$5.00
$20.00
$15.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Triumph & Tragedy» Forums » Rules

Subject: Latest Rules Errata and Map Errata Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brett Johnson
United States
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
mb
Craig -

Any chance of getting the latest rules and map errata posted? Ideally both here and on the GMT site?

GMT errata date is 20 Nov 2015. And doesn't list the map changes, unit setup changes, etc.

Also, an observation and recommended change to an errata:

"16.3 Military Victory
A Faction that controls two Rival MainCapitals/SubCapitals at the same time wins the game immediately."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is an impossible condition. Rivals cannot enter each others' territory. Should be ENEMY.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Evans
United States
Richmond
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
To your last point...


It actually is possible. Germans conquer Leningrad. The West then invades and takes Leningrad. Leningrad is a Soviet SubCapital but is now controlled by the West. The two factions are not (necessarily) at war in this scenario.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
I'd reword the rule and alter it in its essence to the requirement of controlling 5 Capitals (Be them originally yours or else).

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hannes Sörensson
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But you don't need to control your own capitals in order to win, as far as I know.

EDIT: also, enemy factions are still rivals, so there is really no issue with the wording in my mind.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Boschen
United States
Santa Cruz
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ya, I don't understand the complaint here.

You must control 2 rival capital/subcapitals to win. You don't have to control your own capitals at all.

Where is the 5 number coming from?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Quote:
You don't have to control your own capitals at all.


Yes, that's the rule for the game. I think Alberto suggests that fulfilling the rule while losing your own capitals is unrealistic.

Quote:
A Faction that controls two Enemy MainCapitals/SubCapitals at any time wins the game immediately


For example, if the Soviet player pushes through the Balkans and then captures Rome, while the Allied player manages to capture Berlin is still an immediate *win* for the Axis player upon capturing both Baku and Delhi.

There's no confusion about the rule. It's that a simple alternative might be considered for the sake of a little more realism. That's all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alberto Natta
Italy
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
Dieters nailed my meaning precisely.

To have Leningrad and Moscow could mean very little, if at the same time there are enemies marching in the Rhur and headed toward Berlin for instance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Boschen
United States
Santa Cruz
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I see what you are saying.

This is a bit problematic though, because in order to win by capital capture while maintaining control of your own capitals, you would have to win a 2v1 war with both other players.

Maybe you manage to capture Moscow and are pressing on Baku. With what forces will you stop the Allies from taking Rome? Or Berlin?

I think the game would always end in an economic victory. I prefer the way the game works presently. Often our games do end in economic victories, but the threat of conquest is real.
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.