Base Game - Table edges

[danisthirty]

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

Or you could just say, before the game begins, that table space will be afforded to anyone who needs it at the time it is required. This way the game can be played as intended and it doesn't matter if one player is advantaged more than the others because it could equally have been anyone and it was agreed upon by all players at the start of the game.

[joe_abbot]

I think we can only agree to disagree. Only thing I'm really not comfortable with is that "game played as intended" since from the very first day I started playing the "Rule 0" of Carcassonne was: "Play as you like"... so that's true, until someone tells me I *have* to play in a certain way instead, otherwise I'm playing wrong?

More on this.

On my paper instruction it is written that the table is the limit.
On the wiki the official instructions are quite inconsistent. First is said that

The edge of the table is the limit for the game if, as stated in the rules, a table is used.

but then it is added that

Addition of a second table is possible if one of an appropriate height is added to the first table

So the second sentence seems to nullify the first one, but if so, what is the point of the first one?

So, everyone play as they like so different people use different rules. Mine are more strict, and I think that's better because they add a solid layer of strategy, that's all.

I just think telling people the game must be played "as intended", and then having a rule that is not even fixed by the creator of the game is a little silly.

[Scott]

The whole “addition of a second table” paragraph doesn’t nullify the earlier paragraph about the table being the limit. If you add a second table of equal height, the limit is extended to the second table, but the edges of the table remain a limit.

Nobody is trying to prevent anyone from having fun. At the end of the day, you can play with whatever house rules you want. KJW has house rules for all of the games in his personal collection and he is a big proponent of making house rules. That being said, there needs to be some sort of defined standard from which to deviate. That’s what has been captured on Wikicarpedia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe_abbot]

The whole “addition of a second table” paragraph doesn’t nullify the earlier paragraph about the table being the limit. If you add a second table of equal height, the limit is extended to the second table, but the edges of the table remain a limit.

I really does not understand this: If you can extend the game area whatever you want, then there is never a limit  It's like saying: you can only buy 5 essen tiles but hey, if you ask you can buy 10

[Decar]

The game play area is limited.  It's limited to 72 tiles (or more if you use expansions).

[danisthirty]

I think we can only agree to disagree. Only thing I'm really not comfortable with is that "game played as intended" since from the very first day I started playing the "Rule 0" of Carcassonne was: "Play as you like"... so that's true, until someone tells me I *have* to play in a certain way instead, otherwise I'm playing wrong?

I certainly can't disagree with this. KJW has always been very clear that the purpose of his games is to help people find fun and provide entertainment for themselves and the people they play with. If adapting the rules, or creating your own, heightens the pleasure of your gaming experience then you can be sure that he would approve!

So the second sentence seems to nullify the first one, but if so, what is the point of the first one?

I don't follow your logic behind this. To me, it seems that one is an extension of the other in the same way as Scott explained previously. You can continue to misunderstand this, deliberately or otherwise, but that's your decision and isn't a problem with the rules or the wiki.

So, everyone play as they like so different people use different rules. Mine are more strict, and I think that's better because they add a solid layer of strategy, that's all.

This isn't all. This is a big thing. I'm very happy for people to play whatever rules they like; it's a personal thing for you and your group. You do you. But don't expect everyone else to do you too just because you think your rule is better. For me, and for everyone I play with, at every level, it isn't better and it doesn't add anything that's in keeping with the spirit of the game.

I just think telling people the game must be played "as intended", and then having a rule that is not even fixed by the creator of the game is a little silly.

There's nothing to fix.

[joe_abbot]

You can continue to misunderstand this, deliberately or otherwise, but that's your decision and isn't a problem with the rules or the wiki.

Well it's not a decision if it's not deliberate, isn't it. As incredible as it is, I'm still lost. One rule determines what's a limit is, telling me the edge of the table I'm playing on is the "limit". Limit for what? I read that as "the boundaries of the game space are the table edges". But then another rules says I can extend this limit/boundaries by just adding more tables if I want. So what's exactly the "limit" defined in the first rule? For me, a "limit" is not extendable since... you know, it's a limit:

limit (ˈlɪmɪt/)
1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.

Finally,

There's nothing to fix.

Wrong word. "Clarified" is maybe the word I wanted to use. Resolved? Settled down? "I just think telling people the game must be played "as intended", and then having a rule that is not even made certain by the creator of the game is a little silly".

[danisthirty]

As much as I'd love to continue our chat here, it doesn't feel like we're ever going to agree and I don't think this is going anywhere helpful or productive. No hard feelings though; you're always welcome to a game of Carcassonne at my table:



Oh look, I've won!

[Decar]

+1 from me Dan - glad to see common sense prevails

[Willem]

Oh look, I've won!

Have you? You haven't claimed anything, so it's a tie with us both scoring 0 points 

[danisthirty]

Have you? You haven't claimed anything, so it's a tie with us both scoring 0 points 

Yes, but I always play with the houserule that the starting player wins if nobody else can place any tiles. It's better this way because of the extra strategy. I recommend everyone else should do the same, especially the world championships.

[Meepledrone]

Uhmmmmm! It seems this saves you a lot of time... Well done!

[joe_abbot]

So, as a recap.

I honestly don't understand a rule (you may feel it's a waste of time to keep discussing with me, but the result is that in the end I'm still at total loss about the whole "extendable limits" thing, still an oxymoron to me) and trying to understand it is labeled as "having no common sense"... and then the conversation is shut down with a Lego joke.

Fantastic.

[danisthirty]

So, as a recap.

I honestly don't understand a rule

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.

Fantastic.

[kothmann]

I'm still at total loss about the whole "extendable limits" thing, still an oxymoron to me.

I agree that the idea of “extendable limits” is confusing.  But perhaps the confusion arises because the WICA clarifications on use of a table, as provided by HiG, are not necessarily intended to be applied simultaneously—they are four distinct options, some of which may be combined, as the last bullet in this list makes clear (I converted the inner list to numbered items for easy reference below):

• It is important generally, that all the players in the round agree how to play:
  
  • Table - Standard
  • Table - with "total shifting" of tiles
  • Table - with extension
  • Floor

It seems that in this community, there is a strong preference for avoiding table limits whenever it is reasonable to do so, by some combination of options 2 and 3, creating an effectively infinite play area.  I infer that this is also the most common approach in tournaments, although maybe option 2 is less desirable because of the potential for confusion or errors when moving the tiles?  In any case, your preference, option 1, is certainly a clear and not uncommon way to play—it is “Standard” after all.   

Hope this helps.

P.S.  Perhaps option 5 should be ‘Floor - with “total shifting” of tiles?’