Twilight Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Download the Twilight Strategy e-book!

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: South African Unrest wording change  (Read 3928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

theory

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Twilight Strategy
South African Unrest wording change
« on: October 21, 2012, 11:25:43 am »
0

In the original edition, the text says that if the USSR adds 1 Influence to South Africa, the USSR may add "2 Influence in any country adjacent to South Africa".

For some reason, in the deluxe edition, the text was changed to say, if the USSR adds 1 Influence to South Africa, the USSR may add "2 Influence in any countries adjacent to South Africa".

This country-to-countries change is a pretty major change, because it now opens the door for three possible interpretations of this card:

1) The traditional interpretation, which I believe everyone follows but is no longer the most natural reading of the card, which is that if you add 1 Influence to South Africa, you get 2 Influence in Angola OR Botswana but NOT both.

2) The new interpretation, which is now the more natural reading of the new text, which is that if you add 1 Influence to South Africa, you get 2 Influence to place in Angola OR Botswana OR both (i.e., you can put 1 in Angola and 1 in Botswana).

3) An alternative new interpretation, which is also a natural reading but almost certainly not intended, which is that if you add 1 Influence to South Africa you add 2 influence to all countries adjacent to South Africa. Here any means all.

So is this wording change intended to also change the effect of the event?
Logged

ristonj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Wargameroom username: JohnRiston_TSL
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2012, 02:39:40 pm »
0

With the new "countries" reading, I think that #2 is correct.  Even if I thought #1 is correct, and my F2F opponent wanted to place one influence in each country, I wouldn't really have a problem allowing it, even in a tournament situation.  Now, if he wanted to place two in each country, I think I'd have a problem with it.  I don't think that's the intended meaning.
Logged

bsheehan34

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Wargameroom username: brad_ts
  • Respect: +20
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2012, 09:22:51 pm »
+1

I know wgr enforces interpretation 1 but I feel like the wording leans more towards the second option.
Logged

rrwoods

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2012, 01:42:12 pm »
0

The way I've played it is:

4.  Add 2 influence, divided as you choose, among Angola and Botswana.
Logged

The Archon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2012, 02:45:53 pm »
0

I'd be interested in hearing from Jason Matthews or Ananda Gupta, or the Deluxe Edition developers if not them, as to why they changed that wording.  Was the change intentional?  The more obvious changes to the game (the influence in Canada, the inclusion of the Optional Cards and the CCW, and the change to Aldrich Ames) were at least explained (more or less).  Since this appears not to have been, I wonder if it was a mistake. 
Logged

() | (_) ^/

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Wargameroom username: paddyodoors
  • Respect: +9
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2012, 03:13:43 pm »
0

The way I've played it is:

4.  Add 2 influence, divided as you choose, among Angola and Botswana.

Isn't this functionally equivalent to #2 above?  If not, please help me out here.
Logged

rrwoods

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
  • Respect: +2
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2012, 03:40:45 pm »
0

The way I've played it is:

4.  Add 2 influence, divided as you choose, among Angola and Botswana.

Isn't this functionally equivalent to #2 above?  If not, please help me out here.
You're right, I just completely missed the last part of it somehow and thought he meant you had to put it all in one or the other.
Logged

trevaur

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2012, 10:46:08 am »
0

The developers released a package of 3 cards that were corrections to the existing cards. South African Unrest was not included in this package, so therefore the new card (ie, card in the new editions) shouldn't "replace" the old card, and thus I can't imagine that the wording change was intentional.

Here is are the changes:
http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic708037_md.jpg
Top row are the original cards, bottom row are the replacements.
The fixes were:
Special Relationship and Our Man in Tehran originally had a red underline, representing continuing events. These underlines were removed.
Norad was originally not starred or underlined and had ambiguous wording regarding the placing of influence. All of these issues were fixed.
It seems to me that if the wording change was intentional, The new South African Unrest card would have been included in these.
Logged

The Archon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2012, 12:42:10 pm »
+1

The developers released a package of 3 cards that were corrections to the existing cards. South African Unrest was not included in this package, so therefore the new card (ie, card in the new editions) shouldn't "replace" the old card, and thus I can't imagine that the wording change was intentional.

Here is are the changes:
http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic708037_md.jpg
Top row are the original cards, bottom row are the replacements.
The fixes were:
Special Relationship and Our Man in Tehran originally had a red underline, representing continuing events. These underlines were removed.
Norad was originally not starred or underlined and had ambiguous wording regarding the placing of influence. All of these issues were fixed.
It seems to me that if the wording change was intentional, The new South African Unrest card would have been included in these.

Perhaps, but those three cards are all Optional Cards that were released for the very first time in the Deluxe Edition.  These changes were therefore just erratas to the Deluxe Edition that were quickly corrected by GMT, and were not changes to previous versions of the cards in respective previous editions.  I think that lends itself to the possibility that South African Unrest was intended to be "fixed" by the Deluxe Edition, much like Aldrich Ames was.  However, a counterpoint to that is that they actually changed the name of the Aldrich Ames card to the Aldrich Ames Remix (and thus intended it to be played at dance clubs).  But the Ames card WAS intended to replace the previous version of the card, and is not optional.  There was no note (to my recollection) in the Deluxe Edition rules explaining the change to Aldrich Ames and why they did it, and perhaps they renamed it because it plays radically different than it did in the previous edition.  So maybe the publishers felt that South African Unrest was not quite good enough, or was not quite historically accurate, so they wanted to give it more flexibility in a similar manner in that they clearly felt that the original Aldrich Ames card was too powerful and felt that it should change. 

This is all speculation, of course.  So you could be right. 
Logged

trevaur

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • Respect: +14
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2012, 12:55:43 pm »
0

Good point, these fixes were made for just the optional cards then. Did the developers say anything about Aldrich Ames Remix when the deluxe edition was released? I've only ever played the deluxe edition, so I don't really know what the changes were from the original.
Logged

bsheehan34

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 44
  • Wargameroom username: brad_ts
  • Respect: +20
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2012, 04:23:27 pm »
0

The original allowed the USSR to force the us to play his hand in a specific order. I believe the reason given for the change was that the card bogged the game down while the soviet player took time to figure out the best way to order the cards.
Logged

Azuredarkness

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Respect: +5
    • View Profile
Re: South African Unrest wording change
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2012, 08:29:43 am »
0

I concur with the majority here - the second interpretation is the only one that makes sense given the change.
Logged
Pages: [1]
 

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.