When passing, the warning about possible wasted power income doesn't take account of power token income. I have 9 income and 2-3-0 in bowls 1-2-3, with 1 pt income, but got a warning about 2 wasted power

We just had a case where a player unintentionally declined the advance that should come with a tech tile. To go with the other alerts now included, it might be good to add an "are you sure?" alert when doing this.

If you are not last to join a game, you are unable to avoid players you dislike (e.g. kingmaking, very slow/wrong timezone, or just very poor play). It would be good to have a confirmation step before the game starts, so that you can leave a game if there is someone in the game you do not want to play with.

Similarly, it would be good to be able to request that someone leave the game, e.g. to allow someone else to join.

The distinction between Acad1 and Acad2 is easy to confuse/get wrong when taking the Upgrade to Academy action. I'm in a game where a player has mistakenly upgraded to the wrong academy. It's something I have nearly done myself on a number of occasions.

It might be better to first select Upgrade to Academy, and then be given a separate choice (where available) - either before or after selecting the research lab to be upgraded - of which academy to upgrade 2 (including a description of what each academy provides).

@coyotte508 said in Bug - +3 range action permitted without mine build or gaia project:

@RGW1962 said in Bug - +3 range action permitted without mine build or gaia project:

"...as a special action, you can take a Build a Mine action or Start a Gaia Project with your basic range increased by 3"

The wording is "you can take", not "take", so worded as it is it implies the player can also choose not to take it.

The tech tile is worded differently: "As a special action, gain 1 Q.I.C. and 5 credits." - not "you can gain..."

But if you find an official source that says otherwise we'll fix it.

The quote makes clear that when using the tile the action is to build a mine. If you don't build a mine then you haven't taken an action (range extension can't be an action since you're not allowed 2 actions in a turn) , so you haven't taken a turn.

I understand that this bug has still not been fixed?

In addition, I understand that it is still possible to use the 3pw or bonus tiles terraform action without building a mine, which is again contrary to the rules. The rules are clear that the action is to build a mine, with a bonus terraform included. If you don't build but use the tile then you haven't taken your turn.

In game GPIT-TURN4-TABLE9 Ambas has just been permitted to have as his turn the use of teh +3 nav action without combining it with a mine build or gaia project. His entire turn was simply to use the range action.

This is directly contrary to the rules: "...as a special action, you can take a Build a Mine action or Start a Gaia Project with your basic range increased by 3"

The change strongly biases faction selection towards those that play OK even when hemmed in. It is now very dangerous for first player to select a faction that plays badly when other factions are in play.

It also makes it near impossible for 4th player to choose a weaker faction, since the other factions won't have been bid up to take account of it.

On a more general point, I don't think changes that markedly alter things should be implemented without play testing. At least make both options available, and then revisit after the new version has been properly road-tested.

My preference (at least partly to speed the auction stage) would be for the option where factions are selected as at present, then everyone submits their maximum (relative) bid for each faction. The auction then proceeds as at present, but automatically. In turn, each player's bid is determined as maximising the difference between bid and the player's valuation.

@El-Temblo
game by game

I'm not sure the "no downside" auto-charge is quite right for Itars.

Suppose I have 3 in bowl 1 and 3 in bowl 2, and one in the gaia bowl. I want to be able to burn 3, and I am confident that the player to my right will give me that charge.

I do not want to be given a single free-leech by the player before him, since that will prevent me doing the burn.

So I think Itars need the option of turning off free-leech altogether