by KoalaXav
Becq wrote:
KoalaXav wrote:
Per page 11, it clearly states enmity is placed on a site when that site has been successfully raided (or otherwise mistreated), so I would argue that while you can choose not to plunder, you are voluntarily treating it as a failed raid and gaining no glory. The logic is simple.
Enmity is placed if the raid is successful. Ergo, no enmity placed means no success. They go hand in hand. Nowhere does it say place enmity only if you take plunder.
Enmity is placed if the raid is successful. Ergo, no enmity placed means no success. They go hand in hand. Nowhere does it say place enmity only if you take plunder.
I disagree that it's so clear-cut. Consider the following:
1) Enmity is linked to plunder, not success. "(p19) Place enmity tokens equal to the plunder value on the site." Note that this has nothing to do with number of successes rolled: if you roll 6 success, you can plunder a value 5 site and place 5 enmity, or plunder a value 1 site and place 1 enmity.
2) Plunder is optional. "(p19) After a successful raid against a province, you may plunder one site on the province board." In general, "may" implies that you have a choice not to do the thing in question.
3) Success is determined by ship survival and die roll, not choice of plunder. "(p10) 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)." See also the quote in #2 that makes the choice of plunder a consequence of success, not a cause of success.
4) Glory is based only on success. "(p10) Gain 1 glory for a successful endeavor, and your turn continues."
So, based on the sections quoted above, If you roll at least one success and don't sink, you succeed and gain a glory, then choose a plunder option (or decide not to plunder). If you plunder, you place enmity based on the plunder you chose (and can't plunder if you can't place the enmity).
The quote you mentioned does seem to indicate otherwise. However also consider JR's post, just a few posts above yours. What the game design team states is often considered to carry some weight, and in the context of the thread, agrees with and clarifies the above points, and resolves the apparent contradiction. By the way, I could easily see it being resolved the other way -- your interpretation is logical, too.
I can't say I'm really a fan then of the official interpretation. It feels too much like taking advantage of a loophole.