$30.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

7 Wonders Duel: Pantheon» Forums » Rules

Subject: Question about Minerva token ability rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nuttawoot Prapaipong
msg tools
I have some question about Minerva token ability,
Can anyone explain about its please.

1. What does its means "Reminder: The Conflict pawn only moves one space at a time" ?

2. If I grant 3 shields and it's have no space between Conflict pawn and Minerva pawn, How the Conflict pawn moves?
Discard Minerva pawn and moves 2 spaces
Or discard Minerva pawn and don't move anything.

Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
A Z
msg tools
If you play a 3-shield card, you

1. try to move the Conflict pawn one space. If you can, great. If Minerva is blocking you, discard Minerva and don't move again.

2. (If not already stopped) try to move the Conflict pawn one space again. If you can, great. If Minerva is blocking you, discard Minerva and don't move again.

3. (If not already stopped) try to move the Conflict pawn one space again. If you can, great. If Minerva is blocking you, discard Minerva and don't move.

So in your example (Minerva is directly ahead of the Conflict pawn), the Conflict pawn will not move at all but Minerva will be discarded.

The point of the reminder is that if Minerva is a space or two ahead of the Conflict pawn, the Conflict pawn can move one or two spaces before being stopped -- a 3-shield card is not completely canceled out just because you can't move the full 3 spaces.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nuttawoot Prapaipong
msg tools
It's clear,
Thank you very much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kjetil Tangen
Norway
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
But why would you ever put the Minerva pawn more than one space away from where the conflict pawn is?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Binning
United States
Rollinsville
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kjetil A Tangen wrote:
But why would you ever put the Minerva pawn more than one space away from where the conflict pawn is?


If I was close to a Military win, I might buy Minerva before my opponent has a chance to use it against me. In that case, I'd put it somewhere out of my way where it would harass my opponent in the event he starts trying to escalate his own Military commitment.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Colorado_Jeff wrote:
If I was close to a Military win, I might buy Minerva before my opponent has a chance to use it against me. In that case, I'd put it somewhere out of my way where it would harass my opponent in the event he starts trying to escalate his own Military commitment.


If you were close to a military win, wouldn't you put the Minerva token right behind where you are now so that if your opponent fights back it would minimize the amount it would move backwards?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Binning
United States
Rollinsville
Colorado
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, that would be the optimal move. I was thinking there might be a reason to place it a bit further back, depending on the current card display, but I can't come up with anything at the moment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Adler
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sure, there can be a reason to put it more than one space away from the conflict pawn.

Your opponent is three steps away from victory, in age 3 the last 3-shield-card is seen soon to be available (and 2-shield-cards are gone).
You place 2 steps away, because your opponent still has the option to build a 1-shield wonder.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eaglewing wrote:
Sure, there can be a reason to put it more than one space away from the conflict pawn.

Your opponent is three steps away from victory, in age 3 the last 3-shield-card is seen soon to be available (and 2-shield-cards are gone).
You place 2 steps away, because your opponent still has the option to build a 1-shield wonder.


This is only true if they don't have the option to choose which of the two they are going to build first. Putting it two spaces away prevents them from being able to build the wonder and then the 3-shield card, but if they are in that position, then they either haven't planned well or got very unlucky.

More likely your opponent will just build the 3 shield card, putting them one space away from winning, and then build their wonder, winning.


Edit: Looks like I was wrong blush
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Münster
NRW
flag msg tools
Hidden trackable information in games sucks!
badge
I play games for fun and pursuing the goal to win the game is fun! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Necr0mancer wrote:
eaglewing wrote:
Sure, there can be a reason to put it more than one space away from the conflict pawn.

Your opponent is three steps away from victory, in age 3 the last 3-shield-card is seen soon to be available (and 2-shield-cards are gone).
You place 2 steps away, because your opponent still has the option to build a 1-shield wonder.


This is only true if they don't have the option to choose which of the two they are going to build first.


Why? They may well have the option to choose whether they build the 1 shield wonder or the 3 shield card first. And still they won't win if the defender can still activate Minerva and deviates from the standard "always put the Minerva pawn directly in front of the Conflict pawn" policy as eaglewing's example nicely showed.

No offense, but it seems to me as if you didn't yet read eaglewing's example thoroughly enough... cool

Necr0mancer wrote:
Putting it two spaces away prevents them from being able to build the wonder and then the 3-shield card, but if they are in that position, then they either haven't planned well or got very unlucky.


Why? It seems entirely realistic that the attacker can't manage to both build the 3 shield card and prevent the opponent from activating Minerva.
Why would it be poor planning or very unlucky to narrowly fail to achieve Military Supremacy? Do you always win by Military Supremacy in your games?

Necr0mancer wrote:
More likely your opponent will just build the 3 shield card, putting them one space away from winning, and then build their wonder, winning.


In eaglewing's example the attacker is 3 spaces away from Military Supremacy, so without Minerva, he would already win with just the 3 shield card.

Eaglewing provided a very good example for why the Minerva rules are worded as flexibly as they are - which was something I had wondered about at first as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Darador wrote:
In eaglewing's example the attacker is 3 spaces away from Military Supremacy, so without Minerva, he would already win with just the 3 shield card.


I'm not saying that the Minerva token doesn't do anything, I'm saying that there isn't any difference between placing it next to the conflict pawn or placing it one space away, as I demonstrate below.

Darador wrote:
Why? It seems entirely realistic that the attacker can't manage to both build the 3 shield card and prevent the opponent from activating Minerva.


That we get to place the Minerva token is a given, the only question is where we place it. I’m saying that placing it next to the conflict pawn is the same as placing it further away, given the other aspects of the example.

Darador wrote:
Why would it be poor planning or very unlucky to narrowly fail to achieve Military Supremacy? Do you always win by Military Supremacy in your games?


It would be poor planning because the opponent should be able to see most of the cards coming and make an effective plan for when they build their wonder in relation to when they will take the 3 shield card. Considering that they can win no matter where we place the Minerva token, a simple plan will still assure them the win.

It would take the entire sequence to happen at the very end of the game for it to fail, which is what I consider unlucky.

It wouldn’t be poor planning or very unlucky to “narrowly fail to achieve military supremacy” in general, but it would be given this situation, as the attacker can win and the placement of the Minerva token isn’t relevant.


Darador wrote:
Why? They may well have the option to choose whether they build the 1 shield wonder or the 3 shield card first. And still they won't win if the defender can still activate Minerva and deviates from the standard "always put the Minerva pawn directly in front of the Conflict pawn" policy as eaglewing's example nicely showed.

No offense, but it seems to me as if you didn't yet read eaglewing's example thoroughly enough... cool


I’m sorry but the attacker will still win in the situation Eaglewing explained even if we don’t put the Minerva token next to the conflict pawn. I'm pretty sure that I understand it correctly, but I'll go through a diagram and you let me know if there is something that you think is missing.

W = Military Supremecy O = Empty Space M = Minerva Token C = Conflict token.

The attacker is 3 spaces away from winning. That means it looks like this: C O O W

We have two options on where to place the Minerva token. We can either:
#1 C M O W
#2 C O M W

If we do #1, then our opponent can build their wonder first, making the board: O C O W then build the three shield card, winning the game.
If we do #2, they can build the 3 shield card first making the board: O O C W and then build the wonder to win the game.

As you can see, if they can choose which order to build in, our placement of the Minerva token doesn’t matter.

So, since we are talking about the placement of the Minerva token, all other factors have to be equal. The only situation where our placement of the Minerva token matters is if our opponent doesn't have an option in which order to play the wonder/three shield card.


Edit: Looks like I was wrong blush
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Adler
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Your C O O W example. I understand Minerva different than you do.

Your case #1 : CMOW -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> COOW -> 3-Shield -> Win
Your case #2a: COMW -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> OCMW -> 3-Shield -> OCOW
Your case #2b: COMW -> 3-Shield -> OCOW -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> OOCW

Both of your interpretatons are different than mine.
I came to this thread for clarifying the OP's question 2,
because the rulebook is a bit unclear regarding this point.
I refer my interpretation of the rule with respect to the first
answer by 'azyd' like I suspected.

You interpret the rules:
'Minerva
Place the Minerva pawn on any space of the Military
Track. If the Conflict pawn would enter the space which
contains the Minerva pawn, it instead stops moving and its movement ends. Then discard the Minerva pawn.'
different. Why?

Btw, you note case #1: C M O W -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> O C O W
This means, Minerva does nothing at all, it is just applying one shield
and discarding Minerva for free. Really?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Münster
NRW
flag msg tools
Hidden trackable information in games sucks!
badge
I play games for fun and pursuing the goal to win the game is fun! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah, so that different rule interpretation is where the disagreement came from. So just to be clear, Necr0mancer, your rule interpretation is that Minerva effectively always only impedes the Conflict pawn by one space no matter where it was placed? (As eaglewing pointed out, you were inconsistent with that interpretation: In your example #1 the Minerva pawn didn't accomplish anything at all - but I assume that was an oversight on your part.)

I agree that the rulebook might have been worded a little bit more clearly - particularly, they could have picked a better example on p. 13 of the Pantheon rulebook with the Conflict pawn starting one step closer to the Minerva pawn.

However, all in all I still think it is clear enough that azyd's and eaglewing's interpretation is the one obviously intended by the rulebook. Particularly due to the "it instead stops moving" part on p. 13.
An ability "impede Conflict pawn by one space" could have been worded a lot easier.

Besides, even with what I consider to be the intended rule, I view Minerva as one of the weaker divinities in the game on average.
With your interpretation of the rules, Minerva would just be ridiculously weak, with a benefit of maybe canceling one third of a turn of the opponent in age III. I mean, compare that to Baal who effectively gives me the benefit of an opponent's turn, i. e. makes a difference of two turns.
But again, I don't think we need this balance consideration which could be debated. I think the wording of the rules is sufficient to deduce that Necr0mancer's interpretation of the rules is incorrect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Münster
NRW
flag msg tools
Hidden trackable information in games sucks!
badge
I play games for fun and pursuing the goal to win the game is fun! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Necr0mancer wrote:

The attacker is 3 spaces away from winning. That means it looks like this: C O O W

We have two options on where to place the Minerva token. We can either:
#1 C M O W
#2 C O M W


By the way, there is a small oversight in this part:
There is also a third option, we could place the Minerva pawn directly on the Capital space W (see p. 16 of the rulebook for explicit confirmation). Not that it would change anything for the issue at hand...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eaglewing wrote:
Both of your interpretatons are different than mine...


Looks like I got the rule incorrect! As you can imagine, I interpreted it as the Minerva token not allowing the conflict pawn to pass it (ultimately landing on its spot) rather then stopping the conflict pawn before it.

Oh well! Sorry about the confusion!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Münster
NRW
flag msg tools
Hidden trackable information in games sucks!
badge
I play games for fun and pursuing the goal to win the game is fun! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Necr0mancer wrote:
As you can imagine, I interpreted it as the Minerva token not allowing the conflict pawn to pass it (ultimately landing on its spot) rather then stopping the conflict pawn before it.


Ah, OK, thanks for clarifying - I indeed didn't get that this was your interpretation before. That explains your examples.
(I'd say the reason it is incorrect is the "would enter" in the rules.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthias Adler
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi Darador,
your 3rd option makes a difference:
Case #3 : COOM -> 3-Shield -> OOCW -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> Win ;-)

When 3 steps are winning and there is a 1 and a 3 step available
against you, you would like the Minerva to steal 2 steps in every
applyable case to be save. Only case #2 guarantees that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
Münster
NRW
flag msg tools
Hidden trackable information in games sucks!
badge
I play games for fun and pursuing the goal to win the game is fun! :)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eaglewing wrote:
Hi Darador,
your 3rd option makes a difference:
Case #3 : COOM -> 3-Shield -> OOCW -> 1-Shield-Wonder -> Win ;-)

When 3 steps are winning and there is a 1 and a 3 step available
against you, you would like the Minerva to steal 2 steps in every
applyable case to be save. Only case #2 guarantees that.


Yes, sure. When I wrote that it didn't change anything for the issue at hand, I referred to the rule misinterpretation of Necr0mancer, not the issue of victory when utilizing this option.
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.