Maarten D. de Jong
In preparation for explaining this game, I found the 2.03-rules to still be lacking and confusing in places. Here is a small collection of issues I ran up against, with hopefully the correct explanation. I post it here in the hope that someone finds it useful too.
— Worker placement inside the city map: worker adjacency works not only orthogonally, but also diagonally. It is never stated explicitly, but has to be inferred from the image, and from certain exclusions of diagonality later in the rules.
— The 'tile flipping'-thing while building new buildings confused me until I realised that the tiles which could be flipped have very specific fronts and backs, so that it is always clear what can be upgraded to what. Only in the case of the Square do you need to be a bit careful because what it can upgrade to is rather limited. You do not have to make a choice about the tile's other side if you build a Square, so you are allowed to exchange Square tiles (read: tiles with the Square side showing) already on the board if you're in need of a specific upgrade.
The reason this is all so complicated is because of parsimonity on the publisher's behalf. It's much easier if the 6 upgrades to the Square would have been printed separately (as suggested elsewhere).
— The War check doesn't state explicitly what the 'result' of the 2D6-roll is. It can be 1D6 and 1D6, or it can be the sum of both. Because the enemies track runs upto 9, I conclude that what is implied is their sum.
— The Trade use regarding money instead of wood and stone is confusingly worded in the 2.03-rules. I think I understand why: the original rules, where this section is crystal clear, imply that you can simply buy and hoard over the course of many turns. That is not allowed: you must immediately spend the resources on whatever you needed them for.
— The Attacker placement section, crystal clear in the original rules, has been mangled beyond belief. Looking at the Rule Lab-thread, I understand why. Frankly, matters should be reverted to the original. Given the 2.03-phrasing I was under the impression I had to force the attackers to arrive in multiple triplets of 3, 2, and 1 disc; i.e., suppose I have 12 attackers, then I would first form a triplet consisting of a stack of 3, of 2, and of 1 disc (for a total of 6), and do it again with the remaining 6 discs.
It is much simpler than that: attackers are positioned individually along the city's perimeter according to the controlling player's wishes; they can be stacked for convenience and a good overview; they enter the city on their own (and thus have a 3 square-movement range each); but may, again according to the controlling player's wishes, be stacked immediately once inside the city, subjecting them to the war stacking rules.
— Nowhere is actually listed what a player does on a war turn. I surmise it is simply moving his tokens and stacks of tokens he controls... or not. Once he's finished, it will be the next player's turn to do the same.
— The text and figure about merging two stacks of 2 discs imply that the player to move last automatically becomes the leader of the stack: that is not the case. Every stack formation is subject to mutual agreement who will command it; it is not tied to whoever actually caused the merger by moving.
— I suppose that sacrificing a stack for one extra movement point does not yield the 2 VP per token for having your own tokens killed, as they are not 'killed' in the sense of the rules.
I think I can explain the rules with some confidence now.
I agree on all points with you, but there is one thing still not entirely clear. When buying wood or stone from the 'virtual' player, the price rises with each cube bought.
Does the price 'reset' after the turn of a single player (so the next player can buy cubes again from the virtual player at the price of 1 silver for the first cube), or does it reset only after the year is over, or does it not reset at all?
My interpretation: the price for wood or stone cubes from the virtual player resets each after each player's turn - this seems to be the most fair...