There is a political card Law who tell "All technology specialty planets now give his credit discount for all techs colors".

There is a objective card (i think it is focused) who tells i should control 4 (or six?) planets of same specialty color.

The law was in game, and a friend of mine told us he was done with his secret objective, cuz all tech specialty planets now were of all colors.

We disagree, and told him the law only said the discount were for all colors, but the planet remained of that color for objective purposes.

He told us that was a simply semantic issue, and he would not accept our point of view.

who is right? and most important, why?

I do believe you are right. The planets' speciality is remains the same, only it provides a discount to all technologies as of now. You will still be required to control 3 (not 4 or 6, if I do recall) planets of the same speciality to claim said objective.

You are correct. It's important to note that the "technology specialty" is NOT the same as the technology credit, although they are usually somewhat related. The former is the symbol next to the planet. The latter is the discount such planets provide.

Planets which have a "technology specialty" provide a technology credit when purchasing a technology of that color. The Law you speak of (Research Grant) simply says that any planet that provides a "technology credit" provides the credit to all colors. However, the technology specialty itself is not changed. The symbol on the planet is still vital for objectives which require a certain number of the same technology specialty.

(As an aside, too, it's worth noting that a Scientist on such a planet will provide the discount of 2 credits for all tech specialties as well if Research Grant is in play).

"The law was in game, and a friend of mine told us he was done with his secret objective, cuz all tech specialty planets now were of all colors."

Hope you like your friend because he would be my worst nightmare to play games with. He is a jerk in my opinion.

The law never states the planets all changed colors. Just that they had the same effect with regards to tech specialties.

He is wrong is more ways than one.

Bill

sorry I have played with guys like this and my time is too important

Well, Bill, to be fair, this question has come up before, and not always by people trying to game the system. I actually had it come up when I was teaching a new player the game, and they were asking out of all sincerity (though when I told them they could not do that, they didn't fight the issue, but then again, I was able to explain WHY)

sigmazero13 said:

"We disagree, and told him the law only said the discount were for all colors, but the planet remained of that color for objective purposes.

He told us that was a simply semantic issue, and he would not accept our point of view."

This is what I have a problem with. The whole group thinks one way and he won't listen, even though he is dead wrong.

There was no sincerity on his part, completely gaming the system and I still think he is someone to avoid playing with.

Bill

Ah, I see what you mean, I guess I missed that when I first read it. Yeah, I agree in that case - gaming it for the sake of gaming it. Yeah, FFG's rules aren't always the most clearly written, but in this case, the term "credit" IS intentionally different than "specialty"

thank you for all your answers!

he aknowledged his mistake.

I'll try to implement a judge system for those problems. Not everyone reads english the same way, you know.

We always refer to an FAQ when these little questions pop-up, and when answers are not avaliable - simply post your question here. That was you know you're playing the game the way its' meant to be played, and no-one feels cheated. After all, whenever you happen across these bumps - each players is likely to consider whichever option that benefits him the most to be the "correct" one.

You can also post your question over on ti3wiki.org ad you are more likely to get a fast response from a lot more players. This board is pretty slow compared to the one over there.