$10.00
Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
37 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2  | 

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition): Shards of the Throne» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Promissory notes: thoughts on binding agreements. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jeff S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
As for the retreat one - it just forces a retreat, meaning you still have to roll out the first round of combat. It really should make the one side retreat before combat, since the idea is you have an agreement.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henry Coleman
United Kingdom
Hampton
Middlesex
flag msg tools
sirjonsnow wrote:
As for the retreat one - it just forces a retreat, meaning you still have to roll out the first round of combat. It really should make the one side retreat before combat, since the idea is you have an agreement.


That's exactly what it does. The card seems clear enough to me that the retreat is before a chosen combat round.

'At the start of a combat round in space battle:
You may force me to retreat from the battle.'

Emphasis mine.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
Not Oswald!!!
badge
Vic Mackey
mbmbmbmbmb
What if you attack the Naalu? Would they have to retreat before combat?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
boxjuggler wrote:
That's exactly what it does. The card seems clear enough to me that the retreat is before a chosen combat round.

'At the start of a combat round in space battle:
You may force me to retreat from the battle.'

Emphasis mine.


I read that more as it forces them to choose to retreat during the declare retreats/withdrawal step, so the retreat would still take place after a round of combat as normal. You're probably right about the intent, but it really should have an additional line stating that the round of combat does not occur.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Hector Flores
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
What if you attack the Naalu? Would they have to retreat before combat?


There's any number of "start of combat" abilities that they will have to deal with (in terms of timing):

1. Naalu ability
2. Mentak ability
3. Anti-fighter barrage
4. Assualt cannon
5. Action cards
...etc.

My guess is that this card will trump all these abilities.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
Not Oswald!!!
badge
Vic Mackey
mbmbmbmbmb
What I was asking was: would the Naalu be forced to retreat using their "before combat" retreat ability? Or would a round of combat take place and then the Naalu retreat.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jörgen Olsson
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It says "At the start of a combat round in space battle:"
A combat round is the step where you start rolling dice and total up hits on both sides.

So all things that happen before that (including naalu, mentak, antifighter barrage and other stuff) still happen. It's not until the regular round you are forced to retreat.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roland Wood
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
I see the promissory notes have been added to the FFG website. It looks as if every race will have their own set of (hopefully unique) promissory notes.

I was thinking about how this will change TI3. Will adding "binding agreements" make TI3 better? Also, it looks as if promissory notes are part of the political process only. (I could be wrong). Would this make the political process of TI3 better?

Thoughts?


I think that it will encourage stronger alliances which is a good thing in my opinion. While it is true that the I-could-betray-you-at-any-moment type of alliances we have now with the game are fun it could also be fun if there are some stronger ties between a couple of the races. Being able to force someone to retreat means that you can leave your "back" exposed while concentrating on a single front. If your ally moves to betray you there won't be surprise betrayal. You can send him back with the forced retreat and have some time to beef up your defenses. The key, however, is that with that promise in place, your ally is less likely to try and betray you which makes that alliance more real and there is more confidence in it than there has been in the past.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
It's sooo Hot out here...
mbmbmbmbmb
Alex40K wrote:
At least it will make the political process more interesting in offering the players something to barter.

I really look forward to this expansion as I really enjoy tabletalk and "actual" diplomacy, which seem to get improved through this.

So will this make TI3 a better game? For me, yes. For other players? Let them decide.


I'm not sure if it will make it a better game.

I can see the need for it in certain gaming circles, those never actually conducting diplomatic deals with their neighbors or otherwise. I guess this allows the non-social players a crutch on which to stand on.

Again, it can help, but I'd like to think you can begin to trust or not the "regular" players.

The Jury is out on this one.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Stewart
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
It's sooo Hot out here...
mbmbmbmbmb
boxjuggler wrote:
sirjonsnow wrote:
As for the retreat one - it just forces a retreat, meaning you still have to roll out the first round of combat. It really should make the one side retreat before combat, since the idea is you have an agreement.


That's exactly what it does. The card seems clear enough to me that the retreat is before a chosen combat round.

'At the start of a combat round in space battle:
You may force me to retreat from the battle.'

Emphasis mine.


Is this using the option of retreating to an occupied/controlled area. If you don't have an adjacent area activated, you are not allowed to retreat...SO, does this ELIMINATE the entire fleet?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
Not Oswald!!!
badge
Vic Mackey
mbmbmbmbmb
There is no option for retreating to an occupied hex. There is an option for activating an adjacent hex by placing a CC from strategy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roland Wood
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
There is no option for retreating to an occupied hex. There is an option for activating an adjacent hex by placing a CC from strategy.


Technically once a new option has been introduced then the original rule becomes....an option since you can choose between them. Still, the question remains. If you are playing by the original rules in which you can only retreat into a friendly hex that you had already previously activated, then I would say if no such hex exists then the fleet is lost. If you are playing by the newest option introduced in Shattered then a successful retreat would be more likely...but still the fleet would be lost if it could not retreat for some reason.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2  | 
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.