0

I think that this idea is a bit ridiculous but my friend insists that: because of ambiguity in the rules, it is perfectly legitimate to build roads 'through' settlements. In case 'through' is unclear, let me explain through an example:
So, say that we have our hexagonal board piece. Now, we have two settlements, one towards the top, another towards the bottom. Now, the bottom settlement wants to build roads, so it starts building around this same hexagon. Now, my question: can you build a road that 'passes through' the other settlement to complete the loop?
Also, can you please reference the language in the rules? (My friend is extremely stubborn)


I am trying to get a visual example, sadly I am nowhere near a board. I'll get the picture ASAP. Thanks in advance.

IHaveAQuestion
  • 103
  • 3
  • Ok, so the answer is no. But still, the reasoning for the first part of the question does not make sense to me. It seems unrelated. – IHaveAQuestion Apr 06 '15 at 07:41
  • Do the settlements in your example belong to the same player, or to two different players? – freekvd Apr 06 '15 at 08:26
  • 1
    Being able to block a player from expanding is a major component of the game. I'm not sure what you mean by "it does not make sense". It even makes sense conceptually ("No, you can't travel through my village") – ikegami Apr 06 '15 at 14:14

1 Answers1

1

The reason it is no, is because when you build something new (except for the set up rounds) you need to build roads and settlements connected to something you have already built.

When you reach someone else's settlement with a road, it 'fills' up the intersection and by building a road past you would be trying to build onto their settlement not your road. It works the other way too, if you have a long road and someone build a road to an open intersection on your road they can build a settlement on the end of their road and thus split your road into two. So this is a reason not to go crazy building roads without settlements.

bowlturner
  • 1,105
  • 1
  • 9
  • 23