Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Rulebook in progress. File link added!
#11
The rewrite is a little clearer, but I'm still having many of the same issues with the game.

You don't give any examples of what happens when a Justice Department card survives combat -- in all of your examples, the JD card is destroyed, which isn't always going to happen.

In example #1, why would Player 2 leave their gate open, since they know the result will be an undefended, open gate?

In example #2, why would Player 2 leave their gate open, knowing that the combat between the Rookie Judge and Player 2's Punks is going to clear the way for Player 1 to destroy Player 2's gate?

Example #3 describes the same situation as example #2. Why would Player 1 not just close that gate, rather than clear the way for Player 2's attack?

In example #4, what is player 1's incentive to destroy the Lawmaster? It is facing his opponent, and by destroying it he risks a new JD card filling that space that might be a threat. Why would Player 1 leave their gate open opposite a Riot Foamed gate?

Example #5 is confusing. If "combat continues with Player 2," why do you go on to describe Player 1's Citi-Def attacking the Punks? Also, why would Player 2 leave their gate open? With such a weak JD card in the street, they can't really be expecting it to be able to defeat Player 1's unit.

In short, I still don't see any reason for either player to risk leaving any gates open. That mean's we're back to both players  just drawing cards every turn, hoping to get a card that will either force their opponent to open their gate, or just destroy the gate outright.

Please be aware that this is not intended as an attack -- I really like the idea of this game, and I love the design of the cards. I want to understand how it is meant to be played, but so far I'm just not seeing it. I understand the rules of play, I just don't see why you would ever voluntarily leave a gate open, and without open gates, nothing really happens.
Reply
#12
(01-16-2019, 06:26 PM)jeffersonpowers Wrote: The rewrite is a little clearer, but I'm still having many of the same issues with the game.

You don't give any examples of what happens when a Justice Department card survives combat -- in all of your examples, the JD card is destroyed, which isn't always going to happen.

In example #1, why would Player 2 leave their gate open, since they know the result will be an undefended, open gate?

In example #2, why would Player 2 leave their gate open, knowing that the combat between the Rookie Judge and Player 2's Punks is going to clear the way for Player 1 to destroy Player 2's gate?

Example #3 describes the same situation as example #2. Why would Player 1 not just close that gate, rather than clear the way for Player 2's attack?

In example #4, what is player 1's incentive to destroy the Lawmaster? It is facing his opponent, and by destroying it he risks a new JD card filling that space that might be a threat. Why would Player 1 leave their gate open opposite a Riot Foamed gate?

Example #5 is confusing. If "combat continues with Player 2," why do you go on to describe Player 1's Citi-Def attacking the Punks? Also, why would Player 2 leave their gate open? With such a weak JD card in the street, they can't really be expecting it to be able to defeat Player 1's unit.

In short, I still don't see any reason for either player to risk leaving any gates open. That mean's we're back to both players  just drawing cards every turn, hoping to get a card that will either force their opponent to open their gate, or just destroy the gate outright.

Please be aware that this is not intended as an attack -- I really like the idea of this game, and I love the design of the cards. I want to understand how it is meant to be played, but so far I'm just not seeing it. I understand the rules of play, I just don't see why you would ever voluntarily leave a gate open, and without open gates, nothing really happens.

For your first question:
If the Justice Department survives combat, then combat continues with the opposing player and the 'backside' of the Justice Department. (which most JD cards have low or no defense).

For all other questions:
If you choose to take no actions/just draw cards, the game will play itself, but the goal is to win, and you win by taking actions. 
As for "Why would you open a gate?" As I've said before, if you try to defeat your opponent straight on you will most likely lose. But by using your Hacks and Flash/Bangs you can set up your opponent and the JD to destroy each other and then destroy their gate. But only if yours is open, AND you have a unit strong enough in there.

There are many answers to WHY would a person do something for each example. Those are just to give a breakdown of how different combats will play out.
The best answers I can give from the few thousand times I've played it is:
Doing something else is more important than Closing a gate.

Keep the comments coming.
-herb
Reply
#13
(01-16-2019, 08:27 PM)herb_ferman Wrote: For all other questions:
If you choose to take no actions/just draw cards, the game will play itself, but the goal is to win, and you win by taking actions. 
As for "Why would you open a gate?" As I've said before, if you try to defeat your opponent straight on you will most likely lose. But by using your Hacks and Flash/Bangs you can set up your opponent and the JD to destroy each other and then destroy their gate. But only if yours is open, AND you have a unit strong enough in there.

So you are just waiting to draw a Hack or Flashbang? 

I can't see any way to play effectively other than using one card combination that there are only a few copies of in the deck, which means the player that gets lucky and draws those cards more often is going to win every time.

Can you give an example of a viable play that doesn't involve using Hack, Flashbang, or a card that arbitrarily destroys your opponent's gate (such as Stub Gun), or hoping that Tek Judges shows up in the right spot?
Reply
#14
(01-17-2019, 09:27 PM)jeffersonpowers Wrote:
(01-16-2019, 08:27 PM)herb_ferman Wrote: For all other questions:
If you choose to take no actions/just draw cards, the game will play itself, but the goal is to win, and you win by taking actions. 
As for "Why would you open a gate?" As I've said before, if you try to defeat your opponent straight on you will most likely lose. But by using your Hacks and Flash/Bangs you can set up your opponent and the JD to destroy each other and then destroy their gate. But only if yours is open, AND you have a unit strong enough in there.

So you are just waiting to draw a Hack or Flashbang? 

I can't see any way to play effectively other than using one card combination that there are only a few copies of in the deck, which means the player that gets lucky and draws those cards more often is going to win every time.

Can you give an example of a viable play that doesn't involve using Hack, Flashbang, or a card that arbitrarily destroys your opponent's gate (such as Stub Gun), or hoping that Tek Judges shows up in the right spot?

You need the arbitrary cards to play the game and shift the odds.  The only way for the gangs to win is to shoot the JD and then the open windows until there are none are left.  I have done it but it is not common, this often relies on the JD facing the right directions when the windows are open.
Reply
#15
Someone on Boardgamegeek just pointed out that the revised rule book is still missing the rule about discarding and replacing a JD card at the end of the turn, if none were destroyed during combat.
Reply
#16
(01-18-2019, 06:16 PM)jeffersonpowers Wrote: Someone on Boardgamegeek just pointed out that the revised rule book is still missing the rule about discarding and replacing a JD card at the end of the turn, if none were destroyed during combat.

Thanks. updated.
Reply
#17
I just had a look through the revised rulebook posted here: https://www.gameandacurry.com/2019/02/05...r-ruleset/

I still don't see the rule about discarding and replacing a JD card at the end of the turn, if none were destroyed during combat. I think this rule is pretty critical for keeping the game moving -- is there a reason it was left out?
Reply
#18
(02-06-2019, 09:16 PM)jeffersonpowers Wrote: I just had a look through the revised rulebook posted here: https://www.gameandacurry.com/2019/02/05...r-ruleset/

I still don't see the rule about discarding and replacing a JD card at the end of the turn, if none were destroyed during combat. I think this rule is pretty critical for keeping the game moving -- is there a reason it was left out?

Hi Jefferson - that rule is on the very bottom of page 12.  Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns!  

~scott
Reply
#19
Are you sure you don't want to put that rule in the section on Replenishing the Street? It's going to be easy to miss where it is now, and it doesn't really have anything to do with combat.
Reply
#20
(02-07-2019, 06:27 PM)jeffersonpowers Wrote: Are you sure you don't want to put that rule in the section on Replenishing the Street? It's going to be easy to miss where it is now, and it doesn't really have anything to do with combat.

That is a fair point - next time I touch base with the devs, I will bring it up.  Thanks for your feedback!  if you have any issues playing with the new version of the rules, please reach out!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)