Carcassonne Central

With the Jousting Tournament almost complete, (comments and suggestions in the correct thread still welcome), here is my next project.
In the Stocks has a simple 'miss a turn' mechanic. The idea being that the stocks hinder a persons progress as they spend time in the stocks. Perhaps they stole a loaf of bread? ;)

Here is the tile image, so far... needs much work:

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstest.jpg)

The rules at present are:

There are two stocks tiles (maybe more)
Playing the stocks onto an opponents city requires that they miss their next turn. I am considering a 'builder' mechanic also where the player laying the stocks gets an additional turn... perhaps even the players turn that is missing a go.
If there is more than one colour in a city it is the choice of the player who lays the stocks as to which colour misses his turn.

Preliminary draft rules, and comments, suggestions etc, are welcome.

like this idea. Tile looks good already, but I'd add a little border around the green space

What if there are more than 1 player in that city?  Does this mean you get a double turn in a 2 player game?

Already answered above :)


That is the idea of 'builder' type mechanic. The Stocks first hinder your opponent, ('miss turn' mechanic) and gives you progress ('builder' mechanic).


With both mechanics in operation, the turn sequence of a 2 player game:

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2's city
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes an extra turn (player 2's turn)
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Continues

OR

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2's city
Player 1: Takes an extra turn
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Continues


With both mechanics in operation, the turn sequence for more than 2 players:

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2 and playre 3's shared city. Player 1 chooses which opponent will miss his turn (doe not matter who has a majority). In this case, he chooses Player 3.
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes an extra turn (player 3's turn)
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Continues...

OR

Player 1: lays Stocks onto player 2 and playre 3's shared city. Player 1 chooses which opponent will miss his turn (doe not matter who has a majority). In this case, he chooses Player 3.
Player 1: Takes an extra turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: Takes his turn
Player 3: Continues...


Both 2 player and more players are basically the same sequence, the difference being at what point the Stocks layer takes his extra turn.

Which is better?

If Player 1 has a builder in the city... and he draws the right tiles, he may lay down 6 tiles before Player 2 takes his next turn.  That in itself seems rather bad to me.

To counter this situation (assuming the use of the Stocks layer gets to take the extra turn(that would have been taken by the player missing a turn)):

Player 1: Lays Stocks tile onto Player 2's city. Player 1 also has his Builder in this city.
Player 1: Takes his double-turn (for his builder)
Player 1: Takes Player 2's turn (if he adds to a road/city containing his builder he does not get a double-turn as he's effectively taking Player 2's turn and not his turn)
Player 2: Misses his turn
Player 1: Takes his usual turn
Player 2: continues...

That still means Player 1 gets to play a max of 5 tiles before Player 2 gets to do anything.  It still seems bad to me.  And if by chance, Player 1 draws both the stocks, he gets to play a max of 8 tiles before Player 2 gets to do anything.  Ouch.

I see what you're saying... hmmmm.

Perhaps it is better just simply leaving out the 'builder' type mechanic from this and leaving it at missing a turn.

Player 1: Playes stocks tile onto city containing his builder and an opponent
Player 1: takes double-turn allowed by builder
Player 2: misses a turn
Player 1:draws and plays tile (possibly another 'builder' tile)
Player 2: continues...

A possible 4 tiles played by Player 1, before player 2 is back in on the action. In a 2 player game perhaps one could use just one Stocks tile?

I still don't like the idea of the "miss a turn" mechanic.  This is a tile-laying game.  Forcing a player to abandon his/her turn seems to be "anti-fun" somehow.  Well, I guess this is one Variant I won't be playing if it goes ahead as planned.

Edit: I would suggest some other mechanic instead.  Remove a piece from that city, for example, or something.

That might work. The idea of 'In the Stocks' is one of hinderance to a player. Removing a tile from their city would also be an interesting way of hindering an opponent. I'll think on...

Had some other thoughts. What would happen if the player playing the Stocks tile onto a city chooses who goes into the Stocks (an opponent already occupying the city) and then:

The player in the Stocks cannot score for the feature at all while he is detained them (how many turns and how this will be measured, I need to think about). This would mean that a city could be completed by the other players before he is out of the Stocks, thus losing him the city…

OR

The player who is in the Stocks loses the power of 1 follower in the city for a certain number of turns. A similar method to my Jousting Tournament could be implemented (moving the follower to the actual Stocks tile for a certain number of turns). This might give a temporary majority to another player within the city. If he could complete, he would score the city instead.

OR

The player in the Stocks immediately loses X number of points. In this way, someone who is leading can be drawn back a bit, thus hindering their progress.

Here's an additional idea which you may or may not want to pursue: a tile depicting a gallows which allows the placing player to permanently remove a meeple from the city. (or is that too much like Princess?)

lol... I have just finished the rules for The Gallows... where the placing of a tile removes a meeple from the city!!! :)

I do believe Scott's right: Gallows as it sits is pretty much like Princess.

As for the Stocks, I like the idea of a temporary hindrance, like removing a player from the majority count for a bit, to let others scramble while their opponent is in the slammer. But one day he'll get out...

You will need some mechanic to keep track of which turns the players have lost, to avoid arguments.

Well, this could be the opposite of the mechanic I proposed in Arise, sir... perhaps the gallows may be used to change a knight for another legal follower either from the player's supply (preferred) or somewhere else?  Imagine taking out a big follower from a city with no shields and replacing it with a mayor!

This is what i'm now leaning towards with 'Stocks', temporary hinderance by removing from the majority or losing the power of 1 for a couple of turns. But how to count? I'm not sure...

Somthing to chew on:

Stocks: Red player places a stocks tile. He moves Yellow's knight onto the tile. Followers on the stocks tile in no way count towards scoring the city.

At the end of Yellow's next turn, that meeple is laid down (like a farmer) -- the poor guy is exhausted by his ordeal. This is a free action that happens during the "reclaim the wood" phase.

On any following turn, Yellow may -- instead of placing a follower -- move the meeple out of the stocks to any other tile in the city. So getting a meeple out of the stocks counts as Yellow's "move the wood" action.

When the city is scored, any meeple in the stocks is returned to its player at that time.

This puts the responsibility of turn counting on the imprisoned player. It lends some tension to the situation, since no one but the controlling player knows when the punished meeple will be freed. There is also some cost to getting out (gotta pay your dues to society).

Questions: can the Mayor or Builder be thrown in the stocks? Can meeples in the stocks escape a beseiged city via cloisters? Or sneak out using other variants that allow meeple movement?

As for the tile graphics: should the stocks really be on a green area? Wouldn't a muddied zone be more appropriate to the stocks? I suppose you were trying to highlight the stocks' appearance on the tile, but the icon surely does this. I don't know, seeing that happy bit of green in the middle of the city throws me off, especially when it has nothing to do with farms (in game terms).

Edit: I meant to highlight that only a recumbant meeple can be pulled from the stocks. This means he must have done at least one full turn in the stocks.

I like this a lot. Lots of food for thought in this. I particularly like the way that moving the wood accounts for bringing the follower from the stocks. Also, when the Red player places the stocks tile, does moving Yellow's wood count for Red's moving the wood phase?


Can the Mayor or Bulder be put in the stocks... hmmm. Why not?... then again, perhaps not the builder as he does not count when calculating the majority... but then again, placing him in the stocks would hinder the player  :-\
Can they escape/meeple movement? Absolutely not... but a Tower can capture and a Dragon can eat!


I agree. I was thinking of a Market Place area, surrounded by houses. The first tile was a very rough draft. If we allow the movement of a player to the stocks there would need to be an area (similar to my Jousting Tournament tile) in which you can place the captured meeple.

This is where you can define the level of hinderance/agression in your variant. Red puts Yellow's follower in the stocks standing up. On Yellow's next turn, he must lay the meeple down, which I called a free action. But now I'm rethinking that. Laying a meeple down, a required action, could be either that turn's "move the wood" action or constitute the whole turn.

And the fun continues:

It's a shame to have the threat of the stocks diminish after the tile is played. So as the game progresses, if a player connects two city segments, any of which has a stocks tile in it, he may imprison meeples as before. Probably only if the stocks are empty at the time. Yes, a given meeple could be punished twice (pesky repeat offenders ;) ). Heck, if you end up with multiple stocks tiles in one city, think of the witch hunts you could have...

Here are the draft rules for now:

In the Stocks - draft version 0.1 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks.pdf)

And the updated tile (again, a draft version):

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile.jpg)(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile1.jpg)

Is this a better design? Which one is better?

The "area" in the middle isn't to scale with the rest of the tile. Looks like some sort of arena or... race track?

I'm not an expert on medieval times, but from what I understand, stuff like stocks and gallows were put in the town square to maximize public exposure. The person in the stocks or on the gallows was an example to the townsfolk of what happens to people who don't follow the rules. From this standpoint, I prefer the original rough design.

I agree with everything Scott said.  I prefer the original as well, sans the green bits.

And yet another batch (draft tiles):
Is this more like it? Which is better?

Perhaps the 'Stocks' icon should replace the stocks in the center of the market area?

I like these new tiles... but am a bit bummed out that the border is not there.  I would say leave the stocks icon and the stocks themselves in the image as they are - I think they look nice.

I would remove the icon in the corner, use option #1, but make the stocks a bit bigger.

You could also add a crowd of articipants and draw a person being escorted up to the gallows.

I'd make the market area a bit smaller and the stocks in the center a bit bigger
also adding some people to the market area is a very good idea !

Joff, how about using the scans from the City of Carcassonne (from the Count) as your base image instead of whatever you seem to be using?  The scans from G,K&K are quite nice to work with (thanks Matt :) ).  Here's the BGG link to the CoC at BGG: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/293547

Thanks Novelty...

I have done... much happier with this effort:

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile2.jpg)

The houses nearer the front may need to be different...

Am I getting close yet?

I agree, the houses near the front may need to be different... and that green tinge really makes it look icky...

Also, I'm not sure the tile is being improved.  The person in the stocks makes it too creepy for me and the mismatch with the thickness of the lines is distracting.

Personally, my favourite version so far is the original one on the first page of this thread with the icon... all that needs to be done there is to change the ground from a greenish tinge to a dark brown IMO.

Well, I doubt I can please everyone then! One wants someone in the stocks with people watching, others don't, some want the icon, others don't!!!! To border or not to border!!!! GRRRRRR! Frustrating or what?  ;D

I like the middle one best, but someone ate a chunk out from the roof of the barn...  also, you might need to imcrease the size of the store with the wagon near the front, otherwise, it seems like it's a house for dwarves...

the middle one ...and I also noticed that little chunk missing. But looking really good already !!

I'm liking the latest tiles best, though I wouldn't mind more buildings near the edges of the tile. Doesn't feel "town center" enough.

Frustrating, perhaps, but it is coming along nicely. Your latest batch is almost there.

I agree with Novelty that the stocks ought to be empty -- we're saving them for hapless meeples, remember? ;)

Here is the Version 2 (in draft form) of the rules for 'In the Stocks'

This incorporates the new rulings that laying a follower down constitutes 'moving the wood' for the detained player and how to use the stocks twice.

In the Stocks - Version 2 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver2.pdf)

Heh, Cappy Field.  I know that looks funny... but I guess I was the first one to write it.  Cappy, would you mind if we use your real name on the rules?

Joff, a few questions.  Can I choose not to resurrect a player in the stocks?  If a second stock is added to a city with a meeple laying down in an existing stoke tile, can I move that meeple to the new stock (so that it becomes upright again), and if that's possible, move another meeple to the just emptied stoke tile?

:) I'll let Cappy, obviously, respond to this as it's his call.


Yes, that choice is yours. You are not obligated to release your follower from the stocks. (Footnote 9)


Although this question is answered in the document: "Only the player who owns the follower may release him from the stocks and back into the city.", and since, essentially moving a player from one stocks to the other (which would have to be in the city) is done by a player other than the owner, it is not too clear and so warrants your question as a footnote just to clear the issue up.  I have updated the footnotes in my personal copy and will incorporate that into the final release. This is the footnote I have added (it has become footnote 16):

"Question: If a second stocks tile is added to a city with a follower who is already detained in the stocks  (upright or lying down), can I move that detained follower to the new stocks (so that if he was lying down, the follower becomes upright again), and if that's possible, move another follower to the just emptied stock tile?
Answer: No. Only the player who owns the follower can release that follower from the stocks and back into the city."

Hope this clears it up! :)

Thanks.  What happens when a follower is not removed (by choice) from the stocks?  Do I get to them play a follower instead, or must I resurrect any followers in stocks first before I am allowed to ever play a follower?

I presume you can't magic portal or use the city of carcassonne to teleport anyone directly into the stocks... although it would be legal to deploy them on the same tile in the city?

I thought I read it, but couldn't find it again... if I have 2 followers detained in the stocks... and both have been detained for at least a turn, I can during my turn move both of them out of the stocks.  What if I decide I only want to move 1 of them out?

Edit: Also, I think it needs a clarification that if there is a monk on the cloister in a city tile, that meeple isn't eligible for the stocks... or is it?

Also, why can't I put my own meeple in the stocks?  This strategy would be great for playing defensively :)

Removing your follower from the stocks is instead of 'moving the wood'. If you choose not to release your follower, then you may 'move the wood' on your turn as usual.


No, you cannot move anyone directly into the stocks from Carcassonne, but you can move onto the city segment of the tile. The rules state: "The stocks area on this tile takes no further part in the game and no player is able to deploy a follower into the stocks on any subsequent turn, other than in the way described in the ‘Using the stocks for a second time’ section."
I have also added the following clarification as a footnote:

"Question: Can I move a follower from Carcassonne City or use a magic portal to occupy the stocks?
Answer: No. You cannot deploy a follower, from Carcassonne City or via a magic portal, into the stocks area, but you can deploy to the city segment of the tile in this case."


You did indeed read it. It is in the section 'Using the stocks for a second time'. "...detain two followers of any colour (other than his own) in both stocks in the usual way. The stocks are used the same way as before, except, that should the detained prisoners be the same colour, that player must lay both followers down on his next turn, instead of ‘moving the wood’. He may also release both followers at the same time, instead of ‘moving the wood’, should he choose to do so."
However, your question regarding the release of just one of the two detainees again warrants a footnote. This is the footnote I have added:

"Question: Should two of my followers be detained, am I obligated to release both of them at the same time or can I leave one in the stocks for a later release?
Answer: You are free to choose whether to release your followers one at a time or both together. Releasing both of them together on the same turn takes the place of ‘moving the wood’ for that turn. However, you might choose to leave one of your followers detained in the stocks, although releasing the remaining follower on a later turn will again be instead of ‘moving the wood’. A player is not obligated to release any of his followers from the stocks should he choose not to."


You are correct. A Monk in a cloister cannot be detained in the stocks.

Footnote added "The only followers that can be detained in the stocks are a small follower (as a Knight), big follower (as a big Knight), Builder, Mayor or Wagon."

and also

"Question: There is a Monk in the cloister that is within the city (from Princess and the Dragon expansion). May I move the Monk occupying the cloister into the stocks?
Answer: No. The follower in this case is deployed as a Monk and therefore is not eligible to be detained in the stocks. The only followers that can be legally detained in the stocks are a small follower (as a Knight), big follower (as a big Knight), Builder, Mayor or Wagon."


This is an interesting. Give me a scenario that would give a good reason for wanting to place yourself in the stocks... and then we can take it from there. As the stocks are a hinderance mechanism, would anyone want to put themselves into the stocks? This of course, as they are draft rules, is subject to change. Let the discussion begin :)


I have also added the following footnote that clears up another problem I saw:

"Question: I have released my follower from the stocks, but there is not an unoccupied tile for me to return to. What happens?
Answer: Should there not be a free position in the city, your follower is expelled from the city and returned to your supply."

Off the top of my head...

I draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower.

I have a knight stuck in the city where I will never get a majority (due to a variety of reasons).  If I get my own knight captured in the stocks, I can remove him in the next turn by placing a tower piece...

The dragon is next to the tile on which I have my knight in a huge city I draw a stocks tile.  If I can capture myself, then I can move my knight to a point far from the dragon in 2 turns...

There are probably lots of scenarios I can't even begin to imagine!

Yes, I can see the point of what you are saying. We can change the rules so you could detain yourself in the stocks, but I would have to add the clarification that a follower of another colour can occupy the city if you are detained in the stocks (since a follower in the stocks does not count for calculating the majority in the city). So as long as this would not prevent another follower occupying the city, then I would have no problem, although there is a small one...

What would be unfair is if you could "draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower" but no other player could get into the city directly placing a follower onto a connecting tile while someone is detained in the stocks. That might not make sense, so here's an example of what i'm saying:
The city has only 1 follower present in it. This follower is currently detained in the stocks. I lay a tile that joins onto the stocks tile (not another stocks tile, but a different one) and lay my follower onto the city. This should be legal, otherwise the stocks present an advantage, albeit small, other than a hinderance! But here is that small problem that I mentioned: if you could do the same and lay another follower of your colour directly into the city while your follower is detained, this would really be seen as an unfair advantage!

This raises an important question: Can you deploy a follower directly into the city if the only player occupying is detained in the stocks? Or should a player detained in the stocks count as an occupied city tile?

So it would seem to be better to not allow a player to put themselves into the stocks in the first place and not allow a direct placement into the city.

Hmmmmm, what to do?

Edit: posing the red question above.

The idea of the stocks was one of hindrance to the player being detained by them. To even think that a player could have a slight advantage by placing himself into the stocks goes against the idea in the first instance, and so after a long deliberation, I have decided to stick with the ruling not to allow the placing of ones own followers into the stocks.

I have also decided that the stocks area on the stocks tile should work independently from the city (although it is still inside city walls). Indeed, even in the first version of the rules, I had assumed this but not clarified. This means that a follower detained in the stocks has no control of the occupancy of the city concerned (it is as if the follower is not even in the city itself!). This means that another player could connect directly to the city, even deploying a follower from the city of Carcassonne or via a magic portal to the city segment of the stocks tile, regardless if the stocks are occupied or not.

For example, a city is being constructed that only houses one small Yellow Knight. A player lays a stocks tile down and detains this Yellow Knight by placing him into the stocks. The city itself is now classed as unoccupied (even though the Knight is still present within the city walls), and so another player would be able to connect directly to the city, while the Yellow Knight serves his time in the stocks. Once the Yellow Knight is released from the stocks, he can take a position on an unoccupied tile within the city and resume his duties. If another player (let’s say Red) had placed a big Red Knight, the Yellow Knight would now have lost his majority in the city.

The new draft (Ver 02.2) together with scoring examples (might not use them in final release, i'll await comments) and the added footnotes is here:

In the Stocks Ver 02.2 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver2_2.pdf)

Any questions or thoughts? Post them please. Then we can get this ironed out and finalised. Tile hopefully will be completed this weekend.

Cappy, have you any more to add regarding these rules?

I have been having a rethink today regarding this rule. In certain circumstances (as Novelty has pointed out) it might be useful to be able to place yourself into the stocks:


The point regarding the stocks being a hindrance to a player being placed in them could also be a ‘hindrance’ (in one sense) to opposing players if there was an advantage to placing your own follower into the stocks.

Do you think it would be better to revoke this rule and change to allow the placing of your own follower into the stocks? Do others think that Novelty’s points are valid reasons for allowing the placing of your own follower into the stocks?


This is fine, as long as one remembers that the stocks area act independently from the city, although still contained within the city. This means that the player who is placed in the stocks loses his control on that city. Example: If there is only 1 player in the city and that player plays the stocks to that city and decides to detain his own follower, an opposing player can place a connecting city piece to that city and deploy a follower, regardless of the fact that the opposing follower occupies the stocks area within the city.


This is a fair point, but not forgetting you might well be able to remove the follower from his current position anyway by placing a Tower piece.

I was writing an updated Gallows rule set this morning, in which one could hang themselves for this very reason: to escape a city that might be impossible to complete; it does happen… regularly. Made worse if it’s a Cathedral city that’s impossible to complete. It occurred to me that this might well be a fair reason to allow the placing of your own follower into the stocks.


You could indeed. Bare in mind that the Dragon usually moves 6 tiles, so it would have to be a reasonably large city (assuming a 6 player game) to avoid the Dragon’s fury (and assuming the other 5 players are ganging up on you). You can only move your follower from the stocks and back to an unoccupied tile within the city.


I am sure there are. Anyone care to bring up any more?

I’d like to get this mini-expansion complete this weekend… and it’s Saturday now!

Edited for spelling.

I would open up the stocks to your own followers... it would add a lot more strategy.  Also, it would "lessen" the blow of being a "hinderance expansion" much like the way the Tower generally is a hinderance, but can be a boon if played properly...IMO of course, but it's up to you at the end of the day!

I don't mind the idea of putting your own piece in the stocks. However, the rules may read easier if it is prohibited (a lot fewer questions to be asked, it would seem). (Side Note: I would say absolutely no to self-imposed hangings.)

I have assumed the meeple in the stocks is a non-entity, just a lump of wood on the board and doesn't affect the game except as a victim (meaning he can still be eaten). So yes, treating the stocks area as a seperate feature within the city walls is a good way to look at it.

Frankly, when the meeple is released, he could be simply moved out of the town square, but remain on the same tile.

I have updated the rules, this time allowing ones own followers to be detained. I would be grateful if someone could go through this document for typos, errors, contradictions etc. Cheers.

In the Stocks Ver 02.3 draft (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver_2_3.pdf)

Some comments:

* Paragraphs are not justified?
* Footnote 8 "i.e. while detained in the stocks a Builder cannot build" That in itself is confusing.  "i.e. while detained in the stocks, a Builder does not confer a double turn" might be better
* Footnote 8 is also duplicated in the text (first para, page 3)
* Instead of using cap(s), you might want to use "city segment" for the noun and "completes" for the verb.  Otherwise, it is going to be confusing for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the term "cap".
* It would be nice if the examples follow immediately after the section they are described in.
* "2 Extra tiles (depicting a city segment with stocks area)." page 1.  Should there be a "a" in front of the stocks?
* Should you call the tile a "Stocks tile" or "a tile with stocks"?
* In the Preparation section, the "Stocks tile" is capitalised, whereas later on, it is not, i.e. "stocks tile"

Thanks, Novelty. I will update with your suggestions.

Other than those, do the rules makes sense? Could you add a tile with stocks (;)) to a game and understand how they are used?

Edit: Uploaded In the Stocks Ver 02.4 draft (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver_2_4.pdf) rules with Novelty's suggested modifications.

Another stocks tile (or tile with stocks on  ;D)

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile6.jpg)

Hmm.... is it intentional that the houses in front have less soot on them (and are thus whiter) than the houses in the back?

Hadn't even seen that!!! lol... back to the drawing board ;)  ;D

After playing P&D for the first time today, a question arose in my mind regarding the stocks expansion.

If a Volcano tile is drawn by the player who is detained in the stocks and who (on that turn) must place his follower in a recumbent position, do you think he should be allowed to do this? The P&D rules state that the player who plays the volcano tile "must immediately move the dragon to this tile from its current location. The player may not deploy a follower to the tile, but may - according to the usual rules - deploy a builder or a pig, or move the fairy".

I assume that the player could place his follower into a recumbent position, as he would not be on the tile now occupied by the dragon. This is similar to a question I have just asked in the Rules section.

Do you think it is ok to allow the follower to become recumbent on this turn... or should I punish him for yet another turn?  ;D

He should be placed down during this turn... it's an automatic move IMO just like moving the dragon.

Just out of interest, we playtested In the Stocks while playing our first game of P&D (with A&M also) yesterday:

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/CC_forum_images/100_1198.jpg)

The stocks worked really well, but we thought that there were too few tiles with stocks in the mix. Perhaps it should be increased to 4?

Yes, it was my Mayor who was put into the stocks first! I got caught in my own self made trap! That's rough justice for you! At the point on the board I had just come out of the stocks and decided to protect my Mayor with the Fairy.

Hmmm... that tile you have made seems to have rounder corners than usual...

It does, it was very rough, quick mockup, for playtesting purposes. Once final artwork has been established, I will produce better ones!

Yet another tile with stocks on:

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile7.jpg)(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile8.jpg)

We'll get there...  eventually!

Is it me or are the buildings in the back fading into the mists?  You might need to increase the contrast on those houses.

It's the mists of time you are seeing... the length of time that this expansion is taking to finalise!!! ;)  ;D

Poor Joff.  You'll get there sooner or later!

Is the tile ok, apart from the mists issue? What about the icon?

I like the icon because I think it makes it stand out.  Without the icon, the tile will be lost, especially in a mega-carc game.

The other issue I have is that on the right of the tile, the market building in front seems to be built on the same foundation as the misty building behind, but that's a minor issue that's not really visible unless one's a pedant ;)

Contrast adjusted:

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile9.jpg)

Icon behind buildings or in corner?

Either is fine I think, but I prefer it behind buildings.

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/stockstile10.jpg)

...and decided to increase the tile content to 4 tiles with stocks.

Latest draft rules:

In the Stocks Ver 02.5 draft (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver_2_5.pdf)

Edit: These rules have now been rewritten, see post below next one!

One small problem with increasing the tiles with stocks to 4 is that the rules need a slight rewrite. With 4 tiles you can connect up to 4 stocks into a city which would allow all 4 stocks to be used at once! This might not be good.

The difficulties of being an expansion author!!! What does one do?  ???

Increase to 4 tiles?... stick with 2?... stay safe in the middle with 3?  :-\

I have now rewritten the rules document to account for there being 4 stocks tiles.

In the Stocks Ver 02.5 draft (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver_2_5.pdf)

In the 'Preparation' section I have given this clarification:

"For a game involving basic Carcassonne but no more than 1 expansion, it’s suggested that you use 2 tiles with stocks. For a game involving more than 1 but no more than 3 expansions, it’s suggested that you use 3 tiles with stocks. For all other games, use all 4 tiles.
At the beginning of the game, mix the extra tiles in with the other regular tiles."

Does this sound OK?

So if I play with the basic game, archery tournament, jousting tournament, orders of chivalry and Friar and Farmhands, I use all 4 tiles?

My rules are based on 'official' expansions only. However, as Cathars, GQ, River, Count etc. are official, a rewording might be necessary.

How's this?

"For a game involving basic Carcassonne but no more than 1 large expansion,[footnote] it’s suggested that you use 2 tiles with stocks. For a game involving more than 1 but no more than 3 large expansions, it’s suggested that you use 3 tiles with stocks. For all other games using 4 or more large expansions, it’s suggested that you use all 4 tiles."

The [footnote] being:

Large expansions in the Carcassonne series are: Inns and Cathedrals, Traders and Builders, The Princess and the Dragon, The Tower, Abbey and Mayor and The Catapult. However, this is a suggestion only and you may play with all 4 tiles should you wish to.

And updated rules, including changed examples showing the newer stocks tile, instead of old version:

In the Stocks Ver 02.6 draft (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks_ver_2_6.pdf)

How about something to the effect of

Use at least 2 tiles with stocks as a minimum.  You may add an extra tile for every 2 of the following expansions Inns and Cathedrals, Traders and Builders, The Princess and the Dragon, The Tower, Abbey and Mayor and The Catapult, (i.e 3 tiles with 2 of these expansions, 4 tiles total with 4 or more expansions) up to a maximum of 4 tiles with stocks.

Thanks, that would lose me a footnote, and so I have amended the rules :)

Personally I think IMO you should get rid of using the stocks more than once.  This is especially true if there are 4 tiles as you pointed out.

This hopefully will be ready for final release today.

Although I am keeping with the using of stocks more than once (for all 4 tiles), I have tweaked the rules slightly.

You cannot now use the stocks simply by connecting two (or more) cities containing stocks together. You must be laying a tile with stocks to be able to do this.

It is highly unlikely that when using 4 tiles with stocks that they all become connected in one city, thus enabling the person who lays the newest tile with stocks to detain up to 4 followers within that city. This would be a big city for a start off, and would be doubtful if that many followers were occupying. Detaining those followers would give an advantage to the player following the stocks layer and would require, usually, 3 more tiles to complete the city. This gives time for recumbent followers to be returned from the stocks and back into the city. Other situations that might come up, would be improbable.

I will stick with my latest tile for the stocks, with no further changes.

Edit: We have just, this morning, playtested once more using P&D and A&M and 2 tiles with stocks. Again, it was felt that the stocks did not come out often enough, but using 2 stocks at least it is more controlable. I see no reason not to allow the use of more stocks tiles with a higher ratio of large expansions. I think that this will not be suggestion (as the rules currently are) but make the ratio part of the rules. The players were able to prevent stocks being laid onto their cities by clever tile placement, which is a good thing. I doubt if you are going to be able to lay too many stocks on cities anyway.

This is now completed.

In the Stocks (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/stocks/stocks.zip)

I have changed the ratio of large expansions to use. 2 tiles with up to 2 large expansions, 3 tiles with 3 large expansions and 4 tiles with 4 or more large expansions.