Hello!
This one I do not understand : you gain one point per fort in a savage country. But what if you have a city? Is not a city an upgraded fort?
Maybe it is not possible to build a city in a savage country?
Help!
[FRENCH PLAYER QUESTION] TAMING THE WILDLANDS?
The english version of the card mentions only forts also. However, we play Cities are the same as forts in this case.
TK
Tim Kelly said:
The english version of the card mentions only forts also. However, we play Cities are the same as forts in this case.
TK
Me too because I think it goes with the spirit of the card! Thanks!
However it is the only one where city is not added...
grouik said:
However it is the only one where city is not added...
Yes, we noticed the same thing. However, we decided the only restriction on "savage provinces" was the restriction against building towers, and (as you said) the "spirit' of the rules seems to treat cities and forts the same in most cases.
I know the designers have posted here before. Perhaps they will give us the "official" answer soon.
I agree with you: I love this game!
TK
It is indeed possible to upgrade a fort to city in a savage province.
A city would still count as a fort for the purpose of fulfilling the objective.
Cities and Forts both play a role in the game. There are cards that state cities and towers to win, not forts. I think it goes with the spirit of the genre to keep it forts. Im just stating an opinion here of course- I dont kknow if its a typo. I do know in the Howard theme these savage lands were the setting for frontier stories- in Forts! Makes for a decision. Like upgrading does anywhere. Both count as Empire points in the end. One produces soldiers, the other gold.
However we all know its a game- and a long awaited one at that! Please dont take this as a correct answer. Im just an old Conan fan. Even before the movies (and in spite of).
Necronis said:
Cities and Forts both play a role in the game. There are cards that state cities and towers to win, not forts. I think it goes with the spirit of the genre to keep it forts. Im just stating an opinion here of course- I dont kknow if its a typo. I do know in the Howard theme these savage lands were the setting for frontier stories- in Forts! Makes for a decision. Like upgrading does anywhere. Both count as Empire points in the end. One produces soldiers, the other gold.
However we all know its a game- and a long awaited one at that! Please dont take this as a correct answer. Im just an old Conan fan. Even before the movies (and in spite of).
I tell lies!!!
In my snooty statement I forgot to state that cities produce gold, forts AND cities produce troops in an Age Change Phase.
New stubborn know-it-all reason for vote to keep it as forts: the highest Empire Point card in the game. 3-4 if you put a Fort in a Savage Kingdom, plus the initial points for winning the campaign. Or the game would still play the same if you changed it to cities I guess- plus you would be 2 gold richer, with all those Picts and Suba warrior storekeepers (did I mention my answer is jaded by being a self-appointed snob?).
As long as your playing with someone who enjoys it as much as you do either way is great. End of Rant.
Necronis said:
I tell lies!!!
In my snooty statement I forgot to state that cities produce gold, forts AND cities produce troops in an Age Change Phase.
New stubborn know-it-all reason for vote to keep it as forts: the highest Empire Point card in the game. 3-4 if you put a Fort in a Savage Kingdom, plus the initial points for winning the campaign. Or the game would still play the same if you changed it to cities I guess- plus you would be 2 gold richer, with all those Picts and Suba warrior storekeepers (did I mention my answer is jaded by being a self-appointed snob?).
As long as your playing with someone who enjoys it as much as you do either way is great. End of Rant.
