Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Sid Meier's Civilization: A New Dawn» Forums » Rules

Subject: Conquering a former city-state rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Wolfe
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Suppose Player A conquers a city-state. They take the city-state token and place it on their corresponding focus card.

Later, Player B conquers (not liberates) Player A's city.

As written, the rules have Player B replace Player A's city but they do not say to transfer the city-state token from A's card to B's.

That seems weird. Is it implied that the token should be given to the new conqueror, or do you think the designer means for you to first liberate and then conquer a fallen city-state in order to get the token for yourself?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Since it's not being "Liberated" you have to refer back to the rules about attacking city states which says:

Quote:
City-State: The attacker conquers the city-state by placing
the city-state’s token on the card in his or her focus row
that shares the same type (city-state tokens are described
later).


This is mentioned on page 13 of the rules

Quote:
If a player attacks and defeats a rival city on a conquered
city-state, he or she may either conquer it (as described on
page 11)


EDIT: Yes, the rules bounce you around from page to page. As far as I can see it, this is for brevity.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wolfe
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb

So you're considering it a city-state even though it's actually just Player A's (normal) city at this point? That seems like a reasonable assumption, but it still seems to be an assumption. It would be strange if Player A's city counted as a city-state for this purpose but not for others. That sort of situational differentiation would definitely require a written rule.

Mind you, if I'm in charge I am going to agree with you - it's just that I am rarely the one in charge

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wolfe
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb

Hey, I just found on pg 15, under "Caravans" that the rules do indeed refer to a city like this as a "conquered city-state". That's enough to convince me that said city acts like a city-state unless otherwise noted (so the token would indeed move from Player A to Player B).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tahsin Shamma
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0 hr wrote:

So you're considering it a city-state even though it's actually just Player A's (normal) city at this point? That seems like a reasonable assumption, but it still seems to be an assumption. It would be strange if Player A's city counted as a city-state for this purpose but not for others. That sort of situational differentiation would definitely require a written rule.

Mind you, if I'm in charge I am going to agree with you - it's just that I am rarely the one in charge



The rules on page 13 tell you to refer back to the rules on page 11. I think it's pretty clear and I'm not making any assumptions with these rules. They specifically state that if a player is conquering it, you follow the rules on page 11.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Goodman
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
mb
It also seems it is MUCH easier for another player to take the city states once you take them. I took two in one turn, now i placed my undefended cities down and the next player sniped them out, getting the objective much easier than I did.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Leather
United Kingdom
Prescot
Merseyside
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
That's what I found as well, city state had a defensive bonus of 8, I took it over but then other player took it off me as it was on grass so it's bonus was only 2 then? Does the defensive bonus still stay at 8 perhaps as a former city state?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kyo
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Does it also count as the objective to take over city state?
or he need to liberate it and take over again
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jesse
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
momquab wrote:
That's what I found as well, city state had a defensive bonus of 8, I took it over but then other player took it off me as it was on grass so it's bonus was only 2 then? Does the defensive bonus still stay at 8 perhaps as a former city state?


I’m curious about this as well
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Angel
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For the purpouse of the attack it is count like rival city. and don't have the defence bounus of 8.
Defence bonus: Sum of the Roll; + terrain x 2 (if it's a city); +1 for any adjacent friendly reinforced token; + X from leader sheet, wonders and diplomacy cards.

In conjunction with the end game agenda (warmonger). You need to control a 2 conquered City-states as it state in the rules.(pg 16) So you can take one or two (already conquered) from the rival player and secure the agenda.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Olivier Homps
Switzerland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Had the same issue twice.
Leader B in that situation is always better off waiting for Leader A to conquer a city state, and then snipe it from him/her to accomplish the objective. A bit too easy for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Wolfe
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmb

Maybe it is a disincentive to attack city states (at least until you can grab two at once for your final goal)?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harry Angel
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0 hr wrote:

Maybe it is a disincentive to attack city states (at least until you can grab two at once for your final goal)?



Maybe it is... The two trade tokens and a diplomacy card seems more relevant than one extra (additional) token.
In some scenarios, like in 3 player game if there is no more diplomacy cards to gain, it can be beneficial to attack a city-state, but in my games it was never practised.
They are hard to conquered and even harder to defend.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Hall
United States
Winfield
Illinois
flag msg tools
Maybe it's best only go after them until they're well behind your frontier?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will D
msg tools
I posted this in another thread but here is my interpretation of the city-state bonus:

My understanding is that tiles that start as city-states remain city-states for the duration of the game. If this were not the case, conquering a city-state should remove the city-state token from play and it should not be possible to liberate city-states.

Instead, a city that was previously a free state acts differently than other cities in that it gives you an ongoing bonus in the form of the city-state token in your focus row. It is also possible to liberate a city-state from another player, suggesting that, upon being conquered, the city-state was not destroyed but simply became a colony or territory of the controlling nation.

Because of this, we have played that city-states always have a defense of 8, regardless of ownership. If they are assumed to have a defense of 2 after they are conquered, they are near impossible to hold as they are often in the middle of the board, directly between two or more players.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pouya Ostadpour
Iran
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wdebruin7 wrote:
I posted this in another thread but here is my interpretation of the city-state bonus:

My understanding is that tiles that start as city-states remain city-states for the duration of the game. If this were not the case, conquering a city-state should remove the city-state token from play and it should not be possible to liberate city-states.

Instead, a city that was previously a free state acts differently than other cities in that it gives you an ongoing bonus in the form of the city-state token in your focus row. It is also possible to liberate a city-state from another player, suggesting that, upon being conquered, the city-state was not destroyed but simply became a colony or territory of the controlling nation.

Because of this, we have played that city-states always have a defense of 8, regardless of ownership. If they are assumed to have a defense of 2 after they are conquered, they are near impossible to hold as they are often in the middle of the board, directly between two or more players.


It's not how the rules want us to play it. But it maybe is more fun.

When you conquer a city-state, you make yourself an easy target. Because when you conquer a city state, you don't have enough time to enclose it from all angles with your tokens as your turn ends. Even then a level 4 army can take it with ease.


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gordon Watson
United Kingdom
Banstead
Surrey - United Kingdom
flag msg tools
ASL - other tactical wargames call it Sir.
badge
Beneath this mask there is an idea.....and ideas are bulletproof.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This definitely needs covering on an FAQ - I probably prefer Will D's interpretation above - but who knows which way they will rule.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
domus_ludorum wrote:
This definitely needs covering on an FAQ - I probably prefer Will D's interpretation above - but who knows which way they will rule.


Is it in the new FAQ?
 
 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.