Science tags not registering

[Mal_h]

I have abandoned a game in which I have used 4 cards with science icons but only 1 is shown in tags. As I had 3 additional cards requiring 3, 5 and 7 tags the game became useless. The game seems to be getting worse in this way,

[chaney]

The working versions of the game make it clear: In the official rules, Event cards (red border) get turned over after use and their tags are no longer in play. This isn't a working version of the game.

[puschit]

Originally posted by chaney:

The working versions of the game make it clear: In the official rules, Event cards (red border) get turned over after use and their tags are no longer in play. This isn't a working version of the game.

Are you sure? The arrow symbol for event is a tag itself and that still counts, so why would it disregard other tags?

[AronFJenks]

Originally posted by puschit:

Originally posted by chaney:

The working versions of the game make it clear: In the official rules, Event cards (red border) get turned over after use and their tags are no longer in play. This isn't a working version of the game.

Are you sure? The arrow symbol for event is a tag itself and that still counts, so why would it disregard other tags?

Have you ever read the rule book?

Yes, he is sure. Tags on event cards do not count toward your collection of permanent tags.

I am not sure what you mean when you say the event tag itself "still counts". Still counts for what? I am not aware of any cards that require x number of event tags.

There is one card (Media archives) that gives money based on the total number of event cards played by all players - but in the physical game, that would not require counting tags, technically, it would just require counting each player's pile of face-down already-played event cards. When the game shows how many event tags have been played, it's just indicating how many event cards have been played for the purposes of that one specific card. And, I think one of the expansion maps has a milestone based on having played 5 event cards. But as far as I know, there are no situations in which the number of event TAGS is relevant. The purpose of the arrow tag is merely to reinforce that the card is an event card, since some people might not see colors well and might not see the red border indicating an event card.

Also, since you appear to have access to the internet, there is always the option of typing something like this into a search engine:

"terraforming mars event tags"

and literally the first result would conclusively answer your question.

Also, you are approximately the 200th person to report this "bug". (Typically, before I report a bug, I research the rule first to make sure I actually understand the rule.)

In fairness to you and the others incorrectly reporting this bug, the game probably should gray out the tags on already-played event cards.

A long time ago, the cards were actually shown face down in a player's played-cards tableau, but the problem there is that if a player looked away from the screen for a moment and his opponent played an event card, the player would be unable to see which card had been played. That was never the intent of the rule book suggestion to place event cards face down.

Ideally, the physical copy of the rule book for the physical game would have said, "Keep the played event cards face up or face down, your choice, but either way, keep them in a separate pile so as to remember not to count their tags when making future plays that rely on the number of permanent tags.

[chaney]

Originally posted by puschit:

Are you sure?

Yes.

Media Archives text reads "Gain 1 MC for each event ever played by all players."

The same icon is used as the event icon, but the text states the rule referring to the cards played, not their Tags.

You can download the official rule book from the official site to verify. From page 10:
"Events (red cards, C) are collected in a personal pile face down after being played. Their tags only apply while being played"

[puschit]

No, I have not read the rulebook. Like most players I was taught to play the game verbally and apparently those people taught it wrong. I mean, it's a single line of text, not intuitive and easy to forget even if you have read it. There is no reason for you to go passive-aggressive and patronizing because someone asked a simple question.

[AronFJenks]

Originally posted by puschit:

No, I have not read the rulebook. Like most players I was taught to play the game verbally and apparently those people taught it wrong. I mean, it's a single line of text, not intuitive and easy to forget even if you have read it. There is no reason for you to go passive-aggressive and patronizing because someone asked a simple question.

You haven't read the rule book, yet, when a veteran of the game (Chaney) referenced the official rules, showing no doubt or ambiguity of his own understanding, you responded with, "Are you sure?"

And now you're criticizing me for being passive aggressive? I am baffled.

Nothing I did was passive aggressive. I explained the rule, explained some related pieces of information, demonstrated that Terraforming Mars is a popular enough game that rules questions can be answered with a google search, went into significant detail explaining the differences between the physical board game and this digital implementation, and affirmed that what chaney was saying is correct.

There was a lot of useful information in my post, when I could have simply said, "Just google it, the first result will answer the question".

If you found my comment objectionable or passive aggressive, that's on you, not me.

[puschit]

Dude, this game is so full of bugs that I asked for clarification on a rule you yourself admit isn't clearly implemented. And if you can't see any passive-aggressiveness in your replay, fine. Maybe that's normal where you come from or even internet-norm by now. I am old and try to cope with this, not always succeeding.

[AronFJenks]

Originally posted by puschit:

Dude, this game is so full of bugs that I asked for clarification on a rule you yourself admit isn't clearly implemented. And if you can't see any passive-aggressiveness in your replay, fine. Maybe that's normal where you come from or even internet-norm by now. I am old and try to cope with this, not always succeeding.

I was trying to help. I took a lot of extra time out of my day to provide extra information that I thought would be helpful.

Yes, the game is full of bugs. That's why chaney (the first person who responded) referred to the official rules. He's an expert of the game and a veteran forum member. There was no reason to doubt his reply, especially since he references the actual official rules.

Since you still seemed doubtful (for whatever reasons; I cannot get inside your head to understand why you doubted his unambiguous reply, especially since you could have simply googled his answer), I affirmed his answer and gave you additional information.

If you feel as though I was passive aggressive, perhaps you can provide your definition of "passive aggressive", since I'm not seeing how you have arrived at that judgment. Perhaps you and I define the term differently?

Either way - May I make a suggestion? When a forum member unambiguously answers a question, and references the official rules in the process, maybe just go with it, or perform a google search, rather than questioning the veracity of the reply?