Roman Emperors - Blind Playtest Open

Send us the rules (not only the sample play), we can give them a shakedown.

Comments on opus IX now uploaded to dropbox. Let us know if you have any questions.

No it is not important, how you write is up to you. It is al about what you prefer. A lot of publishers do have there opinion on what wordings to use. But it al comes down to you, and what you feel is the best for youre rules. Aslong as you are consistant and use thr same way al throu out the rules.

You can even write out the gender if it realy bothers you, you can usualy put "the player" instead of he or she so there is that option aswell.

When it comes to titels like the Emperor, I think you should use what goes with the game. Do the players play difrent Emperors then you should defenetly not put Empress there aswell. This du to the simple fact that there was no Empress in rome. (I do not even know af anny roman Empress, if you do pleas tell me =)

Sent, via email, and I'm curious to know what you think, but you'll probably dismiss my comments altogether this time :)

I told Juan this via email, but for those following along, what do you think of this alternate voting rule?

I think each player should be able to vote as they please, for or against each campaign. Then I think there should be a Senatorial Vote deck representing the rest of the senate. You should still be able to bribe to add Approval votes, to a base number of I think 4 Approval and 4 Rejection votes. Then you shuffle the Votes deck, the players vote the way they want, and then you draw N cards from the Vote deck (N = # players in game). Then you tally all the votes, the N you drew and the opponents' votes, to see if you've won the approval of the senate.

This does several things for the game, I think:

1) It allows the other players to actively participate in the game, in a way that feels like they're making choices and participating, nit just flipping cards they were dealt.

2) It allows for some negotiation to occur... "I'll support you if you attack HERE, but not if you attack THERE"*

* I also think there could be some changes to emphasize the need or desire for players to want their opponent to attack HERE vs THERE

3.) It still gives the Emperor a chance to stack the deck with enough Approval votes that he might almost guarantee victory even if his opponents don't vote for him. Because there are N Senate cards and N-1 opponents, if you stack the deck enough that you draw 3 (in a 3p game) or 4 (in a 4p game) Approval cards, then it doesn't matter if all your opponents voted down. For each opponent you can get to agree with you, that's 1 fewer Approval you have to draw from the deck.

I don't think I was being clear there - I didn't mean that a player should be able to build multiple Wonders. I may have explained better (or differently) in email.

We tend to use "the player" / "players"