HiG, turn structure, & the CAR

[Scott]

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

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

[dwhitworth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now my brain hurts 

[Tobias]

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

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

[mjharper]

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

Here's an example of what I mean:

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

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

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

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

[dwhitworth]

OK, one last post and I will shut up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I will shut up as promised.

[Tobias]

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