Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Pioneer Days» Forums » Rules

Subject: Obligatory to spend resources on disasters? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Lautenbach
Netherlands
Amersfoort
NL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
During our play yesterday, a question came up: if a disaster strikes (except Bandits) do you HAVE to spend as much of the applicable resource as you can, or can you choose to keep some and suffer (part of) the consequences instead? This might be more profitable for the end game. The board and the rulebook seem to contradict each other in terms of wording.

Thank you!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
François Mahieu
Belgium
Rhode-Saint-Genèse
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thematically, you can't choose to mitigate a disaster. You HAVE to pay whatever is needed and/or whatever you can. You can't choose not to pay the bandits, not to damage your carts. And the rulebook seems to confirm that. There's no option there.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Lautenbach
Netherlands
Amersfoort
NL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for your reaction. I agree with the examples you use. But can I voluntarily choose to take damage on a cart instead of spending my last wood, or to let a townsfolk go instead of spending my last potion on him if keeping the resource is more profitable near the end of the game? I do not think that the rulebook is conclusive on that? Thanks again.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The designers intent was that for all disasters, you MUST pay as much as possible.

I'll make a note to fix the wording in the rulebook to make that clear.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Lautenbach
Netherlands
Amersfoort
NL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you Seth!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mick Adams
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
The designers intent was that for all disasters, you MUST pay as much as possible.

I'll make a note to fix the wording in the rulebook to make that clear.

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy!


This is interesting but I think we will probably continue to play as we have been by giving players a choice to pay to mitigate disasters or not. After all, surely thematically this makes more sense, no? A storm hits, damages the wagons, and then you repair them (or not) if you have the wood. Or famine hits the cattle and you buy as much or as little feed to keep them going as you can or want to. Or when disease strikes, harsh as it might be, why would you necessarily have to hand round medicine to all your townsfolk? Maybe one or two of them are really annoying and have dropped one too many a fart around the campfire? ;-) And on a purely gameplay level, we like the idea of having the choice.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Casey Holbrook
msg tools
I see your point however I think it is may have less strategy or making the disaster less of importantance. After all you can see the storm coming. Prep for it and try to get that extra wood for trading to the town once you arrive after going through the disaster. It not only changes what dice you pick but also you may be forced to pick up wood instead of an equipment etc. it will test how well you prepare for each disaster while trying to gain as much vp along the way. I think taking away the Must pay will change the game play too much. Just my thoughts though
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ravid01 wrote:
I see your point however I think it is may have less strategy or making the disaster less of importantance. After all you can see the storm coming. Prep for it and try to get that extra wood for trading to the town once you arrive after going through the disaster. It not only changes what dice you pick but also you may be forced to pick up wood instead of an equipment etc. it will test how well you prepare for each disaster while trying to gain as much vp along the way. I think taking away the Must pay will change the game play too much. Just my thoughts though

I think you're on the same page as the designers, and I agree.

However, allowing people to take the storm hit (-2vp and loss of wagon 2 spaces) in order to get a favor at the town instead (2vp, maybe help win majority) is just a different weighting of that. Damaging a wagon to get a favor is probably not a "good deal," unless the favor race is close, and you have more than enough wagon space.

My point is, it's not THAT different to allow purposely not paying for disasters. But I do think the game is better if you MUST pay.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Dorward
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: the wagon example: I was playing a game where I had the townsfolk who could repair a wagon for 2 silver; I would have much rather kept the wood (for end-of-week town scoring) and just paid money to fix the damaged wagons, rather than waste the wood on the Storm event. So the wording matters a lot in some cases.
 
 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.