Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

SeaFall» Forums » Rules

Subject: Spoiler-free questions - Emnity, raiding provinces, At War rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The following questions are based solely on the unaltered rulebook - I haven't got my copy yet!

The rules state:
Seafall Rules, Page 11, Tokens and Enmity wrote:
Whenever you put enmity tokens on a site controlled by a province you are at war with, return any of theirs in your At War With space before giving your own. Enmity tokens returned to a player are immediately placed in their home enmity section, not on the raided site.


This seems...very strange? It seems unambiguous, but it's so odd I'm wondering if I've missed something.

As I read it, the following happens:

Quote:
Year 1, Green attacks Blue's province. Green plunders the 1-plunder field successfully, meaning that Green places one of their Enmity tokens on Blue's 1-plunder field, and gains 4 gold.

In the winter starting Year 2, Blue doesn't get any gold from that site. the Green enmity on that site then moves to the At War With section.

During Year 2, Blue then attacks Green's province, and plunders their 1-plunder field. Blue has to pay 1 enmity, so they pay with the Green enmity and gain 4 gold. The enmity goes straight back to Green's Enmity section, rather than on the field.


So there are two differences between the raids: firstly, Green's 1-plunder field could be plundered again this year, since there's no token on it, and secondly, if it isn't plundered again during the year, it will still pay out in the winter leading into Year 3 (assuming the game gets that far).

Is this all correct? It seems the more obvious behavior would be for the enmity to go onto the plundered site regardless, but when it comes off in the winter it goes to the home enmity section instead of the At War With section. That means the site behaves in the same way in both directions, rather than magically producing its goods for both the plunder-er and the plunder-ee (or second plunder-er). The example given in the rules in this section also does behave like that because the atacking player has to pay a mix of their own enmity as well as returned enmity.

To put a more extreme example on it:

Quote:
Suppose Green's initial attack in Year 1 is on Blue's Council room, costing 3 enmity. In year 2, Blue could then park up their ship in Green's province and spend four consecutive turns going "Hire Soldier's Guild, tax for 3 gold, plunder 1-enmity field for 4 more gold, gain a glory".


Each raid is slightly harder than the last because Blue has one fewer of Green's enmity in their "At War With" section (and Green may make it harder still by building a Gun Tower after they realise what's happening), but that still seems ridiculous that the same site can be raided 4 times in the same year.

If I've got the rules right, fair enough - the latter situation at least has the effect of Green going in Year 1 "this is what Blue could do to me, do I really want to raid the Council room that much?" but it does seem odd enough that I wanted to check.

On a related note: what happens if you plunder another player's province and succeed, but you don't get enough successes to match the plunder value of any site (or at least any site currently without enmity)? Does that count as a failure? Does it count as a successful raid, but you don't pay any enmity or receive any reward except 1 glory? Something else?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Blackburn
United Kingdom
Helston
Cornwall
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:
On a related note: what happens if you plunder another player's province and succeed, but you don't get enough successes to match the plunder value of any site (or at least any site currently without enmity)? Does that count as a failure? Does it count as a successful raid, but you don't pay any enmity or receive any reward except 1 glory? Something else?


The only way to get a failure is to roll no successes. (or have your ship sink whilst trying)

You will take damage equal to the plunder value of the site minus your number of successes. Then you succeed so long as you still have that ship.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steue wrote:
LeonardQuirm wrote:
On a related note: what happens if you plunder another player's province and succeed, but you don't get enough successes to match the plunder value of any site (or at least any site currently without enmity)? Does that count as a failure? Does it count as a successful raid, but you don't pay any enmity or receive any reward except 1 glory? Something else?


The only way to get a failure is to roll no successes. (or have your ship sink whilst trying)

You will take damage equal to the plunder value of the site minus your number of successes. Then you succeed so long as you still have that ship.


I'm pretty sure that's not quite correct. The damage you take when plundering a province is the defence of the province (shield on the board, starting value of 5) minus the number of successes you rolled, nothing to do with the plunder value.

And my question still stands, even if the answer is "it's not a failure". Is it a success and you get no rewards (beyond a glory for a successful endeavour) or something else?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt S
United States
Sharpsburg
GA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:

The rules state:
Seafall Rules, Page 11, Tokens and Enmity wrote:
Whenever you put enmity tokens on a site controlled by a province you are at war with, return any of theirs in your At War With space before giving your own. Enmity tokens returned to a player are immediately placed in their home enmity section, not on the raided site.


This seems...very strange? It seems unambiguous, but it's so odd I'm wondering if I've missed something.

As I read it, the following happens:

Quote:
Year 1, Green attacks Blue's province. Green plunders the 1-plunder field successfully, meaning that Green places one of their Enmity tokens on Blue's 1-plunder field, and gains 4 gold.

In the winter starting Year 2, Blue doesn't get any gold from that site. the Green enmity on that site then moves to the At War With section.

During Year 2, Blue then attacks Green's province, and plunders their 1-plunder field. Blue has to pay 1 enmity, so they pay with the Green enmity and gain 4 gold. The enmity goes straight back to Green's Enmity section, rather than on the field.


So there are two differences between the raids: firstly, Green's 1-plunder field could be plundered again this year, since there's no token on it, and secondly, if it isn't plundered again during the year, it will still pay out in the winter leading into Year 3 (assuming the game gets that far).

Is this all correct? It seems the more obvious behavior would be for the enmity to go onto the plundered site regardless, but when it comes off in the winter it goes to the home enmity section instead of the At War With section. That means the site behaves in the same way in both directions, rather than magically producing its goods for both the plunder-er and the plunder-ee (or second plunder-er). The example given in the rules in this section also does behave like that because the atacking player has to pay a mix of their own enmity as well as returned enmity.


You have the enmity process correct.

LeonardQuirm wrote:

To put a more extreme example on it:

Quote:
Suppose Green's initial attack in Year 1 is on Blue's Council room, costing 3 enmity. In year 2, Blue could then park up their ship in Green's province and spend four consecutive turns going "Hire Soldier's Guild, tax for 3 gold, plunder 1-enmity field for 4 more gold, gain a glory".


Each raid is slightly harder than the last because Blue has one fewer of Green's enmity in their "At War With" section (and Green may make it harder still by building a Gun Tower after they realise what's happening), but that still seems ridiculous that the same site can be raided 4 times in the same year.

If I've got the rules right, fair enough - the latter situation at least has the effect of Green going in Year 1 "this is what Blue could do to me, do I really want to raid the Council room that much?" but it does seem odd enough that I wanted to check.


While the Blue player could do that, it may not be the best option. Because it has 3 enmity of Green's it is probably better for blue to either raid the council room back or possibly the vault as now they will be much easier and usually have a higher reward than spending 3 turns to make 12 gold from the raids.

LeonardQuirm wrote:

On a related note: what happens if you plunder another player's province and succeed, but you don't get enough successes to match the plunder value of any site (or at least any site currently without enmity)? Does that count as a failure? Does it count as a successful raid, but you don't pay any enmity or receive any reward except 1 glory? Something else?


It is still a success and you get glory. It does not require any enmity to be placed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:
The following questions are based solely on the unaltered rulebook - I haven't got my copy yet!

Your questions look very familiar...

And yes, your examples work as you describe them, and Matt S (above) provided the answer to your last question. One thought, though, is that while successfully raiding a province isn't too difficult, being able to reliably raid a province without taking damage (which you'd need to do to raid multiple times) is harder.

This document might be useful to you, by the way:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1606358/captains-log-compil...
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
LeonardQuirm wrote:
The following questions are based solely on the unaltered rulebook - I haven't got my copy yet!

Your questions look very familiar...

And yes, your examples work as you describe them, and Matt S (above) provided the answer to your last question. One thought, though, is that while successfully raiding a province isn't too difficult, being able to reliably raid a province without taking damage (which you'd need to do to raid multiple times) is harder.

This document might be useful to you, by the way:
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1606358/captains-log-compil...


That's a very useful link; thanks for that! I think the milestone question in my other thread isn't quite covered there but that answers this question and a few others fairly comprehensively. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LeonardQuirm wrote:
In the winter starting Year 2, Blue doesn't get any gold from that site. the Green enmity on that site then moves to the At War With section.

During Year 2, Blue then attacks Green's province, and plunders their 1-plunder field. Blue has to pay 1 enmity, so they pay with the Green enmity and gain 4 gold. The enmity goes straight back to Green's Enmity section, rather than on the field.


I believe it was written this way so as to make the rules more simple and streamlined, but I believe we're going to play that if you are returning someone else's enmity from your own at-war box that it goes directly onto the field as normal plunder enmity would. Then in the winter phase it would go back into the defender's enmity pool. This is a lot more consistent but obviously slightly more complex.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Bridger wrote:
LeonardQuirm wrote:
In the winter starting Year 2, Blue doesn't get any gold from that site. the Green enmity on that site then moves to the At War With section.

During Year 2, Blue then attacks Green's province, and plunders their 1-plunder field. Blue has to pay 1 enmity, so they pay with the Green enmity and gain 4 gold. The enmity goes straight back to Green's Enmity section, rather than on the field.


I believe it was written this way so as to make the rules more simple and streamlined, but I believe we're going to play that if you are returning someone else's enmity from your own at-war box that it goes directly onto the field as normal plunder enmity would. Then in the winter phase it would go back into the defender's enmity pool. This is a lot more consistent but obviously slightly more complex.

I had suggested this same idea, and still think it makes a lot of sense. The opposing argument is that we don't know what rule might come next that makes that house rule break the game.

That said, it hasn't been an issue yet, since it's really only the fields that this matters with, and nobody has raided a field so far in our campaign...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
j n
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Yeah, I don't think there's likely to be a ton of field-raiding in general. Not that it's bad to take some gold, but if you got enough successes to avoid sinking, you can probably hit something better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
lactamaeon wrote:
Yeah, I don't think there's likely to be a ton of field-raiding in general. Not that it's bad to take some gold, but if you got enough successes to avoid sinking, you can probably hit something better.

And if there's nothing better than 6-8 gold in their province, you might be better off going after a much more easily pushed-around island. Or heading somewhere else while taxing. Or...
 
 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.