Game: Rheinländer

Thread: Re: reinforcement issue

JeffyJeff — 2008-11-11T17:31:26+00:00

photocurio wrote:
i.e. you may not join duchies by reinforcement.
I don't think this is quire true... you could join two duchies by reinforcement as long as it's your knights on both sides of where the reinforcement knight is being placed.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Fad23 — 2008-11-03T22:40:14+00:00

The obvious question I have about the French and Spanish translations is whether they were translated from the English or the German.

I'm not convinced.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

aramis — 2008-10-16T08:26:57+00:00

The rules don't make a specific exception to the "emptyness" for a bastion...

And the spanish and french both also seem to describe it as an empty space, except that it can't be occupied, as well.

Thread: Re: Kleinstaaterei

Eldard — 2008-10-13T17:34:59+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:
I never understood the lower ratings for this game, either. It isn't Taj Mahal, but it's still a very good game.

I totally agree, Darrell. Lately,Agricola, Stone Age, Race for the Galaxy, Glory to Rome, Railroad Tycoon, Airships, and Puerto Rico dominate the table time), so it's difficult to get Rheinlander back to the table. But when it does, more people are willing to play it than not.

Thread: Re: Kleinstaaterei

danman — 2008-10-13T16:53:19+00:00

Yeah, this is definitely a "more the merrier" game, and it's just excellent for its playing time.

My theory on the bishop is the US version is that someone had a warehouse sale on miniature bowling pins.

The map art is terrible.

Got a new copy for 8 bucks on clearance at the FLGS. Top 5 in my gaming bargains.

Thread: Re: Kleinstaaterei

DarrellKH — 2008-10-13T12:30:46+00:00

I never understood the lower ratings for this game, either. It isn't Taj Mahal, but it's still a very good game.

Thread: Re: Kleinstaaterei

photocurio — 2008-10-13T03:12:11+00:00

Friendless wrote:
I do recommend it with exactly 5 players, as with 4 there seems to be too many quiet spots on the board. We haven't even played with 3.
Nice review. I agree, Rheinländer is an under-appreciated game. And I like the history lesson.

But I think it works very well with less than five players. Just declare a few regions on one or both ends of the board out-of-play, remove the corresponding cards and you scale it down. I think there is a thread under variants..

Thread: Kleinstaaterei

Friendless — 2008-10-13T02:42:13+00:00

I love old maps. There's just something about pink and green shaded territories with obsolete names that gets me excited. And few maps are more exciting than old maps of Germany - the names Prussia, Baden, Slesvig, Wurttemburg, Bayern, Braunschweig, Thuringen, particularly written in that old Gothic script, get my history sense tingling and remind me of battles and bloodlines echoing through ages. I know I'm not alone because many games have tried to capture that feeling. For me, Rheinlander is one which succeeds.

The term "kleinstaaterei" refers to the political organisation of Germany for hundreds of years until the arrival of Bonaparte and Bismarck. The Holy Roman Empire was split into hundreds of tiny states ruled by rules of assorted exotic titles - duchies, principalities, counties, bishoprics, free cities and margravates. Wikipedia has a map from 1648: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holy_Roman_Empire_1648.svg and here's a list of the 1800 states of the Holy Roman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_in_the_Holy_Roma.... I read somewhere (i.e. I can't find a reference) that when Napoleon's Grande Armée went east through Germany there were 372 states, and when they went west there were only 35. The organisation of the Holy Roman Empire was replaced by the Confederation of the Rhine.

Enough of the history lesson. It is in this period of conflict and consolidation that Rheinlander is set. The board depicts a winding segment of the Rhine divided into 54 regions, each of which consists of 2 or 3 spaces. Some spaces are in 2 regions. Players have an army of 17 (for 5 players) or more knights who will gradually be placed into the spaces. There is a deck of 54 cards plus a shuffle card, and players hold 5 cards in their hand. On their turn they choose one of those cards and place a knight from their stock onto a space in the numbered region. Alternatively, a player may discard any card to reinforce into an empty space as long as he has a knight next to it and nobody else does.

When there is a contiguous group of 2 or more knights a duchy is formed. If a player has a majority in that duchy, they may place one of their dukes in it.
Castles, churches and cities are attached to some spaces on the board and have various effects. The owner of a duchy containing a castle gets to place a knight on it for free. The owner of a duchy containing a church becomes a bishop, and whoever has the most bishops gets to be the archbishop. A duchy containing a city is worth more points. In addition, each player has 3 bastions which can be placed to just occupy space, and prevent knights from taking that space.

The excitement comes when duchies merge, or threaten to merge. The knights are counted to determine who has the majority in the merged duchy and the losing duke is removed from the board. The owner of the duke is paid some of the victory points that duke would have received at the end of the game, but not all of them - hence conflict damages your opponents and not yourself, and there's incentive to participate.

For me, the beauty of the game is in the rules about duchies merging. As already mentioned, you can't reinforce into a space next to an opponent's knight, so you usually need exactly the right card to mount an invasion. Furthermore, your opponent may place a bastion in the way. However, it's also possible to play knights on the river spaces, as long as both spaces on the bank are occupied, so this happens towards the end of the game. So as the game nears its end it's possible that the two long duchies facing each other across the river will merge, IF the right player gets the right card to come across the river. Bastions can't be built on the river, so the best defence is to expand on your own side, putting other duchies of other players under pressure. The last third of the game is spent in fear, placing bastions to block obvious threats while hoping your opponents won't notice the devastating plan you're working on yourself... if only you could draw the right card.

As I write this, Rheinlander is ranked 566th, making it Knizia's 37th best game. That seems vastly under-rated to me. Even with slow players this game lasts 45 minutes, and it provides excitement and tension for that whole time. However I do recommend it with exactly 5 players, as with 4 there seems to be too many quiet spots on the board. We haven't even played with 3. However, a quick and good 5 player game is an asset to any collection.

Finally, some words on the different versions. There's the German version pictured above, and the English version:

There are some slight differences in the maps, but they are essentially the same. The other components are very different. Here are the important differences:

* English edition has wooden tokens as knights, but German edition has cardboard shields. German looks better, but English would last longer.
* German dukes look like dukes, English dukes look like knights on horses - win for the German.
* German bastions are tiles which look just like the castles, English bastions are wooden blocks which leave no ambiguity - win for the English.
* German archbishop is a big tile, English archbishop looks like a sex aid - win for the German.
* German VP counters look like money, English VP counters look like VP counters - win for the German.

Having said that though, I find both versions suffer from a little bit of "red and green should never be seen", and the board gets crowded and it can be a little bit difficult to see what's going on - you might sometimes miss a threat because there are so many things to look at on the board. That doesn't make the game unplayable, just less than optimal.

Rheinlander is one of my favourite games, and provides a very interesting implementation of an unusual theme. I hope that word spreads about it, and more people come to appreciate this hidden gem.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Fad23 — 2008-10-10T19:28:19+00:00

I question that statement. Who said that it doesn't occupy a space? The rules as translated, if we can trust the posts above, do not correlate with the German rules. My suspicion is that the single phrase added to the English rules might have been a quick fix and not necessarily completely considered.

I personally do not believe that the wording in this case was meant to suggest that nothing is in the spot where something so clearly IS in the spot. If there ever is a confirmation then I suspect that either you or I might have to change our tune. In the meantime, there's only argument.

edit:
For my part, the reason I feel it works the way that I do gets down to the essential importance of the cards in the game. This is not a game about placing knights wherever one would like. The importance of cards in this equation is vital. It would seem to me that without being able to place knights on water spaces the strength of the cards in a very important way hampered.

That's not to say that bastions are un-important. I just feel they are powerful enough the way I have interpreted them. They have to be used judiciously.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

aramis — 2008-10-08T10:24:58+00:00

IMO:

The bastion doesn't "occupy" a space. It prevents the space from ever becoming occupied, as only knights "occupy" spaces.

Therefore, I wouldn't allow placing a knight on the river next to a bastion.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Fad23 — 2008-10-02T19:06:05+00:00

I finally realized why the word "empty" might have been included in the English edition rules. The way I see it, if a space is occupied by a knight then it can be join another duchy. Since Bastions are noted as "empty," they cannot join two duchies, even if both are butted up against that space.

I don't believe that the Bastions are empty as regards the water. Perhaps a better wording for this rules addition would have been to state explicitly that two duchies that would otherwise be connected if a knight were in the spot of a bastion would NOT be connected. There might be a much better way to describe it than that.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Fad23 — 2008-09-18T19:18:42+00:00

It seems to me there are translation issues here. I came up with a game-changing scenario. Having a 12+ central duchy that stretched from 12-16 and having a few knights in some of the duchies just beyond from 17-21 on both sides of the river, and then also having cards 16-18, with bastions at strategically placed spots on either side of the river. We had to make a spot-ruling and it didn't go in my favor.

I came here first just to see if there was anything decisive, but apparently not. I think I will just have to state clearly before-hand the rules that we will play with until we hear otherwise. Since the game was released in 1999, I'll assume that won't be soon.

I consider that the spaces occupied by bastions are occupied and thus the specific cards should be usable as long as the other side of the river is also occupied.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

FlyingArrow — 2008-08-11T17:43:28+00:00

Marfried wrote:
I don't know if this adds to the discussion, but I didn't find said ambiguity in the German rules; here it says: "You can only play a knight on a river space if both the land spaces are occupied" and "a knight may not be played on a space with a bastion".

So, here, I would see no point in not allowing a knight to be played on the water next to a bastion...

That still leaves the question of whether a bastion 'occupies' a space, since a space with a bastion has all the properties of an empty space. One property of an empty space is that it's not occupied. I would tend to agree with your view, but from the wording of the rules I can see both interpretations.

Thread: Re: This Land is Your Land, This Land is Rhein Land

Diis — 2008-08-09T15:07:40+00:00

Nice review. I think I'll buy it from Tanga off the strength of your review... make sure Knizia cuts you a portion of his check...

Diis

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:24:25+00:00

Brad (as red) has 6 duchies late in the game

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:23:10+00:00

The Archbishop

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:22:18+00:00

Ed and Brad set up a game of Rheinlander

Thread: Re: User Review

Friendless — 2008-06-04T06:12:37+00:00

Greg, I realise I'm 8 years late with this reply but I'd hate your disappointment to turn too many people away from this great game. Of course Rheinlander is not about the Rheinland as a tourist attraction, but about the period in the early 19th century when the area consisted of many small self-ruling regions called kleinstaterei as described in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinstaaterei

With that background I find that the theme fits the mechanics very closely, and of course that's why Knizia made the game about the Rhine rather than the Thames or the Nile or the Mississippi.

I find the game provides a great deal of tension - I'm holding the card which will allow me to cross the river, but I can't play it until he's reinforced across from me... and will he do that before the other guy ends the game? And even with our relatively slow group, a 5 player game is over in 45 minutes.

Rheinlander is a game which really works for me, and I'd hate others to be turned away from it by your strangely mixed review.

Thread: Re: Availability?

FlyingArrow — 2008-04-22T16:35:46+00:00

But to answer your question, I'm pretty sure it is technically out of print. It's just not hard to find a copy or particularly expensive.

Thread: Re: Availability?

Gamegrunt — 2008-04-21T22:43:57+00:00

ThoughtHammer is offering a "Rheiner Knizia Signature Series" Rheinlander which looks suspiciously similar to the Face2Face Games Edition. In point of fact, it is probably one and the same.

http://www.thoughthammer.com/rheinlander-reiner-knizia-signa...

I was one of the fortunate few who scored this game at a deep discount from Barnes & Noble, but it is a very nice edition regardless of the price.

Gg

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-03-12T20:10:56+00:00

board

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-03-12T20:10:34+00:00

unpunched components

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-03-12T20:08:47+00:00

back of Hasbro version

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-03-12T20:03:52+00:00

Image

Rokkr — 2007-11-16T21:32:29+00:00

copper, silver and gold ingots

Image

Rokkr — 2007-11-16T21:31:04+00:00

bishop, church and castle tokens

Image

Rokkr — 2007-11-16T21:29:49+00:00

city tokens

Thread: Re: Availability?

jtakagi — 2007-10-29T21:40:13+00:00

There is a rather big glut of Rheinlander available for trade due to the Barnes & Noble clearance sale. If you want to purchase it, it is in stock at all the usual online stores.

Thread: Availability?

amacleod — 2007-10-29T21:30:57+00:00

Does anyone out there know if Rheinlander is still in print?
Thanks muchly!

Thread: Re: Learning Rheinlander

adam.skinner — 2007-09-21T16:02:26+00:00

Well, it looks like we had a number of rules errors and misconceptions in our first game. I was interested in checking out the rules, and I came across the rules on the Geek in PDF form. I'm reading them, and there is nothing about scoring points for knights!! Just special features and dukes. Plus, Don was right about archbishop usage.

Scoring

During the course of the game, the value of a duchy is made up of 1 point for the duke, plus the point values of all its cities, castles and churches. For example, the red duchy in Figure 8 is worth 6 points (1 point for the duke, 4 points for the city and 1 point for the church).

Also, it seems we missed a little in the final scoring:

Final scores At the end of the game, players count up their scores for each of their duchies on the board.
• In addition to the cities, castles and churches, each duke now scores 5 points in place of the normal 1 point to reward his independence.
• The player holding the archbishop card at the end of the game scores a further 5 points.
• All the scores are paid out in coins.
• The player with the most money wins the game and is declared master of the Rheinlands.

So, given the (relative) dearth of points in the actual scoring methods, this makes retaining duchy ownership at the end of the game even more important. Also, the archbishop scores 5 points (which we didn't do).

Archbishop

On your turn, carry out the following three steps:
1. Select a card from your hand and place it face-up on the discard pile so that all players can see it.
2. Place one of your knights on the gameboard.
3. Draw a new card from the top of the deck to bring the number of cards in your hand back to five. This marks the end of your turn.

If you have the archbishop card and you play a card with the number of a land space which already contains another player's knight, you can use your turn to replace the knight on that space with one of your own. The knight which is removed is returned to his owner.

By "use your turn", I imagine they mean "instead of phase 2". If this is so, then the matter is cut and dry. Replace and do not do phase 2. If it is not true, then what does "use your turn" mean? Clearly, you must play a card from your hand and draw it back, for an area must be selected.

There are other implicit reasons why this must be so, but that "use your turn" phrase is quite clear, now. When playing the archbishop, instead of placing a knight, you *replace* an existing knight in the area selected with one of your own.

Thread: Learning Rheinlander

adam.skinner — 2007-09-20T13:48:01+00:00

The last game of the night for me was Rheinlander. Actually, this was the last game of the night period. The other table was had lost a couple of players (after Moods, I believe another party game was gleefully called for, and a "real gamer" husband and wife couple decided to skate rather than get roped into Pictionary or something, which I'd overhead someone wistfully lamenting the absence of). It was a shame too, because it was only like 8, and while Don and Lisa and I were engaged in San Juan at the time (the wife immediately recognised the similarity to Puerto Rico when she came over to check it out), I did have plenty of good 2 player games (though there was a dearth of tables, as it turned out). Still, Hive is playable anywhere, and they could have joined us for Rheinlander when we finished. The rather odd mirrored tables would have suited Jambo or Blue Moon as well. But I suppose they can get 2p action anytime.

I'd picked up Rheinlander during the Great B&N Pillage of 2007 (along with 2 copies of Roborally and an extra copy of Puerto Rico, which still happens to be in shrink, laying in wait as a gift for some lucky soul). It's a game of strategy, with the scent of China and T&E on it, though it is wholly it's own game and not some ungodly amalgam or derivative work (afaict).

Each player is dealt 5 cards, uniquely numbered from 1 to 50-something. The board is a winding river surrounded by grass, and on this grass are cities, chapels, and castles. This grass is divided into areas, each comprised of 2 shore parts and a river part.

On your turn, you play a card and place a knight (which are colored wooden discs). You place the knight in one of the sections of the area that matches the number of the card you played. Alternately, you can extend a placement you've already made by placing this new knight orthogonally adjacent to the existing one.

When you've got a majority of your knights in a contiguous group of knights, you claim a "duchy" and place your goober on the table - a plastic duke.

This is where things get interesting, and conflict begins (and it gets a little like T&E): if your knights are in someone else's duchy, and you obtain a majority, then it's now your duchy. Their guy comes off, and your guy goes on. But they score points! They get a number of points based on the size of the duchy prior to your placement. Now if you get kicked out, you'll score points. So infighting can be a very effective method of gaining points (as Don found out). Not only that, but you kick them out of the castles and install your own minions in there. Mmmmmm, minions.

So that was akin to "internal conflicts" in T&E. There are also "external conflicts", though they're not called as such (or even noted in the book, for the same rules apply). Since you can't expand your duchy if it would bring you adjacent to an opponent's knight, you actually have to have the card of the number of the area you want to play in. So if I want to join a couple of existing duchys and lay the spank down on someone, I *need* that card. And if you don't want it, then you can keep it in your hand to keep it away from your opponents. Don't just discard it, because the Jester might put it back into circulation.

The is a single card in the deck. When he's drawn, the discard pile and the draw pile are shuffled together. This is a great mechanic, because you never know what's going to be available or when, but each cycle only one of each card exists.

During the game I'd made a terrible blunder and inadvertently started an external conflict, which caused me to simply hand the duchy over to Don. "Thanks Adam!" "No problem, Don!"

I'd been concentrating on getting the Arch-bishop. Freaking Arch-bishop. I didn't realise that you had to retain a hard majority on him to keep him (unlike the duchys). If you have more churches than anyone else, you get the arch-bishop. He lets you give one of your opponents the boot when placing directly into an area using a card. We weren't certain whether this meant that you could place a knight in an available space in the area AND give the boot to an opposing knight, or be able to place a knight in an area you otherwise would be unable to place in (say it's all full) by replacing him (and hence effectively giving him the boot), or both. Don felt the former was too overpowered, so we played you could only replace (regardless of whether the area was full), but after only using the power of the bishop like twice in the game, I don't think it's all that powerful. Freaking bishop. I should have gone after castles!! Or maybe create a bazillion little dutches surrounding high point cities. Stupid bishop.

The end of the game centered around that area I'd joined together and Don had won. I'd captured it back from him, though Lisa's placement nearby had SCREWED me big time, because I couldn't expand and hence had to use my card to play the join (d'oh!) instead of playing it on the water to bridge my island duchy FTW! That's where my mind was, and why I handed it all over to Don. Anyway, I laid another bridge down and captured it, and then Don captured it back (though I called it a turn or 2 before). I totally could have stopped him, but I was still kind of oblivious. He got boucoup points, and while I scored well taking it from him, he scored nearly as much and then had it at the end of the game (this was his last knight, which is the end-game condition - one player running out of knights).

In the end, Don put some serious spank down on both Lisa and I. I had like 70 or 80 points, Lisa was closer to 40 or 50, and Don had something like 110-120.

I want a rematch!

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Marfried — 2007-09-13T17:13:28+00:00

I don't know if this adds to the discussion, but I didn't find said ambiguity in the German rules; here it says: "You can only play a knight on a river space if both the land spaces are occupied" and "a knight may not be played on a space with a bastion".

So, here, I would see no point in not allowing a knight to be played on the water next to a bastion...

Thread: Re: across the river

ekted — 2007-07-17T20:17:45+00:00

Knights played on the river are no different from knights played on land. They can connect 2 knights/duchies together into a single new/larger duchy. Placed knights come from off the board, so they are never part of a duchy before they are played.

Note that, since there's only one of each card, it's more likely that the knights on land were placed by the Reinforcement action and therefore already part of a duchy. Placing a knight on the river requires a card of that exact value. It's possible that the deck was used and reshuffled twice (joker card), just not as likely.

Thread: Re: across the river

Gamegrunt — 2007-07-17T20:15:04+00:00

jerkules wrote:
Just read through the rules and I wanted to make sure of something:

If I play a card and place a knight down, then someone else plays the same card and places a knight across the river, then I play the same card and place a knight in the river, does that create a duchy?

Given what you have described, yes. Based on my experience with the game I would say that what you have described would rarely happen. But hey, anything is possible in the curious world of boardgames.

jerkules wrote:
And also, when you have two duchies across from each other, if someone plays a knight on a river space between them, that connects them into one big one? If so, does it matter which duchy that knight was part of before? I guess it could.

Yes, it connects the two duchies into a "big one."

"was part of before?" No. What matters is which player has the majority in the newly formed, mega-duchy. The affiliation of the river knight could determine who controls the new duchy if that knight is a member of the majority.

Hope this helps.

Gg

Thread: across the river

jerkules — 2007-07-17T19:58:53+00:00

Just read through the rules and I wanted to make sure of something:

If I play a card and place a knight down, then someone else plays the same card and places a knight across the river, then I play the same card and place a knight in the river, does that create a duchy?

And also, when you have two duchies across from each other, if someone plays a knight on a river space between them, that connects them into one big one? If so, does it matter which duchy that knight was part of before? I guess it could.

Thread: Re: reinforcement issue

atholbrose — 2007-07-14T20:41:01+00:00

photocurio wrote:
But a space containing an opponent's knight? Meaning if an opponent has a knight across the river, you may not reinforce on your side of the river? I think that is what it means. I have not been playing this way. But I think I like this rule.
A knight across the river is not adjacent. The river space is in between.

Thread: Re: reinforcement issue

Favre4MVP — 2007-07-14T17:14:27+00:00

It's simply saying A) You can't reinforce by placing a knight next to an opponents knight, and B) You can't reinforce in the river.

I think the reason that it says "containing" is referring to the power of the archbishop...you can't remove an opponent's knight by simply reinforcing. You would have to play that card.

Thread: Re: reinforcement issue

NateStraight — 2007-07-14T17:01:37+00:00

photocurio wrote:
But a space containing an opponent's knight? Meaning if an opponent has a knight across the river, you may not reinforce on your side of the river? I think that is what it means. I have not been playing this way. But I think I like this rule.

No, I don't think that's what it means at all. Each numbered area has three "spaces" within it, as far as I can tell. It's just saying you can't use reinforcement to supplant an opponent's knight, I think.

Thread: reinforcement issue

photocurio — 2007-07-14T16:05:07+00:00

I just noticed the implications of this sentence in the Face to Face rulebook.:Note that you may not reinforce to a space containing or adjacent to an opponent's knight and a water space may not be occupied this way.
So, it is clear what the adjacency point means, i.e. you may not join duchies by reinforcement.

But a space containing an opponent's knight? Meaning if an opponent has a knight across the river, you may not reinforce on your side of the river? I think that is what it means. I have not been playing this way. But I think I like this rule.

Thread: Re: Rheinlander vs. Acquire

sparr0 — 2007-06-13T18:27:58+00:00

Der Ubermolch wrote:
whereas in Acquire, only the stronger players can keep track of exactly who has invested in which corporations and how much
And by 'stronger players' you mean 'the people with the best memory'. Which is precisely why the newest Acquire rules do not require secret stock holdings. It adds nothing to the game but bias towards trackers.

Thread: Re: Extra Archbishop cards

sparr0 — 2007-06-13T18:21:07+00:00

I love the giant wooden pawn! I am considering using it for Jungle Speed

Thread: Re: "Rheinlander is Shallow/Obvious"- agree/disagree?

sparr0 — 2007-06-13T18:20:21+00:00

Just to add a data point... I played my first game of this recently, and finished with a single Duchy comprised of 14 of my own knights and 20+ mixed enemy knights. I found my luckiest 'play' to be holding onto the only card that would let an opponent cross the river and steal it from me. I tied for first against someone who had done less well during the game but had a few more small duchies at the end for the 4 point bonuses.

Thread: Re: "Rheinlander is Shallow/Obvious"- agree/disagree?

photocurio — 2007-06-10T17:56:58+00:00

Schlossser misses the essential point of this game. Many small duchies score the highest at the end of the game. But they are hard to defend. A few large duchies can dominate and/or attack, but will yield a lower game end score. Given the many tactical possbilites afforded by the cities, churches and castles, optimal play is anything but trivial. This is a deep game, not a shallow one.

Thread: Re: The new edition by F2F

TheCat — 2007-05-05T15:59:45+00:00

skeletodoc wrote:
The game sells for $32.49 at Board& Bits............why pay retail for games?

To support my friendly local game store.

Thread: Re: "Rheinlander is Shallow/Obvious"- agree/disagree?

FlyingArrow — 2007-03-29T00:39:26+00:00

Coffeebike wrote:

3. Optimal Play leads to: Whomever Draws the Best Cards, Wins?

In any game that involves luck of any sort, if all players play perfectly the luckiest one will win.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Gamegrunt — 2007-03-14T12:19:17+00:00

chargetheguns wrote:
This came up in our game tonight, and to me the rules as written prohibit putting a knight in the water next to a bastion. Not sure that was the intent of the designer, but that's the way it reads, so that's the way we play it.

Michael I wonder if you got this game at the same sale we did.

Alan,

Probably, if there were 3 copies of Rheinlander at the B&N near the Parks Mall available at the time of the sale. One our fellow Geeks picked up his copy at half-price. I checked out the 75% off sale and the last copy of Rheinlander was still there, and at $12.49 I had to have it.

I love elasticity of demand, don't you?

This is a very good game...we really should get together and play it one of these days.

Michael

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

chargetheguns — 2007-03-14T03:27:17+00:00

This came up in our game tonight, and to me the rules as written prohibit putting a knight in the water next to a bastion. Not sure that was the intent of the designer, but that's the way it reads, so that's the way we play it.

Michael I wonder if you got this game at the same sale we did.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

FlyingArrow — 2007-03-12T03:13:06+00:00

This is quite an ambiguity. Can anyone give an authoritative answer?

One part fo the rules says you can play in the water if both of the land places are occupied, and a bastion clearly occupies the place. On the other hand, the space has the properties of an empty space.

I'm inclined to go with the majority and allow knights in the water if the bastion occupies one of the land spaces.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

D0NK1J0T3 — 2007-03-10T13:53:51+00:00

steveoliverc wrote:
Christine Biancheria wrote:
I would have thought you could place the knight in the water if BOTH land spaces had something on it (be it knights or bastions)

That's how I play it. Seems the most reasonable interpretation given how the game works. Otherwise the bastions are just too powerful.

F2F Rules writtes that the bastions has all propeties of an empty space but knights can´t be played there... yes the bastions are very powerful and very strategic.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

steveoliverc — 2007-03-02T15:32:48+00:00

Christine Biancheria wrote:
I would have thought you could place the knight in the water if BOTH land spaces had something on it (be it knights or bastions)

That's how I play it. Seems the most reasonable interpretation given how the game works. Otherwise the bastions are just too powerful.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Christine Biancheria — 2007-03-02T14:44:31+00:00

I would have thought you could place the knight in the water if BOTH land spaces had something on it (be it knights or bastions)

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

NateStraight — 2007-02-25T00:53:22+00:00

I see no reason not to allow knight placement on the water next to a bastion (providing both banks are full, as required). That's not in contradiction to the purpose of the bastions at all and it seems the logical ruling.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Gamegrunt — 2007-02-24T22:31:58+00:00

FWIW, my house rule for this situation will be to treat a bastion as if it's a knight and thereby allow the placement of a knight on a water space until I'm convinced it should be otherwise.

Gg

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

markhu — 2007-02-23T22:58:59+00:00

Um, I'm still unsure on this one, depending if you interpret "otherwise" to mean "in all other cases" or "with regards to connecting dutchies."

It seems that one way of reading that rule SHOULD ALLOW a knight to be played in between two land-based bastions, and such a placement could connect a dutchy upstream from another.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

ekted — 2007-02-21T01:23:11+00:00

My bad. I didn't understand your real question (note to self: read more carefully). I agree that it is unclear how this works. I think I may have allowed knight placement in the past, but it hasn't come up often.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

Wrayman — 2007-02-21T01:10:39+00:00

I do find it somewhat ambiguous. I also made the same assumption that Mike did, that a knight can be played in the water if a bastion occupies one of both of the banks. Now that the rules have been layed out in plain view and related directly to this circumstance, it is fairly clear to me that a knight cannot be played in the water in this way because the bastion space has all the characteristics of an empty space except that it cannot have a knight placed in it. It only appears ambiguous to those such as I that did not make the implied connection I guess.

Thread: Re: Bastions and Water Spaces

ekted — 2007-02-21T00:21:35+00:00

The word "otherwise" has meaning.

You can only place a knight on water if BOTH land spaces are occupied. You can never place a bastion on water. I see no ambiguity.

Thread: Bastions and Water Spaces

Gamegrunt — 2007-02-20T23:53:26+00:00

The reasonable answer to my question is probably, "Yes, Michael, you can place a knight in a water space if one (or both) of the land areas that correspond to it have bastions."

But the rules (Face to Face) sez:

"A bastion is used to block a space: no knight can ever occupy that space. Once placed, a bastion is neutral. That space does not form part of a duchy and otherwise has all the properties of an empty space.

Well, if a space occupied by a bastion has all the properties of an empty space, how can one square that with the rules for water space placement?

"Only if both land spaces are already occupied may the knight be placed on a corresponding water space."

Does anyone else see the ambiguity here?

Regards to all,

Gg

Thread: Re: Combining two of your own duchies...

Liumas — 2007-02-20T01:12:21+00:00

Hi John,

You don't 'claim' dutchies.
They just happen!
Whenever you have 2 adjacent knights.

Thread: Re: Combining two of your own duchies...

jtessier — 2007-02-19T22:52:33+00:00

Liumas wrote:
Yes! Correct!

But... the number of Dukes is unlimited.

You are not limited by the numbers of Dukes present in the game.
The prior edition has 6 Dukes, the later edition has 7.
There is no limit to he number of dutchies you may have.
The Dukes are just a convenient visual aid.
If you run out of Dukes - use something else.

Thanks for the quick answer. I would have never thought that the Dukes were unlimited. Why otherwise would you ever not claim one that you could? The rules say you can claim a dutchy at any time (new edition English rules). In what case, if they are unlimited, would you not claim it as soon as you had 2 adjacent Knights?

Thanks again,

John Tessier