Hi everybody,

I have read those rules and would like to know what you think of it.

It looks to me a very in depth job, quite ambitious (director's cut!) and not respectful to Kevin W. and Dan C. . Am I wrong?

I mean, every rule has been changed and that makes the game hardly comparable to the original.

I think that a lot of rules were not understood in their philosophy and that's why someone has felt the need to change them.

For example, the placing of evidence is a lottery? Well, that's what happens every day when the defending counsel is trying to get pieces of evidence totally different from the prosecutor and they found who was right just when in front of the jury. and one can see what the other has found (physical and documental), but not what witnesses could say. So it is very similar to the game.

Twilight cards and karma. Well, I think that it makes sense to keep players playing cards against each others. And to keep it free and simple. I mean, if I want to keep on attacking the same investigator, that's my choice. Poor or smart that could be.

Why karma changes when I play a card against someone else? that's a rule to keep things working and balanced. that's all! you need a reason? Well, think that sometimes we do bad karmic actions and don't know that. And most of time we don't know either who has sustained that.

Conspirancy. Ok, that's a bit weird I get 4 VPs because of a row of 5 pieces, but that's just a way to give player a reason to resolve the conspirancy. They could use another way, I agree, but that won't mean I feel to change every single piece of the rules.

That's my humble opinion and would like to share with all of us.

thank you for your attention.

This has been discussed (disgust) ad nauseam. There are critics and fans alike of the user created variant just as there are critics and fans with his choice of names.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. If Kevin or FFG representation isn't bother/doesn't care about the name of the user created content, then why should anyone else.

If the discussion indeed needs to be redressed, I will give my two cents at that time.

I have read the rules and just think that it could be interesting the way to get rid of the +4VP Conspiracy Token.

I think the one about Twilight card is more complex and Android doesn't need that.

The combined Director's Cut files have accumulated over a hundred thumbs up on BGG, with the latest version accounting for almost half of those. Version 3.0 has been downloaded almost one and a half thousand times and the file has appeared in the most popular files of BGG for the past two years. I even get the occasional thank you message from BGG users for creating the variants (I received one just yesterday, in fact). So I'm guessing I must have done something right.

Bleached Lizard said:

I think the question the OP raised is not about the quality of your variant, but in calling your variant a "Director's cut" and the implication that this is the definitive way to play the game. I applaud all your effort and care that went to it, but the presentation seems a little condescending, that's all.

rbelikov said:

Well, I've said it before, but I'll say it again because I haven't said it in a while and so maybe the OP missed it: my opinion of the original game and the choice of title are two completely separate and unrelated things. I think the original game implementation is pretty terrible (hence the extensive variants). The title is simply an homage to Blade Runner - nothing more, nothing less.

Bleached Lizard said:

That may be what your intent was, but "Director's cut" is not a term unique to Blade Runner, so it seems to me that most people would not interpet your title as a homage, but rather as "this is the definitive version of the rules as Kevin Wilson should have designed them". Imagine if prior to Blade runner's director's cut somebody made a video and called it "Blade runner: director's cut" and maintained that the title is a homage to, say, the Alien director's cut... Ridley Scott and fans of the movie would have been deeply insulted. He might even have sued. I know the analogy is not perfect, but it does point at least to some of what I mean.

Anyway, it is your responsibility to be cognizant of such possible interpretations and hurt feelings. Also, regardless of what you think of the original game, there are a lot of people who prefer the original rules (wasn't there a poll showing that more than 50% do?). I personally never played by your rules and once I get tired of the original rules, I would love to give yours a spin. I may even like them better than the original. And my hat goes off to you for all the work and care you put into it. But regardless of your intent and merit of your variant, I think that you title conveys a degree of condescension to most people and that is a big turn-off.

rbelikov said:

Fair enough.

What I feel is that whoever has produced such a deep homework had to be aware of hurting implications.

IMHO Android could have been written in hundreds of way just because it mixes rpg and bg worlds. So you can prefer a more realistic set of rpg rules or a more quick paced bg ones.

It is up to you, but as Kewin has explained his feelings to us about Android, I would rather keep it more tight to his way to see it. Android is not just one of the many... . that's why I think director's cut could have been misunderstood.

Bleached Lizard said:

Hiyas!

Yeah, that's a weird choice for a name. I thought, when I first glanced at it, that it was the original game's author doing his own version (the version he'd really wanted published but could'nt, for some reason) & uploading it for free.

Maybe

ANDROID: THE ALTERNATE EDITION

ANDROID 2.0

would sound better?

L