Ok, I've read the rulebook. On the overall, it was quite pleasant to read, and clear, I think. So I liked it.
On the other hand, you've made some typos.
Like here (should be "players'")
Shouldn't it be just "Events", since all other are cards as well?
Da Harkovast, man!
In "Anatomy of Event Cards", points 2, 3 and 5 provide no useful info. Maybe it's personal preference (born out of reading API manuals), but I really dislike descriptions that simply restate what the name already says.
The same applies to "Anatomy of Challange Cards".
Shouldn't it be "while" here?
Shouldn't it be "of parents of different races" here?
This sentence is gibberish, I'm afraid.
Conflict of whom with the church?
"Places it"?
Is "Ability" equal in meaning to "Challenge", so that they could be compared in this way?
By this point (page 16), it's not at all clear what does it mean to Attack in a Challange and what you'd do that for. I's suggest expanding or restructuring.
It's not clear, at this point, whether the unit should receive the damage in one attack or over time. Also, should be "equal to or greater" (yes, I'm a programmer
)
So, is a destroyed unit discarded, or reshuffled into the roster deck? Because this description seems to suggest the latter, but also in other places it is stated that destroyed units are discarded.
Is it really necessary to name both of the cards here?
Also, quotation marks / apostrophes you're using in the rulebook are inconsistent; you're mixing ascii single quote ('), for example on page 7 around "ALL", with unicode ones (‘’), for example in this quote.
I think there should be at least some explanation, why that would make you vulnerable, since right now it just seems overly vague and mysterious.
Also, what happens if one of the cards (or both) has an activated game text ("exert this card to...")? This should probably be addressed.
Ok, I seriously advise you, drop the "pawn" terminology. I can think of several reasons why. (also, note quotation marks inconsistent with the quote before the previous one)
1) You're suggesting to the players "don't take this side, this side is bad for you". And it really shouldn't be this way. Eldex and the West should be mechanically equivalent. It's okay to have an overtly evil side, but you shouldn't immediately state that taking the evil side makes the player's nation weak or stupid. Because no one will want to take a card that says "you now became a pawn". Freaking sugarcoat it. I mean, there's a reason why in Mass Effect you gain "Renegade" points when you do evil things, not "You Sick Bastard" points.
2) It's not like allying with the Eldex is all candies and rainbows. To be fair, you should change the card to say "Helots of Eldex" and also change Quinn-Tain's game text to "On purchase, immediately Destroy one of your other Champions while acting smugly about it".
3) You're forcing an out-of-character perspective into the game. No nation willingly becomes a pawn.
What's the point of that rule? If there are no reservations about same-allied nations fighting each other in all other types of games, there should not be an unreasonable penalty for playing only two-player game.
And seriously, the blurbs about Eldex and the West are all right, but they give no insight at all how those allegiances differ and what you gain by allying with them. To be fair, the same can be said about descriptions of base nations, but here it's much worse, because you're supposed to make an informed choice during the game to ally yourself with one of the sides, which is not at all equivalent to a random choice by which you may select your starting nation.