$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 50.9

3,786 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
23.9% of Goal | 30 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Empire of the Sun» Forums » Rules

Subject: Some miscellaneous questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
Here's what I'd like to have clarified:

1. Regarding the strength requirement of ground disengagement: Are the attack strengths of air and naval units in the hex included when counting the total strengths?

2. Regarding Japanese occupation of Alaska and Hawaii: Is it necessary to have the same unit there throughout the occupation period? Does it have to be in the exact same hex the whole time?

3. Special rule 17.25 E: Should the Japanese player reveal his hand to his opponent to prove that there are no military offense cards? (This rule doesn't seem to be fully thought out.)

Also, as a bonus remark, I would like to point out that the glossary (1.3) entry for Control starts with the words: "All hexes begin the game either under Allied or Japanese control." If this were taken literally, hexes without any land for ground units to occupy would also be controlled by the players. Surely this is not the intent, right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Colmenares
Canada
Woodbridge
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
1. Only ground strength counts for disengagement.

2. It's not necessary to have the same ground unit, the occupation in the region does need to be continuous though. So you could send one unit, have it spend a turn, then in the next send a second one to the same or similar hex and then withdraw the first one.

3. No, it's based on the honor system. But it's terribly easy to find out if Japan is cheating. You know they are tossing away a card to draw Vice Admiral Kondo (card 47). That means Japan can't possibly be holding any black military event cards in their hand. If they play one you know they cheated. If they had only one card they might decide to put it down as a Future Offensives card, but again, as soon as they play that card on turn 3 you will find out and point out that they cheated. And if Japan decides to keep that card secret the whole game they will likely lose because you will be able to use your FO cards and play last Every single turn, possibly even play the last two cards unanswered each turn if you play your own cards correctly.

Cheating is not in Japan's interest.

Bonus remark: only those hexes that can be controlled count. Unplayable land doesn't count.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Herman
United States
New York
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
(This rule doesn't seem to be fully thought out.)

I refuse to write rules to prevent cheating. If you feel that your opponent would cheat, then there is a much bigger issue than how I have thought out the rule.
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
One more thought about cheating: Couldn't the Japanese player attempt to cover up the Kondo trick by using a reaction card that would allow him to draw another card? If at the start he has exactly one military offense card (say Operation MI), a non-military 3 OC card and a suitable reaction card in hand, he could then discard the 3 OC card to get VADM Kondo, later use the reaction card to draw a new one (hoping it's not another military card), play Operation MI and pretend that he just drew it with the reaction.

Of course, this plan relies on chance, so I don't know if anyone would actually do this, but the point is that there are cases when the cheat would not get discovered. It's mostly a theoretical concern, a matter of conceptual elegance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

So, do not play against cheaters. In a physical game with hidden information, cheating is always possible. If there are cards involved, some elementary card manipulation tricks (i.e. magic card tricks) could be used to affect the outcome.

As an example, I don't know if pile shuffling an opponent's deck is allowed in MtG tournaments nowadays, if not, then the basic "short card" modification would have a good chance for the cheating opponent to be able to get his important beginning card into his hand, it survives riffle shuffles really well, overhand shuffles quite well and it promotes cutting in the right place...

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
Thanks for the responses, although this is getting slightly off-topic. To clarify, I don't think I've ever played with anyone who cheats, and I'm not concerned about sleight of hand or misdirection or any other devious tricks that the game system itself couldn't possibly prevent. The issue is rather that there is this big red button inherent to the rules that the players are not supposed to press. Even if they behave in an honourable way (as I'm sure all players in actual fact do), the very presence of this red button is a source of anxiety. So I'm not worried about other players cheating, but proving to other players in a gentlemanly way that I myself don't cheat. That's all. (I could go on, but I'd rather discuss this in some other thread.)

More on topic, I have another rules question about applying hits in combat. When the intelligence condition is Intercept, the hits are applied simultaneously, but I can't find any rule on how the decisions about the hit allocations are handled. That is, are the decisions also made simultaneously and in private? I would assume that, in complicated situations, the players should write down their decisions and reveal them at the same time. Am I correct? (I'm still learning the game, so I'm not sure if there's practically any need for this kind of information shielding.)

Thanks again for your wisdom.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Francisco Colmenares
Canada
Woodbridge
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
There's no need for shielding information. Hits are simultaneous and the game counters always remain in view of the players. It makes no practical difference which player applies hits first in an Intercept Scenario.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
colmenarez wrote:
There's no need for shielding information. Hits are simultaneous and the game counters always remain in view of the players. It makes no practical difference which player applies hits first in an Intercept Scenario.


I was referring to the choices of which units get hit and which don't, not the actual allocation of hits that follows afterwards (which is simultaneous, as the rules clearly state). Suppose I have to choose some but not all of my opponent's units to be eliminated, and my opponent can also eliminate some but not all of my units. Couldn't it be advantageous for me to choose last in some cases? If the opponent eliminates my unit A, I want to eliminate his unit X, but if he eliminates my unit B, then I would take out his Y instead. (Rock-paper-scissors logic.) Similarly, the opponent might want to choose last to come out of the battle with the better unit composition. Making the choices simultaneously would be the obvious fair solution. Again, I can't tell if this is a legitimate concern or not since I am just getting into the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Pavitt
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If the Japanese player is caught cheating, he should commit Seppuku.

That'll teach'm.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri P
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In most cases, I believe it is usually quite obvious which units the players want to reduce or kill, and quite often there is not even much choice. (E.g. everything has to be reduced before anything can be killed, killing dotted units is better than killing replaceable units, killing AZOIs is better than killing surface ships, ...)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Juho Rautio
Finland
flag msg tools
petrip wrote:
In most cases, I believe it is usually quite obvious which units the players want to reduce or kill, and quite often there is not even much choice. (E.g. everything has to be reduced before anything can be killed, killing dotted units is better than killing replaceable units, killing AZOIs is better than killing surface ships, ...)


Yes, I expected it would work like that in practice. As a side note, if this game would be implemented as a computer game, the issue of decision timing would have to be addressed regardless. There should be a ruling, if only for the sake of theoretical completeness.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.