We played our first game a couple of hour ago. A few doubts showed up:

Two attackers against a province. Let's say there is no defender, or both attackers add up more strenght that the defender. What happens?

Also, when choosing first player, a card calls for some condition and two players are tied. The Rulebook says in that case the player more closer to the right of the current first player gets it (or something very similar). However one of the tied players IS the current first player. Is he the closest or the farthest?

Also... so many ****ing tokens! I had to use an additional box to hold them all. You have to carry around around 60 tokens per player, plus some 10 additional ones, plus cards from half a dozen different types. Then the first thing you do, depending of the board set up, is to return around half of the componets to the box, never to be used during that game. Then, as the game advances, more and more cards and tokens are used up and go back to the box. You literally spend like half an hour setting up the board and components, then again that at the end of the game sorting everything again. That the game doesn't use a standard-sized box is quite annoying, as you cannot easily use one on the commonly made inserts to keep all the components sorted, and it feels like FFG had gone out of their way to make life difficult for players.

16 hours ago, Mon no Oni said:

We played our first game a couple of hour ago. A few doubts showed up:

Two attackers against a province. Let's say there is no defender, or both attackers add up more strenght that the defender. What happens?

Also, when choosing first player, a card calls for some condition and two players are tied. The Rulebook says in that case the player more closer to the right of the current first player gets it (or something very similar). However one of the tied players IS the current first player. Is he the closest or the farthest?

1 - In the situation you describe, the player with the highest strength wins the province.

2 - In that situation, the OTHER player is the NEW first player. The first player changes since he is not closest to the right of the current first player.

3 - I'm not sure how you are storing the game, but I recommend removing the insert that Fantasy Flight Games provides. Almost always I get rid of these because they don't leave enough space in the box. They're mainly there to stabilize components during shipping.

6 hours ago, veector said:

1 - In the situation you describe, the player with the highest strength wins the province.

Sorry if I didn't express myself correctly: both attacking players are tied. Who wins then?

6 hours ago, veector said:

3 - I'm not sure how you are storing the game, but I recommend removing the insert that Fantasy Flight Games provides. Almost always I get rid of these because they don't leave enough space in the box. They're mainly there to stabilize components during shipping.

That's a given; the first thing I did was to remove the insert. However, realize this is not a standard box; it's a more compact box, exactly the size of the one they use for the Core Set of the LCG. The contents is tightly packed and, once you punch out the over 450 tokens; there is no reasonable way (reasonable meaning you don't want just to throw in all loose tokens; you want to put them in containers to keep them at least somewhat sorted and ready for next game) everything fits back again. In fact, I have just finished sorting everything... and I ended up using one spare Core Set box from the LCG I mentioned before; so I the space literally doubled. A standard box would have been able to hold it all much more neatly.

Further question:

Illegal tokens are removed during resolution if they have been illegaly placed. Does that mean that players may willingly play tokens illegaly (let's say a Navy attacking a landlocked Province) as a way to bluff their opponents?

9 hours ago, Mon no Oni said:

Further question:

Illegal tokens are removed during resolution if they have been illegaly placed. Does that mean that players may willingly play tokens illegaly (let's say a Navy attacking a landlocked Province) as a way to bluff their opponents?

I don't think there's a way to stop a player from doing this because all tokens are hidden. Unless you want to ask for a gentleman's agreement that everyone try to place correctly, it's bound to happen just from people not realizing it.

Whatever the reason, they do act like a bluff so I say use them however you like, and if they're illegally placed, you just get more bluffs

9 hours ago, Mon no Oni said:

Sorry if I didn't express myself correctly: both attacking players are tied. Who wins then?

That's a given; the first thing I did was to remove the insert. However, realize this is not a standard box; it's a more compact box, exactly the size of the one they use for the Core Set of the LCG. The contents is tightly packed and, once you punch out the over 450 tokens; there is no reasonable way (reasonable meaning you don't want just to throw in all loose tokens; you want to put them in containers to keep them at least somewhat sorted and ready for next game) everything fits back again. In fact, I have just finished sorting everything... and I ended up using one spare Core Set box from the LCG I mentioned before; so I the space literally doubled. A standard box would have been able to hold it all much more neatly.

1 - In a direct tie, NO ONE wins the province if there is no defender.

Storing: I have all the tokens stored and fitting in the original box. Here's a couple of pictures.

I got the containers at the dollar store.

9 hours ago, veector said:

I don't think there's a way to stop a player from doing this because all tokens are hidden. Unless you want to ask for a gentleman's agreement that everyone try to place correctly, it's bound to happen just from people not realizing it.

Whatever the reason, they do act like a bluff so I say use them however you like, and if they're illegally placed, you just get more bluffs

Well, before using a house rule for this, I'd prefer that the rules explicitly stated if that can be done or not. For one, it defeats the point of bluffs. On the other hand, the rules say what happens with illegaly placed tokens. In any case, I'll wait for some kind of official ruling.

9 hours ago, veector said:

1 - In a direct tie, NO ONE wins the province if there is no defender.

Where in the rules does say that? No rethorical question; I'd really like to know.

Also, do you mean that, if there ISa defender with less force than either attacker the result is different?

Quote

Storing: I have all the tokens stored and fitting in the original box. Here's a couple of pictures.

I got the containers at the dollar store.

Nice. I have containers similars to those. However they are a litte bigger, so only would 9 fit the box. In fact, I only use 8: 7 for the 57 clan tokens, and 2 for the special tokens (but these 2 could fit in one), then the board and rulebook go over that. However, there is no room left for the cards, screens etc. I'll try to put a pic later.

The rule book doesn't actually say much. Pretty sure your scenario is NOT covered unfortunately. This forum seems pretty dead. I've had my copy since Thursday. I've read the rule book cover to cover twice but have yet to pop out a single token. Kinda worried this game was a quick cash grab. BUT see huge potential.

5 hours ago, Mon no Oni said:

Where in the rules does say that? No rethorical question; I'd really like to know.

Page 9. If an attacker is attacking an empty province and doesn’t win it, nothing happens. If you’re tied with the empty defense bonus then you are not winning. You could argue that I’m extrapolating intent and that’s fair, but I don’t really see a reason to rule it otherwise. Granted I’ve only read the rule book and haven’t played but still.

Makes me think of Total War video games where unguarded towns still have a basic muster when attacked.

3 hours ago, HirumaShigure said:

This forum seems pretty dead. I've had my copy since Thursday. I've read the rule book cover to cover twice but have yet to pop out a single token. Kinda worried this game was a quick cash grab. BUT see huge potential.

I’m very interested to try it. I think your last sentences are spot on though.

To me it looks like a streamlined version of the 2nd edition Game of Thrones board game. I’m hoping these boards pick up as more people pick it up and play it.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:59 PM, Mon no Oni said:

Where in the rules does say that? No rethorical question; I'd really like to know.

Also, do you mean that, if there IS a defender with less force than either attacker the result is different?

No, I don't mean that.

If the attackers are tied and they are higher than the defender, the defender retains control of the province. If the attackers are tied and are less than the defender, the defender retains control of the province. If the attackers are tied and there is no defender, neither attacker wins the province.

The rules are written in such a way that you can't imply anything about what is NOT said except from what is said. Page 9 in the rules is the section that answers all your questions. I'm not sure where there is confusion.

Quote

A battle occurs when a clan’s combat token is in a province or on the border of a province that the clan does not control. During a battle, any clans that do not control the province are attackers; there can be multiple attackers attempting to take control of a single province. If a clan controls the province being attacked, that clan is the defender.

To resolve a battle, the players determine their total strength. Each attacker’s total is the sum of the strengths of their tokens that are attacking the province. The defender’s total is the sum of the strengths of their tokens they placed to defend the province, plus any additional defense bonuses (defense bonuses are explained later).

The player with the highest total wins the battle. If there is a tie for the highest total, the defender wins the battle.

If an empty province is attacked, there is no defender; the attacker compares their total strength against any defense bonuses present in the province. When an empty province is attacked, if the attacker does not win the battle, nothing happens.

After a battle, all of the combat tokens involved in the battle are discarded.

If an attacker wins the battle, they remove all of the defender’s control tokens from the province. Then, they place one of their own control tokens facedown in the province.

If the defender wins the battle, their control tokens remain in the province. Then, they place another one of their control tokens in the province faceup, which provides a defense bonus during their future battles in that province. See “Successful Defense” on page 10 for more details.

Also, to the other poster here, there is quite a bit of chatter on BoardGameGeek. Maybe not here, but quite a few people are anxious for this game.

On 12/10/2017 at 3:51 PM, Mon no Oni said:

Well, before using a house rule for this, I'd prefer that the rules explicitly stated if that can be done or not. For one, it defeats the point of bluffs. On the other hand, the rules say what happens with illegaly placed tokens. In any case, I'll wait for some kind of official ruling.

What kind of house rule would you use? If I was in a game where players were punished for making illegal placement mistakes, I might just lie and say I didn't realize. I don't see a way to police it besides what has already been mentioned. It doesn't seem like a problem worth solving because people will always make mistakes. What is the fairest way to not punish unintentional mistakes?

Illegal placement = bluffing. It’s part of the strategy. I’d wager a pretty big part given how you only get five placements each turn!

page 8 - if you place a token in a way that violates the rules governing its placement, it is removed during the resolution phase.

I believe that if you were not allowed to intentionally place tokens illegally (again as bluffs) the rules would state that.

2 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

Illegal placement = bluffing. It’s part of the strategy. I’d wager a pretty big part given how you only get five placements each turn!

page 8 - if you place a token in a way that violates the rules governing its placement, it is removed during the resolution phase.

I believe that if you were not allowed to intentionally place tokens illegally (again as bluffs) the rules would state that.

Agreed. It comes down to action economy. An "illegal" placement can work as an extra bluff, but it comes at the cost of another action. This would be highly situational, and probably not worth the opportunity cost most of the time.

A player could spam all illegal moves, but it is going to come at a heavy cost if the bluffs don't pay off - and I am having a hard time seeing a situation in which bluff spamming would be a plausible move (given the variability of the actions) without kingmaking or alliances - and, even then, you are giving up a lot for another player.

5 hours ago, veector said:

What kind of house rule would you use?

I'd rather not use a house rule at all. I'd like FFG stated exactly how these situations are meant be ``played.

Well this is awkward. I had no idea I had a second account. If a mod wants to delete this (along with this account) I'd be more than grateful.

6 hours ago, veector said:

What kind of house rule would you use? If I was in a game where players were punished for making illegal placement mistakes, I might just lie and say I didn't realize. I don't see a way to police it besides what has already been mentioned. It doesn't seem like a problem worth solving because people will always make mistakes. What is the fairest way to not punish unintentional mistakes?

It might just have to be something that is very clear up front - before everyone starts to play the game. Unfortunately, with this type of game, mistakes like those (intentional or not) probably have some decent effects on the round outcomes, so sticking to the "illegal" placement rule keeps that in check. I am thinking along the lines of X-wing maneuver dial mistakes. You can always do mulligans and/or play casual, if the group/players agree to it (especially for the first few games).

15 hours ago, Mon no Oni said:

I'd rather not use a house rule at all. I'd like FFG stated exactly how these situations are meant be ``played.

I think it's quite clear from the rules how it's meant to be played. The rules can't tell people what strategy to take, only what is and what is not permissible. In this case, placing a token illegally is allowed during placement, but you cannot resolve it and so it is removed when it's revealed. Whether a player intends to place illegally is outside the scope of the rules. And I've seen that the general consensus is that this is by design.

At any rate I did submit your question to the rules forum. I think we’re right but I’ll see if I can get you an official answer.

Really once we all get some games to the table we will know for sure whether we are overthinking this or not. I would suspect that if you are doing more than 2 bluffs a turn you are doing too many and they aren’t working out.

It seems sometimes you'd actually pull "useless" tokens, so placing them illegally may be a better option than using them to hamper your strategy. Example: a Raid token placed in a non-adjacent province without a shinobi token can't resolve. But if you'd rather not use them to "scorch the earth" it's better to place them illegally as an extra bluff. Of course, you'd probably just leave it in your "hand" then...

6 hours ago, TheSpitfired said:

At any rate I did submit your question to the rules forum. I think we’re right but I’ll see if I can get you an official answer.

Ah, thanks! I wasn't aware there was a dedicated rules forum!

1 hour ago, Mon no Oni said:

Ah, thanks! I wasn't aware there was a dedicated rules forum!

I will say, though, that e-mails, while usually a bit longer turnaround than the forum, sometimes get you in contact directly with the game's designer(s)

EDIT: hold on while I fix this account thing.

I'm wondering if I submitted it incorrectly, but I think I answered this question while playing tonight.

Long story short I found myself in a situation where I had to bluff with multiple tokens because there was nothing else I could do.

I had two provinces, one had a peace token, the other was on the island. So I could defend, I could attack the non-scorched island province, and that was it. I had a poor token draw that turn too so there wasn't much else I could do. So I had to use my raid token and an army token as bluffs in addition to my bluff token which got hit by a shujenga anyways.

So really when thinking about it there was no other way to play them, I used them as bluffs to distract the other player on the island and the "punishment" doesn't need to be house-ruled in; The punishment is I really didn't have a way to get out of the unfortunate situation I found myself in. Trust me that's punishment enough.

Otherwise it's been my experience through 3 games that you don't generally want to use your non-bluff tokens as bluffs if you don't have to. There's just too much you need to get done. I know that's not the official answer that you wanted but I think it still checks out.

tl/dr: My game experience has been that you don't want to use extra bluffs if you don't have to. The punishment is that you're not expanding/enhancing your own provinces while everyone else is.

So how did that turn/game turn out for you? Were you able to defend your province or pull some pressure off of you with your extra bluffs?