Suggestion to writing better rules - Ant Assault

[HrSnittemeister]

First off i wanna say that its great that you support the costumers of your games at this site.. that's really great and im sure that a growing number of players playing your games will appreciate it a lot.

Second - the reason im writing to you is because I - (as so many others must have done) found the rules for Ant Assault very poorly written.

I suggest that you use un-initiated first time readers/players - to go through setting up and playing your game for the first time - using a draft copy of the rules before you print them - until you get explanations clear and without errors. - in other words a readtest, as well as a playtest - until people find the instructions satisfying.

Shops that sell these kind of games - often have a nerd of some sort sitting behind the counter who recommends games to buy, and an unclear/confusing ruleset is a fast way to get blacklisted as a bad buy.

I understand that deadlines, a limited budget and what not can limit you in this process, but a clearly written manual is a competitive key. People dont want to spend time troubleshooting. Im telling you this as a developer and gamer myself.

I hope that i have taken the time to write this message well enough ;P - and i look forward to playing your games in the future!

- Anders M.

 

[HrSnittemeister]

Oh yearh... i forgot.. the descriptions on the cards are inadequate as well.. way too open for confusion and misinterbritation.. like super workers - workers forage one extra resource - does that mean: each worker forage one extra resource, or you forage one extra resource when you forage?

also definitions should stay the same - is an "ant" the same as an "ant card"?
is the ploy card considered an "ant" because it is an "ant card"?, if not is the queen itself considered an "ant" because it is one? (that would make tactical queen a pretty overpowered card in attacks no?)
what does "recycle" on the honey pot ant card mean, should it rather say regain?? etc... the list goes on and on.. the only way to do this is to have a specific name used for each "abillity" or "concept", and to explain the "abillity/concept" in the rules..


so you explain what is a "ploy" - and how do you preform it.. i guess you would keep these in your hand, and not lay them down when you declare an attack?, etc

what is "Raiding"

What is "attacking" (i guess allied horde can be played when you either "attack" an enemy queen, or "raid" an enemies colony for resources??) so you declare an attack or raid - not an attack and then a raid... something as simple as this is explained in a confusing way in the rules because you dont have name conventions for what the player is able to do, and because the card text is confusing...

Tjek out Magic the gathering - how precise each card is explained - and how more complex "abillities" have a name that can be referred to in the rules - like cards that have Lifelink, haste, vigilance, etc...

ok - im done bitching now... on the bright side there are several aspects of the game i really enjoy, the concept of gathering resources and attacking, the whole association to ant activity keeps it very vivid - how the "hands" of the players are played in each round and replenished, its very dynamic, the concept of hazards and ploys are a great x-factor in the game.. im not sure about the balance... but thats just because i cant be sure im playing it right (even though i read a couple of threads)...
Man.. - I just wish the execution of the text and layout was a lot better.

- A.