1 hour ago, IndyBart said:

Your example also assumes that the 3TG's have been traded and can be spent as gold. They changed the way trade goods operate and they aren't worth anything until they are given to you by another player.

That's not strictly true. Trade goods can still be used by the player like before. Commodities on the other hand are useless unless traded to another player. The Trade strategy card gives you trade goods, and also lets you refresh your commodities. So they are separate things.

Edit: Ninja'd

I am very sure that you need to pay for the units you produce. As the OP shows it would be drastically overpowered if not. In my view it is still strong just being able to produce. The best way is when at war. You get a big fight and then invade a planet. You can then rebuild stuff on the front lines to deal with the inevitable counter attack or even prepare for the next attack

I just got an email from FFG about this. You do have to pay for the units, they are not free.

Rule 58: "However, other game effects also allow players to produce units."

The rules explicitly define the process of producing units. It continues to not be vague because we can look at other abilities where free units are granted, and in this instance, the wording is always "place a unit" like in Dacxive Animator's text: "After you win a ground combat, place 1 infantry from your reinforcements on that planet."

9 hours ago, Robofish said:

I just got an email from FFG about this. You do have to pay for the units, they are not free.

I guess they sent those out in batches, because I got one earlier today as well saying the same thing.

Its a strong opening, but then someone will just fly in a kill the Jol Nar cuz they suck in combat.

So has nobody else pointed out the fact that Integrated Economy says "on that planet". I interpret that to mean that you are limited to producing ground forces. It reads:

"After you gain control of a planet, you may produce any number of units on that planet that have a combined cost equal to or less than that planet's resources value."

On 12/9/2017 at 11:25 PM, ne0conquer said:

So has nobody else pointed out the fact that Integrated Economy says "on that planet". I interpret that to mean that you are limited to producing ground forces. It reads:

"After you gain control of a planet, you may produce any number of units on that planet that have a combined cost equal to or less than that planet's resources value."

Yeah I read it that way as well, its very specific. Any number of units "on that planet".

This is also partially supported by the "production" keyword. Where it specifies the difference between a unit that uses its "production" ability that exists on a planet or in a system.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:25 PM, ne0conquer said:

So has nobody else pointed out the fact that Integrated Economy says "on that planet". I interpret that to mean that you are limited to producing ground forces. It reads:

"After you gain control of a planet, you may produce any number of units on that planet that have a combined cost equal to or less than that planet's resources value."

Exactly what I was thinking. At the moment it seems to be limited to GF and PDS units. It will no doubt increase to other planetary units with expansions.

Well currently in TI4 you can only build GF on a planet. PDS and Space Docks are both part of the Construction Strategy and cannot be built outside of that (barring potential action cards), but its not part of "production" by how its defined and there are no costs listed for either. So Integrated Economy seems to only work to allow you to build ground forces on a planet you acquired.

I don't think so. We AFAIK don't have a specific rule that directly resolves this, but after reading the following from the rules reference:

Quote

If a player uses the “Production” ability of a unit in a space area
of a system to produce ground forces, those ground forces may
either be placed on a planet the player controls in that system or
in the space area of that system.

This paragraph makes me assume, that "producing on" and the consecutive act of "placing" the stuff isn't intended to be one and the same.

"Logic" would dictate, that units produced on a planet using integrated economy can either be placed on that planet or in the space area of the active system.

Of course the underlying problem is this:

- Rule 58.3 states what happens when producing units using "Production" abilities of other units.

- Rule 58.4 states, that all abilities that allow to produce units outsude of the tactical action specifically state where the player can " place " the units.

--> Integrated Economy triggers within the tactical action. So it does not fall under rule 58.4 and even if it did the specification of the placement would be missing.

So for the time being, considering the following two rules:

Quote

59.2 When a player produces ships by using “Production,” he must
place them in the active system.
59.3 When a player produces ground forces, he must place those unit
on planets that contain a unit that used its “Production” ability.

I think the best thing to do would be to consider there to be a "virtual own unit with the production ability" on the planet in question, because for 'that' we have very clear rules.

Yeah I'm not sure. The production rule is quite specific, its clearly referencing space docks, the only unit capable of producing units in space. " If a player uses the “Production” ability of a unit in a space area " (aka space dock). It suggests an exclusion but isn't quite specific about that.

Integrated economy is very specific that the production takes place "on that planet", but then again so does the Arborec ability, so that begs the question, can Arborec build ships using the production value of their ground forces? If the answer is yes, than it would seem integrated economy should allow ships to be built, if the answer is no, then it should be no for integrated economy as well.

Assuming the logic here that we pretend that integrated economy is referencing a "virtual production ability", than 58.3 rule applies, which I would only point out is also very specific.

58.3 When a player produces a unit through the use of his units’ “Production” abilities during a tactical action, he follows the rules of the “Production” ability to determine where he can place his units in the active system.

So production and placement being linked is suggested here though I agree its quite vague.

Though I agree that the reference "production ability to determine where he can place his units in the active system, is a reference to 59.2 and 59.3, aka, where you can legally place built units, working under the assumption that all units with a production value can build anything, aka, the Aborec have infantry with production so they produce just like a space dock, the way I think most people play them.

Still I disagree that there is a "virtual production value" for integrated economy, Its not referencing the production rule like the Arborec ability which is very specific that infantry have a production value, its giving specific instruction like an action card. It tells you very specifically where to place units.. aka on the planet, which means the only option is building ground forces and I think the wording is appropriate because if they specified ground forces than it would eliminate the possibility of any other type of unit that might be released in the future (shock troops, mechanized infantry ... some other unit not conceived yet).

This still makes the card very useful.

The "on that planet" wording does not seem to indicate to me that only Ground Forces could be built. For one thing, space docks technically are placed "on the planet" when they are placed. This would imply that the normal space dock is on the planet and when producing units, those units either go on that planet or in the space above as appropriate. This means you can't put your space port on Jol and place the GF produced on Nar, for example, but you can produce ships and place them in space, where they belong. Second, saying "on that planet" as a sneaky way of limiting the player to GFs only is vastly over-cryptic and rules lawyery, to me, to be the intention here. If they wanted to limit it to GFs, they would have said "may produce GFs" not "may produce units". The word units is strictly more general than "ground forces" and would be used for this reason. I play enough Magic that I understand card rule templating and wording issues, but this game is not Magic.

On an unrelated note, has anyone done this: As Jol-Nar, take at least one planet worth at least 1 influence in round 1, then take the upgraded Cruiser as your tech for the round (somehow), then build a cruiser and a pair of GFs at home, then in round 2 use said cruiser to take Mecatol Rex? It exhausts most of your planets, but you get the 1 point token and if you take Imperial at the beginning of round 2, you get at least one more point for that, probably.

Has anybody bothered to submit this question to FFG? Seems to me that would be a lot simpler than debating for 4 months.

On 9/15/2017 at 5:04 PM, Robofish said:

I just got an email from FFG about this. You do have to pay for the units, they are not free.

@Forgottenlore Robofish had posted this back in September.

16 minutes ago, Husker949 said:

@Forgottenlore Robofish had posted this back in September.

Yeah, but what about the "ships or ground forces only" part of the question?

Necro'ing this thread.

I think it was pointed out that you can only produce as much as a planet, not system. So the most you can produce is a carrier unless you nab a home planet with 4+ resource.

Another thing is, I've been arguing about Jol'Nar all day and by English, you have to pay the four resources to use the primary. I wish FF would have an official FAQ or something but, Technology reads, "Spend 1 token from your strategy pool and 4 resources to research 1 technology." If anyone has played Magic, you have to pay both costs simultaneously, even though our minds separate the two. That means that Jol'Nar's ability to use the Primary instead, means you pay SS + 4 to have the ability to pay 6 more for a second tech.

I almost guarantee this is an oversight but if you look at the Primary of Tech, the two parts are separated into bulleted points. Humorously, we only know that the two steps are separate operations and the later is optional because of the rule book.

I saw a Jol Nar player pick up integrated economy and go on the war path. It was brutal. Everytime he hit he rebuildt after. When his opponent fought back he got trade goods from E res. Had he had victory points from this he would have won the game.

The way that everyone I have even know plays the card as: Spend 1 Strategy Token, this then allows you to spend 4 resources for a technology. The Jol'Nar ability says when you spend a strategy token to resolve the secondary ability, resolve the primary instead. Order of operations kicks in and you spent the strategy token, now you resolve the primary ability instead of the secondary. Final cost for 2 tech is 1 Strategy Token and 6 Resources, as opposed to 1 Strategy Token and 10 Resources.

Unless everyone I know is wrong and has always played it incorrectly. If that is the case then I would stand corrected.