Wrong rules on bga??

[Zoe Ripley]

In the rules who's furthest on the military track, that person begins the next round..But I've just played this game on BGA, I was leading in military, and my opponent started the round.. Does this game has different rules on bga? Until now I haven't seen any other differencies with other games.. help..

[Remkar]

In the rules who's furthest on the military track, that person begins the next round..But I've just played this game on BGA, I was leading in military, and my opponent started the round.. Does this game has different rules on bga? Until now I haven't seen any other differencies with other games.. help..

That's not the rule.

WEAKEST military CHOOSES who starts (in case of tie, last active player gets to choose).

[tony97]

It depends on region and/or edition.
I know the rule: the one leading in military starts SECOND. In Updated rules the one NOT leading in military CHOOSES.

[RicardoRix]

Feels like the 1st edition got it right then. The age 1 stand-off on military because of this rule seems lame.

[tony97]

Feels like the 1st edition got it right then. The age 1 stand-off on military because of this rule seems lame.

well, in the version Im playing, both expansions, it only matters for age 3. And that is a good thing. Adds dynamics and gives more room for skill.
But got no idea on the effects to base 7wd....

[RicardoRix]

Feels like the 1st edition got it right then. The age 1 stand-off on military because of this rule seems lame.

well, in the version Im playing, both expansions, it only matters for age 3. And that is a good thing. Adds dynamics and gives more room for skill.
But got no idea on the effects to base 7wd....

How is it more dynamic and skillful?
If it's best that they are to be ignored, then what's the point in having them? Why not have cards that are actually useful, otherwise the decision making is transparent / obvious. There is no skill in that.

[tony97]

Feels like the 1st edition got it right then. The age 1 stand-off on military because of this rule seems lame.

well, in the version Im playing, both expansions, it only matters for age 3. And that is a good thing. Adds dynamics and gives more room for skill.
But got no idea on the effects to base 7wd....

How is it more dynamic and skillful?
If it's best that they are to be ignored, then what's the point in having them? Why not have cards that are actually useful, otherwise the decision making is transparent / obvious. There is no skill in that.

.... *sigh* ... the more detailed answers to that are over the 7wd subforum, if you actually care.
Short answer. It is a timing thing. it is really important for age 3.
For age 2 it does not matter because the one choosing the starting player goes first in >99.99999% of cases.

"they are to be ignored" what is "they" ? red cards? - they have a use!

[RicardoRix]

"they are to be ignored" what is "they" ? red cards? - they have a use!

well, in the version Im playing, both expansions, it only matters for age 3. And that is a good thing

Yes red cards. Can you not see your contradiction above?

Wouldn't it be better if they were more playable in Age 1, rather than ignored because of the fear of losing the initiative in choosing who goes first?

[funkdoc]

i do think that playing with the expansions makes Age I red cards a little more useful. Mainly this is due to the Espionage conspiracy; if you draw that at the start of the game via the Curia Julia wonder (1/8 chance of this), and the Strategy token isn't on the board, you can get that token right away and immediately start threatening a military win!

Even without Espionage, the far greater reward for a military push (political actions instead of coins) means there are rare occasions where you can attack early. This is typically when you know for sure that Ra won't be in the pantheon for Age II; if you can score the first political bonus from military, that will also make Neptune much less powerful for your opponent. Something to consider...

[tony97]

"they are to be ignored" what is "they" ? red cards? - they have a use!

well, in the version Im playing, both expansions, it only matters for age 3. And that is a good thing

Yes red cards. Can you not see your contradiction above?

Wouldn't it be better if they were more playable in Age 1, rather than ignored because of the fear of losing the initiative in choosing who goes first?

I see how my wording was bad and can be misunderstood.
In age 2 it is a very relevant rule, that you get to choose, who starts in age 3, if behind in army (or...).
In age 1 it never matters if you choose or just go first. - that was the topic above.

Also be more clear with what you are saying. Because no you mean red cards strictly in age 1, not in general. In very rare ocasions they matter, see funkdocs explanation. Also all cards have 2-3 extra functions in this game (coins,wonder,plot).
So the question becomes: exchange them for something with more utility (right?). Well, then something different becomes the default trash card, like greens and/or blues. It is a relevant mechanic, esp. in age 1, to trash cards to get coins; It is not just a default, if one thinks he does not need the card (sometimes you get pushed to trash cards you need).

Edit: "And that is a good thing" refers to the comparison between first and current edition for age 2-3, because the 1-2 plays out identical, either way.