I thought it would be a good idea to collect the errors/unclear parts of the rule book, so we have a collected page, which could be used as a first errata source.

(I try to collect all things from the thread into this first post, ordered by the numbers. Things where it is not certain that they were intended as written, or if its just not clean written are marked as [uncertain])

Rules:

• 2.6, 2.8: Does a canceld action card count to the "multiple action cards... cannot be played" limit?
• 19.3: What happens if the reinforcements are empty, and one has to be placed from the reinforcements? Taking from one of the pools is just ruled for the Diplomacy Strategy Card in 30.2
• 20.2: Commodity is supposed to be limited by the number on the faction sheet, not the number of commodity tokens (factor 3 difference, as there are tokens with a value of 3)
• 52.13 [uncertain]: 5 Stage I, 5 Stage II objectives: same numbers for a 14-point game? (similar: is three the limit for the secret objectives in a 14-point game?)
• 59.1: In the 3rd paragraph "... towards the space dock's production limit..." should read "... towards the producing units production limit...".
• 60.3 [uncertain]: According to rules, a player can trade his own card back. When a card is "returned" this way, 60.3 should not "trigger" (the wording should be "If a promissory note is returned to a player due to resolving it,...")
• 65.3 [uncertain]: Does a ship have an attribute, when its not "0", but "-". Point: Fighters have "-" Move, and flank speed increases this by one, but assuption is: "-" fighter dont get "1" movement. (Assumption: the only reason that the move is printed on it, is to indicate, that it can be improved with upgrades).
• 67.5: Bad/Wrong Example for paragraph 6: Destroyer roll vs. Dreadnought roll. According to paragraph 4, the roll of the unit with the lower combat value happen before the one with the higher. Afaik (I dont know the actual techs & action cards) there is no scenario possible that a destroyer has a lower roll than a dreadnought. So, in the beginning there is now way the player rolled for his destroyer first.
• 87.4, 87.7: If playing 14-points game, replace all instances of 10 VP with 14 VP
• 88.3: Rules have different wording than the Strategy Card "Warfare" itself. (My assumption) The rules are correct, the SC must be corrected (i.e. not only production with one space dock, but with one unit).

Cards:

• "Hyper Metabolism" tech card: "2 instead of 1" makes no sense, as you gain usually 2 CC. Intended: "3 instead of 2".
• "Skilled Retreat" Action card: "Then, place a command token from your reinforcements in that system" leads to 2 questions:
  1. Is it allowed to retreat into system when there is already an activation token from the retreating player?
  2. When the answer is yes (which I assume), do I place a second token? (I assume no)
• "Courageous to the end" Action card: Are the two dice rolled considered "combat rolls" of the ship? I.e. are moral boost, race abilities (Jol-Nar, Sardakk Norr, Letnev) included that modify combat rolls? And can other effects regarding the selected ship be applied (e.g. Winnu, Sardakk Norr, Hacan & Lizix Flagship)?
• "Research Team X" Agenda card: If the elected planet has already a tech ressource, does exhaustion of this planet allow ignoration of two tech requirements?
• "The Crown of Emphidia", "Shard of the Throne", "Holy Planet of Ixth" Agenda cards [uncertain]: Does the player having this card lose the VP in case he loses the card due to other effects (Judicial Abolishment, Miscount Disclosed, New Constitution)? (RAW say no).

Strategy Cards:

• Warfare: The secondary ability allows production with one space dock, the rules (88.3) say that Warfare secondary ability allows production with one unit.

Races:

• Nekros "Valefor Assimilator X/Y" race tech: What happens if the copied race tech is removed due to elimination of the other race (problematic with Muat and their war sun tech => it allows to Nekro to have a unit, but no tech on the command sheet after elimination; also what happens when in this case the X/Y token is moved away from the Muat race tech? Similar problem appears when the cloned tech is the "Floating Factory II" from Saar: What happens when the space dock is in Space, not on a planet and then the tech is gone?)?

There is no entry to what a "turn" is, while still referring to it.

Error on the "Hyper Metabolism" tech card spottet: "2 instead of 1" makes no sense, as you gain usually 2

There is a discrepancy between the Warfare strategy card itself, and the description of the Warfare SC in the Rules Reference. Specifically, its secondary ability is described differently.

The physical SC itself says, "Spend 1 token from your strategy pool to use the PRODUCTION ability of 1 of your space docks in your home system."

The rules reference says, ". . . to resolve the 'Production' ability of one unit in his home system." (In other words, this interpretation isn't limited to space docks.)

Which is correct?

We are having a debate in another thread about integrated economy.

Do you have to pay for the units, or do the new planets pay them for you?

Minor typo.

Learn To Play Book, page 20, bottom left hand corner:

"4. READY PLANETS" should be "3. READY PLANETS".

Question about deals and transactions:

The Learn to Play book makes it seem like deals, binding or not, are a special kind of transaction, while by reading the two entries for "Deals" and "Transactions" in the Rules Reference it seems like a transaction is something that can happen along a deal, and be enforced if the deal is binding, and that a transaction always involves the exchange of TGs, commodities or promissory notes.

This becomes relevant when two players strike a deal and they are neighboring the Mentak. From the R.R. explanation I'd argue the Mentak need at least one of the two players to pass to the other TG/note/comm. to activate Pillage (possibly on both players) but I think it should be made clear in a FAQ.

Arborec and production:

How does the general rule that units in a system pool their production value interact with the Arborec abilities and limitations? All examples here assume no Letani Warrior II purchased)

Example #1: 2 GFs in a sytem, can they pool their production and produce 2 GFs at the cost of 1 resource, whereas in TI3 they would have paid 1 each?

Example #2: 1 Dock (production value 3) and 1 GF in a system, can they pool their production, ignore the limitation on Letani Warrior production and pump out 4 GFs? If the GF is being carried in space can they all be produced in space? If they are on two different planets can they be distributed among both of them?

By RAW I assume yes and yes to both questions.

(One edge case that isn't covered in the elimination rules.)

Nekro uses Valefor Assimilator (VA) to copy Muaat's Prototype War Sun 2 (PWS2). Nekro does not otherwise have the War Sun tech. Nekro builds a couple of PWS2s. Muaat is eliminated, removing their PWS2 tech from the game.

What happens to Nekro's War Suns? Do they break down and disappear? Revert to PWS1 stats? Use regular War Sun stats?

3 hours ago, pklevine said:

(One edge case that isn't covered in the elimination rules.)

Nekro uses Valefor Assimilator (VA) to copy Muaat's Prototype War Sun 2 (PWS2). Nekro does not otherwise have the War Sun tech. Nekro builds a couple of PWS2s. Muaat is eliminated, removing their PWS2 tech from the game.

What happens to Nekro's War Suns? Do they break down and disappear? Revert to PWS1 stats? Use regular War Sun stats?

Currently without any other rulings it looks like the Nekro player would keep the War Sun units on thr board. Would not be able to produce new ones, they would be unable to move, roll attack die, use bombardment or any other ability or contribute capacity. They would be pretty much useless until the War Sun tech could be achieved.

Letnev promissory note, "War Funding":

Does the reroll ability activate if hte Letnev has less than 2 TGs to lose at the moment you use the note?

22 hours ago, pklevine said:

(One edge case that isn't covered in the elimination rules.)

Nekro uses Valefor Assimilator (VA) to copy Muaat's Prototype War Sun 2 (PWS2). Nekro does not otherwise have the War Sun tech. Nekro builds a couple of PWS2s. Muaat is eliminated, removing their PWS2 tech from the game.

What happens to Nekro's War Suns? Do they break down and disappear? Revert to PWS1 stats? Use regular War Sun stats?

18 hours ago, Archangelion said:

Currently without any other rulings it looks like the Nekro player would keep the War Sun units on thr board. Would not be able to produce new ones, they would be unable to move, roll attack die, use bombardment or any other ability or contribute capacity. They would be pretty much useless until the War Sun tech could be achieved.

At my table I think I will rule it so that the Nekro can prevent the racial tech from leaving the game as long as they keep a X/Y token on it, but as soon as it gets removed/replaced from whatever reason the tech card is removed from the game and it cannot be placed on it again.

Slightly more likely to happen: what happens if the Nekro (not having copied War Sun) removes the X/Y token from Prototype War Sun II while the Muaat player is still in play?

Added "Skilled Retreat", "Courageous to the end" and agenda card questions

17 hours ago, vidyaraja said:

Slightly more likely to happen: what happens if the Nekro (not having copied War Sun) removes the X/Y token from Prototype War Sun II while the Muaat player is still in play?

Similar problem arises when the Nekro clones the Saar "Floating Factory II" tech: What happens e.g. to space dock in hexes without planets, or when multiple space docks are in the same hex (with just 1 planet) when X/Y token is switched (or the Saar is eliminated)?

I looked through all of the upgrades units and these look like the ones that will cause issues if a player is either eliminated or the Necro player moved the token.

Advanced Carrier II - If it disappears capacity in the system will drop by 2 per carrier in the system and any carriers that have used sustained damage will be on their side (are they then destroyed?)

Floating Factories II - If in open space (or a system that the controlling player controls no planets in) is it destroyed? If in a system with planets can it be moved to one planet the player controls or is it still destroyed?

Hybrid Crystal Fighter II - Destroy all fighters that aren't supported by capacity.

Prototype War Sun II - Without a normal War Sun unit upgrade isbthe unit removed from play to the player's reserves or does the unit remain on the board but has no stats?

Super-Dreadnought II - If the upgrade is lost capacity in the system will drop by 1 per each Dreadnaught unit in the same system.

Does the generic promissory note 'Trade Agreement' work if you aren't neighbours with the player who owns the note?

The discussion about Valefar Assimilator on BGG has caused me to ask if the Valefar X/Y token is really intended to be moved around as the Nekro has the chance to gain a different racial techs, or if, like in TI3, once placed they are fixed.

The wording on rule 86.1 would make me think that it is indeed to be moved around, else the rule would be worded "the Nekro can't gain a second racial upgrade for the same unit, period"

Valefar Assimilator itself though states that the X/Y token can be "placed", not "moved or placed" like for example in Wormhole Generator. That would seem to imply that once it is played on a tech, it is meant to stay there, and once the Nekro have selected their two racial tech copies for the game they are done (like in TI3)

Flolo, could you please add this question, and also my question about Arborec and production and the Letnev promissory note? Thanks!

The learn to play book states:

Players always place ground forces on the planet that contains the space dock that produced them.

The rules reference states:

When a player produces ground forces, he must place those unit on planets that contain a unit that used its “Production” ability.

The difference is very subtle and situational but the learn to play book should read like the rules reference.

Hopefully all of these errors fixed before main release......

I'm having difficulty determining if the following promissory notes have a "cost" that must be met. Going by the reference manual, since there is no "to" or semi-colon, there is no cost to these. They are simply effects you attempt to resolve. For example: it is not necessary for the Letnev playet to possess 2 trade goods for someone to utilize their War Funding note. However the card "Military Support" specifically mentions 'if able' making the others appear to be costs in comparison. Is anyone else unsure or is it just me? The reasonable interpretation is that they cannot be costs otherwise the promissory note could be nullified by the giver.

NOTE: The Muatt one reduces their fleet pool by 1. Ouch!

Promissory Note : War Funding - At the start of a round of space combat: The Letnev player loses 2 trade goods. During this combat round, reroll any number of your dice. Then, return this card to the Letnev player.

Promissory Note : Military Support - At the start of the Sol player's turn: Remove 1 token from the Sol player's strategy pool, if able, and return it to his reinforcements. Then, you may place 2 infantry from your reinforcements on any planet your control. Then, return this card to the Sol player.

Promissory Note : Political Favor - After an agenda is revealed: Remove 1 token from the Xxcha player's strategy pool and return it to his reinforcments. Then, discard the revealed agenda and reveal 1 agenda from the top of the deck. Player vote on this agenda instead. Then return this card to the Xxcha player.

Promissory Note : Fires of the Gashlai - Action: Remove 1 token from the Muaat player's fleet pool and return it to his reinforcements. Then, gain your war sun unit upgrade technology card. Then return this card to the Muaat player.

Promissory Note : Cybernetic Enhancements - At the start of your turn - Remove 1 token from the L1Z1X player's strategy pool and return it to his reinforcements. Then, place 1 command token from your reinforcements in your strategy pool. Then, return This card to the L1Z1X player.

Agenda Cards:

Demilitarized Zone: If all units on a planet are destroyed, and units cannot land, be produced, or be placed on this planet - does that mean a player also loses control of the elected planet? My thought is that the owner retains control even if they can't build on it and nobody can take it from them.

Minister of Industry: Does this card allow you to drop a Space Dock and then immediately use it's PRODUCTION ability? For example, I own a planet and use the secondary of construction to build a space dock in that system. Do I then get to build produce there as a continuation of building the space dock? My thought is that I can, but the question came up so thought I'd ask.

Barony of Letnev Promissory Note: War Funding.

If the Letnev player doesn't have 2 trade goods to lose, does the holder of the promissory note not get the re-roll effect? Can they only use the note if/when the Letnev player has trade goods to cash in?

The rule 2.10 says,"If there are multiple action cards that players wish to resolve at the same time during the action phase, each player takes
a turn resolving one action card in initiative order, beginning
with the active player . This process repeats until each player
has resolved all the action cards that he wishes to resolve
during that window."

And in Advanced Concepts(P.2), there is a rule(timing) says, "If there are multiple abilities that players wish to resolve at the same
time, each player takes a turn resolving an ability in initiative order .
After each player has taken a turn, players again have a turn to resolve
abilities in initiative order. This process repeats until all players have
resolved all of the abilities they wish to resolve at that time."

I am confused with this two rules which seem contradicting each other? So
let's say players have taken strategy card 1,2,3,5,6,7 , then if all six players want to resolve action cards at the same timing and the active player is who took strategy card No.5. How's the order will be?

And how about someone want to play an action card while someone want to resolve ability from other source? Carrying on them separately seems unnecessary.

18 hours ago, kaitei said:

The rule 2.10 says,"If there are multiple action cards that players wish to resolve at the same time during the action phase, each player takes
a turn resolving one action card in initiative order, beginning
with the active player . This process repeats until each player
has resolved all the action cards that he wishes to resolve
during that window."

And in Advanced Concepts(P.2), there is a rule(timing) says, "If there are multiple abilities that players wish to resolve at the same
time, each player takes a turn resolving an ability in initiative order .
After each player has taken a turn, players again have a turn to resolve
abilities in initiative order. This process repeats until all players have
resolved all of the abilities they wish to resolve at that time."

I am confused with this two rules which seem contradicting each other? So
let's say players have taken strategy card 1,2,3,5,6,7 , then if all six players want to resolve action cards at the same timing and the active player is who took strategy card No.5. How's the order will be?

And how about someone want to play an action card while someone want to resolve ability from other source? Carrying on them separately seems unnecessary.

In your example, the player that took action card 5 is the current active player. He would play his card first, then 6, 7, 1, 2, 3 would all play cards.

If it was during the like the start of the status phase or the agenda phase and everyone wanted to play a card you'd start with initiative order, in this case 1, 2, 3, 5,

18 minutes ago, IndyBart said:

In your example, the player that took action card 5 is the current active player. He would play his card first, then 6, 7, 1, 2, 3 would all play cards.

If it was during the like the start of the status phase or the agenda phase and everyone wanted to play a card you'd start with initiative order, in this case 1, 2, 3, 5,

Is an action card not providing abilities? The rule says:"Action cards provide players with various abilities that they can resolve as described on the cards". So when I play an action card, I also resolve abilities, right?

And there's still the problem: how about someone want to play an action card while someone want to resolve ability from other source?

1 hour ago, kaitei said:

Is an action card not providing abilities? The rule says:"Action cards provide players with various abilities that they can resolve as described on the cards". So when I play an action card, I also resolve abilities, right?

And there's still the problem: how about someone want to play an action card while someone want to resolve ability from other source?

Do you have a specific example that came up in game play that you're trying to figure out?

Most action cards will tell you when they can be used. Some of the action cards that have the text ACTION: on them and tell you what you can do with them. The card 'Ghost Ship' for example says, " ACTION: Place 1 destroyer from your reinforcements in a non-home system that contains a wormhole and does not contain other players's ships." If everyone at the table had action cards they wanted to resolve with this trigger, they would resolve in initiative order starting with the current active player. In your above example, player 5. The only interrupt to this would be if somebody else had an action card (or a technology, racial ability, etc. ) such as a Sabotage card, but the card (or ability) tells you, " When another player plays an action card other than "Sabotage": Cancel that action card. There are a couple of races and technologies that have similar abilities to cancel out a card.

Space turtles, for example, can use their racial ability to force new agenda's into play, or to even cancel out action cards under certain conditions.

The other time you may want to play action cards is at the start of the agenda phase. If more than one person has an action card like 'Ancient Burial Sites' that states, " At the start of the agenda phase:" , or if more than one player has a card like 'Diplomacy Rider' that states, " After an agenda is revealed:" . In that case, those action cards would all be played in turn order 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.