Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

7 Ages» Forums » Rules

Subject: Populists and disorder rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Sands
United Kingdom
Unspecified
flag msg tools
A question has come up in our game regarding interpretation of the populist leaders' effect on income.

If a populist leader is in a disordered area with a city, does that city produce income?

My interpretation is yes: normally a disordered area produces no income, even if it includes a city, wheat, or oil; but a populist leader doubles the value of any city in its area. Since the +1 for adjacent cities specifies undisordered areas, and the populist works against disorder during manoeuvres, it seems to me to be the intent of the rule.

The opposing view is simply that since disordered areas produce no income, and the populist leader description does not explicitly counter this rule, the area still produces no income.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Montgomery
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Richard Sands wrote:
A question has come up in our game regarding interpretation of the populist leaders' effect on income.

If a populist leader is in a disordered area with a city, does that city produce income?

My interpretation is yes: normally a disordered area produces no income, even if it includes a city, wheat, or oil; but a populist leader doubles the value of any city in its area. Since the +1 for adjacent cities specifies undisordered areas, and the populist works against disorder during manoeuvres, it seems to me to be the intent of the rule.

The opposing view is simply that since disordered areas produce no income, and the populist leader description does not explicitly counter this rule, the area still produces no income.

The answer is no - twice nothing is still nothing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Sands
United Kingdom
Unspecified
flag msg tools
sagji wrote:
The answer is no - twice nothing is still nothing.


Exactly the argument of the opposing view to mine. My next question is why specify +1 to adjacent undisordered areas if we're taking it as read that the standard rule of cities in disordered areas being ignored still applies?

This different handling says to me that cities in an area with a populist count regardless of disorder.

And "twice nothing" is meaningless. The value of the city is doubled, that is unarguable. What we are debating is whether that value grants income or not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Montgomery
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
The basic rules:
1 A disordered city produces 0 income.
2 A city in an area with a Po leader produces double income.
3 A city in an area adjacent to a Po leader produces one more income.

Rules 1 and 2 can be applied in either order are result in the city generating 0 income.
If you apply rules 1 then 3 the city produces 1 income, if you apply them in the order 3 then 1 the city produces no income.

Thus the rules have to either make it clear that rule 1 is applied last, or that rule 3 doesn't apply to a disordered city.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Sands
United Kingdom
Unspecified
flag msg tools
sagji wrote:
The basic rules:
1 A disordered city produces 0 income.
2 A city in an area with a Po leader produces double income.
3 A city in an area adjacent to a Po leader produces one more income.

Rules 1 and 2 can be applied in either order are result in the city generating 0 income.
If you apply rules 1 then 3 the city produces 1 income, if you apply them in the order 3 then 1 the city produces no income.

Thus the rules have to either make it clear that rule 1 is applied last, or that rule 3 doesn't apply to a disordered city.


You're still using the same argument, but the rules do not say that disordered cities have value 0!

Basic Rules:
"A disordered area earns no income (even if it has a city, wheat or oil)."

Populist rules:
"During production, double the value of any city in the
area with a populist, and add 1 to the value of every
adjacent (undisordered) city controlled by that empire."

Since the value of a city is immaterial to whether a disordered area earns income, your argument for the reason of specifying "undisordered" for adjacent areas doesn't work.

I realise you can still reword your argument to say no income, but you can't explain the "undisordered", which still leaves us in the position of not knowing the intent of the rule...

Is Harry around to give a designer's intent answer?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
N Petersen
Denmark
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
As I read it, during production a city with a Po leader is doubled, but regardless of its size, it provides no income.

Regarding the "(disordered)" part:
Imho, the reason it is placed in "( )" is exactly because it is more of a 'reminder'/'helping notice' of a special (uncommon) situation than an actual rule-change (i.e. '+1 income, but remember that disordered cities produce no income regardless').

Same thing is found in description of other items, e.g. Socialism: "put a ... disorder marker in each city ... (unless one is there already)"
Again, the sentence in ( ) is not necessary since disorder markers per the general rules cannot be placed in already disordered areas (p. 16).

Religious strife: "It cannot exercise its religion's power (it is still subject to its religion's penalties)".
Again, the part in ( ) is not strictly necessary, but merely acts as a 'reminder' to clarify things.

Of course you can find lots of things in ( ) through the rule set, where the stuff is important/regular rule changes, and thus you may disagree with the above, but that is the way I see it, and imho how it was intended (but of course only Harry can provide a definite answer here )

Also, you could argue that "(undisordered)" could then also be inserted in the sentence regarding the Po leaders own city (i.e. "double the value of any (undisordered) city in the area with a populist"), and you are of course right. But since the ( ) is only a 'reminder', and thus not strictly necessary, it is not incorrect to not include it.
And I agree with the argument in an above post that it was included in order to avoid the '2*(X reduced to 0)+1=1' or '(2*X+1 reduced to 0)=0' confusion regarding income from disordered adjacent cities.

Regards
Nikolaj
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Richard, I am currently interstate and only have intermittent access to the net.

We play that even if the value of the city is doubled it would still provide 0 income due to the disorder.

Regards
Harry
 
 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.