$30.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

The Others» Forums » Rules

Subject: Damned if You Do rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Angus Lee
Hong Kong
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Pride Sin Card: Damned if You Do...
Quote:
Start of the Hero Turn: Hero Chooses: Take 2 Wounds or YOU turn one of his Upgrades face-down until the end of round.

If the target hero does not have any Upgrades, can the hero choose the second option or he must take 2 Wounds?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
anguslee wrote:
Pride Sin Card: Damned if You Do...
Quote:
Start of the Hero Turn: Hero Chooses: Take 2 Wounds or YOU turn one of his Upgrades face-down until the end of round.

If the target hero does not have any Upgrades, can the hero choose the second option or he must take 2 Wounds?

Since the Hero "chooses", then yes, he can choose the second option even if he has no Upgrades. Since it is a Sin card, the Sin player shouldn't use it on a player who has no Upgrade cards.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Max Maloney
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." -Jack Handey
mbmbmbmbmb
In fact, you shouldn't use it on an agent unless they have a particularly important upgrade card you want to blank for a turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I could see the ruling go the other way though. A player gets to chose but can they really choose something (a ghostware upgrade) if it does't exist? Choice implies one or the other and if the other doest exist than is it really a choice I can make? I could be wrong but it doesnt make sense if the spirit of the rules is to help the overlord punish heroes that dont have upgrades.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R Damm
msg tools
Same situation last night . We went with taking the two wounds if the upgrade was not not present. Two against one in the voting at the table on this so I am sure this one will come up a lot.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Judgement Dave
United Kingdom
Manchester
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
You could easily argue that a Hero without any upgrades must be very sure of their own natural abilities. Such Pride should be worth 2 wounds...

i.e. I'd say if they have no Upgrades, then take 2 wounds.

This also makes sense from the view that Sin doesn't really get that many cards, why allow one to be negated so easily?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
johnnyspys wrote:
I could see the ruling go the other way though. A player gets to chose but can they really choose something (a ghostware upgrade) if it does't exist? Choice implies one or the other and if the other doest exist than is it really a choice I can make? I could be wrong but it doesnt make sense if the spirit of the rules is to help the overlord punish heroes that dont have upgrades.


The specifics here are in what the choice is. The player is not choosing which upgrade gets disabled for a round, the player is choosing between the following:

1.) I take 2 Wounds, or
2.) The Sin player may turn one of my Upgrades face-down until the end of round.

Since the Sin player will pick the Upgrade as a second choice, it doesn't matter if you have an Upgrade card or not. You may choose "you can flip one of my Upgrade cards" and then the Sin player will do as much as he can which is nothing.

The other point to make is that 2 Wounds is a lot, especially when you can do it anytime you want. It makes this card overpowered to use it to "punish players without Upgrades". I think it is balanced by the fact that it effectively does not work against players without Upgrades. I think the spirit of the card is to disable upgrades, but give the players a thematically-appropriate way to "counter" the card by taking damage, in a similar way that you can take corruption to counter other effects.

Like many games, it could've been written better, but they try to format things in a way to let them fir on cards.

A more legible, but likely too wordy, way to write this would be:
"The Hero may take 2 Wounds. If they do not, turn one of that Hero's Upgrades face-down until the end of round."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
XeyneGaming wrote:
johnnyspys wrote:
I could see the ruling go the other way though. A player gets to chose but can they really choose something (a ghostware upgrade) if it does't exist? Choice implies one or the other and if the other doest exist than is it really a choice I can make? I could be wrong but it doesnt make sense if the spirit of the rules is to help the overlord punish heroes that dont have upgrades.


The specifics here are in what the choice is. The player is not choosing which upgrade gets disabled for a round, the player is choosing between the following:

1.) I take 2 Wounds, or
2.) The Sin player may turn one of my Upgrades face-down until the end of round.

Since the Sin player will pick the Upgrade as a second choice, it doesn't matter if you have an Upgrade card or not. You may choose "you can flip one of my Upgrade cards" and then the Sin player will do as much as he can which is nothing.

The other point to make is that 2 Wounds is a lot, especially when you can do it anytime you want. It makes this card overpowered to use it to "punish players without Upgrades". I think it is balanced by the fact that it effectively does not work against players without Upgrades. I think the spirit of the card is to disable upgrades, but give the players a thematically-appropriate way to "counter" the card by taking damage, in a similar way that you can take corruption to counter other effects.

Like many games, it could've been written better, but they try to format things in a way to let them fir on cards.

A more legible, but likely too wordy, way to write this would be:
"The Hero may take 2 Wounds. If they do not, turn one of that Hero's Upgrades face-down until the end of round."

It really doesn't matter what you or other players think (including me). What matters is the sentence is vague and I could see the author mean either interpretation. I don't see how you can simply dismiss the sentence " you can flip one of my upgrade cards" when if there is no upgrade card there is no flipping going on. Yes this makes the game hard, and yes I could be very wrong (I am split in the middle in terms of what the designer intended because I think the ruling is vague). It wouldn't take verbose language to clarify this rule either. Simply "if the player doesn't have an upgrade card, or chooses not to flip over a card then the player takes two points of damage". I understand two points of damage is a lot but if Lang wants this to be a brutal game that is a real challenge to win then getting two points of damage because you have no upgrade cards might be what he intended.

There are plenty of people on BGG who complain that too many co-ops and dungeon crawls are too easy. There has been a movement to make game far more challenging in the last few years and with the theme and the fact players are expected to sacrifice their heroes in order to beat the game its possible without a card two points of damage is the answer. Until Eric responds I wouldn't feel confident either way to speculate which is the correct answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
johnnyspys wrote:
It really doesn't matter what you or other players think (including me). What matters is the sentence is vague and I could see the author mean either interpretation. I don't see how you can simply dismiss the sentence " you can flip one of my upgrade cards" when if there is no upgrade card there is no flipping going on. Yes this makes the game hard, and yes I could be very wrong (I am split in the middle in terms of what the designer intended because I think the ruling is vague). It wouldn't take verbose language to clarify this rule either. Simply "if the player doesn't have an upgrade card, or chooses not to flip over a card then the player takes two points of damage. I understand two points of damage is a lot but if Lang wants this to be a brutal game that is a challenge then that maybe what he intended.

You can play your games however you want to play, of course. But we have these discussions to collaborate and try to help fellow gamers, so there's no point in dismissing anyone's opinions, especially when they've taken the time to elaborate on them and explain their positions. It very much does matter what players think because that is the whole point of this collaboration.

Back on topic, one is not "dismissing" anything on the card. The player is making a choice: Option 1 or Option 2. What happens after the choice is made is completely irrelevant. The options make no requirements of actually having an upgrade card OR that you can even take 2 wounds. If you only have 1 HP/Wound token remaining, can you "take 2 Wounds"? Usually this doesn't matter, but when you start layering unwritten rules on to the game to suit your own interpretations of things, it makes everything a lot more complicated.

It's much easier to take the game at face value. If the Sin player plays the Sin cards strategically, he can either put the Hero on the verge of death or rob them of their best Upgrade. This will likely change how the Hero player spends his turn. The card is still very good and puts the Hero player at a distinct disadvantage.

On the other hand, to use it as a "deal 2 damage, with the very likely possibility of killing a player instantly at the start of their turn before they can do anything, simply because they haven't collected any Upgrade cards" seems a bit shallow of an effect, and significantly unfair. I'd like to think that Eric Lang is more clever than that. I also expect that the card would be written differently if it wasn't actually allowing a choice for the Hero; which is what the "you must have an Upgrade to choose Option 2" parameter suggests - no choice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
XeyneGaming wrote:
johnnyspys wrote:
It really doesn't matter what you or other players think (including me). What matters is the sentence is vague and I could see the author mean either interpretation. I don't see how you can simply dismiss the sentence " you can flip one of my upgrade cards" when if there is no upgrade card there is no flipping going on. Yes this makes the game hard, and yes I could be very wrong (I am split in the middle in terms of what the designer intended because I think the ruling is vague). It wouldn't take verbose language to clarify this rule either. Simply "if the player doesn't have an upgrade card, or chooses not to flip over a card then the player takes two points of damage. I understand two points of damage is a lot but if Lang wants this to be a brutal game that is a challenge then that maybe what he intended.

You can play your games however you want to play, of course. But we have these discussions to collaborate and try to help fellow gamers, so there's no point in dismissing anyone's opinions, especially when they've taken the time to elaborate on them and explain their positions. It very much does matter what players think because that is the whole point of this collaboration.


Back on topic, one is not "dismissing" anything on the card. The player is making a choice: Option 1 or Option 2. What happens after the choice is made is completely irrelevant. The options make no requirements of actually having an upgrade card OR that you can even take 2 wounds. If you only have 1 HP/Wound token remaining, can you "take 2 Wounds"? Usually this doesn't matter, but when you start layering unwritten rules on to the game to suit your own interpretations of things, it makes everything a lot more complicated.

It's much easier to take the game at face value. If the Sin player plays the Sin cards strategically, he can either put the Hero on the verge of death or rob them of their best Upgrade. This will likely change how the Hero player spends his turn. The card is still very good and puts the Hero player at a distinct disadvantage.

On the other hand, to use it as a "deal 2 damage, with the very likely possibility of killing a player instantly at the start of their turn before they can do anything, simply because they haven't collected any Upgrade cards" seems a bit shallow of an effect, and significantly unfair. I'd like to think that Eric Lang is more clever than that. I also expect that the card would be written differently if it wasn't actually allowing a choice for the Hero; which is what the "you must have an Upgrade to choose Option 2" parameter suggests - no choice.


No one is dismissing you. I am dismissing the idea that the rules are clear. Some people including you seem convinced you are 100% right and there is no room for interpretation. I am simply saying I am neither convinced you are right...nor am I convinced you are wrong.

The point that demands clarity is your argument about choice. It currently ignores that fact that the word choice means you have two or more things to select from. Since a player doesn't have a upgrade card, it is logical to argue they don't have a choice. If you said to a customer you have a choice between pepsi or coke but we don't have pepsi, then does that customer really have a choice? In the end I am just trying to make the argument that the rule isn't clear and could go either way so I would like to hear what Eric the designer has to say about it.

I have said many times in both threads you could be right. I am not into playing a game the way I like (I don't play using house rules). I am simply into playing a game the way the designer intended it. That is why I would like to hear from Eric. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to me because I haven't picked a side, unlike you. And its ok to pick a side, I just think you are too confident based on the vague wording. But again you could be correct.

I just sent a PM to Eric Lang with the link to the thread so we can hopefully get someone to clarify the rule. I agree, if its just two points of damage that makes the game tougher but I just want to make sure I am playing it correctly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Harrow
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
johnnyspys wrote:
No one is dismissing you. I am dismissing the idea that the rules are clear. Some people including you seem convinced you are 100% right and there is no room for interpretation. I am simply saying I am neither convinced you are right...nor am I convinced you are wrong.

The point that demands clarity is your argument about choice. It currently ignores that fact that the word choice means you have two or more things to select from. Since a player doesn't have a upgrade card, it is logical to argue they don't have a choice. If you said to a customer you have a choice between pepsi or coke but we don't have pepsi, then does that customer really have a choice? In the end I am just trying to make the argument that the rule isn't clear and could go either way so I would like to hear what Eric the designer has to say about it.

I have said many times in both threads you could be right. I am not into playing a game the way I like (I don't play using house rules). I am simply into playing a game the way the designer intended it. That is why I would like to hear from Eric. Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to me because I haven't picked a side, unlike you. And its ok to pick a side, I just think you are too confident based on the vague wording. But again you could be correct.

I just sent a PM to Eric Lang with the link to the thread so we can hopefully get someone to clarify the rule. I agree, if its just two points of damage that makes the game tougher but I just want to make sure I am playing it correctly.


I made no claims that the card was clear. I think I am correct in my interpretation, certainly, but that is because of reasons explained previously. If the card were clear, I venture that the question wouldn't have been asked in the first place.

I can only provide my interpretation and others may agreed with it or it may be debated by others, but since you don't have any thoughts on the matter other than that you are not convinced either way, I suppose there is no discussion to be had. Hopefully Eric responds to your request; I unfortunately do not have any insight into how active he may or may not be on BGG.

There is another option, however. Another user has been contacting Thiago Aranha at CMoN. He has answered many questions reliably so far, so he may be someone we can ask this question of as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam K
United States
Tulsa
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Official answer here

I was rather surprised myself. If the player doesn't have any upgrade cards to offer up, they must take the two wounds.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DeathWarden wrote:
Official answer here

I was rather surprised myself. If the player doesn't have any upgrade cards to offer up, they must take the two wounds.


Thanks. I actually wasn't that surprised because there was the implication that you had to have an upgrade within the sentence logically, even if it was applied. Still after playing thousands of boardgames, rules are often vague and I really thought it could go the other way. It definitely makes the game harder but I actually like that; I like my games brutal.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flavio Santos
Brazil
Brasilia
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
DeathWarden wrote:
Official answer here

I was rather surprised myself. If the player doesn't have any upgrade cards to offer up, they must take the two wounds.


Not surprised at all. It's like that in all (most?) games. You can only make a choice if that choice is available to you.
 
 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.