|
|
Post by kv1e on Feb 23, 2013 21:05:02 GMT -5
Its funny that in game played as often as Mare Nostrum that our group may not have the rules down 100%.
The game on Wednesday was very close with at least 3 players in a position to win on the last turn. The winning player was director of construction, having taken control a city and a temple from another player in the last turn(by occupying them in that turn).
I would argue that you must do more than take control of a building token to add it to your total for director of Commerce or building.
I would argue that the rule(p.7) on becoming director said's that the player with the most building on the board gains the office(you most own it). Simply occupying another players token does not grant ownership , one most own the influence marker in the province.
After all if an invading player controlling token(s) leaves or is forced out control reverts to the original owner immediately.
|
|
|
|
Post by waylander on Feb 25, 2013 6:22:15 GMT -5
I have always played that taking control of a caravan, market, city or temple from another player gives you the point towards either Director of Commerce or Political Director. On the geek I have seen it 2 ways: 1. The occupier actually counts the caravan etc... when counting for the directorship. (This the way we played Wed.) 2. The occupier does not count the caravan etc... however neither does the owner of the province. (Which on Wednesday would have still resulted in the loss of the political Directors role for you Temis)  The two forums below clearly state that 1 above is the correct way to play. The second option is used by some that do not like the first option, but understand if a city etc.... is occupied, it cannot count towards any of the roles. It is more of a "house rule". www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/81572/converting-a-province-retreat-from-battle-can-arwww.boardgamegeek.com/thread/112423/various-rules-clarificationsYour argument is semi valid. However if a an invading army is occupying one of your trade routes and collecting from it, they are reaping the benefits...all the benefits! Same with Cities, markets and temples. It does grant them ownership. They own it by force. If they are driven out...then ownership reverts. Good discussion Temis! Rod |
|
|
|
Post by kv1e on Feb 25, 2013 21:19:22 GMT -5
I have always played that taking control of a caravan, market, city or temple from another player gives you the point towards either Director of Commerce or Political Director. On the geek I have seen it 2 ways: 1. The occupier actually counts the caravan etc... when counting for the directorship. (This the way we played Wed.) 2. The occupier does not count the caravan etc... however neither does the owner of the province. (Which on Wednesday would have still resulted in the loss of the political Directors role for you Temis) The two forums below clearly state that 1 above is the correct way to play. The second option is used by some that do not like the first option, but understand if a city etc.... is occupied, it cannot count towards any of the roles. It is more of a "house rule". www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/81572/converting-a-province-retreat-from-battle-can-arwww.boardgamegeek.com/thread/112423/various-rules-clarificationsYour argument is semi valid. However if a an invading army is occupying one of your trade routes and collecting from it, they are reaping the benefits...all the benefits! Same with Cities, markets and temples. It does grant them ownership. They own it by force. If they are driven out...then ownership reverts. Good discussion Temis! Rod Rod It seems to me that your argument in favor occupied building token counting for office holding boils down to "We have always done it that way" (One of the people on the geek who agrees with you used the same argument). It strikes me that both of you could have always been playing it wrong! Also since another person is of the opinion that neither player gets to count them, opinion is not unanimous in your corner. I think , on second thought, that neither player getting to count them is a much more reasionable solution. Themistoclies |
|
|
|
Post by waylander on Feb 26, 2013 6:48:24 GMT -5
I was taught the game 10 years ago... and the very first play Steffan O'Sullivan taught it that way. ;D I don't have a problem with the other way...and I have played it that way, the results are usually the same....not always but usually. Temis you seem to be stuck on the "letter" of the rules. However if I take your caravan and I am recieving the goods from it...should I not reap all the benefits of owning that route? Don't you think if Caesar took Alexandria from the Egyptians he would get the taxes from that city and all the power that went along with taking the city, until Cleopatra forces him out? After all Egypt is no longer collecting money and their politcal clout has gone down, while Rome's has risen! I don't know that Serge Laget has ever said anything on the subject...I could not find it if he did. I am good with playing either way. Next time we will make it clear before we start. But I don't thing we did anything wrong... Rod  |
|
|
|
Post by kv1e on Feb 27, 2013 2:53:13 GMT -5
I was taught the game 10 years ago... and the very first play Steffan O'Sullivan taught it that way. ;D I don't have a problem with the other way...and I have played it that way, the results are usually the same....not always but usually. In the last game we played, Joy would not have been minister commerce for the last turn . I have no problem with you gaining the money or trade good from taking a caravan or city and doubling them with the temple or Market. It is clear in the rules. But to grant you something else that is not mentioned anywhere in rules is different . Further your justification is entirely that in the first game you played you were taught that way. I keep waiting for some one to start singing the song Tradition from Fiddler on the RoofThe 3 directors have at best a marginal Historical reality, they are really just game Mechanics intended to bring some order to the game and in the case of the building one to avoid the need for a tie breaker(s) if two or more players can win in the same turn. Given that when you place a token that is the only thing you can build in that province that turn. I think it very unlikely that designer would give the person who occupies tokens the ability to use them to influence the selection of directors that turn without saying so. Since the Mythology rules are really the second editon of the rules it seems like they woud be mentioned there Themistocles |
|
|
|
Post by waylander on Feb 27, 2013 6:18:13 GMT -5
I surrender! ;D Yes I play that way because it is TRADITION! (What you don't like Fiddler?  ) ....also because I like to play that way. As long as it is consistent it is not a problem. I also like to play with the Bretwalda rules in Britannia if there is no king late in the game. I know it was taken out of the second edition...but I like playing with it. And I like a little theme with my game. So I justify the rules with theme.... not just have the directors roles be there for game mechanics. (How boring...) Again...we did not play wrong... apparently just differently than you would have liked Temis. Next time I am more than willing to try with your rules interpretation. Rod |
|
) ....also because I like to play that way. As long as it is consistent it is not a problem.