Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Onward to Venus» Forums » Rules

Subject: Benefit: Ignore one SKULL result - does this include the die as such? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
badge
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are some cards that say "Ignore one SKULL result"

The rules text regarding this card reads (pg 25 of the rules):

"You can choose not to apply the SKULL on one die to claim a tile."

So if I rolled 3,3 and SKULL on my combat DR, would I now

a) add zero to the defence value as the skull is ignored completely (3-3=0)

or

b) add plus 3 (3-Skull/0=3) to the defense value as the as the application of a skull means I take one less hit/casualty?


I tend to interpret this as b) but am not sure about it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Sexton
United States
Silver Lake
66539
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I interpret b as being correct.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bernd Schlueter
Germany
flag msg tools
Could you explain why you think b) as being correct, please?

Why does the application (what does this mean anyway?) of a skull mean you take one less hit? You take one hit for each of the three dice you rolled.

My question would be: Is the skull only ignored when you calculate the defense value or is it also ignored for casualties?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
badge
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BerndDui wrote:
Could you explain why you think b) as being correct, please?

Why does the application (what does this mean anyway?) of a skull mean you take one less hit? You take one hit for each of the three dice you rolled.

My question would be: Is the skull only ignored when you calculate the defense value or is it also ignored for casualties?


This is exactly what I was asking - could have been clear from the header - sorry for not being as eloquent as you are.

Also, I do not THINK b) is correct, I TEND TO INTERPRET b) to be correct.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bernd Schlueter
Germany
flag msg tools
OK, so i would add

c) Defense value is 0 (as you ignore the skull for calculating the defense value) but take 1 casualty.

(while b) is defense value 3 and 0 casualty (as you ignore the skull for casualty)

I think a) is correct for 2 reasons:

1) "claim a tile" is the complete action of which combat and casualties are just a part of.

2) Think of 3, skull, skull being rolled. there would be no benefit with c) since you can ignore only 1 skull. The wording "1 skull" makes only sense if it affects casualties.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
badge
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I lean towards you ignore one casualty, but the die is still considered a "zero" for the purpose of determining the defense value.

Reasoning:

There are are cards in the game that let you specifically DISCARD one combat die (such as the Trentington Terrestrial Terror Tike". Now if the skull die was to be ignored for casualty purpose AND defense calculation, then it should be phrased "DISCARD one SKULL Combat die" instead of "IGNORE one skull result"

But anyways, this game fell absolutely flat in my gaming group yesterday, so I will kick it out of my collection anyways. So I am no longer interested in this matter, but hope that this question gets officially answered so fellow BGGers may find this thread useful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bernd Schlueter
Germany
flag msg tools
your reasoning makes sense too!

Could you explain why the game fell flat in your gaming group?

I simulated a 4-player game (one season only) yesterday. It seems that it is easy for the players to claim all the tiles - even the crises tiles - during as season. This is due to all the cards which help you in combat and travelling. So there was no crises resolution at all.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
badge
Yo quiero estar contigo, vivir contigo, bailar contigo
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BerndDui wrote:
your reasoning makes sense too!

Could you explain why the game fell flat in your gaming group?

I simulated a 4-player game (one season only) yesterday. It seems that it is easy for the players to claim all the tiles - even the crises tiles - during as season. This is due to all the cards which help you in combat and travelling. So there was no crises resolution at all.



Please take into account that I have played the game only twice (once solo, once with 5 players). To me this game feels very unfinished, it has the potential to be a good game, but it feels like it should have been given more development time, it feels rushed, as if Mr. Wallace was on high pressure to get it out into the market - taking his cash flow problems (see the Moongha project) this _may_ be indeed the case.

1) The crises do not work
In both my games none of the crises ever triggered. There are too few crises markers and too many player actions, so that crises were always removed or suppressed to levels on which they had no effect on a given planet. So you end up with a wonderfully designed crises catalogue, which is basically not used.

2) The pass mechanism has some troubles
The incentive to pass (get one card) is kinda nice, but in a five player game you really do NOT want to be the last player in a round as this bears a HUGE disadvantage. So when only two pass cubes are remaining there is a danger that players just move around with their ships to prevent drawing the second to last pass cube.

3) The last turn is HIGHLY anti-climatic.
As soon as the mines and factories are claimed in the third turn, there is a lot of moving around and unit production just to get hold of the 1 VPs crisis tiles offer. So the game draaaaaaaaags on for just a couple of VPs which are compared peanuts to the VPs claimed via the planet control.

4) The cards are VERY unbalanced
Do not get me wrong - I do not mind the luck of the draw, but to me the range of usefulness the cards offer is way too wide.

5) The attack capabilities are too limited
Of course, in an "imperial-setting" space game I would like to be able to attack my opponent - even more so if he just attacked me - but guess what there is no tension tile on the planet with his unprotected mines and tons of my troops in orbit - so I can NOT attack???? Or this turn only one tension tile had been drawn, so only one player can attack - REALLY? To me this is - even given the more abstract/euro-y nature of the game - so anti-thematic that this alone is almost a game-breaker for me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bernd Schlueter
Germany
flag msg tools
You confirm my thoughts with your points 1), 4), 5)

Especially 1) makes me think that there is something missing in the game! There is no pressure on the players and the cards are so powerful, that you can almost do anything you want.

And it is no problem to claim the all the tiles - including the crises tiles - and therefore no crises occur. And even if there would be one crises tile with a skull, you have to roll 3 skulls to get a Level 4 crises.

Perhaps there's an error in the rules... :-)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel
Germany
Frankfurt am Main
Hessen
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We had the same doubt yesterday when playing the game and we played it that you ignore the skull for both the calculation of the strength and the casualties.

Looking at the wording, it says "when attempting to claim a tile", which to me seems to refer to the whole action, not just one effect of the action:

"You can choose not to apply the skull on one die when attempting to claim a tile. You can also play this card as an interrupt to stop another player from eliminating one of your units."

Having said so, I can also understand the logic of the argument for using it only for the casualties.

It would be great to have an official confirmation.

Daniel
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guillermo Tarazona
Spain
Huesca
Aragon
flag msg tools
Trolea que algo queda
badge
"I like to remember thing on my own way"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ithink that this two cards would help to solve the issue

Discard one combat die of your choice :After rolling the dice when carrying out combat you can select one to discard, which means you will use the difference between the remaining two dice to add to the Defence Strength of the tile you are attempting to claim. You also ignore any 1 result on the die you have discarded

Ignore one 1 result:You can choose not to apply the 1 on one die when attempting to claim a tile. You can also play this card as an interrupt
to stop another player from eliminating one of your units.

As i see it with this two cards i understand that the first one is to eliminate the die of the roll, and the second one to prevent the loss of a unit, which can be eliminated by the die or by the play of a card by another player.

PS. I cannot find a skuul die so the 1 are the skulls wow
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Hanning
United States
Jacksonville
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
We will meet at the Hour of Scampering.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mixo wrote:

1) The crises do not work
In both my games none of the crises ever triggered. There are too few crises markers and too many player actions, so that crises were always removed or suppressed to levels on which they had no effect on a given planet. So you end up with a wonderfully designed crises catalogue, which is basically not used.

2) The pass mechanism has some troubles
The incentive to pass (get one card) is kinda nice, but in a five player game you really do NOT want to be the last player in a round as this bears a HUGE disadvantage. So when only two pass cubes are remaining there is a danger that players just move around with their ships to prevent drawing the second to last pass cube.

3) The last turn is HIGHLY anti-climatic.
As soon as the mines and factories are claimed in the third turn, there is a lot of moving around and unit production just to get hold of the 1 VPs crisis tiles offer. So the game draaaaaaaaags on for just a couple of VPs which are compared peanuts to the VPs claimed via the planet control.

4) The cards are VERY unbalanced
Do not get me wrong - I do not mind the luck of the draw, but to me the range of usefulness the cards offer is way too wide.

5) The attack capabilities are too limited
Of course, in an "imperial-setting" space game I would like to be able to attack my opponent - even more so if he just attacked me - but guess what there is no tension tile on the planet with his unprotected mines and tons of my troops in orbit - so I can NOT attack???? Or this turn only one tension tile had been drawn, so only one player can attack - REALLY? To me this is - even given the more abstract/euro-y nature of the game - so anti-thematic that this alone is almost a game-breaker for me.


Here are my suggestions, and I'll email them to Martin, too:

1)Set the defense value of a Crisis tile equal to the dice difference plus the value of all opposing units present on the surface or in orbit (as is the case with a Tension tile, but applying the value of all opposing players). This resembles the squabble inherent in different nations having different "solutions" for the same crisis.

2) If there are no tiles remaining on the board, each player MUST take the pass action on their turn.

3) That depends. If the game is close enough that those last tiles make a difference in the outcome of the game, then there is a point to continuing. If they don't, there's no reason you can't just agree to end the game. Use common sense.

4). I haven't really seen this. Yes, there are cards that are often more valuable than others, but there is no obligation by a designer in any game with cards to insure that all cards are exactly equivalent under all, possible circumstances. That would make for a pretty boring deck, in any case.

5)Once all tiles are drawn at the beginning of the round, if there are any tension tiles present on a planet where there are no mines or factories (or tiles offering the same), move the tension tile to the next planet on the right, until you reach a planet where the presence of mines, factories and/or tiles permit the tension tile to have an effect. When going to the right from Venus, go to the Earth first, then the Moon. If the tension tile moves to the Kuiper belt and is still not eligible for placement, move it to Mercury. If there is no place it is eligible, return it to the bag.

This will increase the relevance of Tension tiles. However, as to your desire for there being more conflict between players, I have read only one of the Grordbort books, but it didn't seem as if a full-blown war was an ongoing thing - something instead better resembling the interaction observed between nations during the Colonial era on Earth.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Wallace
United Kingdom
Manchester
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Mixo wrote:
There are some cards that say "Ignore one SKULL result"

The rules text regarding this card reads (pg 25 of the rules):

"You can choose not to apply the SKULL on one die to claim a tile."

So if I rolled 3,3 and SKULL on my combat DR, would I now

a) add zero to the defence value as the skull is ignored completely (3-3=0)

or

b) add plus 3 (3-Skull/0=3) to the defense value as the as the application of a skull means I take one less hit/casualty?


I tend to interpret this as b) but am not sure about it.


The text means you do not take a casualty. You still treat the dice as having a value fo zero for the purposes of calculating combat points.

Martin
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Wallace
United Kingdom
Manchester
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Mixo wrote:
BerndDui wrote:
your reasoning makes sense too!

Could you explain why the game fell flat in your gaming group?

I simulated a 4-player game (one season only) yesterday. It seems that it is easy for the players to claim all the tiles - even the crises tiles - during as season. This is due to all the cards which help you in combat and travelling. So there was no crises resolution at all.



Please take into account that I have played the game only twice (once solo, once with 5 players). To me this game feels very unfinished, it has the potential to be a good game, but it feels like it should have been given more development time, it feels rushed, as if Mr. Wallace was on high pressure to get it out into the market - taking his cash flow problems (see the Moongha project) this _may_ be indeed the case.

1) The crises do not work
In both my games none of the crises ever triggered. There are too few crises markers and too many player actions, so that crises were always removed or suppressed to levels on which they had no effect on a given planet. So you end up with a wonderfully designed crises catalogue, which is basically not used.

2) The pass mechanism has some troubles
The incentive to pass (get one card) is kinda nice, but in a five player game you really do NOT want to be the last player in a round as this bears a HUGE disadvantage. So when only two pass cubes are remaining there is a danger that players just move around with their ships to prevent drawing the second to last pass cube.

3) The last turn is HIGHLY anti-climatic.
As soon as the mines and factories are claimed in the third turn, there is a lot of moving around and unit production just to get hold of the 1 VPs crisis tiles offer. So the game draaaaaaaaags on for just a couple of VPs which are compared peanuts to the VPs claimed via the planet control.

4) The cards are VERY unbalanced
Do not get me wrong - I do not mind the luck of the draw, but to me the range of usefulness the cards offer is way too wide.

5) The attack capabilities are too limited
Of course, in an "imperial-setting" space game I would like to be able to attack my opponent - even more so if he just attacked me - but guess what there is no tension tile on the planet with his unprotected mines and tons of my troops in orbit - so I can NOT attack???? Or this turn only one tension tile had been drawn, so only one player can attack - REALLY? To me this is - even given the more abstract/euro-y nature of the game - so anti-thematic that this alone is almost a game-breaker for me.


Most games I work on feel rushed to some degree or another. That's the problem with running a games company, you have to keep coming out with new stuff.

Onward to Venus was designed with a more casual gamer audience in mind, which is what I aim to do when there is a licence involved. Some people will buy the game because of the books, so I have to bear in mind that the game should be relatively straight forward.

The problem you have with the passing mechanic never came up during testing, but that is probably more to do with the groups I was playing with. I can see with five gamers it could become an issue. It is difficult to force a player to take a pass cube as you would then have to define what is a useless move. One solution could be to offer more cards for taking the cube, so three cards instead of one.

As far as card imbalance goes, well that's the source material. Originally I had went for the standard drafting mechanic, so you could see what you were getting. However, that took some of the tension out of the game. I like the idea that you can pull off a cunning move because other players are not aware of the cards you have. With card drafting there is no element of surprise. Once again, for the intended audience I do not think the luck of the draw is such a big issue.

The crisis tiles are meant to be there as a distraction, something that has to be dealt with before things get out of hand. Having more tiles in play could lead to some real problems.

The tension tiles are there to limit combat so players do not feel too vulnerable. I did not want a game where it was too easy to attack other players.

As far as house rules go, happy for people to employ whatever works for them.

Martin
15 
 Thumb up
0.06
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Kumanchik
United States
Altadena
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you roll 2 skulls and lets say a 3 for example, in the rule book it says to take the highest and lowest dies and remove the middle one - so does that mean the second skull doesn't affect you or does it still cause you to lose a unit?

Thanks,

Brian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Perello
Canada
Salmo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
badge
Want DnDeeples? I'm on Esty as MagnificentMeeples.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bkumanchik wrote:
If you roll 2 skulls and lets say a 3 for example, in the rule book it says to take the highest and lowest dies and remove the middle one - so does that mean the second skull doesn't affect you or does it still cause you to lose a unit?

Thanks,

Brian

I believe this has been answered elsewhere, but in the example you give you'd lose two units, one per skull.
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.