Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About itschowda

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , California, United States
  1. Bowoodstock said: Initiative = strategy card if I'm not mistaken. Yes, your initiative is the number on your lowest strategy card. Yes, objectives are technically ALWAYS claimed in initiative order but initiative order usually isn't relevant unless two or more players are about to claim victory on the same strategy phase.
  2. Respect to the well thought out rules. My friends and I have played around with the idea of team TI with much simpler twists on rules. Teams are set up in 2s or 3s depending on number of players and seating is alternated by team. i.e. Team 1 A, Team 2 A, T1B, T2B, etc. Players qualify for objectives as normal and the game ends when a player "crosses the finish line" like normal with the exception that once someone acquires the amount of VPs needed for victory, add up the total VPs earned by all teams then declare the victorious team (the team with the highest combined VP value). ex: a player from team one reaches 10 VPs so the game is now over. Combined with his teammates, team 1's total score is now 18 but they lost because all 3 of team 2's players were close to finishing and were at 8 VPs each, totaling team 2's score at 24. Players definitely may move through teammates' fleets, but may or may not stop in the same space as an allied fleet (it's all houserules anyways right?) - If they may then each player's fleet supply is limited to the average fleet supply being shared (rounded down). ex: player 1's fleet supply is 6 and player 2's fleet supply is 3. So if player 1 wanted to stop in a space containing player 2's fleet, they both now have a fleet supply in that space of 4. If attacked, then each player rolls for his/her own fleet and the defenders determine where the damage is allocated to their own respective fleets. Unfortunately very similar to Axis and Allies rules. - If they may not stop then fleets essentially have Light wave deflectors when moving through allied fleets Allies are never considered "opposing" when a card or objective refers to opposing players. Similar to what you have on your rules list so that a player may not score on an objective that says something along the lines of "I am blockading an opponent's space dock" by parking a fleet on his allies' space dock. During the status phase, teams may relinquish control of a planet to a teammate but it is received exhausted. Secret Objectives and Preliminary Objectives may be revealed to teammates but still may only be claimed by the player holding the objective. Allied Fighters may land on a teammate's Carrier or War Sun or even Space Dock but MUST move with the unit carrying them if that unit were to move. I think that's everything we had for team TI. It's been a long time since we've discussed it or even played a game and we never wrote down all the ideas so there might be more.
  3. Steve-O said: You are correct, you cannot build units at a space dock just produced this round. The reason you couldn't find the rule is because you were probably looking under the rules for how to build units at a space dock (how foolish.) In fact, the rule is mentioned just above that section, in the section about building space docks themselves: (TI3 Rulebook, page 26) BUILDING A NEW SPACE DOCK In order to build a new Space Dock on a planet, the following requirements must be met: 1) The system (that contains the planet on which you want to build the Space Dock) has just been activated, and is currently at the “Production” step of the Activation or Transfer Sequence. 2) The active player must have controlled the planet for the entire current round. Thus, it is not possible to build a Space Dock on a planet that has just been acquired during the current round. 3) The planet does not already contain a Space Dock (only one Space Dock per planet is allowed). 4) The system does not contain any enemy ships. If these requirements are met, the activating player may take an available Space Dock from his reinforcements, spend 4 resources, and place the Space Dock on the chosen planet. Next round the Space Dock may begin producing units for its owner. It is important to remember that a Space Dock is tied to a specific planet and is not considered to be “in space” and so does not participate in Space Battle, nor can it be attacked directly by enemy ships. FFG is infamous for this sort of tomfoolery. They seem to be getting better about organizing their rulebooks in more recent games, but TI3 is still from an era where confusion and the sore lack of indexes was felt far and wide. The rules ARE very unclear at times, but you're answering a question about whether or not he can build a space dock, not whether or not you can build at a space dock acquired this round. Here's the response I got from the CSR himself: It isn''t very "anti-rules lawyer" in the rulebooks and faq but can a Space Dock produce units on the same game round that it''s built? For example: If I build a Space Dock and later in the round another player uses the Production strategy card, may that Space Dock that I built produce units or not? No. A space dock may NEVER build units during the same round it was built.
  4. Hugesinker said: Unless you are playing with the Age of Empire option, the winner of the game will nearly always be among those who accomplish their SO. The major alternatives are either to go all out and try to accomplish one of the instant victory Stage II Publics, or seriously hamper anyone who succeeds in their SO-- which generally requires a cooperative effort. This can be true. TI is similar to the card game "Munchkins" to the point where everyone says, "We're all friends here" up until the point where someone is about to win. It mostly depends on your play group. Our group tends to try to save their SO for the finish line but most of us have enough experience to where we can read someone else's SO and begin hampering his progress towards it fairly early. Also, it's important to note that if you're trying to stop someone from winning when they're 1-2 points away, it's probably already too late because they should have their win planned from the last round. Hugesinker said: It is an added element of randomness in a game which indeed has a lot of random elements already, but something feels different in this case. It isn't up front-- some people's SOs are essentially just worth 3 VP now. We need to try to draw a line here between random elements that are fair and random elements that aren't. For example, even though the first person who is chosen as speaker is random, I think we can agree that the vanilla ISC, which caused the first player to win the vast majority of games, was going too far. With that in mind, I think a good rule of thumb is-- The rule of thumb back when we were playing vanilla TI was: If you let someone win because of the ISC, there's nobody to blame other than all the people that lost. Don't get greedy with your own production and ability to conquer planets and stop him early from pulling Initiative or Imperial all the time. Hugesinker said: Randomness is fair under two conditions: (1) when players are able to prepare for the risk of negative outcomes by acting to improve their odds or eliminate the randomness all together somehow beforehand; and/or (2) when players are certain to have enough time to work together in a reasonable way and compensate for random outcomes that throw off the balance. An important corollary to number 2, in the spirit of promoting an all-around enjoyable experience, is that conditions requiring the group to instigate the effective elimination of a specific player due to random effects needs to be the result of an unlikely accumulation of several such positive random outcomes in their favor. As an example of how this applies to several other random elements: It's easy to see from the beginning who has any advantage by virtue of the map layout and players will act accordingly throughout the entirety of the game; you can protect yourself from the randomness of Domain Counters by scanning or taking certain other precautions; you can put the odds in your favor with combat rolls by having a superior force. I don't think that the PO assisted SO fits here. Play chess. There are multiple things that make the game incredibly random and unpredictable at times. Sometimes lady luck sits behind you, sometimes she doesn't. The true skill/strategy in the game lies in being able to beat someone who has lady luck on their side. It's one of the reasons why my group isn't allowed to choose their race, it's randomized so that everyone can learn from each others' experience and strategies. What works for this race? What doesn't work for this race? What did he do wrong with this race last time? In my group, I win at least 4/5 games and the other 1/5 is usually the same player. Why? We're both adept at adjusting strategy based on what we're dealt and both good at bluffing the others as to what SO we have. That player's first victory was a streak breaker for me mainly because I had 2 neighbors that were afraid of me and kept harassing my systems or putting me on defense and my possible victory was still only 1-2 points behind him. Hugesinker said: Don't get me wrong, I'd like to use POs, but I just haven't come up with a good 3rd Party rule that would make me comfortable with it yet. Try the "veto" system I posted in the other thread or try these: (1) Have each PO and SO that work together (i.e. 5 Dreadnoughts PO and 5 Dreads, Mecatol, etc.) and have them paired together. Find a way to shuffle the pairs (probably 3-card Monte style) then deal them out to each player so that when they qualify for their PO, they already know how to accomplish their SO. (2) Simply remove any PO that corresponds with an SO and deal out the rest to the players. (3) Play with more VP options like Voice of the Council, Artifacts, etc. so that players aren't so reliant on a PO and an SO that work together. I've stated earlier that POs and SOs should be considered a bonus and with enough experience, they're fairly easy to read who has which. I believe there are only 10 POs and 13 SOs in total. On a side note, if you are playing with the Artifacts option, try this: Instead of having players choose which qualifying planets get a token, shuffle the tokens then deal them with priority to systems surrounding Mecatol Rex and the Wormhole Nexus. Any remaining qualified systems are then chosen by the players in clockwise order starting with the speaker. We do this to tempt players into putting a system with planets near Mecatol rather than just empty space and also to make them more fair. Most people might be gunning for Mecatol for an SO, it's influence value, or just as a staging point, but if there are artifacts nearby, more people are likely to fight in/around Mecatol.
  5. Stormlord-XIII said: Bringing in a Destroyer to attempt a "Lando"? I like it! Try playing with it, if your group is anything like ours, people get super-psyched when we hear "Sabotage run" and "Get in there Lando!" Now that I think about it, this house rule should also add: "If a Sabotage Run were to be attempted by a Destroyer, it must be accompanied by at least 2-3 Fighters also attempting a Sabotage Run." My memory is a bit hazy but Lando wasn't alone in the reactor chamber was he? He had at least 1 X-Wing that made it in there with him, right?
  6. Kootenay_Kid said: Hello gents. Unfortunately I live too far to join in any of your games but I just wanted to chime in on the Prelim's. I think that they are hugely unbalanced. And therefore unfair. Having to build 25 resources and pray that the stars align and you get a related SO is ridiculous IMO. Even a 12 resource PDS Prelim sucks compared to break a TA or Destroy 2 cruisers. We have removed the 5 Dread one as a start but are unsure where to go from there. 25 resources? I'm assuming you mean the Dreadnought one which I agree can be pretty rough. 12 resources for having all of your PDS on the board isn't all that bad, seeing as how some races are very defensive and tend to almost always have all of their PDS on the board anyways. Destroy 2 cruisers, I've seen that one become near impossible, it mostly depends on the players. In a recent game, (not sure if it was our last game or the game before) someone got the cruisers PO and thought it would be cake, but it turned out to be harder than he thought because I was one of his "neighbors" and didn't really build cruisers and neither did his "neighbor" on the other side. We both built Carrier/Fighter/Destroyer fleets. The thing about POs and SOs is that they should be considered bonus points and not your only objective in the game, which is probably why you're allowed to claim a PO or an SO on the same status phase in which you claim a public objective. Just like some SOs, some POs can be fairly difficult, especially early game, which is why in our group for the POs (used to be the SOs before I bought SotT) we allow one "veto." We look at the PO we're dealt, the tiles/systems that we're dealt, and the race we randomed then we decide whether or not to keep the PO. If not, we draw the next PO from the POs left over. TI has HUGE luck factor associated with it, somewhat depending on what options you're using. The political and action cards alone are things where a player can get extremely lucky or unlucky. Sometimes your PO or SO works perfectly with your race, sometimes it doesn't i.e. 5 Dreadnoughts and the Lizix Mindnet. Luck is just something you have to deal with when playing TI, the combat dice alone have made me lose battles when statistically I should have won. 1 Hostile Local beating 2 invaders, then beating 2 invaders again with Gen Synthesis, sounds improbably right? Didn't make it impossible. The things that may seem "unbalanced" are actually what make TI fun, when randomness sometimes beats out common strategy, there's a fun factor to it. I've won with "In the silence of space" and I've lost to political cards that either wipe my fleets or just give my opponents free points. Just accept that it's part of the game and have fun. If you don't like the option, don't play with it. If you don't like the game, don't play it. We've had a player quit because TI isn't oriented enough towards combat, so we told him "It's TI, not A&A. If you don't wanna play a point game, we're ok with you not playing." I've gotten many a "thumbs up" with my Magic Online profile: "It's not the shuffler, it's just bad luck. Quit crying or start playing chess." If you aren't playing with a similar "veto" system like we do, try it, might work out better. It gives the players a little more control about their fate in TI. Just like the tiles I've been dealt, I've won with a seemingly ridiculously bad hand and I've lost with a seemingly ridiculously good hand. The objectives are randomized and it tests your ability to adjust strategy on the fly. That's what I love about TI, strategy starts before the board is even assembled and sometimes there's those random cards that make a perfect strategy player just say, "oh crap, I think I just lost this fight."
  7. Hugesinker said: My only problem with that is the white-backed cards will probably rarely ever be chosen. If I wanted command counters, I would pick Logistics over Leadership if I could-- it's more free command counters for me, makes them more expensive for everybody else, and prevents anyone else from getting Production for the round. If I wanted tech, I'd usually pick Tech 1 to make things more expensive for everybody else. Likewise, I'd rather pick the Trade III card which gives me a mercenary and rewards me for new trade agreements right away unlike one of those others. Oh, and with Imperial II versus Bureaucracy-- it's practically a shut out. Also, if players could pick I2SC easily and fulfill any number of public objectives on their turn, you lose the incentive for pacing that is created by the white-backed set. The system I've designed makes the black-backed cards more of a long-term strategy that players can shoot for and other players may be able to prevent. I haven't playtested this yet, but I don't see any potential problems aside from something new for players to keep track of. Let's both try our variants some time at least twice and somewhat scientifically record results. Game time, point totals, etc. in comparison to normal games and keep the rest of the community updated.
  8. @Hugesinker (and everyone else for that matter ) Oh, I also forgot to ask something. Whenever resources, influence, or trade goods are being spent, how are you guys handling it? In initiative order like a proper rules lawyer and double checking the resources spent or do you run a trust system? That could be a huge part of where time disappears. With our group when something like Production is activated, we all produce at the same time and just trust that everything is going as it should. The only time we check on things like resources spent for production, technology, etc. are when we're playing with known cheaters. We have a couple of people at the store known for cheating at just about every game they play so that's the only time we double check. As an example: This one player, on his second game, kept activating systems with command pool tokens from his reserves. He knew the importance of managing his tokens as well as resources so he knew that pulling from reserves was a big cheat and something he thought we wouldn't be double checking (even though he's a known cheater). We called him on it at least 3 times that game and needless to say, he's never invited to play anymore. Most of everyone else that plays at our store know that I'm constantly watching other players because above all, I hate cheaters at any game (probably why some people call me the big rules lawyer). A "Takesies backsies" once in a while is fine, but when I see people purposely activating their strategy and then saying "wait actually, nevermind" after they see who's capitalizing on the secondary I'll call them on it. Otherwise, most of the time we're trusting and that tends to save a lot of game time as well.
  9. Hugesinker said: Slightly off topic here, but do you think Preliminary Objectives are fair? I've tried all the SotT options in games except for that one. The problem I see is that some players could get a Preliminary Objective that happens to bring them close to also meeting their Secret Objective and other players could get a Preliminary Objective that takes them in a completely different direction from their Secret Objective, possibly making it even more difficult to achieve. I see that it would speed up the game, but after reading these cards it just didn't seem balanced. I've been trying to think up some optional rule that would make them "more fair". I like to try to make use of as much as possible. Perhaps when somebody completes a preliminary objective, they could look through all the secret objectives and pick what they want-- though if this were the case, I doubt certain Secret Objectives would ever be chosen. I believe the Preliminary Objectives are supposed to set up for certain Secret Objectives. If you look at one of them, it's "All 5 of my Dreadnoughts are on the board." which is very similar to the one where "I control Mecatol Rex, I have a space dock there, and have all my Dreadnoughts on the board." We actually had a case in a recent game where a player's PO was I believe "Attack a player with whom I have a trade agreement" and then he drew into the SO "I have taken control of a neighbor's home system planets" The victim was new to our group and the bluff on the SO was since "D" (me) is being a jerk (I was constantly hitting him because I was the Nekro Virus wanting technology) he'd be a jerk, too. It was the first time ever someone was "tabled" at our store. The guy had to leave shortly after but after he left my friend showed me his PO and SO combo and no explanation was needed. A lot of the POs are quite easy and can be done in a couple of rounds depending on race and also, if you're lucky, set you up for your SO perfectly. It's one of the many luck factors that are in this game and what keep it interesting. Our group generally doesn't have a problem fulfilling a PO, it's the SO that they draw that might end up drastically changing their strategy. Also, if you were allowed to look through the SO deck and choose one, an advanced player could get a lot of information out of what's missing. Especially if he's the 2nd or even 3rd player to choose an SO. There was a reason why you weren't allowed to share information about your SO in the vanilla set, because it could create a direct "above board" alliance giving an unfair advantage in a free-for-all game. So being able to know someone else's SO would give an advanced player a great advantage in how to stop someone from claiming their SO.
  10. This almost makes me want to try playing with 16 as well but trying it this way: The original 8 strategies, obviously taking out Imp. I for Imp. II and possibly trading Trade I with Trade II. Then add the SE strategies replacing Trade II with Trade III if Trade I is still in play, or just have any combination of Trade 1-2, 2-3, or 1-3. Players choose their strategies normally but instead of receiving one strategy, you receive both of the same initiative. During the action phase, when using the strategic action, the player chooses which strategy to activate, resolve, then place both cards to the inactive side. Trying it this way might make for some saucy gameplay when it comes to strategy. Something like: "I really need him to activate Production...oh crap...he used Logistics instead!!!" or: "Ok, I have 6 resources set aside ready for Tech II, son of a...he popped Tech I." One exception would be the Initiative/Leadership combo, the player choosing this must declare during the strategy phase if he wants to use Initiative or Leadership and if Initiative is chosen and Assembly gets activated, the speaker token does not move and the activator resolves an agenda from his/her hand.
  11. Hugesinker said: Well this I need to see to believe . I just played the scenario game with five players on Sunday and it took us more than nine hours. It did go the full eight rounds, but the scenario game is very scaled back and the map is predetermined. The only rules that needed explaining were the things the expansion added. We were moving on to the next player when somebody was producing and trying to keep on deck for upcoming turns. Honestly, it's difficult to understand where all the time goes. If I can figure out how to rig a camera to have time lapse photography with time stamping on the photos, I'll do it just for you. No sarcasm at all. It might be even feasible to video record our whole game and slowly upload it to YouTube or something but the problem is that I don't know anyone that has a good camera that we can hook up to my computer. I think I've seen time lapse videos on YouTube but I don't remember them having time stamps on the photos. Playing with most of the extra VP options tends to speed up games immensely like I was saying previously. Preliminary objectives, artifacts, voice of the council are all worth 1 point which is equal to a Stage I Public Objective thus possibly saving an entire round. Bureaucracy, lowers the point requirement for victory, also possibly saving an entire round of play. Today we played a game that started at 7:30 pm and was cleaned up by no later than 12:30 am. Yeah I was an hour late for work but it was well worth it. 4 Players and the scoreboard was the closest race we'd ever had at the store. At any given time the player with the lowest score was behind by no more than 2-3 VPs. Maybe my next thread will be: "Looking for a cameraman to record our game and show how fast TI can really be played"
  12. Shadow said: Warsuns have 1 natural weakness. If Warsuns park themselves at Mecatol Rex, the Ancient Artifact may destabilze and blow them into pieces. They actually have more if we're going that route Things like the "Direct Hit" card. Even though it's a huge stack of action cards and there's only 5-6 copies of them, they still change the way most people assign damage to their fleets. In A&A and Conquest of Nerath, common practice is to wound the unit that has "Sustain Damage" type abilities because it keeps one more unit in the fight. They cost 12 resources, so even with the free money from the yellow tech "Sarween Tools" I believe, they'll still cost 11 which makes the person teching into War Suns a target of resource harassment (hitting their easy target planets, breaking trade contracts, etc.) They need lots of support, good support, to stand against a decent fleet. Their capacity 6 alone isn't good enough to support their heavy fire. If you load them fully with fighters and no ground troops, that support can easily crack to things like the "Friendly Fire" card or more commonly, Destroyers with Anti-Fighter Barrage. Sabotage Runs game option. There's that 1/50 (if my statistics are correct. 1/10 to succeed but before that, 1/5 to get the chance to make the run) shot that someone can get lucky and destroy your War Sun outright without even letting it have return fire. My group plays with this option and every time there's a War Sun going against any amount of Fighters, someone will always say something along the lines of "Luke, you've turned off your targeting computer." or "Are you gonna use the force on this one?" It's a great option and it makes the War Sun tech guy going against the Advanced Fighters guy a really interesting almost cinematic fight. We've even allowed a house rule that if you're going to "Trench Run" that you may also bring one Destroyer to attempt a "Lando." There's more but I'm too tired to think of them all lol. Advanced Fighters > War Suns in my opinion. Takes more technologies to research, but the technology requirements to get there can be well worth it.
  13. hencook said: Hey, either of you two want to play at the Dicehouse Gameshop today at 5PM? I played the game once yesterday for my first time (table full of noobs with only me having read the rules) and it was quite hectic. I just googled the shop and if I had seen it earlier I might have been ok with it or tried to schedule an earlier time because this whole weekend my friends that own the shop have entrusted the shop to my fiance and I while they're at a convention.
  14. Hugesinker said: A standard, suped up game of TI, four hours (7PM-11PM)!? We got us a comedian! In my experience, it takes about an hour just to get everything set up, organized, distributed, and all players and situated-- even with all the components separated and organized for distribution beforehand. That's with players who have some experience with the game and the group. Then the first couple rounds always seem to take a long time, especially with all the domain counter conflicts and delays which tend to crop up and make things interesting early. Maybe you could cut it down with one of the pre-made galaxy maps and pre-chosen factions. That's a maybe, and then you better hope that the top Stage II is the Rex and the frontrunner draws it with Bureaucracy. Then you want to take an inventory afterwards too?!-- Which I completely understand. Do you have a way of freezing the game that allows a group to come back to it later? In my experience, the question "What are you doing today?" can be adequately answered with "Twilight Imperium". According to people at the store I am quite a comedian, but I'm not kidding about the time limit. We've played multiple games where we started late having everyone situated by about 7:30pm and having everything cleaned up by 11:30pm. Turns go quite fast at our store as our experienced players have their turns planned ahead of time, sometimes full rounds in advanced, and the the only thing that really eats up the majority of time is combat. In our experience, we estimate total game time to be about 45 min - 1 hr per player, which includes the new players or the slower players. TI doesn't have to take all day to finish a full game of 6 so long as everyone is focused on objectives and avoiding pointless combat. Our record game so far actually happened last week. 5 player game, 1 of them being completely new. We started the first strategy phase at around 7:30pm and every strategy phase the new player had to read at least half of the strategy cards. We taught him game basics and some advanced strategies AND finished the game by 10:15pm with me winning at 9 points. Cleanup was finished about 20 minutes after and I ended up bored for about an hour because I had all that time set aside for TI before work. Our longer games were long mainly because 1 player attacked another for maybe an objective or used an action card that deters another player just to try to stall waiting for a specific strategy card to be used. Then the defending player (or victim) decides to turn that into an all out grudge match. Here's our most infamous example: Player A reveals Industrious People or whatever the counter is that gives a free space dock. Player B, waiting for Production to be activated stalls for one turn by using Industrial Agent? as his action destroying the free space dock as it was the only valid target for the action card. Player B exclaims, "That's a declaration of war!" and Player B clearly explained that he was waiting for the activation of Production otherwise he loses a full round of invasions on his systems adjacent to his home system and apologized. Player A then began doing nothing but building large fleets in order to attempt an elimination of Player B and Player B was forced to do the same in order to defend himself. All combat during that game I believe was only between those 2, all the while the other 4 of us were focused on objectives and were able to accomplish scoring without firing a single shot at each other. Needless to say neither Player A nor Player B scored a single VP and we finished the game with the rest of us having scores between 6-10. At least 2 hours of game time could have been avoided if it wasn't for a personal grudge over something as trivial as a free space dock that was in a "good position" on the board. Things that speed up TI: Artifacts, Voice of the Council, Bureaucracy playing to 9, focusing on objectives, planning your turn ahead, organized pieces/cards/tiles. If possible I can try to take pictures of how my TI is organized and post them. One of the biggest things that also speeds up our games is that when we hear the words "building or producing or transfer action" we ask the next player, "is anything he's doing relevant to you?" if the response is "no" then we proceed with that player's turn. Same with combat. "Is their combat relevant to you?" "No?" "Will your turn have any effect on the result of their combat?" "No?" "Go ahead and take your turn." Things that slow down TI: Personal grudge matches, pointless combat, planning your turn AFTER you realize it's your turn, some dramatic change that changes the turn you just had planned.
  15. DavidG55311 said: Each of the Arborec Ground Forces has a production value of 1. Each GF may produce 1 unit and production capacity of multiple GFs may not be stacked together. So 4 GFs would product 4 GFs at a cost of 4. This is what makes their racial tech so valueable. From the FAQ: Q: Can 2 Arborec Ground Forces produce 2 Ground Forces for the cost of 1, thereby pooling their production capacity? A: No, their production capacity may not be pooled. This is probably the reference for Arborec production capabilities. From what I understand, each GF has a production capacity of 1. So far, my experience with the CSRs hasn't been good if you've noticed my FAQ style thread so where in the rules does it say that each Arborec GF cannot produce something on an activation? The v2.3 FAQ question itself doesn't make sense to me and it seems to be the only reference to Arborec production. I don't have my set handy so for the time being I can't read the racial techs or the race sheet itself. We've only played 2-3 games since I bought Shards of the Throne but the way we play it is that if you have 3 GF on the planet, that planet itself can produce 3 things. EX: 3 GFs on the planet cost 3 resources to build 6 more GFs and at the end the planet will have a total of 9 GFs. The Nekro and Creuss are really solid races so the logic with my group is, "Since the Arborec docks can't produce GFs, why wouldn't each GF be able to produce 2 more GFs like normal?" The FAQ also says that they may produce ships, so why wouldn't their "super awesome" ability be the fact that their GFs can produce amazing amounts of fleets on their front lines without the aid of space docks?
  • Create New...