Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

Zombicide» Forums » Rules

Subject: Goal: use the exit with all remaining survivors? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
jean dubon
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi!
To win a scenario, you have to exit with all remaining survivors...
What's the point?
I exit with one of them and the others are killed (or if you prefer, i let them die), do i win?
Welcome clarifications!
Thanks
Ps, sorry for my poor english
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Cooper
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mage Wars: Beastmaster's Pet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When we have come across a particularly difficult finish to a mission we have had someone stand near the exit while the others sacrifice their lives completing the mission.

So yes, that's a reasonable strategy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven O'Shea
United States
Woodland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the confusion here is with the word "survivor". Each character is a "survivor". So every character has to make it out alive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Cooper
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mage Wars: Beastmaster's Pet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A small number of scenarios require that nobody dies. But most of them are about getting out if you can! The phrase was "all remaining survivors".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jean dubon
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
For example, the third objective of the first scenario in the city mall.
If someone can't exit with a car, you lose. But if i let him die what's the difference? I 've to kill him before?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I like to read "all remaining Survivors" as "as many Survivors as possible".
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven O'Shea
United States
Woodland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I like to read "all remaining Survivors" as "as many Survivors as possible".


I guessed I missed the "remaining" in the phrase...teaches me to try to check BBG from my cell phone!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaud Dejardin
France
Ferrère-La-Grande
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, you win, as if you managed to survive alone, while all your friends die trying. You're now alone in a world full of zombies... You'd better find a new group fast if you don't want to die horribly or suffer a fate worse than death!

Technically, you won, but that's a horrible way to win. It happened some times i had to sacrifice my last survivor to let my girlfriend's survivor reaching the exit. That's quite thematic and full of fun, if you ask me!
Of course, if you only see the strategic/puzzle dimension, the games become a lot less interesting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Cooper
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mage Wars: Beastmaster's Pet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Archange227 wrote:
Of course, if you only see the strategic/puzzle dimension, the games become a lot less interesting.


The other thing, of course, is the enjoyment of al players. Of course it's great when we all get out, but it isn't always possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thibaud Dejardin
France
Ferrère-La-Grande
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The problem is usually less present when you play with 6 players, because everyone wants his survivor to make it alive! Sometimes, some backstabbing even happen. (it's a survival case)

When you play solo with 4-6 survivors or even 2 players with 3 survivors each, sometimes it may be temptating, strategically, to sacrifice a survivor to save other ones. It should be your last resort, because man, those are your friends you sacrifice!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Jørgensen
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
wattman74 wrote:
Hi!
To win a scenario, you have to exit with all remaining survivors...
What's the point?
I exit with one of them and the others are killed (or if you prefer, i let them die), do i win?
Welcome clarifications!
Thanks
Ps, sorry for my poor english


I have always played: 'all remaining Survivors' as: 'loose a survivor = loose the scenario'.

But I guess the rules could have detailed loosing conditions better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Greasygeek wrote:
wattman74 wrote:
Hi!
To win a scenario, you have to exit with all remaining survivors...
What's the point?
I exit with one of them and the others are killed (or if you prefer, i let them die), do i win?
Welcome clarifications!
Thanks
Ps, sorry for my poor english


I have always played: 'all remaining Survivors' as: 'loose a survivor = loose the scenario'.

But I guess the rules could have detailed loosing conditions better.


Then you're making those scenarios unnecessarily hard for yourself.

One generally sees two variations on the 'reach the exit' scenario objective:

Reach the exit with all Survivors and Reach the exit with all remaining Survivors.

The first is equivalent to "lose a survivor = lose the scenario", the second, however, is equivalent to either "reach the exit with at least one Survivor = win the scenario" or "reach the exit with as many survivors as possible = win the scenario" (of which I personally prefer the latter).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's all to do with what they call the "Guillotine spirit". Europeans don't play games like USA players do. Sure, you can win an "all remaining Survivors" by having any stragglers kill themselves so that a single Survivor standing in the Exit zone wins. But that is senseless, in the context of the game. You should try your damned best to get as many survivors as possible to the Exit zone, cause that's the whole point of the game: SURVIVE. If a situations arises where sacrificing your Survivor is logical in the context of the game, then sure go ahead and do it, but it's pretty lame to do it just to more easily fulfill the victory condition of the mission. All players should always want their Survivors to stay alive and make it do the end of the mission.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonah Rees
Wales
Cardiff
South Wales
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would frown upon purposely killing survivors in order to win a scenario. After all, their survival instinct (and therefore yours) would be very high. But if some die along the way so be it. Sometimes we like to play that once you've got all the objectives on missions that say all remaining survivors then all that were alive at the time you completed the last objective must make it or you lose.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Cooper
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mage Wars: Beastmaster's Pet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
While I agree with all the above comments, and we frequently successfully get all survivors out alive, it is still a tactical game (rather than a role playing game). There are many scenarios where you have to pick up an objective to open a door, but you don't have to 'carry' that objective. So one person can pick up the 'key', and another, the other side of the board, can then immediately open the door (presumably with a crowbar as the scenarios don't say you can break the normal door-opening rules). They are just playing pieces in a game. Therefore, if there is no other way, it is a reasonable tactic to sacrifice actors in order to win the scenario.

As I said, of course it would be preferable not to have to do that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonah Rees
Wales
Cardiff
South Wales
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Stephanie Baynes wrote:
While I agree with all the above comments, and we frequently successfully get all survivors out alive, it is still a tactical game (rather than a role playing game). There are many scenarios where you have to pick up an objective to open a door, but you don't have to 'carry' that objective. So one person can pick up the 'key', and another, the other side of the board, can then immediately open the door (presumably with a crowbar as the scenarios don't say you can break the normal door-opening rules). They are just playing pieces in a game. Therefore, if there is no other way, it is a reasonable tactic to sacrifice actors in order to win the scenario.

As I said, of course it would be preferable not to have to do that.


I think those moments are cinematic though and that's a good thing. As you say, it's not preferable for survivors to die, but I do love the idea of a noble self-sacrifice (the type of thing you see in numerous zombie films/shows). It's these moments that bring the game to life for me. Although the geek in it does make me play it as part RPG because whenever I play El Cholo I refuse to use anything but his machetes! Works great early on, not so good towards the end of a scenario though! But my stubbornness refuses to allow anything else!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Cooper
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mage Wars: Beastmaster's Pet
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Likewise, I'm not a fan of "Pass the Chainsaw", but it is a legitimate strategy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin Colm
msg tools
mbmb
This is the way I have always interpreted this:

Characters can die without losing the game but as soon as every other victory condition besides escaping has been met no more casualties may be taken.

So, for example, say you have a six person team. The scenario goal is to take all objective points and then escape through the exit zone with 'every remaining survivor'. Josh dies and Doug dies before all the objectives have been taken. The game goes on. As soon as the last objective token has been taken (and assuming there are no other outstanding conditions) any further deaths will end the game in defeat for the party.

This is the only satisfactory way around the 'letting stragglers die' approach. Not only that but it is the most literal reading of the rules as most scenario objectives are presented as a checklist of things to achieve, usually in a certain sequence, AND THEN escape 'with all remaining survivors' - ie all survivors left on the board at the time you are ready to attempt that escape objective.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Hill
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
High Flying Bird wrote:
This is the way I have always interpreted this:

Characters can die without losing the game but as soon as every other victory condition besides escaping has been met no more casualties may be taken.

So, for example, say you have a six person team. The scenario goal is to take all objective points and then escape through the exit zone with 'every remaining survivor'. Josh dies and Doug dies before all the objectives have been taken. The game goes on. As soon as the last objective token has been taken (and assuming there are no other outstanding conditions) any further deaths will end the game in defeat for the party.

This is the only satisfactory way around the 'letting stragglers die' approach. Not only that but it is the most literal reading of the rules as most scenario objectives are presented as a checklist of things to achieve, usually in a certain sequence, AND THEN escape 'with all remaining survivors' - ie 'all remaining survivors left on the board at the time you are ready to attempt that objective.


That actually makes a lot of sense.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thiago Aranha
Brazil
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a good call on the whole things. I quite like it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonah Rees
Wales
Cardiff
South Wales
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I already said that above!
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.