Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Empires (fan expansion for 7 Wonders)» Forums » General

Subject: Version 2.1 is out rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Version 2.1 is currently awaiting moderator approval before it is posted here. The only actual change is Saqqara Side B Stage 2, since the official rules of the Wil card changed also. Other changes are simply fixes to typos (such as the Empires logo not being there on the leaders cards).

This will be the final version. I do not plan to a version 2.2 or a version 3. Instead, I am beginning to focus on making original games. Check out the game I am working on, Elemental, here:
https://www.facebook.com/ElementalBoardGame
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregory Mucklow
United Kingdom
Swindon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah, this is sad news for us Empires fans, especially since we were expecting more Persian wonders in Babel to complement your expansion, which now look like they're not coming. But thanks for all your hard work Scot, and best of luck with your next creative endeavours.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan L
msg tools
mb
I couldn't agree more- thanks so much Scot!!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randy Hoyt
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really appreciate your hard work! 7 Wonders is the most popular game in our household, and I know we will be playing it with this fan expansion for years to come. (My wife and I have only played States Mode so far, but once our two sons are older I expect we'll all play Empires Mode as a family as well.) Thanks again!

meeple
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PuzzlingEnigma wrote:
Ah, this is sad news for us Empires fans, especially since we were expecting more Persian wonders in Babel to complement your expansion, which now look like they're not coming. But thanks for all your hard work Scot, and best of luck with your next creative endeavours.


Oh, I didn't know you were waiting. I considered making a few more Wonders when Armada came out, such as The Acropolis of Corinth, but more Persian Wonders were never in the plans. More Persian LEADERS were, and that is one of the main reasons I made v.2.0, to get Cyrus and Xerxes out there.

Carthage and Syracuse will be in the Armada expansion, according to Bauza. Syracuse will be part of the Roman Empire, and Carthage part of the Macedonian (it was founded by the Corinthians). I may do updated Empires cards as we get more content, but I think I can look at Empires as it currently stands and say, "It's exactly the way I want it. No more changes."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregory Mucklow
United Kingdom
Swindon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BleuVII wrote:

Carthage and Syracuse will be in the Armada expansion, according to Bauza.


Very much hoping this is true. The Armada expansion sounds really good from the playtesting notes I've seen (more appealing to me than Babel). Just hoping Repos don't give up on 7 Wonders - Babel has been delayed so long...!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mike schlicher
msg tools
Any suggestions on how to get a playable version without making it yourself?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregory Mucklow
United Kingdom
Swindon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
montijin wrote:
Any suggestions on how to get a playable version without making it yourself?

Get a friend to make it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
montijin wrote:
Any suggestions on how to get a playable version without making it yourself?


Right now, Repos has made it clear that it is okay for the expansion to exist as a print-and-play, but because the icons are copyrighted art, you cannot pay someone to print it. That is, for now, the end of the story. I am not seeking out other print on demand printers.

The good news is that I had a chance to meet Antoine Bauza at GenCon and hand him a copy, so if he likes it, then 7 Wonders: Empires may have new life in a retooled fashion. You can message him here on Board Game Geek to tell him how much you like this expansion if you want.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gregory Mucklow
United Kingdom
Swindon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BleuVII wrote:

The good news is that I had a chance to meet Antoine Bauza at GenCon and hand him a copy, so if he likes it, then 7 Wonders: Empires may have new life in a retooled fashion. You can message him here on Board Game Geek to tell him how much you like this expansion if you want.


I took your suggestion and let Antoine know how much I enjoy Empires. I enquired whether a non-commercial licence could be agreed to allow P&P to print it, or suggested it gets released as an official expansion, but got this response:
"I don't think my publisher enjoyed Empire enough to think about publishing it."


Shame on you Repos! I'm really surprised. If they read the forums here they would see how this gets nothing but glowing reviews and everyone seems to always include it in their games.
If the actual 'Empires' format isn't to their taste then I could envisage the wonders and city-states rules (which everyone seems to see as the best 2-player/team format) being released as some kind of Wonder pack.

Don't take this as a reflection on your work, Scot. The fans are massively impressed and I'm glad to have got my hands on this when it was still available.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You know, it really doesn't surprise me that much, and I don't take it as a reflection on my work. When I started creating Empires, a host of fan expansions had just been posted, and more were in the works. The internet was FLOODED. So, since I knew I wanted to create a fan expansion, I asked myself 2 questions:
1. What are no other fan expansions doing?
2. What can a fan expansion do that an official release could not?

To the first question, the answer was that most fan expansions took the approach of "Make ALL the wonders!" but they weren't focusing on adding new game experiences. That's why I decided to make a game focused on team play. Empires mode was the original mode, but during development, States just kind of created itself.

To the second question, here is a list of things Repos COULDN'T do that I COULD do:
A. Make Solomon's Temple. They have stated in interviews that they couldn't do this because they want to avoid religious controversy.
B. Add in second versions of cities, like Babylon II and Alexandria II, and create wonders like Saqqara and Athens which look similar to existing ones. They need to keep their game cohesive. I had the freedom to step slightly outside of that to make wonders that they couldn't get away with. Thankfully, my theme made this not only possible, but desirable.
C. Make an expansion that requires other expansions. Seriously, from a business standpoint, Repos just can't do this. It's economic suicide if you need to have the base game, expansion 1, and expansion 2 before you buy expansion 3. Look at Race for the Galaxy. I know super-fans of the game who don't own the third expansion because it requires the first two. For their 4th expansion, they had to completely start over just to get people to buy it. As a fan expansion, I had the unique freedom to require ownership of Leaders and Cities to play the full game.

These three things together ensured that (a) I wouldn't be stepping on Repos's toes, and (b) my expansion could be enjoyed even after other expansions were released.

So when I gave Bauza a copy of this, I wasn't expecting much to come of it. I had specifically created it to be unpublishable. I am so glad for the community support that I have gotten from this though. You guys, the players, have been so encouraging. Thank you.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just got a chance to read through the rules for 7 Wonders: Babel, here:
http://rprod.com/uploads/file/7W-Babel-Rules-En.pdf

Long and short of it is that it incorporates some of the same ideas as Empires, but takes them in a slightly different direction. The two should be compatible from everything that I can see, but I don't think Yerushalayim will mix in as well as the rest of the boards.

The good news is that Aggression will be even MORE dynamic with Babel.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Auxiliary Axis
msg tools
BleuVII wrote:
I just got a chance to read through the rules for 7 Wonders: Babel, here:
http://rprod.com/uploads/file/7W-Babel-Rules-En.pdf

Long and short of it is that it incorporates some of the same ideas as Empires, but takes them in a slightly different direction. The two should be compatible from everything that I can see, but I don't think Yerushalayim will mix in as well as the rest of the boards.

The good news is that Aggression will be even MORE dynamic with Babel.


Can you go more in detail with Aggression being MORE dynamic?

As I mentioned 9 months ago, my playgroup no longer plays empire boards (partly because they're not 7 wonders app score-able), but we permanently used the aggression rules.

The clarity in your rulebook is good, but only for singular cases.

Let's position 4 players in a circle.

---------- A

---- D ------ C

---------- B

D uses Diplomacy, B uses aggression.
Order of most shields to least: B, A, C, D. No ties.

Since B wants as many victories as possible, we usually had player B skip over player D's diplomacy and have B "double strike" player A.

The revised (well, May 2014) Empires rule seem to imply that neighboring Aggression and Diplomacy players *must* (or should) fight (once). But if that's the case, where player B does beat player D, what happens to player A? Player A beats player C, but since player D is under Diplomacy, does A fight B at all? Player B clearly hits player C twice and player D once.

If player A DOES fight player B (and loses), player B suddenly has 3 victory tokens and distributed 1 defeat token to 3 different players each.

Hence back to the original point: This issue of "hit the Diplomacy player" doesn't come up since player B usually passes over player D and fights player A twice, leaving no confusion.



Now let's change the scenario: Player A has more military than player B. B still plays Aggression, with specific intent to hit player D. What happens with Player A?

If we assume Player A does beat Player B, Player B ends up with 3 victory tokens (1 from D, 2 from C), but 1 defeat token (1 from A). Player A gets 2 victory tokens (1 from B, 1 from C) since A can't fight D. Even if it works this way, it's a bit weird.



Normally I imagine that since Aggression is the inverse of Diplomacy, they kind of cancel out, but since there's two neighbors, you don't simply cancel out the two tokens. Aggression tokens are very expensive, so having priority against a Diplomacy user is quite critical.

EDIT: I didn't realize the Aggression card changes. The lower coin cost and not requiring advanced resources makes it much cheaper, especially in the 1st age, where 3 coins wasn't really worth it, even with a Cities leader.

For Babel I find it hilarious that Pacifism can reduce an age III successful aggression by a whopping 8 points, while Warmongering makes Aggression potentially deliver 4 military defeat tokens instead of 2 to each neighbor. With empires, Aggression from both neighbors with Warmongering and superior military can lead to 8 defeat tokens in one age. Oh my. This is without factoring leaders or Pergamon (the only civ that has incentive to use aggression and benefit from losing).

Since we don't play with Empire wonders, multiple Aggression tokens in the same age is nearly impossible. I did forget about the double Diplomacy token use in the same age, though we usually passed the 2nd token to the next (3rd) age.

I will make an interesting comment on non-empire boards: The only time a player wants to play Aggression when *losing* to one side is if he/she has Tomyris *and* Strategist Guild over say, a 7 point card. I have never seen a good opportunity for Aggression when not in the military lead.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scot Eaton
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just realized I never responded to this.

You bring up a valid point. If I put out a new version of the rules, I will be sure to clarify that scenario. In the scenario, two battles would happen with the person who has aggression. The first battle would skip over the Diplomacy user and attack their neighbor. The second would be against the player who used Diplomacy.

I have been looking for Bable at my local game stores, but it hasn't come in yet. I still have yet to try Empires and Babel together. However, I am aware of the huge gains and losses with military from the rulebook. I would imagine in that situation that other players would play Babel tiles to try to cover up the one that gives a military player massive bonuses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Auxiliary Axis
msg tools
Wait, the split damage is an interesting solution but it's still a triple strike. Except this time its a calculated triple strike instead of an inadvertent one.

This works fine if the aggressor had more military. So if the aggressor had less military the same thing happens, but they lose instead of win if they had less shields ?

It looks more like a diplomacy buff when aggression has to hit neighboring diplomacy (weird situations can happen) Well, your revised rule at least combines the different situations into one fixed answer so there's that.

Alright I'll use this new adapted rule. Doesn't change the mechanic much and is easy to understand. Now diplomacy next to aggression means aggression has to hit it as if it was not there, but the second strike goes to the neighbor so no strikes are lost.

Cool. This makes hilarious things like Tomyris diplomacy still reflect defeat tokens. Previously by skipping over Tomyris diplomacy you also skip defeat token reflecting but now you don't .

New question: what happens when player A and D both use diplomacy? Does player B hit each of them once? If so, player B now has a triple strike while C only fights once. The old rules made D and C get hit by B while A is untouched and C fights once.

You'll probably want to update scenarios with different players having diplomacy tokens and aggression tokens in the same game. With empires, its very realistic to have two different players with diplomacy and one with aggression or vice versa. Even 2 and 2 is within reach too (Roma II Babylon II, Aspasia, Aggression leader, Embassy, Contingent ... Er the new 4WBSO city card) we only addressed multiple tokens played by the same player but not if every player had a diplomacy or aggression token like in a 4-5 player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.