In a Fall of the Empire scenario game , any player who has Treaty Cards from more than one opponent in-hand when the game ends is called a traitor and does not qualify for the Alliance win. However, since a player must only discard one held Alliance Card whenever they receive a new one from a different player, there appears to be no way to be a traitor temporarily while you weigh your options. If you are holding Treaty Cards from, say, two other players at once, the only way I can see to stop being a traitor is to ask one of those two players to give you a second one of their Treaty Cards to replace the one from the other player. This seems wonky, and it gets worse with more simultaneously held Treaties. This means that no (rational) player would ever be a traitor at any point, which makes things nearly impossible for a player with the "Support of the People" Objective card, since three players have to immediately bet the farm by making a full commitment to their alliance as soon as they get the offer. I think this Objective pretty much requires at least one traitor who is caught off-guard when they end the game suddenly ends.

I think this is probably an error due the wording or something being left out when the alliance mechanic is described.

The simplest remedy would be to simply allow a player to also return another player's own alliance card back to them during the "Give Treaty" step while "Forming Alliances". Of course, doing this is likely to upset the person getting their card back, especially since they've now lost the ability to use one of their Treaty Cards (as one must still be discarded secretly as usual).

Another idea for a fix that I like is that a player could be permitted to activate their own home system for the sole purpose of swapping Alliance Cards around between their held cards and their discard pile in any manner they choose. This would use up their home system and waste a command counter, but allow them to save some face in comparison to the other option.

Other stuff :

It isn't stated, but do you need to control your own home system in order for somebody else to activate it to give you a treaty?

It looks like it is very important that all players are aware of the different Scenerio Objectives that are available at the beginning of the game. Unstoppable Army, Opportunist, and a couple others look unlikely to arouse suspicion when sought otherwise.

When a player with the "Support of the People" Objective gives our their fourth Treaty and finds out that they did not win, does the game continue? Perhaps if this player, after looking at everyone's held Treaty Cards in secret, can continue the game being unable to fulfill their own Objective-- they could still shoot for an Alliance win.

I don't understand what the "Bargaining" step is good for in Alliances. I mean, non-binding agreements are one thing, but when the outcome is also kept secret and there is no way to tell if someone is upholding the most important part of the agreement until the game ends?! If it were just about following the hint text on the card, you could make those sort of agreements any time without Treaty Cards being involved. Does anybody think a player would say "No, I don't want your trade goods because I might not want to accept your Treaty."? It just isn't going to happen! They'll always take whatever you are willing to put in front of them. That being the case, I don't see any reason for the person giving the treaty to offer up any goodies with it UNLESS the recipient is at least permitted to overtly show that they are not discarding the Treaty Card they just received. I might sweeten things a bit if I could just see that I was being taken seriously when the treaty was first made. Sure, they could ditch it later on, but the added trouble for them to do that would be worth something.

Ack! Can't we just go back and edit out the stupid typos? That's just annoying. Oh well

I think the thing to remember with Treaties is what their purpose is; giving a Treaty to someone is like saying "Hey, help ME win, and you'll win, too!" Thus, when you offer a treaty, you need to do so with that mindset, and when ACCEPTING a Treaty, you will need to remember that it's point is that you will help that person win in exchange for winning also.

The mindset of "both winners are EQUAL winners" is important. If a group views it as "winner and second place", Treaties will lose most their meaning, as who really wants to be second place?

Thus, why would you be a traitor? If Player A offers you a treaty, you can agree to help. Then Player B says they want your help. Now, if you really want to just help Player A, you can just throw away B's. If you want to help B, you can throw away A's. Either way, nobody will know until the end. But if you decide to keep BOTH, that means you kind of have a commitment to winning yourself. But you can also use it as a bluff. Player A may turn around and say "Hey, I really want your help", and give you another one. The key in such cases, especially if you fear you may not win yourself, is that you need to play the other two against each other, coaxing them to give you another Treaty to revert to loyal. They don't know what you've kept, but they can know that your support can be the difference between winning and losing, and if you point that out, they may fight to keep your loyalty. Once you've decided to be an ally, you can focus your goals on helping that player WIN (and, thus, winning yourself also), which means you don't even have to worry about your own objective anymore. Having TWO players actively trying to make one of them win could be huge.

I haven't tried this scenario yet, just theorizing in my head. But I think the real key to enjoying the scenario is really in terms of utilizing the potential of the Alliances and Treaties, and realizing what they mean more than just giving away cards (I'm not saying that's you, I'm just speaking in general terms)

Another question:

Is it possible for their to be four winners of the scenario? That is, the Lazax wins and so does one player allied with the Lazax. Then the player with the "Loyalist" Objective Card also wins and so does one player allied with the loyalist.

sigmazero13 said:

I agree with what you are saying about how to think of Treaty Cards, but having to ask for a second (or more) Treaty Cards from the same player is just silly. I think the two changes I suggested make a lot more sense. Plus, you aren't stuck in a position where you need someone to give you another one of their Treaty Cards, but they have none to give-- therefore forcing you to be a traitor when the game ends, just because you wanted to temporarily weigh your options.

~sinker

Hugesinker said:

Don't "ask" - enforce with actions. Both players will know they each gave you a treaty (but won't know if you kept it). If they REALLY want your loyalty, give them reason to ask again - start helping them win or start helping their opponent until they entice you.

If you take the risk of keeping a second player's card, you take the risk that you'll be branded a traitor, so consider carefully.

I've still been puzzling over the "Support of the People" Objective. Specifically, how anyone could manage to pull it off without arousing too much suspicion. In the Manual it says that the description text on Alliance cards, such as "Attack the Player to my Right.", has no real impact on the game-- though it can serve as a recommendation.

However, I think the following would serve as a good rules pertaining to this--

(1) You cannot give a player an alliance card that tells them to attack themselves in the description text.

(2) You cannot give another player the "defend me" #1 alliance card unless you have been in combat with a third party earlier in that game round, thus having a legitimate reason to request this aid.

This just seems fair in keeping with the spirit of the cards. If these rules are in effect, a player is more likely to understand why they are given a #3 or even a #4 Alliance card; rather than having them just reject it out of hand as not a serious offer or a solid indication that they have the "Support of the People" objective.

Hugesinker said:

All rules aside, if you're the head of a powerful nation (interstellar or otherwise) and you enter into an OFFICIAL alliance with another powerful nation, and THEN you turn around and engage in treaty talks with a THIRD powerful nation in order to "weigh your options" - that would be the standard definition of treachery. Thinking over the question of whether or not you're really going to help the first person YOU PROMISED TO HELP is being a traitor.

Playing people against each other like pawns in order to secure your loyalty to one over the other is perfectly valid, of course. That would be what Sigma was talking about, where you promise yourself to two people and then try to make them vie for your loyalty. Not exactly above-board behaviour, but it does happen in politics. Especially in a Machiavellian power struggle such as the one presented in TI.

Thematically, the rules make perfect sense. If you want to "weigh your options," you should do that before accepting ANY Treaty cards, if you really want to be on the up-and-up about it.

Steve-O said:

These aren't necessarily people you've promised to help though, these are just people who have asked for your help (and possibly bribed for your help). It kind of makes sense to be wary without completely dismissing their card.

Steve-O said:

I understand and my feedback from Cory indicates that this is how it was meant to work-- it is very difficult to weigh your options after people have already offered you alliance cards. I still need to try the scenario game to see how this all plays out.

However, what do you think about my previous post with possible rules concerning the alliance card description text?

Hugesinker said:

Yes, actually, they are. That's what an alliance is - a promise of mutual support . An alliance is not just "hey, you're kinda cool, wanna hang out some time?" An alliance is "Lo! We suffer against a common enemy! Let us join our forces as one to repel their foul incursion!"

Hugesinker said:

At the end of the day, you have to do what makes you happy. I don't worry too much about fluff text, it's just an example, not a binding part of the rules.

Steve-O said:

Steve-O, you're totally bumming me out here bro. How do you expect anyone to ever win with the "Support of the People" objective? Without adding some value to the flavor text, why wouldn't everyone just reject any alliance card that wasn't a 1 or 2? I mean, aside from them not paying attention to what is going on.

Hugesinker said:

+1 to this question.

Demiurgo said:

I did get an official answer to this question from Corey-- the answer is yes . I wish I still had the e-mail.

This is what almost happened during my last game. It isn't a very satisfying way for things to end, especially in a 5-player game. There are some unusual dynamics when the Loyalist is in the game. For one, any treaties that the loyalist gets from the Lazax are worthless to them, they will be discarded immediately without a moment's consideration. This is a bit of an advantage for them because other Objectives need to consider treaties from all players carefully. If they share a mutual top treaty, the Anarchist and the Loyalist are both almost guaranteed to win as long as the game lasts for the full eight rounds. Additionally, they will be more likely to act on behalf of the Anarchist Objective in order to prevent the less satisfying 4-way win during the last round or so of the game. It is also easy for the two of them to make this very difficult to prevent-- for example, by having the Loyalist abandon their home system and let in the Anarchist in without a fight at the last moment (which is what happened during our game).

In our case, they were bending the rules a bit in sharing information, but I see how they could easily have communicated their objectives more openly through permitted means of subterfuge and the result would have been the same.

It might be a good idea to nerf this as follows-- Treaties from the Loyalist are only good if the Loyalist has the top treaty from the Lazax at the end of the game. This way, it would be possible to have a 3-way victory, but never a 4-way victory.

Hugesinker said:

On second thought, this probably would not be enough motivation for the Loyalist to consider accepting treaties from the Lazax. I haven't thought of a way to remedy this yet.

However, one good way to improve the entire treaty system and prevent a player from willingly giving up their own home system at the last minute to win with the Anarchist is to add the rule that to qualify for a win through a treaty, you need to control your own home system at the end of the game.

Hugesinker said:

I agree on that: Loyalist will never keep a Treaty of the Lazax player to avoid more players wining the game.

Hugesinker said:

I clearly dislike the idea of a player winning the game not having control of his own Home System. I whink this should apply for any kind of victory, not only for Treaties.