I will state 3 cases of play, each of which will be more and more strange.
I know that at the first glance they will sound crazy, but please do think twice before you post a reply.
It is not really about rules, as they do not give a clear answer, but more a interpretation.
I am using the action card for a knight, that allows me to jump over any other knight.
I exploit the fact that rules do not state that you must land "on the first empty space" or "directly behind".
1/Move one of your knights past one other knight by jumping over it.
2/The knight must move in a straight line orthogonally.
3/In moving the knight may move up 1 level or down any number of levels.
4/The knight you jump over may be on any level.
5/The space you land on must be empty.
So I jump with knight "A"
over knight "B"
I want to land on empty space "_"
"X" is tower block.
From the side perspective.
So basically what I want to do is to jump over knight B but instead of landing on tower I enter the castle via door behind B knight and exit the castle further behind (one or more blocks). All in a orthogonal line. All within the action card move.
Rules 1-5 of the action card are fulfilled.
Rules do not state that you need to land exactly behind B knight.
I would say even more: the "orthogonal line" requirement suggest it can be further that one space behind B knight.
"Exactly/directly behind" would imply an orthogonal line, but that doesn't work both ways, as we got many orthogonal spaces but only one is directly behind.
If you think this could be legit lets go further.
Second case is more hardcore as I want to use the "may move 1 level up" rule from the card in the process, and
a/exit the castle door one level over the one I entered
b/enter the door behind B knight at level 2 and exit at level 2
entering door at level 2 may be legal as "in moving knight can go 1 level up". The "in moving" phrase is really a gold mine ;]
According to action card rules this could be legal. I land on an empty space behind the B knight, orthogonally. I land on legal level +1.
This is even more bizarre.
In case 3 I want to jump over knight B, enter castle door behind him at level 1, and exit castle by level 2 door that are 2 spaces further.
I know it is against the door movement rules that allows you to use them only if you exit on same or lower level, however we also read "unless action card allows different movement".
From my perspective it can be consistent with normal movement rules jump combined with action card.
It is more or less like normal movement (case1&2) with the exception that you jump over another knight in the process.
What you would say about this?
Interesting. I agree that the rules are not clear-cut, and I would agree that if you accept Case 1, then Case 2 and Case 3 are acceptable as well. But I'm not sure I would accept any of them, because now you're including regular movement rules into the bonus provided by an action card, all without spending an action point.
I'd be inclined to house-rule that you must land in the space immediately beyond the jumped knight, even though it's not worded that way in the rulebook.
I don't agree, that rules are incomplete.
There is a picture, there you can see, that shadow pawn is landing just behind other knight.
Well, I follow the below to cite that the knight must end up directly behind the jumped knight... height not a factor.
this is not really a good argument.
Action cards pics must be treated as an example of a correct move, not as an illustration of the only correct move possible.
Card can have only one pic, that means they cannot show you all possible usages of the action, and you need to support them with rulebook.
If u want to understand them as you said then e.g. diagonal move card would allow you to move only from one castle to another, when following the written rules we know you can move also:
from no-castle space to castle
from castle to no-castle space
from castle to the same castle
When you read the description of the action card in isolation your interpretation make sense. However, I would suggest that when you read it in part of the full rulebook, you realize that moving freely on the orthagonal line is an action too powerful.
All moves cost an action point except in two cases: when you move inside a castle and when you use one specific action card (the second card of the second row in ackmondual post). In both cases, the rules stress the fact the moves are illimited as long as they are done in the same castle and respect other constraints. If the authors wanted the "jumped an opponent knight" card to do the same, they would say it.
In other words, it costs an action point by move, unless it is said the moves are illimited. Since it is not the case for this action card, you cannot move more than the square behind the knight, unless you pay additional action points.
- Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014 2:03 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Sat Jan 4, 2014 2:02 pm
While I have to agree that if the rules are to be interpreted as:
rules do not state that you must land "on the first empty space" or "directly behind"
Then all three of the above moves you propose would be valid (as they all respect height rules).
However, I would have to agree with Romain above that such a free-form "leaping over buildings" (à la Superman) is overpowered and likely not to have been an intended move by K&K. Not to say that this breaks the game, but it certainly turns a card that is more context specific into a much more flexible card (too much so?).
Furthermore, yuccata.de does not allow such leaps in its online implementation. This is not to say that yuccata is the rule. However, they usually get it "right" in that it either follows the rules, or the common interpretation of the rules (and if it doesn't, users very quickly pick up on this).
I would be curious if the way in which rules are worded are as loose in other languages within the rule book -- any German speaker who can further specify?
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
The rules are clear when you consider them in the context of every other abstract game that uses jumping moves. It is as clear a word / term / rule as if they had said "the winner of the trick leads to the next" but didn't define "trick" or "leads"... No one would be confused.
- Last edited Sun Jan 5, 2014 2:58 am (Total Number of Edits: 1)
- Posted Sun Jan 5, 2014 2:57 am
This is how the card is explainded in German Ravensburger edition: "Sie können einen fremden Ritter überspringen. Die Ebene des übersprungenen Ritter ist beliebig. Das Feld, auf dem Sie landen, darf auf gleicher Ebene, 1 Ebene höher oder beliebig tiefer sein. Sie können den Ritter nur in gerader Richtung überspringen."
1) The knight you are jumping over must belong to one of your opponents (ein fremd Ritter).
2) The knight you are jumping over may be on any level.
3) The field your knight is landing must be on the same level, up 1 level or down any number of levels. Note: The rules do not say that the field the knight is landing must empty, but it is obvious that it must be free as you can't land on any knights.
4) The knight may only jump orthogonally.
- Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:23 pm (Total Number of Edits: 3)
- Posted Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:21 am