Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cicerunner

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
1
On this page:
https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Icons

The final paragraph reads as follows:
Quote
Old rule which is not valid yet, because was changed or removed from newer editions or releases.

If I have understood the intent correctly, I would suggest rewording this as follows:
Quote
Older rules which are no longer valid because they were changed or removed in later editions or releases.

2
On this page: https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Scoring:_A_Historical_Perspective_(1st_edition)

The first diagram is labelled "1st score, 2nd score, 3rd score". For consistency with the main text it should be labelled, "1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition".

Well, when usually C2 is marked as 2nd edition and C3 as 3rd edition of Carcassonne, then it will be better to name as 1st version rules, 2nd version rules and 3rd version rules.

It better than confusing 1st edition rules of 1st edition of Carcassonne, 2nd edition rules of 1st edition of Carcassonne, etc.

This have no impact to Editions (C1/C2/C3), but to rules adaptation in specific Cx edition.
I'm not really following ... If there is a better wording than the one I suggested, I am completely happy to be corrected and see that implemented. The current wording definitely does need changing though, so that the main body of the text and the diagram labels are consistent.

3
On this page: https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Scoring:_A_Historical_Perspective_(1st_edition)

The first diagram is labelled "1st score, 2nd score, 3rd score". For consistency with the main text it should be labelled, "1st edition, 2nd edition, 3rd edition".

4
Re, "What do you think?"
Yes, all the updates look good to me as implemented. :)

5
A suggestion re this page:
https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Count,_King_and_Robber#River_II

These sentences:
Even if you complete more than one feature at the same time, you may not receive any points for any of them, so you can use this option. You may place a maximum of one meeple in the city of Carcassonne per turn. [5]

You can only place your Abbot in the cathedral in Carcassonne. [6]


Could possibly be better as:
To use this option when you complete multiple features at the same time, you must not gain points for any of them. You may place a maximum of one meeple in the city of Carcassonne per turn. [5]

In the city of Carcassonne, you can only place your Abbot in the cathedral. [6]

6
A suggestion re this page:
https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Count,_King_and_Robber#General_info_and_comments

This sentence:
This page contains all the information for this major expansion but the River II, that is described on a separate page dedicated to the New Edition River expansions.


Could perhaps be better as:
This page contains all the information for this major expansion except the River II, which is described on the separate River page.
(where the underlining indicates a hyperlink to that page - https://wikicarpedia.com/car/River)

7
News and Events / Re: New releases announced for Essen onwards
« on: November 02, 2023, 11:31:35 AM »
That's exactly what I was after Meepledrone. Thank you.

Unfortunately I remember now why I haven't ordered from cundco since 2020 - non EU shipping!  ::)

8
News and Events / Re: New releases announced for Essen onwards
« on: November 02, 2023, 08:05:15 AM »
Question: is there anything that distinguishes the Spiel 23 tile as C3 over C2? No clipped buildings that I can see ...

Question: As a C2 only player what could I order from cundco to complete my Spiel 23 tile order? I'm in your hands ...

9
This page - https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Count,_King_and_Robber - includes the text, "Closing a city with trade goods is not does not stop you from sending a meeple to the city of Carcassonne."
The words emphasised in bold by me should be deleted.

10
On this page - https://wikicarpedia.com/car/Scoring:_A_Historical_Perspective_(1st_edition) - in the first section "A Brief History of Farmers" there is a tile illustration with three text boxes headed "first score", "second score" and "third score". In the first two the word "even" should be replaced with "even though".

12
General / Re: Does Anyone Play with Shrines?
« on: October 31, 2022, 04:55:57 PM »
Another +1 merit. Thank you for a great post.

I have a feeling that expansion 10 is pretty cloister positive. The ringmaster as a monk with plenty of circus field and acrobat pitches nearby would score well. Likewise circus scorings with monks nearby would enhance them.

Also acrobat pyramids alongside cloisters would further enhance the benefit of playing further tiles in the area (albeit with a similar risk to playing multiple adjacent cloisters).

I don't remember if there are any cloisters in the #10 tileset offhand. Possibly not?
This all off the top of my head, I'd be interested in the full DIN0 analysis of course!

Edit Wikicarpedia confirms no cloisters on the 20 tiles but 2 gardens. But of course C2 only which explains why DIN0 didn't include it.

13
General / Re: Do you use house rules?
« on: October 06, 2022, 12:35:58 PM »
+1 merit to ny1050220 for nerd mode calculations - beautiful stuff!!

Also +1 merit to DIN0 because I got confused and clicked the wrong person!

14
General / Re: Do you use house rules?
« on: October 05, 2022, 04:45:52 AM »
Nearly never. I think the only house rule I ever use is to use Abbeys as a handicap. Eg I might give my youngest daughter 2 Abbeys, my wife and elder daughter 1 and myself 0.

15
General / Beseigers in C2.0 - zero chance?
« on: September 13, 2022, 09:48:02 AM »
If cundco didn't get around to releasing C2 versions of some C1 expansions, they're never going to get around to it now are they? What with the 'beautiful, shiny, new' abomination that is C3 ...

So, in particular, would you agree that there is now zero chance of a C2 Besiegers? <sheds tear>

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13