Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Crown of Roses» Forums » Rules

Subject: Influence Tokens? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
#54 Political Clout (and I believe there are one or two cards with similar event) says to move five Influence Tokens from the RoP to your Stock.

The term Token seems a leftover from older rules and should probably mean IP Marker, the term used in the rulebook. But is the card correct in that you move up to five Markers (of any value), as opposed to five actual Influence Points? This would mean, I suppose, that a player always benefits from using several markers of lower denominations rather than a single one (say a 2, 2 and a 1 rather than a 5). Feels kind of weird.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bleh, good catch...and I swear that was one we caught pre-production! Always amazes me how some of these things make it past the cutting room floor when there are 4, 5, 6+ pairs of eyes reviewing everything...

It should be "Influence /POINTS/", not Markers, right SAC?


EDIT: No, you're right...it should just be "Markers", not "Tokens"... You're taking them OFF the Roll of Parliament, and returning them to your unused Stock....

-K

Delirium_EU wrote:
#54 Political Clout (and I believe there are one or two cards with similar event) says to move five Influence Tokens from the RoP to your Stock.

The term Token seems a leftover from older rules and should probably mean IP Marker, the term used in the rulebook. But is the card correct in that you move up to five Markers (of any value), as opposed to five actual Influence Points? This would mean, I suppose, that a player always benefits from using several markers of lower denominations rather than a single one (say a 2, 2 and a 1 rather than a 5). Feels kind of weird.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why do you say they benefit from using several smaller? With regard to this particular card, perhaps....but a single IP marker may look a lot less threatening to a player than a stack of IP markers.

There is no single "best strategy" for many aspects of the game, which is (IMO) why some groups tend to take a very, very long time for each turn. Searching for an optimal strategy/play is not (IMO) an idea way to play CoR if you are looking for a shorter length game *g*. There are many strategies that can prove successful, and many options that are open to each player during their turn.

-K
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I am not completely certain we are talking about the same thing here.

To make sure, cards #50, #53, #54, that refer to "Influence Tokens" should read "Influence Markers" instead, so that's errata, I guess.

Since one Marker can be worth 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 Influence Points and you can make change at will before placing Markers on the Roll of Parliament, it seems uncontroversial to me that one way to mitigate the effects of these three cards would be to use low value Markers rather than high value ones. Don't know that that's "best strategy", just seems like common sense to me.

The topic of game length seems to belong somewhere else I think.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, for those specific cards you might want to commit your 0's, 1's and 2 value markers to the RoP as preventative "insurance" versus someone playing those cards on you.

However, you may also want to keep your 0 IP markers back for other uses (remember, you can't get these back until the IP phase...and only those that are not in use on the RoP).

But...in addition, if you saw Lancaster place one IP markers on a minor Noble, or maybe one with a bunch of pro-Lanc roses, would you be likely to be as concerned about that play vs. if Lancaster placed 2 or 3 markers on the same Noble? Or what if Lancaster placed a single IP marker on Warwick in a 2 player game? Does York "blow" this event card under the assumption that that single IP marker is a 5+? Or does he use the Card for something else since it would be a "waste" to use it on a single IP token? Or maybe Lanc. puts a single 0 IP token on Warwick, and now York /does/ blow that card..wasting a valuable 3 OPS card for nothing.

This is what I meant about "over-thinking" and trying to come up with an optimal play (e.g. you're suggestion that one should consider always playing smaller IP's on the RoP). CoR does not have many "optimal plays", so while you are correct that playing many low IP's /is/ better in view of these Cards, one can make counter-arguments that playing single HIGH IP markers is better for /other/ reasons.

In the end, the "optimal" (and I use that term loosely) strategy is likely mixing and matching both styles...so that an opponent never knows whether your stack of IP marker are all 0's and 1's, or whether your single IP marker is a high IP value, or not. Keep your opponent guessing and he'll have to assume all your IP markers are 3's, 5's or higher....

-K

Delirium_EU wrote:
I am not completely certain we are talking about the same thing here.

To make sure, cards #50, #53, #54, that refer to "Influence Tokens" should read "Influence Markers" instead, so that's errata, I guess.

Since one Marker can be worth 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 Influence Points and you can make change at will before placing Markers on the Roll of Parliament, it seems uncontroversial to me that one way to mitigate the effects of these three cards would be to use low value Markers rather than high value ones. Don't know that that's "best strategy", just seems like common sense to me.

The topic of game length seems to belong somewhere else I think.


edit: 1 (typo)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Björn Engqvist
Sweden
Goteborg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I think you overestimate my understanding of this game if you believe I am looking for optimal plays at this stage, Kevin. The reason I brought this up is because the card came up during our latest game and it made more sense to us to remove points rather than markers and I later started to wonder if that was correct.

It is good news that the strategy is not as straightforward as it looked to us, you bring up several good points that I will try during our next game.

This discussion also brought to my attention that we have been too frivolous with our 0 markers, thanks for the heads up, as well as realizing we have played the Ally Influence ability slightly wrong. Still learning stuff at this end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Bernatz
United States
Alexandria
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Delirium_EU wrote:
I think you overestimate my understanding of this game


How can that be, you're a genius! :-) :-)

Anyway, you're right that "token" was what we had earlier in playtesting, but went with "marker" to be consistent with other markers. It is a powerful card, for sure, but most 3 OPS cards are. And, as mentioned above, there are ways to make it less painful when played, either by strategic use of bluffing or just begging and pleading with your opponent devil

-K
 
 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.