Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Mage Knight Board Game» Forums » General

Subject: splitting the cities rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've finally got a regular Mage Knight opponent. We've played several rounds of 2p Full Conquest.

In every case, each of us conquers one city fully. And we generally conquer them on consecutive turns, so we each do our final city assault and then have a final turn (sometimes spent fighting monsters, more often hiring city units that go unused).

This isn't bad as such, but I'm a little sad that the endgame rhythm is so similar every time, when the rest of the game feels varied.

Our most recent game was the closest we've come to splitting a city; I had a Sparing Power mega-hand, and a clear shot to come in and finish off the city she'd just assaulted. But I didn't have the cards to actually do it.

So I have several related questions:

- Are the rules about multiple players having shields on the same city really just for co-op, and we shouldn't ever expect them to come up in competitive play?

- Is this just groupthink? Could one of us be pushing to take a city early and then snipe some of the enemies from the other city?

- Is there a particular reason that "2 players, 4 cities" isn't even listed as a variant? I tend to trust Vlaada when it comes to balance, so I imagine this just isn't a fun variant or it would have been included... but we were considering it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike
Netherlands
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grasa_total wrote:

- Are the rules about multiple players having shields on the same city really just for co-op, and we shouldn't ever expect them to come up in competitive play?

- Is this just groupthink? Could one of us be pushing to take a city early and then snipe some of the enemies from the other city?

- Is there a particular reason that "2 players, 4 cities" isn't even listed as a variant? I tend to trust Vlaada when it comes to balance, so I imagine this just isn't a fun variant or it would have been included... but we were considering it.


- No, since if you do not conquer a city in a single attack you can only place shields on it equal to the number of enemies you killed. If the other player finished the city off, that player can also place a number of shields on the city. Whomever own the most shields is the city leader, in case of a tie the first player to have placed a shield is city leader. Aside from that the number of shields of your dude on a city is the bonus Influence you get when choosing to interact in that city.

- We always go with 3 cities of level 5/6/7 + 2 other Brown tiles. It's often a race for the last city, but whomever captures it isn't necessarily the victor in my experience. It does make the ending more climactic though.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DreamStorm wrote:
- No, since if you do not conquer a city in a single attack you can only place shields on it equal to the number of enemies you killed. If the other player finished the city off, that player can also place a number of shields on the city.


Oh, I know the rules in theory can apply to a competitive game. I was just wondering whether, in practice, I shouldn't expect them to come up.

Quote:
- We always go with 3 cities of level 5/6/7 + 2 other Brown tiles. It's often a race for the last city, but whomever captures it isn't necessarily the victor in my experience. It does make the anding more climactic though.


Interesting! I might try that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The rule is important and relevant in our 2-player games. Quite often both Mage Knights will be in range of the first city discovered, and with level 6 cities it can be quite challenging to take it in one turn at the point in the game when it is discovered. Obviously the first person to try and fail may be put at a significant disadvantage, unless they can, say, take out 2 of the 3 defenders.

Anyway, it works fine for us as long as the cities aren't a walkover (as is often the case with level 4 cities).

I prefer the variety of outcomes in the core tiles in the scenarios as written. If there were more cities it would become (slightly) more predictable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip
Canada
Moncton
New Brunswick
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Have you tried the other scenarios?

It will change the end game or objective. Mine liberations sounds fun (i've never tried it before).

Also the lost legion expantion adds a few other scenarios.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alison Mandible
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
morni wrote:
Have you tried the other scenarios?


We haven't yet-- that's definitely on the list of things to do, since with a city that's friendly from the beginning, we could do more city-interaction, and that would be fun too.

I have Lost Legion but haven't looked at the scenarios (I think I thought they were all co-op/solo).
 
 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.