Link from here: http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=521

when we were discussing the right way of stating the resolution of Cyclone we came to an idea of changing the way calamity resolution is explained in the rulebook.


I'm talking about the calamities that order the destruction of playing pieces or reduction of cities

in fact this is what the rulebook says now for most/all calamities:


1 CALAMITY NAME
2. What the calamity does (for example 3 cities must be reduced)
3. players holding certain cards may reduce damage
4. players holding certain cards must increase damage


This is very strange actually
In my opinion, we should state things in chronological order

Like this:

1. CALAMITY NAME
2. Victims must select cities, ships or tokens as mentioned.
3. players holding certain cards may decrease selection
4. players holding certain cards must increae selection
5. Execute the calamity on selection.



I give an example:

Current:

New:


Adding to the introduction of the Calamity resolution:




-----------------------------------------------------
The calamity quick chart is a whole different thing.

That is a list that says:

1. this is what the calamity does in nature
2. Aggravated by
3. lessened by

And therefore this list IS in a different order, just like the current rulebook.


I think We should keep the quickchart that way, cause it only serves as a quick list to remind of what the clamity does. experience players know it by looking at it. (even ore experience know it by heart, but may keep it as reference)

But the quick chart does not clearify things. just like the previous advanced only spoke about 'aggravates ...'

To look that up, you pick the rulebook, and that should tell you exactly what to do at a certain calamity and leave no doubts afterwards.
The rulebook should be as complete as possible for the resolution of calamites. (and for all other thing as well ofcourse)


Is there anyone who doesn't agree and why?

I suppose I'm rather agnostic or leaning towards not changing it. Here is why:

If the goal is to walk players through the calamity you are asking players to make choices based on information they don't have. In your example you are asking players to pick cities without them having any idea of which ones he should be picking. He still has to read the entire instructions to make an educated choice.

In the previous example you had the basic rule followed by exceptions. I'm ok with the reading of it myself.

I also think it might be problematic to give hard ordering standards. In the old wording it is rather clearly a net sum (standard resolution + (benefits + negatives)) the way you are describing now reads like

Standard Resolution + benefits = ResultA
ResultA + negatives = Net Result Final

so... to use a more extrema city calculation example with calamity X:

((1+(3 + (-3)) = 1)
Result 1

or

1 + (-3) = 0 (can't have negative cities)
then
0 + 3 = 3
Result = 3 cities

OK, I take this as a NO

I can agree to a part of your explanation.

As long as opinions vary and both sides have reasons why, then I think we shouldn't change this.

This was a part of a discussion to be solved first before finishing the topic on 'how describe CYCLONE in the rulebook'.

This discussion continues here: http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3874#3874

We decided to keep the current order of ruling for each calamity in the rulebook.

1. the calamity does something
2. players holding certains cards adjust losses.

Velusion said, players will have to read the whole calamity resolution anyway befor resolving it, rather than the step by step method I proposed.


that's fine.

but currently this is the way the rulebook speaks about Civil War:


.....
29.4.1.6 If the victim holds Military (30.28 ), Naval Warfare (30.36), or Advanced Military (30.2) five unit points are removed from each faction for each of these advances held. The required units are removed after factions are selected by the owner of each faction. Each player must, if possible, remove the required unit points from areas within or adjacent to the other faction.
29.4.1.7 The beneficiary then annexes the faction the victim does not retain by replacing the units with his own. If he runs out of units, the remainder is taken over by the next player with the most unit points in stock, and so on. The victim retains his stock, ships, treasury, civilization cards, and position on the A.S.T
....

This is the step by step method I proposed, which we rejected. So to be in line with other orders, these two chapters should be switched.

Maybe this is the only way to do this, cause in the switched order you would have to remember which units were selected, to destroy some of these tokens afterwards, but doesn't that also apply to the resolution of Cyclone.



This is what Slave revolt says:


29.4.2 Slave Revolt (major, tradable)
29.4.2.1 This calamity triggers an immediate check for city support for the victim. Fifteen tokens may not be used to support his cities during this check. If the victim has less than fifteen tokens on the board, Slave Revolt affects all of these tokens.
29.4.2.2 If the victim holds Theocracy (30.45) or Mining (30.29) five additional tokens may not be used for city support for each of these advances held.
29.4.2.3 If the victim holds Mythology (30.35) or Enlightenment (30.19), five less tokens may not be used for city support for each of these advances held.
29.4.2.4 Cities are reduced one at a time, with the newly available tokens being eligible to provide support for the victim's remaining cities.


Actually when we regard our defined way of stating things, point 29.4.2.4 should be before point 29.4.2.2 and 29.4.2.3




Maybe this is just hairsplitting. But hairsplitting is what I do when it comes to finetuning the rulebook.


I want to come up with a way of stating calamity resolution in the rulebook that leaves nothing to chance. But also each calamity resolution similar to others.

that means, for example, at some point the rulebook speaks of 'eliminate a city' and at another point it speaks of 'destroy a city' and yet another of 'must remove from the board'.
I'd rather change all to either one of these terms and i choose for 'destroy'.


At one point the rulebook speaks about 'you must pay 10 treasury tokens' and at another point it speaks of 'ten treasury tokens are returned to stock.'. Politics speaks of 'In case a city is annexed, it is replaced by a city from stock and exactly five treasury tokens are transferred to stock.'

I'd rather go for equally ' transfer to stock'


for example:
CURRENT:
29.5.3 City Riots (minor, tradable)
29.5.3.1 The victim must reduce one city of his choice.
29.5.3.2 The victim must also return five treasury tokens to stock.

NEW:
29.5.3 City Riots (minor, tradable)
29.5.3.1 The victim must reduce one city of his choice.
29.5.3.2 Five treasury are tokens to stock. If he has less than five tokens in treasury, all of his treasury tokens are transfered to stock.

I am not happy with this "No".

It is clear, that everybody has to read the whole paragraph
to understand what a specific calamity does. But after that
I usually take the rulebook while resolving the calamity.
It is the most convenient way to prevent errors.

It should be placed in chronological order, even if there
will be some excemptions explained before final main rules.

by the way: It is a lot easier to understand if it is presented
in chronological order. It just prevents jumping between the
paragraphs to see the whole view of a calamity.

My Proposal is still:

0. Name of Calamity
1. General Description of Calamity
2. General area of effect is choosen by Victim or "most affected rules"
3. Victim chooses secondary Victims (and amount of damage)
4. Players must select cities, ships or tokens which are exposed/in danger
5. Players holding certain cards may decrease selection
6. Players holding certain cards must increase selection
7. Execute the calamity on selection

In practice the way we do the resolution for Epidemic for example:


1. the primary victim distributes the 25 additional points to secondary victims.
2. each player looks whether he has cards that adjust his damage.
3. the primary victim looks for adjustments cards he holds.
4. the primary victim selcts the 16 points for himself.


this works quickest, though I would never like to put it in the rulebook in this order.


in fact I only prefer a certain order to definately apply this order to all calamities in the rulebook.

STRONGLY CONFIRMED....

I don't see much difference in what you are suggesting as compared to how the rules are now.

Also I'd move #4 down to #6 on the list.

I don't see much difference in what you are suggesting as compared to how the rules are now.

Also I'd move #4 down to #6 on the list.[/quote]

No, that's the key, of what Merlok is saying.

- players select their potential losses, without actually applying their losses.
- players adjust this selection by their cards
- players apply the calamity to their (adjusted) selection.[quote]

I've never done it this way, but I find out new things I've been missing out on all the time. Is it supported somewhere in the rulebook that the players pick thier losses before applying Civ card bonuses?

I don't exactly understand what you mean with this last comment.


Do you mean, you've never seen it this way and you've seen the light.
or do you mean, this way is the wrong way, and the rulebook always told you why this is wrong.

My problem is still that the order of describing it and order of doing it
actually differs.

rulebook: 3 cities to be chosen to be reduced -> afterwards if special cards to be changed to 2 or 4

real life: special card change the 3 to a 2 or 4 -> reducing this changed number

From my point of view it should be described in a way which could be used
as order for the real life resolution of the calamity.

No, that's the key, of what Merlok is saying.

- players select their potential losses, without actually applying their losses.
- players adjust this selection by their cards
- players apply the calamity to their (adjusted) selection.

Ok - now I'm really confused. Give me an example of how you want to change a simple calamity.

Ok, I am trying to find a simple example...

Let's take Superstition.



It is a basic example only, but should be sufficient.

The way it is described is the same in every calamity
-> what is to be done
-> how it is done
-> exemption from this rule / adaptions of damage amount due to cards

In this case this means:
1. Reducing 3 Cities
2. Checking cards
3. Building cities up again, or reducing further cities
But usually no player will use this ordering for this actions.
Every player will check his cards, find the correct number of cities to be
reduced and reduce these at once. I am sure even with the actual
description, every player will use the other approach, obviously.

So I would like to have an ordering in the description, which follows
the most simple approach which could be made, a chronological one.
Let's try to describe the resolution of calamities in a way which could
be used as a "step by step guide".
There won't be too much change in this example, but it has much more
influence on bigger calamities.

My proposal for Superstition would be:


I think this approach can be used for reading and resolving the calamities
and the same time.
-> Much more simple for New Players.
-> Won't change anything for experienced players.

I do agree on this.


I like this part, for it brings a little fun and history in the game.
This is just why I created flavour texts on the back of the civilization advances.

Though we have to look to not make it more confusing rather than adding flavour.