Recommend
110 
 Thumb up
 Hide
71 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Twilight Imperium (Fourth Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Verified Errata (a.k.a. "Yes, Hyper Metabolism is wrong.") rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a list of TI4 errata that has been verified by FFG (for the most part through responses from Dane Beltrani). Please note that I will be updating this but I have no plans to include FAQs, interpretations, edge cases, confusing interactions, etc. here -- just situations where the game components are unquestioningly wrong or problematically incomplete. Fortunately, there aren't many!


↓↓↓ Important Update ↓↓↓

The Living Rules Reference is now available, which comprises an updated version of the Rules Reference, errata, and a FAQ.

Anything marked with a {*} below has not been updated yet in the latest version of the LRR, but has been confirmed by Dane Beltrani or a similar official source.

↑↑↑ Important Update ↑↑↑



Action Cards

Bribery

Change the last sentence to, "For each trade good spent, cast 1 additional vote for the outcome on which you voted."

Direct Hit

Change "a hit produced by your units" to "a hit produced by your units or abilities".

Unstable Planet

Change "destroy 3 infantry" to "destroy up to 3 infantry."

Veto

The timing on this should be "When an agenda is revealed."


Agendas

Enforced Travel Ban

Add a sentence, "This does not prevent Space Cannon usage."


Promissory Notes

Political Favor (Xxcha)

The timing on this should be "When an agenda is revealed."


Racial Sheets

L1z1x: Harrow (Racial Ability)

Change "After each round" to "At the end of each round".

Naalu: Matriarch (Flagship)

In the second sentence, change "After combat" to "When combat ends". In other words, the fighters are returned before determining who won the ground combat, which means if fighters are all Naalu has left, the combat ends in a draw.

Nekro: The Alastor (Flagship)

Add a sentence: "These ground forces do not count against fleet supply."

Update: This errata has been reversed in the Living Rules Reference. Instead, the ground forces are actually relying on the fleet's and/or planet's capacity (as for any other ground forces) and do not interact with fleet supply in any way.

Winnu: Hegemonic Trade Policy (Racial Technology)

Change "until the end of your turn" to "during that use of 'Production' ".

Yin: Devotion (Racial Ability)

Append "in the active system" to both actions . . . something that was so obvious that I can't believe rules lawyers made it necessary for FFG to specify that. Sigh.


Rules Reference

(This section has been removed, as the Living Rules Reference covers it in much better depth. Please note that a former errata for Movement has been revised; specifically, all ships now block movement, even normal fighters attached to space docks.)


Strategy Cards

Diplomacy

In the secondary ability, change "exhausted planets" to "exhausted planets you control." In other words, you can't offer this benefit to a rival as part of a deal.


Technology Cards

Hyper Metabolism

This card should say, "During the status phase, gain 3 command tokens instead of 2." (And yes, that phrasing is compatible with Federation of Sol's ability.)

(Note: Art P. has uploaded a fixed Hyper Metabolism that you can print out and insert in a sleeve or glue over the original. Also, apparently Asmodee is now sending out replacement cards to those who put in a "replace a missing or defective component" request, per page 3 of this thread.)
69 
 Thumb up
2.57
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Timing section of the RRG on page 2 is incomplete.

All timing conflicts in the Action Phase are resolved in Initiative Order starting with the Active Player. The timing section of the RRG neglects to mention that it starts with the Active Player.

It also neglects to mention that you should use clockwise from Speaker order in the Agenda Phase.

Essentially, rules 2.9 and 2.10 should be used for all timing conflicts of abilities, not just the play of action cards.
4 
 Thumb up
1.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
The Timing section of the RRG on page 2 is incomplete.

All timing conflicts in the Action Phase are resolved in Initiative Order starting with the Active Player. The timing section of the RRG neglects to mention that it starts with the Active Player.

It also neglects to mention that you should use clockwise from Speaker order in the Agenda Phase.

Essentially, rules 2.9 and 2.10 should be used for all timing conflicts of abilities, not just the play of action cards.
This is a reasonable summary. Here is the link to the ruling from FFG, so it can count as "verified".
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks. Updated.

(I'm hopeful that we can get enough thumbs up on this thread to convince a BGG mod to pin it. That way we can avoid some of the "wait, I think I found a mistake on Hyper Metabolism!" threads that seem to crop up at least once a week.)
4 
 Thumb up
1.00
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pkitty wrote:
Movement (49.4) and Fighter II

The second bullet ("The ship cannot move through a system that contains non-fighter ships controlled by another player.") needs a second sentence appended: "Treat Fighter II ships as non-fighter ships for the purpose of blocking movement."
Has this officially been stated somewhere that this will change? The only things I remember seeing have been people making assumptions that it will be changed to work like TI3.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
pkitty wrote:
Movement (49.4) and Fighter II

The second bullet ("The ship cannot move through a system that contains non-fighter ships controlled by another player.") needs a second sentence appended: "Treat Fighter II ships as non-fighter ships for the purpose of blocking movement."
Has this officially been stated somewhere that this will change? The only things I remember seeing have been people making assumptions that it will be changed to work like TI3.

Dane confirmed that this is how Fighters II work, yes. See https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1860109/advance-fighters-ca...
2 
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pkitty wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
pkitty wrote:
Movement (49.4) and Fighter II

The second bullet ("The ship cannot move through a system that contains non-fighter ships controlled by another player.") needs a second sentence appended: "Treat Fighter II ships as non-fighter ships for the purpose of blocking movement."
Has this officially been stated somewhere that this will change? The only things I remember seeing have been people making assumptions that it will be changed to work like TI3.

Dane confirmed that this is how Fighters II work, yes. See https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1860109/advance-fighters-ca...
Hmm, interesting.

I'll wait until I see that officially in a FAQ to play it that way, though. I'm not convinced it will actually end up that way.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
I'll wait until I see that officially in a FAQ to play it that way, though. I'm not convinced it will actually end up that way.
Okay, but then you should probably do the same for all of the errata here. After all, we have only Dane's word on any of it; there's no official FAQ yet.
2 
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pkitty wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
I'll wait until I see that officially in a FAQ to play it that way, though. I'm not convinced it will actually end up that way.
Okay, but then you should probably do the same for all of the errata here. After all, we have only Dane's word on any of it; there's no official FAQ yet.
The other ones are pretty certain, since they either are really obviously errors (Hyper Metabolism) or just mistaken conflicts of wording (Timing and Warfare).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
I'll wait until I see that officially in a FAQ to play it that way, though. I'm not convinced it will actually end up that way.

As will I. This change seems weird and unclean given the streamlining done in TI4.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
I'll wait until I see that officially in a FAQ to play it that way, though. I'm not convinced it will actually end up that way.

As will I. This change seems weird and unclean given the streamlining done in TI4.
I disagree completely. It makes it so that the rule is, effectively, "any standalone ship blocks movement." If a ship can fly off into a system on its own, it can block movement, which makes perfect sense to me.

And, at any rate, it's the official answer -- and thus an accurate errata -- unless Dane or someone else at FFG overrules it for some weird reason.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alessandro Carpenito
msg tools
"...in initiative order, starting with the active player."

Does this mean that if I have, say, initiative 5 and am the active player, the order in which we could play abilities would be something like 5 - 1 - 2 - etc?

Basically initiative order but with the active player always getting first play, even over the Naalu?
 
 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)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vidyaraja wrote:
"...in initiative order, starting with the active player."

Does this mean that if I have, say, initiative 5 and am the active player, the order in which we could play abilities would be something like 5 - 1 - 2 - etc?

Basically initiative order but with the active player always getting first play, even over the Naalu?
Not quite, it means you start with the active player and count up, looping back through to 1. So if you had 5, and other player had 6, 1, 3 and 8, you'd go 5-6-8-1-3.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
Vidyaraja wrote:
"...in initiative order, starting with the active player."

Does this mean that if I have, say, initiative 5 and am the active player, the order in which we could play abilities would be something like 5 - 1 - 2 - etc?

Basically initiative order but with the active player always getting first play, even over the Naalu?
Not quite, it means you start with the active player and count up, looping back through to 1. So if you had 5, and other player had 6, 1, 3 and 8, you'd go 5-6-8-1-3.
And if Naalu have the politics card, it goes 5-6-8-0-1. Naalu go at 0 initiative, but that's not always first.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to the ruling mentioned in this post, the following is also errata.

Veto (Action card): Timing should be "When an agenda is revealed."

Political Favor (Xxcha Promissory Note): Timing should be "When an agenda is revealed."
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin LaFleur
Canada
flag msg tools
Another one, from an old thread. On the Naalu Flagship it should say:

“When combat ends, return those units to the space area.”

Instead of After combat ends.

Edit: The Thread

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1858921/naalu-fighters-...
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Jorgen and Colin. I've updated the errata and also reorganized it a bit (by section instead of subjective severity). I'm also going to poke a moderator and ask if they'll consider pinning this.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We had a rule come up. I'm sure this will have to be added to the FAQ.

The scenario: the Xxcha Kingdom's "Peace Accords" with the technology "Integrated Economy".

The Peace Accords allows the Xxcha the unusual ability of taking control of planet without having ships and infantry present.

Integrated Economy allows you to build units when you take control of a planet.

This would seem to allow the Xxcha to build ships with Integrated Economy even if opponent's ships are present. Which is obviously not the intent.

The rules for Integrated Economy will need to be tweaked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This isn't a thread for discussing potential fixes, it's for listing ones that have been officially ruled upon. The one mentioned above doesn't require errata So I think I will just create a new thread for you and answer it there...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Halbower
United States
Muskegon
Michigan
flag msg tools
The Gaming Annex in Muskegon
badge
The Muskegon Area Gamers
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
This isn't a thread for discussing potential fixes, it's for listing ones that have been officially ruled upon. The one mentioned above doesn't require errata So I think I will just create a new thread for you and answer it there...

Per the OP:
Pkitty wrote:
...just situations where the game components are unquestioningly wrong or problematically incomplete.

I would argue that my forum post meets the intent of the OP.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry, no edge cases, FAQs, weird interactions, rulings, etc. If there were a problem with Peace Accords in general, or a problem with Integrated Economy in general, that would be errata. But this is clearly a case of "we need a ruling on how A + B works," which is 100% FAQ territory. (If someone else wants to start a UFAQ thread covering all the rulings and stuff, go for it, of course. I just want to keep this focused on actual errata.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another email from Dane...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/265771-some-q...

...that re-confirms the Fighter II ruling, and also highlights an important omission on the Alastor (added).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Quote:
Movement (49.4) and Fighter II

The second bullet ("The ship cannot move through a system that contains non-fighter ships controlled by another player.") needs a second sentence appended: "Treat Fighter II ships as non-fighter ships for the purpose of blocking movement."

What is the purpose of the "non-fighter" clause exactly, if Fighter II specifically circumvents it? In what situation can a player have a fighter in a system without having another non-fighter ship supporting it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
theepicwinguy wrote:
Quote:
Movement (49.4) and Fighter II

The second bullet ("The ship cannot move through a system that contains non-fighter ships controlled by another player.") needs a second sentence appended: "Treat Fighter II ships as non-fighter ships for the purpose of blocking movement."

What is the purpose of the "non-fighter" clause exactly, if Fighter II specifically circumvents it? In what situation can a player have a fighter in a system without having another non-fighter ship supporting it?
A space dock can support up to three normal fighters. If those fighters are the only ships in a system, they don't block movement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PK Levine
United States
Rossville
GA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
halbower wrote:
Dane’s ruling on Saar Space dock is weird.

Question
5-Another question about Saar space dock if saar space dock move alone with 5 infantry to a system (no opponent ship) have opponent PDS . Can PDS use space cannon against Saar space dock

Answer
5) PDS can be used against a Saar space dock only when it moves. PDS cannot be used by the active player against a stationary space dock or AGAINST the active player if the space dock in the active system did not move.

Would you mind moving this tangent to its own thread? This thread is for posting and verifying errata; the Saar ruling is a FAQ if anything. (I have a feeling Saar is going to get its own long section in the eventual FAQ.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |