/pic1727619.jpg)
First, I want to thank all of you for your comments, questions, and suggestions over the last several weeks. The game is not yet widely available, but those of you that have played it and offered your feedback have brought some great attention to many small details about the game. I really do want to offer my heartfelt thanks.
I’m sending out this note because my publisher has let me know that for the next print run I can make small changes to some of the paper materials of the game – including the rules text and the cards text. (Thanks, FunForge!) I’m taking advantage of this opportunity to make some small changes. Most are clarifications in the rules – responding in several cases to questions that have come up here in the BGG forums. A few are tweaks to existing map designs. And there are a couple of rules changes too.
Clarifications
There are numerous small edits throughout the game to make things clearer. I have added FAQ entries for questions that have come up here on BGG, including: what happens when your dominance reaches 6 during your advance cards phase or during an opponent’s turn; two separate entries to answer common questions about the flagship’s Transport ability; and FAQ entries for a few more of the card powers. I also cleaned up some of the card language, especially the somewhat confusing text on the STRATEGIC command card.
Map changes
(1) The 2-player basic map on the setup page of the rules now matches the (correct) version of the 2-player basic map on the maps insert.
(2) The 3-player basic map has been opened up a little to avoid shut-out. The three rows, left to right and top to bottom are: 8-9-8, 8-9-8, 8-7-8. The starting locations are the same (upper corners and bottom center).
(3) The NEXUS map has been tweaked so that it doesn’t have too many size 9 planet tiles. The two 9s nearest the center are now 10s.
Rule changes
(1) The CURIOUS command card, which was arguably a little overpowered, has been changed. You now get an extra move action on your turn, as long as you do not attack any other player during your entire turn.
(2) The only substantial change to the game is the introduction of a new concept: quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement has to do with the possibility of placing 2 or more of your cubes on the same planet. I will quote from the new rules here:
• You can normally have only ONE of your quantum cubes on a planet.
• However, if the ONLY available space on the entire map is on a planet where you already have a cube, then you can place multiple cubes there.
• The special case of placing a second (or third, or fourth) cube of the same color on a planet is called quantum entanglement. When you construct with quantum entanglement, add 3 to the planet number for each cube you already have there. (Remember – quantum entanglement can only happen if you have no other choice for placing a quantum cube.)
• Example: Near the end of a game, the only place you can construct a quantum cube is on a size 8 planet where you already have a quantum cube. Quantum entanglement would increase the planet number to 11 (8+3) for the purposes of constructing the second cube there.
Note that when you are placing cubes because you reached infamy (dominance = 6), the same placement rules apply (you can place on a planet where you already have a cube – but only if you have no other options). There are no other special rules for placing a quantum entanglement cube via infamy.
Why did I make this change? A few of the maps included with the game turned out to have shut-out possibilities. (That’s when one of the players can’t win because there isn’t a planet where they can build a quantum cube.) One option would have been to redesign the maps and just keep the game rules as they were. That would have been simpler in the sense of not changing any of the core rules.
But my goal for Quantum was to make map creation as interesting and open-ended for players as possible. It struck me that if the designer of the game had not been able to catch some of the instances of shut-out, then many of you might not as well. And as I playtested some of the possible solutions to this design dilemma, I realized that quantum entanglement – a special situation that usually happens only at the very endgame on particularly tight maps – can actually be pretty interesting. It opens up whole new kinds of gameplay possibilities. So I made the change.
The rule change actually doesn’t affect the game hardly at all. For almost every game of Quantum you play, quantum entanglement won’t be a factor. On most of the game’s maps, it can’t happen – and on a few of them it will happen so rarely that you likely will never see it. However, just in case it does, on one of my maps or on one of yours, there is now a “safety net” of rules to cover that situation. If you make your own map, you can choose to create one that will never reach quantum entanglement – or maybe you want one specifically designed to have quantum entanglement happen.
That’s it! As a game designer, I find the idea of a living game design – one that can change and grow over time – a beautiful idea. So thanks again for helping make that happen through your insightful discussions and commentary.
I welcome any thoughts or feedback you might have about these adjustments to the game.
-eric zimmerman
