This variant is played with the advanced 2p rules. The robot recieves Earth's Lost Colony as its homeworld, and its initial hand is Alien Toy Factory and three face down cards.

The robot's first move is Settle/Trade. It MUST settle Alien Toy Factory and trade the good for cards.

You make the choices for the robot to the best of your ability, trying to hide information from the robot if its critical (it won't be).

Turn two, after choosing your own actions, the robot chooses something good and Produce.

Turns 3-7 the robot chooses 2x-Produce. When you take other actinons, just decide the robot's best drafting action, and do it.

Edit: If it's obvious the game is going to end next turn, the robot need not pick Produce, and can pick whatever it likes instead.

Good Luck, Alien Hunter!

Despite your microbadge, I get the feeling that you don't actually like Race. Lol.

I like Race a lot. I have noticed that on bgg milkquetoast opinions are boring, so I try to be extra edgy to motivate people to prove me wrong.

That'a a great idea. Let's create a variant where you face a good combination you are going to face about one half of one percent of the time.

How about we create another variant where your opponent settles four militart worlds in the first two turns while you have only developments and doomed world?

In all seriousness, this would be a great draw. However, if I played 200 games, I doubt it would be the strongest advantage. A strong alien draw would outscore this - and I have had this come up a few times in my 300 or so games.

First playthrough, Doomed World jumped to Galactic Studios, an excellent leach. Then they got ALIEN Robot Factory, which gave them cardflow of 6 cards / turn with Consume/Trade. The robot countered with Plague World, and so was getting 8vp / turn. The final score was 32 to 23 - even if you're richer than Midas, it's impossible to plunk down meaningful 6s if you have only 4 cards in your tableau during the endgame!

Does this variant use Goals? I know the normal robot solitaire doesn't include Goals, but this is a bit more advanced. The first to 5 Vps goal should add extra spice...

Play however you normally play. I think it may be impossible to win without cashing in big on the goals. The only game of this I've won so far had a 16-3 split on the goals. It was an authoritative 1vp win! The robot didn't get up to 8vp/turn until the last consume cycle, which is substandard.

Try 1:

I was playing just with the base game deck and no goals.

I'm Old Earth, and my hand is atrocious, so I explore/develop, hoping for something great. Well, I get the 4-cost alien world, but I didn't trade... instead I develop my best development - Mining Robots (no joke) and play Mining World. Great start, I know. I have one card left and my plan to beat the robot is to outnumber it or something.

Meanwhile, Robot fails to draw any production worlds. Its relevant cards are Gambling World, Epsilon Eridani and Consumer Markets. The Robot develops Consumer Markets, for the consume powers and extra card(s) and points, and produces. At the same time, I double explore. I grab Rebel Warrior Race and Contact Specialist and play the latter, discarding my other card.

The robot is now in autoplay. It has now drawn a Contact Specialist off the produce, which it could use to play Reptilian Uplift Race. I pretend I don't know this.

Since I still have basically no hand, I Explore/Trade. The Robot gets New Survivalists.

Next turn, I settle/settle, playing Rebel Warrior Race with Contact Specialist and Black Market Trading World. I trade the genes for 4 and ship the rare for a point. The robot has no non-military worlds and can't play anything. I notice this and resolve to do more settles.

Two more turns left. I settle/settle again, playing an Uplift World and the Rebel 6. Again, and I play the Rebel 7 and Runaway Robots, getting 2 VPs this turn. The robot's hand is still entirely developments and military worlds.

The game ends, and the robot has 24 VPs plus 5 from tableau, with the Consumer Markets, so 29.

I have 2 from Old Earth, 1 from Mining Robots, 2 from Mining World, 1 from Contact Specialist, 2 from Rebel Warrior Race, 2 from Black Market Trading World, 2 from Aquatic Uplift Race, 6 from Rebel Base, 1 from Runaway Robots, 7 from Rebel Homeworld and 4 VPs. Total: 30

Yes! Also I have WAY more robots than it does.

It's a good thing the robot produces on the last turn.

Wow, that worked the second time too. I just kept settling and it couldn't benefit from it.

This time I actually got a 6VP engine of my own going via Galactic Trendsetters, and since I was tied in cards and VP going into the last turn I just explore/VPed for the win.

I've been playing that if the game is clearly ending, the robot doesn't have to call produce.

Its ironic that if the human gets a vp engine going in any meaningful way, she or he is rewarded with one less turn.

I have yet to win a game where the robot's median 2x haul was 8vp or more.

I really want to know how consuming goods improves your economy...

Why does the robot not settle/produce turn one?
It shaves 2 turns off the clock. It is much harder to win vs Alien Toy Shop in 5 turns.

Alien Toy Shop robot has nothing to do with the official expansion robot. So to call it "robot" is a little confusing I think.

I've been playing this solo variant and I think its really good. Much better than official robot. So there is something good about this. It trains you to answer a superior consume-production machine. Official robot is IMHO just some construct who plays some game witch is close to RftG, but still significantly different.

After playing a couple of times against ATS-ELC-robot with Old Earth, I switched to ATS-EE-robot vs Alpha Centauri. Unlike ELC Epsilon Eridani is not usually considered a very strong starting world. On the side note I didn't use goals.

ATS-EE-robot:
1st turn: Settle-Trade
If it has production world:
2nd turn: Settle-Produce
3rd+ turns: Consume-Produce
Last turn: Develop-Consume (possibly Settle-Produce... so high points)

If it hasn't a production world in hand turn 2:
2nd turn: Explore-Produce
3rd turn: Settle-Trade
4th turn: Settle-Produce
5th+ turn: Consume-Produce
Last turn: Develop-Consume

So ATS-robot uses mindlessly ATS every turn at least once with one of its actions. It does so even, if it got excellent developments from the first trade.

Why did I replace ELC with EE? Of course to see, is the ATS-ELC combo very powerful or just ATS. EE still combines kind of well with ATS, since it has consume power. OE is basically similar. With other start worlds you could have to be more creative with ATS-robot (but not necessarily depending on it trade draw).

How does one define "broken"? Imagine you are playing in a tournament. Your opponent draws ATS intially. Since s/he is in a little slow side, s/he shows it you and says:"This seems like a nice card. I'm going to keep it and call settle-trade.", before you have decided your actions. Then next turn s/he shows you cards (well after deciding an action). Then starts calling consume-produce (and announces this before you decide your actions). You also notice at some point that you have somehow covered your board, so s/he is not paying any attention to what you are doing. Well other than when you develop (or settle), you say to opponent "Now you can develop also." Then s/he looks at her/his cards (s/he won't do it otherwise!) and says:"Well let me see, if there is anything..." and spreads her/his cards on the table, so that you can see them also. Every turn s/he uses at least one of her/his actions mainly for one card ATS. So what is acceptable win % for you against an opponent that tells you her/his actions, shows you her/his cards, doesn't even peek on your board or how many cards you are drawing and uses a single card with nearly every action? I'd say that, if he/she wins even 2/5 matches, that is too much.

As MrWeasely, I suggest that you try it yourself. As I said before it in any case at least beats playing official robot

So how did EE do compared to ELC? Do you have any numbers?

I lost 0-4 with OE to ELC, 3-3 with AC vs EE. I had bad draws with OE and some good with AC.

So 10 games... I have never cried "broken" before... Why I'm I doing it now?



So Tom can beat AC with Artist Colony and Tourist World over 40% time using his skills. So 1st turn AC does - Settle-Trade. Settles Artists (After that has 3 cards). Trades Rare (has 6 cards). Next turn Settle-produce. So has 2 cards after Settle. Then pumps for 6VPs for the rest of the game.

Lets compare that to EE with ATS. 1st turn Settle-Trade (has now 6 cards). If it got Artist Colony, in turn 2 it does Settle-Produce (After settle it has 5 cards, so 3 cards more than AC-AC-TW). VPs: EE+ATS+AC has 3VPs on table ; so does AC-AC-TW. EE-ATS-AC produces as much VPs, but it also produces 1 card per cycle. Also you should note that EE-ATS has so many cards after first trade that they can put on almost any non-military production world. AC has to have a cheap one.

Now EE-ATS isn't even optimized, OE-ATS has 1VP more in tow and draws 1 card more for round 2.

So ATS-ELC > (is better than) ATS-OE > ATS-EE > AC-AC-TW. AC-AC-TW or similar combination is the most unlikely of all those. Its hard to say why Tom got even close to same losing percentage with ATS-ECL and AC-AC-TW.

AC or AR? You can play Explore-Trade and have a good chance to leech it into play... saving you other ace(s) from the initial draw. And even with New Sparta and Separatist Colony ATS is one of the best (if, not even the best) card to have initially (though this may need a little more thought).

Well... then there are these:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/354402

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/349096

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/354395

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/355017

In our group, we have found that the last thing that needs any help is any strategy that wins by Produce/Consume x2. It seems clear that this card certainly hands this strategy yet another incredibly powerful tool... and we have nothing in the game to break this out of someone's tableau.

I am surprised as well that this got printed, especially at 3 cost. It is likely to be the only card we leave out of the game when we play, not because it is so broken that it automatically wins the game, but rather because it is so decisively good that it will frequently dominate the game, making it even more dependent on luck and less strategically interesting.

My eyes glazed over there, but I have one minor point:

If your homeworld is Epsilon Eridani, then New Survivalists are cheaper for you than that overpriced Artists' Colony.

I feel ATS, like several other cards that exist, simply have hyper defined effective strategies that are used every time. In essence, they refine the game as soon as they hit the tableau.
I think exactly the opposite that you do. I find the decisions are more excruciating with ATS in play, and that makes in enjoyable. ATS can be beaten and if played at an incorrect time (or with tunnel vision) can beat itself.

Yeah... there are more colony possibilities for EE. My point was just to compare Tom's AC-AC-TW start against ATS start (and that is why I used Artists in my example). To go on... Alpha Centauri with Artists and Tourists should have them both at the start hand... otherwise they might get to wrong track by playing more expensive colony or develop. On the other hand EE playing ATS can just play it and then adjust its play according to cards. Separatist Colony or New Sparta can also play ATS at the start and have after trade 6 cards. Then, if they have production-consumption possibility they are likely to better off than AC-AC-TW. Otherwise they can do other things (they still have 6 cards in their hand...).

What are the probabilities for having a proper world for this one. Lucky me... someone else has already done the job for me.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/352048

If your opponent didn't call Explore in turn 1, you'll have 6 cards to look from a proper planet. If he did, you'll have 13 (assuming no explore bonuses) = 5 other from start hand + 2 cards from explore + 1 cards from settle + 5 cards from alien good. How many cards can give you that extra consume-produce that puts you to at least 6VP track? ELC has it already, EE has 19 possibities, OE has 18 possibilities (but also draws one card more), AC and DAF have 10 possible cards, NS and SC and DW have 6.

So without 1st turn explore we have crude (0.05) approximate probabilities ECL 1, EE and OE 0.6, AC and DAF 0.4, NS and SC and DW 0.25.

With 1st turn explore ECL 1, EE and OE 0.9, AC and DAF 0.65, NS and SC and DW 0.5.

Average of all these is 0.55-0.60. So assuming your opponent calls about half of the time 1st turn explore you have about 0.55-0.60 chance of being better off with ATS and random start world than being with AC-AC-TW. Oh... but I didn't count AR. So if you get AR you just give up... even with ATS... that gets us down to 0.5. I can say that AC-AC-TW is kind of rare, 6VP production machine only assuming you have ATS at the start comes about half of the time. I'd say that is much.

Tom said that his victory percentage against AC-AC-TW was about 0.4. Not counting that ATS with a lucky draw is a slightly stronger, we get winning percentage for ATS player to 0.5*(1-0.4)=0.3.

OK... "any moron" draws ATS in his initial hand.
If he got AR as starting world, he gracefully forfeits.
Otherwise he calls (secretly) for settle-trade.
Then he looks at his second turn cards. If he got a good card he calls for settle-produce, otherwise he gracefully forfeits.
Turn 3+: He calls openly consume-produce
Last turn: He calls develop-consume

Is that a very cunning strategy? Don't you think that his predictability should be penalized more? Do you know any other game in witch a single card or die roll gives "any moron" that forfeits easily a 0.3 win chance against an experienced player? I haven't encountered one in a long time.

Is it?
I have not played enough games yet to be convinced.
You tip you hand a turn earlier when playing ATS.
With tourist world your opponent can find themselves down 6pt before they even know what happened.

Is it? Hmm... you are right... maybe slightly is an understatement. So my lucky draw with EE assumes that you got Artist Colony. EE-ATS-AC was 3 cards in hand stronger than AC-AC-TW. Now as MeWeasely pointed out New Survivalist is a stronger choice for EE. It gets them 4 cards stronger (and still +1 card per cycle). And these are still slightly weak cards... Lost Species Ark World puts EE-ATS-LSAW 1 card behind, but it produces 3 cards per cycle. And AC-AC-TW simply has less choices; It can't play New Survivalists or LSAW. Also my calculations assume that, if you don't get to 6VPs per turn as soon as Tourist World gets, you simply forfeit.

I've been having good luck lately with "settle denial", that is calling no settles on turns 2 through L-1, where L is the last turn, either turn 5 or turn 6. Although my average margin of defeat in the last six games has still been 5.7 points, the median level of defeat has only been one point. That is, I got blown out in two, lost by only a point in two, and tied on vp in two. I think that's pretty good.

But it's still a very tough road to ho. Witness this session report of a game just completed.

Epsilon Eridani couldn't believe its luck! It's initial hand was Lost ALIEN Battle Fleet, New Military Tactics, Space Mercanaries, and New Galactic Order. Additionally, the 6-Military goal was in play.

Epsilon Eridani's strategy was to get the little military developments out on T1, then plop down the fleet and let Crack Shop produce for him. On T3 EE would trade and plunk down New Galactic Order for at least 7vp. That's basically how it went.

Turn 1 EE pulled +1+1 and Develop. Turn 2 Develop and Settle.

Turn 1 ELC pulled Settle and Trade - both forced.
Turn 2 ELC pulled Develop (Public Works) and Produce (forced).

ELC didn't have ANY worlds with which to draft the T2 settle. It had solid developments.

Turn 3 EE was low on cards, so it treaded water with E+5 and Trade. The E+5 picked up REBEL Colony (4) and the Trade got IMPERIAL Sith Lords and REBEL Underwear. Things were really looking up! ELC was only pumping 6 vp per turn, and with no other production they'd be held to that as long as EE didn't settle.

Turn 4 EE hit the table with New Galactic Order, but ELC anticipated this and countered with Merchant League for 2vp ... but in so doing they split the 6-dev goal! EE also traded again, thinking about IMPERIAL Sith Lords again. ELC @ 12vp chips.

Turn 5, EE improves its Logistics and trades yet again. Perhaps it was safe to settle at this point, since ELC had only a couple cards. But nothing was as compelling as Logistics, for reasons that should soon become clear soon. ELC @ 18 vp chips.

Turn 6, last turn. EE has a 13 point move with Dev/Settle. Drop Ships go down for 5, then the two REBEL 4 worlds hit the table in rapid succession. ELC still has a thin hand and can only settle Galactic Bazaar which chapels away his last card and converts its good to more vp. ELC nets 11 on the turn. ELC @ 26 vp chips and good game.



Final Score:

Epsilon Eridani aka "Fleet Turn Two Sukas": 36 points.
Earth's Lost Colony aka "Alien Crack Shop": 37 points.

Even with the most outstanding Big-Mil starting hand I've ever personally witnessed, plus overt cooperation from the goals, Epsilon Eridani falls to that annoying toy shop!

When in doubt I've learned to believe Tom Lehmann, but so many people say ATS is broken, and yesterday when drafting I won so handily with it twice, I finally decided to play a bunch of Alien Nightmare to see for myself. I meant to play many games before posting, but since I won the first game I decided to just go ahead and brag before continuing.

I didn't record all of the cards seen, so you'll have to assume I didn't screw Nightmare out of its best plays.

Homeworld: New Sparta. Start hand: Former Penal Colony, Clandestine Uplift Lab, others. No goals.

Turn one: Settle/Settle and Settle/Trade. Now it's New Sparta, Former Penal Colony, and Clandestine Uplift Lab vs ELC+ATS. I get to leech the Consume for a card and a point, and I'm really liking my odds if I can get a production world out.

Turn two: Develop/Settle and Settle/Produce. I find Space Mercenaries and Malevolent Lifeforms, giving me a passive 1 VP + 1 card leech or a 5 card trade on each subsequent turn. The Nightmare has no development other than GalFed which it can't afford, and settles Secluded World for some cardflow.

Turn three: Explore+/Trade and Cx2/Produce. I have nothing worth building given that the Nightmare might leech Settles, so I draw 9 cards on Explore and find NGO, Seti, Imperium Lords, and Terraforming Guild. I choose Imperium Lords since it already gives me 4 cards on Produce and should be worth a good 8-10 VPs by the end.

Turn four: Explore+/Develop and Cx2/Produce. Looking for some more good cards, whiff and pick up Avian Uplift Race from the Explore. I make Imperium Lords, the Nightmare makes Contact Specialists since its only worlds are low cost military.

Turn five: Settle/Settle and Cx2/Produce. The Avian Uplift Race comes out, and the Rebel Base. Meanwhile the Nightmare builds Rebel Sympathizers and the Rebel Warrior Race. Luckily for me he can't seem to find any better Consume powers.

Turn six: Settle/Cx2 and Explore+/Cx2. He has nothing exciting to build and figures I've seen enough cards that a few more can't hurt, which turns out to be correct. He finds the Outlaw World which is a point plus two for the extra consume ability, and I build Terraforming World.

Final score: Nightmare 33, New Sparta 33, and New Sparta wins on tiebreakers. If we had been using goals and no one had changed their plays, Nightmare would have gotten the 5 VPs goal (if present), and New Sparta would have gotten the Discard and/or 6-Cost Dev goals, so we'll call that a 14/15 win rate since ATS had a "1/15 chance" of getting the 5 VPs without the Discard or 6-Cost.

(Cross-post from gamegenie thread) I tried some games against the nightmare, with RvI:

The first 5 games: 0-5. Ouch. It was painful. I was all ready to sign up to the "ELC/ATS is broken" camp. Then, I had a thought: why not use goals? I hadn't been, but after all, they are the default game mode, so why wasn't I using them?

Next 5 games, with goals: 3-2. Ah hah! This was a revelation! With goals, ElC/ATS nightmare was not only beatable, it was actually relatively fun to play against. It was just a matter of playing for the goals, as with one or two exceptions, the nightmare certainly wasn't getting any. Most games, I managed one of the most goals, and 2-3 of the first goals, which was usually enough to give me the win.

------------------------------------------

So, my short take on this is that I can certainly see the argument against ELC/ATS if you don't play with goals, but with them, it's not a big problem. Doing this has also given me a much larger appreciation for including goals in the game, as, in addition to the variety they bring to each game, they also reduce the impact of some of the auto-play type hands (ELC/ATS, high military early, etc.)