Getting right into it I just relized it's impossible to add planets to this game. Only way it can be done is via planet sectors. Adding more to a sector would screw up game mechanics,because the way it is now in the Traxes sector is you eventually will win with any combination of 7 planets. So I'm pretty sure will probably see new Sectors (at least) to play with in the future or maybe not. Maybe Adding more sectors will add more mechanics to the game?

How it will be done will be odd. For tournaments would players need to agree on a sector? Or even at home? Just something we discussed as we played the game last.

You can add planets to the game but it just means shuffling more cards and leaving more off the table. It would make the hame more interesting as you will have, potentially, more planets left out than in play. The question becomes do you add planets to the Warpacks or to the deluxe expansions?

I don't think adding planets is impossible, but it would be interesting to see how it would be handled at tournaments. Would it be optional, supplied by the TO?

Arguably it could be an interesting way to run events, where everyone gets a planet set for taking part, and that is the sector being fought over (although perhaps that might be too scarce).

I was discussing this only the other day with some friends and we figure that at some point FFG will add new planets while retiring the old ones, much like the story cards on COC LCG.

I would quite like to see a set of (probably POD) planets that gave you the major worlds (Armageddon, Damnos, Cadia...etc) of the 40K game instead. Not tournament legal but something of a more fun nature. If not, then I'll wait to see if anyone makes a program for making fan cards.

If they added planets to the existing sector and you shuffled them together you will have situations were you can't achieve victory with the 7 planets only rule. Meaning, some icons on the top of the planets could go missing and the only way to win is either killing the warlord or, who Evers deck runs out first (which Ive yet to see someone win by).

@The_Big_Show

Yeah they might do something like that

If they added planets to the existing sector and you shuffled them together you will have situations were you can't achieve victory with the 7 planets only rule. Meaning, some icons on the top of the planets could go missing and the only way to win is either killing the warlord or, who Evers deck runs out first (which Ive yet to see someone win by).

@The_Big_Show

Yeah they might do something like that

If no-one has won at the point that the seventh planet is fought over, the player who last added a planet to their display wins (RRG p.16). Nice to have a tie breaker, but would be a bit harsh on someone who won 6 planets and lost the game by losing the last one...

Re-releasing planets as sets would resolve that issue, but having games which were only winnable quickly through warlord death could be interesting.

If they added planets to the existing sector and you shuffled them together you will have situations were you can't achieve victory with the 7 planets only rule. Meaning, some icons on the top of the planets could go missing and the only way to win is either killing the warlord or, who Evers deck runs out first (which Ive yet to see someone win by).

@The_Big_Show

Yeah they might do something like that

If no-one has won at the point that the seventh planet is fought over, the player who last added a planet to their display wins (RRG p.16). Nice to have a tie breaker, but would be a bit harsh on someone who won 6 planets and lost the game by losing the last one...

Re-releasing planets as sets would resolve that issue, but having games which were only winnable quickly through warlord death could be interesting.

Yeah that's not a good way to win every time. And I'm pretty sure they are trying to stray away from those kinds of victories.

@Khouri

Sorry I have hard time quoting on this thing..

When I said "sectors" (using FFG's term) I meant sets and I agree.

This game has a lot of competitive spirit to it and I don't want it ruined by adding/ruining the mechanics. I hope Nids and Necrons add to it in a positive competitive (and for fun) light. This also makes the game fun at home too to me.

Off topic:

I hope one day they'll make a digital version of this game so I can quickly make a deck run it and test it against some (hopefully smart) AI, instead of needing to test it against a human opponent every time. You'll still need to test it against a human opponent but if the AI beats it again and again then it's got to be a bad deck lol.

I would like to see the planet type symbols used in play. Material planets you have won give one additional resource. Strongpoints give an attack advantage and Tech adds a defensive advantage. This adds a long game advantage (or disadvantage) with each planet essentially staying in play for the rest of the game. A three color planet not only gets you victory points bit strengthens your game position at every planet after.

I would like to see the planet type symbols used in play. Material planets you have won give one additional resource. Strongpoints give an attack advantage and Tech adds a defensive advantage. This adds a long game advantage (or disadvantage) with each planet essentially staying in play for the rest of the game. A three color planet not only gets you victory points bit strengthens your game position at every planet after.

Yeah that's one of my if "I designed this game moments too." Would of been interesting. Or Transports used as Transports.

Think they are trying to keep the game at a 30-45min sessions though this is good for the competitive setting and at home setting. I like Talisman but I don't have time for Talisman if you know what I mean, not that adding those mechanics to the game would do that ..but it could.

As on FFGs part, they have allready stated that new planets are not soon to be released.

They have found this one of the most difficult cards to design for the game also.

Maybe they can create new planets for a saga expansion like LOTR, but both players have to play with the new planets and excluding the old ones. The expansion can also introduce unique rules that govern the new planets, as well.

Im all in favour of more planets mixed in with the old. Heck if I was in lead design I would probably have 5-10 more.

Im all in favour of more planets mixed in with the old. Heck if I was in lead design I would probably have 5-10 more.

FFG might be planning on it anyway which is probably another reason why the rule is their. And again I've never needed a tie breaker rule up to this point, yet. Curious how many people actually needed the tie breaker rule up to this point with all the warlord packs and core cards? I suppose if the numbers are high then it really doesn't matter at this point.

Keep 6 out of every 10 planets having 2 types. 2 with 1 type, and 2 with 3 types. The odds will still be quite high that there will be at least 2 sets of three type icons the same.

I agree with Tekwych in that it honestly shouldn't be that hard to add more planets the ones they have allready made in terms of Icons (blue/green/red).

In fact, I would also be happy with a planet not giving out anything but would have an awesome battle trigger or income option. It would still set you up in winning the game but in a different way. A way that would allow us to go Command low for example but focus heavier on the combat aspect of the game.

@killax

But Planets get shuffled right? Randomness would be the problem. And the more added the bigger the problem. You can't control randomness if the rule is to shuffle. If it said mix and match to your hearts desire I'd agree. I still believe they should sell planets as "sets" or "sectors" and still achieve different battle triggers and things like you said. If they start adding to the existing they will keep adding to the existing and the randomness will get worse. They'll add 1 icon, 2 icon ect. Over and over until They add up increasing the chances of having tie breakers. This is FFG they love expansions lol. For them it would be best to make planet sector set expansions of 10. That way they still get to make their expansions without the randomness setting in to much.

How big does a sector/set need to be?

Well the thing is, the randomness isn't really an issue and the game allready tells you the last planet is a win planet if neither player can win trough colours. Which imho opens up quite some options.

However, FFG allready stated they did not plan to add additional planets any time soon. I can understand altough I also think there is a lot of room for it.

I agree and hope it never is an issue, that's kind of the point of the thread. I understand how tie breakers work I just don't understand the logic of increasing the chances of that win condition.

- Well currently each icon is represented 6 times among the 10 planets.

Apart from that we have 4 single icon planets, 4 double icon planets and 2 triple icon planets.

Now since the game is played with 7 planets you can say there is around 85% change that you will see line up that will include 6 icons among the 7, meaning that either player can win from different icons around the 85% mark (note it's slightly more).

So about 15% of the games will not be decided heavily because of iniative because certain players will be forced fighting on the same planet regardless of "ideal set" up.

- The other important factor here would be that we have 4 single icon planets, 4 double and 2 triple. So in order to keep that continueing (better said, not to increase the win change by the above or alter it in a mayor way) we would have to see a comparable line up.

So when we look at the chance of these planets showing up the % should remain the same at least however increasing the number of single icon planets can seriously screw up the change of a good line up actually appearing since the game currently only allows for 4 single icon planets to show up in the 7 planet line instead of a possible all single planets when we would increase to 20 planets but keep the same % of single, double or tripples to show up since we still play the game with 7 planets and the potential set up allows for 8 single planets to be among the 10.

The latter is something I think will cause a rather boring game and is something FFG would like the avoid the most.

Now what are the easiest options here?

1. Create more 2 Icon planets. This will skew the least with the set up initially created by these 10 planets. While it does not increase the 85% of planets lining up in both players their ideal way (either, getting them under initiative) you do add an additional tactical aspect to the game. The upside of these also is that they have the "best income" in the sence that they allow you to increase your resources before combat and as such can create more unexpected plays.

2. Create a planet that hands out any Icon you wish, aka a blank planet. In a way it would be simple tripple planet but would count differently when time runs up or with a tie... Imho also an interesting concept.

3. Create a planet that does not have any icons but an incredible battle trigger/income.

As such IF we where to include 5 new planets they would be 3 double Icon planets, 1 no icon planet with a mayor income and 1 planet that counts as handing out any Icon but has the better income (slightly).

Going to a full new 10 to be added will however skew the set up much more as the above. However again the influence of the above is minimal and should be kept minimal, as such I feel FFG will skip on it for now as it's influence should be minimal but will be less exciting as a result imho.

- Well currently each icon is represented 6 times among the 10 planets.

Apart from that we have 4 single icon planets, 4 double icon planets and 2 triple icon planets.

Now since the game is played with 7 planets you can say there is around 85% change that you will see line up that will include 6 icons among the 7, meaning that either player can win from different icons around the 85% mark (note it's slightly more).

So about 15% of the games will not be decided heavily because of iniative because certain players will be forced fighting on the same planet regardless of "ideal set" up.

- The other important factor here would be that we have 4 single icon planets, 4 double and 2 triple. So in order to keep that continueing (better said, not to increase the win change by the above or alter it in a mayor way) we would have to see a comparable line up.

So when we look at the chance of these planets showing up the % should remain the same at least however increasing the number of single icon planets can seriously screw up the change of a good line up actually appearing since the game currently only allows for 4 single icon planets to show up in the 7 planet line instead of a possible all single planets when we would increase to 20 planets but keep the same % of single, double or tripples to show up since we still play the game with 7 planets and the potential set up allows for 8 single planets to be among the 10.

The latter is something I think will cause a rather boring game and is something FFG would like the avoid the most.

Now what are the easiest options here?

1. Create more 2 Icon planets. This will skew the least with the set up initially created by these 10 planets. While it does not increase the 85% of planets lining up in both players their ideal way (either, getting them under initiative) you do add an additional tactical aspect to the game. The upside of these also is that they have the "best income" in the sence that they allow you to increase your resources before combat and as such can create more unexpected plays.

2. Create a planet that hands out any Icon you wish, aka a blank planet. In a way it would be simple tripple planet but would count differently when time runs up or with a tie... Imho also an interesting concept.

3. Create a planet that does not have any icons but an incredible battle trigger/income.

As such IF we where to include 5 new planets they would be 3 double Icon planets, 1 no icon planet with a mayor income and 1 planet that counts as handing out any Icon but has the better income (slightly).

Going to a full new 10 to be added will however skew the set up much more as the above. However again the influence of the above is minimal and should be kept minimal, as such I feel FFG will skip on it for now as it's influence should be minimal but will be less exciting as a result imho.

I agree those ideas look pretty cool. Yeah I was thinking same if they did double icon planets as well. Good points.

Its one of the ways to go for sure. However having said that, I still think the game is developing rather nicely as it is. If anything we'd really need a good fanction balance first. Right now I feel this is getting as close as we might expect with only again AM and Orks needing a small boost and perhaps Tau to when we are at it.

Another thing I would really like is still more interaction with planets won however as it would allow the game to not only focus so heavily on 0,1,2 and 3 drops. In special the Warlord groupies and "Destructors" have put the focus even further on 2 drops.

Now for both AM and Orks I wouldn't mind this to much as they generally are the factions (in the miniature game) with loads and loads of models but I do feel this currently isn't really correctly reflected in the game as currently Supports still don't even come close to what a unit with good body and good Command can do for the game.

As long as Ive played the miniature game I also couldn't remember that AM and Orks where so reliant on buildings and even fluff wise this isn't that much true...