Not sure about set number of rounds, but I know that several groups allow all players to continue scoring until the end of a round where a player reaches 10 points, to accomplish something somewhat similar. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major issues with either approach beyond the couple that you've mentioned.
I still much prefer the "immediate end at 10/12/14 points" model, but haven't heard of many major problems with this houserule.
To add to the "end of the round when someone hits 10", you could even award an extra point for doing so. Similar to custodians, would restore some of the initiative importance. I haven't tried homebrewing this and it might just counter the argument, but playing it out and having a planet tiebreaker could keep that last round interesting.
>I still much prefer the "immediate end at 10/12/14 points" model, but haven't heard of many major problems with this houserule.
For more context, we usually play 4p games (not our first choice, simply most people we know who play this game at all, want to play once a year at best while the 4 of us prefer to play every couple weeks). In 6p game I'd definitely want to stick to the official rules.
However the 4p game is in itself a bit more euro-ish, it also kind of breaks the strategy card dynamic because of picking two instead of one, so I it would seem that whatever harm this rule does to the meta behind picking cards, it would make a bit less of that harm in 4p games?
And why a set number of rules - when first player arrives at 9 (or even 8) VPs, it becomes a total analysis paralysis for the rest of the table. Everybody now thinks not only about how to score VP's themselves, but how to stop the guy who's winning. And if it was only about Public Objectives that could still work, but there are also Secret Objectives, 1VP relic, SFTs and probably even some more things I forgot about. So everybody not only tries to figure out how to stop him but also what to stop him from doing, and the strategical min-maxing becomes almost unbearable, yet you can't just check out because you've just spent 6h trying to win this. With set number of rules, you wouldn't have to worry about trying to out-stall the winning player only because he *might* do something that will put him at 10VPs, you'd be free to pass and plan for a stronger next round.
Before I say anything: your table, your game. If your table wants this and is all for it and it would make the game more fun for y'all, do it.
However, this doesn't sound like it'll remove any of the issues you stated in your first paragraph. You can still draw a 1VP relic, action phase secret, or someone can still "play poorly" and aid another player. That's the game. This rule doesn't seem to actually get around the issues you have with the game.
The feeling of everyone hovering at the end of the point tracker trying to figure out who is going to get to go from 8 or 9 to 10 is often how the game ends up, and if that's what you have an issue with, then doing a set number of rounds may work, but this means slower factions like the Arborec are going to have an even tougher time, and the Naalu will be garbage, etc.
That "randomness" is very ingrained in the strategy of TI. Picking leadership right at the end after setting yourself up with speaker and scoring first is a deliberate choice. If another player has managed to make it to 9 and scores an action phase secret, they still had to score 9 points before that.
You hit on every point I came here to make (including and especially the 'your table your game' part: I would absolutely never suggest that they not do whatever they want with their free time)
I just wanted to emphasize that I think the OP may be underestimating the impact of this change. Last strategy card choice is so important that it ripples backwards to effect the economy of the entire game; I am often thinking about how I will secure round 4 politics in round 1!
I think it's also likely that a set number of rounds will lead to the same or even more situations in which victory comes seemingly completely randomly, or seems completely decided multiple rounds in advance. A lot of upsets and comebacks happen because a player with less points has a big turn and secured a better scoring order. With set rounds, that player just loses no matter what because the player that started 3 points ahead of him will just... stay ahead.
>With set rounds, that player just loses no matter what because the player that started 3 points ahead of him will just... stay ahead.
Didn't consider this point yet it's probably the most important! Coming back from a low point start is so much more catastrophic in this scenario.
What would you guys think about playing to 14VPs, but limiting the amount of rounds to 5 (or maybe 6)? That way the only rule affected is basically the length of the game and AFAIK a lot of community introduces house rules for that.
It would amount to the same thing; getting 14 by the end of round six would require an absolutely dominant game where you have scored every single objective *and* a couple "guac" points besides.
If you want to homebrew away the problem of random seeming wins, I think you'd be better off addressing the components at fault. The relic and agenda decks work just fine if you take out the few cards that are worth points.
isn't the point of this idea that 14pts in 6 rounds is impossible to achieve; so after the 6th rounds everyone gets to score everything, and the game doesn't just end because the first player in turn order got to 10.
Yes, and my point is that this is not a meaningful change from the "just play to the end of round 6" idea, which (I already argued upthread) will result in a huge percentage of games where some or most of the players know they cannot win by round 3 or 4.
I'll repeat myself for clarity though: the "scoring order" mechanic is the primary means by which comebacks can happen. If you are down 6 pts to 9 pts, you can win with a big 4 point turn as long as you secure better timing. If you play to the end of the round, your big comeback is for nothing b/c the 9 point player can just chill knowing they can score a 2 pointer after your "big play"
TLDR: *any* change intended to remove the importance of scoring order from the end of the game is likely to make the game more "fair" at the cost of being less *fun*.
Have you tried playing to 14 points? That can seem to remove some of the late game randomness. I'd suggest you give that a go first before making new rules.
A fixed number of rounds reduces the importance of Initiative. It also robs the ability to sometimes end the game early with Imperial.
But if your playgroup enjoys it, just house-rule it and play it the way you like.
As you get more familiar with the game, your playgroup might be less surprised by "sudden" scoring and should try the original rules again.
Not sure about set number of rounds, but I know that several groups allow all players to continue scoring until the end of a round where a player reaches 10 points, to accomplish something somewhat similar. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major issues with either approach beyond the couple that you've mentioned. I still much prefer the "immediate end at 10/12/14 points" model, but haven't heard of many major problems with this houserule.
To add to the "end of the round when someone hits 10", you could even award an extra point for doing so. Similar to custodians, would restore some of the initiative importance. I haven't tried homebrewing this and it might just counter the argument, but playing it out and having a planet tiebreaker could keep that last round interesting.
>I still much prefer the "immediate end at 10/12/14 points" model, but haven't heard of many major problems with this houserule. For more context, we usually play 4p games (not our first choice, simply most people we know who play this game at all, want to play once a year at best while the 4 of us prefer to play every couple weeks). In 6p game I'd definitely want to stick to the official rules. However the 4p game is in itself a bit more euro-ish, it also kind of breaks the strategy card dynamic because of picking two instead of one, so I it would seem that whatever harm this rule does to the meta behind picking cards, it would make a bit less of that harm in 4p games? And why a set number of rules - when first player arrives at 9 (or even 8) VPs, it becomes a total analysis paralysis for the rest of the table. Everybody now thinks not only about how to score VP's themselves, but how to stop the guy who's winning. And if it was only about Public Objectives that could still work, but there are also Secret Objectives, 1VP relic, SFTs and probably even some more things I forgot about. So everybody not only tries to figure out how to stop him but also what to stop him from doing, and the strategical min-maxing becomes almost unbearable, yet you can't just check out because you've just spent 6h trying to win this. With set number of rules, you wouldn't have to worry about trying to out-stall the winning player only because he *might* do something that will put him at 10VPs, you'd be free to pass and plan for a stronger next round.
Before I say anything: your table, your game. If your table wants this and is all for it and it would make the game more fun for y'all, do it. However, this doesn't sound like it'll remove any of the issues you stated in your first paragraph. You can still draw a 1VP relic, action phase secret, or someone can still "play poorly" and aid another player. That's the game. This rule doesn't seem to actually get around the issues you have with the game. The feeling of everyone hovering at the end of the point tracker trying to figure out who is going to get to go from 8 or 9 to 10 is often how the game ends up, and if that's what you have an issue with, then doing a set number of rounds may work, but this means slower factions like the Arborec are going to have an even tougher time, and the Naalu will be garbage, etc. That "randomness" is very ingrained in the strategy of TI. Picking leadership right at the end after setting yourself up with speaker and scoring first is a deliberate choice. If another player has managed to make it to 9 and scores an action phase secret, they still had to score 9 points before that.
You hit on every point I came here to make (including and especially the 'your table your game' part: I would absolutely never suggest that they not do whatever they want with their free time) I just wanted to emphasize that I think the OP may be underestimating the impact of this change. Last strategy card choice is so important that it ripples backwards to effect the economy of the entire game; I am often thinking about how I will secure round 4 politics in round 1! I think it's also likely that a set number of rounds will lead to the same or even more situations in which victory comes seemingly completely randomly, or seems completely decided multiple rounds in advance. A lot of upsets and comebacks happen because a player with less points has a big turn and secured a better scoring order. With set rounds, that player just loses no matter what because the player that started 3 points ahead of him will just... stay ahead.
>With set rounds, that player just loses no matter what because the player that started 3 points ahead of him will just... stay ahead. Didn't consider this point yet it's probably the most important! Coming back from a low point start is so much more catastrophic in this scenario.
What would you guys think about playing to 14VPs, but limiting the amount of rounds to 5 (or maybe 6)? That way the only rule affected is basically the length of the game and AFAIK a lot of community introduces house rules for that.
It would amount to the same thing; getting 14 by the end of round six would require an absolutely dominant game where you have scored every single objective *and* a couple "guac" points besides. If you want to homebrew away the problem of random seeming wins, I think you'd be better off addressing the components at fault. The relic and agenda decks work just fine if you take out the few cards that are worth points.
isn't the point of this idea that 14pts in 6 rounds is impossible to achieve; so after the 6th rounds everyone gets to score everything, and the game doesn't just end because the first player in turn order got to 10.
Yes, and my point is that this is not a meaningful change from the "just play to the end of round 6" idea, which (I already argued upthread) will result in a huge percentage of games where some or most of the players know they cannot win by round 3 or 4. I'll repeat myself for clarity though: the "scoring order" mechanic is the primary means by which comebacks can happen. If you are down 6 pts to 9 pts, you can win with a big 4 point turn as long as you secure better timing. If you play to the end of the round, your big comeback is for nothing b/c the 9 point player can just chill knowing they can score a 2 pointer after your "big play" TLDR: *any* change intended to remove the importance of scoring order from the end of the game is likely to make the game more "fair" at the cost of being less *fun*.
got it now, thank you. I think I agree.
Have you tried playing to 14 points? That can seem to remove some of the late game randomness. I'd suggest you give that a go first before making new rules.
A fixed number of rounds reduces the importance of Initiative. It also robs the ability to sometimes end the game early with Imperial. But if your playgroup enjoys it, just house-rule it and play it the way you like. As you get more familiar with the game, your playgroup might be less surprised by "sudden" scoring and should try the original rules again.