That seems like a massive oversight. Creuss' ability is meant to prevent wormhole laws affecting their movement, but the wording doesn't cover a command counter. Affecting the delta wormholes is an instant game over for them.
I'd like to bribe the Xxcha to quash this?
MrBody on
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I don't think it was an oversight. It's a big time FU if to Creuss if it goes against now, but would be barely an issue earlier in the game (especially at a point where your expansion fleets have already left the home system, and the flagship hasn't been built yet; wormhole tokens wouldn't be down yet either). Timing is just making this the absolute worst case scenario for this agenda to come up. The only reason they specified Alpha/Beta in the For section is so that it wouldn't be a giant FU to Creuss as well (since allowing other players to suddenly fly through any wormhole into the Creuss home system would be insane), so they clearly thought about how this agenda would affect Creuss.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
That seems like a massive oversight. Creuss' ability is meant to prevent wormhole laws affecting their movement, but the wording doesn't cover a command counter. Affecting the delta wormholes is an instant game over for them.
I'd like to bribe the Xxcha to quash this?
Yeah, it's been confirmed by ffg as locking down the Creuss. There are a couple of other agendas that can absolutely screw them in similar ways. It's a weird design choice.
It's a shame as the more interesting wording for this would be the reverse with for allowing travel between all wormholes and the against locking down alpha and beta.
Mojo_Jojo on
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I'm open to being bribed. What happened to Letnev? We were so happy, once.
Voting For would make Mentak a bit more vulnerable, with the table already discussing a need to take out their home system. Against would protect them from a N'orr fleet, who have already indicated an intention of attacking them further. Giving Naalu a Support makes it much easier for them to pull off a win. This agenda is definitely making things much more volatile.
That's another problem area with agendas and forum play. You have to make deals in the 24 hour period before voting, but that's also the window to play cards. The deals are binding so someone could wait until the vote is officially set via bribes but technically before any voting has taken place then just play cards according to that.
+1
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
That's another problem area with agendas and forum play. You have to make deals in the 24 hour period before voting, but that's also the window to play cards. The deals are binding so someone could wait until the vote is officially set via bribes but technically before any voting has taken place then just play cards according to that.
Yeah we've definitely not landed on a good way to deal with this so far in forum play.
Although the deals we've just made aren't actually binding until the point of voting. So I could nope out of voting for and the transaction doesn't happen.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
+4
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
In the tournament game I played at PAX South the organizer settled on all riders having to be played within a few minutes of the agenda being revealed, and then discussion and negotiation time as needed before voting. Hard to duplicate in a forum game though without lots of mandatory pauses that would be a real drag.
And yeah, none of those deals are binding yet and can absolutely be changed by either party at any time until they actually happen. So if there were a rider left that came out now and would affect things too much anyone who felt killing the rider was more important could cancel their deal.
I think it's a fair time to open up voting. As a reminder, here's what's at stake:
Wormhole Reconstruction (Law) For: All systems that contain either an alpha or beta wormhole are adjacent to each other. Against: Each player places a command token from his reinforcements in each system that contains a wormhole and 1 or more of his ships.
Voting Order The Naalu Collective (@Mojo_Jojo): Up to 1 vote The Barony of Letnev (Ketar): Up to 1 vote The Ghosts of Creuss (MrBody): Up to 1 vote The Winnu (discrider): Up to 1 vote Sardakk N'orr (Preda): Up to 1 vote The Mentak Coalition (Hedgethorn): Up to 1 vote; Speaker
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Fo and complete the deal for MrBody's support for the throne
The agenda passes FOR: systems with Alpha and Beta wormholes are adjacent to one another.
The second agenda is revealed from the deck:
Anti-Intellectual Revolution (Law) For: After a player researches a technology, he must destroy 1 of his non-fighter ships. Against: At the start of the next strategy phase, each player chooses and exhausts 1 planet for each technology he owns.
Voting Order The Naalu Collective (Mojo_Jojo): Up to 1 vote The Barony of Letnev (Ketar): Up to 1 vote The Ghosts of Creuss (MrBody): Up to 1 vote The Winnu (discrider): Up to 1 vote Sardakk N'orr (Preda): Up to 1 vote The Mentak Coalition (Hedgethorn): Up to 1 vote; Speaker
At least 24 hours will be allocated for discussion, deals, transactions, and Action Card declarations, unless all players collectively call for voting to start before then.
Voting Against would require almost everyone to exhaust all of their planets.
So can we quickly agree to start voting and get this lousy law passed?
I'd think you'd actually be in favor of this. Creuss would end up with 1 planet unexhausted, you'd have 4, and everyone else would have no unexhausted planets. Puts you in a powerful position for the last round and it prevents Winnu from stockpiling command counters for that 2 VP objective, etc.
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
Voting Against would require almost everyone to exhaust all of their planets.
So can we quickly agree to start voting and get this lousy law passed?
I'd think you'd actually be in favor of this. Creuss would end up with 1 planet unexhausted, you'd have 4, and everyone else would have no unexhausted planets. Puts you in a powerful position for the last round and it prevents Winnu from stockpiling command counters for that 2 VP objective, etc.
I'm honestly ok with it either way. I can't imagine anyone else would be though, and I'd rather just move it along.
edit: Winnu are already at 9 points, so they only need the 1 VP objective with half the requirement of the new one. Or any SO. They could pull off the 4 planets of the same type without too much trouble as well by reclaiming Arinam and capturing New Albion or Tar'monn once enough fleets have moved that retaliation is impossible.
Ketar on
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
Ouch.
No riders or other action cards to play
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
Trade Rider
After an agenda is revealed: You cannot vote on this agenda. Predict aloud an outcome of this agenda. If your prediction is correct, gain 5 trade goods.
Predict For.
Posts
Against: Each player places a command token from his reinforcements in each system that contains a wormhole and 1 or more of his ships.
The against doesn't say only Alpha and Beta. It just says systems that contain wormholes...
That seems like a massive oversight. Creuss' ability is meant to prevent wormhole laws affecting their movement, but the wording doesn't cover a command counter. Affecting the delta wormholes is an instant game over for them.
I'd like to bribe the Xxcha to quash this?
Yeah, it's been confirmed by ffg as locking down the Creuss. There are a couple of other agendas that can absolutely screw them in similar ways. It's a weird design choice.
It's a shame as the more interesting wording for this would be the reverse with for allowing travel between all wormholes and the against locking down alpha and beta.
Offer Support for the Throne note to Naalu to vote for, 4 TG to mentak to vote For.
@Hedgethorn @Mojo_Jojo
Voting For would make Mentak a bit more vulnerable, with the table already discussing a need to take out their home system. Against would protect them from a N'orr fleet, who have already indicated an intention of attacking them further. Giving Naalu a Support makes it much easier for them to pull off a win. This agenda is definitely making things much more volatile.
Done
2 TG offer to Mentak to vote For
We accept
Offer of 2 TG to Mentak to vote For
Sure, why the hell not.
Yeah we've definitely not landed on a good way to deal with this so far in forum play.
Although the deals we've just made aren't actually binding until the point of voting. So I could nope out of voting for and the transaction doesn't happen.
And yeah, none of those deals are binding yet and can absolutely be changed by either party at any time until they actually happen. So if there were a rider left that came out now and would affect things too much anyone who felt killing the rider was more important could cancel their deal.
Going into the final round with zero buying and bargaining power left...
Wormhole Reconstruction (Law)
For: All systems that contain either an alpha or beta wormhole are adjacent to each other.
Against: Each player places a command token from his reinforcements in each system that contains a wormhole and 1 or more of his ships.
Voting Order
The Naalu Collective (@Mojo_Jojo): Up to 1 vote
The Barony of Letnev (Ketar): Up to 1 vote
The Ghosts of Creuss (MrBody): Up to 1 vote
The Winnu (discrider): Up to 1 vote
Sardakk N'orr (Preda): Up to 1 vote
The Mentak Coalition (Hedgethorn): Up to 1 vote; Speaker
@ketar
@MrBody
@discrider although if there were no card plays then the binding deals go through and it passes, no?
@Hedgethorn
Agenda passes. @MrBlarney for the second agenda.
The second agenda is revealed from the deck:
Anti-Intellectual Revolution (Law)
For: After a player researches a technology, he must destroy 1 of his non-fighter ships.
Against: At the start of the next strategy phase, each player chooses and exhausts 1 planet for each technology he owns.
Voting Order
The Naalu Collective (Mojo_Jojo): Up to 1 vote
The Barony of Letnev (Ketar): Up to 1 vote
The Ghosts of Creuss (MrBody): Up to 1 vote
The Winnu (discrider): Up to 1 vote
Sardakk N'orr (Preda): Up to 1 vote
The Mentak Coalition (Hedgethorn): Up to 1 vote; Speaker
At least 24 hours will be allocated for discussion, deals, transactions, and Action Card declarations, unless all players collectively call for voting to start before then.
It's not terrible enough
So can we quickly agree to start voting and get this lousy law passed?
I'd think you'd actually be in favor of this. Creuss would end up with 1 planet unexhausted, you'd have 4, and everyone else would have no unexhausted planets. Puts you in a powerful position for the last round and it prevents Winnu from stockpiling command counters for that 2 VP objective, etc.
I'm honestly ok with it either way. I can't imagine anyone else would be though, and I'd rather just move it along.
edit: Winnu are already at 9 points, so they only need the 1 VP objective with half the requirement of the new one. Or any SO. They could pull off the 4 planets of the same type without too much trouble as well by reclaiming Arinam and capturing New Albion or Tar'monn once enough fleets have moved that retaliation is impossible.
No riders or other action cards to play
After an agenda is revealed: You cannot vote on this agenda. Predict aloud an outcome of this agenda. If your prediction is correct, gain 5 trade goods.
Predict For.
PSN/Steam: mindflare77