This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - DIN0
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 52
166
« on: May 11, 2022, 10:35:26 AM »
Aaand it's back to normal.
167
« on: May 10, 2022, 12:47:14 PM »
Thanks! Here's another one: The Labyrinths was originally release by Spiel Doch! in 2016.
Corrected: The Labyrinths was originally released by Spiel Doch! in 2016.
Also, it seems the terms 1st and 2nd edition are not consolidated throughout the WICA. Sometimes they are written as 1st. Edition/2nd. Edition, and other times 1st edition/2nd edition. There are possibly other versions. The term New Edition is also quite prevalent, but now that C3 is apparently here, what is truly the "new edition"? Is it the most recent edition or any non-C1 edition, or should the term be abandoned?
168
« on: May 10, 2022, 11:03:02 AM »
The River page contains the following typo at the begginning: The 1st. Edition of River was release in 2001.
The sentence should read: The 1st. Edition of River was released in 2001.
169
« on: May 05, 2022, 02:03:07 PM »
Today, a change on BGG GeekMarket has occured. It is now separated into what is called GeekMarket beta, which has US listings only, and GeekMarket classic which has all the rest. I have no idea why this was at all necessary, nor what the advantages could be, so if anyone knows more about this recent change please let us know.
170
« on: May 05, 2022, 12:40:44 PM »
C3 is only a myth  ...
171
« on: May 02, 2022, 03:40:02 PM »
Black fairy? Is that a fan expansion?
172
« on: May 02, 2022, 12:07:33 PM »
It would be even better if you played a sparkling fairy dust sound effect every time you score the fairy point!  
173
« on: April 27, 2022, 07:12:40 AM »
The way to specify which edges of continouse features are connected, I add apostrophe to the second one. So for example the two cities bridging over each other from Exp. 5 are CC'cc'. The Cc combination is one city, C'c' is another. It is less distracting than numbers and you only ever have a maximum of two city segments with more than one edge. Likewise, the two roads going above each other with a bridge would be noted as RR'rr'. It seems @DIN0's Project 1B has a growing demand...  Hmm... maybe I will have to release a part of it after all 
174
« on: April 25, 2022, 04:49:24 PM »
No need to worry, I have all of that settled..., but the completion of extended notation (aka general notation, aka project 1B) is not my first priority right now. Project 2 is way more important and much more needed, and even that is at least a year away. So patience will be a virtue  But as a "teaser" I can of course answer the original question  The difference between the two frc halflings would be FR//C and FR/C For the fcc tiles it would be FCC and FCc+ If there would be sufficient interest, I might release a shorter document explaining the extended tile reference, since that part of the project is 100% complete, but it wouldn't be the full notation.
175
« on: April 25, 2022, 12:35:43 AM »
What does the notation for halflings and double tiles is it? Well, general notation won't be out for a long time, but I can give you a heads up: 1) Halflings are dealth with strating with the long side (the way Meepledrone posted his diagram) and you also write the orientation based on it (meaning it will always be a combination of two cardinal directions in this case - NE, SW etc.). 2) Double tiles work exactly like single tiles, strating with the city segment because it is first alphabetically.
176
« on: April 24, 2022, 05:19:00 AM »
This is really amazing and useful! They also look much prettier than I would expect for a tile grid Definitelly great for game notation, I'll certainly give it a try! +1 merit
177
« on: April 19, 2022, 08:20:14 AM »
Your view is "spaces beyond the border exist but they cannot be occupied by tiles." So to me, it seems inconsistent, since you do not consider them for the completion of a monastery or Izbushka, but you count them as non-present tiles for Izbushka. That is actually not my view. What I am saying is that spaces do not exist at all and border only prevents placing tiles which would end up beyond the border. I could, for the sake of explanation, say that monastery and Izbushka do consider the spaces beyond border, just do not detect any tiles since they cannot be placed there. But more accurate formulation is that neither of them consider any spaces, period, they only consider tiles. So even if the concept of spaces existed, it would have no bearing on the scoring of these two features, because they do not ever consider them, regardless of the Map or a simple table. Therefore the border acts like an impenetrable wall, the features only consider the adjacent tiles/spaces within the border. There is no reason to do this. You wouldn't not score the points if it were the edge of the table instead, right? Map border functions exactly the same in this regard. The only extra thing map border has is the finishing ability. In this case, the Map rules should take precedence and constrain feature completion and scoring rules to printed spaces. There is no need for precedence, as there is no conflict. Let me put forth the following analogy: Imagine you are a feature which scores a point for each goldfish in the cloister-radius around you. You are surrounded by 8 aquariums filled with water with a maximum of 1 goldfish per tank. If all 8 tanks have a goldfish, you score 8 points. If 4 tanks have goldfish and 4 are empty, you only score 4 points. Now, imagine if 5 tanks have goldfish, but the remainding 3 have perforated bottoms causing the water along with any goldfish to pour out. You would score 5 points. You are saying that you wouldn't even look into the tanks because they are empty with no water for golfish to live in, and therefore not score points. But the reality is you wouldn't get the points simply because you could not find the last 3 goldfish. This is because the only thing you are capable of seeing/not seeing, are the goldfish. And that is the only thing you're looking for. Your eyes cannot see the tanks or water in the first place. That is how a monastery works Izbushka works exactly the same, just gets a point for each goldfish it cannot find. In short Izbushka scores points for absence of tiles - the reason for this absence does not matter. The only way to make a tile not-absent is to actually place the tile. And since you cannot ever do this beyond map border, the tiles are always absent. And here is another implication I did not bring up before. If we look at the diagram in the attachment and exchange the monastery for Izbushka, it would score 2 points (1+1) in case A, and 3 points (2+1) in case B. This is because german castles are only considered to be a single tile. So the number of tiles surrounding Izbushka would be A) 7, and B) 6. Translated to fishtank analogy, the castles are larger fishtanks, but still contain only one goldfish.
178
« on: April 15, 2022, 11:21:58 AM »
My point is that Izbushka should only consider those absent tiles on printed squares on the map. Otherwise, HiG would have considered monasteries to score 9 points no matter what. But they don't even consider those printed city segment or road segments abroad. So monasteries do not consider anything off the grid.
No, not quite the case, and this is one of my main points. You seem to percieve my interpretation as being inconsistent with how the monasteries behave on the Map border. But it is in fact consistent when one realizes the proper source of points for each feature. You say that if my interpretation was correct then, monasteries would automatically recieve full 9 points on the map border, but that is not what would happen. As I said monasteries (and Izbushka) only consider the tiles, not tile spaces. Monastery on a border does not get full points because there are no tiles present for which to get points. It doesn't look at the legality of placement, only at the result - is there a tile or not? If the answer is yes, monastery score point. If the answer is no, Izbushka score points. They ask the same question but get points for a different answer. They are, in this sense, direct opposites of each other, hence the "anti-cloister" analogy. What you propose would actually be the inconsistent interpretation, because it would change the question monastery is asking. Using Meepledrone's graphics:
Here is an order of mechanics with monastery: 1) monastery is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the monastery which in turn initiates scoring, 3) monastery is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles + itself and scores 6 points.
Correct. We seem to agree on the order of operations, but I think there is a misunderstanding on what is important here. Based on some of your quotes: In his case, you should only consider tiles and empty spaces on printed squares. The same printed spaces you would also consider when scoring a monastery. The idea would be that monasteries and Izbushka should consider the same printed spaces. The border map should work the same way for all features that have to be surrounded to be completed or trigger an action. spaced without a ptinted square should not be considered.
For the sake of consistency, you should not count those spaces beyond the border where no tile can be placed. Check my example in the previous post. Are you going extra points for spaces where no tile can be placed?
...you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the scoring for Izbushka (and by extension monastery) works. I suspect this misunderstanding is widespread among others because of the recency of the Maps combined with the mistranslation in CAR and WICA. You still oparate under the "empty spaces mode", but that was never a thing. Neither of the features considers ANY spaces, be it within or beyond the border. They only consider tiles. One gets points for their presence, the other for their absence. Spaces never even enter the discussion. The two features operate around a true dichotomy and your interpretation trangresses that, making it a false one. I have included a diagram of monastery and Izbushka dichotomous function in the attachment (picture a). So, as you say, the placement of the monastery on the border affects both tthe completion of the feature and its scoring, since you only count printed squares on the map. What you missed in my explanation is that the effect on scoring is indirect a.k.a not caused by the borders, but by something else which is caused by the borders. I have attached causality diagrams for both monastery (picture b) and Izbushka (picture c) illustrating how the borders indirectly contribute to scoring while having no effect on it themselves. The crossed out arrow is what you think is happening, the other arrows is what is actually happening. Looking for a more or less thematic approach, you cannot ask the Izbushka rules to consider the limitations imposed by the boders of map, which didn't exist at the time. Again, for the sake of consistency with other features such as monasteries (clearly detailed int he Maps rules), you should only check for the presence of tiles in those spaces where you can place a tile (pinted squares). Otherwise, it is an unbalanced approach for scoring. Precisely. The Maps were not foreseen by the other expansions and that is exactly the reason why the limitations on tile placement imposed by the border allow Izbushka to score more points than would otherwise be possible. It is in fact your current understanding which is being inconsistent with other rules. That is why the answer to your question: Are you going extra points for spaces where no tile can be placed? Is no. I wouldn't score extra points for spaces where tiles cannot be placed. I would score them for the tiles that are not there.
179
« on: April 15, 2022, 09:54:10 AM »
Thank you for the update! Vote submited 
180
« on: April 13, 2022, 01:57:04 PM »
Exactly, and around an island, there's no missing tile, since there's no possible tile placement No, no, it is the other way around. No legal tile placement results in all of the tiles to be missing, therefore 8+1 points for Izbushka. The reason for the tiles not being there is irrelevant for scoring. The Izbushka only looks for tiles around itself and in this case the number is 0 tiles a.k.a. 8 missing tiles. The placement of a monastery on a map border affects its completion and its scoring. This is very slightly incorrect. Let me explain - The placement of monastery (or any feature) affects only completeness, not the scoring. It is true that the scoring is affected in these situations, but this is indirect result of the border placement. The reason monastery scores less points at the border is because there are less tiles present in its "complete" state. This is the one aspect in which the monastery and Izbushka actually are similar - they look for the number of tiles surrounding them. Monastery scores points for present tiles, Izbushka for absent tiles. Neither of them looks for empty or legal tile spaces. Using Meepledrone's graphics: Here is an order of mechanics with monastery: 1) monastery is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the monastery which in turn initiates scoring, 3) monastery is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles + itself and scores 6 points. Here is an order of mechanics with Izbushka: 1) Izbushka is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the Izbushka which in turn initiates scoring, 3) Izbushka is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles and fails to detect 3 tiles, so 3 tiles are missing, 5) it scores 3 points + 1 for itself. The order of causality is: map border → complete state → scoring initiated → monastery/Izbushka look for present/missing tiles respectivelly → they score The ability to make a legal tile placement never enters the scoring discussion. The reason monastery scores less points is because it cannot detect the extra tiles, not because it is at the border. However, it is because of the border that the tiles cannot and are not placed there - it is indirect. So in this case there is another order of causality: Map border prevents tile placement → tiles are not present beyond border → monastery fails to detect tiles beyond border And the same is true for Izbushka. My point is that the tiles beyond the border cannot be considered as "missing landscape tiles" since you cannot place a tile on those spaces. An empty tile space and a missing landscape tile should be considered the same, both representing a unoccupied printed square on a map (or an empty space when playing without a map). They are not the same. One is presence of an abstract concept not even reflected in rules, while the other is absence of a real physical game entity (tile). You are still thinking about the rules as if they referred to empty tile spaces, but they do not. The Izbushka asks just one question: "Is there a tile placed around me?" If the answer is "No.", then it grants you a point. It does not ask: "Can a tile be legaly placed around me?" If that were the case then other cases such as an edge of the table or an unfinishible hole in landscape would prevent it from scoring, but that is not the case. Monastery asks the exact same question, but looks for a different answer to score points. In short the tiles beyond the border are always considered missing tiles because, there are no tiles present. That is why the answer to this question: I want to ask: What happens when you place Baba Yaga to island in phase 1 and place meeple in phase 2 on it?
Do you immediately finish your turn or you score Baba Yaga? ...is if Izbushka is placed on 1-tile island, it is scored immediately and recieves 8+1=9 points, because there are 8 tiles missing around it. BONUS: The rules are actually pretty straightforward, but they also have a thematic inspiration which is consistent with what I am saying here. The reason behind these rules was stated a few times through official channels, back when the tiles were being promoted in 2013 were that the Baba Yaga is seeking to be isolated from everyone else in the world as she wanted nothing to do with them. That is why you get points for being removed from the rest of the landscape. What better way is to isolate herself than to place her hut at a place where she knows no one will ever bother her? Or even better on an isolated island? That is totally with the spirit of the rules and their theatic inspiration.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 52
|
Show Posts
