Sanity Test for Empires

Follows the expected order. The rule are long enough that you might want to add a table of contents and some graphic design that makes it easier to find each section.

Requirements are present and listed on the shop.

Solid introduction that explains the origin and inspiration of the game. You *might* want to talk up the setting and fantasy of play a little more, but it seems pretty clear your emotional tie is to the style of game you're emulating, and that's good too.

Solid overview that explains what you're doing and how to win.

Good component list with counts. The card layout explanations could be placed before the setup rather than after, but they're useful either way.

Good component pictures. There are a *lot* of number tags on the card layouts, and my eye is getting a little lost. This might be easier to understand if you make the card images a little bigger, or if you can split up and distinguish the numbers so it's easier to categorize them as specific to a particular type of information.

Setup instructions are clear. You do a lot of "it is recommended" language, which is polite but interferes with learning rules quickly. Consider pruning this language and issuing neutral second-person instructions. The comments and recommendations fit better in variant rules and other design notes, which players can look at after they have mastered the basics.

-- Since it's a two-player game, it's the "younger" player, not the youngest. But that's mostly just me griping about one of my grammatical pet peeves.

Good setup picture showing the initial layout. A graphic showing some deck crafting possibilities would be a nice addition.

-- The battle mat is a concern, since it's not part of the base game. You should note that it's available separately, and provide some suggestions for how players can use the slots without the battle mat.

Overall, the gameplay rules are clear. However, you sometimes mention a game operation (repairing cards, in the maintenance phase) before the operation is properly introduced and explained. You might be able to move the explanation up; if not a reference will help.

-- Is there a way to track what combat card is linked to what equip technology card?

-- The footnote hint on how to move a movement 0 card was a little confusing. You might want to introduce it with something, "If you need to move a movement 0 card, here's how." If it's truly a footnote, there should be an asterisk somewhere in the main text leading to it, otherwise you should break the text out with a graphic element such as a box. You should also add a reference to when you can discard cards during your turn.

-- You probably don't need to repeat the golden rule in different sections. Just put a more general statement once near the beginning of the Game Play rules.

-- It looks like you can attack any units on the line in a standard melee attack, not just the ones in front of you. If that's true, you should give this a little more attention -- it makes sense, but it's unusual enough in this kind of game that you should call it out explicitly.

-- Are charge attacks a special ability or something any unit that meets the criteria can do?

-- You're using the "Attack" stat in a defensive context, specifically in lines like "When attacking, if you attack an opponent’s combat card which is your combat card’s strength type, +1 to your attack. If you defend an attack from your opponent’s combat card which is your combat card’s weakness type, +1 to your opponent’s attack." This is pretty confusing, and likely to cause misapplied bonuses. Consider renaming the stat or the action ("battle" and "Attack" might work), and consistently capitalizing this and any other stat you refer to.

Courtney gave you good advice as keeping the images from being too busy, but I think you might have taken it a little too far. Now *I'm* having trouble seeing what I'm supposed to be looking at! Oi, reviewers, what can you do?

-- The red outline highlights on card parts are hard for me to see. Consider doing a little more graphic adjustment here -- maybe a thicker line, maybe throwing a little filter or blurring on the non-highlighted portions that keeps it opaque but tells me what's important.

-- The attack examples have a similar problem. While I hesitate to send you back towards using arrows, the outlines don't communicate can or can't to me. Some green and red icons over the cards might do the trick.

Victory conditions seem clear, and tie-breakers are accounted for. Watch out for unnecessary auxiliary verbs like the "will" in "will win".

I'm a little worried about getting hung up on an edge case from the more detailed rules, but overall I see where this is going.

The text could be a little more direct and a little less exhortatory, but the instructions are mostly clear and it's easy to feel your enthusiasm for the game. That's important!

The layout is simple but clear and easy to read. Indenting the lists would improve the readability a little more, as would some more graphic elements in the example images.

Looking good. The bullet points are strong, though you're on safer legal ground saying the game is "reminiscent of" AoE II than an adaptation on it.

Backdrop shows off the game well, with the very slight caveat that the map format says "modern" more than "medieval to me".

The Empires logo looks good, but on my screen it's right over the contest voting text. That should get sorted out.

Excellent action shots, though a couple of them (especially the box closeup) look more like renders than actual components. Not a big deal except for the box closeup, and you might want to mark which ones are renders/tabletop simulator screens so people can properly appreciate the images of physical stuff.

Echoing Courtney here again. I like what's here a lot, and think it does a great job of conveying the atmosphere and your enthusiasm for the game. But I would love to read a paragraph description and see a quick example of what a turn is like before I commit to clicking things and looking at videos etc.

Clear and professional-looking videos! Removing the unboxing video was a good idea; I didn't miss it.