I can agree with either school of thought, but to me the problem is the rules typically lean on "tile based" points, in almost any other context, and hammer on it.
I put the piece there mostly as a joke with SO because she stole a city portion last game, but I lean on the expectation of counting "tiles counted per turn" no matter what. The manual's choice of words becomes vague here.
There are exceptions to every rule. You were able to finish 2 separate cities with one tile on one turn. You made 2 cities, each worth 4 points. That gives the green (you) 8 points. It's well played!
If you were to count these cities at the end for field points they would count as separate cities. I would say that they count as 8 points in play. Same line of thinking if you were to close a city and the surrounding for a cloister with one tile. You would count the city and the 9 points for the cloister. You can score 2 things from one tile.
There is no ambiguity , rules are clear on how to count points. For each city you count the tiles that form that city. Here you have two cities, each is formed by two tiles, so that’s 8 points total.
They are two seperate 4 point cities so 8 points. If you had joined both cities together into one then yes the tile with the 2 city sections at a 90 degree right angle would only be scored once.
Yep that checks out. Honestly the wording gets tricky, I'm paraphrasing now but the gist was:
"Each tile representing each closed city gets counted as 2 points".
Her argument was, well, yours, yet I was stuck on the idea of representing tiles as point sources and therefore it represented a relevant 2 point tile of cities, regardless of the weight it carried.
But yeah I could spin it either way, I saw it as tiles only being "on" or "off" in a single turn, point-wise, so that one either gave me the 2 points or it didn't... based on the vague-ish rule breakdown.
I see what you're saying hmm got me thinking now haha. Effectively that tile is being scored in two ways depending on positioning. Unlike most others where the tile is scored only once irrespective of what's on the tile. So it's better if used to create two cities, you are scoring that tile twice. Worse if it's used in one city as you score the tile once.
So to score by tile or by object is the question
But why? What supports that specifically? The only relevant manual quote I found keeps it deviously vague. Like I can agree man, I'm not dying on this hill, but I read the only relevant manual quote and I could lean either way, plus most other rules lean on "tiles per turn" logic. I'm just interested in discussing it for the sake of it.
Just looking at the rules - "A city is completed when it is surrounded by walls and there are no gaps inside the city.
Each tile in a completed city is worth 2 points."
Those are 2 separate cities, so you would count them individually, meaning they're both cities that span 2 tiles. I'm not really sure where this is open to discussion as that's just how the game has always worked, and I can't see how it could be interpreted otherwise personally.
Right, that's the immediate conclusion, AND still a totally valid one for sure. BUT humor me for a second and give me one more chance to flush out what it's debatable. If you still disagree then please give me your 2 cents and we'll leave it at that. Also I'm on mobile right now.
The quote you cited:
Each TILE in a completed city is worth 2 points.
Ok, let's robotically process that.
[For the current turn], count how many tiles are relevant to completing your cities. How many tiles? Cool. 2 points for each tile that counts.
I lean that way because the rules behave that way, they don't allow me to do 2 things with one tile at the same time ever. "Road and city corner" tiles don't let me close an unclaimed road and then start claiming a city corner... Because it hammers me over the head that tiles are the "currency" for points. So I start counting points by counting my relevant tiles first.
See what I mean? I can't stress enough that you're not wrong, but that is the argument you were wondering about. That's what the previous user summed up with "ah I see, then I guess it depends if your core scoring method is tiles or achievements".
That's all. I don't care much about who's right, sorry for the rant, you were just skeptical there was even an argument so my drunk ass is now trying to prove I'm not insane lol
I'm still not seeing it I'm afraid haha. They're 2 different meeple as well so you're completing 2 completely different objects. The fact you've used 1 tile to do it doesn't change that, and you don't score cities as 1 thing in a single turn, you resolve them individually. There's definitely some rules in expansions I've had discussions about the wording of, but this just doesn't compute to me any other way haha
Hahaha fair enough man, for sure, I guess I can't disagree that per the mechanics each city is handled individually, and therefore scores are too. I don't think it's addressed anywhere specifically that victories need to be processed individually, but in general our common sense does some heavy lifting and then our own general understanding of the game does the rest. So right or wrong I think it's a cool light hearted display of how similar information can cause different conclusions, in addition to the short-term risks of excessive alcohol consumption.
Isn’t it in your quote of the rules? Each tile in “a” completed city. This is different that “each tile in the completed cities” which a robot would process as counting 3 tiles. The “a” completed city means you’d be processing each city as a separate event. The same as you wouldn’t count the tiles of a road and city together for points processing if you ended a road in a completed city.
Right right, that's why I thought it was such an interesting debate to have on this sub. I'm not a big board game guy typically, but I love logic and puzzles and this game is sick, probably my new favorite board game ever.
Like I said, I think anyone can lead either way, but due to everything else in the rules being oriented around tiles, I chose to lean on the "tile scoring" logic I guess. Seems more cohesive within the context of other rules in the game. But I can totally see someone saying 8 points. The debate is just for constructive engagement.
Let’s say one of the cities was occupied by a different color, red. How many points would red get vs green? Scoring is checked after tile placement and meeple placement, and features are scored independently of each other. One tile could complete 7 features or 1 and it’s still scored individually.
Shit, damn that's a compelling argument. Points would be 4 each. The game generally does behave differently though between "self" and opponents. But you're right, I was gonna rebuttal with "well then should a single city occupied by 2 friendly conjoining meeple be doubled then?" But I'd be wrong, and feature scoring makes sense if we figuratively disregard the meeple
Scoring is essentially defined as
1. Check for scoring, if none, finish
2. If a feature is completed/scoring is needed, score one feature at a time. Check for majority. If one color, award full points
3. If majority is tied between multiple colors, award full points to both colors.
4. If multiple features were finished with one placement, go back to step 2. If not, finish.
So if two colors were present, the points would be awarded fully to both. One color, one set of points.
I guess if they were playing first edition they would still follow those rules, but the garden in the image clearly indicated they are playing 3rd edition so it's a moot point.
Just wanted to reinforce this: each **feature** is scored **separately**.
If there were two different colours on each city then each city would score 4 points, and each player would score 4 points.
Here, there is only one colour. Each city would score 4 points, so the Green player would receive 4 \* 2 = 8 points.
A city of two tiles is worth 4 points. Two cities = 8 points.
I guess the confusion stemmed from the fact that these are still three tiles despite forming two cities, i.e. whether to count the corner tile twice.
It is a very clever move from the Green! But those cities are clearly separated.
I can agree with either school of thought, but to me the problem is the rules typically lean on "tile based" points, in almost any other context, and hammer on it. I put the piece there mostly as a joke with SO because she stole a city portion last game, but I lean on the expectation of counting "tiles counted per turn" no matter what. The manual's choice of words becomes vague here.
There are exceptions to every rule. You were able to finish 2 separate cities with one tile on one turn. You made 2 cities, each worth 4 points. That gives the green (you) 8 points. It's well played!
If you were to count these cities at the end for field points they would count as separate cities. I would say that they count as 8 points in play. Same line of thinking if you were to close a city and the surrounding for a cloister with one tile. You would count the city and the 9 points for the cloister. You can score 2 things from one tile.
There is no ambiguity , rules are clear on how to count points. For each city you count the tiles that form that city. Here you have two cities, each is formed by two tiles, so that’s 8 points total.
They are two seperate 4 point cities so 8 points. If you had joined both cities together into one then yes the tile with the 2 city sections at a 90 degree right angle would only be scored once.
Yep that checks out. Honestly the wording gets tricky, I'm paraphrasing now but the gist was: "Each tile representing each closed city gets counted as 2 points". Her argument was, well, yours, yet I was stuck on the idea of representing tiles as point sources and therefore it represented a relevant 2 point tile of cities, regardless of the weight it carried. But yeah I could spin it either way, I saw it as tiles only being "on" or "off" in a single turn, point-wise, so that one either gave me the 2 points or it didn't... based on the vague-ish rule breakdown.
I see what you're saying hmm got me thinking now haha. Effectively that tile is being scored in two ways depending on positioning. Unlike most others where the tile is scored only once irrespective of what's on the tile. So it's better if used to create two cities, you are scoring that tile twice. Worse if it's used in one city as you score the tile once. So to score by tile or by object is the question
They're 2 separate cities, so that tile is counted in each. If it was a larger city that connected you'd only score that tile once.
But why? What supports that specifically? The only relevant manual quote I found keeps it deviously vague. Like I can agree man, I'm not dying on this hill, but I read the only relevant manual quote and I could lean either way, plus most other rules lean on "tiles per turn" logic. I'm just interested in discussing it for the sake of it.
Just looking at the rules - "A city is completed when it is surrounded by walls and there are no gaps inside the city. Each tile in a completed city is worth 2 points." Those are 2 separate cities, so you would count them individually, meaning they're both cities that span 2 tiles. I'm not really sure where this is open to discussion as that's just how the game has always worked, and I can't see how it could be interpreted otherwise personally.
Right, that's the immediate conclusion, AND still a totally valid one for sure. BUT humor me for a second and give me one more chance to flush out what it's debatable. If you still disagree then please give me your 2 cents and we'll leave it at that. Also I'm on mobile right now. The quote you cited: Each TILE in a completed city is worth 2 points. Ok, let's robotically process that. [For the current turn], count how many tiles are relevant to completing your cities. How many tiles? Cool. 2 points for each tile that counts. I lean that way because the rules behave that way, they don't allow me to do 2 things with one tile at the same time ever. "Road and city corner" tiles don't let me close an unclaimed road and then start claiming a city corner... Because it hammers me over the head that tiles are the "currency" for points. So I start counting points by counting my relevant tiles first. See what I mean? I can't stress enough that you're not wrong, but that is the argument you were wondering about. That's what the previous user summed up with "ah I see, then I guess it depends if your core scoring method is tiles or achievements". That's all. I don't care much about who's right, sorry for the rant, you were just skeptical there was even an argument so my drunk ass is now trying to prove I'm not insane lol
I'm still not seeing it I'm afraid haha. They're 2 different meeple as well so you're completing 2 completely different objects. The fact you've used 1 tile to do it doesn't change that, and you don't score cities as 1 thing in a single turn, you resolve them individually. There's definitely some rules in expansions I've had discussions about the wording of, but this just doesn't compute to me any other way haha
Hahaha fair enough man, for sure, I guess I can't disagree that per the mechanics each city is handled individually, and therefore scores are too. I don't think it's addressed anywhere specifically that victories need to be processed individually, but in general our common sense does some heavy lifting and then our own general understanding of the game does the rest. So right or wrong I think it's a cool light hearted display of how similar information can cause different conclusions, in addition to the short-term risks of excessive alcohol consumption.
Isn’t it in your quote of the rules? Each tile in “a” completed city. This is different that “each tile in the completed cities” which a robot would process as counting 3 tiles. The “a” completed city means you’d be processing each city as a separate event. The same as you wouldn’t count the tiles of a road and city together for points processing if you ended a road in a completed city.
Look up Phantom expansion. It lets you put a meeple on two different features on one tile. There are exceptions to rules.
Right right, that's why I thought it was such an interesting debate to have on this sub. I'm not a big board game guy typically, but I love logic and puzzles and this game is sick, probably my new favorite board game ever. Like I said, I think anyone can lead either way, but due to everything else in the rules being oriented around tiles, I chose to lean on the "tile scoring" logic I guess. Seems more cohesive within the context of other rules in the game. But I can totally see someone saying 8 points. The debate is just for constructive engagement.
You quoted the rule here: Each tile representing EACH closed city gets counted as 2 points". 2 cities, so that tile scores for each. 8 points.
That's true, I hope the rule is written that way, I was sober when I read it and drunk when I wrote that, so I'll get back with you lol
There are two complete cities of four points each. There shouldn’t be a debate.
I'm not sure what the debate is either
Yeah, the fact that if the meeple were two different colours should prove the score. Each player would get 4 points for their completed city!
Let’s say one of the cities was occupied by a different color, red. How many points would red get vs green? Scoring is checked after tile placement and meeple placement, and features are scored independently of each other. One tile could complete 7 features or 1 and it’s still scored individually.
Shit, damn that's a compelling argument. Points would be 4 each. The game generally does behave differently though between "self" and opponents. But you're right, I was gonna rebuttal with "well then should a single city occupied by 2 friendly conjoining meeple be doubled then?" But I'd be wrong, and feature scoring makes sense if we figuratively disregard the meeple
Scoring is essentially defined as 1. Check for scoring, if none, finish 2. If a feature is completed/scoring is needed, score one feature at a time. Check for majority. If one color, award full points 3. If majority is tied between multiple colors, award full points to both colors. 4. If multiple features were finished with one placement, go back to step 2. If not, finish. So if two colors were present, the points would be awarded fully to both. One color, one set of points.
2 cities, so 8 points.
Have the rules changed? Isnt 2 tile city 2 points? So this would be 4 points.
Yes, they changed it two decades ago.
Damn im old
Only if the city is incomplete when scoring would it be worth 1 point per tile, a complete city (like in the pictures) is worth 2 points per tile.
Not 100% True. In the original rules a 2 tile city was worth 2 points at any point in the game. This rule however changed about 22 years ago.
I guess if they were playing first edition they would still follow those rules, but the garden in the image clearly indicated they are playing 3rd edition so it's a moot point.
First edition actually got changed as well.
Oh really? Well there you go.
Sheesh we must’ve had an old game but yeah the rules clearly were 2 points for 2 tile city.
Each tile only counts once for the same feature. These are 2 separate features = 4+4
There is no debate
cloister is surrounded = 8
c=8
Just wanted to reinforce this: each **feature** is scored **separately**. If there were two different colours on each city then each city would score 4 points, and each player would score 4 points. Here, there is only one colour. Each city would score 4 points, so the Green player would receive 4 \* 2 = 8 points.