Hired Swords Playtest v1.3 is now up!

[Dave]

Playtest 1.3 Cards and Rules:
www.outworld-studio.com/hiredswords/pdf/Hired-Swords-Rules-v11.pdf
www.outworld-studio.com/hiredswords/pdf/Hired-Swords-Cards-v11.pdf

Any feedback is appreciated.

[cabo]

Just downloading now.... are there sufficient changes in the cards to require reprinting are will I be able to just pencil in the changes?

[Dave]

Contracts: The only changes to these cards are on the four-way directional arrows. The number of opposition cards you'll reveal each round is now listed in the circle. You can pencil those in.

Tactics: Probably worth printing a new set of these.

Opposition: You can pencil most these in. The Entangler has been replaced by the Hired Sword. The Spotter and Alchemist have only 1 point of armor. I think that's the extent of the changes.

Mercenaries: No changes.

Settlements: Pencil in "Revenge" to the Town's sources.

There are quite a few changes to the rules, so I think it's worth reading them over again. The major changes:

You draw 3 contract cards and choose one.

Melee and Missile attacks have been cleaned up a little bit.

Enemy mercenary rules.

[Vermin King]

At the bottom of page 1 of rules, the latest revision says 'When
rolling D2, a 1, 2 or 3 counts as 1; a 3, 4 or 5 counts as 2.' That should be 4,5 or 6 counts as 2. I was just going back through rule changes and noticed that.

[Dave]

I never said I could count!

Fixed.

[Vermin King]

Since this is being entered in a contest, do you want us to point out spelling and grammar errors as we encounter them? I wasn't able to play this weekend as hoped, but I'm a pretty good proof-reader.

Note: Page 3, Trader Contract description, should be 'completing a Trader contract, not 'competing'. Not trying to be a nitpick, but I'm sure someone will be nitpicky when the game is being judged.

I could make notes and email to you

[Dave]

That would be very helpful, thanks! You can email ([e-mail]) or post the corrections here.

I haven't red-penned any of the drafts so far, and I'm sure there are goofs and strange phrasing in lots of places. I appreciate any help you can offer.

I'd like to add you to the list of playtesters. Please let me know how you'd like your name to appear. Cheers!

EDIT: I've run a quick spell-check and caught the obvious misspellings (careeer, condictions, mecenaries, opposition that needed capitalizing).

EVEN MORE EDIT: The v1.3 rules PDF has been updated with these corrections.

[Vermin King]

I'll pull up the revised version and go through with a fine-toothed comb. There are two places that look like revision errors. You know the ones that pop up when you make a change one place and try to fix all similar places. I'll email you what I mean ... if they aren't fixed already.

[Dave]

I've uploaded v1.31 of the rules. There are a couple of minor rules changes. Everything else is just general cleanup. Use the same download link as before.

There are no changes to the cards.

[cabo]

OK I printed out new rules and cards last night and ran through just a few contracts. So what I can say at this point is

1) telling card types with the new images (and my contaminating first play test) is easy

2) The effect of game experiences is positive. I won the first contract and almost won the second except for drawing both reinforcements. So one can improve by playing the game. In the first play test I had doom and death down to a science.

3) The ability to choose a contract (the pick 1 of 3) rule really helps when you first start the game. Before if you picked a low success card (due to gold limits and zero stable mercenaries) you just had to play to your doom.

4) Not sure why but the rules seemed much clearer this time through. It may be because this is the second pass for me but the first time I struggled to get it all but sailed through this time. On one contract I did draw the mercenary and it was one of the few times I had to reread things.

[Dave]

That's great to hear. I tried to make the rulers clearer and consistent, and give the player some more options.

For instance, now you can release mercenaries from your stable and get some gold back. That should be an interesting choice now that you know the Hired Sword opposition card is lurking in the deck. I love that sort of thing.

I feel like the game is in decent shape at this point.

I would like to do more with the mercenaries, because they seem sort of... bland. But I suppose each one is unique, and they do have some "kewl powerz" like assists, and the tactics cards.

Are there any aspects of the game where you'd like to see more variety?

[Parduz]

I answer to your question even if it was not for me.
I was thinking about "levels"... i mean: two reinforcement can be a bit hard.... what if contracts have a "level" and opponents deck is built using only the opponents cards that are equal or 1 point below that level?
It can be a system to tune down very bad luck draws and help to "balance" every contract to the "exact" amuont of difficulty. The drawback can be that the opp. deck have to be built everytime.

Just throwing this idea out.

[Dave]

Mar 8, 2011 8:24:56 GMT -9 Parduz said:

I answer to your question even if it was not for me.
I was thinking about "levels"... i mean: two reinforcement can be a bit hard.... what if contracts have a "level" and opponents deck is built using only the opponents cards that are equal or 1 point below that level?
It can be a system to tune down very bad luck draws and help to "balance" every contract to the "exact" amuont of difficulty. The drawback can be that the opp. deck have to be built everytime.

Just throwing this idea out.

The first version of Hired Swords was like that. Each contract card listed all of the names of the opposition cards to be used, and you'd have to build the opposition deck every time. I quit doing that because some of the contracts are so quick, and it takes some extra time to create the opposition decks.

I still like the idea of variable opposition difficulty, but it's a bit too complicated within the constraints I'm working under. I will have to wait until after I submit the game to contest judges (March 13th).

How about this?

Three opposition decks, each composed of about 20 cards. There would be "easy," "challenging" and "difficult" decks.

The description of each contract would read "Easy. Protector. Blahblah..." or "Challenging. Defender. Blahblah..."

Rules-wise, this would be very easy to describe.

Cards-wise, I would need to come up with two more full sheets of opposition cards, but that would be easy to do. I can just duplicate some of the cards. The "easy" opposition deck might have 4xSwordsmen or 4xAxemen, and no Traitors or Hired Swords. I might not need to come up with any new opposition cards at all (although I'm open to ideas).

[sharanac]

Dave,
Pit fight: in description text you have "reveal 1 opposition card per round" while inside the star D2 is written.
And I would go back to 2-1-1-1 like in earlier versions, or even 2-1-2-1. 1-1-1-1 is too easy. Reward is big, so the challenge level should also be high....

To be honest, I do not like the idea of scaled opposition decks. I like the challenge of not knowing how difficult will be my next contract. Just like in real life - you never know who will oppose your goals...

On the other hand, player can always chose to play all contracts with "difficult" deck...

[Dave]

Rather than calling the different decks Easy, Moderate, Hard, I would probably create each deck on a theme. There might be a "bodyguards" deck and a "bandits" deck. I'd also like to explore more of the alchemy and "flash" technology that I've hinted at.

While making revisions, I found room on the back page to include summaries of the order of play and the most commonly used actions (attacks and feints).

UPDATE: I wrote a new contract (although I don't have room for any more). In Prison Break, one of your fellow mercenaries is imprisoned and scheduled to be executed. If you're successful, you'll get to add the prisoner to your stable. If you fail, that mercenary card gets removed from play.

I might change the term "Rural contract" to "Rustic contract." Rural sounds too much like Royal.

[Dave]

I'm working on some (slightly) upgraded card graphics. Here's the new look for the mercenary cards (the character art isn't mine -- it's just a placeholder image for now):

[Parduz]

Mar 9, 2011 10:03:39 GMT -9 Dave said:

I might change the term "Rural contract" to "Rustic contract." Rural sounds too much like Royal.

Mh... never happened to me to misunderstand "Rural". And rustic (to my italian ears) may have sprejative meanings, while rural is very neuter.

[cowboyleland]

Got to agree. Rural is a common word. Canadian media is always talking about the rural/urban split in politics.

[cabo]

Mar 9, 2011 22:48:28 GMT -9 Dave said:

I'm working on some (slightly) upgraded card graphics. Here's the new look for the mercenary cards (the character art isn't mine -- it's just a placeholder image for now):

Really like the new visual....but being a dyslexic I am much more an image than word person and the images here impart clear information (and they look nice to boot).

[Dave]

I'm probably going to stick with Rustic. If there's a negative connotation, it's the right sort of negativity -- rough, countrified, unrefined. That's exactly what I want it to mean.

I just can't keep both "Rural" and "Royal" because they sound so much alike. If I were demonstrating this game in person, I would be over-enunciating those two words to keep them distinct.

UPDATE: The mercenaries are all set up with the new graphics. My plan for today is to get the contracts cards looking better. This is going to be a big job, but I'll probably come up with some new contracts while I'm working on it.

UPDATE: I've finished the contract graphics, and wrote a new contract! The Eruz Academy costs you 5 gold to enter, and there instructors offer you a challenging training program. If you beat the opposition thrown at you, you can choose a tactic card that will always be available to you for 0 gold on any future jobs. It still counts againts your 2 tactic card limit.

I'm trying to come up with some missions that will have a little bit of a roleplay aspect to them. I might write up some contracts that don't involve battles at all, but do challenge your mercenaries in some other way. Any ideas?

[Dave]

Minor redesign on the opposition and contract cards. Just the tactics and settlements card left to do.

[Parduz]

This is an idea just raised in my poor brain:
why not using a draw that reminds how the cards lays on the table, instead of the 4 arrows with the circle in the center?
So a rectangle in the center and 4 smaller on the side?
Just to keep the design of the game coherent. I mean: you're still seeing the exact same thing on the manual and on the cards.


I'd remove the word "Move" from the Opponent. The icon says all.

[Dave]

Mar 11, 2011 0:05:09 GMT -9 Parduz said:

why not using a draw that reminds how the cards lays on the table, instead of the 4 arrows with the circle in the center?

I tried that before, and I think the arrows look better.

I'd remove the word "Move" from the Opponent. The icon says all.

It's not getting in the way of anything, so I will keep the word "move." Better to give too much information than not enough.

[sharanac]

Here are writings from my 1.3 campaign. You will notice that I am still taking only one contract card at the time, not 3 (or D3) as in the new rules, I simple feel the new way makes the game too easy.

1. Besieged village
Pazel and Kirsash
Saved all 4 craps, both mercs ended weary.
8 gold

2. Tower of Shom Ra
With freelancers? No way. Payed 1 gold to draw new contract.
7 gold

3. Down the river
Pazel and Kirsash
Lost 2 hulls (just 1 left!)
Pazel died so that Kirsash can live.
Kirsash ended weary.
13 gold
Kirsash to stables
3 gold

Move to town.

4. Trade war
Kirsash and Gaddis
Distraction tactics
9 gold
4 gold payed to join the guild.
5 gold

I selected Night watch to play next....

To be continued....

[cabo]

Mar 11, 2011 1:06:46 GMT -9 Dave said:

Mar 11, 2011 0:05:09 GMT -9 Parduz said:

why not using a draw that reminds how the cards lays on the table, instead of the 4 arrows with the circle in the center?

I tried that before, and I think the arrows look better.

I'd remove the word "Move" from the Opponent. The icon says all.

It's not getting in the way of anything, so I will keep the word "move." Better to give too much information than not enough.

I actually tired to mock up something to replace the arrows and have to agree the space is really too limited to do anything really useful... so I agree the arrows look better

I also agree that the word on the move icon has utility. Not everyone will quickly understand an unlabeled icon ... no point in frustrating a user

Like the layout of the Budget and Bonus with the greater equality of emphasis and less interdependence that the overlap implied

[Vermin King]

Some of us Rurals, who lack game-savviness, need the word MOVE there.

Hey, Dave, I was going to do a proof-read on the glossary and cards, but I will be leaving for the weekend in 3 1/2 hours.

Good Luck on the contest!!!

[Dave]

Mar 11, 2011 1:32:44 GMT -9 sharanac said:

Here are writings from my 1.3 campaign. You will notice that I am still taking only one contract card at the time, not 3 (or D3) as in the new rules, I simple feel the new way makes the game too easy.

I'm going back to that with the next version of the rules, so it's good that you're playing it that way. I should be finished with that today.