Carcassonne Central
Carc Central Community => Official Rules => Topic started by: Darwin on November 27, 2014, 08:17:28 PM
-
The multiple expansions of Carcassonne have made it very hard to keep up with all the rules and how the different expansions interact. The CAR helps a lot. But even this document doesn’t have all the answers.
The CAR is, in my opinion, too big to be practical to use when you play the game. A lot of players are not so geeky as me, and don't sort the different expansion after each game. They play with what they have of expansions each time, and don't know in which expansion for example the Barn belongs. For a player, who don't are familiar with which element who is included in which expansion, it can be quite frustrating to find what you are looking for in the CAR.
This inspired us to make our own “rule-book” who is sorted after the different elements. As we play with some of our own and fan-made expansions, we have also included these in our “rule-book”. Over the years we have edited the “rule-book” every time we introduced a new expansion and when we discovered that some issue wasn’t addressed. We have also included our house rules for those rare instances when the CAR doesn’t provide an answer.
We have made our “rule-book” as an interlinked PDF-document, which we use on an iPad. This has made the game more enjoyable for us and it’s very rare that we have a discussion concerning the rules when we play. We just look it up.
Our “rule-book” (https://www.dropbox.com/s/owd5f6g3datp2lc/PGs%20Car%20Regler%20v4-6%20LITEN.pdf?dl=0) - unfortunately in Norwegian.
Maybe it’s an idea to make a smaller version of the CAR for players who knows the basics of the game? This will not exclude the big CAR as the ultimate reference, but an interlinked small version that works on a tablet is very handy during a game.
I realise that it would be a huge task to make this, and I am unfortunately not up for the job since my English is not that good. Besides I already have this in Norwegian. But maybe someone else will be up for the task? If not, maybe this will inspire some of you to make your own “rule-book”, with the expansion you have and your own house rules.
PS: This is not intended as a criticism of the CAR. The CAR is the ultimate resource for Carcassonne and I am one of those who are really looking forward to the next version! :) :(y)
-
Great work (even if i dont' understand any word ;-)
I love the idea to sort the rules by the different tiles. As the questions occur in this order. :(y)
-
The CAR helps a lot. But even this document doesn’t have all the answers.
[...]
Over the years we have edited the “rule-book” every time we introduced a new expansion and when we discovered that some issue wasn’t addressed. We have also included our house rules for those rare instances when the CAR doesn’t provide an answer.
I am curious, what are these issues and rare instances? ??? Any example?
-
The CAR helps a lot. But even this document doesn’t have all the answers.
[...]
Over the years we have edited the “rule-book” every time we introduced a new expansion and when we discovered that some issue wasn’t addressed. We have also included our house rules for those rare instances when the CAR doesn’t provide an answer.
I am curious, what are these issues and rare instances? ??? Any example?
The issues, I referred too, are situations that we have overlooked I our own “rule-book”.
There are very few instances when the CAR doesn’t provide an answer. But one that comes to mind is: Does the Plague affect the Pig, Builder and Shepherd? This question is likely to never get an official answer and you have to make your own house rule. Another was: Can you use the Flier to fly to a Monastery as an Abbot? This was answered recently her on CarC by kettlefish, and I assume her answer will be included in the next CAR. A question that's awaits an answer, to my knowledge, is: Can you portal to a Monastery as a Monk if it is occupied by an Abbot (or the other way around)?
The new Halflings have also raised some questions about the new Crop Circle, the sheep and the counting and scoring with the half tiles. For the moment we use our house rules for this, but are looking forward to the next version of CAR with the rules for the Halflings. :D
-
Wow Darwin! That is a fantastic document. I would like to have it in English for sure. I am very impressed that you have included so many of the fanmade expansions.
I use the Search function all the time in the CAR. If I need to find the rules for the Barn, for example, I search "Barn". This does take me through every reference in the entire document, true, but it does tend to round up all the references in other expansions that affect the barn.
If all of those references were sorted in to one page for the Barn, that would be very quick and powerful. When it's used during game play it would be very expedient and incredible useful.
I wish I read Norwegian :-\
-
The question from MrNumbers made me think!
Her are some other examples when CAR doesn’t provide a clear answer:
Monasteries and the Phantom - Can you both place a follower as an Abbot and a Phantom as a Monk on a Monastery?
Towers and the Phantom - Can you place the Phantom after a placement of a Tower piece?
Portal and a field with the Barn - Can you portal to a field with a Barn and score as a connected farmer?
Messages and scoring of Monasteries - Can you score a Monastery with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in a big game when you are short of followers.
Messages and scoring of a farm - Can you score a farm with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in the last stages of the game if you do not have the majority on a farm.
You can maybe “read between the lines” to get the answers to these questions. But in my humble opinion, doesn’t CAR give a clear answer. :-\
-
If all of those references were sorted in to one page for the Barn, that would be very quick and powerful. When it's used during game play it would be very expedient and incredible useful.
Yes, it’s very powerful and saves a lot of time as a quick reference when you play. We started with our “rule-book” in 2012 when the different rules began to pile up. Back then we didn’t know of the CarC and CAR. From then on it have just kept growing.
-
I agree that having an "Element" CAR would sometimes be more useful. I think that's possible with the existing CAR though through a very simple expansion of the table of contents to include the specific playable elements within that table. Or, perhaps better, an element index on the last page of the document that has a hotlinked alphabetical listing of all the elements so players can just tap on it and go straight there. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it would fix both issues.
-
Monasteries and the Phantom - Can you both place a follower as an Abbot and a Phantom as a Monk on a Monastery?
No. Quote from CAR:
The player may deploy the phantom to it as a second follower (on a second feature).
And footnote 382:
Just like a normal follower, the Phantom can only be deployed to an unoccupied feature.
So, the feature is the same and occupied.
Towers and the Phantom - Can you place the Phantom after a placement of a Tower piece?
Clear answer in footnote Nr. 384 - YES.
The phantom may also be placed as a second piece in addition to the builder, pig, or any other “move the wood” piece such as movement of the fairy or placement of a tower piece.
Portal and a field with the Barn - Can you portal to a field with a Barn and score as a connected farmer?
No. Explicitly the answer to this question is given in footnote 147:
The magic portal only allows followers to be deployed to tiles that can be legally occupied according to the usual rules, as if the player had just placed the tile in question.
Messages and scoring of Monasteries - Can you score a Monastery with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in a big game when you are short of followers.
It is still a follower after all. So the answer should be, definitely, yes.
Messages and scoring of a farm - Can you score a farm with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in the last stages of the game if you do not have the majority on a farm.
Actually you DO need to have the majority on a farm to be able to use this message. If you do, then you can use this message to your farmer.
-
CAR is great as it is, albeit could use some sort of revamp. It's just that it's a lot of tedious work and for one man it's nearly impossible to do it in a year if you have other commitment.
When people find something unclear, it's always good to post on the forum and hopefully get an answer that might have been missed finding in the CAR, or maybe something is missing and we hopefully can update the CAR soon enough.
Remember to use the search function within the PDF as it helps a lot.
An element based could be useful, no doubt. Hopefully we can see one some day, maybe an interactive one.
One of my project was just this. A simple webpage you choose which expansions you play with and during game progress you only need to click on an element that exist in your current game and it shows every rule there is which correlate to those expansions / elements playing with.
Sadly, it was put on halt like much else Carcassonne for Winter is coming, or has come. :@ My big free time and little work literally gets reversed. :o
-
Monasteries and the Phantom - Can you both place a follower as an Abbot and a Phantom as a Monk on a Monastery?
No. Quote from CAR:
The player may deploy the phantom to it as a second follower (on a second feature).
And footnote 382:
Just like a normal follower, the Phantom can only be deployed to an unoccupied feature.
So, the feature is the same and occupied.
Towers and the Phantom - Can you place the Phantom after a placement of a Tower piece?
Clear answer in footnote Nr. 384 - YES.
The phantom may also be placed as a second piece in addition to the builder, pig, or any other “move the wood” piece such as movement of the fairy or placement of a tower piece.
Portal and a field with the Barn - Can you portal to a field with a Barn and score as a connected farmer?
No. Explicitly the answer to this question is given in footnote 147:
The magic portal only allows followers to be deployed to tiles that can be legally occupied according to the usual rules, as if the player had just placed the tile in question.
Messages and scoring of Monasteries - Can you score a Monastery with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in a big game when you are short of followers.
It is still a follower after all. So the answer should be, definitely, yes.
Messages and scoring of a farm - Can you score a farm with the Message: “Score a follower and remove it from the board”? This would be interesting in the last stages of the game if you do not have the majority on a farm.
Actually you DO need to have the majority on a farm to be able to use this message. If you do, then you can use this message to your farmer.
I still think my list is a good example of questions where CAR doesn’t give clear answers. Except the “Tower and the Phantom” example where I missed a footnote (luckily we got it right in our own “rule-book” ;)). For all these questions we have ended up with the same answers as you. But that's not my point. In my humble opinion are the answers to the questions not so easy to find, and are typical candidates for time consuming discussion during a game. When we play, we don't want these kinds of discussions. We just want to enjoy the game. That's way we made our own “rule-book”. We take the discussion once and for all, with the help of the CAR and CarC. Then it’s settled, and we write it up I our “roule-book” under the respectively figures and features.
A good example of a discussion we had recently is the “Monasteries and the Phanthon”. It’s not clearly stated if the Monastery are one feature that can only be occupied by a Monk or an Abbot, and not both at the same time (with the exception of the use of a Flier and maybe the Count) - or if the Monastery is “two features in one” (score differently at different times in the game - thus “two in one”). kettlefish cleared up the question with the Flier her on CarC, but a question that's awaits an answer, to my knowledge, is: Can you portal to a Monastery as a Monk if it’s already occupied by an Abbot (or the other way around)? If the answer to this is NO - I agree with you. But if the answer is YES - I don't. At this point we have agreed that the Monastery is one feature, as you do. But we are not sure. My girlfriend still argue that the Monastery is “two in one” because the flier can choose what to occupy, when it flies in (a Monk or a Abbot), when it’s already occupied. In her mind the flier can only occupy it as the same if its one feature (not “two in one”). I don't agree with her but… :-X
Another good example is the recent discussion here on CarC regarding the Princess and the Phantom. Se Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=1214.0 XXXXX)
My point with the examples is not that the answers can’t be read out of the CAR. The point is that it’s quite easy for different people to interpret the rules differently in some instances. I want clear answers right away when we play with an expansion that we haven’t used in a wile and don't quite remember exactly how it interacts with the other expansions. The CAR doesn’t always give you that clear answer right away.
I still love the CAR and we have used it extensively for our own “rule-book”. But when we play, it’s our own “rule-book” that's rules. ;)
My suggestion was only that maybe it’s not a so bad idea to make a version of the CAR who is sorted by the different figures and features as a quick reference guide when you play. It’s only a suggestion. Based on my own experience with our “rule-book”, which I wanted to share with you. :)
-
My answer's main point also wasn't to criticize your suggestion! I also think that it is good idea: to sort CAR by elements and if someone sometimes will do that, I will definitely use it!
My point was that in CAR we can find the answers almost at any question. We already had some discussion in different thread (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=932.0) - how clear and deep clarification should be. If we include into CAR every obvious question, CAR could grow to 1000 pages and more :)
-
My answer's main point also wasn't to criticize your suggestion! I also think that it is good idea: to sort CAR by elements and if someone sometimes will do that, I will definitely use it!
My point was that in CAR we can find the answers almost at any question. We already had some discussion in different thread (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=932.0) - how clear and deep clarification should be. If we include into CAR every obvious question, CAR could grow to 1000 pages and more :)
I totally agree with you. The way the CAR it organised it would be a gigantic document if it should include all. But our “rule-book” is only 53 pages, and it includes all the official expansions and quite a few of the fan made, and that's some of the fan expansion that has rather complicated rules. But of course it’s without the obvious rules that you learn wile playing with only the base game and I am sure that we have forgotten something. ???
I think you would manage to make a complete “quick guide” for the experienced player in less than 100 pages if it was sorted on figures, features and symbols.
I really don't want to offend someone, but you just have to cut what you don't need and only write:
- What it is
- How it works
- What you can do with it
- What you can’t do with it
- What affects it
- What don't affect it
… for each figure, feature and symbol with as few words as possible and no footnotes (they are in the CAR). I would be very surprised if you need more than one page for each - and maybe 2-3 pages for the end of the game with final scoring.
It’s just a suggestion and it will not exclude the CAR as we now it as the ultimate reference. It will just be quick guide when playing the game.
Maybe I will give it a try some time in the future. Then you can criticise me for my bad English and for what I missed to include. ;)
-
My compliments for the great document! I really like that you created something like fact sheets. One could create similar file cards. Oh, I like file cards! :D
In my mind, this is a great addition to the CAR! :(y)
-
I agree that having an "Element" CAR would sometimes be more useful. I think that's possible with the existing CAR though through a very simple expansion of the table of contents to include the specific playable elements within that table. Or, perhaps better, an element index on the last page of the document that has a hotlinked alphabetical listing of all the elements so players can just tap on it and go straight there. It may not be a perfect solution, but I think it would fix both issues.
I just have to point out here that there is an element table of contents in the current CAR, immediately after the main table of contents. That part doesn't have hyperlinks, but most pdf viewers will let you type in a page number to go directly to that page.
-
CAR is great as it is, albeit could use some sort of revamp. It's just that it's a lot of tedious work and for one man it's nearly impossible to do it in a year if you have other commitment.
When people find something unclear, it's always good to post on the forum and hopefully get an answer that might have been missed finding in the CAR, or maybe something is missing and we hopefully can update the CAR soon enough.
Remember to use the search function within the PDF as it helps a lot.
An element based could be useful, no doubt. Hopefully we can see one some day, maybe an interactive one.
One of my project was just this. A simple webpage you choose which expansions you play with and during game progress you only need to click on an element that exist in your current game and it shows every rule there is which correlate to those expansions / elements playing with.
Sadly, it was put on halt like much else Carcassonne for Winter is coming, or has come. :@ My big free time and little work literally gets reversed. :o
I wholeheartedly agree that the CAR needs an overhaul. It's quite cumbersome, and I feel that it could be streamlined. However, it's hard enough to keep up with all of the new expansions and clarifications without just about starting over from scratch. If HiG were willing to pay my salary, I could make it beautiful, but until then I still have to pay the bills... :)
Honestly, the format of the CAR is constrained a bit by using the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. If it became more of an "interpretive" document, intermingling the primary rules and clarifications in the main text, it probably wouldn't be so daunting. Of course, with too much poetic license, the document could lose its status as the official word, so there would be a fine line to walk.
-
A good example of a discussion we had recently is the “Monasteries and the Phanthon”. It’s not clearly stated if the Monastery are one feature that can only be occupied by a Monk or an Abbot, and not both at the same time (with the exception of the use of a Flier and maybe the Count) - or if the Monastery is “two features in one” (score differently at different times in the game - thus “two in one”). kettlefish cleared up the question with the Flier her on CarC, but a question that's awaits an answer, to my knowledge, is: Can you portal to a Monastery as a Monk if it’s already occupied by an Abbot (or the other way around)? If the answer to this is NO - I agree with you. But if the answer is YES - I don't. At this point we have agreed that the Monastery is one feature, as you do. But we are not sure. My girlfriend still argue that the Monastery is “two in one” because the flier can choose what to occupy, when it flies in (a Monk or a Abbot), when it’s already occupied. In her mind the flier can only occupy it as the same if its one feature (not “two in one”). I don't agree with her but… :-X
This one got quite a bit of debate on the forums. The new CAR will include the official ruling -- the Monastery is only a single feature (as you have thought); it just provides a choice to any legal occupant. A flier can legally land on an occupied structure, but a portal traveler cannot.
-
I wholeheartedly agree that the CAR needs an overhaul. It's quite cumbersome, and I feel that it could be streamlined. However, it's hard enough to keep up with all of the new expansions and clarifications without just about starting over from scratch. If HiG were willing to pay my salary, I could make it beautiful, but until then I still have to pay the bills... :)
Honestly, the format of the CAR is constrained a bit by using the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. If it became more of an "interpretive" document, intermingling the primary rules and clarifications in the main text, it probably wouldn't be so daunting. Of course, with too much poetic license, the document could lose its status as the official word, so there would be a fine line to walk.
I would like to thank you, obervet, for the amazing job you have done and do with the CAR - it’s our Bible. :(y)
I think its important to keep the CAR in the format it is, with the officially stated rules as the main text and all of the clarifications in footnotes. This is what gives it the status as the official word.
It would be nice to have a more streamlined document or a quick guide as an addition. But it will be worthless without the CAR, who reflects the history of what is the released rules and what is clarifications.
I am eagerly looking forward to the next edition :D
-
I agree that we must maintain the integrity of the CAR, so that people can be confident that it is the official rules. I also agree that there is some room for streamlining. The question is, how much streamlining?
If we're talking small improvements, I have a few ideas:
1. It's time to recognize that CK&C has replaced the individual minis. Let's merge the rules for each components of CK&C into the CK&C section, eliminate the sections for the corresponding minis, and add a footnote in the CK&C section explaining that the individual parts were previously released separately (including release chronology).
2. The rules and footnotes for the two monastery expansions are essentially the same, and if Devir and/or Z-Man release more next year we're going to see some serious rules bloat in the CAR if we continue as before. I think it would be better to group them all together as a single set of rules.
3. On a related note, I'm not sure that Crop Circles I and II should be separate, since the rules are the same.
4. I think the digital Winter Edition stuff needs to go live in the Winter CAR.
5. I think we could divide/eliminate the section for CS&C. The Cult rules would be in CK&C, and the Siege rules could go live on the Cathars page. May also be worthwhile to combine Cathars and Siege with Besiegers. Yes, they're slightly different, but I feel like they're too similar to be separate.
If we're talking large changes, I have an idea about that, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. What if the CAR was organized around order of play? The usefulness of this would be directly proportional to the number of expansions that you're playing with. For those playing with only a few expansions, there would be a LOT of information to skip over. Considering the number of expansions, it might make the CAR more difficult to read, but it could be easier to address the feature interactions. I'd be in favor of trying it out, but I defer to those who are more familiar with the rules than I am whether this is just a disaster waiting to happen.
-
I agree with Scott's suggestions 1-4. I wouldn't be against #5 either.
-
Yes, I would agree with 1-4 instantly. I'm neutral on #5. I'm not sure about lumping those particular expansions together.
-
I'm for 1-4. No 5 is a bit much, though. I like the element index in the new edition right after the Table of Contents. I think that is the best option here. Turn order doesn't bother me too much, usually.
-
I agree that we must maintain the integrity of the CAR, so that people can be confident that it is the official rules. I also agree that there is some room for streamlining. The question is, how much streamlining?
If we're talking small improvements, I have a few ideas:
1. It's time to recognize that CK&C has replaced the individual minis. Let's merge the rules for each components of CK&C into the CK&C section, eliminate the sections for the corresponding minis, and add a footnote in the CK&C section explaining that the individual parts were previously released separately (including release chronology).
2. The rules and footnotes for the two monastery expansions are essentially the same, and if Devir and/or Z-Man release more next year we're going to see some serious rules bloat in the CAR if we continue as before. I think it would be better to group them all together as a single set of rules.
3. On a related note, I'm not sure that Crop Circles I and II should be separate, since the rules are the same.
4. I think the digital Winter Edition stuff needs to go live in the Winter CAR.
5. I think we could divide/eliminate the section for CS&C. The Cult rules would be in CK&C, and the Siege rules could go live on the Cathars page. May also be worthwhile to combine Cathars and Siege with Besiegers. Yes, they're slightly different, but I feel like they're too similar to be separate.
If we're talking large changes, I have an idea about that, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. What if the CAR was organized around order of play? The usefulness of this would be directly proportional to the number of expansions that you're playing with. For those playing with only a few expansions, there would be a LOT of information to skip over. Considering the number of expansions, it might make the CAR more difficult to read, but it could be easier to address the feature interactions. I'd be in favor of trying it out, but I defer to those who are more familiar with the rules than I am whether this is just a disaster waiting to happen.
1. Agreed and already in the plans.
2. Agreed. Maybe I'll put these expansions under the heading "Monasteries of the World" or something to that effect.
3. I think I agree with this. The two sets came out at notably different times, but I think a consolidation is still warranted and won't be too confusing.
4. This one is a toughie. Since the release of the boxed Winter Edition, I haven't really felt comfortable with the digital version. I've kept it in the Standard CAR because the intent of the digital version was to print stickers and but them on your old tiles. The implication was that you'd put them on old standard tiles, so technically they would still be compatible with the normal set [insert jokes about Carc II artwork compatibility here]. Since it's not a boxed release, and it's somewhat obsolete with the boxed Winter Edition, I have half a mind to move it to the back of the Winter CAR as a historical oddity. Of course it's still available, so it's not technically a dinosaur, more like that weird uncle that nobody pays much attention to.
5. I feel like this might create more confusion than it's worth. A newcomer to the game may not realize that the Besiegers are functionally almost the same as the Cathars, so steering them to look in the right place may be more confusing than just leaving some things be.
As far as the large change, the Turn Order in the back sort of addresses the ordering of events, and I think that the rest would become too tough to follow. I feel like most people want to remember how a given expansion works when they add it to their game, so it's easier to turn to the pages for that expansion than to figure out what part of the turn sequence that expansion affects. This would get really messy if someone wanted to review the rules for Princess & Dragon, since those would be all over the place.
When I win the lottery and have more money and time than I know what to do with, I'll make a companion streamlined rules guide that does away with most footnotes and includes official clarifications in the main text. However, that will likely be after hell freezes over, thaws a bit, freezes again, gets even hotter than it was before, then finally gets down to absolute zero.
-
What is with the thoughts about a change of the arrangement of the rules.
The CAR has an arrangement when the expansions and minis have been published
(Carcassonne basic game, the river 1, 1st expansion - inns and cathedrals, 2nd expansion, 2nd Traders and Builders...)
I personally like the arrangement in categories like:
A Carcassonne
- Carcassonne - The basic game
- Carcassonne II - New Edition
B Great Expansions
- 1st expansion
- 2nd
- 3rd
...
C Mini Expansions
- The river
...
-
Kettlefish has a good suggestion here. The only problem is deciding what order to place the minis. Spielbox should all go at the end since HiG doesn't do FAQs for them usually (Cult and Halb so Wild excluded, of course). This could fix the Corn Circles I/II and Cathars/Siege/Besiegers problem by allowing them all to be in sequence with each other.
Also, I'd recommend calling The Monasteries expansion just that. I believe that is the intent behind the name. The components list can note the different versions as can the tile summary and historical sketches.
-
Kettlefish has a good suggestion here. The only problem is deciding what order to place the minis. Spielbox should all go at the end since HiG doesn't do FAQs for them usually (Cult and Halb so Wild excluded, of course). This could fix the Corn Circles I/II and Cathars/Siege/Besiegers problem by allowing them all to be in sequence with each other.
I agree with kettlefish's suggestion too. As for what order the minis could go in, perhaps in chronological order of release, but also grouping related expansions together so they aren't scattered? Not entirely sure of the exact way this would be formatted, but something like:
- The River (2001)
- The River II (2005)
- The River III (2014)
...
- The Cathars (2004)
- The Siege (2008)
- The Besiegers (2013)
Alternatively, perhaps all the small expansions could be organized in alphabetical order by the name of the expansion? Especially for newer folks, it might be easier to find things that way than by chronological order, and the chronological release list could just stay on as an extra reference page near the back?[/list]
-
Remember that River II will be with Expansion 6 now.
-
Example Crop Circles I and Crop Circles II:
here in this posting you can see how it looks in the actual CAR v 7.3:
The rules are the same, only the comments for the Crop Circles II and the footnotes at the last page are different.
-
Example Crop Circles I and Crop Circles II:
here in this posting you can see how it could look if we put both minis together as a combination:
The most changes are at the first and the last page. I used only 3 pages, perhaps to use 4 pages are more useful.
I put the differences of the minis in a frame.
-
As a relative newbie can I say the CAR is an incredibly useful resource.
I have printed and bound the sections relating to the expansions and minis we intend to collect, and ignored the sections we won't get (i.e. Catapult and Wheel of Fortune) or which have been put into the impossible to get category (i.e. Tunnels).
Initially we were using the rules which came with the game (mainly BB4 and Z-Man) and we were finding ourselves facing questions as we played. We soon realised that reading the CAR when the new element was introduced solved all of our questions before they were even asked.
Especially useful is these sections:-
Order of Play
Scoring During the Game
Scoring After the Game
Once we got a handle on it there are very few situations we come across which don't have answers.
Just putting this into the discussion as a perspective from someone who is new to the game.
-
I'm procrastinating, so here's my proposed expansion order:
Carcassonne (side note about CII)
Large:
1. Inns & Cathedrals
2. Traders & Builders
3. Princess & Dragon
4. Tower
5. Abbey & Mayor
6. Count, King & Cult (HiG/Spielbox/RGG for Cult)
7. Catapult
8. Bridges, Castles & Bazaars
9. Sheep & Hills
Wheel of Fortune (stand-alone/BB5)
Minis:
The River (original/BB5/CarcII or not)
Phantom
Flying Machine
Messengers
Ferries
Goldmines
Mage & Witch
Robber
Corn Circles I/II
Abbot (or not)
Promos:
Festival
School
Windroses (HiG/Spielbox)
Besiegers
Monasteries (German/Netherlandish)
Spiel 2014 (or not)
Half & Half I/II
Spielbox:
Cathars
Tunnel
Plague
Little Buildings
Distributor Specials:
Mini Expansion
Cult, Siege & Creativity
Darmstadt
La Porxada
I think one thing that can be done regarding Besigers/Cathars/Siege is to have separate pages for them but to just have a fairly simple reference back to the first instance of the expansion. Alternatively, have three pages that are identical except for the information at the top and the tile summary, though I feel this would be less helpful. I honestly don't even know if Cult, Siege & Creativity needs to be anything other than a footnote, though. If that went, Siege would be the only thing left for that expansion entry (since Creativity really doesn't seem as necessary now since blank tiles can be ordered en masse worldwide from Cundco).
Dump the reference to the original Winter Edition. It's not necessary and rather archaic, even if it still technically exists. I'd buy the new version any day before print-and-playing a copy on my own tiles. Move it to the Winter Edition CAR, if nothing else.
There's also the issue with The Abbot and Carc II. Currently I consider it personally a core component of a stand-alone spin-off of the base game. I hope we will find out soon what the company's intention is regarding Carc II.
-
Example Crop Circles I and Crop Circles II:
here in this posting you can see how it could look if we put both minis together as a combination:
The most changes are at the first and the last page.
In this example I used 4 pages.
I put the differences and some history of the minis in a frame.
-
Hi whaleyland,
you have an interesting idea how to splitt the minis.
But I am not sure if I can follow your "Promos".
The promos for me is only:
- The school (all money goes to the school project in Ghana)
- The Spiel'14 landscape tile
All the other minis are "Minis" in my opinion.
"Distributor Specials"
"La Porxada" is more a fan-expansion, because it was never sold and it was only a paper sheed, not a glued tile. The Spanish people printed only 72 pieces and then Klaus-Jürgen Wrede signed them. Some of the visitors got this tile at the convention in Spain.
-
kettlefish, I think you've got to let the La Porxada thing rest. Klaus Jürge-Wrede himself distributes copies of it – I have one. It may not be "official" but it's more official than any other fan expansion, there are levels of its officialness regarding distribution (does it have a signature on it or not), and it is currently included in the CAR (which is why I put it on my list). I know HiG doesn't recognize it as "official" but I don't think they recognize "Cult, Siege & Creativity" or "The Mini Expansion" as official either, even though those are printed as actual tiles.
Anyway, my justification for the promos is that those specific expansions were released under special circumstances or only through Cundco, conventions, and Carc-on-Tour. Perhaps "exclusive" would be a better term for them:
Festival (10th Anniversary & Cundco)
School (Cundco Only)
Windroses (HiG/Spielbox) (Cundco & Spielbox)
Besiegers (Müller Edition & Cundco)
Monasteries (German/Netherlandish)
Spiel 2014 (or not) (Spiel 2014 Only [unofficially Cundco])
Half & Half I/II (Cundco & Spielbox)
Every other expansion had some mass-market distribution method except Corn Circles I, which is saved from this list by being paired with Corn Circles II. Currently, The Abbot should go on this list, too, since it is an edition-special, but I stated earlier that I personally consider everything regarding CarcII as a stand-alone spin-off until we get word otherwise from HiG.
I hope that clarifies my justification for the Promo/Exclusive description. Perhaps it's too nebulous and all the minis should be merged together, but I wanted to separate them out in order of obtainability. These expansions are clearly harder to obtain on the open market than the ones above it on the list (Spielbox expansions notwithstanding).
-
kettlefish, I think you've got to let the La Porxada thing rest. Klaus Jürge-Wrede himself distributes copies of it – I have one. It may not be "official" but it's more official than any other fan expansion,...
I know how do you get one. >:D
-
Acknowledging that everybody has an organization scheme that would make sense to them, and knowing that I can't make everyone happy simultaneously, my thought was to divide the expansions:
1. Base Game (+ Carc 2.0, probably)
2. Major numbered expansions + Wheel of Fortune
3. Mini expansions (probably alphabetical)
To subdivide the minis further would only seem to make the scheme more complex, since we can't all agree on what makes a promo, etc. More importantly, though, the average user of the CAR (whoever that might actually be) shouldn't have to remember exactly what channel he or she got the expansion through just to find it in the table of contents.
Of course, based on that, you could argue that all expansions, large and small, should be in a single alphabetical list. To which I respond: yeah, maybe they should. However, since the large expansions are much more internationally available, the 1-2-3 division essentially works out:
1. Game for everyone
2. Add-ons for people who kind of like the base game
3. Add-ons for the more dedicated
(I know, the 6 minis/Big Box 4 kind of mess #3 up.)
-
You should also remember that not everyone who buys Carcassonne is as ... determined to have every aspect of every expansion.
For some of us we are happy with with one version of a siege etc.
Putting the set-up in the format above means the less obsessive Carcassonne player will usually look towards the front of the book.
As a aside - how do you get someone else's quote into your post - the blue sections.
Thanks
-
As a aside - how do you get someone else's quote into your post - the blue sections.
Thanks
There is a link that says Quote at the top right of each post. Just click it and the whole post will be quoted in your text box and then you can modify it as you wish (by removing certain sections etc). If you've already begun your reply, you can scroll down to see the previous posts and use the Insert Quote link at the top right of each one that you want to quote.
-
I think the 1, 2, 3 approach works and is simple enough. Do we want to focus on the rules? or every little aspect of publishing and distribution?
-
I know I'm kind of new around here... but I really like the 1.2.3. system obervet suggested. I consider myself to be a big fan of the game (all the major expansions + 80ish% of the little expansions) and I still sometimes find it confusing to know the differences between certain releases (with the siege, etc. being a great example).
Maybe on the numbered minis you could note them as this:
Abbot (or not)
Besiegers
Cathars
Cult, Siege & Creativity
Crop Circles I/II (mini 7)
Darmstadt
Ferries (mini 3)
Festival
Flying Machine (mini 1)
Goldmines (mini 4)
Half & Half I/II
La Porxada
Little Buildings
Mage & Witch (mini 5)
Mini Expansion <-- I believe this is referring to the 12-tiles expansion from Games Quarterly? Maybe it should have a new name to avoid confusion
Messengers (mini 2)
Monasteries (German/Netherlandish)
Phantom
Plague
The River (original/BB5/CarcII or not)
Robber (mini 6)
School
Spiel 2014 (or not)
Tunnel
Windroses (HiG/Spielbox)
Which also gives me the idea that all little expansions could have a note of where they originated from, just an idea.
Alternately, it could be listed as this, which would keep them together alphabetically:
Mini 1: Flying Machine (mini 1)
Mini 2: Messengers (mini 2)
Mini 3: Ferries (mini 3)
Mini 4: Goldmines (mini 4)
Mini 5: Mage & Witch (mini 5)
Mini 6: Robber (mini 6)
Mini 7: (optional/maybe just a note in the Crop Circles I/II section about how it was considered to be mini 7 and the tiles were dispersed across minis 1-6)
I also love the mock-up of Crop Circles I and II that kettlefish put together. It's super helpful for someone who is trying to figure out exactly what it is and provides all of the information in one place. Plus the tile distribution is great for knowing which Crop Circle set you have (something it took me a while to figure out back in the day).
-
Hi nanoanno,
I like your idea with the minis #1-7, because I know that HiG is thinking about to create one day the next series of minis. In the best case the next minis will start with #8.
-
Maybe on the numbered minis you could note them as this:
[Completely alphabetical]
Which also gives me the idea that all little expansions could have a note of where they originated from, just an idea.
Alternately, it could be listed as this, which would keep them together alphabetically:
Mini 1: Flying Machine (mini 1)
Mini 2: Messengers (mini 2)
Mini 3: Ferries (mini 3)
Mini 4: Goldmines (mini 4)
Mini 5: Mage & Witch (mini 5)
Mini 6: Robber (mini 6)
Mini 7: (optional/maybe just a note in the Crop Circles I/II section about how it was considered to be mini 7 and the tiles were dispersed across minis 1-6)
I have actually been going back and forth on which of these two approaches to take myself. Part of me wants to keep the 7 Minis together, but the other side of me says that their numbers are pretty arbitrary, and there's no real connection between the various sets (other than having a tile from Crop Circles II).
Oh, and to give credit where it's due, kettlefish posted basically the same 1-2-3 system before I did.
I also love the mock-up of Crop Circles I and II that kettlefish put together. It's super helpful for someone who is trying to figure out exactly what it is and provides all of the information in one place. Plus the tile distribution is great for knowing which Crop Circle set you have (something it took me a while to figure out back in the day).
I agree, the consolidation will help. Basically Crop Circles I/II and Cathars/Sieges/Besiegers will look more like the River I and Wind Roses sections do now, with little boxes separating out any differences between the sets and a multi-part tile guide at the end.
-
I also love the mock-up of Crop Circles I and II that kettlefish put together. It's super helpful for someone who is trying to figure out exactly what it is and provides all of the information in one place. Plus the tile distribution is great for knowing which Crop Circle set you have (something it took me a while to figure out back in the day).
I agree, the consolidation will help. Basically Crop Circles I/II and Cathars/Sieges/Besiegers will look more like the River I and Wind Roses sections do now, with little boxes separating out any differences between the sets and a multi-part tile guide at the end.
nice.
obervet,
do you need help with the consolidation of the other minis, or is it enough help with my example of the Crop Circles I + II?
-
I also love the mock-up of Crop Circles I and II that kettlefish put together. It's super helpful for someone who is trying to figure out exactly what it is and provides all of the information in one place. Plus the tile distribution is great for knowing which Crop Circle set you have (something it took me a while to figure out back in the day).
I agree, the consolidation will help. Basically Crop Circles I/II and Cathars/Sieges/Besiegers will look more like the River I and Wind Roses sections do now, with little boxes separating out any differences between the sets and a multi-part tile guide at the end.
nice.
obervet,
do you need help with the consolidation of the other minis, or is it enough help with my example of the Crop Circles I + II?
I can take it from here. Cut and Paste are two of my best friends, so this shouldn't be too bad.
-
Ok,
obervet, do you need some more historical and background information about the differences for some of the minis (Windroses I+II, Cathars/Sieges/Besiegers, Festival...) ?
-
I like some of Derek's ideas, but I agree with those who have commented on the difficulties. I don't think we'd reach a consensus, so let's focus on what we can agree on.
I think the following structure is best, and would be a significant improvement over the structure of version 7.3:
1. Base Game (+ Carc 2.0)
2. Major numbered expansions + Wheel of Fortune
3. Mini expansions (alphabetical)
I'm slightly inclined towards sorting the 6 or 7 minis alphabetically by name (no prefixes). Although they were numbered by the publishers, I'm concerned that the numbers could be confusing to newcomers.
I would support not having a separate page for CS&C. Cult is part of CK&C, Siege is similar enough to Cathars and Besiegers to include it on one of those pages, and Creativity is two blank tiles that have less value than the Spiel 2014 tile. However, if you guys would prefer to keep Siege/Cathars/Besiegers as three separate expansions, I'm ok with that too. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up revisiting this again in the future if HiG decides to make it part of a new large expansion.
Regarding the Abbot, the Carc2 rules already relegate the Abbot information to the supplement sheet along with the River and farm rules, so I don't think listing it separately in the CAR is an issue. For me, and others who have been playing this game since the beginning, the River expansion has a much stronger association with the base game, but I think we all agree that the River is rightfully in the mini-expansions section and not integrated into the base game rules in the CAR.
-
As an alternative for The River, it could be merged into King, Count & Cult with River II. Obviously we'd need to reference that fact, but it could work. More of the side-by-side solution proposed by Kettlefish regarding Corn Circles.
-
Ok,
obervet, do you need some more historical and background information about the differences for some of the minis (Windroses I+II, Cathars/Sieges/Besiegers, Festival...) ?
I think I have a pretty good idea of the pertinent historical info for the different sets. But if you have particularly interesting behind-the-scenes gossip, feel free to share. ;)
-
I'm slightly inclined towards sorting the 6 or 7 minis alphabetically by name (no prefixes). Although they were numbered by the publishers, I'm concerned that the numbers could be confusing to newcomers.
I'm leaning this way as well, for that exact reason. (The number will still be there, just after the name).
I would support not having a separate page for CS&C. Cult is part of CK&C, Siege is similar enough to Cathars and Besiegers to include it on one of those pages, and Creativity is two blank tiles that have less value than the Spiel 2014 tile. However, if you guys would prefer to keep Siege/Cathars/Besiegers as three separate expansions, I'm ok with that too. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up revisiting this again in the future if HiG decides to make it part of a new large expansion.
I think I would like to break up CS&C too. I might still give it a page with a single paragraph of explanation, but it may just depend on how everything looks when the dust settles. Cathars/Siege/Besiegers really should all go together in my mind.
Regarding the Abbot, the Carc2 rules already relegate the Abbot information to the supplement sheet along with the River and farm rules, so I don't think listing it separately in the CAR is an issue. For me, and others who have been playing this game since the beginning, the River expansion has a much stronger association with the base game, but I think we all agree that the River is rightfully in the mini-expansions section and not integrated into the base game rules in the CAR.
Agreed. Even when River I is included with the base game, the rules come on the last page, treating it as an expansion (or perhaps an inspansion, as a manufacturer that I can't remember has called them).
As an alternative for The River, it could be merged into King, Count & Cult with River II. Obviously we'd need to reference that fact, but it could work. More of the side-by-side solution proposed by Kettlefish regarding Corn Circles.
Although the rules are basically the same, I fear that the multiple versions of River I merged into River II might make this too confusing. I think I'd have to play around with the formatting to see if this would be workable or messy.
-
Will the Easter Bunny expansion be included in the CAR as it seems to be the most official fan expansion?
-
Will the Easter Bunny expansion be included in the CAR as it seems to be the most official fan expansion?
No. There's already enough dissent regarding the entry for La Porxada, an officially sanctioned unofficial expansion. I think that's more than enough unofficial expansions for the CAR.
-
No. There's already enough dissent regarding the entry for La Porxada, an officially sanctioned unofficial expansion. I think that's more than enough unofficial expansions for the CAR.
Plus Darmstadt is in the CAR as well. Which gives me yet another opportunity to express my annoyance with Darmstadt and its acceptance as basically official. :green-meeple:
-
Ok, so here's what i've put together based on the great work by Obervet.
I have put together a re-ordered CAR with a few extra diagrams for expansions like Shrines and Heretics and The Plague - hopefully to clear a few things up.
I have stripped out a lot so we're down to just the rules so there's no tile references or glossary.
One of the things I really wanted to make sure of was that it was something that was relatively easy to pick up for new players. As such I have controversially put the River expansion immediately after the base game rules. I know that this will cause some controversy but I feel that it makes finding the rules for new players much easier.
The order of the contents are this:
Base game
Carcassonne II
River
Major Expansions
Wheel of Fortune
Mini Expansions (alphabetical order - condensed Siege, no shrine as it's in the major expansion CKR, condensed Monasteries around the world)
Appendix - Playing Pieces reference & Scoring
Let me know what you think.
EDIT: Link removed until further clarifications and editing done.
-
One of the things I really wanted to make sure of was that it was something that was relatively easy to pick up for new players.
As a newer player I think this is a great document - it would be good to "field" test it to see if the answers the questions which come up during the game can be found.
I'd humbly like to suggest that the CAR section "Order of Play" might be re-included.
We found ourselves referring to that aspect on numerous occasions - especially when we began to learn the various extensions.
-
Agreed. We don't want to lose the Order of Play as a resource.
-
Hi Guy,
your itention of the 2nd version of the CAR has some interesting parts, but:
It is much work to make the correction reading for the CAR (author: obervet).
I have no time to check two different versions of the CAR.
I like it that you put the minis published in the 6th expansion in that section.
I still prefer to put the Minis 1-6(7) under the Numbers order than mixed with the other minis in alphabetical order.
As I have told here in this thread - the next series of minis #8-#... will come in one or two years (hopefully).
-
A few general thoughts about the new document:
Obviously it's a work in progress, but it will need a new name. CAR doesn't really fit because there's already a CAR, this document isn't as complete, and it's much less annotated.
I understand the utility of consolidation of the rules. However, some of the footnotes that have been left out and not incorporated in the text are some of the questions and clarifications that newer players have asked about on these forums. Thus, exclusion of some things may leave players back where we started before the days of the CAR.
On a similar tack, removing some of the notes about variation in rules between sets helps streamline the rules. But if a new player reads his or her ZMG rules and the new guide and sees that the rules (e.g. fairy rules) are different with no explanation about the discrepancy, that would be pretty confusing.
Finally, be careful about putting this out there with no attributions or copyright statements or anything. All of the rules and images belong to HiG, RGG, and ZMG. Many of the footnotes are the words of Georg Wild, kettlefish, and me. Regarding the Order of Play that others want, I myself spent hours reworking, rewording, and reconfiguring that to try to mesh with the current state of the rules (on the foundation of others, such as SkullOne).
As I've noted before, I think a streamlined document would be great. But it has to be done right, because ambiguities or contradictions between the two documents will not be good for growing our community.
-
Thanks for the feedback. Based on the comments that have been made I have removed the link until further edits have been done, primarily so there's no confusion for new players between versions.
I may make another edition of it (including re ordering the minis 1-6) if there is going to be a new set of minis in the future - which in itself is exciting news! - but as I don't want to create more work for kettlefish checking two versions of a rules document I may leave it to obervet.
-
a) New minis is wonderful news... I remember when they were first released in a local shop. It was truly what inspired me to really grow my Carc collection
b) Would it be too complicated/too much work to reference the CAR from this new document? I'm thinking for an explanation of the fairy rule changes. Maybe this new document would only contain the most current version of the rules with a note to reference the CAR for complete version history.
c) On that note, what about calling it the SAR (Simplified Annotated Rules)?
d) Complete personal opinion here, but I find the turn order information to be of great use. I believe this is one the most challenging aspects of mega-carc to grasp. So even if the full explanation isn't included in this new document, I think an abbreviated version would be extremely helpful (with reference to the CAR for full blown explanations and examples).
-
Princess, Mayor, and Wagon discussion split to new thread (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=1473.0).
-
While I'm in favor of trying different things, I'm feeling a bit concerned about having another rules document out in the wild. I recommend putting a statement towards the beginning to the effect that, if there are any discrepancies between the SAR and the CAR, the CAR takes precedence.
-
While I'm in favor of trying different things, I'm feeling a bit concerned about having another rules document out in the wild. I recommend putting a statement towards the beginning to the effect that, if there are any discrepancies between the SAR and the CAR, the CAR takes precedence.
Agreed. Before posting it, make sure to test things first, see if it's viable.
-
Maybe I've lost the original notion, but why are we talking about (and considering?) the creation of a new rules document?
-
Maybe I've lost the original notion, but why are we talking about (and considering?) the creation of a new rules document?
I've been waiting for someone to say this just to be sure that I wasn't the only one confused by the existence of this thread.
Personally, I think the CAR is perfectly fine the way it is.
-
Maybe I've lost the original notion, but why are we talking about (and considering?) the creation of a new rules document?
I've been waiting for someone to say this just to be sure that I wasn't the only one confused by the existence of this thread.
Personally, I think the CAR is perfectly fine the way it is.
I agree with this as well. Concern about players not knowing which expansion certain elements belong to is covered by the reference on pages 5-6 of the CAR.
The one thing I would like to see is some sort of online version of the CAR on something like a wiki. I think that might be nice and would also take care of the other major concern about easy accessibility on tablets. They aren't too intensive to set up, and if a CC admin were able to set up a wiki tied to the site, I would be happy to spearhead the project of creating an online version there. Or I could try to set up an offsite wiki that would be linked to from here. But I'll wait and see what other folks think before going crazy on that. :)
-
I love wikis and have been editing Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, the Lord of the Rings wiki, and others for years. That being said, I'd argue against an open-access wiki site and strongly suggest an in-house wiki that can only be edited by administrators. This level of access doesn't seem to be allowed on servers like Wikia, which runs both of the fan sites above. I think the idea of a wiki is a good one, though, and it could easily be expanded to include things like fan expansions, strategy, and general game information. It just can't be open to the public for editing. Perhaps someone could find out what the comically restricted http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) uses. Is it ironic that a "conservative" site locks its user access? I think yes.
:(y) :(y) :(y)
Also, I haven't had any problem accessing and using the CAR from my iPad 2. The size is right and everything feels about right. Turning it into a different type of document designed specifically for an iPad or other tablet would require a lot more work because of all the images. I know, because I have been writing a 300+ history ebook for the past year and I can't distribute it on the App Store or Amazon because it doesn't lend itself to their store formats. If someone wants to try converting it, I'd suggest get the iBooks Author app (it's free!) and tinker with that some. Otherwise, I think a .pdf is the best way to go forward, though the page dimensions could be reduced in size for better use on smaller screens.
-
I love wikis and have been editing Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, the Lord of the Rings wiki, and others for years. That being said, I'd argue against an open-access wiki site and strongly suggest an in-house wiki that can only be edited by administrators. This level of access doesn't seem to be allowed on servers like Wikia, which runs both of the fan sites above. I think the idea of a wiki is a good one, though, and it could easily be expanded to include things like fan expansions, strategy, and general game information. It just can't be open to the public for editing.
:(y) :(y) :(y)
Totally agree on this, and should have made that clear. I think it should be a restricted wiki for sure; open only to registered users or a subset thereof for editing and open to the public for viewing. MediaWiki has a good slate of access controls.
-
I'm not seeing what advantage the wiki offers other than being a web site rather than a PDF file. The CAR works fine in iBooks, Adobe Reader, or whatever app you want to use for PDF files. The analogy of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail is coming to my mind right now. I'm going to tell you guys the same thing I tell my co-workers: let's discuss the problems and determine the correct solution from that.
-
One advantage of a wiki I can think of right off the top of my head is that it will increase visibility dramatically. Most wikis get indexed by Google and each individual page gets its own indexed entry, so if somebody looks up "Inns & Cathedrals" they would get Board Game Geek, a few stores, and potentially our wiki. Right now, I don't see that being the case. Having the guide spread out in such a manner will provide an extremely easy to search database that is quick to update, doesn't require intense formatting, and extremely accessible. I think these are all positives for a Carcassonne wiki. Granted, I tried making one for Catan years ago and it is still languishing, but part of the reason for that is that I lost heart in its design. Initially, the wiki needs to have dedicated people willing to dissect the CAR and format it consistently throughout the week in an extremely small period of time.
-
+1 to whaleyland's comments. From a convenience perspective, a wiki makes it really easy to jump around to various sections without having to scroll through or jumping back to the table of contents to find the page you need and then jumping forward again. If the internal links are set up well, I think that a wiki could be very easy for new and veteran players to navigate. And at 300+ pages, I think the major drawback of the CAR is indeed that it is very cumbersome.
Another huge advantage? The CAR can be updated constantly as we learn of new clarifications and make minor changes to the text, without the need to wait for enough content to bulk up for a major release. I've seen a few posts from obervet recently where he's remarked on changing the language of a sentence or adding a new clarification in the next version of the CAR. Why wait for S-CAR 7.4? Post it now on the wiki, and then have the regular PDF releases with more bulk updates for the folks who prefer a "hard copy".
I don't think this should be structured as an either/or thing, and I sort of feel from your comments Scott that that's how you might be interpreting it? I don't at all think a wiki should replace the PDF version of the CAR, but rather act as a companion document more tailored to people who prefer that style of navigation. For example, if I was playing at a friend's house and needed a rules clarification, I'd have a much happier and easier time navigating through a wiki than trying to scroll through a 300+ page document on my tiny cell phone.
-
The thought hadn't really crossed my mind that this was an either/or thing. I see it as a companion, and because of that we need to think through how the process of keeping the two of them synchronized is going to work. What I'm thinking right now, based on your latest comments, is that the wiki would probably need to become the authoritative "document", as it would be kept up-to-date constantly. The PDF releases would continue to occur on a regular cycle, which could then be printed and inserted into a binder, or saved to your tablet for situations where you don't have Internet access.
As such, I think it would be best to pull together a small group of 2-4 people to initially load up the wiki, get some people to proofread and offer feedback, and then Obervet would become solely in charge of editing, so that he can keep track of what needs to be changed in the next PDF release. I don't want to make his life difficult by having multiple people editing the wiki. If there was a way to have separate permissions for the Talk pages, that might be helpful for keeping track of questions and answers with the publisher.
-
I don't help here with the Wiki. I have enough work to do with the CAR and the projects from HiG.
The CAR is our Carcassonne "bible". Even HiG accepted this document. For the document of the CAR we are allowed to use the original graphics of landscape tiles.
-
That is a good point, kettlefish. The wiki may not at least initially be able to use the images from the printed rules. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, though. In-house graphics could end up being better in the long run. I've never personally been impressed with some of the Carcassonne rules graphics. Combined with the captions, they are not always easy to understand.
-
What I'm thinking right now, based on your latest comments, is that the wiki would probably need to become the authoritative "document", as it would be kept up-to-date constantly. The PDF releases would continue to occur on a regular cycle, which could then be printed and inserted into a binder, or saved to your tablet for situations where you don't have Internet access.
As such, I think it would be best to pull together a small group of 2-4 people to initially load up the wiki, get some people to proofread and offer feedback, and then Obervet would become solely in charge of editing, so that he can keep track of what needs to be changed in the next PDF release. I don't want to make his life difficult by having multiple people editing the wiki. If there was a way to have separate permissions for the Talk pages, that might be helpful for keeping track of questions and answers with the publisher.
I suppose that is my train of thought, yes. I know I'd be more than happy to help with a migration to the wiki. As for the updating, I'd certainly want to get obervet's opinion on all of this before asking him to take on any additional work. I'm sure it's plenty of work just managing the CAR as it is. With respect to permissions, I think all registered users should have the edit permission (so they can make talk edits), but the main article pages should be protected, so that only the designated individuals can edit them. I know that MediaWiki allows for permissions like that.
That is a good point, kettlefish. The wiki may not at least initially be able to use the images from the printed rules. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, though. In-house graphics could end up being better in the long run. I've never personally been impressed with some of the Carcassonne rules graphics. Combined with the captions, they are not always easy to understand.
While I think there's a lot of value in the originals, I think updated images prepared in-house would be excellent, if we don't get permission to use them. I'd of course recommend water-marking any in-house images, but that's many steps down a still-hypothetical road.
-
Remember that the copyright for the artwork on all of the tiles still belongs to HiG. Thus, even if we make our own example pictures, ultimately the publisher has to be on board with it.
Likewise for publication of the rules. They own the copyright to the rules text, so we can't go copy-pasting any of that onto a website/wiki/blog without the okay of HiG.
-
Remember that the copyright for the artwork on all of the tiles still belongs to HiG. Thus, even if we make our own example pictures, ultimately the publisher has to be on board with it.
Likewise for publication of the rules. They own the copyright to the rules text, so we can't go copy-pasting any of that onto a website/wiki/blog without the okay of HiG.
This is true on both fronts. I hope that if this gets moved forward they would be open to it, seeing as the CAR is, among many other things, also a compendium of the published rulebooks and is a freely-accessible download and many of the distributors also post the rulebooks online for free.
-
I kind of doubt they'll care, but we may have to take a wait and see approach. Has anyone contacted Hans im Gluck yet and asked if such an idea would be allowed? We'd need the right to publish the rules in a different format and a right to either use the images from the books or create our own using the tile art and wooden bits.
-
The examples in the CAR match the original rules because the CAR is a translation of them. Having different examples would make the perceptibly CAR different from the original rules. Adding more examples would be ok though.
I know that some of you, particularly DLloyd09, are excited about this idea, but as Derek and Chris have mentioned, we need to think through the ramifications and make sure that the publisher is on board.
-
While I am quite enthusiastic about it, I totally agree that if this is to be done, it needs to be done right.