...these are the new ones I plan to play with. I think they add the most to the original set.

Diplomacy II

Assembly

Trade II

Technology II

adamwehn said:

I'm also adding Leadership to the list.

So as I understand it, you will be using the following

1. Leadership

2. Diplomacy II

3. Assembly

4. Logistics

5. Trade II

6: Warfare

7: Technology II

8: Imperial

This could be interesting...but also very dangerous Typically the only cards that you can really mix are the cards that have the same name as their original, with just a number added, as they fulfill the same purpose. You're using the number 1 from SE, and the number 4 and 8 from core rules, and the rest are ones that can be exchanged freely. Random effects that I see happening here...

Assembly + no Buerocracy means no action cards obtainable via strategy counters, giving yssaril an even more absurd advantage than they already have.

With both Leadership and Logistics out, your'e going to have ridiculous ammounts of command counters flying around, more than just about anyone could ever hope to use. A person picking 4 and using the number 1 secondary to its full potential would gain 7 counters. Logistics also has no limit on the number of counters you can build with the secondary, so imagine the Hacan with leadership, all the trade goods that they normally get, and then they just blow them all to get counters. The absence of "production" also means that the only way people can get extra forces that can move in the same turn they are built is via the number 8 secondary. In the original game, since number 8 was almost never skipped, this was fine. However..

If you're going to use Imperial, I will say that I recomend using the alternative version of imperial that is found in the varient rules section of "support" for TI. It's better designed, more of a "Powerful when played right" than an "Always powerful" card. The original Imperial had the dynamic where the speaker (which was given by strat card 1, initiative) would always pick it...the real reason that people picked 1 was so that they could get imperial the next turn.

Since speaker is now given by 3, according to assembly...you're never going to have anyone giving speaker to someone else, as they're always going to want it, thus removing the entire point of having political cards in your hand aside from spending them as trade goods, since having a random person play a political card that you don't know about is just as random as drawing off the top of the deck as per political. So that dynamic will return, except that it won't be played as often if you use Imperial II.

Which brings us back to my original points. Overall effects I see

Tons of command counters, low action counters, and depending on if you use Imperial 1 or the alternative imperial II...

1: Very short game since everyone gets victory points easily from the imperial card, low priority on objectives

2: Longer game with very little produce-then move

Agreed, I think you are going to have a lot of issues with a game using those cards.

Typically cards fall into a mechanic equivilant from the two different sets and so if you are using shattered empire the following cards are always automatic replacements.

Iniative is replaced by Leadership

Political is replaced by Assembly

Diplomacy you can use either I or II

Logistics is replaced by Production

Trade you can use either card

Warfare you can use either card

Technology you can use either card

Imperial SHOULD ALWAYS be replaced by Beuracracy. Its a definitively broken card and using it with the expansion will make it even worse actually.

For an outstanding game I always recommend and typically always use the following cards in a shattered empire game.

Leadership

Assembly

Diplomacy II

Proudction

Trade II

Warfare I

Technology II

Beuracracy

In this mixture the warefare card is the only card from the original set being used. I've always personally prefered the Warefare I card because its more diverse than Warfare II in its potential uses.

BigKahuna said:

I disagree that Imperial is broken and so do the others in my group.

I was misreading the bit about replacing the old cards with the new cards.

adamwehn said:

No offense, but that's probably because you haven't yet played a game where someone has whored it out to win the game as fast as he can.

If people are reasonable about picking Imperial only once in a while, there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is that, sooner or later, the people you play with are going to realize just how easy it is to win by picking that SC as often as they can, and once that happens, the game strategy will begin to revolve around picking that card as much as possible and denying your opponents the opportunity to do the same. Meaning every player (at least every player who has an interest in actually winning) will pick Assembly solely to get the Speaker token so they can pick Imperial next turn. Passing on the opportunity to do so will only put you further behind.

That's why people say Imperial is broken. It's just too easy to pass up once people get familiar with the game. You and your group are relatively new, IIRC (at least it seems to me that your arrival here on the forums was fairly recent), so perhaps it hasn't yet dawned on them how obvious that strategy is.

Steve-O said:

It's not broken, if someone takes it two turns in a row it forces other players to take the initiative card so they can pick it and start catching up. It's not broken because it forces other players to change whatever plans they have in mind. I take no offense in your statement, but I still disagree that it's broken, it's just very [powerful and is a pivotal part of anyones strategy when playing the game. If other players let someone take the card five turns in a row then it's their own fault they lost the game. It is a powerful card, but it is not a game breaking card.

It's not broken, if someone takes it two turns in a row it forces other players to take the initiative card so they can pick it and start catching up. It's not broken because it forces other players to change whatever plans they have in mind. I take no offense in your statement, but I still disagree that it's broken, it's just very [powerful and is a pivotal part of anyones strategy when playing the game. If other players let someone take the card five turns in a row then it's their own fault they lost the game. It is a powerful card, but it is not a game breaking card.

If I was to describe what is broken about the Imperial strategy card, I could simply quote you here, because you very effectively describe the elements of the card that are in fact the problem.

Twilight Imperium is a game of strategy, more specifically players making choices to form their strategy. Now noting that the only way to win the game is through victory points I think its more than fair to say that this game is about one thing and one thing only, at least the one thing that matters, victory points. Hence your primary strategy and focus is always the aquisition of victory points.

That said when you look at the impact of the Imperial card what you have is an effective way for a player to aquire victory points, 2 free points requiring no strategy whatesover. All you need to do is wait your turn in the round robin cycle which works like this.

1. If the Imperial card is available take it.

2. If the imperial card is not available take the Political card (or whatever cards gets you the speaker token).

3. If neither is available, than and only than consider your other strategies.

The only effective way to balance out the Imperial card is to ALWAYS take your appropriate action in the round robin cycle, if you skip it even once your chances of winning the game are slim to none, even at a table full of inexperianced players.

That said the result of the Imperial Strategy card is that the player who gets the most turns in the cycle (in picking the Imperial Strategy card) will win the game I would say about 70% of the time if not more. This is usually the player who gets the card 1st, which is determined randomly, effectively reducing the strategy of the entire game to a crap shoot of who gets the Speaker token in the first round.

My suggestion Adam is if you don't believe the veterans that its over powered continue to use it. In the end the Imperial card will show you its true ugliness and like every single person I have ever met offline and online, eventually you will come to reckognize the cards flaw. Everyone always does.

Now the above was in regards to the Imperial Strategy card itself, but the impact of the Round Robin cycle that fuels it breaks the spirit of the game in many ways at all.

The speaker token also ends up being evenly distributed, as players are forced to take it so the various mechanics surounding the speaker token become calculable and predictable.

The initiative is also effected, you can predict the initiatives of players in the midst of the cycle.

The tactical element is grossly affected, if your the speaker at the start of the game your turtling, if your at the end of the cycle it means you are going to be shorted one cycle, hence you know you will have to push the military and force others out of contention. This becomes very regimented and all very predictable after you have played for a while.

The game is always anti-climatic. The player who wins will almost certainly always win through the executon of the Imperial Primary. This will define the end game.. aka usually this is the first player who takes his second cycle in the Round Robin system.

Also players will be able to predict a winner of the game after some experiance by about the mid point, knowing the inevitable point distribution of the Imperial card it becomes easy to tell who will win, in what round. Fueling other things like military action and such as noted before.

Certain action cards and political cards are basically I win buttons. Like the action card that allows you to take keep the strategy card you just played... better have a sabatoge or its game over.

This is just some of the stuff I could remember happening in our early games prior to the shattered empire expansion... any others you can think of Steve-O?

BigKahuna said:

It's not broken.

adamwehn said:

I find Imperial II to be more broken then Imperial.

find Imperial II to be more broken then Imperial.

I have played probobly 50+ games with the Imperial I and II strategy cards over the last several years with at least a dozen different gaming groups of various experiances themselves, many players that actually play considerably more than me. Your the first person I have ever met who doesn't describe the Imperial II card as broken in all that time. I would love to know what strategy or tactic is deployed that might validate this card back into our games.

I mean I think your thiking that "if someone takes it two turns in a row it forces other players to take the initiative card so they can pick it and start catching up" is pretty flawed, if someone earned 4 points on top of any objectives they may have scored there is no catching up, there is only one option left and that is claim their home system or the game is definitively over.

Now I provided examples and definitive arguments for you in regards to the Imperial strategy card Adam, I think saying "its not broken" is leaving me a bit empty handed, I think you can do a bit better than that. Give us some examples, experiances, something we might be able to discuss. I am genuinly curious how you came to this conclusion about the Imperial Strategy card.

BigKahuna said:

Let's just agree to disagree.

BigKahuna said:

If you'd like we can talk through E-Mail, my address is [email protected]

I'm Autistic so discussions like this require me to have some time to think about how to respond and formulate my thoughts.

I talked to the local TI3 veteran that comes to the shop where I do my gaming and he doesn't think "Imperial" is broken.

My group and the local veteran cannot see why the arguments made here about "Imperial" being broken, make it broken. The only thing we see from your arguments about the card is reasons why you personally don't like the card, but that does not make it broken.

This conversation may be more about the word "broken" than anything else.

The Imperial strategy card does not snap the game in half over its knee, but it does force a fairly prescriptive decision making process when choosing strategy cards.

Kerrin2 said:

We just see that as forcing players to be adaptive with their strategy, rather then rigid with their strategy.

adamwehn said:

The public disgrace action card becomes an ace in the hole for the end game, when someone with the Initiative card goes to take the Imperial card it totally changes the outcome of the game.

The age of empire option is designed for players who can't adapt their strategy to the circumstances of the game. The original Imperial card is meant to reward players for a blend of planning and flexibility, if you try using the original Imperial card with rigid strategies then yes the card is broken. My group most likely will never use the age of empire option because it creates a very boring game where everyone knows exactly what they have to do from turn one to win the game. With the original Imperial card you can't sit in your chair and plan things out 6 turns in advance, you have to plan at most three turns ahead and keep alternatives in mind for if someone does something to mess up your plans.

A valid way of looking at it to be sure.

However, I am going to side with the majority on this issue. In my oppinion, the Imperial SC is, if not broken then boring. The reason that I join the masses on this one is due to the fact that Imperial tends to make such a predictable "walk" around the table. And the fact that it gives 20% of the VP needed to win. Had it been only 1 VP, I could have lived with it beeing boringly predictable.

adamwehn said:

Please allow me to try to clarify in my mind where you are coming from with this topic. I will use an example...

If on a given game round I would have liked to pick one of the strategy cards that is not Imperial or Initiative (e.g. my plans would have me picking Warefare, for examaple), but the Imperial or Initiative card is available, then I need to adjust my plans because, really, I almost MUST make those prescriptive picks.

Am I on the right track in understanding the point you are driving at?

First turn,

If Sol gets first strategy card pick, Sol picks Imperial to claim 2 VPs.

If Sol gets 2nd strategy card pick, Sol picks Initiative so he can claim Imperial for the 2nd round.

If Sol ges 3 rd strategy card pick, Sol picks Tech to get XRD or so he can claim lots of planets.

So if you play Sol in this game, you really want 3 rd pick because 3rd pick is alot more Fun for you.

I do not care for strategy cards that Force me to pick them and have absolutely no fun value.

Yeah, I got 2 VPs for the first round, big deal....

VPs have no fun value except at the end when you are trying to win the game.