Wow, just wow. We got our copy of the expansion last week and it fulfills every little aspect we were hoping it would. Just an amazing amount of fun packed into it.

From the new ground units that make planetary battled a bit more varied, to the changed in my favourite area, politics by adding representatives. New planets, races tiles, all so amazing!!!

Thanks FF for remembering you TI players and releasing such a awesome espansion. I can not honestly remember the last time i had so much fun with a board game.

Will there be more of these in the future or is this 3rd editions last hurrah ?

Inquisitor Renfield said:

Until a couple of months ago I would have said SE was definitely TI3's last hurrah. I suppose all bets are off now.

Played a game of the new shards expansion last night at 3 players with the thrre new races and all the new stuff just to test it out and i must say it was alot more fun then i thought.I won playing with the nekkro virus race.Their flagship is nasty !!

I am quite surprised at such a positive assessment; for me and my gaming group, the game has been an indescribably huge disappointment for several reasons.

First of all the sheer amount of rule-related questions is mind-boggling. The Ghosts of Creuss' flagship Hil Colish has already spawned, what, a double-digit amount of questions already submitted to the upcoming FAQ? Or should I get started on the congruential errors pertaining to the Arborec and production and the Production Strategy Card in general? The list goes on seemingly indefinitely, as a simple glance at the upcoming FAQ would confirm.

Second of all, the expansion reeks of lack of playtesting and a blatant disregard of thematic considerations. Shouldn't we just rename the new Trade to "Mercenary Recruitment"? Sure, a Trade Master still exists, and the secondary ability is related to the concept of trading somewhat, but in essence the primary doesn't yield any economic advantage unless you neglect others when determining trade agreements - and only if they've already had broken agreements.

Third, the new political phase is, in my personal opinion, outright horrible. In a game that already caters heavily to houseruling due to balance issues, was it really necessary to add an entirely new aspect to it that not only feels horribly clunky but also demands an independent balance-testing? Not to mention there's a very real chance that - particularly once players got a few games of SotT under their belt and know which races don't possess any bodygards - some players will be entirely locked out of the political game by 3rd round? You can argue all you want that there are alternatives to purposefully targetting one race repeatedly, but fact remains that a permanent lock-out is extremely powerful and more often than not worth pursuing to the exclusion of other tactics. After all it's more or less cost-free and a separate element to the actual game. Which is really the main gripe: Representatives are a mini-game in and of itself. It's cool with racial flavour, but it is not Twilight Imperium. It's a mini-game in and of itself that merely adds time to an already lengthy game, particularly within gaming-groups that discuss alot of politics and engage in behind-the-curtain diplomacy.

Fourth.... So. Much. Time. Devoted. To. A. Scenario. ... Sure it's a fine idea... but I'd honestly prefer that they'd devoted time and energy to balancing, playtesting, polishing and refining their product. SotT is, in its current incarnation, a rushed and terrible product in my opinion.

Additionally, the age-old problems that the original game and SE suffered from are still present. Dreadnaughts are still a horrible investment and doesn't fulfill any role in the game. They need ridiculously high-tier techs to actually fulfill any role, and by the time those techs are acquired, you could've gotten War Sun technology and Cybernetics for much, much, much more firepower. 3 Dreadnaughts cost 15 resources. Same as 1 War Sun and 6 Fighters. I trust I don't have to throw math out to underline my point that they are a horrible investment. Even with Assault Cannons, they still pack less bang for the buck than the WS + FTs. Add Type IV Drives before they are actually usable and possess the movement coherence required to participate in an actual fleet... Going dreads means losing the game when playing with a competent playing group. Why are these Star Destroyer-equivalents not fulfilling a niche? Making their Combat Value 5x2 would still make them inferior to War Suns with fighter supplements, but they'd actually be worth their resources then and provide an alternative, albeit inferior, to War Suns. As it is, only War Suns universally counter War Suns. And with the proliferation of technology-giving functions in the game, many games are beginning to degenerate into War Sun fests.

Or how about Preliminary Objectives, perhaps the single-most horribly executed idea I've had the misfortune of encountering in a boardgame. The level of imbalance amongst these is truly mind-numbing. One demands that you control a system adjacent to an enemy player's system (big effing deal), whereas others require all 5 Dreadnaughts on board (a whopping 25 resource investment in the worst unit in the entire game viewed from a cost/benefit analysis point of view), or another one demanding 3 yellow techs (good luck if you are, say, Yin, who starts with zero yellow technologies and got little incentive to aim for War Suns due to their racial abilities and lacking 3 prerequisite technologies already for it). We've found that entire games would easily be decided by which Preliminary Objective you were dished out when playing Rules As Written, since claiming it early allows earlier planning for Secret Objective.

Or how about the Laws, Promissory Notes and Action Cards dishing out Victory Points (or worse, the "1 less VP to win" cards that sows confusion in the VP department even further) regardless of any show of skill? Kingmaking is inherently destructive (in my opinion) as it's irrelevant of skill and based on whims of possible battle-losers favouring the possibly less skillful passive players, and the random Action Cards and Laws upsetting the VP balance is inherently random and disjointed of any skill-related aspect of the game. In my opinion the Public Objective deck should be the primary VP source, with Artifacts as the primary "board-source" of VP's as they promote conflict and conscious tactical choices amongst the players, rather than luck of the Irish. As it is now, the game is incredibly luck-based and random, putting less emphasis on actual game- and tactical skills and higher emphasis on... what, luck? And don't get me started on the advantaged thematically strong races such as Jol-nar and Hacan possess in such a scenario; tech-based objectives in such a short, luck-based game favours Jol-Nar immensely more than usual, since they've got a thematically strong advantage in this department (as they should - the game just shouldn't make it a larger advantage than it already is). The game needs changing, not the race. A wide-variety of objectives should determine the winner, not random luck.

Honestly, Shards of the Throne feels like a rushed, botched job to my group and several other groups that I've got regular contact with in Denmark. Groups who have stuck with TI over a decade in its various incarnations. It added so many things the game did not need, and so few things the game desperately needed. The Flagships are a welcome addition that provides flavour to the races without feeling clunky or heavily upsetting balance, but that's about it.

I honestly can't understand the joy this expansion gives people, and without meaning to insult anyone I can only imagine that it's due to a low level of tactical depth when playing. Or lack of passion for the game. I and many others love TI, still do, but that doesn't detract from the lack of vision shown in this expansion.

Iorveth said:

Now I've voiced quite a few concerns as well, but the Hil Colish questions that I've seen are quite easily answered by a more careful reading of the flagship card. Honestly, with the issues that do exist, the question "Does it just get to pop up anywhere?" was a forehead slapper for me. The Arborec production thing, haven't had much problem with that either. I think I understand how it is supposed to work, though it is a great deal more weird than other racial abilities. They really need to put out the FAQ more quickly and just update it more regularly as they notice more accumulating or have time to think through the tougher ones. Some of these questions have easy answers. I see it sewing discontent the longer they sit on it.

Iorveth said:

I'll agree with you that they probably should not have called the card "Trade III" since Mercenaries have become the main purpose for selecting the card, but I think they have preserved the original Trade mechanic from the previous versions of the card fairly well. The freebie of the primary ability just isn't necessarily trade goods anymore. I really like the new card, especially because it compliments several house rules that I have.

Iorveth said:

The Political Intrigue mechanic does seem to be missing something important. I wish I could sit on the design team to brainstorm with them because I like the basic idea very much. There really did need to be a way for politics to matter more than just bribing the person who has the most influence. I've voiced my concerns about the Yin and Yssaril's lack of ability to stop an assasination, this is something that should be addressed. I have a couple small optional rules that I believe address this issue fairly well.

Iorveth said:

I disagree with you here. The game was so full of rules and options that it was difficult to bring aboard new players. The scenario game is excellent for that because it is a scaled down. I do think the Treaty card element is slightly broken and the "Support of the People" objective card is virtually unwinnable, but, yeah... good idea creating a scenario.

Iorveth said:

You know, I've heard this several times and I've seen the math where some say Dreadnaughts are a horrible investment and others say that Cruisers are a horrible investment. In real combat, when a Dreadnaught or two is the backbone of a fleet, I just haven't seen this disadvantage manifest itself yet. "For the money" comparisons are misleading because game elements like fleet supply, production capacity, and others tend to make things more complicated. I see how if a player decided to spend most of their resources building Dreadnaughts early in the game, or if they were expecting them to stand on their own, they would get massacred. The sustain damage ability and the bombard ability, in practice, have substantial value in several situations. The time to start cranking them out is at about the same phase of the game where you will probably have acquired some of the techs which enhance them. Also, in FFG's defense, they did add the Duranium Armor tech, which is a substantial advantage for Dreadnaughts.

Iorveth said:

I really don't care for the Preliminary Objectives option, because being able to help set up the game board with your Secret Objective in mind was something that allowed you to have some early planning. I'm also a little worried that it would tend to make the game shorter, though for 14-turn Epic games, I might be persuaded to try it. Maybe some folks wanted the board to be set up so that you have to try to be ready for anything. I see your point about some of the specific combos and cards being difficult or destroying your early game. I can think of several ways to alleviate this and still use these cards, but this is indeed something that should be addressed.

Iorveth said:

I do think they need our help with beta testing, but either don't know it or don't know how to ask. I would not say with certainty that they haven't done enough playtesting, but it might instead be the same sort of trouble that happens when a person tries to proofread their own manuscript by reading it over and over. Things will get missed that a second reader would catch right away.

I'm not so worried about the Laws which would give victory points-- because these are usually doomed to go down, or if not the reprocussions for actually getting them (such as having to completely abandon your home system in one case) will cause their own problems for the player benefiting. As for the promissory notes, I think these are fine as long as the 1vp card is given face-up and they cannot be used to force a player to withdraw from their own home system. Either way, I think the public objectives are still the primary source of VPs, just because players generally don't just want to give away VPs to each other. The idea behind these is to make the political element more important-- a viable way to play the game. I wouldn't call it random at all.

I'll gladly reply more in-depth later, Hugesinker, because I appreciate the long and well-thought out reply, which I believe merits a reply in kind. However, it's late, and I'm busy the next couple of days and most likely won't be able to squeeze in a proper reply, so until I find time a short reply will have to do.

Basically, from what I understand, you agree on most of my points yet point out how you've been able to houserule yourself out of the numerous flaws and thematic shortcomings plagueing almost every new facet of SotT, right? You like the ideas if not the execution for the most part. I've been doing that as well, to the point where several large gaming groups, my own included, have been forced to make an actual compendium containing the houserules needed to make a fluid and meaningful gaming experience.

Regarding trade... It would make much more thematic sense if Mercenaries were auctioned, and that the Trade Master gained +3 Trade Goods like before. Fits thematically that they would join the highest bidder, and that the Trade Master, as primary user, holds an economic advantage when it comes to this bidding. Or just an economic advantage, should he refrain from bidding. This would perfectly incorporate the Mercenary aspect yet retain the economic advantage that should be inherent to the Trade Strategy Card (after all, it's what Trade is all about and what the card has always emulated). Much better both mechanic-wise, tactically and thematically.

I can't even begin to describe the flaws of the Political Intrigue option. From encouraging block-politics to lack of defense against assassinations to time-consumption... Reps makes influence-planets matter less. It's a fact. It also encourages block-politics where 3-4 people coordinate it so that their spies force the less numerous victims to defend - if able - while someone else picks a councillor to aid their agenda. Devaluating influence planets, encouraging block-politics, forcing people out of the political game for an entire gaming session, taking more time... This is just the tip of the iceberg. If I had to pin something down as the worst aspect of the expansion, it'd be this. I'm not delving into the deeper flaws of the system here, and my short notes written above are not doing the problem justice.

Regarding Dreads, then Duranium Armor tech boosts War Suns considerably as well. If Duranium affected only Dreads, they'd be a step closer to being a somewhat viable alternative to War Suns. As it is, they're still not cost-effective. I wholeheartedly concur that Dreadnaughts are good if you're mortally endangered and strapped thin on either Fleet Supply or Production Capacity but not resources; then you'd of course rather pack as many dreads as possible into the system, followed by cruisers and then destroyers. Naturally. My point is that dreads are terrible offensively. Getting movement coherence in a fleet containing Dreadnaughts is a far too large investment. Similarly, they are not cost/effective in offensive fleets. One has to assume some thought and calculation goes into offensive fleets at least (and defensive of course, but the example above sketches a scenario where the Dread-buying player is in a world of trouble and can't afford to plan further ahead than next turn, a sub-optimal scenario, to say the least), in which case it is far, far, far more cost-effective to buy other ships. That is indisputable.

I agree that everything cannot be adequately explained by math alone without context, but fact remains that Dreadnaughts are subpar at every single aspect in the game save for the horror-scenario I outlined above. Or unless you play against, pardon the harshness, bad players. Any experienced player will punish a player who starts positioning Dreadnaughts into areas where they might be joined by larger fleets. They'll easily be picked off by smaller ships that are more cost/effective. And of course if somebody sees a lumbering Dreadnaught fleet waltzing towards them, they'll start harrying systems around it or prepare adequately, which they'll fortunately have plenty of time to do.

Dreadnaught's usefulness is directly proportional to the lack of skills of your players or how knee-deep in trouble you are. I think it's honestly a shame that our Star Destroyer-equivalent unit is so terrible. You say that by the same you start cranking them out is about the same time you've got techs for them. That is absolutely wrong I think. First of all it takes alot of time to acquire both Assault Cannons, Duranium Armor and Type IV Drive. And Stasis Capsules and Nano Technology, arguably. It is even highly unlikely you get even the majority of these techs in any given game. To follow your line of reasoning, dreads are cranked out late in the game. What's happened before? You've teched relentlessly just for this moment? You've built up a fleet consisting of smaller ships presumably, right?

.... So why tech Dreads...? 3x Dreadnaughts with Assault Cannon + Type IV Drive still equal an average of a bit more than 3 hits/round. A War Sun with 6 Fighters costs the same, requires far less technologies, is less susceptible to Direct Hits than the Dread Fleet, and it both Duranium Armor and Nano Technology are a much, much more natural addition to the War Sun fleet as the prerequisites basically hand you both Duranium and Nano on a silver plate, whereas the Dreads has to acquire even more superfluous technologies to achieve this. So arguably, even fully core-teched up (Assault Cannons, Type IV), WS + FT's still beat the crap out of Dreadnaughts. This discrepancy is easily exacerbated as the War Suns got a much more lenient and natural tech-progression.

Dreadnaughts are situational at best, garbage at worst. This is a shame in my opinion. They lack the utility of cruisers, who are cheap, can carry a troop like Dreads, got higher movement and can lay down Space Mines. They lack the punch of War Suns. They lack the niche focus of Destroyers. They're horribly expensive. I cannot comprehend why this is not addressed.

Preliminary Objectives: you mention houseruling. Again, I don't mind houseruling as such. We've always done it with a passion, as various message boards testify to, but the vast extent which we have to houserule SotT is immense and quite frankly terrible. You say they're usable with modification. I say they're garbage and that - no offence meant, I got great respect for your reply - you insist on using components of the game simply because they're components of the game. In my opinion Preliminary Objectives add nothing to the game but irritation as you watch one neighbour stroll off with a freebie VP and start working on his Secret, while you sacrifice both mobility, military capability and security because you are forced to slap down Dreadful Dreadnaughts for 25 resources rather than proper fleets. Of course one can houserule this. No biggie, we houserule it! .... Just like the myriad of other things in this expansion.

We need a FAQ NOW at the very least, that much is obvious. The number of questions is mind-boggling. The number of flaws even worse. It won't salvage the game, it's inherently a mediocre product at best, but it might make it somewhat playable RAW without forcing experienced and passionate TI players into a houseruling-fest.

I'll gladly respond later to the rest of your replies, Hugesinker. I still dislike the Lazax scenario and would much rather see them refine the original game and 'clean-up' the existing game, which you yourself mention is rather clunky and confusing at times, especially to new players, than devote so much time to that scenario. Similarly I still disagree vehemently regarding VP's. The mere chance of victories determined by a select few lucky Action Card draws or by a Mageon-implanted Yssaril player fixing up some of them irks me to no end. Or the possibility of the game's best player losing because one or two of the lowest players would rather hand the victory to another bad player rather than the guy who beat them fair'n'square. Kingmaking is a terrible mechanic in any game as it makes people's whims rather than gameplaying skills influence victories.

My group for some time has been allowing movement 2 with dreads. This goes sooo far in making them viable. We play with warfare II, I think with Warfar I deads woudl be too dangerous early in the game.

I will not argue that dreads as written are great, they are clearly a bad buy.

However, the math battle theory/tech costs discussions arround them seal to alwasy fail in this point:

Its agreed that assult cannons are nessary to make dreads long term viable part of your miltary, yet players failt to not that auto deffence turrents is the pre-requist.

I see comparisons of 3 dreads vs a warsun with 6 fights and the question "which woudl win" Well the answer is obvious, but the situation is downright silly. Who flies arround with 3 dreads thinking to take on or hold position vs a warsun???

You pair those dreads up with ADT destroyers and now lets see what that warsun does?

Look at this (much more likey) scenario. Three dreads and three destroyers vs a loaded warsun with 6 fighters and a three destroyer escort. Both fleets have equal cost, the dread fleet spend about the same in tech.

The 3 precombat from the destoyers will clear out about 4 of the fighters, and the assualt cannons kill 2 destoyers. The warsuns escorts have nothing to prefire at.

So now that often quoted match up now looks like 3 dreads and 3 destoyers, vs a warsun , 2 fighters and 1 destoyer. Who wins that comabat?

Another consideration is that dreads can hit te table right away and throw there weight arround, getting better as the techs develope, while its all or nothing for the warsun chasers will they get them. Keep in mind ADT comes early so you have thriple fighter preshots vs those fleets of carriers waiting on warsun support.

Let me be clear, I will not foolishly claim dreads are a good buy comparied to warsuns, the fleet limit issue canl;t be ignored, I just think that players do not look at the whole picture and realize its not as bad as it looks.

As a final aside, I will say, its tough to throw your weight arround with out warsuns, BUT you can win games without them. Often players are fast tracked to geting warsuns so ADT is not out early, transports and fight spam can still pull a lot of weight at the right times and places vs players without ADT.

Still even the above being consdered I feel dreads need to have move 2 to start to make them a fully viable option in the game.

I agree on alot of the points, though we can always degenerate to relativistic arguments. I could also pair the 1 WS with 2 carriers fully loaded and 3 ADTs, That's the same Fleet Supply as your scenario, although more expensive I concede.

Anyway, while the discussion is interesting I'd appreciate if the thread wasn't derailed from discussing the expansion and how the expectations to it have held up, or failed to. Dreads are definitely a part of that discussion, and for that I cherish your reply, but it'd work better if we kept it in the scope of the thread and reserve a separate thread for a more in-depth discussion about Dreadnaughts in and of themselves, regardless of their relation to the new expansion . At least that's my opinion But valid points definitely, though I still believe my point hasn't been refuted; Dreads played RAW has no niche, no clearly defined purpose, no utility. That might not necessarily be bad if the ship was a jack-of-all-trades. However, it isn't. It's... yeah, desperate defense. Or a huge investment both unit- and technology-wise that requires such a huge expenditure and focus that to make them viable, they ought to make or break your game. Really, going for Assault Cannons and Type IV Drive is huge . Getting the other techs that supplement them excludes all other paths for anyone but Jol-Nar. They ought to be decent at the very least. Presently, they're terrible.

Iorveth said:

Yes, I do agree with several points you made. I also really appreciate that you are clearly part of the community who has passion for this game. On the other hand, I do think you're blowing some things out of proportion partly to air some grievances you have with the existing game which I do not feel the expansion should be expected to alter-- like the whole Dreadnaught thing, which I'll touch on later. I think it's fairly clear that since SE, FFG has considered any existing quibbles over balance in the base game resolved-- either by SE, later clarifications, or with the fact that those who have not been satisfied with those efforts have redesigned the game for themselves anyway. I don't blame them too harshly for this. Several 3rd party ideas I've seen are excellent and contribute to improving the fun, strategy, or overall elegance of the game. Many are crap or effectively change very little. I am quite happy with Flagships, Racial Tech, and Mercenaries. With the exception of preliminary objectives, the rest are creative ideas that need a little polishing IMHO.

Iorveth said:

I think your idea about having a mercenary auction plus the original trade good bonus is clever, but I see potential problems with this that are likely to come to light when play-testing. Some factions naturally accumulate more of their resources/influence in the form of trade goods rather than any other way, and I see no compelling reason to provide them with extra benefit. There's also the added benefit to a player who has easy access to one of the trade stations. An auction is likely to favor certain players, whether they've select this strategy card or not. I also think that every mercenary will end up being overpriced, especially in larger games-- probably going for between 4 and 7 trade goods on average.

Thematically, I imagine that the act of hiring mercenaries, especially given the apparent gritty and unscrupulous nature of most of them, is not something that respectable factions or governments would ever do openly, so lack of an open auction does make sense in this context. You don't need to take a mercenary when you use the primary ability of the trade card, but everyone probably will. Perhaps they should have a choice between hiring a mercenary or getting the 3 trade goods-- in essence, a choice between which trade strategy card they want to pick up. This is sort of the way I would handle it. The new mercenary mechanic is overall something good about the expansion.

Iorveth said:

While I have voiced agreement with you that the intrigue option needs work and explanation, I feel as though your complaints are significantly different from my own. This prompts me to ask you a serious question-- did you see a problem with the utility of the political/assembly strategy cards as they were before? Your argument against "block politics" seems to suggest to me that you favor a game focused on production and warfare and believe the existing short and muted political phase already carried the right amount of weight, rather than being tacked-on. I don't see a significant devaluation of planet influence with representative cards. Any boon from them is about as significant as a single good planet, and it's usually risky to play-- especially for the leading player. When 3-4 players coordinate and decide to work as a block, they don't need the political intrigue options to be advantaged or screw up the game for everyone else-- this will happen naturally through existing means. This has happened to my detriment in several games I've played and I don't see how this particular option adds incentives towards that sort of unsportsmanlike behavior. However, I do believe there are ways of getting around even that (dealing with blocks) which an enhanced political phase could easily do by adding to the ways you can apply pressure to opponents.

Iorveth said:

As for: "Just build a War Sun instead! More punch for the money, easy choice. " No. You don't get to say Duranium Armor doesn't make Dreadnaughts sufficiently more valuable just because it improves War Suns too-- Especially when one of your assertions is that Dreads require tech enhancements to be worthwhile. In most games I see, only one or two players ever eventually possess War Suns due to the concentrated tech effort required even to build one. Even then, there is a strict limit of only two of these units. The situation where you happen to have the simple option of building Dreads or a Sun rarely ever comes up, nor does it bother me when it does and War Suns win out. I feel justified in disregarding this objection out of hand.

Also, regarding fleet suppy restrictions, it isn't merely your own fleet supply limitations that make them a viable choice, it's the fleet supply of other players who are likely to engage you. This helps determine the other types of ships that you are likely going to need accompanying them too. Dreads ARE terrible offensively in their raw form. Absolutely. Their primary use is as the backbone of a defensive fleet or as part of a 2-stage assault in the role of support. Primary offensives need to be made by other, faster and cheaper ships. Then a Dread moves in with entourage to finish off a weakened system, hold it from counterattack, and assist with the invasion. They aren't great in a single-stage assault unless the opponent has not taken proper precautions or is parked too close to your fortified space-- something else they can be useful for. With tech enhancements, they can be more useful offensively. You don't need to collect the whole set of Dread tech upgrades for this to be the case either. There are some versatile ways to find them useful depending on what enhancements you decide to buy. I don't generally build many, but I do build them and think I get good value out of them when I do. Maybe you just need to be taught a lesson by a Dread dropping some x86 on your home planet >:-o. muhahah ;-)

Iorveth said:

Fair enough with the Preliminary Objectives. I haven't used them. I will plead guilty to wanting to use as many game components as possible, even if I need to be creative to do so. Making so many of the rules and components optional even by design has encouraged this behavior, I'm only following the game's example . When the FAQ does eventually come out, I'll be very interested to see what you find positive about it, if anything. I'm also interested in knowing how you've salvaged Political Intrigue with house rules, if you bothered. Happy gaming!

i found the new tiles fun, mech units nad flagships also.although i must agree upon the reps, once your there out you can't vote now that would truely suck if everyone jumps on the same guy.as for the new trade its not the same less money handed out but the mercs are cool though.i have no prob with the idea of adding the lazac pre-historical secn cause it could be fun.as for rules wize on the ghost race or arborec no complications we found.

Hey there all. I am glad to hear all the different ideas and play styles people have with the game.

In fact its amazing how different groups of people play this game. For example. Many of you mention issues with Dreads and how Warsuns are just better overall - especially with the new tech. However in our group, we fight over Objectives so much that by the time anyone has a warsun, even if they are grabbing the tech card often - most players are at 7 or more victory points and we are down to the last few moves that will determine the winner of the game.

The politics section has been a HUGE success in my group. Having multiple political agendas to pick from is nice, and the representatives add a fun quirk to an otherwise simple vote session. Block votes should not happen if you are using Concessions properly. Getting a free victory point from someone is way better than some law sometimes. And there are councilors that gain you anything from ships to trade goods based on how you vote. With 6 players the Political card is the phase we look forward to most each game turn.

We house rule nothing other than laying out the space/planet tiles in an asthetic manner rather than random by each player taking it in turns, and the game plays great.

Far be it from me to tell anyone here how to have fun from the game. But non of the rules questions you mentioned came up in our games, nor did we have issues with dreads being useless or any ship being over powered. Mercs are fun and the new mechanized units make ground battles feel a bit more filled out.

I dunno, I just feel like this was a huge success of a expansion that made the game better than ever, but maybe its just due to how we play the game. We have had LOTS of practice and played LOTS of TI3 games so that by the time each expansion came out, our games ran quick and smooth and rules were rarely an issue. (This coming from Warhammer 40k players who deal with vague/odd/conflicting rules weekly )

My suggestion to players having issues here and there with the game is to play a few more times, play to the Objectives more and Tech less and try races you have never played before. And for those of you who love the feeling of wide open space to maneuver in - try using less planets and more empty space/hazard cards (even if you have to flip some over and use the "red space" side) - it's fun to actually have to traverse long distances in space.

Cheers!

Inquisitor Renfield said:

Hugesinker said:

That is actually both an elegant, flexible and decent solution to my quibbles with it. Well done, and thank you!

Hugesinker said:

First and foremost we actually put heavy emphasis on politics, much more than any other group I know of. We've modified the political phase a bit which, to explain it shortly, means that we usually end up with 3-6 more agendas being flipped than if we played RAW. However, what really takes time for us is the political maneuvering behind the scenes. We can go on for a long time about that. An average game for us lasts 12-15 hours. We only manage because we start around 12.00 and end it at 03.00. It requires a bit of coordination since we're approaching our late-twenties, but we still manage occasionally. Politics, with the additions we've made and the way we play it, is an aspect we love and don't feel is just 'tacked on'. What we dislike about the new politics is really the following:

1) Lack of bonus for picking Assembly except for Speaker token. We feel politics are further devaluated because of their absence. They were rarely if ever the main incentive for picking assembly, but without them the card is decisively lackluster in our experience, even with Reps. Picking it makes you feel you lose out on something and that others pull ahead of you.

2) The immaterial has become material. What I refer to is the fact that Representatives and Promissory Notes have, in our experience, stolen part of the limelight that previously belonged to traditional politics. As I and one other in our gaming group are both studying International Law and Politics, and the entire group being interested in politics to some extent, we might be somewhat damaged and hardly proper 'judges' for what works and what doesn't work the 'average' (for lack of a better word) gamer. However, we feel politics has degenerated into sending Reps and exchanging some Promissory Notes - in itself a lengthy process - rather than relying on traditional concepts such as faith in each other, betrayal, reprecussions for breaking agreements and alliances etc. etc... Basically, it isn't even resembling political bargaining any more. Now you're just exchanging binding contracts that cannot be broken. And to us, that is pretty anathema to what politics is about. No more Hitler saying "yah, well, um... I'm not really gonna do something in Poland. Keep appeasing, Chamberlain!" because Chamberlain would fish for a promissory note which Hitler would either give or face war. Reps and ProNotes removes alot of nuances from the political aspect of the game, at least that is our experience. And we enjoyed the political aspect and developed a bit on it.

3) Regarding Block-politics I think that you are partially right. Of course it was always possible. However, if one/some player/players were facing a block, it was possible to wait as long as possible and hope the enemies exhausted their planets, hoping that it was possible to beat them in influence through tactical play. That is still possible, but block-politics force the "victims" to send Bodyguards as they would otherwise almost certainly face assassination. For some races this is impossible. In some cases it is not desirable because no matter how tactically well you play, the 'block' can just work together and use powerful councillors for some funky effects that the victims are helpless against.

Blocks has often and always happened, naturally. However, the problem is that block-politics have now been institutionalized. Sorry for being harsh, but I would go so far as to say that people who do not resort to block-politics once 1-2 people are leading, even only marginally by 1-3 VP's, are mentally deficient. The entire system invites towards perma-elimination or permanent subdual against the leading players because it is simply the most ruthlessly efficient way to play. Additionally, the new system simplifies political alliances; before you had often had 'the block' function as a reactionary force against 'the victims' because they had to calculate with raw influence against 'the victim's' raw influence. If they wanted political say, they had to save some planets. That might still be the case, but honestly... the victims are forced on bodyguards, that's a given. The block can easily net 5-8 influence worth of councillors on top of planets. That is assuming a 6-player game with a 4-player block in which 2 plays spies and 2 plays councillors. The difference can easily be exacerbated by bluff or additional players. The victims cannot afford not to take bodyguards for fear of being permanently locked out.

Which begs the questions....

- is it fun to potentially be permanently locked out? Doesn't that even further diminish the political aspect?

- The potential for 'soft-power' is reduced compared to military 'hard-power' (for those acquainted with International Relations Theory) due to the 3 points I've made above. I'd go as far as to say that even if someone disagrees with one or more of the abovestated points, softpower/political aspect has overall been devaluated compared to military might.

Hugesinker said:

I find it ludicrous that you deem War Suns "a concentrated tech effort"; Enviro Compensator, Sarween Tools and Hylar V Assault Lasers are staple techs that are integral to almost all races. While they, as any other tech, are not mandatory to win, they possess such utility and value that they are very, very often picked up. From that it's only DSC and then WS tech. I would not say it demands a concentrated effort. Dreadnaught technologies, on the other hand, require just that; concentrated effort deep into the tech trees that more often than not does not lead to additional common techs. Type IV Drive is cool, but yeah... huge investment. Assault Cannons? You'd better be serious about those dreads if you tech for them.

Hugesinker said:

Of course X89 Bacterial Weapon is useful, after almost a decade of playing you hardly need to state the obvious. X-89, however, is likewise a deep-tier technology. And while I agree it benefits dreads more than WS' due to Dread bombarding limitations, I still maintain it is too huge an investment considering it is much cheaper and easier to research War Suns. I don't want to elevate War Suns too much, they are not the end-all of technologies, far from it. Most of the games I win are usually without War Suns too because I generally find other avenues to victory more fun. If anything, I'd love to see WS' nerfed. However, the only time I'd research X89 would be against a GF-massing Sol or Arborec Player, or if the law against conventional bombardment was in play. Otherwise I find X89 to be too huge an investment that might as well be better handled by a two-pronged attack in which I dump enough GF's on the planet to conquer it. You can get alot of Gen Synthesized GF's for the price of X89 Bacterial Weapon

Hugesinker said:

If I can be arsed I might make a compendium and get some feedback on it once the FAQ is out. However, until it's out I'll wait as I feel it'd be double-work. Thanks for the discussion so far. Though we might disagree I appreciate the cordial manner.

Iorveth said:

Here is where you lose me.

How does a Promissory note prevent a person whose votes you just garnered, from turning around and backstabbing you via war or the next political phase? They do not. All the notes require is that you vote as that person determines - nothing more. Faith in your ally and alliance treaties is just as ethereal as they ever were and are in no way affected by the notes or representatives.

If you are obeying a treaty just because of the threat of a promissory note of yours another player is holding, then you are artificially preventing game play – not the cards.

In addition, a person having a spy kill off all of someone’s councilors may not have any effect on the vote if the player with the spy has exhausted all of his planets by the time voting comes around. So again, the political phase can be changed simply by when the assembly card is played. This is not including action card effects or racial special abilities which can all change the effect of the assembly card (such as the action card that disallows representatives that voting session).

@Curator: I do believe there is a special hell for people like you But seriously, thanks for the comments!

I'm late coming to this thread. It isn't that I don't want to give a lengthy reply, but a lot of this can go off in tangents, albeit important ones. To stick to topic, I generally think Shards of the Throne is great, and of course it has some things left to be worked on.

Mechanized forces are a welcomed aspect to the game for me. I approve of the flagships as an addition. The jury is out on whether each is worth building, but I don't mind more options, and none seems so broken that it can't be dealt with. Mercs, as a general concept, are good. I like also the political diplomat aspect and ability to gift favors, as the political cards hardly mattered until now (people jus tried to get rid of 95% of them as trade goods before they could be called to vote for them since Shattered Empires). And I happen to love the idea of a special scenario being added with its own unique rules.

The downsides I see are that I agree the Trade card has been marginalized. While I like somewhat the idea of instant goods, the person who picks the card gets a merc instead of more goods. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me and it should, in fact, be called the Merc card. Further, breaking a trade agreement seems mostly pointless. Another downside is that the wording on the Ghosts should have certainly be made clearer. At least some examples should have been cited.

I do not get the feel that it has been poorly playtested. In fact, on the contrary, it seems to be fairly well playtested. Which, of course, is a concern for any expansion. What I do feel is that some things should have been made clearer, and I hope erratas clarify that. Ultimately, I think there are enough expansions out there that I can see playing with everything, but as time goes on, we may go back to customizing the game a bit more, picking and choosing what we use from each set.

{Quoted} - "Additionally, the age-old problems that the original game and SE suffered from are still present. Dreadnaughts are still a horrible investment and doesn't fulfill any role in the game. They need ridiculously high-tier techs to actually fulfill any role, and by the time those techs are acquired, you could've gotten War Sun technology and Cybernetics for much, much, much more firepower. 3 Dreadnaughts cost 15 resources. Same as 1 War Sun and 6 Fighters. I trust I don't have to throw math out to underline my point that they are a horrible investment. Even with Assault Cannons, they still pack less bang for the buck than the WS + FTs. Add Type IV Drives before they are actually usable and possess the movement coherence required to participate in an actual fleet... Going dreads means losing the game when playing with a competent playing group. Why are these Star Destroyer-equivalents not fulfilling a niche? Making their Combat Value 5x2 would still make them inferior to War Suns with fighter supplements, but they'd actually be worth their resources then and provide an alternative, albeit inferior, to War Suns. As it is, only War Suns universally counter War Suns. And with the proliferation of technology-giving functions in the game, many games are beginning to degenerate into War Sun fests."

Completely agree, thank you for the thorough assessment of the "waste of plastic" of the DN. Even though I really enjoy this game, for the price and the time it takes to play, I expect all pieces and elements of the game to be worthwhile and to add something to the game. Five large plastic DN's in eight different colors in RAW form are just a waste of plastic and investment, both in the game and in my hobby cash, and this bothers me.

SFRR said:

Thank you, you're welcome.

Looking back on Shards now after many sessions with it, my stance hasn't changed noticeably, if at all. Let me start by saying I am fond of some aspects such as Flagships, the new races, new galaxy tiles etc.... However, taken as a whole, the expansion remains extremely underwhelming, bordering on a complete failure if not for a few aforementioned saving graces.

Political representatives remain a wasteful mini-game that doesn't add noticeable depth to the political aspect of the game as a whole, nor does it improve the root cause of the entire political problem, namely the inconsistent importance of politics and the tendency to simply discard all political cards in order to acquire TG's right off the bat. My own and many other groups I know of solve this by using the Twilight Council option found in the Shattered Ascension modification as this vastly improves both the tactical depth of the political game as well as make it consistently important, fun and exciting. As an expansion I'd still wish SotT would actually grab the bull by the horns rather than piling a truckload of new things into the game. Quality over quantity would be a welcome change.

A host of rule-issues remain, despite a FAQ already released.

Trade is indeed marginalized. We've tried the suggestion of merging Trade II and Trade III, in which the primary can either be chosen to be 3 Trade Goods or the Mercenary. Nobody picks the mercenary unless an enemy is breathing down the neck of their Home System. 3 TG's are alot more versatile, can be used to claim objectives, and can be used as bargaining power. As such Mercenaries are still used in our game, mostly through Action Cards or the occasional early boost, but otherwise we've felt they don't add anything major to the game. Personally I'd have loved to see them elaborate on leaders instead; they're already part of the game, and reworking/expanding on them would hardly hurt. At least it would - in my opinion - work alot better than making Trade into something that isn't remotely linked to trade, namely "Mercenary Recruitment Strategy Card" (aka Trade III).

Promissory Notes are pretty much a novelty. During our games I've often exchanged Territorial Concessions with a neighbour on roughly my own power level as a mutual guarantee of non-aggression, allowing me to pursue Objectives or other attacks with more liberty. Does it work well? Yes, it does. I wouldn't say it's fun, however. It's hardly encouraging a more dynamic game. However, it can be attributed to our group's metagame. Most others hardly use them, finding them to be more of a drag than useful simply because it represents yet another tangible bargaining chip rather than fully-fledged diplomacy, arguing that it dumbs down the game. I wouldn't go that far, but fact remains that they're... well, very optional . The game doesn't lose anything by them being removed, nor does it really gain anything substantial.

New ruling on Gravity Drive makes it ridiculously overpowered, another pseudochoice in the technology deck, much like XRD/Enviro+Sarween.

Add to that the aforementioned age-old problems plagueing TI + SE... yeah, SotT was an outright failure. Sure, I don't mind having bought it. I love flagships, most new racial techs, new races. Sure, I'd rather play with these things than without them, making me automatically "like" some of the things Shards of the Throne bought. However, it could have been so much more. More ambitious, better designed, more thoughtful. As it is it conveniently disregards all the problems of the previous iterations of the game and adding a host of new problems, while only adding a few good new additions which are mainly novelty.

Iorveth said:

What is the new ruling on Gravity Drive? I must have missed that. Please enlighten me. We have modified Trade III, without Mercenaries (which I think just throws in way more random crap, and there's enough random crap as it is, which is why I hate RAW map set-up and, and Distant Suns, and Final Frontier, etc., and do not play with any of those). Our Trade III gives a 2 TG bonus to the first player who draws it in the game, and 1 bonus TG for each trade agreement in place at the time of SC execution to all players who draw SC#5 Trade III on subsequent GT's (game turns).

I do like the new Great Races, Mech Units, and Flagships. I fully confess I like them a lot! "Intrigue" is just a massive "time suck" without adding anything of appreciable quality to the game (IMHO of course!). I would like to hear more of your thoughts, rants, opinions on the game.