a game timer, the other purpose of the Ares card is to force battle. This was also added to prevent turtling. At the end of a battle, one player will have more victory points than the other, creating more drive to battle later on. If neither player wants to play a Warrior card, I still needed to resolve who gets the victory points. I felt, at the very least, it is a player's decision to pass, as long as both parties know the consequences of their actions. One will end up with victory points, the other with more Warrior cards.
Peter
rgmnetid wrote: I just read the rules, and I found them adequate (having not played the game, so I'm assuming). The biggest problem I saw was the "pile" situation, which seemed woefully underexplained, but not totally incomprehensible. I get that there is an Ares Pile and a Land Pile, and I get that cards in these piles are "in play," but the "in play" phrase is not directly connected to these piles, which is confusing. Also, the wording does sort of imply a Land Pile per land type (and per Ares card, but that seems nonsensical). A setup diagram would help here: there is more to the play area than just the Warrior and Fate decks. The complete play area includes the two draw decks, a discard pile for warriors and Ares cards, the Ares and Land "in play" piles, and a reserve pile and a won lands pile per player. In all, that's 10 piles, not two.
Another issue is: does the defender really win without playing a single card if the attacker passes immediately? The rules say yes. Because you can be forced to attack, this situation seems egregiously unfair and therefore wrong. A first-pass reading makes me feel like I've misunderstood the rule, which makes me feel more confused than I really am.
Without having played, the rest of the rules seem pretty straightforward and serviceable.
-
-
Oh,right!, gameplay variants like Fortify and Sacrifice?
I like both of these especially Fortify, I think it would be good if you could have a card like Trebuchet or Ballista that enabled you to beat an opponents fortifying warior.
What about an optional rule such as Conquer that enabled you to play one warrior card on one of your opponents land trophy cards and thus stopped your opponent gaining the points for it unless the warrior was beaten and removed?
Doh!, didn't notice that the Elite card had a standard on it.
What I was thinking of for a Standard Bearer, was an action card that gave a warrior card extra symbols while in play.
How about Promo cards for the game?, such as an Action Card: The General, opponent may not play any action cards this turn. or a Warrior card Berserkers, opponent may not play action cards this turn.
Thanks for listening
James
-
-
Any new game idea action going on Peter?
-
Peter
Canada
Port Coquitlam
British Columbia
Makers of Battlefields of Olympus
MoFo Max Payne Yo
-
Hi James,
With respect to variants, I am sitting on a number of designs that need more playtesting. There is a promising blind bidding battle mechanic I'm investigating. Here is a very rough outline:
a. Defender chooses a number of Warrior cards to commit to battle by laying them face down in front of him;
b. Attacker chooses a number of Warrior cards to commit to battle by laying them face down in front of him;
c. You may play the Scout Action and choose to withdraw Warriors or add more Warrior to the battle;
d. You may play the Rally Action to discard and replace any revealed Warriors due to Scout;
e. Attacker reveals Warriors by turning them face up;
f. Defender reveals Warriors and orders his Warriors against the attacker's Warriors;
g. You may play the Rally Action, after which, the defender orders his Warriors against the attacker's Warriors.
h. Both attacker and defender may assign Action cards to his Warriors face down;
i. Both players turn assigned Action cards face up;
j. Discard any Warriors that have been tied or defeated;
k. The player with the most winning Warriors wins the battle;
l. Return winning or unused (unpaired/unmatched) Warriors to hand;
m. Each player draws one face down Warrior;
n. Losing player draws another face down Warrior.
NOTE: If Ambush! is played by the attacker, the defender reveals Warrior cards first and the attacker orders his Warriors against the defender's Warriors. Either player may play valid Actions to defeat or cancel the Ambush! Action.
With respect to the expansion, we are slowly ramping up production. It will pick up speed as we move into the New Year. Fred Dee, responsible for all the existing Warrior card illustrations, is already looking at a theme for the next set of Warrior cards.
Also, from your suggestion, I'm considering a Ballista "Warrior" that simply "nukes" a Warrior card before any Actions can be applied. The Ballista and the nuked Warrior are discarded. In the expansion, each Warrior deck would have its own illustrated Ballista.
As for the rest of the expansion, I've mentioned a number of new design ideas here and there on our site (see below).
Action Cards
Oracle
Conceal
Reinforce
Build Action Cards
Road
Barracks
Tower
{Victory point bonuses applied to won Land Trophies}
Campaign Cards
{Victory condition bonus/penalty points}
That's all I want to say for now.
Happy Holidays!
Peter
EDIT: I forgot to mention, a shipment of Battlefields of Olympus is on its way to the UK.
-
-
Wow!, new battle mechanic sounds great, seems to give more of a flavour of a large battle
Like the sound of all the new card ideas, looking forward to the exapnsion.
Will keep a lookout for the cards in the UK.
Happy Holidays to you.
James
-
Darrell Ottery
United Kingdom
Reading
Berkshire
-
Wrt UK availability, we had our copies arrive on the 23rd, so your FLGS ought to have them available - depends if they ordered stock just prior to Christmas or not.
We had a couple of dozen arrive and they're selling very well, partly, I suspect because I've been demoing a lot ever since Essen, and the first thing new players have asked has been 'when can you get it in?'.
I've *really* enjoyed the game - played it a huge number of times (and that's something I must try and fix as a New Year resolution - recording plays).
We had one customer come in specially on the 24th, diverting en route back home for the holidays, to pick up a couple of copies because he's been desperate for his own ever since he played the shop copy.
Have only just spotted the poll, so will fill it in shortly, assuming feedback is still welcomed at this point.
-
|
|
Makers of Battlefields of Olympus
