Cities and Knights - Barbarians Question

Discuss any rules questions you've run into here. Please search through the forum for an answer to your question before posting it.

Cities and Knights - Barbarians Question

Postby kkohut » Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:05 pm

This one came up the other night, resulting in a new house rule. But I was hoping to find out what the actual rules would be for this.

I had 3 cities, two active knights. Another player had 1 city and one active knight. Everyone else had at least two active knights, and their active kinghts equaled to their cities. THe way the rules read, the player with only 1 city and 1 active knight would lose the city, since she had the "least number of active knights" at the time of the attack. Yet, common sense would suggest that I should lose the city, since I had more cities than active knights. We were playing with the "pick how many of your knights will defend" variation of the game, but the rule question would be the same either way.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Kevin
kkohut
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: Cities and Knights - Barbarians Question

Postby steve » Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:11 am

I agree that it doesn't make much sense outside of the game, but the person with the least amount of active knights, no matter how many cities, is the one who loses a city to the barbarians. So, in your case, the player with only 1 city and 1 knight would have to turn their city into a settlement. I think this mechanic is supposed to be used by the players as a way to mitigate the runaway leader situation that often occurs in Settlers, but it can occasionally backfire and instead keep kicking the player in last place while he/she is down.
steve
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:55 am


Return to Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron