Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
20 Posts

Saboteur» Forums » General

Subject: Q: continuous path from Start card? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeremy Avery
Canada
Kamloops
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
When I play a card, MUST it be able to trace a path back to the Start card? I have been playing that you MUST.

If a person plays a rockfall card, and removes a key card from the path, it can happen that a card COULD be played in such a way as to be attacked to a section of cards that no longer have access to the Start card because of the card that was removed. Is this permissible?

The rules SEEM to suggest that any card played must be attached to the main body of card that can touch the Start card. This makes sense thematically, otherwise you could start new paths from the 'dead end' on a dead end card. The rules say something like this: "Bit by bit, the players work from the Start card to the Finish cards." Then it goes on to say that cards must always be facing the same direction, and the all sides must match (a la Carcassonne) -- but it never actually says a player MUST play a card in such a way that a path can be traced back to the start card. The first rules that I quoted seems to IMPLY this, but does not implicitly state it.

Any infor on this would be helpful.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paolo Mori
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Re:Q: continuous path from Start card?
When we play, we agree on playing cards even adjacent to cards that do not trace back to the starting card, due to a rock fall, waiting for someone else to put the missing card in the middle.

I imagine the trapped dwarfs continue mining towards the gold...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon Asher
United States
Jefferson
MA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that a continuous path from goal to start IS required.

From the rules under "Playing a path card":
"The gold-diggers will try to establish an
uninterrupted path from the start card to one of the goal cards; the
saboteurs will attempt to prevent just that."

From the section on the "Rock-Fall" card:
"A saboteur can thus interrupt a path from the start card
towards a goal card..."

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The question isn't whether a continuous path from the start to the goal is required to win the game, it's whether a continuous path from the start to the path card being played is required.

Like Paulo, I think it isn't. The rule is, "A path card must always be put next to a path card which is already on the table." It doesn't say anything like "...and must be able to trace a continuous path back to the start card." In fact, it doesn't even say that the path on the card must connect to any other card; to me this means that if you have a card with a solid border on one side (no tunnel), you can place another path card on that edge which also has no tunnel, in the hopes that you'll later be able to connect them up. (Not sure that's in the spirit of the game, though.)

The earlier line which says "Bit by bit, the path cards form a way from the start cards to the goal cards" is only true in a game in which the gold-diggers have already won, so I don't think it can be interpreted as a placement rule.

The later line which says "The gold-diggers will try to establish an uninterrupted path from the start card to one of the goal cards" doesn't (to me) mean that they are required to do so in any particular order.

But, that does seem like something which could have been stated more clearly, and I would be curious to hear an official ruling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zev Shlasinger
United States
Naples
Florida
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
familygaming wrote:
When I play a card, MUST it be able to trace a path back to the Start card? I have been playing that you MUST.

If a person plays a rockfall card, and removes a key card from the path, it can happen that a card COULD be played in such a way as to be attacked to a section of cards that no longer have access to the Start card because of the card that was removed. Is this permissible?

The rules SEEM to suggest that any card played must be attached to the main body of card that can touch the Start card. This makes sense thematically, otherwise you could start new paths from the 'dead end' on a dead end card. The rules say something like this: "Bit by bit, the players work from the Start card to the Finish cards." Then it goes on to say that cards must always be facing the same direction, and the all sides must match (a la Carcassonne) -- but it never actually says a player MUST play a card in such a way that a path can be traced back to the start card. The first rules that I quoted seems to IMPLY this, but does not implicitly state it.

Any infor on this would be helpful.


*****You do not have to trace an unbroken path. For example, there is a path card where the left side has a path ending at a dead end and the pic on the right has a dead end and a path starting from there. So you could place a new path connecting to the right side and technically you wouldn't be placing a card connecting a path to the start card.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Johns
New Zealand
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
If a player can place a path card next to any path card already on the table, does that include a goal card? The obvious answer would be that it excludes a goal card that is still face down (else how do you comply with the rule about edges matching?) but that it includes a goal card that has been linked to the start card and revealed (not academic, I have been in a game where a miner wanted to connect a revealed rock and an unrevealed goal card vertically with a card in a space not adjacent to any non-goal path card). Any comments?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The rules do say, "Note: in rare cases, it may be that the goal card cannot be placed in such a way that all paths fit the adjacent path cards. As an exception to the general rule, this is allowed if it concerns a goal card."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, but that's not your question at all, is it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Johns
New Zealand
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I wrote:
If a player can place a path card next to any path card already on the table, does that include a goal card? The obvious answer would be that it excludes a goal card that is still face down (else how do you comply with the rule about edges matching?) but that it includes a goal card that has been linked to the start card and revealed (not academic, I have been in a game where a miner wanted to connect a revealed rock and an unrevealed goal card vertically with a card in a space not adjacent to any non-goal path card). Any comments?


Just to clarify, I am referring to placing a path card adjacent to a goal card and not adjacent to any map card that isn't a goal card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zev Shlasinger
United States
Naples
Florida
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Saboteur » Forums » General
Re: Q: continuous path from Start card?
familygaming wrote:
When I play a card, MUST it be able to trace a path back to the Start card?


*****Sorry for the long delay - I just forwarded the question to the designer and the official answer is yes when you play a path card it must be able to trace a path back to the start card.

Which means in a cave-in situation you must fill in the hole before continuing that path.

Thanks,

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Paulino Mora Lizano
Costa Rica
Asunción de Belén
Heredia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In the last couple of weeks, I decided to ask "Amigo" (editor of "Saboteur" in Europe) about this matter because I had the same doubt. I was a little bit surprised, because the answer they gave is exactly the contrary of the one that can be seen in this thread.

Textually:

"Hello,

I will answer your questions:

1. Is it posible to build in an unconnected part of the mine (unconnected with
the starting card because somebody played a special card)?

Yes you can do it, with the hope that you can connect this part of the mine
with the target cards later.

(...)

I hope I could help and

Much regards

Uwe Mölter"

Now, I don't know what to think about which is the right interpretation of the rules. Do we have different games depending on having "Amigo" or "Z-Man" edition?

I believe that maybe "Z-Man" and/or "Amigo" might find useful to post a "FAQ" page that solves the matter "officially".

What do you think?...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greycloak
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting. Actually, now that I think about it, this is how we play the game.

I understood the rules to mean that the only requirements for plaing a tunnel card are:
A) The tunnel card played has to line up with an adjacent tunnel card.
B) The tunnel card played must be placed vertically, in line with all the other cards (no horizontal cards rotated 90 degrees).

The only time that an unbroken line has to be traced from the start is to determine if you turn over the goal card. A cave in placed on the only connecting card to the start card will not prevent players from playing cards on the already placed tunnel cards, just from being able to turn over the goal card until the tunnel is repaired.

You can (sort of) tie it in with the theme in that the miners are at the ends of the mine, most of the time (playing tunnel extension cards). A cave in at any point in the tunnel does not warp them to the start start side of the cave in.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brad Keck
United States
Utah
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We have always played that a cave-in DOES prevent you from playing cards at the ends of the tunnel until the cave-in is repaired. This is how the game owner explained the rules to us. I'll check the rules again and see how I feel about things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Paulino Mora Lizano
Costa Rica
Asunción de Belén
Heredia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Aaron Kurtz wrote:
Interesting. Actually, now that I think about it, this is how we play the game.

I understood the rules to mean that the only requirements for plaing a tunnel card are:
A) The tunnel card played has to line up with an adjacent tunnel card.
B) The tunnel card played must be placed vertically, in line with all the other cards (no horizontal cards rotated 90 degrees).

The only time that an unbroken line has to be traced from the start is to determine if you turn over the goal card. A cave in placed on the only connecting card to the start card will not prevent players from playing cards on the already placed tunnel cards, just from being able to turn over the goal card until the tunnel is repaired.

You can (sort of) tie it in with the theme in that the miners are at the ends of the mine, most of the time (playing tunnel extension cards). A cave in at any point in the tunnel does not warp them to the start start side of the cave in.



With the rules in the hand, I think this would be the right interpretation. If the designer didn't think the game like this, he writed the instructions wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luis Paulino Mora Lizano
Costa Rica
Asunción de Belén
Heredia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Schroinger wrote:
In the last couple of weeks, I decided to ask "Amigo" (editor of "Saboteur" in Europe) about this matter because I had the same doubt. I was a little bit surprised, because the answer they gave is exactly the contrary of the one that can be seen in this thread.

Textually:

"Hello,

I will answer your questions:

1. Is it posible to build in an unconnected part of the mine (unconnected with
the starting card because somebody played a special card)?

Yes you can do it, with the hope that you can connect this part of the mine
with the target cards later.

(...)

I hope I could help and

Much regards

Uwe Mölter"

Now, I don't know what to think about which is the right interpretation of the rules. Do we have different games depending on having "Amigo" or "Z-Man" edition?

I believe that maybe "Z-Man" and/or "Amigo" might find useful to post a "FAQ" page that solves the matter "officially".

What do you think?...


I asked "Amigo" again making notice of the contradictions, and they retracted of what they had said originally. It looks like they wasn't well informed the first time they answered to me.

Because of this, I decided to better ask the designer himself, by the e-mail in his web page, and he said the same.

So, it has to be a continued path from the starting card to be able to play a new card in the mine. The rules should be added in this way, cause they don't say anything about this restriction originally.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Cosmo
Australia
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Aaron Kurtz wrote:

You can (sort of) tie it in with the theme in that the miners are at the ends of the mine, most of the time (playing tunnel extension cards). A cave in at any point in the tunnel does not warp them to the start start side of the cave in.


We've always played as it seems many people here have - that you can add to a card beyond a rock fall, and the cited reasoning is the one you give here.

An alternative reasoning would be "You can't dig a tunnel without somewhere to dispose of the rock."

Creating new tunnel without being able to dispose of the rock verges on magic, and thus the dwarves stuck on the other side of the rock fall would presumably be spending their time cleaning up the rock fall rather than digging new tunnel.

Alternative Rule: Perhaps you could allow them to continue digging beyond the rock fall on the condition they simultaneously applied a rock fall to a connected card (we now know where they put the excavated rock
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
László Horváth
Hungary
Veszprém
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Schroinger wrote:

So, it has to be a continued path from the starting card to be able to play a new card in the mine. The rules should be added in this way, cause they don't say anything about this restriction originally.


I just got the game, and haven't played it yet, but this is a suprise as it really isn't mentioned in the rules. I would have just played otherwise, going strict by the rules.

Doesn't this "new" rule make cave-in card too powerful?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yours Truly,
United States
Raleigh
North Carolina
flag msg tools
There must have been a moment at the beginning, where we could have said no. Somehow we missed it. Well, we'll know better next time.
mbmbmbmbmb
horlaci wrote:
Schroinger wrote:

So, it has to be a continued path from the starting card to be able to play a new card in the mine. The rules should be added in this way, cause they don't say anything about this restriction originally.


I just got the game, and haven't played it yet, but this is a suprise as it really isn't mentioned in the rules. I would have just played otherwise, going strict by the rules.

Doesn't this "new" rule make cave-in card too powerful?


As I'm sure you discovered upon playing, this is not at all too powerful. The saboteurs rarely win, even with the "continuous path at all times" requirement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yee Keat Phuah
Malaysia
flag msg tools
Are there actually any other update to the rules like this one?

I have played it all the while without the continuous link rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frederic Moyersoen
Belgium
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmb
No, there are no other updates (except for the extension, which changes a lot of rules).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.