Michael Cohen
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hi all,
A few questions about the Fall of the Empire scenario that I will be playing tomorrow:

1) If The Lazax and the Loyalist both win, and they both have treaties, does that mean 4 players win the game?
One of things in the rules is that only one player can win the game with treaties. Which is it?
2) It says use the Techs from Shards, but no options - does that mean the nonracial techs only?
3) I feel uncomfortable not using a lot of the Shattered Empires (and other optional) rules that I've gotten used to:
Tactical Retreats
Action Cards from Shattered Empires
The Shattered Empires Tech Tree and new SE techs
Would it be so terrible and bad to use them? Anyone have any experience?

Cheers,
Vandervecken
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Washington Irving
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Played Fall of the Empire once, with the house rule that Traitor's treaty holder couldn't win if it was their HS that the Traitor took.

1) We played that 4 players could win in this case, otherwise Loyalist treaty cards are worthless. That said, as long as it was stated before the game started I think either would be playable.

2) When my group played we understood this to mean non-racial techs only.

3) We had a good game using non-racial techs and action cards from Shattered Empires. We don't usually play with tactical retreats. The only concern I would have with tactical retreats is that it would make it a little harder to stop the person going for 60 plastic pieces.
1 
 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
Just to add to the above.
Vandervecken wrote:
1) If The Lazax and the Loyalist both win, and they both have treaties, does that mean 4 players win the game?
One of things in the rules is that only one player can win the game with treaties. Which is it?

I think 4 players would win; I think the rule talking about only one player can win with treaties is talking about only one treaty is valid per race; the Loyalist/Lazax combo is a different situation. Each individual faction's treaties only are valid for one other person, but I think this can team up.

To me, this does make thematic sense; the the Lazax and his loyal ally help keep order in the galaxy, and they each have treaties with other races, they all, in turn, have helped create harmony in the empire.

Quote:
2) It says use the Techs from Shards, but no options - does that mean the nonracial techs only?

Yes; I think this is emphasized by the fact the Lazax don't have racial techs.

Quote:
3) I feel uncomfortable not using a lot of the Shattered Empires (and other optional) rules that I've gotten used to:
Tactical Retreats
Action Cards from Shattered Empires
The Shattered Empires Tech Tree and new SE techs
Would it be so terrible and bad to use them? Anyone have any experience?

Really what the rules say is not to use any other OPTIONAL rules; while obviously adding new cards is technically always an option, they aren't really "optional rules" in the same sense; they are part of using the expansion. The "Optional Rules" in the two expansions are pretty much labeled as such. I think Tactical Retreats would probably be OK to use, though, despite it being an "optional rule". But the Action Cards and the Techs I don't think are in the same boat - I think they are meant to be used if you have the expansion (except those that refer to components NOT in use, which shouldn't be very many).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Cohen
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
We just played, and the Power-Hungry player won by using Light-Wave Deflectors to get past the cordon. Definitely a good combo for him.
Another rules question came up:

Player A hands a 1-value Treaty to player B, and a 2-value treaty to player C. Both B and C keep the treaties. Player B also accepts a treaty from player D, and now has treaties from 2 different players in his hands.
Now, Player A wins the game. Traitors are revealed, and player B loses. The question is, does Player C win? On the one hand he has the lowest remaining treaty card, since player B lost, but nothing in the rules says anything about "remaining" treaty cards. Even though Player B is a traitor, his 1-value treaty might mean player C doesn't win.

So, does player C win or not?
 
 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
Vandervecken wrote:
We just played, and the Power-Hungry player won by using Light-Wave Deflectors to get past the cordon. Definitely a good combo for him.
Another rules question came up:

Player A hands a 1-value Treaty to player B, and a 2-value treaty to player C. Both B and C keep the treaties. Player B also accepts a treaty from player D, and now has treaties from 2 different players in his hands.
Now, Player A wins the game. Traitors are revealed, and player B loses. The question is, does Player C win? On the one hand he has the lowest remaining treaty card, since player B lost, but nothing in the rules says anything about "remaining" treaty cards. Even though Player B is a traitor, his 1-value treaty might mean player C doesn't win.

So, does player C win or not?

Yes; since B was marked as a traitor, his treaties are basically ignored. The rule is meant to reward the person with the lowest treaty that is not a traitor.

Otherwise, even the #2 treaty card would be basically worthless to anyone, and it would pretty much decimate the entire treaty game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Cohen
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The #2 treaty is still worthwhile, as long as the starting player doesn't give out the #1 treaty.
Giving #2 says "I really like you, but I reserve the right to like another player better.
1 
 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
Vandervecken wrote:
The #2 treaty is still worthwhile, as long as the starting player doesn't give out the #1 treaty.
Giving #2 says "I really like you, but I reserve the right to like another player better.

I don't buy it; even that "reserved" right would make it almost worth nothing if the #1 invalidated it even if owned by a traitor. I know *I* would never accept any treaty that wasn't a 1 if that were the case, because the chances of it not being trumped would be virtually nil. Any card #3 or higher would be even MORE worthless, and the Lazax 5-7 cards would be pretty much a waste of cardboard; nobody would ever take those seriously. Even with the "only count the lowest number still in play", those high-numbered cards are more like last-ditch efforts, but COULD still pay out if enough people were traitors.

In the rules, it says to "eliminate traitors" and they lose the game. Because it uses the phrase "eliminate", I would say those players are basically null and void - any cards they have are basically ignored from that point. The treaty they made was betrayed and is no longer in effect.

Thus, I would say that when it says the "lowest number card", it's implicitly saying that only those cards possessed by players that remain in the game are considered. This implication is reinforced by the fact that it says the lowest number card wins; if the lowest number card was a traitor, that would mean, by a strict and draconian interpretation, that they lose, but then they win. Obviously, this is not the intent.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying that I'm almost certain that the intent was that the "Determine Strongest Alliance" was meant to only look at treaty cards:
- that were not possessed by traitors
- that were not possessed by one of the objective winners, in the case of a Loyalist shared victory.

IE, to me, it seems clear the intent was that you only look at those cards remaining for those still in contention at that point.


I think if one were to interpret the rule as meaning otherwise, it would destroy the entire treaty part of the game, and from what I can tell, that's a very big part of what the scenario is about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff S
United States
New York
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
So in a four player game, everyone can win!
 
 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
sirjonsnow wrote:
So in a four player game, everyone can win!

Alas, no, because in a 4-player game you remove the Loyalist objective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wyatt J
msg tools
mb
I've also been puzzling over the "Support of the People" Objective. Specifically, how anyone could manage to pull it off without arousing too much suspicion. In the Manual it says that the description text on Alliance cards, such as "Attack the Player to my Right.", has no real impact on the game-- though it can serve as a recommendation.

However, I think the following would serve as good rules pertaining to this--

(1) You cannot give a player an alliance card that tells them to attack themselves in the description text.

(2) You cannot give another player the "defend me" #1 alliance card unless you have been in combat with a third party earlier in that game round, thus having a legitimate reason to request this aid.

This just seems fair in keeping with the spirit of the cards. If these rules are in effect, a player is more likely to understand why they are given a #3 or even a #4 Alliance card; rather than having them just reject it out of hand as not a serious offer or a solid indication that they have the "Support of the People" objective.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zack S.
United States
Honolulu
Hawaii
flag msg tools
mbmb
No one should ever be a traitor because it gives them no benefit. Once you accept a second treaty, other than asking one of your partners to re-treaty you because you weren't really that loyal you can't get down to just one. Traitor-elimination is really just a complicated way to say "each player can only have one treaty at a time" because the rule should really never be invoked.

I don't see any problem with receiving a #2 treaty as long as my friend doesn't give out any others. Unless you're being completely useless to their ascension there isn't really any reason for them to screw you late in the game by swapping to someone else, and if you were being useless then it's a good thing for them to be able to ditch you. Earn your keep and it shouldn't matter if you got a #7.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Teik Chooi Oh
United Kingdom
Chorley
Lancashire
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KalKraken wrote:
Played Fall of the Empire once, with the house rule that Traitor's treaty holder couldn't win if it was their HS that the Traitor took.


played this yesterday and exact thing happened when I won as Traitor after conquering my Treaty Holder's HS after he failed in attempt to conquer Emperor (I had his no.1 Treaty so was supporting his bid initially but did position myself to be able to take his HS if he failed, which he did)

same house rule played so alas conquered player just claimed a 'moral'victory ;-) is there no Official ruling on it?
i
liked the scenario, kept it very interesting till the end
 
 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.