Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
74 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Tempus» Forums » Rules

Subject: Clarification on three space immunity rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I know the answer, but I'd like a confirmation from an official source, please.

The rule in question is the infamous "can't attack a player with tokens in only three spaces." The parenthetical clause excluding cities at the end of the rule is unclear. Is it only a reminder to only count spaces with tokens to determine three or less? Or is it excluding cities from the immunity?

I'm hoping the latter, but suspect it's the former.

To state question clearly and allow a yes/no answer (although clarification or background on the rule would certainly be welcome),

Does the rule mean that a player with three or less spaces containing tokens, but any number (up to all eight) cities, is immune to attacks on both cities and tokens?

Thanks in advance!

Happy Gaming,
Scott
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:

Does the rule mean that a player with three or less spaces containing tokens, but any number (up to all eight) cities, is immune to attacks on both cities and tokens?


yes. see http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/115063
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eli Smith
United States
Hillsboro
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe the rule is three tokens (exluding cities, yes), a valid strategy is only to have three or fewer tokens at any time by constantly building cities.

However I don't have the rules in front of me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Ray,

Thanks, it does seem to indicate a yes, not crystal clear, but I agree that's what Ron is saying. I thought I'd seen something like that, but couldn't find it.

Happy Gaming,
Scott

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
not three tokens but three spaces containing tokens. There could be as many as 12 actual tokens on those spaces (more with Sanitation).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david funch
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
I would ignore that rule and allow players to attack cities regardless of how many spaces a player occupies. The game's more fun that way for everyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I generally like to play a game a few times with the 'correct' rules before thinking about 'more fun' variants...

If cities were not covered by the 3-space immunity, I think one might see a lot less early city-building...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
david funch
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mb
I'll be happy to explain. If you remove the turn two stall from Power Grid, everyone has more fun.

Just because a game has more ways to win doesn't mean it's better. Sometimes certain strategies can really bog a game down and make it frustrating for everyone else playing.

We play to win, but the whole point of playing is to have fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I disagree it ruins the game.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the rule. However, I've heard more than a few gamers whose views on games I respect disagree with your opinion to the extent that they probably won't play the game again. If it comes to tweaking the rule to play Tempus with them, I'm for tweaking. (Who and I kidding? We'll just pick a different game! )

I've heard some people complain that the game has no theme or relationship to civilizations growing and progressing, but I disagree. However, this rule definitely feels like an artificial device to keep players in the game and it has morphed into a "strategy." (There are probably many civilizations in history that would've loved this rule to have a basis in reality. meeple ) But if the rule allowed sacking cities of any empire, I think it would also fit better thematically; some groups survived because there simply wasn't anything for an advanced civilization to want in the area they had. But if there was something worth having (VP, valuable city location, etc.) the weak group was attacked.

Personally, I don't think turtling a viable strategy, but maybe I'll be surprised someday.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If the rule was only designed to keep players in the game.. why are there no rules against other methods of player elimination?


Perhaps because with this one in place, there is no way to eliminate an opponent?


Quote:
You seriously think Martin Wallace didn't intend for it to be a strategy in the game??


I've never met Mr. Wallace, but I've known a few designers that were surprised at strategies that came into being after the game was released.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Collins
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have put more of the whining I've heard about the rule into the "I need everyone else to play according to plan so that I can win more often" column. No disrespect intended, but it gets irritating to hear people who consider themselves gods gift to gaming complain that other people are not cooperating to help them win. I will always use strategies that confuse or frustrate(as this often leads to mental mistakes) people that have high opinions of their own gaming abilities.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
to me, the 3-stack "strategy" is about as fun and valid as camping in a first person shooter.

i still don't think i'd like tempus if it were gone, but i do think it's the single worst element of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Collins
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The difference between 'camping' and 3-stacking is that camping takes no skill or strategy, and the 3-stack requires carefull resource management.

Really, there is a point where if you are leading, you are probably better off 3-stacking it simply to prevent gang-up-on-the-leader syndrome which is not really any better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I will always use strategies that confuse or frustrate(as this often leads to mental mistakes) people that have high opinions of their own gaming abilities.


Sorry if I wasn't clear. You are welcome to try the turtle any time you want, I think it's a losing strategy.

I referenced some friends that think it makes the game less interesting and won't play it again, but I doubt they are too concerned with your opinion either. I wasn't at their game, but it sounded like there was a bit of groupthink happening, too.

Personally, I like the game, but it's certainly not going to be to everyone's taste and I appreciate it when someone says they don't like a game and can articulate why. Because you don't agree with their reason doesn't make it whining.

(And just because you consider us god's gift to gaming doesn't mean we share your opinion in that case either. )

I also opined that the rule was probably put in to avoid elimination and doubted that it was added to provide another strategic path as another poster speculated. I could certainly be wrong, but unless and until Mr. Wallace chooses to comment, both guesses are simply that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Players can eliminate themselves with the Have a Fight action and the Build a City action.


I think the key to is that you are using "eliminate themselves" as opposed my use of "eliminate an opponent."

If there were a rule to prevent attacking or making a city with your last token, I suspect that you would complain that the designer was cutting off a strategic path for you to explore.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If you want to Have a Fight every turn.. perhaps you should play RISK?


You've convinced me that you can't or choose not to read my posts, but I'll try one more time.

For the record I doubt I average even three Have a Fight's per game, but do use the military leader card as it makes sense.

As I stated a few posts ago, I think the rule feels like it was thrown in to prevent players being eliminated. I backed up this opinion with the explanation that it doesn't seem to fit with the theme as well as the other elements of the game do. This is an opinion, while you can certainly say it's wrong, that would be only another opinion, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Nonsense.. because I realize the total elimination of tokens results in the inability to win the game.. thus removing any potential strategy.


You could conceivably win with no tokens on the board simply by having more city points. I will concede that it's (slightly) less likely than turtling. But it is a potential strategy that would be ruled out if creating a city with your last unit were banned. If you were using the turtle strategy and didn't have a government card, it might even make the most sense at the end to make cities rather than spread out tokens that could be attacked.

Quote:
I don't understand why so many people loathe the rule..


I think that in the game that disappointed my friends after the buildup, everybody employed the turtle possibly because of group think. The game was boring, in their opinion.

I personally don't care about the rule, because I think using it as suggested is a losing strategy, but I can see how the game would be much less interesting if everyone used it.

Quote:
It's silly to think any designer.. let alone Martin Wallace.. would include a (major) rule in the game.. without realizing the potential strategy the rule creates in the game.


Hmm, let's consider another designer that perhaps you've heard of, Richard Garfield. In an interview (in the Duelist, I think) he expressed surprise at several of the strategies that he'd seen employed in Magic.

You seem to be attributing omniscience to game designers that isn't warranted, IMO. No matter how much playtesting there is in any complex game, especially a good one, there will be strategies evolved after the release, some good, some bad.

I stated that it's certainly possible that Mr. Wallace hadn't intended the rule as written to lead to the turtling strategy. I haven't stated that he didn't, only pointed out the possibility. It's also possible that he made the rule, playtesters tried it and he decided to leave it in anyway. And maybe you are right and he intended it all along. Until he (or someone involved in the playtests) states definitively, we are both guessing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Buccheri
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
If you love America, you through money in it's hole!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The discussion on this rule about tokens in three hexes or less is interesting. After my third play of this game I believe the intent of this rule is to keep a player from being eliminated from the game by fights/religion cards. The statement about the cities is unclear as writen in the rules, but clear to me after playing the game. I believe that the cities can be attack or otherwise the game is broken, unbalanced and simply doesn't make sence. To be able to expand your empire, gain on the VP's race, and land lock your opponents without any reprocussion or set backs is broken and gay. Attacking cities is the only way an opponent can neutralize this type of expansion. The game simply doesn't work otherwise!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Initially qzhad seemed to be tallking, not about removing the 3-space immunity altogether, but to making it inapplicable to a civilisation's cities (just like the last posters). But Jeremiah seems to be reacting as if complete removal is the issue at hand.

qzhad, have I understood you correctly?

Jeremiah, is excluding cities from the rules as bad as abolishing the rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
qzhad, have I understood you correctly?


Yes. My original question was to confirm that the rules did state that the cities of a player that had tokens in three spaces or less. It's a gray area in the rules, but someone pointed to a post of Ron Magin's that indicates without stating directly that they are.

Then the discussion started about whether it would be a better rule and designer's intent. Interpreting the rule to allow cities to be attacked would make the turtle strategy completely ineffective, but thematically less intrusive in my opinion.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Buccheri
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
If you love America, you through money in it's hole!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeremiah, SORRY for using the word gay in a derogatory way. I was heated at the time I posted. I know that Ron has stated his interpretation of this rule and it just doesn't make sence. A player who uses this "turtle strategy" can easily win most of the time. It basically comes down to initial board development with the tiles and their starting hexes. It is obvious that this rule was designed to prevent player elimination. I don't think it was intended for a player to use as away to expand one's empire and at the same time avoid being attacked. Here is why I feel it breaks the game. The first reason is that the other players can't stop what you are doing directly. Ron states that players need to identify this strategy early and then build towards that player to limit their options. This is ALL a player can do and it may not be enough. Even still the "turtle" Player is basically controling the tempo of the game. Your building to stop him from building. Is this what you wanted to do? Who cares, it's the only means of slowing him down or stoping him. If you are planing to expand in the end to win, good luck. The board is over populated with cities you can't destroy and you are probably going to be attacked by the "turtling" player, unless you are using this strategy yourself. If all the players are using some form of this strategy then this rule breaks the game by watering down any other strategy. I doen't think that a rule that is written as a fall safe should be abused to where it breaks the flow of options and limits players to one form of action. Is this what Wallace wanted in a civ. style game?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chester
United States
Temple
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can anyone confirm that Martin Wallace actually wrote this rule into the game?

I can think of several examples where the publisher or developer "changed" the rules, or at least added additional rules, in a way they felt improved the game. This is not always done with the designer's knowledge. I suspect Martin wrote it this way himself, but folks seem to be assuming he did.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin
United States
Creve Coeur
MO
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
the "strategy" is brain-dead simple to execute. all you have to do is make sure you're in 3 stacks by the end of your turn. you can attack others, but they can't attack you.

regardless of how effective it is or isn't, it changes the feel of the game (in my opinion for the worse). people have to consider it as they're playing. it's a "strategy" in chess to mimic the moves of the other player until you get put into check. is it valid? yes. is it defeatable? of course, yes. would i ever play a game with someone if they intended to play that way? no, because it's not remotely fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Wallace
United Kingdom
Manchester
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
The 3 stack immunity rule was added by myself. It was added to stop players being knocked out of the game at a very early stage by overly aggressive play. During playtesting the turtle strategy never occured. Since you need to spread out to maintain your borders and make sure you have enough grass land to keep the baby production up such a strategy seemed a non-starter. With hindsight I might have clarified the rule to say that cities count as occupied spaces, but at that point the game was with Pro Ludo and Cafe Games and I was working on other projects.

I do not want to change any rules as that is the responsibility of PL and Cafe Games. Personally I think it should be easy to beat the turtle strategy but have not had a chance to play the published game to find out.

Martin Wallace
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the insights, Martin!

Tempus is another fine game with your name on it, I am sorry that you don't get the chance to play it. cry However, I am looking forward to seeing whatever you are working on now soon. meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I owe you an apology.. since Martin Wallace has just confirmed the strategy never occured in playtesting the game.


No need to apologize. Until the confirmation was posted, we were both guessing/speculating.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.