Carcassonne Central
Carc Central Community => Official Rules => Topic started by: chrismalenurse on December 12, 2013, 12:29:00 PM
-
Even after reading the Complete Annotated Rules, I still am confused about this.....
My question is about scoring for "Famine".
Is the player with a farmer in a field, that has the majority in that field, the ONLY player that gets to claim the points for that field?
For example if Green has 2 farmers in a field with 3 completed cities and Red has one farmer in the same field, when the pig lands on "famine" does Green score 6 points and Red score 3, or does Green score 6 and Red score nothing?
-
Is the player with a farmer in a field, that has the majority in that field, the ONLY player that gets to claim the points for that field?
Yes. Refer to footnote 310 (page 95) that clarifies this. It indicates that ownership is determine as though it were game end. So only the majority holder scores any points.
Rule text:
"Famine - For each of his or her farmers,308 every player receives 1 point for every
completed city adjacent to his or her farm (in the same way as farms
are scored during final scoring).309 310"
The text "his or her farm" is an indication of ownership. The text inside the parenthesis indicates how to determine the ownership.
"310 The text outside the parentheses is correct - each farmer scores 1 point for each completed
city adjacent to the farm. The portion inside parentheses indicates that only a player with a majority
on the farm is allowed to score the points. Additionally, additional bonus points for pig, pig herd, or
castle are also given, as at the end of the game. (confirmed 5/2013)"
Hope this helps!
Welcome to the CarcC Forum!
-
I have to agree that this is a confusing rule. I kind of wish that they had just put the word "majority" in the text from the beginning, since I think that would have made it a lot clearer.
-
Helps a lot, thank you.
I was reading the phrase "his or her farm" as a general statement for everyone's farms, not as an indication of ownership as I should have been. Again, thank you for the clarification.