Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Coup» Forums » Rules

Subject: Exile/Death and Assassination credits rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
J J
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
First of all - want to say, really enjoying this game so far. I brought it up to work today and played 4 quick games in succession with 6-7 players. My office absolutely loves Resistance and Avalon - we actually keep detailed statistics and have 30+ players with hundreds of total plays (at one point we had 2-3 games a day). Our group (mostly software developers, testers, and release managers) really eats up a game with a heavy meta element, because we tend to optimize very quickly. Needless to say, we've been anticipating Coup a lot! But I digress...

In the last game we played, a certain situation came up a few times that we couldn't really clarify from the rulebook - I looked through the posts here and couldn't find an answer, if I missed it - apologies.

Player A is down to one influence. Player B claims the Assassin and targets Player A. Player A decides to challenge Player B's claim. Two possible outcomes:

1. Player B was bluffing - he immediately loses an influence. It was clear from the rules that because this was a successful challenge, Player B will regain the 3 credits he spent for the assassination attempt.
2. Player B was telling the truth - this is where we weren't sure. Player A loses an influence for losing the challenge, and is then exiled. At this point, the Assassination "action" didn't fully resolve, but does Player B get a refund on the credits? We house-ruled it that the Assassinating player would not get a refund - if the "pay 3 credits" didn't happen until after the challenge phase was over, why would there be wording about the refund in case 1.

Thanks for any clarification!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomes T
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
JJ,

Sounds like a good question and surely will create some debate. I believe that the short answer is yes the Assassinating player in this case does not have to pay 3 coins.

The best way to mechanically prevent confusion about this would be to follow this flow.

1. Player B declares Assassin against Player A (no payment of coin yet)
2. B awaits Challenges
3. Player A Challenges
4. Player B reveals Assassin and reshuffles and draws 1 card from court deck to replace his challenged assassin
5. Player A flips up his remaining Influence card
6. Turn ends with Player B never having to pay money in the first place

I think essentially you can think that you are really only paying an Assassin if an Assassin actually attempts takes someone out even if you bluffed unchallenged.

Of course a successfully blocking Contessa whether you were bluffing or not will force you to pay 3 coin. The only way to not pay 3 coin in a Contessa counter-action is if you successfully challenge the bluffed contessa.

That is my understanding hope it helps with future game play!

Tomes
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
I agree that that flow makes it clear that the money wouldn't have to be paid, but the flow doesn't seem to fit with the statement that a successful challenge means the money is refunded (because the money was never spent).

You really lost me on the last paragraph though - if Player A doesn't challenge Assassin, Player B pays, then Player A claims Contessa (but is lying) - if Player B challenges the Contessa and wins, I would say it's as if the Contessa counter-action never happened, but the Assassin action still did resolve, meaning the 3 credits would stay spent.

100% agree about a true Contessa though - money is spent.

Thanks for the reply!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomes T
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
JJ,

Here is a action flow the game creator Rikki Posted earlier last month:
------
Action declared: challenge ? resolved
Counter action declared ?: challenge ? resolved
Counteraction taken
Action taken
------
So let's use the hypothetical causing confusion... About a bluffed contessa and assassin payment using his flow chart. ( BTW , I am posting this with the hopes that someone will clarify as well!)

Action Declared : Player B declares Assassin against PlAyer B with one influence remaining

Challenge? In this case no challenge by Player A or others . Resolved without incident.

Counter action declared : Player A declares (bluffs in this case) Contessa as last remaining card

Challenge ? Player B challenges Player A's bluffed Contessa. Player A reveals a Captain as his/her last card . Challenge Resolved

Player A is exiled

Action Taken: since player A is now eliminated without ever a true Assassin attempt there was never any coin paid.

That is how I am reading Rikki's flow hopefully he can verify soon.

Tomes
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
Ah, I see what you mean now... Yeah hopefully we can get a clarification!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
O.Shane Balloun
United States
Bellingham
Washington
flag msg tools
www.cascadecon.games
badge
Cascade Games Convention: Bellingham, Washington's premier tabletop board game playing event
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, the Assassin still pays the 3 coin. The 3 coin is the price for the attempt.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do believe that he gets the coins back, since the entire action is canceled because he didn't have the role. It does seem a little counter intuitive to give him his money back since he lied, but it is consistent with the rules as far as I know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
♪ Isaäc Bickërstaff ♫
United States
Greer
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
Entropy Seminar:
badge
The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekund lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot.
Avatar
mb
Nope. Any time someone claims the Assassin role, he pays the three coins, whether or not he has the card, or is successful in the attempt.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
zombie homer
msg tools
designer
Verkisto wrote:
Nope. Any time someone claims the Assassin role, he pays the three coins, whether or not he has the card, or is successful in the attempt.


That is how we are playing it as well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomes T
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Verkisto wrote:
Nope. Any time someone claims the Assassin role, he pays the three coins, whether or not he has the card, or is successful in the attempt.


My understanding is that is not entirely true, if the declared Assassin is challenged and loses (ie he does not show an Assassin) then he loses one influence but does not pay 3 coin since the action never took place only declared.

Of course our real question revolves around when the Assassin is unchallenged and now the target bluffs Contessa and loses the challenge from the Assassin or Someone else since challenges can be issues by anyone.

Bottom lime: When in the game flow do you actually pay 3 Coin as the player declaring/attempting to use Assassin? After a challenge but before counter action declarations seems to be what people are saying.

But it doesn't seem to adhere to Rikki's flow chart as listed above with Action taken being the last input.

Tomes
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another similar case is when the target of the captain is eliminated by challenges. The Kickstarter rulebook I got covers this in an example of play, and the stealing player still does get the two coins. (Specifically the example is that the player bluffs having the ambassador and loses his last influence when challenged. The stealing player still gets the two coins.)

So my take is that you still complete an action, even if the target has become eliminated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J J
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
dypaca wrote:
Another similar case is when the target of the captain is eliminated by challenges. The Kickstarter rulebook I got covers this in an example of play, and the stealing player still does get the two coins. (Specifically the example is that the player bluffs having the ambassador and loses his last influence when challenged. The stealing player still gets the two coins.)

So my take is that you still complete an action, even if the target has become eliminated.


I was just thinking this morning that Captain stealing from someone who dies in a challenge is another similar scenario. I read through the examples, must have forgot/missed that one! That's a good point and based on that I think having the Assassin lose the 3 coins fits best.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, my reading is that once an action is declared, either:

- The required character is successfully challenged - neither the cost (if any) nor the effect of the action happens.

- The action is successfully blocked - the cost is still paid, but the effect is blocked.

- The action is neither successfully challenged nor successfully blocked - the cost is paid and the effect happens.


If the target is eliminated before the effect happens, the effect still happens anyway, even if it doesn't do anything - and the cost still has to be paid.

There is an inconsistency between the earlier rule about player elimination and the example of stealing from a player who loses as a result of the steal attempt, but I'll start another thread about that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rikki Tahta
United States
new york
NY
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Thanks everyone for bringing this up. Looking through the thread JJ Dypaca and others all have it right. Action still happens even if the target is now out.

Robert puts it best:

rmsgrey wrote:

- The required character is successfully challenged - neither the cost (if any) nor the effect of the action happens.

- The action is successfully blocked - the cost is still paid, but the effect is blocked.

- The action is neither successfully challenged nor successfully blocked - the cost is paid and the effect happens.

If the target is eliminated before the effect happens, the effect still happens anyway, even if it doesn't do anything - and the cost still has to be paid.



6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomes T
United States
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
Rikki wrote:
Thanks everyone for bringing this up. Looking through the thread JJ Dypaca and others all have it right. Action still happens even if the target is now out.

Robert puts it best:



So basically after a failed challenge to the Assassin and before counter action declared is when the Assassin effectively pays the 3 coins and will not get it back regardless of outcome.




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Broox
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
tomest05 wrote:
Rikki wrote:
Thanks everyone for bringing this up. Looking through the thread JJ Dypaca and others all have it right. Action still happens even if the target is now out.

Robert puts it best:



So basically after a failed challenge to the Assassin and before counter action declared is when the Assassin effectively pays the 3 coins and will not get it back regardless of outcome.


It is known
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Yomtov
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
mb
Tomes T wrote:
Bottom lime: When in the game flow do you actually pay 3 Coin as the player declaring/attempting to use Assassin?


I disagree with the proposed flow chart, because the rules say, specifically, regarding assassins:

Quote:
Pay 3 coins to the Treasury and launch an assassination against another player.


This clearly states the order of business. Pay 3 coins. Then launch attempt.

I mean, think about this quote from the rules:
Quote:
If an action is successfully counteracted, the action fails but any coins paid as the cost of the action remain spent.


This means that the cost of the assassination is spent, even if it is blocked by a Contessa. So if an assassination results in the target's loss of influence because the target was lying about holding a Contessa, the why should this be any different from an assassination attempt against a target who had not claimed to be holding a Contessa?

It is important to distinguish between actions and challenges.
 
 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.