Jump to content

Wick

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wick

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 04/25/1977

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bellevue, NE USA
  1. Some things to consider. Accidents aside, do you want players that you can't trust with info that should be public knowledge? The playing surface can become quite crowded, cards get stacked, pieces get covered, you are sitting far away from the other player etc... Do I have to get up and walk around the table to audit your play area because you cannot be trusted to give an honest accounting? You may put up with minor shenanigans if you are short on players but you should at least explain that this kind of playing is discouraged in your group. To be fair he should also forget the correct number of planets he has when claiming the objective. Bad feelings and lack of trust are not good but if it was an honest accident he should take the hit. Bob: Hey Jack how many planets you have outside of your home system. Jack: uhhh...looks like I have 9. Tom: Hold up Jack, let me count them for you. After all you are a known liar. Is this really how you want to play ?
  2. Don't forget that they can still build with their space docks as well. Summary: Arborec Space Dock: Just like any other race's build rules except they cannot build GF. Arborec GF: Each GF can build any thing but can only build 1 unit per GF. Also the GF cannot have moved that turn. Clearly you need to get concentrate a lot on building as many GF as you can in order to get your production up to speed. This competes with the need to expand in the early game. It does have the advantage of eventually turning even a poor resource system into a major production hub. Ideally, you want that hub to be at a Resource rich world with space dock for even more production.
  3. You could try e-bay for used copies that may still be in good condition. Plenty of casual players out there that get the game but become intimidated by the scope of the game and decide to recoup part of their investment.
  4. What size game are we talking? I commonly play a 3 player game and it can suffer horribly from the A attacks player B and then C takes advantage to attack one or both of the weakened combatants. I find that the battle lines can become static with huge forces but you can break the stagnation through advantages like key military techs, warfare strategy card or even the diplomacy card. Try attacking a hex and taking control of it, when he counter attacks retreat to preserve your forces. You can also strike early just to disrupt him before his borders are set in stone. As mentioned before you should really have a clear goal in attacking a player rather than mere conquest, which can be incredibly resource intensive and usually does little to actually win the game. Also, it is easy to spread too thin with long supply lines, and the enemy replacing his entire fleet he just lost that round and placing the replacements adjacent to your now battered expeditionary fleet. As Clausewitz said, "war is diplomacy by other means"
  5. Awesome work. That must have taken hundreds of hours. However, I would have a few concerns: The board looks pretty busy which may sacrifice function for form. I can just see knocking over planets as you place your units, especially as you near the center of the board. Also may be more difficult to see units among the clutter. My second point is with the table. Doesn't look very sturdy. Don't put your masterpiece on such a rickety platform, on player leaning on the table could bring it crashing down. Also not much area for races to set up. Other than that, excellent job and looks great. Makes me want to paint my ships at least.
  6. That's true per the topics title, but my point was that Jol Nar was not the garbage race that they at first seem. Previous posters claim they disliked them because of the weakness of the race due to its special abilities, I just pointed out that in fact they can be quite powerful due to their special abilities. Additionally, they became more enjoyable to play when I started to capture my first planets in an unexhausted state. I am not saying that you have to play the uber race to enjoy playing but most people don't like playing a race that is not competitive or is the loser race. I just point out that that Jol Nar is in fact competitive.
  7. At first I thought Jol Nar because of the combat penalty requiring the Tech upgrades to make them equal to a regular race without those tech upgrades. That was until I noticed that they could get Nanotech by turn 1 or 2. It allows you to immediately take systems unexhausted which has a compounded effect During early expansion. By the time your enemies catch up to this head start you are well positioned. Worst race in my opinion is the Xxcha or the race with just the +1 to combat (don't have game handy). Especially with Diplomacy I in play to make the Xxcha's ability even worse. Best race is tough to say, Yassaril in experienced hands can be double tough. We have not played Naalu yet but their initiative and fighter swarms should make them a top contender . Jol Nar played with tech II and an experienced player can do wonders.
  8. Shield drones seem a little overpowered. Would they be for invasion combat only? Mechanized Units by themselves have really changed the invasion mechanics for us with their sustain damage. I like the bomber idea. It also would be a neat upgrade tech for fighters to allow them to bombard. I often play games without a single dreadnaught or war sun, and would love that option. Perhaps the shield drones are OP, but also notice that they have no attack stat. They would be for space combat. Their Battle would be: "N/A" So they are similar to fighters but absorb more damage and cannot cause damage. Boosting them to a cost of 1 may be reasonable or cost 2 with only taking 1 slot on a carrier or warsun. One big issue with them would be how really OP they would become with the Barony's Euclidean shields and Duranium armor techs.
  9. Politics has always seemed to be a weak area of the game and in my experience the representatives do not help. Maybe because all of my games are with a total of 3 players and the few I used representatives in we had one player with an assassin and the others did not have bodyguards. So by turn 6 all of the other player representatives were dead and those races could no longer vote. Couple this with a political deck with either boring or universally crippling rules. And you get bleh..There are also agendas that are good a certain stages of the game and are worse choices later. Some people often have buyers remorse as their situation on the board changes, to where that once helpful agenda now causes them pain. I am always on the look out for simple house rules to fix the politics but here are a few good suggestions: 1. Sort through the deck and get rid of some of the rubbish cards. I believe there are lists online to help you choose the good cards. 2. having a hand of political cards is good because you can perhaps get a good card that benefits you and therefore want to play it. So far I just turn them in for trade goods and rarely grab assembly/political SC. 3. Consider eliminating the ability to cash them in for trade goods or like someone suggested above, make them a 2 to 1 trade (although that could have the opposite effect, making you spend them more quickly). 4. So far Representatives just seem to add more unwelcome complexity and add very little. 5. Having had all of my representatives assassinated a few times, I think you should have the option of voting without a Rep. Perhaps a blank representative card so an assassin can be wasted targeting your faux representative. 6. You could make it so Assassins don't kill, just stop your rep from being used on that vote or perhaps even on the next future vote as well. 7. You can make representatives one use only and after they are all spent, you vote without them. This would make assassins or otherwise powerful representatives become more like that Action card you having been holding on to all game to spring on your opponent at the most opportune time, rather than your default choice for every vote. 8. One house rule I saw used 3 or 4 political cards lying out where everyone could see ( no personal hand of PCs) when someone played the Political card they would choose the one to be the agenda. Once it was voted on you would replace it with a new card. This allows players to look over the choices of agendas and decide if one is worth choosing the political Strategy Card.
  10. I have a pool table that we play on in my basement so we keep the game up and that way can play over multiple sessions. I even have a ping pong table that goes over the pool table, which serves to keep my 2 year old from mucking the board. I also take a picture of the board set up and all of the sides and e-mail it to the other players. It makes the 1st round of subsequent sessions fly by fast since the players can look over the picture in between sessions. I only have 2 other players and we have played enough that we are playing faster and faster.
  11. Were there any pics or updates to your game. For the picture of that huge game, it may fit on a ping pong table
  12. It maybe an artifact of my playing group. The Tech II card and assembly card are prime targets for the other two players as well as trade. I usually get SC's based upon my strategy. I rarely grab diplomacy II or Assembly (unless I need to get speaker to choose SC's first on the next game round). Like I mentioned the other two players like the rule. The only good that I see from the rule is that it forces players to use SCs that they may not ordinary choose, so it can be good for learning purposes. Get them to try to adapt . In the case of my fellow players I doubt they will adapt very quickly. I have won 100% of the games so far. They are getting a bit better but still have much to learn.
  13. We initially thought that you could not select the same strategy card as the previous game round. When I discovered this error we fixed the rule. Now my group has asked to house rule that back. I am not sure that I care for it but it does prevent players from hording control of certain strategy cards and forces players to choose other cards. By the way we play 3 players games so get 2 strategy cards each. And we are now using the shattered empires strategy cards but had not initially.
  14. Corvette Cost 1 move 3 Battle 9 Bomber Cost 2 takes up 2 slots in carrier/warsun move 1 with advice fighter tech . Battle 8 can bombard unless PDS present benefits from fighter techs like cybernetics Shield Drones Cost .5 battle: N/A. Sustain Damage
  15. So one of my opponents was elected on round one for Minster of Internal Security ( immediately destroy 4 GFs on Mecatol Rex). Currently Mecatol Rex is uncontrolled with Custodians protecting it. I am looking to invade MR soon so I imagine that this card will be used at some point very likely against me. So how would this work? Would my opponent be able to disrupt my invasion by killing my invasion forces or must he wait for me to actually take MR before destroying my GFs. The PC is played "immediately" when discarded so it is not the timing. The question is when are my GFs officially on the planet to fit the target restrictions. I suppose they literally are on planet in order to fight the invasion but I can also see that they should be in control of the planet as well. If the later is the case and 2 players were fighting on the planet could a third party play to destroy GFs from both players?
×
×
  • Create New...