This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Vital Pluymers
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12
106
« on: December 08, 2020, 11:43:16 AM »
If you discard your tiles every time you cannot place a tile, this would also allow you to change your mind and place a tile from your supply (abbey, German castle or Halfling).
The open issue in my mind is that a player should be allowed to place an tile from their supply in the second part of their turn, thr same as there was no fortune teller involved.
The rules read as follows:
If a player’s turn is extended via a builder, the player will NOT redraw for a new tile, but will instead use the second tile that was drawn at the beginning of his turn. If a player has multiple tiles due to having two Fortune Tellers, he must choose which tile to place for his double turn.
So they indicate that if you want to draw a tile for your second part of your turn, don't do it. Instead you choose one of the tiles left from your draw at the beginning of your turn, if more than one left, and use it normally.
Therefore, you are not required to use only the tiles you drew thanks to the fortune teller. You may decide not to redraw/reuse tile and proceed with one of the tiles in your supply.
Any thoughts?
I don't understand how exactly you came to that conclusion. If a player’s turn is extended via a builder, the player will NOT redraw for a new tile, but will instead use the second tile that was drawn at the beginning of his turn. If a player has multiple tiles due to having two Fortune Tellers, he must choose which tile to place for his double turn.
This is only stating that if you have drawn more than 1 tile because of your Fortune Teller(s), you are not allowed to draw additional tiles in your builder's turn. All the rest is free interpretation and cannot be concluded from the way the rules are written. It is not clear whether he must use one of the remaining drawn tiles or if he can choose to place one of the special tiles in his supply.
107
« on: December 07, 2020, 11:59:30 PM »
if you wanted to pay back your trapped early in the game, 6 points is a lot.
Why is it a lot at the beginning of the game and not at the end?
It doesn't matter when you earned or lost points, only the final scoring counts.
So wether you lost 6 points at the beginning, middle or end of the game, it's still gonna be 6 points lost for final scoring.
It could even be the contrary:
- Buying back a meeple at the beginning of the game allows you to use it for 100 following turns, 6 points isn't a lot for that
- Buying back a meeple at the end of the game allows you to use it only for the few turns left, 6 points may be a lot for that
I agree with corinthiens13 on this one. Anyhow, if you really would need to buy back a meeple already before you reach 6 points on the scoring track, then Carcassonne might not be the right game for you 
108
« on: December 07, 2020, 03:24:18 AM »
When I started the abbot house rule, I was almost only playing C1, so that was easy. I just got extra abbot figures and that was an easy fix.
For C2 we usually don't use the gardens, although if we do, we use normal meeples for them. It makes it easier to use and wouldn't punish players who use their abbot on a garden and then get a monastery tile.
Alternatively, I'd perhaps add a second abbot for each player, so they can use 1 (dedicated) for monasteries and the other for gardens
I don't know if "punish" is the right way to describe it. If you use your Abbot wisely on monasteries and gardens and grant them an early retreat regularly, you can also score a lot of points, definitely comparable or even higher compared to the scores a trapped Abbot on a special monastery could earn.
109
« on: December 05, 2020, 11:49:44 PM »
Certainly better! 
110
« on: December 05, 2020, 05:26:57 AM »
I think the wording is quite clear, no modifications needed.
111
« on: November 30, 2020, 07:39:21 AM »
112
« on: November 25, 2020, 07:31:43 AM »
Then we have some special cases eligible for protection for 4 points for the sake of consistency:
* Step 1C: exchanging a meeple with La Porxada
* Step 3B: moving a wagon (does the meeple maintain its protection state when moved?)
* Step 4A: exchanging a meeple with a Seduction Token.
* Step 4A: placing a meeple with a crop circle
Any thoughts?
These are indeed very interesting questions. In the current rules we don't have any indication of what would be the intention of the creators. They probably didn't even consider it. Additionally, I cannot think of any similar cases in which meeples have a certain status. So, there are two options: 1. We ask an official statement from HiG, but we know that they will probably not react. 2. Before the start of the game, the players decide on one of the two options: protected status is transferred to the new situation vs protected status is lost in the new situation. I haven't found yet any indication why one option should be preferable to the other. But the best thing to do is to be consequent in all cases and choose just one option for all the mentioned special cases.
113
« on: November 25, 2020, 07:16:15 AM »
Once again, I think we should stick to the intended use of this expansion. We should not try to invent unintended consequences because the wording is a little different than with other expansions. is there anyone on this forum who truely believes that the creators used a different phrasing because they wanted to have an exception for the phantom power?
And like I wrote before, if we take the phrasing literally, both in German or in English, a player would be able to protect a formerly placed meeple also when he builds a tower piece, when he places a little building, when he relocates the fairy, when he puts a meeple on the Wheel of Fortune, when he uses the Festival's special power, etc. In neither of these cases, the player is placing a meeple on the just placed tile.
I am really convinced that the creators only meant it as another Step 2B-1 action, nothing more, nothing less.
114
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:28:23 AM »
I agree it may be an overkill, but the wording may lead you think you can protect other meeples instead of placing your phantom.
In the Order of Play you won't include the option, but out of context I think it is okay to include this clarification.
Remember the wording included in the rules:
Each time you do not to place a meeple on the tile you just have placed, you may protect one of your meeples standing on tiles for the cost of 2 points.
If you apply it literally, you would assume this applies to Steps 2B-1 and 2B-2. Did this happen to anyone here recently in the heat of the moment? 
Not me  I think we should stick to the idea of intended use. Each time you do not to place a meeple on the tile you just have placed, you may protect one of your meeples standing on tiles for the cost of 2 points.
If we would interpret this literally, then it could even apply that we can protect a meeple in all cases we do another Move the Wood action than placing a meeple. If I place a tower piece somewhere on the playing field, I am not placing a meeple on the tile I just played. If I move the fairy next to one of my meeples, I am not placing a meeple on the tile I just placed. If I .... There are plenty of examples we could add. But I am convinced that this interpretation is not the original intented use that the creators had in mind when they wrote the rules. I think the original intention was just to create another Move the Wood action, just like the other ones we already know. Let's not make it too difficult.
115
« on: November 24, 2020, 11:49:23 PM »
Hi guys!
I think you all are absolutely, right!
I was totally carried away by the wording (although my initial interpretation was the same as you)... protecting other meeples is intended for Step 2B-1 only.
So the bottomline would be as follow:
The rules do not limit the number of meeples you may protect during the placement of a tile for 4 points each. So you could protect a wooden meeple and your phantom... This is a placement option.
Additionally, each time you do not place a meeple in Step 2B-1, you can protect a meeple already placed (in a previous turn). In the great scheme of things this means:
* Step 2B-1: If you do not place a meeple or perform any other action part of this step, you may protect a meeple.
* Step 2B-2: Even if your phantom is in your supply and you decide not to place it, you may not protect a meeple.
Both steps should be skipped if you removed a knight with a princess tile.
Thanks to all for the correction!
Seems perfect to me!
I don't want to be the critical one here, but I don't think this wording is perfect.  In my opinion, the section "* Step 2B-2: Even if your phantom is in your supply and you decide not to place it, you may not protect a meeple." should be omitted completely. We have just agreed that protecting a meeple is just a standard "Move the Wood" action as all the other ones (tower piece, fairy protection, WoF, Little Buildings, etc.). Then, why should we include a special remark for protecting a meeple, but not for the other "equal" actions? I think it will lead to more questions for new players instead of more answers... The only thing you can do is Step 2B-2 is placing your phantom, nothing else. That is as clear as it can be.
116
« on: November 23, 2020, 11:54:07 PM »
Oh, I forgot one: Can we protect a phantom, when placing it (4 points) and / or during a following turn (2 points)?
I don't know when placing it, but I'd suggest it's possible in a following turn (2 points).
The rules do not limit the number of meeples you may protect during the placement of a tile for 4 points each. So you could protect a wooden meeple and your phantom...
Additionally, each time you do not place a meeple, you can protect a meeple already placed (in a previous turn). In the great scheme of things this means:
* Step 2B-1: If you do not place a meeple or perform any other action part of this step, you may protect a meeple.
* Step 2B-2: If your phantom is in your supply and you decide not to place it, you may protect a meeple.
Both steps should be skipped if you removed a knight with a princess tile.
So cool!
This doesn't feel right. I am very sure that this is not reflecting the "intended use" which you always like to mention In my opinion, protecting a meeple placed in a previous turn is just another Move the Wood option like e.g. building another tower piece, placing the fairy next to one of your meeples, placing a meeple on one of the WoF spots, etc. The principle is always the same: If you decide not to place a meeple, you can do one of those mentioned actions instead. However, none of those mentioned actions can be chosen as a substitute for the phantom in Step 2B-2 if you still have the phantom in your supply and decide not to place it. So, to conclude, you cannot protect a meeple in your second phantom turn (Step 2B-2).
117
« on: October 27, 2020, 12:18:54 AM »
All the Spiel promo tiles feature decorative scenes with no impact on the game. So the Spiel 16 sword fight scene is just another one.
So turnips apart, the green patch is surrounded by tents and some spectators behind a wooden fence but not the usual city walls that would touch a field. So the green patch should not be considered a proper field.
Therefore this tile would behave as a regular CCCC tile... However it invites anyone to define some house rules for it, right?
We always use the rules of the fan's expansion 'The Jousting Tournament' when playing with this tile.
118
« on: October 22, 2020, 04:11:16 AM »
At the moment of its completion, the city is still a city, ready to be scored (similar to unoccupied completed cities). In my opinion, players should be allowed to redeploy meeples from the City of Carcassonne to that completed city as a knight. Afterwards all other players can decide whether they want to score it or to convert it to a castle (similarly as if there would be more occupants before its completion.)
If you check the Order of Play, the first action in Step 3B says:
If a small city was created by the tile placement, the small city may be converted into a castle by the occupying player. If converted, this feature’s completion is considered to be resolved. Go to the next feature.
This happens before the following:
The player to your left may move one or more meeples from the City of Carcassonne to the current feature. Everyone has this opportunity in turn, ending with you.
So this means you have decide whether a small town is going to be scored or converted into a castle before deploying meeples to the small city score it. So if no city owner is scoring the small city, players will have no option to deploy meeples onto it.
I had seen this as well, but was not totally sure if the steps in 3B had to be performed strictly in the described order since they are all part of Step 3B. But taking into account all the individual rules of the different features, I admit that the order of steps in Step 3B are in the most logical order. So I agree with your conclusion 
119
« on: October 19, 2020, 06:58:55 AM »
The aim of deploying meeples from the City of Carcassonne is to take over completed features about to be scored no matter if they are occupied or not. All completed features are scored but those points may go to waste if a player cannot receive them: no meeple is occupying the feature, or a major occupies a castle or a city without coats of arms, or there is no castle in the vicinity to receive the points...
Remember that you can deploy a meeple from the cathedral district as a monk (to a monastic building), but not as an abbot onto a German monastery, because no scoring is happening right away in this case. There is an official clarification about this in WICA:
http://wikicarpedia.com/index.php/Monasteries#Count.2C_King_And_Robber
Players may deploy meeples from the cathedral district to a completed monastery about to be scored. The meeples can only be deployed as monks. Deploying meeples as abbots is not allowed since they would not participate in the scoring.
So, in a similar way, deploying meeples to a small city from Carcassonne should be associated to the scoring of the small city. Deploying them to occupy a castle-to-be would contravene the original intent.
I don't think this comparison is a valid one. Placed monks are not converted into abbots in the same way as knights are converted into castle owners. The decision whether to place a monk or an abbott is made in "Step 2B - Placing a meeple". It cannot be converted afterwards. It is already a special monastery from the moment it gets occupied for the first time. In the case of cities, the conversion of a city into a castle is made in Step 3B. That means that an occupying player always at first places a meeple as a knight during Step 2, and then upgrades him to a castle owner later in Step 3B. So it's not comparable to the monastery case. At the moment of its completion, the city is still a city, ready to be scored (similar to unoccupied completed cities). In my opinion, players should be allowed to redeploy meeples from the City of Carcassonne to that completed city as a knight. Afterwards all other players can decide whether they want to score it or to convert it to a castle (similarly as if there would be more occupants before its completion.) [/quote]
120
« on: October 19, 2020, 12:28:54 AM »
Additional notes:
* Deploying meeples from the city of Carcassonne: If playing with the Count of Carcassonne (Exp. 6 - Count, King & Robber), players will be allowed to deploy meeples from the city of Carcassonne to the small city only if at least one player is scoring it. All these additional meeples will participate in the scoring only. They cannot be deployed to the small city to later occupy the resulting castle if any player decided to convert it instead of scoring the small city.
I don't think this is completely correct. The rules of the Count state that a player can decide to send his meeples to a city as soon as it is completed. There is no requirement that it should be scored. Moreover, players can also decide to deploy meeples from the City of Carcassonne to unoccupied features. So, a player should also be allowed to send meeples from the City of Carcassonne to just completed cities independently of what other players decide to do. Evidently, if he sends a meeple from the City of Carcassonne to the completed city, he has to score it as a city. But the requirement that another player should score the city as well is invalid in my opinion.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 12
|
Show Posts