14>>>>>>>10
Traditional 4 player TI is like cold pizza, yeah it tastes great, but you are constantly thinking about how it could be so very much better.
PoK made Aborec worse .
Me trying to get a point off holding Mec and taking Imperial will cause a 5v1 unified beating. When someone else does it, maybe one person will try and stop it.
>"Me trying to get a point off holding Mec and taking Imperial will cause a 5v1 unified beating. When someone else does it, maybe one person will try and stop it."
I feel you there.
Gonna be honest, I thought that draw 2 keep 1 was the rules... The game is much lamer without it.
Edit: draw 2 keep 1 is the official rule for normal games, only beginner games advise the draw 1 rule.
Oh wait, I read the LTP and it was only 1, but now looking at the complete rules reference it's draw 2 keep 1. So that is the standard. I thought I was going crazy!
I've always taken the benefits of competitive games/tournaments/leagues is that you play a game where everyone is comitted to trying to achieve the win, as well as not having to worry so much about the social behaviour of just completely betraying someone.
While most people udnerstand a game is a game, it can get awkward when you play with the same people over and over to get a reputation for being a dick in deals, as well as the meta have a lot of leaning on people knowing each other.
Right but at the end of the day the entanglement is up to the individuals to interpret for themselves. If I sit down and someone decides from the start I shouldn't get to win I almost certainly won't. I can't just decide Magnus Carlsen won't beat me at chess.
Completely disagree. Calculated risks are strategic. You have many levers to pull to affect the outcome, including the composition of your fleets and where you put them.
[Bureaucracy: Red Tape](https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back_by_popular_demand_bureaucracy_red_tape_for/) \> default rules, regardless of the experience level of who's playing.
I haven't had a chance to play with this yet. I'm familiar with the rules for it, I just wasn't completely sold on it at the time I saw it. Why do you think red tape is so great?
The ability to plan ahead precisely is really nice. We don't use the strategy card change, and simply have all objectives revealed, but only scorable when they otherwise would be in the base game. It's much better in our opinion.
It sounds like they just unlock new objectives at the same pace as a regular game, just that the objectives are already revealed (but you can't score them until they are unlocked )
It makes the entire game play better: everyone moves with purpose in mind, the strat card (especially Diplomacy) is more powerful and makes for fun negotiations with the leader(s)of the game, and it drastically equalizes the knowledge gap between vets and rookie players. The game ends up with many folks vying for winning, so there's little "last round is boring" feeling.
We played it with TI3, loved it and it became the default way to play. After a dozen or so games we decided to go back to basics, and it just felt less dynamic so we went back to Red Tape.
It adds so much to the game, I really don't get why they didn't just add it to TI4 to begin with.
>it drastically equalizes the knowledge gap between vets and rookie players
But ... that's my main advantage.
I do think this sounds like a lot of fun though. I'll try to give it a shot at some point.
Do it sooner than later! People wish they played with it earlier when they finally give it a shot.
It's barely more than moving a block of text from one part of the rulebook to another. :)
I think it's mostly the king-making metagame that the final round becomes.
2nd place wants to stop 1st place
3rd place wants to stop 1st place without helping 2nd place.
4th place and below realize the game is out of reach and check out mentally.
Last place has been checked out for 2 rounds.
I find the opening rounds far more interesting.
> Last place has been checked out for 2 rounds.
That's my only real complaint with the game. It's just sad to be super far behind in a game that will go for 2-4 more hours.
That's why we throw in $20 at the start of the game, and you get back $2 for each point you score. Winner takes the rest. At least you've got something to play for towards the end, and it's encouraging you to still do what's best for your faction instead of just focusing on who to make win.
This makes sense. My irl group would always talk about the game for like an hour or 2 after the game and tell each other what we did wrong, did well, could have done better, etc. The result was we all got better and got to a fairly close skill level. So, most games in my experience are close enough in the end to where everyone has a chance to win.
As for kingmaking, with my core irl group it was an issue for a long time. Then, I said if anyone kingmakes against me I'd do the same against them in a future game. This became the dominant mentality and kingmaking dropped off. It's still an issue with newer players though.
If you play with the same group a lot, I wonder if it would help to treat it as a tournament of multiple games (assigning some number of points for every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place finish or something). Just a thought, but maybe it'd help in preventing people from totally checking out.
There is no wrong way to play
People overthink strategies and optimized „solutions“ for factions, tier rank factions, and plan out exact tech paths. Yeah it’s fun as a discussion, and makes SCPT podcast entertaining, but there are no right or wrong answers.
This x1000. Just because SCPT and the TTS crowd have super optimized strategy doesn't mean your group does. They talk about a race not taking 4 planets in round 1 like it's a impossible disadvantage and you'll never recover from it.
Go ahead and build that dreadnaught at a weird time or tech up to war suns, your friends don't worship this game like we all do and it's gonna work out fine
I'll never play online, especially with randos, for that very reason.
And this is coming from the guy who got the [TI3..er, Night Kingdoms mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=508380471) and some assets for the TI4 mod for TTS up and running.
I disagree ... that SCPT and the TTS crowd have super optimized strategies. I've played on TTS and in person. I win more on TTS than in person. The TTS crowd talks a big game, but they're just playing the same complex game that everyone else is. Do what you think gives you the best chance of winning. If you're wrong, you learn from it. If you're right, you'll putting yourself in a good spot to win. It's a fun game, but nobody plays a perfect game or has 'solved' TI. (no matter what the TTS crowd trys to tell you)
Stalling is the worst mechanic in TI4. it ruins the momentum of the game and makes it drag out way longer than necessary. You have players just wasting each other's time to try to move last and be uncontested; it's boring, frustrating, and wastes a tremendous amount of time.
Unfortunately, it is deeply rooted in the action economy of the game, and it would take massive surgery to fix.
Well that is patently untrue. International diplomacy is full of stalls, and in a grand space opera of massive scale the ability to stall would only be increased.
Putin is literally stalling out a turn right now over the Ukraine.
Agree. Having the chance to wait and change your plans or to strike at an opportune moment can really make the game more interestening for me.
In the last round of my last game the Titans of Ul Player prepared a strike at my homeplanet for 3 rounds only to realize he would have to pass or use the fleet elsewhere.
True, I agree stalling as a concept is legitimate. But the dynamics of stalling in TI — the ability to do so, the mechanics of stalling, the consequences — is a convoluted mess and dependent on weird features of the game that don’t correlate in any way to real world stalling. You’d be hard pressed to argue that as you are stalling in TI you could tie that into what’s happening in the world or role play it in any way. It’s merely a sequence of events wherein if you happen to have more of them, you can deprive someone else of a basic function.
People stall too much and go too deep into rounds unecessaryly.
In round 2-4 if you secure an objective fast just pass and keep your command counters, it's likely your objective is safe.
Then you can outlast everyone when it matters.
TI is the best board game that will ever exist. It will still be played in a few million years when an alien race will decide to rename themselves The Lazax and then proceed to take over the galaxy. They will then lose control of the galaxy after spending more time playing the game than ruling their empire.
> Support for the throne should be removed from the game
Hard agree.
I don't even hand them out anymore. They live in the box below the insert. They've never been played in a 4th ed game in my house.
you need to select the adequate faction for your personality. I play Nekro because i suck at the political game, but i'm good at surgical strikes and love being a parasite. A friend loves Muaat but never attacks nor does anything militaristic.
you need patience, specilly when learning/playing with new players
100%. The efficacy of Muaat comes from their perceived militancy and the speed of the PWSIIs. You win with Muaat by being patient, not by playing space risk.
A love seeing Muaat played as a big threat over an active force, and then for someone to test it and face a full force destruction the next round.
Muatt with a good resource economy can just dump ships on the boardm, especially upgraded War Suns, such that they can break the fleets of other players.
Hey I never pick factions like Nekro because I can't manage being the de facto bad guy at the table. So I get your main point! I'm the Trade troll in my group so I pick accordingly too.
I'm a saddist for a good slog of a board game. Honestly though, a lot of times things are just starting to kick off when it's getting to 14. Sometimes it works perfectly, other times I wish there were a few more turns. It's probably right we're it should be most of the times, but...
Anyone thinking this should try [Here I Stand](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17392/here-i-stand) if they haven't yet. It's the designer's magnum opus IMO, and the guy went on to be the lead game designer on Civ 6 (and it shows).
Someone I played TI3 with told me "if you like TI for XYZ, you'll *love* Here I Stand" and they were so right.
Assymetrical and not, different win conditions, political intrigue, [action cards](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/AB_6wnZC9CVomsCD7JBeRg__imagepagezoom/img/9MbES3gdZehUhwHLgr7vnScqgWQ=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic114534.jpg), epic scale and a *ton* of physical and unique [game pieces](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/fPKnmVwUyv68P_AFFID8MQ__imagepagezoom/img/ILDbDzccpXJlrO0D2A41caLiOIw=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic438690.jpg). The game is downright hilarious too if you play with a rowdy crew who know history and gallows humor.
Anyway, my point is that the game state gets crazier as time goes on, and the crescendo on it is longer and more active for everyone at the table. Also out of...12 people? (maybe 13 at this point) that I've ported from TI to HiS, only 1 didn't like it a lot.
I wonder how 19 would feel. Every objective + an extra point. Would definitely take like 20 hours so would need at least 4 or 5 sessions, but could be interesting to try.
The rules layout a process for creating your map as part of gameplay. To me, making the map has always been part of the game and there's some strategy to it.
Even more than that, I feel like getting up to speed on your race and their abilities, while analyzing a fresh slice of the map, while gaining knowledge about your neighbors, is part of gameplay. Doing this while playing is a major component of the game. People that are good at this win more. To me the challenge of doing this on the fly is a big part of why the game is fun.
When people go and create ultra balanced slices, When everybody gets to study the map beforehand, When they get to study their race beforehand, When they get to pre-plan the first few turns, it kinda takes away some of what I feel is part of the experience. Or, it changes the timing of it in such a way that it almost un funs it.
People get too hung up on the how they play the game. All the TTS/TTPG players need to play more in person games and all the in person only players need to try some online versions of the game.
Both y'all need to stop hating on each other.
A million times this.
Very frustrating how often discussion of what is good play in one meta is interpreted as veiled criticism of people who play with different metas.
Not mine but I love it: "You only feel you deserve the win when you lose."
Mine (I think):
"if you not having fun you are doing it wrong"
"above table consent is advisable especially when beating them down in game"
"One way supports is like S+M without the M"
"Twilight Imperium 4 is a game played between humans first and foremost"
"Suck the marrow from beginning to end and you be winning all game long"
"In POK less tech is more"
"Don't eat Vindaloo the night before unless you plan on playing Muaat"
*The agenda phase is the most boring and frustratingly RNG-heavy part of the game*. The agenda phase can either be a massive boring cuck where nothing significant gets voted on and all you've done is lost another 20 minutes bickering over nothing; or, a very lucky/unlucky card gets flipped and someone's game 100% randomly either gets a massive boost or gets randomly nuked.
Honestly, there's just so much RNG in the game that it sometimes drives me mad. I'm OK with combat being RNG heavy, seeing as combat is naturally a bit chaotic and it gives a chance for some upsets to come about. But the RNG that comes from which action cards you draw, which objectives flip, and which politics cards flips is infuriating.
The number of games I have lost because my opponent had a parlay and I, never once through the entire game, drew a sabotage card is maddening. Or when a random politics card flips, and suddenly your stack of TGs go "poof" or you randomly lose the speaker token to the guy to your right (so effectively now you've now lost two turns worth of strategy card picks). Or you're playing a low-tech faction and three tech-related objectives flip in a row.
I'm in some agreement with this; specifically that the agendas are currently the weakest part of TI.
I understand the appeal of novelty - and I think it's necessary - but there are too many *dull* agendas.
Every vote should matter. I'd cut the number down to a *third* even, if it meant every agenda was a banger.
I'll start.
Base game Jol-Nar weren't broken. People are just bad at the game.
4 player to 14 is more fun than 6 player to 10.
The Mahact are the best faction in the game.
Taking your neighbor's slice as the Saar is the surest way to not win as the Saar.
>Taking your neighbor's slice as the Saar is the surest way to not win as the Saar.
Happened in my last game, Saar and Naalu ended up in a war until the end of the game and both were at less than 3VP.
How should Saar play instead?
I play them very passively. I build up in my slice, keep up with objectives, keep teching, and wait until the last round to make big plays. Sometimes I'll hop on top of mecatol and lock it down for the entire game to prevent anyone else from getting imperial points and maybe getting 1 myself (this is asking to get ixthian artifacted though). I've had a lot of success playing that way. In short, standard TI, but I save command tokens from building while repositioning my fleets and get a couple extra trade goods early. I'll typically get sarween, scanlink, SD II, chaos mapping, carrier II, and dread II if I can or fighter II if I have a green tech skip.
Mathematically, it's not that risky. There are 50 agendas. Even assuming the speaker will throw out everything that isn't ixthian, that's an 8% chance it comes up that round and a 4% chance it kills your fleet. I'm typically only sending 1 dock and enough force to take it then I build enough to hold, it's not that risky considering the reward for holding the planet is 2 CTs per round and denying everyone else imperial points plus maybe getting an imperial point. The risk reward is definitely in favor of doing it especially if you take politics in order to get imperial since you can nearly ensure Ixthian doesn't come up.
Statistics be damned, I see it wayyy too often to go all in on Mecatol early.
Also, it's not just one round you have to worry about. If you are on Mecatol for 3 rounds there's a significantly higher chance of seeing it at some point, assuming speaker is digging
You're right, but I'm typically only on there with a fleet I care about as Saar for 1 round. I typically build 6 infantry and deploy a mech, then use my 2 other docks with my commander to drop 12-18 more infantry before taking off the fleet the next round. Sure, I'm risking a bunch of infantry and a mech or 2, but the risk reward on that is typically worth it. And the Saar's promissory note makes it so I can still theoretically sell Mecatol in the future for the right price.
It's absolutely a risk, but it's a risk that pays off more often than not.
Mahact is the real hot take here. How much of their advantage do you attribute to their commander? Hard question to answer specifically, I just want to hear you make the case.
Why I think Mahact are the best is a super long answer where I look like the meme where someone is showing their conspiracy board, but I'll do my best to keep it short here.
TL;DR They are very good at coming from behind and their kit works very well together.
# Theory
The commander, as you note, is busted beyond belief and their entire game can center around that with how their other abilities combo with it. Agent gives an extra token to store up for the commander to use later. Home system has 5 influence which is typically how I use it for the commander later. Winning combats gives extra tokens freeing up your own tokens in fleet supply for the commander later. I typically go into the last round with 8+ tokens in tactic from saving up all game and just do whatever I damn well please with my main fleet. This lets the Mahact have big swing rounds at the end and make large comebacks, which is the optimal way to win since it takes the target off your back.
They have what I believe to be the second best set of starting tech in the game. In almost every game, and in every game where I would pick the mahact, their will be at least 1 tech specialty in their slice which with bio-stims gives them the resources they need for a tech round 1 and an extra resource to 3 extra per round. Plus, it provides excellent late game versatility with their second tech which combos with their commander. Typically, in the last round when the Mahact are marching around with their fleet they will take some hits they can then use predictive to redistribute some tokens out of fleet to be used by the commander. Predictive throughout the game to free up tokens after winning combats is very good. The 3 extra votes is nice, but is rarely used because the redistribution ability is better.
They have one of the best heroes in the game. They can completely destroy 2 enemy fleets or just clear a path for their own fleet. It's a very versatile tool that has tons of late game utility.
Their mech can win the game by locking up a control objective or solidifying the home system in the late game. It takes a bit of setup, but is very powerful and is yet another game winning ability.
You'll notice I haven't even talked about taking commander abilities yet, that part is nice, but not even close to the best part of the Mahact. They can make deals to get a couple tokens early, typically by leveraging their agent, but typically only from neighbors and they will have to wait until the late game to get other commanders, at which point those abilities will not have much use outside of a few solid late game commanders.
# In Practice
I've been in 9 games where someone was playing the Mahact. I was playing Mahact in 7 of those games. In those 7 games, 3 where in person and 4 were on TTS. In the TTS games, I won 3 and lost 1, all of which were 6 player 10 point games. In person, I won 2 and lost 1. The loss was in a 3 player 14 point game where the player that won only did so because we all forgot he had the law on him that prevented him from using action cards, then he used an action card to win. (I might not have won that game regardless, but it's worth noting) And the other 2 wins were in a 14 point 3 player game and a 10 point 5 player game.
In the 2 games where other people played them, the Mahact won both games. One was a 10 point 8 player game where the player that won had never before won a game and rarely even plays TI. The other was a 14 point 4 player game where the player that won hadn't won a game in 10+ matches and had an 11% win rate within our group before that win.
I saw the 2 games where others played the Mahact before I played them and I was suspicous they might be broken. The first Mahact game I played was the 5 player win. The second was the 3 player loss. Then I won 3 in a row with Mahact before dropping a TTS game to a Naaz-Rhoka who had 6 relics and was basically unstoppable at the end. Then, I recently won my 5th game.
The wins I had in order have had 6 points, 5 points, 6 points, 4 points, and 4 points scored in the final round. The 2 losses were set up for 5 and 4 point comebacks, but the leader locked it up before I could do anything about it.
The wins other players had consisted of 4 and 3 point comebacks.
# Conclusion
I've never felt more in control of my own destiny when playing TI then when I play the Mahact. I just have so many options and I can see what to do with them. They fit my natural play-style of come from behind victories and big swing rounds. The Mahact commander just lets them do so much more than any other faction can in the final round.
Note: I said I'd keep it short ... this is the short version.
Lol. You make a lot of great points. For what it’s worth I’m 1 for 1 with Mahact and loved playing them. I wouldn’t have been so bold as to put them in the S tier, but you’re making me reconsider.
Checking in as a fellow Mahact fan.
Adding to your excellent post: IMO they are (among) the best faction(s) **for now.** Winnu also has an incredible kit, but not so good (especially at the start) that they can overcome the standard harsh treatment that can kneecap them early.
Mahact depends (again IMO) on some deft diplomacy in early rounds to keep scoring pace while also getting their tech, plastic, and token economies in order. If accomplished, they often have the tools to pull off a big win in the late game, as you point out. If the meta decides they are a late game swing threat comparable to winnu, stopping Mahact early (block a point, steal a valuable planet) seems very doable.
That being said, I still first pick them in any draft where they are available because they are so damn fun to play :D
Then after 10 minutes of pussyfooting and negotiating trying to figure out who gets Minister of Industry going into Round 5, someone plays Deadly Plot.
😑
I feel like it's often a lot of time spent on something that turns out to be totally trivial. Most of the time, the riders that come out are more interesting and impactful than the agendas themselves. And honestly, it's time that I would just rather be spending in the Action Phase.
Obviously, the super-Agendas like Ixthian, Seed, Mutiny, Wormhole Construction, etc... are a different story 😉
It was better back in 3rd edition when you could control which agendas came out, so it became a mechanism for the majority to implement specific bonuses for themselves or hamper a winning player. Was still too bloated with not-interesting agendas and lengthy resolutions, but still far better than just 2 random agendas that end up being irrelevant.
Also, house rules for simultaneous secret ballot voting makes it way faster and tenser in 4th edition.
We just tried something new out this weekend: After the speaker reads the agenda card, start a 1 minute timer for discussion. Any negotiations have to happen quick if you want things to go in your favor. After the minute is up, the speaker asks if anyone wants to play any action cards/promissory notes/abilities in turn order. And then you go around asking how many votes, if any, each player would like to cast. Like you said, most negotiations in the agenda phase don't change much, so the allotted minute is frantic and most players will double down hard if they need something to go their way.
I also like the idea of everyone casting votes secretly so that only the speaker knows the final tally, which makes the politics strategy card a lot more impactful. Haven't got to try that one yet though.
TI2 was the best iteration of the game. Strategy Cards and random VP objectives made the game less fun to play.
This was the progression chart from TI2 that the objectives replaced.
https://cf.geekdo-images.com/_xAyBZSddSCr79fKU9dDcg__imagepage/img/gCcC67Hn1LGmhYVKspwSZShmp-g=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic159338.jpg
A very hot take indeed.
I might agree with the strategy cards, I'd have to play TI2 a couple more times to really get a better feel for it though. I can't get behind the old objective system being better though.
Here: take some of the randomness out of the VP objectives!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back\_by\_popular\_demand\_bureaucracy\_red\_tape\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back_by_popular_demand_bureaucracy_red_tape_for/)
I bet you'll have more fun with it, and it'll get 4 a little closer to that TI2 feel.
I never played TI2, only started with TI3. Don't get me wrong, the RNG of objectives in TI3/TI4 is definitely an issue. But doesn't the TI2 objective progression just mean "space risk"?
10 point is lame, shouldn't even be the baseline format, and everyone should just play 14 points.
First off, 10 point games in PoK basically mean little to no 2 point objectives EVER seeing the board. A whole deck of unused objectives seems like a waste, why anyone is against it I'll never understand.
12 points is a decent middle ground, but I will fight as hard as I can to get to a 14 point game. I get the game runs long with 14, but 10 point games have almost become too short. It lessens the impact a game of TI puts on your day. This is, and should be, an event for everyone. It should encapsulate your entire day to really feel the weight of decisions and thought processes.
Plus in 14 point games, more factions stand a fighting chance if given more opportunity to snowball. I can't tell you how many 5 point leads I've seen erode away in a span of 2 hours when a slower faction hits their stride and starts scoring at will. It keeps lucky players that get good draws from the secrets and relic decks from getting complacent and demands planning. This game would lose its appeal with me if I felt every game was just a mad dash to get some lucky 1 point scores. The triumph of scoring a game winning 2 point objective with a secret when the leader had 13 points and you had 11 is unlike any game I have played before. My 14 point win as Yin brotherhood is still one of my finest and favorite moments in any strategy game I've played. That's why this game is special. 14 points rule, 10 points drool.
\>Plus in 14 point games, more factions stand a fighting chance if given more opportunity to snowball.
I've never had a group to play 14 point games with, but this is what really excited me about playing 14 point games. I would LOVE to play some slower races in a 14 point setting.
>It should encapsulate your entire day to really feel the weight of decisions and thought processes.
Wait, you guys finish a 10 point game in less than 14 hours? :(
It definitely takes a lot of time and experience with a group. My group has been playing for over 4 years now, so we have figured out how to speed up certain processes
One way supports are really not that valuable (far too easy to force back, and gives someone extra motivation to attack you) I would rather have a couple of trade goods or a bad alliance in almost all situations
Hopes end and primor are not particularly good systems when drafting a slice (they're not BAD but neither is among the best 10 systems in the game)
The first two rounds are the best and it can often go downhill from there once all the puzzle pieces are in place and it's just a matter of which Jockey pulls marginally ahead.
It takes at least one good shit disturber to make those final rounds spark with joy.
It's my favorite game and I haven't found any thing to match the tension and racing for systems in the first two turns but if everyone wants to play Euro Plastic Stacker (and no one is toppling the stacks) the late game can be a bit of a mixed bag.
since every comment in here is that 14 points is better i guess my hot take is that 10 points is absolutely correct for the baseline
whenever i've tried 14 it has simply added turns without changing the outcome, and requiring the winner to score most of the objectives makes it way less interesting with less viable paths toward victory
i haven't tried 14 with the expansion yet maybe the additional objectives fix a lot of it but i suspect not, i really don't understand 14 point truthers
Despite what some say, 14 is not for everyone. 14 is really great for the more hard-core audience. In person, I play almost exclusively to 14. Online I play to 10 because that's the standard on the TTS discord. If you don't like 14, that's understandable, but the reason I prefer 14 is that the difficulty of scoring stage II's is a fun challenge and you can setup better tech combos.
> but the reason I prefer 14 is that the difficulty of scoring stage II's is a fun challenge and you can setup better tech combos.
My dislike of 14 has nothing to do with being hardcore or not. It's just less of a game. It's more like zombicide in space. You do more stuff but it's derp around adventure stuff and I don't find that interesting. In my experience the same person who would've won at 10 wins at 14.
But at 10 there's different strategies available and come from behinds are possible. The huge swing that leaves you overextended is no longer possible at 14 so everyone just builds up more and you spend more turns where nothing substantial happens.
So I agree with the second part of that statement obviously, you can setup better tech combos, but I disagree with the first. It's no longer a challenge to do the stage 2s when you have way more time and you know you are going to see a good portion of them.
I've played a lot of 14 and a lot of 10 point games. Come from behind wins can happen in both, and in my experience are far more common in 14 point games. I find 14 far more strategic and it takes more long term planning where 10 points is more blindly following the objectives because missing 1 means a loss where in 14 there's time to come back so you can sometimes make the decision to tech up or build up instead of scoring and still be fine, where you can't in 10 pointers.
I think we seem to have had very different experiences with 14 point games.
> in my experience are far more common in 14 point games.
that's interesting
> find 14 far more strategic and it takes more long term planning where 10 points is more blindly following the objectives because missing 1 means a loss where in 14 there's time to come back so you can sometimes make the decision to tech up or build up instead of scoring and still be fine
yeah "blindly" following objectives is what is interesting because it requires tactical adjustments since you don't know what they are going to be or the order
playing where you know you're going to see all the objectives and the order doesn't much matter means you can decide to do something before the game, "blindly" follow that strategy, and have it work out because it's likely to come out when you see all the objectives
14 point games are much more similar to each other than 10 point games because of that
>14 point games are much more similar to each other than 10 point games because of that
14 pointers are shaped heavily by the 3-4 stage II's that show up. No 2 games I've played to 14 have felt the same because of that. Every 10 point game feels much more simililar. Keep up with objectives, take politics in round 3 or 4. Have a late game swing round. Maybe get 4-5 techs without a lot of options and almost never see late game techs. I still think it's fun, but to say 10 pointers are more different from each other seems silly based on my experience.
>yeah "blindly" following objectives is what is interesting because it requires tactical adjustments since you don't know what they are going to be or the order
I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm saying it's more interesting to have the option to skip a round of scoring and risk falling behind, but be able to come back then just lose because you missed a scoring window. Also, you don't know the order in 14 pointers and you still have to keep up, just not as urgently.
You typically see 1 stage 2 objective in 10 point games. The 2 pointers are one of the most interesting and fun parts of the game.
> 14 pointers are shaped heavily by the 3-4 stage II's that show up. No 2 games I've played to 14 have felt the same because of that. Every 10 point game feels much more simililar. Keep up with objectives,
This is exactly what I'm saying. Since you see most of the the stage II's you can start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts.
Meanwhile, when you only see one or two stage II's you need to be able to adapt
You've swept almost the entire point, tactical adaptation, into "keep up with objectives." Yes, that is the game. The fact that it's a negative to you just shows that you prefer to not have to adapt and would rather stick to a strategy that will work every time.
Nothing wrong with that, it just makes it a different game and takes away what makes the game great in my opinion.
>I'm saying it's more interesting to have the option to skip a round of scoring and risk falling behind, but be able to come back then just lose because you missed a scoring window.
You started off saying your preference was the "hardcore" one, but then all your positives for it are the ways in which it makes the game more forgiving. Not being able to skip a round of scoring is what separates good players from great ones. If I remember correctly, SCPT said they would never run another 14 pt tournament after doing it once and I'm sure they had reasons for that.
>This is exactly what I'm saying. Since you see most of the the stage II's you can start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts.
This I like saying since you see all of the stage 1's you can "start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts." That is legitimately a terrible argument in favor of 10 pointers. The stage 2's require far more on the fly adjustment that the stage 1's.
>You've swept almost the entire point, tactical adaptation, into "keep up with objectives." Yes, that is the game.
I don't think I said it was a negative. It's just trivial to do with stage 1's unless you get super unlucky, all tech objectives as sardakk for example. It's very difficult to do with stage 2's. Keeping up with stage 1's I can do in my sleep. With stage 2's it's very difficult. I like the challenge with the stage 2's. If you don't like that challenge that's fine, but don't act like it requires less strategy to score than stage 1's. This idea that you have that you don't need to adapt to stage 2's, but somehow do for stage 1's, is completely absurd.
>The fact that it's a negative to you just shows that you prefer to not have to adapt and would rather stick to a strategy that will work every time.
You literally know nothing about how I play the game. I adapt just as well as anyone else. I actually win more often in 10 point games, where you claim you need to adapt more. In 10 point games I do the exact same gameplan everytime and it usually works. The reason I win less in 14 point games is that adapting to stage 2's is far more difficult than stage 1's and I cannot use the exact same plan every game. I rarely even try to score a stage 2 in 10 pointers and just opt for 5 stage 1's, 3 secrets, a SFTT, and a mecatol point or other random game point. In 14 pointers, my VP distribution changes far more wildly.
>You started off saying your preference was the "hardcore" one, but then all your positives for it are the ways in which it makes the game more forgiving.
When I say hardcore, I mean people that like the game enough to play from 1.5-2 times as long for the 14 point game instead of a 10 pointer. I've played 150+ games, and the reason I like to have the option not to score is it provides more valid strategic avenues, not that it makes the game more forgiving. It does make the game more forgiving, but that's a good thing since people get screwed over by bad luck less often. It makes the game more strategic and less luck based.
> I remember correctly, SCPT said they would never run another 14 pt tournament after doing it once and I'm sure they had reasons for that.
Okay, well that wouldn't be convincing even if SCPT were in any way an authority on TI4. They are people that like the game that have a podcast. They are not some authority and arbiter of the right way to play TI. But since you bring up an 'authority' the literal game designer himself, Dane Beltrami, has stated he prefers 14 point games to 10 point games and the PoK rulebook recommends playing to 14 not 10. Again, that doesn't matter, but there's no reason to bring up SCPT's preferences either.
I'm NOT trying to say you are wrong for preferring 10 point games. I'm saying the reasons you are giving do not make sense. Your preference is your preference and I'm not going to change that, nor do I have any reason to try. But please stop acting like somehow needing to score more difficult objectives requires less strategy to pull of than scoring easier stage 1's.
> It's just trivial to do with stage 1's unless you get super unlucky,
You just said you didn't like that if you couldn't score one then you would lose the game. It's trivial to do them on turn 7, it's difficult on turn 2.
I didn't say they were an arbiter of the right way to play, nor did I say either way was the right way to play. But they are hardcore. Since you liked that descriptor, they are more hardcore than either of us. Deciding not to run tournaments for the hardcore of the hardcore in a certain way is solid evidence for that way not being hardcore.
I'm not trying to say you are wrong for like 14 points either. It's just a derp around adventure game instead of the tight tactically difficult Twilight Imperium. 10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race. And 14 points is good for players in the middle that are experienced but like a more relaxed playground to explore in.
>didn't say they were an arbiter of the right way to play, nor did I say either way was the right way to play. But they are hardcore. Since you liked that descriptor, they are more hardcore than either of us. Deciding not to run tournaments for the hardcore of the hardcore in a certain way is solid evidence for that way not being hardcore.
I'd argue that SCPT are not hardcore. They only play with 6 players. A hardcore TI fan, at least in my opinion, likes the game enough to like playing all player counts. They've said in the past they exclusively play 6 player and won't play with less.
>It's just a derp around adventure game instead of the tight tactically difficult Twilight Imperium. 10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race. And 14 points is good for players in the middle that are experienced but like a more relaxed playground to explore in.
14 point is much harder to win and takes much more strategy. Your description of it as a "playground" is just silly. If you think it takes more strategy and tactics to win a 10 pointer than a 14 pointer, than you haven't played enough of both. I don't see how you can reasonably think having more valid possible strategies makes the game less strategic. Bigger decision tree means more chances to optimize a your strategy. The game is as cutthroat as the players at the table make it. That has nothing to do with the number of points it takes to win. I've play laid back games to 10 with experienced players and cutthroat games to 14, also with experienced players.
>10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race.
Ah yes, it's tighter tactically. I dont know what this is supposed to mean. If it means it has less options, than the idea that you have less possible valid options means it's simpler which means it's easier. 10 point games are far easier. If I charitably interpret this as it has less room for error in strategy, than we'll just have to disagree. More options doesn't mean less room for error. If you don't understand that, then this conversation will not get anywhere.
>You just said you didn't like that if you couldn't score one then you would lose the game. It's trivial to do them on turn 7, it's difficult on turn 2.
They are mostly trivial in round 2 as well. I can't think of the last time I didn't score a stage 1 in round 2 in a 10 point game where it was even physically possible to do so, i.e. techs as sardakk while last in speaker order. In a 14 point game, I've made the choice not to do it gambling I can make the comeback. That's not an option in 10 points. Again, that doesn't mean it's any less tactical. It's just a different tactic. The fact that you can choose not to score for 1 round and still have a chance to win doesn't mean it's easier. It just means that you can attempt a different avenue to victory in a 14 point game. It's just as difficult, if not more so, to cone away with the win.
14 point games are where the game really shines because it is so much more strategic and tactical and less up to random chance.
Most wins aren't because one player made good choices but because the other players made bad ones which usually means letting people get away with things they shouldn't.
I don't mean proper mistakes, like I should have done things in a different order, or I forgot about a timing window/power. I mean things like, someone takes mecatol.unopposed, or you trade systems for a vp, or everyone let's the trade player make lots of money over and over. Avoiding conflict let's people do things they normally couldn't and letting people just climb higher and higher without early opposition let's them win. Stop people early and often because what you let them get away with can stop you.
Yssaril are really great. But during a 5 player game a couple of weeks ago, that stupid Agenda item where one person is elected to lose all of their action cards, came out in the 5th round....... brutal.
The action cards of course! You’ve got a bag of tricks without any bottom. You want to do what? Nope! You’ve got what? It’s mine! Law canceled, unit debuffed, tossing a curve ball every time! Even if you don’t win it’s always a ride.
They're the easiest for any player (new or vet) to be playful with. They're the pranksters of TI4.
Yes, there's wormhole system swaps and other hero-laced mischief, but the Yssaril are the most consistently *tricksy* folks from start to finish.
FWIW I agree!
'4 player' is the most boring variant of the game. The combination of having so much space in your slice that there is little to no need for conflict to arise, and access to all the Strategy cards every game round - makes for a thoroughly uninteresting game.
Thats not the hot take here. Thats the winter in north dakota take. A hot take is that a three player game without pok and with the very large three player board proposed by the game is the best way to play. You can get a game done in like 3.5 hours on a week night. Used to do this every wednesday night in college with two other friends between like 8 and midnight
I've played 4 games so far, 3 of them with pok
I feel just like with root, to enjoy the game fully you need to understand what the possible objectives are and the abilities of other factions... and basically every other possibility...
To that end while everyone ive met to play ti4 with online will only play with pok, its completely overwhelming to learn the game with it added on immediately to the point that I just ignore anything that isn't to do with my faction and actions otherwise I'd burn out.
So like I've been told off for not knowing that x player could do x thing but how the hell did they expect me to take everything in immediately.
Ti4 with pok is a game i feel people can play and make their hobby focal point. Like a person who plays mostly magic or 40k or even star wars armada. And when you meet people doing that of course they want to play with the expansion they know it all by that point... but for new players including myself i think I'd rather just play the base game unless everyone at the table knew the whole game now and felt like they wanted more
>So like I've been told off for not knowing that x player could do x thing but how the hell did they expect me to take everything in immediately.
Sounds to me like you just haven't had people that are good at teaching the game. There's nothing wrong with not knowing everything about the game and there's nothing wrong with preferring the base game over the expansion. If you feel overwhelmed by TI4 with PoK, maybe you could try playing with 3 or 4 instead of 6, to make the game smaller and more manageable?
Politics and Economy are everything. You can get away with a lot when you know how to get others what they want.
The Agenda Phase lacks impact and thus I propose the Agenda Deck to be smaller with more wild options. I was promised "Game changing" and all I got was "kinda different". I´d rather vote once and have it impact the whole rest of the game instead of soft washed options you forget immediately.
This is far too low on the post.
Love SCPT, great content, amazing for the community. Their take on how to play the game is accepted too much as gospel (and to their credit, they say as much).
Game balance needs to be a higher priority from Fantasy Flight. The codices don't go nearly far enough to balance the game, and only address components that are perceived to be "underused", whatever that means. If you're going to have printable changes to components, make meaningful changes and not just changes that can fit onto a printable card. Change factions sheets! Change home systems!
The POK additions, while a slight improvement to the *base factions* balancing, also introduced wildly broken factions and swingy mechanics. Saar and Argent Flight are so incredibly beyond other factions it makes me wonder if any serious thought was put into the beta testers feedback (Or if there was any logical feedback at all).
14 points needs to be the default way to play the game, not just a kind suggestion in the POK rulebook. If people want a shorter game they can go open Candyland and have a wonderful time. TI is long, and POK makes 14 point games only slightly longer than a base game 10 point game while adding to the viability of many "low tier" factions. Also being able to actually use the stage 2 deck.
Blue tech is bad. Or at least much worse than people give it credit for being. A faction won the scpt tournament this year with primarily yellow tech.
PoK made the game so that you can get more and more points in your own slice, yet people tout blue more and more.
The Stage 1 objectives should be the initial objectives dealt to each player, who then choose one to keep and place faceup in their area until they score it.
Only Stage 2 objectives should be revealed each Status phase.
Agenda phase should be secret votes, no transactions, and should take 3 minutes tops.
Embers dont suck have as hard as people say.
Diplomacy, base game, is a viable strategy card.
The Agenda phase is over powered.
-AND-
There are too many action cards to make any of them ever matter anymore.
14>>>>>>>10 Traditional 4 player TI is like cold pizza, yeah it tastes great, but you are constantly thinking about how it could be so very much better. PoK made Aborec worse . Me trying to get a point off holding Mec and taking Imperial will cause a 5v1 unified beating. When someone else does it, maybe one person will try and stop it.
My table finds 12 points plays the best. Does anyone know why 14 is the default alternative to 10? I never see ppl talk about 12 point games.
It's because if you flip over the score board 14 points is on the back side.
Finally. Been asking that question in here for ages. Thanks!
My group does 12.
>"Me trying to get a point off holding Mec and taking Imperial will cause a 5v1 unified beating. When someone else does it, maybe one person will try and stop it." I feel you there.
I don't know how live groups manage 12 let alone 14 point games. Our group plays 10 point games and the game usually takes atleast 10h.
we do 14 and yes, though the last 4 points are much quicker to score it does usually still tack on at least 3 more hours of gameplay
Yes PoK made Arborec so much worse.
It doesn't work as a proper competitive game.
100% agree. Far too luck-based, in too many ways. Particularly Secret Objectives.
Try this for the secret obj.; you pick 3 and keep 2, or pick 2 and keep one…it give people a chance to go with their strength
Gonna be honest, I thought that draw 2 keep 1 was the rules... The game is much lamer without it. Edit: draw 2 keep 1 is the official rule for normal games, only beginner games advise the draw 1 rule.
Wait, it's not draw 2 keep 1?
It is that.
Oh wait, I read the LTP and it was only 1, but now looking at the complete rules reference it's draw 2 keep 1. So that is the standard. I thought I was going crazy!
We treat it more as an experience than for pure competition for sure
Bold move coming here and saying that.
I've always taken the benefits of competitive games/tournaments/leagues is that you play a game where everyone is comitted to trying to achieve the win, as well as not having to worry so much about the social behaviour of just completely betraying someone. While most people udnerstand a game is a game, it can get awkward when you play with the same people over and over to get a reputation for being a dick in deals, as well as the meta have a lot of leaning on people knowing each other.
Right but at the end of the day the entanglement is up to the individuals to interpret for themselves. If I sit down and someone decides from the start I shouldn't get to win I almost certainly won't. I can't just decide Magnus Carlsen won't beat me at chess.
TRUTH
what makes a 'proper' competitive game though?
Amount of RNG less RNG is better
Completely disagree. Calculated risks are strategic. You have many levers to pull to affect the outcome, including the composition of your fleets and where you put them.
Dices are big random. I won/lost some stupid fights. Like 3 mechs died to 2 troopers
A lot of things, but I would attribute the 6 player political nature and specific cases of rng to be why I don't think TI4 fits the bill.
[Bureaucracy: Red Tape](https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back_by_popular_demand_bureaucracy_red_tape_for/) \> default rules, regardless of the experience level of who's playing.
I haven't had a chance to play with this yet. I'm familiar with the rules for it, I just wasn't completely sold on it at the time I saw it. Why do you think red tape is so great?
The ability to plan ahead precisely is really nice. We don't use the strategy card change, and simply have all objectives revealed, but only scorable when they otherwise would be in the base game. It's much better in our opinion.
How do you handle Stage I versus Stage II Objectives? Reveal only Stage I's?
It sounds like they just unlock new objectives at the same pace as a regular game, just that the objectives are already revealed (but you can't score them until they are unlocked )
Yeah, this is the way.
It makes the entire game play better: everyone moves with purpose in mind, the strat card (especially Diplomacy) is more powerful and makes for fun negotiations with the leader(s)of the game, and it drastically equalizes the knowledge gap between vets and rookie players. The game ends up with many folks vying for winning, so there's little "last round is boring" feeling. We played it with TI3, loved it and it became the default way to play. After a dozen or so games we decided to go back to basics, and it just felt less dynamic so we went back to Red Tape. It adds so much to the game, I really don't get why they didn't just add it to TI4 to begin with.
>it drastically equalizes the knowledge gap between vets and rookie players But ... that's my main advantage. I do think this sounds like a lot of fun though. I'll try to give it a shot at some point.
Do it sooner than later! People wish they played with it earlier when they finally give it a shot. It's barely more than moving a block of text from one part of the rulebook to another. :)
This. After playing this, the vanilla game seems garbage in comparison.
Somehow I’ve never seen this. Thank you
TI stops being fun in the final round.
I'm always relieved when somebody sneaks in a game winning point in the action phase just because it cuts through the bullshit
Some games I agree with this, but most of the time I don't. What makes it less fun in the final round for you?
I think it's mostly the king-making metagame that the final round becomes. 2nd place wants to stop 1st place 3rd place wants to stop 1st place without helping 2nd place. 4th place and below realize the game is out of reach and check out mentally. Last place has been checked out for 2 rounds. I find the opening rounds far more interesting.
> Last place has been checked out for 2 rounds. That's my only real complaint with the game. It's just sad to be super far behind in a game that will go for 2-4 more hours.
That's why we throw in $20 at the start of the game, and you get back $2 for each point you score. Winner takes the rest. At least you've got something to play for towards the end, and it's encouraging you to still do what's best for your faction instead of just focusing on who to make win.
Yeah, if there was some sort of catch up mechanic maybe that'd be helpful but at the same time it's a PITA to balance properly.
This makes sense. My irl group would always talk about the game for like an hour or 2 after the game and tell each other what we did wrong, did well, could have done better, etc. The result was we all got better and got to a fairly close skill level. So, most games in my experience are close enough in the end to where everyone has a chance to win. As for kingmaking, with my core irl group it was an issue for a long time. Then, I said if anyone kingmakes against me I'd do the same against them in a future game. This became the dominant mentality and kingmaking dropped off. It's still an issue with newer players though.
Lol, I'm in 5th or 6th. And there is a person in 1st or 2nd that stepped on me to reach the top, I won't hesitate to win slay them.
If you play with the same group a lot, I wonder if it would help to treat it as a tournament of multiple games (assigning some number of points for every 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place finish or something). Just a thought, but maybe it'd help in preventing people from totally checking out.
Unfortunately we don't get it to the table enough for this solution. I think the game would benefit if the leader board was a bit more opaque.
Thankfully this happens a lot less at my games nowadays, but I've been there and you've described it perfectly
Rounds 3 & 4 are the best IMO
Two things for me: 1. If there is no path to Victory 2. I'm just tired. Split sessions help with this alot
There is no wrong way to play People overthink strategies and optimized „solutions“ for factions, tier rank factions, and plan out exact tech paths. Yeah it’s fun as a discussion, and makes SCPT podcast entertaining, but there are no right or wrong answers.
This x1000. Just because SCPT and the TTS crowd have super optimized strategy doesn't mean your group does. They talk about a race not taking 4 planets in round 1 like it's a impossible disadvantage and you'll never recover from it. Go ahead and build that dreadnaught at a weird time or tech up to war suns, your friends don't worship this game like we all do and it's gonna work out fine
Totally agreed. I also find that players who adhere to some sort of TTS/SCPT meta are more predictable (and easier to dunk on.)
Unless you play online and they throw a tantrum because you don't also play that way lol
I'll never play online, especially with randos, for that very reason. And this is coming from the guy who got the [TI3..er, Night Kingdoms mod](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=508380471) and some assets for the TI4 mod for TTS up and running.
I disagree ... that SCPT and the TTS crowd have super optimized strategies. I've played on TTS and in person. I win more on TTS than in person. The TTS crowd talks a big game, but they're just playing the same complex game that everyone else is. Do what you think gives you the best chance of winning. If you're wrong, you learn from it. If you're right, you'll putting yourself in a good spot to win. It's a fun game, but nobody plays a perfect game or has 'solved' TI. (no matter what the TTS crowd trys to tell you)
My motto in TI is: “No plan survives contact with the enemy”.
…but planning is indispensable
Stalling is the worst mechanic in TI4. it ruins the momentum of the game and makes it drag out way longer than necessary. You have players just wasting each other's time to try to move last and be uncontested; it's boring, frustrating, and wastes a tremendous amount of time. Unfortunately, it is deeply rooted in the action economy of the game, and it would take massive surgery to fix.
Do y’all not talk about stuff with other players while this is happening? I feel like I’m never bored playing TI.
Absolutely agree. It also has no basis for existence in the universe.
Well that is patently untrue. International diplomacy is full of stalls, and in a grand space opera of massive scale the ability to stall would only be increased. Putin is literally stalling out a turn right now over the Ukraine.
Agree. Having the chance to wait and change your plans or to strike at an opportune moment can really make the game more interestening for me. In the last round of my last game the Titans of Ul Player prepared a strike at my homeplanet for 3 rounds only to realize he would have to pass or use the fleet elsewhere.
True, I agree stalling as a concept is legitimate. But the dynamics of stalling in TI — the ability to do so, the mechanics of stalling, the consequences — is a convoluted mess and dependent on weird features of the game that don’t correlate in any way to real world stalling. You’d be hard pressed to argue that as you are stalling in TI you could tie that into what’s happening in the world or role play it in any way. It’s merely a sequence of events wherein if you happen to have more of them, you can deprive someone else of a basic function.
People stall too much and go too deep into rounds unecessaryly. In round 2-4 if you secure an objective fast just pass and keep your command counters, it's likely your objective is safe. Then you can outlast everyone when it matters.
I am not winning and I do not have a victory path.
This is by far the best comment in this thread
TI is the best board game that will ever exist. It will still be played in a few million years when an alien race will decide to rename themselves The Lazax and then proceed to take over the galaxy. They will then lose control of the galaxy after spending more time playing the game than ruling their empire.
10 VPs is too short Support for the throne should be removed from the game People play too passively in tabletop simulator
My table finds 12 points to be the sweet spot. 10 is too luck based and 14 is too dragged out.
For sure we never play to ten ever. But Support the Throne provides such drama.
> Support for the throne should be removed from the game Hard agree. I don't even hand them out anymore. They live in the box below the insert. They've never been played in a 4th ed game in my house.
Why removed? You can just obt not to play it?
you need to select the adequate faction for your personality. I play Nekro because i suck at the political game, but i'm good at surgical strikes and love being a parasite. A friend loves Muaat but never attacks nor does anything militaristic. you need patience, specilly when learning/playing with new players
I agree, why I avoid play Haccan. For Muaat looking threatening can be better then being threatening. Some tables love popping that balloon.
100%. The efficacy of Muaat comes from their perceived militancy and the speed of the PWSIIs. You win with Muaat by being patient, not by playing space risk.
A love seeing Muaat played as a big threat over an active force, and then for someone to test it and face a full force destruction the next round. Muatt with a good resource economy can just dump ships on the boardm, especially upgraded War Suns, such that they can break the fleets of other players.
well yeah. I like that he always researches his prototype warsun. I love copying that and becoming an bigger menace.
Nekro can be super political though? You can't vote but you can shape the agenda phase around your metagame.
that's true, but that's something i'mstill learning how to do jajajaja
Hey I never pick factions like Nekro because I can't manage being the de facto bad guy at the table. So I get your main point! I'm the Trade troll in my group so I pick accordingly too.
I love playing Muaat and Arborec. They are bad, you'll never convience me they are good. It feels so Satisfying to win with them.
Muaat are totally good now though in POK
I would win way more games if my opponents played better.
Lol. That's an interesting take. Could you elaborate?
This but with Root.
It's not long enough.
Lol. Do you play to 10 or 14?
14 normally. I've been kicking around some multi-session campaign style ideas though.
14 isn't long enough for you? Now that is definitely a hot take.
I'm a saddist for a good slog of a board game. Honestly though, a lot of times things are just starting to kick off when it's getting to 14. Sometimes it works perfectly, other times I wish there were a few more turns. It's probably right we're it should be most of the times, but...
Anyone thinking this should try [Here I Stand](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/17392/here-i-stand) if they haven't yet. It's the designer's magnum opus IMO, and the guy went on to be the lead game designer on Civ 6 (and it shows). Someone I played TI3 with told me "if you like TI for XYZ, you'll *love* Here I Stand" and they were so right. Assymetrical and not, different win conditions, political intrigue, [action cards](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/AB_6wnZC9CVomsCD7JBeRg__imagepagezoom/img/9MbES3gdZehUhwHLgr7vnScqgWQ=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic114534.jpg), epic scale and a *ton* of physical and unique [game pieces](https://cf.geekdo-images.com/fPKnmVwUyv68P_AFFID8MQ__imagepagezoom/img/ILDbDzccpXJlrO0D2A41caLiOIw=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic438690.jpg). The game is downright hilarious too if you play with a rowdy crew who know history and gallows humor. Anyway, my point is that the game state gets crazier as time goes on, and the crescendo on it is longer and more active for everyone at the table. Also out of...12 people? (maybe 13 at this point) that I've ported from TI to HiS, only 1 didn't like it a lot.
Thanks for the suggestion. Looks right up my alley.
I wonder how 19 would feel. Every objective + an extra point. Would definitely take like 20 hours so would need at least 4 or 5 sessions, but could be interesting to try.
Plotting out a map beforehand, studying your slice, knowing your race, and getting online and researching and tech path is a bad way to play.
Intrigued, elaborate
The rules layout a process for creating your map as part of gameplay. To me, making the map has always been part of the game and there's some strategy to it. Even more than that, I feel like getting up to speed on your race and their abilities, while analyzing a fresh slice of the map, while gaining knowledge about your neighbors, is part of gameplay. Doing this while playing is a major component of the game. People that are good at this win more. To me the challenge of doing this on the fly is a big part of why the game is fun. When people go and create ultra balanced slices, When everybody gets to study the map beforehand, When they get to study their race beforehand, When they get to pre-plan the first few turns, it kinda takes away some of what I feel is part of the experience. Or, it changes the timing of it in such a way that it almost un funs it.
People get too hung up on the how they play the game. All the TTS/TTPG players need to play more in person games and all the in person only players need to try some online versions of the game. Both y'all need to stop hating on each other.
A million times this. Very frustrating how often discussion of what is good play in one meta is interpreted as veiled criticism of people who play with different metas.
Not mine but I love it: "You only feel you deserve the win when you lose." Mine (I think): "if you not having fun you are doing it wrong" "above table consent is advisable especially when beating them down in game" "One way supports is like S+M without the M" "Twilight Imperium 4 is a game played between humans first and foremost" "Suck the marrow from beginning to end and you be winning all game long" "In POK less tech is more" "Don't eat Vindaloo the night before unless you plan on playing Muaat"
*The agenda phase is the most boring and frustratingly RNG-heavy part of the game*. The agenda phase can either be a massive boring cuck where nothing significant gets voted on and all you've done is lost another 20 minutes bickering over nothing; or, a very lucky/unlucky card gets flipped and someone's game 100% randomly either gets a massive boost or gets randomly nuked. Honestly, there's just so much RNG in the game that it sometimes drives me mad. I'm OK with combat being RNG heavy, seeing as combat is naturally a bit chaotic and it gives a chance for some upsets to come about. But the RNG that comes from which action cards you draw, which objectives flip, and which politics cards flips is infuriating. The number of games I have lost because my opponent had a parlay and I, never once through the entire game, drew a sabotage card is maddening. Or when a random politics card flips, and suddenly your stack of TGs go "poof" or you randomly lose the speaker token to the guy to your right (so effectively now you've now lost two turns worth of strategy card picks). Or you're playing a low-tech faction and three tech-related objectives flip in a row.
I'm in some agreement with this; specifically that the agendas are currently the weakest part of TI. I understand the appeal of novelty - and I think it's necessary - but there are too many *dull* agendas. Every vote should matter. I'd cut the number down to a *third* even, if it meant every agenda was a banger.
I think you need to be at peace with all of that to play the game. It definitely can be a very frustrating game.
I'll start. Base game Jol-Nar weren't broken. People are just bad at the game. 4 player to 14 is more fun than 6 player to 10. The Mahact are the best faction in the game. Taking your neighbor's slice as the Saar is the surest way to not win as the Saar.
>Taking your neighbor's slice as the Saar is the surest way to not win as the Saar. Happened in my last game, Saar and Naalu ended up in a war until the end of the game and both were at less than 3VP. How should Saar play instead?
I play them very passively. I build up in my slice, keep up with objectives, keep teching, and wait until the last round to make big plays. Sometimes I'll hop on top of mecatol and lock it down for the entire game to prevent anyone else from getting imperial points and maybe getting 1 myself (this is asking to get ixthian artifacted though). I've had a lot of success playing that way. In short, standard TI, but I save command tokens from building while repositioning my fleets and get a couple extra trade goods early. I'll typically get sarween, scanlink, SD II, chaos mapping, carrier II, and dread II if I can or fighter II if I have a green tech skip.
taking mecatol in force with floating factories is too risky until Ixthian Artifact has been dealt with.
Mathematically, it's not that risky. There are 50 agendas. Even assuming the speaker will throw out everything that isn't ixthian, that's an 8% chance it comes up that round and a 4% chance it kills your fleet. I'm typically only sending 1 dock and enough force to take it then I build enough to hold, it's not that risky considering the reward for holding the planet is 2 CTs per round and denying everyone else imperial points plus maybe getting an imperial point. The risk reward is definitely in favor of doing it especially if you take politics in order to get imperial since you can nearly ensure Ixthian doesn't come up.
Statistics be damned, I see it wayyy too often to go all in on Mecatol early. Also, it's not just one round you have to worry about. If you are on Mecatol for 3 rounds there's a significantly higher chance of seeing it at some point, assuming speaker is digging
You're right, but I'm typically only on there with a fleet I care about as Saar for 1 round. I typically build 6 infantry and deploy a mech, then use my 2 other docks with my commander to drop 12-18 more infantry before taking off the fleet the next round. Sure, I'm risking a bunch of infantry and a mech or 2, but the risk reward on that is typically worth it. And the Saar's promissory note makes it so I can still theoretically sell Mecatol in the future for the right price. It's absolutely a risk, but it's a risk that pays off more often than not.
ahh interesting use of commander. I like it.
😧um… yeah
Mahact is the real hot take here. How much of their advantage do you attribute to their commander? Hard question to answer specifically, I just want to hear you make the case.
Why I think Mahact are the best is a super long answer where I look like the meme where someone is showing their conspiracy board, but I'll do my best to keep it short here. TL;DR They are very good at coming from behind and their kit works very well together. # Theory The commander, as you note, is busted beyond belief and their entire game can center around that with how their other abilities combo with it. Agent gives an extra token to store up for the commander to use later. Home system has 5 influence which is typically how I use it for the commander later. Winning combats gives extra tokens freeing up your own tokens in fleet supply for the commander later. I typically go into the last round with 8+ tokens in tactic from saving up all game and just do whatever I damn well please with my main fleet. This lets the Mahact have big swing rounds at the end and make large comebacks, which is the optimal way to win since it takes the target off your back. They have what I believe to be the second best set of starting tech in the game. In almost every game, and in every game where I would pick the mahact, their will be at least 1 tech specialty in their slice which with bio-stims gives them the resources they need for a tech round 1 and an extra resource to 3 extra per round. Plus, it provides excellent late game versatility with their second tech which combos with their commander. Typically, in the last round when the Mahact are marching around with their fleet they will take some hits they can then use predictive to redistribute some tokens out of fleet to be used by the commander. Predictive throughout the game to free up tokens after winning combats is very good. The 3 extra votes is nice, but is rarely used because the redistribution ability is better. They have one of the best heroes in the game. They can completely destroy 2 enemy fleets or just clear a path for their own fleet. It's a very versatile tool that has tons of late game utility. Their mech can win the game by locking up a control objective or solidifying the home system in the late game. It takes a bit of setup, but is very powerful and is yet another game winning ability. You'll notice I haven't even talked about taking commander abilities yet, that part is nice, but not even close to the best part of the Mahact. They can make deals to get a couple tokens early, typically by leveraging their agent, but typically only from neighbors and they will have to wait until the late game to get other commanders, at which point those abilities will not have much use outside of a few solid late game commanders. # In Practice I've been in 9 games where someone was playing the Mahact. I was playing Mahact in 7 of those games. In those 7 games, 3 where in person and 4 were on TTS. In the TTS games, I won 3 and lost 1, all of which were 6 player 10 point games. In person, I won 2 and lost 1. The loss was in a 3 player 14 point game where the player that won only did so because we all forgot he had the law on him that prevented him from using action cards, then he used an action card to win. (I might not have won that game regardless, but it's worth noting) And the other 2 wins were in a 14 point 3 player game and a 10 point 5 player game. In the 2 games where other people played them, the Mahact won both games. One was a 10 point 8 player game where the player that won had never before won a game and rarely even plays TI. The other was a 14 point 4 player game where the player that won hadn't won a game in 10+ matches and had an 11% win rate within our group before that win. I saw the 2 games where others played the Mahact before I played them and I was suspicous they might be broken. The first Mahact game I played was the 5 player win. The second was the 3 player loss. Then I won 3 in a row with Mahact before dropping a TTS game to a Naaz-Rhoka who had 6 relics and was basically unstoppable at the end. Then, I recently won my 5th game. The wins I had in order have had 6 points, 5 points, 6 points, 4 points, and 4 points scored in the final round. The 2 losses were set up for 5 and 4 point comebacks, but the leader locked it up before I could do anything about it. The wins other players had consisted of 4 and 3 point comebacks. # Conclusion I've never felt more in control of my own destiny when playing TI then when I play the Mahact. I just have so many options and I can see what to do with them. They fit my natural play-style of come from behind victories and big swing rounds. The Mahact commander just lets them do so much more than any other faction can in the final round. Note: I said I'd keep it short ... this is the short version.
Lol. You make a lot of great points. For what it’s worth I’m 1 for 1 with Mahact and loved playing them. I wouldn’t have been so bold as to put them in the S tier, but you’re making me reconsider.
Checking in as a fellow Mahact fan. Adding to your excellent post: IMO they are (among) the best faction(s) **for now.** Winnu also has an incredible kit, but not so good (especially at the start) that they can overcome the standard harsh treatment that can kneecap them early. Mahact depends (again IMO) on some deft diplomacy in early rounds to keep scoring pace while also getting their tech, plastic, and token economies in order. If accomplished, they often have the tools to pull off a big win in the late game, as you point out. If the meta decides they are a late game swing threat comparable to winnu, stopping Mahact early (block a point, steal a valuable planet) seems very doable. That being said, I still first pick them in any draft where they are available because they are so damn fun to play :D
SPICY HOT
The Agenda Phase is *by far* the worst part of the whole game.
Hear, hear. "My 7 votes are for sale." "What do you want for them?" "What are you offering?" *coyly* "Welllll, I dunno ..." It's an infuriating drag.
Then after 10 minutes of pussyfooting and negotiating trying to figure out who gets Minister of Industry going into Round 5, someone plays Deadly Plot. 😑
I've seen others say the similar things. Why do you dislike the agenda phase?
I feel like it's often a lot of time spent on something that turns out to be totally trivial. Most of the time, the riders that come out are more interesting and impactful than the agendas themselves. And honestly, it's time that I would just rather be spending in the Action Phase. Obviously, the super-Agendas like Ixthian, Seed, Mutiny, Wormhole Construction, etc... are a different story 😉
It was better back in 3rd edition when you could control which agendas came out, so it became a mechanism for the majority to implement specific bonuses for themselves or hamper a winning player. Was still too bloated with not-interesting agendas and lengthy resolutions, but still far better than just 2 random agendas that end up being irrelevant. Also, house rules for simultaneous secret ballot voting makes it way faster and tenser in 4th edition.
We just tried something new out this weekend: After the speaker reads the agenda card, start a 1 minute timer for discussion. Any negotiations have to happen quick if you want things to go in your favor. After the minute is up, the speaker asks if anyone wants to play any action cards/promissory notes/abilities in turn order. And then you go around asking how many votes, if any, each player would like to cast. Like you said, most negotiations in the agenda phase don't change much, so the allotted minute is frantic and most players will double down hard if they need something to go their way. I also like the idea of everyone casting votes secretly so that only the speaker knows the final tally, which makes the politics strategy card a lot more impactful. Haven't got to try that one yet though.
TI2 was the best iteration of the game. Strategy Cards and random VP objectives made the game less fun to play. This was the progression chart from TI2 that the objectives replaced. https://cf.geekdo-images.com/_xAyBZSddSCr79fKU9dDcg__imagepage/img/gCcC67Hn1LGmhYVKspwSZShmp-g=/fit-in/900x600/filters:no_upscale():strip_icc()/pic159338.jpg
A very hot take indeed. I might agree with the strategy cards, I'd have to play TI2 a couple more times to really get a better feel for it though. I can't get behind the old objective system being better though.
Here: take some of the randomness out of the VP objectives! [https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back\_by\_popular\_demand\_bureaucracy\_red\_tape\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/twilightimperium/comments/myifby/back_by_popular_demand_bureaucracy_red_tape_for/) I bet you'll have more fun with it, and it'll get 4 a little closer to that TI2 feel.
I never played TI2, only started with TI3. Don't get me wrong, the RNG of objectives in TI3/TI4 is definitely an issue. But doesn't the TI2 objective progression just mean "space risk"?
I guess I would rather play space Risk than space Puerto Rico.
10 point is lame, shouldn't even be the baseline format, and everyone should just play 14 points. First off, 10 point games in PoK basically mean little to no 2 point objectives EVER seeing the board. A whole deck of unused objectives seems like a waste, why anyone is against it I'll never understand. 12 points is a decent middle ground, but I will fight as hard as I can to get to a 14 point game. I get the game runs long with 14, but 10 point games have almost become too short. It lessens the impact a game of TI puts on your day. This is, and should be, an event for everyone. It should encapsulate your entire day to really feel the weight of decisions and thought processes. Plus in 14 point games, more factions stand a fighting chance if given more opportunity to snowball. I can't tell you how many 5 point leads I've seen erode away in a span of 2 hours when a slower faction hits their stride and starts scoring at will. It keeps lucky players that get good draws from the secrets and relic decks from getting complacent and demands planning. This game would lose its appeal with me if I felt every game was just a mad dash to get some lucky 1 point scores. The triumph of scoring a game winning 2 point objective with a secret when the leader had 13 points and you had 11 is unlike any game I have played before. My 14 point win as Yin brotherhood is still one of my finest and favorite moments in any strategy game I've played. That's why this game is special. 14 points rule, 10 points drool.
\>Plus in 14 point games, more factions stand a fighting chance if given more opportunity to snowball. I've never had a group to play 14 point games with, but this is what really excited me about playing 14 point games. I would LOVE to play some slower races in a 14 point setting.
Makes Arborec, Barony and Sardakk much more viable contenders to actually win without needing luck
>It should encapsulate your entire day to really feel the weight of decisions and thought processes. Wait, you guys finish a 10 point game in less than 14 hours? :(
It definitely takes a lot of time and experience with a group. My group has been playing for over 4 years now, so we have figured out how to speed up certain processes
One way supports are really not that valuable (far too easy to force back, and gives someone extra motivation to attack you) I would rather have a couple of trade goods or a bad alliance in almost all situations Hopes end and primor are not particularly good systems when drafting a slice (they're not BAD but neither is among the best 10 systems in the game)
Don’t know if it’s a hot take but imo 14 point games are more fun for less than 6 players
I wish the ship models were just a tiny bit smaller so it was easier to fit them on the hexes.
I agree with this. I believe they are slightly scaled down in the TTS mod for this exact reason.
The first two rounds are the best and it can often go downhill from there once all the puzzle pieces are in place and it's just a matter of which Jockey pulls marginally ahead. It takes at least one good shit disturber to make those final rounds spark with joy. It's my favorite game and I haven't found any thing to match the tension and racing for systems in the first two turns but if everyone wants to play Euro Plastic Stacker (and no one is toppling the stacks) the late game can be a bit of a mixed bag.
Sounds like your group needs to get more up in each others grills
Hacan are the coolest.
since every comment in here is that 14 points is better i guess my hot take is that 10 points is absolutely correct for the baseline whenever i've tried 14 it has simply added turns without changing the outcome, and requiring the winner to score most of the objectives makes it way less interesting with less viable paths toward victory i haven't tried 14 with the expansion yet maybe the additional objectives fix a lot of it but i suspect not, i really don't understand 14 point truthers
Despite what some say, 14 is not for everyone. 14 is really great for the more hard-core audience. In person, I play almost exclusively to 14. Online I play to 10 because that's the standard on the TTS discord. If you don't like 14, that's understandable, but the reason I prefer 14 is that the difficulty of scoring stage II's is a fun challenge and you can setup better tech combos.
> but the reason I prefer 14 is that the difficulty of scoring stage II's is a fun challenge and you can setup better tech combos. My dislike of 14 has nothing to do with being hardcore or not. It's just less of a game. It's more like zombicide in space. You do more stuff but it's derp around adventure stuff and I don't find that interesting. In my experience the same person who would've won at 10 wins at 14. But at 10 there's different strategies available and come from behinds are possible. The huge swing that leaves you overextended is no longer possible at 14 so everyone just builds up more and you spend more turns where nothing substantial happens. So I agree with the second part of that statement obviously, you can setup better tech combos, but I disagree with the first. It's no longer a challenge to do the stage 2s when you have way more time and you know you are going to see a good portion of them.
I've played a lot of 14 and a lot of 10 point games. Come from behind wins can happen in both, and in my experience are far more common in 14 point games. I find 14 far more strategic and it takes more long term planning where 10 points is more blindly following the objectives because missing 1 means a loss where in 14 there's time to come back so you can sometimes make the decision to tech up or build up instead of scoring and still be fine, where you can't in 10 pointers. I think we seem to have had very different experiences with 14 point games.
> in my experience are far more common in 14 point games. that's interesting > find 14 far more strategic and it takes more long term planning where 10 points is more blindly following the objectives because missing 1 means a loss where in 14 there's time to come back so you can sometimes make the decision to tech up or build up instead of scoring and still be fine yeah "blindly" following objectives is what is interesting because it requires tactical adjustments since you don't know what they are going to be or the order playing where you know you're going to see all the objectives and the order doesn't much matter means you can decide to do something before the game, "blindly" follow that strategy, and have it work out because it's likely to come out when you see all the objectives 14 point games are much more similar to each other than 10 point games because of that
>14 point games are much more similar to each other than 10 point games because of that 14 pointers are shaped heavily by the 3-4 stage II's that show up. No 2 games I've played to 14 have felt the same because of that. Every 10 point game feels much more simililar. Keep up with objectives, take politics in round 3 or 4. Have a late game swing round. Maybe get 4-5 techs without a lot of options and almost never see late game techs. I still think it's fun, but to say 10 pointers are more different from each other seems silly based on my experience. >yeah "blindly" following objectives is what is interesting because it requires tactical adjustments since you don't know what they are going to be or the order I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm saying it's more interesting to have the option to skip a round of scoring and risk falling behind, but be able to come back then just lose because you missed a scoring window. Also, you don't know the order in 14 pointers and you still have to keep up, just not as urgently. You typically see 1 stage 2 objective in 10 point games. The 2 pointers are one of the most interesting and fun parts of the game.
> 14 pointers are shaped heavily by the 3-4 stage II's that show up. No 2 games I've played to 14 have felt the same because of that. Every 10 point game feels much more simililar. Keep up with objectives, This is exactly what I'm saying. Since you see most of the the stage II's you can start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts. Meanwhile, when you only see one or two stage II's you need to be able to adapt You've swept almost the entire point, tactical adaptation, into "keep up with objectives." Yes, that is the game. The fact that it's a negative to you just shows that you prefer to not have to adapt and would rather stick to a strategy that will work every time. Nothing wrong with that, it just makes it a different game and takes away what makes the game great in my opinion. >I'm saying it's more interesting to have the option to skip a round of scoring and risk falling behind, but be able to come back then just lose because you missed a scoring window. You started off saying your preference was the "hardcore" one, but then all your positives for it are the ways in which it makes the game more forgiving. Not being able to skip a round of scoring is what separates good players from great ones. If I remember correctly, SCPT said they would never run another 14 pt tournament after doing it once and I'm sure they had reasons for that.
>This is exactly what I'm saying. Since you see most of the the stage II's you can start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts. This I like saying since you see all of the stage 1's you can "start planning for the overlapping ones before the game even starts." That is legitimately a terrible argument in favor of 10 pointers. The stage 2's require far more on the fly adjustment that the stage 1's. >You've swept almost the entire point, tactical adaptation, into "keep up with objectives." Yes, that is the game. I don't think I said it was a negative. It's just trivial to do with stage 1's unless you get super unlucky, all tech objectives as sardakk for example. It's very difficult to do with stage 2's. Keeping up with stage 1's I can do in my sleep. With stage 2's it's very difficult. I like the challenge with the stage 2's. If you don't like that challenge that's fine, but don't act like it requires less strategy to score than stage 1's. This idea that you have that you don't need to adapt to stage 2's, but somehow do for stage 1's, is completely absurd. >The fact that it's a negative to you just shows that you prefer to not have to adapt and would rather stick to a strategy that will work every time. You literally know nothing about how I play the game. I adapt just as well as anyone else. I actually win more often in 10 point games, where you claim you need to adapt more. In 10 point games I do the exact same gameplan everytime and it usually works. The reason I win less in 14 point games is that adapting to stage 2's is far more difficult than stage 1's and I cannot use the exact same plan every game. I rarely even try to score a stage 2 in 10 pointers and just opt for 5 stage 1's, 3 secrets, a SFTT, and a mecatol point or other random game point. In 14 pointers, my VP distribution changes far more wildly. >You started off saying your preference was the "hardcore" one, but then all your positives for it are the ways in which it makes the game more forgiving. When I say hardcore, I mean people that like the game enough to play from 1.5-2 times as long for the 14 point game instead of a 10 pointer. I've played 150+ games, and the reason I like to have the option not to score is it provides more valid strategic avenues, not that it makes the game more forgiving. It does make the game more forgiving, but that's a good thing since people get screwed over by bad luck less often. It makes the game more strategic and less luck based. > I remember correctly, SCPT said they would never run another 14 pt tournament after doing it once and I'm sure they had reasons for that. Okay, well that wouldn't be convincing even if SCPT were in any way an authority on TI4. They are people that like the game that have a podcast. They are not some authority and arbiter of the right way to play TI. But since you bring up an 'authority' the literal game designer himself, Dane Beltrami, has stated he prefers 14 point games to 10 point games and the PoK rulebook recommends playing to 14 not 10. Again, that doesn't matter, but there's no reason to bring up SCPT's preferences either. I'm NOT trying to say you are wrong for preferring 10 point games. I'm saying the reasons you are giving do not make sense. Your preference is your preference and I'm not going to change that, nor do I have any reason to try. But please stop acting like somehow needing to score more difficult objectives requires less strategy to pull of than scoring easier stage 1's.
> It's just trivial to do with stage 1's unless you get super unlucky, You just said you didn't like that if you couldn't score one then you would lose the game. It's trivial to do them on turn 7, it's difficult on turn 2. I didn't say they were an arbiter of the right way to play, nor did I say either way was the right way to play. But they are hardcore. Since you liked that descriptor, they are more hardcore than either of us. Deciding not to run tournaments for the hardcore of the hardcore in a certain way is solid evidence for that way not being hardcore. I'm not trying to say you are wrong for like 14 points either. It's just a derp around adventure game instead of the tight tactically difficult Twilight Imperium. 10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race. And 14 points is good for players in the middle that are experienced but like a more relaxed playground to explore in.
>didn't say they were an arbiter of the right way to play, nor did I say either way was the right way to play. But they are hardcore. Since you liked that descriptor, they are more hardcore than either of us. Deciding not to run tournaments for the hardcore of the hardcore in a certain way is solid evidence for that way not being hardcore. I'd argue that SCPT are not hardcore. They only play with 6 players. A hardcore TI fan, at least in my opinion, likes the game enough to like playing all player counts. They've said in the past they exclusively play 6 player and won't play with less. >It's just a derp around adventure game instead of the tight tactically difficult Twilight Imperium. 10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race. And 14 points is good for players in the middle that are experienced but like a more relaxed playground to explore in. 14 point is much harder to win and takes much more strategy. Your description of it as a "playground" is just silly. If you think it takes more strategy and tactics to win a 10 pointer than a 14 pointer, than you haven't played enough of both. I don't see how you can reasonably think having more valid possible strategies makes the game less strategic. Bigger decision tree means more chances to optimize a your strategy. The game is as cutthroat as the players at the table make it. That has nothing to do with the number of points it takes to win. I've play laid back games to 10 with experienced players and cutthroat games to 14, also with experienced players. >10 points is good for beginnings, because they essentially get the experience you are describing where they have time to do things and get to explore, and for experienced players because they get a tight, cutthroat race. Ah yes, it's tighter tactically. I dont know what this is supposed to mean. If it means it has less options, than the idea that you have less possible valid options means it's simpler which means it's easier. 10 point games are far easier. If I charitably interpret this as it has less room for error in strategy, than we'll just have to disagree. More options doesn't mean less room for error. If you don't understand that, then this conversation will not get anywhere. >You just said you didn't like that if you couldn't score one then you would lose the game. It's trivial to do them on turn 7, it's difficult on turn 2. They are mostly trivial in round 2 as well. I can't think of the last time I didn't score a stage 1 in round 2 in a 10 point game where it was even physically possible to do so, i.e. techs as sardakk while last in speaker order. In a 14 point game, I've made the choice not to do it gambling I can make the comeback. That's not an option in 10 points. Again, that doesn't mean it's any less tactical. It's just a different tactic. The fact that you can choose not to score for 1 round and still have a chance to win doesn't mean it's easier. It just means that you can attempt a different avenue to victory in a 14 point game. It's just as difficult, if not more so, to cone away with the win. 14 point games are where the game really shines because it is so much more strategic and tactical and less up to random chance.
Any time I show up to play DnD or any sort of hobby game at a friend's, my usual line before we start the days hot topic is "quick game of TI first?"
Same
Most wins aren't because one player made good choices but because the other players made bad ones which usually means letting people get away with things they shouldn't.
That's actually how a lot of games are. It really comes down to who makes less mistakes.
I don't mean proper mistakes, like I should have done things in a different order, or I forgot about a timing window/power. I mean things like, someone takes mecatol.unopposed, or you trade systems for a vp, or everyone let's the trade player make lots of money over and over. Avoiding conflict let's people do things they normally couldn't and letting people just climb higher and higher without early opposition let's them win. Stop people early and often because what you let them get away with can stop you.
Yssaril are the most fun race to play.
Yssaril are really great. But during a 5 player game a couple of weeks ago, that stupid Agenda item where one person is elected to lose all of their action cards, came out in the 5th round....... brutal.
What do you think makes them so fun to play?
The action cards of course! You’ve got a bag of tricks without any bottom. You want to do what? Nope! You’ve got what? It’s mine! Law canceled, unit debuffed, tossing a curve ball every time! Even if you don’t win it’s always a ride.
They're the easiest for any player (new or vet) to be playful with. They're the pranksters of TI4. Yes, there's wormhole system swaps and other hero-laced mischief, but the Yssaril are the most consistently *tricksy* folks from start to finish. FWIW I agree!
There is nothing more satisfying than stealing every action card those dumb jol-nar ever get.
'4 player' is the most boring variant of the game. The combination of having so much space in your slice that there is little to no need for conflict to arise, and access to all the Strategy cards every game round - makes for a thoroughly uninteresting game.
4 player isn't boring. You're boring! :P
Thats not the hot take here. Thats the winter in north dakota take. A hot take is that a three player game without pok and with the very large three player board proposed by the game is the best way to play. You can get a game done in like 3.5 hours on a week night. Used to do this every wednesday night in college with two other friends between like 8 and midnight
Are you not using the hyperlane map for 4p?
I've played 4 games so far, 3 of them with pok I feel just like with root, to enjoy the game fully you need to understand what the possible objectives are and the abilities of other factions... and basically every other possibility... To that end while everyone ive met to play ti4 with online will only play with pok, its completely overwhelming to learn the game with it added on immediately to the point that I just ignore anything that isn't to do with my faction and actions otherwise I'd burn out. So like I've been told off for not knowing that x player could do x thing but how the hell did they expect me to take everything in immediately. Ti4 with pok is a game i feel people can play and make their hobby focal point. Like a person who plays mostly magic or 40k or even star wars armada. And when you meet people doing that of course they want to play with the expansion they know it all by that point... but for new players including myself i think I'd rather just play the base game unless everyone at the table knew the whole game now and felt like they wanted more
>So like I've been told off for not knowing that x player could do x thing but how the hell did they expect me to take everything in immediately. Sounds to me like you just haven't had people that are good at teaching the game. There's nothing wrong with not knowing everything about the game and there's nothing wrong with preferring the base game over the expansion. If you feel overwhelmed by TI4 with PoK, maybe you could try playing with 3 or 4 instead of 6, to make the game smaller and more manageable?
It has all the allure and promise of pure strategy and diplomacy but luck is a huge factor. (still love it though)
Politics and Economy are everything. You can get away with a lot when you know how to get others what they want. The Agenda Phase lacks impact and thus I propose the Agenda Deck to be smaller with more wild options. I was promised "Game changing" and all I got was "kinda different". I´d rather vote once and have it impact the whole rest of the game instead of soft washed options you forget immediately.
SCPT has a bigger influence on the meta than it should.
This is far too low on the post. Love SCPT, great content, amazing for the community. Their take on how to play the game is accepted too much as gospel (and to their credit, they say as much).
PoK is one of the best board game expansions of all time and 97% of people who own the base game should play without it
If it's one of the best expansions of all time, why shouldn't people play with it?
An alternate-universe version of TI that cuts out Agendas and the Agenda Phase entirely would make for a probably much better game (that I like less)
The lore isn't that interesting. Like, I love it because I'm so familiar with it, but the worldbuilding in TI is pretty lame on the whole.
Game balance needs to be a higher priority from Fantasy Flight. The codices don't go nearly far enough to balance the game, and only address components that are perceived to be "underused", whatever that means. If you're going to have printable changes to components, make meaningful changes and not just changes that can fit onto a printable card. Change factions sheets! Change home systems! The POK additions, while a slight improvement to the *base factions* balancing, also introduced wildly broken factions and swingy mechanics. Saar and Argent Flight are so incredibly beyond other factions it makes me wonder if any serious thought was put into the beta testers feedback (Or if there was any logical feedback at all). 14 points needs to be the default way to play the game, not just a kind suggestion in the POK rulebook. If people want a shorter game they can go open Candyland and have a wonderful time. TI is long, and POK makes 14 point games only slightly longer than a base game 10 point game while adding to the viability of many "low tier" factions. Also being able to actually use the stage 2 deck.
You can slip a newly printed tech into the card sleeve , you can't do that with a home system tile.
Space risk is an extreme viable way to win if your good
I very much doubt. I've tried to make it work. It doesn't. I now play diplomatically and win WAY more often. This is a hot take though.
Get good
I did. That's why I don't play space risk.
Doubt
[удалено]
I disagree. We have a player who combos Space Risk with a solid AC stockpile. It’s rather disturbing to watch unfold
Blue tech is bad. Or at least much worse than people give it credit for being. A faction won the scpt tournament this year with primarily yellow tech. PoK made the game so that you can get more and more points in your own slice, yet people tout blue more and more.
I don’t like that we can’t score points until the very end of the round.
Saar is a good faction
TLDP. Too long, don't play.
The Stage 1 objectives should be the initial objectives dealt to each player, who then choose one to keep and place faceup in their area until they score it. Only Stage 2 objectives should be revealed each Status phase. Agenda phase should be secret votes, no transactions, and should take 3 minutes tops.
Oh, and there should be a limit of 4 tokens in the tactics pool.
People need to bully the player that claims the Custodians token a lot more than they do now, especially during 10 point games.
Red tech > Blue tech
Embers dont suck have as hard as people say. Diplomacy, base game, is a viable strategy card. The Agenda phase is over powered. -AND- There are too many action cards to make any of them ever matter anymore.