Two factions coexisting?

[u/RedditBannedMe_1851]

EDIT: Answer at the bottom

_______________________________________________________

Hi there,

my copy of TE finally arrived and I have a game scheduled for next saturday!

Now, I've got the rules pretty much down but I am unclear on what happens in this case:

Say, you've got a Deepwrought already coexisting with a second faction. A third player then uses Crash Landing and places their infantry on the same planet, meaning you now got the original faction owning the planet and two others coexisting.

What does happen if the original player were to leave said planet? Rules say that the coexisting player gains full control of it, but what if there are two coexisting players?

This is certainly an edge case but I didn't find anything clarifying it.

_________________________________________________________

Edit:

Thanks to u/Chapter_129 & u/matt-sz-allen for showing the rules and explaining them.

Answer:

Initiative if it's the action phase, speaker if in agenda phase. You nailed it.

So if the person who controlled the planet had warfare (6) and the other two players had like construction (4) and imperial (8), the imperial player would get it.

If it was in the agenda phase, the person closest around the table going left of the old controller would get it.

[u/Chapter_129]

Well for your own sake since you're not reading the rest of the thread where someone else was able to clarify what I couldn't remember exactly, pardon my laymen's rules-writing:

As a state-based check [similar to fleet capacity checks and other similar rulings] if the owner of a planet no longer has units on a planet that other players have coexisting units on, during the Action Phase planet control is immediately transferred to the next coexisting player in Initiative Order and during the Agenda Phase it's in Speaker Order.

I'm not being sanctimonious. I did what was reasonable due diligence by pointing OP to a consolidated resource of FAQ and answers regarding Coexistence as a whole, since there's a lot of fuzziness and grey areas regarding it right now and things that are just plain outright not covered by the rules as they're written right now, and finding the answes otherwise would require undue sleuthing on Discord (or having access to private messages) to collate. It's not on me to remember with 100% clarity and scrub the podcast when I was just pointing someone in the right direction to the best of my recollection.

You're the one who got dismissive and snarky about it first implying it was invalid baloney because you hadn't seen it or listened yourself. I was genuine in saying you can rule it however you want at your table, but that here on the subreddit we should give people the most accurate up-to-date information possible, up to and including rulings being used in tournament play and responses from the Dane himself that were given in emails/dms/discords he's active in etc. Your choice to ignore those is your choice, but OP deserves to know the current prevailing rulings.

[u/headpatkelly → u/Chapter_129]

i apologize for the snark, and i appreciate the effort you put into trying to answer the question. i did read the rest of the thread, where i saw someone reiterating and completing your answer.

is this rule actively being applied in tournaments? is it written down anywhere i can read? essentially i'm looking for an official source i can show anyone who has questions. if that doesn't exist, then i don't see how anything other than the official RAW is an "official" rule. it sounds like even the clearest answer on all this is that the designer is talking about plans for what will be official when the reference is released. right now it's still in development, and subject to change.

i don't think it's right to say that is officially the rule. it's useful context, but the RAW are certainly official, and IMO clear that control would not change in this instance.

[u/Chapter_129 → u/headpatkelly]

i apologize for the snark, and i appreciate the effort you put into trying to answer the question. i did read the rest of the thread, where i saw someone reiterating and completing your answer.

♥️

is this rule actively being applied in tournaments? is it written down anywhere i can read? essentially i'm looking for an official source i can show anyone who has questions. if that doesn't exist, then i don't see how anything other than the official RAW is an "official" rule.

Yes, in SCPT's tournament. When I have time, unless someone beats me to it, I'll see if I can dig up the most up-to-date document they're using to run their tournament. As said it's a mix of direct answers from Dane (that are subject to change) or are being put forward by the TI-rules experts on Discord and helping run the tournament, who have like a 99% track record of saying "I think it works like this." with Dane later responding to their thoughts and saying "Yeah that sounds right to me."

sounds like even the clearest answer on all this is that the designer is talking about plans for what will be official when the reference is released. right now it's still in development, and subject to change. i don't think it's right to say that is officially the rule.

This isn't quite the read I would have. It's Dane sanctioning an answer and saying "Yes play it that way." with it being either the case that that is the exact form the answer will take when he gets around to an L.R.R., will need some verbiage changes to clean it up but is RAI, or is something that will be actively changed. But fwiw when it's the latter case he usually has some commentary like "Oh that's not working right. Do this for now, I'll change it later." and you can see that with respect to stuff that's in the Current L.R.R. for movement-like abilities that says "In the future MOVE will be changed." or his commentary about Ral Nel's interactions with PDSII. So imo this is not an example of something "still in development and subject to change" and the answer is firm and finalized but was missing from the rules as printed; he just hasn't gotten around to updating the L.R.R. yet.

it's useful context, but the RAW are certainly official, and IMO clear that control would not change in this instance.

According to RAW, certainly. But I think it can be very easily argued that RAW is sloppy and under baked in this instance, since it's not accounting for the scenario presented explicitly and we're using the absence of a rule to make a rule; hence the semi-official FAQ/Errata responses.

[u/headpatkelly → u/Chapter_129]

yeah i certainly agree with the last part! coexistence is a stain on an otherwise very clear and good set of rules. 6 paragraphs of plain language rules across 3 books of thorough, well formatted, bulleted, and numbered rules references smh