Carcassonne Central
Carc Central Community => Official Rules => Topic started by: obervet on May 15, 2014, 01:18:28 PM
-
Here are a couple of questions regarding the German Monasteries. I have my suspicions as to the answers, but it would be good for HiG to weigh in. (Hint, hint, kettlefish... :) )
1) When playing with German Monasteries and Castles, if an Abbot is placed on a German Monastery in the region of a Castle, when is the monastery considered completed for the purposes of the Castle? Is it treated as a normal cloister, so the 9 tile zone is considered the completion? Based on the rules for the Castle, this would be my interpretation.
2) When playing with German Monasteries and Cults/Shrines, if an Abbot is placed on a German Monastery next to a Cult Place/Shrine with a follower (heretic), is the Abbot involved in a challenge? My thought is that there is no challenge, since the rules for the Cult Place/Shrine specifically mention that the challenge is laid down to the monk (not the abbot).
-
1) A German Monastery with an Abbot:
The scoring take place at the end of the game in the final scoring phase.
If a follower is at the end of the game on a castle - the follower gets no points for the final scoring.
-------------------
A German Monastery with a monk:
The scoring take place when it is finished during the game.
The follower on the castle gets also the points during the game.
An unfinished German Monastery with a monk at the final scoring:
The monk gets all the points for the unfinshed monastery.
The follower on the castle gets no points in the final scoring, because the monastery is not finished...
-
2) We have at CarcF the same question.
I have sent an email to Georg Wild - HiG - last week.
I hope I will get in the next days some answers.
-
Here are a couple of questions regarding the German Monasteries. I have my suspicions as to the answers, but it would be good for HiG to weigh in. (Hint, hint, kettlefish... :) )
1) When playing with German Monasteries and Castles, if an Abbot is placed on a German Monastery in the region of a Castle, when is the monastery considered completed for the purposes of the Castle? Is it treated as a normal cloister, so the 9 tile zone is considered the completion? Based on the rules for the Castle, this would be my interpretation.
I would say the Abbot on a monastery never completes (it just scores at the end) and the castle does not score uncompleted features. So if the castle is still uncompleted at the end you get zero points for it.
2) When playing with German Monasteries and Cults/Shrines, if an Abbot is placed on a German Monastery next to a Cult Place/Shrine with a follower (heretic), is the Abbot involved in a challenge? My thought is that there is no challenge, since the rules for the Cult Place/Shrine specifically mention that the challenge is laid down to the monk (not the abbot).
That seems like the correct ruling. Otherwise the shrine would always win. Completing a shrine next to a well-placed abbot may not be that easy so the alternative ruling is interesting but probably would require an explicit house-rule at best.
However although there is no challenge between an abbot and a heretic, I would imagine an abbot counts as a monastery for placement purposes.
-
My suspicions, based on some of the other answers we got from HiG:
1. Monastery doesn't score until end of game, so Castle can't score from it.
2. I agree that there is likely no challenge, not merely because of the wording but because they are not vying for area control in the same way.
-
I just had a thought which doesn't appear to be addressed yet. We know that gaps in the landscape can block an abbot, but what about other monasteries? If I play an abbot in the same row or column as another player's abbot, when we score at the end of the game do we score through each other's monastery or do they block each other?
-
I just had a thought which doesn't appear to be addressed yet. We know that gaps in the landscape can block an abbot, but what about other monasteries? If I play an abbot in the same row or column as another player's abbot, when we score at the end of the game do we score through each other's monastery or do they block each other?
It's a thought provoking question - but I don't think there is anything inherent about the Monastery feature that sets it apart from any other feature that would be scored through.
One Cloister adjacent to another does not block that particular tile from being included in the respective scoring for the Cloister, for example.
-
I just had a thought which doesn't appear to be addressed yet. We know that gaps in the landscape can block an abbot, but what about other monasteries? If I play an abbot in the same row or column as another player's abbot, when we score at the end of the game do we score through each other's monastery or do they block each other?
I assume since the rules specifically state that holes block the rows and columns, and that there aren't any other mentions of blocking, that rows and columns would still pass through other monasteries.
Could be an interesting house rule to promote defense against German Monasteries, though. (Of course, the monastery that you block will also be blocking your monastery, so it might just be a wash as far as points go.)
-
Could be an interesting house rule to promote defense against German Monasteries, though. (Of course, the monastery that you block will also be blocking your monastery, so it might just be a wash as far as points go.)
You could house rule that you can block with some other feature...such as Cloisters and Abbeys. I actually like the idea the more I think about it, especially for mega-carc games, to limit the scoring. I would take the house-rule one step further and say that if your Monastery becomes blocked in all four directions you may score it mid-game and retrieve your follower. You may even do the blocking on your own Monastery! All tiles would count up to but not including the blocking Cloister or Abbey.
Thematically, the influence of the Monastery only reaches out to the nearest Cloister or Abbey. Any influence beyond that is delegated to the Cloister or Abbey so is not credited to the Monastery.
-
Could be an interesting house rule to promote defense against German Monasteries, though. (Of course, the monastery that you block will also be blocking your monastery, so it might just be a wash as far as points go.)
You could house rule that you can block with some other feature...such as Cloisters and Abbeys. I actually like the idea the more I thin about it, especially for mega-carc games, to limit the scoring. I would take the house-rule one step further and say that if your Monastery becomes blocked in all for directions you may score it mid-game and retrieve your follower. You may even do the blocking on your own Monastery! All tiles would count up to but not including the blocking Cloister or Abbey.
Thematically, the influence of the Monastery only reaches out to the nearest Cloister or Abbey. Any influence beyond that is delegated to the Cloister or Abbey so is not credited to the Monastery.
I like this, I think my wife and I will play with these rules in our next game. I was turned off by the high number of points we both got (over 80 each), since we're playing with *almost* every extension. Being able to block the scoring would be a neat tatic to take. (And we won't take the meeple back - scoring will be done at end of game, like normal. You lose a meeple, like a farmer..)
--Me.
-
...(And we won't take the meeple back - scoring will be done at end of game, like normal. You lose a meeple, like a farmer..)
Oooh, that is harsh. Then you kinda have to be careful where/when you start a Monastery so it doesn't get blocked up with very few points. But it would definitely be a risk/reward decision to play one. I like that too! :(y)
-
What about The Flier and German Monasteries interaction.
Can another follower land on monastery alredy occupied by abbot? And then, is there still option ot place such second follower as monk?
-
That is a great question farin. I hadn't thought of that. The cloister feature of the german monastery could still be considered open even if a follower is on the feature as an abbot. So both parts of your question are valid :(y) ...I would reason "yes" to both, but I wonder what the official answers will be.
-
Very good question indeed. I think you can fly to a german monastery, the only question is: Do you can place the follower as abbot too?
The german rules of the flying machine say you have to "stand" the follower on a city, road or cloister, you cannot "lay" him on a field. Following this a flying follower could only put down as a monk.
In the english rules there is no differentiation, there is only "place" on a city, road or monastery and "not place" on a field.
-
Very good question indeed. I think you can fly to a german monastery, the only question is: Do you can place the follower as abbot too?
The german rules of the flying machine say you have to "stand" the follower on a city, road or cloister, you cannot "lay" him on a field. Following this a flying follower could only put down as a monk.
In the english rules there is no differentiation, there is only "place" on a city, road or monastery and "not place" on a field.
Surely you have to follow the decision of the first person to place a follower. And if it is unoccupied for any reason you can choose.
-
Surely you have to follow the decision of the first person to place a follower. And if it is unoccupied for any reason you can choose.
I don't think it is automatic that you have to follow the decision of the first player there. There is reason to consider that both features are open as far as the Flier is concerned. It could be the first player just selected one to use. I don't think you can automatically draw the conclusion that if one is chosen the other is barred.
It does raise a similar question of the magic gates, the City of Carcassonne, the Castle and maybe others. If the first player has choosen one "occupation" is it reasonable that the other is still open?
For the City I can see a player being able to deploy to the monastery as a monk when the 9th tile is played, but not being able to enter it as an abbot until end of game scoring.
For the magic gate you could reason that regardless of the first occupant's occupation, the feature is occupied, so it cannot be entered by the magic gate.
For the Castle, the placement of the 9th tile could trigger the scoring of the castle as a cloister.
-
Surely you have to follow the decision of the first person to place a follower. And if it is unoccupied for any reason you can choose.
I don't think it is automatic that you have to follow the decision of the first player there. There is reason to consider that both features are open as far as the Flier is concerned.
I assume the reason is this community clarification from the CAR:
These two options are available whenever a follower would be placed on the cloister: initial tile
placement, magic portal, flier, etc. (5/2014)
There is indeed no precedent for whether a feature which can be scored in two ways depending on how the follower is placed counts as one feature or two features. But I would suggest that if it turns out that it is effectively two features, most people will be surprised.
Also we seem to have an official clarification that the only things which stops an abbot scoring vineyards is that it is always uncompleted.
When using German Monasteries, the vineyard bonus is applied to the German Monastery if
the follower is placed as a monk and the feature is scored as a finished cloister. However, the
vineyard bonus is not applied if a follower is placed as an abbot on a German Monastery, as the
abbot scores only at the end of the game, when the vineyard has no effect. (5/2014)
We have another official clarification suggesting that abbots are treated like monks for Count of Carcassonne purposes:
Until now it was impossible to deploy a second monk to a cloister... Answer: That
is exactly the point. There was no rule that said only one monk could occupy a cloister. It was simply
not possible because of the rules for placing tiles. This is the first opportunity for stealing a cloister
away from a player. And deploying the big follower to a cloister may now be worthwhile as well.
-
I think that it can be compared with different follower placement: using Flier you can choose to place a) ordinary follower, b) big follower, c) wagon, d) mayor (in cities). The same applies here - just choose a follower type: abbot or monk.
-
I think that it can be compared with different follower placement: using Flier you can choose to place a) ordinary follower, b) big follower, c) wagon, d) mayor (in cities). The same applies here - just choose a follower type: abbot or monk.
The abbot/monk choice seems to be orthogonal to the ordinary/big/wagon/phantom choice. First of all any of those can be used as an abbot and secondly those are physically different pieces.
This seems to me to be much more a choice about how the feature is used.
-
Yes, the open question is: once an occupation is chosen on initial placement is the other option automatically closed for the duration of the game?
What if no choice is made on initial placement, but the feature becomes occupied later through other means...magic gate, flier, wagon, etc. Is the second occupation then automatically closed?
-
What if no choice is made on initial placement, but the feature becomes occupied later through other means...magic gate, flier, wagon, etc. Is the second occupation then automatically closed?
Why should a magic portal or flier follower placement be different from a follower-placement-cum-tile-placement? I am bemused by the determination to test the rules way past the point of destruction, but I suppose we are doing it so HiG or their customers don't have to.
-
If a follower is placed on a german monastery by a flying machine, a magic portal, ... and if he is allowed to be a monk or an abbot ... then
I think a second follower on the german monastery has the choice to become a monk or abbot, too. The monastery is still a monastery, it doesn't transform to anything else, only the follower could be a monk or an abbot.
-
... but I suppose we are doing it so HiG or their customers don't have to.
Correct. :(y) Questions have to be answered for the CAR.
-
...But I would suggest that if it turns out that it is effectively two features, most people will be surprised.
Haha - just like Hills that do not stack. ;)
-
If you convert a 2-tile city into a castle, the meeple moves from the city into the castle. You then cannot place a meeple into the city anymore (magic portal, flier, etc.), only into the castle. Whether it's possible to have a monk and an abbot occupy the same cloister is a perfectly legitimate question that needs to be answered.
-
I thought of the case of the Castle too Scott, but in that case the feature is actually physically changing, which perhaps could distinguish it from the Monastery. As you also confirm, it is a viable question.
-
I did not yet call with HiG, but I called with Udo Schmitz (Carcassonne-on-Tour) this week.
Our opinion is:
The flier can land on a German Monastery and can chose if the follower is used as a monk or as an abbot. It doesn't matter how it is already used by an other players follower...
-
The flier can land on a German Monastery and can chose if the follower is used as a monk or as a abbot. It doesn't matter how it is already used by an other players follower...
Consider the difference between magic portals and fliers. Fliers can land on an already occupied feature. Does an abbot block occupation by a monk via a magic portal and vice versa does a monk block occupation by an abbot via a magic portal? Surely the answer is yes. And if so surely the flier has to follow any decision made by an existing occupant.
As such maybe it is better to use magic portals to ask this question. The more restricted mechanics means safer semantics.
Also there is the practical issue that the monastery space could be quite physically crowded.
-
Can a player place a normal follower as an abbott and a pantom as a monk? Perhaps this is the best question for getting at the question whether they are two separate features.
-
Can a player place a normal follower as an abbott and a pantom as a monk? Perhaps this is the best question for getting at the question whether they are two separate features.
I would say No, because the feature is occupied. For the Phantom (and the Magic Gate and the Wagon), the feature must be unoccupied. Even though the alternate occupation may be available, the feature is occupied.
-
I thought I had come up with another great conundrum on this issue. Then I checked the CAR. Now all I can ask is:
Assuming there was a crop circle card for monks, how would that work with German monasteries?
-
I thought I had come up with another great conundrum on this issue. Then I checked the CAR. Now all I can ask is:
Assuming there was a crop circle card for monks, how would that work with German monasteries?
The Crop Circles:
- Pitchfork
This affects farmers (on a farm segment).
- Club
This affects thieves (on a road segment).
- Shield
This affects knights (on a city segment).
There is no Crop Circle for the monks (on a cloister or monastery) in the official rules.
As long as HiG doesn't expand this mini with a new Crop Circle for cloisters/monasteries, the followers haven't to do any "work" as monks or abbots. ;D
-
The Crop Circles:
- Pitchfork
This affects farmers (on a farm segment).
- Club
This affects thieves (on a road segment).
- Shield
This affects knights (on a city segment).
There is no Crop Circle for the monks (on a cloister or monastery) in the official rules.
As long as HiG doesn't expand this mini with a new Crop Circle for cloisters/monasteries, the followers haven't to do any "work" as monks or abbots. ;D
Precisely. A monk crop-circle is pointless when you are just adding it to the basic game (because the adding choice is pointless). The count of Carcassonne and the Flying Machines start to give the concept some meaning. But a monk crop-circle becomes very interesting when combined with German monasteries. Could I for instance place an abbot and then later on use the monk crop circle to place a monk next to the abbot?
I strongly suspect that the idea of a monk crop circle is a bad one, because it only has meaning in obscure situations and those situations are really not worth it.
However if we end up in a situation where you can get a monk and an abbot sitting next to each other using the flier but not using the phantom/wagon/magic circle then I would certainly want to raise the theoretical question of a monk crop circle and German monasteries.
-
Maybe I don't understand something, but where have you found a crop circle for cloisters? :o
Is this just a theory or home rule?
-
Maybe I don't understand something, but where have you found a crop circle for cloisters? :o
Is this just a theory or home rule?
I thought I was being very clear it was a thought experiment.
-
asparagus,
I am often confused about your philosophical questions here in the "official rules".
You are asking questions for something that doesn't exist - with an other word "nothing".
Please tell me how should I ask the publisher HiG questions about "nothing"?
A crop circle for a cloister doesn't exist, so I can't ask HiG about this.
-
asparagus,
I am often confused about your philosophical questions here in the "official rules".
You are asking questions for something that doesn't exist - with an other word "nothing".
Please tell me how should I ask the publisher HiG questions about "nothing"?
A crop circle for a cloister doesn't exist, so I can't ask HiG about this.
If HiG respond with sensible answers to the flier/German monastery then I don't care.
-
To move back toward the question at hand, if I were to make a house rule until the official rule is known, I would say that the second follower (the one who flew in) gets to choose what to count the feature as, regardless of the first follower's status. But, until we know for sure, the CAR gets a footnote with the dreaded red padlock.
-
I thought I was being very clear it was a thought experiment.
Better to leave that for another time in another thread. Figuring out loopholes in the rules is complicated enough already.
-
I thought I was being very clear it was a thought experiment.
Better to leave that for another time in another thread. Figuring out loopholes in the rules is complicated enough already.
I really think noone has figured out what has got my goat here. And that is despite the fact I have been trying to put it into words. So I looked through the thread to see where I had gone wrong and I think I missed this:
Yes, the open question is: once an occupation is chosen on initial placement is the other option automatically closed for the duration of the game?
What if no choice is made on initial placement, but the feature becomes occupied later through other means...magic gate, flier, wagon, etc. Is the second occupation then automatically closed?
No I don't think this is the question at all. I have been seeing two theories as to how German monasteries operate:
- It is one feature that can either operate in monk mode or abbot mode. As long as the feature is occupied the mode is fixed, but it is undecided as long as the feature is unoccupied.
- It is two features occupying the same point.
I have been reading this thread as if I was the only one arguing for Theory 1. Theory 2. looks the next most plausible to me though one I would strongly dislike. I have been trying on data (and in one case a thought experiment) to try and distinguish between these two theories. Clearly other theories have been proposed if only reluctantly.
I guess the moral is I should read the thread more carefully. But I hope this clears up my view point.
-
I lean towards theory 1 as well. I think when Carcking said "for the duration of the game" he was not thinking about expansions where the abbot could get removed. If a player places a monk, which is later eaten by the dragon, and then someone places a magic portal, they are not limited to placing a monk, they could also place an abbot on the unoccupied monastery.
-
I think when Carcking said "for the duration of the game" he was not thinking about expansions where the abbot could get removed.
It is mis-communications like this that lead to the break-up of marriages and the break-out of wars. Curious then that diplomacy should be about ambiguity rather than clarity.
-
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild today:
The flier can land on the German Monastery even if there already stands a follower as a monk or an abbot. The flier can chose if he like to be a monk or an abbot. If the flier like to land as a monk the feature (German Monastery as cloister) is not finished (cloister and 8 tiles surround it).
-
So one question is answered! If the cloister (of the monastery) is not finished yet a player can choose to make him a monk or an abbot, if the cloister is finished the flyer can become an abbot, no matter if there is another follower as monk or abbot, right?
-
The flier can only land on an unfinished feature.
that means: if a German Monastery is surrounded with 8 tiles - then the flier can only use the German Monastery as an abbot.
-
if the cloister is finished the flyer can become an abbot, no matter if there is another follower as monk or abbot, right?
this "another follower" can't be as monk in case of a finished cloister.
-
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild today:
The flier can land on the German Monastery even if there already stands a follower as a monk or an abbot. The flier can chose if he like to be a monk or an abbot. If the flier like to land as a monk the feature (German Monastery as cloister) is not finished (cloister and 8 tiles surround it).
So this seems to lean to theory 2. The German monastery functions as two separate features. I think we should get that confirmed but if it is the case then the other questions are raised.b
1.) If you have the German monastery used with a monk, can a wagon roll up and become an abbot?
2.) Can you place a phantom as a monk and a normal follower as an abbot as you lay the German monastery tile?
3.) Magic portals....
-
The new questions should solve this question of two features or one because a wagon can roll only into an unoccupied feature (question 1), the phantom can only be placed on an unoccupied feature (question 2), also a follower with magic portal (question 3).
-
Fritz_Spinne,
something happened with your posting,
perhaps because I liked to post at the same time...
-
There's nothing wrong with my posting, only missing a ).
-
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild today:
The flier can land on the German Monastery even if there already stands a follower as a monk or an abbot. The flier can chose if he like to be a monk or an abbot. If the flier like to land as a monk the feature (German Monastery as cloister) is not finished (cloister and 8 tiles surround it).
This clarification has been added to the upcoming version of the CAR.
-
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild today:
The flier can land on the German Monastery even if there already stands a follower as a monk or an abbot. The flier can chose if he like to be a monk or an abbot. If the flier like to land as a monk the feature (German Monastery as cloister) is not finished (cloister and 8 tiles surround it).
So this seems to lean to theory 2. The German monastery functions as two separate features. I think we should get that confirmed but if it is the case then the other questions are raised.b
...
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
-
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
Your quote seemed pretty clear to me. The following scenario is possible:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places a monk on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously a monk and an abbot.
I don't like this but this is how I read the clarification.
-
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
Your quote seemed pretty clear to me. The following scenario is possible:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places a monk on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously a monk and an abbot.
I don't like this but this is how I read the clarification.
Indeed, but the most strange scenario that this rule allows is:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places an abbot on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously two abbots.
I don't see anywhere in these rules clarifications where this situation is not possible. If the decision is independent, both players can choose both options, correct?
-
Indeed, but the most strange scenario that this rule allows is:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places an abbot on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously two abbots.
I don't see anywhere in these rules clarifications where this situation is not possible. If the decision is independent, both players can choose both options, correct?
Actually this is what seems natural to me. You could even get one player having two abbots and one player having one abbot. Only the one with two abbots scores (as if he alone had one abbot). Really the Count of Carcassonne and the Flier should function much the same apart from timing and randomness.
-
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
Your quote seemed pretty clear to me. The following scenario is possible:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places a monk on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously a monk and an abbot.
I don't like this but this is how I read the clarification.
Indeed, but the most strange scenario that this rule allows is:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places an abbot on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously two abbots.
I don't see anywhere in these rules clarifications where this situation is not possible. If the decision is independent, both players can choose both options, correct?
Okay, overly nested quotes, but I'm going to roll with it. Because of the special rules of the Flier (it can fly to a feature that's already occupied), both of the above situations from whaleyland and asparagus are valid -- each valid follower gets to make the decision for himself/herself. I think the point that kettlefish was trying to make was that the German Monastery is still only a single feature. Thus, if it is already occupied, you cannot move a wagon there, put a phantom there, or send a follower there through a magic portal.
-
Indeed, but the most strange scenario that this rule allows is:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places an abbot on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously two abbots.
I don't see anywhere in these rules clarifications where this situation is not possible. If the decision is independent, both players can choose both options, correct?
Actually this is what seems natural to me. You could even get one player having two abbots and one player having one abbot. Only the one with two abbots scores (as if he alone had one abbot). Really the Count of Carcassonne and the Flier should function much the same apart from timing and randomness.
Hmm... interesting that you bring up the Count. A previous clarification stated that you can't move a follower from the cathedral quarter of the City to a German Monastery with an abbot, since it won't finish in the usual time frame. However, if the German Monastery has a normal monk (ie acting as a regular cloister), and it finishes, can you move a follower to it from the City and declare it as an abbot instead? We know that moving the follower is OK, the question is if you get to make the choice in this case. It seems like you should. Kettlefish?
-
Because of the special rules of the Flier (it can fly to a feature that's already occupied), both of the above situations from whaleyland and asparagus are valid -- each valid follower gets to make the decision for himself/herself. I think the point that kettlefish was trying to make was that the German Monastery is still only a single feature. Thus, if it is already occupied, you cannot move a wagon there, put a phantom there, or send a follower there through a magic portal.
This seems to be neither theory 1 nor 2, but some horrible hybrid.
- It is one feature that can either operate in monk mode or abbot mode. As long as the feature is occupied the mode is fixed, but it is undecided as long as the feature is unoccupied.
- It is two features occupying the same point.
It's either a single feature - except when attacked by the Flier in which case it magically becomes two; or it is two features except when attacked by anything other than the Flier when it is magically becomes one feature.
-
Hmm... interesting that you bring up the Count. A previous clarification stated that you can't move a follower from the cathedral quarter of the City to a German Monastery with an abbot, since it won't finish in the usual time frame.
That makes no sense. You can do the Count thing at the end of the Game. Otherwise the market quarter would be useless (assuming no barns).
-
Because of the special rules of the Flier (it can fly to a feature that's already occupied), both of the above situations from whaleyland and asparagus are valid -- each valid follower gets to make the decision for himself/herself. I think the point that kettlefish was trying to make was that the German Monastery is still only a single feature. Thus, if it is already occupied, you cannot move a wagon there, put a phantom there, or send a follower there through a magic portal.
This seems to be neither theory 1 nor 2, but some horrible hybrid.
- It is one feature that can either operate in monk mode or abbot mode. As long as the feature is occupied the mode is fixed, but it is undecided as long as the feature is unoccupied.
- It is two features occupying the same point.
It's either a single feature - except when attacked by the Flier in which case it magically becomes two; or it is two features except when attacked by anything other than the Flier when it is magically becomes one feature.
I guess I don't have as much of an issue with the feature's status. I think of it as one feature that has 2 compartments -- when you put a follower there, you choose which compartment you put the follower in, monastery or cloister. Either one counts as occupation of the feature, but there is still provision for these odd peripheral cases.
-
Hmm... interesting that you bring up the Count. A previous clarification stated that you can't move a follower from the cathedral quarter of the City to a German Monastery with an abbot, since it won't finish in the usual time frame.
That makes no sense. You can do the Count thing at the end of the Game. Otherwise the market quarter would be useless (assuming no barns).
The market does happen at the end of the game, as you note. However, the cathedral quarter says that you may move a follower to a cloister -- if there's an abbot there, it isn't acting as a cloister, so it's not a valid target.
-
I guess I don't have as much of an issue with the feature's status. I think of it as one feature that has 2 compartments -- when you put a follower there, you choose which compartment you put the follower in, monastery or cloister. Either one counts as occupation of the feature, but there is still provision for these odd peripheral cases.
Suppose you have a German monastery with both an abbot and a monk on it at the end of the game. A third player has a follower in the Cathedral quarter. He can choose to add his follower to the monastery either as a monk or an abbot.
-
The market does happen at the end of the game, as you note. However, the cathedral quarter says that you may move a follower to a cloister -- if there's an abbot there, it isn't acting as a cloister, so it's not a valid target.
At this point I am pretty convinced that noone in HiG has actually thought about the underlying theory of the German monasteries or how all the rules fit together and they are pretty much talking without thinking.
-
The market does happen at the end of the game, as you note. However, the cathedral quarter says that you may move a follower to a cloister -- if there's an abbot there, it isn't acting as a cloister, so it's not a valid target.
At this point I am pretty convinced that noone in HiG has actually thought about the underlying theory of the German monasteries or how all the rules fit together and they are pretty much talking without thinking.
As alluded to on other threads, I think the HiG design philosophy is a little different from yours. You're a lumper, as you like to be able to categorize all of the different features as 1 of only a few base types. They are splitters, since they want each type of feature to be a distinct thing.
-
I guess I don't have as much of an issue with the feature's status. I think of it as one feature that has 2 compartments -- when you put a follower there, you choose which compartment you put the follower in, monastery or cloister. Either one counts as occupation of the feature, but there is still provision for these odd peripheral cases.
Suppose you have a German monastery with both an abbot and a monk on it at the end of the game. A third player has a follower in the Cathedral quarter. He can choose to add his follower to the monastery either as a monk or an abbot.
Since the cloister "compartment" of the feature is active, it seems to me that this would work. (And me using the word "compartment" to describe the situation is going to irritate kettlefish, since she doesn't like when we coin new terms to describe what's going on. ;D )
-
As alluded to on other threads, I think the HiG design philosophy is a little different from yours. You're a lumper, as you like to be able to categorize all of the different features as 1 of only a few base types. They are splitters, since they want each type of feature to be a distinct thing.
That may all be true (and in my case certainly is). However I do genuinely have the impression that HiG has not thought this through. I vaguely recall the claim that abbots cannot benefit from vineyards (because they are not complete) (and I agree with that one) but I recall no such clarification with regards abbots and the Count.
-
Since the cloister "compartment" of the feature is active, it seems to me that this would work. (And me using the word "compartment" to describe the situation is going to irritate kettlefish, since she doesn't like when we coin new terms to describe what's going on. ;D )
Yeah I agree the compartment theory works. However I am suspicious of it if the only application is with the Flier. The Count is the next most applicable example - at which point people bring in other arbitrary rulings.
Oh and corn circles would also apply - except that there are no applicable corn circles.
-
Hans im Glück simply doesn't play test most of their expansions together. Something like German Monasteries seems intuitive when played with the base game, but as soon as you begin adding the City, magic portals, fliers, etc., things get quite complicated. I think that the feature needs to always been seen as a single feature with two choices on it. If it is occupied, a player cannot place another piece on it unless they would normally be allowed to through a special action such as the flier. If a player is able to place on that feature, then they get to make the choice too. For the Count, I'd say that the feature does not count as a cloister. Period. A monk can go on it and score it like a cloister, but it is not a cloister, it is a monastery. Cloisters don't give you a choice while monasteries do.
-
As alluded to on other threads, I think the HiG design philosophy is a little different from yours. You're a lumper, as you like to be able to categorize all of the different features as 1 of only a few base types. They are splitters, since they want each type of feature to be a distinct thing.
That may all be true (and in my case certainly is). However I do genuinely have the impression that HiG has not thought this through. I vaguely recall the claim that abbots cannot benefit from vineyards (because they are not complete) (and I agree with that one) but I recall no such clarification with regards abbots and the Count.
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26 (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
Scroll down to reply #26
-
Hans im Glück simply doesn't play test most of their expansions together. Something like German Monasteries seems intuitive when played with the base game, but as soon as you begin adding the City, magic portals, fliers, etc., things get quite complicated. I think that the feature needs to always been seen as a single feature with two choices on it. If it is occupied, a player cannot place another piece on it unless they would normally be allowed to through a special action such as the flier. If a player is able to place on that feature, then they get to make the choice too. For the Count, I'd say that the feature does not count as a cloister. Period. A monk can go on it and score it like a cloister, but it is not a cloister, it is a monastery. Cloisters don't give you a choice while monasteries do.
Here as well we have someone claiming it is simultaneously both a single feature and two features. This is a bit like wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics except that there is an underlying mathematical theory and useful predictions can be made.
-
As alluded to on other threads, I think the HiG design philosophy is a little different from yours. You're a lumper, as you like to be able to categorize all of the different features as 1 of only a few base types. They are splitters, since they want each type of feature to be a distinct thing.
That may all be true (and in my case certainly is). However I do genuinely have the impression that HiG has not thought this through. I vaguely recall the claim that abbots cannot benefit from vineyards (because they are not complete) (and I agree with that one) but I recall no such clarification with regards abbots and the Count.
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26 (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
Scroll down to reply #26
and did you ever get an answer to this:
"Cult Places" (German: Kultstaetten) - the cult places are a part of this complete 6th expansion. The rule of the Count of Carcassonne only tells us something about a "cloister" (German: Kloster). In my opinion is: NO.
But I can ask HiG if you like.
Seriously my prediction is that next year the penny will drop and HiG will offer clarifications that actually make sense.
-
and did you ever get an answer to this:
"Cult Places" (German: Kultstaetten) - the cult places are a part of this complete 6th expansion. The rule of the Count of Carcassonne only tells us something about a "cloister" (German: Kloster). In my opinion is: NO.
But I can ask HiG if you like.
The next post in that thread said that it is acceptable to move from the City to a cult place. (Christian H. is another person with his finger on the pulse of Carcassonne rules.)
-
Christian H. is another person with his finger on the pulse of Carcassonne rules.
Where is this web page?
-
Since the cloister "compartment" of the feature is active, it seems to me that this would work. (And me using the word "compartment" to describe the situation is going to irritate kettlefish, since she doesn't like when we coin new terms to describe what's going on. ;D )
Yeah I agree the compartment theory works. However I am suspicious of it if the only application is with the Flier. The Count is the next most applicable example - at which point people bring in other arbitrary rulings.
The only way I can visualize the compartment theory is that the abbot lives in a high chapel overlooking the cloister. The high chapel bit is a separate non-cloisterish feature but if the cloister is occupied by a monk, only the flier can get into the high chapel. I would feel much more comfortable if there was another method of doing what the Flier appears to be able to do here. Then we could test this image.
Oh and in this image the Flier should be smashing the beautiful stained glass windows. "Ich heiße Bond. James Bond."
-
My dear boys - you all are talking much - nice....
But where can I find an easy clear question???
-
My dear boys - you all are talking much - nice....
But where can I find an easy clear question???
Could you ask them which of the three models best fits?
1.) single feature
2.) two features
3.) cloister (with the monastery bit a separate feature but guarded by the cloister)
-
My dear boys - you all are talking much - nice....
But where can I find an easy clear question???
Could you ask them which of the three models best fits?
1.) single feature
2.) two features
3.) cloister (with the monastery bit a separate feature but guarded by the cloister)
How often should I give the same answer?
one feature - the follower has the choice to act as a monk or as an abbot.
-
My dear boys - you all are talking much - nice....
But where can I find an easy clear question???
Could you ask them which of the three models best fits?
1.) single feature
2.) two features
3.) cloister (with the monastery bit a separate feature but guarded by the cloister)
How often should I give the same answer?
one feature - the follower has the choice to as a monk or as an abbot.
But some of the detailed answers are inconsistent with model 1. If this is a single feature then the Count rules can be used to place an abbot at the end of the game, but you cannot have a monk and an abbot on a single monastery at the same time.
I really do not know how many times I have to point where the problem is.
-
I will check again the rules of the Count.
Does I ever answer the question about the Count in the other replies??
-
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
Okay, overly nested quotes, but I'm going to roll with it. Because of the special rules of the Flier (it can fly to a feature that's already occupied), both of the above situations from whaleyland and asparagus are valid -- each valid follower gets to make the decision for himself/herself. I think the point that kettlefish was trying to make was that the German Monastery is still only a single feature. Thus, if it is already occupied, you cannot move a wagon there, put a phantom there, or send a follower there through a magic portal.
perfect obervet - that is it.
-
I never said that the German Monastery has two separate features. That is not true.
It is one feature, but with the placement of the follower as monk or as abbot the function for this follower changed into cloister (monk) or German Monastery (abbot). It doesn't matter how an other follower is using the German Monastery.
Your quote seemed pretty clear to me. The following scenario is possible:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places a monk on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously a monk and an abbot.
I don't like this but this is how I read the clarification.
Indeed, but the most strange scenario that this rule allows is:
1.) Player A places a German monastery tile and places an abbot.
2.) Player B places a file next to the German monastery; rolls a 1 and places an abbot on the German monastery.
Now the feature holds simultaneously two abbots.
I don't see anywhere in these rules clarifications where this situation is not possible. If the decision is independent, both players can choose both options, correct?
Okay, overly nested quotes, but I'm going to roll with it. Because of the special rules of the Flier (it can fly to a feature that's already occupied), both of the above situations from whaleyland and asparagus are valid -- each valid follower gets to make the decision for himself/herself. I think the point that kettlefish was trying to make was that the German Monastery is still only a single feature. Thus, if it is already occupied, you cannot move a wagon there, put a phantom there, or send a follower there through a magic portal.
perfect obervet - that is it.
This is like saying a pentagram is really a square and not a pentagram because it has four sides (plus an extra one).
-
We don't have a pentagram or a square in the official rule...
-
One feature, dual natures. Kind of like the Catapult Fairgrounds. They are single features but the player can choose one of four options if they place that tile.
I think we've gotten the issue down to The City being the problem. Can a player use the Cathedral in the City of Carcassonne to place an abbot or a monk in the German Monastery? This gets broken down into two sub-questions:
1) Can a follower from the Cathedral be placed on the feature at all?
2) If so, can the follower be placed as an abbot or can they only be placed as a monk?
Following the dual-nature approach, I think figures should be barred from being placed on the feature at all. Otherwise, I feel they have to be allowed to be placed as either (with a player choosing to place the abbot at the end of the game à la Farmers in the Market.
-
I guess I don't have as much of an issue with the feature's status. I think of it as one feature that has 2 compartments -- when you put a follower there, you choose which compartment you put the follower in, monastery or cloister. Either one counts as occupation of the feature, but there is still provision for these odd peripheral cases.
Since the cloister "compartment" of the feature is active, it seems to me that this would work. (And me using the word "compartment" to describe the situation is going to irritate kettlefish, since she doesn't like when we coin new terms to describe what's going on. ;D )
Yes, I don't know what you meant here...
-
Hans im Glück simply doesn't play test most of their expansions together. Something like German Monasteries seems intuitive when played with the base game, but as soon as you begin adding the City, magic portals, fliers, etc., things get quite complicated.
Yes I agree. But how long do they play if they would play test the new expansion with all the nine big expansions and all the dozents of mini expansion? They test with the base game and some of the expansions but not with all expansions.
I think that the feature needs to always been seen as a single feature with two choices on it. If it is occupied, a player cannot place another piece on it unless they would normally be allowed to through a special action such as the flier. If a player is able to place on that feature, then they get to make the choice too.
Yes it is correct.
For the Count, I'd say that the feature does not count as a cloister. Period. A monk can go on it and score it like a cloister, but it is not a cloister, it is a monastery. Cloisters don't give you a choice while monasteries do.
I have to read the rule of the Count - need some time...
-
Christian H. is another person with his finger on the pulse of Carcassonne rules.
Where is this web page?
https://sites.google.com/site/carcassonnefanseite/ (https://sites.google.com/site/carcassonnefanseite/)
here are the FAQ from Christian H.
https://sites.google.com/site/carcassonnefanseite/regeln-zu-mini-erweiterungen (https://sites.google.com/site/carcassonnefanseite/regeln-zu-mini-erweiterungen)
But the Cult Places have nothing to do with the German Monasteries...
This belongs to the topic:
Expansion#6 The Count, The King and The Robber (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
-
This is what I've written in the other topic
Expansion#6 The Count, The King and The Robber
(http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
section: "Cathedral" - the followers in this section are placed on a cloister (follower as a monk).
The "German Monasteries" - only the function as a cloister (follower as a monk) - YES
The "German Monasteries" - the function as a "German Monastery" (follower as a abbot) - NO.
But I can ask HiG if you like.
---------------------------
excursion - German Language... - The flier and the German Monastery
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild...
It is not easy to explain...
First I will write down the German words.
Wir hatten heute über den Flieger gesprochen und dass er auf Gebiete landen darf, die bereits besetzt sind (Stadt, Straße und Kloster).
Ich sagte "Man gut, dass in der Regel nicht steht Mönch (für Gefolgsmann auf dem Kloster), sondern nur Kloster. "
Georg Wild sagte darauf: "Da die Regel für den Flieger älter ist, wußte man bekanntlich nicht, dass eines Tages ein Gefolgsmann auch als Abt auf dem Kloster (Deutsches Kloster) stehen kann. Also auch wenn in der Regel Mönch gestanden hätte, würde das nicht den "Abt" auf dem Deutschen Kloster ausschließen. Somit kann der Flieger wählen ob er als Mönch oder als Abt auf dem Deutschen Kloster landet."
Fazit: Wenn in der Regel einer älteren Erweiterung nur von Mönch gesprochen wird, schließt das nicht den Abt auf dem Deutschen Kloster aus.
------------------------------------
I am tired - tomorrow I will translate this...
But with the Count and the German Monastery... - I am not sure about it...
-
Also auch wenn in der Regel Mönch gestanden hätte, würde das nicht den "Abt" auf dem Deutschen Kloster ausschließen.
Seems to me that this logic should apply to the Count if it applies to the Flier.
But the Cult Places have nothing to do with the German Monasteries...
I beg to differ. They are both variants of cloister.
-
As alluded to on other threads, I think the HiG design philosophy is a little different from yours. You're a lumper, as you like to be able to categorize all of the different features as 1 of only a few base types. They are splitters, since they want each type of feature to be a distinct thing.
I've thought about this again I think this comment merges together two different questions.
1.) The game designer should have some sort of idea or visualization as to what is going on with a game. Ideally the game art should make it easy to know what this visualization is. The alternative is a random pile of rules that may or may not fit together coherently.
2.) I happen to prefer a lumper philosophy to a splitter philosophy.
I am not convinced that HiG are splitters and I would like them to be lumpers but that is not the issue.
The issue is that I think the German monasteries came out as a neat rule with no visualization for what is really going on.
-
For me this is fairly straight forward. This is how I would house rule it absent anything official from HiG (and maybe even if there is an official ruling).
Premise: The Monastery feature is a single feature that can be occupied and scored in multiple ways.
Question: can a second follower enter an occupied Monastery:
If it's a Phantom - No, because the feature is already occupied.
If it's a Wagon - No, because the feature is already occupied.
If it's from a Magic Gate - No, because the feature is already occupied.
If it's from the City of Carcassonne - Yes, but only as a Monk (there is no allowance for an Abbot to be deployed from the City).
If it's from a Flier - Yes, but only as a Monk (there is no allowance for an Abbot to be deployed from a Flier).
So far, I don't see a case for a second Abbot entering a Monastery (unless there is already an official ruling on the Flier that opens it up to other features).
-
I think that from City of Carcassonne you can enter a Monastery like an Abbot, but only in the end of the game, during the final scoring. Also Flier can enter Monastery as an Abbot. But this is just my opinion and if HiG will say vice versa, I will follow the official rules, as I always like to do.
-
I think that from City of Carcassonne you can enter a Monastery like an Abbot, but only in the end of the game...
Check out this thread and scroll to post #26. kettlefish got some official answers and they have been incorporated into the CAR.
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26 (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
-
I think that from City of Carcassonne you can enter a Monastery like an Abbot, but only in the end of the game...
Check out this thread and scroll to post #26. kettlefish got some official answers and they have been incorporated into the CAR.
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26 (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=834.26)
Hi carcking - when are we going to play?
-
Based upon this discussion I think the best way of playing the German monasteries is at the start of the game you write down all the open questions concerning their interactions and roll a dice for each question to decide how that question should be resolved.
Or if you have a cognitive relativist bent, each person rolls the die themselves (and can fix the rolls if they feel inclined).
-
Check out this thread and scroll to post #26. kettlefish got some official answers and they have been incorporated into the CAR.
Yes, indeed! With all this confusing discussion I have lost the "officiality" :)
-
I think the open questions about interactions have been lost amongst all the philosophical soliloquy. Please refrain from making unkind remarks about the publishers and official playtest group and stay focused on the interaction issues. If you don't like HiG's official responses, you're welcome to house rule it any way you want.
-
I think the open questions about interactions have been lost amongst all the philosophical soliloquy. Please refrain from making unkind remarks about the publishers and official playtest group and stay focused on the interaction issues. If you don't like HiG's official responses, you're welcome to house rule it any way you want.
I think this is directed at me.
The implication is that in some (perhaps unspoken) sense any criticism of HiG is deprecated on this website. I respectfully dissent from this. I wish HiG every commercial, competitive and creative success. But I connsider treating anything or any idea with some sort sacred reverence as dangerous and immoral. Having registered my dissent from the consensus view I shall refrain from breaking community taboos because really there are more constructive things to do than disturb them.
Speaking of constructive actions this thread was originally about German monastery interactions. I look forward to clarifications from HiG.