Show Posts

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 - Meepledrone

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 323
31
[Q2] Some wonders such as Notre-Dame, Circus Maximus and Alhambra include a field between two roads that touches the wonder. Is this field considered to touch the city or only the wonder (and therefore no city)?

[A2] The field only touches the wonder. A wonder is always neutral and not part of a city.

As a consequence, a farmer placed in a field only bordering a wonder but not the city adjacent to the wonder will not score points for this city. It is a similar case to a field only touching an abbey but not a city completed by the abbey.

Note that the field surrounding the monastery on the Notre-Dame wonder tile only touches the wonder.

32
[Q1] Does the city on the Notre-Dame wonder tile span 2 o 4 tiles? The dirt patches surrounding Notre-Dame extend to 2 adjacent square spaces (top and right). It is a bit ambiguous in visual terms, since there is no actual wall closing the city but the houseless dirt patches with Notre-Dame bordering the field.

[A1] The city only spans across 2 tiles. The dirt patches surrounding Notre-Dame are graphically necessary to close off the roads there.

33
I contacted Cundco about the Wonders of Humanity. I received the following clarification on March 8th 2024...

Following Kettlefish's tradition...

Question in BLUE

Answer in GREEN

Still open in RED

My own comments in MAROON

34
Official Rules / Re: Fly to a tile with buildingmaster/architect
« on: March 05, 2024, 04:49:06 PM »
Sorry, it was a typo. Post corrected.

35
Official Rules / Re: Fly to a tile with buildingmaster/architect
« on: March 05, 2024, 12:19:00 PM »
Hi there!

Not sure about what was you are asking about, so I will give you two answers:

* You cannot use a flying machine to land your builder (buildingmaster) on a tile.

* However, you can use a flying machine to land any meeple on a tile with a builder (from your or any other player). Actually, your meeple can land on any valid feature no matter if occupied or not (by a meeple, a builder or any other figure).

Hope this helps.

PS: Corrected typo

36
My dilemma with case a) is that removing an abbot would avoid any penalty from ghosts, so it would benefit the player.

The ghost rules state:

Quote
However, each ghost added to the meeple being scored costs you -2 points.

Should we extend this from meeples scored in 3. Scoring a feature to meeples scored in 2. Placing a meeple? If a meeple can be assigned ghosts and removed because of it, those ghosts should be also be considered in scorings affecting that meeple.

We excluded the Fairy bonus from scorings taking place in 2. Placing a meeple because it is triggered by the scoring of tile-based features in 3. Scoring a feature.

37
@NGC 54 came across this post on Reddit about removing an abbot with ghosts from Exp. 11 - Ghosts, Castles & Cemeteries.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Carcassonne/comments/14cq59i/removing_a_ghosthaunted_abbot_from_an_incomplete/

This topic is not covered by the rules and HiG might clarify it eventually if we are lucky. In the meantime, I wanted to share with you the issue and see if we can decide a community rule for this case. The question on the table is:

How many points is a ghost added to an abbot worth when the abbot is removed from a monastery or a garden during the game?
a) 0 points, since the abbot removal is a figure scoring and ghosts should not affect it. Abbots only affect completed features during the game.
b) -1 point, since the abbot is scored as if the monastery or garden was scored at the end of the game.
c) -2 points, since the abbot is scored during the game, no matter whether the number of points considered is computed as if the feature with the abbot was scored after the game.

On top of this, I've been also trying to make the parallel case affecting acrobats from Exp. 10 - Under the Big Top. You could asign ghosts to an acrobat in a pyramid. What would happen when scoring the acrobat pyramid? Would the scoring of an acrobat with ghosts be affected? How would cases a) or c) apply to acrobats?

What do you think?



My current thoughts are the following for each case (spoiler alert - maybe you want to think about your take on all this before reading my current thoughts below):

a) 0 points (no effect - special case for abbots and acrobats): This was my initial thought for a brief period of time, but it seemed too easy for an abbot could shake off any ghost this way. I thought that if ghosts can remove an abbot, it should also affect its scoring. The same logic would apply to acrobats. The rules do not link the ghost penalty to the completion of a feature but to the participation of a meeple in a scoring.

b) -1 point (end-game penalty - special case for abbots only): This option seemed right from the standpoint of computing the points of the feature, but it didn't look right that an abbot scored during the game was less penalized than an acrobat (-1 point for abbots and -2 points for acobats didn't seem right). This seemed awkward. 

c) -2 points (during-the-game penalty - general case for abbots and acrobats): This option is my current favorite, since both abbots and acrobats should be penalized by ghosts the same way during the game. So even if the abbot scores the same points as its feature would score at the end of the game, this is just an example of how the points are computed, but doesn't force ghosts added to abbots to behave in a special way. All ghosts should be worth -2 points during the game. No matter what.

So, in the end. The general case as described in option c) seems right to me. But you may have different points of view, and a different line of thought. I would appreciate all your inputs. Thank you in advance.

38
General / Re: I love the postman...
« on: March 01, 2024, 11:06:24 AM »
Oooooh! Congrats!

39
General / Re: pictures of Carcassonne
« on: March 01, 2024, 11:05:44 AM »
Are they admiting the Japanese Buildings in the vicinity of the city? ;)

40
Update done! ;D

41
On this page: https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Scoring:_A_Historical_Perspective_(1st_edition)

The first diagram is labelled "1st score, 2nd score, 3rd score". For consistency with the main text it should be labelled, "1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition".

Well, when usually C2 is marked as 2nd edition and C3 as 3rd edition of Carcassonne, then it will be better to name as 1st version rules, 2nd version rules and 3rd version rules.

It better than confusing 1st edition rules of 1st edition of Carcassonne, 2nd edition rules of 1st edition of Carcassonne, etc.

This have no impact to Editions (C1/C2/C3), but to rules adaptation in specific Cx edition.
I'm not really following ... If there is a better wording than the one I suggested, I am completely happy to be corrected and see that implemented. The current wording definitely does need changing though, so that the main body of the text and the diagram labels are consistent.

This might cause some confusion, as the three "editions" refer to different rules releases of the First Edition game release (artwork by Doris). It needs changing, yes, but maybe other terminology used throughout? "Release" or "Version"? It may have been based on the original CAR.

I updated the page trying to explain this nuances. Let me know if I succedded, or some additional clarifications would be needed. I tried to keep the CAR convention.

https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Scoring:_A_Historical_Perspective_(1st_edition)

42
General / Re: The Ballad of Carcassonne
« on: February 21, 2024, 12:31:24 PM »
Wow! It's become a hit!  ^-^

Well done @Snearone !

+1 merit from me.

PS: Making-of when?

43
Yes, we will add it. Hope I have some time for it soon.

44
General / Re: Tournament Transcripts
« on: February 18, 2024, 12:06:59 PM »
As far as I know, no transcripts have ever been recorded from tournament games. That could be a great initiative... starting from streamed games or games played on BGA. ;)

45
General / Re: Cundco refers to WICA
« on: February 18, 2024, 11:58:42 AM »
Not sure if this has happened before but I just noticed that for the English version of some rules, Cundco refers to the WICA pages! Apparently they've been adding the Rules online for some of the older (C1) mini-expansions. The German versions of the rules are there, but for the English rules of Windroses, Besiegers, and (Little) Houses, you end up on the relevant WICA page. So, to everyone who has worked and is still working on WICA: your work is definitely appreciated! :yellow-meeple:

Rules old mini expansions on Cundco

This is the first time that happens. I think that they are just trying to tidy up the Cundco website and remove those expansions that were only listed so the rules could be found somewhere. Unfortunately, they don't have the rules in English for some of them so they resorted to a link to WICA for those cases.

I'ts a pity that they didn't include the Advanced Variant rules for The Labyrinth that was once on there website.

Let's see what they do next.

This is great news! I am also intrigued due to those 4 C1 expansions being featured! Maybe HiG plans to convert to C3 some of them, The Besiegers at least? The rules for some of them are even featured with the C3 logo!

Who knows! The School is not likely to be converted, since they seem to have copies in stock. Anything can happen with the others. There are no written rules about what they will be up to. I'm always looking forward to nice surprises in this regard. ^-^

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 323