Before I get into anything, please note that this thread is for the discussion of possible house rules based on reviews and session reports (no, I have not played the game yet - will be doing so for Christmas) for feedback from the community after preliminary plays. Yes, I will play with the Rules As Written for at the very least my first game (with one exception) so I can get a feel for things, but I wanted to share these ideas with people to see what the consensus might be "hypothetically speaking".

So, to start, the one and only rule change I will be implementing in my first game:

Scene of Crime marker

Visiting the Scene of Crime marker allows you to "get a jump on the case" by handing the First Player token to any player. This costs 0 time.

Based on session reports and reviews, it seems that it's actually more beneficial to go last in turn order for the sake of your plots. I also reduced the cost of getting a jump on the case to 0 time to make it a more attractive option.

Then possibly for future games:

Evidence tokens

Before the game begins, remove all negative-value evidence tokens from the game.

A common complaint in the reviews I've read so far is that it is too difficult to mentally keep track of which suspect might be the most guilty at any given time. It seems that a large contributer to this would be the fact that evidence tokens can make a suspect's guilt go down as well as up. With no negative-value tokens, a suspect's guilt will always go up, just by slightly differing amounts. This also makes the Reporter's and Snitch's abilities more useful.

Alibis, surprise witnesses, purjury and strong/weak files

To accommodate the above rule change:

At the end of the game, when calculating the guilt of each suspect, one evidence token of the highest value is removed from the suspect's "weak" file, and one token of the highest value in the suspect's "strong" file is doubled.

A surprise witness token in a file "cancels" one token of the highest value in that file. A purjury token coupled with a surprise witness token will double that token instead.

An alibi token cancels the evidence token of the highest value anywhere on the suspect.

Turns, Time and the First Player token

Instead of passing the time sheet around, place it in a central location where it can be reached by everyone. At the start of each day, each player places one of the character tokens on the "0" time space. As investigators use time, they move their marker up the time track (rather than down) to keep track of how much they have used. Once a player reaches their maximum time for the day, they may not take any more actions or turns.

Instead of a player taking all of their actions uninterrupted as their turn, a player's actions will be split up across multiple turns over the course of a single day. A player's turn now consists of:

1) One or more movement actions, then

2) One action of any other type.

Therefore, a player may make multiple movement actions as the first part of their turn to move across the board quickly, but then take only one "other" action.

The order players take their turn in is determined by the time sheet. Whichever player has so far used the least amount of time this day will be the next player to take their turn. In the case of ties (as will be the case at the start of each day), the player holding the First Player marker decides the order players take their turns in.

This makes the First Player token much more useful, meaning that detectives will be visiting the scene of the crime much more often (as, thematically, they should do). It also reduces downtime, gives players more opportunities to interrupt each other's plans and makes the whole time mechanic much more interesting.

Light/Dark cards

When you play a light card on yourself, you dark-shift your character, as usual. However, when another player plays a dark card on you, instead of that player light-shifting their own character, they light-shift your character.

The mechanics for light/dark-shifting at the moment seem to be designed to encourage as much card play as possible - there doesn't seem to be any reason not to play any cards you may hold in your hand. This rule change makes the playing of cards more of a tactical choice - you can play a light card on yourself, but then you open yourself up to other players playing dark cards on you. According to session reports, dark cards are very circumstantial anyway, so this would still be a gamble you would be willing to take.

Anyway, those are my initial ideas for Android house rules. Please tear them apart as you see fit based on my grand total of zero plays so far (just please don't reply with "play the game first", as I'm well aware of that already).

Play the game first.

No, seriously. Why do people think they have to house rule a game that hasn't even entered their house? A game they have played maybe once - or not at all? Firstival, while others may (or may not) have a reason for those rules, it doesn't necessarily mean that you wil have the same field of appliance. Secondival - FFG's games are highly complex. And because they are, the process of designing them is more than just cobble up a couple of game pieces, slam together the rules and ship the finished product after a month. From design to finish, rules, components and theme are tossed around and changed a multitudinous of times until you, me or Big Head Zach can buy it in the stores. But even when those components are finished, the game goes through a heavy time of playtesting and further alteration. Once it arrives and you get your hands on it, it is a finished product. Everything in this game has been tested, and the designers have determined that it works just the way it was intended. It is *NOT* broken. There is no need for house rules in order to FIX things.

So, why do people still go out and house rule? The answer is as obvious as insulting: FFG's games are complex and difficult to learn. While the complexity of Android and Galactica result in their high replay and fun value, it also makes them difficult to conquer. The high number of components and mechanics interact with each other on more than just a single level. Even though you may understand the rules, their meaning will be More Than Meets The Eye. So while a single rule may not make much sense on a first or second glance, it has its raison d'être. Even though you may not understand why it works this way, rest assured the designer knows. These complex interactions are carefully balanced and counterweighted. So the first time you change a rule so that it makes more sense to you, you break this intricate balance, moving the game into a direction it was never intended to go. Maybe it's a good direction. Maybe it's more fun to play. But more likely, you will break a carefully constructed centerpiece of the game, making other rules obsolete/illogical/unfitting/not usable and thus ruining it. But even if that's not the case, chances are you are not experiencing the game the designer wanted to you, resulting in a less deeper or logical experience, ultimately leading to an unsatisfied gaming experience.

A special case is house ruling a game you haven't even played yet. Unless you are a highly creative guy and desperately try to solve other people's problems, I'd suggest you play it first and get your on view on things. Maybe you discover while this rule was constructed the way it was. Maybe you find out something the other person missed. Maybe - just maybe - there was never a real reason to house rule anything.

Now. This whole rant may hurt people's feelings. If that's the case, I don't care cause I'm an *******. But those who feel attacked on their soil just because they are house ruling certain games let me tell you this: Do it and don't mind this post. I myself have house ruled several games because I (and my group) felt it improved the gaming experience. But we never had to house rule a game in order to "fix" something.

Just always keep this in mind: The rules are there because there is a reason for it. The game designers did NOT miss something - trust me. First, play the game a couple of times and figure out if the point in question is really as annoying as you think - or maybe find out that there are some layers you initially did not get but now realize. Then, if that's still not the case, think before house ruling. Are you ruling in order to "fix" a game? Then chances are you simply overread something in the rules or interpretated something wrongfully. But are you ruling in order to improve your gaming experience? Then - by all means - go.

And for those that made it this far - thank you for flying Mike Airways. Exits are to the left and to the right. While the pilot brings what is left of this airplane us to a screeching halt, feel free to leave constructive criticism with the Reply button below your seat. Thank you and good night.

Mike said:

Thank you for not only ignoring my first paragraph but to go on to make a point of writing seven paragraphs of ignoring it.

It's okay - being a big house-ruler I've become accustomed to people getting uppity at the mere mention of changing a single rule about a game, and the attitude that the game designer is some sort of demi-god who can do no wrong, and that all us Joe Public plebs can do is mess up something that is "obviously" finely balanced on a knife edge. Oh no, wait - I haven't become accustomed to it at all. It still pisses me off as much as ever, which is exactly why I wrote that first paragraph the way I did. I don't believe at all that the game designer is insusceptible to error, even with dozens to hundreds of playtesting reports at his disposal. I'm also of the opinion that many rules are included in games (or rather, left out of games) - and FFG's games in particular - for the sake of simplicity. FFG create quite complex games, but they still want their products to appeal to as large a market as possible, so they may sometimes "dumb down" a rule or mechanic at the expense of gameplay in order to make it more attractive to a mass market. My time/turns variant is an example of where something like this "could" have happened.

Just for the record, I did not mention any any way at all that I think the game is "broken". Obviously if I think something is broken then I will house rule it, but for the most part I create house rules to "enhance". For example in this case I am trying to give more importance to the Scene of the Crime and the First Player marker. It may have been the designer's intention that the SotC/FPM not actually *have* much importance in the game, but I don't give a rat's arse about the designer's intentions - after my preliminary reading of the rules, corroborated by a number of reviews and session reports, it seems to me that the First Player mechanic sucks; not "broken" - just a bit lame. As I said I'll play *at least* one game with the Rules As Written to see how it plays out in reality, and will check with my gaming group to see what they think as well. But if my "hunch" is correct (no pun intended), then I will have no qualms with implementing this rule change. And the same goes for all the other rule changes.

The rules are not a holy book. I am not being sacreligious by altering anything (or in this case, even daring to mention that anything *could* be altered). If you think the game is perfect as it is, fine. Let those of us who don't perform our "enhancements" without being persecuted!

*le sigh*

Now, if anyone would like to comment on the houserule ideas themselves rather than pontificate on the moral dubiousness of game hacking, please do. Anyone else: I will hunt you down, rip of your head and insert rough-cut meeples down your asophagus until you die of an infected splinter, or blood loss, whichever comes first.

Have I clarified my first paragraph enough now?

Bravo, Mike. Well said.

gschmidl said:

*prepares the meeples*

Bleached Lizard said:

Having not played the game, I do not feel qualified to make any comments on the houserules themselves.

Firstival, I must indeed apologize if you feel attacked. While this was not my intention, your posting makes you a prominent target. Apparently we both agree on the fact that house rules are not needed for fixing a game but merely enhancing it. On to the designer's holy bible - I don't wage a holy war against people who alter the one or other thing. I was merely pointing out that a lot of thought went into designing a system like Android, or Arkham, or Galactica.

Nevertheless, you have your opinion, and I have mine. They may not be congruent but at least overlapping in some points. That being said...

I think removing the negative evidence tokens removes a lot of guessing game from the murder-hunt. From my last game, I was pretty surprised by how the nominary value of the suspect's murderer-files turned out to be with two suspects being heavily loaded with tokens. One, however, recevied a lot of negative ones, making me feel in the safe zone, while in reality, I should have followed up much more leads.

This is also a prime example of the game's rules interacting on another level. Had I talked to Jimmy far more often, I could have seen that coming. Fortunatley I was first player, so I could have followed her up easily.

One of meeples for me, too.

Mike said:

Could you explain your last game in a little more detail? What happened with those two suspects? Why did you feel in a "safe zone", and why should you have followed up more leads?

Jimmy != "her". Do you mean Jimmy or Lily? What difference would being first (or last) player have made?

Personally, it does seem kinda wrong for people to make house rules before either playing the game or even owning it.

However, I can understand why. Some very experienced games players (like myself) know what particular mechanics I like in a game, and which I dont. I too sometimes come up with minor tweaks to games before even playing them, because I know what I like. For example in games where a certain number of things are on display and when one is taken - the next one from a pile is turned up to join the available ones (eg: Alhambra, Powergrid). I always house rule that the top card is visible to all players. True that it introduces a little bit more thought into what to do since everyone knows what is coming next.

Take "Year of the Dragon" - best game from Essen 2007 IMO. At the start of the game, all the 12 event tiles are layed out in a row face up for everyone to see what is happening and when so that they can plan accordingly. Perfect. In fact, if this game had a rule that they were all face down and you revealed them one by one, I would have house ruled it that they were all face up.

And - I would have felt 'qualified' enough as an experienced gamer to have understood the rules and analyse what impact this would have on the game before I made it. Sure, sometimes I am wrong, but I usually tend to tweak things in a minor way.

Now that I've said that, having played Android once, I would agree with only the first part of what the OP said - I think using the scene of the crime should allow you to give the start player marker to any player, but I think it should still cost 1 time. This is because in my game, I was pretty screwed by going first and the other players never even considered taking the first player off me, because it was hurting me more than it was helping me - and the worst thing was that there wasnt anything I could do about it.

Making the rule that you can give it to any other player is a minor tweak which would give everyone the chance to manipulate turn sequence, which is really what this space should be about.

All the other comments are way too radical a change for me to even consider them without playing it many more times. Removing the negative evidence tokens seems wrong and not shifting yourself when you play dark cards is completely against a fundamental game mechanic.

Well, I tried to prove one of my hunches guilty. Him and some other guy were constantly loaded with evidence tokens. I amde sure the guy one got a lot of perjury ones and placed a number of high evidence tokens on mine. In the end, there were more tokens on my hunch than on the other. But when we revealed them, a lot of the tokens on my hunch turned out to be negative ones, making him especially innocent. Had i used Jimmy (I meant him), I could have looked under my hunch, seeing that a lot of those evidence tokens were negative. This would have resulted in me following up more evidence to place more tokens on him, gaining the VPs. I simply didn't give enough attention to the complex nature of placing evidence and thus got served.

Being the first player was helpful in that regard that I could have used an encounter's special rule to place multiple evidence tokens on my hunch. My girlfriend, who would have her turn after me, was pretty angry, because she would have wanted to do that, too. Tough luck for her, I was first player. She should have gotten a jump on the case.

One of my gaming friends (always the same one actually) inevitably replies, to every game someone brings out, a way to 'improve' the experience with a house rule despite only getting through a single 'learning-game', so I have developed a somewhat skeptical general outlook on house ruling. Ironically, that lead to my own house rule I apply to every new FFG/board game that I introduce to my gaming group (where I am the game owner):

"There will be no discussion of house rules until at least 5 full sessions have been played in which the person suggesting the house rule has been involved."

I know that sounds passive aggressive, or like trolling, but I feel it does honestly contribute to what is being looked for in this thread. To improve a game through house ruling requires real understanding of the board game itself, the meta game(s) behind it, and how certain mechanics interact with one another. But enough on that, Mike already gave a nice rant along these lines.

About the first player being useless, that has been brought up in another thread and the strategies behind the 'jump on the case' ability are based largely on inexperience. I understand the concern, as going last allowed me to stack some nasty baggage on my bud and therefore get him a bad plot, but he got the first player position by getting a jump on the case when he was last player, giving him two turns in a row (conspiracy bingo, anyone?).

Also, removing negative evidence seems like it would be counter productive to game balance, especially with the removal of evidence in strong/weak categories to consider. Granted I do agree it is hard to keep up with, I don't feel you necessarily need a photgraphic memory of every piece placed, just a general idea. For example, on my guilty hunch, if I drew a -1 evidence piece that fit into his 'strong' evidence type (where you remove the lowest value) I made sure it got tossed on there just in case there were no other negative values at the end of the game (i.e. if he had four +1 guilt tokens but no negatives, that is 4 points of guilt that go bye-bye toward my hunch). Really, I think keeping a general idea of key pieces (knowing where your alibis/perjuries are, knowing I point "alot" of positives here or "alot" of negatives here, is enough, especially considering location and light cards that let you look at/manipulate evidence pools.

Paul Grogan said:

Thank you, Paul - I agree with pretty much everything you say (except for the very last paragraph, of course - that remains to be seen after some playtesting).

Yes - the change to the SotC/FP rules cannot *possibly* hurt the game, as if going first really is as advantageous as the current rules imply it to be, then players will simply continue to choose themselves as first player while using the variant anyway. The only possible negative impact this could have on gameplay is to allow for a *very* small amount of kingmaking to take place, which is negligible.

As for the other house rules I came up with, they are actually pretty much in order of how "convinced" I am that they would improve the game from top to bottom in my original post:

The one I am most convinced about is that negative evidence tokens should be removed, as I think this would mean players would have to be much more clever with their tile placement, and would add an element of deduction to the game (deduction that, from what I've heard, is next to impossible with the current mechanics, yet greatly desired).

The one I am next most convinced about is the SotC/FP mechanic. I came up with this idea mostly to deal with the "First Player: Better to be First or Last?" issue. With the variant rules, the First Player can be both first *and* last in any given day, which makes the SotC a location well worth visiting. It also reduces downtime, and adds a much more thematic feel to the time mechanic (detectives experience their game "days" concurrently, rather than sequentially).

The one I am least convinced about is the light/dark mechanic. I understand why the mechanic is as it is: to encourage the players to play as many cards as they can and thus "evolve" the story, which is what Android is all about. However, this removes any kind of thought from actually playing the cards - you just play them whenever you can. The variant changes this to add more tactical choices at the expense of the story (though not necessarily - one review I read said that one problem they felt about the game was that many different and varied events were taking place all the time that didn't seem to have much to do with the main plots. With the variant, it would encourage cards matching the player's plots to be played, as they would be cheaper, meaning the story would be more coherent). So each mechanic has its pros and cons - it just depends on whether you want a more story-driven "take that" game, or a less story-driven gamer's game.

Ou of curiosity, on average, how many evidence tokens tend to end up on each suspect's sheet?

Mike said:

Not to state the obvious, but if there were a load of evidence tokens on your guilty hunch that you didn't put there, doesn't it seem pretty obvious that most of them would turn out to be negative value?

I put the majority of the tokens on there myself. My girlfriend placed tokens on both the two suspects. And as you don't draw a negative evidence everytime, it's safe to assume that she put some positive counters on there, too. So, no, it wasn't as obvious as it sounds. But, yes, could have sued some more deductive thinking.

At mid-game of a three player game, there were roughly 15 pieces of evidence on the two major suspects with one to three on the other two.

Our game was a little odd. There was more puzzle action than evidence. By half way through we had about 10 pieces in play, but then Noise hacked into the database and wiped everything. Now, I'm not too sure about this event because it actually happens with only a few turns to go, so we ended it that Noise was guilty with only 1 evidence piece left on his board at the end, and Vinnie wasnt guilty because of a surprise witness. Put simply, one lucky counter played at the end of the game gave a 30VP swing in points.

Paul Grogan said:

Yeah, I noticed that card as well and instantly recognised it as a piece of bad game design. The cards that prevent any more evidence being placed on a particular suspect are also pretty unfair on the player that drew that suspect's guilty card.

Bleached Lizard said:

While I typed that before I saw your meeple threat, I OW AH OH MY GOD

Apparently I'm no allowed to reply with just a smiley face on it's own, so let me just say...

I think both lowering the time cost and making the Get a Jump on the Case more powerful (even if slightly so) may be going overboard. I suggest trying it one way first. Then the other. Then making that call. Just a thought.

I don't think that getting rid of negative evidence tokens is a good idea at all.

• You need to be able to make your innocent hunch more innocent as well as make your guilty hunch more guilty.
• You need to be able to counter previously played evidence
• you need to be able to bluff without activly adding another player
• The uncertainty of the process is core to the games final resolution where your not supposed to know for sure who is guilt

Of course its your house your rules, but I don't think it will improve the game. I'm not sure about the turn order modification, have to play another full game at least.

This post needed major reformating after I first posted it. Replacement post below.

tommh said:

Why?

tommh said:

Why?

tommh said:

Why?

tommh said:

The variant retains this.

Lets stop this here. Your variant is ok for people who want to use it. Lets not get into arguments about which is best because that is a matter of opinion. Whilst I personally think that the First Player thing should be changed, and I will be house ruling it so, there are a number of people who dont want to use it - that is their opinion.

Personally, getting rid of negative evidence is a very big optional rule. If you like it and prefer your games this way, thats ok. If you think it makes a better game, thats ok, you play like that. But I would recommend only doing so if all the other players who play with you think so too. Otherwise, you will be forcing them to play a game that is radically different from what was intended without them seeing the original version.

The variant has been posted, let people decide what they want to do. If people continue to argue about it, we will be here till Christmas 2010.

Lets get back to spending time on rules questions and FAQ.

Paul Grogan said:

Just for the record, I did say in my original post that I would play the game as-is *at least* once (probably 2-3 times) before implementing anything but the modified First Player rule (simple version). I'm actually a little surprised by how many people thought I was intending to implement *all* of these changes first game!

This thread was meant to stimulate intelligent discussion on hypothetical changes to the game that could be made. Instead all I got was a bunch of responses that basically amounted to "you can't do that because it will change the way the game is played". Well guess what: it's a variant - it's meant to!

What I'd like to hear is reasons why the rules I've put forward wouldn't work that don't involve:

• Personal preference
• Designer's intent
• Assumptions and preconceptions about what "should" be in the game
• Prejudice against changing rules (i.e, considering a rulebook holy)
• Prejudice against the game playing in a different way or against a need to adjust play style.
• Assumption that designer is always right (have you never heard of "errata"?)
• Saying it won't work and then not explaining why (without invoking any of the above points)

Simply, mechanically , is there any reason why the variants I've sugested wouldn't work?