Shrines and Heretics

[Krakus]

We played the Shrines and Heretics expansion for the first time tonight. Quite unexpectedly, it caused a real pickle at the end.

The situation was that a shrine had been erected next to a cloister. Both were occupied and were challenging each other. Both were complete except for one tile that was missing, and would have been shared between them. Had it been completed, both the heretic and the monk would have generated points, of course.

Now, the problem was that this tile in question had to be a ffff tile. And with the tiles we had available, all the ffff tiles left had cloisters. Now, could such a tile be placed into this one hole? The annotated guide suggests that you must not place a shrine so that a cloister ends up neighbouring multiple shrines. And I assume the same is true for cloisters. So it seemed to me at first glance that this wasn't permissible.

But on the other hand, what harm would it do? The cloister placed in the hole wouldn't necessarily even have to be occupied in order to resolve the challenge and allow both players to score. After all, there's another annotation that suggests that a tile can complete both the shrine and cloister at the same time to allow both to score.

Because both players in question had used up their followers, and it was near the end of the game, both players complained about this rule. What do you think?

[Tobias]

What do you think?

Play it the way you want and the way that makes it the most fun

I can not see any harm in putting a cloister tile there as long as it is not occupied.

[CKorfmann]

What do you think?

Play it the way you want and the way that makes it the most fun
I can not see any harm in putting a cloister tile there as long as it is not occupied.

I agree with Tobias.  It makes the most sense.  He usually does. 

[Scott]

The official wording says "several". I don't personally consider two to be several.

The purpose of the rule is to prevent potentially complicated multiple-way challenges. If a shrine is challenged by two cloisters, and one cloister is completed first, the rules say that the heretic is returned to its corresponding player, but a challenge still exists between the shrine and the other cloister. In your particular situation, the placement of the second cloister is concluding a challenge, so there is no complications. If there would be any grounds for an exception, this is it.

[Tobias]

The official wording says "several". I don't personally consider two to be several.

What meaning does several carry if not "more than one"? Does it mean "more than two"? "More than three"? I am honestly curious.

[CKorfmann]

In my opinion, the use of the word several is a poor choice here.  It is too ambiguous.  It is definitely more than two.  Typically in english we say two is a couple and three is a few, but even few is dependant upon context.  It makes a difference whether it's a few of 10 or a few of 100.  The same could be said for several, I think.  It depends on the context, though I would consider several to be more than a few. 

In my opinion, and the way I play, a player may not place a cloister or shrine so that is adjacent to a cloister and shrine already in competition with each other.  I believe this is the spirit of the rule, to prevent multiple challenges at once.  I don't have a problem grouping three or four cloisters together, or shrines together.  It is the mixture that requires the limit.  That is my interpretation anyway.

[Carcking]

We just play that a follower already in a challenge cannot enter another challenge, nor be challenged. Then the players can place cloisters and shrines where they like. It's much simpler than trying to figure out what several is, and remembering where you cannot place tiles.

I think it goes against the nature of the game to limit where you can place tiles.