Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Urban Sprawl» Forums » Rules

Subject: Bonus Event Card Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When an event is revealed (for example, the player(s) with the most Civ buildings gain 3 wealth and 3 prestige each). Does this mean:
Option A - the player with the most civ buildings scores 3 and 3 for each building, or is it:
Option B - just 3 and 3 total for the player with the most civ buildings or 3 and 3 for each player total in the event of a tie? It could be read either way, but the point swings will be wild if you go with option A. Any thoughts? Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Philip Pack
Canada
Nanaimo
British Columbia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I vote for option B. I think "each" is just referring to if it's multiple players.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christian Fuerst-Brunner
Germany
Neuching
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Isn't it covered in the rules?!

It's clearly Option B, also explained in Essen'11 by UGG-Staff!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kai Jensen
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
badge
I was going to buy OverText but I didn't know what to say with it!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If it doesn't say "per building", then it doesn't mean per building. The player(s) gain 3 Wealth and 3 Prestige. Done. Next card...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Goodrich
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Why can't more games have a handicapping mechanism?
badge
Becoming immortal!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pitferret wrote:
If it doesn't say "per building", then it doesn't mean per building. The player(s) gain 3 Wealth and 3 Prestige. Done. Next card...


This is true, but it is confusing as to what the each is modifying - one could just as easily think it would say "each player" instead of "each building."

I am glad this is the case, I'm just still trembling from having played this the wrong way. cry
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"player or players" is the sentence's subject while "gains 3 wealth and 3 prestige each" is the verb (predicate?), which modifies the subject.

Plus, gaining 3 and 3 for each *building* would obviously be flat out broken....
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Pardoe
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Chad Jensen wrote:
Plus, gaining 3 and 3 for each *building* would obviously be flat out broken....


Alan played that way, felt it was flat out broken, and asked for confirmation of his feelings.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
"player or players" is the sentence's subject while "gains 3 wealth and 3 prestige each" is the verb (predicate?), which modifies the subject.

Plus, gaining 3 and 3 for each *building* would obviously be flat out broken....


Hey Chad! Thanks for replying. The problem is the word "each" and the nature of the subject of the sentence which also included the words "...with the most CIV..." for example. So what does "each" modify? The players themselves, or the conditional portion regarding the buildings? If the sentence read "The player or players with the most civic buildings score three wealth and three prestige" that would clearly mean that the total would be three and three for the player with the most, or, in the event of a tie, for both since it says nothing on the cards regarding a tiebreak, and nothing in the rules. In other words, in my mind (and maybe Alan's), the word "each" is not needed unless it refers to something else (such as the actual number of buildings). So, yes, in the end, we saw that this was "broken" and my wife and I agreed that it must not be the case to score for each, but that was after already getting far into the game before that became obvious (because of the number of buildings we had built the first and second time the card came up).

I think you are a victim of your own success here! Your rulebooks are legendarily good, so, for me at least, I just blindly do what you tell me to do, knowing how amazing your rules are (Dominant Species is a masterpiece in my opinion). No worries, the game is great fun, but I do not think those statements on the cards are as cut and dry as you may have thought. Thanks for clarifying this! I look forward to playing again tonight!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steffen Soller
United States
Sandy
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you leave the "each" off then you can start arguing if all players tied get 3 points (each) or if they have to share the three points...as such the "each" is helpful.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the record, there are players out there for whom this wording posed no problem whatsoever. whistle
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Goodrich
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Why can't more games have a handicapping mechanism?
badge
Becoming immortal!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
"player or players" is the sentence's subject while "gains 3 wealth and 3 prestige each" is the verb (predicate?), which modifies the subject.

Plus, gaining 3 and 3 for each *building* would obviously be flat out broken....


I now understand that the "each" is there so that, if in the case of the subject being players, it is understood that the points are not split, but every player (who qualifies) gets them. However, in the case of the subject being singular, the each makes no sense, and seems to imply that the buildings are what is scoring.

I agree this makes the game seem broken, but this was our first play. Many elements could seem whack until one can see the game as a whole - I didn't read all the cards before playing, so for all I knew there was some method to this madness, which would become clear later in the game, when later cards had come out. The only experience I had to go on was from playing DS (where the event cards and Survival can indeed swing things significantly if you aren't working against it) and from comments that this game was even swingy-er. After we'd scored the wrong way a few times, and the game had gone into the final phase (the last deck was out) it was pretty obvious it was likely wrong, but at that point it was too late. I had consulted the 'geek for clarification, but searched based on the name of the event cards, so I didn't find this thread until it was too late.

I appreciate that there are players who did not find the wording on this card a problem, but I don't feel like I'm a nimrod because I did. The issue for me was putting the plural in there. I simply think it would be clearer if it said "The player with the most X buildings gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth. If there is a tie, every player gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth." Yes, that uses 2 sentences rather than 1, but it is clearer imo.

It's not a huge deal, as it's only a mistake one is likely to make on a first play - but when that first play is 4 hours long, it's not no deal either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Santa Clarita
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think you're a nimrod . I know Chad loves brevity, and I certainly love his games, but I think he went a little overboard on this one. Too often, a player in our games couldn't figure out what the cards meant without having to refer to the rules, and to me that's not good.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Give me an alternate wording that does work that I might include it in any future reprint.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
Give me an alternate wording that does work that I might include it in any future reprint.


Thanks for working through this with us and for listening to different points of view. I agree with Alan's solution. He suggested:

I simply think it would be clearer if it said "The player with the most X buildings gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth. If there is a tie, every player gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Cinzori
United States
Holland
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
Give me an alternate wording that does work that I might include it in any future reprint.


How about moving the "each" further up the sentence (using the OP's example): "The player(s) with the most Civ buildings each gain 3 wealth and 3 prestige."?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malacandra wrote:
For the record, there are players out there for whom this wording posed no problem whatsoever. whistle


I have no problem with what you say, though I don't see the point. The emoticon seems a little "snarky" as well. As Alan has posted, just because I interpret a card text differently does not make me any less observant/competent/intelligent than someone who interprets a statement differently. In fact, I think the great challenge faced by those who write rules (and those who have to explain them to others) is understanding that what is clear and obvious to one person, may be unclear, opaque or "hazy" for very legitimate reasons to someone else. This is just the nature of people who always bring their own experiences and schema to everything they see and read. I think anything that is unclear to one may be unclear to another, so there is no point in pointing out that it is clear to you. The point of the thread was to see what other people may think so that I could check my own understanding. I appreciate people who responded to my OP with clarifications and thoughtful responses, and Chad for jumping in and supporting his game by answering the many questions people have had. It is difficult to judge if something is "broken" or "clear/obvious" until you have tried and experienced the game as a whole. This is what prompted the original questions. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
WonderCinz wrote:
Chad Jensen wrote:
Give me an alternate wording that does work that I might include it in any future reprint.


How about moving the "each" further up the sentence (using the OP's example): "The player(s) with the most Civ buildings each gain 3 wealth and 3 prestige."?


Yeas! That's a really good one too. Very brief and clear to my mind at least.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ggambill wrote:
Malacandra wrote:
For the record, there are players out there for whom this wording posed no problem whatsoever. whistle


I have no problem with what you say, though I don't see the point. The emoticon seems a little "snarky" as well.


It means exactly what it says. I didn't say, "Hey, you're dumb because there's plenty of people that didn't read it that way." I said, "For the record..." which means, if anyone cares, there are people out there who did not misunderstand the card.

Frankly, there isn't a construction of that sentence in English in which the word "each" would modify "buildings" without adding a preposition. (as in "FOR each [building]." If there is, I'd like to see it.



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chadwik
United States
Santa Rosa
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
"The player with the most X buildings gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth. If there is a tie, every player gains 3 prestige and 3 wealth."

That wouldn't work, as a tie would give *all* players 3 and 3. You'd have to say "...every tied player gains..." And it's a bit wordy compared to:

Quote:
"The player(s) with the most Civ buildings each gain 3 wealth and 3 prestige."

I like this one better, though I'd still spell out "player or players". Although, to be honest, I think this *is* the way it was originally worded and a playtester thought that the word "each" was indeed referring to the Civ buildings and not to the players and that's why I changed the sentence structure to what you see now (erroneously, it seems).

Thanks! Keep 'em coming if you have possible improvements. I'll make a note of this for future editions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G. Gambill
United States
Shawnee on Delaware
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malacandra wrote:
ggambill wrote:
Malacandra wrote:
For the record, there are players out there for whom this wording posed no problem whatsoever. whistle


I have no problem with what you say, though I don't see the point. The emoticon seems a little "snarky" as well.


It means exactly what it says. I didn't say, "Hey, you're dumb because there's plenty of people that didn't read it that way." I said, "For the record..." which means, if anyone cares, there are people out there who did not misunderstand the card.

Frankly, there isn't a construction of that sentence in English in which the word "each" would modify "buildings" without adding a preposition. (as in "FOR each [building]." If there is, I'd like to see it.



Thanks. I think you just proved my point.

edit: position of text.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alan Goodrich
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Why can't more games have a handicapping mechanism?
badge
Becoming immortal!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malacandra wrote:
Frankly, there isn't a construction of that sentence in English in which the word "each" would modify "buildings" without adding a preposition. (as in "FOR each [building]."


Yes, you are right there should be a preposition for each to refer to the buildings; the point is, you can drop out the for and the sentence is structurally very similar. You shouldn't need to parse grammar that closely to get the sense, and it assumes that the designer's intent and absolute correct grammar match up. Many games don't use correct grammar in the rules and components, so I'd prefer something with no ambiguity.

The suggested replacement "The player(s) with the most Civ buildings each gain 3 wealth and 3 prestige" is a good fix imo, because it eliminates any structural uncertainty - at least, I don't see how you can infer that each is modifying buildings in that one, as you'd have to change the structure of the sentence, not just add or drop a word, to be able to infer it. If the card had said that, we'd have been fine.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ggambill wrote:
Malacandra wrote:
ggambill wrote:
Malacandra wrote:
For the record, there are players out there for whom this wording posed no problem whatsoever. whistle


I have no problem with what you say, though I don't see the point. The emoticon seems a little "snarky" as well.


It means exactly what it says. I didn't say, "Hey, you're dumb because there's plenty of people that didn't read it that way." I said, "For the record..." which means, if anyone cares, there are people out there who did not misunderstand the card.

Frankly, there isn't a construction of that sentence in English in which the word "each" would modify "buildings" without adding a preposition. (as in "FOR each [building]." If there is, I'd like to see it.



Thanks. I think you just proved my point.



edit: position of text.


Which point? About "snarky?" Well, duh, of course THAT'S snarky. It's the Internet! laugh
 
 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.