$10.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

7 Wonders: Leaders» Forums » Rules

Subject: Theoretical question about if you had to spend your gold to get VP... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
ackmondual
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Among many groups I've played 7W with, one group did go by the procedure that you turn in every $3 worth of coins to get 1 VP, which I found odd given what I know of the rules. This thread discusses that (among other threads I'm sure) and it appears the designer himself confirms that the majority of my groups were correct on that assertion.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/590080/is-gold-spent-for...


IF we were to go with the incorrect way of scoring VP for $$ (in where coins had to be turned in), would Gamer's Guild and Midas still work (both work the same way... +1 VP for every $3)? You get an additional pt for each of those you had in play for every $3, and THEN you turn in as much $$ as you can to get VP?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Howard
United States
Marina del Rey
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the Gamer's Guild and Midas further solidifies the fact that you don't turn coins in at the end of the game to earn VP. Both the Base Game's rules and Midas' rules say that you score VP based on the amount of coins you have in your treasury (in your possession) at the end of the game. Nowhere does it mention having to "turn them in". You don't turn anything else in to get VP at the end of the game, lol.

So, even if one of your gaming groups plays it incorrectly, there is a note on Midas' explanation that should help:
Clarification: These points are added to those
normally given for coins (the player therefore
scores 2 VP for each set of 3 coins).


And if you happened to get Midas and the Gamer's Guild, you'd score 3 VP for each set of 3 coins.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Miller
United States
Stigler
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you're going to start the thread with the premise that you're going to play incorrectly, isn't the only viable answer "Do whatever you want"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ackmondual
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SlebRittie wrote:
If you're going to start the thread with the premise that you're going to play incorrectly, isn't the only viable answer "Do whatever you want"?
Not quite.... there are shades of gray, not just "either it's right or wrong". For example, it's one thing if one group that forgets to enforce the rule that duplicate buildings aren't allowed, but there are worse ways to mess up the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Miller
United States
Stigler
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree there are different levels of messing up rules, but OP's question is literally "if I get this rule wrong, how does that affect this other rule?"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ackmondual
United States
SoCal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SlebRittie wrote:
I agree there are different levels of messing up rules, but OP's question is literally "if I get this rule wrong, how does that affect this other rule?"
Because the people who are playing the game wrong would still be following the rules, but in their own way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
Among many groups I've played 7W with, one group did go by the procedure that you turn in every $3 worth of coins to get 1 VP, which I found odd given what I know of the rules. This thread discusses that (among other threads I'm sure) and it appears the designer himself confirms that the majority of my groups were correct on that assertion.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/590080/is-gold-spent-for...


IF we were to go with the incorrect way of scoring VP for $$ (in where coins had to be turned in), would Gamer's Guild and Midas still work (both work the same way... +1 VP for every $3)? You get an additional pt for each of those you had in play for every $3, and THEN you turn in as much $$ as you can to get VP?


It's quite simple really. I score all cards first. The last thing I do is score the coins for points, and yes we spend them.

I get the same results for the coins, leaders and guilds, and I get rational tie breaker results (as opposed to the incorrect results the designer ruling above provides).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Miller
United States
Stigler
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ackmondual wrote:
Because the people who are playing the game wrong would still be following the rules, but in their own way.


"Not following the rules" isn't following the rules in your own way; it's not following the rules. It's a reasonable question to ask "What is the best way to houserule X interaction between my houserule and the actual rules?" but not "what is the rule for when I intentionally don't follow the rules?" The rule is that you follow the rules!

This thread really belongs in "Variants."
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you use the incorrect interpretation AND rule so that you score money before guilds/leaders (like you do if you mark scores from top to bottom in the score card), you might as well remove Midas and the Guild from the game, because that way they are just blank cards no one would ever want to pay for.

So, if the group insists using the incorrect way of scoring money, I'd recommend that's the last thing you do in scoring.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
I get the same results for the coins, leaders and guilds, and I get rational tie breaker results (as opposed to the incorrect results the designer ruling above provides).


I think both methods are rational, but they are different.

By the rules as written, coins score by set collection. Effectively, each coin is inherently worth a tiny amount (say, 0.01 VP) and each full set of three gets a bonus of 1VP.

By the common 'leftover coins' variant, coins score linearly. Each coin is worth a flat 0.333 VPs.

The linear scoring does 'feel' more appropriate to me. Coins are a big pile of identical tokens, so they don't seem to lend themselves to set collection in the same way that science symbols do. A bonus depending on one coin either way just feels arbitrary.

(Incidentally, I've never seen anyone say that they should get 4.666 VPs for two-thirds of a science set bonus. But some of us do say that we should get 0.666 VPs for two-thirds of a coin set bonus. Interesting.)

To be honest,though, I'm generally happy letting a tie stay a shared win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Incidentally, I think one of the neatest things about 7 Wonders as a whole is that the different card types score in different ways without the game being complicated.

Green cards work by set collection, red cards work by all-or-nothing contest, blue cards are linear. That's an interesting set of tensions for a simple game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Miller
United States
Stigler
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Honestly I don't care much about this rule either way, but I wonder if you tell everyone who sits down to play with your group about it. I know if I personally played with strangers who told me during scoring that they used this house rule, I would probably say "It's adorable that you decided to houserule something that matters like one game out of a hundred, but I won"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BlackSheep wrote:
I think both methods are rational, but they are different.


I find the official ruling irrational because you get different results based on where the specific numbers happen to fall. I should not be able to get different results by following legal math operations.

For example, if the tie breaker in a game was blue widgets, and Bob has X blue widgets while Mary only has Y so Bob wins, logically if I add 1 blue widget to each player, Bob should still still win. If X > Y, then X+1 should be greater than Y+1. X+2 > Y+2, and so on.

The official 7 Wonders ruling breaks this. Bob has X coins, Mary has Y, Bob wins. Yet, if we add 1 coin to each player, Mary now wins. If we add 2 coins, suddenly Bob wins again.

If Bob has 13 coins while Mary has 8 coins, and Bob is deemed to be closer to winning, then it makes *no* sense that Bob loses with 14 coins when Mary has 9.

By scoring the coins last and spending them, I get a fixed mathematical result. Adding any number of coins to each player maintains the same result.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
The official 7 Wonders ruling breaks this. Bob has X coins, Mary has Y, Bob wins. Yet, if we add 1 coin to each player, Mary now wins. If we add 2 coins, suddenly Bob wins again.


I agree, but you can get the same weirdness by adding science symbols to each side.

50VPs + one science symbol beats 45 VPs + two science symbols

50VPs + two science symbols loses to 45 VPs + three science symbols

50VPs + three science symbols beats 45 VPs + four science symbols

It's just part of set-collection. The question is whether you think coins should use a set-collection mechanic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. B. Downey
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Number of coins is a great method for breaking ties in 7 Wonders. It is harder to score high and do well while pursuing a commerce-based strategy. If you can have a lot of coins and score as much as someone who did not, you deserve to win, since achieving your point total was more difficult.

I think it balances out the difficulty of gaining points through commerce.

And the point about science is correct as well. When points are not scored linearly, you should not use a linear method as a basis for your argument.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BlackSheep wrote:
I agree, but you can get the same weirdness by adding science symbols to each side.


Science comes in 3 different varieties, so of course different results would happen when you add one symbol vs a different symbol. Not really a valid comparison.

If I add 1 vp to each player, the winner doesn't change. If I add 1 military symbol to each, the weaker military player doesn't suddenly become the stronger of the two.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Kazimierczak
United States
Falmouth
Maine
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Very strange 7 Wonders thread...

I guess it goes to show that if a game has clear, unambiguous rules there will always be those who complicate them with house rules and fuzzy logic (which is a game itself).

I do not however agree with the "everyone is right" interpretation of the rules. My 5 year old daughter makes up rules for games, but I never validate her rules as being "as right" as the actual rules. They are a variant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Howard
United States
Marina del Rey
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
kaziam wrote:
Very strange 7 Wonders thread...

I guess it goes to show that if a game has clear, unambiguous rules there will always be those who complicate them with house rules and fuzzy logic (which is a game itself).


Agreed. I've read through this thread a couple of times now, and am still pretty confused by this whole discussion. (including the same discussion happening in other threads)

Every component in this game scores in different ways (military, civilian, science, coins, etc). I guess I still don't understand the confusion of it all (unless I'm missing something). You score 1 VP for every 3 coins you have in your possession at the end of the game, and IF you and someone else are tied after scoring, then whomever has more coins wins.

I wonder if there would be this same discussion if the tie-breaker was determined by who had more blue cards, or red cards, etc. But the designer chose coins to be the tie-breaker (which makes perfect sense to me, but that's beside the point). And yes, I understand that this makes coins slightly more valuable than just their standard 1 VP per 3 coins, but you should factor that into your strategy when playing.

Of course, if you wanna house rule things, or play variants, then go right ahead! I simply don't get why there's an argument that the official way is the "wrong" way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GeckoTH wrote:
I guess I still don't understand the confusion of it all (unless I'm missing something). You score 1 VP for every 3 coins you have in your possession at the end of the game, and IF you and someone else are tied after scoring, then whomever has more coins wins.

And yes, I understand that this makes coins slightly more valuable than just their standard 1 VP per 3 coins, but you should factor that into your strategy when playing.


I don't think anyone is arguing the rules as written are unclear or complicated, just that they have some odd side-effects.

Some people don't like the 'double-dipping' aspect of winning a tiebreak based on something that you already scored VPs for. I don't mind that much; like I say, effectively it just reflects that coins have a very small inherent value as well as a set bonus.

But the rules as written do lead to situations like this:

50VPs + one coin beats 49 VPs + two coins

50VPs + two coins loses to 49 VPs + three coins

50VPs + three coins beats 49 VPs + four coins

While this is really just an oddity of set-collection, it's definitely a counter-intuitive situation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Howard
United States
Marina del Rey
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is merely my opinion, but I find it counter-intuitive to do the opposite. By using the "spending" method, you can just as easily run into a situation like this:

50 VPs + 1 coin ties with 49 VPs + 4 coins

The fact that Player B had a bigger treasury at the end of the game has been negated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GeckoTH wrote:
This is merely my opinion, but I find it counter-intuitive to do the opposite. By using the "spending" method, you can just as easily run into a situation like this:

50 VPs + 1 coin ties with 49 VPs + 4 coins


Well, yeah. They've both got 50VPs worth of stuff and one coin left over that hasn't been counted for VPs. If you add or remove coins from both sides, they're still tying. Why is that counter-intuitive?

GeckoTH wrote:
The fact that Player B had a bigger treasury at the end of the game has been negated.


Not negated, but certainly lessened. B got a VP for having more gold. B just didn't get a VP and a tiebreak win for having more gold.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom Howard
United States
Marina del Rey
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BlackSheep wrote:

GeckoTH wrote:
The fact that Player B had a bigger treasury at the end of the game has been negated.


Not negated, but certainly lessened. B got a VP for having more gold. B just didn't get a VP and a tiebreak win for having more gold.


Fair enough.

I suppose I never questioned the rule since thematically this game is about building the best civilization, and having a large treasury fits right in with that theme. I guess what feels counter-intuitive to me is the thought that I'm emptying my treasury in order to purchase victory points from some independent, unknown source. After all, VPs are merely representations of the greatness of your city, in terms of your commerce, public works, technology, military conquests/defeats, etc. So somehow buying VP tokens from the bank at the end just feels weird. (what exactly is it that I'm buying? lol)

I know that this may very well be fluff to plenty of people, but to me it simply reinforces the official mechanics from a thematic perspective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
GeckoTH wrote:
I guess what feels counter-intuitive to me is the thought that I'm emptying my treasury in order to purchase victory points from some independent, unknown source. After all, VPs are merely representations of the greatness of your city, in terms of your commerce, public works, technology, military conquests/defeats, etc. So somehow buying VP tokens from the bank at the end just feels weird.


Of course, you can get the same results as the 'spending' variant without physically cashing in the coins.

Just add everything up as usual, then if there's a tie look at how many leftover coins you have that aren't stacked up in threes. Two leftover coins beats one, and one leftover coin beats zero.
 
 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.