Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Trains» Forums » Rules

Subject: Collaboration rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The English version of this card does not make sense as written. The clarification in the rules is different and makes it further complicated as it is self-contradictory. Can someone from the design team clarify this card as there is no way to interpret it other than guessing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:
The English version of this card does not make sense as written. The clarification in the rules is different and makes it further complicated as it is self-contradictory. Can someone from the design team clarify this card as there is no way to interpret it other than guessing.


I'm not seeing the source of confusion. The second part of the rules explanation is an example of how it works, not extra rules.

After you play this card (for the rest of the turn), you no longer pay extra money (1 per player), nor take the extra waste (1 regardless of number of players) as a result of rail-laying actions where you build rails in a hex where other players have already built.

Playing the card's action also grants 1 rail laying and requires you to take 1 waste.

Obviously, this card is particularly useful if you can play it when you have some other rail laying action cards in your hand, since you can play them after this one and continue to get the bonus.

This and the explanation is exactly in line with the other cards which grant full-turn rail laying cost discounts: Viaduct, Tunnel, Steel Bridge, and Underground Digging.

B>
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thepackrat wrote:
dond80 wrote:
The English version of this card does not make sense as written. The clarification in the rules is different and makes it further complicated as it is self-contradictory. Can someone from the design team clarify this card as there is no way to interpret it other than guessing.


I'm not seeing the source of confusion. The second part of the rules explanation is an example of how it works, not extra rules.

After you play this card (for the rest of the turn), you no longer pay extra money (1 per player), nor take the extra waste (1 regardless of number of players) as a result of rail-laying actions where you build rails in a hex where other players have already built.

Playing the card's action also grants 1 rail laying and requires you to take 1 waste.

Obviously, this card is particularly useful if you can play it when you have some other rail laying action cards in your hand, since you can play them after this one and continue to get the bonus.

This and the explanation is exactly in line with the other cards which grant full-turn rail laying cost discounts: Viaduct, Tunnel, Steel Bridge, and Underground Digging.

B>


That may be how it works, and I'm guessing It probably does, but that is not what the rules state. The second paragraph of the rules states "after playing [collaboration]...you receive a waste and put it on your gained cards area." there is no "if" nor any "unless" or any other qualifying word in that statement, therefore it it is an always and a must. That contradicts the implication of the first paragraph. I can see multiple possible interpretations based on the language of the card and the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Gerrits
Belgium
Leuven
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see any confusion either. The waste you get is the standard track laying waste. The power of collaboration involves the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Runkst wrote:
I don't see any confusion either. The waste you get is the standard track laying waste. The power of collaboration involves the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.


That's not what it says. The literal interpretation of the text on the card is: "you never pay cost for other players' track. You never take waste under any circumstance. You then build rail and take waste."

The literal interpretation of the text in the rules is: "if you build track where someone else has track, you do not pay costs and do not gain a waste. After playing this card, build a rail and gain a waste in all circumstances with no exceptions."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Runkst wrote:
the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.


This is also wrong, you only ever take one waste- it doesn't matter if players track is already there or not. There is never "extra waste"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Gerrits
Belgium
Leuven
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I see what you mean. It seems to me that the "any waste" mentioned on the card refers only to the extra waste you'd get but that could definitely be worded better. The text in the rules is very clear that it only concerns the extra waste however.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Gerrits
Belgium
Leuven
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:
Runkst wrote:
the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.


This is also wrong, you only ever take one waste- it doesn't matter if players track is already there or not. There is never "extra waste"

This is clearly wrong though, look at the cost table.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:
Runkst wrote:
the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.


This is also wrong, you only ever take one waste- it doesn't matter if players track is already there or not. There is never "extra waste"


Check the rules again, in the rail costs table,

Other player's track marker -> extra costs is # of player's markers + gain a waste.

also this thread.

Taking waste for other players' track markers

I see that if you missed the extra-waste for other players this card is confusing, but hopefully it makes more sense. Yes, the text on the card is a little unclear, but it's supposed to be a memory-jog, not necessary a full and complete explanation. The card effects are as I've explained.

As to the explanatory paragraph, since the card has no benefits other than giving you a rail lay and a waste, it's completely reasonable to assume that if you play it, that means you're taking its actions (which include a compulsory waste and a rail laying action that it would be crazy to ignore once you already have to take the waste for playing a card.

In this, it is identical to the Rail Laying card, which you of course aren't forced to play from your hand, but once you do, performs all its actions (rail laying 1, waste 1)

B>
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Runkst wrote:
dond80 wrote:
Runkst wrote:
the extra waste you would take when laying track where someone else already did so.


This is also wrong, you only ever take one waste- it doesn't matter if players track is already there or not. There is never "extra waste"

This is clearly wrong though, look at the cost table.


Jesus Christ. Why can't people write rulebooks better? I think you are probably right here actually, though it is definitely ambiguous as it says at the head of the cost table you'll have to pay extra COIN (and no mention of anything else. But lord have mercy, I'm tired of playing hide and go seek with rulebooks. Lol.

And we still have the ambiguity with collaboration. If yours and Bruce's interpretation is correct, it requires us to assume a meaning of the word "cost" that includes money and waste in one sentence and a meaning of the word cost that only means money in the next sentence. That very well might be the case.

And the card text is still totally inconsistent even with that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So to sum...if Bruce's interpretation is correct (which it seems likely to be) the clear and unambiguous wording of the card would be:

"While this card is in play, you may build rail in any space as though that space had no opponents' track markers present.

Rail laying 1. Waste 1."


Yes?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:


And we still have the ambiguity with collaboration. If yours and Bruce's interpretation is correct, it requires us to assume a meaning of the word "cost" that includes money and waste in one sentence and a meaning of the word cost that only means money in the next sentence. That very well might be the case.


Let's ignore the card, it's a summary. I suspect that "extra cost" and "cost" are translations that are closer in the final English than they are in the original Japanese. Let it go.

B>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:
So to sum...if Bruce's interpretation is correct (which it seems likely to be) the clear and unambiguous wording of the card would be:

"While this card is in play, you may build rail in any space as though that space had no opponents' track markers present.

Rail laying 1. Waste 1."


Yes?


Or even better "You may ignore opponent's track pieces when building track"

B>
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thepackrat wrote:
dond80 wrote:


And we still have the ambiguity with collaboration. If yours and Bruce's interpretation is correct, it requires us to assume a meaning of the word "cost" that includes money and waste in one sentence and a meaning of the word cost that only means money in the next sentence. That very well might be the case.


Let's ignore the card, it's a summary. I suspect that "extra cost" and "cost" are translations that are closer in the final English than they are in the original Japanese. Let it go.

B>


That's preposterous. The card may be INTENDED as a summary, but this card is not a summary, it is a completely different rule than the rulebook.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:

That's preposterous. The card may be INTENDED as a summary, but this card is not a summary, it is a completely different rule than the rulebook.


You're overreacting. Multiple people have responded who can play with the card without this being a problem. I naturally read the card text with the non-gain of waste statements existing in the context of skipping extra cost of building where other players are.

Let it go.

B>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thepackrat wrote:
dond80 wrote:

That's preposterous. The card may be INTENDED as a summary, but this card is not a summary, it is a completely different rule than the rulebook.


You're overreacting. ...


Let it go

B>


I'm not overreacting nor underreacting Bruce. Please don't be so condescending...I'm simply reacting. There is a language problem on that card and I have come to the geek to resolve that problem. That's what we as gamers do. If I was confused by it, it stands to reason other may be as well. I'd rather have a helpful thread clarifying it instead of simply "letting it go"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This rules question does not extend to "preposterous". I would not go any higher than "mildly unfortunate". It is not "a completely different rule" as you have suggested.

In this case, it appears your confusion over this card had its source in other rules mistakes, and it doesn't appear that anyone else managed to chain them like that. It is not the case that "there is no way to interpret it other than guessing".

I think we've clarified this adequately.

B>
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thepackrat wrote:
This rules question does not extend to "preposterous". I would not go any higher than "mildly unfortunate". It is not "a completely different rule" as you have suggested.

In this case, it appears your confusion over this card had its source in other rules mistakes, and it doesn't appear that anyone else managed to chain them like that. It is not the case that "there is no way to interpret it other than guessing".

I think we've clarified this adequately.

B>


No bruce, I said your post was preposterous, not the rules issue. And are you seriously saying that because no one else (of the 3 people who have posted here) has said they had trouble interpreting it that means no one else alive in the world who has played trains has? C'mon. You're a super smart guy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dond80 wrote:


No bruce, I said your post was preposterous, not the rules issue. And are you seriously saying that because no one else (of the 3 people who have posted here) has said they had trouble interpreting it that means no one else alive in the world who has played trains has? C'mon. You're a super smart guy.


I'm saying that you have made at least one rules mistake which has led to you having trouble understanding other rules (which are linked to your original mistake). This is not a rule that is generally confusing to people playing the game and I feel that the vehemence[*] with which you insist that it is, is an overreaction.

It seems that the only reason you had this problem at all was because you read the rules with the incorrect mental model you developed. It is entirely likely that none of the couple-of-hundred people who have seen this game generated a similar chain of understanding.

I would suggest that you correct your rules errors and play the game rather than argue about how terrible a translated rule expression is.

[*] indicated by your reference to it being "a completely different rule" earlier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
thepackrat wrote:
dond80 wrote:


No bruce, I said your post was preposterous, not the rules issue. And are you seriously saying that because no one else (of the 3 people who have posted here) has said they had trouble interpreting it that means no one else alive in the world who has played trains has? C'mon. You're a super smart guy.


I'm saying that you have made at least one rules mistake which has led to you having trouble understanding other rules (which are linked to your original mistake). This is not a rule that is generally confusing to people playing the game and I feel that the vehemence[*] with which you insist that it is, is an overreaction.

It seems that the only reason you had this problem at all was because you read the rules with the incorrect mental model you developed. It is entirely likely that none of the couple-of-hundred people who have seen this game generated a similar chain of understanding.

I would suggest that you correct your rules errors and play the game rather than argue about how terrible a translated rule expression is.

[*] indicated by your reference to it being "a completely different rule" earlier.


You assume too much...you telling me this issue is crystal clear is predicated upon the belief that some other rule also exists and is crystal clear in the rulebook and I'm saying that I'm not even convinced of that rule's existence and it as well is ambiguous. Why does it bother you so much that I'm asking the design team to help remove ambiguities from the rules so that I'm certain I'm playing correctly ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You may have overlooked the fact that this game was originally designed (And documented) in japanese, and that folks who have checked the japanese rules have made it quite clear that there is no ambiguity in the waste extra cost.

What would you like the designers to confirm?

You have enough information to play the game correctly and consistently (assuming this was your only rules hiccup), and it feels as though you're continuing this discussion because you are hoping not to have been wrong, rather than because you actually want the answer.

B>
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bruce,

It appears as though much of tone and intent is lost between our posts in the forums. I assure you i do not care about being right or wrong, and in fact the posts I made can neither be right nor wrong as they are a matter of opinion. My only interest is ensuring that I am playing with the correct rules. Please keep in mind when trying to interpret the intentions of my posts that I am a law professor who teaches students critical writing in a field in which one word can impact the meaning and result in a contract of 1,000,000 words. So, I'm sure you can understand that by my nature I am prone to be more picky about such issues than most. I appreciate how it can perhaps be frustrating to read on the forums and I apologize for that. Just be certain that I am actually interested in making sure I have the rules correct. No one likes a troll. I understand how you can think im trolling and being intentionally difficult or obtuse for no good reason- please know that I'm not.

In these two situations with this game, the words in the rules are ambiguous enough to me that I feel as though any rule I could use would require me to make some level of assumption that I'd be happier not making. I agree there are interpretations substantially more likely to be correct, but if the designers can come in make it a certainty it would increase my enjoyment of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Noted, and thanks for stepping outside the thread of the argument.

I quite seriously, and without rancour, suggest you enlist the service of a native Japanese speaker, because trying to rules lawyer (a term of art, I assure you) translated rules really is futile.

My experience of the publisher suggests that the quality of their games exceeds the quality of their translation (although I will note that Asmodee made some of their own unique errors in the string railway reprint)

B>
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Don D.
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is a great idea. I may be able to find a colleague or student who can help. If it were mandarin it would be easy to find a helper, Japanese will be more of a challenge
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Horn
United States
FPO
AE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey, this is arguing on the internet. Could one of you guys please compare the other to Hitler so I know the world is as I thought it was? I'd appreciate it greatly. Thanks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
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.