Jump to content



Photo

Cosmic Encounter FAQ being updated!


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:43 AM

Are you referring to the Siren alien power sheet? Mine says "Not Main Player."

Edit: Alright I did some digging. It seems it may have been fixed on a reprint of the expansion. Which means its prime FAQ material. Thank you!

 

If the reprint actually says "Not Main Player," that's still not correct. The correct icon would be "Not Main Player or Ally." Normally it wouldn't matter, but if some other effect were to allow/force Siren become an ally early, then she shouldn't be able to use her power.



#42 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:50 AM

 

When a card's effects are triggered by a player winning or losing an encounter by a certain amount, some cards (such as the Spiff) specify that the effect only trigger if both players play Attack cards; but for those which don't specify this, do these effects trigger if a player loses by playing a Negotiate card? That is to say, if a player plays a Negotiate and their adversary plays and Attack 12, does the former player lose by 12 points as if they had played a 0 for the purposes of these effects, or does the automatic win not count as having an attack value, and therefore not trigger these cards? (The latter method is how we chose to interpret this, as it seems less likely to create ambiguities, and is consistent with the deliberate wording of cards like the Spiff power which do specify.)

 

Your interpretation is what we use as well, and for the same reason.  If we were to try to count Negotiates as zeroes for "win by" calculations, some cases would get downright ridiculous: like, did Pacifist just win by negative 12?  Yuck.

 

Some clarifications about Trader.

 

The power says "before encounter cards are selected"

 

1) Can the trader announce a Kicker and then trade hands?

 

2) After Chronos uses its power, the encounter goes back to the planning phase and encounter cards are chosen again.  Can the trader then choose to trade hands, and if so, does the "set aside card" count as part of the trader's hand?

 

#2 Example: Chronos plays an attack 14 and the Trader plays an attack 23 (the Trader chose not to switch hands).  Chronos freezes the Trader's 20 and it is placed to the side.  Now it goes back to the planning phase again.  At this point, the Trader would like to switch hands.  The way we have ruled it is that the "set aside" card remains set aside and the trader swaps his or her current hand with the Chronos player.

 

3) More generically, if any power causes one or more main players to select an encounter card again, does this give the trader the opportunity to use its power? (Assuming Trader is a Main Player or using the Super)

 

4) Is the Trader Super flare considered to be in the player's hand when the hand is traded, thus losing the super just by using it once?  It seems like not since it is considered in play, but this might deserve clarification.

 

  1. Yes.  All "before encounter cards are selected" actions (including both Trader's power and playing a Kicker) can occur in any order between the start of the phase and the actual selection of cards, subject of course to the Timing Conflicts rule.
     
  2. Set-aside cards are not part of a hand.
     
  3. There seems to be an unwritten general rule (which should probably go into the FAQ) that most powers can be used "once per specified context." If there is a repeat of the planning phase, I'd say the specified context came up again and Trader can use his power again. (This is also consistent with the time-travel theme; and the fact that Chronos says "All other cards played since the start of the planning phase return to their owners' hands" implies a general reset for everything Planning-related except the opponent's card.)
     
  4. No, an in-progress flare, just like a set-aside card, is not part of the hand. The first FAQ actually states this:

Q: After you play a flare, at what point does it re-enter your hand?

A: Immediately after resolving its effect. So, for instance, when playing the Oracle Wild flare, you play the flare faceup in front of you, mix your hands together, get your new hand at random from the mixed cards, and then return the Oracle flare to your hand (since its effect is now finished).

 

If Loser declares an Upset against Industrialist it seems that Loser almost always wins, because if he wins the encounter, he can "allow Industrialist to win" and then "after all other games effects are resolved" turn this loss into a win. Since Industrialist was allowed to win, he cannot add his attack card to his stack. Charming, but is this interpretation correct?

 

Yes, that's exactly right.

 

I don't think this needs to go into the FAQ, since it is the direct result of applying the card texts. (If the FAQ included all of those kinds of weird interactions, there would be hundreds, if not thousands.)


Edited by Just_a_Bill, 03 January 2014 - 04:38 PM.

  • CosmicBerlin likes this

#43 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:36 PM

5) The Butler wild flare. If player A hands the current encounter to player B, does player A have a second encounter if player B wins their encounter?

 

6) The Butler wild flare: any thoughts on the situation of player A handing the encounter over to player B, but player B drawing player A's colour during the destiny phase of the encounter? Clearly, player A cannot ally against themself, so assuming that player B's success gives player A a second encounter, this could lead to the rather odd situation of player A simultaneously winning and losing an encounter. Not exactly game-breaking, but definitely odd, and possibly best dealt with somehow.

 

In one of your sessions we too were uncertain how to interpret it. "After the encounter ends, play resumes from where it left off." is confusing.

 

Wild Butler has several problems and is a good candidate for errata.

 

As the offense, at the start of your regroup phase, you may choose another player to be the offense for this encounter by saying "After you, I insist." The encounter is then carried out as usual, except that player must invite you to ally with him or her if possible. After the encounter ends, play resumes from where it left off. If that player wins or deals, it counts as a successful encounter for you.

 

The "if possible" should take care of the situation where the flareholder ends up as the defense (and thus should not ally), as well as any future things like Negator or Silencer or whatever that might interfere with invitations. "Play resumes from where it left off" is problematic, since where play "left off" before the flare was used was in your Regroup phase! We certainly don't want to resume from there.  Where we want to "resume" from is whatever would normally happen next if the flareholder had just finished winning or losing an encounter like his proxy did.  If it was in lieu of his first encounter and his proxy won (or if he is the Machine, Lightning, etc.), then he can have another encounter. Otherwise, his turn is over.

 

According to its text, the flare flare is not inserting an extra encounter; it is allowing you to pick somebody else to "be the offense" for that encounter. So it still functions as your first or second encounter of your turn.

 

1) The Observation Platform: the expression "after alliances are formed" could be interpreted as meaning (as we have always interpreted it) "after the alliance phase", but another literal interpretation could be "after an alliance phase in which at least one alliance has been formed" (an even more literal interpretation could even be "after an alliance phase in which at least two alliances have been formed", but I'd guess that's almost certainly not what was meant). Is the idea that the effect can be used whenever an encounter occurs in which that player is not involved, or only when other alliances are actually formed?

 

 

"After alliances are formed" cannot actually mean after the alliance phase, because effects with this label almost always have an Alliance icon, meaning it must happen during the alliance phase.  Phrases like these effectively establish sub-phases within the phases.  For example, from a timing perspective the Alliance phase has at least five distinct sub-phases:

  1. "before allies are invited"
  2. offense invites allies; defense invites allies
  3. "after allies are invited but before alliances are formed"
  4. allies accept/decline
  5. "after alliances are formed"

An "after alliances are formed" effect does not require that any alliances were actually formed. All of these kinds of phrases are trying to pin down the timing, not set requirements on previous actions.

 

2) The Citadel: can its power be used more than once a turn if multiple Destiny cards are drawn (for example when a player draws their own colour and decides to redraw)? Or, again, should this instead be interpreted as "at the end of the destiny phase" (which is how we've been playing it)?

 

I think there is an unwritten rule that most powers work "once per specified context."  Citadel starts out with "During each player's turn...", which seems to establish the context.  Now, I believe that what the writer actually intended was "During each player's encounter" and thus Citadel is another alien that needs errata, but that's a separate point.  Either way, I don't think this particular effect gets to work after each destiny draw, since the reference to destiny seems to be establishing when it happens rather than the interval in which is can be used one time. The interval seems to be "during each turn/encounter" (whichever was actually intended).

 

1) Are the the nine flare cards Chrysalis "discards" after using its power placed on the discard pile or removed from the game? (more or less a rhetorical question aimed at errata for Chrysalis)

 

Completely agree that this one also needs errata. Certainly the author did not intend for them to all go into the discard pile and enter play! This should say "Then, remove the other nine flare cards from the game and ..."

 

2) When Spiff crash lands a ship, can Fungus capture it? Fungus' power explicitly says: "game effects that would save ships from the warp, such as Zombie's or Healer's power, cannot prevent this" and Spiff's power seems to be such an effect.

 

Agreed. Fungus trumps every ship-saver.

 

3) FAQ 1.0 establishes that Shadow uses it's power for each destiny card drawn even if the offense draws more than one. Just to make sure: does this apply to Disease and Poison, too?

 

Yes, those powers are very clear. Disease says "whenever any other player's color ... is drawn" and Poison says "each time a card with a hazard ... is drawn." (I don't think these need to waste space in the FAQ.)



#44 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 03 January 2014 - 04:37 PM

 

1) If Fungus captured Vacuum's ships and this stack is sent to the warp, can Vacuum use his power?

 

No, for several reasons. First, Fungus says "Captured ships do not have special characteristics." Second, Vacuum says "When you lose ships to the warp," but in this case you aren't losing them; Fungus is.

 

But even without those texts, I think there has to be an unwritten rule that when your ship is captured, it is no longer "yours" for normal purposes; it's only "yours" to the extent that certain game effects need to know who the original owner was, so that you can rescue it with a rescuing effect such as Super Symbiote, or so that something like Remote knows which player to victimize. In other words, a captured ship is only "yours" in the context of capturing-related effects. Otherwise, for the time being it's more of a marker, token, or prop than a fully-fledged ship.

 

This is what the FAQ should focus on: writing the unwritten rules, the general principles, that help players answer lots of questions for themselves, rather than listing 20 pages of individual spot rulings that have to be individually consulted and that often end up contradicting each other.

 

1) What happens if you use Leviathan Wild flare and choose one of Pygmy's planets to be exchanged? Does the planet that enters Pygmy's home system become a Pygmy planet resulting in the evacuation of the surplus ships and does the leaving planet lose its ship limit? You could argue the answer is No, because Pygmy's power description says: "there can never be more than four ships on any of your planets", but not "home planets" and a planet changing its size is hard to imagine.

 

2) Same question as above: What happens when The Claw steals one of Pygmy's planets.

  1. "Your planets" has to mean "home planets." There are several effects that move planets around, and none of them try to make the planet still be a home planet for you while in another player's system. Tracking this would be a big headache. So moving a planet to a different system means it's now treated as if began in that system.

    I realize this doesn't make sense for Pygmy; a planet changing size is indeed very hard to imagine. But that alien power doesn't really make sense in the first place. It should have been implemented as a special system (assuming such things ever materialize in this edition) rather than an alien power, because the entire effect has nothing to do with the aliens and everything to do with the special properties of their system. So a variety of storyline disconnects are going to happen with Pygmy no matter what, and theme can't be used to answer gameplay questions, nor should Pygmy's profoundly atypical design be allowed to corrupt the General Principle (which, again, needs to be written somewhere!).
     
  2. Same answer: it becomes a normal planet in The Claw's system. To do otherwise is simply too much of a headache to be worth the trouble.

The next FAQ should definitely codify a general rule that when a planet moves to another system, it becomes a home planet in that system.

 

1) When Trader exchanges hands, do the rifts of his new hand detonate?

 

And also more generally: do rifts detonate if passed as part of a successful negotiation? That is to say, if I agree to swap cards with another player after both playing Negotiate encounter cards (or as part of a Galactic Council hazard etc.), can I sneakily pass them a few rifts to destroy their fleet?

 

I assume that rifts you give away do not explode since "giving" is not the same as "taking". If it were the same, playing Philanthropist would be even more powerful than it is already. Exchanging hands is somewhat a special case, therefor I am interested in a ruling on Trader the most.

 

I've spent a lot of analysis time on this one. The first big problem is that the rules say "taken and not discarded" when they actually needed to say "taken and kept." Discarding isn't the only thing that prevents detonation; you might give the card away to somebody else, or remove it from the game, or place it facedown on the bottom of the deck, etc.

 

After thorough analysis of many effects, I came to the conclusion that the way to make consistent interpretations that make intuitive sense is like this:

 

A rift detonates if
  • it comes from another player and

  • you receive it to keep and

  • you are specifically “taking” the card or it was your action that caused you to receive it.

A rift does not detonate if
  • it doesn’t come from another player or

  • you don’t keep it or

  • it wasn’t your “fault” that it came into your possession and nothing defined that you were “taking” it.

If a game effect says you are taking a card, then of course you are taking a card. But sometimes you are still taking a card even if that specific word isn’t used. For example, compensation is always understood to be taking cards; even though it’s not always your intention to play a negotiate or to gain compensation, you are still taking compensation nonetheless. As another example, when Trader trades hands, he is giving his hand to (say) Macron and taking Macron’s hand, so rifts in Trader’s new hand would denotate. Macron is losing his hand to Trader and receiving Trader’s hand, so rifts in Macron’s new hand would not detonate (Macron is not actively taking cards, just receiving them). This interpretation is based on the understanding that Trader’s part is voluntary and Macron’s part is involuntary, helping us to align the outcome to the (presumed) intent.
 
Applying these principles results in the following specific outcomes:
 
Rifts do not detonate...
  • When touched via Wild Vulch if you discard rather than keep them.
  • When touched via Wild Industrialist.
  • When acquired via Wild Chronos or Super Mite (you took them from the discard pile, not from a player). [Although in the case of Super Mite, exactly where you took them from is debatable!]
  • When you are forced to discard one via Wild Hate.
  • When collected as compensation if you use Wild Barbarian to discard them.
  • When given to you by PhilanthropistWild EthicPatriot, or Wild Trader.
  • When you receive them because of Trader giving you his hand.
Rifts do detonate...
  • When collected as compensation, even if you had no choice in card selection because you had to take every card in the player’s hand (you are still taking compensation).
  • When taken by MutantWild MutantOutlawWild Trader, or Barbarian (Wild Barbarian does not apply in these cases).
  • When acquired by Trader taking another player’s hand.
Rifts get messy...
  • When randomized during an exchange such as by you using Wild Oracle.
    • None detonate for your opponent (you are explicitly “giving” cards to him).
    • If you take any rifts of a value that you didn’t have before, they all detonate.
    • If you end up with more rifts of a particular value than you had before (i.e., having both Rift 4 cards when you started with only one of them), the extra one detonates.
    • If each player started with one of the Rift 4 cards and both players ended up with one of them, you should just assume that they did not trade hands since there’s no way to prove otherwise.

1) If both main players reveal identical attack cards, does The Claw choose from whom it steals the planet, if they are identical to the card on its sheet? (Probably, what other options are there?)

 

2) If one main player reveals an attack and the other a Morph card, does The Claw choose from whom it steals the planet, if the attack card is identical to the card on its sheet?

  1. Exactly; there is no other option. So not a FAQ question.
     
  2. Now this one is a BIG question that was debated a lot on BoardGameGeek. There are many, many related questions all stemming from cards being modified in various ways. In short, does a modified card count as its original identity or its modified identity when something else references it? The conclusion we came to, after considering lots of modifying effects and lots of effects that refer to modified cards (and their intended outcomes), is "it depends." Phil Fleischmann articulated the General Principle that makes everything work smoothly and pretty much the way you would expect from an intuitive perspective:

Unless otherwise specified, game effects that strictly affect encounter resolution — meaning those effects that impact encounter card types/values, kickers, reinforcements, main player totals, the method of determining the winner and loser, deals, compensation, rewards, and disposition of the involved ships such as landing on the planet, returning to colonies, going to the warp, etc. — all refer to the card’s current, modified type/value. Every other kind of game effect refers to the card's original, printed type/value (a.k.a. its “ink”).

 

(When a card is physically replaced by another card, then all effects would of course use the new card.)

 

So to answer your question, The Claw treats the morph as a morph and not as the attack card it is copying, because The Claw's power is not affecting the encounter's resolution; it's just a separate effect that is using the revealed cards as a trigger. So The Claw can only grab a planet from the player with the actual attack card.

 

3) Reborn's description says: "you may use this power to draw a card.", but unlike Remora omits "from THE deck". Was this done intentionally to allow Reborn to draw from the Rewards deck or is it an oversight? (I think it would be overpowered.)

 

This is another oversight on the Cosmic Incursion rulesheet, but we learned from CI playtesters that the intention was apparently that "the deck" always means the cosmic deck. If an effect intends to allow both the cosmic and reward decks, then it needs to say something like "the appropriate deck" or "any deck" or "the deck it came from" or whatever makes sense.

 

For example, Gambler needs errata to say "then place your encounter card facedown on the bottom of the appropriate deck instead of discarding it" so that it isn't forced to put reward cards under the cosmic deck.


Edited by Just_a_Bill, 03 January 2014 - 04:39 PM.


#45 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 09:02 AM

4) What is to be done when turning over the Invader's destiny cards if the Invader has lost their power? Are they skipped and redrawn?

 
Skipped and redrawn seems to be the simplest thing to do, but it should be on the card.
 
Another problem with Invader is the counting of encounters. It's very important to know which encounter a player is on (1st, 2nd, etc.) because this determines whether or not you get to continue your turn, and also needs to be known for effects like Lightning, Wild Lightning, Wild Machine, and Temporal Matrix.
 
But Invader says "After you have an extra encounter due to an 'Invasion!' destiny card, the player who drew it during his or her turn receives another encounter." The word "another" clearly means that a new encounter is starting, so if the player had been on his first encounter, when Invader is finished the original player is now on his second. Surely that must not have been the intent, since Invader's encounter is clearly called an extra encounter, and it really should be treated as such for consistency with all the other effects that grant extra encounters. Also, this cheats the original player out of one of his encounters.
 
Invader probably needs errata to say "After you have an extra encounter due to an “Invasion!” destiny card, the player who drew it during his or her turn restarts his or her encounter."

 

7) The Meteor Storm hazard. The card says that the combined totals for the encounter must exceed 25. Is this intended to be the full totals, as worded, or just the total of the attack cards? This seems clear, but it does seem to be asked quite frequently when players come across this card for the first time, so clarification might be useful.

 
This should be the full totals, for consistency with everything else. Best not to muddy the waters by having two different kinds of encounter totals.
 

Another thing that I think needs to be clarified: what to do, exactly, when a race card includes a "Do Not Use With..." text?

 

(In fact, it's not even literally clear from the wording on the card whether it means not to use these powers in the same game, or not to combine them as a result of Precursor Seed, etc. - but I think it is fairly obvious that it means that they shouldn't be used in the same game... Perhaps this should also be clarified?)

 

Is the idea simply that the player (or players) with the "Do Not Use With..." instruction, on revealing their power/s and finding the conflict, discard their card/s and redraw a new one at random? Obviously, it would be unfair to give the player/s a choice of two new cards to pick from, given that they're now aware of the other players' choices.

 

For simplicity, this should mean "do not have the powers together in the same game in any way": not used opposing each other, not used together, not chosen at the start of the game, and not brought in later by some other effect.

 

It's unfortunate if a player loses his starting choices altogether just because somebody else has the alien that knocks his out, so I would recommend allowing at least a minimum choice:

 

During Game Setup, if a conflict arises because of a Do Not Use restriction, the alien that has the printed restriction is removed from the game. (The one without the restriction remains in play.) The affected player may then choose either to use the second alien he or she was dealt and rejected, or to draw a replacement flare from the unused flare deck and become that alien (redrawing if another conflict arises, of course).

 
This way, the player at least has a choice. It's more limited than his original choice since he's choosing between an alien he rejected and an unseen random one, but on the other hand he now has the benefit of knowing what everyone else has chosen, and the one he rejected might even seem a bit more desirable now.

 

(Personally, I think that the ideal situation would be for these powers to be reworded so as to work well enough together that they don't need to include "Do Not Use With..." instructions at all; but if it's unavoidable that some powers must be kept exclusive, I think it would be more useful to reword the instruction on the card itself to clearly explain what to do when they are drawn in the same game; possibly as a "Game Setup" instruction, so as to avoid them coming into play as the result of "extra power" effects.)

 

Agree wholeheartedly. There are currently four such powers: Coordinator, Gambler, Magician, and Sadist. Gambler and Magician have really easy fixes to work with Sorcerer and Oracle, and players have been using the Gambler/Sorcerer fix for decades. The silly thing is, Magician already needs errata anyway so that it can coexist with its own flare, Wild Magician, which is guaranteed to be in the game! And the required errata will fix the Oracle interaction basically "for free." Here are the patches:

 

Add to Magician: If another game effect requires you to play your card first (e.g., Oracle, Wild Magician), you must do so. You then still use this power, but may not change the card you played.

 

Add to Gambler: If another game effect switches the encounter cards (e.g., Sorcerer), you may still bluff about the card you originally played, forcing your opponent to accept or challenge your claim about the card that he or she would now reveal. If another game effect forces you to show your card early (e.g., Oracle), you may use this power at that time.

 

Sadly, there's not really anything we can do about Sadist and Coordinator; they are pretty much stuck with their "tramp stamps."

 

Also, a lot of players have commented that Masochist really should say "Do Not Use with Healer." As much as I hate tramp stamps, I am forced to agree; Healer completely makes Masochist into a non-power.

 

1) The Schizoid wild flare: the card specifies that players swap home systems and colours (and therefore presumably all ships, including foreign colonies, but not hands, racial powers etc.?) - but some questions remain: what happens to ships currently engaged in researching Tech cards? The flare doesn't mention anything about swapping Tech cards, but as ships of the player's new colour may be on a Tech card, it makes sense to swap these along with the planets in the home system. And presumably, space stations should also be swapped even though not explicitly mentioned, since they are attached to the planets being swapped?

 

Space stations swap for sure, since they are already part of the home system.

 

Tech cards are not actually part of your home system, they are an aspect of the player, so errata will be required to define how they should be handled. Potential options include (a) swapping uncompleted techs, (b) swapping techs still being researched, © swapping all techs, (d) sending researching ships back to colonies, and (e) requiring researching ships to return to colonies and/or transfer to researchable techs of the new player (new owner's choice).

 

Wild Schizoid creates other problems, such as completely breaking aliens that say "This power cannot be lost, stolen..." (Horde, Pygmy, Symbiote). This is why the template was expanded in Cosmic Storm, and Roach and Swindler say "This power cannot be stolen, copied, or separated from your player color through any means." The FAQ should probably say that Horde, Pygmy, and Symbiote should be understood to have the same addition.

 

2) The Merchant's card specifies that the additional hired ships (cards) they can field can be lost as normal during the encounter, but return to the player's hand at the end of the encounter. However, "at the end of the encounter" is actually a little vague here, especially as many cards say "at the beginning of an encounter", but mean "at any point during the regroup phase" rather than specifically "at the start of a regroup phase". One time this is key is if using these ships to invade a planet with a Saboteur bomb: if the cards return after the encounter, then they would "land" on the planet and be destroyed; but if they are intended to return to the Merchant's hand as soon as the combat is over, then they are not affected by the bomb. Personally, I think that the best thematic interpretation would be that the cards return to the Merchant's hand before landing on the planet (they're hired guns, after all, rather than colonists!), saving them from the Saboteur's bomb; but as things are currently phrased, it could easily be interpreted either way.

 

I disagree that "at the start of an encounter" means any time during the regroup phase. Start means start; if you've done a bunch of regular regroup activities, then the start window has already passed. All start-of-phase activities have to be done before any other non-start-of-phase activities; similarly, all start-of-encounter activities have do be done before any other non-start-of-encounter activities.

 

Unfortunately you are correct about Merchant's timing, and hired ships do actually "land on the planet." This was a design flaw and has other problems besides Saboteur (think about Gorgon; yuck). So probably errata is appropriate here. Might as well fix that problem and the missing reference to capturing all in one shot; something along the lines of "Any hired ship that goes to the warp, is captured, or is removed from the game is discarded. Otherwise, hired ships become normal cards again and return to your hand at the end of the encounter instead of landing on a planet."

 

Hmm, now that I think about it, the following would be much more bullet-proof:

 

Any hired ship that should land on a planet becomes a normal card again and returns to your hand. All other hired ships are discarded.

 

This should take care of any weird situation that we forgot about or that comes along in the future.

 

(It's amazing how often analyzing a wording to figure out what is really the core thing we're trying to say will usually make it shorter!)

 

1) After an alien power has been cosmic zapped, do parts of the power that do not require a use still work or is the alien disabled entirely until the end of this encounter?

 

This is a tricky one. In general, zapping — or any other kind of power loss — has to shut off both use and non-use effects. (In previous editions of the game, there was no distinction between the two and so everything was deactivated.) Other ways to lose your power include having too few home colonies, and having it stolen/traded/discarded by something like Changeling, Wild Philanthropist, Plant, Wild Plant, Reincarnator, Wild Reincarnator, or Wild Sorcerer.

 

However, some aliens have certain "residual" or "automatic" or "cleanup" effects that still need to operate regardless of power loss. These are scheduled, enqueued, or required by a previous use of some other part of the game text, or needed for cleanup or to keep the game engine running. They continue to take effect regardless of power loss (mostly this only occurs if something weird makes you lose a home colony after your power has been used but before the "scheduled" effect completes).

 

Examples include Leviathan increasing his total after launching a worldship, and later sending that worldship back home, Loser affecting the encounter outcome after declaring an upset during Planning, Merchant counting hired ships in Reveal that were played during Planning and then returning or discarding those cards, Mirror reversing digits after declaring the reversal earlier, Seeker making an opponent honor the previously given answer, Deuce returning one of the revealed cards to hand, Fungus carrying his stacks around and then breaking them apart in the warp, Grudge’s opponents discarding their grudge tokens, and Locust counting devoured colonies even after the power is lost.

 

2) If a player draws from the Reward deck, may Remora use its power to draw a card from the Reward deck or the Cosmic deck or can it draw no card at all? In general: does any reference to "THE deck" or "THE discard pile" on any card exclude the Reward deck/discard pile?

 

After Cosmic Incursion came out, one of the playtesters told us that the internal instructions had been that "THE deck" always means just the cosmic deck. So Remora does not activate when a player draws from the reward deck (which is probably a good thing).

 

3) Can you force Warhawk into negociation by playing an Emotion Control artifact or can Warhawk use its power (again) to change the cards that are now treated as negociate cards into attack 00s?

 
Warhawk is an ongoing rules headache that is going to require some very careful analysis, with close attention paid to what General Principles are implied by the final ruling(s).  I'm almost certain that errata are going to be required to make this alien play well in the sandbox.
 

4) Are any cards exempted from a Cosmic Quake e.g. Miser's hoard, Cryo's cold storage etc?

 
I can't stress this enough: as stated on all the expansion-set rulesheets, a Cosmic Quake affects only hands, and nothing else. It does not touch a hoard, cold storage, citadel cards, Industrialist’s stack, The Claw’s claw, Cyborg's bionics, cards “set aside” by a game effect like Chronos or Wild Cryo, the encounter card stored under Quark Battery, flares on the table waiting to resolve, encounter cards on the table in the planning or reveal phase, etc.
 
Unfortunately, Kevin Wilson once said on BoardGameGeek that “no cards escape the quake.” I think he was trying to fix the “quake loop” problem (see below) but his statement has a number of unpleasant consequences. On the minor side, it means there need to be some patch rules and errata allowing things like The Claw and Cyborg to replenish their cards that otherwise would be gone for the rest of the game (since they only get replished via replacement). More major problems would include a series of rules to handle what happens when a quake scoops up one or more revealed encounter cards when the encounter is partially or fully resolved.
 
So I will fight this with my last breath: only hands, nothing else.
 
The "quake loop" problem is that the Cosmic Quake rule can create situations where somebody is in the middle of drawing for a certain effect and runs out of cards, but the Quake does not produce enough cards to finish the effect, so the player keeps drawing and quaking and drawing and quaking in an infinite loop. The solution to this is not to scoop up all cards in the game, since that creates even more and worse problems, but to amend the quake rule to say what happens when there aren't enough cards to give everyone an 8-card hand and still meet the demand of the current draw action.
 
I have a proposal for that which is both fun and Cosmic, that I will discuss in a later post.

Edited by Just_a_Bill, 04 January 2014 - 09:16 AM.


#46 MarkHB

MarkHB

    Member

  • Members
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 February 2014 - 04:03 PM

I'd like to suggest that you include a "real" printed copy of the updated and (hopefully) verified FAQ as part of the Cosmic Dominion expansion!  (Actually, I'd like to see a giant box with room to contain and organize a fully-expanded FFG CE set with an omnibus rulebook, as was done with Eon Expansion #9.)


Edited by MarkHB, 08 February 2014 - 04:09 PM.

  • CosmicBerlin likes this

#47 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 08:43 AM

include a "real" printed copy of the updated and (hopefully) verified FAQ as part of the Cosmic Dominion expansion

 

I for one do not want to spend any money on an FAQ in an expansion that I could instead download from the internet for free. Everything they put in the box costs money to print and ship. For whatever that FAQ would cost, I'd much rather have new content (even if it's just a new cardboard token, or one silver plastic ship to use for The Prometheus.) It's all about opportunity cost.


Edited by Just_a_Bill, 16 March 2014 - 08:43 AM.


#48 CosmicBerlin

CosmicBerlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 01 April 2014 - 01:21 AM

I have my doubts whether this FAQ will be released anytime soon, but for the sake of completeness I would like to copy over this fundamental question that was discussed on BGG:

 

Cosmic Conflict rules say:

 

During the destiny phase, if a player draws a destiny card with a hazard warning on it, then a hazard card is drawn before allies are invited, regardless of whether that destiny card is used or redrawn. Hazard warnings beyond the first drawn in an encounter have no effect. 
 
1) When is a hazard card actually drawn, immediately after a destiny card with a hazard warning is drawn or at the beginning of the alliance phase?

Edited by CosmicBerlin, 01 April 2014 - 01:24 AM.


#49 CosmicBerlin

CosmicBerlin

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 11:16 AM

One more question regarding the hazard deck. Cosmic Guardian says:

 

While The Cosmic Guardian is in play, all attack cards higher than 20 are considered to be negotiate cards.

 

1) Is this effect applied before and/or after card modifying effects like Graviton, Mirror, Tripler or Wild Human?



#50 jasonfalcon

jasonfalcon

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 June 2014 - 07:49 PM

Here is a question about timing that I just had today in a game we played. I was playing as the Dervish and my friend who we will call Sam was invited to ally. He joined as an ally, then I said I am using my power to switch hands between the three of us involved in the encounter(Myself, defense and Sam). As soon as I indicated this he played a Force Field card to stop his alliance and withdraw himself. At this point am I required to still use my power or can I say I am not going to use my power since the Dervishes power is a may use power? If I have a choice I might not want to switch with the defense because I wanted Sams cards from his hand.  I am just confused about this and how this would be resolved? Or does my power resolve before he is unable to withdraw as an ally and then he does so after.



#51 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 24 June 2014 - 01:30 PM

I was playing as the Dervish.... Sam ... joined as an ally, then I said I am using my power to switch hands between the three of us involved in the encounter(Myself, defense and Sam). As soon as I indicated this he played a Force Field card to stop his alliance and withdraw himself.

 

That isn't a legal play. Since you have already announced the use of your power, the only actions that can be played now are actions that cancel or otherwise modify your power use. So he could play Cosmic Zap, or something that says "if a player is about to take cards from you," or something else specifically related to your power. But his Force Field is not a specific response and thus has to wait for the current action to finish.

 

In other words, Cosmic Encounter does not have an "action stack" like, say, Magic the Gathering. Responses to actions (and responses to responses) of course can stack up, but "top-level" game actions have to wait their turn.



#52 jasonfalcon

jasonfalcon

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 10 July 2014 - 05:20 AM

Another Question. This one is about the saboteur. On the saboteur it says that you reveal your token when a ship "lands" on a planet with a token next to it. What constistutes landing on the planet? Obviously gaining a colony would but what about when a person is in the regroup phase and tries to put ships back onto a planet where they already have a colony? Does this constitute landing? What does it mean by landing. This must be more than just colonizing or else colonizing would have been the word used. What other situations might apply?



#53 PJSlavner

PJSlavner

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 10 July 2014 - 08:16 AM

Another Question. This one is about the saboteur. On the saboteur it says that you reveal your token when a ship "lands" on a planet with a token next to it. What constistutes landing on the planet? Obviously gaining a colony would but what about when a person is in the regroup phase and tries to put ships back onto a planet where they already have a colony? Does this constitute landing? What does it mean by landing. This must be more than just colonizing or else colonizing would have been the word used. What other situations might apply?

Any time a ship is put on the planet, it is landing.  Besides your regroup phase, more examples are putting ships on a colony after they allied with the winning defensive side, ships released by Mobius Tubes, ships placed on a colony after a successful deal, ships being swapped for each other by a flare (I cannot remember which one), and ships being returned after completing a tech card.  There might be other examples I have missed.



#54 Oatmeal

Oatmeal

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 01 September 2014 - 10:52 AM

I think a section on deals is important. Specifically, about whether or not specific stipulations on card or colony trades are mandatory.

 

My favorite interpretation:

 

During a deal, anything you agree to in a deal that has to do with card or colony trades is mandatory and must be carried out truthfully. When it comes to trading colonies or cards, you can only formally agree to something that you can actually fulfill.

 

For example, if I agree to give you "4 cards from my hand", I can give you any 4 cards because no specifics were given. If I say I will give you "one attack 40 and two attack cards higher than 17", then I must give you one attack 40 and two attack cards that are higher than 17.

 

As for colonies... if you agree to "colony for a colony" with no stipulations given, then seems like each player may form a colony anywhere the other player involved in the deal has ships, because no specific planet was agreed upon. But if you were to specify "you can have a colony on this specific planet" then that is where the ships must go

 

^ This  seems to be the most widely used interpretation by experienced players, and it is the most fun. I recommend making it a more explicit part of the rules in FFG Cosmic by adding it to the FAQ so all players can enjoy these nuances.

 

Also, here's a FAQ question (that is somewhat related to deals but has other applications as well)

 

Q: When a card or game effect (such as a deal or a Flare card) allows me to "establish a colony on a planet" can I do so using any number of ships I like?

 

[some powers really, really like having huge stacks of ships on a planet. Seems to me like there is nothing in the rules to stop you from making a deal with a player, o establish a colony using 15 of your ships; and I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, it's a fun tactic, but in my experience it seems "off" to some people and should probably be ruled on in a FAQ]


Edited by Oatmeal, 05 September 2014 - 02:24 AM.


#55 Oatmeal

Oatmeal

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 04:06 AM

Also, please errata the Remora in the new FAQ so that it can draw cards from the Rewards deck. It is too weak with the expansions but is easily fixed!


Edited by Oatmeal, 02 September 2014 - 04:06 AM.


#56 jasonfalcon

jasonfalcon

    Member

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:24 AM

Another question about the Mesmer. It says that it can play any artifact card as any other artifact card. I think this must be clarified because technically this includes the defender rewards artifacts (omnizap, finder, space junk etc...) from the way i interpret it. This can mean that it is able to discard any card to do an omnizap. Obviously it would still need to remove ships from the game like the card says but to me this seems too overpowered. Now, if it can only use the original artifacts (mobius tubes, ionic gas, emotional control, force field, card zap, cosmic zap and plague) then that seems fair to me.



#57 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 12:16 PM

Actually the design intent is that Mesmer can manufacture any aritfact that exists in the official FFG Cosmic Encounter gameplay universe. It's strong, yes, but not broken. Rolling his own Omni-Zaps requires Mesmer to pay two different costs: the ship loss, and the loss of an artifact that could have been used for another purpose. Plus he had to have an artifact in his hand in the first place.

 

Strong aliens like this also have "soft disadvantages" that are easy to overlook, such as the fact that his hand is a magnet for theft and destruction. Compensation, Finder, Hand Zap, Angler, Pickpocket ... other players will be very motivated to torch and raid Mesmer's hand often. In fact, a smart Mesmer finds ways to use his gifts to help other players also, and thus benefit from the resulting allegiances.

 

Finally, his power is already very dependent upon luck of the draw. Sometimes Mesmer will have almost no power at all due to not drawing artifacts.Quartermaster will deny him artifacts consistently. These limitations require that there be other times when his power is scary-good, so that it balances out over the long haul.


Edited by Just_a_Bill, 02 September 2014 - 12:21 PM.


#58 Big J Money

Big J Money

    Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 17 September 2014 - 09:18 PM

I've owned Cosmic a couple years and can't believe this issue didn't come up until tonight!

 

- Can you choose to have an encounter on a foreign planet where you already have a foreign colony?  What happens if you win?

 

What happened in our game is that some of us were in an "alliance" (hehe) and when each others' colors would come up, we would simply target planets where we already had a colony, thus not negatively impacting the player we had an encounter with.  This seemed like a cheesy tactic, because it overrides the destiny deck's purpose of forced encounters, and doesn't require any negotiate cards to lead to a peaceful outcome.

 

The way we house-ruled it was that if you win, you simply add your ships the number already present in the colony.

 

I forgot to add that we made this tactic SUPER cheesy because we would ask each other to be defenders in these encounters, thus we would all draw extra cards as defender rewards in these harmless encounters.

 

Our game was still fun, but I have to admit that I was part of that alliance-of-cheese.  It probably wasn't very much fun for the 2 people not involved.

 

- Can you make a deal to win a shared victory with someone? (i.e. trade for a 5th colony)

 

I told everyone no to this, but now I can't seem to find any justification. It actually looks like you can use a deal to trade for the 5th colony and win the game.  Which seems double cheesy to me!  My old group automatically played this way because we all found it so cheesy we couldn't believe it would be a rule.


Edited by Big J Money, 18 September 2014 - 07:08 AM.


#59 BaronVonSean

BaronVonSean

    Member

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 04:28 PM

The big thing that comes up in my playgroup is how to "randomize" the exchange of cards during compensation or the like.  Some of us feel that you should be able to just pick from the opponents hand even if they have different card backs which could influence your decision in hand, such as the defensive rewards deck.  The various cards that can hurt you when grabbed like the rifts or a -attack if you aren't a spiffy loser we feel adds a good decision making element to compensation like effects when choosing between the two card backs.  The other half of our group maintains that it should be truly random using some kind of blind shuffle mechanism.  It would be great to get an official ruling on this.  



#60 Just_a_Bill

Just_a_Bill

    Member

  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 18 September 2014 - 09:12 PM

The big thing that comes up in my playgroup is how to "randomize" the exchange of cards during compensation or the like ... if they have different card backs ...  It would be great to get an official ruling on this.  

 

This is resolved on the Cosmic Dominion rulesheet. You get to see the card backs and can thus focus on cosmic-back cards or reward-back cards.


  • BaronVonSean likes this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS