$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Guilds of London» Forums » Rules

Subject: Definitions, combinations and general first game questions rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shay Rickman
Australia
Success
WA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Had a four player game of this on the weekend and really enjoyed it but we spent quite a while debating the meaning of some of the cards and terms used in the game.

We found the definition of spot on these forums but there is a card (apologies I don't have the reference) that shows 4 or 5 cards with the Spot icon as the "cost". In this instance is the player showing that they have 5 cards, or revealing those 5 cards?

There are a couple of cards that refer to control. I wanted to confirm that the only definition of control in the game is having a guild master on a resolved tile. A player who happens to have the unresolved majority on a tile doesn't yet control the tile.

Can you combo card 35 with cards 33 (or any card that yields liverymen recruitment)

Card 35: Every time you hire a liveryman this turn, you must hire two liverymen instead, if possible

Card 33: Hire four liverymen or two neutral liverymen

The player pays the cost for 35, then pays the cost for 33. Do they now receive 8 liverymen? 4 supplied from the base effect of card 33 and 4 as a bonus from card 35?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
cyranos wrote:
Had a four player game of this on the weekend and really enjoyed it but we spent quite a while debating the meaning of some of the cards and terms used in the game.

We found the definition of spot on these forums but there is a card (apologies I don't have the reference) that shows 4 or 5 cards with the Spot icon as the "cost". In this instance is the player showing that they have 5 cards, or revealing those 5 cards?


You may be referring to card 59, If so you are to look at the top five action cards, keep one and discard the rest. When you look at them you may keep them secret from the other players.

The eye symbol can mean spot as in see or show, or it can mean look at.

BTW the cost, in the upper left corner of the card, is zero.

cyranos wrote:
There are a couple of cards that refer to control. I wanted to confirm that the only definition of control in the game is having a guild master on a resolved tile. A player who happens to have the unresolved majority on a tile doesn't yet control the tile.


You are correct. Control refers to having your master liveryman on a resolved tile. If the tile has not yet been resolved, no one controls it.

cyranos wrote:
Can you combo card 35 with cards 33 (or any card that yields liverymen recruitment)

Card 35: Every time you hire a liveryman this turn, you must hire two liverymen instead, if possible

Card 33: Hire four liverymen or two neutral liverymen

The player pays the cost for 35, then pays the cost for 33. Do they now receive 8 liverymen? 4 supplied from the base effect of card 33 and 4 as a bonus from card 35?



Your interpretation of the card combo is correct. With this combo you may hire 8 of your liverymen or 4 (it's hard to see but the "4" is struck through) 2 neutrals.

Edited per Tony's reply below.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shay Rickman
Australia
Success
WA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the quick reply Jimmy. Just one follow up question regarding:

pawnpusher wrote:
or 4 neutrals.


Doesn't the ability on Card 35 only apply to liverymen and not neutral liverymen? I would assume that if it did, it would show the black liveryman icon on the card in addition to the white.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
cyranos wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply Jimmy. Just one follow up question regarding:

pawnpusher wrote:
or 4 neutrals.


Doesn't the ability on Card 35 only apply to liverymen and not neutral liverymen? I would assume that if it did, it would show the black liveryman icon on the card in addition to the white.


I received the clarification allowing either your liverymen or neutrals straight from Tony Boydell when I was play testing.

Edit: However, Tony clarified differently below.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dirk Meijlof
Netherlands
Utrecht
Utrecht
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cyranos wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply Jimmy. Just one follow up question regarding:

pawnpusher wrote:
or 4 neutrals.


Doesn't the ability on Card 35 only apply to liverymen and not neutral liverymen? I would assume that if it did, it would show the black liveryman icon on the card in addition to the white.


I think you're right. Also the tekst on card 35 is an indication that 'leverymen' only refers to your own or to non neutral liverymen and not to liverymen in general:
Quote:
Card 33: Hire four liverymen or two neutral liverymen


Otherwise, it should have been something like:
Quote:
Card 33: Hire four of your own liverymen or two neutral liverymen



ninja-d by
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
with a different explanation
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
I have found Tony Boydell's explanations to be brief, sometimes to the point of being a little vague. I may be handicapped in that I like thorough and robust explanations. When asking for clarifications while play testing, sometimes it took a few probing questions to draw out the specifics I wanted on a topic.

For example: Card 17 Clarification see my comment near the end.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Moser
United States
Escondido
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I love this hobby, but this is one of the most frustrating things about it. My interpretation of this card was the same as Shay's, i.e., that the duplication does not apply to neutral liverymen. I have no reason to doubt that Jimmy got an official ruling to the contrary from TB, but that puts us in an awkward situation at game time with any player who doesn't regularly peruse this forum.

If I use this combo to grab four neutrals, I would not be surprised at all if my opponent objects, based on Shay's (and my) understanding of the iconography. And I'd have no counterargument other than, "Well, you'll just have to trust me, but someone I don't know on the internet said that the developer told him that this counterintuitive interpretation I'm applying is correct." I can think of two viable but unattractive solutions to this problem. I can play the way my opponent and I interpret it, and contravene what I have been credibly informed is the "official" meaning, or I can cover this situation prior to the start of the game to ensure that all players are in agreement regarding this rule. And, in a game like this there will be several such interpretation questions that arise over time, so sitting down to play could eventually require a laborious recap of every such edge case and clarification, which frankly doesn't sound fun to me.

Of course, this is by no means a problem limited to Guilds of London. I'm really curious how other people handle this in general. When a rule can be reasonably interpreted to mean A, based solely on the materials in the retail box, but you know that it should be played as B, based on some source like a BGG forum (maybe not so credible), or being told directly by the designer (probably more credible), how do you play the rule when you actually get to the table, and how do you deal with objections from players who only bought the game and read the rulebook, and reasonably assumed that that was sufficient to play the game correctly?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
dmoser22 wrote:
I love this hobby, but this is one of the most frustrating things about it. My interpretation of this card was the same as Shay's, i.e., that the duplication does not apply to neutral liverymen. I have no reason to doubt that Jimmy got an official ruling to the contrary from TB, but that puts us in an awkward situation at game time with any player who doesn't regularly peruse this forum.

If I use this combo to grab four neutrals, I would not be surprised at all if my opponent objects, based on Shay's (and my) understanding of the iconography. And I'd have no counterargument other than, "Well, you'll just have to trust me, but someone I don't know on the internet said that the developer told him that this counterintuitive interpretation I'm applying is correct." I can think of two viable but unattractive solutions to this problem. I can play the way my opponent and I interpret it, and contravene what I have been credibly informed is the "official" meaning, or I can cover this situation prior to the start of the game to ensure that all players are in agreement regarding this rule. And, in a game like this there will be several such interpretation questions that arise over time, so sitting down to play could eventually require a laborious recap of every such edge case and clarification, which frankly doesn't sound fun to me.

Of course, this is by no means a problem limited to Guilds of London. I'm really curious how other people handle this in general. When a rule can be reasonably interpreted to mean A, based solely on the materials in the retail box, but you know that it should be played as B, based on some source like a BGG forum (maybe not so credible), or being told directly by the designer (probably more credible), how do you play the rule when you actually get to the table, and how do you deal with objections from players who only bought the game and read the rulebook, and reasonably assumed that that was sufficient to play the game correctly?



Dave, you have an excellent point.

This is all the more reason for designers and publishers to take the time to be sure the rules, reference sheets, boards and cards have consistent markings and language and that the language and markings accurately express the full intent of the designer as to how the game should be played. It pains me to see this much confusion over the details of play for such a good game.

As I alluded earlier in the thread a question arose in playtesting about this particular card combo. The other player thought this combo allowed him to hire four of his own liverymen and two neutrals which I did not see at all. I saw the logic expressed by Shay and Dirk which would be just eight of my own liverymen, but not applicable to neutrals. I asked Tony, and he said eight or four with the meaning I gave earlier.

In this case maybe TMG will publish, or post on their website, an official errata sheet with collected clarifications. I have seen errata and corrected player aids on other publishers' websites.

Edit: I stand corrected by Tony's post below.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Boydell
United Kingdom
Newent. Glos
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Looking at 35 (when you hire 1, hire 2) it's absolutely YOUR liverymen only...otherwise it would show black meeples too. Not sure why I would've said anything to the contrary but, then, it's been an unusual year in the Boydell household.

soblue
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
tonyboydell wrote:
Looking at 35 (when you hire 1, hire 2) it's absolutely YOUR liverymen only...otherwise it would show black meeples too. Not sure why I would've said anything to the contrary but, then, it's been an unusual year in the Boydell household.

soblue

So to be clear, in combination,playing card 35 followed by card 33 yields either 8 of your own liverymen or 2 Neutral liverymen, correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Moser
United States
Escondido
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
tonyboydell wrote:
Looking at 35 (when you hire 1, hire 2) it's absolutely YOUR liverymen only...otherwise it would show black meeples too. Not sure why I would've said anything to the contrary but, then, it's been an unusual year in the Boydell household.

soblue


That's a relief! The planets feel aligned again. cool

Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Boydell
United Kingdom
Newent. Glos
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
tonyboydell wrote:
Looking at 35 (when you hire 1, hire 2) it's absolutely YOUR liverymen only...otherwise it would show black meeples too. Not sure why I would've said anything to the contrary but, then, it's been an unusual year in the Boydell household.

soblue

So to be clear, in combination,playing card 35 followed by card 33 yields either 8 of your own liverymen or 2 Neutral liverymen, correct?


8 or 2, yes!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jimmy Hensel
United States
Bryan
Texas
flag msg tools
Have games, Will travel
mbmbmbmbmb
tonyboydell wrote:
sedjtroll wrote:
tonyboydell wrote:
Looking at 35 (when you hire 1, hire 2) it's absolutely YOUR liverymen only...otherwise it would show black meeples too. Not sure why I would've said anything to the contrary but, then, it's been an unusual year in the Boydell household.

soblue

So to be clear, in combination,playing card 35 followed by card 33 yields either 8 of your own liverymen or 2 Neutral liverymen, correct?


8 or 2, yes!


OK
 
 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.