I have a few questions about some ambiguities about this wonderful classic on which I wasted every Friday and Saturday of my youth.

1) If a ship is in a location where there is are no units belonging to me, can I maintain it with a treasury point?

2) In the taxation phase, if I don't have enough tokens to prevent all cities from going into revolt, but I one city would have a partial payment, do I need to pay my entire stock into the treasury? Or can I keep back the partial payment that would go to a city that is will revolt anyway? I'm 80% sure that I need to pay my entire stock.

2a) The taxation seems to be based on unit points, which means that cities in my stock count as 5. Can I use these 5 points to reclaim my own cities?

2b) If my cities come back to me, and each is worth 5, if a second player has revolting cities, can I use the cities placed back into my stock to count as 5 each to take over the cities of the next players whose cities go into revolt?

3) I'm pretty sure I can't refuse to maintain a ship and then rebuild it in the same space, even if I do this in 2 different locations. True, right?

4) 17.41 and 17.42. The parenthetical line is the more important. If there would be no conflict, it is still forbidden for a player to move into an area partially occupied by a player with Diplo, Cult Asc, or Adv Mil. This rule, I believe is completely Expansion Project and not at all Avalon Hill, right?

5) The ship capacity of 5--that's EP and not AH, right? I seem to remember 4?

6) OK, this I know is EP. Advanced Military. If I retreat, can I go absolutely to any neighboring location? Even if the retreat causes new conflicts? Or is that the reason I have to leave one behind--so that I can only retreat so far before attrition brings me down to nothing.

6a) If I can retreat anywhere, the order of conflict is potentially important. Determinted BY AST first, then player, right?

6b) Do I have to retreat on the first round of combat? Or can I, for example. reduce the attackers of a city to below the level where they would reduce the city, and then retreat?

6c) If I have superior numbers and I retreat, do I cause damage to my opponent? So say there is an area that holds 4. They have 3 tokens and I have 4. I retreat immediately and leave two. Does the area end up with 3 and 1 or 2 and 2?

7) Another EP question. Urbanism and Architecture: if I have both, and sufficient treasury, I theoretically need only 6 tokens to make a city on a non-city site (due to architecture) and if there are 4 tokens in a neighboring area, I only need 2 in an area to actually build a city? Or is it the case that 4 tokens in a neighboring area count as 8 tokens by the Architecture rule?

Rule 21.12 says that cities constructed this turn must be reduced first. But what about cities aquired but not constructed?

9) earthquake. So the most damaging location must be chosen. This includes the effects of 28.213 and 28.214 (Urbasim/Engineering)?

10) Treachery: If I don't trade a card and I have Diplomacy, I only reduce one city, right? Not two?

11) Famine. I think this is straightforward. If there is a Public Works token on a city area and I am a primary victim, I don't remove that token?

11a) I assume Calendar and Pottery effects are cumulative?

12) Civil War--EP, a new requirement 28.412- 7 areas between a player and the 'beneficiary'. Does that count open sea?

12a) If the primary and beneficiary are tied in the stock, is a Civil war optional?

12b) If I have Music and Drama and Poetry--that counts as 10 units, right?

12c) 28.416 Wow! I assume that if there is an area with atleast one token of the other faction, I must remove from that area or adjacent areas until there are no more. And that no tokens are actually removed until this whole process is done? So as my opponent removes the last token from an area, I am still obligated to remove tokens adjacent to that area before other nonadjacent areas?

12d) I assume 28.416 doesn't require me to go over the limit becuase I only have cities adjacent to the opponent? I can keep a city and remove tokens from nonadjacent areas?

13) 28.511 If a city in a non city site area is built in a non flood area (no dark green), is that city vulnerabel to floods?

13a) Can I assign more than 7 flood points to a player with Engineering so that I don't have to assign the remaining 3 points to another player?

14) Barbarian invasions--If I can direct the barbarians away from the primary victim using the rules of 28.523, can I make the barbarians go away? Or can the Barbarians move multiple areas at once?

15) Piracy--can the primary victim chose secondary cities that are on a different coast?

16) Banditry--"at least"? Please tell me how this works. It seems I can take all the victims cards because they value "at least" the number of cities? If he has 5 cities and a 7, 4, 2, and a 1, am I required to take the 4 and 1 or can I take the 7? Or can I take all? I assume I get to see all the cards.

17) Written Record--clarification! One color on each turn? Or do I choose a color once and only once? If so when?

I'll see what I can do to help answer questions. I hope others will correct anything incorrect I say. Any one I didn't quote I don't remember the answer for...



No


I'm not sure what you are asking. You reduce cities as you need to in order to pay the missing upkeep.

See my answer above.

Yes.

don't remember...

No, you may still move and share space. Yes.

Yes, EP rule.

There is no "retreat"? Not sure where you got this.

See above answer.

See above answer.

See above answer

Your first deduction looks correct.

Has to be constructed. Acquired cities don't count.

Yes, include the civ affects when deciding.

He would reduce two as he is still the primary victim. This does need to be clarified in the rules.

Correct.

Yes

Yes

Hmmm I would say that in the event of a tie a civil war doesn't happen - but this would need to be clarified.

Yes.

You can remove these from anywhere - no restrictions.

See above

If it is on the coast - yes.

Yes

How the barbarian horde moves after the initial invasion is incorrect (unless something has changed) and needs to be clarified. I'll let Jonno do that.

Yes

This needs some clarification in the rules. The victim decides and must hand over AT LEAST 5 points worth of cards in whatever combination he wants. I would also say that if he didn't have at least 5 points worth of cards (per your example) he would have to hand over them all.

You choose once when the card is purchased.

Hope that helps some!

Velusion did a great job answering most questions, but I'm chiming in with a few clarifications and corrections.


Actually, I'm quite sure one can. Only §16.21 limits where to place ships, and it only refers to building new ones, not maintaining existing ones.


Velusion, I think you are mixing up taxation (§13) with city support (§21).
§13 doesn't explicitly state either way, but I'd assume you had to pay as much as you can, thus the entire stock. Should probably be clarified.


§13.1 clearly states that you must use tokens to pay your taxes, not cities.
However, if you after you have paid your taxes, and before you remove any revolting cities, still have cities in stock, you will participate as a candidate for beneficiary, and in the unlikely event no one else has more unit points in stock, you will in fact be beneficiary yourself, and can thus replace cities with your own (to a maximum of the amount of cities you have in stock, after that the player with second most cities in stock will get the remainder, according to §13.32).


Yes, but in this case you must take into account which revolt occurs first. As nothing else is specified, that is A.S.T. order.


You can refuse to maintain a ship and rebuild it the same turn in a different area . (§16.3)


Actually, as written right now you can't, but that wasn't the intention, so that has to be fixed for the next rules revision.


Yes, your first deduction is correct, if you got both you can potentially build a wilderness city in an area with only two tokens.


Acquired does in deed not count. However, be aware that if the player you acquired it from constructed it this turn, you must reduce it among the first.


Today it is ambiguous, should be clarified that no civil war occurs.


Actually you can't. If possible you must remove units from areas next to an area containing the opponents units. Tokens in the same area as an opposing unit does not automatically count as adjacent (but they may be, if there is an opposing unit in another area next to the first one).

This entire use of "adjacent" is quite an mess, one that isn't defined in the rules but depends on the definition of the word "adjacent" in the English language (in this context meaning next to, but not in the same place). Should probably be clarified.


Actually, if the only adjacent unit you can remove is a city, you must "reduce" it (replace it with tokens up to the population limit, up to 4), and count the difference in unit points towards the amount you must remove. If this takes you above the amount, so be it. Of course, if you must reduce cities, it is probably better to to that first, so you can leave a maximum amount of tokens.


Not to the primary effect (§28.511), but if it is on the coast, it is vulnerable to §28.514, just as any other city, with or without city site, be they black or white.


I know this was up for a controversial discussion at the time of the rewrite, but I thought we finally agreed that all attacks from the barbarians was subject to the same "initial invasion" rules. This means that, as opposed to in AdvCiv, you can not "lead away" the barbarians, as subsequent attacks can be done to any place where they could have done the initial attack. While the rules now is unambiguous, they differ quite a lot from the AdvCiv rules, so if you start with preconceptions from having played AdvCiv (or pre-2.07 civproject) it can get confusing. Should we perhaps start §28.52 with a note saying that it differs from AdvCiv, and that you must forget any preconceptions you might have?


I agree with Velusion, both in the effects and that a clarification would be needed.
Mark: Please not that the VICTIM selects the cards, the beneficiary don't get to see any cards but the ones he is getting. In the above example the victim could choose to give the 7, the 4 and the 2, or the 4 and the 1. He could in fact choose to hand over all his cards, but anything but the above three choices would be stupid.