Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Cry Havoc: Aftermath» Forums » General

Subject: Question about a scoring card rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Nimrod Breger
Germany
Dusseldorf
flag msg tools
So, I saw this scoring card:


And I'm a bit confused, does that mean I always double the amount of VP (Victory Points) that I have?
So if I have 40 VP, I will get another 40 VP and get to 80 VP?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
It all depends on what "position on the scoring track" means. It might mean the actual VPs printed on there which in turn would mean that you are right and you could double or even triple the VPs in one round or it might mean that "relative position" compared to the other players, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd place and thus would mean that you would score 1, 2, 3 or 4 VPs. Then again, the latter option would be punishing for the leader. Still, I think the latter version is probably what they meant. The first one is just way too swingy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Newsham
United Kingdom
Halifax
West Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LovingAngel wrote:
Still, I think the latter version is probably what they meant. The first one is just way too swingy.

It's definitely the latter:
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
Ye, just read that in the rules as well. The card explanations at the end of the booklet are really important which is to say the cards themselves are really sloppily written.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nimrod Breger
Germany
Dusseldorf
flag msg tools
Cool, thanks, sounds much better now.
So this is actually a "catch up" scoring card? As the 4th player will gain the most and get 4 VP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Banks
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Mogron272 wrote:
Cool, thanks, sounds much better now.
So this is actually a "catch up" scoring card? As the 4th player will gain the most and get 4 VP.


Yes, I think the idea is to help a player who is behind.

I think one of the purposes of the scoring cards was to help certain players (read: Machines) who were perceived to struggle early in the game. The other races can all generate crazy points for themselves without attacking, due to their skills (Humans/Pilgrims) or walking into areas for free (Trogs). The scoring cards I think are designed to reward aggressive play, which suits the Machines the most.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Mathias
United States
Hendersonville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I had the same question during play testing, and I suggested clarifying it on the card, but it went into the rulebook instead.

You score points based on your position relative to the other players on the score track.

The person in first place gets 1 point, the person in 4th gets 4 points.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff C
Canada
Calgary
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jmathias wrote:

relative


That one word would have gone a long way to clarifying the meaning of that card. I don't know if it's just because I'm relatively new to gaming or what but Portal seems to have been quite sloppy this year with rules writing (CH:A and FM), graphic design (FM) and QC (CH:A).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
Jlc2 wrote:
That one word would have gone a long way to clarifying the meaning of that card. I don't know if it's just because I'm relatively new to gaming or what but Portal seems to have been quite sloppy this year with rules writing (CH:A and FM), graphic design (FM) and QC (CH:A).
To be fair, that was to be expected. Cry Havoc was sloppily written as well and the number of clarifications the game has received is staggering (but obviously appreciated). Perhaps they rushed things a bit to get the games to Essen?

What I really dislike is that they do not really respond here concerning the missing component (one camouflage plan token is missing).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Mathias
United States
Hendersonville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LovingAngel wrote:
Jlc2 wrote:
That one word would have gone a long way to clarifying the meaning of that card. I don't know if it's just because I'm relatively new to gaming or what but Portal seems to have been quite sloppy this year with rules writing (CH:A and FM), graphic design (FM) and QC (CH:A).
To be fair, that was to be expected. Cry Havoc was sloppily written as well and the number of clarifications the game has received is staggering (but obviously appreciated). Perhaps they rushed things a bit to get the games to Essen?

What I really dislike is that they do not really respond here concerning the missing component (one camouflage plan token is missing).


The expansion was not rushed, I promise you that. You have to keep in mind that language is hard, and technical writing is even harder. Mistakes are made on every game printed, but it doesn't mean the people making it are sloppy or don't care.

They posted on their site about the Camouflage token situation. http://portalgames.pl/en/cry-havoc-aftermath-camouflage-toke...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
jmathias wrote:
The expansion was not rushed, I promise you that. You have to keep in mind that language is hard, and technical writing is even harder. Mistakes are made on every game printed, but it doesn't mean the people making it are sloppy or don't care.

They posted on their site about the Camouflage token situation. http://portalgames.pl/en/cry-havoc-aftermath-camouflage-toke...
Thanks for your answer. I really appreciate it.

Firstly, concerning the latter, no, this post explains the wrong illustration on the camouflage tokens, and not the missing third camouflage PLAN token.

Secondly, concerning the former, whether or not it, in fact, has been rushed or the work on it was sloppy, does not matter. Point is (and keep in mind I really, really like the game and I really appreciate the fact that the designers do answer on these forums) the fact 'that the base game needed as many clarifications in the first place and the expansion needs a few as well, has a component list that is simply incomplete, and has a missing token and three misprinted tokens' (see the other threads) just gives the impression that it has been sloppy. In the case of Cry Havoc, it just seems that the developers opted for brevity instead of clarity. Most of the abilities could have been much clearer had they used more words (for instance in the Crystal Link case ONE word would have sufficed).

Finally, I argue there are enough people that would be willing to proof-read the final rules and the components. I for one would do so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Mathias
United States
Hendersonville
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LovingAngel wrote:
Firstly, concerning the latter, no, this post explains the wrong illustration on the camouflage tokens, and not the missing third camouflage PLAN token.

I was not aware of a missing token, if you are missing a token, I'm sure Portal would replace it for you, if you reach out.

LovingAngel wrote:
Secondly, concerning the former, whether or not it, in fact, has been rushed or the work on it was sloppy, does not matter. Point is (and keep in mind I really, really like the game and I really appreciate the fact that the designers do answer on these forums) the fact 'that the base game needed as many clarifications in the first place and the expansion needs a few as well, has a component list that is simply incomplete, and has a missing token and three misprinted tokens' (see the other threads) just gives the impression that it has been sloppy. In the case of Cry Havoc, it just seems that the developers opted for brevity instead of clarity. Most of the abilities could have been much clearer had they used more words (for instance in the Crystal Link case ONE word would have sufficed).

I was/am very heavily involved in the rule questions forums, and answering the questions that arose. I was not involved in the making of Cry Havoc, I just got the game early, and really loved it. I personally found almost zero issues with the ruleset, so I pitched in when I saw questions come up. There are things that definitely could have been improved and done differently, but that doesn't mean that Portal was "sloppy" or "rushing" anything.

I might have a different POV as I helped with play testing on the expansion and got to see behind the curtain, and saw how hard everyone was working on making this expansion amazing.

LovingAngel wrote:
Finally, I argue there are enough people that would be willing to proof-read the final rules and the components. I for one would do so.

Proof-reading isn't as easy as it seems. And even with 50 proof readers there will still be a mistake somewhere. I mean even a company as large as Apple can't release bug free software.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Snow
United States
New York City
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
meeple Interestingly, what some companies are doing now is posting their final draft rules in the Files section on their game forum here, and giving us all a week to send in feedback on a response form. Its something Portal might consider doing in the future. They get free proof reading from prospective customers!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Elliker
Switzerland
flag msg tools
jmathias wrote:
I was not aware of a missing token, if you are missing a token, I'm sure Portal would replace it for you, if you reach out.
Well, my punchboards were all complete, but I've only got two of the camouflage plan tokens (i.e. the round ones). In the other thread about these tokens, one poster wrote that Portal confirmed there should be three.

jmathias wrote:
I was/am very heavily involved in the rule questions forums, and answering the questions that arose. I was not involved in the making of Cry Havoc, I just got the game early, and really loved it. I personally found almost zero issues with the ruleset, so I pitched in when I saw questions come up. There are things that definitely could have been improved and done differently, but that doesn't mean that Portal was "sloppy" or "rushing" anything.
I might have a different POV as I helped with play testing on the expansion and got to see behind the curtain, and saw how hard everyone was working on making this expansion amazing.
To put it bluntly, whether or not it was in fact sloppy/rushed does not matter to the perception of the customer (as the best board game of all time could have been a sloppy and rushed job that just resulted in a very good game). As a customer, I just see the result. Thus, I agree, we have strictly different points of view. Succinctly put, as a customer, these mistakes and inaccuracies are annoying.

jmathias wrote:
Proof-reading isn't as easy as it seems. And even with 50 proof readers there will still be a mistake somewhere. I mean even a company as large as Apple can't release bug free software.
Firstly, comparing a board game to software is like comparing apples and oranges. Secondly, I have done proof-reading in the past (for instance, I worked for my professors at the uni and I have even helped with board games) and whilst some of the stuff here is about proof-reading in the broader sense, the unclear stuff is more about blind play-testing. In the other thread (the one about the Omega Brain ability), I have mentioned 3 other abilities that are unclear. I have found them by just reading the ability on the card and checking any explanations in the rules. I have not even began playing the expansion, let alone finding problems with interactions between the cards. Things like that are clearly avoidable.

In any event, thanks for your answer. I hope we can agree on that the expansion seems like really good fun, but the nice impression is marred by these mistakes.
 
 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.