Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

The Ravens of Thri Sahashri» Forums » Rules

Subject: Relive memories rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Radek Bohunsky
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Must be "connected block of same coloured cards" created always from new cards, or may some of them be the same? For example, we have:

11
122
244
44


in same color and Ren have already turned card of that color. Now Feth adds another card of the same color:

11
122
244
411
11


Is this the new relived memory, or the used 1,2 and 4 are not counted to any other sum of 7?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis de Vries
Netherlands
Deventer
flag msg tools
Ah, doctor, that aneasthetic is perfect!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't really understand your question (I'm a bit confused by your diagrams and 'the same colour': which numer is which colour in your diagram?).

But if Feth makes exactely 7 with at least 1 new card (you only relive a memory when a card is placed in the Atman and if the cards are 1 connected block), then you will relive a memory (even if it's the same colour).

So if you can completely cover a card and make it a block of the same coloured cards summing up to 7 again, then I think you will relive a memory of the same colour.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bohun wrote:

11
122
244
411
11


Is this the new relived memory, or the used 1,2 and 4 are not counted to any other sum of 7?

No, this is not a new relived memory, because the total of the chunk is 8, not 7. It must be 7 and not more than 7.

If you remove the 1, and then place a new 1, then it's OK.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis de Vries
Netherlands
Deventer
flag msg tools
Ah, doctor, that aneasthetic is perfect!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aha, now I see: 1 card consists of 4 numbers in the diagram. OK, my bad.

For the rest: see the answers above.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radek Bohunsky
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
bohun wrote:

11
122
244
411
11


Is this the new relived memory, or the used 1,2 and 4 are not counted to any other sum of 7?

No, this is not a new relived memory, because the total of the chunk is 8, not 7. It must be 7 and not more than 7.

If you remove the 1, and then place a new 1, then it's OK.


Sorry, bad example, but clear answer Thanks.
Only the last question for to be sure. If I little rearange the diagram:
we have
11
122
244
44

in for example red color, next we added some blue card:
11
bb22
bb244
44

and after it we add another red 1:
11
bb22
b1144
1144

Is it another relived memory? I think yes, because there is the blue card inbetween red ones, but I'm not sure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bohun wrote:

11
bb22
b1144
1144

Is it another relived memory? I think yes, because there is the blue card inbetween red ones, but I'm not sure.


Interesting situation, but no, it's still an 8.

The blue card is not "in between" the two 1s, because the two 1s aren't overlapping at all.

In your situation, if the last red 1 wasn't put where it was, but instead put EXACTLY where the first red 1 was placed, though, it would be a new 7, as the other red 1 below would "disappear" as the new 1 was placed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radek Bohunsky
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
bohun wrote:

11
bb22
b1144
1144

Is it another relived memory? I think yes, because there is the blue card inbetween red ones, but I'm not sure.


Interesting situation, but no, it's still an 8.

The blue card is not "in between" the two 1s, because the two 1s aren't overlapping at all.


Hm, but isn't it in contradiction with your example from http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1240634/several-rules-questi... where you are saying:
Quote:
YY
OYYB
OXBB
XX

This is NOT a block of cards, because the blue B is lying in beneath Y. There must be NO card of any other color in between the cards of the same colour.

which, I think, is simillar to my diagram?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bohun wrote:
Hm, but isn't it in contradiction with your example from http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1240634/several-rules-questi... where you are saying:
Quote:
YY
OYYB
OXBB
XX

This is NOT a block of cards, because the blue B is lying in beneath Y. There must be NO card of any other color in between the cards of the same colour.

which, I think, is simillar to my diagram?


What I mean there, is that the Blue is lying between the Y and the O (partly), that must overlap each other in order to form a block. As you see, the X and the Y don't overlap.

In your diagram, the blue card isn't lying in between the 1 and another red card it touches, not even partly. The 1 only touches the 2, and the blue card isn't lying between them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bogzal wrote:

1st step (atman = 7):

11
122
244
44

2nd step (atman = 8):

11
122
244
411
11

3rd step (atman = 7 again):

xx
x22
244
411
11

Does this count as a new relived memory?


Not if you just remove the first 1. It's specifically timed only when you place a card. However, you could possibly cover the first 1 with another coloured card; I'm actually unsure as to whether that would actually consist of forming a 7. My gut feeling tells me it probably doesn't; whatever colour you are creating probably has to be of the card you're laying down.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Radek Bohunsky
Czech Republic
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
bohun wrote:
Hm, but isn't it in contradiction with your example from http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1240634/several-rules-questi... where you are saying:
Quote:
YY
OYYB
OXBB
XX

This is NOT a block of cards, because the blue B is lying in beneath Y. There must be NO card of any other color in between the cards of the same colour.

which, I think, is simillar to my diagram?


What I mean there, is that the Blue is lying between the Y and the O (partly), that must overlap each other in order to form a block. As you see, the X and the Y don't overlap.

I'm totally lost now How is Blue lying between the Y and the O? I thought the O and the B are lying side by side (with the X between them) and Y is lying over the both.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bohun wrote:
[q="Zimeon"]
Quote:
YY
OYYB
OXBB
XX
What I mean there, is that the Blue is lying between the Y and the O (partly), that must overlap each other in order to form a block. As you see, the X and the Y don't overlap.

I'm totally lost now How is Blue lying between the Y and the O? I thought the O and the B are lying side by side (with the X between them) and Y is lying over the both.


Yeah, you're right. It's a bit hard to explain, in all honesty, and I'm getting unsure. My gut feeling tells me the above situation is still not a 7, as the rules claim that there must be no card of any other colour, even partly, in between the cards. The blue lying underneath the Y and on top of the X that lies on top of the O makes me feel like the Y isn't directly touching the O; as the blue is beneath it. Think of it as if the cards weren't flat, but 10 cm thick. In that case there would be quite a lot of air beneath the Y and the O.

Can't definitely say this "thick cards" way of seeing it is the intended way, and even if it is, I don't know if it's the best, but as said, my gut feeling after asking Kuro tons of times for various configurations tell me that it is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bogzal wrote:
Did I get it right?


Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to see it. At least it's the best way I can think of explaining it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bogzal wrote:
Zimeon wrote:
Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think this is the way to see it. At least it's the best way I can think of explaining it.

Well... IMHO in this case the game difficulty changes from hard to almost-impossible. You would be required to track three dimensional information on (almost) two dimensional model.


Not at all. It only concerns the '7 blocks' anyway. Technically, nothing should ever be between the cards that form a 7, and keeping this is mind isn't that hard. I've cleared the games several times.

There is no such thing as a split in a surface parallel the game table. The Atman splits only viewed 2-dimensionally.

bogzal wrote:
And there is another thing: by completely covering a card you lose information on "vertical splits" it creates.

Of course you do. So it's not that difficult, as that information is now hidden and doesn't exist.

Feth just needs to pay attention when creating 7s, that's all.

bogzal wrote:
A very simple example with three cards:

BCC
BCC
AA

It is impossible tell if A and C are connected. The B card may be either between the A and C or under both of them.


In that example, if B is lying in between C and A, C and A are not connected. If it's below both of them, they are. Say C is a red 4 and A is a red 2. Putting a red 1 so that it overlaps one of the two visible quadrants of A would create a 7. If blue is in between C and A, it wouldn't be a 7. Also, if the 1 covers BOTH quadrants of A, then A ceases to exist and it's not a 7.

bogzal wrote:
By two dimensional model I mean the kind of game mechanics where one card covering the other is always considered "connected" (to the covered card) despite the difference in levels.


I'm just saying what the designer told me when I gave him a bucketload of examples to understand that rule. I tried to keep it as simple as possible in the rule sheet. I can ask him again, though, if you wish. Best would be if I do that on Game Market in a few weeks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael H
Switzerland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I also think that this 3-dimensional model does not make sense. For the sake of playability, a basic rule should be that you can tell about adjacencies by looking at current atman layout only, without digging into the pile and checking for stacking order.

An example of where the "other card in between blocks" principle makes sense is, for instance, if cards A,B,C are played in this order as depicted

AA
BCC
BCC

Now if A and C have the same color, which is different from B, then you can clearly see that B blocks the potential adjacency between A and C. However, if then D is played to cover B completely,

AA
DDCC
DDCC

then A and C should be considered adjacent again. (If they sum up to 7, this would not give a relived memory, because those can only be obtained with the card just played. But if their sum is
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mika6 wrote:
However, if then D is played to cover B completely,

AA
DDCC
DDCC


then A and C should be considered adjacent again. (If they sum up to 7, this would not give a relived memory, because those can only be obtained with the card just played. But if their sum is


The card below D would "cease to exist", and hence this would work.

But as said, a '7' can only be obtained with the currently played card.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael H
Switzerland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for your answers, Zimeon!
Somehow the second half of my post got lost.
(It seems that happened when I used a less than character, which the system unconditionally interprets as a tag. Sorry for the edits...)
So let me try again:

In the example given above by bogzal

BCC
BCC
AA

it would be strange if we cannot decide whether A and C are connected without uncovering the card pile or remembering stacking order. You might say that we can still see that at the moment when C is put, but then suppose A+C is less than 7 and what are we gonna do in future turns?

Moreover, we can build longer cycles, such as

ADD
ADDC
BCC

Now, adopting a 3d model, we face a staircase like structure with D being 3 levels above A, hence not touching it. But if B was placed before A, everything would be fine and A adjacent to D. This would seem a mess to sort out...

Thematically, it could make sense to only count the hashed/lost quadrants for the purpose of adjacency. After all, the point is to piece those together in order to relive the memory.

I'm not even sure how more or less adjacencies impact difficulty, because you have to get to 7 exactly and so more is not necessarily easier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Lundström
Sweden
Täby
flag msg tools
Now who are these five?
badge
Come, come, all children who love fairy tales.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mika6 wrote:
it would be strange if we cannot decide whether A and C are connected without uncovering the card pile or remembering stacking order.


I see what you mean, but my take is that, while "checking stacking order" isn't exactly what was intended, it is what's needed in these rare cases in order to follow the idea that "no cards of another colour can be in between any of cards of the the 7 chunk, not even partly".

mika6 wrote:
But if B was placed before A, everything would be fine and A adjacent to D. This would seem a mess to sort out...


Well, while it might seem messy, I don't think it's practically that difficult when push comes to shove. The cards tend to like a bit hap-hazard anyway, and are rarely really perfectly aligned, so you end up seeing how they're placed anyway.

The base idea behind the '7's is that they should be built with no interference at all from the other cards. As a lone designer, I don't think Kuro went to extremes to decide on the exact wording of the rule for the '7's; he probably just took what seemed to work best with his idea. Having played this game some 5–6 times, I can say that the rule for the 7s has almost never bothered me. I'm have more problems with the fact that you can actually BUILD an Atman split (by covering a previous card so that it "disappears" and thus the Atman is split because the card below isn't seen).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
andrea vaccaro
Italy
flag msg tools
A question.

Relived memories (cards) are faced up or face down at the final dream? Feth must memorize value cards or can access to them?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
andrea vaccaro
Italy
flag msg tools
Ops, I've read the answer now! It's all ok.
 
 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.