$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 65.45

4,611 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
29.1% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Inis» Forums » Rules

Subject: Questions about clashes rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Filip Lazov
Macedonia
flag msg tools
Hello,

There are two parts of the rulebook which seem a bit contradictory ( or I did not understand them correctly) when we were playing our first game.

1. The first is in regards to clashes and turn order of maneuvers, in the rulebook under "2. Resolutions" on page 8, the first paragraph states:

Quote:
Starting with the instigator and proceeding in turn order, each player who has one
or more exposed clans performs one maneuver. Continue taking turns performing
maneuvers until the clash ends.


however in the example on the next page the order starts from the second involved player in the clash in turn order (blue) :

Quote:
Example
The turn order is: green, blue, orange and
white.
The blue player chooses the Attack maneuver
and targets the orange player.
The orange player has no more Action cards
in his hand, so he removes one of his exposed
clans.
After that, the orange player chooses the
Withdraw maneuver. He takes his three
exposed clans from this territory and moves
them to the Plains, an adjacent territory where
he is chieftain.
The white player, just before his maneuver,
asks the remaining involved players if they
agree to end the clash now.
The green player agrees, but the blue player
refuses, so the clash continues, and the white
player must perform a maneuver. The white
player chooses the Attack maneuver and
targets the blue player, who chooses to discard
one Action card from his hand.
It’s back to the green player’s turn. He plays
the Epic Tale card “Ogma’s Eloquence” as his
maneuver, which immediately ends the clash.
All clans in Citadels are taken out and placed
back in their territory.


So who makes a manouver first, the instigator or the player next in turn order after the instigator ( defenders advantage perhaps? )

2. Some of the cards have the swords in red circles icon on them and some do not, for the ones that do have, the following is stated in the rulebook:


Quote:
As a reminder, cards that can initiate a clash show this symbol in the top-right corner


What does the wording "can" mean? Can I choose not to initiate a clash whenever moving into territory that other clans are present using a card with this symbol?

Thanks !
Great game, cant wait to play again

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niall Smyth
Japan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
1. This seems unclear to me too. Hopefully someone clever and/or from Matagot can chime in.

2. The text above the red reminder you've quoted seems pretty clear. The icon is just a reminder to help you notice which cards can start clashes. Look at the wording of the card itself to decide whether you have to. The icon itself has no effect.

The cards I've seen say 'you MAY start a clash', but I haven't seen all the cards.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Barker
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lazov
Macedonia
flag msg tools
Ducttape2021 wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.


About the second question that is what I assumed it means and the most logical reasoning, but sometimes you want to go in a territory that has sanctuary and you might loose if there are more opposing clans, in which case you want to enter but not to fight (sneaky), and this hugely effects how the game plays out in situations.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Barker
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.


About the second question that is what I assumed it means and the most logical reasoning, but sometimes you want to go in a territory that has sanctuary and you might loose if there are more opposing clans, in which case you want to enter but not to fight (sneaky), and this hugely effects how the game plays out in situations.


Aren't there cards that specifically allow you to move into a new territory without initiating a clash?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lazov
Macedonia
flag msg tools
Ducttape2021 wrote:
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.


About the second question that is what I assumed it means and the most logical reasoning, but sometimes you want to go in a territory that has sanctuary and you might loose if there are more opposing clans, in which case you want to enter but not to fight (sneaky), and this hugely effects how the game plays out in situations.


Aren't there cards that specifically allow you to move into a new territory without initiating a clash?


Yes there are
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Barker
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.


About the second question that is what I assumed it means and the most logical reasoning, but sometimes you want to go in a territory that has sanctuary and you might loose if there are more opposing clans, in which case you want to enter but not to fight (sneaky), and this hugely effects how the game plays out in situations.


Aren't there cards that specifically allow you to move into a new territory without initiating a clash?


Yes there are


I would say that would imply the other cards are mandatory clashes, otherwise why would they design one that didn't initiate?

Of course, you could say the same thing in the opposite direction. We'll need an official ruling to get to the bottom of this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
The symbol is merely a reminder that these cards can trigger a clash, if the conditions for the clash are met.
So if you move with a Conquest in a territory where there are opposing clans, a clash triggers. But if you move for example in a territory where there are only clans belonging to you, this does not triggers a clash.

Hope that's clear.

As for the other question, I check and tell you.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok I found out.

Replace the first sentence of the example by "Turn order is blue, orange, white and green." Now everything makes sense. And you are right, the first maneuver goes to the instigator.

BTW thanks to everybody, your questions will help a lot on the FAQ we are working on.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Niall Smyth
Japan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ducttape2021 wrote:
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
vojnikMon wrote:
Ducttape2021 wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure what to say on the first part. The example might be typo'd, especially considering the end says "It’s back to the green player’s turn." implying they already had actions.

As for the second part, the "can" means that if the conditions are met, a clash occurs. So, if you use such a card to invade an empty territory, no clash occurs. If you invade a territory with opposing clans, a clash occurs. Of course, you could all just agree to not fight.


About the second question that is what I assumed it means and the most logical reasoning, but sometimes you want to go in a territory that has sanctuary and you might loose if there are more opposing clans, in which case you want to enter but not to fight (sneaky), and this hugely effects how the game plays out in situations.


Aren't there cards that specifically allow you to move into a new territory without initiating a clash?


Yes there are


I would say that would imply the other cards are mandatory clashes, otherwise why would they design one that didn't initiate?

Of course, you could say the same thing in the opposite direction. We'll need an official ruling to get to the bottom of this.


Don't forget that there are two ways to start a clash. One by just moving, one by using card that says it starts a clash. The cards that allow you to move in without initiating a clash are related to the first way. The cards which allow you to initiate a clash say the conditions, e.g. 'You may'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Barker
United States
Indianapolis
IN
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kris wrote:


BTW thanks to everybody, your questions will help a lot on the FAQ we are working on.



That's good to hear. I've just been throwing all the answered questions in the forum into a Google doc to refer to during game nights.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evgeni Marinov
Bulgaria
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kris wrote:
Replace the first sentence of the example by "Turn order is blue, orange, white and green." Now everything makes sense. And you are right, the first maneuver goes to the instigator.


If I may suggest - I think the example should be changed by just adding a maneuver by the green player at the beginning - this way you'll keep the instigator from the previous example, and the part "It’s back to the green player’s turn" at the end will make more sense.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
You're right, that works too.
But I checked and in the sentence about green's turn, "back to" shouldn't be there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Séb V.
France
flag msg tools
mb
Sorry I don't want to hijack this thread but there is a topic on TT relatives to clashes that need clarifications I guess.
Thanks
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Merci ! Vu, répondu
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Morton
United States
Republic
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lazov
Macedonia
flag msg tools
Kris wrote:

So if you move with a Conquest in a territory where there are opposing clans, a clash triggers.


yes Kris answered that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike DiLisio
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?


It can't just be YOU that chooses not to. There's a negotiation phase at the beginning and after every maneuver of a clash. If ALL players with an exposed clan decide to end the clash (or not start one at all), that's fine, but it can't just be one party saying, "I don't want to fight".

EDIT BASED ON PREVIOUS POSTER: While a clash will technically trigger, if all players with exposed clans decide not to fight, you can have a clash where no maneuvers take place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lazov
Macedonia
flag msg tools
Sizzla wrote:
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?


It can't just be YOU that chooses not to. There's a negotiation phase at the beginning and after every maneuver of a clash. If ALL players with an exposed clan decide to end the clash (or not start one at all), that's fine, but it can't just be one party saying, "I don't want to fight".

EDIT BASED ON PREVIOUS POSTER: While a clash will technically trigger, if all players with exposed clans decide not to fight, you can have a clash where no maneuvers take place.


The negotiation is one way to end a clash, be it either at very start or after a couple of maneuvers, but starting a clash happens before that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike DiLisio
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
vojnikMon wrote:
Sizzla wrote:
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?


It can't just be YOU that chooses not to. There's a negotiation phase at the beginning and after every maneuver of a clash. If ALL players with an exposed clan decide to end the clash (or not start one at all), that's fine, but it can't just be one party saying, "I don't want to fight".

EDIT BASED ON PREVIOUS POSTER: While a clash will technically trigger, if all players with exposed clans decide not to fight, you can have a clash where no maneuvers take place.


The negotiation is one way to end a clash, be it either at very start or after a couple of maneuvers, but starting a clash happens before that.


Right, but "starting a clash" could still result in nobody doing any attack or retreat maneuvers. The clash starts when the card is played and there is another clan in the territory you move into. I think the confusion is that the word "clash" often inherently means "fight".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Three Headed Monkey
Australia
flag msg tools
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?

If you move one of your clans into a territory that has opponent's clans then a clash must be started. However if you move into a territory that doesn't have opposing clans on it then a clash doesn't start. Hence the use of the word 'can'. The use of the card won't always start a clash, but it will if the requirements are met.

You do not get to choose to not initiate a clash. Thematically a migrating clan cannot control how other clans will react to their incursion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John K
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmb
Three Headed Monkey wrote:
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?

If you move one of your clans into a territory that has opponent's clans then a clash must be started. However if you move into a territory that doesn't have opposing clans on it then a clash doesn't start. Hence the use of the word 'can'. The use of the card won't always start a clash, but it will if the requirements are met.

You do not get to choose to not initiate a clash. Thematically a migrating clan cannot control how other clans will react to their incursion.


Remember that you can try to bring peace by proposing a truce before they do a Clash Maneuver.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Armstrong
msg tools
ovresmot wrote:
I still didn't see an answer. If I play a card that CAN start a clash, and I move into a space with enemy clans, does that automatically start a clash, or can I just choose not to?


Yes, as others have said, the clash happens automatically, for the reasons stated.

I would just add that the most prominent rules-interaction here is Festival. If you move into an area with an active festival, you trigger it automatically - you must immediately discard a card or remove a clan, even if the clash then ends without any maneuvers having been played.
1 
 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.