Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: Red calamities and trading conundrums rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Greg Lorrimer
United Kingdom
Harrow on the Hill
Middlesex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been working on a concise version of the rules which I've posted previously about on the forum and have some outstanding rules questions.

Here's my concise version of a rule with the issue in red.

43.9 E9 TRADE: negotiation is simultaneous and not secret. Agreements/treaties are not binding. Deals between two players only; no three-way or more trades. Trade only with trade cards and black backed calamity cards. May not hide cards? Red calamity cards cannot be traded. Must offer 3 or more cards; players with less cannot trade. Correctly state number of cards, their total point value and the commodity type of one card. All other information may be incorrect. Another player may make a counter offer of the same type? Trade by simultaneous, face-down exchange. Black calamity cards cannot be traded away once received in trade and are valued at zero. Trade until all players finished.

Firstly, can the backs of the cards be hidden? One might be trying to pass a black-backed calamity card, for instance. When the actual trade is done, it doesn't say the cards can't be in a stack; indeed it would make sense that they would be. Thereby hiding a card.

Same 'type'? I don't know what this means. What's the not-same type of trade?

then:


43.11 E11 RESOLVING CALAMITIES: Red cards are active (and must be enacted?). Black cards received in a trade are active. Resolved 52.2 to 52.9. Each player has to enact up to 2 active cards, but may enact more. After everyone’s cards enacted, unsupported cities reduced. Enacted and excess active cards to the bottom of the stacks.


It seems to be implied in the original that red cards must be enacted whatever happens, but it's not spelled out. If I had two black and one red, could I dodge the red?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
In my Avalon Hill copy, the red-backed calamities must be placed face up immediately and are not in your hand. the remaining calamities have the same back as the trade cards and are not visible when trading.

The rules don't mention anything about trade types. Cards are exchanged when 2 players come to an agreement, and other players may be making offers to any players at any time.

If you receive a tradeable calamity in trade, you must immediately place it face up, and it is no longer in your hand.

If you have more than 2 calamities during the resolve calamities phase, you resolve the 2 lowest numbered calamities only. you have no choice in this and may not resolve more calamities even if you want to. The red-backed calamities have numbers 2-5, the tradeable calamities have numbers 6-9, so red-backed calamities are resolved first.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Lorrimer
United Kingdom
Harrow on the Hill
Middlesex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my Gibsons' rules, it's mentioned that calamities are resolved in order but it doesn't spell out that you don't have any choice when you have more than two cards, only that you only have to enact two calamities max.

here it is:



Thanks for alerting me to the fact that the black calamity cards are indeed not black-backed.

Quote:
The rules don't mention anything about trade types. Cards are exchanged when 2 players come to an agreement, and other players may be making offers to any players at any time.


Indeed! WEll, it does seem like the rule is just a restatement. Here it is from Gibsons':

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bredon
United States
Sunnyvale
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
The key phrase for calamities is 'once he has acted on 2 any further which he may have against him are disregarded...'
It does not say 'may be disregarded', it says 'are disregarded'. There is no choice there.

regarding counter offers, 'of the same type' seems to mean: a stated number of cards, which must be 3 or more, quotes their total value and gives the commodity of one of them. Any other information, whether volunteered or sought, need not be correct. In other words, you can't just make any counter offer, you have to provide the same information exactly as accurately as a regular offer.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Aaron's information is correct.
Start at calamity #2 and work your way up. When any one player has had to resolve 2 then s/he is done. Any others that s/he has are skipped. Go on to the next one.

Gibson's paragraph on trade is misleading you, I believe. Look at it not as a rule, but a description of what a trade session might look like. In other words, here's how you might come to an agreement during trade negotiations: if I offer you this and you don't like it you change it to look like that. Avalon Hill's description sees it basically as a free-for-all. There is no restriction on the kind of trade you can offer beyond the 3 criteria already identified.

AH Civ Rules wrote:

Trade is open to all players simultaneously. Trading is often very noisy with many offers being called out. Offers can be suspended, altered or withdrawn in open negotiation among all players.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
itsastickup wrote:
Trade until all players finished.


Or until five minutes have elapsed. Do not read this as an optional rule, it is important to the flow and balance of the game that the trading section is not over-extended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

RobertBr wrote:
itsastickup wrote:
Trade until all players finished.


Or until five minutes have elapsed. Do not read this as an optional rule, it is important to the flow and balance of the game that the trading section is not over-extended.


...Or whatever time limit your group decides on.
We have consistently been unhappy with 5 minutes and gone with something between 5 and 10.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Lorrimer
United Kingdom
Harrow on the Hill
Middlesex
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the clarifications!

I have a couple more questions:

For this (my version of the rule):

43.1 E1 TAXES: two tokens per city from stock to treasury or REVOLT. See COINAGE 53.9. Revolt: player with most tokens in stock after taxes chooses which cities revolt and takes them over. If insufficient cities in stock to complete, then next player with largest stock chooses etc. Taken cities pay no tax this round. Taken cities can remain unsupported until next E2.

The next E2 is technically the very next event. Or does it mean the next round's E2? (that's pretty near word for word the original rule).

Again one of mine:

62. Orders of Precedence: absent another rule, and for ties, players move in the order of the Progress Chart. Also for deciding who should be involved in a specific action; ie, a revolt with two players with equal number of tokens in their stock. Order of play in conflicts is only needed in a potential token shortage. In Progress Chart order: only tokens battle each other, then in Progress Chart order, tokens attacking cities.

The original wording had me perplexed, and that's my idea of it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Bracey
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
itsastickup wrote:

43.1 E1 TAXES: two tokens per city from stock to treasury or REVOLT. See COINAGE 53.9. Revolt: player with most tokens in stock after taxes chooses which cities revolt and takes them over. If insufficient cities in stock to complete, then next player with largest stock chooses etc. Taken cities pay no tax this round. Taken cities can remain unsupported until next E2.


62. Orders of Precedence: absent another rule, and for ties, players move in the order of the Progress Chart. Also for deciding who should be involved in a specific action; ie, a revolt with two players with equal number of tokens in their stock. Order of play in conflicts is only needed in a potential token shortage. In Progress Chart order: only tokens battle each other, then in Progress Chart order, tokens attacking cities.

The original wording had me perplexed, and that's my idea of it.


If memory serves in the 1st AH rules you only check support at two points in the turn (one is before collecting trade cards, I cannot remember the second). The rules make clear this is done to simplify the amount of checking.

And in all the versions of the rules I have seen a player can oblige a conflict to happen that will put tokens in their stock before conducting conflicts with cities. I always found the wording a little woolly and prefer your solution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.