Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Fourth Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Encountered two rule questions during our first play rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Malcolm K
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
First: someone had Distinguished Councillor but 0 influence available on their unexhausted planets. Are they able to use a planet with 3 resources and 0 influence then add Distinguished Councillor to get 5 total votes?

Second: in the final round, two players had 9 points and it was clear that the player with 8 points was going to win. If the players with 9 points swapped “Support for the Throne” cards, would it be a shared win or would the person higher in initiative order win? The text in the rulebook says ties during the status phase are broken by initiative order. But this is not during the status phase.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Distinguished Councillor states it happens after you cast votes.

Casting votes is defined as:
RRG - Agenda Phase wrote:
8.6 To cast votes, a player exhausts any number of his planets. The
player casts a number of votes for an outcome of his choice equal
to the combined influence values of the planets he exhausted.


As the definition does not state the planets must have influence, it should be OK to cast 0 votes towards your choice.

Arguably, you don't even have to exhaust any planets, as zero is included within 'any number'.

So yes, I would allow Distinguished Councillor to be used with 0 influence.

As for the question of shared victory, that's an interesting one. When two abilities would clash in the Action Phase, you also use initiative order to break the tie. Thus I'd say that the player with the higher initiative reveals their card and wins before the other player can reveal theirs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) No need to even exhaust the planet with 0 influence. You can still cast a vote worth 0, then play the card.

2) The question of tie victories during the status agenda phase has already been ruled on by FFG. The tied player that's seated first counting clockwise from the speaker - in other words, whichever player would pick a strategy card first next round.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
2) The question of tie victories during the status phase has already been ruled on by FFG. The tied player that's seated first counting clockwise from the speaker - in other words, whichever player would pick a strategy card first next round.

That can't possibly be a valid ruling. It violates this rule:
RRG - Victory Points wrote:
87.7 The game ends as soon as one player has 10 victory points. If
two players would gain 10 victory points during the same status
phase, the player who is earlier in initiative order is the winner,
because he has the opportunity to score objectives first.


I can see them making that ruling for the Agenda Phase or the Strategy Phase, as that's how timing works in those phases, but you must use Initiative order in the Action and Status Phases.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
I can see them making that ruling for the Agenda Phase or the Strategy Phase, as that's how timing works in those phases, but you must use Initiative order in the Action and Status Phases.

Ahem. Yes, you are correct. I meant to say agenda phase (edited). For any ties occurring during a phase where initiative order is in effect, that is the tie breaker.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malcolm K
Canada
flag msg tools
mb
But this is a question of tie victories in the action phase
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
malcolmk14 wrote:
But this is a question of tie victories in the action phase

If they trade during the action phase, then the first player in initiative order would win. Since all transactions must involve an active player, and during an action the active player is first in initiative order, the active player would immediately win the game.

Here's the thing, though - the inactive player has no actual in-game motivation to make this deal. They can't take it, so they're just deciding which other player will win. That's king-making, and very unsportsmanlike behavior. Far better to just let the victory go to the player who earned it through strategic play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
malcolmk14 wrote:
But this is a question of tie victories in the action phase

If they trade during the action phase, then the first player in initiative order would win. Since all transactions must involve an active player, and during an action the active player is first in initiative order, the active player would immediately win the game.

This is incorrect. Initiative order is based on the number of your strategy cards. It has nothing to do with who is active.

Whoever has the lowered numbered strategy card would win if such a deal was made.

And yes, that means the deal would never be made, unless someone wants to kingmake.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
This is incorrect. Initiative order is based on the number of your strategy cards. It has nothing to do with who is active.

Whoever has the lowered numbered strategy card would win if such a deal was made.

And yes, that means the deal would never be made, unless someone wants to kingmake.

During the action phase, initiative order begins with the active player. This has already been discussed in several threads, here and on reddit and on the FFG forums. It's already been announced as an official errata.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
During the action phase, initiative order begins with the active player. This has already been discussed in several threads, here and on reddit and on the FFG forums. It's already been announced as an official errata.

Thanks for the info. I haven't seen that in any threads yet, nor had I even heard of an official list of errata. I thought the mistaken '2 instead of 1' type tech cards were the only big discrepancy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Clipper wrote:
Thanks for the info. I haven't seen that in any threads yet, nor had I even heard of an official list of errata. I thought the mistaken '2 instead of 1' type tech cards were the only big discrepancy.

The official list of errata will be the FAQ when it comes out. For now, you can only dig through the threads on the various forums.

edit: Had to look this up for a different thread, so I may as well post it here. The first post of the ruling from FFG.
 
 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
Clipper wrote:
hooliganj wrote:
During the action phase, initiative order begins with the active player. This has already been discussed in several threads, here and on reddit and on the FFG forums. It's already been announced as an official errata.

Thanks for the info. I haven't seen that in any threads yet, nor had I even heard of an official list of errata. I thought the mistaken '2 instead of 1' type tech cards were the only big discrepancy.

There are some (minor-but-important) discrepancies between the wording in the Timing section at the beginning of the Advanced Concepts section of the RRG and the rules in 1.11.
 
 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.