Game: Domaine

Thread: Re: Can neutral castles have domaines in 2-player Domaine?

Websteria — 2008-10-06T17:06:08+00:00

So do you use the same number of neutral knights for a 2p game as a 3p game, or do you set up ALL the neutral knights and castles?

Image

Toynan — 2008-09-20T14:29:32+00:00

Expansion and knights cards, by letter

Image

Toynan — 2008-09-20T14:25:43+00:00

Borders cards, by letters

Image

Toynan — 2008-09-20T14:17:49+00:00

Front of the french box

Image

Toynan — 2008-09-20T14:11:22+00:00

Back of the french box

Image

Toynan — 2008-09-18T22:25:27+00:00

Back of the cards

Thread: Re: Player order issue - translation error?

GSReis — 2008-09-18T21:02:22+00:00

Thanks! I would still like a confirmation about the German edition, but I think the publisher might have changed the rule regardless of the designer's intent. I would have to ask Teuber himself to be sure. Anyway, I have "fixed" it myself, despite my general dislike for house rules, but this was an obvious change.

Thread: Re: Player order issue - translation error?

Tchaik — 2008-09-18T20:38:36+00:00

The rules in the french edition state exactly the same thing...

Thread: Re: Winning without Realizing it

selwyth — 2008-09-14T06:57:25+00:00

Yeah. It's a "bug" for me right now, but I have to learn how to see it coming. It's just really anti-climatic when nobody is noticing it, then somebody suddenly sees it and the game ends right there.

Thread: Re: Winning without Realizing it

lacxox — 2008-09-13T16:45:22+00:00

I guess you don't really mean it is a "bug"... This is one of the very hard aspects of the game: you always have to keep an eye out for large domaines that are easy to be gained.

Thread: Winning without Realizing it

selwyth — 2008-09-13T11:18:01+00:00

My first 4-player game. A is a Domaine vet, B had played 5-10 times, I had played twice, and C was new. A did a good job of teaching the game to C (though he might have gone too much, too early with his strategy explanations). It was amusing at the start, because A was so thorough with his explanations that by the time he finally got to review his initial placements, he realized that he had coaxed C into sticking one of his initial castles right beside his and 95%-blocked it off (since A's castle and knight were surrounded by a Mine, Town and C's stuff).

A got to 3 Ducats first. I did very well, getting 3 domains and getting 3 Ducats soon too. I also made sure all 3 of my domains were safe, and I was threatening the end-game with 24 points. I was helped because nobody really bugged me, as A and B engaged in an arms race with Knights on one edge of the board, while C was preoccupied in completing his domains, especially the one in the middle.

And then the Domaine "bug" (winning the game without planning for it) happened. on B turn, we all noted that he could complete the last domain in the game and claim a third of the board for himself, if he could place 3 walls. It turned that he did, and he scored just enough points to claim the victory! (12 + 18 = 30) I had been aware of the threat of that happening, and would have expanded into that big territory to reduce the number of points available in the last domain, but I didn't expect the last domain to be claimed so quickly.

This was my 3rd game, and I think I'm a natural at this game (and by that, I mean I suck at every other game I try for the first time). I always do a good job of simultaneously gaining income, threatening people with Knights, and having the Ducat and card flexibility to respond to averse situations. Everything in this game just seems to "click" for me.

Scores:
B: 30
Me: 27 (24 + 3)
A: 23 (18 + 5)
C: 13

Thread: Re: Do you need a knight to expand?

ekted — 2008-09-13T03:30:07+00:00

You can expand into neutral space with no knights.

Thread: Re: Do you need a knight to expand?

cagriggs — 2008-09-13T03:28:14+00:00

Yes, that is correct.

Thread: Do you need a knight to expand?

crazychop — 2008-09-13T02:56:39+00:00

The rules state that you may only expand into an opponent's domain if your original domain has more knights than the opponent's. So I would take it that you would at least need one knight to expand?

Thread: Re: Roland's 20-point Review

Dave — 2008-07-11T21:47:03+00:00

Domaine is one of my very favorite games, and I agree with you on all of your points, with pacing being a very strong selling point for me.

That said, as rarely as I have lost the game, I never blamed it on the card draw (and I do that in plenty of other games). As with Settlers, much of the game is in the initial setup, and much of the game after that depends on diplomacy and collusion. All I'll say is that you have to be really careful about managing the Expand cards that you do get; spend them unwisely early on, and you won't get sympathy from me if you fail to draw them late.

Thread: Roland's 20-point Review

Roliander — 2008-07-11T20:09:27+00:00

My reviews are based upon my own experiences with the games in question and although I do state my opinions as fact they are purely anecdotal. The wonderful aspect of my review format is that people may respond and add alternative experiences in the specific points. I highly encourage this as my goal is to help people decide if this is the type of game that will drive them crazy-good or crazy-bad.

For a complete explanation of my ratings and the points: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1658869#1658869

Game: Domaine
Synopsis: A confrontational game of capturing and expanding territories and managing resources.

Random Factors: (Moderate) In this game you use cards to build fences, hire knights, force alliances, and expand your territory. Some of the cards you will use are gotten by a blind draw. However, many can be taken from a face-up line of discards. Even though the blind drawing is the only luck component which would normally lead me to rating this low or trace, drawing the right card at the right moment can be huge and not getting the cards you need can be very debilitating.
Strategy: (Moderate to High) Much like other games that involve controlling territory, you must be aware of the entire board and have a long term plan. 2-player games will offer more control and thus be more strategic whereas 4-player games will offer more chaos and be less strategic.
Tactics: (High) There are lots of great tactical decisions in this game and really the fun comes from figuring out when to react to an opponent and when to stick to your long term plan.
Tension: (High) There are many times during a game when you are tensely hoping an opponent won't see what you see, won't guess what you are planning, and won't lay that fence right.....aarrgh! The good tension in this game leads to a nice feeling of satisfaction when your plan comes together or frustration when the perfect move is blocked.
Brainburn: (Moderate) You only ever have a hand of three cards which represents the limit of action choices you can make in a given turn. However, because you are working on multiple territories at the same time, balancing being reactive to opponents vs completing your own goals, and trying to manage your resources-- there are a lot of tough decisions to make, often.
Analysis Paralysis: (Moderate) This game is not as bad as games that let you spend action points for actions but there are a lot of choices to make that can have bad consequences. If you are the type that needs to think about the consequences of all your possible actions the game can bog down.
Interaction: (High) This is not a peaceful race to get victory points with each person using separate boards. Everyone is trying to carve out territory on the same board. In addition, you can discard an action card from your hand to gain money--but then that card is available for someone else to pick up. Sometimes, completing a territory for yourself gives one to someone else as well. Every action taken in this game affects someone else.
Confrontation: (Complete) You expand your territory by making someone else's smaller. You can steal an opponent's knights, you can force an unwanted alliance with another player. You can gain victory points while at the same time reducing someone else's victory points. If you enjoy confrontation this game is bliss.
Downtime: (Low) On your turn you get income (if any), pay to take one action or discard a card for money. Then you draw either a face-up card or a face-down card. The only time downtime hits a bit is when a particularly tough decision needs to be made. But turns are usually pretty fast.
Rules: (High) The rules have great examples and are intuitively laid out. The only thing you will need to recheck at first is what the action cards do and they are easily found in the rules. A reference card listing the actions would have been nice. There is an online tutorial at Mayfair which is a bonus.
Components: (High) The game is beautiful. the fortresses, knights, and castles are all hard plastic. The board is modular and all the pieces lay flat and seamlessly thanks to the puzzle piece frame that surrounds them. The money is huge which is cool.
Theme: (Low) It is very easy to see the abstract strategy underpinnings of Domaine. However, thanks to the artwork and miniatures you don't feel like it is a completely dry abstract. There is no sense of story, really, but you do feel a sense of "This is my kindgom" and not just that it is your generic region of the board.
Gateway Suitability: (Moderate) It is good in the sense that the confrontational level is similar to Risk or Monopoly which many casual or non-gamers have probably played and enjoyed. Just make sure they know that you are out to get each other in the game. It is bad in that unless you pull your punches, the newbies will most likely lose badly enough that it may tarnish their first impression of it. Experienced players definitely have an advantage-- especially in planning for the negative territory space at the end that can surprise new players.
Spouse Suitability: (Moderate) It just depends on whether she likes to play confrontational games with you. The theme is mideval (but not fantasy or sci-fi which are turn offs for my wife). The 2-player game is a lot of fun so that is a plus if the two of you can forgive each other after the game .
Fun Factor: (Moderate) Personally, I would rate this as high for myself but I know that abstract strategies are not everybody's idea of fun. It is a thinking game with a great mix of both strategy and tactics and some brainburn. If you hate abstracts, the thin theme may not be enough to save this for you. If you like abstracts, I think you will love this game.
Replayability: (High) The board is modular and the cards are semi-randomly shuffled making each game different though not necessarily fresh. Perhaps I haven't played enough but the board always looks the same to me even though it has been set up differently. I haven't ever noticed a different feel. It mainly just helps to prevent static setups.
Setup Pain: (Low) The deck is divided into lettered sections to control the pacing of when certain actions first become available and to control the economy of the game. Each section needs to be shuffled and stacked. The board needs to be put together as well but it is fast and easy to do so.
Length/Pacing: (High) The game moves along at a good pace. It more often than not ends sooner than you were expecting. For what it is, I feel that it is a great length. We usually get 4-player games done in about 60 minutes or less--just as the box claims.
Collectibility: (None) This is not a collectible game nor are there any expansions. Even you can be a completist with this game...

2 players: Great. Very strategic and chess-like. A much more serious version.
3 players: Great.
4 players: Best. Very interesting interactions and situations arise.

Thread: Re: Oh, i forgot my mines!

Mike Mayer — 2008-06-27T17:17:38+00:00

Good idea! We were having problems with this the last time we played.

Image

fformighieri — 2008-05-15T02:40:17+00:00

homade version with piesces eraser

Thread: Ainda na Ludus

tiagoaob — 2008-05-13T14:20:32+00:00

Vamos então a um jogo um pouco mais denso, novamente com o pessoal da Ludus. Este é um daqueles jogos que já tinha ouvido falar muito, mas nunca tinha tido uma oportunidade de joga-lo.

O nome do jogo não é por acaso, tudo nele é sobre domínio de área e nem sempre a área mais atrativa te leva a vitória. No inicio do jogo, os jogadores se alternam escolhendo as posições de seus castelos no mapa e depois eles tentam fechar os feudos ao redor de cada castelo de modo a conseguir conquistar cidades e minas de minério dentro delas, assim como terras aráveis.

A disputa do jogo começou pelo lado do tabuleiro mais rico em minas, já que todos precisavam de dinheiro, e se deu início a várias brigas pelo domínio nestas partes, com muito cavaleiros surgindo. Vendo que eu não tinha muitas chances de resistência daquele lado do tabuleiro, comecei a expandir em outro local e consegui uma mina, mas estava com menos minas que meus oponentes.

Porém, consegui muitas cartas de expansão de domínio e como estava em uma parte mais vazia do tabuleiro, consegui com um reino, muitas minas e balancear um pouco minhas contas.

A medida que o jogo foi chegando ao final, as coisas foram melhorando para mim e apesar de ter um reino perdido no meio de gigantes e outros dois ainda abertos, com o ultimo eu consegui muitas terras e vários cavaleiros para sustentar isso. A medida que o jogo iria se aproximando do final, um dos meus reinos restantes foi fechado sozinho, o que me colocou bem perto da disputa, mas eu teria uma jogada a menos que os outros jogadores.

Mas esta jogada não foi necessária, o Tola acabou fechando meu reino distante e sem nenhuma riqueza, mas cheio de cidades, o que me colocou na frente e me rendeu a vitória.

Thread: Re: Can neutral castles have domaines in 2-player Domaine?

Albireo — 2008-04-19T21:44:59+00:00

Knowing my level of play I could easily lose to a neutral player...

Thread: Re: "So, I win, eh?" : A lopsided session

Friendless — 2008-04-03T23:21:24+00:00

I played against Scrabblette last night, which was mighty unfair as I have 10 plays experience and it was her first. She figured she should go for very big domaines, which of course require a lot of fences. She also attacked me early by boxing one of my domaines into a 1x2 area. Of course I completed that domaine on my first turn then expanded it over a mine, and had revenue coming in very early. I completed a second domaine so I had 3 income while she was still trying to find enough fences to make a border. I was then onto making a third domaine, but had to make it a bit larger than I really needed to make sure that there wasn't a whole lot of free points available for her - this is the mistake the losers of your game made. When she did finally complete a domaine with two mines in it, my third domaine expanded into it straight away and took them off her. This left a very large area with 3 of her castles, 3 neutral castles, and one of mine. She could have done very well if she'd claimed all of that territory, but she didn't have the income to play the cards she needed to, and I was able to build a fourth domaine and extend it to take a mine monopoly and win the game.

Yes, I did run away with it, but I at least knew what I was doing - I had an income stream that allowed me to play cards while she was selling them, and I could afford enough knights that my domaines weren't threatened. There is a possibility of big game-winning domaines at the end, so you have to be careful you take enough territory from that mass so that the game doesn't get stolen by the lucky player. The central castle almost never helps - being in that area costs you more points than you gain.

I think this is a great game, and between opponents who know what they're doing it's very tense. Sadly, Scrabblette wasn't very impressed and she might not play against me again :-(.

Thread: Re: "So, I win, eh?" : A lopsided session

Jeremiah_Lee — 2008-04-03T17:54:44+00:00

Thanks, I'll give it a try in the next game.

Thread: Re: "So, I win, eh?" : A lopsided session

nelf21 — 2008-04-03T16:28:35+00:00

Next time you play the winner at domaine, box him or her in. It is really hard to play if two of your starting domaines are 1X2, ie castle and knight only. I saw a husband do this to his wife during their first play. I don't remember who won but I have a pretty good idea that his domaine after the games were boxed up was the couch....

Thread: "So, I win, eh?" : A lopsided session

Jeremiah_Lee — 2008-04-03T14:34:21+00:00

"So, I win, eh?" : A lopsided session

Another late night game with my baby strapped to my chest:
]]>(not this baby, but I don't have a picture of my new daughter in the wrap yet). We played a session of Acquire just a couple nights ago, and she helped me win that one. Apparently she doesn't get the territory building subtleties, because we didn't pull out a win here.

]]>
I started with two castles on the outer edge (I'm orange), and then one closer to the center (trying to exert influence in the central city worth more points). I think, in the future, I'm not going to worry about the central city, it seemed like anyone with successful dominions on the outside could just build them inward to grab the center. Having a central castle (as two of the four of us did) never amounted to a dominion, so it never lead to income or points.

There was very little use of the knights in the game, only three were purchased, and while one of those as stolen twice, they were never used to expand territory.

]]>
The winner didn't seem to grasp the idea that he was going to win until after he had, and left me feeling a little disappointed in the game. If he was ahead with 25 points, when the rest of us had 10-ish, there should have been something we could do, or I feel like it should have felt like he was running away with it. It kinda just felt like he got others to build his borders, and then fell into the win.

I'll play again, but right now, when compared to Settlers (another K.Teuber game), I'd rather play in Catan.

Image

olavf — 2008-03-26T14:10:44+00:00

Image

olavf — 2008-03-26T14:08:35+00:00

Borders

Image

nocadlee — 2008-03-23T16:31:58+00:00

close-up of box-insert

Thread: Re: First game of Domaine/2 player

PlayMe1 — 2008-03-12T18:19:42+00:00

The game just came in the mail today and I am looking forward to playing with friends. Your write-up is excellent -- both for providing a clear overview of the game mechanics and flow, and for the very interesting perspective of the childrens' eye view. Thanks for the excellent write-up.

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

Octavian — 2008-02-14T19:43:47+00:00

GaryP wrote:
If a player is going to be foolish enough to waste their turns building such a chain, then I'll abide by the letter of the law: no wall may be placed between two pieces of the same color.

To continue with this line of thought, the player who created the chain couldn't place a wall between them either, meaning that he would never be able to make a domain out of either of those castles and has effectively taken himself entirely out of the game.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

GaryP — 2008-02-13T15:33:11+00:00

Hmm... what if I have two castles and a continuous chain of knights between them (with no walls). Is my opponent allowed to build a wall between one of those castles and a knight? The knight is then attached to the other castle still? Or is the rule that you may not build a wall between two pieces of the same colour? In fact, am *I* allowed to build a wall there? I don't think the traitor rule applies because I don't have a domaine in that situation.
Right, two castles (even of the same color) prevent the region from being a domaine. Thus, a deserter card could not be played against it.

As for the walls, I agree that the point of the rule is to prevent a separation between a knight and its supporting castle. However, as Darin points out, that's a whole lot of knights to place (at least 4). If a player is going to be foolish enough to waste their turns building such a chain, then I'll abide by the letter of the law: no wall may be placed between two pieces of the same color.

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

KentuckyKid — 2008-02-13T00:34:15+00:00

Friendless wrote:
Hmm... what if I have two castles and a continuous chain of knights between them (with no walls). Is my opponent allowed to build a wall between one of those castles and a knight? The knight is then attached to the other castle still? Or is the rule that you may not build a wall between two pieces of the same colour? In fact, am *I* allowed to build a wall there? I don't think the traitor rule applies because I don't have a domaine in that situation.

That's an interesting question. Since there is a rule that castles of the same color must be at least 6 spaces apart, I've never seen a chain of knights from castle to castle like that. If it occurred, I think I would rule that any player may place a wall that breaks up the chain, because all knights could still trace a route back to one castle or the other. I think the rule was meant to forbid a player separating a knight from its supporting castle, and if there were two castles supporting the same knight, this wouldn't be a problem. It seems that it would be a rare situation, though.

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

Friendless — 2008-02-13T00:20:04+00:00

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

GaryP — 2008-02-12T16:11:52+00:00

KentuckyKid wrote:
My understanding is that the last knight in a region can desert. Otherwise, it would say that the target domain of the deserter needs at least two knights, rather than at least one. The rule about the connection back to the castle not being broken should be interpreted as "every knight must be able to trace a route back to the castle through adjacent knights." Once you have no more knights, there is no tracing back to worry about, and so the connection isn't "broken" by taking someone's last knight.
That's it, exactly. The whole point of the rule is that after any action (desertion or adding a knight), all knights must be adjacent to one of the castles of their color or be able to trace a path of their knights to their castle. If an opponent has two knights in a domaine, and only one of them is adjacent to the castle, you may not steal the one that is adjacent, leaving the second . You cannot leave the second knight alone with a no path to its castle. When stealing the last knight of a domaine, there is never an instance in which any knight is left without a path to an allied castle.

Yes, it is bad to have your last knight taken. I've been in a situation where my last knight got taken, and then other players expanded into my domain so that there was nowhere to place a knight. The castle was useless for the remainder of the game!
Been there, felt that pain.

One rule that is easy to miss but is worth pointing out is that you can only play a Deserter card if the domaine receiving the traitorous knight already contains at least one knight. Thus, if your last knight is stolen, you must add a knight before you can steal one back. (The inclusion of this rule implies that the last knight of a domaine may desert. That is the only situation in which the restriction would ever occur.)

Thread: Re: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

KentuckyKid — 2008-02-12T07:32:08+00:00

My understanding is that the last knight in a region can desert. Otherwise, it would say that the target domain of the deserter needs at least two knights, rather than at least one. The rule about the connection back to the castle not being broken should be interpreted as "every knight must be able to trace a route back to the castle through adjacent knights." Once you have no more knights, there is no tracing back to worry about, and so the connection isn't "broken" by taking someone's last knight.

Yes, it is bad to have your last knight taken. I've been in a situation where my last knight got taken, and then other players expanded into my domain so that there was nowhere to place a knight. The castle was useless for the remainder of the game!

Thread: Can the last knight in a domaine desert?

JeffyJeff — 2008-02-12T06:34:49+00:00

The thread http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/28111 asks a couple different questions, one being this one, but it never seemed to be resolved as the last post indicates.

Can you, if you have the room and money to play a knight in one of your own domaine's, play a deserter card to have the last knight in your neighbors domaine desert to yours?

The (English) rules seem to conflict... one sentence says you can if both domaine's have at least one knight to begin with. But another sentence says that "a connection between a knight and castle can never be broken".

Really sucks to the player left with a domaine with no knights as they can't even play a deserter card themselves to get a knight back (since both domaine's need at least one knight).

Maybe the original German rules are clearer, and this was something lost in the English translation?

Jeff

Thread: Re: Alliance duration?

JeffyJeff — 2008-02-12T06:24:49+00:00

ZyronEnder wrote:
Ok, but the official rules don't address this case specifically - I don't see how we can say one interpretation is correct...?
I agree. And if I had to rule myself, I would say the alliance is disolved because the two domaines no longer share a border. Ie. they are no longer neighbors. If they become neighbors again they'd have to make a new alliance.

It's probably very rare however that two neighboring domaines become non-neighbors, and then later on become neighbors again?

Thread: First game of Domaine/2 player

BillJ1967 — 2008-01-27T17:17:05+00:00

My children played our first game of Domaine this morning. It was set up as a 2-player game with each of my kids taking a color. Since this was our first play, I acted as referee and occasionally looked things up in the rulebook. The rules require that the two player game include a ‘dummy’ third set of castles. This serves to slow down land acquisition between the opponents.

The game is structured around four decks of cards (A,B,C, and D). The cards are picked up by each player into their 3 card hand, using up each deck as you play. The A cards typically emphasize wall building, the B cards have some wall cards, but also include knight construction. The C deck emphasizes domain expansion, peace making between domains, and causing your opponents military to desert. The D deck tends to be a mix but contains a fair desertions and expansions.

When we played, one player built domains quickly in the corners, while the other went for more centralized locations with better access to villages and the royal city. Initially, the corner player took the lead with a flurry of fast, small domains. At this point, the game takes a more aggressive course (maybe the B deck) where the construction of military and expansion are more prominently featured in the game. At one stage, my daughter had nothing but knight cards to play, so she built up her military. But later in the game, she had a lot of expansion cards. A quick analysis of the board revealed an opportunity to gain 4 victory points by taking two spaces (a village and a forest) from the other player. She happily took the opportunity to get four more points.

However, the happiness of being closer to victory quickly eroded. As tears rolled down my daughter’s face, she croaked out “Dad, that means I took away the village and the forest from somebody else…..that’s stealing and not nice!” She then let out a wail that could be heard throughout the house. Sensing her moral quaqmire, I quickly reminded her that this was just a game and managed to calmed things down. This episode illustrated how Domaine really forces players to attack each other very directly. Other recent games can use more indirect mechanisms (economic manipulation in Power Grid as an example) for slowing an opponent down, but not so in Domaine. What’s mine is mine, and what is yours, I will make mine!

Happily, a flurry of alliance cards played by both players guaranteed that regional peace was declared. After that, the game became a race for victory point locations. Many of the villages went first, followed by forests. With only a few D deck cards left to play, my daughter captured a village location near one of the dummy castles, winning the game 52 to 41.

This is a good game, and it really lives up to the theme of feudal conflict. At times, the momentum of the game - from building, to warring, to expanding and peacemaking feels a bit forced by the decks. But players who are aware of these transitions will be greatly benefited and have a better game. I will certainly play the next game, but with my gaming friends, instead.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Wrevilo — 2008-01-05T16:35:11+00:00

I just got Domaine over the holidays on a half-price sale at a comics shop that was clearing out all their boardgames. It was $30 (CAD.. but since it can be found upwards of $70 here - holy crap - that was a bargain). I'm hoping to play it tomorrow...

I'd say grab it while you can.

Oliver

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Rompcat — 2007-12-30T06:17:16+00:00

I like Domaine more and more. It's a game I am continually happy to own.

KJ

Thread: Re: How NOT to win 4-player Domaine

Grendel — 2007-12-11T11:49:10+00:00

We place the randomly, but I still feel that´s a problem with the game.

Thread: Re: Domaine - Better than you think it is.

envision — 2007-12-01T03:10:43+00:00

Another great review and another game added to my wishlist.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

Octavian — 2007-11-28T18:02:46+00:00

I do know this has been specifically covered somewhere, but now I can't recall where. If you cannot fully take advantage of the Deserter card, you may not use it. This not only means you can't use it if you don't have space, but you also can't use it if you've run out of knights, nor if you have space but the knight would have to go in the woods and you don't have any money left to pay the extra coin.

-MMM

Thread: Re: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

GSReis — 2007-11-28T17:27:13+00:00

Yeah, but the Deserter card shouldn't be completely useless in that situation, either
If it's useless to you, you can always sell it to the Chancery.

I don't see why you couldn't play it if you could afford to do so, but if you don't have room for the knight in your own domaine, it should just go back to the opponent's supply instead.
It would be thematically inconsistent. The idea of the deserter is, well, of a deserter. The knight changes sides. That's so obvious that it's probably why the rules don't address the situation.

Thread: Re: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

chindent — 2007-11-28T16:02:57+00:00

Yeah, but the Deserter card shouldn't be completely useless in that situation, either--the purpose of it is to weaken your opponent. I don't see why you couldn't play it if you could afford to do so, but if you don't have room for the knight in your own domaine, it should just go back to the opponent's supply instead. I could see this being crucial if you're only down by one knight and knocking the opponent down to a tie for knights would prevent him or her from expanding and taking your cities and/or mines.

However, if you find yourself already so boxed in with no room to expand, then you're kind of screwed in that particular area of the board anyway and should be focusing your attention elsewhere...

Thread: Re: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

thorgn — 2007-11-28T15:45:56+00:00

This has actually come up a few times when I have played the game. We decided that you were unable to play the Deserter card if you could not place the knight in your own domaine. I don't think that the rules state it specifically, but I think that is what is logical.

Thread: Re: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

Devonelle — 2007-11-28T13:14:56+00:00

Hmmm. I would say this would not be allowed.

If one of the conditions of placing a knight cannot be met I would say that the knight could not be placed there, even if a deserter card allows. It is a very good question, and one that I have not had come up in the past.

This is one of the troubles in initial placement of castles/knights in the game. Even though at the start of the game advantageous spots to start SEEM to be around mines/cities, etc. you quickly find that giving yourself enough room to put down knights and then expand INTO the areas with mines is a more optimal strategy.

Thread: Deserter when you can't place the knight?

alextfish — 2007-11-28T12:47:31+00:00

Hi all. A question arose playing this game last night, regarding the Deserter card. Can you play it to remove a knight from an opponent's adjacent Domaine, even if you can't place a new knight in your Domaine because there's not enough room?

I know that (a) the Deserter card only works on an opponent's complete Domaine that shares a border with your complete Domaine, and (b) both Domaines need to have at least one knight in.

But the rulebook doesn't address the case where you want to remove an opponent's knight, but you don't have room in your domaine to place the knight (perhaps your only spaces adjacent to your castle/knights are villages or mines). What do people do in this circumstance: allow the play or not?

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

thorgn — 2007-11-08T22:27:28+00:00

I ended up buying Domaine on a whim a little while ago, and I am glad I did. I love it. It has depth for the more strategically minded, but the rules are simple enough to be grasped quickly. I would highly recommend it.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Natus — 2007-10-29T01:02:05+00:00

Roland, I am in EXACTLY the same boat. Time to whip out those credit cards!

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Friendless — 2007-10-29T00:54:40+00:00

Yes, it's a great game. Looking at your favourite games, I think it's probably closest in feel to T&E - you build stuff up and people try to take it off you. If you like that sort of game, Domaine will be great.

Thread: Re: An Ameritrasher's review of Domaine

toguopp — 2007-10-27T21:36:38+00:00

Thanks for the review, Tom, even if it was negative! The review called out quite a few thoughtful responses from defenders of the game, so you must have done something right. One of the more useful discussions of Domaine that I've found, pro and con.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Colorado_Jeff — 2007-10-27T14:03:30+00:00

I have and enjoy both games. Domaine is favored by most in my group and still gets played at least every couple months. Haven't played Lowenhertz in a long time. It's good, just not as well liked in my group.

Be aware Domaine is VERY confrontational for a Euro.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

wkusau — 2007-10-27T02:55:31+00:00

Champion Eternal wrote:
...While I personally prefer Lowenherz ...
Me to but if you don't have either I would get Domaine.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

Champion Eternal — 2007-10-27T02:17:53+00:00

I have Lowenherz and Domaine. While I personally prefer Lowenherz for its deeper mechanics, the newer Eurogamers in my gaming groups like Domaine. It is confrontational (more than the typical Euro), it is fun and it is not too long. We usually play 2 games at a time.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

dkeisen — 2007-10-27T01:20:40+00:00

I think it does. Played it just this week.

It is easy to understand, and yet there's a real game there. More directly confrontational than your average Eurogame. Probably not a real negative for you. And it takes not much more than an hour.

I don't play it a LOT. My friends tend to prefer Lowenherz, which is the original here and is a deeper game. But this is cleaner and certainly has its advocates.

Thread: Re: Does it still stack up?

HuckmanT — 2007-10-27T01:16:28+00:00

Consider this a vote for Domaine. I stay pretty current with my collection of games, and this still sees play. It's a very interesting and fun game!

Thread: Does it still stack up?

Roliander — 2007-10-26T23:31:36+00:00

I have had my eye on Domaine for a couple of years now and have noticed that it has slipped just a bit in the rankings. Also quite a few Euros have come out since Domaine was first published that are also area control style games.

Thoughthammer has just announced that very soon Mayfair games are going to go up in price because of a discount cap imposed by the company. So should I bump it up my list and get it now while it is a bit cheaper? Are there better games out now that I should give my money and time to?
What to do...What to do?

Thread: Re: Not Enough Border-Placement Cards in 4-player Game

Smash62bill — 2007-10-24T20:29:38+00:00

My biggest concern is how to lessen the "oops--what happened to the border-stone cards?" factor for new and infrequent players.

I counted all possible border stones in the deck as follows:
A: 21
B: 18
C: 13
D: 16

So, in the first half of the deck, a player's average share of border stones is:

2-player: 20
3-player: 13
4-player: 10

I think, simply sharing this information with new players will help them a lot in their planning.

Thread: Re: King-making in Domaine

Jeff Horger — 2007-10-21T14:53:47+00:00

I have never played this game, but I have seen enough of these situations to know what you are talking about. I have to agree that if you make all of your gains against one opponent and leave him with nothing else to do, he will simply become a thorn in your side for the remainder of the game. And...I don't blame him. Anytime one player makes all or most of his agains against me, and dosen't or can't finish me off, then he has a thorn named Jeff in his side for the remainder of the game. I can't win, but I refuse to simply allow that player an easy win at my expense.

I have also been the outsider watching this conflict and I would expect nothing less of the beaten-down player than to constantly agitate the aggressor. Usually I will even offer as much aid as possible to the weaker player in an effort to help (read use) them to fight the player that bested them. As the outsider, I would be quite disappointed to see the defeated player either fold or help the player that just beat them down by working against a different player.

Image

Yaboo — 2007-09-30T04:28:01+00:00

Final moments - victory is mine!