Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

A Distant Plain» Forums » Rules

Subject: Two questions: assault targeting and extorting from broke rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
B4cchus -
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
1. Rules specify that a Coalition sweep can only take place if a Coalition piece is present, but this limitation is not mentioned for the Assault action. Can Coalition use Government forces, paying 3 resources, to assault in provinces where no Coalition are present?

2. What happens if the Taliban extorts a province with a Warlord base, but Warlords have no resources? Taliban gain 1 as if no base?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Guttag
United States
West Chester
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
B4,

Responding to your questions:

1. It's at least implicit in 3.2.4 that a Coalition cube be part of a Coalition Assault. The 2nd Bullet says for a Coalition Assault "count Coalition cubes" and Government cubes only if paid for. Reading that 2nd Bullet to permit a Coalition Assault with only Government cubes is inconsistent not only with the Sweep language (3.2.3) but also the Train language (3.2.1) and at least implicitly, the Patrol language (3.2.2) when the Coalition carries out these Ops.

2. The Taliban would still get the 1 Resource from Extort, even if the Extort occurred in a space with Warlord Bases, but the Warlords have, for example, 0 Resources. In other words, the Taliban gets at least 1 Resource in each space it can Extort whether from the Warlords or otherwise. That's pretty clear from the Procedure description in 4.4.1. What is less clear is what happens if the Warlords have greater than 0 Resources, or have 2 Bases, but only 1-3 Resources. My "educated guess" is that the Taliban would get whatever Resources the Warlords have (1 Resource in the case of 1 Warlord Base, up to 3 Resources in the case of 2 Warlord Bases), and would drain (decrease) the Warlords of Resources accordingly; that's consistent with other rules relating to Card Events, etc. My only hesitation with this answer is that 4.1 does refer to "pieces affected" with respect to "pay[ing] any costs," but I'm pretty sure that refers to the costs for the Warlords executing a Suborn SA (which is the only SA that has costs associated with it), not what a Faction transfers (note the difference in wording) in Resources per execution of the SA.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B4cchus -
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Thanks Eric (again)! That was my understanding of the rules too. Strange that the language of Assault (3.2.4) would differ from the others, but these things happen, I guess.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Guttag
United States
West Chester
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
B4,

Good enough. You're not alone in puzzling over the language in some of the rules. (I'm blessed or perhaps cursed in this regard being an IP/patent attorney in real life.) The designers, especially Volko, are very good about clarifying the "unclear" in these rules, as well as the Events in the Cards. Sometimes I get it right, but there's been a few that I've gotten badly wrong (some over many plays of ADP, as well as AA). Part of the "fun" is learning the nuances in these games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Volko Ruhnke
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello!

Warlords at 0 Resources, huh? Ouch.

So here's the Extort rule (4.4.1):

Quote:
PROCEDURE: For each space, Activate 1 Underground Taliban
Guerrilla there (1.4.3). Add +1 or — if an unSabotaged LoC, its Econ
value — to Taliban Resources (1.8). If any Warlord Base there, instead
transfer 2 Resources per Warlord Base from Warlords to Taliban.

That "instead" forces me to rule that the Taliban may not choose whether they get the 1 Resource or take from the Warlords. If the "Warlord Base" part of this if/then is true, then the "instead" part is what they are stuck with.

If you check out the wording on the Taliban Faction sheet, you'll see that that is consistent. Only if no Warlords Base, do the Taliban get the 1 Resource (from the bank, if you will).

So, if the Warlords really are broke, not a great time to be extorting their territory, I guess.

Regarding Assault requiring a Coalition Troop in the space, you have it right. I apologize, as I agree with you that the Assault rule could have been more clear on that. The text on the Coalition Faction sheet is more clear that there must be Coalition Troops in the space, the Coalition cannot just pay 3 Resources to have Government do an Assault on its own.

Best regards, Volko
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Volko Ruhnke
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Forgot to address this part...

Quote:
What is less clear is what happens if the Warlords have greater than 0 Resources, or have 2 Bases, but only 1-3 Resources. My "educated guess" is that the Taliban would get whatever Resources the Warlords have (1 Resource in the case of 1 Warlord Base, up to 3 Resources in the case of 2 Warlord Bases), and would drain (decrease) the Warlords of Resources accordingly...

Yes, Taliban would get whatever is coming to them (2 Resources per Warlord Base) until the Warlords hit 0 Resources, at which point no more.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B4cchus -
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Thank you, Volko. The support you and Brian have been providing after the release has made learning the game an incredibly pleasant experience, over and above the already fantastic game. There is a lot of questions answered around various places, and hopefully this thread will help someone out too. Thanks again!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Guttag
United States
West Chester
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey Volko,

Oh well, I gave it my best shot on the Taliban Extort SA. Those subtle rule "nuances" in these COIN series games . . .
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.