Bleached Lizard
-
Content Count
838 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bleached Lizard
-
-
I'm thinking of house-ruling Lily so that she instead allows the player encountering her to choose one file on any suspect and turn all tokens on that file faceup. Not sure if this would have a useful gameplay effect, but at least her ability would be more significant.
-
I've often wondered this myself. The only thing that I can think of is that Lily isn't meant to be a benefit to the players - she's meant to be an obstacle. I'm not 100% sure, but I seem to remember that Lily is often positioned in places that the players can't or wouldn't want to avoid (supposedly), such as at the Scene of the Crime or the base of the Beanstalk.
But you're right - she's still pretty much completely redundant.
-
You still use the NPC. The fact that the related detective isn't being played is irrelevant.
-
Hi guys,
I have just uploaded the latest version of The Director's Cut variant rules to the files section on BGG. These rules address many of the disparities between theme and gameplay in a game of Android, including rules to:
* Turn the murder into a true deductive experience (with a "real" murderer).
* Eliminate the unthematic 5-in-a-row scoring on the conspiracy puzzle.
* Allow each investigator to experience their game "day" concurrently rather than consecutively (and reduce downtime).
* Adjust how dark cards are drawn and played to be more in theme with what is happening on the board.
* Give NPCs more involvement in the unfolding story and allow some characters to "crossover" into another detective's story.
* Plus many more...Version 2.0 incorporates the following changes:
* Extensive rule changes for the conspiracy, to make the placement of every tile worthwhile and reduce the overpowered nature of the conspiracy overall.
* Rewording of the NPC rules to accommodate the upcoming Director's Cut - Alternate Plots.
* Minor tweaks and revisions to the Murder rules.
* Alternate rules for movement by Beanstalk.You can find the file here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/41377
As always, GeekGold tips gratefully accepted. Enjoy!
Chris.
-
Nhoj said:
Bleached Lizard said:
It's not a group-think issue - it's common sense (maybe our group just has a lot more common sense than most).
The VPs from the conspiracy are only available while there are still 5-in-a-rows available to complete. Once they're gone, they're gone. So it's common sense to devote all energy into getting as many of those 4VP chips as you can towards the beginning of the game, before anyone else does, and then only afterwards dedicate energy towards those VPs that are only available at the end of the game.
The murder is absolutely NOT proportional to the amount of evidence you place! Try telling that to the guy who spends two whole weeks placing nothing but +1 evidence tokens who then gets it all undone by the one player who spent 2 Time placing a surprise witness token and is beaten by the other player who spent 2 Time and was lucky enough to draw the +5 evidence chit. The murder is a complete lottery and has very little to do with how much work each detective puts into it, which just adds to the reason why you should concentrate on the conspiracy first - those VPs are more "certain".
Heading towards the player who goes after you doesn't help, for the reason that if you grab all the leads in the area around that player, then that player will have no leads to pass to you to place during his turn, meaning no additional leads near you next turn (this is all providing, of course, that the other player doesn't see you coming and grab all the leads for himself before you can arrive). You've done one other player out of leads, but then you've got no leads to pick up for yourself next turn either, which actually works out worse for you as a strategy as you're allowing players 3, 4 and 5 - the ones that *aren't* persuing this strategy - to move further into the lead.
It may be a form of group-think, but it's group-think that the mechanics of the game encourage.
So you admit that it is group think or not? I'm confused.
I have to admit I've not played as much as you but it would always be my choice to place leads as far away from EVERYBODY as possible. This is a competetive game and if you are not getting a turn for a while make it as difficult as possible.
It would also be my choice to not play to the puzzle as often as possible, but to spread my options among the various routes to VPs. If other players are going after the conspiracy - hammer their private lives - this is sure to give them a reality check.
There is luck in this game (to your lottery comment) but it could not create such an appealing 'noir' like tale if it was pre-programmed.
However, I haven't tried your variant so I'm not going to comment on the game it produces - suffice it to say that the current rules (with the exception of the 1st player thing) are doing fine at the moment for me
as usual ymmv
Regards
John
It's a form of group-think, but not in the usual way that group-think is considered. Normally in group-think situations, if one player were to break away from the group-think strategy, they would put themselves at an advantage. In this situation, however, they only put one other player at a disadvantage as well as putting themselves at that same disadvantage, leaving the other players at an advantage by comparison.
You would even choose to put the leads as far away from *yourself* as possible? Why on earth would you do that?
It would also be my choice to split my efforts between multiple different aspects of the game... if each aspect were equally desirable and the game were balanced, but unfortunately they're not.
I don't mind luck in a game - I'm an Ameritrasher after all. However, the degree to which luck is involved in the murder lottery is a little extreme. It could have been much better if the evidence tokens were all numbered just 4-6 or thereabouts (in roughly equal amounts), with no negatives. This would have allowed an amount of uncertainty in the murder investigation but without the huge swings that the current system produces.
-
It's not a group-think issue - it's common sense (maybe our group just has a lot more common sense than most).
The VPs from the conspiracy are only available while there are still 5-in-a-rows available to complete. Once they're gone, they're gone. So it's common sense to devote all energy into getting as many of those 4VP chips as you can towards the beginning of the game, before anyone else does, and then only afterwards dedicate energy towards those VPs that are only available at the end of the game.
The murder is absolutely NOT proportional to the amount of evidence you place! Try telling that to the guy who spends two whole weeks placing nothing but +1 evidence tokens who then gets it all undone by the one player who spent 2 Time placing a surprise witness token and is beaten by the other player who spent 2 Time and was lucky enough to draw the +5 evidence chit. The murder is a complete lottery and has very little to do with how much work each detective puts into it, which just adds to the reason why you should concentrate on the conspiracy first - those VPs are more "certain".
Heading towards the player who goes after you doesn't help, for the reason that if you grab all the leads in the area around that player, then that player will have no leads to pass to you to place during his turn, meaning no additional leads near you next turn (this is all providing, of course, that the other player doesn't see you coming and grab all the leads for himself before you can arrive). You've done one other player out of leads, but then you've got no leads to pick up for yourself next turn either, which actually works out worse for you as a strategy as you're allowing players 3, 4 and 5 - the ones that *aren't* persuing this strategy - to move further into the lead.
It may be a form of group-think, but it's group-think that the mechanics of the game encourage.
-
Nhoj said:
3 leads within easy reach in one turn? ---
I'd love to play against other players who would let this happen
Are you sure the conspiracy is broken and not the way you approach this particular game?
Regards
John
"Let" happen...? Could you expand on this statement, please?
I've only ever played with three players and even then it is all too easy to "let" this happen. With five players I imagine it would be almost impossible to avoid!
The proposed variant is designed specifically to prevent "letting" this happen. In fact, we've been using this variant for the past few games and it works wonders: now you can't just place the leads near yourself and chain them for the easy 3-lead grab, but instead you have to try and place them as far away from others as possible (or use them as bait) and make sure that they *don't* form chains for your opponents.
-
Paul Grogan said:
Nhoj said:
OK - I'll bite. Could you give me ONE example (and hopefully not too contrived) of when I could place THREE puzzle pieces in a row?
There are a number of ways to victory IMHO and there are several dead ends - so watch out for ................................
a) Players focussed on the puzzle - easy meat
b) Players focussed on the murder - Easy Meat!
c) Players focussed on their poor pathetic lives - EASY MEAT!!Do you see where I'm coming from?
Hi John,
Move, follow up a lead, Move, follow up a lead, Move, follow up a lead.
Have seen this done in most games (if not all) I have played. Conspiracy is finished at the start of week 2 in a 3 player game, at the end of week 1 in a 4 player game and on day 4-5 in a 5 player game. Why? Because as has been said many times before, it is the single easiest way to get VP.
The a,b,c. Yes, I see where you are coming from and would love the game to be balanced so that a player can choose a bit of everything. Concentrating on just 1 wont work. However, whilst it may seem as I'm contradicting myself saying that pounding the conspiracy early is best, and then saying "dont focus on one thing", but getting the conspiracy done early, there is then nothing else left to do, so you have to do something else
Seriously, if I focus on the puzzle and other people dont, the VP from the puzzle are huge. But it isnt just that. It is the fact that a player following up a lead to place evidence draws 1 random chit and places it on 1 place of 1 suspect. This may or may not change the outcome and is a very minor thing with all the other evidence.
OR: You could place a piece of the puzzle. And get a freebie bonus depending on which piece it is. Then you get the freebie bonus on the back of some of them. The ability to influence what is (and isnt) worth VP at the end of the game, and also the possibility of getting the conspiracy tokens.
Simply put, placing a puzzle piece is way better than placing 1 piece of evidence. If this wasnt the case, why is it that in the 3 play groups I speak to who all learnt to play this game independently say that the conspiracy is way overpowered and all players are completing it as soon as they can. Any player who doesnt has no chance of winning.
Agreed. This is exactly how it is (correction: WAS, when we played with the original rules) in our games as well.
-
The ends of the beanstalk aren't an especially significant problem, and you could even say that cross-district boundary-hopping isn't a significant problem either if you don't mind playing that way. The problem I have with it is that it just makes lead placement and collection far too easy and cheesy. There's no skill involved in it. You just place it as close to yourself as you can and then pick it up when it's your turn.
It also seems to be against the intent of the spirit of the rules, which are that the lead shouldn't be too easy for the placing player to collect. Why else would the rules state that you can't place it in the same district as your detective? This rule is evidently a deliberate attempt to make collecting the lead you've just placed difficult for yourself, but the rule fails simply because districts are not all that big. It seems like a much more interesting mechanic if you can't place the lead anywhere near yourself, so that you have to think much more carefully about where you should place it (and/or who you should place it near).
The puzzle is usually completed by using your whole turn to place 2-3 pieces in a row.
-
dedindahed said:
Bleached Lizard said:
The base of the beanstalk ("The Root" - Beanstalk station 1) is one movement away from Broadcast Square - one of the most powerful locations in the game. Both are green (civic) locations.
But camping in the area is only effective if the player after you follows up a green lead on their turn, there is a strong possibility of this not happening.
Yes, but that's just the worst circumstance. In my experience it's pretty much always the case that a player can place a lead 1, maybe 2 at the most, moves away from their detective. It's only if the detective is standing dead in the centre of a district that this becomes less likely, but in most cases detectives are almost always near a district border.
-
Dan said:
Official alternate rule is not to use the Sympathiser. It is in the Variants donwload on the site. For a variety of reasons, I don't like sympathiser. Try the official no sympathiser variant. Also, make sure Humans are scouting, and managing their resources. Sometimes, early jumps are OK if you have the population to sacrifice. A macabre thought¨, but it is effective
The "No Sympathiser" variant is not intended to make the game easier - the variant states that you should reduce the resource dials to even out the difficulty again. And anyway, how would this help in 3 or 5-player games?
-
It's also useful for the negative conquest variant.
-
dedindahed said:
When repostioning leads, the new placement has to be on a site that has the same colour as the previous site, does this not make 1 a non-problem?
Given that both beanstalk end locations are green, is camping out nearby really all that effective considering it only helps when you get to reposition a green lead, which seems like it could be easily foiled by your opponents.
I've not played yet, only read the rules, so I may be missing something....
The base of the beanstalk ("The Root" - Beanstalk station 1) is one movement away from Broadcast Square - one of the most powerful locations in the game. Both are green (civic) locations.
-
There is something semi-official you can try that comes from the designer: in the Road to Legend expansion they include something called the Reinforcement Marker, which is just a token with a pair of monster eyes on one side and blank on the other side. It starts eyes side up. When the OL spawns monsters, he turns it face down and cannot spawn again until it is turned face up. It turns face up automatically between dungeon levels, or the OL can spend 15 threat to turn it face up early.
The designer has said that this can also be used with non-RtL quests. Just change things so that the Reinforcement Marker automatically resets when a new area is revealed. The cost for the OL to reset also depends on the number of heroes: 15 threat for two heroes, 10 threat for three heroes and 5 threat for four heroes.
-
Tarota said:
Bleached Lizard said:
With the current rule system, all of these rules are unneccessary, as having your twilight marker at any one point on the twilight track is equally beneficial as having it at any other point (the only differentiating factor is the number and type of cards you have in your hand). With the old/variant system, these rules would become much more important, as they are in place to prevent any player from "locking in" as completely light-shifted in order to prevent any dark cards being played on them.Have we been playing wrong? I've only played once, but there were several points where I got stuck at one end of the twilight track or the other, and couldn't play appropriate cards without emptying my hand. I found the ability to change card costs to be vital...
The difference is though that with the rules as they appear in the rulebook, the ability to discard cards to pay for other cards may be very *useful*, but it's not actually *vital*. Under the old rule system, it would actually be vital. Under the rules as they are, you could just continue to draw cards of the appropriate type until you find one that you can play to move the twilight marker back again. Under the old rule system, one direction of that movement is completely under the control of your opponents.
-
Tsugo said:
Paul Grogan said:
At the end of the game, if there is only evidence of a single value in the strong or weak area, none is removed.
- I have played 2 games now where the strong evidence of a suspect had only multiple pieces all of the same value (I think 3 or 4) and according to the rules they are all removed. We felt this was completely stupid and made the whole murder thing even more of a random lottery.
- I'm also even considering saying that only negative values should be removed from 'Strong' and positive values removed from 'WeakSolving the murder is not a lottery. Any player who is serious about solving the murder needs to be smart about the placement of evidence. When a low negative token is drawn, make sure and play it on your suspects Strong evidence, and vice versa for the Weak.
Also, you have to make use of the snitch. There is no reason the evidence results should be a complete surprise.
Yes, because not being surprised by the result makes all the difference.
-
Oh, and would you really say that a demon is only worth four kobolds?
-
Good luck! I tried to do the same before I created my loadout sheet but just found it to be so exceptionally difficult and highly subjective that I gave up and decided to "trust" in the values supplied in the RtL rulebook (more fool me).
If you do manage to come up with something though I'd be very interested in seeing it (plus, if it ends up better than mine it would take any responsibility off me to keep my one up to date)!
Only problem I see with having higher values for the monsters (which is actually quite correct - to keep things correctly proportinal Kobolds shouldn't start at 1 like they do on my sheet) is that the maths involved becomes more difficult; it's easy enough for people to figure things out if they only have to add up to 4-5 in each category, but if you're using numbers like 17-23-32 it might put people off.
Anyway, best of luck and I look forward to seeing the finished product!
-
Kalidor said:
I gotta say that I'm a tad disappointed in what I am reading here and there...
I finally got Android, spent a ton of time reading and re-reading the rules and cards, etc.
It seems awesome. Really, really good...and I am eager to get it to my gaming table, a.s.a.p.
Now I am seeing that the proverbial honeymoon wears off...and quickly at that.
The game seems so deep...how could that be?
Without playing, I cannot comment concretely, but how could the conspiracy be that overpowered, as mentioned above?
The game victory conditions seem myriad enough that all should balance out ok...and the player who did the "most" should win, in most cases.
Every game has a bit of randomness, that will help to mix it up a bit...keep everyone a little in the dark, so to speak...this game doesn't appear to have more than the average game, in that respect....whilst offering a LOT more in terms of backround, theme and depth...
What's the deal?
I, for one, won't quell my excitement, as I think the game is deep and probably needs many plays to fulfill what it is offering us.
Don't confuse complexity with depth; the game is complicated - there are lots of very fiddly rules to remember that all interact in very complicated ways. The game is *not* deep - there is very little in the way of strategic decision-making, and most of the time you will be taking whichever action is closest and easiest to do because there's not much other choice, and the game has so many random factors (and *strong* random factors at that) that can affect you that any long-term planning becomes meaningless.
I think most people get caught up in the look and theme of the game, and so it has that "wow!" factor for the first couple of plays, but after that you realise that there's not actually that much game there.
The conspiracy is massively over-powered compared to other aspects of the game. Firstly, it grants the largest VP reward for the smallest effort (then add to that the fact that those VPs are one of the only sources of "certain" VPs in the game - VPs that you have *now* rather than needing to wait and see if you receive them). Then there's the fact that each tile grants at least one, usually two forms of bonus (sometimes even three!), some of which cost a hell of a lot if you want to try and obtain them elsewhere (hits, for example). Lastly, and bizarrely probably least important of all, are the bonuses you get from the links. *Every* player benefits from the links that are formed, but at least if you're laying conspiracy tiles you get to decide which ones. If you link up the correct ones, you can have favours that are worth up to 16VPs each! In the games we played (when we used to play with the original rules) pretty much at least half of a players' points would come from favours.
Then compare this to the murder. Following up the murder, you get to place *one* chit on a suspect of your choice. This chit can range in value anywhere from -5 to +5, but most of the chits are 1s and 2s (both positive and negative). You can follow up five leads, draw a +1 very time, and then another player follows up *one* lead, draws the only +5 in the game and has achieved in 2 Time what it took you a whole two days to accomplish. Then another player draws a -5 token and places it on your suspect and has now just undone your two weeks' worth of work, again with just 2 Time. This whole system makes the murder a complete random lottery as to who scores points from it, so why would anybody spend time focusing on the murder where they *might* get *some* points when they can instead focus on the conspiracy?
-
1: But saying that you can't place a lead at 1-move distance requires checking every time using the calipers. No-same-or-adjacent placement is quicker and easier (and, I'm guessing, closer to the intent of the original rule - that it shouldn't be too easy for the placing player to follow up that same lead straight away). Plus, if you make it no-same-or-adjacent, you can do away with passing the lead to the right - the player following up the lead can place it themselves.
3: Yep - the player needs *two* street favours in order to gain three points.
4: Trust me, it's not. We've tried playing this way already, and - providing the players are competant - no one will place that 2nd-to-last piece. The bonus points from the links are not worth giving someone else 4VPs (problem being that the link bonuses are only *potential* points, whereas the 5-in-a-row are solid "I have them now" points). The problem with the conspiracy is not only that it is overpowered in terms of the rewards it grants, but that the rewards it grants are dished out in a very un-even-handed way. If you reduce the conspiracy tokens' value to 2VPs it might be enough, but still...
I'll send my variant to you through BGG GeekMail.
-
Paul Grogan said:
After 3 months on the shelf with me having no inclination to play it because of missing FAQ and game balance, I might be getting the game on the table this weekend.
Here are my proposals to fix our perceived balance issues:
For the purpose of moving leads, the bottom and top of the beanstalk are also considered to be in the district that they are next to.
- We didnt like people being able to place leads literally next door. We found that camping around the bottom or top of the beanstalk a bit too goodVisiting the scene of the crime allows you to give the start player token to any player (including yourself)
- Going first can be good. It can also be very, very bad. We found in all our games that the person who went first was actually at more of a disadvantage than an advantage, so nobody ever went to the scene of the crime to take the start player, and just laughed at the player who was unlucky enough to have the start player marker and not able to do anything about itUsing a dropship to move to a restricted location, or using a card to move there when you dont have a warrant costs +2 time
- Just makes sense. The 2 time is the time spent gaining entryAt the end of the game, if there is only evidence of a single value in the strong or weak area, none is removed.
- I have played 2 games now where the strong evidence of a suspect had only multiple pieces all of the same value (I think 3 or 4) and according to the rules they are all removed. We felt this was completely stupid and made the whole murder thing even more of a random lottery.
- I'm also even considering saying that only negative values should be removed from 'Strong' and positive values removed from 'Weak'Broadcast Square ability costs 2 time and any 2 favours and only allows you to pick up a puzzle piece from the lowest value area.
- This location is totally overpowered as it is.Conspiracy Tokens are only worth +3 VP
- Conspiracy is the easiest way to get points, and in most of our games, people have just concentrated on this because other things arent worth the hassle.Haas / Jinteki tokens are worth a base value of +4 VP
- In 5 games, nobody has really considered getting these tokens, even when in one game Jinteki had 3 links and was worth +6 VP (becuase the favours alone were worth 4VP, so it wasnt worth it)Murder Specific event is resolved on the last day of week 1.
- It is counter-intuitive that it isnt resolved until day 8 and it just plays a lot better resolved at the end of the 1st week.A player can only reveal one piece of the conspiracy through following up leads per turn (not counting any special abilities)
They could still 'dig deeper' with one lead, and then uncover the conspiracy with a second lead.
- Once we played it once, we realised that hammering the conspiracy early on was the best thing to do. As such, even in a 3 player, the conspiracy was completed by the start of week 2. With more players it would be completed by the end of week 1.A puzzle piece that is discarded and not placed on the board is removed from the game.
Sacrificing can only be done on your turn but takes no time.
Some feedback:
Preventing the PIs from placing at the base or tip of the beanstalk doesn't prevent the problem of them placing at a location 1 move away across any other district border. The house rule we've implemented is that the lead cannot be placed in the PI's district OR an adjacent district (Earth and Moon are never adjacent, beanstalk is adjacent to its connecting districts).
Broadcast square is now massively over-costed (most of the locations in the game are already over-costed, but anyway...). Instead change it so that the PI doesn't receive the bonus on the back of the conspiracy tile.
The problem isn't that Jinteki/Haas tokens aren't worth enough - it's that it's so much easier to get points from favours through the conspiracy. Recommend changing so that players only score points for each *pair* of favours from the conspiracy.
1 conspiracy tile/turn: this opens up the problem that no one will then want to place the 2nd-to-last conspiracy tile that leads to a 5-in-a-row. This one is a difficult one to fix and will require extensive house ruling. I'll be publishing my own variant for the conspiracy soon-ish to BGG.
-
samoan said:
Personally I like the game alot the way it is. I thought the plots added a lot of theme and pinning a crime on a suspect wether or not they actually did it added a lot to making seem like the dectives are a bit morally grey and just want to pin the crime on someone since they are probably guilt for something any way. Sort of like Murder city.
That's fair enough, though the variant still retains this feeling. Remember, only one player can have the correct guilty hunch (though no one will know for sure which player that will be). All the other players will still be aiming to convict an innocent man (though again, they won't know this for sure until the end of the game).
Personally, I'm not a fan of the plots. I think they're so abstracted so that you don't really feel like you're doing the thing that they're supposed to represent. How does playing (any) light card make you "feel" like you're strengthening your relationship with your best friend? How does sacrificing any one favour make you "feel" like you're getting closer to your estranged dad?
I'm currently working on a set of alternate plots for the game that still retain the same stroies but make the actions that the detectives must perform have a much more thematic feel to them. Watch this space!
-
Paul Grogan said:
For me, I was really hyped about this game when it came out. Got it, shouted about it, sang its praises and played it 4 times in a couple of weeks.
Now it is on the shelf. So many rules problems and queries that are waiting on the official answer. I'm someone who likes to play it properly and am uncomfortable with interpreting it as to what I think it should be.
There is also a problem that I have with the balance of the game, and I really hope that it isnt as flawed as I currently think it is. Having played 4 games in a short period, I'm convinced that the conspiracy is far more important than anything else, and the broadcast square is totally broken. I've pretty much ignored the actual murder in all the games since it tends to be a complete lottery.
In the last game I played, the other players also hit the conspiracy early meaning it was completed on day 1 of week 2. Which means Ray's plot that he had which gives him good baggage for placing a piece of the conspiracy - well, he was screwed.
So I'm waiting on some official FAQ and some answers of what to do about the huge balance problem.
That said, the production value, flavour of the game is top notch.
I doubt that there will be any game-changing FAQ that will correct the inherent balance problems in this game. FFG (or any other game company) are not in the habit of making grand sweeping rules changes after the release of a game; that would be an immediate way to piss off their customer base. They may make some small changes here and there (like correcting the ability of Broadcast Square) but never anything on the scale of what would be required to correct the problems with the conspiracy puzzle, for example.
-
Iron_Lord said:
After a game of BSG (another clear victory for the toasters), we had a 4 player game of Android (the other game with "toasters" involved) yesterday. I read the "director's cut" rules just after that, wondering how they change the gameplay. I really want to give them a try - in my point of view, they stress the detective part, but change the "feel" of the game quite a bit.
Thanks for the interest! There's an updated version going up soon, containing extensive rule changes for the conspiracy. We were still finding a few problems with it (both in terms of theme and gameplay balance), namely:
* Points from the conspiracy are disproportinate compared to other areas of the game (internal gameplay balance issue).
* Obtaining points from the conspiracy was based more on timing rather than how much work you put into it (unthematic).
* The conspiracy offers too many bonuses for no real reason (internal balance issue and unthematic).
* The conspiracy bonuses vary wildly in their power and usefulness (dynamic balance issue).
I think I've found a way to deal with these issues and will be uploading an updated Director's Cut soon. So if you want a more theme in your conspiracy, you might want to wait until then!
Chris.
House rules to nerf the conspiracy
in Android
Posted
I don't get your adjustments if playing with 3 or 5 players. Could you explain a little more, please?