Princess & Dragon 2 questions

[Deatheux]

Hi there, i crawl all the FAQ part and didn't fnid anything...

1ne) a Princess tile is played in a city that has a BIG follower (RED) ans 1 small follower(blue), can the princess removes the BIG red follower OR must kick out the little blue first???

2wo) If a volcano is NOT in play yet(so the dragon is not in play), a player pick up a "moving dragon tile" CAN that very tile may still be played or due to the interpretation that a tile can not be resolved at 100% we have to discard the tils and draw a new one??

thx!

Deatheux.

[Novelty]

1. According to the CAR, the princess may remove either the Big red or the little blue or none at all.  Clarifications number 89, 90 and 91 in the old CAR... not sure what the new numbers are in the new CAR. 

2. The CAR says that if the dragon is not in play and the dragon tile is drawn, the tile is placed to one side and the player draws another tile to play.  After the dragon is in play, the tiles put aside are shuffled back into the supply and game continues.

I think the latest CAR (work in progress!?) is located here and discussed in this thread.  Please do correct me if I'm wrong...

[Deatheux]

ooooh! thanks!! the foot note #24 + 25 are speechless!!

[mathguy89]

In response to the dragon tile, when played with the River II this is no longer an issue, due to the fact that there is a volcano on the ending lake tile.  I understand this doesn't specifically answer your question, but it does give an option to avoid the situation entirely.

[canada steve]

Doesnt the rule state that the peice to be kicked out is at the choice of the player laying the tile. In this case if you are niether blue or red then the choice is yours. If you are either of these colors then it is still a simple choice !!

As for the Dragon yep if not in play the tile is put aside until dragon is in play. As said though if using River II this wont happen.

[Deatheux]

@canada steeve: please read the footnotes.

[canada steve]

What footnotes ? I have opened the CAR and canot see to what you may be alluding ? And there are no footnotes #24 and 25 for P&D that I can see.

[Joff]

The footnotes that Deatheux is referring to are in the downloadable individual P&D CAR pages and not the main complete CAR. So, for those using the main complete CAR, the footnotes 24 and 25 refer to footnotes 89 and 90 respectively.

[canada steve]

24 This is a change to the original rules, which stated that the princess must remove a knight, unless there was no knight in the city at
all. The change brings the procedure in line with that of the tower: both may remove a follower if the player wishes.
The RGG edition of the Big Box still says that princesses must remove a follower.
25 This clarification is based on a FAQ, and constitutes a slight rule change. According to an FAQ, the big follower could only be
removed from a city when there were no other knights. A big follower is now removed from the city just like any other.

So what are you banging on about me reading them for ? You dont make sense, what I said was fine.

Oh and in the CAR 89 is in Cathars.

[Deatheux]

25 This clarification is based on a FAQ, and constitutes a slight rule change. According to an FAQ, the big follower could only be
removed from a city when there were no other knights. A big follower is now removed from the city just like any other.

i din't have time to scrool out the document!!

this was the sentence i was talking, sorry for ma procrastination!!!

[Joff]

Oh and in the CAR 89 is in Cathars.

Just to clarify the situation. I am not on anyones 'side' in this issue and I certainly do not want to appear this way!
My intention was just to clarify the footnote descrepancies between Deatheux's footnote references (where he was reading from) and the 'complete' CAR references, so that others following the thread understand where they are coming from. I took the footnotes (89 & 90) using the CAR Version 4.1, available in the member downloads, which, at present, is the current issue (version 5 being a beta). I'm not meaning to offend and for the record, I did not understand why the reference to the footnotes were made anyway

So no offence guys

[Deatheux]

i am a bit ashame of this, but i din't want to @$%# someone off!!

the complete annotate rules is a GREAT document ut the hundreds of footnotes makes it a bit hard to follow...

[denalin]

i am a bit ashame of this, but i din't want to @$%# someone off!!

the complete annotate rules is a GREAT document ut the hundreds of footnotes makes it a bit hard to follow...

Because neither RGG or HiG has produced a complete, up-to-date rulebook for the base game and all expansion sets in 3rd edition rules, fans (specifically 'mjharper') have to produce a complete rulebook.  Because there is often confusion as to what the real rules are, and who in the community is correct, the vast amount of annotations were added as proof of legitimacy and further explanation. (right?)

I think a more concise rulebook without any annotations, variants, or tilecounts would be nice (to have released alongside the annotated rulebook).

[mjharper]

Because neither RGG or HiG has produced a complete, up-to-date rulebook for the base game and all expansion sets in 3rd edition rules, fans (specifically 'mjharper') have to produce a complete rulebook.  Because there is often confusion as to what the real rules are, and who in the community is correct, the vast amount of annotations were added as proof of legitimacy and further explanation. (right?)

That's certainly part of it. But there's a couple of other things about the annotations too.

• It's important to remember that the CAR are still translations of the original German rules. That, of course, is about legitimacy too—if I just wrote my own version of the rules, there would be endless debates about a given rule and whether my expression of it is appropriate. That still happens, of course, but as a translation we always have something we can refer back to in order to solve disputes. My translation may be wrong, but it's wrong because it doesn't correctly convey the original. BUT… as a translation, it means that I can't fill in the holes in the original text. The German rules are frequently updated to clarify misunderstandings, but where they haven't been updated, I have to use the footnotes to do that. Where they have been updated, I need to use the footnotes to point that out as well.
• The second major issue with the rules, and reason for so many footnotes, is that all of the rules only refer backwards to previous expansions, and not forward to subsequent ones. As the games are released, it's clear that will be the case—you can't refer to a game that hasn't been released yet—but even in significant redrafts and compilations like the Big Box, this backward looking approach was maintained. What I've tried to do with the CAR is also look forwards a bit, especially at points where the rules seem to be categorical, but actually aren't if you take account of later expansions.

I think a more concise rulebook without any annotations, variants, or tilecounts would be nice (to have released alongside the annotated rulebook).

Certainly, it might be useful, but I don't think it will happen, because of the translation factor I mentioned before. A CAR without the footnotes would be so incomplete as to be almost unusable. And, practically speaking, my time is limited. If I have a short version and a long version of the CAR, then every mistake has to be corrected twice. That's twice as much work, and believe me it adds up, especially in a document which is about 70 pages long at the moment. In the past I put out the rules for each individual expansion separately, but that's being abandoned for the same reason. (I'm sure there was a thread about this somewhere).

i am a bit ashame of this, but i din't want to @$%# someone off!!

the complete annotate rules is a GREAT document ut the hundreds of footnotes makes it a bit hard to follow...

No problem at all. I wish there was an easy solution, but I haven't come across one yet. I'm always open to suggestions.

[Novelty]

Well, I'm afraid of suggesting this in case I get lynched (again... the Facebook thread gives me nightmares... I wish I never opened up that can of worms...), but what about a Wiki?  Mediawiki gives the wiki software free (I think), and it is possible to lock pages so that only a select number of people can edit them, while making the whole thing viewable to the public.  Would that be a better solution instead?  The downside of course is that there won't be a nice printable version to be bound together, unless...

Thoughts?