Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
78 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

Acquire» Forums » Rules

Subject: End game condition rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: Logic [+] waste_of_time [+] 2017 [+] making_stuff_up [+] fun_discussion [+] not_a_waste_of_time [+] [View All]
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hello all,
So, I ran an tournament event for this game and was surprised that I got a rule wrong after playing this game, I bet, well over 100 times since the 1980s.

The endgame 41+ for one company is easily understood.

The other endgame condition is when "all safe companies on the board are safe (over 10 tiles)," the player can call the game over.

So, while it would be a remote chance of this happening. Is it true that the intent of this is that the moment all hotel chains on the board are "safe" then the player can call the game over?

I am going to rules lawyer a bit here. . . so PLEASE bear with me. . . .

At the beginning of the game. . . ALL hotel chains present on the board are safe. Right? Can the first player declare the game over? Since there are
no hotel chains on the board, then ALL of them are grammatically speaking safe. I know ludicrous, but could not an annoying person make that argument?

Secondly, I always thought it meant that NO new corporations can be created, but the clarification in the 1999 rules indicate, I believe, that ACTIVE corporations are only those on the board.

So, the issue is that the game can seemingly end earlier than intended due to a few rapid mergers in the end of the midgame or really even in the latter part of the early game. Is this intended? Is this not?

We had one game where all of the corporations were safe with plenty of space to build new hotel chains, but the argument was that the player could call the game to end because all chains were safe. I would say there were still about thirty-five empty spaces with a clear block of empty space to start a new corporation.

All thoughts are welcome,
William
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Michaud
United States
Longwood
Florida
flag msg tools
On-Line Want List Generator - Hopefully Making Math Trades a Little Bit Easier
badge
Captain Kirk, Captain Picard, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Captain Archer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
raynovich wrote:
At the beginning of the game. . . ALL hotel chains present on the board are safe. Right? Can the first player declare the game over? Since there are
no hotel chains on the board, then ALL of them are grammatically speaking safe. I know ludicrous, but could not an annoying person make that argument?

pretty sure this is "wrong" nor "right".... "safe" is over a certain size (ie. over 10, or 11+)... this is impossible at the beginning of the game...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
All true. Did you look through the forums?

Acquire end game ruling.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JeffyJeff wrote:
raynovich wrote:
At the beginning of the game. . . ALL hotel chains present on the board are safe. Right? Can the first player declare the game over? Since there are
no hotel chains on the board, then ALL of them are grammatically speaking safe. I know ludicrous, but could not an annoying person make that argument?

pretty sure this is "wrong" nor "right".... "safe" is over a certain size (ie. over 10, or 11+)... this is impossible at the beginning of the game...


Does it not depend on the definition of "all?" Google definition:

"1: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing."

Well the whole quantity, i.e. zero, are safe on the board? I know this could be rules lawyering, absolutely and perhaps a grammarian could weigh in on at the beginning of the game does no corporations on the board equal all corporations are safe.

Also, one could have a situation where a couple of quick mergers would create all safe corporations on the board in the early game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
All true. Did you look through the forums?

Acquire end game ruling.


Yes, I did. I read all of the posts and instead of responding in that post, I created a new one thinking that might be more efficient.

So, theoretically, you are saying that a person at the very beginning of the game could say the game is over?

I know this is ludicrous. Look, though, I am asking due to competitive play. If I were in first position and there was one last round and I was the first player to go, I could merely say the game is over and we all would be tied and I would win the tourney, because. . . . all corporations on the board are safe.

The one game seemed to end too early and I wanted a refreshed look at the end game conditions to see if that is still agreed to. Heck, is that what Sid Sackson intended originally?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
raynovich wrote:
So, theoretically, you are saying that a person at the very beginning of the game could say the game is over?


Yes, theoretically, that's what the rules say. If you want to go back to 1962 and argue with Sid Sackson that he wrote the rules poorly, be my guest.
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Sauberer
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another interpretation would be to first ask the question, "Are there any hotel chains?" before asking. "Are they all safe?"

If the answer to the first question is, "No," then the second question becomes nonsensical.

You could, as you say, rules lawyer the point and argue an unreasonable interpretation. This would be a strong signal that I would never wish to play any game with you.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.' Safe is defined by the rules as having 11 or more tiles. As far as I can tell, zero is less than 11, so all chains are unsafe at the beginning of the game. This isn't rules lawyering, in my opinion, it's redfining words based on assumptions.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim
United States
Frederick
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.' Safe is defined by the rules as having 11 or more tiles. As far as I can tell, zero is less than 11, so all chains are unsafe at the beginning of the game. This isn't rules lawyering, in my opinion, it's redfining words based on assumptions.


I agree, there is no confusion. If there was only one chain at the beginning and it reached 11 tiles then someone could call the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.'


If there are no chains, then all of the chains are safe. If there are no people in a building, then all of the people in the building have red hair. If there are no unicorns, then all unicorns have magical powers. What you are missing is the rule of logic that says that if there are no X's, then "All X are Y" is automatically true, regardless of what Y is.
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim MacKenzie
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Phytoman wrote:
I agree, there is no confusion. If there was only one chain at the beginning and it reached 11 tiles then someone could call the game.


Not even then. Only one hotel chain is safe. The rest are undeployed.

In my opinion, the only way you could call the game over due to all chains being safe and yet not have all chains on the board would be if it were physically impossible to play any remaining undeployed chains (e.g. nowhere to play two tiles together without enlarging an existing corporation).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Owen
United States
Norwich
Connecticut
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.'


If there are no chains, then all of the chains are safe. If there are no people in a building, then all of the people in the building have red hair. If there are no unicorns, then all unicorns have magical powers. What you are missing is the rule of logic that says that if there are no X's, then "All X are Y" is automatically true, regardless of what Y is.


I find that so-called 'rule of logic' nonsensical. If there are no people in a building then all the people in the building have red hair is a false statement, as there must be people to have the hair. It would be equally true to say all the people have black hair, ot no hair, according to your logic. All at the same time.

If there are no chains, then no chains are safe because safe is DEFINED as having 11 tiles. It is a null set. There can't be safe Chains until there are chains at all.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
I find that so-called 'rule of logic' nonsensical.


Nevertheless, it's been that way for 2400 years. It's a bit late for you to fight it out with Aristotle.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.'


If there are no chains, then all of the chains are safe. If there are no people in a building, then all of the people in the building have red hair. If there are no unicorns, then all unicorns have magical powers. What you are missing is the rule of logic that says that if there are no X's, then "All X are Y" is automatically true, regardless of what Y is.


Exactly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PhotoJim wrote:
Phytoman wrote:
I agree, there is no confusion. If there was only one chain at the beginning and it reached 11 tiles then someone could call the game.


Not even then. Only one hotel chain is safe. The rest are undeployed.

In my opinion, the only way you could call the game over due to all chains being safe and yet not have all chains on the board would be if it were physically impossible to play any remaining undeployed chains (e.g. nowhere to play two tiles together without enlarging an existing corporation).


This has been the argument of some, including me as I "thought" the rule was intended, but according to symbolic logic, this is not the rules as written.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wargamer55 wrote:
DaviddesJ wrote:
wargamer55 wrote:
I have to say that I don't get this confusion. At the beginning of the game NO chains are 'safe.'


If there are no chains, then all of the chains are safe. If there are no people in a building, then all of the people in the building have red hair. If there are no unicorns, then all unicorns have magical powers. What you are missing is the rule of logic that says that if there are no X's, then "All X are Y" is automatically true, regardless of what Y is.


I find that so-called 'rule of logic' nonsensical. If there are no people in a building then all the people in the building have red hair is a false statement, as there must be people to have the hair. It would be equally true to say all the people have black hair, ot no hair, according to your logic. All at the same time.

If there are no chains, then no chains are safe because safe is DEFINED as having 11 tiles. It is a null set. There can't be safe Chains until there are chains at all.



I am not sure this is an example of the null set as defined by logic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
raynovich wrote:
So, theoretically, you are saying that a person at the very beginning of the game could say the game is over?


Yes, theoretically, that's what the rules say. If you want to go back to 1962 and argue with Sid Sackson that he wrote the rules poorly, be my guest.


Thank you for the direct answer.

Barring the potential barb in your statement about going back to 1962 and assuming you do not think that is the way the game was intended to be played, what do you think the intended rule to intended should be written as?

More Geekgold for your effort?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Psauberer wrote:
Another interpretation would be to first ask the question, "Are there any hotel chains?" before asking. "Are they all safe?"

If the answer to the first question is, "No," then the second question becomes nonsensical.

You could, as you say, rules lawyer the point and argue an unreasonable interpretation. This would be a strong signal that I would never wish to play any game with you.


I agree with you totally when playing a "friendly" game, but when we get into competitive play things change slightly or significantly. Please keep in mind, I created this thread to define the rules for a tournament setting and the rules lawyers who want to win (I will not blame them.) can use anything within the parameters of the rules to win the entire event. And your first question is not in the rules so the rules lawyer, who I would not play in a friendly game, but I have to have in my tournament at a public event, I have to deal with and come up with a solution so that she or he will not abuse the rules.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
raynovich wrote:
Barring the potential barb in your statement about going back to 1962 and assuming you do not think that is the way the game was intended to be played, what do you think the intended rule to intended should be written as?


I think the intended rule is that you can declare the end if all chains on the board are safe, but not before the first chain is formed.
3 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
raynovich wrote:
So, theoretically, you are saying that a person at the very beginning of the game could say the game is over?


Yes, theoretically, that's what the rules say. If you want to go back to 1962 and argue with Sid Sackson that he wrote the rules poorly, be my guest.


One last thing about this. It might be a few things. . . .

I, of course, do not want to time travel to argue with Sid Sackson. However, your comment reminds me of the notions and arguments of "Performance Practice" in Baroque Music. There are those in the field of music who believe that the music of Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Telemann, and Bach should be performed as originally intended on period instruments with the performance instructions exclusively tied to what the respective composers would have wanted.

Then there are those who believe music should be a "living" art form and that the aforementioned composers would want their music performed with updated instrumentation and styles. So, you get something like Switched on Bach by Wendy Carlos, which can be considered to some as blasphemous and others as just moving with the times.

With Baroque music we do not have precise knowledge of how the original composers intended their music to be performed.

I contend that a similar thing might be happening with the "baroque" era of game design when Sid Sackson was creating his "seminal" works (A bit of hyperbole there for fun.)

Now here is something that I find interesting myself. Some people who are still alive today have to know how Sid Sackson intended his games, and more specifically Acquire, to be played. However, there does not seem to be anyone who can be the expert on how he intended the game to be played. Is this really true?

Does anyone know how Sackson played Acquire? And yes he may have changed how he wanted it played over the years.

Did he intend open money?

Open stocks?

And the endgame rules were probably poorly written. Did he take into account the possibility for a quick ending if there were a couple of early mergers that could make a short game. This could ABSOLUTELY be a tactic that the players who are "losing" early game would have to account for in their tile placement. Or did he not realize that his rules, as written, could create unintended results.

Could his rules as written, minus the "ludicrous" beginning game way of ending the game, be intended?

I just wish I knew. I crave the knowledge of knowing. I also think that BGG would be a great repository of such information. Think of the thread that Richard Garfield posted on the newest version of Roborally. Assuming BGG will be around for centuries to come and that Roborally will still be relevant, players/publishers in the future will be able to know directly from Richard Garfield what his game designer's intent was. The same way that we in classical music are searching for the composer's intent in the music they have written.

So, with that in mind, anyone who worked/played/knew Sid Sackson who could chime in on these matters would be welcome. However, I doubt that would actually happen. Was he a recluse? Did he play games with others?

Have a great day,
William
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
raynovich wrote:
Barring the potential barb in your statement about going back to 1962 and assuming you do not think that is the way the game was intended to be played, what do you think the intended rule to intended should be written as?


I think the intended rule is that you can declare the end if all chains on the board are safe, but not before the first chain is formed.


Really? I do wonder if that is what he intended, but that is absolutely possible. I wonder if there would be an early game strategy that should take this into account. The likelihood of forcing an early endgame is not probable, but I have doubts that he would have intended that.

I also dislike house rules in games, but I might have to make a house rule for the tournament that is as you have written.

Thank you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
raynovich wrote:
Does anyone know how Sackson played Acquire? And yes he may have changed how he wanted it played over the years. Did he intend open money? Open stocks?


There are some notes of his. This article is relevant:

https://opinionatedgamers.com/2014/05/29/how-acquire-became-...

One of the classic disagreements regarding Acquire is whether player’s stock holdings should be kept so that all players can see them, or “open”, or if they should be hidden, or “closed”. Of particular interest in the open-versus-closed holdings debate is a suggestion from Sackson that, as there are no certificates dealt out and therefore no unknown factors, players should fan their shares so that everyone knows exactly where they stand at all times.

Quote:
And the endgame rules were probably poorly written. Did he take into account the possibility for a quick ending if there were a couple of early mergers that could make a short game.


I think you're just overthinking it. He wasn't designing the game for the $1,000,000 World Championship. It's a game to be played primarily by families in their homes. He wasn't trying to make the rules legalistic. They also had to fit on the back of the box cover, and the rules were edited with physical letters being written back and forth to the publisher. It's amazing that the rules are as clear as they are.
4 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
P.S. This thread also has some more discussion of the Sackson article and his personal notes and correspondence:

Open or closed money and stocks?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
raynovich wrote:
Does anyone know how Sackson played Acquire? And yes he may have changed how he wanted it played over the years. Did he intend open money? Open stocks?


There are some notes of his. This article is relevant:

https://opinionatedgamers.com/2014/05/29/how-acquire-became-...

One of the classic disagreements regarding Acquire is whether player’s stock holdings should be kept so that all players can see them, or “open”, or if they should be hidden, or “closed”. Of particular interest in the open-versus-closed holdings debate is a suggestion from Sackson that, as there are no certificates dealt out and therefore no unknown factors, players should fan their shares so that everyone knows exactly where they stand at all times.

Quote:
And the endgame rules were probably poorly written. Did he take into account the possibility for a quick ending if there were a couple of early mergers that could make a short game.



Not sure I would say that I am overthinking it. I would say given the "greatness" of the game, it deserves/deserved more development or at least maybe a "more" definitive ruleset. Again, like classical music an edited version of the game that attempts to create the intent of the original designer.

Sackson made a reference apparently to game design like art or musical composition, so I think this "masterpiece" deserves more research. That being said, the new version seems to go in the wrong direction from what I read.

I think you're just overthinking it. He wasn't designing the game for the $1,000,000 World Championship. It's a game to be played primarily by families in their homes. He wasn't trying to make the rules legalistic. They also had to fit on the back of the box cover, and the rules were edited with physical letters being written back and forth to the publisher. It's amazing that the rules are as clear as they are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Jason Raynovich
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
P.S. This thread also has some more discussion of the Sackson article and his personal notes and correspondence:

Open or closed money and stocks?


Read this thread as well. It is good, but I was left being unsatisfied with the information in the thread.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
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.