Does the River Itself Separate Two Farms?

[SpedInFargo]

I've scoured the printed rules and the annotated rules and searched the forum and haven't found any sentences that satisfy me on this question - can someone help out?

I know based on the CAR (question 30) and a post in this forum that a farm goes AROUND both the spring and the lake - that makes sense to me.

However, does is the river ITSELF a boundary between two farms?  According to the rules, "farms are bordered by roads, cities, and the edge of the area" - but it doesn't say anything specific about whether the river itself.  Depending on how the board grows around the river, this is a scenario that could come up...

Anyone point to something specific on this?  We've been playing that the river is PART of a farmer's land...  I can see arguments either way.

Thanks!

[scotty13]

I'm pretty sure the river stops the farm.  That's how I play anyway.

[koolkat]

The river does separate two farms. Basic rules don't mention that because there's no river on the base set. The rivers are expansions.
Think. Isn't it logical that a river separate two farms? You know, like in real life...

[Novelty]

The fact that the Big Box edition of the rules states that the farm "wraps around" the source and the lake hints that the river does form the border of a farm.  Otherwise, there will be no need to make that clarification.

Also, there's a spring tile with a road on it.  This tile would be rather useless if the spring did not also divide the farm.  From the CAR (in the GQ11 section):

One of the common criticisms of those two expansions is that they lead to larger farms, and part of
the reason is the farm goes all the way around the spring—officially at least. However, the spring
tile included here has a road leading away from the spring, and so divides the farm.

[grandpoobah]

I would like to suggest that many of us who play Carcassonne are in fact serious gamers, meaning that we're careful with our rules.  Quite clearly, anybody who is using the rivers to separate farms is playing with a house rule, as there is no rule to any such effect.  Any admonitions to think are rather besides the point when it comes to the official rules; "reasoning" would be more apropos.  Rivers are not roads or cities, ergo they do not separate farms.  Of course, we play with our own house rules to fix anything we don't like, and I encourage everyone to do so.  In our case, we stick to the written rules on this matter, as calculating farm areas is hard enough as it stands.

[Scott]

Quite clearly, anybody who is using the rivers to separate farms is playing with a house rule, as there is no rule to any such effect.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but I would disuade you from using "quite clearly" here. All evidence points to the rivers as being a landscape feature which separates farms, as pointed out by Novelty. You sir, are the one playing with a house rule.

[Novelty]

I believe statements were made by HiG and RGG that the rivers were introduced to break up big farms.  Those statements doesn't make sense (at least to me) if farms are continuous across rivers.

[grandpoobah]

It is indeed quite clear.  Allow me to quote to you from the rules included in The Big Box, which I'll point out, just like the basic game has for a while, includes a river expansion.  "Farms are bordered by roads, cities, and the edge of the area where the land tiles have been played." (Page 4, first paragraph of "Farms" in the Big Box rules)  There is not one single sentence anywhere in the rules that amends or updates this statement, therefore it stands.  Rivers are not roads nor are they cities nor are they "the edge of the area where the land tiles have been played."  QED.

Also, from CAR: "Farms are separated from each other by roads, cities and the edge of the playing field—this is important during the final scoring."  Page 11.  I would point out that these rules are in fact *complete*.  Everything after this is arguing for arguing's sake.  No further "evidence" is necessary nor admissible.  I don't have to prove that rivers *don't* separate farms, everybody else has to prove that they *do*.  And the only acceptable way is to quote something from CAR that states, "Rivers separate farms."  If it's not in the CAR, it's inadmissible.

Anyway, the clarification in footnote 20: "Answer: Farms can be limited by all kinds of barriers, for example, roads or cities which cannot be circumvented, or the edge of the playing field. "

If the clarification was the actual rule, you might argue that "all kinds of barriers" introduces uncertainty (it still wouldn't make rivers separate farms, but you would at least have a leg to stand on when arguing that this point wasn't clear).  But it is not the rule, and the listed examples just reiterate the rule as written; in fact, you cannot argue that rivers fall into a broader group of separators that haven't been explicitly enumerated.  You cannot argue for rivers through comparison, analogy, or symmetry.  The "for example" list is actually exhaustive, and arguing that it isn't is begging the question.  The fact that rivers are omitted once again, at the very spot where you might expect the clarification to appear, is very telling.  There is not a single example anywhere in the rules showing a river separate farms, either.  All examples show roads and cities and the edge of the playing field separating farms.

Now, obviously, many people like to have the rivers separate farms; good for them.  And for those who wish to play with a house rule where rivers separate farms, the farms will still wrap around the spring.  It's nice of them to provide a clarification for those people, but it's a clarification in a footnote, and it does not amend the original rule.  So yes, if you are not playing with that house rule/variant, it is a useless clarification.  This is the only line in the entire CAR that even acknowledges the issue, and hanging your hat on this is really grasping at straws.  You don't have any rule text, no examples, and no clarifications that say "rivers separate farms."  All you have is a clarification that says, essentially, "Even if rivers separate farms, the farms will still go around the spring."

In short, no rules lawyer would ever accept that rivers separate farms.  Also, until and unless they release a new CAR, any statements to the contrary are not official rules in a rules lawyer's book.  And finally, to those who argue the other way, take note that they have had *many many* opportunities to print "Rivers separate farms." and have chosen not to.  To a rules lawyer, this STRONGLY suggests intentional omission.  It is so easy to fix, so easy to clarify, and so clearly not done, over a long period of time and many printings and reprintings, that arguments that they meant something different ring very hollow.

[meepleater]

It's also quite funny, neither RGG nor HIG have mentioned that you can't kill your opponant while playing, so does that mean it's allowed? It was probably an oversight as it seems too obvious that rivers block farms.
 Also, technically the CAR wasn't compiled be either HIG or RGG... so don't go using that as the basis for your arguments...

[meepleater]

Also... quotes from Carcassonne FAQ...

Officially, the farm goes around the spring. So it is a connected farm. I personally prefer to use it as a division, since otherwise, despite the river, there is still only one large farm.
The words "despite the river" clearly indicate that it is intended to separate the farms


Correct. Bridges are considered to be roads.
This quote is referring if a bridge (as part of a city) separates farms (and they do). Despite being not explicity mentioned in the rules. If bridges weren't, why not rivers?

[grandpoobah]

In the end, arguing about "official" rules for this game is a little silly   It's not a game that can be played competitively anyway, and with the translation and multiple publisher problems, it's all just a bit absurd.  In the absence of the CAR, I would think you would have to go with the Big Box rules; this is of course what we did before I poked around online (at a later date).  I got the impression from somewhere, though, that there may even be more than one version of those.  With the version I have at any rate, there is no mention whatsoever of the effect that rivers have on farms.  The clarification regarding the spring is not present, and so for us there is no discussion to be had really-rivers and farms do not interact in any way, "officially."

Anyway, the legality of "killing your opponent" is undefined.  "Killing your opponent" is not a defined game term or action and it's legality in the context of playing the game cannot be assessed.  This is also true for chess, Magic The Gathering, the NFL, and most other games I can think of, and is a total straw-man argument.  That said, any player action not defined and allowed in the rules would be disallowed.  No points are scored except as described in the rules.  etc etc

Any discussion relating to the behavior of the spring is an independent discussion.  Some people want to play with the rivers separating farms, and they need an answer to that question.  I already addressed this point; it's no use bringing it up again.

Finally, you answer your own question.  Bridges are/contain roads.  Roads separate farms.  You cannot infer what a "bridge with no road" would do.  This also counteracts arguments involving "making sense."  In whatever way that it "makes sense" for rivers to separate farms, it "makes sense" that farms connect beneath bridges, and they don't.

This continues to make my point, too.  The interaction of bridges and tunnels with farms is explicitly covered in the rule book.  The interaction of rivers and farms is not.  This adds credence to the fact that, by default, rivers and farms do not interact in any way.

So arguing over "officially" is all a little pointless (if interesting).  Our play group plays with some variant rules, and I encourage everyone to do what's best for them.  I argue the point only to show that to a rules lawyer (which I confess to being), the issue *is* clear.  So if it ever comes up in your playgroup, the "correct" response would be: "The rules don't say, which probably means that the rivers don't separate farms, but some FAQs on the internet tell us that farms go around the spring, so a lot of people, likely including the game makers themselves, play with the rivers separating farms.   I prefer to play _______."  And fill in the blank.

[meepleater]

So arguing over "officially" is all a little pointless (if interesting).  Our play group plays with some variant rules, and I encourage everyone to do what's best for them.  I argue the point only to show that to a rules lawyer (which I confess to being), the issue *is* clear.  So if it ever comes up in your playgroup, the "correct" response would be: "The rules don't say, which probably means that the rivers don't separate farms, but some FAQs on the internet tell us that farms go around the spring, so a lot of people, likely including the game makers themselves, play with the rivers separating farms.   I prefer to play _______."  And fill in the blank.

The rules don't say, which probably means that the rivers don't separate farms, but some FAQs on the internet tell us that farms go around the spring, so a lot of people, likely including the game makers themselves, play with the rivers separating farms.   I prefer to play _______."

[mjharper]

Quite clearly, anybody who is using the rivers to separate farms is playing with a house rule, as there is no rule to any such effect.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but I would disuade you from using "quite clearly" here. All evidence points to the rivers as being a landscape feature which separates farms, as pointed out by Novelty. You sir, are the one playing with a house rule.

I know I'm late to the party, but I agree with Scott. Even though the river is not mentioned in the basic rules, the is no reason to think that it doesn't divide farms, and every reason to think that it does. By every reason I mean the look of the tile, and sheer consistency with similar features. The other way around - rivers don't divide farms - would seem to be counter-intuitive and inconsistent; the only reason to think it is the case is because it isn't mentioned.

I'm inclined to think that it isn't mentioned because it's obvious, and would be happy to add a note to that effect to the CAR.

[Tobias]

Thank you, grandpoobah, for an interesting opinion At least we can trust your ability to read. You are probalbly right in that rivers are not mentioned in the rules, and that people are using a house rule. It is, however, a house rule I am pretty happy with

[Scott]

I'm going to stand my ground on this one and continue to disagree with grandpoobah. I also consider myself a rules lawyer, and I hope that there are other rules lawyers here that agree with me. What kind of rules lawyer would say that arguing about rules is silly?

As evidence to my case, I wish to cite the footnote which states: "Officially, the farm goes around the spring." The only way it can go around is if the spring, and consequently the river, are blocking the farm. A similar statement was incorporated into the Big Box rules in the RGG edition: "The field space on the lake and spring tiles wraps around those features."

Anybody who plays with farms going through rivers is playing a house rule. The omission of the river in the list of features which can end a farm is probably an oversight.

I suspect that you'll stand your ground also, so I request escalation to a higher court: HiG.