Yet I suppose you'd agree that in the (unusual!) case of nobody earning any points, the game nonetheless ends with all (bizarrely incompetent) players tied for victory, right? Or would you say that nobody won because nobody earned points?
I actually wouldn't agree. I would say nobody won because nobody earned any points. I don't see why that's such an odd concept.
I notice that the end of the game rules say: "The player with the most prestige points wins the game."
Under that description, it seems a game in which no player earned a point would still end with victory, yes?
So in your view, the first page ("When the castle is finished, the player who has earned the most prestige wins the game.") contradicts the last page of the rules, right? Whereas I see no contradiction, since I'm fine with the idea of earning no points.
(So how do we know which one is correct? What do the original rules say on the first and last pages about victory?)
jeffk wrote:
English can certainly be ambiguous, and I've seen it in many rules. I just don't think there's ambiguity in this particular situation.
I guess even the presence of ambiguity is ambiguous then!
Quote:
If nobody provided any batches, there cannot be a tie among the people that provided batches.
I would say that: If everybody provided 0 batches, then there is a tie among the people who provided batches.
Let's play a simple gambling game. We will each roll 1D6-1 and pay that many dollars to the opponent.
I see nothing wrong with saying "I will pay you between 0 and 5 dollars."
If I understand you, you would insist on saying "I will pay you between 1 and 5 dollars, or I will not pay you."
And you would say that my description ("pay between 0 and 5 dollars") is wrong because the very notion of "paying 0" is wrong and one should describe that as "not paying"...?
Is it similarly inherently invalid to talk about adding 0 to a number, or invalid to talk about multiplying a number by 1, or invalid to talk about appending the empty string to a string of characters?
I notice that the end of the game rules say: "The player with the most prestige points wins the game."
Under that description, it seems a game in which no player earned a point would still end with victory, yes?
Yes. However, the problem with your analogy is that the castle rules have two rules to follow, not just one. A penalty for those not contributing, and a reward for those who did.
The equivalent analogy for your end of game situation should be this:
a) A player who has not scored any prestige points cannot win the game. b) The player with the most prestige points wins the game.
Again, it's impossible for one player to fall into both categories.
Suppose if, in addition to the "royal favor" for the player who provided the fewest batches, there was a "royal punishment" of 1 denier for the player who provided the fewest batches:
Caylus rules paragraph plus hypothetical rules paragraph wrote:
Finally, you determine which player has provided the most batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the most houses). This player immediately gains 1 royal favor (see below). If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle gains the favor.
And you determine which player has provided the least batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the least houses). This player immediately loses 1 denier. If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle loses the denier.
Note the exactly analogous wording.
Now if Alf, Bert, and Charles go to the castle and provide 0, 1, and 2 batches, who pays the 1 denier punishment?
By the arguments in this thread, certainly not Alf, since y'all would insist that Alf didn't provide batches, so the choice is between only Bert and Charles, of whom Bert provided the least batches, so Bert pays 1 denier punishment.
Yet I rather suppose that y'all would agree that Alf is the one who should pay the punishment, because he provided 0 batches, and 0 was the least.
So 0 is a number when we're looking for the smallest value, but not a number when we're looking for the biggest value? Or what?
I notice that the end of the game rules say: "The player with the most prestige points wins the game."
Under that description, it seems a game in which no player earned a point would still end with victory, yes?
So in your view, the first page ("When the castle is finished, the player who has earned the most prestige wins the game.") contradicts the last page of the rules, right? Whereas I see no contradiction, since I'm fine with the idea of earning no points.
(So how do we know which one is correct? What do the original rules say on the first and last pages about victory?)
The correct one is the one that most closely matches the obvious intent of the rules, which is the one on the first page. Why? Because if you end the game with zero points, you may be following the mechanics of the game, but you really need to TRY to get zero points which, in my personal view, means you really aren't playing the actual game (meaning, you're obviously aren't working toward the clearly stated objective of earning points).
Also, the win conditions on page 1 are the least ambiguous, and less ambiguous conditions should always take precedence over more ambiguous conditions.
Quote:
I would say that: If everybody provided 0 batches, then there is a tie among the people who provided batches.
You cannot provide zero batches. That's a linguistic trick, not a description of what actually happens. You cannot walk zero miles/inches/millimeters/whatever. That's called not walking. Providing zero batches is, in reality, not providing batches, just like going to the starting line of a race and not moving is not running the race - you don't even come in last place, you didn't run the race at all.
The rules clearly state:
Quote:
If a player has placed a worker but will not or cannot give a batch (for instance, if they do not have enough different cubes) they lose 2 prestige points..
It does not say "gives zero batches", it says "will not or cannot give a batch", clearly excluding them from being viewed as participating in the activity of giving batches.
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with saying "I will pay you between 0 and 5 dollars."
If I understand you, you would insist on saying "I will pay you between 1 and 5 dollars, or I will not pay you."
And you would say that my description ("pay between 0 and 5 dollars") is wrong because the very notion of "paying 0" is wrong and one should describe that as "not paying"...?
Yes, from a purely literal interpretation standpoint, I would say that a person cannot "pay 0 dollars". Would I actually care in that situation? No, because there's no chance for a reasonable person to interpret in a way other than intended, and there's a difference between conversational norms and norms for writing rules for competitive situations. You can't compare the two if you want to make a valid point.
Quote:
Is it similarly inherently invalid to talk about adding 0 to a number, or invalid to talk about multiplying a number by 1, or invalid to talk about appending the empty string to a string of characters?
If not, what's the difference?
Those are mathematical descriptions, which have their place in the world of abstract math. They don't apply when discussing the rules of a game that must describe real actions. That's the difference.
If you can describe to me the real world difference between giving zero batches and not engaging in the activity of giving batches, then you might have a shot of convincing me.
And, just to be proactive, putting your worker on the castle space is not the same as "giving batches", just as placing your worker on the mason is not the same as building a stone building. Giving batches only happens in Phase 6, so anything that happens outside of that phase cannot be seen as giving batches.
Is it me or this discussion absolutely irrelevant at this point? Seriously, trying to convince people to go for anything else than the obvious is a wast of time... just write as e-mail to the publisher and ask them to re-write the sentence if you have to, but the only thing presenting clever arguments by invoking the theory of maths does at this point, is scratching the surface of dumb!
Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2012 7:51 pm (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Is it me or this discussion absolutely irrelevant at this point? Seriously, trying to convince people to go for anything else than the obvious is a wast of time...
You seem to be misunderstanding. I agree about the intent and am not claiming the rule should be played as the OP suggested.
I'm just talking about linguistic ambiguity and rules and math and such, which was triggered by a specific rule example. Not trying to convince people how to play the game.
If you don't like such discussions, cool, but that doesn't mean they are a waste of time for those who do enjoy them.
That said, if my most recent example (with "royal punishment") doesn't illustrate what I'm getting at sufficiently well, then I give up and consider it a case where people just view language too differently... I'll see what if any response it gets.
Suppose if, in addition to the "royal favor" for the player who provided the fewest batches, there was a "royal punishment" of 1 denier for the player who provided the fewest batches:
Caylus rules paragraph plus hypothetical rules paragraph wrote:
Finally, you determine which player has provided the most batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the most houses). This player immediately gains 1 royal favor (see below). If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle gains the favor.
And you determine which player has provided the least batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the least houses). This player immediately loses 1 denier. If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle loses the denier.
Note the exactly analogous wording.
Now if Alf, Bert, and Charles go to the castle and provide 0, 1, and 2 batches, who pays the 1 denier punishment?
By the arguments in this thread, certainly not Alf, since y'all would insist that Alf didn't provide batches, so the choice is between only Bert and Charles, of whom Bert provided the least batches, so Bert pays 1 denier punishment.
Yet I rather suppose that y'all would agree that Alf is the one who should pay the punishment, because he provided 0 batches, and 0 was the least.
So 0 is a number when we're looking for the smallest value, but not a number when we're looking for the biggest value? Or what?
I would agree that the intent of the rule would almost certainly be that Alf should get the penalty. However, I would also say that the rule was poorly worded and, from a purely literal standpoint, it would mean that Bert should get the penalty. In this case, common sense and literal interpretation would be in conflict. I would go with common sense. A little tweaking would fix that conflict, such as saying instead "the player(s) who provided the least batches, including those who did not provide any batches at all, are penalized one denier." (Or something like that - it's not quite perfect, but you get the idea.) Fortunately, the rules as written don't present such a conflict since the literal interpretation and common sense both lead to the same conclusion.
Is it me or this discussion absolutely irrelevant at this point? Seriously, trying to convince people to go for anything else than the obvious is a wast of time...
You seem to be misunderstanding. I agree about the intent and am not claiming the rule should be played as the OP suggested.
I'm just talking about linguistic ambiguity and rules and math and such, which was triggered by a specific rule example. Not trying to convince people how to play the game.
If you don't like such discussions, cool, but that doesn't mean they are a waste of time for those who do enjoy them.
Agreed, I'm just in this for rhetorical fun. I'm quite clear that you're not in favor of actually implementing the OP's interpretation.
Suppose if, in addition to the "royal favor" for the player who provided the fewest batches, there was a "royal punishment" of 1 denier for the player who provided the fewest batches:
Caylus rules paragraph plus hypothetical rules paragraph wrote:
Finally, you determine which player has provided the most batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the most houses). This player immediately gains 1 royal favor (see below). If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle gains the favor.
And you determine which player has provided the least batches during this turn (in other words, which player has placed the least houses). This player immediately loses 1 denier. If several players are tied, the one among them who arrived first in the castle loses the denier.
Note the exactly analogous wording.
Now if Alf, Bert, and Charles go to the castle and provide 0, 1, and 2 batches, who pays the 1 denier punishment?
By the arguments in this thread, certainly not Alf, since y'all would insist that Alf didn't provide batches, so the choice is between only Bert and Charles, of whom Bert provided the least batches, so Bert pays 1 denier punishment.
Yet I rather suppose that y'all would agree that Alf is the one who should pay the punishment, because he provided 0 batches, and 0 was the least.
So 0 is a number when we're looking for the smallest value, but not a number when we're looking for the biggest value? Or what?
I would agree that the intent of the rule would almost certainly be that Alf should get the penalty. However, I would also say that the rule was poorly worded and, from a purely literal standpoint, it would mean that Bert should get the penalty. In this case, common sense and literal interpretation would be in conflict. I would go with common sense. A little tweaking would fix that conflict, such as saying instead "the player(s) who provided the least batches, including those who did not provide any batches at all, are penalized one denier." (Or something like that - it's not quite perfect, but you get the idea.) Fortunately, the rules as written don't present such a conflict since the literal interpretation and common sense both lead to the same conclusion.
I completely disagree with the fact that the literal interpretation is that Bert should get the penalty. In fact, I think the main issue here is of literal interpretation ("no batches could still mean the most batches") versus the clear intent of the rules ("no batches doesn't get favor").
The fact that most people here (many of which are veteran players) were surprised by the notion that no batches could mean most batches is proof enough for me that the intent of the rules is clear. Yes, you could be reading it too literally, and argue the opposite point. But I think that in that case you would be in the same situation as those Disney movies, where they go "well, there's nothing in the rules that says that dogs can't play basketball". Sure there's nothing, because it was obvious to anyone reading the rules that it wasn't how it worked, until somebody found a dog who could play basketball better than most humans and decided to argue the unarguable.
I completely disagree with the fact that the literal interpretation is that Bert should get the penalty. In fact, I think the main issue here is of literal interpretation ("no batches could still mean the most batches") versus the clear intent of the rules ("no batches doesn't get favor").
I don't understand what you mean.
On the one hand, you disagree that the rule literally interpreted would mean Bert gets the penalty.
On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the literal interpretation is not what's obviously intended, so one should follow the clear intent, not the literal interpretation.
Quote:
The fact that most people here (many of which are veteran players) were surprised by the notion that no batches could mean most batches is proof enough for me that the intent of the rules is clear.
Once again:
The recent comments were a linguistics discussion about what the rules literally say, not about what the intent of the rules was.
How many times do I need to repeat that I'm not claiming that the rules or the designer intend that zero houses built can earn a royal favor?
I completely disagree with the fact that the literal interpretation is that Bert should get the penalty. In fact, I think the main issue here is of literal interpretation ("no batches could still mean the most batches") versus the clear intent of the rules ("no batches doesn't get favor").
I don't understand what you mean.
On the one hand, you disagree that the rule literally interpreted would mean Bert gets the penalty.
On the other hand, you seem to be saying that the literal interpretation is not what's obviously intended, so one should follow the clear intent, not the literal interpretation.
Yeah, sorry, the second paragraph was directed at the topic itself, not at the example.
russ wrote:
Quote:
The fact that most people here (many of which are veteran players) were surprised by the notion that no batches could mean most batches is proof enough for me that the intent of the rules is clear.
Once again:
The recent comments were a linguistics discussion about what the rules literally say, not about what the intent of the rules was.
How many times do I need to repeat that I'm not claiming that the rules or the designer intend that zero houses built can earn a royal favor?
The rules say that if there is a tie among players who provided the most batches, it goes to whoever arrived first. If no houses were built, there was no "providing" of any kind, and thus no tie. The other interpretstn is like saying two people who didn't run a race tied in their results. There were no results to compare at all.
I'm sure you can point out where in the rule this is specified...
The rules say that if there is a tie among players who provided the most batches, it goes to whoever arrived first. If no houses were built, there was no "providing" of any kind, and thus no tie. The other interpretstn is like saying two people who didn't run a race tied in their results. There were no results to compare at all.
I'm sure you can point out where in the rule this is specified...
I was making a grammatical point. I think the linguistic nature of this discussion has been well established by now.
PS: I was telling my wife (a2na) about this thread and mentioned the subtle discrepancy in the victory conditions on page 1 ("the player who has earned the most prestige wins the game.") and page 6 ("The player with the most prestige points wins the game.")
She pointed out that another lurking tricky thing is that even if everyone indeed earns points, the player who earned the most might not have the most at the end!
E.g. I earn 100 points but lost 2 due to not building once in the castle. You earn 99 points. Therefore I "earned" more points than you, but you "have" more points than me.
PS: I was telling my wife (a2na) about this thread and mentioned the subtle discrepancy in the victory conditions on page 1 ("the player who has earned the most prestige wins the game.") and page 6 ("The player with the most prestige points wins the game.")
She pointed out that another lurking tricky thing is that even if everyone indeed earns points, the player who earned the most might not have the most at the end!
E.g. I earn 100 points but lost 2 due to not building once in the castle. You earn 99 points. Therefore I "earned" more points than you, but you "have" more points than me.
Rules-writing is tricky!
LOL! That's a good one. From a purely linguistic perspective, I can't fault her logic!
PS: I was telling my wife (a2na) about this thread and mentioned the subtle discrepancy in the victory conditions on page 1 ("the player who has earned the most prestige wins the game.") and page 6 ("The player with the most prestige points wins the game.")
She pointed out that another lurking tricky thing is that even if everyone indeed earns points, the player who earned the most might not have the most at the end!
E.g. I earn 100 points but lost 2 due to not building once in the castle. You earn 99 points. Therefore I "earned" more points than you, but you "have" more points than me.
Rules-writing is tricky!
LOL! That's a good one. From a purely linguistic perspective, I can't fault her logic!
So, which one does one use: points earned, or net points earned?
Do you wonder what Ryan Wheeler thinks about certain games? If you do, you are strange and wonderful and may GeekMail him to request an opinion on any game in his collection. He just may respond.
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that zero batches equals batches. A batch is clearly defined in the rules.
Rules: Phase 6 - Building Of The Castle wrote:
The player decides during their turn how many batches they will give the stock. A batch must be composed of three different cubes, one of which must be a food cube.
It doesn't say that a batch must be composed of 0-3 different cubes. Now, I'm not the quickest of cats at the best of times, but if you don't have three cubes, including at least one food cube, you don't have a batch, right? So how can you have the most of something that is undefined by the game?
I'm trying to understand. I realize that nobody is arguing about the intent, but I'm wondering if the clear 'batch' definition changes the conclusion that has been reached here.
Now, I'm not the quickest of cats at the best of times, but if you don't have three cubes, including at least one food cube, you don't have a batch, right? So how can you have the most of something that is undefined by the game?
I'm trying to understand.
I am pretty sure this means that you don't really understand the number zero. Seriously, zero of anything in any other context has exactly the same problem you describe.
Last edited Sat Feb 4, 2012 11:48 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that zero batches equals batches. A batch is clearly defined in the rules.
Rules: Phase 6 - Building Of The Castle wrote:
The player decides during their turn how many batches they will give the stock. A batch must be composed of three different cubes, one of which must be a food cube.
It doesn't say that a batch must be composed of 0-3 different cubes. Now, I'm not the quickest of cats at the best of times, but if you don't have three cubes, including at least one food cube, you don't have a batch, right?
Right.
(But note that you could have a batch and still choose not to build when you're at the castle. I.e. just because you built no houses doesn't mean you had no batches. But this is a side tangent that doesn't matter.)
Quote:
So how can you have the most of something that is undefined by the game?
You're confusing two different things (mixing levels, if you will): * A batch itself (i.e. a set of 3 cubes). * A number of batches (i.e. a number of sets of 3 cubes).
Just because a batch must have exactly 3 cubes does not mean that the only number of batches you can have is 3...
Yes, a batch cannot consist of 0 cubes. But then a batch cannot consist of 1 or 2 or 4 cubes either, yet you (presumably) have no problem with the idea of "1 batch" or "2 batches" or "4 batches". So why would there be a problem with the idea of "0 batches"?
I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that zero batches equals batches. A batch is clearly defined in the rules.
Rules: Phase 6 - Building Of The Castle wrote:
The player decides during their turn how many batches they will give the stock. A batch must be composed of three different cubes, one of which must be a food cube.
It doesn't say that a batch must be composed of 0-3 different cubes. Now, I'm not the quickest of cats at the best of times, but if you don't have three cubes, including at least one food cube, you don't have a batch, right? So how can you have the most of something that is undefined by the game?
I'm trying to understand. I realize that nobody is arguing about the intent, but I'm wondering if the clear 'batch' definition changes the conclusion that has been reached here.
No it doesn't.
The question is not about "most batches." That is covered in the first two sentences of the paragraph. The hard part for people to grasp is that the award of the favor is not SOLELY dependent on "most batches." That is the primary award criterion, but the rest of the paragraph no longer talks of batches, but of who is first in line, and being first in line is independent of the contribution of batches to the construction project, it is SOLELY worker placement.
Not really sure why people have a hard time with this after it has been pointed out, but people seem to have a blind spot to this aspect of the question. They assume because the first/primary criterion talks of batches, that all subsequent criteria also must be referring to batches, even though no such text is provided in the English rule.
Let's say your first criteria for breaking a tie is head to head record, and your second is wins against common opponents (it is Super Bowl Sunday, after all). Once the first criteria is determined to be completed, it no longer applies to the second criteria. I picked an example where this is obvious, from the criteria. But, you say, they still relate to winning games. So, let's consider the case where ALL tiebreakers fail to break the tie. Well, then the NFL, in its infinite wisdom, resorts to the ultimate tiebreaker: a coin toss. The criterion has suddenly changed from the record to a coin toss, just as in the case of the rule in question in Caylus... The prior criterion is not definitive and a new one is used.
All of us just read through the rule and assumed (not unnaturally, until it was pointed out) that the second criteria has some reference to batches. It does not. That was in all likelihood a translation ambiguity. But, the rule, as written in English, is quite clear. A person first in line who gave zero batches when all other (including zero) players in line also provided zero batches, is entitled to the favor until such time as an official source corrects the apparent error.
I doubt people will play this way, since the house rule has been so firmly established through usage. I won't play this way because, well, I do not play the game...
Amusing; I just saw a real-world rule example of "doing zero times doesn't mean you didn't do it" in another thread which reminded me of this old Caylus discussion (where it is argued that "doing zero times does mean you didn't do it"):
A player can move a Mobile unit before or after placing his new tiles on the board.
So, if you place no new tiles on the board, can you move a Mobile unit?
By the "doing zero times means you didn't actually do it" school of thought, that NH rule would mean that if you placed no new tiles on the board, then you cannot move a Mobile unit (i.e. the argument would be "how can you do something before or after something which doesn't happen", right?)
Yet in fact you can move a Mobile unit even if you place no new tiles on the board.
Anyway, just a (hopefully interesting) example for the record.
A player can move a Mobile unit before or after placing his new tiles on the board.
So, if you place no new tiles on the board, can you move a Mobile unit?
It's not even close to an equivalent situation. The unit and the tiles are completely unrelated, totally independent of each other. This is two completely different things a player can do on his turn, a) move a unit if he wishes, and b) play tiles if he wishes. They're so unrelated, that the rules tell us the order is completely up to us. We can move first, move last, not move.
If the tiles generated movement points, then they would be related. If the unit generated tiles, then they would be related. But they're not.
Now let's move this into the actual Caylus situation. "Players who play no tiles receive a penalty, and must kill one unit. The player who plays the most tiles receives Mobility, and may move a unit."
Now, mobility is no longer an innate characteristic of the unit, but is in fact a reward.
I play no tiles. I receive the penalty and kill a unit. But I would also get the reward of Mobility? Non-sensical.
Quote:If nobody provided any batches, there cannot be a tie among the people that provided batches.
