Miloš Bekić
Serbia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
After 100+ games I've thoroughly read the rulebook. And the result?
I found out that my buddies and me played wrongly Construction Technologies during an upgrade of urban building. How's that?

Well with Masonry installed we would upgrade from Age I to Age II (or Age III) for -1 ore for example instead of paying 2 we would pay 1 ore. And now I've read it's wrong. Discount is only from Age A to upper levels.

For example if you have Engineering installed:
Age III: -3
Age II: -2
Age I: -1
Age A: 0

When we upgrade from Sci.Method (8 ores) to Computers (11 ores) we would upgrade it for free because we read that -3. Reality is that it's only -1, so instead of paying 3 we should pay 2 resources. We will have discount of -3 if we build directly on Computers or if we upgrade from Philosophy and we have discount of 2 ores if we upgrade from Alchemy to Computers.

Oh that changes a lot...

2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Masonry must have been heavily contested =P
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Bowles
Australia
Tatura
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It took me a few plays on BGO where I assumed they had it right, to sort out this rule. I was playing it wrong aswell, thinking that the discounts applied to upgrades in the same way you did.

It's not very intuitive because the real values are not written anywhere, so your attempting to calculate in your head a strange sum.

I hope new players see this thread, because it makes the game a whole lot fairer when you play properly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TonyKR
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
It's shocking what you can learn by reading the rules to a game, isn't it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Charlap
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the building techs, it is best if you do *NOT* look at them as discounts, but rather as changes to the costs - note that this is how the tech is described on the card, as well. Using your engineering / scientific method to computers example:

Wrong way to view it:
scientific method costs 8, computers 11. Difference is 3. Engineering says Age III buildings are -3 cost, so upgrade cost is 0.

Right way to view it:
Scientific method costs 6 (base 8, minus 2 for engineering), computers 8 (base 11, minus 3 for engineering). Difference is 2, so upgrade cost is 2.

Also note that, as with everything else in the game, cards have no memory. So if you built the scientific method without a building tech (so it cost you 8 to build), and then discovered engineering, it will still cost you 2 to upgrade to computers. The fact that you paid full price originally is immaterial.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Uroš Zorić
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's not surprising that you made that error since it is not intuitive from the card alone what is the exact rule, and the detailed explanation is explicitly proven only through the example in the rulebook, which the reader will often skip.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Strik
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mb
I started playing online after only a handful of live games, but it was one revelation after another. I think the construction reduction was the last.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Bowles
Australia
Tatura
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
3EBC wrote:
It's not surprising that you made that error since it is not intuitive from the card alone what is the exact rule, and the detailed explanation is explicitly proven only through the example in the rulebook, which the reader will often skip.


often the example doesn't stick until you've played the game because you have no context.

And if you think you understand a rule then you are not likely to seek clarification anyway.

What is essential in a complex game so finely balanced, is a post-first-game re-reading of the rulebook and code of laws companion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
3EBC wrote:
... the detailed explanation is explicitly proven only through the example in the rulebook ...

I don't understand this. In what way is "When calculating the difference between resource costs, apply the modifier to both costs." not explicitly clear?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Uroš Zorić
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Benkyo wrote:
3EBC wrote:
... the detailed explanation is explicitly proven only through the example in the rulebook ...

I don't understand this. In what way is "When calculating the difference between resource costs, apply the modifier to both costs." not explicitly clear?


Not to me. Logically correct, no doubt, but the language selection is "mathsy" probably because they wanted to be efficient, which is understandable. More importantly, my opinion is that they have made a bad choice for visual representation of this rule on the card itself. Almost everyone I have played with interpreted the card as a discount when building and/or upgrading, including me.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Kyo
Japan
Osaka
flag msg tools
Forward 1, Forward 2, Forward 3... siege attack 5?
badge
Why for this life there's no man smart enough, life's too short for learning every trick and bluff.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
3EBC wrote:
Benkyo wrote:
3EBC wrote:
... the detailed explanation is explicitly proven only through the example in the rulebook ...

I don't understand this. In what way is "When calculating the difference between resource costs, apply the modifier to both costs." not explicitly clear?


Not to me. Logically correct, no doubt, but the language selection is "mathsy" probably because they wanted to be efficient, which is understandable. More importantly, my opinion is that they have made a bad choice for visual representation of this rule on the card itself. Almost everyone I have played with interpreted the card as a discount when building and/or upgrading, including me.

On the other hand, I don't (didn't) know anyone who ever got it wrong. Of course, we all learned from the old card text "Your level I, II, and III urban buildings cost 1 resource less", so it was slightly different, but they read the same way to me.

Perhaps the difference in understanding goes deeper, to how upgrading works in the first place? I mean, the discount is reflected in upgrading, but it's not a straight reduction of upgrade cost, and how would you calculate the difference to pay for the upgrade anyway?

I'm curious as to how you would have designed the cards for better clarity. I just had a go, and it's quite difficult to add anything to the card without making it more confusing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Uroš Zorić
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Benkyo wrote:
Of course, we all learned from the old card text "Your level I, II, and III urban buildings cost 1 resource less", so it was slightly different, but they read the same way to me.


This is the key. We have never played the old TTA. I think the old solution is better for this case since you can not misinterpret it:



Noted, for Masonry it would make no difference, but it would be far less convoluted for the Architecture and Engineering, and no mistake would be made to take the "3 ore discount"
 
 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.