test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Feedback› Klingon Discussion

yInej! Klingon card game!

mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
edited November 2017 in Klingon Discussion
Warriors, look at this!

This is a card game I am working on: 'echlet batlh (Card of Honor). I will provide PDFs so players can print and play.

http://mediawiki.tarazedi.com/index.php?title=ware:'echlet_batlh

If I had assistance from one fluent in tlhInghan Hol, I could translate the ruleset more quickly and finalize the release. Otherwise I will do it myself. Either way, feedback on the ruleset is requested if you are honorable and useful.

Qapla'!

EB-batleths.jpgEB-dktahgs.jpgEB-mekleths.jpgEB-cowardice.jpgEB-glory.jpgEB-back.jpg



Post edited by mneme0 on

Comments

  • vorwodavorwoda Member Posts: 694 Arc User
    Looking forward to this! Although I cannot help with translation, I have a couple of suggestions for rules clarification.

    1) The rules as stated on the linked page do not explicitly state any difference between a line of battle and a formation. In the battle on the plain, 3 to 9 cards form the line of battle in formations. Are there any restrictions on how many cards form a formation within a line? Can one card be a formation? Must it be more than one? May all three to nine deployed cards be in one formation?

    2) Assuming that fewer than the Younger's 9 cards were deployed in the battle on the plain (say for example, only three were), would the undeployed cards be available for the battle on the mountain? In other words, when the younger deals six more cards to each, would his previously undeployed cards be available in addition (so each would have up to 12 cards to deploy in this example). And if so, could all 12 be deployed in a line of battle, or still only 3 to 9, as in the battle on the plain? And as above, how do formations relate to the line of battle, as regards minimum and maximum number of cards allowable in any given formation.

    3) Are both the line of battle and answering line deployed face down? Only one? Neither? Nowhere is this stated.

    Looking forward to seeing these points cleared up, and to playing (or helping play test) this, as it sounds intriguing, and I am an old hand at card games. If I can be of any help, please let me know!

    Qapla'!
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    You honor me. I will answer your questions! My mental picture is not necessarily completely expressed by the ruleset and your questions help me fill in the blanks I did not think of.

    1. My wording is flawed. 3-9 formations. This is a line of battle, F meaning formation:

    F F F F F F
    F F
    F


    Each formation has at least one card in it, until the 9 cards are exhausted. In this example the challenger has 6 formations and put 3 cards in the first formation, 2 in the second, and 1 in all the other formations. A player could also have:

    F F F
    F
    F
    F
    F
    F
    F

    2. All must be played in the first round. The defender then plays their entire hand into matching formations. There are no cards left over; 18 warriors fight in the first battle. Answering the first line of battle:

    a
    a a
    a a a a a a
    F F F F F F
    F F
    F

    However, if you are suggesting that some from the first battle should be held in reserve, that is an excellent idea and one I did not think of. Perhaps some retooling of the mechanic might be in order so this can be incorporated?

    3. I had intended the line of battle be played face up.
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    I have updated and clarified the ruleset.
  • qqqqiiqqqqii Member Posts: 473 Arc User
    Yeah, but can you play Fizzbin with it? :)
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    No. But you can now download, print, and play.
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    Translation is halfway done...
  • vorwodavorwoda Member Posts: 694 Arc User
    Sorry I've been out of touch, November was very busy for me IRL.

    Thank you for the very clear answers, and the updated rules on your site. The examples are very helpful.

    Very nice progress, and the cards look great!

    As far as the reserve idea above, that was what I was thinking, based on the first version. I'm glad you're considering it (possibly as a variant, if you like).

    Having read the new rules, I have one more question:

    1) The rules currently state:
    "Elder Warrior, if you successfully defeat a You Lack Honor card, you take that formation as Prize and may reclaim one Formation your foe has claimed as Prize."

    What if the Elder Warrior successfully defeats a You Lack Honor card in the first formation played? Since his foe has not yet claimed any prizes, what happens? Does he get no bonus formation? Does he get one that has not yet been fought (as his opponent would if he had lost)?

    I'm very much looking forward to playing this, and hope my questions have been of some use to you! Thank you for a very intriguing game!
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    Good question. I will change it so that in that scenario he will claim the next formation as prize automatically.
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    Additional translations have been applied.
Sign In or Register to comment.