Author Topic: Clarification of rules - Email with HiG - 05 05 2014 (Read 25828 times)

kettlefish · « **Reply #15 on:** May 08, 2014, 10:00:00 PM »

Quote from: Carcking on May 08, 2014, 05:35:02 PM

Quote from: kettlefish on May 05, 2014, 09:28:44 AM
Question 1c - Hills

What if red has two followers on hills and blue has only one follower on a hill? Can the tie-breaking effect of hills be stacked?

We still discuss this situation... - no answer yet...

I wonder why they didn't answer this one? Was it posed along with the others and they just elected to ignore it?

I can't talk about it again with Georg Wild... And I don't get an answer by email. Perhaps Georg Wild will talk first together with Klaus-Juergen Wrede, Christof Tisch. Next week they are all together - the big meeting - all for the world of Carcassonne...

obervet · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2014, 05:44:50 PM »

Quote from: kettlefish on May 06, 2014, 09:25:47 AM

obervet,
I need some help:
I like to post some links from where the original questions come from, but I didn't found all...

Whenever a question comes up, I copy it into my big list of questions so that I have all of the questions in one place. But I'm not very good about writing down the origin of those questions. If I come up with any of the threads, I'll let you know.

obervet · « **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2014, 05:51:43 PM »

Quote from: kettlefish on May 08, 2014, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: Carcking on May 08, 2014, 05:33:02 PM
Quote from: kettlefish on May 05, 2014, 10:50:30 AM
I personally go with the HiG version of the rule: figure. This makes the Festival more specific. The "new" rule is from the CundCo Shop.
I've sent my reply to HiG... Some weeks ago Georg Wild (HiG) told me that he also prefers the original version of the rule which came out together with the jubilee edition.

I'm confused on this one kettlefish. Aren't these answers coming from HiG? But you are saying you personally go with the HiG version. It seems redundant.
obervet asked HiG if that is true that there are a new version of the festival - and that is true.
But this new version is from CundCo and not from HiG...

Perhaps both rules should be put into the CAR...

I can't talk about it again with Georg Wild... And I don't get an answer by email. Perhaps they HiG, CundCo, Klaus-Juergen Wrede, Christof Tisch will talk together first. Next week they are all together - the big meeting - all for the world of Carcassonne...

For the purposes of the CAR, until we get further clarification, the original HiG rule will remain the official rule in the text, and the CundCo version will be mentioned as an alternate version in the footnotes (with the double-headed arrow). At this point, it sounds like the HiG crew would prefer that the rule stay as it was, and they get to call the shots. CundCo is acting as another publisher (like RGG or ZMG), so their rule is an alternate version but not the capital-L Law. (For now, at least.)

Carcking · « **Reply #18 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:29:24 AM »

Good call on that obervet. That is logical and concise.

@kettlefish - that is why I use the keyword "blue dog" on posts with new questions - so they can be queried at a later date. It's a throw-back to the early days.

kettlefish · « **Reply #19 on:** May 11, 2014, 02:55:19 PM »

Quote from: Carcking on May 11, 2014, 09:29:24 AM

@kettlefish - that is why I use the keyword "blue dog" on posts with new questions - so they can be queried at a later date. It's a throw-back to the early days.

In Germany we have a violet or lilac cow (German "lila Kuh"): Milka Kuh

kettlefish · « **Reply #20 on:** May 21, 2014, 09:58:06 PM »

Quote from: Carcking on May 08, 2014, 05:35:02 PM

Quote from: kettlefish on May 05, 2014, 09:28:44 AM
Question 1c - Hills

What if red has two followers on hills and blue has only one follower on a hill? Can the tie-breaking effect of hills be stacked?

We still discuss this situation... - no answer yet...

I wonder why they didn't answer this one? Was it posed along with the others and they just elected to ignore it?

I've called with HiG - Georg Wild - 20.05.2014:

My own opinion is follows:
Is there a tie - the player wins the tie if he has also the mayority of the hills - in this example RED wins the tie and get all the points, BLUE doesn't get any point.

The opinion of HiG is follows - the answer:
Is there a tie - the player wins the tie if he has also one ore more followers on the hills. It doesn't matter the mayority of the hills - in this example RED and BLUE wins the tie and both get all the points.

So, my opinion is only a houserule...

Whaleyland · « **Reply #21 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:26:54 PM »

Gonna have to say that I think HiG's ruling is dumb and illogical. If majority rules in general, then it rules when specific. The person with more meeples AND more Hills wins. That may be a house rule but it is the only logical rule and one that I figure most people will play with.

asparagus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:38:58 PM »

Quote from: whaleyland on May 21, 2014, 10:26:54 PM

Gonna have to say that I think HiG's ruling is dumb and illogical. If majority rules in general, then it rules when specific. The person with more meeples AND more Hills wins. That may be a house rule but it is the only logical rule and one that I figure most people will play with.

It's certainly a twist but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it. The worst thing is that it will not come up often so it will be forgotten. Or the houserule will only be declared in the middle of the city scoring.

Edit
Just occurred to me it might be analogous to pigs.

kettlefish · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:42:56 PM »

Quote from: whaleyland on May 21, 2014, 10:26:54 PM

Gonna have to say that I think HiG's ruling is dumb and illogical. If majority rules in general, then it rules when specific. The person with more meeples AND more Hills wins. That may be a house rule but it is the only logical rule and one that I figure most people will play with.

Yes I agree with you...
I told to Georg Wild (HiG) that we fans would like to have the fight for the mayority of the hills, but he doesn't like the fight. I had a hard discussion with him, but he still stands to his clarification...

asparagus · « **Reply #24 on:** May 21, 2014, 10:53:20 PM »

Quote from: kettlefish on May 21, 2014, 10:42:56 PM

I told to Georg Wild (HiG) that we fans would like to have the fight for the mayority of the hills, but he doesn't like the fight. I had a hard discussion with him, but he still stands to his clarification...

You should have taken to the hills. You would have had the tie-breaker then.

Carcking · « **Reply #25 on:** May 22, 2014, 06:14:57 AM »

Quote from: kettlefish on May 21, 2014, 09:58:06 PM

The opinion of HiG is follows - the answer:
Is there a tie - the player wins the tie if he has also one ore more followers on the hills. It doesn't matter the mayority of the hills - in this example RED and BLUE wins the tie and both get all the points.

I suspected this from the beginning, so the answer does not surprise me. But in my opinion the bigger problem is they issued an expansion without such a question being already resolved.

It's another example of an open ended rules question that we would have discovered before hand if we had been asked to review the expansion prior to release. My underlying issue with that is the sense that they are just popping out these expansions for their market value without regard to the quality and continuity of the game itself.

We will be house-ruling it in my game-group. It is the most logical to compete for the hills, and provides the most game play.

obervet · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2014, 01:42:07 PM »

Quote from: kettlefish on May 21, 2014, 09:58:06 PM

Quote from: Carcking on May 08, 2014, 05:35:02 PM
Quote from: kettlefish on May 05, 2014, 09:28:44 AM
Question 1c - Hills

What if red has two followers on hills and blue has only one follower on a hill? Can the tie-breaking effect of hills be stacked?

We still discuss this situation... - no answer yet...

I wonder why they didn't answer this one? Was it posed along with the others and they just elected to ignore it?
I've called with HiG - Georg Wild - 20.05.2014:

My own opinion is follows:
Is there a tie - the player wins the tie if he has also the mayority of the hills - in this example RED wins the tie and get all the points, BLUE doesn't get any point.

The opinion of HiG is follows - the answer:
Is there a tie - the player wins the tie if he has also one ore more followers on the hills. It doesn't matter the mayority of the hills - in this example RED and BLUE wins the tie and both get all the points.

So, my opinion is only a houserule...

What seems odd about the official HiG opinion is that it runs counter to pretty much any competition ever. In pretty much any event I can think of, the tiebreaker is a quantitative thing. For example, if two soccer/football teams have equal records in a season, the tiebreaker might be goal differential -- whoever has the best goal differential wins. Even in board games, if 2 players have the same number of victory points, many times the person who has the most of some secondary resource (such as gold) is the winner (or else the game just doesn't have a tiebreaker at all).

The hills ruling, though, goes against everything that most people expect from tiebreakers. The number of followers in a city is tied, so we go to hill followers as a tiebreaker, but instead of counting red vs. blue, it's simply a Yes/No question? That doesn't make sense. Okay soccer/football teams, you have the same record. Did you score at least one goal this season? Oh, you both did? I guess we have a shared championship then. (Obviously a bit of an absurd analogy, but it's still pretty much what we're doing here.)

I agree 100% with the house rulers on this one.

Carcking · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2014, 02:19:56 PM »

That is a perfect analogy, obervet, with the sports teams. Couldn't be better said.

Scott · « **Reply #28 on:** May 24, 2014, 07:45:27 AM »

I'm not big on house rules, but I agree with you guys on this one. Hills are supposed to be a tie-breaker, so it should not be so easy to neutralize the tie-breaker.

asparagus · « **Reply #29 on:** May 24, 2014, 03:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Scott on May 24, 2014, 07:45:27 AM

I'm not big on house rules, but I agree with you guys on this one. Hills are supposed to be a tie-breaker, so it should not be so easy to neutralize the tie-breaker.

So how about a house-rule for pigs? You don't have to be in the sole majority to have an effective pig. It's very rare to get actual points from the pig. Someone managed it in a game today. 1 point in fact.