---
id: GROUND-RPT-0003
type: report
title: "clay-borg: GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end, and what ATTACK is worth in each"
domain: consumer
repo: ground-game
status: informational
owner: bernd
topic_slug: whynot
created: "2026-08-07"
extends: GROUND-WP-0003
---

# GR-E03 and GR-E04 have been played to the end

GROUND-WP-0002 T04 recorded that both scoring modes were implemented and
neither had ever been played through. That is now done, and it produced an
answer to a second question we raised on 2026-08-06.

Reproduction: `clay-borg$ cargo run --release -p games-ground --example attack-value`
(800 games per mode). Under
[CB-WP-0029](../../clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md).

---

## 0. Why they were unplayed, which was our fault

`cb-play` built **every** game as SHARED GROUND and passed an empty setup
patch. The mode was settable in scenario files and **not from the driver**,
so two of your three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. Nothing about the modes was wrong; we simply had no
way to select them.

Fixed. Reporting it because *"we never played them"* and *"we could not
play them"* are different statements, and the second is the true one.

## 1. All three modes work, and they disagree

Same game, same 37 commands, seed 1, four players:

| mode | winners |
|---|---|
| SHARED GROUND (GR-E02) | P1, P2, P3, P4 — mastery 4 |
| COMMON PROBLEM (GR-E03) | **P3** — the top personal scorer |
| BONDED COALITIONS (GR-E04) | **P1, P2** — the best Bond network, 4 > 3 > 2 |

The modes produce three different answers from identical play, which is
what they should do.

## 2. What ATTACK is worth — asked in all three

On 2026-08-06 we raised, from play, *"there is no incentive to play
attacks as long as I have positive cards."* We could not send it then: it
had no artifact, and our own bot ranks ATTACK below everything, so its
zero attacks measured **our heuristic**, not your game.

The artifact varies **exactly one number** — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy — and asks in every mode. 200 games per cell.
*"Won"* is group success in co-op, and *"is seat 0 among the winners"* in
the other two, since ATTACK is an individual's choice.

| mode | never attack | attack when convenient | attack always |
|---|---|---|---|
| SHARED GROUND | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 | **identical** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |
| COMMON PROBLEM | 59 / 52 / 48 / 44 | 59 / 52 / 48 / **34** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |
| BONDED COALITIONS | 131 / 134 / 132 / 116 | **59 / 52 / 48 / 34** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |

*(2, 3, 4 and 6 seats)*

**ATTACK earns its place in none of them.**

- **Co-op:** attacking is *free* — identical win counts — and also
  pointless. Group success depends on SOLVE alone; ATTACK's effects
  (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides it.
- **Semi-co-op:** a modest cost at six seats.
- **Coalitions:** roughly **halves** your chance of being among the
  winners.

## 3. The coalitions result has a mechanism, and the data confirms it

GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack. GR-E04 scores Bond
**networks**. So attacking destroys the thing that scores.

The confirmation was not designed and fell out: **the attacking numbers in
GR-E04 are identical to GR-E03's** — 59 / 52 / 48 / 34 in both. That is
exactly what the mechanism predicts. Break every Bond and each seat
becomes a coalition of one, so **GR-E04 degenerates into GR-E03.**

## 4. The consequence we think is worth your attention

Because nobody who plays well attacks, **Stress never rises, and DARVO
never arms.** In 500 competent games it fired zero times. The full
sequence — DENY, ATTACK, REVERSE, the Focus/Blame flip, the Protection
interaction — is reachable only by playing badly.

**We are not saying this is a defect.** DARVO is the pattern the game is
*about* not falling into, and a self-destructive ATTACK may be exactly the
design — the mechanic as a cautionary structure rather than a strategy.

**The question is narrower than that, and it is yours:** is it intended
that the namesake mechanic is unreachable in competent play, in **all
three** modes? If yes, nothing here needs changing and we will record it.
If no, the lever is that ATTACK has no path to any scoring outcome.

## 5. Standing offer

We can now run any mode at any seat count over any seed range, and vary a
single policy parameter to isolate a mechanic's value. If there is a
question of the form *"does X ever pay?"*, it is cheap for us to answer.