Help me avoid getting into an argument on the internet...

[hentzau]

OK, I need you English nerds to help me out here. I’m playing a new minis game, Gangs of Rome, which is just excellent, but one of the special character cards has a rule that has me on the brink of getting into an argument with a stranger on the internet.

The argument revolves round this special character, Talavus the Gaul, who is guarding a temple being built for the glory of Apollo. He will randomly attack any opposing character, chucking roof tiles at them. The rule as written reads: “will throw roof tiles at any gang member in line of sight that starts or finishes it’s movement within 10in.”

To me, this reads that if my poor gang member, Commodus, starts his movement 5” away from Talavus, he gets a tile chucked at him. Then, if at the end of his movement, he is still within 10” of Talavus, he gets ANOTHER tile chucked at him. Help me understand where there is any kind of exclusivity in this statement, where the tile chucking can only happen once. This other guy I’m trying to not argue with is saying he only gets to throw tiles once, and I can’t see where the rule, as written, states that anywhere.

[Jaymann]

Sounds like you have the right of it. Also if you started a movement at 15" and ended up at 10" you should only get one tile. Have you tested your hypothesis?

[hentzau]

Sounds like you have the right of it. Also if you started a movement at 15" and ended up at 10" you should only get one tile. Have you tested your hypothesis?

I’m “discussing” this on a Facebook forum page, so I’m hoping the game designer weighs in on the issue. But so far he has remained quiet...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Paingod]

I would focus on "if the opponent starts or finishes" as the primary theme.

• Moving through the LoS shouldn't trigger a tile throw.
• Stopping in the LoS from a moment that started outside LoS would trigger a throw.
• Starting back up and moving from the LoS would trigger one throw.
• If the opponent was foolish enough to be in LoS, start moving, and end in LoS, they'd get two tiles - one for "Starts to move" and one for "Finishes Moving"

[stessier]

To me it hinges on when the Tile Chucker gets to act. Upon first read, I see it as 1 tile chucked, but I see where you're coming from.

[hepcat]

To me it reads only once per turn. The use of "or" is what makes me believe that. He would get a tile chucked at him if he started his movement within 10in of ye ol' tile chucker. And he would get chucked at when he moved to within 10in. But not once when he starts moving within 10in and another time when stops movement within 10in in the same turn.

[hentzau]

I would focus on "if the opponent starts or finishes" as the primary theme.

• Moving through the LoS shouldn't trigger a tile throw.
• Stopping in the LoS from a moment that started outside LoS would trigger a throw.
• Starting back up and moving from the LoS would trigger one throw.
• If the opponent was foolish enough to be in LoS, start moving, and end in LoS, they'd get two tiles - one for "Starts to move" and one for "Finishes Moving"

Right!!! This is exactly my line of thinking, and how we played it. This guy was a right pain in the ass playing it that way. But really funny, watching a gang fighter get destroyed by roof tiles.

[hentzau]

To me it hinges on when the Tile Chucker gets to act. Upon first read, I see it as 1 tile chucked, but I see where you're coming from.

Tile Chucker is an NPC with special rules, so he already breaks the “one attack” rule. He’s very dispassionate about who he chucks tiles at, he just wants to protect the temple.

[Paingod]

I would focus on "if the opponent starts or finishes" as the primary theme.

• Moving through the LoS shouldn't trigger a tile throw.
• Stopping in the LoS from a moment that started outside LoS would trigger a throw.
• Starting back up and moving from the LoS would trigger one throw.
• If the opponent was foolish enough to be in LoS, start moving, and end in LoS, they'd get two tiles - one for "Starts to move" and one for "Finishes Moving"

Right!!! This is exactly my line of thinking, and how we played it. This guy was a right pain in the ass playing it that way. But really funny, watching a gang fighter get destroyed by roof tiles.

But there's a point on "or" in that line. OR indicates a choice of one, not both, options. If it was AND/OR then it would be both start and finish. If it was AND, then they'd have to both start and finish in LoS to trigger the tile.

I'm going with the latter. The OR makes the difference. It certainly would to a programmer. When I re-read it and weigh the OR in there, it seems like a really ambiguous technicality that will cause problems. The developer needs to clarify the effect.

*Edit: Too many responses too fast!

[hentzau]

To me it reads only once per turn. The use of "or" is what makes me believe that. He would get a tile chucked at him if he started his movement within 10in of ye ol' tile chucker. And he would get chucked at when he moved to within 10in. But not once when he starts moving within 10in and another time when stops movement within 10in in the same turn.

I went with Paingod’s interpretation, though. His description reads how we played it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wonderpug]

I'd vote for no more than a single tile chucked per player turn.

Did you start or end your finish your movement within 10"? If yes, you get a tile chucked at you.

For me, the wording for a double throw would be "will throw roof tiles whenever a gang member starts or finishes its movement within 10"".

[TheMix]

<snip>

I think I just changed my mind. Well, kind of. I initially agreed with your interpretation. But now I see where it could be interpreted the other way too. It's the "or". I can see how that could be interpreted as either "only one of the outcomes will happen", or as "if either of these happens, then...". But in the end, only the designer can tell you the intent of the card. Otherwise I think both interpretations are potentially valid. Sometimes the way other cards are written can give you a handle on what the designer likely wanted.

Basically, I wouldn't bother getting into an argument online. You can solicit opinions, but in the end you should just go with whatever feels right in your games.

[hepcat]

Paingod was stating one attack though, just like I was. Wasn't he?

[hentzau]

Paingod was stating one attack though, just like I was. Wasn't he?

Well, he was advocating for two in his third bullet, until he changed his mind and bailed on me.

I should have made this a survey...

[Paingod]

Paingod was stating one attack though, just like I was. Wasn't he?

I couldn't keep up. I threw one post that he agreed with, then made a change and turned it into two when I saw he agreed with the first post.

I'm with you, but I ask you to please wash your hands before I get too close.

[hepcat]

Did you ask the same question on BGG? I often see game designers answer questions about their own games on their game's threads.

[stessier]

One thing we've made clear is that the rule is not.

[coopasonic]

I'm with the one tile crew. It is certainly unclear but I would say the exclusivity is implied. If there were the possibility of two tiles it would be stated explicitly.

As a programmer I see:
if in LOS and (start in range or end in range )
then throw_tile

Rather than:

if in LOS and start in range
then throw_tile
if in LOS and end in range
then throw_tile

[coopasonic]

Now I am thinking if LOS is broken during the move, then maybe you get two tiles. Someone moves where I can see them, I chuck a tile at them and call it good. If LOS is broken mid move I am seeing TWO moves and chucking TWO tiles! (For the record, I am messing with you here)

[TheMix]

Well stated, coop. That's the distinction I was working on. I suspect that the intent was one tile per turn. The caveat being that I don't know anything about the game. Maybe situations where people attack twice is common; if so, then it's very possible that two attacks were intentional. But it doesn't sound like it.

The designer may have just been trying to plug a loop-hole. i.e. "when in range"... people could then argue that they'd moved out of range and avoided being attacked; by including the start/end, it's clear that it happens no matter what. So if you move in range on one turn, and then out on the next, you are going to get attacked twice. Of course, if the "start/end" was left off, then everyone would be arguing about when exactly during the turn the chucking happens.

[LordMortis]

To me it hinges on when the Tile Chucker gets to act. Upon first read, I see it as 1 tile chucked, but I see where you're coming from.

Ditto. It's not an English rules lawyer question. It's an English disambiguation question. Is the chucker responding to an action that starts or finishes or is he responding to the start of the action and then responding again to the finish of an action?

Anyone who has pancakes or french toast will get a packet of syrup would seem to state someone who has both gets two packets of syrup.

Anyone who hits the silver or gold marker with their first throw will get ten dollars would seem to state ten dollars is the prize, even if you could manage to hit both the silver and gold markers.

I instinctively read the original sentence as the later. It would not even occur to me to read it as the former. But once you say that's how you read it, I can totally understand your interpretation.

[TheMix]

Now I am thinking if LOS is broken during the move, then maybe you get two tiles. Someone moves where I can see them, I chuck a tile at them and call it good. If LOS is broken mid move I am seeing TWO moves and chucking TWO tiles! (For the record, I am messing with you here)

HEY! Stop that! No changing stuff when I'm in the process of agreeing with your first statement!

[hepcat]

Anyone who has pancakes or french toast will get a packet of syrup would seem to state someone who has both gets two packets of syrup.

Anyone who hits the silver or gold marker with their first throw will get ten dollars would seem to state ten dollars is the prize, even if you could manage to hit both the silver and gold markers.

Wait...did you write the rules for Gangs of Rome?

[hentzau]

Did you ask the same question on BGG? I often see game designers answer questions about their own games on their game's threads.

The BGG forums for Gangs of Rome is pretty much dead. The last post there was over a year ago. The designers are on the FB forum that I asked the original question on, so I'm hoping he weighs in.

And this is a special character, that is really only used in this one scenario. But it's a fun starter scenario, so I can see running this as a demo multiple times, and I would like to understand the scenario designer's intent.

[Jaymann]

Ah, but even if you go with the 1 tile interpretation, you would start your next turn at 10" and get a second tile!

[LawBeefaroni]

OK, I need you English nerds to help me out here.

...

The rule as written reads: “will throw roof tiles at any gang member in line of sight that starts or finishes it’s movement within 10in.”

Disappointed with the English nerds. It shouldn't be "it's movement," it should be "its movement."




Oh, and I read the rule as one chucked tile per turn even if the opponent starts and ends in range. Comes down to when and how many times the cards can act.

[hentzau]

Well, thanks for the discussion on this guys...I finally found someone that had asked the same question and the designer did chime in.

2. Talavus will only hurl a tile once at each fighter each time they are activated in range. So if they move + move - it is once, if they start and finish within 10G of him the tile will only be thrown once when they start moving.

I still think it's a badly written rule.

[coopasonic]

...and by discussion I think you mean argument. Saving throw failed.

[hentzau]

I haven't even brought up the rulings around Wicked Caltrops.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Crap, crap, crap. Need to read the entire thread before responding next time (although I'm hardly the only one on the forum who does this).

Glad to see Hepcat's opinion panned out, as it's what I felt as well.

To me it reads only once per turn.

+1. If they wanted him to chuck two tiles, it would have been chucks 1 tile at the beginning of movement, chucks another tile at the end of movement. obviously that's more text than they wanted to print on a card, and games have needed rule clarifications since time immemorial.

Written in a single sentence like that, I read it as: If x or y happens, chuck a tile. If I wanted it to be *and* I might have written it like this: Chuck a tile when x is true, then chuck a tile when y is true.

I read it as:

If x or y then action

versus:

If x then action
if y then action

The problem arrives when space is limited and designers try to be succinct.

In any case, I don't know how it's meant to be, and a reasonable person can believe that the OP interpretation is correct, and (imo of course) a reasonable person can believe that Hepcat's interpretation is correct. This really isn't going to be solved by gathering more opinions from strangers. Either the 2 people in conflict come to an agreement on their own, or some higher authority (like an addendum to the rules perhaps? An official post on a forum maybe?) decides for them.

Both sides could cling to their opinion and be reasonable in their interpretation. So...good luck with that.

[Kraken]

I would focus on "if the opponent starts or finishes" as the primary theme.

• Moving through the LoS shouldn't trigger a tile throw.
• Stopping in the LoS from a moment that started outside LoS would trigger a throw.
• Starting back up and moving from the LoS would trigger one throw.
• If the opponent was foolish enough to be in LoS, start moving, and end in LoS, they'd get two tiles - one for "Starts to move" and one for "Finishes Moving"

Right!!! This is exactly my line of thinking, and how we played it. This guy was a right pain in the ass playing it that way. But really funny, watching a gang fighter get destroyed by roof tiles.

"...will throw roof tiles at any gang member..." Plural tiles, singular gang member.

[hentzau]

And I just noticed that I posted this in EBG, not GiG. Sorry, PTB.

[GreenGoo]

And I just noticed that I posted this in EBG, not GiG. Sorry, PTB.

On the plus side, more responses.

[hepcat]

I honestly didn't think anything of it. I just assumed it was EBG stuff because it was an attempt to avoid an internet argument.

[hentzau]

I honestly didn't think anything of it. I just assumed it was EBG stuff because it was an attempt to avoid an internet argument.

Um...yeah! That was my intention all along!!!

[hepcat]

Okay, NOW it's R&P related.

[Zarathud]

Think of it this way, the figure gets attacked at the start of the next turn. So does the figure get attacked 2 times over 2 turns, or 3 times over 2 turns? While written poorly, I think the attacked 2 times over 2 turns was the intended result.

But I see where you're going -- it would make for a brutal obstacle.

[Blackhawk]

The fact that half of use can make a well-reasoned argument for two, and the other half can make a well-reasoned argument for one tells me that they really need to rephrase that rule if they ever do a reprint.

Also, that game looked like a hell of a lot of fun. I only wish that A) it wasn't so expensive, and B) I had people around who would play this type of game.

[hentzau]

The fact that half of use can make a well-reasoned argument for two, and the other half can make a well-reasoned argument for one tells me that they really need to rephrase that rule if they ever do a reprint.

Also, that game looked like a hell of a lot of fun. I only wish that A) it wasn't so expensive, and B) I had people around who would play this type of game.

https://footsoreminiatures.com/collecti ... er-box-set

It's pricey, but there is a lot of value in that box...

[Blackhawk]

I know. I've looked at it, along with some other, similar games. I've learned, though - with collectible miniatures wargames, I won't buy unless I know I'll have players. I've painted too many armies that have never seen a table.