Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Forbidden Stars» Forums » Variants

Subject: Victory Point Variants? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan Heck
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A discussion started on this in another thread, and I would like to see a thread dedicated to this. In my mind, this is one of the best ways to help the game play faster while also making it more fun.

What VP variants are people testing? I'm really interested in hearing about things people have actually tried, how it plays and what their groups have thought of them!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Maisonneuve
Canada
Quebec
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a very cool point variant:

- Every objective worth 1 point when you capture them.
- First player to get as many points as the number of players win the game.
- If at the end of the 8th turn nobody won already, it is the player with the most points who win.
- Tie breaker is the number of controlled worlds.

whistle
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
Brodnica
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Wildhorn wrote:
I have a very cool point variant:...
This nice victory point variant I've tested extensively and I have to say - it does not speed up the game when compared to basic game rules. whistle

In my opinion only two changes would make game faster(critical changes!): making players to do their moves simultaneously or removing 'last in first out' orders resolution. The former is hard to execute in any case except strategize order, latter would throw away the whole planning phase concept.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Heck
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
- Tie breaker is the number of controlled worlds.
But what do you do if this is also tied?

I think it would be cool to award 1 point per unit as the final tie-breaker.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
hallas wrote:
Wildhorn wrote:
I have a very cool point variant:...
This nice victory point variant I've tested extensively and I have to say - it does not speed up the game when compared to basic game rules.

In my opinion only two changes would make game faster(critical changes!): making players to do their moves simultaneously or removing 'last in first out' orders resolution. The former is hard to execute in any case except strategize order, latter would throw away the whole planning phase concept.
Unfortunately I have to agree. Changing the way victory score it in order to shorten the game will only mess the game up and make it not fun. Think of games like rune wars or twilight imperium. Is our fantastic games, and right when you start to really have fun… The game ends.

The real secret to making the game faster is to change how it's played. On my part. I am rewriting the operations and planning phases. They really don't deliver anything meaningful to the game as they are.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Heck
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Mondoron wrote:
I am working on a VP-based variant. I love this game, but it often suffers from Starcraft-like predeterminism due to set-up. The inabilty to adequately protect faction tokens can lead to really lop-sided games. They will still hold weight (VP wise) but not be the sole path to victory... Work in progress because i hate that my group doesnt want to bring this to the table already...
Doctorius wrote:
That sounds interesting...they should definitely put in a couple of new game modes in the coming expansions! Like TDM or VP based gameplay, or even king of the hill! After all this is a strategy game, you could just port pc game modes with a little tweaking
Quote:
Thoughts: I think this is one of the most promising and direct routes to shorter games. I like the feel of the variant where each city beyond the third is worth a point. Ultramarines would get some additional benefit from Direct the Faithful (although I'm okay with them getting a little boost), but the Eldar's city-based event card might be a bit too powerful though. (However, events resolve after objective counting, so theres also a full round to react, just like an Ork landing on an objective w How we getz here). On the other hand, you can always conquer cities, too...and as a player gets more and more of them, they create more opportunities to do just that.
But back to the discussion
I think the existing tie-breaker rules come into play often enough that skilled players already keep an eye on planet count, and it is decisive pretty often. A variant that assigns points for number of planets held, or that adds Kemet-style temporary VPs for holding certain planets, would speed up the game without changing it fundamentally...it would just let you acknowledge the likely outcome a bit sooner.

Having played a variant where you get points for cities after 3, I can say that I like the feel of this one too. However, there are some balance issues caused by the Eldar city bonus card, and the game's tech balancing in general. What I do like about variants that start awarding points for buildings, after you have a certain number, is that it allows a player to effectively produce more Kemet-style temporary VP spaces, which can also be seized by their opponents...so combat remains at the heart of the game. It is also easy to keep track of what is going on. VPs for factories after the third is kind of interesting to me, because I don't think it runs into the same balance issues as cities...and it encourages the creation of more fronts...

My one other thought is that a good VP system should be simple. Having tons of things that give you VPs produces the unfortunate Twilight Imperium-style situation, in which someone wins and you don't really understand why. I especially hate TI's hidden, random VP conditions, which can result in someone being hosed from the start by bad luck (without even knowing it until 12 hours later!), and contributes a lot to the situation where the game ends in an unsatisfying way, with someone suddenly declaring victory. I wouldn't want any VP variant to make FS play like that. But it really isn't that hard to avoid...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wildhorn wrote:
I have a very cool point variant:

- Every objective worth 1 point when you capture them.
- First player to get as many points as the number of players win the game.
- If at the end of the 8th turn nobody won already, it is the player with the most points who win.
- Tie breaker is the number of controlled worlds.

whistle
Awesome...hilarious...roflmao!

"+1"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gylthinel wrote:
hallas wrote:
Wildhorn wrote:
I have a very cool point variant:...
This nice victory point variant I've tested extensively and I have to say - it does not speed up the game when compared to basic game rules.

In my opinion only two changes would make game faster(critical changes!): making players to do their moves simultaneously or removing 'last in first out' orders resolution. The former is hard to execute in any case except strategize order, latter would throw away the whole planning phase concept.
Unfortunately I have to agree. Changing the way victory score it in order to shorten the game will only mess the game up and make it not fun. Think of games like rune wars or twilight imperium. Is our fantastic games, and right when you start to really have fun… The game ends.

The real secret to making the game faster is to change how it's played. On my part. I am rewriting the operations and planning phases. They really don't deliver anything meaningful to the game as they are.
Or perhaps there is zero need to make the game faster. It's not supposed to be a breezy quick play game, and is fine as it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls