$30.00
Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Mega Civilization» Forums » Rules

Subject: Civil war clarification rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Leif Donner
msg tools
Hey Guys,

I know some question have already been asked. But I've still an unanswered one.

For example: I have 55 unit points thus I got to select 25 and keep 30. Besides I have to select entire areas, all of the selected ones have to be adjacent if posible. So what if it's not possible? What if I can only select 23 adjacent?

1: I can select units where ever I want?
2: I select this 23 and two where ever I want?
3: I select only 23?

I guess it's 3 according to the erata but I'm still not sure.

Cheers

Leif
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"Select all but 35 of your unit points. All units thus selected must be in areas adjacent to each other if possible. In each of those areas all of your units must be selected. The beneficiary annexes all selected units."

It should be almost (but not quite) impossible to be in a situation where you absolutely cannot meet all of the requirements.

If your territory is fragmented (possibly due to a previous civil war), and you do not have any area where 25 unit points are gathered, then you would need to take the remainder from a non-adjacent area. The spirit of the rules is to follow the restrictions as closely as possible, so I would say you should keep it to 2 separate groups if possible.

If the problem is that no combination of areas in your civilization can possibly be combined to make 25 units, then the excess goes to the selected units. In this rarified case, you may lose 26, 27 or even 28 units to the beneficiary. You absolutely *cannot* under any circumstances select fewer units than you are required to lose to the calamity.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leif Donner
msg tools
Thanks for the quick reply.
For sure you keep 35 not 30. I bought military that why I was thinking on 30. I played with Saba what makes this situation much more likely.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus A
Sweden
Gothenburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
As far as it being near impossible to not meet the requirements...
I've willingly placed myself so as being unable to meet the "adjacent" requirement. It can be done and used to fracture the faction being given to the beneficiary. If done right you can set him/her up for a very vulnerable position with newly gained cities. (Or tokens if that's better?)
It might not be common but it can be done with a little timing, especially when receiving damage from earlier calamities. I wouldn't say it's worthwhile to really plan for it in a big way but under some circumstances it can be done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo de Haan
Netherlands
Heerhugowaard
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HorstHeese wrote:
Hey Guys,

I know some question have already been asked. But I've still an unanswered one.

For example: I have 55 unit points thus I got to select 25 and keep 30. Besides I have to select entire areas, all of the selected ones have to be adjacent if posible. So what if it's not possible? What if I can only select 23 adjacent?

1: I can select units where ever I want?
2: I select this 23 and two where ever I want?
3: I select only 23?

I guess it's 3 according to the erata but I'm still not sure.

Cheers

Leif


Hey Leif,
Though it may seems quite unique, it happens more than you might think. That's why you're not the first to ask this question.
The rules say: In this case you must exceed the damage by as less as possible.

Have you seen the version 1.1 rulebook. It's explained more in detail there. https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/131213/mega-civilization-...

Page 34 (General):
On those occasions where a player can only comply if
he exceeds the amount required, he must do so.

Page 36 (Civil War specific):
If the primary victim cannot make the exact selection, the rule
may be broken in the following way: 1. In each area all units
belonging to the primary victim must be selected. 2. The areas
selected must be adjacent to each other. 3. The selected units must
be exactly the number to comply. 4. The beneficiary must be able
to annex all units in the combination selected.

Hope this helps.


* Note: In order to not make the rulebook 100 pages we cut down most of these exceptional rules in the first place, but after some questions arose here on BGG and on the playing table for the past year, we decided to add and clarify some exceptionaly rules and we had to remove some stuff as well to fit exactly 48 pages (which is the maximum number of pages in the chosen printing scheme).



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leif Donner
msg tools
Hi Flo,

thanks for the link. The part on Page 36 I read it before but it's not solving my problem.
In my case I could have selected easily the required 25 units in several combinations but only 23 adjacent.

But on Page 34 it's said:
If for any reason, as a result of a calamity, a player has
insufficient cities or tokens to remove, treasury tokens to
loose, commodity cards to discard, or specific units where
requested, he removes or uses whatever he has available to comply


In my case the specific units required are adjacent units therefore I have to select 23 and not 25 right? Because I also have to select as much as I can.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo de Haan
Netherlands
Heerhugowaard
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
HorstHeese wrote:
Hi Flo,

thanks for the link. The part on Page 36 I read it before but it's not solving my problem.
In my case I could have selected easily the required 25 units in several combinations but only 23 adjacent.

But on Page 34 it's said:
If for any reason, as a result of a calamity, a player has
insufficient cities or tokens to remove, treasury tokens to
loose, commodity cards to discard, or specific units where
requested, he removes or uses whatever he has available to comply


In my case the specific units required are adjacent units therefore I have to select 23 and not 25 right? Because I also have to select as much as I can.


Ok so you have sufficient tokens. You should select 25 tokens, but you are just unable to make them adjacent. That means that your rule "...If for any reason, as a result of a calamity, a player has
insufficient cities or tokens to remove..." does not apply here.
(that will only apply if you have to select all but 30, but have only 29 on the board)

So that's why I refer to my initial answer:
It's really related to how your cities and tokens are placed.

The general rule says: you have to lose more if you cannot select exactly X units. That would mean you that if you can only comply by selecting 26, you have to do so.

BUT. Civil War specific:
If the primary victim cannot make the exact selection, the rule may be broken in the following way:
1: In each area all units belonging to the primary victim must be selected.

That means that you have to select 26, or 27, and than deselect 1 or 2 tokens of your choice so you will meet 25. So it's always be against your favour.

That should be possible, but even sometimes it won't in that case rulebreaker 2 may apply.
etc.

I hope this helps.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Brudz
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mb
I have always found the wording of Civil War to be clumsy. I invert the phrasing.

Select 35 units to keep. The benificiary gets all remaining units. Units going to the beneficiary must be contiguous. Music, Drama & Poetry, Democracy allow you to keep more units, Philosophy and Military allow you to keep less.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Flo de Haan
Netherlands
Heerhugowaard
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PBrudz wrote:
I have always found the wording of Civil War to be clumsy. I invert the phrasing.

Select 35 units to keep. The benificiary gets all remaining units. Units going to the beneficiary must be contiguous. Music, Drama & Poetry, Democracy allow you to keep more units, Philosophy and Military allow you to keep less.


Your words are simpler, but necessarily clearer, covering all situations that could occur. Nor the best way to write in a Rulebook. It might be the way you would explain to your friend.

If Civil Disorder says: reduce all but three of your cities, then 'select all but 35 of your units' is equally clear.

Besides: YOU get to select the units to be annexed. In most situations this portion is less than what you keep. Just selecting for example 7 or 12 contiguous units is done much quicker than first selecting 35 of yours to keep (like the old Civil War)

You might not realize what we done to rules like that to speed up calamity resolution.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Leif Donner
msg tools
Hi Flo,

to be perfectly honest for me this case is not totaly clear. But anyway. Both the suggestion of Clyaton and my interpretation are fine by me and could be used. I guess you have to discuss it with the group you are playing with. At the end you allways find an agreement.

But I disagree on your interpretation of the rule I highlighted. May be it's because I've studied informatics but if an if-sentence comes with an or only one condition has to be true. At least it's my opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus Turba
Germany
flag msg tools
new user
We had our first Mega Civ yesterday and had a heated discussion about the phrase "adjaced to each other".

While one half saw it that "the spirit" of the rule means having to blocks after the selection (like simplied seeing a west/east or north/south token spread), the other half only followed the term in a more mathematical way, as the player having civil war insisted of being inside the rules building a chain of units with his selection, meaning a token only had a max of two other tokens adjacend to each other.

His tokens at that point in the game where all in one place, so we did not have to talk about the exceptions stated in the rulebook. It was more about the mentioned "east/west" vs. "chain selection" kind of talk.

To finally get to my question:

Do you think the used method of chaining the selected units is inside of the civil war rules?


To confuse us even more, we later found a more specific wording in the Tyranny calamity. Here it clearly stays "adjacent to each other AS MUTCH AS POSSIBLE", which lead to the believe that the chain was ok in Civil War, but not in Tyranny.

Do you concur?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
As my friends and I generally play it, a chain is okay in both Civil War and Tyranny. If possible, you need to select the units in one continuous area, whether that's an easily fortified half-circle that divides the empire, or a thin line that creates a path back to the beneficiary so that the units can be moved out. As long as it's all connected, you've satisfied the requirement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus Turba
Germany
flag msg tools
new user
I always thought that Civil War was about dividing the nation, so having just a chain inside a bigger mass seems wrong, as one end of the chain is really a long way from the other, so the term "adjacent" does not really apply.
Also I got the impression from the rule book that the idea of calamity cards are to infuse maximum possible damage and that if you want to reduce that you have to go for civ adv. cards to negate the effect where possible.

Selecting the tokens in order to minimize the effect and to make it as painful for the beneficiary as possible feels like cheating on the card.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If treason prospers none dare call it treason
vaxxus wrote:
I always thought that Civil War was about dividing the nation, so having just a chain inside a bigger mass seems wrong, as one end of the chain is really a long way from the other, so the term "adjacent" does not really apply.
It's a battle over the resources and centres of power. In such a struggle one side will end up in control of the core of the empire and the losers will end up on the periphery, because that is what the issue is.

Quote:
Also I got the impression from the rule book that the idea of calamity cards are to infuse maximum possible damage and that if you want to reduce that you have to go for civ adv. cards to negate the effect where possible.
It's actually twice as damaging as it appears; you don't just lose something, it gets given to a rival.

Quote:
Selecting the tokens in order to minimize the effect and to make it as painful for the beneficiary as possible feels like cheating on the card.
Or perhaps it models whoever wins out being seen as the legitimate successor state?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Becq Starforged
United States
Cerritos
California
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
"Adjacent" doesn't mean "not gerrymandered". It just means that each new area selected has to be adjacent to a previously selected area. So a chain seems perfectly legit, so long as each area is adjacent to another area previously selected.

The "fun" part (so to speak) of Civil Wars is trying to find ways to (legitimately) minimize the overall impact to your civilization.

When resolving calamities, there are two conflicting priorities in play. First, you must resolve the calamity as completely as possible, inflicting ("on paper", at least) the damage required by the calamity. But within the limitations of that priority and the rules for the calamity in question (and general calamity rules), *you* get to choose the areas affected, and it's legal to do so in such a way as to minimize the overall impact to your civilization.

Things you are allowed to do when resolving Civil War:
* Make the area ceded to the beneficiary as easy as possible for you to reconquer.
* Choose an area far from your core that you care less about.
* Choose an area that turns your beneficiary into a meat shield between you and an aggressive opponent.
* Minimize the benefit to your opponent. (Example 1: your opponent has just enough population to support his existing cities, and you owe 15 unit points. You select three (adjacent) cities to give him, and he ends up having to reduce 1-2 cities due to lack of support. Example 2: you have Agriculture but your beneficiary doesn't. Giving up a series of 1-agriculture areas with 2 of your population in each of them will satisfy the calamity, then he'll lose half of them to starvation.)
(etc)

There are also things you can do *before* resolving Civil War to soften the blow. For example, volunteering to be a secondary victim of Famine means that you will reduce the number of unit points you give to the beneficiary by the Famine damage (thus simplifying the your task of taking those areas back). If you know that a particular player got Treachery and nobody wants to trade with him, you can offer to eat his Treachery card in exchange for a particularly good trade deal (with no net damage to you, since the losses from Treachery replace losses from Civil War). And so on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Markus Turba
Germany
flag msg tools
new user
thanks guys, that was helpful! thumbsup
 
 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.