HiG, turn structure, & the CAR

[mjharper]

New news  :

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote off a fairly long mail to HiG about a contradiction from the last correspondence, and just got a reply. Here's my question:

I have a question about your answer to the following question ;-)

Question: If I have an Abbey left and I pick the very last tile up and play it to an feature where I have a Builder, then is the game over because the last tile (apart from Abbeys) has been played?  Or am I allowed to play my Abbey on my extra turn from the Builder?
Answer: The abbey may still be played. The builder-turn is not an extra turn, but a part of the regular turn (the double-turn). Both parts of the double-turn are identical, although the fairy (3rd expansion), for example, only gives bonus points at the start of the player’s turn, and a figure can  also only be moved to Carcassonne (Count) once.

"and a figure can also only be moved to Carcassonne (Count) once." - Doesn't that contradict the rules from Count, King and Consorts? It says there the following:

However, if a player has a double turn—because of the builder— a follower may be deployed to Carcassonne in both parts of the turn.

So, I thought that a turn basically had five 'phases':

1. Beginning (e.g. fairy points)
2. Tile placement
3. Deploy follower
4. Score completed features
5. End (e.g. escape via a cloister, ransom a prisoner)

The double-turn means, if I've understood correctly, that phases 2-4 are carried out twice:

1. Beginning (e.g. fairy points)
a2. Tile placement
a3. Deploy follower
a4. Score completed features
b2. Tile placement
b3. Deploy follower
b4. Score completed features
5. End (e.g. escape via a cloister, ransom a prisoner)

Deploying a follower to Carcassonne is triggered by phase 4 (scoring). So in a double-turn it should be theoretically possible to do it twice—or have I got something wrong?

The answer:

You're completely right. I've just checked through the rules and naturally have to agree with you. The player can deploy two figures to Carcassonne.

Something tells me that in both parts of the turn a condition has to be fulfilled. But I could be imagining it.

Still, a minor correction: prisoners can be bought back at any time during a turn. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to deploy them in the same turn.

If this just confirms what's already written in the rules, why does it warrant a new topic?

Because I want to suggest that, as a tacit acceptance of the turn structure I described, it should be used in the CAR, replacing the old structure of:

1. Place a tile
2. Deploy a follower
3. Score completed features

That structure is taken from the Big Box, which uses it for the basic game, and then 'imposes' onto the other expansions. I followed that in the CAR. But because that structure is from the basic game, it doesn't really suit the later expansions which include beginnings, ends and double-turns. The result is a certain amount of confusion, as I'm sure you're aware.

I'd like to use the structure I used in the CAR, but that will move the CAR one step further away from being a translation. I know that's one of my pet topics, and nobody else much cares, but I'd like some community discussion and approval before I do it.

So, and issues with the structure or the proposal?

[Joff]

That seems fine. I can't see any major issues with this

[dwhitworth]

As usual I am more verbose than Joff 

The Proposal:

I think it is very important for the CAR to be comprehensive, authoritative, useful and easy to understand. It seems to me that these objectives are way more important than adherence to the role of being just an accurate translation. It can be frustrating and confusing to have to plow through footnotes to get to the crux of a ruling. The notes and the history and the translation issues all need to be there for reference: they are important. But the most useful role of the CAR (IMHO) is that of a complete reference to the rules of mega Carc (or some subset thereof). It seems to me that the clarity required by this role necessarily means straying from the absolute translation objective and I would support that – probably to a far greater extent than Matt would be comfortable with!!

The Structure:

• It may be worth noting that the issue of double turns and the confusions arising only occur if you are playing one or more of the Princess, Tower and Cathar expansions. In all other combinations a double turn is exactly the same as two single turns.
       
• The fairy point must be taken first – it is in the rules. It is also clear that it can only occur once.
       
• The Cathar rescue can only occur once, and the rules say that it must be “at the end of a player’s turn”. While this has always been interpreted as meaning the very end it is not entirely clear to me that it must be at the end of the double turn. As long as it only happens once, could it not occur after the first turn - freeing up the meeple for deployment in the second one?  Frankly it would be simpler if it were only at the end of the second turn – and we play it that way – but I wonder if that needs clarification.
       
• Prisoner ransom should not be confined to the end of the turn as the rules say that the meeple can be redeployed in the current turn. We have mostly played that it occurs at the start of the turn – logically at the same place as the fairy point. But with HiG’s comment that it can occur only once, but at any time, I wonder if the structure might not allow it to occur at any time. A player may not want to ransom a meeple when they see the first tile, but after adding to a builder-feature they may want to ransom the prisoner before the second deployment.
       
• Thus (subject to comments/clarifications of items above) the structure might become :
       
  • Fairy point assigned and optionally ransom prisoner
  • Start basic turn
                       
    • Draw tile and optionally ransom a prisoner if you have not already done so
    • Place tile
    • Deploy
    • Score and then allow Cathar escape if not already done
                       
       
  • If builder play allows and you have not already done so then repeat basic turn
       

Sorry to be so long winded, but I have struggled with his and would like to see it clarified for new players in the future . . .

[mjharper]

You're right, double-turns are only a problem with certain expansions; but I feel that having a structure which clarifies the nature of the double turn from the outset would be helpful. I'd also include a more detailed discussion in the CAR, explaining the rationale behind the structure.

But the main problem is that we have no idea how many expansions for Carc there will be, and how many of those will use the 'beginning' and 'end' phases. Your suggested structure, for example, blurs the distinction between escape (at the end of the turn) and deploying a follower to Carcassonne (triggered by scoring). We need to keep that distinction clear, because it might come up again.

I agree that we could as exactly when escape occurs, but I think it's logical that it will really occur at the very end, and not before. There's no rule which say that a knight can escape and be redeployed in the same turn—as a ransomed follower can. Also, you have to remember that you aren't eligible to escape a second follower after the second scoring of a double turn—and more importantly, you have to explain to other players that they can't. That's pretty opaque ruling. And if we have to be careful with obstreperous players deserving of defenestration (sorry )in the case of u-turns, then we should avoid giving them such ammo here as well.

To be honest, I see no value to allowing escape after first scoring except your own advantage It confuses, and nothing else…

[dwhitworth]

.........There's no rule which say that a knight can escape and be redeployed in the same turn—as a ransomed follower can. ......

This is true and what's more the rules say that the piece must be "returned to [the player's] supply". So all in all that seems a convincing argument for limiting escape to the end of the whole turn. I agree it simplifies - as I said above.

I notice that both Alderon and John Sweeney treat the prisoner ransom as a pre-basic turn activity like fairy points. It sure would simplify the game and the structure of the turn if that were the only place for it, but HiG say "at any time". The rules just say " . . . during their turn a player may decide to pay the ransom . . . "

So I'm Ok with your suggested structure given that somehow the ransom of prisoners can be done other than just at the end. Perhaps it can be omitted altogether at this point although that leaves out the benefit of pointing out that it can only occur once.

[Gantry]

I'd have to agree with this:

I think it is very important for the CAR to be comprehensive, authoritative, useful and easy to understand. It seems to me that these objectives are way more important than adherence to the role of being just an accurate translation. It can be frustrating and confusing to have to plow through footnotes to get to the crux of a ruling. The notes and the history and the translation issues all need to be there for reference: they are important. But the most useful role of the CAR (IMHO) is that of a complete reference to the rules of mega Carc (or some subset thereof). It seems to me that the clarity required by this role necessarily means straying from the absolute translation objective and I would support that – probably to a far greater extent than Matt would be comfortable with!!

It's not our fault that there are so many confusing points to how the expansions interact with the base game.  In the absence of that clarity, it may sometimes be necessary to offer different ways of looking at a ruling, or how it might interact with other rules.

[Scott]

As I understand it, we're only talking about changing that one page in the CAR that lists the order of stuff during a player's turn? If so, I think perhaps a bigger deal is being made of it than necessary. It's not a ground-shattering change to the translation to improve that one page to be more accurate when dealing with expansions. But if you're still concerned, strive to use the same writing style and make it blend in.

I like the five-step process, with steps 2-4 being repeated when necessary. I agree that escape via cloister should happen in step 5.

As has been mentioned above, and by HiG, a prisoner can be ransomed at ANY time during the turn. I get the impression that some people are seeing this as a syntactical dilemma, but there's a very easy solution to that. It becomes a note, separate from the ordered list, that prisoner buyback can occur at any time during the turn and only once per turn. Clear and concise.

[mjharper]

As I understand it, we're only talking about changing that one page in the CAR that lists the order of stuff during a player's turn? If so, I think perhaps a bigger deal is being made of it than necessary. It's not a ground-shattering change to the translation to improve that one page to be more accurate when dealing with expansions.

Actually, my plan was to change every instance of the old structure, including in the Basic Game. So wherever it says '1. Place a tile' it will now say '2. Place a tile'.

Obviously, all the games in the Big Box are direct translations. All the other stuff has been reorganised in the Big Box 'style'—which basically means I've followed the 1, 2, 3 structure. But now if I switch to the 1-5 structure, then all of the text will be in the 'Matt' style, or 'CC' style. Sure, the idea of organising the material in that way will still be based on the Big Box, but the actual way of cutting the rules up will be new.

Also, as I've said elsewhere, the Big Box rules only refer backwards, not forwards—all the rules refer to previous expansions, but not future ones. So imposing a structure (1-5) which doesn't actually apply to the Basic Game, but only to future expansions, is something of an anomaly.

So I think it's a minor change to the actual text, but fairly significant change in the underlying rationale of the CAR.

[Scott]

Hmm... I have a hard time visualizing how that will pan out. With the basic game, there is nothing to say for #1, and it would look strange starting at #2.

I think it would be better (and less obtrusive) to just change the turn summary page which comes after and is separate from all the rules.

[dwhitworth]

Can we not refer to "The Basic Turn" of the game which is the three step turn defined in the basic game - and which is used with many expansions without change.

Then we have expansions where there are additional actions that take place only once, either before the "Basic Turn" (fairy point), or after it (escape form Cathar city) or, in the case of prisoner ransom, at any time during it.

Then you say that when a player has a builder he may (under the right conditions) be able to draw a tile and repeat the "Basic Turn": once.

If that does not jibe exactly with the wording the publisher uses, well, that is because the publisher has not taken the responsibility to be precise and clarify the rules well enough . . . and we might as well do it  . . . for the sake of the players.  Power to the Meeples

[mjharper]

@dwithworth—I feel that generating two sets of the structure—one for the basic game, and one for expansions—would just add to the confusion.

@Scott—you're right, #1 would be empty for the basic game. But I'd leave it in, and add in some explanation about why (perhaps even in the main body of the text, rather than a footnote). Say something like 'This section is included because several expansions have actions before the basic turn starts, and for the sake of consistency I felt it better to incorporate the same structure throughout the rules. See 'Xyz' for more details'.

[Tobias]

You could just call the first step in the turn order: Step 0

[mjharper]

Not a bad idea, that…

[Scott]

Tobias wins for the day.

[dwhitworth]

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?