Thanks for the feedback, Doug and Mike! >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?) I was sure I would get this comment :) I'm not sure it has the effect intended, but I use this setup to limit a potential advantage for the first player. If you can see the cards from the start and the middle one contains any of the goals in play, Player 1 will obviously open with their large. I could restrict the first move to the small and medium pieces to achieve the same result. It doesn't make much sense thematically, but neither does my weird setup anyway. >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? Actually, I have the newer Aquarius version, so it makes 9 zero-point cards out of 55, but it doesn't make much difference for this game (I'll have to consider this for another game I'm thinking of though). I believe those cards don't really matter, since both players will try to get to other piles to get more points or prevent their opponent from getting them. Eventually, they'll have to land on the unnecessary cards, and take them, to get to other cards they want. >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 >move? I hadn't thought of that. I guess I'll have to include a go-like rule stating that the same position in the game can't be reached twice, so you'll have to move another piece before being able to move your small up. >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. I haven't played the game enough myself to draw any conclusion on this point. However, I could include a tie-breaker like: Equal score -> compare favorite prey count -> compare large favorite panel count -> compare medium favorite panel count -> compare small favorite panel count -> compare large common panel count -> compare medium common panel count. Maybe I don't need to go so deep in comparisons, as it may become confusing. >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. Adopted! When I first tested the game, I had no theme and we played it with card piles in a straight line, with pyramids always moving forward, and coming back from the end of the line, so it wasn't an issue. When I added the theme, and modified the layout, it didn't occur to me to change that, but it sure makes for a clearer game. >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? Another valid point! English not being my native language, I sometimes struggle finding the right expression. I'll correct that on the wiki soon. To give you the answers: - each player takes a tree of a different color, - frogs pile up regardless of their color. Thanks again for your very helpful comments! Any other remarks are welcome. Julien