Top 5 Revisions to Canon CE Powers
Rob Burns
What follows is what I believe to be the best 5 revisions of canon
Cosmic Encounter powers, and these can apply whether you're playing
with Eon or Mayfair rules.
I typically give the benefit of the doubt to the designers, ESPECIALLY
in the case of Cosmic Encounter, where my strong preference for Eon
rules, rulings, and overall style has been stated repeatedly.
That said, I can't help but feel that Cosmic Encounter is better when
you take these 5 out, and play with the revisions listed below. I've
culled these from my extensive reading of the past 14 years of
messages and posts to rec.games.board.ce. I know 2 of these are ones I
was involved in, but I've tried to be impartial... hey, none of the
Top Ten Homebrews (another article) were of my own design.... because
I honestly felt they stunk in comparison to the ten I listed.
To those who are diehards, I urge you to simply try one or all of
these. I'd like to think you'll find that the power's essence remains,
but that the game plays better.
Thanks again to the 4 original Eon guys for the best game ever.
Here we go:
DIPLOMAT
Revised by Rob Burns & Patrick Riley
Why it was ripe for tweaking:
Bogs down game. Diplomat, as written, can practically ensure that no
player ever wins simply by calling out "negotiate" during every
challenge where two Attack cards are played. Players who know the game
know Diplomat is an extremely annoying Alien power, and not what might
be called "good annoying", but "bad annoying" in that simply by
exercising his power, Diplomat bogs down the game. Stopping Diplomat
means letting the minute run down on a couple of deals so he stops
butting in, but who wants to take the loss of all those tokens (OK,
except Zombie)? One of the few powers that seems to have received
nothing but negative feedback on rec.games.board.ce.
The improved power:
Whenever one, but not two, Negotiate Cards is played in a challenge
and you are not one of the two main players, you can call out
"negotiate". The revealed cards are discarded, and the two main
players and you have 2 minutes to reach a 3-way deal. The normal rules
apply for making a deal, including that no player can gain more than
one base and that you each lose three tokens to the warp if you fail.
Also, you may also negotiate a 3-way deal as an ally in an Encounter
Why this is good:
With my Diplomat in the game, a player can practically call on him for
help by throwing down a Compromise. Of course, it's up to Diplomat. If
you really don't want Diplomat to interfere, don't play a Compromise.
Powerhouses can get dragged down in endless negotiations with various
interlopers when really all they want to do is roll over their
opponent, sure, but hmmm..... isn't that just like real life
sometimes?
The old Diplomat could interfere practically anytime he wished, and
while that looks like that might favor Diplomat, it's my honest
opinion that Diplomat enters into a better negotiating position for
himself when he comes in after one Compromise has been thrown down.
Gerald Katz has said, about this revision of Diplomat: "Getting rid of
the ability to negotiate with two Attack Cards cuts down on the
annoyance factor. Players might be more willing to deal with Diplomat
as is, now. The Compromise player doesn't autoamtically lose the
challenge, and the Attack Card player doesn't lose cards to
consolation. With Diplomat not getting a sure thing as a buy off, he
has to reasonably negotiate to get something as his price. Diplomat
indeed is les[sic] of a nuisance."
I also love how my revision screws Pacifist. Let's face it, Pacifist
had no naturally enemy before, not even Sorceror. Oh wait, Loser
actually. But typically most powers have more than one bane. So, if
you wanted to dull Pacifist, you had to find some way to rob him of
Comps or play a Comp yourself. Doppelganger had access to a Comp, but
that's about it. In the same way, Sorceror has a trickier time of it
if Diplomat's in the game.
What's funny though is who my revised Diplomat's bane is -- Empath. If
Empath chooses to act, Diplomat's shut out.
DICTATOR
Revised by Patrick Riley
Why it was ripe for tweaking:
Bogs down game, can orientate the game in such a fashion (by choosing
the same color over and over) that winning becomes near-impossible.
The improved power:
When the offensive player should draw from the destiny deck, you
instead select any card from the destiny deck. That player must now
make a challenge as if flipping that card from the Destiny Pile. You
may also force a Special Destiny card for a specific challenge
(Mayfair rules). On your turn, or if you are Cosmic Zapped, the
remaining Destiny cards are shuffled, and one is dealt randomly.
Why this is good:
According to its developer: "By giving Dictator the destiny pile/deck,
Dictator could not chose the same color over and over and over." Now
Dictator is limited by the Destiny pile, yet still has enormous power
in choosing which of the remaining Destiny cards the other player is
going to receive, and thus a goodly amount of control over his own
fate.
Our group has played this variant of Dictator and loves it. There's no
consternation over what Dictator does, the power is limited nicely,
and Dictator can still shape the pile so that when it's his turn, he's
got a good chance of flipping his own color or at least a favorable
opponent. In one game I played with this revised Dictator, someone had
the Wild Sorceror, so the power made its way around the table -- and
all the guys who played it loved it. Quite evocative.
EMPATH
Revised by Gary Huckaby
Why it was ripe for tweaking:
It is a demonstrable sub-set of Pacifist. The Alien powers are
identical except that when Pacifist wins outright whereas Empath tries
to make a deal. Obviously, winning is almost always better than making
a deal.
The improved power:
1. Empath is optional. This is actually a possible interpretation of
the Avalon Hill version power card, which (on the front) reads "May
change Attack to Negotiate".
2. If your opponent reveals a Compromise, you may change your own card
to a Compromise.
Why this is good
On its own, Empath is weaker than Pacifist. The tweaks Gary Huckaby
developed make Empath a bit better. You may want your opponent to get
consolation from you, or you may not. Is Empath still on the weaker
side? Sure. But that's part of his charm -- nobody ever suspects the
Empath! Huckaby's tweaks aren't much, but they're right in tune with
the power's flavor. Now, if Empath does have his Super, he's probably
not going to go for Tweak #2, but that's OK. Empath with his Super is
fearsome, particularly to Pacifist.
FORCE
Revised by Rob Burns
Why it was ripe for tweaking:
Force was the one open-ended Alien I couldn't live with. Judge has
good reason to act in a fairly straightforward fashion, and Witch's
curse only happens after she loses tokens and only lasts 2 turns.
Simply put, there's only so much damage Witch can do, and any extreme
damage done to opponents in one challenge will be remembered next time
you ask them to ally. I suppose Force also has similar reason to act
in a restrained fashion, but frankly, it seems clear to me that if the
power had parameters, it would help its player more.
The improved power:
I really wanted to preserve the ‘spirit' of the power, and even remove
the money-grubbing aspect, so that it could be MORE evocative of the
Force in "Star Wars".
Here's my revised power description:
You have the power to be with. When you are not a main player, other
players may call upon you for help in a challenge. The other player
may not specify the help he is hoping for. You may choose to aid one
player per challenge. If you choose to aid him, take the deck and
remove any combination of two Edicts or Kickers (i.e. two Edicts, two
Kickers, or one of each). Shuffle the deck after choosing. Pass both
cards to the player. He
may use one, or neither, of the cards you have offered him, but not
both. At the end of the challenge, after cards have been discarded,
the aided player gives the unused card, or if he used neither, one of
the two cards, back to you. You may keep this card. You may not aid a
player unless called upon and no communication or haggling is allowed
about your choice of aid.
Flares:
Wild -- stays the same.
Super -- You may aid a player whether or not you are called upon, and
after selecting the two cards from the deck, pass him the card you
choose and keep the other.
Why this is good
My thinking is that a choice of two Edicts, Kickers, or Edict and
Kicker is pretty good aid, and Force gets a nice benefit of keeping
the other one. It's not too big a benefit, though, so a desperate
opponent is probably better off calling on Force to help him in the
challenge, despite the good card that Force is going to get to keep.
And let's face it, if Virus is coming at you with his hordes, and
Force is sitting at the table, you're going to call on him -- maybe
he'll pass you a Cosmic Zap, a X 3 Kicker, or an Emotion Control. Who
cares if he keeps the Warp Break, UnZap, or Force Field?
The Super's two parts work in tandem: you need one to have the other.
The other players are much less likely to call on you if they know you
can choose the card you'll keep.
Lastly, as Yoda says, "Through the Force, things you will see". Force
gets to see what's coming in the deck. Nice benefit for Force himself.
WORM
Revised by Gerald Katz
Why it was ripe for tweaking:
I'm going to quote the developer of this revised Worm, Gerald Katz
here:
"The original Worm power is no power at all. The Worm player has no
advantage. First, let's examine Worm as offensive player. The defender
knows that Worm can move the cone. Regardless of where Worm originally
points the cone, the defender can easily defend the planet as if Worm
originally attacked his weakest planet in the first place.
"Now, when challenge totals are calculated, Worm could lose by just a
few challenge points. By moving the cone to a different planet where
the defender has less tokens, Worm can win the challenge. That is
something to the power. However, because the defender knew that was
possible, had Worm attacked the new planet in the first place, he
would have won the challenge anyway. The ability to gain a few extra
challenge points is an illusionary power in this case."
The improved power:
Here's the revised power description:
You have the power to tunnel. At game set-up, you may place your
tokens among
your bases in any way desired. As offensive player, after Challenge
Cards are
revealed, you may move the cone so that it points to any other planet
or moon
where your opponent has tokens, not necessarily in the defensive
system.
Conclude the challenge. As defensive player, after Challenge Cards are
revealed, you may move the cone so that it points to any other planet
in your
system, regardless of whether or not you have tokens there, but also
neither
does your opponent. You may move the cone to and from moons in this
way, but
only to an empty moon or one where you have tokens. Alternatively, you
may
also move the cone to any foreign base that you have where your
opponent does
not, including moons. Conclude the challenge.
Flares:
Wild -- stays the same.
Super -- You may move the cone as per your power as an ally. Consider
as if you
were the main player for the main player on your side of the
challenge.
Why this is good
Again, Gerald Katz, with an excellent defense of his revised Worm:
"With my modified version, the defender risks his foreign bases as
well. Since players can't normally attack others' foreign bases, the
ability to move the cone means something significant for Worm. The
defender has to defend as if his weakest base of all his bases were
under attack. If he wins by just a few challenge points, Worm can move
the cone to a foreign base with less tokens and win the challenge.
That's a power.
"Now let's examine original Worm as defensive player. The extreme game
set-up is to put 16 tokens on one base and one on the others. This is
a problem. For one thing, Worm is in complete panic that Wild Void is
in the game. There are a few other base destroying Flares to watch out
for. Also, his single token bases are ripe for token removal effects.
Worm can put two tokens on 4 planets and 12 on the fifth, but this
ability is really meaningless.
"As defender, Worm would often move the cone to where he has 16 tokens
and thus win the challenge by token count. However, as the game
progresses, Worm has to move tokens from that base to acquire foreign
bases, and others go to the warp when losing a challenge. As such, the
heavily defended planet no longer is so. Plus, the offensive player
knows Worm can move the cone and will plan his attack to accommodate
the possibility of the cone moving to where Worm has the most tokens.
"I could accept on the face of it that Worm can only move the cone to
where he has tokens, but to not be able to move the cone when attacked
where he has no tokens ruins the power. It's tough enough to defend
with 0 tokens, but this limitation effectively allows the offensive
player to Cosmic Zap Worm, adding insult to injury. With my version,
this can't happen. Worm can always move the cone. If he's going to
lose anyway, the ability to move the cone where he no tokens is a
power. However, it has to be also a planet where the offender does not
have a base; otherwise, Worm can never lose more than one home planet
through a challenge and thus be practically invincible as the
defender.
"I also deem it logical sense for Worm as defender to move the cone to
a foreign base he has if desired for some reason. For example, if Worm
has only 3 home bases and the attacker has a base on the other two
planets, Worm can move the cone to a foreign base to ensure keeping
his power. My change to Worm does make it difficult to cause Worm to
lose his third home base and thus his power, but it only makes for a
stronger Worm, not a monopolizing invincible power, and Worm has to
risked his foreign bases for the ability. The ability to move the cone
is now a significant advantage.
"My new Super Flare is not to mean that Worm moves the cone to where
he has a base. Worm moves the cone to where ever the main player on
his side of the challenge has a base following the conditions as set
forth in the power.
"At your option, I'd have no problem if Moons were exempt from Worm.
For example, there is a Moon where all tokens landing on it go to the
warp. For Worm to always be able to move the cone there as defender
might be too Cosmic for some people. Even though there is no guarantee
what Moons are in Worm's system, the possibility is enough for some to
warrant exempting Moons as Worm originally had it."
Hadsil
the proposed change. The others are nice as well. Of course I'm
touched my Worm is included. Thanks. No offense taken there's no
revamped Macron :P. Even I admit I felt Macron needed to be changed
only because I added so much home made stuff to my set, the getting of
less of the new "kewl" cards than others through rewards and
consolation as well as vulnerability to more token removal effects was
an unfortunate side effect to Macron. Macron, as is, is a fine power
in a "normal" cosmic set, even with a few home made stuff added in.
May I suggest you take a look at the Power Of The Day -- Pirate thread
for a revamped Pirate by Rob Burns, tweaked a little by me.
Gerald Katz
Hadsil
sabotage the International Criminal Court (ICC) precisely because they
were then currently planning, preparing and conspiring to commit
criminal wars of aggression around the world. The highest level civilian
officials of the Bush Jr. administration did not want the International
Criminal Court looking over their shoulders while they were committing
wanton aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes against the
Peoples and States of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and
elsewhere. The Bush Jr. Leaguers concerted sabotaging of the ICC is what
criminal lawyers call an example of their "consciousness of guilt." Iraq
for the Iraqis Foreign troops should stay out of Iraq for any reason
whatsoever at the behest of the Bush Jr. administration. Otherwise, they
too will become legitimate targets of attack from an Iraqi resistance
movement to foreign occupation forces that are actively aiding and
abetting the U.S./U.K. criminal war of aggression against Iraq for oil
and Israel, which was in violation of the United Nations Charter and the
Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact as well as the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and
Principles - a Crime against Peace. Iraq should immediately be placed
under the direct control and supervision of a United Nations Trusteeship
under Chapter XII of the U.N. Charter. A real and independent United
Nations Peacekeeping Force should be deployed to Iraq under the auspices
of the U.N. General Assembly (not the U.S. co-opted U.N. Security
Council) pursuant to its powers under the Uniting for Peace Resolution
(1950). The U.S. and U.K. aggressor military occupation forces should be
removed immediately from
Rob Burns
Kennedys were not business as usual, there has been an intense
and incessant effort to reverse that verdict; in essence to
rewrite history. People like Slatzer, Davis, and now Hersh have
made their living off of it.
The Kennedys themselves deserve part of the blame. In Samuels'
article in The New Yorker, Kennedy family lawyer Myer Feldman
says that he advised the Kennedys not to even comment on Hersh,
let alone sue (p. 69). If I were advising, I would have urged a
lawsuit as far back as 1984 with both the Collier-Horowitz book
and the Davis book. I would have loved to hear how the two former
leftists had no idea that Priscilla Johnson was associated with
the CIA, had tied up Marina Oswald for years, and then issued a
tract on both Oswald and the assassination that James Angleton
himself would have written. I would have also loved to hear Davis
explain how he could have completely misrepresented the Church
Committee report to his readers. I would also like to ask him how
many people he thought would read the act