Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
19 Posts

Hive» Forums » Rules

Subject: One hive rule rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Bartosz Chlebicki
Poland
Warsaw
Mazovia
flag msg tools
publisher
melanzowniatv.znadplanszy.pl
badge
melanzowniatv.znadplanszy.pl
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


Is this move possible? Is it OK with the one hive rule?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Finkel
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nope! During the "transit" of the move, the queen is separated. Good question!
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Slaven
United States
Sioux City
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I remember right (I don't have the rules with me) one description of the one hive rule is that if a piece is the only link between two parts of the hive, then it can't be moved. The ant above is the only link between the top piece and the rest of the hive, so you can't move it.

--Dave
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bartosz Chlebicki
Poland
Warsaw
Mazovia
flag msg tools
publisher
melanzowniatv.znadplanszy.pl
badge
melanzowniatv.znadplanszy.pl
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arttu Modig
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I came up with this same question as Bartosz, but I'm not satisfied with the answers without some definitive rule.

Azeltir wrote:
Nope! During the "transit" of the move, the queen is separated. Good question!


In a strict sense, the queen is not separated, because it's still connected to the hive through the corners of the pieces (in the example, with the ant) during the movement!

So, according to the "one hive rule", is this situation an exception, i.e. in this case, the corners don't connect the pieces?

Note that if we rule that only touching verteces connect pieces, then the pieces couldn't move around corners at all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Randall Ingersoll
United States
Port Orange
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The move shown above definitely violates the One Hive rule.

For proof, one can read the official Hive rules on the official Hive website. The rules are available here:

http://www.gen42.com/hive

In the official rules, the exact same position is used to demonstrate the One Hive rule.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Arttu Modig
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I see. Thanks for noting that this case covered in the rules! I didn't remember that picture at all (maybe I have a different version, I don't have the rules with me right now). I guess the text is pretty ambiguous when regarding connectedness and sliding.

I already found out that this was discussed in depth in here:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/521234/does-this-move-break-...

The designer John Yianni made this a bit clearer, but I'm still quite unhappy with the current stating of the One Hive rule. This adding just for the spider makes things more confusing:
"The Spider may only move around pieces that it is in direct contact with on each step of it's movement".

Personally, I don't like the idea of pieces "moving by sliding", because then they're inevitably disconnected momentarily if one considers only verteces connecting them. But I understand that defining not fitting through the gates is then problematic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think one of the challenges in evaluating these positions wrt the one hive rule is that the various vertex-connected situations come about when one of the bugs is not in an actual legal position in the first place. In the OP, when the ant is maintaining contact with the bee through a vertex only, the ant isn't occupying an actual hex.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Willward wrote:
I think one of the challenges in evaluating these positions wrt the one hive rule is that the various vertex-connected situations come about when one of the bugs is not in an actual legal position in the first place. In the OP, when the ant is maintaining contact with the bee through a vertex only, the ant isn't occupying an actual hex.

But that seems true of "normal" legal moves as well, e.g. a simple ant move around the outside edge of the hive. There is a moment when the ant is touching only a vertex of the hive, and at that moment the ant is not occupying an actual hex. Or am I missing something?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Willward wrote:
I think one of the challenges in evaluating these positions wrt the one hive rule is that the various vertex-connected situations come about when one of the bugs is not in an actual legal position in the first place. In the OP, when the ant is maintaining contact with the bee through a vertex only, the ant isn't occupying an actual hex.

But that seems true of "normal" legal moves as well, e.g. a simple ant move around the outside edge of the hive. There is a moment when the ant is touching only a vertex of the hive, and at that moment the ant is not occupying an actual hex. Or am I missing something?

True, but in that case the lack of contact is only for the ant itself. I think the gist of the one-hive rule concerns the remainder of the board, not the piece that's moving. Or at least that's my thinking. Here's the blah of it, subject to critique or comment...

Any rigorous definition of "contact" with the hive would have to include the fact that a piece is in contact with an entire edge and the two adjacent vertices of an adjacent piece. (I think I read wording to the same effect in one of the several other threads on this, and agreed.) But when a piece moves, the very nature of movement means that the piece must violate the rule while moving. The moment he begins to move, he either has contact only with a partial edge and no vertices (if sliding); or with no edge and only one vertex (if "rotating" around to the next edge). So although the rules are explicit that "the pieces in play must be linked at all times" and "...is also an illegal move, as the hive is left unlinked while the piece is in transit", it is really implicit that this doesn't strictly apply to the moving piece itself. If strictly applied, then the rule would prohibit any movement at all.

In the original position:
the move is illegal not because the ant becomes disconnected, but because the ant's movement causes the bee to be temporarily disconnected. Adding a couple of additional pieces to the position
makes the move perfectly legal, even though the ant itself is still just as disconnected while traveling.


So the move as originally quoted is illegal not because the ant is disconnected, but because the ant's move causes the bee to be disconnected. And that's what I was (probably inneffectively) trying to say in my original reply -- it's not immediately obvious why the bee is disconnected for a bit. She appears always to be connected at least through a vertex. But the vertex to which she's connected is to a moving piece (the ant) that isn't in a legitimate position at that moment.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Willward wrote:
russ wrote:
But that seems true of "normal" legal moves as well, e.g. a simple ant move around the outside edge of the hive. There is a moment when the ant is touching only a vertex of the hive, and at that moment the ant is not occupying an actual hex. Or am I missing something?

True, but in that case the lack of contact is only for the ant itself. I think the gist of the one-hive rule concerns the remainder of the board, not the piece that's moving.

Hmm, that's indeed a possibly significant difference. Clever.

Quote:
So although the rules are explicit that "the pieces in play must be linked at all times" and "...is also an illegal move, as the hive is left unlinked while the piece is in transit", it is really implicit that this doesn't strictly apply to the moving piece itself. If strictly applied, then the rule would prohibit any movement at all.


Yeah, this is all a bit of exegesis or imposed interpretation to some extent, alas. (But you make a good argument.)

Interesting how subtly murky the rules are, even though on the surface they seem pretty clear and simple. I guess in some ways it's merely another example of the old truism that's it's surprisingly hard to make truly rigorously correct/complete game rules, even for relatively simple elegant abstract games...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
russ wrote:
Interesting how subtly murky the rules are, even though on the surface they seem pretty clear and simple. I guess in some ways it's merely another example of the old truism that's it's surprisingly hard to make truly rigorously correct/complete game rules, even for relatively simple elegant abstract games.

Which is why I've found these threads to be fascinating. And I don't agree with the self-criticism in a couple of them that this is all being "overly-lawyerly". It's good stuff. And none of it is in any way critical of the rules writer(s)! (At least none of my comments.) My hat's off to them. It's really more of a commentary on the imperfect relationship between ordinary written language and mathematical rigor. Sometimes, it really does matter what one means is is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Goodfellow
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
How about a slight variation of the original question, where the queen bee isn't present, so it's ONLY the ant that is briefly isolated during the course of the move?

As I understand it, such a move would be legal for an ant, but NOT for a spider, which has to remain in contact with the hive at all times.

Is that correct?

Thanks,

Robin
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RobinGoodfellow wrote:
How about a slight variation of the original question, where the queen bee isn't present, so it's ONLY the ant that is briefly isolated during the course of the move?

As I understand it, such a move would be legal for an ant, but NOT for a spider, which has to remain in contact with the hive at all times.

Is that correct?

I believe the move would be legal for an ant. It would be illegal for a spider, but not because it violates the one-hive rule. The destination is not three spaces from the origin in either direction, and that's what would make it invalid for a spider.

(There's also the technicality that the game position wouldn't actually be possible since there are two unconnected white pieces with no bee present, and moving any white piece wouldn't be allowed. But that's really secondary to analyzing what might be legal wrt the one-hive rule.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
☆ ✧ ☆ ✧ ☆
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Looking at these stars suddenly dwarfed my own troubles and all the gravities of terrestrial life. I thought of their unfathomable distance, and the slow inevitable drift of their movements out of the unknown past into the unknown future. H.G. Wells
badge
Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect. Chief Seattle
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always imagined movement of a piece as removing the piece that is changing position from the Hive altogether, then one checks if the Hive is still one, and then replacing the piece in its new position.

Are there problems with this implementation or understanding of the rules?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mi Myma
United States
Fountain Valley
California
flag msg tools
Why is there no Word Games Forum or Subdomain?
badge
There should be a Word Games Subdomain, or at least a Word Games Forum!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I understand it, the one-hive rule can be easily expressed by ignoring the piece that's moving. All the rest of the pieces must be connected. (And obviously, the moving piece must be connected after it finishes moving.) Is there any case in which this doesn't adequately fulfill the one-hive rule?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eddy
Germany
flag msg tools
Go Lizards, Go Hogs, Go Illini; and the Army keeps rolling along!
badge
Hillbilly Schwäbisch
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
frumpish wrote:
I always imagined movement of a piece as removing the piece that is changing position from the Hive altogether, then one checks if the Hive is still one, and then replacing the piece in its new position.

Are there problems with this implementation or understanding of the rules?

Certainly not a problem as I see it. I think it's the perfect way of visualizing the one-hive rule. But although it isn't a problem, there is one limitation -- this method doesn't account for the freedom of movement rule. It's quite possible to pick up a piece, check one-hive validity, and place it back down in an illegal position. But allowing for that, I think your technique of visualizing a removed piece is the best method of explaining the one-hive rule. I've been unable to produce a counterexample (affirmative or negative), and I have certainly tried.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robin Goodfellow
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Thanks. I meant that I thought the move would be illegal for a spider if it was intended as the first of the spider's three steps, since the spider would be briefly out of contact with the hive. The rules suggest that the "permanent contact" constraint is specific to the spider and (as other contributors to this thread have stated) doesn't apply to other creatures.

Robin
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RobinGoodfellow wrote:
Thanks. I meant that I thought the move would be illegal for a spider if it was intended as the first of the spider's three steps, since the spider would be briefly out of contact with the hive. The rules suggest that the "permanent contact" constraint is specific to the spider and (as other contributors to this thread have stated) doesn't apply to other creatures.

Robin

While the rules don't make it very clear, my impression is that that rule applies to all bugs. I think the only reason the ant effectively gets and exception is that it has any number of moves, and thus could always reach the other side of a jump like that by moving around the edges of the hive.

 
 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.