In the core SCBG , the zerg had 3 module slots, while each of the protoss and terran had 5. This was due to the obvious fact that zerg don't build supply modules, as they use each new type of building to increase their build limit by 2, due to their "creep" racial ability. This meant that if all the players had the same number of non-supply modules (eg. 1 air defence and 2 R&D, or 3 R&D), then the protoss and terran would only have 2 spaces left to build supply modules, each providing 1 build limit, giving them a total of 4 build limit, compared to the zerg 6 build limit, if they have the 3 different buildings built. I suppose this was meant to translate the fact the superior units building capability of the zerg as in the video game, and also point out the fact that the zerg rely more on numbers than on shear power. This is acceptable in a way, although i'm not really sure this is really balanced in end-game, as I can see that end game units don't have that much difference in power gap between zerg and portoss/terran. I still haven't got to many end-games to decide that yet.

The issue I am discussing here, however, are the slots in the expansion. Let me first point out the fact that there were 3 new types of modules introduces in the expansion, beside the old 3. This led to the fact that the module slots had to be increased. The surprising thing here is that the terran and protoss' slots were increased by 1 each, giving a total of 6 slots each. But the zerg were increased by 2, giving them a total of 5!

This means that if we address balance issues, then in order for a protoss or a terran player to be on the same level of modules as a zerg player, they would be forced to have only 1 more space for building a supply module. This leaves them with 3 build limit, while the zerg is still at his easily achieved 6.

While I haven't played the expansion a lot, simple math calculations make this look very unbalanced, due to the fact i pointed out earlier ot the similarity in end-game units' power. For example, if a protoss player has the same number and types of modules as a zerg player, and has a supply module (which he will have to spend 1 more build order to build beside his other modules), then he ends up with a build limit of 3, making him capable of either building 1 archon, or 3 carriers. The zerg player on the other hand, who has easily achieved 6 build limit by building a queen's nest and an upgraded spire, can use his build order to build 3 guardians, or he can choose to build 3 ultralisks and 3 devourers. I don't think there is a need to point out which is stronger and by what scale!

What are your thoughts about this guys?

Difference of 1 point decides battles.. thats about it.. and you cant build guardians or archons with 1 build order from nothing

I have played the expansion a lot and I haven't experience any balance issues involving the module slots on the race sheets. I've rarely seen anyone fill up all their module slots.

blarknob, i'm talking about late-game, especially when playing the elimination variant, when the game can last for a real long time. i think it is quite possible then that you will see some sheets with all module slots filled.

RESHETO, what do you mean you cannot build archons or guardians from nothing? you can build 2 high templars then transform them into an archon with the same build order provided you have a build limit of 3, i don't know any rule against that. Same thing applies for guardians.

Khas said:

Read the instruction again...

“TECH-REQUIRED” UNITS

As these Technology cards state, to build tech-required
units requires the active player to destroy existing, specific
friendly unit(s) as an additional “cost” of building the new
unit. “Existing” means that a player can only destroy a unit
that existed on the active planet before the Build order
was executed.

As you can notice, Zergs:

- have most of such units

- have the cheapest and (relatively) the weakest units

from all available races. So that it's clear to me why they don't have to build Supply modules. I could even say that with less than 5 module slots Zergs couldn't match with other races, since they really need the benefits offered by both standard and new modules.

Khas, my group never plays the elimination variant, the only time I did was pre expansion and it stalemated and took entirely too long(we just quit after multiple nights playing the same game) I don't really think the game is balanced with elimination in mind.

RESHETO and cyb3k: thanks for pointing this out to me. Sometimes i just miss some rules in the rulebook and i don't even doubt them to go back and check them!

blarknob: it is true the elimination variant takes a lot of time to finish, but it's really fun. It is one of the ways to play the game anyway, even mentioned in the rulebook, and it should always be taken into consideration. I don't understand what you mean by saying that you "don't really think the game is balanced with elimination in mind" in what way is it not balanced?

I imagine when they play tested and designed the game the mechanics were optimized for victory through either points or special victory not elimination, the elimination option seems like they just threw it on at the end.

For example If the game had been balanced for elimination there would have been a mechanic to give a player more orders per turn as they gained control of a larger percentage of the map. Since the game was balance for a war of controlling strategic locations instead of conquest you are limited to four orders.

And if you are confused about what I mean by game balance, then you just need to do a little more reading about games.

cyb3k said:

I disagree with that interpretation. The card does not say, "existed when the build order was executed." One could just as easily read it as, "existed just before you are about to build this unit," meaning that, for example, you must simply build 2 high templars first before you can build an archon, but it can be done in the same order. There is nothing in the words that were used that explicitly states the timeframe of when the prerequisite unit(s) had to have existed.

That isn't his interpretation that is quoted directly form the rule book.

the entire following block of text is from page 38 of the rule book:

"As these Technology cards state, to build tech-required
units requires the active player to destroy existing, specific
friendly unit(s) as an additional “cost” of building the new
unit. “Existing” means that a player can only destroy a unit
that existed on the active planet before the Build order
was executed. Then, the new tech-required unit must be
placed in the area that contained one of the units that was
destroyed to build it."

blarknob said:

Ah, my mistake, then.

I had misread Khas' statement. I thought he had worded his response in such a way that he was quoting the card itself and then adding his own exposition of said card. I did not catch that this was an exact quote from the rulebook.