It did not make sense however "fixing" farm scoring only to undermine the fix by inflating the value of 2-tile cities. For us the changes to farm scoring were welcome because we struggled with farms being to powerful at game end. That was our first introduction to the 3rd edition rules. We actually played 1st edition rules for a couple years before I stumbled upon this site and became aware of the CAR. But for the love of Carcassonne, please don't mess with the scoring balance.
If you want to pick and choose, choose Princess but not Dragon, or Builders without Traders, or Inns without Cathedrals. It is by design that you are supposed to go bankrupt early on.
#Carcassonne rules change two cities free
Giving the Luxury Tax money away at Free Parking creates an imbalance in the game. When it comes to game selection, Monopoly is passed over because people think it takes all day to play. It makes the game take longer, which in my experience has been one the reasons why people rarely choose to play Monopoly. The manufacturer discourages this house rule. I'm ashamed to say that I used to be in that crowd in my defense, I learned from other people teaching me and had never actually read the rules. This house rule has become so entrenched that many people actually believe it is an official rule. I think I read somewhere that the most common house rule for Monopoly is that when you land on Free Parking you receive all the money from Luxury Tax. This kind of frustration is the same frustration when you go to somebody's house and play Monopoly, and they have a million house rules. Most people in North America are probably playing 1st edition rules because that's all they know. So far I've been introducing the game to people who have never played before when the day finally comes that I get to play with one or more persons who have been playing before, there will probably be some struggle, especially for me because the odds are against me. I'm definitely not against variants I'm a big proponent of river variants. I think it's important that people are, for the most part, playing by the same rules. Theoretically these value increases are balancing each other out. Not only does the castle occupant score more points, the castle itself is more valuable than a city to the farmers. Since the release of BC&B, there is some encouragement to build a 2-tile city to convert it into a castle. If you want to mess with the rules, it would make more sense to make the 2-tile cities less valuable (or even worthless) to farmers. Discouraging people from building 2-tile cities doesn't address the root of the problem: a lot of small cities adds up to a lot of points for farmers.
Making 2-tile cities worth only 2 points doesn't change the value of the city to the farmers. It's important that 2-tile cities are worth 4 points to the occupant to help balance the value of that city to the farmers, who are earning between 3 and 5 points for that city. Farms were/are too powerful, so the point values were reduced to 3 per city. Much of the reason for the revisions to the rules was to address scoring imbalances between features.
I feel that it is not good to pick and choose which rule changes you want to "accept" and which to "reject". I've been playing 3rd edition rules ever since I discovered the CAR, including 4 points for a 2-tile city. I still don't know how, but this discussion fundamentally bothers me enough that I'm going to try.
#Carcassonne rules change two cities how to
I thought about replying to this thread yesterday, but didn't know how to express my reaction in a meaningful way.
0 kommentar(er)
