

When playing the LEAST modifier card, say on green, if there is a person with 0 green rooms and someone with 1 green room who is considered to have the least?
In other words, does LEAST require there to be a minimum of 1 (least of those who have any), or is it truly a mathematical minimum?

Andy Burgess
United Kingdom Cambridge Cambridgeshire

We play that you'd have to have at least one to be affected.

Jonathan Chaffer
United States Grand Rapids Michigan
Grand Rapids Area Boardgamers

Regardless of the intent, "least of those who have any" is way more interesting, so we play that way. Otherwise this card too often becomes redundant with the "does not score" card.



JonBob wrote: Regardless of the intent, "least of those who have any" is way more interesting, so we play that way. Otherwise this card too often becomes redundant with the "does not score" card.
Hmm, we have always played it as 0 is least & totally agree that it seems redundant. Will have to try your ruling next time.
Cheers

Kirk Roberts
United States Jonesborough Tennessee

Sorry, I know this is an old thread, but what is a LEAST modifier card? Is it a promo card or part of the base game?
EDIT: nevermind, I assume it is part of the promo pack available in the BGG store.



If you have 0, this means you don't have that color room. To score you need to have it. At least this is how I see it.



Jiloo wrote: If you have 0, this means you don't have that color room. To score you need to have it. At least this is how I see it. This is how I see it.

Brendan Riley
United States Chicago Illinois
Nos operamur, te ludere
"Life is more fun if you play games."  Roald Dahl

TheRealEagleMan wrote: Jiloo wrote: If you have 0, this means you don't have that color room. To score you need to have it. At least this is how I see it. This is how I see it.
I get why this is more interesting, but it is counterintuitive. 0 is part of the set of all numbers, so in a list of 0,1,2,1 0 is "least." If I have one fish and you have two fish and someone else has zero fish, we wouldn't say that I have the least amount of fish.

Kirk Roberts
United States Jonesborough Tennessee

wombat929 wrote: TheRealEagleMan wrote: Jiloo wrote: If you have 0, this means you don't have that color room. To score you need to have it. At least this is how I see it. This is how I see it. I get why this is more interesting, but it is counterintuitive. 0 is part of the set of all numbers, so in a list of 0,1,2,1 0 is "least." If I have one fish and you have two fish and someone else has zero fish, we wouldn't say that I have the least amount of fish. I've seen this in other games — where you have to have at least one to be considered to have the least — can't remember where. Just seems like a gamey thing.
I was wondering about if zero is technically a concept (like infinity) rather than a number and found this Q/A: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/68357.html
This was sparked by an idea in my house that there should be a "negative zero" and that it should equal infinity. Made sense to me. What is the opposite of nothing? Everything! What is the opposite of everything? Nothing!

Brendan Riley
United States Chicago Illinois
Nos operamur, te ludere
"Life is more fun if you play games."  Roald Dahl

kirkroberts wrote: wombat929 wrote: TheRealEagleMan wrote: Jiloo wrote: If you have 0, this means you don't have that color room. To score you need to have it. At least this is how I see it. This is how I see it. I get why this is more interesting, but it is counterintuitive. 0 is part of the set of all numbers, so in a list of 0,1,2,1 0 is "least." If I have one fish and you have two fish and someone else has zero fish, we wouldn't say that I have the least amount of fish. I've seen this in other games — where you have to have at least one to be considered to have the least — can't remember where. Just seems like a gamey thing. I was wondering about if zero is technically a concept (like infinity) rather than a number and found this Q/A: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/68357.htmlThis was sparked by an idea in my house that there should be a "negative zero" and that it should equal infinity. Made sense to me. What is the opposite of nothing? Everything! What is the opposite of everything? Nothing!
Grab a zero by the sides and twist it and you get an infinity symbol, eh? Nice.
Castles of Mad King Ludwig works the way you indicated for the King's rewards: the person with the most gets the top prize, the next most second prize, etc. But if you don't have any, you can't get any prize, even if technically you qualify.



wombat929 wrote: I get why this is more interesting, but it is counterintuitive. 0 is part of the set of all numbers, so in a list of 0,1,2,1 0 is "least." If I have one fish and you have two fish and someone else has zero fish, we wouldn't say that I have the least amount of fish. It depends on if quantity of rooms is defined over the set of natural numbers or whole numbers. If natural numbers, then 0 is not in the set of numbers.
kirkroberts wrote: I've seen this in other games — where you have to have at least one to be considered to have the least — can't remember where. Just seems like a gamey thing. I was wondering about if zero is technically a concept (like infinity) rather than a number and found this Q/A: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/68357.html Zero is definitely more concept than number, as stated in the link. While it's fairly easy to imagine and intuitive to understand and use, zero does not and cannot exist in the physical world. We cannot see 0 objects; we cannot make groups of 0 things; we cannot split items into 0 groups; etc. Nonexistence is not technically the same thing as counting 0 of those objects  it's not that there 0 green rooms, there just are not green rooms...nonexistence, therefore not countable. This is why I would say you need at least 1 to qualify.


