I'm proud to announce my first published board game: For the Crown
Publisher's Page: http://victorypointgames.com/details.php?prodId=163
Board Game Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... -the-crown
For the Crown is a deck-building Chess variant: players use a card-based economy to acquire resources, train an army, and try to capture the enemy Sovereign while defending their own. You must make constant trade-offs between economy and board control, seeking the most effective way to combine the different cards and units available each game.
Chess and deck-building may seem like a strange combination, but this brew produces a startling mixture of synergies and hard choices. Will you utilize your newest card to bolster your economy, or sacrifice it to get an early powerful unit onto the board? Should you gamble your units in a quick blitz, or develop them carefully but give your opponent time to deploy more defenses? Is the strongest army the one with the most expensive units, or can you defeat them with cheaper units backed by the right card plays?
Even many players with little interest in Chess have been drawn in by For the Crown; while many of the same tactical principles apply, For the Crown adds the spice of variety, an air of urgency, and a dash of chance. With fairy pieces like the Chancellor and Gryphon, random shuffling, and the ability to deploy new units mid-game, For the Crown doesn't generate the elaborate opening books or dry endgames of Chess.
For the Crown can now be ordered from the publisher for $28.95 (USD).
For the Crown
Moderator: Moderators
-
Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Congrats.
But I am a hard sell, so please explain why I would want to play this over Knightmare Chess or Puzzle Strike?
But I am a hard sell, so please explain why I would want to play this over Knightmare Chess or Puzzle Strike?
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Back in November of 2009, I was talking with a friend who had just been introduced to Knightmare Chess. When I asked him how he liked it, he said that he enjoyed it, but it was very chaotic; there's a huge variety of cards and no real way to know what your opponent has, so your entire strategy gets upset every few turns, and a lucky draw can easily determine the game. He said he'd like to play a similar game, but where players used "a smaller variety of cards, more strategically...kind of like Dominion."
And a lightbulb appeared over my head.
For the Crown is much more about planning and strategy; you know what cards are available, you have an equal opportunity to buy them, and you know which ones your opponent has bought. You can formulate a long-term strategy to utilize specific cards or to counter your opponents' cards, and you won't randomly lose a queen because your opponent drew Dark Mirror or Inquisitor at the wrong time.
At the risk of immodesty, I think you'll also find For the Crown to have much clearer rules and sharper balance. I don't know about you, but I found it hard to get through a game of Knightmare Chess without encountering some unclear rule or interaction (even after repeated plays), and I noticed a distinct tendency for all the pieces that weren't immune to cards to drop like flies. For the Crown doesn't need to make important pieces immune to overpowered cards or use a "Checkmate Rule" to block automatic wins. And I'm an experienced rules lawyer who makes his living writing unambiguous instructions (computer programming); I've gone to great pains to make the rules as clear and precise as I can.
I can't comment specifically on Puzzle Strike, because I haven't played it (though I've been meaning to try it out some time). But here's a comparison to Dominion and Chess that I wrote for the game's inside cover:
And a lightbulb appeared over my head.
For the Crown is much more about planning and strategy; you know what cards are available, you have an equal opportunity to buy them, and you know which ones your opponent has bought. You can formulate a long-term strategy to utilize specific cards or to counter your opponents' cards, and you won't randomly lose a queen because your opponent drew Dark Mirror or Inquisitor at the wrong time.
At the risk of immodesty, I think you'll also find For the Crown to have much clearer rules and sharper balance. I don't know about you, but I found it hard to get through a game of Knightmare Chess without encountering some unclear rule or interaction (even after repeated plays), and I noticed a distinct tendency for all the pieces that weren't immune to cards to drop like flies. For the Crown doesn't need to make important pieces immune to overpowered cards or use a "Checkmate Rule" to block automatic wins. And I'm an experienced rules lawyer who makes his living writing unambiguous instructions (computer programming); I've gone to great pains to make the rules as clear and precise as I can.
I can't comment specifically on Puzzle Strike, because I haven't played it (though I've been meaning to try it out some time). But here's a comparison to Dominion and Chess that I wrote for the game's inside cover:
Chess and Dominion are profoundly different games. Chess begins with an overcrowded board and progresses largely through attrition; Dominion offers an accelerating race from poverty to power. Chess is won by geometry and planning ahead; Dominion is statistical in nature. Chess has nuanced opening theory; Dominion has randomized set-up. Each of the games is brilliant in many ways, yet not at all alike.
For the Crown is in constant tension between these dual natures, and it's reflected in everything from grand strategies to the basic cards, each of which has two possible effects (do you want the money, or the piece?). I've been challenged to keep them in balance, but also amazed at how well they complement one another. In some ways, I think each of the games saves the other from itself.
To some extent, Dominion is multi-player solitaire; there are cards that affect other players, but the core gameplay is just about feeding your deck back on itself. It feeds on itself so intensely that it’s rarely worth buying victory points until the game is nearly over, when everyone switches gears at once and the game ends in a sudden crash. It's not even remarkable to cycle through your entire deck in a single turn; the only reason any strategy can compete with runaway action-chains is that they barely have time to build up steam before the game is decided.
By shackling Dominion's card engine to a Chess board, For the Crown forces players to react to each other and divert resources from their snowballing economies. Since cards alone never win the game, your economy only helps you to the extent that it lets you manipulate the board; moreover, you can use the board to win an economical advantage by forcing your opponent to spend more resources defending than you spend attacking him. Players are constantly forced to trade-off between deck development and board control.
And Chess is humbling in its depth and endurance, but it has perhaps been played too much. Study and memorization have become important, and small advantages are often decisive. It is enjoyed by an enormous number of people, but there is something academic about it; it is played primarily by people that primarily play Chess, and not so much by people who play it as one game among many.
For the Crown adds variation in pieces, an air of urgency, and a dash of chance. The randomness limits look-ahead, forcing players to play more intuitively and flexibly. The economy devalues small advantages over time, so players are encouraged to be aggressive and take risks. The extra pieces and board-affecting cards provide many new possible permutations, constantly forcing players to evaluate new positions rather than falling back on familiar ones...but it is still possible to plan and anticipate, since only a subset of cards are available each game.
The result is a startling mixture of synergies and hard choices. I hope you find For the Crown as amazing as I have. Happy gaming!
For the Crown is in constant tension between these dual natures, and it's reflected in everything from grand strategies to the basic cards, each of which has two possible effects (do you want the money, or the piece?). I've been challenged to keep them in balance, but also amazed at how well they complement one another. In some ways, I think each of the games saves the other from itself.
To some extent, Dominion is multi-player solitaire; there are cards that affect other players, but the core gameplay is just about feeding your deck back on itself. It feeds on itself so intensely that it’s rarely worth buying victory points until the game is nearly over, when everyone switches gears at once and the game ends in a sudden crash. It's not even remarkable to cycle through your entire deck in a single turn; the only reason any strategy can compete with runaway action-chains is that they barely have time to build up steam before the game is decided.
By shackling Dominion's card engine to a Chess board, For the Crown forces players to react to each other and divert resources from their snowballing economies. Since cards alone never win the game, your economy only helps you to the extent that it lets you manipulate the board; moreover, you can use the board to win an economical advantage by forcing your opponent to spend more resources defending than you spend attacking him. Players are constantly forced to trade-off between deck development and board control.
And Chess is humbling in its depth and endurance, but it has perhaps been played too much. Study and memorization have become important, and small advantages are often decisive. It is enjoyed by an enormous number of people, but there is something academic about it; it is played primarily by people that primarily play Chess, and not so much by people who play it as one game among many.
For the Crown adds variation in pieces, an air of urgency, and a dash of chance. The randomness limits look-ahead, forcing players to play more intuitively and flexibly. The economy devalues small advantages over time, so players are encouraged to be aggressive and take risks. The extra pieces and board-affecting cards provide many new possible permutations, constantly forcing players to evaluate new positions rather than falling back on familiar ones...but it is still possible to plan and anticipate, since only a subset of cards are available each game.
The result is a startling mixture of synergies and hard choices. I hope you find For the Crown as amazing as I have. Happy gaming!
