[Khellendros]

Okay. Well, this certainly was directly game related. And subtle enough that even experienced players like D'rek didn't mention it.

You might as well take all my pieces off the board then.

And don't forget to let Tatts retake his go as well.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 26 September 2018 - 11:29 PM

[D'rek]

Khellendros, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

Okay. Well, this certainly was directly game related. And subtle enough that even experienced players like D'rek didn't mention it.

You might as well take all my pieces off the board then.

And don't forget to let Tatts retake his go as well.

You had said you wanted to High Alert the fleet because you were worried about MR, which would've been within range either way, and in that case it *is* the better play to put the token on a dreadnought since you'll kill them off last in combat... so there wasn't any reason to comment on it at the time.

[Imperial Historian]

Khellendros, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

Okay. Well, this certainly was directly game related. And subtle enough that even experienced players like D'rek didn't mention it.

You might as well take all my pieces off the board then.

And don't forget to let Tatts retake his go as well.

I have to say I hadn't picked up on that subtlety of warfare. Out of interest d'rek why is it worded like that?

[Gnaw]

Imperial Historian, on 27 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

Okay. Well, this certainly was directly game related. And subtle enough that even experienced players like D'rek didn't mention it.

You might as well take all my pieces off the board then.

And don't forget to let Tatts retake his go as well.

I have to say I hadn't picked up on that subtlety of warfare. Out of interest d'rek why is it worded like that?

Iirc I screwed that up last game.

[Tapper]

Galactic Council, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

I have PM'd Tatts to see if he would like to change his use of Skilled Retreat - you can wait until I get that response before doing your invasion if you'd like.

Hmm. I can see how you're not eager to change Khell's High Alert, but why not ask him to submit a different action given the current one was illegal?
And if you don't let Khell retake his turn, why let Tatts change his reaction to it?

Morgoth earlier this round also changed his action (albeit during his turn) entirely from invading Resculon to building a Carrier, after all.

[Galactic Council]

Tapper, on 27 September 2018 - 02:57 AM, said:

Galactic Council, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

I have PM'd Tatts to see if he would like to change his use of Skilled Retreat - you can wait until I get that response before doing your invasion if you'd like.

Hmm. I can see how you're not eager to change Khell's High Alert, but why not ask him to submit a different action given the current one was illegal?
And if you don't let Khell retake his turn, why let Tatts change his reaction to it?

Morgoth earlier this round also changed his action (albeit during his turn) entirely from invading Resculon to building a Carrier, after all.

I missed the Morgoth thing, but I don't see any reason why we can't do this...

Alright, I am clearing Khell's turn and all turns following Khell's turn.

Everyone else can move after Khell has reposted his turn.

[Gnaw]

I disagree. He misread the warfare card. That's on him.

Edit: and Tatts should have the option to change his because GC told him that Khell’s move was legal. That’s GC’s mistake and is very fixable. GC’s error shouldn’t erase Khell’s error.

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 27 September 2018 - 03:32 AM

[Morgoth]

In my defence I wrote a caveat at the top of my order

[Galactic Council]

At this point it's too late - shit happens, I have definitely allowed a few people to roll something back once or twice because of a mistake in understanding this game, so I've allowed this - because I am letting Khell roll back his turn, I am also allowing all those after him to roll their turn back, so that should be fair enough.

[D'rek]

Imperial Historian, on 27 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

I have to say I hadn't picked up on that subtlety of warfare. Out of interest d'rek why is it worded like that?

It makes for an interesting tactical decision (do I put the bonus on a fighter to boost everything else? But then I can't assign a hit to the fighter...). The idea was for it to act like an admiral is aboard one of your ships and helping all the other ships around him. Balance-wise, it makes the effect a bit weaker than the Shattered Empire version of the strategy card that I copied it from. The Shattered Empire strategy cards were all a bit more powerful than the 4th edition ones*, so de-powering this card a teeny bit to match seemed like a good idea. 4th Edition seems to have a lot more mobility in general, so I feared the old system (where the High Alert token can move around freely untethered to a ship) would be even more powerful in the new rules. Having it tied to a ship at least locks it in place after one offensive use, though you could still get multiple defensive uses out of it.

*e.g.: SE-PRODUCTION (similarish to our LOGISTICS) let you build in any system and gave you free resources. SE-TRADE's primary let you simply ban players from trading. SE-ASSEMBLY let you become Speaker and gain Action Cards and choose the Agenda to be resolved, not just veto them for random new ones.

[Gnaw]

Morgoth, on 27 September 2018 - 03:43 AM, said:

In my defence I wrote a caveat at the top of my order

Do you know it’s your turn?

[Morgoth]

It isnt

[Morgoth]

I like the wording as written, but I understand if it gets confusing. Though to be fair, this issue was discussed extensively last game.

[Tapper]

Gnaw, on 27 September 2018 - 03:29 AM, said:

I disagree. He misread the warfare card. That's on him.

Edit: and Tatts should have the option to change his because GC told him that Khell’s move was legal. That’s GC’s mistake and is very fixable. GC’s error shouldn’t erase Khell’s error.

The question to me is not how to treat Khells' reading of Warfare. I agree with you: he targeted the Dread, the High Alert stays on it, end of story. But Khell does make an illegal move as a result. The question for me was that second bit:

How do we (or rather, GC) deal with an illegal order? Does CG say "this is illegal, submit a legal order instead, please?" or does GC correct the order to the closest legal option, bypassing whether the player would be okay with that variant?

Imho, if you misread or do something stupid but legal: that's on you. After all, you can always ask for a clarification beforehand.

But if you do something illegal (like moving a ship that cannot move to the intended target), GC just points it out and it goes back to the player to decide whether they modify their action to the closest legal option, or do something else.

I think that is the most fair to everyone, not the least to GC, who by fixing it themselves will always be put in a shitty position for how (much) they fix the order.

[Morgoth]

I agree with Tapper.

[Khellendros]

Gnaw, on 27 September 2018 - 02:47 AM, said:

Imperial Historian, on 27 September 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 26 September 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

Okay. Well, this certainly was directly game related. And subtle enough that even experienced players like D'rek didn't mention it.

You might as well take all my pieces off the board then.

And don't forget to let Tatts retake his go as well.

I have to say I hadn't picked up on that subtlety of warfare. Out of interest d'rek why is it worded like that?

Iirc I screwed that up last game.

I remembered before i used it that someone put high alert on a fighter last game for a specific reason, but for the life of me I couldn't remember why nor work it out from reading the card. My eyes just kept missing it.

I've made the same move as before minus a dread because really what other choice do I have now.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 27 September 2018 - 07:57 AM

[Tattersail_]

I was about to offer you tgs to not move. However, your odds have just decreased somewhat BUT I figure you losing both spacedocks and that fleet will be more detrimental to you in the long run.

I'll work out the odds of you losing a dread but I may just blockade you and hit you with everything next round. Leaving ships so that you cannot retreat.

[Khellendros]

Tattersail_, on 27 September 2018 - 08:45 AM, said:

I was about to offer you tgs to not move. However, your odds have just decreased somewhat BUT I figure you losing both spacedocks and that fleet will be more detrimental to you in the long run.

I'll work out the odds of you losing a dread but I may just blockade you and hit you with everything next round. Leaving ships so that you cannot retreat.

Well I need VPs not TGs so i would have refused your offer.

[Gnaw]

Khell, let's talk.
I need Arinam but not Meer. You attack that system and I'll retreat with the 1 infantry and not fire the Loncara Ssodu PDS if you agree to not take arinam. And your political secret PN.

Edit: and you have to write the Book of Gregg. 😁

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 27 September 2018 - 03:26 PM

[Khellendros]

Gnaw, on 27 September 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

Khell, let's talk.
I need Arinam but not Meer. You attack that system and I'll retreat with the 1 infantry and not fire the Loncara Ssodu PDS if you agree to not take arinam. And your political secret PN.

Edit: and you have to write the Book of Gregg. 😁

If you're offering me a planet I'm probably happy to take it. I'll have to take a look at my position/moves first.

As for the Book, alas one chapter was forever lost to the great Galactic Council Whirlwind of Deletion.