Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Puerto Rico Deluxe» Forums » Rules

Subject: New Hacienda/Construction Hut rules? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Adam R. Wood
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs... I play videogames, which I think is far superior an addiction than any of those other ones.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not liking the Anniversary Edition, honestly - I have to keep telling myself "it's for the expansions, it's for the expansions..." - but I've found something in the new rulebook that I really don't care for, and if it's an intended change to the rules, then it's going to need further clarification. I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up already! I'm not talking about "This gaol [sic] is attained..." in the intro, or even "Sort the 60 doubloons by value" now that there's only one value for them: I'm talking about the change to the rules for the Hacienda. Maybe you didn't notice, but how it works with the Construction Hut has been altered. To wit:

The original rulebook, page 9, wrote:
If the player also owns an occupied construction hut, he may not take a quarry instead of the face-down tile. Thus, if the settler owns a hacienda, he may only take one quarry.
The Anniversary Edition rulebook, page 9, wrote:
If the player also owns an occupied construction hut, he could take a quarry instead of the face-down tile. If the settler owns a hacienda, he may only take one quarry.


The rules before made perfect logical sense, with no loopholes or inconsistencies. Now, a player with a staffed Hacienda and a staffed Construction Hut can apparently take a quarry instead of a blind plantation, AND then a quarry instead of their face-up plantation, for two quarries in one turn... UNLESS that player is the one who chose the Settler role, in which case there is now an arbitrary restriction saying they're limited to one quarry.

Am I alone in thinking that this is a VERY BAD IDEA?

So the question this begs is a multi-parter: Is this just a (terrible, unexplainable, unexcusable) mistake? If so, where's the errata saying how much of this is wrong - is the change as a whole a mistake, or is just the Settler provision a mistake, or was the intent to prevent all players from double-quarrying and not just the Settler? If not - if this isn't a mistake(!) - where are the explanations: what's the justification for the change, and why is the settler the only player barred from doubling up on quarries this way? I've seen a number of discussions about game balance rule alterations here on BGG, but I certainly hadn't heard the slightest bit about this change! I'd have expected a firestorm. - ZM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James W
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wait... Wasn't there more in this section of the rulebook? I'm at work right now so I can't remember the words exactly, but I seem to recall something about "only allowed 1 quarry"?

I'll check when I get home. I think you might be more incensed than you need to be.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conan Meriadoc
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
there were already inconsistencies in the original english rules, if I remember correctly. The hospice building used to mention "if the player also owns an occupied hacienda and chooses to take the additional face-down or quarry tile, he does not get a colonist for the extra tile.", which wasn't consistent with the hacienda note.

As it stands, it probably is a mistake, and I certainly wouldn't allow taking two quarries in a single turn; Have the german rules changed in the anniversary rulebook ?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam R. Wood
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs... I play videogames, which I think is far superior an addiction than any of those other ones.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dystopian wrote:
there were already inconsistencies in the original english rules, if I remember correctly. The hospice building used to mention "if the player also owns an occupied hacienda and chooses to take the additional face-down or quarry tile, he does not get a colonist for the extra tile.", which wasn't consistent with the hacienda note.


That isn't how it reads in my original rulebook. However, that IS how it reads in the new one! I hadn't caught that change yet...

I'm beginning to think that there was a prototype version of the rules that was properly fixed up before the original was published (or perhaps I have a later edition of the game with edited rules, but there's no indication anywhere that my copy is a later printing), but when the rules for the Anniversary Edition were being typeset, they grabbed the old version by mistake and no one did any proofreading. Just a theory, but if I'm right, then I'm sticking to my original assessment: this is [to fix my own typo from the original post] inexcusable.

Regardless of the cause, the fact is that the latest rulebook has a change in it, and I hadn't heard anything about it coming. It invokes questions whether it's right or wrong.

And then Dystopian wrote:
As it stands, it probably is a mistake, and I certainly wouldn't allow taking two quarries in a single turn; Have the german rules changed in the anniversary rulebook ?


That is an excellent question I'd love the answer to. (I'm wondering if it could have been phrased "Have [they] changed back..." to some older version...) - ZM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I think that is it: before, with CH and H, you used to get one face-down tile and one face-up tile (including quarry); now you can get one plantation and one quarry. A little improvement in the CH+H combo. There is no need for such an emotion, no one will ever play as if we can pick 2 quarries...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antti Autio
Finland
Helsinki
flag msg tools
badge
Gina, Escher gang leader (Necromunda). Don't mess with her or she'll kick your ass.. actually, she's gonna do it anyway!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What part of "may only take one quarry" don't you understand?

I think the intent of the rule is perfectly clear. There's no need to play with semantic interpretations.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam R. Wood
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs... I play videogames, which I think is far superior an addiction than any of those other ones.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aautio wrote:
What part of "may only take one quarry" don't you understand?


The part where it only applies to the Settler. (Using the name of the role to refer to the player who has taken that role is done consistently in that manner throughout the entire rulebook.) If it said "No player may take more than one quarry in a settler phase", then it would play just like PauloSantoro points out - still a rule change, but not as gobsmacking. But that's not what it says.

And people are suspecting me of excessive vitriol and lack of reading comprehension?

And then wrote:
I think the intent of the rule is perfectly clear. There's no need to play with semantic interpretations.


I think the intent of the original rule was perfectly clear. But it's different now. It's not a matter of semantics. (Semantics should never get involved in game instructions!) It's all denotative, not connotative. The words changed, presumably for a reason, and this is the consequence of those changes. Hey, I'm finding it all hard to believe myself, which is why I brought it up, but sticking my fingers in my ears and going "LALALALA" isn't going to change it back or get any questions answered. I'm saying that IF this change was some sort of error in the creation of the rulebook, then that's a pretty heinous error! And if it's NOT an error, then I'm simply asking why it was changed, albeit with no small amount of skepticism.

And just for the record, I'm not the one who changed the rules here. I'm just the messenger. You can stop shooting at me now. I predicted this general anger, but it's being misapplied. Might I suggest taking that motivation toward getting answers instead, like I am? - ZM
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laurence Koehn
United States
Champaign
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zotmeister wrote:
The Anniversary Edition rulebook, page 9, wrote:
If the player also owns an occupied construction hut, he could take a quarry instead of the face-down tile. If the settler owns a hacienda, he may only take one quarry.


The rules before made perfect logical sense, with no loopholes or inconsistencies. Now, a player with a staffed Hacienda and a staffed Construction Hut can apparently take a quarry instead of a blind plantation, AND then a quarry instead of their face-up plantation, for two quarries in one turn... UNLESS that player is the one who chose the Settler role, in which case there is now an arbitrary restriction saying they're limited to one quarry.


I'm not sure I agree with your reading of the rules. I think it says that a non-settler player with a construction hut can choose to take his quarry either in place of the face-down tile (in which case it would not get a free colonist from a hospice), or in place of the face-up plantation draw. It does not clearly state that this is the case, but it also does not clearly state that the player can use the construction hut effect twice. In the case of the settler player, he can take the construction hut quarry as his face-down tile, but then he forfeits his settler privilege.

Not having the complete rules in front of me, I can't say if this is stated anywhere, but the rules make perfect sense in this light if you understand that, unless otherwise specified (e.g. harbor), building effects occur only once in a phase. So if you use your construction hut and hacienda effects together to take a quarry instead of a face-down tile, you may not then use it again to take a second quarry. The settler exception is needed to prevent the settler from taking a quarry with hacienda and construction hut, and then using the settler privilege to take a second quarry.

It would have greatly clarified things though, if they'd just stated that no player can take two quarries.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Berthold Nüchter
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
flag msg tools
I am the walrus
badge
checkpoint
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think I can help you by using the German rules (standard version and Anniversary edition).
The German rules of both versions for the hacienda, the construction hut and the hospice are identical. There are no changes. 99% of the wording is identical.
The English rule is different, either by mistake, it just misses the word "not", or intentionally. I guess it is a mistake.

According to you the English rule is:
Quote:
If the player also owns an occupied construction hut, he could take a quarry instead of the face-down tile. If the settler owns a hacienda, he may only take one quarry.

The translation of the German rule is:
If the player also owns a construction hut, he may not take a quarry instead of the face-down tile.

The translation of the German rules (both versions) for the hospice is:
[...] If he, as owner of a hacienda, also takes a face-down tile, he does not get a colonist for that tile.

So the English rules for the hospice are different as well, probably wrong.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam R. Wood
United States
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't do drugs... I play videogames, which I think is far superior an addiction than any of those other ones.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Berthold wrote:
I think I can help you by using the German rules (standard version and Anniversary edition).
The German rules of both versions for the hacienda, the construction hut and the hospice are identical. There are no changes. 99% of the wording is identical.
The English rule is different, either by mistake, it just misses the word "not", or intentionally. I guess it is a mistake.


Thank you very much for this. If the German rules haven't been altered between editions, then it falls strictly upon Rio Grande Games to explain this. Given the various minor errors in the Anniversary Edition rulebook not present in the original edition, it's looking more and more like a prototype that made it to print, but RGG does have precedent for branching off from international rules, so it can't be definitively called a mistake just yet. Either way, though, Lucy got some 'splainin to do! - ZM
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, they already screwed up the Forest House-Hacienda exclusivity rule in Treasure Chest, so I'm going to ignore this revised rule the same way I ignored that one.
 
 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.