Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The official way of describing the victory conditions (your score is the number of cases solved, the game's score is the number of undefeated foes) is very thematic and I have no problem with it.

Except that I have noticed a different way to express the same victory conditions which in practice is much easier to monitor.
a) Count the number of cases in the display at the start of the game.
b) To win the game you must finish with less than that number of red or green cards still in the display.

So if there are, for example, 3 cases, then to win the game you need to reduce the display to 2 or less cards. (By which I mean 2 or less foes and cases. Any obstacles or advantages still left don't affect victory.) It doesn't matter if these two cards are both foes, both cases, or one of each. Two or less is victory. Three or more is failure.

Another example: Say there are 4 cases. You finish with 1 unsolved case and with 2 undefeated foes. You can see instantly that because 3 cards is less than 4, this is a victory. (In official terms you score 3, the game scores 2.)

I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the way the victory conditions are expressed. But this alternative way of looking at them makes it easier to say to yourself (for example) "Hmmm, 3 cases - so I can only afford to ignore two of these cards and I must find some way of dealing with all the others."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just noticed - I should have used 'fewer' rather than 'less' throughout this post. I admit to being grammatically incorrect but you all know what I mean.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Hoiland
United States
Sidney
Montana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mathmethman wrote:
Just noticed - I should have used 'fewer' rather than 'less' throughout this post. I admit to being grammatically incorrect but you all know what I mean.


Grammatically incorrect on the internet? You might want to start looking for a rock to hide under!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Torsten Stelling
Germany
Hamburg
flag msg tools
badge
dasmurphy
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mathmethman wrote:
"Hmmm, 3 cases - so I can only afford to ignore two of these cards and I must find some way of dealing with all the others."


This sounds like ok, i won, but it seems not very good. It sounds like a bad excuse to me to win the game We need to try better than.

PS: My grammar is also not perfect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andres Montanes-Lleras
Colombia
Bogota
flag msg tools
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE (PLAYER)
badge
My first children's fantasy novel EL DRAGÓN DE VAPOR (illustrations by Marcos Toledo Porras)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had to go back and do the math, in order to understand how this works, and it definetively does.

I wonder, however, if b) could be a little clearer something like "b) To win the game the total of red and green cards still on the board must be below that number."

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Cockburn
United Kingdom
Sleaford
Lincolnshire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
montanus wrote:
"b) To win the game the total of red and green cards still on the board must be below that number."

Yes, that wording expresses the concept a little more clearly. This is one of those situations where the practical application is easier to deal with than the attempt at a precise verbal explanation.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I got the concept pretty much immediately from the rules, but it never occurred to me to articulate it - I just understood that to win, once you're close, you can either complete an additional case or defeat an additional foe.

Articulating it as "you need to complete X cards" or "you can afford to leave Y cards" makes for a useful strategic insight.
 
 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.