Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Planets Expansion


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21
Etaywah

Etaywah

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1046 posts

With enough planets, you could easily end up in situations where every single planet has the same icon. Or with more, even more likely to get games that have to come down to who wins the 7th planet.

That's the real problem. Which is why not having a set of standardized planets (at least 5 out of 10) would never work because of the win conditions of this game. Thanks for reminding us of this alpha because it would throw off the strategy of this game in a huge way.

I'm just going to ignore all the posts above because my post wasn't intended in any way to do anything but further the discussion. Again guys: it's just text on card stock, let's keep it friendly here.
  • Toqtamish, Kaic, taider54 and 2 others like this

#22
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts
Well, it did further the conversation so well done there.

I said that adding more planets to the current pool of 10 and continuing with the current pick 7 rules would be just making the game more random when tournaments should strive for more skill. You refuted this, putting us at different points of view. I defended my assertion with a more detailed explanation why (which I did not do to begin with because I thought it was bleeding obvious).

Now it may be that you refuting my assertion was simply "reductio ad absurdum" - when you deliberately say a silly false statement to demonstrate it is fallacious. If so, then you certainly succeeded in galvanising a few people to refute what you said. I would like to believe that this indeed was your motive so let's leave it at that. Even though I've (unprompted) apologised, showing repentance for being annoyed, and instead I am met by smug holier-than-thou unrepentance where you make the silliest comments possible, actually quoting me to refute me, and then when I utterly destroy your lack of argument, you show absolutely no care in the world.

It would be comical if it were not so dangerous - as can be seen in Thrones where trigger-happy player pressure to restrict cards and change the rules to suit activist beliefs in what is unbalanced has messed up a beautiful game. Think of what happened recently: you wanted the Whole World to suffer an errata to Indomitable because it had defeated you, despite having fallen for the same trick repeatedly. People patiently sympathised but said you were wrong but you wouldn't have any of it. And now here, you blithely blunder into a debate and refute what is blindingly obvious and then, no shame, you grab some sort of moral high ground with "oh I was only trying to further the discussion". As it happens, I did that, not you, by giving a detailed explanation of why it was more random. All you did was make a false refutal of my true statement.

Now to what you agree to above (I think you are selective quoting here): having planets of all the same icon means the game will end on planet 5 latest, the first to 3 planets. How does that distort the win conditions of the game? This happens all the time, that you win the game if you win any 3 of the first 5 planets.

In fact, you can win up to 5 of the first 6 planets and still not win. Thus forcing you to play for Seventh Planet which always wins the game. So this sort of thing can already happen.

I don't get why you want silly randomness in a tournament setting instead of skilful customisation of a planet deck. Everyone knows the planets have so much luck influence in the game, it's been reported by so many people. This and start initiative, because it's easier to bully First Planet when everyone starts on 7-7 and you can guarantee initiative at that planet. Now if that planet happens to be a tricon, that's a great start, just because of a planet flop and a coin flip. And if the game does go to Seventh Planet, who has initiative for a fourth time on the key winner-takes-all battle? It's the first player again.

Magic solved all these issues (to some extent) with play or draw - which was never in the original rules. Because serious tournament players don't want to play a coin flip lottery so they invented it.

This was already discussed here - when you brought the topic up.

http://www.cardgamed...conquest/page-2

I'm not saying the linked solution is good (a spur of the moment solution that fixed some tiny imbalances) and I certainly have no illusions it will be used (they are free to do so). But I am sure the designers will come up with an elegant solution to accommodate new planets, add skill via customisation to game terrain and also deal with slight imbalances in the game.

Just saying "it would never work" is such a big bold statement to make - and slightly insulting to the intelligence of the designers, don't you think?
  • Asklepios likes this

#23
Asklepios

Asklepios

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 5433 posts

I agree, though I'm not too bothered about tournaments, as if I make one in the game's lifetime that'd be surprising and pleasing for me.

 

The increased variance of a bigger random planet deck would not benefit the game, but certainly the constructed approach of players bringing some planets each would be great.

 

What I'd like to see is each player bringing 7 planets each from a selection, most of which would be faction-specific for inclusion in your planet deck. Then, at the start of the game, having players alternate laying out planets as follows:

 

1) First player lays down first planet face-up

2) Second player lays down two planets face-up

3) First player lays down two planets face-up

4) Second player lays down two planets face-down.

 

And thats your seven for playing the game.

 

Additional rule: you can't include any duplicates in your planet deck, and you can't place a planet that is already placed.

 

As to the icon thing, you can guide that by having rules as to planet deck construction. I'm sure its doable.



#24
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts

I don't get why you want silly randomness in a tournament setting instead of skilful customisation of a planet deck. Everyone knows the planets have so much luck influence in the game, it's been reported by so many people. This and start initiative, because it's easier to bully First Planet when everyone starts on 7-7 and you can guarantee initiative at that planet. Now if that planet happens to be a tricon, that's a great start, just because of a planet flop and a coin flip. And if the game does go to Seventh Planet, who has initiative for a fourth time on the key winner-takes-all battle? It's the first player again.

Seventh Planet which always wins the game. So this sort of thing can already happen.

 

But you are assuming that being able to handle planets in whatever order they come requires less skill than being able to hand a specific set of ten. You're also belittling everyone else's opinion as silly... Being force to deal with more randomness and still win can create more show of skill. As you said, the current set up already allows a player with initiative to bully win the first tri-icon planet. Adding more randomness to the deck won't change that, if anything it will make players plan their long term deploy strategies more carefully. The big problem I have with it is more 7th planet draws will occur.


  • taider54 and MotoBuzzsawMF like this

#25
Tragic

Tragic

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts

I'm assuming it'll be like CoC as well


I would be very surprised if it is anything but this. I would almost be willing to bet on it being like CoC. One day, in some expansion an new set of planets will be published. This will replace the old planets. A "logical" place would be the Necro/Nids expansions.. like we have gone ot a new sector.. new monsters. Though this may be to soon.

Either way I hope it is like this. I am already planning my custom "Campaign" map where you need to control the majority of the galaxy to win when we have 5 or 6 sets of sector sets!! hehe.. not that this will probably happen. CoC only has 3 sets after all this time.

Still how cool would that be have a universe map kinda like in Middle Earth :) Place tokens as you win each sector :) heheh

#26
Etaywah

Etaywah

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1046 posts

Now it may be that you refuting my assertion was simply "reductio ad absurdum" - when you deliberately say a silly false statement to demonstrate it is fallacious. If so, then you certainly succeeded in galvanising a few people to refute what you said. I would like to believe that this indeed was your motive so let's leave it at that. Even though I've (unprompted) apologised, showing repentance for being annoyed, and instead I am met by smug holier-than-thou unrepentance where you make the silliest comments possible, actually quoting me to refute me, and then when I utterly destroy your lack of argument, you show absolutely no care in the world.

It would be comical if it were not so dangerous - as can be seen in Thrones where trigger-happy player pressure to restrict cards and change the rules to suits activist belief in what is unbalanced has messed up a beautiful game. Think of what happened recently: you wanted the Whole World to suffer an errata to Indomitable because it had defeated you, despite having fallen for the same trick repeatedly. People patiently sympathised but said you were wrong but you wouldn't have any of it. And now here, you blithely blunder into a debate and refute what is blindingly obvious and then, no shame, you grab some sort of moral high ground with "oh I was only trying to further the discussion". As it happens, I did that, not you, by giving a detailed explanation of why it was more random. All you did was make a false refutal of my true statement.

...
Just saying "it would never work" is such a big bold statement to make - and slightly insulting to the intelligence of the designers, don't you think?

I wasn't trying to take a moral high ground, I was just trying to diffuse the situation. I appreciated the apology but I just thought your post was a bit out of place considering I wasn't attacking you personally and also because my original counter-point to what you said was pretty tame.

As far as the topic goes: I'm sure they could figure out a system - a bunch of people have suggested good ways to figure it out, but if we set up a randomized system where the planets can't be won between planet 3-5 then that means in every tournament setting we will have a majority of matches that have to be decided by time, and that's not a place where we want to go with the game because now we have a weird tournament setting.

The only way I can see that would make planets customize-able is to make a min/max limit for the resources to be included for the 5 (or however many) planets each player is allowed to bring to the table.

For example: Each planet deck must include at least 1 planet with all three resources and also include at least 2 of each resource, or something like that.


  • Toqtamish, taider54 and MotoBuzzsawMF like this

#27
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

Boy has this thread turned into a firing ground. I am going to use a statement that was said by Sparrowhawk in a thread where I blew up in.

 

Lets all focus on constructive discussion instead of belittling others for opinions they do not agree with or share. I think Etaywah was trying to say that he is moving past the previous fiery post to continue the discussion of potential planet flip options. At least that is how I read it. Maybe the final statement of just text on cards came off poorly but sometimes an apology does not take the sting away from a post with some incendiary remarks. 

 

Anywho, I am not here to argue or start another argument. Just trying to get everyone to take a deep, calming breath and remember that we are all here to support a game we are very excited about. Infighting is never good for a healthy environment. 


On to my take for planets. I am not in favor of the player by player planet drop. One, because this is how people accidentally take other peoples cards (I have seen it happen in other games) but I personally enjoy the 10 card planet flip. This allows me to judge the current game state prior to any deployment and plan my strategy around it for the most optimal path to victory. 

 

What I would suggest, much in the way that Doomtown builds a deck to optimize their "random" draw hands, is to stick with a 10 planet deck that is customized by each player, that each player will bring their own to a tournament or play session. So when 3 planets are introduced into the game. You can choose what planets to remove from your personal planet deck for the most optimized "random" flop potential. 

 

That way each player will build a deck that has the best chances to further them to victory, while not being laid out personally to ensure an easy win. This creates a way for your opponent to see the flop of planets and work towards his own goals while having the strategical know-how to thwart your plans. 

 

This will also create the variance in planets so you do not see the same set over and over. Each game will be different (they already are now but this game is in its infancy, in fact it hasn't even crawled out of the soup yet). 


  • taider54 and KennedyHawk like this

#28
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts
What I would suggest, much in the way that Doomtown builds a deck to optimize their "random" draw hands, is to stick with a 10 planet deck that is customized by each player, that each player will bring their own to a tournament or play session. So when 3 planets are introduced into the game. You can choose what planets to remove from your personal planet deck for the most optimized "random" flop potential. 

 

That way each player will build a deck that has the best chances to further them to victory, while not being laid out personally to ensure an easy win. This creates a way for your opponent to see the flop of planets and work towards his own goals while having the strategical know-how to thwart your plans. 

 

So who's planet deck would you use for each match? I'm a bit confused but I'm probably overlooking something :)



#29
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

So who's planet deck would you use for each match? I'm a bit confused but I'm probably overlooking something :)

 

I would say the player that gets initiative from the initial coin flip. I am unsure how else it would be chosen lol. Or maybe the other way around. If you win initiative, then your opponent uses their planet deck. idk, just spitballin here lol.


  • KennedyHawk likes this

#30
Etaywah

Etaywah

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1046 posts

Its not a bad idea Buzz, the only thing I would say is if we're going to be using customized planets we may as well have both players contribute instead of a coin flip deciding who gets to use theirs as this would still skew the favor into the hands of whomever won a card coin flip.

 

The "accidental stealing of cards" will always be an issue, that why I always use my Sailor Moon card sleeves, so no one will mistake them for theirs.... and that's the only reason.... ahem...


  • KennedyHawk likes this

#31
Kingsley

Kingsley

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1008 posts

Another option would be that each player would bring five planets and they would be combined into one deck of ten-- though this has the potential downside of having duplicates of the same planets, which is probably best avoided.



#32
Etaywah

Etaywah

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1046 posts

Another option would be that each player would bring five planets and they would be combined into one deck of ten-- though this has the potential downside of having duplicates of the same planets, which is probably best avoided.

 

Yea we talked about this a bit in another post, Kind of a tough one to get around tbh unless of course they make planets which can only be used by certain factions (which would also be cool). But then what about the mirror match?

 

At the end of the day I personally wouldn't care about having to fight over the same planet twice "Sure you beat me on the SOUTH side of Tarrus, but I've got this whole other army up here in the northern hemisphere!"



#33
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

 

The "accidental stealing of cards" will always be an issue, that why I always use my Sailor Moon card sleeves, so no one will mistake them for theirs.... and that's the only reason.... ahem...

 

LOLOL sure thing buddy. 

 

Its not a bad idea Buzz, the only thing I would say is if we're going to be using customized planets we may as well have both players contribute instead of a coin flip deciding who gets to use theirs as this would still skew the favor into the hands of whomever won a card coin flip.

 

 

Maybe I am in the minority here but I enjoy the random-ness of it. I am a really big theme advocate. If the game does not properly fit the theme or immerse me then I tend to fall out of it. I think the same goes for this, at least how I perceive it.

 

There are random occurrences that happen in war that you have to work around. You can try to stack all the house of cards in your favor but a flick of one pillar can get it all crashing down. It is your responsibility as a war leader to prepare for these inevitabilities and lead your forces to victory. 

 

Now maybe my love of thematic's is getting in the way of tournament mechanics but I enjoy it the way it is currently but an optimized "randomness" would be a nice touch. 



#34
Etaywah

Etaywah

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1046 posts

Maybe I am in the minority here but I enjoy the random-ness of it. I am a really big theme advocate. 

 

Well there still is a randomness, randomness that he will get 4 of his planets and only 1 of yours, there's the randomness of the 5 that he brings to the table as well. I personally like the system the way it is right now, and if they kept it like CoC I wouldn't be disappointed (or surprised), I just like the idea of having even more customization because that's how these games shine, sort of like the customization that comes into play with Agendas in Game of Thrones.

 

Bottom line: Your statement is wrong and you should feel bad for making it.


  • MotoBuzzsawMF and KennedyHawk like this

#35
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

 

 

Bottom line: Your statement is wrong and you should feel bad for making it.

 

That is not very greater good of you Etaywah. You should be ashamed. lol


  • Etaywah likes this

#36
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts

Bottom line: Your statement is wrong and you should feel bad for making it.


The difference was he didn't quote you and directly challenge you on a point that was patently true with a silly counter argument.

Right after I replied to your flawed logic challenge (by quoting me and asserting I was wrong), I calmly continued to have an intelligent conversation with Kingsley on the Cato Deck thread (check the post times), conceding many valid points he made. I am happy to be proven wrong as I constantly want to self-improve. But don't be surprised if you blithely challenge people with silly comments and then (shockingly it seems) you incur their exasperated ire.

But you are assuming that being able to handle planets in whatever order they come requires less skill than being able to hand a specific set of ten. You're also belittling everyone else's opinion as silly... Being force to deal with more randomness and still win can create more show of skill. As you said, the current set up already allows a player with initiative to bully win the first tri-icon planet. Adding more randomness to the deck won't change that, if anything it will make players plan their long term deploy strategies more carefully. The big problem I have with it is more 7th planet draws will occur.


This, sir, is a big topic worthy of discussion - so thank you for bringing it up. I would have replied earlier but work got busy (so inconvenient) then Friday after-work drinks at the pub tradition here in the UK. Nevertheless, I shall try to do this topic justice.

When designing a game, the designers would have decided what level to pitch it:
1. How much strategy does it require? By strategy, I mean planning before the game even begins, understanding the stratagems available.
2. How much tactics does it require? By tactics, I mean the ability to improvise the right play to overcome challenges and opposing play.
3. How much diplomacy does it encourage? In 2 player duel games, this only ever translates to bluff, reading tells and misdirection.
4. How much luck does it involve? By luck, I don't mean opportunities or risks that require tactics to leverage or bypass. I mean an advantage or disadvantage gained purely due to happenstance that is entirely out of your control.

Now, in the current game, we already have a random element - drawing cards. But this random mechanic tests your tactics, your ability to optimally use randomly drawn cards from a seeded deck based on the game state, your ability to improvise.

Strategy in customisable card games is obvious: deck-building is strategising. It includes cards that grant advantage against current prevalent strategies in the meta (which again tests another strategic skill, reading that meta correctly). It's all the forward planning that you do before the game, even trawling forums for inspiration and advice.

Almost everything else is luck.


Let's look at some popular card games you may know.

Summoner Wars is a card game with 2 random elements - card draw for your options and dice rolls for combat. Because a game can hinge on whether you roll 4 or less on a d6, I view the luck in that game as quite high. However, it has a spatially-testing tactical dimension (battle board) that many card games don't have, similar to simplified minis with cards. So this added skill compensates.

Doomtown is a card game with 2 random elements - card draw for your options and card draw for combat. But at least you can build your deck to be good at the combat mechanic (poker hands) so, whilst not as spatially tactical as Summoner Wars (there is a chess-like moves element), it is far more strategic (deck-building) so again the skill compensates. Though because decks can be built by anyone, it's easier for a player to do well with someone else's well-built deck.

Netrunner is a card game with 2 random elements - card draw for options and card draw for a successful exploratory hit by one side (access). However, it has a very tight action/economy engine that tests your resource management skills, making it a game of skill mainly because it has strategy, tactics and diplomacy (bluff, reading tells etc). Nevertheless, every dog can have his day. Anyone of a certain level can get lucky. That's why it's so popular because not everyone can be great at this game but everyone will score a win occasionally - which is very satisfying to its consumer base when it is considered a game with a high skill quotient.

Game of Thrones is a card game with just 1 random element - card draw for options. Instead of adding any more random element, it chose to be better than other games and give the player full control of what he plays from his Plot Deck. The interaction of Plots revealed simultanoeusly and cards drawn and chosen to be played is how the game tests both strategy (deck building) and tactics (improvising your play based on game state) whilst minimising luck's influence. If they had made the Plot decks random, like Objectives in Star Wars, it would be a far more random game and not the challenging high end game that it is.

Mage Wars is a card game with just 1 random element: it rolls lots of dice for its attacks (which because there are lots, creates a flat bell curve). It does not have card draw - you pick your cards! In addition, like Summoner Wars, it has a battle board that adds the tactical manoeuvering dimension. Now it could have done away with combat dice but that would have made the game into chess. Instead, they gave players an option to play decks (spellbooks) that have creatures with a special d12 effect die. If you want to test your luck, you can. Other players (like me) will shy away from that cruel mistress who often lets you down. In this way, it cleverly markets itself to the OCD strategiser (your spellbook has singletons of so many situational cards in a toolbox that you pick from), the minis tactician (battle board, mostly predictable attack rolls) and a casual player who may play a more luck-dependent build and win with it occasionally.

I mention all these games (in ascending order of skill in my opinion, but this is entirely subjective) because the designers of Conquest are facing a big question when they finalise their tournament rules: at what level of skill and luck-dependency are they pitching the tournament game?

As an example, what if in Conquest you rolled 1d6 for each point of ATK and inflicted 1 damage on 3-4 or 2 damage on a 5-6. That would be adding far too much luck, yet another random element to the game. Whilst making it 1 damage on a 2-5 and 2 damage on 6 may flatten the randomness but now adds an extra unneeded complication and game delay.

If you add too many random elements into Conquest (like random planets), the game becomes too much of a lottery so there will be no kudos in winning tournaments - which attract the hyper-competitive gamers, versed in Sirlin.

So currently we have random draw that is intrinsic and already tests our tactical skills to improvise with what we draw based on the game state. Do you think it's good to add even more luck in skilled tournament play with random planets that influence who wins? (See the Sun Tzu thread, I will write a new article on ROI soon.) Maybe there are too many skill games in the market like Thrones, with its precise play of controlled Plot Cards, and Mage Wars with its precise picks for every card draw. The designers need to decide where to market the game and pitch the game to its market. If it's for kids and casual players, then random planets makes sense. If it's for game theorists who don't want to feel predestined to lose due to bad luck, then they would be better advised to follow Thrones and empower players with the ability to customise a planet deck.

Recently, FFG released a very accessible but clever Game of Thrones themed Eurogame based on building a pyramid of HBO character cards, designed by the reputable Reiner Knizia. This product was aimed specifically at a market different to the other 2 products: the biggest and most complicated LCG and a lengthy diplomatic multi-player boardgame that is too treacherous for many tastes. Whilst the latter is a "headline" game at a gaming Sunday, the new Eurogame Game of Thrones is a throwaway "filler". In this way, FFG build up a portfolio of games with their Game of Thrones license so as to appeal to any level of gamer.

The question is: where do they pitch Conquest? Studying the rules, I feel confident that this is a deep "gamer's game" (unlike Doomtown which is frothy fun). This would also make sense with the skin given to the slick mechanics (hey, it could have been skinned with Dune if the Herbert estate had played ball, who knows?). The lovely gothic space horror WH40K universe already attracts gamers that are used to sophisticated rules. So why dumb it down by adding unnecessary random elements to such a polished design? It would be perverse if they did so.

If we assume that they do want to make the tournament game more attractive to heavyweight card gamers craving a new challenge (there is snobbery among gamers, just go look at stimhack), what then should they do with planets, especially when they are begging to be expanded and customised?

Many ideas have been suggested.


#1 PRECISE OFF-INITIATIVE PLACEMENT

My initial idea was based on a minis tradition - if one players gets to set the battlefield's terrain before a game, then the other gets to choose which side to deploy at and has the first turn (= initiative). Hence each player chooses the planet (terrain) where the opponent will have default initiative (a battle advantage) when it becomes First Planet.

Each player brings a deck of 7 planet cards with them, holding all in hand for planet placement.
X and Y roll for initiative. X starts with initiative.
Y puts 1 of his planets as First Planet face up.
X puts 1 of his planets as #2 face up not matching others face up.
Y puts 1 of his planets as #3 face up not matching others face up.
X puts 1 of his planets as #4 face up not matching others face up.
Y puts 1 of his planets as #5 face up not matching others face up.
X puts 1 of his planets as #6 face DOWN not matching others face up.
Y puts TWO of his planets as #7 face DOWN not matching others face up.
When it comes to revealing #7, use the top face down planet if it does not match #6 else the other.

In this way, you try to spread icons to make it as hard as possible for your opponent when he has initiative in First Planet Battles. You also mitigate the fact that X has initiative on 4 First Planet Battles including the key first one when kit is sparse and the key last one which wins the game.


I certainly don't fail this idea on grounds that it means "mixing cards" - by that grounds, you will never play negative attachments like excellent Suffering or (less so) Dire Mutation. If this was an issue, Netrunner's stealing of agendas format would never have made it the number #1 LCG.

However, judging it fairly, whilst it is precise in its intent to balance alternating initiative with alternating opponents choosing planets (7 card hands means its impossible to duplicate), it's just too inelegantly precise. Yes, you could have an alternating orientation of planets so they face their planet deck owner (who may need to collect at game end - hardly difficult to ensure you leave a game with your 7 planets). Perhaps it's the way that I described the player placements - very precise and controlled. It just seems to be too dry and chess-like. In short, it may be pitching Conquest too high on the scale of games listed above. Sometimes, you want a bit more messiness, a bit more randomness.


#2 DRAFT

Dre2Dee2 had the elegant idea (in the Sun Tzu thread) of simply drafing a full pool of planets. Forgive me if I've changed it a bit but the gist as I would execute it would be this.

1. One player always brings a copy of all the planets in the game.
2. Randomly split all the planets evenly (so always have even number of planets in the game)
3. Draft, picking and passing until each player has chosen 5, discarding the remaining cards (so draft is not overlong).
4. Roll for initiative afterwards.
5. The player with initiative contributes 3 cards face down and his opponent adds 4 cards face down.
6. The remaining cards drafted are put aside without being revealed.
7. Shuffle the 7 face down planets and place the planets as per the rules, 5 face up and 2 face down.
8. Reveal your warlord (players do not reveal their warlord prior to this!)

This method has hidden subtleties. Say you are playing khymera swarm. Do you negatively draft Atrox Prime (1 damage) or bluff it by passing it to your opponent who does not know what you are playing. After all, you can only safely negatively draft 1 planet of your 5 choices as you don''t even know if you will be adding 3 or 4 planets during the 5-card draft. I like the double-bluffs and the "gambling on the card wheel" that a draft promotes.

On the negative side, it does add a bit of extra time to the game. But as FFG are belatedly learning, everyone loves a draft.


#3 ASYMMETRIC SEMI-RANDOM

Asklepios came up with alternating double placements. Unfortunately, I feel the ability to choose planets when it would be your initiative as First Planet is just too strong. However, I felt he had the start of a nice idea there and I would modify it as follows:

1. Players bring a Planet Deck of 7 different planets to suit their strategy.
2. Players dice for initiative.
3. The player without initiative shuffles his Planet Deck and places 1-5 face up randomly like normal, placing aside the last 2 cards.
4. The player with initiative goes to his Planet Deck and secretly chooses 2 planets not already face-up and places them face down at 6 and 7.

This changes the game dynamic radically as it creates an exciting asymmetry (the reason why games like Twilight Imperium III, Dune and Netrunner are popular are partly because of their asymmetric design). It prevents a player dictating which specific planet will be in a position in the flop and it gives the starting First Player an incentive to not just snowball but also plot for a long game. using his initially exclusive fore-knowledge of 6 and 7, the latter being a possible exciting Winner Takes All battle. (Everyone does realise there are no draws, winner of 7th Planet always wins?)


OTHER OPTIONS

I feel giving one player (it would have to be the player slightly disadvantaged for not starting with initiative) full control of all 7 planets but with placement order random as spit-balled above would be too much of an advantage (just to keep planets owned by one player yet are still split when planets are won). This would change the balance of many builds and put far too much emphasis on the initiative coin flip. So I haven't considered it viable, sorry.


Personally, I like the random terrain set-up of Settlers of Catan: it asks you to stop and analyse the set-up. However, I feel there is so much depth that can be added to Conquest by accommodating new planets via tournament rules that promote skill. I like the idea of a customised secondary deck (that a draft does not have) but I also like draft mind-games.

I think in the end, I like Dre2Dee2's draft idea (which I've fleshed out a bit above) best out of those listed so far. One reason is due to originality (yes, we all play 7 Wonders) as so many LCGs already have a secondary customisable deck but mainly because it introduces that 3rd dimension of diplomacy (in the bluff interactions of a draft) that makes Netrunner so appealing to many and so far seen in this game only in the feints of deployment interest.

As for fears of lengthening games, a game is c.45 minutes according to Patrick Brennan. Adding a few minutes for a quick 5 card draft (and no agonising over a precise card placement) is not going to prevent rounds being 55mins max. within an hourly rounds schedule. Unfinished tie-breaker would be most total icons (2-2-0 beats 2-1-1, 2-1-0 beats 1-1-1, 2-0-0 beats 1-1-0) but I can't see any game lasting that long among tournament experts.

And that's another reason why planet luck has to be minimised: because game length means it will be best of 1 like Thrones (unlike 2 in Netrunner and 3 in Magic). So like Thrones, you really need to minimise all the random elements outside of card draw for a tournament. Else it loses credibility.

So, does anybody have any better ideas for how to add a modicum of skill to currently random planets for the tournament game without making it too dry and chess-like? As you can see from my endorsement of the draft, I am very open to other people's sensible suggestions...
  • KennedyHawk likes this

#37
KennedyHawk

KennedyHawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1890 posts

Really cool and thought out post only had time to skim it tonight but I'll digest the whole thing tomorrow!



#38
zaspacer

zaspacer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Game of Thrones is a card game with just 1 random element - card draw for options. Instead of adding any more random element, it chose to be better than other games and give the player full control of what he plays from his Plot Deck. The interaction of Plots revealed simultanoeusly and cards drawn and chosen to be played is how the game tests both strategy (deck building) and tactics (improvising your play based on game state) whilst minimising luck's influence. If they had made the Plot decks random, like Objectives in Star Wars, it would be a far more random game and not the challenging high end game that it is.

 

Just 1 random element?

 

1) "Card Draw" (order of cards in House Deck)

2) Discard from Intrigue Challenges

3) Some card effects (Sky Cell, City Watch, etc.)

4) Some cases of winner of initiative (when players tie on Plot Initiative and Claimed Power)

5) First player in declaring your House and Agenda

6) (maybe) Seating order in multi-player games



#39
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts
yes I overstated the case. you got me - necroing a post over 3 years old.

It's a good game because it's relatively accessible. But luck does play a larger part than I claimed above.

Damn internet - words come back to haunt you! :)
  • zaspacer likes this

#40
zaspacer

zaspacer

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

yes I overstated the case. you got me - necroing a post over 3 years old.

It's a good game because it's relatively accessible. But luck does play a larger part than I claimed above.

Damn internet - words come back to haunt you! :)

 

 

I just dug up this thread because I'm looking for any Fanmade extra Conquest Planets. I want to try a self-tinkered expanded version of the game, and 10 planets doesn't cut it for my needs.

 

And then when I spotted your reference to GoT LCG, I had to check it out. I super dig GoT LCG, and read your summation as a kind of fun challenge to see what I could dig up.

 

I think you nailed it pretty well covering GoT's random elements, with just the omission of the Intrigue Challenge discard as the only major other random element. Which really is very few random elements overall for GoT. The other stuff I listed is just ticky tack.

 

And I totally agree with you, its a good game.