Carcassonne Central
Carc Central Community => Official Rules => Topic started by: kettlefish on May 05, 2014, 09:21:30 AM
-
I've got some answers from HiG by email today.
Question in BLUE
Answer in GREEN
Still open in RED
My own comments in MAROON
Scott and obervet gave me the questions.
When I have fnished my posting here I will post here the links to the original
threads where the questions first came up...
-
questions from Scott:
-------------------------------
Question 1a - Hills
Example: a city has been completed in which red and blue each have three normal followers, which creates a tie.
If either red or blue had one of their followers on a hill, that player would win the tie.
correct
-----------------------------------
Question 1b - Hills
If both red and blue each had one follower on a hill, the tie would remain unbroken and each player receives equal points.
correct
------------------------------------
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...
-
questions from Scott:
--------------------------
Question 2 - Ferry
In the ferry expansion, if the player does not place a thief on a road, must he still place the ferry? Or is the ferry placed when another player eventually deploys a follower to the road?
The player, who places the tile, also puts a ferry on the lake. It doesn't matter if a follower is placed on a road, or as a farmer or if no follower is placed on that tile.
The Ferries - Question (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=694.0)
-----------------------------
Question 3 - Mage and Witch
In the Mage and Witch expansion, the rules state that when both figures are already deployed, one of them must be moved to a different tile. It is possible that the player will move the figure to a different tile of the same feature, but we suspect the intent behind the rules is that the figure be moved to a different feature.
Your suspicion is correct. It should have an effect, if mage or witch has been moved.
-
obervet gave me 12 questions.
The questions 1-3 from obervet - all with the plague.
I decided not to send these questions to HiG, because I don't get any answer.
I will start with the question 4...
-------------------------------------------
4. Question - Wind Roses
When does the scoring of the 3 points for a Wind Rose occur? Is this before the Move Wood phase?
Yes, the (German) rules state clearly immediately and independent from any other scoring.
This scoring (3 points for the Wind Roses) takes place in the first part of the turn: draw and place a landscape tile, definitive before phase 2: move wood.
-------------------------------------------
5. Question - Wind Roses + Dispatches (Messages)
Since the 3 Wind Rose points seem to be scored apart from anything else, could this trigger the taking of a Dispatch tile (like the fairy 1 point)?
Yes. In that case the dispatch may interrupt your turn, so you might have to keep track and resume the turn where you left it. You don't loose a phase of your regular turn.
-
questions from obervet:
--------------------------
6. Question - Festival + Fairy
If a player uses the Festival to remove a follower, can he or she still move the fairy? By the spirit of the rules, it seems like the answer is "no" since the Festival ability effectively replaces the Move Wood phase. However, the rule for the fairy states that the fairy can be moved "when a player does not deploy a follower or (other figure)". Since a figure was not deployed, by the letter of the law this might be legal.
The "letter of law" is "moving wood". The festival allows to remove a pawn (figure) instead of placing one, so it becomes a new option under the headline "deploy a meeple".
That means the fairy can't move because the move wood phase is finished with the remove of a figure.
--------------------------------------
7. Question - Festival
The new version of the Festival tiles has changed the removal of figures to the removal of followers. Is this change true?
Yes, true.
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.
-
questions from obervet:
--------------------------
8. Question - School
Are all of the roads on the school tiles separate from each other? Two of the roads (lower left and right middle) are illustrated as being continuous.
There are 6 separate roads, as usual a junction separates roads.
School questions (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=587.0)
--------------------------
9. Question - La Porxada
For option 2 in La Porxada, is there any specification about when the knight had to be in the city to get credit? Any time, at completion, or at scoring?
We can't give any rule support, for an unofficial expansion.
But the rules state: "end of the game". We never care about meeple, that had been on the board 27 rounds ago... they're gone.
-
questions from obervet:
--------------------------
10. Question - Crop Circles I
In Crop Circles I, on the tile with the do the club crop circle and the T road junction, do the road segments end at the junction? Or is this treated as one road with 3 branches?
see school: as usual a junction separates roads.
--------------------------
11. Question - Catapult
In the Catapult expansion, there is a tile which has a monastery and a fair. On this tile, the yellow ground stretches to touch 2 of the edges of the tile. Obviously this feature divides the two field segments. What type of piece can be played to the edges where the yellow touches? Only field edges, or can a road end at the yellow ground?
Only a field can be placed at that edge.
----------------------------
12. Question - Robber
A robber is on the same space as counting followers from 2 other players. One of the followers scores points from robbing another player (rogue points). Is the robber required to move with this follower, or can he decide to stay beside the follower that does not move? (To me it seems like the robber must move, since the first bullet point of the Other Rules is applicable here, and there is no scoring choice to be made as in the third bullet point.)
Correct, the robber must "steal" from the first player that scores points.
-
Your suspicion is correct. It should have an effect, if mage or witch has been moved.
Moving from tile to tile, or from feature to feature, will have an impact on the game.
Does this answer really resolve the issue? Seems kind of vague to me....
-
Georg Wild answered in English this time. I don't need to translate.
Sometimes when the "questions" are not clear enough, then we get not clear answers... ;D
-
Your suspicion is correct. It should have an effect, if mage or witch has been moved.
Moving from tile to tile, or from feature to feature, will have an impact on the game.
Does this answer really resolve the issue? Seems kind of vague to me....
I think this does resolve the issue. HiG is stating that movement of the Mage or Witch should have an effect, i.e. should change something about the game state. If the Mage or Witch just moves to a different tile of the same feature, there is no real change. Thus, the requirement would be that the move has to be to a different feature.
-
Your suspicion is correct. It should have an effect, if mage or witch has been moved.
Moving from tile to tile, or from feature to feature, will have an impact on the game.
Does this answer really resolve the issue? Seems kind of vague to me....
I think this does resolve the issue. HiG is stating that movement of the Mage or Witch should have an effect, i.e. should change something about the game state. If the Mage or Witch just moves to a different tile of the same feature, there is no real change. Thus, the requirement would be that the move has to be to a different feature.
YES
-
obervet,
I need some help:
I like to post some links from where the original questions come from, but I didn't found all...
-
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.
-
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 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... ;D
-
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... ;D
-
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.
-
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... ;D
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.)
-
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 - 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 (http://www.milka.de/milka2/page?siteid=milka2-prd&locale=dede1&PagecRef=614)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That is a perfect analogy, obervet, with the sports teams. Couldn't be better said.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
@asparagus - are you referring to the Pig for Traders & Builders? I'm not sure I follow your statement here. Is there an analogy between the Pig and the Hills?
-
As far as I have always understood the pig, if your farmer scores and the pig is present if said farm, the farmer gets an extra point per city. Therefore my pig almost always scores.
-
As far as I have always understood the pig, if your farmer scores and the pig is present if said farm, the farmer gets an extra point per city. Therefore my pig almost always scores.
I seem to have lost my traders and builders rules but I have no reason to think it differed from the CAR. It seems i have always interpreted that as saying that pig's owner had to be in sole control of the field. I think it is much better if that is relaxed.
-
As far as I have always understood the pig, if your farmer scores and the pig is present if said farm, the farmer gets an extra point per city. Therefore my pig almost always scores.
I seem to have lost my traders and builders rules but I have no reason to think it differed from the CAR. It seems i have always interpreted that as saying that pig's owner had to be in sole control of the field. I think it is much better if that is relaxed.
The player only gets the benefit of his Pig if he has the majority on, or at least a share of, the farm his Pig is on.
I'm struggling to see the connection between the Pig and the Hills though, and the need to house-rule the Pig.
-
I'm struggling to see the connection between the Pig and the Hills though, and the need to house-rule the Pig.
I think this is based on my misunderstanding.
Consider a scenario where there is a farm where black has a follower and a pig, and green has a follower but no pig. I thought - and I thought everyone else agreed - that the black pig was ineffective because black did not have sole ownership. I was proposing a house rule where the black pig would be effective in this case.
It seems that I was wrong and that my proposed house rule is actually the official rule. However I do not think the published or even the CAR are as clear on this as they might be.
So if you go back to what I thought the official rule was, then maybe the analogy between pigs and hills will be clear. That is that tweaking features are only effective when the situation has a certain level of clarity.
-
A question:
What has this discussion about the pig to do with my Clarification of rules - Email with HiG - 05 05 2014?
Perhaps it is better to split this topic...
-
I'm struggling to see the connection between the Pig and the Hills though, and the need to house-rule the Pig.
I think this is based on my misunderstanding.
Consider a scenario where there is a farm where black has a follower and a pig, and green has a follower but no pig. I thought - and I thought everyone else agreed - that the black pig was ineffective because black did not have sole ownership. I was proposing a house rule where the black pig would be effective in this case.
It seems that I was wrong and that my proposed house rule is actually the official rule. However I do not think the published or even the CAR are as clear on this as they might be.
So if you go back to what I thought the official rule was, then maybe the analogy between pigs and hills will be clear. That is that tweaking features are only effective when the situation has a certain level of clarity.
I have adjusted the statement in the CAR to note that the pig applies when the owner has a majority or is in a tie for the majority.
-
So if you go back to what I thought the official rule was, then maybe the analogy between pigs and hills will be clear. That is that tweaking features are only effective when the situation has a certain level of clarity.
Thanks. Got it. Glad obervet added clarity in the CAR.
-
So if you go back to what I thought the official rule was, then maybe the analogy between pigs and hills will be clear. That is that tweaking features are only effective when the situation has a certain level of clarity.
Thanks. Got it. Glad obervet added clarity in the CAR.
thanks to Carcking and Obervet.