Recommend
9 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Tigris & Euphrates» Forums » Rules

Subject: Leader separates kingdoms mid-conflict rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought I knew everything there was to know about T&E, but I came across a situation I was a little unsure about the other day.

Consider the following set-up.


T
T rK
FrKUrFgg

T = trader, K = king, F = farmer, g = green tile, r = red tile.

A unification tile has just been placed at U. The black fight occurs first and the left-hand King wins. This splits the right-hand kingdom into two. Next comes the green fight.

My question: do the two green tiles in the right-hand kingdom count for the conflict, even though they are no longer connected to the trader?
8 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My answer would be no but I'm not sure it's the official answer.

I'd say no because before the unification tile was placed the only connection between the two parts of the kingdom was the King. The unification tile does not count as a tile until the end of the conflict. So taking the King away means the original kingdom was divided to two parts.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That was my inclination too, but it just felt a bit strange.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Berthold Nüchter
Germany
Duisburg
NRW
flag msg tools
I am the walrus
badge
checkpoint
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with Laszlo.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jurgen Koller
Australia
Cherrybrook
NSW
flag msg tools
Great Underground Empire
badge
Explorer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's an interesting situation. By placing a unification tile you have created a new, larger kingdom. After the first conflict between the Kings is resolved you still have one kingdom: you have not split it. When resolving the conflict between the Traders next, the rules state:

"Count the supporters...by counting all the tiles...located in their leader's 'original kingdom'. These tiles need not be adjacent to the respective leader. They only have to be in that part of the kingdom on 'his side' of the unification tile."

This leads me to disagree with the above opinions as the green tiles are indeed still in the original kingdom on the right even though only the unification tile forms the link now.

Would love to know what the official ruling is.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Pinter
United States
Liverpool
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rustylantern wrote:
That's an interesting situation. By placing a unification tile you have created a new, larger kingdom. After the first conflict between the Kings is resolved you still have one kingdom: you have not split it. When resolving the conflict between the Traders next, the rules state:

"Count the supporters...by counting all the tiles...located in their leader's 'original kingdom'. These tiles need not be adjacent to the respective leader. They only have to be in that part of the kingdom on 'his side' of the unification tile."

This leads me to disagree with the above opinions as the green tiles are indeed still in the original kingdom on the right even though only the unification tile forms the link now.

Would love to know what the official ruling is.


I have to disagree with this because if the two green kingdoms were separated by the conclusion resolving the black tiles then the green kingdoms wouldn't be in conflict (example in the rules do just this). This means order of resolution matters (which I believe is noted in the rules). If order of resolution matters then those tiles now separated from the kingdom shouldn't be included since they are no longer part of the kingdom due to the order of resolution.

Mind you, I only recently bought the game and haven't played yet, so what do I know
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Berger
United States
Round Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I didn't expect to see a T&E question without an obvious answer at this point... well done! I agree with Laszlo, though I could potentially be convinced otherwise. It's a tough one.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vid Dles
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
No, they won't count.

In the example stated in the OP, there are two separate conflicts--one with black, the other with green. Before the black conflict has resolved, the "original kingdom" on the right contains the two green tiles. After that conflict has resolved, the next conflict begins, and that "original kingdom" no longer contains those two green tiles.

Just to clarify, the rules used the phrase "original kingdom" because the unification tile creates one large kingdom, but it's not viewed as one large kingdom until the after resolving the conflict(s).

While the rules don't address this scenario specifically, they do state that "all conflicts between two like-colored leaders are resolved separately," and that "when a tile is removed from the board, it may cause the kingdom to be divided into two or more parts." They went on to clarify that dividing the kingdom could prevent a second conflict from occurring, which clearly implies that the state of the two kingdoms before the first conflict are not relevant to the second conflict.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Yee Keat Phuah
Malaysia
flag msg tools
qwqwertymartin wrote:
My question: do the two green tiles in the right-hand kingdom count for the conflict, even though they are no longer connected to the trader?


My answer is no, as they are not connected to the trader.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rustylantern wrote:
By placing a unification tile you have created a new, larger kingdom.

Your reasoning started from a false assumption. The large kingdom was one before the unification tile was placed. It was connected by the king that was taken off in the first step.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lacxox wrote:
rustylantern wrote:
By placing a unification tile you have created a new, larger kingdom.

Your reasoning started from a false assumption. The large kingdom was one before the unification tile was placed. It was connected by the king that was taken off in the first step.

No, I think he meant the new, larger kingdom formed by the two former kingdoms joined with the unification tile. And the wording he mentions in the rules is what makes it feel odd to me too. The strange thing is that you start with a conflict between two kingdoms, but after the King is removed, it becomes a conflict between three kingdoms.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
arkayn wrote:

I didn't expect to see a T&E question without an obvious answer at this point... well done!

I know, right? I've corrected so many people's rules mistakes that I was shocked to come across a situation that I couldn't instantly resolve!
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Laszlo Molnar
Hungary
Budapest
Hungary
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
No, I think he meant the new, larger kingdom formed by the two former kingdoms joined with the unification tile.

Oh, I see. But the new kingdom is not really formed until the conflicts are resolved. It's a battle (external conflict) until then.
qwertymartin wrote:
The strange thing is that you start with a conflict between two kingdoms, but after the King is removed, it becomes a conflict between three kingdoms.

If you are ready to admit that these are three kingdoms then it's no question that the trader can't use those green tiles as a support anymore...

What seems strange is that this is a conflict between three kingdoms while the rules seemingly don't allow this - but actually the rules only state that you can't place a tile in a way that it would join three kingdoms. And this rule is there only to prevent strange 3-leader conflicts, which can not happen in the A1/A2, B three-kingdom situation described above. So while the situation is rather strange and unusual, it seems to be clear to me.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
For what it's worth: no, they don't count. T&E has no 'state memory' to remind the players that a situation was different a moment ago. At the time the green leaders are going to dish it out, there are no green tiles in the top trader's kingdom, and that's basically all there is to it. That is why calling out the order of conflict is important. I've encountered situations where I could salvage quite a lot of tiles that way.

Compare for example to moving a leader around: he is truly, albeit temporarily, off the board while being moved. If that causes a split in a kingdom he was standing in, then from that moment on that kingdom is split, and may not be rejoined by that moving leader (as a leader may never join two kingdoms).
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jonathan C
United States
Iowa
flag msg tools
badge
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd love to see an official response to this question ... From the designer.ninja
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
anicdotal enigma
msg tools
mbmb
If people would just read the damn rulebook Under the 'External Conflicts' header on page 9: "As noted above, no victory point is awarded when placing a tile which unites two kingdoms. Instead, that tile is covered by the unification tile. A new, larger kingdom is created. If the new, united kingdom contains..."

External conflicts occur in a single kingdom (as do internal conflicts); not two separate kingdoms, and you most certainly count the tile under the unification tile as part of the newly-formed kingdom; you just don't include it when determining the outcome of any ensuing external conflicts. From here, the answer is obvious. The markets count as supporters for the player who controls the trader on the right "side" of the kingdom since they were part of the "original kingdom" before the unification occurred and they weren't separated from the "newly-formed kingdom" after the first conflict.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So you've given the opposite answer to most people in the thread. I'm sure they've all 'read the damn rule book' too. I certainly have, and I'm yet to be convinced that it provides a definitive answer.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
anicdotal enigma
msg tools
mbmb
Well, I certainly didn't mean to jump on anyone's toes and for that I apologize. The statement about the rules was meant to be lighthearted not a jab; hence the smiley, but it clearly came out wrong. Anyway, reread the External Conflicts section. It was pretty clear to me that this is, in fact, just a rules mix up. Seriously, I thought as you did until I reread that part. It changed my interpretation of how external conflicts worked. The second bullet point on page 10 threw me for a loop until I read it in context of the newly-formed kingdom and then it all made sense. It isn't referring to each kingdom, it's referring to the whole shebang. I've played this game many times since '08 and I'm sure many more have played it since the first printing but I'm satisfied that I just learned something new tonight.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Hollander
United States
Bellevue
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This case is not handled explicitly in the rules. But I think the only sensible answer is that the two green tiles in the right-hand kingdom do not count in the trader conflict.

The phrase "original kingdoms" is the only part of the rules that might support a different answer. But the scare quotes (which are in both the early HiG German and English rule books I have, though I don't know any German) suggest that the term is not for general application, but rather an awkward attempt to explain the particular (and typical) unification example shown in the rules.

As Maarten D. de Jong said, there's no "state memory" in the game. As a practical matter, you wouldn't keep track of what supporters were in the "original" two kingdoms. This is consistent with the rule that tile removal[s] "may cause the [unified] kingdom to be divided into two or more parts" and "leaders originally exposed to conflict may end up in different kingdoms again. Then they are no longer in a conflict." So, after resolving one conflict, you look at the board as it is, and figure out whether any conflicts are left in the unified kingdom (that is, "if there are still leaders of like colours in the [unified] kingdom, the conflicts continue, ...".

In unusual cases, as here, there can be three or four kingdoms now "unifying," though a three- or four-way conflict among the remaining leaders is nonetheless impossible because everything left in the unified kingdom was originally from only two kingdoms. But these cases are simply not discussed in the rules or the FAQ.

Finally, this issue is similar to much simpler cases. Consider "TrKUTrKg". The right-side king loses the first conflict. Does the right-side trader still have the one supporter from the green tile because it was in the "original" kingdom? The rules don't say anything about supporters separated from their "original" kingdoms. The sensible answer is that after resolving the first conflict, the unified kingdom now looks like "TrKUTr", so the "g" supporter is gone.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
I thought I knew everything there was to know about T&E, but I came across a situation I was a little unsure about the other day.

Consider the following set-up.


T
T rK
FrKUrFgg

T = trader, K = king, F = farmer, g = green tile, r = red tile.

A unification tile has just been placed at U. The black fight occurs first and the left-hand King wins. This splits the right-hand kingdom into two. Next comes the green fight.

My question: do the two green tiles in the right-hand kingdom count for the conflict, even though they are no longer connected to the trader?


Nice question, and useful.

The disconnected tiles don't count. Checked with RK.
17 
 Thumb up
7.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin G
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Don't fall in love with me yet, we only recently met
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you Christopher!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jurgen Koller
Australia
Cherrybrook
NSW
flag msg tools
Great Underground Empire
badge
Explorer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terrific. Glad we got an official ruling on this. Thanks for following up.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Dearlove
United Kingdom
Chelmsford
Essex
flag msg tools
SoRCon 11 23-25 Feb 2018 Basildon UK http://www.sorcon.co.uk
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rustylantern wrote:
Glad we got an official ruling on this.


I never (well, almost never, and this isn't an exception) claim official. But you can rely on that answer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David P
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Glad to see that the (in my view) better interpretation prevails. It's certainly been my working assumption.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Warren Smith
Canada
Calgary
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
[Even] in their poverty, they referred to their garden of necessity as if it were a hobby.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to say that, while I accept it, I am very disappointed in this ruling. Now that FFG is reprinting this classic I have been excitedly reading the rulebook, forums and playing on iOS in anticipation of picking up a copy.

My problem with the ruling is that it seems to completely strip the unification tile of its unifying property. It's there to remind players to resolve conflicts that might arise from the "act of unification." I understand the "new, larger kingdom" to be created immediately.

The phrase, "original kingdom", does not appear in the FFG rulebook. The lack of "state memory" that cymric referred to supports the idea that only one kingdom exists after the King war in the OP's example. Further, the removal of the black King cannot create a war between 3 kingdoms because there is no situation where the removal of any tile/piece will ever join 2 or more kingdoms together.

Very counter-intuitive to me, indeed.

Dearlove wrote:
qwertymartin wrote:
I thought I knew everything there was to know about T&E, but I came across a situation I was a little unsure about the other day.

Consider the following set-up.


T
T rK
FrKUrFgg

T = trader, K = king, F = farmer, g = green tile, r = red tile.

A unification tile has just been placed at U. The black fight occurs first and the left-hand King wins. This splits the right-hand kingdom into two. Next comes the green fight.

My question: do the two green tiles in the right-hand kingdom count for the conflict, even though they are no longer connected to the trader?


Nice question, and useful.

The disconnected tiles don't count. Checked with RK.
1 
 Thumb up
 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.