SpielByWeb

Wildfire2099 · Joined: 20 Aug 07 Posts: 122

I almost had an interesting scenario in my last Amun-Re game come up:

I didn't do very well in this one, and was a fairly distant 3rd. One of the players, Mooka, could have, with a victory knocked me into a relagation spot. It turned out Greven had two bonuses, so it was moot. However, pretend he only had one...

We were tied on money, so by playing a bonus for three points, I'd give Mooka two points for cash, and therefore the game. By Mooka winning, I'd get relagated, while if I didn't play the card, Greven would win, and I'd finish 4th in the division, thus sticking in my division.

So, the question is, had the situation come up, would you play the card, scoring the most points possible in the game (though still finishing in 3rd) or, hold it back, therefore winning the larger situation, but playing kingmaker in the process.

Here's the link to the game, if anyone wants to see it.:
http://www.spielbyweb.com/game.php?games_id=63433&uniq_id=7724553363621387804295203491&input=a

smlait · Joined: 16 Jul 06 Posts: 392 Location: alberta, canada

I play each game as its own separate game - whether or not it's part of a tournament/league. So, I would have played the card.

rico44 · Joined: 18 Apr 08 Posts: 130 Location: UK

I wouldn't have played the card.

However, giving it some thought, I checked the Amun-Re rules (well, a file on boardgamegeek, not the rules exactly) and it sounded like if you fulfil the card, you score the 3 points. It didn't sound like you had a choice...

I would have played the card, normally. To not play it would make Mooka lose, rather than let Greven win. But when your own relegation is at stake? Am I obliged to claim the 3 points because I meet the criteria? If I don't have to online, and it directly affects me, then I likely won't do it.

Playing a 'live' game (that means in person, for those who this idea sounds strange, lol) you wouldn't be aware of the effect your decision would have on the outcome, so would naturally play the card.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about it...

Wildfire2099 · Joined: 20 Aug 07 Posts: 122

Hmm.. that's an interesting question... is it not supposed to be an option?

There's never a possibilty that you'd lose on the deal (at worst, you lose 2 points (or give someone else 2) while gaining 3), so it would make sense that it would be mandatory...

rico44 · Joined: 18 Apr 08 Posts: 130 Location: UK

Actually, I believe Gaditus or another was recently in a situation for a 3 way tie on money... 6 points each, so playing the power card would drop you to only 2, having gained only 3. Again, another very rare situation. Whoever it was, they decided not to play the card and keep the most points. Smile

smlait · Joined: 16 Jul 06 Posts: 392 Location: alberta, canada

Yeah, but that's obviously the right choice. It doesn't make any sense to play the card if it'll lose you the game.

Gaditus · Joined: 05 Feb 07 Posts: 1924 Location: Canterbury, UK

rico44 · Joined: 18 Apr 08 Posts: 130 Location: UK

You say that you doubt the rules are meant that way, but remember these are all designed as in person board games to begin with.

Playing in such a game, not only would you not know how many power cards your opponents were about to play -simultaneously- (whereas online you get an advantage... what if you'd played all your power cards first and later realised you lost because of it?) but also, you would never be able to work out how much money each opponent had and add up to the last penny what you had, and how that would affect your score....

Still, it's certainly a point of interest, well done for putting this to forum Wildfire. Very Happy

P.S. I happen to know grizzlyman has a board copy of this game, don't know if he is watching or listening, can you copy in the text about scoring power cards? Razz

freduk · Joined: 18 Jan 06 Posts: 433 Location: Bristol, UK

gische · Joined: 12 Oct 05 Posts: 186 Location: San Carlos, CA

Wildfire2099 · Joined: 20 Aug 07 Posts: 122

I'd agree... it's definately an option.

Rico makes an excellent point, though, playing face to face, you wouldn't know what your opponent has...

however, is that a rule? I know many games dicate whether things like cash on hand, cards on hand, etc, are either 'open' (i.e. public info) or 'closed' (secret)... we're playing 'open' here on sbw.. is that in the rules?

In my experience, we usually assume something is public if a) you could calculate it by paying very close attention(which is the case for Amun-Re)
or b) the rules don't address the matter... the thinking being the various game strategies do NOT include keeping a scratch pad to keep track of everyone's cash... would just bog things down. A simple 'how much do you have?' when desired works just fine, you know?

OTOH, if the rules state such info is secret, then really it shouldn't be displayed,

DrFear · Joined: 23 Feb 09 Posts: 13 Location: Dislocated

freduk · Joined: 18 Jan 06 Posts: 433 Location: Bristol, UK

Wildfire2099 · Joined: 20 Aug 07 Posts: 122

I've never actually seen Amun-Re in particular in real life, so I didn't realize that... I would say that's a good observation. I was speaking more in general

However, I still maintain that since you could calcuate the money, it would make 'money counting' a primary game skill, which I personally don't think should be the case.

freduk · Joined: 18 Jan 06 Posts: 433 Location: Bristol, UK

On the other hand, for those of us who don't keep track of 5 players' money in our head, having hidden money means we don't try and calculate every move every opponent could make, we just get on and play our own game.
Having open money leads (in my experience) to slower turns as everyone tries to calculate what everyone else could do.