Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Twilight Imperium (Fourth Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: How do you resolve endless battles? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Forsling
Sweden
flag msg tools
This has not happened to me yet, but just asking if there is a ruling

Nekro virus vs barony

Barony has non-ecludian shielding and duranium armor

Nekro has stolen both those techs

2 dreadnaughts on each side

Battle will never end, how does it resolve?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That's a very specific situation, but an interesting conundrum nonetheless. It certainly isn't covered in the rules.

Here's how I would resolve it at the table:

1. Once the problem is pointed out, allow the active player to redo the action, even if that just means bringing in the 1 more ship they need to break the endless draw.

2. If that isn't possible, the active player must retreat.

3. If no legal retreat is available, destroy both attacking ships.

In no situation would it be reasonable to punish the defending player. They aren't the one that chose to commit to an impossible battle that does nothing but delay the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Grant
United States
Santa Clarita
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Keeps going until one side Announces Retreat.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jatta Pake wrote:
Keeps going until one side Announces Retreat.

If the attacker has no legal retreat while the defender does, it's a problem if the attacker can use that to force an otherwise well-fortified system to be functionally undefended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Walsh
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Hoc Spatium Mercede
badge
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The simplest solution would be a ruling that if both sides have non-euclidean shielding it voids the technology for the battle.
7 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
james herbby
msg tools
mbmbmbmb
LionLamb wrote:
This has not happened to me yet, but just asking if there is a ruling

Nekro virus vs barony

Barony has non-ecludian shielding and duranium armor

Nekro has stolen both those techs

2 dreadnaughts on each side

Battle will never end, how does it resolve?
In this case we will do what we did in TI3.

Attacker loses.

Sinple and gives them a reason to go in with enough to actually win.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Sena
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
Pete Walsh wrote:
The simplest solution would be a ruling that if both sides have non-euclidean shielding it voids the technology for the battle.


I like this.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Brettell
Australia
South Turramurra
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't find it in the rules now, but I was sure I read somewhere that if neither side can win a combat, the attacker must retreat, following the normal retreat rules. If they can't legally retreat, they are destroyed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
possum man
England
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I remember reading that too. Could have been a TI3 FAQ though...
 
 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
That was in the TI3 FAQ. To my knowledge, there is no such clarification in the TI4 rules. It is, however, much rarer in TI4 because it can only happen with Non-Euclidean Shielding owned by two players now, which can only happen with Nekro and Letnev (in TI3 all it took was both players having Duranium Armor).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sander Stroom
Estonia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Even if it is not clarified for TI4, I am pretty sure it will be the same as TI3 in this case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Forsling
Sweden
flag msg tools
I agree, never played TI3 but seems like most rulings of circumstantial situations carry over between the editions

Good thing I brought it up here, If it were to have happened in my game I would have probably ruled differently. My solution would have been to destroy both fleets if both refused to flee. But this ruling is probably better.

Would be sad to see an attacker end up in this situation unintentionally though
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin LaFleur
Canada
flag msg tools
Pete Walsh wrote:
The simplest solution would be a ruling that if both sides have non-euclidean shielding it voids the technology for the battle.


That works... except that it's abusable. A barony fleet with several sustain damage ships against a nekro fleet with 1 and suddenly this ruling seems incredibly unfair. I'd say void the technology only once an infinite loop begins (mid battle).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sander Stroom
Estonia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Making the technology void is not very thematic. But after one side destroys their ships, in this situation, at least one of the dreadnoughts should be left damaged. Now, if there are different ships in the system: Flagship and Dreadnought... Then the attacker should decide that because he can basically decide when to "lose" the battle. Anyway, as it is not officially decided, we have to wait for official ruling on this issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Walsh
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Hoc Spatium Mercede
badge
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aegiscruiser wrote:
Pete Walsh wrote:
The simplest solution would be a ruling that if both sides have non-euclidean shielding it voids the technology for the battle.


That works... except that it's abusable. A barony fleet with several sustain damage ships against a nekro fleet with 1 and suddenly this ruling seems incredibly unfair. I'd say void the technology only once an infinite loop begins (mid battle).


How is this an abuse? Voiding non-euclidean shielding doesn't mean the ships cannot use sustain damage, just that they cannot cancel two hits. Are 4 Letnev DNs suddenly useless against 1 Nekro DN and a load of ships with high CVs? Both Nekro and Letnev lose the ability, but both retain it vs. everyone else. Perhaps not great for either, but hardle "incredibly unfair."

Quote:
Making the technology void is not very thematic.


How is it not thematic? The Nekro "figured out" the secret to Letnev's shield tech to render it less effective. The Letnev, already knowing the secret, can counter Nekro's use of the same tech for themselves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sander Stroom
Estonia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
My idea is that: Both factions have "built stronger walls" not "built stronger guns". Otherwise the technology would say something like "each hit counts as two" or something.

I guess you could see it some other way too. May be a little bit thematic but not very intuitive to think like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Walsh
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Hoc Spatium Mercede
badge
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sande24 wrote:
My idea is that: Both factions have "built stronger walls" not "built stronger guns". Otherwise the technology would say something like "each hit counts as two" or something.

I guess you could see it some other way too. May be a little bit thematic but not very intuitive to think like that.


To me this is like the Borg on Star Trek - they adapt to everything. That's not "building stronger guns" as much as "weakening the enemy's wall." Or if you've ever read Foundation, it's like Mallow giving the Tech Man the apparatus for a personal body shield, but letting him know that he's got a blaster designed to penetrate the shield as well. If you can make the tech chances are you know its limitations. So both sides void the advantage thematically. But better than that to me is that its very simple.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pete Walsh wrote:
To me this is like the Borg on Star Trek - they adapt to everything. That's not "building stronger guns" as much as "weakening the enemy's wall." Or if you've ever read Foundation, it's like Mallow giving the Tech Man the apparatus for a personal body shield, but letting him know that he's got a blaster designed to penetrate the shield as well. If you can make the tech chances are you know its limitations. So both sides void the advantage thematically. But better than that to me is that its very simple.

You can debate about theme all day. Just about any decision can be retro-actively fit into the theme of the game.

But in the end, it needs to remain a fair game, and you can't reward a player for triggering an infinite loop. The attacker automatically losing is meant to punish someone trying to win through exploit. All they need to do to break the stalemate and win the day is bring 1 more ship. Any ship.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Walsh
United States
Bethlehem
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Hoc Spatium Mercede
badge
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
Pete Walsh wrote:
To me this is like the Borg on Star Trek - they adapt to everything. That's not "building stronger guns" as much as "weakening the enemy's wall." Or if you've ever read Foundation, it's like Mallow giving the Tech Man the apparatus for a personal body shield, but letting him know that he's got a blaster designed to penetrate the shield as well. If you can make the tech chances are you know its limitations. So both sides void the advantage thematically. But better than that to me is that its very simple.

You can debate about theme all day. Just about any decision can be retro-actively fit into the theme of the game.

But in the end, it needs to remain a fair game, and you can't reward a player for triggering an infinite loop. The attacker automatically losing is meant to punish someone trying to win through exploit. All they need to do to break the stalemate and win the day is bring 1 more ship. Any ship.


The Nekro doing what they do is not an exploit. The situation is the result of a hole in the design similar to what Duranium Armor used to create in TI3. The situation in TI4 is highly unlikely and does not have to arise from someone's ill intent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pete Walsh wrote:
hooliganj wrote:
You can debate about theme all day. Just about any decision can be retro-actively fit into the theme of the game.

But in the end, it needs to remain a fair game, and you can't reward a player for triggering an infinite loop. The attacker automatically losing is meant to punish someone trying to win through exploit. All they need to do to break the stalemate and win the day is bring 1 more ship. Any ship.


The Nekro doing what they do is not an exploit. The situation is the result of a hole in the design similar to what Duranium Armor used to create in TI3. The situation in TI4 is highly unlikely and does not have to arise from someone's ill intent.

No, Nekro copying the tech is not an exploit. Attacking 2 dreads with exactly 2 dreads, knowing that the result will be an unending battle, is the exploit (if you house-rule it to give the attacker an advantage).

And it doesn't matter which player attacks, Letnev or Nekro, the attacking player knows the outcome is a problem and makes the choice, which is why the ruling penalized them in TI3, and likely will again in TI4. It just wouldn't be fair to encourage that choice.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Burris
Canada
flag msg tools
Pete Walsh wrote:
The Nekro doing what they do is not an exploit. The situation is the result of a hole in the design similar to what Duranium Armor used to create in TI3. The situation in TI4 is highly unlikely and does not have to arise from someone's ill intent.


I think what you're missing is that IF the rule were as you say it should be, people COULD (and therefore, will) exploit it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Riku Koskinen
Finland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
hooliganj wrote:
Pete Walsh wrote:
hooliganj wrote:
You can debate about theme all day. Just about any decision can be retro-actively fit into the theme of the game.

But in the end, it needs to remain a fair game, and you can't reward a player for triggering an infinite loop. The attacker automatically losing is meant to punish someone trying to win through exploit. All they need to do to break the stalemate and win the day is bring 1 more ship. Any ship.


The Nekro doing what they do is not an exploit. The situation is the result of a hole in the design similar to what Duranium Armor used to create in TI3. The situation in TI4 is highly unlikely and does not have to arise from someone's ill intent.

No, Nekro copying the tech is not an exploit. Attacking 2 dreads with exactly 2 dreads, knowing that the result will be an unending battle, is the exploit (if you house-rule it to give the attacker an advantage).

And it doesn't matter which player attacks, Letnev or Nekro, the attacking player knows the outcome is a problem and makes the choice, which is why the ruling penalized them in TI3, and likely will again in TI4. It just wouldn't be fair to encourage that choice.


Isn't it possible that the situation may become an endless loop during the fight? So that the attacker had an advantage, but bad luck made it so that the loop happens. If attacker attacks with 2x Dread and 2x Cruiser against 2x Dread and 1 Carrier, he has the advantage. But if opponent rolls much better, the situation can become so that both have only the Dreads remaining with the other able to repair and the other use sustain damage every turn.

Penalizing the attacker here would seem silly. I like the idea of disabling the racial tech from both sides to let dice dictate the outcome (or either player retreats).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chase Clinton
Bolivia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stalemate through three-fold repetition.

It's a tie. Start over. zombie
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Padish wrote:
Isn't it possible that the situation may become an endless loop during the fight? So that the attacker had an advantage, but bad luck made it so that the loop happens. If attacker attacks with 2x Dread and 2x Cruiser against 2x Dread and 1 Carrier, he has the advantage. But if opponent rolls much better, the situation can become so that both have only the Dreads remaining with the other able to repair and the other use sustain damage every turn.

Penalizing the attacker here would seem silly. I like the idea of disabling the racial tech from both sides to let dice dictate the outcome (or either player retreats).

Using the scenario you propose, I calculate roughly 0.4% odds of reaching the infinite loop, or 1 in every 250 fights. The odds are improved if you give the defender a better ship, but go back down significantly once the attacker brings a 3rd dreadnought.

It does seem unfortunate that the attacking player could bring a responsibly dominant force yet still be forced to lose the dreadnoughts to a ruling. However, at a 1 in 250 chance, I would say the dice have already dictated the outcome.

For simplicity's sake there should be a single ruling to cover these situations, and I don't think it's too much to rule that in an unresolvable conflict, the defender wins the tie. I said at the start that if the attacker can legally retreat they should be allowed to do so, but that's all the consideration I would give.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin LaFleur
Canada
flag msg tools
Pete Walsh wrote:
aegiscruiser wrote:
Pete Walsh wrote:
The simplest solution would be a ruling that if both sides have non-euclidean shielding it voids the technology for the battle.


That works... except that it's abusable. A barony fleet with several sustain damage ships against a nekro fleet with 1 and suddenly this ruling seems incredibly unfair. I'd say void the technology only once an infinite loop begins (mid battle).


How is this an abuse? Voiding non-euclidean shielding doesn't mean the ships cannot use sustain damage, just that they cannot cancel two hits. Are 4 Letnev DNs suddenly useless against 1 Nekro DN and a load of ships with high CVs? Both Nekro and Letnev lose the ability, but both retain it vs. everyone else. Perhaps not great for either, but hardle "incredibly unfair."


Are you kidding me? A fleet of, lets say 3 DNs losing NES vs a fleet with 1 DN and 2 loaded carriers losing NES, its clear Barony is losing more from this ruling than the Nekro, who, knowing this, can bring only 1 DN to a fight for the purposes of cancelling the NES effect.

Yes, they all still have sustain damage, but each instance of Sustain damage is weakened, and since Barony has 3 instances of Sustain damage, they lose 3x more than the Nekro does, in the above example.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  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.