I don't know if a thread like this already exists, but I couldn't find one, and wanted to add some thoughts.
First off, I absolutely love this game. It has probably become my favorite board game, and my Girlfriend and I have played it almost constantly since she got it for me this Christmas.
That being said, there are a few things we've noticed, most of which are only minor tweaks, that I wanted to bring up, in hopes that it may help in future design.
If anyone else has suggestions, feel free to post here. Please keep it civil and constructive. Also, if it does turn out that this thread exists, feel free to link it, and I'll move this post there.
1. The box design for the second release. (For us, this is the big ones. The other items are much more minor)
This probably sounds nitpicky, but it's probably caused more frustration than any other aspect of the game so far. The fact that the box opens from the side, rather than the top, makes it annoying to pull cards out of, or put cards back in. Also, the piece on the top sticks out almost twice as far, making it harder to fit in the box. The original boxes fit well into the Card game box, and the one adventure we have that was secondary-release is just frustrating to deal with.
2. "Play this card to Defeat x" text.
Technically, this is covered in the rules by 'only the player who encountered a card can defeat it.' However, I feel that 'Play this card to succeed at x check,' while technically somewhat weaker and slightly more wordy, would make the rules much more obvious. When I brought this rule up after I found it online (Also, the FAQ doesn't address this well, which didn't help), my girlfriend pretty much refused to adopt it, as we'd been playing it the other way for three months, and the rule seemed very ambiguous on the card.
3. Banish vs Put back in the box.
The fact that these terms are so similar (effectively interchangeable for 2 adventures), means that differentiating between the two can be very difficult when it does start to matter. Rather than relying on players to tell the difference, it may be better to always use 'banish' and then call out specific instances where it cannot be used to remove basics (The only time I know of is extra cards after re-arranging decks, which would be easy to call out on its own).
I think that's everything that's really bothered us to this point. As I said, considering everything involved, it's a fantastically made game. I just wanted to get on the record in hoping that what I feel could be improvements will be considered in the future.
The box design for the second release. (For us, this is the big ones. The other items are much more minor)
This probably sounds nitpicky, but it's probably caused more frustration than any other aspect of the game so far. The fact that the box opens from the side, rather than the top, makes it annoying to pull cards out of, or put cards back in. Also, the piece on the top sticks out almost twice as far, making it harder to fit in the box. The original boxes fit well into the Card game box, and the one adventure we have that was secondary-release is just frustrating to deal with.
I'm assuming that you're talking about the adventure decks boxes. Link
Are you saying they should use this type of box instead? Link
These types of boxes are much more expensive, which is probably why they don't use them.
I think he is saying that the "First Printing" adventure deck boxes opened on the top, while the "Second Printing" adventure deck boxes open on the side. If the box opens on the side, you can't get cards out/in of the adventure deck box while it is sitting in the plastic insert in the Base Set. You have to take the adventure deck box out of the insert.
And he probably assumes that in S&S the boxes will be like the second printing, so he's hoping they will reconsider the side opening.
I think.
I think he is saying that the "First Printing" adventure deck boxes opened on the top, while the "Second Printing" adventure deck boxes open on the side. If the box opens on the side, you can't get cards out/in of the adventure deck box while it is sitting in the plastic insert in the Base Set. You have to take the adventure deck box out of the insert.
And he probably assumes that in S&S the boxes will be like the second printing, so he's hoping they will reconsider the side opening.
I think.
That would make more sense. I've never seen boxes that open from a side such that they wouldn't open while in the plastic insert.
I just assumed that they wouldn't change the packaging for the second printing. Never occurred to me. Why should it?
---
I can see how that would be annoying, though. You'd have to pour the cards out to get them out of the box...
I think he is saying that the "First Printing" adventure deck boxes opened on the top, while the "Second Printing" adventure deck boxes open on the side. If the box opens on the side, you can't get cards out/in of the adventure deck box while it is sitting in the plastic insert in the Base Set. You have to take the adventure deck box out of the insert.
And he probably assumes that in S&S the boxes will be like the second printing, so he's hoping they will reconsider the side opening.
I think.
Yes, thank you for clarifying! The fact that the second printing is significantly worse than the first raises concerns about the next set, and I wanted to make sure that was identified as a potential issue before it goes to print. (Sounds like that already has been noted, though, based on your response)
Chief Technical Officer
|
The fact that the box opens from the side, rather than the top, makes it annoying to pull cards out of, or put cards back in. Also, the piece on the top sticks out almost twice as far, making it harder to fit in the box.
I have to say, I *much* prefer the new side-opening box. I've personally opened a couple dozen decks, and I rarely managed *not* to tear the top-opening boxes.
I believe that the printer will be shortening the hang tab area ("the piece on the top") for Skull & Shackles.
2. "Play this card to Defeat x" text.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. What was your misunderstanding?
3. Banish vs Put back in the box
The fact that these terms are so similar (effectively interchangeable for 2 adventures), means that differentiating between the two can be very difficult when it does start to matter. Rather than relying on players to tell the difference, it may be better to always use 'banish' and then call out specific instances where it cannot be used to remove basics...
I cannot agree that the solution for differentiating between two different things is to use the same word for both.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yes, thank you for clarifying! The fact that the second printing is significantly worse than the first raises concerns about the next set, and I wanted to make sure that was identified as a potential issue before it goes to print. (Sounds like that already has been noted, though, based on your response)
The second printing is not "significantly worse" than the first. I'm as unhappy about the half-centimeter change in card length as just about anyone, but that's easy enough to work around, and all of the S&S cards will be the same size. (It's not even as bad a situation as Magic: The Gathering's Alpha set, which had a different corner radius from all later cards.) As I said above, I *like* the side-opening boxes, and for S&S, they will be a little slimmer and the hang tab area will be a little shorter, and that makes them solidly better in my book.
And most importantly, our new US printer is able to deliver more consistent color than our old Chinese printer—and that, in my book, makes the new printer "significantly better" than the old one.
Yes, thank you for clarifying! The fact that the second printing is significantly worse than the first raises concerns about the next set, and I wanted to make sure that was identified as a potential issue before it goes to print. (Sounds like that already has been noted, though, based on your response)The second printing is not "significantly worse" than the first. I'm as unhappy about the half-centimeter change in card length as just about anyone, but that's easy enough to work around, and all of the S&S cards will be the same size. (It's not even as bad a situation as Magic: The Gathering's Alpha set, which had a different corner radius from all later cards.) As I said above, I *like* the side-opening boxes, and for S&S, they will be a little slimmer and the hang tab area will be a little shorter, and that makes them solidly better in my book.
And most importantly, our new US printer is able to deliver more consistent color than our old Chinese printer—and that, in my book, makes the new printer "significantly better" than the old one.
Thank you for your response. I was probably overly harsh in my criticism. To be clear, I was referring only to the box, and not the cards themselves when I referred to them being 'worse'. I have noticed no issues with the cards themselves. I also had not had any issues with the top-opening ones breaking, so I am glad to hear that there was a good reason for that. That does make sense.
To me, the big problem is that they are inconvenient to work with in the box. I am glad to hear they are improving the hang-tab. Will the thinner size make the cards easier to access? If so, I think that all of the issues I had would be addressed.
Thank you again for your help and clarifications. I'm sorry that I came across aggressively. I did honestly only want to make suggestions.
2. "Play this card to Defeat x" text.I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. What was your misunderstanding?
Sorry. I was referring to cards such as 'Thieves Tools' that allow you to 'Defeat a barrier with difficulty 11 or less' (I don't have the card in front of me, but you know the one). Unless you know the rule about the person encountering must defeat a card, there's nothing in that text to indicate it cannot be used on another person's encounter.
I didn't see a specific FAQ addressing this, and it was only after reading these fora for a few days that I even realized we were using it wrong.I cannot agree that the solution for differentiating between two different things is to use the same word for both.
You are probably right. I'm probably just a bit frustrated at all the rules that I have learned recently that I was doing wrong, and am trying too hard to fix in my head.
Again, thank you for responding to this! I'm sorry to be so negative on my first post about these cards, but I wanted to try to help make a better product if possible.
I made a worksheet for tracking the "removed" cards. I included all the instances from the rules on when things are banished and tried to highlight when they are simply "put back in the box". You might find it helpful. It is in this file.
I made a worksheet for tracking the "removed" cards. I included all the instances from the rules on when things are banished and tried to highlight when they are simply "put back in the box". You might find it helpful. It is in this file.
Thank you. I have seen you post that link in other threads (Though unfortunately I haven't actually followed the link, since BGG is blocked at work, though). Essentially, I was just trying to figure out a way to know how to do this without needing a spreadsheet. That being said, I probably should not have assumed that the random idea I came up with 3 hours ago was better than the heavily playtested version that was actually released...
Here is a link to it in dropbox. I'll keep it there for a bit if you want to download it.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I am glad to hear they are improving the hang-tab. Will the thinner size make the cards easier to access? If so, I think that all of the issues I had would be addressed.
You're still going to have to take the adventure deck box out of the tray to add and remove cards, if that's what you mean...
Thank you again for your help and clarifications. I'm sorry that I came across aggressively. I did honestly only want to make suggestions.
No worries. Enthusiasm is a good thing!
I am glad to hear they are improving the hang-tab. Will the thinner size make the cards easier to access? If so, I think that all of the issues I had would be addressed.You're still going to have to take the adventure deck box out of the tray to add and remove cards, if that's what you mean...
That's a shame, but I understand if there were more serious design flaws. Has there been any thought put into redesigning the AP boxes to account for the different design of the Adventure boxes? Probably not a priority, but I am curious.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I was referring to cards such as 'Thieves Tools' that allow you to 'Defeat a barrier with difficulty 11 or less' (I don't have the card in front of me, but you know the one). Unless you know the rule about the person encountering must defeat a card, there's nothing in that text to indicate it cannot be used on another person's encounter.
Your suggestion (play this card to succeed a check to defeat...) isn't actually any more explicit about *who* can succeed at the check—I suspect the main reason you think it works better is that you have a better understanding of things now. Specifically, I think you now understand that all cards are written to address the person reading them. When we say "defeat a barrier", we mean YOU defeat a barrier, and you only read "succeed at a check" correctly when you read it as YOU succeed at a check.
In Skull & Shackles, we will be making some changes to clarify that sort of thing—for example, when we use "a check" to mean "a check by any character", we'll now be saying "any check"—but so far, we don't have another wording lined up for cards like Thieves' Tools.
I was referring to cards such as 'Thieves Tools' that allow you to 'Defeat a barrier with difficulty 11 or less' (I don't have the card in front of me, but you know the one). Unless you know the rule about the person encountering must defeat a card, there's nothing in that text to indicate it cannot be used on another person's encounter.Your suggestion (play this card to succeed a check to defeat...) isn't actually any more explicit about *who* can succeed at the check—I suspect the main reason you think it works better is that you have a better understanding of things now. Specifically, I think you now understand that all cards are written to address the person reading them. When we say "defeat a barrier", we mean YOU defeat a barrier, and you only read "succeed at a check" correctly when you read it as YOU succeed at a check.
In Skull & Shackles, we will be making some changes to clarify that sort of thing—for example, when we use "a check" to mean "a check by any character", we'll now be saying "any check"—but so far, we don't have another wording lined up for cards like Thieves' Tools.
Cool. at the very least, I imagine that will make some difference.