Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know that questions like this have been asked a few times, but I am hoping to improve my understanding so that I can give to others a precise definition of a connected block for reliving memories.

The Osprey rules say that "A block is a group of cards of the same colour which all overlap, with no other cards between them."

One could construe "all overlap" as meaning that every pair of cards in the block must overlap in some place with no intervening card, as in this example:

The two 2's overlap with each other, and each of them overlaps with the 3.

This definition would rule out the following example:

This wouldn't suffice because the 3 does not overlap the rightmost 2.

The original Japanese rules seem to allow the latter example:
Quote:
”Connected block” means that the cards must cover each other – each card of the block must touch and cover at least one other card of the block. Being adjacent is not enough, and no card of any other colour must lie in between any of the cards in the block.

This more relaxed rule might be written as follows: there is a sequence of cards of the same color, where each adjacent pair in the sequence overlaps with no card of another color in between.

This is more relaxed because it requires only a sequence (or path) of overlapping cards - not that they all overlap.

That definition would also allow the following:

The two 2's are overlapping (the green is not in between) and the 3 overlaps with the rightmost 2 (the green is not between). Thus, there is a path from the leftmost 2 to the rightmost 2 to the 3.

The green comes between the 3 and the leftmost 2 - but those two can "connect" through the rightmost 2 (just like in the second example, where the 3 and the rightmost 2 don't overlap at all).

The "each pair must overlap" definition would clearly disallow this example.

If the third example is to be disallowed by a "path connected" definition, such definition would need to be more complicated. Something like, "there is a sequence of cards of the same color, where each adjacent pair in the sequence overlaps, AND there is no pair in sequence (adjacent or not) that overlap with a card of another color between them."

To me, a "path connected" definition that allows the third example is simpler and more appealing - but I'll allow that it may not be what was intended.

I notice that the two rule sets also differ regarding the intervening card.

The original Japanese rules refer to "no card of any other colour," while the Osprey rules say "no other cards" (without reference to color).

If the Osprey rules mean "each pair overlaps" (see above), that calls into question this example:

This example would be allowed by the original Japanese rules, but I'm not certain about the Osprey rules ("all overlap, with no other cards between them"). The 3 and the leftmost 2 overlap with the rightmost 2 between them.

It is possible that the Osprey rules meant "no card of another color between them" (which would allow this example).

It is also possible that the Opsrey rules meant a "path connected" definition, which would allow the second example above (and to which the question of the third example would still apply).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm pretty certain that all those examples are fine.
2 
 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
All those examples are fine, for both versions of the rules. The Osprey rules were just worded differently, but they mean the same thing.

The only real difference between the Osprey rules and the original are the additions of envelopes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Con Sequence
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Without your opinions I would not have considered the 3rd example as valid. Quite interesting that it might be resp. is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gillum the Stoor
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Based on Zimeon's responses here (and in this thread), I believe that there is a (reasonably) succinct and precise definition of when a memory is relived.

When Feth adds a card to the Atman, consider the set of all cards in the Atman that are the same color as the card just placed (including those whose color was temporarily changed to that color by a high blue card) and that are reachable from that card.

If the aggregate value of that set (including the card just placed, whose value may have been modified by a low blue card) is exactly 7, a memory is relived.

One card is reachable from another if there is a path from one to the other, where all cards in the path are of that same color, and each pair of cards adjacent in the path overlap on at least one quadrant and no card of a different color intervenes on any quadrant on which they overlap.

OK, maybe not so succinct. But precise (and correct), I hope
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Pavelich
Norway
Nordfjordeid
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon, you have to explain to me why the example in the 3rd picture is valid when the green 2 is clearly "lying between" two of the ovelapping cards in the block.

The rules don't say anything about "no intervening card at the quadrant where they overlap". It simply says no card in between.

Do we have a ruling from the designer on this?

It's a serious point, I think.
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.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wapahala wrote:
Zimeon, you have to explain to me why the example in the 3rd picture is valid when the green 2 is clearly "lying between" two of the ovelapping cards in the block.


It's not cutting off the connection between the blue 3 and the rightmost blue 2. It IS lying between the blue 3 and the leftmost blue 2, but it's not a problem, as there's a

Wapahala wrote:
Do we have a ruling from the designer on this?

While I don't remember whether I've shows this particular example to Kuro, I've spoken to him about the base principle of 7-blocks so much, that I'm 100% sure that his argument is mine.

But you're right, it IS a serious point. It's just hard to type out.

Maybe phrasing it like this helps? A card of a different colour lying between two other cards, cuts off the connection between those two cards, even if it's just lying between with a single quadrant.

For a 7-block to be valid, there needs to be an unbroken line of connections between all involved cards. You don't have to have all cards connected with all other cards – it's perfectly fine if the block consists of 3 cards, where 1 and 2 are partly overlapping, and 2 and 3 are partly overlapping, but 1 and 3 aren't overlapping at all. In fact, it's impossible to create a 7-block with 3 cards where all cards are connected. Even in the top picture, the 3 and the left 2 aren't directly connected, as the right 2 is in between them.

It's the same in picture 3 – the left 2 and the right 2 have an unbroken connection. The right 2 and the 3 have an unbroken connection, hence it's valid.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul S
United Kingdom
Leeds
West Yorks
flag msg tools
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zimeon wrote:
Wapahala wrote:
Zimeon, you have to explain to me why the example in the 3rd picture is valid when the green 2 is clearly "lying between" two of the ovelapping cards in the block.


It's not cutting off the connection between the blue 3 and the rightmost blue 2. It IS lying between the blue 3 and the leftmost blue 2, but it's not a problem, as there's a


Do you mean to say "as there's an overlap between the blue 3 and the rightmost blue 2"?

Typo I think.
 
 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
Beloch wrote:
Zimeon wrote:
Wapahala wrote:
Zimeon, you have to explain to me why the example in the 3rd picture is valid when the green 2 is clearly "lying between" two of the ovelapping cards in the block.


It's not cutting off the connection between the blue 3 and the rightmost blue 2. It IS lying between the blue 3 and the leftmost blue 2, but it's not a problem, as there's a


Do you mean to say "as there's an overlap between the blue 3 and the rightmost blue 2"?

Typo I think.


Yes. There's a connection between the blue the and the right blue 2.
 
 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.