Wouldn’t be fun without mistakes!
Somebody drew first blood. Well played, @RogerBW! And it’s your turn again.
1 Like
Still having trouble working out which moves are actually allowed and which aren’t (for example, I think I can’t Grow into conflict, only Move). Back to @GeeBizzle.
I feel like I had to grow to avoid @roger turning me into an illegal organism. Thank heavens you can’t grow into conflict!
1 Like
I think if you focus on a growth strategy and then use move to split you could.
It really is whip quick on a turn though I wonder if that’s still the case on a larger board.
Back to @GeeBizzle.
Very strange. I like it, but I think I’d want to try it with physical bits and nothing enforcing the rules.
@mr.ister it is you.
Look at some of the notional shapes they are looking at for bits. If they pull it off they could have such good hand feel.
It did take the hand holding to make me remember you can’t move without food.
Yeah, that’s what I meant really - can I internalise the rules enough to play without the handholding?
I’ll just yoink this in off BGG:
I’m curious how they can get the food to work with those shapes though.
One will be fine but three?
Oh I do think it’s possible but the restricted placement when growing and the movement limitations make separating on a small board like this tricky. I think you’d have to plan for it early to make it work. If I look at my board state right now, I think it would take me a couple of rounds to separate even if I had the necessary elements.
Maybe three players is a somewhat awkward player count. In our four player game we used four rings which felt a bit more open but not too loose.
@RogerBW you’re up. Also, I know what you mean. I’m not that worried about the rules though. There are a couple fiddly exceptions but nothing too dramatic. I feel like I’m getting to a point where I have internalized most of the rules, so that I don’t have to worry too much about the legality of moves when I look at the board.
However, what I am quite sceptical about are the minis. I worry that it would get quite busy on the board at mid game to the detriment of legibility. I think I’d prefer wooden tokens using the symbols on the website.
On to @Geebizzle.
Yeah. the 3D-print designs in my head are much flatter - basically, take the icons, put a ring round them if needed, and project to quarter-inch thick, making the tops slightly thinner than the bottoms. (But I haven’t tried to take account of food status yet.)
1 Like
@mr.ister you are back up.
I agree @RogerBW The food is the killer for this design but yeah a ring on the board with the “tentacles” coming out of the ring could be a neat design solution that means they could house more than one food. You could still create elevation but by dropping the food to the board level it could solve the issues with 3 food on an icon.
I do enjoy the rock, paper, scissors mechanism for conflicts and think tying that into the tentacle arms is a good short hand mechanism for teaching.
Interestingly I assume the food is small balls but I wonder if there is something around their shape that solves the issue.
2 Likes
And that’s game over. Good game!
Let me know if you’re up for a rematch!
1 Like
Not for a bit, but thanks! Really interesting game that I’m going to have to think about…
1 Like