dragon and builder

[mjharper]

Please stop using the word argue. I am trying to conduct a civilized discussion about what I feel is wrong or right. I am not arguing as that achieves nothing and always degenerates into slanging matches.

Sorry, I mean 'argue' and 'argument' in the philosophical sense (what I studied :) to just mean take a position and state it to others. No emotive or aggressive meaning intended.
_______
"Look, I came here for a good argument!"
"No, you came here for an argument…"
- Monty Python
_______
I'll try and use 'said' and stuff where possible, though ;-) (though to me, I should only use 'said' if I'm actually quoting something. Hmm… 'intoned', maybe?)

[Scott]

Suggested? Debated? The word argue seems fine to me; a negative connotation was not intended.

No idea why Joff lost a merit point, but I gave him another one for a post on the previous page which I feel was worthy. I'm not used to having a merit mechanism, so I don't think to use it as often as I should. I also gave dwhitworth a merit point for his awesome metaphysics post.

[dwhitworth]

@Scott Thanks. Appreciated.

Joff''s demerit is a mystery to me, but I think he should get a merit for his web page on the Abbey tile  . . . .  Done!

@canada steve, I'm sorry that you feel that we have used the word "argue" in its negative sense - “to exchange diverging or opposite views heatedly”. I believe all of us were using it in the more gentle sense - “to give reasons or cite evidence in support of something”. I'm only interested in reasonable discussion and like you don't want to sink into a pointless flame war. I too will try to find a less ambiguous term, but, given that the word does have two meanings, isn't it better for us to understand the sense in which we mean the word than to ban it?

[Joff]

Wow, thanks guys! 

I actually am not too sure about the merit system. I have used it to increase points, but never to demerit! It seems too easy to demerit someone without there being a way to see who has demerited, why a person has been demerited and without a sensible reason being given for doing so. For instance, I could take 10 merits off Matt's score (no offence intended, Matt), because I feel like it, and nobody would be any of the wiser! I remain anonymous, even to the admin of the board! It's like eBay feedback without knowing who has given the positives and negatives!

@canada steve. My apologies, I never meant to cause any offence. I just thought that you misunderstood the rules about the builder. I now realise that you were actually suggesting a variant that you feel plays better.

One of the things that I like about the builder is that he is a powerful piece. I prefer to play my games as close to the rules as possible (sometimes we do use a couple of small variants in our games, but all players are made aware that it is a variant we are playing and not the official ruling), but if the rules were changed to reflect your builder variation, then we would follow the new ruling. Playing as per the rules does not then cause confusion when you join others for games.

Here is one thought (I think I know the answer ), What would happen if I had a road laid with a follower on and played a tile that completed that road. I then deploy my builder on that tile (that would be legal). Could I take the double-turn, because the builder now occupies the now completed road?

My inclination is that I would not be able to, as the builder must be in play before the feature is extended. But what do you think?

[Scott]

From the CAR: "Whenever the player places a tile that extends the road or city which includes their builder, they may take a double turn." (emphasis mine)

Like you said, the builder needs to already be on the table while the road or city is being extended.

[canada steve]

Gents

I still think from Scotts last posting that it is not totally clear on this. It does state words like "may" and "extend" but does extend mean complete. Definitely one for the HiG I feel.

As for that strange points system, I seem to have lost two points over the last few days too. I probably lost them for disagreeing with everyone else but to lose two !!! Oh how deflated I feel 

[mjharper]

Hmm… the strange points system seems not to be working. I wouldn't have thought anything that you said recently warranted two points less. You weren't being wilfully argumentative, or flaming, or anything like that.

Since no-one is going to post an explanation, perhaps I should ask people to pm me for the reasons behind canada steve's ad Joff's deductions (confidentially).

Maybe this is something we need to look at for the future. Should only moderators and admins be able to award or deduct points? Gantry?

[canada steve]

If no-one comes forward it was actually 10 points I lost 

[Joff]

I still think from Scotts last posting that it is not totally clear on this. It does state words like "may" and "extend" but does extend mean complete. Definitely one for the HiG I feel.

This is actually quite reasonable. Although I am happy that the rules make it plain that if a feature is completed you would still get the double-turn (completion automatically extends), the use of the word 'may' implies that you get a choice of whether you take the double-turn or not. I believe that the player is obligated to take the double-turn. Is this correct? Perhaps an official ruling from HIG is a good idea... but then again, perhaps we already have an official position that I have missed!

[Gantry]

Hmm… the strange points system seems not to be working. I wouldn't have thought anything that you said recently warranted two points less. You weren't being wilfully argumentative, or flaming, or anything like that.

Since no-one is going to post an explanation, perhaps I should ask people to pm me for the reasons behind canada steve's ad Joff's deductions (confidentially).

Maybe this is something we need to look at for the future. Should only moderators and admins be able to award or deduct points? Gantry?

I can remove the ability for members to penalize other members and only reward. Or perhaps it is working as intended? Someone penalizing them is within their rights. I think that being able to penalize without explanation is what members are having difficulty with?

Let me look into the options and I'll start a new thread so as not to derail this one.

PS - you can find it HERE

[Tobias]

Rules can actually be wrong, erratas aren't unheard of!

[Novelty]

However, for the sake of sanity, we have to assume that the rules are correct unless an errata has been published or released.  Otherwise, we'd all be playing with rules variants.

[Tobias]

Otherwise, we'd all be playing with rules variants.

I'm pretty sure we are 

[canada steve]

 

[Scott]

I still think from Scotts last posting that it is not totally clear on this. It does state words like "may" and "extend" but does extend mean complete. Definitely one for the HiG I feel.

The 'may' is definitely bizarre. It seems to suggest that a player may refuse a double turn, but I can't think of any reason why someone would want to, unless there are only a few tiles left in the bag and the player is trying to be the last to play? Phrases like "It's all part of my master plan." come to mind. Too risky that somebody else will throw off the tile count by getting a double turn of their own, or playing an abbey tile.

We had a thread about 'extend' a month or two ago I think it was. Extend means to increase the area which a feature occupies. If you add a straight-through road tile to a road, the road is extended. If you add a road-leading-to-cloister tile, the road is extended and completed. If you play an abbey tile, the road is completed but not extended because of the abbey tile's unique lack of any features except the abbey itself. I think it was the abbey tile that started this whole extend vs. complete discussion in the first place.

If an analogy will help, imagine you have a red square, a red circle, and a blue circle. Two of them are red, and two of them are circular. One of them is both red AND circular. Similarly, you have extend, extend/complete, and complete. Two of them extend a feature, two of them complete a feature, but only one of them does both.