Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2  | 

Battlestar Galactica: Exodus Expansion» Forums » Variants

Subject: House rules we're going to use in our first game... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Execution thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. The way I see it, having a personal goal means that your character is greedy or irrational and he's going to cause some kind of destruction if he doesn't "get his way."

For instance, Zarek might have a personal goal to get two title cards. If he doesn't get his way, the humans suffer some kind of damage in the form of Zarek retaliating. Basically, the team has a choice. Capitulate to Zarek or endure his retaliation. Of course, there is a third option which is simply to remove Zarek from the picture.

Seems thematic. If an individual's personal goals are destructive to the team's survival, removing that person from the team (killing them) should resolve the problem.


Anyway, we're playing our first game tonight and I've convinced the owner to let me apply a few house rules (they all regard me as the game expert so if I recommend small fixes they will listen, even if its our first game).

I'm planning on two pretty simple changes:
1.) A basestar symbol will remove damage tokens from basestars on the fleet board IF a basestar is not able to be added.

2.) If a cylon card is in the loyalty deck at the end of the game, reduce resources by 1, advance centurions one space, and damage Galactica.


I think these two fixes are the bare minimum changes to fix what I see as flaws in Exodus, without using Ionian Nebula. Ionian Nebula has several flaws of its own and for the time being it is more convenient to simply not play it rather than try to fix it.

Here are what I see as tentative fixes to Ionian Nebula:
-Move the elimination to the end of the game (though the Crossroads happens at the same point)
-Positive and negative trauma "cancel out" before determining the execution (so you can guard against a crossroads trauma "attack" by having plenty of positive).

Those changes alone may be simple enough to make Ionian Nebula tolerable. When we choose to add it, it will probably be under those conditions.

Chris seems to be very nit-picky about certain things. =) I'm not convinced any of them are really big problems, and even if you like one way better, I feel that you should make as few changes as possible so things stay simple. I only focus on house-ruling things that I see as MAJOR issues in the game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I am still amazed at the amount of house ruling and other prejudice exhibited without even trying the game as written once.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Stewart
United States
Endicott
New York
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
I am still amazed at the amount of house ruling and other prejudice exhibited without even trying the game as written once.


Im gonna have to agree.

My play group will be playing BSG with all options this weekend as the rules intend at least a few times before throwing house rules at it.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
I am still amazed at the amount of house ruling and other prejudice exhibited without even trying the game as written once.


You seem to be very easily amazed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sdiberar wrote:
I am still amazed at the amount of house ruling and other prejudice exhibited without even trying the game as written once.


It amazes me that you consider opinions such as preferring games without player elimination as a form of prejudice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Muldoon (silentdibs)
United States
Astoria
New York
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
MasterDinadan wrote:
It amazes me that you consider opinions such as preferring games without player elimination as a form of prejudice.

Not bigotry, but pre-judgment; as in, judging a game before playing it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I didn't say Exodus was bad. I'm just saying it could be better (for me).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Oh, one more that I felt should be included after our first game:

8) If a player is executed and holds an incomplete personal goal, the resource on that goal is lost immediately.

I was executed twice and got out of completing two personal goals because of it.


The Morale hit isn't enough of a penalty already?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
jsciv wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
Oh, one more that I felt should be included after our first game:

8) If a player is executed and holds an incomplete personal goal, the resource on that goal is lost immediately.

I was executed twice and got out of completing two personal goals because of it.


The Morale hit isn't enough of a penalty already?


If the morale hit was enough of a penalty already, why did they implement the Final Five cards in the way they did?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
If the morale hit was enough of a penalty already, why did they implement the Final Five cards in the way they did?


The final five and person goal loyalty cards serve different purposes. Saying that "final five cards have an extra penalty, therefore personal goal cards should too" seems to miss the point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
If the morale hit was enough of a penalty already, why did they implement the Final Five cards in the way they did?


The final five and person goal loyalty cards serve different purposes. Saying that "final five cards have an extra penalty, therefore personal goal cards should too" seems to miss the point.


No, I know. But I'm just pointing out that FFG obviously didn't think that the -1 morale was enough of a penalty (which came at the behest of BGG users, if I recall correctly), so I don't really see that as a valid argument against the change.

I just don't believe there should be *any* upside to being executed. The more deterrents to incorrect executions (i.e, against human players), the better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Well, yes they wanted additional penalty for that type of card. It doesn't at all logically follow that there should be additional penalty for another type of loyalty card with a very different purpose.

Playing with the new loyalty cards is already strictly pro-cylon to begin with, so it seems a little strange to argue that the cards need to be made for pro-cylon to be balanced.

edit - of course, I disagree with your premise anyway. From a thematic perspective it doesn't follow that humans should never want to execute a fellow human. Even if I were to accept that notion...executing a known human to turn another kind of resource into a morale loss strikes me as an extreme edge case....that's a lot of resources expended for such a change.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
I just don't like the idea that you can get out of completing your personal goal by being executed. Thematically, the person is no longer there to complete it, so it should auto-fail. It (the house rule) also promotes completing your objective sooner rather than later.

When I got executed in our game (twice, both times with a PG), it just felt like "oh well, there was no point worrying about that in the first place, as I got executed anyway". Neither PG was one I was likely to complete, so all that happened was that we lost a morale instead of a food/fuel. Meh.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul W
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Thematically, the person is no longer there to complete it, so it should auto-fail.


Thematically, it's not entirely clear what the resource loss represents. I think it's at least as easy to argue that if the person is unable to complete their goal, their frustration lashes out in other ways harmful to the fleet....and you can't lash out if you're dead

Personal goals won't have the same effect in every single game, that's true of all mechanics. It seems like you're certain the the designers intended to force players to try and achieve their personal goals every game...and I just don't think that's the case.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
fizzmore wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
Thematically, the person is no longer there to complete it, so it should auto-fail.


Thematically, it's not entirely clear what the resource loss represents. I think it's at least as easy to argue that if the person is unable to complete their goal, their frustration lashes out in other ways harmful to the fleet....and you can't lash out if you're dead

Personal goals won't have the same effect in every single game, that's true of all mechanics. It seems like you're certain the the designers intended to force players to try and achieve their personal goals every game...and I just don't think that's the case.


I don't care what the designers intended - I know what *I* intend.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We just played our first game. I had the "You are executed" final five card and the "President is in the Brig" personal goal.

After the sleeper phase, I was still human, and Baltar had cleared one of the other players. I figured there was a good probability that the President was a cylon considering that information, and she was a better target anyway because of my personal goal, so I convinced the others that she was a cylon (I didn't mention that I had a PG).

It took us THREE Admiral's Quarters attempts to finally get it (she threw in all of her cards in defense on the first try and destiny screwed us over with Red Tape on the second). Anyway, I needed one more action to fulfill my goal and complete it, and the President decides to check my loyalty with the quorum card. Of course, she finds the final five card and I'm executed.

I'd have been even more frustrated if that caused my goal to auto-fail after I'd worked so hard to achieve it and was only one action away from doing so... so I'm pretty happy with the system as it is.

I think games in which you avoid multiple PGs via executions will happen rarely. They are probably the exception rather than the rule. And it's nice to have some alternate course of action when the conditions on the PG just can't be met.

It's not like there are many ways to voluntarily kill yourself in Exodus anyway. I'd be a little more concerned in Pegasus where the Airlock gives you on demand execution, but with Exodus alone you need to find an appropriate Final Five card, or get the right crisis. It's a bit easier with Ionian Nebula since the allies, crossroads, and trauma give more opportunities to get killed. My point is that an execution is not exactly a reliable way to avoid the PG.

I guess I could see the point with Ionian Nebula or Pegasus, but with just the Cylon Fleet and Conflicted Loyalty (probably my favorite new way to play) it doesn't seem necessary.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ackmondual
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
1) You can't get around resolving allies by using XOs. You resolve the ally when you move into a location whether it's your turn or not.

4) Players receive the trauma token in Sickbay when they move there (not at the start of their turn).

Any reasons not to use these (apart from the usual "you should play at least one game with the real rules first")?


1- First and foremost, I can't tell if you're houseruling an incorrect playing, or you just wanted to do it this way irregardless, but as a reminder, the rules state you can only encounter one ally, on YOUR turn only, at the end of your movement step! Like how Preventive Policy works. You can only use it on your turn, at the end of your movement step. The 2nd part seems to contradict the first part, so I'm sure I'm just reading it incorrectly. If you could clear that up, much appreciated.

4- If this is how it is, then people will avoid pilots like Monopoly. Well, even if you choose/are stuck with taking a pilot character, you can always just not go out into space. Otherwise, problem is everytime you get shot down, you get truama. Sure, normally you won't always get an XO to get out of there, but at least that option is there. I've seen pilots get get shot up to 3 times in some games, and that's not some theoretical max # of times... that's more close to in practice. Getting rid of 3 surplus trauma (which may not be necessary depending on what you draw and depending on your loyalty be Trial time) can be such a daunting task that at some point, Pilots will just say "frak it", I'm not flying out there anymore. I need to dump my trauma tokens via allies.

And with character selection, you could always choose support instead, of which there could be an explosion of them wow


beyond #4- I will say one should at least play a couple of games with each module first. It really does help give you a better overview of things. However, I have cited reasons for why I would be opposed to some of those things or just commentary in general.

.

fizzmore wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
Thematically, the person is no longer there to complete it, so it should auto-fail.


Thematically, it's not entirely clear what the resource loss represents. I think it's at least as easy to argue that if the person is unable to complete their goal, their frustration lashes out in other ways harmful to the fleet....and you can't lash out if you're dead

Personal goals won't have the same effect in every single game, that's true of all mechanics. It seems like you're certain the the designers intended to force players to try and achieve their personal goals every game...and I just don't think that's the case.
I was gonna reply something like that too. I always thought of Personal Goals are "personal", as in for that character only, not for that player. If Baltar has some neurotic need to gain 2 title cards at once, and he's executed to be replace by... say Cally, why does she have to carry on this neurotic need?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miikka Sohlman
Finland
Lahti
flag msg tools
I live in the city of Gulf, on the shores of Lake Water. This fun fact has nothing to do with this badge you're pointing at.
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
1) You can't get around resolving allies by using XOs. You resolve the ally when you move into a location whether it's your turn or not.


1- First and foremost, I can't tell if you're houseruling an incorrect playing, or you just wanted to do it this way irregardless, but as a reminder, the rules state you can only encounter one ally, on YOUR turn only, at the end of your movement step! Like how Preventive Policy works. You can only use it on your turn, at the end of your movement step. The 2nd part seems to contradict the first part, so I'm sure I'm just reading it incorrectly. If you could clear that up, much appreciated.


You are reading incorrectly. When Lizards says "get around resolving allies" he means the act of avoiding resolving allies, not going around trying to resolve as many as he can.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Hipsu wrote:
ackmondual wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
1) You can't get around resolving allies by using XOs. You resolve the ally when you move into a location whether it's your turn or not.


1- First and foremost, I can't tell if you're houseruling an incorrect playing, or you just wanted to do it this way irregardless, but as a reminder, the rules state you can only encounter one ally, on YOUR turn only, at the end of your movement step! Like how Preventive Policy works. You can only use it on your turn, at the end of your movement step. The 2nd part seems to contradict the first part, so I'm sure I'm just reading it incorrectly. If you could clear that up, much appreciated.


You are reading incorrectly. When Lizards says "get around resolving allies" he means the act of avoiding resolving allies, not going around trying to resolve as many as he can.


Correct.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
By the way, I quite liked an idea in another thread which was that if someone completes a personal goal, the humans can *increase* the listed resource by 1. I think this provides a nice incentive to actively pursue goals, and could act as a counter-balance to the auto-fail if executed idea.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
Overtext pending moderation...
mbmbmbmbmb
Battlestar Galactica: Exodus Expansion » Forums » Variants
Re: House rules we're going to use in our first game...
Discussion on revised Crossroads cards can now be found here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/686610/revised-crossroad...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2  | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.