Ruling — Concept

You asked

How do I play?

Answered counted as answered

Asked with: Conceptbg-147151-en-1e

1. Place the icon game board in the center of the table so all players can see and access it.[1]

2. Shuffle the Concept cards and place them face down, and create a pile of 12 Double VP tokens and many Single VP tokens.[1]

3. Place the pawns and cubes in the bowl.[1]

4. Determine which two neighbors at the table will form the first team.[1]

5. The team draws a Concept card and selects a word or phrase for the other players to guess.[1]

6. The team members place the main concept pawn first to represent the word, then place cubes of the same color to clarify the concept.[1]

7. If needed, team members can develop sub-concepts by placing additional pawns and their corresponding colored cubes.[1]

8. Team members may place cubes in any order, and they are not obliged to take turns, though they can remove and replace cubes to emphasize the order in which they appear.[2]

9. Team members can use as many pawns and cubes as they want, but should avoid confusing players with too much information.[2]

10. Other players try to guess the concept as often as they wish.[2]

11. Team members can say "yes" when others give a good answer or follow the correct line of thought, but cannot otherwise communicate directly with other players.[2]

12. If no one guesses the word after some time, the team members can choose a third player to assist them; if no one guesses correctly even with help, the word is abandoned and no one scores points for that round.[2]

13. If players are lost, team members can wipe the board clean and restart their clues along a different path.[2]

14. The first player to discover the word receives 2 victory points (1 Double token), and the team members receive 1 victory point each (1 Single token).[3][1]

15. The next two players clockwise around the table take a new card to choose a word for others to guess.[1]

16. The game ends once the 12 Double VP tokens have been claimed.[2]

17. The player or players with the most points win.[3][2]

[1] RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook · p.2 · Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:

[2] RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook · p.2 · Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:

[3] RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook · p.1 · Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute

The sage rests. The game continues.

🔧 debug — where this ruling came from

outcome: ANSWERED — Answered
corpus profile: live,vps
answerer pin (deploy-frozen, attribution only): gemma4:26b think:false 5571076f3d70
timings: search 143 ms · ask 3128 ms · total 3272 ms
single-flight (PR-5): queued 0 ms · generation 3272 ms
retrieval refs (raw) — what the PASSAGE SEARCH returned, not what the answerer read: [{"page": 1, "score": 0.048139, "snippet": "In Concept, your goal is to guess words through the association of icons. A team of two players - neighbors at the table - choose a word or phrase that the other players need to guess. Acting together, they place pieces judiciously on the available icons on the game board. The first player to discov", "headingPath": "Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 2, "score": 0.032787, "snippet": "\u0007 The other players can try to guess the concept as often as they wish. \u0007 The team members can say 'yes' when others give a good answer or are following the correct line of thought, but they cannot otherwise communicate directly with the other players. \u0007 The order in which the team members place cub", "headingPath": "Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 2, "score": 0.032258, "snippet": "1 game board with universal icons 5 sets of pawns and cubes: \u0007 1 green set consisting of the main concept pawn (the large question mark) and 10 cubes \u0007 4 sets (blue, red, yellow, black) that each consist of a sub-concept pawn (the exclamation mark) and 8 cubes \u0007 110 Concept cards, each with 9 words/", "headingPath": "Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 3, "score": 0.03125, "snippet": "Concept is a game that can be tamed and customized. Use the material as you see fit! All ideas, even crazy ones, can work - as long as the other players can understand you. Here are more examples: A conflict and a multitude of pieces on man? This is war ! A fictional movie with two men of different ", "headingPath": "Additional examples:", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 4, "score": 0.030769, "snippet": "Most likely an actor or director. A ship is going down - it's sinking, and there's lots of death. Must be the Titanic, so it's Leonardo DiCaprio ! A comic book, no doubt. What's next? A small male character who's thoughtful or clever. A wide male character with blue and white clothing. A small white", "headingPath": "Additional examples: · CREDITS", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}]
citations (raw) — what the answer cited, chosen from a retrieval this page cannot show: [{"page": 2, "quote": null, "headingPath": "Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 2, "quote": null, "headingPath": "Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}, {"page": 1, "quote": null, "headingPath": "Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute", "sharpsignalDocId": 1042}]
boost provenance — errata + base rulebook (E2/E3): no registered errata card matched this query; base rulebook doc 1042 boosted; rulesage.errata.boost-enabled=true, rulesage.errata.supersedence-enabled=true
base rulebook doc 1042 boosted
answered-before recall: this ruling was answered, so past rulings were not offered
similarity threshold in force: 0.55 (rulesage.answered-before.similarity-threshold; the exact-question tier is not gated by it)
answer fence: passed — letter density 0.91129 of 1612 non-space chars (floor 0.45); 0 glyph-index tokens (max 2)
debug row recorded: Sep 6, 2026 13:22 UTC

retrieval — what the passage search returned

what this block IS: the PASSAGE SEARCH's own results — the same search that fills this page's closest-passages list — and NOT the passages the answerer read. Answering runs its OWN retrieval: a far wider candidate pool, re-ranked down to a final handful, plus floors this search never applies — the base rulebook, surviving errata corrections, and one slot per book on a multi-book read. Each of those armed only if THIS ask sent what it needs: the boost block names the ids it forwarded, and the scope line names the books it read. A document the answer CITES that no row here names is therefore EXPECTED, not a defect: two searches, two candidate pools, two orders. The answerer's own final rows are shown in their own block below, beside these and never mixed into them.

score = the fused retrieval score (reciprocal-rank fusion over the search arms) — NOT a cosine similarity. This ruling ran the THREE-ARM fuse (full-text + vector + the doc-priority boost arm, which carried the base rulebook and/or the errata corrections this query matched), whose arithmetic ceiling is 0.04918 — all three arms ranking the same chunk #1 (ceiling = arms/(k+1) at k=60). The measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 was measured on TWO-arm asks and does not bound this one: its high end is the two-arm ceiling, and a third arm has room above it. A chunk only one arm ranked highly lands near 0.016 (that one arm's #1 vote), so 0.03 here is an excellent hit, not a 3% match.

per-arm ranks (the rank each search arm gave a chunk): NOT DISCLOSED by the gateway. Fusion happens gateway-side and only the FUSED score crosses the wire, so rulesage cannot show them without a gateway change. The rank column below is the FUSED rank (position in the returned list), which is real.

token count per chunk: NOT DISCLOSED — chunk token counts are not reported on the ask path. The character counts below are of the bounded snippet/quote rulesage actually received — a real measurement of what we hold, never an estimate of the chunk.

fused rank	document	heading	page	fused RRF score	snippet chars
#1	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute	p.1	0.048139 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	300
#2	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:	p.2	0.032787 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	300
#3	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:	p.2	0.032258 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	300
#4	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Additional examples:	p.3	0.03125 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	300
#5	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Additional examples: · CREDITS	p.4	0.030769 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	300

what the answerer read — the passages it actually had in front of it

what this block IS: the passages the ANSWERING read put in front of the answerer, in the order it read them — the other half of the two reads described above, and the one that decides what the answer could possibly say. Each row names the book it came from and where in that book it sits, what it scored when the search arms were fused, which arm carried it there, and whether the re-ranker chose it or a floor guaranteed it a slot. A row here that no passage-search row names is EXPECTED: a far wider pool, re-ranked, with floors the passage search never applies.

candidate pool: the answering read scored 5 passages, out of a ceiling of 80 set gateway-side. Both figures are reported by the gateway for THIS ask — measurements of what actually happened, not constants read out of anyone's source and printed here on faith.

floors armed for this ask: the base rulebook — armed · surviving errata corrections — not armed · one slot per book on a multi-book read — not armed. Every floor is stated on every ask, armed or not, so a floor that did not apply here is never mistaken for one this app does not know about.

arms fused for this ask: vector + full-text + the doc-priority boost arm. Stated separately from the rows because an arm that ran and carried nothing is a different fact from an arm that never ran.

read at	document	heading	page	fused rank	fused RRF score	carried by	how it got its slot
#1	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute	p.1	#1	0.048139 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	vector + full-text + the doc-priority boost arm	the re-ranker chose it
#2	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:	p.2	#2	0.032787 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	vector + the doc-priority boost arm	the re-ranker chose it
#3	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Additional examples: · CREDITS	p.4	#5	0.030769 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	vector + the doc-priority boost arm	the re-ranker chose it
#4	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Additional examples:	p.3	#4	0.03125 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	vector + the doc-priority boost arm	the re-ranker chose it
#5	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:	p.2	#3	0.032258 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one))	vector + the doc-priority boost arm	the re-ranker chose it

chosen chunks — what the answer actually cited

#	document	heading	page	quote chars
[1]	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Components: · Game set-up: · Game round:	p.2	no quote on the wire
[2]	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Clarifications: · Game end: · Editor's note:	p.2	no quote on the wire
[3]	RULEBOOK Concept — Rulebook (corpus doc 1042)	Game overview · Examples: · Concept in a minute	p.1	no quote on the wire

generation — timing and the path taken

timing split: retrieval 143 ms · first delta 847 ms · total 3272 ms (retrieval and first-delta both measured from the START of gateway work, so first-delta INCLUDES retrieval — do not subtract)
full breakdown: queued 0 ms · retrieval 143 ms · ask 3128 ms · gateway work 3272 ms · total 3272 ms
tokens in (the prompt the answerer read): 2295
tokens out (what the answerer generated): 480
tok/sec: 202.4 tok/sec — 480 output tokens in 2.371 s of generation
live seat (read from the running child): answering — gemma4:26b think:false · num_ctx 32768 (live-verified 0s ago)
answerer host (measured by rulesage): reachable (for 22h, checked 1s ago)
answerer node (the seat proxy's own header — this probe, not this ask): node1
stream path: streamed — the gateway pushed at least one accumulated draft
watchdog: first-token watchdog: 30s per arming window (rulesage.table.first-token-watchdog-seconds), re-armed once by the passages frame — so the worst case before a reader falls back to polling is 60s. Whether it actually fired is a BROWSER-side decision that never reaches the server, so it is not recorded here. The stream path above is the server's half of that story: whether a delta was emitted at all.
num_ctx · think posture: both are the CHILD's settings, not rulesage's, and no ask reply carries them — an answer never states which context window or think posture produced it. The live-seat line above reads them from the running child instead, where the gateway can answer for itself; it describes the child NOW, not this ask.

disposition

outcome: ANSWERED — Answered
abstain rationale (n/a — this ruling answered): answered — no abstain rationale applies

setup-shape — why the checklist band did or didn't render

decision: NOT_SETUP_SHAPED — no setup-shape pattern matched this question

errata registry — what the gate above had to match against

this game registers NO errata cards (edition 972), so "no registered errata card matched" above could never have matched one

Errata scope: the gate above matched this ruling's own edition only. When an ask also reads an expansion, that expansion's own registered errata cards stay outside the match — a stated phase-1 limitation, not a failed lookup.