Carcassonne Central

I'm really excited about this variant.  I believe this is a perfect variant for people playing with two players, although this variation may be played with any number of players.  I've already typed up a first draft of the rules, let me know what you think (and if there needs to be any edits, changes, suggestions, etc).

http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf (http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf)

(http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.gif)

Those are fairly straightforward rules, as they should be. I didn't note any major problems, although I was reading for content rather than spelling/grammar. It is definitely an interesting expansion and I like that there is a way to resolve ties because, frankly, I hate ties. I love getting them with other players who are building something big, but I hate having someone else go and tie me in a 2-player game. No fun at all. My only issue is with the ruler part. I mean, you literally have to place the Arbitress closer to your follower than another's within the same tile? That seems rather odd and OCD. Perhaps in the event of a tie where the Arbitress is equidistant from both followers, the current player wins, or the last player who placed a follower on the tile (that would encourage people to try and steal the other player's features). Otherwise, looks good!

Overall, I like the idea.  I don't think you would have to limit the use of the arbitress to a 2 player game though.  At my house we usually play a three player game, and I can see cases where we could use this feature to break a three way tie once in a while, or a two way tie between two of three players.  If you were playing with six people however, I could see how it might get annoying trying to figure out who is closest to a finished feature, but I can't imagine that six way ties over a finished feature occur all that often. 

I don't like the ruler part.  I think if two players were truly equidistant from the arbitress, I would either say that no decision is reached so neither player scores, or I would come up with another way to split the tie.  In the case of a two player game, perhaps the person who laid down the finishing tile has the advantage?

In my house, I will probably just use the fairy as the arbitress since we never play with the fairy rules.  I also probably won't use the arbitress to break a tie between two barns. 


Recommended corrections to the rules document:

An arbitress is a woman who helps solve disputes. 

Under additional rules:  This variation is compatible with any number of expansions.  (There is an extra is in the sentence.)

Under Place a tile:  There should be a comma after the word "feature" in the first sentence.

Under Moving the Arbitress:  After the arbitress is moved, the game is continued from where it was paused.  (I think the sentence needs the "from" added, and I removed the unnecessary "then."

Marie

Checks on interactions with the official expansions:

1. If playing with the river, does the arbitress start on the source tile or the final lake tile?
2. If playing with the CoC, where does the arbitress start?
3. Can the arbitress move to a CoC tile?
4. How does the arbitress affects when a barn is placed that results in the scoring of multiple farmers?
5. How does the arbitress affect the Catapult tokens/actions?

Text corrections:
Footnote 2: (even if though the barn is not a follower).  The "if" there is not necessary.

1-3. Yes, and I updated the PDF to reflect it.
4. A feature is being scored, so if there is a tie for farmers, then the tie goes to the person who has their farmer closest to the Arbitress.
5. The Arbitress is not affected by the Catapult, rules updated.


That's two complaints of three for the ruler idea.  I decided to change the rule to award the points to the player with fewer points.  Although, I did keep the ruler rule listed as a foot note as an alternative.

And I didn't mean to limit it to just 2 players.  Apparently, I didn't finish that sentence when I was typing before I moved onto the next. (http://gwommy.homestead.com/files/PurpleSmileTongue.gif)

Thanks for the feedback!

Update available at same address:
http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf (http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf)

I'd be happy to review it, but I can't open the file at work.  Sorry...

This has a new pieces so it's not a variant, it's an expansion.  Moved!

At least you can check the message board at work. (http://gwommy.homestead.com/files/PurpleSmileWink.gif)


I figured it was very border line between being an expansion or a variant.  I originally wrote it up as a expansion.  But then I decided it was a variant since it used the fairy.  Especially considering "The Musketeers" was accepted as a variant when that used pieces from other official expansions.  And thinking about it even more, it can be played as a variant since it was originally designed for two players and you could use a follower of an unused color for the Arbitress.  Although, using the fairy looks better.

So, either way I'm still going to have to change the rules.  Should I re-write to better suit a variant?  Perhaps changing "Extra Pieces" to "Required Pieces"?  Or should I re-write it as an expansion?  Sorry for the confusion.  Although I still think it would fit better as a variant.

If you feel that it should be a variant then by all means make sure it's written up as a variant :)  Mention something about the fairy being used as the arbitress instead and a footnote that the arbitress may also be used as an expansion in addition to the fairy.  I'll move this back ;)

Updated!
http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf (http://gwommy.tripod.com/carcassonne/Arbitress.pdf)

==EDIT==
I haven't seen any replies and I looked over the rules again and changed it to the final draft.

Uploaded to public downloads.  Please let me know if it is the correct version.  Thanks.