by moosemcd
I see your side in the sense that I'm sure it works for you and you enjoy playing that way, but I would never want to play that way because, at the very least, I believe that it violates the spirit of the game and I'd rather just play the game the way Garfield designed it.MannyMoeJack wrote:
The Risk/Reward game mechanic, that makes the game a little harder for a player, only happens when they are losing.
That seems like a broken rule to me.
That seems like a broken rule to me.
It happens every time you want to do something other than attack and risk entering Tokyo. It happens if you have 17 VPs and 2 Health and you're going for the last 3 that will get you to 20. It happens if you want to build up some energy to buy a card before you want to enter Tokyo.
MannyMoeJack wrote:
This does happen. Tokyo can sometimes stay vacant for 4 or 5 rounds. But I've rarely seen people start hoarding VPs. Most of the time they are rolling for power. This makes the game interesting because people are all trying to get the best powers to take them to the end of the game.
So Tokyo stays vacant for 5 or 6 full rounds? That's insane. The game is King of Tokyo, it's not an episode of Dragonball Z. If you like playing with a bunch of cards then have everyone start the game with 6 energy or something. If everyone is using the same strategy because of your rule change, you've broken the game. The official rules avoid this sort of situation because someone will roll a claw and be force to take Tokyo at some point in the first 1 or 2 rounds. They will then be forced to reassess and alter their strategy. In fact, once someone takes Tokyo, everyone at the table is forced to reassess and alter their strategy because of the threat of a monster in Tokyo.
My biggest problem with your rule change is that by removing an element of chance, from what is really a pretty simple game, you are making that game more 'solvable' and allowing one strategy to become much more overpowered than the others. The thing I love about the game is that focusing on VPs, Attacks, Energy, or some mix of the 3 are all viable strategies. While you may not have observed it thus far, I worry that your rule change reduces the viability of some of these strategies. Once someone figures out the optimum strategy, they will dominate a few games. Then everyone will start using the same strategy and all actual skill and strategy will be absent as the game turns into who can roll the right results to achieve that optimum strategy.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't find the idea of allowing people to pick and choose which dice they use to be appealing and I don't find your arguments to be true for the games I have played, just as you don't seem to find my arguments to be true for yours.