Carcassonne Central

For a while now I've been wanting to add castles to cities. Not quite sure what the purpose will be. Cities already get a bonus for both number of tiles and number of pennants from the cathedral tile. The only thing I can think of that hasn't been given a bonus yet is the Mayor. Perhaps a castle tile can double the Mayor's strength? Could possibly also make the city worth one more point to farmers, though that might be too confusing for farmer scoring.

(http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/5537/castleod0.png)

Where did you get the picture from. It's great.

The castle image is from The Count expansion.

How about, a meeple on the Castle tile CANNOT be evicted by the princess, eaten by the dragon, or captured by a tower? I mean, after all, hey, it is a castle. :)

Would that be in addition to doubling the strength of the mayor, or instead of?

Add to that cannot be sent to the gallows and the stocks!

Scott, I'd sure like to see castles outside of cities as well. Particularly for the graphics, but this would change your rules also.

The idea that a meeple in the castle can not be moved against his will seems sound. Is there any penalty (checks and balances, you know) to placing a meeple in a castle? Does a castle meeple "fill the tile"?

Also, might I suggest fewer trees and more buildings inside the castle. Right now it feels more like a palatial estate than a castle. :-\ I do like where this is headed. Heck, it works just as an artwork variation of a city tile!

(http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/7134/grastleyy1.png)

There's a castle on the grass... a grastle?

I'm not a castle expert, but from what I've read, it was common for a castle to be situated behind an outer wall, and within the outer wall was where the servants and subjects lived. (Much like the Count expansion.) I suppose there may have been some castles by themselves somewhere. Some day I want to go to Europe and see for myself.

If castles could appear outside of cities, I would definitely need to change the rules, and I'm concerned it would turn into another cloister-type. Or maybe castles on the grass have their own rules? The king of the castle owns the farm upon which the castle is situated and receives the farming points instead of the player whose farmers/barn are in the field. Muhahaha! It would be possible to adapt this to castles inside cities too, though that would make me guilty of what I was earlier accusing Joff of doing: one-tile city stealing. Then again, meeples inside cities are knights, so as nobility they would not be completely shafted. Maybe the points are divided between castle and city meeples...

I'm a little scared to try modifying the castle image. I have some graphics skills, but not much.

After reading up on serfdom on Wikipedia, I've decided that both types of castle tiles will have the same effect: points for the city or farm are divided equally between the baron and the knight/farmer. In the case of an odd number of points, the leftover point goes to the baron. Since farms aren't scored until the end of the game, the baron on a "grastle" is stuck until end of game too. The baron and his serfs are safe from the dragon and towers. I'm also combining my "feed the dragon" with this variant.

Now I'm ready to make a Word document. ;)

Made a new castle on the grass tile to better match the castle in a city tile. (see above)

Modified the castle in a city tile to look better in general. (see way above)

Here's the first draft of the rules document:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mzz05iej4jy (http://www.mediafire.com/?mzz05iej4jy)

Tiles document, with images scaled to correct size for printing:
http://www.mediafire.com/?zznamkojnkk (http://www.mediafire.com/?zznamkojnkk)

Towards integrating the castle onto the tile graphics, you might add some of those black lines representing shadows, the hashing you see on buildings in cities. Just lay them into your existing drop shadow.

Well spotted.

New tiles sheet:
http://www.mediafire.com/?mjydmiddmwt (http://www.mediafire.com/?mjydmiddmwt)

(http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/2844/castlepi2.th.png) (http://img93.imageshack.us/my.php?image=castlepi2.png)

(http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/1073/grastleqn9.th.png) (http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grastleqn9.png)(http://img528.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif) (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

Those look good!

Deadline for feedback on this expansion is end of Friday. The final version will be published on Saturday along with the others on my list.

My comments...

I think you need to explain what the following terms mean

* dragon lands
* occupied tower
* the follower on the tower may feed (the follower or the player who the follower belongs to?)
* eaten prisoner
* city points

I don't think the terms in bold are mentioned anywhere in the official rules, and it may be confusing.

Also, how exactly does the following actions happen?  Maybe examples are needed.
"The baron is protected from the dragon and towers by his castle, and he extends this protection to his serfs."
What does this mean in game terms?  Does that mean the baron cannot be removed by the dragon?

"The baron cannot be seduced by the princess, though his serfs are not safe from her feminine wiles."
OK, again so what does that mean in game terms?  Does the princess confer the +1 or does she not???

"A baron on a farm remains on his castle until the end of the game."
How can a baron be on a farm?  Isn't a baron a follower in a castle?  If a follower is on a farm, isn't that a farmer???

"the follower on the tower may feed one of his prisoners to the dragon to save his own life."
Feed is ambiguous - what does it mean in real actions?  Or are you suggesting that the follower can shove a prisoner down the throat of the wooden dragon meeple?  And which one of his prisoners?  Those that were captured by this specific tower?  Or any that was captured by the follower's player?

"he is eaten by the dragon as usual."
I'm still trying to picture the wooden dragon meeple eating another meeple...

Also, what if you aren't playing with P&D?  What if you aren't playing with Tower?

"and the player with the majority of serfs receives the other half of the city points."
So If I have no serfs in City A, but 10 serfs in City B, which means I have a majority of serfs, I get half the city points (whatever those are) for City A, eventhough I have no serfs in that city?

"If two or more players tie for majority of serfs, their half of the city points is divided equally among them. If the castle is not occupied by a baron, the serfs become freemen and receive full points."
But if they are tied, do they still receive half?

Also, how does the farm castle interact with Barns???

I think you have quite a bit of rewrite ahead of you...

The document says,"The new land tiles are placed in the usual way. You may not place more than one castle in the same city or farm."

This does not impose a sanction that multiple Castles cannot be joined in a city or farm at all, just the initial placement of the Castle cannot connect to another Castle.

If you cannot connect the Castles together through tile placement, the the tiles cannot be played in the usual way.

If you can connect them together, through clever tile laying, what happens if there is more than one Castle in a city or farm?

Fixed all the issues identified:
http://www.mediafire.com/?oijyid4qwz2 (http://www.mediafire.com/?oijyid4qwz2)

I'm sticking with the eating metaphors because Matt uses them in the footnotes of the CAR. I changed other terminology to match the rules portion of the CAR as much as possible, but now I'm concerned it makes the rules for this expansion more difficult to understand. Time will tell.

I think you can retain the feeding metaphors.  You still need to mention what does it mean in terms of game actions though.  Otherwise the feeding metaphors have no meaning.

How's this?
http://www.mediafire.com/?ndiwnty21o2 (http://www.mediafire.com/?ndiwnty21o2)

I don't think I can make it any more clear than that.

I still don't think it's very clear.

"save his follower from being removed".  Does that mean "prevent his follower from being removed." or using uncommon words, "in lieu of removing the follower on top of the tower"?

"his follower is eaten by the dragon as usual." Does that mean the follower is removed from play as per the P&D rules?

Well, I'm trying to help you improve it especially for people like me where English isn't our native tongue.  If it's not welcomed, then tell me to buzz off and I'll do so :)

Another update:
http://www.mediafire.com/?dy5oezzngty (http://www.mediafire.com/?dy5oezzngty)

I'm just feeling a little frustrated because the rules made sense to me the way I wrote them, but if the meaning is not entirely clear then it's worth changing. It's definitely helpful to me when you give examples of how to clarify, rather than just saying it's not clear enough, because then I know how to word it such that it is clear to you.

Just FYI, Kevin Graham already has a Carc variant called Castles. I don't think it matters too much, but I post for your consideration.

Edit: Perhaps a name change? I mentioned on another thread about using 'Lord of the Manor'. Just a thought.

It's always frustrating to write rules, because one has to make sure that they are understood by everyone else and that's not easy because you aren't everyone else...

 :'(

Done:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ljetkzkmoyz (http://www.mediafire.com/?ljetkzkmoyz)

Well, fiefs work for their Liege Lord...

I hope I don't regret posting this now:
http://www.mediafire.com/?yz1xm2zjmyw (http://www.mediafire.com/?yz1xm2zjmyw)

Thats not bad, Scott.

Some more nitpicks (sorry Scott):

"A follower may be deployed to a castle tile as a baron"
Does that mean I can also deploy a follower to a castle tile as something else?
Why is the word "tile" (bolded by me) used there, when it's not used previously in the preceding paragraph after castle?  Can you deploy a follower to the farm or city bits outside the castle as a baron?  Or is the word tile not supposed to be there?
Does the baron (inside the castle) count for majority of the city or farm?  Does the baron outside the castle (but still on the tile) count for majority?

"The followers in the surrounding city or farm become serfs to the baron."
So if I have a thief on a road next to the city or farm, they become serfs to the baron as well?  Do you mean, the followers in the same city or farm as the castle instead?

I don't see anywhere in the rules whether the baron is considered to be "in" the city or farm or not.  This is essential for other expansions such as Joff's Order of Chivalry and Jousting Tournament.  It will probably have an impact on the Archery Tournament expansion as well.

How are the total points for the cities and the farms still determined?  There's no statement saying that it remains unchanged, or that it is the same as normal.  And examples should be given in text form (e.g. city with 2 pennants score x for baron and y for serfs) if you can't do the picture form - it will make it more clear.

Question: Does a barn remove serfs from play?  Does it remove the baron inside a castle?  Does it remove a baron outside a castle (but on the castle tile)?
Question: Can the dragon move to a farm or a city containing a castle?
Question: If a tower is on a farm/city that has a baron, does the baron also protects the meeple on top of the tower?
Question: Does the baron prevent builders/pigs/wagons/mayors from being removed by the dragon/tower?

 >:(

http://www.mediafire.com/?mnmjojmnoji (http://www.mediafire.com/?mnmjojmnoji)

I feel the need to nitpick your nitpicks.


I used the word tile because it is a tile, but since it confuses you I took it out. A baron is only a baron if he is inside the castle, so I'm not writing anything about barons outside castles.


I'm not sure why someone would think that a thief on a road could become a serf, since roads are not part of cities or farms. I used the word surrounding in terms of the city or farm that surrounds the castle, but since that confused you I took it out.


Wouldn't people expect it to be unchanged unless a statement is made that scoring is changed? I added a footnote to explicitly state that scoring is as usual, and I put some scoring examples towards the end.

;D  I'm only trying to make it better.  Would you prefer it coming from me (where you can understand what I'm talking about) or from some other member where you won't be able to understand their English? :)

And it looks good now!

 :-X

I prefer it coming from you.

Question: If there are no farmers on a farm with a baron, does the baron score anything?
Question: If there are no knights in a city with a baron, does the baron score anything?
Question: If there is a mayor in a city with a baron, does the baron score half the mayor (provided that there are pennants in the city)?

v1.2:
http://www.mediafire.com/?jmvzndtlzum (http://www.mediafire.com/?jmvzndtlzum)

I didn't do anything with the third question because the rules say "follower", which the mayor is considered to be part of. Also because there's no room left without having everything spill over to a third page which wouldn't look good. No more, ok? ;)

Scott, sorry to disappoint.  In my opinion, this is a bad expansion because of the following reasons:
1. It rewards the player who draws the tile. A lot.  If you draw the tile, there is no reason why you shouldn't place a baron in it.  A baron will always score half the score of the city or farm.  This is a good deal.  If one player draws all the castle tiles, they will probably win the game.
2. It takes out the strategy for the tile.  Usually by drawing a tile and placing a follower, a lot of decisions has to be made - where to place the tile, where to place the follower.  Drawing this tile though, immediately means you place it on the largest city or farm and place a baron on it as that would be the most advantageous play possible.  No strategy required.
3. It nerfs P&D and tower completely.  The dragon cannot enter a tile with a serf.  Towers can't capture serfs.  The reason most people play with P&D or Tower or both is to be a bit competitive.  Nerfing those expansions completely would either mean that if you are playing with those expansions, you don't use this one, or if you aren't playing with those expansions, you don't use this one as well... because let's face it, this expansion is only useful if playing with P&D and Tower.
4. It discourages people to play farmers, knights, pigs, mayors.  Why play farmers or pigs or mayors if you are going to lose half the points to the baron?  It will force people onto roads and cloisters (and forests and rivers if playing with those expansions) and that's not a good thing.

Possible solutions:
* make either the baron or the serfs vulnerable to the dragon and the tower.  I would make serfs vulnerable to the tower (not much you can do against bandits) and the baron vulnerable whenever the dragon moves to a tile with a serf on it (the baron is protecting his serf, which is what he does for the serf in return to the serf farming for him).
* make the castle magic portal - able (in conjunction with the above).  That way the tile won't reward the person who draws it as much.  It will also encourage strategy, etc.

Of course, you may come up with your own solutions or decide not to change anything.  It's your expansion after all.

I agree that the Baron should not have complete immunity to the advances of the Dragon or a tower. How on earth can you counter a Baron once he is placed? It is fine to be immune from the advances of the Princess. My problem is, that should the Baron be eaten by 'Smaug' or captured by a tower, I would like an opportunity to become the Baron myself (or gain repossession)! If playing with P&D it is fine to make the Castle magic portal-able (which it is), but how to do it if using just The Tower?


Edit: one other thing Scott, you need to rewrite the acknowledgement for Matthew Harper's entry ;)

What I'm trying to achieve is some sort of benefit to being the baron, and some benefit to being a serf.

I made the serfs vulernable to the dragon, and the baron is vulernable to all tower attacks (including against serfs). Also, barons no longer score for empty cities or farms. Can't reap any benefits if nobody is doing any work.

v1.3
http://www.mediafire.com/?yhqznzztdzr (http://www.mediafire.com/?yhqznzztdzr)

I'm wondering if the baron is now so vulnerable that the reward should be greater?

I'm also thinking that the serf scoring should be changed so that points are divided among the serfs based on how many serfs each player has. For example, if red has two serfs and green has one serf, red gets 2/3 of the serf points and green gets 1/3. Your guys' thoughts?

I think the baron should be magic portal-able to allow for someone other than the person who draws the tile to steal the points of the tile.  Perhaps it should also be possible to move from the castle in the City of Carcassonne (unless the count is there) to the castle as a baron.  Again, this will allow other players to steal the castle from the person who drew the tile.

As for scoring, how about barons getting half the scores of the respective cities and farms, and the serfs (not barns! those aren't serfs, so the baron shouldn't get anything from barns) getting full points as per the normal rules?  This will not nerf the existing serfs at all, but will give reason to fight for the baron.

The baron's castle has always been magic portal-able, provided there is no baron already on it.

Allowing parachuting from the City of Carcassonne would only work when the city is completed, which doesn't seem very useful and could lead to problems with multiple barons parachuting in.

I don't think the risk of being baron is really worth it if he only gets half what the serfs get. I'm not even sure how fair it is for the baron to take the hit on every tower attack if the serfs aren't sacrificing anything for the privilege.

Part of me wants to say "meh" and just make the castles an uber-cloister type, requiring 5x5 completion and yielding 25 points. Not an original idea, but I feel like this isn't going to get better unless I try something entirely different.

I just did a quick play-test by myself, using just base Carc and two castle tiles. Once a castle goes down and baron is deployed, it's pretty much just a landscape feature. Like you guys said, the player doesn't really have to work for anything. I built a 22-point city (8 tiles, 3 pennants) with one baron and two serfs of differing color. With the existing half-points rule, that would be 11 points per player, which is like getting nailed with a Cathar/Siege tile. With full points, each player would score 22 points. The "player" who deployed the baron contributed towards building the city, but had no fear of losing control because I didn't play with P&D or Tower.

If I were to change the rules as described in the above post, the baron would not have scored his 25 points until many more tiles were placed. Remove all the protection rules and I think it'll be much better. The baron is a nice reward, but with a long-term investment. Plenty of opportunity to take the baron out when P&D and/or Tower are added into the mix.

Since nobody has raised any objections, I'm going to move forward with changing the rules.

Well, as long as you make the rules clear, and as long as the person playing the baron doesn't get an unfair advantage :)

It's your expansion, we are just here to provide feedback... methinks... ;)

Alright, here are the new rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?ngni22kcr22 (http://www.mediafire.com/?ngni22kcr22)

I cycled all the version numbers backwards so this is v0.9. I'd like to have this all wrapped up by Friday or Saturday.

"A castle is completed when it is surrounded by 24 land tiles in two concentric squares. The player who has a baron
in the castle immediately scores 25 points – 1 point for every land tile. After a castle has been scored, the baron is
returned to his owner"

You should really have a pictured example of this. (Edit: see below)


Do you think that there should be a tile ratio in here as well (like my In the Stocks expansion)? 4 tiles seem quite high a number if you are playing vanilla Carc, where there are only 72 tiles in total.


Is the reward for completing a castle too low? Completing a castle is a big challenge. Perhaps the castle could be completed like a cloister for 9 points, at which point a Baron could be returned, should the player wish, or the player could attempt to become 'lord of the manor' and complete the castle for a bigger reward, as his Baron would be tied up longer. Should the castle not be completed by game end it is scored at 1 point per tile making up the castle (same as cloister scoring, this would include the 2nd square tiles) but, for a completed castle, 1 point per tile surrounding the manor and 10 points bonus for the manor itself (34 points total)? At any point the follower can be returned to its owner for 9 points score (should the castle be surrounded by tiles (cloister scoring)). In this way there is a penalty for removing your Baron early (not being able to claim for the 2nd square of tiles). A Baron can only be returned if 8 tiles surround the castle though (for 9 points)? At game end, the castle is scored as a castle IF it has it's first square (cloister type) surrounding the castle.

Example:
(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/CC_forum_images/manorexample1.gif)
At game end, as the castle's first square is not complete, the castle is scored as a cloister for it's Baron (In this case 8 points, same as cloister scoring).

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/CC_forum_images/manorexample2.gif)
At game end, as the castle's first square is complete, the castle is scored as a castle for it's Baron (In this case 21 points). (Edit: see post below)

(http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/images/CC_forum_images/manorexample.gif)
The score for the Baron (he has become 'lord of the manor') is 24 points for the surrounding tiles, plus a 10 point bonus for the castle itself. A total of 34 points.

Joff's suggestion is a bit complicated to calculate, but it is simpler overall.  I like that it's independent on farm scoring.

The biggest problem to my suggestion is this: let's assume a player deploys a Baron to the castle, but then decides that he wants his Baron back, and so, after completing the castle as a cloister type (surround castle with 8 tiles), he takes his Baron back and collects 9 points. An opposing player thinks, "hey, the castle is not yet complete", (it needs 24 tiles for the Baron to become 'lord of the manor'), and deploys a follower by way of a magic portal (or similar) to the castle. After a short while it is obvious that the castle will not be completed and so he takes back his Baron (scoring 9 points). In this way the feature has been scored twice, with no work on the part of the 2nd scorer. This, of course, is not fair.

A solution to this is that once the castle is surrounded by 8 tiles (cloister type) a player may not occupy.


Edit for my last posting (the posting with the examples  :)):
Looking at my final example above: "At game end, as the castle's first square is complete, the castle is scored as a castle for it's Baron (In this case 21 points)."
I have not awarded the actual castle tile itself with any points (it should be at least 1 point, making the total up to 22 points)
Perhaps you can even give a Baron occypying an incomplete castle (at game end) a small bonus as well? (perhaps 3 or 5 points (i.e. all tiles surrounding the castle at 1 point each plus 3 points for the castle itself)). This is a reward for sticking with building the castle and tying up a follower for the game.

I don't want to allow people to bail out halfway through; this is a commitment. It would also make things more complicated, which is what necessitated scrapping the original rules.

I think 25 points is plenty considering the tiles are being scored twice. I had thought about giving a bonus for pennants in the area, but that feels too random and might be unbalanced between castles in the city vs. castles in the country.

I added the limitation on number of tiles based on number of expansions and some scoring examples (thanks Joff!).

v0.9.1
http://www.mediafire.com/?mnyyitmjgm4 (http://www.mediafire.com/?mnyyitmjgm4)

IMO, this is a reason not to bother with the castle. A follower is worth more to me that 25 points for the castle. You need some sort of bonus if you are in for the long haul, and 25 points is not it! All the castle becomes is a massive cloister, and not worth the trouble. I can't see these getting completed very often. I might as well play cloisters... they would be far easier to complete and they score the same (1 point per tile)! I repeat, the scoring is far too low for a long haul feature.

You say that 25 points is plenty considering the tiles are being scored twice. How so? Perhaps, i've misunderstood you here, but aren't they only scored once? If they are scored twice, what exactly do you mean?

I don't think that the 'bail out' rule or scoring I proposed is that complicated at all.

By scoring twice, I mean you can score the tiles with other meeples.

I still don't want to offer a bail out, but I am willing to increase the point value. Would 50 be too much? 2 points per tile is easier to explain.

How about the Baron receives 2 points per farm tile connected to the castle either at the end of the game (for uncompleted) or when the farm is "completed"?  That won't help you with the ciy castles though...

1 point per tile surrounding the castle with a 10 (or 15) point bonus for the castle itself when completed (34 points (or 39 poiunts)), one point per tile surrounding the castle with a 5 point bonus for the castle itself at game end.

50 points is not really that high considering that it is unlikely that a castle will get completed.

Of course, I prefer my original proposal that allows bailing out! :)  ;D

Edit: After reading this back, what I meant to imply was that 50 points would not be too high for a completed castle, and not 50 points is not enough ;) Sorry, if there was any confusion!

I have been thinking regarding my ‘bail out’ rule. I like this rule, as it enables you to free a tied up follower (in a feature that is impossible to complete) should you wish. This would be useful sometimes toward game end when you realise that you cannot get any of your followers back as you have been a little over zealous and deployed them all! (Come on, we've all been there ;))
However, ‘bailing out’ of the castle comes at a price. A  Baron can only ‘bail out’ of his castle once the castle has been surrounded by 8 tiles (like a cloister) but loses any points he might have accumulated. The removal of a Baron takes the place of ‘moving the wood’. So, you may ‘bail out’ of the castle at the cost of all points up to that point and in place of moving the wood for your turn. Just a thought.

Is that true? Or are you pulling my leg? ;)

Edit: A quick Wikipedia search tells me that it is indeed true!

Sorry I'm not much of a storyteller, so I stick to the facts.

I know you guys won't be entirely happy with this, but here is the final version of the rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/?nmm5hmmirm5 (http://www.mediafire.com/?nmm5hmmirm5)

I increased the value of completed castles to 50 points.

Those who want to play with a bail out rule are welcome to do so in the privacy of their own homes. I'm sorry that we couldn't come to a unanimous agreement on including it, but I just wasn't keen on it. If you only want 9 points, save your meeples for the cloisters and cult places.

Yes, you did need a greater incentive to finish the castle. This is fine. Had it have stayed at 25 points, it would not have been worth the trouble, but with 50 points at stake... I will fight to complete it ;)


I am perfectly happy with this expansion. I quite like the idea of the challenge this presents and the potential reward. I think the 24 tile surround is a much better and logical use for the castle.

The 'bail-out' rule was not really intended for the castle to be played like a cloister, more of being able to get a follower back from an uncompleted feature with a penalty (for when you have deployed all of those followers and wished you had another, the penalty being losing all the castle points that you could have gained at end game, by getting out early). Although I like the 'bail-out' rule, Lord of the Manor is your expansion and I will use as intended in your rules... besides i'm going to pinch my idea and use it myself in an expansion (if it is possible to be able to 'pinch' one's own idea ;))

Well done, Scott.

Joff, since I'm out of town at the moment, do you think perhaps you can host that rules document on your site so that I can link directly to it (instead of mediafire) in the Completed Expansions/Variants thread?  Thanks.

Scott, would that be ok with you?

I guess it's only temporary anyways, until Gantry can hosts it here, but yeah, wait for Scott's answer :)

Yeah I'm good with that.

Lord of the Manor is available from:

www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/lordofthemanorv1.0.zip (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/lordofthemanorv1.0.zip)

Thanks guys, moved to completed.

Any chance of getting a manor on a forest tile?

That would just be creepy :)

I sort of like the idea, but Novelty has the master artwork for the forest tiles. Either he would need to send me an image with all forest, or I could send him my manor artwork (transparent background).

I could, but it would probably take me over a day to send the file.  It's huge.  Each individual tree (or parts of, or close enough) that you see is a transparent layer.  It might be better if you (Scott) send me the image instead :)  Also, should this be a new expansion?  Hmm... I need to create another forest expansion to include forest tiles and fair images (from Catapult) anyways, perhaps this could be part of that?

Ok, I'll send you my transparent layer. I don't think it's enough to make a separate expansion for it; including it in some other expansion would be fine with me.

Yeah, it'll probably be with 10 other tiles with other things.  What those will be I have no idea.  I think we should start a new thread for this.

Edit: New thread at Log Cabins (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?&topic=705).

I know I've seen the LotM Forest tiles somewhere... where are they?  I think they were arranged with the previous four.

It is in the Fairy Tale's expansion as the Beast's Castle.

Hi

It mentions in the rules that: "A follower may be deployed to a castle as a baron. The baron is not considered to be part of the city or farm in which his castle is located."

So to clarify:

1) Can a baron be placed in an already occupied city, regardless of who has majority ownership?

2) If laid in a city the castle tile won't contribute any points for the city owner upon city completion?


Thanks

1) Yes. The Baron is a specific term applied to a follower who is placed in the castle depicted on the LOTM tiles. This is different from a follower occupying the city. When a castle tile is laid, extending a city, the player may choose whether to deploy a follower: as a knight (in the city), as long as the city is not already occupied by another knight; or as a Baron (in the castle) - in this way there can be a knight already occupying the city. When the city is completed, the follower occupying the castle as a Baron does not partake in scoring for the city (he is not a knight) and he is not removed from the castle after scoring for the completed city has taken place. The Baron is only removed once the castle is surrounded by 24 tiles as explained in the rules.

2) If the castle is laid in the city, the tile itself still scores as a tile that extends a city for the owner of the city.


EXAMPLE: The castle is laid by the Green player and extends a city already occupied by a Blue knight. Green places a follower as a Baron to the castle. The city is later completed with 4 tiles surrounding the castle tile (a city comprising of 5 total tiles). The city scores 10 points for Blue (but zero for Green) because the city is completed with 5 tiles (including the castle tile). The Blue knight is now removed from the city as scoring for his city is complete, but Green remains as a Baron, occupying the castle. Green is not removed until the castle is surrounded by 24 tiles (as LOTM rules).

Hope this helps.

Thanks Joff :) Look forward to playing with this tonight with King's Gate.

So, how did your session go?

We haven't used LoTM yet. We were playing with Abbey and Mayor for the first time that night and with 3 new meeples to play with we thought we should keep it simple, so we threw in the 'easier of the 2' King's Gate, which some eejit (me) totally messed up by prematurely scoring a city with a KG before the 2nd one had even been drawn from the bag ^^

LoTM will definately be going in for our next game though (can't wait to try and build an uber-cloister for 50pts ;D) along with Tunnels, Fortune Teller and Seasons, the latter of which seems like an awesome addition. I'm really blown away by the thought and imagination behind these fan expansions. They really make the game shine. And of course it's fun to make the tiles.

When you do, post something in the craft guild about how they come out.  I'm always interested in hearing people's tile-making methods.  I'm especially interested in how you handle the Season's condition tiles.