Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

7 Ages» Forums » Rules

Subject: Glory? card - error in Rules? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Zeljko
Serbia
Belgrade
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I have no access to cards at this moment and I am writing this on the top of my head:

In the deck there is a card Glory? which says "Halve Glory every empire earns."

How is this calculated? In the rulebook there is an example with Philippa earning France 3+ Ch'in 1+ Picts 1.

Rulebook says that with Glory? card Phillipa gets:
(3+1+1)/2=2.5 rounded to 3.

I think that this is error and that it should be:
(3/2+1/2+1/2)=1.5+0.5+0.5 = (rounded each empire separately) 2+1+1=4

Which one is correct?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't see any problem in the rules (with regard to this question).

Both solutions are consistent with the wording on the card, because both (in this example) lead to "3/2 + 1/2 + 1/2". The question is whether rounding applies to each empire or to the total. And there's nothing about the wording of the card to lead us to one conclusion or the other. Fortunately, the example in the rulebook resolves the question: Philippa gets 3, not 4.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
The rules say you round up after all halving so presumably that applies to glory too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harry, that doesn't address the question!

We know that you round after all halving. The question is whether you round before or after adding up the numbers to which halving has applied. And the rules don't say either way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
Yes it does, you round after ALL additions, subtractions, multiplication and divisisons, so if one empire has 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 1 glory it would get 2.5 glory points. If another empire had a total of 1.5 glory you would only get 4 total glory not 5.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, it doesn't.

From the context, those additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions are clearly referring to the application of modifications. The "round after all halving" rule does not say whether rounding happens before or after adding together a bunch of numbers to which modifiers have already been applied.

You may have meant to say it. Perhaps you said it in an early draft. If so, it was lost as a result of the relentless pursuit of "brevity uber alles".

If an empire gets 2.5 after all modifiers (+, -, *, and /), and another empire gets 1.5 after all modifiers (+, -, *, and /), then the conclusion that the player should get a total of 5 (because round(2.5) + round(1.5) = 5) is perfectly faithful to the rule as written.

Of course, the other conclusion (that the player gets a total of 4) is also faithful to the rule as written. That's why these questions get asked!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
I refer you to the definition of Modifiers in the terms of play:

Modifiers: All modifiers are cumulative. When doing more than
one of adding, subtracting, doubling and halving, add, then subtract,
then double, then halve. When you halve a number, round it
to the nearest whole number (0.5 rounding up) after all halving.

To me that is quite clear, you do all modifications THEN round. I don't know how anyone can read that paragraph any other way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harry Rowland wrote:
To me that is quite clear, you do all modifications THEN round. I don't know how anyone can read that paragraph any other way.

EXACTLY. Do all the modifications, then round. As I said.

What it doesn't say is: Do all the modifiers, then add together the things that have been modified, then round. I don't know how you can read that extra bit of information into it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, I think Harry is right here.

"When doing more than one of adding subtracting, multiplying or dividing" blah, blah, blah then round.

One of the things you are doing is adding- you are adding all the figures together. So you do the adding and then you rounds
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Notice that this "adding the figures together" happens after the dividing. So it cannot possibly be the "adding" that the rule is talking about, because that all happens before the halving.

The rule says to round "after all halving". So an empire that scores 2.5, after all adding (of modifiers), subtracting (of modifiers), doubling (due to modifiers), and halving (due to modifiers), could then be rounded to 3 -- since this is "after all halving", as the rule says.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Rowland
Australia
O'Connor
ACT
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
No, if you want to think of it another way, whatever action you are currently doing you only get to round once AFTER all modifications. Your method would have some modifiers then some rounding then some more modifiers then more rounding. This never ending recursivism is precisely what we were trying to get away from when we put in the definition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Thomas
United Kingdom
London
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, Harry Rowland is the game designer! Me being slow there.

Right, so now we have a designer ruling there isn't any more need for argument?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Harry Rowland wrote:
No, if you want to think of it another way, whatever action you are currently doing you only get to round once AFTER all modifications.

I don't know what you mean by "action" in this context. It's certainly not the same as the usual use of the word "action" in this game. And whatever it is, the rule you quoted doesn't allude to it.
Harry Rowland wrote:
Your method...

Whoa there. It isn't "my" method. I'm not arguing in favour of it. I'm only pointing out that the rules as written do not distinguish between this alternate method and the (intended) correct method.
Harry Rowland wrote:
...would have some modifiers then some rounding then some more modifiers then more rounding.

Sure. One empire has modifiers, then another empire also has modifiers. If that's what you mean by "some more modifiers", then where's the problem? If each empire's score can have modifiers, then it's perfectly natural to think that rounding applies to each empire's score. The rule you quoted does not say otherwise, and I can't imagine how you can claim it does.

But if (by "some more modifiers") you're talking about adding up the empires belonging to the same player, then you're stretching the meaning of "modifiers" beyond all recognition. Moreover, this would be contrary to the rule you quoted, because this addition takes place after the halving -- as indeed it must, because different empires can have different modifiers, in general.
Harry Rowland wrote:
This never ending recursivism...

What on earth are you talking about? Why do you think there could be an infinite number of steps? I can't make any sense of this.

You can't have an infinite number of empires in play, for one thing. But that's probably not what you mean, since that would have nothing to do with recursion.

If there were other events (perhaps added in an expansion) that explicitly modified a player's total score (instead of each empire's score), then there could be as many as two different "levels" of rounding -- i.e., one for the individual empires, and one for the player -- and these two "levels" could be considered in terms of recursion. But I cannot think of a situation where there would be more than two. And "two" is hardly "never ending".
Harry Rowland wrote:
...is precisely what we were trying to get away from when we put in the definition.

And that rule is inadequate, as written.

An adequate (if inelegant) solution would be to add a sentence: "Whenever modifiers apply to the individual terms in a sum, then rounding is applied only once, for the entire sum." This (or something worded more eloquently) needs to be added to the errata.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Peters
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philip Thomas wrote:
Right, so now we have a designer ruling there isn't any more need for argument?

If we were merely arguing over the right way to play, then a ruling from the designer could end the argument.

But that's not what we're arguing about. We've already established the right way to play.

The argument is between the following two opposing theses:

(Harry's claim) In this case, the right way to play is clear from the rules as written.

VERSUS

(My claim) In this case, the rules as written are ambiguous.

- - - - - - -

You may think it's a silly argument to have. Now we know how to play it, we should just drop the topic, right?

Wrong.

Some of us who participate in this forum care about this game. We like the game so much, that we think it deserves a nice "air-tight" set of rules.

Of course -- as Harry has recently (and correctly) pointed out -- it is far easier to criticise a rulebook than to write one. OK. I'm not faulting anyone for having written a rulebook with holes in it.

But take a look at this forum. For the last three-and-a-half years or so, people have been asking questions. And for much of that time, Harry has given answers. Many of those answers have been helpful.

And (here's the point, finally) a great many of the questions have been legitimate questions -- questions whose answers were not derivable from the rules as written. And yet, only a small fraction of Harry's rulings from this forum (in response to legitimate questions) have found their way into the official errata file, or into the updated version of the rules and player's guide.

Again, I'm not faulting anyone for having written a rulebook with holes in it. But since there are so many of these holes, it's frustrating to see their existence being denied again and again.
 
 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.