I had a chance this Sunday to play the Fall of the Empire scenario. We had 6 players. We simply rolled a 10 sided die and whoever got the highest could simply pick from the available races. I rolled a 9 the highest and promptly took the Lazax. There was no way I was going to pass up being able to play them.
The Lazax objective in order to win states that at the end of turn 8 you need to control Mecatol Rex and every other player must control their own homesystem or the Lazax can control home systems in order for you to win.
The flip side of this is if there is no winner by the end of turn 8 then the game ends in a tie. There is simply no winner.
Does anyone see where this is going???
Logically speaking everyone would rather tie than lose. Given that simple fact there is no way that the Lazax can win. Because if you are going to lose to the Lazax you can always tie instead.
The reason for this is if no one can claim a victory for their own agenda and therefore they are going to lose and the Lazax are going to win what can they do in order to not lose? They can simply block off the Lazax and invite someone to park a destroyer in their home system. This results in the lose of control of their home system. With the end result being that the Lazax are unable to fulfill their victory condition and instead of winning everyone ties. Thus barring miraculous action cards or abject stupidity the Lazax will never be able to win the game. They simply cannot push through several players worth of fleets and supporting resources in order to "liberate" the homesystem that is being sacrificed. This strategy is especially relevant when you combine it with the agenda card which states that you win if the Lazax does not win. Or in other words simply do what I outlined above and deny the Lazax from winning and you can in fact turn a tie into a victory.
This is exactly what happened to me on Saturday. And I was in a incredibly strong position. I have discovered Hacan was the loyalist through an agenda card on the 2nd turn. We then bribed Barony to Hacan's loyalist victory condition and easily defended Mecatol Rex and saved Barony's home system from Sol who was adjacent after beating up on Barony for two turns. So in other words we were maintaining the status quo. Then on the 7th turn we realized what that meant. Which was it meant nothing at all as all they had to do to tie was give up a home system. They build speed bump fleets counterattacked my two fleets that looked like they might break through to take the home system which had been sacrificed and and held us off for two turns with the significant help of the Diplomacy and Warfare strategy cards.
Given the huge advantage in resources that my bloc of allies possessed and the fact that we were still unable to break through I don't see how this isn't something that can be done every game that Lazax are going to win in order to simply deny them the victory and instead create a tie game situation.
Of course, the game didn't end in a tie. The guy with the Anarchist agenda won because the Lazax lost.
ReplyDeleteAddendum: On top of that, and despite it all, you came within fractions of an inch of winning anyway. If I hadn't drawn that Signal Jamming- or if you guys had a Sabotage card handy- you would have had the firepower to overrun the Xxcha in the Jol-Nar home system and win the game.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the scenario is broken (at least not in the way you describe). I worry a little about the "occupy any home system" and the "take the Quann system" agendas, but not about the situation we were in last game.
Of course, we were all very confused at many points during that game. (The Letnev player took two treaty cards, I spent the first four turns doing something totally off-the-wall, and the Jol-Nar jumped the starting pistol on attacking the Lazax.) I say we try again, see what happens.
Right but the point is that the player who has that agenda which grants him a victory if the Lazax do not win will always win given that. Because if the Lazax are going to win the losers would rather tie. Which means that the person with the Lazax do not win agenda will win. Of course they can either advertise that fact and convince others to help them or they can pretend to help them to achieve a tie but in fact actually win. The end result is the same. Which is the Lazax cannot win...
ReplyDeleteIts really unassailable logic. You would rather tie than lose. Logically speaking that is completely correct. Given that the Lazax cannot win.
I'm not worried about the other objectives they are doable its just that the Lazax objective is impossible given logical and intelligent people.
The game is only broken for the Lazax player. But given that who would want to play the Lazax?
Also I wouldn't say we came within fractions of an inch of winning. We had three turns in which to prevent your faction from giving up the home system. We knew exactly what you were doing and how to counter it but couldn't.
ReplyDeleteRegardless I really enjoyed the scenario immensely. I liked the new strategy cards and how they work and interact. I really enjoyed the different political cards and I loved the idea of having the Lazax around. The game was very enjoyable.
Also as for what you were doing it completely made sense. I don't think what you original strategy was was wrong at all. It was just that later on you realized that you could achieve your objective in a different albeit easier manner since Dan was willing to give up his home system rather than try and take Barony's. Also Jol Nar had to attack me. He didn't jump the gun he had to attack as early as possible should have even attacked earlier. Because his objective was to take Mecatol Rex. I was simply too strong that is all.
Great game overall and I really want to play the scenario again.
Regardless the Lazax however cannot win. Either someone else achieves their objective and wins the game. Or no one else can achieve their objective in which case the Lazax will win. However because of the nature of the Lazax objective it can easily be prevented and if no one wins at the end of turn then the game ends in a tie. The beauty of this is that the objective that requires the Lazax not to win is made easier as at the time people realize that the Lazax will win they will then conspire to have them not win becuase they would rather tie. Which unknowingly will give the victory to the player who holds that objective. Also a shrewd player that holds that objective will use his treaty cards to get others to get other players need him to win in which case they will be helping him all game.
So the final result is someone wins fulfilling their objective. No one can fulfill their objective so they deny the Lazax the win. Which in some circumstance if the Lazax failing to win objective is out actually results in a win for that player.
The bottom line is the Lazax can't win. Barring miracle actions cards or outright idiocy on the part of the non Lazax players.
An easy fix would be to only have the Lazax have to control his own home system. Which would create a much more violent atmoshpere as to create a tie in that situation the races that could not win would have to attack and take Mecatol Rex. Or the other fix would be to have anyone who does not control their homesystem to not be able to win the game. Resulting in a lose for that person. However if that person is going to lose they would still rather have no one win and everyone tie with them losing as it is a lesser degree of losing rather than there being a clear cut winner and them losing. So that probably won't fix the problem either.
You keep saying "the Lazax can't win", but I can't follow your arguments as to why that is. Yes, people would rather tie than lose, but people would also rather win then tie... and the Lazax player gets at least one (the loyalist) and perhaps two (whoever he gives a high treaty card to) people to back him up. That, plus the Lazax industrial and technological advantage, makes actually taking and holding someone else's home system very, very difficult for anyone, despite collusion on the part of the target.
ReplyDeleteWith the solid support of the Hacan and the near-solid support of the Barony (once we sorted out how alliance cards actually work), you were in a truly dominant board position. The entire games swung on two action cards- the one that Dan played to keep the Diplomacy action card, and the one I played at the end to lock down that system. Even then, only the fact that the Xxcha was the critical player here allowed the stall tactics to work at all.
Stop placing so much emphasis on the endgame, where a combination of stall tactics, action cards, and sheer luck allowed the "rebel alliance" to pull out a victory (not even that on the Jol-Nar's part). Look instead to the mid-game, where you were in a completely dominant board position and quite confidently smacking us around.
As for the Jol-Nar's early assault, he most certainly did jump the gun. Taking on the Lazax early broke him, as opposed to waiting until Arthur and I got our acts together and bored in on you.
Your exactly right! The Lazax sometimes have a loyalist and others can be bribed with treaty cards and they do enjoy a technology and resource advantage.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I had all of those factors going for me that game. As well as having three turns to prevent Jol Nar's home system from being sacrificed and was still unable to prevent that from happening. Your making my point for me. I had everything going for me. Good action cards two staunch allies and foreknowledge of your strategy and still could not prevent it. Its that difficult to prevent even with those advantages!
Now imagine the opposite... If its near impossible with those advantages imagine a game where there is no loyalist no one has taken your treaty cards and players have been more aggressive with you all game. Somehow you have managed to prevent anyone else form winning and even successfully defended yourself from several different players. Its turn 8 you are going to win... Just kidding that can't happen because in your weakened state and near miraculous survival you are in no position to stop a home system from being sacrificed. But you played an amazing game though and deserve to win.
That point is that it is to easy to deny the Lazax player the win. And on the flip side its nearly impossible for the Lazax player to prevent that denial.
I still really want to play the scenario again... I wish u guys were going to play it this weekend. I just won't ever be picking the Lazax again or supporting them.
And I re-iterate that the endgame was, despite all its planning, mostly luck on the rebel's part. If any of: Dan getting the diplo card again OR Arthur being Xxcha OR me drawing that Signal Jamming had not been the case, you'd have won. You're making us out to be better organized and less lucky than I feel we were.
ReplyDeleteIn the case you mentioned, without a loyalist and nobody taking the treaty cards, of course the Lazax are going to lose. In a normal game of TI3, if everyone picks one player and throws common sense and strategic advantage into the wind to attack him no matter what, that player is going to die fast. I just don't think it's a likely event; someone will see advantage in holding back for one reason or another. The chances of nobody being the Loyalist OR the Anarchist- who wants you to survive until turn 8, remember- is pretty small. Likely you'll have both, plus perhaps a person you give a good treaty card to, if he feels it's easier to prop you up than to fulfill his own objective.
(And don't go saying things like you'll never support the Lazax ever again. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and makes the next game a self-fulfilling prophecy.)
Haha I probably won't be supporting the Lazax again. Because in my opinion they can just to easily be prevented from winning.
ReplyDeleteOn a side not I think when we play that scenario again we should play with Diplo II and Tech II. Diplo II because Diplo I is too powerful in that game type. Tech II because Tech I kills the Jol-Nar as the secondary is so much more expensive and would also just allow for more tech in general which is always more fun and satisfying.
My final addition would be that in order to fulfill an agenda and win you must also control your home world. That will stop homesystem sacrificing for both preventing the Lazax from winning and also the agenda that gives victory if you control another players homesystem. Which is broken if you consider that the person who has that agenda can give out their lowest numbered treaty card and ask them to move out of the way for them in order to take their homesystem. Which will result in a win for the person holding that agenda and also the person with the treaty card even though he simply surrended his homesystem to the person with said agenda.
I'm still confused why Tech II secondary gives the Jol-Nar a free tech, a six-cost tech, and an eight-cost tech, and with Tech I secondary they have to pay eight and /then/ get the free tech afterwards. Aside from cost there's no difference in the warning between Tech I and Tech II!
ReplyDeleteAs for Diplo II, I dunno. Being able to block a specific system is more of a precision thing, but in the circumstances you're complaining about ad nauseum (the Xxcha and their neighbor conspiring and having the exactingly precise setup and extraordinarily luck to draw the action cards required to pull something like this off) it'll have much the same effect.
As for the 'control home systems' objective, many of them do have that requirement. Anarchist, for example. I see nothing wrong with the way things stand. It's the Lazax's job to keep people out of each other's home systems, and they have the firepower and political oomph to do it in the vast majority of circumstances- unless their enemy is both a) the Xxcha and b) Gets absurdly lucky action card draws.
Well I still disagree with you about the Lazax and if we play the scenario again hopefully you will see it from my perspective. I think that you should play as the Lazax next time.
ReplyDeleteDiplo I is just too powerful. Its blanket coverage is insane. Since it is so powerful its likely to be taken almost every turn especially in the more important late game turns. That coupled with Xxcha being in the scenario regardless of number of players means that they can effectively freeze out any aggression against them no matter what.
As for Tech. The difference is that it just costs two more resources. Since the resources for Jol Nar are pretty limited if you look at their starting position those two resources are a big deal. Otherwise there is no real difference. You also have to keep in mind that Jol Nar don't have any good locations to take advantage of their scientist bonuses either. As there are no tech planets near them.
The definition of control does make the Lazax objective somewhat dificult to accomplish. All a player would have to do is not have any ships in is home system. It would almost take a concerted effort by all the players at the table to ensure all of the home systems were contolled by any player at all.
ReplyDeleteI, and i think allmost all of the ppl i regularly play with, would actually not rather tie than lose. Not in the way you describe anyway. In my mindset, if i don't win, i lose. A cheesy tie would not change the fact that i lost. I see no reason to not let the lazax win a honorable win rather than cheesing a tie.
ReplyDelete