The Evolution of Gaia

Post by: Grant Rodiek

A few months ago I mailed copies of Project Gaia to four groups for testing. The game was only about 6 months old, but it had gone through several iterations, felt “okay,” and good enough to send to folks without my presence. The goal was to attain validation for the concept. Not to hear “this game is good, box it up!” but to gauge the pulse of folks and get a general thumbs up or down on the concept.

The tests have gone well, but the game had a lot of problems. Most glaringly were the issues with complexity. The game had a lot going on, and it took me a while to find out what was needed, why, and how to do it simpler. Thankfully, one test group in particular, Ruth and Jeff Ashton, stuck with me over 3 or 4 iterations now.

An in game photo taken by the Ashtons

An in game photo taken by the Ashtons

I received a very positive test report from the Ashtons Friday, which was a really nice affirmation of the work that’s gone into the game. It feels like the project is really turning a page, so it seems like a good moment for reflection.

I want to write about many of the changes that have been made. I’ll try to cover it at a high level so it’s both interesting and useful to folks who aren’t intimately familiar with Project Gaia. Another way to see some of these changes are to watch two developer vlogs I recorded, showing the game at two points in time.

Here are the rules for the game. The Print and Play is linked at the top.

A quick explanation of the game: Project Gaia (name TBD) is a combination of my love of CCGs, like Netrunner, and tile games, like Carcassonne. I wanted to make a game where building a deck was core to the experience, but I knew I couldn’t make a full CCG. I just don’t have the testing resources, the financial resources, or the audience.

Therefore, in Gaia, players build or draft decks of 9 cards from a limited pool of 55 cards. There are 3 card types: powers (action cards you play then discard), creatures, which hold territory and attack, and monuments, which act as tiles that grant bonus actions. The cards that aren’t used have Terrain on the back and they are placed as tiles to build a planet.

Players alternate taking actions on their turns to play cards, manipulate the planet, and battle. The result is a 30 minute card game with a nice amount of depth and interaction.

Card Costing: A key to games of this nature is cost. In Magic, Netrunner, and X-Wing Miniatures, cards have a mana cost, click and credit cost, and squad cost, respectively. You even see this in Star Realms and Dominion. If a card costs too little, it’ll become overly dominant and can ruin the game. If it costs too much, players will avoid it in favor of something that’s easier to get out.

In card games of this nature, tempo and pacing are crucial to manage.

I love multi-use cards. Borrowing the Magic mechanism from Summoner Wars, cards originally required you discard other cards to play them. The cost ranged from 1-3.

Going back to the very beginning of the game, this has caused all sorts of problems. Initially, the game was laboriously slow — you were constantly left with no cards. To counter this, I gave you a free draw every turn, and you could spend your entire turn to draw back your discard pile (somewhat like the discard and draw action in Combat Commander).

But, the problem was that people would spend all their cheap cards to play the good cards. You actually saw this a bit in the Summoner Wars meta where players would completely forego commons to play only Champions. The game ground to a halt, as it would take multiple turns to fully draw up, get your big creature, then maybe lose him, forcing you to refresh.

I also noticed creatures didn’t have a lot of purpose. I’ll dive deeper into the iteration of creatures below, but I added a mechanism where every creature you had in play reduced your discard cost by 1. So, if I have 2 Creatures out, a 3 Discard card would cost 1. While this idea is simple, it was very complicated. Players constantly forgot it. They were overwhelmed by the math, as well. Think about it — if you’re evaluating 5 cards in your hand, and all of them have a simple math problem, that requires you work much harder to decide what card to play.


The reminder card

Shortly after I added reference cards to help you remember that you had a creature discount, I took a step back, and admitted I was devoting a ton of mechanisms to making this single mechanism work. Basically, I was putting a lot of good money after bad.

I removed the discard cost entirely. It was immediately more fun. Players started with all 9 cards in their hand and they could just play them. One action, one card. Suddenly, the game was simpler, faster, and players were able to enjoy the full range of cards. I removed the free card draw at the beginning of the turn.

However, this too had a few problems. For one, nobody ever spent 1 Action to draw 1. Players would spend their full turn to draw their entire discard around turn 3 or 4, and would never need it again. This felt like there wasn’t really an interesting economy of decisions related to card draw. I removed the 2 Action – Draw your entire discard option. Now, you spend 1 Action to get 2 cards (at random). Therefore, fewer actions, and one that’s more consistently used throughout the game.

But, finally, there was one more issue — some cards were clearly better, but all had no cost, except the single action. My option here is to make all cards consistently powerful, which is both difficult and, in my opinion, boring, or implement a cost. I learned my lessons from the previous iteration, so I returned to the discard, but a much simpler version. Now, cards either cost 1 Action, or they cost 1 Action plus 1 Discard. The 1-3 is gone.


In summary, there is now a nice way to balance better cards that isn’t complicated and doesn’t require supplemental mechanisms to make it work. There is a nice hand management layer to the game. Turns are simple. Take two actions, which basically means playing two cards, using two cards in play, drawing 4 cards, or some mixture of these.

Creature Evolution: Creatures needed a lot of love. When I decided to have a strong spatial element, I felt like it only made sense, thematically and mechanically, to have creatures on the worlds you’re building. Summoner Wars is my primary inspiration for Creatures. I wanted them to move simply in a grid system and attack to protect your other creatures, protect monuments, and foil an opponent’s plans.

All Creatures have either permanent passive bonuses, conditional bonuses (do this to get a thing), or Actions (like many Monuments). For a while, creatures were in the game just to be there. You didn’t need them for anything and often, players wouldn’t play them. Therefore, to help combat the card discard problem, I made it so that creatures reduced the cost by 1. If you had all 3 creatures out, your cards were free to play!

This is mechanically simple on paper, but as I noted above, was too complex and didn’t work. Then, I made it such that Monuments could be used by players to complete objectives. I also made it such that Creatures could block regions from use. However, as combat began heating up, players noticed a few problems:

  • If someone just flooded their deck with Creatures, it made them all free to play, and an opponent would be unable to knock them off or score.
  • Creatures were so flimsy. They all died in one hit, which meant they were impossible to keep on the board.
  • Creatures could be played anywhere, which made it even easier to just hot drop a creature next to an opponent’s and kill it. Whack a mole!

I added three fixes to address these. I added a Deck creature limit of three, I did a tuning pass of health and attack, and I made it so that creatures had to be played to a specific land type. This really improved things!

After listening to a fantastic Mark Rosewater Drive to Work podcast about worldbuilding, I decided to put his teaching to work and really think about how the creatures belong to the world. It was a really fun exercise! I thought about each terrain and what it meant for the creatures in that ecosystem. I tried to design key principles for each one. Then, I listed common and fantastic creatures one might find in such a region. Finally, I put the names to paper and tried to find a marriage of theme and mechanism. I think it was a really fruitful exercise. As the game tightens up, I plan to dig into the theme more strongly to find how I can add more of those touches to the experience.

You should read the scoring section for further details. Creatures went hand in hand with those changes. Mostly, creatures became simpler – no card discard cost, no range – but also became more integral to scoring. Players had to have at least one Creature or Monument involved in an Experiment to Score it. Then, only cards covered by your Creatures could be added to your Biosphere. This made Creatures integral and simple. You can take the ground you cover, essentially.

Finally, for now, I recently did a tuning pass on Creatures to further diversify their values per feedback. Now that I had the discard cost back (though only a single discard), I could make some creatures more powerful. I also began using the knobs more fully by experimenting with Movement speed, defense, and the bonuses provided by the creatures. The hope is that a player will choose 3 Creatures that have synergy with their other cards. Somewhat like how Ice or Programs will really dictate how your deck plays in Netrunner, Creatures will be the primary movers and shakers in Gaia.

Here are some creatures.



Card Design Evolution: I’m very proud of the work done here. I’ve put a great deal of thought into it and have seen great results come from investing time into the quality of the layout. Now, it’s all placeholder. Obviously, a professional will do the work if/when it gets published. But, for now, I’m super proud of the results.

Initially, the cards had far more components, so more needed to be displayed. A creature, for example, had:

  • Name
  • Creature Symbol
  • Tile Affinity: Basically, play this to a Grassland
  • Discard Cost
  • Card Text
  • Creature Stats: Defense, Movement, Range, Attack
  • Creature Discard Reminder

Yowza! Naturally, some of these things were lopped off as the game simplified. Range was eliminated as a creature component. The discard reminder died with complex discard cost and was replaced with a simple discard symbol.

However, the Creature symbol needed some thought. It seems obvious now, but it took a minute. I wanted to have symbols on the cards to represent the type. The idea being, players would see that symbol, think “this is a creature,” then remember from the rules, “Creatures are played like this.”

The problem was that with 4 card types (it’s now 3), all of which played a little differently, the symbols didn’t help. Players basically had to remember 4 rules that weren’t reinforced on the cards. Lame! It was frustrating, because the rules were really simple.

  • Powers: Resolve the card, then discard it.
  • Creatures: Play to the tile type indicated.
  • Monuments: Play to a Desert.

But, people kept mixing things up. I took inspiration from Ashes from Plaid Hat Games. On their cards, they tell you exactly where cards are played. They use simple phrases like:

  • Play to your Spellboard
  • Play to your Battlefield
  • Play then Discard

I thought about it. Why can’t I do the same thing? I removed the useless icon and at the bottom in tiny text, I just told players how to play the card. Here’s an example:



For each card, Creature and Monument respectively, the bottom tells you how to play them. Just a nice reminder that is driven home. I did a few other simple things to convey differences. Notice there is a bullet shaped frame on the Creature. The idea is to convey, you play it to this type of card. But, on the Monument, it’s in a box. Now, a real designer will improve on this, but one conveys an action, they other conveys a permanent state.

There are other cues I can provide eventually using color and shapes. In fact, I found some art on the internet, just as an experiment, and put together some card mocks. Now, I did them. They look bad. But, it’s fun to see what they could look like with more than white backgrounds.


Again, ignore my terrible choices. But, you can see a generic grasslands shape on the bottom, so players always know “this is a grasslands.” That lets me remove the icon in the top left. I made a specific icon – the fence – so you can also know that it’s an icon. Finally, more fun art!

I did a similar exercise with a creature.


Here, you have a generic forest silhouette on the bottom to remind you where to play it. But, it isn’t filled in, so that it doesn’t state that it IS a forest. You then have the pertinent character stats in the top left corner, all chosen to represent a creature.

Gaia is a complex game with 55 unique cards. I’ve had to put a great deal of work into the layout of the cards sooner than typical to help facilitate that learning. But, every step has paid dividends. Tiny, subtle tweaks have noticeably improved the enjoyment and comprehension of my testers.

Planet Construction: Originally, the players built the planet at the start of the game. After building or drafting decks, they’d turn the cards over, shuffle them, and deal 3 to each player. Players would take turns placing these on the Planet, then drawing a new one.

There were two early problems. One, the planet was too big. It had a little too much of everything and there was no conflict or tension. Players would just build what they needed in their own corners. Secondly, the rules were too restrictive. I said you had to attach a card to one of its type. This meant you’d effectively have a Neopolitan planet of Grasslands, ocean, and forests, cleanly separated.

I shrunk the planet from 15 to 11 cards and added an initial seed – 3 random cards played diagonally. But, if one of each type wasn’t played, this meant you could play a card anywhere. So, now it looked like a slightly melted Neopolitan. I removed the restriction entirely. Play a card wherever you want, as long as one of its sides matches the side of the same length of an existing card.

Fundamentally, though, this section wasn’t interesting. It added another 3-5 minutes to setup, depending on the AP of the players. It also felt like a choice that I didn’t want to be a choice. Players would try to build the planet “correctly.” My fear in providing a pre-arranged layout was that the game would become static. But, I ripped off the band-aid to implement the following solution:

Players chose 1 of 3 pre-defined layouts shown in the rules. Cards would be shuffled and randomly dealt, so you’d have a different layout with a different assortment of cards every time. This was simple, and worked pretty well. Then, when I added the special tiles (Mountains, Fjord, Fissure), I had the final twist. After the layout is complete, players alternate placing the special tiles. They can place them in deserts (blank spaces), or displace another tile, shifting the row or column to make room.

Now, the planet is setup quickly, with randomization in the tiles, and a slight, quick player twist to really get it going. The key summary here is that I simplified it and focused on what the game really needed. Building a deck is the cool part. Not tediously building a planet!

Tile Evolution: Project Gaia was in my mind for months before I figured out how to make it and begin testing. I knew I wanted to make a tile game. In fact, the original original idea was to make a game where players would create tile sets, like decks, that they would then use. But, this had some weird product complications, and tiles were too small to give me the flexibility to make a broad, robust game. When I realized I could use the cards as tiles, and save cards by using the cards that weren’t selected, it was a real eureka moment.

Tiles were originally varied and complex.




Those are ugly, but you can basically see there are forests (green), oceans (blue), grasslands (brown), and deserts (tan). The problem with this much variety was that it was impossible to line anything up. It also made the game very complex in a weird way that wasn’t intended.

Immediately, I shifted to simple, solid tiles, and cut it down to 3: grasslands, ocean, and forest. One neat idea to deal with blank spaces that would inevitably emerge due to shifting and removing cards was that blank spaces were deserts. This meant fewer cards, but I still had 4 states.

At this point, the Tiles felt rather dry. It seemed like the game needed some punch. Therefore, I introduced Landmarks. On some tiles, there would be bonuses granted to the player on top of them. Due to the random nature of what was in the game, this would add some variety to what powers were out.


The landmarks would do things like:

  • Increase card draw
  • Destroy planet tiles
  • Add planet tiles
  • Let you move creatures
  • Let you add creatures at no discard cost

The problem with Landmarks was two-fold –

  1. It added more complexity. There were just too many variables to track. And, you had to discern the icons on them, which was lousy.
  2. They were tough to use. The benefit of them was often outweighed by the cost of not using creatures to complete scoring objectives.

The landmarks also exposed a more fundamental flaw with the game — the Creatures weren’t interesting enough (discussed above), and the Monuments weren’t interesting enough. Instead of adding more stuff, I removed the landmarks, simplified my rule set again, and strengthened my core content.

I reverted back to plain, simple tiles. But, the itch scratched again. First, I added Mountains. These two special tiles were added after you setup the original map. Players couldn’t shift Mountains, which meant they locked territory, but also provided a defensive bonus to creatures. Temporary safe havens.

The mountains worked. They were a nice spice. Therefore, I added two more. The Fjord and the Fissure. The Fjord was trying to solve the problem of players just adding Tiles anywhere on the map and immediately completing scoring objectives. Now, you could only add tiles next to the Fjord. The Fissure was the Omega to this Alpha. Any cards, creatures or tiles, that moved onto the Fissure were destroyed. Basically, a caution zone.

The Ashtons reacted negatively to the Fjord initially. It felt overly restrictive and annoyed them. This is one of those cases where you need to take the feedback, but really think on it. I knew the game needed a constraint on adding cards. But, perhaps a single card was too much of a limitation? I made the following change, and asked them to try again.

Mountains now could not be shifted, and took on the Fjord’s power. They no longer provided a defensive bonus. Effectively, there were two Fjords. No change to the Fissure. The change was received well! It gave players some flexibility, while also establishing basic limitations. With these special tiles, the planet was overall very simple, with just enough spice, and the Monuments acted as the primary points of differentiation.





Now, players can focus on creating and shaping the planet, and choosing whether to let an opponent keep their Monument in play to focus on scoring, or take it out, in the hopes of gaining momentum.

Scoring Evolution: This section of the game has probably seen the most iteration, aside from changing every single card for wording, balance, or functionality probably 30 times each. No exaggeration!

When I started the game, I didn’t want this to be a war game. I didn’t want it to be about dealing X damage (like Magic) or killing an enemy base (like Summoner Wars). I wanted to have an open path so you could use the cards in a variety of ways and hopefully have tons of variety. Therefore, I was leaning more towards the Netrunner system of scoring points, which can be done in a variety of ways.

I wanted the spatial element to be front and center. You’re creating and shaping the planet, so that should be how you score. Initially, I had scoring cards with very precise goals on them. There were 7 in play. Once somebody scored 3, the game won. There was also a fourth card type that were basically powers, but if you met their condition, you’d score the point, removing the card from your deck. It was like having a secret objective.


Above, someone would score if they had 4 Forests in precisely that orientation on their turn. This had quite a few problems. Firstly, there is the complexity of the shape itself. If the board starts with 11 tiles, plus player Monuments and cards, plus this can be mirrored…wowza! It’s tough to watch all that. If you recall, this system is similar to Tash-Kalar which also has that, and it’s tough there too. But, the surrounding framework of Tash-Kalar is MUCH simpler. Vlaada is a genius, after all.

Also, initially, you just got this if it was in the world. There was this agonizing problem of wanting to set yourself up to score, but not get close to it, then your opponent would score. Players would play chicken and have a staring contest. It would grind the game to a halt as players tried to setup the multi-turn setup to create the pattern and keep an opponent from getting it.

It was also tough to focus on all seven goals at once. Therefore, I put in 3 at a time. But, sometimes they were difficult to execute, or painfully simple to execute, based on the random start of the board. I created more to create more variety, but the problem still remained. Sometimes the game didn’t jive well and it was tough to get the precise shapes.

I was worried about players just auto-completing them. I started putting in back pressures. To score,  you had to discard cards. Or, take an action. I tried several things, but the fundamental problem still remained, and adding yet another reason to discard cards exacerbated the discard card cost I discussed at the top. Plus, people were really struggling with the shapes.

I shifted to a much simpler system. Simply have a defined number of tiles of a type touching each other. No patterns, just assortments. Now, players merely had to create a pocket of 3 Grasslands, for example. This is round the time I started involving Creatures more into the scoring framework. An opponent couldn’t use a tile covered by your creature to complete one of these goals. Players could use their Monuments to complete these goals, but not their opponents. Now, there’s a layer of board control which started to create a more cohesive whole.

Here are two of the Experiments. One is a simple Planet one, the other a simple combat one.



There was still was the problem of the cost. Eventually, I kicked the framework and made it such that you would complete the goal at the end of your turn if the conditions were met. Three of these Experiments are in play at all times. At the end of your turn, you can score the three if you qualify for them. Then, any new ones are drawn. You would then get a reward instead of a single point.

These rewards led to the creation of the Biospheres.



Above are the two possible Biosphere cards players would get at the beginning of the game. One flexible, one linear. When you met the condition, you’d get a reward. You could score a Tile on the planet to your Biosphere, completing that slot on the track, or you could do other things. This idea sorta worked, except it didn’t.

There were too many confusing rules on what you could take, and why, and when. Players were allowed to force their opponents to take cards for their Biosphere, which would cost them points if it was the wrong tile type. So, putting an Ocean where you need a Grassland would hurt. There were also just too many symbols.

I tried again with a new iteration.


There were 3 Biospheres, each associated with a tile type. You had a great deal of flexibility going down the track, choosing one available card in each row. If you chose the highlighted tiles, you’d get a bonus. This was better, but still too rigid, and players hated shoving a card in their opponent’s Biosphere. It felt wrong for the game.

I tried to simplify it. To complete an Experiment, at least one of your Creatures or Monuments must be involved. This means you need to maneuver and have presence on the board. This is effectively “the cost.” Instead of discarding cards, which is lame, you have to effectively do fun stuff. You know, moving creatures, attacking your opponent, and setting up your Monuments. I used a strength of the game as a cost.

When you complete an Experiment, you get 1 or 2 Rewards, but never the same one twice. These include:

  • Adding one Tile covered by one of your Creatures to your Biosphere. This was a nice simple solution. If you have creatures, and they are in position, they allow you to score good tiles.
  • Add a tile to the Planet from the Supply
  • Remove a tile from the Planet
  • Add cards back to your hand (if you want to move a Monument, for example)

Adding Tiles to your Biosphere Scores points. Looking to Coloretto, I tried something dead simple. The deeper you can go in a single color, the more points you get. If you have 4 Forests, your forests are worth 7 Points total. If you have 2, they’re worth 2 Points.

This allows for flexibility and it’s very simple. As a final tweak, you also get an immediate bonus based on what Tile type you add to your Biosphere. These help move the game forward.


On the horribly designed card above, you can see the 3 simple bonuses, as well as the card to point distribution on the bottom.

In a nutshell, the scoring is about manipulating the planet and marshaling your forces to control a sector. Then, you add tiles to your Biosphere for one time bonuses, but also, hopefully, focusing on 1 or 2 tiles to maximize your points. The game ends when the 6th tile is added to a Biosphere.

Conclusion: I think at 4500 words this has gone on far too long! If you have any questions or thoughts, just ask. I’d love to talk about Gaia and where it’s going. Thanks for reading!

The Farm Fresh Plan

Post by: Grant Rodiek

I’ve posted many of the details contained in this article on different channels, but I want to condense everything to a single post for folks to read. I want to provide an update on Farmageddon: Farm Fresh Edition, including my publishing plans and schedule, the art team, pre-order campaign, and the current design.


Ideally, I’ll have Farm Fresh in my hands late summer as I plan to send it to the manufacturer at the start of March, as soon as Chinese New Year ends. For those not aware, Chinese New Year takes place typically in February or March and all of China, and therefore the factories, shut down at that time. Progress on all things manufacturing halts. Therefore, if we get started around March 1st, that means we can hopefully receive the game around August or September. This puts us in a good position for the holiday rush.

The hope is to have the rough manufacturing proofs for my May conventions, but, we’ll see.

Farmageddon: Farm Fresh Edition will have an MSRP of $15. It’ll come in a high quality two-piece box, will have 106 linen finish cards, and a nice folded rule sheet. If you have a copy of Hocus, you have a really good idea of what I’m talking about. Hint: The components are almost identical.

I’m also printing 2 promo cards, which will largely act as a pre-order or direct sale (online, conventions) incentive. I imagine they’ll also be on the BGG Store, and I will happily mail them to fans for $1 (or something like that). I’m fairly anti-exclusives, so these are merely meant as a sweetener, much like the Needle Rapier for Mice and Mystics. The 2 promo cards will be two copies of a new FrankenCrop – the Selfish Starthistle. It’s a LOT of fun, so trust me, this is a promo you actually want to use!

One more thing I’m excited about in this edition — there will be a reference card. This is a really simple way to aid new players and remind them of their actions. By cutting Fields, I gained 3 cards back, one of which is a Reference card, the other two are Promo cards. Efficiency!

Why is it Farm Fresh instead of 2nd Edition? 

I want to have an updated entry in the BGG database. This is almost a new game and I want it to receive its proper due and attention. A LOT of work has been put into this new version, as well as investment in time and money. However, the 1st Edition is technically the one I released on The Game Crafter in 2011. This makes the version released by 5th Street the 2nd Edition. I don’t want to put 3rd Edition on the box, so taking a cue from Microsoft (said nobody ever), I’m choosing a more playful name instead.

Farmageddon: Farm Fresh Edition is a mouthful, but it’s more charming and plays into the personality of the experience.

Schedule and Art Team

We’re in the final leg of design balance right now. I feel firm about the core mechanisms — not much has changed, but we kicked the crap out of the tires to really double check everything. Most of the cards haven’t changed in a while, but we’re tweaking one or two and that has repercussions. We want to ensure all cards are compatible and have clean text that jives nicely. This morning, we revised one card, which forced me to add 3 new words to another card to make them fully compatible.

Art development will begin in February. I’m thrilled to announce Brett Bean will be returning to illustrate the new Starthistle. Brett illustrated the cover, basic Crops, and Farmer cards from the base game. Brett is truly a visionary, world class artist, and having him involved is just thrilling. Erin Fusco‘s beautiful FrankenCrops will also feature prominently in this version. If this version is successful, you will all be in for a huge treat when you see her work on Livestocked and Loaded. Overall, the illustrations you know and love from Farmageddon will not change.

Graphic design will be handled by the fantastic Adam P. McIver of Cre8tive Dept. Adam handled the graphic design for Hocus, which is why our box is so striking, our icons are perfect, and the card back is phenomenal. The brunt of the visual overhaul will be done by Adam. I have about 5 years of feedback I wish to incorporate! His work will include:

  • All new icons for Fertilizer, money, and the card icons.
  • New layouts for all the cards to better highlight the art, and provide subtle cues for Farmer cards versus Crop cards.
  • A professional rules layout. The 1st Edition rules were basically text on a white background. We can do better.
  • Overhauled and revised box layout. You saw what Adam did for Hocus…
  • New card backs for the Crops and Farmer cards.

Essentially, this will be the most beautiful and striking edition of Farmageddon ever. This is THE version to have.

Pre-Order Campaign

In order to get Farmageddon to market more quickly and experiment, I will not be using crowdfunding to cover its costs. Hyperbole Games LLC will pay for the printing entirely out of pocket. We’re currently planning a 2500 copy print run.

Once the game is on the boat, and therefore 1 to 2 months from customer hands, I’m going to setup a pre-order campaign for the game. I may use Big Cartel, which is our current online store, or I may experiment with Celery. I need to examine the payment options and interface of the latter to evaluate.

I may not use either! Why? Beginning at the end of January, will be getting a makeover. I’m working with a web designer to overhaul the entire site, and by April or May, it’ll be a more fantastic, useful experience. I’m so thrilled!

So, we’ll see.

Taking a note from Plaid Hat Games and Stronghold Games, I’ll be offering a steep discount, probably 30%, promo cards, and early delivery for the game. The pre-order will only be available for North American customers, as the game is licensed for Europe by my partners there.

Long term, I do not want to use crowdfunding. I don’t think my long term company views are ideal for the platform. Namely, I don’t want to use Stretch Goals, I don’t want to pay 10%, and I don’t want to delay production by 30 days. I’m curious to see how this pre-order campaign will go, because if it goes well, and Hocus and it sell well in the market, I’ll be willing to take more risks with future games. But, even though I’m not using Kickstarter, I will be doing the legwork to support the campaign. This includes:

  • Ads on BGG
  • Previews from external sources
  • A how to play rules explanation video

Pre-ordering Farmageddon will be an amazing way to support my little company and get a great, beloved game in your hands.

Current Development

Progress on Farm Fresh has been made at a ridiculous pace for a few reasons, including:

  • I’ve been working on the changes since about 2012
  • Many of the changes have been tested by the European publishing partner
  • With my local QA team and myself, the game is getting 3-7 tests per week
  • We aren’t really changing the core, allowing us to focus on balance and tuning.

Unlike Hocus, which was a miserable balance exercise, Farmageddon is rather simple. In Hocus, every player has 3 guaranteed powers they can use repeatedly. In Farmageddon, players are dealt a pool of cards they choose to use. This means, instead of head to head balance, I more need to monitor trends to ensure the game adheres to my goals.

For example, by increasing or decreasing the amount of Protection in the Farmer deck, or adding one more Thresher, I can make the game significantly more, or less, aggressive. In Hocus, we had to balance a cage match between 8 super honed predators. In Farmageddon, I merely need to ensure the ecosystem feels fair, that good combos aren’t too common or easily executed, and the game has good flow.

Plus, you know, I’ve been working on the game in one form or another since 2011. Soon, I’ll be engaging various text experts to ensure the wording is perfect. Cannot wait for their scorn!

Print and Play

There has never been a better time to grab the Print and Play. This version features all 106 cards, including the new reference card, and the two Promo cards as well. The graphic design is entirely placeholder, but the version is stable and lots of fun.

Read the rules here

Download the file here

Any questions or comments?

Farmageddon 2nd Edition Dev Update


Post by: Grant Rodiek

Those of you who follow me on Twitter may have picked up on this by now, but Farmageddon 2nd Edition is in development for publication by Hyperbole Games in 2016. The European rights for the game were licensed to Trefl Krakow in 2015. It was incredibly thrilling to work with them on the development, largely due to their enthusiasm for the title, but also, to be working with these old friends again.

I cannot really explain it, but I just adore Farmageddon. I love the characters, the art, and I’m proud of the game. But, it was designed in 2011 and since then I’ve become a far superior designer. My craft is far more refined. I decided a short while ago that I wanted to publish a Farmageddon 2nd Edition for Hyperbole Games. I want to release the best version of the game.

This post is to discuss some of the proposed changes and where the game is currently at in development. However, at the outset, I’d love to define what you can expect from Farmageddon 2nd Edition at a high level.

  • Sturdy 2 piece box, 108 high quality linen cards, glossy folded rule sheet. The game’s components will be almost identical to those of Hocus.
  • Improved gameplay, included a few rule tweaks and vastly improved cards, primarily in text quality and creating more interesting decisions.
  • Overhauled graphic design. The illustrations will be the same, but there will be new card backs, new box layout, new rules layout, icons to make cards more legible, and a revised, improved card layout. It’ll look better than ever.
  • $15 MSRP
  • Some wooden bonus components for those customers and retailers who order directly from Hyperbole Games
  • No Kickstarter. This game will be entirely self-financed. We’ll host a short pre-order once the game is on the boat, then it’ll go into distribution. This is a risk for the company and I’m pretty excited to take a whack at it.

Now, let’s get into some of the specific changes. Firstly, let’s discuss modifications to the core rules.

  • Three Farmer Actions up from two Farmer Actions. This gives players more flexibility and combinations. However, players still only draw two Farmer cards (previously Action cards). Therefore, managing these is more important than ever.
  • Mixing FrankenCrops into the Crop deck. Previously there were 60 plain Crops, then 10 FrankenCrops — one of each. Now, there are 40 plain Crops and 20 FrankenCrops. Still 10 unique cards, but there are 2 of each.
  • Making FrankenCrops cost an Action. This was tested and removed. It just didn’t work with how the FrankenCrops were designed and it removed some of the fun of getting a FrankenCrop. This idea is dead.
  • I experimented with putting reminder icons on the Farmer cards. Little icons that would indicate key ideas like “this card is for theft,” or “this card gives you more cards,” or “this card protects cards.” The issue is that it doesn’t really help. It mostly just adds more junk to the card. Noble idea, but it doesn’t quite work. This idea is dead.
  • No unique rules for 2 player games. I used to have a few custom rules for the 2 player game. These rules were implemented back when the game was on The Game Crafter, back when the cards were VERY different. The result was that 2 player games were incredibly tense…or absolute blow outs. The rules directly led to this by curtailing the number of Farmer cards drawn. Now, the game is the same and it allows for a simpler rule set and a superior experience.
  • Variable starting Crop cards. The player who goes first has a slight advantage in that they will have a higher probability of more Crop cards over the course of the game. To offset this, the first and 2nd player begin with fewer Crop cards.
  • Better key words. This is something that drives me batty about the original game. I was very inconsistent with my terminology. Now, I’m consistently using Destroy, Discard, and Harvest to guide players.
  • Switching the “must fertilize once” rule to “do one crop action rule.” The idea was to simplify this. However, if players don’t fertilize, it removes a key risk element from the game. The game immediately improved a full letter grade when I reverted this change. This idea is dead.
  • Crop, FrankenCrop, and Farmer cards have a simple icon on them to tell you “hey, this is a card of this type.” It makes referencing cards in rules far simpler. This was a minor confusion for some players in the old version I sought to address.

Now, let’s talk about how some of the specific Farmer cards are changing. This is the meat of the work before me.

Other than improving the wording, these Farmer cards haven’t changed.

  • Bumper Crop
  • Crop Insurance
  • Crop Rotation
  • Dust Bowl
  • Pesticide
  • Rented Land
  • Thresher

The Farmer cards below haven’t changed in end result, but the specifics of their execution has.

  • Foreclosure: This used to have a weird amount of math – pay crop cards equal to half the crop’s fertilizer value rounded down. It was just over balanced and complex. Now, you always pay 2 Crop cards. This means you pay the most with Wary Squash or Grumpy Melon, and you overpay a little on Sassy Wheat and Sluggo Corn. It’s simpler and just much better.
  • Foul Manure: This used to be really complex. You could only get rid of it with Dust Bowl, and no actions could target it, and you couldn’t harvest or fertilize, but anyone could discard 2 cards to get rid of it…wow. Now, it makes you card immune to Farmer cards. That’s the key goal. But, the fertilizer cost of your crop goes up by 2. So, you can protect your crop…but it costs more. Or, you can slow down an opponent. Exact same end result, but MUCH simpler.
  • Genetic Superworm: This used to be just like Foreclosure in that you had to halve the fertilizer amount. Yuck. Now, it simply reduces the fertilizer amount by 2. Sassy Wheat and Sluggo are free then, Melon and Squash cost 1 and 2 to harvest. Same result, much simpler.

Now, the Farmer cards below here still have the same intent, but their functionality has changed a little bit.

  • Darn Gophers: This used to be “steal 1 Fertilizer from any planted Crop.” Now, it’s “steal 1 card from any planted Crop.” Want to steal a Fertilizer? Take it. Want to get that Bumper Crop or Pesticide off of there? Take that instead. It makes it a much more interesting card.
  • Farm Futures: This used to be “draw 2 crop cards or steal a random card from an opponent.” Stealing a card, like skip a turn, is a take-that cliche. Needs to go. It also is weird as the cards have distinct back, so “steal random” isn’t that random and it leads to questions. Now, you can draw 2 or put the card in your harvest pile. If you do this, it foregoes immediate benefit, but you’ll get $1 for every Crop in your pile. I know this will need balance testing, but the idea is that the card incents you to harvest more lower value crops instead of simply high value ones. Curious to see how this changes things!

I’ve modified the distribution of some cards. I made it so that Darn Gophers and Farm Futures have 4 cards in the deck instead of 5. This is to curtail their new power. I increased the number of Pesticides and Rented Land from 3 to 4. Rented Land is a great card that eases the frustration of not being able to plant. Having more Pesticides hinders the potency of Farm Futures and combos nicely with Darn Gophers’ new power.

Finally, let’s talk about FrankenCrops. Many of these cards were zany and wonky. By and large they worked really well, but they caused a lot of strange edge cases and could be confusing. I really wanted to scrub these and really improve them.

Some of these cards didn’t need to change at all, including:

  • Bodacious Broccoli
  • Zippy Carrot
  • Riled Rice
  • Jazzy Coffee Bean
  • Flame Fruit
  • Communal Pumpkin

However, a few of the others ones really needed a face lift.

  • Zombo-Weed: This card used to clear all the fertilizer off fields in the game. It rarely triggered in a meaningful way. Now, it can kill any Crop. However, you give the Zombo-Weed to the victim. I think it’s more zombie like now as well!
  • Stinky Truffle: This card used to let you sort through the Crop discard pile and, yuck. I hate cards that do that. Now, you simply get the top card. If you’re really paying attention, you can time this to get a really sweet card on top. Simpler with a similar result.
  • Helpful Tater: Previously, this gave you $4 if you used it as Fertilizer. So…obviously everyone did that. It was an obvious play, and obvious plays are boring. Now, if you use it to Fertilize someone else’s crop, it gives you cards. That’s a nice simple choice.
  • Mirror Bean: I hate this old card. I hate it so much. Previously, it was immune to all Farmer cards, like Foul Manure. But, unlike Foul Manure, it didn’t have a counter. It also led to strange issues with how it interfaced with FrankenCrops. And finally, because it wasn’t worth much, players would just place it to occupy a field to screw others. I hate this card. Such a terrible, bad card. This one has gone through a few iterations. Currently, it’s similar to Stinky Truffle. It’s worth more, and now, when you harvest it, you get the top Farmer card of the discard pile. If you time this well, you can get a really good card.

So, that’s the gist of the changes so far. I’m eagerly testing and tweaking cards, layout, and more. I’ll be sending RFQs to a few graphic designers to see who is interested in working on Farmageddon 2nd Edition. I cannot wait to see it on shelves with the Hyperbole Games logo!

If you’re interested in testing Farmageddon 2nd Edition or even just reading the rules, email me at grant at hyperbolegames dot com!

The Lost Fleet


Post by: Grant Rodiek

After months of thinking, design, graphic design, and prototype building, I finally brought a re-imagined Sol Rising to the table. The Lost Fleet emerged victoriously, at least for now, and a huge wave of relief has washed over my ego and looming sense of fear that I wouldn’t have it ready to pitch at BGG Con.

By the way, in case you didn’t get the reference in the title and intro, I’m referring to The Lost Fleet series by Jack Campbell. I’ve read the first 6 books and recommend it!

I want to write about the revised Sol Rising today to answer the questions:

  • What is the design now?
  • Why did it change?

I’ll cover what the design was through all of its previous iterations. This is a great post to catch up on the game, somewhat like a “previously on Sol Rising.” 


Blockade: The very first iteration of the game featured long stickered blocks. Players would arrange the blocks in little formations, revealing or covering weak spots and gun emplacements on the ships. The gun emplacements would indicate the color of dice to roll, which were intended to represent different weapon types. Two green hits could turn into a yellow hit, and so forth. The idea was that a battleship could smash ships easily, but a pack of small ships could band together to take down the big ships. There were also cards to augment play and mix things up.

This version worked and was fun, but it lacked depth. The blocks were very costly, the dice mechanism wasn’t intuitive, and players spent a lot of time summing colored symbols to figure out how many dice they would roll. It was tedious.

I recognized that I was trying to make a more complex game than the blocks would allow, so I scrapped this to try again.

Sol Rising 1.0: The major change here was that I represented the ships with cards. I kept the formation mechanism, mostly, but the orientation of the cards would now be represented by triangular or rectangular tokens on the board. If the ships were in triangle formation, there’d be a triangle token. The game was played in rounds, called Command Sets, in which players would alternate ordering a single squadron. An order included movement and/or a one-sided attack.


With cards representing the ships, I could provide stats and special abilities. This ship has guns, this one missiles, and oh, they have a special ability. Special abilities were limited – only once per battle, and every player only had 5 total ability uses. Furthermore, ships had a shielded or unshielded state. If unshielded, ships lost their ability.

There were some issues with movement and the combat abilities, but the most important lesson was that the time to design the scenarios had come. I needed to create the story.


Sol Rising 2.0: This was by far the longest period of development. As you can imagine, it took a very long time to write the narrative for a story spanning 12 scenarios. Then, design all of the scenarios.


Every scenario included setup for the fleets (which ships, where they start), board layout (asteroids, space stations), some custom rules (ex: stealth rules), 1-3 unique objectives, and persistent effects based on those objectives. Most of this time was spent playing the very first scenario. I had to figure out the structure and rules before replicating it a dozen times.


A great deal of work was put into improving the wording, potency, and clarity of the card abilities. I tested the campaign a few times with friends and tweaked some of the rules and balance, and shifted the ability system to two times per command set. Abilities were fun to use, so incorporating them into the game constantly was just better for the game.

Sol Rising 2.5: I played v2.0 with a publisher at BGG Con and went home with some feedback. Primarily, setup was too complex and time consuming and the story needed to be better integrated into the game. I also had some lingering concerns about the formation mechanism, which had really fallen out of my favor.

I eliminated the spatial mechanism and shifted to a shield mechanism – ships with shields protect other shielded ships from ranged attack. This made close-combat ships more valuable and made maneuvering more important.


I did another pass on ship abilities. Then, to work towards meeting the publisher input, I baked some common board elements into the board directly, so instead of having to add asteroid tokens, they were just on the board already. This greatly expedited setup and reduced the number of components. 


The publisher also wanted me to better integrate the story into the game. At the time all of the objectives had to be referenced in the campaign booklet. I did a lot of revision to bake the  objectives directly onto the cards. The players could then hold onto them and reference them more easily.

Taking a note from the Legacy games and Robinson Crusoe, I wrote the narrative directly onto the story to drive home why the objective existed. I also noted how to set it up, and what the trigger was. When the player satisfied the objective, they got to flip over the card, read the other side, and discover what they unlocked.


Finally, the publisher asked me to better integrate the characters into the experience. Previously, they just existed in the narrative.

I was worried about adding another thing to worry about, but I was really happy with my solution. I took the commanders from the narrative and put their bios on the backs of the cards. Then, on the front of the cards I put their image with an ability and an event symbol. Every commander was assigned to a squadron. If the event symbol was drawn, the controlling player got to use the ability. This meant there was some unexpected flavor and decisions without having to play for them.

The response was fine, but not great. The game wasn’t good enough and it wasn’t signed. With my beloved design back in my hands, I needed to do some soul searching.

What is the design now?

I spent some time thinking about Sol Rising. I took a step back and really tried to honestly identify what I liked and what wasn’t good enough. My notes more or less resembled the following:

  • Movement is tedious. It sucks.
  • There are too many ship abilities. It hinders accessibility without leading to more interesting play. I just made a ton of variety, but not meaningful variety.
  • My original idea of having distinct ship classes is better. Give destroyers or interceptors a role, don’t worry about making 50 different destroyers.
  • The persistent story is cool.
  • The game needs to play with 2-4, not just 2.
  • The event system is cool.
  • Setup needs to be way faster.
  • The length of play is good.
  • The quick pace is good.
  • Combat should be more interesting.
  • The missile and gun mechanism is sorta complex and doesn’t really add much.
  • The dynamic damage system is cool.
  • The commanders are cool.
  • The objective cards are cool.
  • Is the circular map cool enough?

I had a pile of goals and a list of grievances. I decided to just start making stuff. I wrote about the process here, but the gist is that I created visual mocks of everything. I just started making the components to see what emerged. The result is a very different game that I think addresses my concerns and leads to something more dynamic, more unique, simpler, and more fun.

Let’s take a quick visual tour through 3.0.


The boar is now built with double sided square tiles. The blue dots are NavPoints — fleets, the red and blue disks, simply move between these points. This lets you very quickly create a huge variety of maps with minimal effort.

In my dreams, the disks would be miniatures. The small wooden numbered tokens represent objectives and points of interest. Spawn points, things to blow up. We’ll get to these in a second when we talk about Orders.


You can see up to three formations arranged around the player’s reference board. Formation 1 is represented by token 1 on the board, and so forth.

Every formation has a commander, whose ability is triggered during combat if the event symbol is drawn. Players can secretly assign squadrons of ships to each formation. Squadrons include interceptors, bombers, destroyers, interdictors, and more. You don’t quite know quite what’s in a squadron until you fight.

Do you see the face down cards on the commanders? These are orders, all played simultaneously in secret, then resolved in command order. Orders say generic things like:

  • Move to or Guard Objective 1
  • Attack enemy formation 2
  • Warp exactly 4 spaces

The idea is that you lock in your plans simply before you see how everything plays out, then you resolve it with some leeway. It’s simple and works really well. Especially in a team format. Teammates can pass cards back and forth to share and review orders.


All ships of the same class are identical. This means you have nine ships to learn, not 60. Furthermore, every ship class is very distinctive  and has a very explicit role and purpose. Let me explain the ships really quickly.

Top Left Corner

  • Health: the amount of damage a squadron can take before its destroyed
  • Dice: the number of dice the ship adds to a fight. Big ships like a Battleship will make the fights way nastier. But, small ships like interdictors can also do it. They “pin” the enemy fleet down to lengthen the conflict.

Top Middle and Right Corner

  • Squadron Type: Battleship, interceptor, etc.
  • Squadron Class: Fighter, Frigate, and Capital

Middle Italics

  • Any passive elements. For example, interceptors cannot be hit by slower missiles…but they also cannot use them.

Bottom Abilities

  • Advantage: I’m SUPER proud of this! Advantage and passive elements are the two main ways I make every squadron type distinct. One of the die faces you can draft in combat is the Advantage die. We’ll get into combat in a second. Every advantage condition is specified. For example, Interceptors have advantage against the slow, lumbering bombers. If that condition is met and you draft that die, you can use the ability. Advantage abilities are like critical hits, or flanking. To continue the interceptor advantage, you simply destroy the bombers. Boom. Gone.
  • Ability: These simply specify the die to draft and the effect of doing so.

I’m very proud of the fact that everything is on the cards. You don’t need to know what guns do or how dodge works. You simply assign the die (matching symbols) and do what the text says.

I think it’s time to discuss combat.


Combat occurs when two opposing formations are in range. You roll a pile of matching custom dice, determined by the number of formations and the ships in them. Players reveal their cards.

Firstly, if two Events are rolled, you draw and resolve an event card. In the image above, the yellow side is for Events. The Events are fun and add some spice and activate Commander abilities. Then, you turn the Event dice to other facings. How? By re-rolling them until they aren’t Events? No! The Event card simply tells you how to change up to 4 dice. It’s a simple tweak, but one I’m happy with.


You can see all the Dice Symbols explained there on the reference card. Most of them trigger abilities, though you can also use guns, missiles, and dodge generically to cause damage or avoid it.


So, you’ve rolled the dice, resolved the event if it happens, and now it’s time to fight. In an order dictated by your Commanders, players draft 1 die at a time and assign it to resolve its ability. This keeps combat brisk and dynamic, even with 4 players, or if 2 of the players watch while 2 others quickly choose 5 dice.

The fictional idea is that commanders need to react and make choices in battle. You can see your opportunities in the pool, but you don’t know what your opponent will pick first. If you have multiple good choices, ah, tension!

That’s basically it. The flow of the game, in summary, is:


  1. Form squadrons
  2. Give them orders
  3. Resolve those orders


  1. Roll dice
  2. Resolve Event
  3. Draft dice

I’m at the point now where I’m going to revise a few pieces of tuning, tighten the mechanisms, and port the first three scenarios of the campaign over to the new mechanisms. The first three scenarios form the introductory arc to the campaign, so it makes for a nice, finite package to pitch at BGG.

I’m really excited to have found the fleet again. I think this might be THE version, but that’s up to a publisher. I don’t think Hyperbole can publish this one properly. The custom dice and miniatures and story book really make it a hefty, terrifying project for me at this point. If you have any questions or comments, please list them below. If you want a demo at BGG Con, just ask!

Sol Rising Mid-Mortem


Post by: Grant Rodiek

I hit a very big milestone for Sol Rising last night: the campaign is content complete. That’s right! After about 6 months I’ve completed 12 scenarios that tell the story of the Terran invasion of the Jovian system. This was a really big undertaking, arguably the greatest thing (using great to mean large) I’ve designed.

Every scenario includes a composition of ships for both sides, their starting positions, interesting objectives (other than just destruction), new Events, new rules, and story moments to precede and modify every mission. Just typing that gives me flash backs. The campaign booklet is 28 pages and over 11,000 words.

I’ve learned a great deal doing this work, much of which can be applied to other designs and work. The game is not finished, obviously, as it needs to go through more testing and iteration, but I thought it would be fun to draft a “mid-mortem” to write about what I’ve learned so far.

You may read the rules for Sol Rising here. You may read the campaign here.

Remove Passive Effects: This is a lesson that took a few iterations to really drive home, but it’s such an important one. Most of the ships in the game have abilities you can activate. The majority of them were abilities that you’d activate and use immediately. Cause and effect. However, about 25% of them were passive defensive abilities that would leave a status on the board. For example, you could activate shields that would modify a ship’s defensive properties the next time it was attacked.

This caused some issues:

  • I needed to design a method to easily track this. This meant more tokens.
  • Tracking these effects increased complexity in a bad way. Players had to pay attention to more to make decisions and play.
  • I had to craft rules to deal with odd situations. What if the ship isn’t attacked? How long do the shields last?

On two occasions, my friend and design peer Cole Medeiros noted I needed to simplify them. He kept stressing cause and effect and how that simplifies things. After the first time I addressed some, but others remained. I thought it was better. After the second time, he offered the feedback with a twist.

“This ability prevents one damage when attacked next. Instead of forcing me to remember that, just remove a damage that’s already on the ship.”

Much. Simpler.

I applied this to all remaining abilities and removed them. Now, every ability in the game has an immediate effect. This has simplified the rules, simplified the abilities, removed components, and removed edge cases.

Passive abilities have absolutely ruined some games for me. I quit playing Seasons because I was sick of tracking what seemed like an endless stream of passive effects. I should have paid attention for my own game, but it took time to do so. Nonetheless, the lesson has sunk in (again).

Remove Conditional Abilities: In a game where you have activated abilities, it is crucial that in as many cases as possible you remove conditional requirements. By this, I mean: If X is the status, then do Y.

This is bad for a few reasons. One, it’s more complicated. The simplest form is to say: Do Y. By adding a layer, you’re making it more difficult for players to do things.

You’re also removing flexibility from the experience. Instead of letting players use simple abilities in new, unexpected ways, you force them to use the ability the same way every time. It makes the game more predictable and static.

Finally, and this was often the case for my game, I was creating conditions that were so unlikely to setup. They didn’t sync with the experience or the mechanics, which essentially rendered the abilities useless.

Your task when designing abilities is to focus on simple, flexible, highly usable abilities that excite the player. Give your players the tools to craft dynamic experiences. Don’t give them rigidly scripted game cards.

Design Mechanics and Content for the Game you Want: This sounds silly, but it is something you can overlook and fight against. In Sol Rising, I made the decision a few iterations ago to make the game a simpler, turn-based structure. This meant 1 player activates a squadron (move and attack). Then, the next player did so. And so forth.

However, I would frequently design odd mechanics or abilities that would fight with this structure. This continues the previous lesson, but I would craft abilities that would state: If 2 squadrons are in this specific position, you can do a thing. However, because players moved 1 squadron at a time, not 2 or more, it meant these systems weren’t playing nicely with each other.

Eventually, I found a way to keep the main mechanics very simple. Turn based, 1 at a time. However, I crafted a few simple, non-conditional abilities to let you move or attack with additional units.

The key lesson is to not fight against the framework you’ve created. Determine the experience you want, then craft a framework and the content to provide it. Keep your goals and mechanics in sync with one another.

When creating scenario based games, focusing on replayability at the outset is key. As a lesson from York, which has received feedback that it lacks replayability, and recognizing some of the faults with some scenario based games, I decided to really focus on replayability from the outset with Sol Rising.

Some games accomplish this better than others. With Memoir ’44, there isn’t much change between plays of the same scenario. The cards aren’t highly varied and the units remain the same.

One of my favorite scenario games, Mice and Mystics, adds in more varying elements. These include:

  • Players can choose different characters.
  • Players can choose different Abilities for characters.
  • The item deck is large, so what players “find” as they play changes.
  • The enemies that spawn in most rooms are randomized.
  • The timing of surges really changes things.
  • Optional side quests and routes to take.
  • Dice based combat system.

One more good example is Robinson Crusoe. It randomizes scenarios in a few ways:

  • You choose a random subset of Event cards every time you begin the scenario.
  • You choose a random subset of Inventions every time you begin the scenario.
  • The Event decks for each action are quite large and varied. Your successes and failures will change every game at different times.
  • The order in which you unveil tiles on the island will change things.
  • Players can choose different characters.
  • Dice based resolution system.

For Sol, I started with “what good looks like” and evolved it for my own game. Although I pre-define ships and starting positions, I hope advanced players will modify these things. Other variables include:

  • Dice based combat system.
  • Events that take effect at different times, or not at all, and affect players differently.
  • Completing bonus objectives.
  • Persistent campaign effects as a result of bonus objectives.
  • System failures to change how ships behave as the battle continues.

Finally, unlike Mice and Mystics and Robinson Crusoe, you’re fighting against a human opponent, not an AI. I’ve found this makes a huge difference on how missions play out.

The lesson, overall, is that if you prioritize something like variance and replayability at the beginning and factor it into your designs, you’ll see much better results. This isn’t something you can typically just layer in afterwards. The fact is that most players won’t play missions twice. I doubt most players even finish the scenarios shipped with campaigns. But, I want them to know they CAN play them multiple times and have a lot of fun.

Focus on the core first. This is definitely something for the “win” column so far. I knew from the beginning I wanted to make a scenario driven game of some sort. However, I didn’t even touch scenarios for roughly the first 6 months of development. Instead, I worked on how you command ships, how ships attack, how turn structure works, how abilities work, and more. This took a long time and in fact, I’ve continued to develop and change these things since I began scenarios. But, trying to build scenarios is very difficult. Doing so on top of a wobbly core foundation seems impossible.

The lesson is that before you go content crazy, or design scenarios, focus on the core. Make sure you know what a player’s turn entails and how your game works from start to finish.

Focus on one piece of content first. Another win, and a continuation of the previous point, is that I worked on Scenario 1 of Sol Rising far longer than any other. Before I made 12 scenarios, I needed to make one that worked really well. I had to revise the writing style for the narrative. I had to figure out what sort of Events were interesting and which ones weren’t. I needed to get a feel for objectives and communicating unique rules.

I’ve tested the first scenario far more than any other, but the lessons learned from it have informed and aided every other scenario. If you’re crafting a game with scenarios, or content sets, make one really really good before you make any more. Otherwise, you’ll be doing a lot of tedious iteration that could have been avoided.

The longer you work on a game, the more comfortable you’ll be with it.  I have a few games I’ve been working on for a year or longer. Farmageddon and its expansion, York, and Sol Rising all qualify. What I’ve found with Sol, like I’ve found with the others, is that by spending a long time on something, the more comfortable you’ll be with it. Many of my best revelations and ideas for these have come about as a result of truly understanding the game, its strengths, and its weaknesses.

Obviously, if you can get a game signed quickly and it all works out, awesome. Congrats. Enjoy this heaping pile of my jealousy. But, if you’re working on more complex games (as I have a habit of doing, curses), give your game time to grow. Give it time to mature and evolve as it needs to. There are so many avenues these days to rush out a game, but I think you’ll find determined patience will render its own rewards.

At least, it has for me.

I’m excited to take Sol Rising into the next stages. I’m also chasing down some publishing leads and hope it’ll be something folks can experience in their own homes before our sun collapses.

Questions? Comments? Put ’em below!

Sol Rising Visual Development


Post by: Grant Rodiek

For whatever reason, about a week ago I decided to take a break from writing and editing scenarios for Sol Rising (previously Mars Rising) and focus on its aesthetics. It’s good to vary your efforts as you’ll use different aspects of your brain and, if enough time has passed, may find ways to improve old designs.

I did two things:

  1. Hired John Ariosa to do some really quick sketches. I was tired of using my Googled ship art.
  2. Decided to change the previous card layout.

For quite some time, this was the layout for the ship cards in the game:



This got the job done, but I had a few problems with it. It didn’t really take advantage of the space. The ability text was smashed into the center and the art wasn’t given room to breathe. I listed too much info in the top left corner. Notice the bombers have 0 lasers. If they don’t have guns, why bother telling you? Finally, the cards didn’t didn’t have any subtle reminders for other rules. Specifically, to place damage markers on the cards or to reveal System Failure tokens when shields go down.

Before I reveal the new layout, let me quickly explain how cards are used in the game for those not familiar (rules linked at the bottom). Ships in your fleet are represented by cards. These cards are never in your hand, but act as references. They are played face up in front of you to remind you of a ship’s stats and abilities. A single fighter card represents a squadron, or multiple ships. Capital ships are paired with up to 3 cards to form powerful squadrons. If ships are destroyed, you set the card aside. The position of your ships is represented on the board with small tokens.

Here are some of the new cards, featuring illustrations by John Ariosa.

Carrier with Shields

Carrier with Shields


Bomber squadron. There are 3 bombers, each with their own health. All contribute to an attack.

Destroyer with Shields Up

Destroyer with Shields

A Battlecruiser with Shields Up

A Battlecruiser with Shields

Destroyer with Shields Down

Destroyer with Shields Down

You see the small boxes on the cards. Here are where you place 8mm damage cubes to indicate…damage. The two different symbols in these boxes represent Shields, if your ship has them, or Hull, if Shields are gone.

Ability text reads more naturally horizontally and isn’t so bunched. I also only show pertinent information. If the ship doesn’t have Missiles, you don’t see that stat. On the bottom Destroyer, there is an additional square in the top right corner. This icon reminds you to draw and place a System Failure token.

Overall, I’m really excited. I love the art. If this is what John did in just a few quick hours with little iteration, can you imagine these ships with more time and love?

Next Steps: These cards can only go so far with my graphic skills. My skillset mostly focuses on layout (which you can feel free to dispute). I’m very very bad at colors, filters, and anything more than placing an icon. That’s why I stick to black and white.

Things I’d love to work with someone to improve are:

  • Select a superior typeface for better clarity and thematic expression.
  • Apply a superior color treatment to really draw the eye to the Icons and Stats.
  • Add a filter treatment to icons to give them some texture.
  • Improve the graphics housing the icons. Better boxes, or adding graphic outlines to the stats.

I’ll surely stumble across other tweaks through the course of testing, but those are the known issues at this time.

Balance, Language, Refinement: I haven’t touched the core rules for the game for quite some time. I’ve been focused entirely on the scenarios, which is a very different beast. As I began the work to port every card into the new style (52 cards/9 ship classes/over 85% with Unique abilities), I realized this was my best opportunity to take a balance pass and revise ship abilities where necessary.

Never ever miss such an opportunity! I revised almost every ability in some way. For starters, I stuck with a 12 Point font and with 1 exception, re-wrote every piece of text until it fit on 1 or 2 lines. By forcing such a strict limitation, I really improved the accessibility and quality of my text.

I was able to fundamentally re-examine the weapon and ship role balance in the game.

I was also able to completely remove a feature that I realized just wasn’t necessary. This simplified and cleaned up my feature set even further.


I took the opportunity to remove a few unnecessary ships (a third Assault Shuttle), add two Bombers, make sure the abilities were more unique (less re-use), and I added Veteran Fighters. All cards are double sided: Shields and no Shields. That is, except Fighters. They are unshielded and previously all of the backs were blank. However, I realized I could do some neat stuff with persistence in the campaign by adding a Veteran variant to every Fighter card. This means instead of 6 Interceptors and 6 Bombers, you actually have 12 of each. But, still only 6 cards.

Finally, I re-organized all of my graphics files in Photoshop. I always spend the time up front to properly setup my card files so they are easy to edit and maintain. However, like many things, they had grown messy. I took a new pass at organizing them and editing, printing, and adding ships is now simpler than ever.

The takeaway is that you should never skip an opportunity to take a new look at something you thought was finished. I revised almost every card and the game will be monstrously superior. If you have a big game and have moved past a feature, go back to it sometime. You’ll be surprised at what fresh eyes can bring!

Back to the Story Mines: With my fleet polished, it’s time to finish creating moments for it. I have 5 1/2 scenarios left to design, not to mention the original six to continue scrubbing. Each one requires a great deal of story editing and as I noted in this previous post, there are many variables for every scenario.

I hope to have this finished in the coming weeks. If you’re at all interested in testing this game’s campaign, leave a comment. I’ll provide you with a copy in exchange for your testing efforts. I’d love to have a few blind testers tear through the campaign.

Rules: You can read the rules here. Comments are allowed in the document if you so desire. Some of the Campaign scenarios are in disarray from editing, so I’m not linking to that for now.

A Campaign scene for the book.

A Campaign scene for the book.

A Ridiculous Farce of a War


Painting by N.C. Wyeth

Post by: Grant Rodiek

A resolution I’ve set for myself is to write about my personal games less in great specificity, at least until I have something worthwhile to talk about. Though I love writing about my projects frequently, I’d rather the posts be more substantial and meaningful for readers. I think one of my current small projects has hit a nice moment. Let’s talk about Fool’s Brigade. 


This project came about as a convergence of three things. The first: While traveling in Southeast Asia I read two great books on the American Civil War. One, about the Iron Brigade of Wisconsin, and the second about Stonewall Jackson’s famous Shenandoah Valley Campaign.

The second: Dice Hate Me Games sponsored a 54 Card game design competition. 54 cards only, due in just a few weeks (so not much time to develop and go crazy). I love competitions, deadlines, and small creative boxes.

The third: After weeks of travel, my mind was shot, wobbly, and not really ready to jump back into Mars Rising. I wanted to make something new, silly, and simple to warm up.

I went to my dining room table with a pencil, a pile of index cards, some sand timers, and a handful of six-sided dice. Over the course of an hour I found myself pushing around cards horizontally arranged, much like you see blocks moving in a classic war game.


Guns of Gettysburg from Mercury Games

The idea that began to emerge was this: What if a large group of friends were split into two teams and tried to control a Brigade (divided into Regiments) against each other? And, what if there was a General on each side trying to corral this madness? Yes, I really enjoy Dice Duel, which was firmly in the back of my mind while coming up with this.

I was thinking about how officers would guide their men in a battle around the 19th century. Much of it had to do with discipline, gathering around the flag, and very simple orders, like March, Wheel Right, and Fix Bayonets. Before long I found myself shouting these things to myself and marching around my kitchen table. Beth, in our bedroom, would shout out “What the hell are you doing?” To which I would reply “Nothing….MARCH!”

The Core

The gist of the mechanic is that every player controls a Regiment. They have a horizontal, face up card on the table that acts as their Unit and reference card. The card details their possible orders, like March, Fix Bayonets, Fire, etc. There are no turns. You pick an order, count aloud to the number indicated, then shout the order and execute it. Then, do it again.

There are some extra twists that I think make this all funny:

  • Instead of the classic “1 Mississippi” or “1 one thousand” methods, you use your last name. Which means someone with the last name Smith will be faster than someone with the last name Holmberg-Weidler (a co-worker).
  • When you move, you move the distance between your thumb and pointer fingers. That’s also your firing range. Yes, your hand size can be an advantage.
  • Bayonet charges are resolved with a best of three Rock/Paper/Scissors. I had to get creative with only 54 cards and I love this solution.
  • If Bayonets are fixed, you hold one of your arms up. Thematic and functional.
  • If a Unit suffers too many hits, they must flee, uncontrollably, until someone else rallies them. Teamwork is key!
  • There are advanced Units with modified timing and abilities. Skirmishers, Cavalry, Elite Guards, Artillery. Oh yeah.

There are some other layers to make this more than just shouting. For one, the General is responsible for supplying players with Combat cards, needed to fire (but not charge with bayonets), as well as Goals. Goals are played to slowly corral your team into some semblance of cohesion, but also a way to earn points. These are things like Charge this enemy Unit, or Hold this Hill.

All told, I intend the game to be a 5-10 minute experience. I see about 4 layers of progression to the experience.

  1. Players use basic Regiments and no terrain. Are confused but laughing.
  2. Players use basic Regiments, terrain, and get better. Are laughing with a devil’s grin.
  3. Players use advanced Units and terrain. Think to themselves, “oh yeah. It’s on.”
  4. Players are just as good as the real Iron Brigade. A disciplined fighting force of idiots.

Give it a whirl!

You can read the rules here (comments allowed in the document). A handful of folks have really put them to the test and, considering they are limited to 2 pages, I’m happy with them.  If you want to try it out the game, email me at grant at hyperbolegames dot com. It’s a 54 card Print out, black and white ink, super simple. I’d love to know what you think.


What are you making for the 54 card competition, if anything? How is it going? What do you think of Fool’s Brigade? Does it sound like something your group would enjoy at a Con or office party? Have a good one!

Flipped Visual Preview (Part 2)


Post by: Grant Rodiek

I’m attending UnPub in Sacramento this Saturday. I decided Monday night to upgrade my Flipped prototype from hand drawn index cards to something with a little graphical polish. This isn’t final or anything I could sell, but it’s a nice step forward for the prototype and I think it’ll be a better test candidate as a result. I really enjoyed putting together the first visual preview, so I thought I’d compile another to demonstrate the iterations.

Important Information

  • Name: Flipped
  • Player #s: 2-5
  • Time: 60 minutes or less
  • Primary Mechanic: Worker Placement
  • Hook: Dynamic demand model
  • Theme: City Builder/Urban Planning

The Explanation


There’s a score track lining the left and bottom sides of the board. The player with the most points at the end of the game wins. Points are earned by developing properties for clients. The game ends when the Property deck runs out.


The game’s core mechanic is worker placement. Your workers are currently cubes. You have a team of 5-6 (depending on number of players). Different actions require a different number of cubes. Cubes are returned at the end of the round.

Here are the Properties available for purchase from 6 different neighborhoods (currently just a color). The cost is shown on the card. This is refilled at the end of every round. To obtain Roosevelt County 2 (an address, essentially), I would use 2 of my cubes.

To put a little pressure and move the game forward, the right-most property at the end of the round goes into decay. The card is removed from the board and a decay token is placed on the space. I’ll explain decay later, but for now, know that you can pay a high rate to buy the property and remove the decay token.


If I buy the above card, I’ll be able to develop on the 2 slot shown in the picture. Again, think of these cards as deeds for an address.


Clients can be obtained in two ways: I can directly obtain the ones shown, or pay to draw blindly. Satisfying clients is how you earn points. However, clients you don’t satisfy are a penalty at the end of the game.

Clients represent 3 entities: Housing (families, bigger projects), Business (both jobs and places for the citizenry to go), and Infrastructure (Schools, Fire Departments). In the top left you can see one of the 3 symbols for these entities, the demand satisfied by developing the property (more on this later), and points awarded.

Some clients also have end game bonuses (shown next to the lamp). These provide bonus points if the composition of the neighborhood matches their request. For example, a family with young children wants to live in a residential neighborhood, preferably one with a school. This is a point of interaction and  hopefully more long-term strategy.

Before you can sell the property, you must meet certain requirements. These are most often improvements. There are some varied ones as well that are experiments to see how far I can push the system. Really, I need to identify what all is possible and fun.


There are four improvements: Landscaping, Painting, Electrical Work, and Remodeling (costs above). Some clients also require permits, which has a slightly different mechanic, in that as more players obtain Permits in a round, it costs more. I was thinking of the line at the DMV here.

The Park in the image above (or in the bottom right corner here) indicates 3 Landscaping icons, or 3 of those green disks. To save space, the symbol is under the disks, but I’ll improve that in the future.

To add improvements, I must move a contractor (white cylinder) to the neighborhood. While he’s there, anyone can simply pay the cost of the improvement to hire him. However, if he needs to be move, he costs an addition 1 cube. This is intended as a point of interaction and blocking.


Let’s say I obtained the Bookstore client shown above. It requires a Painting Improvement. Here, I moved the contractor to Roosevelt County and grabbed a painting disk.


You can see the two here put side by side. Now that I’m selling it (an action), I satisfy 1 Business demand (top left corner).


There are three demand tracks. At the start of the game, they are populated as shown above. The demand for these three types of properties will change every game (more on that in a second). Three things to see here:

  • If you satisfy demand above the up arrow, you gain bonus points. This abstracts high demand.
  • If you satisfy demand below the down arrow, you’ll lose points. This abstracts low demand.
  • If the Infrastructure demand is maxed and you build again, you take a decay token. This will penalize you at the end. This abstracts poor municipal services, power outages, pot holes in the streets, and more.

RevealDemandRemember we satisfied 1 demand for the Bookstore. Therefore, we remove 1 token from the appropriate demand track. We revealed a speech bubble, which I use to indicate a change in demand. These are points on some, but not all of the circles.

When demand changes, we flip the token over. Here it says that we increase Infrastructure by 2. The 2 inside the box indicates I’d gain or lose 2 points if I sold above or below demand, respectively.

FinishedNow, I place this token on the address in Roosevelt county. Remember those end game bonuses? If I need to be in a Business Zone to get the bonus, I need a plurality of red disks.

However, if there is too much decay in a neighborhood, NOBODY receives in game bonuses for that neighborhood. To refresh, decay is gained in two ways:

  • If a player builds when the demand for infrastructure is maxed out.
  • If a property decays off the property track. Unless developed, that property is decayed.


One more thing. Some homes have this symbol on them. When they are available, you place an Inspection token face down. These properties are cheaper, but something is wrong with them. Upon purchase, you flip the Inspection token to reveal one of the four Improvements. This improvement MUST be added before the home can be sold.

Good players will pair these with Clients to take advantage of them.

Art and Visuals

I’m currently using a 1 inch circular punch to quickly create tokens using colored construction paper. That’s why you see so many circles. Ultimately, I intend the properties to be smaller squares with appropriate art on them to convey “home” or “business.”

I’d like the demand chart to represent a bar graph like you might see in a newspaper or economic advisory report. I think that can look really slick and thematic.


Don’t look into any political commentary there. I believe the chart is from England. It just has the right visuals.

I think the game has potential to be thematic, at least as far as a game about property/city development can be thematic. I’m actually really excited by potential art styles. I especially love the idea of architectural sketches to show the potential of the city, as if to say “Hey player! You! Build this!”

Here are some of my favorite samples. You can see my entire Pintrest board here.



Thanks for reading! I really appreciate any comments or thoughts you have. I’m excited to take this game to UnPub to see what’s wrong with it and how I can make it better. Aside from obvious balance quirks, I’m looking for ways to increase interaction and add depth and strategy.

I’d like to think that if I continue refining the core, I can begin focus on balance testing and tweaking to ultimately pitch to a publisher.

Any questions?

Battle Report: Mars Rising


Post by: Grant Rodiek

I’ve been busting my butt for a few weeks to get Mars Rising (previously Blockade) re-designed, re-built, and ready to test again. I had a friend over today for a long 2 player game day, so after a few games of the delightful Mice and Mystics and Vampire Empire, we setup Mars Rising for a quick play.

The image at the top of this article is the game setup from my vantage point as the Martian player. I’m going to walk you through the battle to hopefully give you a taste for what took place.

The Setting

The sovereign star nations of Mars and United Terra are uneasy enemies. The setup is not unlike our Cold War here on Earth in the present day. Mars and Terra are the dominant forces in the Sol System, with a few fledgling star nations and groups in between. For the first campaign in Mars Rising, I’m focusing on a short-intense conflict where Terra catches Mars off guard with a surprise assault on their holdings in the Jovian Lunar Belts.

However, today’s battle takes place in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. The Martian Defense Fleet has a small outpost manned by a few fighter squadrons in a station just off the Ceres dwarf planet.


This posting is a lazy waypoint for merchants. It’s slow and most sought by pilots on their way out, or those who don’t want to be busy. Nobody in the Martian forces were expecting to find a Terran Battle Fleet  here.

At the start of this mission, the Terrans have an overwhelming force:

  • 2 Interceptor Squadrons
  • Battlecruiser Squadron
  • Battleship squadron
  • Potential destroyer reinforcements (Event)

The Martians are overwhelmed. They have:

  • 4 Fighter squadrons (player’s choice of splitting between interceptors and bombers)
  • An immobile and largely defenseless space station
  • A lone Merchant transport

The Terrans win when they destroy 4 Martian units, one of which must be the station. In the unlikely event the Martians destroy 4 Units first, that will also end the mission. The Martians have a few secret goals: navigate the Merchant ship safely to a point on the map, at which point it can warp out to warn Martian forces at Io (this will benefit the next mission). And, hurt Terran ships — the Martians can fight desperately to force the Terrans to begin the next mission with a bit of a bloody nose as far as ships being weakened.

If you’re curious about approximate balance, Interceptors are best against other Interceptors and Bombers. Bombers are good against capital ships, terrible against fighters. Destroyers are generally balanced and nimble. Battlecruisers are heavy and meant to kill other capital ships. Battleships are death machines.

The Battle


My Fighter Squadrons


My fighter squadrons on the board around the station.

Early I began moving the Merchant ship away from the enemy battleship. I also tried to distract him by sending my bombers in the middle of his formation.


You can see the lone Square with the red marker and the “A” on it (to note Alpha Squadron). I dropped his battleship’s shields early! (The battleship is the narrow rectangular strip with the A to the right of my bombers).

The asteroids (brown circles) offered limited protection, but his fighters chewed me up.

The wooden blue and red circles? These are command tokens. You place these on your units to denote that they’ve been chosen for this turn. The trick is, you need to alternate and cannot pick units with a token.


The triangle with the red mark and an A on it is my Merchant ship. If you look just behind him in the foreground, you can see the battleships aren’t too far away. I chose here to hold off, but I should have kept moving him. As a result, that Battleship moved in range and devastated the merchant ship. He died — no warning would be sent to my fleet at Io.


You can see his Battlecruiser squadron, the blue triangle with the B, next to the station. The battleships are just to the right. My bombers were wreaking havoc, but I couldn’t stop him in time. The station fell, as we all knew it would. Notice the blue shield token — that denotes a defensive bonus. This is a learning from a previous prototype.

Ultimately, the squadrons at Ceres were devastated and the Terran fleet plowed through as we expected. I was a bit too hasty with some of my early moves and did not play for the long game. Lessons learned!

Development Notes

This was a good test and it told me a few things. Firstly, I’m on the right track. I liked the game and my friend liked the game. We talked about it quite a bit afterwards and he texted me when he got home asking for my email so that he could send me some ideas. That’s a good sign!

There are a few things to massage. One, Events should trigger on doubles, not triples. As it stood, they only happened once. I’d like them to happen about 4 or 5 times to really add variety.

Secondly, Battlecruisers in general have too many shields. Easily fixed.

The system failure tokens were really cool. When your shields go down, you draw one at random. It dings one of your four systems by 1. It can be really bad, just bad, or completely harmless, which I think is fun. It’s also thematic: “Captain, we lost battery four!”

I just needed to add 2 simple rules to balance out the current ship bonuses . You can never have more than 1 type of ability in a squadron, so, you cannot have 2 attack, or 2 defense. Furthermore, only 1 passive formation bonus per squadron. A third, mostly tuning philosophy, is to make the passive abilities less powerful. They are practically free, so don’t make them nutty good.

This was one of my first scenario tests and it was generally good to see my thoughts for how to handle them are on the right path. The game was short, explosive, and fun. I dig it.

One Wild Idea

My friend offered one really awesome idea that I’m toying with. The idea is, there are movement penalties on the outer rings. This would represent the size of space as you go farther from the center. An example is that the two inner rings would be 1 Movement, but the two outer rings would cost 2 Movement.

I’m curious how it would change the game.

Update: The wise Jerry Hawthorne just suggested I split the outer spaces into multiple spaces. That way, the rule doesn’t change — there are just more spaces. Smart guy!

He also had some fun scenario ideas, such as making the center a sun at times. Flying near it on the closest ring would cause shield damage (maybe!).


I’m very happy to be back into testing with a game. Blockade saw a bit of a hiatus while I waited to hear feedback and then rebuild it. Being able to test and iterate upon data and the experience is like a drug for me and it makes me really happy. I love developing an idea.

As a side note, I have about 15 clients left to tune for Flipped and it’ll be ready to play as well.

Learning from Hoth


Scene from ‘The Empire Strikes Back’

Post by: Grant Rodiek

I wanted to write briefly about scenario and story design for Mars Rising. Primarily, I wanted to share why the Battle of Hoth from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back is a driving inspiration for the experience.

Before we get started, it may be useful for you to read this military analysis of the Battle of Hoth posted on Wired. The article is a fun read, especially for military nerds, but it really opened my eyes to the general notion that is:

The Rebels couldn’t have won the Battle of Hoth, but they could have lost much, much worse.

Generally, scenario based games are reasonably balanced. When you play Memoir ’44, the scenarios are derived from historical engagements. Therefore, you’ll often see a 45/55, or even 40/60 balance in favor of one side. In my opinion, this is fair and reasonable. It’s fun. Furthermore, the rules state for players to swap sides and compare points and execution.


Scene from ‘The Return of the Jedi’

If I think back to the Battle of Hoth, the Battle of Yavin IV, or the Battle of Endor, none of them were balanced. In every case, the Rebel Alliance was up against a far superior force with seemingly insurmountable odds. Every Rebel pilot could be considered a member of the forlorn hope. Due to skill, determination, and a little luck (and/or Midi-chorlians) they came out ahead.  This is what made them incredible stories.

Therefore, my general thinking for the scenarios of Mars Rising is to NOT focus so much on balance, but instead, focus on epic, dramatic scenarios. Here’s the general gist for every mission:

  • Location: Where is it taking place?
  • Objective: Why are the players fighting here? This is a mix of narrative and mechanics.
  • Conclusion: Who do I expect to win within the “canon” of the story I envision?
  • Consequences: How is this mission affected by the previous mission?
  • Goals: What can players do within this setup that’s extraordinary?

Let’s discuss this last point. This is where the epic comes from, or so I hope. Imagine the following prelude scenario I’m tossing around.

There is a small outpost on Ceres, the dwarf planet/asteroid in the belt between Mars and Jupiter. Mars stations a squadron of fighters here to protect merchant ships and generally keep an eye on things. It is a sleepy, lazy post that some see as ideal posting (easy) or a career death sentence (too easy). Much like the Wermacht crushing through the Ardennes to invade France in 1940’s Case Yellow Operation, the United Terran Navy is making their push against Martian interests in the Jovian belts using this sleepy, poorly defended sector. Not expecting such an event, the Martians left their back door fairly open.

Imagine these two perspectives:

  • You’re a bored, Martian squadron leader, suddenly confronted with an invasion fleet that should not be here. Do you snap out of it? What can you do? This is the worst day of your life.
  • You’re a calm, well prepared Terran Admiral. Intelligence prepared you with precise details on the presence of the Martian outpost and its squadrons. You order a few Interceptor squadrons launched and dispatch a few anti-fighter destroyers to seal the deal. This is about as routine as a training operation.

Scene from ‘Aliens’

To quote Dennis Hopper, “What do you do, hot shot?”

Let’s be reasonable. I don’t expect the Martian fighter squadron to win. The deck is (intentionally) stacked against them. The Terran surprise attack on Io will proceed, because that’s the story and that’s what I want you to experience. BUT. What if the Martians bravely disable the Terran flagship, giving a lone fighter time to jump to Io to warn them? What if a Martian freighter moving through has a sudden rush of patriotism and, with the escort of the desperate Martian fighters, reaches the jump point before it’s captured?

This will have a light ripple effect on the next mission. Imagine if that ripple builds and by the very end, there are 3 completely different missions that might take place.

I don’t know, precisely, how I intend to to mechanize this. Yet. My general thinking is for the missions to have a strictly defined end condition. This would be something like, when N ships are destroyed, the mission ends. However, I am thinking of introducing optional goals that, if accomplished, will have distinct modifiers in following missions. When playing Mission 3, it’ll ask if A, B, or C were accomplished. If so, vary the placement, or the number of ships, or even the goal you need to accomplish.

In the end, my hope is that players can play a campaign multiple times and see new things and reach a different and satisfying conclusion to their war. No, this isn’t Risk Legacy. It’s not that open. But I love the idea that a group of friends have their own story for the Jovian campaign.