Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Discussions about BGA (all languages)
Forum rules
Warning: challenging a moderation in Forum = 10 days ban
More info & details about how to challenge a moderation: viewtopic.php?p=119756
Locked
User avatar
MrWatchdog
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 January 2016, 21:01

Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Post by MrWatchdog »

Did the rules for Saboteur 2 change?

I saw in several tables that when a digger (blue or green) reaches the goal card and there is not a door in the path, all digers get gold (only 1 each, considering there are 5+ diggers usually). The score screen stated "The treasure has been found and both teams can get to it: diggers win this round together!"

But the rules were not like that. If a green digger reached gold, only greens got gold and same with blue. Why change it and why not communicate players about that??

Table 25781794, move 19
Table 25783383, move 23
Table 25782570, move 82
demiurgsage
Posts: 229
Joined: 07 August 2015, 10:08

Re: Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Post by demiurgsage »

Most likely it's a bug. Report it.
The rules of Sabouteur 2 are clear on this point. And no new rules were published as far as I know.
User avatar
Een
Posts: 3861
Joined: 16 June 2010, 19:52

Re: Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Post by Een »

In fact, someone contacted the game designer and in the following exchange there was a misunderstanding, and we thought that we implemented that rule wrong, and changed it.

But in fact, it was implemented right, so we came back to the previous implementation. Should be good again.
demiurgsage
Posts: 229
Joined: 07 August 2015, 10:08

Re: Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Post by demiurgsage »

Een wrote:In fact, someone contacted the game designer
Most likely he was a saboteur :)
User avatar
MrWatchdog
Posts: 37
Joined: 10 January 2016, 21:01

Re: Rules for Saboteur 2 changed?

Post by MrWatchdog »

Een wrote:In fact, someone contacted the game designer and in the following exchange there was a misunderstanding, and we thought that we implemented that rule wrong, and changed it.

But in fact, it was implemented right, so we came back to the previous implementation. Should be good again.
Cool!
I had reported it as a bug as well, and I received an e-mail marking it as fixed. Thank you very much. ;)
Locked

Return to “Discussions”