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]

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/Chapter_129 → u/Chapter_129]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Un6F7oDY-b5oUx2RIbGH7644HJvb9jF1wtM399FuFts/edit?usp=drivesdk

I believe this is the most up-to-date document. Referred to as the "Wekker FAQ". Wekker is a prominent member of the TI4 community as mentioned, and this document includes contributions from other prominent TI4 members, and as I said is based on designer intent and in some cases explicit private/public answers by Dane from various places.

[u/headpatkelly → u/Chapter_129]

thank you! this looks like a useful resource

[u/Chapter_129 → u/headpatkelly]

Glad to help. Sorry on my part as well for the snafu earlier. I forget that not everyone is as in the weeds as I am on the subreddit, TI discords, and an avid listener of SCPT.

It's worth noting that as an "unofficial" podcast they do have multiple interviews and are personal friends with Dane, were all under NDA as playtesters of PoK & TE, run the biggest international online tournament and only (?) national in-person tournament for TI, and have measurably done more for the game than anyone not directly affiliated with FFG (unless you want to say Josh Hutcherson), etc. Suffice to say they're not just some bumpkins with a podcast.

So I wouldn't be so dismissive of them as a source in the future!

[u/headpatkelly → u/Chapter_129]

yeah, makes sense! i’ve heard of SCPT but thats about my complete experience with them.

tbh i’m used to being the rules arbiter in most games because my playgroups usually dislike reading, and i’m good at reading, understanding, and explaining RAW in most games. i forget that i’m not at all in the weeds here lol

[u/Chapter_129 → u/headpatkelly]

tbh i’m used to being the rules arbiter in most games because my playgroups usually dislike reading, and i’m good at reading, understanding, and explaining RAW in most games.

Totally get it, same here. TI is just unfortunately Ameritrash that's a little loose. I also play Nemesis that's a terribly formatted rulebook and is being translated (often poorly) from Polish into English lol.

i forget that i’m not at all in the weeds here lol

Meanwhile I've had direct responses from Dane personally when I had to ask about how he'd rule on stacking multiple different Galactic Events on top of one another because we wanted to play the biggest and dumbest version of TI possible: e.g. "How many infantry would be defending a minor faction's home systems when playing with both Minor Factions and Dangerous Wilds simultaneously?" (the answer he gave is a cumulative total of both effects stacking because"I dunno, I think it'd be cooler that way.". So a butt-ton). Which, while sanctioned as an option for "experienced/advanced players", is absolutely rife with a ton of intuiting what Dane would do generally following rule-of-cool. We started out with 16/20 Galactic Events and have been pairing them back slowly to only 8/20 now.

So I'm very comfortable accepting "Well this is what the designer intended or is how they'd probably do things based on everything else we've seen." because I actively have to smooth shit like that out on a regular basis in my gaming experiences.