| Author |
|
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 30 March 2010 at 4:00am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hey all,
There have been a couple of ideas that have been floated around here
for a while now, one of which I am personally responsible for. I am
starting this thread to put both those ideas out for discussion.
1) Change minimum of 8 different card types in a deck to 6.
2) Change the exceptions rule:
-currently; every card after a break in the strength sequence counts
as an exception, one exception per 50 cards in your deck; i.e. 2 M9's by
themselves in your deck constitute 2 exceptions.
-proposed; any break in a strength sequence is an exception; i.e. 2
M9's by themselves in a deck constitutes 1 exception, plus, a break in
occurrences from 1 to 5 (R/O1 Time Skip - R/O5 Stolen Technology )
counts as a 3rd exception for that deck.
Let's hear any thoughts you may wish to share about how these changes
would affect the game.
-paul
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
marhawkman
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2010
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: 30 March 2010 at 3:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Not so sure about #1....
#2 sounds good though.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 31 March 2010 at 8:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
MogwaiSC - bumping this out of the IRC to the general populace.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eaglepreacher
IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 31 March 2010 at 2:13pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
?proposed is 3 exceptions????? I count two..1 for the m9 and 1 for the occurence break....
reducing the number of necessary types would allow for a stronger deck with fewer cards. With larger decks the number of types should not be an issue. Ie decks with 70 or less would be strengthened with only 6 types, but those with 100+ should not really be affected.
as for the exception rule... live with it!!!! As always, use it as a house rule. The rule is placed to keep balance, else everyone would skip s1-s5 and throw in s6 and above etc.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ht80
IRC
Joined: 21 August 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: 31 March 2010 at 3:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I never found that really small decks ever did will against groups of people,
only against individual people. (big games versus little games.)
I tend to agree that stocking rules are now limited to what your group will
tolerate. You only need "legal" decks if you play against players outside your
local group.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 01 April 2010 at 9:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
play nice guys.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eaglepreacher
IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 01 April 2010 at 4:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
actually it is you who blurted out.
-proposed; any break in a strength sequence is an exception; i.e. 2
M9's by themselves in a deck constitutes 1 exception, plus, a break in
occurrences from 1 to 5 (R/O1 Time Skip - R/O5 Stolen Technology )
counts as a 3rd exception for that deck.
In your proposed section you state you have 3 exceptions I only count two . By your own words your first exception is for the monsters and then your 3rd exception is for a break in occurence cards from one to 5. By most learned people a 2nd should occur, but obviously you are to wrapped up in bashing people rather than reading the posts. do you see the question marks in the earlier post( they look like this...?) . It surrounds what you considered as my statement( which statements usually end in periods or exclamation marks they look like this .!) I was questioning (?) your statement in the proposed area where you claim 3 exceptions. I assumed your proposal was that a break in the sequence of cards represents one exception regardless of the number of cards following the break. I was under the assumption your were stating one exception for the 2 M9's and one exception for the occurence break. one plus one equals two normally stated as seconds not thirds... at least logically speaking. duh.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ht80
IRC
Joined: 21 August 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: 01 April 2010 at 8:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The real rules count the 2 M9's as two exceptions. The R/O5 is the third.
(Though I can think of a dozen other O's I'd rather use as that exception.
In fact, O don't remember the last time I made an exception in the O's.
There are too many good cards in all the levels!)
I'll state again, the stacking rules aren't that important. For any change
you make, it will depend on the cards you possess to say if that change is
for the better or worse for you. WIth my card stock, it makes no
difference really. The concept of a skipped range counting as only 1
exception is amusing. I might leave out a couple of low numbered cards
and stack 2 or 3 dozen high numbered ones in that category. That
certainly can't be done with the rules as is. On the other hand, I usually
have one card from each level I can put into a deck that is worth it so why
bother with the exception that way. It might be interesting to put 4 or 5
C10 crew cards into a deck with no other crew though. :)
The exception rule is small potato's. It's the number of each card rule that
when changed effects things greatly. After all, having 4 or 6 S9's that are
identical in the deck does make a big difference against a standard deck.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 05 April 2010 at 9:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
yeah, that is why I am leaning toward having only 3 dupkicates of each card in a deck. the difference between allowing 3 instead of 2 copies is not as big as doubling the number of high powered cards in the deck.
Also, I intend to making more restriction on certain high powered cards. Allowing only one in a deck, etc.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ht80
IRC
Joined: 21 August 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: 05 April 2010 at 10:32am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I never liked such deep restrictions. The persona restriction is more my
style. If only one of them can be in play at a time, how many of them do I
need to stack in the deck.
Besides, then you are trying to figure out what the "high powered" cards are.
I've always found the players much more efficient at that then the creator
and as a player I was always annoyed by changes in the stacking rules from
creators that were trying to regulate play because they thought they didn't
get it right the first time.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 05 April 2010 at 12:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
good point. I may have to rethink that.
May just stick with Persona cards and restricting the "Entity class" cards.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eaglepreacher
IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 573
|
| Posted: 05 April 2010 at 1:57pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Could always make the high power cards persona class. Only one in play at a time.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 05 April 2010 at 2:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
well, I never liked cards other then crew or ships being persona class cards.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
marhawkman
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2010
Posts: 250
|
| Posted: 07 April 2010 at 8:53am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yeah, Maybe a few things that represent unique peices of technology? Such as a phaser you found in some ancient ruins, or a new prototype shuttlecraft.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 27 April 2010 at 10:06am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Do I have to separate you two?!?
"He started it!"
Enough already.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: Question to the Readership
