SpielByWeb

steve von laudicina · Joined: 28 May 06 Posts: 49

Could you please explain to me why I did not get my gold during the said phase? We're in summer of year two, and saltzburg was attacked, and then counter-attacked by me, thus reclaiming the provence all before the gold phase. I am not going to continue on until I get an explanation on why I didn't get it. I have a pretty good suspicion that that is not a part of the game rules, and I would appreciate it if I got it back. The bug is ruining any chance at all in the possibility of me wining my game. Considering how late it is in the game, it is a huge difference maker.

HappyProle · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:44 am Post subject:

I believe this has been discussed elsewhere (and recently at that): if you lose a province before you've performed the action for that province you don't get to take the action, even if you reclaim the province that turn.

It's not a bug. It's the rules.

Golux13 · Joined: 14 Jul 05 Posts: 209

You know, at this point, it seems like it would be a good idea to add a sentence to the SbW version of the Wallenstein rules that says, in bold, red letters, "If you lose a province in a battle before that province's action is performed, that action is lost, even if you later retake the province."

In the face-to-face game, it's easy to understand why this is so, because when you lose a province, the winner takes the card into his hand, and if you take it back, the card goes back into your hand (instead of onto the action board). Since the SbW implementation lacks cards, and there is no explicit mention of this effect in the rules, it has led to enough confusion that it justifies supplementing the rules.

EDIT: I would place the sentence on page 6 of the SbW rules, under (e) Action Resolution. The second paragraph would read something like:

"If possible, each planned action (those for which a province has been selected) must be executed. But if a player does not have enough gold to pay for the action, or cannot perform the action for some other reason (e.g., insufficient armies in supply, or the province was captured), the action is cancelled (as if the player had selected "none"). Note that a captured province that is recaptured by the original owner does NOT regain any unperformed actions."

craw-daddy · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:50 am Post subject:

Of course, the statement below does already occur in the description of the "Player vs. Player" part of the Combat/Battle resolution. But I agree that some more clarification such as that suggested might help this situation.

"If the attacker wins, he conquers the province, and immediately takes control of it. If it was selected by the defender for a not yet executed action, that action will be cancelled."

Golux13 · Joined: 14 Jul 05 Posts: 209

I looked and didn't see that, so at least it should be called out in bold type, and there should be that additional point about the action not coming back if the province is retaken.

HappyProle · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:40 am Post subject:

Golux and craw-daddy: Your discussion of the issue including suggestions for how to fix it makes me want to fix it. The tone of the OP makes me want to leave it how it is.

craw-daddy · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:19 am Post subject:

Deep breath... now let it out... Smile

At the very least, he's received "an explanation on why [he] didn't get it [the gold]".

Golux13 · Joined: 14 Jul 05 Posts: 209

Yeah, you probably shouldn't punish future newbies because of the way this thread started. Smile

(Side note to Steve von Laudicina: This is not the first time the tone of your posts has raised hackles. You might consider your words a little more carefully when you're posting an inquiry or a request for help.)

HappyProle · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject:

I'll tweak the rules page to make it more clear. It has come up twice in the past two weeks, so obviously a little clarification would help. I was just trying to emphasize that there's a good and a bad way to ask for help/improvements.

Bkruppa · Joined: 08 Nov 05 Posts: 241 Location: Fremont, Ca, USA

So calling you idiot or nimrod won't help getting things changed? Shocked

Next thing I know you're going to be saying that I can't have variant which guarantees my win because I start the game! Twisted Evil

HappyProle · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

I wonder how many people would join games created with the variant: "Game creator always wins"?

Big Bad Lex · Joined: 16 Oct 05 Posts: 114 Location: Epsom, UK

I'd settle for second.
_________________
It's not the winning, it's utter annihilation of your opponant that matters.

steve von laudicina · Joined: 28 May 06 Posts: 49

so, golux13, are you officially the post a message on the forum police? If you are, I promise to be a good boy for you fron now on. My post is simply a post that makes the game inconsistant with the hard copy of the game. I think I have a right to complain about the rules if it conflicts with the board version of the game especially when it has a direct influence on the final outcome. Oh, and by the way, you are so much more experienced than I. A whole 10 months.

craw-daddy · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject:

What is the conflict with the board version of the game?

As far as I know, there isn't one. This implementation mimics the board game in every way (well, subject to the probabilistic implementation of the tower, something rather hard mimic in a PbW format, unless someone builds a Mindstorms robot to start chucking things into a tower).

steve von laudicina · Joined: 28 May 06 Posts: 49

except that I would get the card back and thereby receiving my gold. Pretty important difference.