[Tattersail_]

D, on 25 February 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 10:49 AM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

I know all this. I didn't play the long game with you as a neighbour. So when I mention the Imperial strategy card I wanted to see your thoughts, if you'd have been slightly amenable and say asked for something in return then there would have been discussion but you basically shot me down and bragged about you winning the war. You've been lucky with action cards to get in the position you are in. I still think I'd have negotiated well with Jazz and been in a position to win or contend a win without you going a different route. 9 VP I reckon going into this round and a slight outside chance of stealing victory. I already know I have no chance so whatever you do is up to you. What I think though is when you took over your objective was completely different to Jazz's which is understandable. He was going for points whereas you're going for a lesson/fun. Fair play, you do you.

Throughout last round, the status phase and the agenda phase I have consistently asked you to make a concession to prevent or stop our war.
You never made a single realistic proposition (like: "OK, I will start the turn by evacuating from A/F to Q/R and give you 3 or 4 TG, let's call it quits" - which is what I would have accepted during the Strategic card selection last turn before we started the whole circus), instead, you always bounce back to "I'd have negotiated with Jazz".

Yet you're not even willing to hint at what you're willing to offer or you make offers that just do not match the table (like demanding my Ceasefire last ropund, or now scaremongering about taking my home world, and when I point out how that's unlikely, you say "I know all that" - so, if you do, why make the point in the first place?).

When all that fails, you argue about how you didn't start this (first it was Jazz who threatened to take 'your' planets, never mind Khell was on them. Then it was me for the action card, then it was me for attacking your HW, now it is me bragging instead of negotiating).

And now we're in a situation where it just really doesn't matter anymore.

FYI:
If you had allowed me into A/F on the deal above, I would have likely either attacked or approached Nom for a turn's lease of Arinaam/Meer: 6 influence would have helped me a long way toward the 16 required for 2 VP, and would have immediately granted the 4 planets of the same type, off-setting the SftT I would have lost.

You are on 5 VP because you forfeited points to get one over me. You knew what action cards you had, and what position you had. You could have just laid a deal on the table, which is what I asked, but you were vague, hardly negotiative. Just because you "could" unleash your wrath, didn't mean you "had" to. By doing what you did, you did screw me over, but you also screwed yourself over, you could have been in a great position to not only win the game but influence it in a big way. I offered you 4 TG's and A/F but before we could even hash that deal out, you used an action card that meant I could not retreat out of A/F. You gave me less options. That card could have come in handy this round no? Not to be used on someone who is middling pack but a competitor for the win. I always intended to negotiate withdrawal with Jazz, and valued it at 4 TG. I never got use out of those planets except to complete the PO.

My gripe/issue is that you, as a player, forfeited your chance at winning/scoring PO's, in order to go to war with me. Let's be honest and say it didn't work out for you. Yes you prevented me from scoring points but you also made yourself come near the bottom points wise. Last round you could have scored 2 VP's, not used all those great action cards and had major impact this round.

I agree with your statement, but coming to a conclusion in trading is kinda hard when typing it through a forum.
you guys just had a bad start with it. Tapper joined when you were already invading his stuff.

And I disagree with his statement, as well as the thinking that without the conflict with Tapper Tatts would somehow be in a top-scoring position right now.

I'd be 2VP's better off with a chance of an SO to score. As I'd planned on doing little last round. 9VP, SO to try and get, plus strategy card pick and chance at 2 VP's. I'd have been in with a shot.

[D'rek]

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 01:50 PM, said:

D, on 25 February 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 10:49 AM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

I know all this. I didn't play the long game with you as a neighbour. So when I mention the Imperial strategy card I wanted to see your thoughts, if you'd have been slightly amenable and say asked for something in return then there would have been discussion but you basically shot me down and bragged about you winning the war. You've been lucky with action cards to get in the position you are in. I still think I'd have negotiated well with Jazz and been in a position to win or contend a win without you going a different route. 9 VP I reckon going into this round and a slight outside chance of stealing victory. I already know I have no chance so whatever you do is up to you. What I think though is when you took over your objective was completely different to Jazz's which is understandable. He was going for points whereas you're going for a lesson/fun. Fair play, you do you.

Throughout last round, the status phase and the agenda phase I have consistently asked you to make a concession to prevent or stop our war.
You never made a single realistic proposition (like: "OK, I will start the turn by evacuating from A/F to Q/R and give you 3 or 4 TG, let's call it quits" - which is what I would have accepted during the Strategic card selection last turn before we started the whole circus), instead, you always bounce back to "I'd have negotiated with Jazz".

Yet you're not even willing to hint at what you're willing to offer or you make offers that just do not match the table (like demanding my Ceasefire last ropund, or now scaremongering about taking my home world, and when I point out how that's unlikely, you say "I know all that" - so, if you do, why make the point in the first place?).

When all that fails, you argue about how you didn't start this (first it was Jazz who threatened to take 'your' planets, never mind Khell was on them. Then it was me for the action card, then it was me for attacking your HW, now it is me bragging instead of negotiating).

And now we're in a situation where it just really doesn't matter anymore.

FYI:
If you had allowed me into A/F on the deal above, I would have likely either attacked or approached Nom for a turn's lease of Arinaam/Meer: 6 influence would have helped me a long way toward the 16 required for 2 VP, and would have immediately granted the 4 planets of the same type, off-setting the SftT I would have lost.

You are on 5 VP because you forfeited points to get one over me. You knew what action cards you had, and what position you had. You could have just laid a deal on the table, which is what I asked, but you were vague, hardly negotiative. Just because you "could" unleash your wrath, didn't mean you "had" to. By doing what you did, you did screw me over, but you also screwed yourself over, you could have been in a great position to not only win the game but influence it in a big way. I offered you 4 TG's and A/F but before we could even hash that deal out, you used an action card that meant I could not retreat out of A/F. You gave me less options. That card could have come in handy this round no? Not to be used on someone who is middling pack but a competitor for the win. I always intended to negotiate withdrawal with Jazz, and valued it at 4 TG. I never got use out of those planets except to complete the PO.

My gripe/issue is that you, as a player, forfeited your chance at winning/scoring PO's, in order to go to war with me. Let's be honest and say it didn't work out for you. Yes you prevented me from scoring points but you also made yourself come near the bottom points wise. Last round you could have scored 2 VP's, not used all those great action cards and had major impact this round.

I agree with your statement, but coming to a conclusion in trading is kinda hard when typing it through a forum.
you guys just had a bad start with it. Tapper joined when you were already invading his stuff.

And I disagree with his statement, as well as the thinking that without the conflict with Tapper Tatts would somehow be in a top-scoring position right now.

I'd be 2VP's better off with a chance of an SO to score. As I'd planned on doing little last round. 9VP, SO to try and get, plus strategy card pick and chance at 2 VP's. I'd have been in with a shot.

Yeah, and if things had gone absolutely perfectly for me I'd have won already, so what?

[ToasTer86]

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 01:50 PM, said:

D, on 25 February 2020 - 01:29 PM, said:

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 12:16 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 10:49 AM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

I know all this. I didn't play the long game with you as a neighbour. So when I mention the Imperial strategy card I wanted to see your thoughts, if you'd have been slightly amenable and say asked for something in return then there would have been discussion but you basically shot me down and bragged about you winning the war. You've been lucky with action cards to get in the position you are in. I still think I'd have negotiated well with Jazz and been in a position to win or contend a win without you going a different route. 9 VP I reckon going into this round and a slight outside chance of stealing victory. I already know I have no chance so whatever you do is up to you. What I think though is when you took over your objective was completely different to Jazz's which is understandable. He was going for points whereas you're going for a lesson/fun. Fair play, you do you.

Throughout last round, the status phase and the agenda phase I have consistently asked you to make a concession to prevent or stop our war.
You never made a single realistic proposition (like: "OK, I will start the turn by evacuating from A/F to Q/R and give you 3 or 4 TG, let's call it quits" - which is what I would have accepted during the Strategic card selection last turn before we started the whole circus), instead, you always bounce back to "I'd have negotiated with Jazz".

Yet you're not even willing to hint at what you're willing to offer or you make offers that just do not match the table (like demanding my Ceasefire last ropund, or now scaremongering about taking my home world, and when I point out how that's unlikely, you say "I know all that" - so, if you do, why make the point in the first place?).

When all that fails, you argue about how you didn't start this (first it was Jazz who threatened to take 'your' planets, never mind Khell was on them. Then it was me for the action card, then it was me for attacking your HW, now it is me bragging instead of negotiating).

And now we're in a situation where it just really doesn't matter anymore.

FYI:
If you had allowed me into A/F on the deal above, I would have likely either attacked or approached Nom for a turn's lease of Arinaam/Meer: 6 influence would have helped me a long way toward the 16 required for 2 VP, and would have immediately granted the 4 planets of the same type, off-setting the SftT I would have lost.

You are on 5 VP because you forfeited points to get one over me. You knew what action cards you had, and what position you had. You could have just laid a deal on the table, which is what I asked, but you were vague, hardly negotiative. Just because you "could" unleash your wrath, didn't mean you "had" to. By doing what you did, you did screw me over, but you also screwed yourself over, you could have been in a great position to not only win the game but influence it in a big way. I offered you 4 TG's and A/F but before we could even hash that deal out, you used an action card that meant I could not retreat out of A/F. You gave me less options. That card could have come in handy this round no? Not to be used on someone who is middling pack but a competitor for the win. I always intended to negotiate withdrawal with Jazz, and valued it at 4 TG. I never got use out of those planets except to complete the PO.

My gripe/issue is that you, as a player, forfeited your chance at winning/scoring PO's, in order to go to war with me. Let's be honest and say it didn't work out for you. Yes you prevented me from scoring points but you also made yourself come near the bottom points wise. Last round you could have scored 2 VP's, not used all those great action cards and had major impact this round.

I agree with your statement, but coming to a conclusion in trading is kinda hard when typing it through a forum.
you guys just had a bad start with it. Tapper joined when you were already invading his stuff.

And I disagree with his statement, as well as the thinking that without the conflict with Tapper Tatts would somehow be in a top-scoring position right now.

I'd be 2VP's better off with a chance of an SO to score. As I'd planned on doing little last round. 9VP, SO to try and get, plus strategy card pick and chance at 2 VP's. I'd have been in with a shot.

Agreed

[Tattersail_]

And if your nan had a willy she would be your grandad yeah? Anal doesn't suit you D'rek.

[Tapper]

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 10:49 AM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

I know all this. I didn't play the long game with you as a neighbour. So when I mention the Imperial strategy card I wanted to see your thoughts, if you'd have been slightly amenable and say asked for something in return then there would have been discussion but you basically shot me down and bragged about you winning the war. You've been lucky with action cards to get in the position you are in. I still think I'd have negotiated well with Jazz and been in a position to win or contend a win without you going a different route. 9 VP I reckon going into this round and a slight outside chance of stealing victory. I already know I have no chance so whatever you do is up to you. What I think though is when you took over your objective was completely different to Jazz's which is understandable. He was going for points whereas you're going for a lesson/fun. Fair play, you do you.

Throughout last round, the status phase and the agenda phase I have consistently asked you to make a concession to prevent or stop our war.
You never made a single realistic proposition (like: "OK, I will start the turn by evacuating from A/F to Q/R and give you 3 or 4 TG, let's call it quits" - which is what I would have accepted during the Strategic card selection last turn before we started the whole circus), instead, you always bounce back to "I'd have negotiated with Jazz".

Yet you're not even willing to hint at what you're willing to offer or you make offers that just do not match the table (like demanding my Ceasefire last ropund, or now scaremongering about taking my home world, and when I point out how that's unlikely, you say "I know all that" - so, if you do, why make the point in the first place?).

When all that fails, you argue about how you didn't start this (first it was Jazz who threatened to take 'your' planets, never mind Khell was on them. Then it was me for the action card, then it was me for attacking your HW, now it is me bragging instead of negotiating).

And now we're in a situation where it just really doesn't matter anymore.

FYI:
If you had allowed me into A/F on the deal above, I would have likely either attacked or approached Nom for a turn's lease of Arinaam/Meer: 6 influence would have helped me a long way toward the 16 required for 2 VP, and would have immediately granted the 4 planets of the same type, off-setting the SftT I would have lost.

You are on 5 VP because you forfeited points to get one over me. You knew what action cards you had, and what position you had. You could have just laid a deal on the table, which is what I asked, but you were vague, hardly negotiative. Just because you "could" unleash your wrath, didn't mean you "had" to. By doing what you did, you did screw me over, but you also screwed yourself over, you could have been in a great position to not only win the game but influence it in a big way. I offered you 4 TG's and A/F but before we could even hash that deal out, you used an action card that meant I could not retreat out of A/F. You gave me less options. That card could have come in handy this round no? Not to be used on someone who is middling pack but a competitor for the win. I always intended to negotiate withdrawal with Jazz, and valued it at 4 TG. I never got use out of those planets except to complete the PO.

My gripe/issue is that you, as a player, forfeited your chance at winning/scoring PO's, in order to go to war with me. Let's be honest and say it didn't work out for you. Yes you prevented me from scoring points but you also made yourself come near the bottom points wise. Last round you could have scored 2 VP's, not used all those great action cards and had major impact this round.

There was no way I could ever win the game - not even when I took over.
It's pretty brazen for you to argue I could have won if I stuck to peace, not knowing what secret objectives I hold (and, FYI: they both require conflict) since you also do not know how scoreable they are (not very: there's one option to fulfill the first which depends on a hard to set-up condition most viable in the early game, and the second has exactly one possibility, but is out of my reach).

[ToasTer86]

In between, I dont feel like the infantry were added to my planets from the agenda.

[Tattersail_]

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 02:16 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 11:03 AM, said:

Tapper, on 25 February 2020 - 10:49 AM, said:

Tattersail_, on 25 February 2020 - 10:03 AM, said:

I know all this. I didn't play the long game with you as a neighbour. So when I mention the Imperial strategy card I wanted to see your thoughts, if you'd have been slightly amenable and say asked for something in return then there would have been discussion but you basically shot me down and bragged about you winning the war. You've been lucky with action cards to get in the position you are in. I still think I'd have negotiated well with Jazz and been in a position to win or contend a win without you going a different route. 9 VP I reckon going into this round and a slight outside chance of stealing victory. I already know I have no chance so whatever you do is up to you. What I think though is when you took over your objective was completely different to Jazz's which is understandable. He was going for points whereas you're going for a lesson/fun. Fair play, you do you.

Throughout last round, the status phase and the agenda phase I have consistently asked you to make a concession to prevent or stop our war.
You never made a single realistic proposition (like: "OK, I will start the turn by evacuating from A/F to Q/R and give you 3 or 4 TG, let's call it quits" - which is what I would have accepted during the Strategic card selection last turn before we started the whole circus), instead, you always bounce back to "I'd have negotiated with Jazz".

Yet you're not even willing to hint at what you're willing to offer or you make offers that just do not match the table (like demanding my Ceasefire last ropund, or now scaremongering about taking my home world, and when I point out how that's unlikely, you say "I know all that" - so, if you do, why make the point in the first place?).

When all that fails, you argue about how you didn't start this (first it was Jazz who threatened to take 'your' planets, never mind Khell was on them. Then it was me for the action card, then it was me for attacking your HW, now it is me bragging instead of negotiating).

And now we're in a situation where it just really doesn't matter anymore.

FYI:
If you had allowed me into A/F on the deal above, I would have likely either attacked or approached Nom for a turn's lease of Arinaam/Meer: 6 influence would have helped me a long way toward the 16 required for 2 VP, and would have immediately granted the 4 planets of the same type, off-setting the SftT I would have lost.

You are on 5 VP because you forfeited points to get one over me. You knew what action cards you had, and what position you had. You could have just laid a deal on the table, which is what I asked, but you were vague, hardly negotiative. Just because you "could" unleash your wrath, didn't mean you "had" to. By doing what you did, you did screw me over, but you also screwed yourself over, you could have been in a great position to not only win the game but influence it in a big way. I offered you 4 TG's and A/F but before we could even hash that deal out, you used an action card that meant I could not retreat out of A/F. You gave me less options. That card could have come in handy this round no? Not to be used on someone who is middling pack but a competitor for the win. I always intended to negotiate withdrawal with Jazz, and valued it at 4 TG. I never got use out of those planets except to complete the PO.

My gripe/issue is that you, as a player, forfeited your chance at winning/scoring PO's, in order to go to war with me. Let's be honest and say it didn't work out for you. Yes you prevented me from scoring points but you also made yourself come near the bottom points wise. Last round you could have scored 2 VP's, not used all those great action cards and had major impact this round.

There was no way I could ever win the game - not even when I took over.
It's pretty brazen for you to argue I could have won if I stuck to peace, not knowing what secret objectives I hold (and, FYI: they both require conflict) since you also do not know how scoreable they are (not very: there's one option to fulfill the first which depends on a hard to set-up condition most viable in the early game, and the second has exactly one possibility, but is out of my reach).

Again you know what SO's you have, but I still stand by you could be on around 8 VP's now, with speaker token to get Imperial and score before this round finishes, then an outside chance on scoring again. My point is, you didn't even try, you just fascilitated my downfall. That's fine, i'm not mad, but you put it all on me, when I was actually trying to barter/trade with you and you were vague at best. Just cause you knew what you were going to do.

[D'rek]

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

In between, I dont feel like the infantry were added to my planets from the agenda.

There hasn't been a post-agenda-phase map update yet. No one's planets have the extra infantry.

[Imperial Historian]

I don't know Tatts, if I was Tapper I'd probably have behaved similarly, you haven't exactly been clear or generous in your offers.

And it was quite clear from early on in that negotiation that you'd be screwed if Tapper decided to press the offence, and as the aggresive party you can't really expect anything else.

And Tappers play would have paid off if other objectives had come out (non-economic objectives for example would have been great for him)

[Galactic Council]

IH:

Imperial Historian, on 24 February 2020 - 07:40 PM, said:

BZ | Summit | At the start of the strategy phase: | Gain 2 command tokens

3/6/3 - just reread the card and realised it should be played at the start of the strategy phase not when you pick strategy, will withdraw of not allowed

It's fine to play it on your turn of Strategy Phase - because of forum play, we consider the start of your turn on strategy phase as the start of strategy phase.

Do please add your strategy choice, though, please!

[Galactic Council]

D, on 25 February 2020 - 02:31 PM, said:

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

In between, I dont feel like the infantry were added to my planets from the agenda.

There hasn't been a post-agenda-phase map update yet. No one's planets have the extra infantry.

Correct - I'm just waiting for strategy phase to be over (I honestly didn't expect it to take half a week) so I can do one big update to get us into the next action phase. Infantry and Drek's Space Dock from the previous agenda phase will be added at that time.

[ToasTer86]

Galactic Council, on 25 February 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

IH:

Imperial Historian, on 24 February 2020 - 07:40 PM, said:

BZ | Summit | At the start of the strategy phase: | Gain 2 command tokens

3/6/3 - just reread the card and realised it should be played at the start of the strategy phase not when you pick strategy, will withdraw of not allowed

It's fine to play it on your turn of Strategy Phase - because of forum play, we consider the start of your turn on strategy phase as the start of strategy phase.

Do please add your strategy choice, though, please!

Ok so IH will have more then enough tokens to get the 2VP here a swell.

[twelve]

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

In between, I dont feel like the infantry were added to my planets from the agenda.

I also forgot to add my status phase infantry. Is it too late to add it?

[Imperial Historian]

Galactic Council, on 25 February 2020 - 02:39 PM, said:

IH:

Imperial Historian, on 24 February 2020 - 07:40 PM, said:

BZ | Summit | At the start of the strategy phase: | Gain 2 command tokens

3/6/3 - just reread the card and realised it should be played at the start of the strategy phase not when you pick strategy, will withdraw of not allowed

It's fine to play it on your turn of Strategy Phase - because of forum play, we consider the start of your turn on strategy phase as the start of strategy phase.

Do please add your strategy choice, though, please!

Done!

[Galactic Council]

twelve, on 25 February 2020 - 02:55 PM, said:

ToasTer86, on 25 February 2020 - 02:19 PM, said:

In between, I dont feel like the infantry were added to my planets from the agenda.

I also forgot to add my status phase infantry. Is it too late to add it?

Yeah, unfortunately as we're in a completely different round now, you'll have to live with having forgotten it this time around.

[Tattersail_]

Morgoths turn

[Morgoth]

Imperial Historian, on 25 February 2020 - 02:32 PM, said:

I don't know Tatts, if I was Tapper I'd probably have behaved similarly, you haven't exactly been clear or generous in your offers.

And it was quite clear from early on in that negotiation that you'd be screwed if Tapper decided to press the offence, and as the aggresive party you can't really expect anything else.

And Tappers play would have paid off if other objectives had come out (non-economic objectives for example would have been great for him)

I agree with this as well. Taking my most valuable system, right next to my home system, and then trying to extort me into peace would not have worked for me at all.

[Morgoth]

Sorry you guys, I got stuck in Amsterdam for a couple of days as our plane got delayed, cancelled, the new flight was delayed and then cancelled and so on and so forth.

[ToasTer86]

what is left, technology + construction ?

[Itwæs Nom]

Seems right