Two things

[Cannotthink]

With some time playing the game, and some time to think about what was going on, I've generated a couple ideas. Bear in mind, this is just some current thoughts I have regaurding the game through play against myself (honestly, I would not suggest trying it. there is much difficulty and disappointment in attempts to outwit yourself) with the two current possible Obscusi starters. Given time, new opponents, and a greater card pool; these thoughts may change.

First off, I've noticed no real need to allocate characters to locations your opponent controls. A player is either building a force to complete agendas quickly or take out their opponent's force that is doing so.Yes, players eventually have to send their characters somewhere to actually win the game; most of the game, it isn't really necessary. There is no threat to a player without any characters at a location and logically should not allocate any characters if their opponent has a character that can easily take out their own. Simply put, why would somebody allow themself to lose something they can avoid all together.

No, combat isn't flawed. We just need more of a reason for conflict to occur.

It has been discussed a while ago, but I think we should add victory in enough challenge segments rewards a player with control of a location. Each location generally has an ability that warrants controlling it and the ability to dictate where agendas are played feels quite powerful (placing them where your mass of characters is or away from any of your opponent's).

Two out of three segment victories would cause locations to swap control too much. Almost every challenge, a player will win atleast two of the segments. A sweeping victory, winning all three segments, to gain control of a location would force players to allocate atleast one character to a location if they want it.

Secondly, the player not revealing locations has too much control over resources. Let's assume one player never reveals one location and has a steady stream of characters costing 1 and 2 resources and the other utilizes a curve of characters going up to 6. What will happen here? The first player has a swarm of characters that he can use whenever he feels like revealing a single location of their own and set the game on a 5 (or so) turn clock till it is over. The second player is screwed out of half their deck.

A solution to this would come from a change in how locations are revealed and how many each player has. On a player's conspiracy card, there is an additional line that states the maximum number of locations. That would dictate the maximum number of hidden locations they may own in the game as well as the maximum number of locations that can be revealed while that player may still reveal another. Generally, this maximum is kept at around six; that is, assuming both players reveal one location each turn, players would each have three locations under their control. Players still have the ability to cause a smaller number of new resources to come into play each turn, but at the cost of a location they could potentially control in the end.

So, this would be two changes I would like to see made or atleast discussed: Victory in all three challenge segments at a location grants control of that location to the victor, and the addition of a maximum location line to the conspiracy card.

[Foreman]

I replied to the poll. I choose option #1.