dragon and builder

[Scott]

I think when we try to clear things up for others, we end up confusing each other.

[canada steve]

Gents I am not confused in the least.

He stated that on his first tile placement he had completed a city with the builder in it. Now as the city is completed it is scored and the peiced are removed, hence no second tile as the builder is no longer on the table.

Also if the dragon has eaten the builder again it is not in play so you cannot get a second tile.

I am prepared to be proved wrong on this but fail to see how a second turn can be played if the builder is no longer in play.

[Joff]

I think you are wrong there, steve.

If the city is completed which contains the builder, the double-turn is allowed. The placement of the tile that has completed the city has also extended the city. The builder is removed at that point and scoring takes place. The builder can then be re-deployed on the placement of the double-turn tile (if legal).

The rules state this and graphically illustrate this very action (although in the rules illustration, it's a road that has been completed which the builder is on).

It is detailed on page 22 of the CAR (Ver. 4.1) 

[dwhitworth]

My question unnecessarily included two issues here - because of the way this arose in our game.  I think that may be confusing.

First: if the feature containing the builder is completed (and the builder later removed at the scoring step) is the second turn allowed.

I agree with Joff et al  on this one. The rules are clear that: completion involves extension (except with the Abbey) and that occurs long before the scoring at the end of the turn. The rule is:

"Whenever the player places a tile that extends the road or city which includes their builder, they may take a double turn."

Note that this does not say something like "At the end of their turn, after scoring, if they have placed a tile  . . . . . "

Second: If the dragon eats a builder on a feature that was extended in this turn (by placement of the dragon symbol tile) then does the builder still count. I realize  now that this is an issue whether or not the feature was completed - as it was in our game.

Once again the arguments on this thread have convinced me that the second turn is taken as the builder's bonus comes into effect at placement of the extending tile - which occurs before the dragon moves.

@canada steve Convinced?   

[canada steve]

Sorry gents not convinced and that is not how we play.

If the builder is not physically on the table then no second turn is allowed.

The rule is:

"Whenever the player places a tile that extends the road or city which includes their builder, they may take a double turn."

Note that this does not say something like "At the end of their turn, after scoring, if they have placed a tile  . . . . . "

Do you see that it says when a feature is extended, NOT completed. So I still fail to see how you can have a second turn if the builder is physically there to carry out the  action.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that the rules are wrong. No builder in play = no second turn.

Try playing it my way and see what a difference it makes as the builder does not become such a powerful piece this way.

[Joff]

Sorry gents not convinced and that is not ow we play.

Then you are playing a variant, steve.

The rules state:

3rd Edition rules (CAR translation):

"The player can deploy a follower to the second tile as well as to the the first. If a road or city is completed by the placement of the first tile, then the player may deploy the newly-returned builder to the second tile."

and the RGG Big Box rules:

"The player may place a follower on either or both tiles placed in a double turn. If the city or road is completed on
the first turn, the player can place the returned builder on his second turn."

and the RGG Traders and Builders expansion rules:

"If the road is completed with the placement of the first tile (the player gets the builder and thief back), the player may place the builder on the 2nd tile."

Whatever rules you use in your games, that statement in the rules would be impossible if the builder must still be on the table to play the second tile!

The graphics in all versions of the rules show clearly this very thing happening.

I think you are getting confused over the 'extend' wording. A city that is completed has been extended. The builders job is now done (he allows the 'double-turn'), the city is scored and meeple/s and builder are returned to your supply. You now draw the 'double-turn' second tile and place it, re-deploying a follower to it if you wish (this may include your newly returned builder if legal to do so, as per the rule above).

So, if you are not convinced by the rules themselves, I conclude that you are playing a variant.

[Edit] Just to clarify, the Abbey tile is different. No road or city is ever 'extended' by the placement of the 'Abbey' tile. Cities and Roads are brought, in this case, to an abrupt halt. If a builder is on any road or city which is completed by the placement of an 'Abbey' tile, the city/road is scored and followers returned to that player's supply, but a double-turn is not allowed (as mentioned already, for a clarification of the scoring in this case see: www.john-warren.co.uk/carcassonne/abbey_tile.htm).

[canada steve]

Again I state that the rules are wrong.

If you COMPLETE a city or road containing a builder, then the builder is removed and scored therefore the second tile should not be allowed as the builder is no longer in play.

If you EXTEND a feature with a builder in it (not complete) then a second turn should be a allowed as the builder is still in play.

This I feel is the correct way to play this piece. It allows for you to get a feature possibly built quicker and scored but once completed then the BONUS it provides is removed along with the piece.

[mjharper]

At the point when you started to argue that the rules are wrong, you lost the argument. Sorry. No offence intended.

Now, if you want to me to write and check, I'm happy to do so. But I will effectively be asking for mere confirmation that the rules are in fact correct.

[canada steve]

Matt feel free to check what the company feels on this. I think that the rules are incorrect and if you play the game the way I suggest it makes for a better game.

When you ask them please ensure that you put my suggestion of how it should work to them and not just ask for confirmation as sometimes even the originator can be wrong.

If you feel that they are correct all the time then I can see no pint in having a discussion about the rules.

Oh and by the way Matt I didnt "lose" anything as I was under the impression that this wasa healthy debate and not some sort of tordrid competition where points are scored.

[Scott]

The fact that they explicitly mention this situation in the rules seems pretty clear to me that they intended the builder to work this way.

We need to be able to rely on the accuracy of the rules to be able to make judgements when a player has a question about a situation where the rules are not clear. Arguing that the rules are wrong completely destroys that reliability. Anything that goes against the rules is a variant. If HiG decides to change the rules, then we abide by the new rules.

If you want to make the builder being in play a requirement for the double-turn, then you should also be restricting the placement of the second tile to the feature on which the builder is located, and that isn't always feasible if the tile drawn does not fit with that feature. In this particular situation, I don't think the rules should be changed.

[mjharper]

I'll ask. No problem.

The point of discussing the rules is that we interpret them. To interpret we necessarily start out from the idea that the rules themselves are 'correct'—that is, they are evidence. They may be vague, they may be confusing, they may even seem inconsistent. But they are the only source of information we have, and feelings about how the game 'should' be are irrelevant other than, as Joff said, as variants or house rules. If we start from the idea that we can decide the rules are wrong, we might as well give up having a discussion altogether.

I mean to say that all these discussions must begin: "The rules say this—what does it mean?" And not: "The rules say this—but I think this." That's a dead-end.

And the sense of 'lose' I was getting at was also perfectly normal, and involved in any discussion (without being a competition). You were trying to convince others that you were right, and they were wrong. They were trying to do the same (notice I kept out of this debate after my first comment—that was intentional). If you had convinced the others you were right, you would have 'won' and they would have 'lost'. No point scoring involved—the opposite in fact, because our understanding of the game would have moved forward. But by challenging the basic assumption of the debate—that the rules we have are the starting point—you removed yourself from the argument. After that, nothing you said or anyone else said would convince the 'opponent'.

Imagine this: I write to HiG and ask what happens when… and I spell out both positions clearly. They write back and say option A is correct. Now what happens if someone (you, me, anyone) says that this ruling is wrong? Where can a discussion possibly go?

And I don't believe that the rules are always consistent. We had the situation with the last set of FAQ with placing followers in CC twice in a builder turn. The FAQ was wrong. But we figured that out by seeing a contradiction with the printed rules. In other words, either the FAQ was right, or the printed rules were right. But that isn't the same as the current discussion, when there is no other documentary evidence to suggest the rules are wrong.

Sorry, I didn't wish to labour the point, and I'm not attacking you.

[dwhitworth]

At the point when you started to argue that the rules are wrong, you lost the argument.

Matt is technically right. The rules are neither right nor wrong – you just have to live with them.

BUT. There are two ways that Steve could have a point. He could argue that the interpretation of the rules is wrong. In response to Joff he does not seem to be doing that; he accepts the rules but still says they are “wrong”.

Or, by “wrong” maybe he means that the rules “don't make sense” (to him) and that he has found a way of playing that does make sense.

In Carc the rules don't have to “make sense” if by that we mean they must conform to reality. The game is full of unreal constructions. The rules only have to make sense in that they must be internally consistent and not contradictory or ambiguous. (And when they are; we have the CAR)

But players often develop their own constructs to make sense of certain moves and actions. This is partly to remember how it works and partly to help predict a sensible choice when faced with a novel game situation that is not explicitly covered in the rules. This often helps but can be misleading.

My own (much revised) construct about the builder is that when you place a tile that extends a feature where he resides you “discover” that he has industriously been working for you and has already finished the work. So you score “his work” and then can take another tile to do “your work”. This is of course arbitrary personal nonsense, but it helps explain to newbies; it fits the rules; and can clarify some other situations for me – (Well, I did have to invent a very nasty real estate-grabbing Abbott but that's another story . . ).

So Steve says, “I still fail to see how you can have a second turn if the builder is [not] physically there to carry out the action.” He misses the point that there is nothing in the rules that talks of a builder carrying out an action. The rules say that if the builder is in the right place at the right time the PLAYER may carry out an action.

But Steve may be quite reasonably (for him), attributing the cause of the new tile to the builder because it fits with his way of making sense of the game's unreal concept about a builder on a road causing an event in a player's turn (awesome metaphysics for the builder!). His construct is different to mine, but suits him. Unfortunately it conflicts with the rules.

If that same piece had been called a “pot of gold” where there is nothing for it to do but “pay”, the problem might have never arisen. It is hard to attribute an action to a pot of gold. And we might all have had different stories that easily fit the rules.

The construct often helps, but it is valid only until it conflicts with the rules. Then you need a new construct; or just follow the rules; or go ahead and enjoy a variant.

@canada steve: I apologize if I presume too much – just trying to help 

[Joff]

I seem to have lost a merit point again? For what, may I ask? 

[canada steve]

Please stop using the word argue. I am trying to conduct a civilized discussion about what I feel is wrong or right. I am not arguing as that achieves nothing and always degenerates into slanging matches.

[mjharper]

I seem to have lost a merit point again? For what, may I ask? 

Come one, own up…

Seriously though, there is no way to know how or why. If no-one is forthcoming (unlikely) I'll add a point in a day or two…

@dwhitworth: I know it's only 'technically' correct, and I know there's a huge 'but'. The point was that the discussion had spiralled out of the context in which it could be a discussion, precisely because it had stopped being a case of interpreting the rules. It had become a vicious circle, and I was trying to put an end to that. I'm sorry if it came across harshly.

Many people dislike the 'only immediate u-turns are banned' rule, and think it's illogical and stupid. I've seen epic threads point out in detail why it doesn't work. But it is the rule, and unquestionably the rule, and we have to live with that, as you said. If you want to use a different rule, that's absolutely fine. If you think the rule would be better if it was changed, that's fine too. If you think the rule isn't in the spirit of the game, that's also okay. There's just a big difference between 'the rules are wrong' (e.g. the contradiction with CC placement I mentioned earlier) and 'I don't like them'. The moment these get mixed up, the problem becomes insoluble.

I hope I'm not digging myself into an even deeper hole. Maybe I should shut up…