Sanity Test for AFTERSHOCK

Main sections follow the standard form and information within each section was presented in a logical easy to follow sequence. The one exception was section 4.4: see notes under gameplay, below.

Prominently shown on box and bottom. Would be useful to have on cover of rules as well.

The introduction is quite good, presenting a specific and compelling scenario. It does not, however, explicitly place the players into the scenario, nor does it provide a definite goal to achieve. This could probably be added quite simply as an extension of the second paragraph ("Under your charge, these groups will need to work together to...") or more dramatically as a separate paragraph ("You have been placed in command of one of these agencies...")

Superficially good (grammar, writing), but missing a few pieces of information that should be present:

1. Specifically note here that the game is largely cooperative and all players can win or lose together, but that in some cases players may win or lose individually depending on how well their agency has performed.

2. Clarify whether, when playing with fewer than four players, all four agencies are still used in the game.

3. Provide more information (still in broad terms) about how the players will be trying to accomplish their goal(s). I know we're trying to accumulate relief points and operations points, but how? Are we responding to crises that develop over time, moving around on a map to discover and assist population in need, gathering resources and deciding how to allocate them, all of the above?

(These issues are all addressed in detail later in the rules, but should get a quick mention here.)

Exemplary long form. Components are listed with counts, clear thematic names (and physical descriptions where appropriate) along with a brief explanation of their function in the game. Nevertheless, two notes: the two black pawns are rather hidden in the Assistance Teams section and easily missed. They should be noted as a bullet point, similar to the other listed items, or perhaps given a short section of their own. Also, the number of Needs assessment cards and Social unrest cards should be noted for inventory purposes, even if the number isn't directly relevant to gameplay.

Clear pictures throughout the component list. (The player handouts aren't pictured, nor are the aforementioned black pawns. It seems unlikely that anyone would actually have trouble picking these out, but you never know...)

Very clear, step-by-step instructions. According to the pictures, the first space of the calendar is actually "Day 1-2." Placing the logistics markers at the port and airport without placing them on a particular space seemed odd (but confirmed by the picture); it might be worth emphasizing this (or giving them a designated starting space). Placement of the initial assistance teams "in the appropriate box of a district or cluster meeting" makes it sound like I should know what the appropriate boxes are, but I assume this just means any legal spot. I also assume that this initial placement doesn't matter, but new players might think this is a significant decision point. The wording on the picture—"in any eligible location"—is clearer.

(It does appear that initial placement can have an impact on the first turn. A couple pointers for new players might be helpful.)

Very clear diagram, answers the minor questions that come up from the text.

Overall, everything is clear and well-explained.

However, you lost me in section 4.4. The basic information in the first two paragraphs is fine, and reiterates concepts that have already been touched on. However, the placement of infrastructure was too much information to decode at this point in the rules. Critical confusion points included: very specific instructions with not-yet-familiar terms ("an infrastructure operation during the Special Operations phase"), reference to infrastructure moving from warehouses to districts (how does infrastructure get into a warehouse?), and the fact that these actions are out of step with my current turn order focus (in my head, I'm building an understanding of the placement of teams in the human resources phase, while the building of infrastructure is going to take place two phases later). Consider moving section 4.4 or simplifying the infrastructure placement description at this point in the rules.

In the note at the end of 4.7, it's a little difficult to pinpoint the meaning of "in this way" because of the intervening example, and the fact that Carana has two special rules for moving supplies in this section. Move the note into the appropriate paragraph, or replace "in this way" with something more specific ("Carana may only exchange supplies with other players at the port, as this is...")

Typos: 'PlaWyer' (p. 5), 'If is possible' (p. 7), 'has as one' (p. 9)

The at-risk card resolution example on page 6 is doing yeoman's work, but falls a bit short. The three point RP loss should be highlighted the same way the OP loss is. In the font used here, 1 OP looks a lot like 10 P, which is initially confusing (and the bottom line of text is even missing the space). The text on the card says Carana loses one team, but the example seems to have changed this into a loss of 1 OP.

The above is the only real visual provided for the various examples, but seems sufficient. In a few cases, relevant components are pictured where they are discussed (e.g. the transportation node displays in the supply phase section). This is useful, even though all components have already been shown in the component section, and might be used more often (e.g. showing the cluster coordination display in section 4.6).

Clear step-by-step instructions for the somewhat complex endgame procedure. For the NGO step, use of "the latter" makes this step seem more complicated than necessary. It would be clearer (if slightly inelegant) to simply repeat "the NGO player loses 1 OP."

Very good

A lot of work clearly went into crafting the language and anticipating possible questions in advance.

Columnar layout with clear headings, good background, and well-integrated images.

Image is understated, but reasonably thematic. Blurb touches on a couple of strong selling points.

Nice use of game-in-progress photo

Doesn't quite mesh with the backdrop, but otherwise stands well on its own.

Good variety of pictures showing games in progress in a variety of situations.

Highlights the compelling theme and touches on key points of interest (range of player counts, cooperative play, and use in training).

Functional video includes an unboxing section to introduce the game, followed by a section showing initial setup and a partial first turn. At 16 minutes, video may be too long to hold an audience's interest. Audio quality is slightly below par, and focus is a problem at a couple of points. A tight five-minute video highlighting the unique theme and strategic challenges of the game would be a much stronger selling point.