by Scorpion0x17
MannyMoeJack wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
It seems to me that this can only reduce the number of strategic decisions you have to make, not increase them.
With the rules as they are written, every time you roll the dice you have to ask yourself "What should I keep and what should I re-roll?"
With this proposed rule it becomes: roll, "keep those", re-roll, "keep those", re-roll, "don't use those"
i.e. you make one decision, e.g. "I need hearts", and then make ZERO decisions until you've got the symbols you want - everything else becomes entirely automatic.
With the rules as written it's not unusual to re-roll the dice you kept after the first roll on the 2nd re-roll (because the 1st re-roll has given you a better combination to go for).
With the rules as they are written, every time you roll the dice you have to ask yourself "What should I keep and what should I re-roll?"
With this proposed rule it becomes: roll, "keep those", re-roll, "keep those", re-roll, "don't use those"
i.e. you make one decision, e.g. "I need hearts", and then make ZERO decisions until you've got the symbols you want - everything else becomes entirely automatic.
With the rules as written it's not unusual to re-roll the dice you kept after the first roll on the 2nd re-roll (because the 1st re-roll has given you a better combination to go for).
I agree that making a player decide if they should roll again or not is a fun game mechanic. The problem with it is that it's in a wrong part of the game. It shouldn't be happening to a player that is dying. It makes the game harder for a player that is already losing. That seems pointless to me. A player that is losing should have hope that they can get back into the game.
May I ask, Andrew, at what point did you introduce this rule into your games?
When you read the rules?
After the first game your group played?
After the 50th?
I ask because, when I've played the game, I've found that these "should I stick with I've got or should I roll again?" decisions are being made almost all the time, whether a player is winning, losing, or anything else-ing, and that it is simply not the case that being down on health and/or low on VPs leaves one with no hope of winning.
Every player has an equal chance of rolling any given combination of dice - therefore one always has the possibility of rolling hearts, to heal, numbers, to gain VPs, or energy, to buy cards.
I have gone, and have seen other players go, from nearly dead to winning the game, through a series of lucky rolls, and/or card purchases, on several occasions.
It is, for me, this hope, however slim, of getting the right rolls, that injects a lot of the fun into the game, and makes one want to risk that 2nd re-roll.
If you take away the risk, you remove some of the strategy, and therefore some of the fun, in my opinion.
Also, if this rule was adopted very quickly was it because your group fell into a pattern of always taking the 'roll as many claws as you can' strategy?
Again, I have, and have seen, adopted a number of different strategies - one can go for getting in to Tokyo and going for all out attack - or one can concentrate of gaining VPs, and win that way - or you can go for energy and buy cards that allow you to either win through indirect damage, or through VPs - or you can react to, or, better, try to preempt, what the other players are doing.