Share this project


Share this project

A highly strategic card game of logic, reason & nonsense!
2,554 backers pledged £76,739 to help bring this project to life.

More information (video) on how the game is played

Posted by Stephen Woodford (Creator)

Here's a video that I really should've released over a week ago! Within this alpha demo you'll get a good look into how the game is played, and how the core mechanics leave a lot of room for additional strategy cards.

I'm going to see if I can work in something related to David Hume, Bertrand Russell and Charles Darwin, but we'll see! Perhaps a "Hume's Guillotine" card could debunk the moral argument instantly?

Thanks for being awesome my fellow apes!

- Steve


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Missing avatar

      Daryl Smith on

      Thanks Stephen. That would certainly solve what felt like an important issue for me – and not effect your hard work on the game-mechanics.

      In some ways, I think it would be a shame to lose it as a powerful card in its own right? I don’t know how many similar cards you were thinking of including? ‘Physical law’ cards, perhaps, like the laws of thermodynamics? I don’t know? It would depend on the ‘Argument’ cards, I guess?

      Perhaps there could be a type of card - ‘Counter-Argument’ maybe? - Which do not represent a ‘fallacy’, in the logical sense, but which still play a part in the mechanics of the game? That can only be played against some arguments, but not all of them, perhaps?

      But, of course, that’s going to take some effort, without disrupting what you’ve already worked out.

      Something for the back-burner, perhaps!? I think you have enough for a thoroughly engaging game as it is…!!

    2. Richard Pardoe

      Any rough card counts at this point? How many arguments? How many fallacies? How many action cards? Watching the video, I couldn't help but wonder - do the fallacies just cover all the arguments (no surplus fallacies) or are there more fallacies then needed to debunk all the arguments in the deck?

      Will admit to wondering if a "Battle Line" style game (as a variant) might be played using the deck of cards. Arguments played in the middle as a row, fallacies played against them as needed with the stronger side winning the argument.

    3. Stephen Woodford Creator on

      Great point Daryl - you're right. I'll try see what I can do. Perhaps the "ignores evolution" should be a "Personal Incredulity Fallacy" instead?

    4. Missing avatar

      Daryl Smith on

      I posted this on YT - but it will no doubt be swamped, and it's important to me, so perhaps it makes more sense to copy it here?

      I noticed in the video a 'Fallacy' card --- 'Ignores Natural Selection'. This feels wrong to me. I think you need another type of card? Because this is surely not a 'Fallacy' in the same way that 'Special Pleading', or 'Straw Man', etc are fallacies?

      It is not a 'logical fallacy'; more of a 'Counter-Argument' ???? I think you need to make this distinction within the game - I think you need to separate arguments that are well-established logical fallacies, that are universal, despite differing belief-systems. And arguments that require an assumption of the value of science, or 'knowledge' based on 'fact'...

      I hope that makes some sort of sense! Good luck with this Stephen! I am so looking forward to it!

    5. Missing avatar

      Eric Cerevic

      No cards based on Monty Python's Philosopher Song?