It has been said this is closer to an "extended player aid". That's quite possibly true. I mainly left off the information about what each tile or link costs, and how to tell how much income they provide.

I didn't go to the trouble of including pictures, and I thought the pictures included with the real rules do a fine job of explaining what each number on the tiles corresponds to.

If you have any comments or suggestions, shoot me a message.

Thanks,

Shea

I was really concerned about teaching this game as the rules are fairly hard to understand. I'd spent a couple weeks off and on, trying to figure them out.

However, I used this aid to teach the game and it went really well! I did teach the "Available Actions" part ahead of the "Important Mechanisms" part as that made more sense to me. Other then that it's perfect.

Thumbs!

Jerry

Thanks for doing this. It really is a big help in understanding the rules!

Brass was certainly greatly in need of something like this. Unfortunately there are some more niggling rules you left out. I did not find the rule that on the first turn you take only one action and discard only one card. That's why there are four more cards in the Rail Era. We kept ending up with the wrong number of cards.

A good example of a rule that is hidden in the rule book is the rule that you can't build a port on the port/cotton space if the port only space is still open. It's listed alphabetically under Lancaster and Preston, the two cites where the rule applies. You included this as an exception. Oh that's where you put single action on the first turn. I guess that is an exception, but it's more of a beginning of game mechanic.

The problem in organizing the rules to this game is that it just doesn't organize well. It has too many rules -- too many types of rules. It's a game that needed more playtesting before it was released.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Randall. Are there any "niggling rules" I actually missed in the end? I'd be glad to put them in.

To me, an "exception" is any rule that only rarely applies and when it does, it breaks another very common rule. Still, it's very subjective where rules stop and exceptions begin.

And I don't think it's fair to say that Brass needed more Playtesting. It's true that I think the game would be better without some of these "niggling rules" like the specific Preston/Birkenhead rules. But I don't think there's any way you're going to turn Martin Wallace into Knizia. At least Brass was 20X easier to digest than Byzantium. Byzantium's list of exceptions for Constantinople alone would have been 2 pages.

Nice aid, very helpful. Some feedback if I may:


This could be misinterpreted as meaning that location cards can't be used to build in such locations (which would be wrong), or that a pair of industry cards doesn't let you build anywhere (also wrong). A less ambiguous wording might be "When building using a single industry card, you may only build in a location within your personal network".


It might be better to say they get the "listed income increase" (to distinguish it from cash).


Might be helpful to name one (e.g. Scotland) as an example, to distinguish them from port spaces.


Does this include ports? This is just my own question, not feedback about your doc.

Of course, feedback is welcome!



I understand exactly what you mean. I will address this.



Makes sense.



I'll see about fitting this in. I was trying to avoid going into examples.



You may only have 1 tile per location. So yes, a port tile would be your only tile allowed.

Many thanks for your excellent summary of rules.

But Brass easier than Byzantium? Byzantium was rather elegant in rules and yes the Byzantine capital had some exceptions but they were making sense. I found Brass more difficult with many subtle rules. Both games are great, but I prefer Byzantium because of its theme and its rather byzantine rules that together work so well.

This file is so well done, I love to play Brass, but explaining the game with the original rules is really tough. Thank you for this file!

One nit, I think. You say
But the rules say:
If there are any coal/iron cubes left anywhere on the board (not just the external market), you can not build over another players coal mine/iron works. Martin confirmed this interpetation here.

Also, the expression 'bottomed out' is used counter to its common meaning. When a market has 'bottomed out', it typically refers to demand, not supply.

Your rules states that if i try to shell cotton at a distant market and i fail, the action finish; for me this means that i can not to shell cotton in other way, for example in a usual flip-port way.
Am i right?
And, if the answer is yes ... ¿where does this rule appears? I can not see it at original rulebook!

Thanks!

That is correct. If you fail at a distant market then your whole cotton action comes to an immediate end. I don't have the original rules in front of me, but I'll look it up later for you.

I really appreciate this rules summary and the discussion that followed. I see that Isamoor (the OP and creator of the document) agreed with some of the suggested changes. I've subscribed to this file and look forward to an updated version, if that ever happens.

My apologies. I had some of the changes made but not uploaded. I should go ahead and finish that off and upload it eh?

Thanks for reminding me.

thanks again for this rewrite. it certainly clarifies things for me!