Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Fourth Edition)» Forums » Variants

Subject: Voice of the Council rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steve Arnold
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Using a throwback from TI3, would the Agenda phase be better if Voice of the Council (a vote for a Victory Point) proceeded the two agendas? On paper it sounds interesting to me because a player may use up all their votes trying to get a Victory Point, but would then be left without any votes (or a minimum amount anyway) for the two agendas.

What say you?
 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean D.
Canada
Langley
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, you would be playing to 14 point games? I think this would add a lot of points to the game. Would you do a blind bid for how many votes each player commits to make it a bit more interesting?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Ebert

McDonough
Georgia
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why would you not go all in on the Victory Point every time? More often than not that would be worth more than any Agenda. I believe it would increase conflict for the higher influence planets especially Rex which would be interesting.

It seems pretty powerful. Maybe add that you have to spend at least "X" amount of trade goods (a.k.a bribes) at the beginning of the agenda phase to be eligible to vote for the victory point. The vote would still require you to only use planet influence as per the rules.

Overall I think it would be a cool variant
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hector131 wrote:
So, you would be playing to 14 point games? I think this would add a lot of points to the game. Would you do a blind bid for how many votes each player commits to make it a bit more interesting?

I assume it's only adding ONE point to the game, if it's like the TI3 version. It's just a point that can change hands if someone else gets elected later.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Koens
United States
Watsonville
California
flag msg tools
badge
marks the spot.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Hector131 wrote:
So, you would be playing to 14 point games? I think this would add a lot of points to the game. Would you do a blind bid for how many votes each player commits to make it a bit more interesting?

I assume it's only adding ONE point to the game, if it's like the TI3 version. It's just a point that can change hands if someone else gets elected later.

If it were implemented this way, it would be interesting. Awarding a permanent VP seems to strong. And then you could still play to 10 - it would make games a bit shorter, perhaps, but not too bad.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean D.
Canada
Langley
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Hector131 wrote:
So, you would be playing to 14 point games? I think this would add a lot of points to the game. Would you do a blind bid for how many votes each player commits to make it a bit more interesting?

I assume it's only adding ONE point to the game, if it's like the TI3 version. It's just a point that can change hands if someone else gets elected later.


Makes sense to have a single VP.

I think it could work if you did it with a blind bid, that way the player controlling the VP would have to keep their planet's with higher influence and use them to maintain the VP while letting other players gain the benefits from the various Agendas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Martens
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
For whatever reason, I think it'd be more entertaining to have as the last vote. You go through two Agendas, knowing through each of them that a VP is on the line at the end.

Mainly, having VP vote first means many people will spend lots of the votes first, and the rest of the Agenda phase will be a bit more of a bust.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean D.
Canada
Langley
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Skootur wrote:
For whatever reason, I think it'd be more entertaining to have as the last vote. You go through two Agendas, knowing through each of them that a VP is on the line at the end.

Mainly, having VP vote first means many people will spend lots of the votes first, and the rest of the Agenda phase will be a bit more of a bust.


This is why I suggest a blind bid for the VP. You don't know how much the others will commit and it may be that no one bids anything. The Agendas will only be a bust for the players who spent all their votes on the bid. Other players who had no chance will simply save their votes for the agendas after the bid is done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Arnold
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Hector131 wrote:
So, you would be playing to 14 point games? I think this would add a lot of points to the game. Would you do a blind bid for how many votes each player commits to make it a bit more interesting?

I assume it's only adding ONE point to the game, if it's like the TI3 version. It's just a point that can change hands if someone else gets elected later.


As usual, sigma is correct: It adds only one total VP and it would be voted upon each round right before voting on agendas, thus it could easily change hands.


I'm generally against the blind voting because the game has open voting as a standard mechanic.

Also, it seems to me that if this follows the agendas it will be simply a matter of counting the remaining votes, which seems boring. If it is before, however, each player has to decide how much they want to be handicapped during each of the two following agendas. A player may go all out to gain a VP, but then be hampered on the agendas, which feels like a great trade off.

 
 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.