Nigel Clarke
England
Dursley
Gloucestershire
-
I have just acquired this game from Essen - absolute bargain as it was also bundled with Batavia.
Played a game for the first time last night, just 2 players.
My wife was looking for blue books, and was some way behind on the time track.
Her best option was to travel to Warsaw and replace the 4 cards for a cost of 1 week travelling and 1 week for the action.
Then she went to an adjacent city to collect a card for a further cost of 2 weeks in total.
Still being behind in time, she travelled back to Warsaw and replaced the 4 cards again.
We played that the cost for this action was 2 weeks, because I had not played in between, but one could argue that they were not consecutive actions so therefore the second exchange should only have taken 1 week.
Thoughts everyone?
-
John Earles
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
It doesn't matter that you had not played in between. It matters that the Warsaw actions are consecutive. In this case they were NOT - Warsaw, Adjacent City, Warsaw.
The action should have only cost 1 week.
-
Larry Welborn
United States
Anderson
South Carolina
Way to go, Bubba.
-
jearles wrote: It doesn't matter that you had not played in between. It matters that the Warsaw actions are consecutive. In this case they were NOT - Warsaw, Adjacent City, Warsaw.
The action should have only cost 1 week.
John is correct.
-
Nigel Clarke
England
Dursley
Gloucestershire
-
Thanks guys.
-
Nigel Clarke
England
Dursley
Gloucestershire
-
What I was trying to ask was should the second cost of exchanging cards, whilst noone as played in between, be 2 weeks, not 1 week.
I viewed the rule as making the exchange more expensive for soemone to do twice during their turn(s), regardless of whether they are consecutive.
Why else is the rule there? IMHO it's to make it unlikely for a player to keep discarding, thereby discarding cards that another player wants, because the cost of discarding goes up.
Let's say that 1 player is 6 weeks adrift and 1 space from Warsaw.
Let's also say that there are "1-week" cost cards available each time in a neighbouring city.
Turn 1:
Move to Warsaw 1 week.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 2:
Move to adjacent city 1 week.
Take card 1 week.
Turn 3:
Move to Warsaw 1 week.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 4:
Move to adjacent city 1 week.
Take card 1 week.
So 8 cards are discarded and 4 turns taken.
Now the same scenario, with my interpretation:
Turn 1:
Move to Warsaw 1 week.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 2:
Move to adjacent city 1 week.
Take card 1 week.
Turn 3:
Move to Warsaw 1 week.
Exchange cards 2 weeks.
Still 8 cards discarded but one less turn can be taken, which seems more reasonable - extra cost for multiple exchanges during the same player's turns.
If the general consensus is that only consecutive discards count towards the cost increase, then I'm happy to play that way.
-
John Earles
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
-
banzai123 wrote: What I was trying to ask was should the second cost of exchanging cards, whilst noone as played in between, be 2 weeks, not 1 week.
I viewed the rule as making the exchange more expensive for soemone to do twice during their turn(s), regardless of whether they are consecutive.
Why else is the rule there? IMHO it's to make it unlikely for a player to keep discarding, thereby discarding cards that another player wants, because the cost of discarding goes up.
Let's say that 1 player is 6 weeks adrift and 1 space from Warsaw.
Let's also say that there are "1-week" cost cards available each time in a neighbouring city.
Why it's there is to prevent:
Turn 1:
Move to Warsaw 1 week.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 2:
STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 3:
STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 4:
STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks.
Exchange cards 1 week.
Turn 5:
STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks.
Exchange cards 1 week.
20 Cards discarded in 6 weeks, over 5 turns.
-
Nigel Clarke
England
Dursley
Gloucestershire
-
jearles wrote: banzai123 wrote: What I was trying to ask was should the second cost of exchanging cards, whilst noone as played in between, be 2 weeks, not 1 week.
I viewed the rule as making the exchange more expensive for soemone to do twice during their turn(s), regardless of whether they are consecutive.
Why else is the rule there? IMHO it's to make it unlikely for a player to keep discarding, thereby discarding cards that another player wants, because the cost of discarding goes up.
Let's say that 1 player is 6 weeks adrift and 1 space from Warsaw.
Let's also say that there are "1-week" cost cards available each time in a neighbouring city.
Why it's there is to prevent: Turn 1: Move to Warsaw 1 week. Exchange cards 1 week. Turn 2: STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks. Exchange cards 1 week. Turn 3: STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks. Exchange cards 1 week. Turn 4: STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks. Exchange cards 1 week. Turn 5: STAY in Warsaw 0 weeks. Exchange cards 1 week. 20 Cards discarded in 6 weeks, over 5 turns.
I know. I phrased my point badly. But I think it should also prevent 1 player discarding multiple times regardless of whether he stays in Warsaw.
Still enough said. Consensus is that as long as you move away from Warsaw between discards the cost of the action doesn't go up.
-
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
-
It's an interesting question, and I see why you brought it up, because the wording of the rule is:
Quote: Special case: if a player takes a second turn immediately after exchanging the cards (no other player took a turn between the player's turns) and chooses to do this again, he pays 2 weeks for the second exchange action.
It does sound like the determining factor is if other players are involved, not movement.
But the next sentence confuses things, implying this could only happen when you didn't move.
Quote: Of course, he pays no movement cost, as his archeologist is still in Warschau.
I guess I agree the intention was to state no other action, not no other player.
-
Bryan Jensen
United States
Layton
Utah
-
Thanks for bringing up the Special Case. Dunno how we've missed it all these years. (Probably because we haven't had abuse of card exchange that made it seem unfairly costed.)
-
|
|
Posted Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:57 am
