The Cathars

[canada steve]

Well The Cathars expansion turned up and we played yesterday, along with all expansion except the Tower. Made for an interesting game although the Cathar tiles weren't used to much effect, only one city with knights in was sieged and that had both players in it. With no cloister tile left to be pulled this left the knights in there until the end of the game. One question arose though, if you place the Cathar tile to complete a city do you score for the city as per normal and do you get your knight back, I think not?

[mjharper]

You get your knights back and score the normal points for a city with a Cathar tile (1 point for every tile, or 2 points each in a cathedral city).

[canada steve]

I dont agree Matt. When you place a Cathar tile to complete a city, that has no cloister within range, and that city has no knights in it already, if you wish to take the city points then you have to place a piece in there, which in effect makes that knight beseiged and unable to be removed from the city. Yes you get the reduced points for a cathar city but you do not get the piece back.

[mjharper]

You get the knight back when the city is completed in any case. The fact that the city is besieged just means that the city scores less points for knights and more for farmers, and gives knights an opportunity to escape before the city is finished. When the city is finished, normal rules apply - there's no indication otherwise in the Cathar rules.

So if you complete an empty city by placing a Cathar tile, you proceed exactly as you would if you were completing any other empy city: place tile, deploy follower, score city, remove follower. You just score (x-1) points.

[canada steve]

Sorry Matt but why is there a section about freeing your knights from a beseiged city. Nowhere does it say that you can remove your knight when the city is completed, but it does say that the knight can only be removed if a cloister is within range. Otherwise what would be the point of the tiles apart from lower scoring. You use them to potentially trap opponents in a city.

[mjharper]

The fact that it doesn't mention the idea that knights can never be removed from a besieged city is the proof. That would be a huge rule change, since normally knights can only be removed when a city is completed. If it doesn't say it, it doesn't mean it. As it says in the original English translation from the Almanac:

Unless modified in the following paragraphs, the usual rules apply.

And nowhere does it say that a knight can only be removed via a cloister:

Escape: Neighbouring monasteries allow escape from a besieged city. If there is a monastery on the direct border of a Katharer card (also diagonally), a player can draw one of his knights from the besieged city back into his stash at the end of his turn.

The total effect of the Catharer tiles is indeed to decrease the value of the city for knights, and to increase it's value for farmers. But, because someone can play a Catharer tile against you, effectively ruining your city, you have a possible escape route which can reduce the damage. Otherwise the Catharer tiles would be too powerful - and there's no way I can believe they are meant to be that powerful unless explicity mentioned in the rules.

So the rule is: Knights leave a city when it is completed. If the city is besieged, they can leave via an adjacent cloister. They can also leave in connection with princess tiles, the dragon, towers, and so on. The cloister rule is an exception to the original rule, not an amendment.

[canada steve]

Sorry Matt still disagree, just because it doesnt say something doesnt mean that its not right, which is quite often the case with this game.

Look at the rules it states:

A completed city
Cities which contain tiles with a Cathar symbol are said to be besieged. Whenever a besieged
city is completed during the course of play, each tile scores only 1 point instead of the usual 2.2 If
the city contains a cathedral, it scores only 2 points for every tile. Should the city remain incomplete
at the end of the game, it scores no points during the final scoring.

Escaping a besieged city
It is possible to escape a besieged city via a neighbouring cloister. If a cloister directly borders a
Cathar tile - even diagonally - then at then end of a player’s turn, he or she may remove one knight
from the city and return it to the supply.

Why would they go to the bother of telling you under the completed cities section about being under seige and then going on to explain how to escape in the next section if that was not the actual meaning.

As there are only four Cathar tiles its not too great a threat but adds to the game.

Only person who can answer this is the person who actually wrote the rules as personal interpretation can vary vastly.

[Hypnotoad]

Must agree with mjharper here.

They add the ability to escape a besieged city explicitly. In my opinion because the city might now be too much of a long shot to complete and thus not be worth the points. Why on earth should your knight be stuck in the city if it doesn't explicitly state that this is the case?

You're interpreting the rules very freely here and making a guess that that's what they meant, instead of using the rules quite literally, which in my experience is what counts in the end in this game. For instance with the Pig and the Builder not being called followers anymore, which meant that the way they were treated changed quite a bit, without it being stated, since it followed from literally interpreting the fact that they weren't followers anymore. Something that HiG for instance has confirmed was the correct interpretation in subsequent debates.

I believe strongly that if the rules meant that the followers were stuck there, it would state:
"It is *only* possible to escape a besieged city via a neighbouring cloister."
Currently there's no 'only' in that line.

It adds an ability to remove your knight from what's now less of a potential pay-load, but it says nothing about them being stuck there permanently.

[Tobias]

Since a follower always leaves a completed feature I've also got to agree with mjharper.

[mjharper]

Hypnotoad & Tobias: Thanks guys

canada steve: If you're still not convinced, then I can ask HiG for a ruling next time I write to them…

[canada steve]

Have already written to him asking for clarification. Once I have his input then I will stand corrected if I'm wrong. Personally I think that my "interpretation" still rings true as a besieged city is besieged wether completed or not and a such should only have one way out (unless dragon is in play)

Oh and Hypnotoad what is wrong with a piece being tied up for the whole game, I mean if you place a piece on a tower then there is a good chance that it could remain there for the rest of them game without it being moved..... Its called taking a risk which is all part of game play, makes for a more exciting game.

[Hypnotoad]

Oh and Hypnotoad what is wrong with a piece being tied up for the whole game, I mean if you place a piece on a tower then there is a good chance that it could remain there for the rest of them game without it being moved..... Its called taking a risk which is all part of game play, makes for a more exciting game.

Actually the rules are now such that you can remove a follower from a tower with another tower, something we use quite often. Also the dragon removes it from the tower as well. Placing one there isn't the end of the world. Actually with all the expansions, ways keep getting added to remove your followers, or motivate others to complete your features for you and thus returning your follower. Very rarely is your follower stuck anywhere anymore. I'd like mine to remain on the fields and snatch a juicy amount of farmer-points, but it's quite hard these days unless you do it at the very end.

What you're suggesting means that it's quite easy to lock a bunch of followers that're fighting over a large city site, and make sure they can't be removed. Which in turn leads to people being less interested in even trying to build large cities, which leads to a less interesting game. I'd be very surprised if HiG rules in your favor. My feelings of what rings true is the exact opposite of what you seem to feel.

The more expansions you add, the more careful you have to be with your followers. Every little addition makes your followers of more strategic worth and makes one being stuck somewhere all the more fatal. People keep asking if there really shouldn't be added more followers as one tends to run out fast if you're not conservative with their use. Unless I was playing with very few expansions, I'd never feel that your version of the Cathars would be enjoyable to play.

[mjharper]

Oh and Hypnotoad what is wrong with a piece being tied up for the whole game, I mean if you place a piece on a tower then there is a good chance that it could remain there for the rest of them game without it being moved..... Its called taking a risk which is all part of game play, makes for a more exciting game.

And there's a big difference between the tower and the use of Cathar tiles which you're suggesting. When placing a meeple on a tower, I decide that it is worth it in order to provide protection for other meeples on the ground. In the Cathars, you decide to lock my meeple, and the risk is there every time I place a knight in the city. I have no choice in the matter - and that is far more aggressive than anything else in the game.
You're also wrong that risk is a part of game-play. If you play with the basic game alone, the only way you can affect an opponent is by building onto his or her city, which is much more difficult without the big follower. 'Risk' is not a part of the basic game at all, although certain risk elements have been built into the game with expansions. The level of risk and aggression which Cathar lock-in would generate would be unprecedented. In fact, it wouldn't be 'risk' at all - in a two-player game, I would live in constant fear that my opponent would draw a Cathar tile. They would be super-tiles.

Incidentally, there is a good reason why there are only four tiles, quite aside from the power you suppose - because every expansion is designed to fit with the basic game first, and the other expansions second. Imagine a game using the basic (72 tiles) set and the Cathars, and the rules I've argued: four Cathar tiles is quite enough. If you have twelve Cathar tiles, you'd have more of them than cloisters, and basically every city you built would be besieged, and would score double for farmers. Twelve Cathar tiles would completely change the game, if combined with the basic set alone, while four tiles make for an interesting consideration - 'risk', as you say. Twelve tiles wouldn't be risk, but near-certainty. And as I said, four tiles which created lock-in could cripple an opponent, especially in a two-player game using only the basic set.

The problem with only four tiles is that their relative distribution decreases as you add more expansions to the mix, just as with Trade Goods. And the only way to deal with that is add more Cathar sets as well, or like Trade Goods, accept them for what they are.

I'm sticking by my original position: no change to major rules unless explicitly stated. The 'Escape' section does not change the major rule, but merely adds another exception. Until proven otherwise. 

[canada steve]

  Ok guys being big enough to admit I got it wrong, even though the rules can be open to misinterpretation. I have heard back from the man and you are quite correct in that a knight does get removed from a beseiged city upon completion. I think my group are going to play it that they dont occaissionally as it makes for a real interesting rule change.

So sorry for getting it wrong.

[Gantry]

i feel left out of this thread because I don't have the Cathars!  I went to look for it yesterday around town but no one has it.