Well, the "a" refers to "holder" not "city"!

But if those are my options, "a holder's city" is the obvious choice, as the other one is breaking two distinct grammatical rules...


No you can't. If any player holding Fundamentalism or Philosophy has a single token in the area, all other units in that area are safe from Fundamentalism too.

The original text didn't cover enough cases, and all your proposals cover to many cases...
My proposal might not be the textually best possible, but at least it covers all cases it should and none it shouldn't.

Fortunately I have some work to do during the day, so I only have to keep up with your work in the evening :-)

This word-fucking will stop automatically, when either we are finished or we get tired of it; it's an iterative process itself... :-)

In the Excel sheet I modified:

- MILITARY (extra comma)
- FUNDAMENTALISM (new formulation)
- PUBLIC WORKS (changed to 'a holder's city')
- UNIVERSAL DOCTRINE (removed 'Adjacent')

Here is the new file:
http://www.kjbwaarland.com/Civilization ... -03-12.xls

If you have any more comments, shoot, if not, I will prepare a list without line-breaks for Flo.

PS. I noticed my last link did not work, but that has been fixed....

Gerart

you're right. This is a confusing line.

we talk about AREAS containing cities. In my opinion, that's wrong. It's areas containg only one city (per area)

So your line is right indeed. I was confused about the other thing.

Public Works:
Areas containing a holder's city may also contain one token each.

We could also choose for:

Public Works:
Each area containing a holder's city may also contain one token.

This seems better to me, though both are true and good. Just taste I guess.



Ok, if that's true, than my interpretation was wrong.
As you said, it should be:

Fundamentalism:
During the Special Abilities Phase, a holder may destroy all units in one area adjacent by land not containing units belonging to a player holding Fundamentalism or Philosophy. Pirate cities and barbarian tokens may not be destroyed.

I like it.

A small problems arises when converting the text to the card-variant.

Flo's suggestion is good:
Each area containing a holder's city may also contain one token.

However, substitution of "a holder's" by "your" results in:
Each area containing your city may also contain one token.

And then we are back where we started. I modified this to:
Each area containing one of your cities may also contain one token.

Which raises the question whether or not to also change the other variant to:
Each area containing one of a holder's cities may also contain one token.

What do you think?

I think we should use
Each area containing a holder's city may also contain one token.
and
Each area containing one of your cities may also contain one token.
ignoring the fact that they isn't 100% consistent.
That is the type of things I foresaw that we probably would have to do, considering the difference between second and third person narration.

i agree with jonno,

both lines just sound best. there might even be a gramatical rule why that is so.

getting back on the difference.

A monopoly card would say:

" Advance to 'go'. "

where the rules would say:

"ADVANCE TO 'GO'"
The player must pick up his token and move it to 'go' and collects $200"

Both different lines, but in each way best.

Okay, that's fine to me.

Last version:
http://www.kjbwaarland.com/Civilization ... -03-13.xls

I added a new column, containing the card texts without line-breaks, so they can be used for the artwork files.

Do you think we are done, yet?

Yeah I have one:

PHILOSOPHY:

CIVIL WAR: The first faction always consists of fifteen unit points chosen by the beneficiary, regardless of any other civilization cards.

maybe it's been dscussed before. Shouldn;t it be mentioned that this counts for the primary victim, or is it so that if the beneficiary holds philosophy, the first faction also consists of 15 points.

And the same for: regardless of any other civilization cards, held by the primary victim or is that for both primary and beneficiary.




I've read through all cards and I cannot find anything to shit on anymore.

Actually, I don't think that's necessary, since the advances of the beneficiary never have any influence on the resolving of a calamity. It does matter, of course, when we're talking about a primary or secondary victim, but that's just not the case here. So I suggest to leave it like it currently is...

Last word fucks, though not related to the Advances: It's not 'offcourse' but 'of course', and not 'Excell' but 'Excel'

oh I do this wrong all the time, and I will continue doing this wrong. Just cannot keep it right in my mind., and I;m too lazy to lok it up all the time.

just like mistaking adres and address

you can find enough examples here on the foum in my postings.


It dosen't mttaer in whhich odrer the ltteres of ecah wdros are, As lnog as the fsrit and the lsat leettr are in its ogirianl pcale!
Tihs is my olny escuxe of my bad tinpyg qitluaies.

I agree, no change necessary.



Me too, but I try to get it right for stuff that is going print (such as the rulebook)...
Don't give a crap about chats, and not much crap in forums/emails etc, though it's become much better since Firefox and Thunderbird gained spell checking capabilities.


While this is generally true, it only holds true if the amounts of each letter is correct...

I've done one more change in the rulebook and Quick charts that should be reflected on the cards. I changed the last sentence on Trade Empire from
If the player asked holds the named card, the holder collects it and may not ask anyone else for it this turn.
to
If the player asked holds that card, the holder collects it and may not ask anyone else for it this turn.
Not that anything was wrong with "the named card", it's just that changing it shortened the rulebook from 41 to 40 pages...

Well offcourse!



HA! lets se if i can add another word somewhere