Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Twilight Struggle» Forums » Rules

Subject: Containment, Brezhnev and Red Scare/purge rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel Val
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What are the differences between Containment(#25) and Brezhnev doctrine(#51)? It would seem that Containmenet adds one Ops value to all the cards played by the US player(disregarding the color of the star), while the Brezhnev Doctrine would add one Ops value to all USSR operation cards (not including cards related to both the US and the USSR), no matter who plays them. Am I correct?
Also, does Red scare/Purge (#31) deduct one ops value from all the cards played by your oponent? or do his realated cards lose one ops value no matter who plays them?
Thanks a lot and... hey people: Buy and PLAY this game. It´s awesome!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
monkeyrobot wrote:
What are the differences between Containment(#25) and Brezhnev doctrine(#51)? It would seem that Containmenet adds one Ops value to all the cards played by the US player(disregarding the color of the star), while the Brezhnev Doctrine would add one Ops value to all USSR operation cards (not including cards related to both the US and the USSR), no matter who plays them. Am I correct?


By card text, yes.
But I've been known to be wrong before where card text is involved. :-)

Quote:
Also, does Red scare/Purge (#31) deduct one ops value from all the cards played by your oponent? or do his realated cards lose one ops value no matter who plays them?


I'd guess the former -- "opponent's cards" meaning "cards the opposing player plays" rather than "cards associated only with your opponent". Both because the effect is targeting Operations (not events) and because choosing the latter would involve unintuitively docking Ops from the cards associated only with your opponent that you play yourself.

As an aside, under either answer, if you are the US and play Red Scare/Purge and your opponent then plays Tear Down This Wall, he gets 2 Ops, but your Coup attempt is also made with only 2 Ops.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Val
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow, thanks a lot Rulemonger! That was fast answering!
Also, considering it´s at least six hours earlier in the States, you really wake up ready to use the Boardgamegeek.com!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I'm East Coast, so it's not as early as it could have been, but yeah, I got up early this morning. Or rather, my daughter got me up at 4am (she turns 3 today -- but that had nothing to do with it -- just an uncooperative blanket). Couldn't get back to sleep, so I got up. Worked for a little while. Then "goofed off" here on the Geek.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This one is clear from rule 7.4.1. They apply to the player, not to the card.

On Brezhnev Doctrine a "USSR operations card" is a card played by the USSR for operations, not a card with a USSR event being played for operations by the US.

Put another way, the events may be associated with one side or the other, but the cards belong to the player playing them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulemonger wrote:

As an aside, under either answer, if you are the US and play Red Scare/Purge and your opponent then plays Tear Down This Wall, he gets 2 Ops, but your Coup attempt is also made with only 2 Ops.


I agree. It is a reason why it doesn't just say "3 ops".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AllenDoum wrote:
I agree. It is a reason why it doesn't just say "3 ops".


And a reason why Indo-Pakistani War (and all the other wars) shouldn't have said "2 Ops", right?

That is, if you play Indo-Pakistani War under Red Scare, you add only 1 to your Military Ops track, since the card is a 1 Ops card, not 2.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulemonger wrote:
AllenDoum wrote:
I agree. It is a reason why it doesn't just say "3 ops".


And a reason why Indo-Pakistani War (and all the other wars) shouldn't have said "2 Ops", right?

That is, if you play Indo-Pakistani War under Red Scare, you add only 1 to your Military Ops track, since the card is a 1 Ops card, not 2.


No, because the event text overrides the rules. It says to move the mil Ops track 2, so you move it 2. That the ops value on the card is also 2 is, in effect, a coincidence.

Note that the card doesn't read that you are using ops, it is instructing you to move the marker. You are playing the event.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That seems like another problem, then, since the rules tell you to move your Marker the Ops value of the card when playing War cards (section 8.2.3).

The card text on the War card is either reminding you of that rule (in which case it should give the adjusted Ops value), or it is providing movement of the Marker unrelated to the rules (as you say).

But in the latter case, the movement would be in addition to the movement that 8.2.3 provides (since card text says nothing about not getting the Ops value of the card as described in 8.2.3).

I'm all for the spirit over the letter, but it seems that the spirit would be to give the adjusted Ops value, while the letter would be to give both the card movement and the 8.2.3 movement.

(Or maybe TCG players should not play CDG war games -- the different approach to the ruleset strains the brain).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulemonger wrote:

(Or maybe TCG players should not play CDG war games -- the different approach to the ruleset strains the brain).


Perhaps. We call that "rules lawyering" on the wargame side. But it still works the same way. The text on the card overrides the rules.

In this case, there is not much of a contradiciton. 7.4.1 covers the effects of events like Brezhnev Doctrine on cards when they are played for Ops. The War cards, OTOH, spell out the movement of the Mil Ops marker, and in all cases agree with 8.2.4. They could have said "Player adds the ops value of this card to Military Operations Track." if that was the intention.

Cards like Tear Down This Wall are an exception, and say to use the ops value in the text. The War cards do not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AllenDoum wrote:
Perhaps. We call that "rules lawyering" on the wargame side. But it still works the same way. The text on the card overrides the rules.


TCG players seem to reserve "rules lawyering" for things that try to extract an alternate meaning from the card text letters than what the obvious meaning is. We have to depend more on the actual card texts and rules texts over a stack of "in this case" rulings about how cards should have worked, since the number of cases is intractable.

In this case, the existence of the verbiage in the rulebook is a pretty clear intention of what the intent is: "Moves his marker on the Military Operations track a number of spaces equal to the Operations value of the card.", just as card text is clear (but with a different result).

Quote:
In this case, there is not much of a contradiciton. 7.4.1 covers the effects of events like Brezhnev Doctrine on cards when they are played for Ops.


7.4.1 covers cards stolen from opponent's hand and played by you (instead of being played by your opponent), not on cards played by the opponent for Ops. We've already agreed that a card played for Ops (like Tear Down This Wall) uses the modified Ops value for the opponent's event part as well. Right?

Quote:
The War cards, OTOH, spell out the movement of the Mil Ops marker, and in all cases agree with 8.2.4. They could have said "Player adds the ops value of this card to Military Operations Track." if that was the intention.


(8.2.4, right -- I had resorted to looking at the proof rulebook PDF on the GMT site earlier, and the section had changed numbers)

If they agreed in all cases, there wouldn't be any issue here.

But they don't.

For example, when a War card played for the event when the Ops value is modified by Red Scare/Menace.

I wish the card text had been clearer about the intention (like Bear Trap and Quagmire could have been). It is unfortunate that they are not. The rulebook is just as clear on the intention, and yet those two "clear" intentions are sometimes in contradiction.

Given the entirety of the rules and card texts, especially the label and concept of "Military Ops" and how it is used in Coups, it seems that the actual intent was to use the Ops value of the card (like Tear Down This Wall's card text does), but that card text was flubbed (the alternative is that the rulebook text was flubbed and that a great coincidence exists in the agreement of all the War cards' Military Ops movement awards and their printed Ops values and that the chosen term "Military Ops" is misleading).

Quote:
Cards like Tear Down This Wall are an exception, and say to use the ops value in the text. The War cards do not.


But the rules do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allen Doum
United States
Orange County
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
5.5
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
AllenDoum wrote:
5.5


Already covered above.

Refuge under 5.5 merely yields double-ops -- once by card text and again by the uncanceled 8.2.3 (or 8.2.4 as appropriate).

Really, I understand about "card text overrides rules". I would've thought that we'd be passed this by now.

If the out were that simple we wouldn't be here.

So...

Any official explanation?
Jason? Ananda?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Dieringer
United States
Schenectady
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
I don;t see why this is a big deal. One says move it the ops value. The other says move it by 2 explicitly. Unless there is some sort of official errata, how are we to judge what the designers "intended"? Play it as written.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chemist wrote:
I don;t see why this is a big deal. One says move it the ops value. The other says move it by 2 explicitly. Unless there is some sort of official errata, how are we to judge what the designers "intended"? Play it as written.


Exactly the problem -- "as written" gets you to double-counting (applying the card text as written and applying the rules as written, since neither say not to apply the other or overrule the other). Which is clearly not designer intent (no guessing needed there).

So then you're left with guessing which "as written" way it should be done -- either as the rules say (with the assumption that the "reminder" text on the cards wasn't carefully enough written) or as the cards say (with the assumption that the name "Military Ops" is a misnomer, and a misleading one at that, and that the rules are not only not carefully enough written, but also actively wrong on the point).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well I guess you chose the right nickname.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't either interpretation (card text or rules text wrong), lead to the same result? Ergo, you don't need to make the decision, it just moves the track by 2, for whatever reason.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
Well I guess you chose the right nickname.


Heh. Yeah. I got that ten year ago "helping" Wizards of the Coast keep the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules together.

I definitely appreciate a game more if its rules (and rulings and errata when needed) are handled consistently -- that one-or-the-other game needs errata (to change text) or rulings (to resolve ambiguous texts) won't deter me from playing a game, so long as it's approached with due consideration.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't either interpretation (card text or rules text wrong), lead to the same result? Ergo, you don't need to make the decision, it just moves the track by 2, for whatever reason.


In most cases, yes.

But when the Ops value is adjusted (by, for example, Red Scare/Purge), then the results are different -- do you count the Military Ops as Military Ops, or do you use the Ops-ignoring card text?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Wilson
United States
Carsoin
California
flag msg tools
Rulemonger wrote:
Philip Thomas wrote:
Well I guess you chose the right nickname.


Heh. Yeah. I got that ten year ago "helping" Wizards of the Coast keep the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules together.

I definitely appreciate a game more if its rules (and rulings and errata when needed) are handled consistently -- that one-or-the-other game needs errata (to change text) or rulings (to resolve ambiguous texts) won't deter me from playing a game, so long as it's approached with due consideration.

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't either interpretation (card text or rules text wrong), lead to the same result? Ergo, you don't need to make the decision, it just moves the track by 2, for whatever reason.


In most cases, yes.

But when the Ops value is adjusted (by, for example, Red Scare/Purge), then the results are different -- do you count the Military Ops as Military Ops, or do you use the Ops-ignoring card text?


This one depends on how you play the card, Rulemonger. You can either play it for ops points OR for the event. The event has NO RELATION to the ops points.


If you play it for the ops value and not the event it is reduced. If you play it for the event it MOVES the track TWO places, not because there is a 2 on the top of the card, but because it is an EVENT and you are applying the event text rather than using op points.

This one is very, very clear.



David "the preacher" Wilson
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
abimilech wrote:
This one depends on how you play the card, Rulemonger. You can either play it for ops points OR for the event. The event has NO RELATION to the ops points.

If you play it for the ops value and not the event it is reduced. If you play it for the event it MOVES the track TWO places, not because there is a 2 on the top of the card, but because it is an EVENT and you are applying the event text rather than using op points.

This one is very, very clear.


Seems that the point, repeated very, very clearly several times above, is somehow being missed.

Rulebook wrote:

8.2.3 when a War Event card is played (e.g., Arab-Israeli War, Korean War, etc.), the phasing player moves his marker on the Military Operations track a number of spaces equal to the Operations value of the card.

8.2.4 If a player uses a card for Operations points, and thereby triggers a War Event associated with his opponent, his opponent’s Military marker is moved on the Military Operations track a number of spaces equal to the Operations value of the card.


When you play a war event (or your opponent plays one of your war events for ops and you end up conducting the war event), then you move your Military marker a number of spaces equal to the Ops value of the card.

The event is DIRECTLY RELATED to the ops points by explicit rulebook text.

If you want to say that the card text saying to move exactly 2 spaces (where 2 may or may not be the Ops value of the card) is not simply a reminder of the rule, then you end up doing both -- applying card text and following the rule for moving the marker when you play a war event.

So, yes, after moving past that idea as clearly counter to design intent, you're left with deciding which piece to change (errata) to resolve the discrepancy. Change the rules (so that Military Ops isn't tracking accumulated Ops but rather some other accumulation figure) or change the card text so that the portion of the text that attempts to restate the rules actually restates the rules.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Wilson
United States
Carsoin
California
flag msg tools
I think you have a point, rulemonger. I'll take it up with Jason.


David "the preacher" Wilson
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Appreciate it.

And I see he's replied already.

But with equating 5.5 with "use designer intent".

I'll take that as the errata he wants to use though.

(For those not on CSW, the errata is to ignore the Military Ops marker movement prescribed in the rules regarding War Events and apply card text alone).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Whoa, whoa, I imagine that has repercussions on a much wider scale than the one card we were looking at. Are we sure he is saying that. Would not a card errata be better?robot
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
L. Scott Johnson
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jason was pretty clear about what he's saying, yes:

Jason Matthews (on CSW) wrote:

David, this one has been debated ad nasuem on the Geek. Allen has the correct interpretation as there is the overriding rule of 5.5 which states that card text which contradicts the written rules overrides the written rules.

To me, the debate there sounded like someone attempting something gamey and was using an ambiguity to justify it. The text of all the war cards is exactly the same on this point; all except Brush War (because it is non specific and limited to a 2 stability country) award 2 military operations. Other readings seem to me to try and run against the grain of relatively clear intent.

Red Scare/Purge does not exactly come in to play because the War Event, within the confines of its own card, defines the number of spaces to be moved, and does not refer to operations.


http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@164.ds1WbRziK2e.0@.1dcfd...
 
 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.