In UberChrononauts, the universe is destroyed if, at any time, there are 13 paradoxes within any four consecutive rows of the timeline. (This is especially important to Crazy Joe, the Lost ID who wins by killing the universe.)
But, if your game table is like mine, it has a hard time holding all 64 timeline cards in the traditional 8x8 arrangement (69 with the Gore Years). More often than not, I have to arrange the timeline in a different configuration to make it fit conveniently, with 9, 10, or even 12 cards per row as the table size dictates.
But wait, it I change the number of rows, I also mess with the number of possible paradoxes in each row. If there are more or less than 8 cards per row, the magic number 13 for timeline collapse is no longer valid!
So, I've done the math. For timeline configurations between 6 and 14 cards per row, I counted the number of ripplepoints per row (always with the Gore Years included). Then I summed up the number of ripplepoints per every set of four consecutive rows, and took an average. Then I compared the average ripplepoint density against that of the usual 8-per-row timeline, and scaled the magic 13 accordingly.
Results:
6 cards per row = 9 paradoxes within four rows
7 cards per row = 11 paradoxes within four rows
8 cards per row = 13 paradoxes within four rows
9 cards per row = 14 paradoxes within four rows
10 cards per row = 16 paradoxes within four rows
11 cards per row = 17 paradoxes within four rows
12 cards per row = 19 paradoxes within four rows
13 cards per row = 20 paradoxes within four rows
14 cards per row = 23 paradoxes within four rows
Note that the number of paradoxes is approximately 1.6x the number of cards per row, in case you need a quick rule of thumb.
Replies
Just off the top of my head, shooting from the hip...
What about playing the first game allowing Patches to act as an Inverter (if needed) plus the patch. I am not sure if or how much that might break the game, but it would provide a simplification for an introductory game.
Are you playing with your hand face-up. That enables you to explain cards and the other players can see what you are doing.
When I teach games, I explain the game's card types on a need to know basis and wait until a player has progressed the game to a point that the win condition becomes relevant. Example:
1) At the set up of the game, explain linchpins, ripplepoints, inverters, and patches. "The timeline is made up events in history. Linchpins are critical events and a ripplepoint is the result of that event. The purple we see now is true reality; the red side is alternate reality. Inverters flip linchpins to alternate reality. When that happens, they force the ripplepoints to flip over because those resulting events couldn't happen and that makes a paradox, which is the back of the ripplepoint card. You use a patch to fix a paradox." Notice I did not explain how to win the game. I only explained the cards that we immediately see and the most important cards that interact with them.
2) On your turn or the first time someone tries to play and action, gadget, or timewarp, explain those at that time. "[this card] you play and do what it says. It helps you find what you need to win the game."
3) When someone tries to play an inverter, remind all players what that does. The first time someone successfully plays a patch, then explain the ID card and the Going Home win condition. Do not explain the 10-card hand win condition.
4) After having explaining the Going Home win condition, later in the game when someone successfully plays an artifact, that would be the appropriate time to point to the players Mission card and tell them that another way to win is to have those artifacts on the table in front of them.
5) As the game progresses, one of two things will happen:
a) players will not be playing patches and the number of paradoxes will quickly increase. At this time, explain the loss condition: if there are too many unpatched paradoxes, all players lose.
b) players will be patching paradoxes and hand sizes will increase.
6) As hand sizes increase because of patching paradoxes, explain the 10-card Hand win condition.
In this way, it sounds like I've prioritized the win (and loss) conditions but this is the order that these conditions begin to develop. Yes, a player may play artifacts first before an inverter but they see the timeline first and inverters were explained first, therefore it is important that you explain inverters and patches to completion by connecting the win condition they work towards as early as possible while it is fresh in their minds. Yes, you could have explained Mission cards before Inverters and Patches but I think that is confusing because you've left all players in the dark about the part of the game that is on the game at the very beginning of the game even before they see their Mission cards. Some players may never see an artifact in their hands even. If an artifact gets played before an Inverter, I would explain it as "this card goes on the table in front of you. I will explain it at a later time." 10-card Hand of course comes later because you only get to that point after doing many patches.
Wait for the second game to explain Killing Time or for a player who is reading the rules to discover it on their own. It is a mechanic that helps the game move faster but it confuses players beyond what they can handle.
1. Maybe. I find when learning new games, and I'm probably guilty of this myself, players will quickly discard useful cards when they don't understand them.
2. Yes, that works.
3. You could, but at that point you're probably just making notes on the rules themselves. My notes are more like a "teacher's guide" for how to communicate the content.
4. Yes, some will want to read the whole rules while waiting. That's fine. If asked, I would say "that will come up later" or "I will explain those later at a more beneficial time in the game."
5. I only have EAC so I'm not sure what those artifacts are. IMO, something unplayable is frustrating so you could remove it but those could be used for the discard rule. A first-timer won't know that it is unplayable so it won't make a difference. They'll just be as curious/confused about it as they are any other card.