Hi,

Yesterday we played Twilight Empire. I got the secret objective card "Threatening" . The card text reads like this "I control 2 systems adjactent to 2 different players home systems".

Because it was a secret objective i couldnt ask the other players about the card.

Now my question:

I controlled 1 system next to my own home system, and one next to another players home system. I tried to claim the secret objective as fullfilled then.

But a slim majority of my opponent players said i have to control 2 systems next to "opponents". To make the game continue we made it like they said.

What do the pros say ? :>

You need to control two systems adjacent to opponent home systems.

Rule on Card: If you quoted it right, and there was no errata to it, then you earned your Victorypoints.

Though i would houserule it the way your players and azuredarkness put it.

I guess in our gamingcircle it woulda been 1/2 the victorypoints for you, and a new entry in our houserule-pdf for future sightings of that secret objective card, so the other players would have a chance to know what to do as they draw it.

Quote for card rules is correct, and for me the card text is clear. You have to control an adjacent system to the home systems of two difrent players, and the paleyr is every single one who plays the current game. So you can claim for that objective when you control system adjacent to your homesystem and one to another player system.

Sorry for my bad english

While I think it would have been better for it to say "opponents" here, I think in this case, the intent is pretty obvious - it would be kind of "silly" to have your own home system counted. It's not very "threatening" to occupy space by your own headquarters, and it would make the objective far too easy to achieve.

While I can see where it could be interpreted that way, I think in this case, the intent is what's important, and the intent here is that you are threatening your opponents (without actually invading their headquarters).

Yes you are right but the rules are rules. FFG never made an errata to this card, there is nothing in the FAQ so it is up to every gamegroup to play it as they like. Ive said mine opinion about that card and it is only mine personal opinion It would be nice to ask someone from FFG about this card.

Jervon said:

I can't imagine any GM of a PBEM would allow it to be claimed in that fashion. It's gamey and lawyery, and is obviously against the intent of what the card is meant to accomplish. Sometimes, especially with FFG rules, you have to read between the lines and try to figure out what the "intent" is. Sometime's it's harder than others, but in this one it's really pretty plain. Having it include your own home system would just be way too easy, and really, you wouldn't even need to say 2 - it's very rare where a player doesn't control at least ONE of the systems (if not all) adjacent to their home system.

I understand where you are coming from, of course, but in this case, a literal interpretation is just splitting hairs. I can guarantee that if someone were to ask Corey, the answer would definitely be "only opponent's systems count". Again, I can't think of a single PBEM GM allowing anything else.

What is the exact text of the card? I seem to remember it saying "other players" not just players.

blarknob said:

I control systems adjacent to two different player's Home Systems.

Well then by the wording I would say you were correct in claiming it by controlling a system next to your own home system and another players.

I wish Fantasy Flight had better templating.

One could argue that "different players" means "different than you". Especially since it's obvious that was what is intended by the card.

There was a ruling/errata for this card in the previous forun, which clarified it refers to opponents. It was lost when that forum was taken down.

This definitely needs to go into the FAQ.