Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

Kester — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:53:06 +0000

Try this: it's deliberately a bit patchy to show you don't need a perfect draw. It also includes a fair amount of cards seen.

Homeworld: Separatist Colony

Turn 1: Dev/Dev
+Investment credits, +Space Marines, +Rebel Miners = 4 VP
1 card on hand

Turn 2: Explore +1,+1/Trade
Still 4 VP
6 cards on hand

Turn 3: Dev/Dev
+Public Works, +New Economy, +1 chip = 10 VP
2 cards on hand

Turn 4: Settle/Trade
+Pirate World, +1 chip = 13VP
8 cards on hand

Turn 5: Dev/Dev
+Galactic Federation, +Research Labs, +1chip = 26 VP
5 cards on hand

Win by tie-break.

I think it's right anyway...

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

Benwa — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:55:58 +0000

by Benwa

Here comes the Perfect Rebel Run.

Start World : New Sparta
Start Hand : Improved Logistics + Alien Robot Sentry + 2 xxx

1) Devel / Settle : NS/IL/ARS --> 5 VP (1 card drawn for the settle : Galactic Imperium)
2) Exp 11 / Trade : (draw Rebel OutPost + Rebel Base + 5xxx) : same tableau --> 5 VP (+ 8 cards in hand : Gal Imp-Reb OutP-Reb Base-5xxx)
3) Devel / Settle : Devel Gal Imper - Settle the Reb OutP and Reb Base (draw Rebel Homeworld) -> NS/IL/ADS/GAL IMP/REB OUTPOST/REB BASE
--> 22 VP (+ 1 card (Rebel HomeWorld) in hand from the settle) - from here, even without the lucky Reb HomW draw, any EXP 5/Settle on turn 4 can defeat your routine : you only need 5 more points and have 2 turns to acheive it
4) EXP 11 / Settle : Draw Rebel Underground + 1xxx - Settle Rebel HomeWorld (draw 1 xxx) and Rebel Underground -> NS/IL/ADS/GAL IMP/ADV REB OUTPOST/REB BASE/REB HWORLD/REB UNDGR --> 37 VP on turn 4 - Goal !
(5) and for the "perfect run", suppose the two xxx are Rebel Colony and Rebel Miners ---> Settle/Settle : Settle Reb Col and Rebel Miners (Draw rebel Warrior Race) / settle Rebel Warrior Race (Draw Rebel Sympathisers) settle Rebel Sympathisers.
Final Tableau : NS/IL/ADS/GAL IMP/ADV REB OUTPOST/REB BASE/REB HWORLD/REB UNDGR/REB COL/REB MIN/REB WR/REB SYMP ---> 53 VP + 1 possible VP chip from an opponents consume or trade, from the rebel colony :-))

BTW, this was a luck based rebel variant of the New Sparta/Imp Log / Alien Robot sentry start. But i think there are numerous settings that can beat yours with NS + IL + any good windfall military world (a gene could also make it...). I think the keycard here is Improved Logistics, which can be a killer if you draw good sets of matching cards (it can also apply to a windfall combo, which will end with a relatively similar tableau to the terraforming combo exposed above).
You allways will need good card draws to make it work... but I think that with IL, you can reach those kinds of tableau, with little unperfections, in 5 turns... which is the goal you set.

edits are for the translation of the cardnames in English - I play with a french game at home

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

PseudoPserious — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:49:50 +0000

by PseudoPserious

jhagen1908 wrote:
Terraforming Guild does it in style.

Jerry's idea is fairly low-luck.

Starting World: New Sparta
Initial Hand: Terraforming Guild, 2-mil windfall, XXX x2

It's realistic for NS to Settle / Trade on the first turn.

When he sees the dreaded ATS Settle / Produce, he now knows what he has to beat (28 VP in 4 more turns).

New Sparta has 8 actions left and 8 cards in hand (TG, XXX x7).

One of these must be a Develop. Let's give him one more Trade in order to find more cards, and say that he is lucky enough to always have at least one windfall he can Settle each turn (that's not excessive luck).

2: Develop / Settle
3: Settle / Trade (~9 cards in hand)
4: Settle / ???
5: Settle / ???

With fairly low VP worlds (mix of 2s and 1s), that's 20 VP -- 8 for worlds and 12 for the TG.

He needs 9 points with his last two actions. This is attainable with quite a few card combos. For example:
- Terraforming Robots (worth 6 - 2vp + 2 bonus + 2 vp chips) plus a 1-vp windfall
- SETI (at least 7) + any card worth 2 vp
- two of the better windfalls (base vp totalling 5 or more, or with powers that provide vp)
- Deficit Spending (worth 5 - 1 vp + 2 turns of 2 vp) plus a 2-vp windfall
- Two consumption worlds with base vp totalling 6 or more (leeching the other 3 points from the Consumes)

The key cards are Terraforming Guild and an initial military windfall. After that, all you really need are 4 windfalls in ~20 cards, plus cards worth an additional 9 points.

This isn't a guarantee, of course, but it's probably one of the more realistic scenarios to beat ATS/ELC.

Cheers,
PP

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

jhagen1908 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:02:42 +0000

by jhagen1908

Terraforming Guild does it in style.

Home World: New Sparta
Start with Terraforming Robots, Alien Robot Sentry, +2 cards
R1: Develop/Trade
Develop Terraforming Robots (-2 cards)
Settle Alien Robot Sentry, +1 card
Trade Alien good for +5 cards (one of which is Terraforming Guild)
End of turn: Terraforming Guild + 5 cards

R2: Explore+1/Develop
Explore(+2 cards)
Develop Terraforming Guild
Produce on Alien Robot Sentry
End of turn: 2 cards

R3: Settle/Settle
Settle Aquatic Uplift Race, draw 3 cards
Settle Reptilian Uplift Race, draw 3 cards
End of turn: 6 cards

R4: Settle/Settle
Settle Last of the Uplift Gnarssh, draw 3 cards
Settle Avian Uplift Race, draw 3 cards
End of turn: 10 cards

R5: Develop/Settle
Develop Pan-Galactic League (-5 cards)
Settle Pilgrimage World, draw 3 cards
Consume 5 goods on Pilgrimage World for 4 VP

Tableau: New Sparta (1), Alien Robot Sentry (2), Aquatic Uplift Race (2), Reptilian Uplift Race (2), Last of the Uplift Gnarrsh (0), Avian Uplift Race (2), Pilgrimage World (2), Terraforming Guild (14), Pan-Galactic League (10) = 35+4=39 points.

Edit: Forgot Terraforming Guild's produce power. Adjusted upward by 1 point.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

PseudoPserious — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:46:19 +0000

by PseudoPserious

This one is more realistic.

It achieves parity with the ATS at the end of Turn 2. All you need to do is find 1 more VP by the time the VP pool is depleted at the end of Turn 4.

Starting World: Doomed World
Hand: Galactic Trendsetters, Prosperious World, XXX, XXX

1) Settle / Settle
- Play Galactic Trendsetters (pay 0, discard DW, +1 card)
- Play Prosperous World (pay 3, +1 card)
- Hand: Any Production World costing 2 or less (let's say Spice World)

2) Explore / Settle
- +2 cards from Explore
- Play Spice World (pay 2, +1 card)
- +2 VP
(The score is now 8 to 8.)

3) Explore / Consume x2
- +2 cards from Explore
- +6 VP

4) ??? / Consume x2
- If you found something to play, do that for ???. Otherwise, Explore or Produce.
- +6 VP

Final score: 20* to 20. Doomed World wins by the VPs played during Turn 4, or on the tiebreak due to the extra cards from Exploring.

Cheers,
PP

Edit: The same basic idea works if you have Public Works and a 1-cost production world in place of Prosperous World. You just Develop / Settle on Turn 2 instead of Explore / Settle.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

cosine — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:45:09 +0000

by cosine

5 prizes given away. 5 more to go.

For the big prize, remember the fewer unique cards you need to win, the better off you'll be... that's believability; not requiring a lot of luck to win.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

FunkCracker — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:30:30 +0000

by FunkCracker

How about an obnoxious Doomed World and Colony Ship combo:

(* = you call it)

Hand: Galactic Studios, Galactic Trendsetters, Colony Ship, Artist Colony
Tableau: Doomed World

Turn 1:
*Settle: Galactic Studios, discarding DW, gaining X
*Settle: Artist Colony, discarding X, gaining X
Produce: gain X from GS

VP: 4 (0 chips)
H: GT, CS, Xx2
T: GS, AC

Turn 2:
*Develop: Colony Ship, discarding X
*Settle: Galactic Trendsetters, discarding CS, gaining X
Consume: 3 VP, 1 card: X
Produce: gain 1 card: X

VP: 10 (3 chips)
H: Xx4
T: GS, AC, GT

Turn 3:
*Explore + 5: gain Galactic Renaissance
*Consume: 6 VP, 1 card: X
Produce: gain 1 card: X

VP: 16 (9 chips)
H: Galactic Renaissance, Xx6
T: GS, AC, GT

Turn 4:
*Develop: GR, discarding Xx5
*Consume: 6 VP, 1 card: X
Produce: 1 card: X

VP: 22 (15 chips) + GR:13 VP = 35
H: Xx3

Game ends on exhaustion of chips.

You: 35
ELC + ATS: 20

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

PseudoPserious — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:27:55 +0000

by PseudoPserious

Here's an all-green script:

It wins 25-22 in the 4th round, and wins on the tie-break if the "1st to 5 VP chips" goal is available.

==========

Starting World: Ancient Race
Starting Hand: Contact Specialist, Avian Uplift Race, XXX

1) Develop / Consume Trade
-- Play CS and AUR
-- Receive 4 cards from Trade
-- Hand: Pan-Galactic League, Reptilian Uplift Race, XXX x2

2) Settle / Consume Trade
-- Play RUR (pay 1 / receive 1)
-- Receive 4 cards from Trade
-- Hand: Pan-Galactic League, Last of the Uplift Gnarssh, XXX x5

3) Develop / Settle
-- Play PGL (pay 5) and TLofUG (pay 0 / receive 1)
-- Receive 4 cards from Produce
-- Hand: Tourist World, XXX x 4

4) Settle / Consume x 2
-- Play Tourist World (pay 4 / receive 1)
-- + 6 VP; Receive 4 cards from Produce powers
-- Hand: XXX x5

Total score: 25 vs 22

Tableau: 8
Pan-Galactic League: 11
VP: 6

==========

Cheers,
PP

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

bcs_ — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:13:11 +0000

by bcs_

I set out to do this, and I was really worried about making every action count, and when I tallied scores up at the end I realized I way overdid it. :) Taken at face value, this script is unrealistic, but hopefully the large margin of victory demonstrates that you don't have to pull this off perfectly to win. Just getting better than half the cards out there will be enough to do it.

This is an Alien military victory. Starting position: New Sparta start world. 4 cards in hand: Alien Robot Sentry, Improved Logistics, 2 other cards

First turn: Develop, Consume/Trade. Discard the other 2 cards to play Improved Logistics. On Settle, play Alien Robot Sentry and draw one card as a bonus. On Consume/Trade, draw Alien Robot Scout Ship, Deserted Alien World, and three other cards. You now have six cards in hand. The opponent script now gets two extra VPs out of the Consume phase.

Second turn: Settle, Consume/Trade. Settle Deserted Alien World, discarding a card to pay for it, and then draw a card as a bonus. Use the Improved Logistics Settle power to also settle Alien Robot Scout Ship. Trade the new good to draw Lost Alien Warship, Alien Rosetta Stone World, and three other cards. Your hand now has eight cards total.

Third turn: Settle, Consume/Trade. Settle Alien Rosetta Stone World, discarding three cards to pay for it, and then draw a card as a bonus. Use the Improved Logistics Settle power to also settle Lost Alien Warship. Trade the new good to draw Lost Alien Battle Fleet, Alien Robotic Factory, and three other cards. Your hand now has nine cards total. For the Produce Phase, Alien Rosetta Stone World lets you produce an Alien good.

Fourth turn: Settle, Consume/Trade. Settle Lost Alien Battle Fleet and draw a card as a bonus. Use the Improved Logistics Settle power to also settle Alien Robotic Factory. Thanks to Deserted Alien World and Alien Rosetta Stone World, you only have to discard two cards to play it. Trade your good from the last Produce phase to draw Alien Tech Institute, Deserted Alien Library, Rebel Homeworld, and two other cards. You get to produce three Alien goods when the time comes. Your hand now has exactly ten cards total.

Fifth turn: Develop, Settle. Develop Alien Tech Institute and pay 5 cards for it. Settle Deserted Alien Library and Rebel Homeworld, thanks to Improved Logistics, your -6 Alien settle bonuses, and your +8 normal military. Draw a card as a bonus, bringing your hand to three total. You get to produce another Alien good on the Produce phase, bringing you to four total.

Total score: 36 in your normal tableau, plus Alien Tech Institute is worth another 20. You could be missing several of these, or even Alien Tech Institute itself, and still win handily. I know having -6 Alien settle bonuses seems unlikely, and strictly speaking it is, I've seen it happen more than once.

EDIT: I think I have an off-by-one error in my number-of-cards-in-hand math somewhere, but I don't think it prevents you from running the script.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

TrojH — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:07:39 +0000

by TrojH

Mega military wins in a landslide.

Start world: Doomed World

Starting hand: Lost Species Ark World, Public Works, Space Marines, any 4th card

Turn 1: Call Develop/Develop. Develop Public Works (1 pt) for free. Develop Space Marines (1 pt), pay the 4th card, draw Improved Logistics.

On the opponent's Settle, settle Lost Species Ark World (3 pts), replacing Doomed World. On the opponent's Produce, LSAW produces a good, and two cards are drawn.

At this point, I have Improved Logistics and two irrelevant cards in hand.

Turn 2: Call Develop/Settle. Develop Improved Logistics (2 pts), toss the two irrelevant cards, draw New Sparta. Settle New Sparta (1 pt), draw Aquatic Uplift Race with the settle bonus, settle Aquatic Uplift Race (2 pts).

On the opponent's Consume, consume the good on LSAW for 1 point. On the opponent's Produce, LSAW produces a good; draw Alien Robot Scout Ship and Rebel Underground.

At this point: two cards in hand, 1 VP chip, and the military is at 4.

Turn 3: Call Settle/Settle. Settle Alien Robot Scout Ship (2 pts), draw Lost Alien Warship, settle Rebel Underground (4 pts). Second settle phase: settle Lost Alien Warship (3 pts), draw Rebel Colony, settle Rebel Colony (4 pts).

Good on LSAW gets consumed, as does one of the windfalls. LSAW produces, and 3 cards are drawn (the third comes from Rebel Underground). 2 VP chips this round; 3 total so far.

Turn 4: Call Settle/Settle. I have 4 settles available, and I settle Lost Alien Battle Fleet (4 pts), Rebel Outpost (5 pts), Rebel Base (6 pts), and Rebel Homeworld (7 pts). Three of those cards came from the last produce; one came from one of the settle bonuses.

Two goods are consumed for 2 points; everything else is irrelevant.

Game over; 14 cards in tableau. Total: 45 points from cards and 5 VP chips, for a total of 50. Poor ELC/ATS player ends at 20. Too bad.

I know, this military run is like winning the lottery. But the scenario didn't have to be realistic. ;)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

PseudoPserious — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:00:21 +0000

by PseudoPserious

Here's one:

It wins 28-22 in the 4th round. All it takes is a lucky draw of 6 cards, spaced at the right intervals.

==========

Starting World: Alpha Centauri
Starting Hand: Runaway Robots, Mining Conglomerate, and 2 random cards

1) Develop / Consume Trade
-- Play Mining Conglomerate and Runaway Robots
-- Receive 1 vp and 4 cards from Trade
-- 4 card hand: Mining Robots, Volcanic World, Rebel Fuel Cache, and XXX

2) Develop / Settle
-- Play Mining Robots and Volcanic World
-- Receive 1 card from Settle and 3 cards from Produce powers
-- Hand: Rebel Fuel Cache, Mining League, XXX, XXX, XXX

3) Settle / Consume x 2
-- Play Rebel Fuel Cache
-- +4 VP; Receive 1 card from Settle and 3 cards from Produce powers
-- Hand: Mining League, XXX x 7

4) Develop / Consume x 2
-- Play Mining League
-- + 8 VP; Receive 3 cards from Produce powers
-- Hand: XXX x5

Total score: 28 vs 22

Tableau: 6
Mining League: 9
VP: 13

==========

Bonus: The ATS is only eligible for the "First to 5 VP chip" goal (+3), which isn't enough to win. This script is eligible for "Most Rare/Novelty Worlds" and "First 6-Dev" goals (but doesn't need them).

Cheers,
PP

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

cosine — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:37:47 +0000

by cosine

Just for fun, here are two variants on the script. It would be neat to see solutions that beat these as well;

Variant script 1; Adding in Galactic Studios

1) Settle/Trade - 2 VPs, 6 cards in hand
2) Settle/Produce - 5vps, Put down Galactic Studios, leaving 2 cards in hand by the end of the turn
3) Consume * 2/Produce - 13 vps, max remaining pool is 16, at least 4 cards in hand
4) Consume * 2/Produce - 21 vps, max remaining pool is 8, at least 6 cards in hand
5) Consume * 2/Produce - 29 vps, max remaining pool is 0, at least 8 cards in hand

Note, with the extra cards in hand, it is likely that the script can leech another Settle or Develop for even more points. If you hit New Earth instead of Galactic Studios here, you get fewer cards, but there's a chance of hitting the "world of every color" goal.

Variant script 2; Adding in Galactic Renaissance

1) Settle/Trade - 2 VPs, 6 cards in hand
2) Develop/Produce - 2vps, Put down Galactic Renaissance, leaving 0 cards in hand
3) Consume * 2/Produce - 8 vps, max remaining pool is 18
4) Consume * 2/Produce - 14 vps, max remaining pool is 12
5) Consume * 2/Produce - 20 vps, max remaining pool is 6
6) Consume * 2/Produce - 26 vps, max remaining pool is 0 - final score 32 (24 / 3 = 8)

This situation is more tenuous as missing points may mess up the GR score, but this is about the best increase for a single card. Note, with the 6 cost development goal in play, this would be likely to get that.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

Benwa — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:28:18 +0000

by Benwa

I know i'm out of your conditions (i don't fight for GG, though i'd like to buy myself an avatar...) , but, if you're interested, i just actually played today a similar setting on the new RftG genie online site.

I started with Doomed world + in hand : Galactic Studios/Alien Toy Shop + 2 other cards.

turn 1 : Settle Galactic Studios (discard doomed) + Settle Toy Shop (discard the 2 cards of starting hand + the one from the first settle) - engine was set /// Oponent had AC so he traded the first turn - so my good on ATS was consumed for ===> 1VP+1 card

turn 2 : Explore (1/1) + Produce ===> 1VP + 4 cards (2 from explore, 1 from the first turn and one for produce on GS)

turn 3 : Consume + Produce ===> 7 VP + 6 cards

from there, I had the opportunity to settle on my opponents actions and to make this engine even better.

BTW i never did anything else than Consume + Porduce after turn 2.

Game ended on turn 5. We didnt play with goals (i don't like them in 2 players setting)

I think my setting was even better than yours because the Galactic Studios gives you 2 cards/turn (one for produce and one for consume), which enables you to leech on your opponent's other phases.

If you want to check what the end position was like, just follow the link : http://genie.game-host.org/game.htm?gid=3843 (maybe you'll have to register on genie game server, which is done in like 10 seconds...)

I advice you to read the commentaries at the bottom of this game page... My opponent was quite upset (though very fair-player)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

cosine — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:09:05 +0000

by cosine

Sure. Use goals. Standard rules apply. Note that if the script gets a goal, it gets the points.

EDIT: Of course, if you can't win any way other than a perfect draw of goals, that isn't very interesting. But goals are a legit part of the game, so puzzle on sez I.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

Zambo — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:08:03 +0000

by Zambo

Can we use goals? :)

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: A puzzle for a GeekGold prize - Beat ELC + ATS any way you like

cosine — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:55:34 +0000

by cosine

Here is a script for a 2 player advanced game. Give an answering script that finishes the game with more points than this script.

The script will not change no matter what you do. You cannot use in your answer any card that appears in the script, but you may use any card in any order you like. Yup, that's right, you can pick everything from the entire deck face up in any order you want, start any world or opening hand you want. You may end the game sooner if you like, which may adjust the script's final score down if necessary. The script will never put another card in play, no matter what you do.

The first 10 meaningfully different answers will get 2GG each, 7GG extra to the best of the first 10 answers. What is a meaningfully different answer? I'll be the judge of that. What is best? I'll be the judge of that too; creativity and believability matter.

The Script

The opponent starts with Earth's Lost Colony and Alien Toy Shop and 3 random cards in hand.

1) Settle/Produce - 2 VPs, 1 card in hand (We will assume they never use it. It doesn't matter what it is.)
2) Consume * 2/Produce - 8 vps, max points remaining in the pool is 18
3) Consume * 2/Produce - 14 vps, max remaining pool is 12
4) Consume * 2/Produce - 20 vps, max remaining pool is 6
5) Consume * 2/Produce - 26 vps, max remaining pool is 0 - Game ends.

Why are you doing this, cosine?

Some friends are disappointed with Alien Toy Shop currently; they think it is too good. So, I'd like a thread reference from other people showing examples of how to beat a basic ATS game. Is this the best that ATS can do? Perhaps not, but this is what this game is, for better or for worse. Suggesting Settle/Trade as a first action for the script opens a can of worms I'll deal with later, outside the context of this puzzle.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

InfoCynic — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:25:48 +0000

by InfoCynic

I think you're right that they're separate unless you're using IL to grab a second world. Of course now I'm starting to think about really evil cases where you snag a production world using RvI cards... I think it won't be an issue as long as it's clear:

2pAdv: 2x dev or 2x settle are separate phases
IL: same settle phase as first world (in case you have multiple settle phases from 2pAdv)
Conquer powers: remember not to check/update goals until the end of the phase, after all players have used conquer powers or placed a world, including possible improved logistics settles/conquers.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

kusinohki — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:25:55 +0000

by kusinohki

InfoCynic wrote:
In 2-player advanced, if one player calls 2x develop or 2x settle, are these considered separate phases?

Scenario:
4+ production worlds is out

Player A: Has 2
Player B: Has 3

Player B calls 2x settle

Both play a production world. (B now meets the goal)
During second settle, only Player A plays one. (A now meets the goal)

Assuming nothing changes before the end of the game, it's clear that Player A gets 3 points, but does Player B get 5 or only 3?

They are considered separate phases, so B should get the goal card after the first settle and keeps it when A matches on the 2nd. Thus, B gets 5 points, A gets 3.

Improved logistics throws a monkey wrench in to the works though. Playing 2 worlds through IL is still considered one phase. To take the above example. B and A both play a world with B meeting the goals requirements and A 1 short. A then uses IL to play a 2nd world (which B can't do) and now ties B and meets the goal requirements. Since this was all the same phase, the goal card should stay on the table and both players get 3 pts if nothing changes. I'd ask Tom or Wei to confirm this though.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

entranced — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:20:14 +0000

by entranced

InfoCynic wrote:
In 2-player advanced, if one player calls 2x develop or 2x settle, are these considered separate phases?

Yes.

InfoCynic wrote:
Assuming nothing changes before the end of the game, it's clear that Player A gets 3 points, but does Player B get 5 or only 3?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

InfoCynic — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:25:57 +0000

by InfoCynic

In 2-player advanced, if one player calls 2x develop or 2x settle, are these considered separate phases?

Scenario:
4+ production worlds is out

Player A: Has 2
Player B: Has 3

Player B calls 2x settle

Both play a production world. (B now meets the goal)
During second settle, only Player A plays one. (A now meets the goal)

Assuming nothing changes before the end of the game, it's clear that Player A gets 3 points, but does Player B get 5 or only 3?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

entranced — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:47:03 +0000

by entranced

Yet another obscure rule we were evidently doing wrong for the longest time. Luckily it comes up very rarely, maybe once per 100 games.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

Tom Lehmann — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:52:56 +0000

by Tom Lehmann

Yes. Second example, page 3, TGS rules (given above).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

tool — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:38:33 +0000

by tool

What if A has 4 and takes the goal. Then B and C both go to 5 while A stays at 4. Does the goal now go back into the center?

Yes, in accordance with the rule

If more than one player satisfies or exceeds a goal (possibly held by another player) by the same greatest amount, then that goal remains unclaimed (or is returned to the center).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

Eric Brosius — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:29:04 +0000

by Eric Brosius

What if A has 4 and takes the goal. Then B and C both go to 5 while A stays at 4. Does the goal now go back into the center?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

InfoCynic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:12:54 +0000

by InfoCynic

Thanks, Tom. FWIW that's how I thought it worked but like I said, I ran into someone who disagreed. :D

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

ackmondual — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:50:34 +0000

by ackmondual

Here are the rules concerning this. I need to get back to this later, but am curious to see how to resolve this. In the meantime, you guys can hash it out

From the rulebook

“Most” goals: each of these tiles is worth 5 VPs and is held by the player who satisfies its condition by the greatest amount. Th ey can be lost. Th e first player to satisfy (or exceed by the greatest amount) a goal’s listed condition at the end of a phase claims its tile returning it to the center if he ever fails to satisfy its condition). If another player later exceeds the amount by which a player holding a goal currently satisfi es it, then he takes the tile.

Example: Alan plays a card that brings his Military in tableau to 6, which satisfies the Greatest Military goal’s condition, so he claims its tile. (If Alan later placed a -1 Military card, reducing his Military below 6, he would return it.) Betty later obtains 6 Military, but since this doesn’t exceed Alan’s total of 6, Alan retains this goal. Carol then reaches 7 Military and takes this goal tile from Alan.

If more than one player satisfi es or exceeds a goal (possibly held by another player) by the same greatest amount, then that goal remains unclaimed (or is returned to the center).

Example: Alan and Betty both reach 6 Military during the same phase. Neither can claim the Greatest Military goal. Carol then reaches 7 Military and claims it. Alan and Betty later both achieve 8 Military on the same phase, so Carol then returns this goal to the center.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

Tom Lehmann — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:29:18 +0000

by Tom Lehmann

A continues to retain the goal. Emphasis added below.

*Another* player (B) has not exceeded the amount by which A *currently* satisfies it (see last sentence of first paragraph of Most Goals).

*Another* pair (or more) of players (B + ???) have not exceeded the amount by which A *currently* satisfies it by the same greatest amount (which is what would shift the goal from A to the center).

Gláucio Reis' answer is correct. Thanks.

The OP's parse breaking up the rule cited is not correctly matching the non-parenthetical and parenthetical clauses:

... [unclaimed] goal ... -> ... remains unclaimed ...
(... held by *another* player ... ) -> (... is returned to the center... )

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

InfoCynic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:25:49 +0000

by InfoCynic

Barticus88 wrote:
InfoCynic wrote:
And we can all argue personal interpretations until the sun sets. Where's the designers? :D

Amazingly they often go several hours at a time without logging into BGG,

Heresy! :devil:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

cferejohn — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:40:58 +0000

by cferejohn

yosz wrote:
For me it's clear that in this situation the goal will return to the center of the table unclaimed.

The rules pretty explicitly state that this is the case. If the game ends with a most goal in the center, all players who have attained the minimum requirement and who are tied for the highest amount of whatever it is get 3 points (i.e. the goal going to the center doesn't mean nobody scores).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

Barticus88 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:31:00 +0000

by Barticus88

InfoCynic wrote:
And we can all argue personal interpretations until the sun sets. Where's the designers? :D

Amazingly they often go several hours at a time without logging into BGG,

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

InfoCynic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:18:11 +0000

by InfoCynic

And we can all argue personal interpretations until the sun sets. Where's the designers? :D

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

GSReis — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:52:52 +0000

by GSReis

I disagree with that interpretation and think you are reading too much into the rule. To me, it just follows the most common rule in games that use the same mechanic of giving a benefit to the player that has the most of something: that player holds the goal until he is surpassed by another player. The rule simply clarifies that if more than one player surpass him at the same time and by the same amount, the goal is returned to the center of the table. As I see it, if the current holder of the goal is still tied at the end of the relevant phase, he keeps the goal.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Most goals

yosz — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:19:48 +0000

by yosz

For me it's clear that in this situation the goal will return to the center of the table unclaimed.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Most goals

InfoCynic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:09:38 +0000

by InfoCynic

This thread ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/389688) covers the case where a player catches up to another. What it doesn't cover for me is the case where these players, who are now tied (but A was initially ahead and holds the goal) then simultaneously exceed the goal by the same amount (typically 1).

Example: A builds 4 developments first and claims the goal while B has only 3.
B builds his 4th and ties, the goal remains with A. [This is covered by the first paragraph under "most goals" in the rules.]
A & B now simultaneously build their 5th development.

I've always played that A holds onto the goal, but there's certainly room in

Rulebook wrote:
If more than one player satisfies or exceeds a goal (possibly held by another player) by the same greatest amount, then that goal remains unclaimed (or is returned to the center).

to say the goal returns to the center, because
"more than one player" : specifically A & B
"exceeds a goal" : most developments with minimum 4
"by the same greatest amount" : by 1
"then that goal ... is returned to the center."

There are three states we could be looking at:
previously unclaimed goal -> clearly the goal remains in the center
previously claimed by another player now not tied for the lead -> goal returns to center
previously claimed by a player who is now tied for the lead -> rules are ambiguous as written (see the last post on the previously-mentioned thread, which went unanswered).

File: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Race for the Galaxy: GS - Polish Rules/Polska Instrukcja

muka — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:00:57 +0000

by muka

Race for the Galaxy: GS - Polish Rules/Polska Instrukcja for Board Game: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm ]]>

New Image for Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm

josephc4 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:02:05 +0000

by josephc4

Houston Boardgames Meetup - Fuddrucker's - Meetup.com

]]>

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

GreedyAlgorithm — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:04:52 +0000

by GreedyAlgorithm

This is why it's called "Improved Logistics" instead of "Gung-ho Strategy".

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

ackmondual — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:29:35 +0000

by ackmondual

joe_salamone wrote:
ackmondual wrote:
The idea with military strength in this game, it's just a simple condition check on a non-tangible item. E.g. if you need to be 21yo to rent a car and you're 41, all the rental company does is check that your age is greater than 21. You don't go up to the coutner, whip out your wallet, and give the clerk 21 years of your life, and then be 20yo left and have to wait another year till you can rent a car again.

The thing that made me ask the question about military strength is that I was thinking of it like this potential "real world" example:

The United States has a certain amount of military strength (soldiers, vehicles, weapons,etc.) This might allow the U.S. to win a war with another superpower. However, if one or more additional countries joined the war AGAINST the U.S., this level of military power might not be enough to defeat them all. The U.S. would need to increase its military strength accordingly. So, if the U.S. had a military of +1, +1, +1 = +3 and the first country in the war had a defense rating of "2", the U.S. could conquer that country. However, if another "2" opponent entered the war, the U.S. would NOT have enough military power to conquer the combined "4" defense of both enemies. I guess I shouldn't apply real-world logic to board games! :D

I totally get where this is coming from.

However, I always thought there's just some thematic reason to the game as well.... Perhaps each Settle phase represents a lengthy time span of say.... 8 months? Since you're only conquering one military world per Settle, the example you cited doesn't apply since your "empire's" military strength isn't being stretched thin.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

joe_salamone — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:42:52 +0000

by joe_salamone

ackmondual wrote:
The idea with military strength in this game, it's just a simple condition check on a non-tangible item. E.g. if you need to be 21yo to rent a car and you're 41, all the rental company does is check that your age is greater than 21. You don't go up to the coutner, whip out your wallet, and give the clerk 21 years of your life, and then be 20yo left and have to wait another year till you can rent a car again.

The thing that made me ask the question about military strength is that I was thinking of it like this potential "real world" example:

The United States has a certain amount of military strength (soldiers, vehicles, weapons,etc.) This might allow the U.S. to win a war with another superpower. However, if one or more additional countries joined the war AGAINST the U.S., this level of military power might not be enough to defeat them all. The U.S. would need to increase its military strength accordingly. So, if the U.S. had a military of +1, +1, +1 = +3 and the first country in the war had a defense rating of "2", the U.S. could conquer that country. However, if another "2" opponent entered the war, the U.S. would NOT have enough military power to conquer the combined "4" defense of both enemies. I guess I shouldn't apply real-world logic to board games! :D

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

ackmondual — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:31:15 +0000

by ackmondual

The idea with military strength in this game, it's just a simple condition check on a non-tangible item. E.g. if you need to be 21yo to rent a car and you're 41, all the rental company does is check that your age is greater than 21. You don't go up to the coutner, whip out your wallet, and give the clerk 21 years of your life, and then be 20yo left and have to wait another year till you can rent a car again.

This is as opposed to paying for development cards or non-miltary worlds where you need the cold hard cash for it. This is more akin to grocery shopping... Bread costs $3, milk costs $2, and eggs cost $4. You need $9 for all three of them in this case if you want to buy it all

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

byronczimmer — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:55:07 +0000

by byronczimmer

Note that that includes having discarded 'New Military Tactics' (+3) and any cards spent to fuel 'Space Mercenaries' (up to +2) before conquering the first world. With only these two cards and Improved Logistics out, it is possible to settle two defense 6 (Space Mercenaries come with a permanent +1) worlds in the same Settle phase.

New Image for Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm

jeibel — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:48:17 +0000

by jeibel

Blank Most goal to create your own goal

]]>

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

joe_salamone — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:41:02 +0000

by joe_salamone

Tom . . . Thanks for the quick response.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

Tom Lehmann — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:21:19 +0000

by Tom Lehmann

From the rules, page 5: Military is granted by powers of various start worlds, developments, or worlds, and lasts *until the end of the Settle phase* [emphasis added].

So, your Military of +4 is sufficient to conquer two 3 (or 4) defense worlds with Improved Logistics.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Use of Military with Improved Logistics

joe_salamone — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:17:12 +0000

by joe_salamone

I'm a little unclear on the following:

Assume I have in my tableau:

1. The Improved Logistics card (which allows me to settle 2 planets instead of 1)

2. One or more other cards giving me a total Military of +4

So, I choose to conquer a world with a defense of "3" (I can do this because my total Military is +4)

Can I now use the same +4 military to conquer a SECOND world with a defense of "3" or have I already "used up" 3 of my military on the first conquest, leaving me with only 1 available? In other words, would I need to have a total Military of at least +6 in my tableau (3 for the first conquest and another 3 for the second conquest) to conquer the 2nd world allowed by the Improved Logistics card?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: All the robot needs to give you a beating...

ejcarter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:41:33 +0000

by ejcarter

SquarePegIX wrote:
I've played about a dozen games against the robot - all on "Easy Difficulty," mind you - and get routinely stomped.

While the robot has taught me a lot about the game and (I think) made me a better player, I'm obviously doing something wrong to get so continually routed on the easiest difficulty mode!

No, probably not.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: All the robot needs to give you a beating...

SquarePegIX — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:29:08 +0000

by SquarePegIX

I've played about a dozen games against the robot - all on "Easy Difficulty," mind you - and get routinely stomped.

While the robot has taught me a lot about the game and (I think) made me a better player, I'm obviously doing something wrong to get so continually routed on the easiest difficulty mode!

:blush:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Yargo — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:40:38 +0000

by Yargo

Places like Boards & Bits have the expansion for just over $15.
http://www.boardsandbits.com/product_info.php?products_id=20...
Get people to pool in a game order over $100 and you can get half price flat rate shipping (which ends up around $4 to around $6)

For instance, I just helped coordinate a game order at boards and bits. There were 4 people in the game order who wanted a copy of the upcoming race expansion (in addition to other games we ordered) for about $15, and the shipping share for them ended up being about 20 cents each for the race expansion.

IMHO, its worth that price.

I could take or leave the bonus tiles, but I play with some people who really like them. They also give a chance for someone to shoot for some VPs as an intermediate strategy if thier long term strategy isn't working.

I also like the added cards. Another thing that the expansion adds is the possibility for the official drafting varient, I've tried it once or twice and liked it. I also really like being able to pick 2 (one red and one blue) homeworld when playing.

I would not want to play the game without the Gathering Storm expansion.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Eric Brosius — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:59:37 +0000

by Eric Brosius

ackmondual wrote:
BUt this kind of thing is everywhere. 10cents to read a sent text message? Paying 800% profit margins on soft drinks? That's what the modern world has come to. As for me being "suckered in" by TGS.... I got suckered in. But it's something I feel good about just like everyone else who sends mass text messages and liters of cola.

I used to be outraged by having to pay $1 for a bottle of water. Yet I would pay $1 for a bottle of Coke without feeling nearly as cheated. Eventually I realized that the water is better for me, so why the difference in emotions?

In my case, I've gotten 100 hours of fun out of Race for the Galaxy and Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm already. There are very few games (or other leisure expenditures) I've gotten such a good deal from.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

ackmondual — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:37:59 +0000

by ackmondual

jarredscott78 wrote:
People spend thousands of dollars on Magic: The Gathering and baseball cards. To them, they're a value, but it doesn't change the fact that the business is a business. They're going to maximize profits and they’re making it hand over fist by selling a nickel worth of cardboard for three bucks. And when the consumers send the message that we're willing to pay $20 for very few components in a game expansion, you are encouraging them to give you less each time.

Isn't there a price point where it would be too few components for the price? What if it was 6 cards and two dice for $20?

Gamers "rationalize" paying hard earned $$ for what's essentially wood, plastic, cardboard, and ink, along with the quantity they come with. Everyone has a breaking point and it just so happens many of us feel the $25 MSPR (less for discount prices) was worth it. You're definitely not alone, as there are others that feel the way you do.

BUt this kind of thing is everywhere. 10cents to read a sent text message? Paying 800% profit margins on soft drinks? That's what the modern world has come to. As for me being "suckered in" by TGS.... I got suckered in. But it's something I feel good about just like everyone else who sends mass text messages and liters of cola.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Two player Race for the Galaxy: the Gathering Storm tournament

Elgar — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:38:46 +0000

by Elgar

a few interjections:
1) Thanks for documenting this. It's nice to see the results even if it is one isolated group
2) The goals, although a little random, do add to the game. It takes skill to recognize what goals you should take, which you should work for, and which you should ignore. They can also boost corner case strategies become competitive.
3) While on the topic of goals, there are quite a few that help out DAF (ie #7)
4) The military vs non military comparison is fairly small (about a 4.5% from average) I would consider a 52.3% win percentage with such a sample size to show that there is little if any correspondance between the red vs blue start worlds and winning. Same with new vs old (with even less variablility).
5) How often do you and your partner explore? I think this could be the big reason why SC (ie #5) wins so often with you. If at least one of you calls explore often, it can skew the utility of the phase I power regardless of who controls it.
6) As I'm suprised OE did will last series, I'm surprised it did so poorly this time. I'm under the impression that OE has a larger learning curve to it; a new player will have a hard time using OE, it has subtle trade and consume power structure that is harder to grasp strategically than most of the other start worlds.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Two player Race for the Galaxy: the Gathering Storm tournament

Lafi — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:25:41 +0000

by Lafi

Your metagame affects a lot to the outcome of your games, so IMO you really can't make any strong conclusions about the comparative strenghts of the starting worlds with just two people playing each other.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Two player Race for the Galaxy: the Gathering Storm tournament

Jythier — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:37:51 +0000

by Jythier

I feel the advanced 2-player rules favor windfall worlds, and as such, military strategy, with the ability to settle/trade. Also, with the two terraforming cards, you can repeatedly play a military world for free and then draw 3 cards on a called settle, or even 2 on a mooched settle... and if it's a windfall, it's worth +2 points!

At that point you can see a bunch of cards per turn and usually one will be another military world for you.

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Two player Race for the Galaxy: the Gathering Storm tournament

sa266 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:23:48 +0000

by sa266

As we did with the base game (see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/384228), we played a tournament with the first expansion. We played each combination of start worlds once for a total of 72 games. This is playing the usual 2 player rules, but with no goals (we find they add an extra luck element to the game that we don't enjoy). The tournament was fairly even, with me winning with 39 games to 33.

The results were:
[c]
Start World Mywins Swins Total
0 3 3 6
1 5 2.5 7.5
2 5 4 9
3 3.5 5 8.5
4 4 4 8
5 5 6 11
6 4.5 4 8.5
7 5 1.5 6.5
8 4 3 7
[/c]
Half marks are where there was an absolute tie, which happened twice in the tournament.

After my previous tournament someone said that if we found starting world 3 the strongest before the expansion, it would win even more when we included the expansion, as it encourages military strategies - this hasn't proved to be the case, ending up as just above average (8 being average). Starting world 0 was the worst starting world in this tournament, after an amazingly good showing in the last tournament.

]]>
Start world 7 also does very badly - but if you look at the results themselves you'll see that it's because for some reason my husband always does very badly with that start world. In fact in general, he seems to care about which start world he gets far more than I do.

Start world 5 comes out as the strongest of all the worlds, giving the highest stats for both me and my husband. I'm not quite sure why this is, other than that it's explore bonus means that it's useful for both military and production strategies, so perhaps more versatile than some. Again the fact that my husband seems to particularly like this one might be affecting the overall outcome.
]]>

Overall, some surprising results, and it also shows that although there are subtle differences in which start world you get in 2 player, the worlds are overall fairly balanced.

Military vs Non Military: The average score for a military start world was 8.4, compared to 7.7 for non-military worlds. Not sure if this is an indication that military strategies are slightly stronger in the new version, or just that those worlds are more versatile (such as 5).

New Worlds vs Old Worlds: The average score for the new start worlds was 8.25 compared with 7.8 for the old start worlds. This might be an indication that the new start worlds or slightly more powerful, or it might purely be because the "best" world in the tournament turned out to be one of the new worlds!! It's certainly not a large difference.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Don E — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:52:00 +0000

by Don E

:thumbsup:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

biggreen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:17:31 +0000

by biggreen

Well I'm glad you finally came around to taking the time to enjoy the game instead of worrying whether it was a failure or not, maybe more will follow suit. ;)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Don E — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:48:55 +0000

by Don E

Nice reiteration ;)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

biggreen — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:51:09 +0000

by biggreen

No, I don't think so. It seems pretty clear from Toms post that we all loose here, especially those aspiring game designers out there that were really into these blank cards and, unfortunately for him, it is clear that Tom took the biggest loss of all due to his good faith gamble. As he mentioned "no good dead goes unpunished", and it's true. It's obvious we will never see an expansion with more than 1 blank card/tile again. Whether you chose to use them or not I'm sure most people would rather have had the choice rather than not at all, too bad that option won't be offered again. :(

If it makes you feel better to think this was a simple argument about who was right and who was wrong, then stick with that.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Don E — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:10:24 +0000

by Don E

Congrats, you WIN! :laugh:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: The forgotten Earthers led by Hedi versus Automaton Ancient Racers.

hedonisticnihil — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:10:01 +0000

by hedonisticnihil

Yeah, I used up all my blank cards with the expansion. Some all mine, others are from other people here on BGG. Any how the blank cards were my favorite part about the Gathering Storm.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: All the robot needs to give you a beating...

Neil Thomson — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:07:37 +0000

by Neil Thomson

DanielTroi wrote:
Well, the major flaw is that the robots economy always increases and way to easy. It should at least only increase when it produces not when taking consume-x2. Also some limiting the draw stack for the robot would be in place to balance the game up a bit.

The Robot can be harsh I have to agree...but I'll take a Solo variant that is tough over one that is too easy any day.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: The forgotten Earthers led by Hedi versus Automaton Ancient Racers.

OneOO — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:01:42 +0000

by OneOO

hedonisticnihil wrote:
...A.H. Zone...
...Torture Chambers...
...New Pacifist Alliance...
...Red Light Planet of New (17) Amsterdam...

Looks like you were using a lot of original cards.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: All the robot needs to give you a beating...

DanielTroi — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:45:50 +0000

by DanielTroi

Well, the major flaw is that the robots economy always increases and way to easy. It should at least only increase when it produces not when taking consume-x2. Also some limiting the draw stack for the robot would be in place to balance the game up a bit.

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: The forgotten Earthers led by Hedi versus Automaton Ancient Racers.

hedonisticnihil — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:42:10 +0000

by hedonisticnihil

In the Beginning

After disappearing from Galactic Politics over a century ago, the Old Earth reappeared on the scene, led by Hedi the Strategic. His first order was establishing an expedition force. They quickly conquered the nearby Smuggling Lair. This was first and really only colony after five hundred years. What led to this development and settlement? Was this a first in a power play to spread the Earthers influence?

The peaceful and knowledgeable Automaton has been guiding the Ancient Race for a Millennium now. The Ancient Race seemed to have nothing to do with colonization, when all of a sudden the Automation commanded his people to settle the previously unknown Alien Library. What led to this settlement. Was this a first in a power play to spread the Racers influence?

Gradual Exploration

Hedi the Strategic using his expedition force explored his nearby region. What could he found would be anyone's guess. Racers drafted on ships that the Earthers used to explore their own territories.

It led to the Racers hiring the dreaded Space Mercenaries. Could this lead to an inevitable war between these formerly quiet and solitary civilizations?

What was known that Earthers traded the goods found at the Smuggler's lair, while Racers Consumed twice what was thought possible. They both seemed geared to some kind of clash.

Subtle Colonization

Hedi the Strategic raised some Space Marines pushing what many thought would be a military conquest. Surprising everyone they peacefully settled Arrakis. It should be noted that the Fremen themselves were not inherently pushovers. They could add to the Earthers military force. It was also known that Spice was addictive, and led to higher profits. Hedi the Strategic may be mad for power.

The Racers led by Automaton seemed to be poised for peace. The Space Mercenaries seemed to be for defense, and not offense. They quickly established a genetic lab. The Automaton bleeped this was to repair creatures DNA damaged by pollution and climate change. Others suspected nefarious objectives, however the Automaton used the labs to trade to other species.

Intermission with some Conquest

The Earthers subjugated the Malevolent Lifeforms shocking no one, however it did give way to the thought that Earther's were the galactic peace keepers. The creatures were malevolent after all. Nonetheless others were worried about this new role of peace keeping that Hedi and his Earthers employed.

The racers seemed content to keep on trading their genetic goods. What other diabolical purposes other galactic races did with these spliced genes did not concern the Automaton. The United Galaxy organization disagreed, and thought the Racers were just as culpable for their actions. They provided a service that either hurt or enslaved millions indirectly, was their argument.

Stockpiling
The racers developed some six point defense program, which even the average racer had little understanding how it helped her life.

What is known is both civilizations traded goods. The Racers their genes, and the Earthers their Spice. Both garnering much currency for their wares. The Earthers also consumed twice what was thought possible.

Looking back we can see the civilizations stockpiling for their dichotomic ideologies conflict. These species wanted to rule the galaxy. They had different beliefs and would not let the other stop them from achieving their goals.

Settlement War

Hedi the Strategic had his colony settled the Alien Hybrid Zone. It is not the most stable place in the Milky Way, however it does grant knowledge about the extinct Aliens, although to exploit a civilizations must have genetic modifiers. It should be noted that Malevolent Lifeforms grant that ability. This is just another example of how Hedi got his surname Strategic.

There is also another reason the Earthers may have settled A.H. Zone, and that was to stop the Racers. For they settle another deposit of Alien knowledge. This time is was the deserted desert Alien world. Why could a civilization want so much Alien lore?

The Earthers also produced on all their worlds.

Bound to War; Bound to Glory

Surprising everyone Automation developed Drop Ships, a preventive measurement against the "peacekeeping" Earthers. Panic flooded the intelligent universe as war nearly drowned them out.

The Earthers were too busy consuming to see the threat as it came rushing towards them.

The Racers followed it up by producing for the war cycle.

War followed.

The Earthers quickly conquered New Sparta (although that was looked as freeing them from the Cat like Thebians) and the Rebel Homeworld (which was looked as spreading Democracy to the people.) this was partly due to the use of Torture Chambers which Hedi has developed.

The Racers spread to take economic rather than military strong points. They took over the Galactic Studios, which filmed most movies shown in the Galaxy. This led to rampant patriotism in the films toward the Racers and their Capitalism ways. The films also played up the alienating imperialism known as the Old Earthers!

They took over the Galactic Resort, where millions of races go on holiday with their brood. They relax, and ride on heart thumping gravity coasters.

Their snafu which was necessitated with these new settlements, was the establishment of the New Pacifist Alliance. It led to their lose of the military battle, but not the ideology war.

The End of the War

Both civilizations continued to settle for their objectives. The Earthers as imperialists tooks the Lost Alien Battle Fleet making them the superior military force in the universe. They followed it up by taking a remote Rebel Outpost, all in the name of Democracy.

The Racers kept up with their Hedonistic Economic ambitions. They took the Artist Colony of Christiania, and the Red Light Planet of New (17) Amsterdam.

The consumption cycle of economy helped spread the influence of the Ancient Racers.

How History Remembers Them

The Earthers and Racers were regarded with equal distain.

The Earthers for their blatant Military expansionism with the use of Torture, sullying the name of Democracy. Hedi was elected five times before their parliament enacted term limits. He died in a suspicious auto wreck tempting the political wags to think it was the result of the new administrator, Nihili, who led the Earthers to another Golden Age.

Automation strived to have a monopoly on good times. It led to rampant expenses to anything considered a pleasure or luxury good. They had entertainment, art, vacations, boardgames, sex and drug markets cornered. Nothing that was not a bare necessity lined their coffers.

It took Universal Sanctions led by the Universal Nations to stop it.

Ironically enough the Universal Nations hired the Earthers successor, Nihili, to destroy the Automation. The Automation was replaced by the first organic Ancient Racers in over a thousand years. The culture has sense then become a matriarchy, where they are still an economic powerhouse, but no longer a monopoly.

If we were to determine which is best, it would be a minor amount. None are remember to fondly, but it would surprisingly thought of being the Earthers.

If we could crudely reduce them to points you would find them tied with 42 points, but it would lean towards the Earthers with the worlds and develops being lined up for the future. The Racers really had nothing lined up after taking Hedonistic Centers.

(42 for Racers. 42 for Earthers. Earthers had cards in the hand. The Racers had none.)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: Alien Toy Factory smells too good

fnord23 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:34:44 +0000

by fnord23

nazdr3g wrote:
I definitely think ATF can be too strong.. especially if it is in the opening hand. it is so powerful because then you really only need one other production world with a consume power to set a 4 turn clock to the game.. and that can be set up within the first 2 turns if you go settle/consume then settle/produce.

Do the math on that.

Figure out how long it'll take you on average to get everything you need on the table (for kicks, do it for both one world with both consume and produce, and for needing two different cards). Could it happen in two turns? Yes. But it is actually not that likely; and it's even less likely when you add the odds of getting ATS in your opening hand.

Then think about how your non-thick opponent is going to react when you are clearly trying to set this up over the course of several turns.

Then get back to us. ;)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

AstroLad — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:59:42 +0000

by AstroLad

onigame wrote:
Actually, most of the playtesting for the first expansion was done with Advanced 2-player, pretty much the opposite of what you said.

No huge surprise that's the best way to play the game then.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

marhawkman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:48:33 +0000

by marhawkman

onigame wrote:
marhawkman wrote:
Well, Like McWeasely said, the playtesting seems to have been done based on the multiplayer version of the game. "Advanced" 2-player is the only place where that strategy is broken.
Actually, most of the playtesting for the first expansion was done with Advanced 2-player, pretty much the opposite of what you said.

hmm... When you say it that way, it sounds like you were there. :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: Alien Toy Factory smells too good

marhawkman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:44:52 +0000

by marhawkman

Once again.... that's only true in "advanced" (read: degenerate) 2 player.

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Spartan Parasitic Farmers Unite!

wrynathan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:43:11 +0000

by wrynathan

I seem to be prone to unconventional strategies, but the one I played a few days ago was just.. odd. The game was a 2-person advanced game. I started with New Sparta, with the 2-military production world Rebel Miners and a blue military windfall (the one with the eyeball and the lucrative trade). My opponent was Old Earth (I believe).

Playing these right away and trading for more cards, I discovered that I could make a juice produce/consume.. of a sort. I had a choice between putting Tourist World or Galactic Trendsetters. Galactic Trendsetters was a guaranteed powerful consume for my one reliable production good, but didn't help me with my windfalls at all. Instead, I went for Tourist World... provided I had a windfall with a good on it, I could consume X 2 for 6 VPs.. and if I didn't have a windfall, it wouldn't consume at all. Adding Alien Toy Shop to the mix, I had a very powerful 10 VP consume based on three goods, but needed to continually ~~conquer~~ add windfall worlds to get that critical third good to consume.

My opponent focused on developing, which didn't help me at all.. I didn't really have much of a card engine aside from my 3 military strength, and certainly couldn't afford developments. I had to alternate between consumeX2/produce and settle/consumeX2, but I was eventually able to get 3 10 VP shipments out, giving me the game.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: Contact Specialist vs. Space Mercenaries

entranced — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:37:57 +0000

by entranced

The balance shifts with RvI. SMe gets a little worse, and CSp gets a little better, to avoid military power/takeover vulnerability.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Why is consumption strategy so good? - An Illustration

GreedyAlgorithm — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:25:10 +0000

by GreedyAlgorithm

Just saw the end of this thread... My play (determined before reading Eric's post) was Develop Expedition Force, looking for the probable Settle and Trade getting me the Star Nomad Lair and a free point, then going to Explore +1/+1 next turn most likely with my +2 Look. Without a Trade I'm fairly happy that I get to Trade myself next round. Without a Settle I'm a little sad, but it also means two of my opponents didn't have their mainline plays, which is a plus.

Produce doesn't seem bad either, but I like to avoid it turn 1 as ELC if I have another option even close to as good, to keep things unexpected.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: Contact Specialist vs. Space Mercenaries

nazdr3g — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:45:32 +0000

by nazdr3g

Space mercs and contact specialist fill the same roll for the hybrid player. the ability to play those 1-3 cost military worlds at a discount. but I would think in this case that the mercs are actually better, because you can settle alien military windfalls, and use it to reach for higher cost military if you pull a space marines or a NMT.. where as the CS has locked you into the path of paying for cards

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

biggreen — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:41:01 +0000

by biggreen

Don E wrote:
Tom,

Thank you for the awesome and well-reasoned response. Hearing all this from you (and I'm sorry that I missed it before), I reverse my opinion and apologize for the content and style of the original post. Please don't let my type of attitude dissuade similar extras in the future.

Love your games, enjoying the expansion, and looking forward to the next.

Don

So you had to hear it from the developer directly to believe it? Everything stated in this thread and especially Toms reasons (which again were pretty much all mentioned here already by other posters) are pretty much common sense to me and I bet 90% of people that bought the exp. The problem is the very loud vocal minority in disrespectful and ill thought out posts like yours that felt they were swindled by free cards.

Don't let it dissuade him from future such offers? How could he not? You read his post, if he did anything different it would be to not include the cards, (just as nearly all here suggested :what: ) and it looks pretty obvious he won't make such an offering again. Perfect for fickle and ungrateful consumers like you then. I'd like to thank you from all of the rest of us who didn't feel cheated whatsoever for helping to make that decision. Awesome... :shake:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: Alien Toy Factory smells too good

nazdr3g — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:28:00 +0000

by nazdr3g

I definitely think ATF can be too strong.. especially if it is in the opening hand. it is so powerful because then you really only need one other production world with a consume power to set a 4 turn clock to the game.. and that can be set up within the first 2 turns if you go settle/consume then settle/produce.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Eric Brosius — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:04:23 +0000

by Eric Brosius

This expansion included fewer components than many expansions, but on the flip side it included a whole lot more testing than most expansions.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Don E — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:03:46 +0000

by Don E

Tom,

Thank you for the awesome and well-reasoned response. Hearing all this from you (and I'm sorry that I missed it before), I reverse my opinion and apologize for the content and style of the original post. Please don't let my type of attitude dissuade similar extras in the future.

Love your games, enjoying the expansion, and looking forward to the next.

Don

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Tom Lehmann — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:55:23 +0000

by Tom Lehmann

I've addressed this before:

* I don't design individual cards; I design expansions. The first expansion was always conceived as about 22 cards (4 start worlds and 18 game cards). It was tested for a year before any additional cards were designed. At that point, I designed the second expansion.

* I didn't want any more cards in the first expansion as I wanted A) it to work with new players and B) not to have to introduce lots of extra explore powers to avoid streaky card draws (which I would have to do if the expansion was a lot larger). I stand by those decisions and reasoning. The publisher accepted my reasoning.

* The publisher's model for the expansion was the first Carcassonne expansion, which introduced relatively few new tiles but added a fifth player, some "convenience, nice-to-have items" (the scoring tiles), and some extra new stuff: the big meeples.

* We agreed with this model and therefore bundled the solitaire game, the goals, the drafting rules, the action cards for a fifth player, and -- as a "convenience, nice to have item" -- the blank cards, with the new game cards to form the first expansion.

* We supplied as many blanks as we did so that players could use them with just a red and black marker, something that is easily accessible, and not have to worry about coloring in windfall and production worlds. This drove us up to 11 blank cards (9 world types, a development, and a 6-development), so we added a few more to round the deck off to 50 cards.

* With the advantage of hindsight, the only thing I would do different is to eliminate 15 blanks. Just supply 1 world and 1 development blank, for a total of 35 cards. Everything else, including the pricing, would stay the same. I think this would solve the perception problem that some buyers have with the number of blanks versus the number of game cards (which we did not foresee).

We tried to do something nice by including the extra blanks and it backfired. Or, as the cynics say, no good deed goes unpunished... ;-)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

onigame — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:47:28 +0000

by onigame

jarredscott78 wrote:

I'm saying that they would sell you six cards and two dice for $20 if the market supported it. They, as a good business, are going to sell you as little as possible for as much as possible. Duh, basic supply and demand, maximizing profits.

That "duh" math only works if there is a single buyer and the item to be bought is indispensable.

Some more complex math says that I would rather produce a game at $10 a game and sell 100 copies at $20, compared to producing it at $5 and selling 60 copies. Decrease the quality of the good and the demand drops. And of course none of this has anything to do with supply -- you really mean "basic price and demand" rather than "basic supply and demand."

Anyway, if the blank cards are really so bad, I'll offer to pay $3 for a full set of blank cards. First 50 respondents only, please.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

onigame — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:09:51 +0000

by onigame

marhawkman wrote:
Well, Like McWeasely said, the playtesting seems to have been done based on the multiplayer version of the game. "Advanced" 2-player is the only place where that strategy is broken.

Actually, most of the playtesting for the first expansion was done with Advanced 2-player, pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

rrenaud — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:33:27 +0000

by rrenaud

Games values should be judged by the utility they provide, not by the contents of their boxes. The correlation between the number of new printed elements and the amount of utility provided is quite low, IMO.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Does the robot settle Doomed World?

AndAgainMA — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 12:17:53 +0000

by AndAgainMA

I play that the robot settles any card that meets its settling criteria. That sometimes includes Doomed World.

One of the concepts of the solitaire game is that you ignore the powers of cards in the tableau. I don't see a good reason for DW to be an exception.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Going back to "unadvanced" 2 player

MrWeasely — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 05:56:24 +0000

by MrWeasely

2p unadvanced is superior to 2p advanced in a way that is more general and more important than a specific nerfing of Alien Toy Shop:

It makes games with Prod-2x strategies actually fun, as opposed to mechanical or automatic.

First of all, there are some who are going to take umbrage at my assertion that any RFTG games are mechanistic or automatic. They are not always that way, to be sure, but at a certain point when a Prod player gets a critical mass of advantage, they only should ever choose Prod and 2x for the rest of the game (or until someone 'breaks' their engine's dominance, usually with Alien Toy Shop). Once someone amasses this critical advantage, their only fun choices for the rest of the game are in what drafting actions they'll take. This makes the game less fun for the other players - no surprises during Phase 0.

It follows that we want to minimize the number of games that fall into this pit. 2p Advanced games are more likely to do this than unadvanced games, for the simple reason that coming 'off the line' - picking something other than produce or consume - will ultimatel force you away from the line for two actions and not one. The penalty is doubled.

With unadvanced 2p, there is more guessing because the penalty for coming off the line is lesser.

Additionally, there is the posiblility for interesting 'unnatural' cranks, like when you have lots of production but not much consumption, you can go with a 3-step: Prod-2x-2x. If you have the opposite - lots of consumption and lots of windfalls, you can do a double-produce to get twice as many good. These are fun patterns I want to explore, and they are all hurt by "advanced" 2 player.

Advanced two player doesn't seem to add anything to the game, and it costs a lot in terms of action-bluffing. I wonder why people like it better (other than the fact that it pays its players a compliment - they're playing an "advanced" game).

One last beef with "a"2p. Since you select two actions, you can't just lay down your action deck with the current turn's actions on the bottom. It takes longer to pull out two actions and stick em on the table, while jugging your action deck and your money deck. A minor, physical point, but one worth making, I think.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

biggreen — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:04:58 +0000

by biggreen

Styfen wrote:
I like to use my blank RTFG cards for practicing throwing cards into a hat.

I use clothes pins to pin them on my BMX bike which makes it sound like a motorbike. When I realized how much I'm actually saving on a real motorbike I ended up buying 2 copies. Talk about value...

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

Styfen — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:38:07 +0000

by Styfen

I like to use my blank RTFG cards for practicing throwing cards into a hat.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Expansion includes: 18 Game Cards, 17 BLANK GAME CARDS!??

sbauer9 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:27:41 +0000

by sbauer9

jarredscott78 wrote:

Isn't there a price point where it would be too few components for the price? What if it was 6 cards and two dice for $20?

I think I get your point I just disagree with it. Your point is they know they made a good game and they want to squeeze as much out of it as they can and this is a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.

I really know next to nothing about the business model for game developers and if they are raking in big bucks or barely breaking even doesn't change the calculation to me at all.

Yes they split up the game into a great base game and a number of overpriced expansions so they could still appeal to the wider gaming market that will play $30 for a great game and suck as much money out of the faithful. I don't think we should be villaifing them for this we should be applauding and rewarding them for it. If you compare the value of the base game to the expansion there is no doubt it is overpriced for what you get. I don't know all the business reasons behind this but they are taking on extra risk with these expansions, they are also cashing in on there previous success.

The best euro games produced this year are priced about the same as the worst. If you want more great games then you need to be willing to reward these types of games with your wallet.

There definitely is a point where I would not be willing to buy a game but RFTG is not where close to it. I want fewer better games and I am willing to pay for them. I would must rather pay $20 for a single expansion card I will play with 100 times than to pay for 100 card game I will play only once.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Does the robot settle Doomed World?

flapjackmachine — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:08:52 +0000

by flapjackmachine

Following the rules I play the Doomed World for the robot, ie. place it in the robot's tableau. After all it might be a viable play for a human player, another version of the Colony ship. The fact that the robot doesn't 'use' Doomed World, or Colony Ship for that matter, is beside the point. The placed cards are only useful for the victory points.

Why not just state every world placement gives a 'world' with a straight average victory points for every 4 cards flipped (2.7vp for the non-military worlds)? The logic for not counting 0 or -1 victory point cards would have to be followed for the 5, 6 or 7 victory point worlds as well. Then the solo game wouldn't be a simulation of an actual multiplayer game of Race to the Galaxy which has a considerable card draw random factor in actual play. Many multiplayer games have ended with players 'stuck' with Colony ship and Doomed world in their tableau.

You could play/houserule that Colony ship and Doomed world are discarded when the next non-military, non-alien world is placed in the robot tableau. Certainly that is somewhat how Doomed World works when it is the robots homeworld.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Does the robot settle Doomed World?

erinwolth — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:46:55 +0000

by erinwolth

I settle Doomed World for the robot if it comes up, which I think is in accord with a strict interpretation of the rules. Same with, say Plague World, and other zero-VP cards. The 'bot can usually settle 6-9 VP developments pretty easily. It seems reasonable to offset that.

But the solitaire game is easy to hack to suit your tastes, so clearly you should play how you feel is best.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Does the robot settle Doomed World?

bcs_ — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:17:11 +0000

by bcs_

I just played a solitaire game where the robot was looking to settle, and flipped over a Doomed World. Since this would just mean the robot got -1 point, I made an executive decision to discard it and just keep on flipping. Was that the right thing to do?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: POLLs: reassessment on start worlds

meyerg — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:01:23 +0000

by meyerg

I guess we should clarify the definition of favorite world.

If you were going to play one world in the finals of a million dollar tournament and play 5 2 player advanced and 5 four player games, which world would you choose?

Gathering Storm expansion only, no RvI. No goals to make it simple.

I vote for Alpha Centauri right now.

No way I'd want to roll the dice with Doomed World

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Going back to "unadvanced" 2 player

cosine — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:01:44 +0000

by cosine

If all you ever play is the 2 player advanced version of the game, you owe it to yourself to find a way to play plain old 4 player.

And I think 2 player with normal rules sounds like an excellent idea, too.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Going back to "unadvanced" 2 player

marhawkman — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:41:41 +0000

by marhawkman

MrWeasely wrote:
jpwrunyan wrote:
How about super-devolving and rolling the robot dice to determine randomly what phase takes place each round? You can roll once for each player if you insist.

Those dice have to be good for something.

2 player random: Each player plays only one action card. Randomly select a die and roll it to choose a third action. * and Robot results are treated as "no action".

Okay, I'm really not going to playtest this.

Yes you are. Just because you're curious. :p

Anyways, it's not just one card. Prod/consume strategies in general are much better, too much better. And yes, I think that it's a great idea.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

marhawkman — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:24:17 +0000

by marhawkman

Well, Like McWeasely said, the playtesting seems to have been done based on the multiplayer version of the game. "Advanced" 2-player is the only place where that strategy is broken.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: POLLs: reassessment on start worlds

Elgar — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:13:27 +0000

by Elgar

Hmmm, in retrospect my opinion of SC has gone down, although it still wins more than its fair share of games. Since we do a sort of draft with the start worlds similar to the way it will be done after RvI (reveal goals, deal 1 red and 1 blue to each and decide) favorites are easy to spot. DAF seems to be the most favored of all, with ELC the closest behind. AR and DW are the least chosen.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

fnord23 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:23:51 +0000

by fnord23

meyerg wrote:
One of the few times I disagree with Alex.

Plusing up the green windfalls for two is good,

BUT only one development for three, and NOT HAVING a produce on windfall for greens------

makes me say it is significantly underpowered

Again, as of TGS, it might be a touch underpowered (though I've seen it be a monster more than once).

As of RvI, in no way is it underpowered. Go look at the cards; they've all been posted, one way or another. Green just got *very* nice indeed, and GGP is a significant part of that.

In fact, not having used the takeover rules yet, I'm leaning towards the opinion that they just might be a necessary counter-weight to green's increased potential.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

byronczimmer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:18:39 +0000

by byronczimmer

The balance is in the value of green goods, worth, over the course of the game, an additional 3-5 cards and additional value of green worlds.

It's why I said that the yellow 6-? need to be included. Lower valued worlds SHOULD have 6=?s worth more, because their planets are generally worth less.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: POLLs: reassessment on start worlds

meyerg — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:16:38 +0000

by meyerg

Now that we have many hours of expansion gameplay, I claim that Seperatists Colony is quite good.
I also want to say that I significantly underrated the Ancient Race.
The Doomed World has significant variability, and this may do well in a competitive multiplayer game. I do not like it in 2PA.

I suspect that when we look back on this poll in a year, with a ton of statistical data to back it up, Seperatist Colony will be the winning-est homeworld.

I was of this opinion at first, but I think I have changed my tune.

I still prefer the old standbys - Earth's Lost Colony and Alpha Centauri.

Should we start the survey again?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Going back to "unadvanced" 2 player

meyerg — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:51 +0000

by meyerg

It is somewhat sad that the incredible gameplay added by selecting two roles simultaneously has to be sacrifice due to the imbalance caused by one card.

Some claim the produce consume strategy is weakened by the expansion, but when one card gives you an automatic produce consume engine by itself, I have to disagree.

Alien Toy Shop suggestions:
Shuffle it in after the initial draw
Make the consumption power undoublable

I also find it amusing that it ATS in the starting hand is scarier as a windfall world!

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

meyerg — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:41:06 +0000

by meyerg

One of the few times I disagree with Alex.

Plusing up the green windfalls for two is good,

BUT only one development for three, and NOT HAVING a produce on windfall for greens------

makes me say it is significantly underpowered

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

meyerg — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:31:12 +0000

by meyerg

I suggested making the 2vp consumption undoublable (the icon already exists), but I was told Alien Toy Shop was extensively playtested and was not overpowering as is.

I am sure I am not only one that consider this card "broken"

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: The Invasion of the Teenage Mutant Aquatic Scaly Cockroach Empaths!

colmenarez — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:57:51 +0000

by colmenarez

Thanks! As I mentioned above, my moves were eased by the fact that my opponents were slow to form an effective strategy against me. Starting a P/C engine when you have 8 cards on the tableau is kind of late, if anyone is doing any alternative strategies they usually are at 9 or even 10 at this stage so you might get one turn to crank for VPs; not a very effective engine.

Since my opponents had 7 or less cards on their tableaus I was sure I would get to turn it at least 3 times. In fact I was able to consume 4 times for 3 VPs, 6 VPs, 8 VPs, and 8 VPs. No one was trying to race to 12 cards. That helped me a lot; the game ended because the VP pile was consumed.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: The Invasion of the Teenage Mutant Aquatic Scaly Cockroach Empaths!

Voxen — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:01:25 +0000

by Voxen

Wow, both of your 6-cost developments were incredible hauls. Nice work.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Rare Strategies cropping up in Recent Games

mumushanshi — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:30:04 +0000

by mumushanshi

meyerg wrote:
If you have it in your opening hand in a two player advanced game you can guarantee the game will not exceed three turns.

Five by my count.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Savage Settler Strategy Shocking Surprise!

TheMadVulcan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:13:23 +0000

by TheMadVulcan

Barticus88 wrote:
onigame wrote:
TheMadVulcan wrote:
Hope it's not offensive to say that what so many of us appreciate about your posts is the flare.

I only counted 15 pieces of flair.

Not "flair", he said "flare", as in flame shooting out of the sun.

Classic! Humer=Stupid. :D Yeah, that microbadge I have is for writer, not speller. :p

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Rare Strategies cropping up in Recent Games

meyerg — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:03:49 +0000

by meyerg

If you don't think the alien toy shop is broken, you'll love the Alien Toilet Lid.

The Alien Toilet lid is 1 cost alien windfall world.
It is worth -2 vps (no one wants to admit they have it in their tableau).
Unlike the Alien Toy Shop, it consumes its own good for 3vps (the extra VP is for efficiently recycling waste).
If you have it in your opening hand in a two player advanced game you can guarantee the game will not exceed three turns.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Savage Settler Strategy Shocking Surprise!

meyerg — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:53:59 +0000

by meyerg

I only counted 15 pieces of flair.

I also wish to mention that McWeasly didn't get the memo.

The format for the coversheet for the RFG reports has changed.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Savage Settler Strategy Shocking Surprise!

meyerg — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:51:59 +0000

by meyerg

I disagree with the E +1/+1 Produce for ELC

I would rather throw in an E+5 (double explore) than a produce.
Looking at five more cards give your opponent no help as you already are exploring.
E+1/+1 produce also hurts if your opponent is getting down the 6pt development that gives two cards on a produce with a E+1/+1 develop.
This was mentioned as viable option for a crappy start.

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: The Invasion of the Teenage Mutant Aquatic Scaly Cockroach Empaths!

colmenarez — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:28:34 +0000

by colmenarez

Recently it's been argued that green strategies seem to underpowered. Under the right circumstances they can downright charming, of course I also think opponent play was not very optimal in this case. This game was 3 player: Old Earth, New Sparta and Ancient Race (me).

My initial draw had a green windfall, a blue windfall and the contact specialist (chucked everything else away; Galactic Imperium, I believe was one of those).

As the ancient race looked upon the stars and formulated a master plan to expand throughout the galaxy, an opportunity arose to trade with other star farers much needed resources in exchange for the wisdom and expertise of the race.

The initial trade is usually a no-brainer and in this case it brought me another green and galactic genome project. I decided since fortune favored me with a green bounty to use it.

The race elders conferred in a conclave. A contact specialist would be brought in to supervise communication and assimilation of other races (primarily uplifted races), using their genetic expertise the race would craft a new master race destined to rule the stars!

The next round I put down Contact Specialist. I took advantage of a leech settle to colonize Aquatic Uplift Race. Old Earth seemed to set up some consume powers, by the time he had three cards I think he enough of those but no production or windfall planets! hmmm...

News from Old Earth arrived that many markets were available to economically advance a new terran empire, however while demand was high supply was critically low, Old Earth would not be able to fuel their engine unless new productive worlds were found and plundered...

As for New Sparta, they also put down Avian Uplift Race. However overall strategy was not clear at the time. A couple of rounds later saw new sparta play Alien Toy Shop, which they used primarily to sell the yellow good to get bunches of cards, eventually placing Alien Tech Institute.

The militarily bent new spartans started a aggressive expansion by subjugating the Avian Uplift Race, which was a shame since the race could have used their genetic material to aid the Project. However it seems the spartan thirst for conquest was quenched as they would never conquer another world again. Instead the discovery of an Alien Toy Shop redirected the spartans effort into alien research and thus the Alien Tech Institute was established to further the goals of the new spartans through the study and acquisition of alien technology...

That was an interesting play by New Sparta but as it happened they would spend half the game searching for Alien Worlds with deep explore, the player would only manage to place one more Alien world before the game ended. I tried to further my goals, it could be argued I spent too much time placing stuff instead of plopping down GGP and start consuming already, but my opponents were so slow I could afford to wait, also I hadn't yet had in hand a green production world, without which would tough to start an engine.

By the time I started P/C no one had even consumed a VP chit yet. Old Earth took too long in getting some production worlds on the tableau and I'm not sure but New Sparta too much time exploring instead of doing something else.

What happened was I put Research Labs and then I put Reptilian Uplift Race. For some odd reason I put Deficit spending ( I think I was concerned about not having enough consume powers) before I finally found a couple of green production worlds in a draw; Hive World and Distant World.

The race continued the master plan and established Research Labs to boost the project. In addition, contact was established with the Reptilian Uplift Race which joined the ancient race. In order to manage the budget for the project, specialists in Deficit Spending would accelerate project requirements which would be easily paid off later with the trade in expertise and knowledge of the ancient race.

Soon, race explorers found the Hive World and the Distant World. but it was decided to once again take advantage of the contact specialist to absorb the Hive World. The Distant World was just too far off in a remote corner of the galaxy and it made more economical sense to establish the hive world. Once this was completed, the elders in conclave decreed that enough races and material was available to initiate the Galactic Genome Project in earnest...

When I put down GGP I had 8 cards on my tableau, I could easily Produce-Consume 6 VP chips every other turn, my opponents all had 7 or less cards on their tableau I decided it was time to P/C before the got their collective arses in gear, I still had more useful cards to plop on the table but I counted on leeching them my opponents since their current tableau's could not match my consumption capability.

Old Earth finally put a blue world on the table but was sorely behind me in consume powers, since with one blue there was no way he could compete with me. It wasn't until very late in the game when I had already consumed twice that managed to put two more blues on the table and the consumer markets.

Old Earth took too long to establish economic dominance, while the Spice World, Gem World and Prosperous Worlds provided the necessary goods to fuel the demands of their empire, by the time they established Consumer Markets, the Galactic Genome Project was under full scale development. Such was Old Earth's situation that a desperate gamble to establish a Free Trade Association with its colonies was not given a chance to materialize...

When you're behind the curve it can be a dilemma whether to consume the points or do some trading to get the final cards to put together your strategy. I'm not sure what New Sparta was doing at this point; they put one more alien world but then placed a blue windfall followed by the Terraforming Guild.

New Sparta seemed to abandon it's military hierarchy and structure in favor of alien research, which while fruitful contributed less than what was hoped for (even with the aid of Research Labs). Another avenue of advance was established by using the alien technology that had been amassed to terraform new worlds for use by Sparta...

I don't particularly think I won the game, my opponents lost it by allowing me so much time to put together a genetic engine, I think I should have been pressured to try to crank it up sooner but my opponent did not use his Alien Toy Shop for points until the very end. That was a mistake I believe. I think much is owed to the fact that he doesn't do P/C engines very well. Also we always play with the expansion so Military and similar strategies for points are feasible in the face of a consume engine, especially since most of still have problems being efficient in establishing one.

The Ancient Race had progressed its master plan to fruition. During the Project, it was bolstered by Genetic Labs which increased the research output. In addition the Empath World was absorbed. The other competing empires had been left behind. The new master race was ready to be unleashed upon the galaxy to colonize and establish a new order of genetically superior beings. With the best of many traits incorporated for form and function, a Galactic Renaissance ensued as the pinnacle of the Anicent Race's achievements...

I ended up with 13 points the tableau from cards. 5 Worlds (Ancient Race, Aquatic Uplift Race, Reptilian Uplift Race, Hive World, Empath World) and 6 developments (Contact Specialist, Research Labs, Deficit Spending, Galactic Genome Project, Genetics Labs, Galactic Renaissance).

I consumed 25 VP chips. Galactic Genome Project gave me 13 points by itself (3 for genetic labs and five gene worlds). Galactic Renaissance gave me 11 points (8 for chips and 3 for Research Labs).

My total was 62, I won by far, my opponents barely broke out of the twenty something barrier. They usually play better (I've seen both score in the 50's) but I believe lack of adaptability in the face of bad cards cost them the game.

]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>

]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

Alexfrog — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:55:45 +0000

by Alexfrog

I had the same initial thought: Genome Project seemed weaker than other similar 6 devs in different colors. It compares most directly to mining league, where ittakes a more difficult good, and doesnt produce on windfalls.

However, in actual play I then found it to be quite powerful. First of all it combos well with cards like Pan Galactic league. Second and most important, the green world tend to be stronger overall than the brown worlds. Mining league takes some cards that would likely be bad without it and makes them good. But Genome Project takes good worlds like uplift races, etc, and makes them better!

It gives 2 points per green windfall, not 1 like the others do for their windfall worlds, which means it is a lot easier to assemble a big score off of it. It also combos very well with Genetics Lab (better than Mining League combos with its scoring cards, or Free Trade Association with Consumer Markets, which are obviously good combos, but somewhat duplicate each others effects).

Overall it ends up being quite good, and fairly comparable to those other 6 devs in power.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

Philip Thomas — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:51:40 +0000

by Philip Thomas

As the deck grows, I think the benefits of having 2 Green 6 devs as compared to 1 for the other colours are going to grow also. Of course, R vs I also has an Uplift 6 dev which is pretty good for Green too.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

silvergoose — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:44:47 +0000

by silvergoose

The main reason why I see GGP to be balanced is because you don't *need* it for a successful green strategy. That is, I often find it and Pan-Galactic League to garner about the same amount by game's end, and thus planning for a green strategy without either 6-cost is much more viable than trying for a brown strategy without Mining League.

Plus, Contact Specialist combos well with it, even without the extra points, because then you can get all of the military windfalls out for nearly nothing, and if you happen to draw GGP as well, you're getting the only double color 6-cost combo right now.

Basically, if we're only talking about which you'd rather have in your starting hand with multiple other relevant cards guaranteed, yes, GGP might not be as great as some others. But overall, it's very usable, if only for the points-at-game-end.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

colmenarez — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:18:07 +0000

by colmenarez

Well I managed a 62 point tableau with Galactic Genome Project. Granted my fellow opponents were a bit slow on the take (I think they stayed married to their initial strategies too long). By the time the VP pile was consumed I was able to generate 25 VPs on chips by combining GGP and Research Labs and a little bit of deficit spending.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Base game card most improved by Gathering Storm?

sabaki — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:05:30 +0000

by sabaki

Interesting, I would have said the imperium armaments world. The cards you mention were good pre-expansion, and they get a bit better with it, but I feel that the armaments world went from being a terrible card to a half-decent one. The small military is much more useful now, and the imperium keyword finally kicked in.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Base game card most improved by Gathering Storm?

scwont — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:31:07 +0000

by scwont

Alien Tech Institute - Alien strategy is greatly helped by Deserted Alien World (cheaper way to kickstart it than Alien Rosetta Stone World), and Damaged Alien Factory (start world that's an Alien production world).

Genetics Lab - Ancient Race can put this to effective use right way.

Lost Species Ark World - the holy grail of cards to find in your Doomed World starting hand.

Galactic Survey: SETI - now there are start worlds with Explore powers, particularly Separatist Colony (Doomed World rarely survives to the end of the game). In total this small expansion has 4 worlds with explore powers, compared to 2 in the entire base game.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

MrWeasely — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:21:55 +0000

by MrWeasely

Green strategy is what it is. Sometimes you use it and sometimes you don't.

Today I was playing a tight 1v1. I was Earth's Lost Colony. Dropped Drop Ships as my first tableau, to get Space Pirates. On the Space Pirate draw, got Uplift Grnash. On the Uplift Grnash trade I got Pan Galactic League and Uplift Reptiles. Partner was preparing for Prod so I put them down. TaDa!, I was doing Green Strategy! Except she didn't do Production, and my new card Influx was Lost Alien Battle Fleet and Alien Tech Institute. The largest-military prize was in play, and with the Fleet I'd take it and prevent my opponent from getting it. So TaDa! I switched to Alien Strategy. ATI payed out 5 points (=lousy), but I got 19 points in goals to opp's 9.

I'm sure when RFTG archeologists uncover the scorecard for that game, they'll be mystified at how a Military-Genes-Alien strategy coming from Earth's Lost Colony managed to defeat Ancient Race with Alien Toy Shop AND Terraforming Guild. Sometimes the game just plays you. Sometimes its pretty. Sometimes, like today, its like its making fun of you.

If its not absolutely clear that something sucks, give it some time, and some day it will come out and perform amazing tricks for you.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Base game card most improved by Gathering Storm?

MrWeasely — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:00:02 +0000

by MrWeasely

What cards are now much more fun now that Gathering Storm has come out? Put in your own entries below....

Star Nomad Lair - suddenly strong early for the Innovation Leader First.
Terraforming Robots - now fun with our beloved TFG.
Alien Tech Institute - (hearts) Damaged Alien Factory, Alien Toy Shop.
Merchant World - so much fun when settled by Doomed World Turn 1!
Galactic IMPERIUM - already strong, now stacks with IMPERIUM Lords

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Will I ever play just the base game again?

qzhdad — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:46:52 +0000

by qzhdad

I picked up a new base game for a couple reasons.

One, my cards were worn enough that the new cards would have been obvious.

Two, my first set is carried around in a deck box and the new cards won't fit, let alone the goals.

Three, I don't mind supporting RGG.

I am not sure if I'll pick up another set and first expansion when the second comes out. Probably depends on the condition of the cards.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Will I ever play just the base game again?

entranced — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:59:43 +0000

by entranced

maaikefest wrote:
I don't separate the start worlds anymore. I just flip cards until a start world comes up, and then until the next start world comes up (until everyone or you and the robot have a starting world) and then shuffle again.

That's a fantastic idea, thanks!

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Epic 70-70 Game Decided on Tiebreaks!

entranced — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:48:36 +0000

by entranced

moogleii wrote:
Did you mean first 5 cards of your tableau?

First 4... I had produced the previous turn on IAW and DAF, and i played a "naked x2/produce" with the 4 cards above, leeching Pirate World that turn to successfully x2.

Wait, unless you mean due to Doomed World, in that case i guess it just depends how you define "first x cards of tableau". :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Highest Score against solitare robot

herendil66 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:13:48 +0000

by herendil66

I actually managed 53, first try- DEFINITELY beginner's luck working there... ;-)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Highest Score against solitare robot

maaikefest — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:59:54 +0000

by maaikefest

TheMadVulcan wrote:
maaikefest wrote:
How can you have 36 vp chips? The game ends as soon as the 24 chips are gone :surprise:
23 VPs are already claimed and you consume for 13 on the last turn. Much like 12 cards is not the tableau limit and it merely triggers the end game, 24VP is not a limit, but it also triggers the end game.

Yes, but I don't think it is possible that you alone got the 24 vp chips and the robot got none until the end was triggered.

Let's assume that the player got 12 vp chips and the robot got 12 chips, then the player got 24 vp chips in the last turn, how is that possible?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Will I ever play just the base game again?

maaikefest — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:41:40 +0000

by maaikefest

Monotone wrote:
jdludlow wrote:

Seriously? How often are you ever going to separate the decks?

Good point. Its a pain to remove the start worlds as it is. Separating expansions would take some time.

I don't separate the start worlds anymore. I just flip cards until a start world comes up, and then until the next start world comes up (until everyone or you and the robot have a starting world) and then shuffle again.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Highest Score against solitare robot

TheMadVulcan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:40:54 +0000

by TheMadVulcan

maaikefest wrote:
How can you have 36 vp chips? The game ends as soon as the 24 chips are gone :surprise:

23 VPs are already claimed and you consume for 13 on the last turn. Much like 12 cards is not the tableau limit and it merely triggers the end game, 24VP is not a limit, but it also triggers the end game.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Highest Score against solitare robot

maaikefest — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:28:54 +0000

by maaikefest

jas72 wrote:
I scored 78 against the robot on the most difficult level (and of course won). I had a huge Mining League tableau, along with Galactic Renaissance and 36 vp chips. It was an awesome game.

How can you have 36 vp chips? The game ends as soon as the 24 chips are gone :surprise:

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: All the robot needs to give you a beating...

moogleii — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:14:58 +0000

by moogleii

marhawkman wrote:
Or make it so that consuming for VP reduces the economy....

I've been toying with this idea as well. I don't know, but I find the robot to be ridiculously overpowered. I've played vs 2 new spartas, and it's economy and tableau become quite huge very easily. A few consumes, and produces, and it has a powerhouse econ very fast.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Epic 70-70 Game Decided on Tiebreaks!

moogleii — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:03:37 +0000

by moogleii

Did you mean first 5 cards of your tableau?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

scwont — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:56:55 +0000

by scwont

onigame wrote:

(By the way, when we did the simplest deckbuilding system, the deck that consistently beat all other decks was not Rebel/Imperium based. Have fun finding it.)

With just the cards from the base game, or plus expansion(s)?

Also, do you get to pick your start world - if so does that count as one of your 40 cards?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Epic 70-70 Game Decided on Tiebreaks!

entranced — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:25 +0000

by entranced

rrenaud wrote:
Also, did you get the interaction of DAF and DE correct? It's a little bit subtle.

Yeah, i always triggered DAF before DE. Actually, one time early on i produced on IAW, then intentionally triggered DE before DAF - i had no cards in hand and wanted the good. :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Epic 70-70 Game Decided on Tiebreaks!

rrenaud — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:11:15 +0000

by rrenaud

As a friend of mine would say, he got improved logistics and terraforming guild, he didn't deserve it!

Also, did you get the interaction of DAF and DE correct? It's a little bit subtle.

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Epic 70-70 Game Decided on Tiebreaks!

entranced — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:31:26 +0000

by entranced

I could not resist posting this.

2p advanced, Doomed World vs Ancient Race. I've noticed Doomed World features in an inordinate number of my 2p games with 100+ combined points.

My tableau, in order:
]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>
]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>
Tableau: Imperium Armaments World (2), Space Marines (1), Diversified Economy (2), Damaged Alien Factory (2), Pirate World (2), Imperium Lords (10), Space Mercenaries (0), New Military Tactics (1), Rebel Base (6), Galactic Resort (2), Galactic Imperium (5), Hive World (2);
Chips: 26;
Goals: 5VPC (3), 4 color worlds (3), 4+Devs[shared] (3);
Tiebreaks: 0+0=0.

Geoff's tableau, in order (only unsure of the order of the 3 consecutive windfalls):
]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>
]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>]]>
Tableau: Ancient Race (1), Interstellar Bank (1), Terraforming Guild (12), Alien Tech Institute (9), Alien Robot Sentry (2), Contact Specialist (1), Clandestine Uplift Lab (2), Pan-Galactic League (13), Aquatic Uplift Race (2), Deserted Alien Library (5), The Last of the Uplift Gnarssh (0), Improved Logistics (2), Alien Robotic Factory (5), Malevolent Lifeforms (2);
Chips: 4;
Goals: 6dev (3), 3Alien (3), 4+Devs[shared] (3);
Tiebreaks: 2+2=4.

The only unclaimed goal was for 4+ Producers.

As soon as i had the first 4 cards in my tableau, i x2/produced the whole way. In fact, for the first crank i went naked, gambling that Geoff was going to choose settle - if he didn't, i would have completely whiffed my 2 phases! I got 6vpc per crank (8vpc once), and 4-5 net cards. I hardly missed a leech the whole game - 2 settles by the looks of it.

The game simultaneously ended on VPC and tableau.

The final turn:
-I got Galactic Imperium, Hive World, the 4 color goal and 6 VPC for +19pts.
-Geoff got Improved Logistics, Alien Robotic Factory, Malevolent Lifeforms and 1 VPC for +15pts.

Geoff finished with 2 cards in hand and 2 goods in play to my 0 and 0, winning it all on tiebreaks after we double-checked, triple-checked, quadruple-checked scores. :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Alpha Centauri vs Old Earth vs Epsilon Eridani: A Very Close Game

PseudoPserious — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:54:32 +0000

by PseudoPserious

Elgar wrote:
I was surprised you played trade league as early as you did...I would have played replicant robots at that point...

entranced wrote:
Turn 4 i would have dev'd Replicant Robots instead of Trade League.

Excellent point. I agree.

entranced wrote:
Turn 8 i would have held onto New Economy (already worth 7pts at the time) instead of Merchant World as your last card.

I remember bouncing back and forth between those two...MW was probably the wrong choice, but I was entranced by the "consume trade and discard for 4 vp" opportunity.

entranced wrote:
Turn 9 you made a small typo, you chose C/$ not C/x2.

No; I used the trade power from Trade League. I picked Cx2 just in case Aaron and Brian picked a combo of Explore and Settle (admittedly highly unlikely).

entranced wrote:
You set up the [possible] final turn beautifully, giving you a decent shot at winning in a bad situation...

Thanks for the kind words :)

Cheers,
PP

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

ackmondual — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:00:12 +0000

by ackmondual

byronczimmer wrote:
Really need to include Alien Tech Institute if you're going to compare apples to oranges and bananas.

Really need to explain some of this stuff such as that if you're going to make such comments.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

fnord23 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:34:19 +0000

by fnord23

scwont wrote:
and perhaps there will be some Genes-specific discounts in the mix as well.

Perhaps. ;)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

harris_family — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:03:50 +0000

by harris_family

scwont wrote:
My feeling is that lack of Genes discounts compared to Rare and Alien is a big part of why a Genes strategy seems hard to pull off despite having two 6-cost developments in its favour. The second expansion may shift this (im)balance, as Chris suggested - we've now seen Gene Designers and Universal Symbionts which provide more strong options for a Genes consumption strategy, and perhaps there will be some Genes-specific discounts in the mix as well.

I'd read somewhere (i.e. here on BGG!) that G/S made a 'green' strategy more viable so when I played this at the UK Games Expo this w/end (with 2 newbies at the table and an ~~old pro~~ experienced player) I thought I'd give it a bash. I got two green worlds (one production, one w/fall) plus one of the 'green' 6-devs fairly early (edit: it was PGL) but I just couldn't come across enough consume powers to make it worth doing Cx2. I guess I should have jumped ship at some point and had the courage to change tack but I plugged on, struggled to the end and only managed 3 place.
:(

Simon

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

scwont — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:55:22 +0000

by scwont

Kester wrote:
Seems OK to me. Mining League is the most obvious comparison, and of those two, GGP will usually score a few more points at game end: Getting 2 points rather than 1 from windfalls is a significant difference. It makes sense that ML gets an extra power.

Don't forget that rare worlds are slightly more common (15 to 13 base game and first expansion), and there are cards which discount Rare worlds but not so for Genes. My feeling is that lack of Genes discounts compared to Rare and Alien is a big part of why a Genes strategy seems hard to pull off despite having two 6-cost developments in its favour. The second expansion may shift this (im)balance, as Chris suggested - we've now seen Gene Designers and Universal Symbionts which provide more strong options for a Genes consumption strategy, and perhaps there will be some Genes-specific discounts in the mix as well.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

Kester — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:17:47 +0000

by Kester

Seems OK to me. Mining League is the most obvious comparison, and of those two, GGP will usually score a few more points at game end: getting 2 points rather than 1 from windfalls is a significant difference. It makes sense that ML gets an extra power.

That said, my general rule of thumb is that if I have Genetics Lab, then GGP is worth playing. If I don't, then it isn't.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

byronczimmer — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:06:00 +0000

by byronczimmer

Really need to include Alien Tech Institute if you're going to compare apples to oranges and bananas.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: Re: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

fnord23 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:05:27 +0000

by fnord23

GGP is just fine now; a little specialized/underpowered perhaps, but so are a lot of other cards.

But just wait until you use the full RvI set; your opinion may well flip-flop.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Strategy:: colored 6-cost development comparisons.....

ackmondual — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:57:47 +0000

by ackmondual

Anyone else think that Galactic Genome Project should've had at either at least one other (positive) power and/or bonus points? It isn't a bad card, but it seems to pale in comparison to the other colored 6-cost development cards (not counting yellow in this post since it's different on many levels).

]]> vs ]]> vs ]]> vs ]]>

Brown approach
]]>]]>]]>

Brown has more production worlds. Plus, brown's 6-cost also produces on a windfall world, as well as Mining Robots that syncs up with Mining League. That and more specific cards for more points

new Green approach
]]> ]]>

Only one source to produce on windfall worlds. Furthermore, more green worlds are windfall vs the case with brown. However, I will acknowledge that Genetics Lab provides 3pts and each green windfall also provides 2pts.

Does the fact that there are 2 6-cost cards for green make up for what I perceive as GGP's lack of "omph" compared to its bretheren?

classic Green approach
]]> ]]>

-2 to military strength ain't a big deal since at that point, you've got Contact Specialist for all your green military needs. Definitely, the -1 military strength has impeded me before, but drawing for for each green world on your tableau more than makes up for that. Also, scoring one pt for each (other) military world makes this even better.

Blue approach
]]> ]]> ]]>

Last but not least is this. This is also very powerful. Much moreso than green strategy with Gal. Genome Proj. You need 1 more good to parallel Consume x2 with the other 6-costs (of course, not the case with Pan Gal League), but blue worlds are easier to settle. You also get card draws, but that supposedly is to cover the fact that blue goods only get you 2 cards while each green good gets you 4. Typically, it isn't worth trading blue good alone. Plus, you have a produce on windfall power on FTA, with another if you get Expanding Colony. Consumer Markets makes this combo even more bloody powerful as many vets have undoubtedly have experienced, but CM is practically a 6-cost card onto itself.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Alpha Centauri vs Old Earth vs Epsilon Eridani: A Very Close Game

entranced — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:01:36 +0000

by entranced

PseudoPserious wrote:
Hopefully this session report will generate some good strategy discussion. Comments on my decisions and (probably bad) play are especially encouraged and welcome.

Turn 4 i would have dev'd Replicant Robots instead of Trade League.

Turn 8 i would have held onto New Economy (already worth 7pts at the time) instead of Merchant World as your last card.

Turn 9 you made a small typo, you chose C/$ not C/x2.

You set up the [possible] final turn beautifully, giving you a decent shot at winning in a bad situation. If Aaron is holding a semi-cheap dev and ends the game on tableau, and Brian's 3 cards don't allow him to play a dev or world, you win as Brian would have a 0pt final turn! Sadly, he had one, but you played it well.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

harris_family — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:55:17 +0000

by harris_family

entranced wrote:
harris_family wrote:
I wonder what people think are 'par' scores for the game with the GS expansion (including goals) - just to give us a benchmark.

Metagame factors and skill level are among many intangibles that completely obscure what a "par" score even means. Often as you get better, scores actually become lower, as you learn to push small advantages and end the game as quickly as possible.

If you want an average score of typical newish players at my FLGS, i posted some stats comparing the base game scores and expansion scores. A typical TGS 2p advanced result was 54-40. However, if i look at my 5 games against the only other player that has 150+ games played, our scores average at 39 pts each.

All very interesting all the same - aren't statistics wonderful:D

Simon

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

entranced — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:01:49 +0000

by entranced

harris_family wrote:
I wonder what people think are 'par' scores for the game with the GS expansion (including goals) - just to give us a benchmark.

Metagame factors and skill level are among many intangibles that completely obscure what a "par" score even means. Often as you get better, scores actually become lower, as you learn to push small advantages and end the game as quickly as possible.

If you want an average score of typical newish players at my FLGS, i posted some stats comparing the base game scores and expansion scores. A typical TGS 2p ~~advanced~~ result was 54-40. However, if i look at my 5 games against the only other player that has 150+ games played, our scores average at 39 pts each.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Vyolynce — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:49:51 +0000

by Vyolynce

jullevi wrote:
However, as long as you enjoy the basic game, you don't need the expansion.

Unless, y'know, you would like to play with more than four players at a time.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

sarah_elton — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:16:12 +0000

by sarah_elton

Count yourselves lucky - in the UK the base game is £28.99 (RRP) and the expansion is £19.99

Total almost 50 quid (about $85). I did feel the expansion was expensive. Race is our most played game, and I do really like the expansion, but not the pricing.

Once the next one comes along, you're looking at probably £70 for the complete game - a 180 card deck. To me that just seems too much, and yes I am a big fan. There is something I don't like about planned expansions as they just seem like a blatant money spinner. The fact that original Race had symbols in that would become relevant following an expansion didn't sit well with me, I must say.

Of course I'll be buying Rebel vs Imperium. :D

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Jagerfox — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:22:23 +0000

by Jagerfox

After 600-plus games of RftG, playing two, three, four and a few five-player games. I have come to the conclusion that those who play the game regular own a copy and that those who don’t play regular (which is just so sad) for the most part don’t own a copy. Those who own the game will most likely get the expansions regardless of cost, because it’s just that good of a game.

RftG is a beautifully designed and elegantly simple game that has a wonderful replay value, great cost to games played value that gives a different game every time for those who enjoy and play the game regularly. It is one of those rare games that you look forward to the next game just to see how well you will do and rarely will turn down a chance to play.

Yes! I’m a fan! I look forward to the next two expansions regardless of cost, just solely based on the first two offerings, it’s money well spent IMO.

RftG is a winner and I learned along time ago to stay with a winner. :D

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

jullevi — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:38:02 +0000

by jullevi

While the 22(?) new cards may sound like a small amount, the effect they have on a gameplay is huge. However, as long as you enjoy the basic game, you don't need the expansion. Buy it when you start to think you are done with RFTG and suddenly you are all in for another couple of hundred games...

For its effect on gameplay and game lifetime I find the expansion 100% worth it (even if you skip the single player add-ons and goals!).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

dave65tdh — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:15:12 +0000

by dave65tdh

ragingoptimist wrote:
Third, the bonus point tiles for certain goals are present. While they mix things up a little, they don't seem to change gameplay much in the games I've played. They do push you to place some cards earlier than you normally would have, but they don't change the overall feel or strategy of the game much.

Good article. I disagree with this point though, using the expansion bonus tiles radically change to game from a production-consumption strategy to a more balanced one based on the bonus tiles. I rarely play the vast majority of cards unless the bonus tiles are in play. That said, if you like and play the game, the expansion is worth it. Otherwise, not.

:)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Odinsday — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:58:09 +0000

by Odinsday

Considering I've played the expansion about 20 times, and my copy has been played possibly close to 40 times, I reckon it's done pretty well for the cost. If I paid a buck an hour for all the games I've ever brought, I'd be a very satisfied man (and also would have spent far more time playing games than is possible to keep a full time job).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Mr Thijs — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:09:22 +0000

by Mr Thijs

Another factor to take into account:The Gathering Storm is highly recommended if you want to play with the comming up expansion: Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs Imperium. And this one looks like it is going to add a lot of new stuff.

But buying 2 expansions if you play the game only a few times in a year is maybe a little bit silly.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

gobbeg — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:34:27 +0000

by gobbeg

It'll be interesting to see whether or not the RFTG expansion goes through a similar pricing arc to the Mr Jack Extension. If it does it will probably be available for a significantly lower price in the future.

Mr Jack Extension had a list price of $29.99 and was typically priced in the $20 plus range for essentially five new characters and some extra bits. It's available now from Funagain for $11.00.

Although I'm fan of the core game, I found $20 too high of a price point for the Mr Jack Extension. $11.00 is much more attractive and I would leap in today if I hadn't traded for a copy of the game before it hit that price point.

For those less interested in the core game it's probably worth waiting around for the price of the expansion to drop. Of course the mileage varies as some expansions end up more expensive over time (Black Rose, anyone?).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

cferejohn — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:41:56 +0000

by cferejohn

Yeah, I'm not sure *any* expansion is worth it if someone doesn't already really like the base game. Ideally, an expansion provides more depth and some surprises for someone already familiar with the game, and this expansion does that terrifically well.

I suppose you are right that I wouldn't recommend it to someone who only played RftG 5-10 times/year, but there are few expansions that I would recommend to someone who played the base game that infrequently (maybe really long games like Twilight Imperium). Maybe I'd recommend getting Carcassone with Inns and Cathedrals right off.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

maaikefest — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:17:30 +0000

by maaikefest

Is there such a thing as a casual RFTG fan :surprise:

(says me, who has been hooked for 2 days now, and is deliriously happy that she bought the expansion as well :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

Elgar — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:00:26 +0000

by Elgar

cosine wrote:

Likely, as others have said, the best play is somewhere in the middle. I'd hazard a guess and say that best play should have the game ending with running out of victory points about 60% of the time and someone making it to 12 cards about 40% of the time. Note, I said game end - not winning player. Winning player is often not the person who ends the game... but then, that's another discussion about play styles.

Since your 2 %'s add up to 100%, where do you count the games that end with both the point pool empty and 12 cards. I'm assuming an even split. If my assumption is right, my assesment would be a flip of your percentages (20% both, 30% from points only, 50% from 12 cards only)

Hmm, maybe I should start documenting that in my records too.

I agree that the person who ends it isn't necesarily the one who won.
/end response to Cosine

ImpLog is far from broken, and is not even in my top 10 list of powerful cards. ATS and terraforming guild, however, are far closer to the top.

With respect to the military strategy, it is the first one that really jumps out at people (if i have military, I can play worlds for free? Cool!). The biggest problem is that it is very streaky. First you need to get military, then you need to get military planets *in that order*. Most other strategies don't have that stipulation (ok, dev rush kind of does) As said above, you cannot decide to be pure military at the start of a game. If you get dealt the cards, sure, but its a gambling (and often losing) gambit. The other pifall of military has also been touched on: the "I'm going military so I have to play military". Often times (even most of the time) its good to play a non military card (New Vinland for example) in a "military" tableau for leeching and for keeping pace.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

Elgar — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:47:46 +0000

by Elgar

If this

ragingoptimist wrote:
...as the edition of only about 20 cards in a 100+ card game is not a lot of "bang for your buck.".

is your takeaway point then I might agree.

If one has no interest in the goals, or the solitaire varient, then much of the expansion is lost. I do not however think that anything was skimped. The cards are 1 of 3 things added in the expansion. Would you pay $7-10 dollars for just the cards? I would.

I guess I am balking at the reduction of the expansion to only 20 cards. It's as absurd if I were to review a sandwich and said "If you don't like bread, and since the veggies don't really add much flavor, the deli is skimping you because you can get the meat for 1/3 the price of the sandwich"

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

hibikir — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:34:29 +0000

by hibikir

I have about 100 games logged with the expansion, so I guess I'm probably not an embarrassingly bad player by now.

After playing the game for a while, it's not that IL wins every time it's drawn: What happens is that, whenever it's worth playing, It'll typically be one of the core reasons that player wins. Terraforming Guild, Alien Toy Shop and Imperium Lords fall in the same category. The difference between those 4, and a few of the base game, is how likely it is for them to help your overall strategy. ATS and TG are playable a lot more often than the other two. IL kills with a military of 4 or more, or with a production engine that generates a few cards with the VPs, but it's possible to get really crummy hands that don't help it any. Imperium Lords is the narrowest of the lot, but it can freeze an opponent.

For me, the existence of this kind of cards is what makes Race for the Galaxy quite frustrating at times. It's like Magic the Gathering: Sometimes a player gets the perfect draw, and you are barely playing. The difference is that, while a game of Magic is short, and concession is part of the culture, a 3 or 4 player game of Race for The Galaxy can be a very uphill climb by turn 2 or 3, and yet a concession doesn't quite work so well.

Want an example? There was a Race for the Galaxy tournament at Geekway to the West, organized by Zambo. In the finals, I drew New Sparta. By the end of the 1st turn, I had played Space Marines, Smuggling Lair, and consumed the goods, with Lost Alien Battle Fleet and Rebel Warrior Race in my hand. Nobody else had any combination that was even close.I ended up winning by a longshot, but I spent half the game apologizing: My result had nothing to do with skill, but with getting amazing draws. We spent 40 more minutes playing when my chances of winning were probably over 80% after turn one, and that without getting any early splashy card.

Still, I do agree with Eric in thinking that the number of players does change the power of the cards significantly. It's much easier to harness the power of the flashiest cards in the two player game. With 4, group dynamics always make a big difference, so there's a much higher chance of catching up. With 2 players? Terraforming Guild will show up in your hand about 33% of the time. Someone running Military will get IL in the first half of the game around 33% of the time too. So in the end, people plan to support them, and the game turns a bit into a lottery.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

cosine — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:48:53 +0000

by cosine

byronczimmer wrote:
Improved Logistics hit the tableau... They had the lowest score at the end of the game.

This happens in my games a lot too. More often than not, IL fails to materialize as awesome. Which we all think is very funny, because the rulebook says "you may want to watch out for IL! some find it full of awesome!" ... and it almost never is. While cards like Alien Toy Shop are clearly six flavors of awesome in one box! (That's Neapolitan Awesome ^ 2 if you didn't know).

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

byronczimmer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:40:44 +0000

by byronczimmer

ragingoptimist wrote:
However, if you play rarely, don't study optimum strategy in the game, and only play 2-4 player games, I think you can get away without this expansion.

If you fall into the above category, you're probably playing your friend's copy and it'd be a very nice gesture to get the Gathering Storm expanion for your friend's birthday.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

byronczimmer — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:36:23 +0000

by byronczimmer

Played 4 player RftG with GS expansion and tiles last night.

Improved Logistics hit the tableau of one of my opponents on turn 2.

They had the lowest score at the end of the game.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

ackmondual — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:26:30 +0000

by ackmondual

I got this game at full price and it turned out to be worth every penny to be able to play it about 1 to 1.5 weeks sooner than I otherwise would've been able to. Of course, I'm practically completely comfy with eating up the extra "markup" for a $25 game + sales tax. Had the game been MSRP-ed at $40, then that would've been another story entirely.

Review: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Cost Benefit Analysis- is this expansion just too pricy for the casual fan?

ragingoptimist — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:37:41 +0000

by ragingoptimist

In this review I'll assume that you know about RFTG and The Gathering Storm. If you don't, there are some stellar reviews out there that can break down the details of what is added. I'll instead be taking a look at what you actually get in the expansion, and try and figure out if it is worth the money. The base game is priced at $35 and the expansion is $25, despite the components in the expansion being only about a quarter of the amount in the base game.

First off, are you planning on playing the solitaire version of the game included? There are numerous solo games published by other on BGG, but this one is arguably the best. However, it is almost universally agreed that it is not like playing with other people (what solo game could?) and can be frustrating if luck is against you. If you frequently play solo games, you can stop here and know that you'll get good bang for your buck with this expansion.

Second, do you have a fifth player that keeps wanting to play? If so, the ability to fit them in is worth the price of the expansion. One could arguably take regular playing cards and write down the different roles on them and play the base game with five players. This would work because the base game has enough starting worlds to accommodate 5. We'll just assume though that if 5 want to play, it is definitely worth the money.

Third, the bonus point tiles for certain goals are present. While they mix things up a little, they don't seem to change gameplay much in the games I've played. They do push you to place some cards earlier than you normally would have, but they don't change the overall feel or strategy of the game much.

What about those that won't play solo or in 5 player games? This is where it gets tricky. The extra 4 starting worlds and the 17 or so regular cards definitely offer a wider selection of advanced strategies and a slightly more balanced game. This mainly applies for the hardcore. If you've played more than 50 games of RFTG, rush out and buy this now.

However, if you play rarely, don't study optimum strategy in the game, and only play 2-4 player games, I think you can get away without this expansion. $25 is a lot of money, and even discounted down to below 20 bucks at an online store, it is still enough to buy another game. I think the publisher skimped a bit on this expansion, as the edition of only about 20 cards in a 100+ card game is not a lot of "bang for your buck." I definitely believe that you get a lot more in a game purchase than the cards and cardboard, but I get the feeling that the publisher knew they had a hit game and spread the expansions a little thin.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

joshp — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:18:03 +0000

by joshp

sarah_elton wrote:
This was in order to stop people playing a pure military strategy accelerating their tableau-build too much.

It is a Race for the Galaxy.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

MasterDinadan — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:16:29 +0000

by MasterDinadan

Good military gives you a handful of free worlds. It shouldn't be considered as anything better than that. If you are getting this stuff for free, what are you going to do with the rest of your cards? You might as well do SOMETHING, right?

Generally "military" strategies just end up being "settle/develop" strategies. You are getting enough free worlds that you have the change left over to buy some pretty decent worlds and developments without even relying heavily on trade (which is still available anyway, considering the number of military windfalls). The whole idea is to put together worlds with developments that suit them, scoring as many points as possible for your tableau and very few for chips.

I'll agree that "military" strategy doesn't mean you are playing exclusively military worlds and developments, but I think that's a mistake that only novice players make. Experienced players hear "military strategy" and to them it just means that the military is part of it, it's not the whole thing.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

DeclanW — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:09:01 +0000

by DeclanW

As one of the people who was playing RftG with Sarah this weekend I'm interested in the comments here. Whilst we have not analysed the deck in any great detail (this is only the second weekend I have played RftG), the military strategy did seem to fire more often than others. However, maybe it is a case of learning other strategies - as Sarah has said she got a very powerful produce/consume going, and I got a good novelty goods option going as well so we know military is beatable. It just seems relatively easy when you are military to get started quicker than the produce / consume mechanic, and the IL speeds this up further. That said we are far from experts, and clearly more play is needed to determine how to stop Sarah's other half beating us to a bloody pulp with his Space Marines and Drop Pods!

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

cosine — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:51:57 +0000

by cosine

ackmondual wrote:

I can't speak for anyone else here, but to me, "military strategy" means just that.... using military to supplement other strategies, engines, and means of getting VPs.

I think a lot of people at first get dealt New Sparta and say "hey, I'm all about red planets here... I'm not going to do anything else, just settle red planets." ... and they proceed to spend the entire game looking for red planets. And failing. Because there aren't enough of them to go around.

The first sign of a good player is to see them making good decisions with what they've got more than what they think they've got.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

ackmondual — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:47:04 +0000

by ackmondual

cosine wrote:
rrenaud wrote:
Personally, I'd rank Terraforming Guild and Improved Logistics as the two best cards in the game.

I'd like to refer to some information I provided in another thread where I tried to show that there is no such thing as a military strategy - there just aren't enough cards to sustain it reliably. Combining military influence with other strategies is much more likely to win reliably.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but to me, "military strategy" means just that.... using military to supplement other strategies, engines, and means of getting VPs.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

sarah_elton — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:13:48 +0000

by sarah_elton

No offence taken at all since there are players on here with 400+ plays logged. :D I do feel a bit beginner like as there are too many cards that I don't really like, and obviously they do have their uses in combos that I haven't found yet.

Personally I love produce-consume and can rarely make military work. I had one game at the weekend where produce-consume 2x VPs was getting me 12 VPs every other round and I ran down the VP pile in the middle, just developing/settling when someone else played it. I won the game but was only 2 points ahead of the player running military due to a very low tableau value.

I have found in two player games with my other half (advanced 2P game) that there have been times when he's played military with IL and the game's finished long before my consume-produce engine has got up to speed. Double settle with IL has killed me on occasion.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

cosine — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:05:45 +0000

by cosine

rrenaud wrote:
Personally, I'd rank Terraforming Guild and Improved Logistics as the two best cards in the game.

I'd like to refer to some information I provided in another thread where I tried to show that there is no such thing as a military strategy - there just aren't enough cards to sustain it reliably. Combining military influence with other strategies is much more likely to win reliably.

What about windfall worlds, though? Because Terraforming Guild is only really going to pay off if you get a bunch of windfall worlds. Obviously, the hugely difficult thing to get is Terraforming Guild itself... exactly 1 card in 136. But let's assume that everyone playing is playing to the same strategy (unlikely) and that strategy is windfall rush (unlikely) and that the person who gets TG gets it at just the right time to both use it's benefits and play it easily (unlikely again!) There are;

1 windfall that cost 0 (1 blue)
8 windfall that cost 1 (2 green, 4 brown, 2 blue)
10 windfall that cost 2 (1 yellow, 5 green, 3 brown, 1 blue)
6 windfall that cost 3 (1 yellow, 1 green, 1 brown, 3 blue)
2 windfall that cost 4 (2 yellow)
2 windfall that cost 5 (2 yellow)
1 windfall that cost 6 (1 yellow)

30 cards total... out of 136. So, your odds of having one all the time is not great, but not unreasonable. Note that many of these are military only - 6 at cost 1, 6 at cost 2, 2 at cost 3, 1 at cost 4, and 1 at cost 5... or should I say that they split military and non-military at 14 mil, 16 non-mil. So, if you invest heavily in military as your plan to play windfalls for Terraforming Guild, you are counting on getting 14 different cards. A tight fit... and if you aren't playing mil, you are going for 16 different cards.

Perhaps this is again an area where people who play 2 player exclusively have a different experience from people who play 4 or 5 player exclusively. Splitting special cards between a larger number of people, especially if there is some perceived value to those cards, can result in odd strategy situations. I know I have won games playing consumption while everyone else stubbornly fought it out for military strategy cards...

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

cosine — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:31:18 +0000

by cosine

If all the games you play end when someone gets to 12 cards in play and you never see the victory point pool even dented, then Improved Logistics is going to seem like a really, really good card.

If all the games you play end with the victory point pool empty and hardly any players with more than 8 cards in play, then Improved Logistics is going to seem like a coaster.

Likely, as others have said, the best play is somewhere in the middle. I'd hazard a guess and say that best play should have the game ending with running out of victory points about 60% of the time and someone making it to 12 cards about 40% of the time. Note, I said game end - not winning player. Winning player is often not the person who ends the game... but then, that's another discussion about play styles.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

frunkee — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:13:12 +0000

by frunkee

rrenaud wrote:
Personally, I'd rank Terraforming Guild and Improved Logistics as the two best cards in the game. That is to say, averaged over all hands I've ever played, I think TG or IL would probably be the card I wanted the most in my hand at the time. I don't consider it a problem dire enough to be worth trying to rebalance the game for though.

I'd put Alien Toy Shop with TG and IL, primarily for the ease with which it transitions from early game (card flow) to late game (vp generation). ATS does both quite well.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

ackmondual — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:55:20 +0000

by ackmondual

huh.... some groups have suggested the other way around. IL should only be used towards military worlds. Reason is IL is supposed to help those playing the military strategy. What ends up happening sometimes is those who are building non-military worlds to fuel their P/Cx2 cycle, or those building non-military worlds for other reasons will get a leg up on those in the military strategy. Afterall, some players use military strategy to supplement P/C

For the record, I don't agree with ANY of these suggestions. I too have seen plenty of players (good at the game and NOT newbies mind you) lose and win with IL. IL has been built from the get-go, midgame, or end game as a means to squeeze out an extra world to settle

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

rrenaud — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:32:31 +0000

by rrenaud

Personally, I'd rank Terraforming Guild and Improved Logistics as the two best cards in the game. That is to say, averaged over all hands I've ever played, I think TG or IL would probably be the card I wanted the most in my hand at the time. I don't consider it a problem dire enough to be worth trying to rebalance the game for though.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

Eric Brosius — Sun, 31 May 2009 23:18:35 +0000

by Eric Brosius

TheMadVulcan wrote:
Don't feel bad that Eric may have implied that you might be a beginner.

I'm sorry for perhaps insulting you. I was picking up on your reference to the "more experienced players" who are providing advice. I do find that in general players who usually beat me do so most often with Produce/Consume.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

TheMadVulcan — Sun, 31 May 2009 21:41:08 +0000

by TheMadVulcan

sarah_elton wrote:
Just curious as to what other people thought as there don't seem to be many on here finding IL a problem...

Most people see IL as a solution. Without it, military is generally a weaker strategy unless it gets really lucky. I say most people because there are some posters here who think that military is still significantly underpowered.

Don't feel bad that Eric may have implied that you might be a beginner. The 50+ or 80+ plays (depending on how you've counted) of Race you have under your belt are nothing to scoff at. But Race really is a deep game. And the depth is compounded when you add the expansion(s).

Before I say the following, I want to emphasize that you should play in whatever way brings you and your group the most enjoyment. Purists may say that it's the "wrong" way to play, but it doesn't matter as long as you're having fun.

With that said, I think that, overall, you'll find Race is more enjoyable to play with the rules as is. Also, playing with this variant will probably hinder your improvement as a player. A Military Settle Tableau Rush via IL is a completely viable strategy. BUT, there are many strategies that can do just as well just as quickly. You will probably have some trouble in becoming successful at them if you don't have as much of a need (combating IL, for example) to do so.

If your friends are amenable to the idea that you may not be playing entirely "optimally" (or just don't tell them), I recommend trying an experiment. Play several games without focusing on winning. Instead, try playing the normal strategies, Consumption, Development Rush, even Military Rush without Improved Logistics, Hybrids, and others with a focus on triggering the end game as quickly as possible. R4tG really is a race. Speed is important in almost every strategy. When you're ending the game before everyone else, you may find that you're winning more than your fair share of games too.

The best Race players, however, strike a balance between speed of play and perfection of play. Ultimately, you're not looking for the fastest play and not even the best play. You're looking for the best play right now.

Just to start you off with some tips in that direction, here's a fairly good discussion concerning IL's strengths and weaknesses. You may not want to read it. It's often much more fun to discover these things yourself.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

Eric Brosius — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:52:42 +0000

by Eric Brosius

sarah_elton wrote:
I guess we just felt that military + IL made it a bit too difficult to get other strategies going in time. You're just getting some momentum going and the game stops. :)

Sarah, I think military is one of the easier paths to victory to understand. This means that, for beginners, it often seems dominant. You might want to play with the basic game (not using the expansion) until your group gains confidence in other strategies (especially Produce/Consume.) Often people are happy to get the expansion and find there is some other way to win other than Produce/Consume.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

ytter — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:45:05 +0000

by ytter

I have a friend who loves improved logistics, but he still only wins half of the time, even though he pulls it out every chance he gets.

It's a neat card, but hardly a game breaker.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

sarah_elton — Sun, 31 May 2009 20:16:11 +0000

by sarah_elton

I guess we just felt that military + IL made it a bit too difficult to get other strategies going in time. You're just getting some momentum going and the game stops. :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Re: Improved Logistics too strong?

Eric Brosius — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:46:41 +0000

by Eric Brosius

There are a lot of other strong tactics too. The key isn't whether a tactic is strong, but whether you can make yours work before your opponents make theirs work.

Thread: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: General:: Improved Logistics too strong?

sarah_elton — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:39:19 +0000

by sarah_elton

In our gaming group this weekend, we played an IL variant whereby the "bonus" settle could only be a non-military world. This was in order to stop people playing a pure military strategy accelerating their tableau-build too much.

My other half and I have played a lot of 2P games and never changed it before, but our more experienced gamer friends suggested it.

Just curious as to what other people thought as there don't seem to be many on here finding IL a problem...

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

onigame — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:21:42 +0000

by onigame

Dominion isn't based on drafting; it's based on deckbuilding.

Drafting, which I think of as "a bunch of items show up, and a method is used to distribute them to the players" is one type of deckbuilding mechanic but it's not the only one.

Dominion is a deckbuilding game that uses a marketplace mechanic as opposed to a drafting mechanic to build your deck. One important feature of drafting, taking a card you don't particularly want to deny other players the ability to get it, appears only very weakly in Dominion.

At some point in RftG's development process we experimented with other deckbuilding mechanics; the simplest one being "everyone buys a set and picks 40 cards out of it to be their deck." We eventually decided that among the types we tried, drafting was the one that was the best choice, due to its simplicity of statement and relative balance between different strategies.

(By the way, when we did the simplest deckbuilding system, the deck that consistently beat all other decks was not Rebel/Imperium based. Have fun finding it.)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

fargus9 — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:09:36 +0000

by fargus9

scand1sk wrote:
I think that when drafting, undistributed start worlds are put out of the game.

As per the drafting rules this is incorrect.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

mumushanshi — Fri, 29 May 2009 12:54:48 +0000

by mumushanshi

harris_family wrote:
the 'first to build a 6-dev' goal (which scores 3 points).

Ah, you mean "Galactic Status" :)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

harris_family — Fri, 29 May 2009 10:07:16 +0000

by harris_family

mumushanshi wrote:
harris_family wrote:
However, within 3 turns his world was indeed 'doomed' and was turned in for a high value 'alien' world

Doomed World's settle ability, like the Colony Ship, may not be used on alien worlds. (Or military worlds, unless you have Contact Specialist.)

You are, or course, right. It *can't* have been a yellow, almost certainly my fading memory! It was written, after all, almost 3 hours *after* we played.
:what:

mumushanshi wrote:
harris_family wrote:
But Ralph ended up with 4 6-devs all of which managed to net points for him (and the 6-dev 3-pointer, obviously!)

6-dev 3-pointer? You mean Galactic Federation? That scores only 2 for each 6-dev. (You don't count them again when you score 1 for every other dev.)

No, I didn't explain that terribly well - I meant the 'first to build a 6-dev' goal (which scores 3 points). The one on the far left here;
]]>
Sorry about that!

Simon

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

harris_family — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:53:57 +0000

by harris_family

byronczimmer wrote:
image does not exist?

Fixed - thanks

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

scand1sk — Fri, 29 May 2009 06:40:36 +0000

by scand1sk

I think that when drafting, undistributed start worlds are put out of the game.

I would not say that Dominion is a game built on drafting. However, plain RFTG somewhat has the feeling of a drafting game: when you explore, you basically choose one or two cards out of a larger pool. This is the same as drafting!

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

mumushanshi — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:00:13 +0000

by mumushanshi

harris_family wrote:
However, within 3 turns his world was ndeed 'doomed' and was turned in for a high value 'alien' world

Doomed World's settle ability, like the Colony Ship, may not be used on alien worlds. (Or military worlds, unless you have Contact Specialist.)

harris_family wrote:
But Ralph ended up with 4 6-devs all of which managed to net points for him (and the 6-dev 3-pointer, obviously!)

6-dev 3-pointer? You mean Galactic Federation? That scores only 2 for each 6-dev. (You don't count them again when you score 1 for every other dev.)

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: First time with GS

byronczimmer — Fri, 29 May 2009 01:09:48 +0000

by byronczimmer

image does not exist?

Session: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: First time with GS

harris_family — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:12:57 +0000

by harris_family

Although our group are hardly RftG veterans, we've played the base game often enough to have the rules down pretty well. Of course having enough experience to have a decent set of strategies is a different matter! Anyway, having got the Gathering Storm expansion as a present *ages* ago I thought it was time to bring it to the table this week. I did a quick explanation of the 'goals' which everyone grasped pretty quickly and I said there were 4 new start worlds. Since it was our first bash at with the expansion we though it'd be fun to select randomly as usual but *only* from the new ones. As it happens we got these 3.
]]>fixed 'broken' image link - thanks
As 'Ancient Race', Alan did the obvious 'consume$' opener and started pursuing his usual military strategy. Ralph ('Doomed World') was doing multiple 'explores' to start which it turned out was because he kept getting '6 devs' which he wasn't rich enough to play. However, within 3 turns his world was indeed 'doomed' and was turned in for a high value 'alien' world which proved a valuable source of income. My strategy as 'Damaged Alien thingy' wasn't too clear (at least, not to me!) - I had a mixed bag of start cards so I decided to make a play for the mixed economy goal (or what ever the 4 different planets one is called) called 'produce' on turn 1 and then 'consume$' for a net 4 cards next turn.

The 2 5-point goals in play were the '4+ devs' and the '6+ military'. Given Ralph's ability to draw nothing but devs this game (!) he was a shoo-in for the first and Alan was already up to the military goal before his tableau was half full. I was struggling already! I did get my 3-point 'mixed bag' goal and was regularly seeing a whole bunch of goods in front of me but didn't have enough 'consume' powers to really capitalise on them. I did get a couple of 'genes' world down and then drew the '6-dev' that scores for 'green' worlds (can't recall the title) so that gave me something to shoot for. I made 9 VPs from that and ended up with 3 of the 4 'first to' goals. My card score didn't make a particularly impressive sight so I ended with a fairly modest score of 47, just enough to sneak past Alan on 44. But Ralph ended up with 4 6-devs all of which managed to net points for him (and the 6-dev 3-pointer, obviously!) and he finished up with a decent 66 - a runaway winner!

In the wash-up, we thought the goals were a change for the better and although they obviously contributed to the higher scores than we usually see we also reckoned that we must be getting more skilled (if that's the right word!) overall as the scores would seem to indicate. I wonder what people think are 'par' scores for the game with the GS expansion (including goals) - just to give us a benchmark.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

MrWeasely — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:50:59 +0000

by MrWeasely

colmenarez wrote:
Alien toy shop really is overpowered, it should consume for just 1 VP not 2 VP, because of the simple fact that it can haul 4 VPs by it's lonesome and you don't need any other cards to make it work by itself.

We stop playing 2-player advanced for just this reason. Now we play unadvanced 2 player. This significantly defangs Toy Shop. Though it is still strong, it is no longer overpowering and forcing a boring strategy.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

Styfen — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:15:24 +0000

by Styfen

Tom Lehmann wrote:
Thanks for the article. A couple of rules notes:

1) When drafting, always use the goal rules (to provide texture and variety). (The drafting rules begin "After setting out the goals to be used...")

2) When drafting with 3 players, always alternate the passing direction with each draw of five of cards to pick from (second paragraph).

With both the first and second expansions, the drafting rules will support up to five players.

With all three expansions, the drafting rules will support up to six players.

Thanks for the clarifications/corrections and the information on the potential future drafts!

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

fargus9 — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:55:48 +0000

by fargus9

I personally think it's essential to use the goals because it makes alternate strategies more viable and makes the draft more interesting. For instance it makes racing a blue/brown tableau more viable with that goal in play. In turn I think with a draft the goals are more likely to be competitive or evenly split.

My personal preference is to draft with a set of goals and then play a series of games using the same decks and goals. I usually play multiple games in a sitting anyway. Usually at least best two out of three. My coworker and I are in the midst of our eighth series where we draft then play 20-30 games swapping decks midway through. It makes for a very interesting experience.

The cards I've seen to be most powerful are Terraforming League, Imperium Lords (that produce power is awesome) and Improved Logistics. The Trade League can be used to very powerful effect but it's harder to apply it correctly without a deck tuned for it. Galactic Imperium is a good card but it's value is significantly diluted with any kind of mixed tableau or few Rebel worlds.

My second favorite way to play is to deal two start worlds to each player then choose start hands and start worlds and then use the rules (and goals) as normal.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

Tom Lehmann — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:28:31 +0000

by Tom Lehmann

Thanks for the article. A couple of rules notes:

1) When drafting, always use the goal rules (to provide texture and variety). (The drafting rules begin "After setting out the goals to be used...")

2) When drafting with 3 players, always alternate the passing direction with each draw of five of cards to pick from (second paragraph).

With both the first and second expansions, the drafting rules will support up to five players.

With all three expansions, the drafting rules will support up to six players.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

gamemark — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:16:46 +0000

by gamemark

Well-written & thought-out review of drafting RftG... but I'd still disagree with you.

I think drafting makes a very enjoyable 30 minute game into a much longer experience that I'm not sure radically changes the amount of luck in the game. I wonder if drafting cards simply gives the illusion that you have more control while also adding length to the game.

Look, I don't know this for sure... but think about it for a minute. You still need to pull the right cards in your Explore & Trade moves in order for your plan to work - and since everyone else is getting the same head start through the draft, everyone's plan starts on roughly equal footing.

"Ah-ha!" you say, "Not true! Some players have better initial drafts than others due to their superior skill with the game." I'll concede that... but isn't it possible that the draft will be skewed as well by the luck of the cards?

Hey, I'm not telling anyone NOT to play in a manner that they enjoy. I'm just suggesting that the perceived benefits of this method may not warrant the added time & barrier to less-experienced players.

We tried a simplified system I really liked with 3 players - each of us got a red & a blue homeworld + our initial six cards. We discarded down to four & chose one of the homeworlds based on our initial hands - then shuffled the extra homeworlds back into the deck. This added some control without adding a lot of time - a nice trade-off for me.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

AstroLad — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:00:38 +0000

by AstroLad

An oft-missed part of the rules:

Similarly, a Colony Ship allows a Contact Specialist to place a (non-Alien) military world at no cost.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

Brym — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:57:26 +0000

by Brym

Styfen wrote:
AstroLad wrote:
Yes, great article. This sentence concerns me a tad, though (never having played with this method). With reference to Galactic Imperium, "This card has pretty much won every single draft game we’ve played so far." Dampens my enthusiasm for the method a bit. Any further thoughts on balance issues?

I'd already corrected that in the article by the time you posted to say "every game it was played in so far". But to address it balance-wise is simple, with two players you should be more than able to know what your opponent is drafting, you see 2 out of 3 cards they draft from their hand and 2 out of 2 from yours and with three you'll know what's being taken by the other players if not exactly who has what. So you just need to keep an eye out on the number of rebel worlds their taking and ensure you grab the odd one yourself. Same with Alien worlds, keep an eye on the amount you're taking and try not to let too many end up in the hands of a single player.

Additionally, while the Galactic Imperium/Rebel world drive has won a lot, it hasn't been winning by a large points gap. So it's possible with time and experience strategies will tighten up to challenge it.

Fortunately for "counter drafting" you can also avoid Rebel worlds being dead draws in any deck by drafting a Contact Specialist and even the big ones are very playable (at a cost of tempo) when the specialist is used in combination with a colony ship or the Doomed World.

A point of contention--does this meant that you believe that if you have a contact specialist in play, you can use Doomed World/Colony Ship to play military worlds? I never interpreted the card that way. Has there been an official ruling on this, or does anyone else have opinions?

EDIT: Checked the rules forums and re-read the cards, and it looks like you're right! Wow, I learn something new about this game all the time.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

Brym — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:49:11 +0000

by Brym

Thanks for the great post! As a HUGE fan of drafting in Magic the Gathering who no longer can afford (in time or money) that game, I've been trying to get the draft variant of Race to the table for some time now. The other players in my group have always been too intimidated by it, but maybe I can use this to convince them!

File: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Complete card reference

ackmondual — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:09:17 +0000

by ackmondual

Complete card reference for Board Game: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm ]]>

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

sa266 — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:35:53 +0000

by sa266

We liked the drafting method, and played it a lot when The Gathering Storm first came out but don't any more. Why? Because it takes so much longer! For us Race is usually an end/start-of-evening filler, and we want a quick ten-minuter - once you add drafting you're looking at 20 minutes easily - and we usually played two games with each draft, so that made 30 minutes total. Just too long for what Race is!

It does however make the tiles much better - we no longer play with them UNLESS we're drafting. If you're drafting it gives you more control on how many of them you're going for, and what strategies you want to pursue to get them. Otherwise whether you get them or not always felt a bit too luck-dependent.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

Styfen — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:20:12 +0000

by Styfen

AstroLad wrote:
Yes, great article. This sentence concerns me a tad, though (never having played with this method). With reference to Galactic Imperium, "This card has pretty much won every single draft game we’ve played so far." Dampens my enthusiasm for the method a bit. Any further thoughts on balance issues?

I'd already corrected that in the article by the time you posted to say "every game it was played in so far". But to address it balance-wise is simple, with two players you should be more than able to know what your opponent is drafting, you see 2 out of 3 cards they draft from their hand and 2 out of 2 from yours and with three you'll know what's being taken by the other players if not exactly who has what. So you just need to keep an eye out on the number of rebel worlds their taking and ensure you grab the odd one yourself. Same with Alien worlds, keep an eye on the amount you're taking and try not to let too many end up in the hands of a single player.

Additionally, while the Galactic Imperium/Rebel world drive has won a lot, it hasn't been winning by a large points gap. So it's possible with time and experience strategies will tighten up to challenge it.

Fortunately for "counter drafting" you can also avoid Rebel worlds being dead draws in any deck by drafting a Contact Specialist and even the big ones are very playable (at a cost of tempo) when the specialist is used in combination with a colony ship or the Doomed World.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Reviews:: Re: Drafting: Is this the way you SHOULD be playing Race for the Galaxy?

AstroLad — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:02:48 +0000

by AstroLad

Yes, great article. This sentence concerns me a tad, though (never having played with this method). With reference to Galactic Imperium, "This card has pretty much won every single draft game we’ve played so far." Dampens my enthusiasm for the method a bit. Any further thoughts on balance issues?

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Sessions:: Re: Alpha Centauri vs Old Earth vs Epsilon Eridani: A Very Close Game

Elgar — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:44:41 +0000

by Elgar

I was surprised you played trade league as early as you did. It handcuffed you into trading theat next turn. I would have played replicant robots at that point, knowing that the discount will get me more cards in the long run.

Reply: Race for the Galaxy: The Gathering Storm:: Rules:: Re: Alien Toy world Question?

colmenarez — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:25:25 +0000

by colmenarez

Artist Colony (or similar cheap prod world) + Alien Toy Shop + Galactic Trendsetters = Unstoppable March to Victory by Consumption.

Alien toy shop really is overpowered, it should consume for just 1 VP not 2 VP, because of the simple fact that it can haul 4 VPs by it's lonesome and you don't need any other cards to make it work by itself.

BTW I finally had Research Labs, Galactic Trendsetters and Artist Colony in my tableau once... finally a reason to put Galactic Renaissance on my board other than for VP multiplying... Alas my opponent already had it... 9 VPs missed...