Carcassonne Central

The House of Valois

A Carcassonne variant originated by Patrik Wikström

Between 1328 and 1589 the French family of Valois reigned in France. They were descendants of Charles of Valois, the fourth son of King Philip III. The first in this line was Philip VI, the grandson of King Philip III. The second in this line were John II, the Good, son of Philip VI. The third was Charles V, the Wise, son of John II. The people around Carcassonne are rejoiced when they are able to host the Valois family members when they are travelling by.

EXTRA PIECES
•   2 Large Gold figures (representing John II, the Good and Charles V, the Wise)

ADDITIONAL RULES
Deploying a Valois family member
When a player places a city tile that includes a pennant,  connecting it to a city where he has the majority of ownership, the player has the possibility of placing a Valois family member into that city. If no Valois family member has been placed before, the player takes one of the large gold figures from the side of the playing area and places it onto the city segment of the tile just laid.

If one gold figure has already been placed, the player may take the second large gold figure from the side of the playing area and place it onto the city segment of the tile just laid.

If both large gold figures have been placed, the player has the possibility of “luring” a Valois family member to come and visit his city if the two cities are connected by a road.

A player is not obligated to place a Valois family member to a city.

Scoring
5 points are added to the completed city with one Valois family member, but if a completed city contains both Valois family members the city scores double the amount of points.

After scoring, the Valois family members are removed from the city and are returned to the side of the playing area, until another tile with a pennant is drawn.

Playing this variant/expansion together with The Count of Carcassonne will enable the possibility of overtaking a city visited by Valois family members.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Jonathan Warren for comments

Nice and simple expansion.  The text needs to be "tightened up" to prevent misunderstandings, but otherwise it's good.

"The people around Carcassonne are rejoiced when they are able to host the Valois family members when they are travelling by."
should probably be
"The people living around the city of Carcassonne rejoices when they are able to play host to the Valois family members."

Here's the gold meeple image.  The original image for this and the white count is by Oskar Lindqvist.  I just modified them to the correct colour.

Here is the latest draft rules: The House of Valois (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_2.pdf)

Proofreading:

"The second in this line were..." should be "The second in this line was..."

"When a player places a city tile that includes a pennant," Didn't the Pope use laid instead of places?  And the word places is used twice in that sentence.  What if the tile also contains a road or a cloister, is it still considered a city tile?  I'd prefer  "When a tile with a pennent is played, ..."

"connecting it to a city where he has the majority of ownership," just makes me want to go "Oh dearie me!" that's just so verbose and the meaning of some of the words could be interpreted differently.  "to a city where the player has the most followers," would be better.

"the player has the possibility of placing a Valois family member into that city."  Say what? possibility?  what does it depend on?  are there any odds that we can bet on?  is this a game to be played in a casino?  "that player may place a Valois family member into that city." would be better.

Overall: "When a tile with a pennent is played to a city where the player has the most followers, that player may place a Valois family member into that city."

Question: Where does the Valois family member go?  Any tile within the city?  An unoccupied tile within the city?  The tile just played?

"If no Valois family member has been placed before,..." would be better phrased as "If there are any large gold followers that are not in a city,..."

"the player takes one of the large gold figures from the side of the playing area" needs the change of figures to followers and they may be from the box or the bag or wherever, not necessary the side of the playing area so "the player may take one of the unplayed large gold followers"

Overall: If there are any large gold followers that are not in a city, the player may take one of the unplayed large gold followers and place it onto the city segment of the tile just laid.

That would make the next statement redundant.

"If both large gold figures have been placed, the player has the possibility of “luring” a Valois family member to come and visit his city if the two cities are connected by a road."
would probably read better as
"If both large gold followers have been played, the player may move one of the large gold followers to the city just extended by the player, provided that there is a road linking the two cities" or something like that.

General comments and questions
* Are Valois Family Member and Large Gold Followers/Meeples/Figure two different things?  I think the rules should pick one and stick with it.  I would prefer "large gold follower" because that's what is actually being used, so as not to offend my friends Jean Valois and Suzanne Valois.  Otherwise, I would have difficulty placing them onto Carcassonne tiles.
* Double the amount of points for 2 LGF - does it double pennants? cathedrals?  the pope?  At what point does doubling take place?
* What does "overtaking a city visited by Valois family members." mean?  How is this carried out in terms of game actions?
And the usual questions:
* Can the LGF be removed by the dragon or the tower?   How about the gallows or the stocks?
* What happens when the fairy is next to the LGF?
* Does the LGF take part in the Jousting tournaments?
* How does this expansion work with Families or Family Feud?
* Does Joff prefer sushi or curry?

Neither. I detest them both :)

wicke's latest draft rules: The House of Valois 0.3 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_3.pdf)

Looks good

Minor quibble: The "of" in the title looks weird when compared to the rest which is in capital letters.  Perhaps it should be made capital letters, but at a smaller font instead?

New Question: Is placing a large gold follower a MTW action?  i.e. After placing a large gold follower, can I still play a meeple or move the fairy or play a tower piece, etc.?

Comment: It would be nice to have scoring examples, especially for the "doubling" part.

Unanswered questions:
* What happens when the fairy (P&D) is next to a large gold follower?

(for Joff)
* Can the large gold follower be removed by gallows or stocks?
* How does the large gold follower interacts with the jousting tournament (in terms of strength and scoring?
* The footnote about the dragon, tower, city isn't linked to anything above (and this goes for Avignon as well).  Should it link to the end of the first statement of "Deploying a Valois family member"
* Can I add a footnote for pennant in that first statement to say that it could either be a blue-and-white pennant, or a red-and-yellow pennant from the fan-made Families or Family Feud expansions.

wicke's latest rules: The House of Valois 0.4 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_4.pdf)


I still have some comments to add regarding this, so I will add them in due course... but the answers are: Can the large gold follower be removed by gallows or stocks? No.
How does the large gold follower interacts with the jousting tournament (in terms of strength and scoring?) They do not affect the jousting tournament as they are not deployed as Knights, they are deployed as royalty (I think ;) ).

Looks good, besides the 2 things that Joff said is sitll missing, the follow, quoted below, has not been addressed.

I did put in a scoring example

I saw, but usually, the official rules have example pictures of the scoring as well.  It could do with that...

This will be my last post to the forum.
I can't, and won't, spend so much of my time on this forum, that I can answer all conceivable questions (and draw pictures to show a simpel 'double points' rule).
I thought, when I started thinking about these three new expansions that I (and hopefully some others as well) would have fun with the new additions and that it would bring something new to the game.
But the last 3 weeks all my (Carc) spare time have gone into answering questions and I have only had time for ONE Carc game with my girlfriend, and that game had to be abrubtly stopped since we were too tired.

The response to my ideas for Kevin Graham's expansion 'Prison' and the long list of comments to 'The kids are growing up' (or 'The mini-followers are growing up' which I was told to change the title to) really STOPPED ALL MY AMBITION to keep up with this.
Please continue with YOUR forum, I promise NOT to invade on YOUR property again.

wicke, sending you a pm/email

hope you will reconsider!

I'm sorry that you feel too harassed by the questions, wicke.  My intentions were to get the rules document up to the standards that has been applied to the other Carcassonne Central rules documents.  I'm sorry you took the comments personally where it wasn't meant to be.

I'm sorry that you have decided to not post anymore, I know Gantry and mjharper set up this place for all fans of Carcassonne, so it's doesn't just belong to a select group of people but to all fans, yourself included.  But I guess it's up to you whether you would like to make this place yours or not.

Personally I'm slightly disappointed.  I see the work that Joff and myself have put into expansions, and I know the work on Joff's part is substantially more than mine.  Now that the rules document and the tiles have been made (although the rules are not complete by Carcassonne Central standards), you have decided to bail out because it seems you have what you want.  Oh well.

Gantry, if you would like to ban me for however long due to the fact that someone has left because of me, please feel free to do so.

Wicke, I know how you feel from my experience with the 'Lord of the Manor' expansion. Novelty means well with his feedback. I find it best to wait a few days and come back with a fresh perspective.

I have obtained wicke's blessing to finish off his expansions.

Therefore, here is another update:
Valois 0.5 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_5.pdf)

Comments are welcome.

I know that examples are required. Let me know where they might be necessary.

Edit: Sorted the link

That's interesting, the text says Pope, but the rules says Valois... interesting typo :)

I think this is more up to scratch than the Pope.

Rephrasing:
5 points are added to the A completed city with one large gold figure scores an additional 5 points. , but Howerver if a completed city contains both large gold figures , the city score is doubled the amount of points (even for after the scores for pennants, cathedrals and the Pope8 have been calculated).

Comment: This seems pretty broken for me.  This will make this expansion more and more unbalanced the more expansions one plays with and it seems as if it is designed as an anti-mega-Carc expansion.  I would suggest the doubling be for tiles only and maybe pennants.

Question for Joff: How does the scoring interact with the Jousting Tournament?

Comment: Example definately needed for the doubling with the cathedral and pope.  However, I think a scoring example (complete with image) is recommended but not necessary if the doubling does not include the Pope or cathedrals or anything else.

Valois 0.6 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_6.pdf)

Comments are welcome.

This version has an alternative form of scoring the city which I feel is easier to implement (i.e. I should not need to provide pictured examples). I have highlighted the undecided changes in red.

Comment: The term "majority" needs a footnote of some sort.  The official carc rules all have "have the most followers" instead of majority.

Comment: I like it better if the gold followers does not take part in the Jousting Tournament scoring, but the original is good as well.

Comment: I like the 15 extra points part for both the large gold figures.

Question: How does the doubling (if it's retained) "stack" with the children (kids are growing up)?

Things to think about.

Another update: Valois 0.7 (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_0_7.pdf)

Looks good to me!  No further comments from me :)

Will look through this version later,
but how come the part with double scores was so "difficult" to use ?
Treasure Hunt, for instance, even use triple scores for features when using Royal Landscape tiles.

The difficulty comes when you start to add fan made expansions. It becomes a very complex job to give an example for every double up. For instance, when do you double up when scoring with the Pope? After the Pope has given his bonus or before? A seperate example would be needed. What about doubling up when using Kids? (This is the same reason why Kids scoring has also been changed in the latest release) If one were to keep the original Kids doubling scoring method, should you double the doubled score? This could amount to massive unassailable scores during a game and put one player so far ahead that it would be impossible for any other players to catch up (in the original scoring method for Kids the same question in reverse would also apply if Valois retains the original double up method of scoring). The easiest solution is to add a higher bonus for having 2 Valois members in a city.

An example might prove useful here. Let's assume that Kids and Valois retain the original double up scoring rules and a game is being played with both fan-made expansions and I&C. A player has a completed Cathedral city with 2 pennants over 8 tiles. He has both Valois family members within the city and both Children deployed (I know this is far fetched, but it is possible ;) ). The score for the basic city would be 30 points (8 tiles at 3 points each, 2 pennants at 3 points each). Now you calculate the double-up for the two Valois family members, bring the total to 60 points. After this, as there are two children present, you would double the score again. Now this brings the total to 120 points!!! 120 points for an 8 tiled Cathedral city! Clearly, this would be rather silly. With the changed scoring rules the total score in this situation would be 69 points (30 points for the finished Cathedral city, 15 points for the two Valois family members and  24 points for the two Children), and this is still quite high, but it is a better reward should you manage to get all these pieces into a city. 120 points would really be a massive reward in this situation.

Just with a simple addition of the Royal Cathedral (in Treasure Hunt) to a 8-tile city with 2 pennants would make 90 points, and that is also very high.
I know that there is only one Royal Cathedral tile in the game, but it is also quite difficult to get both children and both Valois family members into the same city.
Strange, I never thought that I would have to make house-rules to my own expansions, but I guess I will have to now.

This is where the difficulty lies in fan-made expansions and that is exactly the reason for the proposed changes. Otherwise, with the original rules to Valois and Kids, you will be looking at scoring 240 points! (8 tiles at 2 points each plus 2 pennants at 2 points each multiplied by 3 (Royal Cathedral, =60 points), multiplied by 2 (both Children, =120 points), multiplied by 2 (both Valois family members, =240 points). I agree that the 90 is very high, but that is a more sensible reward for managing to get both Children and both Valois family members into the Royal Cathedral city than the 240 points. The doubling proposal just does not scale well with other fan made expansions. If you are not happy with any changes, as i've said before, they are your rules and you are free to keep the doubling up as you wish. My changes are just suggestions at present. Personally, I don't actually like giving  rules for other fan-made expansions in my documents. I prefer to leave them as if they were being added to a basic Carcassonne game. The Medieval Expansion being the exception here as I wanted to release them together as a package of four and so it necessitated compiling rules so they could interact. However, I have included rules to other fan-made expansions at the request of others in my documents.


It would indeed be difficult, but not impossible! ;)


What would be your house rules then? Doubling up? Or would you suggest that my suggestion become house rules?

I can see your point with scores being blown up over proportions, but then I don't see how Treasure Hunt could "get away" with the triple scores rule, wouldn't it be an idea to keep that score down as well then.

House-rule would be to keep the double score, or to get away from house-rules maybe we can make the scores for the Valois members a little higher and skip the doubling part.
Maybe 20-25 points for both would be enough but the problem with that is that it will then be possible to get too much points for small cities.
That was the reason for the doubling part to begin with, not to make it easy to get large amounts of points for small cities.

Well it would be, but that would be Maulei's decision. However, scoring the Royal Cathedral is not quite the same as the doubling up in Valois or Kids. A completed Royal Cathedral scores for tiles and pennants only and not for outside influence (because the rules of Treasure Hunt calculate the score in a different way, it is not clear that it is per tile and pennant; tripling a city's value, using Treasure Hunt rules, is the same as saying 6 points per tile and pennant).

An example being (assuming original Valois rules), if the two Valois family members were in the Royal Cathedral city, the Royal Cathedral would still score the same points for each tile and pennant (6 points each), the Valois family members have no influence on the scoring (without the Valois family members the points per tile and pennant would be the same). The points stay the same for the Royal Cathedral if the Children are present also. This is not the case for the original Valois, as their scoring is a doubling up of the overall score for the city, which can balloon very quickly when working the overall score out via doubling using other fan made expansions. The Royal Cathedral does not have the same problem.

If the bonus is a round number (such as my suggested 15, or your 20, or if the scoring is based on per tile (or per tile and pennant) the problem disappears.

I am happy to assist with input to any fan-made expansion, but as I have been concentrating on Valois, Kids and Pope, offering to give you a hand with them (and hosting the pdfs) it is these that I have been looking at and pondering on others comments and my own feelings. Again, they are not my rules (you receive the credit at the end of it) and it is your decision ultimately to make regarding the direction of your expansions. If you are not happy with any comments or changes then you can revert back to your original plan as you see fit.

Edit: Spellings and slight rewording to make sense.

Final release for this expansion: The House of Valois (Ver 1) (http://www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/files/Valois_1.pdf)

Now available at Public Downloads (http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=62).