Rules are often imperfect, or misinterpreted. It's nice to be able to make up a rule that makes sense that everyone agrees works well for the game. Because the rule is tied to a theme, it is not arbitrary. Say you're playing Doom and you're not sure how Knockback works if a monster is pushed into another monster. You could conjure up a rule that says when a larger monster (one that takes up more than one space) knocks into a smaller one, then the smaller one is knocked back too, otherwise the first one just stops. If everyone is cool with that then awesome. What "makes sense" usually works.
If you're playing a Euro where you're not sure what happens when you trade a brown resource cube for a pink resource cube on Box X when the king demands you pay his facial hair tax, what do you do? The Euro designer never tried to make sense in the first place. He tried to make the theme fit the mechanics, and where it doesn't work, he just shrugged his shoulders, feeling it's not important.
I have also found that Eurogamers just plain don't get AT games. They play them in the strangest ways. Like there were these guys who claimed that "Pirate King" was broken because they had played for 4 hours with no one getting close to winning. It turns out that in the entire 4 hours, no one had attacked another player. DUH!
True story? That's too funny.
Absolutely true. Also, the first time I played Antike, I asked the rules explainer how combat was resolved, and was told it wasn't important, because no one ever attacked anyone.
@ Juniper et al
I am a bit confused by some of your arguments, and I have some issues with what I am clear on. But I need to put together some concrete examples rather than just witter generalities. "I'll be back!"
Rules are often imperfect, or misinterpreted. It's nice to be able to make up a rule that makes sense that everyone agrees works well for the game. Because the rule is tied to a theme, it is not arbitrary. Say you're playing Doom and you're not sure how Knockback works if a monster is pushed into another monster. You could conjure up a rule that says when a larger monster (one that takes up more than one space) knocks into a smaller one, then the smaller one is knocked back too, otherwise the first one just stops. If everyone is cool with that then awesome. What "makes sense" usually works.
If you're playing a Euro where you're not sure what happens when you trade a brown resource cube for a pink resource cube on Box X when the king demands you pay his facial hair tax, what do you do? The Euro designer never tried to make sense in the first place. He tried to make the theme fit the mechanics, and where it doesn't work, he just shrugged his shoulders, feeling it's not important.
You've nailed it.
And this ties into a M. Barnes post from earlier today: before the rise of internet gaming sites (and one in particular) or gaming companies having a web presence, it was up to the players to be proactive and figure out what was the best solution. The better the theme actually reflected the game, the easier this was. Your example is a good one: bigger should probably knock back smaller.
BITD, when this sort of thing came up, there usually wasn't more than five minutes of discussion before the table agreed on a ruling and we all went back to playing. And those in the minority didn't go rushing off to The Leading Boardgames Site to protest every ruling that didn't go their way, either.
ubarose wrote:
"Absolutely true. Also, the first time I played Antike, I asked the rules explainer how combat was resolved, and was told it wasn't important, because no one ever attacked anyone."
That's priceless! Thank god I hadn't just drunk some coffee!!
I have also found that Eurogamers just plain don't get AT games. They play them in the strangest ways. Like there were these guys who claimed that "Pirate King" was broken because they had played for 4 hours with no one getting close to winning. It turns out that in the entire 4 hours, no one had attacked another player. DUH!
True story? That's too funny.
Absolutely true. Also, the first time I played Antike, I asked the rules explainer how combat was resolved, and was told it wasn't important, because no one ever attacked anyone.
I hope proceeded to crush them with wave after wave of attacks.
I have also found that Eurogamers just plain don't get AT games. They play them in the strangest ways. Like there were these guys who claimed that "Pirate King" was broken because they had played for 4 hours with no one getting close to winning. It turns out that in the entire 4 hours, no one had attacked another player. DUH!
True story? That's too funny.
Absolutely true. Also, the first time I played Antike, I asked the rules explainer how combat was resolved, and was told it wasn't important, because no one ever attacked anyone.
I hope proceeded to crush them with wave after wave of attacks.
and then lost the game to the player who collected a bunch of cards because no-one attacked him and that all combat causes the attacker to lose just as many units as the defender, hence it is "inefficient". boring game.
i refuse to play any house rules apart from errata.
There is some deep wisdom going on in this thread. I use BGG primarily as a resource for trades and files. I noticed Barnes' theories in action in the trades when someone talks on and on about every ding and scuff on their precious Loopin' Louie box. In a way, this works out for me, as I don't give a shit about the game other than to find out if it has all the pieces I'll need to play. I have collapsed my Risks into one box. My Descent is all in that first fatty boombalatty, etc. I love that someone will trade me their Road to Legend for 30% its value because it's out of shrink and "shows some shelfwear." Thanks for that, really.
I too have noticed that rules questions at BGG are just out of hand. It's one thing to play a game like Titan and ask for clarification about how carryover works (it's complicated), it's another to ask how tunnels work in TTR:Your Mom's Crotch. That's the whole point of the fucking expansion. There are pictures and shit in the rulebook. There are THREE OTHER THREADS ALL ASKING THE SAME THING. Cripes.
Everyone reads the rules with a legal team, too. I was in the big discussion on Frank's Flowchart (you know what I'm talking about) about how it's "wrong." It actually isn't--but if you read the flowchart looking for opportunities to parse things in odd ways I imagine you could arrive at a point of confusion. Why would you do this? Just to grief? BGG is the metagame for these people, and I've left the table.
I have also found that Eurogamers just plain don't get AT games. They play them in the strangest ways. Like there were these guys who claimed that "Pirate King" was broken because they had played for 4 hours with no one getting close to winning. It turns out that in the entire 4 hours, no one had attacked another player. DUH!
True story? That's too funny.
Absolutely true. Also, the first time I played Antike, I asked the rules explainer how combat was resolved, and was told it wasn't important, because no one ever attacked anyone.
I hope proceeded to crush them with wave after wave of attacks.
Quietly built up a huge Navy, while being advised that I was choosing sub-optimal technologies. Then let all them boats loose at once, and went from forth place to winning the game in one turn.
I think someone then went and posted that the Naval Movement advancement was broken.
Quietly built up a huge Navy, while being advised that I was choosing sub-optimal technologies. Then let all them boats loose at once, and went from forth place to winning the game in one turn.
I think someone then went and posted that the Naval Movement advancement was broken.
Quietly built up a huge Navy, while being advised that I was choosing sub-optimal technologies. Then let all them boats loose at once, and went from forth place to winning the game in one turn.
I think someone then went and posted that the Naval Movement advancement was broken.
LOLz!
Mindless dribbling and winkies aside, Uba is making me think I might have to take a look at this game again! I wrote it off as Imperial's shitty stepbrother, but technologies plus combat makes it sound like fun.
I too have noticed that rules questions at BGG are just out of hand. It's one thing to play a game like Titan and ask for clarification about how carryover works (it's complicated), it's another to ask how tunnels work in TTR:Your Mom's Crotch. That's the whole point of the fucking expansion. There are pictures and shit in the rulebook. There are THREE OTHER THREADS ALL ASKING THE SAME THING. Cripes.
It's what happens when there's a grand failure to concentrate on what the rules allow (to borrow a phrase), and instead look for ways to exploit perceived holes in them, or, even worse, to mitigate perceived problems. One of my regular gaming groups developed a bizarre house rule for Agricola in which you were dealt a plethora of cards and then chose the ones you wanted out of that set. It drove me nuts, as it added a good half hour to the game while people attempted to work out what would 'work best' instead of playing the hand they were dealt.
Quietly built up a huge Navy, while being advised that I was choosing sub-optimal technologies. Then let all them boats loose at once, and went from forth place to winning the game in one turn.
I think someone then went and posted that the Naval Movement advancement was broken.
LOLz!
Mindless dribbling and winkies aside, Uba is making me think I might have to take a look at this game again! I wrote it off as Imperial's shitty stepbrother, but technologies plus combat makes it sound like fun.
Yup. It actually is quite good fun. It's got the love-it-or-hate-it rondel (later used also in imperial and hamburgum), which I think gives an interesting cyclical feel to the game. There is 'combat' much in the Diplomacy way, both on land and at sea.
Games
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
