Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Twilight Imperium (Third Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Keeper of the Gates and no wormholes?!? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Adam Mitchell
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Okay, what happens when you have the Keeper of the Gates Secret Objective (I have at least 1 (non-fighter) ship in every system containing a wormhole) and no wormholes on the entire map? Can the player simply never fulfill it, so it's like he has no Secret Objective?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
d g
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Think I would just announce that up front and draw a new one.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott M.
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That card should not be in the objectives deck since the map was not created to be able to fulfill that objective.

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
atraangelis wrote:
That card should not be in the objectives deck since the map was not created to be able to fulfill that objective.


Strictly speaking there is no rule that says you should not include impossible objectives. In fact, you won't have any way of knowing that, because you draw Secret Objectives before building the map (Objectives in step 7 of setup, the map is built in step 9).

In fact, the rules don't have any provision for discarding or getting rid of such objectives at all.

That being said, I think MOST game groups would probably be sportsmanlike enough to allow you to discard and redraw if you pull a literally impossible objective like that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Conan Meriadoc
France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Isn't the "One non-fighter ship in every system with a wormhole" always fulfilled in this case ? That's certainly true for all of these systems...
I don't remember any clause specifying it has to be at least one ninja

Doesn't change the end result, though, in most game groups always-fulfilled objectives should also be discarded and redrawn !
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
Dystopian wrote:
Isn't the "One non-fighter ship in every system with a wormhole" always fulfilled in this case ? That's certainly true for all of these systems...
I don't remember any clause specifying it has to be at least one ninja

Hmm, good point; rather than being impossible, it's insanely easy
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Day

League City
Texas
msg tools
mb
Shall we keep a tally of how many times Keeper of the Gates is the topic of a post this year?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott M.
United States
Winter Springs
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sigmazero13 wrote:
atraangelis wrote:
That card should not be in the objectives deck since the map was not created to be able to fulfill that objective.


Strictly speaking there is no rule that says you should not include impossible objectives. In fact, you won't have any way of knowing that, because you draw Secret Objectives before building the map (Objectives in step 7 of setup, the map is built in step 9).

In fact, the rules don't have any provision for discarding or getting rid of such objectives at all.

That being said, I think MOST game groups would probably be sportsmanlike enough to allow you to discard and redraw if you pull a literally impossible objective like that.


You said what i meant to say Sigma, Thanks. If we build a map that has no wormholes as we have done before we remove that objective in our group.

Any yes there is no rule about removing objectives but if an objective is mechanically impossible to complete then yes.. another objective.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
Dystopian wrote:
Isn't the "One non-fighter ship in every system with a wormhole" always fulfilled in this case ? That's certainly true for all of these systems...
I don't remember any clause specifying it has to be at least one ninja


There is certainly some background support for the idea that "controlling all zero = win." Although my vote would be to call a mulligan anyway and make him pick something else.

Personally, I've never really like Secret Objectives much. In our games they almost never get claimed anyway and even when they are, they don't seem to add very much to the game other than "suprise! I get 2 more VPs!" Combine that with all the headaches that Keeper (in particular) seems to cause, and I begin to wonder why we don't just leave them ALL in the box. =P
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Mitchell
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Stewi wrote:
Dystopian wrote:
Isn't the "One non-fighter ship in every system with a wormhole" always fulfilled in this case ? That's certainly true for all of these systems...
I don't remember any clause specifying it has to be at least one ninja


There is certainly some background support for the idea that "controlling all zero = win." Although my vote would be to call a mulligan anyway and make him pick something else.

Personally, I've never really like Secret Objectives much. In our games they almost never get claimed anyway and even when they are, they don't seem to add very much to the game other than "suprise! I get 2 more VPs!" Combine that with all the headaches that Keeper (in particular) seems to cause, and I begin to wonder why we don't just leave them ALL in the box. =P


I would argue that what SO's add to the game are a long-term goal for each player to work toward which, if accomplished, greatly increases that player's chances of victory.

Also, I'm curious: Does your group use Imperial I, Imperial II, or Bureaucracy?
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
Stewi wrote:

Personally, I've never really like Secret Objectives much. In our games they almost never get claimed anyway and even when they are, they don't seem to add very much to the game other than "suprise! I get 2 more VPs!" Combine that with all the headaches that Keeper (in particular) seems to cause, and I begin to wonder why we don't just leave them ALL in the box. =P

Interesting. In almost all of my games, at least half the players achieve theirs, and they often really help the player win. I have seen many players win without achieving their SO, by aggressive pushing on making up the 2 points elsewhere, but it is definitely something of a critical potential in the games I've been in.

With the Shards' Preliminary Objectives, this helps a bit, too.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
atraangelis wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
atraangelis wrote:
That card should not be in the objectives deck since the map was not created to be able to fulfill that objective.


Strictly speaking there is no rule that says you should not include impossible objectives. In fact, you won't have any way of knowing that, because you draw Secret Objectives before building the map (Objectives in step 7 of setup, the map is built in step 9).

In fact, the rules don't have any provision for discarding or getting rid of such objectives at all.

That being said, I think MOST game groups would probably be sportsmanlike enough to allow you to discard and redraw if you pull a literally impossible objective like that.


You said what i meant to say Sigma, Thanks. If we build a map that has no wormholes as we have done before we remove that objective in our group.

Any yes there is no rule about removing objectives but if an objective is mechanically impossible to complete then yes.. another objective.


It's not impossible. There is zero wormholes so zero non fighters needed. It's automatic. Having said that a mulligan would be fairer to all.
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
Halfinger wrote:
atraangelis wrote:
sigmazero13 wrote:
atraangelis wrote:
That card should not be in the objectives deck since the map was not created to be able to fulfill that objective.


Strictly speaking there is no rule that says you should not include impossible objectives. In fact, you won't have any way of knowing that, because you draw Secret Objectives before building the map (Objectives in step 7 of setup, the map is built in step 9).

In fact, the rules don't have any provision for discarding or getting rid of such objectives at all.

That being said, I think MOST game groups would probably be sportsmanlike enough to allow you to discard and redraw if you pull a literally impossible objective like that.


You said what i meant to say Sigma, Thanks. If we build a map that has no wormholes as we have done before we remove that objective in our group.

Any yes there is no rule about removing objectives but if an objective is mechanically impossible to complete then yes.. another objective.


It's not impossible. There is zero wormholes so zero non fighters needed. It's automatic. Having said that a mulligan would be fairer to all.

I think in that context he wasn't referring to the Keeper of Gates specifically, but rather other objectives that may be rendered impossible. This really only applies to the Focused and Technocrat objectives, as they require controlling planets with tech specialties, and it's possible there aren't enough (especially Focused). Also, the Researcher Preliminary Objective could be potentially impossible (though that would be very rare), and even the Antagonist one (though that would be EXTREMELY rare to be rendered impossible, as that would mean no other player has planets next to their HS).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Grider
United States
Edmond
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Stewi wrote:
Dystopian wrote:
Isn't the "One non-fighter ship in every system with a wormhole" always fulfilled in this case ? That's certainly true for all of these systems...
I don't remember any clause specifying it has to be at least one ninja


There is certainly some background support for the idea that "controlling all zero = win." Although my vote would be to call a mulligan anyway and make him pick something else.

Personally, I've never really like Secret Objectives much. In our games they almost never get claimed anyway and even when they are, they don't seem to add very much to the game other than "suprise! I get 2 more VPs!" Combine that with all the headaches that Keeper (in particular) seems to cause, and I begin to wonder why we don't just leave them ALL in the box. =P


Oh man, I had an out of the blue win with completing a secret objective. It was only really out of the blue, though, because no one was paying attention to me even though I was in 2nd.
1 
 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.