Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Deus» Forums » Rules

Subject: Clarification/interpretation of barbarian villages game end condition. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The definition of "attacking a barbarian village" as per page 5 is pretty straightforward - it needs to be surrounded by buildings (any type/any player/s) AND for there to be at least one in the surrounded regions. At that point any VPs remaining on that village are taken by the attacker/s (the player with the clear majority or split for a tie).

However, it is possible (and indeed fairly likely) to clear the VPs from some villages before they are surrounded and attacked by repeated use of the Siege Tower cards. By the time such a village is surrounded, there are no VPs left to be taken by the attacker/s.

So far, so good.

However, the question that came to mind is from the "end of the game" section on page 6. The second way to trigger game end (i.e. not by using the last temple) is when "all the barbarian villages have been attacked".

So... under the strict and literal interpretation of the rules a village would have to be attacked (surrounded as discussed above) even if there are no VPs left on the village, having already been stolen.

Is such a literal interpretation intended? I wondered whether the spirit of the rule may have actually been intended as "when all VPs have been removed from the barbarian villages" and the translation into English changed the meaning.

When might it matter? Village A has been surrounded and its VPs taken. An army that was surrounding it now moves (using the War Elephants or Temporary Camps card) to start attacking another village. The plays now have to remember that village A has been attacked (thus would count towards the end game condition on page 6 even if no longer surrounded). Note that there are no counters included in the game to mark that a village was attacked specifically, rather than the VPs being stolen using the Siege Tower card.

I rather suspect that instead of having to remember which villages were attacked and which had VPs 'stolen', the simpler interpretation of "when the VPs are gone, the village is done" is more in keeping with the spirit of the game. Otherwise, in addition to remembering which is which, one could find that you are compelled to attack/surround a village even when it has no VPs left, in order to make it count to the game-ending condition.

If the designer or anyone from the playtest team could chime in on this, it would be great.

(Obviously the 'last temple built' game end condition could well happen first - in the few games that we've played, the game has ended because of the last temple being built slightly more frequently than the last village being attacked.)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Jamieson
United States
Purcellville
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is implemented on boiteajeux.net as once all VPs are gone that is sufficient for ending the game does not have to be "attacked" at that point.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ciggie wrote:
It is implemented on boiteajeux.net as once all VPs are gone that is sufficient for ending the game does not have to be "attacked" at that point.

That's useful to know, thank you. Sounds like they interpreted it as I have, rather than by the strict wording of the rules. Do we know if the designer was involved in the creation/testing of their online version?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian K
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Probably not but this does seem to be the correct interpretation
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rogue Marechal
United Kingdom
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Prodromoi wrote:
Is such a literal interpretation intended? I wondered whether the spirit of the rule may have actually been intended as "when all VPs have been removed from the barbarian villages" and the translation into English changed the meaning.

That is the intention, yes, villages are considered 'attacked' when there is no VP left on them, they do not need to be surrounded at the end of the game, or at any point for that matter, if draining VP out of them using the Siege Tower as you describe.

The rules, including those in French, do not emphasize this aspect very well, instead describing how a typical attack would occur, but the iconography at the bottom of certain cards do imply that a barbarian village must have some VP left on them to be considered such (Ballista comes to mind).

Whether that should be enough to infer they are no longer 'barbarian villages' when no VP are left is a matter of discussion, but I can certain confirm that is the way it is implemented on BAJ, and I believe the designer has confirmed this somewhere on these boards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rogue Marechal
United Kingdom
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
ciggie wrote:
It is implemented on boiteajeux.net as once all VPs are gone that is sufficient for ending the game does not have to be "attacked" at that point.

I would be cautious with this statement, even with the quotes around attacked.

For me, a village is either 'barbarian' when it has VP on it, and 'attacked' when it has none (regardless of process to get there)... based on the iconography and everything else available in the rules (both French and English), as well as the BAJ implementation this would be the very definition of those adjectives.

... short of an exact definition provided by the designer himself, anyhow.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rogue Marechal
United Kingdom
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
and, indeed, such a definition exist in the FAQ posted in the BAJ forum:
http://www.boiteajeux.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=21550

It is stated as coming from the publisher (not designer, but close enough in this case).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Treacher
United Kingdom
Moorlinch
Somerset
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RogueM wrote:
and, indeed, such a definition exist in the FAQ posted in the BAJ forum:
http://www.boiteajeux.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=21550

It is stated as coming from the publisher (not designer, but close enough in this case).


Very helpful, thanks.

The quote from that website (with my emphasis) is copied below for referral:

Quote:
message from the publisher:

The rules should have been a little more precise concerning the attack of the barbarian villages.

Two precisions:

1- A barbarian village is attacked immediately when two conditions are met. Immediately mean we stop everything, we solve the attack giving the VP and the tour resumed.
If this is by placing a building as the attack took place, the active player gets benefiting from the power of cards of the column where it is playing.
If it is moving an army that the attack took place it is no longer possible to move this Army (unused displacement points for this army are lost).

2- When a barbarian village was emptied of victory points, it is considered attacked until the end of the game (it does not need to be around for the end of the game condition, for example).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rogue Marechal
United Kingdom
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
note the parenthese should read:

(it does not need to be surrounded for the end of the game condition, for example).

... it's a bad translation (that may or may not be obvious, but if misinterpreted could be confusing).
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.