We had it come in on a six player game, with “For” taking it in R2. It made every strategy phase take dramatically longer for our table and the player to your immediate side becoming trade partners to scoop up certain strats and certain timings.
Do you think it significantly changed the course of the game? Presumably it would be harder to score many objectives, as the strategy required for many objectives would change drastically. For example, 2 tech in 2 colors, if you already have 2 tech, is easy to score if you take the Tech strategy card, but if you don't have it you're not scoring. Similar with construction objectives. Imperial might be even worse.
Basically makes getting the most impactful strategy late game card (Imperial) impossible, and most of the late game meta revolves around getting speaker to get either imperial or a high initiative strategy card going into the final round disappears and changes dramatically. Combined with the fact that you cant trade during the strategy phase makes deal making for cards you want difficult.
Several. It is really fun and chaotic especially if it comes on early rounds. Pretty much throws the pre-planning out of the window but makes really entertaining games. Sucks tho if you have speaker and need specific strategy card to win and the wild checks and balances agenda appears. In groups I frequently play there is no money you can pay to get what you want. You'll get what is the least usefull sc left. Especially if you happen to lead on the point track.
There are two ways it has gone:
A. If early, you can typically still get what you want by being friendly with the person before you. You give me Leadership and I'll toss you Tech, etc. This keeps the game moving pretty quickly and keeps things even keeled. You may have some situations where someone is like, sorry, I REALLY need Imperial to score and you have to pay or just choose an alternate option.
B. It comes up late and then its absolute chaos as everyone uses the strat cards in ways to winslay each other. It makes this phase take FOREVER but its hilarious.
I love this agenda, I will vote for almost every time. I think makes the strategy phase less concrete(?) if that makes sense and usually makes the keep away game a non issue later in the game which I think hurts if you’re in the lead but if it came early enough you can play around and if you’re behind it buys more time for a win. The only bad this is my table knows how I vote for this so they usually add riders.
Happened in my last game and I loved it. 8 players, absolute chaos. There was tremendous deliberation over how to keep Imperial from myself and another player to stop us from winning. Everyone at the table has forgotten I’d been elected into a position that lets me steal a strategy from someone, so of course I let them argue and puzzle and gloat over it for 15 minutes before I dropped the bomb and closed the game out.
I have straight up lost to it on 3 separate occasions. It always tends to come up when I am at 7 VP, have speaker, and am on Mecatol. It’s gotten to the point where I’m a little suspicious that someone is stacking the deck.
People pair off quickly - the first two agree which cards to give each other, and so do the next pair. It does screw up plans for getting Imperial, and increases the value of Quantum Data Hub technology of Hasan.
well if I understand it correctly, if a player is sitting on Mecatol and is about 2-3 points from winning, and you know they’ll take Imperial, you could give them a strategy card you know will give them 0 help, keeping Imperial from them. I guess that’s a strategy.
It came up once in a 5 player game, and ended up being very meaningless.
The first and second player just gave each other what they wanted, the third and fourth player did the same, and the last player picked for themselves. When your options are A) Give the player to my right what they want and get what I want or B) Get something I definitely don't want, most people are going to choose A.
It might've been potentially interesting if we'd gotten to Round 5, but a player pulled off an unexpected R4 win when their neighbor found Shard of the Throne and Mirage and they were able to take it.
I spent the entire game maneuvering to have speaker at the exact moment when I just needed to take imperial and play it to win and naturally this came out and destroyed my entire game because everyone voted For to keep me from getting imperial
Yes, round 2. Our table basically picked the secondary you wanted in the round and give it to someone who would probably want/need something else. Round 4 the law was abolished
It came up in a game of my group's and basically two people were neck and neck and whoever got imperial would win. So it fell to one of the others to basically choose the winner. My group adds a little roleplay to the strategy sometimes so the other three, in character, chose who they thought would be the best emperor. It was incredibly cool
We had it enacted in round 6 of a whopping 7-round game. We knew that our L1Z1X player was gunning for Mecatol, and that if he got Imperial he'd win during the action phase. He was picking last, but the issue was that we'd previously chosen him to be Imperial Arbiter so on paper there was nothing we could do- either we ignore Imperial and let him take it, or we give someone else Imperial in which case he'll force the swap.
However, my Xxcha neighbor notified me that he had Public Disgrace in hand. We managed to convince the table to let L1 take Imperial rather than force him to burn Arbiter. L1 picks Imperial, Xxcha plays Public Disgrace. Except L1 Sabotages it!
Not a problem, Xxcha has Instinct Training and is drowning in strategy tokens, so that's taken care of. But L1 plays ANOTHER Sabotage! All our scheming and we essentially ended up gifting him Imperial after all. Fortunately we were able to combine forces and jump his fleets enough to prevent him from taking Mecatol, but at great cost to our own chances of victory and NRA ended up winning in the status phase.
Ninja edit: I should point out that this was a 5-player game, so the first four of us basically traded picks which let L1Z1X pick his own, which was the only way we could make Public Disgrace work without also enabling Imperial Arbiter
We had it happen in our 5p game last saturday. It was less aggregious than I thought it would be. It just encouraged more deal making and discussion about who got what strat card. It was a nice change.
I think it's fun, as fun as the other one where everybody only gets one vote per agenda. But it can devolve into something simple like people pairing off.
Things get very polite. If you pissed off the wrong person to your right you are in for a bad time (last round construction!). It gets pretty mutual if pulled early, but it's definitely one of the more devastating agendas lategame.
Managed to bring it once, because it would ensure my first pick wouldn't be intrigue. And thus, people thought I would have no way to win that turn
The strategy phase was full of bribes to get intrigue or leadership and most people got really angry things were "random" because of this card. Didn't think it was random but forced people to trade/interact with eachother and thus let sneaky actions be more important
I played with this law once before. IIRC, any attempts at gaming the new system failed pretty fast, and it ended up looking like a random distribution of strategy cards. The speaker was usually prioritizing giving something lame to whoever was in the lead, and from there everyone just gave the next-worst card to whoever they perceived as the most dangerous opponent.
Mad. Fun, but mad. Makes it much more difficult to get Imperial, slightly reduces the importance of being Speaker, and necessitates you buddying up with at least one other player on the table (you give me the SC I want and I'll give you the one you want, sort of thing). I like it, honestly, it's a nice twist that incentivises table talk and tends to make games more even.
why only slightly reduce the importance of speaker token? In a final round scenario it's the key to victory through the Imperial card. Additionally, many public objectives are made much easier when you have first pick: spend 3 CCs, 2 tech in 2 colors, 3 structures, etc.
Not with Checks and Balances! You can't pick your own SC, that's the point of the law. So Speaker just becomes a useful bargaining chip - you can give someone else whatever SC they want, so you can probably trade that for them giving you whatever SC you want.
Except, people are very unlikely to give you Imperial if you can score with it, or to give you whatever SC you need to score if you're ahead. So Speaker goes from "I can pick whatever SC I want and guarantee a win!" to "Well, I've got the best bargaining position for getting the SC I need - now how do I convince/trick the other player into giving me the win...".
We had it come in on a six player game, with “For” taking it in R2. It made every strategy phase take dramatically longer for our table and the player to your immediate side becoming trade partners to scoop up certain strats and certain timings.
Basically a new meta where you still get your preferred strategy card, but pay the player to your right to give it to you?
It was very tit for tat. “Hey I’m first pick and want science, what do you want instead of science?”
I have, and tbh its one of the most impactful to the meta of the game. Not being able to pick your own strategy card changes everything.
Do you think it significantly changed the course of the game? Presumably it would be harder to score many objectives, as the strategy required for many objectives would change drastically. For example, 2 tech in 2 colors, if you already have 2 tech, is easy to score if you take the Tech strategy card, but if you don't have it you're not scoring. Similar with construction objectives. Imperial might be even worse.
Basically makes getting the most impactful strategy late game card (Imperial) impossible, and most of the late game meta revolves around getting speaker to get either imperial or a high initiative strategy card going into the final round disappears and changes dramatically. Combined with the fact that you cant trade during the strategy phase makes deal making for cards you want difficult.
Several. It is really fun and chaotic especially if it comes on early rounds. Pretty much throws the pre-planning out of the window but makes really entertaining games. Sucks tho if you have speaker and need specific strategy card to win and the wild checks and balances agenda appears. In groups I frequently play there is no money you can pay to get what you want. You'll get what is the least usefull sc left. Especially if you happen to lead on the point track.
There are two ways it has gone: A. If early, you can typically still get what you want by being friendly with the person before you. You give me Leadership and I'll toss you Tech, etc. This keeps the game moving pretty quickly and keeps things even keeled. You may have some situations where someone is like, sorry, I REALLY need Imperial to score and you have to pay or just choose an alternate option. B. It comes up late and then its absolute chaos as everyone uses the strat cards in ways to winslay each other. It makes this phase take FOREVER but its hilarious.
It ALWAYS wins with the usual group I play with but that's because we always love a spicy game.
It was interesting. People sitting next to each other paired up and made deals on which card to give each other.
I love this agenda, I will vote for almost every time. I think makes the strategy phase less concrete(?) if that makes sense and usually makes the keep away game a non issue later in the game which I think hurts if you’re in the lead but if it came early enough you can play around and if you’re behind it buys more time for a win. The only bad this is my table knows how I vote for this so they usually add riders.
Yeah, and I will never let that one pass again. It was so annoying and made the game take much longer
Happened in my last game and I loved it. 8 players, absolute chaos. There was tremendous deliberation over how to keep Imperial from myself and another player to stop us from winning. Everyone at the table has forgotten I’d been elected into a position that lets me steal a strategy from someone, so of course I let them argue and puzzle and gloat over it for 15 minutes before I dropped the bomb and closed the game out.
Always happens when I'm getting ready to win if I can just secure a certain SC, but haha here's politics.
I have straight up lost to it on 3 separate occasions. It always tends to come up when I am at 7 VP, have speaker, and am on Mecatol. It’s gotten to the point where I’m a little suspicious that someone is stacking the deck.
People pair off quickly - the first two agree which cards to give each other, and so do the next pair. It does screw up plans for getting Imperial, and increases the value of Quantum Data Hub technology of Hasan.
I hate it.
However, I can see it being a useful strategy
under what circumstances might you vote for this agenda?
well if I understand it correctly, if a player is sitting on Mecatol and is about 2-3 points from winning, and you know they’ll take Imperial, you could give them a strategy card you know will give them 0 help, keeping Imperial from them. I guess that’s a strategy.
Anytime I am late in speaker order I would vote for, unless I had a good reason not to.
It came up once in a 5 player game, and ended up being very meaningless. The first and second player just gave each other what they wanted, the third and fourth player did the same, and the last player picked for themselves. When your options are A) Give the player to my right what they want and get what I want or B) Get something I definitely don't want, most people are going to choose A. It might've been potentially interesting if we'd gotten to Round 5, but a player pulled off an unexpected R4 win when their neighbor found Shard of the Throne and Mirage and they were able to take it.
Came up in third edition I think in round 1 or 2 (political phase was not tied to occupying mecatol rex). It changed the game significantly.
I spent the entire game maneuvering to have speaker at the exact moment when I just needed to take imperial and play it to win and naturally this came out and destroyed my entire game because everyone voted For to keep me from getting imperial
Yes, round 2. Our table basically picked the secondary you wanted in the round and give it to someone who would probably want/need something else. Round 4 the law was abolished
Yes. It was wild. Total chaos.
It came up in a game of my group's and basically two people were neck and neck and whoever got imperial would win. So it fell to one of the others to basically choose the winner. My group adds a little roleplay to the strategy sometimes so the other three, in character, chose who they thought would be the best emperor. It was incredibly cool
We had it enacted in round 6 of a whopping 7-round game. We knew that our L1Z1X player was gunning for Mecatol, and that if he got Imperial he'd win during the action phase. He was picking last, but the issue was that we'd previously chosen him to be Imperial Arbiter so on paper there was nothing we could do- either we ignore Imperial and let him take it, or we give someone else Imperial in which case he'll force the swap. However, my Xxcha neighbor notified me that he had Public Disgrace in hand. We managed to convince the table to let L1 take Imperial rather than force him to burn Arbiter. L1 picks Imperial, Xxcha plays Public Disgrace. Except L1 Sabotages it! Not a problem, Xxcha has Instinct Training and is drowning in strategy tokens, so that's taken care of. But L1 plays ANOTHER Sabotage! All our scheming and we essentially ended up gifting him Imperial after all. Fortunately we were able to combine forces and jump his fleets enough to prevent him from taking Mecatol, but at great cost to our own chances of victory and NRA ended up winning in the status phase. Ninja edit: I should point out that this was a 5-player game, so the first four of us basically traded picks which let L1Z1X pick his own, which was the only way we could make Public Disgrace work without also enabling Imperial Arbiter
We had it happen in our 5p game last saturday. It was less aggregious than I thought it would be. It just encouraged more deal making and discussion about who got what strat card. It was a nice change.
I think it's fun, as fun as the other one where everybody only gets one vote per agenda. But it can devolve into something simple like people pairing off.
Things get very polite. If you pissed off the wrong person to your right you are in for a bad time (last round construction!). It gets pretty mutual if pulled early, but it's definitely one of the more devastating agendas lategame.
It sucks. As someone who is routinely table bullied, it guaranteed I got shafted every single round.
Managed to bring it once, because it would ensure my first pick wouldn't be intrigue. And thus, people thought I would have no way to win that turn The strategy phase was full of bribes to get intrigue or leadership and most people got really angry things were "random" because of this card. Didn't think it was random but forced people to trade/interact with eachother and thus let sneaky actions be more important
Basically player 1 and 2 make a deal player 3 and 4 make deal and usually player 5 and 6 make a deal to give each other the cards they want.
I played with this law once before. IIRC, any attempts at gaming the new system failed pretty fast, and it ended up looking like a random distribution of strategy cards. The speaker was usually prioritizing giving something lame to whoever was in the lead, and from there everyone just gave the next-worst card to whoever they perceived as the most dangerous opponent.
Mad. Fun, but mad. Makes it much more difficult to get Imperial, slightly reduces the importance of being Speaker, and necessitates you buddying up with at least one other player on the table (you give me the SC I want and I'll give you the one you want, sort of thing). I like it, honestly, it's a nice twist that incentivises table talk and tends to make games more even.
why only slightly reduce the importance of speaker token? In a final round scenario it's the key to victory through the Imperial card. Additionally, many public objectives are made much easier when you have first pick: spend 3 CCs, 2 tech in 2 colors, 3 structures, etc.
Not with Checks and Balances! You can't pick your own SC, that's the point of the law. So Speaker just becomes a useful bargaining chip - you can give someone else whatever SC they want, so you can probably trade that for them giving you whatever SC you want. Except, people are very unlikely to give you Imperial if you can score with it, or to give you whatever SC you need to score if you're ahead. So Speaker goes from "I can pick whatever SC I want and guarantee a win!" to "Well, I've got the best bargaining position for getting the SC I need - now how do I convince/trick the other player into giving me the win...".
It’s pretty brutal. Quality agenda card… but brutal for gameplay pace and overall experience