by marqzen
WhereAreTheBlackDice wrote:
Cool. I agree that some level of "vagueness" in determining end-game VPs is good to keep people guessing towards the end-game. Again like most things, as long as it isn't overdone.
A good player normally tries to down-play the strength of their position until the end (so that the other players are more likely to go after other people). This obviously leads to a temptation to throw down as many objectives in the last couple of turns (assuming that the risk of losing a particular objective before then the end is gauged to be small).
Have you seen this much in playtesting? Is there a limit on the number of objectives which can be fulfilled in a round/turn?
A good player normally tries to down-play the strength of their position until the end (so that the other players are more likely to go after other people). This obviously leads to a temptation to throw down as many objectives in the last couple of turns (assuming that the risk of losing a particular objective before then the end is gauged to be small).
Have you seen this much in playtesting? Is there a limit on the number of objectives which can be fulfilled in a round/turn?
No limit no, but players will want (often) to complete the objectives when they can. Because you might have the most Temples in one round, but will you refuse to complete the objective and risk not having the most next round? Most often the answer is "no". But if you take that calculated risk it and it pays off, more power to you :)