$10.00
Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition): Shattered Empire» Forums » Rules

Subject: Invading multiple planets question. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Carrier "A" with 2 troops enters a system.

It plops down 1 troop on each planet. The player flips over planet "A" first.

Two possibles...(that matter).
Case A is safe
Planet A is safe
Planet B has fighters, they destroy the Carrier.

Question: Did the planet A troops get down or do they die with the carrier?

Case B is safe
Planet A has fighters, they destroy the Carrier.
Planet B is safe.

Question: Did the planet B troops get down or do they die with the carrier?

---
Do invasions occur simultaneously?
Do invasions occur sequentially in resolution order?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
They are resolved Sequentially. However, I don't know if a definitive official answer has been given on what happens in Case B.

In Case A, you don't undo the landing of Plaent A when you flip over Planet B.

However, in Case B, I think the consensus is divided - and I don't know which one is right. I think it's best to discuss with your group prior to playing to make sure you are on the same page
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Necessary Evil
United States
Glen Arm
Maryland
flag msg tools
Yes, I play the Bass.
badge
Sweet Holy Moses, Fruit F*cker Prime!
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree not sure if there is an order here, however I would play it that the invasions happen at the same time.

IE after space combat the invasions are declared. If as part of the 1st one you resolve the carrier is destroyed then the 2nd one still happens.

-M
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Hence my comment about no good consensus
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Dumpy Nose wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Hence my comment about no good consensus


I can't even agree with MYSELF, so why should anyone else? devil

Well, I know you aren't alone in that interpretation It's certainly supported by the rules. Alas, so is the other interpretation (depending on how you view things). Perhaps one of these days, someone should ask Corey
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Here's my opinion.


It seems reasonable that the carrier goes to one planet, invades troops, and then travels to the second planet and drops off troops.

So if fighters were on the first planet, the carrier is destroyed and the second "planned" invasion troops die on the carrier.

If the fighters were on the second planet flipped, then the carrier is destroyed but the first invasion is history and successful.

Planets are far apart. The time to invade two planets with one ship is non-zero. The events can't happen at the same time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Definitely valid The other side interpretation, though, is that the carrier launches invasion pods; since both planets are in the same system, the pods could have enough propulsion/etc to get them there without the carrier having to physically go to the planets in sequence; thus by the time the fighters attacked, the other pod could be on it's way to landing.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Pop
Romania
Cluj-Napoca
Cluj
flag msg tools
It's flat, mate! :)
badge
Calavera!
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Definitely valid :) The other side interpretation, though, is that the carrier launches invasion pods; since both planets are in the same system, the pods could have enough propulsion/etc to get them there without the carrier having to physically go to the planets in sequence; thus by the time the fighters attacked, the other pod could be on it's way to landing.

:)


That's exactly how I interpret it :)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hector Flores
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Another solution (kinda painful):

Have a third party (someone not playing, like a wife/child/intelligent_monkey) look at all affected Distant Suns counters one at a time.

If any of them has the "fighter ambush" on them, reveal that one and resolve it first before resolving any other planetary landings. In this way, if the fighter ambush can be resolved successfully, the player can then land any number of ground forces safely on the planet that no longer has a Distant Suns counter.

In the event that more than one counter has a fighter ambush, resolve them sequentially, in any order.


I've never played it this way, however, we just resolve them sequentially in the order that the active player reveals them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Definitely valid The other side interpretation, though, is that the carrier launches invasion pods; since both planets are in the same system, the pods could have enough propulsion/etc to get them there without the carrier having to physically go to the planets in sequence; thus by the time the fighters attacked, the other pod could be on it's way to landing.



I can see that but since even "fighters" have counters, I would think the invasion pods are only orbital in range.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
Definitely valid The other side interpretation, though, is that the carrier launches invasion pods; since both planets are in the same system, the pods could have enough propulsion/etc to get them there without the carrier having to physically go to the planets in sequence; thus by the time the fighters attacked, the other pod could be on it's way to landing.



I can see that but since even "fighters" have counters, I would think the invasion pods are only orbital in range.

I'm not sure I follow Fighters are active units that do stuff during the game. The invasion pods (in-system or orbital) would just represented by the GFs themselves, since they are never separate in the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Roberts
United Kingdom
Ely
Cambridgeshire
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think there's a 60/40 split (60% bad, 40% good) in the Domain Counters. So with our group, we tend to reveal ALL Domain Counters in a system at once (that are being landed on) and let the active player decide what order to resolve them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
benjebobs wrote:
I think there's a 60/40 split (60% bad, 40% good) in the Domain Counters. So with our group, we tend to reveal ALL Domain Counters in a system at once (that are being landed on) and let the active player decide what order to resolve them.


It sounds like the main thing is to discuss this before you start the game and get a resolution before it matters. This is the kind of thing that could cause a problem after 7 hours of play.

As long as everyone is on the same page for how it will play in a given session, there won't be any problems.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PMD
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:


It sounds like the main thing is to discuss this before you start the game and get a resolution before it matters. This is the kind of thing that could cause a problem after 7 hours of play.


Distant Suns after 7h of play? Come on! :D

About the topic: I think that invasions happen simultanously, but you should ask Corey.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
emancypator wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:


It sounds like the main thing is to discuss this before you start the game and get a resolution before it matters. This is the kind of thing that could cause a problem after 7 hours of play.


Distant Suns after 7h of play? Come on!

About the topic: I think that invasions happen simultanously, but you should ask Corey.


People care more about these kinds of rules after they are invested and when it matters than in a short game or early in the game.

I'm not getting your point about the 7h.

In our case, this particular subcase came up after about 7 hours into what was a 9 hour game. A six player game earlier at BGGcon took over 12 hours.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
I think his point may have been, after 7 hours of play, there were still Distant Suns tokens left on the board? In most of the games I've played with DS tokens, they are pretty much all gone by the third round.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PMD
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I can easily see how game can last for 12 hours, but you must have expanded really slow if there are any Distant Suns left after 7 hours.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
emancypator wrote:
I can easily see how game can last for 12 hours, but you must have expanded really slow if there are any Distant Suns left after 7 hours.


Yes. Painfully slowly. Two of us were playing the game for the first time. The third had played second edition only.

People are going to argue an issue like this more in a long game than a short game. Better to talk about it before the game starts and get consensus.

I've seen this often when people from different groups mix. It can lead to some strong arguments because a game is on the line and both people come from groups where the issue had been settled in different ways.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucas Skinner
United States
KANSAS CITY
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
As you don't reveal the Distant Suns counter until planetary landing phase, I would say the fighters did not exist during the first planet invasion, (or they did but were not provoked to fight until their planet was invaded).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Grand Champ wrote:
As you don't reveal the Distant Suns counter until planetary landing phase, I would say the fighters did not exist during the first planet invasion, (or they did but were not provoked to fight until their planet was invaded).


Yes, but you have two planetary invasions. You mark the potential invasions by placing your armies on the planet.

If you flip the fighters on planet A first, they destroy the capital ship and no one lands on planet B.

If you flip the fighters on planet A second, the invasion of planet B is historical established fact.

---

Meanwhile, even tho destruction of the capital ship negates the invasion in progress, some people are saying it doesn't negate the other invasion because both are in progress at the same time.

Invasion A + Capital Ship Destroyed = Blocked
Invasion B + Capital Ship Destroyed = Succeeds. ????

They propose invisible landing ships not mentioned in the rules.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Talk it out with your group before you start play until the designer makes a FAQ or a ruling on it. Some people get really upset over things like this and can ruin a half day long game in the middle. They'll tend to support which ever ruling is to their advantage at the time and there is no clear support in the rules. Before it matters, either position is okay as long as everyone agrees on it. People will agree on a position easier before it matters.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
They propose invisible landing ships not mentioned in the rules.

It doesn't make sense to me.

You're bashing a proposed thematic explanation simply because that particular thematic explanation isn't discussed in the rules? The rules don't give details on HOW the GFs get to the planet, period... but it's obvious that the carrier itself isn't landing on the planet, since PDS fire shoots at the GFs (ONLY), so there has to be SOME kind of "ship" or "shuttle" or "transport" taking them from the carrier to the ground.


There are a great many things the rules don't talk about, mostly due to the way the game is abstracted. That doesn't make a thematic explanation less justified either way.

I don't know which interpretation in this case is the "right" or "official" one, but using the term "invisible ships" just adds strawman arguments to the discussion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
They propose invisible landing ships not mentioned in the rules.

It doesn't make sense to me.

You're bashing a proposed thematic explanation simply because that particular thematic explanation isn't discussed in the rules? The rules don't give details on HOW the GFs get to the planet, period... but it's obvious that the carrier itself isn't landing on the planet, since PDS fire shoots at the GFs (ONLY), so there has to be SOME kind of "ship" or "shuttle" or "transport" taking them from the carrier to the ground.


There are a great many things the rules don't talk about, mostly due to the way the game is abstracted. That doesn't make a thematic explanation less justified either way.

I don't know which interpretation in this case is the "right" or "official" one, but using the term "invisible ships" just adds strawman arguments to the discussion.


And sometimes, it's hard to come to an agreement, even before it matters. Seriously. A lot of heat for such a nit of a rules question.

I have an opinion (Order matters) - but as I've said repeatedly, I don't care for a particular game as long as we agree on one or the other before it matters. I don't want to be having this discussion at 10pm after playing for 5 hours when your critical invasion is failing (or not).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:

And sometimes, it's hard to come to an agreement, even before it matters. Seriously. A lot of heat for such a nit of a rules question.

I have an opinion (Order matters) - but as I've said repeatedly, I don't care for a particular game as long as we agree on one or the other before it matters. I don't want to be having this discussion at 10pm after playing for 5 hours when your critical invasion is failing (or not).

This is true, the important thing is to discuss it beforehand if possible
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lucas Skinner
United States
KANSAS CITY
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
Talk it out with your group before you start play until the designer makes a FAQ or a ruling on it. Some people get really upset over things like this and can ruin a half day long game in the middle. They'll tend to support which ever ruling is to their advantage at the time and there is no clear support in the rules. Before it matters, either position is okay as long as everyone agrees on it. People will agree on a position easier before it matters.


Speaking to this specifically I love a passionate gaming group. But the first and most important rule before starting any game is to have everyone agree how to handle rule disputes in general.

I tell everyone I introduce to Twilight Imperium "We WILL find something not covered in the rules and have to resolve the issue during play. Every game."

If you are a player than simply can't handle that and must have official errata rulings. Or a tied vote has to be broken by some other means and it just angers you too much to see a ruling go against your position, then TI is going to anger you at some point.(It's probably safe to say it will anger you at some point without any disputes...but that's for a different thread.)

maxo-texas wrote:
Yes, but you have two planetary invasions. You mark the potential invasions by placing your armies on the planet.

If you flip the fighters on planet A first, they destroy the capital ship and no one lands on planet B.

If you flip the fighters on planet A second, the invasion of planet B is historical established fact.


I would even suggest a third possible outcome.. and my favorite interpretation: The rules state that you reveal the counters after sending GFs to the planet. If fighters successfully destroy the carrier, it is too late to stop the invasion as landings on all planets have already taken place. I realize this contradicts the wording of the counter, but I like it for flavor reasons and you might suggest it as a house rule if no one can agree on the 2 you presented.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
flag msg tools
NFHS Football & Basketball
badge
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
mbmbmbmbmb
Grand Champ wrote:
I would even suggest a third possible outcome.. and my favorite interpretation: The rules state that you reveal the counters after sending GFs to the planet. If fighters successfully destroy the carrier, it is too late to stop the invasion as landings on all planets have already taken place. I realize this contradicts the wording of the counter, but I like it for flavor reasons and you might suggest it as a house rule if no one can agree on the 2 you presented.

So even the GFs that landed on the planet would still land, despite the fact that thematically, the token is supposed to represent the fighters ambushing the carrier BEFORE the invasion?

It does get messy with multi-planet invasions, yes, but thematically what the fighter ambush represents is the fighters coming out to attack you before the actual invasion even happens.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.