Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
30 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Would the SotT Treaty cards work in a normal game of TI3? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, the subject line is my question, though imagine that the Treaty cards were based around colour rather than race (i.e, there was a treaty deck for each colour, and the cards of that colour said things like "attack the blue player"). Would they work in a normal game of TI?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the mechanic would work in the base game, as long as the group in question is OK with turning it into a shared victory game. With the scenario, it's important to stress the shared victory (IE, it's not a "winner and runner up", but two equal co-winners), otherwise the mechanic doesn't work. The same would need to be true using it in the non-scenario game - as long as players are OK with someone getting to 10 points, and having another weaker player (possibly even the last-place player) be considered an equal winner, then it should be fine.

Or even if the group is OK with "winner, almost-winner, and losers". However you want to think about it, but the group needs to buy into the validity of the "almost winner" in that case.

Mechanically, though, as I said, I think it would work
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PC ichigo
Thailand
Bangbuathong
Nonthaburi
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always thinking about this too, but never try before.

I think the card that would have most impact on the game would be the one that give another player 1 VP (or less 1 VP require to victory? can't remember that ''Orz).

But...some interesting situation may occur... like... I get 3 VP but I have hidden 7 VP treaty cards from all other player?? laugh


Sorry, I remember something wrong. >___
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pcichigo wrote:
I always thinking about this too, but never try before.

I think the card that would have most impact on the game would be the one that give another player 1 VP (or less 1 VP require to victory? can't remember that ''Orz).

But...some interesting situation may occur... like... I get 3 VP but I have hidden 7 VP treaty cards from all other player?? laugh

I think you are mixing up the Promissory Notes with the Treaty cards The Promissory Notes are used with the Representatives and "Political Intrigue". The Treaty cards are the cards used in the scenario.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Challis
United Kingdom
Hungerford
West Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On a vaguely related note - we hate Representatives, but like the Promissory Notes, so we just remove the Representative one, and let people trade them whenever they want, and they work just fine!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lance Harrop
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you need pretty clear house rules, but if the game has more than six players it is actually natural for 'kingmaking' to happen, so having a mechnicism to regularize it is a good idea.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cool! Glad the response is positive!

One thing I was thinking, though: one thing that everyone who I played the FotE scenario with commented on was that the text that instructed you to attack another player was kinda redundant and shouldn't be linked to the "strength" of the treaty card anyway. I had a think about this, and wondered whether it might be possible to cross-breed the treaties and promissory notes, so that they now formed a single mechanic. So you could either keep the treaty in order to win with the other player, or you could discard it for the desired effect.

The main problem I see with this is that it would allow players to discard treaties they didn't want too easily (which you can't do with the original treaties), but I'm sure a solution would be forthcoming with enough thought.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David F
United States
Emeryville
California
flag msg tools
Luck in games, in measured doses, is the catalyst which enables shocking game-changers that you'll remember and talk about forever.
badge
Let the Lord of Chaos rule.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
With just 1 TI3 game under my belt, I'm not qualified to meddle with it (yet), but you go, people, and make it work! The Treaty stuff is very unique among all board games but sadly unknown among most gamers, and I support anything to generalize those innovative rules from an obscure scenario that few play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
selwyth wrote:
With just 1 TI3 game under my belt, I'm not qualified to meddle with it (yet), but you go, people, and make it work! The Treaty stuff is very unique among all board games but sadly unknown among most gamers, and I support anything to generalize those innovative rules from an obscure scenario that few play.


I'll see what I can come up with.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PC ichigo
Thailand
Bangbuathong
Nonthaburi
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
pcichigo wrote:
I always thinking about this too, but never try before.

I think the card that would have most impact on the game would be the one that give another player 1 VP (or less 1 VP require to victory? can't remember that ''Orz).

But...some interesting situation may occur... like... I get 3 VP but I have hidden 7 VP treaty cards from all other player?? laugh

I think you are mixing up the Promissory Notes with the Treaty cards The Promissory Notes are used with the Representatives and "Political Intrigue". The Treaty cards are the cards used in the scenario.


Yeah, you are right Scott, I just realize it today, so I come back lol
Sorry for my messing memory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I *might* have come up with a solution - can anyone tell me if there's anything wrong with this idea?

So, each player starts with a hand of (let's say) four Treaty cards, numbered 1-4. Similar to the Promissory Notes, each card lists an ability that can allow the player who holds it to force the original owner to do (like "I may now force you to retreat from combat"). The lower-numbered cards have stronger effects. Currently I'm thinking something like:

4: I may force you to change your vote during an Assembly.
3: I may force you to retreat from combat.
2: I may force you to give me all of your Trade Goods.
1: If playing this card would win me the game, I may play this card to gain 1VP. I may play multiple copies of this card simultaneously in order to win.

As an action, a player may offer one of their Treaty cards to another player. The receiving player may (after looking at the offered card) either accept or refuse the Treaty.

If the player refuses the treaty, the card is discarded without effect (players must be careful not to waste actions - and their only four Treaty cards - offering them to players who are not likely to accept them).

If the player accepts the treaty, he adds it to his hand.

A player may discard another player's treaty card at the appropriate time in order to receive the effect on the card (there will be timing triggers on the card).

Alternatively, if he holds on to the treaty cards until the end of the game, he may be able to win with the player he has a treaty with.

Firstly, only the lowest numbered treaties in his hand are considered. So for example, if he holds three treaties, numbered 2, 3 and 4, then the 3 & 4 treaties are ignored.

Then, if the lowest-numbered treaty in his hand is unique (i.e, he does not hold more than one treaty of that number in his hand), and it matches the player who wins the game, he also wins.

If the treaty with the lowest number is not unique, then he cannot win the game with any of the players with whom he hold those treaties.

Thoughts? Would it be better if it was like in the original SotT rules in that no one knows if the receiver accepted the treaty or not (i.e, he takes the offered treaty, shuffles it in with his hand of treaties, then discards 1)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Would it be better if it was like in the original SotT rules in that no one knows if the receiver accepted the treaty or not (i.e, he takes the offered treaty, shuffles it in with his hand of treaties, then discards 1)?

I think it would work better that way, add a little more intrigue and mystery. If you give your #2 card in hopes for a treaty, and the person rejects it, you still go through the game wondering if you have to watch your TGs, or even if they are friends with you to help you win, or are going to try and betray you in favor of someone else.

I think the "hidden" nature of the treaties is part of what makes it work in the scenario. Of course, it's a lot more important there, but I think it would make it more enjoyable even with this variant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
8th Doctor
msg tools
This looks a very interesting idea. I've read the rules for how these work but I've never played the expansion. Would you mind explaining please the effect they have on the game and why you rate them?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dr Who Audio wrote:
This looks a very interesting idea. I've read the rules for how these work but I've never played the expansion. Would you mind explaining please the effect they have on the game and why you rate them?


I just felt they added an interesting option to the game. As an action, you can spend a CC to give one of your treaty cards to another player. That player then secretly chooses one of his Treaty cards to discard (either the one you just gave him, or one he was given previously by another player, or one of his own). Treaties are only valid if you only have ONE belonging to another player in your hand at the end of the game, so you can only keep one in your hand of another player's at any one time.

The treaties are numbered 1-4, and if multiple players have treaties from the same player at the end of the game, then only the player with the lowest-numbered card can share victory with the other player.

Coincidentally, I just finished the first card for my variant set. Here it is:

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So quick survey: which effect is stronger? Forcing someone to withdraw, or forcing someone to give you all of their Trade Goods?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
I just felt they added an interesting option to the game. As an action, you can spend a CC to give one of your treaty cards to another player.

To be precise, in the scenario (where the option originates), you have to activate the player's home system (though you don't have to move anything, of course, and doing so would probably not help you win over your ally).

This has a few minor (but potentially significant) repercussions:
1) You have to spend the CC from your command pool.
2) If you suspect the deal went sour, you can't attack their home world later during the round (without removing the CC somehow)
3) You can't offer the same player two treaties in one round.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
So quick survey: which effect is stronger? Forcing someone to withdraw, or forcing someone to give you all of their Trade Goods?

Depends on if you are playing with Tactical Retreats or not.

If you are, then I think the withdrawing is, because you can use it ANYtime, not just when you are attacking him (or vice versa); if they invade a 3rd party for the potential win, you could whip it out to stop them, forcing a retreat (or tactical retreat).

If you are not, the TG effect is probably much stronger, because you'd have to make sure there is a legal retreatable system already activated before you can use it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
I just felt they added an interesting option to the game. As an action, you can spend a CC to give one of your treaty cards to another player.

To be precise, in the scenario (where the option originates), you have to activate the player's home system (though you don't have to move anything, of course, and doing so would probably not help you win over your ally).

This has a few minor (but potentially significant) repercussions:
1) You have to spend the CC from your command pool.
2) If you suspect the deal went sour, you can't attack their home world later during the round (without removing the CC somehow)
3) You can't offer the same player two treaties in one round.


Good points, though if I'm not mistaken, the rule is you offer a Treaty *instead* of performing a normal Tactical action.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
So quick survey: which effect is stronger? Forcing someone to withdraw, or forcing someone to give you all of their Trade Goods?

Depends on if you are playing with Tactical Retreats or not.

If you are, then I think the withdrawing is, because you can use it ANYtime, not just when you are attacking him (or vice versa); if they invade a 3rd party for the potential win, you could whip it out to stop them, forcing a retreat (or tactical retreat).

If you are not, the TG effect is probably much stronger, because you'd have to make sure there is a legal retreatable system already activated before you can use it.


Ah, I should have clarified that I meant only retreating from battle against you, not a third party.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The full set:

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
Good points, though if I'm not mistaken, the rule is you offer a Treaty *instead* of performing a normal Tactical action.

Correct, I should have mentioned that

bleached_lizard wrote:
Ah, I should have clarified that I meant only retreating from battle against you, not a third party.

Ah, gotcha, so it's slightly different than the Promissory note version. That makes sense in this Treaty context (although I can see a thematic argument that would allow you to use it in 3rd parties, with the treaty partner saying "no, don't do that attack!"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
8th Doctor
msg tools
Thanks for what you said. I'm just interested how you find playing with these changes the way the game works? Does the leading player give cards to weak players? Or do second and third place gang up? And how satisfying is it to have a 'double win'?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dr Who Audio wrote:
Thanks for what you said. I'm just interested how you find playing with these changes the way the game works? Does the leading player give cards to weak players? Or do second and third place gang up? And how satisfying is it to have a 'double win'?


We've only played with the treaties once, in the one game of the SotT scenario that we played. But in that scenario, things work a little differently; there is no "lead player", as the scenario doesn't use victory points. It was just interesting to see the Treaties getting passed around, and never being sure who was working for who. We ended up with a single winner, so can't say how shared wins feel either, but my group has generally been fine with them in games like Rex and Cosmic Encounter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The FULL full set:



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Kamber
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
NICE!

One small correction: The level 2 grey treaty still says "If the Orange player wins the game".

EDIT: Quick rules question: If the Blue player holds Grey 1 and Green 2, and the Red player holds Green 3, what happens when Green wins?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.