Felix Adam
Canada
Sherbrooke
Québec
Worked at DTI, Gameloft, Outerminds
When going gets tough, you call Braum!
-
Can other players home system planet count toward the "Control X planets in non-home system" objectives?
I believe they don't but another player is arguing 
-
-
Badoux Jerome
Switzerland
-
If you refer 100% to the rules they are home systems so no don't count in "non-home systems" .... however I believe that it deserve an errata to change that.
-
-
Clayton Threadgill
United States
Austin
Texas
-
"Control 6 planets in non-home systems."
It couldn't be phrased much more clearly than that. Planets in home systems - any home systems - don't count.
I'm not sure what argument they could even use to justify otherwise.
Agone07 wrote: If you refer 100% to the rules they are home systems so no don't count in "non-home systems" .... however I believe that it deserve an errata to change that.
No errata is needed. There's a whole different objective for controlling a planet in another player's home system.
-
-
Jorgen Peddersen
Australia
Sydney
New South Wales
-
The argument the other player is clearly trying to apply is that ‘non-home’ systems are ones that aren’t your home. I agree that if you take the terminology strictly, that this is an incorrect interpretation, but I can certainly see where the argument is coming from.
It’s the difference between translating ‘non-home’ as ‘not home’ or ‘not a home’. Both are valid in basic English, but the game is using the latter.
-
-
Badoux Jerome
Switzerland
-
I don't think errata ois needed to make it clearer however I find this pretty silly to have an opponent home system (usually harder to get the normal systems) and it still doesn^'t cout for the objective.
The errata is not needed for clarity but because it is silly.
-
-
-
-
Clipper wrote: The argument the other player is clearly trying to apply is that ‘non-home’ systems are ones that aren’t your home. I agree that if you take the terminology strictly, that this is an incorrect interpretation, but I can certainly see where the argument is coming from.
It’s the difference between translating ‘non-home’ as ‘not home’ or ‘not a home’. Both are valid in basic English, but the game is using the latter.
I agree it could be read like this. But the game Designers clearly (i) used plural ("non-home Systems"), and (b)they could have easily worded the card "Systems except your own home System". So it probably SHOULDN'T be read like this. 
-
-
Scott Lewis
United States
Thornton
Colorado
NFHS Football & Basketball
Dread Our Coming, Suffer Our Presence, Embrace Our Glory (Solonavi War Cry)
-
Agone07 wrote: I don't think errata ois needed to make it clearer however I find this pretty silly to have an opponent home system (usually harder to get the normal systems) and it still doesn^'t cout for the objective.
The errata is not needed for clarity but because it is silly.
You make the assumption that it was an oversight rather than an intentional distinction.
-
-
Brian Petersen
United States
Texas
-
FWIW, TI3 had 2 objective cards that said "I control X planets outside MY home system." So clear concise phrasing was available during design if the intent was to include enemy home system planets.
-
-
Genestealer Patriarch
United Kingdom
-
It might be that denying another faction their home system is such a wopping blow to them, that the game does not want to give you any additional incentives to do so.
-
-
Julian Sanchez
United States
Dist of Columbia
-
This is pretty clearly deliberate if you look at the pattern of Public & Secret objectives. The public objectives in TI4 will indirectly lead you into conflict, of course, but they don’t directly mandate aggression. In theory you could try to score them without attacking anyone. The secret objectives are the ones that award points for directly attacking other players.
I think, fwiw, that this is an extremely clever choice on the part of the designers, because it adds more opportunities for misdirection & deception if there aren’t direct general incentives for agression, but particular players do have secret incentives to attack. Is the Jol-Nar player really sending that cruiser this way because she just wants to trade, as she claims, or does she have some ulterior motive? Keeping the more overtly zero-sum objectives secret gives you the (I think) more interesting dynamic where it’s more viable for players to cooperate and forge alliances in the early rounds, because the public objectives aren’t pushing players to attack each other as a condition of scoring points. Particular factions, of course, may be incentivized to go aggressive more or less from the outset, but the game isn’t *generally* pushing everyone to necessarily go fight everyone else right away.
-
-
|
|
