[Gnaw]

So everyone has passed yes? What are the agendas?

[Tapper]

Galactic Council, on 15 February 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

Shall we just assume that’s meant to be a PASS from Tapper?

Yeo, sorry. Doing full posts on the phone sucks.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 15 February 2019 - 08:48 PM

[Galactic Council]

I’ll post them in five minutes.

[Gnaw]

Galactic Council, on 15 February 2019 - 09:11 PM, said:

As there may be riders played, please post in initiative order:

Blend --> Twelve --> Tapper --> D'rek --> Nom --> Macaw --> Tatts --> Morgoth --> IH

---

Upcoming Agendas:

Quote

EXECUTIVE SANCTIONS (LAW)
FOR: All players have a maximum of 3 action cards in hand.
AGAINST: Each player dicards a random action card.

Quote

CORE MINING (LAW) - Elect a Hazardous Planet
Destoy 1 infantry on that planet. Its resource value is increased by 2.

Interesting. Executive Sanctions could go either way.

[Blend]

Blend - 8 votes
Tapper - 8 votes
IH - 9 votes
Drek - 20 votes
Morgoth - 10 votes
Tatts - 10 votes
Twelve - 9 votes
Nom - 4 votes

[Blend]

So Tatts - if you want your Construction Rider to pass, you'll need to find another 13 votes to ensure Drek can't outvote us and hope that others don't pile on with Drek.

I'd rather Sanctions go AGAINST than FOR. As for the second one, obviously I'd prefer to have those extra resources on one of my currently owned planets - Dal Bootha perhaps?

What are everyone's thoughts?

[Tattersail_]

So what are people's thoughts regarding the agendas?

What's my best bet for a rider to go through?

[Blend]

Tattersail_, on 15 February 2019 - 09:31 PM, said:

So what are people's thoughts regarding the agendas?

What's my best bet for a rider to go through?

I think your rider's most likely to pass on the Sanctions agenda - if you play on AGAINST and Gnaw plays on FOR, then I'm sure that will encourage the rest of the thread towards AGAINST for example.

[Galactic Council]

@Blend:

I've changed your trade goods to zero in your status, as you spent it on completing the PO.

[twelve]

I'm definitely against limiting action cards as I've invested heavily in them. Having to discard half of them would suck!

[Blend]

Galactic Council, on 15 February 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

@Blend:

I've changed your trade goods to zero in your status, as you spent it on completing the PO.

Oops, thanks GC!

[Blend]

twelve, on 15 February 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

I'm definitely against limiting action cards as I've invested heavily in them. Having to discard half of them would suck!

So Twelve and I throwing all our votes on AGAINST would give us 17 votes - we'd need at least 4 more to ensure Drek can't outvote us to further fuck Tatts and continue solidifying her current empire. Anyone else interested in going AGAINST on Sanctions?

[Galactic Council]

I'd post Tapper's status for him, but it's 50/50 on whether he'd want to score the Lead from the Front objective as he has exactly 3 tokens, so we may have to wait. Sorry, should have asked him!

[Tattersail_]

I'll vote someone that will vote against on sanctions. Pretty please.

[twelve]

Blend, on 15 February 2019 - 09:46 PM, said:

twelve, on 15 February 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

I'm definitely against limiting action cards as I've invested heavily in them. Having to discard half of them would suck!

So Twelve and I throwing all our votes on AGAINST would give us 17 votes - we'd need at least 4 more to ensure Drek can't outvote us to further fuck Tatts and continue solidifying her current empire. Anyone else interested in going AGAINST on Sanctions?

I didn't say I would put all or even any votes towards this agenda,just that my stance is for it to not limit action cards.

[Imperial Historian]

So I think that ensuring at least 20 votes are on the hazardous planet agenda for one planet would be a good idea. The idea of bereg in d'reks hands with 5 resources is frankly scary given her current position.

Noms lone Hazardous planet is an obvious target, or I propose turning my planet mehar xull from a 1/3 to a 3/3 would mean my max resource value wouldn't increase (though I do gain flexibility). Obviously I'd rather have it on starpoint turning it into a 1/5.

I could be persuaded to offer my votes for either agenda for a price. I'm more in the for camp on action cards, and my default vote for core mining would be on noms hazardous planet (assuming he's happy to lose the infantry).

[Imperial Historian]

Also re against I imagine d'rek would also be against as she has a good hand of action cards, and gains 2 a turn so I can't imagine she will be voting for it.

Also I will not be voting in the direction of neckro predictions without compensation from gnaw, if he wants either cruiser 2 or hypermetabolism.

[Gnaw]

Tatts, might I suggest we team up on a pick? Between us we can manage enough bribes I suspect.

Alternatively, what’ll someone give me to poison pill a selection?

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 15 February 2019 - 11:38 PM

[twelve]

Imperial Historian, on 15 February 2019 - 11:08 PM, said:

So I think that ensuring at least 20 votes are on the hazardous planet agenda for one planet would be a good idea. The idea of bereg in d'reks hands with 5 resources is frankly scary given her current position.

Noms lone Hazardous planet is an obvious target, or I propose turning my planet mehar xull from a 1/3 to a 3/3 would mean my max resource value wouldn't increase (though I do gain flexibility). Obviously I'd rather have it on starpoint turning it into a 1/5.

I could be persuaded to offer my votes for either agenda for a price. I'm more in the for camp on action cards, and my default vote for core mining would be on noms hazardous planet (assuming he's happy to lose the infantry).

I'd figure you would be all for D'rek getting Berg boosted. Then you could just take it from her.

[Blend]

twelve, on 15 February 2019 - 10:37 PM, said:

Blend, on 15 February 2019 - 09:46 PM, said:

twelve, on 15 February 2019 - 09:39 PM, said:

I'm definitely against limiting action cards as I've invested heavily in them. Having to discard half of them would suck!

So Twelve and I throwing all our votes on AGAINST would give us 17 votes - we'd need at least 4 more to ensure Drek can't outvote us to further fuck Tatts and continue solidifying her current empire. Anyone else interested in going AGAINST on Sanctions?

I didn't say I would put all or even any votes towards this agenda,just that my stance is for it to not limit action cards.

Well, to be honest, I didn't say you WOULD vote AGAINST, just saying that if you did, our votes combined would be 17.