Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Revolution: The Dutch Revolt 1568-1648» Forums » General

Subject: Palazzo Farnese rules rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is an alternative list of clarifications for Dutch Revolt, which try to be closer to the rules and often contradict Phalanx rulings.



General principle: follow the literal meaning of the rules as published (in the box) unless there is an obvious omission or contradiction.

5.5 and 6.13 [change] you can "overflow over Neutrals". The Neutrals are simply eliminated.

5.8 [change] tokens in Support boxes do not count for the Nobility VPs

6.1 [clarification] you can choose a city tax level which would cause you tax total to exceed your current number of tokens. In that case, your receive all your tokens as florins. Example: I have 8 resource tokens and 3 cities. I can tax at 3 florin per city. I would only receive 8 florins.

6.2.2 [add] when Huguenots intercept Spanish gold, the florin received by the intercepting player is the Huguenot token.

6.3 [clarification] abandoned armies still exist until the end of the turn, but the owning player cannot take any action (no siege, no influence, no movement). The abandoned army still combats and still prevents influence from other players (but not from the owning player)

6.8 [add] a besieging army is still considered to occupy a box in the command box. (preventing other armies form entering the box in movement)

6.9 [add] a besieging army may not exert military influence.

6.10 [clarification] on turns 1-5, the owner of the province card can put any number of units in the province, even if he has already been eliminated from the province. Other players can put 1 new unit for 1 existing friendly unit at the time of placement (even units in besieged cities count).

6.17 [clarification] units in cities never count for province control (on turns 1-5 like on turn 0).

6.18 [change] if the neutrals (or no faction) control a bishopric on turns 1-5, the status of the bishopric does not change. It is not reset to Catholic.

6.20 [add] in case of ties in VP between 2 players, keep the same turn order as in the preceding turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for clarifying that this is merely an alternative list rather than yet another "approved" one.

Interesting variant you play. I am interested in the justification for the "clarifications" which violate your own general principle. Namely:

olivier6 wrote:
General principle: follow the literal meaning of the rules as published (in the box) unless there is an obvious omission or contradiction.

5.5 and 6.13 [change] you can "overflow over Neutrals". The Neutrals are simply eliminated.

6.17 [clarification] units in cities never count for province control (on turns 1-5 like on turn 0).

6.18 [change] if the neutrals (or no faction) control a bishopric on turns 1-5, the status of the bishopric does not change. It is not reset to Catholic.


Also interested in what support you found in the rules for:

olivier6 wrote:
6.1 [clarification] you can choose a city tax level which would cause you tax total to exceed your current number of tokens. In that case, your receive all your tokens as florins. Example: I have 8 resource tokens and 3 cities. I can tax at 3 florin per city. I would only receive 8 florins.

6.10 [clarification] on turns 1-5, the owner of the province card can put any number of units in the province, even if he has already been eliminated from the province. Other players can put 1 new unit for 1 existing friendly unit at the time of placement (even units in besieged cities count).


We played our first game with your 6.17 variant before finding that the rules specify otherwise. It is an excellent variant in my opinion.

-Steve
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
@olivier6: Interesting set. I'm particularly intruiged by your suggestion to not 'reset' the allegiance marker to catholic if a bishopric goes uncontrolled. Does it make a difference in your experience? (It wouldn't have been during any of the games I played to date, which is why I didn't bother with it.)

Ward wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that this is merely an alternative list rather than yet another "approved" one.

Yet another 'approved' one? Are there more approved rule variants then?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve, thanks for your interest. I agree that this exercise is a bit of an advanced exegesis, and my reasons are somewhat subjective, but here goes :

5.5 and 6.13 is an "obvious omission", because the overflow rules as written make overflow impossible after turn 0! (because all areas will be full). So you have to decide something.

6.17 respects my general rule, because 5.7 say that units in cities do not count. There is an ambiguous "at this stage" which suggested to some that this is no longer the case on turns 1-5, but I understand it to mean "during this phase". Note that "at this stage" does not appear in the German rules. But to be honest, the main reason is that I find the game better that way.

6.18 is a "contradiction" in the rules as written. The contradiction occurs if a strongly reformed bishopric becomes controlled by neutrals. Moving it back to Catholic makes it move 2 boxes, which contradicts the "1 box per turn" rule. Also, in the spirit of the rules, a neutral control should have the same effect as a Noble control. I think that the sentence about neutral control on turns 1-5 is an erroneous "copy and paste" from turn 0.

6.1 : the rules do not specifically forbid players to set a tax level which they will be unable to comply with because of resource constraints(otherwise, it would create other problems : what if a taxing player has zero resource ?) So I take it to be allowed.

6.10 the most economical way of ruling consistently with the rules. The rules say "1 for 1 if you don't control" without precision or qualification, so besieged units should count. Likewise, "as many new units as you want if you control", so no qualification on still having units there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maarten, on bishopric control by neutral, see my answer to Steve. The rule could make a difference in rare cases. In particular, if you don't use my clarification, it can create a paradoxical Catholic tactics:

If you don't use my clrification, then the best way for the Catholics to regain control of Strongly Reformed Bishopric would be to have it controlled by neutrals ! rather than by Catholics (which would only push it back to Reformed). This is paradoxical, hence my rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the thoughtful reasoning for your decisions. It's good to see something more than "I like it better that way" as justification for rule changes.

olivier6 wrote:
Steve, thanks for your interest. I agree that this exercise is a bit of an advanced exegesis, and my reasons are somewhat subjective, but here goes :

5.5 and 6.13 is an "obvious omission", because the overflow rules as written make overflow impossible after turn 0! (because all areas will be full). So you have to decide something.


As always, a hot potato topic. We decided to stick with the original rules and disagree with the "obvious omission" judgement. Overflow is not impossible after Turn 0 though. If you don't believe me, play a 3 or 4 player game with players who will focus on the economic aspects of the game (i.e. armies and citizen allegiance) and see how it happens. Players will tend to raise more tax and hold more over for the allegiance table making fewer available for the gameboard. Combine that with filled support boxes and viola! Overflow as per the original rules. Nonetheless, you rule is a very common variant as near as one can tell. People want the game to be more fluid like many other wargames. If it's what makes you enjoy it more, than that's the key anyhow, right?

olivier6 wrote:
6.17 respects my general rule, because 5.7 say that units in cities do not count. There is an ambiguous "at this stage" which suggested to some that this is no longer the case on turns 1-5, but I understand it to mean "during this phase". Note that "at this stage" does not appear in the German rules. But to be honest, the main reason is that I find the game better that way.


Wow! Thank you so much for mentioning the difference between the languages. I agree that the game is better that way, but because of the common interpretation of the rulebook indicating that Turn 0 was unique, we changed to that interpretation. The fact that the German rulebook is not as abiguous will make me reconsider our change. By counting cities for province control, it makes it easier on the Catholics because they no longer have to balance city control (taxes) with province control (bishoprics).

olivier6 wrote:
6.18 is a "contradiction" in the rules as written. The contradiction occurs if a strongly reformed bishopric becomes controlled by neutrals. Moving it back to Catholic makes it move 2 boxes, which contradicts the "1 box per turn" rule. Also, in the spirit of the rules, a neutral control should have the same effect as a Noble control. I think that the sentence about neutral control on turns 1-5 is an erroneous "copy and paste" from turn 0.


Interesting take, but I think I would solve the paradox by making a Catholic controlled bishopric revert to Catholic (if it is not already on that side of center) rather than changing the reset for neutrals. It allows the reform factions to systematically take one bishopric at a time and leave it behind after conversion to be controlled by neutrals. It would seem that for such a reform movement to take hold, the bishopric would need to be held long term. Interesting take on it though.

olivier6 wrote:
6.1 : the rules do not specifically forbid players to set a tax level which they will be unable to comply with because of resource constraints(otherwise, it would create other problems : what if a taxing player has zero resource ?) So I take it to be allowed.


Well, it doesn't say specifically that you can or can not set such a tax. However, it does state that all cities must be taxes at the same rate. If read literally, this would mean that you could not set your tax rate at 3 if you have 3 cities and only 8 stock because one of them would only be paying 2 in tax, correct?

olivier6 wrote:
6.10 the most economical way of ruling consistently with the rules. The rules say "1 for 1 if you don't control" without precision or qualification, so besieged units should count. Likewise, "as many new units as you want if you control", so no qualification on still having units there.


Yeah, we came across this one in our first game too. At the time, we decided as you did. Afterwards, upon looking at the discussion on the rule, we have decided that the reasoning that the first criteria (presence) must be met before the second criteria (how many) comes into play. I'm not too convinced either way is better or worse, but it would be nice to have a consistent standard to go by.

Thanks again for the insightful explanation.

-Steve
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Overflow is not impossible after Turn 0 though. If you don't believe me, play a 3 or 4 player game with players who will focus on the economic aspects of the game (i.e. armies and citizen allegiance) and see how it happens.


How is it possible ? Even if players concentrate on economics, the neutrals will fill the provinces to the maximum, leaving no space for overflow. Am I missing something ?

Quote:
By counting cities for province control, it makes it easier on the Catholics because they no longer have to balance city control (taxes) with province control (bishoprics).


I would think that it makes things even easier for the Reformers, who are the most powerful of the city dwellers, thus increasing potential play-balance problems (Reformers win too often). Not sure about that.

Quote:
However, it does state that all cities must be taxes at the same rate. If read literally, this would mean that you could not set your tax rate at 3 if you have 3 cities and only 8 stock because one of them would only be paying 2 in tax, correct?


I'm really splitting hair, but I disagree. In my view, the limitation is on the tax policy, not on whether you can actually implement it. Suppose you have 3 cities and 2 resource. You have to tax something. Say you tax 1. Your resources do not allow you to collect your whole tax, so there is a discrepancy between you tax policy (3 florins) and your actual collection (2 florins). This is fine, otherwise it creates impossible situations. Likewise, if you have 8 resource you can tax 3x3. You're just not able to collect. If you have 9 resource of course you have to collect everything, you can't tax 3+3+2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
olivier6 wrote:
How is it possible ? Even if players concentrate on economics, the neutrals will fill the provinces to the maximum, leaving no space for overflow. Am I missing something ?


You run out of neutrals when they are all on the board. Provinces can't be filled leading to Overflow. Yes, it is rare, but according to messages from the developer, it is supposed to be rare. We haven't changed the Overflow rules and have no problem enjoying the game as is.

olivier6 wrote:
I would think that it makes things even easier for the Reformers, who are the most powerful of the city dwellers, thus increasing potential play-balance problems (Reformers win too often). Not sure about that.


I'm not sure what makes the Reformers "the most powerful of the city dwellers". They often have the fewest cities because they can't easily defend the ones they start with. They also don't gain the extra VP for province control that the Catholics do with the bishoprics.

olivier6 wrote:
I'm really splitting hair, but I disagree. In my view, the limitation is on the tax policy, not on whether you can actually implement it. Suppose you have 3 cities and 2 resource. You have to tax something. Say you tax 1. Your resources do not allow you to collect your whole tax, so there is a discrepancy between you tax policy (3 florins) and your actual collection (2 florins). This is fine, otherwise it creates impossible situations. Likewise, if you have 8 resource you can tax 3x3. You're just not able to collect. If you have 9 resource of course you have to collect everything, you can't tax 3+3+2.


Yeah, it is splitting hairs and I'm not convinced one way is better/worse or right/wrong. The FAQ interpretation makes sense to me and it plays fine, but if Phalanx were to clarify it in favor of your interpretation, I have no issue with that.

As for Phalanx, it's been quoted that there are Phalanx-approved FAQ and Errata, but the only official Phalanx ones are on their website. The rest seem to be derived via communications with the developer. In my discussions with Uli, he specifically stated to not believe everything attributed to him because he can't control what people post for him. Phalanx should get on the ball and update their website FAQ/Errata before the whole rules debate degrades this great game any further.

-Steve
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
olivier6 wrote:
Quote:
Overflow is not impossible after Turn 0 though. If you don't believe me, play a 3 or 4 player game with players who will focus on the economic aspects of the game (i.e. armies and citizen allegiance) and see how it happens.


How is it possible ? Even if players concentrate on economics, the neutrals will fill the provinces to the maximum, leaving no space for overflow. Am I missing something ?


Yes, you are missing something. You're missing Steve's refusal to accept the FAQ and clarifications from Uli, even though in a 5 player game, it makes overflow nigh impossible...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Dieringer
United States
Schenectady
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Sigh, my 2 cents (as copied from the PBEM rules discussion from a while back):

Ok, I think that the ruling that neutral pieces do not count does have some weight. In overflow, it states that units cannot be placed in regions that have not reached the province limit. (6.13) What is the definition of province limit? Rule 2.1 says that it is the maximum number of resource playing pieces that can occupy a province. Rules 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 makes a clear distinction that neutral pieces are not resource playing pieces. According to this very literal interpretation of the rules, a province is not at its limit if neutrals are present. I thought this would cause a problem with conflict, but in fact under 6.11, there is an exception stating that for purposes of conflict, neutral pieces are considered to be a faction (resource playing piece). The only oddity is in rule 6.12. What does it mean to meet but not exceed the province limit now?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
chemist wrote:
Sigh, my 2 cents (as copied from the PBEM rules discussion from a while back):

Ok, I think that the ruling that neutral pieces do not count does have some weight. In overflow, it states that units cannot be placed in regions that have not reached the province limit. (6.13) What is the definition of province limit? Rule 2.1 says that it is the maximum number of resource playing pieces that can occupy a province. Rules 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 makes a clear distinction that neutral pieces are not resource playing pieces. According to this very literal interpretation of the rules, a province is not at its limit if neutrals are present. I thought this would cause a problem with conflict, but in fact under 6.11, there is an exception stating that for purposes of conflict, neutral pieces are considered to be a faction (resource playing piece). The only oddity is in rule 6.12. What does it mean to meet but not exceed the province limit now?


And the response in that discussion:

Quote:
Excellent job on deduction there Jon. It is in fact how the rules are stated, except I disagree that a "clear distinction" is made that neutral pieces are not resource playing pieces. The distinction that is made is that the factions are called resource playing pieces in section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 calls the neutrals just playing pieces. However, if that literal read of the rules is used, all of the neutrals will be on the board from the start of the game because they can never "bring the number of all resource playing pieces in each province up to 1 less the Province Limit" (see 5.4) if they are not to be considered resource playing pieces. Additionally, player pieces are also called playing pieces and resource pieces elsewhere in the rules. I read 2.2.2 Resource Pieces to define resource playing pieces as opposed to army playing pieces (see 2.2.1) of the factions. Neutrals have no armies, so no clarification or distinction is needed in 2.2.3 - they are the only playing pieces available to the "neutrals".


Now, I see no need to rehash that discussion once again. Anyone interested in it can go to Brad's PBEM group (the link is on the Revolution entry page) and follow it in context.

As for Brad's statement, it is obvious that you still have some issues with me because your argument had nothing to do with the points that were being made regarding Overflow. I'm not refusing to follow the FAQ/Errata and Uli's clarifications, just the FAQ/Errata that is not supported by the rulebook. In fact, I am following Uli's clarifications through correspondence with him. So Brad, if you are going to interrupt an intelligent discussion, please stick with facts rather than personal attacks. There were enough of them in your PBEM group and there is no need to bring them to the Geek.

I'm not sure why it matters whether it is possible in every game. If it is possible in a non-5-player game, shouldn't it be included for those not playing a full game? If they didn't include the rule because it wouldn't happen in a full game, isn't that irresponsible to those playing with fewer players. What point is trying to be made by "Why is it in the rules if it can't always happen?" As long as it can, that is enough reason to have it.

Most games have house rules - why would Revolution be any different? There are many optional Overflow rules already developed, so quick bickering about it and play the variant you prefer. Olivier chose the more fluid option which is fine with me. I just prefer to play it with the original rules instead.

-Steve

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
And to add my 2 cents to the mix: I think the entire Overflow discussion is moot. Crudely put, a waste of time and effort.

Why? Because Overflow is meant to be rare (Uli's own words on Spielbox, will look up the link---and if he doesn't want to be quoted on that, he shouldn't answer questions in the first place), and with the Phalanx variant it only happens about 2 to 3 times in a 5-player game. Mind, that is facilitated Overflow, so I conjecture that as published Overflow is even rarer. (Does someone have numbers for their style of play?) Because you can only move small numbers of units into adjacent provinces (people don't usually underpopulate their hard-fought areas, so the number of neutrals is likely to be small), the effect is marginal. Not neglegible, because everything is linked, but by no means sufficient to conclude that a game was won because someone managed to sneak in 1 extra unit in a certain area. In other words: the confusion over which variant to use is not particularly fruitful. The game doesn't change sufficiently to warrant all the attention this issue is getting. If you want to play with the rules as published: go ahead. If you want to play with the variant to at least have some other means of entering heavily defended provinces as the base game offers precious few: go ahead too, you can select from 4 or 5 different suggestions; one of those is the very much official and nearly de facto standard Phalanx variant.

Revolution as published is a thoughtful and slow game, and by no means comparable to the place'n'conquer of Civilization. Without rearranging the order of conflict and overflow, they won't ever resemble one another. Revolution is a game where careful timing and judging delicate situations are everything, and that feeling hardly ever changes: the game is quite resilient to the majority of suggested changes.

Of course, it leaves out the intent of Francis Tresham himself (which is about the only thing which would really interest me at this moment); I think one of our fellow BGG'ers voiced the intent to corner the man during Essen 2006 and proceed to torture him with questions on the matter.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ward wrote:


Now, I see no need to rehash that discussion once again. Anyone interested in it can go to Brad's PBEM group (the link is on the Revolution entry page) and follow it in context.

As for Brad's statement, it is obvious that you still have some issues with me because your argument had nothing to do with the points that were being made regarding Overflow. I'm not refusing to follow the FAQ/Errata and Uli's clarifications, just the FAQ/Errata that is not supported by the rulebook. In fact, I am following Uli's clarifications through correspondence with him. So Brad, if you are going to interrupt an intelligent discussion, please stick with facts rather than personal attacks. There were enough of them in your PBEM group and there is no need to bring them to the Geek.



I have issues because I asked Uli directly in an email:

"Do you count neutrals when overflowing" and the response from him was "No", and for some reason, you refuse to accept that, and keep teaching people and posting here to the contrary. Nothing personal about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cymric wrote:
and with the Phalanx variant


What is the "Phalanx variant" and where has Phalanx published it? The only Errata affecting it refers to running out of Neutrals (thereby clarifying to the non-believers when such a circumstance would happen). Let's not confuse an "Uli responded to my email" variants with Phalanx approved changes. It is the crux of the problem and the source of much of the confusion.

cymric wrote:
one of those is the very much official and nearly de facto standard Phalanx variant.


Again, what makes it "very much official"?

cymric wrote:
Of course, it leaves out the intent of Francis Tresham himself (which is about the only thing which would really interest me at this moment


Yes, this would be nice but Mr. Tresham's involvement in the game was primarily just the conceptual design, not the development. He came up with the overall concept, some sketches of the mapboard and a bunch of notes. My interest is in what was developed and playtested by Phalanx prior to publication. I find it hard to believe that such a gross error, if there was one, would get published. Let's face it, who had read through the rules and immediately didn't start scratching their heads when they got to Overflow trying to figure out if it is possible? Do you really think that the rulebook writers and editors missed that? I guess I have higher regard for Uli and Phalanx then to think that got through accidentally.

Stating "Uli said this" and "Uli said that" is pointless because he has been attributed to posts changing and unchanging Overflow. As Maarten has already pointed out, the interpretation of the rules changes each time you get a clarification from Phalanx (Uli). So when faced with "official" or "approved" but conflicting FAQ/Errata, what should you do? I think you have to go back to the default, which is the published rules. What gets me in all this is that there are people fighting tooth and nail (no names) for these types of changes BEFORE they have even played the game. They've NEVER played it by the published rules before tweaking them. That would imply that the game was broken as published, which it is far from. The game plays GREAT as published and everyone should at least try to play the game AS PUBLISHED and AS DEVELOPED before passing judgement on its rules.

-Steve

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maarten,

I don't think that overflow is a minor issue. In my last game, as the Nobility, it was a major part of my strategy - I used it every turn. I would put all my new units in Liege (which I controlled 100%) and then use overflow to rearrange my positions in the neighboring provinces.

At the moment I am almost convinced by Steve's point of view (restricted overflow, no overflow over neutral). It is indeed closer to the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Ward wrote:
cymric wrote:
and with the Phalanx variant

What is the "Phalanx variant" and where has Phalanx published it? The only Errata affecting it refers to running out of Neutrals (thereby clarifying to the non-believers when such a circumstance would happen). Let's not confuse an "Uli responded to my email" variants with Phalanx approved changes. It is the crux of the problem and the source of much of the confusion.

You make it sound as if people would have genuine reason to fake discussions with Uli---over a boardgame no less---just to prove they are right. Excuse me for saying this, but this level of distrust is borderline paranoia. If I ask Uli a question, I can reasonably expect his answer to be what he would give to everyone. If an answer on a forum is clearly his (because it is signed with his name) then I can reasonably expect the same. Of course it is very much possible that I am communicating with an impostor, or that the forum post is a figment of my imagination, all of whom/which are bent on ruining my Revolution experience. If Uli doesn't want people quoting him, or using his answers in discussions, he should bloody well shut up altoghether.

Since he settled on the 'neutrals don't count'-interpretation in November 2004, his answer on that has been remarkably consistent, namely: neutrals don't count for Overflow. I have no idea why that isn't listed on the Phalanx site---I suspect that the computer upgrades of Phalanx and their mother company 999 Games last year are to blame, because it was listed for quite some time. Perhaps this post on Spielbox will change your mind: http://www.spielbox.de/phorum4/read.php4?f=1&i=99670&t=99655 . And if not, go and ask the man. Send him an email. But of course, if you practice what you preach, you won't, because that would make it an 'Uli responded to my email'-kinda thing.

In addition, Uli isn't as shifty with his replies as you think he is; I'll address that issue below.

Quote:
cymric wrote:
one of those is the very much official and nearly de facto standard Phalanx variant.

Again, what makes it "very much official"?

Because Uli says so, and he says so consistently.

Quote:
Stating "Uli said this" and "Uli said that" is pointless because he has been attributed to posts changing and unchanging Overflow. As Maarten has already pointed out, the interpretation of the rules changes each time you get a clarification from Phalanx (Uli). So when faced with "official" or "approved" but conflicting FAQ/Errata, what should you do? I think you have to go back to the default, which is the published rules. What gets me in all this is that there are people fighting tooth and nail (no names) for these types of changes BEFORE they have even played the game. They've NEVER played it by the published rules before tweaking them. That would imply that the game was broken as published, which it is far from. The game plays GREAT as published and everyone should at least try to play the game AS PUBLISHED and AS DEVELOPED before passing judgement on its rules.

You are very conveniently ignoring the entire time frame of the discussion on Overflow. There was genuine confusion right after the game was released during Essen 2004. That was solved about 6 weeks later---albeit very inelegantly---and since then, no other answers have been given. I would very much like to see messages from Uli or reports from people having asked Uli dated after, say, december 2004 where Uli says that neutrals do count for Overflow: I haven't found any. (And I have looked long and hard.)

The only issue I know of where genuine conflicting answers exist is the issue on how to resolve intraprovince movement, rule 6.14. That is also why the Living FAQ has two answers to that question. The rest of his answers is---as far as I could make out while creating that document---always consistent. It's people's answers which are shifty; and yes, I plead guilty as charged. That is why you will find the source of the answers meticulously marked. I had not imagined that someone would go as far as to implicitly question even that.

Finally, you cannot honestly blame people for asking because they sense something is not right or because they don't understand, getting an answer, and then following the directions in that answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
olivier6 wrote:
I don't think that overflow is a minor issue. In my last game, as the Nobility, it was a major part of my strategy - I used it every turn. I would put all my new units in Liege (which I controlled 100%) and then use overflow to rearrange my positions in the neighboring provinces.

Eh? How did you control Liège---a big province---so early that you could use overflow 'every' turn? And do you remember how many units you were able to displace? I count myself lucky if it's a single unit to a province I am not at all interested in!

Quote:
At the moment I am almost convinced by Steve's point of view (restricted overflow, no overflow over neutral). It is indeed closer to the rules.

*Shrug*. If you feel that way, go for it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am sorry that this subject is so sensitive. I did not realize that.

Anyway, to answer your question from memory, I used overflow on turn 3,4,5 and possible 2 as well. I used it to displace neutrals in Namur (1), Hainaut (2 or 3), Limburg (1), Masstricht (1), Julich (maybe 1 or 0), Generality (1) and Brabant (1 or 2). The Catholics used it in Gelderland (1) and Trier (1). The Burghers used it in Drenthe.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is ironic that a game about theological debate should generate such heated debates about the "True Rules". Could have been written by Jorge Luis Borges
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cymric wrote:
If I ask Uli a question, I can reasonably expect his answer to be what he would give to everyone. If an answer on a forum is clearly his (because it is signed with his name) then I can reasonably expect the same.


You've already posted on the other thread that the interpretation changes with every response from Uli. Perhaps your expectations are unreasonable, although they should be correct.

cymric wrote:
Of course it is very much possible that I am communicating with an impostor, or that the forum post is a figment of my imagination, all of whom/which are bent on ruining my Revolution experience.


Now that's paranoia and up til now, you're the only one suggesting that.

cymric wrote:
Since he settled on the 'neutrals don't count'-interpretation in November 2004, his answer on that has been remarkably consistent, namely: neutrals don't count for Overflow. I have no idea why that isn't listed on the Phalanx site---I suspect that the computer upgrades of Phalanx and their mother company 999 Games last year are to blame, because it was listed for quite some time. Perhaps this post on Spielbox will change your mind: http://www.spielbox.de/phorum4/read.php4?f=1&i=99670&t=99655 .


That post is merely a copypaste of the post on BGG. Immediately preceding that file here, submitted on the same date, is a correspondence with Uli that states specifically that no changes are necessary. How have you been able to rule out the possibility that Uli or Phalanx changed their mind about the change either after reviewing the impact or after discussions with the playtesters or designer? Instead, you reason that that one line of code from the FAQ/Errata was suspiciously deleted during some computer upgrade. shake

cymric wrote:
And if not, go and ask the man. Send him an email. But of course, if you practice what you preach, you won't, because that would make it an 'Uli responded to my email'-kinda thing.


Actually, I have had many correspondences with Uli about these exact issues. That is why I am convinced that these changes being made via FAQs are wrong - at least in their treatment as THE new rules. However, I do not argue that the original rules are right because Uli has said so, but because they were the publshed rules that have been playtested prior to publication and they play absolutely fine. Why everyone is trying to change something that is not broke is beyond me.

cymric wrote:
You are very conveniently ignoring the entire time frame of the discussion on Overflow. There was genuine confusion right after the game was released during Essen 2004. That was solved about 6 weeks later---albeit very inelegantly---and since then, no other answers have been given. I would very much like to see messages from Uli or reports from people having asked Uli dated after, say, december 2004 where Uli says that neutrals do count for Overflow: I haven't found any. (And I have looked long and hard.)


Convenient cutoff date you've set - the month after the post here stating not to change the rules. Who was confused right after the game was released? Are the rules not clear regarding Overflow, or are they just not what YOU expect them to be. They seem pretty simple and straightforward to me. If the province limit has been reached, you can't Overflow into it. Where is the confusion there?!?! Perhaps adjusting YOUR game to the published version would be more appropriate than adjusting the published game to suit your taste/expectations.

cymric wrote:
The only issue I know of where genuine conflicting answers exist is the issue on how to resolve intraprovince movement, rule 6.14. That is also why the Living FAQ has two answers to that question.


Again, the rules were clear enough - only the clarifications brought about confusion.

cymric wrote:
Finally, you cannot honestly blame people for asking because they sense something is not right or because they don't understand, getting an answer, and then following the directions in that answer.


Whose blaming who for what? I was discussing Olivier's rules in a thoughtful discussion when the thread got hijacked by yourself and Brad taking shots at me for ... defending the published rules. How dare I!!! Who am I to think the publisher knows more than the players who want to tinker. Shame shame on me!

Olivier,

I apologize for discussing your thread publicly and leading to this degradation. I guess I should have stuck to a dialogue via private messages to gain insight from your experience. I thought that open discussions were a part of the BGG community and the purpose of Forum threads. I did not expect the ambush from those lying in wait. Should you wish to discuss these items and your experience using your rules further, feel free to PM me. I'd be interested to read more about it.

-Steve
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ward wrote:

Whose blaming who for what? I was discussing Olivier's rules in a thoughtful discussion when the thread got hijacked by yourself and Brad taking shots at me for ... defending the published rules. How dare I!!! Who am I to think the publisher knows more than the players who want to tinker. Shame shame on me!


I didn't hijack the thread. You brought it all up with the "where in the rules do you see support for this" comment.

The rules as written have several places where the publisher of the game has made clarifications and erratta. You don't like this particular one, and so you try to mock those who accept it as valid.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Dieringer
United States
Schenectady
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
I looked at the Italian, German and Dutch rules on the Phalanx website and all three state that neutral pieces do not count for overflow. This was omitted in the English version of the rules. Does that mean that English speaking players should play this differently than Europeans? Maybe it just got lost in translation. We may all have to agree to disagree here.

Let's get back to topic: My comments on Farnese rules:

Quote:
5.5 and 6.13 [change] you can "overflow over Neutrals". The Neutrals are simply eliminated.


I wonder how much effect eliminating the neutral really has on the game. If there is 1 left over, he will simply be beaten out in the next conflict phase. There is probably a few specific situations that this will make a difference, but for clarity of the gameboard, I kind of like the change. Don;t know if I will use it or not.

Quote:
5.8 [change] tokens in Support boxes do not count for the Nobility VPs


Seems to be official.

Quote:
6.1 [clarification] you can choose a city tax level which would cause you tax total to exceed your current number of tokens. In that case, your receive all your tokens as florins. Example: I have 8 resource tokens and 3 cities. I can tax at 3 florin per city. I would only receive 8 florins.


This was hotly debated in our face to face game. In the end, we decided to use your ruling. It all comes down to if you feel that managing your resource piece supply is really that important. Adds another dimension, although somewhat unnecessary.

Quote:
6.2.2 [add] when Huguenots intercept Spanish gold, the florin received by the intercepting player is the Huguenot token.


This seems to make most sense. We debated this one too, but allowed the piece to stay there. The reasoning being that the rules state that this piece is not eligible for interception this turn if he has already stolen a piece, meaning it is still there. I like your ruling though as its a cost to get something instead of getting it for free. I will try this one out.

Quote:
6.3 [clarification] abandoned armies still exist until the end of the turn, but the owning player cannot take any action (no siege, no influence, no movement). The abandoned army still combats and still prevents influence from other players (but not from the owning player)


I will come back at a later time on this as I need to think on it.

Quote:
6.8 [add] a besieging army is still considered to occupy a box in the command box. (preventing other armies form entering the box in movement)


Same here

Quote:
6.9 [add] a besieging army may not exert military influence.


Seems somewhat official as Uli has stated the same thing.

Quote:
6.10 [clarification] on turns 1-5, the owner of the province card can put any number of units in the province, even if he has already been eliminated from the province. Other players can put 1 new unit for 1 existing friendly unit at the time of placement (even units in besieged cities count).


I wonder how likely this is to happen as it would take a major effort to make this happen in all but the 1 provinces. Do you have experience with this happening a lot?

Quote:
6.17 [clarification] units in cities never count for province control (on turns 1-5 like on turn 0).


One of my frustrations with the game is the changing of rules between turn 0 and the rest of the game. Makes it so frustrating to teach.

I would like to know your reasoning behind the changes as well as most of them are very subtle, interesting changes.

Thanks


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Miller
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know about that last one. I like the tradeoff between holding cities and being able to get new dudes in there and controlling the province. Otherwise why bother with the countryside?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jefferson,

I did not realize that Dutch, German and Italian rules say that you can overflow in areas where there are neutrals. That's interesting. I will modify my set of rules accordingly (the "overflowed neutrals" are not eliminated then).

For a discussion of my reasoning see the beginning of this thread (posts number 3 and 4). Actually, most of these changes are just decision needed to solve ambiguities or contradictions. I'd say the only substantial change is the 6.17 change (cities don't count for province control). It's the only one I would insist on.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Clementin
France
Paris
Paris
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Palazzo Farnese rules version 1.2

This is an alternative list of clarifications for Dutch Revolt, which try to be closer to the rules and often contradict Phalanx rulings.



General principle: follow the literal meaning of the rules as published (in the box) unless there is an obvious omission or contradiction.

5.5 and 6.13 [change] as indicated in the Dutch, German and Italian versions of the rules, you can "overflow over Neutrals". The Neutrals are not eliminated, there will be a temporary overstack.

5.8 [change] tokens in Support boxes do not count for the Nobility VPs

6.1 [clarification] you can choose a city tax level which would cause you tax total to exceed your current number of tokens. In that case, your receive all your tokens as florins. Example: I have 8 resource tokens and 3 cities. I can tax at 3 florin per city. I would only receive 8 florins.

6.2.2 [add] when Huguenots intercept Spanish gold, the florin received by the intercepting player is the Huguenot token.

6.3 [clarification] abandoned armies still exist until the end of the turn, but the owning player cannot take any action (no siege, no influence, no movement). The abandoned army still combats and still prevents influence from other players (but not from the owning player)

6.8 [add] a besieging army is still considered to occupy a box in the command box. (preventing other armies form entering the box in movement)

6.9 [add] a besieging army may not exert military influence.

6.10 [clarification] on turns 1-5, the owner of the province card can put any number of units in the province, even if he has already been eliminated from the province. Other players can put 1 new unit for 1 existing friendly unit at the time of placement (even units in besieged cities count).

6.15 [clarification] if you besiege a city in which you already have units, the 2 converted units are in addition to the existing one. Exemple: if you had 2 units in the besiged city, you end the turn with 4 units in the city.

6.17 [clarification] units in cities never count for province control (on turns 1-5 like on turn 0).

6.18 [change] if the neutrals (or no faction) control a bishopric on turns 1-5, the status of the bishopric does not change. It is not reset to Catholic.

6.20 [add] in case of ties in VP between 2 players, keep the same turn order as in the preceding turn.
 
 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.