Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Taluva» Forums » Sessions

Subject: Second running - All the rules right? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stven Carlberg
United States
Decatur
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After our last go at Taluva, I was able to read the rules posted here at BGG and felt like I was ready to get all the details right this time.

Jack was our new player, with Ward and I already knowing something about the ways of the settlements, huts, temples and towers.

For a long time the land of Taluva spread outward, with only one tile being placed on the second level. Everybody got a first temple played fairly early, and then the placements became a little more defensive, with huts being played to block other players' possibilities of expansion and then more second-level tiles being played to reduce settlements to less than three spaces. With a little more maneuvering, everybody managed to get the second of his three temples onto the board.

Eventually this led to an area where a third-level tile could be played, and put huts in a couple of different places nearby so as to have the best chance of getting a tower into play. As it turned out I got to use both, one tower on the tile from the settlement to the left, and on the next turn a tower on the tile from the settlement to the right.

This created a situation of two towers right next to each other in a large settlement, but this was perfectly kosher unless my reading of the rules is mistaken. The rules say settlements can be joined and that this can result in a settlement containing more than one tower or more than one temple.

Finally I got my last temple down next to the big settlement with two towers for the win.

It still seems to me that the routine ending for this game is going to be somebody getting all of two of the three types of buildings played, and that only rarely will all the tiles be played without this happening. But maybe I'm not completely tuned in to the defensive possibilities yet; or maybe it's in the two-player game that a lot more defense will be likely to get played.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Cappello
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I understand your description correctly, and assuming I understand the rules correctly, there is never a time when two towers or temples of the same color may exist next to each other.

You may join two settlements into a larger settlement with a hut but you may not build a tower or temple adjacent to an existing tower or temple even if you're attempting to build a tower or temple into a different settlement.

You may build a hut to join two settlements (expansion), but not a temple or tower if there is already a temple or tower in one of them.

The hut joining two settlements may create a situation where there are multiple towers and/or temples in the uber-settlement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stven Carlberg
United States
Decatur
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm looking over the rules, Joe, to see if perhaps the joining of two settlements to create a situation where there are two temples (or two towers) in a single settlement can only happen via "expansion" (defined as adding huts to a settlement on all contiguous hexes of a single type) rather than via the other ways of making a settlement larger, i.e. by adding a temple or a tower to an existing settlement. If I'm reading the rules right, it could happen either way.

The sentence that says, "It is allowed to connect two of your own Settlements to each other" (their emphasis, not mine) is found under the heading "General building rules." After that paragraph they go into the four subheadings for building a hut, building a tower, building a temple, or expanding an existing settlement.

Then, after the four subheadings, there's a new heading, "Limitation," which explicitly says "all the conditions are met before building (so, after building there may be for example two Temples in a Settlement."

So unless there's a rule I've missed, I feel confident we did this properly. What do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Adams
United States
Brigham City
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ssmooth wrote:
So unless there's a rule I've missed, I feel confident we did this properly. What do you think?


You are correct. It was confirmed by the game's author in another thread.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/131873
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Cappello
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I disagree.

The designer affirms a description of a previous post with some following dissent. If you read the entire thread, it seems clear that the examples are designed toward uniting settlements as expansion with a hut. It does not seem intuitive, based on the game's intent and theme, that you can use a tower (or temple) to join two settlements either of which have a tower (or temple) in them. You simply do not have the ability to merge settlements using a temple (or tower) if there is a temple (or tower) present in either of the adjacent settlements - the caveat is that you can join settlements with a tower or temple if the settlement you're joining with does not have that structure in it.

Read through the thread carefully.

BTW, as I read this thread, I would love to have the designer weigh in. I love this game and would dearly like to know if I'm playing it wrong.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Cappello
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I emailed the game designer for clarification.

I keep trying to figure out a way to reduce the issue into simple language and it's driving me crazy.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a settlement may contain one or more towers (or temples) after expansion.

I have trouble with the notion that building a tower (or temple) into a settlement without one such that the tower (or temple) tacitly becomes an expansion joining two settlements such that the built tower (or temple) is adjacent to another tower (or temple) makes sense.

The rules for building towers and temples say "is directly to one of his settlements" and "directly adjacent to one of his settlements", respectively. If the language is perfect, then expansion and building are intimately connected to choosing ONE settlement to expand or build into regardless of any other separate settlement. Assuming this to be correct, it seems that you could build a tower (or temple) next to another building of that same type and color if that building was part of a separate settlement.

There are other rules which seem to aid and abet the confusion in this thread.

I'm beginning to believe that you can have adjacent towers (or temples) of the same color - I think my reluctance is connected to perceiving a space between same-colored settlements as somehow sharing commonality between the two such that a tower (or temple) can't serve a dual function of building and expanding - based on the rules, it seems this is me looking at it through rose-tinted glasses.

Which is strange to me - I mean, what do I care on way or the other? I'll play it whichever way is correct after having a little humble-pie if I was mistaken. I guess I would just like to hear it from the horse's mouth. God, I hate hunches. It creeps me out.

Anyway, I'll let you know what the designer says in answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel-André Casasola Merkle
Germany
Munich
Bavaria
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mb
Sorry to disappoint you Joe but the others are right. And I think that J.C.'s sentence describes it very well.

The player chooses one settlement and ignores all other settlements he controls in play when building any building.

Best regards and have fun whith the game alltogether.
Marcel-André Casasola Merkle
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Cappello
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the quick response. I'm not disappointed at all - I learned something new! I guess there was no harm, no foul - everyone I've played the game with played by the same rules (since I was explaining - go figure), so now we just play them correctly.

Thanks.

1 
 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
ssmooth wrote:
Eventually this led to an area where a third-level tile could be played, and put huts in a couple of different places nearby so as to have the best chance of getting a tower into play. As it turned out I got to use both, one tower on the tile from the settlement to the left, and on the next turn a tower on the tile from the settlement to the right.

This created a situation of two towers right next to each other in a large settlement, but this was perfectly kosher unless my reading of the rules is mistaken.

I did the same thing in my second game of Taluva. I ended up with my two towers standing side by side on the same tile. The rule could be written more clearly, but it seemed to me that this was kosher. I am happy to see the designer has confirmed my reading.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Kwan
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Barticus88 wrote:
I did the same thing in my second game of Taluva. I ended up with my two towers standing side by side on the same tile. The rule could be written more clearly, but it seemed to me that this was kosher. I am happy to see the designer has confirmed my reading.

Not only is such play legal, it is also excellent strategy. A level-3 tile always has 2 spaces; placing your 2 towers on them is probably the best you can achieve with it. (And then, you can easily add a temple to the joined settlement if it has not got one already. )

I just did that in one of my games against my wife, too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chieh-Yu Chen
United States
Eugene
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We played wrongly too, so now we can play it correctly.
 
 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.