Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

7 Ages» Forums » Rules

Subject: Discard empire clarification rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chuck P
Canada
Coquitlam
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We've played that the Mongols only get a glory for an empire that is discarded via an actual 'discard empire' action, as opposed to having to discard due to lack of units on the board. I believe that is incorrect, and I'll discuss in the next round of our game.

It did bring up an interesting question though: The Mongols get a glory for each adjacent empire that is discarded. What of the situation where the Mongol player moves all of his forces into the only area an empire controls - is he now adjacent to the likely-to-be-discarded empire?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the point of the glory harvest for the Mongols is causing other empires to discard through aggression. The requirement of adjacency avoids the argument of what "caused" the discard by allowing the inference that proximity to the warlike Mongols is cause enough. As for empires that are forcibly discarded by elimination of its units with Mongol forces this would seem to satisfy adjacency and the implied aggression inherent in this type of glory.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
I think the point of the glory harvest for the Mongols is causing other empires to discard through aggression. The requirement of adjacency avoids the argument of what "caused" the discard by allowing the inference that proximity to the warlike Mongols is cause enough. As for empires that are forcibly discarded by elimination of its units with Mongol forces this would seem to satisfy adjacency and the implied aggression inherent in this type of glory.


I agree - either way, they've disappeared.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The cause of the discarding doesn't matter.

The way I see it, the only trick involved in interpreting the special Mongol glory award is: At what moment should "adjacency" be judged?

In the case of discarding an empire as a result of conflict, I would say: Judge adjacency from the beginning of the conflict.

So if I have an empire in only one area, and the Mongols control at least one adjacent area at the moment we start the conflict resolution that wipes my empire out, then they get the glory point.

But if the Mongols don't control an adjacent area at that moment -- for example, perhaps they used their nomadic special rule to march a horde through some intervening area into my empire's area, where they wiped me out -- then they don't get the glory point.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Taubman
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree your interpretation is more literally correct, but I would nevertheless play the other way - if the Mongols caused it they get the glory.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
gary wallace
United States
Hiawatha
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
They are discarded. How is not the issue, range is the only issue. IMHO.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Hammond
United States
League City
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But if the Mongols don't control an adjacent area at that moment -- for example, perhaps they used their nomadic special rule to march a horde through some intervening area into my empire's area, where they wiped me out -- then they don't get the glory point.


I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion. Clearly if Mongols wipe out another empire they should get the glory points. Just as if the Mongols are next to a near dead empire and that empire uses a migration card to vacate all adjacent areas to attack some other empire and get itself wiped out the Mongols shouldn't get the glory point. In the same area should be adjacent enough.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmm. In that case, we seem to be disputing what it means for an empire to be "adjacent" to another one.

I interpreted the word as: Two empires are "adjacent" if one of them controls an area that is adjacent to an area controlled by the other.

I suppose you're interpreting (empire) adjacency in terms of the presence of units rather than the control of areas. That is, two empires are "adjacent" if one of them has a unit in an area that contains a unit of the other empire or is adjacent to an area containing a unit of the other empire.

Yup, you could make a case for that.

Unfortunately, there's no entry for "adjacent" in the glossary.

Harryfication required!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, I'm convinced. The new version of the Nit-Pickers' Guide (coming soon!) agrees with the other Daniel.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Strictly adjacency means you control an area adjacent to the empire being destroyed but I agree the way we play it is adjacent (or the same area). Certainly it doesn't require the playing of the empire discards card to get the points (although that is sufficient reason it is not the only reason).

Regards
Harry
 
 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.