Wow! Just realized I am a moderator. Weird. I heard it was being discussed. Didn't realize it was a reality.
The Tunnel (pgs. 74-75):
• p.74 – "untagged": Despite your explanation, I still don't like the term. "Tagging" in the US refers often to graffiti and that is the first thing that came to my mind. Perhaps "unclaimed" would be better?
Done. 'Claim' is much better.
• p.74 – "tunnel entrance". Not sure if it matters, but train tunnels are called "portals", though this may cause confusion with "magic portals".
I think that's better as well. I was always a little uneasy with entrances, because you have two separate entrances which become and entrance and an exit when linked. 'Portal' avoids that, so unless there are any major complaints it can stay. I did leave a couple of references to entrances and exits, but put them in quotation marks. As for magic portals, I could happily change that to magic gate to avoid confusion
• p.74n198 – "it clearly clarifies that...". A bit redundant.
D'oh. Deleted 'clearly'.
• p.74 – The in-text footnote for 199 is in the same style as the header, but I feel it should probably be more in style with the regular text. Right now, it seems a little overlarge and detailed.
Agreed. I can't change the font format of the footnote without changing the format of the header. So I moved the footnote to the end of the first sentence.
The Plague (pgs. 84-88):
• p.84 – "the plague is spreading" should probably read "the plague spreads".
Okay. I feel it worked fine the other way... But changed to 'the plague spreads throughout' to keep it a little more active.
• p.84 – " A follower on a affected tile is removed without score". Should read "scoring".
• p.84 – "It is never part of a epidemic". Should read "an".
Done.
• p.85 – "Prepare the tokens." What does this mean?
Indeed. That really is all the rules say. A clear example of The Plague not being authored by HiG. What it means, I assume, is that the infestation and flea tokens should be placed to one side, where they can be used as neutral tokens by all players. I'd prefer not to write that in the text (strays too far from being a translation). Could add a footnote though...
• p.85 – Taking flight from the plague – Is a flea or outbreak required to be in a follower's feature for the follower to flee? Or can a follower anywhere on the board flee if they feel like it? This could have massive reprucussions for play with The Dragon and The Tower, since you could hypothetically flee from peripheral towers or from a rampaging dragon.
There is no mention of this in the text. Personally, I think any follower anywhere on the board may take flight. Once the plague hits, everyone is in a panic. We'll have to wait for an official ruling, but I've added a footnote that it's unclear.
• p.85n209 – "first 18 tiles placements of the game." Should read "tile".
Done.
• p.86 – "(instead the privilege of largely choosing where the infestation will occur)". Sounds awkward.
There was meant to be a 'having' in there. Deleted brackets and 'largely', so now reads, "turn, having instead the privilege of choosing where the infestation will occur." Better?
• p.87 – "Just take the six tiles with that come with the set as an example:".
• p.87 – "which makes should make it clear"
Done.
I looked up to see if "infestation" is a word that could be used to describe the Bubonic Plague and, sure enough, it is. Apparently the plague is a bacteria—I always thought it was a virus—and bacteria infest. Rats and fleas infest too. So we're good with your terminology. Awesome translation overall, by the way. Maybe Jay can hire you as the official rules translator at Rio Grande.
Glad 'infestation' works, and you're happy with the translation. Jay's not going to hire me, btw. I upset him once
The Party (pg. 89):
• "deploy one figure" and "return one figure". So does this mean you can also do these actions with pig, builder, and barn, or should this read "follower"?
The rules do actually say 'figure', and that is the only time in the text that the word is used—everywhere else it's 'follower'. I take that to mean all normal and special followers are affected, but obviously not neutrals. Footnote added.
• "or" was originally bold. Was this intentionally decapitalized?
Yes. I see no reason for it to be capital, and I'm not a fan of shouting. But I should check through the rest of the text to see how I've treated such cases elsewhere. Thanks for pointing it out.
The Phantom (pg. 90):
• "After placing a tile, the player may deploy the phantom to the it as a second follower." This doesn't make sense.
deleted 'the'
• "As such, in this turn the player may deploy two followers to two different segments." Shouldn't this read "features"?
You're right. My bad. I'm sure there's the same issue in the rules for Crop Circles.
That's it for now. I will read through BC&B (CB&B?) later when I have more time.
Brilliant. Thanks
I can see that CB&B is going to cause problems, so maybe I should change it back...
p. 77, second paragraph, second sentence:
Should read, "Anyone who has already received a tile may not longer take part in the bidding. "
p. 84, second paragraph, "A follower on an affected tile is removed without score."
I apologize if this was already noted.
Done and done. Thanks
After McJazz made the comment: "Lastly, the Princess can be used to remove a follower (large, small, whatever) from a city. I don't see why Crop Circles would be any different." on the Crop Circles Rules thread, I'm suddenly inclined to agree with him. Regardless of HiG's original intent, they rarely consider previous expansions in their rules and I agree that Crop Circles should regard any follower. Does anyone else agree?
It would still only apply to normal followers and not special figures, I assume. Could add a footnote... will wait for more comments.
So, I've uploaded a version with these corrections. In the footer it still says v5.0b8, but in the version history I've mentioned v5.0b9.
