Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
33 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Advanced Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: Two questions... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Hi all,

I have two questions concerning Advanced Civ.

First is about Barbarian Hordes. I think that the rules are pretty clear on how to handle this. Most immediate damage first. If there is a choice between units or a city the city is always most immediate damage. If the choice is between attacking 5 units or 3 units, attacking 5 units is always most immediate damage.

However, if the choice is between two areas that contain cities, do the barbarians take into credit if it's a city site or a non-city site? Do they take into credit if one area has a population support of four and the other four?

My answer would be no, both areas are equal and thus the choice is the player trading the card (unless I have misread this and it is always the primary victim). Is this correct or how do you interpret the rules?

Second is Civil War. Player 1 gets it. Player 2 is beneficiary with say 30 units. Player 3 has 29 units. Player 2 can't place all his units (say that there are 10 left on the board).The rules state that the next player with the most in stock gets the rest (i.e. becomes new beneficiary). Player 1 now has (since he has retained his units that were previously on the board) 42 units in stock. Dos he then become the beneficiary?

Is the "most units in stock" counted from the time of the civil war is played or is this when beneficiary player runs out of stock and can't take all of the units from the faction. Because the primary victim will almost always (if this problem occurs) have most units in stock.

Thanks,

Archie
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bachman
United States
Colonie
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I believe you are correct on the Barbarian Hordes. The damage is measured by direct token count and disregards other factors. A city site might be tougher to rebuild than a frontier city if the city site is less accessible by the victim. Such ties are determined by the trader of the card who can take such things into account.

I believe the Civil War stock count is done once, at the time the War breaks out. It doesn't happen often, but it might be good practice to pull the primary victim's rebels off to the side rather than directly into stock so that it can be known how many they started with in stock to help resolve the special cases where there are more than one beneficiary.

Hope this helps.
-Steve
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for your answers. Anyone elses input is also appreciated.

On Barbarian Hordes I will make sure we follow this more actively. I think we never broke the rule but the choices were sometimes far too soft and hardly damaged the primary victim, which the Hordes usually shuold do.

On Civil War, after having thought it over (I will read the rules once again to make sure I haven't missed anything) I am almost inclined to go with the way I think the rulebook is written, meaning it is ok for the primary victim to participate in becoming a beneficiary. Civil War can still hurt a player extremely much, so it might be more gentle to allow this. Also, Civil War is in the fourth pile, and the damage done is felt by me and my friends to be almost out of proportion for that pile.

Archie
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
zimonyi wrote:
If there is a choice between units or a city the city is always most immediate damage.


Not always. I can think of two cases where this isn't true. First, if there aren't enough barbarian units to crash the city, they will instead choose to attack the player's units, causing actual damage. Second, a city counts as five units. If there are 6+ player units in an area (which can happen if Egypt has agriculture for example) and there were sufficient barbarian units to attack either the city or the player units, they will attack the units, where they can do the most damage. If there are 5 player units, it is trader's choice whether the barbarians attack the city or the units.

zimonyi wrote:
If the choice is between attacking 5 units or 3 units, attacking 5 units is always most immediate damage.


Only if there are enough barbarians to cause 4+ casualties. If there are only enough barbarians to cause 1-3 casualties, then it is trader's choice.

zimonyi wrote:
However, if the choice is between two areas that contain cities, do the barbarians take into credit if it's a city site or a non-city site? Do they take into credit if one area has a population support of four and the other four?

My answer would be no, both areas are equal and thus the choice is the player trading the card (unless I have misread this and it is always the primary victim). Is this correct or how do you interpret the rules?


Yes, this is correct.

zimonyi wrote:
Second is Civil War. Player 1 gets it. Player 2 is beneficiary with say 30 units. Player 3 has 29 units. Player 2 can't place all his units (say that there are 10 left on the board).The rules state that the next player with the most in stock gets the rest (i.e. becomes new beneficiary). Player 1 now has (since he has retained his units that were previously on the board) 42 units in stock. Dos he then become the beneficiary?

Is the "most units in stock" counted from the time of the civil war is played or is this when beneficiary player runs out of stock and can't take all of the units from the faction. Because the primary victim will almost always (if this problem occurs) have most units in stock.


Stock count for civil war is done at the start of the civil war. Thus, player 3 would be the second benficiary.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Archibald Zimonyi
Sweden
Gothenburg
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Thanks for your answer too.

You examples for the Barbarian Hordes, which choice it would make, I totally agree with. Good examples.

Both of you have now answered as we have played before, I think we read too much into the rules when we played the last time.

Archie
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John McCoy
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheCat wrote:
Stock count for civil war is done at the start of the civil war. Thus, player 3 would be the second benficiary.


I don't see anything in the rules that makes this explicit. The relevant text is "If he [the beneficiary] runs out of units, the remainder are taken over by the next player with the most units in stock, and so on."

It's a fair assumption that the counts undertaken at the beginning of the Civil War remain in effect. But I think it's equally valid to rule the other way, that a new count should be undertaken. This is how the people I've gamed with have always done it. It's not uncommon that the victim of the Civil War ends up being the beneficiary in this case.

So in the absence of some other argument, I think it's down to what your group thinks is best. My group has tended to see Civil War is a way to help keep the worst-off player (the one with the most in stock) from falling too far behind, rather than a straight-up "punish the player who drew it" calamity. There's nothing in the rules to support this, mind you. It's just the feeling we've developed about the card.

If you subscribe to this point of view then you should allow the player being hit by the Civil War to become the second "beneficiary."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeffrey McBeth
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with the above answers on Barbarian Hordes.

On Civil War, I would claim that the unit points are not replaced until they are all claimed. I guess that puts me in the 3rd player gets it category. I've never actually met anyone that plays otherwise, but the above situation is a rare occasion unless you are playing some variant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raffaele Porrini
Italy
Rome
Latium
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
About Barbarian Hordes:

Where Assyrian Barbarians should appear on this map (they are now stationing in Arabian desert)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rporrini wrote:
Where Assyrian Barbarians should appear on this map (they are now stationing in Arabian desert)?


We're sorry, but this page is currently unavailable for viewing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raffaele Porrini
Italy
Rome
Latium
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now the map should be seen.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tommy Wareing
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
rporrini wrote:
Now the map should be seen.


Not for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raffaele Porrini
Italy
Rome
Latium
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grrr...

Map is now in BGG image
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tommy Wareing
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Interesting!

They would normally have started in the Assyrian start area, but both of those are now controlled by Asia, so they go to an empty start area. The closest one is the Babylonian 2 area. the only other choice is the Egyptian 4 area.

But there's no rule to say that you use the closest one, or who gets the decision. The only thing that's actually clear is that they don't start in the Arabian Desert, as it's not a start area.

I'd adjudicate that the player who traded the card gets to decide which of the two areas they appear in. They then get to move to the area which causes the most Assyrian damage. Since, in either starting case, this is going to be zero, the trading player again gets to chose where they go, which doesn't have to be toward the Assyrian counters! So they could be directed through the Baylonian flood plain, or toward Tunis (according to where they've been placed), as long as they never actually are moved adjacent to the Assyrian units.

Which seems to be against the spirit of the game, but is decidedly allowed by the rules.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Raffaele Porrini
Italy
Rome
Latium
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My thought is that they should start from Assyrian start area since when rules talks about start area they mean primary victim's start area.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tommy Wareing
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
rporrini wrote:
My thought is that they should start from Assyrian start area since when rules talks about start area they mean primary victim's start area.


That's certainly not right

The rules explicitly state that, if the player no longer has any tokens in their start areas (which is the case here), the barbarians appear in an empty start area. Of which there are two on this board: the Babylonian and Egyptian areas.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Smiles
United States
Dedham
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
admin
The ratio of people to cake is too big.
badge
Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's not how I read the rules.

The rules state that the barbarians are placed in a start area for the affected nation. Since there are multiple start areas, there needs to be a way to determine which one to use. But all downstream decision points are still restricted to the start areas of the affected player.

First choose the one that will result in the most damage to the affected player.

If the player has no unit in their start zone, place them in an empty start zone.

If there is no empty start zone, place them in a start zone occupied by another player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Poor Egypt.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tommy Wareing
United Kingdom
Oxford
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
asmiles wrote:
That's not how I read the rules.

The rules state that the barbarians are placed in a start area for the affected nation. Since there are multiple start areas, there needs to be a way to determine which one to use. But all downstream decision points are still restricted to the start areas of the affected player.

First choose the one that will result in the most damage to the affected player.

If the player has no unit in their start zone, place them in an empty start zone.

If there is no empty start zone, place them in a start zone occupied by another player.


Oh, yes. I see. I was reading the rules on the redscape site in the links section (I don't know how closely they follow the offical rules: there's a least a problem with the format of the section numbering). It's certainly poor wording in the 30.5211 section, about the initial placement, but on a more informed reading, I agree with you. They start in one of the two (original) Assyrian start areas, now controlled by Asia. Presumably the choice is made by the player who gave the card to Assyria.

And then, as long as they don't become adjacent to Assyria, they can still horde west through Asia, or south through Babylon, if the giver wishes that.

Y'know, if I were Assyria in that game, and I drew the Barbarian Hordes, I'd be tempted to hang on to it, and thus keep control over the movement. Looks like a prime moment to rampage them through Babylon
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
wimble wrote:
And then, as long as they don't become adjacent to Assyria, they can still horde west through Asia, or south through Babylon, if the giver wishes that.

Y'know, if I were Assyria in that game, and I drew the Barbarian Hordes, I'd be tempted to hang on to it, and thus keep control over the movement. Looks like a prime moment to rampage them through Babylon


Well we can safely assume that Assyria didn't draw it and keep it. So there is over a 1 in 4 chance of the barbarians rampaging in Babylon. Since Asia wants them to go into Babylon and Babylon doesn't. Egypt and Crete are neutral which means they are likely to go towards Assyria.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If I were Babylon or Asia, I would threaten the person who was controlling the Barbarians. My statement would be something like this:

"If you do not move the Barbarians toward Assyria as quickly as possible, I will make sure you do not win the game."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
TheCat wrote:
If I were Babylon or Asia, I would threaten the person who was controlling the Barbarians. My statement would be something like this:

"If you do not move the Barbarians toward Assyria as quickly as possible, I will make sure you do not win the game."


No its way too early to do that and Asia has no reason to complain! Asia got the better territory, in return Assyria got Barbarian protection. Assyria will likely lose alittle bit but less than Asia.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You miss my point. If Assyria loses a little, then my threat has succeeded. The threat (if I am Asia) is to prevent the trading player from applying ALL the damage to Asian units. The threat (if I am Babylon) is to prevent the trading player from applying ALL the damage to Babylonian units.

It's clear that either way, Asia will lose some units, and Babylon might lose some units. The threat is to prevent (for example) the Barbarian Hordes from making it all the way to Babylon's starting area, which is possible according to the rules.

Here are several legal barbarian paths that my threat would attempt to prevent.



Also, I don't think it's "fair" for Asia or Babylon to absorb all the damage. Assyria has seven cities and is doing just fine - there's no need to feel sorry for Assyria in this situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
I am not feeling sorry for Assyria or Asia, I am feeling sorry for Egypt but thats another matter. I wonder what Egypt did to get into that position. Anyway, I agree Assyria should have 5 or 8 barbarians come knocking at his door.

The threat of going on a rampage is way premature from Asia or Babylon. If Asia or Babylon is way behind in advances then that would change things. But overusing that threat is a mistake. The rampage threat is best saved for cases where you will lose if someone does an action that hurts you. I've had players call me on the threat before and I went on a rampage. I've also had the threat save me. I've also seen people overuse it and have their bluff called.

There was a game where I was one step ahead of everyone and was being targetted even though I wasn't the leader in points. When the Icon/Her came up I was at 5 cities, I asked to reduce one city so I wouldn't move forward. The primary player insisted that I reduce 2 cities. I pointed out that I wasn't the points leader and suggested the 2nd city go to him. It wasn't that big of a deal, so I let it go and reduced 2 cities. Then Piracy came up! The primary wanted me to lose a city, I couldn't recover from that. I pointed out to the primary player (who was a neighboring civ) that I had alot of pop on the board and if he knocked me down to 2 cities, I has going to buy military and send 53 guys his way. The piracy went to another player. I forget how the game ended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Shaffer
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would only make the threat if someone actually started on the rampage. If they start moving the barbarians toward Assyria (the reasonable course of action) there would be no need for the threat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Giuseppe Ammendola
Italy
Vimercate
MB
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi everybody,
I'm the "assyrian" in the map.
I agree for the proposed solution of the initial placement of barbarian tokens, I don't agree with the possible solutions of the movement.

Rule 30.5241: Barbarians must enter areas occupied solely by cities or tokens belonging to the primary victim, provided they can inflict damage on the primary victim by entering such areas. If they are unable to move into such an area, they may enter empty areas or areas occupied by units belonging to other nations in order to reach the nearest area in which they can inflict damage on the primary victim.

Barbarians move towards the NEAREST area with units of the primary victim. I think that the 3 paths proposed by The Cat are not allowed (even if I'd like themcool.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.