CAR 6.4 - Mage and Witch Wording

[obervet]

I have gone back and looked at the original German rules (regarding wording of the or/and switch), and I think I can come up with a cleaner statement for the next CAR.

Interestingly, ZMG kind of missed the intent as well, as they state that one must be moved if both are already in play, but they don't comment on the situation when only one is in play.

[Carcking]

...the change from "or" to "and" would be better. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what the rule is stating. The wording change would require both to be in play before one could move to a different tile/feature, but the intent of the rule is that one can be moved to a different tile/feature even if it's the only one in play.

The problem with the English rule is it combined "or" with "must" in the same sentence...whereas "or" should go with "may", and "and" should go with "must".

"If the Mage or Witch is already on a land tile a player may move it to another land tile, however if the Mage and Witch are both on land tiles the player must move one to another tile."

[obervet]

One of the problems in the translation for the CAR was that we were trying to keep the wording as close as possible to the original German. In this case, it would have been cleaner to add a few words to try to keep the meaning more intact.

The wording as it will be in the next CAR (assuming I don't change my mind again):

"If the Mage or Witch figure to be played is already on a land tile, the player must move it from that tile to a different tile."

[rfielder]

The wording as it will be in the next CAR (assuming I don't change my mind again):

"If the Mage or Witch figure to be played is already on a land tile, the player must move it from that tile to a different tile."

I still hope the clarification will change this so that you use the word feature instead of tile.

[obervet]

The wording as it will be in the next CAR (assuming I don't change my mind again):

"If the Mage or Witch figure to be played is already on a land tile, the player must move it from that tile to a different tile."

I still hope the clarification will change this so that you use the word feature instead of tile.

I personally think the word "feature" makes more sense as far as gameplay goes. (Obviously that's how my subconscious wanted it when I wrote the footnote in the first place.) We'll have to leave the final decision to HiG, though; for now, I have put the word "tile" in the draft version of the CAR.

[Paul]

I agree with feature as well, which we have been and will still continue to do so when we play.

Since there can only be three outcome, CAR could be updated with a numbered list.

1. If none are in play...
2. If only one (Mage or Witch) is in play...
3. If both the Mage and Witch is in play...

 

[obervet]

I agree with feature as well, which we have been and will still continue to do so when we play.

Since there can only be three outcome, CAR could be updated with a numbered list.

1. If none are in play...
2. If only one (Mage or Witch) is in play...
3. If both the Mage and Witch is in play...

 

Footnote 415 does exactly that. I don't want to promote the footnote to the full text of the rules since it's a bit too far outside the wording of the actual rules themselves.

[kettlefish]

We have in German many different rules...
I will check again the rules and then I will again explain the rules...

[Fritz_Spinne]

In the german rules of BIGBOX 4 there is:

Stehen Hexe oder Magier bereits auf einer Karte, nimmt man sie von dort weg und setzt sie um.

If witch or mage are already on a tile, you take them away und relocate them.

There is no reference of tile or feature. And there's no rule about placing the mage or witch, if only one figure is already on the tiles, so you can relocate the figure already on the tiles instead of placing the figure not on the tiles.

In the Z-man rules of BIGBOX4: 

If both the mage and the witch are already in play, one of them must be
moved according the rules mentioned above.

No reference to tile or feature.

As mentioned above, whenever a Magic tile is placed, either the mage or the witch must be placed or moved; if this is not
possible (for instance, because the magic pawn cannot be placed in any city or road), the player must remove one of the two
magic pawns from play.

For me this a strong indication for "moving to a new feature" instead of "moving to a new tile" because I can't imagine a situation in a Carcassonne game where there would be only 2 non-closed features with only 1 tile, but there could be situations with only 2 non closed features with more than one tile.

[rfielder]

For me this a strong indication for "moving to a new feature" instead of "moving to a new tile" because I can't imagine a situation in a Carcassonne game where there would be only 2 non-closed features with only 1 tile, but there could be situations with only 2 non closed features with more than one tile.

I am not clear on part of this - perhaps I am misinterpreting your meaning.

I see lots of games with 2 or more non-closed features of only 1 tile.  The best example are the tiles with three or four separate city segments - when you first place the tile, there remain two or three open city segments of tile tile.  There are many situations where a road of 1 or a single city segment are placed.

[Fritz_Spinne]

You're right - there will almost ever more than 2 non-closed features with only one tile, but there will always be some features with more than one tile. The probability for only 2 open features is low, and the probability for both having only 1 tile is nearly 0.
So there would be no purpose for the rules to tell you have to remove mage or witch because you could move to another tile of the same feature. But there is some possibility that there are only 2 open features and you have to remove mage or witch. So I think it is thought of moving the figure to another feature. But all in all it's speculative - we should wait for an answer of HiG.