by Tonesta78
AronFJenks wrote:
Spoilers through end of November possibly:
[o] at the end of the month in which de got the hollow ,em to defect by moving them into havens - were we supposed to decrease the population of those havens from 3 to 2? It didn’t say to do so but it also didn’t say not to do so. Since that was a mandatory objective and a good thing to accomplish, we did not reduce 5e population. It didn’t even occur to me until a later month when suggested we move a hollow man onto a haven and I said, “wait. Won’t that cause a population decrease at game end?” [/o]
[o] at the end of the month in which de got the hollow ,em to defect by moving them into havens - were we supposed to decrease the population of those havens from 3 to 2? It didn’t say to do so but it also didn’t say not to do so. Since that was a mandatory objective and a good thing to accomplish, we did not reduce 5e population. It didn’t even occur to me until a later month when suggested we move a hollow man onto a haven and I said, “wait. Won’t that cause a population decrease at game end?” [/o]
[o]I believe the consensus on here is that you should have reduced the haven's population, yes. The Hollow Man rules describe reducing the population of a location (rather than a city) and this includes havens.
However should a haven's population drop to zero, then Turning Point 1 for forsaken cities does not apply, because that very clearly states that it applies to cities not locations.
In terms of gameplay, the only real effect of reducing a haven's population is if you want to use a 'Produce Supplies' card there (or system-wide). Otherwise it's fairly painless.[/o]