From the rulebook:

Note: When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager

Because unopposed, you're only guaranteed to get your team zone payout, center payout has to be won. But a lone manager gets both team zones and center payout, yes.

Because unopposed, you're only guaranteed to get your team zone payout, center payout has to be won. But a lone manager gets both team zones and center payout, yes.

Unopposed and lone sounds like exactly the same thing.

How are you certain that being alone at a matchup gives you all three payouts? It's not clear in the rules and the F.A.Q doesn't say anything either.

Sorry, meant to say opposed, not unopposed.

As to how/why, rules say "When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager

collects all payouts ..." (p. 13). Payouts, as listed in the bit just before, are two team zones and central payout. Is getting 2 out of 3 payouts ALL payouts?

That's PART of the ruletext. If it were like that it would be crystalclear. However, there's more to it.

The full quote goes: "When only one team has players at a matchup, that teams manager collects all payouts shown on the card instead of only collecting the payout for his teamzone."

That last part "instead of only collecting the payout for his teamzone " make it sound like you get your teamzone and center.

One of the veterans of the boardgamenight place say that you only get teamzone and center. Seems his wrong. But the rules are worded in a tricky way that allows it to be interpreted like that.

I do use the version of "lone = gets everything" and is the one I teach to new players.

We play the rule as only winning your zone and the center payout. We never let the player take the other team zone payout. We feel it would be unfair if the team manager takes the absent teams team zone payout. Think of it like this. This is a role playing card game so say you and your team show up to play a game/tournament game and the opposing team is a no show/forfeit, does the winning team get the consolation prize as well? I say no, the winning team gets their door prize (team zone payout) and the winning trophy (center payout). And the consolation prize (other team zone payout) goes unclaimed.

We play the rule as only winning your zone and the center payout. We never let the player take the other team zone payout. We feel it would be unfair if the team manager takes the absent teams team zone payout. Think of it like this. This is a role playing card game so say you and your team show up to play a game/tournament game and the opposing team is a no show/forfeit, does the winning team get the consolation prize as well? I say no, the winning team gets their door prize (team zone payout) and the winning trophy (center payout). And the consolation prize (other team zone payout) goes unclaimed.

I Believe that using realworld rules doesn't work in games. Using realworld logic can help but in your case I cannot agree.

Getting all payouts on the card makes a player invest more tackles to get rid of an opponent from that match in order to get a greater payout. With your rules, a player will settle for winning and can therefore afford to spread out more.

So I will use the system the rulebook describes.

My interpretation: Unopposed = The other didn't show up = You collect EVERYTHING.

I think the rulebook is crystal clear.

If that is what they mean, why not say it like:

Note: "When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects all payouts shown on the card instead of only collecting the payout for his team zone and center "

Because this wouldn't be correct either. The direct logical implication of your proposal is that normally the team gains the payout both for his team zone and the center, which is clearly not possible: if two teams are at the same highlight, only one gets the center zone payout (so, your "instead" sentence is not working).

Additionally, "all" means "all", not two out of three. If two payouts were intended, the sentence would have been worded:

"When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects the payout for the center zone in addition to the payout for his team zone"

Instead, they used "all", and I believe they used the word "all" to intend "all". So, I'm with Dam on this one.

"If only one team is present at a matchup, they are considered the sole winner of that matchup and do collect all payouts on that card."

That's the clarification I received from a game designer.

If that is what they mean, why not say it like:

Note: "When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects all payouts shown on the card instead of only collecting the payout for his team zone and center "

Because this wouldn't be correct either. The direct logical implication of your proposal is that normally the team gains the payout both for his team zone and the center, which is clearly not possible: if two teams are at the same highlight, only one gets the center zone payout (so, your "instead" sentence is not working).

Additionally, "all" means "all", not two out of three. If two payouts were intended, the sentence would have been worded:

"When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects the payout for the center zone in addition to the payout for his team zone"

Instead, they used "all", and I believe they used the word "all" to intend "all". So, I'm with Dam on this one.

It's not MY 'instead' sentence, it is the rulebooks. I only added the underlined part .

I still stand by that they should have discarded the "instead of only collecting the payout for his teamzone" to make it more clear.

If that is what they mean, why not say it like:

Note: "When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects all payouts shown on the card instead of only collecting the payout for his team zone and center "

Because this wouldn't be correct either. The direct logical implication of your proposal is that normally the team gains the payout both for his team zone and the center, which is clearly not possible: if two teams are at the same highlight, only one gets the center zone payout (so, your "instead" sentence is not working).

Additionally, "all" means "all", not two out of three. If two payouts were intended, the sentence would have been worded:

"When only one team has players at a matchup, that team’s manager collects the payout for the center zone in addition to the payout for his team zone"

Instead, they used "all", and I believe they used the word "all" to intend "all". So, I'm with Dam on this one.

It's not MY 'instead' sentence, it is the rulebooks. I only added the underlined part .

I still stand by that they should have discarded the "instead of only collecting the payout for his teamzone" to make it more clear.

And I said that the underlined part doesn't make the sentence any clearer because the direct logical implication is a paradox: it implies that normally a team gains both the team zone and the central zone, which is obviously not true.

Nonetheless, more or less everybody here gave you the same answer: all means all. If you're not happy with the way the community reads the rules, then play it your way. If you believe we are all struggling for an official ruling about this non-issue, feel free to use the "rules question" button of this very site and ask FFG an official answer. Easy peasy

If you're not happy with the way the community reads the rules, then play it your way. If you believe we are all struggling for an official ruling about this non-issue, feel free to use the "rules question" button of this very site and ask FFG an official answer.

Yep, I posted the game designer's answer in my previous post so I guess there is nothing else to discuss in regards to that particular point.

And I said that the underlined part doesn't make the sentence any clearer because the direct logical implication is a paradox: it implies that normally a team gains both the team zone and the central zone, which is obviously not true.

Nonetheless, more or less everybody here gave you the same answer: all means all. If you're not happy with the way the community reads the rules, then play it your way. If you believe we are all struggling for an official ruling about this non-issue, feel free to use the "rules question" button of this very site and ask FFG an official answer. Easy peasy

I completely disagree, but no matter. I've got my answer and it's settled.

Yep, I posted the game designer's answer in my previous post so I guess there is nothing else to discuss in regards to that particular point.

How do we know it's from a gamedesigner? I'm a bit new here.

How do we know it's from a gamedesigner? I'm a bit new here.

Under "Customer Service" you can submit a "Rules Question", which goes directly to the game designers. I received an answer from Jason Wal d en , who has " Game Producer" in his signature. Of course there is no proof I can show people for this, and all I can do is quoting the response so theoritically I could toy with it all I want, so I guess you just have to trust me or doublecheck yourself

So ALL does = ALL. Good to know.