Just brainstorming in my opinion.


I believe if we choose for the city-option. there should NOT be a city-token on the board for it at all.
The WotW card itself counts as city, and therefore is unaffected.
This way it can never be the target of any treachery, civil war or whatever.

In my opnion we should should for:

1. Wotw counting as city for either extra card or AST
2. Wotw counting as city for both extra card and AST and have a calamity drawback.



I was not talking about not affecting Civil War, but Civil Disorder.
A wonder should make people happy and thus lessen Civil Disorder.
But the card needs no more positive thing, so let this thing off.

I thought Corruption is a (indirect) good choice for a drawback, cause when you receive your extra card, you should discard an extra 5.

For Tyranny, when there is no city-token for your WotW on the board, no-one can take this over, cause it ain't there.

This way, a drawback isn't that complicated.


So Wotw Could read:

Wotw counts as an extra city. You receive an extra trade card each round. you should support it with two tokens. You collect taxes of it. It counts for requirements on the AST. The card could never be lost due to any calamity or attack.

Five additional points must be discarded to "Corruption"

Nullifies Trade Empire

I'd rather have a card that generates an additional 'high' card with the drawback of having to discard five additional points to Corruption, than having a card that doesn't do both...

I just thought of another possibility:

- WotW counts as a city during the relevant phases of the game (tax, city support, acquisition of trade cards and alter AST; though not during resolution of calamities and special abilities phase (in order to avoid discussions about destroying, stealing or whatever).
- Drawback: you can only build a maximum of eight cities on the map.
- Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy.

In this way, the card is like having an additional regular city as long as you did not reach the maximum of nine cities in total. It 'boosts' Civilizations that are growing, but does not really help Civs already at their top.

Just an idea...

Well,

the thing about a max of 8 cities is a MUST to me, 'cause you shouldn't be abled to buld ten cites at all. This is not the drawback to me, that counts as balance to the good part.

As the card creates the higher level (9th) card for free each turn AND does all the other good things, it should aggravate a calamity or something too.
Otherwise the card should be over 300 and that's off to me.



The card being invisible during calamity-phase seems not so good to me.
It should only be unaffected.
Thus:
Wotw cannot be targeted by calamities
(Wotw is not on a floodplain)
(Wotw is not on a coastal area)
(No Trojan horses or civil wars in the wonder)
Wotw cannot be reduced
Wotw cannot be annexed by a special ability
Wotw cannot be attacked
Wotw cannot be destroyed
Wotw cannot be eliminated


BUT what should BE IN:
Wotw counts as a city during Slave Revolt
Wotw counts as city during couting the number of units to be annexed by Tyranny, though cannot be taken over by Tyranny.



In addition. Reading more on "The Seven Ancient Wonders of the World" I came to realize almost all wonders have been destroyed by Earthquake.
Since I don't think a player could be losing a Civilization Advance, we could reflect this fact in adding "An additional city is destroyed to Earthquake", And since this is a non-tradable, like corruption, this might be tough.

I'm afraid it is getting too complex (once again). Let's take a step back and look for an idea that is both balanced and simple...

I've started a new topic. This topic is about what is to be playtested.
We're playing a game with 8-9 players in may.

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=476

Ok This is what I think the best compromise at the moment is:


- WotW counts as a city during the relevant phases of the game (tax, city support, acquisition of trade cards and alter AST; though not during resolution of calamities and special abilities phase (in order to avoid discussions about destroying, stealing or whatever).
- Drawback: you can only build a maximum of eight cities on the map.
- Drawback: five additional poitns must be discarded to Corruption
- Nullifies Cultural Ascendancy.

I think I agree, but together with a price increase to 290!

Also, not that I think it should apply when doing Tax Collection, making a City Support Check, doing Trade Cards Acquisition and during Movement of Succession Markers, not during the Tax Collection phase, City Support Check phase, Trade Cards Acquisition phase and Movement of Succession Markers phase, as the later would exclude when making a City Support Check during the Calamity Resolution phase (due to Slave Revolt)...

Can you eplain your last line. I don;t get it.

There is a difference between (1) "WotW is considered one additional city belonging to the holder when making a City Support Check" and (2) "WotW is considered one additional city belonging to the holder during the City Support Check phases". In the case of a Slave revolt, you do a City Support Check outside of the City Support Check phase. So in case of (2) you don't have to support the WotW during the resolution of a Slave Revolt, while in case of (1) you do. Imho you should, and thus the rules has to be stated similar to (1), not similar to (2), which is what you wrote above.

OK.

to resume:

In my opinion, Wotw should count in on Slave Revolt and Banditry.
Though Gerart finds the card being confusing this way. or at least too complex.

So I compromised this into wotw not counting in at calamities.
You think it should. I agree, though agree on Gerart when talking about the card being complex this way.
Unless you state "In any city support check, Wotw counts as a city"

Is this right?

If I understand you correctly, you have understood me correctly

Personally I think it's even more complex if we have to state in the Slave revolt rules that you do a normal city support check, except that WotW does not count as a city when it normally does.

Basically I don't want to have to mention it the calamity phase at all (except for it's explicit 5 additional face value points due to Corruption that is), which is why I think it should not count in Tyranny etc, but do count in the City Support Check referred to by Slave Revolt (note that it does not affect the actual slave revolt, eg the amount of tokens not available for city support, only in the City Support Check that is forced by the Slave Revolt).

Maybe just an easy way is:
"Wotw is ignored during calamities phase" (or other form)
Slave Revolt: an additional two tokens may not be used as city support.

You step off of the symetriacl 'additional 5' used on all other cards, but it IS what it is. (or you want to have it require 1 additonal to CultAsc.)

Or maybe as easy as "".

What I'm trying to say is that if you only mention WotW where it matters (§13.1 , §21.1, §22.1, and §28.2) and specifies it in §30, on quick charts and on the card as "For the purpose of Tax Collection, City Support Checks, Trade Card Acquisition and Movement of Succession Markers, WotW counts as an additional city belonging to the holder." you don't need to mention it in §29 at all and still get the (imho) desired effect.

You guys were about to lose me, but if I'm right this is the current suggestion for WotW (for the quickchart):

- For the purpose of Tax Collection, City Support Checks, Trade Card Acquisition and Movement of Succession Markers, Wonder of the World counts as an additional city belonging to the holder.

- Holder may only have up to eight cities on the map.

- Five additional points must be discarded to "Corruption"

- Nullifies Trade Empire

This, of course, for the shabby amount of 290

One problem that can occur with the second line, is that there is a possibility of a player having already nine cities, and then buying WotW. This could result in that player having nine cities during the next round, which is a situation with 10 cities during Tax, Trade card acquisition, etc. Perhaps we should think of that.

By the way, I used the word 'have' rather than 'build' in the same line, because using 'build' could result in a player building an 8th city, and later 'converting', 'annexing', 'abducting', 'assimilating', or whatever a 9th city with some other card.

You could state (in the rules) that building Wotw when you have nine cities. You still have nine cities,so it's useless at that time.

This brings in the point, that you could leave out the 8-city limit.

just specify in the rules, that 9 is the max in any case, and you're done.