Stress Tube
msg tools
See how the rulebook says "unless otherwise specified, any challenge has to be made before the next claim" (emphasis is mine).

This is very important for Generals and Priests, where the sequence of events is (for three players A, B, C):

1. Player A claims General.
2. Does anyone want to challenge player A's General? (let's assume everyone says no)
3. Player B, will you claim General to block? (let's assume B says yes)
4. Does anyone want to challenge player B's General?
5. If anyone said yes to step 4, player B must show a General (or lose influence).
6. Player C, will you claim General to block? (let's assume C says yes)
7. Does anyone want to challenge player C's General?
8. If anyone said yes to step 7, player C must show a General (or lose influence).
9. Resolve General action (anyone who didn't counteract loses influence).

So, is there a card that does in fact "otherwise specif[y]"? I believe there is, but after reading the card, I'm not sure. The Capitalist: "once all claims have been made, challenges are resolved for new claimants in clockwise order from the active player" (again, emphasis is mine).

Let's talk about what "resolve" means in this situation. IF "resolve" is the process of asking "Would anyone like to challenge this claim?" (let's call this Interpretation A), then the Capitalist sequence of events is:

1. Player A claims Capitalist.
2. Does anyone want to challenge player A's Capitalist? (let's assume everyone says no)
3. Player B, will you claim Capitalist to get 1 coin from A? (let's assume B says yes)
4. Player C, will you claim Capitalist to get 1 coin from A? (let's assume C says yes)
5. Does anyone want to challenge player B's Capitalist?
6. If anyone said yes to step 5, player B must show a Capitalist (or lose influence).
7. Does anyone want to challenge player C's Capitalist?
8. If anyone said yes to step 7, player C must show a Capitalist (or lose influence).
9. Resolve Capitalist action.

Another alternative I thought of is Interpretation B which is the interpretation that "resolving" a challenge means for the challenged player to show a Capitalist or not. This means we could have something like this:

1. Player A claims Capitalist.
2. Does anyone want to challenge player A's Capitalist? (let's assume everyone says no)
3. Player B, will you claim Capitalist to get 1 coin from A? (let's assume B says yes)
4. Does anyone want to challenge player B's Capitalist?
5. Player C, will you claim Capitalist to get 1 coin from A? (let's assume C says yes)
6. Does anyone want to challenge player C's Capitalist?
7. If anyone said yes to step 4, player B must show a Capitalist (or lose influence).
8. If anyone said yes to step 6, player C must show a Capitalist (or lose influence).
9. Resolve Capitalist action.

The third interpretation (Interpretation C) is that it's no different from Generals and Priests, and steps 1-8 would be the same for Generals, Priests, and Capitalists.




My best guess is that Interpretation A is correct (and therefore I will change the code so that it uses Interpretation A for Capitalists instead of Interpretation C like it currently does), but there is a little room for doubt. So if anyone has a good source for believing one interpretation over the other, that would be super (or perhaps Rikki can shed some light).

My best guess is that Interpretation B is not sensible because it requires players to keep track of too much state ("OK I actually did have a Capitalist so whoever challenged me you lose a life... wait, who challenged me again?")

My best guess for Interpretation C not being correct is... well, if Interpretation C is correct, it means that the text on the Capitalist card is unnecessary, and I think it is less likely that unnecessary text would be included.




EDIT: I got a source.

The source is the original https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsd... (you can find this linked on https://sites.google.com/site/lamamegamestest2/guatemala-195... - this is the site Board Game Geek lists as the website for G54) where the original United Fruit Company says "After all claims have been made, challenges may then be issued on new claimants" (emphasis mine). See how the different word "issued" unambiguously refers to Interpretation A.

In every other case the rules of Coup Rebellion G54 have been faithful to Coup Guatemala 1954 so I consider it safe to assume that this is true for Capitalists as well.

So unless there is strong evidence to the contrary I am now pretty confident Interpretation A is correct and and will proceed with using it for Capitalists (and this is important because new Plantation Owners uses the exact same rule)




Finally for my curiosity, if it indeed is Interpretation A (or if it's B), I am super curious as to what prompted the change for Capitalists, why it had to be different from Generals and Priests. In my imagination I envision some subtle insight that came up after a lot of playtesting that makes the game play better but since I have not had all those hours of playtesting experience I wouldn't know personally what the sudden insight is.

It is clear to me that Capitalist is different in that additional claims are truly optional: A player can choose not to join the Capitalist and no negative effect will happen. For Generals and Priests, if you do NOT claim General/Priest to counteract, something bad happens to you (lose influence or lose money). There's a big difference in incentives there. So I bet that's why there's a difference in how the roles play (if there is one)
 
 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.