rowanalpha said: I'd like to see a few new Cylon Agendas so the leaders are a little less predictible (there were some neat ideas for shared and exclusive victories in one variant), That would be me. Check out the link in my sig.

I think what we might see is the possibility of *every* player having an agenda card, so that it becomes less of a team game.

Hem said: When Wilson will be finished taking the best out of your rework to put it back into his own............... Heehee... Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Hem said: Bleached Lizard said: I presume your copy came with the cards that give Caprice her Chairman Hiro favours, then? Oh come on !!! Be nice, lizard You VERY WELL KNOW Wilson intended that for the very forecoming expansion.... everyone knows that Oh yes, sorry - I forgot. When's that expansion coming, then?

Hem said: Yep, that's the trick. So far, never found any "mistake" in our games with any card... not that a flawed game, eh (blinking to another thread...) I presume your copy came with the cards that give Caprice her Chairman Hiro favours, then?

If I were playing BSG with you and your rules, I would then also interpret it such that if I were piloting a viper and played the Maximum Firepower card, I would be allowed to punch you in the face four times. It's an attack, after all.

Agreed - two players may be a problem.

Games like this are often self-balancing. Take TI3 as an example: some of the races are obviously more powerful than others, so it is the responsibility of the other players to gang up on the stronger player to keep him in check. You can choose a stronger race, but you have to put up with being beaten down for choosing it.

napoleonWilson said: I definatly understand wanting to stay true to the source theme behind the game. If someone really likes Star Wars and they play a Star Wars game, logically the person playing is expecting a certain adherence to the themes of Star Wars. However, a game is not THE source material. For instance, how fun would a game be to play if it followed exactly how the source material went. Seems like it would be kinda boring to me, gee, the rebels beat the Empire again, how exciting. That's kinda the point of playing a game, it's linear and we don't know how it'g going to end. If the players know it's going to follow the show exactly, why bother playing, it wouldn't be worth it. With a game based on a source material, one has to let go of the material alittle bit. If Apollo is a Cylon, are you not going to execute him because he isn't a cylon in the show and survives the whole series? Maybe they shouldn't make any characters for the game that died in the show because if they survive to the end of the game, it wouldn't be thematically correct. Perhaps loyalty cards shouldn't be dealt out to people who for sure were not cylons in the show cause if they get cylon cards thats not thematically right either. The game is "thematically" perfect, the paranoia, the political jockeying, backstabbing, the desperation. Just consider every game an alternate timeline where characters, events, and loyalties are not known and you will be fine. In the show, there is an airlock, people do get put inside it. In order for the game to be fun everybody has to be on the block. If that lunatic Cain had her way she would put the half the fleet out to pasture just to get one cylon, what if she did "take command". It's like the Marvel, "What if" comics, they aren't what really happened, but they are fun nevertheless, just like the board game. Just follow the rules and have fun, and don't worry if the game doesn't turn out to be a repeat of the show, its better that way. Napoleon The problem isn't that certain aspects of the expansion are counter-theme in the way you describe. Obviously we understand it's a game and that the events in the game will not follow the exact course as they do in the show. The problem is that some of the mechanics are counter-common-sense, theme-wise.

iceberg84 said: James McMurray said: iceberg84 said: Also, I create a house rule preventing Adama from executing people as well, since it doesn't make sense for him to be able to execute people but not use the admiral's quarters. Do you let him execute Zarek, and would you let him execute Gaeta if the character existed? He personally commands the firing squad for the two traitors after their failed mutiny. The board game doesn't include rules for the mutiny, so I would assume that it doesn't take place. I think my previous comment still stands. As far as game mechanics go, Adama's weakness is completely circumvented by the existence of the airlock. I would go a step further and say that he shouldn't be able to Brig or Airlock characters, AND characters cannot be brigged or airlocked during his turn, as his weakness is completely circumvented by the existence of XOs.

Daver said: Turric4n said: without luck? only breeders canyon as a human.. and that only if the other ressources are not higher. worst agenda after mutual destruction Mutual destruction is waaaay easier. First round infiltrate, second round resurrect, third round draw supercrisis, fourth play. Well, getting it as a sympathetic does suck, as there is every chance that you won't get four rounds til NC He didn't say Mutual Annihilation was *harder*. He said it was *worse*. ;o)

Curator said: Thanks for the replies. If you were to compare Android what would you compare it to? Just for the record, Hem is putting words in my mouth: my opinion is that Android in it's original form is a complete shambolic mess. If you want a comparison though, I'd say it's like a competative version of Arkham Horror.

risner said: Also, Administration has been used more than a few times (never by Cylon revealed or unrevealed) but rather to "fix" the President titlle after a crisis card forced a change away from Roslin president. We rarely ever use Research Lab (only gets played when no players have blue for repair.) We have never used Main Batteries and CIC (from Pegasus ship) and never will. We have never used Press Room and likley never will. I have to agree with everyone else - this all seems incredibly short-sighted tactically. Why is it so important to get the presidency back to Roslin after it has been moved? Unless there's a good reason, you're wasting skill cards on an unneccessary check. Main Batteries and CIC are pretty much the best way to deal with basestars and raiders. As mentioned previously, Press Room is the best way to get more skill cards. Does your group have a high Cylon win rate?

Ringarin said: Just realised another question reading a different thread. When Legendary Discovery occurs does it reset the jump prep track? It involves going a distance unit towards the destination, but it doesn't say anything about jump prep. So far we've always done it where jump prep stays the same, but It occurred to me that it might not be the correct way to do it. You've been playing it correctly - the jump track does not reset if Legendary Discovery is passed. Thematically, the discovery is a map to your destination, meaning you know how to get there quicker.

Ringarin said: Only one reckless can be played per vote, but two people want to play a reckless. Who gets to decide which works and which doessn't, and does the one that doesn't take effect get discarded or put back in the hand? When you play a reckless and resolve treachery cards put into the vote do you resolve every single treachery card or just one? There's the one card that says you just resolve one, but I'm not sure if that means that specific card or treachery in general. The current player decides which card is played. You resolve one of each different treachery card that was put into the check. For example, if one By Your Command, one Special Destiny and one Broadcast Location were put into the check, you would resolve all three of them (in the order of the current player's choosing). If three By Your Commands were put into the check, you would only resolve one of them.

What I'd quite like is something like "Traders of the Twilight Imperium", which would be a cross between Merchant of Venus and the old Elite/Frontier computer games, set in the TI universe.

Dan said: Can you execute yourself. I am thinking about activating Resistance HQ or Airlock on yourself, or being Cain and executing yourself with your execute Brig abiltiy, or maybe by playing a card. A Cylon Leader has one Agenda to get exectued. Activating on himself saves time, but makes his Agenda much easier. I am sure one can think of other examples. I am uncomfortable with the idea of executing yourself, and would prefer a rule saying "choose a character for execution" would mean "choose another character".Opinions? Yes, we already play with this rule. A character can never voluntarily execute themselves. Works fine.

Check out the link in my signature for a variant for the conspiracy.

Just to be clear, the point I'm making is that the army size limit won't be implemented by *this* method. I'm sure there will be an army size limit - I just don't think it will be done this way (for the reasons I stated).

DarkElf said: Bleached Lizard said: Wouldn't your idea be somewhat unbalanced, in that it would allow the strong to get stronger and the force the weak to get weaker? Well, I don't know, I don't think so because .. The resource dials do not change unless you play the harvest order card, so taking a hex away from an opponent doesn't immediately change his dials. There may very well be time to take the area back ... or take another area before the dials get reset ... or take an action so that excess units get into another area before the dials are reset ... and there may be more actions available to counter the loss of an area/resource. Your army may not be maxed out in units from the resource you just lost, meaning, for example you just lost a Food area but your armies are maxed out with Wood units, so, no real harm done there. I'm sure it will be a valid strategy to attack certain areas which contain resources which are vital to your opponent's armies. And maybe the most important reason why I think this would not unbalace things is that it doesn't matter how many units you have of a certain type. If you have just one in your army, you draw a Date Card and you can do battle. 2 or 3 units have just as much odds to hit/miss as one. It will make a difference though in the strength count, but that's the point of it I reckon. I still don't think the army size limit will work in this way though, most importantly because it's anti-auto-balancing (whereas FFG games tend to be pro-auto-balancing). It would mean that the player who controlled all the land would be able to create uber-stacks of monsters, whereas the poor trailing players who need to be able to create uber-stacks in order to take their land back will instead be forced to go into combat with a single sorcerer. I can't see that working well.

rowanalpha said: Aside from some new characters and the like, I'd like to see some variation where the extra game boards are determined randomly rather than preset (like destinations, but in some other mechanic, maybe a seperate deck). Other boards could be added (rebel cylon board perhaps?) that are randomly encountered when the ship jumps. Check this out: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/464030 (scroll to the end of the second page to see the work-in-progress). One thing I'd like to see in an expansion (which is an idea someone else has already come up with in another thread) is the idea of having the *very* minor characters - the ones not worthy of their own full character card - represented in the game in some other way, such as another deck of skill cards, or such (the "ally deck"?). Maybe this deck could have one card of each minor character, each of one particular colour (so when you draw one you don't know which colour you're going to get) plus each has a unique special ability. So for example you could have: Elosha (yellow - strength 3) Action: Look at the top two cards of the crisis deck then place them on the top or bottom in any order. Or whatever... EDIT: Actually, what might be even better is for them to have abilities that are *only* triggered by having them played into skill checks (similar to Reckless Skill Check cards, but without the check needing to be Reckless). So Elosha's ability above should actually start with "Skill Check: Look at the..."

Wouldn't your idea be somewhat unbalanced, in that it would allow the strong to get stronger and the force the weak to get weaker? The reason why the fleet supply limit in TI3 works is because you have to take resources away from other areas in order to suppliment it (i.e, strategy and command pool). This isn't the case if you just use the resource dials as the unit limit. Every tick up the resource dial is a "double bonus", and if you took a hex away from an opponent then all the better - a "double penalty" for him as well (meaning that he may even have to destroy quite a few of his own units to conform to his new unit limit).

DarkElf said: Bleached Lizard said: Didn't it state in an earlier article that it didn't matter how many units of one type you had in a battle - if the fate card says they deal just 1 damage, then it's one damage for all those units as a group (not 1 each). As mentioned above already, I really can't see this making any sense. What would be the point of building an army if 1 unit can do as much damage as 100 of those units. Moreover, giving all (100) units the same Fate Card result also doesn't look very appealing. There you come with your 100 Archers and you Draw .... a miss - everybody fails his shot ??? - How does that sound for a game mechanism, pretty bad, doesn't it ? After re-reading the article I see you're quite possibly right. However, the point of building an army would be to have more strength than your opponent to determine the winner of the battle. It seems that in this game, you only go through each initiative phase once; whoever has the most units standing at the end wins (presumably the loser has to retreat, possibly also losing all routed units). So extra units would be very useful. In fact, with that thinking in mind, it's still possible that each group of units deals the damage shown on the fate card as a total rather than one per unit. A small number of units lost could then be the difference between winning and losing the battle, with further units destroyed as a penalty for losing. It would also make combat more deterministic rather than luck-based. But I agree it's probably not that way.

Again, Tsugo with the not reading the question properly... Yes - play goes clockwise from the first player.

Don't listen to Tsugo - he didn't read the question properly. Yes, it's possible that no one scores for their guilty hunch at the end of the game: if the suspect with the highest guilt is the guilty hunch that was not dealt out. It's not possible that no one will score for their innocent hunch. At worst, only one player may not score their innocent hunch. Do not return the unused guilty/innocent hunches to the box. Keep them near the murder sheets. I'm pretty certain there is at least one card that allows players to look at them.