Zero-2 PBF

AbsoluteZero · November 11, 2011, 3:27am

Players in this game are:

sirisaacnuton
Tuna Dude
sircrowin
Kristobal
Thaylen
theasaris

Please check in here and propose any house rules you might want to add. Space mines and facilities will not be used.

It occurred to me that my proposed race selection won’t work. The new plan is each player will be randomly given two to pick from. I’m open to other suggestions.

TunaDude · November 11, 2011, 4:41am

TunaDude signing in. Don’t want to add any house ruless I’m a bit of a purist . With race selection however you could deal out three to each player, and the player who draws Lazax has the option of selecting any race from the discard pile (the other races players turned down or the other two they drew). That’s just a suggestion though I don’t have any strong feelings towards it one way or the other.

sirisaacnuton · November 11, 2011, 6:15am

Sirisaacnuton here. Nothing really to add, just checking that my registration worked out.

Kristobal · November 11, 2011, 6:18am

Kristobal cheking in.
Voting no to both Space Mines and Facilities.
Two race draw is fine.

Rules question: Mech. Units. are immune to Leaders abilities, does this include the Diplomats ability to delay an invasion if the invanding force is only MU…? I say the Dip can return MU’s as well as GF…but GM rules here

Looking forward to this game!

Kristobal · November 11, 2011, 6:36am

If possilbe I will vote no t the houserule regarding winning the game in the Status Phase. Think it takes out an important tactical aspekt of the game; it is not enough to prepare taking the Objectives, the rights SC is just as important…and it really nerfs the Naalu, a nerf they don’t need IMO.

shaunm · November 11, 2011, 6:41am

theasaris aka shaunm checking in. In regard to Kristobal’s rules question, we actually had that problem come up in another recent game. As answered by Corey himself, a Diplomat does indeed stop any invasion, including Mechs. Check here (last entry):

boardgamegeek.com/thread/675584/ … s-diplomat

As to the house rules I’ll make a radical suggestion out of the blue. Since I’ve come across the sound motivations from Remy Gibson (Awwberman on BGG), I’ve always wanted to try his alternative tech tree. Obviously this will radically change the game:

New techtree:
boardgamegeek.com/image/1081710/ … rd-edition

Motivations:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/687235/ … y-new-tree

What do you all think?

Kristobal · November 11, 2011, 6:51am

Thanks for the rule clarification

Regarding the alternative Tech Tree; I’m not interested in trying this variant, sorry

shaunm · November 11, 2011, 7:16am

Before making a definite decision, please check the key paragraphs in Remy’s motivations:

GOALS:
First, to banish weak techs to the bottom of the tree, where they belong.
Second, to promote good techs to the end of the tree, where they belong.
Third, to make it easier to reach end of the line techs without a gamelong investment.
(Combining these three reasons leads to a situation where somebody that has invested in tech is going to get consistently better benefits than somebody who hasn’t.)
Fourth, for there to be compelling reason to dig into the tree, following the paths rather than just dancing across the early levels.
Fifth, to see more flexibility possible, granting a larger variety of prerequisites.
Sixth – and perhaps most important for me – this new tree should enable a much greater degree of differentiation among players as to which techs they choose to research.

Generally speaking, the higher the level, the better the tech. By moving the desirable techs off of level 1, the player is forced to commit to a particular branch. In so doing, though, the player is also guaranteed a juicy reward at the end. And there is an added bonus: In several places, by researching to level 2 or 3 of a given branch, a player can shortcut into level 2 or 3 of another branch, thereby being forced to pick up the relatively-useless level-1 techs only once.

With one notable exception, I have stripped out all of the “AND” prerequisites in favor of a much-higher number of “OR” prerequisites. I understand the intent of the AND in Rules as Written: They were trying to encourage diversity by forcing players along two different paths to get to a good tech. The problem is that it usually isn’t worth the trouble, especially with the high-quality low-level techs that are available. To achieve my goal of having a shallow tree, it seemed necessary to strip out the "AND"s.

I hope this sparks some interest in most of you…

sircrowin · November 11, 2011, 7:42am

Sircrowin here !
I vote NO for space mines and facilities
I like this house rule of SA, if the people want we can play with that:
*Dreadnoughts roll 2 dice during Space Battles and may bombard planets without an invasion taking place.
They count as 2 units towards the production limit when producing units (also for secondary of Production).
*War Suns may use their Sustain Damage ability twice. They count as 3 units towards all production limits.
*Any unit using the Sustain Damage ability immediately loses one combat die, to a minimum of 1.

Kristobal · November 11, 2011, 10:02am

shaunm:

Before making a definite decision, please check the key paragraphs in Remy’s motivations:

GOALS:
First, to banish weak techs to the bottom of the tree, where they belong.
Second, to promote good techs to the end of the tree, where they belong.
Third, to make it easier to reach end of the line techs without a gamelong investment.
(Combining these three reasons leads to a situation where somebody that has invested in tech is going to get consistently better benefits than somebody who hasn’t.)
Fourth, for there to be compelling reason to dig into the tree, following the paths rather than just dancing across the early levels.
Fifth, to see more flexibility possible, granting a larger variety of prerequisites.
Sixth – and perhaps most important for me – this new tree should enable a much greater degree of differentiation among players as to which techs they choose to research.

Generally speaking, the higher the level, the better the tech. By moving the desirable techs off of level 1, the player is forced to commit to a particular branch. In so doing, though, the player is also guaranteed a juicy reward at the end. And there is an added bonus: In several places, by researching to level 2 or 3 of a given branch, a player can shortcut into level 2 or 3 of another branch, thereby being forced to pick up the relatively-useless level-1 techs only once.

With one notable exception, I have stripped out all of the “AND” prerequisites in favor of a much-higher number of “OR” prerequisites. I understand the intent of the AND in Rules as Written: They were trying to encourage diversity by forcing players along two different paths to get to a good tech. The problem is that it usually isn’t worth the trouble, especially with the high-quality low-level techs that are available. To achieve my goal of having a shallow tree, it seemed necessary to strip out the "AND"s.

I hope this sparks some interest in most of you…

My decision is definite even though I admire the load of work that Awbermann put into this and I hope it gets playtested, BUT: there are many things that I don’t like about the Tech Tree…first: why fix something that ain’t broken?! Second: It makes no sense to me, that you have to upgrade your PDS or DN before you boost your CA and DD…and no pre-req for Gen Synth and Neural computing that’s broken IMO

Not wearing a no-hat today, it’s just that I find the game very well balanced and it’s my first PBF since the Wiki was hacked, so I really just wanna play some good old regular RAW TI3…sorry sircrowin, I vote NO to the SA-DN as well

But I will of course follow what the majority decides…or the GM

AbsoluteZero · November 11, 2011, 3:05pm

Confirming MU can not ignore a diplomat’s ability.

I used to like this rule in SE. Now that Shards has been released and we have added duranium armor and flagships into the mix I think it no longer works.

shaunm · November 11, 2011, 4:00pm

All right, so the testing of the new techtree has to wait until another time.

I’m against two-die DNs as well.

sirisaacnuton · November 11, 2011, 7:18pm

I lean toward no on the DN/WS rule as well, mostly because I’m not convinced how well it’s balanced with Flagships (let me see how much more I can agree with the GM).

As far as the tech tree goes, my initial look at that diagram makes me feel like I have no idea what exactly all the paths to the different techs are (especially with all the dotted lines)…if the consensus is to use it, I’ll go with it, but I’d be inclined to stick with the more familiar tree.

Zilfalon · November 11, 2011, 8:23pm

We will test the Tech tree tomorrow FtF ;-)

TunaDude · November 11, 2011, 11:51pm

Not keen on the DN/WS abilities either due to Shards modifications. To be fair I don’t really want to see a lot of house rules introduced. I’ve only played a few Shards games and still finding out the imbalances. I like not being able to spend PCs as TG, as this rule seems very arbitrary (or at least never works as the designers intended).

I have a suggestion towards Action Cards, perhaps we could make them public rather than secret?

AbsoluteZero · November 12, 2011, 6:24am

We are just waiting on Thaylen. I’m sending him another PM on BGG and giving him another day. If you have a friend that would like to be in this game, now’s the time to mention it to them just in case.

shaunm · November 12, 2011, 7:59am

I’m not sure but Zilfalon might be interested.

Regarding public ACs, I vote strongly against. Takes a whole lot of fun out of the game!

Kristobal · November 12, 2011, 8:25am

Agreed

jeffpoole · November 13, 2011, 3:25am

Hey ya’ll,

I am taking the vacated spot.

I vote no on modified tech tree, DN rules, and revealed action cards.

Let’s have a great game.

Jeff

Thaylen · November 13, 2011, 6:39am

Don’t count me out just yet man. For some reason the PM wasn’t in my inbox when I checked into Boadgame Geek on friday.

I am in. I am against the two hit DN. I will review the tech tree and give my thoughts on it within 24 hours