23 minutes ago, IndyBart said:

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.

I think I just want to point out that I don't see any reason why it's separated into action cards abilities and non-action cards abilities. And I haven't played the game yet, maybe they work well and don't conflict each other? If in the future we meet some problems about this, let's see. After all,thanks for your respond.

Got this from Dave Beltrami, regarding most of the questions asked here:

https://boardgamegeek.com/article/26946549#26946549 - Letnev promissory note, Arborec production and Valefar Assimilator questions

On 9/15/2017 at 10:35 AM, IndyBart said:

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

There was a timing issue that came up in a recent game. Assault Cannons and Skilled Retreat have similar timings on when they activate. Is start of space combat before start of the combat round? Or does it come down to initiative order?

14 minutes ago, dinwitt said:

There was a timing issue that came up in a recent game. Assault Cannons and Skilled Retreat have similar timings on when they activate. Is start of space combat before start of the combat round? Or does it come down to initiative order?

If you look under Advanced Concepts, there is a ruling on this on page 2 of the rules reference: "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. If there are multiple abilities that players wish to resolve at the same time during the strategy phase, players take turns resolving abilities starting with the speaker and proceeding clockwise."

So player 1 has Leadership and initiative 1 and is attacked by player 2 with Warfare and the Assault Cannon technology. Player 1 drops the skilled retreat action card and he is able to pull away before player 2's assault cannon technology can destroy a ship? But if player 1 would have had Imperial instead, he'd of lost a ship before his skilled retreat resolved? That doesn't sound right...

I feel like the assault cannon is going to resolve before the skilled retreat because it's an ability being played by the 'active' player. So the skill retreat, or other cards from other players, can resolve in initiative order after his resolves first.

Got another answer from Dane:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1847760/rule-210-about-multiple-action-cards-same-time-dur

Happy to see that my sense of rules is still sharp

On 8/18/2017 at 2:54 AM, Fjuri said:

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

for what it's worth, "turn" is pretty clearly defined in the Action Phase section. not sure it needs a separate entry.

8 minutes ago, futurewolf said:

for what it's worth, "turn" is pretty clearly defined in the Action Phase section. not sure it needs a separate entry.

This is the problem I have with their "rules reference" format for rulebooks. The glossary style entries only work if you already know what to look up. I’ve had similar problems in many of their games trying to find an answer and not finding it because I didn’t already know where to look.

According to Dane's answers on this thread on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/27179602#27179602

Fighters II -- what we used to call"Advanced Fighters" -- can block other ships' movement, despite absolutely nothing in the rules supporting this or backing it up. As such, it's an erratum.

(Note that I'm not complaining; it makes sense!)

I asked Dane about the Warfare discrepancy and he said . . .

Quote

Hey PK,

The SC is correct, the RR entry is incorrect. It is supposed to be specifically space docks, the Arborec cannot build with infantry using the Warfare Secondary. A future FAQ will clarify this.

Let me know if you have further questions,

–––––––––– –––––––––– ––– ––––––– –––

Dane Beltrami

Game Developer

[email protected]

I think the flagship of the yin and the necro are mixed up. If the expansion from the last edition is anything to go by.

13 hours ago, Kagetara said:

I think the flagship of the yin and the necro are mixed up. If the expansion from the last edition is anything to go by.

They deliberately swapped them. I don’t remember where, maybe in that mak8ng of video, but it was decided that the abilities made more sense thematically for the other race, so they switched them.

I don’t remember the abilities off hand, but I do remember I agreed with the decision when I heard it and looked at the abilities.

Can one actually transport PDS in carriers? I did not find anything on this in the rulebook. Are they actually unmovable?

As the Saar spacedock has capacity, not just capacity for fighters, this means it should be able to transport ground forces. So the Saar start with 3 carriers. Did they not learn anything from 3rd edition Gobo Spies? Also, can you produce in the same turn as you move your spacedock (or plant ground forces)? It was forbiden in 3rd, but i did not find anything in 4rth about it. If yes, Saar are broken.

26 minutes ago, Monty Pillepalle said:

Can one actually transport PDS in carriers? I did not find anything on this in the rulebook. Are they actually unmovable?

As the Saar spacedock has capacity, not just capacity for fighters, this means it should be able to transport ground forces. So the Saar start with 3 carriers. Did they not learn anything from 3rd edition Gobo Spies? Also, can you produce in the same turn as you move your spacedock (or plant ground forces)? It was forbiden in 3rd, but i did not find anything in 4rth about it. If yes, Saar are broken.

PDS are now immovable. Saar docks can carry infantry and cam move and produce. Note the Jol Nar also start with 3 ships with capacity.

We came across this in our last game:

Player A has a PDS in a system. Player B has ships in an adjacent INACTIVE system. Player A activates their system, can they shoot their PDS (with PDS 2 already upgraded) into the inactive system?

Seems innocuous but that was the subject of some victory points so we had a looooong puzzle over it and decided the target system had to be activated in order to be shot at, therefore, no shots fired. Does that seem correct?

Correct. One can only ever move, or fire, into an activated system. Unless you're in a retreat.