Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jeebus]

1) I gather from the FAQ that these count as "extra turns"? The card itself says "extra round of turns". This matters for tie breaking.

2) If I play Outpost and end the game, I normally won't get the Outpost turn. But what if I have Fleet? What if I don't have Fleet but someone else does? The rules don't say either way, but since they don't mention it, it kind of implies that I don't get the Outpost turn. On the other hand, the explanation for why Outpost doesn't give you a turn after the last Fleet turn, says that Outpost doesn't keep the game going after it ends. Well, Fleet does keep the game going, so that would imply that an Outpost played before the game ends would happen (whether I have the Fleet or someone else does).

[Ingix]

1) Good question, I would suspect that they are normal turns for tie-breaking purposes.
2) The game continues if at least one player has bought Fleet, so any Outpost turns or Donations or Mountain Passes still happen. I think the answer to the first question will be important to determine the order of those turns.

[Donald X.]

Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.

[GendoIkari]

Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.

This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?

[Donald X.]

Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.

This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?

Yes... just like it says in the rulebook.

[Jeebus]

Fleet extends the game but Outpost etc. do not. When the last player with Fleet finishes their Fleet-given turn, no more Outpost etc. turns happen.

This doesn't answer the other question though... do Outpost/Mission turns happen between the last normal turn but before the Fleet turns?

Yes... just like it says in the rulebook.

It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".

And, do Fleet turns count for tie-breaker (unlike Outpost/Possession/Mission turns)?

[Donald X.]

It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".

I do not understand how this is a question.

Outpost turns can happen not only in-between Fleet turns, but also in-between a regular turn and a Fleet turn, a Mission turn and a Fleet turn, a Possession turn and a Fleet turn.

And, do Fleet turns count for tie-breaker (unlike Outpost/Possession/Mission turns)?

No.

[GendoIkari]

It doesn't say that in the rulebook. It says that Outpost turns can happen in between Fleet turn, so as a result of a Fleet turn. The question was what happens to Outpost turns before the first Fleet turn - after the game ends "for the first time".

I do not understand how this is a question.

It's a question because the regular Outpost rules specify that an Outpost played on the last turn of the game doesn't allow an extra turn. Your answer here seems clear enough; but even with the clarification in the Renaissance rulebook, it wasn't obvious; because that clarification only dealt with between Fleet turns.

To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.

[Donald X.]

To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.

I see.

[Ingix]

To put it another way; Fleet only kicks in when the game ends. By the time the game has ended, it's reasonable to think that you must have already dealt with any Outpost turns (and those rules say that such turns are dealt with by never happening). So it takes a special ruling like this to conclude that any player having a Fleet causes a last-turn Outpost to now work.

The way I see it, Fleet does not 'reopen' an already ended game, it implicitely changes the rules on when and how a game ends. What were previously absolute game ending conditions now become conditional ones. If no player has bought Fleet, they still end the game immediately. If a player has, Fleet generates one or more exrtra turns, that mix with other extra turns, either already existing or created later.

What irritates me at the moment is that the rulebook explicitely calls out the order of the extra fleet turns. Normally the rules handle this already, so I'm unsure if this is a restatement of the normal rules for extra turns, made under the assumption that the turn triggering fleet was a non-extra turn, or something new. It isn't the 'normal way' either, as after the 'game ending turn' normally any extra turns for that player would come first, while the intention is obviously that that player is last in the Fleet turns (if they have bought it at all).

Test case: 2 player game, my oppoennt has bought Fleet, I haven't. I play Possession and buy the last Province, so Fleet kicks in when this turn ends and creates an extra Fleet turn for my opponent. Now there are 2 extra turns for my opponent: 1x Possession, 1x Fleet.
Is opponent able to choose the Fleet turn first, thus ending the game before I get to possess them? I think they should, but I'm not sure.

[Donald X.]

What irritates me at the moment is that the rulebook explicitely calls out the order of the extra fleet turns. Normally the rules handle this already, so I'm unsure if this is a restatement of the normal rules for extra turns, made under the assumption that the turn triggering fleet was a non-extra turn, or something new. It isn't the 'normal way' either, as after the 'game ending turn' normally any extra turns for that player would come first, while the intention is obviously that that player is last in the Fleet turns (if they have bought it at all).

The regular order was no good because no-one ever thought it worked that way. So Fleet tries to suggest that you keep going around, and then the rulebook says that that's what you do.

Test case: 2 player game, my oppoennt has bought Fleet, I haven't. I play Possession and buy the last Province, so Fleet kicks in when this turn ends and creates an extra Fleet turn for my opponent. Now there are 2 extra turns for my opponent: 1x Possession, 1x Fleet.
Is opponent able to choose the Fleet turn first, thus ending the game before I get to possess them? I think they should, but I'm not sure.

The opponent has to take two extra turns and so gets to order them. You only possess them during the turn, not between turns, so it's still their decision.

[Ingix]

So basically the Fleet turn of the player who triggered Fleet is special. It isn't taken into account which (extra) turn the next is and doesn't compete with for example that player's Outpost/Mission turns that already exist. This special treatment ends once another player has had a turn.

[Jeebus]

Ok, the way I interpret it is the following.

As Ingix concludes, Fleet turns don't follow the normal turn order rule. If the normal rule applied, the player who triggered end-game would actually be the first to take a Fleet turn: That player is the active player, and extra turns are taken in turn order starting with the active player. So the Fleet FAQ introduces a special rule (unfortunately not stated on the card) that Fleet turns start with the next player after the player who triggered end-game.

Given that someone has Fleet, the game continues normally after end-game is triggered, except that no more normal turns are played, only extra turns. All extra turns follow normal turn order rules, except that the end-game-triggering player gets their Fleet turn last.

So if there are extra turns in wait (Outpost/Mission/Possession) when I trigger end-game, I play my extra turns first, then the next player plays their extra turns including the Fleet turn, and so on. (Any further extra turns generated are added to the mix of course.) As normal, each player can order their turns, including Fleet turns. As soon as the last Fleet turn is played, the game is over - no more extra turns are played, not even for the current player.

[GendoIkari]

That all sounds correct. An awkward way of stating it is that Fleet has 3 assumed rules texts:

As long as there is a token on this:
1) The number of rounds this game is increased by 1.
2) Only players with a token on this get a turn in the final round.
3) Turns in the final round do not count for the tie breaker.

*Edit* You know, I don't think most of that needs to be assumed. Fleet is actually worded really well for what it does. It does NOT say "when the game ends, each player who has a token on Fleet gets an extra turn". With that wording, the turn order should work differently, and Outposts played on the last normal turn shouldn't work.

But with the wording as-is.. it basically does say my 3 points above. It says there is an extra round. The only part I think I could nitpick is the "after the game ends". When really it's always true that this game will have an extra round, it's not something that triggers when the game ends.

[Jeebus]

I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

[Ingix]

One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).

The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...

[GendoIkari]

I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

[Jeebus]

I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.

[Jeebus]

One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).

The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...

I actually thought about asking this, but I forgot.

The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D. Only Donald can answer this.

[Donald X.]

One thing to remember is that the 'would have ended the game if not for Fleet'-turn might be a Possession turn, so the active player is not necessarily the one whose' turn just happened. In a six player game with players A-F, A possesses B, then B (while possessed by A) possesses C, then C (while possessed by B) 'ends the game'. At this point the "active player" is IMO still A under the previous rules, as we are waiting to handle all the extra turns created after A had their last regular turn (where they played Possession on B).

The (I think) intended Fleet turn order is however D,E,F,A,B,C (whoever of them has Fleet). So I think in addition to what whas said before, the active player position needs to shift from A to C. Or maybe it doesn't need to shift with the current card set, as there is no way for A or B to get an extra turn (except Fleet) in the scenario I presented; extra turns are either for oneself (Outpost, Mission) or the next player (Possession). So since we have special rules for Fleet turns already, they may be skipped and the game would continue with extra turns by C, then extra turns by D (including Fleet, if applicable),...

I actually thought about asking this, but I forgot.

The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D. Only Donald can answer this.

Fleet turns are extra turns; the rulebook calls them extra turns.

[GendoIkari]

I agree with that way of thinking. It's just too bad that the Fleet turns count as extra turns, not as normal turns. If they had counted as normal turns, (1) and (2) would be a clean way of explaining it without the need for (3).

Well I've never thought of the tie-breaker as actually caring about the number of turns a player took. Even if it's worded that way. What it cares about is 1) Where you sit in turn order; and 2) If the game ended part of the way through a round.

Why is that different? If Alice starts and Bob ends the game, and they tie, the tie isn't broken. But if Alice has a Fleet turn and not Bob, Alice will get one more turn, and also the round (the extra Fleet round) ends part of the way through.

It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.

The question is what's the correct Fleet round turn order in this scenario. Does Fleet create extra turns, with a special rule that the player who triggered end-game comes last? Or does Fleet create an extra normal game round (whose turns still don't count for tie breaker), as GendoIkari suggested? In the latter case, the Fleet turns would start with B. In the former case, they would start with D.

Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round. Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).

So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.

Your latter case (not what happens):

Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D

What happens, thinking in terms of simply extending the game by 1 round:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B*, C, D
Round E: A, B**

*Even though B bought the last Province, Fleet added 1 to the game round counter, so the last round isn't round 4 anymore.
**The game normally would have ended after turn 4-B, Fleet makes it end after 5-B instead.


What happens, thinking only in terms of extra turns:
Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: C, D, A, B

These last 2 interpretations are completely the same, rules-wise. At least until there's some card and rule introduced that formalizes what exactly constitutes a "round". But I prefer the first of these interpretations; simply because this extra round doesn't suddenly have a different turn order than all other rounds.

[chipperMDW]

Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?

[Donald X.]

Say an extra round starts with player A. Player A has bought Fleet, and player B, to his left, hasn't. If player A, during his Fleet turn, Possesses player B, then has him buy Fleet during the Possession turn, will player B end up getting his Fleet turn, or is it too late for that?

Going by the card wording, I'm calling it too late.

[Jeebus]

It's not different, which is why it's possible to think of it that way without changing any rules. But it does mean that you no longer need to worry about "extra" turns. Rather than count the number of turns each person took, and then subtract the ones that counted as "extra", you simply look at who was the start player, and where in turn order did the game end. I mean, that's what people do in reality; no one is actually counting turns IRL.

I feel like it would have been much better to have this conversation in person, because I think there are some basic misunderstandings.

You're right that players don't have to count turns, but I never suggested that they do. But when the game ends in a player's extra turn from Possession, we can't just check where that player is in turn order. We need to specifically disregard that extra turn.

If Fleet turns count as extra turns, it means we can disregard them at the end of the game (and so just check where the game-end triggering player was in turn order, just like you said). If Fleet turns don't count as extra turn, it means we need a special extra rule to say that we should still disregard them when doing that. You can't simply look at who was start player and where in turn order the game ended, because that would include the Fleet turns. You need that extra rule. That's all I was saying.

Like Donald said, the rule book does say that the turns count as extra turns. But I don't see why it's an either/or between that and creating an extra round.

Because if we count them as extra turns, we can't follow your 3-point model of extending the game with 1 round. The reason is that per normal rules the game-ending player would get their extra turn first, which is not how Fleet is supposed to work. So then we do need to add the extra rule that the game-ending player gets their Fleet turn last, and we don't need the extra rule that turns in the final round dont't count for tie breaker.

Fleet says there's an extra round, but that doesn't mean you need to start with player B. You don't just immediately end the current round because Provinces ran out, and then start the new, extra round. Instead, because the game is one round longer than normal, you keep going with the current round, and go exactly 1 more round; as in each player gets a final turn (but only players with Fleet, and those turns don't hurt you in the tie breaker).

So to try and diagram this; looking at a game with Fleet that only lasted 4 normal rounds. B buys the last Province on turn 4, and everyone bought Fleet.

Your latter case (not what happens):

Round 1: A, B, C, D
Round 2: A, B, C, D
Round 3: A, B, C, D
Round 4: A, B
Round 5: A, B, C, D

That does not follow my latter case at all. My cases were about Possession turns, and the latter one was in accordance with your explanation. I was saying that with Possession turns, it actually does matter if we add extra turns or extend the game with an extra round. I was thinking that extending the game with 1 round would mean that the game continues with the next player who would normally have a turn if the game hadn't ended (so player B in Ingix's scenario):

Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], B, C, D, E, F
Round 6) A

But I guess we could still follow the Fleet FAQ literally ("The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn"), and then it would be player D. The problem with that is that, following your preferred model, we get a round that doesn't follow normal turn order:
Round 4) A, B, C, D, E, F
Round 5) A, [B poss. by A], [C poss. by B*], D, E, F
Round 6) A, B, C

*triggers end-game

[Jeebus]

Maybe Donald can settle what exactly happens.

Alice, Bob and Clara all buy Fleet. Alice plays Possession. Bob possessed by Alice triggers end-game. In what order do the Fleet turns go? The rulebook says: "The extra turns go in order starting with the next player after the one that just took a turn." Does that mean it's Clara, Alice, Bob? Or does the game extend normally with 1 round - Bob, Clara, Alice?