German Monasteries interactions

[obervet]

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.

[asparagus]

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.

[asparagus]

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.

[obervet]

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.

[obervet]

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.  )

[asparagus]

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.

[asparagus]

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.  )

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.

[Whaleyland]

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.

[obervet]

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

Scroll down to reply #26

[asparagus]

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.

[asparagus]

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

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.

[obervet]

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.)

[asparagus]

Christian H. is another person with his finger on the pulse of Carcassonne rules.

Where is this web page?

[asparagus]

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.  )

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."

[kettlefish]

My dear boys - you all are talking much  - nice....

But where can I find an easy clear question???