On 4/9/09, Andy Looney <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Second Player Builds First: OK so it sounds like this is a bad rule. I find > this kind of funny actually, since I've been playing it that way for a > couple of years now and it seems like it works OK to me. But obviously, > that's because I haven't seen the fool's mate case described. I guess > that's because I also long ago decided the best homeworld is a half-red > homeworld, which I think nullifies the case. Anyway, I guess I need to > retract it, but I think that's unfortunate, because I do feel the openings > are not balanced. The fool's mate means some homeworlds lose immediately, but that doesn't strike me as the deal killer. Rather, if I build second and go first, I believe I have a strategy such that going first in such a game is significantly worse than going second in a 1st1st game. In a perfect world, I would come to Origins this year and demonstrate :) But since I can't, here's the game Jeep and I recently played to try it: http://www.superdupergames.org/?page=archive_play&gid=13205&idx=8 In short, I'm going to match the color of 1-point star you use with my own, and then use the tempo advantage to take the last, blocking you out of that color right off the bat. If you use the r1b2-G3 homeworld you and I favor (as jeep did in that game) I can prevent you ever getting a red ship at all. 1st builder could stop or survive it various ways (notably by playing Fortress) but I'd rather be second in 1st1st, even vs. Banker. The best I can come up with to balance the start is: 1st builder plays 1st, but must use a large star. It's inelegant. > Terminology: OK, here's where I have to get all whiney. Haven't ANY of you > Homeworlds players gotten a copy of 3HOUSE? I did! It is excellent and everyone should buy it.