Game: Dynasties

Thread: Re: Tie-breaker Concern

GodfatherPTS — 2008-09-29T16:51:13+00:00

I think one usefulness of the current tie-breaker is that it rewards a player who was able to either A) use fewer 6's and/or not use the +2/+3 cards and still achieve equal control and potentially B) trade some of his or her white cards in for armies from the reserve throughout the game.

Seen in this light, I would suggest that the player who finishes with more armies in reserve, i.e. the player who sustained equal control while utilizing fewer high-powered cards, is deemed the better player (or at least the winner).

Remember, if this is the rule then the better player is the one that applies it most effectively. Therefore, attacking sooner and being able to hold on for the tie is elevated above waiting out the first rounds and attacking aggressively in the end. However...only if it ends in a tie. Otherwise...

Another cog in the wheel though. I just finished a game that was one province from a tie AND both players finished with NO armies in reserve. Hmm...

(I apparently like ellipses )

Thread: Re: Dynasties - A Simple Review

Guy Mullarkey — 2008-08-30T23:40:58+00:00

Hey John,

The Aton recommendation was awesome!

My wife and I have played this numerous times since we bought it, it is a great game with excellent replay value, thanks for the tip!

GM

Thread: Re: Warlord Card Rules Question

Al Newman — 2008-07-27T23:54:45+00:00

GodfatherPTS wrote:

Question about all of the "during the first 6 dynasties" Warlord cards.
Does this phrase mean that the card can only be played ONCE during the first 6 dynasties and then is discarded (i.e. the phrase is intended to mean "may only be played during the first 6 dynasties")?

Correct. The special cards are powerful and can too easily change a level playing field late in the game, thus they can only be played (once) in the first 6 dynasties.

- Alan

Thread: Warlord Card Rules Question

GodfatherPTS — 2008-07-23T14:49:14+00:00

I didn't see this question on the forums thus far.

Question about all of the "during the first 6 dynasties" Warlord cards.
Does this phrase mean that the card can only be played ONCE during the first 6 dynasties and then is discarded (i.e. the phrase is intended to mean "may only be played during the first 6 dynasties")?

OR does it mean that the use of this card in the first dynasty allows the player to take that same action EACH of the first six dynasties thus using the power up to 6 times?

Thanks

Thread: Re: "Removed" pieces

GodfatherPTS — 2008-07-23T14:28:00+00:00

But aren't there some circumstances that cause pieces to be permanently removed from the game?

Also, playing a '6' means you mark the province name with a cube/army thus removing it from play.

Thread: Re: 3/4 Warlord cards?

GodfatherPTS — 2008-07-23T14:08:01+00:00

In the section, "Variant with Warlord cards", the rule states that "before the game begins, the player with white forces take the * three * Sun Tzu cards ..."

There are actually 4 "Sun Tzu" cards in the game. Does it mean that a player has to choose 3 out of the 4 to add to his hand? Then, during the game, he can play 1 out of the 3 and discard the other 2.

Or this is an errata? It means choosing one of the four and discard the other three?

To present an alternative interpretation...I thought that you randomly drew three of the four cards and then picked one from those. This would mean you don't have the option of one particular card, because it was initially discarded.

However, you will still only wind up with one...so you should play with the rule you like best.

Thread: Re: 3/4 Warlord cards?

Skanibal — 2008-04-26T17:15:43+00:00

stil no reply from jollyroger games...

Thread: Re: 3/4 Warlord cards?

Skanibal — 2008-04-23T05:50:27+00:00

just e-mailed Jim Dietz at jollyrogergames.com, i'll let you know how it is going.
Thank you for the advice

=]

Thread: Re: 3/4 Warlord cards?

Al Newman — 2008-04-22T19:47:28+00:00

Starsunsky wrote:
In the section, "Variant with Warlord cards", the rule states that "before the game begins, the player with white forces take the * three * Sun Tzu cards ..."

There are actually 4 "Sun Tzu" cards in the game. Does it mean that a player has to choose 3 out of the 4 to add to his hand? Then, during the game, he can play 1 out of the 3 and discard the other 2.

Or this is an errata? It means choosing one of the four and discard the other three?

Thanks,
Star

The question has already been answered in the forum. That was probably a typo. Unfortunately, I'm nowhere near a copy of Dynasties at the moment.

Re the cards that seem to be missing, if you email Jolly Roger, I'm positive they can accommodate you. You probably got a copy that was not collated properly.

Go to http://www.jollyrogergames.com/ and just click on "Contact."

Glad you enjoyed the game!

Regards,

Alan

Thread: Re: 3/4 Warlord cards?

Skanibal — 2008-04-22T04:36:22+00:00

About those cards... The description of their effect in the rulebook differs from what is written on the cards... For example the card "may start the game with the pawn 1 space to his side" doesnt exist in my box, the "may counter a plague" card is not listed in the rules, and one of sun tzu cards is listed to be one of king shao... When checking the german rule section of the booklet, i dont read german but i only see 3 cards description for each side...
I am a bit lost... Could someone, preferably the author, tell me what should all the cards be and which side gets them?

I've checked some of the pictures in the gallery, and i see cards there that i dont have in my box ... Do i have to ask for replacement cards ?
Thanks

Guilhem from france

Thread: Re: Simple Question about -1 Action Card

Al Newman — 2008-04-02T13:28:19+00:00

gragglesoy wrote:
Hi all, I've looked through a few posts and I can't find an exact answer to this situation. -1 vs 1 = no result correct?

Minus 1 is the equivalent of one army less than whatever the opponent's card is, which in this case, makes the card equivalent to a zero. If the opponent had played a 4, the minus 1 would be equivalent to a 3.

Thus, the difference for your example would be 1 and the opponent would place an (additional) army in the region or the player that played the minus 1 would lose 1.

Regards,

Alan Newman

Thread: Simple Question about -1 Action Card

gragglesoy — 2008-04-02T06:26:00+00:00

Hi all, I've looked through a few posts and I can't find an exact answer to this situation. -1 vs 1 = no result correct?

Thread: Re: Resolving Province Order Privilege

FlyingArrow — 2008-04-01T15:06:59+00:00

I think it is only important when it comes to shuttling armies around, a stage which you may not reach in a game anyway.

Thread: Re: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

garygarison — 2008-03-31T19:31:02+00:00

Mike A wrote:
It would end up making a difference when you run out of armies quickly and have to move them from region to region, something which isn't too common in my limited experience.

Yes, running out of armies in this wrongheaded variant is a virtual certainty. And yet, that did make for some interesting situations. Since efficient shuttling one's armies around the board is essential, the order in which the region cards are turned over is of great importance.

Thread: Re: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

Mike A — 2008-03-31T18:40:47+00:00

garygarison wrote:

As an aside, our muddled "shared occupancy" variant didn't seem altogether broken. But then again, this was after playing Risk...

It would end up making a difference when you run out of armies quickly and have to move them from region to region, something which isn't too common in my limited experience.

Thread: Re: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

garygarison — 2008-03-27T17:21:35+00:00

Mike A wrote:

Both players never have armies in the same region, you always remove and place armies as needed to make up the difference.

Oh jeez, you don't say? We played our first game last night and had it all wrong, then. Funny thing is, just before Dynasties, we played thrift-find Transformers Risk just for laughs. When we settled down for the more serious Dynasties and were working out the rules, I actually said, "Oh, this isn't like Risk -- we can both occupy the same region."

Thanks much for clearing up my confusion. Looking forward to playing this again with correct placement rules.

As an aside, our muddled "shared occupancy" variant didn't seem altogether broken. But then again, this was after playing Risk...

Thread: Re: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

Mike A — 2008-03-27T14:23:22+00:00

garygarison wrote:
I have 3 armies in Tibet and play a plague card. Is my presence in Tibet now 2 armies?

If so, let's assume my opponent had 4 armies in Tibet. No rounding necessary, so his presence is also now 2 armies. So a plague card in a region where a player leads by 1 army results in a tie, and consequently no scoring in that region during a scoring round, correct?

You can't both have armies in Tibet at the same time. Only one of you at a time can have armies there. If you had placed 3 and your opponent had placed 4, all that would be there is the difference meaning one of your opponent's armies.

Both players never have armies in the same region, you always remove and place armies as needed to make up the difference.

Thread: Re: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

macls29 — 2008-03-27T12:33:54+00:00

I think you are correct on both counts.

garygarison wrote:
I have 3 armies in Tibet and play a plague card. Is my presence in Tibet now 2 armies?

If so, let's assume my opponent had 4 armies in Tibet. No rounding necessary, so his presence is also now 2 armies. So a plague card in a region where a player leads by 1 army results in a tie, and consequently no scoring in that region during a scoring round, correct?

Thread: Plague rounding and n vs. n+1 tactics

garygarison — 2008-03-27T07:03:07+00:00

I have 3 armies in Tibet and play a plague card. Is my presence in Tibet now 2 armies?

If so, let's assume my opponent had 4 armies in Tibet. No rounding necessary, so his presence is also now 2 armies. So a plague card in a region where a player leads by 1 army results in a tie, and consequently no scoring in that region during a scoring round, correct?

Thread: Re: Play summary posted

Al Newman — 2008-03-23T13:42:00+00:00

While the summary covers most of the rules, there are important points that probably should be covered, such as the rules for playing a "1" and a "6".

A "1" enables the player to draw 3 cards and keep 2.

If a player plays his "6", he must place a cube above the Province name and may not play a "6" the again.

Regards,

Alan

Thread: Play summary posted

kentreuber — 2008-03-11T04:57:24+00:00

I've uploaded a summary of the setup, basic, expert, and warlord games. Please let me know if you see any errors.

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

Al Newman — 2008-03-09T04:17:16+00:00

caffeinehead wrote:
Thanks for the responses. Technical writing is always a challenge between trying to get the exact and complete point across without doubling the size of the sentence/paragraph. I took it to mean that if you *can* take all the armies from one territory then you must (adjacent or not), but not everyone did.

So i guess that one line would need to be added to the rule: In the event that a single territory does not contain enough armies, the player may choose armies from multiple territories (adjacent first).

Offhand that sounds right but the odds of such an event are really quite remote.

Regards,

Alan

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

caffeinehead — 2008-03-05T13:17:41+00:00

Thanks for the responses. Technical writing is always a challenge between trying to get the exact and complete point across without doubling the size of the sentence/paragraph. I took it to mean that if you *can* take all the armies from one territory then you must (adjacent or not), but not everyone did.

So i guess that one line would need to be added to the rule: In the event that a single territory does not contain enough armies, the player may choose armies from multiple territories (adjacent first).

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

Al Newman — 2008-03-05T13:02:03+00:00

caffeinehead wrote:
Cool. Are you allowed to "play the system"? Say i need four more armies and have an adjacent province with four. Am i allowed to take three from there and one from another?

Only if there is no other option. Sorry we couldn't get all these situations into the rule set.

Regards,

Alan

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

caffeinehead — 2008-03-03T19:11:39+00:00

Cool. Are you allowed to "play the system"? Say i need four more armies and have an adjacent province with four. Am i allowed to take three from there and one from another?

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

Al Newman — 2008-03-03T14:31:18+00:00

caffeinehead wrote:
The rule reads as follows: A player must place as many armies in the Province as he is allowed to. If he does not have a sufficient number of armies in reserve, he MUST take them from a neighboring Province (one that shares a border) if he can or another Province, if he does not control a neighboring Province.

I understand this to mean that you use all from your reserve and that whatever's left must be taken from a single adjacent province if you control an adjacent province and if you don't, from a single province you control. What i don't know is what happens if that single province doesn't have enough armies. Do you move onto another adjacent province (if you control one)? Am i wrong in the "single" aspect?

The rules probably should have specified "Province(s)" rather than "Province".

If you need 4 armies to place as a result of the battle, you still have to get them from somewhere. You can't specify a single Province that only has 3 and take them from there. You would still have to take 1 army from another Province to adjudicate the battle properly.

- Alan

Thread: Re: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

caffeinehead — 2008-03-03T01:13:48+00:00

Anyone? (And by "anyone", i'm hoping Alan pipes in.)

Thread: question regarding not being able to place enough armies

caffeinehead — 2008-02-28T15:32:03+00:00

The rule reads as follows: A player must place as many armies in the Province as he is allowed to. If he does not have a sufficient number of armies in reserve, he MUST take them from a neighboring Province (one that shares a border) if he can or another Province, if he does not control a neighboring Province.

I understand this to mean that you use all from your reserve and that whatever's left must be taken from a single adjacent province if you control an adjacent province and if you don't, from a single province you control. What i don't know is what happens if that single province doesn't have enough armies. Do you move onto another adjacent province (if you control one)? Am i wrong in the "single" aspect?

Thread: Re: "Removed" pieces

caffeinehead — 2008-02-28T14:52:11+00:00

kduke wrote:
But aren't there some circumstances that cause pieces to be permanently removed from the game?Yes. The Suicide Attack! cards (+2, +3) remove armies from play.

Thread: Re: How did it go so wrong? - A Dynasties Session Report

macls29 — 2008-02-14T17:43:51+00:00

Jarwell wrote:
Did it every dawn on you that your wife is a much better game player than you expected.

Or maybe I'm not as good as I think... or both!

I should stick to Werewolf

Thread: Re: How did it go so wrong? - A Dynasties Session Report

Jarwell — 2008-02-14T13:12:27+00:00

Did it every dawn on you that your wife is a much better game player than you expected.

Thread: Re: Dynasties - A Simple Review

Guy Mullarkey — 2008-02-02T22:19:01+00:00

Hey John - thanks for those recommendations, really appreciate it. Aton looks right up our alley, it has been added to the want list - we will give that a try then progress to some of these other recommendations - Cheers, Guy

Thread: Re: Dynasties - A Simple Review

jearles — 2008-02-02T05:02:25+00:00

Hi Guy.

If you are looking for a two-player area control game... take a look at Aton.

I'm also intrigued by King of Siam, but have not had a chance to play it yet.

Edit: Louis XIV and Mykerinos do a great job of scaling down to 2 from a multi-player game.

Thread: Dynasties - A Simple Review

Guy Mullarkey — 2008-02-02T00:11:21+00:00

My gaming collection is comprised of two main types of game – multiplayer games that I play on occasion with friends or fellow geeks,
and two player games that I mainly play with my wife Nicole (I have a geek list of my top games to play with one’s own part time gamer
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/27881).

Dynasties was purchased as a potential new game for my wife and I to play on a semi-regular basis.
We have played the game about 8-10 times so far since purchasing the game, and we have not yet found the need to
play the advanced rules (which introduces some extra attack cards and a set of special cards of which each player can
choose one each game).

In essence, the game centres around territorial control of five Chinese provinces.

A player controls a province when s/he has at least one of his or her armies present in the province.

The game is played over nine turns, with scoring occurring at the end of turns 3, 6 and 9.

Whomever controls each province at these times scores a predetermined number of points for each province
(scoring tiles are allocated randomly each game and there are more tokens than provinces so each game is different.
Most scoring tokens have a high value in one turn and two lower values in the others, or a mix of medium values across all three –
this means that you need to think carefully about what to control at each scoring opportunity, and you may in fact withdraw from
some areas if they are not worth much in subsequent turns.

Each turn, a player allocates a card to each province secretly by placing it next to the board, and then these are revealed to see who
the winner is.

A player has six cards which are numbered 1-6. These are always available to a player (although the 6 card can only be played once
in a province in the basic game) and these equate to the number of armies you commit to the area in a turn. You then compare players
scores, and whoever has the higher number, either adds that number of armies into the province if it is empty or already occupied by
the player with the higher number, or else you subtract the number from the armies of the existing player in the territory.

Thus, if Player 1 plays a 3 card and Player 2 plays a 6 card, Player 2 wins by three armies. Player 1 had two armies in the province,
so player two removes those armies and adds one of his/her own, to make up the total of three.

There are also “+1” cards, “-1” cards and “Plague” cards, as well as cards with the values 7,8,9 and 10. These are special cards,
which once played cannot be re-used. A player starts with four of these and then gets one more each turn (NB – if a player plays a
1 card, s/he gets two special cards at the end of that turn). The numbered cards operate as per the basic 1-6 cards, the +1 and -1 card
s mean a player scores one more or one less than their opponents card, and the plague cards overrules all other cards and the number
of armies in the province is reduced by half rounded down.

When scoring, one adds up the scores for all the provinces one controls, as does the other player. The scoring marker is then moved
towards the player with the highest score by the differential between the players scores. For example if Player 1 scored 8 and Player 2
scored 7, the scoring marker would move one space towards Player 1. Whoever the scoring marker is closest to after the third round of
scoring wins, and if anyone moves the marker as close to them as possible (i.e. maximum points), that player wins instantly.

Thus far we have had mixed success with this one. This has mainly been because Nicole has found it hard to look ahead in terms of
strategy and when is the right time to play ones cards. In fact I won most of our first encounters, but recently the tide has started to
turn in Nicole’s favour, most recently she won the game at the end of turn 6, as I waited too long to make my move on the higher value
land areas.

At this stage, I am reluctant to put this one in the list of good games for 2 players where one is part time. It just hasn’t had the
resonance of games like Lost Cities, Jambo or Mr Jack, but having said that it doesn’t miss by too much.

If pressed, I think the reason for this is that the game is more war-like in context and lacks personality as far as my wife is concerned.
In Lost Cities you are journeying to far away lands, in Jambo you are trading interesting items and encountering interesting animals
and people, likewise in Mr Jack you are in the middle of a personality filled “whodunit?”- in Dynasties you are just moving armies
around provinces, which appeals to me, but lacks something for my opponent.

Perhaps if we started to use the special cards this might add a touch of personality, but I suspect this one won’t quite ascend to the
levels of the games previously mentioned because of this ‘personality gap’.

Image

divinentd — 2008-01-19T20:31:08+00:00

Customized Game Board, using "Chinese" stickers by Stickopotamus found at scrapandtell.com (no association). Buy 3, they sometimes tear.

Thread: Re: Reprint?

dicefree — 2008-01-12T23:02:24+00:00

Hi Jim,

I'm interested in "Dynasties" but there is very little hope of finding it in FLGS locally here in Australia.
Do you know if you have a distributor in Australia?

Failing that how much would the freight be if i purchased it from your online store?

thanks,
Leonard

Image

divinentd — 2008-01-08T06:20:44+00:00

Game Board Mod - colored stars for the upside down reading impaired (and what's with that funky typeface?)

Thread: Re: Reprint?

jollyrogergames — 2007-12-10T15:48:12+00:00

The game is still in print, though I've had trouble with one distributor telling retailers that JRG games are "OUT OF PRINT" or that JRG no longer is in business/making games. ...I find this out when retaliers contact me directly.

Depending on what an 'order' is for overseas, shipping is not prohibitive, especially for larger orders of product.

If people are interested, just email me--and something can be worked out, even for an individual.

Thread: Re: Box size?

jearles — 2007-12-08T13:10:39+00:00

20.2cm (long) / 12.6cm (wide) / 4.5cm (deep)

Thread: Re: Reprint?

trnardo — 2007-12-08T13:10:05+00:00

caffeinehead wrote:
Dynasties is in stock at both thoughthammer and Jolly Roger Games.
-xXx- wrote:
I need the game in Europe. Shipping from USA would cost as much as the entire game.
Sounds like a distributor in Belgium (or at least relatively close by in Europe) needs to order more stock from Jolly Roger Games.

Thread: Box size?

-xXx- — 2007-12-08T12:55:50+00:00

Can someone measure the box and tell me how large it is exactly?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Reprint?

-xXx- — 2007-12-08T12:14:21+00:00

I need the game in Europe. Shipping from USA would cost as much as the entire game.

Thread: Re: Reprint?

caffeinehead — 2007-12-07T00:10:46+00:00

Dynasties is in stock at both thoughthammer and Jolly Roger Games.

Thread: Re: Reprint?

EvilTimmy — 2007-12-06T23:39:02+00:00

FWIW www.funagain.com shows it as in stock.

Thread: Re: GÜOO First Impressions - Dynasties

-xXx- — 2007-12-06T22:59:15+00:00

I do like the artwork. Its a little bit dry, but I really hate those games where gorgeous bits and excellent artwork are only pasted to the game, deceiving buyers into a THEMATIC experience.

At least they could have given each card a different picture.

What I must say that, this is the perfect Area Control/Hand Management game for two players.

Unfortunately it has run out of stock. Any news for a reprint?

Thread: Reprint?

-xXx- — 2007-12-06T22:56:34+00:00

When is a reprint scheduled for Dyasties which has run out of stock? I hope that the cards get a remake on par with the great looking board, or at least get a different picture for each type of card. The general cards could get redone too.

Thread: Re: Resolving Province Order Privilege

Mr.Baggins — 2007-12-06T18:25:58+00:00

I have a different (but related) question: Does the order of card resolution affect anything? At all?

We've been resolving card left-to-right (or right-to-left) every turn, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why you'd add a layer of complexity that does not affect the outcome of anything. Can anyone give me an example of card order affecting the outcome of the resolution?

Thread: Re: Where in Europe ?

-xXx- — 2007-12-06T16:17:42+00:00

These stores are also sold out. Any place in Europe where we can find the game? Will it be reprinted soon (hopefully with nicer cards)?

Thread: Re: GÜOO First Impressions - Dynasties

Nodens77 — 2007-12-06T16:05:45+00:00

-xXx- wrote:
I love your review. Can we consider this 2 player Condottiere? At least what Condo should have been with 2 players.

Thank you!
Unfortunately, I have not played Condottiere, so I can not compare them. What I must say that, this is the perfect Area Control/Hand Management game for two players.

-xXx- wrote:
Aren't you rating the game too lightly? The deep strategy you claim would put this game one step heavier than you did.
I think you are right about this. It deserves a level higher on the GUOO scale. Obviously, since this is a first impression review, there are some metrics that might not be totally accurate, and more experienced players would not agree with them.

-xXx- wrote:
What do you think about the general cards, useful or useless?
I've found those cards useless. They try to give some flavor to the game, failing on its purpose. I don't want to use them anymore, since they are not needed to enjoy the mechanics and the elegance of Dynasties.

-xXx- wrote:
What do you think about the artwork? The board looks great but the cards are unfortunately very basic.
I do like the artwork. Its a little bit dry, but I really hate those games where gorgeous bits and excellent artwork are only pasted to the game, deceiving buyers into a THEMATIC experience.
Dry artwork for a dry theme. I give this game what it deserves. For me, the value of this game are its mechanics, fun factor and elegance, not the flavor.

Thread: Re: GÜOO First Impressions - Dynasties

-xXx- — 2007-12-06T15:48:43+00:00

I love your review.

Can we consider this 2 player Condottiere? At least what Condo should have been with 2 players.

Aren't you rating the game too lightly? The deep strategy you claim would put this game one step heavier than you did.

What do you think about the general cards, useful or useless?

What do you think about the artwork? The board looks great but the cards are unfortunately very basic.

Thread: Re: Resolving Province Order Privilege

Starsunsky — 2007-12-06T14:55:48+00:00

I have another question about the reveal order. Does the player choose the order all at once before revealing the cards or the player can choose next province after revealing a card?

Thread: Re: GÜOO First Impressions - Dynasties

Auzette — 2007-12-01T00:17:50+00:00

I would agree that this is one of the better 2-player games. It's fairly tense nearly all the time, there's a lot more subtlety to the choices than there initially appear to be, and it's very quick to play (while still satisfying).

Image

Nodens77 — 2007-11-26T14:05:44+00:00

Board Detail

Image

Nodens77 — 2007-11-26T14:05:17+00:00

9th Dynasty over, before scoring. Sun Tzu Wins.

Image

sedge — 2007-06-21T12:19:48+00:00

The 9 scoring markers

Image

sedge — 2007-06-20T04:33:09+00:00

Perfect size for hosptial tables!

Image

Forza — 2007-06-09T06:59:01+00:00

Playing Dynasties while drinking Leffe (excellent belgian beer)

Image

MrUnicorn — 2007-03-19T04:53:11+00:00

Card backs for both players.

Image

thoia — 2006-08-22T18:35:45+00:00

Basic yellow attack cards...1 and 6 have special rules on them.

Image

thoia — 2006-08-22T18:35:28+00:00

Special white attack cards