Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

A Distant Plain» Forums » Rules

Subject: Taliban Capability: Casualties Mount rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Craig M
msg tools
mbmb
The text says: "Casualties mount: Each Taliban Attack removes a 3rd piece and Sabotages an adjacent empty LoC."

Am I correct in assuming that this capability must be used, once it is in play? A normal attack removes "up to" 2 pieces, but the capability text does not say "up to" or "may remove". Similarly, I assume the sabotage is compulsory?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roland Swingler
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
I would assume you must remove the third piece.

It wasn't clear to me whether you sabotage the adjacent LOC only if you have a successful dice roll, or whether you do it regardless of the dice outcome.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zoltan Geffert
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We just had this problem today, we could not really agree so had to roll a die to decide where to go.

However, I would assume to remove a third piece there should be a first and a second removed too, by logic, with a successful attack.

So I am also interested in what others think on this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fred Buchholz
United States
Middleton
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Well it says each Taliban Attack ... Isn't the Attack all the steps including the die roll? thus you get a third piece and the sabotage as a result of the attack. I would assume the "third" piece would only apply if two were removed otherwise how do you have a third piece?

I think my group would play it as results of an attack that worked.
I didn't find anything in the FAQ on GMT site but FAQ is from 2013
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Evans
United States
Berlin
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Arcuate wrote:
The text says: "Casualties mount: Each Taliban Attack removes a 3rd piece and Sabotages an adjacent empty LoC."

Am I correct in assuming that this capability must be used, once it is in play? A normal attack removes "up to" 2 pieces, but the capability text does not say "up to" or "may remove". Similarly, I assume the sabotage is compulsory?


I think it is a mandatory bonus.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig M
msg tools
mbmb
Okay, thanks - I read it as mandatory, but given that the first and second removals are optional, it could be considered unfair to force a third removal onto someone. The optional second could be considered a logical prerequisite to the mandatory third, making the third only mandatory if there has been a second (impossible things cannot be mandatory), or it could be that the mandatory third makes the first and second removal no longer optional (if it is mandatory to do a third, it is mandatory to do what makes the third possible). Or the third might not be mandatory after all, under the interpretation that cards do not override normal rules unless they do so explicitly, and this is not explicit.

Thematically, the "Casualties mount" would make sense if it lead to a mandatory escalation of damages, including to potential allies.

Edit to add: it would help if the rules added the word "must" for situations like this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim K
United States
Palatine
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Arcuate wrote:
Okay, thanks - I read it as mandatory, but given that the first and second removals are optional, it could be considered unfair to force a third removal onto someone. The optional second could be considered a logical prerequisite to the mandatory third, making the third only mandatory if there has been a second (impossible things cannot be mandatory), or it could be that the mandatory third makes the first and second removal no longer optional (if it is mandatory to do a third, it is mandatory to do what makes the third possible). Or the third might not be mandatory after all, under the interpretation that cards do not override normal rules unless they do so explicitly, and this is not explicit.

Thematically, the "Casualties mount" would make sense if it lead to a mandatory escalation of damages, including to potential allies.

Edit to add: it would help if the rules added the word "must" for situations like this.


Man, I just got up. Your post is giving me a headache. shake
 
 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.