Recommend
10 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Terraforming Mars» Forums » Variants

Subject: Distributed Attacks: Our home variant rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule: When a card could reduce production or remove resources from a player or players, it always hits the person with the most of that resource or production. If it would reduce or remove more than one production or resource, it distributes it as evenly as possible, with the excess hurting the player with the most. In the case of ties, the closest clockwise player is targeted.

We played the game with attacks as printed, and found it very dissatisfying and out of connection with the theme of building/terraforming. Directed attacks made players bog down in discussions and speculation about "who was winning" and it was simply not fun. We've played the game 8 times since with this variation, and love it. If you feel the same way about attack cards, try it out!





15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Immediate house rule. Excellent.

Thematic suggestion: In case of ties, the player with the lowest Terraforming Rating is targeted. This should represent the preparation and good management of a corporation more involved with the actual terraforming of the planet. After this, choose.
5 
 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
We have done something similar.

Any decrease in production is ignored and instead the card is worth one more VP.

Any removal of resources starts with a person chosen by the active player and proceeds around the table clockwise removing one resource at a time from each opponent.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ashley Bunch
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Definitely going to add this to my next game! thanks for the idea
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vahe K
Canada
Laval
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What about these two variants? You can call them the peaceful variants

a) Remove all attack cards from the deck, especially if you add the corporation cards there should be more than enough cards and variety.

b) Attack cards can still be used, just ignore any red bordered boxes.

It's because I think that attack cards following the regular rules should be dictated by common sense.

Just my opinion
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
We love our pups!! Misu, RIP 28 Nov 2010. Tikka, RIP 11 Aug 2011.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When I've played this game, the attacker has always targeted the person most damaged by the results (e.g., whoever has the highest plant stockpile, in the case of an event destroying plants). In my few plays, we haven't found these events to be much of a problem in the long run even though we targeted a single player rather than distributing the pain. But I can see your point -- the attack action in Alien Frontiers, for example, pretty much ruined that game for me. Here, though, I think it makes a lot of sense thematically! Surely an asteroid crashing into the water is expected to cause some flooding in nearby cities?

But if people don't like the rules as written I think a more thematic change would be to require the attacker to pay compensation to the affected player. These are corporations, after all. You can imagine that if one corp brought an asteroid crashing into Mars, they would be sued by the injured party. Maybe the target loses 4 plants, but the attacker then has to give them something for the next several turns. It's more bookkeeping, but at least it makes sense!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cohn
United States
Racine
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm surprised to see this from a fan of Innovation? A game where you hinder your opponents by literally taking their resources or points for your own? And not the one with the most. The one you can Demand it of.

In comparison, Terraforming Mars has only one card that does that directly--taking another's resources for your own--while other cards might set another Corporation back an action or perhaps a full turn. In Innovation, you can literally steal the game from someone if the proper cards and engine is in play--including stealing from the weaker to bypass the stronger.

Not a comment against you personally, not by any means, all respect due, just an observation!

angelkurisu wrote:
The rule: When a card could reduce production or remove resources from a player Corporation or players Corporations, it always hits the person with the most of that resource or production.


This could be part of the problem. Thinking of the people at the table as "players"; friends, loved ones, life partners...blech. gulp

Dirty, ruthless, cut-throat, mega-credit-centric Corporations, on the other hand, fully deserve this kind of "interaction"! Thematically, what you wrote above makes total sense (to me). You are a Corporation, and you would be looking to take down number 1 to better position yourself on the ladder of success as measured by the dirty, ruthless, cut-throat, mega-credit-centric Corporations you are competing against.

angelkurisu wrote:

If it would reduce or remove more than one production or resource, it distributes it as evenly as possible, with the excess hurting the player with the most. In the case of ties, the closest clockwise player is targeted.


I'll skip the 'distribution' part, becomes too much to remember. One card, one corporation. But I like the tie-breaker idea--the person who then just had this happen to has an opportunity to react on their turn at least.

This can also prevent Corporations from building up large piles of resources for that "big turn" planning, as it makes them a target. "Well, you had 24 plants *Giant Asteroid* but not any more...prolly should have used those earlier." I know some players Corporations like to build up resources and knowing something like this could be coming might deter that. Not sure if that will slow the game down at all, but that, too, might be something to consider.

Interesting idea here, if I saw the "take that" aspect getting out of hand, I might give this a try.

Great game!
~Steve
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OchreOgre wrote:
I'm surprised to see this from a fan of Innovation? A game where you hinder your opponents by literally taking their resources or points for your own? And not the one with the most. The one you can Demand it of.

In comparison, Terraforming Mars has only one card that does that directly--taking another's resources for your own--while other cards might set another Corporation back an action or perhaps a full turn. In Innovation, you can literally steal the game from someone if the proper cards and engine is in play--including stealing from the weaker to bypass the stronger.

Not a comment against you personally, not by any means, all respect due, just an observation!

angelkurisu wrote:
The rule: When a card could reduce production or remove resources from a player Corporation or players Corporations, it always hits the person with the most of that resource or production.


This could be part of the problem. Thinking of the people at the table as "players"; friends, loved ones, life partners...blech. gulp

Dirty, ruthless, cut-throat, mega-credit-centric Corporations, on the other hand, fully deserve this kind of "interaction"! Thematically, what you wrote above makes total sense (to me). You are a Corporation, and you would be looking to take down number 1 to better position yourself on the ladder of success as measured by the dirty, ruthless, cut-throat, mega-credit-centric Corporations you are competing against.

angelkurisu wrote:

If it would reduce or remove more than one production or resource, it distributes it as evenly as possible, with the excess hurting the player with the most. In the case of ties, the closest clockwise player is targeted.


I'll skip the 'distribution' part, becomes too much to remember. One card, one corporation. But I like the tie-breaker idea--the person who then just had this happen to has an opportunity to react on their turn at least.

This can also prevent Corporations from building up large piles of resources for that "big turn" planning, as it makes them a target. "Well, you had 24 plants *Giant Asteroid* but not any more...prolly should have used those earlier." I know some players Corporations like to build up resources and knowing something like this could be coming might deter that. Not sure if that will slow the game down at all, but that, too, might be something to consider.

Interesting idea here, if I saw the "take that" aspect getting out of hand, I might give this a try.

Great game!
~Steve


Innovation is a civilization building game. Attacks are thematically an integral part of such a game. This variant is not in any way saying that attacks can't exist in games, it's just that it feels wildly out of place here, and significantly detracts from our enjoyment of the game. So, we made a variant set of rules, and we like the game a lot now.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nezrul wrote:
What about these two variants? You can call them the peaceful variants

a) Remove all attack cards from the deck, especially if you add the corporation cards there should be more than enough cards and variety.

b) Attack cards can still be used, just ignore any red bordered boxes.

It's because I think that attack cards following the regular rules should be dictated by common sense.

Just my opinion


That's definitely the simplest way to change it, but it has problems. Removing the attack cards (especially the asteroids) unbalances how quick temperature/oceans appear as opposed to oxygen.

Using attack cards with *no* side effects makes them even more overcosted, and players won't buy them. This leads to the same problem.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
snoozefest wrote:
When I've played this game, the attacker has always targeted the person most damaged by the results (e.g., whoever has the highest plant stockpile, in the case of an event destroying plants). In my few plays, we haven't found these events to be much of a problem in the long run even though we targeted a single player rather than distributing the pain. But I can see your point -- the attack action in Alien Frontiers, for example, pretty much ruined that game for me. Here, though, I think it makes a lot of sense thematically! Surely an asteroid crashing into the water is expected to cause some flooding in nearby cities?

But if people don't like the rules as written I think a more thematic change would be to require the attacker to pay compensation to the affected player. These are corporations, after all. You can imagine that if one corp brought an asteroid crashing into Mars, they would be sued by the injured party. Maybe the target loses 4 plants, but the attacker then has to give them something for the next several turns. It's more bookkeeping, but at least it makes sense!


Totally agreed! "We crushed your refinery, so we owe you 8 spacebucks" is a more realistic approach. It'd require more rules overhead and likely some more balancing. If I had a ton of spare time I might make up more extensive rules to make it work!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthieu Fontaines
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
angelkurisu wrote:
snoozefest wrote:
When I've played this game, the attacker has always targeted the person most damaged by the results (e.g., whoever has the highest plant stockpile, in the case of an event destroying plants). In my few plays, we haven't found these events to be much of a problem in the long run even though we targeted a single player rather than distributing the pain. But I can see your point -- the attack action in Alien Frontiers, for example, pretty much ruined that game for me. Here, though, I think it makes a lot of sense thematically! Surely an asteroid crashing into the water is expected to cause some flooding in nearby cities?

But if people don't like the rules as written I think a more thematic change would be to require the attacker to pay compensation to the affected player. These are corporations, after all. You can imagine that if one corp brought an asteroid crashing into Mars, they would be sued by the injured party. Maybe the target loses 4 plants, but the attacker then has to give them something for the next several turns. It's more bookkeeping, but at least it makes sense!


Totally agreed! "We crushed your refinery, so we owe you 8 spacebucks" is a more realistic approach. It'd require more rules overhead and likely some more balancing. If I had a ton of spare time I might make up more extensive rules to make it work!


I really like this idea and we could even imagine some more cards on this thematic (space lawyers!) but...This would not solve your problem at all since it will reduce the power of the card, you must then again increase its value for the one playing it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Shields
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
angelkurisu wrote:
The rule: When a card could reduce production or remove resources from a player or players, it always hits the person with the most of that resource or production. If it would reduce or remove more than one production or resource, it distributes it as evenly as possible, with the excess hurting the player with the most. In the case of ties, the closest clockwise player is targeted.


I think I would find this frustrating because quite often the player who has the most of the relevant resource will quite clearly not be the person winning. Now I'm playing a card that requires me to hurt a player who's losing. That's not really the kind of game balance I'm looking for.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
seth van orden
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the idea. We've been using it for a while now and we strongly prefer using it to not using it. We have since moved to an even less take that mode of play, which we prefer even more.

Complete "Take That" removal (My favorite way to play by far)
Note: I believe this not only removes the "take that", but properly balances the take that cards for two player. As any experience game player knows any take that element becomes substantially better when used in a two player game. Meaning if it is good take that card in 3-4 player game, it becomes amazing in a two player game. Because every negative to my single opponent is roughly equivalent to me gaining that same amount.

Rules:
Every card that costs your opponent to lose production -> You gain that many cubes (not production) or that same resource

Every card that costs your opponent cubes of a resource -> You gain half that number of cubes rounded up

Example:
A card that would raise your steel production by 1 and lower your opponents production by 1 (too powerful in two player IMO) now gives you 1 production and 1 steel cube instead.

Benefits:
Cards are more balanced across player counts. In particular in a two player game.
The game goes faster as there is no hurting of other player's engines and slowing them down.
Takes out the politics of attacking.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Cieslik
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Banana!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sethvanorden wrote:
Thanks for the idea. We've been using it for a while now and we strongly prefer using it to not using it. We have since moved to an even less take that mode of play, which we prefer even more.

Complete "Take That" removal (My favorite way to play by far)
Note: I believe this not only removes the "take that", but properly balances the take that cards for two player. As any experience game player knows any take that element becomes substantially better when used in a two player game. Meaning if it is good take that card in 3-4 player game, it becomes amazing in a two player game. Because every negative to my single opponent is roughly equivalent to me gaining that same amount.

Rules:
Every card that costs your opponent to lose production -> You gain that many cubes (not production) or that same resource

Every card that costs your opponent cubes of a resource -> You gain half that number of cubes rounded up

Example:
A card that would raise your steel production by 1 and lower your opponents production by 1 (too powerful in two player IMO) now gives you 1 production and 1 steel cube instead.

Benefits:
Cards are more balanced across player counts. In particular in a two player game.
The game goes faster as there is no hurting of other player's engines and slowing them down.
Takes out the politics of attacking.


Yeah, solid ideas there. We've played dozens of games basically ignoring attacks and it's just so much more fun for us.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Snooze Fest
United States
Hillsborough
North Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
We love our pups!! Misu, RIP 28 Nov 2010. Tikka, RIP 11 Aug 2011.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sethvanorden wrote:
Complete "Take That" removal (My favorite way to play by far)

Rules:
Every card that costs your opponent to lose production -> You gain that many cubes (not production) or that same resource

Every card that costs your opponent cubes of a resource -> You gain half that number of cubes rounded up


This is similar to what I had proposed when someone, previously targeted repeatedly for some reason (first game for everyone!), wouldn't play without removing the "mean" cards. Except that I thought the gains should be modified by the number of players. In a 2er game, for example, the basic rules that take x cubes/resources away from your opponent puts you x ahead of that player. That same card in a 5er game, though, puts you ahead of the other players by 0, 0, 0, and x, or an average of x/4 ahead of all the other players. So instead of converting production to resources, in an n-player game I'd just leave the cards as they are but modify the result so that you gain x / (n-1) resources or cubes. Both of these variants, though, seem to make those cards really good since you can now ALWAYS gain something, whereas in the base game you only get to take stuff away from players if they have stuff to take away.

I posted a separate thread to collect comments.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefan Häggkvist
Sweden
Göteborg
flag msg tools
badge
Had to do SOMETHING with all that GeekGold...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sethvanorden wrote:
Rules:
Every card that costs your opponent to lose production -> You gain that many cubes (not production) of that same resource

Every card that costs your opponent cubes of a resource -> You gain half that number of cubes rounded up

Perfect! This is just the fix we wanted, for the exact reasons you mention. Me and my wife will use this variant from now on.
 
 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.