Game: War on Terror

Thread: Re: George Bush a fan?

ExcitingJeff — 2008-12-02T16:31:21+00:00

Having played the game, I somehow doubt it.

Incidentally, I will be spending the remainder of the day at ronaldreagan.com. Thanks a lot.

Thread: George Bush a fan?

ludicvalor — 2008-12-02T16:15:50+00:00

Hey guys, what's your game doing in the Oval office?

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=dca1de64...

Is this real? Please tell me it is.

Thread: First time playing questions

MattyB667 — 2008-12-01T14:33:35+00:00

Let me preface the questions with the game is very fun, but as the game went on there were questions we couldn't answer.

When several people turn terrorist do each of them get two terrorist cards on their or since their all playing as one turn they all only get two?

In the plane hijacking or any card that has terrorist threatening the empire to give them money or they'll attack them, does that money go to the bank or terrorist player?

What is it the players can trade? Is it cards they can trade, and if they can trade them can they give them away to other players?

How exactly does the war card work when someone uses another to defend themself.

Thread: Re: Peace in our time!

Deinodon — 2008-12-01T00:34:45+00:00

I don't think it is giving up in this case. They saw that the Terrorists were going to mow them down, so they got together and tried to declare a victory against terrorism before it won. Kind of reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where earth is told it will be destroyed because it is a failure, so the UN gets together and figures out a way to make world peace.

Thread: Re: First play first doubts

Deinodon — 2008-12-01T00:20:31+00:00

Yes, that is the way I play.

Thread: Re: Endgame Question / Terrorist Movement ?

Deinodon — 2008-12-01T00:17:19+00:00

We play that the cities count for points no matter where they are.

We have discussed the combining and splitting of terror units in our game group. We have decided that units can be added to or combined, but never broken up into smaller units.

Thread: Re: The World's Most Dangerous Game!

ThouArtASmiteMeister — 2008-11-21T06:42:35+00:00

What's the deal with picking on Western Canada?!

Just kidding. Great review. Looks like this game could be a blast (pun intended). Plan to order it in my next games order.

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-13T15:57:02+00:00

Even Terrorists Have Birthdays!

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-09T20:01:35+00:00

I don't know what made me do it!

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-09T19:57:59+00:00

Terrorist Training Camp!

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-08T21:30:30+00:00

2 player game

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-08T21:22:16+00:00

Postcard back

Thread: Endgame Question / Terrorist Movement ?

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-07T17:19:20+00:00

1.Endgame Question:

Do cities count toward your Liberation Points if they are not in your fully owned continent?

2. Terrorist Movement:

Can you move a column by spiting it into 5 Vanguards?

Thread: Re: First play first doubts

7pjojo — 2008-11-05T16:45:11+00:00

thanks for the help, now it's almost all clear. The last thing it's always about upgrade terrorist unit: anyway reading some posts in the forum I think that it's possible to move more than one vanguards in a country only if this allows you to upgrade to column.
example: there's 1 vanguard in a country I move other 2 in this country and then buy more 2 to upgrade to column. (it's legal) ------- move 2 vanguards in the country and so have 3 vanguards in that country (not legal)-----right?

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-05T02:37:54+00:00

Radioactive meltdown!

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-05T02:36:01+00:00

Cover art

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-05T02:34:04+00:00

Cover art

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-05T02:32:48+00:00

Fight the long war on terror in one night!

Thread: Re: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

bob_the_goon — 2008-11-05T02:25:43+00:00

7pjojo wrote:
I have the same doubt, anyway I think that:

- evil empires draw 4 cards: 2 from each deck
- the extra card symbol on the action dice allows the Evil empire to take one extra card from one deck chosen by the player.
- the evil emperor may buy up to 2 additional cards from one deck chosen by the player.

it's right?

This is correct.

Thread: Re: First play first doubts

bob_the_goon — 2008-11-05T02:23:44+00:00

Small correction to the previous post.

There ARE terrorist cards that give you money. There's cards that let you steal all the oil revenue for the turn, terrorist birtday cards, that give money, and hostae/hijack cards that give the victim a choice between paying you off or risking a rescue that may be far costlier.

Image

ryanmaesen — 2008-11-05T02:01:59+00:00

Postcard - Front

Thread: Re: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

werefish — 2008-11-05T01:53:48+00:00

I think that's it.

Thread: Re: First play first doubts

werefish — 2008-11-05T01:52:38+00:00

I'll try to help you.

1) In a country can be present more than one terrorist vanguards? And in the terrorist camp training?
2) To upgrade a terrorist vanguard in a column I have to buy 4 vanguards in the same moment or can I collect the 5 vanguards in different turn? And in the terrorist camp training?
3)When a player became terrorist the rules say:"All money is kept, as are any terrorists in your ‘terrorist training camp"
Can someone explain this in a another way? What happens to his money and his terrorists unit in the camp?
4)I can place terrorist unit from my camp training to board at anymoment?
5)If a terrorist don't take money from oil revenue, how he can earn money?

1: Only one 'set' of terrorists in one place. SO you can have up to 1 of the largest Terrorist units in a country. Terrorist training camp can have as many as you want, as it's off board and has no immediate impact in play.

2: You can buy or collect.

3: When a player becomes a terrorist player, he/she keeps all money in their hand and any terrorists units that you own but have not placed are still yours.

4: On your turn when you're allowed to place a unit normally, you can.

5: They don't. Unless you get new players to join you, get someone to bribe you or pay tribute to you, etc. No in game mechanic gets them money. They have to play conservatively and smart.

I hope I got the rules right and have helped you. Have fun!

Thread: First play first doubts

7pjojo — 2008-11-04T18:53:09+00:00

Hi, I've just returned from Lucca with this cool game, I immediatly play it and now I've some doubts:

1) In a country can be present more than one terrorist vanguards? And in the terrorist camp training?
2) To upgrade a terrorist vanguard in a column I have to buy 4 vanguards in the same moment or can I collect the 5 vanguards in different turn? And in the terrorist camp training?
3)When a player became terrorist the rules say:"All money is kept, as are any terrorists in your ‘terrorist training camp"
Can someone explain this in a another way? What happens to his money and his terrorists unit in the camp?
4)I can place terrorist unit from my camp training to board at anymoment?
5)If a terrorist don't take money from oil revenue, how he can earn money?

I hope that someone can help me.

thanks

Thread: Re: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

7pjojo — 2008-11-04T18:19:39+00:00

I have the same doubt, anyway I think that:

- evil empires draw 4 cards: 2 from each deck
- the extra card symbol on the action dice allows the Evil empire to take one extra card from one deck chosen by the player.
- the evil emperor may buy up to 2 additional cards from one deck chosen by the player.

it's right?

Thread: Re: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

Dogma79 — 2008-10-31T14:48:07+00:00

So the Axis of Evil just get the possibility to get Terrorists cards not more...

Axis seems to be difficult to play. One against the rest when Empire-players decide to get the reward for attacking the Axis.

Thread: Re: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

werefish — 2008-10-30T21:38:46+00:00

Either means one and not the other. So 'either red or blue' would mean pick red. Or pick blue. Not both.

In the context of the rules you can probably figure them out now.

Thread: Drawing Cards as Evil Empire

Dogma79 — 2008-10-27T17:15:04+00:00

We germans have a problem with the word "either"...

From the rules:
Evil Empires are entitled to two free cards from both decks at the start of their turn.
Question: Has he now 4 cards (2 from each deck) or 2?

• The ‘extra card’ symbol on the action die allows the Evil Empire to take an extra card from either deck.
Question: Has he to draw 1 or 2 (1 from ach deck)?

• During their turn, Evil Empires may buy up to 2 additional cards. They can buy from either deck.
Question: Can he buy 4 (2 from each deck) or 2?

Thread: Re: Everyone is a Terrorist

jyeackle — 2008-10-20T03:25:36+00:00

Then everyone wins: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Thread: Re: 4 Players - First Game

consolewa — 2008-10-08T09:00:48+00:00

Well said, Harvey. Contrary to going on too long, I think you managed to write an effective "apology" for a game that deserves to be played and, yes, even enjoyed.

Thumbs up for that, and another for the original report.

Thread: Re: New card suggestions

BramVdS — 2008-10-06T10:48:38+00:00

on the "global jihad" issue, maybe you can balance it out some more, by adding a "whispered by God" card to the empire deck, some nations does like to play the "God card" in real life even when they are not bible belt groupies
It isn't because you say it is all about religion beliefs that it can't be just for regular profiteering

And maybe you can choose not to play the global jihad card if you have it, if you don't want to use it, you get 3 additional terrorist cards that you can use instantly.

A new card (that can only be played once in a game) can be that you force an empire to save the world bank from bankruptcy by injecting it with 75% of all the empire's money.

Thread: Re: The Evil Balaclava!

joebelanger — 2008-10-01T18:47:06+00:00

I ain't sharin' headgear wit no one; evil or otherwise.

Thread: Re: The Evil Balaclava!

f-p-p-m — 2008-10-01T14:19:28+00:00

taraba wrote:
I have a house rule that you can't put it on. We have some people that aren't hygienic in our game group and I felt that it was better to put everyone in to the "can't wear" category than it was to tell certain people they can't wear it.

And this is the solution:

]]>

Thread: Re: 4 Players - First Game

hob69 — 2008-09-24T17:50:02+00:00

Thank you for the kind comment.

On this issue:

Barry Kendall wrote:
because the irreverence of the thing hits me in a bad place due to personal connections with terror victims,

There is no doubt that it's a provocative thing to do, designing a game around contemporary terrorism, and as a game, it encourages laughs rather than a serious consideration of issues. That said, one can't but think of Swift and "A Modest Proposal". No, I'm not saying TerrorBull games are Swiftean satirists, but the point is sometimes reductio ad absurdum does serve a deeper purpose, and sometimes you not only run the risk of offence in doing so, you invite it.

We're an older demographic in our group, and certainly none of us would for a minute dismiss geopolitical reality as a game, or find terrorism funny (we live in Ireland, which has had more than its share of terrorist troubles throughout our lives), but you know, in a lot of ways a lot of games can be potentially offensive or upsetting. Think of the upcoming Red November Red November, which, in its early design phase was actually about escaping from the Kursk. When I heard that I actually kind of felt a bit shocked, and yet because it's now Gnomes, I have no problem pr-ordering it. It is the same game though.

War on Terror is really a Risk variant with an anarchic element provided by a faction that all sides and no side controls, and a randomising 'cheat mode' in the 'Axis of Evil'. In this, as a game, it doesn't differ all that much from so many games of military conquest or combat.

My wife will not play any game that has military conflict in it (which pretty much narrows the field frighteningly much, if you think about it), even when represented in the abstract. I've heard of 'friendly' games of Risk breaking into actual hostility when an American girl played with a group of Irish people who kept making jokes about American imperialism every time she did anything (true story).

Certainly I don't think the makers of the game would want anyone to be trivial about terrorism (nor, incidentally, am I saying you are saying that, I'm really just ruminating here). In many ways, as I said, it does, in fact, provoke thought. But, in fairness, it is still a game, and one intended to entertain, so that deeper context is in the tradition of reductio ad absurdum, which may or may not work for any given person, no more or less so than "A Modest Proposal" would have been funny to those who read it at the time (some laughed, some screamed outrage).

I am very sorry to hear you have personal connections with victims of terror who are obviously still suffering. If you are uncomfortable around the subject, then you might want to give the game some space. There are cards in there that really aren't funny if you are sensitive to the realities behind them. The game doesn't invite that, but that won't make it easier if you're not in a place where you can handle it.

It does make you wonder how the game will hold up over time, and how this moment in history will be depicted in games in the future. So many tragedies and conflicts from human history are the bases for stories, songs, and games that sometimes we forget the lived reality. We stand so far away that watching Napoleon sweep across Europe is an abstract to us, not something that speaks of the pain and misery of those caught up in the violence. When a chessman falls, we don't think of medieval warfare. Could it be that the rogue and phantom nature of the terrorist will become a gaming mechanic that simply serves to make a game interesting in the far future, and its context in our time as a lived experience will seem as distant to us as having plastic figurines representing Roman soldiers replay scenes of carnage as a combat dice roll?

Anyway, I'm going on too long. Playing the game did, indeed make me think about these things, so I guess that can't be all bad.

As to the update , I think they're altering some of the game mechanics and adding new cards. There's a whole thread on it somewhere on the Geek.

Thread: Re: 4 Players - First Game

Barry Kendall — 2008-09-24T16:03:05+00:00

Entertaining write-up. Although I waver because the irreverence of the thing hits me in a bad place due to personal connections with terror victims, I keep reading things that tempt me to think this might be a game that both entertains and, in a way, educates.

Does anyone know how the reprint/second edition will differ from first edition?

Thread: 4 Players - First Game

hob69 — 2008-09-24T10:38:23+00:00

Our game group expanded by one last night, meaning we got to run through War on Terror for the first time with four around the table.

It wasn't too difficult to get the feel of the game, but initial rounds were comparatively restrained, with people cautiously expanding their empires Risk-style and not really building beyond villages anywhere. Terrorists were deployed gently enough by three of the four, but I (playing yellow) decided to throw a little potential anarchy in by putting them all over the place when I could, even though I wasn't using them yet either.

The world more or less broke down to the Yellow Empire controlling much of South America, Blue and Orange quietly sharing North America, Yellow and Blue sharing Europe, Orange and Green eyeing each other cautiously in Asia, Yellow and Green in Australiasia and Green and Yellow hanging out in Nowhere.

It took a long time before anyone became hostile, and when Orange made a move on Green in Asia, it was through Warfare rather than Terror at first. Again, not far from the basic Risk dynamic at this point. However, Green's vengeance was swift and terrible, and the game began to heat up as Terror attacks and Nukes flared up all over the borders between Orange and Green. The Axis of Evil also played a part here when Green became the first Evil Empire and realised the tremendous power it gives you. In fact, you could say it unbalances the game a bit unless you get enough spins of the wheel, because the feeble penalty of a financial bonus to your enemies for attacking you in no way balances the choice of terrorist or empire cards and the number of them you get. Anyway, all hell broke loose as Terrorist and Empire cards began hitting the table and the terrorist units scattered around suddenly woke up.

The real appeal of the Terrorist Attacks is that they somehow feel less personal than War (my goodness, there really IS a lot to learn from this game). Manipulating anonymous terrorist vanguards that you didn't necessarily place makes it kind of easier to say 'it's not me, it's the terrorists' while crushing your enemy's villages, and, sure enough, much of what followed was tit-for-tat attacks around the board using Terrorist Attacks.

Africa proved to be an interesting spot, mostly dominated by Green early on with some Orange in there, it became a real hotspot when South Africa seemed remarkably resistant to revolution but Sudan changed hands several times in the course of a few turns. A Nuke put a stop to much of it for a while, but it became clear that Green, holding Africa, moving on Nowhere, and still engaged in a war of attrition with Orange in Asia, might be making a serious bid for victory points.

Yellow (me) quietly began to build up a bit, and had a few cities built and had begun to consoldiate position pretty well before the others began to realise I wasn't being entirely passive with my Empire while playing havoc placing terrorists everywhere. Blue began to fall out of the game, caught in crossfire from nukes and also skirmishing away with Orange and Green in Eastern Europe. It became clear that he was going to turn terrorist (not hard to discern when he openly announced he was thinking about it...).

The Axis of Evil had spun in the meantime, and Orange, stung by Green's counterattack earlier on, delighted in the new powers in his hands because of access to the Terrorist Cards. Some of them are truly vicious and really stir things up, but in spite of some rallying, there was just too much attrition to make victory a realistic probability for Orange.

Blue went Terrorist, as predicted, and began chortling to himself as he exchanged his cards and got ready to unleash his arsenal next time around.

I made my move without enough planning really, after a pact between myself and Orange that he would not attack South America if I didn't move on the North, I took his one settlement out of South America and claimed it, then swept across Europe and built cities. Unfortunately, I fell two points short of victory in that move, and made myself a target (this is the fun of the game, and really exactly the point).

I paid for my power grab on the next Green turn, when he nuked Brazil, which also had the effect of destroying pretty much everything I had there. Orange was making a serious grab for North America, and Green had also begun creeping up through Australia and now controlled all of Nowhere.

It was time to go Terrorist, so I did, and joined up with Blue. In doing so, we had a huge set of cards to play with on what was 'his' first real turn as terrorist, but now armed with double the cards. Orange and Green were momentarily taken aback by the sudden terrorist surge, and with hijackings and various other extortion techniques, combined with garden-variety attacks, dirty bombs, and other miscellaneous mayhem, Terror began to gain ascendence. Ironically, Blue had been the World Bank, and now he was terrorist. Yellow (me) had probably the most cash in hand, and as we played terror, we seemed to have terrific resources (no, the bank wasn't robbed, but it was on our side of the board) while the Empires were in trouble.

After another round with Orange and Green now trying to defend themselves and grab land, we (the terrorists) had another round to build up our units and generally wreck the place (we blew up the oil pipeline in Texas and hit them hard economically with kidnappings and hijacks). Green was in dire financial straits at this point, and looked to be facing bankruptcy. However, he valiantly continued to expand his Empire all the time. At this point Orange realised the game was up for him, and so began to help Green with cash donations, and this turned the game.

Green won on his last turn, and though the math was done before we got there, we played it out anyway (why deny someone the fun of seeing their victory actually happen?). Green, the new arrival, had triumphed, with enough victory points from Africa, Asia and his cities to win by building two cities with Orange's help on that last go.

The lesson for today folks: Empires must work together to defeat Terror.

This game is fun to play, but must be approached with a sense of fun. We laughed a lot playing it, and though we were not quick to spot the actual geopolitical ironies in things that were happening, no one was taking things too seriously. Good session. Took about four hours.

Thread: Re: New card suggestions

Domino — 2008-09-24T00:51:44+00:00

M.A.D. Once this card is in play it stays in play until the end of the game (or... until someone uses a nuke. Then maybe remove it from play.)

If MAD is in on the table when a player plays a nuke any player who has one and a city to launch it from can also play theirs.

Dunno if this is workable but would be interesting. I think to be effective you would need more nuke cards but this game would be too brutal with more.

Thread: Re: War cards and the last empire

Osama2002 — 2008-09-15T18:50:20+00:00

I think this last thing is a bit of a bummer...
When I am the last Empire, and the other 5 players are terrorists, then it is better to make a draw, then to loose (of which the change is really big...).

So... maybe it would be cool if terrorists can convert back to an empire...

Thread: Everyone is a Terrorist

Osama2002 — 2008-09-14T00:36:22+00:00

What happens if everyone is a terrorist?

Thread: Re: Peace in our time!

Guantanamo — 2008-09-07T20:47:41+00:00

Calling peace in our opinion, is just s cute way to give up on the game. Why would you 'declare' peace and quit the game without a winner? Keep playing until there is a victor!

Thread: Civil War Card

fatboyginge — 2008-09-07T16:53:23+00:00

Just a quick one about this. We felt it was too powerful if someone got 3 of them. As you turn 8 developments into terrorists either clearing out a whole continent or wiping someone out.
It should have a random element. say roll 2 dice and on 7 or above the development turns into a terrorist unit. This better reflects civil war.

Thread: Peace in our time!

fatboyginge — 2008-09-07T15:51:36+00:00

The short version:
Do terrorists in a training camp count as being on the board with regard to calling peace?

The long version:

So picture this, it's our first game hour in, 2 empires have fallen to terrorists, giggling away claiming we will all be screwed. i play nuclear disarmament card to reveal theirs, they have 'Insurgency Emergency' (upgrade all terrorists units 1 level) they have enough money to fill every province then upgrade to a column and even lots of cells...
So seeing defeat impending (we didn't have much development) the remaining empires traded all war/terrorist infighting card to one player killed as many as we could. then one player said they had terrorist buy off. we clubbed the cash to remove all terrorists to their training camp and declared peace... but we wondered Do terrorists in a training camp count as being on the board with regard to calling peace?

Excellent game by the way!!

Thread: Re: Version 2.0 rule and card ideas

maha1208 — 2008-09-07T10:06:31+00:00

Really fun game, my friends and I have played a few different games (2, 3, 4, and 5-player games) and have had a great time each time.

We've been considering switching to the 2.0 rules since we've run into a few things that imbalance the game (i.e. players going terrorist in a 2-player game and instantly winning).

I was reading through your 2.0 rules and stumbled across the request for ways to make the terrorist player more strategic. Here's my idea to make playing as a terrorist more interesting:

* During the terrorist player's turn, that player can elect to pay 50m and convert any Terrorist Cell on the board to a Terrorist Encampment. This is represented by 2 Terrorist Vanguard pieces (similar to the Permanent Military Base) and follows similar rules--it can only be destroyed by a nuke or Nationalist Revolution card (it probably doesn't make sense for it to be destroyable by an Insurgancy card). Any time the development in the same nation as the Terrorist Encampment receives oil revenue from an oil roll, 50% of that development's proceeds go to the Terrorist Player (representing local authorities/citizens sympathetic to or afraid of the terrorist cause supplying them with resources).

No more terrorist units can be placed in this country, but the terrorist player can still perform Terrorist Attacks and use other Terrorist Cards as if it were a Terrorist Cell (Although infighting cannot be incited). It can't be moved via Terrorist Movements, but acts as part of the terrorist network for movement purposes. Cards that destroy the attacking terrorist unit (like Suicide Bomber and Dirty Bomb) destroy the Encampment as well. Terrorist Encampments do NOT prevent development in that country since they represent a relationship between the locals and the terrorists.

This change adds an extra dimension to the terrorist player, since it creates a relationship with the empire (oil revenue is no longer completely cut off for that development, and the terrorist player has a stake in not allowing that development to fall). It also gives the terrorist player a way to build up a little more money (but not a lot), since when the money dries up, playing as a terrorist gets pretty boring.

Edit: The terrorist player should probably be limited to 3 of these Encampments.

What do you all think?

Thread: Re: The Endgame Problem: David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy as it applies to "War on Terror"

Bwian — 2008-09-02T17:14:04+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
I suppose people just assume that Playing to Win and jackassery must go hand-in-hand, since they most often see jackasses perverting the concept. Shame.
Indeed. The opposite of "Playing to Win" is "Throwing the Game". And while I will occasionally play below my level in a teaching game (i.e. my opponent's first game, when they are learning the rules), in general I consider throwing a game to be much more annoying that playing to win.

Thread: Re: The Endgame Problem: David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy as it applies to "War on Terror"

mtpoll — 2008-09-02T12:41:56+00:00

No sweat. Sorry to get a bit defensive; I've noticed the same trend too though, and I don't know where it comes from either. I suppose people just assume that Playing to Win and jackassery must go hand-in-hand, since they most often see jackasses perverting the concept. Shame.

Thread: Re: The Endgame Problem: David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy as it applies to "War on Terror"

dedindahed — 2008-09-02T11:37:10+00:00

Not directed to yourself Mark, sorry If it seemed that way.

The last couple of posters did seem to get the impression that the sirlin philosophy is all about the win, and nothing else matters, and they seemed to get that impression from this thread, from what or who, I'm not pointing fingers, merely pointing out that there's a little more to it.

Thread: Re: The Endgame Problem: David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy as it applies to "War on Terror"

mtpoll — 2008-09-02T11:12:59+00:00

I hope you're not suggesting that I've advocated ass-like "win-at-all-costs" behavior with my posts on this thread. If you are, then please read my posts again. I have specifically pointed out that "playing to win" does not mean being a jerk.

There was one issue on which I think I might have slightkly misrepresented the Play to Win philosophy... when I suggested that all Sirlinists would necessarily be satisfied with a shared win.

Otherwise, I think I've imparted the values accurately.

Thread: Re: The Endgame Problem: David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" philosophy as it applies to "War on Terror"

dedindahed — 2008-09-02T10:41:53+00:00

The trouble is that this thread has largely touted sirlinism in the wrong way. It is NOT about "must win this game at all costs" other than in a tournament environment, or between competitive players.

The REAL heart of the philosophy falls into two main areas.

Wanting to develop your ability to the point where you can beat any opponent you will ever face

Being able to admit that your opponent played better than you when defeated.

There is nothing that demands you crush 5 year olds mercilessly, ruin family get togethers and generally act like an ass.

When teaching a new player, the sirlin philosophy (IMO) would be more likely to train a new player as best as possible, with the aim of developing a "worthy opponent" in order to better test your skill level.
Not deliberately mis-informing or witholding key information in order to secure the win (I've seen this too often)

Thread: Re: Major nuke change, and some other minor changes

CasualSax — 2008-08-31T05:31:08+00:00

I like the ideas! I really like the idea of nuclear development. I would suggest requiring that a player play two nuclear development cards before being allowed to purchase nukes. I'd also up the maintenance fee to 25 mil/turn, as you need at least 50 mil/turn to make a dent in rich nations pockets. (And if you're not rich, you should be using your nukes to make money the old fashioned way - by cheating, stealing, and bribing). I would also put in that any player who has unlocked nuclear weapons can sell the technology for 200m to the world bank.

I would change the upkeep to be that for 25m, you can disarm the nuke instead of paying the 25m upkeep. Disarming nukes isn't easy or cheap.

But wait, are you a cheap skate? Can't upkeep a nuke? Not paying guards is bad - your nuke was misplaced! Spin the spinner! Winner gets it. If it doesn't land on an Empire player, the terrorists get it. If the spinner lands on you, the nuke is 'lost.'

While I like the concept of bunkers, it seems like it would slow down the game (encourages defensive play and end game cold war stall outs). If you wanted to play a techup game, I would put in a progession chart to lessoning the effects of nukes, with each progression costing twice as much as the one before.

Start - Tech 0: Nuke kills everything in target territory and adjacent land territories, leaves radiation marker in selected territory.

50m - Tech 1: Nuke killse everything in target territory, and decreases adjacent land territories two levels. Leaves radiation marker in target territory.

100m - Tech 2: Nuke kills two levels in target territory, and decreases adjacent land territories one level. Leaves radiation marker in target territory.

200m - Tech 3: Nuke kills one level in target territory and decreases adjacent land territories by one level. Leaves radiation marker in target territory.

400m - Tech 4: Defender rolls two dice. On an 8-12, Star Wars defense satellites shoot down targetted nuke, negating its effect. Otherwise effects are as tech level 3.

Note that at tech level 3, launching three nukes will still cause the same effect as one nuke at tech level 0. This keeps nukes playable well into the game. Also note that I just made this up, and its 1:30 AM. :P

Thread: Re: Winning conditions, liberation points for terrorist ?

CasualSax — 2008-08-31T05:09:01+00:00

Hey, glad to see you asking questions - it can be a confusing game at first, and a drink goes to anyone who wants to figure out how it works *before* they house rule.

When do we count the liberation points ?

We always play where liberation points get counted immediately when someone reaches the total. At the point of the game when someone can win, we usually feel the game has gone on long enough to warrant their victory. The odds of another player drawing a lucky card and nuking them/attacking/etc are just too high to keep drawing the game out round after round.

The rule say that terrorists need to free a continent from any empire developpements to earn the liberation points of a given continent. Does it mean that a continent where nobody is there (no empire nor terrorist), gives its liberation points to terrorist even if no units are present ?

The rules are pretty clear that empty continents go to the terrorists. Terrorists (or, if you preffer, anarchists) are going for a world without laws, not a world full of terrorists. In practice, this works pretty well - later in the game players are expanding wherever they can squeeze space, so the rules are tricky enough as written.

Hope this helps!

Thread: Re: Suggestions and feedback on v2.0 rules, plus some extra tips

kevinb9n — 2008-08-26T22:12:49+00:00

TerrorBull Games wrote:
In response - and this might seem like a bit of a cop out - the game is very different and has a lower 'success rate' with 2 players. Small actions can tip the game heavily in one player's favour. Should we even state "2-6 players"? This is a good question. We constantly tell people it works best with 3+ players, so maybe ... I dunno, I'll put that to the vote.

Under-promise and over-deliver!

I really hope to get my copy converted to v2 and playtested a few times soon. I've always thought that this game has great potential.

Thread: Re: Suggestions and feedback on v2.0 rules, plus some extra tips

TerrorBull Games — 2008-08-26T14:21:27+00:00

Forgot to say - LOVE the idea of different type of war cards. Brilliant.

Thread: Re: Suggestions and feedback on v2.0 rules, plus some extra tips

TerrorBull Games — 2008-08-26T14:19:56+00:00

Hi Michel,

First, thanks for taking the time to give us your feedback and for your considered comments. It's not negative at all - in fact, very constructive, so thanks.

Loved this line: "I figured out my wife had both nuke cards, so I obviously went for the weapons inspector... I actually felt bad about this ;-)"

If you let emotions get in the way, you will lose, remember this.

In response - and this might seem like a bit of a cop out - the game is very different and has a lower 'success rate' with 2 players. Small actions can tip the game heavily in one player's favour. Should we even state "2-6 players"? This is a good question. We constantly tell people it works best with 3+ players, so maybe ... I dunno, I'll put that to the vote.

Your solution of just one terrorist card to the evil empire per turn in a 2 player game is good. As is the idea of removing the card inspector and the insurgency emergency - these cards just tip the scales too much for 2 players.

The double and triple oil cards have the disadvantage that you list, but in our experience are used even by the "underlings". All you need to do is build a good city in your turn and you're in with a chance.

Nice suggestion on buying terrorists at the end of your go.

The military bases were an attempt to address a certain lack of "permanence" in some games. There can be a lot of to-and-froing and some people found the lack of being able to plan too far ahead to be frustrating. Again, all I can say is that in our experience the military bases have worked really well in that respect. It's true, it adds complication, but they're fairly intuitive and fit with the logic of the game. Possibly they don't have much point in a 2 player game, we're not sure - we haven't tested a 2 player with military bases to be honest. Lastly, building permanent military bases are arguably a key objective in the real 'war on terror' so it's nice to try and reflect this in the game.

Thanks for your help. Keep it coming.

Cheers,
Andrew

Thread: Suggestions and feedback on v2.0 rules, plus some extra tips

michelcolman — 2008-08-26T11:14:44+00:00

First of all, I really love this game. It has a lot of potential for great entertainment, but it does seem a bit out of balance in places, as if it hasn't been tested with enough different groups of people. Of course, these forums are excellent for the kind of feedback you need to adjust things. So I hope I don't sound too negative in what I'm writing below, it's just to improve an already great game.

So here are my comments and suggestions. I have only played a few two player games so far, but I read most of the forum posts so I think I have a pretty good feel for the game. Feel free to correct me if I've missed the point here and there.

- In a two player game, being evil is too much of an advantage. With more players, the extra terrorist cards are compensated by the fact that everyone is attacking you to get the extra 25M (which was a brilliant idea, by the way). With only two players, though, the advantage is just too huge. On top of that, you get more turns as the evil player. With more players, the dice are rolled more often so you only get a few evil turns. I would propose giving only one terrorist card per turn in a two player game, instead of two.

- Two player games often seem to end abruptly without the winning player really being obviously ahead. For example, in a game where my wife and I both had 3 cities, she got lucky with triple oil income, put down three extra cities, filling up australia, and boom, she had won. On the other hand, if I had turned terrorist, I would have won immediately because both Americas were still empty and she had nobody in Africa. I realise she won so easily because we haven't been using enough terrorists to hamper each other's development (we just bought them to attack, not to block) but still, I think more liberation points should be required to win. Or maybe cities shouldn't count so much. Maybe double the continent points and the required points, so cities are only half as important?

- Again for two player games, the card inspector might be a bit too powerful. I would take it out for two player games. It not only allows you to look through the deck, but also tells you what cards the other player has. On one occasion, I figured out my wife had both nuke cards, so I obviously went for the weapons inspector... I actually felt bad about this ;-)

- A lot of people have complained about strong players turning terrorist and winning pretty much immediately. Maybe the amount of transfered resources should be limited: when you turn terrorist, you can only take a certain maximum amount of money and developments with you, everything over that goes to the world bank. Also, some people suggested you should only be able to turn terrorist if you are nearly wiped out, that sounds like a good idea too.

- Also, I don't see the advantage of the insurgency emergency card, it only seems to break the game by giving an enormous boost to terrorism, encouraging dubious tactics like the vanguard sprinkle plus insurgency emergency before turning terrorist. And why is this card even there?

- Then, sales prices for developments. Towns and cities give you back less than what you invested, but for villages you get back the complete amount. So you can develop somewhere, find out there's no oil, and sell the village back again. You should really only get about 15M for a village.

- To encourage the use of terrorist camps: add a rule that terrorists can only be bought at the end of the turn to be put into the training camp. You can then use them during your next turn. Quite a few people have suggested this already. Also, limit the number of terrorists one can buy in one turn.

- Double or triple extra oil income: only seems to be an option for the strongest player, weak players will probably never play it because they are more likely to strengthen their opponents. Therefore I don't think this is a good card to have in the game. Of course it does have the potential for backfiring when you roll the wrong number, but that's about the only good thing about the card.

- Someone sugested a maximum number of cards in hand, sounds like a good idea to avoid someone slowly building up a huge stock of cards for a surprise attack.

Then, the proposed version 2 rules:

- I don't understand why you want to add Permanent Military Bases. Doesn't seem necessary, and adds complexity without a good reason. Maybe there's a good reason, I just don't get it.

- I completely agree with the new rule saying developments may only be sold in a bankruptcy situation. But what constitutes bankruptcy? For example if you can't pay the ransom for a kidnap, are you forced to a dice roll or can you sell something to pay them off?

- To make cities more defensible, maybe use the line for the attacker's development type for defense. So if a village attacks a city, the attacker has to roll strikes on the city line while the defense just has to roll strikes on the village line.

- Drawing cards at the end of the turn: completely agree.

Apart from these comments and proposed fixes, I also have some general suggestions for extra cards:

- War cards with different strengths. If I'm not mistaken, they are all the same in the current version. It would be interesting to have differences. Some would almost guarantee a win, but would also carry a higher risk of collateral damage. Others would take a lot of luck to even take a village, but would be completely safe. Some would just be weak AND dangerous, so you would only use those to defend yourself (since the attacker's card is used as a reference)

- Empire "covert ops" card: allows you to take a card from the terrorist deck. May be combined with a card inspector to pick any card from the terrorist deck.

- Empire "with us or against us" card: let another empire fight a war for you. Collateral damage is their problem, obviously. (The card looks like a war card, but maybe with a higher chance of collateral damage).

That's all for now ;-)

Michel

Thread: Re: Police Seize War on Terror board games

gavingva — 2008-08-25T17:39:08+00:00

I've just done the maths.... 5000 games at wholesale... then you get to sell about half of them again at retail... plus a ton of free advertising.... flippin' eck! Del Trotter couldn't do it better.

Thread: Re: Police Seize War on Terror board games

louiseh — 2008-08-25T16:46:31+00:00

Interestingly, the article quotes the police's justification for the seizure of the game- the balaclava inside "could be used to conceal someone's identity or could be used in the course of a criminal act".

Of course they could have just seized the balaclava, but a big box with "Terror" on the front looks so much better in the police photo for the press....

Thread: Re: Police Seize War on Terror board games

sifu-uk — 2008-08-25T15:32:05+00:00

The Guardian are commenting on this:

Game on
Makers of the War on Terror board game have won their battle with a high street store, but reactions to the product are worrying
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/25/gamecult...

Thread: Winning conditions, liberation points for terrorist ?

pouet — 2008-08-22T17:08:51+00:00

Hi everyone,
I played my first game today, and I have some questions.
When do we count the liberation points ?
I mean, does an empire (or terrorists) win the game as soon as he has all the required liberation points (for example, I'm a empire player, I need one more point to win, do I win the game exactly when I upgrade an other city)?
Or do we count the liberation point at the beginning of one's player turn, so that if he manage to get his remaining point, the other players have one last chance to do something (because he have to hold his point until his next turn).

Second question.
The rule say that terrorists need to free a continent from any empire developpements to earn the liberation points of a given continent. Does it mean that a continent where nobody is there (no empire nor terrorist), gives its liberation points to terrorist even if no units are present ?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: War on Terror Giveaway - London, 12:30pm, today

armed-medic — 2008-08-20T19:26:55+00:00

The British always have a stiff upper lip about such things. I think it's great. I suppose they could always just give in.

By the way after the Bombing of London in WW2 wouldn't you expect the good old Brits to soldier on and even make light of the situation?

Thread: Re: War on Terror Giveaway - London, 12:30pm, today

andrak — 2008-08-19T23:07:51+00:00

I wish I lived in London.
For the chance of a free game that is.