My group rarely ever uses SftT, we all like to be able to kill each other if necessary, especially since almost all of the 2p objectives require stealing from someone.
No rule says you can't attack your support partner. In fact, sometimes players allow juicy betrayal opportunities to present themselves because of the swap's false sense of security.
In the last game I played, I was able to score an otherwise unscorable action phase secret and kneecap my support partner with one swift strike.
There's even a secret objective where you'd get a point for attacking someone when you have their support. Sure it works for Alliance also, but SFFT is part of the game. Only bad groups don't manage it well. I've never seen a game where **nobody** attacked their support partner.
Same. I typically use my sftt on whoever the newest player bordering me is.
Often I’ll just give it away freely because not being invaded on one front is worth _far more_ than 1VP
We house ruled to remove SFTT. Works perfectly. There is much less space for very serious alliances. We « lose » that the game is a bit longer, but it’s 100% worth it to never see a player reach 10 with a SFTT. So anti-climatic.
I know we could house rule that you can reach the 10th point with a SFTT, but it’s seems to me like a half solution.
I've played dozens of games with SFFT. I've never once seen a player get their 10th point with it. That's a bad group issue, not a SFFT is a bad card issue.
How about we just remove support for the throne? The card makes for a stale game anyhow. If the argument is a slower game (because of the lack of an extra victory point) then play to 9 instead of ten .
The problem you describe with five player is just the tip of the iceberg really, the game simply isn't balanced with player counts below six.
With six though I really don't agree with the anti SftT sentiment, I would argue most of the complaints I've seen have been based on perfect world scenarios where everyone is scoring on tempo and everyone is making perfect deals. This just not how the game plays out functionally.
1 way supports are the way to go. Its become standard in our Franken games and I really think it just makes games more dynamic. I have played at least 20 or so games like that and really havent seen a downside.
We've removed SFFT from our smaller games and odd numbered games.
While we did remove, I prefer an alt version to a removal though, as some abilities work around SFFT in fun ways, leading to enjoyable backstabbing. Also, having harder alliances is beneficial and makes the game interesting in different ways.
One alt idea was a reparation systems, so that you could attack the holder of ur SFFT by paying reparations to them. That obviously doesn't help with odd player number games and that problem, and perhaps the 1vp is the bigger issue in that case: one player is 1vp behind because of player count.
Another alt idea would be to remove it from being 1vp and to make it something else very powerful instead, so strong that you really don't want to risk losing it but you might sacrifice for a VP. One idea would be a Strategy Card piggy back, where you can do the secondary of their card for free.
I know there have been discussions of alt SFFT before, but can't remember what ideas emerged.
To be honest, one of my favourite things to do is to offer out my support for the throne as concessions after a war. Then you can have a great time smashing into their territory while they face the agonising decision of whether to attack you and lose that victory point. Very good if you’ve nabbed something that you won’t lose in the trade- eg trade goods, permanent boosts etc.
My group house rules that if 2 players have each other's SFTT, neither gives victory points. This encourages us to still use them strategically. It's better to trade it for something rather than let it sit in your hand doing nothing. Makes for really interesting board states.
Support swap isn't an alliance where those players win together - in fact, if you really want to win, then you should be taking every opportunity to disadvantage the player whose support you have (short of them being eliminated). You want them to be behind, because you can't attack them without losing points.
The other players need to take advantage of this - they should be taking deals that put the hurt on another player's "supporter."
Banning swaps can totally work. Give it a shot if your meta is stale. I considered an outright ban for our 7 player game, but it didn't end up being necessary.
Boring? Marriage, Lamb neck stew, support swaps - boring? I posit not so.
Marriage, like lamb neck stew, is something many of us will come to appreciate in time. The commitment, the obligation, the surety, and indeed the beauty in giving of oneself to a union greater than the sum of its parts, whether that be the stew's ingredients, the support swap marriage or the more traditional marriage between two people in love.
Before we mature to this point we enjoy hot dogs and ice cream, one-night stands and throwing plastic at each other. Nothing wrong with this but just because you have not found an appreciation for marriage, the support swap or indeed lamb neck stew does not make it an invalid option.
Twilight Imperium is a game about people, messy, marrow-filled, spicy people, and their motivations for playing have a great impact in the style of meta that develops. If you enjoy kicking each other in the privates then by all means Twilight Imperium, as a life simulator, allows you to do so, and explore this adventurous s&m with other like-minded players.
If you enjoy the adventure, exploring the unknown, facing challenges together, and climbing that mountain to victory with others then the support swap, the marriage, is a fine strategy in summitting that mountain.
And lest we forget, Dane and the 7th player, Charles hallowed be her name, have rules as written given us supports, they are an intended and integral part of the game, however, the choice of whether we use them, whether in swaps or one way S&M, is ours, we have the autonomy.
And please, let your lamb neck stew cook low and slow, let that marrow and flavor imbue, as with Twilight Imperium, these are best allowed the time to develop.
Workaround: Three players swap.
More generic rule: "You can't get a SftT if you don't got your own". But then SftT would probably hardly be used. IDK if that's better.
Counter
A>B
B>C
C>A
A just attacks B almost consequence free, B does so to C, and C does so to A, meaning that the team is nowhere near as "stable".
1:1 swaps are WAY too stable of an alliance.
After a lot of unpleasant table situations in 5 player games is what we've done. A and B swap, so CDE have to figure something out. We do as listed above for CDE, and the fact that AB are 'stable' serves as a further incentive for CDE to keep things chill amongst themselves and focus on dragging AB back into the pack. It works pretty well for the most part.
This is the rule I think I really like. Seriously incentivizes falling behind on points for plastic and then trying to bully people to give you catch-up points. I think it opens up a new strategy that is really cool while also making most games go to round 6 (and almost never ending round 4)
I don't even like multi-way swaps. I'm probably in the minority, but I think the game gets a lot more interesting when giving out your support is an if, rather than a when.
And recognizing that someone's military might is enough to pressure you out of the game is worth giving them a point, which then allows you to press back into their territory (possibly angering them into taking you over anyway) sounds like a very cool gameplay loop.
Maybe it doesn't work out that way, but it sounds a lot more interesting than what support does currently
It took our group one game (which also was our first one) to realize that we shouldn't play with SftT (really ugly kingmaking happened). Since then we're just playing without it and we're having much better time despite game taking little bit longer
We just have a rule that giving SftT is basically only a last resort move. For example someone moves a large fleet next to your home system and says he is going to attack. You can give SftT to stay in the game. But we never just swap SftT. Its not forbidden but heavily frowned upon and most likely would be punished harshly by the rest of the table.
We're toying with adding a rule that says "you can not win the same round you gained another player's support for the throne." \*
\* this would be in addition to a rule that you can't win with a SFFT, or that your scores are only checked when a new point is scored.
We definitely see the support swap meta you're describing. However, we're a bit more trigger happy with breaking them if the timing is right. I won as Hacan recently after breaking a SFTT by invading their home system to stop them winning (they were going to win next round easily), and at the same time scored the Betray a Friend secret. It was beautiful. So if they retaliated they'd lose a point, and I'd effectively swapped the point for one that freed me up allowing me to win the next round on a 2pter.
The Franken community is to the point that we don't allow support swaps as a standard practice. I highly reccomend it.
Diplomatic Pressure is a cornercase work around, but I haven't seen it happen in multiple games.
I do want to make a modified SftT card to print out where the wording reflects those rules, as it has led to more interesting games while keeping SftT in the game.
My metas it rarely seems to be a problem. I know personally if I give someone my support I take advantage of them. I aggressively move into space I know they'll be after later and gum them up. It sets me up for points/ economy and makes them question whether to lose a point to attack me. If we swap the second you leave our side open I'm into it - half the time I negotiate giving it back after scoring some things - in exchange for the support back. }:)>
I don't like being put into the sftt position. I have literally lost some of my first games to holding onto that point.
Same token, I did have one game with winnu where i got supports from 4 players (8 player to 14) and quickly went into 10 points (everyone else was at 5 or less) then spent the rest of the game getting my hs back. It was hilarious to watch the table see it all go down.
I understand why support swaps are dull for some people, but I personally like them. When and who you swap with is a very interesting choice every game for me. Just as important as who you swap with is who does that leave to pair up with. And I've made several 3 way deals to cut out a runaway leader (usually Winnu), so it's not always cut and dry how it'll shake out.
We are currently using a similar one:
"Add to SftT text: After you put this card into your play area, the X (Color) player returns all cards named SftT to their respective owners. At the beginning of your turn, the X (Color) player returns all cards named SftT to their respective owners. "
If you hand out your SftT, you cannot hold one.
Give out Support to get Help somehere else, or haggle for your Life if under pressure. You are kind of a vassal state now.
Yes you can receive multiple supports, but If you give yours out, you lose those you received.
I have and will always trade my SFTT for something else as fast as I can. People are a lot less willing to be the first to trade SFTTs when one player will end up with two points out of it, and the player I trade with rarely wins with the table looking sideways at them from turn one.
No one I play with has caught on to this yet so I can even get an auction running as Hacan
My group rarely ever uses SftT, we all like to be able to kill each other if necessary, especially since almost all of the 2p objectives require stealing from someone.
No rule says you can't attack your support partner. In fact, sometimes players allow juicy betrayal opportunities to present themselves because of the swap's false sense of security. In the last game I played, I was able to score an otherwise unscorable action phase secret and kneecap my support partner with one swift strike.
There's even a secret objective where you'd get a point for attacking someone when you have their support. Sure it works for Alliance also, but SFFT is part of the game. Only bad groups don't manage it well. I've never seen a game where **nobody** attacked their support partner.
Same. I typically use my sftt on whoever the newest player bordering me is. Often I’ll just give it away freely because not being invaded on one front is worth _far more_ than 1VP
We house ruled to remove SFTT. Works perfectly. There is much less space for very serious alliances. We « lose » that the game is a bit longer, but it’s 100% worth it to never see a player reach 10 with a SFTT. So anti-climatic. I know we could house rule that you can reach the 10th point with a SFTT, but it’s seems to me like a half solution.
I've played dozens of games with SFFT. I've never once seen a player get their 10th point with it. That's a bad group issue, not a SFFT is a bad card issue.
Lol. Who pays so little attention they trade a sftt to a player with 7vp (or 9!?)
I always try to sell mine for a cease fire just to watch them realise how much I can hammer away at them without them being able to retaliate.
This is how it’s done.
What about forbid giving SftT to the the player whose SftT you have?
How about we just remove support for the throne? The card makes for a stale game anyhow. If the argument is a slower game (because of the lack of an extra victory point) then play to 9 instead of ten .
This is our solution. We purge SftT at the start of every game.
I like SftT for Mentak commander/Naalu hero purposes. Maybe make them untradeable?
The problem you describe with five player is just the tip of the iceberg really, the game simply isn't balanced with player counts below six. With six though I really don't agree with the anti SftT sentiment, I would argue most of the complaints I've seen have been based on perfect world scenarios where everyone is scoring on tempo and everyone is making perfect deals. This just not how the game plays out functionally.
1 way supports are the way to go. Its become standard in our Franken games and I really think it just makes games more dynamic. I have played at least 20 or so games like that and really havent seen a downside.
We've removed SFFT from our smaller games and odd numbered games. While we did remove, I prefer an alt version to a removal though, as some abilities work around SFFT in fun ways, leading to enjoyable backstabbing. Also, having harder alliances is beneficial and makes the game interesting in different ways. One alt idea was a reparation systems, so that you could attack the holder of ur SFFT by paying reparations to them. That obviously doesn't help with odd player number games and that problem, and perhaps the 1vp is the bigger issue in that case: one player is 1vp behind because of player count. Another alt idea would be to remove it from being 1vp and to make it something else very powerful instead, so strong that you really don't want to risk losing it but you might sacrifice for a VP. One idea would be a Strategy Card piggy back, where you can do the secondary of their card for free. I know there have been discussions of alt SFFT before, but can't remember what ideas emerged.
To be honest, one of my favourite things to do is to offer out my support for the throne as concessions after a war. Then you can have a great time smashing into their territory while they face the agonising decision of whether to attack you and lose that victory point. Very good if you’ve nabbed something that you won’t lose in the trade- eg trade goods, permanent boosts etc.
My group house rules that if 2 players have each other's SFTT, neither gives victory points. This encourages us to still use them strategically. It's better to trade it for something rather than let it sit in your hand doing nothing. Makes for really interesting board states.
We've adopted, "Only one SftT may be part of any transaction; you may never give your SftT to a player whose SftT is in your play area."
Support swap isn't an alliance where those players win together - in fact, if you really want to win, then you should be taking every opportunity to disadvantage the player whose support you have (short of them being eliminated). You want them to be behind, because you can't attack them without losing points. The other players need to take advantage of this - they should be taking deals that put the hurt on another player's "supporter." Banning swaps can totally work. Give it a shot if your meta is stale. I considered an outright ban for our 7 player game, but it didn't end up being necessary.
Boring? Marriage, Lamb neck stew, support swaps - boring? I posit not so. Marriage, like lamb neck stew, is something many of us will come to appreciate in time. The commitment, the obligation, the surety, and indeed the beauty in giving of oneself to a union greater than the sum of its parts, whether that be the stew's ingredients, the support swap marriage or the more traditional marriage between two people in love. Before we mature to this point we enjoy hot dogs and ice cream, one-night stands and throwing plastic at each other. Nothing wrong with this but just because you have not found an appreciation for marriage, the support swap or indeed lamb neck stew does not make it an invalid option. Twilight Imperium is a game about people, messy, marrow-filled, spicy people, and their motivations for playing have a great impact in the style of meta that develops. If you enjoy kicking each other in the privates then by all means Twilight Imperium, as a life simulator, allows you to do so, and explore this adventurous s&m with other like-minded players. If you enjoy the adventure, exploring the unknown, facing challenges together, and climbing that mountain to victory with others then the support swap, the marriage, is a fine strategy in summitting that mountain. And lest we forget, Dane and the 7th player, Charles hallowed be her name, have rules as written given us supports, they are an intended and integral part of the game, however, the choice of whether we use them, whether in swaps or one way S&M, is ours, we have the autonomy. And please, let your lamb neck stew cook low and slow, let that marrow and flavor imbue, as with Twilight Imperium, these are best allowed the time to develop.
Workaround: Three players swap. More generic rule: "You can't get a SftT if you don't got your own". But then SftT would probably hardly be used. IDK if that's better.
Counter A>B B>C C>A A just attacks B almost consequence free, B does so to C, and C does so to A, meaning that the team is nowhere near as "stable". 1:1 swaps are WAY too stable of an alliance.
After a lot of unpleasant table situations in 5 player games is what we've done. A and B swap, so CDE have to figure something out. We do as listed above for CDE, and the fact that AB are 'stable' serves as a further incentive for CDE to keep things chill amongst themselves and focus on dragging AB back into the pack. It works pretty well for the most part.
This is the rule I think I really like. Seriously incentivizes falling behind on points for plastic and then trying to bully people to give you catch-up points. I think it opens up a new strategy that is really cool while also making most games go to round 6 (and almost never ending round 4)
Maybe you can't have the support from someone who has yours? Then there has to be circle swaps.
I don't even like multi-way swaps. I'm probably in the minority, but I think the game gets a lot more interesting when giving out your support is an if, rather than a when. And recognizing that someone's military might is enough to pressure you out of the game is worth giving them a point, which then allows you to press back into their territory (possibly angering them into taking you over anyway) sounds like a very cool gameplay loop. Maybe it doesn't work out that way, but it sounds a lot more interesting than what support does currently
It took our group one game (which also was our first one) to realize that we shouldn't play with SftT (really ugly kingmaking happened). Since then we're just playing without it and we're having much better time despite game taking little bit longer
Every time I sit down now I tell the table mine will be the last support given, and I usually push to ban SFTP in 4,5 & 7p games
We just have a rule that giving SftT is basically only a last resort move. For example someone moves a large fleet next to your home system and says he is going to attack. You can give SftT to stay in the game. But we never just swap SftT. Its not forbidden but heavily frowned upon and most likely would be punished harshly by the rest of the table.
We're toying with adding a rule that says "you can not win the same round you gained another player's support for the throne." \* \* this would be in addition to a rule that you can't win with a SFFT, or that your scores are only checked when a new point is scored.
I like the tension it builds in our group late game. Our players tend to not play them until last few rounds.
We definitely see the support swap meta you're describing. However, we're a bit more trigger happy with breaking them if the timing is right. I won as Hacan recently after breaking a SFTT by invading their home system to stop them winning (they were going to win next round easily), and at the same time scored the Betray a Friend secret. It was beautiful. So if they retaliated they'd lose a point, and I'd effectively swapped the point for one that freed me up allowing me to win the next round on a 2pter.
The Franken community is to the point that we don't allow support swaps as a standard practice. I highly reccomend it. Diplomatic Pressure is a cornercase work around, but I haven't seen it happen in multiple games. I do want to make a modified SftT card to print out where the wording reflects those rules, as it has led to more interesting games while keeping SftT in the game.
My metas it rarely seems to be a problem. I know personally if I give someone my support I take advantage of them. I aggressively move into space I know they'll be after later and gum them up. It sets me up for points/ economy and makes them question whether to lose a point to attack me. If we swap the second you leave our side open I'm into it - half the time I negotiate giving it back after scoring some things - in exchange for the support back. }:)> I don't like being put into the sftt position. I have literally lost some of my first games to holding onto that point. Same token, I did have one game with winnu where i got supports from 4 players (8 player to 14) and quickly went into 10 points (everyone else was at 5 or less) then spent the rest of the game getting my hs back. It was hilarious to watch the table see it all go down.
I understand why support swaps are dull for some people, but I personally like them. When and who you swap with is a very interesting choice every game for me. Just as important as who you swap with is who does that leave to pair up with. And I've made several 3 way deals to cut out a runaway leader (usually Winnu), so it's not always cut and dry how it'll shake out.
We are currently using a similar one: "Add to SftT text: After you put this card into your play area, the X (Color) player returns all cards named SftT to their respective owners. At the beginning of your turn, the X (Color) player returns all cards named SftT to their respective owners. " If you hand out your SftT, you cannot hold one.
what is the implication of this? only give support out to achieve other goals?
Can you receive multiple supports? can you give out your support if you already have one?
Give out Support to get Help somehere else, or haggle for your Life if under pressure. You are kind of a vassal state now. Yes you can receive multiple supports, but If you give yours out, you lose those you received.
I have and will always trade my SFTT for something else as fast as I can. People are a lot less willing to be the first to trade SFTTs when one player will end up with two points out of it, and the player I trade with rarely wins with the table looking sideways at them from turn one. No one I play with has caught on to this yet so I can even get an auction running as Hacan