Completely Annotated Rules - work in progress!

[skipboris]

Can't recall if I said this earlier or not; i really liked the selected variants section in the current CAR.  Please include these in the final 5.0 version.  I am anxiously awaiting the completion of this one (in high quality) so i can print and bind it up.  I suppose I might wait for the April expansion rules to be included....

[Diminuendo]

The CAR says the following about the "Cloister in the city" tile from P&D:

When a player deploys a follower here, it must be clearly placed either in the city or on the cloister. If the follower is deployed to the cloister, then the cloister is scored when it is surrounded by eight land tiles, even when the city is not completed. The follower can also be deployed as a monk if there is already a knight in the connected city. The reverse is also true.

Why isn't deployment of a farmer allowed? ;P

[dwhitworth]

I think that when the first sentence refers to "here" it means the "cloister in the city", not the "cloister in the city tile" - because the sentence immediately follows the heading and the heading does not contain the word tile. I don't think it is referring to the whole tile and therefore you could deploy a farmer.

But, then I have often been wrong  . . . . 

[original_login]

Dude, I found a few typos on page 6 of the rules:

"Why, no-one is quite sure, but the..." should read: "Why? No one is quite sure, but the..."

I think the dash doesn't belong, but I'm not positive.

[Scott]

Dude, I found a few typos on page 6 of the rules:

"Why, no-one is quite sure, but the..." should read: "Why? No one is quite sure, but the..."

I think the dash doesn't belong, but I'm not positive.

Correct.

[Dagou]

Not sure if this should be posted here!

According to CAR 4.1, on page 41, the mayor may be deloyed to a city in which there is currently no knight or mayor. What about deploying a mayor if a wagon is already in the city? There is no mention anywhere that a wagon in a city is considered a knight?

Unless when you deploy a follower in a city, that follower is then considered a knight. In this case, a mayor would also be considered a knight.

Why not just say another follower instead of knight or mayor.?

[mjharper]

Dude, I found a few typos on page 6 of the rules:

"Why, no-one is quite sure, but the..." should read: "Why? No one is quite sure, but the..."

I think the dash doesn't belong, but I'm not positive.

Correct.

Okay. I removed the hyphen. It cropped up about four more times too. And I also corrected it in the FAQ and uploaded them.

[mjharper]

Not sure if this should be posted here!

Yup, it's the right place

According to CAR 4.1, on page 41, the mayor may be deloyed to a city in which there is currently no knight or mayor. What about deploying a mayor if a wagon is already in the city? There is no mention anywhere that a wagon in a city is considered a knight?

Unless when you deploy a follower in a city, that follower is then considered a knight. In this case, a mayor would also be considered a knight.

Why not just say another follower instead of knight or mayor.?

Because that's what the original rules say

Hmm, this is actually a bit of a pain. I just checked the RGG version of the rules, and they say 'no knight or follower' here, mirroring 'no wagon or follower' in connection with the wagon. I don't like either, because a knight is a follower, and so are wagons and mayors, so it's a false distinction.

So, at very least I need to add a footnote marking the difference between RGG and HiG. But I think a question to HiG might also be in order, just because there is a little too much imprecision here.

Thanks for pointing it out 

[Scott]

But I think a question to HiG might also be in order, just because there is a little too much imprecision here.

Tiberius

[original_login]

New subject: Personally, I think I had the most trouble understanding the river rules than any other rules. I had trouble understanding how the river was to be completed if only immediate U-turn were forbidden, until today I found this: http://www.modernjive.com/carcassonne/carcassonnetheriver.htm

This cleared it up for me:

    * In the rare circumstance where a drawn tile has no legal placement (and all players agree), the player discards the tile from the game (into the box) and draws another tile to play.
    * Features such as roads and cities can be left incomplete.
    * It is permitted to play a tile when you know that by doing so you are creating a space which can never be filled, either because the required tile doesn't exist or because all the possible tiles have already been played.

Applying the same logic to rivers it follows that:

    * it is possible to discard unplayable river tiles,
    * rivers don't have to be finished,
    * and unscrupulous players may legally decide to play in such a way that the river does indeed become infinishable.

The footnote says:

This document was produced by John Sweeney.

Also, this post might be considered important:

http://www.carcassonnecentral.com/forum/index.php?topic=324.0

The question is asked:

When playing the river or river2, does placing the lake count as a players turn? As an example, player A places the last tile before the lake is placed, then does player B place the lake or is the lake placed by rule and then player B draws the first tile? In the completed annotated rules (great document by the way if not to say awesome) it is not mentioned if the lake tile is placed as a player's turn. "When the river is finished, the lake tile is placed, and the game continues..."

"canada steve" says:

Last tile to be placed riverwise is the lake with the Dragon on it, which I believe allows the player to pull the first tile from the normal tiles. If you are talking about the normal lake piece then you don't get a further tile as you are allowed to place a meeple on it (farmer).

[wicke]

Hi Matt
I sent you a document a few days ago regarding all the errors I have found in the CAR.
Would appreciate an answer.
.../Patrik

[mjharper]

Sorry, I've been very busy. I'll take a look.

[wicke]

As you notice, the version that I am referring to is 4.1 since I didn't know about the 5.0 version until today.
After I got a link to the 5.0 version I have started going through it and the pagenumbers are different, but so far I have seen that the same errors are still there.

[wicke]

I sent you a new email yesterday with comments about the 5.0 version of the car. There were a few errors that had been corrected but most of them are still there, and there were even a couple of new ones.
After I sent the email I have found another:
Page 55: (new error not in 4.1) Note 186
... rules here have also be reformatted ...   should say: been reformatted

[mjharper]

Hi everyone,

I thought it might be good to give you a quick update/summary.

As many people know, a draft of v5.0 is floating around—CARnew.pdf. However, there is also some discussion about whether RGG have adopted 3rd edition scoring in the latest prints. And there are two upcoming releases to take account of. I think it would be good to get all of that into the final v5.0.

Furthermore, I will be extremely busy until the end of September, as I'm finishing off my Masters. Then come October I should have a little more time, although I have to start a new job. So I won't be overly available in the near future, although I will try to keep up with what is going on.

Thankfully, those two things—lack of time right now, and waiting for the new releases—fit quite well together ;-)

Good things come to those who wait, and all that…