Game: Glory to Rome

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

rseater — 2008-12-03T04:57:39+00:00

Here is the current CGF ruling:

johnnyk427 wrote:

- With a bridge alone, can the owner take from the stockpile of opponents owning a Palisades? Yes he can bypass the palisades and take from their hand, but I'm not sure if that extends to the stockpile too.

Yes. All Legionary-based effects are normally stopped by a palisade, but they all get past it with a Bridge. Bridges are the key to making a Legionary-heavy strategy work.

johnnyk427 wrote:

- With a bridge and Colosseum together, the rules state that the Colosseum is 'extended' by the bridge, and allows you to take clientele from all players (not just the adjacent ones). BUT does the combination allow you to take clientele from players that own a palisades? That is, does the bridge give the Colosseum 'palisades immunity'?

Yes. This is a very strong combination. The Colosseum is really mean in general, and you need to react immediately when someone starts to build it. A Wall is one such reaction, as is the Catacombs, or depriving the builder of the opportunity to gather the materials needed to finish the combo. The game changes when the Colosseum hits.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

Fantomius — 2008-12-02T17:58:48+00:00

johnnyk427 wrote:
Bride: Legionary can attack all players. Legionary can take from stockpile in addition. Legionary can ignore Palisades.
A Bride card? I've never seen one, but that sounds rather violent for such a card. The Bride card sounds like it should have a more romantic association.

(Okay, sorry about that... I just couldn't resist.)

Seriously, though, if taken literally, it seems to me that the Bridge card lets a player ignore Palisades cards, not just some of the time, but all of the time. (Otherwise, the card text would have been more specific.) So I would think that a Coliseum card can still be used on a player with a Palisades card (provided the owner of the Coliseum also has a Bridge, of course).

So building a Wall (which also protects against the Legionary action but isn't ignored by the Bridge) would be the way to avoid the Bridge + Coliseum combination.

However, if I had my way, I would agree with Ian Wakeham and go with his remark:

batdog wrote:
the "Ignore Palisades" effect on the Bridge card IS NOT extended to the Coliseum card
since the Bridge + Coliseum combination seems quite powerful. But to be honest, I just can't back that up in the rules.

So until we get an official ruling from the game's publishers, I guess we just have to agree beforehand how that combination should behave.

But remember, in order to steal a client from an opponent, you have to make sure that your vault isn't already full. That will limit the card combination's opportunity to damage somewhat.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

JohnRayJr — 2008-11-26T01:23:15+00:00

The Bridge extends the reach of the Legionary action. The Colosseum expands the impact of the Legionary action. It's difficult for me to imagine an argument over whether one complements the other, especially given the specific wording in the rules, mentioned above.

It's clearly the most powerful combo in a game full of powerful combos.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

easterly1 — 2008-11-25T03:48:58+00:00

johnnyk427 wrote:

In our games we played 'yes', he can take clientele from players with palisades. As a result everyone was completely crippled and he won by 60 points! It was essentially an instant win combination. Which isnt necessarily bad, but I think it was a bit much. Maybe the palisades should protect from the Colosseum regardless of the bridge.

Has this come up for anyone else?

couple quick points...

first I agree that yes the bridge bypasses the palisades... build walls is the lesson... hence the reason for walls in the game...

second - you did play that the colosseum is player is limited by his vault influence right? I'm not sure how he wins by 60 points if you were, but then again the game is about building nasty combos.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

tonyboydell — 2008-11-21T13:16:10+00:00

My interpretation is simpler...

PALISADES and WALLS protect against the LEGIONARY action

BRIDGE extends the reach of the LEGIONARY action to bypass PALISADE (but not WALL)

The COLOSSEUM ability is triggered by the LEGIONARY action, so BRIDGE allows the LEGIONARY action to bypass NOT the COLOSSEUM

Think of all this type of bonus enhancing one of the six ACTIONS and not possessing an action of their own...

Thus, BRIDGE + COLOSSEUM = eat stockpile & clients vs PALISADE but no effect vs WALL

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

batdog — 2008-11-20T16:48:51+00:00

rayito2702 wrote:
batdog wrote:
2. The player is still blocked by opponents with Palisades (or Walls) - the "Ignore Palisades" effect on the Bridge card IS NOT extended to the Coliseum card.
Why would the "Ignore Palisades" effect not expand the Colosseum's power as well? Is there something in the rules that implies this qualification?

Just my interpretation, FWIW. It's just strange that the explanation reads as follows: "Palisades and Walls protect against an opponent’s Coliseum. A Bridge expands the reach of a Coliseum." Having explicitly stated that the Palisade protects against the Coliseum I would have expected it to state something along the lines "unless they also have the Bridge". I see the words "expands the reach" as suggesting that the player can now approach all opponents but still with the caveat that they can't reach over the Palisade.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

ekh_86 — 2008-11-20T16:38:49+00:00

I hope we can get an official ruling from CGF on this.

I can see the reasoning for both interpretations. I've been aware of this question for a while, but it hasn't come up in any of our games yet. I was going to cross that Bridge when I came to it...

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

rayito2702 — 2008-11-20T16:21:45+00:00

batdog wrote:
2. The player is still blocked by opponents with Palisades (or Walls) - the "Ignore Palisades" effect on the Bridge card IS NOT extended to the Coliseum card.
Why would the "Ignore Palisades" effect not expand the Colosseum's power as well? Is there something in the rules that implies this qualification?

We've always interpreted the rule that states a "Bridge expands the reach of a Colosseum" to say that all powers provided by the Colosseum are extended by the Bridge. And those powers are expanded in all ways the Bridge expands powers. In other words it allows the Colosseum to go over Palisades, it allows it access to all other players, etc.

It just seems too confusing and inconsistent with how the rest of the game is designed to assume the Bridge expands the Colosseum's powers in some ways and not in others.

I've found there's plenty of counters to the Bridge + Colosseum combo. The Wall + Stairway, for example, completely kills it and turns all Legionaries into second rate laborers. Because the same player doesn't even have to build both the Wall and the Stairway it can be put into play faster than the Colosseum + Bridge.

Thread: Re: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

batdog — 2008-11-20T14:46:48+00:00

With a Bridge alone the player can take from the hand and stockpile of the opponent even if they have a Palisade.

The card explanation in the rules states: "When executing the Legionary role you may demand materials even from opponents that own Palisades...As well as giving you a matching material from their hands, your opponents must give you a matching material from their Stockpile."

As regards the Bridge plus Coliseum, the Coliseum explanation in the rules states: "Palisades and Walls protect against an opponent’s Coliseum. A Bridge expands the reach of a Coliseum."

I believe this extension means that:

1. The player can attempt to take client cards from all opponents - the "May take from all opponents" effect on the Bridge card IS extended to the Coliseum card
2. The player is still blocked by opponents with Palisades (or Walls) - the "Ignore Palisades" effect on the Bridge card IS NOT extended to the Coliseum card.

So I think you should have decided NO in your game.

Thread: Bridge + Colosseum conundrum

johnnyk427 — 2008-11-20T13:45:15+00:00

Two games in a row this has come up now: A player builds both the bridge and the colosseum, while other players have built palisades. To remind you:

Bride: Legionary can attack all players. Legionary can take from stockpile in addition. Legionary can ignore Palisades.

Colosseum: Legionary can take clientele from opponents and place them in the owner's vault.

Palisades: Immune to legionary.

So my questions are as follows (which was also the subject of about 30 minutes of arguing):

- With a bridge alone, can the owner take from the stockpile of opponents owning a Palisades? Yes he can bypass the palisades and take from their hand, but I'm not sure if that extends to the stockpile too.

- With a bridge and Colosseum together, the rules state that the Colosseum is 'extended' by the bridge, and allows you to take clientele from all players (not just the adjacent ones). BUT does the combination allow you to take clientele from players that own a palisades? That is, does the bridge give the Colosseum 'palisades immunity'?

In our games we played 'yes', he can take clientele from players with palisades. As a result everyone was completely crippled and he won by 60 points! It was essentially an instant win combination. Which isnt necessarily bad, but I think it was a bit much. Maybe the palisades should protect from the Colosseum regardless of the bridge.

Has this come up for anyone else?
Cheers!
-John

Thread: Re: Are the three decks identical?

Fantomius — 2008-11-18T23:27:12+00:00

Yes, they do.
Thanks for your quick responses!

wytefang wrote:
Cool game this one!
Definitely! I like how they put quotes around the borders of the cards. Not technically needed for the game, but they definitely contribute to a fun atmosphere!

Thread: Re: Are the three decks identical?

ackmondual — 2008-11-18T22:41:37+00:00

They're not very convenient though. Many people get their own bigger boxes for them. For example, one person uses the Uberplay version of For Sale to store Glory To Rome in addition to 2 other games.

Thread: Re: Are the three decks identical?

wytefang — 2008-11-18T20:01:44+00:00

Yes, they do. Cool game this one!

Thread: Re: Are the three decks identical?

jearles — 2008-11-18T19:41:54+00:00

Yes, they do.

Thread: Are the three decks identical?

Fantomius — 2008-11-18T19:12:16+00:00

I noticed that Glory to Rome comes with three decks (in tuckboxes). These tuckboxes look identical from the outside, which lead me to wonder if they contain the exact same cards.

I read Ian Wakeham's card list (in the Files section) and saw that the card count for each structure is either 3 or 6 (that is, always a multiple of 3), which make me think that the decks are probably identical. All the open copies I've encountered have the cards already shuffled, making this theory difficult to verify.

Does anyone know if, in fact, every tuckbox contains the same cards?

Thanks.

Thread: Re: First turn non-Patron?

Osirus — 2008-11-18T08:45:13+00:00

If the worst and best roles on the table are of near-equal value to me, or if my hand is all roles I don't like, I frequently open by drawing a Jack. (The fewer the number of players in your game, the stronger this becomes.)

This sets you up to follow the next two good actions to hit the table (often Patron/Craftsman) even if the rest of your hand doesn't help you. Leading your Jack as a patron means you may be caught short-handed in the next lead or two. Grabbing a second Jack instead guarantees you can follow both of the next leaders, which in a three player game brings you right back to your turn again.

Thread: Glory to Rome: Spanish review

jcd2001es — 2008-11-17T18:51:29+00:00

]]>

La semana pasada me llego una de mis últimas adquisiciones. Cuando leí las reglas de Glory to Rome, un juego diseñado por Carl Chudyk y editado por Cambridge Games (autoeditado, mejor dicho), sabía que estaba ante un gran juego para muy jugones, pero después de las primeras partidas puedo afirmar que es un juegazo en toda regla.

Las comparaciones dicen que son odiosas pero si comparamos Glory to Rome con el San Juan o el Race for the Galaxy, dos juegos de similares características, hace que estos salgan perdedores, pero además de goleada.

]]>

Componentes

Yo poseo la I.V edición del juego (revisión 1.5), que es la última que se ha hecho (en el 2007). Sin duda, uno de los puntos flojos del juego son los componentes, lo cual hace desmerecerlo.

]]>

Las ilustraciones de las cartas son feas y caricaturescas (lo cual hace que si nos ceñimos a la primera impresión, hace que no que te tomes muy en serio el juego e incluso no quieras jugarlo), las cartas son calendarios “made in India” (si conoces el Dead End de NSR son similares) y algunas cartas omiten ilustraciones (la empalizada no aparece, por ejemplo).

Las reglas están impresas en un papel pésimo (creo que no llega a 80 grs) con una impresora de chorro de tinta (puedo asegurarlo cuando se me mojaron y la tinta empezó a correrse), y dobladas de manera zafia. Por suerte están bien explicadas, y aunque algunos edificios no se tenga muy claro para que sirven, tanto en el manual como en un resumen que puedes encontrar en la página oficial del juego puedes aclarar casi cualquier duda que aparezca. Es de agradecer muchísimo el feedback por parte del autor del juego.

]]>

La caja del juego simplemente no existe, en su lugar viene en un blister de plástico que por lo menos aunque enfundes las cartas (cosa que recomiendo hacer antes de jugar la primera partida) caben perfectamente dentro.

El juego

Durante la noche del 19 de julio de 64 estalló en Roma un incendio que devastó la ciudad. Los jugadores representan jóvenes Patricios que quieren reconstruir la ciudad mientras aumentan su poder e influencia en Roma. Precisamente ese es el objetivo del juego, al final quien más influencia tenga gana.

]]>

En resumen se trata de un juego de gestión de roles y recursos (mano de juego y reserva). Para ello tenemos una elección de roles, similar al Puerto, que nos permite hacer casi cualquier cosa que se nos ocurra. Tendremos patrones, jornaleros, arquitectos, capataces, legionarios y mercaderes. Cada uno sirve para hacer una cosa en el juego.

Los patrones nos permiten “reclutar” clientela (de la reserva) para nuestros negocios. Esa clientela pertenecerá a uno de los seis roles mencionados y pasara a formar parte de nuestras selectas amistades. La ventaja es que nos permitirán hacer acciones adicionales en nuestro turno relacionadas con su rol. Indispensables para una progresión equilibrada.

Los jornaleros sirven para conseguir recursos (de la reserva). Los recursos son indispensables para construir estructuras (edificios) en el juego.

Los arquitectos y capataces sirven para comenzar a construir estructuras (edificios) de nuestra mano e ir construyéndolas (si ya están en juego). Los beneficios que otorgan son dos: un efecto que puede aplicarse en el momento de terminar su construcción o que queda permanente en el juego; y aumenta tu influencia en Roma. La única diferencia entre el arquitecto y el capataz, es que si queremos continuar con la construcción de una estructura, con el arquitecto los recursos deberemos cogerlos de la pila de stock mientras que con el capataz los bajaremos de la mano.

Los legionarios nos permiten conseguir recursos que demandemos para Roma. Los cogemos de la reserva (común a todos) y de los jugadores que tengamos como vecinos (a derecha e izquierda). Original, útil y me torna que indispensables cuando se tenga un poco más clara la concepción/estrategia del juego.

Y finalmente, los mercaderes sirven para vender recursos de nuestra pila de stock, y conseguir influencia (puntos de victoria) con las que llenar nuestra arca (vault).

Tanto los patrones como el arca esta limitado en todo momento por la cantidad de influencia que tengamos. Nunca podemos sobrepasar ese número.

]]>

Desarrollo del juego

La figura de líder (jugador inicial) va rotando a lo largo de la partida. Cuando un jugador es líder es quien empieza el turno. Puede hacer lo siguiente: o jugar una carta de su mano como rol o pasar (pensar). Si pasa el turno termina.

Si juega un rol, el resto de jugadores pueden seguir a ese rol (jugar un rol igual de su mano) o pasar. Se puede jugar un jack como comodín, o incluso tres cartas de igual color para convertirlas en un jack (en el juego se llaman peticiones).

Luego, por orden y comenzando por el jugador inicial, los que jugaron rol de su mano pueden hacer una acción del rol jugado mas un rol por cada clientela del rol usado. Ojo, esta acción de clientela es gratis y la puedes hacer aunque hayas pasado, así que son fundamentales para progresar óptimamente.

Peculiaridades del juego

Una de las cosas elegantes del juego es que absolutamente todo esta reflejado en las cartas. Cada carta sirve para varias cosas: roles, recursos, edificios, etc. Por tanto la optimización de componentes es una pequeña genialidad del juego. Al principio puede resultar confuso, pero una vez que te acostumbras, es genial.

Al contrario que el Puerto Rico, los gobernadores (en nuestro caso líderes) no tienen un privilegio. Pero en lugar de ello hay que saber jugar con la clientela, que es lo que proporciona mayor número de acciones en un turno.

Los que pasan inmediatamente pueden o rellenar su mano hasta el máximo de cartas, o robar una carta (si ya tienes el máximo) o robar un jack. Esto le da mucha vidilla al juego, y mucha profundidad de mazo.

Las cartas que se juegan pasan a una zona común llamada reserva, con lo cual siempre hay muchas cartas donde elegir.

Los edificios por sí solos no dan puntos de victoria pero ayudan a progresar óptimamente. Esta bien construir, pero hay que tener buen ojo a la hora de elegirlos y estar pendientes de lo que hagan los demás en todo momento.

Como casi toda la gracia del juego esta en las cartas, el juego es muy rejugable. Cada partida será diferente a la anterior. Además, si tenemos en cuenta su rango de jugadores, de 2 a 5, su pequeño tamaño, lo convierte en un juego ideal para llevar a cualquier sitio.

]]>

Fin de juego.

Hay muchas formas de terminar el juego, lo cual también es de agradecer. Puede terminar si:

1) Se agota el mazo de robo.
2) Se agotan las cartas de sitios en Roma donde edificar estructuras.
3) Alguien construye las catacumbas.
4) Alguien construye el foro y tiene una clientela de cada tipo (en este caso automáticamente es el vencedor).

]]>

Salvo si termina por el foro, que es victoria automática, se suman puntos de victoria, básicamente influencia + vault + bonus (quien tenga mas cartas de cada color en el vault recibirá un bono de +3). Quien obtenga mayor número será el vencedor.

Valoración

Estamos ante un grandísimo juego de gestión de roles y recursos. Muy superior a muchos con los que comparte semejanzas. Sin duda, su aspecto de cutrez (el único aspecto negativo del juego) hace que no se valore en su justa medida, y la verdad que es una pena, porque como juego es, según mi opinión, una buena compra para una ludoteca.

Echo en falta algo más de "puterío". Ya que en muchas ocasiones se trata de un juego casi en solitario y apenas influyes sobre las decisiones de los demás. Si hubiera algún sistema para poder, por ejemplo, poner trabas a tus contrincantes, ganaría mucho.

Si se encontrara una editorial de las que hacen juegos bonitos (se me ocurre por ejemplo Phalanx Games, Queen Games o Alea) y se reeditara, estaríamos sin duda ante un top10 de BGG.

Los 60 minutos que indica en la portada del juego se me torna escaso. Todas mis partidas han durado el doble.

Mi nota: 8

(Diario de WKR)

Image

unixrevolution — 2008-11-13T20:52:31+00:00

Forum Victory.

Thread: cool resource for building in ancient rome

baditude — 2008-11-13T01:11:42+00:00

check out google earth: rome

Youtube Video

pretty cool!

Thread: Re: First impressions

cuzzle — 2008-11-03T18:19:08+00:00

Yep that's how the game works. Every time I play I find new things to do or try making the various actions interesting. You have to change your strategy depending on what other people do as well. A really fantastic game.

Thread: First impressions

geschichte — 2008-11-03T17:09:00+00:00

I played this game for the first time on Sat. night. Now, on Monday, my head is spinning with the possible combinations. From what I gathered, the key to this game is synergy between the buidlings you create. For example, I built the Road early on allowing stone buildings to be completed with any material. This was great because the first building I started was the Circus Maximus and I was able to complete it with rubble and for a long time during the game all my Clientele got double actions. I ended the game by completing the school and getting using the cards from that, along with my craftsman abilities to use up the last of the materials and I won the game running away. The final score was 18 to 13 to 8 to 7. Fantastic game.

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T23:29:11+00:00

Cambridge Games Factory wants to see your games idea! (Glory to Rome decks)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T22:59:15+00:00

Glory to Rome comes with three decks

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T22:58:22+00:00

Scoring example

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T21:04:11+00:00

Detail of two sample WOOD buildings

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T20:57:57+00:00

Detail of two sample STONE buildings

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T20:56:21+00:00

Detail of two sample RUBBLE buildings

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T20:51:03+00:00

Detail of two sample MARBLE buildings

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T20:48:05+00:00

Detail of two sample CONCRETE buildings

Image

EndersGame — 2008-10-30T20:43:13+00:00

Detail of two sample BRICK buildings

Thread: Re: "IN ADDITION:" Cards: when can these functions be used??

xethair — 2008-10-30T16:47:29+00:00

What's more, the base action isn't even required in order to take an In Addition. Eg, with the Bar/Aqueduct and Patron, you can pass on pulling a client from the pool (assume you are one short of your max clients) in order to take one from Deck/Hand (respectively).

And, as has been clarified in forum questions, aside from the one case of having to decide on using the base Patron action before taking the Bar's client from the deck, you can sequence your accumulated actions/additions in whatever ways suits you. That can produce some weird turns...

Thread: Re: Thoughts on the Graphics

Fantomius — 2008-10-30T00:13:27+00:00

Personally, I kind of like the artwork.

However, I'm not too fond of the fact that the Roman soldier is displayed prominently on the cover art. I would much prefer seeing in its place one of the two Jacks (or both of them, even).

I just feel that the soldier's cartoony smile gives the game an awkward first impression, in addition to giving another impression that the game is all about war.

But to be honest, if a new edition came out with non-cartoony artwork, I would still probably rather have the edition with the cartoons. (That is, unless the new edition had photos of real Roman ruins.)

Thread: Re: An Interesting Combo

TribalBeowulf — 2008-10-28T04:17:20+00:00

Fountain (essentially: draw 1 card from the deck when performing a Craftsman action).

It should be noted that the cards drawn with the fountain REPLACE cards that you would play from your hand, so if you choose to use your fountain, you draw a card to use for the craftsman action and either use it to lay a foundation, add material, or pass; keeping the card. You don't do the action with a card from your hand and then draw a card.

I don't actually know which way you did this but your wording was a bit ambigious, and this was a question that came up in my games

Thread: Re: Thoughts on the Graphics

BigBur — 2008-10-16T18:58:52+00:00

I just really wish someone could make a sheet to go over the cover of the box elegantly. I just want it to look like it's "all business," but once I break it out, I just want it to be fun.

Does that make any sense? Probably not, but then again, I'm a pretty weird man.

Thread: Re: Suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: VOTING

rseater — 2008-10-16T15:24:08+00:00

ekh_86 wrote:
rseater wrote:
The ability to make the game end sooner would make vault-based strategies weaker.Hmmm. I've always thought it's the other way around.

Actually, I think you're right. An early vault dump gives you a strong lead, but leaves you with a full vault. I've found that very short and very long games both benefit the fault. It's mid-length games where it falls down -- when your vault is full but you haven't been investing in building of an infrastructure since you've been dumping into the vault.

However, in general, I find that players using their vault heavily do very well, even if they don't always win. As such, I wouldn't mind seeing a building effect that countered the vault strategy -- either directly or indirectly.

I don't think any of the buildings I suggested do that. I'm not sure how to achieve that end.

Thread: Re: Any news on the re-print?

Sothis — 2008-10-16T15:21:59+00:00

There also seems to be a high demand for a (how shall I put it) "graphically updated" version. Any chance of getting excited about that?

Thread: Re: Any news on the re-print?

rseater — 2008-10-16T15:15:20+00:00

We just sent out another batch of GtR to our distributer, but he wants more. I don't know how those games will be divided amongst stores, and thus how likely any given store is to get restocked.

We're printing more copies as quickly as we can, and hope to have another batch ready in time for the 2008 holidays. We're very excited about the high demand for GtR, and are trying to catch up on the supply side!

Thread: French review

adamdynris — 2008-10-16T12:00:20+00:00

Original post here ....> http://adamdynris.blogspot.com/2008/10/glory-to-rome.html

Un grand jeu derrière un graphisme juste correct.

J'ai parlé récemment du plaisir qu'un jeu peut nous procurer par son illustrateur. Dans Glory to Rome ce n'est pas cela qui va attirer l'oeil. Il semble en fait un jeu composé sur un ordinateur par un gang de chum!

Par contre en y jouant, nous pouvons voir que cette gang de chum ont fabriqué un excellent jeu. Glory to Rome est un jeu basé uniquement sur les cartes, pour ceci on pourrait le comparer à San Juan ou à Race for the Galaxy. Par contre chaque action que nous choisirons de faire pourra avantager l'adversaire et rendra disponible nos cartes joué à chacun, ceci est un des grands plus de ce jeu.

Chaque carte peut être en soi : Une action (patronnage, ouvrier, architecte, maçon, légionnaire ou marchand) une ressource (marbre, pierre, bois, débris, ciment) un bâtiment (...) ou même des points! A chacun de voir de quelle facon on utilisera nos cartes.

Tout d'abord on choisira une carte qui sera l'action du tours, cette carte se retrouvera disponible au centre à tous pour le prochain tour, donc attention à ce que l'on rends disponible. Par la suite chaque adversaire aura le choix d'exécuter la même action ou bien de "penser" i.e. retourner sa main à 5 cartes ou en piocher une seule qui peut être par choix un joker.

On devra faire en sorte de prendre avantage du "pool" central mais chacun voudra le faire donc notre choix d'action sera souvent de prendre celle qui avantagent le moins les adversaires.

Nous pouvons accumuler les points en construisant des bâtiments ou en vendant nos ressources, les points de ces ventes sont conserver face cachés donc il faut maintenir mentalement le pointage de tous si l'on veut connaître le gagnant potentiel.

Je n'ai qu'un partie d'exploration à mon actif mais je pense que le jeu peut avoir une grande profondeur et une rejouabilité, ce qui fait que derrière des images de BD très simple peut se cacher un jeu pour joueur!

A cela nous pouvons ajouter un humour très présent et une utilisation des actions possibles par les bâtiments très bien pensé. Un humour universitaire? peut-être bien, en fait oui la compagnie a débuté en 2004 suite à une conversation après une soirée de jeu au MIT.

Et avec le temps je m'apperçois que j'aime bien les jeux de cartes, probablement un aspect de mon enfance!

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

crasstopher — 2008-10-14T21:22:52+00:00

rseater wrote:
2-cost gray building
ongoing: you gain 1 extra vote in each election. Draw 1 card whenever an election outcome matches your vote in that election.

probably my favorite of the buildings you suggested, though they are all thought provoking. what a killer idea. obviously this building is huge in a 2 player voting strategy.

rseater wrote:
It is important to keep in mind not just if the card would be balanced, but also what the card would add to the game as a whole.

You are right, before getting into specifics, the game in general, and its faults if any should be reviewed. Once established, the building powers can vary to address these issues.

what i like about the voting is that players who are feeling like they are out of the game (since one or more players seem unbeatable, or have a huge lead) can still feel like they are involved in the outcome (or even more so than usual).

Sometimes in a game it feels like nothing is going your way. Perhaps you are a newbie, and you made poor building choices. Perhaps you just didn't have great options in the beginning of the game, while others had great starting buildings dealt to them and are instantly looking better than you. And the worst feeling is knowing that any role you pick will help another player even more than you. These are some of the things i was hoping to address by the voting strategy.

rseater wrote:
In general, voting mechanics will make taking an early lead less valuable (you get ganged up on) and making a late comeback more viable (you get pitied).

this is exactly what i had in mind. keep the game tighter in the beginning, and make for a fun ending. My main objective would be to keep the competitive games tight, but perhaps give players that are getting whooped late more of a fighting chance.

in any case, your thought into this is very much appreciated. you have no doubt added some great ideas.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

ekh_86 — 2008-10-14T19:58:34+00:00

rseater wrote:
The ability to make the game end sooner would make vault-based strategies weaker.Hmmm. I've always thought it's the other way around. After a couple of quick vaults, the vault player is usually the one trying to end the game sooner. In vault- vs. building-strategies, it's the builders who need more time, not only to finish their structures, but to give their building effects a chance to work for them.

Your voting structure suggestions are interesting. I agree that if voting is a new mechanism in the game, it should be used by several of the expansion buildings.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

rseater — 2008-10-14T19:44:23+00:00

Voting is an intriguing mechanic -- if it were in the game, it should probably be on several buildings across the 6 colors. Adding 18 or 36 cards will mess up some of the existing balance, so some of the new building powers would need to address that issue. They would need to speed the game as well as letting players draws cards to overcome the increased variance of a thicker deck. For example, off the top of my head:

1-cost yellow building
upon completion: vote on whether or not 5 cards should be put into the pool from the top of the draw deck. Each yes vote causes 1 extra card to go in.

1-cost brown building
early completion: vote on whether or not this building should be immediately completed. Each yes voter other than you gets a free thinker action.

2-cost red building
upon completion: vote on a building name & demolish all buildings with that name. Destroyed materials go to owners' stockpiles.

2-cost gray building
ongoing: you gain 1 extra vote in each election. Draw 1 card whenever an election outcome matches your vote in that election.

3-cost purple building
upon completion: vote on whether or not each player should be allowed to complete 1 building they have in progress.

3-cost blue building
upon completion: vote on whether or not 1 of each color of in-town site should become an out-of-town site.

It is important to keep in mind not just if the card would be balanced, but also what the card would add to the game as a whole. For example, the ability to destroy all palisades in play would make legionary-based strategies stronger. The ability to make the game end sooner would make vault-based strategies weaker. The ability to prematurely complete buildings would enable a strategy whereby a player starts lots of new buildings rather than working on finishing old ones. In general, voting mechanics will make taking an early lead less valuable (you get ganged up on) and making a late comeback more viable (you get pitied). Thus the question is, what does the game need and what building effect(s) would achieve that end?

crasstopher wrote:
Adding 36 cards to a 144 sized card deck is pretty significant, I agree.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

ekh_86 — 2008-10-14T15:28:44+00:00

crasstopher wrote:
Adding 36 cards to a 144 sized card deck is pretty significant, I agree. Perhaps you can shuffle all, then remove the top 36 cards from the deck. Or you could just play with a bigger deck, knowing it could be longer. The number of foundations is still the same, so one of the end game limits didn't change.In the games I play, at least, running out the deck is already the least common way of ending the game. I'd say that only 10-15% of our games end with the deck running out, since someone is usually slapping down buildings trying to end the game.

Adding the expansion cards to the deck would pretty much eliminate "decking" as a game-end condition. The option of removing "X" random cards from the deck before the game sounds interesting, though.

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

Tatsu — 2008-10-14T14:28:55+00:00

Bobby4th wrote:
Is it a different game than RftG and San Juan? Yeah. Is it better? Not in my opinion. If it played in half the time, I might have kept it, but if I am going to kill 90 minutes (and I think it took the five of us more like 2+ hours with rules explanation), I would much rather play a real strategic game like Power Grid or El Grande.

The rules took me forever in this one, because for whatever reason, I couldn't focus, and then to top it off, Dion and Matt were only half listening (as evidenced by Matt complaining as you took half the pool, despite my pointing out that he could do the same thing BEFORE HIS TURN).

I agree, this should not have lasted as painfully long as it did. I also agree with everyone else, this is a different game once folks realize that you can't pick certain roles other than with a jack, because filling the pool with good cards is trouble. I think the yellow buildings become more important and will influence your game play, once the people you are playing with understand the game.

Since you've said you'd play again, I'll bring it out a few more times if I can

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

Kelanen — 2008-10-14T13:12:41+00:00

A few observations:

1) GtR is *not* like RftG or SJ. There are similarities in role selection, multiple uses for cards etc, but whilst the building blocks have a lot in common, the games are *very* different.

In my experience, they tend to all appeal to the same kind of players (there are are certainly exceptions, and we've heard from some of them), but they definitely cannot be played in the same mindset. RftG and SJ have a lot of similarities for reasons we know. GtR is an entirely different beast. that may be a good, bad or neutral thing, but don't what ever you do take it as a game like RftG or SJ.

2) GtR is NOT a light filler. It may look light and irreverent, and when you know what you are doing (see below) a 4 player game is probably 45 mins. It is actually a pretty heavy brainburner however, that needs you to take a long lookahead on predicting your opponents strategies, and thus likely leading roles over the next turn, and the mid/long term (both critical information, but for very different reasons)

3) You won't 'get' GtR playing it once, or even 2-3 times, even if you are a gamer, and have the right mindset for this kind of game, where every card in your hand has several uses, and therefore even your opening hand has hundreds of possible choices of where to go for your early game, and certainly a handful or two of viable ones.

If you are lucky you will 'get' the game rules after one game - not just how to play a role, but which game areas interact with which in what ways (and importantly which areas can never interact), how to move things efficiently from one area to another, etc. Often it takes a few plays, even for gamers (it certainly took me two). People inevitably get a 'lightbulb' moment when suddenly everything clicks. then you lay in bed at night thinking of possible plays, and ways to play (or is that just me?).

Learning the strategies of the game takes a lot longer, probably a dozen or more plays, as you learn what you can safely feed the pool, and when - what is dangerous; how to feed the pool on the turn of the player to your right, to set up your turn, or clear it, etc.

If you are looking for a game to play a couple of times and be able to say "Yes, I can play that" then it's not the game for you. It is definitely a very heavy and complex game, despite superficial characteristics and appearance that imply otherwise. It needs lots of repeated table time, and if that's not the sort of thing you would devote to this kind of game, it's never going to shine for you.

It's also a strategic game, not a tactical one. There are definitely lots of tactical choices to be made, but it's the strategic ones that tend to shape the game and your success, not the tactical ones. Occasionally you will get a game that you can just play tactically, but it generally means you are doing badly, with no synergy, or have run away with an early lead and/or your opponents stalled. A successful tactical game is rare once people know what they are doing though - there are counter strategies to everything, and even a lucky early Catacombs or something is usually easily stopped.

I've no idea how many games we've played over the last 18 months or so - literally hundreds. We almost always play a few games every session, as well as in the pub, at lunchtimes, etc.

The depth of this game is a beautiful thing. Nothing suits everyone, and that's no less true of this than anything else, but for the gamer willing to invest time in a deep game with lousy graphics, and appreciating intricacy of player and mechanical interaction it's an amazing game.

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

lordunborn — 2008-10-14T11:59:47+00:00

tonyboydell wrote:
I don't think you're going to convince the RFTG fan with any arguments - it seems they have not had a FULL GtR experience, which is chock full of player interaction and difficult decisions - most of which are centered around CLIENTS.

I agree. It seems the more I play RFtG the less I find I like about it. I know the expansion is not even on my wishlist.

Bobby4th wrote:
Is it a different game than RftG and San Juan? Yeah. Is it better? Not in my opinion. If it played in half the time, I might have kept it, but if I am going to kill 90 minutes (and I think it took the five of us more like 2+ hours with rules explanation), I would much rather play a real strategic game like Power Grid or El Grande.

I also agree that it is not the same game. It is in my opinion a better game then both of those other two. Again if a game took you 2+ hours to play I can understand why you were upset. Also it is a shame you had 1 bad experience and gave up on the game. I usually try a game more then once before I completely write it off, as the people you play with make a difference most times. The game is a great game that plays in around 90 minutes for new players and around an hour once you have played a few times.

If you ever get into the Charlotte, NC area look us up and we will play a game with people who have played before and it may be a completely different game.

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

tonyboydell — 2008-10-14T09:11:35+00:00

I don't think you're going to convince the RFTG fan with any arguments - it seems they have not had a FULL GtR experience, which is chock full of player interaction and difficult decisions - most of which are centred around CLIENTS.

As the game progresses, and clients are acrued, each players opportunity to get 'free actions' off the Leader, while stocking up their hand, increases. For instance, who would lead off a CRAFT or ARCHITECT role that gives another player more of that action than you UNLESS YOU WERE DESPERATE?

Who does that action benefit the most? If its not you, then THINK and pass the turn!

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

Bobby4th — 2008-10-14T07:27:42+00:00

lordunborn wrote:
A major thing about GtR is that unlike RFtG your not playing solitaire. There is no reason to know anything about what your opponent is building in RFtG except to see how well he is making points. That is one of the major differences between these games. What someone builds in this has a direct impact on your gameplay sometimes.

I like to play games with other people to interact of which there is none in RFtG.
I completely disagree. In Race for the Galaxy I am constantly looking at what the other players have played, the strategy they are apparently trying, and the number of cards in their hands. I am often planning my move around what they are going to do. Drafting off of other player's actions is an integral part of playing the game.

The only direct interaction in Glory to Rome is when someone picks the Legionary and in our game, I often had a card in my hand that I could build to block it, but it was never that important. Losing a single card to my neighbor isn't any worse than another player choosing Consume in RftG when I just played a windfall world and hadn't had the chance to consume it myself. Other than that, the interaction between players was the same: you do the role the other players choose to do.

I would recommend this over both RFtG and San Juan for people looking for real deep strategic card game that plays in under an hour with 5 people and that likes to interact with the people they play with.
I thought it was a completely tactical game with very little strategy. The person who won the game, and who was another new player, seemed to feel the same way.

If you are just looking on ways to optimize your scoring machine and don't even care to look up and see the other players then this game is not for you.It didn't seem to matter what the other players had built or were building. It was more important to try and track the actions which were in the pool that they picked up.

Is it a different game than RftG and San Juan? Yeah. Is it better? Not in my opinion. If it played in half the time, I might have kept it, but if I am going to kill 90 minutes (and I think it took the five of us more like 2+ hours with rules explanation), I would much rather play a real strategic game like Power Grid or El Grande.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

crasstopher — 2008-10-14T07:23:42+00:00

timbur wrote:
Interesting idea for a card.

Those 2-player and tie-vote drawbacks are a tricky item. How about if there is a tie vote, or if the builder's own building has been voted to be demolished, he gets to choose whether the building materials go into his hand instead of into the pool? That becomes very "iffy" though. Maybe allow the person whose building is destroyed get that option of placing the cards into his hand always?

i'm not sure i like the option of getting all those cards back in the hand. once they are back in the hand, then the player can simply re-build the building, and the point of the card is shot. maybe instead they can go into the stockpile of the player who lost the building. that way, he can't start the same building, but at least gets some benefit to the destruction of the building. Hmm, that actually may work better.

the card itself is a bit complex as it is (no other card involves a quick player vote!), and my goal is to minimize the special instances of what it can do so that it fits in with the other cards of glory to rome. Having too many special circumstances (or any at all) is a sign that it is probably too complex to be a viable card.

with simplicity in mind, i then thought the tie rule should be removed, and no building should be demolished. the point of the card is to, after all, destroy a building that is hurting the majority of the players at the table. if no majority, then the card doesn't do anything.

each card has its function printed directly on it, and i have started thinking of what this card would say to quickly get the function across.

"Upon completion: All players vote on a completed building to demolish. Voted building and its materials added to victim's stockpile."

I am now leaning towards a brick building (since this is a military theme, why not brick with the legionary cartoon on the card to bring the theme home).

then, in the card appendix, the result for a tie vote can be explained (whatever works best).

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

crasstopher — 2008-10-14T07:11:08+00:00

ekh_86 wrote:
crasstopher wrote:
I don't like this because I feel that there would be no incentive for someone to build the RAMP. If you give away 3 influence to destroy a building, why not build a prison and pay the same 3 influence and GET the building!I was suggesting imitating the influence giveaway mechanism, not the cost. I think it should be a 2-influence (or possibly even 1) bldg, since it's always easier to destroy something than to take it over.

that is true. it wouldn't be as big a deal to give up 1 or 2 influence for the building destruction. i can see that being an option as well. Because there are 6 instances of the 1 influence cards (wood and rubble), i would suggest it be brick or concrete (just so that there are only 3 instances in the deck). i still think marble or stone is an option as well, depending on the exact functions of the card.

ekh_86 wrote:
agent easy wrote:
Glory to Rome is a game I quite enjoy, but I would be hesitant to ask for a building that makes the game longer. This card could lead to some pretty long games... do you want every game to end when the foundations run out?Well, it would be in the expansion, and therefore optional. Much like the Puerto Rico expansion buildings.

though i haven't play tested it, i can't imagine it making the game go that much longer. yes, if the card that gives you +4 cards is destroyed, it could add some time to the game, but it is not a certainty. i could think of situations where destroying a building could make the game end sooner.

ekh_86 wrote:
It seems to me the expansion should have the players pull out one bldg (of the appropriate color) from the original set in order to add in an expansion bldg, so as to keep the deck size the same.

part of the beauty of starting a glory game is the minimal setup time. i love that i can have the game up and going in minutes. having to find specific cards and remove them from the game would be a bummer.

I'd prefer to add, say, 10 new buildings (2 from red, blue, purple, and gray, and 1 from yellow and brown) in the same ratio as the original (6 cards for each building in the yellow and brown, and 3 cards for each building of the other colors) for a total of 36 cards.

Adding 36 cards to a 144 sized card deck is pretty significant, I agree. Perhaps you can shuffle all, then remove the top 36 cards from the deck. Or you could just play with a bigger deck, knowing it could be longer. The number of foundations is still the same, so one of the end game limits didn't change.

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

lordunborn — 2008-10-14T03:13:42+00:00

A major thing about GtR is that unlike RFtG your not playing solitaire. There is no reason to know anything about what your opponent is building in RFtG except to see how well he is making points. That is one of the major differences between these games. What someone builds in this has a direct impact on your gameplay sometimes.

I like to play games with other people to interact of which there is none in RFtG.

I find that the game can be too short myself. I am sorry you didn't enjoy the game and only played it once (at least that is what I got from the 1st line of your comment). You should have played more times with different people as the game has LOTS of choices and I have not played the same game twice.

I would recommend this over both RFtG and San Juan for people looking for real deep strategic card game that plays in under an hour with 5 people and that likes to interact with the people they play with.

If you are just looking on ways to optimize your scoring machine and don't even care to look up and see the other players then this game is not for you.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

ekh_86 — 2008-10-14T02:42:01+00:00

crasstopher wrote:
I don't like this because I feel that there would be no incentive for someone to build the RAMP. If you give away 3 influence to destroy a building, why not build a prison and pay the same 3 influence and GET the building!I was suggesting imitating the influence giveaway mechanism, not the cost. I think it should be a 2-influence (or possibly even 1) bldg, since it's always easier to destroy something than to take it over.

agent easy wrote:
Glory to Rome is a game I quite enjoy, but I would be hesitant to ask for a building that makes the game longer. This card could lead to some pretty long games... do you want every game to end when the foundations run out?Well, it would be in the expansion, and therefore optional. Much like the Puerto Rico expansion buildings.

It seems to me the expansion should have the players pull out one bldg (of the appropriate color) from the original set in order to add in an expansion bldg, so as to keep the deck size the same.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

agent easy — 2008-10-14T02:29:11+00:00

Glory to Rome is a game I quite enjoy, but I would be hesitant to ask for a building that makes the game longer. This card could lead to some pretty long games... do you want every game to end when the foundations run out?

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: RAMP

timbur — 2008-10-14T01:36:25+00:00

Interesting idea for a card.

Those 2-player and tie-vote drawbacks are a tricky item. How about if there is a tie vote, or if the builder's own building has been voted to be demolished, he gets to choose whether the building materials go into his hand instead of into the pool? That becomes very "iffy" though. Maybe allow the person whose building is destroyed get that option of placing the cards into his hand always?

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: The Praetorian Guard

crasstopher — 2008-10-14T01:02:32+00:00

Thanks for the reply. Great things to think about.

First off, you suggested a name change, and you are right. I have researched for a while and found something that fits better.

The Romans preferred to assault enemy walls building earthen ramps (agger)

So the way they would take down an enemy building would be to build a ramp, and use siege weapons (battering rams and the like) that were rolled up the ramp. So for the time being, let's rename this thing a RAMP.

Secondly, you suggest matching the prison's card, where as the builder needs to give 3 influence to the player who's building is stolen.

I don't like this because I feel that there would be no incentive for someone to build the RAMP. If you give away 3 influence to destroy a building, why not build a prison and pay the same 3 influence and GET the building!

Now for a 3+ game of glory, i think this card will work well as is. The majority of the players should be able to identify the best building in play by the person doing the best in the game. The player in the lead is then punished (game gets more competitive as a result), the player who built the building gets influence and victory points as he should for building a building, and the other players not involved get a more competitive game.

In a 2 player game of glory, it doesn't work quite as well. There will never be a popular vote for building to be destroyed, as there are only 2 players. The RAMP builder will vote for his opponent's best building, while the opponent will vote for the RAMP builder's best building. As stated earlier, the tie goes to the building that was voted first in this situation. I don't like this as much, since the RAMP doesn't necessarily make the game any closer. The person in the lead could build the ramp and add insult to injury by killing his weaker opponents best chance of coming back.

One option is to delete the tie rule, and say that if there is not a majority for the building chosen, then nothing is destroyed. This would in effect make the card unusable in a 2 player game, but not have the "insult to injury" effect. This might be the way to go...

I think i will play test the card with my friend Andy in both ways to see which I prefer.

Keep the suggestions, comments, feedback coming...

Christopher

Thread: Re: Don't let the look deceive you on this one

Bobby4th — 2008-10-13T23:08:48+00:00

I was disappointed and sold my copy on the spot after playing it.

The graphic design of the game does get in the way of playing the game and it can be hard distinguishing the different cards of the same color.

I didn't find the interaction to be that significant, except when people chose one of the six roles (Legionary?). Even then, there seemed to be several cards which blocked the ability.

The real disappointing thing is how little control there is. In Race for the Galaxy you are able to play your hand and the cards which you have in front of you while gambling on which actions the other players will play each round to try and maximize your turn.

In Glory to Rome you play the "card pool," which can radically change every action. Even if you have actions in your hand which you want to play, it could very well make no sense to play them because the options in the face-up cards just won't do you any good.

It's not a bad game, but the length of the game, which plays like a chaotic filler, is long for what it is.

That being said, the price is right and the cards feel like they would hold up to many playings.

I don't see the comparison to Race for the Galaxy or San Juan, except the cards have multiple uses. Liking or disliking them shouldn't correlate to liking or disliking this. If you've read the reviews and this sounds like your kind of game, give it a try. If you have doubts, try it before buying it.

Thread: Re: Building suggestion for Glory to Rome Expansion: The Praetorian Guard

ekh_86 — 2008-10-13T22:22:11+00:00

This is interesting. You probably should give the influence from the completed Praetorian Guard to the player whose building is destroyed (as the Prison does for the owner of the "stolen" building).

We should try to find an actual building/structure to name it after, in keeping with the rest of the game. How about a "Flat"?

The lower class Romans - plebeians - lived in apartment houses, called flats, above or behind their shops. Even fairly well-to-do tradesmen might chose to live in an apartment-building compound over their store, with maybe renters on the upper stories. Their own apartments might be quite roomy, sanitary and pleasant, occasionally with running water. But others were not that nice.

In the apartment houses, or flats, an entire family (grandparents, parents, children) might all be crowded into one room, without running water. They had to haul their water in from public facilities. Fire was a very real threat because people were cooking meals in crowded quarters, and many of the flats were made of wood.

From http://www.crystalinks.com/romebuildings.html

Okay, so building a Flat over your opponent's Coliseum doesn't make much sense, but you get the idea...

Thread: Re: "IN ADDITION:" Cards: when can these functions be used??

crasstopher — 2008-10-13T20:25:12+00:00

wow, i feel a bit silly. I swear I read the example for the dock, but in retrospect, I doubt I did. It's clear enough that you get the in addition.

Thanks for your replies!!

Christopher

Thread: Re: "IN ADDITION:" Cards: when can these functions be used??

Kester — 2008-10-13T20:19:53+00:00

Although it's never spelled out in the rules, the examples in the building appendix make it clear that "In addition" actions may be performed with or without the standard action for the role. It's even there in the example for the Dock if you read carefully!

Thread: Re: "IN ADDITION:" Cards: when can these functions be used??

Gyges — 2008-10-13T20:10:48+00:00

My interpretation is that even if the action cannot be executed to the fullest extent imaginable, you are still performing the action. Hence, you get the IN ADDITION actions regardless of the state of the pool, both for the dock and the coliseum.
It also seems as though your friend had a point re: consistency.

Thread: "IN ADDITION:" Cards: when can these functions be used??

crasstopher — 2008-10-13T19:53:20+00:00

In a gaming session a few weeks back, my friend Andy had the Dock completed, which allows him to laborer, and "In addition" to add material from his hand into his stockpile. He had a nice combo as well, having the storeroom, in which all his clients counted as laborers.

My goal then became to make sure the pool was very low, since Andy had many laborers and could basically clear the pool in one strike.

The question, though, has to do with the Dock, and the "in addition:" text. Obviously if Andy has 3 laborer actions, and there is 3+ cards in the pool, he can take 3 cards from the pool, and put up to 3 cards from his hand into his stockpile. But let's say there is 1 card in the pool. He can only take that one card from the pool, using one of the 3 laborer clients that he has. Can he then put 3 cards from his hand into the stockpile? Or can he only do 1 from his hand, since that is how many actions of laborer that he technically performed??? The dock says that In Addition: While performing LABORER action may take material from HAND

We ended up playing that he couldn't add all 3 cards from his hand in the last example, but he was a bit salty that I convinced him that this was the right way to play it

Fast forward to last nights game........

I have the wonderful Coliseum building, battling 2 players with many clients. Here is the text on the Coliseum card. In Addition: While performing LEGIONARY action may take opponent's client and place in VAULT as material

So I started using legionary action, and demanding resources that the 2 players had in their clientele, so i could get some vault goodness.

So i demanded stone (since i had it in my hand, and both players had merchant clients). There was no stone in the pool, and no players had it in their hands, but i assumed i still got their merchants from the clientele.

Andy quickly reminded me of the "in addition:" DOCK issue, and said that if he couldn't get the in addition power for unused laborer actions, then i shouldn't get the clients for failed legionary actions.

Hmmmm, interesting point, though i think i did execute the action of legionary, though it failed to produce any benefit. I thought i was entitled to the clients, but choose not to take it, as i thought i had the advantage in the game.

The game ended with a 4 point victory for me, and some of the chips couls have swung over to him with 1 or 2 cards. Super fun game, but I am looking for some closure on this rule.....

Please help, if you know the answer.