Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: Leaders played in reverse order of Age? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mark C
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb

After reading the rules, it would seem possible to pick up an age I leader in Age I, then an Age II leader in Age II and play it. Then subsequently replace the Age II leader with the Age I leader. There is nothing that says a leader must be replaced with a more current one, only that the leader must be from a different age.

Can anyone confirm this is possible?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petr Murmak
Czech Republic
Kladno
flag msg tools
publisher
badge
Codenames ;)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamer_Dog wrote:

After reading the rules, it would seem possible to pick up an age I leader in Age I, then an Age II leader in Age II and play it. Then subsequently replace the Age II leader with the Age I leader. There is nothing that says a leader must be replaced with a more current one, only that the leader must be from a different age.

Can anyone confirm this is possible?



Yes, this is possible.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob "Bodhi" Wolff
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is indeed possible.

Of course, when Age II ends, and Age III starts, Age I leaders will become obsolete, and as such you'll be forced to discard the Age I leader. That *might* be an incentive to play the later-age leader. But then again, it might not.

It all comes down to the particular situation, of course. I can imagine that there are situations where the benefits outweigh the risks, and living without a leader for a bit while you wait for a decent Age 3 leader to come down the pipe might be worth the risk, if that Age 1 leader's benefit was substantial enough of a payout.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BodhiWolff wrote:
This is indeed possible.

Of course, when Age II ends, and Age III starts, Age I leaders will become obsolete, and as such you'll be forced to discard the Age I leader. That *might* be an incentive to play the later-age leader. But then again, it might not.

It all comes down to the particular situation, of course. I can imagine that there are situations where the benefits outweigh the risks, and living without a leader for a bit while you wait for a decent Age 3 leader to come down the pipe might be worth the risk, if that Age 1 leader's benefit was substantial enough of a payout.


I am having trouble imagining a scenario where that would be a good play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out4blood wrote:
I am having trouble imagining a scenario where that would be a good play.


You could take Columbus into your hand during Age I, and never play him because you never draw a colony. Then you could take and play a different leader during Age II. Then you might get a colony, and put Columbus into play at the end of Age II, in order to play the colony, while hoping to then get a new leader early in Age III.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
out4blood wrote:
I am having trouble imagining a scenario where that would be a good play.


You could take Columbus into your hand during Age I, and never play him because you never draw a colony. Then you could take and play a different leader during Age II. Then you might get a colony, and put Columbus into play at the end of Age II, in order to play the colony, while hoping to then get a new leader early in Age III.


Another Columbus example is to take him and play him early in Age I while holding on to your A leader. Get and play an early colony and then use your Age A leader until Age II.

-MMM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
out4blood wrote:
I am having trouble imagining a scenario where that would be a good play.


You could take Columbus into your hand during Age I, and never play him because you never draw a colony. Then you could take and play a different leader during Age II. Then you might get a colony, and put Columbus into play at the end of Age II, in order to play the colony, while hoping to then get a new leader early in Age III.


Another Columbus example is to take him and play him early in Age I while holding on to your A leader. Get and play an early colony and then use your Age A leader until Age II.

-MMM


Perhaps. I see those as examples of doing it, but not necessarily of a "good play." Maybe I just have a poor imagination because we mostly play 2 player and colonization just isn't that hard. That's a lot of actions and lost culture/opportunity cost just to get 1 colony.

I've used Columbus, but only because I had to against a Cartography/Colossus combo for an Age II colony. Using him in a reverse era seems extraordinary.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
out4blood wrote:
Maybe I just have a poor imagination because we mostly play 2 player and colonization just isn't that hard.


I don't understand "colonization isn't hard". In regular play, the bidding rules mean that you have to pay an amount for the colony equal to its value. So generally you profit very little when you colonize---the value of the troops you sacrifice is equal to the value of the colony you gain. If you were paying less than the value of the colony, then your opponent would bid more.

Colonizing with Columbus is completely different, you get a colony at zero cost. So it's pure profit.

I think Columbus is competitive with other leaders, in that the value of one free colony is similar to the value of having one of the other Age I leaders for one age. If you can use Columbus and not have a gap when you have no effective leader, that's even better.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark C
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
In regular play, the bidding rules mean that you have to pay an amount for the colony equal to its value. So generally you profit very little when you colonize---the value of the troops you sacrifice is equal to the value of the colony you gain.


Not sure what you're talking about. Colonies don't have a value. Highest bidder wins them and only needs sacrifice a minimum of 1 unit. It's possible to get some very nice colonies cheaply.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamer_Dog wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
In regular play, the bidding rules mean that you have to pay an amount for the colony equal to its value. So generally you profit very little when you colonize---the value of the troops you sacrifice is equal to the value of the colony you gain.


Not sure what you're talking about. Colonies don't have a value. Highest bidder wins them and only needs sacrifice a minimum of 1 unit. It's possible to get some very nice colonies cheaply.


He's talking about playing against skilled opponents who can correctly calculate the value of a colony, given the current game state when it is revealed. If colonies were valueless, no one would bid on them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jdludlow wrote:
If colonies were valueless, no one would bid on them.


You're being ridiculous. If you auction an item with value 12, and someone bids 12 for it, they don't make any profit when they buy the $12 item for $12. That doesn't mean they will refuse to bid on it, just because buying it at its market value is not profitable.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Ludlow
United States
Saint Louis Park
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
jdludlow wrote:
If colonies were valueless, no one would bid on them.


You're being ridiculous. If you auction an item with value 12, and someone bids 12 for it, they don't make any profit when they buy the $12 item for $12. That doesn't mean they will refuse to bid on it, just because buying it at its market value is not profitable.


Given that I said absolutely nothing about profit, but rather was using your very own definition of value for a colony, what exactly are you disagreeing with?

1 
 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.