Anonymous user
Talk:Homejinks: Difference between revisions
Add topic
m
→Rule Clarifications, Please
imported>Cuc |
imported>Cuc |
||
Line 7:
['''EDIT.''' I noticed some terms are clarified at the END of the article under Terms. Great! As a result, there are only few questions left. See Setup point 2., Overpopulation, variant without dice.]
* Materials. Of course you could use ANY color of pyramids for the Bank. You could even use different colors, but treat them all the same.
* Setup. OK, so star systems are marked by the presence of one or more ships (from either player) and no other markers. '''Suggestion.''' If desired, a location can be marked with a poker chip or a playing card facing down.▼
▲* Setup. OK, so star systems are marked by the presence of one or more ships (from either player) and no other markers. '''Suggestion.''' If desired, a location can be marked with a poker chip or a playing card facing down. '''Note.''' I use poker chips with letters. This enables notation of the game state.
* Therefore, Setup point 2. is confusing by mentioning the "homeship". Why is this concept introduced? I don't think that the ship is special in any way, because there is no "homeworld" to defend. It's only about ships. A game state consists of a collection of star systems that contain ships.
* Overpopulation. OK, so Terms
* Catastrophe. Perhaps the rule can be adjusted slightly. By now, considering the appearance of Pyramid Quartet Homeworlds and its adjusted rules, it feels more natural to have the freedom to call Catastrophe at ''any time'' during your turn.
* Red Recapture. Because of the dice, recapture most likely will not result in draw, even in a 2-player game, because other options may become available, such as construct, move or trade. (But if desired, no-recapture can be introduced.) Because of the randomizer dice, I don't think the game is draw-prone. '''Note.''' For a recapture you can require a sacrifice as I propose for regular Homeworlds as well.
* I'd propose the term "Upgrade" for the Blue action. And in conformity with current rules: Build for Green, and Conquer for Red.
Line 22 ⟶ 24:
* I'm curious. Was this game playtested? I'll give it a try and get back with findings. I see it is in development phase (label), but on the other hand it's complete (version V1.0) . . . It seems that with 3 trios, only 9 ships in the game, isn't the game rather trivial despite the different actions? In any case, I don't think the game can be very complex and after a few games, it's clear how to get ahead and win. If that is true, what would be the optimal supply instead? With too many ships, perhaps the game won't ever end? I really don't know yet. Can anybody share their experience with this game? That would be appreciated. I will be back on this subject myself.
** The Bank seems about right for 2 persons. All playtested games were with 3 trios (see below). The games were
[[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 17:34, 1 November 2020 (PST). Revised [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 23:02, 1 November 2020 (PST). 2nd Revision [[User:Cuc|Cuc]] ([[User talk:Cuc|talk]]) 03:24, 3 November 2020 (PST)
| |||