asm wrote: Right, which is why I went to check the game settings to figure it out. At which point the 2v2/0v2 thing came into play, further muddying the issue.

You always want to cater to the lowest common denominator when it comes to this type of thing, which is what makes me so useful as a map tester. If I can't immediately figure something out, neither can the proles, because I'm exactly as dumb as they are.

you have a point about the 2v2/0v2 thing, i hadn't checked the board discription yet so i didn't catch that. but the whole attacking empties at a disadvantage didn't (and shouldn't) be confusing the way it is now.

I can only shrug at that. I have this argument a lot.

what wording is preferred?
to me "only attack empty squares" or "only attack unoccupied squares" means squares with zero units.
What would make you associate empty with neutral?
What would unoccupied territory mean, other then without units?

Should it say "only attack squares with a '0'".

I will change the dice to be 1v1 with a -1 attack modifier. I still like the fact that with the modifier, the attack arrow comes up red (which on wargear is meant to signify "unfavorable attack"). 0In my opinion, this should make a cautious player (not myself), stop and look at the box that says d0 vs d2, have this signal red flag, then after minimal processing say to themselves "Maybe I should attack an unoccupied territory, since any other attack is futile".

Thanks honestly for the suggestions. Please let me know if you find anything else misleading. I truly think the game is fantastic and want others to enjoy it so this is helpful.

better:
"only attack abandoned territories".

Alpha wrote:

  (which on wargear is meant to signify "unfavorable attack").

A 1vs1 is also an "unfavorable attack" as no one will ever roll a 0, so defender would always win.  So "unfavorable attacks" aren't always shown in red.  Which I think is what your saying too, but the Red isn't the only case in which an attack would be "unfavorable".

yes, but I want the arrow to be suggestive, hence the modifier. As stated before the 2v2 was an artifact of a previous board and survived do to laziness on my part. It will be fixed.

I guess what confused me is that it's even possible in the first place to win against an empty neutral with a zero sided die.  It's kind of like attacking with words and not weapons.  In my perfect world, attacker would attack with a 1 sided die and defender would defend with a 1 sided die with a +1 post modifier.  I know..  Doesn't help, but it speaks to the the problem with zero, conceptually speaking.

"Only attack abandoned territories" works for me but I would probably be redundant and add somewhere else in the rules something along the lines of:

"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose."

M57 wrote:

I guess what confused me is that it's even possible in the first place to win against an empty neutral with a zero sided die.  It's kind of like attacking with words and not weapons.  In my perfect world, attacker would attack with a 1 sided die and defender would defend with a 1 sided die with a +1 post modifier.  I know..  Doesn't help, but it speaks to the the problem with zero, conceptually speaking.

"Only attack abandoned territories" works for me but I would probably be redundant and add somewhere else in the rules something along the lines of:

"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose."

but there's noone to roll that defensive dice. ever play dungeon? that you can attack empty (or abandoned) territories with a 0-dice. and to your analogy, if noone is there to defend you can always claim by words that you own it. we did it with the moon (sort of), the europeans did whenever travelling somewhere new, landgrabbers in general work that way "i claim this land as my own!". :D

BTW, just finished my first game (a win) on the board.
BRILLIANT! gives me hope for my kensington board...

What happened to Whittle?

Alpha wrote: yes, but I want the arrow to be suggestive, hence the modifier.

I do see Alpha's point here about the colored arrows.  I have found the red/green arrow set-up that currently exists to be confusing at times - that is the arrows are colored if the attack is better/worse compared to the standard for that board.  I think it would be more straightforward if the arrow was green any time the attack was more favorable to the attacker and red the other way.

Yertle wrote: What happened to Whittle?

it's still there, been busy at work the last few months. it was in the process of being play-tested to make sure everything worked alright. at the time i didn't think there were quite enough sample games to make me feel good enough to submit it for review. i'll look into it some next week. i'm hoping to get thru this week/weekend and things will settle down again.

Amidon37 wrote:

Alpha wrote: yes, but I want the arrow to be suggestive, hence the modifier.

I do see Alpha's point here about the colored arrows.  I have found the red/green arrow set-up that currently exists to be confusing at times - that is the arrows are colored if the attack is better/worse compared to the standard for that board.  I think it would be more straightforward if the arrow was green any time the attack was more favorable to the attacker and red the other way.

I kind of brought this up at one point too:

Attack Line Colors Question

better/worse compared to the standard for that board. I think it would be more straightforward if the arrow was green any time the attack was more favorable to the attacker and red the other way.

favorable to the attacker compared to what, though? It's a relative statement, so it has to be a relative calculation.

I actually agree with Alpha on this. Retain the red arrows for sure. We can debate the wisdom of the system's setup all we like, the fact remains that a red arrow gives one pause before attacking.

Also agree with 'Top - I really like this game. I want more people to play it.

asm wrote:
favorable to the attacker compared to what, though? It's a relative statement, so it has to be a relative calculation.

I was thinking that as I wrote it, but didn't clarify.  So to do so: Green any time the attacker is rolling a die with more sides than the defender, White when the sides are the same and Red when the defender is rolling the larger die.

I could get behind that.

M57 wrote:

I guess what confused me is that it's even possible in the first place to win against an empty neutral with a zero sided die.  It's kind of like attacking with words and not weapons.  In my perfect world, attacker would attack with a 1 sided die and defender would defend with a 1 sided die with a +1 post modifier.  I know..  Doesn't help, but it speaks to the the problem with zero, conceptually speaking.

"Only attack abandoned territories" works for me but I would probably be redundant and add somewhere else in the rules something along the lines of:

"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose."

Last comment: if "only attack empty squares" is misinterpreted as only attack neutrals, then
"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose" will be interpreted the same way.

I have started to write a lengthy explanation of game-play / dynamics to go in the board description, but was too tired to finish it last night and probably will not get to it til the weekend.  I will implement the other changes / suggestion at the same time.

Thanks for the support weathertop and asm.  It is built so they will come.

I am on board with Amidon's coloring scheme change as well.

Alpha wrote:

M57 wrote:

I guess what confused me is that it's even possible in the first place to win against an empty neutral with a zero sided die.  It's kind of like attacking with words and not weapons.  In my perfect world, attacker would attack with a 1 sided die and defender would defend with a 1 sided die with a +1 post modifier.  I know..  Doesn't help, but it speaks to the the problem with zero, conceptually speaking.

"Only attack abandoned territories" works for me but I would probably be redundant and add somewhere else in the rules something along the lines of:

"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose."

Last comment: if "only attack empty squares" is misinterpreted as only attack neutrals, then
"Attacks against occupied territories will always lose" will be interpreted the same way.

I have started to write a lengthy explanation of game-play / dynamics to go in the board description, but was too tired to finish it last night and probably will not get to it til the weekend.  I will implement the other changes / suggestion at the same time.

Thanks for the support weathertop and asm.  It is built so they will come.

I am on board with Amidon's coloring scheme change as well.

Maybe your explanation is best put in the strategy forum. We can discuss individual scenarios there. Brave souls are urged to discuss the issue of perceived advantage to actual advantage in Seven; I had a good talk with Nygma about "placement bias"- probably the biggest turn-off of the game, after figuring out the rules.

Where's Hugh when we need him?

New Version:
dice are 1 sided attack, 1 sided defense (automatic loss attacking) with the -1 modifier so that attacking arrows appear red to be suggestive.
change wording to say "only attack abandoned territories".
wrote a description of the board, including suggestions for how to play.

For anyone who thinks that initial placement is everything, look at this game:
http://www.wargear.net/games/player/31213
note: asm and I both thought that the game would go my way from the start. Check the initial setup, think about it and watch the history.
The game isn't won until it is played and I don't believe I made any stupid mistakes in this one.
Try it again.

it's not everything, but there are a few setups that are terribly difficult to overcome. yes i think maybe you could have pulled something out in yours by making a couple different moves near the beginning (tho not completely sure since there's still the fog issue with the history).

how about this one? any way i (white) could have come out on top with the initial placement the way it was? http://www.wargear.net/games/player/31495. i tried and tried, but he played a perfect game too so i don't know if i had much of a chance unless he messed up.