Rules Documents for ease of Access
TI3 Basic:
fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_conte … 3rules.pdf
Shattered Empire:
fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_c … _Rules.pdf
Shards of the Throne:
fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_c … ow-res.pdf
FAQ
fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_c … faq2-3.pdf
shaunm, Zilfalon, what exactly do you mean by an asymetric map?
With major changes like 1 or 2, how do you preserve game balance? One player may be closer to MR than another and/or closer to their neighbors than another. Either of these can give an undue adantage or disadvantage depending on the player’s secret objective. Also, having some homeworlds approachable from 6 sides and others from 3 seems like a huge swing in ability to defend it; furthermore it seems that shorter distance to MR and/or to your neighbors will increase the value of some race abilities and decrease the value of others, possibly screwing some people in a random race draw.
Edit: I guess regardless of balance discussions, my general philosophy is this. When I play with an official map and official rules, I have an assurance backed by FFG reputation that these rules and maps were well-playtested and balanced. Whenever I play by unofficial rules, I have no such assurance. For a game lasting a few hours, unofficial rules are fine. However, for a game lasting 6+ months, it seems to me that the risk of unofficial maps/rules unbalancing the game is too great.
I have another option that I think would be a good middle ground between the pre-set map players and the random map players. Start with a basic 6 player 3 ring setup. Each player receives 2 random single planet systems, 1 random multi-planet system, 1 random empty system, and 1 random special system (Cormund and Everra are special systems). Then each player is given or is randomly chosen one of the 6 starting positions and, proceeding clockwise, each player places 1 tile until all tiles are placed. No red bordered system may be placed next to another red bordered system and if that is the only option left, a player is given a random tile from the remaining tiles to place. This can also be used with another variant (explained below) if desired. It does make set-up take a little longer, but would be a good compromise.
Here’s the other optional variant:
If any of you are familiar with the Shattered Ascension variant common on ti3wiki.org, then you’ll probably have heard of Star by Star. For those of you who haven’t it generally goes like this. Using this game option, the galaxy is built with Home Systems
free at the hand instead of fixed starting locations. Using this option, players may place systems in any place that borders an existing tile, and it’s no longer required to place a tile containing a planet after placing an empty tile. Players should place their tiles in turns rotating around the table rather than alternating back and forth. Yellow bordered systems may not be placed adjacent to other yellow-bordered systems. The Mecatol Custodians must be in play, and may be doubled in strength (prior to galaxy setup).
In addition, include the following rules:
*No Home System may be activated by an enemy during the first round.
*Muaat may only be placed in the rim (outermost ring)
*Your players on your left and on your right are considered your ‘neighbors’ regardless of Home System location.
Thanks, StrangeTim, those do seem quite clever.
Nevertheless, anything that’s not official will always trigger my “lack of assurance of balance” worry.
My opinions -
Race selection:
I personally like options. I like being given 2 or 3 races at random to choose from. But pure random selection is fine.
Map:
Rules as written (player-built symmetric map). I have had some fun with alternate setups, but there is entirely too much chance for imbalance. Given the time commitment this game will be, I want as fair as possible.
Seating order:
Don’t have a preference at all.
Territorial Distant suns:
Undecided - there are very good arguments for both ways.
Final Frontier:
Undecided
Voice of the Council
No - in my ftf group we’ve found it a waste of time because we are always very careful to make sure it goes to the person that is the least likely to win that round.
Space Mines:
Yes
Facilities
Yes
Tactical retreats
Yes
Sabotage runs
Yes - I’ve never seen one done - will this be the game to change that?
Side question about asymmetric maps - do you play with the 4th ring? How do you deal with some people having a hard time getting any space and others eating up half the map?
The ftf group I play with is so aggressive we would likely have at least one person blockaded on round two (it would happen in round 1 if it was allowed) and eliminated on round three if home worlds were any closer together. One of the things I hate the most in my group is sitting next to mentak with warfare II because I know if I am not super conservative all three cruisers are coming at me first round.
But that aggressiveness might be why we are happy with symmetric placement - there is no such thing as “my space” in our games.
Ok, if jp won’t play, are we playing with 5 people? Or waiting for another player to arrive? With Star by Star or asymmetric setup, 5 players wouldn’t be a problem.
Regarding galaxy setup, this is how we do it in our group:
boardgamegeek.com/thread/674131/ … nstruction
It allows for semi-random setups, where starting positions can be balanced with the bidding system using trade goods. Conservative races in fear of being wiped out early can always find an outer ring Home System, while aggressive races will usually attempt to get a central position.
We have never experienced problems regarding the concerns stated by Rus (e.g. the ability to defend, distance to MR). I can see where the “backed by FFG playtesting” is coming from, but to be honest, having played plenty of FFG Games, I fear that’s not a valid argument. But let’s better not get into that…
Tim’s suggestion of Star by Star from Shattered Ascension was mentioned by me earlier. I would still prefer that to standard setup.
All right, I’ll update our votes:
Race selection according to rules as written (i.e. fully random)
YES: 5 (Rus, Zilfalon, Tuna Dude, AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
NO: 0?
Map:
Rules as written (player-built map): 2 (Rus, AbsoluteZero)
preset map: 2(Zilfalon, Shaun)
Type of map:
official FFG (symmertic): 1 (Rus)
Star by Star from Shattered Ascension (player-built): 0 (Shaun, if others do not want asymmetric.
asymmetric: 2 (Shaun, Zilfalon)
Seating order:
based on time zones or people’s schedules to optimize efficiency: 3 (Rus, Zilfalon, Shaun)
random: 0?
Don’t care: 1 (AbsoluteZero)
Territorial Distant suns:
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
Don’t care: 2 (AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
Final Frontier:
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
Don’t care: 2 (AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
Voice of the Council
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 3 (Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
Space Mines
YES: 4 (Rus, Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
NO: 0
Facilities
YES: 4 (Rus, Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
NO: 0
Tactical retreats
YES: 2 (Rus, AbsoluteZero)
NO: 0
Don’t care: 2 (Zilfalon, Shaun)
Sabotage runs
YES: 3 (Rus, AbsoluteZero, Shaun)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
OK I may as well chip in with my votes. I presume we’re still waiting on a sixth player?
Map:
Rules as written (player-built map): 2 (Rus, AbsoluteZero)
preset map: 3(Zilfalon, Shaun, TunaDude)
I didn’t read through the link shaunm provided, but I’m assuming it works. Doing it the proper way would just seem too time consuming unless we were to all get on the module at once.
Type of map:
official FFG (symmertic): 1 (Rus)
Star by Star from Shattered Ascension (player-built): 1 (TunaDude: shrug I’d like to try it)
asymmetric: 2 (Shaun, Zilfalon)
Seating order:
based on time zones or people’s schedules to optimize efficiency: 4 (Rus, Zilfalon, Shaun,TunaDude)
random: 0?
Don’t care: 1 (AbsoluteZero)
Territorial Distant suns:
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
Don’t care: 3 (AbsoluteZero, Shaun,TunaDude)
Final Frontier:
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
Don’t care:3 (AbsoluteZero, Shaun, TunaDude)
Voice of the Council
YES: 1 (Rus)
NO: 4(Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun, TunaDude) Never played with it, but never seen the point in it.
Space Mines
YES: 5 (Rus, Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun, TunaDude)
NO: 0
Facilities
YES: 5 (Rus, Zilfalon, AbsoluteZero, Shaun, TunaDude)
NO: 0
Tactical retreats
YES: 3 (Rus, AbsoluteZero,TunaDude)
NO: 0
Don’t care: 2 (Zilfalon, Shaun)
Sabotage runs
YES: 4 (Rus, AbsoluteZero, Shaun, TunaDude)
NO: 1 (Zilfalon)
Well I guess in some votes our 5th Player is the Tie Braker!
Okay I will back off form Distant Suns and Final Frontier, to I dont care.
Since I sort of want to try it…
Now we should have the Ground Rules set, and are ready to go.
I think 6 players would be more fun. I’ll contact the others on our list to see if they are still interested, maybe they somehow missed or misunderstood the note about switching to this list.
The asymmetric map definitely looks interesting, and I thank Shaun for pointing us to this house rule and thoughtful explanations. I also sympathize with Shaun’s point about not putting too much trust into a publisher’s playtesting. So it was quite puzzling to me why the idea of an asymmetric map bugs me so much. After giving it some thought I think I finally figured out what it is. The issue here is not that the asymetric map was not playtested by FFG (though that is still a factor), but rather that it was never playtested by me. I’ve played 4 TI3 games, all with a symetric setup, and I know I like it that way. Chances are that I will also like the asymmetric map, perhaps even more than the symmetric map for all the reasons Shaun states. However, there is a risk, however small, that I will not like it, and I don’t feel comfortable committing to a 6-month game with such a risk. (Especially considering this may be my only PBF TI3 game in some years, perhaps ever.) It also won’t be fair to you guys to have a player who is not enthusiastic, even if the risk is small. So, if this will be a game with an asymmetric (or otherwise unofficial) map, I will respectfully decline to participate and wait for one with a symmetric map (or till I had the chance to playtest he asymmetric one in a realtime game).
I’m willing to play and GM if everyone is ok with it.
I can randomly assign tiles that people can place one by one to make everyone happy. Just need to know what your going to do.
I’m really happy about your thoughtful response Rus!
This has led me to propose the following: Let’s play 2 games, one with a standard symmetric setup GMed by jpsuchecki and acting as 6th player, and one with an asymmetric setup, which I would be willing to GM. I would offer to just do GMing in that one, having a 5 player game.
That sounds like a good idea! The only thing that might be a sticky point is how many people would be willing to play 2 games.
Maybe Jpsuchecki and you can create a game (perhaps start new separate threads), and just see which game people join.
But just to clarify, if I’m the only one who prefers a symmetric map, then I’m happy to sit this one out (and perhaps even try to find a replacement so you guys aren’t stranded with only 4 or 5 players).
Oh, and I welcome jpsckecki’s participation as a player!
Nah, you’re not backing off now. 
I share your concerns that 2 games might be too much for some people, but let’s just wait and see! I’ll start a new thread now to get things going.
Ok, sounds good. To simplify things, I propose we reserve this thread for the game with no house rules (map or otherwise). All players will be assumed to be still checked in unless they post here saying they are switching into Shaun’s game (and don’t want to play two games). Jpsuchecki, are you still on board as a GM and player?
yeah, i’m ok with that, so let me clarify we are setting up the board according to the rules of game? can I get people’s timezones so I can determine an order on the board.
jpsuchecki CST
I’m PDT. Although perhaps it’s best to list the approximate time people are most likely to be putting in their moves. For me, it’ll probably be ~9p PDT, or 4am GMT.
GMT (+10.00): Between 7-10pm. I would be willing to play both standard and asymmetric.
I’m also PDT. I will most likely do turns at ~7p PDT, 2a GMT.
I would like to play but I still not sure how to use vassel
P.S. What are we doing to decide first speaker?