1- Question about The Alastor Nekro Flagship

At the start of space combat, choose any number of your ground forces in this system to participate in that combat as if they were ship.

Can i have the ground forces number over my fleet pool?

2- Question about Fighter II Advanced fighters

Does Advanced Fighter block movement of opponent ship?

3- Question about Salvage Operations Mentak faction tech

If Mentak destroyed a WarSun and he doesn't have Warsun tech, Can Mentak use this ability to produce a WarSun?

4- Question about Saar space dock

If Saar space dock stand alone and opponent ship move in, can Saar space dock retreat?

Just from a first glance (haven't looked that deep).

1. No you cannot. The only exception to the "ship" rule is very specifically fighters, all other "ships" are governed by the fleet supply rule which is to say you can never exceed your limit, if it ever happens you immediatly (before anything else can happen) but remove ships until you meet your fleet supply. Since ground forces are not fighters and their key word is changed to ship, that does not make them fighters, hence they are limited to fleet supply rules.

2. All enemy non-fighter ships block movement, Fighter II does not change the fighters "fighter" title so the answer is no it does not block movement.

3. The rule is that you may produce 1 ship in that system of ANY SHIP TYPE that was destroyed during the combat. The answer is, yes you can.

4. Yes, it actually specifically says that on Float Factory. "This unit can move and retreat as if it were a ship".

Thank you

Another q uestion about Saar space dock

if saar space dock move alone with 5 infantry to a system (no opponent ship) have opponent PDS . Can PDS use space cannon against Saar space dock

I beg to differ in regards to question one.

According to my understanding Fleet Supply is actually ignored during Space Combat. This is, I believe, so that if you, in some way, were to lose your Carrier(s) before you lose any (Advanced) Fighters (and thus increase your needed Fleet Supply) the Fighters can still participate in the combat. When combat ends, however, you immediatley check Fleet Supply and Support and remove units appropriatley.

I'm also slightly puzzled by why Advanced Fighters shouldn't be able to stop movement as that would be one of the key reasons to get the AF tech.

1 hour ago, Fnoffen said:

I beg to differ in regards to question one.

According to my understanding Fleet Supply is actually ignored during Space Combat. This is, I believe, so that if you, in some way, were to lose your Carrier(s) before you lose any (Advanced) Fighters (and thus increase your needed Fleet Supply) the Fighters can still participate in the combat. When combat ends, however, you immediatley check Fleet Supply and Support and remove units appropriatley.

I'm also slightly puzzled by why Advanced Fighters shouldn't be able to stop movement as that would be one of the key reasons to get the AF tech.

Fleet Supply Rule 34.3. " If any time the number of a player's ships in a system exceeds the number of tokens in his fleet supply, he chooses and destroys excess ships in that system.

If there is an exception to that rule it would be new for TI4, I'm not aware of any exceptions, You could never exceed fleet supply even during combat in TI3. TI3 Rule(pg 21) "A player may never move units, build units or otherwise acquire units in any system so that the number of ships herein exceed the number of command counters in a players fleet supply".

In both games Fighters were the only exception, but ground forces are not fighters, in this scenario they are "ships".

Capacity is ignored during space combat.. aka if you lose your carrier fighters can continue to fight, but fleet supply must be 100% adhered to at all times.

Also for the second part, the rule is quite clear. Non-Fighter ships are the only thing that blocks movement. There are no provisions or exceptions that describe Advanced Fighter II any differently, they simply can functions outside of capacity, but they are still fighters. Again, this same rule applied in TI3, so its unchanged in TI4.

On 12/19/2017 at 2:19 PM, BigKahuna said:

Just from a first glance (haven't looked that deep).

1. No you cannot. The only exception to the "ship" rule is very specifically fighters, all other "ships" are governed by the fleet supply rule which is to say you can never exceed your limit, if it ever happens you immediatly (before anything else can happen) but remove ships until you meet your fleet supply. Since ground forces are not fighters and their key word is changed to ship, that does not make them fighters, hence they are limited to fleet supply rules.

2. All enemy non-fighter ships block movement, Fighter II does not change the fighters "fighter" title so the answer is no it does not block movement.

3. The rule is that you may produce 1 ship in that system of ANY SHIP TYPE that was destroyed during the combat. The answer is, yes you can.

4. Yes, it actually specifically says that on Float Factory. "This unit can move and retreat as if it were a ship".

I'm also going to disagree on some of these:

1) You can. The wording is that they participate in Space Combat "as if they were ships." I think this means that they would not be counted towards fleet supply, because they still are not ships, they are ground forces.

2) The wording on Advanced Fighters does not make any mention about blocking movement currently. However, there was a discussion where someone asked Dane Beltrami and received a reply saying the opposite ( https://boardgamegeek.com/article/27229094#27179602 ) so it's possible this will be changed in future errata.

3) I don't think you can produce a War Sun without the technology. See 58.1: "Each unit that a player can produce has a cost value presented on its faction sheet or technology card." This would also be in line with the TI3 FAQ, though that isn't really relevant now.

4) I don't think if it was completely alone it would be able to retreat. It would be destroyed instantly, before ever getting a chance to retreat, since retreats occur as part of space combat.

5) Tying into 4, if you move only a Space Dock and infantry into a hex, I don't think it can be shot at with Space Cannon Offense, since it's not a ship.

3 hours ago, MMilty said:

1) You can. The wording is that they participate in Space Combat "as if they were ships." I think this means that they would not be counted towards fleet supply, because they still are not ships, they are ground forces.

I'm leaning towards this as well. FFG has been consistent in their other games that "as if it were" or similar phrasing refers to only the aspect in question - namely participation in combat. It doesn't mean to treat them as Ships for all other purposes.

8 hours ago, MMilty said:

I'm also going to disagree on some of these:

1) You can. The wording is that they participate in Space Combat "as if they were ships." I think this means that they would not be counted towards fleet supply, because they still are not ships, they are ground forces.

2) The wording on Advanced Fighters does not make any mention about blocking movement currently. However, there was a discussion where someone asked Dane Beltrami and received a reply saying the opposite ( https://boardgamegeek.com/article/27229094#27179602 ) so it's possible this will be changed in future errata.

3) I don't think you can produce a War Sun without the technology. See 58.1: "Each unit that a player can produce has a cost value presented on its faction sheet or technology card." This would also be in line with the TI3 FAQ, though that isn't really relevant now.

4) I don't think if it was completely alone it would be able to retreat. It would be destroyed instantly, before ever getting a chance to retreat, since retreats occur as part of space combat.

5) Tying into 4, if you move only a Space Dock and infantry into a hex, I don't think it can be shot at with Space Cannon Offense, since it's not a ship.

1. Ships count towards fleet supply, if the card says treat it as a ship, then you don't get to pick and choose which rules you want to apply to it else the logic breaks down pretty much everywhere the key word ship is used, for example action cards (are these ships immune to all action cards that would affect a ship?) or for example when you assign hits in space combat the rule is very specific "apply hits to ships", is that mean these ground forces are not allowed to take have hits assigned to them? Treat it as a ship, means treat it as a ship wherever rules for ships apply. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says otherwise that I can see, so I don't understand what your interpretation is based on`? I do agree that "treat as ship" is vague enough to raise plenty of questions as is the case for example with Saar space docks.

3. The rule of the game is that when a card would alter the rules, the card takes precedence. For example Space Docks cannot move, except for the Clan of Saar which states otherwise. The Mentak ability is quite clear. "Of any ship type.". Grant it they will probably errata that, but there are many circumstances in which you can build things outside of the normal rules and in those cases they always state any exceptions to that rule. In this case they should have added the "of any unit you have the technology for". I do agree that its fishy.

4. That's true, I guess I hadn't followed the sequence all the way through but the answer is still yes... but you have to survive a round of combat...which you wouldn't, but you can call a retreat.

5. Saar Space docks have the "treat as ship" tag, which from previous discussion is actually quite unclear as there seems to be potential for exceptions to the ship rules. For example in this case you can't assign hits to a space dock and they don't participate in space combat (they blow are blown up if they are in a system with enemy ships). Some clarity is in order but I agree that since they can't be assigned a hit, you can't shoot at them.

5 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

1. Ships count towards fleet supply, if the card says treat it as a ship, then you don't get to pick and choose which rules you want to apply to it else the logic breaks down pretty much everywhere the key word ship is used, for example action cards (are these ships immune to all action cards that would affect a ship?) or for example when you assign hits in space combat the rule is very specific "apply hits to ships", is that mean these ground forces are not allowed to take have hits assigned to them? Treat it as a ship, means treat it as a ship wherever rules for ships apply. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says otherwise that I can see, so I don't understand what your interpretation is based on`? I do agree that "treat as ship" is vague enough to raise plenty of questions as is the case for example with Saar space docks.

Except producing and being assigned hits are part of participation in combat for Ships. It says they become ships for the purposes of space combat, but other purposes - like Fleet Supply or retreat - they aren't ships. FFG has been consistent about wording like this in many of their games.

5 hours ago, BigKahuna said:

1. Ships count towards fleet supply, if the card says treat it as a ship, then you don't get to pick and choose which rules you want to apply to it else the logic breaks down pretty much everywhere the key word ship is used, for example action cards (are these ships immune to all action cards that would affect a ship?) or for example when you assign hits in space combat the rule is very specific "apply hits to ships", is that mean these ground forces are not allowed to take have hits assigned to them? Treat it as a ship, means treat it as a ship wherever rules for ships apply. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says otherwise that I can see, so I don't understand what your interpretation is based on`? I do agree that "treat as ship" is vague enough to raise plenty of questions as is the case for example with Saar space docks.

3. The rule of the game is that when a card would alter the rules, the card takes precedence. For example Space Docks cannot move, except for the Clan of Saar which states otherwise. The Mentak ability is quite clear. "Of any ship type.". Grant it they will probably errata that, but there are many circumstances in which you can build things outside of the normal rules and in those cases they always state any exceptions to that rule. In this case they should have added the "of any unit you have the technology for". I do agree that its fishy.

4. That's true, I guess I hadn't followed the sequence all the way through but the answer is still yes... but you have to survive a round of combat...which you wouldn't, but you can call a retreat.

5. Saar Space docks have the "treat as ship" tag, which from previous discussion is actually quite unclear as there seems to be potential for exceptions to the ship rules. For example in this case you can't assign hits to a space dock and they don't participate in space combat (they blow are blown up if they are in a system with enemy ships). Some clarity is in order but I agree that since they can't be assigned a hit, you can't shoot at them.

1) Would a Saar space dock count towards their fleet supply? I'd say no. If it just said "treat it like a ship" then I would say yes, but it specifies "can move and retreat as if it were a ship." I'd argue that because the Nekro flagship specifies "participate in that space combat as if they were ships" you can look through section 67: Space Combat in the rules reference and anything within that section that ships can do, those ground forces can do during that space combat.

3) I think we missed reading the empty War Sun slot on the race sheet. "You cannot produce this unit unless you own its unit upgrade technology." One of the golden rules given in the rules reference: "If a card or faction ability uses the word 'cannot', it is absolute and cannot be overridden by other abilities." The main reason I think it works this way is because without that technology, your war sun units have no movement/combat/capacity values.

With regards to the Saar space docks, it would never advance to space combat, as they would be destroyed instantly upon being blockaded. After further investigation, if you move them alone (or with ground forces) into a system, players can resolve Space Cannon Offense, but there would be nothing to assign hits to (it's not a ship). If however, there were other ships already present in the system you activate, they can have hits assigned to them.

All good points, definitely hope to see this clarified.

On 2017-12-20 at 9:55 PM, Fnoffen said:

I beg to differ in regards to question one.

According to my understanding Fleet Supply is actually ignored during Space Combat. This is, I believe, so that if you, in some way, were to lose your Carrier(s) before you lose any (Advanced) Fighters (and thus increase your needed Fleet Supply) the Fighters can still participate in the combat. When combat ends, however, you immediatley check Fleet Supply and Support and remove units appropriatley.

I'm also slightly puzzled by why Advanced Fighters shouldn't be able to stop movement as that would be one of the key reasons to get the AF tech.

I was 100% certain I edited the first part of this to instead read "By your own logic in answer two (that the Fighter II tech does not change the Fighter keyword to Ship), the Infantry keyword does not change to Ship by the Alastors ability. The Infantry participating in Space Combat 'as if they were ships' would thus NOT count towards the Fleet Supply Limit."

But I guess I must've missed the Submit button...

MAIL ANSWER FROM

Dane Beltrami - Game Developer

Quote

Hello,

Thanks for your rules questions regarding TI4.

1) Yes

2) Yes. The opponent’s ship movement would be blocked. This will be clarified in a future FAQ.

3) No, the Mentak player cannot use Salvage Operations to produce a War Sun if he does not have War Sun technology.

4) No, The Saar space dock is immediately blockaded and is destroyed.

5) PDS can be used against a Saar space dock only when it moves. PDS cannot be used by the active player against a stationary space dock or AGAINST the active player if the space dock in the active system did not move.

–––––––––– –––––––––– ––– ––––––– –––

Dane Beltrami

Game Developer

1- Question about The Alastor Nekro Flagship At the start of space combat, choose any number of your ground forces in this system to participate in that combat as if they were ship. Can i have the ground forces number over my fleet pool?

2- Question about Fighter II Advanced fighters Does Advanced Fighter block movement of opponent ship?

3- Question about Salvage Operations Mentak faction tech If Mentak destroyed a WarSun and he doesn't have Warsun tech, Can Mentak use this ability to produce a WarSun?

4- Question about Saar space dock If Saar space dock stand alone and opponent ship move in, can Saar space dock retreat?

5-Another question about Saar space dock if saar space dock move alone with 5 infantry to a system (no opponent ship) have opponent PDS . Can PDS use space cannon against Saar space dock

That Dane Beltrami just says "Yes" without any reasoning... I really dislike that. They just come along and act by authority, instead of acting by example and reason. Sure, they probably have other stuff to do as well, but to me (working in the field, but pc games) it is just bad practice towards establishing a mindset. You should always make people understand your position, not just impose it.

As for the topic at hand in point No.1:

If the ability would not allow to exceed fleet pool, I would consider it one of the worst flagships in the game. So from a balance point of view it makes a lot of sense to rule it that way. However, in regards to rule environment that answer is clearly a violation of the fleet supply rule, which is checked AT ANY TIME. Space combat is not excluded from "ANY TIME" so treating an entity as a ship during space combat would also trigger a fleet supply check. Therefore the developers answer is not consistent.

The design of the flag ship card needs to be revamped and the sentence "Ground forces used this way do not count towards the player's fleet supply" needs to be added for it to be consistent.

1 hour ago, Dreepa said:

That Dane Beltrami just says "Yes" without any reasoning... I really despise that. They just come along and act by authority, instead of acting by example and reason. Sure, they probably have other stuff to do as well, but to me (working in the field, but pc games) it is just bad practice towards establishing a mindset. You should always make people understand your position, not just impose it.

As for the topic at hand in point No.1:

If the ability would not allow to exceed fleet pool, I would consider it one of the worst flagships in the game. So from a balance point of view it makes a lot of sense to rule it that way. However, in regards to rule environment that answer is clearly a violation of the fleet supply rule, which is checked AT ANY TIME. Space combat is not excluded from "ANY TIME" so treating an entity as a ship during space combat would also trigger a fleet supply check. Therefore the developers answer is not consistent.

The design of the flag ship card needs to be revamped and the sentence "Ground forces used this way do not count towards the player's fleet supply" needs to be added for it to be consistent.

Well that is quite standard, by the rules as they have written them in the English language im 100%, undisputably right, this Ruling basically says.... forget what the rules say, here is what we meant. He doesnt give a reason or logic because their is none, its a Ruling based on desired effect, which is fine but only shows that the rules are unreliable, we always have to ask and/or wait for ereta, you can't rely on the rule index for factually correct Ruling you really have to try to interpret "what they meant"... all married guys can tell you that this is an impossible task! You can basically throw the rules reference in the garbage, its useless, the designers dont even use it to interpret their own rules.

Very true words @BigKahuna

TI design is very "gut feeling design". It is not very methodical (e.g. like Magic the Gathering, which works very well for the gazillion of possible conflicts that can occur).

It is possible to find a semantic and syntax for rules that are clear and not ambiguous. but it requires a different approach. You have the intention of a game design, which is the soul. Just like everyone can write a good melody with some imagination and talent. But then there is another component which I call "the craft". The melody will never become a good song, if you not learn the craft to bring your concept from melody to a full fledged song that is well recorded. FFG has the talent, and they have the ideas. But they always lack in the "craft" department when it comes to doing solid semantics and syntax. They use the English language to casually and too loose. A much more "programmer" like approach would help them.

Using phrases like "treats X as if it were Y for the duration of Z" should not even come up in a designers mind (except for the first idea phase). It should immediately be translated towards the game's language and the framework the game runs in.

So if you do it description based (as opposed to execution based): "At the start of phase A, all X are no longer M, but become N. This effect ends at the end of phase B."

Or if you do it execution based (aka instruction based), which usually help with conflicts a lot: "At the start of phase A remove any number of G from the board and put an equal amount of S tokens into that system. S has the following values: "BLABLA" and is of type Z. At the end of phase B remove any remaining S and put an equal amount of G at any place in the system."

I find it just really "hobby design" like to use terms as "treat it like - for the purpose of" or terms like "as if". Sure, less text, but so much ambiguity.

PS: Same goes for wordings that are not precisely defined. TI4 is STILL using wordings like "turn" or "combat". When instead it should always use "Round" or "Action" and "Space Combat" or "Invasion". Even if that means that a text needs to say things redundantly.

It really is not comprehensible how things like that did not get any attention in the 4th installment of a game.

Well, lest Dane think there be nothing but complaints, I'll just comment that I find all of these rulings eminently sensible and logical. I've added the note about the Alastor to the errata list over on BGG.

14 hours ago, pklevine said:

Well, lest Dane think there be nothing but complaints, I'll just comment that I find all of these rulings eminently sensible and logical. I've added the note about the Alastor to the errata list over on BGG.

Yeah I don't think anyone is disputing that the "effect" of the ruling is positive, generally I agree wholeheartedly that how they defined it is how it should work. It think the point being made is that the rules reference should function as a sort of "rules design" document so that, instead of having to create endless errata of exceptions to the rules, the rules should be designed to always function as written and allow us as a players to read them and understand "how we should rule the game" based on the written rules. Which coincidentally is the entire point of having a split between "learning to play" and "Rules Reference". The rules for learning how to play define the basics, the rules references defines the very specific rules for the governance of the game.

Instead what we have is a rules reference which we can't rely on as FFG intends to create errata for every exception which in a complex game like TI is going to be a lot. Another words "as a ship" is not a rule, its not a definition or a keyword.. its just a vague description and each time its used is a white elephant so every question or every occurrence and every special case from this point forward about what that reference means will require we have to ask FFG, we can't use the rules reference because in each case its used there is a whole lot of "unlisted and undocumented" exceptions that are yet to released.

People will ask questions about this reference and many others like it and we will discuss it here on the forum based on the rules reference and in the end non of the logic and adherence to those rules will matter because FFG will release an answer (like the one above) that has ZERO relation to their own rules reference. It makes all discussions about "the rules" found in the rules reference kind of meaningless.

On 1.1.2018 at 8:37 PM, pklevine said:

Well, lest Dane think there be nothing but complaints, I'll just comment that I find all of these rulings eminently sensible and logical. I've added the note about the Alastor to the errata list over on BGG.

Well, yes, you are right. I tend to get carried away in such discussions. Of course I appreciate the time anyone over at FFG spends to help us out here and clarify stuff. It's just that I work in design myself (video games) and it always gives me a headache why they do some things the way they do them... I still appreciate their level of customer support and attitude towards the fans though. When I lost a dice for my Descent 2 game, they sent a replacement to Germany from the US, and they charged me ZERO. Good company!

Hi everyone!

In my opinion Dave's answer about the Necro flagship is neither contradictory to the rules nor arbitrary. I guess he hadn't wrote the reason for his answer, becuse its clearly written in the RR too. "16.4. A player’s fighters and ground forces can exceed capacity during combat. At the end of combat, he must destroy the excess units.". That relates to the flagship's ability too.