Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Promised Land: 1250-587 BC» Forums » Rules

Subject: Kingdom annexation question(s) - probably stupid... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
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
Hi!

So there is one thing I want to make certain I understand correctly. Let's say there is a Moabite kingdom occupying Kir-Haraseth, Heshbon and Bozrah.
Let's also say there is an Aramean kingdom occupying Dan and Rammoth-Gilead.
Now, the Active player controls the Philistines this turn, who already occupy Ashdod, Ashkelon, Samaria and Shechem.
If this player successfully attacks Jabesh-Gilead, does he then control a Philistine kingdom reaching from Ashdod to Dan and Bozrah?
And if a little later the situation has not changed, and another player controls the Arameans, does that mean that the whole kingdom is now an Aramean kingdom (due to it being connected to the Aramean home territory?

Likewise, is at the beginning of the game the one unit place in the homeland of Assyrians/Babylonians not basically a Canaanite unit, until the Assyrians will have their turn in Book 3 - since it is connected to the Canaanite "collective kingdom"?
...this might change if the "kingdom" is split, of course, which will essentially only be important in Book 3...

The second question is of no real importance regarding gameplay, I know, but I was wondering why a distinction was made regarding the setup between placing a unit in Kedesh and placing "Canaanite units" in all empty lands...

Thanks for your help...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Kendall
United Kingdom
Surrey
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Hi Dumon

On the first part...yes. It is possible to have a giant United Kingdom and it can be 'inherited' in a later player turn.

On the second point .... the one unit in Assyria / Babylonia at game start is a Canaanite unit by dint of being connected to the other Canaanites. Were it to split from the rest then it would technically be an A/B unit. If it survives til Book 3 it would be the first Assyrian unit (and thus save a unit). I must admit that we have never worried about this as the Canaanites play such a small 'active' role in the game. However we will add it to clarifications (when we add the page back).

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
Thanks for your answers, guys.

The second question has no impact whatsoever on the game, it was just me going "Huh? I have placed units in the respective homelands, and now I am placing Canaanites in the empty ones, which makes the 'Assyrian/Babylonian' unit a Canaanite, too. So why not just place a 'Canaanite' there, instead of a 'homeland unit'?"

No worries - and I don't think it needs a special mention in the clarifications. I am just super-nitpicky...
...comes with the territory, I guess.
 
 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
...and as I mentioned, too.

My concern is SOLELY regarding initial placement. It wouldn't have been necessary to place an "Assyrian" unit there, as a Canaanite unit would have been placed there anyways, were it still empty.

But the point is moot, anyways...
 
 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.