Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Alhambra» Forums » Rules

Subject: Scoring without any buildings of a given color? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh Franks
United States
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
In a recent game Player 1 had 5 white building and Player 2 had 4 white buildings. Player 3 had zero white buildings. Does Player 3 get the third place points without having any white buildings? I can't find anything in the rules specifically about this.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Bettan
Canada
Cote St Luc
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No. You need to have at least 1 building to be able to score points.

It is written in the Note of the scoring section on page 5 of the rules.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Jafranks wrote:
Does Player 3 get the third place points without having any white buildings?

Come, come now. Extend that argument a little bit and consider: When nobody has a color do they all get credit for having the most ?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TVis wrote:
Come, come now. Extend that argument a little bit and consider: When nobody has a color do they all get credit for having the most ?


The rulebook explicitly says that you need at least one of a building to get the bonus.

However, you seem to be implying that if it didn't have that clause that it would be obvious that no one would get the bonus if no one had any of a color of building. I disagree and I feel that it would be obvious that they all would get the bonus.

Common usage of "most" does not preclude an amount of zero. If the highest number of a particular building is zero then everyone with zero would share in the benefits of having that number.

In fact, the only reason I would question a game that gave a benefit to the player with the most anything is that most of the time games will have a clause that excludes players who don't have any. If a game didn't have that clause, zero would be included and the rules would be clear to me.

I admit that this is not applicable because the game explicitly gives direction to cover this situation, but I don't really see why you would presume that no one would get points in your situation.


If I misunderstood your comment, please let me know.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Necr0mancer wrote:
However, you seem to be implying that if it didn't have that clause that it would be obvious that no one would get the bonus if no one had any of a color of building. I disagree and I feel that it would be obvious that they all would get the bonus.
...
If I misunderstood your comment, please let me know.

You did not misunderstand. I take no offense but I would still be steadfast with my opposite position to yours based on the concept:

what is not stated in the rules is just as important as what is.


I would have thought that paying points for having no tiles would be the exception, and thus would have to be explicitly stated.



Also

** the case of giving all players points for "most" when all have none accomplishes nothing towards differentiating the final scores.

** I am doubtful that I would find satisfaction in a game that allowed a player to collect "3rd" place points for sitting still and doing nothing.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Gallo
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What makes you feel that getting points for having no tiles would be an exception?

I agree that what isn't stated in the rules is as important as what is stated. That is exactly what leads me to my position. If the rules say to split points among all those who are tied, but don’t say to exclude those with nothing, then I would follow what the rules say to do and I wouldn’t prohibit something that the rules don't prohibit.

I do agree that in this game giving all the players the same number of points would be futile. I was looking at the rule from such a technical standpoint I didn’t realize that to be true! It could matter in other games, however. Say, a game where something triggered when a player gets to so many victory points.

I don't know if I would find that situation unsatisfying. Imagine a different 4P game where points are given to first and second in a given category. One player clearly has first, but I'm not in a position to get any of that category. I could try to can prevent the other two players from getting any also (maybe from skilled placement of workers, or resource denial), then I would have done some work to earn splitting those 2nd place points. I think I would find that situation satisfying.

I realize I'm making a lot of comparisons to hypothetical situations that can't come up in Alhambra, but since this is a hypothetical exercise anyway, I figure its appropriate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Necr0mancer wrote:
What makes you feel that getting points for having no tiles would be an exception?

Points are awarded proportionally to players who make the best progress toward the objective of having "most". Why ever would a player who made no progress at all expect to get any of that reward ?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
k knut
Sweden
flag msg tools
A related scoring question :

What happens if one player has all of the tiles from one group ? Do they still only recieve the first place points?


Or as previously discussed in the 3 person game, if only 2 people have those tiles couldn't, or shouldn't, they split the points awarded to the 3rd person?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darryl Revok
United States
Rescue
CA
flag msg tools
badge
(chance is the fool's name for fate)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1 person having all the tiles means only the 1rst place points are for grabs.
2 persons have the tiles means 1rst and 2nd place points are for grabs
3 persons have the tiles means 1rst, 2nd, and 3rd place points are for grabs

if 2 of the 3 tie for first, they split the 1rst+2nd.
if 2 of the 3 tie for 2nd, they split 2nd+3rd.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AGN1964 AGN1964
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Common usage of "most" does not preclude an amount of zero.


Although I understand the game ruling here, I completely agree with the above statement. I imagine that is why the rule book explicitly covers the situation.
 
 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.