Completely Annotated Rules - work in progress!

[O.M.S.]

Okay, I've just uploaded a new version of the reworked CAR. It now covers everything for the basic game—rules, footnotes, tile distribution—as well as having the Introduction I added last time, and space for the title page and contents.

Achievement. It looks very good, footnotes comfortable near of paragraph etc.
(Only chapter heading "Overview" stayed alone  )

[mjharper]

(Only chapter heading "Overview" stayed alone  )

Oops… fixed it. Thanks!

Edit: Just uploaded the 'Best' version as well, if anyone wants to see the difference.

[mjharper]

Next update… a busy bee, me. Usual place.

51 pages, and it covers all the expansions except the 6th. I'll add that next, and go through the recent Q/A stuff from HiG. And it is 1.8 MB. I'll repeat that: 1.8 MB. The previous version of the basic rules alone was 1.7 MB. This version covers that, and 11 expansions.

So, it's time for me to ask for a couple of things:

Proof-reading.
There's shouldn't be many problems, because almost everything is copied and pasted from the the last version; but I made have got confused somewhere along the line. So if anyone spots anything, please let me know.

Suggestions.
This is the big one. We've been talking recently about variants and user material that could be included: now's the time to start putting the material together.

(You'll notice that I've removed by name from the footer, and added it directly under the title of each expansion; that's precisely so that it's easier to credit other people for their contributions.)

So: what so you want to see included? Is it something you can write, you want someone else to write, or know that someone else has already written?

I'm all ears, and I'm not sitting on them, as they say in Germany.
 

[Scott]

I'm feeling pretty confident that we've got most/all of the spelling and grammar mistakes fixed. If there are any left, I've already missed them the past three times I proofread the CAR, so I probably won't ever find them. With that in mind, I decided not to bother reading the text this time around, just checking the ends of the pages for missing punctuation and other errors that may have cropped up due to copy-pasting.

Footnote #5 is missing a period at the end.
Footnote #40 is missing a period at the end of the answer.
Footnote #64 ends in a comma, but should end with a period.

[mjharper]

I think we've caught pretty much everything too.

Those corrections to footnotes are just what I wanted, though  I've just corrected them. Thanks.

[dwhitworth]

So: what so you want to see included? Is it something you can write, you want someone else to write, or know that someone else has already written?

You have done a great job on the CAR and FAQ Matt and I would like to contribute some things to enhance the work in a small way if I can and if I understand the sort of thing you want.

So here are a few ideas:

1. A brief history of the game and its publication - so that people can understand the relationships between HiG, RGG the expansions, the CAR and FAQ, and the difficulties in sometimes getting clear rules. (This one is NOT one I could write!)

2. A detailed and complete description of the sequence of play, and (as a subset) the sequence of a turn, including all expansions to date. John Sweeney's web page has an older version of the sequence of turn and the aldaron site contains something as well. But both need updating to include recent expansions and rule clarifications and I would like to see something with much more detail from the CAR and FAQ. I have started on a document for our own use (John said I could use his version as a start). I would be happy to share what I have if this is the kind of thing you need - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CarcTurn.pdf. At the moment it is rather cryptic and needs formal cross referencing to the official parts of the CAR and FAQ - to both of which it must be subordinate. But if it can be done thoroughly IMHO it could be a valuable asset especially to new players or those with questions that have already been researched and answered.

3. A description of each meeple and other figure in the game along with a notation of their properties (e.g. who is dragon food, who can be captured by a tower etc.etc.) I have a one-page summary table of this stuff which I am happy to share if anyone is interested - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CARCTABLE.pdf. I intended to write the individual figure stuff as well at some point, but would happily defer to anyone else who may want to do that.

4. A summary of "problem tiles" for those who have not yet come up against those issues.  I haven't done anything on that topic. It might be a bit repetitive of parts of the official CAR but it would put them all in one place for easy reference.

These items will need the writer to commit to maintain them.

Do these things fit with what you have in mind for the user area?

[Novelty]

I would like an expansions summary that's not necessary written out in paragraphs, but summarised... pictorially maybe?  That way, I can find out at a quick glace that H&G is not part of the series.

I strongly support all numbered items by dwhitworth above as well.

[mjharper]

1. A brief history of the game and its publication - so that people can understand the relationships between HiG, RGG the expansions, the CAR and FAQ, and the difficulties in sometimes getting clear rules. (This one is NOT one I could write!)

I tried to include that in the Introduction, although it mainly focuses on 1st & 3rd edition rules. If that doesn't currently cover what you want, leave me a more detailed not and I'll see about extending/re-writing what I wrote there.

2. A detailed and complete description of the sequence of play, and (as a subset) the sequence of a turn, including all expansions to date. John Sweeney's web page has an older version of the sequence of turn and the aldaron site contains something as well. But both need updating to include recent expansions and rule clarifications and I would like to see something with much more detail from the CAR and FAQ. I have started on a document for our own use (John said I could use his version as a start). I would be happy to share what I have if this is the kind of thing you need - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CarcTurn.pdf. At the moment it is rather cryptic and needs formal cross referencing to the official parts of the CAR and FAQ - to both of which it must be subordinate. But if it can be done thoroughly IMHO it could be a valuable asset especially to new players or those with questions that have already been researched and answered.

I was involved in preparing—though not writing—aldaron's summary. It's a great shame it hasn't been updated. I could as if we could use that, but my guess is that we'd implicitly be taking it over, and even if it hasn't been updated , I'm not sure that aldaron would want to relinquish control. The document you linked to looks good, though. I'll need to have a proper look through. Since it's yours anyway, it would be easier to maintain, too—although as with all things for inclusion in the CAR, I'd have to import and re-format it to fit. I'm not sure you need to worry about being cryptic—after all, if it's included in the CAR, it will be accompanied by the usually clear formulations of the rule. The only thing I would suggest is that, if possible, it should more explicitly follow the same structural pattern as the CAR rules (which is the pattern used in the Big Box)—you know, 1. Place a tile, 2. Deploy a follower, 3. Score completed…, and so on.

3. A description of each meeple and other figure in the game along with a notation of their properties (e.g. who is dragon food, who can be captured by a tower etc.etc.) I have a one-page summary table of this stuff which I am happy to share if anyone is interested - http://members.shaw.ca/carcassonne/CARCTABLE.pdf. I intended to write the individual figure stuff as well at some point, but would happily defer to anyone else who may want to do that.

Another good file. Closer look later (need coffee)

4. A summary of "problem tiles" for those who have not yet come up against those issues.  I haven't done anything on that topic. It might be a bit repetitive of parts of the official CAR but it would put them all in one place for easy reference.

Interesting idea… Which tiles were you thinking of?

Do these things fit with what you have in mind for the user area?

To be honest, yes and no. I've mentioned before (although I forgot in the post you're referring to) that I'd envisaged a 'User' section and an 'Appendix'. Obviously, both would be user-created. I had in mind that the Appendices would include the Consolidated Tile Reference, the Overview and the Summary of Changes from the CAR; #2, #3 and #4 would also fit in there. The Appendices would  be statistic material, if you like: collections and analysis of data. The User section would be things like strategy guides, variants, session reports: more 'creative' stuff (not meaning to suggest that the material in the Appendices is not 'creative', just in a different way—and I won't be contributing much to the User section anyway.)

I guess the Appendices would also be things you'd want to refer to frequently, and the User section would be more occasional; there to enhance overall appreciation of the game, but not necessarily any particular game.

So I think your suggestions are great, and I'm sure we can make good use of them. I'm also happy enough to abandon the User/Appendix division, although it seems a logical one to make.

If we stick with the division, though, can anyone think of a better title for either section—in particular the User section?

And, having just mentioned sessions, how about if I contact the author of the report I linked to here. I'm not sure how much it gives you a feeling for the game, but it is certainly 'creative' in making you see Carcassonne in a new light  

[mjharper]

Yet another update, this time with Shrines & Heretics and bunches of footnotes (still only 1.9 MB). I also changed the layout from indented to block, which fits in with the images more easily, and added contributor names to the contents page. Is that too much? I've set up the document so it's much easier to give credit properly, but is it excessive to do that on the contents page? I guess we should wait a bit until we have more material to decide.

If anyone feels like proof-reading, the footnotes are where it's at.

On the footnotes, I'm wondering about whether it would be possible to use less. The Big Box rules only refer backwards, not forwards: that is, Traders and Builders only refers back to Inns and Cathedrals, not forwards to any subsequent expansion. If you want to know how it combines with Princess and Dragon, you have to look at the later expansion.

So far, I haven't used that method, instead referencing footnotes wherever they seem relevant: so if a footnote concerns T&B and P&D, I've usually added it to both. Obviously, that makes the rules in each section feel more 'comprehensive', but it also leads to a good deal of repetition. So I'm thinking about adopting the Big Box approach…

Any thoughts on that?

[Scott]

Footnote 191 has a grammatical problem:
"Does this declare a challenge, if so, and who wins?" should read "Does this declare a challenge, and, if so, who wins?"

Repetition of some footnotes is a little excessive, but a few of them you might want to repeat, like the new one attached to the King and Count expansions which talks about the new ...and Consort expansion. Stuff about the barn is excessive to have anywhere except with the expansion that includes the barn, IMHO.

Regarding credit, I don't think it's needed in the TOC. Towards the top of the each contribution is enough.

[Gantry]

re: Block - feels more modern to me, although I'm inclined to agree with Scott that it isn't really necessary.

re: backwards/forwards - if you are looking at an earlier expansion that has a mention in a later expansion, it would take more page-flipping.  Not sure if you'd reference forwards via a page number or something, but if not, then a reader could theoretically miss something important (although what, I don't have a concrete example).  Part of the value of the CAR is it being able to answer a question quickly.  I vote for both forward and back references of some sort, whether it be full text or a link (err page reference).

re: images - have the images been reduced in quality?  I'm looking at the ones in the footnotes on page 8, and they seem to be of a reduced quality compared to an earlier version from some days ago (or it could just be that I haven't had my daily ration of joe...)

[Novelty]

I would like an expansions summary that's not necessary written out in paragraphs, but summarised... pictorially maybe?  That way, I can find out at a quick glace that H&G is not part of the series.

Is this a bad idea?

re: backwards/forwards - if you are looking at an earlier expansion that has a mention in a later expansion, it would take more page-flipping.  Not sure if you'd reference forwards via a page number or something, but if not, then a reader could theoretically miss something important (although what, I don't have a concrete example).  Part of the value of the CAR is it being able to answer a question quickly.  I vote for both forward and back references of some sort, whether it be full text or a link (err page reference).

Removing the forwards thing might make updating the individual pages a bit more complicated as well... unless you plan on removing the forwards rulings from them as well, in which case, the individual pages would probably become incomplete.

[mjharper]

Footnote 191 has a grammatical problem:
"Does this declare a challenge, if so, and who wins?" should read "Does this declare a challenge, and, if so, who wins?"

Thanks. Corrected.

Regarding credit, I don't think it's needed in the TOC. Towards the top of the each contribution is enough.

You're probably right. Just trying it out…

re: images - have the images been reduced in quality?  I'm looking at the ones in the footnotes on page 8, and they seem to be of a reduced quality compared to an earlier version from some days ago (or it could just be that I haven't had my daily ration of joe...)

Not intentionally, although they are on the small size. I might see about enlarging them again. Maybe you had the higher quality version I posted a few days ago, though?

I would like an expansions summary that's not necessary written out in paragraphs, but summarised... pictorially maybe?  That way, I can find out at a quick glace that H&G is not part of the series.

Is this a bad idea?

No, sounds like a good one. Probably to be included somewhere around the introduction…

@Everyone: You all seem to agree that the 'comprehensive' approach is better, although maybe it could be pared back a bit. Unless anyone else has anything to add, I'll leave it as it is.

[dwhitworth]

I tried to include that in the Introduction, although it mainly focuses on 1st & 3rd edition rules. If that doesn't currently cover what you want, leave me a more detailed not and I'll see about extending/re-writing what I wrote there.

Matt, I had no intention to criticize the Intro to the CAR which is very appropriate for a rules focused document and addresses primarily rules issues well (IMHO).

In all of these items I am trying to suggest appendices that provide a different view of essentially the same data but without needing to be themselves authoritative (because they can directly refer to CAR/FAQ for that) and without needing to be structured around the actual games package rules documents. Rather, the idea is to provide some tools linked to the authoritative rules that make it easier to get at answers to questions in a way that they occur during actual game play - hence the three topics in 2,3,4.

The history thing is a bit different, but even so I am thinkling of something more general and not primarily rules related. What I had in mind was:

• A bit about Klaus
• The original game publisher and dates - background - other games published - reputation among gamers - web links - stuff provided on the web site (for those who don't read german) and what is and isn't translated here.
• How the game came to be published in North America by RGG and the compromises resulting
• Dates of expansion releases and how the new features affected the game play and issues arising
• The big box story and issues raised
• Current releases and status/differences (game play perhaps rather than rules)
• Game resources/community/tournaments
• "The future"

2. A detailed and complete description of the sequence of play, . . . . . .

. . . aldaron's summary. It's a great shame it hasn't been updated. . . . . The document you linked to  . . . . Since it's yours anyway, it would be easier to maintain, too—although as with all things for inclusion in the CAR, I'd have to import and re-format it to fit. . . . .  The only thing I would suggest is that, if possible, it should more explicitly follow the same structural pattern as the CAR rules . . . .

If you think it is OK I am happy to maintain it subject to your overall editing requirements and (veto   ) Within my software's capabilities could do some initial layout stuff to lessen the effort required by you. let me know what you think about it and I won't run away crying if you decide against using it.

Same goes for the meeple summary stuff.

4. A summary of "problem tiles" for those who have not yet come up against those issues.  I haven't done anything on that topic. It might be a bit repetitive of parts of the official CAR but it would put them all in one place for easy reference.

Interesting idea… Which tiles were you thinking of?

Well, pig herds and Inns for two . . ambiguous crossroads, Abbey tile has no segments, some of the issues with the river tiles, some of the bridges and farms, and maybe more that I can't remember now.

Do these things fit with what you have in mind for the user area?

To be honest, yes and no. I've mentioned before (although I forgot in the post you're referring to) that I'd envisaged a 'User' section and an 'Appendix'. Obviously, both would be user-created. I had in mind that the Appendices would include the Consolidated Tile Reference, the Overview and the Summary of Changes from the CAR; #2, #3 and #4 would also fit in there. The Appendices would  be statistic material, if you like: collections and analysis of data. The User section would be things like strategy guides, variants, session reports: more 'creative' stuff (not meaning to suggest that the material in the Appendices is not 'creative', just in a different way—and I won't be contributing much to the User section anyway.)

I guess the Appendices would also be things you'd want to refer to frequently, and the User section would be more occasional; there to enhance overall appreciation of the game, but not necessarily any particular game.

So I think your suggestions are great, and I'm sure we can make good use of them. I'm also happy enough to abandon the User/Appendix division, although it seems a logical one to make.

If we stick with the division, though, can anyone think of a better title for either section—in particular the User section?

And, having just mentioned sessions, how about if I contact the author of the report I linked to here. I'm not sure how much it gives you a feeling for the game, but it is certainly 'creative' in making you see Carcassonne in a new light  

Just some random thoughts here:

How about an Appendix with two sections - Technical Material like you mention and possibly the history section then a "Playing Reference" containing some of the things above. Or perhaps these are all just one Game Play Reference Appendix.

The other section might be better titled using the word Player rather than User. "User" seems to imply someone who uses the CAR/FAQ whereas I think you are interested in contributions from those who play the game (and incidentally use the CAR/FAQ). How about "Player's Pages", or "Player to Player", or "Game Play Exchange", or something way more sensible than any of those  

Then you can well include stuff you find elsewhere like the link you mention (which should be in there if possible . . .)

[mjharper]

Opps, the quoting is playing up…

Re history. I see you point, although it sound a bit too much like the wikipedia page. Still, the introduction could be expanded to include that kind of stuff. I just don't have the time to research and write all of that at the moment. Any volunteers?

Re summary & meeple stuff: Go for it!

Re awkward tiles: Right. Need to compile a full list.

Re sections: I'm thinking 'Reference Guides' or something like that. And 'Player' is much better than 'User'…