I worry somehow about how this would interact with Quick and Slow.

I meant somewhat, not somehow. My apologies.

If camping winds up being at optimal strategy I’d rather deincentivize it through gameplay mechanics rather than just banning it

@Clucky: Do you have any suggestion for what those gameplay mechanics might look like?

I share DoomedIdeas’ concern. This makes Slow significantly more of a penalty by restricting a large fraction of the valid routes, and makes Quick significantly more valuable because it becomes the only way to camp a single Spot.

(My preference would be to tweak Slow and Quick rather than this, though.)

I agree with Clucky. If camping is the optimal strategy then straight banning it feels bad; better to fix the game so that movement is more profitable or less risky.

I’m starting to feel like limited ingress points was a mistake.

The main intention behind the limited ingress points was that otherwise, Burglars have no incentive to do anything other than arrive as close as possible to an Artifact, grab it, and immediately get out – which in turn means that Guards don’t have an incentive to do anything other than camp on top of the Artifacts, as the Burglars will never be anywhere else.

It may be that the dynastic mechanics are just unfixable, though.

I don’t think the mechanics are unfixable. With the Shadow Ruleset, we have an opportunity to do major revamps without permanently unbalancing things. We can try something one round, and if it seems like it’s not going to work, try something different the next.

I was thinking about a way for Burglars to make their own Ingress points out of a larger set, say out of 10 possibilities, Burglars choose 4 every round, but the Ingress possibilities are always around the perimeter of the hotel, and the Artifacts are always in the interior.