Assuming the English translation is authoritative, a player MUST buy a privilege tile if he/she takes the privilege action.

However, one can argue against this ruling with the point that, the rules never say that you have to be able to perform an action in order to be allowed to select it (compare with Agricola). The rules just say that, when your turn comes around, you select a group and place your dragon there, and perform an action within that group. What happens when one selects the group with the privilage action when he has no money?

And the rules don't even say that the player "must" buy a privilage; the rules just say that the player buys a privilage. There are a lot of cases in game rules when the absence of words like "must" or "may" can be intended to mean either way ...

If the rules say "the player buys a privilege" I would say you must buy one if you can afford it, but I think it's ok to take the action (placing your marker there and blocking it for other players) without the necessary money. Nothing in the rules says that in order to claim an action you need to legally be able to perform it, and in other games this sort of thing is clearly specified in the rules.

Has anyone sent the question to Rio Grande Games? Jay is very good about solving these types of issues, so there is really no need to make worthless speculation. A definitive answer can be gotten pretty easily.

well here is the rule.....

"When a player chooses this action, he **pays** either 2 yuan to obtain a small privilege or 6 yean for a large priviledge (paying the money to the general supply)"


now you are correct, the rules never say you must be able to execute an action in order to take it, but this appears to be a pretty clear case of rules lawyering... the intent of the rules seems to be that in order to do the privilege action that you must have at least 2 yuan and you must spend it. This looks to be a pretty clear example of one of those 'we never thought about someone not executing an action' kind of thing. As always you are free to play your game anyway you choose, I would assume though that the majority of players will play it that a player 'must' be able to execute the action in order to select it.

The problem is, I don't want to trust Jay with this one. Can anyone get in touch with Stefen Feld?

It clearly looks like an omission in the rules. The "literal" interpretation is not explicit.

The problem with the literal interpretation is that, it feels inconsistent with the rest of the cases, since all the other actions don't have costs or requirements. There is nothing preventing me from taking any other action purely for the purpose of "blocking" a later player (other than the obviously crucial requirement that I have to act before them), so why is there such a requirement for the Privilage action?

I think you can choose the way you play if you feel uncomfortable with a particular rule.

Besides, I wondered if there are any inconsistencies in the rule. The rule already states that a player carries out exactly 1 of the actions in the group. If he doesn't want to, he can skip his turn and takes 3 yuans. So, there is already an "escape" plan for those can't choose action (i.e. can't play for the privilege and no other groups can be selected.) Similarly, if one selects other actions (not the privilege), they have to execute those actions as stated.

The "must", "may", etc. already creates trouble for certain people. But, in literal sense, if present tense is used, you have to do what you told, no exception.

So, I would agree with other people that one must pay if he chooses a privilege action and has yuan to pay. If one has no yuan, it's up to you to choose how you could play.

Perhaps you mean Stefan Brück, the developer at alea? Surely you didn't mean to ask the designer, since as a group they are notoriously spotty at answering rules questions, as the game may have undergone revisions in the development process. The publishers have the last say in the finished product and, in Brück's case, he actually writes the rules for the alea games. If you don't "trust" Jay to make a rules clarification for a game he published, maybe you will accept Brück's word (unless, of course, you don't get the answer you are looking for)?

What if I selected the action, and then in the meantime changed my mind? (Maybe I realized I need to save money to buy actions in later months.)

I would say that you may choose the action without using it.

I don't know but i'd have to say that the literal version of the rules *is* pretty explicit, pay 2 or pay 6... there is no may pay 2 or pay 6, and there is no pay 0, or any if unable to pay then do this...

so while you may attempt to 'game' the void in the rules in regards to what happens if i'm unable or unwilling to execute an action, I see that strictly as gamesmanship, but you are free to play as you wish as always....

btw: am a i able to ignore the helmet action if I so choose? or only take partial amounts, the rules don't seem to cover that either?

Well, this topic is entirely academic and I'd bet that no one would ever want to play that move (unless he's not playing to win and just kingmaking).

Not quite. I may change my mind after realizing that I need to save money for later.

Or the only other available action may be fireworks, and the two months of fireworks had already happened. If only me and one other opponent are in contention, blocking may very well be the best move.

It really depends on how you play and your gamesmanship / sportsmanship. For our plays, we strictly follow that once you announce an action, you never regret it, no matter what. You can't say I don't want it now, or act other, etc. (Even that if one takes privilege action and declares to buy 1 privilege with 2 yuan, one can't change mind to buy 2 privileges with 6 yuan, either.)

But, of course, every group can choose their way to play games.

You are assuming that the rules don't allow you to do so.

Not everyone is making that same assumption.

For those who are open to both interprations of the rule, I was pointing out how they may make a difference.

So I would say it really depends on how I interpret the rules, instead of my sportsmanship.

You reminded me an occasion that I met one player, who was just interesting. He refused to play a card in Balloon Cup because the rule just states "in your turn, play a card." and it's not "in your turn, you MUST play a card" when he has no good card to play.

Oh wait, you perform the action immediately after choosing it? I was under the impression that everyone places their dragons first, and then resolve the actions.

I wouldn't compare the two situations. The OP's question is a lot more legitimate than that.

Sorry, it's clearly stated in the rule:



The action is immediately choose and executed by one player. Please read the rule.

Umm, let's look at how the English rulebook is written:



So, in your logic, you are arguing that the rule is not written in this way:


Thus, a player has the right to interpret this sentence in a way that his action become reasonable and he needs not execute the chosen action. I would say this is irrational.

I agree with Alan that the rulebook does not cover the situation what happens if a player intentionally select an action he can't fulfill.

But, I would still stick to a point that, according to what have written in the rulebook (assuming authoritative), a player shall execute what has been described, if he can.

My personal take on this rule is this...

1) I am assuming Stefan Feld (like Knizia) uses similar "mechanics" in his games.

2) If you compare with Notre Dame, it is legal for a player to select an action card that doesn't work (or can't produce the outcome). The player simply discards the card and doesn't take any action.

3) With this in mind, it seems that the feel & intent of the game is to allow players to place their dragon markers on action spots for the OPPORTUNITY to perform an action.

4) The game seems very brutal and "hard" on the players where every action you better get SOMETHING - otherwise you could potentially fall way behind. However, there may be rare occassions where a viable option would allow a higher initiative player to simply "sit" on an action for the purpose of making it more expensive for someone else. Using this tactic should be a VERY RARE choice because it will cause a "lose-lose" and using this tactic too often will ultimately make you lose as the design seems very unforgiving for those who aren't progressing enough to overcome the events.

I contacted Stefan Brück of alea and got an answer from him as to how this question should be addressed.

However, since no one seems to really want a definitive answer and would rather argue about how they think it should be played, plus it's from Stefan Brück, and not Stefan Feld and thus carries no weight to some fo the people in this thread, I'll just keep it to myself.

Carry on.

Paul, I'd like to have the answer from Bruck. I believe he's more involved in the development than Jay, and I won't bother to argue this topic more, since this is of hardly any practical significance. (I must be in a really screwed position if I were ever to think of wasting an action that way.)

Your comparison is moot because other actions have no cost and it is even rarer that anyone would ever want to forgo them. For example, in your case of build, even if one has no rice, it doesn't hurt to build a new palace since he does not have to occupy it and can just let it decay away. And in the case where he will be forced to occupy it, he will lose one more person to the drought, which is no worse than losing one person due to lack of palace room had he forgone the floors. So there is no need to allow players to forgo other actions; doing so would just increse rules complexity and downtime. (Compare with Puerto Rico; the rules don't allow forgoing part of your production for craftsman, and most people I believe won't allow one to forgo his colonists during Mayor even though the rules seem to allow that.)