A maze of rules

[obervet]

CAR is great as it is, albeit could use some sort of revamp. It's just that it's a lot of tedious work and for one man it's nearly impossible to do it in a year if you have other commitment.

When people find something unclear, it's always good to post on the forum and hopefully get an answer that might have been missed finding in the CAR, or maybe something is missing and we hopefully can update the CAR soon enough.

Remember to use the search function within the PDF as it helps a lot.

An element based could be useful, no doubt. Hopefully we can see one some day, maybe an interactive one.
  One of my project was just this. A simple webpage you choose which expansions you play with and during game progress you only need to click on an element that exist in your current game and it shows every rule there is which correlate to those expansions / elements playing with.

Sadly, it was put on halt like much else Carcassonne for Winter is coming, or has come.  My big free time and little work literally gets reversed. 

I wholeheartedly agree that the CAR needs an overhaul. It's quite cumbersome, and I feel that it could be streamlined. However, it's hard enough to keep up with all of the new expansions and clarifications without just about starting over from scratch. If HiG were willing to pay my salary, I could make it beautiful, but until then I still have to pay the bills...   

Honestly, the format of the CAR is constrained a bit by using the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. If it became more of an "interpretive" document, intermingling the primary rules and clarifications in the main text, it probably wouldn't be so daunting. Of course, with too much poetic license, the document could lose its status as the official word, so there would be a fine line to walk.

[obervet]

A good example of a discussion we had recently is the “Monasteries and the Phanthon”. It’s not clearly stated if the Monastery are one feature that can only be occupied by a Monk or an Abbot, and not both at the same time (with the exception of the use of a Flier and maybe the Count) - or if the Monastery is “two features in one” (score differently at different times in the game - thus “two in one”). kettlefish cleared up the question with the Flier her on CarC, but a question that's awaits an answer, to my knowledge, is: Can you portal to a Monastery as a Monk if it’s already occupied by an Abbot (or the other way around)? If the answer to this is NO - I agree with you. But if the answer is YES - I don't. At this point we have agreed that the Monastery is one feature, as you do. But we are not sure. My girlfriend still argue that the Monastery is “two in one” because the flier can choose what to occupy, when it flies in (a Monk or a Abbot), when it’s already occupied. In her mind the flier can only occupy it as the same if its one feature (not “two in one”). I don't agree with her but…

This one got quite a bit of debate on the forums. The new CAR will include the official ruling -- the Monastery is only a single feature (as you have thought); it just provides a choice to any legal occupant. A flier can legally land on an occupied structure, but a portal traveler cannot.

[Darwin]

I wholeheartedly agree that the CAR needs an overhaul. It's quite cumbersome, and I feel that it could be streamlined. However, it's hard enough to keep up with all of the new expansions and clarifications without just about starting over from scratch. If HiG were willing to pay my salary, I could make it beautiful, but until then I still have to pay the bills...   

Honestly, the format of the CAR is constrained a bit by using the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. If it became more of an "interpretive" document, intermingling the primary rules and clarifications in the main text, it probably wouldn't be so daunting. Of course, with too much poetic license, the document could lose its status as the official word, so there would be a fine line to walk.

I would like to thank you, obervet, for the amazing job you have done and do with the CAR - it’s our Bible.

I think its important to keep the CAR in the format it is, with the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. This is what gives it the status as the official word.

It would be nice to have a more streamlined document or a quick guide as an addition. But it will be worthless without the CAR, who reflects the history of what is the released rules and what is clarifications.

I am eagerly looking forward to the next edition 

[Scott]

I agree that we must maintain the integrity of the CAR, so that people can be confident that it is the official rules. I also agree that there is some room for streamlining. The question is, how much streamlining?

If we're talking small improvements, I have a few ideas:
1. It's time to recognize that CK&C has replaced the individual minis. Let's merge the rules for each components of CK&C into the CK&C section, eliminate the sections for the corresponding minis, and add a footnote in the CK&C section explaining that the individual parts were previously released separately (including release chronology).
2. The rules and footnotes for the two monastery expansions are essentially the same, and if Devir and/or Z-Man release more next year we're going to see some serious rules bloat in the CAR if we continue as before. I think it would be better to group them all together as a single set of rules.
3. On a related note, I'm not sure that Crop Circles I and II should be separate, since the rules are the same.
4. I think the digital Winter Edition stuff needs to go live in the Winter CAR.
5. I think we could divide/eliminate the section for CS&C. The Cult rules would be in CK&C, and the Siege rules could go live on the Cathars page. May also be worthwhile to combine Cathars and Siege with Besiegers. Yes, they're slightly different, but I feel like they're too similar to be separate.

If we're talking large changes, I have an idea about that, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. What if the CAR was organized around order of play? The usefulness of this would be directly proportional to the number of expansions that you're playing with. For those playing with only a few expansions, there would be a LOT of information to skip over. Considering the number of expansions, it might make the CAR more difficult to read, but it could be easier to address the feature interactions. I'd be in favor of trying it out, but I defer to those who are more familiar with the rules than I am whether this is just a disaster waiting to happen.

[AlbinoAsian]

I agree with Scott's suggestions 1-4. I wouldn't be against #5 either.

[Carcking]

Yes, I would agree with 1-4 instantly. I'm neutral on #5. I'm not sure about lumping those particular expansions together.

[Whaleyland]

I'm for 1-4. No 5 is a bit much, though. I like the element index in the new edition right after the Table of Contents. I think that is the best option here. Turn order doesn't bother me too much, usually.

[obervet]

I agree that we must maintain the integrity of the CAR, so that people can be confident that it is the official rules. I also agree that there is some room for streamlining. The question is, how much streamlining?

If we're talking small improvements, I have a few ideas:
1. It's time to recognize that CK&C has replaced the individual minis. Let's merge the rules for each components of CK&C into the CK&C section, eliminate the sections for the corresponding minis, and add a footnote in the CK&C section explaining that the individual parts were previously released separately (including release chronology).
2. The rules and footnotes for the two monastery expansions are essentially the same, and if Devir and/or Z-Man release more next year we're going to see some serious rules bloat in the CAR if we continue as before. I think it would be better to group them all together as a single set of rules.
3. On a related note, I'm not sure that Crop Circles I and II should be separate, since the rules are the same.
4. I think the digital Winter Edition stuff needs to go live in the Winter CAR.
5. I think we could divide/eliminate the section for CS&C. The Cult rules would be in CK&C, and the Siege rules could go live on the Cathars page. May also be worthwhile to combine Cathars and Siege with Besiegers. Yes, they're slightly different, but I feel like they're too similar to be separate.

If we're talking large changes, I have an idea about that, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. What if the CAR was organized around order of play? The usefulness of this would be directly proportional to the number of expansions that you're playing with. For those playing with only a few expansions, there would be a LOT of information to skip over. Considering the number of expansions, it might make the CAR more difficult to read, but it could be easier to address the feature interactions. I'd be in favor of trying it out, but I defer to those who are more familiar with the rules than I am whether this is just a disaster waiting to happen.

1. Agreed and already in the plans.
2. Agreed. Maybe I'll put these expansions under the heading "Monasteries of the World" or something to that effect.
3. I think I agree with this. The two sets came out at notably different times, but I think a consolidation is still warranted and won't be too confusing.
4. This one is a toughie. Since the release of the boxed Winter Edition, I haven't really felt comfortable with the digital version. I've kept it in the Standard CAR because the intent of the digital version was to print stickers and but them on your old tiles. The implication was that you'd put them on old standard tiles, so technically they would still be compatible with the normal set [insert jokes about Carc II artwork compatibility here]. Since it's not a boxed release, and it's somewhat obsolete with the boxed Winter Edition, I have half a mind to move it to the back of the Winter CAR as a historical oddity. Of course it's still available, so it's not technically a dinosaur, more like that weird uncle that nobody pays much attention to.
5. I feel like this might create more confusion than it's worth. A newcomer to the game may not realize that the Besiegers are functionally almost the same as the Cathars, so steering them to look in the right place may be more confusing than just leaving some things be.

As far as the large change, the Turn Order in the back sort of addresses the ordering of events, and I think that the rest would become too tough to follow. I feel like most people want to remember how a given expansion works when they add it to their game, so it's easier to turn to the pages for that expansion than to figure out what part of the turn sequence that expansion affects. This would get really messy if someone wanted to review the rules for Princess & Dragon, since those would be all over the place.

When I win the lottery and have more money and time than I know what to do with, I'll make a companion streamlined rules guide that does away with most footnotes and includes official clarifications in the main text. However, that will likely be after hell freezes over, thaws a bit, freezes again, gets even hotter than it was before, then finally gets down to absolute zero.

[kettlefish]

What is with the thoughts about a change of the arrangement of the rules.

The CAR has an arrangement when the expansions and minis have been published
(Carcassonne basic game, the river 1, 1st expansion - inns and cathedrals, 2nd expansion,  2nd Traders and Builders...)

I personally like the arrangement in categories like:

A Carcassonne
- Carcassonne - The basic game
- Carcassonne II - New Edition

B Great Expansions
- 1st expansion
- 2nd
- 3rd
...

C Mini Expansions
- The river
...

[Whaleyland]

Kettlefish has a good suggestion here. The only problem is deciding what order to place the minis. Spielbox should all go at the end since HiG doesn't do FAQs for them usually (Cult and Halb so Wild excluded, of course). This could fix the Corn Circles I/II and Cathars/Siege/Besiegers problem by allowing them all to be in sequence with each other.

Also, I'd recommend calling The Monasteries expansion just that. I believe that is the intent behind the name. The components list can note the different versions as can the tile summary and historical sketches.

[DLloyd09]

Kettlefish has a good suggestion here. The only problem is deciding what order to place the minis. Spielbox should all go at the end since HiG doesn't do FAQs for them usually (Cult and Halb so Wild excluded, of course). This could fix the Corn Circles I/II and Cathars/Siege/Besiegers problem by allowing them all to be in sequence with each other.

I agree with kettlefish's suggestion too. As for what order the minis could go in, perhaps in chronological order of release, but also grouping related expansions together so they aren't scattered? Not entirely sure of the exact way this would be formatted, but something like:

• The River (2001)
• The River II (2005)
• The River III (2014)

...

• The Cathars (2004)
• The Siege (2008)
• The Besiegers (2013)

Alternatively, perhaps all the small expansions could be organized in alphabetical order by the name of the expansion? Especially for newer folks, it might be easier to find things that way than by chronological order, and the chronological release list could just stay on as an extra reference page near the back?[/list]

[Whaleyland]

Remember that River II will be with Expansion 6 now.

[kettlefish]

Example Crop Circles I and Crop Circles II:

here in this posting you can see how it looks in the actual CAR v 7.3:

The rules are the same, only the comments for the Crop Circles II and the footnotes at the last page are different.

[kettlefish]

Example Crop Circles I and Crop Circles II:

here in this posting you can see how it could look if we put both minis together as a combination:

The most changes are at the first and the last page. I used only 3 pages, perhaps to use 4 pages are more useful.
I put the differences of the minis in a frame.

[Allan in Brisbane]

As a relative newbie can I say the CAR is an incredibly useful resource.
I have printed and bound the sections relating to the expansions and minis we intend to collect, and ignored the sections we won't get (i.e. Catapult and Wheel of Fortune) or which have been put into the impossible to get category (i.e. Tunnels).
Initially we were using the rules which came with the game (mainly BB4 and Z-Man) and we were finding ourselves facing questions as we played.  We soon realised that reading the CAR when the new element was introduced solved all of our questions before they were even asked.
Especially useful is these sections:-
Order of Play
Scoring During the Game
Scoring After the Game
Once we got a handle on it there are very few situations we come across which don't have answers.
Just putting this into the discussion as a perspective from someone who is new to the game.