City Council - Veto

[SxN]

I'm guessing the City Council expansion was proposed, discussed and finalised on the old forum. Here, I searched, but did not find much.

It is stated in rules that the Veto tile cannot close a feature. But... the tile can be surrounded completely by city tiles, becoming an integral part of the city. Is such a city complete then? The rules are specifically mentioning the city wall only.

Linkback: https://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?topic=5265.0

[wolnic]

My interpretation is that the VETO tile is just a holding tile that could be considered an empty building site with a squatter on it. So in this case I would say that if it was surrounded on all sides by city tiles, the city would not be complete until the VETO tile was replaced by a genuine tile (CCCC). I suppose it could be used to stop, or at least delay, neighbouring features being completed by other players, although the 10 point penalty for occupying the Veto tile at the end of the game may cancel any benefits out.

[SxN]

Well, the specific mention of the city walls kind of implies of not having the same limitation with the inside city territory. Having said that, your interpretation makes sense and brings consistency in the use of the Veto tile, so I'll go with that. Thanks!

[Meepledrone]

I agree with wolnic's interpretation too...

As you mention, the wording of the rules doesn't consider a CCCC tile as a possible canditate but it can be vetoed too. In the base game, it may be a 10 point penalty for the vetoer as the player would not be able to complete the city, maybe interesting depending on the size of the city... However, with additional expansions, it may be an interesting option in some cases if several CCCC tiles are available.

All in all, the veto tile acts as an empty space in the playing area owned by a player.

[SxN]

Here is another case for which I would appreciate input: Player 1 wants to place a tile. Player 2 vetoes. Player 1 puts the tile elsewhere and Player 2 puts the Veto tile and a follower.

Later, Player 2 wants to place a tile, connected on the left to his own Veto, but on the top to a map tile. Player 1 vetoes. Player 2 moves the tile elsewhere, Player 1 is putting the Veto tile beside the already existing Veto tile, and a follower.

There is nothing to prevent such a scenario based only on the rules. But, knowing that a Veto has to be replaced by a map tile, which has to connect with the already played neighbours, would it make sense to forbid it? "No two Veto tiles can have a common edge".

[Meepledrone]

I don't see any issues in placing two adjacent veto tiles. The veto tile acts as an empty space that can only be occupied by the owner of the City Councilor meeple (it is like a reserved empty space). When replacing one of the two veto tiles, the edge adjacent to the other veto tile can be of any type, the same as if there was no veto tile at all.

[Meepledrone]

Additionally if both Players 1 and 2 have one veto tile each, they could counter veto each other, if desired... 

[wolnic]

I was going to say the same as meepledrone has said above about allowing two adjacent veto tiles. Each player may only have one Veto tile at a time, so that can be in their supply, or on the board with their meeple on it. As the rules state, one player may veto a placement, and the original player can counter with their own - the veto tiles are immediately discarded, so I assume it means the original player gets to place the tile in that initial location after all. The fact that tiles must be placed next to at least one "real" land tile means that situations could occur where two separate VETO tiles do end up touching.

[SxN]

Thank you both!