We are a group of four that plays TI regularly. But the rules for using two SC cards are confusing us and as a result. Usually we play with 4 players and each picks only 1 card and the other 4 getting a bonus counter. As a result political/diplomacy/trade get skipped a lot while logistics/technology become unwanted endgame when people are not lacking in resources. We do use the imperial II card so it's not one of those mandatory picks like Imperial usually is.

The normal way however is to have each player pick one SC and then have each player pick a second SC in the same order. The Initiative SC says you do not have an strategic action this round. Does this also mean you don't get to use the second SC card you picked?

In effect this would mean the initiative card is the least picked because you get no strategic action at all while other players get two. Your only advantage is you get to do all secondaries for free. (And you get fourth pick to block one SC from being played this turn.)

Is this correct and you don't get to activate the second SC you got?

A strategic action is playing your strategy card.

In a 4 player game. Your opponents will have 2 strategic actions to do because they have two strategy cards to play before passing.

If you have the Initiative and another strategy card, so you have 1 strategic action to do before passing. Playing the other strategy card.

The Initiative strategy card is never played as a strategic action. Why? There is nothing on the card for anyone to do.

You could have a house rule that you can play your Initiative card as a free skip. If you have alot of games where players try to outstall each other, taking the Initiative card would be disadvantageous in such games, since you would always be 1 action behind.

Passing first in a twilight 3 game is not an advantage……

In short, you get one strategic action for each AC except Initiative which does not give any action. So you see, it IS useful to grab Initiative in a 4-player game as you will be able to do six secondaries without paying any CCs at all. If you manage to pair it with Logistics you'll be swimming in CCs in no time flat.

Thanks for the correction. We assumed the no strategic action applied to a game turn.

Or you can use Leadership, if you find that there are some rules lawyers in your group that are insisting that because the Initiative SC states that you do not get a Strategic Action this turn, that it is inclusive of any Strategic Action that you are allowed to take. You may not have a use for secondaries that come around (either because of the timing that the SC was played, or your current situation, anyways. Leadership gives you the power to put CCs not only in the Strategy Alocation area (which is essentially what Initiative does), but in your Command Pool or your Fleet Supply also. If you, again, are able to get both 1 (Leadership) and 4 (Logistics) you could be looking at 12 command counters (including the 2 you normaly get) which is your full complement of counters, not to mention, everyone else will only be able to get CCs if they have the influence when you play your SCs. Personally, I don't see the need in taking both 1 and 4 for all those CCs, as you will no doubt have at least a few on your sheet in your fleet supply anyways, so some of it might be wasted, unless you time it properly. I would suggest using 4 first, as the secondary requires you to pay more, though some players that have alot of influence heavy planets could really benifit, as there is no cap, unlike 1.

Another nice thing about having Logistics AND Leadership in the game, is that you will have a much more eventfull game, as people are going to be able to perform more actions each round. If you are also using Warfare I, you also get that nice double use CC, which can make your counters go furthur.

An alternative to using only the lowest number of the two SCs that each player has chosen, is to instead progress through the turn order for all eight cards. So if a player takes 1 and 2, they will get two consecutive turns (1 and 8 will also give this result, last and first). This can give a bit more tactical interaction than simply choosing a low number SC, and the SC that you really want/need.

If you do switch out Initiative for Leadership, I do suggest switching Politics over to Assembly, so that the Speaker Token still moves around through the players. If you don't make the switch, either have a roll for the ST, or have the ST move one player left or right (your choice) to keep it moving around.

Switching around your SCs can really have a neat effect on the game. Have fun with it, see how people in your group play, and switch them around accordingly, so that you and your group can all get the most out of the game! Keep it fun, Keep it new, Keep it challenging!

supervlieg said:

Generally speaking, it does. The text on the card was written with the assumption that players were only picking one SC each (and therefore the player with Init won't get any Strategic action.)

The 4 player rules are an ammendment to the game that call for a few unconventional changes to the rules. Picking 2 SCs being the most obvious of these.

Another mistake which our group made initially (when playing 4 players) was to have each player take two turns, one at each initiative step they held an SC for. This is incorrect (and more than a little confusing, I might add =P) Each player takes a single turn at his lowest initiative step, the second SC's initiative modifier doesn't count - only the strategic action it provides.

Just FYI: the use of the words turn and round should be clarified to avoid confusion. A round is from the choosing of SC(s) until the returning of the same and consists of several turns. The difference is, I believe, also pointed out in the rulebook (or possibly the FAQ).

In 3-4 player games we use the following combination and only draw 1 Strategy Card per turn: Diplomacy 2, Assembly, Logistics, trade 2, Warfare 2, Technology 2, Imperial 2. You get all the essential parts of the game. With only the free use of secondaries left out fom Initiative. Dilpomacy gets taken alot I might add and assembly becomes quite important as well.

In 3 player games we actually leave out Imperial 2 as well and award one VP for the player controlling MR in the status phase, on top of the VP for scoring an objective. We do lose the free production possibilities with no Imperial 2 card though, but its not really possible to switch logistics out for production. But it works ok for keeping the feel of the game.

Archangelion said:

This isn't correct. The rules state: "Order of play with three and four players […] to detemine the order of play, a player uses only the highest initiative number of his two cards." We made that mistake in a couple of 4-player games too. When I had to introduce a newbie I just stumbled over it in the rules by accident. Since then we played it correctly.

Helspanth said:

Actually the statement made was correct since he/she mentioned that an ALTERNATIVE to only using the lowest is to INSTEAD use both… He/she never stated that one SHOULD ALWAYS use both…

Fnoffen said:

That was not my point! I wanted to make clear, that you have to use the HIGHEST number of your two SC and not the LOWEST to determine the order of play in a 3- or 4-player game where everybody has to take two strategy cards.

I wasn't talking about the Alternative that Archangelion mentioned. That's why I transferred the words "lowest" in Archangelions entry and "highest" in mine in bold letters.

Helspanth said:

Actually, it is the lowest number of the two that you use.

Faq p2:

Turn Order in 3- and 4-Player Games

To determine order of play in a three- or four-player game (in

which players have 2 Strategy Cards) use only the best (lowest)

initiative value of the two cards to determine order of play.

Helspanth said:

Direct quote from the official FAQs

Turn Order in 3- and 4-Player Games

To determine order of play in a three- or four-player game (in

which players have 2 Strategy Cards) use only the best (lowest)

initiative value of the two cards to determine order of play.

I couldn't find anywhere in the actual rules where it stated what you did above. The FAQs is where I sourced my information. The FAQs are available to download on this website, in the support section of the TI page.

I'm sorry, you're right!

They changed it in the errata section of the FAQ-list and also updated it in the rules. I was referring to the original hardcopy rules that I got. On page 31 in the left bottom there is/was a "special window" for the Order of play for three and four players . In the actual rules there is now a free space, so they eradicated it.

As I've said earlier I stumbled over it by introducing a newbie a couple of weeks ago, after many games with four players. I showed him the Rules for Units section to explain him the special abilities of the different units. And right after the end of the last entry to the War Sun there is/was that extra window Order of play for three and four players . And I thought : Oh no, we played that wrong all the time. Obviously I couldn't remember that we were doing right due to the errata!

When I read the posts here i remembered that situation a couple of weeks ago and thought those guys made the same mistake.

My copy of the game is obviously too old. Got it just before SE came out.

Nevertheless I have overpainted it right now to make that mistake not again in the future.

So, sorry again if I've confused you. Wasn't my intention.

I was so happy to find out that FFG puts the rules for their games in a free downloadable PDF. It makes it much easier for players who will be playing rules heavy games such as TI to, if they plan ahead, read up on the rules so that they aren't as much of a bother at games. It is also handy for techy gaming groups that all have PADDs with the rules on them. It makes playing FFG games that much more enjoyable when everyone knows the rules, because having to constantly tell people, "No, you can't do that." And having them get frusterated with you because you're being to 'rulesy' is just anoying, and takes away from the gaming experience.

That being said, having updated rules via the internet and original non updated rules books in circulation is bound to cause confusion in conversations such as this concerning the rules. It isn't your fault that they (FFG) changed that rule and that you were unaware. You have your rules in your rule book, and as far as you are concerned, those ARE the rules, which is perfectly fine! That is how the game was originaly made and there is absolutly nothing wrong with playing it that way.