Completely Annotated Rules - work in progress!

[CKorfmann]

I'm in favor of the Honorable Mention page.  I think it's appropriate to put something like LP there and perhaps even Labourer and Mendicant as was discussed since it is linked from the HiG page.  KJV's endorsement of LP seems, to me, to give credibility to it.  Perhaps Mehr Fluss could also be added to the Honorable Mentions as it seems to be the basis for River 2.  This could be a slippery slope, but I think it's worth discussion.

As a side note, in an effort to be exhaustive, it might also be appropriate to include a section that simply lists all the publications outside the base set and it's expansions.  It may be a good place to list Kreivi ja Kuningas and any others that fit the category as well as Hunters & Gatherers, et al. 

[The Broox]

I'm in favor of the Honorable Mention page.  I think it's appropriate to put something like LP there and perhaps even Labourer and Mendicant as was discussed since it is linked from the HiG page.

I am hesitant to include fan made expansions. I feel those were featured on the site more as a "you can even make up rules for that product we just sold you, see" rather than a "these are officially recognized expansions" kind of thing.

KJV's endorsement of LP seems, to me, to give credibility to it.

I agree but I feel that the Spanish publisher being behind it is a bigger deal.

Perhaps Mehr Fluss could also be added to the Honorable Mentions as it seems to be the basis for River 2.  This could be a slippery slope, but I think it's worth discussion.

I agreed with the slippery slope sentiment, you then get into lengthy discussions about what qualifies as "noteworthy" and the like. I think an "official releases only" line needs to be drawn and stuck to.

As a side note, in an effort to be exhaustive, it might also be appropriate to include a section that simply lists all the publications outside the base set and it's expansions.  It may be a good place to list Kreivi ja Kuningas and any others that fit the category as well as Hunters & Gatherers, et al.

I am not sure how I feel about this suggestion. I like including the spin offs but I feel KjK (and possibly GQ11, CSaC and LP) should be in a separate section since they are Carc expansions and not spin-offs. Perhaps a sister document would be better suited deal with all the spin-offs. A separate appendix file maybe.

[mjharper]

Perhaps a sister document would be better suited deal with all the spin-offs. A separate appendix file maybe.

Definitely. I don't own any of the spin-offs and have no interest in buying, translating and/or arranging a document around them. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm simply being honest. The CAR and my brain both benefit by staying focussed on the basic game.

[CKorfmann]

A wasn't advocating any translation of rules, or listing anything other than the names of the games.  Basically the same information as in THIS thread.

[The Broox]

Perhaps a sister document would be better suited deal with all the spin-offs. A separate appendix file maybe.

Definitely. I don't own any of the spin-offs and have no interest in buying, translating and/or arranging a document around them. I know that sounds harsh, but I'm simply being honest. The CAR and my brain both benefit by staying focussed on the basic game.

I am in the same boat.

[joshgambit]

Any word on how Beta 10 is coming along?  I have a project I'd like to try when we get a stable release.

Thanks!!!   

[rodrigotjader]

I've been considering translating this awesome document to Portuguese lately, as I've bought a few expansions and would like to have the rules accessible to people who don't speak English.

Would you be fine with that? In case yes, what do you think would be the best way to do it? I don't know what software you use to produce the document, so I don't know what would be easier, you sending me the source files, me sending you pure text translations, or something completely different.

[mjharper]

@The Broox: I haven't yet incorporated the updated turn summary. But apart from that I'm waiting for a reply from HiG (I wrote nearly two weeks ago, may have to remind them) and the releases of the new expansions. Everything else is done.

@rodrigotjader: The original document is in Pages (Mac only). If you have access to a Mac, that would be perfect 

[rodrigotjader]

@rodrigotjader: The original document is in Pages (Mac only). If you have access to a Mac, that would be perfect 

I don't have a Mac, but some quick research seems to show that it wouldn't be hard to edit the text, as it seems Pages' files are a zip file with the contents inside, and the main content file is XML formatted, so I'd like to try it. Being a XML file even makes it easier to keep up to date, as I can use diff to find what changed. If it ends up that I can't edit it this way I could try to get my hands at a Mac OS X copy to do it.

So, could you send the source file to me?

[The Broox]

@The Broox: I haven't yet incorporated the updated turn summary. But apart from that I'm waiting for a reply from HiG (I wrote nearly two weeks ago, may have to remind them) and the releases of the new expansions. Everything else is done.

Thanks for the update, but I wasn't the one who asked.

[MrNumbers]

I have a question, and I think, answer to this question is worth to be included in CAR:
In Inns&Cathedrals expansion there is one tile (CRCR), that was replaced in Big Box version (the question was about junction in the middle). My question is: what happens when this tile ends the city, in which a player has a wagon - can a wagon drive to another city part in this tile, or drive to the road part. The same is about roads: if with this tile road is completed with wagon on it, can the wagon drive to the city?

[Scott]

This isn't a good place to debate/discuss this, but I would say that the road is indeed there. Because you cannot put a meeple on the short parts, the wagon would move directly to the other city or one of the perpendicular road sections.

[henrysunset]

I understand after spending some time looking at the table of contents in 5.0b9 that the indented expansions are minor and the other ones are "major expansions". 

That said, when I looked at it, it looked like they are a subset of the major expansion above them.  I would prefer to either list large expansions and smaller expansions as two separate sections, or use the same level of indent for both. 

Another idea is to show an icon of some sort to the left.  In my printable tuckboxes set, i tried using gold pennants for major expansions and silver for minor ones.  We might consider something similar here as well.

thoughts?

[oznorkas]

I agree that the indentation is a bit misleading.

I would prefer to keep them in the order they are now, but remove the indentations and separate them by adding an icon of some kind, like you suggest.

[Scott]

I was also briefly confused by the indentation and would welcome any method of clarification.