I'm only 1 game in, and I went first, and I came last. And I was cheating too! (accidentally) If I hadnt been cheating, I'd have been even more last (if that is possible).

I allowed myself to sacrifice things to gain good baggage on my plots when it wasnt my turn since nothing in the rules said I couldnt and it takes no time. However, Kevin has said on another thread that it has to be done on your turn.

So, the player who goes first has a big disadvatage regarding their plots since the other players ended up making the final decisions on how much bad baggage I got. Whereas, if I went last, I could have final say over this. So I think going last is better. I saw no real advantage at all to me going first all game apart from maybe on the first turn with leads, but that was because they were near me.

Whilst completely unrealistic, I was thinking of amending the scene of the crime action to allow you to move the start player marker to another player, rather than claiming it yourself. Because in our game, it really hurt me that I had it, so the other players never bothered taking it off me and there was nothing at all I could do about it.

This is where the initial complexity of the game blinds new players. From your personal situation, you are right. But there are a lot of advantages in being the first player. While I myself only had one game so far and am as stumped as you, I can tell you one advantage already: You can be the first at any special site established through an event. For example, if Mr. Lee appears somewhere at the start of the turn and will give the first player four favors at his location, you are the first who can get there. Same goes for all other events.

Also, if you are the first in the turn order, you have the best chances of disrupting the carefully planned strategies of the other players in regards to, for example, finishing conspiracy lines.

Mike said:

That actually happened in our game, but I got their first mainly because it was right next to where I was. If it appeared the other side of the board, I probably wouldnt have bothered.

Another advantage of going first is for dark card play. Since only one card can be played per triggering event, it allows you to play yours. So if everyone is full darkshifted, for example, then you can be sure you'll get to play some dark cards and light shift before your turn.

Mike

You also have to think that not always it will be useful for other players to derail your plot. There's only so many things they can do on their turns, so unless you're clearly on the lead or conflicting with them a lot, they'll probably find more useful things to do with their time.

Another alternative if you really want your plot to work, which usually comes at the first week plot if the sad ending has a side effect that cripples your game, is overshooting with good baggage. Yes, by the same token as above, you're stopping doing other things in other to get the needed good baggage, but if it counts that much, that's OK. Other players, seeing you have a big buffer of baggage (yay alliteration!), probably won't try to derail it. Make sure it's worth it, though, some plots' sad endings can be endured (sad endings coming from the good crossroads tend to be fairly tame).

I'm not sure to what extent does all this apply to Raymond Flint, though.

Just to throw a related strategy I saw in one of my 'half-game' sessions that seemed to have potential:

If you are starting the game as last player, then spend work it so you get the jump on the case, you effectively get two turns back to back. Awesome for setting up the conspiracy or accomplishing other tasks, provided the board and situation allows for it.

So that isnt best for starting as first player, but that is a valid reason why someone would want to spend the AP for a jump on the case.

Yes, and if they want to they can take the first player if they want to by getting a jump on the case. The variant rule means that people who really want not to go first (or want to go last) for whatever reason, can still have the ability to do so.

The variant rule takes nothing away from the game. If people want to use it to go first, they can. If people feel that going first is really good then use it to do this - I am not suggesting changing that. But, despite the number of people saying there are big advantages to going first, there are also disadvantages, and so players who are stuck with it should be able to manipulate this.

I can see this house rule easily being exploited. Everybody will want to be last player, and then first player for every odd round in order to gain two turns back to back. From my point of views, this rule will result in everybody travelling to SoC every round.

I myself will not use that rule - because of the reasons stated in the other thread.

Mike said:

You really think so? Would it not occur to them that it would be an incredible waste of actions to continue doing that all the time?

I was about to construct a simple example when it hit me that all those clever ideas and thoughts are for naught: Whatever any player's intentions are, the last player ultimately decides about the next round's first player. So if you really want to take turns back to back, you will get it if you're the last player (because you are the last one that can move the First-Player-Marker (FPM).

Once this has happened, however, the turn order is rightshifted, giving a different player the opportunity to take a double-turn. Thus, the double-turn mechanic is propagated through the entire round evenly.

Obviously, this works only while people consider turn order valuable only for double turns. So, let's take a look at the other side.

Let r(i) = 1, ..., x, ..., n be the players that participate in a game of Android that is currently in round i. Player 1 goes first, player n last. Now, let X have a plan that asks for somebody else but 1 and n be the first player (because the latter situation would result in the aforementioned scenario). Whatever his plan, if n does not get a jump on the case, he will neither be first player next round nor gain his double-turn. A non-action on player n's turn will thus result in him losing a big advantage. Furthermore, depending on who X choses to be the first player, it will take a very long time until n will be the last player again, giving him the opportunity for a double-turn. The only logical course of action for player n would thusly be claiming the first player token this round himself, giving him a double turn. But being able to do so is already possible with the normal rules. Also, since X's action has no effect whatsoever now, the proposed house rules have no effect on the game but costing X time. This proves that the proposed rules have no influence in the game and hence are useless. QED.

Please note, however, that this applies only under two conditions:

1. The last player (n) has enough time to make it to the scene of the crime and get a jump on the case and

2. Player n chooses the most valuable playing strategy.

As the first condition is true 70-80% of the time and the second should be always, the proposed house rules would only change gameplay on a very minor number of occasions, probably happening only once a game.

Mike said:

Correct. But I think it is needed to stop the situation I was in where going first IS bad for a player, and cant do anything about it.

In our game, everyone else realised I was screwed by going first so nobody went to the scene and every took 1st player off me.

I dont think with the "tweak" every player will be visitng the scene every turn.

The fact that the variant doensn't take anything away is not reason enough to justify it, because though that is true, it adds something to it. And that something, is likely not good, like Mike said. (Reminiscent of the Imperial - Initiative dance in Twilight Imperium).

Going first is not bad. If you left the door open by barely getting more good baggage than you have bad, that is your fault. Plus, not always the best play is sinking another player's plot. Aditionally, most of the time you can still get a happy ending (though a smaller one) from a bad crossroads, and the sad endings coming from the good crossroads tend to be quite slight. Yes, you'd be prevented of scoring the big happy ending, but if it matters that much to you, you should have gotten more good baggage before, and not cry foul because you can't get more now. Be like the ant, not like the grasshopper.

For what it's worth Paul, I agree with you. I think Mike and the Referee are just desperately trying to find ways to comply with the eleventh commandment: "Thou shalt not change game rules".

And I'm sick of arguing

Lets agree to leave it as

"Some people think that going first can be bad. For those people, try the optional rule. If you dont think going first can be bad and dont want the optional rule, dont use it." End of discussion.

Just to note that in all cases but one, this is made worse by the fact that Lily Lockwell starts at the scene of the crime, so getting a jump on the case costs you 2 time, not 1. (Although you get a small other benefit too.)

Short game update:

I felt indeed quite under pressure as first player. But from the gains (especially event cards), it made up for it.

In another game I also used the double-turn tactic in order to follow up seven different leads and get some favors without the others even being able to blink. That was very powerful, winning me the game eventually.

Well we can do a analysis and see this:

Twilight card play - going first has the advatange since your dark cards always get to act. This allows you get shifted for your next turn.

Event play - Going first has the advantage since you get to react to the event first

Plot play - Going first is a disadvantage since everyone else can react to your plot play (both positive and negative) before plot resolution

A special disadvantage of going first at the begining of the game is that you can't gain a double move o0r near double move by siezing first, but this is offset by the fact that you get to act first (first crack at evidence, etc.)

Personally I'd rate it a close to a wash, with characters (and players) that are plot focused seeing a disadvantage and others seeing a advantage.

The benifit of gaining a double turn or near double turn (one intervening player) is obvious of course as is the corresponding disadvatage to the former first player with everyone essentially getting two turns before he goes again. But this is counterbalanced somewhat by the pain in the butt of going to the scene of the crime, and that now a new player has the same opportunity.

I've only played one game so far, but the game basically ended up revolving around who went first.

I was Louis, my brother-in-law was Caprice, and my sister was Floyd.

The game ended up coming down to who was going first, and that player would end up being able to do the most because of a dearth of dark cards in the others' hands.

I know most games might not be like this (we weren't putting that much emphasis on twilight cards, and we were all overly wary of seedy locations), but I think that going first early game might be one of the best things to do because of a lack of a clear leader and a lack of dark cards.

I have now played 4 times and taught 5 other people how to play. I explained the them my optional rule and all of them said it makes a lot of sense and we have always played with it. However... in all 4 games, nobody has ever been to the scene of the crime! Just always had something better to do. Although in the last game (where I was Louis, again, and went first, again), I nearly got one of my plots messed up when another player could have gone to one of the locations on the board and given me a bad baggage.

In that game, just like the first, going first was no help whatsoever.

I think going first is good as going last till something breaks the balance: plot resolutions, an event that clear all the clues just one day before climax.... this is just a game variable that could change the final result, but only if people has good strategy and good cards.

I don't think designers have implemented the FPM to be the most thing to do every turn.