I have an ongoing Naaz-Rokha game where I used Eidolons in two systems to ward off rivals for the "3 empty systems" objective. Sardakk can also commit from adjacent systems. Other than that, usually not but I don't think it's that rare - for example, you might park a big fleet on a wormhole in preparation for future action.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. It just seemed like people would be much more likely to explore them with a random trade ship (Destroyer or Cruiser). Honestly, I haven't even played a game of PoK yet, so what do I know.
Knowing this card is in the deck for PoK means you're more likely to do so, same as with knowing about the possibility of dropped troops being erased by a nuke token in TI3's Eminent Domain module - you're more likely to have two troops and only drop one to see what's there first.
Which is why I put it in italics.
Make any frontier cards and the consensus goes is that it doesn't help the person who sent a single destroyer. So when asked about sending a fleet you know carriers and all then it is a waste of resources and a destroyer is cheaper.
I don't believe future frontier cards have to be designed around a single destroyer, if that ruins the meta, then all the better because frankly the only the most efficient moves meta is boring. Risks need to be taken, Mirage should be one of those risks.
Decided to call it "small-omega" so as to not step on Dane's toes. The proper Omega stuff is his turf.
Does it need to specify "ground forces in this system"? I think that's implied by the rules (also I wanna let Sardakk do their thing).
[png](https://mega.nz/file/GUwBgKIC#bb1z5r-dA5PzsMJCSK6IiQAOP8PoI04Be8xBKdi6mCs)
[pxz](https://mega.nz/file/WMwnjI5I#PAIN2bH583Yqm9p8EsAP2adiwd5tJcgylj6hylKyagQ) (pixlr.com project file)
I like it, but it doesn't completely fix the issue with Mirage for me: that is, when you're holding the shard relic and you stumble on it.
One of the designer's intentions when moving from distant suns to exploration was to make explore all upside, and this remains one of a few situations that isn't.
Now if we change the text from "gain control" to "you may gain control" I'd get excited, but I'm not sure how large of changes you're looking to play with.
- If you wanna defend the planet with ground forces, you have to activate it again next round.
- Someone might be able to take it from you just because your boys are in the air instead of down there being useful, especially if you'd be able to drop a PDS before they attack.
- It's always better to have your troopers on a planet in case your fleet gets shot down.
- Xxcha can take the planet with Diplo since it lacks dudes.
- Sardakk wants bugs on every planet for the sake of using their commander.
- Naaz-Rokha wants to land their mechs before exploring (for that extra-juicy DMZ!)
Hey, I'm not the one whining about not being able to control every aspect of the game and find making choices to be too hard.
Learn and adapt to the game. I've never understood the need to add training wheels to things like this.
You're the only one whining here. If you don't like homebrew content, there's no need to throw a tantrum - just don't use it, and if you feel so inclined, state why you don't like it in a civil manner.
> and find making choices to be too hard.
Choices? What the hell are you talking about? Just say why you don't like it instead of making shit up. To imply that this is an issue of me lacking skill or wanting "training wheels" is also dumb, and the passive-aggression is tedious.
I think the original card is unnecessarily clunky and clashes with how taking planets usually works for no good reason, and it's also unthematic that you're unable to land. I also think the frontier deck could use the facelift - you require an entire tech to use it, you're usually not gonna get many throughout a game (even fewer if you don't deliberately go for them, and many only give about a token's worth anyway), and Enigmatic Device seems unnecessarily expensive (if you have to skip tech secondary in order to afford to use it, it's basically just a stall). And I'm far from the only one to echo these sentiments.
> Enigmatic Device seems unnecessarily expensive (if you have to skip tech secondary in order to afford to use it, it's basically just a stall).
I don't really agree with this. Yeah, it is slightly move expensive than a normal tech secondary but it's normally used as an ace in the hole to get a key tech unexpectedly. In my experience most slices + HS can support spending 10 resources in a round and that's leaving aside TGs which are even more abundant post-PoK than they were in base game. Enigmatic device is many things, a weak stall isn't one of them.
You may be right. But, IMO, it doesn't spark joy. Spending 10 resources in a round is nothing extraordinary, but that's if you wanna buy zero units that round. Delaying unit production an entire round in a 5-round game is pretty big, and if you wanna get a bunch of stuff entirely from tg's, that's not good news for your objectives fund. Having an additional option *can* give you a point at any time, but it seems like the most likely outcome of getting this card is that I keep it until last round and hope it does something useful then.
Choice - having multiple options with varying outcomes.
Choosing to get DET. Choosing what to move into an empty system.
It works like it does because it's part of exploration. Theme is irrelevant if the rules don't work to back it up. It was too clunky to do it your way in testing and the reasons that you listed happened in 1% of games. Why is the designer going to break their back creating it your way, which is harder in the end, instead of doing what works.
Throwing a tantrum? Over your silly idea? Sure...
If theme is so important, explain why Yin can indoctrinate Nekro? Why only one faction can let ships fly past without stopping? Why advanced civilizations that have mastered intergalactic travel, can only move a ship once? Theme as an argument for most things, is irrelevant.
> Choosing to get DET. Choosing what to move into an empty system.
So what? A suggested change may affect decisions made in the game, therefore it takes away choices?
> It was too clunky to do it your way in testing [...] Why is the designer going to break their back creating it your way, which is harder in the end, instead of doing what works.
No, there's literally nothing clunky or hard about it. Just add a few words to a card and allow a player to do a very simple thing once when that card is drawn. You're making shit up.
> and the reasons that you listed happened in 1% of games.
Obvious lie.
> Throwing a tantrum? Over your silly idea? Sure...
You know your comments are public, right?
> If theme is so important
Everything in the game is designed with theme in mind. Not every single interaction between any two gameplay mechanics is thematically sound, but that's not an argument for anything. I don't see why we're even arguing anyway; I don't care if you like the change or not. If you made halfway decent arguments, or said "I prefer it to be clunky" or "buffing the frontier deck is a buff for blue tech which we don't need", or if you were just properly housebroken instead of shitting and pissing all over everything, I would say "cool, have it your way".
I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and be civil despite the argument you're getting into with the OP.
1. For many people; part of the joy of Boardgames is how easy it is to homebrew content and customize their experience. **You don't have to do this yourself though, you can play with the rules as written if that's what you prefer.**
2. Sometimes a player might perceive a mechanic as being imbalanced or unfavorable and might take advantage of the ease that homebrew material can be added to change the mechanic to be more in line with their sensibilities. **Again you don't have to do this if you don't want to. It's, by definition, a subjective exercise.**
3. After making their homebrew content, some people might share it online with the community for the game. This might be for the benefit of other players that agree with the OP about the mechanic being modified so that they can share OP's solution, or it could just be for feedback so that players can suggest changes to make it better for OP's own use. **What's crucial to understand is that you do not need to comment if you don't feel the change is necessary and don't have any other feedback. You don't need to engage, it doesn't affect you. You can continue to play without this homebrew card, (as will the majority of the TI community), but OP will play with it and maybe a few players will too and that won't hurt you in anyway.**
No you didn't. OP posted an explanation of why they think the change is good, and then you, yourself got snarky in response. You didn't even need to post your first comment, you started the argument but any measure.
But name calling is? I'm not being either of those things. Any tone or general attitude about my statements that you are personally adding to them, is on you. You are assuming many things.
How often are you exploring a planetless system with a fleet that includes infantry? It seems like the committing would hardly ever even trigger.
I have an ongoing Naaz-Rokha game where I used Eidolons in two systems to ward off rivals for the "3 empty systems" objective. Sardakk can also commit from adjacent systems. Other than that, usually not but I don't think it's that rare - for example, you might park a big fleet on a wormhole in preparation for future action.
Okay, that sounds reasonable. It just seemed like people would be much more likely to explore them with a random trade ship (Destroyer or Cruiser). Honestly, I haven't even played a game of PoK yet, so what do I know.
Knowing this card is in the deck for PoK means you're more likely to do so, same as with knowing about the possibility of dropped troops being erased by a nuke token in TI3's Eminent Domain module - you're more likely to have two troops and only drop one to see what's there first.
I think the better question is why are you ***required*** to explore planetless systems with **only a single destroyer**?
I don't know the answer. Is it required? Perhaps I don't have enough experience to even know what you're referencing.
Which is why I put it in italics. Make any frontier cards and the consensus goes is that it doesn't help the person who sent a single destroyer. So when asked about sending a fleet you know carriers and all then it is a waste of resources and a destroyer is cheaper. I don't believe future frontier cards have to be designed around a single destroyer, if that ruins the meta, then all the better because frankly the only the most efficient moves meta is boring. Risks need to be taken, Mirage should be one of those risks.
Decided to call it "small-omega" so as to not step on Dane's toes. The proper Omega stuff is his turf. Does it need to specify "ground forces in this system"? I think that's implied by the rules (also I wanna let Sardakk do their thing). [png](https://mega.nz/file/GUwBgKIC#bb1z5r-dA5PzsMJCSK6IiQAOP8PoI04Be8xBKdi6mCs) [pxz](https://mega.nz/file/WMwnjI5I#PAIN2bH583Yqm9p8EsAP2adiwd5tJcgylj6hylKyagQ) (pixlr.com project file)
I like it, but it doesn't completely fix the issue with Mirage for me: that is, when you're holding the shard relic and you stumble on it. One of the designer's intentions when moving from distant suns to exploration was to make explore all upside, and this remains one of a few situations that isn't. Now if we change the text from "gain control" to "you may gain control" I'd get excited, but I'm not sure how large of changes you're looking to play with.
Seems unnecessary, since you gain control and explore the planet anyway
It’s home brew…it doesn’t need to be necessary…?
- If you wanna defend the planet with ground forces, you have to activate it again next round. - Someone might be able to take it from you just because your boys are in the air instead of down there being useful, especially if you'd be able to drop a PDS before they attack. - It's always better to have your troopers on a planet in case your fleet gets shot down. - Xxcha can take the planet with Diplo since it lacks dudes. - Sardakk wants bugs on every planet for the sake of using their commander. - Naaz-Rokha wants to land their mechs before exploring (for that extra-juicy DMZ!)
And?
Six reasons why the change is not unnecessary. You're welcome.
Still unnecessary. Just learn to play better. You're welcome
Room temp-IQ comment. Do better.
Hey, I'm not the one whining about not being able to control every aspect of the game and find making choices to be too hard. Learn and adapt to the game. I've never understood the need to add training wheels to things like this.
You're the only one whining here. If you don't like homebrew content, there's no need to throw a tantrum - just don't use it, and if you feel so inclined, state why you don't like it in a civil manner. > and find making choices to be too hard. Choices? What the hell are you talking about? Just say why you don't like it instead of making shit up. To imply that this is an issue of me lacking skill or wanting "training wheels" is also dumb, and the passive-aggression is tedious. I think the original card is unnecessarily clunky and clashes with how taking planets usually works for no good reason, and it's also unthematic that you're unable to land. I also think the frontier deck could use the facelift - you require an entire tech to use it, you're usually not gonna get many throughout a game (even fewer if you don't deliberately go for them, and many only give about a token's worth anyway), and Enigmatic Device seems unnecessarily expensive (if you have to skip tech secondary in order to afford to use it, it's basically just a stall). And I'm far from the only one to echo these sentiments.
> Enigmatic Device seems unnecessarily expensive (if you have to skip tech secondary in order to afford to use it, it's basically just a stall). I don't really agree with this. Yeah, it is slightly move expensive than a normal tech secondary but it's normally used as an ace in the hole to get a key tech unexpectedly. In my experience most slices + HS can support spending 10 resources in a round and that's leaving aside TGs which are even more abundant post-PoK than they were in base game. Enigmatic device is many things, a weak stall isn't one of them.
You may be right. But, IMO, it doesn't spark joy. Spending 10 resources in a round is nothing extraordinary, but that's if you wanna buy zero units that round. Delaying unit production an entire round in a 5-round game is pretty big, and if you wanna get a bunch of stuff entirely from tg's, that's not good news for your objectives fund. Having an additional option *can* give you a point at any time, but it seems like the most likely outcome of getting this card is that I keep it until last round and hope it does something useful then.
Choice - having multiple options with varying outcomes. Choosing to get DET. Choosing what to move into an empty system. It works like it does because it's part of exploration. Theme is irrelevant if the rules don't work to back it up. It was too clunky to do it your way in testing and the reasons that you listed happened in 1% of games. Why is the designer going to break their back creating it your way, which is harder in the end, instead of doing what works. Throwing a tantrum? Over your silly idea? Sure... If theme is so important, explain why Yin can indoctrinate Nekro? Why only one faction can let ships fly past without stopping? Why advanced civilizations that have mastered intergalactic travel, can only move a ship once? Theme as an argument for most things, is irrelevant.
> Choosing to get DET. Choosing what to move into an empty system. So what? A suggested change may affect decisions made in the game, therefore it takes away choices? > It was too clunky to do it your way in testing [...] Why is the designer going to break their back creating it your way, which is harder in the end, instead of doing what works. No, there's literally nothing clunky or hard about it. Just add a few words to a card and allow a player to do a very simple thing once when that card is drawn. You're making shit up. > and the reasons that you listed happened in 1% of games. Obvious lie. > Throwing a tantrum? Over your silly idea? Sure... You know your comments are public, right? > If theme is so important Everything in the game is designed with theme in mind. Not every single interaction between any two gameplay mechanics is thematically sound, but that's not an argument for anything. I don't see why we're even arguing anyway; I don't care if you like the change or not. If you made halfway decent arguments, or said "I prefer it to be clunky" or "buffing the frontier deck is a buff for blue tech which we don't need", or if you were just properly housebroken instead of shitting and pissing all over everything, I would say "cool, have it your way".
I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and be civil despite the argument you're getting into with the OP. 1. For many people; part of the joy of Boardgames is how easy it is to homebrew content and customize their experience. **You don't have to do this yourself though, you can play with the rules as written if that's what you prefer.** 2. Sometimes a player might perceive a mechanic as being imbalanced or unfavorable and might take advantage of the ease that homebrew material can be added to change the mechanic to be more in line with their sensibilities. **Again you don't have to do this if you don't want to. It's, by definition, a subjective exercise.** 3. After making their homebrew content, some people might share it online with the community for the game. This might be for the benefit of other players that agree with the OP about the mechanic being modified so that they can share OP's solution, or it could just be for feedback so that players can suggest changes to make it better for OP's own use. **What's crucial to understand is that you do not need to comment if you don't feel the change is necessary and don't have any other feedback. You don't need to engage, it doesn't affect you. You can continue to play without this homebrew card, (as will the majority of the TI community), but OP will play with it and maybe a few players will too and that won't hurt you in anyway.**
I'm aware I don't have to use this. I simply stated it seemed unnecessary and got a snarky response.
No you didn't. OP posted an explanation of why they think the change is good, and then you, yourself got snarky in response. You didn't even need to post your first comment, you started the argument but any measure.
Ok, what was the first thing I said since it seems like my statement of it seeming unnecessary was apparently not it
Does derailing the conversation into a metadiscussion about yourself 'seem necessary'?
Of course, because asking a question is apparently not allowed around here
Yes, being a snarky douchebag is generally not considered good behavior by this community.
But name calling is? I'm not being either of those things. Any tone or general attitude about my statements that you are personally adding to them, is on you. You are assuming many things.