In the Stocks

[Novelty]

I like the middle one best, but someone ate a chunk out from the roof of the barn...  also, you might need to imcrease the size of the store with the wagon near the front, otherwise, it seems like it's a house for dwarves...

[wellidesigns]

the middle one ...and I also noticed that little chunk missing. But looking really good already !!

[Scott]

I'm liking the latest tiles best, though I wouldn't mind more buildings near the edges of the tile. Doesn't feel "town center" enough.

[Cappy]

Frustrating, perhaps, but it is coming along nicely. Your latest batch is almost there.

I agree with Novelty that the stocks ought to be empty -- we're saving them for hapless meeples, remember?

[Joff]

Here is the Version 2 (in draft form) of the rules for 'In the Stocks'

This incorporates the new rulings that laying a follower down constitutes 'moving the wood' for the detained player and how to use the stocks twice.

In the Stocks - Version 2

[Novelty]

Heh, Cappy Field.  I know that looks funny... but I guess I was the first one to write it.  Cappy, would you mind if we use your real name on the rules?

Joff, a few questions.  Can I choose not to resurrect a player in the stocks?  If a second stock is added to a city with a meeple laying down in an existing stoke tile, can I move that meeple to the new stock (so that it becomes upright again), and if that's possible, move another meeple to the just emptied stoke tile?

[Joff]

Heh, Cappy Field.  I know that looks funny... but I guess I was the first one to write it.  Cappy, would you mind if we use your real name on the rules?

I'll let Cappy, obviously, respond to this as it's his call.

Joff, a few questions.  Can I choose not to resurrect a player in the stocks?

Yes, that choice is yours. You are not obligated to release your follower from the stocks. (Footnote 9)

If a second stock is added to a city with a meeple laying down in an existing stoke tile, can I move that meeple to the new stock (so that it becomes upright again), and if that's possible, move another meeple to the just emptied stoke tile?

Although this question is answered in the document: "Only the player who owns the follower may release him from the stocks and back into the city.", and since, essentially moving a player from one stocks to the other (which would have to be in the city) is done by a player other than the owner, it is not too clear and so warrants your question as a footnote just to clear the issue up.  I have updated the footnotes in my personal copy and will incorporate that into the final release. This is the footnote I have added (it has become footnote 16):

"Question: If a second stocks tile is added to a city with a follower who is already detained in the stocks  (upright or lying down), can I move that detained follower to the new stocks (so that if he was lying down, the follower becomes upright again), and if that's possible, move another follower to the just emptied stock tile?
Answer: No. Only the player who owns the follower can release that follower from the stocks and back into the city."

Hope this clears it up!

[Novelty]

Thanks.  What happens when a follower is not removed (by choice) from the stocks?  Do I get to them play a follower instead, or must I resurrect any followers in stocks first before I am allowed to ever play a follower?

I presume you can't magic portal or use the city of carcassonne to teleport anyone directly into the stocks... although it would be legal to deploy them on the same tile in the city?

I thought I read it, but couldn't find it again... if I have 2 followers detained in the stocks... and both have been detained for at least a turn, I can during my turn move both of them out of the stocks.  What if I decide I only want to move 1 of them out?

Edit: Also, I think it needs a clarification that if there is a monk on the cloister in a city tile, that meeple isn't eligible for the stocks... or is it?

Also, why can't I put my own meeple in the stocks?  This strategy would be great for playing defensively

[Joff]

Thanks.  What happens when a follower is not removed (by choice) from the stocks?  Do I get to them play a follower instead, or must I resurrect any followers in stocks first before I am allowed to ever play a follower?

Removing your follower from the stocks is instead of 'moving the wood'. If you choose not to release your follower, then you may 'move the wood' on your turn as usual.

I presume you can't magic portal or use the city of carcassonne to teleport anyone directly into the stocks... although it would be legal to deploy them on the same tile in the city?

No, you cannot move anyone directly into the stocks from Carcassonne, but you can move onto the city segment of the tile. The rules state: "The stocks area on this tile takes no further part in the game and no player is able to deploy a follower into the stocks on any subsequent turn, other than in the way described in the ‘Using the stocks for a second time’ section."
I have also added the following clarification as a footnote:

"Question: Can I move a follower from Carcassonne City or use a magic portal to occupy the stocks?
Answer: No. You cannot deploy a follower, from Carcassonne City or via a magic portal, into the stocks area, but you can deploy to the city segment of the tile in this case."

I thought I read it, but couldn't find it again... if I have 2 followers detained in the stocks... and both have been detained for at least a turn, I can during my turn move both of them out of the stocks.  What if I decide I only want to move 1 of them out?

You did indeed read it. It is in the section 'Using the stocks for a second time'. "...detain two followers of any colour (other than his own) in both stocks in the usual way. The stocks are used the same way as before, except, that should the detained prisoners be the same colour, that player must lay both followers down on his next turn, instead of ‘moving the wood’. He may also release both followers at the same time, instead of ‘moving the wood’, should he choose to do so."
However, your question regarding the release of just one of the two detainees again warrants a footnote. This is the footnote I have added:

"Question: Should two of my followers be detained, am I obligated to release both of them at the same time or can I leave one in the stocks for a later release?
Answer: You are free to choose whether to release your followers one at a time or both together. Releasing both of them together on the same turn takes the place of ‘moving the wood’ for that turn. However, you might choose to leave one of your followers detained in the stocks, although releasing the remaining follower on a later turn will again be instead of ‘moving the wood’. A player is not obligated to release any of his followers from the stocks should he choose not to."

Edit: Also, I think it needs a clarification that if there is a monk on the cloister in a city tile, that meeple isn't eligible for the stocks... or is it?

You are correct. A Monk in a cloister cannot be detained in the stocks.

Footnote added "The only followers that can be detained in the stocks are a small follower (as a Knight), big follower (as a big Knight), Builder, Mayor or Wagon."

and also

"Question: There is a Monk in the cloister that is within the city (from Princess and the Dragon expansion). May I move the Monk occupying the cloister into the stocks?
Answer: No. The follower in this case is deployed as a Monk and therefore is not eligible to be detained in the stocks. The only followers that can be legally detained in the stocks are a small follower (as a Knight), big follower (as a big Knight), Builder, Mayor or Wagon."

Also, why can't I put my own meeple in the stocks?  This strategy would be great for playing defensively

This is an interesting. Give me a scenario that would give a good reason for wanting to place yourself in the stocks... and then we can take it from there. As the stocks are a hinderance mechanism, would anyone want to put themselves into the stocks? This of course, as they are draft rules, is subject to change. Let the discussion begin


I have also added the following footnote that clears up another problem I saw:

"Question: I have released my follower from the stocks, but there is not an unoccupied tile for me to return to. What happens?
Answer: Should there not be a free position in the city, your follower is expelled from the city and returned to your supply."

[Novelty]

This is an interesting. Give me a scenario that would give a good reason for wanting to place yourself in the stocks.

Off the top of my head...

I draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower.

I have a knight stuck in the city where I will never get a majority (due to a variety of reasons).  If I get my own knight captured in the stocks, I can remove him in the next turn by placing a tower piece...

The dragon is next to the tile on which I have my knight in a huge city I draw a stocks tile.  If I can capture myself, then I can move my knight to a point far from the dragon in 2 turns...

There are probably lots of scenarios I can't even begin to imagine!

[Joff]

Yes, I can see the point of what you are saying. We can change the rules so you could detain yourself in the stocks, but I would have to add the clarification that a follower of another colour can occupy the city if you are detained in the stocks (since a follower in the stocks does not count for calculating the majority in the city). So as long as this would not prevent another follower occupying the city, then I would have no problem, although there is a small one...

What would be unfair is if you could "draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower" but no other player could get into the city directly placing a follower onto a connecting tile while someone is detained in the stocks. That might not make sense, so here's an example of what i'm saying:
The city has only 1 follower present in it. This follower is currently detained in the stocks. I lay a tile that joins onto the stocks tile (not another stocks tile, but a different one) and lay my follower onto the city. This should be legal, otherwise the stocks present an advantage, albeit small, other than a hinderance! But here is that small problem that I mentioned: if you could do the same and lay another follower of your colour directly into the city while your follower is detained, this would really be seen as an unfair advantage!

This raises an important question: Can you deploy a follower directly into the city if the only player occupying is detained in the stocks? Or should a player detained in the stocks count as an occupied city tile?

So it would seem to be better to not allow a player to put themselves into the stocks in the first place and not allow a direct placement into the city.

Hmmmmm, what to do?

Edit: posing the red question above.

[Joff]

The idea of the stocks was one of hindrance to the player being detained by them. To even think that a player could have a slight advantage by placing himself into the stocks goes against the idea in the first instance, and so after a long deliberation, I have decided to stick with the ruling not to allow the placing of ones own followers into the stocks.

I have also decided that the stocks area on the stocks tile should work independently from the city (although it is still inside city walls). Indeed, even in the first version of the rules, I had assumed this but not clarified. This means that a follower detained in the stocks has no control of the occupancy of the city concerned (it is as if the follower is not even in the city itself!). This means that another player could connect directly to the city, even deploying a follower from the city of Carcassonne or via a magic portal to the city segment of the stocks tile, regardless if the stocks are occupied or not.

For example, a city is being constructed that only houses one small Yellow Knight. A player lays a stocks tile down and detains this Yellow Knight by placing him into the stocks. The city itself is now classed as unoccupied (even though the Knight is still present within the city walls), and so another player would be able to connect directly to the city, while the Yellow Knight serves his time in the stocks. Once the Yellow Knight is released from the stocks, he can take a position on an unoccupied tile within the city and resume his duties. If another player (let’s say Red) had placed a big Red Knight, the Yellow Knight would now have lost his majority in the city.

The new draft (Ver 02.2) together with scoring examples (might not use them in final release, i'll await comments) and the added footnotes is here:

In the Stocks Ver 02.2

Any questions or thoughts? Post them please. Then we can get this ironed out and finalised. Tile hopefully will be completed this weekend.

Cappy, have you any more to add regarding these rules?

[Joff]

The idea of the stocks was one of hindrance to the player being detained by them. To even think that a player could have a slight advantage by placing himself into the stocks goes against the idea in the first instance, and so after a long deliberation, I have decided to stick with the ruling not to allow the placing of ones own followers into the stocks.

I have been having a rethink today regarding this rule. In certain circumstances (as Novelty has pointed out) it might be useful to be able to place yourself into the stocks:

Off the top of my head...

I draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower.

I have a knight stuck in the city where I will never get a majority (due to a variety of reasons).  If I get my own knight captured in the stocks, I can remove him in the next turn by placing a tower piece...

The dragon is next to the tile on which I have my knight in a huge city I draw a stocks tile.  If I can capture myself, then I can move my knight to a point far from the dragon in 2 turns...

There are probably lots of scenarios I can't even begin to imagine!

The point regarding the stocks being a hindrance to a player being placed in them could also be a ‘hindrance’ (in one sense) to opposing players if there was an advantage to placing your own follower into the stocks.

Do you think it would be better to revoke this rule and change to allow the placing of your own follower into the stocks? Do others think that Novelty’s points are valid reasons for allowing the placing of your own follower into the stocks?

I draw the first stocks tile early in the game.  I want to build a mega city, so I add the stocks to my city.  But I don't want someone to capture me later on (with the second stocks tile, as I will probably be at a majority in the city during that stage), so I capture myself for the stocks and get stuck there indefinately until such a time as is advantageous for me to release my follower.

This is fine, as long as one remembers that the stocks area act independently from the city, although still contained within the city. This means that the player who is placed in the stocks loses his control on that city. Example: If there is only 1 player in the city and that player plays the stocks to that city and decides to detain his own follower, an opposing player can place a connecting city piece to that city and deploy a follower, regardless of the fact that the opposing follower occupies the stocks area within the city.

I have a knight stuck in the city where I will never get a majority (due to a variety of reasons).  If I get my own knight captured in the stocks, I can remove him in the next turn by placing a tower piece...

This is a fair point, but not forgetting you might well be able to remove the follower from his current position anyway by placing a Tower piece.

I was writing an updated Gallows rule set this morning, in which one could hang themselves for this very reason: to escape a city that might be impossible to complete; it does happen… regularly. Made worse if it’s a Cathedral city that’s impossible to complete. It occurred to me that this might well be a fair reason to allow the placing of your own follower into the stocks.

The dragon is next to the tile on which I have my knight in a huge city I draw a stocks tile.  If I can capture myself, then I can move my knight to a point far from the dragon in 2 turns...

You could indeed. Bare in mind that the Dragon usually moves 6 tiles, so it would have to be a reasonably large city (assuming a 6 player game) to avoid the Dragon’s fury (and assuming the other 5 players are ganging up on you). You can only move your follower from the stocks and back to an unoccupied tile within the city.

There are probably lots of scenarios I can't even begin to imagine!

I am sure there are. Anyone care to bring up any more?

I’d like to get this mini-expansion complete this weekend… and it’s Saturday now!

Edited for spelling.

[Novelty]

I would open up the stocks to your own followers... it would add a lot more strategy.  Also, it would "lessen" the blow of being a "hinderance expansion" much like the way the Tower generally is a hinderance, but can be a boon if played properly...IMO of course, but it's up to you at the end of the day!

[Cappy]

I don't mind the idea of putting your own piece in the stocks. However, the rules may read easier if it is prohibited (a lot fewer questions to be asked, it would seem). (Side Note: I would say absolutely no to self-imposed hangings.)

I have assumed the meeple in the stocks is a non-entity, just a lump of wood on the board and doesn't affect the game except as a victim (meaning he can still be eaten). So yes, treating the stocks area as a seperate feature within the city walls is a good way to look at it.

Frankly, when the meeple is released, he could be simply moved out of the town square, but remain on the same tile.