Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Hyperborea» Forums » Rules

Subject: FAQ 1.2 Rules Update - delete chapter 4 of the RESET rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
László Horváth
Hungary
Veszprém
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello,

I just ordered the game, so haven't played it yet, but noticed afterwards the FAQ 1.2
The Rules Update - delete chapter 4 of of the Reset phase - seems pretty huge judging by the rules only.

It seems odd, that I have to cancel a technology, cannot accumulate cubes on it over resets.

Why is this necessary, and does it change the game so heavily as it seems?

(if such big change comes in an errata, I'm getting worried about playtesting)

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the rule change makes sense; on an adv. technology card that is "continuous" you can (if you want) leave cubes and get repeated benefit...but on one-time cards it would make more sense to pull the cubes and reactivate anyhow...the change just seems to give the player the option on adv. tech cards, that's all...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Leitner
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule change was made to prevent cube parking...thinning out your bag by keeping cubes out of circulation on techs you do not want to use in order to speed up resets.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
László Horváth
Hungary
Veszprém
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MDJD wrote:
The rule change was made to prevent cube parking...thinning out your bag by keeping cubes out of circulation on techs you do not want to use in order to speed up resets.


And was this not intentional/detected originally during the design?

Speeding up resets can be a good option.
So is the game better with this rule change?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
yes, i'd say the game is better (and makes more sense)...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
it was a last minute rule added before release to help new players but it was abused to the point that reset will happen each turn, so they scratched that rule.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Arnold
msg tools
I'm a bit irked with this game because of the lack of play testing. I'm irked because I really like the game and I hope it catches on, but all of these glaring rule problems are detrimental to its success. I've had to implement several house rules to make the game more playable and enjoyable.

I would say that you're free to ignore the rule update in regards to cube collection during reset. I don't really see how someone can take advantage of this without suffering in some way. If most of your cubes are on your game board and you're resetting each turn, all you have to work with are your minis and city activations. If all you're doing is cube camping then you're not going to be activating technologies which give you a lot more options than simply performing city actions. Also, if other players are killing your minis, go ahead and reset all day but you won't win the game with your three miniatures in your city.

Have fun playing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek Long
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I'm a bit irked with this game because of the lack of play testing. I'm irked because I really like the game and I hope it catches on, but all of these glaring rule problems are detrimental to its success. I've had to implement several house rules to make the game more playable and enjoyable.


It is not fair to claim that the game suffers a lack of play testing. *This rule* was not adequately tested as the designers have acknowledged. But the game as a whole is well tested, in my view, and stands up well in play.

The reference to "all these glaring rule problems" is too strong: what are they? As far as I know there is only one issue that is really significant. Everything else has been a matter of clarification and none of it has been really that major.

The game is very good and very enjoyable. It is worth implementing the clarifications and corrections, but don't let them put you off.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
i'm with derek; we're not seeing any other "glaring rule problems" at all...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Arnold
msg tools
Derek Long wrote:

It is not fair to claim that the game suffers a lack of play testing. *This rule* was not adequately tested as the designers have acknowledged. But the game as a whole is well tested, in my view, and stands up well in play.

The reference to "all these glaring rule problems" is too strong: what are they? As far as I know there is only one issue that is really significant. Everything else has been a matter of clarification and none of it has been really that major.

The game is very good and very enjoyable. It is worth implementing the clarifications and corrections, but don't let them put you off.


It's ok to admit it when a game has some production problems, it doesn't mean I don't like the game. The other problems I was referring to are the racial effects powers. There are several player powers that are darn right unplayable. The "race wars" variant is the most fun way to play, but I can't believe that they thoroughly tested most of the powers. In just reading the rules one time, I could see powers that were unbalanced. For example, play a game as the Golden Barony with tile A and the Emerald Kingdom with tile B. The emerald kingdom player will win hands down, it won't even be close. So you might argue that the Golden Barony player should pick tile B, but the rules claim that you could play as either picking the tiles or pulling them randomly. If you do decide to pick your own tile, again, why even include tile A for the Golden Barony? A lot more effort could have been put into all the racial powers to make all of them more useful.

Another suggestion I would give to the designers to have a more complete rulebook. It would have been good to include a better guide to all of the technology cards and maybe some visual examples of movement through difficult terrain etc...

Again, referring to the original poster's comment, this is a huge rule change that could easily have been see in play testing.

Perhaps it's because I've done a lot of computer programming testing that I have issues with this game's inconsistencies. I have played and I own many board games and most of them don't require as much fine tuning.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
László Horváth
Hungary
Veszprém
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK Guys, thanks for the feedback. I'm looking forward to play this one.
Actually, I don't see many problems either.

Originally I was put off by the "dice building" thing, but the many positive reviews turned me. So it seems that there are way more positive voices than negative.

br,
Laszlo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gardamun wrote:
It's ok to admit it when a game has some production problems, it doesn't mean I don't like the game. The other problems I was referring to are the racial effects powers. There are several player powers that are darn right unplayable. The "race wars" variant is the most fun way to play, but I can't believe that they thoroughly tested most of the powers. In just reading the rules one time, I could see powers that were unbalanced. For example, play a game as the Golden Barony with tile A and the Emerald Kingdom with tile B. The emerald kingdom player will win hands down, it won't even be close. So you might argue that the Golden Barony player should pick tile B, but the rules claim that you could play as either picking the tiles or pulling them randomly. If you do decide to pick your own tile, again, why even include tile A for the Golden Barony? A lot more effort could have been put into all the racial powers to make all of them more useful.


The game hasn't required "fine-tuning"; they added a rule at the last minute (the parking of cubes - paragraph four of the reset rules), and - like other instances of last-minute changes - this turned out to be a bad idea. Of course, this NEVER happens with software ...

As for the race powers being unbalanced, that's cobblers. I'm glad you can see there's a problem after simply reading the rules; I've played the game over ten times now and can detect NO imbalance at all. All of the powers that I've seen in use could have won, had they taken advantage of the opportunities given and exploited them in the right way.

If the game has flaws, they are these. Firstly the cube colours - in most lights, red and purple are too close, as are blue/green/grey. Some people's eyes are more or less sensitive to this, note. And secondly, a decent experienced player will trounce a new player petty well every time. If only every game exhibited such a major flaw.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Richard is right on the cube colors, but it's easily fixed by swapping out the game's "red" with "real red", and when they're avail again some light gray cubes to replace the very dark "game gray"...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gardamun wrote:
In just reading the rules one time, I could see powers that were unbalanced.


If you decided that on the basis of just reading the rules one time, then your opinion can't be taken seriously. You're arguing that testing is important, and then you're arguing that you can determine what's balanced without even playing the game??
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RDewsbery wrote:
Gardamun wrote:
It's ok to admit it when a game has some production problems, it doesn't mean I don't like the game. The other problems I was referring to are the racial effects powers. There are several player powers that are darn right unplayable. The "race wars" variant is the most fun way to play, but I can't believe that they thoroughly tested most of the powers. In just reading the rules one time, I could see powers that were unbalanced. For example, play a game as the Golden Barony with tile A and the Emerald Kingdom with tile B. The emerald kingdom player will win hands down, it won't even be close. So you might argue that the Golden Barony player should pick tile B, but the rules claim that you could play as either picking the tiles or pulling them randomly. If you do decide to pick your own tile, again, why even include tile A for the Golden Barony? A lot more effort could have been put into all the racial powers to make all of them more useful.


And secondly, a decent experienced player will trounce a new player petty well every time. If only every game exhibited such a major flaw.

Agreed indeed!

I
Don't see cube parking as a major flaw. It has not been a win I g strategy in the 20 plus games I have played. Granted other people need to be aggressive and punish the person cube parking. I rather like cube parking when it is done sparingly. One rule could have been a plAyer could only park two cubes before reset.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Arnold
msg tools
DaviddesJ wrote:
Gardamun wrote:
In just reading the rules one time, I could see powers that were unbalanced.


If you decided that on the basis of just reading the rules one time, then your opinion can't be taken seriously. You're arguing that testing is important, and then you're arguing that you can determine what's balanced without even playing the game??


I'm not sure how you inferred that I haven't played this game and that I only read the rules. My point was is that I could detect the imbalance simply from reading. I've seen the imbalance in play many times.

I have implemented my own balances to the racial powers that makes the game a lot more fun. For me the real fun in this game is the variety you can get from different racial powers that makes each play different. Therefore, racial powers that are useless and would never be chosen should be adjusted or why even bother including them in the game? If you understand how to play hyperborea and you play as the Golden Barony, you will never choose to use Tile A. It would be nice if you had to choose between two comparable tiles that each provided a different strategy. I'm going to make another post with the changes I made to my games if anyone is interested.

Have a great day

ps: Hyperborea is my favourite game that I am playing with my group at the moment, this is why I'm so passionate about its success.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Hodgson
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gardamun wrote:

I have implemented my own balances to the racial powers that makes the game a lot more fun. For me the real fun in this game is the variety you can get from different racial powers that makes each play different. Therefore, racial powers that are useless and would never be chosen should be adjusted or why even bother including them in the game? If you understand how to play hyperborea and you play as the Golden Barony, you will never choose to use Tile A. It would be nice if you had to choose between two comparable tiles that each provided a different strategy. I'm going to make another post with the changes I made to my games if anyone is interested.


Agreed, and I look forward to hearing what you find.

For yellow side A, how many VPs should it be to be considered? 3? 4? It's a tricky one, as good play is irrelevant for making a static vp boost better, but the equivalence is comparing how many vps other faction abilities can generate during the game. e.g. yellow side B costs a VP to gain an advantage which equates to... how much? If well played, presumably the gain per use should be more than 1 VP, but if you use the power 5 times (let's estimate) in a game, gaining net 0.5 VP per use (estimate), then you are looking at around 2.5 VP gained through the ability. Better or worse usage will modify this accordingly, and until we have a good sampling with decent play it's hard to tell.

I have expressed my concerns over the blue side A diplomacy and fast reset already, but this concern might be unfounded with good play.

Certain factions abilities appear to have a propensity towards certain game styles e.g. short vs long duration, low vs high player count. Do you think each faction has flexibility for this choice? For example, orange seems to have abilities based on grey cubes which usually take a bit of time to acquire, which suggests a longer game advantage. Does this mean you are in trouble if other players rush a quick game?

I guess that this might also depend on your ability as a player to control the pace of the game, slowing others as needed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe C.
United States
Everett
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
The rulebook is by far the most glaring issue, with this game.
It's borderline-ludicrous to me that it made it to print, like it did.
Talk about hugely-undermining your own game for the silliest of reasons.

The number of people outright playing the game wrong, right now, because they're not on BGG reading this forum and/or digging up the "Official FAQ" is probably staggering. If you solely go by the rulebook, there are two enormous problems that pop up.

1) A lot of people aren't clear on how the game ends because the "objectives" section is terribly written. People are misplaying the end-game trigger as "a single player must obtain X objectives" when it is, in fact, "X different objectives must be obtained by any combination of players". Why the rulebook author used the "Short Game" as the main example (which requires a single objective) instead of using the "Regular" game--which is literally called "Regular Game"--I have no idea. It's absurdly confusing.

2) As this thread has already gone over extensively, the last-minute rule addition of being allowed to leave cubes in-play, during a reset (which was supposedly done to help new players), really screws with basically everything you can think of, regarding strategy. I'm honestly not sure what the designers were thinking... because I'm not convinced that this last-minute addition really made things any easier or less punishing for new players (especially not when experienced players would very, very obviously abuse it...). But I digress...

3) Honorable Mention: The Yellow "B" Power can only be activated once per Reset, not once per Turn. The rulebook literally says it's one per turn. Maybe this is an after-the-fact errata/nerf--I have no idea--but that's a pretty enormous difference, for anyone playing Yellow.

Gardamun wrote:
I'm a bit irked with this game because of the lack of play testing. I'm irked because I really like the game and I hope it catches on, but all of these glaring rule problems are detrimental to its success. I've had to implement several house rules to make the game more playable and enjoyable.

It's no secret that I loathe the game's rulebook for being unclear on a lot of things but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to start "house ruling" stuff. By all means, play the game however makes it most enjoyable for you but, regarding cube resets, the designer seems pretty adamant that the game was thoroughly-tested with the "all (non-continuous effect) cubes MUST go back into the bag during Reset" rule.

Gardamun wrote:
I would say that you're free to ignore the rule update in regards to cube collection during reset. I don't really see how someone can take advantage of this without suffering in some way. If most of your cubes are on your game board and you're resetting each turn, all you have to work with are your minis and city activations.

It's not really a "rule update;" that's kind of the problem here. Strictly speaking, if you're treating the rulebook as the be-all-end-all then, yeah, sure, anything said by the designer after-the-printing is an update or change.

In this case, though, the designer has spoken at-length about how that paragraph was a last-minute thing meant to help new players... and it wasn't really tested. Now, granted, this is mind-boggling, given how dramatically it changes things, but there you go. You'd think that, if this were really the case, the rulebook might mention this as being an optional "new player variant" thing, but it doesn't. It's kind of a mess, really.

That said, though, there's something to be said about playing the game "as intended." If the guy who literally designed the game is telling you to ignore the "rule" that really shouldn't be there (or at least not be clarified as being meant for new players/as a variant), I'm inclined to say listen. That's just me, though.

Gardamun wrote:
If all you're doing is cube camping then you're not going to be activating technologies which give you a lot more options than simply performing city actions. Also, if other players are killing your minis, go ahead and reset all day but you won't win the game with your three miniatures in your city.

With respect, it sounds like you're doing it wrong.

Why would you say you're not going to be activating technologies? The concept here isn't to just not finish technologies so that you can keep resetting... the idea is to leave just the cubes you need in your bag, so you can constantly, quickly and efficiently activate technologies while ALSO reaping the city/ruins benefits of resetting every turn.

As a quick hypothetical scenario to make the point, if you have 4 minis on the map and 7 cubes total--with 4 camping on unfinished techs on the board--you can then use your other 3 cubes to fill a single (3-cube) tech, in one turn. You then trigger a Reset... and put only the 3 cubes from that finished tech back in the bag... and then get to take all 4 of your minis out of all their cities/ruins...

Next turn, you draw 3 cubes--the only 3 cubes you put back--activate that same technology again and then put all of your minis back into cities/ruins for more free actions. YOU THEN RESET AGAIN. Every single turn you're getting a ton of free city/ruins actions from resets while also activating the exact technology you want to.

Congratulations, you've effectively turned the game into "who can make the best engine in the first 2-4 turns" which is the precise reason why the designer has come out and vocally said the game was never meant to be played this way.

You mention that other players will just kill your minis and you'll be stuck on 3, if you do this, but I really don't see how... There's no reason that a player who abuses cube-culling (i.e. leaving unwanted cubes out of the bag) and resets would end up on 3 minis just by culling and resetting. I'm not really sure why you think that. Every player at the table is drawing 3 cubes a turn to do stuff with: you're not inherently "getting less tech actions" by culling cubes. You're getting the same 3 as everyone else... and you're doing a much better job of putting them to use.

Have you been doing something wonky with resets, to make you think that resetting is somehow "bad"? There's really not much of downside (if there's even a downside) to resetting every turn, if you can. That's the whole point; when you can abuse leaving cubes out of your bag, to force resetting every turn, you essentially break the game.


edit: for the sake of thoroughness, there are a couple of "downsides" to resetting. if playing "as-intended," a reset means that you'll have far-less certainty on which cubes you pull next (as they're all in the bag and you almost-certainly won't be down to 3 cubes total, with as-intended rules). the other downside is simply leaving cities and ruins open... if you reset and are forced out of a city, an opponent can then just walk into your hex and claim it... without having to use an Attack action first, to clear you out. that can be pretty significant; especially if YOU don't have an attack action, yourself, to use to reclaim the city on your next turn).
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe C.
United States
Everett
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Also, just to say it, if you check some of the earlier Hyperborea posts, here on BGG, you'll find a good number of people arguing for and against the optional-leaving-cubes-on-the-board thing. There's a decent number of people who make the argument that Hyperborea as a "cube engine game," is more appealing than its as-intended (i.e. FAQ-errata'd) design.

To each his own, on that, I say.
If you want to do the hardcore-engine thing, go for it.

Personally, though, I'm a fan of the as-intended design. For me, the "cube engine" approach sucks a lot of the strategy and charm out of the game. The whole point is for Hyperborea to be a 4x game where you're dealing with bag manipulation, odds, etc. which all revolve around what you're putting into--and how you're managing to take out of--your bag. When you can just say "well, I'm going to not put this stuff back this turn, so I can get exactly what I want and keep triggering super-power resets to fuel my engine some more," I think that's kind of defeating what the game's about.

Don't want those cubes and/or want to reset more? Deal with it. Go get some techs or whatnot that can remove cubes from the game... or continuous techs which can still let you leave cubes on the board... or focus on a low-cube strategy, in general. ETC.
cool
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Van Wagoner
United States
Bluffton
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ok, so what's the general consensus? play that all non-continuous cubes must go back in the bag, or leave it up to the player which ones (on adv tech cards) he/she puts back?

(would it make sense to maybe make it "all, or none"...meaning you had to pull all of them, or none of them, and not cherry-pick?)

i'm asking because i'm introducing the game to various new players, and would like to set the standard now, right out of the gate...I don't have enough plays in to really know which option makes the game more fun, but also don't want to teach group A to play one way, and then 3 weeks from now play again with group A and tell them I've changed the way we're playing...

so, your thoughts...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe C.
United States
Everett
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I just kind of rambled a bit about my thoughts on this but, to sum it up:

In my opinion, play the game as-intended and put back all (non-continuous cube spots) every Reset. If you search the forum, you'll see plenty of posts of the designer himself arguing to play like this so, to me, that's really the way to go.

Also, just for the sake of saying it, you do have the option of putting back cubes that are on continuous-effect (infinity symbol) spots (whether the tech is complete or not). Sometimes it makes strategic sense to do this (especially if you're no longer benefiting from whatever continuous effect the tech gives you).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Thomason
New Zealand
Nelson
None
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Personally I think taking cubes from half finished technologies removes some of the strategy from the game. Never really considered the speeding up of the reset side of that though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Arnold
msg tools
Yelmac wrote:



With respect, it sounds like you're doing it wrong.

Why would you say you're not going to be activating technologies? The concept here isn't to just not finish technologies so that you can keep resetting... the idea is to leave just the cubes you need in your bag, so you can constantly, quickly and efficiently activate technologies while ALSO reaping the city/ruins benefits of resetting every turn.


Thank you for your response. You've actually changed my mind about this. Upon further reflection I think it is too powerful to be able to leave cubes on the board during reset. I hadn't tried to break the game hard enough to see how it could be used. What will eventually happen with this strategy is that the players in your gaming group will all adopt it so everyone will just be cube camping and the game will lose some of it's flavor.

Have a good one
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brett Thomason
New Zealand
Nelson
None
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Gardamun wrote:



What will eventually happen with this strategy is that the players in your gaming group will all adopt it so everyone will just be cube camping and the game will lose some of it's flavor.



If I found myself in a group like that I'd sell up and start spending more time on my PS3 or PS4.

1 
 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.