Dragon and castles

[peterjpromnitz]

I've checked the CAR but can't seem to find the answer to this question (I apologise if I've missed something obvious):

When the dragon moves and the path includes a castle, which tile does the meeple sit on - it seems to straddle two tiles. We play that the dragon removes the meeple if it crosses either tile but I'd like some opinions from experienced players.

Peter

[peterjpromnitz]

Further to my earlier question, the same issue arises with towers - if one of the two castle tiles in in range of the tower piece being played, can the meeple be taken prisoner?

Peter

[CKorfmann]

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe this question is on our list to ask HiG.  I don't remember it being answered officially yet.  I could be wrong...

[neosatan]

I think that i nad similiar question here. I remember that there were no official answer. Most players in the topic agree that meeple is removed from castle when tower or dragon affects either tile.

[Carcking]

I believe it is on that list CK and I don't believe it's been answered officially. This has become pretty much a house rule issue without that ruling. We play that if either tile is targeted by the dragon or tower then the castle meeple is taken. It's the way that is most objective. You can't have the player saying his meeple is on one particular tile of the castle and therefore safe then several turns later saying he is on the other tile when the dragon or tower comes around again. It would be too subjective.

[neosatan]

I agree. But (there is always a 'but') castle is design to defend and I encounter players that plays castle in way that meeple on it is safe from dragon or tower. Get is also a good point. Since you risk putting meeple on castle. Cloister or city for two points could be complete in the neighborhood  there should be some protection. I play that meeples can be removed on righter tile but I can seen argumets for rotection. Can't wait for official rules.

[Carcking]

Here's another option for resolving it. You could say the meeple is safe unless the dragon steps on both tiles in that round. If the dragon steps on just one of the tiles during the dragon move for that round then the meeple is safe. Also, for the tower the meeple is safe unless both tiles are within range of a single tower. These scenarios provide some level of protection for the castle meeple but it is not completely safe.

[alexp2_ad]

We've always played the rule that the meeple is on the original square it would have be played on if the castle wasn't involved; either the first tile of the castle, if the meeple was on that, or the tile that completed the castle if there wasn't a meeple on the first tile.

We leave the meeple at one edge of the castle to be clear about which square it's in.

We decided this rule was the fairest, as the meeple still only occupies one tile.


One additional question to this: what does everyone do when the meeple has been taken off the tile?  We play that the castle is returned to the owner of the meeple, because if it's left on the board then it's an empty but technically incomplete castle which shouldn't count for a field and should be stealable with a portal.  That would get hard to keep track of, as there's no way to see that it hasn't been completed so we return the castle with the meeple (in the same way a builder is returned if your last meeple on a city is eaten).  I'd be interested to know what everyone else does?

[Scott]

The following is just my opinion, but I like to think that it is an informed one.

From a legal standpoint, the meeple moves to the castle when it is constructed. Furthermore, the castle occupies both of the tiles upon which it lies. Directly, the meeple does not occupy either tile. Indirectly, it occupies both tiles, so if a dragon or tower attacks either tile the meeple should be taken prisoner. Once the meeple is removed from the castle, the castle should remain where it is since the rules state that castles remain until the end of the game. It may be reoccupied via a magic portal if playing with P&D.

The rules for BC&B are very careful to use the generic term "follower", but I think a case could be made that followers in castles can be considered equivalent to knights, and therefore you could have a house rule that would allow followers to be deployed to castles from the City of Carcassonne (Count expansion). However, I suspect this was probably not intended and could likely be vetoed by HiG.

[neosatan]

Yep. But I see a problem in this. How do you distinct uncomplete castle without follower with a complete castle? I really like that most of the features is easy to distinct...

[Scott]

It looks like they don't want us to score on subsequent completed adjacent features, so the castles would need to be temporarily marked using something like the green wooden discs from Hunters and Gatherers.

[CKorfmann]

I haven't figured out a Tower fix yet, but I'd say if the dragon hit the two tiles of the castle consecutively, then the follower would be 'eaten'.  Otherwise, he'd be safe. 

[Carcking]

Here's our take on it:
When the first feature in the vicinity of the castle is completed the castle is completed - whether it's scored or not. The magic gate is allowed for incomplete, unoccupied features. If there is any completed feature in the vicinity of a vacant castle the magic gate cannot be used to enter it - the castle is already completed (whether it was ever scored is not relevant).

[Carcking]

I haven't figured out a Tower fix yet, but I'd say if the dragon hit the two tiles of the castle consecutively, then the follower would be 'eaten'.  Otherwise, he'd be safe. 

You also have the Plague to deal with, among others.

[Carcking]

It makes the most sense that the follower is on both tiles. Any mechanic affecting either tile affects the follower. IMHO