|
10-04-2005, 10:16 PM | #1 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Rules Update for Illuminati?
As I work on the new expansion set, I'm thinking seriously about modding the basic Illuminati rules a bit.
Y2K increased the proportion of Special cards - which was IMHO a good thing overall, but sometimes made the uncontrolled area a bit sparse in the beginning. The new set also has a lot of Specials. So the following is open for discussion. (And while I don't mind people just hitting us with opinions, the posts that begin "We play Illuminati a lot, and having tried a few games with the new rules, here's what we found . . ." will be the ones that get the most serious consideration.) Of the options below, (1) could be combined with any of the others, but the other three are mutually exclusive. (1) Any time a player draws a Special card, he has the option to immediately discard it and draw again. (2) At the end of each turn, if the uncontrolled area has fewer than two groups, draw cards until there are two uncontrolled groups. If a Resource is drawn, it goes to the uncontrolled area but does not count as a group. If a Special is drawn, discard it. [Resources are a new addition to Illuminati. They work pretty much the way they did in INWO.] (3) For the first two rounds of play, each player starts his turn by drawing TWO cards - except the Network, which draws THREE. (3a) Make that the first THREE rounds of play. While I am not wedded to any of these changes, I consider Illuminati to be a living game, and just because it's been out there for 15 years, that does NOT mean its rules can't be tweaked to help the underdogs and make play more flexible. Last edited by Steve Jackson; 10-04-2005 at 10:22 PM. |
10-05-2005, 12:20 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The ASS of the world, mainly Valencia, Spain (Europe)
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
Well, Illuminati, is IMHO, one of the best games SJG has created, so I must say I'm really exited that a new expansion set is in the works.
As for this problem, well, it has not happened to me, but I understand it could be a hassle. I would personally go for option 2. Option 1 makes you discard your specials, and they're so damn usefull, if only to trade them for priviledged attacks. Option 3 and 3a) greatly reduce the power of the already struggling Network group during the first turns. With the rules as written, the network draws 100% more cards than the rest of the table, thus having twice the chance to draw a special. With rules 3 and 3a, the network only draws 66% more... Also, it could make cicling through the groups way too fast during the first turns, while the rule is in effect. Also, Steve, is there going to be a public playtest? |
10-05-2005, 01:17 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
Option 2 actually mirrors a house rule we've used several times. Our rationale is that everyone now has the opportunity to make two attacks to control each turn, or if Resistances are prohibitive, have at least one really good group to go after.
The Y2K change of using Specials to cancel Privilege remains valuable enough that Option 1 is unappealing, and although options 3a/b certainly would get a bunch of cards out early, it would actually leech a bit of tension out of the early game, as the abundance of cards ensures that everyone's probably going to get one or two groups that they directly want without (as much) competition. That said, option 3 also gives the Illuminati that require specific alignments more shots at getting off to a quick(er) start. I may have a chance to try these in the next several months, but frankly I'm not sure I'd waste my time with option 1 in any circumstance - giving up the minimum of a Privileged attack for a possibly-useful group that you don't control seems like a "don't bother" (or more accurately, I can add the rule confident that it won't be taken advantage of, and forcing someone to use it to test it is self-defeating). Alex Yeager Mayfair Games SJ Games MIB / Cheapass Games Demo Monkey |
10-05-2005, 04:07 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
My group has come across this problem quite a few times, and I like the suggested remedies. I'd prefer a combination of (1) and (2), I think.
Good luck with the new expansion! |
10-05-2005, 05:06 AM | #5 |
MIB
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
I like the sound of 2. I'm going to a game-party-aniversity at my gaming club, so I'll test it out then.
1 while sounding good in theory, might make new players who haven't realised the potential in even "sucky" specials discard and giving an additional edge to seasoned players, which might be a problem.
__________________
Johannes Huyderman aka. Jo-Herman Haugholt Geek and Discordian MiB#0505 http://www.huyderman.com/ |
10-05-2005, 06:02 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
We've always played the game where we'd roll a 6 sided die and put that many extra cards out at the beginning. (We often ran out early on).
Sometimes we'd do it again if there were no cards out in the middle, but I thin we may only have done that 2 or 3 times. |
12-10-2005, 11:29 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Missoula
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
When the uncontrolled area has become empty I have always just "reset" it by drawing four groups and burying any specials that are revealed in the process. This allows for a decent number of groups becoming available with no sacrifice of specials, some of which are way too cool to just remove from the game due to circumstance. If there is going to be an official rule change, my vote is with number 1. The others seem to tink with the mechanics balance in ways that may influence outcome. My math is not up to the task of understanding how, but even the perception of such undue statistical influence may put off players. I think option 1 solves the problem in the most balanced and fair manner, though I would still prefer to re-seed any specials rather than discarding them. Just my two cents-CthulhuBob.
__________________
CthulhuBob MisCon 34, 22nd-25th of May, 2020 www.miscon.org Talk MisCon! https://www.facebook.com/groups/225948954099351/ __________________ "Get her, that was your whole plan, get her?" |
01-07-2006, 04:16 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
On a seperate rule change issue:
This happened once, many years ago. I believe I have the basics of what happened correct, although the details might be hazy. On turn one, one player got hit with a lost turn; could not do anything. On turn two, they only managed to get one group. You know what happened next, right? Yep. An attack to neutralize. Then, since they had no groups after turn two, they were eliminated. I'd like to see that changed to "No groups after two turns of play" instead of "No groups after turn two". |
01-08-2006, 10:04 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
We played a five player game the other night and did not use the rule varient. It would have come in handy early in the game but the lack of groupd in the uncontrolled area actually led to more attacks against other power structures (which in turn made the game last longer). If we had used the varient the game would have played out quite differently. I think the rule change should be put in place as an option.
|
01-25-2006, 10:43 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Re: Rules Update for Illuminati?
While reading this thread I found myself thinking: "I rather like it when there is only a few groups in the uncontrolled area.".
The reason for that is that I always find that the uncontrolled area get too crowded towards the end of the game. And fun (but almost worthless) groups like Goldfish fanciers never gets picked. Fnord! Maybe it is just me, but I still think it is fun to see groups like that in the powerstructure. Also, when there is no groups in the uncontrolled area, people will attack the groups of other players. And that is the funniest part of the game to me. I would rather have a rule that set a limit to the number of groups in the uncontrolled area. Maybe in the shape of a reward that you could get for not drawing a new card. Maybe like, getting 10MB instead when the number of uncontrolled groups are 6 or more. I am not sure how well a rule like that would work but I will now try to find out in our next game. Thanks for the inspiration. Last edited by Michael Ellis; 01-26-2006 at 07:18 PM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|