$35.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
53 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

SeaFall» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Raiding for glory with no enmity rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Will Davis
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
My group just finished the prologue, so I won't be surprised if this goes away with time, but I'm curious if other people are running into raiding and choosing not to place enmity.

Toward the end of our game, some people realized that they weren't going to have time to score any points before the leader took their turn and ended the game. It occurred to us that you could (according to the ruling here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766) spend a turn raiding an easy target, with little chance of actually sinking to get some quick glory. Obviously, that has a downside that you might damage your ship, but if you chose to take no plunder, then you don't have the downside of potential permanent enmity.

It's a little bit too bad, because it feels athematic. Everyone basically did some war games, and I can see it happening again, though I don't know how common it will be or how good a strategy it is. Have others run into this? Does it have disadvantages I haven't thought of?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It hasn't come up in our games, but I expect it will. Normally getting 1 glory and no other benefit isn't going to be a great turn, but there will be times you're happy with it, especially at the end of a game.

I'm skeptical of the ruling---it seems to be implied by the rules, but I wonder if the playtesters really understood this and took advantage of it. If so I doubt it would have been written this way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Add the Renowned Soldier into the mix, and you could get an extra glory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JR Honeycutt
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Seafallen wrote:
My group just finished the prologue, so I won't be surprised if this goes away with time, but I'm curious if other people are running into raiding and choosing not to place enmity.

Toward the end of our game, some people realized that they weren't going to have time to score any points before the leader took their turn and ended the game. It occurred to us that you could (according to the ruling here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766) spend a turn raiding an easy target, with little chance of actually sinking to get some quick glory. Obviously, that has a downside that you might damage your ship, but if you chose to take no plunder, then you don't have the downside of potential permanent enmity.

It's a little bit too bad, because it feels athematic. Everyone basically did some war games, and I can see it happening again, though I don't know how common it will be or how good a strategy it is. Have others run into this? Does it have disadvantages I haven't thought of?


Rob's at Essen this week, but I'll check with him and get an official ruling.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Pelkofer
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Seafallen wrote:
My group just finished the prologue, so I won't be surprised if this goes away with time, but I'm curious if other people are running into raiding and choosing not to place enmity.

Toward the end of our game, some people realized that they weren't going to have time to score any points before the leader took their turn and ended the game. It occurred to us that you could (according to the ruling here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766) spend a turn raiding an easy target, with little chance of actually sinking to get some quick glory. Obviously, that has a downside that you might damage your ship, but if you chose to take no plunder, then you don't have the downside of potential permanent enmity.

It's a little bit too bad, because it feels athematic. Everyone basically did some war games, and I can see it happening again, though I don't know how common it will be or how good a strategy it is. Have others run into this? Does it have disadvantages I haven't thought of?


In the thread you referenced, the discussion was specifically about raiding provinces. Also in that thread, it makes a distinction about islands and notes that the rules seem pretty clear that you can't choose to avoid plundering or placing enmity on an island site.

I only bring this up because you state that you were playing the prologue and you can only raid islands in the prologue, not provinces. This is a completely valid question for game 1 and on, but I don't think you can do it in the prologue.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Davis
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
countertorque wrote:
Seafallen wrote:
My group just finished the prologue, so I won't be surprised if this goes away with time, but I'm curious if other people are running into raiding and choosing not to place enmity.

Toward the end of our game, some people realized that they weren't going to have time to score any points before the leader took their turn and ended the game. It occurred to us that you could (according to the ruling here: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766) spend a turn raiding an easy target, with little chance of actually sinking to get some quick glory. Obviously, that has a downside that you might damage your ship, but if you chose to take no plunder, then you don't have the downside of potential permanent enmity.

It's a little bit too bad, because it feels athematic. Everyone basically did some war games, and I can see it happening again, though I don't know how common it will be or how good a strategy it is. Have others run into this? Does it have disadvantages I haven't thought of?


In the thread you referenced, the discussion was specifically about raiding provinces. Also in that thread, it makes a distinction about islands and notes that the rules seem pretty clear that you can't choose to avoid plundering or placing enmity on an island site.

I only bring this up because you state that you were playing the prologue and you can only raid islands in the prologue, not provinces. This is a completely valid question for game 1 and on, but I don't think you can do it in the prologue.


Ah, if that's true, then we misunderstood the ruling. We were playing as if you could do that with islands.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Robb
United States
Calais
Maine
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Just a note to JR:

I put a sticky note in my rule book that you MUST take plunder IF it is available

BUT

I would appreciate an official ruling
AND
an explanation of why if possible

thank you
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
thomasrobb wrote:

Just a note to JR:

I put a sticky note in my rule book that you MUST take plunder IF it is available

BUT

I would appreciate an official ruling
AND
an explanation of why if possible

thank you

What constitutes an "official" ruling in your book? Here's the link to what JR has already stated on the subject:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766

Barring a retraction, that seems official to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
What constitutes an "official" ruling in your book? Here's the link to what JR has already stated on the subject:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23564766#23564766

Barring a retraction, that seems official to me.


One characteristic of an "official ruling" is that it's written in a way that makes it clear exactly what it applies to.

A posting that starts out "In that case ..." doesn't even specify which cases it does or doesn't apply to. Thus the confusion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Robb
United States
Calais
Maine
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

yes agreed

but

p. 11 in rule book does say Enmity tokens are placed when site is successfully raided - the rest of the paragraph does NOT mention plunder

JR seems (to me) to indicate that just raiding without plunder is a wasted turn so this clarification is not needed

It doesn't matter that much to me, however, it just seems more thematic to require a player who raided to take plunder - otherwise (in real life which I know this is not, of course, why would one spend ammunition, lives, time, etc. just to shoot at somebody and not get anything?)

so that is my problem is explaining to my fellow gamers that you can raid, get a Glory point, but not plunder therefore not place Enmity. it seems so non-thematic, just a mechanic at that point to get points for combat without the cost (of war)

Smead: why aren't we stealing anything Captain after that raid?
Capt.: I just wanted some points
Smead: you wanted some what, sir?
Capt.: points, Smead, you know, showing em' we can kick their butt
Smead: but the crew wants the loot, sir
Capt.: explain to them, Smead, how important points are in this life
Smead: perhaps I'll let you explain the "point thing" Capt.

arrrh points? arrrh




 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
thomasrobb wrote:
JR seems (to me) to indicate that just raiding without plunder is a wasted turn so this clarification is not needed


The answer is also self-contradictory, since if you do gain glory then the turn was not wasted.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This is not something that needs an "official ruling." It should be clear to everyone that the game is more enjoyable/interesting/thematic and less gamey if you are required to take plunder (and thus, place enmity) when it is possible to do so.

Placing enmity is the cost of gaining the plunder/glory. Being able to gain the glory without placing the enmity is clearly a violation of the spirit of the game, if not the letter.

The reason this became a post on this forum is because the poster realized that raiding without taking plunder (and thus, without placing enmity) felt wrong and that it would put perverse incentives into the game. I don't think there's any unlockable content that could change this.

Just use common sense here people. This isn't the kind of decision that requires a veteran game designer to figure out.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Pelkofer
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bridger wrote:
This is not something that needs an "official ruling." It should be clear to everyone that the game is more enjoyable/interesting/thematic and less gamey if you are required to take plunder (and thus, place enmity) when it is possible to do so.

Placing enmity is the cost of gaining the plunder/glory. Being able to gain the glory without placing the enmity is clearly a violation of the spirit of the game, if not the letter.

The reason this became a post on this forum is because the poster realized that raiding without taking plunder (and thus, without placing enmity) felt wrong and that it would put perverse incentives into the game. I don't think there's any unlockable content that could change this.

Just use common sense here people. This isn't the kind of decision that requires a veteran game designer to figure out.


So, if I raid a province with the intent to steal a treasure and prevent someone from winning the game and I only get enough successes to raid their field, I'm obligated to raid the field, take the useless money, place the enmity, and still lose the game?

I'm not disagreeing. I want to make sure I understood what you said. I do get glory out of it, so it's not all downside. I'm fine playing this way. I do think the rules should be more clear.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Q: What happens if you "succeed" at raiding a province (ie, you have 1+ successes and don't sink) but don't plunder (for example, the target has upgraded fields, so there is no 1-success plunder option). In that case, I assume you get nothing, but do you still place enmity, and if so, where? Do you still get glory? And if you roll too few successes to plunder the thing you really wanted, can you choose not to plunder something with a lower value (so that you can save enmity tokens, perhaps?

A: In that case you would be successful, so you would get the glory. No plunder means you don't place enmity. Yes, you're allowed to decide not to place any tokens and take no plunder (you've basically wasted a turn).


I'm still not seeing the lack of clarity.

If you succeed at an endeavor (1+ successes and don't sink), then you get glory. Then you may decide whether or not to plunder. If you do, you place enmity and gain whatever plunder benefit you opted for.

Some reasons you might do this:
1) You only wanted glory to begin with.
2) You were hoping for a particular plunder option, but rolled too few successes.

Regarding the "it's too gamey" comment: this is not an old concept called "counting coup". JR's answer surprised my (I assumed that the glory was tied to the successful theft), but it is certainly not an unprecedented concept.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt S
United States
Sharpsburg
GA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
Quote:
Q: What happens if you "succeed" at raiding a province (ie, you have 1+ successes and don't sink) but don't plunder (for example, the target has upgraded fields, so there is no 1-success plunder option). In that case, I assume you get nothing, but do you still place enmity, and if so, where? Do you still get glory? And if you roll too few successes to plunder the thing you really wanted, can you choose not to plunder something with a lower value (so that you can save enmity tokens, perhaps?

A: In that case you would be successful, so you would get the glory. No plunder means you don't place enmity. Yes, you're allowed to decide not to place any tokens and take no plunder (you've basically wasted a turn).


I'm still not seeing the lack of clarity.

If you succeed at an endeavor (1+ successes and don't sink), then you get glory. Then you may decide whether or not to plunder. If you do, you place enmity and gain whatever plunder benefit you opted for.

Some reasons you might do this:
1) You only wanted glory to begin with.
2) You were hoping for a particular plunder option, but rolled too few successes.

Regarding the "it's too gamey" comment: this is not an old concept called "counting coup". JR's answer surprised my (I assumed that the glory was tied to the successful theft), but it is certainly not an unprecedented concept.


Alright I think we are thinking to much about this. JR was responding to a one-off case were you did succeed at the endeavor but the number of successes was lower than any of the plunder values at the province. He was not telling us an alternative way to raid something, page 19 is pretty clear on what you are supposed to do. It even says (bold added for emphasis):
rulebook page 19 wrote:
What you collect depends on the type of site you raid and how many successes you rolled. In all cases, you will place one or more enmity tokens on the raided site.


So on an island site there really isn't a choice here you raid and succeed, you place enmity. The province you raid and succeed with enough to be over somethings raid value, you place enmity.
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Ships your choice here is do you want to place damage or take an item. However you still place at least one enmity.


So I am not seeing where we need an official answer as it is already in the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Robb
United States
Calais
Maine
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Unless I hear otherwise from JR, when someone raids, they MUST take plunder, if possible. Raiding ALWAYS means the raid(er) places Enmity (one or more depending on the situation) whether they take plunder or not

This seems the intent of Enmity and seems thematic to the era.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
thomasrobb wrote:

Unless I hear otherwise from JR, when someone raids, they MUST take plunder, if possible. Raiding ALWAYS means the raid(er) places Enmity (one or more depending on the situation) whether they take plunder or not


This doesn't even make sense. If I raid your province and I don't have enough successes to plunder any of your sites, where would I even put the enmity tokens?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Bridger wrote:
It should be clear to everyone that the game is more enjoyable/interesting/thematic and less gamey if you are required to take plunder (and thus, place enmity) when it is possible to do so.


Yet the person who designed the game thought otherwise. So obviously it's not so clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Altropos
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd take a slightly different tack. If you don't take plunder, you don't gain glory. Though the counting coup argument is a good one, I'd rather not have the potential for late game silliness.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Robb
United States
Calais
Maine
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Altropos

yes thank you
this rule is much better than mine

yes David, I see your thought
I may not have enough Enmity to place, correct

so Altropos makes a good argument for

if you don't take plunder, then gain no glory

thank you again everyone for your thoughts on this



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If I were designing the game, I'd state that a raid that gains no plunder also gains no glory.

It remains to be clarified whether the designer had a reason for not writing the rules that way, or did intend for the rules to be that way, or just didn't think about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt S
United States
Sharpsburg
GA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
If I were designing the game, I'd state that a raid that gains no plunder also gains no glory.

It remains to be clarified whether the designer had a reason for not writing the rules that way, or did intend for the rules to be that way, or just didn't think about it.


Except that they did write the rules. If you succeed in the endeavor you get a glory. Success is noted as at least one success rolled and not sinking. If you do that then you get glory.

After that you get to use those successes as the plunder part. Like I mentioned before reading page 19 explicitly tells us how to apply our successes for plundering and how to place our enmity. There was a hedge case when the raid is on a province and I do not have enough successes to exceed any sites plunder value, what do I do. The answer is you place no enmity and gain no plunder. This is what JR clarified. Nowhere in the rules is there a place where I "choose" not to use my successes. If you succeed you get plunder if you can.

We can not just cherry pick the part of the explanation we want to use and ignore its context.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mcs1213 wrote:
We can not just cherry pick the part of the explanation we want to use and ignore its context.


I'm not "cherry picking". I can express an opinion about what I think would be best even when it differs from what the designer wrote. And there are, still, three possibilities for why he wrote that: because he disagrees with me, or because he intended something different than he wrote, or because he never thought about this question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt S
United States
Sharpsburg
GA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
mcs1213 wrote:
We can not just cherry pick the part of the explanation we want to use and ignore its context.


I'm not "cherry picking". I can express an opinion about what I think would be best even when it differs from what the designer wrote. And there are, still, three possibilities for why he wrote that: because he disagrees with me, or because he intended something different than he wrote, or because he never thought about this question.


I am not against expressing opinions. However if something is not clear to you and specific text has been written to address this lack of clarity, that is not opinion based. It either answered the question or not. If you feel it did not answer the question, then we need to address which part you do not understand. From the reading of the rules and the additional clarification presented by JR the intent is there.

Successful raid endeavor = 1 Glory. Successful raid also = plunder (see page 19).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mcs1213 wrote:
From the reading of the rules and the additional clarification presented by JR the intent is there.


Since JR wrote, "Rob's at Essen this week, but I'll check with him and get an official ruling," it seems to me that he's not certain either. So berating me for being unsure is a bit much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.