CAR 6.4 - Mage and Witch Wording

[rfielder]

On page 142 of the CAR 6.4, last paragraph, it states:

" If the Mage or the Witch is already on a land tile, the player must move one to a different tile."  (emphasis mine)

On the same page, footnote 415 states:

"2) If both figures are in play, the player moves one of the figures to a different feature." (emphasis mine)

There is a huge difference in moving to a different tile vs moving to a different feature.  For example, if my opponent is building a city with a cathedral and I put the witch on it, moving the witch to a different tile means I can keep the witch on the same city.  Moving to a different feature means removing the witch from the city.

I am sure the rules should state feature.  However, the wording creates a bit of a discrepancy, of the sort that could lead to much discussion.   

I ran into this while reading the Mage and Witch rules to see if we wanted to start using this miniexpansion.  My partner is very sure that moving one of them means moving to a different feature, and I have to agree with her. 

Linkback: https://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=693.0

[Fritz_Spinne]

Indeed - in the german rules there is: place it on any street section or city section - but also place it on another tile. It's not mentioned that you have to take another street or city ...

[SRBO]

and they can never be both in the same feature.

[Carcking]

The English copy of the rules that I have says to move it to another tile. There is no mention of another feature.

(blue dog)

[rfielder]

The English copy of the rules that I have says to move it to another tile. There is no mention of another feature.

How do we get a final decision on this?  Who is the final authority on a expansion like this?

[Carcking]

I dare say that obervet will find this and review it. He is quite diligent. If it's a simple matter that he erred in his transcription of the rule to the CAR he will likely correct it. If he believes there is a discrepancy he will seek clarification with HiG.

The (blue dog) is a search key that he sometimes uses to find critical rules and CAR questions.

[Paul]

I must admit I had to read the CAR 6.4 three times before I got the hang of it. Already knowing the rules it got a bit fuzzy when I started reading it again. 

First off, your post lists partials of the CAR 6.4 rules which inadvertently confuses readers (including me, laugh).
  However, if you read the entire rule section in one full sweep, it will become a lot clearer.

Here follows the reasoning:

Partial quote from CAR 6.4: If the Mage or the Witch is already on a land tile, the player must move one to a different tile. 415

Note the referral to 415 at the end of that sentence.

Partial referrall 415 note: 415  2) If both figures are in play, the player moves one of the figures to a different feature.

Conclusion: The Mage or the Witch must move to another tile, which is explained further in 415 note that is has to be a tile that is not on the same feature it was moved from.

Hope this helps! 

[rfielder]

First off, your post lists partials of the CAR 6.4 rules which inadvertently confuses readers (including me, laugh).

I included both the rules text, and the text of the footnote, in the original message.  That was the point of this discussion - the difference between the rules and the addendum.

The rules say one thing.  The footnote, which is added as part of the CAR, says something a little different.  The footnote does not show a reference or a reason for the different wording.  The difference could make a significant difference in how the game plays.

Some users here have quite correctly quoted the rules only - e.g. see reply #3 by Carcking.

If we have time for a game tonight, I am going to add this miniexpansion, and use the rules as found in the CAR 6.4, including the footnote.  I just think this could use a bit more clarification.  After all, when playing with your significant other or only close friends, this may not matter, but if you play with strangers or in a tournament, clarity is to be desired.

[Carcking]

Here is the relevant part of the paragraph from the CAR 6.4, page 142:

"Before placing a follower, the player must place or move the Mage or the
Witch character. The player places one of the two characters on any segment
of an unfinished city or on any section of an unfinished road (which does
not have to be on the tile that was just placed). The Mage and the Witch may
not be placed on the same road or the same city. If the Mage or the Witch is already on a
land tile, the player must move one to a different tile. 415 After that, the active player can
place a follower as normal."

In my mind the fourth sentence would be better worded as follows:

"If the Mage or and the Witch is are already on a land tiles, the player must move one to a different tile."


Also, for consistency, option 2) in the footnote 415 would be better worded:

"If both figures are in play, the player moves one of the figures to a different feature tile."

[Scott]

In my mind the fourth sentence would be better worded as follows:

"If the Mage or and the Witch is are already on a land tiles, the player must move one to a different tile."

I agree with this; in fact, I insist on it for English grammatical purposes.

[rfielder]

"If both figures are in play, the player moves one of the figures to a different feature tile."

I find that describing a scenario can help me understand.

With the above change, it would mean that I could move the witch from one tile to another within the same feature. For example:

My partner and I are playing a two player game of Carcassonne.  She is building a city with the Cathedral, and is almost finished.  I pull a M&W tile, and put the witch on her Cathedral tile.

She plays, pulls a tile, and plays it elsewhere.  The Cathdral city remains unfinished.

With the wording above: I play, and pull another M&W tile.  The Mage is on a feature I am building, so I don't want to touch it - the Mage is going to give me lots of extra point.  Therefore, I then move the witch from one tile to another within the same cathedral city.

Are we sure this is what we want?  Seems kind of pointless to move the witch or the mage, if the move keeps them within the same feature. Why bother being required to move them at all?

I am not trying to state my opinion of how the game should be played.  I am trying to understand the intent of the rule.  The goal is to follow the original rules, IMHO, unless those rules leave the situation muddy.

[Scott]

I agree with Carcking that the footnote and rule should be consistent, but I also agree with rfielder that the intent is to have the mage and witch move to different features, not different tiles of the same feature. I'll inform Kettlefish so that she can ask HiG.

[Carcking]

The English rules do not state that the figure has to move to a different feature, although I would agree it would make for better game play and should be the intent. If HiG states now that that is the intent then it is the case that the English rules (and perhaps the original Geman) sorely missed that point.

[Paul]

The English rules do not state that the figure has to move to a different feature, although I would agree it would make for better game play and should be the intent. If HiG states now that that is the intent then it is the case that the English rules (and perhaps the original Geman) sorely missed that point.

I agree. Our games here has always had it moved to another feature, despite the Swedish rules that doesn't even mention features at all. Just one sentence move it to another tile which I find pointless.

[obervet]

The precise meaning of this Mage and Witch rule has been questioned a couple of times, largely because of the actual wording across languages. Regarding grammar, I agree with Carking and Scott that the change from "or" to "and" would be better. Unfortunately, that's not exactly what the rule is stating. The wording change would require both to be in play before one could move to a different tile/feature, but the intent of the rule is that one can be moved to a different tile/feature even if it's the only one in play. This would have been much clearer with an additional sentence in the rules; I suspect the rules writers were running out of space.

As far as tile vs. feature -- I screwed that one up. All of the original rules themselves state to move to a different tile, implying that you could still put the Mage or Witch into the same feature that it was already in. The word "feature" only sneaked in with that footnote, and that was my mistake as I paraphrased kettlefish's response from HiG. Obviously, I'll correct that for the next CAR.

So, in short, the Mage and Witch can be moved to a different tile, and there is no specific regard to feature in the rules. Of course, I don't know HiG's intent, so further clarification wouldn't hurt....