Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Dominant Species» Forums » Rules

Subject: Endangered species with dominance. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Robert Crawford
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If someone is dominant on a tile, and the last element is removed from that tile, does he lose domination there? The rules clearly say that an endangered species cannot "claim" domination, which to me sounds like he cannot have it. But others in my group think that he can still have domination, he just couldn't claim it (that is, he couldn't take it if he didn't have it). In some cases there is a distinction between claiming domination and having it, like how you can't claim it if you are tied, but you could have it if you are tied (if you had it first). So which is it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agnieszka
Poland
Warsaw
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The species without any matching elements on the tile cannot have domination, i.e. their cone is immediately removed when the last matching element disappears.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Off The Shelf Board Game Reviews
United States
Anchorage
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
If someone is dominant on a tile, and the last element is removed from that tile, does he lose domination there? The rules clearly say that an endangered species cannot "claim" domination, which to me sounds like he cannot have it. But others in my group think that he can still have domination, he just couldn't claim it (that is, he couldn't take it if he didn't have it). In some cases there is a distinction between claiming domination and having it, like how you can't claim it if you are tied, but you could have it if you are tied (if you had it first). So which is it?


Can't quote the page number but you lose Dominance the moment you fail to match at least one element.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Crawford
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Any rules quote or designer clarification? My group all thinks that it's the other way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keng Leong Yeo
Singapore
Singapore
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
aka Uncle
badge
小富靠勤,中富靠智,大富靠德。
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quoting the rules:

Page 7, under Endangered Species: "Any species occupying a tile where its animal matches exactly zero elements is said to be "endangered"."

Page 7, under Dominance: "Endangered species can never claim dominance, even if their animal has the only species on the tile."
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Peekaboo!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
Any rules quote or designer clarification? My group all thinks that it's the other way.


They're wrong. Page 7 under Endangered Species: "Endangered species...cannot claim dominance of a tile." QED.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Crawford
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterG wrote:
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
Any rules quote or designer clarification? My group all thinks that it's the other way.


They're wrong. Page 7 under Endangered Species: "Endangered species...cannot claim dominance of a tile." QED.


We read that rule together several times. They believe that to "claim dominance" is to notice that you have dominance now and place your dominance token there; a separate thing completely from whether or not you "have" dominance. Their argument for that is that the rules say that you cannot "claim" dominance if you are only tied with the person who already has dominance; thus "claiming" and "having" dominance are separate things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Burkman
United States
Kettering
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Peekaboo!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rules-lawyering won't save them. I'm pretty sure there's a thread here somewhere that's already covered the topic, but I don't immediately see it. Regardless, if you've got dominance on a tile and then suddenly your matching element(s) disappear, your dominance disappears, too. Your game state has changed, and if nothing else, you are thereby forced to re-evaluate your "claim." With nothing left matching, your new claim fails and your dominance cone is removed. It's no different than if your species on a tile were eliminated; your dominance would be eliminated as well.

P.S. As it is, "claiming" and "having" in the context of the game are functionally the same anyway. In the instance of your OP, any player could "claim" the altered tile, whereupon it would be discovered that the now endangered, formerly dominant species no longer was able to "claim" its dominance, and away that cone would go.

P.P.S. Are these folks wargamers perchance? I'm just wondering if they're not used to ceding control of a hex until it's physically occupied by the enemy.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
LautreSault
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
thus "claiming" and "having" dominance are separate things.


Not in this game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Crawford
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MisterG wrote:
Rules-lawyering won't save them. I'm pretty sure there's a thread here somewhere that's already covered the topic, but I don't immediately see it. Regardless, if you've got dominance on a tile and then suddenly your matching element(s) disappear, your dominance disappears, too. Your game state has changed, and if nothing else, you are thereby forced to re-evaluate your "claim." With nothing left matching, your new claim fails and your dominance cone is removed. It's no different than if your species on a tile were eliminated; your dominance would be eliminated as well.

P.S. As it is, "claiming" and "having" in the context of the game are functionally the same anyway. In the instance of your OP, any player could "claim" the altered tile, whereupon it would be discovered that the now endangered, formerly dominant species no longer was able to "claim" its dominance, and away that cone would go.

P.P.S. Are these folks wargamers perchance? I'm just wondering if they're not used to ceding control of a hex until it's physically occupied by the enemy.


It's possible that part of why they thought this is due to another rules I just found we were doing wrong... We were playing that in the case of a tie, whoever was dominant there first stays dominant. With that rule in mind, "claiming" and "having" would be more distinct, because while you can't claim dominance due to a tie with another player, you could have dominance in that situation if you had it already, even though you couldn't now claim it. So perhaps pointing out that rule mistake will also clear up he other thing; without that rule around, there's not reason to think that you can ever be dominant in a place that you couldn't currently claim dominance in.

As for saving themselves... It was in fact I that had dominance in a section that lost its only element, so playing the way I wanted would have only hurt me!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
MisterG wrote:
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
Any rules quote or designer clarification? My group all thinks that it's the other way.


They're wrong. Page 7 under Endangered Species: "Endangered species...cannot claim dominance of a tile." QED.


We read that rule together several times. They believe that to "claim dominance" is to notice that you have dominance now and place your dominance token there; a separate thing completely from whether or not you "have" dominance. Their argument for that is that the rules say that you cannot "claim" dominance if you are only tied with the person who already has dominance; thus "claiming" and "having" dominance are separate things.


Rules lawyering. Nothing in the rules or in the way it plays supports that assertion. Where are the special markers to denote that? In otherwise excellent rules where is this even supported? 'Claiming' and removal of that claim can be done at any time (when it is spotted) and the action of claiming gives you the claim of dominance which is the same as 'having'. 'Having' requires possession or there is nothing to 'have'. Once the action that gave rise to the claim is no longer valid it is removed and therefore the 'possession' is no longer valid and therefore there is no 'having' as there is nothing to be had.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
GendoIkari_82 wrote:
MisterG wrote:
Rules-lawyering won't save them. I'm pretty sure there's a thread here somewhere that's already covered the topic, but I don't immediately see it. Regardless, if you've got dominance on a tile and then suddenly your matching element(s) disappear, your dominance disappears, too. Your game state has changed, and if nothing else, you are thereby forced to re-evaluate your "claim." With nothing left matching, your new claim fails and your dominance cone is removed. It's no different than if your species on a tile were eliminated; your dominance would be eliminated as well.

P.S. As it is, "claiming" and "having" in the context of the game are functionally the same anyway. In the instance of your OP, any player could "claim" the altered tile, whereupon it would be discovered that the now endangered, formerly dominant species no longer was able to "claim" its dominance, and away that cone would go.

P.P.S. Are these folks wargamers perchance? I'm just wondering if they're not used to ceding control of a hex until it's physically occupied by the enemy.


It's possible that part of why they thought this is due to another rules I just found we were doing wrong... We were playing that in the case of a tie, whoever was dominant there first stays dominant. With that rule in mind, "claiming" and "having" would be more distinct, because while you can't claim dominance due to a tie with another player, you could have dominance in that situation if you had it already, even though you couldn't now claim it. So perhaps pointing out that rule mistake will also clear up he other thing; without that rule around, there's not reason to think that you can ever be dominant in a place that you couldn't currently claim dominance in.

As for saving themselves... It was in fact I that had dominance in a section that lost its only element, so playing the way I wanted would have only hurt me!


That happens Sometimes I argue for a rules point which benefits my opponent while he argues against one that would benefit him. As suggested earlier, maybe they are wargamers (?) because such rules issues do come up from time to time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Off The Shelf Board Game Reviews
United States
Anchorage
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is also some verbage in the rulebook similar to the effect that players need to constantly monitor dominance since the game has no built in way to do such. That along with the already quoted text from page 7 leads many to believe that Dominance disappears the moment you no longer match at least 1 Element on the tile in question.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete Goch
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Grumsh wrote:
There is also some verbage in the rulebook similar to the effect that players need to constantly monitor dominance since the game has no built in way to do such. That along with the already quoted text from page 7 leads many to believe that Dominance disappears the moment you no longer match at least 1 Element on the tile in question.



TheRules wrote:
In other words, dominance (or the loss of it) must be verbally
and physically claimed and is not automatic
. Thus once
dominance of a tile is legally established, that dominance will
remain in effect unless and until another player: (a) claims
dominance there for his own animal, or (b) shows there
to be a tie for greatest number of matching elements, thus
removing the previous animal’s dominance marker.



So it seems you could retain dominance of a tile even if you were endangered on it so long as no one challenged your dominance. Seems pretty unlikely, though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Marx
United States
Arlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheOneTrueZeke wrote:
Grumsh wrote:
There is also some verbage in the rulebook similar to the effect that players need to constantly monitor dominance since the game has no built in way to do such. That along with the already quoted text from page 7 leads many to believe that Dominance disappears the moment you no longer match at least 1 Element on the tile in question.



TheRules wrote:
In other words, dominance (or the loss of it) must be verbally
and physically claimed and is not automatic
. Thus once
dominance of a tile is legally established, that dominance will
remain in effect unless and until another player: (a) claims
dominance there for his own animal, or (b) shows there
to be a tie for greatest number of matching elements, thus
removing the previous animal’s dominance marker.



So it seems you could retain dominance of a tile even if you were endangered on it so long as no one challenged your dominance. Seems pretty unlikely, though.

I always felt like the spirit of the "dominance is not automatic" rule is to prevent having to try and go back and fix things if a change in dominance is missed. I would like to think that most players want to play the game fairly and would point out dominance changes that hurt them, but sometimes you miss things and trying to go back and retrace everything is especially messy in Dominant Species. This rule allows you to simply chalk it up as a mistake and keep the game moving. Granted, the exact wording of that rule doesn't really support my interpretation, but I feel like this game is nasty enough without having to constantly assert your dominance (though I guess it is thematic).
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I always felt like the spirit of the "dominance is not automatic" rule is to prevent having to try and go back and fix things if a change in dominance is missed. I would like to think that most players want to play the game fairly and would point out dominance changes that hurt them, but sometimes you miss things and trying to go back and retrace everything is especially messy in Dominant Species.

This.
3 
 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.