This actually occured more than once in our last game and some problems became apparent.

(a) Sri Lanka is on the edge of the map and is therefore vulnerable to barbarians. This was unexpected and unintuitive, but MAYBE isn't a problem as such. Chinese barbarians landing by ship? Pirates, yes.

Of course, as barbarians can cross water boundaries, they were more than a mere annoyance. This was not a problem at all, more an explanation as to why other measures were taken by that player

(b) So, the Dravidians decided to leave one barbarbian on the edge of Sri Lanka. That made them immune to barbarians as now they had no units (cities or tokens) adjacent to a map edge or a zero area.

My immediate thought was: For the starting point for barbarians, include areas bordering areas that have barbarian tokens in them.

In addition, the wording, as is, provided another strangeness (though I might be mireading it.) If you have a token in a zero area (via Agriculture), and *nothing* in any area adjacent to the zero area, you are immune to barbarians (at least from that zero area.)

I am still thinking on this one.

Yeah, Sri Lanka got added midstream in our Apollo 18 game. The round Dravidia colonized it, the Barbarians attacked. He wasn't too happy

For the Mesoamerica map I'm supposedly working on, the rule will probably have to change to starting from open sea zone just because of the shape of the world around there.

Interesting!

I would rule that barbarians can START in any zero area.

>For the starting point for barbarians, include areas bordering areas that have barbarian tokens in them.

Agreed! Barbarians can always originate and pass through thier own forces.

I'd second everything Velusion said. The basic question would be how it would be worded.

The easiest way with the fewest secondary changes would be to state that Barbarians can begin in territory that is on the border, any 0 spot, or any space occupied by Barbarians.

This increases slightly the danger from them, but with minimal pain and ambiguity.

I agree and will try to word it as soon as I'm back from my holidays (ie this weekend). Imo, Sri Lanka should however NOT be on the map border, (thus imune to barbarians). This could be fixed if Martin was to extend the map another inch.

Here is a try for a new wording. It does not describe exactly the sequens sugested by McBeth, but adds a few restraints I find logical (i.e. "bordering an *empty* zero population area" and "bordering an area containing *only* barbarian tokens"). The first of the restrictions actualy makes a few priorly legal starting areas illegal, but they should be few, I think. If you think these restrictions (especially the first) should be dropped, that's ok with me as well.

Here comes the new text:

30.5221 At the start of the calamity the controller places 15 barbarian tokens on any zero population area, any area bordering an empty zero population area, on any area containing barbarian tokens, on any area bordering an area containing only barbarian tokens, or on any area bordering the map edge. If possible, the barbarians has to start on an area containing a city owned by the victim. If that's not possible, they must start on an area containing tokens owned by the victim. If no legal area, as specified above, contains any cities or tokens owned by the victim, this calamity has no effect.

Hmm.. well we want it crystal clear...

Would there be any real downsides to the following rule instead?:

30.5221 The controller begins by placing fifteen white barbarian tokens on any eligable starting area containg a city owned by the victim. Eligable areas include those that border the map edge, zero population areas and areas that border zero population areas. If the victim owns no such cities, the controller places the barbarian tokens in any eligable starting area containing tokens owned by the victim. If the victim does not have cities or tokens in an eligable starting area this calamity has no effect.

That rules does not allow barbarians to start ON a zero pop area (only bordering), nor on or bordering other barbarian tokens.

Trying to merge our texts (see above concerning restrictions):

30.5221 The controller begins by placing fifteen white barbarian tokens on any eligable starting area containg a city owned by the victim. Eligable areas include all zero population area, all area bordering an empty zero population area, all area containing barbarian tokens, all area bordering an area containing only barbarian tokens, and all area bordering the map edge. If the victim owns no such cities, the controller places the barbarian tokens in any eligable starting area containing tokens owned by the victim. If the victim does not have cities or tokens in an eligable starting area this calamity has no effect.

During the last week I have been working on the rules agian and, amoung other things, I discovered that the rules for barbarian hordes was contradictary on some points, and all in all verry confusing. I have now rewritten the rules to (hopefully) be true to the old intent of the rules, but changing the litteral interpretation to avoid contradictions. I think I have also made the rules easier to understand, though they are no shorter than the old ones.

I would like to hear all your oppinions on the new text!

---

30.52 Barbarian Hordes (major, tradable)
30.521 The person trading this calamity is the controller of the barbarians. If the calamity was not traded to the victim, the player with the least amount of cities (even if it is the victim) is the controller.
30.522 Initial Placement
30.5221 At the start of the calamity the controller places 15 barbarian tokens on any zero population area, any area bordering an empty zero population area, on any area containing barbarian tokens, on any area bordering an area containing only barbarian tokens, or on any area bordering the map edge. If possible, the barbarians has to start on an area containing a city owned by the victim. If that's not possible, they must start on an area containing tokens owned by the victim. If no legal area, as specified above, contains any cities or tokens owned by the victim, this calamity has no effect.
30.5222 If the primary victim holds Politics or Provincial Empire an additional five barbarian tokens are placed per advance held. The effects of Politics and Provincial Empire are cumulative.
30.5223 If the primary victim holds Monarchy, five less barbarian tokens are placed.
30.5224 Immediately after initial placement, conflict is resolved between the newly placed barbarians and any units, including those of nations other than the primary victim, in the area occupied by the barbarians.
30.523 Continued Movement
30.5231 Once conflict is resolved, all surviving barbarians in excess of the population limit continues to move as set out below.
30.52311 Barbarians always move as a unit, other than when they leave tokens in areas they have already occupied. Barbarians may move across water boundaries and empty zero population areas, but not across open sea areas. Areas across an empty zero population area is considered adjacent to the barbarians.
30.52312 If possible the barbarians move into an adjacent area in which it can destroy a city belonging to the victim. If not possible the barbarians move into an adjacent area containing tokens belonging to the victim.
30.52313 If the barbarians can not move into an adjacent area containing the victim's cities or tokens the barbarians may move into any area to which they can trace a path back through territory occupied solely by barbarians. If possible the barbarians move into an area in which it can destroy a city belonging to the victim. If not possible the barbarians move into an area containing tokens belonging to the victim.
30.52314 The barbarian controller has sole authority as to which cities or units that are attacked provided he follows the above guidelines.
30.52315 If the barbarians can not move into any area containing the victim's cities or tokens the victim takes control of all the remaining barbarian tokens and may attack whoever he wishes. Once this occurs the victim retains control of the barbarian group for the rest of the calamity.
30.5232 When the barbarians has entered a new area conflict is again resolved. This process is repeated until there are no surplus barbarian tokens. At the end of the calamity phase, surviving barbarian tokens may not exceed the population limits of the areas they occupy.
30.5233 All movement and conflict involving barbarians is completed during the calamity phase, prior to the resolution of any other calamities. Once the barbarians have stopped moving, they remain on the board until eliminated by other players. Barbarians do not increase their population and may not be selected as secondary victims of calamities.
30.524 Barbarian tokens do not benefit from any of the attributes of their controlling player.
30.525 If barbarians eliminate a city, no trade card is drawn from the victim, nor does pillage occur.

Ok - your rules are good, but like the oringial so long and much more complex than any other calamity.

What about something simplier like:

30.52 Barbarian Hordes (major, tradable)
30.521 The victim must remove 12 unit points of his own and fill the effected areas with Barbarian Tokens. These must come from eligible areas (30.522).
30.522 Eligible Areas to Remove Units.
The areas available to victim to remove unit points from are as follows:
1) An area adjacent to the map edge
2) An area adjacent (even over a water boundary) to an unoccupied zero population area
3) A zero population area containing any of the victim’s units.
4) An area adjacent (even over a water boundary) to an area occupied by barbarians.
30.523 When removing the victim’s unit points place a number of barbarian tokens which will bring the total amount of tokens in that area up to the base map population number (even if no tokens can be placed). Regardless of how many barbarian tokens are placed the victim is only responsible for replacing 12 unit points of his own units.
30.354 After one area is resolved the victim must pick another and so on until all his unit points have been spent or he has no eligible space in which he can remove unit points. If the victim has less than five unit points left he may not remove a city.
30.523 If the primary victim holds Politics or Provincial Empire an additional five unit points are added to the total that must be removed.
30.524 If the primary victim holds Monarchy, five points are subtracted from the total.
30.525 Barbarians never move, do not increase their population and may not be selected as secondary victims of calamities.

Completely differnt but easier? Maybe?

Well, that is a very definite maybee.
As written now, your proposal may be much shorter, but no less complex. That might be fixed by rewording, resturcturing and some changes, but I don't realy see a reason. The current rules may be long, but they are quite straightforward. You just begin at the top and do as it says.
Your proposal also make barbarian hords much more simmilar to other calamities (mainly Piracy, but also to Tyrany, Treachery, Civil War and in some extent to any calamity where you have to remove unit points). I do like the diversity and oddities provided by Barbarian Hords.
In adition your proposal is much worse for the victim than the current rules (almost half the attacking tokens will die in combat, not 2 out of 15...). That can be fixed by tweaking the numbers (base 10, modified by 3 per advance seems reasonable), but as I stated above, I don't see a reason for such a drastic change anyway.

If you after all realy want to make the rules simpler/shorter, one could simplify continued movement by letting the remaining barbarians simply attack again, as by initial placement. That would cut the text almost in half.
The main effect of that change is that it would give the controller some more leaway to hit more cities of the victims cities, but it's no big difference.

I'm not clear as to what you mean by the last suggestion... could you clarify a bit? Maybe give an example of how it would be differnt.

The basic idea is to replace the "Continued movement" section with a paragraph saying "repeat initial placement". The full text could, for example, be:



The main difference from the current rules would be that the barbarians no longer primarily invade areas adjacent to the area they previously invaded, but can continue their invasion at any area they could have started from at the current board position (including the new barbarian area). This will simplify the rules slightly, and make them 25 lines shorter, but will make the barbarians slightly more dangerous, as they might reach another city instead of just tokens.

My personal opinion is that this simplification is much better than your proposal, but no change (from the current draft) is really required.

I like it! Lets make the change.

Wow... so are we like pretty much done with the first ever complete draft of rules? Dare upgrade from Alpha to BETA?