Here's a first take at proofreading, and some commentary. I hope this is readable enough to be useful. It is possible I am mistaken on a few points, of course.

1.1 "a mapboard of the Mediterranean and Near East" probably needs updating.

3.1 How about "B. Eighteen sets of playing pieces and one additional set for pirates and barbarians".

10.11 Is this still supposed to be in the rulebook? "In the last epoch, each space contains a point value. Such spaces may not be entered unless the player in question has acquired the indicated number of points (33.25)."

Orig-14.2 This text was in the original. "Players must keep a running total of their civilization card values and reveal this when asked by another player." I think keeping that someplace would be a good idea.

14.62 ... "When a city belonging to the inert nation is eliminated, the attacking player does not get anything." They should still be able to pillage, right?
How about this instead: "When a city belonging to the inert nation is eliminated, the attacking player is unable to steal a commodity card, as the inert nation has none."

21.2 The word "coastal" (both times) needs to be highlighted in red as it's a change: "A ship financed completely from treasury may be placed in any coastal area containing at least one of the player's units. A ship built totally or partially by levy must be placed in the coastal area ..."

22.59 This rule is mostly changed text and should be highlighted. However, Delphi is not the only terrority with dual coastlines: Scythia still has two distinct coasts and in the original western expansion Aquitania (but the ACEP map has broken that terrority up.) I've looked and not been able to find any others so far.
How about this instead? "22.59 Some terrorites (such as Dephli) have two distinct coastlines. Ships may enter a terrority from either side, but must leave from that same side. Ships may not cross directly from one coastline to another."

23.53 Add: "Diplomacy provides an exception to this."

26.5 The original rule mentions Slave Revolt as an exception. The ACEP rulebook drops out the exception. I'm thinking putting back the exception would be clearer (as the style of rulewriting here puts each and every exception into the rules.)
Change to: "City support is not checked at any other time, other than when resolving Slave Revolt (30.42)."

27.51 - there is a 27.51 which comes after 27.5 and there is a 27.51 which comes after 27.6 (twenty-seven.SIX), with different wording.
I think that 27.5, 27.52 and the first 27.51 were inteded to be dropped.

27.6 *** Can you purchase a draw from the stack, if the stack is empty? I think it is a good idea to explictly state it. I'm more for "no", but I've seen "yes" used in play.

27.6 Is the intent to allow the possibility to purchase a total of four additional trade cards if the player has the necessary advances and treasury? (Admittedly never happen as treasuries don't get that large, but I'm looking theoritically.) The wording on Cartography might be interpeted as a replacement to the "buy gold".

27.62 There's two items numbered 27.62 (one before and one after the second 27.51)

27.62 "... master ... " > "... manner ..."

30.412 Whether or not the commodity cards lost are random or chosen should be specified. (Calamity cards are, by definition not commodity cards, but they are trade cards.)

30.416 "costal" > "coastal". Maybe *only* coastal areas instead of prefrentially coastal areas?

30.422 While it is this way in the original rules, the second sentence would make more sense if it was moved to 30.421

30.423 "and additional" > "an additional"

30.5211 The next to last sentence with the phrase "any area" could be interpeted to allow barbarian placement outside of a map border area, or bordering a zero pop area (as long as there was *something* next to a border somewhere.)

30.63 Change "Coastal Migration" > "Coastal Migration (minor)"

30.71 Is it supposed to be precisely 10 point, no more and no less, or would 11 points satisfy the calamity?

30.811 How about "enemy civilization" > "other civilization... to be a beneficiary", etc.

30.412 Whether or not the commodity cards lost are random or chosen should be specified. (Calamity cards are, by definition not commodity cards, but they are trade cards.)

30.913 add ", unless the victim also has Fundamentalism." There's probably a better way to word it.

31.62 Monotheism now requires Deism. And Fundamentalism requires Mythology.

32.0271 Needs to be highlighed in red.

32.0282 I'd suggest switching "trade card" for "commodity card", otherwise someone might try exchanging calamity cards. 7.1 specifically states that "trade cards" includes calamities.

32.065 "... (32.62) ..." > " ... (32.062) ..."

32.086 There's no mention that Diplomacy has a prereq of Law (which is mentioned under Law and 31.62)

32.086 You've added a new term "sack". Previously in 23.5, the terms were "Drawing-a-trade-card" and "Pillage". However, "sack" is defined in-place well enough to use.

32.0862 There's two 32.0862

32.1141 "A player who holds Military is immune to the effects of Diplomacy." Does that includes sacking during Special Effects?

32.1152 "Naval Warfare makes ships now cost three extra unit points to build and ..." This extra cost is not mentioned under the ship construction section (21.).

33.25 Should that be "greater than 200" or "at least 200". While there are no cards at 100 points, there is at least one at 200. Should Democracy NOT count? (Diplomacy and Cartography are 200 point cards as well as well.)

35.2 As almost a joke, I'll suggest pointing it at AST order instead of leaving it at a tie .
I have never seen a game come down to a tie (but I have seen at least one come down to less than 10 points.)

Thanks BB, the corrections will be included in the next revision (which will only have minor corrections in it)

Thanks for all the corrections! I was impressed! Are you an editor in r/l? Most everything you said needed correcting... however...

14.2 No, I'm not going to leave this in since you don't need the totals for the AST. If somoene wants to know how much you have they can count it themselves. It just takes up too much time to force anyone to do it every turn.

27.6 Yes, that was the intent and wording was ment to basically be a replacement for "buy gold". Tell me if the wording looks better now.

32.86 Notice that Diplomacy has changed! Its not as powerful.

32.1152 Fixed. There are no more increased costs related to ships for Naval Warfare.

33.25 At least and corrected!

32.1141 Yes... and It should be fixed.

You're welcome! (My day job is not eding :: chortle ::) Most of my experience is either from playtesting, judging card games, or helping draft or edit some fan-based game stuff. I've mostly learned by watching other people edit

FYI - I made mistake: I dropped some other proofreading comments elsewhere in the forums (mostly on advances). I'm going to make a second pass and put a combined post.



Makes sense.



It is better and many thanks for the "can't buy a draw, have to buy a card" mention.

Perhaps add an "instead" before the first comma in 27.52 (cartography). As an example, "If a player holds Cargography he may instead, ..."

That way, it makes it clear that it is different from (mining) and (rhetoric).

Also, the numbering under 27.5 could be altered to communicate the general concept. 27.52 (cartography) looks like it stands alone, and 27.521 (mining) looks like it stands under 27.52. Instead 27.511 (cartography) and 27.52 (mining). Maybe 27.531->27.54 and 27.6->27.55



It's still cool. I'm thinking the draw-a-card action is the more interesting one (though treasury has become more important in general.)



CraigB was playing that way already and it just made sense to me.



I wasn't sure what the intent was in the case - but if I had the original wording at a game, that's the way I would have interpeted it (but would have talked about it after a game.)

Got a couple of things here as well...

1. Rule 31.3 Credits: This rule should be numbered 31.5.

2. Rule 30.523: "If barbarians enter an area shared by the victim and other players they will treat always remove the victim's tokens first." There's something wrong with this sentence. The word "treat" should probably be removed.

3. Rule 2.8: "For example, the cost of Democracy (200) can he reduced by 60 points". The word "he" should have been "be".

4. The "Barbarian" semi-civilization is almost always spelled with a first capital letter throughout the rules, but there are 6-7 places where it's spelled "barbarian". A quick search and replace should fix this.

5. Punctuation...
Rule 22.59: It seems you've copied busybody's suggestion, and in doing so also included the trailing quotation mark.
Rule 26.5: In the first sentence, there should be a dash between "turn" and "after".
Rule 27.6: Missing period at the end of the sentence.

There are probably quite a few more of these punctuation errors as well - do you (really) want us to report them when we see them? (Hey, you said "no matter how small [error], please bring it to my attention"!)

6. Coastal and water boundaries...
Rule 30.5222: Should "cross coastal boundaries" be "across water boundaries" here, as "water boundary" is a defined term, and "coastal boundary" is not?
Rule 30.811: "...(both coastal and land)..." -> "...(both water and land)...". A "coastal border" could be interpreted as something else than a "water boundary".

7. Rule 4.32: You've said in the "Coastal Areas & Ships" thread that you didn't want lakes to ever create water boundaries. If this is going to be the official ruling, you could change the text for this rule to "... not including lakes ..." instead.

8. Rule 4.33 and 22.52: Doesn't these conflict? The latter states "Ships may only move across water boundaries", and the former states that "Where rules refer only to land or water boundaries, the terms all-land and all-water boundaries are used", thus meaning that ships cannot move between most coastal areas, as they most commonly have a both-land-and-water boundary between themselves and their neighbouring coastal areas.

Example: A ship can travel from Antioch to Galatia, but not from Antioch to Phoenicia (unless travelling via Salamis), seeing as the border between Antioch and Phoenicia isn't all-water, as the 22.52 rule indirectly requires.

Admittedly, no sane person would actually think of interpreting the rules this way for real, but we're being theoretical here, aren't we?

Suggestion: Drop the last sentence of rule 4.33.

9. Rule 32.1: Should be 32.01, if only to line better up with the 32.02 rules below it?

10. Rule 27.521 and 32.0271: These do not agree on the number of treasury tokens required to buy a 6th level trading card. Is 8 or 9 the correct number? Also, a reference to the former rule should be inserted at the end of the latter.

11. Rule 32.0862: "...though pillage..." -> "...through pillage...".

12. Rule 32.122: "Theocracy allows a player to may sacrifice two trade cards (...)". The word "may" should be removed.

13. Rule 30.412 and 32.122 states that the player may discard two cards of his choice, while on the back of the card itself, it says the cards are randomly chosen. I think the cards should be random, as Civil War should be expensive to avoid!

14. You should also see busybody's thread "Proofread - Rhetoric credits" in the Civilization Advances forum. It's not been fixed yet, even as the errors in this thread has been.

15. Rule 5.4 should somehow indicate that ships can also be used for naval battles.

16. Rule 14.21 and 14.22 contains references to Flax, while rule 8 names Rice in its place. (Daryl Luciano uses Flax, tho...)

17. Rule 22.57: "it's" -> "its".

18. Rule 30.415 and 30.416: Are these cumulative? It's usually explicitly stated...

19. Rule 32.113 Democracy: Missing red highlighting.

20. Rule 9 still references Mutiny instead of Coastal Migration.

I've also got some suggestions and questions, but I'll post them in a different thread.

Fixed!

Ahh good! Even more corrections! Thanks pureblade!



Yep! How else are they going to get fixed? I'm too lazy to be a super careful proof reader!



Nope, it's suppose to be that way.



Nope, if it's random no one will buy the card. That was my initial impression as well but it was wrong. Civil war simply isn't as bad anymore in the expansion. We will see how it play tests. For now just ignore what the cards / other documents say.

You're welcome!


I never figured why they didn't use further periods to sub-divide the rules. As it is now, you're limiting the number of sub-rules of any heading to 9, unless you go with the workaround of putting in a zero if front of the single-digit sub-numbers where you need 10+ sub-rules.

Why not write rule 30 (and all other) like this:
32.1 The groups...

32.2 Crafts
32.2.1 Pottery
32.2.2 Cloth Making
(...)
32.9.1 Literacy

32.10 Arts/Civics
32.10.1 Mysticism

32.11 Civics
32.11.1 Monarchy
32.11.2 Law

etc...

It would add more punctuation marks instead of the 0, but is to me much clearer.

More errata-stuff: It seems 32.95 (Theology) should be 32.136 (if I'm understanding things now, that is ).


All right!

By the way, can you please upload to the web-page or send to me the new rulebook when you've made the changes?

Should already have been updated....

Oh. Oops.

Any chance of you implementing the "32.2.1 Rule..." notation in the future?

Yes actually, I like the idea. It would be fairly far down on my list of things to do though.

I had a set of proofreading notes and now the rulebook been updated . Now to rework - but will probably be next week as I have a convention out of town to go to (my other gaming focus)

We had a game on New Year's day (CraigB's map in KS) and I think there's a few things that came up.

I think I want to tear through on the AST - got some questions and some thoughts (mostly related to Babylon...) Probably best in another thread.

You don't have the latest AST ... so you might want to wait to see that...

The 18 player civproject varient over at http://www.redscap.net is testing out the new AST. Check it out there you are interested in what it looks like.

Err

http://www.redscape.net

Your best bet right now is the Turn 1 AST

You can link to it directly at

http://broggs.org/~civmoves/apollo/01/ast.png

Jeff