$30.00
Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Flamme Rouge» Forums » Variants

Subject: Little variant: Consider slipstreaming as a choice rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
N F
msg tools
Hi guys,

First of all, thanks Asger for this little game I had chance to see in live action (but not owned yet !). Seems like a great combination of fun, strategy, fast-played game for pretty much all family types.

One little variant I can see to make it more realistic with real races and maybe more strategic is to leave slipstreaming (SS) as a choice and not a mandatory phase.

In fact, it's not clearly written in the rulebook (or I missed it, probably ) that this action is mandatory but it seems to be always played like that.

So now, one question you may ask is:
What's the point to make it a "choice" ? Or more precisely, in which conditions is it preferable not to use the SS rather than doing it ?

In fact I see only one use case but it may be highly strategic:
When a player has one rider on front of the race, and his other rider, 2 squares behind in position of SS leading a pack of multiple riders. We allow the player not to SS, in order to let this pack where it is.

Pro:
The rider on top of the race succeed to leave the pack and no one from the following pack will take advantage of the SS.

Cons:
Both player riders will take an exhaustion card.


I never played the actual game, so I don't know yet if this variant is practical or not, but I feel it brings a little strategic add into the rule without disturbing the main feeling about the game besides adding real case scenarios into the game (when some riders escapes from the peloton and the team from one of the sprinter in the escape takes the lead of the peloton to slow it down).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Ben
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Of course I've been up all night! Not because of caffeine, it was insomnia. I couldn't stop thinking about coffee.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yea, that's interesting. I would be concerned about kingmaking situations.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Asger Harding Granerud
Denmark
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Early Flamme Rouge prototype
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the great things about Flamme Rouge is how it immediately inspires for expansions and variants. This one could certainly work.

The intention of the original design is to put all decisions up front. To maintain fast flow, reduce AP and allow randomness and second guessing. If your group likes more control and either aren't AP prone or don't mind longer games, you should give it a go!

Regards
Asger Granerud
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
N F
msg tools
Thanks for your quick answers !
I'll try it out as soon as the game is available in my country
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nico Nico
msg tools
Really interesting variant I think.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
N F
msg tools
In fact to summarize I think the new rule should be:

Anytime after the movement phase, if the two riders of the same player are in position of SS together, this movement becomes optional.

For this to be true:
- The rider at the end of pack in front should be alone on it's square, as well as the rider leading the following pack.

It works fine I guess
It should work even if the packs are composed by multiple riders and even if it's not the two packs in front of the race.

And as images are always better as words for these kind of things, I try to summarize my variant with this image.



Hope it's clear and workable
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
France
flag msg tools
I don't see why this would depend on player at the back of the leading pack.

Another opportunity to do this would be to stay in the blue zone in a mountain.

But what about breaking a block?
Can a player in the middle of a block being slipstreamed decide to stay behind to stay in the blue zone?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathieu
France
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the global idea but I agree with Panda.

If there is a choice, it should be for the leader(s) of each pack : Do you want to slipstream and join the next pack (Y/N?) and all the pack depends on this decision. If you want to have the choice, ride to the top of the pack!


Even if I think it should be more tactical again, it would take soooo much time if each rider would have choice to benefit or not of slipstreaming. The game is fast, I like to keep it this way.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
It's an interesting idea, but I see the big benefit of FR over other cycling games is that once players have revealed their cards, the movement is automatic and no decisions need to be made. It would be very laborious for each lead rider to get to decide if they want to slipstream or not, and turn it into a turn-based game, in which case I'll just play Leader 1. And thematically it doesn't make sense to me - I don't see the slipstream as representing simply the last move you took, but rather it means that you only needed to spend 6 energy to move 7 spaces for example. If you get to decide, then it feels more like you are choosing whether to exert that extra bit of energy to get on the tail of another rider, which means it should require energy rather than be a free move.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danwarr
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you don't slipstream, wouldn't you just be giving out Exhaustion cards to the pack leaders then? Why would you want to do that necessarily?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Danwarr wrote:
If you don't slipstream, wouldn't you just be giving out Exhaustion cards to the pack leaders then? Why would you want to do that necessarily?


To keep the rider behind you from benefitting from the slipstream in front of you. For example, let's say there are 4 cyclists all strung out, each 1 empty space apart: opponent in lead, you, you, opponent in the rear. If you know that that rear opponent cyclist has the least exhaustion, you might choose not to slipstream with your rear cyclist, but slipstream with your front cyclist. Your rear cyclist takes an exhaustion that could have been avoided, but you cost the rear opponent cyclist 2 free spaces.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Srdj
Croatia
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryan Keane wrote:
Danwarr wrote:
If you don't slipstream, wouldn't you just be giving out Exhaustion cards to the pack leaders then? Why would you want to do that necessarily?


To keep the rider behind you from benefitting from the slipstream in front of you. For example, let's say there are 4 cyclists all strung out, each 1 empty space apart: opponent in lead, you, you, opponent in the rear. If you know that that rear opponent cyclist has the least exhaustion, you might choose not to slipstream with your rear cyclist, but slipstream with your front cyclist. Your rear cyclist takes an exhaustion that could have been avoided, but you cost the rear opponent cyclist 2 free spaces.


The problem with this is that the rider in the rear would then be stuck and they couldn't do anything about it, which would make some players frustrated. The whole point of slipstreaming is for a catch up mechanism to work. If the ketchup mechanism is altered by front drivers then the back riders would have an extremely tough time to catch the leader.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Cro1 wrote:
Ryan Keane wrote:
Danwarr wrote:
If you don't slipstream, wouldn't you just be giving out Exhaustion cards to the pack leaders then? Why would you want to do that necessarily?


To keep the rider behind you from benefitting from the slipstream in front of you. For example, let's say there are 4 cyclists all strung out, each 1 empty space apart: opponent in lead, you, you, opponent in the rear. If you know that that rear opponent cyclist has the least exhaustion, you might choose not to slipstream with your rear cyclist, but slipstream with your front cyclist. Your rear cyclist takes an exhaustion that could have been avoided, but you cost the rear opponent cyclist 2 free spaces.


The problem with this is that the rider in the rear would then be stuck and they couldn't do anything about it, which would make some players frustrated. The whole point of slipstreaming is for a catch up mechanism to work. If the ketchup mechanism is altered by front drivers then the back riders would have an extremely tough time to catch the leader.


Agreed. That's why I said in a previous post that I don't like the idea of slipstreaming being an option. I was just explaining how it could be useful tactically to not slipstream.
 
 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.