Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Stone Age» Forums » Variants

Subject: Adding more conflict! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tarek Rifaat
Canada
PIERREFONDS
Québec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
I love Stone Age, but I also love war games (addicted to Risk and Blood Rage). Has anyone thought of a good variant to make it more combative besides simply blocking? It gets a bit monotonous.

How about introducing:

1. Stealing another person's resources.
2. Killing (removing from the board) another person's cave-meeple until they get them back from the love shack.

It's the stone ages after all! In those days we'd club someone for a few berries.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Parish
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you can't (or chose not to) feed a worker at the end of the round, they should die (i.e., you lose the worker).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Clarke
United Kingdom
Caithness
Scotland
flag msg tools
Avatar

Stone Rage
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
why would anyone want to ruin a decent family game?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gláucio Reis
Brazil
Rio de Janeiro
RJ
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You would probably ruin the game (the removal of meeples, in particular, is a terrible idea). If you want more conflict in a worker placement game, just play Alien Frontiers instead.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. Riddell
United States
Webster
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
More conflict and worker placement. If you haven't already you should try Carson City.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PJ Cunningham
United States
Greenfield
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mrticktack wrote:
Has anyone thought of a good variant to make it more combative besides simply blocking?
Last year capoferro posted a set of variant rules for tribal warfare. In a nutshell, it works as described below.

During the placement phase of a round, players may choose not to place one or more workers. When the placement phase is over, players may form a war party from their unplaced workers (but no more than half their total workers, minimum 1).

During the resolution phase, players may send their entire war party to raid another player's village. If the targeted village has a war party in it, both sides roll dice to determine the winner (the rules for battle are described in the file).

Players earn 1 VP per enemy figure killed/captured and 5 VP if they won (i.e. no enemy figures left). An attacker who wins can burn (flip over) buildings, kill shamans (civ cards with shamans on them), and steal some gold/resources.

I haven't tried these rules. I think the war party formation idea is pretty good, but battle outcomes seem too harsh IMHO. I'd reduce the number of killed tribe members (just have them wounded and removed from the battle) and also reduce the number of rewards given to a victor (i.e. each victorious warrior can either destroy one tile/card OR steal resources OR gain 1 VP... not all three). Otherwise it's too difficult to bounce back from being raided.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tarek Rifaat
Canada
PIERREFONDS
Québec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
ironregime wrote:
Mrticktack wrote:
Has anyone thought of a good variant to make it more combative besides simply blocking?
Last year capoferro posted a set of variant rules for tribal warfare. In a nutshell, it works as described below.

During the placement phase of a round, players may choose not to place one or more workers. When the placement phase is over, players may form a war party from their unplaced workers (but no more than half their total workers, minimum 1).

During the resolution phase, players may send their entire war party to raid another player's village. If the targeted village has a war party in it, both sides roll dice to determine the winner (the rules for battle are described in the file).

Players earn 1 VP per enemy figure killed/captured and 5 VP if they won (i.e. no enemy figures left). An attacker who wins can burn (flip over) buildings, kill shamans (civ cards with shamans on them), and steal some gold/resources.

I haven't tried these rules. I think the war party formation idea is pretty good, but battle outcomes seem too harsh IMHO. I'd reduce the number of killed tribe members (just have them wounded and removed from the battle) and also reduce the number of rewards given to a victor (i.e. each victorious warrior can either destroy one tile/card OR steal resources OR gain 1 VP... not all three). Otherwise it's too difficult to bounce back from being raided.

This is amazing! Thanks!

Thanks everyone for your comments, some here were hilarious! Good stuff.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls