Carcassonne Central

In the latest responses from HiG they ruled that when placing an Abbey that completes a city/road containing a builder, the Abbey "completes" but does not "extend" the city - because the Abbey tile has no city/road segment. This naturally means that the builder does not cause a second turn, because in the CAR which is based on the HiG rules, the builder causes a second turn only when the feature is "extended" and the Abbey clearly does not "extend" the feature - it has no road or city segments.

However, in the RGG rules for T&B (not Big Box in my case) the rules state that the second turn is taken if the player "extends or completes" the feature. Furthermore in the RGG rules for A&M the Abbey is said to "complete" the feature.

So by the RGG ruling it would appear that placement of an Abbey does entitle the player to take second turn if the feature completed has a builder. I really prefer the HiG ruling which seems to me to be more consistent

I despair of these differences  :bh and we try to play by HiG rules wherever possible. However an RGG player was righteously indignant when we tried to explain our ruling tonight, and we deferred to the RGG rule for the evening.

Does anyone know if the RGG Big Box was updated to be in line with the HiG rule?

I notice that there is no footnote in the CAR on this difference. Might it merit one?

A very good point: well spotted!
{up {up

I checked both versions the Big Box, and in fact the change is consistent.

In the original HiG rules, it stated that a second tile could be drawn if the first tile "extended or completed" (German: "weiterführt oder abschließt"the road or city containing the builder. That's clearly also the case in the RGG rules you mentioned.

However, the HiG rules for the Big Box are actually more vague than my translation in the CAR suggests (not surprising, precisely because I didn't notice the difference dwhitworth pointed out). The original sentence: "Jedesmal, wenn der Spieler eine Landschaftskarte an die Straße bzw. Stadt mit seinem Baumeister anlegt, darf er einen Doppelzug ausführen." My translation: "Whenever the player places a tile that extends the road or city which includes their builder, they may take a double
turn." The important verb, "anlegen," simply means 'place'.

The RGG Big Box rules, though, are actually clearer than the HiG:"whenever a player places a landscape tile that adds to a city or road with his builder on it, he is allowed to take a second turn…". I take it that everyone agrees 'adds' is synonymous with 'extends'.

So, we do indeed have a change in the Big Box rules which we hadn't noticed before; one which is there in both RGG and HiG versions, but which is actually clearer in the RGG rules.

I'll add a footnote, and an entry in the summary of changes. Would anyone object if I left the translation as 'extend'? Quite by mistake, it seems to be the most appropriate translation after all ;-)

Oh, and for the RGG nut, point out the blatant absurdity of using the RGG rules for Abbey and Mayor. Compromise is good: if s/he insists on RGG in general, the least s/he can agree is to use HiG for that one expansion, where RGG rules simply don't work….

And if that doesn't work, try defenestration.
 ;D

There's that word again ;)

Ok, so let's get this right. For those placing an abbey which completes a city with their builder in it, would they take the double-turn? Is this the same with both  HiG and RGG rules (even though there is inconsistancy with the RGG). Sorry if i'm being a bit dense here!

Just make sure you don't have to pay the bill to replace all the broken stuff.

It's my favourite word  ;D

No, they can't take a double turn. In the past there it was impossible to complete a city without extending it; in A&M you can now do precisely that with an Abbey tile. This change seems to have been anticipated in the Big Box rules.

As always, we'd need independent confirmation from RGG about the adoption of the new rule; but given that the RGG rules actually seem slightly clearer in the Big Box, it's a fair bet that it's valid for RGG as well.

Thanks for that clarification, Matt.

Thanks Matt.

Ok, but it is still the case if I complete a city (with a normal tile) with my builder in it, I get the double turn?  :)

Firstly, english and german are not my native language, that's why appologize me if my linguistic explanation is wrong. But I am not sure with above statement.
'adds' vs. 'extends'
I think it depends on "homogenity" of adding or extendig subject to the "base". Yes, if I add for example apples to apples  (meeples to meeples  :)) I extend the number of apples, but if I add apples to pears, what do I extend? Yes, the number of fruits, so then I add apples to meeples.
Shortly, if I extend something I probably add something, but if I add something it doesn't mean that something was extended.

You're absolutely right. There is a difference. But I don't think there's a difference in this context… Or is there?

In this context there isn't (I hope  ;))

First off, kudos to dwhitworth for this find!

Although I like the word extends better, I think add might be more appropriate in some rare cases. Most of the time, add and extend would be the same thing. It's when you have a hole in the middle of a city when it becomes different. Placing a tile to fill that hole does not extend the city - it remains the same size geographically-speaking. In the context of roads and cities, extend means to increase the area they occupy.

True, but in that scenario the city is still 'extended' in the sense of encompassing more segments, and thus generating a higher score.

But I'm happy to alter "extend" to "add"; and both are more precise than the HiG rules. Whichever we go with, I'll add a footnote explaining what's going on in any case.

When you add a tile to a road you extend the road.

So, in short: You add tiles, but you extend (or expand) features. Thus you can really say both depending on what you are refering to. (And do not complain that I finished the last sentence with a preposition. :P )

I'm not talking to you anymore.
 >:7