Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

Unfair» Forums » Rules

Subject: Wear and Tear clarification needed rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Angelo Ng
Canada
Vancouver
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Wear and Tear says: "For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the upgrade built closest to the Attraction card."

But what exactly defines "closest to the attraction card"? The rules state that you cannot change the build order of attractions, but it never says you cannot change the order of upgrades on an attraction.

So my questions are:
1. Does that mean that, if a ride has multiple upgrades built on it, you can simply choose which one you want to demolish? Or is the order of upgrade locked in, meaning the oldest upgrade on that ride would be demolished?

2. If a ride does not have an upgrade built on it, does it then bleed over into upgrade cards on other attractions? Because the Wear and Tear card says "closest to the attraction card", but does not specify that the upgrade has to be on the ride itself. And if it does bleed over onto other attractions' upgrades, how do you determine which of those upgrades is "closest"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sploot wrote:
Wear and Tear says: "For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the upgrade built closest to the Attraction card."

But what exactly defines "closest to the attraction card"? The rules state that you cannot change the build order of attractions, but it never says you cannot change the order of upgrades on an attraction.

So my questions are:
1. Does that mean that, if a ride has multiple upgrades built on it, you can simply choose which one you want to demolish? Or is the order of upgrade locked in, meaning the oldest upgrade on that ride would be demolished?

2. If a ride does not have an upgrade built on it, does it then bleed over into upgrade cards on other attractions? Because the Wear and Tear card says "closest to the attraction card", but does not specify that the upgrade has to be on the ride itself. And if it does bleed over onto other attractions' upgrades, how do you determine which of those upgrades is "closest"?

the card doesn't say "demolish an upgrade," it gives a specific location "nearest to the attraction", so order matters. Nothing in the rules indicates you can move upgrades around at will.

While it doesn't state "for each attraction with an upgrade..." the wording certainly implies that the card refers to upgrades on each attraction. Attractions without upgrades are safe from wear & tear.
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Finch
Australia
Carindale
QLD
flag msg tools
designer
badge
My hat? Definitely not a mind-control alien, no.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The intention is that the upgrade card that has been on the attraction the longest is the first to wear out. If the attraction has no upgrades, then there is no wear to an upgrade.

Thanks for pointing out that upgrade sequence isn't explicitly stated to be locked in, we'll correct that.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelo Ng
Canada
Vancouver
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
joelfinch wrote:
The intention is that the upgrade card that has been on the attraction the longest is the first to wear out. If the attraction has no upgrades, then there is no wear to an upgrade.

Thanks for pointing out that upgrade sequence isn't explicitly stated to be locked in, we'll correct that.


Thank you for the quick response! Yeah it would be a good clarification to make, since the attraction order is specifically stated to be locked in, and therefore anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

Wonderful game, thanks again.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sploot wrote:
anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

anything not explicitly stated as being movable, isn't. not sure why you'd think otherwise. you are instructed where to place an upgrade. at no point are there any rules/instruction for moving them around. A few cards have specific effects that allow the rearranging of upgrades. If a card is needed to move upgrades, you can't just do it whenever you want
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guy McCann
United States
Lexington
South Carolina
flag msg tools
In addition to this, the modifiers on upgrades like "Flag Pole" would be pointless if you could just put upgrades where ever you wish.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelo Ng
Canada
Vancouver
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
Sploot wrote:
anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

anything not explicitly stated as being movable, isn't. not sure why you'd think otherwise. you are instructed where to place an upgrade. at no point are there any rules/instruction for moving them around. A few cards have specific effects that allow the rearranging of upgrades. If a card is needed to move upgrades, you can't just do it whenever you want


Because the rulebook explicitly stated that attractions, once constructed, cannot be moved. Therefore this implies that we should assume anything else not explicitly stated as being immovable is in fact movable. This is basic english and logic, I'm surprised you you aren't understanding this...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sploot wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
Sploot wrote:
anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

anything not explicitly stated as being movable, isn't. not sure why you'd think otherwise. you are instructed where to place an upgrade. at no point are there any rules/instruction for moving them around. A few cards have specific effects that allow the rearranging of upgrades. If a card is needed to move upgrades, you can't just do it whenever you want


Because the rulebook explicitly stated that attractions, once constructed, cannot be moved. Therefore this implies that we should assume anything else not explicitly stated as being immovable is in fact movable. This is basic english and logic, I'm surprised you you aren't understanding this...

No rule discusses how or when upgrades could be moved around and several cards, including Wear & Tear as well as some ninja & robot cards specifically allow moving around upgrades, thus the implication is that moving upgrades isn't allowed unless a card allows it.

The rules state what can be done. They can't specifically forbid anything you might think to do.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Burgess
United Kingdom
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sploot wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
Sploot wrote:
anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

anything not explicitly stated as being movable, isn't. not sure why you'd think otherwise. you are instructed where to place an upgrade. at no point are there any rules/instruction for moving them around. A few cards have specific effects that allow the rearranging of upgrades. If a card is needed to move upgrades, you can't just do it whenever you want


Because the rulebook explicitly stated that attractions, once constructed, cannot be moved. Therefore this implies that we should assume anything else not explicitly stated as being immovable is in fact movable. This is basic english and logic, I'm surprised you you aren't understanding this...


I think the explicit mentions and implicit omissions here are down to the "norms" of gaming. It doesn't usually matter if entire piles of cards are moved relative to each other, so it needs to be called out if it does. And it usually does matter if cards within piles are moved relative to each other, so it needs to be called out if it doesn't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelo Ng
Canada
Vancouver
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
MercifulBiscuit wrote:
Sploot wrote:
DragonsDream wrote:
Sploot wrote:
anything else that isn't explicitly stated as being locked in is implied to be movable.

anything not explicitly stated as being movable, isn't. not sure why you'd think otherwise. you are instructed where to place an upgrade. at no point are there any rules/instruction for moving them around. A few cards have specific effects that allow the rearranging of upgrades. If a card is needed to move upgrades, you can't just do it whenever you want


Because the rulebook explicitly stated that attractions, once constructed, cannot be moved. Therefore this implies that we should assume anything else not explicitly stated as being immovable is in fact movable. This is basic english and logic, I'm surprised you you aren't understanding this...


I think the explicit mentions and implicit omissions here are down to the "norms" of gaming. It doesn't usually matter if entire piles of cards are moved relative to each other, so it needs to be called out if it does. And it usually does matter if cards within piles are moved relative to each other, so it needs to be called out if it doesn't.


I'd say that's not true, thinking of recent tablaeu builders I've played: Villages of Valeria, 7 Wonders, Evolution... none of these require cards in a single pile (resources in VoV, resources in 7W, traits in Evo) to keep their order. So no, I wouldn't say it's a normal convention in gaming.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BG.EXE
United States
flag msg tools
I favor Euros, but I like pretty much all games.
badge
Make the kinds of posts you want to read.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually lost my last game specifically because of Wear & Tear. It came out on the last turn killed an upgrade I needed for a blueprint. 38 point swing. Lesson learned on not playing upgrades early. Hard way to learn it
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cole Feeser
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I actually have a relevant question. Let's say you have an Attraction with an upgrade built-in but also a separate upgrade built on to it. If Wear and Tear is played on this Attraction what happens? Does the upgrade you added on get demolished or does the Attraction itself just get closed because the rules say when you demolish a built-in upgrade you close the Attraction instead? I ask because technically the built-in upgrade would be the "oldest."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Finch
Australia
Carindale
QLD
flag msg tools
designer
badge
My hat? Definitely not a mind-control alien, no.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The intention with the rule is to demolish the first separate upgrade card that has been added to the ride (the oldest and most worn out). Built-in upgrades are required for the ride to operate, and are constantly renewed (hence closure and reopening when they would otherwise be demolished).

If the rule as written isn't unambiguous, we can consider an adjustment.

For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade built above the attraction icon.

If the rule were expressed this way, do you find it clearer, with no other unintended interpretations?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard A. Edwards
United States
Lacey
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joelfinch wrote:
For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade built above the attraction icon.

If the rule were expressed this way, do you find it clearer, with no other unintended interpretations?

I think the question revolves around whether the built-in upgrade is affected or only upgrades on added cards, so I think this is clearer and more direct: "For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade card built above the attraction." [I removed "icon" too.]
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joelfinch wrote:
The intention with the rule is to demolish the first separate upgrade card that has been added to the ride (the oldest and most worn out). Built-in upgrades are required for the ride to operate, and are constantly renewed (hence closure and reopening when they would otherwise be demolished).

If the rule as written isn't unambiguous, we can consider an adjustment.

For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade built above the attraction icon.

If the rule were expressed this way, do you find it clearer, with no other unintended interpretations?

is this a later rules addition? I don't see it in my print out. Also, under what circumstances might this rule come into affect? We just assumed built-in upgrades were immune to upgrade-only targeting affects (such as Wear & Tear)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Finch
Australia
Carindale
QLD
flag msg tools
designer
badge
My hat? Definitely not a mind-control alien, no.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SirRoke wrote:

I think the question revolves around whether the built-in upgrade is affected or only upgrades on added cards, so I think this is clearer and more direct: "For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade card built above the attraction." [I removed "icon" too.]

Yes, I see the value of that.

I had the aim throughout the card rules to avoid referring to anything that is in play as a "card" (for example, once built, it's an upgrade, no longer an Upgrade card) but the current/original version of the wording does mention cards, and it may be unavoidable for clarity's sake.

DragonsDream wrote:
is this a later rules addition? I don't see it in my print out. Also, under what circumstances might this rule come into affect? We just assumed built-in upgrades were immune to upgrade-only targeting affects (such as Wear & Tear)

Apologies, I wasn't clear - this isn't an overall rule change I'm raising, but rather a change to the wording of Wear and Tear specifically (and only for clarity, not for intent).


How does this version sit with you:

For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade built above the attraction.

Upgrades can only be built above the attraction by adding a card, since all built-in upgrades are shown below. No spill-over of the effect to neighboring rides, since "above" is only one direction while "closest" can be read as reaching sideways also. No mention of cards, to keep the in-play usage consistent. Any confusion with that version?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Désirée Greverud
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sorry - my bad. I was referring to the rule that closes an attraction when a built-in upgrade would be demolished. I don't recall seeing that anywhere and was wondering when that could happen. Can you target (with say Vandalism or Shadow dragon) a built-in upgrade and close the ride rather than demolish the upgrade? For other cards that feed off of demolition (Renfelds Stakehouse for example or Instant Karma) does this count as a demolition or a closure?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Finch
Australia
Carindale
QLD
flag msg tools
designer
badge
My hat? Definitely not a mind-control alien, no.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonsDream wrote:
Can you target (with say Vandalism or Shadow dragon) a built-in upgrade and close the ride rather than demolish the upgrade? For other cards that feed off of demolition (Renfelds Stakehouse for example or Instant Karma) does this count as a demolition or a closure?

You can close an attraction by targeting a demolition effect at a built-in upgrade on it. (Pg 9 of the rulebook mentions this, though I can't say offhand where it might have been in earlier versions).

For the purposes of Instant Karma, you get to duplicate whatever the original event was.

For the purposes of Renfield's Stakehouse, if the demolition was translated into a closure, then it counts as a closure. Paraphrasing, the wording says "if it would be demolished, close the attraction instead". So you'd be better off demolishing a nice juicy individual theme upgrade.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Martell
New Zealand
Lower Hutt
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
boardgamesdotEXE wrote:
I actually lost my last game specifically because of Wear & Tear. It came out on the last turn killed an upgrade I needed for a blueprint. 38 point swing. Lesson learned on not playing upgrades early. Hard way to learn it


Also on knowing the city events that can come up in each deck.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Martell
New Zealand
Lower Hutt
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
In terms of the rules question, I find 'closest to the attraction' clearer than 'first built above the attraction'. The clarification around the fact the upgrade order can't be swapped would be sufficient, I think, plus clarifying what 'closest' means in the glossary?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelo Ng
Canada
Vancouver
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
joelfinch wrote:
The intention with the rule is to demolish the first separate upgrade card that has been added to the ride (the oldest and most worn out). Built-in upgrades are required for the ride to operate, and are constantly renewed (hence closure and reopening when they would otherwise be demolished).

If the rule as written isn't unambiguous, we can consider an adjustment.

For each ride attraction in your park, demolish the first upgrade built above the attraction icon.

If the rule were expressed this way, do you find it clearer, with no other unintended interpretations?


How about: For each ride attraction in your park, demolish its oldest non-built-in upgrade.
 
 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.