Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Onward to Venus» Forums » Rules

Subject: final scoring rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David DePriest
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
My question is this: If a player has no factories or mines on a planet can they still score points for that planet. In other words can zero be the "second highest" income?

My instincts say no, but the rules are not specific.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Dilloo
United States
Bothell
Washington
flag msg tools
Everything is relative to perception, and your perception is limited.
badge
The Ginger Ninja
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Common sense says no.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree - if you have no income from a planet (you have no influence so) you can't gain victory points from that planet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sly Gryphon
Australia
Upper Kedron
Queensland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The final scoring for OtV is different from most games.

Normally there are points for first, second, third, etc place, so if the first two people tie they share first/second points, and the next player gets third place (as there are two people ahead of them). If this was the case then I think no influence would get zero, as they wouldn't have third place but no place.

However, OtV explicitly states that points are for the highest income, then second highest income, etc.

So, if the highest income is shared by multiple people they each get the points, and then the second highest income gets the second lot of points (even if they were third, or even last). Under these rules, I would say that zero income could be the second highest and thus should get points.

This system is different from most other games, and can mean, for example that if third place increases influence equal to second, they get more points, but that fourth place also gets bumped up the 'third highest income' scoring rank.

Either way, one scoring system is no better or worse than any other, so long as it is known to all players and applied consistently.

If you do score zero influence (as I think the rules dictate) then having multiple players with zero influence all scoring points for the 'second highest income' (of zero) simply needs to be taken into account in your strategy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom
Basingstoke
Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sgryphon wrote:
The final scoring for OtV is different from most games.

Normally there are points for first, second, third, etc place, so if the first two people tie they share first/second points, and the next player gets third place (as there are two people ahead of them). If this was the case then I think no influence would get zero, as they wouldn't have third place but no place.

However, OtV explicitly states that points are for the highest income, then second highest income, etc.

So, if the highest income is shared by multiple people they each get the points, and then the second highest income gets the second lot of points (even if they were third, or even last). Under these rules, I would say that zero income could be the second highest and thus should get points.

This system is different from most other games, and can mean, for example that if third place increases influence equal to second, they get more points, but that fourth place also gets bumped up the 'third highest income' scoring rank.

Either way, one scoring system is no better or worse than any other, so long as it is known to all players and applied consistently.
I don't think anyone is confused on these points neither does it address any part of the OP's question.

Quote:
If you do score zero influence (as I think the rules dictate) then having multiple players with zero influence all scoring points for the 'second highest income' (of zero) simply needs to be taken into account in your strategy.
I don't think that the do rules dictate that you score no points, you might be reading that wrong

So you are of the opinion that having zero income would award you a position in the ranking of incomes? Which is to say that in a three-player game (but not in a 4- or 5-player game) everyone scores some points on every planet. Even in a 5-player game you can leave two people to duke it out over a planet, wasting resources, knowing you'll score the third-place points along with the others that ignore a planet. Essentially that means that there's no point competing for anything other than first or second place as you're guaranteed third. Completely changes the game in a manner that I'm not sure is intended. So no, in my games you have to be in it to win it: no presence on the planet means no points (and by presence, I mean building)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sly Gryphon
Australia
Upper Kedron
Queensland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mccrispy wrote:
I don't think that the do rules dictate that you score no points, you might be reading that wrong


The rules are quite sparse:

Quote:
Who scores these victory points depends on how much income each player earns from the planet. The player with the highest
income will score the victory points for first position, the player with the next highest income for second position, and so on.


I suppose maybe you could think that "no income" isn't a level of income for purposes of ranking, but normally if you ranked people in order of income those with zero would simply be at the end, not excluded.

mccrispy wrote:
Essentially that means that there's no point competing for anything other than first or second place as you're guaranteed third.


In a two or three player game, if you are happy to be third, it would mean you don't have to build at all.

However, in a four or five player game (or the outer planets in three player), building just one structure would decrease scores of other players, so is relevant.

i.e. If none of us have influence, then we all get the points for third highest income, but if only one of us does, the only one of us gets the points and the others get nothing.

mccrispy wrote:
Completely changes the game in a manner that I'm not sure is intended.


The strange scoring for second/third where there are ties already affects the game in some strange ways:

e.g. if you are currently third on Earth, claiming a tile that promotes you to equal second could sometimes be a bad thing -- yes, you would gain +3 points, but it could also mean fourth place would now score the points for the third highest income and gain +5 points (more than you gain).

mccrispy wrote:
So no, in my games you have to be in it to win it: no presence on the planet means no points (and by presence, I mean building)


I think this is a very reasonable house rule to add: "You do not gain any victory points if you have zero income on a planet."

Games that intend this usually have a rule similar to the above.

I also think another good house rule would be to use places rather than levels of income; most of the text works fine with this, just replacing the last sentence before the example with: "The third highest income would then score the third position victory points", and modify the last sentence in the example to: "Green scores nothing for being in fourth place."

Making these changes would clarify all the earlier references are to actual place, not rank of income.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stefan Häggkvist
Sweden
Göteborg
flag msg tools
badge
Had to do SOMETHING with all that GeekGold...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This has been clarified by the game designer in this thread (and the answer is "no"):
Can someone with no influence still score points for a planet?
2 
 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.