Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Julius Caesar» Forums » Rules

Subject: Are control statuses mutually exclusive? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
c y
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are the various control statuses (Friendly / Enemy / Contested / Vacant) of cities and seas mutually exclusive?

Obviously this is so for Friendly vs Enemy - but a strict reading of the RAW implies that a contested space is "friendly" to both sides. However, it seems that the intent (eg levies) is an XOR - each space has exactly one status to a given side.

This one clarification clears up a lot of related questions. Worthy of errata inclusion IMO.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Rice
Scotland
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
seewhy wrote:
Are the various control statuses (Friendly / Enemy / Contested / Vacant) of cities and seas mutually exclusive?

Obviously this is so for Friendly vs Enemy - but a strict reading of the RAW implies that a contested space is "friendly" to both sides. However, it seems that the intent (eg levies) is an XOR - each space has exactly one status to a given side.

This one clarification clears up a lot of related questions. Worthy of errata inclusion IMO.


To your first question - yes.

On your second point, a city has only one "Control Status" at a time, not one status to each player at the same time. See 4.21.

Example: player A moves into an empty city (city becomes friendly) then levies due to friendly status. Player B moves into same city (city becomes contested) so cannot levy due to contested status.

So it's a question of getting there first!

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
c y
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Thanks for the reply!

Wimplesaur wrote:
seewhy wrote:
Are the various control statuses (Friendly / Enemy / Contested / Vacant) of cities and seas mutually exclusive?

Obviously this is so for Friendly vs Enemy - but a strict reading of the RAW implies that a contested space is "friendly" to both sides. However, it seems that the intent (eg levies) is an XOR - each space has exactly one status to a given side.

This one clarification clears up a lot of related questions. Worthy of errata inclusion IMO.


To your first question - yes.

On your second point, a city has only one "Control Status" at a time, not one status to each player at the same time. See 4.21.


4.21 says:

"The control status of a city can be:
Friendly:..
Enemy:..
Vacant:..
Contested:..
"

... which can be interpreted as implying mutual exclusivity - despite the fact that a space Friendly to me is Enemy to you, and vice versa, which is explicitly NOT exclusive, because right there you have a single space with two statuses. If it said:

"The control status of a city can be ONE of:
Friendly/Enemy: a space occupied solely by blocks of one side is Friendly to that side, and Enemy to the other side.
Vacant:..
Contested:..
"

... then it wouldn't be open to any interpretation.

Wimplesaur wrote:
Example: player A moves into an empty city (city becomes friendly) then levies due to friendly status. Player B moves into same city (city becomes contested) so cannot levy due to contested status.


The levy example is exhaustively gone over; that isn't my question though. For one thing, there is an "IMPORTANT" note at the end of 6.4 which explicitly PROHIBITS raising levies in Contested areas. So it leaves the issue of the exclusivity of statuses unresolved. And ironically, addressing only the levy context of this question makes me wonder what the intent of the Statuses actually is!

What actually got me posting wasn't the levy issue, which has already been addressed. Amphibious movement goes "across one or more Friendly seas". By a strict reading of the RAW, "Friendly" is defined as "occupied by one or more of your blocks". If I read the RAW strictly (like a lawyer or coder would) then every Contested space is friendly to both sides - and I can convoy right across a contested space.

A lot could be fixed by adding a few words two sections of the rules (4.21 & 4.4). Just sayin'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Rice
Scotland
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, it always seemed clear enough to me but I take your point.

I suppose they could have added in 4.21..."A friendly city (or sea) contains one or more of your blocks and none of the enemies" or something like that if you really feel the need for that level of clarification.

Part of the fun of the game to me is racing to gain control of an area so you can levy or move armies by sea. If getting there first means nothing then the game loses some of its flavour.

Perhaps you could try the game with the alternative interpretation/misinterpretation you mention and see if the game is better or worse as a result.

My bet would be the latter but you never know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
You can do a lot by selective quotation and if you read like a lawyer you would also read the surrounding statements and paragraphs, case law and official interpretation

Your honour, I present these facts,

4.21 City Control
The control status of a city can be:

Friendly: Occupied by one or more of your blocks.

enemy: Friendly to your opponent. Vacant: Friendly to neither player.

Contested: Contains blocks of both players, awaiting Battle Resolution.

IMPORTANT: Changes to city control are effective immediately. Friendly cities become immediately neutral when left Vacant. Similarly, attacking an Enemy city, even with one block, immediately converts it to Contested status until the battle is resolved.

The important part is the part that says...IMPORTANT.

As statute law overrides common law, the status of friendly is logically converted to contested for a temporary time until the contest is resolve, wherein it will then revert back to the original status or change to a new status.

Hence a status can ONLY EXIST if no other status is relevant.

If you read the RAW like a lawyer, then you would not be posing the question...

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
seewhy wrote:


This one clarification clears up a lot of related questions. Worthy of errata inclusion IMO.


Already has the errata inclusion in the rules under the heading IMPORTANT in section 4.21.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Rice
Scotland
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shaynerichards72 wrote:
seewhy wrote:


This one clarification clears up a lot of related questions. Worthy of errata inclusion IMO.


Already has the errata inclusion in the rules under the heading IMPORTANT in section 4.21.


Good point Shayne. I never read the rules with that level of attention. I just skim them quickly to get an idea then play. During the play questions come up that require reference to the rules for clarification. Usually after one play we have the game largely understood. I don't want to play games where I constantly have to refer to the rules even on repeated plays.

At the end of the day my view is the rules are there to facilitate the play of the game not the other way round. That's why I like Columbia's rules as they are normally quite short. The downside is, they cannot cover every eventuality and sometimes you need to use a bit of interpretation.

That's not to say their rules couldn't sometimes be made more clear (not longer!), but in this case, as you've shown, there is no problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shayne Richards
Australia
Mittagong
NSW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes Chris, yes this is a good example of how to improve rules. In many other posts I criticize the rules but this one is one of those times where you say, that's exactly what I meant when I say add one or two bits of clarification.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.