Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

El Grande» Forums » Variants

Subject: House rule: penalties for 2 secret disk cards rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Canner
United Kingdom
Exeter
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm seeking help creating house rules for two action cards in the 2 Stack:

Card 1. Your fellow players must send all of their own Caballeros from one region back to the provinces. Each player decides which region. Decide secretly! (Each must choose a region which (a) is not King's region (b) contains at least 1 of their Cabs, if possible.)

Card 2. Your fellow players must remove 2 of their own Caballeros from any region and send them back to the provinces. Decide secretly! (Each must choose a region which (a) is not King's region (b) contains at least 2 of their Cabs if possible (c) otherwise contains 1 of their Cabs if possible.)

These cards have no penalty if someone chooses a disallowed region. Officially, everyone must choose again. (See New rules for action cards confirmed by W. Kramer.pdf and Veto (and othere rules) explained by Wolfgang Kramer .) But I'd prefer to create penalties for these two cards. For instance:

P1. If a player chooses a disallowed region, they send back Caballeros from the allowable region which contains fewest of their Caballeros. In case of a tie between regions, choose earliest tied region on scoring track.

P2. If a player chooses a disallowed region, they send back Caballeros from the allowable region which causes them the smallest potential point loss. Calculate potential losses before anyone sends back Caballeros, ignoring others' potential gains. In case of a tie between regions, choose earliest tied region on scoring track.

P1 is meant for card 1, and I'm fairly happy with it. P2 is meant for card 2, but it seems quite complex. Maybe we should use P1 for both cards? Can anyone else suggest house rules for these?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelly Bass
United States
Venice
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Agree that P2 seems too complex. I'd stick with P1 in both cases.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conan Meriadoc
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure what your intention is exactly here. The rules disallow choosing an invalid region, and the clarification that players must choose again is only here to allow resolution of honest mistakes.

If a player is using this intentionally in order to stall the game, you could as well make the penalty something in the lines of :
"You lose the game. You can never play another game of El Grande with this group of players again".

If a player did this by mistake (because they're a newbie, or maybe they're just tired), I wouldn't want to punish them for that, so the clarification seems sufficient.

I understand the intent, I'm just not sure it's necessary at all. Did a situation arise where you actually needed this ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark McEvoy
Canada
Mountain
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Dystopian wrote:
If a player did this by mistake (because they're a newbie, or maybe they're just tired), I wouldn't want to punish them for that, so the clarification seems sufficient.

I understand the intent, I'm just not sure it's necessary at all. Did a situation arise where you actually needed this ?


To me, the ideal is to resolve an honest mistake in a manner that doesn't impact other players. The problem is when B was going to surprise attack on C's grande region and C made a move not expecting that... but then everyone is told to re-choose because A goofed. B has lost the element of surprise because of A's error. Now C is either going to defend his grande or deliberately attack B. I would prefer if A's errorcase is resolved algorithmically so as not to give B and C a do-over after B's preferred plan is revealed and revoked by A's misplay.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conan Meriadoc
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thatmarkguy wrote:
To me, the ideal is to resolve an honest mistake in a manner that doesn't impact other players. The problem is when B was going to surprise attack on C's grande region and C made a move not expecting that... but then everyone is told to re-choose because A goofed. B has lost the element of surprise because of A's error. Now C is either going to defend his grande or deliberately attack B. I would prefer if A's errorcase is resolved algorithmically so as not to give B and C a do-over after B's preferred plan is revealed and revoked by A's misplay.


Makes sense. In that case, I'd go for P1 in both cases.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Canner
United Kingdom
Exeter
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My reason for wanting to create such house rules, is exactly the situation described by Mark

It hasn't arisen for us yet. But if it does happen, I expect B will be annoyed that their surprise attack has been spoiled. See discussion in the above thread: Veto (and othere rules) explained by Wolfgang Kramer .

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Canner
United Kingdom
Exeter
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks everyone. Following the above feedback, I plan to use penalty P1 as a house rule for both the above cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob Flowers

Odenton
Unspecified
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Another option, which I think is what I use in tournaments, is that the person executing the action gets to choose.
 
 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.