The rules for the leader Xenophon (Leaders expansion):

Xenophon grants 2 coins for each commercial structure (yellow card) that the player builds from this point forward. The coins are taken from the bank, at the moment when the structures are built.

Clarifcation: Xenophon has no effect on commercial structures built before he enters play.

Do you get this 2 coins also if you use Halicarnassus or Solomon to bring a yellow card into game?

The rules (p. 8) for Halicarnassus' special ability:

the player can look through all of the cards discarded since the beginning of the game ([…]), pick one, and build it for free.

The rules for the leader Solomon (Leaders expansion):

Once Solomon enters play, the player can choose an Age card from the discard pile and put it in play for free.

2 Answers 2


Yes for both. "Build" is just a short, thematic word for putting into play.

On p. 4 of the rulebook, it states:

player will get to build structures (cards)

and a bit later on:

Some cards have no cost and can be put into play for free.

(using the Eastern Trading Post as an example.) The same page uses "construct" as another synonym. ("Some cards have a resource cost. To construct them, the player must...")They all refer to the same thing.

  • 1
    I've +1'd this competing answer as I'm sure it's probably the sensible answer. I've asked Antoine Bauza for confirmation via Twitter, just in case! Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 15:52
  • 1
    Thank you. I am pretty confident. If the rest of the rulebook were written in the very formal, precise language typical of, say, M:tG or wargames, I might take pause, but in this case I think the intent is clear and the end result the one that makes the most sense.
    – sitnaltax
    Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 15:54

Really good question, and not one that I could immediately find a definitive answer to. Everything seems to hinge on whether "build" implies all the same things as "put into play".

In the rulebook to the original game, the term "build" is used many, times, often as part of the phrase "build for free" (which proves that building can happen in ways other than the conventional way).

The phrase "put into play" only appears once:

Each Age has 6 game turns. During each turn the players simultaneously put into play one card.

Which suggests that building always counts as putting into play, but doesn't prove that the reverse is also true.

Sometimes these things are just the result of sloppy phrasing in one language or another, but I looking at a French version of the Leaders rules and the wording is exactly the same: Solomon "puts into play", not "builds".

In the absence of official errata or clarification I would have to say that I don't think Solomon should get 2 coins from Xenophon, although I do think Halicarnassus should. "Building" and "putting into play" are sufficiently careful and distinct terms that it's possible to imagine the game designers might not have meant them to be synonymous. Why on earth this should be is of course another question entirely. Maybe they feared that games could end up being seriously dominated by the OBVIOUSLY BROKEN Solomon/Xenophon combo. </tongue in cheek>

ETA: Having spoken to the game designer Antoine Bauza on Twitter about this I'm going to change my answer and say that putting a card building card into play is exactly the same thing as building it, as this seems to have been the intention. It feels like the choice of wording was to allow the possibility of putting other types of cards that are not buildings into play with Solomon... Anyway, I'm just trying to double-check the intention behind the wording with Antoine, but now that we are no longer "in the absence of official clarification" I'm going to say that sitalnax's instincts were right, putting a building into play is to all intents and purposes the same thing as building it!

  • 1
    No way. You are ignoring a giant flag that Solomon and Halicarnassus are supposed to be the same: they use identical icons. The different word choice in the manuals is unfortunate, but the game doesn't otherwise have a concept of "put into play without building" and there is no need to introduce one.
    – sitnaltax
    Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 15:37
  • 1
    @sitnaltax I would almost definitely agree that there is "no need" for one, but what are we rules lawyers for if not to overthink these types of things? I would expect that getting in touch with the game creators would reveal that the cases are actually meant to be treated in the same way, but if that's the case, they probably ought to issue some errata :) Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 15:47
  • 3
    It is of course quite easy to forget that not all games are, or need to be, as obsessive-compulsive about their wording as MtG... Commented Feb 2, 2013 at 15:54
  • Thanks for asking the designer! :) For reference, here is your question and Antoine's answer on Twitter.
    – unor
    Commented Feb 18, 2013 at 8:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .