Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
50 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition): Shattered Empire» Forums » Variants

Subject: Politics revised rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Politics [+] [View All]
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In one of the earlier posts, Jason pointed out that BORG wrote a small novel on TI3 house rules meant to “improve” the game.
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=...

I glanced over these rules and was mainly interested in the suggestions made for an alternate politics system. My group has always felt that politics was lacking the importance it should have.

I’m curious whether anyone is willing to try the suggestions made by BORG for an alternate politics system. Maybe this post will also elicit other posts on the suggestions made by BORG.

So these are the suggestions made:

Quote:
The Political Game.

In TI3:SE there was an attempt to give a boost to the Political Game by giving players cards in hand. It helps a bit but I'm afraid that the bottom line is that this doesn't change a whole lot.

What's the problem :
A "standard" 6-player game which takes about 8-10 turns to finish is still going to see no more than 10 agenda's to vote on ALL GAME, and that is in case Assembly or the PSC gets taken every round.
So, on average you're going to put little more than ONE agenda to the vote, ALL GAME.

The problem runs even deeper IMO, with the "voting system".
Whatever you're putting forward on the agenda, you're always up against multiple opponents, meaning you have usually very little pull to steer the vote exactly in the direction you want it to go.
Political cards have a tendency to be very unpredictable in their results, and that takes away much of their effectiveness.

How do we make the Political Game an "every turn" part of the game ?
Let's start by looking at

How can players get Political Cards in hand ?
- Each Player gets 2 Political Cards at the start of the game (already in the game)
- Through the Primary Ability of the Assembly SC and the Secondary Ability of the Bureaucracy SC (already in the game)
- During the Status Phase each player receives 2 CC's + 1 Action Card + 1 Political Card (not in the game yet but should be a logical one IMO)

How do we increase the number of Political Cards played during the game ?
Players should be allowed to play Political Cards in their hands as an action for that turn.
A very simple solution which immediately gives the political game its due place in the game.

How do we give players more "control" over the PC's they put forward ?
Again a very simple solution and a very intriguing one at that, giving players a lot more control over their Political Cards :

Once a Political Card has been played, players are going to "bid Influence" on the Card to get the right to "decide the result of this card" starting with the active player
The player who makes the highest Influence-bid gets to choose the result of the card and pays the amount of Influence he bid.

To pay for his Winning Bid he can :
- exhaust planets cards (using their Influence value, obviously)
- spend Trade Goods (1 Influence for each TG spent)
- discard Political Cards from his hand (each Political Card gives 1 Influence when discarded)

An example :
You play "Holy Planet of Ixth" as an action.
Elect Planet : This planet may not produce any units for the rest of the game.

Very good Political Card, but with the current voting rules, what are the chances you're actually going to get the result you want. Slim, I'd say.

Now, with the bidding mechanism, things change completely.

You choose for example your right hand neighbours N'orr 's Capha (3-0) Planet and bid 2 Influence on it - since you have an unexhausted Dal Bootha (0-2) around.

The Hacan to your left can join the vote by making a higher bid or he can Pass.
Since he's not the target and he doesn't want to target anyone else he decides to pass (For now - you can still join the bidding after Passing previously if your turn comes up again)

The Yssarill smell a great opportunity here and bid 4 Influence to target the L1Z1X on their left, which has to pass since he cannot outbid the Yssarill (L1Z1X has only 4 possible influence left).

Sol Passes.

The N'Orr come up to vote and are happy enough to Pass, since they're no longer the target of the card (L1Z1X is the current target).

The vote comes up to you again and you decide this is important enough to raise the bid again : You have a maximum of 6 Influence left so you decide to bid it all instead of just raising to 5 because if somebody else would raise you to 6 you would no longer be able to outbid them, so ... you bid 6 ( 2 from Dal Bootha, 1 from another planet, 2 Trade Goods and a Political Card to pay for it)

Hacan Passes again, not interested in coughing up 7 Influence
Yssarill decides it's not worth it either
Everybody else passes and the N'orr have to pass since they can't outbid you.

You already have the Highest Bid and it's your turn to bid again ; that signals the end of the bidding.

You pay the amount of Influence you bid and execute the Political Agenda.
Turn over.

This bidding system seems like a huge improvement over the current voting system to me.

And there are some extra boni which come with it.

Under the TI3:SE rules, Influence has certainly taken a hit in importance.
Once you have 6 Influence available (to get CC's) you're basically set, you don't need many more, certainly not for those few Political cards which are going to be played and which may not affect you at all.

By making people spend influence on CC's and Political Cards - while making Political Cards playable as Actions - you give Influence Planets the Status they deserve instead of being just the second rate planets they currently are.

This system also gives a boost to the Colony Cards, which seem to linger around much longer than their Refinery counterparts under the current Rules.

Finally : with this mechanic I think it is possible to play a Real Political Game of TI3.
I know it improved my game enormously.
Hope you will like it to.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've read Borg's many many posts on the FFG boards. Some have merit, a lot of merit. (Others I disagree with--but to each his own).


As far as "politics" in TI3 goes: the best bet is to do the following:

1. Every player starts with 2 agendas in their hand (standard SE rule)
2. You may not spend agendas for 1TG (nix the standard SE rule)
3. You may play an agenda from your hand as an action (house rule)
4. After the first round of voting, players may (in the appropriate order), exhaust planets to double that planet's influence for this vote (house rule).

If you try these rules, I am confident that you will have much more politicking in your games than you have now. Furthermore, the rules stated above are way easier to learn than Borg's ambitous product that you stated.

-Orc
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Moerenhout
Belgium
Lede
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Please allow me to drop in.
I would just like to point out to Christopher that the "Bidding System" which I propose is not difficult at all and is arguably easier than the method he's suggesting with exhausting planets as that mechanism probably requires more "bookkeeping" than the Bidding mechanism.

Seriously, how difficult is this :
Player A bids 1
Player B bids 2
Player C bids 4
Player D passes
Player E bids 5
Player F passes
Player A bids 7
everyone else passes
Player A wins and pays 7 influence.

See, there's nothing difficult about it at all, all you have to do is bid more than the previous bid (If you can and want to, of course)
It also becomes a bit more tactical if you want to perfectly "time" your Political Action.
It's important to keep an eye on how much Influence your opponents have available at all times if you're thinking about playing a key Political Card.
Yssaril and Winnu should be great "Political" Races under these rules.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem with your system, Borg, is that there are no more "coalitions" in the voting system. Players may not gang up to trump a player who has a huge influence lead. With the method I described, you may build coalitions to pass laws against the leader.

Also, your system nerfs the card "Bribery" since it gives players the right to bribe anytime they want. I'd allow the Bribery card to give you 2 votes for 1TG--consider adding this rule to your rule, Borg!

Your goal is to make "politics" more important. But I believe that your system will actually do the OPPOSITE for most playing groups. The reason? No coalitions! Only players willing to risk influence are ALLOWED to vote. In a regular game (or in my system), ALL PLAYERS get to vote. In your system, the player with the most to gain from an agenda and the player with the most to lose from an agenda would be the only ones willing to bid influence. This means that those 2 players would be the only ones voting. This makes politics LESS appealing to most groups.

If your group likes it (and you've stated on the FFG boards that they do), then this rule is great. But most groups will feel that this nerfs politics, not strengthens it. My system is similiar to yours in that you "risk" planets by exhausting them for votes. But my system still allows you to vote without this "risk" if you want. Thus, everyone votes, but those who have more at stake, incur this "risk".
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Moerenhout
Belgium
Lede
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
The problem with your system, Borg, is that there are no more "coalitions" in the voting system.

Yes, there are.
You can always give Trade Goods to anyone you want, so you can "help" somebody else win a bid.

halbower wrote:
Also, your system nerfs the card "Bribery" since it gives players the right to bribe anytime they want.

You can still use Bribery.
You let the bidding finish, then use Bribery and outbid the previous highest bid with the help of Trade Goods.

Even if there were to be a single card which would not work well with this system, would you really scrap an entire mechanism over just 1 card ?








 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Moerenhout
Belgium
Lede
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
Your goal is to make "politics" more important. But I believe that your system will actually do the OPPOSITE for most playing groups. The reason? No coalitions! Only players willing to risk influence are ALLOWED to vote. In a regular game (or in my system), ALL PLAYERS get to vote. In your system, the player with the most to gain from an agenda and the player with the most to lose from an agenda would be the only ones willing to bid influence. This means that those 2 players would be the only ones voting. This makes politics LESS appealing to most groups.

I think you see this completely wrong.

The problem in the current rules and in your system is that everyone gets to vote even if they're not interested in the law at all , simply because you don't have to do anything to vote at all, just having unexhausted planets with Influence lying around.
In the bidding system you actually have to "commit" yourself to a certain ageda.
If you think only two players will bid in it, you are seriuously mistaken and I can only suggest you try it out once.
You'd be surprised how many tricks are pulled during the bidding.


halbower wrote:
But most groups will feel that this nerfs politics, not strengthens it.

Come on, Christopher, how can you know what "most groups" feel ?

My only suggestion : try it , before you judge it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The reason why I say "most groups" is because your idea was not warmly welcomed by most of the regulars on the FFG boards.



[quote]The problem in the current rules and in your system is that everyone gets to vote even if they're not interested in the law at all ,[/quote]

I really don't see this as "the problem". I guess that's why you and I disagree.

In your system, you must have singularly more influence than any other player. If you do not, you are not able to pass a law that greatly harms another. In my system, you can build a coalition. Your system requires you to "pay" TG's to someone so that they can win the election. But if you don't have TG's, you have no coalition. If you have 5 influence, your partner has 6 and the leader has 7, the leader wins but simply paying the 7.

In my system, you and your partner would win. In your system the leader would win. If this happened even 1 time, I can promise you that those on the FFG boards who were less-than-favorable of your system would permenantly nix this idea.

The Political system needs help, yes. Your system is interesting--I really like the idea of playing agendas as action cards. But the reason why the original political system doesn't work is because:
1. There are not enough agendas getting into the fray (a problem solved by your play-as-an-action idea)
2. The laws in the original set were dumb (but in SE, the agendas are much better)


In general, you simply won't get the right agendas when you need them. Giving people agendas during the status phase definitely helps. Allowing people to play agendas as an action helps. Allowing one person to choose the outcome eliminates coalition building and will make people sour..


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Moerenhout
Belgium
Lede
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
In my system, you and your partner would win. In your system the leader would win.

I'm sorry but I think you're missing a few points here.
1- The leader (in VP's) is not necessarily also the player with the most Influence available, so the leader does not necessarily win every vote.

2- The player with the "most available Influence" may change every turn.
Players are not sitting on the same amount of influence all round after all, planets get exhausted, available influence drops.

3- The player with the most available Influence is not necessarily interested in spending influence on the Political Card you just played.

4- A player can have most influence available at one point, but after winning a bid and having paid a certain amount of Influence, someone else is probably going to have more influence than the original leader, which in turn opens up Political Possibilities for the new "influence" leader.

So, in your system, where you can vote without spending any influence at all you and your partner would probably win every vote all the time because you would probably have more influence than your target all the time.
In my system, where players who win a vote actually have to "pay" for the votes they bid, the lone player could eventually end up with more influence than his two enemies and be able to pass a Law as well.

halbower wrote:
In your system, you must have singularly more influence than any other player. If you do not, you are not able to pass a law that greatly harms another.

Sorry to say, but this generalization shows again that you haven't played/tried the system yet.

You would have trouble winning the bid only in case you were targeting a player with more available Influence than you at that time.
If you're targeting a player with less available influence though, why would the player with the most Influence spend his Influence to rescue another player from harm ?

It's important to keep in mind that if somebody bids and wins he must pay for his bid.
So players become much more picky of what want to bid ( = spend Influence) on.
As opposed to the current system, where you can have a say on everything without making the slightest commitment.
That's why it's currently so difficult to get any good law to go your way.

And, because the player with the most available influence on this turn is not necessarily the player with the most available influence the next turn, the political game is very much about playing your agenda "at the right time" which turns it into a game within the game.

If you don't like this mechanism though, then by all means , don't play it. No problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Russell
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You're missing Halbower's point.

While, yes, the method you provide is a valid method to handle the politics cards, it significantly alters the game, and actually is "less" political.

I, personally, liked the politics card, because it is fun to try to manipulate people into voting the way you would prefer, and the fact that in the end, the majority usually wins.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is it just me, or are we witnessing the dawning of a political alliance?

The major point of Borg is, that he feels people should have to commit to political agenda’s. This can be achieved by forcing people to pay, aka spend influence, for the vote they make. Makes sense, right?

Regarding the political alliances, Christopher has a good point that the “one on one” outbidding system of Borg has the possibility of removing the “conspiracy voting” which is part of daily politics.

Wouldn’t the following fusion be a proper compromise?

1. Every player starts with 2 agendas in their hand (standard SE rule)
2. You may not spend agendas for 1TG (nix the standard SE rule)
3. You may play an agenda from your hand as an action (house rule)
4. People have to exhaust their planets to receive influence for this vote (house rule).

This way both points raised are taken into account. One has to commit to an agenda (making the “abstain rule” from the standard rules also a more sensible one) and the usual bickering during politics to get your point across will be retained.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is clear a lot of people feel the need for more politics during a session of TI3.

By the addition of the house rule:
Quote:
You may play an agenda from your hand as an action


this can be achieved.

As I have not yet tried any of the suggestion discussed here, I’m just thinking out loud.
Could this rule be adding to much politics cards to the game? I can envision game rounds with 4 or 5 agenda’s entering play.
Doesn’t this rule make the assembly SC obsolete, since a player doesn’t need it any more for playing political cards?

A friend of mine made the following suggestion:
When you start to think about the assembly SC, it is rather odd that all these politicians congregate for the discussion of a single issue. Thematically, it would make more sense for them to take the opportunity to discuss several agenda’s instead of one lousy point addressed by their inferior neighbour.
One could also play, for instance, 3 political cards. The active player (or the player holding the speaker token) would be the one determining which politicians can address an agenda at the council. One could even make a rule where the “speaker” would be allowed to determine the order in which these agenda’s will be voted on.

When using such a system, the suggested voting system by Christopher might be the way to go.
Quote:
4. After the first round of voting, players may (in the appropriate order), exhaust planets to double that planet's influence for this vote (house rule).


People will be exhausting planets on those agenda’s they really REALLY want to go their way and this will automatically lower their chances of influencing the next point addressed by the council.

This sort of system would not reduce the importance of the assembly SC, since one is not allowed to play Political Cards without it. It will bring more Political Cards into the game and might add more political ambiance.

I would appreciate your input on these preliminary ideas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Moerenhout
Belgium
Lede
Oost-Vlaanderen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alwin, there might occur some problems with that method.

Consider this :
Yssaril Takes Assembly and outwaits everybody.
All other players have made their moves and have no (or few) Influence left.

Now Yssaril plays Assembly and plays its first PC and of course wins the voting without having to spend any Influence.
Then they Play a second PC and again, win the vote without spending any Influence.
Then they play a third PC ... etc.

You get the picture ?

I think it's vital that Players have to spend Influence when making a vote.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The other extreme of Alwin's compromise is: people who don't have influence to spare are excluded from the political phase. If players are excluded from the politicking, there will be less politicking. There really is no compromise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Glenn Russell
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Usually people have *some* influence to spare, even if it is only a small amount. And as long as you don't have multiple agendas sapping influence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He fellows,

when a player is allowed to play a PC as "an action" he/she can also wait for his opponent(s) to exhaust most of their planets. This will result in exactly the same scenario as being portrayed by Borg (but then without the multiple PC effect).

In a one-on-one system, especially when targeting a specific opponent, this would also result in an "automatic win". That is exactly why I agree with Christophers point on the necessity for possible coalitions during politics.

The fact that one can play a PC at any given action is also my main problem with this system. When it is linked to a strategy card, everybody KNOWS that politics is forthcoming and can anticipate on this (reserving some planets for politics). When PC's are falling from the clear blue sky, one can no longer foresee it.

This leaves us with the fact that we all want more politics in the game. Hence, our suggestion for playing several PC's during an assembly SC activation. Everybody can anticipate on it and it brings more PC's to the game.
Should it be 2, 3 or an otherwise determined amount of PC's? I don't know. What will the voting system be like? I have a strong tendency for the system proposed by Christopher. These are exactly the kind of details I would like to discuss (or even better,develop) with you, that is, if at least some of you see any future for a "multiple PC's per assembly SC"-system.

gr A


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Allowing players to play Agendas as a secondary of Political or Assembly would be a fantastic compromise! In fact, it would make my system even better!

Player 1: I'll vote which ever way you want me to on Colonial Redistribution if you vote my way on the agenda I'm going to play next.

Player 2: Deal!

Player 3: I have 8 influence. I'll vote against Colonial Redistribution and I'll exhaust Mehar Xull for an extra 3 influence. Now I have 11 votes.

Player 1: I vote for it with 3 votes...


I believe that this would be an excellent fix to politicking in TI3.

1. It incorporates Borg's "play an agenda as an action" idea which
brings more agendas up for votes
2. It allows you to exhaust planets for double their influence
which makes influence more important than it is now
3. It addresses some of Borg's problems with "not having the right
agenda at the right time"
4. It addresses some of my problems with 'no coalitions'
5. It's tweakable to any group's tastes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
He Christopher,

being able to play a PC as the secondary ability of the assembly SC is a good suggestion, that thematically accomplishes exactly the same thing as my "multiple PC's per primary assembly SC".
The mechanics of it might work better. I guess one would have to compare them to be sure.

When using this variant, the secondary of assembly should be nixed, right?

Have you (or are you going to) try this version of the assembly secondary: "play a PC after spending one command counter from your strategy allocation" ?

I'm wondering whether this system would benefit from a limit to the number of secondary activations. For example, maximum of 3 activations starting at the player left of the active player and continuing clock-wise. (basically, for the same reason I suggested a certain number of PC's during one primary assembly activation. Namely, to prevent the player at the end of the activation sequence to play "unstoppable PC's" because the other players have exhausted to many planets.

gr A
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can still have a Political secondary. Otherwise players won't get action cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the political SC that's absolutely true.

I do think that this system better fits the assembly SC and then replacing the secondary seems logical.

About the order of play.
- A player activates the primary assembly SC
- the active player then plays a PC OR takes the speaker token and chooses someone to play a PC (SE rules)
- Then starting with the speaker and moving clock-wise players may spend a command counter from their strategy allocation to play a PC (house-rule)
- The maximum of secondary activations is X. As soon as X is reached no more secondary assembly SC activations can be performed this round. (house-rule)

Do you agree with these words? How do you feel about the last point, taking my previous statements into account? This way, the position of the speaker will also influence your chance of getting a PC into the game. Gives an extra dimension to the choice the active player makes.
Mabye X should be matched to the number of players.

Suggestion:
3 player game: X=1 (makes 2 PC's possible,1 from primary, 1 from secondary)
4 player game: X=2 (makes 3 PC's possible,1 from primary, 2 from secondary )
5 player game: X=3 (makes 4 PC's possible)
etc

gr A
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Totally agree. If I could get 6 people to play, I'd definitely give this a whirl
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If Muskegon, Michigan wasn't on another continent, I would be happy to help out

Meanwhile, lets see if we can come back on this when we have had a chance to try it.

Looking forward to trying this.

gr A
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miroslaw Terlecki
Poland
Opole
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Alwin wrote:

- the active player then plays a PC OR takes the speaker token and chooses someone to play a PC (SE rules)
- Then starting with the speaker and moving clock-wise players may spend a command counter from their strategy allocation to play a PC (house-rule)
- The maximum of secondary activations is X. As soon as X is reached no more secondary assembly SC activations can be performed this round. (house-rule)

Do you agree with these words? How do you feel about the last point, taking my previous statements into account? This way, the position of the speaker will also influence your chance of getting a PC into the game. Gives an extra dimension to the choice the active player makes.
Mabye X should be matched to the number of players.

Suggestion:
3 player game: X=1 (makes 2 PC's possible,1 from primary, 1 from secondary)
4 player game: X=2 (makes 3 PC's possible,1 from primary, 2 from secondary )
5 player game: X=3 (makes 4 PC's possible)
etc

gr A

this is very good idea but why moving clockwise from speaker?
In your proposition no-one will select to play PC instead of taking speaker token, because he will get chance to play PC anyway, and even get better chances in voting when some influence will be spent for previous PC.
Let person who played current PC select who can play next PC (of course using counter X and paying command counter). Next person can play PC and/or only select next player if X havent reached set limit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you misunderstood. Only the active player gets the option of being Speaker (per the normal rules of TI3).

Then players may activate the secondary and play political cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So when playing the primary of the Assembly SC one can do the following:

a) play a PC and "give" the speaker token to another player
b) take the speaker token and appoint a player who has to play a PC


Then the variant secondary of Assembly SC:
-starting with the speaker and moving clock-wise players may spend a command counter from their strategy allocation to play a PC (house-rule)
- The maximum of secondary activations is X. As soon as X is reached no more secondary assembly SC activations can be performed this round. (house-rule)

Turek argues that the active player will only choose option b) since the secondary will enable this player to play a PC by spending a command counter.

Christopher, maybe we oversaw this little loophole.

I would like to suggest one more change to the secondary:
-starting with the player left of the speaker and moving clock-wise players may spend a command counter from their strategy allocation to play a PC (house-rule)
- The maximum of secondary activations is X. As soon as X is reached no more secondary assembly SC activations can be performed this round. (house-rule)

This way you really have to decide whether it is important to play your own agenda (PC) or become speaker and have the lowest chance of playing an agenda of your own. The obvious benefit of the speaker token is that you will have "first choice" during the following strategy phase (per standard rules).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alwin Derijck
Netherlands
Utrecht
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Summing up all of the above:

Quote:

Assembly SC variant

- A player activates the primary assembly SC
- the active player then plays a Political Card (PC) OR takes the speaker token and chooses someone to play a PC (SE rules)
-starting with the player left of the speaker and moving clock-wise players may spend a command counter from their strategy allocation to play a PC (house-rule)
- The maximum of secondary activations is X. As soon as X is reached no more secondary assembly SC activations can be performed this game round. (house-rule)

X equals the number of players minus 2
3 player game: X=1 (makes 2 PC's possible,1 from primary, 1 from secondary)
4 player game: X=2 (makes 3 PC's possible,1 from primary, 2 from secondary )
5 player game: X=3 (makes 4 PC's possible)
etc

The voting system is slightly altered.
When voting for a PC, players proceed according to the standard rules. After this round of voting, players may (in the appropriate order), exhaust planets to double that planet's influence for this vote (house rule).


Looking forward to reading your session reports on this variant

gr Alwin
 
 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.