Re-balancing Schemes Idea

[Malovane]

What if it was just a "you must always reveal one scheme and hide the other"? Since both players will always lose a VP for it, it's balanced.

Would require kidnap be changed since its always hidden but worth 2vp. Of course, kidnap is probably in need of a change anyway.

[Gruesome]

What if it was just a "you must always reveal one scheme and hide the other"? Since both players will always lose a VP for it, it's balanced.

The thing I like about that is that I enjoy when an opponent has a hidden scheme(As seldom as it happens). It adds an extra component to the game to have to figure out what secret goal they might have based upon their actions.

Ensuring there was always one seems cool.

[Undisclosed]

What not modify the current 'abusable' announcable schemes like Eye for an Eye, Kill Protogee to not need announcing but they gain there extra 1VP some other way.

[Cats Laughing]

BTW, isn't the core Strategy set recommended for competitive play? Perhaps we should have a core Scheme set as well, with no faction specific ones? In casual gameplay current system works pretty well, even if it has its quirks.

This makes a whole lot of sense to me.

[kingledge]

I really like the idea of changing up the schemes. I would agree that the "announce" issue is one that could do with being looked at as it is a really nice idea that we don't see enough of in the game. I also like the options to "boost" the VP available for being successful at a task in a certain way. Its a nice suggestion.

[bashamer]

the ""announce" issue" is a gaining grounds issue.

If the system is straight wins / losses then not announcing is a tactical decision for that game; as it is it is a strategic decision for the tournament as to whether or not you announce.