Difference between revisions of "Twilight Imperium Variants"

From benscondo.wiki-rpg.com
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Diplomatic Setup)
(→‎Comments)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Here is an in-depth discussion of variants which are available for Twilight Imperium.  Since this game is such an epic (ordeal) event, I believe its necessary to customize the flavor as much and often as possible.   
+
Here is an in-depth discussion of variants which are available for [[Twilight Imperium]].  Since this game is such an epic (ordeal) event, I believe its necessary to customize the flavor as much and often as possible.   
  
 
=Diplomatic Setup=
 
=Diplomatic Setup=
−
One issue which can be cited about TI as a whole is that the setup takes a heck of a lot of time, and also that it gives the initial speaker an inherent advantage they have not earned.  There is also an imbalance of races.  This gives an extra layer of negotiation which can be done before we sit down to play.
+
One issue which can be cited about TI as a whole is that the setup takes a heck of a lot of time, and also that it gives the initial speaker an inherent advantage they have not earned.  There is also an imbalance of races.  This gives an extra layer of negotiation which can be done before we sit down to play. Originally there were 3 ideas here, and we tried some of them. Here is my new version which I propose to use for the current game. I just deleted the others to avoid confusion.
  
−
1. We randomly assign ourselves numbers from 1-x, where x is the number of players.<br>
+
This rigmarole assumes 6 players, a slight adjustment could be made for less players. In the end, we have to do something randomly, so start by dicing off for an order. In the dice order, choose from the following:
−
2. Each player, starting with 1, may then either choose an available race or pass and take 1 trade good, plus one trade good for each previously chosen race.  This choice of race is public.<br>
+
−
3. Once each player has either chosen a race or passed, each player has one opportunity to bid trade goods for starting position.  Players are allowed to go into deficit, but must bid a positive integer or pass.  Those who bid are allowed to choose their position on the board after seeing it, in order from highest to lowest.  Tied players may negotiate or throw a die to determine order.<br>
+
−
4. Starting with the player with the most trade goods, bidding on the speaker token begins.  Players are allowed to go into deficit.  Once you pass, you are out. Whoever wins this auction begins the game as the speaker.<br>
+
−
5. Once all of this is done, if anyone has a trade good deficit, everyone adds a number of trade goods to their stock equal to the absolute value of the largest deficit.
+
  
−
==Simplified Diplomatic Setup==
+
1. Choose any available race. <br>
−
Before play begins each player rolls a d30.  Players are then ordered from highest to lowest of these rolls (break ties).  The lowest roll takes one trade good immediately.  Each player in order then chooses a position on the following list:<br>
+
2. Choose a starting position.<br>
 +
3. Take the speaker token and 2 trade goods. <br>
 +
4. Take 4 trade goods. <br>
 +
 
 +
After everyone has chosen, any remaining decisions are handled randomly. Starting positions will be determined before races.
 +
 
 +
=Multiple Paths To Victory=
 +
Right now, the way victory is achieved in TI can sometimes lead to a good game, but often leads to a pretty lame game for at least one player, and given the time investment, this isnt acceptable.  I have long wanted to be able to make the game more flexible, to make the board position important along with the objectives randomly chosen.  I have also felt like there were too few avenues to victory, which makes the random choices of objective cards and races super important, without much input from players.
 +
 
 +
To achieve this, I propose having 4 objective decks.  The standard deck, built according to the rules as normal, and a military deck, political deck and an infrastructure deck, each of the auxiliary decks will have 4 cards, face up.  During any turn a player may claim objectives from only one deck.
 +
 
 +
==The Military Deck==
 +
The following cards will be removed from the standard objective pool and used to create the military deck:<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>
−
1. Take the speaker token, last choice of starting position.<br>
+
I have controlled Mecatol Rex for the entire strategy phase and action phase of this round. 1 point<br>
−
2. First choice of starting position.<br>
+
I won a space battle against at least 3 enemy ships this turn. 1 point<br>
−
3. Take 1 trade good.  You may trade your race (choice) OR secret objective (random).  Second choice of starting position.<br>
+
I control 11 planets outside my home system. 2 points<br>
−
4. Take 1 trade good. You may trade your race (choice) OR secret objective (random).  Third choice of starting position.<br>
+
Domination.  I control all the planets in two other players home systems.  I win the game<br>
−
5. Take 1 trade good. You may trade your race (choice) OR secret objective (random).  Fourth choice of starting position.<br>
+
 
−
6. Take 2 trade goods.  Fifth choice of starting position.<br>
+
==The Political Deck==
−
7. Take 2 trade goods.  Sixth choice of starting position.<br>
+
The following deck is created from cards which exist and some that do not.<br>
−
8. Take 2 trade goods.  Seventh choice of starting position.<br>
+
<br>
 +
I have proposed at least 2 laws that have passed. 1 point.<br>
 +
I now spend 10 influence.  1 point.<br>
 +
I control planets with a total influence greater than the player to my immediate right and greater than the player to my immediate left. 1 point.<br>
 +
I now discard 3 action cards and 2 political cards.  2 points.<br>
 +
 
 +
==The Infrastructure Deck==
 +
This deck encompasses cultural infrastructure in ways such as technology and economy.<br>
 +
<br>
 +
I have more than 1 technology advance in 3 different colors.  1 point<br>
 +
I now spend 6 trade goods.  1 point<br>
 +
I now spend 4 trade goods, 3 resources, and 3 influence.  1 point<br>
 +
I have at least 9 technology advances.  2 points.<br>
 +
 
 +
==Racial Objectives==
 +
I also think it might be a good idea to have 3 racial objectives for each race, and a player randomly chooses one of those instead of a secret objective.  They are achieved exactly the same way as secret objectives.
  
−
Once everyone has been assigned their position on the list the selection begins, followed immediately by the game itself.  This shouldnt take long, has lots of options, and gives some value to all of those who dont get randomly selected to get the speaker token.
+
=Increased Strategy Cards=
 +
Instead of choosing from the cards with the same name but different numbers, both will be available in the game, but only one can be chosen per turn.  In other words, both Technology I and II are available to choose, and the player who picks Technology decides which one he likes best for the given turn.  The only exception is Imperial I.
  
 
=Variant Races=
 
=Variant Races=
 
There are at least 3 versions of variant Star Trek races, and also Dune and Star Wars versions.  This allows a more close association with their abilities.  Many of us have no connection to Hacan or Naalu, yet we know exactly who the Borg and Klingons are.
 
There are at least 3 versions of variant Star Trek races, and also Dune and Star Wars versions.  This allows a more close association with their abilities.  Many of us have no connection to Hacan or Naalu, yet we know exactly who the Borg and Klingons are.
 +
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 15:08, 28 April 2010 (MST) I'm open to using variant races (of any kind), just so long as we agree early enough so I can look things over.
 +
 +
--[[User:Amir|Amir]] 14:22, 18 October 2012 I'm open to any of the sets of races but am particularly curious about the Dune version.
  
 
==Borg==
 
==Borg==
Line 47: Line 75:
 
[[Image:sRomulan.jpg]]
 
[[Image:sRomulan.jpg]]
 
===Comments===
 
===Comments===
 +
I think there is a misprint on the Romulans, it lists the power for Cloaking Devices on there race sheet and gives them the technology. They do not get to fire 4 times before combat!
  
 
==Tellarites==
 
==Tellarites==
Line 59: Line 88:
 
[[Image:sVulcans.jpg]]
 
[[Image:sVulcans.jpg]]
 
===Comments===
 
===Comments===
 +
Something should be done about the Vulcan Assembly ability.
  
 
==Xindi==
 
==Xindi==
Line 67: Line 97:
 
[[Image:sAndorians.jpg]]
 
[[Image:sAndorians.jpg]]
 
===Comments===
 
===Comments===
 +
 +
=Other Variant Discussion=
 +
This was all removed from the current game page, for reference in the future. This way new players do not get confused as to what is actually on the table.
 +
 +
===Distant Suns===
 +
This can be quite arbitrary, but also potentially fun.<br>
 +
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 09:56, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote Territorial Distant Suns. Everything around your Home System & all outer systems get tokens drawn from the "easy" pile, while everything else gets a token from the full-throttle pile. And let's just trash the ''Biohazard'' and ''Radiation'' counters, since those are the real killers. That means if you go in expecting combat, the worst that can happen is the ''Hostage Situation'', where you end up having to decide whether to shell out a load of Trade Goods or just invade again later.
 +
<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 12:50, 24 May 2012 (MST)I don't want to totally make them easy. I am ok with making the ones close easier, but I don't want to lose Biohazard and Radiation. There has to be some risk.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:02, 24 May 2012 (MST) Fair enough. I'm fine leaving them in.
 +
 +
===Leaders===
 +
We have used leaders once, I am not sure how much they add to the game.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:33, 24 May 2012 (MST) I'd like to try them back in the game this time.<BR>
 +
--[[User:Megami|Megami]] 22:27, 24 May 2012 (MST)I don't remember super clearly, but I think I remember not particularly caring for them. :P
 +
 +
===Other Ideas===
 +
Anything that we have ties for votes we can break with a die roll.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:29, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote rock, paper, scissors.
 +
<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)Agreed.
 +
 +
[[TI Strategy Card Sets]]
 +
 +
 +
<u>Artifacts</u> (yes/no)? <br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is yes.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.<br>
 +
 +
<u>Facilities</u> (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is no.<br>
 +
 +
<u>Sabotage Runs</u> (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes. There is always a structural weakness in doomsday weapons. It's, like, a rule or something.<br>
 +
 +
<u>Wormhole Nexus</u> (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is yes.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.<br>
 +
--[[User:Megami|Megami]] 21:28, 23 May 2012 (MST) Yes
 +
 +
<u>Voice of the Council</u> (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 10:00, 24 May 2012 (MST) My vote is no.
 +
 +
<u>Shock Troops</u> (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no (and Hopes End produces regular ground troops).<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.<br>
 +
--[[User:Megami|Megami]] 21:28, 23 May 2012 (MST) Yes
 +
 +
<u>Tactical Retreats</u> (yes/no)? Allows you to expend a Command Counter from the Strategy pool to Activate a system to retreat into (VS only retreat into previously Activated systems)<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 10:24, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote yes, and agree with Jason's qualifier below.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 12:44, 24 May 2012 (MST)If we use tactical retreats, we should say you don't have to spend the counter until you actually move. Right now, you spend it before the combat, so you could spend it then have your ships all destroyed. That would suck.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:06, 24 May 2012 (MST) Agreed. You only activate the system you're retreating to if you actually have ships left to retreat with.
 +
 +
(NEW!) <u>Technology Stimulus</u>- ''When exhausting a planet with a technology specialty to purchase technology, you receive an appropriately colored token that can be saved, traded, or spent to reduce the cost of technologies of the same color.'' (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:06, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote yes. I found this on the [http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/114971/alternate-rules-making-ti3-what-it-should-be BGG forums] and think it would allow for more planning and encourage interactions.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am against this, it makes starting board position much more valuable, and that is an arbitrary thing. However, since we can now bid for starting position, maybe it is not an issue.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 14:18, 24 May 2012 (MST) I agree with both points. I'd like to give it a go, but if you really feel it'll break the game, I'm fine to shelve it for now.
 +
 +
(NEW!) <u>War Pigs</u>- ''The winner of combat between two fleets receives 1 Trade Good for each destroyed non-fighter unit.'' (yes/no)?<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 13:36, 24 May 2012 (MST) This encourages more combat and skirmishing, but I wonder if this won't be too much of a feedback loop, where someone already on the ascent just gets more fuel to overwhelm their weaker opponents?
 +
<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am against this. I think we will have greatly increased combat just because of the increased scoring.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 14:18, 24 May 2012 (MST) Forgot about the new scoring system. I'll go ahead and withdraw this suggestion.
 +
 +
(NEW!) <u>Resource Planning</u>- ''During the Status phase, before Objectives are claimed, unexhausted planet cards can be exhausted to generate Trade Goods at a 2:1 rate (2 production = 1 trade good) (rounded down).''<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 14:26, 24 May 2012 (MST) I'd like to try this, as I think it would let people be a little more flexible with their production/command counter usage, but I'm not invested in the idea.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 14:29, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am ok with this, especially since resources can be spent for points (3 for 1) during the action phase in NSV, so you are sacrificing to get this.
 +
 +
(NEW!)Bonus tokens may be exchanged for either 1 Command Counter or 2 Trade Goods.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 17:01, 24 May 2012 (MST)I think this makes a lot of sense.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 17:28, 24 May 2012 (MST) I also vote yes. And wasn't this always a rule?<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 17:29, 24 May 2012 (MST)In the rules as written its one command counter or 1 trade good. One measly trade good. l4m3<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 18:39, 24 May 2012 (MST) Indeed. 2 Trade Goods seems much more worth it.
 +
 +
===Alternate Scoring===
 +
There is an alternate scoring variant called [[No Sudden Victory-TI]] [http://checkwolf.com/nsv/rules.htm] that I think we should consider. The basic idea is you score every turn for all objectives that you qualify for, and some other scoring is added as well. This makes board position matter and the game is not just decided by which scoring cards come up.
 +
 +
Also, I will separate the Secret Objectives into two piles, the normal ones and the hard ones, so we don't have some completely unfair distribution of those.
 +
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 14:44, 24 May 2012 (MST) Wait, I thought there were no personal secret objectives in NSV? Just a pile that the Bureaucracy strategy card draws from and reveals to the whole group.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 14:57, 24 May 2012 (MST)Thats true. I figured I would do that if we didnt do NSV.<br>
 +
--[[User:Dieterthebold|Dieter the Bold]] 15:01, 24 May 2012 (MST) Gotcha. But given the lack of discussion on this, I think only you, [[User:megami|The Ruu]] and I are getting a vote on the rules.<br>
 +
--[[User:Jason|Jason]] 15:06, 24 May 2012 (MST)Everyone was warned, go post or have no voice. They chose the second option. Democracy at its best!

Latest revision as of 13:31, 19 October 2012

Here is an in-depth discussion of variants which are available for Twilight Imperium. Since this game is such an epic (ordeal) event, I believe its necessary to customize the flavor as much and often as possible.

Diplomatic Setup

One issue which can be cited about TI as a whole is that the setup takes a heck of a lot of time, and also that it gives the initial speaker an inherent advantage they have not earned. There is also an imbalance of races. This gives an extra layer of negotiation which can be done before we sit down to play. Originally there were 3 ideas here, and we tried some of them. Here is my new version which I propose to use for the current game. I just deleted the others to avoid confusion.

This rigmarole assumes 6 players, a slight adjustment could be made for less players. In the end, we have to do something randomly, so start by dicing off for an order. In the dice order, choose from the following:

1. Choose any available race.
2. Choose a starting position.
3. Take the speaker token and 2 trade goods.
4. Take 4 trade goods.

After everyone has chosen, any remaining decisions are handled randomly. Starting positions will be determined before races.

Multiple Paths To Victory

Right now, the way victory is achieved in TI can sometimes lead to a good game, but often leads to a pretty lame game for at least one player, and given the time investment, this isnt acceptable. I have long wanted to be able to make the game more flexible, to make the board position important along with the objectives randomly chosen. I have also felt like there were too few avenues to victory, which makes the random choices of objective cards and races super important, without much input from players.

To achieve this, I propose having 4 objective decks. The standard deck, built according to the rules as normal, and a military deck, political deck and an infrastructure deck, each of the auxiliary decks will have 4 cards, face up. During any turn a player may claim objectives from only one deck.

The Military Deck

The following cards will be removed from the standard objective pool and used to create the military deck:

I have controlled Mecatol Rex for the entire strategy phase and action phase of this round. 1 point
I won a space battle against at least 3 enemy ships this turn. 1 point
I control 11 planets outside my home system. 2 points
Domination. I control all the planets in two other players home systems. I win the game

The Political Deck

The following deck is created from cards which exist and some that do not.

I have proposed at least 2 laws that have passed. 1 point.
I now spend 10 influence. 1 point.
I control planets with a total influence greater than the player to my immediate right and greater than the player to my immediate left. 1 point.
I now discard 3 action cards and 2 political cards. 2 points.

The Infrastructure Deck

This deck encompasses cultural infrastructure in ways such as technology and economy.

I have more than 1 technology advance in 3 different colors. 1 point
I now spend 6 trade goods. 1 point
I now spend 4 trade goods, 3 resources, and 3 influence. 1 point
I have at least 9 technology advances. 2 points.

Racial Objectives

I also think it might be a good idea to have 3 racial objectives for each race, and a player randomly chooses one of those instead of a secret objective. They are achieved exactly the same way as secret objectives.

Increased Strategy Cards

Instead of choosing from the cards with the same name but different numbers, both will be available in the game, but only one can be chosen per turn. In other words, both Technology I and II are available to choose, and the player who picks Technology decides which one he likes best for the given turn. The only exception is Imperial I.

Variant Races

There are at least 3 versions of variant Star Trek races, and also Dune and Star Wars versions. This allows a more close association with their abilities. Many of us have no connection to Hacan or Naalu, yet we know exactly who the Borg and Klingons are.

--Dieter the Bold 15:08, 28 April 2010 (MST) I'm open to using variant races (of any kind), just so long as we agree early enough so I can look things over.

--Amir 14:22, 18 October 2012 I'm open to any of the sets of races but am particularly curious about the Dune version.

Borg

SBorg.jpg

Comments

I think that while the Borg are certainly overpowered, their -4 VP start is probably too harsh. Its very difficult to gain victory entirely through conquest. It might be prudent to try them at -2 or -3.

Cardassians

SCardassian.jpg

Comments

Ferengi

SFerengi.jpg

Comments

Klingon

SKlingon.jpg

Comments

Romulan

SRomulan.jpg

Comments

I think there is a misprint on the Romulans, it lists the power for Cloaking Devices on there race sheet and gives them the technology. They do not get to fire 4 times before combat!

Tellarites

STellarites.jpg

Comments

Human

SUFP.jpg

Comments

Vulcan

SVulcans.jpg

Comments

Something should be done about the Vulcan Assembly ability.

Xindi

SXindi.jpg

Comments

Andorian

SAndorians.jpg

Comments

Other Variant Discussion

This was all removed from the current game page, for reference in the future. This way new players do not get confused as to what is actually on the table.

Distant Suns

This can be quite arbitrary, but also potentially fun.

--Dieter the Bold 09:56, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote Territorial Distant Suns. Everything around your Home System & all outer systems get tokens drawn from the "easy" pile, while everything else gets a token from the full-throttle pile. And let's just trash the Biohazard and Radiation counters, since those are the real killers. That means if you go in expecting combat, the worst that can happen is the Hostage Situation, where you end up having to decide whether to shell out a load of Trade Goods or just invade again later.
--Jason 12:50, 24 May 2012 (MST)I don't want to totally make them easy. I am ok with making the ones close easier, but I don't want to lose Biohazard and Radiation. There has to be some risk.
--Dieter the Bold 13:02, 24 May 2012 (MST) Fair enough. I'm fine leaving them in.

Leaders

We have used leaders once, I am not sure how much they add to the game.
--Dieter the Bold 13:33, 24 May 2012 (MST) I'd like to try them back in the game this time.
--Megami 22:27, 24 May 2012 (MST)I don't remember super clearly, but I think I remember not particularly caring for them. :P

Other Ideas

Anything that we have ties for votes we can break with a die roll.
--Dieter the Bold 13:29, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote rock, paper, scissors.
--Jason 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)Agreed.

TI Strategy Card Sets


Artifacts (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is yes.
--Dieter the Bold 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.

Facilities (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.
--Dieter the Bold 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is no.

Sabotage Runs (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.
--Dieter the Bold 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes. There is always a structural weakness in doomsday weapons. It's, like, a rule or something.

Wormhole Nexus (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is yes.
--Dieter the Bold 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.
--Megami 21:28, 23 May 2012 (MST) Yes

Voice of the Council (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no.
--Dieter the Bold 10:00, 24 May 2012 (MST) My vote is no.

Shock Troops (yes/no)?
--Jason 11:35, 22 May 2012 (MST)My vote is no (and Hopes End produces regular ground troops).
--Dieter the Bold 05:52, 23 May 2012 (MST) My vote is yes.
--Megami 21:28, 23 May 2012 (MST) Yes

Tactical Retreats (yes/no)? Allows you to expend a Command Counter from the Strategy pool to Activate a system to retreat into (VS only retreat into previously Activated systems)
--Dieter the Bold 10:24, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote yes, and agree with Jason's qualifier below.
--Jason 12:44, 24 May 2012 (MST)If we use tactical retreats, we should say you don't have to spend the counter until you actually move. Right now, you spend it before the combat, so you could spend it then have your ships all destroyed. That would suck.
--Dieter the Bold 13:06, 24 May 2012 (MST) Agreed. You only activate the system you're retreating to if you actually have ships left to retreat with.

(NEW!) Technology Stimulus- When exhausting a planet with a technology specialty to purchase technology, you receive an appropriately colored token that can be saved, traded, or spent to reduce the cost of technologies of the same color. (yes/no)?
--Dieter the Bold 13:06, 24 May 2012 (MST) I vote yes. I found this on the BGG forums and think it would allow for more planning and encourage interactions.
--Jason 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am against this, it makes starting board position much more valuable, and that is an arbitrary thing. However, since we can now bid for starting position, maybe it is not an issue.
--Dieter the Bold 14:18, 24 May 2012 (MST) I agree with both points. I'd like to give it a go, but if you really feel it'll break the game, I'm fine to shelve it for now.

(NEW!) War Pigs- The winner of combat between two fleets receives 1 Trade Good for each destroyed non-fighter unit. (yes/no)?
--Dieter the Bold 13:36, 24 May 2012 (MST) This encourages more combat and skirmishing, but I wonder if this won't be too much of a feedback loop, where someone already on the ascent just gets more fuel to overwhelm their weaker opponents?
--Jason 13:58, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am against this. I think we will have greatly increased combat just because of the increased scoring.
--Dieter the Bold 14:18, 24 May 2012 (MST) Forgot about the new scoring system. I'll go ahead and withdraw this suggestion.

(NEW!) Resource Planning- During the Status phase, before Objectives are claimed, unexhausted planet cards can be exhausted to generate Trade Goods at a 2:1 rate (2 production = 1 trade good) (rounded down).
--Dieter the Bold 14:26, 24 May 2012 (MST) I'd like to try this, as I think it would let people be a little more flexible with their production/command counter usage, but I'm not invested in the idea.
--Jason 14:29, 24 May 2012 (MST)I am ok with this, especially since resources can be spent for points (3 for 1) during the action phase in NSV, so you are sacrificing to get this.

(NEW!)Bonus tokens may be exchanged for either 1 Command Counter or 2 Trade Goods.
--Jason 17:01, 24 May 2012 (MST)I think this makes a lot of sense.
--Dieter the Bold 17:28, 24 May 2012 (MST) I also vote yes. And wasn't this always a rule?
--Jason 17:29, 24 May 2012 (MST)In the rules as written its one command counter or 1 trade good. One measly trade good. l4m3
--Dieter the Bold 18:39, 24 May 2012 (MST) Indeed. 2 Trade Goods seems much more worth it.

Alternate Scoring

There is an alternate scoring variant called No Sudden Victory-TI [1] that I think we should consider. The basic idea is you score every turn for all objectives that you qualify for, and some other scoring is added as well. This makes board position matter and the game is not just decided by which scoring cards come up.

Also, I will separate the Secret Objectives into two piles, the normal ones and the hard ones, so we don't have some completely unfair distribution of those.

--Dieter the Bold 14:44, 24 May 2012 (MST) Wait, I thought there were no personal secret objectives in NSV? Just a pile that the Bureaucracy strategy card draws from and reveals to the whole group.
--Jason 14:57, 24 May 2012 (MST)Thats true. I figured I would do that if we didnt do NSV.
--Dieter the Bold 15:01, 24 May 2012 (MST) Gotcha. But given the lack of discussion on this, I think only you, The Ruu and I are getting a vote on the rules.
--Jason 15:06, 24 May 2012 (MST)Everyone was warned, go post or have no voice. They chose the second option. Democracy at its best!

Retrieved from "https://benscondo.wiki-rpg.com/index.php?title=Twilight_Imperium_Variants&oldid=19911"