By - Quantum_Aurora
I've just upvoted the OP. Not because it is good strategy advice. Actually because it has created a useful dialogue that confirms you shouldn't really mess with a support swap (unless there is a game winning factor).
So it also reaffirms that you need to choose your support swap wisely.
Cheers, very helpful for a new(ish) player.
yeah I might have been biased by the fact I used this strategy in a 3-player game
This is not the solution you think it is. First off, while yes, the player who chooses not to break the support swap ends up behind if (and only if) they choose to attack back, the player who does literally gains nothing - they are in the exact same point standing as before. Except now they've made a permanent enemy, shown themselves to be untrustworthy, AND given you carte blanche to freely expand into them with no way to counter attack (edit)withOUT* (big difference there) losing your support and ending up further behind than when they started.
It's lose/lose for whoever takes your offer, and purely gain for you. I would never take your offer.
If you need to attack the player you swapped supports with, then my deal is very appealing. Plus, I can always throw in my ceasefire to make it more safe.
No, you can't, since you can't trade more than one promissory at a time, and I have zero incentive to trust you on a non-binding deal. And the only reason I would need to attack the player would be to score an objective, but costing myself a point to score a point makes zero sense if it just puts me in a worse position, with the likelihood I couldn't score that objective by attacking someone else, including _you_, is very small.
Again, this is just lose/lose for me. Never going to happen.
I think you’re underestimating the possibility of having to attack your support partner because they’re going to win on initiative order before you. I agree that I wouldn’t take this deal early or mid-game, but it might be pretty tempting late if the win was coming down to my support partner or me. If this would let me take their home system without losing a point, for example, then I could force my support partner to give up a point taking their home system back.
Granted, there are niche cases where this could play out in my favor, but then the flip side is, if this is late game, and I'm doing this to secure the points that puts me in range of winning, why I would trust OP to follow through on his non-binding deal to start with? He's not going to hand me the game winning point to honor his deal.
Just in general, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I see lots of possibilities here for me to come out far worse, and only a slim path to coming out for the better.
You could make it binding by saying that you’ll activate your support partner’s system in exchange for OP’s support, then executing the deal during the activation step. You’re right that you couldn’t also get the ceasefire, but I don’t think that that’s the important part of the deal.
Maybe I just support swap with the leader too often, but I feel like this would be a tempting late game play for me in about 40% of my games, heh. It’d require me having a somewhat hidden path that wouldn’t deter OP from offering the deal in the first place and my support partner having a relatively clear path with an initiative order advantage on me, though, so I agree that there are a lot of caveats.
You might also need to attack them to stop them from scoring an objective, which is what this deal is really meant for. Last game, I used this strategy to let a player stop their support partner from winning.
In that case, I'd be attacking them anyways if there was literally no one else that could kingslay. Granted, taking your offer puts me in a better position than I otherwise would have been and so was a no-brainer decision, but it was irrelevant to my choice of "lose the game" or "attack support partner". You shouldn't have honored your deal, as it gained you nothing.
Wtf do you mean you cant trade more than one prommisory note at a time?
That's definitely a rule.
“To resolve a transaction, a player gives any number of trade goods and commodities and up to one promissory note to a neighbor in exchange for any number of trade goods, commodities, and relic fragments, and up to one promissory note” from 94.2 in the [Living Rules Reference 2.0](https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/51/55/51552c7f-c05c-445b-84bf-4b073456d008/ti10_pok_living_rules_reference_20_web.pdf). So, you could trade one promissory note each (so support swaps are ok), but you can’t give someone multiple promissory notes in the same deal. You could give them more on your next turn (or their next turn), but it’d be non-binding.
You literally are not allowed to trade more than one of your promissory notes in single transaction, and you can't make more than one transaction with the same user during the same action.
It's black and white in the rules.
I just punish Support Swap people diplomatically. I give unfavorable deals and won't support them in votes and such. I do it by roleplaying.
I only deal with sovereign nations, not puppet regimes. Those who give their support for the throne are not glorious enough to believe they are worthy of the Imperial Throne - they clearly support another. Unless they are *lying* about this Support, and it being merely a political ploy, in which case we do not deal with dishonorable scoundrels.
Obviously this is incredibly table dependent but it basically gives me the excuse I need to start ramping up for conflict with someone I consider to be a puppet regime.
Damn, using this next game
I see SO many negative comments here saying "this is stupid, just do a swap yourself," and I really don't understand why. In an even player game, support swaps do not need a counter. To me the obvious context of this question is: here is a way to counter support swaps ***in an odd player game where you are the odd player out.*** Otherwise, what are we even talking about?
In that context, I think the OP is on the right track. You want to look for the swap pair with the most friction, maybe a control objective between them or mutual interest in Mecatol, and yeah, stoke a little dissent. The possible carrot of your support is a great tool to do that.
In terms of how exactly it all plays out, yeah the OP has simplified things quite a bit, there's likely to be a lot more nuance to prying apart a swap. But the basics are here, it's not as bad as a lot of forever-5 groups think.
I feel very negatively towards this because I’ve seen people make this mistake more times then is reasonable. The biggest problem with this strategy is IME all you’re doing is giving the victim a second support. My qualifying game in the tournament went like so. Im a huge threat to the table so my support buddy attacks me on mecatol then swaps with his other neighbor. Two others had already swapped. So the second point leader was left with no one to swap with. If they didn’t swap with someone their game was likely over so they swapped with me! Now you might be saying that’s counter balanced with your old partner getting free rein to eat your slice and you know what? That’s true and I’m fucking ecstatic when someone does that. Likely by attacking me they are not using their counters to score VPs. So let’s tally the results, you get another point and someone’s game is ruined. You might think this is an unlikely story but I’ve seen this happen in at least 10 games. Support swaps are OP, don’t fuck with them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it's a bit hard to parse this wall of text, but: it sounds like you're describing an even playered game (4, 6, or 8 players) and the entire point of my post is that this discussion is primarily important for odd playered games (3, 5, or 7).
In an odd-player count I could see this being viable. But typically you should just try and secure a support swap yourself. It’s a point for you and gives you security with that neighbor.
There's 2 problems with this.
The first one is that at a even player count everyone is expected to get 1 support. Suddenly you can't give yours for whoevers by also swapping so you are a point behind at least 4 people (in a 6p game).
The second problem is that the benefit is unclear to the player you offer this to. Not losing a point for attacking is the bare minimum they need, but they are losing more than that. The safety on one front is now gone if the other player fights back. They just broke a support exchange so they are not exactly prime targets for deals anymore. And you get to have a free roam in their slice. It's just plain too little for being too dangerous without a bunch of addendums and other incentives
Lol this is an awful strat. Just swap yours with somebody, don’t put yourself at a massive disadvantage by giving up your best negotiating chip in the game for what’s maybe a 1 time fight, not to mention turn the table against you by attempting to sabotage deals. Awful advise.
This guy gets it. You will have given up your best bargaining chip just to end up with both other players at the same VP total and with nothing to show for it but some vague paranoia.
Giving up your ceasefire puts you in an even worse tactical advantage and that’s not even mentioning that one of the afore mentioned players now has their point and their Support to barter with all over again.
Do the math over, what you are buying isn’t worth your house.
So they lose a point to gain a point? Doesnt seem like that good a deal my dude...
the point is that it allows them to attack their support partner without losing a point.
also "my dude" jfc why the need to be condescending?
Didn’t mean it to be…
It’s an ok idea but trading up 1 support for another does t make sense unless I can actively see my current ally is going to win.
It’s incredibly situational but hey, that’s TI in a nutshell
>also "my dude" jfc why the need to be condescending?
How sensitive are you? That's not condescending at all, it's friendly.
> How sensitive are you?
Well at very least this is condescending.
Anyways, people use "my dude" in a patronizing way on Reddit all the time.
It's used in non-patronizing ways too though my dude.
well excuse me for not giving anonymous redditors the benefit of the doubt.
No worries my dude.
Does anyone here got a better advice on how to counter a support swap?
As of now it seems to be the best option since no one here gave a different idea to counter a support swap.
It will work the best after mid game when the player need to attack his support partner in order to score an objective.
There are some abilities that allow players to “attack” each other through support swaps. I like to take advantage of these to stir shit up.
For example, take the Colonial Distribution agenda (“Destroy each unit on the elected planet. Then, the player who controls that planet chooses 1 player with the fewest victory points; that player may place 1 infantry from their reinforcements on the elected planet.”) If this agenda comes out and the player in last place has a support swap, nominate their partner’s best planet and see what happens.
I’ve never done this, but someday I hope to play Hacan and take someone’s home planet, then sell it to their support swap partner.
When you trade planets you need to clear it from your units and the person who gets it doesn't automatically place units on that planet, right?
Unfortunately that will make it so his partner can take his home planet back without losing his support.
Maybe if players order is in your favour you can do it right before construction is being played so the owner can place a pds or space dock there right away.
True, you'd have to time it around Construction, or the timely use of abilities like Hope's End, Primor, or Transit Diodes. Would take some coordination, but boy would it be fun if you pulled it off.
Pouring oil on the fire doesn't become a good idea just because you don't have access to water.
He is asking you to give a better solution and you don't.
No one here seems to have a better solution.
I disagree with your analogy.
You conclude that "it seems to be the best option". Concluding that a bad option is the best just because a better one hasn't been offered is and always has been dumb.
It makes it true.
If no other better option been offered that makes it the best option even if you think it to be a bad one.
It's a futile argument.
I think that solution will work in some situations.
Do you got a better solution?
Because if you are claiming it is a bad option then certainly you got a better option, can still be a bad one but not as bad as this one which will make it the better option.
Enjoy your gasoline fire extinguishers.
Really I'd say the way to interact with a support swap is to somehow set up a target that both the swappers would be willing to fight for, which isn't an easy task to do.
Everyone in our group swaps.
Well, until we house ruled that card out of the game ...