Dennis the Menace
Netherlands

Question,
Player A has 3 towers Player B has 3 towers Player C has 2 towers and player D has 1.
When deviding the points 1) Player A and B are sharing the point for first place, player C gets all the points for second and player D for thirth
2) Player A and B share the points for first and second, and player C gets points for tirth place.
Thanks

Niall O'Gorman
Ireland Dublin 14

Option 2 is how we have played it.

Bill Kunes
United States Cincinnati Ohio

I just looked up the rules and it appears that in scoring round 1 they share the available points (scenario 1). In subsequent scoring rounds you share the combination (scenario 2). The example in my edition is as follows:
Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points.
In scoring round three the top three highest numbers are awarded points, so I suppose there could be a scenario where a third and fourth player with the same number could split points for the third place points. This would then be a combination of your proposed options.


bkunes wrote: The example in my edition is as follows:
Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points.
Ugh! Apparently, I've been scoring this wrong (for lots of games) as we've always scored it the way the OP describes in option 1. Since most of our games are twoplayer, it added an interesting strategic element of getting Dirk's tiles to tie the person in the lead... so if you're behind in that color you can actually end up with more points.

Bill Kunes
United States Cincinnati Ohio

poisonivy wrote: bkunes wrote: The example in my edition is as follows:
Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points. Ugh! Apparently, I've been scoring this wrong (for lots of games) as we've always scored it the way the OP describes in option 1... For what it's worth... so have we. We seem to have an inclination to miss rule subtleties so I figured I'd look this up before just responding and embarrassing myself. So, you aren't alone.
Keep playing...

Tomello Visello
United States Reston Virginia

bkunes wrote: Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points. Think about it. I would certainly be disgusted and discouraged to play a game where I tied and had to split the 13 points (for 6), while a lower ranked player got the same score as mine (6 for 2nd place).

Bill Kunes
United States Cincinnati Ohio

TVis wrote: bkunes wrote: Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points. Think about it. I would certainly be disgusted and discouraged to play a game where I tied and had to split the 13 points (for 6), while a lower ranked player got the same score as mine (6 for 2nd place). Agreed. However, since most of my plays are 2p, I never came across a situation where I would have faced this scenario to question it. Logical thought though.

Daniel James
United Kingdom Norwich Norfolk

TVis wrote: bkunes wrote: Example: Kim and Nina each have 4 towers. They share the points for 1st and 2nd place: 13 + 6 = 19 points. The number is divided by two and rounded down so they are each awarded 9 points. Think about it. I would certainly be disgusted and discouraged to play a game where I tied and had to split the 13 points (for 6), while a lower ranked player got the same score as mine (6 for 2nd place).
Tabletop have missed the example for scoring when tied in round 2 and 3.
See below at 7:00 into the video, the rules for a tie require you to add the 1st and 2nd scores together and then split the points evenly rounded down.
This doesn't happen in Tabletop.
They have missed the example of scoring in the rule book...just like I have for ages !!!!
I quite like the way they score it, but I will play with the correct rules from now on.
How annoying.

Brian
United States Oneonta New York

I have a question. Everyone is talking about scoring points and splitting points in the 2nd and 3rd round, yet my friends are always confused about the 1st round of scoring. The rulebook says "only the player with the most of a building is awarded points." However, my friends and I go back and fourth about whether this wording (and the lack of specific text indicating a tie) means:
Scenario 1) If there is a tie, those two players split that first column (i.e. players A and B each have a tower and therefore score 3 points) Scenario 2) If there is a tie, nobody gets points.
This may be obvious, but for some reason we are seriously confused by this.

Mark L
United Kingdom Belfast Northern Ireland
XIPULOXX FHTAGN!

TheAuthorOfOZ wrote: I have a question. Everyone is talking about scoring points and splitting points in the 2nd and 3rd round, yet my friends are always confused about the 1st round of scoring. The rulebook says "only the player with the most of a building is awarded points." However, my friends and I go back and fourth about whether this wording (and the lack of specific text indicating a tie) means:
Scenario 1) If there is a tie, those two players split that first column (i.e. players A and B each have a tower and therefore score 3 points) Scenario 2) If there is a tie, nobody gets points.
This may be obvious, but for some reason we are seriously confused by this. It's scenario 1. Those two players get to split the points for 1st and 2nd, but in the first scoring round there are zero points for 2nd, so they just split the points for 1st.

Tomello Visello
United States Reston Virginia

TheAuthorOfOZ wrote: The rulebook says "only the player with the most of a building is awarded points." The wording is meant to emphasize that only the top position gets awarded, not that the top position can't be split. It is reading too much to think otherwise.
Quote: However, my friends and I go back and fourth about whether this wording (and the lack of specific text indicating a tie) means:
Scenario 1) If there is a tie, those two players split that first column (i.e. players A and B each have a tower and therefore score 3 points) Scenario 2) If there is a tie, nobody gets points.
If scenario 2 was intended then you could readily expect that there would have been specific text to emphazise it.


