Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 191158 articles
Browse latest View live

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Two Questions (April Spoilers!)

$
0
0

by mleacock

clivej wrote:

(Last week, I tried to create a rationalised framework for thinking about this kind of issue, but was met with stony silence. Ah well.)

Concerning your first question, the rules are explicit about what happens in this circumstance, but there's a delicate ping-pong between the sections on infections and outbreaks:

• You (try to) place one infection marker in Mexico City
• Mexico City is the C0Da colour, so you try to place a Faded figure in Mexico City.
• Before placing Faded figures there, mark Mexico City as faded and replace all yellow cubes there with Faded figures, as per rule sticker R.
• Mexico City already has three faded figures, so don't place a 4th, instead there is an outbreak in the city
• In handling that outbreak, you (try to) place one faded figure in Chicago.
• Again, rule sticker R applies: before placing that Faded figure, mark Chicago as faded, replace any yellow cubes there with Faded figures.
• Add a faded figure to Chicago. (If you can. If there isn't room, you now have a chain-reaction outbreak on your hands.)

So far as I can see, rule sticker U only clarifies, it doesn't say anything you can't deduce by precisely following sticker R.


(As an aside, I choose to believe rule sticker R applies to adding cubes during an outbreak, because otherwise nonsense ensues: suppose there's an outbreak in a faded city A adjacent to a non-faded city B containing three C0Da cubes. Relying only on rule sticker U, you'd fade B without converting existing C0Da cubes there into faded figures, leaving B containing three C0Da cubes, one Faded figure and no outbreak. Next time B turned up in the infection deck you'd fade it, convert the C0Da cubes into Faded figures, and end up with a city containing four faded figures. That's so broken I think we have to say rule sticker R applies during an outbreak.)


For the second question, I'm not convinced other commenters have got the answer precisely right.

The first question is: which cities outbreak? That's answered by the section on outbreaks: "If more than 8 cities would outbreak (due to chain reactions) players may choose which cities outbreak and increase their panic level, stopping when you get to the 8th outbreak". That is, 8 is the maximum number of cities that will ever outbreak in a game of Pandemic Legacy. If you have an eighth outbreak and there are more to come, the remaining outbreaks don't happen. But the rules also make it (fairly) clear that that eighth outbreak does happen in its entirety.

The second question is: what happens when a city outbreaks? The "outbreaks" section of the rulebook answers this:
• Advance the outbreaks marker
• (Try to) place 1 disease marker on every city connected to the city (which hasn't already experienced an outbreak as part of this chain reaction)
• Increase the panic level (potentially removing research stations or losing characters)
• Scar characters in the city

So my answer is: when you're losing the game because of a chain-reaction outbreak, you choose the order in which to resolve outbreaks, and only the first eight actually occur. You don't resolve the extra ones for fading or any other purpose.

But, you do try to place faded figures in the cities surrounding each city in which an outbreak does occur. So even if the game ends before an outbreak occurs in a city, the city which would have had the outbreak has already faded because of the adjacent outbreak.

There might be an exception, here: it could be that if you run out of Faded figures during the chain reaction the game ends at once, saving you from further fading. However, the rule that "Any future cubes [...] don't happen" is vague as to whether any side-effects of trying to place a cube do happen, and that wording in any case only appears in the section for running out of cubes, not the one on rule sticker V for running out of Faded figures. Hmm!


Cliff, your response is entirely correct.

To answer your remaining point, if you run out of Faded figures, the game ends immediately -- and therefore you do not need to resolve any remaining outbreaks after you run out of figures.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Fun if only played occasionally?

$
0
0

by Buckarooo

Our group has managed to get plays in about once every 3 weeks and playing 2 - 3 games per session. Like some of the previous comments, we have to spend a few minutes at the start of the session refreshing where we are in the game and any changes that may have occurred (hope that isn't a spoiler). Overall that isn't anything that we feel takes away from the experience.

I think that getting it to the table once a month would be fine. Like any game, the less often you play the longer it takes to remember the stuff you need to know to get started. So the more you know Pandemic (base game), the easier it will be for you to hit the ground running with P-Legacy each time you manage to sit down to play.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Reviews:: Re: Pandemic Legacy: Maybe not all it's cracked up to be. . .

$
0
0

by shumand

adam wilson wrote:

I have missed at least one rule in every game I have played so far. I don't let it affect my enjoyment of the game though. I just mentally highlight the mistake and move on. I don't think that any mistakes I have made so far have skewed the game outcomes a lot.

You could also think of the mistakes in a thematic light. Your characters are bumbling around trying to solve these problems with limited resources and data. They think they have figured out a solution to a problem only to discover their numbers are off or whatever... :shake:


I second this, especially the thematic part. Have you ever read the Andromeda Strain? The same type of thing happens. The rules keep changing, and the scientists keep making simple errors because they're so fatigued and stressed. [o] There's also a nuclear option that could go horribly awry if they employ it. :)[/o]

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Reviews:: Re: [FULL-GAME SPOILERS] Design lessons of a brilliant game

$
0
0

by farsidehobbes

StevenGClinard wrote:

The campaign is going to play out differently for each group, because of different strategies and play styles and how the board develops differently in each campaign.

We had a problem with immediate outbreaks on the edge of the Coda region (blue), so our Zombieland was quite a bit bigger from the very start than for other groups I've seen. We were under constant pressure of losing due to running out of zombie figures, and trading yellow cards and even moving through yellow became a problem because of faded in Miami, Bogota and Sao Paolo and rioting in Africa.

We used roadblocks to keep the faded from spreading across what was left of yellow, and the Quarantine Specialist was critical in keeping the Faded cities under control.

It would have played out differently for a campaign with yellow Coda as it would be easier to just manage the chokepoints.

Small differences in upgrades, scars and relationships can also create big differences in optimal strategies. Our campaign played out quite differently from yours, but the system still worked. Our final score was in the 600's (2nd tier) and we all had a blast.


So true about the campaign playing out differently. For us, December was a cluster because of the initial infection draw which added a lot of Faded figures to the few spots we hadn't vaccinated yet, so we couldn't complete that objective, and our Immunologist that was focusing on vaccinating drew both Binoculars cards and we couldn't get them out of her hand. And we lost the research station in Atlanta mid-year and didn't build another one over there which hampered our ability to get back in there in December.

Reply: Star Wars: Epic Duels:: General:: Re: Printing the Anniversary Decks

$
0
0

by bkindt

BTW, another way to quickly obtain the card images is to unpack one of the Epic Duels mods for Tabletop Simulator, available via the Steam Workshop.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: January replay question [SPOILERS]

$
0
0

by rmsgrey

montag66 wrote:

And if we lose a second time, are we never to scratch off the card from Door 19 even if it's just to look at it for curiosity sake?


Door 19 only has a sticker behind it and instructions on where to stick it. The scratch-off card for January is one of the Legacy Deck cards.

And, yes, according to the rules, you only get to scratch the card off if you win. On the other hand, Z-Man doesn't send the boys round to make sure you've played correctly, so you can do what you like with your copy of the game - particularly with bits that are no longer part of the game. If you're curious about hidden things that you've missed during play, then feel free to indulge your curiosity - I plan to open box 8 after the end of the year (assuming I haven't opened it anyway by then)

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Fastest top 20 ever? (EDIT) ...I meant top 2

$
0
0

by mith

Projected votes needed to catch TS:

11/30/15: 815
12/1/15: 584
12/13/15: 383
12/14/15: 516
12/18/15: 555
12/21/15: 452

The average rating has stabilized a bit in the past few days, and it's definitely within the realm of possibility that it will get close enough by the 31st to be in striking distance for the 1st. PL gained 231 votes worth of projection at the start of December, with 60 actual votes and a 0.01 rating increase - the rest of the change we can attribute to whatever algorithm-related process runs on the 1st, and a comparable change there would be worth about 150 votes right now.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Fun if only played occasionally?

$
0
0

by wyldeoak

Wow! Great responses. I was afraid that I would just get the stereotypical "it's a great game, buy it!" type of response. But, you all have been much more nuanced.

I do think I will need to reflect on this with my wife; will we get this to the table once a month? I don't want to spend our valuable game time reviewing the past. On the other hand, this aspect also further reinforces how situational and thematic the game is; the very thing that makes PL so popular and compelling.

By the way, we have played lots of Pandemic, so picking up the game will be no issue. It is staying in the moment that the Legacy develops and the changes in rules/conditions that I need to consider.

Thanks much!

Craig

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: And then, suddenly...

$
0
0

by aaronph

The OP's point was a complaint about people rating the game without playing in order to keep/push P:L lower on the list.

I don't have a problem with people rating a game without playing it if they are rating it in sincerity. I can reasonably determine whether I will hate a game without playing it. My preference is to abstain from rating them, but I'm fine if others fill out sincere ratings for games they have not played.

I have a problem metaratings--any ratings that are made in an effort to manipulate board game standings. Unfortunately, this happens both ways to most games that make it high enough for people to care. There are manipulative 10s and there are manipulative 1s.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: And then, suddenly...

$
0
0

by clydeiii

clivej wrote:

clydeiii wrote:

I have a lot of fun with pretty simple games, but that doesn't mean they're BETTER than more complex games that I play that I have less fun with


Well, I reckon Hanabi's one of the very best games released in recent years. An absolute masterpiece. "Better designed" doesn't have to mean more complex.
It's good, no doubt. Exceedingly clever for sure, and elegant and timeless. It has the tendency to feel samey after you play it with the same 3-4 players over and over again though. It's not even in the same design ballpark as, say, Twilight Struggle or Through the Ages.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: And then, suddenly...

$
0
0

by clydeiii

Deano2099 wrote:

clydeiii wrote:

I'm not suggesting we judge games purely on one thing, like the Legacy mechanic. You're the one doing that, you're the one suggesting we judge games purely on the ruleset and nothing else. I'm suggesting we just judge them on how much fun we have playing them.
Yeah the problem with that is, I have a lot of fun with pretty simple games, but that doesn't mean they're BETTER than more complex games that I play that I have less fun with, but are clearly better designed, more challenging and interesting (and longer-lasting) games.

Given Top 10 on BGG, most raters feel the same way.


Or y'know, they did until now. Clearly they don't anymore.
If by "they" you mean the subset of early adopters/Legacy fans/Pandemic fans, sure.

Clearly those playing PL at the moment are the most likely to be disposed to the game. Those who aren't really interested in the game are even less likely to sign up for a 12-24 game campaign. That doesn't mean that the 20k people who voted up TS agree with the 4k people who've voted up PL. Arguably, they're completely different sorts of gamers.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: And then, suddenly...

$
0
0

by aaronph

JoeNothin wrote:

But whether people are rating it on the strength of the campaign or on the novelty or the legacy system (or a mix of both), they are not rating it based on the strength of the gameplay. Which is not a good way to rate a game.


Nothin, I can appreciate that you have played the game and are unimpressed. But saying that those who found P:L to be the most enjoyable game they have ever played are "not rating it based on the strength of gameplay" is ludicrous. What does that even mean?

How is the "strength of the campaign" or how the "legacy system" affects gameplay not inextricably tied to "strength of gameplay"?

JoeNothin wrote:

They rate isi]sic[/i based on the non-game experience. It's dishonest, really.


You disagree with the majority of raters on what they consider to be part of the game experience. That's fine. And that is why we can all give ratings based our personal preferences. Concluding that all who do not agree with you are dishonest? That is just silly.

Thread: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Do you need to play with the same number of players each game?

$
0
0

by theycallmemorty

Forgive me if this is a dumb question... Can you vary the number of players each time you play? eg. start with 2 players, next time have some friends join you, next time play with 2 again?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Do you need to play with the same number of players each game?

$
0
0

by ovis

You technically can totally do that, I just think it's not such a great experience for the players that are not around for the whole "storyline", because that is a big enjoyment of the game to see the game change over time.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Compatible with In The Lab and State of Emergency?

$
0
0

by rmsgrey

The board layout is slightly different in base Pandemic and Pandemic Legacy - the latter has more connections between cities.

The obvious base components you might destroy in Pandemic Legacy are the character cards - there are rules for that in the rulebook even before you start the game. City cards and Infection cards may get destroyed too - again, the virgin rulebook includes rules for modifying City cards.

Reply: Risk Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Signed Board Twice rules clarification (haven't seen asked) SPOILERS

$
0
0

by iswearihaveajob

I see. Though the text on the card will most certainly have something particular telling you what to do as well. Don't worry. You get stars AND the reward.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Strategy:: Re: 2nd playthrough strategy [spoilers]

$
0
0

by Dunyazad

Interestingly, there's not really much that we'd change, other than the Paramilitary Escort.

I'm not even sure I'd avoid military bases. We had plenty of them all over the board, but they're pretty easy to destroy with the appropriate equipment. And destroying them actually contributes to victory for several months.

Most of the other stuff we did already, or at least tried to. We didn't succeed at keeping COdA contained, but that wasn't from lack of effort.

The one point that I disagree with is actually your first:

Level 1 is fine, and level 2-3 are okay as long as the city doesn't contain a starting research station.


We focused on minimizing outbreaks altogether, and plan to continue that strategy in future campaigns. Level 2-3 are definitely not okay, because that's where Level 4 comes from. There are going to be occasional unavoidable outbreaks, and the way to ensure that those are relatively harmless is to prevent any outbreaks that can be prevented.

I'm also not sure about equipment. I don't think equipment on a random card is actually any better than an available equipment sticker that can be put on a card as needed.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Fun if only played occasionally?

$
0
0

by SeanH

We have a hard time remembering all the rules changes when we revisit after a month.

What we do is not put the new rules in the rulebook for the past month and then it is easier for us to remember some of the new rules. After a few months of the new rules we figure we know them so we put them in the book.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Do you need to play with the same number of players each game?

$
0
0

by Corgano

Yes, you can do that. But it would be helpful if the new players are already familiar with basic Pandemic and before you start the game with new players you should probably summarize what has happened over the months before the new player(s) joined the game (legacy plot line, new rules and components).

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Compatible with In The Lab and State of Emergency?

$
0
0

by supermaxv

Laerfan wrote:

As an early adopter of Pandemic, I have the version that is incompatible with In The Lab and State of Emergency.

I'm wondering if Legacy works with those two expansions that I never got to play? Do I need the re-issue of On the Brink to play either of them?
Thanks in advance :)


By the way, your Pandemic 1st edition is completely compatible with In the Lab and State of Emergency if you sleeve your cards with opaque backed card sleeves to hide the different card backs.
Viewing all 191158 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>