Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Taluva» Forums » Rules

Subject: Build a hut : precision needed rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jean-Francois Peyridieu
France
Grenoble
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello,

after discussion with some other players, i have a doubt about one point :
Can I build a new hut on a terrain which is adjacent to one of my cities, or is this consider as an expansion (and so, may be an uncomplete expansion) ?

Thanks for help,

JF
Bdml Webmaster http://bdml.free.fr/jeuxsoc.html
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve K
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
...
badge
...
Avatar
In the English translation here at BGG, the only restriction on building a hut is that it must go on an unoccupied field at level 1, so I would say yes - you can enlarge a settlement by building a single hut at level 1.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
I agree with Steve: the german rules (which I have) are equally precise in their wording.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jean-Francois Peyridieu
France
Grenoble
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's the same thing in French translation, and I understand it like you.
It was just to be sure.

Thanks,
JF
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve+Jackie McKeogh
United Kingdom
Okehampton
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not so sure and had played it that a single hut could not be placed adjacent to your own settlement. I can see that the only condition given for building a hut is simply 'on a space of his choice at level 1'. But the general building rule includes that 'settlements can be connected by building'. A settlement 'begins with 1 hut and can then be expanded'.
If a single hut is placed adjacent to a settlement of the same colour it does not ever have its own existence as an independent settlement and so cannot fulfil the general rule of allowing two settlements to connect to each other. It is therefore an expansion of an existing settlement (in my opinion and my interpretation of the rules) and needs to fulfil the conditions of the action of expansion.
Perhaps Marcel-Andre Casasola Merkle could give an official ruling on the matter.
Whatever the case, this is a wonderful game and I hope it will be a contender for next year's SdJ. At the moment it's a contender for my all-time favourite.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Personally, I think this is reading too much in too little. You are at the time chosing to build a hut, and if that hut happens to be adjacent to another of your settlements, then so be it. The only restriction is that if you chose this action, the hut must be placed on the first level. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the same logic by which you can join two settlements with the aid of a temple even if one of them already has a temple---you just chose to extend from the temple-free settlement.

If, on the other hand, you had chosen to extend your settlement, then the outlook might have been different, since the requirement is that you must build on all terrain of a chosen type.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrik Strömer
Sweden
Lidingo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And how could you afterwards tell whether it is a new settlement or if it is a joint settlement?

What other reason would it be NOT to extend? To be able to make a move the next round?

In any case, you can always build according to the rules, but I would not let you build a tower next to that last placed hut if the old settlement already had a tower.

That is a different case from the "joining temple".

/Strömer, from Sweden
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve+Jackie McKeogh
United Kingdom
Okehampton
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Playing this last night we had a situation where I had a settlement covering two hexes and with one space between it and another settlement. This second settlement had a temple. The 2 hex settlement had 2 hexes adjacent to it, both of which were sand. I wanted to expand the settlement to 3 hexes in order to build my final temple. But if I used the expand action I would have to place huts on both sand hexes and the second one would then cause it to merge with the other settlement. This would mean I would then be unable to place the temple.
If I was allowed to place a hut by using the 'build a hut' action, I would be able to place a hut on the sand hex away from the other settlement and then place the temple on my next turn on the sand hex which would then connect the two settlements together. Somehow this just seems wrong to be able to do that. My wish was to expand the settlement to 3 hexes, not to start a new settlement. So to be able to use the 'build a hut' action as a sneaky way to expand the settlement seems a poor rule to me (if the rule actually is intended to allow that to be done).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Hottenstein
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
We discussed this in a group I game with. I believe that
we found something in the rules that says you can always
build one hut.

It's not my game so I don't have the rules with me to look
that up and quote the page number.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Hottenstein
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
We discussed this in a group I game with. I believe that
we found something in the rules that says you can always
build one hut.

It's not my game so I don't have the rules with me to look
that up and quote the page number.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert M
United States
Greenville
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is definitely implied from another thread. (The emphasis is mine)

Trevor Benjamin wrote:

Settlements can be joined, and in lots of ways. First, of course 2 settlements can be joined by either expanding one of the 2, or by simply placing a single hut between them(on a first floor space). Second, you can join two settlements with a temple or tower. The only restriction is that at least one of the two settlements doesn't already have a piece of that type. The justification that was given is that the only restriction in the rules is that the settlement from which you build can't already have that piece. So you are free to join two settlements even if it means you know have a large settlement now containing two towers or two temples. Essentially, you are choosing to expand from the settlement without a piece of that type.

Also, I should mention that apparently even if a tower or temple gets entirely isolated by volcano separation, it is still a settlement. So it can be still be extended.

Now, I only heard this from people working at the booth, and not from the designer himself. I guess we'll have to wait for the official clarification.


The designer replied

Marcel-André Casasola Merkle wrote:

Trevor,

your explanation is perfectly right.

Thanks
Marcel-André Casasola Merkle


So it appear to be a valid play
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve+Jackie McKeogh
United Kingdom
Okehampton
Devon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The above quote seemed to answer the question, but since the explanation referred to covered more than just this, I wanted to be sure. So, I contacted Marcel Casasola:

Q: Could you please confirm whether you can use the action 'Build hut' to place a hut (on the first level) directly adjacent to an already existing settlement of your own. In this way the hut is never its own settlement, so I had thought such an action to be 'expanding an existing settlement'.
I would be very grateful if you could state clearly what is correct.

A: Yes, it is allowed to place a single hut directly adjacent to an existing settlement.

So, there is the definitive answer, and my line of reasoning earlier in this forum was evidently wrong.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, it's good to have an official ruling, but expanding a settlement with only 1 hut makes this game extremely simple... And I see no point in playing it again.

Also, I think that allowing a player to place a tile in one place and to expand a settlement elsewhere is a terrible design idea. Again, that makes the game childishly simple. Seriously, that's bad.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Bart
United States
Winnetka
California
flag msg tools
designer
Baseball been bery bery good to me
badge
This is a picture of a published game designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eventide wrote:
Well, it's good to have an official ruling, but expanding a settlement with only 1 hut makes this game extremely simple... And I see no point in playing it again.

How does it make Taluva simpler, much less simple? Usually you want to get huts out quickly, so it's an additional option which you won't use much.

eventide wrote:
Also, I think that allowing a player to place a tile in one place and to expand a settlement elsewhere is a terrible design idea.

NOOOOOOO! Take that hideous misbegotten rule that makes Carcassonne such an abomination and leave it in Carcassonne.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike M
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems like this was settled, but I would like to mention that we do not play that you can place a single hut next to an existing settlement (unless expanding and there's only one field of the chosen terrain type). My instruction (Ferti, 2013), clearly say

"The player places one hut on a level 1 field of his choice, which is not adjacent to an existing settlement of the same color."

It sounds like this is different than previous versions?

Pic for proof:

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Backlash27 wrote:
It seems like this was settled, but I would like to mention that we do not play that you can place a single hut next to an existing settlement (unless expanding and there's only one field of the chosen terrain type). My instruction (Ferti, 2013), clearly say

"The player places one hut on a level 1 field of his choice, which is not adjacent to an existing settlement of the same color."

It sounds like this is different than previous versions?

Yes, various threads have noted that this rule was changed in that later edition. It is also documented in Taluva FAQ.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike M
United States
Plano
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Backlash27 wrote:
It seems like this was settled, but I would like to mention that we do not play that you can place a single hut next to an existing settlement (unless expanding and there's only one field of the chosen terrain type). My instruction (Ferti, 2013), clearly say

"The player places one hut on a level 1 field of his choice, which is not adjacent to an existing settlement of the same color."

It sounds like this is different than previous versions?

Yes, various threads have noted that this rule was changed in that later edition. It is also documented in Taluva FAQ.


Oh, sorry, I must have missed that when I found this thread. Well, now it's documented here also! Thanks.
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.