Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dreepa

  1. Mmhh... I assume it is just there for covering edge cases no one has thought off. To make extra sure. I don't see any way for it to happen with the base game.
  2. Works fine, but in rare occasions, where the objectives line up perfectly for one player so rush them with imperial, it can actually end quickly. Though it would require an experienced player to do so.
  3. He was playing it wrong. The text on the card is not supporting his move and there is no room for interpretation.
  4. hooliganj -6UTC For the timing - there is always, always, always, ALWAYS a timing window where you can respond to things. This even overrides the use of "immediately" when it comes to the end of combat.
  5. If you are missing 34 cards it would fit: The game has 17 races. Each of them have 2 racial technology cards. 2x17 = 34. Racial technologies can be both, race-specific technologies, and race-specific unit upgrades.
  6. I think the better approach would be if you name us situations you have in mind, and we analyse them. Generally, it is a bit fuzzy, as the term "immediately" is not defined by rules, but as a general idea you can look at the round-structure on the command token sheet, and check if both player involved in the deal can do it in the same line of that structure. Like: "If I move my ships here, you will not shoot PDS at me?" -> Cannot happen at the same time. Non-binding deal. Move ships comes before PDS fire. So PDS fire is happening later than the request for the deal. When having moved all ships into the system, and going to the PDS fire step: "If I give you 1 trade good, you will skip your PDS fire phase" -> Can happen immediately, aka binding, the moment the PDS player takes the trade good, he forfeits his PDS shots. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
  7. Another thread on objectives: I realized how people I play with get all excited about objectives scored during the action phase, as they are more surprising and require dynamic play. It always brings more life to the table. Winning a game through them feels much less static, then the usual scoring in the status phase, where it's all about getting the best initiative. So for a possible add-on, it would be cool to extend on that mechanic. Maybe even allow for a way to have players take a look at one enemy secret objective, through a special game play rule (e.g. have a ship in their home system). I think overall this game mechanic is a great part of the game, it makes it more fluid and engaging. Hope to see more in that area!
  8. So I have played quite a lot of TI4 games recently, probably about 15, and I ve notices that the amount of games where the objective to control 6 planets had been scored is really low. Either, the player that scored it had started with many of that type in his slice, and could pull it off, or it wasn't scored. 3 games where Ghosts were part of, and it would seem like a perfect objective for their mobility, didn't score it. Their lack of general military never allowed them to scatter that much. If it was scored, it was by a player who just had a really good streak and walked all over the galaxy, which rarely happened. Comparing that to other objectives, like tech objectives, that are guaranteed and cannot be taken away (as in: you cannot stop someone from scoring them, once they got the techs, but you can stop conquer-objectives) it seems that these objectives are inferior and not attractive enough. What is your experience with it?
  9. That seems like a fun idea, taking the approach of an "after death" game-play. Lots of ideas could be explored there. I like that thinking. That made me think of a "semi-death" state, like you could become part of the empire that eliminated you. You are now a vassal of them. A proxy for their interest and stakes. Meaning that "absorbing" an enemy into your empire would make you stronger through game-play mechanics, while the absorbed player could still be in control of some planets and fleets. all his votes must go to the empire leader and all technology researched is automatically shared. The empire leader gets to choose a strategy card for you, and he can veto any fleet move you want to make. On the other hand, the empire ruler would need some sort of upkeep cost to mange the vassal. Some condition maybe. Have at least X groundforces on the home system of that player, and pay 1 CC every round or something like that. Other players could then try to "liberate" that homesystem, or the vassal could start a "rebellion" by having twice the amount of GF on the homeworld and paying 2CC. There is a lot of stuff one could brainstorm and come up with for such rules. Endless Space 2, which is a 4x computer strategy game, also has a nice mechanic: Keeping up war as a state between 2 factions requires you to pay influence. You rarely can eliminate someone without triggering an automatic "peace treaty" before that, which is triggered when a war is taking too long, or one side has made considerable advancements. The defeated faction will automatically offer peace, loosing the planets that were conquered during the war. The victor then has to choose to accept the peace, or pay influence cost to keep it going. The more losses the more unhappy the people get. And absorbing foreign population into your empire has other implications. I would love for TI4 to get some form of abstract treaty system rule-set with states such as cold war, war, vassal, hidden war etc. that all have different affects on the parties involved. But to keep this intuitive and elegant would be a real challenge for the game design, I reckon.
  10. Maybe their bad statistics correlate with bad players choosing them? I don't know. In our RL rounds, they were always pretty good, by waging war from the get go, and fighting every fight they could get. In the end, that race bonus only matters if you throw A LOT of dice. The more you roll, the more the bonus factors in, statistically speaking. So maybe for Sarakk, it is not just about scoring VP, but even more about making your neighbors NOT score VP, by constant pressure.
  11. Hi, so TI4, I think, made a step in the right direction. It threw out a lot of unnecessary overhead stuff, streamlined research, and generally understood that playability and game-flow comes before "lets push another of those insane ideas we got into the game, independent of implications". The action deck got smaller, and reliability of stuff is higher. Politics card have less useless stuff, and agenda phase re-design is gorgeous. So overall, I am happy with TI4. However, there is one thing I still am not convinced about: The way I think about it is this: 6 players gather to meet the whole day to spend a lot of time together. They reserve that day, and do a huge commitment. On top of this, since this is not a computer game, but a social experience, you also have that extra factor of "having a fun time together" in there. This approach, in my opinion, is totally contradicting any game design philosophy that works with elimination. I have done it, I have been on the receiving end, and ultimately, I have to say that this aspect of the game just does not fit for an hours game event where people come together to have fun. The person loosing it's home-system is frustrated, and has nothing to do, and the person doing it is maybe feeling remorse/regret. For more sensible personalities, being "a nice person" and not going for the kill, might actually cost them the game or otherwise make them play a less strong game. In the end, I am convinced that such elimination game-play has nothing to do in a modern 2018 board game, and the euro-games design shows this. Games are fun till the end, and even the losers take part in it, till the game comes to a conclusion with all participants being part of the game round at the end. Imho this approach would be much better for a TI game, given the investment players do to play one match. My 2 cent.
  12. Well, pretty simple really. They have no tech and +1 to all combat rolls. So in order to use their advantage the most, you need to fight and use many units. Statistically speaking, the more you roll the more you benefit from your race bonus
  13. First game done, second to come tomorrow. I agree with BigKahuna so far. Game was quite different compared to TI3. We actually got stuff done. When ppl see how everyone rises on that victory board, tension starts. That's the key. My impression compared to TI3 was, that less time is spend at the lower VP stages. It's basically just a psychological thing: When you see all player at low VP till mid game (as is the case in TI3), you keep your options open. You play opportunistic. You play towards your own agenda. But when you see everyone race to the 4th VP in turn 3 already, and then to 6 VPs in turn 5, you feel pressured. Everyone at the table starts to doubt his own plan, everyone starts to get wary of how much time is still left and how close victory already is. The logical consequence is to get out of your comfort zone and do something about it. It encourages less parallel "each for his own" play and increases concerns about someone winning the game much earlier. Therefore is also means less material overall on the board when stuff gets going. Kind of equalizing the curve over a broader time-frame. Steady gains vs spikey VP hops.
  14. Well, yes, you are right. I tend to get carried away in such discussions. Of course I appreciate the time anyone over at FFG spends to help us out here and clarify stuff. It's just that I work in design myself (video games) and it always gives me a headache why they do some things the way they do them... I still appreciate their level of customer support and attitude towards the fans though. When I lost a dice for my Descent 2 game, they sent a replacement to Germany from the US, and they charged me ZERO. Good company!
  15. Your PDS can be used in another players turn, when he activates a system. Ships move into that system first though.
  16. The results are the same only when you look at it from a rather superficial standpoint, given that you can use Dreads/Warsuns to bombard, use tech (like you mention), or related action cards.
  17. So since one of the FFG Designers ruled that Ground Forces used as "ships" are actually exempted from checking against fleet supply, my question is: Can we utilize unlimited Ground Forces? One possible strategy would be to flood Mecatol Rex with Ground Forces. Eventually having a swarm of like 20 GF on the planet and using them to defend in any space combat. Valid?
  18. Very true words @BigKahuna TI design is very "gut feeling design". It is not very methodical (e.g. like Magic the Gathering, which works very well for the gazillion of possible conflicts that can occur). It is possible to find a semantic and syntax for rules that are clear and not ambiguous. but it requires a different approach. You have the intention of a game design, which is the soul. Just like everyone can write a good melody with some imagination and talent. But then there is another component which I call "the craft". The melody will never become a good song, if you not learn the craft to bring your concept from melody to a full fledged song that is well recorded. FFG has the talent, and they have the ideas. But they always lack in the "craft" department when it comes to doing solid semantics and syntax. They use the English language to casually and too loose. A much more "programmer" like approach would help them. Using phrases like "treats X as if it were Y for the duration of Z" should not even come up in a designers mind (except for the first idea phase). It should immediately be translated towards the game's language and the framework the game runs in. So if you do it description based (as opposed to execution based): "At the start of phase A, all X are no longer M, but become N. This effect ends at the end of phase B." Or if you do it execution based (aka instruction based), which usually help with conflicts a lot: "At the start of phase A remove any number of G from the board and put an equal amount of S tokens into that system. S has the following values: "BLABLA" and is of type Z. At the end of phase B remove any remaining S and put an equal amount of G at any place in the system." I find it just really "hobby design" like to use terms as "treat it like - for the purpose of" or terms like "as if". Sure, less text, but so much ambiguity. PS: Same goes for wordings that are not precisely defined. TI4 is STILL using wordings like "turn" or "combat". When instead it should always use "Round" or "Action" and "Space Combat" or "Invasion". Even if that means that a text needs to say things redundantly. It really is not comprehensible how things like that did not get any attention in the 4th installment of a game.
  19. That Dane Beltrami just says "Yes" without any reasoning... I really dislike that. They just come along and act by authority, instead of acting by example and reason. Sure, they probably have other stuff to do as well, but to me (working in the field, but pc games) it is just bad practice towards establishing a mindset. You should always make people understand your position, not just impose it. As for the topic at hand in point No.1: If the ability would not allow to exceed fleet pool, I would consider it one of the worst flagships in the game. So from a balance point of view it makes a lot of sense to rule it that way. However, in regards to rule environment that answer is clearly a violation of the fleet supply rule, which is checked AT ANY TIME. Space combat is not excluded from "ANY TIME" so treating an entity as a ship during space combat would also trigger a fleet supply check. Therefore the developers answer is not consistent. The design of the flag ship card needs to be revamped and the sentence "Ground forces used this way do not count towards the player's fleet supply" needs to be added for it to be consistent.
  20. I think it would help if you put the exact wording of the card here.
  21. So it changed from TI3 I guess? I think in TI3 the rule was about checking Fleet-Supply at the end of the turn. In TI4 it says:
  22. Hi, a friend of mine said you can exceed fleet supply for a moment, when doing space combat. I can't find it in the rules. Is it true or false? Thanks!
  • Create New...