Carcassonne Central

I finally managed to post a draft of the extended version of my Annotated Rules - the Completely Annotated Rules! You'll find it under the Rules and FAQ (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CarcassonneCentral/FileSharing1223.html) section of the downloads. There's about three times as many footnotes and the whole thing has been reformatted to fit into the box of the basic game, with a facing-page layout in case you want to bind it. I wouldn't advise actually printing it out yet - there's a lot of work to be done before this is in any way finished. All the expansions, for a start. But if anyone has any comments, I'd be grateful.

I also updated a number of the other files in the download section:

Rules for (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CarcassonneCentral/FileSharing1223.html):
- Traders and Builders
- The River
- The River II
- The Princess and the Dragon
- The GQ expansion
- The basic game
- and the main Annotated Rules file

and a couple of other things too:
- Selected Variations (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CarcassonneCentral/FileSharing1226.html)
- Overview and Summary (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CarcassonneCentral/FileSharing1227.html)

The links doesn't work for me :( But I'm using Opera ... maybe that's it?

My mistake, sorry. Should work now…

I'm using Opera too, and I wondered why it was telling me there was an illegal url. Note to self: Opera knows best!

Another day, another update. Well, version 3.6 was a week old and never got posted. But today i added RGG 'proofs' to all the Incorporated & Depreciated FAQ, and completely reworked the Tile Distribution Lists. They now work alphabetically so that 'cities' come before 'farms' come before 'roads'. Rivers come last, the exception, and are signified by 's'. So the old tile 'ffrc' would now be 'cffr'. A little easier to remember ;). And all the lists for the individual expansions have been updated to match, with all the tiles rotated to fit the description properly. Again, easier for anyone who's interested in the shorthand.

That's probably the last major update before I get the Completely Annotated Rules out…

As usual, available from the Downloads section.

Hi,

First I wanted to say thank you for all your hard work on this project.

I just got the game a couple weeks back, and we enjoyed it so much that I went out and got the expansions. I was actually going to return the basic game and get the Big Box, but the store I bought it from didn't have any in stock. Instead they gave me all the expansions and the game at the Big Box price. Afterwards I was curious if there was anything different in the Big Box and a quick search found this site. It is nice to see the differences and have a consolidated set of rules to play from. I was so impressed, that I printed out all sixty pages on the office color laser printer to have a hard copy for everyone to read.

I also wanted to give you some feedback on your latest changes. After reading the Annotated rules and the Completely Annotated rules, I must say I prefer the Annotated version. It was easy to read and the information seemed to be where I would expect it. The Completely Annotated set seems to break up the flow of the instructions and there is a lot of information that is only usefull if you are going to use certain expansions. It seemed to me that some of the information was being presented out of order. I did like the farming examples (65 and 66) on scoring though. It was nice to have an example that showed the points would not be radically different but the awarding could be done simpler.

Thanks again for your hard work,
Allan 

Yeah, some of the info is out of order, introducing all the expansions much earlier in the notes, and so on. I'm not sure I prefer it either, but I'm not sure how else to organise the text...

And thanks for the words of encouragement!  8)

I've used the Annotated rules quite a bit, printed and updated people I've played with regularely or just casually once or twice.

Pretty much all of the new rules and clarifications adds to the game, and making them available to the world in such a fashion has greatly increased many peoples appreciation for this game.

Amazing work, keep it up  :)

Question: how many of you think the new Completely Annotated Rules are overkill?

I haven't actually read the C.A.R.

The annotated ones had mostly what I required but if the complete version adds something vital I'd gladly look at it. What is its goal again?

The aim is to, well, completely annotate the rules. The Annotated Rules only deal with issues between the HiG and RGG versions, and adds (some) notes about previous expansions. The Completely Annotated Rules (which currently only cover the basic game) are meant to include notes about subsequent expansions as well. It's meant to be comprehensive, rather than merely useful. However, I'm beginning to suspect - as Allan suggested - that 'comprehensive' actually means 'less transparent', and as such less useful.

The version of the rules for the basic game which are online at the FAQ section (start here (http://web.mac.com/mjharper/iWeb/carc/Home/E7C7EC49-CF4C-45F7-9BB7-DAA30E5CA272.html)) are the same as those in the C.A.R., by the way.

Wait a sec. There are the Annotated Rules and the Completely Annotated Rules? So, the 60-page beast is the Annotated Rules, right? And the C.A.R. is going to include even more stuff? That's good by me! I absolutely love the Annotated Rules (assuming that's the 60-page pdf). There is a ton of good info in there that has already cleared up quite a few rules issues for our group. I think from this point onwards, we will always have a laptop near the game table so we can quickly look up rules. Great job on this one!

Now, I guess I will have to check out the C.A.R. too.

First off, I admire the effort you put into the FAQs, thank you!  I suspect that like me, most people occassionally will need to reference the rules or a vague rule for clarification.  Having the CAR around still helps, as does the AR.  I haven't decided which one is more useful though, they are both useful in their own way.

The one comment I'd like to make is that because of the cost and effort of printing on my inkjet printer, I'd rather wait than print out 60 pages of anything if I knew there was going to be a revision coming out soon.  That is to say, numbering the documents with versions is a great idea, but it would help a great deal more if you put somewhere when the next version was going to be expected to be released, or if that version is complete as of whenever.  Then I can decide whether or not it is worth printing, or waiting for a forthcoming edit.  Or even mention that the documents are/are not complete up to expansion X.  Does this make sense (other than make me think I'm cheap when it comes to ink)?

For the moment, the Annotated Rules are pretty much finished. I wouldn't advise printing out the Completely Annotated rules as anything but a draft, though - too much needs to be added.  I can't put up a roadmap of any kind, either - next week I'll be teaching again and so I'll have less time. And I'm uncertain about whether the C.A.R. are overkill, which has put a hold on things. But when they're finished I'll put up a more comprehensive list of changes, along with page references, to make it easier for people to see what's new and decide if a new print-out is necessary.

My general idea was also that the C.A.R. would replace the Annotated Rules - otherwise it's just too much maintenance. A spelling mistake might need to be corrected in five documents (C.A.R. complete, C.A.R. individual game, A.R. complete, A.R. individual game, website) and that's just far too much effort. So bearing that in mind, the question is: should I keep developing and expanding the C.A.R. to inculde all the expansions, or should I just work on updating and maintaining the A.R.? The latter option would also mean the rules for the expansions would make it online much faster...

OK, I just scanned through the CAR and I must say, I like it. I like the way you can read through the basic rules and if you are just playing the base game, you can pretty much ignore a lot of the footnotes and just refer to the main text. However, if you are using expansions, the footnotes provide all the pertinent info you need. Yeah, you have to jump back and forth between the main text and the footnotes, but that's not too big a deal in a PDF doc. This type of layout makes it easy to get all the info pretty much all in once place.

When using the AR, you have to potentially jump around to a bunch of different sections to find rules/scoring changes. Of course, I find the layout of the AR useful in a lot of situations too. It's nice to have all the rules and tile layouts organized in their own sections so you can see what additions have been made.

So really, I find both documents extremely useful. I for one would encourage you to continue with the CAR, but that's easy for me to say - you have to do all the work, and I get to just sit back and reap the rewards!

Thanks for the comment. The CAR will include the tile distribution lists as well - individually with each set of rules and as a consolidated set later in the document.

I suppose one way around the maintenance issue would be to have the main document use the CAR, but have the individual documents for each expansion use the AR; that would allow you to choose what you want depending on which expansions you have and what level of detail you want. There just wouldn't be a single document containing all the annotated rules.

Maybe the website could also use the AR too...

Eek, having said that the AR are basically finished at the moment, I've just noticed at least two errors on the page for the GQ expansion.  :-[

Well - to be honest. Who does not use the pig-herd tile as a ... pig-herd tile, no matter what's official? ;)

I meant typos and incorrect references, actually... but when my copy of GQ11 arrives, I'll be using the pig-herd tile as a pig-herd tile too!

I'm looking forward to the CAR.

But I can understand that it is some overkill for many players, who just want the AR.

Keep up the tremendous work.
We will appreciate both versions.
I'll save both files, but likely only print out and use the CAR once done.

I'd suggest doing the CAR tile update last, which is probably what you'll do anyhow.

Good luck.


Alan

I just started playing the game about 4 months ago. I received it as a gift and it sat in my game cupboard for nearly 3 months before I ever decided I should at least take a look at it. To make a long story short, I have purchased 5 expansions and we play nearly every week. In answer to Matt's question above, I think that both versions have merit. My son printed the Annotated version and and gave it to me as part of the gift mentioned above and I learned how to play using it as a guide. Now that I understand the game, I would love to have a finished version of the CAR printed and bound to use as a reference whenever there is a dispute or question raised (and with 2 stubborn boys that happens alot! They take after their Mother I swear!). So for me, I would recommend to a new player to either use the Annotated version or one the rule sets that is "expansion specific" to learn to play the game, but to use the CAR as the final word when trying to clarify a ruling.

One last thing; Matt what an amazing work! I have to thank you for the countless hours you must have spent on this and thanks go out to everyone that contributed as well!

Does somebody can tell me how to download this completely annotated rules ?
I click, and I'm redirect to a web page asking for a password...

http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CarcassonneCentral/FileSharing1223.html

thanks !

Check your forum profile, under Forum Profile Information at the bottom, there you'll see the password for downloading those files.

The Completely Annotated Rules are excellent.
The format provides new players with a clear guide to the game rules. It is also a way for players (new and not so new) to have an easy guide to resolving game rules issues.
Because there have been changes and clarifications to the rules - there needs to be a single document that combines all the current rules. This CAR has been particularly useful for my group.
I got the Starter box and have added the expansions seperately - giving me a number of rules sheets.
The CAR is the solution to all of these pages and confusion and should become the central reference for all players.
For those lamenting printing the CAR - I have the latest version on my computer and it is available to resolve disputes, though a healthy discusion is a good part of the game.
House rules are still an important option. We now require that the dragon make munching noises when the move requires it. It is the most fun when a player has to eat their own meeples. Each to their own.
Thanks to Matt from all of my group for the excellent work you have done.

Same problem, but I still cannot find that password there, maybe because I'm a new user ?

You might have clicked on Profile, on the top menu.  That only shows you a short summary.

What you need to do is after clicking on Profile, then look at the menus on the left.  One of them says Forum Profile Information.  Click that.  It then shows you every profile item starting with your avatar. Scroll to the bottom, where you will see the password.  And remember to fill in all your info! Let me know if you still have problems finding it jayrosam!

Matt, is the version of CAR now posted in Downloads current? Or, perhaps a better question is, do you anticipate any version changes soon? I'd like to print a color copy and take it to Kinko's to have spiral-bound, but I'd rather wait if there is a new version around the corner.

Thanks for your continued efforts on this incredibly valuable resource. 

Okay, I've just uploaded 3.7.3. It's actually about a month old, but I thought I'd wait and see if any other errors were spotted.

As it is, there's only one correction, on page 59, under Selected Variants. In the section titled Follower unpunctuality, 3.7.2 and before say that "a follower may not deploy a follower…" This has been corrected to "a player may not deploy a follower…"

I don't foresee any major changes in the near future, so I guess you're pretty safe getting it printed…

Hope that helps!

It ask for a password to get in. What is it to see the rules?
Thank You
Yisrael Broder

It's been answered:


:)

There's also a handy-dandy reference that I pinned in the General forum:

WHERE TO FIND THE DOWNLOADS PASSWORD (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=164.0)

I've been working on a new version of the Annotated Rules, so if you head over to the downloads section you'll find a number of goodies. Almost all of the changes relate, logically, to Abbey and Mayor:

• completely updated Consolidated Tile Reference, incorporating the new tiles
• revised Overview and Summary
• a separated download of the rules for Abbey and Mayor
• a new version of the complete rules, now clocking in at 67 pages (!)

Be warned, however, that all of these except the first are in beta status - that is, there's a number of things which need to be confirmed, such as the status of the new figures (is the mayor a follower, for example).  I've written to HiG but they're out of the office at the moment. Still, you should hopefully find something of interest in there. Just don't go printing the whole thing out yet  ;)

Having got answers to all my questions (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=191.0) from HiG today, I've put the finishing touches to the Annotated Rules, and have uploaded version 4.0 proper.

There's now 70 pages, because I had to reoganise a couple of things, and I added the introduction that was recently suggested (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=190.0). Most sections have changes of some kind, so I'm afraid I didn't make a list of all the changes (will do that from now on, until the next major version). Footnotes have been inserted everywhere…

If anyone can think of anything that needs to be added or spots any errors or typos, please let me know.

 :bk much appreciated!

Page 6
- First paragraph, second line: "varioations" should be "variations".
- First paragraph, third line: "website" should be "web site".
- Second paragraph, first line: "perhasp" should be "perhaps"; "imporatntly" should be "importantly".
- Second paragraph, second line: "the document" should be changed to "this document" to be more specific.
- Third paragraph, second line: the word "what" should be removed, and another comma added after HiG.
- Ninth paragraph, second line: "Only one of expansion" should be changed to "Only one of the expansions".
- Tenth paragraph, third line: "foornote" should be "footnote".
- Tenth paragraph, fourth line: "the document" should be changed to "this document" to be more specific.
Page 7
- First paragraph, first line: "did something" and "they stick" are different tenses (past and present respectively).
- Fifth paragraph, first line: "has always to move" should be "has always been to move".
Page 8
- The break in the Overview section was confusing the first time I tried to read it. Even after figuring it out, I wish you would move the scoreboard image and Overview paragraph away from each other.
Page 15
- Footnote 24 has a grammar error. There is more than one way to fix it.
Page 17
- If the original starting tile is treated like a normal tile, could it instead be mixed with the other normal tiles?
- Is excluding the original starting tile from the game entirely an option as well?
Page 21
- The first sentence under step two contains an extra "or" before the comma.
Page 35
- If we're not playing with the P&D expansion, does the rule about not placing a follower on the volcano still apply? If so, would it be acceptable to substitute the original lake tile from the first River expansion?
Page 37
- If a tower is built high enough that the base of another tower is within its reach, does the height of the towers come into play regarding capturing of prisoners? That is to say, can a shorter tower capture the follower from a taller tower, or does the tower need to be equal or greater in height?
Page 39
- Footnote 114 seems a little out of place here, since in this case the farm does NOT go around the spring due to the road.
Page 41
- Third paragrah under wagon, second line: "retrive" should be "retrieve".
- Bottom-right picture caption: "not to the completed road segment" should be "nor to the completed road segment".
Page 42
- First paragraph, fourth line: "owner of the barn involved in" should be "owner of the barn is involved in".
Page 43
- Footnote 128: "conunts" should be "counts".
- Footnote 131: "druing" should be "during".
- Footnote 133: "this last about" should be "this last sentence about"
Page 55
- First paragraph, first sentence: "as well as" and "than" are contradictory.

Brilliant - thanks! I'll update the rules to take account of these.

Nice job Scott! Did I forget to mention that we only pay in merit points around here?   8)

Page 48
First paragraph, Line 1 - Should say, "Some have been rendered..."
Second paragraph, Line 3 - Should say, "...contact me via email."
Third paragraph, Line 2 - Should say, "...to include only what is relevant."

Great, thanks!

Page 35 - right at the beginning when it says to set tiles aside, it only says to set the one lake tile aside, but clearly both need to be set aside.

Page 6
- Paragraph heading "1st and 3rd edition scoing?" should read "1st and 3rd edition scoring?"

Great work though! This is a VERY useful resource for Carcassonne players everywhere!

Here's a few more:

Page 2
- Table of Contents: The "1st & 3rd edition scoing?" heading in the Introduction chapter should read "1st & 3rd edition scoring?"

Page 35
- Paragraph 4: The pig herd is not connected with any other expansion. It is 'in addition of' as the last paragraph indicates

Page 39
- Last paragraph: "It my..." should read "It may..."

Page 39
- Extra Pieces: "12 new land tiles including 1 pig herd tile..." Further down page we are told that it is NOT a pig herd tile

Page 40
- Extra Pieces: Quantity of Abbey tiles is missing

Page 44
- Tile Distribution: What is the word "spring" doing on the tile (perhaps a better word would be "well" as it's confusing when the River/II contains a spring?)

Page 66
- f,r,r,r: The tile from the Tower needs rotating 180° to be consistant

I'm retracting this correction. A more recent investigation has shown that, indeed, only the one lake tile is set aside. The RGG rules explicitly identify the volcano/lake tile as the one to be set aside, which should be added as a footnote. The city/lake tile is to be mixed in with the rest of the river tiles so that one branch ends a variable amount of time before the other.

Okay, I've just posted v4.1.

It's a proof-reading update, mostly incorporating suggestions from Scott and Joff—thanks for the work, guys! Sometimes I didn't make the changes recommended, such as when doing so would have strayed away from the 'translation' of the original. I'll add some of these points in the next update, which will also include the rules for the 6th expansion, and maybe also the FAQ we just sent off.

I reduced the file size considerably too (down to 4.8 MB). That was done partly by removing the shaded backgrounds, and also by reducing the general graphic quality. If anyone thinks that the quality is now too low, let me know.

I might also be trying to put together a new layout—I'll keep you posted.

The date on the download page says 28 Oct 2008 which is a little far in the future.

Doh! Corrected.

Page 6, Paragraph 1, Line 3 - the word "website" should actually be two words: "web site".
Page 8, Introduction - the word "skilful" is missing a letter: "skillful".
Page 35 - The RGG rules explicitly state that the "lake with volcano" tile is set aside, as opposed to the lake with city tile. A footnote should be added after the words "lake tile" in the first line of the first paragraph under the heading "Preparation".

I'm going to type up and PM you the River II rules from RGG just in case. Even if you already have them from someone else, it doesn't take long.

I think I'll hold off reprinting until after HiG replies to the big list of questions and the 6th expansion is added.

It looks OK, Matt. I liked the shaded pages, but plain does not really detract from the look of the book. Not sure about an A5 version though. I print my copy double sided on A4 and have it covered and spiral bound (by a local printer). An A5 version would be OK, as long as I get the double sided printing correct :), but it would then have to be guillotined down to size. I would then probably have difficulty in getting it bound the same way.

One of the biggest problems that I found with CAR is the length of time it takes to print off (Windows with a Laser and Inkjet printer). It spends some time (quite a long time, actually) flattening each page before it prints. Having said that, I have not attempted to print off version 4.1 as yet, so do not know if the speed issue is better with the removal of the shaded background. I can't really comment on the graphic quality untill I see a print off. I think though, like Scott, that I'll wait for the HiG questions to be answered and also the Consort expansion to be incorporated before attempting a reprint.

I intentionally didn't include those corrections, for various reasons:

"Website" is fine. According to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, "Internet users unite in preferring 'website' for a location on the World Wide Web." It does note that dictionaries tend to prefer 'web site'. However, my New Oxford Dictionary of English, which was too new to be taken account of when the Guide was written, uses 'website'. That's true for both the book, and the built-in version on my Mac (which is supposedly the New Oxford American Dictionary), which lists it as one of several possibilities. In the end, both are okay; I chose to stick with my Oxford and internet convention.
Incidentally—for anyone who's interested—there's a similar situation with 'email'. Most dictionaries list 'e-mail' as preferred, although internet convention is 'email'. The 1st edition of the New Oxford (1998) used 'e-mail' as well, while the 2nd edition (2004) uses 'email'.

'Skilful' is British English, while 'skillful' is American. I've tried to adopt 'neutral' spelling where possible, but naturally I always default to B.E..

Yeah, there's a couple of footnotes need to be added to the CAR. I don't want to change the main text unless necessary, since the document is still meant to be a translation, rather than a fully up-to-date summary. But on this pass through I wanted to get rid of the spelling mistakes (etc.) that have been pointed out. After all, v4.0 was 'beta' for 3 months. v4.1 is an bug-squashing update, if you will; it improves the last version, but doesn't add any new material. The next version will add an abundance of new material, such as rules for the 6th expansion, the 30+ FAQ, and hopefully a new layout.

Well, I'm playing with a custom size at the moment, which is smaller than A5 so that it should  print onto US letter format. Also, this would be intended to print two pages to one sheet, or, if you will, two 'columns'. I get the impression that a number of people would prefer it that way. But also it should reduce 'dead space' and—this is the main aim—allow the footnotes to be at the bottom of the page, rather that at the section end.
I've never tried printing them out, but my guess is that the graphics are to blame. I've already made one switch in the graphics—from tiff to png—but I'm going to try to reduce the graphics still more in the draft. Have to see how that goes.

Definitely, printing v.4.1 is not advised…

Okay, here's a example PDF of the kind of thing I'm thinking of: download here (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf).

Removing the shaded background meant I could go jpg on the graphics, and they were reduced before putting them in the actual document.

Feedback please!

I have no problem with the look. I always prefer footnotes on the actual page, instead of at the end of the chapter of a book. Apart from a bit of formatting work (for example, "A canny tile-laying game for 2 to 6 players aged 8 and above by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede" needing to be on 1 line and the "released in 2000" should be smaller text, I know it is just to give us an idea, Matt :)) it is fine. It seems to flatten faster if one is going to print a hardcopy, and can be read easily in 'A5' size as well as be printed clearly in 'A4' size without any loss in quality. One thing I did find is that when I sent it from Acrobat to my printer (my printer using A4 paper), printing 'Multiple pages per sheet', it reduces even further than the original size and the margins (printed at 2 pages on A4) would be ok on odd pages for binding purposes (hole punching), but no good on even pages (this might be due to the document properties - see below). That aside, I would personally print them at A4 size anyway.

Is your document size wrong, Matt? The document properties say 5.50" x 8.26". The 8.26" is A5 but the width for A5 should be 5.82". This might be the reason for the odd margin widths when using standard A4 paper!

Thanks for the tests! Just what I needed to know.

Strange that Acrobat reduces the size further. Have to work out something there.

The page sizes are intentional (sorry, some of the discussion took place on another thread (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=82.new;topicseen#new))

Basically, given the following dimensions:

• A4 is 20.99x29.70cm
• US letter is 21.59x27.94cm

I figured that if I made a custom size of 20.99x27.94cm—width according to A4, and height according to US—then the design would fit both. If I go with A4, then it causes problems for Americans, and if I go with US letter if causes problems for Europeans. The rest of the world, I couldn't say.

Then I wanted to have two pages to a sheet—approximately A5—so I cut the height in half, to 13. 97cm. So, in the end, the pages are as high as a A4 is wide, and half as wide as US letter is high. It should fit both sizes without any resizing, which is why the Acrobat behaviour is odd.

This is all just kicking ideas around, and it may be better to go with a standard size in the end…

A useful addition to the CAR might be an explanation of this (if we stick with the size) instructions for printing it out.

I understand. You can get Acrobat to centre the 2 pages on a printout, but that does cause a margin problem, as previously stated. The more I look at the 'A5' format though, the more I like it! Of course, it is good to know that it can be printed at full 'A4' size.

Perhaps a thought is that we can all become one through a 'New World Order', and we can all adopt the standard A4 format? Mind you, us Brits don't like the kg's or the Euro, for that matter. Thanks probably a discussion for another forum ;)

Edit: I could read the pages quite clearly with the Acrobat 'mysterious' reduction (which something tells me it is to do with the 'print area'), so that wasn't a major issue (It does not reduce by much), but the margin sizes were.

The problem with the custom design is it will cause (minor?) problems for everyone, while if I go with A4/A5 it will cause bigger problems for the Americans. On the other hand, sticking with a familiar size means that everyone knows what to expect… Have to see how everyone else feels about it.

I think the ~A5 size is good. There have been repeated requests over the last couple of years to make the CAR a size that will conveniently fit into the box, which is perfectly reasonable. And the smaller column size means that the footnotes should fit as well, which is better in every way. So if it scales up to A4 and looks good, then that's great.

Re the New World Order… that would be cool. It would really make life much easier. I'm not to bothered about the Euro—but I don't think currency has much to do with identity, unlike a certain British politician a couple of years back—but I do prefer kilos and centimetres to pounds and inches. Been out of the UK for too long, and now I have to really think to do the conversion…

Hey, and we could all drive on the same side, too  :)

Ok, so it's not very good for my "carbon footprint", so to speak, but (and I really need 4 pages to check... that's a hint, Matt ;)) I think you can print at A5 size by only putting 1 sheet to a page by selecting 'Booklet Printing' in Acrobat. This would solve the margin issue (at the expense of a tree!), but would mean work with a guillotine :) ;D

On the other note, I actually was taught at school in Centimeters for length and Pounds for weight... and of course, Pounds for money :)

I'll get a couple more pages done in a later today. Promise.

Maybe we should issue a call for help to all UK and US Acrobat experts?

I don't use it, don't need it, don't want it (typical Mac snob)…

Okay, done another two pages… page 3 is heavy on footnotes, page 4 is heavy on graphics, so the overall impression is perhaps more rounded.

Here's the link again (same as before). (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf)

Ok, just done a quick test run. The flattening procedure is quite quick. Much, much quicker, in fact.

As we thought, the margins are a real pain, especially when you need to print both sides of the paper (the margins don't match up then!).

I tried the page scaling on 'none' and attempted to print 'odd pages only'. No problem. However, when you try to print on the opposite side of the odd pages the even pages either print 'on the wrong side' or are upside-down on the reverse of the odd pages (if you can understand me). This is also the case for 'Booklet printing'. So at present the margin issue is unresolved when printing on both sides of the paper. If anyone finds out how this can be done easily, let us know.

In my testing, here we don't have actual A4 or A5 paper sizes available, so using NA standard letter size (8.5x11) paper, I tried to go into my print dialog to see what would happen if I chose A4 or A5.

My printer (an HP PSC 2175, very basic all-in-one inkjet) has a conversion capability built into the printer driver.  This means that no matter what the actual original size is, A4 or A5, it can convert the document to letter size or whatever paper size I have.  HPs are very common printers, and I imagine that most brands will also have this functionality.

I would think that if you do 2 pages to a sheet on A4 or A5, or if you used a custom size, it might get a bit more difficult however.

If you create one test page in A4 and also in A5, I can test those right away using the HP driver using NA standard sizes.


PS - UGH... i'm getting my testing a little mixed up.  Tried the latest 5.5 x 8.3 size.  Flattening is extremely quick as Joff noted.  Detail of graphics is good, even in the small footnote tile images. Even in fastdraft (lowest quality) it is good, although the small scale footnote tiles are a bit hard to discern details at times.

There is no problem printing at A4 (I'm in UK), but it's when it comes to printing it in it's A5 size the problems come. There is difficulty with the margins when you print at 2 pages per sheet. When you only print one A5 page to a sheet, you can't print on the reverse of the page as it's either upside-down (in relation to the other page) or on the wrong side of the reverse. Adobe Reader does not provide functionality to 'force' it to the other side for reverse printing.

I have a Lexmark printer which does not provide the function your HP does... or at least, I haven't found it yet  ;D

Okay, here's an A5 version (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnewA5.pdf)…

Complete thumbs up on this one.  All I have to do is print it - no conversion necessary.  I have letter-size in the tray, and it just works.  Using my paper-cutter, the size is a great fit in the original Carc box.

Are you printing two to a page?

good god, no

do you mean front + back, or 2 on 1 page (shrunk?)

Exactly. A5 is half A4—so you should be able to get page 6 and 7 on one side of a sheet of A4 paper with no reduction, no shrinking, and then be able to fold it in half. But on US letter, you'd probably have to shrink it, which is why I was using a custom size. Although it wouldn't fit perfectly for anyone, it wouldn't have to be shrunk either…

Joff was saying earlier that a single page looked fine on A4—but that's scaled up. If it looks fine that way, great, but the new layout isn't actually designed for that. Bear in mind that, in A5 layout, scaled up to A4 or US letter, the current CAR would probably be 125+ pages…

Oh well. Looks like this has me beat. Perhaps it's a limitation in Adobe Reader?

When I try to print Multiple pages per sheet, the leading edge margin is too narrow (The part that goes through the printer first)The printing starts too soon)). The centre margin (where you are supposed to cut an A4 sheet for A5) is too narrow. This means when you fold a piece of A4 in half it encroaches on the text of the following page. The trailing margin is far too wide! I'm confused!  :-\

Printing on letter-size paper, both A4 and A5 have wide enough margins for punching holes (or whatever form of binding someone prefers). The page scaling options I am using are "Fit to Printable Area" and "Booklet Printing". I prefer the slightly wider A5 because it fills the page a little better. All my testing has been single-sided because my printer doesn't support duplexing and I'm too lazy to do it manually. Font size in booklet mode is still large enough to read. The non-scientific "hold two sheets back-to-back and stare at them in front of a light source" method doesn't seem to indicate any problems with duplexing; margins and gutters line up. (Everything is centered on the page by default.)

I'm liking the footnotes on every page. The effort will definitely be worth the end result.

What are you using to print from? Adobe Reader? I ask because I can not find a way to invoke both of those options at the same time!

I too love the footnotes on every page (which is where footnotes should be :)) and have no problems in clarity with the text at small size. It is a bonus that it scales up well also.

I have just been thinking though... if I need to have a printer guillotine the sheets to A5 for me after printing, why not have him do it before and just print straight on to A5? Now that should work as my printer will accept A5 sheets! I don't know why I didn't think of it before!

Ok, just tested printing on an A5 piece of paper. No problems :)

It looks really good  ;D

I can change the margins, if you want…

I'm not sure if that would help, Matt. It seems that whatever margin space is included, Adobe Reader (ver 8 ) wants to 'force' the 2 pages too close together at the centre margin (unless anyone can demonstrate different). You could try and i'll give you some feedback.

Like I said in my previous post, I can print either at A4 (no change from ver 4) or get some A5 paper and print direct on that. Either way is fine for me, and using A5 paper resolves my issue.

The problem is, that the whole idea of going A5 was that people could get two pages on a single side of A4. Well, that and it allows footnotes at the bottom.

What the hell. If Adobe can't get their collective brains around the idea that 2xA5=1xA4, it isn't my problem.

If A5 is okay with the Americans, I'll go with that. We can always change the margins later, and look for a decent PDF viewer which doesn't think it knows better than we do (which is precisely what I hate about Word, too—I know what I'm doing, let me do it, you POS!)

Do acronyms count as swearing? ???

I think I'm understanding the dilemma now. The gutter between columns is roughly equal to the margins, so if someone were to cut the page in half, the text would be closer to one side than the other. This could be alleviated in North America by using Legal size paper (8.5" x 14"), making the cut size 8.5" x 7", which fits inside the Carc box. (Legal size paper fits in all regular printers because it has the same width as Letter size paper.)

I did a quick look to see if metric paper is available in Canada. One of the stores I checked on-line does have A4, but not A5, and it's available via catalogue or online only, not in store. Another store I checked, which usually has better selection, doesn't carry any metric sizes that I could find.

I still think the A5 version is the best way to go.

That's it Scott. Which would mean that hole-punching one of the pages (on A4) would 'eat' the text. As far as I am aware, it doesn't matter the size of the paper you print on in Adobe Reader you will always have the same margin problem when printing 'multiple pages per sheet'. Although using legal size paper will give you a larger margin, you still would have less of a margin on the 'second' page when printing multiple pages.

I have this pet peeve where I can't stand print on both sides of the paper done in an inkjet, as it shows thru somewhat and just looks ugly (assuming I use normal weight paper). Thus for me I'll be printing 1 page per sheet and using my handy dandy Fiskars paper cutter to cleanly cut the sheets to the right size, then bind them.

I don't like that either. On normal standard 80gms paper an inkjet printer will show through. I tried 100gms paper today while I was testing the new CAR and that is much better. There is no evidence of the ink showing through on that weight paper. Even so, 120gms would be the best.

A couple more things to add from my point of view:

- I can easily change the margins to have different sizes on the left and right, if that helps (obvious, but I thought it worth mentioning)
- I could produce two versions, one for A5 and one for (half) US letter. But then I would have to abandon the smaller documents for single expansions, simply because maintenance  spiral out of control if I didn't.
- One of the benefits of redoing the CAR is that I'm trying to keep all the graphics in-line rather than in fixed positions on the page (which is how most of the current version is): although you won't notice any difference, it should be easier to produce version of various sizes, because everything will move around properly.
- I'm going to stick with A5 at the moment.

Personally, my vote is less work is better.  It means that it is more likely that you'll be able to afford the time to do updates.  We can't forget and always appreciate how you volunteer your time for this!  A5 is good enough for me.

I'm with Gantry. A5 is OK with me :)

Maintaining multiple documents is not the best use of your time. The fewer the better.

I vote for A5 too.

Since we all seem to be voting, I will add my vote for the simplest solution for Matt - A5 if that is it. I use the CAR in electronic form 99% of the time and if I want to print it (in Canada on paper sizes defined by our neighbour to the south) I am prepared to struggle with the resulting issues on my own time. (After all I use Windows and I struggle all the time with that . . .  ;D ) Maybe it is time for a Mac after all . . . .

I agree. The simplest solution is A5. If there are those that want a printed copy (me :)), then I too am prepared to overcome the printing limitations to get a copy.

Totally agree ;) I wonder how many people actually use the individual rules for expansions (and so on)? At the moment, for example, when I make a spelling correction, I have to make in the main document, and the 'section' document.

If no-one actually uses those smaller documents, maybe it's time to abandon those too?
______
I'll stick to A5, but I'll post another draft later which has wider margins… maybe that will help.

I think you can delete the individual ones and just point them to the CAR.

If people still want the individual documents, you'd be better off PDFing just those pages from the CAR, and then add a cover page saying that the following pages are an excerpt from the CAR.

Example:
AnnotatedRules.doc -> AnnotatedRules.pdf
CoverPage.doc -> CoverPage.pdf
...
AnnotatedRules.doc -> TheTower.pdf
AnnotatedRules.pdf
CoverPage.doc
CoverPage.pdf -> TheTower.pdf
...
AnnotatedRules.doc
AnnotatedRules.pdf
CoverPage.doc
CoverPage.pdf
TheTower.pdf

All of the individual documents were made in the same way as you describe, then just updated when there are corrections. So with the new expansion I'll add it to the CAR, duplicate the file, and delete all the bits I don't need. The thought was that if I just export the section, all the page numbers and footnote numbers wouldn't make sense…

It isn't really a problem (earns me more GeekGold at BGG to ;) ) but  I just wouldn't want to do two sizes of the CAR, and two sets of stand-alone files too. That would be four documents to correct every time, and that's just too much effort.

Hence the idea of a cover page letting the reader know where it came from and that there is further reading available.

You're right, it would probably be a good idea to let people know about the 'further reading'… I'm not sure about a covering page, though. Some of the rules are only a single page as it is! But I see your point.

Okay, I've just uploaded a new version of the reworked CAR (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf). It now covers everything for the basic game—rules, footnotes, tile distribution—as well as having the Introduction I added last time, and space for the title page and contents.

There's a couple of interesting things about the new file, though. Taking everything into account, the rules for the basic game in this document span 10 pages—just like the old version you can find in the Downloads section. And that's despite being A5 rather than A4. Sure, I reduced the font size, but I would still have expected it to cover more pages.

And most surprising is the size: while the old version clocked in at 1.7 MB, this new one (including the Introduction and so on) is just 556 KB. A third of the size!

That's exported at the 'Good' setting; exporting two settings higher at 'Best' results in a 1.4 MB file and (naturally) much better quality graphics. So we'll can now offer two versions of the CAR—a lightweight version for browsing on the computer or printing in A5, and a quality version for printing on A4.

I am happy.

...and so you should be. Excellent. I think reducing to A5 is definately the way to go. I like the smaller format. Two thumbs up! :)

Achievement. It looks very good, footnotes comfortable near of paragraph etc.
(Only chapter heading "Overview" stayed alone  ;))

Oops… fixed it. Thanks!

Edit: Just uploaded the 'Best' version (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnewbest.pdf) as well, if anyone wants to see the difference.

Next update… a busy bee, me. Usual place. (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf)

51 pages, and it covers all the expansions except the 6th. I'll add that next, and go through the recent Q/A stuff from HiG. And it is 1.8 MB. I'll repeat that: 1.8 MB. The previous version of the basic rules alone was 1.7 MB. This version covers that, and 11 expansions.

So, it's time for me to ask for a couple of things:

Proof-reading.
There's shouldn't be many problems, because almost everything is copied and pasted from the the last version; but I made have got confused somewhere along the line. So if anyone spots anything, please let me know.

Suggestions.
This is the big one. We've been talking recently about variants and user material that could be included: now's the time to start putting the material together.

(You'll notice that I've removed by name from the footer, and added it directly under the title of each expansion; that's precisely so that it's easier to credit other people for their contributions.)

So: what so you want to see included? Is it something you can write, you want someone else to write, or know that someone else has already written?

I'm all ears, and I'm not sitting on them, as they say in Germany.
 >:X

I'm feeling pretty confident that we've got most/all of the spelling and grammar mistakes fixed. If there are any left, I've already missed them the past three times I proofread the CAR, so I probably won't ever find them. With that in mind, I decided not to bother reading the text this time around, just checking the ends of the pages for missing punctuation and other errors that may have cropped up due to copy-pasting.

Footnote #5 is missing a period at the end.
Footnote #40 is missing a period at the end of the answer.
Footnote #64 ends in a comma, but should end with a period.

I think we've caught pretty much everything too.

Those corrections to footnotes are just what I wanted, though  8) I've just corrected them. Thanks.

You have done a great job on the CAR and FAQ Matt and I would like to contribute some things to enhance the work in a small way if I can and if I understand the sort of thing you want.

So here are a few ideas:

1. A brief history of the game and its publication - so that people can understand the relationships between HiG, RGG the expansions, the CAR and FAQ, and the difficulties in sometimes getting clear rules. (This one is NOT one I could write!)

2. A detailed and complete description of the sequence of play, and (as a subset) the sequence of a turn, including all expansions to date. John Sweeney's web page has an older version of the sequence of turn and the aldaron site contains something as well. But both need updating to include recent expansions and rule clarifications and I would like to see something with much more detail from the CAR and FAQ. I have started on a document for our own use (John said I could use his version as a start). I would be happy to share what I have if this is the kind of thing you need - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CarcTurn.pdf (http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CarcTurn.pdf). At the moment it is rather cryptic and needs formal cross referencing to the official parts of the CAR and FAQ - to both of which it must be subordinate. But if it can be done thoroughly IMHO it could be a valuable asset especially to new players or those with questions that have already been researched and answered.

3. A description of each meeple and other figure in the game along with a notation of their properties (e.g. who is dragon food, who can be captured by a tower etc.etc.) I have a one-page summary table of this stuff which I am happy to share if anyone is interested - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CARCTABLE.pdf (http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CARCTABLE.pdf). I intended to write the individual figure stuff as well at some point, but would happily defer to anyone else who may want to do that.

4. A summary of "problem tiles" for those who have not yet come up against those issues.  I haven't done anything on that topic. It might be a bit repetitive of parts of the official CAR but it would put them all in one place for easy reference.

These items will need the writer to commit to maintain them.

Do these things fit with what you have in mind for the user area?

I would like an expansions summary that's not necessary written out in paragraphs, but summarised... pictorially maybe?  That way, I can find out at a quick glace that H&G is not part of the series.

I strongly support all numbered items by dwhitworth above as well.

I tried to include that in the Introduction, although it mainly focuses on 1st & 3rd edition rules. If that doesn't currently cover what you want, leave me a more detailed not and I'll see about extending/re-writing what I wrote there.

I was involved in preparing—though not writing—aldaron's summary. It's a great shame it hasn't been updated. I could as if we could use that, but my guess is that we'd implicitly be taking it over, and even if it hasn't been updated , I'm not sure that aldaron would want to relinquish control. The document you linked to looks good, though. I'll need to have a proper look through. Since it's yours anyway, it would be easier to maintain, too—although as with all things for inclusion in the CAR, I'd have to import and re-format it to fit. I'm not sure you need to worry about being cryptic—after all, if it's included in the CAR, it will be accompanied by the usually clear formulations of the rule. The only thing I would suggest is that, if possible, it should more explicitly follow the same structural pattern as the CAR rules (which is the pattern used in the Big Box)—you know, 1. Place a tile, 2. Deploy a follower, 3. Score completed…, and so on.

Another good file. Closer look later (need coffee)

Interesting idea… Which tiles were you thinking of?

To be honest, yes and no. I've mentioned before (although I forgot in the post you're referring to) that I'd envisaged a 'User' section and an 'Appendix'. Obviously, both would be user-created. I had in mind that the Appendices would include the Consolidated Tile Reference, the Overview and the Summary of Changes from the CAR; #2, #3 and #4 would also fit in there. The Appendices would  be statistic material, if you like: collections and analysis of data. The User section would be things like strategy guides, variants, session reports: more 'creative' stuff (not meaning to suggest that the material in the Appendices is not 'creative', just in a different way—and I won't be contributing much to the User section anyway.)

I guess the Appendices would also be things you'd want to refer to frequently, and the User section would be more occasional; there to enhance overall appreciation of the game, but not necessarily any particular game.

So I think your suggestions are great, and I'm sure we can make good use of them. I'm also happy enough to abandon the User/Appendix division, although it seems a logical one to make.

If we stick with the division, though, can anyone think of a better title for either section—in particular the User section?

And, having just mentioned sessions, how about if I contact the author of the report I linked to here (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=187.0). I'm not sure how much it gives you a feeling for the game, but it is certainly 'creative' in making you see Carcassonne in a new light  :D

Yet another update (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf), this time with Shrines & Heretics and bunches of footnotes (still only 1.9 MB). I also changed the layout from indented to block, which fits in with the images more easily, and added contributor names to the contents page. Is that too much? I've set up the document so it's much easier to give credit properly, but is it excessive to do that on the contents page? I guess we should wait a bit until we have more material to decide.

If anyone feels like proof-reading, the footnotes are where it's at.

On the footnotes, I'm wondering about whether it would be possible to use less. The Big Box rules only refer backwards, not forwards: that is, Traders and Builders only refers back to Inns and Cathedrals, not forwards to any subsequent expansion. If you want to know how it combines with Princess and Dragon, you have to look at the later expansion.

So far, I haven't used that method, instead referencing footnotes wherever they seem relevant: so if a footnote concerns T&B and P&D, I've usually added it to both. Obviously, that makes the rules in each section feel more 'comprehensive', but it also leads to a good deal of repetition. So I'm thinking about adopting the Big Box approach…

Any thoughts on that?

Footnote 191 has a grammatical problem:
"Does this declare a challenge, if so, and who wins?" should read "Does this declare a challenge, and, if so, who wins?"

Repetition of some footnotes is a little excessive, but a few of them you might want to repeat, like the new one attached to the King and Count expansions which talks about the new ...and Consort expansion. Stuff about the barn is excessive to have anywhere except with the expansion that includes the barn, IMHO.

Regarding credit, I don't think it's needed in the TOC. Towards the top of the each contribution is enough.

re: Block - feels more modern to me, although I'm inclined to agree with Scott that it isn't really necessary.

re: backwards/forwards - if you are looking at an earlier expansion that has a mention in a later expansion, it would take more page-flipping.  Not sure if you'd reference forwards via a page number or something, but if not, then a reader could theoretically miss something important (although what, I don't have a concrete example).  Part of the value of the CAR is it being able to answer a question quickly.  I vote for both forward and back references of some sort, whether it be full text or a link (err page reference).

re: images - have the images been reduced in quality?  I'm looking at the ones in the footnotes on page 8, and they seem to be of a reduced quality compared to an earlier version from some days ago (or it could just be that I haven't had my daily ration of joe...)

Is this a bad idea?

Removing the forwards thing might make updating the individual pages a bit more complicated as well... unless you plan on removing the forwards rulings from them as well, in which case, the individual pages would probably become incomplete.

Thanks. Corrected.

You're probably right. Just trying it out…

Not intentionally, although they are on the small size. I might see about enlarging them again. Maybe you had the higher quality version I posted a few days ago, though?

No, sounds like a good one. Probably to be included somewhere around the introduction…

@Everyone: You all seem to agree that the 'comprehensive' approach is better, although maybe it could be pared back a bit. Unless anyone else has anything to add, I'll leave it as it is.

Matt, I had no intention to criticize the Intro to the CAR which is very appropriate for a rules focused document and addresses primarily rules issues well (IMHO).

In all of these items I am trying to suggest appendices that provide a different view of essentially the same data but without needing to be themselves authoritative (because they can directly refer to CAR/FAQ for that) and without needing to be structured around the actual games package rules documents. Rather, the idea is to provide some tools linked to the authoritative rules that make it easier to get at answers to questions in a way that they occur during actual game play - hence the three topics in 2,3,4.

The history thing is a bit different, but even so I am thinkling of something more general and not primarily rules related. What I had in mind was:

• A bit about Klaus
• The original game publisher and dates - background - other games published - reputation among gamers - web links - stuff provided on the web site (for those who don't read german) and what is and isn't translated here.
• How the game came to be published in North America by RGG and the compromises resulting
• Dates of expansion releases and how the new features affected the game play and issues arising
• The big box story and issues raised
• Current releases and status/differences (game play perhaps rather than rules)
• Game resources/community/tournaments
• "The future"

If you think it is OK I am happy to maintain it subject to your overall editing requirements and (veto  ;) ) Within my software's capabilities could do some initial layout stuff to lessen the effort required by you. let me know what you think about it and I won't run away crying if you decide against using it.

Same goes for the meeple summary stuff.


Well, pig herds and Inns for two . . ambiguous crossroads, Abbey tile has no segments, some of the issues with the river tiles, some of the bridges and farms, and maybe more that I can't remember now.


Just some random thoughts here:

How about an Appendix with two sections - Technical Material like you mention and possibly the history section then a "Playing Reference" containing some of the things above. Or perhaps these are all just one Game Play Reference Appendix.

The other section might be better titled using the word Player rather than User. "User" seems to imply someone who uses the CAR/FAQ whereas I think you are interested in contributions from those who play the game (and incidentally use the CAR/FAQ). How about "Player's Pages", or "Player to Player", or "Game Play Exchange", or something way more sensible than any of those  ;D

Then you can well include stuff you find elsewhere like the link you mention (which should be in there if possible . . .)

Opps, the quoting is playing up…

Re history. I see you point, although it sound a bit too much like the wikipedia page. Still, the introduction could be expanded to include that kind of stuff. I just don't have the time to research and write all of that at the moment. Any volunteers?

Re summary & meeple stuff: Go for it!

Re awkward tiles: Right. Need to compile a full list.

Re sections: I'm thinking 'Reference Guides' or something like that. And 'Player' is much better than 'User'…

I agree.

I now see that, although redundant within the context of the whole document, forward references are good to keep for PDFing individual expansions by themselves.

I agree with everything since my last post.

Perhaps it should be tabularised to show which expansion was published by who HiG/RGG/others and any special notes - e.g. Cathars is only available in the almanac available in Europe, etc.

If I may, a little to graphic layout.
By my oppinion the header (Carcassonne: .....) and sometimes footer (page number) are very close to text and especially header "disturbes" view on text and mainly on heading of chapters.
I think that name of chapters ("the 1. level") could be better in header in the "not-disturbing" position.

I agree with you here O.M.S. The CAR is at draft stage only at the moment and so i'm sure that Matt will tweak everything before the 'official' release. :)

Of course!

Okay, I changed that. I simply removed the header completely, and added the version number in the bottom right of the footer. I do want to keep that somewhere, because I know some people just print out sections which have changed, and the version number helps there.

Can't do that, sorry. First of all, I can't see a way of getting the application I'm using to do that (in Latex, no problem, but I've got too may graphics for Latex). Also, sometimes there are several of those '1. level' entries to a page, and sometimes they cover several. I know they look awkward sometimes, but if I'm sticking to the Big Box style, they've got to stay.

Never mind that.
I would like to know the Big Box style, I would like to have copy of one tile (only one!!!) from this unattained box  :'(

Another day, another update. (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf) I'm seriously tempted to make this one an official beta version. It's got everything I want to keep from the old version. The Incorporated/Depreciated FAQ section is gone (to be moved to the online FAQ), and the Overview is still not there—but I think we can do better than the one in the old version. But I added the Consolidated Tile Reference (updated for C,K&C), expanded the tile overview with some notes on mega-Carc, and took over the summary of rule changes. The acknowledgements section needs fleshing out (none from the current round of revisions), but that will come soon. I also changed the front page back to the familiar image (moved around slightly).

So: 86 pages, 2.9 MB. A 'best' quality export came in at 9.1 MB; I'll upload that when this version comes out of beta. It does look much better though. 8)

From here on out, it's all about additions :)

The tile overview is a little confusing. As you wrote, the King and Robber Baron tiles, and the Abbey tiles, are not actually to be discarded, whereas the other tiles in the fourth column are. Might make more sense if they were added to the numbers in the third column. Also, what of the 50/100 scoring tiles? Should they be included in a tile overview?

Yes, I agree with Scott, I was thinking to add another column(s) for better overview too.

Other notes for The tile overview.
1. The heading of the third column (Total) is "noncompatible" with heading of the fourth column (Additional Tiles). Maybe Standard Tiles or ..., I am not sure, I haven't feeling in English.
2. The text in columns with numbers (the 3rd, the 4th) could be centered.
3. Last row could be divided into 2 rows, the 1st for "subtotal" with correct sum for each columns, the 2nd for "totalsum" of subtotal in combined cells. Is it clear?  :)

I hear you both.

Is this any better?
(http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/overview.jpg)
I'd prefer not to have to add an extra row for the 281 total, because that would push the text onto the next page. But maybe I should just write more about mega-Carc.

OK, I agree with last row and what about to separate heading and especially last row by bold line to differ internal data.

Bonus Tiles. Bonus Tiles? Hm, Bonus means somethig more for better state, what about auxiliary, subsidiary ... (Don't laugh me please  :))

Duplicate Tiles. One from Basic, two from River and one from River II are duplicate? What about one column more for obligatory, predestinate ... , again sorry that I controvert on linquistic field. And duplicate tiles to let for King ..., Count ... and River II from the 6.

Again I'd remind to center text in "Land Tiles" column as is in other columns.

And back. Page 4. Text "3 points" and "4 points" to one row each, do you understand?

When do you want to release full version?

How about 'Extra Tiles'? That might be better.

I can't add any more columns—not enough space. 'Duplicate' is maybe not the best word… I'll try to think of something else.

Done.

No, sorry—I don't know what you mean.

When it's finished ;)

Matt, most of these are cosmetic, picky corrections. In no way am I criticising you, so don’t be offended :) Also, these were looked at before the 'Another day, another update' version (so the page numbers could be different from the version that is now posted), and if you've caught any of these already, my apologies... and my apologies if these have already been mentioned by others ;)

(I've printed at 600dpi on a HP LaserJet 1320 in black and white)

Document printed at A5 with no text clarity issues.

Document printed at A4 with no text clarity issues.

Although some illustrations in the main body of text are difficult (blockier at A4, obviously) on the whole they are ok. However, the footnote examples are quite difficult to see.

The header and footer needs to be positioned further away from the main text.

Justified text looks nice.

TOC – Credits are unnecessary here, they are better at the top of each ‘chapter’.

Occasionally, the text flows onto the following page in an ‘unusual’ manner. For example, page 11 the last part of the sentence reads, “…the followers involved are”, it then page breaks and continues on page 12 with, “removed.” There appears to be plenty of room on page 11 for the last word. Another one is on page 54 where a page break would be better before the heading ‘2. Deploy a follower’.

Is the new expansion name King, Count and Consort or King, Count and Consorts? I only ask as it is repeated throughout the footnotes as the latter, and I thought it was the former. Like I said, i'm only nit-picking :)

Page 3 – ‘Where does this document stand?’, 2nd line, “-there are currently 11-“ should read “-there are currently 12-“.

Page 17 – Inns and Cathedrals. The text under the cloister and crossing tiles is overlapped by the inn and farm tiles underneath (it's the word 'segments' ;)).

Page 18 – Footnote 40, ‘excludes’ should be ‘exclude’.

            - Footnote 41, the apostrophe after ‘players’ is not required… (I think).

Page 20 – Cosmetic correction for consistency. Footnote 44, “The RGG edition of the Big Box…”, 'Big Box' should be in bold and italics.

Page 43 – Footnote 136, lose the space before the close bracket [it eats them ]… it’s annoying me (having said that, this is probably the very reason to leave it in ;))

Page 49 – Footnote 160, the word extended should be enclosed with the same inverted comma/s.

            -  Footnote 166, there’s a different font used on the inverted commas. I know… slightly fussy!

Page 54 – Footnote 187, “…cloister neighbour”, should read “…cloister to neighbour”

            - I am not sure as to what exactly your comment in brackets means ([No-Matt]). Can you expound on this? …After looking at it, I understand (I think). You are answering the question posed in a straightforward way, yes? ;)

Yes, why not.

I think that it would be suitable to differ "starting" tiles from "duplicate" tiles. In  one column by asterisk(s)?
Or to combine extra tiles with starting, both can be used on the playing-field. Oh, but what with King and Baron. Sorry I overcombined this.

On the page 4, row 12 (incl. chapter heading) resp. 24: the digit 3 resp. 4 ends row. I thought that they should be moved to other row to "connect" with word "points".  I don't how do you look on this.

Page 83 of the 'Another day, another update' CAR, under SHRINES, there are 6 listed. Shouldn't this be 5?


My apologies, i'm wrong here  :-[  It is King, Count and Consorts


The footnote examples being difficult to see are probably due to printing in b/w.

I've had version without header, but I agree with you in case of footer.

What version do you comment? The first problem I have on pages 12-13, not 11-12. The second on 55, not 54.

Similar problem is on pages 52-53 ("scoring or not...")

Now, I noticed the end of page 9 ("... decided by") and the start page 10 ("counting ...")

But I am not sure if these problems (maybe except page 55) are soluble. Because to tune main text with footnotes and with pictures together can be quite difficult.

I'm feeling a little confused. What are the two duplicate tiles in the River?

I was under the impression that Consort should be singular. I'm inclined to say that's how it's spelled on BGG, but that's slightly biased because I'm the one who submitted it that way.

Matt,
Small point where the CAR seems to contradict itself - or at least needs clarification:

Page 21 (T&B rules on builders) Footnote 51
"From an FAQ: “Both parts of the double-turn are identical, although the fairy (3rd expansion), for example,
only gives bonus points at the start of the player’s turn, and a figure can also only be moved to Carcassonne
(Count) once.”

 This implies move to Carc City is like fairy scoring

Page 28 Deploying Followers to and from Carcassonne
"A player may only deploy one follower to Carcassonne each turn. However, if a player has a double turn—because of the builder — a follower may be deployed to Carcassonne in both parts of the turn."

This implies move to CC is NOT like fairy scoring

Clearly the latter is the more up to date ruling. Do you want the former footnote have a reference to this?

Thanks to everyone who posted above. Much appreciated.

Rather than quote all the relevant passages from the dozen or so posts, I'll just comment on stuff here:

Tile Overview: Should river tiles be considered to be land tiles or extra tiles? They don't go in the stack/bag/dispenser (hence 'extra') but you can deploy followers (hence 'extra'). Similarly with The Count of Carcassonne: land tiles—because they are on the playing field, or extra tiles?

"Am I allowed to place cathedrals in other players' cities?"—I think the apostrophe is needed, because it's possessive. I could change it to "the cities of other players" though.

Okay, I changed Duplicate to 'Spare'—including the inverted commas. I also split off the Mega-Carc section, and I'll add some notes to the Tile Overview explaining the columns in more detail.

As far as '3 points' and '4 points' being split over two lines is concerned, I can't think of a good way to stop this. Sorry.

@Joff: AFAIK, it's actually Count, King, and Consorts. At least it is in German ;)

The problem with small graphics should be somewhat alleviated when I uploaded higher quality versions of the CAR.

There's very little I can do about the odd flows of text that I haven't already. As O.M.S. said, the problem comes from having so many footnotes and images associated with the text. But I'll keep trying to find a better fit…

@Scott: The two duplicate tiles in The River are the spring (which is superseded by the spring in The River II or GQ11) and the lake, which is replaced by the lake tiles in The River II. Duplicate is the wrong word (see above) but the point is that if you're combining all the expansions, you won't need those two tiles.

And the German title is Graf, König und Konsorten. Consort is actually something of a false friend; Konsorten really means something like 'gang' or 'crowd'. Certainly there's a plural sense to it. 'Entourage' might work… Though aybe we should call the expansion 'Count, King, and Sundry Hangers-On.'  ;D

The plural form of consort is okay though, even if you take it to mean 'spouse'; it might mean several spouses of different people, or, broadening our cultural horizons, several spouses of one. ;)

Seriously, though, we'll probably have to wait for RGG to decide on a title.

@dwhitworth: Yes, I just notice that too. I'll write off and ask. My guess is that the FAQ is wrong, because it simply doesn't make sense otherwise (as I argued here (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=253.msg2233#new)). Mind you, I haven't yet hit the morning coffee quota, so I might not be thinking straight ::)

Thanks to you, Matt!!!!!!!


That's why the "soft" space is between "3" and "points" and application in this place divides text to another row. I usually substitute "soft" space by "hard" space (Alt sequence 0160) a than "3 points" text behaves as one text chain.

Based on Matt's reply to my previous post, I am satisified with the table as illustrated in the picture he posted above.

I poked around on the WWW a bit more, and it looks like the word consort is indeed singular, with consorts as the plural. It's very uncommon to hear this word around here, so it is unfamiliar. I'm wondering if an update needs to be submitted to BGG, or if we should hang on until RGG says something? Supposedly RGG won't even be releasing the expansion as a whole, just the 5 shrine tiles, so we may not get an official translation from them... None of Matt's alternate translations for konsorten make any more sense to me, considering the shrine tiles have nothing to do with sundry hangers-on.

Er… you might like to check out this version (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/tiles.pdf), then. I updated it slightly and added some explanatory notes. Also, the mega-Carc stuff has it's own (more detailed) section. I didn't change much, except for moving the Carcassonne City tiles to the 'Extra Tiles' column. Let me know if there's a problem with it.

I think it's not meant to refer to people, but expansions. It's simply a word play of two 'aristocratic' figures and the people follow them around; in practice it just means, 'Expansion X, Expansion Y, and a couple of other expansions as well.'

Page 60 – Consolidated Tile Reference, Introduction; “The distribution lists here are organised by card type, as well as than by set/expansion…”, should be reworded to say, “The distribution lists here are organised by card type, as well as by set/expansion…”

            - Same page, Further examples; “The three tiles above are all grouped together under different sections, even though they may all be used to connect two city segments on the left and right. Both these tiles are found under ‘City, city, city, city’.”  This is a confusing sentence in two ways. The first is the statement about the “left and right”. Yes, they could connect to city segments on the left and right, but isn’t it more logical if that were top and bottom, given the tile illustrations? Actually, now I look at it the statement seems reasonable. The second is that “Both these tiles…” cause confusion because it appears to link to the sentence before. Would it be better if a new paragraph was started, or reworded to say “Both these tiles below…”?

It would also be good if the section title pages were on odd numbered pages. This is so those who bind their copies have a facing page before each section.

I know the user content is under discussion at the moment, and, as you know, you have permission to use any of the variants that I have displayed on my website**, but what of the ‘official’ variants? I only ask as if they are not to be included there is a reference to them being included in the first paragraph of the ‘Introduction’.

I have reprinted on ‘A5’ this evening (I’m on UK time), and looking at the document, it is very, very good. It’s much better than the previous ‘A4’ incarnation. If I had three hands it would get ‘three thumbs up’ ;) An excellent job, Matt.

** I am keen for the user content to include, what I consider to be the ‘best’ variant, Kevin Graham’s ‘Trading Posts’. Kevin has approved the rules for his variants posted on the site, but perhaps some more eyes could just look through them for any ambiguities and let me know if there are any situations that have not been thought about.

Middle of page 64: "(a the date of writing)"; missing letter 't'?

First you say that using the Count with the River(s) is not recommended, and then later you say they "should not" be used together. For those not in the loop, that could sound slightly contradictory. "Should not" sounds stronger (to me, at least) than "not recommended". Not quite as strong as saying "must not", but since there is no way to enforce "must not", "should not" is about as strong as you can get. I'll readily admit I've only ever played with the Count once, so I don't have much experience with it, but I have a hard time understanding how any potential tile placement issues are any worse than when players decide to deliberately screw each other by creating holes that cannot be filled. Now that we have abbeys, there is the possibility to fill any hole.

But I digress, you did remark further down the page how you like to combine Count and River(s). I think I'm just a little cranky right now because I'm hungry.

Regarding the Robber Baron, it works as Tobias said. To take it from someone requires building a longer road than theirs. There is no reason to suspect that it works differently from the King.

@Joff. Corrections made. I'm not sure about sections starting on odd pages, I don't think I can do it any other way than manually—and can't do that until the document is ready to go out.

@ Scott: True, 'should not' is stronger than 'not recommended'. But I don't want to change it to 'probably not recommended' because that's too weak. How about this: I changed the sentence before the list from 'As such, we can state the following guidelines.' to 'As such, the following guidelines may be inferred.' Hopefully, pointing out that they are inferred guidelines is enough to use stronger language (!) while being clear that these are not hard and fast rulings.

The reason that The Count of Carcassonne and The River II should not be combined is that, according to the original rules, the city of Carcassonne was placed first, with the river then leading away from it. That's necessary, because deployment of meeples is possible on the river—but it leads to the possibility that the river could curve and double back on itself in a (legal) long U-turn, and end up colliding with the city.

Sometimes I wonder about these rulings. This and the 'no immediate U-Turn' ruling are meant to prevent disruptive players from ruining the game before it's even got started, by wilfully leading the river to a point where it's impossible to continue. But no player in their right mind is going to do that. I wonder who the people at HiG play games with?

I've said it before, but if you have a player who's that much of a pain, it's defenestration time!

A thought I've just had. Sometimes we have rulings from HiG which actually change the published text—a good example would be the 'U-turn' rule.

In the original rules, it states that no 'U-turns' are allowed. This has been clarified to no 'immediate U-turns'. Now, at the moment in the CAR, I have left the original intact, and added a footnote explaining the clarification. I'm wondering whether I could instead change the main text to include 'immediate' as well, and then add a footnote explaining what the original was.

There's a couple of other examples of this too, like the 'covered tile' ruling in the last major correspondence.

If I included this sort of thing, to what extent would it undermine the integrity of the rules in the CAR as translations?

IMHO ... I think the "Rules" for play should be clear and to the point. Meaning that if someone is reading and using the CAR as the rule set to play by the rules should be in the main text and not in the footnote.  I would make it much easier and user friendly to those who might not enjoy all the fine details that went into all your work. I enjoy them and that add alot to the CAR but there may be others who just want the "meat and potatoes" so to speak. The footnotes I see more as additional information to explain a change or deviation that was made in the main body, i.e. a change from the direct translation. I live by the CAR and I enjoy the completeness of them and all the footnotes.  But in regards to the example of the U-turn, if there was an official ruling by HiG then I believe this should be in the main body and be footnoted as clarified from the original by correspondance. I know this may mean more work and raises the issue of translated rules but I see them more as Annotated Rules and not as direct translations so I think you are safe in making the changes to the main body.

Just my thoughts ... 

The immense value I get from the CAR is due to it being an authoritative source of rules, not due to its accurate translation.

With that in mind, I'd rather see all rules covered in the main text, with footnotes providing background and notes on the history of the rule.

That would make the document more useful to me and to others that I have introduced to the game and to your document.

In fact I think it would be useful to rewrite the rules from scratch, starting with a blank canvas. Maybe a wiki would be the best way to achieve that?

Just my rambling thoughts....

Whichever way you go, thanks for all your hard work and for producing something that already makes my Carcassonne sessions much more enjoyable.

It's interesting that the recommendation not to use Count with River(s) stems from the earlier addition of the "immediate" qualifier to the word "u-turns". If they had not added "immediate", there would have been no problem. The RGG rules don't include the word "immediate". We've always played no u-turns at all, and I have been challenged on that.

Like Richard said, the value of the CAR to us as players is that it is an authoritative source of rules. The accuracy of the translation is important, but so are the clarifications from HiG. For that sake, I agree with EcoGuy that stuff like this should be in the body of the rules instead of relegated to a footnote that some people won't read, or will read but consider less official.

For my own selfish reasons, I would prefer the rules to stay as they are, appearing to prohibit u-turns entirely, but since HiG has spoken it will have to be nothing more than a house rule. As a consolation, I would very much like to see a footnote attached to this recommending against u-turns of any kind to prevent potential problems.

I'll just add my vote for the change to put the latest rule in the body of the text and the history/clarification in the footnotes.

We need a reference to the rules where it is quick easy to get an authoritive answer and that change will help.

I also support Scott's point about the river turns and requestr the same footnote. This is one case where the RGG rule makes more sense.

'Stem' might be too strong a word… that's just how I see it. There may be no causal connection at all.

You know I can't do that ;) As someone pointed out earlier/elsewhere, the fork of The River II builds U-turns into the game; and the more river tiles you use (through the combination of expansions), the more difficult it will be to avoid U-turns altogether.

What I can do is put a footnote explaining that 'immediate' is derived from an FAQ; and point out that the original rule was intended to prevent all possible difficulties. The immediate rule makes laying easier, but can still lead to difficulties, and so it's a commonly accepted 'house rule' to stick with the original and ban U-turns completely.

Something like that…

One or two more cosmetic minor corrections:

Page 3 - Introduction, "1st and 3rd edition scoring? What's that?" Paragraph 6: Should a '?' follow the "Why" question?

Page 6 - Footnote 1: "HiG" should be in bold.

Page 35 - Footnote 97: "If" should not be in bold.

Page 40 - Footnote 118: "Consort" should be "Consorts".

I think that's about it... :)

What 'Why' question?  ???

If indeed it is a question? "... the 1st edition rules. Why, no-one is quite sure, but..."

Perhaps this is not a question after all ;) My English is not so good.

No, that's not a question  ;) I'll change it to 'No-one is quite sure why, but…' though.

Different topic.

There's an interview with the author at http://carcassonne.de/autor.htm; I could translate that for inclusion (in the Introduction?) if people want.

That would be of interest to Carcassonne players. I for one would like to read the interview :)

Me too!

One small point of editing the CAR:
Is the word "meeple" used anywhere in the official rules? I can't find it, but inthe CAR it appears in some footnotes in both questions and answers. Might it be wise to replace it with "Follower" for consistency? The two questions are in Version 5.0, #77 abd #78 and answer #176.

Since it was me who submitted both questions and committed the original sin, :-[  I can assure you that the questions' author would find this edit acceptable.

Meeple is a fan invention—I changed all the references in the CAR.

btw, I just received permission to use the 'Failed Experiments in Darwinistic Urbanization' session report by James Weinrod in the CAR…  :)

I would also like to see the interview in the CAR.

You guys are doing great, I'm afraid to jinx you by saying too much lol!  {nw

Matt, this Q&A did not make it into the CAR as a footnote. It seems quite an important clarification and I wonder if you might consider adding it.

Oops  ;)

DAMN!! i just DL the file and i can't open the zipped file... someone have any clue?

please hold your apples & tomatoes...

Can't recall if I said this earlier or not; i really liked the selected variants section in the current CAR.  Please include these in the final 5.0 version.  I am anxiously awaiting the completion of this one (in high quality) so i can print and bind it up.  I suppose I might wait for the April expansion rules to be included....

The CAR says the following about the "Cloister in the city" tile from P&D:

Why isn't deployment of a farmer allowed? ;P

I think that when the first sentence refers to "here" it means the "cloister in the city", not the "cloister in the city tile" - because the sentence immediately follows the heading and the heading does not contain the word tile. I don't think it is referring to the whole tile and therefore you could deploy a farmer.

But, then I have often been wrong  . . . .  :)

Dude, I found a few typos on page 6 of the rules:

"Why, no-one is quite sure, but the..." should read: "Why? No one is quite sure, but the..."

I think the dash doesn't belong, but I'm not positive.

Correct.

Not sure if this should be posted here!

According to CAR 4.1, on page 41, the mayor may be deloyed to a city in which there is currently no knight or mayor. What about deploying a mayor if a wagon is already in the city? There is no mention anywhere that a wagon in a city is considered a knight?

Unless when you deploy a follower in a city, that follower is then considered a knight. In this case, a mayor would also be considered a knight.

Why not just say another follower instead of knight or mayor.?

Okay. I removed the hyphen. It cropped up about four more times too. And I also corrected it in the FAQ and uploaded them.

Yup, it's the right place :)

Because that's what the original rules say ;)

Hmm, this is actually a bit of a pain. I just checked the RGG version of the rules, and they say 'no knight or follower' here, mirroring 'no wagon or follower' in connection with the wagon. I don't like either, because a knight is a follower, and so are wagons and mayors, so it's a false distinction.

So, at very least I need to add a footnote marking the difference between RGG and HiG. But I think a question to HiG might also be in order, just because there is a little too much imprecision here.

Thanks for pointing it out  :)

Tiberius ;)

New subject: Personally, I think I had the most trouble understanding the river rules than any other rules. I had trouble understanding how the river was to be completed if only immediate U-turn were forbidden, until today I found this: http://www.modernjive.com/carcassonne/carcassonnetheriver.htm (http://www.modernjive.com/carcassonne/carcassonnetheriver.htm)

This cleared it up for me:


The footnote says:

Also, this post might be considered important:

http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=324.0

The question is asked:


"canada steve" says:

Hi Matt
I sent you a document a few days ago regarding all the errors I have found in the CAR.
Would appreciate an answer.
.../Patrik

Sorry, I've been very busy. I'll take a look.

As you notice, the version that I am referring to is 4.1 since I didn't know about the 5.0 version until today.
After I got a link to the 5.0 version I have started going through it and the pagenumbers are different, but so far I have seen that the same errors are still there.

I sent you a new email yesterday with comments about the 5.0 version of the car. There were a few errors that had been corrected but most of them are still there, and there were even a couple of new ones.
After I sent the email I have found another:
Page 55: (new error not in 4.1) Note 186
... rules here have also be reformatted ...   should say: been reformatted

Hi everyone,

I thought it might be good to give you a quick update/summary.

As many people know, a draft of v5.0 is floating around—CARnew.pdf (http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew.pdf). However, there is also some discussion about whether RGG have adopted 3rd edition scoring in the latest prints. And there are two upcoming releases to take account of. I think it would be good to get all of that into the final v5.0.

Furthermore, I will be extremely busy until the end of September, as I'm finishing off my Masters. Then come October I should have a little more time, although I have to start a new job. So I won't be overly available in the near future, although I will try to keep up with what is going on.

Thankfully, those two things—lack of time right now, and waiting for the new releases—fit quite well together ;-)

Good things come to those who wait, and all that…

Thanks Matt for all the amazing work done on the Carc!

Pages 45 and 46 of Carc 4.1 include a great overview of order of play and scoring. Will these two pages be added later on to 5.0?

Good luck with you masters and your new job
À+

Yes… or something like it which is easier to update  ;)

Thanks!

sorry for the dumb question but, my german is horrible this week, and i just look for the ruling of the spielbox expansion the 6 Bonus tiles(special shaped)

thx again.

to be honest i din't look very deep to find the answer, i a bit away those days.

Are you referring to the non-square tiles that are for some other game entirely?

That's for a different game (Stone Age) also by Hans im Glu(e)ck.  You need the original expansion to play those 6 other Stone Age tiles.

ok... so the stone age does not adds a variant to the carcassonne game... yhis is sucking bad this spielbox expn this year...

 >:(    1/10.

but thx for the response!!!  ;D :D ;)

Thank you, first of all, for the excellent rule compendium. For the first time I actually understand the Count. until now I have been trying to read it in Czech which, understandably, I think, has been a touch difficult.  ;)

One question though. Nowhere does the annotated rulebook mention the shrines?

Please help with this.

You can download Version 5 of the CAR here: http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf (http://homepage.mac.com/mjharper/CARnew.pdf)

This is only in draft form at the moment and does not replace ver 4.1 at present, but it does include the Shrine rules that you require.

The Shrines are also discussed in this thread: http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0 (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=227.0)

Any questions, we would be glad to assist :)

I'm starting to think the CAR needs a page showing the release history of the expansions/boxes from both sides of the pond. The term "expansion" doesn't really accurately describe the contents of a box anymore.

Well, Matt did say he will include a version of the guide (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=400.0).  I'm sure he'll expand it to cover a lot more than what I have there on the guide.

It's October!  Yay!  How goes the Masters?

Will the Catapult rules be included in CAR 5.0 and, if so, will it include all the (millions of) FAQs that are abounding already concerning the quite limited rules of the expansion? Will it also clarify if the four-way road is indeed what it seems to be or if it is actually an intersection? The rules seem to neglect mentioning that unique (and much awaited) tile.

It's November; finished the Masters yet?

I think he has, but I'm sure he's busy with the new job and the move to the job and the job taking more time than expected.  Anyways, now that all the 2008 expansions have been release, I think it would be a great time for the next session of questions to HiG.

do the resolution of the file will be upgraded also?

graphics resolution?  That's something you can ask Matt to do I guess.  If you give him a good enough reason why he should/must do it, then he probably will.  But it is up to him though.

At the moment, the current CAR is intended to be printed at A5 paper size. I believe that Matt will be upgrading the resolution of the graphics so that it can be printed acceptably at A4 also.

Yup, that's exactly it. That an a new girlfriend. They always take up more time than expected ;)

Seriously though, I'm still checking in the shops for The Catapult; I'll let you know when I get hold of it. And I've also been moving around temporary accomadation recently; when that settles down I'll feel a bit less under pressure.

I have not forgotten you all ;D

New Girlfriend?  How can you forsake us for her? :p  Hope to get you back here more often Matt :)

Well, you know…

Of course, I am already working to bring her around to the wonders of Carcassonne 8)

Yes, but a new girlfriend is not as addictive as Carc, is it?

Why do I get the impression you speak as one who lacks experience in both? ;D

No, Scott. I don't like to pretend to be God, but I'm married, have a daughter and Carc.
I don't have that much experience with Carc, as I got married with the game just for a couple of months, but I'm married to my wife for six years. So that's six years of experience with lots of expansions makes me a good player, right?

We do not offer him sex - I am sure that has something to do with it all!

Very funny, but this forum is about Carc, right?

i guess... and for the record, i have been banned for less than that!!!

i NEVER said the dirty word se*, but a vulgar set of bones...

Well, if it's related to something about Carc, can't we use the word S** ?

Like why are there no female meeples in Carcassassonne?  That's sexism?

This is straying a little off topic, guys… Ahem.

Sorry, mj. Agree. Let's keep this forum nice and tidy.  :)

so do the resolution of the art work will be touched??

for the record i think that it is really worse to censor some words that write them lound & clear ;)

we live in a ruthless & unforgiving world... i don't  want my kids to live in those kind of ivory towers... but i wish that they are polite bred and free willing!!... :-s

@No : there is no sexism in carc... there is a fairy and a princess, we can count the count as a women IF YOU WANT!!! ;)

Just so everybody knows, I've been working on the new draft. I've included the rules for The Catapult, notes for Cult, Siege and Creativity, and added all the tiles to the tile distribution lists. I've also updated whatever I can find which refers to RGG still using 1st edition rules ;)

But at the moment I've only got something like a dial-up internet connection, and it's impossible for me to upload the new draft for you all to have a look at :(

However, at the end of the document at there's now a section called 'Player Developments'—we were talking about adding expansions and things. If people want me to still include that sort of thing, then I'd be grateful if you'd point me in the right direction, because frankly the discussion was so long ago that I've forgotten where and what was discussed ::) Useless, I know.

Well, if you're needing stuff for 'Player Developments' might I suggest the Variant Workshop right here on CC :)

Our very own expansions/variants created by our CC community would be an excellent addition to the CAR.

I know, but which? There are such a lot of good variants there… To only pick some would be unfair, be w can't use all of them because it would be excessive. It's still the annotated rules, after all.

Should I just stick to the Favourite House rules section for now?  ???

I think you should just point them towards the forum and let them pick themselves.

But here's my pick for the "anthology":

Joff's Invasion of Catharism (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/invasion_of_catharism.pdf) - enables you to play with both Siege and Cathars.
Sonja's Lavendar Fields (http://www.dukenostalgia.com/junk/lavenderfields.zip) - with the nice image!
Joff's The Medieval Expansion (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/The%20Medieval%20Expansion.zip) - which is probably the most innovative expansion there.
Joff's Dual Dragon (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/dual_dragon_v1) - with rules to make the dragon relevant in mega-Carc
and
Maulei's Treasure Hunt (http://www.dukenostalgia.com/junk/treasurehunt.zip) - which adds a lot of fun

Matthew, have you gone through my comments on version 5 yet.

When will the revised version be ready with Cult & Catapult included as well.

Thanks for reminding me… Er… :-[… Could you send me the comments again, by any chance? I recently had a problem with my email and lost everything before October. Really sorry :-[

As soon as I have an OK connection I'll post the latest draft for people to look through.

Joff, it's just my opinion but I think the rules for "our" expansions should be gathered in its own compendium because they're unofficial.

That depends on how you look at the CAR. As it is Matt's work, he should have the final say, but a fan-made CC expansion would help drive traffic to this site. I would like to see something like my Invasion of Catharism included, as, although it's not official, you do not need any extra tiles or meeples, just official tiles to play it.

I personally use Matt's CAR as 'the bible for the Carcassonne player'. HiG should realise this, as it's simply a quality document and a trusted source for Carcassonne rules. It should be in every players possession. The CAR could help build CC up and so could CC fan made variants.

I agree. I see CAR as the bible of Carcassonne much more than any rules sheets or official rulings from HiG or RGG. I think that the quality and effort put it makes it by far the most superior of rules documents. I am not sure that including Invasion of Carthism is necessary, but I do think that some notes about the website are very much merited. I prefer to keep my "official" CAR guide separate from my unofficial expansions, however awesome most of them have proven to be.

Of course, The CAR author has the final decision. But what about a 2-CAR's train (compendium)? I mean a CAR with two parts. The official expansions part and the unofficial expansions part?

A lot of good variants out there but how to decide which to include and which not to include.

It's probably tons of work just to keep the CAR up to date. Variants should be left out of the CAR.

 

We could always vote for the most popular fan-made expansions...
I'll give you an example: On some other thread, most members agree that it would be great that the official 2009 expansion should include forests. How about include The Forest on CAR?

Wouldn't it be a nice idea to have the variants/expansions listed in order of peoples ranking and put up some sort of voting possibilities.
And of course they could be added to the CAR, at least the ones that have got the same layout as the CAR, but certainly in another section in the back of the CAR.

That's what I meant, Wicke...

This is the major problem of including fan-made expansions within the CAR: Where do they get the tiles from?

I know that they could be pointed to a link from within the CAR, but this is not ideal. The CAR already contains (ver 4.1) variants from the official site, that do not require ant extra tiles or pieces. This is why the suggestion for Invasion of Catharism was given, as it does not need anything extra, it is just made up from official tiles that form part of the rules within the CAR. What I was saying is if variants were to be included then lets have some of the fan-made ones from here that do not have any need for anything else other than a simple set up (perhaps extra playing pieces, but not tiles). If one includes Forests, then you also need to include 150 new land tiles to go with it. The inclusion becomes useless for those not able to download the tiles.

I wouldn't even think that Jousting Tournament would warrant an inclusion due to the fact that it needs one tile in order to be played.

I do like the idea of a house rules section though :)

Agree, Joff. After all, House Rules are a kind of variant rules, right?

Good discussion. I'm inclined to think we should stick with house rules and no-tile expansions for the CAR. But I'm happy to follow the wishes of the community… keep the discussion up!

On other topics, I uploaded today a new draft of the CAR (http://carc.mjharper.de/CARnew.pdf) (5.0b2). It's only the low-quality version, so don't go printing it yet ;). I included the new expansions, revised introduction, expanded tile reference, and hopefully correced every reference to RGG's use of 1st edition scoring.

@wicke: I haven't gone through your corrections yet :-[. Just wanted to get a version uploaded for people to have a look at. But your notes are the very next thing on my list :)

As usual, if any comments are greatly appreciated.

Just a correction: Page 61 has a mistake in the footnote concerning the first letter of the sentence: it is stuck in the superscript.

I also assume that the FAQ for Catapult will be coming in shortly from HiG because there is pretty much none on the page. I will read all of the rules in more detail later. Cheers!

Edit: Also, I don't think I saw the Catapult artwork on the first page and, despite all our misgivings over the expansion, I believe the artwork deserves to be on the front with the other dozen or so expansions. I forgot to check for the Cult, Siege, Creativity expansion, but that should be on there too.

Footnote 202: the word 'off' is split.

I love the section on Mega-Carc and the new Introduction. Will print out later and do a proof-read.

Just to make a point... and this is only my opinion, I have never thought that the majority of the 'official' variants were any good. One or two maybe, but certainly not all of them. I think it would be a good idea to add some variety, rather than just the 'official' variants and I do think that there is space for the inclusion of variants.

Perhaps just a discussion about the different types of fan made expansions could be included.

However, as I have said before, the CAR is my Carcassonne bible and I would love to have as many Carcassonne related extras included as possible... (i'm greedy like that!!!)

Be careful  ;) :) ;) :)



@Matt: Thank you very much for a beautiful present under Christmas tree. Perfect achievement for our community. Thanks again.

Only: Footnotes continues from 202 on page 62 to 1 to 4 on page 66; 5,6 on page 67 to 203 on page 85 etc.

Fortunately, my 'Carcassonne bible' reference is slightly different that Matt's 'Bible comparison' statement, Matt's comments coming from a different use and context of the word 'Bible' ;)  (which is indeed irreverant)

OK, I see.  ;)
Merry Christmas,
fröhliche Weihnachten

P.S. Next days I will be spending without PC far from electricity, but with Carcassonne game (with complete set of tiles)  :)

s/bible/living rulebook, perhaps?

My pleasure  :)

Those aren't footnotes—they're references to the table, and occur several times within the table itself. It would be a real pain to turn them into footnotes ;)

Sure?  ;)
OK
But, what about to use letters (greek? or roman numbers)

Another.
I would recommend to add small table for fête tiles to Symbols & Features chapter.

EDIT: Sorry, I am a little stupid at the end of working days ...

Done. Used *, #, $ and §.

No problem. I get like that too ;)

Uploaded 5.0b3, incorporating the comments left here and those sent to me by wicke—about 20-odd corrections throughout.

Things still to do
- I think a page about CarcassonneCental would be good. If the CAR—and the other downloads—are to be made publicly available, then a little advertising to draw people here would probably be fair enough  ;)
- Revamped Overview and Summary
- FAQ for latest expansions (?)
- House rules section.

Anything else?

Haven't looked at 5.0b3 yet, but you may want to add something to footnote 36 saying that that CRCR tile has since had a later version printed in some boxed versions of I&C, as well as in the Big Box.

Edit: This has probably been caught already, but the FRRR tile from Catapult is incorrectly marked in the tile reference for that set.

nice job MJ!

the time to re-read this and double check your great work

Done!

Thanks—corrected it now. That's what happen when you use copy-and-paste too much ;)

You know, I was just looking at the Favourite House Rules thread, and for the first time it occurred to me that we could include them at the end of the relevant expansion rather than at the end of the document as a whole. Any thoughts?

They would have to be crystal clear that they are house rules, otherwise we wouldn't want them to get mixed up with actual rules. How about they are put into shaded boxes, much like how the quotes are displayed on here?

Example:

Yeah, something like that. I guess it will depend on how well I can break the house rules up into sections. I'll have a look.

Matt - I love this new updated version. Thank you for your hard work :)

I have proof read the new version. Here are the corrections, IMO, needed:

Page 19 – Footnote 36: It might be useful to explain that this tile was reprinted for later RGG editions and might well be included in some players’ sets.

EDIT: - sorry, missed that.


Page 20 – Footnote 42 (and also pictured example): Actually, the footnote is wrong. The Big Box rules are correct. The city does indeed score 24 points. The 2nd pennant is obscured by the follower on the tile, the tile being the only ‘cccf’ tile in that arrangement and that includes a pennant. So at present it is the CAR that is incorrect here.


Page 47 – Paragraph 4: “…reason for this is that, unlike all the other expansions described here, the GQ11 expansion is the product of Rio Grande Games. It may be possible to use the tile as if it were a pig-herd tile, but this would be a house rule, rather than an official rule”

This is now not unlike all the other expansions (CS&C is a product of RGG also). Also, as a side note, this is a perfect place to show an unofficial house rule off in a shaded box :)


Page 69 – “Question: When the two River sets are combined, should we make two rivers (using the two spring) or discard one spring and one lake and make just one river? Answer: One spring and one lake are discarded”.

To be consistent with the previous footnote (31) an ‘s’ needs adding after ‘spring’.


Page 71 – The colour of the text changes on this page. Not a major problem, I know.


Page 72 – “The three tiles above are all grouped under different sections, even though they may all be used to connect two city segments on the left and right. Both the tiles tiles are found under ‘City, city, city, city’”

This paragraph is quite confusing. It needs a new paragraph before the sentence that begins with ‘Both’ and preferably the word ‘below’ included in the sentence. It might be better to put the new paragraph underneath the tile examples and include the word ‘above’.


Page 95 – The title ‘fêtes’ needs a capital ‘F’.


I think that's about it for now :)

What about page 67 :'(

Hi MJ! real nice job there!!

i want you to know if it was legitimate, to add the "MOVE THE WOOD" quick reference style.

If you mean that you want me to add one—maybe  ;D

Oops. Brain-dead. Great movie, that.

Anyway, added @ and € for p. 67  ;)

OK.

Notice that recently too, thanks to a comment on BGG. Already corrected. Pretty dumb image, though.

Corrected. May add the house rule in later  ;)

Done.

Um, does it? I can't find that in the original… More info, please!

Corrected, and changed 'left' and 'right' to 'top' and 'bottom'.

Well spotted!

Thanks! Keep 'em comin'  ;D

I like the introduction which has the 1st vs 2nd vs 3rd edition rules.

On page 66, there is a # used for the footnote for the Big Follower as well as "# of pennants" for the Mayor.  That's a bit confusing.

There are also a large number of blanks on page 66 and 67.  I think some of them can be filled in with "no" (perhaps of a different colour to differentiate them from the clarified "no"es - in grey perhaps?) - for example, a mayor cannot be placed in a cloister.  The general note about blanks being "no"es is on page 68 which is a couple of pages from 66.

Good. Glad it works.

OK. Changed it to ß.

Hmm. For that I'd have to go through everything in detail, and it's dwitworth's piece really. I'll move the general note to the front, though.

Only if it it is legitimate, and some others players thought it COULD be useful.

Who do we blame for coming up with "move the wood" in the first place?

This might be just me. Sorry. When I downloaded again it looked as if page 71 was a different colour (more like an off black... or dark grey!). It is more likely to be me. My apologies.

I was hoping to see a sequence of events during a turn overview-type thing like there was in v4.0 but expanded. Someone around here did something like this; been so long I can't remember who anymore. v4.0 also had a nifty scoring chart.

Other than that, would a page about the PC and Xbox versions of the game be warranted?

If you are going down that route, then BSW and other online sites would also qualify a mention.

I first saw "MTW" in one of the forums a few weeks ago.  Just figured out it's meaning today.

And it's probably worth mentioning the quirks of each of these implementations.

It was me who started abbreviating it like that, I think. Too tedious to type in full all of the time.

I guess I'm a bit lost. What's the latest CAR for download? (and print)

The absolute very latest version, check Matt's (mjharper's) signature. If that doesn't match the version on the downloads site, then you may find it as a link in this thread.

Just saw an error in the River 2 section.  It says to separate the Lake tile, where in fact that isn't 100% correct.  Only the Lake with the volcano tile is separated, the other lake (with the city segment) is shuffled with the rest of the river tiles as well.

Edit: Nevermind.

There is a special thread that Matt made:

Latest CAR download (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=587.0)

Is the duplication of Footnotes 102 & 103 intentional?

It's probably unintentional.  Good job on noticing it though!

I'd like to see a page with the official tournament rules:
http://www2.herne.de/spielezentrum/carcassonne/CC-2008Engl/e-ccs-rules2008.html (http://www2.herne.de/spielezentrum/carcassonne/CC-2008Engl/e-ccs-rules2008.html)

Those are not official rules (i.e. from HiG or RGG).  Those were just the rules adopted by Games Central (spielezentrum) for the Worlds Championship that they organised.  I don't think HiG will take any responsibility for those rules.  Nevertheless, it might warrant inclusion into the CAR, as long as it's listed as a tournament ruleset.

Matthew, all spare time I have had for Carc the last couple of weeks have gone into my three expansions that I have been developing so I haven't been able to check the Car (5.0 beta 3) against my corrections.

BUT, I did look at it very quickly and have two comments:
1. My comment about BrianMola (page 99, bottom) have been corrected, almost, there is still no blank space between Brian and Mola.

2. Why have you taken out the overview (page 45-46) from CAR 4.1 ?
Shouldn't it be great to have an updated version of that overview, at least the second page.

Happy New Year
.../Wicke

CAR Ver 5.0B3

Here are a couple more corrections:

Page 3 - Introduction - “…scoring in favour of Han-im-Glück’s (HiG) 3rd edition rules.” Should be, scoring in favour of Hans-im-Glück’s (HiG) 3rd edition rules.”

Page 62 - Archery tournament—target fête tiles - “If the winner is unclear, the rules should be used…” should be, “If the winner is unclear, the ruler should be used…”

Hi all,

first off, thank you, thank you, thank you to Matt Harper and all his helpers for compiling the CAR. I only recently rediscovered Carcassonne and was at first a bit overwhelmed by all the new expansions which appeared since I last played the game several years ago. It was mainly thanks to the CAR that I was able to make sense of all the interactions between the different expansions. :)

After lurking around this site for a few weeks (mainly in the variant workshop ;)) I'd like to help out with a few comments and corrections for the newest version of the CAR now. I sincerely hope that they will be deemed useful.

Here goes:

p. 3 (Introduction), first paragraph, line 2: It should read "Cult, Siege and Creativity" instead of "Cult, War and Creativity".

p. 23 (T&B), footnote 51 states that during the double turn, "a figure can only be moved to Carcassonne (Count) once". On Page 30 (Count) however, the last sentence in the section "Deploying followers to and from Carcassonne", it says "If a played has a double turn - because of the builder - a follower may be deployed to Carcassonne in both parts of the turn." Since the latter is a quote from the official rules (as confirmed in footnote 71), footnote 51 is incorrect.

p. 29 (Count): On top of the page it says "originally released in 2004". On the same page, footnote 61 states "originally released in 2003". I believe 2004 is correct.

p. 31 (Count), footnotes 76 and 77 (also p. 53, footnote 179 and p. 54, footnote 185): I disagree with this statement. The rules for A&M clearly state that "No farmer may be deployed to a farm with a barn" (see CAR p. 54). IMHO, this should be true from the moment the farm is placed. It would mean that you can *never* add another farmer to a farm with a barn, except by connecting farms that *already* have farmers on them. That should certainly be true for end of game scoring, and it would only be consistent to extend it to the rest of the game as well.

p. 41 (River II), footnote 118: It should read "They have also been reformatted…" instead of "be reformatted"

p. 42 (River II), first paragraph: How about adding a footnote here, about the discrepancy between this sentence (player who placed the volcano may take another tile because he's not allowed to place a follower on the tile) and the general rules for P&D. Following the River II rules, a player should always be allowed to draw another tile after placing a volcano. Following P&D rules however, players are allowed to place all figures apart from followers, so there's really no need for drawing a second tile. IMHO, that makes the River II volcano rule obsolete.

p. 49 (A&M), footnote 151: It should be stated clearly here that the wagon is a follower while the barn is not (as it's mentioned in several places elsewhere throughout the document).

p. 53 (A&M), footnote 179: The answer should begin, "Yes: now that farms are not only scored…" instead of "Yes: now that farms are only scored…" (unless this whole statement is removed altogether, see above)

p. 59 (Cult), first paragraph under "The siege": The last sentence should read "Do they constitute a new expansion or not?" instead of "…of not?"

p. 61 (Catapult), first paragraph under "the fête": Third sentence should start "The player whose turn" instead of "The player who turn".

p. 62 (Catapult), archery paragraph: The last sentence should read "in the case of a tie, each tied player earns 5 points" instead of "each tied player 5 points".

p. 65 (rules summary), line "princess tile": the princess can remove *followers* (including mayor and wagon as stated in footnote 165), not just knights

p. 67 (special figures summary), line "deploy to farm?" needs "yes" for pig and barn

p. 67 (special figures summary), line "value for majority?": I doubt that the barn has any value. The rules never specify any barn value (rather saying that the player with *farmer majority* earns the points), and even more importantly it is not a follower, and usually only followers count towards the majority.

p. 68 (neutral figures summary): the tower blocks cannot be captured by other towers, nor can they be eaten by the dragon. The "yes" here would refer to followers on the tower, which is not what this table is all about.

p. 69 (mega-carc), third-to-last paragraph: first line should read "a game of mega-Carcassonne need not be ended until…" instead of "need not be played until".

And finally I'd like to add a comment on the "depreciated rules" section from the CAR V4.1, since I don't know whether that will be included in the final release of V5 as well:
p. 53, question 30: The fairy can *never* be moved next to the dragon for the simple reason that it must always be moved next to a follower (and followers cannot be moved next to the dragon).

Last but not least, it would be very much appreciated if an updated version of the figures and scoring overview (p.45/46) from V4.1 could also be added to V5.

Keep up the GREAT work!

Hester

@hester—I'll go through the corrections today. Didn't see them before  :-[

Anyway: 5.0b4 is up. Numerous corrections, but most importantly I added the Overview and a Glossary. The CarcassonneCentral page at the end could also do with beefing up.

Must rush, back later. Feedback, as always, appreciated.

This still  hasn't been corrected/clarified. :(

On page 70 of (V. 5.0B4) of the CAR.  Under the Tower Block column it is mentioned that yes it can be captured by a tower.  I assume all the yesses in this column refers to figures on the tower block and not the actual blocks themselves.  All other rules in the CAR would seem to agree with me, but the reference is not straightforward.  Probably just a small point. 

It wasn't corrected because I couldn't find the proof that it was wrong. I'll check again when I get home, but I'm as sure as I can be that the German rules say that it should be separated...

Novelty is correct. I double checked the pdf with the 6th expansion rules at HiG`s website where it says to separate the lake with the volcano. :)

Hester

Catapult Fair Images on Tiles

Does the image of the fair (fete) on the catapult tile ever cause a road, farm, or anything else to end.  IF so this needs to be stated somewhere in the CAR. 

Also is it ever possible to put a wagon inside an Abbey Tile by using its ability to drive there.  I don't think there is any way other than initially placing it there, but this is something I would like cleared up. 

You can put a wagon in the abbey as a monk!

I understand that you can put the wagon in an abbey as a monk, but can you drive him there with his special moving capability?  I don't think so, but want some clarification.  Since the abbey finishes off all of the features I would assume that access into the abbey through driving the wagon is denied.  Putting the wagon in as a new piece however should not be.  Is this correct?

Pig field + pig + farmers = 5 points per city or the usual four? 

Can you move the fairy to the volcano?  If so what happens?   

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood the wagon question.  Perhaps you can post it in Another round of questions to HiG (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=eb9g345pinutenu0oes8o4fdr3&topic=395.0) instead?  Once HiG has answered the questions, it will be included in the CAR.

Page 66 of the CAR.  It scores 5.

No, the fairy can only be moved next to one's followers.  (page 35).  The volcano is not a follower.

Yes, I checked and found the same. I stand corrected. I've changed the CAR—apologies to all concerned.

Excellent work, Matt.

I love the new 'Carcassonne Glossary'. This will be a big help to players unfamiliar with Carcassonne terms. I'm also pleased to see that the 'Overview' has returned :)

footnote 42, "... as can be seen on in the Tile...", take out "on"

and change small follower to normal or regular follower throughout the document, there are small followers now as well (The fan-made expansion Kids are growing up).
Especially on page 19, section 2, it sounds strange when both small and normal follower is mentioned.

and since I asked for the 'overview' to return, I am glad to see it back.

.../Wicke

Definitely. Some of the tiles don't make any sense otherwise. I added a footnote saying this :-) 

I would have thought it could. Although the other features may be completed by placing an abbey, the abbey itself isn't complete until surrounded by eight tiles. If the abbey is still incomplete, surely the wagon can be moved there? I might not be understanding what you mean, though.

Done and done ;-)

Glad you like it :)

Dragon:   do you score before or after moving?  Which is preferred?

Fantastic job on the CAR - printed it last night so I could read on train on way to work - or wherever.
While I have been trawling through the forum I have noticed the Double turn rule has sometimes created a bit of confusion.
Would it be better to use  different terminology like Turn and play.   

Turn: player is in control
Play: Drawing and placement of tile and any associated actions.

Here's how I see it, each player has a turn which can consist of one play or a double play or maybe a triple play if a variant calls for it.
That way it's easy to distinguish between things that can happen once in turn (i.e. regardless of the number of plays) and what happens in a play i.e tile drawn and placed.

Just a thought - maybe it makes it even more confusing.

I guess my question really is two fold.  If you complete a feature with the that has a wagon in it with an abbey tile you can then move the wagon to the abbey tile if it is incomplete or that tile completes it.  That makes sense now.  Driving there or picking it up and placing it don't really have any problems.  The other half of my question is this.  If you have a wagon in an abbey next to a city piece or a road piece, when the abbey is complete can you move it to an unscored and incomplete feature via roads or cities touching the abbey or do you have to simply return your wagon. 

Matt, do you think that it would be suitable in "Glossary" to write some words about difference between Big Box from RGG and Big Box from HiG? Page 99.

The tower blocks are also labelled as being dragon food. I think both of these are in error.


It's better to create new topics to ask rules questions. You'll find your (convulted) answer in footnote 100 of version 5.0b4

Like Joff, I am also pleased to see the return of Overview, though I was optimistically hoping for an expanded "Order of play" section like that article somebody posted a few months ago.

Loving the new glossary. A few remarks:

bag

For the hardcore Carcassonne collector, there is another bag to be had which I think deserves at least a brief mention.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000359/www.carcassonne.de/lesac.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20040213000359/www.carcassonne.de/lesac.htm)

depreciated

Did you mean deprecated? (to be rendered obsolete?) The word depreciated is very similar to the word amortized (the difference between the two has been lost in the sands of time).

I'd like to nominate "move the wood" for a glossary entry.

I see my name at the beginning of the house rules section as a contributor, but it doesn't appear after any of the contributions. I don't know how to feel about that except confused.

If you want to fill up the CarcCentral page a bit more, you could always mention how lots of spiffy fan-made expansions and accessories are available to download here. (larger scoring tracks, player aids, Complete Annotated Rules for AotC and H&G...  ;D)

I'm sorry, but where is it?

@skipboris: There's a thread that's pinned to this forum and locked by Matt which tells you where to download it.

@scot: depreciated = loss of value

I'd like to second that :)

Before, obviously—that's the HiG rule  ;D

Another item that may need clearing up.  I assume you can do this because they are essentially followers, but can the mayor and wagon have a builder associated with them. 

@Matt:

I'm reading my way through 5.0b4 right now and already have a number of comments, but I won't be able to type them up before tonight. Just wanted to let you know in case you were getting ready to upload another version.

Love the updated overview and the new glossary!

Hester

Ok, I typed it all up but it turned out fairly long, even though I only read the new parts closely. I figured it wouldn’t be much use to flood the board with a lengthy post like this, so I'll send you an email instead. :)

On page 112: "To raise the stakes of a challenge between shrines and cloisters, and to make it more worthwhile to risk the chance of getting no points, the winning challenger receives the points for both structures (9 + 9 = 18 points) while the loser still receives nothing. (Thanks to RationalLemming)."

It should either say "... the winning challenger receives double points for his/her structure (9x2 = 18)" or "the winning challenger receives the points for both structures" with no comments in parantheses, since if the challenge is won the other structure is definately not completed and cannot give 9 points. It can be anything like 9+6 or 9+7, but not 9+9.

But the winner can complete both in one step with only on tile, can't he?

If that happens, both players score 9 points in the normal rules for shrines as neither finished before the other did.

"...IF THE CHALLENGE IS WON..." (see above). The challenge is not won if the winner completes both structures in one step since neither party finished first.

Do you know when the "Final 5.0" will be ready?
(Can't wait to make a nice print of it  :))

Soon, I promise. Have to go through a few corrections, and then... Maybe I'll have a little time next week.

Sounds Great  ;D

Thanks for a exelent piece of work  {wv

Not sure if this should be noted by footnote as a possible difference in rules in latest CAR?  I've posed this question in another thread as well.  It has to do with the seduction token in catapult. 

I wasn't sure whether you can swap with the opponent's closest follower if the token lands closest to one of your own followers?  It appears that HIG and Rio Grande Games may have different rules?  The Rio Grande Rules state "If the token comes to rest on the map, then the players determine which opponent’s follower is closest to the token and may use the measuring board in case of doubt...." See: http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_286_gameRules.pdf.  The CAR (and I assume HIG) doesn't mention "opponent's" so it appears if it lands closest to your own follower you couldn't swap for an opponent's follower (but possibly your own if it would make sense to exchange for mayor, or big meeple, etc.).

Thank you for all your work on the CAR! It's really useful. I'm looking forward to reading the expanded version, but when I follow the link (or try to follow the drop down link to the downloads for members on the front page), I get redirected to a login page for mobile.me. I've tried both Safari and FireFox, with the same result. Can you please tell me what to do?

/Frank

I forgot to say that I've tried to login with the password I found on my profile page, but it does not work...

/Frank

Go here for latest CAR download

http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=587.0

thanks for the link!!

great job camarade!!

This is amazing - it makes adding new expansions a breeze - and stops family "discussions" when I pull out the TOME.

Thank you ;D :D

any news for the final version 5.0 of CAR ?

Depends on how final people want it ;-) I mean, if all that needs to be done is go through and edit typos, I can probably have that done (fairly) soon. Any more than that—new FAQ, for example—would take considerably longer, since my time is limited at the moment...

Thoughts?

I'd like to see clarifications from HiG to the questions raised here.  Did you manage to send the questions to HiG?

Ahem... to do :-[ :-[ :-[

Updating prior to the HiG answers seems pointless to me if you are limited on time.  I have waited this long to make a color print and bound version, I can wait a little longer.

A couple of questions came up last night, but I knew I should have written them down...  :-[

The one I can remember is; Can the barn be swapped out by the seduction token from Catapult?  The rules and the FAQ's are quite vague as to whether the Barn is considered a follower or not.  I guess along with that questions would be this one; When swapping out followers, do you need to replace the one on the board with the same follower or can it be with any follower?  And, can you swap out a pig or builder?

A question occurred to me as I was adding the new expansion:

Does anybody thing the font size throughout the document should be increased, say by 1 point? (The current body text is 9pt). Anybody find it even slightly on the unreadable side?

While working on my own CARA document, any mass change, however slight, causes catastrophic changes throughout the whole document. I agree that the font is a tad on the small size, perhaps too much so, but if you are going to change the font throughout, upload a draft of your current rules first, please, so we can have a preview. That way, you can change the information throughout without us hawking at you to finish the changes already.

On a similar note, do you just use MS Word to type your documents, or do you use something slightly more advanced? Word is a [expletive] to work with since it likes screwing up margins on images when images are moved en masse.

I haven't found it unreadable.  I think if there was a problem, I could easily blow it up a bit and I probably have before.  I would assume most everyone can do the same.

The size is good for me, but I know that I am more inclined towards smaller font sizes than others.

IIRC Matt uses some LaTeX-based program.

I made a copy and increased the font size of everything by 1, and actually not much seems to be out of order. It would take a little while to go through everything, so I will finish up on the new expansion first, but then I'll have a more detailed look, and put up a demo.

I use Apple's Pages for the CAR. For any serious work (say, academic writing) I'd use Mellel, which is hands down the best word processor I've ever used, but for graphics-intensive documents which are more like DTP, Pages is better. Both are Mac-only apps. Don't even have MS Word installed... The Mac version is pretty good actually, but there are always apps that do the same thing better, IMHO. And LaTex has always been tempting, but the learning curve is too steep for me to deal with right now.

Well that is reassuring. I was just starting to download LaTeX for Mac and it looked rather daunting. I have Pages and, oddly, never considered using it for my CARA. I should have thought of it right away. I'll have to copy everything over to a page and see how it comes out. I have two versions of Word installed right now, mostly to try out the features of Word 2008 before I buy it (Word 2003 has been disappointing me too much lately). I'll have to check out Mellel also, per the previous comment. I guess I can pass on LaTex right now, and wait to program my own consistent academic writing code for the future.

One of the divisions of my company produces technical writing, and it only now occurred to me now this is a great solution to the frustrations of MS Word. We use Help and Manual (http://www.ec-software.com/products_hm_overview.html).

What this software does is produce help manuals for software, but it would also work great for the CAR & FAQs.  Each topic with corresponding graphics is maintained in it's own separate section so that an update in one section never affects other section's formatting, and likewise a font size or font type change will not affect output.  And of course it creates an automatic table of contents, etc.  All you do is focus on the content, and it focuses on creating the document.  You could theoretically create your document, then output it in both PDF as well as a web format, with full text searching, glossary, etc.  It's absolutely brilliant software and easier than Word (at least I find it easier).

Considering at the moment if you're interested in using it, how my company could donate a working copy without breaking our licensing agreement.

It sounds interesting and maybe even perfect for creating these kind of documents. But $349 retail is a bit steep. I am guessing this is big-business stuff. However, it seems that the only versions they sell are for PC and Matt and I at least have Macs. Mine can technically dual boot, but since I do all my Photoshopping on my Mac partition, it would take a lot of unnecessary work to switch back and forth. Thanks for the offer, though. Matt may be interested if his Apple dual boots or if he also uses a PC.

mjharper,

Would you be so kind and review on page 13 of CAR 5.04B reference #23:

According to a recent FAQ, this should be changed to the following: “The game is over when the last facedown
land tile has been played.” This is to preclude players from placing any abbey tiles which they may still
have in their hand after the last ‘normal’ land tile (from the stack, the bag or the dispenser) has been played.

And the RGG Big Box 2 rules ( http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_304_gameRules.pdf ) page 10:

When a player wants to use his abbey, he draws no tile to begin his turn and places the abbey tile. The
player may only place the abbey tile in an empty space on the table completely surrounded on four sides (not the
diagonals) by other tiles, thus filling a “hole” in the map. If there is no such place on the table, the player may not
place his abbey tile. The player may place a follower as a monk on the abbey tile. In this case, the same rules apply as
for a monk in a cloister - that is, it is scored in the same way. If one or more players have not yet placed their Abbey
tiles when the last landscape tile is drawn and placed, they may now do so, if possible, in clockwise order starting
from the left of the person who placed the last tile. Then, the game ends.

Since I can not read German, I can not review the HiG version of the Big Box 2 rules to see if they match the RGG version.  But I have a hunch they do.  If they do, then CAR is currently incorrect based on this new source of rules.

Thank you for you time.

Thanks, that's interesting. I haven't seen BB2 from HiG. If anyone has rules, I'd be grateful if they could send me a copy or a link.

Otherwise, it sounds to me like this is a rule only in the RGG edition. Wouldn't be the first time. ;)

EDIT: Modified the footnote by adding the RGG rule as well.

So, I just uploaded a new beta (5.0b6). It includes all the new rules for The Wheel of Fate, as well as all the associated entries in the Glossary, Consolidated Tile Reference, and so on. I also standardised a few of the headers in earlier rules, and removed all the subheadings which said 'translations blah blah by Matthew Harper' (taking up unnecessary room, felt like too much trumpet blowing) but left any reference to other contributors.

To do:
- expand section about CC to mention fan expansions
- rework scoring overview.

The first is easy enough but the second a bit more tricky. I though that I should have a go at increasing the font size before I attempt that, because it will really alter the layout. I was thinking of abandoning the combined overview, and splitting it into sections: before placement (fairy, wheel of fate); after placement (main gameplay); final scoring.

What exactly are you thinking of putting in there?  Let me know if I can help.

Edit: Reading through the CAR:

The Tile Distribution title is on page 66 instead of 67.
The big pig isn't included as a neutral figure on page 69.

Scott, ages ago:
I was thinking along those lines. If someone with more knowledge of the fan-made stuff can write something, that'd be awesome...

Pain, that. This expansion had more tile structures than any before it. I've reduced the font of the title for now, but I'll have to look for a longer term solution...

The whole Overview section is 'To Do'  ;)

EDIT: Uploaded a demo of the 'increased font size' CAR. I only had a quick mess with the first half; everything after the Tile Reference hasn't been touched. - Opinions extremely welcome!
http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew-big.pdf

Here's one found through a quick scan:

Page 128: House Rules:

"...first player to ‘role’ a standing follower decides who plays first."

should be 'roll'.

@Joff: Done.

Also, on the flimsy basis that no news is good news, I decided to adopt the +1 font size version of the CAR for the next beta. I think I prefer it, and since nobody said anything...

Sounds good. Bigger text is more readable text. As soon as I get a chance, I was going to do a read-through of the rules and give edits too. I found a few in the Wheel of Fate section, but didn't note them first time through so I'll go back and note them next time. Also, you introduction needs to be fixed up a little. It is still dwelling on 2008. Does the farm scoring section need to be as big still, since RGG finally adopted the new rules?

Oh, I hope it's retained.  RGG has not "officially" adapted the rules, they have just sneaked it in via A&M and BB2.

There's that, and I was also thinking about newcomers to the CAR, and to online resources in general. Sure, to us the RGG adoption is 'old hat' but to someone who might have a box from a few years ago and just does a quick Google search for rules, they might find that useful. I appreciate that 2008 is last year, but it was a much more important year for Carcassonne than 2009 has been.

I'll have a look through it again and see if I can update it somehow, perhaps shifting the emphasis from the time to the changes. But I do feel the changes were the most important in a good while.

Granted. And indeed, little has come out this year for Carcassonne. I mean, the one thing that HAS come out (or will in the US) is technically a stand-alone on HiG's webpage, so that means nothing at all has come out. You should emphasize some of the additions to the rules in the introduction, though, since there are a number of them.

Here are a few things I found when reading the updated rules.  I really only looked at the Wheel of Fate rules since I hadn’t had a chance to read them yet.  Incidentally, I like the bigger font.

Wheel of Fate – Preparation:
"The big pig should be placed on the ‘fortune’ section of the wheel, its nose point pointing or points to the right."

The scans of the separate sectors of the wheel in the Perform Events section are unreadable due to low resolution.  Not sure if this is a problem on my end, but can they be put on at a higher resolution, or not?

Fortune: "The player whose turn it is receives 3 points."

Taxes: The illustration text is a little unclear to me.  I had to read it several times to understand it.  Anyone else have a similar experience?

Did you include a scan of the Wheel?  I didn't notice one.

It looks like the Plague is the only negative event on the Wheel.  I would have thought that they’d balance the positive and negative a bit more.  I like the expansion/spinoff, whatever it is.  I've never heard the word plinth before, but I think I like it.  :)

Matt, I must know. When are is the new CAR coming out with the Wheel and Tunnel rules? I see that you uploaded the "CARnew" to BGG in June without even telling us here! Sad times. I've been waiting to print out a copy of it, but new rules/expansions just keep coming out. Any chance that a version with the Tunnel and Wheel of Fortune (and perhaps my new cover) will be releasing soon? I've been waiting to print out the rules until the inclusion of those items. Thanks!

Um, the latest version from July (newer than the BGG version ;)) does include the Wheel rules. I have a feeling I still had to update the scoring overview though.

I'll see if I can find some time at the weekend to add the tunnel to the rules  :)

Hopefully you'll have finished the book by then.  Missing bus stops (or almost missing them) can't be good fun.  Although writing up the rules in the CAR probably isn't too fun either.

Edit: I've added a link to the CAR download thread (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=587.0) on the Rules & General (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=60) page of the Downloads.  Thanks goes to Whaleyland for the cover image.

the links for downloading the CAR does not work this morning, can you guys check it out?

thx!!

btw, as far as i know, i am really late in the CAR progress, but do the Wheel of Fortune & the 2009 mini expansion is added??

thx agn!

I can download the .pdf just fine. It must have been just a short glitch.

works now, i just beat the heavy scrap out of my laptop, everything's FINE!!

Hi some little things...

on some place the "fête" is showing "fète" une "Alt 136" to got the exact symbol(on pc)

also, the pink piggy of wheel of fate is not included in the special figures part...

last, the tunnels will be added approx. when?

nice job through!!

Hello, I'm new to this site but not new to gaming or Carcassonne.

I want to say thanks to everyone for making this a great site and to Matt for this incredible document.

I noticed that some people have pointed out some typos and errors in the document.  Since the document is new to me, I am reading through it all.  As I find typos I thought I'd just post them.  Hope it helps.

The first one I caught is on page 11.  The box in the center of the page has 5 numbered sentences when there are really only 4.

Thanks imgame! As you might have guessed, the CAR is an ongoing work, and I'm also a little behind on the updates (roll on Xmas!) But any mistakes you spot are much appreciated, and I will definitely check this thread as I get back to work on the doc.

And welcome to the forums!

Page 64 (5.0b6): 72 land tiles, 1819 of which have Wheel of Fate icons (11x1, 5x2, 3x3; total is 30)

The RGG version contains a tile breakdown that also includes which numbers are present on the tiles, particularly the FRFR and FFRR tiles. Might be worth including this as well.

Are you going to add La Porxada as an HiG-approved-but-still-unofficial expansion? Surely it deserves more of a place than some of the selected variants at the end of the rules (which, correct me if I'm wrong, are completely unofficial)?

Hey Matt, any chance you can get Bridges, Castles & Bazaars translated sometime soon? Someone over at BGG requested a copy of the English rules but those are not actually that well written by RGG. I'd like to see your translation of them. Thanks!

Will look into it, I promise. Must buy expansion... I have been so out of the loop recently... sorry.

What would really help me is a list of all the things which need to be done. Any takers?

I looked over this post; and I consolidated the comments from others.  I also did proofread up to page 70 or so; and found the following things.  I hope this helps for a list of things that need to be done.  Thanks to everyone who have posted updates.

If it would be any help, I would be happy to give you a hand with this.  Send me a PM, and we can talk about it.

Page 11 - Box in the center of page.  Remove the number '5.'

Page 64 - Comments
"as it is both an" -- change an to 'a'

Page 64 - Preparation
"its nose point" -- change to 'pointed'
   
Page 65 - Fortune
"The player whose turn it receives 3 points." -- add 'is'

Page 65 - Taxes
Reword:  (Not sure if this is any better) Every player receives 1 point for each of their knights.  Also, each

knight receives 1 point for each pennant in the city.

Page 66
Move "TILE DISTRIBUTION" to the top of page 67.

Page 69
Add Big Pink Pig to Neutral figures section.

Page 131 - Game Figures
The word "fete" should have a ^ not `  -- Looking closer a the word, that is the only one with the wrong accent.  It's tough to catch it all, with the size of the fonts, but they seem to me to be all correct.

Add La Porxada
Add Bridges, Castles & Bazaars
Add Tunnels

I *think* that's everything, but I could very well be wrong.

Why? It is not an official expansion.

Add Crop Circles.

no way do not add some unofficial stuff, this would be pointless...

People probably think La Proxada is official because it is up on BGG. However, the rules are very poorly translated into English there (and it's unofficial, anyways).

I'm in two minds about La Porxada; it was sanctioned by Devir and Klaus-Jürgen Wrede but not Hans im Glück, so it's kind of semi-official (or officially unofficial). Perhaps it could be mentioned in an appendix?

I'd say unofficially official  ;)

It is not official, it is only a sticker, not a tile (the package on the well known pictures there's only a simply sticker).
It would be sanctioned after Devir published this as a normal Carcassonne tile including an official rule.
All rights on Carcassonne has HiG, Klaus-Jürgen Wrede has no rights. So it cannot be sanctioned.

My mistake.

Changed below --


I looked over this post; and I consolidated the comments from others.  I also did proofread up to page 70 or so; and found the following things.  I hope this helps for a list of things that need to be done.  Thanks to everyone who have posted updates.

If it would be any help, I would be happy to give you a hand with this.  Send me a PM, and we can talk about it.

Page 11 - Box in the center of page.  Remove the number '5.'

Page 64 - Comments
"as it is both an" -- change an to 'a'

Page 64 - Preparation
"its nose point" -- change to 'pointed'
   
Page 65 - Fortune
"The player whose turn it receives 3 points." -- add 'is'

Page 65 - Taxes
Reword:  (Not sure if this is any better) Every player receives 1 point for each of their knights.  Also, each

knight receives 1 point for each pennant in the city.

Page 66
Move "TILE DISTRIBUTION" to the top of page 67.

Page 69
Add Big Pink Pig to Neutral figures section.

Page 131 - Game Figures
The word "fete" should have a ^ not `  -- Looking closer a the word, that is the only one with the wrong accent.  It's tough to catch it all, with the size of the fonts, but they seem to me to be all correct.

Add Crop Circles
Add Bridges, Castles & Bazaars
Add Tunnels

I *think* that's everything, but I could very well be wrong.

I'm always using CAR has a rules specialist in my group of players and this reference guide is a bible for me. A huge work that I'm please to use.

Suggestion : add the play of the Count in the Overview (p.69)

I don't like to play with the count but some other players do, so...

Thank!

Have added a brief extract of the crop circle rules to the rules section.  Shout if you want me to send the word doc to you.

I navigated to the faq/download section, but it said I need to login to view content. How can I login there?

That's been broken for a while now.  Head over to the rules section and there should be a thread there with a link to the latest verstion of the CAR.

Just throwing this out there again - I would be happy to work on this to help get it updated!

Thanks,
Josh

Link to Rules and FAQ doesn't work in Google Chrome.

Hi all, new here and to Carcassonne in general. I got the Xbox 360 version in the Christmas Sale and after seeing that they only had 2 of the expansions and no signs of any more being added I decided to get a proper version :)

I'm still waiting for the main game and most of the mini expansions to come through in the post but in the mean-time I have been reading up here at Carcassonne Central. Awesome stuff guys!

I've put togther a long bullet point list of things needed to bring the CAR up-to-date with the release of The Plague. Hope this is what you were after Matt:


Overview:

• Update Cover? (http://carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=1015.msg15721#msg15721)
• Rules (The Tunnel, BC&B, Crop Circles, Plague)
• Game figures (Large Pig, Bridges)
• Rework Order of Play
• Figure Characteristics(Large Pig, Bridges)
• Update Tile Overview by Release
• Update Consolidated Tile Reference (inc symbols + features)
• Update Glossary
• Add La Porxada (oft-requested :))
• Update Version History (a given :p)

More Detailed Break-down:

If anyone would like to make corrections as they see fit. I tried to break-down each expansion as best I could so that they fit in the different sections - I'm sure I've missed things though. A lot of the content could be created/compiled and sent to Matt for approval/submission if he doesn't have the time to write it.

Hopefully a worthwhile first post. Thank you so much Matt for the greatness that is the mighty CAR!

Great first post!  Looks good to me.  Welcome!

I can't find this ruleset, just get a dead link

It works fine for me.  HERE (http://carc.mjharper.de/CARnew.pdf) it is. 

Awesome, eddebaby. Thanks for that :-)

Hey guys, I spent some time digging into the CAR a little more today.  What an impressive document it really is.  With all the work the goes into it and all the information that's been accumulated compounded exponentially by every expansion, it seems for all the world to me like a Master's thesis!  There aren't enough merit points for this!  

Matt, take up these guys on their offer to help you out.  A fresh set of eyes, and fingertips, would probably do you a lot of good.  

CAR is a bible I always check it for strange questions answers, still it lacks some reply's... life is always smarter than theory;)
I'd like to see more graphic examples of 2-3-4 tiles together that make life of the beginners difficult and make for plenty of interpretations.

f.e. roundabout road - it would be much easier if you would show it - closed from each side and the corespondend amount of points. (f.e. 4 points if the roundbound is closed right away at each ending) I will have some playes in coimng days and hope to note all the questionable configurations that will arise.

RIVER II section - please add an official statement regarding the city bridge tile with river - it does divide the farms in four (that what I found from HiG), it makes sense, but is not logical when you look at the drawing of the bridge.

I don't see a clear instruction what to do with River I and River II when played together. Scrap 1 spring and 1 lake... but where do we start with 1 spring or with the Fork.

I doubt this will speed things along any faster, but here are the German rules for Das Fest and Die Gefolge copied directly from the rules documents:

Die Erweiterung: Die Fest
Spielmaterial: •10 Landschaftskarten mit dem Festsymbol. Wenn ein Spieler eine Landschaftskarte mit dem Festsymbol aufdeckt, legt er sie zunächst wie gewohnt an. Nun muss er sich entscheiden, entweder
• er stellt 1 eigene Figur nach den üblichen Regeln auf diese Landschaftskarte oder
• er nimmt 1 eigene Figur von der gesamten Auslage zurück in seinen Vorrat.
Der Spieler kann auch auf beide Möglichkeiten verzichten. Gefangene Gefolgsleute (4. Erweiterung – Der Turm), darf der Spieler auf diese Weise nicht zurück in seinen Vorrat nehmen.

Das Gefolge
Das Gefolge besteht aus 6 transparente Phantomen in 6 Farben. Das violette Phantom
gehört zum grauen Spieler.
Zusätzliche Regel
Jeder Spieler bekommt das Phantom seiner Farbe. In seinem Zug darf ein Spieler dieses Phantom als 2. Gefolgsmann auf die gelegte Karte stellen.
Er darf also in diesem Zug 2 Figuren in verschiedene Gebiete einsetzen. Bekommt man das Phantom zurück, darf man es in einem späteren Zug wieder ebenso einsetzen. Das Phantom kann auch alleine eingesetzt werden und zählt immer wie ein normaler Gefolgsmann.
Ausführliche Regeln auf www.carcassonne.de

You may still want to skim through the Jubilee Edition rules, though, just in case anything has been cleaned up or clarified. Plus! You need to copy images of the tiles to the new rules document. Too bad they removed the purple meeple image from Die Gefolge rules. That could have been used in the rules...

Not much, is there? Still, the rules for Die Pest make up for that...

I've noticed people calling the new expansions 'The Celebration' and 'The Entourage'. Is there any specific reason for that? I was considering calling Die Fest 'The Party' (Pest and Fest rhyme, Plague and Party alliterate).

Also, after typing 'Bridges, Castles and Bazaars' about 40 times, I decided that I couldn't bear it any longer and changed it to 'Castles, Bridges and Bazaars.' I hope nobody objects...

You're right about the Jubilee rules, and I'll definitely go through them when I finish the new expansions. Incidentally, has anyone noticed anything new or different about recent Big Boxes, either RGG or HiG?

Are you asking because you know of some?  I haven't seen any, but I haven't seen the 3rd one yet.

I'm asking because I don't ;-) But I'd be especially interested in knowing what the latest RGG rules look like, as almost all the stuff in the CAR refers to the 1st Big Box. And since then they adopted 3rd edition scoring...

I see, well I've got the Big Box 2.  Not sure what to look for in there.  Did you get your info from the Big Box rules or from the seperate expansions themselves?  I haven't noticed anything, but if you want I could try to scan them for you, if I get time.

I originally called Die Fest "The Festival", then I thought "The Party" but once I saw that the new feature logo was fireworks, I thought the intent was more "The Celebration", and so I changed it from thereon out. BabelFish translated the word as Celebration while Google translates it as The Hard, a presumably incorrect translation. The Entourage is translated in both translators as "Entourage" which is probably why it became prominent. The expansion itself was originally going to be called Das Phantom, according to the pre-release photos online, but that mention is gone now and it seems the expansion shares the same name as the product at this point in time. I was originally going to translate Das Phantom as "The Ghost" but decided to keep it the same since phantom is an English word.

Doesn't it stand to reason that Die Fest be translated as The Festival?

I got the rules from the Big Box in 2006; someone scanned them for me. Since them I've seen a couple of RGG's individual sets. If you could scan them, that would be much appreciated :-)

Well, 'Celebration' is arguably better. I only liked 'Party' because of the alliteration with 'Plague'. 'Hard' is also correct as an adjective, in that Es steht fest means that something is definite. And Festung means 'fortress'. Which doesn't matter at all for our purposes. I guess it comes down to whichever 'feels' best, since the name has absolutely nothing to do with the rules as far as I can see...

Perhaps, but Tortenschlacht literally means ‘cake battle’ and is definitely better translated as 'food fight'. As with Bazaars, I'll have to see how it feels when as I translate the whole thing...

Both Entourage and Phantom sound good to me.

I'll see what I can do.

So, a question: I'll finish adding the rules for Bazaars tomorrow, if all goes according to plan. Do you want to see a new version then, or wait until I finish adding the rules for the other expansions?

I'd like to see it.  It's just BC&B, right?

No. Here's the current changes (I haven't done the castle stuff yet):

• Added rules for The Tunnel and Castles, Bridges and Bazaars.
• Added Whaleyland’s new cover.
• Increased font size by 1 point for (hopefully) the entire document.
• Standardised the Tile Distribution lists.
• Removed gradients from table backgrounds.
• Incorporated joshgambit’s corrections.
• Glossary: bridge (2), bazaar, bid, tag, tunnel entrance, tunnel token, underground, visible; edited tunnel and adjacent.
• Switched Fortune and Inquisition graphics the rules of The Wheel of Fate.
• Corrected ‘sub-game’ to ‘mini-game’.
• Added placeholders for coming expansions.
• Completely mucked up Order of Play section ::).

Looks good!  BTW, the RGG release was titled Wheel of Fortune.

Do you know what you need specifically?

Apparently the Big Box 2 added a rule that wasn't in any previous versions. Not sure if this was included in the German version of the rules as well. Check this BGG thread: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/615663/odd-big-box-2-ruling.

Also, I'll get a final update of the cover done as soon as I can. I just want to add the Anniversary stamp to the cover somewhere. After that, it's good to go!

Thanks for that. I don't see any of the section being quoted in the original Big Box rules. Will credit The Brooox for pointing it out.

A scan of everything, I'm afraid. As I said, above, I don't recognise any of that section... But it doesn't have to be particularly high quality, just readable - if there's a specific graphic or something I really need, we could sort that out later...

Perfect :-)

I personally think that 'Castles, Bridges and Bazaars' looks kinda weird but that might just be because I'm used to Bridges, Castles and Bazaars.
Another translation for 'Das Fest' would be 'The celebration'. The entourage is indeed a translation for 'Das Gefolge' but I think I'd stick to 'The Phantom'. While both would be good to work with, the original title of the small expansion is 'Das Gefolge'. So 'The entourage' would be the correct wording.
However, there are more correct translations for 'Das Gefolge'.  I always peak at dict.cc (http://dict.cc).
Apparently 'followers' would be correct aswell. But that would be disturbing to use I guess.

So, here you go: 5.0 beta 7 (http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew.pdf). As I said, the overview is chaos, and there are placeholders for Corn Circles onwards, so don't go printing this one out!

For whatever reason, the file size has increased (even though I removed things like graded backgrounds). It's about 10MB.

Remember to add my new cover! Also, I can up the resolution some since that one looks pretty blurry. I just didn't want to add much size to the document. Also, if you have Adobe Acrobat, you can do a compressed save to try and save some space. If not, I've got the app and can try compressing the document for you.

Edit: Just tried optimizing the pdf and got it down to 4.9 MB. Much more manageable.

"5.0 beta late then 7"
        ;l4

I think the cover looks blurry because it's already compressed a bit. So, for way of comparison, I uploaded a new version exported from Pages at 'Best' rather than 'Good'; the file is now 13.3 MB. And it looks fine, I think.

I don't have Acrobat, but I can do something similar with Preview, although there aren't any options for customization. The resulting file (http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew-reduced.pdf) is 7.1 MB, but looks rubbish...

Perhaps Acrobat has a better result? I'm becoming disinclined to use heavily optimized versions anyway, now that most people have broadband and downloading gigabits of movies and games is commonplace... The original plan was to have a version for quick download and one for printing, but do we really need that anymore? Shouldn't there be just one file, which looks as good as possible?

Looks good. I have not had tie to check through, but one small error that I saw:

Page 76 - Into text - "Travelling traders arrive in the land an organise bazaars, in which haggling is considered an art. At the same time, engineers are expanding the road network with modern bridges, and small castles are being built everywhere to defend the region."

Thanks. Corrected :)

Two questions:

• I was just looking through the Spielbox with Crop Circles and there's an overview of Carc expansions. The Tunnel is listed as coming before The Wheel of Fate - I don't remember that being the case, but perhaps someone has a better memory than me...?
• One of the tiles from Crop Circles has a T-junction which looks to me like it's open rather than closed. Any opinions?

I don't mind the tile being large. You are definitely correct in stating that larger files are becoming more the norm.

Oh, and that Crop Circles tile is DEFINITELY a continuous junction. There's nothing blocking the intersection.

Are you talking about the road or the field on the RRRR tile?

The frrr tile.

My bad, I thought we were still talking about the Tunnels.  Sorry.

I'd agree it looks open.

Matt, RGG has taken to publishing PDF version for their rules on their web site. For your convenience I have linked the Big Box 2 and Big Box 3 rules below. All the other can easily be found by poking around the RGG website.

http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_304_gameRules.pdf
http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_366_gameRules.pdf

If you do plan on crediting me please do so as "Brooks Child" or "The Broox". There is an extra "o" in my name at BBG and I can't figure out how to change it. I am quite the rules lawyer and have been looking into bizarre cases from when expansions collide. It may be useful for you to look through my post history over at BGG.

Thanks for that. I'll give them a looking over when I finish the translations and overview.

I wonder exactly what the sentence of that statement in Big Box 2 is. I mean, normally the collection would have been superseded by Big Box 3, but it doesn't contain The Count. Doesn't really matter, but your find is definitely worthy of mention :)

Edit: Had a quick scan of BB3 and noticed a bunch of stuff relating to Bridges, Castles and Bazaars. Does anyone know whether the HiG version also has such additional rules? Or does anyone have a link to the HiG editions?

Ugh! After spending about 15 minutes looking around the web, I finally found German versions of the Big Box 2 and Big Box 3 rules. You may want to skim through BB2 rules for CK&C stuff and BB3 rules for updates on everything. Here's the webpage that has all the PDF links: http://www.maik-wegner.de/carcassonne/downloads.html. Obviously, click on the links for Deutsch.

Did anyone notice the glaring error in tile placement for the illustration on page 14 of the RGG BB3 rules?  Kinda silly if you ask me.

I wanted to say also that a house rule I use for the barn is; pig meeple/no, pig tile/yes.

Awesome, thanks. 8) I had a quick look but didn't find anything and decided to get back to translating Die Pest. Those will come in extremely useful later, though  :)

If you have Crop Circles done and can do a quick upload at some point later today, please do. I am very unsatisfied with all translations thus far and have been awaiting your update eagerly. It's the only expansion I own that I've only played once, and incorrectly at that.

The oddest thing is that the error is also in the German editions Whaleyland just linked to; but it isn't in the original rules. So HiG changed the image for the Big Box, and RGG copied it wholesale.

As you say, kinda silly ;D

Keep that one in mind: I mean to ask later for more house rules  :)

Done. I've uploaded the latest version, which includes Crop Circles. The images are poor quality because they're taken from HiG's site (my copy should be in the post). And as a bonus, you have the first couple of paragraphs of The Plague  ;)

What was confusing about the other translations? I haven't seen them, so can't comment... but if mine is still confusing, let me know  :)

Okay, just finished a read-through of the Crop Circles rules. Definitely more readable, but here are my questions/issues:

• "may take a follower from their supply deploy it next to another of their followers which is already in play, or" — First, there should be an "and" after "supply" and the "which is" seems unnecessary. Second, you say "may take" but I had previously understood there to be no option (i.e. "must take") since all players are affected by that player's decision. In other words, IF a player has a follower on the appropriate feature and a follower in their supply, they MUST place a second follower beside one of their already deployed followers.
• That all being said, I just reread the whole thing and you actually say "must" in the introduction line which is repetetive with the "must"s that are used later. Perhaps just stating "After that, he or she decides whether all players:".
• As an FAQ question, the rules don't actually address what happens if you DO have a follower on the appropriate feature but DON'T have an available follower to double-up on that tile. Do you just not do anything or do you have to move a follower from another feature?
• From your first example: "She could have also deployed her follower to next to the knight on the top left tile." Probably should read: "She could have also deployed her follower beside the knight on the top left tile." It sounds kind of wordy otherwise.

Didn't see any other problems with it and thanks for some clarification on play-order. Totally forgot that the turn finishes first then the extra add or remove rounds commences. So many nuances to remember! Hopefully my tips help.

Edit: Random aside, I totally think you should put the Plague Doctor picture I have on the Plague Rules page with the Plague expansion. Just like Cathars, the plague is a historically-based expansion and should have some extra theming with it.

Corrected.

This caught me out to begin with, but they seem to be two different things.

The active player must make a decision about whether to use option A) or B). That's straightforward.

With option B), all players must remove one follower from play, if they have a follower of the appropriate type. The German is müssen (must).

With option A) all players may add a follower next to one of the appropriate type. The German is dürfen (may).

Like you, this struck me as odd, so I checked and double checked. But it's actually confirmed in the examples. The example scenario for B) again says muss, and the example scenario for A) says darf. Unfortunately, the example doesn't show us someone choosing not to deploy the bonus follower, but from those two uses of darf I can only conclude that once the active player has chosen A), the other players can choose whether to deploy or not.

That's what I wrote to begin with, until I realized the rules were using muss and darf and each case needed to be clearer...

I guess this is clearer if A) is 'may' rather than 'must', if only because a player would be 'forced' into 'choosing' not to deploy a second follower.

Changed to "She could also have deployed her follower beside the knight on the top left tile."

Glad it's clearer, and thanks for the tips. I'm also thinking that this may/must business should be clarified in a footnote.

EDIT:
That's a good idea :) - I've just added it. Do you have a link for the source?

I got the Plague Doctor image from http://thesocietypages.org/economicsociology/2008/12/29/182/

On page 76 of the beta release:


On page 79:

Are you translating the rules to 'The Plague' yourself ?
Here are the official english rules from Spielbox:
http://www.spielbox-magazin.de/pdf/CCS_diepest_en.pdf (http://www.spielbox-magazin.de/pdf/CCS_diepest_en.pdf)
Just in case you didn't know about them.

Sekim, just fyi: All rules are always translated from the original German for the CAR. While official (and unofficial) translations are consulted, the finish product is always from the German, not English, translation. Trust me, Matt knows about the English crap-lation of the Plague rules.

Ah ok. Thanks for clearing that up  ;)

I've never actually read the offocial translation by Spielbox. So I'm completely unaware about any differences compared to the german version  ???

That pretty much sums it up.

@The Broox: thanks for the corrections.
@Sekim: Yes, everything is freshly translated :) Otherwise it would be impossible to have any consistency of style or terminology, and part of the point of the CAR was that RGG's translations were sometimes a little too free... And thanks for the link anyway. Resources you think might be useful are always appreciated.
––––––

Uploaded Beta 8, with rules for Crop Circles, The Plague, The Party and The Phantom, plus all relevant stuff in the tile distribution and glossary.

Obviously the last two are mostly placeholders, as they haven't actually been released yet, but the rules have at least been translated. We could still change the tiles later; I opted for The Phantom because the HiG site calls the expansion 'The Entourage... or also The Phantom'. And I like the alliteration of Plague, Party and Phantom ;)

I appreciate that The Party and The Phantom are both pretty small expansions, but I decided they should be listed separately as they have to be purchased separately. If HiG surprises (and pleases) us by packaging both in the Jubilee edition, I'll merge them into one.

I'd greatly appreciate any feedback on The Plague. Man, that was a pain in the neck to translate.

To do: the turn overview, the big box 2 + 3 additions (oh joy), any new house rules and arguably La Porxada.

As usual, the beta is available at http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew.pdf (http://mjharper.macbay.de/CARnew.pdf)

Since that is the closest thing we've got to a fan-expansion that 'made it', I think it's important to embrace it and support it.  I say include it.  Does anyone know the guy who made it?  We should talk to him about hosting it here as well.

I agree, it is the most official unofficial expansion in existence.

Wow! Just realized I am a moderator. Weird. I heard it was being discussed. Didn't realize it was a reality. Anywho, some edits for you Matt:

The Tunnel (pgs. 74-75):
• p.74 – "untagged": Despite your explanation, I still don't like the term. "Tagging" in the US refers often to graffiti and that is the first thing that came to my mind. Perhaps "unclaimed" would be better?
• p.74 – "tunnel entrance". Not sure if it matters, but train tunnels are called "portals", though this may cause confusion with "magic portals".
• p.74n198 – "it clearly clarifies that...". A bit redundant.
• p.74 – The in-text footnote for 199 is in the same style as the header, but I feel it should probably be more in style with the regular text. Right now, it seems a little overlarge and detailed.

The Plague (pgs. 84-88):
• p.84 – "the plague is spreading" should probably read "the plague spreads".
• p.84 – " A follower on a affected tile is removed without score". Should read "scoring".
• p.84 – "It is never part of a epidemic". Should read "an".
• p.85 – "Prepare the tokens." What does this mean?
• p.85 – Taking flight from the plague – Is a flea or outbreak required to be in a follower's feature for the follower to flee? Or can a follower anywhere on the board flee if they feel like it? This could have massive reprucussions for play with The Dragon and The Tower, since you could hypothetically flee from peripheral towers or from a rampaging dragon.
• p.85n209 – "first 18 tiles placements of the game." Should read "tile".
• p.86 – "(instead the privilege of largely choosing where the infestation will occur)". Sounds awkward.
• p.87 – "Just take the six tiles with that come with the set as an example:".
• p.87 – "which makes should make it clear"
I looked up to see if "infestation" is a word that could be used to describe the Bubonic Plague and, sure enough, it is. Apparently the plague is a bacteria—I always thought it was a virus—and bacteria infest. Rats and fleas infest too. So we're good with your terminology. Awesome translation overall, by the way. Maybe Jay can hire you as the official rules translator at Rio Grande.

The Party (pg. 89):
• "deploy one figure" and "return one figure". So does this mean you can also do these actions with pig, builder, and barn, or should this read "follower"?
• "or" was originally bold. Was this intentionally decapitalized?

The Phantom (pg. 90):
• "After placing a tile, the player may deploy the phantom to the it as a second follower." This doesn't make sense.
• "As such, in this turn the player may deploy two followers to two different segments." Shouldn't this read "features"?

That's it for now. I will read through BC&B (CB&B?) later when I have more time.

I'll proofread it as well, but I'll wait for Whaley's changes to be made first so I don't double them.

p. 77, second paragraph, second sentence:

Should read, "Anyone who has already received a tile may not longer take part in the bidding. "

After McJazz made the comment: "Lastly, the Princess can be used to remove a follower (large, small, whatever) from a city. I don't see why Crop Circles would be any different." on the Crop Circles Rules thread, I'm suddenly inclined to agree with him. Regardless of HiG's original intent, they rarely consider previous expansions in their rules and I agree that Crop Circles should regard any follower. Does anyone else agree?

p. 84, second paragraph, "A follower on an affected tile is removed without score."

I apologize if this was already noted.

8)

Done. 'Claim' is much better.

I think that's better as well. I was always a little uneasy with entrances, because you have two separate entrances which become and entrance and an exit when linked. 'Portal' avoids that, so unless there are any major complaints it can stay. I did leave a couple of references to entrances and exits, but put them in quotation marks. As for magic portals, I could happily change that to magic gate to avoid confusion ;)

D'oh. Deleted 'clearly'.

Agreed. I can't change the font format of the footnote without changing the format of the header. So I moved the footnote to the end of the first sentence.

Okay. I feel it worked fine the other way... But changed to 'the plague spreads throughout' to keep it a little more active.

Done.

Indeed. That really is all the rules say. A clear example of The Plague not being authored by HiG. What it means, I assume, is that the infestation and flea tokens should be placed to one side, where they can be used as neutral tokens by all players. I'd prefer not to write that in the text (strays too far from being a translation). Could add a footnote though...

There is no mention of this in the text. Personally, I think any follower anywhere on the board may take flight. Once the plague hits, everyone is in a panic. We'll have to wait for an official ruling, but I've added a footnote that it's unclear.

Done.

There was meant to be a 'having' in there. Deleted brackets and 'largely', so now reads, "turn, having instead the privilege of choosing where the infestation will occur." Better?

Done.

Glad 'infestation' works, and you're happy with the translation. Jay's not going to hire me, btw. I upset him once :-[

The rules do actually say 'figure', and that is the only time in the text that the word is used—everywhere else it's 'follower'. I take that to mean all normal and special followers are affected, but obviously not neutrals. Footnote added.

Yes. I see no reason for it to be capital, and I'm not a fan of shouting. But I should check through the rest of the text to see how I've treated such cases elsewhere. Thanks for pointing it out.

deleted 'the'

You're right. My bad. I'm sure there's the same issue in the rules for Crop Circles.

Brilliant. Thanks :)  :) I can see that CB&B is going to cause problems, so maybe I should change it back...

Done and done. Thanks :)

It would still only apply to normal followers and not special figures, I assume. Could add a footnote... will wait for more comments.

So, I've uploaded a version with these corrections. In the footer it still says v5.0b8, but in the version history I've mentioned v5.0b9.

I agree, any follower.  It stands to reason then that the same should be true for deployment.  

Edit: Actually, now that I think more about it...
From the Crop Circles Rules thread:

All the expansions add so many complications, don't they? So if we follow the logic of the Crop Circles rules, then:

• Follower = Follower (obviously)
• Phantom = Follower
• Big Follower = Follower
• Trader ≠ Follower
• Pig ≠ Follower
• Mayor = Follower, but ≠ Knight
• Wagon = Follower, but ≠ Farmer
• Barn ≠ Follower

That is confusing and annoying. But I can't see any possible way the Crop Circles rules CAN'T effect the Big Follower or the Wagon since they are really just basic followers with extra abilities. That being said, so is the Mayor. And while the Mayor may ≠ a Knight, for all intent and purposes it does = a Knight. I'm inclined to still accept the Mayor as a Knight for the simple principle that otherwise the rules may spontaneously implode on itself.

Edit: Added Phantom (thanks McJazz).

I'm going backwards and forwards on this. I do think the wording is significant, and that mayors can't be knights. But having checked over the rules for the princess, they only ever mention knights as well, yet mayors and wagons are legitimate targets for seduction...

I will add a footnote suggesting that 'knight' and so on probably includes all normal followers, but that ultimately we need an official confirmation...

One small thing I noticed was page 93.  Should bridges (from bridges/castles/bazaars) be under "Neutral Figures"?

By the way, FANTASTIC WORK!  It's great.

Thanks  :)

I added bridges, and also changed the text to clarify that they neutral figures don't belong to anyone once they are in play (because bridges and tower pieces still live in each player's supply).

The only restriction of a Mayor is that it must be placed in a City (or the appropriate quarter of Carcassonne). It acts like a knight in all other respects: seduced by the Princess, eaten by the Dragon, walk through Portals, escape via cloister while under Siege??, flee from Fleas and even supports a Builder.

The wagon's only restriction is that it may only be deployed to a road, city or cloister and may never be deployed to a farm. Again, if it quacks like a duck...

IMHO, having Crop Circles affect big followers, Mayors and Wagons and Phantoms is the cleanest way to avoid Whaleyland's rules prophecy.

*Edited to include Phantoms

Whaleyland's link on page 84 is incomplete:

http://thesocietypages.org/economicsociology/2008/12/29/182/

Thanks. Corrected.

At the risk of seeming like I'm overdoing it, I uploaded beta 9, which included Whaleyland's corrections, and a revised overview, which was the last major part that was broken. I've uploaded it because I feel the CAR is now in a useable state, although I'm sure there are other errors to weed out.

My plan for beta 10 is to go through the Big Boxes and add new rulings; then version 5.0 should be finalised when we've got hold of the The Party and The Phantom. Somewhere in there I need to put in La Porky.

What I'd like from anyone willing to help is:
- proofreading
- new house rules (another thread?)
- a decision on whether to scrap the 'official' variations, or at least which to keep and add to the house rules
- any other ideas about what could be added
- (in another thread) a list of current questions for HiG.

Thanks for all your support and encouragement 8)

Our group has found that there are a lot of discrepancies between the basic rules and all the various expansions (both official and unofficial), including those yet developed and released. No rule can be written to anticipate all future variations and expansions. To attempt to remember all the nuances of what a follower can and can't do during the course of a game is frustrating and distracting. That is why we boiled it down to a Follower (follower, big, mayor, wagon, phantom) is a Follower, and you need a quantum to be able to collect points. The intent was to transcend all current and future expansions. So far it has worked.

The only rule that we do adhere to is "The Wagon may never be deployed to a farm". That one I think they got right. If that is allowed it opens such questions as: Can a Wagon complete a cloister and just move to the adjacent unoccupied, incomplete farm? If I barn-score can I move back to an adjacent city? And at game end do I get to move the Wagon after my farm is scored? etc.

The Mayor rules in Abbey and Mayor state; "The Mayor may be deployed instead of a follower." The next sentence states; "It may only be deployed to a city in which there is currently no knight or mayor, the usual rules for deploying followers still apply." I take it that the first sentence is a broad statement, and that the second sentence does not necessarily limit the scope of the first, but arguably reinforces it by reminding that the usual rules still apply. The second sentence is simply qualifying the condition of the city that the Mayor (as any other follower) may be deployed to. That is, it must be empty. You could pull a different meaning from the sentence if it were worded like this; "It may be deployed only to a city in which there is...". Moving the location of the word "only". That would clearly limit the placement of the Mayor.

Bridges, Castles & Bazaars edits:
• Yes, you should revert its title back. Castles, Bridges & Bazaars is not the name used in the English version.
• p.77 – "When a tile with a bazaar on it is drawn, the player should place it as usual. " So, do people score and everything too, or does that wait until the end of the bazaar round? The rules seem very vague on that specific important point.

Already done :-)

That's really all the rules say, in both the original and HiG BB3 editions. But the RGG BB3 adds "(including placing a follower, scoring, and even not placing it if there is no place for it)." The last one is odd, as it suggests the tile may have an effect even if it is discarded; but RGG obviously has the same concerns as you.

I'm confused on the comment about the English version. My English version says Castles, Bridges & Bazaars...is it different than others?


 

The only piece that is ever unplayable is a cccc piece. So RGG is suggesting if the cccc tile with the bazaar is drawn and unplayable the tile is tossed back but the auction still occurs. An odd ruling, it would make more sense to only have the action occur once the tile has been played. Also it sets a bad precedent, particularly in regards to the catapult, by causing the catapult round to occur minus the tile in play would make it impossible to perform the Archery Tournament competition.

The stand-alone CB&B instruction sheet (from RGG) also includes the above, if that helps.

The more I read it the more I am confused by the following phrase "and even not placing it if there is no place for it", does "it" refer to the tile or the follower?

Thanks. I've corrected the CAR.

The tile, I think.

The rules document for the expansion is a mistranslation (and has a misspelling: basars). Grammar is also correct on the box. The box is:

(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic753026_md.jpg)

Wow, that is weird, I never noticed the misspelling on "basaars".
Thanks Whaleyland for pointing that out!

It's funny now that I think of it but we always call it "Castles, Bridges and Bazaars" at the table when we are playing, etc. Never the otherway around. I think we naturally slid into the alliteration thing.

Is that one vote for "Castles, Bridges and Bazaars"?  8)

If it is, then I counter-vote for Bridges, Castles, & Bazaars. ;l7

Me too! BC&B is the German translation as well.

I will politely refrain from voting for Bridges, Castles and Bazaars.  ;)

Don't worry guys, I've already changed it back to BC&B. I just think that CB&B is more natural, and I would have preferred it. But so many people have got used to BC&B that it will have to stick.

I'd also prefer to use 'bandit' rather than 'thief', but there's no way I could get away with that, either  ;)

My copy had this misspelling:
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/882286/carcassonne-bridges-castles-and-bazaars

So, can somebody explain to me what the deal is with LA Porxada? I'm at the point where either I include it in the CAR or I don't, and I'm not yet convinced.

Here's my concerns. The CAR has a clear criteria for inclusion: official release by HiG or RGG. That includes magazines like Spielbox or GQ. For all I know, there could be unique 'official' Swedish expansions, but I don't think we'd be including them.

If I include La Porky in the CAR, it opens the doors to other fan-made expansions. Why include La Porky and not something by one of the highly creative designers on our site? At the moment, it's clear: no fan-made expansions. Nobody expects to find them in the CAR, so their absence isn't an issue. When people begin to expect them, we get into the whole 'why include this and not that?' debate, and I really don't want to go there.

The next problem is where to put it. In beta 9, there is still a section at the end of the CAR called Further Developments. I've never been happy with the title. And for beta 10 I was thinking of removing the 'official variants' (because frankly who cares anymore) and moving the house rules to a section immediately after the expansion they refer to. I feel that would be much more appropriate, and may encourage new players to use the house rules and/or think of their own. But if I do that, the whole Further Development section can be removed; and then where do I put La Porky?

Variants are a large part of CarcassonneCentral, I know. I would love to see a CC expansion published, and would love to include that in the CAR. But then that would be an official expansion created by us (well, you ;) ). As for La Porky, I'm really not sure that I want to 'dilute' the integrity of the CAR by including it.

If you agree, let me know. If you disagree, let me know as well :)

I'd be fine NOT including La Porxada. Despite it being locally distributed at one convention in Spain, it hardly constitutes a real expansion. It was never printed, but just done with stickers on blank tiles. It only is one tile. I know BGG had entries for it, but they have entries for many fan-made things. I'd say wait a bit to see if anything comes of it. Perhaps HiG or RGG will release an official version of it one day, or something that uses the same mechanics. I'd rather wait and see than include it right now.

I'd say exclude it. Although it was partly created by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede (or in association with him) it was not released by Hans im Glück or Rio Grand Games & (as far as I have been able to find out) is listed as a fan expansion.

I think the fact that it was endorsed by KJW is significant enough for an honorable mention at least.

Noo, I don't think it's my place to correct Klaus or Hans' official release. I vote BC&B.
I just have to remember that now.

It was also sanctioned by the Carc Publisher in spain. So it is sanctioned by the creator and that country's publisher. The only thing it is missing HiG's approval.

That's a pretty big 'only'.

I'm inclined to think that Bettlemönch (Labourer and Mendicant) should probably be considered official before La Porky, since that was for a long time hosted on HiG's site.

It is no different than the GQ11 tiles. Those are not officially recognized by HiG.


I thought it was hot linked rather than hosted. Either way there was a disclaimer stating it was unofficial.

Very good point.  It might be worth considering an Honorable Mention type of section to include such things (GQ11 might belong there as well), especially if they are sanctioned by another publisher, or listed/linked in some way on the HiG webpage.  In fact, if Jay is able to produce something of ours, it will undoubtedly fit this category as HiG is not interested.

I've switched sides on the issue. After a discussion with mi amor, I've decided that Games Quarterly Expansion and La Porxada should both be included in a separate non-Hans im Glück section. In another idea, perhaps Spielbox and Rio Grande expansions should both be set aside. Thus:

Hans im Glück Expansions
Spielbox Expansions
• Cathars
• Tunnel
• Plague
Regional Expansions
• Games Quarterly #11
• Cult, Siege & Creativity
• La Porxada
• Any other otherwise unknown quasi-official expansions from Carc publishers

Spielbox is mostly Germany-exclusive, or at least has been, while RGG is English-only, La Porxada is Spain-only, etc. Labourer and Mendicant, though, I don't think should be included since it was never published by anyone.

I was thinking about this some more today also and came to roughly the same conclusion as the Baronator.  I was thinking specifically of CS&C.  Isn't Shrines originally a Spielbox too?

This is where it gets a little tricky - You're right that Shrines was originally Spielbox, but was of course later in Graf, König und Konsorten and Cult, Siege and Creativity. Does that make it both official and unofficial?

I wasn't suggesting that Bettlemönch should be considered official, just that HiG arguably have a closer connection to it than La Porxada.


I understand what you're saying, although the Spielbiox expansions are recognised listed by HiG. They are listed on the website, and HiG will answer rules questions about them. I really don't feel there's any need to split these off, other than to enforce a distinction between publishers. Though I'm open to arguments, I'm going to need some real convincing before I put these in a different section.

The RGG expansions could more justifiably be separated out, as they are properly independent of HiG. I'll be easier to convince here ;) However, I would like to point out that only GQ11 really counts, as Cult, Siege and Creativity is effectively a compilation. And more importantly for the CAR, the whole document is an exchange or meeting between HiG and RGG. Yes, the rules (and rulings) are always HiG's. But RGG is a constant companion to the rules, if you will. The rules point out differences between say, the HiG and RGG versions of Big Box 3. I don't know whether the Spanish publisher has BB3, but it would not interest most readers of the CAR if they did. How many people would care whether the Spanish edition still uses 2nd edition scoring? But RGG using 1st edition scoring was the biggest issue in Carcland, until it was resolved.

The point is that RGG has a 'special' status in the CAR, and I think for most of it's readers. And, for example, if RGG publish a CC expansion, which can be bought in stores and from Amazon, I'm quite sure most readers—and possibly even HiG, which is much closer itself to RGG than others—would accord it a different status to La Porxada.

They were part of Graf, König und Konsorten first, and everyone was massively disappointed when the Spielbox edition was essentially the same, to the point that many thought the Spielbox edition shouldn't be listed in the CAR at all.

I'm tracking with your logic Matt.  Perhaps it would be appropriate to seperate expansions sanctioned by publishers other than HiG.  It follows that GQ11, La Porxada, and any possible CC expansion should probably go there.  I assume that GQ11 enjoys it's popularity simply due to the large pruduction run in the U.S.  If La Porxada never saw real production in Spain, that might be a condition worth considering.

All good points and I'm more inclined now to keep the CAR as it is without La Porxada. It would certainly make things more logical. And since LP didn't ever have a release, even widely in Spain, it maybe should not be included.

This could also be a chance to bring Kreivi ja Kuningas  into the mix. It was the first to bundle a bunch of the small expansions to make a bigger one.


I am not arguing that the most important rules are HiG's and RGG's (in that order) but since there are other Carc expansions out there that they don't cover should we not turn to them to be the authorities then? Similar to how the CAR turns to RGG to be the arbiter concerning the GQ11 expansion. As is already established, HiG rulings take precedence over RGG rulings. All we need to do is add a third tier for other publishers and as long as they don't directly conflict with HiG and RGG then why not include them.



It was only available via the magazine. Furthermore, Amazon does not directly sell said magazine. You can get it from Titan Games via Amazon but it is not something Amazon itself stocks (they don't do periodicals). I make this point to illustrate that a  magazine with 12 tiles in it (and not rules) is not that different from a tile handed out at a conventions (that has rules).

An 'honourable mention' section might be okay, but I'd like to have, say, three items to go in it.

I was using Amazon as an example of an online store. I certainly bought my copy of GQ11 online; it was a bit of a pain to find a company which would ship it internationally. But considerably easier, I'm sure, than getting hold of something only handed out in a Spanish convention.

Fair enough. Are there any other suggestions from anyone? And it would be great if you could provide links to official sites.

At the moment I'm inclined to not include La Porxada in v5.0, although I'm not entirely opposed to an honourable mention section in a later version. But to do that I need a bit more content. There's enough do be done with the CAR for this release in any case; but what I will try and do is clarify the approach to content the document now uses (effectively what we've discussed above) in the introduction.

I'm in favor of the Honorable Mention page.  I think it's appropriate to put something like LP there and perhaps even Labourer and Mendicant as was discussed since it is linked from the HiG page.  KJV's endorsement of LP seems, to me, to give credibility to it.  Perhaps Mehr Fluss could also be added to the Honorable Mentions as it seems to be the basis for River 2.  This could be a slippery slope, but I think it's worth discussion.

As a side note, in an effort to be exhaustive, it might also be appropriate to include a section that simply lists all the publications outside the base set and it's expansions.  It may be a good place to list Kreivi ja Kuningas and any others that fit the category as well as Hunters & Gatherers, et al. 

I am hesitant to include fan made expansions. I feel those were featured on the site more as a "you can even make up rules for that product we just sold you, see" rather than a "these are officially recognized expansions" kind of thing.


I agree but I feel that the Spanish publisher being behind it is a bigger deal.


I agreed with the slippery slope sentiment, you then get into lengthy discussions about what qualifies as "noteworthy" and the like. I think an "official releases only" line needs to be drawn and stuck to.


I am not sure how I feel about this suggestion. I like including the spin offs but I feel KjK (and possibly GQ11, CSaC and LP) should be in a separate section since they are Carc expansions and not spin-offs. Perhaps a sister document would be better suited deal with all the spin-offs. A separate appendix file maybe.

Definitely. I don't own any of the spin-offs and have no interest in buying, translating and/or arranging a document around them. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm simply being honest. The CAR and my brain both benefit by staying focussed on the basic game.

A wasn't advocating any translation of rules, or listing anything other than the names of the games.  Basically the same information as in THIS (http://carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=400.30) thread.

I am in the same boat.

Any word on how Beta 10 is coming along?  I have a project I'd like to try when we get a stable release.

Thanks!!!   ;D

I've been considering translating this awesome document to Portuguese lately, as I've bought a few expansions and would like to have the rules accessible to people who don't speak English.

Would you be fine with that? In case yes, what do you think would be the best way to do it? I don't know what software you use to produce the document, so I don't know what would be easier, you sending me the source files, me sending you pure text translations, or something completely different.

@The Broox: I haven't yet incorporated the updated turn summary. But apart from that I'm waiting for a reply from HiG (I wrote nearly two weeks ago, may have to remind them) and the releases of the new expansions. Everything else is done.

@rodrigotjader: The original document is in Pages (Mac only). If you have access to a Mac, that would be perfect  ;)

I don't have a Mac, but some quick research seems to show that it wouldn't be hard to edit the text, as it seems Pages' files are a zip file with the contents inside, and the main content file is XML formatted, so I'd like to try it. Being a XML file even makes it easier to keep up to date, as I can use diff to find what changed. If it ends up that I can't edit it this way I could try to get my hands at a Mac OS X copy to do it.

So, could you send the source file to me?

Thanks for the update, but I wasn't the one who asked. ;D

I have a question, and I think, answer to this question is worth to be included in CAR:
In Inns&Cathedrals expansion there is one tile (CRCR), that was replaced in Big Box version (the question was about junction in the middle). My question is: what happens when this tile ends the city, in which a player has a wagon - can a wagon drive to another city part in this tile, or drive to the road part. The same is about roads: if with this tile road is completed with wagon on it, can the wagon drive to the city?

This isn't a good place to debate/discuss this, but I would say that the road is indeed there. Because you cannot put a meeple on the short parts, the wagon would move directly to the other city or one of the perpendicular road sections.

I understand after spending some time looking at the table of contents in 5.0b9 that the indented expansions are minor and the other ones are "major expansions". 

That said, when I looked at it, it looked like they are a subset of the major expansion above them.  I would prefer to either list large expansions and smaller expansions as two separate sections, or use the same level of indent for both. 

Another idea is to show an icon of some sort to the left.  In my printable tuckboxes set, i tried using gold pennants for major expansions and silver for minor ones.  We might consider something similar here as well.

thoughts?

I agree that the indentation is a bit misleading.

I would prefer to keep them in the order they are now, but remove the indentations and separate them by adding an icon of some kind, like you suggest.

I was also briefly confused by the indentation and would welcome any method of clarification.

Tile scans are up on BGG for the Jubilee edition.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/89952/carcassonne-jubilaumsedition

Matt,
I stumbled upon this today in the V5.0B9.

Page 96. Step 9.C.

"If a crop circle was on the tile placed, the active player whether all players now"

The word "chooses" or "decides", or something similar, is missing between "player" and "whether".

Thought you'd like to know.

Sooo! Do we have a final version 5.0 yet? I know we made a bunch of progress on it back in February, but now that the anniversary expansions are out and nothing new has been announced for later this year, could we get a final draft of the current rules out? Just so I have something to waste my printer ink on if nothing else.  ;D

Definitely a on my to do list, but it's chaos at work right now. I didn't yet find a copy of 'The Phantom' yet though (must check amazon again...)

Will get down to it soon, I promise.

The CAR PDF doc is perfect for my iPad! It loads right into iBooks - no printing necessary and the entire CAR can come with me everywhere :-)

Sweet!

I can transcribe the postage stamp sized rule sheet if you want?

Found one error in CAR:
page 80, rules describing castles

"it is not sufficient for one of the nine tiles surrounding the cloister to be adjacent."

But cloister is surrounded only by eight tiles.

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw it for the first time.

Any word on 5.0?

I have an idea for printing it, but I wanted to wait until 5.0 came out.  I'll throw this out, that I would be happy to do some basic work on it if need be.


THANKS!!
Josh

I also want to print and bind version 5.0. Since apparently there is one last 2011 10th Anniversary release — The School — could we get that added to the mix and get this edition finalized and posted? It's been waiting for far too long and seems so near completion. Matt, what do you say? You wanted this version out in 2011. Let's get it done!

from a newbie to the site - any news on when the release date for the most current CAR? thanks

From a veteran to the site: if there was any news, it would be in this thread.

I actually prefer the v4.0 format better better.
a. It is more concise listing the rules first with graphical examples, then the footnotes & Faq after.
b. The layout is easier to comprehend showing both text and example in one page (similar to carcassonne official rule format)
c. rules are as much as possible explained in a single page if possible. 

The v4.0 actually is currently the rule book I use.
Its format does not deviate much from the official format, has improved text explaining the rules better.  And adds a faq section!  Kudos to Matthew for taking the time to do this for us.  I will also like to use this opportunity to say "Thank you". 


v5.0b9 to my opinion is not as good as v4.0
a. rules, then footnotes, then rules again, then footnotes. This format to my opinion is more confusing. 
b. layout does not show text and example in a single page which becomes harder to comprehend.
example.
v4 inns and cathedral rules explained in 2 pages, while v5.0b9 uses 3 pages
v4 traders and builders rules explained in 3 pages, while v5.0b9 uses 5 pages.
etc.

In a nutshell, the v4.0 has superior formatting for being concise and clear. 
While the v5.0 is more printer friendly due to the white background (v4.0 has a blue one which consumes more blue ink).  My wish, if v5.0 format and layout can be made similar to v4.0 it would be perfect. 

I personally prefer having the footnotes on the same page as the text they apply to. Flipping back and forth doesn't make sense to me.

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

*Note to other posters.  He only said it three times.  So at least look up the next line ;)

Challenge accepted...



But back on topic; I guess the next CAR is going to wait for The School rules and images.

Kudos ne0x! That's worth a merit point!

Hello,

I am new at the forum and i joined because i am a great fan of the "Completely Annotated Rules".

I just saw the update of February today and i immediatly read it (i usualy went to BGG, but it wasn't updated there).
I think i have found a mistake in it, which isnt mentioned yet on the forum (correct me on that if i am wrong).

In the Phantom expansion you stated: "As such, in this turn the player may deploy two followers to two different features."
In the rules i have for the expansion they state that you MUST deploy the phantom character on a different feature of the same card as the follower.

I have to say that i come from the Netherlands, in which Carcassonne is published by 999-games. Therefore i don't know if this makes any difference in rules (compared to Hans Im Glück), but i don't think this would be the case.

I love to hear more,
Grtz,
Gied

Looking at CAR 5.0beta9: There's a clarification needed. When playing with "Bridges, Castles & Bazzars" and with "Traders & Builders" -- when you have your Builder on a road and you play a bridge to extend the road, that does not, as far as I can tell from the rules, trigger the Builder. The Builder explicitly says "when you place a tile". The Abbey has an official ruling that it does not trigger the Builder... the bridges seem to me to fall in the same sort of category.

This does need official confirmation and I think it should be included in the CAR.

I think there is an inconsistency in CAR (V. 5.0B9). The picture in top of page 13 says "When both city segments on a tile are in a single city, they only count as one segment". If this statement is true then the picture in page 24 is wrong because two separated city segment in same tile are scored individually ("BLUE
scores 24 points").
The question in general is: what to score segment or tile?

In this instance, the example is wrong.  Regardless of how many different segments from the same city are on any tile, you only score that tile once (1 point per tile).  However, if there are seperate segments from two or more cities on one tile, they are counted seperately for each city.  This is true even if the same player owns all the cites in question. 

At least that's the way that I understand the rules.

You can see only one city in the picture on page 24 not two or more.

That's just my input for clarification.  I guess it failed.  ;)

I'm afraid I don't understand (because I'm not native english).
So what's wrong?

Sorry, I was not talking about the picture.  I was making a new example.

There is note 39 telling you that under the blue follower there is an additional pennant, that is why blue scores 24 points.

You're right, this is the solution. Thanks!

hmmmm  yeah....  I can remember last year maybe less then 2 weeks from now being told not to print 5.0b9 after it came out cause the next one was coming soon.   

Yup and now we've got a new expansion (School) and one large and six small on the way. Either Matt needs to resume work on this or someone else needs to take over.

That give me an idea. Maybe create a document on google docs, where there would be two versions draft and a official. This way some of the forum users could correct and fill up this doc anytime it would be need for that.
Well, that is idea, but I think that more powerfull versioning system would be more handy in this. Create a project, and update several files that could be merged anytime... Don't know if such systems exists. I could create such thing, but maybe there are available such system on web. I bet that current systems would be better cause I will have to do all of it from scratch...

What you think about it? Matt would have some more free time, and CAR  would be more quickly up to date.

I am curious if there are some wiki engines that could be adapted to this. That You would print only chapters that interest you. This way fully custom CAR could be released for everyone.

Don't know what you think about it. I could offer my help from technical side, but writing rules is too hard for me cause my english sucks :( (been a while since I used it in more serious way).

EDIT:
OK, I read about managing a document, and it didn't gone well :/ I thought that there would be a somftware free for non-commercial use, but it comes that there are some, but don't support things that would be nice to have. Most of them are just a text versioning editors, and that seems to be insufficient to need of a creating a book build of pretty independent chapters :/.
But have no fear cause MediaWiki is here. It has pretty all functions that would come handy in creation of any part of such repository. Drawback is that you can't do an automatic creation of a whole list of flagged chapters dump. But you can simply create earlier a book in this system, and just publish it separatly for some versions. I like it and I will consider to create such wiki for my own version of CAR written in polish language. (Polish rulebooks just sucks. Many contrasting rules for one exp. There is no such thing like CAR for polish players, but its on the way. have most of the exps ready, but some are missing FAQ's and additional infos, expamples and so on. It's a a5 book build up from 152 pages, so some info it has...).

Major drawback is that the owner of this server that this site is hosted would have to install mediaWiki engine (it's free for any use). I know that there are some technicall difficulties with access to server, but don't know to who offer my help if it would come handy.

EDIT2: Have been playing with wikipedia books, and I have to tell, that this is pretty easy to handle. Major drawback is that generated pdf from collection is in the same style that rest of the site. Maybe there is a way to change it, but for now I don't know how. Thus it is possible to download such book as a pdf, odt, or zim(don't know what is that). And when it have a odt format it is possible to open in word/OOwritter and change whole style and content of book, so it is possible to create a custom book from articles in a mediaWiki engine. There could be a article for each of the fanexp, official exp, some interesting articles about history of game, variants , spin-offs, and so on.

So the what you get:
+can create a own version of CAR
+can create pages on wiki (even not relevant to rules itself, but for na example tile making, and so on)
+much more people can update articles
+on this forum is dozen Carcassonne veterans
-installation on server
-modifications to generated chapters from an odt document.
-style modification is unknown

I haven't played with the new iBooks creator on OSX, but since it is free and you can distribute any eBook (or pdf) for free legally with it, that may be the best starting point using the current PDF.

As the countdown to the new releases looms (in the U.S., anyway), I think it is really important that the CAR return to life. I would be happy to act as the rules compiler / document producer for the CAR going forward, if Matt is no longer interested in being the point person. There are definitely things in multiple threads that have been written since the last version that should be included in the CAR. The one thing I'll say is that I won't be able to help out on any German-to-English translations, so I would need assistance on that front.

I think it's counterproductive, because an iBook is in an .ibook format which only is supported by Apple. I think Google Docs would be a great idea, but I think you have to make it public or add everyone individually.

Noooo not more new rules, i am just getting my head around the ones that came in the blue box  ;D

The current CAR is already in a proprietary format but is exported to PDF.  iBooks allows for the same thing.

The current Carcassonne Complete Annotated Rules are in Apple's iWork .pages format used in the Pages application. I have an older copy (2010ish) of the original from Matt that he sent me when we were working on the cover art together. I later used the same program to make my Dominion CAR.

The problem with Pages format is that it exports terribly. It is an incredibly good program at design layout for such things as the CAR, much better than MS Word though not as good as Adobe InDesign, but it is designed to remain within its program. Only someone with Pages could update the CAR in its current format unless they wanted to spent dozens of extra hours reformatting everything and ensuring consistency.

I have Pages but do not have time for yet another gaming guide. I already have too much to do with Dominion and Memoir '44 and I have abandoned my Catan CAR series just because my interest in the game has become nill (all of the dozens of expansions with the game are in a box in my closet. Sad times...). If anyone here has an Apple built in the last five years, it can run Pages and that person should be the one chosen to update the CAR. Others can contribute the information, but an Apple is needed to produce the document.

My intent is to convert the most recent CAR PDF into a Word document, since doc (or docx) is a file type that a lot of people can deal with. The real question is whether OmniPage is up to the task of dealing with the formatting in the conversion, or if I'll be staring a nighmare headache right in the teeth. I also have Adobe InDesign, so that would be another conversion option.

Ah okay sorry for the misunderstanding, didn't know there was a PDF option, that's great, although I personally would recommend InDesign. Anyways the reason for this is because I've read somewhere about .ibooks being made are then 'property' of Apple (and maybe there's still some controversy). To be correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBooks. "Documents created by iBooks Author in the .ibooks format may only be sold for a fee if they are accepted by and exclusively distributed by Apple. These restrictions do not apply to documents created in other formats like exported as PDF or text files."

I just want to say I would be glad if it's was a more 'open' format :)! Like instead of MS Word you have the free OpenOffice Writer, which works with Word documents: http://www.openoffice.org/product/writer.html.

Anyways, just my 2 cents :)

Keep up the good work guys (or keep trying anyway).  It will be nice to have it up to date at some point.

I have Pages on my iPad, though I've not really used it.

Besides the issue of getting the work done, there is a larger issue of the integrity of authority of the content, which I think some people don't realize/understand. Everything in the CAR comes from HiG in response to our questions. Legal rulings by Carcassonne Rules Lawyers are not official enough, but they help tide us over until an official ruling can be obtained. This is the primary reason why Matt insists on controlling the CAR himself.

I certainly agree that it is critical to maintain the integrity of the CAR as an official document. As I (slowly) go through and adjust things in the document, I'm trying to emphasize which points are official clarifications from HiG, and those footnotes which are simply suppositions on our part.

Alright, I finally obtained Matt's last master copy. Here's a transcript of his email for our consideration:


So who wants to take charge of the project, at least the document-end of it. I have the master and it is, as I said earlier, in Pages format. I will be happy to email it to whomever needs or wants it. Just contact me. It seems Hans im Glück is being unresponsive to FAQ requests these days. This document won't work well on Pages for iPad, just FYI. Trust me, I've tried. The app is too limited compared to the full computer version.

Do we have the contacts for HiG and RGG? That would be important for completing and maintaining the CAR in its original intent - unless we allow it to become a document which simply supports our own interpretations. In any case it would be good to keep it current with the latest expansions.

What made Matt the ideal candidate was his ability to communicate with them in fluent German.  If there is another person who is able to do so, I'd say they were the right person (at least to make contact).  We need to get ahold of someone at HiG and say "Look, we are your most important fan base.  We are committed to spreading your news and making your job easier.  Give us someone that will answer our questions in a timely manor and act as a liason for us and we will do nothing but help you."  Something like that.  Shoot straight.

Perhaps spreading responsibilities would make it an easier task and less likely to fall by the wayside again. 

My wife speaks German fluently, she has a Master degree in German philology. So I can help with translation, but I don't have iPages (because I don't have Mac or any Apple product).

The divide-and-conquer approach is certainly the optimal way to keep the CAR alive and strong. I'm getting the document back up to date (scans of Festival tiles, tweaks based on Big Box 3 rules that Matt had started doing, etc). However, the only German I know is "ober," and the only reason I know that one is that it's my last name, so I'm not going to be the best person to contact HiG. If anyone (MrNumbers?) can act as our contact person and get answers out of HiG, I can feed that to the CAR.

Concerning contacting Hans im Glück, I believe Matt talked directly with the game's publisher, Bernd Brunnhofer. I do not have his email address but I have talked to his son, Moritz, via the standard "service@hans-im-glueck.de" email with fairly good results. Best of all, Moritz writes English quite well and seems to understand it equally well. While German would still be the preferred language, especially since the rules need to be translated from the original German, asking for rules clarifications could be done in English or German probably.

Some of our questions, specifically regarding rules, may have to be asked at Spielbox. Barbara Nostheide "barbara@nostheide.de" is the contact person there. The normal support lines at Spielbox do not generally reach her anymore, but they used to before the English Spielbox opened up.

---------

I think we should also consider including La Porxada into the CAR. It votes seem to be divided whether it is a "true" expansion or just a "fan" expansion, but it's formal endorsement by Hans im Glück mixed with its legal distribution at a Spanish game fair suggest to me that it is more legit than illegit. Many games have print-and-play expansions that are still legitimate. Just check out the three expansions for Starship Catan.

Should we come up with a list of questions that are still open?

Then maybe whittle it down to a handful of key questions so as not to be overwhelming. That can be a phase I. We can see how it goes and move forward from there.

I definitely approve of this idea, but I think we should pick no more than five questions, and probably ones that are either extremely important for clarification purposes (i.e., questions that answers are absolutely needed for to figure out a mechanic) and old unanswered questions from the Celebration expansion and earlier.

It looks like things are already headed in this direction, but I think it would be best to separate the duties of translation/contact and updating the document. This will reduce the amount of work required by each person, and in turn make it more likely that the CAR will be updated in a more timely fashion.

I think the list of open questions can be found by searching for the word "daffodil". Keeping the list of question short may help improve response time, and if we send questions more often eventually we'll get through all of them. Maybe a schedule of every two weeks for starters?

Although my initial reaction to including our own conclusions as footnotes is negative, as long as we make a VERY clear distinction between official and unofficial rulings the integrity of the CAR should stay mostly intact. However, there will need to be well-documented reasons behind any unofficial rulings else we may come under fire by members of the general Carcassonne public.

With regards to La Porxada, I think we can all reach a compromise by including it in the CAR but being really clear that it's only semi-official.

I have to say I agree with all of this!  :D

I just chatted with Matt again and he told me that he mostly used the service email at Hans im Glück to contact his people, and that Georg Wild was his primary contact there. I still think Moritz may be a good choice too. If there's anything else you need to know from Matt, post your question here. He's busy but I've got his ear for a bit longer if needed.

Obviously everyone on this forum is going to be of a different mindset as to how complete the CAR should be. Should it be limited only to official clarifications handed down by HiG? Should it include every single assumption that we as a community have made? I imagine that most people would be okay with something in the middle, as long as the specifics are noted, which is why I'm taking that tack as I go forward. I think it's important to note, though, that this does not represent a change in the way that the CAR has been compiled. If you go back and look at the footnotes for Matt's last version (i.e. the currently available version), there are a number of footnotes that start with "It would seem logical..." or "This would seem to exclude..." which are obviously not HiG-produced interpretations. Certainly there are a lot of official clarifications (the Q and A formatted footnotes), but the distinction has been less clear previously than I am trying to make it now.

This would also be be my opinion.

I'm alright with the pardoxa being included.  I'd be more interested in some good progress being made and something released since the current annotated are a little dated.  Heck if we could have two versions of the rules with and without the paradoxa or whatever other official or unofficial rules are out their.    I like having anything and everything included.
I simply remove which ever chapters i don't want or like to print in the pdf when i print it. Modifing a pdf after the fact is not all that dificult, so i don't mind whatever content is present. 

I would also agree that including everything (ie. La Porxada) would be preferable over excluding expansions simply because a percentage of players don't want it or play it.  It is always easier to exclude pages from the pdf in printing than it is to add rules ourselves that were never included at all.

Also, to me the purpose of the CAR is that you have one rulebook that encompasses all expansions no matter what combination you choose to play with.  Sure that will be those that don't play with La Porxada and others on the grounds that it is unofficial; however, there will also be others that do and, for them, the CAR would not be as effective or helpful if some expansions were deliberately left out.

There is definitely progress being made. I'm in the midst of 2 weeks of travels, so I'm at a little bit of a pause, but once I get this reconfiguring finished, future updates will be a lot quicker and easier.

I'm learning some Adobe Indesign and I've made this frontpage for CAR :)!

Update: here's a link (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0VfXbqK9xT6YWx2ZXg2dUxCdUU)

Not loading for me. ???

EDIT: The link works, thanks.

We've been playing the 6 mini-expansions and there clearly some rule clarifications needed with them. When you get to updating the CAR for the minis, I'd be happy to help.

I like the proto front page for the CAR! Nice work!

Pretty nice new cover, but I think the box covers should be a bit larger and you skipped The River I expansion in the small boxes. Otherwise, great job.

Thanks nice spot. I've added River I, made them a bit larger and made it so the expansion names are all visible :). (Link above updated or use this one (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0VfXbqK9xT6YWx2ZXg2dUxCdUU) ;) )

Much better! I still liked using the magazine covers for the promo expansions, but this works too, I suppose. If there is anyway to put the black line around the shapes of the two meeple-shaped expansions, it would probably look less odd. I just hope all the stuff on that cover continues to get published with HiG now working through Zman. Perhaps Zman will spell things correctly when they translate stuff.

Yeah I know, but not all are included in magazines right? Like 'Die Schule' so that's why I've made that choice. Anyways, I'll probably use some Photoshop skills to get a border arround those :) but therefore I need the final size :), also I've tried putting them next to the each side of the logo but it didn't worked out as well.

Also if someone finds a high qualtiy picture of the logo, it's more than welcome :).

I'll be dealing with the minis this week. I have some rudimentary translations of them, but I haven't really thought about any of their implications, much less actually gotten to play with them. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail with your thoughts at the link to the left.

(http://blog.itsmartdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/IT-SmartDesk-Good-Luck-300x172.jpg)

I just wanted to let you know, we're all counting on you.

Will do. Work travel will get in the way for a few days, though.