Are Farmers a Core Mechanic or Optional?

[Just a Bill]

I'm not sure it's precisely flavour text,

I'm sure. The sentence explicitly refers to real life. (But if you want to consider it a reference to game components, go for it.)

I think the Abbot is a core-mini-expansion, its implementation has been put into effect in all subsequent expansions.  It is core to the game play mechanically, it is ever present.

And yet, it is still optional. That's my whole point here. Perhaps I never should have used the word "core," because that categorization is not important to me. Maybe I've given the impression that I think farmers are no longer important or official or in the base game or somesuch. If so, none of that was my intention. I basically just meant to point out that farmers are now technically in a different sub-category from knights, thieves, and monks, in that they are not a mandatory part of playing the game as they were in the previous edition.

So if it helps for us to call them "core," I'm fine with that. But they are still optional.

If farmers are optional the Abbey and Mayor Rules would have said: 'If using the optional expansion Farmers' when explaining the rules of the Barn, however it does not.

As a counter-example, Inns & Cathedrals refers to farmers with a special qualifier that acknowledges they are something of an add-on (i.e., supplement): "If you use the large meeple as a farmer (as seen in the supplementary rules of the base game), ...." The writer obviously recognizes that some readers may not be familiar with farmers, and thus directs them to the supplemental rules where they can learn what they are.

(Not that either of these examples really proves the point one way or the other. There are better data points.)

Talking again of flavour text the first paragraph, 3rd sentence of the rule book reads:
[ snip ]
I've not even started reading the rules and this thematic description explaining the scene has made references to Farmers.  Like the core rules always did.

I don't think anyone disputes that there are references to farmers in the rules. That makes perfect sense. Nobody's claiming they don't exist, or that the rulebook should belabor their status every time it references them. But again, none of this refutes the fact that you only include farmers in the game if you choose to use the supplemental rule. (That's basically the definition of "optional.")

Making farmers an optional consideration doesn't make them less important.

Don't want to speak for others, but I don't think anyone is claiming that?

How can Farmers be considered non-core when the rule book is littered with recommendations that players should progress to the advanced rules of using them.

Again, I'm not invested in "non-core" so I'm happy to let that go. We can define core such that it does not have to include the characteristic of mandatory. "Core and optional" is fine with me as a way of understanding farms and farmers in C-II.

I suppose one could even consider the abbots to be "core and optional." Personally it's harder for me to think of abbots as core, since it seems clear they were added as a gimmick to get C-I players to purchase the C-II base game. (But, I'm not looking to start a debate on that topic — at least not until there's a new base game published that doesn't include abbots, and then I will have to factor in that data point appropriately.)

Simply starting to learn to play the game without them (on basic-mode) is a mechanism to encourage players to start learning and improve their game.

That may very well have been their intent, but game rules' presentation does not always agree with the intent (and I say this as a professional rules writer and editor). Obviously most of us are going to keep using farmers as we always have, and a significant number of new players (though not all) will use them as well. But — and this is the relevant distinction vs. C-I — those players who choose not to use farmers will still be playing legally. That much is pretty inescapable, and the same would not be true in C-I.

So whatever you want to call it, that's a legal gameplay difference between the two rule sets. We don't have to act upon the new optionality of farmers, but we also shouldn't ignore it when discussing rules differences between the two Carcassonnes.

[Whaleyland]

I generally agree with Just a Bill in this debate. I think Carcassonne 2 has made clear that there are now three tiers of game play: core, optional/variant, and expansion. All three exist in the base game. Monks/Thieves/Knights are core, Farmers are optional, and Abbots/River are expansions. The rules make that pretty clear by their organisation.

However, just to pull some more inferences from the rules. Traders & Builders, regarding the Pig, implies that a Farmer must be in play to use it. There is no need to explain that the Farmer is optional since it's usage is required to use the Pig. In Abbey & Mayor, the Barn is actually never placed in the context of Farmers – it is considered an entirely separate thing. It just clarifies that you can place it in a field with Farmers and explains what happens when you do. Since Farmers are a possible option (just like any expansion), then their potential interaction must be explained. No other expansion modifies Farms that I can think of, so only these three expansions really count (the Count is not out yet in English, so the rules can't be compared).

Just my two cents. My partner has never considered Farmers a mandatory part of the game but often requests to not use it. I personally feel it should be mandatory, but we rarely use Farmers with new players and the current rules seem to support this approach.

[ny1050220]

I'm with Bill, too, in this discussion. Farmer is a core component, but that doesn't make it mandatory, as the rule clearly states otherwise. I personally think this is unfortunate, but now that the publisher decides to write the rule that way, it's nonetheless official.
The official version isn't always the best, that's it. It does make it impossible to convince the players who don't like farmers to play with farmers based on the rule; it's always to easier to stick to the official rule than to house rule.
In Carc 1.0, we might say, we'll not use farmer in the first few games so that the new players learn the game stepwise.
Now in Carc 2.0, it's possible that all of your opponents say, none of us wants to play with farmers, it's up to you join the game with no farmers or to stay away from the game. (Well, only if they own the game.)

[jungleboy]

Sorry if I created a bit of a storm here, I was just trying to rile up Decar a little bit for fun with a throwaway line, I don't actually care one way or the other because I don't own 2.0 and optional farmers aren't part of my Carcassonne universe.

That said, I'd say farming as defined in 2.0 is more 'core' than an expansion, but less 'core' than the other three point-scoring mechanics. It is floating in a new area of space between the absolute 'core' game and expansions that previously didn't exist. Within this space, I'd say it's closer to the core mechanics than the expansions.

(I know we're trying to move away from the word core but since I can't think of a better one, and since that was how the debate started anyway, I'm sticking with it.)

[Paul]

In World of Warcraft we refer to the old as vanilla but core could work to. No harm getting unique in this.

I think the best way to describe this rule as the older version farmers are always part of the game and the newer farmers are optional.
  Note I don't mention any date nor versions as that is optional to add.
     

[Decar]

Firstly,  Thanks for splitting this topic - I've thought for a long time that you no longer received notifications to updates once a thread was split - so confirming that has been useful!

Just to be clear: this started because I stated: "I consider them (farmers) a core mechanic, and would only consider removing them when explaining the rules to children".
So I am glad that we're clear that they are and that we do.

This topic has been interesting.  It's very important we're presenting the intentions of the publishers correctly.  A lot of people are bashing the publisher simply based on seeing the farmers in a supplement and jumping to the conclusion they are removed or that it's now an expansion.  I don't think any evidence we have shared with each other has shown this to be true.  As a community, I feel we have a responsibility to stick to fact, or make solid recommendations in align with the rules as published.

Interestingly, Carcassonne 2.0 has an age rating of 7+ with a run-time of 35-minutes printed on the box.  The previous version I own was for +8 and had a running time for 30-45 minutes.  It seems to me that moving farmers into an advanced rule set may allow HiG to sell a more accurate measurement, and suitability for selling to families.  This is another great reason for them to do what they have done, improving accessibility.  Plenty of other games do this.  GIPF is an excellent example that I've played recently which does the same thing.

To paraphrase Jungleboy again, understanding that the core mechanics now have optional components (if you're 7 years old  ) is crucial here.

I'll finish with a promptly cobbled together Venn diagram to articulate myself more succinctly, and I believe is in-line with what we've discussed.


The Abbots are far more awkward to classify

[Just a Bill]

I'm not trying to deliberately stir the pot, but this requires comment:

Interestingly, Carcassonne 2.0 has an age rating of 7+ with a run-time of 35-minutes printed on the box.  The previous version I own was for +8 and had a running time for 30-45 minutes.  It seems to me that moving farmers into an advanced rule set may allow HiG to sell a more accurate measurement

The argument that farmers no longer contribute to the age and time ratings is an argument that farmers are no longer part of the "core" game, but rather add "advanced add-on."

[Decar]

For 8 yearolds and above to play.

[Just a Bill]

I'm not following what you mean by that, but my point is that you have just made an indirect argument that HiG no longer considers farmers to technically be part of the baseline game of Carcassonne. (Or maybe they are just pretending they don't, in order to justify more favorable numbers on the box cover?) Either way, this is more data that farmers have been intentionally nudged a bit further away from the required gameplay engine, to simplify the game and appeal to a somewhat broader demographic.

[Decar]

No I don't think that was my argument, rather than taking a single bit of evidence I'm trying to take the contextual whole.

Carcassonne: without farmers - can be played by 7+ in 35 minutes:

"If you have played the game once or twice, we recommend you play with the fields and farmers"
"You can ignore them, but only after a few games."

in which case I have:

Carcassonne: with farmers - can be played by 8+ in 40minutes.

I was suggesting HiG lowered the entry-level of the game to make it accessible to younger children, or those with less than 35minutes available and has played less than 2-games.  The core game includes farmers and can be played by anyone older than 7, or those who have time to spend 5-minutes longer enjoying a game of Carcassonne and has played it more than twice.

[Just a Bill]

Yes, I understood that; I'm just pointing out the logical conclusion of what you're saying: if farmers are not included in the game's age and time ratings, then they are technically not part of the core game as far as the box cover is concerned. From the perspective of the age and time ratings, an official, complete, baseline game of Carcassonne does not include farmers — if you are correct in your theory on the change in age/time ratings (and I believe you are).

However, this part still confuses me; I just ignored it the first time, but since it keeps coming up ... maybe you're saying the opposite of what you intend here?

"You can ignore [farmers], but only after a few games."

[Just a Bill]

Sorry if I created a bit of a storm here

Not a storm, just a debate. Respectful disagreement is fine as long as we keep it civil. And actually this topic is an important one for me to debate within the community, since I've volunteered for CAR update duty.

I don't actually care one way or the other because I don't own 2.0 and optional farmers aren't part of my Carcassonne universe.

Mostly true for me as well ... but for the reason stated above I have to force myself to care, so that the ultimate presentation is correct and makes sense to as many players as possible.

[ny1050220]

"If you have played the game once or twice, we recommend you play with the fields and farmers"

I like the word recommend.
I recommend that we take a break now from the debate and go get a coffee.
Is it being enforced? Apparently no...

One thing I know for sure is that I will always play with farmers, unless I'm in somebody else's place using their games or introducing the game to new players, regardless of farmers' status in Carc 2.0.
So, one step back, what are we debating now? The nature/status of farmers in Carc. 2.0? If so, then, why does it matter?

[jungleboy]

However, this part still confuses me; I just ignored it the first time, but since it keeps coming up ... maybe you're saying the opposite of what you intend here?

"You can ignore [farmers], but only after a few games."

I think it's been mistranslated and it is supposed to read:
"You can ignore [farmers], but only for a few games."
As in, after a few games, you are supposed to start incorporating them.

My next spin-off point for debate is:
Was reducing the recommend age by just one year and playing time by just five minutes worth changing the status of farmers from mandatory to optional? It seems like they didn't really gain much. Would someone look on the box of an 8+, 40min game and say, 'No, my child is seven and we want a 35-minute maximum game, so this game will not be suitable for us'?

[Decar]

I recommend that we take a break now from the debate and go get a coffee.

Only if you are paying 

I wouldn't underestimate the weight assigned to a German recommendation either.

Would someone look on the box of an 8+, 40min game and say, 'No, my child is seven and we want a 35-minute maximum game, so this game will not be suitable for us'?

Having spent an hour playing a quoted 45minute game with my wife, I can only imagine what the attention span of a 8year old held for 5-minutes longer than advertised is like in comparison!