Hello. Please answer - which of these assumptions are correct:
Thanks.
The game ends immediately after the first player achieves 10 points. As player's claim objectives one at a time, this is always one person and one only.
I've played alternative rules which allowed the Status phase to end so that multiple players could claim 10 points in a round. The tie breaker was $ cost of ships on the board, as you will need a tie breaker.
Personally, I feel that the way the designers made it is best. It makes turn order in the late game essential.
The game ends immediately when a player scores 10 victory points. No further scoring occurs.
If I recall, there may be a case or two where it can happen simultaneously that multiple players hit 10. While it is true that you score objective cards in turn order, there are political cards that can give out victory points, possibly to multiple players, which can cause the game to end immediately and go to the tiebreakers..
There are other cases where the game can end before anyone has 10 points too. Imperium Rex, several stage 2 objective cards, and also the cards that reduce the number of points a player has to score to win (Precursor Station, Support of the Throne).
Yup, I've lost count on the number of games where I've hit the VP target at the same time as another player but was lower down the initiative track meaning they scored first, costing me the game!
Thanks for answers.
Ok, but I can not understand, why in the rulebook is written the following text:
«As players, one at a time, qualify for Objective Cards by following the order of play, one player will always reach 10 victory points first. That player is the winner of the game, even if other players would also have achieved 10 or more victory points later in the order of play .»
Thanks for answers.
Ok, but I can not understand, why in the rulebook is written the following text:
«As players, one at a time, qualify for Objective Cards by following the order of play, one player will always reach 10 victory points first. That player is the winner of the game, even if other players would also have achieved 10 or more victory points later in the order of play .»
The key words in what you've bolded is "would also have." They don't actually score the points - it is really a point of clarification to be explicitly clear about who achieves victory.
If the end of the game card comes up, (Imperium Rex?), and players are tied in score, is it a draw?
if you were to ask me the imperium Rex card ist still an objective you can claim at the end of the game round;
As for Imperium Rex; MOST of the time we play with beuraucracy so this gets scry´d down quite often. Upon realization that most players want to play more than the base objectives and then game gets randomly imperium rekt we simply removed that one. I mean sure; everyone wants to win to some degree but Imperium Rex usually just brings up an unsatisfieying victory
if you were to ask me the imperium Rex card ist still an objective you can claim at the end of the game round;
As for Imperium Rex; MOST of the time we play with beuraucracy so this gets scry´d down quite often. Upon realization that most players want to play more than the base objectives and then game gets randomly imperium rekt we simply removed that one. I mean sure; everyone wants to win to some degree but Imperium Rex usually just brings up an unsatisfieying victory
You have some very valid points there. We like the Imperium Rex card because of the fact that it randomized the length of the game.
If the end of the game card comes up, (Imperium Rex?), and players are tied in score, is it a draw?
No. This is because you check victory point totals in order of intiative. Thus the tied player with the lowest initiative number would win.
So if I understand it correctly, if the Imperium Rex card is turned up and the points leaders are tied, then it comes down to who chose the,lowest initiative card? I don't think I like that. I think that it puts too much emphasis on card selection.
Well that's how FFG wrote the rules. In my experience, though, ties are rare at best.
Well that's how FFG wrote the rules. In my experience, though, ties are rare at best.
that depends very much on how close the playgroup is in terms of expierience. new players generaly tend to oversee that constant claiming of easy objectives can win you the game easy. Also considerable is how big the urge to kill is within the group. I expierienced that players that use every opportunity to take down players entirely usually come out at the top if the other players do not intervene accordingly (which is not a given since some players are super passive although they have superior forces).
Ties are rare nevertheless.
I also can emphasize with players who like imperium rex; it´s just very unfitting for our playgroup. I also think that the quality of the imperium rex card generally improves with the number of players because of the frequency of "strategy 8" not getting picked at all
Which Initiative card so you guys usually play with? There are like 3 variants between the 3 boxes.
We take out strategy 8 entirely and allow 2 public ibjectives to be claimed to keep the game moving forward. This results in more times but then tiebreaker goes to the player who got secret objective, has the most tech, or biggest army down the line.
Which Initiative card so you guys usually play with? There are like 3 variants between the 3 boxes.
uhhh I /think/ we play 1.Leadership 2. Diplomacy II 3. Assembly II ( I think...im not so sure here,....its one with representatives) 4. Trade III 5. Production III (im also not 100% if thats the name; the one from the last expansion) 6. Warfare II (420blazecounter) 7. Technology II 8. Bureaucracy.
Some of these are a must because we play with pretty much everything the game has....so merchs and representatives have to be covered here
I expierienced that players that use every opportunity to take down players entirely usually come out at the top if the other players do not intervene accordingly
My experience is the exact opposite. Players who focus on fighting and invading always seem to neglect objectives and end the game with large empires and only a couple VPs.
My experience is the exact opposite. Players who focus on fighting and invading always seem to neglect objectives and end the game with large empires and only a couple VPs.
well, yeah. I think that depends on how much "hate for the big guy" there is in your group. If you took down or gimped your neighbours you usally prevent them from destroying you hard as soon as you reach 7 or 8 points which is what ALWAYS happens close to the end. I experienced that you need to be able to fight AT LEAST your direct neighbours for one or two rounds in the end while also fulfilling objectives in order to win. this often leads to the win for the, in my opinion, "2nd best player" who managed to take advantage of the alliance against the "best player".
One can argue that it is part of the game that you have to be subtle while advancing but as I like to play aggressive I rarely see other options than ruining the fun for my neighbours in order to keep them so small they can not fight back when it comes to the time I want to score my final points.....this is how I see it.
In short; I think you need to smash players hard in order to win because if you dont they just group up on you with their almost equal economy, which I find toxic enough to be toxic myself mid and early game.
Edited by WonozHey, I just got my main box last night and I am going over the rules. On page 14, it lists the "Imperium Rex" card. And how to handle the tie breakers. Hint, the order of the Strategy cards, does not play a factor at that point in determining the winner of the game.
I expierienced that players that use every opportunity to take down players entirely usually come out at the top if the other players do not intervene accordingly
My experience is the exact opposite. Players who focus on fighting and invading always seem to neglect objectives and end the game with large empires and only a couple VPs.
You often need a mix, particularly if you are trailing in points. Objectives come first, but if it becomes obvious that you are trailing and can't pass the leader by points, you need to seriously consider launching a military offensive against them to slow them down. Hitting a leading player at a crucial time can often disrupt their plans enough to cost them the ability to meet objectives and put you back in contention, particularly if they overreact or need to shore up the defenses of their home system. The catch is that doing so weakens you too, making it a delicate balance.
One other thing that often happens is a pile-on effect, particularly if the leader is out ahead of everyone else. Even a small attack by you on the leader can often trigger other players jumping into the fray.
Similarly, it is often possible to determine why other players are taking the actions they are, particularly if you examine the public objectives. Some of these you can disrupt with a well-timed military attack and often at a very low cost. Sending a couple of cruisers and a pair of GFs to take the planet they need to spend resources/influence or which has the tech specialty they need, for example. Especially if they've already passed. Meeting objectives is the best way to win, but sometimes using your military to prevent others from scoring objectives helps. But be strategic about it.
You raise some very valid points Magesmiley.
Experienced TI3 players know that anything more than a short skirmish to achieve a specific objective or gain some positional advantage is a bad idea. Long wars in particular with a player who is already out of contention will ruin you with efficiency. In fact, I would say at any point in the game if a player who is no longer trying to win by objectives decides to dedicate himself to keeping you from winning will succeed pretty much always. Its why you never want to put someone in a position where they hold you accountable for putting them out of contention for the win. At least not until the end game where its too late for them to get back at you.
In general this is kind of part of the balancing act in TI3. War is the great equalizer. If at any point people at the table consider you the most likely winner and shift their focus on you militarily, your chances of winning the game are slim to none. You can sometimes ward of one person who dedicates himself to stopping you, but if the whole table does it there is absolutely no amount of strategy or tactics that will help you. You will simply get overwhelmed.
As such, most experienced groups will almost always have very close games as its just a terrible idea to get too far ahead or allow a player to fall too far behind as both of those can lead to disastrous long wars that will quickly redefine the entire game. Its why despite certain races being clearly better than others rarely win and actually the middle of the road races tend to win most often. In a sense, TI3 games are typically won from the middle rather than by point leaders.
Experienced TI3 players know that anything more than a short skirmish to achieve a specific objective or gain some positional advantage is a bad idea. Long wars in particular with a player who is already out of contention will ruin you with efficiency. In fact, I would say at any point in the game if a player who is no longer trying to win by objectives decides to dedicate himself to keeping you from winning will succeed pretty much always. Its why you never want to put someone in a position where they hold you accountable for putting them out of contention for the win. At least not until the end game where its too late for them to get back at you.
In general this is kind of part of the balancing act in TI3. War is the great equalizer. If at any point people at the table consider you the most likely winner and shift their focus on you militarily, your chances of winning the game are slim to none. You can sometimes ward of one person who dedicates himself to stopping you, but if the whole table does it there is absolutely no amount of strategy or tactics that will help you. You will simply get overwhelmed.
As such, most experienced groups will almost always have very close games as its just a terrible idea to get too far ahead or allow a player to fall too far behind as both of those can lead to disastrous long wars that will quickly redefine the entire game. Its why despite certain races being clearly better than others rarely win and actually the middle of the road races tend to win most often. In a sense, TI3 games are typically won from the middle rather than by point leaders.
That is very valid. In our group, no matter which game we are currently playing, an early leader can be expected to get dog piled on by the rest of the table.
And if you gain the lead by someone else's losses, they will sacrifice their chance to win in order for you to lose.
Twilight Imperium: come to play as friends and leave as mortal enemies.