Rainbow Bridge in Iron Dragon
Rick Jones
played that the Rainbow Bridge was permanent once it turned up
(excluding the other event that turns it and the other magic bridge off
for one round of turns). Nothing on the card or in the rules states that
the Rainbow Bridge is permanent. In fact, the default in the computer
game is that it lasts just one round of turns, and this was approved by
the designers.
Does anybody ever play that the Rainbow Bridge is *not* permanent
once it comes up?
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
"Relax. You'll live longer." -Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Total
Recall"
Jim Bailey
> I think nearly every game of Iron Dragon that I have ever played we
>played that the Rainbow Bridge was permanent once it turned up
>(excluding the other event that turns it and the other magic bridge off
>for one round of turns). Nothing on the card or in the rules states that
>the Rainbow Bridge is permanent. In fact, the default in the computer
>game is that it lasts just one round of turns, and this was approved by
>the designers.
> Does anybody ever play that the Rainbow Bridge is *not* permanent
>once it comes up?
I don't recall ever having played that it only lasts one turn. That just
doesn't make sense to me, so most games I've been in have been just as you
described with it being permanent for the rest of the game. However, Iron
Dragon *is* the one crayon rails game where we play by official rules about
building out of any major city only twice per turn, since the ship rules make a
disjointed network not only make sense but necessary (we otherwise play that
you have to build out of your existing network, otherwise you'd just about
never have to pay the $5 big city cost).
I have heard of an interesting variant for Iron Dragon where you add in the 3
or so blank cards, then the blanks plus the Rainbow Bridge "on" card all work
as toggle switches for it.
Best,
Jim Bailey
--
Elysian Fiction (Fantasy short story e-zine)
http://www.elysianfiction.com/
Bruno Wolff III
> I think nearly every game of Iron Dragon that I have ever played we
> played that the Rainbow Bridge was permanent once it turned up
> (excluding the other event that turns it and the other magic bridge off
> for one round of turns). Nothing on the card or in the rules states that
> the Rainbow Bridge is permanent. In fact, the default in the computer
> game is that it lasts just one round of turns, and this was approved by
> the designers.
> Does anybody ever play that the Rainbow Bridge is *not* permanent
> once it comes up?
The official rule for the Rainbow Bridge has changed at least once.
If you search through google groups you can probably find some discussions
about it from about 5-10 years ago.
We usually play it as permanent (and counts for connecting cities), since the
one turn version was pretty pointless. I remember that some people put
the card back in the deck and when it comes up again the bridge goes away.
Llarry
Strike turns off Wikedde/Ozu-Zarkh for one turn (as normal), but turns off
the Rainbow Bridge (if active) "permanently" (that is, until the deck gets
shuffled and the Bridge comes back)
--
--Llarry Amrose
"I did not go to his funeral, but I wrote a nice letter saying I approved of
it." -- Mark Twain
"Bruno Wolff III" <br...@wolff.to> wrote in message
news:slrnc2hkp2...@localhost.localdomain...
------------------------------8<------------------------------------------
LRoznai
Rick Jones wrote:
<<I think nearly every game of Iron Dragon that I have ever played we played
that the Rainbow Bridge was permanent once it turned up (excluding the other
event that turns it and the other magic bridge off or one round of turns).
Nothing on the card or in the rules states that
the Rainbow Bridge is permanent. >>
Okay Folks here is the definitive answer. The current edition (2nd) has
adjusted the language on the card for the Rainbow Bridge. It now states on the
card that the Rainbow Bridge stays in effect for the remainder of the game.
This is the official rule for normal play. For tournaments check with your
tournament director. The wizards strike will suspend the Bridge for the time
it is in effect but the bridge will start to function again after the Wizards
go back to work. I hope this clears it up. Also just in case somebody goes
there the FAQ for Iron Dragon on our website is wrong and we hope to get it
fixed sooner rather than later.
Thanks for your patience,
Larry Roznai
Geoffrey DeWan
: Rick Jones wrote:
The group I play with house ruled it temporary for play balance
reasons, because when permanent, it benifited those with access to the
link too much.
Boyd Bottorff
> The group I play with house ruled it temporary for play balance
> reasons, because when permanent, it benifited those with access to the
> link too much.
The "toggle" rule does balance that out a bit. I really wish they'ld
make it official and adjust the delivery payoffs accordingly.
Richard Bell
Rick Jones <rtj...@extra.ev1.net> wrote:
> I think nearly every game of Iron Dragon that I have ever played we
>played that the Rainbow Bridge was permanent once it turned up
>(excluding the other event that turns it and the other magic bridge off
>for one round of turns). Nothing on the card or in the rules states that
>the Rainbow Bridge is permanent. In fact, the default in the computer
>game is that it lasts just one round of turns, and this was approved by
>the designers.
> Does anybody ever play that the Rainbow Bridge is *not* permanent
>once it comes up?
>
the Rainbow Bridge" events and treated the Rainbow Bridge event card as a
fourth toggle card. This meant that the duration of the Rainbow Bridge
was an indeterminate length of time, but that it would be up twice in the
run of the deck.
Iron Dragon is the only crayon rail game where our group relaxed the house
rule that you could only build track that was connected to your existing
track (except for the initial build), but not until after the game where
someone's train was stranded in Octomare, after the bridge went down.
Jonathan R. Ferro
> Iron Dragon is the only crayon rail game where our group relaxed the house
> rule that you could only build track that was connected to your existing
> track (except for the initial build), but not until after the game where
> someone's train was stranded in Octomare, after the bridge went down.
I'm interested in knowing what situation caused you to enact that house
rule in the first place. All crayon rails games that I have played
allow building out from large cities twice per build phase for the
normal cost, regardless of whether you have built "to" those cities in
the past. This ability is limited by requiring you to pay extra for
further large city connections in the same build phase. Did you find
that people were abusing this? If so, did you try cutting it down to
just one "out" build per turn instead of removing it altogether?
-- Jon
Don Woods
> rlb...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:
> > Iron Dragon is the only crayon rail game where our group relaxed the house
> > rule that you could only build track that was connected to your existing
> > track (except for the initial build), but not until after the game where
> > someone's train was stranded in Octomare, after the bridge went down.
>
> I'm interested in knowing what situation caused you to enact that house
> rule in the first place.
As near as I can tell from the other times this topic has come up,
the group(s) that use that house rule instituted it simply because
they felt that the cost of 5 to build into a major city would never
come up. I have no idea why they felt the need to make such a huge
change to the game just to make sure the $5 building cost would
arise.
Frankly, I think it would make more sense (and have less impact on
the game) to use a house rule that forbids building into major
cities at all (and still limits you to 2 out-builds per turn),
since I think the main effect of the $5 rule is to discourage
building into major cities. I've played hundreds and possibly
thousands of games of crayon rails, and I don't think I've ever
seen it done, so why not just make it illegal? In contrast, I often
see people building out with disconnected networks, not only so they
can join up with their existing track, but also to build spurs so
they can run on someone else's line to get somewhere and then get
back onto their own track at the other end.
-- Don.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Don Woods (don...@iCynic.com) Note: If you reply by mail, I'll get to
-- http://www.iCynic.com/~don it sooner if you remove the "hyphen n s"
Richard Bell
The first reason is that rail building crews are supported by trains, so they
cannot build track in a location that they cannot get to. It is enough of
a miracle that the building crews can lay track in clear terrain at a rate
faster than a train can run on it. We felt it made the game more "real".
It also meant that you could not take the best route into a major city
without building to that city. As it affects all players equally, it is
balanced.
A second reason is that limiting you to building track off of your existing
track prunes your decision tree, so it speeds up the game, if only slightly.
This is really important when the game starts at midnight.
Unfortunately, this house rule breaks Iron Dragon, by making most of the ports
(and by extension, the ships) worthless.