$30.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Lorenzo il Magnifico» Forums » Variants

Subject: 2-Player: Don't cover secondary Production/Harvert loctions ... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
In a 2-player game you cover up some additional action spaces to tighten up the board. I propose that not much would be lost if you didn't cover up these spaces, except for making the game less cut-throat. Note that is also from the perspective of the advanced rules ...

1. First lets discuss the Production/Harvest locations:

- You cover the additional Production space that allows you do this action but at a -3 penalty to your worker strength.

- You cover the additional Harvest space that allows you do this action but at a -3 penalty to your worker strength.

The -3 penalty is still pretty severe, and will still provide incentive for someone to want to go there first. But it eliminate the total "take that" move away from a player trying to screw their opponent.

If playing this way you have 2 options:

1) If player takes the primary action space of either harvest/production, only their opponent can choose to later take the secondary action at a -3 penalty

2) You play it exactly like the 3/4 player rules in the rulebook where you can never have 2 workers of the same color in either harvest or production, but you can use 1 colored and 1 neutral colored worker.

I'm not sure which is the best way yet. #1 is simpler and more restrictive, but #2 might be more interesting. So try them both and let us know what you think!


------------------------------------------------

OPTIONAL:

2. There are also 2 Market locations that get covered in a 2-player game:

- You cover a spot that provides 3 Military and 2 Gold

- You cover a spot that provides 2 different Council Privilage actions

I propose you could play with all these spaces available, but only a MAXIMUM of TWO spaces (ie. Max of Player Count) can have a worker in any of the 6 rounds. I would consider WAY LESS important that not covering up the secondary Production/Harvest locations, but it would still be interesting.



Reasoning: I plan to play this with my wife, and I know from experience that I play the way the rules are written and try and screw her from either producing or harvesting she will not want to play this game with me any further. I'm guessing there are lots of people like that out there ...

I think just leaving stuff uncovered as described above would still provide a good gaming experience.

Thoughts?

1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Decatur
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: 2-Player: Don't cover up additional actions ...
Richard Ham (Rahdo) just did a run-through, and in his final thoughts he talks about a similar house rule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyeBA_wx1Ls
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
Re: 2-Player: Don't cover up additional actions ...
Wretched Git wrote:
Richard Ham (Rahdo) just did a run-through, and in his final thoughts he talks about a similar house rule:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyeBA_wx1Ls


I guess it will henceforth be known as "The Rahdo Variant" ...
 
 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
For the first part would you allow the same person perform the same action (produce or harvest) twice in the same round? Or would the -3 space only be there so the opponent can place at most one worker there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
JonBen wrote:
For the first part would you allow the same person perform the same action (produce or harvest) twice in the same round? Or would the -3 space only be there so the opponent can place at most one worker there.


My initial feeling is it should be exactly like a 3 or 4 player game. Which is ...

"There can't be two Family Members of the same color in the same area.

However, players can place a colored and the uncolored Family Member in the 2 action spaces for either Production/Harvest or only in the large secondary action space"

But the idea of limiting each player to this action once per round is an interesting idea to make things a little tighter.

I do like the idea of keeping the "Neutral Colored" piece in play here also though. However I'm not experienced to enough to know whether there's a greater chance for this ability to be different in a 2-player game. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
 
 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
If you just allow the other player the action at -3 pips that removes the "take that" element that you dislike. I'm not sure why you would want to modify further, beyond the desire for symmetry between player counts.

In other words, do you have another concern that motivates you to make a further change?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
JonBen wrote:
If you just allow the other player the action at -3 pips that removes the "take that" element that you dislike. I'm not sure why you would want to modify further, beyond the desire for symmetry between player counts.

In other words, do you have another concern that motivates you to make a further change?


I feel that it's your suggestion that's modifying the rules, although I think it's a very good suggestion. In my opinion allowing a neutral piece would be following normal rules (even in a 2-player game).

It's basically my opinion that if the secondary action is not covered up then normal rules indicates that a neutral can be placed here.

I do like your suggestion though, and I can see how it could be a good way to go. Let me ask you, what is it about a 2-player game that would make allowing this be a problem?
 
 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
In the normal 2p rules only one person can do the production action. The opponent can not also do it, and the person who did the action can not do it again. Opening up the -3 pip spot to allow the opponent to do the action is one change. Allowing player to do it twice is yet another change.

I'm not claiming that one way or the other is better. I was simply trying to figure out exactly what you are suggesting.

If I were to hazard a guess I would say that in 2p you can more easily accumulate a lot of cards in a single colour. To compensate for this they made it impossible for someone to activate their engines twice in the same round. Allowing that could throw the balance off of the various strategies making a focus on yellow or green cards more powerful than it's supposed to be.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
JonBen wrote:
In the normal 2p rules only one person can do the production action. The opponent can not also do it, and the person who did the action can not do it again. Opening up the -3 pip spot to allow the opponent to do the action is one change. Allowing player to do it twice is yet another change.


Yes, I understood exactly what you were saying.

JonBen wrote:

I'm not claiming that one way or the other is better. I was simply trying to figure out exactly what you are suggesting


I'm not saying one way is better than the other either.


JonBen wrote:

If I were to hazard a guess I would say that in 2p you can more easily accumulate a lot of cards in a single color. To compensate for this they made it impossible for someone to activate their engines twice in the same round. Allowing that could throw the balance off of the various strategies making a focus on yellow or green cards more powerful than it's supposed to be.


Yes, I could see this as being the only reason too, "that" being the ability to spam either production or harvest twice in a round. Although by doing so you are spending a whole bunch of servants and leaving the towers even more wide open for your opponent.

Certainly the "limit each player to 1 harvest/production per round, however does it 2nd get a -3 penalty" is the simpler way. But is it the more interesting way? And is it really necessary? I simply don't know yet.

What I do know is that I'll probably never play with the secondary harvest/production space covered up (at least with my wife), so it will either be one way or the other!

I would need to hear from someone that has played a lot of the 2-player game ...

 
 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
In a way you have heard from people who have played lots of 2p games. They put their thoughts in the rulebook
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
JonBen wrote:
In a way you have heard from people who have played lots of 2p games. They put their thoughts in the rulebook


Ah, I see. One of those comments ...

I guess I meant people that have played the 2-player game and didn't like the "take that" and action denial nature of the 2-player rules in the rulebook.

Obviously anyone that enjoys that aspect (including the designers if that's the case) can just disregard this variant idea, and just enjoy it as is.

I don't think it's a coincidence that both 2-player runthroughs I've watched had the players either going predominantly green or predominantly yellow. But never both players going with both of the same type.

In their final thoughts and first impressions respective both made comments about the way the 2-player game felt very restrictive, tight when compared to a 3 or 4 player game.

1 
 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
Sorry, I was being more flippant than that, I didn't mean it as one of "those" comments.

I think the idea for less take that in the 2p makes sense. It has clear motivation. I just think going further and allowing multiple activations could be dangerous.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Buchanan
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
JonBen wrote:
Sorry, I was being more flippant than that, I didn't mean it as one of "those" comments.

I think the idea for less take that in the 2p makes sense. It has clear motivation. I just think going further and allowing multiple activations could be dangerous.


You could very well be right!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danilo Festa
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WBuchanan wrote:
You play it exactly like the 3/4 player rules in the rulebook where you can never have 2 workers of the same color in either harvest or production, but you can use 1 colored and 1 neutral colored


I would like to play it with my wife and I have the same worries about the take that aspect. I think I would try this solution.

The optional modification you suggested is also interesting but I think I will do my first play without it.

Thanks for sharing!
 
 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.