Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

T.I.M.E Stories: Expedition – Endurance» Forums » Rules

Subject: Returning to the initial room rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shannon T
Australia
Peakhurst
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Spoiler (click to reveal)
I'm not talking about going back to the first false start run. I'm talking about returning to the Boiler Room within a run.

So you start in the Boiler Room, you cant get outside until you get the key from the Lounge, and you cant get to the Lounge until you check the stairs in the Boiler Room. So you must leave the Boiler Room and then return to it before you can travel outside.

But there is the icon which forces at least one agent to check the boiler (card B). They then must decide whether to fix the boiler, and/or whether to drag the body out.

When returning to the Boiler Room after finding the key, assuming agents have already repaired the boiler and taken the body out:-

1. Does the symbol on card B once again force at least one agent to go to this card?

2. If so, would the boiler need to be repaired again?

This brings up a follow on question which I might give its own thread

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Cooper
United Kingdom
Taunton
Somerset
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1. Technically, yes, but it doesn't matter because you have the required Item to leave via the other card.

2. No.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
You can take my game… when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the board!
Avatar
Agree with Stephen. They probably should have used a state token to avoid a useless visit to this card a second time.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremiah Wood
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, this is already covered in the rules.
The 'correct' way to play isn't very intuitive.

If you perform a check to do a thing, or if you force reveal a State Token card, you discard the original card from the panorama, out of the game.
You can't encounter it again in the same run.

Because you repaired the boiler with a check already, the Card B is discarded, not to go back into the deck until you reset the game post run.

This method also allows you to accurately track your Score in A Prophecy of Dragons.

I don't prefer the 'correct' method because you have to maintain the deck more frequently than keeping the cards together, but it is what it is.
If you just want to make a mental/physical note of what's been cleared, that's fine.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shannon T
Australia
Peakhurst
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Toleezu wrote:
Actually, this is already covered in the rules.
The 'correct' way to play isn't very intuitive.

If you perform a check to do a thing, or if you force reveal a State Token card, you discard the original card from the panorama, out of the game.
You can't encounter it again in the same run.


I thought this was only for Combat type tests. Thanks, I'll have to give the rules another read.


EDIT: Having just gone and read through the rules, it mentions to do this (remove the card for the current run) when you defeat an opponent. I don't regard repairing the boiler as defeating an opponent, hence my original question.

Could you perhaps point out to me in the rules where it says you discard a card after finishing ANY type of check on it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Cooper
United Kingdom
Taunton
Somerset
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cards are only put aside when an opponent is defeated or a card is replaced by a revealed card.

Non-combat tests are not required to be put aside.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremiah Wood
United States
Georgia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The rulebook does: tend to use "Combat" as a separate term to "Test", implying that they are different.

The rulebook does not: define what an "Opponent" is.

I'm not sure if it's a failing of the English translation, but I can't assume correlation on implication alone.

I recommend pulling up the PDF Rulebook and using CTRL+F and searching Combat, Opponent, and Enemy and see what I mean.
http://www.spacecowboys.fr/files/games/time-stories/rules/ti...

The following is optional reading, but here's my two cents on the logical progression of encounters and scoring and how utilizing past precedence and applying them across the board affect design elements:

Spoiler (click to reveal)
The issue is that Expedition Endurance presents us with the first Exclamation Point Card that isn't also a Combat Test.
Should this card in specific have been worded to discard after succeeding the Test, or should all tests result in discarded Panorama cards?

The Marcy Case introduced us to the Exclamation Point mechanic, but it was also a Combat Test.
A Prophecy of Dragons introduced us to a Panorama Card being taken as an Ally, resulting in missing Panorama parts.
Any Card that is revealed to replace another Card also results in missing Panorama Cards.

This means we have precedence to remove non-Combat cards from the Panorama.
The next question is, is the removal of all test cards detrimental or positive?

There is a Location in A Prophecy of Dragons that lets you harvest herbs repeatedly.
I can't quite remember the templating on it at the moment, though.
It's either like the Guillem Receptacle Card, providing an optional 'Get Successes on a Roll to do a thing', or it has a Red Band at the bottom saying you can do it multiple times (either that or it's the Elf specific one that says you can only do it once that I'm thinking of).
That can give us more context on precedence one way or another.

Other than that Location, I can't think of any other than benefits from multiple visits and successes.
All of those activities would be an active waste of TU if left in the Panorama.

A Prophecy of Dragons also introduces us to the concept of keeping 'trophies' for score.
I also don't have that Card close to me for reference, but that can provide context as well.
"Opponent" and "Enemy" are poorly defined terms in the English Rulebook, so the APoD's Score Card can provide reinforcement to an interpretation.
Unless it uses the word "Combat" to define the 'trophies', the APoD Score Card reinforces the implication that "Opponent" or "Enemy" is not a generic term that can be applied to any Test.
This means that, unless disproved, Scoring non-Combat tests can be reconciled the same way (which can provide more variety in Scoring; a good thing).
Expedition Endurance does this with its own Score Card in a sense, but it instructs you to tabulate specific actions taken, not a pile of Cards to count.

The Marcy Case and A Prophecy of Dragons also have Combat Tests that are NOT fully removed from the game; Streets (TMC) and Item 7 (APoD, I may have the Item number wrong).
I can't currently remember if there are special rules governing them specifically, or if this creates a conundrum for APoD Scoring.
In combination with the point above that the Boiler may have needed a line instructing it to be discarded, this can provide a style guide for what needs specific rules versus what needs broad rules.

At this point my brain is fried, but I want to look at the mentioned cards for my own reference when I get off work.
I love having projects!


UPDATE EDIT:
Spoiler (click to reveal)
Oh man! I forgot elements of the Boiler - B location. It's just... badly designed.

Update on the aforementioned cards now that I've looked at them again
APoD:
-Both Woods locations use the "Make a Roll" template, thus bypass any conflict.
-The Score Card directly links the work Opponent to Combat tests, so this reinforces the use of the words Enemy and Opponent as being Combat related. This also defines the use of the Beacon that defeats an opponent to not be used on non-Combat Tests.
-Item 10 is the item I was thinking of. It resides on Codex 3 and is not in conflict with the game. It does however, have an enemy encounter that should, by definition, count toward scoring, but cannot tabulate by counting Enemies in the discarded pile. The Score Card of Expedition Endurance tracks actions without tracking Card placement, so it stands to reason that this creates a theoretical Score drift for APoD.

EE:
The Boiler is just poorly designed.
It's the only card I can think of with TWO concurrent and simultaneous tests.
I remembered the Traumatizing Effect roll, but I forgot about the Strength Test to pull the body out.
The Location could have been executed way better in general.
The Strength Test is actually the more appropriate test out of the two.
The Intellect Test or Spend 2 Black TU would have been more appropriately handled with a check roll over a test, such as "2 successes in 1 TU".
It also creates a very small corner issue.
If all but one Agent is deceased, it creates a Time Drain needlessly, which is the topic as presented by the OP.
Designers should take note of this corner interaction to make sure it doesn't become more prevalent over time.

Now:
Why continue my project when you point to Space Cowboys rules answer?
Consistency, consistency, consistency.

The game plays better when you disregard the rules about Discarding Cards from the Panorama.
By never discarding cards, you can keep your Cards in order for quick turn around time in different runs waaaaaay faster.
It's also the default state for a lot of new players, otherwise you wouldn't see so many posts that point people to remember the rules about discarding.

Discarding Panorama Cards wasn't even an issue until APoD, where you now have a scoring method that cares about a rule many people hadn't used (kind of like most of the Monopoly rulebook).
In all honesty, the APoD Base cards really needed a reinforcing line to remind players to tabulate their Enemies defeated, and the Castle Cards when setting up for Part 2 could have also reinforced noting your current kill count as you swap decks.

If APoD had the extra ounce of courtesy, you could have people play how they want rather than asking rules questions.

You should never, however, reinforce rules for the sake of a specific problem, when you can look at the structure and make sure the environment is more sound.
If you discard one type of card, does it also work to discard all of the other types of cards with similar rule sets?
Consistency, consistency, consistency.

With all of the Tests I can think of, there is no good reason why they cannot follow a similar rule set to Combat with the exception of EE: Boiler Room part 2.
If you note above where the design element is flawed, you can also see that framing one as a Check (the one with an option to spend TU) and the other as a Test upholds multiple interpretations with simple design.

Scenario A, All Rules observed: Card still functions and doesn't overload ambiguous shields on the board for multiple tests. Corner scenario of Time Drain is present.
Scenario B, All cards are kept and never discarded: Card still functions as above.
Scenario C, All tests result in a Discard: Card still functions and is only discarded after the Item is recovered. The corner scenario is removed for any runs where the Item is obtained. It's possible to doom the party to Health loss, but it does involve player autonomy of choice and may be desirable in such an easy scenario.

Compare this to its current design:
Scenario A: Card functions, but has too many shields on the board depending on player engagement. Corner Scenario of Time Drain is present.
Scenario B: Same as above.
Scenario C: Has too many shields present. Could be Discarded before the second Test is completed, resulting in a potentially unobtainable Item. Corner scenario of Time Drain removed for any run where either test is successful. Still possible to doom the party to health loss.

If you create a consistent, harmonious environment, you don't put yourself in the position of needing rules for rules.
More than one interpretation would natively lend itself to an enjoyable conclusion.
Remember, the rule for discarding only NEEDS to exists for a design choice in APoD scoring.
Creating a rule like this caused pretty much all of my written text to be generated, and I didn't realize I was a novelist (although mostly tangential to the original question, which is why I framed it as optional reading).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Cooper
United Kingdom
Taunton
Somerset
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You only need to remove cards that involve a fight test (so an opponent does not respawn this run). Space Cowboys has already asserted the rule in this response.
1 
 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.