Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Strasbourg» Forums » Rules

Subject: Chapel blocks edifice and vice versa? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chapel blocks edifice and vice versa?

Does placing a chapel at A, B, C or D mean an edifice can't be place at E?

Conversely, does placing an edifice at E mean that chapels can't be placed at A, B, C or D?



The rules don't say anything either way and none of the examples show an edifice with a chapel in one of its corners.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabien Conus
Switzerland
Geneva
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, a chapel never blocks an edifice and neither does an edifice block a chapel.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FabienC wrote:
No, a chapel never blocks an edifice and neither does an edifice block a chapel.


Is there some official reference you can point to or are you just stating your personal interpretation?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Santa Clarita
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EvanMinn wrote:
FabienC wrote:
No, a chapel never blocks an edifice and neither does an edifice block a chapel.


Is there some official reference you can point to or are you just stating your personal interpretation?


There's nothing in the rules that says that chapels block edifices. I do not understand why you would think so. There's no 'interpretation' involved.
7 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jschlickbernd wrote:
EvanMinn wrote:
FabienC wrote:
No, a chapel never blocks an edifice and neither does an edifice block a chapel.


Is there some official reference you can point to or are you just stating your personal interpretation?


There's nothing in the rules that says that chapels block edifices. I do not understand why you would think so. There's no 'interpretation' involved.


- The pictures in the rules show the corners of the edifice overlapping the circles for the chapels so it is unclear whether a chapel can still sit on the dot.

- No picture shows an edifice with a chapel in the corner.

- 'Open' is left completely undefined.

Now, if in the actual game pieces (I don't have a physical copy), an edifice does not intrude on the circles as the pictures in the rulebook show them doing, I would be less inclined to think they might. But if they do, that introduces ambiguity because having the dot partly covered could reasonably be interpreted as not being open ("free from obstructions").
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fabien Conus
Switzerland
Geneva
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EvanMinn wrote:


Now, if in the actual game pieces (I don't have a physical copy), an edifice does not intrude on the circles as the pictures in the rulebook show them doing, I would be less inclined to think they might. But if they do, that introduces ambiguity.


The actual pieces do not intrude on the circles.
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre Bronswijk
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Dear Evan,
if a chapel would block a space for edifices, it would have been written in the rules. But it is not written in the rules. So chapels and edifices do not block each other.

This answer is official, I am the product manager of Strasbourg.
16 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thygra wrote:
Dear Evan,
if a chapel would block a space for edifices, it would have been written in the rules. But it is not written in the rules. So chapels and edifices do not block each other.

This answer is official, I am the product manager of Strasbourg.


And if it didn't block space (if the edifices encroached on the chapel spaces as shown in the pictures in the rules), it should have been written in the rules.

'Open' is left undefined and could reasonably be interpreted as meaning either 'no chapel on the space' or 'free from any obstruction (i.e., no edifice)' and so could be interpreted (incorrectly) as it IS written in the rules.

It's a moot point since in the physical game they don't encroach but the rules are ambiguous as written since the pictures show encroachment and no example shows a chapel and edifice together and open is left undefined.

It would be nice if one could trust that 'if that's the way it works, it would have been written in the rules' but anyone that has read a lot of rules knows that is not always the case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre Bronswijk
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
EvanMinn wrote:

And if it didn't block space (if the edifices encroached on the chapel spaces as shown in the pictures in the rules), it should have been written in the rules.

I disagree. That's not the way how gaming rules would be functional. Usually each possible action must have been written in gaming rules. But it is impossible to write each prohibited action in gaming rules. Elsewhere we had to write things like "You can't place Good tiles on an open building space" or "You must not eat the prestige marker".

Quote:
'Open' is left undefined and could reasonably be interpreted as meaning either 'no chapel on the space'

I disagree. You do place chapels and edifices on different spaces. So a chapel can't be on the same space as an edifice. Therefore there is no reason to think a chapel could block an edifice.

Quote:
- The pictures in the rules show the corners of the edifice overlapping the circles for the chapels so it is unclear whether a chapel can still sit on the dot.

Not really ...
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thygra wrote:
EvanMinn wrote:
...

- The picture in the rules shows the corners of the edifice overlapping the circles for the chapels so it is unclear whether a chapel can still sit on the dot.

Not really ...


I think there may be a language issue. Overlap doesn't mean 'cover completely' but 'extend over and cover a part of'.( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/overlap )

So to say something doesn't overlap is saying it doesn't cover it at all (i.e., no part).



Those corners creeping onto the circles = overlap. It's not very much, but it is overlap.

It didn't even occur to me just reading the rules that an edifice and chapels might interfere with each other. But the illustration made it appear they might actually physically interfere with each other.

But now that I have the game, I see it is an inaccurate illustration that exaggerates the size of the edifices in relation to their squares and in the actual game they don't even come close to encroaching on the chapel circles:



The inaccurate illustration is the only reason I had any doubt. Now that I can look at the actual game, I see the illustration is just misleading and I have no doubts they do not interfere with each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
What's the point of going on? We have an official answer.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
First people answered here in a reasonable way. The poster insisted.

After the official answer, he again came to say that that thing "should have been written in the rules". Thygra showed that it shouldn't.

Then he came again: instead of explicitly say "Ok, I was wrong", etc, he made a long post about how he could misunderstand a rule that everyone understood.

So I only wrote "Why going on?"

Then he came again: to my private geekmail! He said this and that and "I'll check again tomorrow to see if your post is still there". Ok, now I should delete my post???

Of course I ignored this yesterday, but today he wrote again!

Quote:
Ok, I gave you fair warning.

You want to leave that post there so I can respond to it and show you have such a complete lack of understanding of what other people write that you respond as if they are saying the opposite of what they actually said, I guess that's your prerogative.

But don't complain when I make your post look foolish in the extreme.


What is this?
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Santa Clarita
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Report him for harassment. His tone is totally unacceptable.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sheldon Smith
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think to avoid embarrassment, one sometimes feels the need to point some flaw to prove a point (i.e., to help ensure the poster isn't an "idiot" for asking a "stupid" question). I do agree going on & on... to the point of complaining about a slight size difference in the illustration is going way over-the-top to prove his point.

Ironically though... there really is no such thing as a stupid question. One of the greatest features of the geek is to have immediate access to rules ambiguities. I, for one, am glad Evan asked the question. I personally didn't think one feature blocked the other, but what if a person in my gaming group asked the question?

I think Evan realizes his undoing, and has finally "cashed in his chips" on the issue. No need to ridicule him further for an honest mistake.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan Stegman
United States
Minneapolis
MN
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EyeInSky wrote:
I think to avoid embarrassment, one sometimes feels the need to point some flaw to prove a point (i.e., to help ensure the poster isn't an "idiot" for asking a "stupid" question). I do agree going on & on... to the point of complaining about a slight size difference in the illustration is going way over-the-top to prove his point.

Ironically though... there really is no such thing as a stupid question. One of the greatest features of the geek is to have immediate access to rules ambiguities. I, for one, am glad Evan asked the question. I personally didn't think one feature blocked the other, but what if a person in my gaming group asked the question?

I think Evan realizes his undoing, and has finally "cashed in his chips" on the issue. No need to ridicule him further for an honest mistake.


No, that's not what it was. I didn't want to embarass Paul anymore for his seeming inability to understand what was being said.

Here is roughly how it went:

Before I had the game in hand, I saw the picture in the rulebook showing that the chapel overlaps the circles so asked if the blocked them.

I got an answer with no supporting evidence so asked if it was official.

I got an offical answer at about the same time I got the game so I could see while inaccurately sized picture in the rulebook shows that, the actual components make clear there is no overlap. But that answer also claimed the picture doesn't show overlap.

I stated what they gameplay was clear, the claim the the rulebook picture doesn't show overlap was false and posted a scan of the rulebook showing that to be the case.

The thread then sat dormant for months and months.

Paul came in, completely misunderstood what had been written and wrote as if the discussion were still active ("going on and on" even though no one had said anything for months) and that I was still disagreeing with how the game is played rather merely the statement that the picture doesn't show overlap.

That is such a complete and total misreading of what going on about I felt sorry for him so I just let it go until now.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan Degann
United States
Tarzana
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wait a second, Andre. Are you saying that I may not eat the prestige marker, even though there is no prohibition in the rules.

Crap. I've been playing wrong.
6 
 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.