<p>It isn't specifically limited to the movement actions, so anything that causes your pawn to no longer be in that location would count, including events or character abilities. You do have the option to simply stay in that location and perform non-movement actions, which can be viable towards the end of the game if you're about to win or lose anyway.</p>

<p>I asked the <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2090343/what-does-leaving-location-mean" rel="nofollow noreferrer">same question on BGG</a>, and while there aren't any "official" answers, all of the posts so far have agreed with the conclusion that there are no exceptions.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-05T13:59:41.740Z
Do you have a source for this? Your interpretation is valid, but saying that "being removed" is *not* the same as "you leaving" seems equally valid.
João Mendes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T13:48:21.460Z
If they wanted to limit it to when you used a movement action from that city, why not just word it that way? It takes some serious linguistic gymnastics to interpret it other ways. There are fewer pawns, therefore a pawn has left. Whose pawn left? Yours did. Therefore "your pawn left".
bwarner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T13:57:45.670Z
Like I said, I think your interpretation is valid. It's just that "there are fewer pawns, therefore a pawn has left" *or was removed*, and I happen to think that this interpretation is *equally* valid (not more valid), and there doesn't seem to be an official source for this.
João Mendes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T14:22:41.893Z
Its your game, you can play it how you want. But considering "removed" an exception to "leaves" while not considering "moved" an exception to "leaves" seems undefendable as an interpretation of rules as written to me. I asked on BGG to see if we could get an official response.
bwarner
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T14:56:59.283Z
"I asked on BGG to see if we could get an official response." Nice. I'd ask that you add a link to the BGG thread to your answer, and that way we can follow along.
João Mendes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-06T14:59:02.593Z
Also, "considering "removed" an exception to "leaves" while not considering "moved" an exception to "leaves" seems undefendable". You're right, but that's not my distinction. I'm distinguishing between *moving* (active) and *being* removed (passive).
João Mendes
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-05-07T18:39:20.057Z
2018-11-07T17:38:05.773Z
2018-11-07T17:38:05.773Z
bwarner
<p>In my opinion, no, you wouldn't get exposed in those cases. Your character gets exposed only during movement actions on your turn.</p>

<p>Here's my reasoning.</p>

<p>The rule appears under "Movement Actions" on the "On Your Turn" page. All of the other rules in that section describe movement actions that take place on your turn, but none of them actually mention that they're an action or that they take place on your turn. In this section, as well as most other places in the rulebook, the context tells you when to apply a rule.</p>

<p>I don't consider this point obvious in either direction. There are other places in the rulebook where stickers explicitly tell you when they apply, despite being in the appropriate section already - most notably, several that apply during setup.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-28T15:48:03.863Z
While this makes some sense I would argue that since there are limited cases for a player moving not on their turn it wasn't covered in the rules as something that happens when it is not your turn. Also I don't remember a lot of rules about how things impact a player when it isn't their turn.
Joe W
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-28T14:34:21.883Z
2020-05-28T14:34:21.883Z
Joe
<p>We ran into this just last night. We decided that it didn't, for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li>The relevant rule specifically states "when your pawn leaves", and this has an active quality to it, yielding the reasonable interpretation that being moved by someone/something else is <em>not</em> the same as <em>you</em> leaving;</li>
<li>Playing like this gives you options, with inherent opportunity costs, which makes the game strategy richer, whereas disallowing it leaves you with only two bad options (stay still or take the consequence) to respond to something which is completely out of player control, which makes the game strategy poorer.</li>
</ol>

<p>That said, I couldn't find any source to support this position, or the opposite position, for that matter.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-05T14:07:19.683Z
2018-11-05T14:24:19.330Z
2018-11-05T14:24:19.330Z
João Mendes
<p>If a character is moved from one location to another via an event (e.g., <em>Airlift</em>) or character ability (e.g., the Administrator ability, which lets you move a pawn to a location with another pawn), does that count as the character leaving the location?</p>

<p>Spoiler pertains to the Cairo recon, and provides context:</p>

<blockquote class="spoiler">
  <p> With the introduction of the Hollow Men, a character gets exposed when <em>leaving</em> a location that contains 1 or more Hollow Men figures.
 Does that happen only when doing any of the normal movement actions (Drive/Ferry, Sail, Charter Boat) or any time you are no longer in the location with Hollow Men?</p>
</blockquote>

<pandemic-legacy-season-2>
Does being removed from a location via a character ability or event count as "leaving"?
mmathis
# Does being removed from a location via a character ability or event count as "leaving"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-05-07)

If a character is moved from one location to another via an event (e.g., *Airlift*) or character ability (e.g., the Administrator ability, which lets you move a pawn to a location with another pawn), does that count as the character leaving the location?

Spoiler pertains to the Cairo recon, and provides context:

> With the introduction of the Hollow Men, a character gets exposed when *leaving* a location that contains 1 or more Hollow Men figures.
> Does that happen only when doing any of the normal movement actions (Drive/Ferry, Sail, Charter Boat) or any time you are no longer in the location with Hollow Men?

**Tags:** pandemic-legacy-season-2


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-05-07. Score: 3

It isn't specifically limited to the movement actions, so anything that causes your pawn to no longer be in that location would count, including events or character abilities. You do have the option to simply stay in that location and perform non-movement actions, which can be viable towards the end of the game if you're about to win or lose anyway.

I asked the [same question on BGG](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2090343/what-does-leaving-location-mean), and while there aren't any "official" answers, all of the posts so far have agreed with the conclusion that there are no exceptions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Do you have a source for this? Your interpretation is valid, but saying that "being removed" is *not* the same as "you leaving" seems equally valid.  
> **username_1**: If they wanted to limit it to when you used a movement action from that city, why not just word it that way? It takes some serious linguistic gymnastics to interpret it other ways. There are fewer pawns, therefore a pawn has left. Whose pawn left? Yours did. Therefore "your pawn left".  
> **username_2**: Like I said, I think your interpretation is valid. It's just that "there are fewer pawns, therefore a pawn has left" *or was removed*, and I happen to think that this interpretation is *equally* valid (not more valid), and there doesn't seem to be an official source for this.  
> **username_1**: Its your game, you can play it how you want. But considering "removed" an exception to "leaves" while not considering "moved" an exception to "leaves" seems undefendable as an interpretation of rules as written to me. I asked on BGG to see if we could get an official response.  
> **username_2**: "I asked on BGG to see if we could get an official response." Nice. I'd ask that you add a link to the BGG thread to your answer, and that way we can follow along.  
> **username_2**: Also, "considering "removed" an exception to "leaves" while not considering "moved" an exception to "leaves" seems undefendable". You're right, but that's not my distinction. I'm distinguishing between *moving* (active) and *being* removed (passive).  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-05-28. Score: 1

In my opinion, no, you wouldn't get exposed in those cases. Your character gets exposed only during movement actions on your turn.

Here's my reasoning.

The rule appears under "Movement Actions" on the "On Your Turn" page. All of the other rules in that section describe movement actions that take place on your turn, but none of them actually mention that they're an action or that they take place on your turn. In this section, as well as most other places in the rulebook, the context tells you when to apply a rule.

I don't consider this point obvious in either direction. There are other places in the rulebook where stickers explicitly tell you when they apply, despite being in the appropriate section already - most notably, several that apply during setup.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: While this makes some sense I would argue that since there are limited cases for a player moving not on their turn it wasn't covered in the rules as something that happens when it is not your turn. Also I don't remember a lot of rules about how things impact a player when it isn't their turn.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-11-05. Score: 0

We ran into this just last night. We decided that it didn't, for two reasons:

1. The relevant rule specifically states "when your pawn leaves", and this has an active quality to it, yielding the reasonable interpretation that being moved by someone/something else is *not* the same as *you* leaving;
2. Playing like this gives you options, with inherent opportunity costs, which makes the game strategy richer, whereas disallowing it leaves you with only two bad options (stay still or take the consequence) to respond to something which is completely out of player control, which makes the game strategy poorer.

That said, I couldn't find any source to support this position, or the opposite position, for that matter.


---

