Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
60 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Building a 2nd starred building rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have heard a lot lately about how you must build a new starred building on top of any existing starred building in a city. Now, I have always played that you can build a starred building or wonder anywhere, you just pick up the other building and either return to the market or throw in the box (for wonders). In other words, you don't have to build the wonder right on top of the existing wonder. You can certainly do this if you want to, which is what the rule (which someone will undoubtedly quote in this thread) says, but you do not have to.

How have other people played this? Since we have gotten Shipyards, which is a starred water building, I think it's pretty clear that the intent was never to effectively create the "Starred Square" that you always need to use if you are going to swap out starred buildings.

The way I see it, if you have a Barracks and you want to build a Bank, you just place the Bank in any square (including on top of the Barracks!) and pick up the Barracks. Seems pretty silly to make me build over the existing Barracks with a non-star such as a granary or workshop, then allow me to place a Bank somewhere. Just make it easy: build the Bank and pick up the Barracks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P S
India
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:
You can certainly do this if you want to, which is what the rule (which someone will undoubtedly quote in this thread) says, but you do not have to.


This is how we have always played, replace the building at the exact same location. which is what the rule says, like you mentioned. Of course, we didn't have shipyards until now.

jhoratio wrote:

Since we have gotten Shipyards, which is a starred water building, I think it's pretty clear that the intent was never to effectively create the "Starred Square" that you always need to use if you are going to swap out starred buildings.


This alternate play poses a few questions.
1: What would you do if say a barracks is blockaded. Will you still be allowed to remove it from the board and create a bank elsewhere?
2: Can you remove the barracks and create another barracks itself elsewhere, reinstating your combat bonus?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prestidigitator420 wrote:
jhoratio wrote:
You can certainly do this if you want to, which is what the rule (which someone will undoubtedly quote in this thread) says, but you do not have to.


This is how we have always played, replace the building at the exact same location. which is what the rule says, like you mentioned. Of course, we didn't have shipyards until now.

jhoratio wrote:

Since we have gotten Shipyards, which is a starred water building, I think it's pretty clear that the intent was never to effectively create the "Starred Square" that you always need to use if you are going to swap out starred buildings.


This alternate play poses a few questions.
1: What would you do if say a barracks is blockaded. Will you still be allowed to remove it from the board and create a bank elsewhere?
2: Can you remove the barracks and create another barracks itself elsewhere, reinstating your combat bonus?


Again, I don't think this is an alternate play - I think that this is what the rules intended, they just didn't specify exactly the mechanic for picking up a starred building when another was built elsewhere. Probably because it's so obvious - just pick it up! In my mind this is no different from wonders - do you have to place all of those on the same square forever? Obviously not, since you can just build a building over it, then build a wonder somewhere else on the next turn. But why make someone do all that? Just let them build wherever they want and pick up the old one.

Now, If the barracks is blockaded I would say no you can't build another starred building. But that's because it's blockaded! Not because you can't ever move the square.

For your 2nd case, why not? Seems an awfully bad use of a city action, but what reason would you have for not allowing this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prestidigitator420 wrote:
which is what the rule says, like you mentioned.


No I did not mention that the rule says this. I did not say the rule explicitly required you to place the new building where the old building is. What I said is that the rule says that you CAN DO THIS IF YOU WANT. They had to mention this, because otherwise you could think that nothing could be built in that square anymore, because it wasn't grassland any more, but a library. They put the rule in there to make it clear that you can still build a granary on the square (destroying the library) if you wanted.

Nowhere does it say, or even come close to saying, that you MUST put the new building on the old one. Just that you can if you want.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P S
India
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:
prestidigitator420 wrote:
which is what the rule says, like you mentioned.


No I did not mention that the rule says this. I did not say the rule explicitly required you to place the new building where the old building is.

Nowhere does it say, or even come close to saying, that you MUST put the new building on the old one. Just that you can if you want.



Well, the rule book does mention this (page 17) : "To replace a building or wonder, first the old building or wonder is removed from the board. If it is a building, it is returned to the market. If it is a wonder, the wonder marker and card are returned to the box and may not be rebuilt for the remainder of the game. After the old building or wonder is removed, the new building or wonder is placed in the now-empty square"

The "now-empty square" suggests that this is the only way to replace a building.
Which is why the arrival of a shipyard (a starred building) may call for a change in the game play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P S
India
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:
prestidigitator420 wrote:


This alternate play poses a few questions.
1: What would you do if say a barracks is blockaded. Will you still be allowed to remove it from the board and create a bank elsewhere?
2: Can you remove the barracks and create another barracks itself elsewhere, reinstating your combat bonus?


Now, If the barracks is blockaded I would say no you can't build another starred building. But that's because it's blockaded! Not because you can't ever move the square.

For your 2nd case, why not? Seems an awfully bad use of a city action, but what reason would you have for not allowing this?


The second case was related to the first actually. I meant if a blockaded building can be allowed to be replaced elsewhere, then one would just keep 'replacing' the barracks in the same city in another square. So yes, not allowing replacement of a blockaded building answers the question.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prestidigitator420 wrote:
Well, the rule book does mention this (page 17) : "To replace a building or wonder, first the old building or wonder is removed from the board. If it is a building, it is returned to the market. If it is a wonder, the wonder marker and card are returned to the box and may not be rebuilt for the remainder of the game. After the old building or wonder is removed, the new building or wonder is placed in the now-empty square"

The "now-empty square" suggests that this is the only way to replace a building.
Which is why the arrival of a shipyard (a starred building) may call for a change in the game play.


Again, you are misreading the text (which is not very well written I might add). Where does it say you must build over a building? Nowhere. It says that when placing a building, you may replace an existing one. This is an important distinction. It's not talking about the mechanic to replace a starred building (which is actually not explicitly in the rule book), it's just referencing what you do when you want to build on top of an existing building (whether starred or not). They wanted to make it clear that, for example, you can still build grassland-only buildings on an occupied grassland - otherwise I'm sure a lot of people would have jumped to the conclusion that you can't ever destroy buildings, or the square isn't grassland anymore.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prestidigitator420 wrote:
The second case was related to the first actually. I meant if a blockaded building can be allowed to be replaced elsewhere, then one would just keep 'replacing' the barracks in the same city in another square. So yes, not allowing replacement of a blockaded building answers the question.


You CAN keep replacing a barracks. Just as long as it's not blockaded.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P S
India
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:


Again, you are misreading the text (which is not very well written I might add). Where does it say you must build over a building? Nowhere. It says that when placing a building, you may replace an existing one. This is an important distinction. It's not talking about the mechanic to replace a starred building (which is actually not explicitly in the rule book), it's just referencing what you do when you want to build on top of an existing building (whether starred or not). They wanted to make it clear that, for example, you can still build grassland-only buildings on an occupied grassland - otherwise I'm sure a lot of people would have jumped to the conclusion that you can't ever destroy buildings, or the square isn't grassland anymore.


Well, the "may replace" as I would read it is simply saying - either 1: you build the building in any empty square on the outskirts of the city or 2: you remove an existing building and place the new building over there (thus constituting a replace).

I don't see why it should allow for both the above 1)removing an existing building from a square while 2)simultaneously building a new one elsewhere on the outskirts.
The actual intent can only be answered by the designer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Franka
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
jhoratio wrote:
Again, you are misreading the text (which is not very well written I might add). Where does it say you must build over a building? Nowhere. It says that when placing a building, you may replace an existing one.

This isn't a case of 'misreading' the text. You are not objectively right and the other posters objectively wrong. It's a matter of interpretation, and how you interpret it is opinion.

The game allows you to Produce Buildings. There is no action called Destroy Buildings or Remove Buildings. That is not a city action that is available in the rule book--with one exception: Replacing a Building. In this case, according to the rule book, a building is removed and a new building is put in the now-empty square. Clearly, that presents a problem when trying to replace a water-based building with a non-water-based building.

If you are not Replacing a building, then the rules that apply are those for Producing a Building and those for Limited Buildings (all of which have headings or subheadings that can be located in the rule book). The rules for Limited Buildings say that if you have a Limited Building, you cannot place another Limited Building. You can't even put it down. The rules say nothing about placing a Limited Building and then destroying another Limited Building. It is not listed as an allowable action. The rules say nothing about Destroying or Removing another Limited Building to allow the subsequent legal placement of a Limited Building in a different square. That is also not listed as an allowable action. Now if you want to get into the debate of whether "everything in the rule book not expressly prohibited is allowed" or "everything in the rule book not expressly allowed is prohibited," that's a whole different debate--but also one that is opinion, not fact.

I know how I interpret the rules, but I also know that it's my opinion, not some kind of objective fact. And I'm ok with that. As long as my play group agrees to some kind of interpretation before game start, then that's all we need to get the game to the table. But this issue IS open to interpretation. I appreciate you backing up your point, and when you acknowledge that there is room for debate, then I'm likely to consider your argument as part of that debate. But when you say that people that don't agree with your interpretation are objectively "misreading" the rules, then I (and maybe some other people too) am tempted to just kind of tune your argument out, because when you're not open to other people's opinions, I'm not particularly moved to be open to yours.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, I certainly didn't mean to hurt any feelings. I agree with you and you are correct when you say that nothing explicitly deals with destroying or picking up buildings outside of a direct replacement.

However, to say that the rules state definitively that you absolutely have to replace and no other option exists is incorrect and in fact a misreading. Because the rules never say anything about requiring anything. The word they use is "may" and a lot of the stuff we are speculating about the rulebook is just silent on.

People can play with whatever interpretation they want - in fact, they should play with whatever rules (real or not) make the game the most fun for them.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is:

Interpreting rules to the best of your ability = good
Saying the rules definitively state something they do not = not good
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
prestidigitator420 wrote:
jhoratio wrote:


Again, you are misreading the text (which is not very well written I might add). Where does it say you must build over a building? Nowhere. It says that when placing a building, you may replace an existing one. This is an important distinction. It's not talking about the mechanic to replace a starred building (which is actually not explicitly in the rule book), it's just referencing what you do when you want to build on top of an existing building (whether starred or not). They wanted to make it clear that, for example, you can still build grassland-only buildings on an occupied grassland - otherwise I'm sure a lot of people would have jumped to the conclusion that you can't ever destroy buildings, or the square isn't grassland anymore.


Well, the "may replace" as I would read it is simply saying - either 1: you build the building in any empty square on the outskirts of the city or 2: you remove an existing building and place the new building over there (thus constituting a replace).

I don't see why it should allow for both the above 1)removing an existing building from a square while 2)simultaneously building a new one elsewhere on the outskirts.
The actual intent can only be answered by the designer.


I agree, but the obvious implication is this - what happens when you freely build a 2nd starred building on an open square? There is very literally nothing in the rulebook which deals with this case. To me, I don't see a need to complicate things, just build the new one and pick up the old one. But you are right, it is not clear exactly what is to happen. However, regardless of the original ruling, I think its clear (my opinion) that the existence of the Shipyard now forces the game to shift in the direction I am describing.

In much the same way, you can build a 2nd wonder anywhere in your outskirts. What happens to the 1st wonder? Just pick it up!

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Franka
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
See, and I disagree with this, but that's perfectly ok. I interpret the rules to expressly forbid building a second starred building when you've already got one. But it doesn't bother me a bit that you've found an interpretation that you're comfortable with. As long as you and your play group are satisfied with how you play then that's great. Getting the game to the table and having a good time with it is what's important. That's much better than being so paralyzed by uncertainty with the rules that the game doesn't even get played until the FAQ is updated (because maybe it won't be).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bli bla
msg tools
mbmb
x players play with the rule "you can build another starred building elsewhere".
x players play with the rule "you have to build on the same square"

Like bigtex said, everyone is up to interpretate the debated issues or the intention or whatever, in the way they think it's supposed to be played.
Next Faq will clear it up anyway.
For the moment just play it the way you want... ^^
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
François Mahieu
Belgium
Rhode-Saint-Genèse
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Itchi wrote:
x players play with the rule "you can build another starred building elsewhere".
x players play with the rule "you have to build on the same square"

Like bigtex said, everyone is up to interpretate the debated issues or the intention or whatever, in the way they think it's supposed to be played.
Next Faq will clear it up anyway.
For the moment just play it the way you want... ^^


thumbsup

The NOW-empty space can't be clearer. Though we're not sure it won't be addressed in a forthcoming FAQ. Until then, I'll keep on replacing an old building/wonder with a new one on the exact same place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christoph Wolf
Spain
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoyalRook wrote:
Are you blind?
(...don't want to fill the whole page just so you know what I'm refering to...)

Maybe, you may read the post again, after you read this line again.



The sentence you cite twice can also be understood as referring to the possibility to replace a building without a necessity being existent.

In other words they may just want to clarify that if you replace a building, you put the new one in the same square after you removed the old one, hence the old one goes back to the market and can be rebuilt. I don't want to convince anyone that this is what the designers/rule writers had in mind but I think it is a possible way of reading it, therefore this issue needs clarification.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Germantown
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoyalRook wrote:
True, but you can't have two star buildings or wonders in one city's out skirts. Therefore, when comes to replacing those special buildings, you have to replace them in the same square, if not, in reality of things you are going to have two in the city skirts. Normal buildings are not limited this way, you can have as many as you want while supply lasts. Star buildings/wonders are special, but they are not special enough to able to vanish into the air and initiate teleportation across the city.

That's clear enough AND backed by the rule book of all things, right?


Gonna have to agree with this guy. It's pretty clear, IMO.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bli bla
msg tools
mbmb
With a little imagination, you can understand how building elsewhere could obsolete the old starred building. How does a Barracks works ? Not alone, from itself. There are people in it, training to be better warriors. -> When you build a temple, the Barrack is just abandonned and becomes a ruine. Now the people concentrate to the culture path by praying in temple, devoting to the gods.
Of course the buildings don't vanish in the air ^^. But they just become useless.
I'm not trying to convince that the solution of allowing to build elsewhere is the good one, but just that it's a valuable possiblity (like the opposite's one).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Where does it say that once you build a wonder, that all wonders forevermore must be in the same square?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoyalRook wrote:
True, but you can't have two star buildings or wonders in one city's out skirts. Therefore, when comes to replacing those special buildings, you have to replace them in the same square, if not, in reality of things you are going to have two in the city skirts. Normal buildings are not limited this way, you can have as many as you want while supply lasts. Star buildings/wonders are special, but they are not special enough to able to vanish into the air and initiate teleportation across the city.

That's clear enough AND backed by the rule book of all things, right?


Ok, so if I play with you, I'll just replace my star building with a regular building, then next turn place a new star building whereever I want. Same result as my way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bli bla
msg tools
mbmb
jhoratio wrote:
RoyalRook wrote:
True, but you can't have two star buildings or wonders in one city's out skirts. Therefore, when comes to replacing those special buildings, you have to replace them in the same square, if not, in reality of things you are going to have two in the city skirts. Normal buildings are not limited this way, you can have as many as you want while supply lasts. Star buildings/wonders are special, but they are not special enough to able to vanish into the air and initiate teleportation across the city.

That's clear enough AND backed by the rule book of all things, right?


Ok, so if I play with you, I'll just replace my star building with a regular building, then next turn place a new star building whereever I want. Same result as my way.


It's not the same result as you "waiste" one turn to get the new starred building you wanted.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Germantown
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Itchi wrote:
jhoratio wrote:
RoyalRook wrote:
True, but you can't have two star buildings or wonders in one city's out skirts. Therefore, when comes to replacing those special buildings, you have to replace them in the same square, if not, in reality of things you are going to have two in the city skirts. Normal buildings are not limited this way, you can have as many as you want while supply lasts. Star buildings/wonders are special, but they are not special enough to able to vanish into the air and initiate teleportation across the city.

That's clear enough AND backed by the rule book of all things, right?


Ok, so if I play with you, I'll just replace my star building with a regular building, then next turn place a new star building whereever I want. Same result as my way.


It's not the same result as you "waiste" one turn to get the new starred building you wanted.


Exactly. I at first thought that this was a loophole, an "exploit" if you will, but it's more of a way to spend turns, if you really need to, to re-allocate your buildings in your available spaces to better suit you. The "cost" is the turn/turns needed to do so.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Bauer
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't agree how RoyalRook said it, but I have to agree with the outcome. For me, there is no possible way to interpret anything into this VERY clearly stated rule. There is only replacement of buildings, no voluntarily destroying it. This is the same for starred buildings. Therefore the new starred building has to go into the exact same spot as the old building. If the new building cannot legally be placed there it simply cannot be build. This is from the rules. If someone plays it differently, he interprets something that is not there and plays a 'variant'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Boston
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Not sure where all this nastiness is coming from. Nevertheless, I'm gonna go ahead and un-sub...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J. H. Horatio
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
The Future is a Game
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RoyalRook wrote:
Itchi wrote:
With a little imagination, you can understand how building elsewhere could obsolete the old starred building. How does a Barracks works ? Not alone, from itself. There are people in it, training to be better warriors. -> When you build a temple, the Barrack is just abandonned and becomes a ruine. Now the people concentrate to the culture path by praying in temple, devoting to the gods.
Of course the buildings don't vanish in the air ^^. But they just become useless.
I'm not trying to convince that the solution of allowing to build elsewhere is the good one, but just that it's a valuable possiblity (like the opposite's one).


At first, I thought you are trying to have a real discussion. But it's pretty clear to me that you are simply stubborn. I have to say, I am having a ball reading all these weird nonsense. Are we still on the topic of playing the game the correct way that adherent to the rules, or are we trying to dumb down the core game mechanism for the illiterates? I don't think the community should collectively dumb down the game, because someone have troubles with auxiliary verbs.

If you can not appreciate this simplest, most obvious, and most transparent set of rules for replacing buildings, then you need to go back to checkers. Because there IS no other way to make the matter any clearer.

Oh yea that's right, about what you said. I am sure in the game when wonders are obsoleted they are vanished from air. Oh wait, they are not, they are still there in the city outskirt and contributing to the culture.


Rook, you keep acting as if everyone else in this discussion is stupid, rather than thoughtful people with different points of view.

I see your points, but I do not think you are giving enough credit to the fact that the case you keep stating (very rudely I might add) is very specific case which says what happens when you choose to place a new building on top of an old building rather than in an empty square.

The rules are silent (that is, nothing is said about it at all) on what happens if you specifically wish to swap out starred buildings. It never says that once placed, a building may never ever be removed by any means other than the one case that they bother to detail.

You may not realize it, but you are indeed extrapolating new rules when you say that because starred building replacement is not explicitly dealt with, and because the only case mentioned in the rules describes the option to build on top of existing buildings, that this MUST mean beyond a shadow of a doubt that:

a) new starred buildings can only be built on top of existing starred buildings
b) new wonders can only be built on existing wonders

Now to me, these are pretty important rules if they are indeed rules, which makes it all the more curious that they appear nowhere in the rule book. You'd think they'd be more explicit about a rule like that!

Regardless, there are a good number of very experience players who agree with me and play the way I am describing. Meaning I am not crazy or stupid, but have an opinion which other non-crazy, non-stupid people share. In fact, many of these people are frequent moderators on this board, so I hate to say it but, get used to playing my way!

In any case, I think we can all agree that this is a point on which the rules are very vague and we can only hope that the point is addressed in the next FAQ.

For my part, I like things to be simple and straightforward when it comes to gameplay, which is why I like my solution best. You build one building, you pick up the other. In the PC game (which in my opinion, should govern the basic spirit of every rule in the board game), if you want to get rid of a building you just sell it whenever you want. Why make a big deal about it?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.