Civilization: The Expansion Project
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/

conflict order question
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=304		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  alloowishus [ 2006-03-16 20:44:09 ]
Post subject: 
What is the order that conflict occurs? This matters because a player is having 2 cities sacked but only has 1 trade card.

I read the rules this time and couldn't find it anywhere.
Author:  rporrini [ 2006-03-16 22:51:19 ]
Post subject: 
Normally conflicts between tokens are resolved before those with cities to allow city defences.

Your case can't be ruled. I think a random selection (one token per invasor) would fit the case.

Raffaele
Goblin's lair
Author:  Jonno [ 2006-03-17 4:01:20 ]
Post subject: 
alloowishus wrote:
What is the order that conflict occurs? This matters because a player is having 2 cities sacked but only has 1 trade card.

I read the rules this time and couldn't find it anywhere.

The rule states that when everything else fails, use AST order.
So if going strictly by the letter of the rule whoever is first in the AST order may choose any conflict he is involved in and resolve it, and continue to do so until he has resolved all his conflicts, at which point next person in AST order gets to do his conflicts. However, if at any point a player chooses to do a conflict involving another players city, that player may choose to resolve any tokens-only conflicts he is involved in first. When he has done so the conflict with the city is resolved, and order goes back to AST order.

However, this procedure is very cumbersome, and in 99% of every case you can just first resolve all token-only conflicts simultaneously, followed by all city-conflicts simultaneously.
In a case when a player loses more cities than he has tradecards I'd rule that attackers prior to the defender in AST order gets cards in AST order, and then the defender can choose which attackers after him in AST order gets remaining cards. That would give the same card distribution as the by-the-letter resolve order, but still be much faster.
Author:  alloowishus [ 2006-03-17 12:10:37 ]
Post subject: 
THe only thing is that the original rules say Conflict (simultaneous), so if they wanted AST order they would have put that. I am torn between going in movement order or making it random. However, somebody did point out that rolling dice goes againts the spirit of Civ. Hmmmm...
Author:  Jonno [ 2006-03-17 12:35:24 ]
Post subject: 
alloowishus wrote:
THe only thing is that the original rules say Conflict (simultaneous), so if they wanted AST order they would have put that. I am torn between going in movement order or making it random. However, somebody did point out that rolling dice goes againts the spirit of Civ. Hmmmm...

Yes, but it also states that AST is the last resort, and that anyone can require a phase to be done in proper order, though doing as much as posible simultaneously is recommended to speed up play.
And as I said 99% of the cases it doesn't matter, but as this is a case where it does, I say do it in propper sequece (or at least give cards as if you had).
Just my opinion ofcourse, and how I would do it if I as GM, but you might do as you wich.

And regarding the dice: I completely agree it's against the spirit of Civ, but it's also against the rules! (§3.3 "ADVANCED CIVILIZATION does not use dice."). Drawing stick might do though... ;)
Author:  mcbeth [ 2006-03-21 13:57:21 ]
Post subject: 
I will second (third?) the AST order ruling. If all else fails, AST is the tie breaker. Consider it a guiding principle of the rules.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/