I believe my game to be, at its core, quite simple, but sometimes I struggle to get that across. There are several "edge case" rules, for sure, but nothing big in the grand scheme of things, and really the core mechanic (that makes up 90% of the game) is just this one rule. Curious if you all find this to be clear enough, and interesting enough to learn more about the game.
Hey folks, I'm a big fan of this game, but as I've played more and more, I've noticed that with cards like Kirin and Tiger, there are often 2-3 move combos that are unstoppable about 1 or 2 turns out from the start. Sometimes, after the game is over we'll go back and check and see that the combo was actually unstoppable from the start of the game (4-5 moves). Basically, the master is under imminent threat, and if he moves out of the way, then the temple is available.
It makes those cards pretty unplayable. Have others found this to be the case? Do you just not use those cards?
I am making a game that has a 5x6 grid, and pieces that can move similar to a king, knight, bishop (same but max 3 distance), and rook (max 3 distance).
I've been debating just giving them the same names as their chess equivalents. This has the advantage of being familiar and easy to understand, though it does mean players would get surprised by the small differences. Also it would, at first glance, communicate that the game is more like chess than it really is, which may not be ideal.
I am considering instead giving them their own names: king = master, rook = hammer, bishop = arrows, knight = scythe. Their shapes would hint at their moves: hammer looks like a cross, arrows will point diagonally, and a scythe looks like a knight / "L" shape.
On the one hand, this means the players cannot use their prior knowledge as much. On the other hand this forces them to check the rules and note the differences, while also giving more appropriate "flavor."
Has anyone else seen a similar issue, or have guidance on what ends up working better? The play tester I've checked with have been pretty split on it, and I fear my sample size will never be enough to just "test" this scientifically.