1

In the game of Mascarade there is an note on page 5 of the rule book that reads:

WARNING !

If a player has revealed their card during the turn of the player immediately before them (by having called the character announcement of the player to their right, or by having been revealed by the Inquisitor), then the player cannot announce that they are their revealed character. The player will be forced to swap their card – or not – with that of another player.

It seems fairly straight forward that you must swap your card with that of another if you just revealed your card in the previous turn.

So in a 4 player scenario what happens when one player 'announces' they are the king and two others 'claim' to be the king? do both of the other players have to swap on their following turn or only the very next player?

Here is a visual:

the players are arraigned as such:

      1
   4     2
      3

And player 1 announces they are the king. Players 2 and 3 claim to be the king as well.

Now from the way I read the note on page 5, player 2, who's turn it is next, is required to swap their card. They can not 'announce' to be the card they just revealed. So where does that leave player 3? If player 2 does not swap with them, then player 3 knows what card they are and essentially gets to announce with perfect certainty.

Is this the correct interpretation?

2

There is always a responsibility of the players to swap with players who know their cards. The reason that rule exists, is because there would be no one in place to run "defense" against player 2.

Player 3 does have someone to interfere; player 2. So no one gets a free ride as long as player 2 plays correctly.

4
  • so player 2 is forced to swap with player 3? It does not seem to specify that they have to. I understand it would make sens to do so, but there is nothing compelling them to.
    – Pow-Ian
    May 12 '14 at 12:01
  • 2
    No one is ever forced, but there is an opportunity, that is enough
    – Andrey
    May 12 '14 at 13:14
  • So by your logic, Player 2 as indicated int he rules must trade, and the only 'good' trade for them would be with player 3? what if player 3 had the cheat and 2 coins? Obviously they do not have a reason at that point to swap.
    – Pow-Ian
    May 12 '14 at 13:28
  • You are never swapping, you are always maybe swapping. So if player 2 thinks his card is good he could keep it. Now 3 has to decide "did 2 make a defensive or offensive move?" That is pretty much the whole point of the game.
    – Andrey
    May 14 '14 at 13:28
1

The short answer is yes, this is the correct interpretation of the rule (as Andrey has already pointed out). Player 2 can choose to switch with Player 3, or decide not to and accept that the consequence is a free use of their power. Player 3 doesn't have to switch.

My gaming group decided that in a four person game, this was a little frustrating if you're Player 2, since in some cases you have to switch to prevent somebody from winning even though the card you'd be receiving isn't useful to you. For these smaller games, we've been playing with a house rule that if your card has been revealed since your last turn, you must switch cards. This leads to slightly longer games, but it seems to work well in making sure the game runs more smooth (paradoxically by insuring it is more complicated because of more switching).

However, this house rule doesn't tend to work as well in games with 6 or more people (and this game is meant to be played with up to 8). It tends to just drag the game out. Additionally, this rule doesn't work well with people who do not play a lot of board games, much for the same reason; it appears to add an unnecessary obstacle to the game, only causing games to take longer. So there is a balance in using this house rule to ensure that the game is fun.

0

I will say that if the rule isn't that both players following player one have to switch their card, that utterly breaks the game in two player game.

It allows one player to win as soon as he gets a bit of a lead in gold, a turn and a bishop.

Let's say player 1 has a bishop as his protected card. He can put a hand on his left hand card and say "I am a bishop". The other person can allow this, which gives his opponent 4 differnece. Alternatively he can put a hand on one of his cards and declare himself fool - which will cost both players 1 gold. Then player two has to swap one of his cards. Then if you go with the rules suggested by the other comments, the other player can just repeat "I am bishop" - and he can keep doing that until he wins.

If we say every one who had their card revealed needs to swap it in the next turn as part of a cost for calling others out, then player one will also have to use his turn to switch something leaving player two the next one with a chance to do something - and that kinda fixes the game.

1
  • 4
    This seems to be more of a comment on the rules then an answer to the question.
    – Joe W
    Mar 25 '17 at 22:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.