Paul Glickman
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Hi all!

Isn't this rule "The pool of action points is shared between allied players" pretty much guaranteed to be a bad one? A team game in which one player is going to take some turns alone doesn't sound great. It'll often feel like a coop with no alpha player protection, except even worse as often the alpha player will take turns and the other won't?

I haven't read the rulebook yet (I tried but it was crunchy, devoting more time to it later today) but is there any protection against what I've described?

Thanks!
Paul
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JL K
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: "The pool of action points is shared between allied players" ...?
Well, they share Fortitude points for the round, but each turn the spirits only take 1, 2, or 3 actions. The turns alternate as well, for example, Bliss player 1, Gloom player 1, Bliss player 2, Gloom player 2, then back to Bliss player 1, and so on. The rules also state the each team decides which of their spirits go first during each round, so while Bliss player 1 went first in round 1, Bliss player 2 could go first in all future rounds if team Bliss decides that's beneficial to their cause.

Either way, it would be possible for one player on a team to use up more actions (Fortitude) than their partner, but it seems unlikely that would make for a winning situation. This is especially true as it seems that the players share Fortitude (the resource that lets you perform actions) but they do not share willpower or essence (the resources that allow you to pay for actions or empower emotions). At least, that's how it would seem to work from the rules.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Turczi
United Kingdom
London
England
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: "The pool of action points is shared between allied players" ...?
Paul G wrote:
Hi all!

Isn't this rule "The pool of action points is shared between allied players" pretty much guaranteed to be a bad one? A team game in which one player is going to take some turns alone doesn't sound great. It'll often feel like a coop with no alpha player protection, except even worse as often the alpha player will take turns and the other won't?

I haven't read the rulebook yet (I tried but it was crunchy, devoting more time to it later today) but is there any protection against what I've described?

Thanks!
Paul


The two members of the team alternate taking turns, neither can take more than 3 in a row, and they must take at least 1. So the most lopsided way to spend 9 actions would be A:3, B:1, A:3, B:1, A:1, which would leave them very vulnerable on half of the board. Therefore it would be probably bad move So "locking out" your teammate is definitely not a thing.

Now don't get me wrong, if somebody WANTS to alpha, he can tell his teammate what to do (but shouldn't, as the game is quite thinky and tactical, and I've found that I needed all the brainpower of my teammate and myself to spot the best moves). Also as an added protection we don't share our hands with each other (but tbh usually the important bit is whether he has a card or not, not which ones).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Glickman
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
Re: "The pool of action points is shared between allied players" ...?
Ahhh, okay excellent. That's exactly the sort of response I was looking for. It's still slightly more shared than I'd like, but now it sounds less like a design flaw and more like a personal preference.

Not sure whether to delete post or edit title...

Thanks a lot!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JL K
United States
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good point on the cards David, it seems like the game really will involve management of multiple limited resources and will require some brainpower. Cards will likely be scarce as they are used for upgrades.

Curious if that will be a problem in the Shaper variant. Having the same deck size as a normal Spirit player might leave them without enough emotion cards, but I could be absolutely wrong haha.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Zigmond
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TDaver wrote:
Also as an added protection we don't share our hands with each other (but tbh usually the important bit is whether he has a card or not, not which ones).


I was actually meaning to ask - assuming it didn't become clearly from subsequent videos/rules updates - whether team-mates were supposed to see each others' hands. And are they allowed to discuss strategy with each other at any point? Or just at the start of each round? And if they are allowed to talk in this manner, are the opposing team allowed to listen in? (I presume yes - the trouble I foresee though is that it's probably more advantageous to tell your team-mate about your cards than it is to hide that knowledge from your opponents, and if both teams decide that the game might as well be played open-handed...)

As an ex-Bridge player (who is still fascinated by that game and intends to go back to playing it seriously at some point), I am quite fascinated by the question of communication in team games
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Turczi
United Kingdom
London
England
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
robinz wrote:
TDaver wrote:
Also as an added protection we don't share our hands with each other (but tbh usually the important bit is whether he has a card or not, not which ones).


I was actually meaning to ask - assuming it didn't become clearly from subsequent videos/rules updates - whether team-mates were supposed to see each others' hands.
I honestly didn't find it in the rules, I'll ask next time. But I've ruled as a no on card looking.
Quote:
And are they allowed to discuss strategy with each other at any point?
I've played yes, but anything they say the opponent must hear. And saying your whole hand is pointless and overkill. "Can you help objective X?" "Yes/No." That's all the communication we need to give about each others' hand. "Do you see a better move for me than this?" is what we say about the planning
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Zigmond
United Kingdom
Durham
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TDaver wrote:
robinz wrote:
TDaver wrote:
Also as an added protection we don't share our hands with each other (but tbh usually the important bit is whether he has a card or not, not which ones).


I was actually meaning to ask - assuming it didn't become clearly from subsequent videos/rules updates - whether team-mates were supposed to see each others' hands.
I honestly didn't find it in the rules, I'll ask next time. But I've ruled as a no on card looking.
Quote:
And are they allowed to discuss strategy with each other at any point?
I've played yes, but anything they say the opponent must hear. And saying your whole hand is pointless and overkill. "Can you help objective X?" "Yes/No." That's all the communication we need to give about each others' hand. "Do you see a better move for me than this?" is what we say about the planning


Thanks, that gives me a clearer idea. (Although of course time will tell if "expert" players find that they are better off giving more detailed communication than that.)

One other related thing which I forgot to mention: presumably such discussion might give the opponents a very good hint as to what your secret objective card is? (Sorry, I've forgotten the official term for those.) After all "Can you help with objective X?" implies that your team thinks Objective X is more worth achieving than a variety of other things that you might want to achieve...
 
 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.