by sigmazero13
Vandervecken wrote:
Scott,
I do appreciate your position, but I'd like to point one thing out (tongue in cheek if you will).
In my post I explicitly called out the fact that one of the most annoying traits of people who take the RAW position is that they don't tend to engage with the substance of arguments around any particular balance point.
To that end, I outlined an example and gave specific detail (with cases) of why I thought it was unbalanced...
... and you ignored it. Sailed right over the specific example, without engaging the specific argument in any way. Can you see how that can be infuriating?
I do appreciate your position, but I'd like to point one thing out (tongue in cheek if you will).
In my post I explicitly called out the fact that one of the most annoying traits of people who take the RAW position is that they don't tend to engage with the substance of arguments around any particular balance point.
To that end, I outlined an example and gave specific detail (with cases) of why I thought it was unbalanced...
... and you ignored it. Sailed right over the specific example, without engaging the specific argument in any way. Can you see how that can be infuriating?
Fair enough. I'll address this point.
I disagree with your assertion that getting a late SO is a death sentence. I've won games of TI3 without having ever achieved my Secret Objective, before and after Shards. It's harder, yes, but not impossible or even necessarily improbably difficult, at least not from my experiences. It requires an adjustment of tactics to be sure, however.
So I guess it depends on how you are defining "unbalanced". If you mean "certain things aren't completely fair", sure, that may fit. So does half the game, from race selections, system placement, who you are sitting next to, action cards, political cards... There is imbalance in the game, and that's part of what I like about it - the challenge of overcoming imbalance, and the satisfaction I get when I pull it off. That's why I like the non-tangible parts such as the negotiations and politicking with other players. In some ways, getting the bad rap can help a player a bit in negotiations. Maybe it boils down to the group on how effective that can be.
If "unbalanced" is synonymous with "broken" or "unplayable", I disagree. As mentioned above, I don't think the SO rule as written makes the game unplayable or unwinnable for a player with a bad rap. And I personally don't find it unenjoyable, even when I am on the short end of the stick. Heck, my last game, I was in this boat, and while in that case I didn't win, I was only 2 points back, and honestly I was pretty close to pulling it off, were it not for a neighbor attacking me at just the wrong time. In that case, I don't feel my loss was due to not getting my SO (which I got late in the game due to a Prelim that I just couldn't get to work), but rather just due to being outmaneuvered at the end.
I can see the allure for some wanting to use this house rule. To me, it feels unnecessary. Not "bad", just unnecessary. I wouldn't refuse to play with it, but given a vote, I would vote to not use it. Part of it is, knowing or not knowing the SO doesn't necessarily make it any easier, especially if it's very different than the Prelim. Sure, you can plan for it easier, but that doesn't always make it possible. Instead, I think it's possible, sight-unseen, to build a flexible strategy so that early or late, you can often maneuver yourself to achieve it. In the case above, my SO wasn't impossible, but was difficult given my system position, and honestly, having known about it early in the game wouldn't have helped me much. Even if I had fulfilled my Prelim early, I likely would not have achieved the SO during the game.
Perhaps the crux of the matter comes down to "what are we trying to get out of the game", and based on this, I think we may be expecting very different things from the game experience. I enjoy greatly the experience I get out of TI3 as-is, and in the games I've played with more drastic house rules, have enjoyed the game less because of them. Different preferences and expectations, I guess.