Jump to content



Photo

Scoring murder at the end


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Joker

Joker

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 09:25 AM

Hey, all!

...When we're tabulating evidence points on suspects at the end: if there's only ONE piece of evidence in the 'strong' or 'weak' box, is it ditched entirely, leaving the box blank & the score not counted?

 

Thanks,

-J



#2 dedindahed

dedindahed

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:28 AM

With the rules out of the box, yes you do discard any single piece of evidence in either the weak or strong box.

 

The FAQ gives an optional rule that you only remove negative values from strong, and positive values from weak, for those that don't like this.

We tend to play as is, the theory being that as there is a conspiracy happening behind the scenes, someone powerful has maybe decided to do something about incriminating evidence, or perhaps a warrant wasn't obtained or signed that makes the evidence inadmissable.



#3 Paul Grogan

Paul Grogan

    Member

  • Members
  • 451 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 10:29 AM

As per the original rules, yes.  However, the original rules are IMO flawed*, so I would suggest using the new rules in the FAQ.

Basically, if there is only 1 piece of evidence in a strong box, it is only removed if it is negative.  Opposite for the weak evidence box, it is only removed if it is positive.  Have played with this, much better game.

 

* We played one game where a suspect had 3 pieces of evidence in his strong box.  They were all valued 3.  With the rules as writted, all would be removed.  This is completely stupid.



#4 Joker

Joker

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:49 PM

Thanks, guys! Yes, the FAQ rule makes more sense.

I wonder what the chances are, after they've had all this feedback, if they'll make a 2nd edition rule book?

 

-J



#5 subochre

subochre

    Member

  • Members
  • 463 posts

Posted 05 May 2009 - 06:54 PM

Paul Grogan said:

* We played one game where a suspect had 3 pieces of evidence in his strong box.  They were all valued 3.  With the rules as writted, all would be removed.  This is completely stupid.

 

It's all in how you look at things.  It generally makes thematic sense that, by only applying 3s of a particular evidence type to a suspect, one is putting all one's investigative eggs in one basket.  Granted, it's kind of a counterintuitive result that nine points of "strong evidence" would be invalidated, but if you have three identical testimonies about a person's guilt, it's plausible to think that whatever reason one has for dismissing one of them might apply to the others too.

And if nothing else, it certainly adds an extra strategic element to think about.  If I haven't Jimmy-the-Snitched my guilty hunch, I will definitely throw in a 1 just to be on the safe side.



#6 Tsugo

Tsugo

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 06 May 2009 - 11:18 AM

subochre said:

 

Paul Grogan said:

* We played one game where a suspect had 3 pieces of evidence in his strong box.  They were all valued 3.  With the rules as writted, all would be removed.  This is completely stupid.

 

 

It's all in how you look at things.  It generally makes thematic sense that, by only applying 3s of a particular evidence type to a suspect, one is putting all one's investigative eggs in one basket.  Granted, it's kind of a counterintuitive result that nine points of "strong evidence" would be invalidated, but if you have three identical testimonies about a person's guilt, it's plausible to think that whatever reason one has for dismissing one of them might apply to the others too.

And if nothing else, it certainly adds an extra strategic element to think about.  If I haven't Jimmy-the-Snitched my guilty hunch, I will definitely throw in a 1 just to be on the safe side.

 

 

That's how my group looks at it.  We play the rule as written.  

In murder cases, it's not uncommon for evidence to be thrown out, so yeah, this mechanic is very thematic.  In most of the games I've played, I typically track down Jimmy the snitch at least 3 or 4 times.



#7 Nhoj

Nhoj

    Member

  • Members
  • 106 posts

Posted 06 May 2009 - 12:15 PM

It also makes more sense of the strong and weak evidence boxes to see it this way

Hats off to Tsugo



#8 Bleached Lizard

Bleached Lizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 742 posts

Posted 06 May 2009 - 11:36 PM

Tsugo said:

subochre said:

 

Paul Grogan said:

* We played one game where a suspect had 3 pieces of evidence in his strong box.  They were all valued 3.  With the rules as writted, all would be removed.  This is completely stupid.

 

 

It's all in how you look at things.  It generally makes thematic sense that, by only applying 3s of a particular evidence type to a suspect, one is putting all one's investigative eggs in one basket.  Granted, it's kind of a counterintuitive result that nine points of "strong evidence" would be invalidated, but if you have three identical testimonies about a person's guilt, it's plausible to think that whatever reason one has for dismissing one of them might apply to the others too.

And if nothing else, it certainly adds an extra strategic element to think about.  If I haven't Jimmy-the-Snitched my guilty hunch, I will definitely throw in a 1 just to be on the safe side.

 

 

That's how my group looks at it.  We play the rule as written.  

In murder cases, it's not uncommon for evidence to be thrown out, so yeah, this mechanic is very thematic.  In most of the games I've played, I typically track down Jimmy the snitch at least 3 or 4 times.

It may be more thematic, but it makes for a sucky gameplay mechanic as it allows for even larger point swings than there already are in this game.



#9 subochre

subochre

    Member

  • Members
  • 463 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 12:08 PM

Yeah, but these point swings are entirely under player control, and occur as a result of information that everyone can easily gain access to.  If each player received a twenty point bonus or penalty at the end of the game as the result of a coin toss, that would be different, but the whole point of any VP-based game is to allocate one's efforts in proportion to the number of points they are likely to get you.  If one risks losing a bunch of points by neglecting a simple and straightforward element of one's strategy, that's not necessarily the fault of the game.  That's like thinking that Hearts is broken because one has the option of shooting the moon.



#10 Tsugo

Tsugo

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 12:36 PM

Bleached Lizard said:

It may be more thematic, but it makes for a sucky gameplay mechanic as it allows for even larger point swings than there already are in this game.

It's obvious that we disagree and I'm fine with that.  It sucks for you, it works for my group.  FFG came up with a variant for this which makes the game easier and takes away some of the competitiveness.  It's there, use it.  We choose not to.

We like the amount of screwage that can take place.  It's painful when Louis moves that one +4 evidence token from a suspect sheet, leaving nothing but +3 tokens that will get discarded.  I've played Louis enough times to know that I would hate losing that level of impact.



#11 Psycho Weasel

Psycho Weasel

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 11 May 2009 - 07:32 AM

subochre said:

Yeah, but these point swings are entirely under player control, and occur as a result of information that everyone can easily gain access to.  If each player received a twenty point bonus or penalty at the end of the game as the result of a coin toss, that would be different, but the whole point of any VP-based game is to allocate one's efforts in proportion to the number of points they are likely to get you.  If one risks losing a bunch of points by neglecting a simple and straightforward element of one's strategy, that's not necessarily the fault of the game.  That's like thinking that Hearts is broken because one has the option of shooting the moon.

I ageree with you but your words are probably lost on Bleached Lizard. Over on BGG he has pretty much stated that he does not like the rules as written. Granted he claims its to make it match the theme more. I think he'd really be happier with Blade Runner clue.

"Pris did it with a Voight-Kampff machine to the head while in the Bradbury building"



#12 Bleached Lizard

Bleached Lizard

    Member

  • Members
  • 742 posts

Posted 11 May 2009 - 11:00 PM

Psycho Weasel said:

subochre said:

 

Yeah, but these point swings are entirely under player control, and occur as a result of information that everyone can easily gain access to.  If each player received a twenty point bonus or penalty at the end of the game as the result of a coin toss, that would be different, but the whole point of any VP-based game is to allocate one's efforts in proportion to the number of points they are likely to get you.  If one risks losing a bunch of points by neglecting a simple and straightforward element of one's strategy, that's not necessarily the fault of the game.  That's like thinking that Hearts is broken because one has the option of shooting the moon.

 

 

I ageree with you but your words are probably lost on Bleached Lizard. Over on BGG he has pretty much stated that he does not like the rules as written. Granted he claims its to make it match the theme more. I think he'd really be happier with Blade Runner clue.

"Pris did it with a Voight-Kampff machine to the head while in the Bradbury building"

*blows raspberry*



#13 Joker

Joker

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts

Posted 12 May 2009 - 02:16 PM

Psycho Weasel said:

....I think he'd really be happier with Blade Runner clue.

"Pris did it with a Voight-Kampff machine to the head while in the Bradbury building"

 

 

BHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Now THERE'S a prestige version of the game I'd buy.

Can I use this quote? I have a BR - themed alias on another board, and I'd love to use this as a tagline. :)

J



#14 Psycho Weasel

Psycho Weasel

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 May 2009 - 08:17 AM

Sure quote it all you want. :)






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS