Flo de Haan wrote:
I this is the latest version of the rules,
I have some comment on 'attacking'.
In the attributes-text topic we discussed removing 'enemy' in 'attacking an enemy city', it's still in the rules.
I just havn't re-published the rules since. In 2.10-draft4 (not yet finished), the word "enemy" is only used three times, in relation to path tracing (25.2.2 and 25.8.2) and Roadbuilding (30.43.2).
Flo de Haan wrote:
Besided I couldn't find a proper definition of 'attacking'
in the case of cultural ascendancy.
Maybe I didn't look well enough, but I think It should be described somewhere in the rules, maybe with a marking in 'cultural ascendancy'.
and how about 'diplomacy'
Then you looked at the wrong place. It's part of paragraph 17 (Movement):
CoreRulebook(2.10-draft4) wrote:
17.4.1 Players not holding Diplomacy (30.15) or Military (30.28) may not attack a city belonging to a player holding Diplomacy. Attacking a city is defined as moving tokens into an area containing a city in enough force that conflict would occur.
17.4.2 Players holding Cultural Ascendancy (30.11) or Advanced Military (30.2) may not attack any units belonging to a player holding Cultural Ascendancy. Attacking units is defined as moving tokens into an area containing units in enough force that conflict would occur.
Please note that §30 (Civilization Cards) only contains "Short summaries of all attributes of the cards" (same as the quick chart), while "Details of how these attributes work are found in The Phases (IV) and Calamities (29)." (quotes from §30.1).
However, each attribute summary in §30 does have a paragraph reference to the normative section in The Phases (§13-§28) or Calamities (§29), which is why the Cultural Ascendancy paragraph reads "30.11.2 Players may not attack a holder's units without holding either Cultural Ascendancy or Advanced Military (17.4.2).", and you can read the details in 17.4.2.