dragon and builder

[dwhitworth]

I would like some help with this one. We were playing tonight and this situation arose.

A player extends and completes a city with a tile that has a dragon symbol. The city has a knight and a builder belonging to the player that placed the tile. The dragon moves (before scoring) and eventually eats the builder. The dragon does not eat the knight (who in this case had fairy protection). The city is scored and the knight counts toward majority – in this case there was only one knight.

Does the player get a second “builder” turn?

The rules say, “Whenever the player places a tile that extends the road or city which includes their builder, they may take a double turn. ”

So if dragon eats builder, does the feature still “include” the builder?

What if the dragon had also eaten the knight?

[mjharper]

I'd say yes, even though the builder is eaten, you get a double turn. The rule you quoted states that the double turn is 'triggered' by placing the tile. It would make no sense if you placed a legitimate extension, and then couldn't actually take a double turn for a completely separate reason.

Remember that, in your example, the city has been completed; even without the dragon, the builder and knight will be removed before the second part-turn occurs. All the dragon in fact does is transfer that removal to before scoring, rather than after.

[Tobias]

I somewhat reluctantly agree with mjharper. The event is triggered, and moving the dragon is considered to be a pause (I think that is what the rules say?).

[Scott]

I agree with Matt, with more enthusiasm than Tobias. The double turn was triggered before the builder became lunch.

[Joff]

Absolutely. I add my agreement along with Matt, Tobias and Scott.

[dwhitworth]

Thanks everyone. Nice to have general agreement from all.

[canada steve]

Yep no second turn there Im afraid, especially as you had completed the city and builders only alow for continuation of a feature.

Dont you just love that dragon

[Scott]

Steve has apparently chosen an opposing viewpoint. We now have ourselves a debate.

It is my understanding that when drawing a tile during the builder-induced second part of a turn, said tile does not need to be connected to the feature on which the builder is located.

The double turn was triggered before the builder was eaten, so the rest of us have sort of already concluded that the player is allowed to continue with the second half of the double turn.

[dwhitworth]

I agree with Scott here. The second tile can be played anywhere legal. The rules find it necessary to state that

There is no chain reaction. If the play continues the road or city which includes their builder, they may not draw a third tile.

Seems to me that this implies the tile can be (or  maybe usually is) played other than to cause a chain reaction. I think there was a FAQ or a footnote on this too, but I can't find it now.

On the original issue I am now happy with the ruling that says the builder's work was done prior to becoming dragon food.

[Joff]

Adding yet again an agreement that the builder was not eaten 'before' the extension/completion of a the city concerned, so the 'double-turn' is allowed.
Also, that the 'double-turn' is allowed to be taken if the tile extends or completes the feature which houses the builder and that the 'double-turn' tile can be placed anywhere.

[dwhitworth]

At the risk of being pedantic - "extend or completes" is no longer correct.

The recent set of Q&A that Matt got back from HiG clarified that the builder only allows a double turn if the feature is extended. In the vast majority of cases the completion of a city or road necessarily requires that feature to be extended by the tile just played - which has a bit of city or road on it. So in these cases extension and completion amount to the same thing.

However, if you complete a city or road by laying an Abbey tile, you complete it but do not extend it - the Abbey has no bit of road or city on it. The clarification said that in this case the feature was not extended and the builder does not allow an extra turn.

Footnote 47  in the CAR (where the reference in the rules is now to "extends" only)  reads:

This is a change from the original rules, which stated that the tile must “complete or extend” the feature. The
abbey tile from Abbey and Mayor completes but does not extend a feature. The RGG edition of the Big Box
also changes this rule.

[Scott]

I'm going to give Joff the benefit of the doubt and presume that he didn't forget that. (Thanks for reminding us, dwhitworth!)

What's important to keep in mind here is that the double turn is triggered when the feature on which the builder is located is extended. Extending the feature may or may not complete it, but completing a feature without extending it does not trigger a double turn. I suspect the confusion here lies in the scenario where a feature is extended AND completed. Completing the feature does not cancel the triggering of the double turn from the extension of the feature.

To be even more clear:
1. Feature is extended but not completed - double turn
2. Feature is extended and completed - double turn
3. Feature is completed by not extended - single turn

[Joff]

Yep no second turn there Im afraid, especially as you had completed the city and builders only alow for continuation of a feature.

I'm going to give Joff the benefit of the doubt and presume that he didn't forget that. (Thanks for reminding us, dwhitworth!)

Don't misunderstand me!

Sorry, I was trying to point out to canada steve that the feature is allowed to be completed or extended to actually extend the feature that the builder is on. In the case of the Abbey tile, this is a completely different case entirely (which I have pointed out at www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/abbey_tile.htm)
I think that canada steve misunderstands the builder 'double-turn' ruling here

[Scott]

I agree that Steve is probably the confused one here. Perhaps dwhitworth just got a little bit scared when you choose to put the word "completes" in bold?

[dwhitworth]

Scared? No. Just a bit too pedantic.  I wanted the point to be clear for anyone reading this thread who may not be as up to date as most of the regulars.

I did not mean to offend.