Lake Tile: Does it count as someone's turn?

[SpedInFargo]

Quick question (thanks for the quick replies on my other questions!).

Not the most important rule in the world, but came up last night in a game.

Does the lake tile itself count as someone's turn?  The rules (CAR) state this:

"When the river is finished, the lake tile is placed, and the game continues with the remaining tiles."

So I guess it could be read either way.  We had been playing that the lake tile is just placed on the board and then the person who WOULD have had to play it gets to draw one from the pile instead.

The other folks (whose house we were at) had been playing it differently - if you're next in line, you get "stuck" with the lake tile and that's your turn...

Ruling?

Thanks,
Sped

[meepleater]

according to river 2 rules, it doesn't count as a player's turn...

[scotty13]

I think it does count as a turn because you can place a meeple on the lake with the city or a farmer on the original lake.

[Lardarse]

The lake tile from River 1 does count as someone's turn. The lake tile with the city on it from River 2 counts as someone's turn. The lake tile with the volcano on it from River 2 doesn't count as someone's turn.

[Joff]

The lake tile from River 1 does count as someone's turn. The lake tile with the city on it from River 2 counts as someone's turn. The lake tile with the volcano on it from River 2 doesn't count as someone's turn.

I've never seen that ruling, regarding the volcano lake tile, in the rules before until I looked at the CAR today!

This presents a small problem and shows up an ambiguity in the rules. The player who lays the volcano lake tile could deploy a pig to the tile legally (part of the P&D rules, and should he have a supporting farmer, of course), but then (according to River II rules) take another tile.

[Scott]

I remember bringing this up in the past. The culprit is the volcano. Under the original rules, builders and pigs were considered followers so you couldn't deploy anything to this tile. To make things more fair, the player got to draw another tile and place it after. Then they changed the rules such that builders and pigs are not followers, so there could be a situation where one could deploy the pig to the volcano/lake tile, draw another tile, and deploy another meeple.

[Lardarse]

I remember bringing this up in the past. The culprit is the volcano. Under the original rules, builders and pigs were considered followers so you couldn't deploy anything to this tile. To make things more fair, the player got to draw another tile and place it after. Then they changed the rules such that builders and pigs are not followers, so there could be a situation where one could deploy the pig to the volcano/lake tile, draw another tile, and deploy another meeple.

That does seem like someone wasn't thinking properly. Why not just make it so that if you draw a tile with a volcano, your MTW action must be to move the dragon? So much simpler...

[canada steve]

You cant move the dragon as the volcano pieces are for dragon placement, the tiles with the dragon penant on  are for movement. We have always played that the person who lays the lake/volcanoe tile cannot place any piece on it but takes a new tile.

[Novelty]

Also, when not playing with the dragon, the volcano lake tile is just an ordinary lake tile...

I know, start playing with the Fishermen rules - that will make this issue redundant

Edit: Maybe I should start lobbying HiG to introduce a version of Fishermen as their next expansions!

[Tobias]

I do not agree with the CAR in this case. If you place a pig on the same tile as the dragon it is like free lunch.

[hester]

@Tobias: It says so in the official rules for P&D, not just the CAR. You are indeed allowed to place a pig or a builder on the volcano tile, and the dragon won't "see" them until it moves and *returns* to the tile at a later point in the game.

With the lake/volcano tile it all depends on which rules you're using. If you follow River II rules, the player gets to draw another tile (whether or not he may deploy a pig/builder first is up to your own interpretation; I believe at the time River II was first issued it was not allowed since pigs and builders were still followers then and could never be on the same tile as the dragon). If you follow P&D rules, you do not get to draw another tile.

IMHO they should have adapted the River II rules when it was re-issued with the 6th expansion, to remove the "draw another tile" bit.

Hester

[Tobias]

Dragons eat pigs and that is all I need to know. (Just as a tile with a pig herd is .. a pig herd tile.) To argue otherwise is to defy all that is logical. The Volcano/lake tile is part of River II - thus the rules for River II apply. That means you can not place anything on that tile. There is no other tile whose usage/application changes with rules from another expansion. Or is there?

Also - since you (all of you!) seems to like semantics:

The rules from River II says: "... the player placing this tile plays no follower on it, but does, immediately, play an additional tile." Note the bold word. You can not place anything (not even a "non-follower") before immediately, right? In fact - you can not do anything but place another tile.

[Novelty]

Dragons eat pigs and that is all I need to know. (Just as a tile with a pig herd is .. a pig herd tile.)

Are you suggesting that the dragon can eat the pig herd on the pig herd tile as well?

[Scott]

It's only logical.

[Tobias]

Dragons eat pigs and that is all I need to know. (Just as a tile with a pig herd is .. a pig herd tile.)

Are you suggesting that the dragon can eat the pig herd on the pig herd tile as well?

Obviously not, since there is a vast difference between what you as a player do - and what is done (tile graphics etc) "by the game". I guess you could play it that way if you wanted to - you just need some way to cover the herd (a wooden token would work). But then again - that would be a house rule.

Does this digression means that you agree with me, but feel you should not, and need to express it in some way? Because - you did not really care to reply to my main argument.

It's only logical.

Yeah - it is.