Show Posts
1
Official Rules / Shared points for a city
« on: May 29, 2023, 06:13:36 AM »
Hi, everyone!
Me and my partner are playing Carcassonne since a few months and we really like it. However, we still stick to the basic version, because we are absolute beginners.
We had a dispute over the rule for sharing the points for a common city. I was building a big city and I had one meeple put on it The city was open from one sides (2 tiles in total to finish it) and he posed a closing tile on the upper place, insisting we should share the points. I objected, because in this case the remaining tile couldn't have 2 individual finishings. It was obvious that I will have no other choice that to use his tile and attach it to my city, because a tile that will allow me to finish both his city and mine independently simply doesn't exist (it should have 3 caps and one open side). I insisted that in this case when there is no other option for the other player you just can't use the same recourse, means you can still put your meeple on your tile but on the road for example. You can't occupy other players cities leaving them no choice but to use your tiles. It should be a matter of choice and a fair play. I can rebuild the schema and provide picture if necessary.
Hope some of the more experienced players will give a professional opinion here. I simply refuse to believe that such a popular game has missed to specify a conflict rule like this. There must be something we are missing.
Me and my partner are playing Carcassonne since a few months and we really like it. However, we still stick to the basic version, because we are absolute beginners.
We had a dispute over the rule for sharing the points for a common city. I was building a big city and I had one meeple put on it The city was open from one sides (2 tiles in total to finish it) and he posed a closing tile on the upper place, insisting we should share the points. I objected, because in this case the remaining tile couldn't have 2 individual finishings. It was obvious that I will have no other choice that to use his tile and attach it to my city, because a tile that will allow me to finish both his city and mine independently simply doesn't exist (it should have 3 caps and one open side). I insisted that in this case when there is no other option for the other player you just can't use the same recourse, means you can still put your meeple on your tile but on the road for example. You can't occupy other players cities leaving them no choice but to use your tiles. It should be a matter of choice and a fair play. I can rebuild the schema and provide picture if necessary.
Hope some of the more experienced players will give a professional opinion here. I simply refuse to believe that such a popular game has missed to specify a conflict rule like this. There must be something we are missing.