Play game
AoF Tremors [Job Application]'s itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Adherence to Theme | #44 | 2.836 | 2.957 |
| Rules Clarity | #45 | 2.877 | 3.000 |
| Overall | #48 | 2.975 | 3.101 |
| Concepts & Originality | #49 | 3.211 | 3.348 |
Ranked from 23 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.
Some thoughts:
I suppose I should have been clearer that the narrative aim of the battle is to retreat in good order to have an army capable of redeploying elsewhere rather than rushing away in a panicked rout, so if fliers/striders chose to break and run it would be because they were abandoning their comrades and making it every man for himself. Also, you make a good point about the specific distances; they could use more playtesting. Since the number of units decides whether you're best fighting or fleeing, the idea was that the side with more units (i.e. the fleeing side) would be forced into the tremor radius while the smaller side chasing them would be better able to dodge the effects, but perhaps the side areas are too generous.
Simple concept, a fun interpretation of 'Growth', and it seems fairly well implemented. The only two things I would consider are renaming the 'Deadly Ground' table, as it is easily confused with 'Dangerous Terrain' and giving some better incentive to attacking enemy units. Perhaps armies need to exit the opposite sides of the board from their start? Or perhaps a unit suffering any wounds gets a movement penalty the next turn?
Thanks for the feedback. The intention was that the side with fewer units would need to attack or they would definitely lose, creating all the necessary incentive on its own. Plus, both sides will need to resist the temptation of a first-turn charge with their best units. You're not the first person to say it looks like both sides would just immediately retreat though, so obviously that's not communicated very well in the text.
I'm a little concerned that this mission is going to result in both sides just running off the board on their side of the table, and there's not much exciting going to happen. Especially a Fast army can pretty much reach the board edge in round 1 and be extracted by round 2, and score full points for their army. If you have more units than your opponent and do that, that's just game, no dice rolled...
I agree, the army's should have to fight through each other to the opposing sides or something.
Well, that's sort of the point. If both sides run, the one with more units automatically wins, so the side with fewer units has a strong incentive to attack instead. If this was a whole-army activation game it'd be more of a problem, but since it's alternating activations the fleeing side can't possibly remove all their units unscathed.
Issue is, the fact that the VP you can earn are limited by your unit count is probably going to result in both players aiming for maximum activations when building their lists. Not to mention players using Scout and Ambush to deploy some or all of their units closer to the table edge, making a pursuit mostly unfeasible.
But however the lists are built one player has to have fewer units, or both players have equal units, meaning that one or both players will need to attack to win. So while the fleeing side might use their deployment rules to get away faster, the attacking side could similarly use those deployment rules to block the retreat.
I think the problem with that setup is that the player who chooses to attack the other would be at a disadvantage since their own way to safety will be longer and might be blocked by enemy units. If the only way to avoid a draw is to make victory for your opponent more likely than for yourself, most strategically-minded people will probably prefer the draw.
Every unit would need to be weighed on whether it would be better denying the enemy victory points by killing, or retreating as quickly as possible. If a powerful unit can kill 2 weak units, then it's already both made back the VPs it might lose by not escaping and denied the enemy 4 potential VPs, and with a turn 1 charge available, that powerful unit is not going to struggle to kill something. I don't think either full retreat or full attack would be viable strategies compared to using stronger, slower units to take out and screen enemies while weaker, faster units retreat.