Bleached Lizard
-
Content Count
838 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bleached Lizard
-
-
Paul Grogan said:
Lets stop this here. Your variant is ok for people who want to use it. Lets not get into arguments about which is best because that is a matter of opinion. Whilst I personally think that the First Player thing should be changed, and I will be house ruling it so, there are a number of people who dont want to use it - that is their opinion.
Personally, getting rid of negative evidence is a very big optional rule. If you like it and prefer your games this way, thats ok. If you think it makes a better game, thats ok, you play like that. But I would recommend only doing so if all the other players who play with you think so too. Otherwise, you will be forcing them to play a game that is radically different from what was intended without them seeing the original version.
The variant has been posted, let people decide what they want to do. If people continue to argue about it, we will be here till Christmas 2010.
Lets get back to spending time on rules questions and FAQ.
Just for the record, I did say in my original post that I would play the game as-is *at least* once (probably 2-3 times) before implementing anything but the modified First Player rule (simple version). I'm actually a little surprised by how many people thought I was intending to implement *all* of these changes first game!
This thread was meant to stimulate intelligent discussion on hypothetical changes to the game that could be made. Instead all I got was a bunch of responses that basically amounted to "you can't do that because it will change the way the game is played". Well guess what: it's a variant - it's meant to!
What I'd like to hear is reasons why the rules I've put forward wouldn't work that don't involve:
- Personal preference
- Designer's intent
- Assumptions and preconceptions about what "should" be in the game
- Prejudice against changing rules (i.e, considering a rulebook holy)
- Prejudice against the game playing in a different way or against a need to adjust play style.
- Assumption that designer is always right (have you never heard of "errata"?)
- Saying it won't work and then not explaining why (without invoking any of the above points)
Simply, mechanically, is there any reason why the variants I've sugested wouldn't work?
-
Just curious, as it seems that it takes pretty much a detective's whole day if he wants to cross from Earth to Moon (not including the time it takes to get to the Beanstalk from wherever your detective happens to be). What have been your experiences? Is using the Beanstalk worth the trouble, or is it usually better just to get a dropship pass?
-
tommh said:
I don't think that getting rid of negative evidence tokens is a good idea at all.
You need to be able to make your innocent hunch more innocent as well as make your guilty hunch more guilty.
Why?
tommh said:
You need to be able to counter previously played evidence
Why?
tommh said:
you need to be able to bluff without activly adding another player
Why?
tommh said:
The uncertainty of the process is core to the games final resolution where your not supposed to know for sure who is guilt
The variant retains this.
-
This post needed major reformating after I first posted it. Replacement post below.
-
Allen Doum said:
It seems to me that the 4 point tiles provide an incentive to complete the conspiracy instead of dead-ending all of the paths. If the conspiracy is completed, then there will also be more victory points scored by all players, which compensates for one player getting the 4 tiles.
Surely that would actually be *more* the case if the 4VP chips were awarded for completing paths between the conspiracy and orgs rather than just getting 5-in-a-row?
-
It's interesting to know that the back-to-back turn strategy for the First Player marker isn't as strong as some people proclaim it might be. Much more situational, I should imagine.
-
Apparently I'm no allowed to reply with just a smiley face on it's own, so let me just say...
-
For what it's worth Paul, I agree with you. I think Mike and the Referee are just desperately trying to find ways to comply with the eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not change game rules".
-
Paul Grogan said:
Our game was a little odd. There was more puzzle action than evidence. By half way through we had about 10 pieces in play, but then Noise hacked into the database and wiped everything. Now, I'm not too sure about this event because it actually happens with only a few turns to go, so we ended it that Noise was guilty with only 1 evidence piece left on his board at the end, and Vinnie wasnt guilty because of a surprise witness. Put simply, one lucky counter played at the end of the game gave a 30VP swing in points.
Yeah, I noticed that card as well and instantly recognised it as a piece of bad game design. The cards that prevent any more evidence being placed on a particular suspect are also pretty unfair on the player that drew that suspect's guilty card.
-
Mike said:
I can see this house rule easily being exploited. Everybody will want to be last player, and then first player for every odd round in order to gain two turns back to back. From my point of views, this rule will result in everybody travelling to SoC every round.
I myself will not use that rule - because of the reasons stated in the other thread.
You really think so? Would it not occur to them that it would be an incredible waste of actions to continue doing that all the time?
-
-
Mike said:
Well, I tried to prove one of my hunches guilty. Him and some other guy were constantly loaded with evidence tokens. I amde sure the guy one got a lot of perjury ones and placed a number of high evidence tokens on mine. In the end, there were more tokens on my hunch than on the other. But when we revealed them, a lot of the tokens on my hunch turned out to be negative ones, making him especially innocent. Had i used Jimmy (I meant him), I could have looked under my hunch, seeing that a lot of those evidence tokens were negative. This would have resulted in me following up more evidence to place more tokens on him, gaining the VPs. I simply didn't give enough attention to the complex nature of placing evidence and thus got served.
Being the first player was helpful in that regard that I could have used an encounter's special rule to place multiple evidence tokens on my hunch. My girlfriend, who would have her turn after me, was pretty angry, because she would have wanted to do that, too. Tough luck for her, I was first player. She should have gotten a jump on the case.
Not to state the obvious, but if there were a load of evidence tokens on your guilty hunch that you didn't put there, doesn't it seem pretty obvious that most of them would turn out to be negative value?
-
Paul Grogan said:
...snipped for space...
Thank you, Paul - I agree with pretty much everything you say (except for the very last paragraph, of course - that remains to be seen after some playtesting).
Yes - the change to the SotC/FP rules cannot *possibly* hurt the game, as if going first really is as advantageous as the current rules imply it to be, then players will simply continue to choose themselves as first player while using the variant anyway. The only possible negative impact this could have on gameplay is to allow for a *very* small amount of kingmaking to take place, which is negligible.
As for the other house rules I came up with, they are actually pretty much in order of how "convinced" I am that they would improve the game from top to bottom in my original post:
The one I am most convinced about is that negative evidence tokens should be removed, as I think this would mean players would have to be much more clever with their tile placement, and would add an element of deduction to the game (deduction that, from what I've heard, is next to impossible with the current mechanics, yet greatly desired).
The one I am next most convinced about is the SotC/FP mechanic. I came up with this idea mostly to deal with the "First Player: Better to be First or Last?" issue. With the variant rules, the First Player can be both first *and* last in any given day, which makes the SotC a location well worth visiting. It also reduces downtime, and adds a much more thematic feel to the time mechanic (detectives experience their game "days" concurrently, rather than sequentially).
The one I am least convinced about is the light/dark mechanic. I understand why the mechanic is as it is: to encourage the players to play as many cards as they can and thus "evolve" the story, which is what Android is all about. However, this removes any kind of thought from actually playing the cards - you just play them whenever you can. The variant changes this to add more tactical choices at the expense of the story (though not necessarily - one review I read said that one problem they felt about the game was that many different and varied events were taking place all the time that didn't seem to have much to do with the main plots. With the variant, it would encourage cards matching the player's plots to be played, as they would be cheaper, meaning the story would be more coherent). So each mechanic has its pros and cons - it just depends on whether you want a more story-driven "take that" game, or a less story-driven gamer's game.
Ou of curiosity, on average, how many evidence tokens tend to end up on each suspect's sheet?
-
Mike said:
I think removing the negative evidence tokens removes a lot of guessing game from the murder-hunt. From my last game, I was pretty surprised by how the nominary value of the suspect's murderer-files turned out to be with two suspects being heavily loaded with tokens. One, however, recevied a lot of negative ones, making me feel in the safe zone, while in reality, I should have followed up much more leads.This is also a prime example of the game's rules interacting on another level. Had I talked to Jimmy far more often, I could have seen that coming. Fortunatley I was first player, so I could have followed her up easily.
Could you explain your last game in a little more detail? What happened with those two suspects? Why did you feel in a "safe zone", and why should you have followed up more leads?
Jimmy != "her". Do you mean Jimmy or Lily? What difference would being first (or last) player have made?
-
gschmidl said:
Bravo, Mike. Well said.
*prepares the meeples*
-
Mike said:
*snipped for irrelevance*
Thank you for not only ignoring my first paragraph but to go on to make a point of writing seven paragraphs of ignoring it.
It's okay - being a big house-ruler I've become accustomed to people getting uppity at the mere mention of changing a single rule about a game, and the attitude that the game designer is some sort of demi-god who can do no wrong, and that all us Joe Public plebs can do is mess up something that is "obviously" finely balanced on a knife edge. Oh no, wait - I haven't become accustomed to it at all. It still pisses me off as much as ever, which is exactly why I wrote that first paragraph the way I did. I don't believe at all that the game designer is insusceptible to error, even with dozens to hundreds of playtesting reports at his disposal. I'm also of the opinion that many rules are included in games (or rather, left out of games) - and FFG's games in particular - for the sake of simplicity. FFG create quite complex games, but they still want their products to appeal to as large a market as possible, so they may sometimes "dumb down" a rule or mechanic at the expense of gameplay in order to make it more attractive to a mass market. My time/turns variant is an example of where something like this "could" have happened.
Just for the record, I did not mention any any way at all that I think the game is "broken". Obviously if I think something is broken then I will house rule it, but for the most part I create house rules to "enhance". For example in this case I am trying to give more importance to the Scene of the Crime and the First Player marker. It may have been the designer's intention that the SotC/FPM not actually *have* much importance in the game, but I don't give a rat's arse about the designer's intentions - after my preliminary reading of the rules, corroborated by a number of reviews and session reports, it seems to me that the First Player mechanic sucks; not "broken" - just a bit lame. As I said I'll play *at least* one game with the Rules As Written to see how it plays out in reality, and will check with my gaming group to see what they think as well. But if my "hunch" is correct (no pun intended), then I will have no qualms with implementing this rule change. And the same goes for all the other rule changes.
The rules are not a holy book. I am not being sacreligious by altering anything (or in this case, even daring to mention that anything *could* be altered). If you think the game is perfect as it is, fine. Let those of us who don't perform our "enhancements" without being persecuted!
*le sigh*
Now, if anyone would like to comment on the houserule ideas themselves rather than pontificate on the moral dubiousness of game hacking, please do. Anyone else: I will hunt you down, rip of your head and insert rough-cut meeples down your asophagus until you die of an infected splinter, or blood loss, whichever comes first.
Have I clarified my first paragraph enough now?
-
Before I get into anything, please note that this thread is for the discussion of possible house rules based on reviews and session reports (no, I have not played the game yet - will be doing so for Christmas) for feedback from the community after preliminary plays. Yes, I will play with the Rules As Written for at the very least my first game (with one exception) so I can get a feel for things, but I wanted to share these ideas with people to see what the consensus might be "hypothetically speaking".
So, to start, the one and only rule change I will be implementing in my first game:
Scene of Crime marker
Visiting the Scene of Crime marker allows you to "get a jump on the case" by handing the First Player token to any player. This costs 0 time.
Based on session reports and reviews, it seems that it's actually more beneficial to go last in turn order for the sake of your plots. I also reduced the cost of getting a jump on the case to 0 time to make it a more attractive option.
Then possibly for future games:
Evidence tokens
Before the game begins, remove all negative-value evidence tokens from the game.
A common complaint in the reviews I've read so far is that it is too difficult to mentally keep track of which suspect might be the most guilty at any given time. It seems that a large contributer to this would be the fact that evidence tokens can make a suspect's guilt go down as well as up. With no negative-value tokens, a suspect's guilt will always go up, just by slightly differing amounts. This also makes the Reporter's and Snitch's abilities more useful.
Alibis, surprise witnesses, purjury and strong/weak files
To accommodate the above rule change:
At the end of the game, when calculating the guilt of each suspect, one evidence token of the highest value is removed from the suspect's "weak" file, and one token of the highest value in the suspect's "strong" file is doubled.
A surprise witness token in a file "cancels" one token of the highest value in that file. A purjury token coupled with a surprise witness token will double that token instead.
An alibi token cancels the evidence token of the highest value anywhere on the suspect.
Turns, Time and the First Player token
Instead of passing the time sheet around, place it in a central location where it can be reached by everyone. At the start of each day, each player places one of the character tokens on the "0" time space. As investigators use time, they move their marker up the time track (rather than down) to keep track of how much they have used. Once a player reaches their maximum time for the day, they may not take any more actions or turns.
Instead of a player taking all of their actions uninterrupted as their turn, a player's actions will be split up across multiple turns over the course of a single day. A player's turn now consists of:
1) One or more movement actions, then
2) One action of any other type.
Therefore, a player may make multiple movement actions as the first part of their turn to move across the board quickly, but then take only one "other" action.
The order players take their turn in is determined by the time sheet. Whichever player has so far used the least amount of time this day will be the next player to take their turn. In the case of ties (as will be the case at the start of each day), the player holding the First Player marker decides the order players take their turns in.
This makes the First Player token much more useful, meaning that detectives will be visiting the scene of the crime much more often (as, thematically, they should do). It also reduces downtime, gives players more opportunities to interrupt each other's plans and makes the whole time mechanic much more interesting.
Light/Dark cards
When you play a light card on yourself, you dark-shift your character, as usual. However, when another player plays a dark card on you, instead of that player light-shifting their own character, they light-shift your character.
The mechanics for light/dark-shifting at the moment seem to be designed to encourage as much card play as possible - there doesn't seem to be any reason not to play any cards you may hold in your hand. This rule change makes the playing of cards more of a tactical choice - you can play a light card on yourself, but then you open yourself up to other players playing dark cards on you. According to session reports, dark cards are very circumstantial anyway, so this would still be a gamble you would be willing to take.
Anyway, those are my initial ideas for Android house rules. Please tear them apart as you see fit based on my grand total of zero plays so far (just please don't reply with "play the game first", as I'm well aware of that already).
-
Joram said:
The game is broken at Gold level anyway...
What's that Joram??
I haven't been keeping up with the message boards as much since the website changed (no bloody subscribe facility), but since when did this change of heart happen?
-
1) The heroes heal a number of wounds equal to the number fo wounds they gained when entering the final battle (this is in the FAQ).
2) Yes, there should. Unfortunately, there isn't.
3) The ToI rulebook doesn't mention anything regarding discarding Feat cards for the final battle, so I guess not. But then again, the ToI rulebook doesn't really mention anything in regard to Feats in a RtL setting.
-
Ironhead76 said:
Thank you all for the answers!
Now there are solorules for Battlestar.
Must try this one!
The difference is, though, that BSG is to some degree a cooperative game, and the Cylon player's actions are somewhat scripted. Android isn't like this at all - it is a completely competative game.
-
Presumably. Though I guess he'd still need at least 5 points' worth of evidence on him.
-
I don't think they'll be game-breaking. Maybe just wait until you start seeing a fair share on human wins, then implement them.
-
Yes. In fact it is specifically mentioned in the rulebook. Page 30.
-
If a card or rule says that you can "take an action" it can be any action. There is no such thing as a "Viper action" as defined by the rules.
Another popular tactic is to have Starbuck start her turn in a Viper, then move to the Press Room and draw four Politics cards.
Already thinking of house ruling
in Android
Posted
tommh said:
I'm not sure what you mean. What do you mean by work? Is the game playable to a conclusion...almost certainly. That doesn't really seem to me to be a good standard. I imagine that if your looking to make a change to the game it is to improve it or at the very least customize it to fit your tastes. Obviously any change that fits you and your groups play is all to the good, but if your going to propse it tfor others to use then I think its imperitave that you have a good idea of the orginal unchanged systems intent as well as the intended outcome of your modification.
Talking about this mechanic specificly, why do you think its desirable to have more knowledge? The game already makes a LOT of vp knowlege public. In a mp game where you have s9ignificat ablilities to concentrate against a single player it is bad design to make all vp knowlege public.
The use of negative evidence helps to hid a players hunches in general. You CAN still make good deductions about other players hunches especially if you make use of the Snitch but if thats important to you then you have to expend effort.
It also messes with game balance. Some players have a bigger interest in the murder resolution evidnece system then others. By making that portion of the game simpler you are unbalancing the game towards those players.
One sytem you talked about does intrgue me is a way to interwave the turns a little more. I though about that myself before I got to play a few games. I have to say though that those 6 (or so) points tend to go quite fast once people become experieced with the game (and the dark cards really start flying). For now, on balance I think the complexity isn't really worth it .
Thank you! That's much more useful discussion.
By "work" I mean that it would continue to be an enjoyable, fun, challenging, balanced game, and a game that works (slightly) differently to how it did before.
(Also please note that I did not say "I think people should/could use these rules as a good variant". I said "what do people think of these rules as a possible variant?" - big difference)!
Do you mean VP knowledge, or evidence knowledge? I agree that keeping the VP knowledge hidden is a good thing (especially in a story-based game such as this), but making the evidence knowledge more or less secret (or rather, more or less difficult to *keep* secret) doesn't necessarily affect that. From what I've read so far, the evidence knowledge is a little *too* secret ("too" being defined as the fact that it's almost impossible to determine the guilt values of each suspect during the course of the game), which is the reason I came up with the positive-only evidence variant.
If the general consensus is that the evidence on each suspect isn't nearly as secret as you might think from reading the rules (by use of particular cards to look at facedown evidence, Lily or Jimmy), then maybe the variant isn't a good idea. Maybe in the practical course of things nearly all the evidence is turned faceup by the end of the game, meaning that players gradually find out how things are developing as the game goes on. However, the impression I get from reading the rules and cards is that looking at evidence is quite a rare occurrance, wouldn't give you much information that is useful to you (especially not with negative evidence values) and takes more effort than the result is worth. Removing the negative value tokens would make looking at evidence much *more* useful.
As for the time mechanism, yes - it's more for thematic reasons more than anything (though the original reason I came up with it was to give the First Player/Jump on the Case mechanic more prominence). I personally think I would prefer this system of movement/actions over those in the original rules, so my question to the community was to ask if there was any reason why it wouldn't work mechanically...?