Variant suggestion

[Le007n]

As we all know by know that there are a few characters which are much better than others. The random character variant gives a nice break from the usual first player, second player selections but has its own issue in that it can give a good character to one and a very bad to another.

I keep trying to think of ways to improve this...

An issue lots of games have is first player advantage.

Glow basically gives player one a double advantage with first pick of character and then first pick of companion. This allows them to have the best synergy companion for all eight rounds. The game tries to compensate for this by giving a few reroll tokens but this is a drop in the ocean

Taking a three player game was an example

If we add some arbitrary numbers to each pick and presume that for each round:

- the first pick gets the best choice of cards so picks have a value of 3, 2, 1
- the overall pick value is N times the value with N being the number of rounds it can be used in

We then get a grid like:

Round 1 | pick 1 = 24 (3*8) | pick 2 = 16 (2*8) | pick 3 = 8
Round 2 | 21 | 14 | 7
Round 3 | 18 | 12 | 6
...

If you add up the value for each player you get:

P1 = 75
P2 = 75
P3 = 66

As you can already see, player three is at a disadvantage (but gets two reroll tokens

This however isn't the full story. Based on choice of character there is likely a multiplier to apply based on their strength. Again we can presume, first pick gets the best choice and this decreases based on order

P1 | 75 * 1 = 75
P2 | 75 * 0.9 = 68
P3 | 66 * 0.8 = 53

This seems like a reasonable representation in my experience. There is much more going on so it's not this black and white before anyone streets saying this, but as a relative example it gives the idea I think

What I would therefore, suggest either as a variant (if approved by the publisher), or as a suggestion for any future editions would be:

Reverse character pick

- player 1 goes first in round one but characters are picked in reverse order
Reroll tokens given at the start are either
- halved | 0 in a two player game | 1 for player 3 in a three player game
Or
- reversed also | P1 gets the tokens

This then means that the player with likely the best character doesn't get the best companion pick straight away to reduce this advantage.

Based on the numeric example above you then get

P1 | 75 * 0.8 = 60
P2 | 75 * 0.9 = 68
P3 | 66 * 1 = 66

This appears much closer but proof would be in trying this.

This could be done unofficially if players agreed characters and picked accordingly with current restrictions to try this

Thoughts?

[sorryimlikethis]

It's interesting, in 2 player games I feel like 2nd player has a large advantage. Every time they are first pick (2, 4, 6, 8) their "engine" is further progressed and they can make better use out of more dice. This culminates with a huge advantage in round 8 to finish the game. First player's advantage is having more relevant companions for longer but I would still rather be 2nd player 100% of the time.

In 3 player games being last is a huge disadvantage because of the drop down between the top 2 adventurers and the 3rd adventurer but also only getting 1st companion pick twice and not in the final round. Edit: Reversing pick order does compensate player 3. Player 2 would have the best position though.

I guess the difference is I don't value early round picks as much as late round picks. The companions come out randomly so being first in the first round could be good or could be bad. Being first in the last round when you can choose the dice is nearly always good.

My other thought on reroll tokens are each player should start with 10 of them. It makes the reroll companions less important, you will always have enough stockpiled for the end if you save them early. Last player can get footprints instead.

[Le007n]

Thanks for your reply.

I personally feel that in a two player game it evens out quite well. Player one gets first pick and more turns with possibly good companions. Player two gets the last turn with the last choice of dice against all previous companions as you say, three of which were first pick. This however is the same advantage player one has on turn seven, just using one less companion

Four player at least has an even number of starting turns and there are at a push, four usable adventurers. Player four again though gets the better synergy too late

Three players is a mess tbh. I would suggest having 9 round for this player count to even out the turns. This would give player three the choice on the last turn. However, it think it would not be powerful in this scenario

I've just finished a handful of arena games to look at this further. In pretty much every game, player one got a very strong companion straight away to synergise with Braccio (okans or mindaroo). The game was often insurmountable by the end as there is very little conflict barring the occasional card denial

Changing the pick order as suggested would slow their engine down considerably but wouldn't be a silver bullet

First pick is imo often a lot stronger than eight. If you get a companion they can consistently make 6 points early on (I'm looking at you mindaroo), if they can make it 75% of the rounds that's 36pts for one card. 48pts if they make it all rounds.

The idea of reroll tokens for all is interesting to negate the green synergy. 10 for all players seems too heavy. Maybe staggering this for players and increasing the current numbers would help eg. 0, 4, 8...

[Palapapa]

As said, being 2nd player is not a disavantage compared to 1rst player.
But we all agree that being 3rd in a 3 players game is terrible.

I think 5 rerolls at the start for 3rd player would be fair.
Or 9rounds +2/3 rerolls

I hope this game will have a second edition or expansion that make it more balanced.
I create a new thread with suggestions to make it more balanced. Feel free to join the discussion.