Jump to content

Drinkdrawers

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Drinkdrawers

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Meridian, Idaho, United States
  1. There is a veritable smorgasbord of information of exactly this sort over at boardgamegeek. http://boardgamegeek.com/forum/5475/cosmic-encounter/rules I'm not even going to try to bring over the huge number of questions from there, but I will say that I think you would be remiss to ignore that resource when building your new FAQ.
  2. Skeleton Archers and Bowmen get to pick who they kill.
  3. Drinkdrawers

    Hey Corey!

    I like the game a lot, but after many plays I am firmly of the opinion that the Elves are slower at getting to big military strength than the other factions, and therefore much less likely to win. I have asked around on BGG, and no one has been able to give me an example of Elven play that will result in their being able to match any of the other factions in strength. So far the only responses have been something like, "We played a game the other night and the Elves bought up all the neutral cards before we could get any." This is, of course, no kind of evidence, as it could just as well be the result of bad play on behalf of the other factions. Can you give me a play-by-play example of how the Elves can keep up with (for example) the Undead's ability to capture all three of their strongholds within their first two turns (guaranteed), the Daqan's ability to get all 8 footmen in their deck by their third turn (resulting in likely 5 or 6 strength and potentially 8), and the Uthuk Y'llan's ability to (likely) capture a 5 strength city on their second turn (guaranteed on their third)? Yes, the Elves can essentially spend all their influence twice. But clogging up your deck with twice as many 2 cost influence cards slows you down all the more. As far as I can tell, the Elves are just too slow to be competitive. There are only two possibilities. Either I am missing something, or they are way underpowered. If it's the latter, do you have any suggestions for house rules to buff them? Thanks, Michael
  4. ballpark7 said: Now, I know what the next protest will be... "Putting a player in the center of the board is putting them at a disadvantage", ...but I would counter with... How is that any different that starting on the same continent with 4 other civilizations surrounding you in the Computer game? SM's Civilization has been a challenge since it's beginning, and often times, it wasn't "fair" either. Remember, in the BG you're usually playing against your friends and associates, and the game doesn't have to be about combat. You can be a diplomat too... I think this is a poor justification for starting one player in the middle of the board. First of all, the differences between playing a board game with 5 people and a video game with 5 people are that you are in the same room instead of spread all over, and you are in that room for a set period of time. All of the conflict, decision making, and emotional investment are crammed into those two or three hours that you're all playing the game together. This means that disadvantages are perceived as more disadvantageous, players who are losing badly will complain more vocally, and if someone's not having much fun, it greatly affects everyone else's experience. Starting a player in the middle of the board could easily result in a feeling of hopelessness that would cause that player to have less fun, which would in turn cause everyone else to have less fun. Second of all, just because the game doesn't *have* to be about combat doesn't mean it *won't* be. I guarantee you that in the groups I play with, if one player started in the middle of the board, we would all go after him. And he would have less fun because of it. Which sucks. Games shouldn't force that upon their players.
  5. Anybody got a list of the crate tokens that were included in Daedalus? I accidentally got mine mixed up. Thanks.
  6. Skowza said: Everyone who has responded to your question has attempted to explain the reason you are allowed to move if an in-game mechanic (the brig) moves your character or if you can use an action to "move" (while piloting), the problem is you are not willing to accept the explanation. I think we could understand your position a little better if even a single person agreed with you, but as you yourself have stated, no one does. I feel like everyone's been saying, "You should accept this explanation because that's the way it's played." Whereas I'm saying, "Based on this language here, I interpret this to mean such and such." If I'm unwilling to accept an explanation, it's because it's explaining something other than my hang-up. Skowza said: If you want to define rules based on language, since it seems you do based on this post... Yes, this is what I'm looking for. Thank you. Skowza said: ... we can examine the actual language as it is written in the core rules, pg 26/27: A player who wants his character to pilot a viper simply moves his character to the “Hangar Deck” location and uses the action listed there. He then launches a viper as normal (see the previous section), places his piloting token beneath it, and removes his character token from the game board, placing it on his character sheet. Moving and Actions when Piloting While a character is piloting a viper, his player still takes his turn as normal. During his Movement step, he may move the viper to an adjacent space area or move his character back to a location (see “Moving From a Viper” below). In addition to the normal things that a player may do during his Action step (for example, play a Skill Card), he may also choose to activate his viper (to move again or attack). Based on the wording here, moving a piloted viper is not actually moving "your character" - your character has been removed from the board, and you are only moving "your viper" or "the viper" and a player is only moving "his character" when returning to a location. This language is used consistently throughout the rulebook, therefore even with your interpretation, XO does not restrict a pilot from moving his viper around the board. That's a good point. It does make a distinction between a person 'moving his viper' as opposed to 'moving his character,' which is the language on the XO card. Ok, yeah. Maybe there is a distinction between 'moving a character (which you do during the movement step or as the first part of an XO),' and 'moving,' which is how you get around outside of those times. That makes sense, and I think it aligns with the language in the rules. I still wish something like that was explicitly stated, though, so we didn't have to infer it. Skowza said: As far as moving out of the brig goes, just stay out of the brig in the first place and this won't be a problem. Although if I was in your gaming group, I'd put you in the brig myself just for making this argument I don't bring it up during games. That's no fun. As I read this thread, I think I come off as being more annoyed than I am in real life. While I do think communicating as clearly as possible is important, I can ignore it when other things are more important. But this is what forums are for, right?
  7. AUCodeMonkey said: I can think of no reason why the issue isn't cleared up, and have come to the only remaining conclusion: this has been one of the most effective trolling efforts I've seen in a while. I feel like David Duchovny in Zoolander, having just explained to Ben Stiller why male models are the perfect assassins. "Seriously? I just told you." This is simultaneously awesome, since I've never been accused of being a troll before, much less an effective one, and frustrating, since I feel like I explained my position pretty well and nobody really refuted it. You guys just don't think it matters like I do.
  8. That should say 'I just it.' Weird. I'm pretty sure I typed that right.
  9. mastabou said: Yes, but when you take an action, you complete the whole action. The errata on "State of emergency" states that in a situation where the current player is a cylon and he reveals, the rest of the action continues (normally the turn would immediately end after resolving the reveal.) I think you could extrapolate this reasoning to include your problematic situation/s. I believe that if you weren't supposed to move, they would have included the text "except for actions that would move your character," or something like that. The card has been available since the base game, and in two expansions since, no errata has been issued to that effect. Even when playing the game with FFG employees (at Gencon) use of this card was not restricted in the way you suggest. Since the card says you may take two actions, and here is an excerpt from possible actions in the rulebook: Action Step During this step, the current player chooses one action to perform. The action types are listed below, and are usually identified by the word “Action:” followed by an ability. • Activate Location: The player may perform the action listed on his character’s current location. • Skill Card Action: The player may play a Skill Card from his hand to perform the action specified on the card. Note that not all Skill Cards have actions on them (see “Skill Cards” on page 15). • Character Action: The player may perform an action listed on his character sheet. Note that only some character sheets have actions listed on them. • Activate his Viper: If the player is piloting a viper, he may activate it to move or to attack a Cylon ship... It would stand to reason that the viper example and the brig example are ok. I am totally with you. It does stand to reason. But not to grammar. Maybe the reason there isn't any errata on this is because I'm the only person in the whole world it bothers. So there are two ways I can figure to solve this. First, add the word 'then' to the card. Once the not-moving and the taking-two-actions are sequential, there isn't a problem. The other way is to define what they mean by 'move,' which I guess is what that other guy earlier in the thread was talking about. I'm getting hung up on the fact that in my mind, I'm defining 'move' as putting out my hand, picking up my piece on the board, and relocating it (regardless of whether I'm doing it of my own choice or an action told me to). But if the card means 'move' as in 'executing a game mechanic in which a player moves his playing piece to another location independently of having taken (or not taken) an action,' then there's no problem. The other solution, of course, is that I just it. But seriously. All FFG has to do is give me one little word, or define one little word.
  10. mastabou said: Ah semantics. For game purposes, would you agree that a move and an action are two separate game mechanics? If so, then lets say a move is when you the player choose a new location for your character to occupy. An action is using the printed ability of a card, board space or rulebook. Some actions cause characters to be sent to a different space, such as the Admirals Quarters. If you get brigged, you are not getting a free move persay, but that action is causing you to send your token to the brig. So the same thought can be applied to the activation of a viper or the brig. The action is causing you to appear in another location, you just happen to get to choose where. It is the rule text 'moving' your ship, not the player, and hence would not qualify for the movement restriction on 'Executive Order.' This of course, relies upon your acceptance that a move and an action are in fact, separate. Just my thoughts... An apprentice rules lawyer If a move and an action were defined as separate in-game mechanics, then there would be no issue. But they are not defined that way int he rules or the errata.
  11. HooblaDGN said: Nowhere on the card does it say that you can't move. That's your interpretation of the rules for the sake of this argument. I am reading this card right now and cannot find any spot where it says that you can't move. In fact, there's a part that says that you CAN. I think that something being an ACTIVATION or ACTION definitely makes something not a MOVE in the game's terms. While thematically what may be happening on the board would translate to real life movement, you're not depleting a move, you're depleting an action, and I think that what the game cares about and what matters within its rules is what resource you are using to get something done. I suppose that, as you stated above, what it comes down to is that you cannot define game rules thematically. While what you're doing seems like moving, in the game's terms you're not expending a move, you're expending an action. Of course, I AM a newb. Thank you for pointing out something I might be misunderstanding, instead of just explaining the mechanics to me again. I don't understand how you're interpreting the card. It seems to me to say pretty explicitly that if a player wants to take two actions he may not move. Let me try to explain. The card reads, "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR not move and take 2 actions." That sentence is compound; it has one subject with two verbs that both apply to the subject. I'm going to rewrite it and redistribute the subject to both verbs. "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR he may not move and take 2 actions." The object (his character) must also apply to both verbs. The sentence now reads, "He may move his character and then take 1 action, OR he may not move his character and take 2 actions." Now (looking at the last half of the sentence) I read that to say that, if I want to do what it says I have two things to do. 1. Not move. 2. Take 2 actions. Not in that order, because the second clause in the sentence doesn't specify an order. Not in that order, but simultaneously and completely. The (admittedly modified, but within the rules of English) sentence says "he may not move his character." So, if my character is in a viper, and I activate that viper to move to a new location, I am moving my character. If I am in the brig, and a pass a check to get out, I am told to move my character to any location on Galactica. I am moving my character. If I am a Cylon, and I reveal, I am told to move my character to the resurrection ship. I am moving my character. (I'm not sure about this one, since I don' t have the rules or the cards in front of me right now. It's possible that Cylons are told to do something like remove their character from the Colonial Fleet and place it on the resurrection ship. I would probably still call that moving the character.) THIS MAKES NO SENSE. The card as written causes needlessly complicated situations and restricts too many options. Everybody knows it. I know it. Everybody plays it intuitively and not the way it's written. BUT, the way it's written still allows for the possibility that WE'RE ALL PLAYING IT WRONG. I admit, there's not much chance of it, but it's there. And I want to make sure.
  12. By the way, I have submitted my question to FFG. Feel free to keep arguing with me, as it's pretty fun, or you can just wait and see what they have to say. If you even care, which it seems like only I do.
  13. Tsugo said: Drinkdrawers said: Or, as a more complicated example, a player standing in the Hangar Deck is a recipient of an XO. They don't move, then launch themselves in a viper, which moves them into space. They then use the Hangar Deck's bonus action to move to another space location. Now they want to use the second action from their XO to shoot at a Cylon ship there, but woah, woah, woah. They've already moved TWO times on this turn. The XO card just doesn't allow for that with the way it's worded. I seem to be the ONLY PERSON who interprets the card this way. Everyone else says that the card is telling you to move, then take one action, or stay put, then take two actions, regardless of whether or not those two actions move you. I am of the opinion that this (the majority opinion's) way of interpreting the card is simpler and better, and our group in fact plays it that way. BUT THE CARD DOESN'T SAY THAT. In your example, only one movement was made, and because it was done with a viper, it constitutes an activation, which is what a viper does when it takes an action. The pilot in the hanger was XOed. He doesn't move from his location, therefore he get's two actions. The first action from the XO is to use the Hanger Action, which launches him into a space area (not the same as the game term "move") and then gets another action. His action from getting launched is to activate his viper. As the activation, he moves his viper. This is something extended to characters piloting vipers. His second action from the XO is to activate his viper again, but this time the activation is to shoot. Yes, it does seem that you are the only person who interprets the card to prevent a character who is piloting a viper to use his actions as specified in the rules. Yes, I understand how it works. Why do people keep trying to explain the mechanics of this to me? I get the order of actions, and which actions fall within which actions, and which actions grant extra actions, and how moving in a viper is an action, not a movement. What I'm saying is that just because something is an action or an activation, doesn't mean it isn't a move. And the text on the card says you can't move. And that bothers me. It bothers me that something's wrong. Either we're all playing it wrong (again, I don't think we are), or the text on the card is wrong, or I'm wrong about something being able to be both a move and an action. Did I miss any possibilities? I realize I'm being difficult here. I just want everything to be right. It's a luxury I like to have.
  14. Kushiel said: Drinkdrawers said: You can't define game rules based on theme. That would result in all sorts of chaos. A player, whether or not they're in a viper is moving when they go to a different location. There is no cockpit, no joystick in this game. You have to define rules based on language. Ah, okay. I thought your hangup was thematic in nature, so I was trying to give you an explanation to suit. Drinkdrawers said: As to your question, sure. A player in the brig receives an XO. They use their first action to pass the skill check which lets them move to any location on Galactica. Do they get a second action? Can they even make that move? Of course. Drinkdrawers said: And I completely agree with your analysis. It's odd. I think the card should be errata-ed. Adding just one word would make all this go away. I suppose. All communication is a compromise. To me, the card reads just the way it's intended to: Move and then take one action, or take two actions (and resolve those actions; if the resolution of either/both action involves movement, resolve that movement just as you would the effects of any other action). You're the first person I've met who had any doubt about designer intent regarding the card. If you understand how it works, and nobody else has a problem with it, I'm not sure why this is an issue for you. I don't really know, either. I guess it just annoys me that I interpret the card one way when I think about it practically (as in ease of play/designer intent) and another way when I think about it rules-wise (and by that I mean grammatically). I just want to make 100% sure that the practical interpretation is in this case the right one. And maybe to find out why nobody else is bothered by this.
×
×
  • Create New...