Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs Imperium» Forums » Rules

Subject: Anyone wanner to discuss about this new rule? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
jialian tang
msg tools
new rule: allow one player use his/her card to conquer others' card.

Who can say something about this rule? more balance? or, more chaos?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vikoo_cat wrote:
new rule: allow one player use his/her card to conquer others' card.

Who can say something about this rule? more balance? or, more chaos?
This supposed to be paraphrased from the rulebooks takeover rules, or is this just something generic (sounding more like a variant if it is.)?


If the former, I treat it like what Improved Logistics did for exp #1. It can change the dynamics of the game quite a bit, but the fact that you need to have the card, build it, have 2 worlds to settle in a single settle phase, and then have the resources for both of them (military strength and/or cards to pay) makes it occurrence less than one would think, although again, it can be quite a blow to the other players.

Ditto with takeover powers here. It can be deadly, but you need the correct card to enable takeovers, your opponents need to be vulnerable to that takeover power, and you need to have sufficient military to takeover. It adds a bit of "controlled chaos" for lack of better way of putting it.


If the latter, I'll have to hear more specific rules on that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Neuhaus
United States
New York
NY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally, I don't like it. My group just plays with them off, with the exception of occasional rebel vs imperium scenario games.

It's too fiddly. What is your defense against rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? How much can you boost your military? How much can I attack rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? Blah blah, it's too much work to figure out what targets are conquerable and it slows down the game a lot if takeovers are a possible option even if none are attempted. Furthermore, it doesn't jive with some people. It's one thing to lose because you were unlucky or outmaneuvered. It doesn't breed resentment toward other players. It's another to lose and have something stolen from you. It's like the reverse of the ticket to ride effect where you feel good about accomplishing something (completing a ticket) in a losing effort. You got conquered. Not only did you lose, but you got smacked around too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aron Fender
United States
Vandalia
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rrenaud wrote:
Not only did you lose, but you got smacked around too.


I smacked my wife around last night, twice in one game. I felt a little guilty as I knew this was sealing her fate, but again it felt good to use the new takeover power for the first time, twice in one game.

This morning, well I just looked at her and we laughed....I am sure she will get her revenge soon enough...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ErikPeter Walker
United States
Rochester
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/145148/
badge
Expand
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rrenaud wrote:
It's too fiddly. What is your defense against rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? How much can you boost your military? How much can I attack rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? Blah blah, it's too much work to figure out what targets are conquerable and it slows down the game a lot if takeovers are a possible option even if none are attempted.


While I might agree that takeovers seem like a lot of rules for something that doesn't happen often, and has the potential for being a downer when it does, I don't think the 'fiddlyness' should be an issue. Comparing two numbers is not very hard, and if you have some sort of discount available it should be relatively easy (e.g. +2) to figure out. The sliders that came with the game make it easier to track.

That said, if your group spends that much time with it, I understand why you play with takeovers off.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rrenaud wrote:
Personally, I don't like it. My group just plays with them off, with the exception of occasional rebel vs imperium scenario games.

It's too fiddly. What is your defense against rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? How much can you boost your military? How much can I attack rebel blue worlds? What about non-rebel blue worlds? Blah blah, it's too much work to figure out what targets are conquerable and it slows down the game a lot if takeovers are a possible option even if none are attempted. Furthermore, it doesn't jive with some people. It's one thing to lose because you were unlucky or outmaneuvered. It doesn't breed resentment toward other players. It's another to lose and have something stolen from you. It's like the reverse of the ticket to ride effect where you feel good about accomplishing something (completing a ticket) in a losing effort. You got conquered. Not only did you lose, but you got smacked around too.


It's definitely fiddly. I'll give you that. It's like going from Settlers Of Catan To Cities & Knights of Catan. Or Ticket To Ride 1910 to Ticket To Ride Europe. The extra rules in the latters for their respective series presented here can make their mentioned predecessors twice as complicated. It's definitely worth it to some, as this complexity really adds to the game, but I can totally see why many opt for the simplier versions either always or some of the time.

As far as getting "smacked around", that all depends on perspective. If I am poised to win given say, a 10pt lead, but then an opponent develops Terraforming Guild for 14 points and then Rebel Homeworld for another 7, THAT to me is getting "smacked around". To me, the game could certainly feel stolen from me. That was a completely valid play, and I was certainly unlucky that he got those 2 cards and outmaneurevered in the sense he was able to make them work.


I myself will be pursuing both options.
No-takeovers for beginners to the expansion, even newbies to the series as it may be too much effort to fish out exp #2 cards out, those that just want a quicker game, and/or those that don't feel like keeping track of this stuff.
Takeovers for those who want more 'flair' in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Neuhaus
United States
New York
NY
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's definitely more complicated than two numbers.

It depends on the possible targets, there is a different number per target, so long as the defense or some attribute that matters changes. It depends on number of cards in hand and the ability to boost military by throwing away cards. It depends on whether or not either player has New Military Tactics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Rousselle
United States
Metairie
Louisiana
flag msg tools
Our group does not like the new takeover rules. We often play with it "off".

Speaking for myself, I think the takeover rules adds complications and bookkeeping = detracts from the fun of the game. Plus, takeovers require certain cards to initiate. So if I get the right card(s), I can attack you, but you may not be able to attack me. This does not have a good feel to it.

Plus, the deck is becoming too large. At its current size, it is unlikely that cards will re-shuffle. The game is becoming a crap shoot.

I really like RFTG and it's one of my favorite games, but if I had to rate the new expansion, I'd have to give it a very low score. It changes the game too much--in a negative way. I'm still reserving judgment, but right now, it's not looking too good. I hate to sound cynical, but it almost looks like "what can we do to sell more stuff" rather than 'what can we do to improve the game".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JGRno5 wrote:
Our group does not like the new takeover rules. We often play with it "off".

Speaking for myself, I think the takeover rules adds complications and bookkeeping = detracts from the fun of the game. Plus, takeovers require certain cards to initiate. So if I get the right card(s), I can attack you, but you may not be able to attack me. This does not have a good feel to it.

Plus, the deck is becoming too large. At its current size, it is unlikely that cards will re-shuffle. The game is becoming a crap shoot.

I really like RFTG and it's one of my favorite games, but if I had to rate the new expansion, I'd have to give it a very low score. It changes the game too much--in a negative way. I'm still reserving judgment, but right now, it's not looking too good. I hate to sound cynical, but it almost looks like "what can we do to sell more stuff" rather than 'what can we do to improve the game".
Well, FWIW, the designer mentioned (and correct me if i'm wrong) that he designed the whole series with all 3 expansions or so at once. Then came the issue of if all of this was introduced at once, then it may be too overwhelming for inexperienced players.

Similiar to how Catan was supposed to be some mega Catan game, but got split up into Settlers, Seafarers, and C&K instead.

It makes the game cheaper for those who only want the base game, but I'm pretty sure no1 could get away with charging the same price for base + separate expansions, as opposed to base + expansions together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serge Levert
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
Well, FWIW, the designer mentioned (and correct me if i'm wrong) that he designed the whole series with all 3 expansions or so at once.


Correct me as well if i'm wrong, i believe that the game was originally designed with the base game + TGS + RvI in mind. So complaints of cashing in can apply, starting with TBoW. :)

Some may at that point call it cashing in, i will call it the customer saying "I WANT MORE". Demand, supply.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colleen Fender
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
fender1499 wrote:


I smacked my wife around last night, twice in one game. I felt a little guilty as I knew this was sealing her fate, but again it felt good to use the new takeover power for the first time, twice in one game.

This morning, well I just looked at her and we laughed....I am sure she will get her revenge soon enough...



I see that you've not mentioned how you're doing against your wife since those games....care to elaborate? :-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Lehmann
United States
Palo Alto
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
The base set and the first two expansions were designed before RFTG's publication. However, each was designed and tested separately for about a year before the next one was designed. All three were stable (and frequently tested together) for about a year and half before publication.

We did go back and tweak a few cards in the base set based on the later expansions -- for example Runaway Robots' powers were improved slightly compared to Rebel Fuel Cache to compensate for the fact that Rebel military worlds gradually become more important as you add expansions.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Smith
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JGRno5 wrote:
Speaking for myself, I think the takeover rules adds complications and bookkeeping = detracts from the fun of the game. Plus, takeovers require certain cards to initiate. So if I get the right card(s), I can attack you, but you may not be able to attack me. This does not have a good feel to it.


You have some good points here. I like a deep game, but am not a huge fan of bookkeeping either. As of now, though, I'd say the nuisance of keeping track is fairly equally balanced by the depth that is contributed by the new rules. Especially thanks to the included military sliders, it's not too bad keeping track of things if you just get in the habit of updating your slider regularly.

That said, the seemingly lopsided nature of takeovers and the rarity in which they occur (why so few cards with attack powers?) make all that work and depth amount to very little, which is kind of disappointing. No need for the game to turn into something like Illuminati: Deluxe Edition, but on the other hand a bit more action and the ability to fight back and forth more would make things more interesting and the new rules more worthwile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Serge Levert
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've yet to play RvI but i have to wonder, are the sliders/vulnerability tracking really necessary? The bookkeeping seems to be the main complaint i've seen so far. Maybe try without the sliders if your playgroup finds it annoying.

A couple possible bonuses to the idea:
1) more tension - rather than a guaranteed outcome, "maybe i counted wrong";
2) it rewards "skill", you need to keep track of more stuff in your head (you could always use dice if you don't like that).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
entranced wrote:
I've yet to play RvI but i have to wonder, are the sliders/vulnerability tracking really necessary? The bookkeeping seems to be the main complaint i've seen so far. Maybe try without the sliders if your playgroup finds it annoying.

A couple possible bonuses to the idea:
1) more tension - rather than a guaranteed outcome, "maybe i counted wrong";
2) it rewards "skill", you need to keep track of more stuff in your head (you could always use dice if you don't like that).


Not using the sliders would result in more bookkeeping, as you'd have to add up your opponent's military every time. Games would slow down to a crawl. I certainly wouldn't like to play like that!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Everett Scheer
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bleached_lizard wrote:
entranced wrote:
I've yet to play RvI but i have to wonder, are the sliders/vulnerability tracking really necessary? The bookkeeping seems to be the main complaint i've seen so far. Maybe try without the sliders if your playgroup finds it annoying.

A couple possible bonuses to the idea:
1) more tension - rather than a guaranteed outcome, "maybe i counted wrong";
2) it rewards "skill", you need to keep track of more stuff in your head (you could always use dice if you don't like that).


Not using the sliders would result in more bookkeeping, as you'd have to add up your opponent's military every time. Games would slow down to a crawl. I certainly wouldn't like to play like that!


If takeovers were common place (ie takeovers were gaurenteed to happen at least once a game) I might see the benifit of the sliders. but presently with RvI, they are somewhat superfluous. In the rare case someone gets one of the takeover cards and has the correct target. It's really a 1 or 2 time check to see if/what you can takeover.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elgar wrote:
bleached_lizard wrote:
entranced wrote:
I've yet to play RvI but i have to wonder, are the sliders/vulnerability tracking really necessary? The bookkeeping seems to be the main complaint i've seen so far. Maybe try without the sliders if your playgroup finds it annoying.

A couple possible bonuses to the idea:
1) more tension - rather than a guaranteed outcome, "maybe i counted wrong";
2) it rewards "skill", you need to keep track of more stuff in your head (you could always use dice if you don't like that).


Not using the sliders would result in more bookkeeping, as you'd have to add up your opponent's military every time. Games would slow down to a crawl. I certainly wouldn't like to play like that!


If takeovers were common place (ie takeovers were gaurenteed to happen at least once a game) I might see the benifit of the sliders. but presently with RvI, they are somewhat superfluous. In the rare case someone gets one of the takeover cards and has the correct target. It's really a 1 or 2 time check to see if/what you can takeover.
it's a tricky beast. I'd agree with you to just leave it off in general, but as soon as you ask the other player to update their military track, they'll likely suspect you have a takeover manuever down the pipeline.

What I do like is it's a step in the right direction as far as these types of games go. Some people only prefer games like Puerto Rico, Kingsburg, and this online since all info is readily available. This is also the case with RftG, but in a 6p game, you may not be able to see the tableau of the player opposite of you, lengthwise from the table, which makes it harder for you to make more meaningful decisions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wei-Hwa Huang
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
as soon as you ask the other player to update their military track, they'll likely suspect you have a takeover manuever down the pipeline.


I've gotten in the habit of asking other players to update their military track if I would have considered doing a takeover if I had a takeover card even when I don't have a takeover card.

Bleh, that sentence was hard to parse. Let me try again.

When I have a takeover card and am considering a takeover, I ask other players to update their military track. When I don't have a takeover card, but would have considered a takeover if I had one, I also ask other players to update their military track. This way, it keeps them paranoid.

Also, sometimes I'll ask others to update their military track if I'm worried that they might have a potential takeover of me.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Everett Scheer
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
...but in a 6p game, you may not be able to see the tableau of the player opposite of you, lengthwise from the table, which makes it harder for you to make more meaningful decisions...


If you can't see someones tableau across the table, it makes it harder to make meaningful decisons regardless of takeovers. I would prefer to not play in that game; when playing a game, I want to make the most informed decision I can.

At this point, the sticks are useless in the majority of the games I've played. There has been 1 takeover, and that one takeover from the only person who had a targetable world in tableau.

I understand the need for the sticks (it reduces the constant counting), the impending major use of them (hopefully; in future expansions), and that it is better to start and teach now than later. It's just, at this time, a fiddly time sink that affects 1 in 10 games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Short
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find takeovers to be disappointing. There are only 4 cards in the deck that allow for takeovers, and 2 of those are one-shots. The other two are conditional (and I've seen plenty of games where there is only 1 player with an Imperium card, or with rebel military worlds). So in most games in my group, Takeover powers have been useless. In other games, when they are applicable, they can be completely dominating (such as allowing a player to steal multiple 2/3/4 point planets from a single opponent). That swinginess just doesn't sit well for me, which is why my group tends not to use them.

If they were a more consistent threat (and balanced appropriately) they would be much more interesting, but as is they seem rather unimpressive to me.
 
 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.