The rules are nice, except they are a bit muddy and don't have a single example to set things straight. That leaves some questions. I also think it's unfortunate that the cards are almost completely devoted to flavor text instead of explaining what they actually do. For example, it would be nice, if the Fortress card mentioned the +2 strength after Conspiracy...

So, how do the conspiracies work? You play Conspiracy with a Prince or a Councillor, attack with strength of 1 (or 2, if you're attacking a Noble territory). Defender can use armies to defend. If you win, Conspiracy is placed on the territory, which is then placed in the middle. Is that correct?

What happens when someone plays Punishment? Can anybody play Punishment to remove the Conspiracy and claim the territory, or only the earlier owner?

If a player has Ecclesiastic or Hereditary Principality, is he completely immune to Conspiracies (except in his Noble territories and when Machiavelli is used)? I suppose so, as there's no way to increase to power of a Conspiracy, as far as I can tell.

Is there a particular reason why Ecclesiastic Principalities are so much better than Hereditary or Popular Principalities? Seems a bit unfair: one player will have better benefits without any drawbacks.

Well, I'll hopefully get to play the game this weekend (if I get an answer to the Punishment question), maybe it'll make sense then. Right now I'm a bit curious - can this actually work? It seems like there are very few Councillors and Captains to actually get something done.

How long is a five-round game?

There's an example on the web site, which helps a bit. Still, the Conspiracy thing is complicated. What does the "Those receiving the conspiracy can defend with +1 strength." mean?

Mikko,

Like you I haven't played this yet but it has potential I think and the design and ideas merit some effort in untangling the rules.

I agree with your assessment of the rules they are not clear on a number of issues. You will have seen the thread I posted containing questions which Alesia Games answered very quickly.

I also agree that having flavour text take up so much of the card is a waste.

Your description of Conspiracy play looks right to me as it's pretty much Example 3 on the website.

The Punishment card sounds like a card you can play from hand to just stop Conspiracy dead but that can't be right. It must have to be laying face down in the "attacked" Territory. What does "It can be used on any of one's own territories, without having to border it." mean I wonder?

I'm glad you raised the question of the Ecclesiastic Principality (EP). This seems way out of balance as you say. Like you, I cannot see how the EP player can be defeated by Conspiracy except in Noble Territories. A third of the territories are Noble but even so it seems a huge advantage. Note that Hereditary Principality has +1 against Conspiracy and Popular Principality has +1 against Revolts so they have half the EP benefit. It's the Noble Prince that is worst off I think. His additional army card benefit could easily be overtaken by the luck of the cards during the game, whereas the other advantages are permanent.

Additional Questions:-
1. How many cards do you draw on the first turn of the game? You are dealt 3 Territory cards but these are not yet on the table. I assume that you therefore just draw the +4 cards giving you 10 cards to start: The Prince, 3 x Territory, 1 Citizen Army, 1 Mercenary Army and the 4 draw cards. (+1 if you're a Noble Principality)

2. Are Territory cards played face down initially and then all players turn them over simultaneously? Otherwise the first (correction to original post - I meant to say "last") player in the round has the advantage of seeing the border icons and territory types of other players. It looks like this would be a particular advantage when playing the first turn of the game.

All these questions and we haven't even played yet!

I think Alesia Games are going to need a PM FAQ on their website don't you?

Chris

That would be simple, but not appropriate in this game. The rule quote means - I think - that the Prince or Councillor can play the Punishment card in any territory - it doesn't have to be a territory that borders with with the territory suffering from Conspiracy.


Yes, your assumption seems logical. That's the way I read it too.


Well, the rules say they are face up (c. 3) and face down (c. 5.14) I'd still play them face up.


I don't think the first player advantage is that big. It's balanced by the fact that in the preparations phase, the first player knows nothing. The last player is in best position, it seems, as he can see what the others have done. Sure, first player gets to act first, but he has to prepare blind.


I'd prefer a completely new set of rules. What they really need is some thorough blind playtesting - I'm pretty sure there was none (or if there was, I suggest getting better playtesters).

Mikko,

First of all huge apologies - in my comments on territory cards I meant to say the LAST player in the round has the advantage. I'll add a comment to my original post. In fact I suggest that the first player has the disadvantage and then subsequent players have an increasing advantage as more territories are revealed. How this is played may come down to personal preference.

Punishment Card - I agree. I think what we're coming to is that you play the Punishment Card in a territory with the Prince or Councillor and then you can reveal it to stop a Conspiracy in an adjacent or non adjacent territory. Presumably the Conspiracy is discarded. Does the conspiring Prince or Councillor get banished back to the player's hand? If not where is the punishment as the Prince (say) could go on to lead an attack if an army is present?

Rules - I also agree that it may come down to a rewrite. That would not be unusual for a first publication which PM is, as I understand it. Only Borja at Alesia Games can confirm the amount of play testing. You are right, blind testing is important as having the game explained and being lead by the designer allows the sort of issues we're raising to be missed.

Over to you Borja!

Cheers
Chris

Hi,

Here are some answers to the questions:


Yes, that is correct. And if a player wants to conquer this independent territory the player must fight against the conspirators (who have +1 strength). And if the Conspirators are in a territory with Fort their force will be +2.


The Prince or Councillor can play the Punishment in any territory. The reason of this rule is simple: It's very difficult to know when and where a player is going to attack with a conspiracy, if the punishment could be used only in border territories, players would not conserve the card in their hands, because it would not be sufficiently powerful. The cards in a player's hand never are enough to do all the player's wants and players should choose very well the cards to remain.


The supremacy of the Ecclesiastic Prince is founded in Niccolò Machiavelli’s thought and for this reason we wanted to show it in the game. But the advantages of this principality are not so decisive in the game play. Councillors and Princes with Conspiracies can’t do many other important actions. Revolts and Conspiracies aren’t so powerful because:
-They need a Councillor or a Prince: to have a Councillor is not so easy and, if the player has not a Captain, the Prince has to command the army.
-With a Conspiracy the player doesn’t gain a territory, and moreover the territory is independent and defended by the conspirators in the middle of the table.
-Conspiracies and Revolts are cards that the player loses once they are played.

The Noble Prince has a Citizen Army Card extra and this card is highly valuable because in battles generally this type of army is not lost.


In the Preparation of game players must have 3 territories on the table, 1 Citizen Army and 1 Mercenary Army (Noble Prince has 3 territories, 2 Citizen Armies and 1 Mercenary Army). In the First Stage players can discard cards and take new cards with a maximum of 7 (3 territories + 4).

Thanks!
Borja

Can anybody play Punishment to stop a conspiracy and to take over the territory, or only the player who is the original owner of the territory?

It would be nice if the rules said the initial territories are placed on the table.

How does the drawing actually work? Do you draw (number of territories) + 4 and discard if you go over 12, or is (number of territories) + 4 your maximum hand size? First I thought it was the latter, then reading the rules made me think it's the former, but what you said now seems to imply it's the latter?

An independent territory with a Conspiracy Card only can be defeated with an army.

Cards in hand must be Number Territories + 4. But if the player has 8 or more territories the maximum number of cards in his hand must be 12.

So how do you use Punishment then?



Ok. This is one of those things that could be made more explicit in the rules.

When a player was attacked with a Conspiracy the player can use de Punishment to neutralize the Conspiracy. But if the Conspiracy wins the territory is placed in the middle of the table with the Conspiracy Card. This territory was independent and the players must fight with the Conspirators to take it.

Yes I know. I have a big problem now because I have seen with your comments that the English version of the rules has a lot of errors. The original rules were written in Spanish, and the testers of the game were from Spain. We had paid for a professional translation, but the translation is awful!

I should stop the sales, and contact with the buyers.

Thanks!