Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
27 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Runewars» Forums » Rules

Subject: Bound by honor rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Tiago Nunes
Portugal
Odivelas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The "Bound by honor" objective says that if all triangle units are allied to players you can discard the objective to gain one dragon rune. Last night I was playing and suddenly the triangle neutral units all were defeated. There was no city to place triangle units on the table.

So was the objective accomplished or not? Is it impossible to accomplish the objective? If so does the player just stick with his impossible objective. It would seem that it is still possible because contrary to other cards (giants and dragons) the card doesn't say that if it's impossible to achieve you get to discard it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sithrak - The god who hates you unconditionally
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, "all existing triangle units" are not un-allied to players, so from that standpoint the objective is fulfilled...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have a ruling on this, I would say it is not fulfilled, but I'm not sure.

That said, even if it is the case that no units does not get the rune, it'd be pretty simple to go to a city and play rally support to get a triangle neutral if it's available in order to fulfill this objective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Kelly
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
garysax wrote:

That said, even if it is the case that no units does not get the rune, it'd be pretty simple to go to a city and play rally support to get a triangle neutral if it's available in order to fulfill this objective.

Yes, but the OP's point was: the "triangle genrating city" was NOT on the board.

I think I'd treat this like "discard" for Giants and Dragons.
TK
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
United States
Flagstaff
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tkelly wrote:
garysax wrote:

That said, even if it is the case that no units does not get the rune, it'd be pretty simple to go to a city and play rally support to get a triangle neutral if it's available in order to fulfill this objective.

Yes, but the OP's point was: the "triangle genrating city" was NOT on the board.

I think I'd treat this like "discard" for Giants and Dragons.
TK


blush Glossed over that point like a douche. My fault.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In Twilight Imperium, you can technically claim the Keeper of the Gates objecive if there are NO wormholes. However, most people I know would just toss that objective out in that case.

I think here is the same thing. If there are none on the board, controlling all 0 is easy. But I think I'd treat it like those Giant or Dragon objectives.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim McCormley
United States
SD
California
flag msg tools
OUCH!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ghosthack wrote:
The "Bound by honor" objective says that if all triangle units are allied to players you can discard the objective to gain one dragon rune. Last night I was playing and suddenly the triangle neutral units all were defeated. There was no city to place triangle units on the table.

So was the objective accomplished or not?

When we played this the other night, we played that as long as there were no un-allied triangle units on the board, you could claim the objective. (I think the card makes reference to "on the board" somehow, but I don't own the game.)

In any event, if *any* neutral triangle units were ever defeated, you could never claim the objective. i.e. Either the defeated triangle units count or they don't. Why should they "not count" just because there are other triangle units on the board?

Tim
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
armor_11 wrote:
In any event, if *any* neutral triangle units were ever defeated, you could never claim the objective. i.e. Either the defeated triangle units count or they don't. Why should they "not count" just because there are other triangle units on the board?

Because the objective says "If all Triangle neutral units on the board are allied to players..." (Bold emphasis mine)

If they are defeated, they are no longer on the board! Only Triangle units on the board itself are considered. Previously destroyed Triangle units have no bearing on this card.

So be careful when wiping out Triangle units on a whim - you could be making it easier for someone to claim that objective.


Again, though, my house rule would be that if there are NO Triangle units left, you can't count it; you either have to recruit one somewhere, or I'd let you discard/redraw an objective like with the Giant or Dragon ones.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S R
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I am of the opinion that wiping out all of the triangle units would not allow a player to achieve this goal. If there are no triangle units on the board, None are allied, not all. I think this is the counter card to Giants Horde for the Evil side, which needs all the Giants to be killed.

If the Bound by Honor card ever becomes unplayable, I would allow the player to swap it out. I mainly play in larger games (3-4 players) so this situation would be less likely to come up. (and because I go with All in mean at least one)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
salems lot wrote:
I am of the opinion that wiping out all of the triangle units would not allow a player to achieve this goal. If there are no triangle units on the board, None are allied, not all.

By definition, all of 0 is 0.

Quote:
I think this is the counter card to Giants Horde for the Evil side, which needs all the Giants to be killed.

Yes, but that one also has a specification that if there are less than 2 to start with, you discard it.


I've asked Corey for an official ruling.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim McCormley
United States
SD
California
flag msg tools
OUCH!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
armor_11 wrote:
In any event, if *any* neutral triangle units were ever defeated, you could never claim the objective. i.e. Either the defeated triangle units count or they don't. Why should they "not count" just because there are other triangle units on the board?

Because the objective says "If all Triangle neutral units on the board are allied to players..." (Bold emphasis mine)

If they are defeated, they are no longer on the board! Only Triangle units on the board itself are considered. Previously destroyed Triangle units have no bearing on this card.

That was my point. Defeated triangle units NEVER factor in. Whether there is only one defeated unit, or if all of them are defeated.

I think I understand what you're saying: that there must be at least one allied triangle unit on the board to fulfill the objective. That's cool, I just wouldn't like playing it that way.

Tim
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
armor_11 wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
armor_11 wrote:
In any event, if *any* neutral triangle units were ever defeated, you could never claim the objective. i.e. Either the defeated triangle units count or they don't. Why should they "not count" just because there are other triangle units on the board?

Because the objective says "If all Triangle neutral units on the board are allied to players..." (Bold emphasis mine)

If they are defeated, they are no longer on the board! Only Triangle units on the board itself are considered. Previously destroyed Triangle units have no bearing on this card.

That was my point. Defeated triangle units NEVER factor in. Whether there is only one defeated unit, or if all of them are defeated.

I think I understand what you're saying: that there must be at least one allied triangle unit on the board to fulfill the objective. That's cool, I just wouldn't like playing it that way.

No, technically speaking 0 of 0 is ALL. Thus, technically speaking if no Triangles are on the board, you'd claim this by default. I'm saying that following the letter of the rules, if there are none on the board, then you CAN claim it.

I just don't think that fits what the card is about - allying. IE, the intent of the card seems to be you are allied with at least 1 Triangle, and that no other non-allied-with-you Triangles are on the board. But that would just be a house rule. Now, if it was an EVIL card, that would be different, but for a Good card to get rewarded for triangle-icide, it just doesn't seem right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tiago Nunes
Portugal
Odivelas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not that it matters on making a ruling, I did have 1 triangle unit allied that later died.

While I was trying diplomacy with the last triangle unit available, I had a neutral result which allowed me to make them retreat, destroying them because there were no valid areas they could retreat to.

You could say I tried but in the end failed in getting all the triangles.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
True, but even there, you shouldn't be rewarded for FAILING to achieve your goal
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Antigonus Monophthalmus
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
No, technically speaking 0 of 0 is ALL.


This isn't true. 0 is "none". So if I have 0 of 0, I have none of nothing. You may still be right about the card. We played where you have to have an allied unit because the requirement is for... well... allies. And if it's an impossible objective that's why one of the season cards lets you draw another one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, don't want to get into a philisophical/mathematical discussion of "all" vs "nothing"

BagpipeDan wrote:
And if it's an impossible objective that's why one of the season cards lets you draw another one.

But if so, it's the ONLY ONE of the 16 objectives that can be "impossible" and doesn't have a built-in redraw mechanism; all the other objectives that could be rendered impossible have the "you may discard this and draw a new one" option. I think it was not intended to be FORCED to be stuck with a non-completable objective.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Orszak
United States
Windsor Locks
Connecticut
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The difference between this one and the discardable Giant and Dragon cards is that you'll always have some triangle units in play at the start of the game whereas, starting tiles may preclude the other two from ever being possible. In the case of the Bound by Honour, you are guaranteed to have some triangle units to start and failure to ally with at least at least one while they are on the board is a missed opportunity.

I would also counter the earlier argument that 0 of 0 is all. "All" is the equivilent of 100% and you can't divide any figure by 0 to determine a %. The answer isn't 0% either - it's undefined.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orgak wrote:
The difference between this one and the discardable Giant and Dragon cards is that you'll always have some triangle units in play at the start of the game whereas, starting tiles may preclude the other two from ever being possible. In the case of the Bound by Honour, you are guaranteed to have some triangle units to start and failure to ally with at least at least one while they are on the board is a missed opportunity.

I don't really buy this argument. The "good" ones for Giants and Dragons allow you to discard if there are NO LONGER enough on the board - ie, if you start with all 4 Giants on the board, but they all get wiped out, the card lets you get rid of the card. By the same reasoning, you could say "if you didn't ally with 2 of them, well, that's just a missed opportunity". I don't see any difference in having the Giants wiped out, and having the Triangles wiped out, in terms of fulfilling the objective, except the Triangle one doesn't give a specific number.

Quote:
I would also counter the earlier argument that 0 of 0 is all. "All" is the equivilent of 100% and you can't divide any figure by 0 to determine a %. The answer isn't 0% either - it's undefined.

Again, I'm not going into a philosophical or mathematical debate on this. However, in TI3, all of 0 is 0; for controlling systems, you have to control the space and all planets - and if there are no planets, you automatically qualify for that part. If there are no wormholes, you automatically control all wormholes. IE, for TI3, 0 of 0 is "defined" to be all.

I will almost guarantee the same ruling would be applied to this game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Orszak
United States
Windsor Locks
Connecticut
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:

Again, I'm not going into a philosophical or mathematical debate on this. However, in TI3, all of 0 is 0; for controlling systems, you have to control the space and all planets - and if there are no planets, you automatically qualify for that part. If there are no wormholes, you automatically control all wormholes. IE, for TI3, 0 of 0 is "defined" to be all.

I will almost guarantee the same ruling would be applied to this game.


I would caution against makng an assumption simply because it counts in a different game. The division by zero issue is not one of different philospophies; it is as fundamental to arithmetic as other rules of multiplication and division. The answer is that a definition needs to be provided.

If the designer provides a ruling, as done for TI3 (I'm not clear from your post whether this was specifically stated in the rules or was part of the TI3 FAQ), then the issue obviously goes from being "undefined" to "defined", which will I'm sure please both of us.

Salems Lot has posted a list of that is termed "Generally Accepted and Official Answers" where the answer is listed as:

"If there are NO Triangle units left, you can't count it; you either have to recruit one somewhere, or discard/redraw a new objective."

Like you, Scott, I wish that a distinction had been made as to which items in the list are Generally Accepted and which were based onofficial responses. Please let us know what you hear from Corey.

With regard to the cancellation of the card like the Giants and Dragons cards, perhaps they meant to add it and missed the additional text. Until there is a ruling, I'll play under the assumption that the text allowing the "Honor" objective to be discarded was left off for a reason.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orgak wrote:
Salems Lot has posted a list of that is termed "Generally Accepted and Official Answers" where the answer is listed as:

"If there are NO Triangle units left, you can't count it; you either have to recruit one somewhere, or discard/redraw a new objective."

Yes, I saw that. But it didn't come from Corey, so it's not worth anything; it's Salems Lot's opinion on which side of the discussion is right, not an official ruling. It's certainly not a consensus.


And yes, it's not always good to assume that the things that apply to one game apply to another. But in this case, I'm reasonably confident it will, unless there is some errata to the card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lange
Sweden
Göteborg
Västra Götaland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just a quick chime-in because I like mathematics.

Orgak's reasoning does not really apply, since the card specifically says "all triangle units" and not "100% of the triangle units", in which case it would indeed be undefined when no triangle units are on the board. Instead, one should think of it in terms of set theory.

As correctly stated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset:

The empty set, denoted by ∅, is also a subset of any given set X.

To be formal: Let the set S be the set of all units allied to players, and the set T be the set of all triangle units on the board. As stated above, if T is empty, T is a subset of S.

In other words, if there are no triangle units on the board, all triangle units on the board are controlled by players.

In yet other words, sigmazero13 was right from the beginning.

Disclaimer: Regardless of my reasoning above, I think this was not the intention of the designer, and I would not play this way personally. In conclusion, the card should have been worded differently.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Orszak
United States
Windsor Locks
Connecticut
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You bring up a good point in terms of set theory. There is a flaw however to using this logic in that one could also apply the same logic to prove the argument that if there are no triangle units on the board, all triangle units on the board are neutral. Both arguements are accurate in terms of set theory but provide opposite outcomes since a triangle unit cannot be both allied and neutral at the same time (unless of course it doesn't exist). So we get back to the undefined aspect of the rule.







1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orgak wrote:
You bring up a good point in terms of set theory. There is a flaw however to using this logic in that one could also apply the same logic to prove the argument that if there are no triangle units on the board, all triangle units on the board are neutral. Both arguements are accurate in terms of set theory but provide opposite outcomes since a triangle unit cannot be both allied and neutral at the same time (unless of course it doesn't exist).

While it's true that an individul Beastman cannot be allied an unallied at the same time, technically the objective isn't asking about individual beastmen (or triangles). It's asking about the SET of triangles, and all it's asking about is:

Is the set of triangles on the board equivalent to the set of triangles allied to you?

It so happens, this is true (because they are both empty sets). It's not asking if there is a set of triangles NOT allied to you. While on the surface those may sound like identical questions, they really aren't, espcecially since in this one specific case, the set of triangles allied to you equals the set of triangles not allied to you, since both are equal to the empty set. IE, the "allied to you" and "not allied to you" sets aren't really mutually exclusive, and the objective is only asking about the former.


Again, though, that all being said, I feel that simply because this is true, doesn't mean this was the intent at all. I think in my games, until we hear from Corey, if this situation happens, I would simply give the player the option of discarding it and drawing a new one, or waiting until a new Triangle unit makes an appearance (via a city). I probably would NOT allow them to claim this objective for having the empty set equivalence thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Lange
Sweden
Göteborg
Västra Götaland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Orgak wrote:
You bring up a good point in terms of set theory. There is a flaw however to using this logic in that one could also apply the same logic to prove the argument that if there are no triangle units on the board, all triangle units on the board are neutral. Both arguements are accurate in terms of set theory but provide opposite outcomes since a triangle unit cannot be both allied and neutral at the same time (unless of course it doesn't exist). So we get back to the undefined aspect of the rule.


Actually, there is no contradiction.

As you correctly assess, when there are no triangle units on the board (set T is empty), the following is true:

- All triangle units in set T are allied
- All triangle units in set T are neutral

But since set T is empty, no triangle unit is both allied and neutral at the same time (and as soon as we add a unit to set T, the above statements are no longer simultaneously true). You see how splendidly it works out? This is why I like mathematics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I got a response from Corey. If all Triangles are destroyed, you can complete this objective.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.