Hey, my group usually plays with the SE cards, and we used to always use the original set with imperium II, but I realise I have no idea why we switched.
So, I'm wondering which set you guys use and most importantly why! (excluding sets with the Original ISC, because well, ya)
We always use the expansions cards, ever since I got the expansion. They're just much better.
Agree with Steve-O. New set is much more ballanced.
Apart from getting rid of the "game clock" - Imperial card, and replacing it with a bureaucracy card which is potent in lategame for any player (claiming 2 objectives a round is very very deciding lategame).
Trade is better even though we usually throw in a houserule saying that inactive players do not have to subtract -1 tradegood when activating it.
The only one we at first glance did not like is the nr 6, warfare, but we got used to it. I also think there is an erata regarding moving the red blip around wwith your fleet. I believe it is you can move +1 move out of it f you not bring it with you (thus acting as a "launchpad") and also beeing able to make another tactical actian right after you deploy the strategy.
The Technology II makes Teching much more viable aswell as it costs only 6 for secondary, making it not so hard to close a Tech-gap.
Also the Production card is much more ballanced now.
The only problem i believe is number 3. Diplomacy still got to little an impact.
During my last game i used this rule-supply, very much recommended!!
http://home.online.no/~eld-sko/SA3-96beta.pdf
GL!
I am sorry about the mess: this is the correct citation and variant strategy cards with emphasize on diplomacy
Steve-O said:
We always use the expansions cards, ever since I got the expansion. They're just much better.
Total agreement here. There is no contest. The new ones are much better! Almost worth the price of the expansion alone.
I agree with everyone here, the variant set are far superior. One of the most important aspects of the variant set is the consistence of function between primary and secondary abilities. This greatly streamlines the meta game and does a lot to improve interplay of the turn roles.
Generally we use a mix.
SE's Tech and Trade cards and Imperium II.
We use the expansion cards in our group. They're more balanced and our games have been progressing faster since the switch.
If I have to use the ones from the box then I would go with the SE strategy cards but I usually use my own variant Strategy Cards.
Is it Ok to mix and match the strategy cards from both the expansion and the core game? Or does this create some balance issues?
Ultimate Wombat said:
Is it Ok to mix and match the strategy cards from both the expansion and the core game? Or does this create some balance issues?
I've never tried this myself, but it should work fine. As long as you only take one of each Initiative number (ie: don't take Dip I and Dip II.) It'd be interesting to see how your games played out with a mixed bunch.
You'd also want to be careful about not taking (or excluding!) both SCs that move the Speaker token. IIRC it's not number 1 in the expansion set of SCs.
Mixing and Matching works perfectly fine.
The strategy cards are designed to do this out of the box.
However, it should be noted that only the ones marked with a II are meant to replace their original.
So if you are going to mix, you should pick a starting point, either base set or expansion set.
Then, replace the I or II card with the opposite as you see fit.
DavidG55311 said:
Mixing and Matching works perfectly fine.
The strategy cards are designed to do this out of the box.
However, it should be noted that only the ones marked with a II are meant to replace their original.
So if you are going to mix, you should pick a starting point, either base set or expansion set.
Then, replace the I or II card with the opposite as you see fit.
"Out of the box" implies to me that there were rules for mixing and matching in the expansion, which there weren't as far as I recall. The only SC they suggested swapping was Imperial II for Imperial I. The Imperial II card was an official printing of something which had long since been introduced as a suggested variant for people who didn't like Imperial I.
The rest of the new SCs, per the rulebook, were meant to be used as a group replacing the original SC set entirely. I agree they probably can be mixed and matched without too much difficulty, as long as you watch out for a couple things, but I think it's misleading to say it's like this "out of the box."
Steve-O said:
"Out of the box" implies to me that there were rules for mixing and matching in the expansion, which there weren't as far as I recall. The only SC they suggested swapping was Imperial II for Imperial I. The Imperial II card was an official printing of something which had long since been introduced as a suggested variant for people who didn't like Imperial I.
The rules do talk about switching the II's around individually, on page 9. Basically, it says you may wish to optionally replace any of the original cards with same-name new cards, or vice versa.
Basically, to get the best results out of mixing and matching:
- First, pick either the NEW or OLD sets of the 1,3,4,8 cards; these 4 don't have "same names" in the other set, and should be used as a set. Partly, this is because much of the functionality of the 1,3,4,8 cards are the same, but organized differently. For instance, Imperial 8's secondary does much the same thing as Production 4 in general. Having both of them would cause a LOT of production; having neither would make production happen a lot less! Logistics 4 has the same basic effect as Leadership 1, although implemented slightly differently. Having both would cause a TON of command counters to be in the game; having neither would make it very, very difficult to keep CCs around.
- If choosing the "old" set of the 1,3,4,8 cards, decide if you want Imperial I or II
- Regardless of which set of 1,3,4,8 cards you pick, choose which 2,5,6,7 cards you want. You can mix-and-match these individually; IE, you can use Diplomacy I, Trade II, Warfare I, and Tech II just fine.
My group uses Bureracy, original 3rd ed warfare, and possibly original trade as well(we are debating it).
Original warfare owns cause of the ability to build and then move, circumvent diplomacy, and bring multiple hexes of units to one square to prepare your invasion(max out storage, transfer ground troops, specialize carrier cargo, etc) and then remove the counter and head out en masse, all of that vastly outweighs any +1 to combat rolls. All of those functions of warfare are unique as opposed to +1 to combat rolls which is extremely generic(racial, morale boost, etc). Trade seems under-powered and will almost never be taken in a 6 player game outside of when it has 2 bonus tokens on it.
We don't use imperial because it makes the games strategy phase quite static. It sucks to have to take 1 or 8 based game mechanics. Having to have a sabotage late game to prevent strategic shift/stability cards is annoying. It's a lot more fun to sabotage a flank speed to your home system and own someone in the last pivotal combat because all their ships can't get there.
Also, I recommend you take out the most insane take over everyones stuff secret objective(merciless, relentless....can't remember name). I've been the only person to ever complete that in my group of friends lifetime and still didn't win due to the effort expended on that.
I hope that helps!
@Shadowplay
The use of Imperial II variant card undo the take #1 then take #8 Strategy card clock you are talking about in your last reply.
Shadowplay: I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of Warfare II. No doubt it is weaker than Warfare I, but there is more than a simple +1 bonus being confered by Warfare, the bigger advantage is the +1 increased movement speed. Sure, you could get more than +1 range with War1 by double moving, but that costs an additional command counter. I also want to point out, that while somewhat generic, a +1 bonus stacks with other bonuses and works on defense; removing a command counter does not tend to help a player defend unless they've got a pile of res to spend on builds (in which case why not take production!)
The Fist of Ferrum said:
Shadowplay: I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of Warfare II. No doubt it is weaker than Warfare I, but there is more than a simple +1 bonus being confered by Warfare, the bigger advantage is the +1 increased movement speed. Sure, you could get more than +1 range with War1 by double moving, but that costs an additional command counter. I also want to point out, that while somewhat generic, a +1 bonus stacks with other bonuses and works on defense; removing a command counter does not tend to help a player defend unless they've got a pile of res to spend on builds (in which case why not take production!)
The +1 movement speed is insignificant compared to the power of the for...wait I mean compared to consolidating(massing) in one system and then using warfare to move them. It allows you to min/max your forces meaning perfect balance of ground force to fighter and fleet supply max of the best ships possible. That is MUCH harder to pull off using warfare II.
You do get your command counter back into your pool which again is vastly superior because the game is fluid. This is even more important when you have massed fleet supply and are dealing with limited command counters. You may have planned to take Mecatol and complete a secret objective but then someone brings in an armada and steals a artifact planet to try and win. In many circumstances with Warfare 2 you would have already took off for mecatol and be powerless to stop someone from winning the game.
Versatility would be why you'd take warfare and why it is so critical late game. Nothing else trumps diplomacy, enhances movement range, consolidates fleet power, move-build-move, and can also be used for extra production.
Original warfare gets my vote. I'd say just add the +1 token to any 1 system in addition to old warfare rules. Makes it even better and more desireable late game.
Peace!