$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 77.36

5,239 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
33% of Goal | 27 Days Left

Support:

Dougie Star
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mb
It seems like, based on other threads, everyone is playing the Zoarstar incorrectly. No one is noticing the difference in language on the Zoarstar building. Let me add emphasis where I think it belongs.

The description of Zoarstar reads:

"Action: Choose a space containing an
opponent’s Agent. You use that space’s
action
as though you had assigned an
Agent to it."

What is it? Clearly, it is referring to the Action space, and not the building as a whole.

"Owner: When a player other than the owner assigns an Agent to
this Building
, the owner immediately gains the benefit stated on
the “Owner” line. Place any Adventurers or Gold gained in this
way in the owner’s Tavern

Notice the breakdown of the buildings on page 8.


It is relevant to note that the "Action space" points to a specific part of the building. Even the "Instructions" for the "Action space" are joined together by the graphic design of the building. But, the "Owner benefit" is clearly separate from the "Action space."

The Owner benefit happens when a player other than the owner assigns an Agent to this "building". It does not say "assigns an Agent to this "Action space."

The language is clearly different. And for crying out loud people. The theme of the game should easily solve this dilemma. Of course your agents cannot be in two places at once. The Zoarstar is "a destination for anyone needing contracts or other documents." Your agent is assigned to the Zoarstar building and uses the action space of the building and may potentially activate the Owner benefit if you are not the owner. The agent is using the paperwork of another building, allowing him to benefit from that building as though he was assigned to the Action space. He is only assigned to one building. But the action space of the Zoarstar assigns him to another Action space, not to another building entirely.

Furthermore. Spaces are not buildings. "Buildings contain action spaces" as stated on page 22. Building are also made up of as many as 6 other elements in addition to the Action space as shown in the above image.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Schuster
Germany
Bretten
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
Dont get your point. You assign agents to action spaces not to buildings. So whats the actual issue here other than a nitpick of language? How can an agent be assigned to a building but not to the according action space?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Burgess
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
Please check my response to your posting of this exact same message in the original thread before you carry on arguing this point.

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23614276#23614276

You're directly contradicting the designer of the game. Before posting an everyone-is-getting-it-wrong-but-me thread, a little more research may be in order...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dougie Star
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
I added the emphasis to get my point across.

Umbratus wrote:
Dont get your point. You assign agents to action spaces not to buildings. So whats the actual issue here other than a nitpick of language? How can an agent be assigned to a building but not to the according action space?


"Owner: When a player other than the owner assigns an Agent to
this Building
...

You clearly assign agents to buildings. My point is that you can assign agents to buildings and you can assign them to action spaces. It just so happens that there is no building that lets you pick between two action spaces, because all buildings only contain one action space. (on a side note, I think that would be a cool concept for a building to have two action spaces). When you assign an agent to a building, you also assign it to that buildings action space by default. And, in the case of the Zoarstar building. You have the opportunity to assign an agent to an "action space" without assigning it to that building. If you are familiar with set theory. Perhaps that is a better way to think of it. action spaces are all in the set of buildings. However, buildings are not part of the set of action spaces.

And I also think the my case for the theme of the Zorastar building is strong. And I would love to hear a counter-argument to it. The Zorastar building is full of contracts and documents. Your agents don't physically go to another building, they simply exploit legal loopholes. Loopholes that cause the owner of the building to get the shaft. Its a wonderfully themed building in my opinion.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dougie Star
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
MercifulBiscuit wrote:
Please check my response to your posting of this exact same message in the original thread before you carry on arguing this point.

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23614276#23614276

You're directly contradicting the designer of the game. Before posting an everyone-is-getting-it-wrong-but-me thread, a little more research may be in order...


I read your response. Please accept my apology for not playing this game 3 to 4 years ago, and for foolishly thinking that the game was still relevant enough to resurrect an old thread. How inconsiderate of me.

Also, I failed to find the game designers Peter Lee or Rodney Thompson involved in this discussion or any of these threads. If you have a link to a thread or article where the game designers talk specifically about the Zorastar building, I would love to read it. If such a thing exists, I will stand corrected by the designers, but at the same time feel like the rules should have been improved upon in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Burgess
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
Then look harder - Rodney Thompson has a response in the thread you originally posted in. Which was pretty much my whole point - nothing to do with when you did or didn't play this game originally.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Schuster
Germany
Bretten
Baden-Württemberg
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
Made up issue. Each building just has a single action space, as you confirm. So, building = action space. Problem solved.

And in that linked thread, a special case is clarified as well. I dont think everybody is playing it wrong after all
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dougie Star
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mb
Re: Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong...
MercifulBiscuit wrote:
Then look harder - Rodney Thompson has a response in the thread you originally posted in. Which was pretty much my whole point - nothing to do with when you did or didn't play this game originally.


It looks like the game designer has spoken. The game certainly needs improvement in the language of the rules, but grated, rules are difficult to write. There is no reason to use three different terms (building, space, and action space) if they all mean the same thing. Unfortunately, the designer's intent throws all theme out the window and into a dumpster. It even contradicts the small amount of theme that was given for the Zoarstar building. I suppose Lords of Waterdeep was never much on theme anyway. Thank goodness for house rules. I just played a game in which an expensive and powerful 8 cost building was purchased early game. The Zorastar was also purchased. As the designer intends, the Zorastar building makes expensive powerful buildings even more powerful. Instead of making the Zoarstar building powerful (which also costs 8). As it stands, I would never purchase it for such a steep price, unless I own all the expensive buildings. We actually played the game as the designer intended. And, clearly the way he intended caused me enough irritation to post my opinion of how the game ought to be. Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy the game. It just needs this house rule for me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wesley Courtnay
United States
Gilbert
AZ
flag msg tools
dlestarge wrote:
MercifulBiscuit wrote:
Please check my response to your posting of this exact same message in the original thread before you carry on arguing this point.

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/23614276#23614276

You're directly contradicting the designer of the game. Before posting an everyone-is-getting-it-wrong-but-me thread, a little more research may be in order...


I read your response. Please accept my apology for not playing this game 3 to 4 years ago, and for foolishly thinking that the game was still relevant enough to resurrect an old thread. How inconsiderate of me.

Also, I failed to find the game designers Peter Lee or Rodney Thompson involved in this discussion or any of these threads. If you have a link to a thread or article where the game designers talk specifically about the Zorastar building, I would love to read it. If such a thing exists, I will stand corrected by the designers, but at the same time feel like the rules should have been improved upon in the first place.


I gotchu, https://boardgamegeek.com/article/8834179#8834179 Such a thing does exist
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Fisher
United States
east lansing
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Building X, being occupied, closes up shop after vigorous negotiations with the Harpers. The Red Sashes decides to have the Zoarstar intervene on their behalf to be able to use building X. So the Zoastars draws up the contract/forges a contract and expedites negotiations while building X is closed. The Zoastar can open doors by whatever means you imagine(force, favors, courtesy, good business) which allows building X's owner to process a second request that round. Since it is a contract/negotiation, building X's owner expects compensation and is rightfully paid the owner's benefit. The Zoarstar gets you in the door to building X but cannot make the building owner do it for free but the owner will do it since all the main work is already done. So the Zoastar performs a service for the Red Sashes which the allows building X to perform a service for the Red Sashes and both the Zoastar owner and building X's owner receive owner benefit. So thematically it works just fine, and simple economics, goods for services.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Justin H

Maine
msg tools
mb
I fail to see any point in this discussion. You can argue semantics, but if people are playing it right, I don't think there's a good reason to beat this drum.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Burgess
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
What you're missing is that the title of this thread changed as a result of the discussion. It started out as just "Everyone seems to be playing the Zoarstar building wrong..."
 
 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.