Author Topic: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?  (Read 1073 times)

Offline corinthiens13

  • Baron
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
  • Merit: 46
    • View Profile
    • Order of play in french with every major expansions, mini expansions and promo tiles :
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2022, 04:39:01 AM »
Quote
for each missing landscape tile

Exactly, and around an island, there's no missing tile, since there's no possible tile placement.  :yellow-meeple:

I agree with Bumsakalaka's two options.
If this means I do not understand the almighty knowledge of "the precise mechanics of what is (and isn't) going on", I can deal with that and keep my "flawed understanding".
« Last Edit: April 13, 2022, 04:40:42 AM by corinthiens13 »
Order of play in french with every major expansions, minis and promos:
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=346

Divider cards for CI & CII both in French & English:
http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/community/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=535

Offline Scott

  • Administrator
  • Viscount Chevalier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2891
  • Merit: 94
    • View Profile
    • CarcassonneCentral
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2022, 07:43:40 AM »
At the end of the game you score 1 victory point for each missing landscape tile around Izbushka and 1 point for the Izbushka itself.

Based on this translation, I think the conclusion is the same. Since it is not possible to place landscape tiles around a 1-tile island, there cannot be missing landscape tiles around Izbushka, so it can only be worth a single point.

Online Meepledrone

  • Owner
  • Chatelain Officier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5185
  • Merit: 404
  • It is full of... Meeples!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2022, 10:56:40 AM »
As commented above, Baba Yaga's Hut (Izbushka) is something different from a monastery, and describing it as an "anti-cloister" is a simplification to convey a quick understanding of how it works although imprecise in general terms.

The placement of a monastery on a map border affects its completion and its scoring. The monastery only considers those printed spaces on the map. No spaces beyond the border are counted when scoring, so you may have a completed monastery worth less than 9 points. There could be a completed monastery on an island worth 1 point.

In this example from the rules, you can see a completed monastery with only 6 tiles. Red will score 6 points for it. The 3 "spaces" outside the border are not considered.



Following this lead, this Baba Yaga's hut is also completed and Red scores 1 point for it. The 3 "spaces" outside the border are not considered.



My point is that the tiles beyond the border cannot be considered as "missing landscape tiles" since you cannot place a tile on those spaces. An empty tile space and a missing landscape tile should be considered the same, both representing a unoccupied printed square on a map (or an empty space when playing without a map).
« Last Edit: April 13, 2022, 10:58:25 AM by Meepledrone »
Questions about rules? Check WICA: wikicarpedia.com

Offline DIN0

  • Viscount
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Merit: 32
  • Carcassonne is only complete with 11th expansion:)
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2022, 01:57:04 PM »
Quote
Exactly, and around an island, there's no missing tile, since there's no possible tile placement
No, no, it is the other way around. No legal tile placement results in all of the tiles to be missing, therefore 8+1 points for Izbushka. The reason for the tiles not being there is irrelevant for scoring. The Izbushka only looks for tiles around itself and in this case the number is 0 tiles a.k.a. 8 missing tiles.

Quote
The placement of a monastery on a map border affects its completion and its scoring.
This is very slightly incorrect. Let me explain - The placement of monastery (or any feature) affects only completeness, not the scoring. It is true that the scoring is affected in these situations, but this is indirect result of the border placement. The reason monastery scores less points at the border is because there are less tiles present in its "complete" state.

This is the one aspect in which the monastery and Izbushka actually are similar - they look for the number of tiles surrounding them. Monastery scores points for present tiles, Izbushka for absent tiles. Neither of them looks for empty or legal tile spaces.

Using Meepledrone's graphics:
Here is an order of mechanics with monastery: 1) monastery is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the monastery which in turn initiates scoring, 3) monastery is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles + itself and scores 6 points.

Here is an order of mechanics with Izbushka: 1) Izbushka is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the Izbushka which in turn initiates scoring, 3) Izbushka is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles and fails to detect 3 tiles, so 3 tiles are missing, 5) it scores 3 points + 1 for itself.

The order of causality is: map border → complete state → scoring initiated → monastery/Izbushka look for present/missing tiles respectivelly → they score

The ability to make a legal tile placement never enters the scoring discussion. The reason monastery scores less points is because it cannot detect the extra tiles, not because it is at the border. However, it is because of the border that the tiles cannot and are not placed there - it is indirect.
 So in this case there is another order of causality: Map border prevents tile placement → tiles are not present beyond border → monastery fails to detect tiles beyond border

And the same is true for Izbushka.

Quote
My point is that the tiles beyond the border cannot be considered as "missing landscape tiles" since you cannot place a tile on those spaces. An empty tile space and a missing landscape tile should be considered the same, both representing a unoccupied printed square on a map (or an empty space when playing without a map).
They are not the same. One is presence of an abstract concept not even reflected in rules, while the other is absence of a real physical game entity (tile). You are still thinking about the rules as if they referred to empty tile spaces, but they do not.
The Izbushka asks just one question: "Is there a tile placed around me?" If the answer is "No.", then it grants you a point.
It does not ask: "Can a tile be legaly placed around me?" If that were the case then other cases such as an edge of the table or an unfinishible hole in landscape would prevent it from scoring, but that is not the case.
Monastery asks the exact same question, but looks for a different answer to score points.

In short the tiles beyond the border are always considered missing tiles because, there are no tiles present. That is why the answer to this question:
Quote
I want to ask: What happens when you place Baba Yaga to island in phase 1 and place meeple in phase 2 on it?
Do you immediately finish your turn or you score Baba Yaga?
...is if Izbushka is placed on 1-tile island, it is scored immediately and recieves 8+1=9 points, because there are 8 tiles missing around it.

BONUS: The rules are actually pretty straightforward, but they also have a thematic inspiration which is consistent with what I am saying here. The reason behind these rules was stated a few times through official channels, back when the tiles were being promoted in 2013 were that the Baba Yaga is seeking to be isolated from everyone else in the world as she wanted nothing to do with them. That is why you get points for being removed from the rest of the landscape. What better way is to isolate herself than to place her hut at a place where she knows no one will ever bother her? Or even better on an isolated island? That is totally with the spirit of the rules and their theatic inspiration.

 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2022, 02:05:05 PM by DIN0 »

Online Meepledrone

  • Owner
  • Chatelain Officier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5185
  • Merit: 404
  • It is full of... Meeples!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2022, 04:16:50 PM »
Quote
Exactly, and around an island, there's no missing tile, since there's no possible tile placement
No, no, it is the other way around. No legal tile placement results in all of the tiles to be missing, therefore 8+1 points for Izbushka. The reason for the tiles not being there is irrelevant for scoring. The Izbushka only looks for tiles around itself and in this case the number is 0 tiles a.k.a. 8 missing tiles.

For the sake of consistency, you should not count those spaces beyond the border where no tile can be placed. Check my example in the previous post. Are you going extra points for spaces where no tile can be placed? 

Quote
The placement of a monastery on a map border affects its completion and its scoring.
This is very slightly incorrect. Let me explain - The placement of monastery (or any feature) affects only completeness, not the scoring. It is true that the scoring is affected in these situations, but this is indirect result of the border placement. The reason monastery scores less points at the border is because there are less tiles present in its "complete" state.

So, as you say, the placement of the monastery on the border affects both tthe completion of the feature and its scoring, since you only count printed squares on the map.

This is the one aspect in which the monastery and Izbushka actually are similar - they look for the number of tiles surrounding them. Monastery scores points for present tiles, Izbushka for absent tiles. Neither of them looks for empty or legal tile spaces.

My point is that Izbushka should only consider those absent tiles on printed squares on the map. Otherwise, HiG would have considered monasteries to score 9 points no matter what. But they don't even consider those printed city segment or road segments abroad. So monasteries do not consider anything off the grid.

Using Meepledrone's graphics:
Here is an order of mechanics with monastery: 1) monastery is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the monastery which in turn initiates scoring, 3) monastery is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles + itself and scores 6 points.

Correct.

Here is an order of mechanics with Izbushka: 1) Izbushka is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the Izbushka which in turn initiates scoring, 3) Izbushka is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles and fails to detect 3 tiles, so 3 tiles are missing, 5) it scores 3 points + 1 for itself.

The order of causality is: map border → complete state → scoring initiated → monastery/Izbushka look for present/missing tiles respectivelly → they score

In his case, you should only consider tiles and empty spces on printed squares. The same printed spaces you would also consider when scoring a monastery.

The ability to make a legal tile placement never enters the scoring discussion. The reason monastery scores less points is because it cannot detect the extra tiles, not because it is at the border. However, it is because of the border that the tiles cannot and are not placed there - it is indirect.
 So in this case there is another order of causality: Map border prevents tile placement → tiles are not present beyond border → monastery fails to detect tiles beyond border

And the same is true for Izbushka.

The idea would be that monasteries and Izbushka should consider the same printed spaces. The border map should work the same way for all features that have to be surrounded to be completed or trigger an action. spaced without a ptinted square should not be considered.

Quote
My point is that the tiles beyond the border cannot be considered as "missing landscape tiles" since you cannot place a tile on those spaces. An empty tile space and a missing landscape tile should be considered the same, both representing a unoccupied printed square on a map (or an empty space when playing without a map).

I agree with this approach.

They are not the same. One is presence of an abstract concept not even reflected in rules, while the other is absence of a real physical game entity (tile). You are still thinking about the rules as if they referred to empty tile spaces, but they do not.
The Izbushka asks just one question: "Is there a tile placed around me?" If the answer is "No.", then it grants you a point.
It does not ask: "Can a tile be legaly placed around me?" If that were the case then other cases such as an edge of the table or an unfinishible hole in landscape would prevent it from scoring, but that is not the case.
Monastery asks the exact same question, but looks for a different answer to score points.

In short the tiles beyond the border are always considered missing tiles because, there are no tiles present. That is why the answer to this question:
Quote
I want to ask: What happens when you place Baba Yaga to island in phase 1 and place meeple in phase 2 on it?
Do you immediately finish your turn or you score Baba Yaga?
...is if Izbushka is placed on 1-tile island, it is scored immediately and recieves 8+1=9 points, because there are 8 tiles missing around it.

BONUS: The rules are actually pretty straightforward, but they also have a thematic inspiration which is consistent with what I am saying here. The reason behind these rules was stated a few times through official channels, back when the tiles were being promoted in 2013 were that the Baba Yaga is seeking to be isolated from everyone else in the world as she wanted nothing to do with them. That is why you get points for being removed from the rest of the landscape. What better way is to isolate herself than to place her hut at a place where she knows no one will ever bother her? Or even better on an isolated island? That is totally with the spirit of the rules and their theatic inspiration.

Looking for a more or less thematic approach, you cannot ask the Izbushka rules to consider the limitations imposed by the boders of map, which didn't exist at the time. Again, for the sake of consistency with other features such as monasteries (clearly detailed int he Maps rules), you should only check for the presence of tiles in those spaces where you can place a tile (pinted squares). Otherwise, it is an unbalanced approach for scoring.

Offline DIN0

  • Viscount
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Merit: 32
  • Carcassonne is only complete with 11th expansion:)
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2022, 11:21:58 AM »
Quote
My point is that Izbushka should only consider those absent tiles on printed squares on the map. Otherwise, HiG would have considered monasteries to score 9 points no matter what. But they don't even consider those printed city segment or road segments abroad. So monasteries do not consider anything off the grid.
No, not quite the case, and this is one of my main points. You seem to percieve my interpretation as being inconsistent with how the monasteries behave on the Map border. But it is in fact consistent when one realizes the proper source of points for each feature.
You say that if my interpretation was correct then, monasteries would automatically recieve full 9 points on the map border, but that is not what would happen. As I said monasteries (and Izbushka) only consider the tiles, not tile spaces. Monastery on a border does not get full points because there are no tiles present for which to get points. It doesn't look at the legality of placement, only at the result - is there a tile or not? If the answer is yes, monastery score point. If the answer is no, Izbushka score points. They ask the same question but get points for a different answer. They are, in this sense, direct opposites of each other, hence the "anti-cloister" analogy.
What you propose would actually be the inconsistent interpretation, because it would change the question monastery is asking.

Quote
   
Quote
Using Meepledrone's graphics:
    Here is an order of mechanics with monastery: 1) monastery is placed on a Map border and is surrounded by tiles on all pre-printed spaces, 2) Map border completes the monastery which in turn initiates scoring, 3) monastery is scored and it checks the number of tiles around it, 4) it detects 5 tiles + itself and scores 6 points.


Correct.
We seem to agree on the order of operations, but I think there is a misunderstanding on what is important here. Based on some of your quotes:
Quote
In his case, you should only consider tiles and empty spaces on printed squares. The same printed spaces you would also consider when scoring a monastery.
Quote
The idea would be that monasteries and Izbushka should consider the same printed spaces. The border map should work the same way for all features that have to be surrounded to be completed or trigger an action. spaced without a ptinted square should not be considered.
Quote
For the sake of consistency, you should not count those spaces beyond the border where no tile can be placed. Check my example in the previous post. Are you going extra points for spaces where no tile can be placed?

...you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the scoring for Izbushka (and by extension monastery) works. I suspect this misunderstanding is widespread among others because of the recency of the Maps combined with the mistranslation in CAR and WICA.
You still oparate under the "empty spaces mode", but that was never a thing.
Neither of the features considers ANY spaces, be it within or beyond the border. They only consider tiles. One gets points for their presence, the other for their absence. Spaces never even enter the discussion. The two features operate around a true dichotomy and your interpretation trangresses that, making it a false one. I have included a diagram of monastery and Izbushka dichotomous function in the attachment (picture a).

Quote
So, as you say, the placement of the monastery on the border affects both tthe completion of the feature and its scoring, since you only count printed squares on the map.
What you missed in my explanation is that the effect on scoring is indirect a.k.a not caused by the borders, but by something else which is caused by the borders. I have attached causality diagrams for both monastery (picture b) and Izbushka (picture c) illustrating how the borders indirectly contribute to scoring while having no effect on it themselves. The crossed out arrow is what you think is happening, the other arrows is what is actually happening.

Quote
Looking for a more or less thematic approach, you cannot ask the Izbushka rules to consider the limitations imposed by the boders of map, which didn't exist at the time. Again, for the sake of consistency with other features such as monasteries (clearly detailed int he Maps rules), you should only check for the presence of tiles in those spaces where you can place a tile (pinted squares). Otherwise, it is an unbalanced approach for scoring.
Precisely. The Maps were not foreseen by the other expansions and that is exactly the reason why the limitations on tile placement imposed by the border allow Izbushka to score more points than would otherwise be possible.
It is in fact your current understanding which is being inconsistent with other rules. That is why the answer to your question:
Quote
Are you going extra points for spaces where no tile can be placed? 
Is no. I wouldn't score extra points for spaces where tiles cannot be placed. I would score them for the tiles that are not there.

Online Meepledrone

  • Owner
  • Chatelain Officier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5185
  • Merit: 404
  • It is full of... Meeples!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2022, 04:34:26 AM »
I think the discussion does not revolve about scoring but about how spaces beyond the border should be considered in this case.

Your view is "spaces beyond the border exist but they cannot be occupied by tiles." So to me, it seems inconsistent, since you do not consider them for the completion of a monastery or Izbushka, but you count them as non-present tiles for Izbushka.

My view is "spaces beyond the border do not exist at all for the playing area," so they are not considered for the completion of a monastery or Izbushka on the border. Therefore the border acts like an impenetrable wall, the features only consider the adjacent tiles/spaces within the border.

So I understand what you say about Izbushka and counting adjacent non-present tiles. My additional contraint in order to be consistent with Maps is that those non-present tiles beyond the border should not be considered.

All in all, when playing with Maps, your playing area is limited to the printed squares, and anything outside this printed grid (usually with an irregular border) does not exist, that is, it does not count for the game either as a present tile or as a empty space/non-present tile.

Offline Bumsakalaka

  • Duke Chevalier
  • *
  • Posts: 1560
  • Merit: 20
  • Fan of Fan expansions
    • View Profile
    • www.scifi.sk
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2022, 04:58:30 AM »
As I wrote before. There are two options. To follow rules of Baba Yaga and then Baba Yaga placed on border can not be completed.
Or use map rules and then is counted only printed places for tiles

Odoslané z SM-A202F pomocou Tapatalku

Check JCloisterZone Add-ons with fan expansions and also some Slovak sci/fi projects in English https://www.scifi.sk/en/

Online Meepledrone

  • Owner
  • Chatelain Officier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5185
  • Merit: 404
  • It is full of... Meeples!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2022, 05:03:47 AM »
I agree. In this case, the Map rules should take precedence and constrain feature completion and scoring rules to printed spaces.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2022, 05:48:38 AM by Meepledrone »

Offline DIN0

  • Viscount
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Merit: 32
  • Carcassonne is only complete with 11th expansion:)
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2022, 08:20:14 AM »
Quote
Your view is "spaces beyond the border exist but they cannot be occupied by tiles." So to me, it seems inconsistent, since you do not consider them for the completion of a monastery or Izbushka, but you count them as non-present tiles for Izbushka.
That is actually not my view. What I am saying is that spaces do not exist at all and border only prevents placing tiles which would end up beyond the border. I could, for the sake of explanation, say that monastery and Izbushka do consider the spaces beyond border, just do not detect any tiles since they cannot be placed there. But more accurate formulation is that neither of them consider any spaces, period, they only consider tiles. So even if the concept of spaces existed, it would have no bearing on the scoring of these two features, because they do not ever consider them, regardless of the Map or a simple table.

Quote
Therefore the border acts like an impenetrable wall, the features only consider the adjacent tiles/spaces within the border.
There is no reason to do this. You wouldn't not score the points if it were the edge of the table instead, right? Map border functions exactly the same in this regard. The only extra thing map border has is the finishing ability.

Quote
In this case, the Map rules should take precedence and constrain feature completion and scoring rules to printed spaces.
There is no need for precedence, as there is no conflict.

Let me put forth the following analogy:
Imagine you are a feature which scores a point for each goldfish in the cloister-radius around you. You are surrounded by 8 aquariums filled with water with a maximum of 1 goldfish per tank. If all 8 tanks have a goldfish, you score 8 points. If 4 tanks have goldfish and 4 are empty, you only score 4 points.
Now, imagine if 5 tanks have goldfish, but the remainding 3 have perforated bottoms causing the water along with any goldfish to pour out. You would score 5 points. You are saying that you wouldn't even look into the tanks because they are empty with no water for golfish to live in, and therefore not score points. But the reality is you wouldn't get the points simply because you could not find the last 3 goldfish. This is because the only thing you are capable of seeing/not seeing, are the goldfish. And that is the only thing you're looking for. Your eyes cannot see the tanks or water in the first place.

That is how a monastery works
Izbushka works exactly the same, just gets a point for each goldfish it cannot find.

In short Izbushka scores points for absence of tiles - the reason for this absence does not matter. The only way to make a tile not-absent is to actually place the tile. And since you cannot ever do this beyond map border, the tiles are always absent.

And here is another implication I did not bring up before. If we look at the diagram in the attachment and exchange the monastery for Izbushka, it would score 2 points (1+1) in case A, and 3 points (2+1) in case B. This is because german castles are only considered to be a single tile. So the number of tiles surrounding Izbushka would be A) 7, and B) 6.
Translated to fishtank analogy, the castles are larger fishtanks, but still contain only one goldfish.



Online Meepledrone

  • Owner
  • Chatelain Officier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 5185
  • Merit: 404
  • It is full of... Meeples!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #25 on: April 19, 2022, 11:26:42 AM »
Quote
Your view is "spaces beyond the border exist but they cannot be occupied by tiles." So to me, it seems inconsistent, since you do not consider them for the completion of a monastery or Izbushka, but you count them as non-present tiles for Izbushka.
That is actually not my view. What I am saying is that spaces do not exist at all and border only prevents placing tiles which would end up beyond the border. I could, for the sake of explanation, say that monastery and Izbushka do consider the spaces beyond border, just do not detect any tiles since they cannot be placed there. But more accurate formulation is that neither of them consider any spaces, period, they only consider tiles. So even if the concept of spaces existed, it would have no bearing on the scoring of these two features, because they do not ever consider them, regardless of the Map or a simple table.

OK. If spaces do not exist beyond the border, which I also agree with, then you should not consider them for counting tiles or the absence of tiles. Here is where, I think, our views differ.

A table acts as an infinite unprinted grid. A map acts as an finite grid enclosed by a border serving as a boundary beyond which nothing exists.

Quote
Therefore the border acts like an impenetrable wall, the features only consider the adjacent tiles/spaces within the border.
There is no reason to do this. You wouldn't not score the points if it were the edge of the table instead, right? Map border functions exactly the same in this regard. The only extra thing map border has is the finishing ability.

The edge of the table does not act as a map border and, unless agreed otherwise before a game, the table could be extended by adding another one or the playing could extended by shifting the tiles to make extra room. The edge of a table does not complete features.

Quote
In this case, the Map rules should take precedence and constrain feature completion and scoring rules to printed spaces.
There is no need for precedence, as there is no conflict.

What I mean here is that the mapborder defines a boundary that limits the playing area and anything outside it cannot be considered. This should be considered before any other mechanics: feature completion and scoring. A space beyond the printed grid or border does not count as a occupied or unoccupied space: it does not have a tile or it does not lack a tile. It does not exist. We agree on how this affects a monastery but not on how Izbushka show treat it:
* You consider that the lack of a tile has precendece over the imposibility of placing a tile beyond the border. Izbushka considers tiles placed and not placed within the border in addition to tiles not placed beyond the border.
* I consider that the imposibility of placing a tile beyond the border also implies the imposibility of counting the lack of a tile beyond the border. Izbushka only considers tiles placed and not placed within the border.

Let me put forth the following analogy:
Imagine you are a feature which scores a point for each goldfish in the cloister-radius around you. You are surrounded by 8 aquariums filled with water with a maximum of 1 goldfish per tank. If all 8 tanks have a goldfish, you score 8 points. If 4 tanks have goldfish and 4 are empty, you only score 4 points.
Now, imagine if 5 tanks have goldfish, but the remainding 3 have perforated bottoms causing the water along with any goldfish to pour out. You would score 5 points. You are saying that you wouldn't even look into the tanks because they are empty with no water for golfish to live in, and therefore not score points. But the reality is you wouldn't get the points simply because you could not find the last 3 goldfish. This is because the only thing you are capable of seeing/not seeing, are the goldfish. And that is the only thing you're looking for. Your eyes cannot see the tanks or water in the first place.

That is how a monastery works
Izbushka works exactly the same, just gets a point for each goldfish it cannot find.

In short Izbushka scores points for absence of tiles - the reason for this absence does not matter. The only way to make a tile not-absent is to actually place the tile. And since you cannot ever do this beyond map border, the tiles are always absent.

Here is where we differ. Tiles nor placed outside the border should not be considered. Nothing beyond the border should be considered. This works for monasteries, and so should it be for Izbushka . This is my point.

And here is another implication I did not bring up before. If we look at the diagram in the attachment and exchange the monastery for Izbushka, it would score 2 points (1+1) in case A, and 3 points (2+1) in case B. This is because german castles are only considered to be a single tile. So the number of tiles surrounding Izbushka would be A) 7, and B) 6.
Translated to fishtank analogy, the castles are larger fishtanks, but still contain only one goldfish.

I didn't want to bring this up into the discussion earlier either (or Halflings):
* C1 counts tiles
* C2 counts occupied spaces

One Halfling adjacent to Izbushka will count as an occupied space even if there is a triangular gap in the same space. And this will be the same for C1 and C2.

Offline Scott

  • Administrator
  • Viscount Chevalier
  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 2891
  • Merit: 94
    • View Profile
    • CarcassonneCentral
Re: Has anyone tried any Maps with other expansion rules?
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2022, 11:30:49 AM »
I get what you're saying DIN0, and I think many others do too, but I think Meepledrone is right here. Just as the value of a monastery depends on your ability successfully surround it with tiles, the value of Izbushka depends on your ability to successfully defend against having it surrounded with tiles. Placing it somewhere where it is not possible to complete, whether that's at the edge of the table or on an island, makes it impossible to fully surround. You believe that this should work to your advantage, and Meepledrone disagrees. Just as the inability to place tiles beyond the edge of the table prevents a monastery from earning those points, Izbushka must also be prevented from earning points in order to be consistent.


Share via delicious Share via digg Share via facebook Share via furl Share via linkedin Share via myspace Share via reddit Share via stumble Share via technorati Share via twitter

  Subject / Started by Replies / Views Last post
xx
Has anyone had a virtual stroll around Carcassonne?

Started by Squiffything

2 Replies
1386 Views
Last post June 28, 2017, 04:00:39 PM
by ARabidMeerkat
question
which carcassonne expansion has a house symbol on its tiles?

Started by mamool1984

10 Replies
1767 Views
Last post February 07, 2020, 04:12:40 AM
by mamool1984
xx
The GQ#11 Expansion for sale - HAS BEEN SOLD

Started by Halfling

0 Replies
192 Views
Last post January 26, 2022, 02:43:53 AM
by Halfling
xx
HiG has a new homepage design

Started by kettlefish

8 Replies
2681 Views
Last post October 28, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
by kettlefish
xx
The Tower - Rule book from ZMG has not included the update from BigBox1

Started by kettlefish

2 Replies
2398 Views
Last post November 26, 2013, 07:05:25 AM
by obervet