Joe
United States
Shoreview
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Example: Ryan has a token card on this rank 2 card. Adjacent to the 2 is a 3, which is adjacent to a 4 that is not adjacent to the 2. Ryan puts an influence token on the 3. Can he, in the same action, or in another influence action in that turn, place an influence marker on the 4?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When placing influence tokens, you place any amount you can afford and where there is room on ONE card. Your next influence action could immediately build of these newest tokens.

So in your example, the first question is no, you can't influence multiple cards with one action. The part is a yes, he could influence the 4 card as a second action in the same turn.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe
United States
Shoreview
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for your response. That clears it up. I finally got an opposed play of Emissary in and my opponent and I agreed that Emissary is THE gamer's game of the decktet. It may replace Caylus Magna Carta as our go to portable game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jheaney wrote:
Thanks for your response. That clears it up. I finally got an opposed play of Emissary in and my opponent and I agreed that Emissary is THE gamer's game of the decktet. It may replace Caylus Magna Carta as our go to portable game.


Awesome, thanks!

I'm mostly happy with the rules, although I'm still on the fence about the combat oust action. I want to have a fighting element to the game, but I worry that it's a little too restrictive in use and or fiddly to resolve. I'm still contemplating ways of tweaking, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe
United States
Shoreview
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We were a bit hesitant about ousting as we started on opposite ends of the map and it wasn't necessary to either of our endgame region scoring to try it out. We plan to play again soon and place our origins closer so that we have a more interactive game. We'll let you know what our experience is when we come around to it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah - I've been testing a bunch again lately - even forcing games where players start very close together and are deliberately aggressive. Definetly lends itself to a different style of play.

I think thematically I'm hung up on one thing; which is that you can "attack" to Oust an opposing piece and then get to move your own attacking piece onto that card BUT you can't just "move" a piece to an open card without attacking. A little disconnect is there.

Also, having to move a piece off an existing card makes the value proposition bad. Often you might want to attack, but that means leaving a spot where you are already located, and often the attack is no longer worth it from a score standpoint.

These suggest a few possible avenues...

FIRST - change the oust action into some sort of MOVE action, and if you move onto a full location then a conflict results in some fashion. The issue with this is that it makes it possible to build cheap influence tokens and then move them onto expensive locations - but this could be minimized by playing with the cost of the move action.

SECOND (or alternatively) - Make it so you don't move your attacking token onto the new card but instead can pay a reduced cost to build a token in the opened up location, possibly even paying that money to the attacked opponent instead.

I'm still playing around with these ideas unfortunetly ...


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cole Wehrle
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
badge
"Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My wife and I have been really enjoying the game recently, but we too feel the Oust action is a little weak. What about allowing a victorious attacker one of three choices:

A move ala the original rules
A "free" Replace Action in the conquered area (but no movement).
Or a "free" Influence Action in the conquered area.

In each instance the action would still cost the usual price, but would allow the player to go over their action limit. Additionally the free replace would make the late game board a little more dynamic.

Edit: It also seems like the Replace action should require the new card to match at least one suit with the card it replaces. That might be too big a change though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cole - yes I agree Oust is a little weak/under powered. I've been tinkering with some tweaks lately - actually quite close to your proposal, although I hadn't considered allowing the Replace action as a Free choice. But now that you mention is its a pretty slick idea too - of course its subject to the usual restrictions.

In essence, my change was that you could either move onto the attacked card or would get a free influence action (still paying the costs as normal).

The only other tweak I'm trying out has to do with what cards can be targeted. Try playing such that you can target an Oust action onto any card EXCEPT one where the suits exactly match the attacking card. So, the 8 of Suns/Moons couldn't attack the 4 of Suns/Moons (exact same suits), but it could attack the 7 of Suns/Knots. This makes more opportunities for attacking - but I need to be careful that it doesn't open it up too much and remove the ability to place cards to defend yourself.
 
 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.