hold on.
we are writing in between eachothers posts. first I have to read the previous.

correct. we do too much editing instead of answering.
I will be off for one hour...

Please let's check for everything in the rules when you propose a change. Just like I do.

When we change the numbering it's dangerous to look over this. You gotta check the full rulebook on any mention for this number before you change a thing.

Now when we were replying too quick, I haven't had time to check for all.
Also I haven't had the time to mark some words red as changed.

Also when we talk about 'destroying' instead of 'removing' ship. this might be a change to the card as well. But this time 'Calendar' already speaks about 'destroying' ships.


This is my last proposal:
I actually took over your prosposal and changed a bit.

main thing is: You may reduced the number of cities te be reduced rom the exposed cities only. This is what I changed.

Another thing is, when you have trade empire, and no calendar or masonry, Should you reduce 4 cities if possible? or is there a maximum of three? I think four cities if possible. I marked this with blue.

ot the difference in cities affted by Cyclone and cities exposed to Cylone.












I only doubt about the fact that it's not clear enough that:
if you have three cities and you hold masonry and trade empire you reduce one less affected city through masonry and then for trade empire you should reduce that one less city from masonry.
you cannot say: 'i have no more cities left to reduce'

I was discussing this section with my cousin Gerart last week.

he proposed to turn things around for this calamity. That is how to put it in the rules.

1. you select the cyclone area
2. all players select the affected cities and ships (by flipping them upside down) 3 for the primary, 2 for all other players and all ships.
3. all adjustments are made by the cards players hold (flip / unflip)
4. all flipped cities and ships are destroyed.

Actually this is different from other calamities, but it's much clearer.

I think it unnecessary complicated.
Especially I am not happy with this flipping (as we are playing with cubes).
It should be easy for everyone to count to three and reduce three cities.

At least it should be more simple for all ships, like:
All ships at this Open Sea Area are destroyed and returned to stock.
and
Any player holding Calendar (30.7) may choose 2 ships to stay on the map,
instead of destroying it.

Ok, but because you are using cubes instead of tokens, that can not be the reason for an official rule not to speak about tokens and flipping.

Still I'd like to avoid speaking about what you keep, so my previous attempt comes closer to your opinion, thuogh I'm not satisfied with the blue part.

In fact my last attempt isn't that complex, apart from the flipping thing. you might leave that off, and it comes close the original in lenght.

It's even shorter at some parts.

Hehe, i know

I don't know for sure, I will check it, but I think somewhere in the rulebook should be a mention of what 'destroyed' means. Then it wouldn't have to be repeated here.

Maybe there should be a list of what is what.

Something like:

Taxation - from stock to treasury
Expansion - from stock to board
Ship building - from board to stock or from treasury to stock
Ship maintanaince - from board to stock or from treasury to stock
Destroyed - from board to stock
Reduced - city replace by tokens from stock
Annex - from stock to board

i could even draw a picture for that. Many rulebooks of recent games I own include lists or drawings like that.

maybe 'elimination' should be replaced by 'destroyal'

OK:

This is clear:



And this is clear:



And this is clear:



Only thing to do is, to formulate a scentence that selcts the affected cities.

But, when you read and execute it in this order, you first have to destroy cities, and then you have to undestroy them, because later on you see you have defense.

This is a general way of stating how to resolve a calamity. For example this is what Superstion says:



I agree with Gerart that, to make things more clear for any new player, we'd rather change the order of what thing to do.

I'd suggest to change in the rulebook for all calamities:
(and let's take superstion as example)



Just like the rulebooks says about 'inverting' tokens when putting them into treasury, this could be included in the intro for calamity resolution.

Something like:

Then how about a new order:

1. Deciding the exposure area

2. Deciding of how many of the exposed are affected
(including the advance cards bonus)

3. Choosing of which exposed cities are affected

4. Destroying/reducing of ships/cities

This is exactly what I mean. Apart from the right wording. I'm talking about theorder of doing things only right now.

When we decide to do this, this should be done for all calamities. then 'selecting' becomes a normal way of resolving.

Just like resolving civil war or slave revolt. (at least that's how we do it)

I'll create a new topic for thispurpose only.


In fact this means for all calamties:

1. selecting the affected tokens, ships, cities.
2. increase or decrease selection by cards held
3. execute what should be done with the selection


Let's continue this part of the discussion here:

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3853#3853

user Velusion stepped into this discussion at the above link.

The result of that discussion is to not change te order of stating things in the rulebook.

So now we can work on the right words for describing this specific calamity.

Our last point was the following:

I was doubting about the blue parts and MerlokDD was about to mention 'players may keep an amount of cities'.

reading and reading again I come to this:

I did not mention 'players may keep/hold one city' but still held on to 'reduce one less' (sorry Merlok )

actually the structure is clear.

1 Will a cyclone occur and at what area.
2 the primary victim select his affected cities
3 all secondary victim select their affected cities
4 all ships are affected
5 all affected cities are reduced and all afftected ships are destroyed.
6-7-8-9 adjustments are made by cards held.











Note:
In fact only affected cities are reduced.
Trade empire is the difference: It reduces one additional city that may not have been affected in the first place. But once you hold both Trade Empire and one or both of Masonry and Calandar it becomes cumulative.

example 1 :
You have four cities exposed.

you select three and reduce them.

Once you hold Masonry/Calendar and Trade Empire, you reduce three minus one plus one stays three.

Once you hold Masonry & Calendar & Trade Empire, you reduce three minus two plus one = two.

Once you hold Trade Empire only you have to reduce that fourth city as well.

example 2:
You have two cities exposed.

you select two and reduce them.

Once you hold Masonry/Calendar and Trade Empire, you reduce two minus one plus one stays two.

Once you hold Masonry & Calendar & Trade Empire, you reduce two minus two plus one = one.

Once you hold Trade Empire only you have to reduce two plus one EXPOSED city is three cities. Since you only have two cities EXPOSED, you have to remove two.
(and that's why the mention of 'exposed' is important, otherwise it would mean you have to remove any one of you cities from the board)

Whenever you speak about 'you may keep one city' for Masonry or Calendar, it's in conflict with Trade Empire, where you have to remove one additional city.

Actually it is Trade Empire that destroys one city regardless of whether is protected by Calendar or Masonry. (You cannot claim 'I may keep one city cause I have Masonry') That's what player might say if you speak about what Merlok proposed:

I think the wording of your last post makes sense and I approve of the wording changes.