$15.00
$5.00
$20.00
Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

The Ravens of Thri Sahashri» Forums » Rules

Subject: Split Atman quiz rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ok, so just when I think I have it, I confused myself again! In most cases a split is obvious, but I'm interested in hearing your votes on the following. So consider it a quiz of sorts!
I'll paste another picture of some potential Atman splits, and am asking if you think in each of the four one or more splits exist.
No prizes for the winners just the pride in knowing you have helped your fellow players!

Place your answers below!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here are my guesses (see spoiler!)

Spoiler (click to reveal)


1) top left isn't connected to any visible under or overlaying cards
2) no split
3) top right card split
4) 3-way split. I'm guessing Ren chooses which part to resolve first and then reevaluates if a split still exists as first card removal may result in reveal of a lower card which rejoins previously split cards

This is my guess anyway!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Johnson
Canada
St.John's
Newfoundland
flag msg tools
designer
“Brothers, oh brothers, my days here are done, the Dornishman’s taken my life, But what does it matter, for all men must die, and I’ve tasted the Dornishman’s wife!”
badge
"Oak and iron guard me well, or else I'm dead and doomed to hell." - Andal proverb.
mbmbmbmbmb
Spoiler (click to reveal)
I believe 3 and 4 are the only pictures with Atman splits.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Eeeville wrote:
Spoiler (click to reveal)
I believe 3 and 4 are the only pictures with Atman splits.

Spoiler (click to reveal)
Do you agree with the splits for 3 and 4 as per my highlighted pic? Also pic 1 is where some of my confusion lays. The splitting of the Atman in all conversations I've seen has said about visible card connections. That top left card only has an invisible connection to the others so I'm wondering if the split is present. Tricky eh!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ps please don't feel like you need to use spoiler tags if you don't want to it might actually help discussion I guess! Your choice though!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Oakley
United States
Brandon
Mississippi
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Only 3 and 4 are split I believe. As for 1, I believe all cards are connected through the red 5.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Johnson
Canada
St.John's
Newfoundland
flag msg tools
designer
“Brothers, oh brothers, my days here are done, the Dornishman’s taken my life, But what does it matter, for all men must die, and I’ve tasted the Dornishman’s wife!”
badge
"Oak and iron guard me well, or else I'm dead and doomed to hell." - Andal proverb.
mbmbmbmbmb
My interpretation:

In picture three, you could keep 2 Green or 5 Yellow + 3 & 1 Purple
In picture four, you could keep 3 Purple, or 2 Green, or 5 Yellow + 1 Purple

I don't think a split is in picture 1 because the red 5 tethers the other three cards
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's genuinely interesting how all of us are playing this rule using words such as, "I think", "I believe" and "My interpretation". I can't think of any other game where one rule has caused so much confusion!
I see a Geeklist in the making....!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Re picture number 1. I see this from another thread:

Zimeon wrote:
coralsaw wrote:
1. If Ren takes a card and the atman is "split" into 2 halves, that are though connected underneath with a card is this a real atman split? If so, does the "chunk" of cards to be discarded include the underlying card or not?


Official answer from the designer:

No.

The logic is this:

1) The card underneath does not exist. What you see is the Atman that is split. One half must be discarded.

2) You take that half. Now the card underneath is visible again. Hence it starts existing, and it's not discarded.


I read this as the same as my 1st picture in that the top left card is only connected by a hidden card. There's no visible connection to any other card and so is split. The fact this is 'from designer' appears to add weight but what do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Johnson
Canada
St.John's
Newfoundland
flag msg tools
designer
“Brothers, oh brothers, my days here are done, the Dornishman’s taken my life, But what does it matter, for all men must die, and I’ve tasted the Dornishman’s wife!”
badge
"Oak and iron guard me well, or else I'm dead and doomed to hell." - Andal proverb.
mbmbmbmbmb
1 quadrant of the card is visible. Cards that 'cease to exist' are those that are completely covered. That is my understanding anyway.

I think the example they're talking about is when each half of a card is underneath 2 cards, making it completely covered. So, it looks like 2 side-by-side cards with no under/overlap
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Eeeville wrote:
1 quadrant of the card is visible. Cards that 'cease to exist' are those that are completely covered. That is my understanding anyway.

I think the example they're talking about is when each half of a card is underneath 2 cards, making it completely covered. So, it looks like 2 side-by-side cards with no under/overlap


And that's why this is confusing as what you say makes perfect sense!
 
 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.
mbmbmbmbmb
3 and 4 are splits. The others are not.

Only cards that are COMPLETELY COVERED are counted as "not there".

In 1) and 2), you can see the red 5 lying beneath, glueing the cards together. The red 5 is very much there, as a quadrant of it is visible.

In 3) there is no visible card that ties the yellow 5 and the green 2 together. Hence a split.

In 4) there are no visible card(s) that tie the yellow 5 and the green 2 and the purple 3 together. Hence a three-way split.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damon
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
3 and 4 are splits. The others are not.

Only cards that are COMPLETELY COVERED are counted as "not there".

In 1) and 2), you can see the red 5 lying beneath, glueing the cards together. The red 5 is very much there, as a quadrant of it is visible.

In 3) there is no visible card that ties the yellow 5 and the green 2 together. Hence a split.

In 4) there are no visible card(s) that tie the yellow 5 and the green 2 and the purple 3 together. Hence a three-way split.


And to deal with three way splits, i assume the correct approach is to choose one split to discard and then recheck to see if a split still exists (another card revealed below may now glue the rest of the cards).
Or is the mechanic to choose the two to discard?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
mrwendal wrote:
Zimeon wrote:
3 and 4 are splits. The others are not.

Only cards that are COMPLETELY COVERED are counted as "not there".

In 1) and 2), you can see the red 5 lying beneath, glueing the cards together. The red 5 is very much there, as a quadrant of it is visible.

In 3) there is no visible card that ties the yellow 5 and the green 2 together. Hence a split.

In 4) there are no visible card(s) that tie the yellow 5 and the green 2 and the purple 3 together. Hence a three-way split.


And to deal with three way splits, i assume the correct approach is to choose one split to discard and then recheck to see if a split still exists (another card revealed below may now glue the rest of the cards).
Or is the mechanic to choose the two to discard?


You choose one to keep, and throw away everything else.
1 
 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.
mbmbmbmbmb
mrwendal wrote:
And to deal with three way splits, i assume the correct approach is to choose one split to discard and then recheck to see if a split still exists (another card revealed below may now glue the rest of the cards).
Or is the mechanic to choose the two to discard?


Choose one to keep, discard the rest. If there were card(s) beneath the splits, that were connected to the part you keep, that/those card(s) stay.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Hoffmann
United States
Fort Lee
Virginia
flag msg tools
My wife and I both believe no splits in 1 or 2, but clearly in 3 and 4. I was literally logging in to post pics and ask about this topic. I think EVERYONE understands everything except your number 1 example. To me, it's very confusing that there aren't a page or two of pics that would show the rules more clearly.

BTW...have any of you gotten to open the envelope with one person, but then play with someone else later? I always try and think of it as a team, so if the team of my wife and I are at one "level" the team of my daughter and I might be at a different one. Does everyone do that, or do you just kind of view it as a permanent change for everyone?

Adam
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Falk Hartelius
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
publisher
I know Simon has already answered, but to give Osprey's official response:

1) Is not split. The three cards are connected to the Red 5, so everything is interconnected. If the Red 5 was removed, you'd have a three-way split.

2) Is not split - again the three cards are connected to the Red 5.

3) The atman is split two-way, as the Green 2 is not connected to the rest of the cards.

4)Three-way split; Purple 3, Green 2, and Gold 5 + Purple 1
1 
 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.
mbmbmbmbmb
Adamjay42 wrote:
BTW...have any of you gotten to open the envelope with one person, but then play with someone else later? I always try and think of it as a team, so if the team of my wife and I are at one "level" the team of my daughter and I might be at a different one.


I'd treat it as a team-thing. Same with other games; I don't include expansions or stuff when playing with people for the first time. I don't add the 6th colour to MadoMagion when playing with people for the first time either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is a way to think about it.

The Atman is a graph defined as follows.

Each visible card is a vertex (totally covered cards are not in the Atman!).

There is an edge between two cards if they overlap. (Two visible cards overlap if there is some quadrant that they both cover.)

The Atman is split if there are two vertices that are not connected in this graph.

Consider the examples:


1. The red 5 overlaps each of the cards. Every pair of cards thus connects through the red 5, and that Atman is not split.

(This one may appear tricky because the only visible quadrant of the red 5 is connected only diagonally with the quadrant of the red 5 that is covered by the gold 5. That fact may make it less obvious to some that those two cards do overlap.)

2. Again, there is an edge from the red 5 to every other card, and the Atman is connected.

3. The green 2 overlaps with no card and is thus disconnected from the others. The Atman is split. (The other 3 cards connect through the purple 1.)

4. Neither the green 2 nor the purple 3 overlap with any cards, so the Atman is split three ways. (It is three ways and not 4 since the purple 1 and the gold 5 overlap).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
2. Again, there is an edge from the red 5 to every other card, and the Atman is connected.


Actually there's no edge from the red 5 to the gold 2, but they are connected through the purple 1.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
Quote:
2. Again, there is an edge from the red 5 to every other card, and the Atman is connected.

Actually there's no edge from the red 5 to the gold 2, but they are connected through the purple 1.

Gold 2? Did you mean gold 5 or green 2?

By my definition, there is an edge between two visible cards if there is some quadrant that they both cover.

In both pictures 1 and 2, the SE quadrant of the gold 5 and the NW quadrant of the red 5 cover the same quadrant.

Similarly, the SW quadrant of the green 2 and the NE quadrant of the red 5 cover the same quadrant.

Maybe my definition is not the most natural one that will serve here.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
gillum wrote:
qwertymartin wrote:
Quote:
2. Again, there is an edge from the red 5 to every other card, and the Atman is connected.

Actually there's no edge from the red 5 to the gold 2, but they are connected through the purple 1.

Gold 2? Did you mean gold 5 or green 2?

I meant Gold 5, sorry.
Quote:

By my definition, there is an edge between two visible cards if there is some quadrant that they both cover.


But in this case the only quadrant that they both cover has the Purple 1 intervening between them, so I don't think they are technically connected.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm sorry that I haven't been clear.

Rather than proposing a rule about when the Atman is split, I was proposing an algorithm one could use (when uncertain) to evaluate the Atman and decide whether it is split.

(I'll admit that the line between the two ideas may be fuzzy.)

The algorithm that I proposed defined two visible cards to be "connected" based solely on whether there was a quadrant that they both covered, regardless of any intervening cards (visible or not).

I think that this approach is reasonable, for the purposes of identifying a split Atman, because whether the Atman is split is really a property of how it appears on the surface, regardless of how the cards are layered beneath the surface.

Put differently: if visible cards A and B overlap on a quadrant - regardless of any intervening cards - then A and B cannot possibly in different parts of a split Atman.

I think that that fact (along with its transitive closure) suffices to determine whether the Atman is split.

I know that we've had recent discussions of when play of a card relives a memory, and in that case the layering of visible cards is important. The definition there is more complicated.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
mbmbmbmbmb
The more I think about this game, the messier it gets! Your definition above is how I *thought* it worked for reliving memories too, but then the other thread confused me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't disagree.


There is another interesting distinction between "split Atman" and "relive memories."

The notion of the Atman being split seems to be a static one that applies to the state of the Atman at a point in time.

In contrast, the determination of whether a memory is relived is dynamic and pertains specifically to the placement of a card by Feth.

Perhaps that is why the former is based solely what is visible on the surface, while the latter takes into account what may be under the surface (i.e., whether other cards intervene between overlapping cards).

Unfortunately, it's not even as "simple" as that. While reliving a memory takes into account intervening cards, I believe that it does not consider intervening cards that are completely covered (and thus no longer in the Atman).
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.