Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
11 Posts

Tyrants of the Underdark» Forums » Rules

Subject: Adjacency rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just got through reading the rules to prep for a session, and I had one thing that I thought wasn't totally clear:

In the rules about Presence, it talks about having a presence at a troop space on a route if that space is adjacent to a place where you have a troop. But unless I'm mistaken, adjacency isn't actually defined? So ... is the entire route connected to a site via the route line, or is a space on a route adjacent to only to the troop spaces/sites it is directly connected to (so to get from site A to site B you need to control all the spaces on the route in-between)?

Pretty sure the latter is correct. But since it wasn't totally clear to me I thought I'd ask.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ruf
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
cfarrell wrote:
Just got through reading the rules to prep for a session, and I had one thing that I thought wasn't totally clear:

In the rules about Presence, it talks about having a presence at a troop space on a route if that space is adjacent to a place where you have a troop. But unless I'm mistaken, adjacency isn't actually defined? So ... is the entire route connected to a site via the route line, or is a space on a route adjacent to only to the troop spaces/sites it is directly connected to (so to get from site A to site B you need to control all the spaces on the route in-between)?

Pretty sure the latter is correct. But since it wasn't totally clear to me I thought I'd ask.


The rules say a route "space" when talking about adjacency. If the entire route was adjacent, it would just say "route." However a troop on any site space IS adjacent to any route space adjacent to that site.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yep, there is no definition for adjacency in the rules. While I personally had no problem with the case you are describing (it did not come to my mind that an entire route could be adjacent, I always thought in adjacent spaces), I consider it weak rule design NOT to define adjacency in particular as some card USE the term "adjacent" which in turn has already led to gamers asking about this term here on BGG.

I really love Tyrants, but the rulebook is not something I would call good.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it's just the individual spaces that are adjacent, and it's not routes and sites. That's the way I would play it, with a clear conscience. But later on a route is defined as the line plus all the spaces on it, so a route could be adjacent to a site and then all the spaces on the route could be adjacent to that site; that would be a less defensible reading I think, but it could possibly be correct so I'm just trying to make sure it's not . I'm actually pretty sure the intent will be clear once I sit down and play it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mixo wrote:
Yep, there is no definition for adjacency in the rules. While I personally had no problem with the case you are describing (it did not come to my mind that an entire route could be adjacent, I always thought in adjacent spaces), I consider it weak rule design NOT to define adjacency in particular as some card USE the term "adjacent" which in turn has already led to gamers asking about this term here on BGG.

I really love Tyrants, but the rulebook is not something I would call good.


I actually thought the rules were generally pretty clear. Could it be better? Maybe. But except for that one thing I actually felt it was a clear, well-written rulebook. I mean, it's better, by a lot, than every single FFG rulebook that I've ever read.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Weber
Germany
Wendeburg
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cfarrell wrote:


I actually thought the rules were generally pretty clear. Could it be better? Maybe. But except for that one thing I actually felt it was a clear, well-written rulebook. I mean, it's better, by a lot, than every single FFG rulebook that I've ever read.


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the rulebook is bad, to me it isn't good either.

Just a few random thing I stumbled upon:

1) The term "barracks" has never been defined. This is NOT a big issue, but it would have been very easy to state in the setup that "players take their troops and place them in their barracks"

2) "Adjecency" being a term used on cards, not being explained in the rules.

3) The sentence "Note that unlike following the instructions of other card text, paying the cost of an ability is optional" gives the information that a card's text is obligatory when the card is played. This should have been mentioned in the playing a card section.

3) Some actions need presence, some don't while it is all in the rules, it is a bit confusing at first.

4) missing examples

Again, I do NOT think the rules are BAD, they just aren't great either.

Regarding FFG's rulebooks - I actually like their two rulebook approach. Then again I am not a person who needs to know all the rules before I start. When I learn rules I setup the game and walk through the rules by playing the game. For this approach the FFG way is perfect, for someone who wants o read all the rules first, they must be a nightmare...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mixo wrote:
cfarrell wrote:


I actually thought the rules were generally pretty clear. Could it be better? Maybe. But except for that one thing I actually felt it was a clear, well-written rulebook. I mean, it's better, by a lot, than every single FFG rulebook that I've ever read.


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the rulebook is bad, to me it isn't good either.

Just a few random thing I stumbled upon:

1) The term "barracks" has never been defined. This is NOT a big issue, but it would have been very easy to state in the setup that "players take their troops and place them in their barracks"


Your barracks is below your player board. It's where your undeployed troops go.

EDIT: I see under setup that the rules don't mention this specifically.

Quote:

2) "Adjecency" being a term used on cards, not being explained in the rules.


I think they don't explain it in the rules because the rules use the term. It may be obvious to the rules writers, but apparently it causes confusion. I feel it's clear.

Quote:

3) The sentence "Note that unlike following the instructions of other card text, paying the cost of an ability is optional" gives the information that a card's text is obligatory when the card is played. This should have been mentioned in the playing a card section.


Under "Playing Cards", it's the second sentence.

Quote:


3) Some actions need presence, some don't while it is all in the rules, it is a bit confusing at first.

4) missing examples

Again, I do NOT think the rules are BAD, they just aren't great either.

Regarding FFG's rulebooks - I actually like their two rulebook approach. Then again I am not a person who needs to know all the rules before I start. When I learn rules I setup the game and walk through the rules by playing the game. For this approach the FFG way is perfect, for someone who wants o read all the rules first, they must be a nightmare...


I personally like the clean and direct style of the rules. It was easy for me to find information unlike some other formats.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Ruf
United States
Acworth
Georgia
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
While "adjacency" isn't concretely defined, it defined by implication on page 10 under "Presence":

At any site where you have a spy, a troop, or a troop in a space adjacent to that site.

At any troop space on a route if that space is adjacent to a site or space where you have a troop.

I emphasized space vs. route.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After actually playing the game, the space-to-space adjacency clearly seems to be the right answer, not site-to-route. Again, I do think that is the way the rules read, but I also think it should have been a bit more explicit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jean-Philippe Thériault
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe it's just that I work with graph theory on a daily basis, but I feel like maybe the rules don't define adjacency because people assume that an English speaker would know what it means?

Do we also need to define "draw" and "shuffle" in the rules? No. You would go into an infinite regress of definitions, so you need to assume a baseline shared language that you build game definitions on top of.

Granted, a bunch of game designers in a room live in a bubble of specialized jargon so maybe are not the best ones to decide which of the words are the baseline English ones as opposed to in-game terms that need definition. I just think this is a case of two different demographics having a different idea of where that line should be drawn.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think it would have been clear enough if they hadn't later clearly defined "route" as a thing composed of multiple spaces. The site could be adjacent to a space, or it could be adjacent to a route which is composed of spaces (we don't consider the individual spaces inside a site adjacent to each other in a meaningful way - they're all interchangeable). It's certainly common enough in games for routes to have spaces on them that count for control of the route, but not to be distinct for connectivity purposes.

I obviously don't think this is the simplest reading, but it's certainly not crazy.
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.