Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Star Trek: Ascendancy» Forums » Rules

Subject: Just realized we've been playing incorrectly. Phases and turns order rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andre Parker
United States
El Paso
Texas
flag msg tools
We've been doing turn order wrong.

I'm not sure where I got this idea, but it's my fault:
We've been each doing our Building Phases in turn order first before anyone did a Command Phase.

Player 1 did their build phase actions, then Player 2 did the same, then player 3. After Player 3 completed his Building Phase, then Player 1 did their Command Phase and so on.

Where the hell did I get this idea?!

Did any of you make the same mistake?

I just discovered this today, and need to see how much different it is to play it PROPERLY this weekend.

Damn. It.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Please report back after you've played it as intended. I'm curious which way you prefer. I've seen others suggest your misplay as a variant to keep players more actively engaged, but I've not seen too many responses from players who have actually tried it both ways.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Guðmundur Skallagrímson
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
I have tried it both and prefer the "wrong" way as a variant. One of the ways it changes the game is that, because both sides can resupply ships before a battle, players have a slightly higher chance to keep hold of their own territories, but can be punished more for poor defensive/offensive balance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barry Miller
United States
Saint Charles
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

Sure would be nice for GF9 to pop-in here to explain to all of us, exactly why they went with the published turn structure. Then this matter could be put to rest, or at least it should be, depending on GF9's reply.

Because given the number of threads on this issue alone, it's no wonder how the OP got the notion stuck in his head! (Though the rulebook makes the turn structure clear).

Anyway, I usually adopt the attitude that the large publishers do a significant amount of play testing. And thusly, there must be some deliberate reason for why a game is structured the way it is. (I don't have as much confidence with the play testing of the small publishers, but for the larger ones, I give the benefit of the doubt that the design is for a reason).

So having said that, I have faith that the turn structure serves a purpose. For instance, it needs to be considered that a player's Build Phase should always be able to respond to someone else's Command Phase. I think this is an important tenant to the strategic flow of the game.


5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris J Davis
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Overtext pending moderation...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I imagine it's basically just to give the turn order cards and related bidding phase some importance.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sublevel27 wrote:

Did any of you make the same mistake?


Yep, and after reading your thread i checked the rules again and realized we played even more wrong modest
How we played: Player 1: Building Phase, Player 2 Building Phase, Player 3 Building Phase; Player 1: One Command, Player 2: One Command, Player 3: One Command, Player 1: One Command...


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kelteel wrote:
Sublevel27 wrote:

Did any of you make the same mistake?


Yep, and after reading your thread i checked the rules again and realized we played even more wrong modest
How we played: Player 1: Building Phase, Player 2 Building Phase, Player 3 Building Phase; Player 1: One Command, Player 2: One Command, Player 3: One Command, Player 1: One Command...



Oh wow. How many hours did this game last?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cbs42 wrote:
[q="Kelteel"]
Oh wow. How many hours did this game last?


The 3 games lasted about 2-3 hours each.
I think the main problem with the way we played was that defense is too easy and so the player who finds more culture nodes can easily achieve 5 Ascendancy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Earl
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bgm1961 wrote:
So having said that, I have faith that the turn structure serves a purpose. For instance, it needs to be considered that a player's Build Phase should always be able to respond to someone else's Command Phase. I think this is an important tenant to the strategic flow of the game.


Absolutely. I think you hit the nail on the head.

In our last game, I took over a nice border system from the Klingons via hegemony and foolishly did not move a big enough fleet in to defend it, so they built a fleet at home and took it back by force. With the variant, maybe he would have built ships in that system (it had a starbase) meaning I paid for turn order and didn't get the full benefit since I couldn't have defeated a decent sized fleet, or maybe he would have done something else with his production.

Building to respond to the other players' command phases seems to be an integral part of the game.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Bevan
Canada
flag msg tools
Everybody getting a build phase before the command phase will make military victories harder and culture runaways to easy, perhaps making the feds to strong.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trueflight Silverwing
United States
Waverly
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played it both ways and we far prefer to have everyone get their building phase, then everyone get their command phase. It feels like less down time for each player even though it kind of equals out the same.

Both ways have their positives and negatives. We always teach the correct way to new players but mention the other way and offer to try it out on future games if people are interested.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Carnahan
United States
Maryland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I have been playing like this:

At start of game turn order is random: no one has meet.

Player 1 build, Player 2 build and then Player 3 build.
Player 1 command, Player 2 command, Player 3 command

Once we have first contact - player 3 is last - until he/she has first contact - then order is by bid and we do a complete:

Player 1 build then command, Player 2 build then command, Player 3 build then command.

However, this is starting to look dicey when players have not made first contact but are 'close' to doing so. This might force me to just go to a full on build then command sequence in player order as above and ignore the everyone build then everyone command. Thou that is nicer to 'teach' with and less downtime at start. (Maybe just keep that for 1 or 2 turns)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
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.