Base Game - Table edges

[Bumsakalaka]

As we play Slovak Championship this year with rules. Table is edges which disallows to enlarge features and it not possible to move tiles on table to make more space there. It was just limit to speed up game due to limit 30 min per match.

Odoslané z SM-A202F pomocou Tapatalku

[Meepledrone]

Did anyone reach the edge of the table and have problems to complete a feature? If so, did you have any rules for open feature edges at the edge of the table?

[Bumsakalaka]

Nope. We have two times expandable table  which can be expanded without removing things from table.
From original size 160x90 cm to 210x90 and then again to 260x90.
Only issue is if game reach no extendable size 90cm.
There we uses another magic trick. On table we have nice tablecloth. So if game reach on of edge we usually move whole board by moving table cloth.
It happened only once that game reach both edges on 90cm size.
So this was very BIG problem without any precedent.
So we used to place tiles which continue but preca it on stack like first tile in stack was original like on deck. Second tile is first tile "levitating" next to first, etc.
Very big mess.
This create new precedent and we used it sometimes when everybody at lazy and nobody wanted to move tablecloth or expand table.
 sometimes without moving

Odoslané z SM-A202F pomocou Tapatalku

[Decar]

We all know that any rule ambiguity should only ever be resolved with a fight to the death. It's the only civil way to manage situations like these.

The UK Championships that Dan described is another example of how the UK manages to do the exact opposite to the rest of the world when it comes to running tournaments.

[kettlefish]

I've talked about it with Georg Wild from HiG some years ago. And in the CAR you can find the table edge story. We also thought of what happens if the players like to play the game on the floor. Does the edge of the floor ends under the sofa or under the bookshelf?

[Meepledrone]

Yes, we are aware of that:
https://wikicarpedia.com/index.php/Base_game#Use_of_a_table

I sent this question to HiG after a controversial situation Dan had in a championsip. So I wanted to know if there was any update on this matter, since he was not allowed to extend the playing area because of the other player.

[kettlefish]

At the endgame of the World Championship they expand the playing area with a 2n or 3rd table, because the tiles are very large (around 8 or 10 cm).

[Meepledrone]

In this case Dan was playing with a normal base game and they reached the border of the table. He can tell you the context first hand... But the resolution wasn't too amicable as far as I recall.

[Broadstorm]

In my group, we understand it to not be completed.  It is sometimes used to prevent an opponent from finishing a city, especially if it has a cathedral in it and/or high value meeples committed to it.

[Decar]

I don't think the poll quite captures the all the options here.

A city could remain open, but it may not be possible to extend the play area for example.

Given what we see at the world championships, it's quite clear that the area should be sufficiently large enough to allow for any play.  If that means knocking down a wall... so be it... the game must continue!

[joe_abbot]

I'm a little bit extremist on this, as long as you can be an extremist talking about a game  Not only I consider any open feature at the edge of the table open by default, but I also refuse to extend the game surface by adding more tables or similar and I think this should be the same for official toournaments.

This is not just blind strictness.

Carcassonne is a game of luck and strategy, and strategy calls into account ALL resources. Space is a resource. The start tile is on the table, and every player is well aware from the start what the size of the table is, so this "no more space" rule may sound harsh but it's fair and most importantly prevents unpleasant discussions (at a point in a game where adding more space blatantly helps one player against all the others).

I'll try to make a similarity here: once you start a game with 7 base meeples, you play the whole game with 7 base meeples, and you don't add one more just because you've depleted your stash: maybe you were unlucky, maybe your opponents were better than you, maybe you're a disaster at managing resources, it doesn't matter: you don't have base meeples to play anymore and you have to deal with it. Why should it be different for the table space?

[kothmann]

Carcassonne is a game of luck and strategy, and strategy calls into account ALL resources. Space is a resource….so this "no more space" rule may sound harsh but it's fair and most importantly prevents unpleasant discussions.

I agree with the logic of the argument, and not just for Carcassonne, but all games.  Make strict rules and discover the best way to play by those rules.  If you don’t like the resulting play, change the rules.

But I don’t think the argument leads to the conclusion that features have to be open at the edge.  In other words, I don’t think the game is less strategic or fair if the rule is “all features close at the edge of the table.” (In other words, it is as if the table is completely surrounded by Abbeys.)

Resource constraints introduce new strategy and tactics.  For me, allowing a player to run a city to the edge to close it, or place a tile in a corner to close a 1-tile FFCC+ city for 4 points, is preferable to allowing opponents to run a city to the edge to prevent it from closing or leaving corners unoccupied.  Our games are sufficiently aggressive already: we don’t need another mechanism for creating trapped meeples and incomplete features.   We also have a house rule that 1-tile cities don’t score for farmers.

Also: we use a mat in a serious game.  Otherwise, you always have a gray area at the edge.

[Decar]

I wouldn't conclude that just because there is a resource that that resource should be restricted. Plenty of games allow for infinite numbers of resources, like coins, even though there are limits in the box.  This is because the game should be enabling fairness and most importantly ensure it remains fun.

The problem with declaring table edges, is you're going to have to start defining the size of the table, and declaring how to determine that the start tile is placed exactly in the centre, if that tile is 1mm out then maybe a player is disadvantaged simply because the tile doesn't fit.  The way around this would be to use tile-sheets with spaces allocated, but again clearly the rules never said use a 15x15 grid or whatever.

I don't have enough space for all the games in my collection, but that doesn't stop me buying more 

[danisthirty]

I'm a little bit extremist on this, as long as you can be an extremist talking about a game  Not only I consider any open feature at the edge of the table open by default, but I also refuse to extend the game surface by adding more tables or similar and I think this should be the same for official toournaments.

I'd be interested to hear why you think this should be the case for tournaments too? Serious players are 100% interested in seeing the game develop over the course of the full 72 tiles and I think many/ most would be frustrated by imposing such limitations purely for the sake of it. If it isn't how Carcassonne was designed to be played (and this isn't) then it's not going to be a preference for people who love the game for what it is.

I'll try to make a similarity here: once you start a game with 7 base meeples, you play the whole game with 7 base meeples, and you don't add one more just because you've depleted your stash: maybe you were unlucky, maybe your opponents were better than you, maybe you're a disaster at managing resources, it doesn't matter: you don't have base meeples to play anymore and you have to deal with it. Why should it be different for the table space?

For the sake of answering your question, because your meeples are a resource that is pre-determined by the game, and table space isn't. They're both resources, sure, but one is strictly allocated according to the rules and the other is assumed. It would be just as valid to invite people round to play Carcassonne at your house, and then to not play your first move (because you're still "thinking" and they mustn't rush you) until all of your opponents had either resigned or starved to death because you refused to feed them anything but fed yourself. Food is a resource after all, and Carcassonne is a strategic game, so if they can't manage food resources then they deserve to lose, right?

[joe_abbot]

if that tile is 1mm out then maybe a player is disadvantaged simply because the tile doesn't fit.

Exactly. And since this is valid for all players from the start of the game, it's a fair rule. Adding a table because player X needs more space when her opponents managed to stay in the play area is fair only to player X