I really like this advance. However, I would change it from 2 cards to 10 points worth of cards. It seems like too low a price to pay, if someone can discard two 1 point cards to avoid a civil war.

Hmm I think that might be prudent...

My thoughts were that yes it would be very cheap to discard say 2 hides, which is unless they are holding 8 in their hand. Of course that’s rare, but cards (and their trading power) are the most important things you need to win the game. Whenever I play I usually have multiple sets going on and the thought of throwing any of them away would make me cringe.

But you are right... its rare I don't at least have one and sometimes two junk cards at the beginning of trading. 10 points seems a little steep though... since they probably won't have exactly 10. How about 7? that will probably make them give up about 8 or 10 points.

What does everyone else think? I have a game coming up this Thursday, so I'll probably just leave it as it stands now and see how it plays out... I don't have enough time to change it.

Well, I came up with 10 because then it could never be just 1 card. There have been many instances where, for example, I've been trading for a set of resin only to draw a spice card that turn... so, basically, that spice is a throw away card (asuming I can't trade it for something else). If it becomes a choice of saving (or trading) that lone spice or averting a civil war, I'm pretty much always going to give up the card.

Personally, I think civil war is a devestating calamity and should be costly to avoid. However, that said, if it was 7 points... but also a two card minimum.... that might work out.

I'm with DLuciano on this one. Civil War is the most devastating calamity in the game, and it should be costly to avoid. In my experience, it is about the only calamity that really concerns players in the late game. I'd be happy to trade any single card to avoid it, or two low-value cards. Ten points of cards at least makes it painful, as it should be.

-Andrew
I'm not sure we're civilized yet.

Yea... I'm going to change it to 10 points. Look for the changes soon.

Actually I didn't give myself enough credit. If you read the card again it says holder will give up two RANDOM cards. Soooo.... I don't think there is any reason to change it. I think RANDOM cards (which can decimate a big set) is even worse than 10 choosen points!

So you did! That could be really nasty.... I like it

I've yet to be in a game where someone has choosen Theocracy. I'm asked them why and the general impression was that it was too harsh, escpecially since most civilizaions don't grow as large in the new game (hense weakening Civil War).

So I'm debateing how to make it more attractive. I think I might lower the randomly selected card from 2 to 1. Since it already HURTS you will slave revolt I can see why some people still won't bother with it, but perhaps it will attract some more attention.

Any ideas?

What is the drawing on the card supposed to be? I couldn't figure that one out...

It's the head dress of high-priest of ancient Egypt (probably the most well known Theocracy). You're the second person to ask though... maybe I could should think of a different picture.

Personally, I love the picture, and wouldn't change it for the world.

The card says "random", but the rules says "of his choice". I've included this in the "Proofread notes"-thread under General Discussion.

Go with the rulebook. It is his choice.

But that would reinstate the point of the original poster, in that it's too cheap to avoid a Civil War for the cost of two Hides? You've also agreed to this earlier in the thread.

I think it will work. Play tests have shown that people are wary about things that require you to have specific commodity cards in your hand. I just don't think it will be overly popular still.