In the Stocks

[Joff]

With the Jousting Tournament almost complete, (comments and suggestions in the correct thread still welcome), here is my next project.
In the Stocks has a simple 'miss a turn' mechanic. The idea being that the stocks hinder a persons progress as they spend time in the stocks. Perhaps they stole a loaf of bread?

Here is the tile image, so far... needs much work:



The rules at present are:

There are two stocks tiles (maybe more)
Playing the stocks onto an opponents city requires that they miss their next turn. I am considering a 'builder' mechanic also where the player laying the stocks gets an additional turn... perhaps even the players turn that is missing a go.
If there is more than one colour in a city it is the choice of the player who lays the stocks as to which colour misses his turn.

Preliminary draft rules, and comments, suggestions etc, are welcome.

[wellidesigns]

like this idea. Tile looks good already, but I'd add a little border around the green space

[Novelty]

Playing the stocks onto an opponents city requires that they miss their next turn.

What if there are more than 1 player in that city?  Does this mean you get a double turn in a 2 player game?

[Joff]

What if there are more than 1 player in that city?

Already answered above

Does this mean you get a double turn in a 2 player game?

That is the idea of 'builder' type mechanic. The Stocks first hinder your opponent, ('miss turn' mechanic) and gives you progress ('builder' mechanic).


With both mechanics in operation, the turn sequence of a 2 player game:

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2's city
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes an extra turn (player 2's turn)
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Continues

OR

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2's city
Player 1: Takes an extra turn
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Continues


With both mechanics in operation, the turn sequence for more than 2 players:

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2 and playre 3's shared city. Player 1 chooses which opponent will miss his turn (doe not matter who has a majority). In this case, he chooses Player 3.
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes an extra turn (player 3's turn)
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Continues...

OR

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2 and playre 3's shared city. Player 1 chooses which opponent will miss his turn (doe not matter who has a majority). In this case, he chooses Player 3.
Player 1: Takes an extra turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Continues...


Both 2 player and more players are basically the same sequence, the difference being at what point the Stocks layer takes his extra turn.

Which is better?

[Novelty]

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2's city
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes an extra turn (player 2's turn)
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Continues

If Player 1 has a builder in the city... and he draws the right tiles, he may lay down 6 tiles before Player 2 takes his next turn.  That in itself seems rather bad to me.

[Joff]

If Player 1 has a builder in the city... and he draws the right tiles, he may lay down 6 tiles before Player 2 takes his next turn.  That in itself seems rather bad to me.

To counter this situation (assuming the use of the Stocks layer gets to take the extra turn(that would have been taken by the player missing a turn)):

Player 1: Lays Stocks tile onto Player 2's city. Player 1 also has his Builder in this city.
Player 1: Takes his double-turn (for his builder)
Player 1: Takes Player 2's turn (if he adds to a road/city containing his builder he does not get a double-turn as he's effectively taking Player 2's turn and not his turn)
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: continues...

[Novelty]

To counter this situation (assuming the use of the Stocks layer gets to take the extra turn(that would have been taken by the player missing a turn)):

Player 1: Lays Stocks tile onto Player 2's city. Player 1 also has his Builder in this city.
Player 1: Takes his double-turn (for his builder)
Player 1: Takes Player 2's turn (if he adds to a road/city containing his builder he does not get a double-turn as he's effectively taking Player 2's turn and not his turn)
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: continues...

That still means Player 1 gets to play a max of 5 tiles before Player 2 gets to do anything.  It still seems bad to me.  And if by chance, Player 1 draws both the stocks, he gets to play a max of 8 tiles before Player 2 gets to do anything.  Ouch.

[Joff]

I see what you're saying... hmmmm.

Perhaps it is better just simply leaving out the 'builder' type mechanic from this and leaving it at missing a turn.

Player 1: Playes stocks tile onto city containing his builder and an opponent
Player 1: takes double-turn allowed by builder
Player 2: misses a turn
Player 1:draws and plays tile (possibly another 'builder' tile)
Player 2: continues...

A possible 4 tiles played by Player 1, before player 2 is back in on the action. In a 2 player game perhaps one could use just one Stocks tile?

[Novelty]

I still don't like the idea of the "miss a turn" mechanic.  This is a tile-laying game.  Forcing a player to abandon his/her turn seems to be "anti-fun" somehow.  Well, I guess this is one Variant I won't be playing if it goes ahead as planned.

Edit: I would suggest some other mechanic instead.  Remove a piece from that city, for example, or something.

[Joff]

Edit: I would suggest some other mechanic instead.  Remove a piece from that city, for example, or something.

That might work. The idea of 'In the Stocks' is one of hinderance to a player. Removing a tile from their city would also be an interesting way of hindering an opponent. I'll think on...

[Joff]

Had some other thoughts. What would happen if the player playing the Stocks tile onto a city chooses who goes into the Stocks (an opponent already occupying the city) and then:

The player in the Stocks cannot score for the feature at all while he is detained them (how many turns and how this will be measured, I need to think about). This would mean that a city could be completed by the other players before he is out of the Stocks, thus losing him the city…

OR

The player who is in the Stocks loses the power of 1 follower in the city for a certain number of turns. A similar method to my Jousting Tournament could be implemented (moving the follower to the actual Stocks tile for a certain number of turns). This might give a temporary majority to another player within the city. If he could complete, he would score the city instead.

OR

The player in the Stocks immediately loses X number of points. In this way, someone who is leading can be drawn back a bit, thus hindering their progress.

[Scott]

Here's an additional idea which you may or may not want to pursue: a tile depicting a gallows which allows the placing player to permanently remove a meeple from the city. (or is that too much like Princess?)

[Joff]

lol... I have just finished the rules for The Gallows... where the placing of a tile removes a meeple from the city!!!

[Cappy]

I do believe Scott's right: Gallows as it sits is pretty much like Princess.

As for the Stocks, I like the idea of a temporary hindrance, like removing a player from the majority count for a bit, to let others scramble while their opponent is in the slammer. But one day he'll get out...

You will need some mechanic to keep track of which turns the players have lost, to avoid arguments.

[Novelty]

Well, this could be the opposite of the mechanic I proposed in Arise, sir... perhaps the gallows may be used to change a knight for another legal follower either from the player's supply (preferred) or somewhere else?  Imagine taking out a big follower from a city with no shields and replacing it with a mayor!