...mean that the novelty of this game is wearing off?

Jut curious as my own excitement of this game was eclipsed by acquiring BattleStar Galactica - which has pretty much outshone all me new purchases the past couple of months.

Well I have yet to play it (recently got it as a birthday gift) but I find that most games/threads/topics go through spurts where there is lots of discussion and then it goes quiet until someone new gets the game and generates new interest in it. I will be one such individual once I get a chance to play it.

For me, I was really hyped about this game when it came out.  Got it, shouted about it, sang its praises and played it 4 times in a couple of weeks.

Now it is on the shelf.  So many rules problems and queries that are waiting on the official answer.  I'm someone who likes to play it properly and am uncomfortable with interpreting it as to what I think it should be.

There is also a problem that I have with the balance of the game, and I really hope that it isnt as flawed as I currently think it is.  Having played 4 games in a short period, I'm convinced that the conspiracy is far more important than anything else, and the broadcast square is totally broken.  I've pretty much ignored the actual murder in all the games since it tends to be a complete lottery. 

In the last game I played, the other players also hit the conspiracy early meaning it was completed on day 1 of week 2.  Which means Ray's plot that he had which gives him good baggage for placing a piece of the conspiracy - well, he was screwed.

So I'm waiting on some official FAQ and some answers of what to do about the huge balance problem.

That said, the production value, flavour of the game is top notch.

Still very interested. It's just that we know the first several playthroughs will be  long (made the mistake of using 4 players for the first playthrough, one of whom was already getting tired and having trouble focusing before we started), and with a 2 year old running around it hard to find adequate time to get plays in, especially those first couple of much longer plays to get us past the learning curve.

Paul Grogan said:

I disagree with this.  Taking advantage of the snitch and reporter allows you make much more than an educated guess where each suspect stands.

I too would like a FAQ, for a few clarifications.  There's nothing that I find game breaking, but I would like certain questions resolved.

I think it's a good idea to focus on at least two paths to collect victory points.  If all you do is focus on one path and that gets blocked, then yeah, you're screwed.  If I was only focusing on the murder and my suspect gets a hit placed on them, that's a huge point loss.  Sure there are only so many things you can do, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't focus on a couple options.

Oops, I almost forgot about your inital post, Brian.  I have to agree with about BSG.  That is the multiplayer game that has been seeing the most action with my gaming group.  It has even over shadowed Arkham Horror, which I didn't think any game would.  While I don't think the novelty and fun of Android has worn off, there's just so much competition for table space.  Now that we just added Age of Conan, I don't think I'll be able to get Android on the roster for at least another couple of weeks.

Paul Grogan said:

I doubt that there will be any game-changing FAQ that will correct the inherent balance problems in this game.  FFG (or any other game company) are not in the habit of making grand sweeping rules changes after the release of a game; that would be an immediate way to piss off their customer base.  They may make some small changes here and there (like correcting the ability of Broadcast Square) but never anything on the scale of what would be required to correct the problems with the conspiracy puzzle, for example.

The only thing I can think of initially is to only allow Broadcast Square to take the lowest value type of conspiracy piece rather than any.

This stops the repeatable combo of sitting on there to take a favour piece, get a favour, then next turn, use that favour to take another favour piece, etc.  All the while, getting bonus goodies from placing lots of conspiracy pieces.

As for the conspiracy, having the +4 markers so that they are only applied once per player per turn.  i.e - If you complete 1 or more lines, you get a +4 counter.  This stops people seemingly easily getting 2 or 3 in a turn (lots of points, hence my comment on ignoring the murder).

Another possibly radical idea is to not have all of the conspiracy pieces in the game at the start.  Have them added bit by bit as the game goes on.  This will stop the conspiracy being all over by the start of week 2, which is how most games seem to go when players realise that its the easiest way to get points.