Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere, I have seen it discussed but not specifically mentioned. The FAQ states that matching wormholes (A and A, B and B, etc) are considered adjacent for movement purposes only.

The Hil Colish states that "you" (the Creuss player) may treat its current system/destination system as if it had a D wormhole. The FAQ has confirmed that only the Creuss player may make use of the wormhole generated by the Hil Colish even if another player has the light/wave deflector (I assume this would extend to In the Silence of Space as well).

The implication seems to be that due to the technology or physiology of the Creuss, they are capable of making use of wormholes in ways other races cannot. I say all of this to ask, can a Creuss player use Deep Space Cannon to fire through an A or B wormhole? The special ability on the race sheet says they may treat A and B wormholes as adjacent. It does not specify "for movement purposes only".

I can see it either way. A lot of people seem to rank the Creuss as one of the weakest races, and this would help even them out, I think. With that interpretation the Creuss could establish an empire connected, by wormholes without sacrificing the defensive benefit most players receive from the purchase of Deep Space Cannon and the deployment of PDS.

Thoughts?

Well, I'm certain that the intention is for them to not fire pds through them, but I can see the mechanical and flavor argument you are using to justify the idea. I don't really have enough experience to judge how much of an impact it would have (in my limited experience pds aren't all that effective though) but if I had a steady play group with someone who really liked the race, I would be willing to give them the ability, at least to try out.

I think that the basic rules regarding Worm Holes (adjacency for purposes of movement only) would apply for the Ghosts of Creuss as well. Which would mean that they would not be able to PDS fire through them even with the Deep Space Cannon tech.

Rule of thumb for board game rules. Just because the rules DON'T say you can't do something, does not mean you can. That is to say, when no rule or special ability is explicitly stated, you follow the default rules as written.

If you follow the standard rule of thumb for board game exceptions, wherein the exception to the rule only exists as stated, the logic is as follows.

Standard rule: A considered adjacent to to A, B considered adjacent to B, both for movement purposes only, PDS cannot fire through wormholes.

Creuss exception: A is considered adjacent to B.

The exception to the rule only mentions A connecting to B. It makes no mention of PDS, thus you must assume that the rule stands as normal.

I would beg to differ. The standard rules are clarified in the faq to state that wormholes are considered adjacent for movement purposes only. One cannot fire Deep Space Cannons or use the Diplomacy secondary through a wormhole because the two systems are not truly adjacent and neither has to do with movement.

The Creuss flagship states you (the Creuss player) MAY TREAT the system where the ship is located AS IF IT HAS a D wormhole. This was clarified in the FAQ to mean that only the Creuss player may use it, no other player may use it, even if they could pass through a fleet (the way they could with every other wormhole in the game). The implication being that no true D wormhole is there, the Cruess player is merely allowed to TREAT that system as if there was one.

The same language is used on the race card for the Creuss. You (the Creuss player) MAY TREAT A and B wormholes as adjacent.

It seems to me that given the clarification of the almost identical language found on the flagship, the most literal and logical interpretation of the rules as written would be that the Creuss player (and no one else) can treat A and B wormholes as truly adjacent, this would then include the Deep Space Cannon.

If the intention was that they be adjacent for movement purposes only, it would have been simple enough to state that. On the other hand, if the intention was for the systems to be treated as truly adjacent for only the Creuss player, wouldn't the current wording on the race sheet be one of the more logical ways to express the idea?

I beg to differ from thy differ. The most literal interpretation, in my brain at least, would be that the Ghosts of Creuss have an innate ability to travel from A Worm Holes to B Worm Holes and that their innate understanding of the Worm Hole physiology, as it were, has led them to discover a way to create Worm Hole openings at will. Wether it is through technology or psychic manipulation, I could not say. All this would not allow any Worm Hole openings to suddenly be truly adjacent, however.

It would probably be simple enough to (re-)state that the adjacency is for movement only but it would also be redundant to do so since it already have been clarified in said FAQ.

I am not saying that they become truly adjacent, I am saying that the Creuss player may treat them as such. Much the same way that the Hil Colish doesn't truly produce a D wormhole, but the Creuss player may treat it as such. I draw this conclusion based on the similarity of the language used on the race sheet and the flagship.

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Twilight Imperium 3/ti3faq.pdf

page 12. Says it plain and clear. Movement only.

Again I'll reiterate (Even though the FAQ makes it black and white). You don't get to assume you have an ability just because they left out whether you do or not. If not otherwise specified, go to the default rule.

Well that should settle it then.

Bowoodstock, while I can appreciate your reasoning, it really isn't that clear cut. First of all, that portion of the FAQ predates the Creuss, as such it does not specifically address them. Secondly, we know that every single racial ability is an exception to the rules. Third, the racial ability we are refering to is clearly an exception to the way players can normally treat and use wormholes. I think we can agree on those three points. My question is, given the wording of the special ability (and interpreting it in light of the similar wording on the flagship card that has received clarification on the FAQ) what is the nature of the exception?

Can the Creuss player only treat A and B wormholes as adjacent the way that other players can treat matching wormholes as adjacent? Or can they simply treat them as adjacent?

My argument is that in the absence of the more specific stipulation, the most literal interpretation of the language is that the Creuss player may treat such systems as adjacent.

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that there is no way the game designers could have meant that, and therefore must have assumed that such a clarification (like the one they already had to provide on page 12 once before) was unnecessary.

It honestly could be either, but I don't see the reasoning behind trying to present either argument as the clear cut correct answer. Both have merit, but neither is the obvious intention of the designers. The rules as written accommodate either interpretation.

Original TI3 rules, page 19, Wormholes

A system containing a wormhole is considered adjacent to any other system containing another end of its wormhole type.

I'll give it to you that before the FAQ was released, this was unclear, there was nothing to prevent deep space cannon from firing through wormholes. But if I'm not mistaken, they clarified that within the first FAQ/Errata (See below), so this has been the rule for most of the game history. But this is the only place it was this unclear, and it was swiftly fixed by FFG.

FAQ page 8: Miscellaneous

Q: When are systems containing matching wormholes considered adjacent?
A: These systems are considered adjacent for movement purposes only (including Transfer Actions). This means that you cannot fire PDS cannons through, annex planets through, or use the Integrated Economy technology through.

This is the baseline, applies to everything rule. Of course racial abilities are the exception to the rule, but only insofar as stated. Just because a new ability is given to a new race, does not undo previous versions of the FAQ, unless otherwise stated. The creuss race sheet very clearly says "You may treat A and B wormhole systems as if they were adjacent". Using the same word as in the core rulebook, which is then modified by the same FAQ (Because it's still the same game, albeit with expanssions, the core rules are still followed).

Creuss are a race specializing in wormholes, but they still follow the same rules as anyone else EXCEPT WHERE STATED. They have the listed special abilities regarding wormholes, no more, no less. Thus, within the context of wormholes, the rule modifies the core rulebook rule regarding A and B, it makes no mention of deepspace cannon or diplomacy, or integrated economy, thus that aspect of the rule stays the same. They don't make the two systems magically appear next to each other allowing a deep space cannon shot. To think otherwise is being downright munchkiny Of course, all that is completely moot because of the following amendment in the FAQ after the release of Shards.

FAQ page 12: Under the "Ghosts of Creuss" section.

Q: Do the Ghosts of Creuss treat “A” and “B” Wormhole system as if they were adjacent for movement only?

A: Yes. They follow the normal rules for Wormholes and are considered adjacent for movement purposes only.

Ah. That does settle it. My apologies, I somehow missed that. I was wrong.

All good. Enjoy your game.