-
What about Keg guest then?
So Keg guest is allowed to bring the Reed Hut occupant into the home? After all the Keg guest plays after the Reed Hut occupant. So the Reed Hut occupant takes an action and then is removed from the board so that he can be a newborn on the FG space. That is the official ruling?
Do a survey to find out how many people are accepting these rulings regarding Reed Hut. I can assure you that among experienced players there are those who would never accept this. Most people just play on FG and do not take a newborn, possibly this is now open to Understudy. So that leaves us bickering over rules, possibly before the game even begins. And the card says I can do one thing. The compendium also says I can; but possibly I cannot.
Well what are the requirements for using FG as the card says? I have room, I have an action, and there is the FG space available. What more requirements are specified according to the card? The card says I can use FG after playing the Reed Hut with my last of 4 peeps in round 14. But the official ruling says I require another family member to use FG. But there is not any family member left to play. According to the card I am able to use FG to bring the Reed Hut occupant into the home later after having played the Reed Hut improvement. But how can I do what the card says I am able to do if there are no later peeps to play other than the Reed Hut occupant?
It is like saying, with Berry Picker you can receive one food when you take wood from an accumulation space. But the compendium could say; whenever you take wood you receive one food, and you must use another family member to receive the food. Supposedly I can do something; but also I cannot do it.
Who knows what kind of rules we can have. Just stamp a number on those cards and remove the text; the text is no longer important. According to the official rules, what the card says no longer matters.
-
-
Okay, I've done my best to provide reasoned arguments why the card saying you can use FG to convert the Reed Hut occupant doesn't guarantee you that ability, just provide it to you under the appropriate context. It's pretty clear at this point that you've made your decision and no amount of argumentation is going to convince you that you're wrong. Fine, believe what you like; it's just a board game, after all. Just don't expect anyone else to agree with you.
-
-
Already many agree
There are already those that agree with me, the same experienced players on play-agricola.com that taught me how to use the Reed Hut card in the first place. And what they have taught me is that you play a peep on FG, any peep (could be Reed Hut occupant) and then remove the newborn.
And when I do that among the inexperienced players they go, "Whoa that is not what the compendium says." And I just chatted with an experienced player over there and he said the compendium is wrong and he would not play by that ruling.
-
Mike T
United States
Maryland
-
Tom, appealing to the "experienced players" won't do you any good. Almost all experienced players on play-agricola play by the Compendium. It's also worth noting that most experienced players on play-agricola don't play with Reed Hut very often.
-
Bryann Turner
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
I've played over 1000 games on play-agricola. You're wrong. Eugene is right. The Compendium is right. If you choose to not play the correct way, that's fine, but the rest of us will play correctly.
-
-
I said they taught me
So I have been taught on play-agricola.com how to use Reed Hut. I did not say that I have seen many experienced players use it. I have used it and have been taught differently than what the compendium says. And I go back and ask, I get the same answer that the way I have been taught is correct and the compendium is wrong about Reed Hut.
Most players may say they play by the compendium that is likely true. But ask about a particular issue such as this and you might find that on this issue they do not play by the compendium rules.
If I am wrong about what? What am I wrong about? The card says I can use FG and gives no exception. The compendium says there are exceptions to using FG. These are facts that are not in dispute, correct? How am I wrong in stating these facts?
-
Ben Bateson
United Kingdom
Ross-on-Wye
Owner of original 'crappy art' GtR and pleased about it.
-
Tom, if you weren't interested in actually consulting the most experienced Agricola-playing community you're actually likely to find, why did you bother posting? You've ignored everything that everyone else has said.
Sounds like you've an axe to grind. Can I advise you to grind it with your fellow players and not with this forum? Even the best players forget a rule from time to time. It is only a game.
In passing, as Mike said, the Reed Hut gets played very rarely, and the rules implications that go with that are indeed quite complex. I find it hard to believe that you have a circle of friends all of whom have played the game enough times to be an expert with the card.
-
Eugene van der Pijll
Netherlands
Den Haag
Altijd zin in een spelletje!
-
tom2 wrote: The card says I can use FG and gives no exception.
I think the card just says that it is possible to use a family growth action to make the RH occupant a part of the family; it does not say how you should do that. Now you say that you think this means that this is unconditional; I think it's clear that there is a condition. So the text allows for two different interpretations.
In such a case, it is inevitable that there has to be a ruling that doesn't satisfy everyone.
The actual ruling is based on this discussion. For what it's worth, most people gave the same answer as the Compendium, including Bohnine, who I consider to be an authoritative source.
(I don't have the German text available at the moment, so I can't check exactly what the card says.)
Note that the Compendium does sometimes contradict the text of the cards (*), but I try to keep those rulings to a minimum. For most rulings, if you think they contradict the cards, it's because there are two ways to interpret the text, and I had to decide which way was more reasonable. Which is often subjective.
(*) For example, Outhouse in a solo game.
-
-
Can doesnt mean might
If the card read "might" be able to use an FG, then I say sure, there is a condition. The card says you can do something. The compendium says you cannot do it.
And just because the card isn't played often, mostly because there are so many cards, that doesn't mean we don't still need to find an agreement about how we are going to play with the card. From now on before each draft I have to ask about how we are going to use Reed Hut. Maybe let's just ban it if we cannot decide quickly.
And how does banning cards work anyway? I see no official rules on that. Lots of people are playing by their own rules. Yet they say they only play by official rules. But they have their own exceptions. So they only do one thing but sometimes not. People have a knack for contradiction. And when it suits a player they want official rules, otherwise something else.
Let's all get into a big hissy fit at the moment someone plays a winning move. It is only a game and doesn't matter much. I can let it go. Not grinding any axes, though I would prefer an Axe over Reed Hut any day. I suppose you all got to bow down to your illustrious leader, defend your sanctimonious forum and compendium and all that.
So turn away, pretend everyone is in agreement about every rule. Fine, don't believe me. Believe what you want. It is hard for me to believe that everyone knows all the rules and everyone agrees with them, everyone but me that is. I don't believe that. I know otherwise, unlike a sheep and blind follower of the faith.
-
Ben Bateson
United Kingdom
Ross-on-Wye
Owner of original 'crappy art' GtR and pleased about it.
-
So, at what point did Agricola cease becoming a game for you and become a religion?
Just interested... 
-
-
Reed Hut card text:
Place one family member token that you have not yet brought into the game onto this card, which it will live on for the rest of the game. It can be used to take actions and must be fed, but is not worth any points. (You can move this person into your home later, using a “Family growth” action.)
It says I "can" move this person later using an FG. What hair are you splitting?
Ridicule doesn't win arguments in the long run.
-
Ben Bateson
United Kingdom
Ross-on-Wye
Owner of original 'crappy art' GtR and pleased about it.
-
Neither do you, it would seem.
It appears to me that the advisory ruling has been added to the Compendium precisely to prevent the sort of move that you are attempting to do.
-
-
You need an official ruling?
Here it is: "What Eugene said."
(and what Geoff said. And what Mike said.)
And a pledge to Eugene: please remove the "Un-". To me, it's the Official Compendium.
-
-
Hanno wrote: You need an official ruling?
Here it is: "What Eugene said."
(and what Geoff said. And what Mike said.)
And a pledge to Eugene: please remove the "Un-". To me, it's the Official Compendium.
Thank you Hanno. Does it mean that we can use it as an official authority in tournaments?
I know Eugene hasn't updated it for the German v7 yet... Eugene, have you started work on that yet? lookout actually has the updated cards on their download page.
By the way, tom2: you're getting super ridiculous here. You can move the Reed Hut guy with FG. What you can't do is move the Reed Hut guy with... him/herself. It doesn't make any sense.
-
Mike W
United States
Illinois
-
tom2 wrote: Reed Hut card text:
Place one family member token that you have not yet brought into the game onto this card, which it will live on for the rest of the game. It can be used to take actions and must be fed, but is not worth any points. (You can move this person into your home later, using a “Family growth” action.)
It says I "can" move this person later using an FG. What hair are you splitting?
Tom, my reply here is really unneccessary since the experienced regulars on this forum have already said what I am about to say, and Hanno has made Eugene's words official. But since you seem to be hung up on the card text, here goes anyway.
Yes, with the Reed Hut you "can" use a later family growth action to move RH guy into your house, and I will add that this is without "exception". What the card does not explicitily state is that players are expected to perform specific actions according to the rules for that action. In the case of family growth, that will require that a newborn family member be placed on top of the adult family member that took the action.
To be honest, I originally misplayed the Reed Hut guy just how you wanted to play him. With my last action in Rd 14, I would just place the Reed Hut guy on a family growth space with no newborn and count out my new 3 points. After reading the Compendium ruling, it was obvious to me that I was playing wrong based on all of the rules of the game.
-
-
No rule violation on Family Growth
From the Compendium:
After Family Growth also 1 Minor Improvement
Grow your family, and optionally play a minor improvement
from your hand.
) If you use this action space, the family growth is
mandatory. Playing an improvement is optional,
and follows the family growth.
) You can only use this action space if the number
of your rooms is, at the moment of using the ac3.4
Stage 3 action spaces 71
tion, at least one higher than the number of your
family members.
) Family Growth Take a new family member
marker, and put it on top of the marker that took
this action.
) The new family member can be used to take actions
starting next round. In this turn, it is a
“newborn”; if there is a harvest after this round,
you pay only 1 food to feed it.
) You can have no more than 5 family members.
) Guests and the occupant of the Reed Hut K138
do not count as a family member.
I have five rooms and four family members, so I can take the action. Afterward, I have no more than five family members. The Reed Hut occupant is not a family member before I play on Family Growth. He is a new family member afterward and the new family member marker is on the Family Growth action space. No rule violation there at all.
The Reed Hut card says I can move the occupant into my home by using the Family Growth action space later, after playing my last of 4 peeps in round 14. So how can I do it later?
It is likely that the Reed Hut occupant has been restricted because some players would like to say, "My Reed Hut occupant has already played this round, he did understudy on plow/sow. Now I would like to remove him from the board and move him into my house. Next I will understudy that plow/sow again."
-
Mike T
United States
Maryland
-
It was restricted because taking peeps off of action spaces doesn't happen anywhere else, and the Reed Hut doesn't explain that it allows you to do so.
Funny, Reed Hut rules came up in a game I played tonight, though with a bit of a twist. I played both Reed Hut and Ice Skate Sharpener:
With Ice Skate Sharpener, I can take a FG action without placing any peeps at all, while all of my peeps are at home. By doing so, I can convert Reed Hut Dude with no fuss, right? We had a pretty big argument about this.
Ice Skate Sharpener is such a cheater.
-
-
Still ignoring the elepahnt in the room?
According to the compendium rules ISS cannot use FG at all, because you need to use a peep on FG so you can place a newborn on top of the marker that took the action.
So ISS would not be able to use FG as well as he would not be able to play an occupation that requires a peep to be placed.
But then also Late Bloomer would also not be able to give you family growth by that rule.
In the case of Reed Hut occupant, and the way many people have played in the past, it is not actually the newborn being removed. It would be the newborn placed on top of the Reed Hut occupant marker, and the Reed Hut occupant marker would be removed out from underneath the newborn.
And so far after all that has been said, there is still no complete official ruling regarding the Reed Hut occupant. There are lots of unanswered questions.
1. Can the Keg guest play after the Reed Hut occupant and use FG to remove the Reed Hut occupant from the board?
2. Can the Reed Hut occupant play Animal Farm or other card that enables a guest for the current round?
3. If #2 is allowed, can a guest type other than the Keg guest play after the Reed Hut occupant?
4. Similar to #1, can any guest type remove the Reed Hut occupant from the board if #2 and #3 are allowed?
5. If #1 or #4 are allowed, is the space where the Reed Hut occupant had been placed previously available to be used or understudied again? Understudy could happen, if the guest playing on FG plays a minor that enables another guest in that round.
6. If the Keg guest plays the Reed Hut minor, does the Reed Hut occupant play that round? The compendium says the Reed Hut occupant must play before the Keg guest.
Well that is six for a start. There are lots of holes in these cheesy Reed Hut and FG rules.
-
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
"Punk is not dead" by daughter, Emily
-
The Ugoi eliminated this sort of controversy long ago by simply banning the Reed Hut. Worked for us.
-
-
Didn't see any compendium rule on banning cards
What are official rules for banning cards anyway? People who say they only play by compendium rules are banning cards. I see no rules in the compendium rules about banning cards. So people play by rules other than those in the compendium and say they only play by compendium rules.
-
Eugene van der Pijll
Netherlands
Den Haag
Altijd zin in een spelletje!
-
Here's the idea behind the Reed Hut rulings in the Compendium: as long as the family member token is on the reed hut, you can consider it to be part of your supply of unborn family members, except that you can already use it to take actions. As soon as you've taken an action with it, it counts as a "placed family member", and is not a part of your supply until the next return home phase.
tom2 wrote: According to the compendium rules ISS cannot use FG at all, because you need to use a peep on FG so you can place a newborn on top of the marker that took the action.
The Compendium was written without considering the ISS. Probably, the ISS will get a ruling about Family Growth when it's added to the Compendium; likely taking FG will be allowed. This ruling will also apply to a FG action to bring in the RH occupant.
Quote: So ISS would not be able to use FG as well as he would not be able to play an occupation that requires a peep to be placed.
These situations will probably be handled in the same way as the Scholar, which also allows occs to be played without using an action space.
Quote: But then also Late Bloomer would also not be able to give you family growth by that rule.
Late Bloomer is irrelevant, as it does not use a FG action space.
Quote: 1. Can the Keg guest play after the Reed Hut occupant and use FG to remove the Reed Hut occupant from the board?
I don't know. The reason that the RH occupant is placed last of all family members is to prevent the situation that it is brought into the family after it has taken an action itself.
I'll probably make the ruling that this is not possible. I'll probably replace the requirement that the RH occupant is placed last by a prohibition to bring it into the family after it has been placed on an action. (This would then be another example of where the Compendium contradicts an official ruling by the author of the game.)
Quote: 2. Can the Reed Hut occupant play Animal Farm or other card that enables a guest for the current round?
Yes. The Reed Hut occupant can do anything what a normal family member can do. Of course, this would produce a paradoxical situation, see below.
Quote: 3. If #2 is allowed, can a guest type other than the Keg guest play after the Reed Hut occupant?
The Animal Farm: yes, see the ruling in the compendium under AF where it says that it can be used after the RH occupant has been placed. For e.g. the Guest minor improvement: it's inconsistent. The Guest says yes, the Reed Hut says no.
With my proposed new ruling (see above, question 1), it is allowed.
Quote: 4. Similar to #1, can any guest type remove the Reed Hut occupant from the board if #2 and #3 are allowed?
My answer to #1 applies.
Quote: 5. If #1 or #4 are allowed, is the space where the Reed Hut occupant had been placed previously available to be used or understudied again? Understudy could happen, if the guest playing on FG plays a minor that enables another guest in that round.
I think so. This also applies to the combination Understudy/Adoptive Parents, by the way.
Quote: 6. If the Keg guest plays the Reed Hut minor, does the Reed Hut occupant play that round? The compendium says the Reed Hut occupant must play before the Keg guest.
Good question. I think so. This would be an exception to the rule that the Keq guest is always placed last.
Quote: There are lots of holes in these cheesy Reed Hut and FG rules.
Thanks for your help in closing these holes!
-
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
"Punk is not dead" by daughter, Emily
-
There are no official rules for banning cards that I'm aware of; it's strictly a house rule thing. Many take their cue from the play-agricola.com site, on which a number of cards are banished, except, I think, when playing a certain brand of "power" games.
Typical offenders are: Wet Nurse, Lover, Chamberlain, Taster, Braggart, Ratcatcher, Reed Hut, Wooden Hut Extension. There are undoubtedly others; the Ugoi tend to ban Stonecutter in "Farmers on the Moor" games, and limit Braggart to Major Imps only.
-
-
pijll wrote: btizo wrote: In order to move the Reed Hut peep into your home for scoring, you must take a Family Growth action with a different peep. This is indeed what the Compendium is supposed to say. I will probably revise these rulings a bit for the next edition to make it absolutely clear. (Yes, I'm still meaning to update the Compendium. No, I don't now how long that is going to take.)
Eugene, is there any way we can help you with the updates to the Compendium? Of course, I can't speak German, which kinda helps... 
-
-
MisterG wrote: There are no official rules for banning cards that I'm aware of; it's strictly a house rule thing. Many take their cue from the play-agricola.com site, on which a number of cards are banished, except, I think, when playing a certain brand of "power" games.
Typical offenders are: Wet Nurse, Lover, Chamberlain, Taster, Braggart, Ratcatcher, Reed Hut, Wooden Hut Extension. There are undoubtedly others; the Ugoi tend to ban Stonecutter in "Farmers on the Moor" games, and limit Braggart to Major Imps only.
Geoff is right; there aren't any official rules for banning cards. play-agricola's list is only used because it was developed with players who have played lots of games. They're also revisiting it now, so some cards may come off. (I think 2f Taster is still too powerful, and Chamberlain might be too in some game sizes, but testing needs to be done before any real conclusions can be made)
However, whether or not cards are banned are not part of the play rules; so while Eugene can rule on them, it's not really part of the Compendium's mission. If you look at games like Magic the Gathering, for example, with a defined tournament structure, banning cards is not part of the play rules at all and is instead part of the "floor rules" for tournaments. You can play with whatever cards you want.
Frankly, tom, your attitude towards this whole matter is incredibly appalling. It seems that you really want a specific outcome to this situation (I don't really care either way, as I won't play with the Reed Hut) and will stop at nothing to force us to admit defeat.
-
Eric Ho
United States
Long Island City
New York
-
zeroth hour wrote: pijll wrote: btizo wrote: In order to move the Reed Hut peep into your home for scoring, you must take a Family Growth action with a different peep. This is indeed what the Compendium is supposed to say. I will probably revise these rulings a bit for the next edition to make it absolutely clear. (Yes, I'm still meaning to update the Compendium. No, I don't now how long that is going to take.) Eugene, is there any way we can help you with the updates to the Compendium? Of course, I can't speak German, which kinda helps...
Agreed, I would like to help in anyway possible; if you want help that is 
I've created some Excel-based Agricola database files and at some point would like to incorporate 7th edition German changes as well as the Compendium rulings. I still want to know if Brushwood Roof is a 2 or 3 occ requirement as it seems different languages have it printed differently.
Nowhere am I aware in the Compendium speaks to having cards banned. I think that's mostly from play-agricola or house rules. It just so happens most people from play-agricola use the Compendium as the official rulings. Also, I think Hanno's endorsement clears up any questions on "official-ness."
-
|
|
Posted Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:47 am
