Gauntlet

Gauntlet Playtest Targets and Metrics

Status: Active v0.6.0 testing standard.
Purpose: Define what to record, what healthy play should look like, and what evidence is required before changing canonical rules or card text.

Use this document with the official v0.6.0 rulebook and Development Status.

---

1. Testing principles

A useful playtest should answer a specific question. Record the Decks, Leaders, Territories, version, and any intentional variant before play begins.

Prefer:

• repeated matched tests over isolated anecdotes;
• human play after automated simulation;
• unchanged comparison Decks when testing one card or rule;
• exact event counts rather than impressions alone;
• notes about meaningful decisions, not only the winner; and
• separating rules confusion, production problems, and balance problems.

Do not change a canonical rule because one game was unusual. Reopen a frozen element when several tests reveal the same failure or when one test exposes a deterministic exploit or impossible resolution.

---

2. Required game record

Record for every completed game:

Game identity

• date;
• rules version;
• players or test agents;
• faction and Leader for each player;
• complete Deck list or saved Deck identifier;
• three Territories selected by each player and their order;
• first player; and
• any noncanonical test rule.

Outcome

• winner;
• victory route;
• total turns and rounds;
• final Player Token positions;
• final Territory control;
• final hand, Draw Pile, Discard Pile, Graveyard, and Asset counts where practical; and
• faction-resource or progression state at game end.

Activity counts

• battles initiated by each player;
• battles won while attacking and defending;
• tied battles resolved by Defender’s Advantage;
• retreats and additional-position retreats;
• Territories occupied, captured, and recaptured;
• Action Opportunities used before and after movement;
• cards committed from hand;
• cards chosen from Battle Hands;
• Assets banked and removed;
• Overlays placed, covered, exposed, and removed;
• reshuffles; and
• turns in which a player had no meaningful legal Action or movement choice.

Qualitative notes

• hardest decision;
• most satisfying sequence;
• any rule lookup;
• any wording interpreted differently by the players;
• any state that was difficult to represent physically;
• any card that felt automatic, dead, oppressive, or irrelevant; and
• whether the losing player retained plausible recovery decisions late in the game.

---

3. Core pacing targets

These are investigation thresholds, not automatic balance rules.

Game length

Target most experienced-player games to finish in roughly 35–60 minutes once players know their Decks.

Investigate when:

• routine games exceed 75 minutes;
• many games end before faction systems meaningfully appear;
• games regularly reach repeated reshuffle loops without territorial progress; or
• a player is functionally defeated many turns before the game ends.

Territorial movement

Healthy games should contain contested occupation, counterattack opportunities, and at least some control changes.

Investigate when:

• both players repeatedly Hold because advancing is clearly irrational;
• one early capture determines the remainder of the game without meaningful recovery;
• immediate-capture effects routinely erase the normal counterattack window; or
• running the Gauntlet occurs without sustained interaction on opposing Territories.

Battle decisions

Hand commitments should feel costly; Battle Hand choices should feel tactical rather than automatic.

Investigate when:

• players almost always commit from hand or almost never do;
• one Battle effect category dominates all choices;
• information effects make hidden choices effectively irrelevant;
• chain battles create excessive downtime or unavoidable collapse; or
• Defender’s Advantage makes attacking controlled Territories consistently futile.

Card flow

Investigate when:

• players frequently have no cards available for either normal play or battle choices;
• low-value Decks consistently outperform higher-value alternatives only through reshuffle frequency;
• Graveyard pressure removes meaningful participation too early; or
• draw and recovery loops make card commitment effectively free.

---

4. Victory-route health

Running the Gauntlet

Track separately:

1. battles won on the opponent’s final Territory;
2. successful occupation through the opponent’s counterattack turn;
3. capture of the final Territory;
4. attempts to advance beyond the Gauntlet; and
5. Last Stands won by attacker and defender.

Investigate when the sequence is commonly misunderstood, rarely completed after reaching the final Territory, or routinely bypassed by effects not intended to replace it.

Additional faction victories

An additional victory should be visible, interactive, and achievable without becoming the only rational plan.

For each faction, record:

• turn when progress first became public;
• turn when the opponent could reasonably respond;
• amount of progress lost to disruption;
• whether progress advanced through ordinary movement and battles;
• whether the threat changed opposing decisions; and
• whether the faction could still pursue running the Gauntlet.

Investigate when an additional victory is:

• effectively solitaire;
• enabled only by opponent cooperation;
• too slow to matter;
• so efficient that territorial play becomes secondary; or
• erased so completely that investing in it is irrational.

---

5. Faction-specific watch metrics

Military

• Command gained and spent;
• Orders used by type;
• additional battles initiated through Orders or cards;
• captures that bypassed a counterattack window; and
• General/Commandant win rate with matched Decks.

Diplomats

• Terms offered, accepted, refused, and imposed;
• Influence staked, returned, gained, and spent through Leverage;
• Treaty Articles ratified by route;
• turns at which Peace Treaty became a credible threat; and
• Ambassador/Senator win rate with matched Decks.

Financiers

• Capital gained and spent;
• cards placed in and removed from Treasury;
• Deeds bought, bought out, or lost;
• turns at which Controlling Interest became a credible threat; and
• Banker/Executive win rate with matched Decks.

Intelligence

• Missions activated, completed, abandoned, or left dead;
• Intel gained and spent;
• Operation Progress gained and lost;
• Surveillance and Interference uses that changed a choice;
• Special Operations begun, disrupted, recovered, and completed; and
• Ranger/Spymaster win rate with matched Decks.

Mystics

• Rites begun, completed, and interrupted;
• turns required for each Rite;
• cards bound, sacrificed, exchanged, or recovered;
• Invocation and Transmutation uses;
• turns at which Ritual became a credible threat; and
• Alchemist/Spirit Walker win rate with matched Decks.

Inquisition

• Conviction gained by source and spent by purpose;
• opposing cards placed in the Graveyard through Condemnation or Purge;
• Purges used by cost tier;
• turns at which Purification became a credible threat;
• Arcane cards that generated Blasphemy Conviction; and
• Grand Inquisitor/Witch Hunter win rate with matched Decks.

---

6. Matchup and recovery tests

For each faction pairing, test both seating orders and both Leaders where practical.

Record:

• first-player win rate;
• average game length;
• victory routes used;
• whether either faction’s core system was shut off;
• whether a trailing player had meaningful comeback lines; and
• whether one repeated sequence determined the matchup.

Prioritize:

• Inquisition versus Mystics;
• high-pressure Military versus slower progression plans;
• Diplomats against factions that prefer battle;
• Financier mirrors and Deed buyouts;
• Intelligence information effects against special reveal or commitment replacement; and
• any matchup with heavy Asset or Graveyard interaction.

---

7. Production testing

Physical review is part of rules testing.

Check:

• card text legibility at 100% print scale;
• portrait cropping and title readability;
• tracker alignment and stability;
• double-sided component registration;
• whether orientation clearly communicates Territory and Overlay control;
• whether supplemental components can be identified without consulting a separate document;
• whether the table footprint is practical; and
• whether players can restore the game state after moving or stacking components.

A component that works only in the digital tool is not complete.

---

8. Decision thresholds

Classify findings before acting:

• Rules defect: two reasonable readings produce different legal outcomes.
• Production defect: the rule is clear but the component, layout, or tool communicates it poorly.
• Balance concern: the rule resolves cleanly but creates repeated unhealthy outcomes.
• Preference: players differ in taste without evidence of a gameplay failure.

For a normal balance change, seek at least one of:

• a repeated pattern across several human games;
• a strong matched-test difference;
• a reproducible deterministic exploit;
• simulation evidence confirmed by human play; or
• a clear failure against an explicit design guardrail.

Record the evidence and the intended correction before editing canonical text.