The big thing that this expansion does for me is give a reason to have a high energy production. There hasn't been much use for having high energy production unless you are doing a roundabout way to get heat. You might also want high energy if you happen to get a lot of production consuming cards but, there doesn't seem to be that many outside of the cities. It also gives more options to use titanium. I am not sure why but, I hardly end up using titanium until this expansion.
Got this this week. Agreed it's good. Though i think the game has reached it's critical point. I'm not sure more expansions would help make the game better. It's starting to become convoluted imo. I'd rather they did a new Terraforming game entirely in a different setting. A sequel maybe? Terraform Earth... after an ecological apocalypse. Reverse the roles of Mars and Earth in the game? I think such an idea would be much more interesting than yet another 5th expansion.
I'd still like to see an expansion with a lot more "corporations misbehaving and sabotaging each other" shenanigans. I'd not play with it all the time, but it would be interesting to have a more aggressive option.
RyuSora he very clearly understands that. He would just rather have the company spend time on another game coming up with new ideas at a more extreme level
I like that it adds a little more interaction between players. Not much, but the fact that I can get things on your turn is great. Before, the only way you affected other players was taking resources away or blocking them. There might be a card or two that interacts positively, but I can’t think of them. This seems cool.
Having finally played this expansion, I think it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that our group finds too expensive to be worthwhile. 17mC for a colony that may or may not pay out very often? Ouch. And 9mC/3 Energy/3 Titanium to trade also seems a tad too expensive to regularly be worthwhile, as well. Preludes is great, for sure, and the alternate maps, but the rest of the TM expansions just overcomplicate an otherwise elegant game.
For some reason I have found that the cards are unbalanced in colonies, especially 2 player. You get a runaway. We found that over several games. I like Venus, the boards and prelude. I don’t mind the mechanisms but the “colony specific cards” that add trade fleets are way too cheap, so it gets to a luck of the draw for who gets the extra fleet or the trade bonus (which is huge)
I have the base game plus all 4 expansions, and even sleeved all the cards, and everything fits fine with room to spare for #5 and #6 next year. Im all for just more cards at this point, I feel more sideboards and things like that will just make things look a mess, the game already hogs our huge table. Otherwise, this is my fav game, huge huge fan right here!
@@baraka99 Unfortunately, the size of their bodies are not what defines the type. If that were the case, some of Jupiter's moon are bigger than mercury and close to mars. Pluto's a planet. It's weird orbit is what made people doubt that a few years back. The current conscensus is that it is a small planet. A planet is essentially a body that has an orbit around a Star/Sun and that has gravity strong enough to make it round. Pluto fits the current definition.
A true planet, according to the International Astronomical Union's definition, must meet three criteria: It must circle the sun and no other object (so, moons are out); it must be big enough to be rounded into a sphere or spheroid by its own gravity, but not so large that its innards host the fusion reactions that power stars; and it must have "cleared its neighborhood" of other orbiting bodies. Pluto doesn't comply with the third part because its neighborhood is far from cleared.
Theres actually 5 new Corps... the coolest one wasnt there for some weird reason? :) Artwork I think is a lot better in this one than older imo. and it all fits nicly in the box,use deckboxes ;)
I love Terraforming Mars. Just to be clear. But given the component woes that have been well chronicled since the game released, why wouldn’t Stronghold just release a 2nd Edition that cleaned all of those issues up instead of plowing ahead with expansion on top of expansion? I would assume it’s because the game is wildly popular and there’s no reason to upset the applecart but I don’t know how these things work so any enlightenment is appreciated.
It’s nice but I found I was the only one literally going and doing any colony stuff in my 4 player game. So it really felt like it contributed so little. I got some nice bonuses myself but no one visited or set up their own colonies. So why have it it there, I think more time was spent explaining what they did then actually interacting with them.
The Broken Meeple - I agree. I love the idea but it just feels like a distraction from the main business of the game. I’m also concerned that in a game that can sometimes feel overlong, if all the players start to focus on these colonies & get distracted by them are we now adding another 20 minutes or more on to the game time? Just terraform Mars already!
Glad you like it Tom. I really like it. My fear is they will bring too many expansions out and dilute the game too much. I’ve found the games last around 30 minutes longer with colonies. Worthy addition though.
Hey thanks for the review! I personally don't think this looks interesting because it looks like it adds a worker placement element to a non worker placement game. But I can see why people would love it.
Nope... a planet. The new definition that excludes Pluto as a "true" planet has been disproven as it excludes everything. No "planets" has cleared it's orbit. That new definition prevents any planet from even being classified as one, even Earth. They made up a definition, then applied it's logic to only Pluto and not anything else, called the newspapers and called it a day. Since then, the scientific community has been fighting against that dumb idea.
Martin Larouche It’s half the width of the United States and at times orbits Charon (it’s large moon) instead of vice-versa. I think it’s a slam dunk dwarf planet, dude. Also if we can have gas giants why can’t we have dwarf planets?
@@martinlarouche4418 That's a big fat lie. There are only THREE requirements, so the fact that you can't bother to understand the most important one proves you can't make your case without creating lies. The three requirements are: 1) It must orbit the sun (check) 2) It must have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape (check) 3) IT MUST HAVE CLEARED THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ITS ORBIT (oops!) That doesn't mean its orbit must be cleared of all other objects. It means it must be the dominant gravitational force in its own orbit, meaning nothing in that orbit can have any gravitational effect upon it. A real planet will either absorb all the other objects in its orbit or its gravity will control them. Saturn has all kinds of objects in its rings, but its gravity is clearly controlling things. Pluto does not have the gravitational strength to do this. It's entirely possible that Pluto could be forced out of its own orbit by another object in that orbit. It's repeatedly been affected by Neptune's gravity AND NEPTUNE ISN'T EVEN PART OF ITS ORBIT. Is that how a real planet would be treated? Jupiter is 22 times larger than Mars but you don't see Jupiter bullying Mars around. Furthermore, they actually presented three different options to the International Astronomical Union - you know, REAL astronomers - and two of these options would have kept that gravitational weakling Pluto as a planet. One option was scientific, but ignored the gravitational pull. This one would have given us 13 planets with 6 more on the waiting list. And who knows how many after that? The most pathetic option was the "How about we just keep Pluto as a planet because we want to?" option. It was actually labeled with the word "historical" because they knew there was zero science behind it. But actual SCIENTISTS want actual SCIENCE on what makes a planet, because they keep discovering new bodies out there and they want a SCIENTIFIC method on how to categorize these findings. So they voted overwhelmingly for the most scientific definition. Because SCIENCE. Besides, what's the big frickin' deal? It's not like Pluto was blown up like the Death Star. It still exists, it's still called Pluto, and it's just had an extra word added to it. How pathetic would it be for people to get all whiny after an animal scientist realized that Red Pandas aren't actually part of the Panda family or Koalas aren't part of the Bear family? Wouldn't you think those people were kind of pathetic? You should.
@@kevinbhieey9188 Read that definition again. By the very third point, no planet exists in the entire universe. Earth itself has not cleared it's orbit. No planet has. By the first point, no planet can exist outside the solar system as it has to orbit the sun. The definition is dumb, no need of any degree to see that. Almost every study in the last 10 years does NOT even use this definition of planets. And in fact, many papers made by your so-called scientists released this very year have reinstated Pluto as a planet, disregarding completely the IAU definition. Read on it more. There was no conscensus. Just a small group of people inside the IAU who seemingly voted for everyone else. The idea of a definition was good. Their actual definition makes zero sense. It needs to be changed. The very idea of the definition was made by exactly 2 people. Not thousands of people... just 2. It was made specifically to exclude Pluto. They basically found whatever criteria they could think of that would exclude it and not others. The actual elements of the definition were of little importance. This is as unscientific as you can get. They had a conclusion, then toyed with the parameters until the equation fitted their desired result. This is how we got stuck with that definition.
Terraforming Mars doesn't suit multiple expansions, imo. One of main reasons it's so popular is because it is mechanically smooth and has a good sense of flow. The only Xpac I'd recommend is the preludes, which adds a lot more flavour and doesn't bog the game down at all. If you want more complexity, why not just buy a different game (one that was designed for it)?
Looks great, thanks for review. Seem TM is morphing into High Frontier light :D .... next expansion will be Alph Centauri? Or perhaps turn inward with TM: Fixing Earth ...
Nah... basically what happened is that 10 years ago, a small group of people came out and made a definition for planets. That definition excluded Pluto. Newspaper got in and everybody got into it. ... then the rest of the astronomical community pointed put that their stupid new definition of planets actually exclude every single thing not in the solar system (it has to orbit the sun). Anything discovered in other systems is actually not a planet by their own standards. In fact, the very thing that excludes Pluto in the definition is that it "has not cleared it's obit". If you take the same exact logic that excluded Pluto to everything, there would actually be zero planets. Even earth would not be one as earth itself has not cleared it's orbit of everything. No planet has. The new definition's stupid. Most of the scientific community think the idea to retrograde Pluto was stupid. Many have since declared it still is a planet. This was basically a decision made by a few people without the conscensus of the majority. An astronomer's dictatorship that decided to decide for everybody else and gave dumb reasons as explanations.
@@martinlarouche4418 Wow, so many lies. This "small group of people" was the International Astronomical Union, which has 12,664 members, all of whom have PhDs and beyond in Astronomical Sciences. It also includes 79 national members, astronomical groups that represent the actual governments of 79 different nations. It is the internationally-recognized authority for naming AND CATEGORIZING celestial bodies. And they voted on it, and this definition won EASILY. They have a picture of the vote and it's a sea of raised hands. Are there dissenters? Of course there are. There are still people that say the world is flat. Are you arguing for that nonsense also? These pro-Pluto dissenters are a minority. A loud and very whiny minority, but a minority nonetheless. Their de facto "leader" is NASA's Alan Stern. You know why he is so against this? Because he basically proposed the same exact thing in 2000 and his idea wasn't accepted. Instead of "planets" and "dwarf planets", his nomenclature was "uberplanets" and "unterplanets". But in HIS theory, Pluto was still a planet, just an "unterplanet". How EXACTLY is this different? Especially when HIS proposal demoted Pluto for THE SAME EXACT REASON he is now complaining about. Yes, "neighborhood-clearing". In 2000, Stern put IN WRITING that Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune could all "clear their orbits" but since 2006 he's been claiming that they couldn't. Why? Because NASA is in the business of studying PLANETS, not DWARF PLANETS. Science plays no role here; it's all about funding. Is this the guy you want to carry a flag for? Because his shifting argument is a sorry example of science. (But a great example of self-aggrandizement.) These Stern-like arguments - and, really, they are the only arguments - have far more dissenters than there are dissenters against the Planet Definition Resolution. In fact, most of the dissenting voices come from either amateur astronomers or from NASA, and they both have very non-scientific agendas when it comes to Pluto. It all comes down to one question, posed by Stern in 2000 and the IAU in 2006: Does the planet have gravitational dominance over the other objects in its orbit? The answer when it comes to Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is a definitive YES, an answer given by Stern SIX YEARS before the IAU officially agreed with him, an answer that ONLY changed after the IAU didn't also agree to his "uber-stupid" classification system. Pluto gets bullied gravitationally by Neptune! If a celestial body gets thrown out of its own orbit by another object, especially an object that's not even in its own orbit, THERE'S NO WAY THAT'S A PLANET. There are EIGHT planets. Accept science and move on with your life.
Pluto is a planet. Just because. And also, it makes this KevyB freak-out in hilarious ways: the all caps, parentheses, forever long replies, and edits of her own replies, and Vasel is talking about a board game! It's awesome and hilarious to watch this off topic dorkiness unfold. The internet is the best/ worst. Pluto for planetary president. Side note/off topic: Prelude makes a great game better.
@@kevinbhieey9188 The members of the IAU were not consulted. Yes, it was a small group of people inside it that decided, not the group as a whole. And their definition still make zero sense. Seriously. By their very definition, a planet is REQUIRED to orbit the sun. 8 planets in the entire universe... just on the first part of their definition. Anyone can see it does not make sense and no need for any kind of astronomical degree to see that. The rest of the scientific community has argued against that exclusion of Pluto and that definition for the last ten years. Even people in the IAU.
This expansion just seems to unnecessarily complicate the game. I don't want more clutter on my table :/ . Love the original, but I think Prelude will be the only expansion I'll be buying. Maybe Hellas&Elysium for variety.
Old reply but depending how you feel about being dependent on card RNG for production, this expansion can be considered "necessarily" complicating the game.
I love Terraforming Mars, but like Venus Next I think I will pass on this one. I like the game due to its mechanics and smoothness of its engine. Hellas/Elysium was a no-brainer for me since it gave us a new map, cool. Prelude I will also never play without. Anything that makes a great game a bit shorter is definitely going to be in every game I play going forward. I think both this and Venus, just make the game longer and convoluted for my tastes. I think more cards and corporations are great, and I wouldn't even mind a sequel to this game at this point. But to each their own, looks good, but not for me
Such crappy looking components. For the price of the expansion they shoukd nake SOME attempt ar a decent looking spaceship. So tired of the quality/price ratio for this game. LOVE Terraforming Mars and Prelude. But I will likely pass on this expansion.
The big thing that this expansion does for me is give a reason to have a high energy production. There hasn't been much use for having high energy production unless you are doing a roundabout way to get heat. You might also want high energy if you happen to get a lot of production consuming cards but, there doesn't seem to be that many outside of the cities. It also gives more options to use titanium. I am not sure why but, I hardly end up using titanium until this expansion.
Cant play with floaters with my kids. Every time someone plays one the game stalls for about 20 min of giggling...
A tip: you can watch movies on Flixzone. Me and my gf have been using them for watching a lot of movies lately.
@Kashton Nathanael definitely, I've been using flixzone} for months myself =)
Got this this week.
Agreed it's good.
Though i think the game has reached it's critical point. I'm not sure more expansions would help make the game better. It's starting to become convoluted imo.
I'd rather they did a new Terraforming game entirely in a different setting. A sequel maybe?
Terraform Earth... after an ecological apocalypse. Reverse the roles of Mars and Earth in the game?
I think such an idea would be much more interesting than yet another 5th expansion.
I'd still like to see an expansion with a lot more "corporations misbehaving and sabotaging each other" shenanigans. I'd not play with it all the time, but it would be interesting to have a more aggressive option.
I believe they had five expansions planned from the very beginning, so unless that's changed there should just be the one more next year.
they have a total of 6 planned expansions.
i enjoyed all of the 4 so far.
You do realize you do not need to play or buy any of them, right?
RyuSora he very clearly understands that. He would just rather have the company spend time on another game coming up with new ideas at a more extreme level
totally agreed, TR is a dead end if they dont introduce any interaction mechanic. Is too lineal and too much rounded arround balance.
I like that it adds a little more interaction between players. Not much, but the fact that I can get things on your turn is great. Before, the only way you affected other players was taking resources away or blocking them. There might be a card or two that interacts positively, but I can’t think of them. This seems cool.
Having finally played this expansion, I think it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that our group finds too expensive to be worthwhile. 17mC for a colony that may or may not pay out very often? Ouch. And 9mC/3 Energy/3 Titanium to trade also seems a tad too expensive to regularly be worthwhile, as well.
Preludes is great, for sure, and the alternate maps, but the rest of the TM expansions just overcomplicate an otherwise elegant game.
You missed one corporation :) The one that starts with a ton of stuff but has to pay 5 per card instead of 3 is from this expansion too.
For some reason I have found that the cards are unbalanced in colonies, especially 2 player. You get a runaway. We found that over several games. I like Venus, the boards and prelude. I don’t mind the mechanisms but the “colony specific cards” that add trade fleets are way too cheap, so it gets to a luck of the draw for who gets the extra fleet or the trade bonus (which is huge)
The trade fleet launch at 11:42! :D
I have the base game plus all 4 expansions, and even sleeved all the cards, and everything fits fine with room to spare for #5 and #6 next year. Im all for just more cards at this point, I feel more sideboards and things like that will just make things look a mess, the game already hogs our huge table. Otherwise, this is my fav game, huge huge fan right here!
Don't you mean that it HUGS your table?
Twilight Imperium thinks Terraforming Mars is a small, light game.
Quick Note: Just got TM: Turmoil, ALL content so far fits in the base box... sleeved.
"Pluto...which is a planet..." :)
Pluto is smaller than the moon. It is NOT a planet
@@baraka99 Unfortunately, the size of their bodies are not what defines the type. If that were the case, some of Jupiter's moon are bigger than mercury and close to mars.
Pluto's a planet. It's weird orbit is what made people doubt that a few years back. The current conscensus is that it is a small planet.
A planet is essentially a body that has an orbit around a Star/Sun and that has gravity strong enough to make it round. Pluto fits the current definition.
#hottakes
A true planet, according to the International Astronomical Union's definition, must meet three criteria: It must circle the sun and no other object (so, moons are out); it must be big enough to be rounded into a sphere or spheroid by its own gravity, but not so large that its innards host the fusion reactions that power stars; and it must have "cleared its neighborhood" of other orbiting bodies.
Pluto doesn't comply with the third part because its neighborhood is far from cleared.
Jerry Smith sais Pluto is a planet.
Coming soon!
"Terraforming the Sun"
Contents: Bag of Ashes
Monkeyb00y actually politics is coming soon to terraforming Mars
Theres actually 5 new Corps... the coolest one wasnt there for some weird reason? :) Artwork I think is a lot better in this one than older imo. and it all fits nicly in the box,use deckboxes ;)
Thanks for all the great videos!
Say hi to Draco for me
;)
Do you need the Venus expansion for the floaters to be viable
I love Terraforming Mars. Just to be clear. But given the component woes that have been well chronicled since the game released, why wouldn’t Stronghold just release a 2nd Edition that cleaned all of those issues up instead of plowing ahead with expansion on top of expansion? I would assume it’s because the game is wildly popular and there’s no reason to upset the applecart but I don’t know how these things work so any enlightenment is appreciated.
I heard a deluxe version is coming in 2020. Don't know if it is true or not... But I would think the price tag for this will be pretty damn steep
Just had my first game with Colonies and couldn't agree more! The only time I would remove Colonies is if I introduced someone new to the game.
It’s nice but I found I was the only one literally going and doing any colony stuff in my 4 player game. So it really felt like it contributed so little. I got some nice bonuses myself but no one visited or set up their own colonies. So why have it it there, I think more time was spent explaining what they did then actually interacting with them.
The Broken Meeple - I agree. I love the idea but it just feels like a distraction from the main business of the game. I’m also concerned that in a game that can sometimes feel overlong, if all the players start to focus on these colonies & get distracted by them are we now adding another 20 minutes or more on to the game time? Just terraform Mars already!
Don't know if it is so, but that's a new hammer on Tom... Looks nice. Love the game have yet to play it with this expansion. Looking forward to it.
Glad you like it Tom.
I really like it.
My fear is they will bring too many expansions out and dilute the game too much.
I’ve found the games last around 30 minutes longer with colonies.
Worthy addition though.
rob taylor ......30 extra min did you mean? Or is that a solo time?
The Broken Meeple haha yes I meant 30 minutes longer
It's like Builder's Hall in Lords of Waterdeep. Cool.
Hey thanks for the review! I personally don't think this looks interesting because it looks like it adds a worker placement element to a non worker placement game. But I can see why people would love it.
*cough* a dwarf Planet
Nope... a planet.
The new definition that excludes Pluto as a "true" planet has been disproven as it excludes everything. No "planets" has cleared it's orbit. That new definition prevents any planet from even being classified as one, even Earth.
They made up a definition, then applied it's logic to only Pluto and not anything else, called the newspapers and called it a day. Since then, the scientific community has been fighting against that dumb idea.
Prove it.
Martin Larouche It’s half the width of the United States and at times orbits Charon (it’s large moon) instead of vice-versa. I think it’s a slam dunk dwarf planet, dude.
Also if we can have gas giants why can’t we have dwarf planets?
@@martinlarouche4418 That's a big fat lie. There are only THREE requirements, so the fact that you can't bother to understand the most important one proves you can't make your case without creating lies. The three requirements are:
1) It must orbit the sun (check)
2) It must have enough gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape (check)
3) IT MUST HAVE CLEARED THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ITS ORBIT (oops!)
That doesn't mean its orbit must be cleared of all other objects. It means it must be the dominant gravitational force in its own orbit, meaning nothing in that orbit can have any gravitational effect upon it. A real planet will either absorb all the other objects in its orbit or its gravity will control them. Saturn has all kinds of objects in its rings, but its gravity is clearly controlling things. Pluto does not have the gravitational strength to do this. It's entirely possible that Pluto could be forced out of its own orbit by another object in that orbit. It's repeatedly been affected by Neptune's gravity AND NEPTUNE ISN'T EVEN PART OF ITS ORBIT. Is that how a real planet would be treated? Jupiter is 22 times larger than Mars but you don't see Jupiter bullying Mars around.
Furthermore, they actually presented three different options to the International Astronomical Union - you know, REAL astronomers - and two of these options would have kept that gravitational weakling Pluto as a planet. One option was scientific, but ignored the gravitational pull. This one would have given us 13 planets with 6 more on the waiting list. And who knows how many after that? The most pathetic option was the "How about we just keep Pluto as a planet because we want to?" option. It was actually labeled with the word "historical" because they knew there was zero science behind it. But actual SCIENTISTS want actual SCIENCE on what makes a planet, because they keep discovering new bodies out there and they want a SCIENTIFIC method on how to categorize these findings. So they voted overwhelmingly for the most scientific definition. Because SCIENCE.
Besides, what's the big frickin' deal? It's not like Pluto was blown up like the Death Star. It still exists, it's still called Pluto, and it's just had an extra word added to it. How pathetic would it be for people to get all whiny after an animal scientist realized that Red Pandas aren't actually part of the Panda family or Koalas aren't part of the Bear family? Wouldn't you think those people were kind of pathetic? You should.
@@kevinbhieey9188 Read that definition again.
By the very third point, no planet exists in the entire universe. Earth itself has not cleared it's orbit. No planet has.
By the first point, no planet can exist outside the solar system as it has to orbit the sun.
The definition is dumb, no need of any degree to see that. Almost every study in the last 10 years does NOT even use this definition of planets.
And in fact, many papers made by your so-called scientists released this very year have reinstated Pluto as a planet, disregarding completely the IAU definition. Read on it more. There was no conscensus. Just a small group of people inside the IAU who seemingly voted for everyone else.
The idea of a definition was good. Their actual definition makes zero sense. It needs to be changed.
The very idea of the definition was made by exactly 2 people. Not thousands of people... just 2. It was made specifically to exclude Pluto. They basically found whatever criteria they could think of that would exclude it and not others. The actual elements of the definition were of little importance. This is as unscientific as you can get. They had a conclusion, then toyed with the parameters until the equation fitted their desired result. This is how we got stuck with that definition.
Terraforming Mars doesn't suit multiple expansions, imo. One of main reasons it's so popular is because it is mechanically smooth and has a good sense of flow. The only Xpac I'd recommend is the preludes, which adds a lot more flavour and doesn't bog the game down at all.
If you want more complexity, why not just buy a different game (one that was designed for it)?
Looks great, thanks for review. Seem TM is morphing into High Frontier light :D .... next expansion will be Alph Centauri? Or perhaps turn inward with TM: Fixing Earth ...
I thought Pluto was no longer classified as a planet ?
Nah... basically what happened is that 10 years ago, a small group of people came out and made a definition for planets. That definition excluded Pluto. Newspaper got in and everybody got into it.
... then the rest of the astronomical community pointed put that their stupid new definition of planets actually exclude every single thing not in the solar system (it has to orbit the sun). Anything discovered in other systems is actually not a planet by their own standards.
In fact, the very thing that excludes Pluto in the definition is that it "has not cleared it's obit". If you take the same exact logic that excluded Pluto to everything, there would actually be zero planets. Even earth would not be one as earth itself has not cleared it's orbit of everything. No planet has.
The new definition's stupid.
Most of the scientific community think the idea to retrograde Pluto was stupid. Many have since declared it still is a planet.
This was basically a decision made by a few people without the conscensus of the majority. An astronomer's dictatorship that decided to decide for everybody else and gave dumb reasons as explanations.
@@martinlarouche4418 Wow, so many lies.
This "small group of people" was the International Astronomical Union, which has 12,664 members, all of whom have PhDs and beyond in Astronomical Sciences. It also includes 79 national members, astronomical groups that represent the actual governments of 79 different nations. It is the internationally-recognized authority for naming AND CATEGORIZING celestial bodies. And they voted on it, and this definition won EASILY. They have a picture of the vote and it's a sea of raised hands.
Are there dissenters? Of course there are. There are still people that say the world is flat. Are you arguing for that nonsense also? These pro-Pluto dissenters are a minority. A loud and very whiny minority, but a minority nonetheless. Their de facto "leader" is NASA's Alan Stern. You know why he is so against this? Because he basically proposed the same exact thing in 2000 and his idea wasn't accepted. Instead of "planets" and "dwarf planets", his nomenclature was "uberplanets" and "unterplanets". But in HIS theory, Pluto was still a planet, just an "unterplanet". How EXACTLY is this different? Especially when HIS proposal demoted Pluto for THE SAME EXACT REASON he is now complaining about. Yes, "neighborhood-clearing". In 2000, Stern put IN WRITING that Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune could all "clear their orbits" but since 2006 he's been claiming that they couldn't. Why? Because NASA is in the business of studying PLANETS, not DWARF PLANETS. Science plays no role here; it's all about funding. Is this the guy you want to carry a flag for? Because his shifting argument is a sorry example of science. (But a great example of self-aggrandizement.)
These Stern-like arguments - and, really, they are the only arguments - have far more dissenters than there are dissenters against the Planet Definition Resolution. In fact, most of the dissenting voices come from either amateur astronomers or from NASA, and they both have very non-scientific agendas when it comes to Pluto. It all comes down to one question, posed by Stern in 2000 and the IAU in 2006: Does the planet have gravitational dominance over the other objects in its orbit? The answer when it comes to Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is a definitive YES, an answer given by Stern SIX YEARS before the IAU officially agreed with him, an answer that ONLY changed after the IAU didn't also agree to his "uber-stupid" classification system. Pluto gets bullied gravitationally by Neptune! If a celestial body gets thrown out of its own orbit by another object, especially an object that's not even in its own orbit, THERE'S NO WAY THAT'S A PLANET.
There are EIGHT planets. Accept science and move on with your life.
Pluto will always be a planet
Pluto is a planet. Just because. And also, it makes this KevyB freak-out in hilarious ways: the all caps, parentheses, forever long replies, and edits of her own replies, and Vasel is talking about a board game! It's awesome and hilarious to watch this off topic dorkiness unfold. The internet is the best/ worst.
Pluto for planetary president.
Side note/off topic: Prelude makes a great game better.
@@kevinbhieey9188 The members of the IAU were not consulted. Yes, it was a small group of people inside it that decided, not the group as a whole.
And their definition still make zero sense. Seriously.
By their very definition, a planet is REQUIRED to orbit the sun.
8 planets in the entire universe... just on the first part of their definition. Anyone can see it does not make sense and no need for any kind of astronomical degree to see that.
The rest of the scientific community has argued against that exclusion of Pluto and that definition for the last ten years. Even people in the IAU.
Do you like Terraforming Mars the board game?
Do you mean Terraforming the Solar System? x'D
This expansion just seems to unnecessarily complicate the game. I don't want more clutter on my table :/ . Love the original, but I think Prelude will be the only expansion I'll be buying. Maybe Hellas&Elysium for variety.
Old reply but depending how you feel about being dependent on card RNG for production, this expansion can be considered "necessarily" complicating the game.
I love Terraforming Mars, but like Venus Next I think I will pass on this one. I like the game due to its mechanics and smoothness of its engine. Hellas/Elysium was a no-brainer for me since it gave us a new map, cool. Prelude I will also never play without. Anything that makes a great game a bit shorter is definitely going to be in every game I play going forward. I think both this and Venus, just make the game longer and convoluted for my tastes. I think more cards and corporations are great, and I wouldn't even mind a sequel to this game at this point. But to each their own, looks good, but not for me
4:08
¡Pluto IS NOT A PLANET!
Get over it already.
Just came here to say Pluto isn't a planet.
I found the cure to the pandemic 6:17
Heheh, "Yovian"
Such crappy looking components. For the price of the expansion they shoukd nake SOME attempt ar a decent looking spaceship. So tired of the quality/price ratio for this game. LOVE Terraforming Mars and Prelude. But I will likely pass on this expansion.
Ya I know... horrible typos.
seniscram lol
Think it's going to be a pass for me. I think it's straying too far from the theme of the game.