Quantcast
Channel: Rob Daviau | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 191645 articles
Browse latest View live

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Oct - Dec Questions (SPOILERS)

$
0
0

by brackis

Shampoo4you wrote:


If an infection card is drawn for a vaccinated non-COda color city, it gets it's original color disease cube in it yes?



I don't think

Rules says that a coda city don't generate his color but zombies :)

Then the rule say if you suposed to put zombie in a vaccinated city don't do anything.

So i suposed the original color of the city is completlys lost it's now only a coda city

Shampoo4you wrote:

If and infection card is drawn for a vaccinated city of the COda color, nothing happens, right?


We played like this

we have read a lot of time theese points of rule but i never seen any information about placing old colour cube.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Stickers and chain reaction outbreak

$
0
0

by Bernaar

EvilNuff wrote:

See page 13 of the rules under increased panic level.

If the game ends during chain outbreaks you choose which cities increase in panic and you stop at 8 total oubreaks for the game.


Does it also means you can 'skip' the city of the original 8th outbreak and choose one of the neighboring chain cities instead?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Oct - Dec Questions (SPOILERS)

$
0
0

by Shampoo4you

brackis wrote:

Shampoo4you wrote:


If an infection card is drawn for a vaccinated non-COda color city, it gets it's original color disease cube in it yes?



I don't think

Rules says that a coda city don't generate his color but zombies :)

Then the rule say if you suposed to put zombie in a vaccinated city don't do anything.

So i suposed the original color of the city is completlys lost it's now only a coda city

Shampoo4you wrote:

If and infection card is drawn for a vaccinated city of the COda color, nothing happens, right?


We played like this

we have read a lot of time theese points of rule but i never seen any information about placing old colour cube.


Oh so a vaccinated city is basically a dead infection card AND a roadblock? Won't that make the last few games super easy?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Scores and Characters through Late August - SPOILERS -

$
0
0

by Citron

Jan - Medic + Researcher: W
Feb - Researcher + Scientist: W
Mar - Researcher + Scientist: W
Apr - Researcher + Scientist: W

So far 3 rioting, 8 unstable a 4 faded cities
1 scar on Researcher

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Resolve the 8th Outbreak?

$
0
0

by jgunnz

DaveD wrote:

jgunnz wrote:

Page 14 of the Rules states the players lose "immediately when the outbreak market reaches the last space of the the Outbreaks Track" when resolving Chain Reactions "first move the marker forward 1 space. Then, place cubes ..." (Page 13) I think the rules are clear that the moment the 8th outbreak occurs you move the marker to the 8th space on the track and the game immediately ends -- thus, the 8th outbreak is not resolved.


But page 13 states under INCREASE PANIC LEVEL

Increase the panic level of all cities that have an outbreak. If the game would end due to outbreaks, only increase the panic level for the first 8 outbreaks.


This is clear that you increase panic level for all outbreaks up to and including number 8.

What the rules seem to say is that you first resolve all outbreaks in a chain including moving the marker and placing cubes and then, after this has all been done, you increase panic levels for all the involved cities as a separate step.


No one is suggesting you don't raise the panic level for the 8th outbreak - the question is whether you resolve the 8th outbreak after increasing its panic level and marking it on the outbreak track. I think based on the rules the answer is you don't.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: *SPOILER* Question about setup for first game in February...

$
0
0

by mfaulk80

dugman wrote:

mfaulk80 wrote:

It encourages you to use new characters. We're now through July though, and we only have two relationships at all. Actually, there are a number of things that the game encourages that we mostly ignore...and we're still doing pretty well.

I also think using all of the relationships up front will hurt a bit later on...without getting into details.


The game already encourages you to try the new characters as they appear by having objectives tied to their abilities (ie a new character tends to appear alongside an objective that their ability would do well with). The relationships aren't needed for extra encouragement.

Sometimes, yes. IMO, however, that alone isn't very strong. Actually, even with the relationships, we haven't felt a strong pull to create new characters more than twice. Since there is always an option on which objectivesobjectives to accomplish (at least early on), we've just ignored many new objectives.

And you wouldn't use all the relationships up front either way. At most you use two pairs in February if you play with four characters that month. It's also worth noting that even under the normal rules you can atart with two pairs of relationships. For example, if you play a three player game in January then you start with at least two unused characters in Feb. If you first use both those characters in Feb and play with four players that month then you can have each of the new characters related to an old character and use two pairs of relationships. So even if you misread the rules you aren't necessarilly even gaining an extra pair of relationships.

It still plays out differently. For one, relationships would never exist between characters used in that first play. I know we would have set up something with those characters had we been able to. You would also have to pick specific characters in order to get all of those relationships established if you were to attempt to go the route you described. Those match ups may or may not be optimal. The difference is you didn't have to work for it. Lastly, as a negative, you won't have the option of using those exact relationships on new characters, and new characters may feel like they belong to a different group...like an outsider.

Again, I'm not saying it's OP. I'm saying it definitely affects how the game plays out for both good and bad. It's not ideal IMO, but I don't think it knocks the game out of balance either...

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: May Rules Question - SPOILERS - Accelerated Incubation

$
0
0

by olafpkyou

jgunnz wrote:

I don't really understand the point of this rule as applied to quarantine markers? I understand that outbreaks aren't triggered by Accelerated Incubation . . . but why are quarantine markers only not removed if there are 3 tokens or figures on the space? It doesn't make sense that if a quarantine marker is on a space with 0, 1, or 2 tokens or figures it is removed but when there are 3 it is not removed.


The rule is saying if you were to place a 4th faded, you completely ignore placing it. Since you are ignoring placing it, it never actually gets placed. Thus, no outbreak would occur nor would you remove a quarantine marker because there was no figure placed to trigger either of these rules.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Resolve the 8th Outbreak?

$
0
0

by DaveD

jgunnz wrote:

DaveD wrote:

jgunnz wrote:

Page 14 of the Rules states the players lose "immediately when the outbreak market reaches the last space of the the Outbreaks Track" when resolving Chain Reactions "first move the marker forward 1 space. Then, place cubes ..." (Page 13) I think the rules are clear that the moment the 8th outbreak occurs you move the marker to the 8th space on the track and the game immediately ends -- thus, the 8th outbreak is not resolved.


But page 13 states under INCREASE PANIC LEVEL

Increase the panic level of all cities that have an outbreak. If the game would end due to outbreaks, only increase the panic level for the first 8 outbreaks.


This is clear that you increase panic level for all outbreaks up to and including number 8.

What the rules seem to say is that you first resolve all outbreaks in a chain including moving the marker and placing cubes and then, after this has all been done, you increase panic levels for all the involved cities as a separate step.


No one is suggesting you don't raise the panic level for the 8th outbreak - the question is whether you resolve the 8th outbreak after increasing its panic level and marking it on the outbreak track. I think based on the rules the answer is you don't.


I suspect that you may know more than I know, having not looked at the April spoiler further up. As far as I know (although I now guess that is not all there is if you're not referring to the panic stickers) the only changes to the board would be the panic stickers. On that basis I'll bow out of this now, in case spoilers may inadvertently appear, and come back when I know more. Unsubscribing from (and blocking) this thread now.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Oct - Dec Questions (SPOILERS)

$
0
0

by brackis

it depends if you had a lot of outcast in coda city in previous game

for us we have only 4 city which became coda city instead of their original color.

But i am not sure the game become easier.

For information we have ended december yesterday

During the 12 months we had only 2 loose but during october and december.

In one hand vacinated city help you but there so many other possibility to lose that i don't think it was a so important adavantage.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Oct - Dec Questions (SPOILERS)

$
0
0

by Shampoo4you

brackis wrote:

it depends if you had a lot of outcast in coda city in previous game

for us we have only 4 city which became coda city instead of their original color.

But i am not sure the game become easier.

For information we have ended december yesterday

During the 12 months we had only 2 loose but during october and december.

In one hand vacinated city help you but there so many other possibility to lose that i don't think it was a so important adavantage.



Ah well we had like half the world turn Faded, so putting up these vaccinated cities really nerfs the power of the Faded and the regular diseases are kind of non-factors at this point.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Is this legal? Start of February Question *Spoilers*

$
0
0

by snakeboy74

As an addition to the original question:

[o]Can you use the rivals ability to then pick up one of the two cards that was discarded to pick up the original card? eg: play a one quiet night, discard two cards, then the player of one quiet night also discards two cards to pick up one of the first set of discards? That way you can pass cards for curing diseases easily as well as keeping events alive. Feels very powerful but the rules don't expressly forbid it as far as I can tell.[/o]

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: Would it be possible to marathon Pandemic Legacy in one sitting?

$
0
0

by questfortheholygame

Our games averaged 1 hour. If you are experienced pandemic players, will probably play about 18 games, so you could marathon it if you want to go crazy.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: Rules:: Re: Oct - Dec Questions (SPOILERS)

$
0
0

by brackis

i don't know how is the english rule book

But the french version is i think clear

A faded city is no more considerated as a city of it's color but as a faded city.

i think if you have the half word faded you can encounter other complication after.

Beecause you will need lot of vaccin

But even without a lot of faded city the 3 other disease are trivial in the last month.

You have already vaccinated all the city ?

Beccause even with less faded city it was due to fad city chain outcast we lost early october

And du to can not drawing we lost early december

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

$
0
0

by DavidT

kbrigan wrote:

DavidT wrote:



Kell asked how the gameplay experience was any different, and I tried to answer.


Alas, you're not addressing my original question. There are people who are quite comfortable playing two new versions of the game -- Z-man's even encouraging this with the different color boxes. How can the act of spending money on a new set make the play any different? The question of whether or not someone might play the game more than once has already been decided. So, what's the big deal about marking/tearing up paper? Why is opening a brand new second game OK, but using reusable tabs, laminations, etc. is not?


That's a good question about the opening of a second game. It's not something I would ever plan to do. And, for the record, I don't think there is a "not okay" way to play this (or any) game. Play it how you want. I do think there is an optimal way to play this game, but you may not agree (which is also okay).

The only point of my post was to answer the question I thought you were asking: Why is it any different making permanent changes? My answer is that the idea of permanent changes is likely to cause an emotional reaction in most people that is fundamentally different from a change that could be reversed (even if you promise yourself you won't reverse it). That is the design function behind permanent changes in a Legacy game, and it is why threads like this one are so contentious. It bothers a lot of people. I was pointing out that, if it bothers you, that's the answer to your question.

kbrigan wrote:

(And, I'm female, if it matters.)


Why would it?

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

$
0
0

by DavidT

Vittek wrote:

DavidT wrote:


Heh. People get so touchy about this stuff. Just take a deep breath and relax. :)

I'm touchy because the thread has been derailed. Nothing else.


I think this thread derailed on the very first page, really. It has been on new rails for about 10 pages. I'm just riding on those rails.

I'm glad to see there are other threads where the original topic of this thread is being discussed more specifically. I think that is useful, and you may find that thread more appealing.

Vittek wrote:

DavidT wrote:


My point is you can't say "Non-permanent effects are exactly the same as permanent effects" if you also say "Permanent effects really bother me, but non-permanent effects don't." The very fact that the permanent effects are bothersome to you is proof that they are not exactly the same.


I didn't say they are the same.


Yes, I know. I didn't suggest that you did. I was responding to someone else, and you asked what my point was. My point was directed at the someone else, but I was happy to explain it to you.

Vittek wrote:

What bothers me is the game has been designed with permanent changes in mind, with no gameplay reason behind this decision. While playing I would be thinking about that and it would spoil my fun.


And that's totally fine. Play it however you want, or don't play it. But the permanent changes do have a gameplay reason behind them.

It's interesting that the majority of people objecting to the idea of a Legacy game seem to have never actually tried playing a Legacy game (as intended or otherwise). Yet they are absolutely convinced there is no reason for the gameplay to include this element that bothers them so deeply. That's a fascinating contradiction.

Reply: Betrayal at House on the Hill:: General:: Re: Scooby Doo Variant

$
0
0

by 3AMEureka

I got the whole set of the post-apoc Scooby Gang and it a really nice fit for Betrayal.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: It seems perfectly fine to play with the In the Lab Expansion (no spoilers)

$
0
0

by eldaec

EvilNuff wrote:

I just cannot fathom why anyone would even *want* to change the game by including an unplanned expansion before even playing it!


Well that's easy. Because ItL is great and you only get to play PL for the first time once. In all probability I'll only play it all once.

Despite this, as an ItL fan, I'm going to say this again. Do not use the lab, it won't work.

Here's hoping S2 has a lab.

New Image for Clue: Harry Potter Edition

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: It seems perfectly fine to play with the In the Lab Expansion (no spoilers)

$
0
0

by EvilNuff

eldaec wrote:

EvilNuff wrote:

I just cannot fathom why anyone would even *want* to change the game by including an unplanned expansion before even playing it!


Well that's easy. Because ItL is great and you only get to play PL for the first time once. In all probability I'll only play it all once.

Despite this, as an ItL fan, I'm going to say this again. Do not use the lab, it won't work.

Here's hoping S2 has a lab.


That is *exactly* why you shouldn't even consider ITL for PL! You only get to play PL for the first time once, so play it as intended. Introducing other changes before even trying it as intended has such a huge chance of just torching the experience.

Reply: Pandemic Legacy:: General:: Re: How easy to make it "non-legacy"?

$
0
0

by EvilNuff

DavidT wrote:


...
Why is it any different making permanent changes? My answer is that the idea of permanent changes is likely to cause an emotional reaction in most people that is fundamentally different from a change that could be reversed (even if you promise yourself you won't reverse it). That is the design function behind permanent changes in a Legacy game
...


This. This x100. IMO if you make it 'non-legacy' you destroy the impact that playing the game has. If you want to do that then go for it, its your game...but I would recommend against it.
Viewing all 191645 articles
Browse latest View live


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