$35.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

SeaFall» Forums » Rules

Subject: Core rule question, what if someone does not take keep an adviser rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shde Gore
United States
Minnesota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In our 1st non-prolog game someone focused on treasure and never ended up buying an adviser. Does the cost of the adviser the winner keeps has to be lower than 0 (because no adviser was kept by 1 player) or does it have to be lower than the adviser of the players who had advisers?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Haney
United States
Keller
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Goreshde wrote:
In our 1st non-prolog game someone focused on treasure and never ended up buying an adviser. Does the cost of the adviser the winner keeps has to be lower than 0 (because no adviser was kept by 1 player) or does it have to be lower than the adviser of the players who had advisers?



That's a good question; I'd be inclined to say that player doesn't count for determining what cost advisor the winner can keep. I'd play it so you only consider the players who kept advisors but I'm sure someone will pop in shortly with a more official answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Rees
United States
Grosse Pointe Woods
MI
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The text says:

The player who won this game may only keep an advisor if its gold value cost is lower than that of any other advisor kept by a player.

That should answer your question.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I would play that the player effectively chose a 0 gold advisor, and that the winner would therefore be unable to keep an advisor. I believe the intention of the rule is that the winner starts the next game with the least valuable advisor, or none at all.

If you prefer to go by a strict interpretation of the rule as (mis-)worded, then the above two are correct.

Also, advice for the player in question: you might want to consider investing in advisors with trade or tax bonuses to more effectively raise money/goods for treasures!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian Liddle
United States
Sandpoint
Idaho
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Becq wrote:
I would play that the player effectively chose a 0 gold advisor, and that the winner would therefore be unable to keep an advisor. I believe the intention of the rule is that the winner starts the next game with the least valuable advisor, or none at all.

If you prefer to go by a strict interpretation of the rule as (mis-)worded, then the above two are correct.

Also, advice for the player in question: you might want to consider investing in advisors with trade or tax bonuses to more effectively raise money/goods for treasures!

I agree; the advisor cost limitation is one of very few catch-up mechanics that are present from game 1 onward.

It would seem really backwards for the point leader to end up with a 3-cost advisor going into the next game while another player starts with nothing.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Ruzzo
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
razordaze wrote:
Becq wrote:
I would play that the player effectively chose a 0 gold advisor, and that the winner would therefore be unable to keep an advisor. I believe the intention of the rule is that the winner starts the next game with the least valuable advisor, or none at all.

If you prefer to go by a strict interpretation of the rule as (mis-)worded, then the above two are correct.

Also, advice for the player in question: you might want to consider investing in advisors with trade or tax bonuses to more effectively raise money/goods for treasures!

I agree; the advisor cost limitation is one of very few catch-up mechanics that are present from game 1 onward.

It would seem really backwards for the point leader to end up with a 3-cost advisor going into the next game while another player starts with nothing.


I also think it would be really silly to never purchase an advisor all game. Most games each player purchases at least 3-4 plus they have the one they started with. At the very least you should use 1 of your reputation tokens to grab a good one.

I cannot honestly envision a winning strategy that doesn't use advisors (assuming everyone else did). They are a core mechanic in the game, the core puzzle on each turn.

It is certainly possible to wind up with no advisors due to being raided, or bad events, etc. In that case, I wouldn't restrict the leader. It's a very unlikely case, and they are already going to be restricted by the other player(s).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
j n
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Bridger wrote:

I also think it would be really silly to never purchase an advisor all game. Most games each player purchases at least 3-4 plus they have the one they started with. At the very least you should use 1 of your reputation tokens to grab a good one.

I cannot honestly envision a winning strategy that doesn't use advisors (assuming everyone else did). They are a core mechanic in the game, the core puzzle on each turn.


Definitely agree with this. If you don't see advisors that help with the strategy you want to pursue, it may be a sign that you should change strategies.

Bridger wrote:
It is certainly possible to wind up with no advisors due to being raided, or bad events, etc. In that case, I wouldn't restrict the leader. It's a very unlikely case, and they are already going to be restricted by the other player(s).


Don't agree with this. The game winner should start the next game at an advisor disadvantage compared to all other players.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike A
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In a couple of our games a player has decided to keep a lower cost adviser when they could have kept a better one intentionally to put the winner at a disadvantage.

Also consider hypothetically: If every player except the winner ended the game with no adviser due to unfortunate events should the leader then be able to keep any adviser he wishes?

Our interpretation of the rules is that if a non-winning player ends with no adviser then the winner cannot keep an adviser.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morthai Saichor
Germany
Vienna
flag msg tools
my projects: The Silken Threads Descent Campaign; Dawn of Civilization Mod
mbmbmbmbmb
gpmark wrote:
The player who won this game may only keep an advisor if its gold value cost is lower than that of any other advisor kept by a player.

I think the rules are pretty clear. If they choose to not keep any advisor or they dont have an advisor the winner is not restricted by that player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, we've had "screw you" advisor choices, though far less often that I would have guessed.

In any case, it just doesn't make sense to me that a player who opts to take a 1-gold advisor prevents the winner from taking an advisor, but a player who opts to take no advisor at all provides no restriction on the winner. It seems like common sense (to me) that "no advisor" is the equivalent of a 0-gold advisor, and that the kept advisor rules should be applied with that understanding.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
By the way, a question for those who are focusing on the literal reading of the word "kept": how are you rationalizing that the rules require each player to choose one advisor to keep? There is no "may" or "up to one" in that rule...

Regardless, I guess there's little point in arguing; both perspectives are valid in the absence of an official ruling.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Pelkofer
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Morthai wrote:
gpmark wrote:
The player who won this game may only keep an advisor if its gold value cost is lower than that of any other advisor kept by a player.

I think the rules are pretty clear. If they choose to not keep any advisor or they dont have an advisor the winner is not restricted by that player.


I don't think the rules refer to the act of keeping, but the set of kept advisers. I think it's clear that the set of kept advisers includes the null adviser in the case that someone didn't keep an adviser. I think it's pretty clear from the rules that the game winner is supposed to have the worst adviser of all players.
2 
 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.