by Antistone
IIRC, the entirety of the rules for when you are allowed to use binoculars is:"discard during a search"
"discard during a search"
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
"discard during a search"
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Daybreak
Antistone wrote:
IIRC, the entirety of the rules for when you are allowed to use binoculars is:
"discard during a search"
"discard during a search"
We read this as the search has to happen first, then you can discard it. You can't discard the binoculars to start the search (unless it happened to be the right colour, in which case it wouldn't function as binoculars).
With no discarded card ("one or more" cards need to be discarded to search) there is no search.
↧
↧
New Image for Pandemic Legacy: Season 1
by kainarchy
<div>Pandemic Legacy </div>
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Chipacabra
Antistone wrote:
IIRC, the entirety of the rules for when you are allowed to use binoculars is:
"discard during a search"
"discard during a search"
Right. And a search is started by discarding a card. Which means if you haven't discarded another card yet, you can't discard the binoculars because you aren't searching yet.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Antistone
But you see how that could be read as meaning that binoculars are one of the "one or more cards" that you discard as part of ("during") a search?↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: General:: Re: I'm close to buying Pandemic Legacy, I need to know just one spoiler...does this game have (Spoiler)?
by dugman
clydeiii wrote:
But if like London falls, the game doesn't react to that. The story is fixed. Players just are along for the ride.
Right the story doesn't change. The map reacts though by permanently making London harder to enter or changing it to a Faded city, etc, depending what exactly happened. So the overall setting reacts to events even though the storyline is constant.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by clivej
Antistone wrote:
But you see how that could be read as meaning that binoculars are one of the "one or more cards" that you discard as part of ("during") a search?
No, not really.
Yes, that card could be one of the "one or more cards". But if it is, you're not using it as equipment, you're discarding it to the Search action. In which case you get the effect you expect for discarding that to the search action (as described on that specific search). The only way to get the Equipment effect is to make a Search, meeting the normal requirements for searching, then play the Binoculars card as Equipment.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by clivej
dugman wrote:
No, you can never discard a card just to discard it.
I don't think that's quite what he's asking.
Suppose there's a search which must be conducted in a blue city. It advances 1 space for each blue city card you discard, 3 spaces for a blue city with an "e" in its name, 1 extra space if the city has a Quarantine marker in it.
If you are in Atlanta, can you discard Istanbul to make a search, even though it doesn't meet the criteria, therefore advancing no spaces, but then discard Santiago-with-Binoculars-stuck-to-it to advance two spaces?
To me, the action summary and the rules are contradictory on this point.
The Search rules sticker wrote:
Discard one or more cards to advance one search party token along a search track. Only certain cities can be searched. Eligible cities are described on each Search card.
Actions summary wrote:
If you are in an eligible city, discard one or more cards matching the color of your city to advance a search party token.
So according to the rules yes, you can discard irrelevant cards, they just don't advance the search. According to the action summary, you can only discard cards of the colour of the city you're searching in.
Normally, I'd say the rulebook trumps the summary card, but the summary card does make a little more sense.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: (feb spoilers) co worker with researcher
by clivej
iNano78 wrote:
For February, a player would like to try the Scientist. Is this allowed
Yes.
does this count as creating the Scientist for the purposes of adding relationships (eg make the Scientist a coworker of the Researcher)?
Yes.
And if so, can we give the Scientist 2 relationships immediately (eg coworker of Researcher and maybe family member of Dispatcher)?
No. Just one. "When creating a character, give them a relationship with an already created character." (Emphasis mine.)
To give the Scientist a second relationship, you'd have to create the Quarantine Specialist and give them a relationship with the Scientist.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: February Rules Question *slight spoilers*
by clivej
jstearns78 wrote:
Are we sure this is how this works?
Yes. "When creating a character, give them a relationship with an already created character."
If you think "a relationship" means "one or more relationships", I'm never going to invite you to take "a cupcake". :-p
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Daybreak
Even if you can still discard anything to start a search, you couldn't discard binoculars to start the search *and* get +2. You can't spend the same dollar twice.↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Question about setup of first game in May (spoilers)
by clivej
Antistone wrote:
You realize that placing a quarantine on a city that is not yet Faded will not actually help you complete the objective?
We realised that. We noticed at the start of May that we only had one faded city. We wondered if we should be deliberately letting things fade in order to satisfy that objective.
Even if you do focus on containment with Quarantine, it turns out seven cities fade plenty quick enough!
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Antistone
clivej wrote:
Antistone wrote:
But you see how that could be read as meaning that binoculars are one of the "one or more cards" that you discard as part of ("during") a search?
No, not really.
OK, I'm curious.
Suppose, hypothetically, you wanted to make a card that worked like I described: it is valid to discard it as one of the "one or more" discards that you make during a search action, and is always worth 2 advances when you do so.
When would you describe the appropriate time to discard that card?
clivej wrote:
To me, the action summary and the rules are contradictory on this point.
So according to the rules yes, you can discard irrelevant cards, they just don't advance the search. According to the action summary, you can only discard cards of the colour of the city you're searching in.
Normally, I'd say the rulebook trumps the summary card, but the summary card does make a little more sense.
The Search rules sticker wrote:
Discard one or more cards to advance one search party token along a search track. Only certain cities can be searched. Eligible cities are described on each Search card.
Actions summary wrote:
If you are in an eligible city, discard one or more cards matching the color of your city to advance a search party token.
So according to the rules yes, you can discard irrelevant cards, they just don't advance the search. According to the action summary, you can only discard cards of the colour of the city you're searching in.
Normally, I'd say the rulebook trumps the summary card, but the summary card does make a little more sense.
There is a search later on that explicitly requires cards that do NOT match the color of the city, so that text has to be taken either as a non-exclusive summary of typical requirements, or as an outright error.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Antistone
Daybreak wrote:
Even if you can still discard anything to start a search, you couldn't discard binoculars to start the search *and* get +2. You can't spend the same dollar twice.
No one is arguing that you can double-count the card both as a regular city card (for its regular advancement amount) and as binoculars.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: [SPOILERS ON APRIL] Playing wrong
by clivej
Antistone wrote:
clivej wrote:
So the only question is: how many cities outside C0Da did you fade by mistake in April?
There are 12 cities of each color, so if they had 18 Faded cities, there were at least 6 that were not originally COdA colored
Careful.
Firstly, what OP actually said was:
and so, after 2 more sessions, we had 18 faded cities, and we were only on may (losing the first half)
...so those cities didn't all fade during that erroneous initial fading. Some faded in subsequent games.
Also, I asked how many they faded by mistake. Some of those cities will have faded correctly: if they received another cube by any means after mid-way through the first game in April, they may have faded them prematurely, but they were going to fade before the game was over anyway.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Daybreak
Antistone wrote:
clivej wrote:
Antistone wrote:
But you see how that could be read as meaning that binoculars are one of the "one or more cards" that you discard as part of ("during") a search?
No, not really.
OK, I'm curious.
Suppose, hypothetically, you wanted to make a card that worked like I described: it is valid to discard it as one of the "one or more" discards that you make during a search action, and is always worth 2 advances when you do so.
When would you describe the appropriate time to discard that card?
You would need a triggered ability, like "whenever you discard this card to search, instead move the search market forward 3 spaces instead of 1"
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Antistone
Daybreak wrote:
You would need a triggered ability, like "whenever you discard this card to search, instead move the search market forward 2 spaces instead of 1"
That implies that this hypothetical ability only works if the card could have been discarded for 1 advance anyway.
That is not what I asked for. I asked for a card that can always be used for 2 advances, even if it does not meet the normal requirements of the search.
↧
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by clivej
Antistone wrote:
Suppose, hypothetically, you wanted to make a card that worked like I described: it is valid to discard it as one of the "one or more" discards that you make during a search action, and is always worth 2 advances when you do so.
When would you describe the appropriate time to discard that card?
When would you describe the appropriate time to discard that card?
Well, compare with:
Drone Escort wrote:
Discard this card when you Drive/Ferry into a collapsing or fallen city. You do not need to spend any additional cards.
That makes it very clear you're discarding the Drone Escort instead of discarding the one or two cards of the city's colour you otherwise would have had to.
So Binoculars could have said, for example, "When searching, you may play this instead of discarding a card. If you do, advance the search 2 spaces. You may still discard other cards."
There is a search later on that [...]
Er... that's a spoiler. )-8
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by Antistone
clivej wrote:
That makes it very clear you're discarding the Drone Escort instead of discarding the one or two cards of the city's colour you otherwise would have had to.
That's clear only because they used an entire extra sentence to make it clear.
You could also add a sentence to the end of Binoculars that says either "You must still discard at least 1 other card during the search" or "You are allowed to search even if this is your only discard" to achieve the same effect.
But insofar as the Drone Escort gives us any precedent at all, it shows that a card that you discard "when" you do an action does NOT require that you meet all the regular prerequisites of that action before you're allowed to use the card. (Otherwise Drone Escort wouldn't do anything at all.) That seems to strongly undermine your original argument that it is somehow impossible to read binoculars in that way (since you're already reading Drone Escort that way).
clivej wrote:
So Binoculars could have said, for example, "When searching, you may play this instead of discarding a card. If you do, advance the search 2 spaces. You may still discard other cards."
There are at least 2 important ways to interpret that differently than you intended:
1. Since you are playing binoculars instead of another card, you must have at least 1 card in your hand that you could have played, but did not. (Notice that, even though you are trying to be analogous to Drone Escort, Drone Escort does NOT have this issue.)
2. Since binoculars is instead of another card, I still get whatever benefits the other card would have given me. "Advance the search 2 spaces" must be in addition to that. So I could discard binoculars instead of a same-color card for a total of 3 advances, or discard it instead of the matching city card for a total of 5 advances.
It's also wrong, in that it implies you normally discard exactly 1 card when searching, which is false. You had to add an entire extra sentence just to indicate that you didn't really mean that implication (leaving the reader confused up until then).
If the designers had specifically considered this distinction and they were willing to add that much text, they would have been better served keeping the current version (no matter which of our interpretations is correct) and then adding a clarifying sentence to the end (as I suggested above).
Contrast this with my proposal to clarify that they really meant your version, which only required a 1-word change (from "during" to "after").
clivej wrote:
There is a search later on that [...]
Er... that's a spoiler. )-8
If I had said "you can't really be limited to discarding cards of your city color, but the reason why is a spoiler", you would have learned exactly as much.
There was no way to continue the discussion without that spoiler. And, IMO, it's an extremely trivial one.
↧
Reply: Pandemic Legacy: Season 1:: Rules:: Re: Spoilers from July on
by clivej
It's not extremely trivial. It tells me there are more searches than I've had already!↧