Skip to main content

On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

MagusCoral

2
Posts
1
Followers
A member registered Jul 12, 2025

Creator of

Recent community posts

Hello and thanks for the feedback!

This is my first time doing this so I so appreciate you taking the time! I agree there is a lot of specific terrain but I felt like this is a game aspect that we do not see explored very often and I wanted to take a stab at it. You are misreading the Vine Wall rule; it is one per Defender activation and one per Attacker activation if there are no more Defender activations that round. This should result in a max of seven or so Vine Walls per game round and with them having to be attached to other Vine Walls, that should make it an interesting challenge to move around as the Attacker. That was a rule I could not figure out the wording on and I recognize it was confusingly worded, that is something I will attempt to improve if/when I do this again.

There was not a missing line in the table but as I read your comment I was kicking myself. There totally should have been a round for 6 VP Defender/ 2 VP Attack with the 8 VP being for objectives that survived the game. My goal was to make the Seedlings more weighted toward the Defenders and that the Attacker game was more about trying to deny them that full 24 VPs. Even two Seedlings claimed by round 3 would mean a much more balanced game but it would have been even better with the additional VP structure. Thank you again for the feedback.

Thank you so much for the feedback!

Looking at this, I do agree that the battlefield should either be smaller or the objectives closer. That would probably help with making a turn 1 or 2 seize a bit more viable. The primary reason for why I placed the objectives where I did is that most of the VP for the attackers would come from unit destruction which is an attacker only VP objective and that seizing objectives would be primarily to deny further VPs to the defender team. That way, if the attackers seize two objectives by turn 3 and knocked out a few units you would end up with a pretty even score.

I do agree that maybe there would have been a better attacker VP strategy. Is there something you would recommend? This was all I could think of to keep the game balanced.