GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 99.18
6,303 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
39.7% of Goal  left
Support:

The Osprey rules say, "If Feth manages to combine a block of samecoloured cards in the Atman whose value adds to 7 exactly, he can relive one of Ren’s memories."
Consider the following Atman:
When the 5 was earlier placed over the 3, no memory was relived because 3+5=8, which is not 7.
I think that a natural reading of the rules suggests that a memory can be relived after the 2 is placed.
There is a block of overlapping gold cards whose values add up to 7 exactly: the 5 and the 2.
But an earlier post by Zimeon suggested that this would not be considered a block of 7, but rather a block of 10.
In another thread, Zimeon confirmed a (perhaps partial) definition of a connected block: a sequence of Atman cards of the same color, such that each pair adjacent in the sequence overlaps with no intervening card of a different color.
The sequence 52 in the example above meets that definition.
If this example is to be disallowed, the definition would need to specify that the sequence adding up to 7 must be maximal: it cannot be extended to a longer sequence (which would add up to more than 7, since all card values are positive).
Even if this is the rule (i.e., the above example is a block of 10, not 7, and the sequence must be maximal), I hope that the following example would relive a memory:
In this case, the 3 and 5, while overlapping, have an intervening card of another color. Thus, I think that the sequence 52 is maximal and, since it adds up to 7, would relive a memory.

Daniel Wilmer
United Kingdom Brandon Durham

I think you're right, the interving card separates the block.
It would have been very helpful to have Atman examples (splits, memory blocks etc) with pictures in the manual. It would have solved a lot of questions.

Simon Lundström
Sweden Täby
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.

gillum wrote: If this example is to be disallowed, the definition would need to specify that the sequence adding up to 7 must be maximal: it cannot be extended to a longer sequence (which would add up to more than 7, since all card values are positive).
gillum wrote: I hope that the following example would relive a memory:
It does indeed.


But the first one doesn't?

Mad Halfling
United Kingdom

gillum wrote: But the first one doesn't?
It comes down to the questions of whether the block is defined as "a group of the same colour cards" or "a whole section of cards that are of the same colour". If it's the former then the first example could consist of 3 blocks, of 2, 2, and 3 cards  in which case it's fine  but if it's the latter then it makes things harder. Personally, as this is both a puzzle game and a difficult game, until we get an answer I'd go with the Cthulhu game method of rules interpretation: whatever's the worst option for the players is probably the correct answer.

Simon Lundström
Sweden Täby
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.

gillum wrote: But the first one doesn't?
No, the first one doesn't. That one totals 10. The block must be exactly 7.

Martin G
United Kingdom Bristol
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met

Zimeon wrote: gillum wrote: But the first one doesn't? No, the first one doesn't. That one totals 10. The block must be exactly 7.
Is the second block really split by the blue card even though the yellow cards all still touch?

Simon Lundström
Sweden Täby
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.

qwertymartin wrote: Zimeon wrote: gillum wrote: But the first one doesn't? No, the first one doesn't. That one totals 10. The block must be exactly 7. Is the second block really split by the blue card even though the yellow cards all still touch?
Yes, because the blue card is BETWEEN the two yellow cards. The blue is on top of the yellow underneath, and the other yellow is on top of the blue. So they aren't directly connected.

Martin G
United Kingdom Bristol
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met

Zimeon wrote: qwertymartin wrote: Zimeon wrote: gillum wrote: But the first one doesn't? No, the first one doesn't. That one totals 10. The block must be exactly 7. Is the second block really split by the blue card even though the yellow cards all still touch? Yes, because the blue card is BETWEEN the two yellow cards. The blue is on top of the yellow underneath, and the other yellow is on top of the blue. So they aren't directly connected.
The bottom right quarter of one and top right of the other are directly in contact. But I can see your point.


Note the contrast with this:
Here the blue 3 doesn't connect directly with the left blue 2 because of the green 1.
But the group as a whole is legal because those two each overlap with the right blue 2, and the green 1 blocks neither of those overlaps.


Based on Zimeon's responses here (and in this thread), I believe that there is a (reasonably) succinct and precise definition of when a memory is relived.
When Feth adds a card to the Atman, consider the set of all cards in the Atman that are the same color as the card just placed (including those whose color was temporarily changed to that color by a high blue card) and that are reachable from that card.
If the aggregate value of that set (including the card just placed, whose value may have been modified by a low blue card) is exactly 7, a memory is relieved.
One card is reachable from another if there is a path from one to the other, where all cards in the path are of that same color, and each pair of cards adjacent in the path overlap on at least one quadrant and no card of a different color intervenes on any quadrant on which they overlap.
OK, maybe not so succinct. But precise (and correct), I hope

Simon Lundström
Sweden Täby
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.

gillum wrote: Note the contrast with this: Here the blue 3 doesn't connect directly with the left blue 2 because of the green 1. But the group as a whole is legal because those two each overlap with the right blue 2, and the green 1 blocks neither of those overlaps.
Correct. The green 1 isn't lying betweeen the blue 3 and the middle blue 2.


I'm sorry that the picture wasn't clearer. Here's another try:
The green 1 isn't lying betweeen the blue 3 and the right blue 2.
I took that to suffice for the three blue cards to be group: the blue 3 cleanly overlaps the right blue 2, which cleanly overlaps the left blue 2.

Simon Lundström
Sweden Täby
Now who are these five?
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.

gillum wrote: I'm sorry that the picture wasn't clearer. Here's another try: The green 1 isn't lying betweeen the blue 3 and the right blue 2. I took that to suffice for the three blue cards to be group: the blue 3 cleanly overlaps the right blue 2, which cleanly overlaps the left blue 2.
Precisely.


