Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Pendragon: The Fall of Roman Britain» Forums » Rules

Subject: Civitates Pillage rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ricardo Dubcek
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Hi,
4.3.4 says that Civitates Pillage may accompany March; is it possible to Pillage in one region, March the pillagers out and have them Pillage in the destination? (the ones not carrying Plunder from the first region, I mean).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rolly Duckfield

Plattsburgh
New York
msg tools
mb
I believe the answer is no. I don’t have the reulebook on hand but in the section regarding feats it clarifies the feat happens in its entirety before during or after the command.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oerjan Ariander
Sweden
HUDDINGE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
RicardoDubcek wrote:
Hi,
4.3.4 says that Civitates Pillage may accompany March; is it possible to Pillage in one region, March the pillagers out and have them Pillage in the destination? (the ones not carrying Plunder from the first region, I mean).

No. Per rule 4.1, you must execute the entire Feat at one single time: either before the Command, after it, or at any one time during the Command, but only at one time. What you describe splits the Feat up into two separate occasions, and that is not allowed.

Note however that you can split the Marching force up into two groups that both move from the same origin space to the same destination, move one group, then Pillage both spaces, and then move the other group. (Such a move would be illegal in previous COIN games where all units moving from the same space to the same destination form a single Marching group, but in PDG they don't have to do that.) This gives the end result you were looking for.

Regards,
Oerjan
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Gouyon-Rety
Canada
Montreal
QC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rolly is correct: a Feat (in this instance, Pillage) may interrupt the execution of a Command, but may not itself be spliced in different bits (unless it modifies the Command, the only two examples being Ransom and Ravage, which modify the way you execute Raid)
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ricardo Dubcek
Spain
Barcelona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Oerjan wrote:
RicardoDubcek wrote:
Hi,
4.3.4 says that Civitates Pillage may accompany March; is it possible to Pillage in one region, March the pillagers out and have them Pillage in the destination? (the ones not carrying Plunder from the first region, I mean).

No. Per rule 4.1, you must execute the entire Feat at one single time: either before the Command, after it, or at any one time during the Command, but only at one time. What you describe splits the Feat up into two separate occasions, and that is not allowed.

Note however that you can split the Marching force up into two groups that both move from the same origin space to the same destination, move one group, then Pillage both spaces, and then move the other group. (Such a move would be illegal in previous COIN games where all units moving from the same space to the same destination form a single Marching group, but in PDG they don't have to do that.) This gives the end result you were looking for.

Regards,
Oerjan


Thanks all,
Gut feeling told me it couldn’t be done, but it’s good to know that you can achieve that effect in the way Oerjan mentions. A bit convoluted, but hey, it’s pillagers we’re talking about, who says they have to play fair :-)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Barry
United States
Williamsburg
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Resource Conversion Is My Trigger Word!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
4.3.4 says "if there is an enemy Stronghold in the Region, reduce that one enemy’s Renown or Prestige by the amount Plundered." But what if there is more than one enemy Stronghold in the region? I can see that if a non-Civitates faction controls the region, then they should be penalized for the depredations, but if two other factions have strongholds and neither actually has control, then which one is responsible for the penalty? Also, suppose a situation where, say Saxons and Civitates were tied for control of a region, then the Civitates could pillage the region with impunity, but with one more blue cube suddenly they can't?

I tend to think the condition for Pillage should be modified to require non-Briton Control and no Town.

This actually brings me to a quirk in the Revenue phase under Fragmentation where Dux get Resources for "Towns under Dux Control." I presume this refers to Towns in Regions that the Dux Control. On the other hand, you also have the Civitates getting revenue for Towns on the map under Fragmentation if Cymborgi is not in effect(double taxation?), and they can always get a Resource for a Town with Rule even if it is in a Region that they do not Control. I wonder if both Civitates Revenue and Trade should be restricted to Regions with Briton Control, or at least no enemy Control?

Alternatively, I would suggest letting the Dux actually control Towns via the red marker under Fragmentation and that these Towns would be unavailable to Civitates for all purposes. A Town in a Dux controlled space without any blue cubes would get a red marker (and keep it as long as there were Dux pieces in the space), as would any Town that the Dux placed via Build. It is curious that the Dux even under Fragmentation can Build to remove Militia and/or a Hillfort to place a Town. These Militia would let the Dux work them to death or even tear down their own fortress only as long as there is a vacant spot for a Town in this region, otherwise they would fight to the death? Maybe under Fragmentation the Dux should not be able to use Build against Militia or Hillforts at all, but instead just replace a Fort with a Town straight up?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Gouyon-Rety
Canada
Montreal
QC
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bald Terror wrote:
4.3.4 says "if there is an enemy Stronghold in the Region, reduce that one enemy’s Renown or Prestige by the amount Plundered." But what if there is more than one enemy Stronghold in the region? I can see that if a non-Civitates faction controls the region, then they should be penalized for the depredations, but if two other factions have strongholds and neither actually has control, then which one is responsible for the penalty? Also, suppose a situation where, say Saxons and Civitates were tied for control of a region, then the Civitates could pillage the region with impunity, but with one more blue cube suddenly they can't?

I tend to think the condition for Pillage should be modified to require non-Briton Control and no Town.
The key word here in 4.3.4 is "...that ONE enemy's...", which means you can only apply the penalty to one single enemy faction which has a Stronghold in the Region.
Bear in mind these Regions are huge by the standards of the time, and Control only denotes the dominant faction, not control of every acre of land in that Region. When you hold a Stronghold, you hold a significant chunk of land around it, and this is what Pillage is plundering.
The threshold between "Pillage allowed" and "Pillage not allowed" is indeed a bit arbitrary but is a result of play balancing.

Bald Terror wrote:
This actually brings me to a quirk in the Revenue phase under Fragmentation where Dux get Resources for "Towns under Dux Control." I presume this refers to Towns in Regions that the Dux Control. On the other hand, you also have the Civitates getting revenue for Towns on the map under Fragmentation if Cymborgi is not in effect(double taxation?), and they can always get a Resource for a Town with Rule even if it is in a Region that they do not Control. I wonder if both Civitates Revenue and Trade should be restricted to Regions with Briton Control, or at least no enemy Control?
The extra Revenue benefit for the Dux of allowing a Civ Town on its territory is both an incentive for historical behaviour where a post-Roman lord should retain an interest in city life and to help with post-Fragmentation Dux Revenue which is typically low. In game terms, it presents a dilemma between additional revenue versus security risk (as a Town allows Civ Muster, even if reduced) and long-term revenue vs. short-term Prestige gain of a Retaliation.
As for allowing collection of revenue from Towns even if not Controlling the surrounding Region, that has been in the game from the very beginning and represents the remanence of Romano-Briton power in the cities even if the countryside gets largely compromised by barbarian infiltration...

Bald Terror wrote:
Alternatively, I would suggest letting the Dux actually control Towns via the red marker under Fragmentation and that these Towns would be unavailable to Civitates for all purposes. A Town in a Dux controlled space without any blue cubes would get a red marker (and keep it as long as there were Dux pieces in the space), as would any Town that the Dux placed via Build. It is curious that the Dux even under Fragmentation can Build to remove Militia and/or a Hillfort to place a Town. These Militia would let the Dux work them to death or even tear down their own fortress only as long as there is a vacant spot for a Town in this region, otherwise they would fight to the death? Maybe under Fragmentation the Dux should not be able to use Build against Militia or Hillforts at all, but instead just replace a Fort with a Town straight up?
What this aims to portray is 1/ that even after Fragmentation there remains a degree of cooperation (or potential cooperation) between post-Roman lords and cities, and 2/ that factions, especially the Civitates, are nowhere near monolithic and centrally controlled as representing them as one faction implies. The Civitates in particular were a collection of individual tribes, cities and leaders who often spent as much time fighting each other as cooperating. This is primarily represented by the "Tribal War" events, including the Foederati-placing effect which can be triggered against the will of the "beneficiary" faction, but also by such game effects, which could represent a local city finding an understanding with the local warlord even if the overall king disapproves...
3 
 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.