Donald I
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
We house rule this so that in the first chapter a gem encounter just takes a single action. In the 2nd chapter each encounter requires 2 actions.

Each player is playing against every other player and not the board therefore each player gets the same benefit - there might be an argument that the player who goes first gets some advantage but I think that levels out during the course of the game.

Two actions is a high cost for quests (in effect that requires 3 actions to complete + travel), and a single action for me mitigates the high cost of bad luck when a player pulls difficult or costly (in terms of time) encounters, whilst their opponent gets jam.

Two actions slows the game down and can lead to player frustration. I don't quite understand the thinking behind it other than something that limits choice rather than encourages player options.







2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rafal Areinu
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's fine to play it the way you suggest, with some caveats:
1) with high player count this might lead to gems vanishing too quickly, and you wasting turns just to get refresh
2) downtime might get too long, since someone might play adventure, move, and play another adventure. That takes a lot of time.
3) end boss might get too weak, since everyone will level up too quickly. This obviously depends on boss, and if boss appears at the start of act 2 then someone will just attempt to defeat it faster
4) it makes single action actions less valuable. Now trading goods doesn't look like that good of an idea.

You might consider making only green gems single action. This will give more incentive to attempt those, especially since you might sometimes get a fight or social encounter out of them. But if you want to play with single action on each adventure it's fine - it's your game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald I
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Those are all very good points.

I've only played 2 player so 1 and 2 aren't a problem. But yes with more players both might become an issue.

In regards to 3 - it's a race game so I'm less bothered about giving the end boss a chance and more about getting the players to go for it. On the other hand I don't want to make it too easy... where would be the fun in that.

With 4 I can see that but you still need money and it's one way of getting it. But yes the choice between differing actions might become skewed.

Quest cards which predominate in the green deck offer good rewards but are costly in terms of time and in a 2 player game there is little incentive to go for them in the 2nd chapter, other than that might be the only viable option on that player's turn.

There's another problem in that some skill cards reduce the number of actions required and would become meaningless if the single action rule applied throughout the whole game.

There might be a variant that goes as follows : encounters consume all actions remaining in the turn. So if carried out at the start of the turn an encounter is 3 actions but if carried out as the last action it only consumes 1. This would invalidate the tactic of starting your turn on a face-up gem but might lead to other decisions of timing. Skill cards that help manage encounter /action costs would still play as normal. I think I'll give this a go today.

Thanks for your reply as I've only played 2 player I missed some of the nuance and good reasons for the rule.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S├ębastien
France
Paris
flag msg tools
mb
Very interested by your attempts of making the "hero's building" more complete
I hope to read what you think of your last try "encounters consume all actions remaining in the turn"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald I
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Unfortuntely the other player didn't like the idea ... so we just played as normal. Their comments were that it would be overly complex and would perhaps lead to overuse of the train action. I didn't push it - playing with a happy gamer being more important than trying out a rule. So I'm afraid no feedback but in the end I did agree with them. Simplicity is always better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
A few points to consider:

The whole action economy of the game is designed around the action cost of trophies and gold. Changing the adventuring cost to 1 action will make various options seem like really bad options. For example why trade goods at all if you can adventure for just 1 action? And many of the 'Spend 1 action to X' abilities will be relatively devalued.

Also note there is a skill which grants this ability, so that skill would become pointless.

It would also make the scenario easier to beat, which isn't a problem since it's racing against other players who will have the same advantage. But something to consider at least. Games will probably just end after less turns. I don't really see that hero development will get further, because heroes should be attacking the boss once they are strong enough anyway - that will just happen sooner.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald I
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
My assumption - and it might be flawed - is that the best (most certain) way to get gold through adventure is by taking on the combat deck. The trouble with that is there is a catch-22, in order to be sure that you can beat the opponents in the combat deck you need to acquire additional tokens via gold. Therefore the time/cost of doing trade is worth it, at least in the initial stages of the game, as that allows a risk free acquisition of gold and therefore low cost tokens in order to pursue the same goals through other means in the mid and late game.

That is to say Trade is never quite, such a totally inferior use of an action that it will never be used.

But agree very much that reducing the cost of adventures will make them seem more attractive when compared with other actions. And that might unbalance the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Hubbard
United States
Mullica Hill
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
We played our last few games with adventuring costing 1 action, but you can only adventure once per turn. Then one game someone got Ascendance (4 actions per turn) so we let that card grant another adventure per turn too.

We liked playing that way over paying 2 actions to adventure, but we haven't played the game much either way so we're hardly an authority on it. Players were definitely better ready for the final boss/encounter. 2 action adventures just felt off to us, didn't leave much room for movement, shopping, etc.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dustin Ivey
United States
Vadnais Heights
Location:
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the idea of making green explore gems cost 1 (as it stands, most of us don't go for them unless it's the only option), for game balance I think the other two need to cost two personally.
 
 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.