Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Pandemic Legacy: Season 1» Forums » Rules

Subject: Spoilers for February - Misinterpreted a rule, what to do? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Eric Jaso
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Hey guys,

New Pandemic players here. We all played the base game a few times to start with, where we lost every time. We then started in January with the researcher, scientist, medic, and dispatcher. Our first game went surprisingly well and we continued onto February where we learned about adding relationships to our characters. Looks like we misread the rules, and added relationships to our existing characters. Specifically the coworker relationship to the scientist and researcher, since there is a very obvious synergy between those two characters.

Our first month in February with the same team seemed to go really smoothly and felt very easy and were able to eradicate two diseases and have zero outbreaks. Looking back on it, it wasn't 100% due to the researcher/scientist coworker relationship (although they were able to trade 2 out the required cards for cures), but more on having previously setup a starting research center in our C0da disease area so that we could place a bunch of quarantine markers.

I'm just hoping we didn't mess this up so much that we can just cheese our way through the rest of the game. Should I remove the relationship stickers we placed and use a label maker or something to add our relationships correctly in the future or just leave it as it is? I am worried our mistake may have made the game too easy, especially since our first three playthroughs on the base game seemed like everything came down to the wire.

Thank you!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colby Brown
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've found the stickers easy to remove, so if you want to remove the stickers then you probably can.

From the perspective of someone in late August, I think it'll be OK if you leave the stickers. The synergy between those two characters is strong, so having that in the last round was certainly an advantage. But, I promise you that you will soon wish you had those stickers to use on other characters. That will put you at a disadvantage. In the grand scheme of things, the advantages / disadvantages will probably cancel out, or at the very least be negligible.

If you disagree and think that there is a net advantage / disadvantage, then you can temporarily decrease the funding by 1 in the next month you play. But like I said, you will have a disadvantage in future months when you wish you had that sticker to begin with, so I don't think this is necessary.

Ultimately it's up to your group to decide what to do. But if I were a player in your group, I would vote to leave it as it is. In my opinion it just won't make that big of a net difference.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wade
United States
Decatur
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Colby: It just won't make that much of a difference. If you could give that relationship to every new character, it might be a big deal, but they are limited, so it can't really be abused. Just chalk it up to an oversight and continue trying to save the world.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moose Detective
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
Than Sense
badge
Is it a moose that became a detective ? Or a detective who searches for moose?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We made the same mistake. I had also read the advice to just play it out because it just makes one or two months easier and thn balances out but I disagree. If you can get the stickers off, I would suggest doing so and following the rule.

February was easier for us, yes, and it may stay easier if you always use the same characters. But as the game unfolds, whether due to character death or just wanting other roles' powers you will want to swtich characters. I've read reports from people saying they played with the same 4-5 characters the entire time, but we wanted to switch ours up and I'm pretty confident in saying it made the later months harder. All it takes is 1-2 uses of a relationship power in a game, 1 extra action, 1 extra card, 1 easier pass to stop an outbreak, to stop a chain to unknowingly prevent the coming destruction.

Most people who played correctly assume that you're only making the game easier earlier. But I don't think they realize the ramifications of making it harder later.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Jaso
United States
New York
flag msg tools
Just a followup:

I removed all the stickers since I didn't want to mess up any future legacy rules and it was an easy mistake to undo. I just removed all the relationship stickers we used and put them on an old legacy deck card that was unused. If they fail to stick on, we'll just use a reference sheet and and write on the character chards. Just played March and beat it in one try!

Thanks for the advice guys.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gjertsen
United States
Trent Woods
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Could someone clarify what rule the original poster believes to have misread? We allocated all 8 February relationships between the Medic, Researcher, Scientist, and Dispatcher--were we not allowed to?

The character upgrades are allowed to "overwrite" each other so that each character can hold a max of 2 (at a time). Does anyone understand that relationships can be similarly overwritten? I'm wondering if we messed something up, too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon C
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
gjertsen wrote:
Could someone clarify what rule the original poster believes to have misread? We allocated all 8 February relationships between the Medic, Researcher, Scientist, and Dispatcher--were we not allowed to?


No, you weren't allowed to. The rule says "When you create a character, you may give them a relationship to an existing character" (emphases mine). You only create a character when you use them for the first time, giving them a name. Any characters you use in January cannot have relationships between themselves - they are existing characters, so new characters can have a relationship to them, but the existing characters can't create relationships among themselves.

If you've used 4 of the 5 starting characters in January games, then in order to use up all of the February relationship stickers you'll have to use the remaining 5th character AND have found - and used - a full 3 more characters in the campaign.

Quote:
The character upgrades are allowed to "overwrite" each other so that each character can hold a max of 2 (at a time). Does anyone understand that relationships can be similarly overwritten? I'm wondering if we messed something up, too.


No, relationships cannot be similarly over-written. The rules say that character upgrades can be, they don't say that for relationships (and I think the rules explicitly say "put it in an empty relationship slot on the existing character chosen" but I could be wrong there). If you're overwriting them at any time (at least without potential later rules that explicitly allow it) that is wrong.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Gjertsen
United States
Trent Woods
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you for the clarification. This very important detail was *very* subtle apparently, because I know someone else playing their own Legacy campaign concurrently with us that did the same thing we did.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bell Frys

Washington
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Can a 'dead' relationship with a character who is 'lost' be overwritten? I'm assuming not but asking just in case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clive Jones

Cambridgeshire, UK
msg tools
mb
Confirmed: no, it can't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lando Lincoln

Joliet
Illinois
msg tools
Yeah, my group screwed this one up as well. It seems completely counterintuitive to me (and to my group) that you can't assign relationships to specialists that have a history of working together, but instead, you're supposed to give relationships to specialists that haven't been played yet? That makes no sense. I understand why the game designers did it, or at least I think I understand why, but I don't agree with it.

Every month I come in here to see what rules we screwed up this time. I hope that Season 2 has more clear-cut rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stewart
United Kingdom
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Lando Lincoln wrote:
Yeah, my group screwed this one up as well. It seems completely counterintuitive to me (and to my group) that you can't assign relationships to specialists that have a history of working together, but instead, you're supposed to give relationships to specialists that haven't been played yet? That makes no sense. I understand why the game designers did it, or at least I think I understand why, but I don't agree with it.

Every month I come in here to see what rules we screwed up this time. I hope that Season 2 has more clear-cut rules.


"Hey, Mike! You know how we've been working together for a month now? How come we never mentioned we're brothers until this week's episode?"

As a TV show, the standard is for existing characters to only have the relationships established by their interactions, while new characters are often introduced as "this is my cousin from Poughkeepsie" or "Quentin and I worked together on that thing in the Iberian peninsula years ago".

Unless you want every single character to end up as coworkers with every other character, then the whole idea of adding new relationships to pre-existing characters doesn't quite work...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clive Jones

Cambridgeshire, UK
msg tools
mb
Lando Lincoln wrote:
Every month I come in here to see what rules we screwed up this time. I hope that Season 2 has more clear-cut rules.

While it may be debatable how intuitive the relationships mechanism is, I don't see anything ambiguous or unclear about the rule itself.

I mean, I can see from the forums that it has confused some people but, unlike some of the other questions, I struggle to understand why. /-8
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dylan Thurston
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lando Lincoln wrote:
Every month I come in here to see what rules we screwed up this time. I hope that Season 2 has more clear-cut rules.
If you're worried about this, I recommend looking at the first post in the FAQ thread at an appropriate point, to look at common questions about each month.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lando Lincoln

Joliet
Illinois
msg tools
rmsgrey wrote:
Lando Lincoln wrote:
Yeah, my group screwed this one up as well. It seems completely counterintuitive to me (and to my group) that you can't assign relationships to specialists that have a history of working together, but instead, you're supposed to give relationships to specialists that haven't been played yet? That makes no sense. I understand why the game designers did it, or at least I think I understand why, but I don't agree with it.

Every month I come in here to see what rules we screwed up this time. I hope that Season 2 has more clear-cut rules.


"Hey, Mike! You know how we've been working together for a month now? How come we never mentioned we're brothers until this week's episode?"

As a TV show, the standard is for existing characters to only have the relationships established by their interactions, while new characters are often introduced as "this is my cousin from Poughkeepsie" or "Quentin and I worked together on that thing in the Iberian peninsula years ago".

Unless you want every single character to end up as coworkers with every other character, then the whole idea of adding new relationships to pre-existing characters doesn't quite work...


Well, ALL of the specialists are "co-workers" so the name of that particular relationship perk is kinda lame.
 
 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.