$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 65.53

4,615 Supporters

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

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Tammany Hall» Forums » Variants

Subject: Changing 3 VP bonus for Mayor? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Has anyone tried a variant where you receive less VP when you become the mayor? We played a 5-player game at a convention recently, and the consensus was that the 3 VP bonus was simply too high. One player suggested awarding 1 VP for the first term, 1 VP for the second term, 2 VP for the third term, and 4 VP for the fourth term. Another player suggested awarding just 1 VP each term, and yet another player ventured that maybe you didn't need any bonus VP if you became mayor (being able to keep so many of your ward bosses on the board is already a big advantage, and choosing who gets which role placard is also pretty powerful).

Thoughts? Has anyone else tried something like this? Personally, I'm leaning towards doing 1 VP each term, but I am open to trying other house rules (and obviously I need to play the game more than once). I'm not a fan of everyone ganging up on the leader, though, so I think something needs to change to make the game more about consistently manipulating the board (and not simply getting an insurmountable advantage from being mayor). The favor chips alone are a pretty big advantage (once someone wins the spot for most immigrants in their wards, it's hard to take it away from them), so I hate to add another layer of that to the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Frost

Iowa
msg tools
mbmbmb
I love this game and have played it many times. Best games, of course, are with experienced players. Who recognize the various roles and don't allow any one player to be Mayor for too many consecutive turns. If you do that, esp. say the last 2 elections, you're giving the Mayor too much influence.

This is a game designed to "punish the leader", who is the Mayor. Once a Mayor is elected and roles handed out, the other players use their roles to ruthlessly hurt the Mayor. To bring him back down. As they take precincts from him and whittle him down.

I would strongly recommend playing the game more with the rules as is. To play it is to love it. Usually a close game between the 1st and 2nd players. Not so much with 5th and/or 4th.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marina SC
Canada
Vaughan
flag msg tools
I think that the bonus needs to be that high because there is a considerable disadvantage to going first (you're following the rule that the mayor also becomes the first player, right?) AND you don't get any special powers. If you're not ganging up on the leader, you're not really playing Tammany Hall
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Amey
United States
Eastern Shore
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Once you have more completed games, I think you'll realize those three points are crucial to surviving as mayor. The special abilities awarded to the other players is well-balanced against the temporary point advantage. That being said, if the other players allow the mayor to get reelected, they are not playing the game right.

I've played 100's of games at SlothNinja Games website and the absolute worst term to be mayor is the last term. I would almost suggest 3 points isn't enough of an incentive to be the mayor during the last 4 years; but, that is my opinion.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
trevor

Missouri
msg tools
mbmbmb
Just like in real politics, you don't want to let your opponent be mayor every time. Experience will teach you that becoming mayor means all your opponents are gunning for you. It's rare in our games for mayors to have back to back terms. Bash the leader is encouraged, expected, and just good strategy. This can be difficult adjustment for players who are not used to the aggressiveness of this game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Marx
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I was mayor 3 of 4 terms in one game and still lost - I couldn't overcome another players' complete dominance in German favors and German immigrants spread across the board during the last term. I would recommend playing a few more times before declaring the Mayor bonus overpowered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds like the unanimous suggestion then is to simply tell everyone that plays the game, "This game is about bashing whoever is in the lead. If you don't unseat the mayor each term, that person will almost certainly win." Then hope that people actually listen to you and try to unseat the mayor.

I'm still not convinced that is good game design, though. As Michael said:

MPMelanchthon wrote:
Usually a close game between the 1st and 2nd players. Not so much with 5th and/or 4th.


That seemed to be the case, based on my single play of the game. I got into an early fight with one player over one of the wards that yielded favors, which then turned into a battle for the German immigrants. This allowed the other three players to take the other immigrant populations (Irish, English, and then Italians) without much contention. Half way through the game, I wrestled control of the Germans away from the other fellow, but it cost me the ability to fight back at the other players (further securing their positions as immigrant leaders) during the first two terms. By then, we all realized that the fellow controlling the English (who also had the most wards), was several points ahead of the rest of us (due to being mayor for two terms). That's when I paused the game and said, "Hey, we need to stop infighting. If we don't crush the mayor, we will all lose." Folks agreed, and we all went about fighting the mayor and taking away his districts...but it was clear that doing so would ultimately just give extra points to the second place player.

I mention all of this because the player who came in third played exceptionally well; he strong-armed the weaker player who had tried to take control of the Germans, and then he directly (and vocally) threatened him whenever there was a chance the fellow might try and fight back. His moves were all actions I would have done (and had planned to do, if I had possessed the resources) and his manipulation of the other players was commendable. That said...he couldn't win because the other two players had too big a lead. And it was clear to me (the 4th place player) that me and the 5th place player had no chance of recovering our positions, so the best we could hope for would be to become king makers (taking the wards from one player, simply to allow another player to swoop in and win the game).

The most fun decisions seem to come during the first term, when no one had control of an immigrant population, no one has ward bosses on the board, and no one is a bigger target than anyone else. The second term seemed to be just as fun, but in retrospect we should have attacked the mayor more (which disappoints me, since it feels like the default strategy is to always attack the person in the lead, rather than improving your own lead or some mix of the two). The third and fourth terms were kind of...meh. They were exciting, but also a bit scripted; we knew that we had to attack the mayor, so we all did what seemed logical, and any selfish deviations from that (i.e., trying to snag a few extra wards for ourselves whilst others concentrated on fighting the mayor) ended up hurting us in the end.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Mashpotassium wrote:
I think that the bonus needs to be that high because there is a considerable disadvantage to going first (you're following the rule that the mayor also becomes the first player, right?) AND you don't get any special powers. If you're not ganging up on the leader, you're not really playing Tammany Hall


We played the rules correctly, but the leader has several hidden advantages.

First, the 3 extra VPs is REALLY big in a game where people don't often score more than 10 points.
Second, choosing who gets which role is a small (though not very significant) advantage.
Third, you get to go first (not a good advantage, really, since others can slander you and/or watch where you are going and then try to block you), but you still get first dibs on the available immigrants (and their political favor chips), which is always a powerful ability because, (a) if there are lots of immigrants, you get to choose exactly which immigrants you want to move (potentially stealing rare/desirable favor chips from others, but also securing your own immigrant block), and (b) when there are just a few immigrants in the Castle Garden, you get to take those immigrants and force others to only place two ward bosses (instead of placing a ward boss, moving an immigrant cube, and getting a favor chip), because the Castle Garden doesn't restock until the end of the current year (which means the last few players during that year will be deprived of half their tactical options). Meanwhile, if the Castle Garden has been emptied, it will be refilled at the beginning of the next year, which means (as mayor), you will once again get first pick of the desirable immigrants/favor chips.
Fourth (and this is the biggest advantage in my opinion), any ward that you win will already contain one of your ward bosses. As Mayor, your term will start with you already controlling more wards than anyone else (in some cases, the difference will only be 1 or 2 ward bosses, but it could be as much as 3 or 4 wards). In any case, any ward that already contains one of your ward bosses has a signigicant advantage since no one can overcome your control of the ward without (a) using the power of their role, or (b) slandering your ward boss and removing him from that ward. They can't beat you by placing more ward bosses than you, because you already have one there and could conceivably match them every year, thereby maintaining your lead. That doesn't work when everyone gangs up on you, of course (you can't fight everyone at once), but you can still pick the wards you really care about and keep control of them. And if people don't all fight you together, you could still conceivably keep control of most your wards. There is a psychological benefit at work their, too ("Why should I contend with him for that ward when he already has a ward boss there? If he decides he wants to fight me for that ward, I'll be wasting all my resources on that ward). Do this enough times, and pretty soon the mayor has a ton of resources (political favor chips) that he can use to fight the two or three political battles he's likely to face each year. This is no different, of course, to any other player who has control of an immigrant population from term to term, but it is especially powerful in the hands of the mayor, who already has control of a majority of wards.

To extrapolate my point just a bit further, consider that every extra ward boss on the board is basically a free action (which is half of your actions in any given year). For any other player to match what you already have on the board, they would need to spend one of their precious actions to contend with you. Since you only get two actions each year (one of which is always placing a ward boss), the mayor essentially has more actions than any other player. That difference may not be great to those who are in the lead (if the mayor controls 5 wards and the second player controls 4 wards, it's really very slight), but it's really significant to those that are behind (like only have 1 or 2 wards in your possession); for those players, it can feel as if the mayor has been given an extra 3-4 actions (two full rounds/years) of play. As someone trailing at the back of the point tally, how do you counter that?

So far as I can see...you don't.

Yes, you can use the power of your office to change the balance of power a bit, but I don't think those powers exceed the advantage of having extra ward bosses already on the board. Consider, for example, the Council President (the role that allows a player to lock up to 2 of the wards each year). That player still can't use his ability to steal wards away from the mayor, because he must use his Office Ability before placing ward bosses. He can lock up his own wards (places where he already has control), but he can't use his ability to steal wards away from anyone unless they purposefully allow the Council President to place bosses in their own wards and then they don't contest his invasion.

The Chief of Police could potentially remove an immigrant from a ward that would otherwise allow the Mayor to use his political favor chips...but chances are that the mayor has more than one of those particular immigrants in that ward, which means the Police Chief will have to spend his ability on the mayor multiple times in order to have a really adverse affect (and, again, this would only apply to the political favor chips...and since the mayor will almost always get first dibs on placing new immigrants from the Castle Garden, the mayor can attempt to disrupt the Police Chief's ability by placing the new immigrant cubes of the appropriate color back into the contested wards).

The Deputy Mayor is going to get four extra political chips each term, which he can use to contest the mayor's control of any given ward...but he still needs to place a ward boss there just to ATTEMPT to fight the mayor (while the mayor already has a boss in place). Likewise, you may have an abundance of political favor chips for that term, but to secure just one ward, you are likely going to need to commit all of those bonus chips (and the bulk of your saved favor chips) just to be certain that the mayor won't still beat you back and maintain control of his wards. Why do that when you can use those same favor chips to seize control of wards controlled by the weaker players (the ones with less favor chips who are barely holding onto their wards and/or immigrant leader bonuses).

I think Precinct Chairman is the most powerful role in the game, and there is a good chance that this player could use their abilities to shift power away from the Mayor's strongholds (by moving the mayor's immigrants into wards that he does not control). This could give the Precinct Chairman control of the immigrant leader bonus(es), plus it is likely to prevent the mayor (or whomever is currently controlling the ward) from being able to use their political favor chips. Granted, the same caveat that existed for the Police Chief applies here (you might not be able to remove all of the appropriate immigrant cubes), but the other advantages to this office (specifically being able to shift immigrant leader bonuses from one player to another) seems to compensate for that. In the end, I would venture to say that this is the only role that can really contend with the mayor (or anyone else) for ward dominance, but that is only going to be true if the Precinct Chairman also has a lot of favor chips in his pocket (likely from being an immigrant leader of some kind), and also has several ward bosses on the table (from having won those wards in previous terms). A smart mayor will thus give this role to the player with the least political favor chips and/or someone with few ward bosses already on the board. Such a Precinct Chairman is unlikely to contest your own dominance unless they team up with other players, and even then, they are likely to only be a kingmaker (and not actually contend with you for first place).

So yeah. It seems this game is about playing king of the mountain and forcing the mayor to be a new person each term. If you don't follow that proscribed strategy (i.e., ganging up on the guy in the lead), you will almost certainly lose. I suppose that's good enough for most people, and certainly many a successful game incorporates that motive as the game's primary strategy), but I feel like Tammany Hall could be a deeper game if half of it wasn't tied up in the weaker players ganging up on those in the lead. At the very least, when one person gets too big, the others should be able to nip at their heels and, for a minor investment of effort, the game should then rebalance itself. This seems to happen during a game of Tammany Hall, but then the 3 VP bonus swoops in and upsets any semblance of balance the game might have been shifting towards. The end result then seems to be that each player MUST focus on the mayor every round (and convince the other players to do so, too). Not doing so means the mayor will keep increasing his lead (by virtue of his 3 point bonuses), and yet their is an incentive for the second place player to abstain from spending his/her resources on the mayor (once everyone else has committed to attacking him) so that they can instead steal away the resources from the other weaker players (thus ensuring that they will become the mayor next term).

Perhaps, as some players have mentioned in other threads, the problem isn't so much that the game creates a run-away-leader (though that is certainly a huge part of the problem), but that the players who do poorly early (winning only a few wards and/or securing none of the immigrant leader bonuses) are unlikely to recover from their early setbacks. I am certain there are exceptions to this, but I would wager those are simply that (exceptions), and that someone in last place at the end of the first term is typically unable to recover from their bad start without some kind of aid from the other players (either from being ignored or from other players shifting the mayor's assets over to them since they are in last place and supposedly are of the smallest threat). Most of the time, though, I expect those players are kept under the thumb of the mayor and anyone else who has a modicum of power early on in the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
crysknife wrote:
Once you have more completed games, I think you'll realize those three points are crucial to surviving as mayor. The special abilities awarded to the other players is well-balanced against the temporary point advantage. That being said, if the other players allow the mayor to get reelected, they are not playing the game right.


I am certain that those three points are crucial to surviving as mayor, but I suspect people would also be less likely to gang up on you if you weren't getting the bonus points to start with. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? If, on the other hand, you're not getting any (or many) bonus points, you could conceivably convince the other players to ignore you (perhaps by promising them that you will give them the office of their choice in the next term), and the small difference in your VP totals should be enough to convince most players that there is some merit in allowing you to remain mayor whilst they consolidate their power through other means (usually by targeting weaker players). To me, that seems to be a much deeper level of play than simply acknowledging that everyone HAS to attack the mayor because his bonus VP will be too great to overcome otherwise.

crysknife wrote:
I've played 100's of games at SlothNinja Games website and the absolute worst term to be mayor is the last term. I would almost suggest 3 points isn't enough of an incentive to be the mayor during the last 4 years; but, that is my opinion.


Good note! That that may actually be true, too, since most players are likely to use their slander chips during that last term (usually to target you), and the ability of those political offices will be very powerful (since no one will be able to undo what you've done during the last term). That said...if you are mayor during the 4th term (and get the 3 bonus VP) and you become mayor again (by maintaining your majority of the wards for that term), you will once again get 3 VP, which will be a huge advantage...and you won't have to hand out any more offices (because the game is already over).

I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but my point is that this was brought up by the person who came in second (she said that being mayor during the last term should be worth more because it is so hard to stay on top during that last term when people are throwing everything they have at you). That's why I'm debating whether the office of mayor should perhaps be worth 1 VP at the end of the first term, 1 VP at the end of the second term, 2 VP at the end of the third term, and 3 VP at the end of the fourth term (or something to that effect). I'm not sure how many VP the mayor should get at the end of the game (the "start" of the 5th term), but it could be as many as 4 VP or as few as 1 VP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
bigGameGeek wrote:
Just like in real politics, you don't want to let your opponent be mayor every time. Experience will teach you that becoming mayor means all your opponents are gunning for you. It's rare in our games for mayors to have back to back terms. Bash the leader is encouraged, expected, and just good strategy. This can be difficult adjustment for players who are not used to the aggressiveness of this game.


Then I suppose that was our faults for not knowing the game well enough when we sat down to play. This was at a convention, though. It was everyone's first time playing and we were all experienced gamers, so it seemed like we were all on even footing. Seeing how far in the lead one player got after being mayor for two terms thus felt very strange to me. Like, it should have been more obvious to the rest of us that there were few opportunities to gain any VP in the game. So earning a measly 3 VP might not seem like a lot, but it's actually a huge advantage (one that should be highlighted at the start of the game, perhaps as a caveat (e.g., if someone is mayor twice in a row, you're practically handing them the game).

I don't typically like such caveats. For example, when I am playing Resistance (or Avalon) with folks, I know that good/smart players should be voting "no" as often as possible so as to learn a lot about people's voting habits (whereas inexperienced/evil players are likely to vote "yes" for most proposed missions without first seeing how others are going to vote). Knowing that fact and telling people to do that, though, are two different things; I don't want to force people to follow a proscribed method of play (even if it is optimal), and I especially dislike having to explain it to folks mid-game (it makes others feel stupid, and it makes me look evil/guilty and/or like an ass who has played the game too much and doesn't like letting others do their own thing).

I feel like lowering the VP bonus for the mayor may be one way to avoid that caveat (not to mention making it easier for players who get shafted in early conflicts during the first term of the game).

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am ruining a good thing and have simply not played the game enough to make an informed opinion of the game's flaws (perceived or otherwise). I doubt that's the case, but I am willing to play the game several times to find the answer (using the rules as written and then comparing it against whatever house rules I feel are needed). Before doing that, though, I thought I'd come here and see if anyone else had a similar experience (or perhaps had come to the same conclusions and had already implemented a satisfactory solution). The fact that neither seems to be the case suggests that perhaps I am in the completely in the wrong here (that, or everyone is just content with half of this game's strategy being a more complex version of "King of the Hill").
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
imarx wrote:
I was mayor 3 of 4 terms in one game and still lost - I couldn't overcome another players' complete dominance in German favors and German immigrants spread across the board during the last term. I would recommend playing a few more times before declaring the Mayor bonus overpowered.


Verrrrry interesting. I would wager that this rarely happens...and yet, the fact that it does happen is enough to make me concede there is more here than meets the eye. I shall certainly try playing the game "a few more times" before I make any hasty decisions about scaling back the mayor's bonus. That's only fair to the game designer, after all, since he's undoubtedly played the game dozens (if not hundreds) of times, and his ultimate conclusion was to keep the rules as currently printed.

That said, I also know how some designers can stick with a certain rule just because they have a perverse preference for it (in this case, it may be because the bonus VP reflects how difficult it was to unseat Boss Tweed when he was in power), and if the rule doesn't appear to directly influence the quality of the game, the designer is probably going to keep it. And if he's playing with people that really like the "king of the hill" mechanics/playstyle...well, it'll probably never be seen as a defect.

As I said, I'll try it a couple more times the normal way, but I'm eager to see how it plays with a lower bonus. I'll have to find a way to get this to the table more often to decide whether my gut is right or whether I am way off base.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Frost

Iowa
msg tools
mbmbmb
A few simple suggestions for you:

First, play the game many more times. At varying player counts. Esp. 4-5. Then you'll become an experienced player.

Second, play the game with other experienced players. You will become a better player for it.

Third, follow the rules. The game is what it is and should be played as it is. And you will appreciate that as an experienced player.

And keep in mind that just as in real politics, there is only 1 winner and often the runner-up comes close. But don't expect the 4th or 5th player to do nearly as well as they do. For whatever reason. (And this makes a lot of "sense" given our 2-party system.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Huter
United States
McCordsville
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
talusproteus wrote:

We played the rules correctly, but the leader has several hidden advantages.

Third, you get to go first (not a good advantage, really, since others can slander you and/or watch where you are going and then try to block you), but you still get first dibs on the available immigrants (and their political favor chips), which is always a powerful ability because,

(b) when there are just a few immigrants in the Castle Garden, you get to take those immigrants and force others to only place two ward bosses (instead of placing a ward boss, moving an immigrant cube, and getting a favor chip), because the Castle Garden doesn't restock until the end of the current year (which means the last few players during that year will be deprived of half their tactical options). Meanwhile, if the Castle Garden has been emptied, it will be refilled at the beginning of the next year, which means (as mayor), you will once again get first pick of the desirable immigrants/favor chips.


Well this is at least one rule you got incorrect. At the beginning of each player's turn, you check to see if the Castle Garden is empty. If it is empty, then it completely restocks (i.e., add number of players + two cubes to the Garden)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Huter
United States
McCordsville
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
talusproteus wrote:

As I said, I'll try it a couple more times the normal way, but I'm eager to see how it plays with a lower bonus. I'll have to find a way to get this to the table more often to decide whether my gut is right or whether I am way off base.


Shameless plug. (I'm the developer.) You might try playing a few games at slothninja.com. Besides being a good way to get several games played, there are also many experienced players. Check the leader board to find the stronger players.

Jeff
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
talusproteus wrote:

As I said, I'll try it a couple more times the normal way, but I'm eager to see how it plays with a lower bonus. I'll have to find a way to get this to the table more often to decide whether my gut is right or whether I am way off base.


Shameless plug. (I'm the developer.) You might try playing a few games at slothninja.com. Besides being a good way to get several games played, there are also many experienced players. Check the leader board to find the stronger players.

Jeff


Best advice yet. Thanks, Jeff!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
talusproteus wrote:

We played the rules correctly, but the leader has several hidden advantages.

Third, you get to go first (not a good advantage, really, since others can slander you and/or watch where you are going and then try to block you), but you still get first dibs on the available immigrants (and their political favor chips), which is always a powerful ability because,

(b) when there are just a few immigrants in the Castle Garden, you get to take those immigrants and force others to only place two ward bosses (instead of placing a ward boss, moving an immigrant cube, and getting a favor chip), because the Castle Garden doesn't restock until the end of the current year (which means the last few players during that year will be deprived of half their tactical options). Meanwhile, if the Castle Garden has been emptied, it will be refilled at the beginning of the next year, which means (as mayor), you will once again get first pick of the desirable immigrants/favor chips.


Well this is at least one rule you got incorrect. At the beginning of each player's turn, you check to see if the Castle Garden is empty. If it is empty, then it completely restocks (i.e., add number of players + two cubes to the Garden)


Reeeeally. Hmm. This would indeed have led to more interesting decisions. Thanks again, Jeff. Don't know how we missed that (we read the rulebook a few times and decided it must be every year instead of at the beginning of each player's turn).

*goes to look at the rulebook*

Ahh. I see the problem. The rulebook lists the turn phases as:
1. Castle Garden
2a. Office Benefit
2b. Place pieces on the board
2c. Slander
3. End of Year

We took that to mean that phases 1 and 3 happen at the start of each year, whereas turns 2a, 2b, and 2c are specific to each player's turn. I see now, though, that this is clarified just above the turn order descriptions:

"In player order, each player completes phases one and two. After all players have completed these two phases, the game proceeds to phase three."

*sigh* I'm curious how that one change might have affected the final outcome of the game. blush shake
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Amey
United States
Eastern Shore
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
talusproteus wrote:

We played the rules correctly, but the leader has several hidden advantages.

Third, you get to go first (not a good advantage, really, since others can slander you and/or watch where you are going and then try to block you), but you still get first dibs on the available immigrants (and their political favor chips), which is always a powerful ability because,

(b) when there are just a few immigrants in the Castle Garden, you get to take those immigrants and force others to only place two ward bosses (instead of placing a ward boss, moving an immigrant cube, and getting a favor chip), because the Castle Garden doesn't restock until the end of the current year (which means the last few players during that year will be deprived of half their tactical options). Meanwhile, if the Castle Garden has been emptied, it will be refilled at the beginning of the next year, which means (as mayor), you will once again get first pick of the desirable immigrants/favor chips.


Well this is at least one rule you got incorrect. At the beginning of each player's turn, you check to see if the Castle Garden is empty. If it is empty, then it completely restocks (i.e., add number of players + two cubes to the Garden)


Not surprised that you would be the one to catch this error first ;-)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Amey
United States
Eastern Shore
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
talusproteus wrote:
Yes, you can use the power of your office to change the balance of power a bit, but I don't think those powers exceed the advantage of having extra ward bosses already on the board. Consider, for example, the Council President (the role that allows a player to lock up to 2 of the wards each year). That player still can't use his ability to steal wards away from the mayor, because he must use his Office Ability before placing ward bosses. He can lock up his own wards (places where he already has control), but he can't use his ability to steal wards away from anyone unless they purposefully allow the Council President to place bosses in their own wards and then they don't contest his invasion.


You got this rule wrong as well. Council President can use their power after placing ward boss(es) in someone else's ward. This is a very common strategy at SlothNinja games. I will agree with you that it is the weakest office awarded in the game and the Precinct Chairman is the strongest. As mayor, deciding who gets which office is a crucial decision that can really hurt the current mayor.

Also, I've played games where a player has been mayor twice and still not won the game. There's much more to winning the game than just the mayor's office.

Hope to see you at SlothNinja soon. Let me know when you are ready to play.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
crysknife wrote:
talusproteus wrote:
Yes, you can use the power of your office to change the balance of power a bit, but I don't think those powers exceed the advantage of having extra ward bosses already on the board. Consider, for example, the Council President (the role that allows a player to lock up to 2 of the wards each year). That player still can't use his ability to steal wards away from the mayor, because he must use his Office Ability before placing ward bosses. He can lock up his own wards (places where he already has control), but he can't use his ability to steal wards away from anyone unless they purposefully allow the Council President to place bosses in their own wards and then they don't contest his invasion.


You got this rule wrong as well. Council President can use their power after placing ward boss(es) in someone else's ward. This is a very common strategy at SlothNinja games. I will agree with you that it is the weakest office awarded in the game and the Precinct Chairman is the strongest. As mayor, deciding who gets which office is a crucial decision that can really hurt the current mayor.

Also, I've played games where a player has been mayor twice and still not won the game. There's much more to winning the game than just the mayor's office.

Hope to see you at SlothNinja soon. Let me know when you are ready to play.


Sooo...should I take that to mean that actions 2a, 2b, and 2c can be taken in any order? Where does it say that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
talusproteus wrote:
crysknife wrote:
talusproteus wrote:
Yes, you can use the power of your office to change the balance of power a bit, but I don't think those powers exceed the advantage of having extra ward bosses already on the board. Consider, for example, the Council President (the role that allows a player to lock up to 2 of the wards each year). That player still can't use his ability to steal wards away from the mayor, because he must use his Office Ability before placing ward bosses. He can lock up his own wards (places where he already has control), but he can't use his ability to steal wards away from anyone unless they purposefully allow the Council President to place bosses in their own wards and then they don't contest his invasion.


You got this rule wrong as well. Council President can use their power after placing ward boss(es) in someone else's ward. This is a very common strategy at SlothNinja games. I will agree with you that it is the weakest office awarded in the game and the Precinct Chairman is the strongest. As mayor, deciding who gets which office is a crucial decision that can really hurt the current mayor.

Also, I've played games where a player has been mayor twice and still not won the game. There's much more to winning the game than just the mayor's office.

Hope to see you at SlothNinja soon. Let me know when you are ready to play.


Sooo...should I take that to mean that actions 2a, 2b, and 2c can be taken in any order? Where does it say that?


Nevermind. shake

"Phase two consists of three sub-phases. Each sub-phase can be performed once. It is up to the active player which order he wishes to perform each sub-phase in, i.e a player could slander, then use his office benefit, and then place pieces."

These two rule changes definitely tip the scales in favor of those with office benefits.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Huter
United States
McCordsville
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
talusproteus wrote:
talusproteus wrote:
crysknife wrote:
talusproteus wrote:
Yes, you can use the power of your office to change the balance of power a bit, but I don't think those powers exceed the advantage of having extra ward bosses already on the board. Consider, for example, the Council President (the role that allows a player to lock up to 2 of the wards each year). That player still can't use his ability to steal wards away from the mayor, because he must use his Office Ability before placing ward bosses. He can lock up his own wards (places where he already has control), but he can't use his ability to steal wards away from anyone unless they purposefully allow the Council President to place bosses in their own wards and then they don't contest his invasion.


You got this rule wrong as well. Council President can use their power after placing ward boss(es) in someone else's ward. This is a very common strategy at SlothNinja games. I will agree with you that it is the weakest office awarded in the game and the Precinct Chairman is the strongest. As mayor, deciding who gets which office is a crucial decision that can really hurt the current mayor.

Also, I've played games where a player has been mayor twice and still not won the game. There's much more to winning the game than just the mayor's office.

Hope to see you at SlothNinja soon. Let me know when you are ready to play.


Sooo...should I take that to mean that actions 2a, 2b, and 2c can be taken in any order? Where does it say that?


Nevermind. shake

"Phase two consists of three sub-phases. Each sub-phase can be performed once. It is up to the active player which order he wishes to perform each sub-phase in, i.e a player could slander, then use his office benefit, and then place pieces."

These two rule changes definitely tip the scales in favor of those with office benefits.


Yep, while some believe Council President is weak, it can be quite powerful in certain situations. For example, it's not uncommon to slander the sole ward boss from a Ward having a ton of immigrants, drop one of your bosses in that Ward, and then lock it up in a single turn. Not only are you guaranteed to win that ward without spending favors, you might be in great position to win an immigrant bonus or two.
1 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Amey
United States
Eastern Shore
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
Yep, while some believe Council President is weak, it can be quite powerful in certain situations. For example, it's not uncommon to slander the sole ward boss from a Ward having a ton of immigrants, drop one of your bosses in that Ward, and then lock it up in a single turn. Not only are you guaranteed to win that ward without spending favors, you might be in great position to win an immigrant bonus or two.


To clarify, I feel it is the weakest of the four offices most of the time; especially when playing in a 5-player game.

Also, when playing a 3-player game, I tend to assign the Council President and Chief of Police, leaving the other to offices vacant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Huter
United States
McCordsville
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
crysknife wrote:
To clarify, I feel it is the weakest of the four offices most of the time; especially when playing in a 5-player game.

Also, when playing a 3-player game, I tend to assign the Council President and Chief of Police, leaving the other to offices vacant.


I'm probably in the minority, but I really like the Council President role. You can commonly lock-down two wards, which you can win without expending any favor chips. Plus, it allows you to focus on other wards. You only need 4 wards to win the mayorship in a five player game. Having two locked down makes getting 4 quite possible.

Deputy Mayor seems weaker to me than common perception. Four additional favors is nice. But, if you are already sitting on a huge stack of favors, four more really doesn't matter much.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JT Call
United States
Pocatello
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
crysknife wrote:
To clarify, I feel it is the weakest of the four offices most of the time; especially when playing in a 5-player game.

Also, when playing a 3-player game, I tend to assign the Council President and Chief of Police, leaving the other to offices vacant.


I'm probably in the minority, but I really like the Council President role. You can commonly lock-down two wards, which you can win without expending any favor chips. Plus, it allows you to focus on other wards. You only need 4 wards to win the mayorship in a five player game. Having two locked down makes getting 4 quite possible.

Deputy Mayor seems weaker to me than common perception. Four additional favors is nice. But, if you are already sitting on a huge stack of favors, four more really doesn't matter much.


Agreed on all counts. I was actually fond of Council President, too, but when we had been playing that you had to use your Office benefit before you did any actions (even slandering), it really weakened the ability. Knowing that I could have added a ward boss (possibly even adding another immigrant cube to lock down majority on a certain immigrant population), then slandered, and THEN locked down the ward...well, that's huge. That's darn near game changing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Amey
United States
Eastern Shore
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jbhuter6041 wrote:
I'm probably in the minority, but I really like the Council President role.

I'll keep that in mind the next time we play

Quote:
You can commonly lock-down two wards, which you can win without expending any favor chips. Plus, it allows you to focus on other wards. You only need 4 wards to win the mayorship in a five player game. Having two locked down makes getting 4 quite possible.

As mayor, I like to assign Council President in a way that will encourage a player to slander someone else besides me and lock-up the ward or give it to the player going last so as to alloy others to place ward bosses in their wards before they can lock them up.whistle

Quote:
Deputy Mayor seems weaker to me than common perception. Four additional favors is nice. But, if you are already sitting on a huge stack of favors, four more really doesn't matter much.

You may be right, here. I think I have a perceived fear of an opponent having too much power. Deputy Mayor and Council President are definitely weaker than the Chief of Police and Precinct Chairman; especially when they are working together.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.