"wasting" moves to avoid event

[Ditto11]

Ok, so quick question .. I'm aware of this thread:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28158

and the related "bugs" reported, as well as the rules shown in the rulebook:

burgler_bros_event.png (111.62 KiB) Viewed 569 times

However, I have a question that challenges the "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended".

Note, I'm not trying to exploit, I'm just trying to understand things better.

If we have 3 tiles together (no walls, guards, etc.)
(A)Service Duct <-> (B)Safe <-> (C)Service Duct

And the player starts in (A) Service Duct.
Then moves:
A->B->C->A
using 3 actions, and hence avoiding an event.

he is not "simply moving back and forth between tiles" ... but it is pretty obvious the intent of his movement.

Keep in mind getting something like this setup may be rare enough to say "if you get that setup, use it, better for you!" ...
or a purist says "Nope, stop cheesing the game!"

Just wondering what the opinion is of others.

(no, this hasn't happened in any game, just a thought exercise )

[Ez0ah]

IMO, if the state of the game is the same at 2 points of your turn (everyone is at the same place, no new alarm, no revealed info, no lost stealth), then you have essentially waisted turns. And I can’t see any point to wasting turns other than avoiding the event. So I think it would fall under what’s intended behind « moving back and forth »

That being said, as there are no control implemented, I wouldn’t mind that much if someone is wasting turns.

[Romain672]

Here is what I said in the first bug report of it: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=43457

"Problem is it's really hard to code, what if:
- you move to try to open a keypad, failed and goes back
- you move to pass items to someone else, and goes back
- you trigger an alarm to save someone else, and goes back
- you trigger an alarm in a specific tile with juicer to save someone else, and goes back
- you peek a tile, and goes back
- you move to add a dice or roll, and goes back
- you move to put raven at the right place to save someone else, and goes back
- you used crowbar/smoke bomb, and goes back
- you traded an item to pass to someone else, and take back the item to make the game think you did something useful when in reality you didn't

And I forgot a lot more cases. Like I said, it's really hard to think to all cases."

For me all thoses cases except the last one are legal.

[Ditto11]

IMO, if the state of the game is the same at 2 points of your turn (everyone is at the same place, no new alarm, no revealed info, no lost stealth), then you have essentially waisted turns. And I can’t see any point to wasting turns other than avoiding the event. So I think it would fall under what’s intended behind « moving back and forth »

That being said, as there are no control implemented, I wouldn’t mind that much if someone is wasting turns.

agreed, it seems to be clear what the intent is ... just choice of wording makes it ambiguous. That said, I still feel there are certain scenarios that are .. "ok" ... with having the state return to same.

Here is what I said in the first bug report of it: https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=43457

oh good ones! I'm gonna address each in turn ..

"Problem is it's really hard to code, what if:
- you move to try to open a keypad, failed and goes back

This is a good example, I hadn't thought of that one. This one is REALLY hard to detect ...

- you move to pass items to someone else, and goes back

If you pass the items, that's easy to detect, you'll spot the change in items ...
if the trade results in no change, however ... then it seems like it's either a coordinated "dodge", or just a failed trade (which shouldn't be prevented).
This example alone makes it very very hard to code for .. ouch.

- you trigger an alarm to save someone else, and goes back

This is easy to detect, new alarm is present, so state has changed ..

- you trigger an alarm in a specific tile with juicer to save someone else, and goes back

Again, easy to detect, alarm present .. or with advanced juicer, she'll have the alarm on her.
I can see a hard to detect is putting a hack token on a tile, and immediately using it as you move into a neighboring space, then move back.

- you peek a tile, and goes back

Easy to detect, as new tile visible, so something changed.

- you move to add a dice or roll, and goes back

Easy to detect, (except for said Keypad) .. as the safe would have new dice.
Now if you roll, but nothing gained (similar to keypad) ... hmm, that one IS trickier. same issue there.

- you move to put raven at the right place to save someone else, and goes back

Raven itself (the bird, not the character) has moved, supposedly, so something changed ... we're good - easy to detect.

- you used crowbar/smoke bomb, and goes back

Tool is used, state changed, we're good, easy to detect.

- you traded an item to pass to someone else, and take back the item to make the game think you did something useful when in reality you didn't

Yeah, this is similar to a fake or cancelled trade .. this is a hard one to detect .. hmmmm

And I forgot a lot more cases. Like I said, it's really hard to think to all cases."

For me all those cases except the last one are legal.

Yes, agreed, and most of them are easy to detect .. but you definitely got me thinking more .. (and yes, I started this question to clarify logic, as I am pondering the logic of checking for this programmatically )

So far, the big problem moves are:

1) Move into keypad any number of times, but fail to open. Hard to detect - results in False Positive. This should be allowed, however, could be abused by only attempting once (ie move next to keypad, move into keypad/fail, move back to safe spot). I feel like this is a fair move, but easy to exploit.
2) Roll on safe - don't get any numbers. Same as keypad above.
3) "Fake" trade - coordinated: Illegal. Cancelled by other player as they don't want to trade. False positive? Although since it's a free action, you can easily reset your turn, and knowing the other player doesn't want to trade, you can move otherwise. So even then, perhaps it should just be dissallowed.
4) Hack token, added/used in same turn. I feel like this is a false positive, but if you end in same space with only doing this, then it does seem the only reason to do it is obvious. So guess this is an illegal one as well.
5) Service Duct "jitter". Seems again like it should be illegal, however, due to the rarity of the setup, I feel like it's best ignored either way. If we can detect it great, if not, no big deal ?

the other cases you provided, I feel are super easy to detect, so those aren't the problems.

Thanks .. this is giving me something to think about. ...

[Earthboundia]

Ok, so quick question .. I'm aware of this thread:
https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28158

and the related "bugs" reported, as well as the rules shown in the rulebook:
burgler_bros_event.png

However, I have a question that challenges the "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended".

Note, I'm not trying to exploit, I'm just trying to understand things better.

If we have 3 tiles together (no walls, guards, etc.)
(A)Service Duct <-> (B)Safe <-> (C)Service Duct

And the player starts in (A) Service Duct.
Then moves:
A->B->C->A
using 3 actions, and hence avoiding an event.

he is not "simply moving back and forth between tiles" ... but it is pretty obvious the intent of his movement.

Keep in mind getting something like this setup may be rare enough to say "if you get that setup, use it, better for you!" ...
or a purist says "Nope, stop cheesing the game!"

Just wondering what the opinion is of others.

(no, this hasn't happened in any game, just a thought exercise )

The example you have given is something I have seen in a few of my games. Despite it being extremely rare and while it is true you would be going to 3 unique tiles, you are ultimately going back and forth just in a less linear way. Plus if you have the stamp tool then this is a way of avoiding that.

[Ditto11]

Ok, so this is all helping, I've been pondering how to resolve this issue, and I feel like I'm onto something. I have some logic flowcharted out, and so far, it appears to be fairly robust with all the test cases I can come up with so far.

That said, as I was going things, I have come up with another oddity I wanted to ask for opinions on. I feel like this is another example of "loitering", and should be illegal. As easy as it is to detect however, how to respond to it and resolve it is probably a bit trickier than other cases (ie simply restart the turn).

Using the Spotter (either one):

Move 1 space.
Use your ability.
Move back to original space.

Now this is most likely an attempt at loitering, however, it could have also been a mistake of moving first, before using spotter ability and then realizing you want to go back the other way (and can't undo past the ability now) .. but I think that's just a case of "should have" used spotter ability first.

Anyway, what are thoughts on this? Clear loitering, or something that should be allowed?
Or perhaps spotter should be forced to use their first action (or last) on their ability ? (which could help avoid this situation entirely ?)