by Slyght
The subject of this thread has some spoilers in it, I would suggest changing it to [SPOILERS] Rule 21↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILERS] Rule 21
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Stone Archway and Rule 6 [Spoiler]
His phrasing is a little foggy. He could also mean if you END your turn on a spot that requires a check?
↧
↧
Reply: Risk 2210 A.D.:: Reviews:: Re: Why I like this game but not as much as most others in the series
See, whac3 knows HOW the feature he likes/doesn't like affects the game.
I find this immensely valuable....too many opinions on bgg are 'this sucks because I don't like it.':what:
Personally, I'm past vanilla Risk--I think I personally would like this game more than most in the series. whac3 and I have different personal tastes in risk....but he understands how the games work so well I can use his knowledge to better make an informed purchase decision.
:thumbsup:
Even though I personally agree with the other posters who have issues with most risk games.
My dad likes risk, though, so I might be able to use this so both of us are happy.:)
Back to the game....and my liking to variant games....
It sounds like I will have to make some more cards,
1) probably increasing moon+earth conflict.
2) some other way to encourage game end, without turn limits (I don't like) or increasing reinforcements to insane levels (I really don't like).
I'll be thinking! Thanks everyone!
I find this immensely valuable....too many opinions on bgg are 'this sucks because I don't like it.':what:
Personally, I'm past vanilla Risk--I think I personally would like this game more than most in the series. whac3 and I have different personal tastes in risk....but he understands how the games work so well I can use his knowledge to better make an informed purchase decision.
:thumbsup:
Even though I personally agree with the other posters who have issues with most risk games.
My dad likes risk, though, so I might be able to use this so both of us are happy.:)
Back to the game....and my liking to variant games....
It sounds like I will have to make some more cards,
1) probably increasing moon+earth conflict.
2) some other way to encourage game end, without turn limits (I don't like) or increasing reinforcements to insane levels (I really don't like).
I'll be thinking! Thanks everyone!
↧
Reply: Risk 2210 A.D.:: Reviews:: Re: Why I like this game but not as much as most others in the series
marhawkman wrote:
akinfantryman wrote:
whac3 wrote:
akinfantryman wrote:
Do you have to end the game after 5 rounds?
Or is there something in the way the game is set up that keeps this from working?
Or is there something in the way the game is set up that keeps this from working?
Mmmmm...good point.
You know risk very well.
Still, I'm an impulsive variant-er. I could change things....there isn't any game mechanic that requires the 5 round limit, is there?
Anyways, The command card system kinda needs it, because as-written there is no rule for reshuffling the decks. As-is situations will arise where one of the more popular decks, often land, will get completely expended in only 5 rounds.
But realistically, it's a way to avoid deadlocks.
These are both exactly the answers I am looking for. Ending the game and running out of cards. Thanks to you both.
Edit: oops, I had this in a different tab and thought I submitted it yesterday.
↧
Thread: SeaFall:: Rules:: "Highest Rank"?
by Hexprone
How is the explorer's/soldier's guild member "of highest rank" determined for the purpose of seasonal events?Is a general check done at the time the event resolves? Does the event apply only to advisors who have already been interrogated and their rank established?
Not only is this not made clear in the rules, but our playgroup can't even agree on a way of doing it that seems to make sense.
↧
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by whipko
they qualify.↧
Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill: Widow's Walk:: Rules:: Re: Haunt #100 [Spoilers]
by Lumancer
The fact that one of the events allows you to change alliances from team to solo, combined with the fact that you put the challenges on your character card, makes be assume that a dead explorer's challenges would be lost. Still, formal clarification would be nice. Additionally:- can more than one trait be raised to 1+starting value as the haunt begins?
- obstacle 22 can cause give the "what the…" to move important rooms like landings. There should probably be further clarification for this obstacle.
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by Temelin
I also saw this in the FAQ today after our 6th game. The rest is spoilery:[o]We had been giving glory for things like explore/raid endeavors in the Captains Book that result from some dangerous waters cards. We were doing this because of the rule on page 10 explaining endeavors:
"If you did not roll a single success, or if your ship sank as a result of taking damage, the endeavor is a failure and your turn ends immediately. Otherwise, you succeed (even if you took damage).
Gain 1 glory for a successful endeavor, and your turn continues.
We have been playing that as long as you get 1 success in these type of endeavors, you have succeeded for 1 glory. It also made sense thematically to us that you would gain glory for venturing into the dangerous waters and exploring/raiding there.[/o]
So I'm really curious to know the answer to OP's question as well.
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by DaviddesJ
I think not. The word "endeavor" is used in multiple ways.↧
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: "Highest Rank"? [Mild spoilers]
by Slyght
JR told me it's only advisors with a visible rank written on them.Maybe put "Box 5 spoilers" in the subject
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILER] Rule 22
by Temelin
DaviddesJ wrote:
Not even close. I'm not even sure we have used any of the Raid +3 stickers. If you're upgrading an advisor that you're not going to keep (because the best one for you to keep has no empty slots) then there's no particular incentive to make a good upgrade. Often people put "incompatible" upgrades (i.e., ones that correspond to different guilds) on the advisors they are discarding. And mostly our first choices have been Explore, Upgrade, etc.
I can see how it would be possible for someone to get a Raid +2/Raid +2/Raid +3 advisor, but nothing like that has happened in our game. I do remember there are one or two "special" advisors that might be able to generate more Raid +X than just the value on their card.
Anyway, I don't think this deadlock will last forever. But I do think that it's odd, again, that the people who are the most hurt by the situation also are the ones who have the hardest time doing anything about it. It just happens, in our game, to be exacerbating the rich-get-richer phenomenon.
I can see how it would be possible for someone to get a Raid +2/Raid +2/Raid +3 advisor, but nothing like that has happened in our game. I do remember there are one or two "special" advisors that might be able to generate more Raid +X than just the value on their card.
Anyway, I don't think this deadlock will last forever. But I do think that it's odd, again, that the people who are the most hurt by the situation also are the ones who have the hardest time doing anything about it. It just happens, in our game, to be exacerbating the rich-get-richer phenomenon.
I agree with almost everything David has said in this thread. We are about to enter game 7 in a 3 player game. I have almost exclusively been the explorer. I discovered all but 1 sticker islands on the map and almost every site beyond the first few islands. The other two players are mostly going economic/colony and raiding a little bit. Score is 72-66-65 and I have never been in last place in a game. I have 0 colonies, they have 2 and 3.
[o]I have 4 enmity at Panmos, the other players have 3 and 7. I got a huge boost from this because now all of my explore stuff is still useful, while all of their econ is useless unless they can get raid 15 or something crazy.
We have 1 advisor with a raid +4. I guess we're just friendly people lol. I find it unbelievable that the enmity on Panmos counts towards conquering Ker. I made dice charts for up to 20 dice and 20 successes at the beginning of the campaign because we are mathy people (I'll upload them as a file at some point):
To successfully conquer Ker, our player with the least enmity there would have to have a raid value of 12 to even have a 9% chance of conquering! To have a 50% shot he would need raid 15. To have a 90% shot he would need raid 18.
We have pretty much resigned ourselves to all exploring for the next 2-3 games, which gives me a huge advantage with my upgraded ships (4 sail each and 1 has explore 5), a bunch of maps and charts, and Explorer's Patron with explore +3 (I didn't win last game so I got to keep him).
We talked for about 20 minutes after the game whether enmity counted on Panmos for conquering Ker and figured that it couldn't possibly. [/o]
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by whipko
I play as dangerous water, atoll explore don't award any glory.↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILER] Rule 22
by Temelin
Rob Daviau wrote this at some point in another thread:RobDaviau wrote:
shadysjunk wrote:
Does island current enmity, or island permanent enmity have any effect on the raiding of ships or colonies at that island region?
No. The island just sits and watches the mainlanders fight each other.
So Ker is different I guess because they are islanders themselves?
↧
↧
Thread: Betrayal at House on the Hill: Widow's Walk:: Rules:: Haunt 86 and Coal Chute?
by houjix1138
Is this an unwinnable scenario?↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by Temelin
If they didn't intend it this way, I wish they hadn't worded it as "Attempt an Explore endeavor." That seems so clear cut to me when compared with the rule I listed above.↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILERS] Rules concerning rule 21
by mcs1213
DaviddesJ wrote:
[o]Surely you can't prevent your colonies from being conquered just because they are inactive. Use the defense value on the colony regardless of which side the card is on.[/o]
[o]I can see this going either way here, that you can't conquer an inactive colony or that you can. As OP pointed out it makes a strategic difference if you can't conquer an inactive one, knowing when to make it active to best help you without making it vulnerable is important. Again why would you be able to raid something that doesn't have a defense value? When the colony is turned face down it doesn't do or have anything. But I could be convinced the other way for it always being available to conquer.[/o]
DaviddesJ wrote:
[o]It's the province marker on the map that is the definitive indication of whether the colony is active or inactive.[/o]
[o]It is actually both the province marker an the fact that the card is face up that tells you a colony is active.[/o]
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILERS] Rules concerning rule 21
by mcs1213
As an aside, does anyone else find it difficult to reply to multiple parts of a quote with spoiler tags on both the quote and answers?↧
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILER] Rule 22
by Temelin
Since this thread is mostly about Ker:Because Ker is always active, does this mean that the player who controls it harvests it at the beginning of the game for 3 extra gold, unlike normal colonies which activate in phase 7 of winter?
Or does Ker sort of "enter the game" at phase 7 of the first winter? I doubt this is the case, but it was another thing we questioned.
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILER] Rule 22
by mcs1213
Temelin wrote:
Since this thread is mostly about Ker:
Because Ker is always active, does this mean that the player who controls it harvests it at the beginning of the game for 3 extra gold, unlike normal colonies which activate in phase 7 of winter?
Or does Ker sort of "enter the game" at phase 7 of the first winter? I doubt this is the case, but it was another thing we questioned.
Because Ker is always active, does this mean that the player who controls it harvests it at the beginning of the game for 3 extra gold, unlike normal colonies which activate in phase 7 of winter?
Or does Ker sort of "enter the game" at phase 7 of the first winter? I doubt this is the case, but it was another thing we questioned.
It is always active which means even at the start of the first winter. So yes the controlling player gets to harvest the field.
↧
Reply: SeaFall:: Rules:: Re: Non glory granting endeavors/advisor
by whipko
Temelin wrote:
If they didn't intend it this way, I wish they hadn't worded it as "Attempt an Explore endeavor." That seems so clear cut to me when compared with the rule I listed above.
Please refer to https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23674990#23674990
Rule 4 indicate You do not gain glory for passing a Dangerous water check.
↧