I think we need to regroup.
None of the proposals so far adhere to the design goals. Two have no normal planets in the player's color, one is three different systems that have no unique new components, one is an obvious star, and one is a demonstrable subset of another system. (I can sort of understand the lack of a normal colored planet in Jack's proposal, because his idea bends the basic game framework so far that there's really no way to work that in. But this bending in itself problematic, because it's exactly the kind of thing that takes a lot of text to explain and still leads to ongoing rules issues due to working against the very game engine.)
Anyway, I had hoped somebody would "get" the spirit of what I'm trying to accomplish here and look for ideas that are compatible with the goals, but it seems as though we are all trying to push outside the objectives. (Maybe that's not everyone's intent, but seems to be the end result so far.)
This has been a real uphill battle and I'm asking myself, is it because the rules are impossible to follow? Because we're unwilling to follow them? Because they aren't clearly defined? I'm going to assume it's the latter and this is my fault for not being more clear, and more strict.
In talking about the design principles, I've used some flexible language here and there, in part because I was still mulling some things and in part because I thought there could be some convincing arguments that would change some things. But now that we're in a pitch mode, I see that my lack of precision and conviction has led to literally every proposal running outside the lines.
So let me try to be as clear as I can about the design rules for this phase:
• You must have at least one normal planet of the player's color.
• If you are replacing planets with something else, your replacements must be considered "planets" for gameplay purposes.
• You must have a new component or components (made of the same stock as planets) that have a meaningful gameplay use.
• Only one new component type. There can be a series with individual variations (Spiral numbers, Nebula icons), but they have to all be of a single new component design.
• Must fit in the dimensions of an expansion set box.
• The design cannot be based on the sun or star in the system, or anything that would serve as the sun or star in the system.
• The design cannot have individual text-based effects for each planet.
• Subsets and near-copies of other systems are not allowed. You can borrow mechanics, but if the resulting gameplay effect is similar, don't go there unless you're literally proposing a replacement for the other system and can back up the reasons for it.
• Your design must fit into the normal flow of gameplay and "play nice in the sandbox"; it must avoid the kinds of things that generate ongoing rules issues, require lots of clarifications, or force the players to make a bunch of case-by-case interpretations. If you don't know how to assess whether your design has this problem, feel free to ask in a GeekMail if you so desire.
• It's not required that you like or agree with these rules, and participation in this whole effort is of course voluntary. ;)
This is not to say that we won't exceed these constraints later; we very well may. But for now, every submission absolutely must adhere to all of them. Anything that doesn't is automatically rejected from this phase. These are non-negotiable rules for this phase of Apples to Apples Special Systems Design. Consider them a test or challenge to find out whether you have the design skills to achieve excellence within constraints.
Can we work within these rules? Certainly. Are we willing to? I guess we're going to find out.
So let's call the previous round of apples a practice round; feel free to revise your design or submit a different one. We'll try this one more time and see if it can actually work. If not, I'll quietly accept defeat and close the workshop, and those of you who are still interested can pursue your ideas in another thread, free from these troublesome constraints.