I was confused how I had 2 supply left, I should have question that sorry. But agreed, second search can go. Still would have done the world search.
Okay, how does Citizenship happen, timing-wise? Can the Chancellor give things to their citizens beyond the one relic from the reliquary?
It’s a minor action using the Grand Sceptre. The offer can also include any exchange of other relics, banners, secrets, favor, non-binding promises.
Okay, so it has to be done on the Chancellor’s turn. Not too helpful at the moment…
Correct. 1010101010
If I were to campaign against the two warbands in the Salt Flats, would that just be 2 Defense dice? What if I include the Banner of Secrets in the campaign? Just one more for the one secret on it? Does the Chancellor’s default get added in at that point?
I got 2 too. One for oathkeeper and 1 for the site.
Defence dice is correct, but you can’t target banners/relics unless your pawns are on the same site.
1 Like
Okay, modified my post on the game thread.
Just checking:
Campaign targets: Darkest Secret + (compulsory) Plains, +oathkeeper for a defence pool of 3 dice + 4 warbands
Attacking with 10 warbands for an attack pool of 10 dice (-1 for longbows, +1 for plains)
Using Obsidian Cage.
You do not want to add the Book of Records as another target.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
There is currently only 1 favor in Discord to be had, so the trade that you propose GeeBizzle do for 3 favor wouldn’t work.
2 Likes
Please post negotiation/table-talk in the main thread for continuity.
1 Like
Copied over to main thread.
1 Like
I’m a little surprised - possibly because I don’t play tactical games too often - in the similarities of the rhythm of the game to none other than Munchkin. What I mean is that the primary point of any given round seems to be ‘X is about to win, what can I do to stop that?’. Setting yourself up to win in their place is secondary, and then all the other players go through the same process on their turn. It may be that lots of games have this rhythm, or that I’m reading it wrong, but Steve Jackson’s favourite is the only one that springs to mind at the moment.
Possibly I’m less used to directly competitive games than I thought I was.
1 Like
I’m not surprised by the comparison, but note that unlike Munchkin this game is set to a very definite timer. You have to get your shot at winning lined up by turn 5, or 6 if gambling, or mayyybe 7…
That alone makes a big difference.
Then there’s the fact that players have some real incentives to just say no. Getting behind you for the win and a promise of citizenship, for example, is a viable choice, and there’s no equivalent in Munchkin.
I could probably go on, but I don’t want to belabour the point too much when there might not even be an argument to be had - because the observation that “it’s a bit like Munchkin” is a fair one, if that’s your closest point of reference.
I look at it from another angle though: if you give players the agency and ability to make significant changes, you will end up with situations like these. The alternative extreme can seem like “the best optimization wins”, and that is a very different experience.
2 Likes
I do feel like it’s a bit of a foregone conclusion at this point and maybe the pbf doesn’t allow for more back and forth negotiation that makes this type of prevention critical.
Or it could be my lack of understanding of the benefits of starting the next game as a citizen.
And my flawed reading of the board that helped set this up. 
1 Like
The main mechanical difference, aside from the obvious change in empire to exile ratio, is how many sites, denizens, and Warbands the new empire starts with. The narrative difference is up to you.
1 Like
The reason why it’s rarely a foregone conclusion is the massive variance on the defence dice.
1 Like