By Steve Hatherley
INWO has a number of rules that, frankly, don’t actually add anything to the game. They aren’t even used all that often. As far as I’m concerned, they’re pointless and we’d be better off without them.
Newly Captured Groups
“A newly captured group may not act on the turn you capture it.” Why do we need this rule? A group can only act with an action token, and it’s unlikely that a newly-captured group will have one (not least because its previous owner would probably have removed any action tokens, in defence if nothing else).
As there are only a few ways of giving groups action tokens during your main phase (which is when you would capture a group) I would suggest that a decks that are able to get a newly captured group to act are far and few between. If so, this isn’t a rule we really need.
(It does mean losing Blitzkreig. As that’s a card I’ve never used, I can live with that.)
At any time
Would it kill INWO to lose the restriction that stops you using an “at any time” card during the beginning of your turn? I would love to have to stop saying “Er, I know that it says “at any time” but that’s not what it means…” And what purpose does the restriction serve? You can do an “at any time” action at the end of the previous player’s turn anyway, which is virtually the same thing.
Given that the only time that anyone plays an agent card is when they are attacking another player, there seem to be an awful lot of rules for them. Does it matter if more than one player plays an Agents card? Why do Agents give +10 in attack but only +6 in defence? Surely it’s simpler to say “Playing an agents card gives +10 to aid the attack or defence”? As people only rarely double up with groups in their deck (45 cards isn’t enough to do that), I don’t see simplifying the agents rule would change the game at all.
A rival’s resources
“And if you eliminate a player who was using the same Illuminati that you are, you get his Resources.” I’ve never seen this happen. I’ve never seen it because I can’t remember ever seeing another Illuminati being eliminated. It’s usually more profitable to concentrate on your own goal rather than eliminate another player.
(In fact, until I re-read the rules just now, I didn’t even know it was in there - and therefore wouldn’t have played by it.)
So do we need a separate rule for this once-in-a-blue-moon event? I think not.
Goals in hand
“However, no player (except the UFOs) may have more than one goal card in his hand.” Er - why? The goals aren’t that compatible that it’s an issue - and in my experience decks tend to be sufficiently focussed that they are designed to win only one way in any case.
And if a player does have two goal cards in hand - so what? It’s hardly going to break the game.
Anyway, I don’t need a rule to tell me not to have two goals in my hand - if I’ve got two goals then one of them is taking up a valuable slot that could contain a +10 or a canceller or something more useful.
So I’d do away with this rule, and I’d rip up all my Alternate Goals plot cards and I’d change the UFOs’ goal to say “At the start of the game search your deck for a Goal Card and hide it under the UFOs. This is your Illuminated goal.”
Playing duplicate plot cards
“No player may use duplicates of the same Plot card in a single attack, or to defend against a single attack, even if the duplicate Plot cards are used to help two different Groups.” Why not? What’s so terrible if we allow duplicates to be played?
While I am not sure what the original reason for the rule was, the main culprits are likely to be the +10s. And I can imagine that if you don’t put restrictions on the number of plot cards in your deck, then you could get silly situations where in one attack Cthulhu plays seven Terrorist Nukes. But as we habitually play with a plot card limit of three cards, this isn’t really an issue.
(And even if Cthulhu did play seven Terrorist Nukes - does that matter? If you’ve got the resources, then commit them I say!)