Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
80 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Root» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Incentive for attacking the Vagabond? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Angst
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Id be curious to hear from somebody who has tried a few games with the new Vagabond rules. The hammer no longer refreshes exhausted items and infamy no longer gains vps on other players turns.

This may result in a lot more super beaver ninjas getting attacked and spending important turns licking their wounds in the woods. Hopefully fewer lose/lose decisions for the military players at the end of a game trying to handle a runaway vagabond.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan Furman
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dradis wrote:
Id be curious to hear from somebody who has tried a few games with the new Vagabond rules.


New rules? What did I miss?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Angst
United States
New York
flag msg tools
I'm referring to this thread on some proposed balance upadates. WA and Vagabond got weakened a bit, cats got a little buff and lizards got a decent buff.

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2091456/towards-tournament-...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ethan Furman
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks. I just discovered I wasn't subscribed! I dare say I've missed a lot!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff C
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They really go a long way to taming the vagabond. That and a concerted effort by all players to not let the vagabond out of control via occasional sideswipes at him help too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lex Zypher
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The incentive to attack the vagabond, as it was before, is that he doesn't explode outwards point-wise in the mid-game. The Vagabond can win as early as turn 7 in a game where he gets fed, turns 8 or 9 in your typical game. Every other faction is slower than them in point gain, so you may as well spend a turn or two hitting them when all they have is a sword, a torch, some boots, and another piece or two of junk.

I'm wondering if anybody needs more incentives than "Vagabond doesn't instantly win the game." Of course, there's also incentives like "Vagabond can't really move anywhere for the entire start of the game if birds and cats hit them turn 1," and "Vagabond can no longer gain free points handing people cards, hopefully their crappy one sword can pull them through."

Of course, the Vagabond only gaining points on their turn through combat is 100% a-okay, and at least provides some ability to shut them down late game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PolterGhost wrote:
The incentive to attack the vagabond, as it was before, is that he doesn't explode outwards point-wise in the mid-game. The Vagabond can win as early as turn 7 in a game where he gets fed, turns 8 or 9 in your typical game. Every other faction is slower than them in point gain, so you may as well spend a turn or two hitting them when all they have is a sword, a torch, some boots, and another piece or two of junk.

I'm wondering if anybody needs more incentives than "Vagabond doesn't instantly win the game." Of course, there's also incentives like "Vagabond can't really move anywhere for the entire start of the game if birds and cats hit them turn 1," and "Vagabond can no longer gain free points handing people cards, hopefully their crappy one sword can pull them through."

Of course, the Vagabond only gaining points on their turn through combat is 100% a-okay, and at least provides some ability to shut them down late game.


This doesn't address the key problem. Of course hurting the Vagabond is its own incentive, but the problem is if you spend time and resources doing so it helps the players not involved in this transaction.

Every other conflict in the game, I hurt someone and help myself. But when I hurt the Vagabond, I *only* hurt the Vagabond and don't help myself, which in turn helps my other opponents.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eira Følling
Norway
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Every other conflict in the game, I hurt someone and help myself. But when I hurt the Vagabond, I *only* hurt the Vagabond and don't help myself, which in turn helps my other opponents.
That's why it's less "attack the Vagabond" than "convince someone else to attack the Vagabond".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lex Zypher
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
PolterGhost wrote:
The incentive to attack the vagabond, as it was before, is that he doesn't explode outwards point-wise in the mid-game. The Vagabond can win as early as turn 7 in a game where he gets fed, turns 8 or 9 in your typical game. Every other faction is slower than them in point gain, so you may as well spend a turn or two hitting them when all they have is a sword, a torch, some boots, and another piece or two of junk.

I'm wondering if anybody needs more incentives than "Vagabond doesn't instantly win the game." Of course, there's also incentives like "Vagabond can't really move anywhere for the entire start of the game if birds and cats hit them turn 1," and "Vagabond can no longer gain free points handing people cards, hopefully their crappy one sword can pull them through."

Of course, the Vagabond only gaining points on their turn through combat is 100% a-okay, and at least provides some ability to shut them down late game.


This doesn't address the key problem. Of course hurting the Vagabond is its own incentive, but the problem is if you spend time and resources doing so it helps the players not involved in this transaction.

Every other conflict in the game, I hurt someone and help myself. But when I hurt the Vagabond, I *only* hurt the Vagabond and don't help myself, which in turn helps my other opponents.


I guess this is the thing: The Vagabond will win, if nobody really does anything to them, 3 turns ahead of the Marquise, 2 turns ahead of the Eyrie, and 1 turn ahead of everyone else. They'll win even faster if they luck out on early swords and hammers, or if players craft for them.

If your absolute goal is to win, and you're at a table that feels that there's no reason to attack the vagabond because there's no points in it, then just play as the Vagabond and win most of your games (with Alliance or Riverfolk winning the games that you don't, since players probably don't see incentives in attacking them either.) That's just the long and short of it. There's not supposed to be much incentive to hitting the "insurgent" factions because them not just running away with the game should be its own incentive. As the rapid-scoring factions, the goal is to contain their growth. It honestly doesn't take more than one or two battles to basically cripple the Vagabond early game, and if you're Eyrie or Marquise, you're honestly not likely to be scoring much higher by attacking someone's buildings or doing an overwork -> build compared to just single build + move + attacking the Vagabond.

In summary, the "key problem" shouldn't be "I don't get points for this," because only the Despot really cares that much in a game where everyone else scores faster than them otherwise. The key problem should be "I keep losing because Vagabond/Otters/WA just keep winning because they explode hard in points/keep taking all my resources."

I make it clear from the start of my games as Eyrie or Lizards vs Cats that I'm not going to purposely target the cats, outside of completing my decree. There's no value in it, both of us are handicapped in terms of winning compared to everyone else. Cats are going to score their average 3 points a turn on an almost scheduled basis, I'm going to get my 3.5 points a turn the same way, and the Vagabond is going to shoot for 6 per turn after turn 4, so we may as well stick together and deal with the riffraff before finalizing our victory conditions. Last game I played like this, it was devastatingly close in the end, with everyone basically a turn away from victory; Cats and I hit the Vagabond at every good opportunity, Riverfolk tried to deal with us and we banded together to fight them (including saving each other's territories from attack/rule), and everyone was literally able to win on their next turn, up until I hit the cat's backdoor. We both got literally nothing from killing off otters and breaking swords, but we both were capable of winning the game at the same time as everyone else.

Like, it's not crazy to just do things without immediate reward. It's an opportunity cost to let one guy run away with the game vs spending a couple actions pushing them down a notch. Heck, sometimes the best way to win a lot of games, say Argent for instance, is to hit the guy that's not really being a huge threat to anyone, because lo and behold they would have beaten you by a single card at the end of the game if you didn't stop their actions (is it cheating to reference your game?)


tl;dr birds, cats, and lizards aren't really gaining that many points from hitting buildings and tokens anyways, especially at the time when it's worth targeting the vagabond. They're also, pretty much regardless of whether they overwork for two buildings on turn one or just build one building + move + attack, going to score basically the same amount of points across multiple turns as they would have if they didn't just go for straight points off the bat. Accept the fact that you're not really in this for the point race and that you should target the point leaders before they ever become point leaders.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PolterGhost wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
PolterGhost wrote:
The incentive to attack the vagabond, as it was before, is that he doesn't explode outwards point-wise in the mid-game. The Vagabond can win as early as turn 7 in a game where he gets fed, turns 8 or 9 in your typical game. Every other faction is slower than them in point gain, so you may as well spend a turn or two hitting them when all they have is a sword, a torch, some boots, and another piece or two of junk.

I'm wondering if anybody needs more incentives than "Vagabond doesn't instantly win the game." Of course, there's also incentives like "Vagabond can't really move anywhere for the entire start of the game if birds and cats hit them turn 1," and "Vagabond can no longer gain free points handing people cards, hopefully their crappy one sword can pull them through."

Of course, the Vagabond only gaining points on their turn through combat is 100% a-okay, and at least provides some ability to shut them down late game.


This doesn't address the key problem. Of course hurting the Vagabond is its own incentive, but the problem is if you spend time and resources doing so it helps the players not involved in this transaction.

Every other conflict in the game, I hurt someone and help myself. But when I hurt the Vagabond, I *only* hurt the Vagabond and don't help myself, which in turn helps my other opponents.


I guess this is the thing: The Vagabond will win, if nobody really does anything to them, 3 turns ahead of the Marquise, 2 turns ahead of the Eyrie, and 1 turn ahead of everyone else. They'll win even faster if they luck out on early swords and hammers, or if players craft for them.

If your absolute goal is to win, and you're at a table that feels that there's no reason to attack the vagabond because there's no points in it, then just play as the Vagabond and win most of your games (with Alliance or Riverfolk winning the games that you don't, since players probably don't see incentives in attacking them either.) That's just the long and short of it. There's not supposed to be much incentive to hitting the "insurgent" factions because them not just running away with the game should be its own incentive. As the rapid-scoring factions, the goal is to contain their growth. It honestly doesn't take more than one or two battles to basically cripple the Vagabond early game, and if you're Eyrie or Marquise, you're honestly not likely to be scoring much higher by attacking someone's buildings or doing an overwork -> build compared to just single build + move + attacking the Vagabond.

In summary, the "key problem" shouldn't be "I don't get points for this," because only the Despot really cares that much in a game where everyone else scores faster than them otherwise. The key problem should be "I keep losing because Vagabond/Otters/WA just keep winning because they explode hard in points/keep taking all my resources."

I make it clear from the start of my games as Eyrie or Lizards vs Cats that I'm not going to purposely target the cats, outside of completing my decree. There's no value in it, both of us are handicapped in terms of winning compared to everyone else. Cats are going to score their average 3 points a turn on an almost scheduled basis, I'm going to get my 3.5 points a turn the same way, and the Vagabond is going to shoot for 6 per turn after turn 4, so we may as well stick together and deal with the riffraff before finalizing our victory conditions. Last game I played like this, it was devastatingly close in the end, with everyone basically a turn away from victory; Cats and I hit the Vagabond at every good opportunity, Riverfolk tried to deal with us and we banded together to fight them (including saving each other's territories from attack/rule), and everyone was literally able to win on their next turn, up until I hit the cat's backdoor. We both got literally nothing from killing off otters and breaking swords, but we both were capable of winning the game at the same time as everyone else.

Like, it's not crazy to just do things without immediate reward. It's an opportunity cost to let one guy run away with the game vs spending a couple actions pushing them down a notch. Heck, sometimes the best way to win a lot of games, say Argent for instance, is to hit the guy that's not really being a huge threat to anyone, because lo and behold they would have beaten you by a single card at the end of the game if you didn't stop their actions (is it cheating to reference your game?)


tl;dr birds, cats, and lizards aren't really gaining that many points from hitting buildings and tokens anyways, especially at the time when it's worth targeting the vagabond. They're also, pretty much regardless of whether they overwork for two buildings on turn one or just build one building + move + attack, going to score basically the same amount of points across multiple turns as they would have if they didn't just go for straight points off the bat. Accept the fact that you're not really in this for the point race and that you should target the point leaders before they ever become point leaders.


Nothing you said solves the problem of helping your other opponents while keeping the Vagabond in check. Of *course* preventing the Vagabond from winning is motivation enough to attack them, but what's not good about that exchange is that doing so actually helps your other opponents.

You're not *just* trying to beat the Vagabond, you know? You're trying to beat everyone else, and actions are precious in this game. And attacking any other faction not only doesn't slow you down, it moves you towards your goal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

Nothing you said solves the problem of helping your other opponents while keeping the Vagabond in check. Of *course* preventing the Vagabond from winning is motivation enough to attack them, but what's not good about that exchange is that doing so actually helps your other opponents.

You're not *just* trying to beat the Vagabond, you know? You're trying to beat everyone else, and actions are precious in this game. And attacking any other faction not only doesn't slow you down, it moves you towards your goal.


This line of logic that you keep repeating applies to battling against the Cats and the Birds in clearings where they have warriors. You do not get victory points for removing warriors. Presumably, by attacking them you would be trying to thwart them from beating you, but you would not get points if their cardboard has warriors protecting it.

Have you never attacked the Birds or moved against them in some way to cause them Turmoil?

Sometimes you have to beat down your opponent to win. Or you can sit back and let them win. Or you can perhaps negotiate with your other opponents -- "I will hit the Vagabond if you will not do X on your next turn." Or offer something to them to hit the Vagabond.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:


Sometimes you have to beat down your opponent to win. Or you can sit back and let them win.


For the millionth time, this is not the issue. Of course you do. But hitting the other factions also moves YOU closer to winning.

Hitting the Vagabond HELPS YOUR OTHER OPPONENTS. So I can hit the Vagabond, then sit back and watch one of my other opponents win. The object is that *I* win, not that I stop one faction from winning to the benefit of others.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Race Bannon wrote:


Sometimes you have to beat down your opponent to win. Or you can sit back and let them win.


For the millionth time, this is not the issue. Of course you do. But hitting the other factions also moves YOU closer to winning.

Hitting the Vagabond HELPS YOUR OTHER OPPONENTS. So I can hit the Vagabond, then sit back and watch one of my other opponents win. The object is that *I* win, not that I stop one faction from winning to the benefit of others.


For the millionth time, that's the tension of the game. Move onto to some other game if you can't accept it or don't like IT. You don't get to just score points on your player mat and win. You have to prevent, and figure out how to get it done and also win. The game is putting a choice to you, one that is not easy.

To recap: YOU DON'T GET POINTS FOR ATTACKING THE VAGABOND, NOW FIGURE OUT HOW NOT TO LOSE TO VAGABOND.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some examples of ways to think about your decision:

1. I am the Cats. I have to have wood to build, and I currently have used up my wood to where I can't build my next building. I will use one of my remaining actions to March and Battle. I will move some Cats to where the Vagabond is and break his stuff with Battle. I'm still maxed out my build for this turn, but also held back the Vagabond.

2. I am the Birds. I have a Decree I must accomplish. It currently has a card in the Battle position. I score points by building Roosts, but I must battle this time. Perhaps I will perform my Decree in a way that I battle the Vagabond and break his stuff. I still succeeded on my decree and scored points, and perhaps held back the Vagabond.

Or your could bargain with one of the above to do it. It's assymetric -- this kind of problem is a feature, not a bug.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Race Bannon wrote:


Sometimes you have to beat down your opponent to win. Or you can sit back and let them win.


For the millionth time, this is not the issue. Of course you do. But hitting the other factions also moves YOU closer to winning.

Hitting the Vagabond HELPS YOUR OTHER OPPONENTS. So I can hit the Vagabond, then sit back and watch one of my other opponents win. The object is that *I* win, not that I stop one faction from winning to the benefit of others.


For the millionth time, that's the tension of the game. Move onto to some other game if you can't accept it or don't like IT. You don't get to just score points on your player mat and win. You have to prevent, and figure out how to get it done and also win. The game is putting a choice to you, one that is not easy.



The funny thing is is that Cole was a good enough designer to realize conflicts in multiplayer conflict games have the exact problem you seem to think is a feature that adds "tension": conflict in wargames usually hurts one side badly, one side somewhat, and benefits the opponents not involved in the actual conflict. This is why turtling is so attractive in many of these games or why getting points for dying is often a great idea in Blood Rage and Rising Sun, for instance.

Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."

You know, most other conflict games have the "feature" the Vagabond has for ALL factions. If it's such a good thing to you, why not play those instead? It's like Vagabond problem "feature", but for all factions!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:


Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."

You know, most other conflict games have the "feature" the Vagabond has for ALL factions. If it's such a good thing to you, why not play those instead? It's like Vagabond problem "feature", but for all factions!


Can you please go ahead and be specific, I've asked in a sidelong manner before but you did not respond. How does battle give points to any non-Vagabond faction if they don't get to some cardboard?

If the Birds and the Cats battle each each other to reduce area control, and it involves warriors but does not (or will not result) in the removal of cardboard, how does it give points?

Is it not the case, that the Battle action, when reducing warrior headcount only, never confers points for any faction but the Vagabond?

So is it not the case that your critique applies to more settings than just the Vagabond?

So please be specific -- it's been a while since I've played and I'm genuinely not remembering. I remember thinking as the Cats and the Birds that I was burdened with keeping the other faction from overrunning the place but didn't get any points for it. Am I not correct in my memory?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:


Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."

You know, most other conflict games have the "feature" the Vagabond has for ALL factions. If it's such a good thing to you, why not play those instead? It's like Vagabond problem "feature", but for all factions!


Can you please go ahead and be specific, I've asked in a sidelong manner before but you did not respond. How does battle give points to any non-Vagabond faction if they don't get to some cardboard?

If the Birds and the Cats battle each each other to reduce area control, and it involves warriors but does not (or will not result) in the removal of cardboard, how does it give points?

Is it not the case, that the Battle action, when reducing warrior headcount only, never confers points for any faction but the Vagabond?

So is it not the case that your critique applies to more settings than just the Vagabond?

So please be specific -- it's been a while since I've played and I'm genuinely not remembering. I remember thinking as the Cats and the Birds that I was burdened with keeping the other faction from overrunning the place but didn't get any points for it. Am I not correct in my memory?


It doesn't give points if you don't kill cardboard, but if I'm fighting another faction I'm either (a) trying to get to some cardboard in this battle or the next or (b) trying to defend my own cardboard from being destroyed thus protecting my own points, sometimes as a preemptive strike. Or rarely (c) trying to rule an area out of necessity, either for movement reasons or a domination victory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eira Følling
Norway
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the main difference is that you attack the other factions because they stand directly in your way, while you attack the Vagabond only to make the Vagabond less effective at scoring VPs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:


Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."

You know, most other conflict games have the "feature" the Vagabond has for ALL factions. If it's such a good thing to you, why not play those instead? It's like Vagabond problem "feature", but for all factions!


Can you please go ahead and be specific, I've asked in a sidelong manner before but you did not respond. How does battle give points to any non-Vagabond faction if they don't get to some cardboard?

If the Birds and the Cats battle each each other to reduce area control, and it involves warriors but does not (or will not result) in the removal of cardboard, how does it give points?

Is it not the case, that the Battle action, when reducing warrior headcount only, never confers points for any faction but the Vagabond?

So is it not the case that your critique applies to more settings than just the Vagabond?

So please be specific -- it's been a while since I've played and I'm genuinely not remembering. I remember thinking as the Cats and the Birds that I was burdened with keeping the other faction from overrunning the place but didn't get any points for it. Am I not correct in my memory?


It doesn't give points if you don't kill cardboard, but if I'm fighting another faction I'm either (a) trying to get to some cardboard in this battle or the next or (b) trying to defend my own cardboard from being destroyed thus protecting my own points, sometimes as a preemptive strike. Or rarely (c) trying to rule an area out of necessity, either for movement reasons or a domination victory.


But then those are also indirect goals that do not score you points -- they are means to an end, and you would be better off if someone else did them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:


Cole saw this problem and thought, "Well, how about we give the person actual points for beating down their opponents? That way they have a better reason than a prisoner's dilemma to go on the offensive." Which is great. It's beautiful. It's principles of modern design applied to a multiplayer conflict game. Awesome. Except when it came to the Vagabond, for some reason he was like "Nah."

You know, most other conflict games have the "feature" the Vagabond has for ALL factions. If it's such a good thing to you, why not play those instead? It's like Vagabond problem "feature", but for all factions!


Can you please go ahead and be specific, I've asked in a sidelong manner before but you did not respond. How does battle give points to any non-Vagabond faction if they don't get to some cardboard?

If the Birds and the Cats battle each each other to reduce area control, and it involves warriors but does not (or will not result) in the removal of cardboard, how does it give points?

Is it not the case, that the Battle action, when reducing warrior headcount only, never confers points for any faction but the Vagabond?

So is it not the case that your critique applies to more settings than just the Vagabond?

So please be specific -- it's been a while since I've played and I'm genuinely not remembering. I remember thinking as the Cats and the Birds that I was burdened with keeping the other faction from overrunning the place but didn't get any points for it. Am I not correct in my memory?


It doesn't give points if you don't kill cardboard, but if I'm fighting another faction I'm either (a) trying to get to some cardboard in this battle or the next or (b) trying to defend my own cardboard from being destroyed thus protecting my own points, sometimes as a preemptive strike. Or rarely (c) trying to rule an area out of necessity, either for movement reasons or a domination victory.


But then those are also indirect goals that do not score you points -- they are means to an end, and you would be better off if someone else did them.


They are done out of necessity. If I want to kill cardboard and get points, I have to clear the warriors first. If I want to protect my own cardboard, I have to kill warriors attacking or threatening my cardboard. If I want to move freely or go for dominance, I have to rule clearings.

Attacking the Vagabond doesn't push me closer to victory like those other things I just mentioned, it just hurts my own pursuit of points (and the Vagabond's) to the betterment of players not involved in this transaction.

I've explained this like 5 times now, so I think I'm done explaining. If you don't get it yet, you never will.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bassofthe wrote:
I think the main difference is that you attack the other factions because they stand directly in your way, while you attack the Vagabond only to make the Vagabond less effective at scoring VPs.


This is the heart of it -- In the base game, the Cats and Birds are directly in a clash for control of the board, and the other two are threats to explode in points, but not directly in their way.

The Vagabond is a threat to go full-Yoda and win, but nothing the Vagabond is tryign to accomplish is otherwise at cross-purposes to the Cats and the Birds.

It's intentional. It's annoying. But it's there for a reason -- if nothing else, it's a game clock. You can either hit the Vagaond to extend the clock, or try to beat him to the finish line. But you might get clipped by another player in doing so.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

I've explained this like 5 times now, so I think I'm done explaining. If you don't get it yet, you never will.


You don't need to do me any favors. If you weren't looking for replies discussing the game, just write notes in your diary next time.

I'm not a gigantic fan of the game. I enjoy discussing it. The Vagabond is my least favorite faction. I think you're either misperceiving my intent in responding, or looking for nothing but "Brilliant point the Vagabond was a terrible game design element."

When in fact, the number one feeling that persists for me from playing Root is I feel like I'm going to have to a address what another faction is doing, yet it is going to cost me the game because I could be doing something else.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Race Bannon wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:

I've explained this like 5 times now, so I think I'm done explaining. If you don't get it yet, you never will.


You don't need to do me any favors. If you weren't looking for replies discussing the game, just write notes in your diary next time.


Obviously I was looking for replies since I've responded to the thread many times, I just tire of repeating myself and the cyclical nature of the conversation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derek Bowen
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
PolterGhost wrote:
I guess this is the thing: The Vagabond will win, if nobody really does anything to them, 3 turns ahead of the Marquise, 2 turns ahead of the Eyrie, and 1 turn ahead of everyone else. They'll win even faster if they luck out on early swords and hammers, or if players craft for them.


I'm curious where these numbers come from. What assumptions are being made to produce them? I can guess that the assumption no one attacks them is being applied, but are these numbers assuming no one crafts anything for the Vagabond? What about quests? If the Vagabond is lucky in quest draw/initial choice, they're going to be able to accumulate points much quicker than otherwise. Number of players could be a factor too. In a 6 player game, the Vagabond has 5 opportunities to exhaust any item and give a card for 1 VP, in a 3 player game, they only get 2 such opportunities, so how does the metric account for player counts, or does it assume a standard 4 player (non-expansion) setup?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
krede60 wrote:
PolterGhost wrote:
I guess this is the thing: The Vagabond will win, if nobody really does anything to them, 3 turns ahead of the Marquise, 2 turns ahead of the Eyrie, and 1 turn ahead of everyone else. They'll win even faster if they luck out on early swords and hammers, or if players craft for them.


I'm curious where these numbers come from. What assumptions are being made to produce them? I can guess that the assumption no one attacks them is being applied, but are these numbers assuming no one crafts anything for the Vagabond? What about quests? If the Vagabond is lucky in quest draw/initial choice, they're going to be able to accumulate points much quicker than otherwise. Number of players could be a factor too. In a 6 player game, the Vagabond has 5 opportunities to exhaust any item and give a card for 1 VP, in a 3 player game, they only get 2 such opportunities, so how does the metric account for player counts, or does it assume a standard 4 player (non-expansion) setup?


Same ask, and I also wonder about the new 2d Edition rules affect. They've nerfed the ability of the Vagabond to refresh items by repairing them. So Vagabond can't use Battle as a shortcut to his teapot-generated refresh machine.

The main consequence is he can't Battle, repair, and use again the swords or other items (it will take a Morning to refresh them). But he also had a rhythm where his battle-repairs put him able to use the item again (refreshed) and use his teapot/innate refresh on other items.

I have not yet played with the new rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
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.