Play OPR
Feywild Growth [JOB APPLICATION]'s itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Concepts & Originality | #19 | 3.760 | 3.760 |
| Adherence to Theme | #39 | 2.960 | 2.960 |
| Overall | #47 | 2.987 | 2.987 |
| Rules Clarity | #62 | 2.240 | 2.240 |
Ranked from 25 ratings. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Comments
Hello, thank you for participating in the first OPR Mission Jam! Please email marketing@onepagerules.com so that we can send you the participation models! Please include 'OPR Mission Jam Participation Minis' in the subject line.
I don't know, this feels like a mission just open to being cheesed. Strategically staying behind for the first two turns to dump 4 pieces of terrain unrestricted is crazy. Changing Force Org to 20% without increasing the unit cap or changing the duplicate count feels open to abuse. I do like the Heads/Tails disparity and the ability to change those strategically. Though it could lead to a situation where a Fast unit gains Fast again and starts zooming around the battlefield, or a Slow unit becomes double-slowed. Perhaps if those removed existing speed-changing rules first?
This mission doesn't clarify what system it is for. Given the fantasy vibes I'm assuming it's AoF. The changes to force-org are tricky, by lowering the cap it means lots of players who only have one regular army to play with might be unable to play at all. 20% cap means if you have a big favorite model that is too many points, you won't be able to play unless you have a lot of spare infantry to replace it with.
The rules also aren't very clear what happens when objectives change hands; it says to flip a coin when a point is seized, but is a new coin flipped each time it changes hands, or only when first revealed? Do you lose the bonus/penalty when you lose the point, or do you keep it? I think it's meant to be a one-time flip and you keep it until you lose the objective, but it isn't entirely clear.
And finally, the terrain placing says (explicitly) "without restrictions on placement", which seems like an excellent excuse to trap enemy models or captured objectives in between impassible objectives. That could probably have used some restrictions.
I appreciate all the feedback! I'll incorporate the suggestions for the *some* restrictions for terrain placement for sure, and rephrase parts for the objectives and the coin flips. The intention was to lose the bonus/penalty if you no longer control the objective - though could flip the results if you deal more damage to the Impact Spell than your opponent.
And I thought I had mentioned the AoF - sorry!
As for the 20% cap, that does seem to be a sticking point for a few people! It was meant to be a way to breath new life and force new plans into armies that are well played and loved already, not a point of contention! May have to rethink that approach...
The concept of an evolving battlefield is intriguing, though the constant tracking of individual objective effects with coin flips might become cumbersome. Clarity is also impacted by the non-standard deployment zones and the lack of a clear title on the page itself. While new terrain physically grows each round , the overall "Growth" theme feels less like an escalating threat or organic spread and more like a simply mutable environment, which some might find less impactful.
Hi! I have two questions:
The 2+ is meant to cover the extra terrain to be added split evenly. The suggestion is to have 8+ pieces set aside - so if you have 16 pieces set aside instead, you'd set out 4 each round instead of just 2. The 2 is meant as a minimum point.
As for the change to the Force Org - the idea is to have a larger number of units rather than simply larger army crushers involved. A small change to make one consider new approaches to armies that you're already familiar with, just played in a slightly different way to bring new life into them.