Jump to content

subochre

Members
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by subochre

  1. Hm, I had sort of assumed that the card always described a human who sympathized with the cylons, and that the only difference was that under normal circumstances (ie: resources in the blue) they would defect (and being a human was the reason why they can't use the cylon fleet, etc), but when times are tough they were more likely to remain loyal and would just sort of voice their support for the cylons (and get brigged for it). Now that I think about it, however, maybe the difference is that dials in the blue make you Boomer, whereas in the red you're more of an Athena (er, if she had been a sleeper agent, that is).
  2. Kushiel said: This doesn't make sense to me. 1) If the President has to discard a lot of skill cards anyway (and I assume you're talking about doing to resolve a crisis card without losing resources), how is it good that she also has to discard yet more cards to be able to be a good President? It's not that having to discard is a good thing, but the "President Discards" crises simply offset the cost to Roslin of using the President's Office. If she empties her hand on or shortly after her turn, then those crisis options can be selected with impunity until her next draw. (Not that she should be doing this all the time or anything; it's just that, on average, it's better for the president to have an empty hand during a crisis than, say, a pilot or support person, and this fact makes her disadvantage less terrible.) Having her Consolidate Power can be useful in various circumstances, but CPing for Tactics so she can Scout seems like a waste of actions (especially for her, of all people). Which brings us back to the conclusion that ex-president Roslin is at her best when she only ever XOs and chooses crisis cards, and that this is not an improvement over leaving her in office.
  3. The players would have to be playing pretty...strangely...to find guilty a suspect whom none of them actually wanted to be guilty. Maybe if everyone kept placing alibis and surprise witnesses on each other's hunches, the last dude might end up being guilty by default, but, yeah, it's definitely unlikely. Blaine has the card that lets him look at (and exchange for) an unused hunch card.
  4. Some of these criticisms are, I think, more damning than others. For example, the fit between story and gameplay seems no worse than in any other FFG game; you may be collecting clue tokens or playing points to forestall a cylon attack, but much of the real thematic traction derives from the tension of one's situation and the flavor text on the cards. I too have been hearing that the characters are unbalanced in very different ways, that Raymond and Louis are super-powerful because of their conspiracy and favor situation, and that Caprice is unfocused, vulnerable, and her light effects mediocre. As for the randomness of the dark cards, there's something to that...though personally I feel like the game does get very interesting once you really know what's in your dark deck. Yeah, it sucks for Raymond to lose all his favors at the end of the game to a memory card, and one might see that at a "random" event, but he should know that this is a possibility and how to avoid it, and under what circumstances it's a risk he should be willing to take. That's an extreme case, and it's not to say that one needs to memorize all the cards per se; if you're Caprice, it's enough to have at least a general sense that major and seedy locations are really dangerous for you, for example. Chris, though I'm not generally inclined to try most of the changes you've proposed, I am really excited about the incident marker idea. Thematically very "terror track," and plus it makes the conspiracy that much more strategically interesting. (Also with fewer events that trigger on day n, one could decrease the number of days with that much more impunity, if one were so inclined (though I always worry about the effect this would have on the plots).) In terms of gameplay, it does seem a little odd that the players would know, for example, that cardinal reese will intervene once they reach a certain point, and then a virus will hit, etc, so it might be nice to add a partial randomizer to the process, though I'm not sure how best to implement that.
  5. Paul Grogan said: Some games are won or lost on the favours, and their points at the end are too high compared to the effort taken to get them. As such, because of this, in the 7 games I have played, nobody has ever traded in their favours for a Jinteki / Haas token because the favour was always better. Weird...In the ones I've played, only one or two types of favors were worth anything, and then at most two points. I think it's because the other players knew that they were outmatched favor-wise by Louis, so they'd play the conspiracy defensively (Floyd and Raymond in particular; Caprice would go either way depending on whether her potential edge on corp favors, say, was worth more than the prospect of Jinteki tokens)
  6. I don't know about game balance, but it would be kind of weird if people could continue to reap the incidental benefits of trying to unravel the conspiracy solely by virtue of the fact that the only remaining piece(s) didn't fit...and as one approached that point, the primary function of the conspiracy would become much harder to carry out as the unlinkable pieces kept getting mixed back into the draw pile.
  7. I did, but wouldn't blame them if they read it and quietly decided to forget about the whole idea ;-)
  8. Yeah, but these point swings are entirely under player control, and occur as a result of information that everyone can easily gain access to. If each player received a twenty point bonus or penalty at the end of the game as the result of a coin toss, that would be different, but the whole point of any VP-based game is to allocate one's efforts in proportion to the number of points they are likely to get you. If one risks losing a bunch of points by neglecting a simple and straightforward element of one's strategy, that's not necessarily the fault of the game. That's like thinking that Hearts is broken because one has the option of shooting the moon.
  9. Paul Grogan said: * We played one game where a suspect had 3 pieces of evidence in his strong box. They were all valued 3. With the rules as writted, all would be removed. This is completely stupid. It's all in how you look at things. It generally makes thematic sense that, by only applying 3s of a particular evidence type to a suspect, one is putting all one's investigative eggs in one basket. Granted, it's kind of a counterintuitive result that nine points of "strong evidence" would be invalidated, but if you have three identical testimonies about a person's guilt, it's plausible to think that whatever reason one has for dismissing one of them might apply to the others too. And if nothing else, it certainly adds an extra strategic element to think about. If I haven't Jimmy-the-Snitched my guilty hunch, I will definitely throw in a 1 just to be on the safe side.
  10. There are plenty of benefits to making the information public aside from trying to reveal a particular person's hunch. If you want the other players to worry that a given suspect is going to be found guilty, you can show everyone that there's an especially strong piece of evidence on them. Get them to do some of your work for you by placing hits or exonerating evidence on that person. Alternatively, lull them into complacency about your guilty hunch by showing them that he/she has, for example, a surprise witness (and hope they don't find out that you've perjuried it until much later). And so on.
×
×
  • Create New...