Seconding Doug's suggestion that the Favorite Prey be a random deal instead of the first move.
For some reason, I can't imagine playing this game without having the "frogs" pointing in the direction they are moving in... though they would have to stand up when they "land" on another frog.
My only other suggestions pertain to editing the rules for clarity. During setup, each player takes a tree of a different color, correct? Do frogs of the same color form a "frogpile", or do they only pile on top of frogs of the opposing color?
Other than that... a very charming game, thank you for sharing.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Doug Orleans <dougorleans@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for posting this! I'm always on the lookout for new Aquarius
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 6:16 AM, captncavern <captncavern@xxxxxxxxxx
> I've designed a new game for two players, using a Treehouse set and an Aquarius deck, called Kaeru (the Japanese word for frog). The goal is to make your three frogs eat more of their favorite preys than your opponent.
> There's some randomness in the appearance of the preys and some limited tactics in the way you move your frogs.
> You'll find the rules at http://icehousegames.org/wiki/index.php?title=Kaeru
> I would appreciate any feedback on the game itself as well as on the way the rules are written.
games (see my Quintazone and Elementary). I haven't played it yet,
but upon a first reading, it doesn't seem obviously broken. :)
The goal card setup seems unnecessarily complicated. Why not just
shuffle the goal cards, give each player one, then reveal the third?
(Speaking of which, would it change the game much if the goals were
hidden instead of public?)
By my count, there are 6 cards that score zero for both players: the
two aces in each of the two unused goals, and the two doubles that
pair up the two unused goals. Is it possible for these cards to cause
the game to stagnate, because neither player wants to take them (and
reveal a better card underneath)? Or is this a low enough percentage
of the deck that it won't matter?
If a small lands on another small, then each player can spend their
turn climbing their small to the top. In theory this could lead to an
infinite game, but I suspect one player will usually have a better
I also wonder how common ties are, and whether the first-player
advantage is too big. But the game might be light/random enough that
it's not an issue.