$10.00
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Mountain
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
The rulebook says "If no player has the accused monk card in hand, the accused must be guilty...". And the only requirement for an accusation is that the Parlatorum pile is exhausted.

That's preposterous, though, given how many events can result in a card being on the board, thus not in anyone's hand, but not being the guilty party. "Yet Another Corpse!", "A New Corpse!", and "Catechism" (some of these may be from the expansion, which was pre-blended into my set at purchase) all result in there being cards that are neither in players' hands nor the guilty party.

How should one resolve this? Must the person who placed a corpse (and the player and future reclaimant of the Catechism cards) be obligated to sustain 'stewardship' of the facedown on-board cards to be able to show them in the event of their name being used in an accusation?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chuck Meeks
United States
Bellevue
Nebraska
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would say that the players have 2 choices:

1: Visit all the places that have cards on them to gather all the information needed for a correct guess.

or

2: Take a chance when accusing and if you are wrong you lose the points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Mountain
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Komodo wrote:
2: Take a chance when accusing and if you are wrong you lose the points.


But, as the rules are written, if nobody has the card in hand the accuser looks at the card under the board... and if he then finds out that wasn't the card at all, there's no question of 'lose the points and carry on' - that player has SEEN the actual guilty party. The game cannot continue.

That's my problem here - there is nothing in the rulebook stopping the accuser from looking at the under-board card if nobody has the accusee in-hand - but if the accuser is wrong, the accuser has seen the actual guilty party. It would seem there needs to be a mechanism for someone to step in and avoid the situation where the accuser is wrong but has to look at the hidden card anyway (because the accused card is on-the-board-facedown due to an event/book) - but there is no such rule written anywhere.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe C
United States
Hillsboro
OR
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My expansion was in the game I got as well so I don't know if those were in the original game. I would play it so the person who put the card on the board would be responsible for using it to disprove an accusation just as if it were still in their hand. There is no way I would have the accuser checking under the board unless we knew that none of the other cards disproved their accusation.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Slaven
United States
Sioux City
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
thatmarkguy wrote:
How should one resolve this? Must the person who placed a corpse (and the player and future reclaimant of the Catechism cards) be obligated to sustain 'stewardship' of the facedown on-board cards to be able to show them in the event of their name being used in an accusation?

Probably as good a solution as any. That is, if you place the card, you should remember it's there and be ready to reveal it if there's an accusation. Except maybe for the Spring Fair card, which has players adding cards to the Parlor stack. Then maybe you just treat them like cards in the Parlor: no accusations until they're all gone.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Charters
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In the original game, cards were either in your hand, or in the Parlitorium...and you couldn't make an accusation until all the Parlitorium cards were in someone's hand.

It seems like the expansion rules should have covered that.

At any rate, the solution seems relatively straight forward. Instead of asking if anyone has the monk in their hand at that moment, you just need to ask if anyone has actually seen the monk during the course of the game.

I am assuming that the non-Parlitorium cards can't get on the board unless they pass through a player's hand.....so every card that isn't the guilty party is either in a players hand or has passed through a players hand.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Mountain
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
...that would add a mandatory memory element to the game that does not enforce that your note-taking must be exhaustive. Some people's notetaking method may not differentiate between a card they've seen and a card they've deduced based on the actions of others (and may actually be noted in error, either through their own fault in logic or by others' misplays). An "X" is an "X".


I had a game once where I asked a player "of the cards now in your hand and that card you just gave away last turn, how many are brothers?" - and his response was "I don't remember if the card I gave away last turn was a brother." The game clearly did not dictate his notetaking be as exhaustive as I was hoping. The same applies to this suggestion - the game can only force you to know what you have before your eyes, everything else is memory and your own chosen form of notekeeping.
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.