Cities and Knights Rule

Discuss any rules questions you've run into here. Please search through the forum for an answer to your question before posting it.

Cities and Knights Rule

Postby BobMem » Thu May 26, 2011 10:26 am

Came across this is a game of Cities and knights the other day.

One of the players had expanded well and was in the position of having 5 settlements and 1 city. The Barbarians attacked, we lost and said player had to downgrade their city to a settlement but had no further settlement pieces available.

Should they have to remove the settlement altogether (which seems rather harsh) or should they remove another settlement to replace it (also a loss of 2VP)? We settled on letting the player use a ship to represent the settlement until one was upgraded to a City.

However the question still remains. The player potentially gained an advantage by building a settlement when he should have built a knight to protect himself, so perhaps he should lose both the city and settlement? If you do remove both it could potentially leave the player with, quite literally, "a road to nowhere", i.e. a road not connected to anything. It could also open up previously closed routes for other players and completely change the game.
If we proceed with using a ship as a temporary settlement should the player be forced to upgrade a settlement to a city as their next move?
BobMem
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Cities and Knights Rule

Postby steve » Tue May 31, 2011 7:00 pm

That's a great question. I did some perusing and discovered the answer on the official catan FAQ:

http://www.catan.com/faq/24-cities-and- ... stock.html

Seems to fit with the rest of the rules - the game system doesn't like penalizing people very harshly in general, so a loss of 2 VP seems overly harsh along with the possibility of stranded roads.
steve
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:55 am


Return to Rules Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron