Frank Branham
United States
Norcross
Georgia
Battle Beyond Space Status: In Production. Late July is current estimate.
-
I screwed up when reading the Z-man rules. I've been raving about how good this game is and teaching it....wrongly.
The error is simple. The original rules say that owning a majority in a color makes each card worth -1 point.
Somehow, I misinterpreted the Z-man rules as meaning that each card in a majority is worth +1 point.
...and the game is REALLY good. It changes the entire multiplayer dynamics into a situation where you WANT to take cards of specific colors, as the winning score is always a positive number.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
fbranham wrote: It changes the entire multiplayer dynamics into a situation where you WANT to take cards of specific colors, as the winning score is always a positive number.
I'm confused, because in the rules as written, that's already the case.
Each card you've been taking is -10, -7, -4 etc, and costing you points. So, you intentionally grab more cards of that colour, and turn the -10, -7 etc into -1 each, turning your -21 into -4 or -5, a net gain of 16 points.
-
Frank Branham
United States
Norcross
Georgia
Battle Beyond Space Status: In Production. Late July is current estimate.
-
I screwed up and took it further, by calculating the score for each majority card as "+1" points.
So, your -21 example becomes +4 or +5. A difference of 25 or 26 points. a typical winning score in this version becomes +8 or +9.
This becomes a very different game, where people are actually lining up to figure out what to take, and trying to play cards so that they are picked up to harrass an opponent.
We played maybe 20 4-player games over the holidays with my parents, and completely adored it. Enough that we don't want to play by the proper rules.
-
David Short
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
fbranham wrote: This becomes a very different game, where people are actually lining up to figure out what to take, and trying to play cards so that they are picked up to harrass an opponent.
I'm still confused. How is this that different? Players are still trying to get majorities in certain colors while still avoiding cards of all the rest of colors.
-
Greg Fulford
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
-
I think the biggest difference is perception. Getting points for collecting colors is fun. The winner likely ends up in the positive, and feels like they ended up ahead. In the original rules, collecting colors still gets you negative points. Yes, it's a net gain, but it still feels like losing something. And the winner is still negative, just not as much as everyone else.
This variant would encourage some gameplay differences. You'd have a lot more incentive to snap up every card of whatever color(s) you are collecting. Stealing low-valued cards of an opponent's color could pay off. You'd be denying them points, and the extra points you get from your own colors make taking low valued negative points less painful.
I'm not sure which is better game-wise, but it sounds like a fun variant to try out.
-
Frank Branham
United States
Norcross
Georgia
Battle Beyond Space Status: In Production. Late July is current estimate.
-
The basic strategy of the current version is:
Take no cards or as low cards as possible, preferably in one or two suits. Then make sure you save a couple of low value cards for the final reckoning.
My accidental variant is rather more complex, and has you watching colors to try and scoop up a batch of them early, especially with low value cards. There is also QUITE a bit of competition for owning colors, especially if you start competing with the person to your left.
A typical winning score is +5 to +9. The entire card avoidance element of the original game vanishes, as players jockey to avidly collect colors. Because you HAVE to take cards of a color to win and specialize.
The other trippy thing is the collecting 6 colors immediate game end condition. If one player rushes forward to collect a lot of cards early, including some risky choices, you can guarantee a win. Some of my hardest choices in the game were to make a rush for an early win this way by taking some off-suit cards (but balanced by winning 4 majorities.)
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
Everything you're saying still applies to the rules in the box. I've intentionally taken a batch of cards early. I've intentionally taken 4 different colours with one card, in order to trigger the end game massively early, when no one suspected it.
All you've changed is the point differential. Instead of -20 face value turning into -4 from 4 cards, it turns into +4, a gain of 24 instead of a gain of 16, basically 50% more points.
With your plus scoring, why would I ever *not* take cards? Every player should be taking as many cards as possible every single turn. Which I guess is what you just said, "The entire card avoidance element of the original game vanishes".
The rules as written gives you a game of tight balance, where you have to make tough decisions to decide between two conflicting directions to go, taking cards or not taking cards.
-
Nathan Beeler
United States
Seattle
Washington
Really? Hovertext? Whatever.
-
I like this change. I'll suggest it next time this game comes out. I've always been bothered that the player who takes no cards often wins.
A rule about this game that we got wrong, and I'm not convinced the original rule is better, is that you are supposed to randomly choose which two cards to keep at the end of the game. We were taught and played for a while that you got to choose which two to keep, which definitely changes the feel of the game. In the rules version, you would try to fill your entire hand with cards of the colour you want by the end, or at least with low numbers. But you could get screwed if you don't manage to do that and get unlucky. In our accidental version, that screwage goes away, and in fact you can sit on at least two unlucky card draws, because you know you can discard them. That does decrease a little tension, though.
-
Greg Fulford
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
-
dogberry wrote: A rule about this game that we got wrong, and I'm not convinced the original rule is better, is that you are supposed to randomly choose which two cards to keep at the end of the game.
Actually, that was a mistranslation issue. The correct rule is to decide which cards you will keep, and which to discard at the end. The correction is discussed here.
-
Nathan Beeler
United States
Seattle
Washington
Really? Hovertext? Whatever.
-
mmmtofu wrote: Actually, that was a mistranslation issue. The correct rule is to decide which cards you will keep, and which to discard at the end. The correction is discussed here.
Oh, well, there you go. Happy to know the real rule is the one I was leaning toward anyway. Thanks!
-
Booker Hooker
United States
Kingsport
Tennessee
-
Played this last night for the first time. At first we played by the rules as written, then somehow reread the rules, misinterpreted them, and ended up playing the same way the OP is playing.
I remember commenting to my fellow gamer that the game just got way better.
Next time we play we'll have to try it again the original way for a better comparison. I thought the game was a lot more fun when you were trying to take certain cards while trying to avoid others. It had a feel similar to Knizia's Poison.
-
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
-
For awhile, I didn't understand this thread, because I could not figure out how the rules were any different. But then I found out we were playing incorrectly, too! Except we were playing that a majority is -1 and the remaining cards are worth their face value - just positive value, instead of negative. I had been enjoying the game so much, I made my own version.
We finally tried it out with the correct rules and I was much less impressed. The winner seems to be the player who manages to keep enough high cards to avoid taking any others.
When some cards are positive and some cards are negative, the choices seem much more meaningful. When they are all negative, it is less interesting.
-
Who's the more foolish? The fool or fool that plays after the fool?
United States
DURHAM
North Carolina
-
I thought it a bit lacking with more players so I will try this version next time we have 5.
-
-
I think most people like this game the best when played with the rules they tried first.
I don’t know which is right, but this is how we play, and I really like it:
Majority: 1 (negative) point per card.
Not majority: card value negative points per card.
And by majority I mean plurality not majority.
-
Lazareth Minnelli
United States
Alabama
-
Sandra Snan, that is indeed the correct way to score this game as per the instructions. We love the game too.
-
|
|
Battle Beyond Space Status: In Production. Late July is current estimate.
