No, only the purpose of "doing Tax Collection, making a City Support Check, doing Trade Cards Acquisition and during Movement of Succession Markers".

No mention of the Calamity Resolution phase in that list


Depending on interpretation, I do. Not really that you do something stupid, but that different persons interpreting things differently draws different conclusions, with different results on the game.

One example is Civil War. If it counts as a city in all cases, it is worth five unit points. As you state it can't annexed, does that mean that the victim must select it as part of his 15 unit point? Or is that five extra unit points he get "for free".

By not having to consider WotW during calamity resolution, that is made much simpler...


And I prefer it not to be considered a city when it shouldn't.


I think that would be a lot of lines in individual calamities to remove any ambiguities, which is why I'd prefer to avoid the Calamity Phase completely.


Well, it won't hurt, but if you use my line above, it don't matter, as neither of these things occur during the phases listed.

(OK, we do have tax revolt, but I can live with one clarifying sentence in the rulebook for that)


Also solved automatically by using my narrower definition, as "for the purpose of Victory Point calculation" isn't on the list.

Quick one:



I really don't agree. The city is not ON the board so it's never worth 5 unit points.

We're starting any minute now, and w are playing the way I mentioned before.

"Counts as additional city in any case, except wotw does not count as extra VP"

During the play test of yesterday, where I was Game Master rather than player and so had some time to think, I made up my mind about the way we tested WotW. We found out that the card was quite balanced, since it's good benefits were combined with the very high cost of 290.

WotW had three main advantages:

1) It generated resources like an additional city
2) It counted as a city during the 'Alter AST' phase
3) It nullified 'Trade Empire'

Although I enjoy these three advantages, my opinion is that the definition is not very desirable. I'd rather have WotW do these things while it never counts as a city. I think I'm in line with Jonno about that, but anyway I'll explain my arguments:

1) In a normal game each player can build a maximum of 9 cities, corresponding with the 9 stacks of trade cards. Having WotW count as a additional city allow this rule to be broken, which needs an additional exception: in case a player has 10 cities, he will only acquire 9 trade cards.

2) Each player always has a total of 100 unit points (9 cities x 5 + 55 tokens x 1 = 100). These are either in play on the board, or off the map and either in stock or in treasury. The whole game is based on the flux and balance of these 100 points between stock, board, and treasury. Adding an additional city leads to a (virtual) total of 105 points for a player holding WotW, leading to differences from other player's 'unit economics'. This may lead to unwanted situations in case, for example during the determination of the beneficiary during Civil War or Tyranny.

3) If WotW counts as a city, but can not be attacked, converted, etc., it differs quite a lot from a normal city, to which anything can happen.

4) WotW counts a city during 'Alter AST', but not as a city in the end score of the game. Although this is fair to me, it is one more exception to a long list of exceptions.

To summarise, I like the card and the purpose we play tested it, I would not have it count as a city, since it lead to too many exception to the mostly harmonic basic rules of the game. I prefer to think of a way to define a comparable description, while keeping the card an advance rather than turning it into a city, and avoiding a long list of additions and exceptions.

Gerart

That rule already exists:

I've never seen any cards in the tenth trade card stack, thus any player with nine cities plus WotW "must simply forgo drawing a trade card" from the tenth stack...


That's why I want to limit the scope of WotW to just for very specific actions, and not count during the Calamity Resolution phase.


Yes it does, but then most civcards makes the rules quite different from how it is without that particular civcard.


Or you simply just state when it does work rather than every time it doesn't. That way you have exactly four exceptions, no more...

In line with my comments of yesterday, I have the following suggestion for WotW for the next playtest:

- Decreases the amount of cities required for movement on the AST by one.
- "holder acquires one additional trade card"
- CORRUPTION: Five additional commodity card points must be discarded.
- Nullifies Trade Empire.

The second line, "holder acquires one additional trade card", can be defined in different ways. I have thought of some (possible) alternatives:

- A holder acquires trade cards as if he had one additional city in play.

- A holder may get one additional card from a trade card stack of his choice that he did not get a card from this turn.

- A holder may buy one card from the fourth trade card stack for twelve treasury tokens.

- A holder may buy one card from the fifth trade card stack for fourteen treasury tokens.

I'm curious whether anyone has constructive comments to any of these :-)

What about:
This doesn't count WotW as an additional city with many exceptions like , but makes the same clear rule changes as tested on 24 may.

Edit: As I stated before in this thread to reduce frustration caused by drawing calamities,

We've done two new playtests last month.

Results are here:

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3539#3539

Everything I've read indicates that you want this Wonder to be like a second city.

What if it just allows you to build a single second city in a single territory. That "second city" is your wonder. The city may be built with 6 tokens (even if the original city was a wilderness city), and counts as a city in all regards (i.e. counts as 10 points during a civil war, 2 cities for taxes, etc.).

This "double citied" territory is also now immune to reduction or acquisition from other players, but could be destroyed. It could be built or rebuilt any time, you could even rebuild your city and wonder at the same time.

In play, you just represent it with a second city token on top of the first. Players that already have 9 cities in play can't take advantage of it right away.

I think of it like being "kinged" on a checkerboard. More powerful, but still somewhat vulnerable.

I don't think this will be implented in the game. We now have a WotW which works fine (we have tested it yesterday) and I think there is no need to change it.
But further it is a interesting idea.

I agree with Johannes.

we cannot speak for the rest of the world but different groups here all played several times with our new Wotw rules and that works great.

It might not even be an official rule change but we will continue playing our Wotw rules anyway.

After reading the posts, it seemed like there was some discussion still open, so I threw an idea out for debate. I like the ideas that have been proposed, and I'm glad they've been accepted so well.

This is the attributes we use for Wonder of the World now:

# You may acquire one additional trade card for free, from a trade card stack of your choice that is higher than your amount of cities in play.
# CORRUPTION: Five additional commodity card points must be discarded.
# Nullifies Trade Empire.
# Decreases your epoch entry requirements on the AST by one city.


Along with it we changes Written record to give 10 instead of 5 extra credits and Monument to give 20 instead of 10 extra credits


We keep using this until proven wrong or added to the official rules.