Option: No Fields

[57erniepyle]

We always played no fields. It was too confusing for the kids. The PDF rules that you offer for download do not mention scoring fields, so that seems like a valid option to offer. It is a lot easier for newbies to the game to learn, before they move on to more advanced field options.

[Robo65]

Oh wow, that's confusing indeed. There are two english rule sets in the rules collection: "rules" and "rule supplements". The farm scoring is in the supplements.

This is consistent with the relaunch of Carcassonne in Germany, the "new and ugly graphics edition". In the relaunch, the rules have been split, too.

I never knew that, my game is from 2001, with well worn-out tiles and the rules from the "game of the year" edition.

So yes, I agree, since the board game makes the farms optional, so should BGA. But it's not really Carcassonne without the farms, farm fights are the most interesting part.

Robo

[Kaja284]

Yes I agree, the boxed version we have (bought in the UK a couple of years ago) has just roads, cities and monasteries in the basic rules. The river, fields, and gardens are listed as supplementary options.

I really don't like playing with fields, and wonder if BGA could allow a setting in preferences to choose not to play with fields.

Also is it possible to add the gardens and Abbott feature?

[Grethousand]

I definitely agree about letting fields points be optionable.
I'm a new player and I never unterstand how are field points calculated in each version.

[Usay Dress A H]

I'm so sorry, but this thread is a duplicate.
You may lock it to keep all the related discussion in one place.