The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion: Dark Ages
Fantastiqa
Mage Knight: Board Game
Mice and Mystics
Eclipse
Among the Stars
Collapsible D: The Final Minutes of the Titanic
Thunder Road
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Lords of Waterdeep
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Dungeon Fighter
Virgin Queen
Skyline
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Twilight Struggle
Dominion
Android: Netrunner
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Agricola
The Big Bang Theory: The Party Game
Total War
Arkham Horror
7 Wonders
Village
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Wrong Chemistry
The Castles of Burgundy
Ace of Spies
War of the Ring
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Alien Frontiers
Ora et Labora
Le Havre
Kingdom Builder
Twilight Imperium (third edition)
Trajan
Glory to Rome
The Swarm
Race for the Galaxy
Caylus
Battlestar Galactica
Tammany Hall
Small World
Zombicide
Hawaii
Quarriors! Quarmageddon
Power Grid
Space Alert
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Thumb up
2 Posts

Conspiracy» Forums » Rules

Subject: the endgame in Conspiracy : do players with no money continue playing? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
R T
United States

Illinois
Conspiracy

i played a 4-player round of Conspiracy under the Milton Bradley rules this weekend. what happens when a player has no more money left in the game? in other words, that player's entire $10,000 has been invested in spies that are now dead. does that player continue having a turn, or is he out?

option 1: the player continues having a turn. since they have no money and no money invested in spies anymore, they can only move one spy one space per turn. most likey at this point in the game there are only a few spies left and one player is making a strong move with the briefcase to their base. our "no money" player will basically be acting as a foil to the player with the advantage to balance out the game. however, our "no money" player has no no real chance of winning, since he will lose any move challenge put forth by any other player. for this reason, he will have little incentive to balance out the game and will be able to tip the scales in favor of the winning player and end the game sooner. even though there are two remaining players that can try to stop the leader, it will be difficult to catch the that leader and 'blow his cover' when it's basically 2 on 2 as opposed to 3 on 1.

option 2: the "no money" player sits out of the game. in this scenario, the player sits out and the game continues with the remaining 3 players. this means the game is now 1 on 2 as opposed to 1 on 3, which makes it very difficult for the team of 2 to stop the 1 leader from winning by means of moving spies and "blowing the cover" of the leader's favored spy with their 2 collective turns.

under either option, the endgame should proceed quickly. the Milton Bradley rules do not address the issue, but from what i see, it seems the developers would follow option 1. a player can still move a spy even though he has invested no money in that spy. the issue with this is that it gives too much power to the 'no money' player when he has no incentive to move the briefcase towards his homebase and there are few spies remaining. perhaps option 2 makes a little more sense.\ since it helps preserve the spirit of the game, IMHO.

have you guys experienced anything like this? which option do you prefer?

thanks for listening and happy gaming!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
Flying Arrow
United States

Pennsylvania
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Option 1.

He won't be able to win because every move of his would be challenged. He could help someone else win, though, if he makes a move that isn't challenged. Welcome to the meta-game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
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.