Carcassonne Central

New news  ::)

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote off a fairly long mail to HiG about a contradiction from the last correspondence (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=230.0), and just got a reply. Here's my question:

The answer:
If this just confirms what's already written in the rules, why does it warrant a new topic?

Because I want to suggest that, as a tacit acceptance of the turn structure I described, it should be used in the CAR, replacing the old structure of:

1. Place a tile
2. Deploy a follower
3. Score completed features

That structure is taken from the Big Box, which uses it for the basic game, and then 'imposes' onto the other expansions. I followed that in the CAR. But because that structure is from the basic game, it doesn't really suit the later expansions which include beginnings, ends and double-turns. The result is a certain amount of confusion, as I'm sure you're aware.

I'd like to use the structure I used in the CAR, but that will move the CAR one step further away from being a translation. I know that's one of my pet topics, and nobody else much cares, but I'd like some community discussion and approval before I do it.

So, and issues with the structure or the proposal?

That seems fine. I can't see any major issues with this :)

As usual I am more verbose than Joff  :)

The Proposal:

I think it is very important for the CAR to be comprehensive, authoritative, useful and easy to understand. It seems to me that these objectives are way more important than adherence to the role of being just an accurate translation. It can be frustrating and confusing to have to plow through footnotes to get to the crux of a ruling. The notes and the history and the translation issues all need to be there for reference: they are important. But the most useful role of the CAR (IMHO) is that of a complete reference to the rules of mega Carc (or some subset thereof). It seems to me that the clarity required by this role necessarily means straying from the absolute translation objective and I would support that – probably to a far greater extent than Matt would be comfortable with!!

The Structure:

• It may be worth noting that the issue of double turns and the confusions arising only occur if you are playing one or more of the Princess, Tower and Cathar expansions. In all other combinations a double turn is exactly the same as two single turns.
       
• The fairy point must be taken first – it is in the rules. It is also clear that it can only occur once.
       
• The Cathar rescue can only occur once, and the rules say that it must be “at the end of a player’s turn”. While this has always been interpreted as meaning the very end it is not entirely clear to me that it must be at the end of the double turn. As long as it only happens once, could it not occur after the first turn - freeing up the meeple for deployment in the second one?  Frankly it would be simpler if it were only at the end of the second turn – and we play it that way – but I wonder if that needs clarification.
       
• Prisoner ransom should not be confined to the end of the turn as the rules say that the meeple can be redeployed in the current turn. We have mostly played that it occurs at the start of the turn – logically at the same place as the fairy point. But with HiG’s comment that it can occur only once, but at any time, I wonder if the structure might not allow it to occur at any time. A player may not want to ransom a meeple when they see the first tile, but after adding to a builder-feature they may want to ransom the prisoner before the second deployment.
       
• Thus (subject to comments/clarifications of items above) the structure might become :
       
  • Fairy point assigned and optionally ransom prisoner
  • Start basic turn
                       
    • Draw tile and optionally ransom a prisoner if you have not already done so
    • Place tile
    • Deploy
    • Score and then allow Cathar escape if not already done
                       
       
  • If builder play allows and you have not already done so then repeat basic turn
       

Sorry to be so long winded, but I have struggled with his and would like to see it clarified for new players in the future . . .

You're right, double-turns are only a problem with certain expansions; but I feel that having a structure which clarifies the nature of the double turn from the outset would be helpful. I'd also include a more detailed discussion in the CAR, explaining the rationale behind the structure.

But the main problem is that we have no idea how many expansions for Carc there will be, and how many of those will use the 'beginning' and 'end' phases. Your suggested structure, for example, blurs the distinction between escape (at the end of the turn) and deploying a follower to Carcassonne (triggered by scoring). We need to keep that distinction clear, because it might come up again.

I agree that we could as exactly when escape occurs, but I think it's logical that it will really occur at the very end, and not before. There's no rule which say that a knight can escape and be redeployed in the same turn—as a ransomed follower can. Also, you have to remember that you aren't eligible to escape a second follower after the second scoring of a double turn—and more importantly, you have to explain to other players that they can't. That's pretty opaque ruling. And if we have to be careful with obstreperous players deserving of defenestration (sorry ;D)in the case of u-turns, then we should avoid giving them such ammo here as well.

To be honest, I see no value to allowing escape after first scoring except your own advantage ;) It confuses, and nothing else…

This is true and what's more the rules say that the piece must be "returned to [the player's] supply". So all in all that seems a convincing argument for limiting escape to the end of the whole turn. I agree it simplifies - as I said above.

I notice that both Alderon and John Sweeney treat the prisoner ransom as a pre-basic turn activity like fairy points. It sure would simplify the game and the structure of the turn if that were the only place for it, but HiG say "at any time". The rules just say " . . . during their turn a player may decide to pay the ransom . . . "

So I'm Ok with your suggested structure given that somehow the ransom of prisoners can be done other than just at the end. Perhaps it can be omitted altogether at this point although that leaves out the benefit of pointing out that it can only occur once.

I'd have to agree with this:


It's not our fault that there are so many confusing points to how the expansions interact with the base game.  In the absence of that clarity, it may sometimes be necessary to offer different ways of looking at a ruling, or how it might interact with other rules.

As I understand it, we're only talking about changing that one page in the CAR that lists the order of stuff during a player's turn? If so, I think perhaps a bigger deal is being made of it than necessary. It's not a ground-shattering change to the translation to improve that one page to be more accurate when dealing with expansions. But if you're still concerned, strive to use the same writing style and make it blend in.

I like the five-step process, with steps 2-4 being repeated when necessary. I agree that escape via cloister should happen in step 5.

As has been mentioned above, and by HiG, a prisoner can be ransomed at ANY time during the turn. I get the impression that some people are seeing this as a syntactical dilemma, but there's a very easy solution to that. It becomes a note, separate from the ordered list, that prisoner buyback can occur at any time during the turn and only once per turn. Clear and concise.

Actually, my plan was to change every instance of the old structure, including in the Basic Game. So wherever it says '1. Place a tile' it will now say '2. Place a tile'.

Obviously, all the games in the Big Box are direct translations. All the other stuff has been reorganised in the Big Box 'style'—which basically means I've followed the 1, 2, 3 structure. But now if I switch to the 1-5 structure, then all of the text will be in the 'Matt' style, or 'CC' style. Sure, the idea of organising the material in that way will still be based on the Big Box, but the actual way of cutting the rules up will be new.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, the Big Box rules only refer backwards, not forwards—all the rules refer to previous expansions, but not future ones. So imposing a structure (1-5) which doesn't actually apply to the Basic Game, but only to future expansions, is something of an anomaly.

So I think it's a minor change to the actual text, but fairly significant change in the underlying rationale of the CAR.

Hmm... I have a hard time visualizing how that will pan out. With the basic game, there is nothing to say for #1, and it would look strange starting at #2.

I think it would be better (and less obtrusive) to just change the turn summary page which comes after and is separate from all the rules.

Can we not refer to "The Basic Turn" of the game which is the three step turn defined in the basic game - and which is used with many expansions without change.

Then we have expansions where there are additional actions that take place only once, either before the "Basic Turn" (fairy point), or after it (escape form Cathar city) or, in the case of prisoner ransom, at any time during it.

Then you say that when a player has a builder he may (under the right conditions) be able to draw a tile and repeat the "Basic Turn": once.

If that does not jibe exactly with the wording the publisher uses, well, that is because the publisher has not taken the responsibility to be precise and clarify the rules well enough . . . and we might as well do it  . . . for the sake of the players.  Power to the Meeples {pr

@dwithworth—I feel that generating two sets of the structure—one for the basic game, and one for expansions—would just add to the confusion.

@Scott—you're right, #1 would be empty for the basic game. But I'd leave it in, and add in some explanation about why (perhaps even in the main body of the text, rather than a footnote). Say something like 'This section is included because several expansions have actions before the basic turn starts, and for the sake of consistency I felt it better to incorporate the same structure throughout the rules. See 'Xyz' for more details'.

You could just call the first step in the turn order: Step 0 :)

Not a bad idea, that…

Tobias wins for the day.

Hmmm, I wasn't suggesting two structures, but rather than in the single structure the Basic Turn becomes a subset of the whole turn when expanded by certain extensions.
In order to clear up the confusion caused by the ambiguous way in which "double Turns" are often described it is necessary to spell it all out somewhere. I am not sure that a 3 or 5 part structure alone will do this. I wonder if it needs an explanation outside everything else - rather like the way that farmer scoring in the different versions of the rules is treated?

Reading that makes my brain hurt. The five-step structure seems very straightforward to me. Can you rephrase or elaborate your concern?

Well, I have no objection to a structure that describes a five part turn.  It illustrates the Mega Carc turn just fine.

The problem is that the rules talk about a builder allowing a “double turn”. That is a valid description of what happens in the basic game and works for many expansions as well. But when you are using P&D or Cathars  the idea of a double turn causes confusion.

This is because unlike other expansions, that simply add actions within the usual turn, these expansions   involve actions that occur before, or after the usual turn. In addition these actions can only occur once. So when a “double turn” is called for, people have difficulty realizing that in these expansions the extra  turn does not allow the repeat of these actions.

If a “turn” is what players do after the previous player is done and  before the next player takes over then the concept of a “Double turn” becomes confusing with these expansions -  because people naturally think that everything should be doubled.

So  it seems to me that it is better to describe a basic play (or turn) of the game – tile placement, deploy pieces, score (TPS).

This is what happens in the basic game and with many expansions. AND this is what is doubled when the builder is active.

P&D  and Cathars involve actions (Fairy point and escape) that occur BEFORE and AFTER the basic play (turn) of the game (the TPS). This can be  explained in the description of these expansions.

You could talk about the “extended turn” when using these expansions, but hat might be equally confusing. Although an extended turn that incorporates a basic turn as a subset is not alien to other games.

So rather than try to impose a five part structure when describing the basic game, why not explain all this in the introduction so that people understand the way that these particular expansions (and others in the future) should be understood when deciding how a builder's “double turn” is interpreted?

Now my brain hurts  ;D

In our group no one has ever interpreted the builder as anything else than: draw and place another tile. I think you make a huge problem out of a non existing one. Simplify, and do not assume people are complete morons. While an exhaustive FAQ and CAR would be nice, sometimes maybe one should take the pragmatic road.

Then again, I'm Swedish, and we don't have warning signs about hot content on our coffee pots either.

@ dwhitworth: I (hope I) see what you're getting at, but I feel Tobias is right when he suggests keeping it pragmatic. With a five-part turn, I'd want it spelt out clearly somewhere what all the hubbub is about; and I'd be clearly indicating in footnotes that a double-turn is a single turn, and so on. But what I would want from a five-part turn is 'training' people to get to see things the right way from the outset, rather that having to learn different rules when they come to exceptions.

Here's an example of what I mean:

[off-topic ramble]
Whenever I teach an English refresher course, pretty much the first thing I write on the blackboard is 'English is not German'. All the students laugh nervously, thinking that the teacher is mad. Then I explain what I mean.

Normally, when you begin to teach English, you start with sentences like 'I am Matt', 'I am from Jena', and so on. This is actually very bad for Germans, because these sentences, structurally, translate one-to-one with German sentences. More detail:
- Positive: I am Matt—Ich bin Matt
- Negative: I am not Matt—Ich bin nicht Matt
- Question: Am I Matt?—Bin ich Matt?
The problem is the verb 'to be', which is obviously the most basic verb in English, but doesn't work like normal verbs. Notice the last one in particular. To make a question with 'to be', you invert the subject ('I') and the verb ('am'). In English, this is an exceptional structure, in German it's the norm. Here's another example:
- Positive: I come from Jena—Ich komme aus Jena
- Negative: I do not come from Jena—Ich komme nicht aus Jena
- Question: Do I come from Jena?—Komme ich aus Jena?
So, while in German the structure is the same in both examples here, in English we start using an extra (auxiliary) verb when we form negatives and questions—and this is the way it is with almost every verb in English. But, for the sake of simplicity, perhaps, or because it's so common, most teachers start out with 'to be'. The result is that when a young German encounters their first sentence in English, their initial realisation is: 'Oh, this works like German!—I am, Ich bin; Am I?, Bin ich?' It takes them years to unlearn that misconceived rule. I've taught people who are virtually fluent, but still make that basic mistake after eight or ten years tuition.
[/off-topic ramble]

What I'm getting at is that, if you want people to get to grips with a fundamental rule (or structure), it's best to make it clear from the start, even if that does seem to complicate things initially. What we'd be trying to achieve in the CAR is to stop people thinking that a double-turn doubles everything, but only doubles a certain part of the turn. And the best way to do that is to impose a general structure, rather than say, 'Well, a double turn does double everything, unless you're using this expansion, in which case it doesn't'. That makes like simpler for the basic game, but much more complicated for those exceptional expansions.

I'm for teaching the right way from the beginning.

OK, one last post and I will shut up!

@Matt, I completely agree with your position – and the intro to German was intriguing as well :)
I am completely in favour of a five step structure being used to explain the turn from the beginning. My intention was to encourage you to take that step.

@Tobias, I heartily accept your point about simplicity - read on - but there is confusion about double turns. The very existence of the issue in the FAQ and on this forum many times is evidence that it is not clear to people. I agree that we on this forum who have seen the game develop do  not have much trouble, but new players do, and it seems to me that the CAR is meant to be useful to them.

My point is that when we define the structure in the CAR we have the opportunity to use a better terminology than the publisher has done. By doing so we can avoid the confusion in the first place; keep it all simpler to understand. This is very  much in line with Matt's wish to teach it correctly from the start.

So in the CAR let's not use the word “turn” ambiguously. Let's not have to end up saying ludicrous things like “well the Double Turn is still a single turn”. Believe me that confuses people - and it is not a "simple" concept. It confused me for a long time, until Matt posted a note here to explain it.

If you use the word “turn” to describe what a player does between the previous player and the next one, then don't use it for the Tile/Deploy/Score thing which is repeated by the builder. Call that thing something else right from the start in the description of the basic game etc. I suggested that it be called a “basic turn”, but anything sensible would do.

If you are going to call the Tile/Deploy/Score” step a “turn” then use a different word for the thing that happens in mega carc (call it an extended turn or player-actions or something). Then you can say correctly that a builder provides a “double turn'. But you don't have to say it is still a single turn because it is the other thing – an extended turn or whatever.

So I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can get the terminology right, keep it straightforward (i.e. simple) and avoid confusion.

Perhaps even Tobias will agree that is not as silly as a “hot warning” icon on the coffee pot. ;D

Now I will shut up as promised.

I do agree that one can use a different terminology than the publisher and that the whole point with a FAQ and  CAR should be to help people. I'm sure Matt can use both "turn" and "sequence of play" (or some such) in a way that it becomes clear.