(arc) VP:s and City zones
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 22:27
1) I don't understand, from reading the current revision of the rules and using the search, how one can ever earn any VP. It only says when I may lose, but in the rules it's early indications of that you can also gain VP and need to achieve that victory condition. Did I miss out on something?
2) If a player gains x VP because the other player lost x VP (meaning, x VP is transferred form one player to the other) there is probably a design problem that will be apparent eventually, relating to run away leads and keeping tension et.c.
3) Having a variable double both as a win and loss condition may be problematic, or very brilliant if it works. Most of the time it isn't in the games I've seen, and it might easily lead to artifically dragged out games that wouldn't be that long weren't it for that fact.
4) I don't see the function of having each city being it's own zone with it's own residents unless one wants to stimulate a lot of movement that can be done away with and a lot more thinking before attacking since there are more zones to keep track of.
What I'd suggest is to do what I'm already doing in ORC - just have one single zone, army zone, and have x number of cities next to it: Every single thing in ARC would still run and function identical from what I can see in the rules, which means that either the layout isn't properly explained or anchored in the rules, or the layout is not needed to support the rules.
Reason I would do it like that instead is to create clearer zoning on table, and less places to look at. Devition etc still works as intended. The only thing that will become different is the reason to move, but then one might question what function it currently fills if it can be achieved (defenidng the city and/or devoting to it) without having movement as mechanic at all.
2) If a player gains x VP because the other player lost x VP (meaning, x VP is transferred form one player to the other) there is probably a design problem that will be apparent eventually, relating to run away leads and keeping tension et.c.
3) Having a variable double both as a win and loss condition may be problematic, or very brilliant if it works. Most of the time it isn't in the games I've seen, and it might easily lead to artifically dragged out games that wouldn't be that long weren't it for that fact.
4) I don't see the function of having each city being it's own zone with it's own residents unless one wants to stimulate a lot of movement that can be done away with and a lot more thinking before attacking since there are more zones to keep track of.
What I'd suggest is to do what I'm already doing in ORC - just have one single zone, army zone, and have x number of cities next to it: Every single thing in ARC would still run and function identical from what I can see in the rules, which means that either the layout isn't properly explained or anchored in the rules, or the layout is not needed to support the rules.
Reason I would do it like that instead is to create clearer zoning on table, and less places to look at. Devition etc still works as intended. The only thing that will become different is the reason to move, but then one might question what function it currently fills if it can be achieved (defenidng the city and/or devoting to it) without having movement as mechanic at all.