Carcassonne Order of Play

From Wikicarpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Exclamation2.png
This page is Under construction!
Rules, texts, images and others can be changed.

Please note that the page is under rebuild, which may cause a code crash during this process.
 

This is only source page for Order of Play, Order of Play (1st edition) and Winter_Order_of_Play

To-Do


Expansion selector



Transmogrifying...

Order of play

by Meepledrone, based on the foundation provided by SkullOne and obervet.



Transmogrifying...

Footnotes

For Icons explanation and licensing please visit Icons page.


  1. Interpretation from the Community This action it is placed before the opportunity to place a followermeeple in the City of Carcassonne because the placement of the tile could earn the player gingerbread points, and thus prevent placement of a followermeeple in the City of Carcassonne. Of course, since the Gingerbread Man would have to be creatively added to a game of standard-version Carcassonne anyway, this is unlikely to come up very often.
By tile placement
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 31, 2023 at 4:03 pm

"Features completed by tile placement or by abbey placement or by halfling placement or by German castle placement" – or by wonder tile, isn't it?

Meepledrone | Posted on Jan 2, 2024 at 6:37 pm

Added

Gifts and 1B
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 31, 2023 at 3:48 pm

"Place the tile. If the placement is illegal, you must discard the tile (and the tile drawn to place underneath a hill as well, if any) and go back to Step 1B." – From this, one might deduce that it is possible to draw an invalid tile, open 1 gift, discard that invalid tile, draw another tile, open another gift...

Meepledrone | Posted on Jan 2, 2024 at 6:58 pm

You only open a gift once the tile is placeable. This paceability may be aided by an extra tile in the case of wonders or by a bridge.

Therefore you can open only one gift by tile placement.

Except and ghosts
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 22, 2023 at 9:52 pm

"Move all the ghost from the spell circles in the mist (except from the tile just placed, if any), if the mist is completed" – Surely this is true? This way, you can end with ghosts blocked for until the game.

Meepledrone | Posted on Dec 26, 2023 at 9:13 pm

This is what the rules say, if you read between the lines. I asked about this to HiG looking for a confirmation, but it seems I caught them on vacation.

Issue
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Nov 25, 2023 at 3:37 pm

The text "If you have tiles that you are required to play, you must use them instead of drawing a new tile (or maybe several) or choosing a tile from your supply" repeats twice.

Meepledrone | Posted on Nov 25, 2023 at 6:28 pm

Corrected! Please have a look.

Resolve order
anonymous | Posted on Dec 30, 2022 at 10:03 pm

How to understand: "Each player receiving points chooses the order in which their features resolve." Can you give an example when it matters (Exp 1, 2, 4, 5)? I'll give one: let's say that there are two completed features and each of the two has a wagon on it - who decides the order of resolve and therefore the order in which the wagons "jump"?

Meepledrone | Posted on Jan 2, 2023 at 11:36 am | Last edited on Jan 6, 2023 at 10:11 pm

This statement has Mini #2 - The Messengers, Mini #6 - The Robbers and The School in mind. These expansions depend on the players first scoring to trigger actions or a bonus, so players are entitles to declare which scoring they will note first on the scoreboard and then messages will be recieved, points will be robbed or the School bonus will be granted accodingly.

This may generate a conflict with some dependencies such as castles, which need to be scored after all the complted features which trigger their scoring (the castle owner may decide which feature to score points for).

In complex cases, I would recommend to decouple the evaluation of the features (following any dependencies between them) form the noting of their points on the scoreboard, where players may decide a different order from the evaluation order to meet those contraints related to messages, robbers and the School. Note that the evaluation should lead to the same points per player (the order of evaluation should not be inflenced by "race conditions") while the scoring of the points may have side effects as depending on the order followed, different actions and extra points may be triggered.

With one single scoring loop (evaluation-score-meeple removal), you may find unwanted side effects:

  • Castles that depend on unscored features to determine their value
  • Watchtowers scoring points for meeples that may grant different points depending on the order of evaluation and meeple removal of features in their vicinity.
  • Wagon movement after scoring conflicts

So in these cases, the evaluation loop should happen first, considering all features in their correct order to provide a conaistent result (all features triggering castles evaluated before the castle itselt, all watchtowers evaluated before any other features affecting them...). Afterwards, when all the points corresponding to each feature are calculated (i.e. the set of scoring events to deal with), then each player decides the order they will be noted on the scoreboard and meeple removal, that is the actual scoring. The wagon movement, should be performed in one loop starting with the active player and following the players' turn sequence.

As a side note, note that sending meeples from Carcassonne to the features about to be scored should happen in one loop too. There shouldn't be one loop per feature if more than one to be scored.

Regarding sending meeples to bathhouses, it is not actually necessary to evaluate the features in a particular order to make a decision. The active player may declare the order of the candidate single-meeple scorings in order to occupy the available empty bathhouses. As simple as this in a complex scenario.

So as you can see, complex scenarios may pile up a lot of contraints to resolve in the scoring loop, but the rules do not detail the whole process. The Order of Play gives you some hints, but we may need to slice it a bit more to accommodate the most complex cases to date.

Hope this helps.

Incomplete
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 28, 2020 at 12:54 am

Carcassonne Maps and Saint Nicholas Scoring Board should be added.

Robbers and messages
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Jul 18, 2020 at 10:38 am

A robber can rob message points?

Meepledrone | Posted on Jul 18, 2020 at 11:34 am

Yes, as any other valid points (no rogue points)

Trees and meeples
Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Jul 5, 2020 at 4:14 pm

"you may perform one of the following actions per tree and meeple"- somebody can understand that you may perform two actions (1 per tree and 1 per meeple).

Meepledrone | Posted on Jul 5, 2020 at 9:47 pm | Last edited on Jul 5, 2020 at 10:06 pm

The intent is that you perform one action per meeple on the current turn and neighboring tree. Check the following clarification:

The Fruit-Bearing Trees

Messages
anonymous | Posted on Apr 8, 2020 at 8:41 pm

Where are "MESSAGES (#1B)" and "MESSAGES (#1C)"?

Meepledrone | Posted on Apr 9, 2020 at 2:47 am

MESSAGES (#1B) is associated to the round of scoring for the Wheel of Fortune actions in Step 1B

MESSAGES (#1C) is associated to the round of scoring for the Wind Roses tiles in Step 1C

Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 13, 2020 at 12:25 am

What happened with MESSAGES (#2)?

Meepledrone | Posted on Dec 13, 2020 at 2:36 am

It's the last action Step 2C. Why?

Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 13, 2020 at 2:46 am | Last edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 2:46 am

Has disappeared from Order of Play.

Meepledrone | Posted on Dec 13, 2020 at 11:15 pm

Please check if your bowser cache is messing with you...

Paloi Sciurala | Posted on Dec 14, 2020 at 2:52 pm | Last edited on Dec 14, 2020 at 2:55 pm

I tried with another browser, but I still cannot see MESSAGES (#2). [1]ː I can see MESSAGES (#2). [2]ː I cannot longer see MESSAGES (#2).

Meepledrone | Posted on Dec 15, 2020 at 11:30 am

Please check now! There was a glitch I had not seen! Thanks for the heads up!