Went in 2010, missed it in 2011, happy to be coming back in 2012.

That line was not in the first edition of the rules. It has since been added as errata.

Osaka said: Personally, rather than simply having it be a tiebreaker based on turn order, why not have it based on your progress toward one or more of the other victory conditions (cultural/economic/military) Though the military one is hard to judge, the other ones are easy enough... This is exactly what is outlined in the FAQ.

One of the posters over at BGG claims to have gotten word from Kevin that Wonders DO in fact cover all the icons in the tile below. The person who is claiming this was previously arguing on the side that they DIDN'T cover the icons, so I find it hard to believe she'd be lying about this.

Doc, the Weasel said: You want to win a battle against opponent A to reap the rewards. They have opponent B staring down their capital, so you want to leave opponent A's army intact to defend. Well played, sir!

CapnZapp said: Smoo said: Bleached Lizard said: The official current ruling is that a player would win as determined by turn order (so the current First Player would have the first opportunity to win, and so on). However, Kevin Wilson has said that he will be reviewing this ruling for the first FAQ. Yes, and I will repeat my plea that he leaves it as is. No need to fix something that isn't broken. Perhaps you meant to say "No need to fix something I personally don't consider broken"...? Besides, he could make it optional, you know. No, I stand by my phrasing. The current way isn't broken at all. Just because some people don't like it doesn't make it wrong. I don't like the tiebreakers in some games I've played, either. I deal with it. I work around it. I take it into consideration as I'm playing.

CapnZapp said: I would say that if the shape of Wonder tokens were in any way significant, this would be mentioned by the rules. Barring a ruling to the contrary, I would run the game with wonders and great people replacing the square's icons exactly in the way buildings do. Agreed. This issue seems blatantly clear to me. Put a wonder token on a forest or a resource icons and tell me how much is "uncovered". Not only is the cut of the tile completely useless in those situations, but this is not an area the rules would overlook if it were to actually apply.

Kevin confirms in this thread: boardgamegeek.com/thread/579920/metalworking

scimon said: Doh. Note to self, next time read the rules again. Still it does mean you have a chance to stop that pesky Russian Tech victory. Unless he's smart enough to not have any armies for you to plunder (or at least not have them near your armies). Somebody going for space flight needs to get their armies as far away from opposing armies as possible.

Just that single attack. It's used to help a weak unit defeat a tough unit, even if it's going to die right away anyway. Like your 1-strength archer taking out a 4-strength pikeman or something. I'd make that trade any day.

The sea idea sounds cool. I'm picturing a divider-type tile of all water tiles (maybe one land bridge), two squares wide, that cuts the map in two, forming two continents. Maybe some reward for having a city on both continents (like bonus trade, or a coin or something). The downside of more civs in a single game is travel time. You just wouldn't get to encounter some civs and therefore couldn't really affect their game. Maybe that's okay, though. Maybe add a tech that lets you move diagonally. Of ocurse, if you just meant more civs as more options and still a max of 4 players, then I think that would be a given in any expansion.

How soon we forget Marvel Heroes. I still like playing that once in a while, I think it was a good design.

Resource abilities can only be used once per turn, I believe.

If you're talking about the resource ability on Communism, I'm pretty sure the card specifies that it can be used to interrupt somebody else's movement. And the culture cards that do the same thing also have that note as well.

Bleached Lizard said: The official current ruling is that a player would win as determined by turn order (so the current First Player would have the first opportunity to win, and so on). However, Kevin Wilson has said that he will be reviewing this ruling for the first FAQ. Yes, and I will repeat my plea that he leaves it as is. No need to fix something that isn't broken.