Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
93 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

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

Subject: First game with Ghost of Creuss rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
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
wardac wrote:
kaimada wrote:
Coz I thought that if it was going to be just "normal wormhole" there would be:
"you may treat Wormhole A as if it was B and B as if it was A". Here we've got treat Wormhole SYSTEMS as if they were adjectent. That's why I am not sure.


I'm not sure about the distinction you are trying to make, but I'm sure that all wormholes work the same general way.

Indeed. From page 18:
"A system containing one end of a Wormhole is considered adjacent (even for the purposes of a transfer action) to a system containing another end of its Wormhole type (Alpha or Beta)."

The FAQ clarifies this was intended only for movement (including retreats and Tactical actions), but not other purposes (IE, you cannot annex through a Wormhole, nor shoot PDS).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kalle Palm
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wonderful write-up, insightful comments and a lovely read! (tipped)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
who cares
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
sigmazero13 wrote:
wardac wrote:
kaimada wrote:
Coz I thought that if it was going to be just "normal wormhole" there would be:
"you may treat Wormhole A as if it was B and B as if it was A". Here we've got treat Wormhole SYSTEMS as if they were adjectent. That's why I am not sure.


I'm not sure about the distinction you are trying to make, but I'm sure that all wormholes work the same general way.

Indeed. From page 18:
"A system containing one end of a Wormhole is considered adjacent (even for the purposes of a transfer action) to a system containing another end of its Wormhole type (Alpha or Beta)."

The FAQ clarifies this was intended only for movement (including retreats and Tactical actions), but not other purposes (IE, you cannot annex through a Wormhole, nor shoot PDS).


Personally I always took the adjacent thing to understand that you are in a wormhole and move to the other wormhole, then you are counted as adjacent and the +1 movement applies.

Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
videopsych wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
wardac wrote:
kaimada wrote:
Coz I thought that if it was going to be just "normal wormhole" there would be:
"you may treat Wormhole A as if it was B and B as if it was A". Here we've got treat Wormhole SYSTEMS as if they were adjectent. That's why I am not sure.


I'm not sure about the distinction you are trying to make, but I'm sure that all wormholes work the same general way.

Indeed. From page 18:
"A system containing one end of a Wormhole is considered adjacent (even for the purposes of a transfer action) to a system containing another end of its Wormhole type (Alpha or Beta)."

The FAQ clarifies this was intended only for movement (including retreats and Tactical actions), but not other purposes (IE, you cannot annex through a Wormhole, nor shoot PDS).


Personally I always took the adjacent thing to understand that you are in a wormhole and move to the other wormhole, then you are counted as adjacent and the +1 movement applies.

Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?


If it is the case that you are "adjacent to a wormhole" for the purpose of Gravity Drive when you are in a system that itself contains a wormhole, then yes. I don't think you are, though. The general question was part of the large batch of questions someone prepared for a rules question submission, so we should know officially at some point.
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
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
who cares
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
sigmazero13 wrote:
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).


I think you misunderstand what I mean.
A theory is that if you are in a wormhole system and another type of said wormhole exists somewhere else on the board, then you are adjacent when moving. The idea is that the Ghost Flagship will always be adjacent to another wormhole when moving, so it always gets the +1 movement with Gravity Drive Tech. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm not saying people whom think this way are wrong.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greycloak
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We played that you had to be physically adjacent to the system in question in order to take advantage of Gravity Drive's bonus movement. It didn't detract from the usefulness of the tech or the race in the least.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew
United States
flag msg tools
mbmb
Aaron Kurtz wrote:
We played that you had to be physically adjacent to the system in question in order to take advantage of Gravity Drive's bonus movement. It didn't detract from the usefulness of the tech or the race in the least.


While it may have still been good, it detracted from its usefulness almost by definition, unless all systems with wormholes in them were also physically adjacent to wormholes.
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
Detracted, perhaps, but not enough to make it worthless.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greycloak
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Especially because it affects all of your ships. From your carriers to your flagship to your warsun. Muaat's warsuns could be slinging around wormholes at 4 movement without needing a high alert token.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clay Tevebaugh
United States
California
flag msg tools
OMG, Six movement Muat warsuns! (Racial Tech, High Alert, Gravity Drives and Flank Speed!) I have done a 5 movenment Warsun before to take someones home system, but 6 is just amazing
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
videopsych wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).


I think you misunderstand what I mean.
A theory is that if you are in a wormhole system and another type of said wormhole exists somewhere else on the board, then you are adjacent when moving. The idea is that the Ghost Flagship will always be adjacent to another wormhole when moving, so it always gets the +1 movement with Gravity Drive Tech. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm not saying people whom think this way are wrong.


True....you would always be adjacent to the other D wormhole THROUGH the ships wormhole. True or not it is a game stopper until better explained.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
mbmbmbmbmb
ryolacap wrote:
videopsych wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).


I think you misunderstand what I mean.
A theory is that if you are in a wormhole system and another type of said wormhole exists somewhere else on the board, then you are adjacent when moving. The idea is that the Ghost Flagship will always be adjacent to another wormhole when moving, so it always gets the +1 movement with Gravity Drive Tech. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm not saying people whom think this way are wrong.


True....you would always be adjacent to the other D wormhole THROUGH the ships wormhole. True or not it is a game stopper until better explained.


Not a big question to answer though. NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving. Why should this be treated any different.
Not to mention that thematically it makes ZERO sense.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
deedob wrote:
ryolacap wrote:
videopsych wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).


I think you misunderstand what I mean.
A theory is that if you are in a wormhole system and another type of said wormhole exists somewhere else on the board, then you are adjacent when moving. The idea is that the Ghost Flagship will always be adjacent to another wormhole when moving, so it always gets the +1 movement with Gravity Drive Tech. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm not saying people whom think this way are wrong.


True....you would always be adjacent to the other D wormhole THROUGH the ships wormhole. True or not it is a game stopper until better explained.


Not a big question to answer though. NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving. Why should this be treated any different.
Not to mention that thematically it makes ZERO sense.


Straight out of the FAQ:

Q: When are systems containing matching Wormholes
considered adjacent?
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement
purposes only (including Transfer Actions). This means that
you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through,
or use the Integrated Economy technology through.

Out of all the nonsense people are coming up with (EH'HEM - Ghost flag ship moving anywhere) This might be one of the easeist to argue for the additional +1, without a new interpretation of wormholes. Adjacent for moving purposes. what are you doing with the gravity drive?

They may need to change the wording to;
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement
through the wormhole only (including Transfer Actions). This means that you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through,
or use the Integrated Economy technology through.

Just saying, way it reads right or wrong the rules give you a +1.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
mbmbmbmbmb
ryolacap wrote:
deedob wrote:
ryolacap wrote:
videopsych wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
videopsych wrote:
Otherwise, I really hate to bring this up; but it's important. Our favorite Ghost Flagship has another question to add - Does it always get a +1 movement because there's always a wormhole in its system?

A system is not adjacent to itself.

(In a ruling from Corey, if you have 1 of the 2 planets in a system, but no planets in any adjacent systems, you cannot use Voluntary Annexation to claim that second planet, since Voluntary Annexation requires an "adjacent" system. And yes, he did acknowledge that it's a bit strange, but wanted to keep consisted with the wording on the card).


I think you misunderstand what I mean.
A theory is that if you are in a wormhole system and another type of said wormhole exists somewhere else on the board, then you are adjacent when moving. The idea is that the Ghost Flagship will always be adjacent to another wormhole when moving, so it always gets the +1 movement with Gravity Drive Tech. I personally don't agree with that, but I'm not saying people whom think this way are wrong.


True....you would always be adjacent to the other D wormhole THROUGH the ships wormhole. True or not it is a game stopper until better explained.


Not a big question to answer though. NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving. Why should this be treated any different.
Not to mention that thematically it makes ZERO sense.


Straight out of the FAQ:

Q: When are systems containing matching Wormholes
considered adjacent?
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement
purposes only (including Transfer Actions). This means that
you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through,
or use the Integrated Economy technology through.

Out of all the nonsense people are coming up with (EH'HEM - Ghost flag ship moving anywhere) This might be one of the easeist to argue for the additional +1, without a new interpretation of wormholes. Adjacent for moving purposes. what are you doing with the gravity drive?

They may need to change the wording to;
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement
through the wormhole only (including Transfer Actions). This means that you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through,
or use the Integrated Economy technology through.

Just saying, way it reads right or wrong the rules give you a +1.


I don't think it's that hard. Wormhole considers movement as being adjacent only. It doesn't consider a tech ability that refers to an adjacent system as being "adjacent", even if the tech itself provides movement when that condition is fulfilled.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Quote:
I don't think it's that hard. Wormhole considers movement as being adjacent only. It doesn't consider a tech ability that refers to an adjacent system as being "adjacent", even if the tech itself provides movement when that condition is fulfilled.

Hard? No one is saying it's hard. What I am saying that official rules as written give you a +1, might be wrong, but it being wrong or correct at this point is only an assumption. My assumption is that the official hard written rules are either stated correctly or need updated, as I said the rules state movement purposes but say nothing about going through the wormhole, I assume they had no reason to state it at the time. The assumption that it does not give you +1 is not based on anything but conjecture, a guess. (Unless you can pull what you are saying out of the rulebook). How do you know the Ghost ship does not get the +1, and they meant to create ghost ship original movement rate of 1 with this tech in mind?
Quote:
NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving.

Ok, true, but nothing is going through the wormhole, like the other techs which puts something, in some way, from one side to another, this only needs the adjacent fact to qualify, which it gets from the movement rule regarding wormholes, and is not doing anything on the other side of the wormhole.
I understand what you are saying, but as of now, your assumption, contradicts the rules of the game.

But, if my other interpretation of the rules are correct about the Ghost flag ship, it would a moot point since the wormhole is seperate (at the destination) from the flag ship during movement. As can be read on the 'Sigma might be right' post.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Larouche
Canada
Longueuil
Quebec
flag msg tools
Melting souls with cuteness since 2007
badge
Lovin' N-16
mbmbmbmbmb
ryolacap wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's that hard. Wormhole considers movement as being adjacent only. It doesn't consider a tech ability that refers to an adjacent system as being "adjacent", even if the tech itself provides movement when that condition is fulfilled.

Hard? No one is saying it's hard. What I am saying that official rules as written give you a +1, might be wrong, but it being wrong or correct at this point is only an assumption. My assumption is that the official hard written rules are either stated correctly or need updated, as I said the rules state movement purposes but say nothing about going through the wormhole, I assume they had no reason to state it at the time. The assumption that it does not give you +1 is not based on anything but conjecture, a guess. (Unless you can pull what you are saying out of the rulebook). How do you know the Ghost ship does not get the +1, and they meant to create ghost ship original movement rate of 1 with this tech in mind?
Quote:
NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving.

Ok, true, but nothing is going through the wormhole, like the other techs which puts something, in some way, from one side to another, this only needs the adjacent fact to qualify, which it gets from the movement rule regarding wormholes, and is not doing anything on the other side of the wormhole.
I understand what you are saying, but as of now, your assumption, contradicts the rules of the game.

But, if my other interpretation of the rules are correct about the Ghost flag ship, it would a moot point since the wormhole is seperate (at the destination) from the flag ship during movement. As can be read on the 'Sigma might be right' post.


But the rules are clear and there's no ambiguity at all.
Only "during" movement is it allowed for wormholes to be considered adjacent.

That new tech is not an exception. The tech has a requirement: being adjacent to a wormhole. It the requirement is met, you can have +1 movement (and note that having +1 to the movement is NOT the movement itself).
You don't have the requirement because it doesn't extent through the wormhole itself as it's not during movement. i.e. you don't use the tech WHILE moving, you use the tech BEFORE moving, to calculate your possible movement.

!) You activate a system
2) You check if the ship is adjacent to a wormhole. It's not, because adjacency is only valid through a wormhole for movement and this is NOT the movement (not yet).
3) The ships that can reach the activated system move. THIS is the movement itself.

Edit: oh and as far as the Ghost flagship discussion, i am 100% sure it was never intented that the Flagship can use it's own wormhole. As anyone even played them that way yet? I can guarantee it would be a broken ability that would let the Ghost win almost every game.

(And not to mention that their racial tech that cost a fortune [5 resources, puts new wormholes on the map] would become very useless as it basically increase the ghosts mobility, which would be a lot less powerful than the flagship itself. There would be almost no point to it).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
deedob wrote:
ryolacap wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's that hard. Wormhole considers movement as being adjacent only. It doesn't consider a tech ability that refers to an adjacent system as being "adjacent", even if the tech itself provides movement when that condition is fulfilled.

Hard? No one is saying it's hard. What I am saying that official rules as written give you a +1, might be wrong, but it being wrong or correct at this point is only an assumption. My assumption is that the official hard written rules are either stated correctly or need updated, as I said the rules state movement purposes but say nothing about going through the wormhole, I assume they had no reason to state it at the time. The assumption that it does not give you +1 is not based on anything but conjecture, a guess. (Unless you can pull what you are saying out of the rulebook). How do you know the Ghost ship does not get the +1, and they meant to create ghost ship original movement rate of 1 with this tech in mind?
Quote:
NOTHING in the game goes through wormholes with the exception of ships when moving.

Ok, true, but nothing is going through the wormhole, like the other techs which puts something, in some way, from one side to another, this only needs the adjacent fact to qualify, which it gets from the movement rule regarding wormholes, and is not doing anything on the other side of the wormhole.
I understand what you are saying, but as of now, your assumption, contradicts the rules of the game.

But, if my other interpretation of the rules are correct about the Ghost flag ship, it would a moot point since the wormhole is seperate (at the destination) from the flag ship during movement. As can be read on the 'Sigma might be right' post.


But the rules are clear and there's no ambiguity at all.
Only "during" movement is it allowed for wormholes to be considered adjacent.

That new tech is not an exception. The tech has a requirement: being adjacent to a wormhole. It the requirement is met, you can have +1 movement (and note that having +1 to the movement is NOT the movement itself).
You don't have the requirement because it doesn't extent through the wormhole itself as it's not during movement. i.e. you don't use the tech WHILE moving, you use the tech BEFORE moving, to calculate your possible movement.

!) You activate a system
2) You check if the ship is adjacent to a wormhole. It's not, because adjacency is only valid through a wormhole for movement and this is NOT the movement (not yet).
3) The ships that can reach the activated system move. THIS is the movement itself.

Edit: oh and as far as the Ghost flagship discussion, i am 100% sure it was never intented that the Flagship can use it's own wormhole. As anyone even played them that way yet? I can guarantee it would be a broken ability that would let the Ghost win almost every game.

(And not to mention that their racial tech that cost a fortune [5 resources, puts new wormholes on the map] would become very useless as it basically increase the ghosts mobility, which would be a lot less powerful than the flagship itself. There would be almost no point to it).



Sorry I must have missed the page where it say wormholes are adjacent "during movement" please give me reference so I can look it up.
I also missed this please provide the page number, the FAQ would proceed it so....
"because adjacency is only valid through a wormhole for movement and this is NOT the movement (not yet)."
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
ryolacap wrote:
Sorry I must have missed the page where it say wormholes are adjacent "during movement" please give me reference so I can look it up.
I also missed this please provide the page number, the FAQ would proceed it so....
"because adjacency is only valid through a wormhole for movement and this is NOT the movement (not yet)."

Page 8 of the FAQ:

"Q: When are systems containing matching Wormholes considered adjacent?
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement purposes only (including Transfer Actions). This means that you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through, or use the Integrated Economy technology through."

Proximity is not a "movement purpose", even if the proximity might affect movement. It's only adjacent for the purposes of moving into/out of the system. Transfer/Retreats are listed because you do move into those systems. But with the Gravity Drive, moving into the system is not part of the ability, only your proximity to it. Thus, it does not count, as written.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
ryolacap wrote:
Sorry I must have missed the page where it say wormholes are adjacent "during movement" please give me reference so I can look it up.
I also missed this please provide the page number, the FAQ would proceed it so....
"because adjacency is only valid through a wormhole for movement and this is NOT the movement (not yet)."

Page 8 of the FAQ:

"Q: When are systems containing matching Wormholes considered adjacent?
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement purposes only (including Transfer Actions). This means that you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through, or use the Integrated Economy technology through."

Proximity is not a "movement purpose", even if the proximity might affect movement. It's only adjacent for the purposes of moving into/out of the system. Transfer/Retreats are listed because you do move into those systems. But with the Gravity Drive, moving into the system is not part of the ability, only your proximity to it. Thus, it does not count, as written.


So basicly you are making it up.

Quote:
Proximity is not a "movement purpose", even if the proximity might affect movement. It's only adjacent for the purposes of moving into/out of the system. Transfer/Retreats are listed because you do move into those systems.


Opinion, made up...

Quote:
It's only adjacent for the purposes of moving into/out of the system.


also made up, plus ambiguous, also supports what I am saying, since you would be moving out of the system.
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
Gravity Drive says "If your ships begin their activation in a system adjacent to a Gravity Rift or Wormhole..."

Explain, then, how beginning an activation next to a system is a "movement purpose".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
easy
Let's restate 'movement purpose'

it would be 'for the purpose of movement.'

So the wormhole would be adjacent for the purpose of movement.
Like I said, it says NOTHING about through the wormhole in the rules.

Purpose is defined as the goal or intended outcome of something.

So you have

'for the intent or goal of movement.'

(still nothing about through)

So, if your goal is to move then the wormholes are adjacent. Once again no word about 'through'. If you start a move in a spot with a worm hole and move out and away from the spot, you have fulfilled the requirement of the purpose 'to move', and therefore they are adjacent.

Since the ghost ship always starts in a wormhole area, when it moves the connected wormhole would be adjacent. And any ship for that matter in a wormhole area could partake in the extra move.

EDIT: FYI not saying it right, just saying it need an official smackdown because the rule as of now give it to you. And I haven't had to assume or make anything up.
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
Ah, I must have missed that definition of "movement purpose" in the rules. What page is it on?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Caputo
United States
Overland Park
Kansas
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Movement is defind pg 14

2) MOVEMENT
The active player may now move friendly ships
between the two activated systems. As during a
Tactical Action, Fighters, PDS, and Ground Force
units must be transported by Carrier/War Sun.

the definition of purpose can be looked up.

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
ryolacap wrote:
Haha, it's called English.

So was my earlier post, using logical inference to try and ascertain the intent.

The point is, you are making an inference of what the designer meant by "movement purpose" that is not stated in the rulebook or the FAQ. You are making an assumption of what it was intended to mean, and claiming that your assumption is more valid than mine (or others).

If you can demonstrate that your argument is what the designer intended by "movement purpose", then I may be convinced. Until then, it's just your opinion and interpretation and has no more credence than the majority opinion.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  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.