Author Topic: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification  (Read 6124 times)

Offline MrNumbers

  • Global Moderator
  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1828
  • Merit: 91
    • View Profile
    • Carcassonne Latvia
Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« on: November 02, 2014, 08:21:56 AM »
One more rule clarification that needs to be fixed in JCZ:
Removing a follower from a city with the help of Princess doesn't allow to place a Phantom (not only in that city - nowhere). Proof - CAR 7.0.2 p.125, note 386.

Linkback: http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=1214.0
"I never lose. Either I win or I learn." (Nelson Mandela)

Offline Rosco

  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1551
  • Merit: 39
  • Racing, and playing hard!
    • View Profile
Re: Princess&lt;--&gt;Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2014, 08:35:58 AM »
Really???? Why not??  First move the wood is princess then second is place phantom.   
Just lay the damn tile!

Offline MrNumbers

  • Global Moderator
  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1828
  • Merit: 91
    • View Profile
    • Carcassonne Latvia
Re: Princess&lt;--&gt;Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2014, 09:12:14 AM »
Really???? Why not??  First move the wood is princess then second is place phantom.

I can only quote note 386:
Quote
The placement of a princess tile (Princess & Dragon) with removal of a knight from the city cannot be used as a first “follower move” and be followed by placement of the Phantom (e.g. into the now-vacated city). As per the rules for the princess, “if a knight is removed from the city, the player may not deploy or move any other figure.”

Offline farin

  • Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • Merit: 41
  • JCloisterZone maintainer
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2014, 09:34:57 AM »
Interesting, I didn't know this rule before, but you are right.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 10:14:50 AM by farin »

Offline farin

  • Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • Merit: 41
  • JCloisterZone maintainer
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2014, 12:29:33 PM »
ok changed in 3.0.2 and released today

Offline danisthirty

  • (well, 39 actually)
  • Administrator
  • Chatelain Grand Officier
  • *
  • Posts: 6446
  • Merit: 239
  • "First to 4 points wins?"
    • View Profile
Re: Princess&lt;--&gt;Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2014, 09:09:43 AM »
Really???? Why not??  First move the wood is princess then second is place phantom.

I can only quote note 386:
Quote
The placement of a princess tile (Princess & Dragon) with removal of a knight from the city cannot be used as a first “follower move” and be followed by placement of the Phantom (e.g. into the now-vacated city). As per the rules for the princess, “if a knight is removed from the city, the player may not deploy or move any other figure.”

Is this something that HiG has been asked directly? It doesn't quite "feel" like it's in keeping with the rest of the rules to me, and sounds more like something that's been written without taking The Phantom into consideration. Is there anyone this could be double-checked with?
Heroically snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 2018

Offline rfielder

  • Marquis
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Merit: 10
  • Carcassonne Beginner
    • View Profile
    • Cool Country Nights
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2014, 09:13:12 AM »
Is this something that HiG has been asked directly? It doesn't quite "feel" like it's in keeping with the rest of the rules to me, and sounds more like something that's been written without taking The Phantom into consideration. Is there anyone this could be double-checked with?
I agree with Mr. Thirsty.  This discussion should be replicated in the Rules discussion, as a query to the gods of Carcassonne.

Using the Princess means moving wood.  In all other cases, you move wood, then place the phantom.  That is consistent, as far as I know.

The idea that maybe the rules for the Princess were written before the introduction may be valid - can anyone comment on this timing?
Robert Fielder
Brampton, Ontario, Canada  EST

Offline MrNumbers

  • Global Moderator
  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1828
  • Merit: 91
    • View Profile
    • Carcassonne Latvia
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2014, 11:15:01 AM »
As far as I am aware, the special "open book" symbol in CAR means that this information is official and comes directly from HiG. Note 386 has that special symbol. That is why I don't doubt it.

Offline farin

  • Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • Merit: 41
  • JCloisterZone maintainer
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2014, 11:35:25 AM »
It's exception in rules but makes sense. Princess was released before Phantom and there was no option to claim emptied city immediately.
With phantom it is too strong withiut restriction. It would mean that you can take control of any city immediatelly without any effort.

Offline danisthirty

  • (well, 39 actually)
  • Administrator
  • Chatelain Grand Officier
  • *
  • Posts: 6446
  • Merit: 239
  • "First to 4 points wins?"
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2014, 11:44:50 AM »
It would mean that you can take control of any city immediatelly without any effort.

That's why I liked it (as long as it doesn't happen to me)!  >:D Oh well, if it's something that has been decided rather than assumed then I'm happy to go along with it.

Offline rfielder

  • Marquis
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Merit: 10
  • Carcassonne Beginner
    • View Profile
    • Cool Country Nights
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2014, 11:53:37 AM »
As far as I am aware, the special "open book" symbol in CAR means that this information is official and comes directly from HiG. Note 386 has that special symbol. That is why I don't doubt it.
I would suggest that an official ruling on this be requested.  You are correct that this discussion is based on a direct quote from the official rules.

My reason - the quoted portion of the CAR is quoting a section of the rules for the Princess.  If the rules for the Princess were written before the concept of the Phantom was executed, then that section needs to be modified, or clarified.

The quote from the CAR is:
Quote
As per the rules for the princess, “if a knight is removed from the city, the
player may not deploy or move any other figure.”

First point - that is an incomplete quote from the rules.  The full quote from page 57 of the CAR is:
Quote
If a knight is removed from the city, the player may not deploy or move any other figure (including follower, builder, pig, mayor, barn, wagon, or fairy)

As you can see, they list the items that could not be moved after the knight was removed.  The Phantom is not included in this list.

That rules makes sense for a game without the Phantom.  What they are saying is that removing the knight is the move wood turn.  My argument is that this created one exception to the rules for the Phantom - a rule that is consistent in every other situation.  Why would such an exception be needed?  Yes, it is very powerful to take a city after removing the opponent's knight on the same move - but so is capturing two cities on the same move, which is also possible with the Phantom.  Or capturing a city and a far, or a road and a farm, etc, etc.

The Phantom introduces some game changing possibilities.  Kicking you off then taking your city fits within the philosophy behind the Phantom, as far as I can see.

If this truly excludes the use of the Phantom, then I think the official rules should be updated to have a statement something like "or move any other figure (including follower, builder, pig, mayor, barn, wagon, fairy, or phantom)." (emphasis mine)

I will post a query in the Official Rules section.

Offline danisthirty

  • (well, 39 actually)
  • Administrator
  • Chatelain Grand Officier
  • *
  • Posts: 6446
  • Merit: 239
  • "First to 4 points wins?"
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2014, 07:16:03 AM »
Just another thought regarding this. It was mentioned that you shouldn’t be able to remove a knight with a princess and then claim the empty city with your phantom on the same turn because of how damaging this could be in terms of upsetting the balance of power. But you can do exactly the same thing with a tower (as far as I can tell) so I can’t see why this should be any different...
« Last Edit: November 04, 2014, 07:17:54 AM by danisthirty »

Offline jungleboy

  • Viscount Chevalier
  • ****
  • Posts: 3025
  • Merit: 89
  • Nine points!
    • View Profile
    • English in 10 Minutes
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2014, 07:39:43 AM »
So, danisthirty, what you're saying is that the Phantom unnecessarily complicates the game and we shouldn't use it ever again. OK, got it.

Offline Rosco

  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1551
  • Merit: 39
  • Racing, and playing hard!
    • View Profile
Re: Princess&lt;--&gt;Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2014, 12:04:27 PM »
THE PHANTOM IS THE BEST PART OF THE GAME!!!

Offline Darwin

  • Duke
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Merit: 17
    • View Profile
Re: Princess<-->Phantom rule clarification
« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2014, 12:18:02 PM »
Just another thought regarding this. It was mentioned that you shouldn’t be able to remove a knight with a princess and then claim the empty city with your phantom on the same turn because of how damaging this could be in terms of upsetting the balance of power. But you can do exactly the same thing with a tower (as far as I can tell) so I can’t see why this should be any different...

But it is a difference!!!  C:-)

Se page 125, note 386 in the CAR:
The placement of a princess tile (Princess & Dragon) with removal of a knight from the city cannot be used as a first “follower move” and be followed by placement of the Phantom (e.g. into the now-vacated city). As per the rules for the princess, “if a knight is removed from the city, the player may not deploy or move any other figure.”

I think this sounds right. It’s enough that you can take the city with a tower and then the phantom. It would be too easy if you could use the princess the same way.  :meeple:


Share via delicious Share via digg Share via facebook Share via furl Share via linkedin Share via myspace Share via reddit Share via stumble Share via technorati Share via twitter

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
xx
watchtowers question/rule clarification...

Started by robnhill

4 Replies
1435 Views
Last post February 01, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
by GeorG
xx
Rule Clarification - Gold Mine

Started by Allan in Brisbane

4 Replies
1945 Views
Last post November 28, 2014, 01:32:13 AM
by Allan in Brisbane
xx
Mage and Witch rule clarification

Started by TimBoPavey

2 Replies
1409 Views
Last post January 29, 2015, 07:07:43 AM
by TimBoPavey
xx
Cathars/Besiegers rule clarification

Started by MrNumbers

7 Replies
2500 Views
Last post November 15, 2014, 11:16:53 PM
by danisthirty
xx
The Princess and the Phantom

Started by rfielder

1 Replies
1262 Views
Last post November 07, 2014, 12:03:50 PM
by obervet