Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Flamme Rouge» Forums » Rules

Subject: Playing your two riders separately - why? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jonathan Degann
United States
Tarzana
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules have you choose a rider, select his card, and then do the same for the other rider.

In our one play, this was not mentioned. So we drew all eight cards, decided how to play each rider knowing what the full compliment of cards was, and then returned the remaining six cards to their respective decks.

It seems to me that in a game with significant luck, this adds a little tactical coordination, and I like how it turned out. It did not particularly add AP. One does have to be a bit careful to not mix up his decks.

I am curious to know what others think - and to know what the designer's intent was in breaking the turn up this way.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Blackwell
United Kingdom
Brighton
East Sussex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would think it makes slipstreaming more likely as you can plan it, if the right 8 cards present themselves.

M B
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Degann
United States
Tarzana
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, and I don't see that as a bad thing. As I say, this isn't exactly a complex strategic game, and you still need to coordinate with your opponents' unknown moves, so this gives control which I think is welcome.

Now maybe really experienced players can over-exploit this. If so, I'd like to know. I don't think it would break the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Part of the skill of the game is knowing when you are likely to be able to coordinate your riders, when you're going to have to gamble, and when you can instead rely on others to do it for you. All of which requires sequential choosing. Otherwise slipstreaming becomes too easy IMO.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frederik
Belgium
Kruishoutem
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You'll gain more direct control, but lose tension and perhaps a bit of fun.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mads l. brynnum
Denmark
2400 Kbh. NV
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You could obviously do it that way if you like, but personally I like it better the other way around. It adds a bit more risk management to the game, and it also happens to mimick how riders can't always communicate during the stage.

Also, the game is light, but it's one you can get better at. I only have a few plays so far, but I can see my game improving. And I know that both the designer and one of his main play testers will win almost every time they play unless they begin the game with exhaustion.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
I did try it that way as well, but found I prefer choosing one first before drawing the other. I almost always draw the rear cyclist first. It's not because the mechanism simulates anything in cycling or provides anything more interesting tactically. For the weight of the game, it just is faster and feels more natural to choose one first. I'm constantly comparing FR to heavier cycling games like Leader 1 and Tour Cycle Free - I play those when I want more control over teamwork and energy expenditure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Asger Harding Granerud
Denmark
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Early Flamme Rouge prototype
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sports are unpredictable affairs. Not cool cerebral calculation.

I endorse house rules 100% though. I think you're trading away thrill for control, but there is nothing wrong with that

My most important design reason for not doing so, apart from the above, is: It actually removes a decision each round AND slows the game down.

Regards
Asger
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel Batista
United Kingdom
Brighton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I actually play this game (due to a rules misunderstanding) revealing one card at a time. Everyone choses one rider and reveals their card. Then you do the same to the other one. I found this gives the game some more tactical choices as you can see the position one of the opponent riders will take and you can try and play with it. For me it makes the game feel better. When playing both at the same time if felt like mostly luck but like this it feels a lot more tactical.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Thanks for unearthing this thread. I've been considering a variant where cyclists select and reveal cards in turn from front to back, with 2 cyclists in the same space selecting/revealing simultaneously (and if a player controls both cyclists in the same space, they choose which selects first as normal). For example, if 4 cyclists are:
Space 4: Green R
Space 3: Green S, Red R
Space 2: Red S
Green R selects, reveals and moves. Green S and Red R, knowing what Green R is moving, then select, reveal, and move. Red S, knowing where everyone else have moved, now selects, reveals, and moves.
You could even allow the 2 different players controlling cyclists in the same space to discuss and coordinate, if they choose, what cards they plan to select.

I haven't had a chance to really playtest it, and it takes away the thrill/uncertainty of the game, but makes it more tactical and thematically it makes sense for a cyclist behind to be better able to respond to an attack than a cyclist in front. Mainly, I'm considering it because it allows me to play the game solo, playing all cyclists as real human players rather than mindless bots.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel Batista
United Kingdom
Brighton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Ryan Keane wrote:
Thanks for unearthing this thread. I've been considering a variant where cyclists select and reveal cards in turn from front to back, with 2 cyclists in the same space selecting/revealing simultaneously (and if a player controls both cyclists in the same space, they choose which selects first as normal). For example, if 4 cyclists are:
Space 4: Green R
Space 3: Green S, Red R
Space 2: Red S
Green R selects, reveals and moves. Green S and Red R, knowing what Green R is moving, then select, reveal, and move. Red S, knowing where everyone else have moved, now selects, reveals, and moves.
You could even allow the 2 different players controlling cyclists in the same space to discuss and coordinate, if they choose, what cards they plan to select.

I haven't had a chance to really playtest it, and it takes away the thrill/uncertainty of the game, but makes it more tactical and thematically it makes sense for a cyclist behind to be better able to respond to an attack than a cyclist in front. Mainly, I'm considering it because it allows me to play the game solo, playing all cyclists as real human players rather than mindless bots.


Not exactly. We still move according to the game rules. We just reveal one at a time. Thematically I see this as riders seeing another rider attacking or maintaining pace. Last game for instance it happened that one sprinter that could win made a strong move and some people further forward saw that card being played and tried to block him (me included) and then when we revealed all cards and moved it was a traffic jam (4 player game).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
mAIOR wrote:
Ryan Keane wrote:
Thanks for unearthing this thread. I've been considering a variant where cyclists select and reveal cards in turn from front to back, with 2 cyclists in the same space selecting/revealing simultaneously (and if a player controls both cyclists in the same space, they choose which selects first as normal). For example, if 4 cyclists are:
Space 4: Green R
Space 3: Green S, Red R
Space 2: Red S
Green R selects, reveals and moves. Green S and Red R, knowing what Green R is moving, then select, reveal, and move. Red S, knowing where everyone else have moved, now selects, reveals, and moves.
You could even allow the 2 different players controlling cyclists in the same space to discuss and coordinate, if they choose, what cards they plan to select.

I haven't had a chance to really playtest it, and it takes away the thrill/uncertainty of the game, but makes it more tactical and thematically it makes sense for a cyclist behind to be better able to respond to an attack than a cyclist in front. Mainly, I'm considering it because it allows me to play the game solo, playing all cyclists as real human players rather than mindless bots.


Not exactly. We still move according to the game rules. We just reveal one at a time. Thematically I see this as riders seeing another rider attacking or maintaining pace. Last game for instance it happened that one sprinter that could win made a strong move and some people further forward saw that card being played and tried to block him (me included) and then when we revealed all cards and moved it was a traffic jam (4 player game).


I understand. I was suggesting a different variant, based on those in the front revealing before those in the back select and reveal. I really don't like the idea of a rear cyclist revealing a move and the front cyclists moving to purposely block that cyclist - car racing may be like that but not cycling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Miguel Batista
United Kingdom
Brighton
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Ryan Keane wrote:

I understand. I was suggesting a different variant, based on those in the front revealing before those in the back select and reveal. I really don't like the idea of a rear cyclist revealing a move and the front cyclists moving to purposely block that cyclist - car racing may be like that but not cycling.


Well I consider that to be an escape attempt and you deciding if you want to follow or not.

Your variant seems interesting too. I might try it next game.
 
 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.