Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Promised Land: 1250-587 BC» Forums » Rules

Subject: Retreating Patriarchs rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quick question on Retreating Patriarchs...

The manual states that "If a land containing a Patriarch is conquered, the Patriarch may retreat to an adjacent land....".

Should this say "If a land containing a Patriarch is conquered, the Patriarch must, if possible, retreat to an adjacent land...."? Then if it cannot retreat into a legal space, it is removed back to the owning player's supply.

I am treating the rule as though the Patriarch(s) must be retreated and then, if they cannot due to placement rules, they are returned to the player's supply.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read it as a choice - retreat, or return to supply.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, that makes sense. Follow up question...

If you conquer a land that already contains one of your own Patriarchs, does it have to retreat? The manual does not specify this, but I am assuming that this is not the case. However I am assuming that if you conquer a land that contains another player's Patriarch, it has to retreat regardless as to which team it is on.

Lastly (ok, probably not!), I am making the assumption always that a Hebrew Team Patriarch can never be placed in a Heathen controlled land and vice versa.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
7downup wrote:
Yup, I'm with Wulf - it's the player's choice. On the basis of two plays, though, it seems that retreating farmer and trader patriarchs is reasonably straightforward, but priests are v diff, because of the need for an adjacent empty city in the same kingdom?


I don't think that a priest has to be in a space with a city - he just won't score any points come the scoring round.

The player who had to retreat his priest can always move his priest during the action phase of his next turn - however he won't necessarily be able to move him to a city unless the active Kingdom he is playing happens to have a free priestless city! Phew!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kendall
United Kingdom
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Brian's points about the Priest are correct. However the previous point about conquering a land containing one of your own Patriarchs is NOT correct. To make such a conquest another Kingdom will be making the conquest and each Patriarch is essentially 'allocated' to a Kingdom. Hope this clarifies the point.
Regards
Steve K
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Big S wrote:
Brian's points about the Priest are correct. However the previous point about conquering a land containing one of your own Patriarchs is NOT correct. To make such a conquest another Kingdom will be making the conquest and each Patriarch is essentially 'allocated' to a Kingdom. Hope this clarifies the point.
Regards
Steve K


Hmm. If I am playing Hebrews and in a previous turn I had placed a Patriarch in a land conquered by the Southern Kingdom whom I am currently playing. In a future turn if I played a Northern Kingdoms card and decided to conquer the Southern Kingdom Territory with my Patriarch in it - could I do this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kendall
United Kingdom
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Hi Brian
You could conquer the land but the Patriarch therein would have to retreat or be removed if no retreat possible.
Steve
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great - I think I am thinking too deeply about this! So, basically a Patriarch in a land that is conquered (no matter who by) has to retreat or be returned. That makes it easy!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BrianJohnHunt wrote:
Lastly (ok, probably not!), I am making the assumption always that a Hebrew Team Patriarch can never be placed in a Heathen controlled land and vice versa.

As far as I can tell (from one game played) this is correct because during the action phase Patriarchs are always placed in the active kingdom (which will always be a Heathen kingdom for the Heathen player and a Hebrew kingdom for the Hebrew player); and during the kingdom building phase, if the Patriarch is forced to retreat it must stay in the same kingdom (and therefore obviously stay in the same 'type' of kingdom). Hence I can't see the circumstances arising where a Heathen player's Patriarch would ever be found in a Hebrew-controlled land (or vice-versa).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BrianJohnHunt wrote:
The manual states that "If a land containing a Patriarch is conquered, the Patriarch may retreat to an adjacent land....".

In our first play through we decided that Patriarchs in a conquered land MUST be moved somewhere - either retreated, or back to the owner's hand. The rules don't seem to make this explicit, but we couldn't see how else you could force a Patriarch out of a land (to make room for your own). So we played the rule that conquering a land containing any Patriarch (even one of your own) forced him out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kendall
United Kingdom
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Thanks Paul for continuing this discussion. Consolidating this section of the rules was difficult and looking at the use of the word 'may' now I can see that we haven't nailed it, despite multi-edits! You are correct in assuming that the Patriarch MUST attempt to retreat. The word 'may' crept in because the Patriarch wouldn't retreat if all available adjacent lands of the same kingdom were occupied by other Patriarchs preventing this happening. So using the word 'attempt' might have been a solution to the wording (I can't say for certain as these things tend to come back and bite you!). I'll add this point to the RB Rules Clarification doc. found in Links on the BGG homepage for PL.
Thanks again.
Steve Kendall (Ragnar Brothers)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Without wanting to drag the discussion on further, here's another observation which might drag the discussion on further... (oh well...whistle)

I had taken the rule that 'the Patriarch may retreat' to be optional in the following sense: The Patriarch must leave the conquered territory. If he cannot legally move to an adjacent territory then he must return to his owner's hand. If he does have a legal move available then he may retreat or he may be returned to hand.

When we played the game we couldn't see any advantage in returning a patriarch to hand unless forced to. Even if patriarchs had to retreat to a non-scoring territory we felt they may as well stay on the map and if nothing else they would block other patriarchs. On reflection (after the game) I have reversed my view on this. Leaving them on the map would only block an opponent's patriarch of the same type, which would also be non-scoring; and he could potentially block one of my own patriarchs on some future turn. So surely it is always better to return him to hand if he wasn't able to score.

And even as I have typed the last paragraph I have revised my view again. I can imagine a situation in which my patriarch retreated to a non-scoring territory but was left in a position where a second conquest and retreat would push him once more into an advantageous scoring position. Hmmm. This decision about whether to retreat or remove patriarchs doesn't have such a clear cut answer after all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kendall
United Kingdom
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Hi Paul
Yes.... I think 'must attempt to retreat' is the best solution and more in the spirit of the game. I view the Patriarchs as 'people on the ground' in the Promised Land - essentially ordinary people with real lives being hounded by cataclysmic events as Kingdoms vie for control of territory. If I were them I'd be scampering to the last available corner of whatever Kingdom they happened to be in. The idea of them being arbitrarily plucked from the face of the earth, doesn't quite sit. Or, then again .... this is the Bible.
Regards
Steve K
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. R.
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
It's a fearful thing, to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
badge
Tell me, have you found the Yellow Sign?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I couldn't figure it out, based on the rules and the existing threads in this part of the forum...

If more than one Patriarch exists in a territory attacked by the Active Kingdom, in what order do they retreat?

As there can only be (at most) 3 different Patriarchs there, placement of one will never prohibit placement of the others. Nevertheless, it could be interesting to see where other players are deciding to move their Patriarchs to, before I move mine.

...this might be a very minor issue, and not having played the game yet I do not know if this will ever be important for us. However, I am in the habit of usually asking things that occur to me anyways, on the off-chance that they might be important one day. Stickler for details, so to speak...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Hunt
England
Lincoln
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
Angry Imp Games
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dumon wrote:
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I couldn't figure it out, based on the rules and the existing threads in this part of the forum...

If more than one Patriarch exists in a territory attacked by the Active Kingdom, in what order do they retreat?

As there can only be (at most) 3 different Patriarchs there, placement of one will never prohibit placement of the others. Nevertheless, it could be interesting to see where other players are deciding to move their Patriarchs to, before I move mine.

...this might be a very minor issue, and not having played the game yet I do not know if this will ever be important for us. However, I am in the habit of usually asking things that occur to me anyways, on the off-chance that they might be important one day. Stickler for details, so to speak...
:)


I don't think it really matters as it is generally obvious which region a patriarch will retreat too (based on what type of land it is moving into and the type of Patriarch). But I suppose if you wanted to force the order you can go clockwise around the table from the person who caused the retreat to happen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Cheng
Hong Kong
Ma On Shan
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just read the rules that the patriarch may retreat to an adjacent land of same kingdom. What is the meaning of same kingdom? All retreating patriarch are from inactive players. As I can see, the inactive players don't control any kingdoms. So what does this rule mean? Does it mean a Heathen patriarch cannot retreat to a Hebrew controlled land & a Hebrew patriarch cannot retreat to a Heathen controlled land?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Retreating to an adjacent land 'of the same kingdom' has nothing to do with who controls that kingdom at the time. It simply means they must move to an adjacent region with the same colour token as was in their current region (before defeat). A kingdom is a number of contiguous regions all with the same colour tokens.

For example: The Egyptians (represented if memory serves by grey tokens) have conquered four regions. A patriarch has been placed in one of these regions. The region where the patriarch is present is taken over by another nation (which could be a Hebrew or a Heathen nation, it doesn't matter) so the patriarch may retreat to one of the other three regions with a grey token - providing it is adjacent. If there is no such adjacent region, or if the only adjacent regions already have patriarchs which leave no room for a new patriarch, then the patriarch is instead removed.

Note that kingdoms are defined more by the colour of the tokens than by their name. In some cases two differently named nations share the same colour. If ever these were to conquer the intervening territory and join up then they would become one kingdom. Similarly if a contiguous area of same coloured tokens is cut in half it creates two separate kingdoms.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Cheng
Hong Kong
Ma On Shan
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the explanation. It's clear to me now.

 
 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.