$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 53.61

3,945 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
24.9% of Goal | 30 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
32 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » Rules

Subject: High shields and invulnerability rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chung Chan
Canada
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Just played a game where a friend had 3 shield upgrades, so essentially he became invulnerable until we raised our weapons higher. Is this true unless you're Klingon?

If so, then what happens if this "invulnerable" player attacks a non-Klingon player? He would win every battle until the defender upgraded!

What happens if both players have "invulnerable" shields? One would attack another and if neither retreated, it would be a standoff. I assume the defender would win.

Thoughts on this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Yeah, I would say the attacker would have to retreat if it's not possible for them to win...although I don't see why the attack would happen in the first place.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc Bennett
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
my thoughts? dont let it happen lol
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Almond
United Kingdom
Nelson
Lancashire
flag msg tools
mbmb
There are various methods around the shields, but to become "invulnerable" they would have to spend 15 research before you managed to gather a mighty 4.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
mbmbmbmbmb
You need to keep up in the upgrade race or things can get very dire very quickly. The speed of this race will differ game by game, with some groups being more leisurely and some being more aggressive with the upgrades. But always keep an eye on it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Godwin
msg tools
mbmb
The Romualns have some cards to counter it as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
cw2chan wrote:
Just played a game where a friend had 3 shield upgrades, so essentially he became invulnerable until we raised our weapons higher. Is this true unless you're Klingon?

If so, then what happens if this "invulnerable" player attacks a non-Klingon player? He would win every battle until the defender upgraded!

What happens if both players have "invulnerable" shields? One would attack another and if neither retreated, it would be a standoff. I assume the defender would win. ;)

Thoughts on this?


Interesting. Both sides continue to roll without either being able to hit the other.

If neither player retreated, the game would never end.

This sounds similar to the other thread where all Culture Nodes in the game were destroyed, and none of the players had any Culture tokens to build new ones. Ascendancy victory was impossible.

But why would the defender win? The situation is essentially a tie, why choose one side for an advantage over the other? In traditional combat games, terrain favors the defender. But there is no terrain in space.

To fix the game breaking paradox, I'd house-rule that whomever has the earlier turn initiative gets to stay. It costs resources to bid for initiative, so that side should get the tie breaking advantage.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
"Tie goes to the defender" is a well established rule to fall back on in situations like this. I don't think it should have anything to do with initiative order. You really think you should have to retreat and open a system up to invasion or hegemony just because of turn order?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chung Chan
Canada
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb

Of course, we should never let someone get ahead like that and it is true that weapons upgrades are much cheaper.

However, let's see if GF9 will make a ruling on the silly situation where both sides are unable to hit each other! I like defender wins or the attacker shouldn't be allowed to attack in the first place.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Steinbach
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It is not logical for anyone to have to retreat in that situation. The enemy ships are clearly not able to harm them and have no way to force a retreat. I therefore propose that both fleets coexist in the system together. They will also not be able to invade because of the shields. I'm not really sure what to do with hegemony, but since neither player controls the system the best option might be to disallow that as well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Vardaine wrote:
It is not logical for anyone to have to retreat in that situation. The enemy ships are clearly not able to harm them and have no way to force a retreat. I therefore propose that both fleets coexist in the system together.


Yeah, the more I think about it the more I agree with this. The attacker should be able to spend a command to move in and contest the sector...though I'm not sure what the point would be, unless the attacker controls the system and is moving in to prevent an invasion or hegemony attempt.

Vardaine wrote:
I'm not really sure what to do with hegemony, but since neither player controls the system the best option might be to disallow that as well.


If there is a control node in the system, then someone controls it. I think you are talking about occupation, which this game defines as being the only player with ships in a system. Since both hegemony and invasion require occupation, it would definitely not be allowed.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Igor Horvat
Croatia
California
flag msg tools
If no one can damage anyone, I would say that defender wins the battle.

Simply because of supply lines.

Even without any ship destruction ships require resources and defending player has a planet to back him up while attacker has to have convoys of supplies from a system or two away.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Angelus Seniores
Belgium
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
often ships will be attacking from adjacent sectors ie not be in the same sector as their rival, so in this case they simply stay put in their respective sectors.

if both are in the same sector then letting them coexist seems the best option, neither side can force the other to retreat.

it would be silly to use a command to attack if you cant hit your rival's ships.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Angelsenior wrote:
it would be silly to use a command to attack if you cant hit your rival's ships.


Right, but as I said above, there could be reasons that an attacker would want to move in to contest a system that a rival is occupying. Specifically, to prevent invasion or hegemony attempts; or perhaps even to simply move into the sector so that they can then continue moving past the blockade with a subsequent move. You can't enter or move through sectors containing rival ships, but there's nothing stopping you from moving out of them. I think you should be able to spend a command to "attack" and be allowed to move in and contest the system. Neither side can win, but I don't see any reason not to allow this.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
k c
msg tools
mb
Your ships have to win the space battle before they can enter the system containing rival ships. If you cannot win the battle, you could not enter and contest the system. You'd only be able to blockade it just outside.
Edit: If you control the target system, you can already enter it without the need to attack.

If this rare situation came up, I'd just do as was previously recommended: ignore the battle. I think both sides should be considered defeated, and nothing changes (except the attacking player wasted a command).
If both sides already coexisted in the same sector before the space battle, (such as from a betrayal, or you control the system), they just sit together in a contested system until one of them either exits or upgrades. If the attacker initiated from an adjacent sector, they stay put.

The Klingons should be immune to this situation because they always hit on a 6, so they would eventually win.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
kcrandall15 wrote:
Your ships have to win the space battle before they can enter the system containing rival ships. If you cannot win the battle, you could not enter and contest the system. You'd only be able to blockade it just outside.


In the particular edge case we are discussing, I disagree with this. Normally, you have to win the battle before you can move in because, well, the
defender is trying to kill you. In this case, the defender can't kill you, you can't kill the defender, and space is a very big place. How are they keeping you out of the sector if they can't destroy your ships?

I don't think the attacker should be able to move in without difficulty, which is why I think they should have to go through the process of ending movement outside of the sector and then spending a command to attack as normal. But I think doing this should give them the ability to perform the tactical impulse move that the winner gets after a normal combat and then move in a contest the system if they choose, or move just past it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gary Neumann
United States
Charlottesville
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But don't klingons always get a hit on a 6? Wouldn't this mean that if there are klingons involved in a culture-node less game they would ultimately win - as they earn culture by winning battles?

Hit on a six + culture by winning battles
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
All of the comments are house ruling a fix. The point remains that without an official ruling from GF9, the scenario presented would be game breaking. Obstinate non-Klingon opponents would roll indefinitely, never resolving the battle.

Saying "the defender wins" is not in the rule book. And the assertion that this is commonly accepted mechanics in board games has no basis in reality. Plenty of games have attacker win in a tie.

Thematically, ties should always go to the Federation. Think of every Star Trek show ever, the Starfleet captain always pulls out a win all things being equal.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Jatta Pake wrote:
Thematically, ties should always go to the Federation. Think of every Star Trek show ever, the Starfleet captain always pulls out a win all things being equal.


One out of three players agree that this is a fantastic solution...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Jatta Pake wrote:
Thematically, ties should always go to the Federation. Think of every Star Trek show ever, the Starfleet captain always pulls out a win all things being equal.


One out of three players agree that this is a fantastic solution...


Soon to be one out of four players...LOL. Not the best idea, but I'd argue that you can't get anymore "thematic".

The next problem arises in a three way game of Ferengi, Cardassian, and Romulan. Who wins the invulnerable tie then?

I feel like there is an opportunity here to add a new mechanic with an expansion: Legends cards.

Legends cards could represent specific characters. You acquire them somehow, and are able to use them for specific actions. Maybe a "Geordi La Forge" card allows the Federation player to one time "change shield harmonic modulation" to temporarily deactivate an opponent's shield bonus. Similar to Action Cards in Clash of Cultures (another outstanding 4x game).

In the meantime, I think GF9 will need to make a ruling. Even the idea of allowing both sides to occupy the same location has enormous implications over "defender wins ties".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
There are two solutions to the double-invulnerable battle. One of them creates balance and logical problems, the other doesn't.

Attacker-Wins: Klingons can abuse this to generate as much as 1.5-2 ascendancy per round. Also, without a sufficiently clogged territory, it becomes easy for an invading player to get to your homeworld and hegemony it, all while your entire fleet politely moves out of the way and watches.

Defender-Wins: No one wastes commands attacking forces they cannot defeat. Game otherwise unchanged.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
cw2chan wrote:

Of course, we should never let someone get ahead like that and it is true that weapons upgrades are much cheaper.

However, let's see if GF9 will make a ruling on the silly situation where both sides are unable to hit each other! I like defender wins or the attacker shouldn't be allowed to attack in the first place.


How does one contact gf9 for such rulings?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
LemonyFresh wrote:

How does one contact gf9 for such rulings?


They have been popping up in threads like these to issue rulings or rules clarifications.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Rubbo
United States
Philadelphia
PA
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Would be good to get an answer, as the game currently breaks at this point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nova Cat
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
LemonyFresh wrote:
Would be good to get an answer, as the game currently breaks at this point.

No it doesn't. It's fine as-is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.