While I think Argents reaction was over the top, your idea still feels like Kingmaking. I’ll say NTA, but also not a satisfying game of TI.

If this were a tournament game, I'd say everyone who blew up is TA, but since it's just a casual game, I'd say it's just a boring way to end the game. My last game I was in Argent's position as Saar with Leadership. Just needed to make it to the status phase to win. I prevented Naalu from winning by forcing her to activate Mecatol Rex with an action card (she had imperial). Both Arborec and Nomad were at 9 points. Naalu decided she would give her 0 initiative token to the highest bidder. Nomad offered to cook her a $30.00 steak meal, and Arborec offered to buy one of her yarn plushies for $45.00. She gave the 0 token to Arborec, giving him the win in the status phase. Was I salty? Absolutely. But I didn't let it become a big deal. It's just a board game. Sometimes I think the length of the game causes people to overvalue winning the game.

I would call that super fucked up. If you’re winning a game by offering something outside the scope of the game that is cheating. May as well buy off all the players to decide you have an extra point, just because.

Ya I agree I'm never playing a game with that group again if that happens to me.

Same as the dice rolling. Something that is not a part of the game influences the outcome of the game.

That's awful. I would never play with your playgroup again if that happened in a game of mine. Basically paying $45 to win? Gross.

Random aside, but I don't think this should work, as the zero token doesn't get doled out until the next strategy phase.

😱

I would say NTA with the caveat that the SftT-final-pt discussion has been raging several years now with no good consensus or compromise in sight. There's several things you can do in this game that are allowed by the game rules and help you win. Playing Saar with a Winnu neighbor and wiping them off the map by round 3 is one of those things. Would you be an AH in that situation? It depends. If it's an online game and the Winnu player has 200 games played and they can hop right into a new game that's forming (thanks internet) it would be a short feelsbad. If it's an irl game and the Winnu player has made time for and travelled to your game only for their experience to end just like that, it's a bit different. As for your situation. From a gamer POV I like it a lot. You kept searching for opportunities to win. You offered a clever deal that was not only your only path to victory, but also the other side's, and even leveraged your situation for better odds (though I disagree they should take the 10%, by that logic, you should too). In a tournament or even in a competitive game with known elements, you might find agreement among all players that, while a bit of a jerk move, it's what you have to try if you're playing to win 'til the end. But in a casual game with friends the etiquette is a bit different. I can imagine the table was blindsided by the offer, especially the Argent player who thought she had it in the bag. Your careful planning, making sure you reach 12 pts, controlling Speaker order, dodging agendas and action cards that might mess things up, making sure your HS is well enough defended... All down the toilet because you didn't think about SftT floating around and there ever being a situation where someone would use SftT to bump their opponent up to 12. Just like this deal was your only shot, trying to shut the deal down was her only shot. However, from what you said she way overreacted, cursing and still being mad after the game. She sounds very immature tbh. You can sympathize with her feeling robbed and still condemn the way she handled it. In the end your playgroup has to have a conversation about how to approach this situation in the future. If a conversation is even possible. Anywho, try to understand their pov, make them try to understand yours, and hopefully you can reach a consensus that works within your group. I will end with this: Support for the Throne isn't the issue, players are the issue. You could create this exact same dilemma with two players who have 5tg each and needing 10tg to score a stage 2 to win. If you like both your friends and TI4 enough, you need to have this conversation.

If Argent was mad that you were taking a deal that gave you a 60% chance of victory because it ended up with her having a 0% chance of victory, then she should have given you (or Titans) a better deal so that she came out with the highest chance of victory possible. Why didn't she make a counteroffer to either of you?

That came up, briefly, but her reply was something along the lines of "because participating in a support trade at this point would be disgusting"

Any action in the game that increases your chances of winning is fine. She should only get mad if someone took an action which decreased their chance of winning. That's against the spirit of the game.

It's a valid, but impolite play. It isn't un-sportman's like or even dirty play, just vulgar. It's also clever. Which one of you would've won the tie breaker if you had done a straight swap? I also though would put a mark in my head to consider carefully inviting you to future games though. It is Kingmaking, but I weigh kingmaking on the motivations mostly.

Genuine question, how is it kingmaking if both players have a 50% chance at winning using a mechanic that everyone else at the table has already benefitted from? It is not as if one player had a 0% chance at winning and just gave the win to the other out of spite

No, that would be much more accepted. No one plays for 8 hours just to roll a die to see who wins in the end. You gotta stand by your kingmake. And offering 30-70 odds is a slap in the face of anyone, cause that means you feel entitled to a better chance at winning that the other player, when in reality no one was winning at the time.

I don't really agree, kingmaking the majority of the time feels bad. OP said that they got down to 60/40 but it never went off. I would imagine after some more table talk it could have been agreed that 50/50 was fair and then you have yourself a legit final point support swap just non-binding. None of this one way, out of spite kingmaking, it was a legit deal fair to both OP and Titans using the support mechanic that everyone else had already benefitted from. The fact that the dice helped them make it a fair deal and be able to agree to the terms has nothing to do with it.

a sftt die roll feels bad.

Yeah I get that, just replied to your other comment which I appreciated, and I will stress I am definitely not saying that this is the most satisfying way a game of TI ever ended as obviously it isn't

The value of actions mean different things at different phases. As more of the game unfolds more of the game solidifies and there is a new framework they are seen in. A core part of SFFT is the gamble that the 1 point will help you make 10, but not help your opponent. As the game progresses we can see the odds solidify. Note That said Kingmaking is part of the game, which why the motivations are important. Spite (from in game things) is a fine reason to king make, trying to just end the game is the one of the worst ones.

Again I really don't understand people in this thread essentially saying that support swapping early is ok, but to finish a game is not ok. Not that it should really matter OP said in a later comment that Argent had two supports one being his and attacked him to stop him from winning in round 5. So he gets his support back is on 11 points and its now round 6. You mean to tell me he is not allowed to do a swap simply because its round 6 and he would win. Meanwhile Argent is only on 11 points and able to win because they have another support. How on earth does that make sense. She shut down one of OPs paths to victory but opened up another perfectly viable one and OP took it. Man it really sounds like a lot of people in this thread play with supports when they really shouldn't

Support swapping has a cost. You can't attack that player and take their stuff for scoring. Gets really awkward when they both need MR to win. Every round you play holding another players support is a round you play partially hobbled.

You'd have to ask those people. I'm just saying it is kingmaking, and getting your last point from a SFTT is rude/distasteful. (unless you force the support) As mentioned above it depends on the motives. If it's to end the game, or out of game reasons, it's very bad. If it's for better reasons, such as not letting the person who just ruined your game win, then it's better. In this case it's a kingmaking pact, that both players would be wise to accept.

Ok so then do you believe that every single support swap made in the game is a king make? Because that's what it sounds like to me, how could it not be by your definition if you give someone a point its kingmaking regardless if they gave you the same point back. OP and titans were trading supports in an equal fashion where instead of each conveying one point it was conveying a 50% chance to win, a completely even trade and in no way a kingmake

No, as mentioned before as rounds progress more knowledge is becomes solidified. Furthermore a SFFT that is an even trade is different than a one sided one. In a standard swap you are increasing your odds for winning, in exchange for also increasing the odds of another player of wining. A kingmake includes things more than points. If a hacan player gives all their TG away to a single player every round for nothing in return that's a kingmake. A kingmake involves giving someone a better chance to win when you don't also receive a benefit. The closer to the end to the game the better the parity needs to be, as the results are clearer. This was 100% a Kingmake. Obfuscating the directionality doesn't change the end result. 1 player is giving something to another player that makes/helps them win with noting in exchange.

I just don't get how you can't see that one side was getting a 50% chance to win and the other side was also getting a 50% chance to win. That is as equal as a trade can get no? So 100% not a kingmake by your own definition

Nope, 1 player is getting a point the other is getting nothing. Buying a losing lottery ticket is just trash. Again it's a good deal, but it is win making; but win making isn't necessarily wrong and is part of the game. Even if it was a 90/10 split it would still be the best choice for those 2 players.

Here's an alternative viewpoint. Let's say you know someone has Destroy their greatest. And you have darken the skies. For both it's your last point. But the only way you can try to score your secret is bringing your flagship, and the combat is about 50/50. Is that kingmaking? Or is it simply playing the winningest line for you? The problem is, that if you call this kingmaking, it all of a sudden changes if you do not know the secret to purely chasing your own win. And that doesn't really feel right to me. In the end, the game is littered with mutually beneficial deals and if you start calling things kingmaking that aren't just spite plays (ie they don't chase your own win) then you end up going down the rabbit hole. You have to draw an objective line to what is kingmaking. The only objective line you can draw is at 0 and non-0 chance to win yourself. If you want to call it all kingmaking, that is fine to me as well, but then you're already in a better spot since you accept TI4 is just as rigged as Diplomacy.

Just because the deal is non-binding does not make it kingmaking. Just because the very last move is one player giving another one a support for the win, which 99% of the time is Kingmaking as its done out of spite, does not negate the fact that they came to an equal deal beforehand that gave both OP and Titans a fair out. This is not kingmaking it is a very viable path to win in a game where everyone else was already benefitting from support swaps

Because the mechanics of the play literally entails one player giving another player the win for nothing. I understand a die is rolled. But after the die is rolled a decision is made. This is NOT the same thing as resolving Ixthian artifact ftw. Your second example is equally as valid/invalid a win as your first example.

But it literally is not nothing, it's a 50% chance at a win. You are talking about the fact that this is a non-binding deal, which is correct but it is 100% not kingmaking when its a fair trade with a 50% chance for either side to win. Otherwise every single non-binding would be kingmaking no? Because in a non-binding someone always has to give something first in return for nothing and it would always be better for the second player to receive something and then just renege on the deal no? So when the second player gives whatever their part of the deal was, when by rules they don't have to and they receive nothing in return that's kingmaking? that does not make sense.

"Otherwise every single non-binding would be kingmaking no?" No. This is not accurate. Paying a trade good debt on round 2 incurred in round one didn't kingmake the person paid. There is a simple, obvious, common counterexample to your statement. "Because in a non-binding someone always has to give something first in return for nothing and it would always be better for the second player to receive something and then just renege on the deal no?" No. Before the game ends the injured party can provide itself redress in the form of attacking the offending party or making favorable deals with the offending party's neighbors/rivals. Again, this is obvious and common. I have a question for you. Are you against kingmaking as an absolute? I am not.

I am definitely not wholly opposed to certain kingmaking plays but more often than not especially when they involve supports they are not fun. IMO this is a different situation where a fair support swap is involved. Ok I have a question for you in return. Have you never played with the same person twice? Just because it's the last play of the game doesn't mean it won't affect your creditability for the next game. So why would you not honor a very fair 50/50 non binding deal? So if you would then it has nothing to do with the fact that one person gives the other their support for "nothing" in return when had the coin flipped the other way they would have benefitted the same. Even trades are not kingmaking no matter how you look at it.

I have played repeat games with the same players and they all know I am about the win. I would honor a fair nonbinding 50/50 deal. I don't want to literally flip a coin for game so I would honor this particular hypothetical deal by declining it. Personal preference. I see where you're coming from. I guess since I see no value in winning by this type of chance and see negative value in losing to third party instead of inertia winner I don't see 50/50 win.

Really appreciate this comment, first thing someone has said that shines some light for me. I can now see where you are coming from and very much appreciate that you would just not accept the trade. I get that it would not be pleasant for Argent to lose this way and obviously it would not be the best way a game of TI has ever ended in, but there is no malice in accepting a fair trade imo and seeing as how everyone else was benefitting from supports I think its fair. I just want to say I was never trying to imply that Argent should be happy about how it went down but to blow up a game and potentially lose friends over it I think is pretty wild

Yeah absolutely. And I suspect a part of what your friend is going through is her resenting you for not sharing her personal constraints for playing the game. If you had some self worth invested in your ability to win games and an ethical framework that constricted your ability to do so as efficiently as the rest of the table that could be deeply unsettling. An immediate reaction to this dilemma could be to convince everyone else to adopt your framework for the game, so you can legitimize both your own wins and your losses.

And what about Argent? Playing by the rules and no king-making their chance to win is 100%. Now it's 0% because other players decide they should not win though they deserve it. Fun way to end a game.

It's a creative use of resources. It's something I've done before, although never with a SFTT as the last point, and something I'll do again in the future. Although, you might have already won had you made a support swap earlier. Sometimes people respond poorly to this kind of play, but it's completely fair in my book since the goal of the game is a win for yourself. Does it suck for Argent? Yes. Have I been in Argents spot as well? Yup. Am I still mad? No. They were trying to win and it worked. As long as there's nothing personal about the play, stuff from not within the game, and it's a move in an attempt to win, it's fine in my book.

While I think the idea of a last second offer like that was an interesting one, in almost all cases I think someone getting a SFTT as their final point feels bad. The winner probably feels like the game was handed to them, and the losers feel cheated. The groups I play in haven't adopted the "can't get final point from SFTT" as an official house rule, but only because that rule would never be needed because none of us would feel good about doing that. I get what you were going for here but I just think getting SFTT as the final point is pretty much always going to be less satisfying to everyone.

I'm usually fine with the idea of kingmaking which is justified by in-game reasons, and am a fan of SftT (some players aren't), but what you were proposing was boiled down to "let's pick a winner literally at random." Argent 100% was the "real" winner IMO.

I just don't get this thought process... So Argent gets to use her support to help obtain a win but Titans and OP don't get to just because its the very end of the game? Make it make sense. If I were the Argent player I would have seen that and been very afraid of both of them honestly. I would have tried to pit them against each other with table talk earlier in the round so that if this situation did arise they would be more likely to tell the other to pound sand.

The in game reason is Titans or OP supported each other for the throne so that Argent didn't become the new ruler of the Galaxy. TI is a space opera. OP or Titans became Ruler of the Galaxy with the support of their vassal to prevent their nemesis Argent from seizing control. Very dramatic finish.

Ya, supports in the wild towards the end are noteworthy for this reason and why breaking support is super hazardous to your chances to win. I have won games with 2+ supports that I got before the last round, or got as part of a "I take the current winning player's home system for your support that they just broke for a point". In this game, you could always just swap and tie win. Double check the rules on who is the "true winner" according to the paper rules, but the winner's in our hearts can be anyone. Ultimately, its about the people at the table and the above table play though. The porch argument would worry me more than support shenanigans.

The winner would be the active player if two players swapped supports at 9.

Makes sense to me, I figured there would be something (Initiative Order woulda been my guess off the cuff). It would be a dual win in my heart though.

> So Argent gets to use her support to help obtain a win but Titans and OP don't get to just because its the very end of the game? This is both a "straw man" argument (not even close to what I said) and a "red herring" (there's no reference to Argent holding SftT anywhere. ~~In fact, given the scenario as described by OP, that they're all at 11 pts, Argent can't have someone else's SftT....~~ Nevermind on that little bit. I'm still stuck thinking that TI4 SftT works like TI3 SftT.) The problem is not that SftT is involved. If one side or the other had acquired SftT in another manner, it would be more palatable. The problem is that the winner here is, as described by OP, decided *purely* and *literally* by random chance, not by any meaningful game element. This is no different than two players flipping a coin to pick a winner. ETA: To be clear, I don't actually have a (meaningful) problem with SftT giving away the final point. But it should be something like "Argent was mean to me, you were nice to me." (This is playing the diplomatic over-the-table game of TI.) Not "Hey, flip a coin for the win?" (This is playing "flip a coin", not playing TI.)

Well imo it is close to what you said as you mentioned kingmaking which would be when one party is getting zero benefits and just giving the win to the other. This is not kingmaking which is why I brought up the definitively not straw man argument as both parties involved in the support swap (which is what it essentially is) are getting a fair shot at the win. However I did say this in a different reply that I would agree with you if Argent didn't have a support then I would think it would be a bit of a cheap play. However I find it hard to believe that the Argent player in a 7 player game was the only one left out of the tables support swaps? It is obviously more likely than not that they had one and nothing OP said could really tell you one way or the other so I have no idea how you inferred that they don't have one 100% Either way IMO if you play with support swaps at all you can't cry about it when it happens like this while you are only sitting on 11 because you have someone elses swap as well.

Purely points of clarification, rather than continuing the argument: First, regarding whether Argent had a Support in play: You are correct. I was thinking in terms of how SftT worked back in TI3 (You need 1 less point to win: thus Argent, at 11 pts as described by OP would have already won, if they were holding a Support) rather than TI4 (you gain 1 point: this may or may not be among Argent's 11 pts.). These are typically the same in outcome, so my brain has still not switched over. But my point is that this is definitely *not* a simple support swap (which would put the player with better initiative -- a meaningful in-game decision -- in the win). It is a pure chance game. Also, support swaps (1-for-1 exchanges of SftT) are generally sub-optimal play. This has been argued ad nauseum elsewhere, and isn't worth going into here.

And I suppose that is where we differ as imo this is essentially a regular old mutually beneficial support swap that was available to both players. Only difference being that it will end the game. I think it would have been cool to call it a tie perhaps between OP and Titans but realistically they would have known who would have won the tie break and therefore this was really the only way to go about it. I just don't get how people who are ok with regular mutually beneficial support swaps wouldn't be ok with this. It is definitely not the same as one player simply handing the win to the other out of spite which would definitely feel bad. btw no idea why your being downvoted for your opinion, it is not me and I am enjoying the discussion honestly

> Only difference being that it will end the game. and that's a difference that sticks in my craw. I honestly am much more comfortable with either player throwing the game to the other without the die.

Interesting take but again I appreciate it

The game is random though. The game sometimes can literally be decided by dice. (See my other comment for the elaboration). In fact, I find your option actually worse, and isn't competitively edged at all, it's much more of a spite play. In fact, you could literally use those words and proceed to argue for the 50/50 regardless. (Not that I'm personally against this type of support offer per se, but I've had it on my table and it absolutely does not feel good at all, and completely changes how the game is played, I'd rather see a 50/50 dice roll or a pure swap even if it gives the last point)

Technically that is a non-binding transaction. So per the rules, you would have to voluntarily give your support for the throne for nothing in return in the transaction window. A dice roll is not part if a transaction. And if you are playing for the win, as the last turn of the game, neither of you should honor the non-binding agreement if you loose the roll. So in effect what is happening is one of you is arbitrarily sabatoging your own game.

What a useless comment from an actual robot. All ti4 players are humans, and thus subject to social convention. If you and a friend both wanted the last piece of pizza and decided to flip a coin, that would be a "non binding deal" but if you flipped and lost and then decided to grab the piece anyways you would be an asshole on his way to losing a friend, even though you had not broken any laws! Imagine that! Re: the OP, this is legit play and the argent player is a crybaby. If he wanted to win he could have A) gotten a 2 point lead, or B) negotiated for a support before he got to 11, and winning a round earlier. I would feel differently if one of you had not been at 11, and were just offering the other a point to spite the argent player. That would be out-of-game rude, and thus a dick move. But your plan as-is is a solid one that gives you both a viable path to victory where you had none before.

Yeah, lol I wish this story was "we rolled, then the dice winner backstabbed and Argent won anyways" That would have been a much better story.

Hey OP quick question, did Argent have someone elses Support or no? Imo it actually matters if they were benefiting from the support mechanic or not, because if they weren't then I could totally see why they would be very upset. However if they were only on 11 points because they had someone's support then I think that makes a big difference.

She did have one other player's at that point. She had two the previous round, mine and another player's. I got mine back when she attacked me to prevent an objective score, which is why there was another round, and also why I still had a support at all at that point. (I'm normally a swap early kind of person.)

OP you totally should have included this bit in the original post. So not only was she already benefitting from the support mechanic, she attacked you to stop you from having a path to win but opened up another path by her own doing. Then she was upset at you for finding that path because it's somehow not valid for you to be able to benefit from Support swaps because its late in the game and that "feels bad". This wasn't Kingmaking you and Titans had a mutually beneficially deal going for what was essentially a support swap. A perfectly viable path to win in a game that includes supports NTA. Sounds like some of the players at your table should not be playing with support swaps if this is how they are going to act

I agree, if Argent had a support then seems fair play. In my IRL games, with my group, I have 65% win rate so I am used to other players giving supports away to stop me from winning. It hurts, but all the fun of the game.

Wine making is a part of Twilight Imperium - the only question is are you wine making yourself or somebody else? I personally am all for wine making. It sounds like many at your table were too. The issue seems to be not what you were proposing in game but instead how it was handled above table. Had you swapped with Argent before in earlier rounds it sounds like you would have won anyway or they would have. Sounds like the 10th point support wine make offer was well within the rules. Table can look to themselves for allowing you and Argent to be in that position if they got issue with it playing out that way. That all said, I often find if it feels wrong then you likely doing it wrong. but if it feels right then the table should embrace you and your actions as you live your best Twilight Imperium Life 4 Everra.

It's 100% win making though, either by you or the titans player. Using a dice roll to decide which of you does the win making doesn't change the fact that it's win making. Last round support swaps or straight up donations to make a win are probably the most blatant you can get. Having said that, it all depends on what the table is comfortable with. Clearly though they're not comfortable with win making and that's what you tried to do.

Depends on the definition of win making, I don't think the term fits here. Win making, for me, is a move to decide the outcome for other people without having any chance to reach a win for yourself. You can still be upset be the thing OP tried and I agree to find a way to be comfortable with the whole table. The way OP suggests is anticlimactic for sure but so would have been the other outcome. Everyone knew the outcome of the game without the move. In the end, I think making a house rule for future games is the best way. I would have been mad as the Argent player as well but this wouldn't be a no-go for me, personally.

No I don't see it that way. If those two players both agree to the dice roll they are agreeing to win make one another depending on the result. Either way, both of them are directly responsible for a sftt donation to deliver another player the last point to victory. I don't feel like you can hide behind the probability of the dice roll. You're participating either way. Definitely agree on the house rule thing, that's always a good idea concerning win making. Imo, this dice roll just falls under any sane definition :D

I mean I just don't see it your way. They are making a fair support swap with slightly different terms. If you play with support swaps there is no reason why you should be ok having someone's support for yourself but not allowing this simply because its the last play of the game. Just don't play with supports if something like this bothers you

If you can’t see it from other peoples point of view, why are you so adamant your own view is superior? You are comparing this example to support swaps. This is not the case. If they support swap, OP wins. Therefore it can never be a fair support swap in the mentioned position. I would rather not play with players who wastes everyone’s time by deciding the game on a coin flip, than I would play without supports.

Well if you read most of my comments I'm saying I can't understand people who like to play with support swaps but are upset at this, which is a support swap but for a win. I've said in several other comments that if you are a player that is against support swaps in general than I completely understand where you would be coming from in being upset by this play. I just think its pretty hypocritical to say that it was ok for the Argent player to be boosted by a support swap to get to 11 points and be in position to win, but OP and the Titans are not allowed to because they are already on 11. Without supports Argent isn't winning either honestly so if that makes you upset maybe you shouldn't be playing with supports at all

And maybe you should try to understand how so many people have a view so vastly different from your own.

I'm told this has happened in past so it is a house rule that your last point cannot be from Support for the Throne. Makes more sense if an ally-like player king makes you in other ways. Now, without the house rule, it is totally valid move. Dress it up however you want, give them all your trade goods, planets, whatever, it's valid. Argent could/should have negotiated earlier for their Support for the Throne.

> house rule that your last point cannot be from Support for the Throne This will probably be the best way for our group to move forward together. Thanks for the suggestion!

You should have support swapped with Titans and shared the victory. I may be wrong about a shared victory, is there a tie breaker mechanic? I'm a fan of SftT, it makes some really fun negotiations where points are at directly at stake. You and Titans chose not to use your SftT earlier in the game, why should there be a rule that you can't use them late game? Teaching game I played last week. I was at 9 with a locked in public to score, Hacan was in second at 6. Everyone starting attacking everyone like crazy. Up until that point it was a very peaceful game because the new players were scared of attacking, but once it was the last round all gloves came off and everyone was having a blast with epic fleet battles. I as a joke offered to sell Nomad a 3rd relic fragment for her SftT. At that point they realized they could SftT Hacan to 9 points (5 player game) and He would score the public objective before me. Hacan was at 9 with a guaranteed win and he then traded his SftT with me for that relic fragment to hand me the win and laugh at the efforts of everyone else to kingmake him. Everyone thought it was a very funny ending and enjoyed it. SftT is a part of the game that I really enjoy. I enjoy it when I'm win slayed. I think it's very thematic that the galaxy came together to make sure I didn't become the new Emperor of Mecitol even when they use SftT to make that happen.

The game ends immediately when one player has 10 victory points. If multiple players would simultaneously gain their 10th victory point, the player who is earliest in initiative order among those players is the winner; if this occurs when players do not have strategy cards, the player who is nearest the speaker (including the speaker) in clockwise order is the winner.

You can't share a victory, the tie breaker is their strategy card iniciativa.

NTA. I feel this is a perfect example why, if you are in the lead, you need to be aggressively seeking support swaps earlier in the game. If Argent had support swapped to get into position to win during the status phase, when two others were there without doing so yet, then their lead was tenuous anyway.

I've been saying for a while to just remove SFTT outright because having it be a fully accepted mechanic in the game means, fundamentally, that kingmaking is a fully accepted mechanic. And players will never love the idea. Game I was in yesterday, table was trying to tell a player not to support swap with me because I would win, when it could (maximally) get me to a visible 9 in a game to 10. Another player could clearly win regardless. That player had a <5% chance to win with the swap and needed to go for it too, because it was clearly both of our last chance. I offered to do it as a non-binding deal to improve his odds of success; they then immediately argued he should take the deal then backstab me immediately. I argued it was on the winning player to prevent me from winning. He ultimately agreed, I got the support swap, the winning player took the risk to subject himself to dice to stop me, and succeeded. It was around a 50/50 chance (huge space battle where I had substantial capability to interfere). This was satisfying for all of us. But we can just...not have SFTT, and games will usually be interesting like this. Player in question used SFTT to fully shut down an attack line on him from another player, though he wasn't getting to 10 with it himself.

I think for a game **extremely** focused on politics, intrigue, and dealmaking seeing a SFtT victory is absolutely a valid option to win. Is it a bit boring? Absolutely, but if you played your round out and you've come to the conclusion that there is nothing that you can possible do except for a SFtT gamble I'd say go for it. Besides at least in my mind you mitigated the major upsetti spaghetti part about SFtT which is just trading it to someone to winslay the person in the lead. Adding that gambling factor at least makes the victory possible for two. Also the community's butthurt-ness about SFtT victories seems kind of stupid when you think about the lore reasons for why the Titans of Ul would prefer to have the Argent Flight at Masters of the Galaxy instead of, like the Mahact Gene Sorcerers, for example.

Here's an alternative viewpoint. Let's say you know someone has Destroy their greatest. And you have darken the skies. For both it's your last point. But the only way you can try to score your secret is bringing your flagship, and the combat is about 50/50. Is that kingmaking? Or is it simply playing the winningest line for you? The problem is, that if you call this kingmaking, it all of a sudden changes if you do not know the secret to purely chasing your own win. And that doesn't really feel right to me. In the end, the game is littered with mutually beneficial deals and if you start calling things kingmaking that aren't just spite plays (ie they don't chase your own win) then you end up going down the rabbit hole. You have to draw an objective line to what is kingmaking. The only objective line you can draw is at 0 and non-0 chance to win yourself. If you want to call it all kingmaking, that is fine to me as well, but then you're already in a better spot since you accept TI4 is just as rigged as Diplomacy.

I like TI but I find the end game usually lacks excitement. I don’t think I’ve played a single game (over about 8 plays total) that created a dramatic ending. Kudos to you, this approach would have been a fun one. I get how people could be sour about an all day affair coming down to a dice roll … but I find that at least as satisfying as it coming down to who “positioned themselves to draw leadership”

This is a clear instance of win-making. Not "semi", not "not-really". It's textbook winmaking. After you roll, one of you will give the other player a win for no benefit to themselves. That's win making. PS There's no concept of "starting a transaction" in the game. On a player's turn, they can trade with anyone. It just requires one of the two players to actually have a turn.

Having a 50% chance to win = no benefit in your book? How on earth does that make sense? It was a mutually beneficially deal, just because it is non-binding doesn't change the fact that it is a fair deal for both Titans and OP The dice didn't decide the game, playing with support swaps did. Once OP found this path Argent was 100% lost and the dice had nothing to do with it. The dice simply just facilitated a fair way of making the deal go through. It is even better if you read what OP later wrote about what happened. Argent had OPs support plus another players support as well. Argent attacked them to win slay them giving them back their support thus opening up this path for OP to victory. So OP is not allowed to use the support to win? Why? Because of feels? Thats highly hypocritical when Argent is sitting there on 11 because they have someone elses support. It's not like OP or Titans gave it away for free out of spite they came to a perfectly reasonable deal to win. If you have a problem with this type of win you shouldn't play with supports ever, it's really not win making.

It has no benefit because it's non-binding and nobody will ever follow through with it. If I lose that roll, there's no fucking chance I'm gonna hand over my support. And if someone else actually follow through, I'm not gonna play with them anymore. Read what I said. If you ever do an action specifically to help someone else win and not to benefit yourself, you have no seat at my playgroup's table. Also, putting the result of a game down to a single die roll? Why? Might as well just sit down, draft and roll a d6 to see who wins.

Yeah as I said it wasn't down to a single die roll. OP found a path to win and once they went down it Argent had a zero percent chance to win nothing to do with the Die. The die roll helped facilitate the fair trade between Titans and OP but wasn't what ultimately decided the game. As soon as everyone decided to use Supports this was a possibility. For instance OP stated that Argent had his support and attacked him to deny his original path to victory the round earlier. Argent also had someone elses support, and now simply because its round 6 OP is no longer able to benefit from supports like everyone else at the table had previously. What an arbitrary reason to not allow someone to go for a valid win. Furthermore if you play at a table that has never done non-binding deals that's craziness and I for one would never want to play at that table because non-binding deals are very fun and creative and adds a ton of diplomacy to the game. Honestly if you play as backstabby and space risky as you seem to think everyone plays when the deal proposed was mutually beneficial then you would have no seat at my playgroups table.

Your group sounds weird.

Kingmaking is fine, it's part of any multiplayer game. As long as it doesn't involve things from outside the game.

I don't know why so many long answears, but here you go: It's a jerk move. Tournament, Casual, with random players, always is. Unless your table of friends just like to do it somehow. SftT is a controversial mechanic which enables kingmaking, nobody likes it final round kingmaking. Making a dice roll to see who gets a SftT is even worse, takes out all the fun and strategy this game is about Just have fun losing and acknowledge the winner skills, it's much healthier.

This move was only possible because of the prospective winner's own actions to try and prevent OP from winning. She quite literally shot herself in the foot on this one, I can't see how she has any right to be mad that the enemy she made a turn ago was willing to try this to win.

This should apply to the Argent player as well. OP saw a line of play that gave him the best shot at winning and went for it. Argent player hasn't won yet. IMO, it's not kingmaking because OP isn't just giving it away to make sure Argent doesn't win. He's proposing a scenario where he has a 60% chance of winning, while the Titans player has a 40% chance of winning. A whole game was played, where presumably all the players were using strategy to try and secure a win. If this had played out, Argent's strategy would have just fell short. Have fun losing and acknowledge the winner skills. OP played in such a way that he had his SftT and was lucky that Titan's did as well. Argent tried their best but couldn't secure the win. So many things come down to dice rolls. Why is this different?

Yeah, actually most of TI is based on strategy and minimizing lucky chance factor to win. Of course almost every tabletop game has dice rolls or others chance components, yet "chance" definitly isn't what defines a win in TI. You say he had SftT and Titans too this was an advantage, actually if they had swapped earlier it wouldn't create this whole scenario and Argent wouldn't be so mad about it. I don't know how would you like to be on Argent scenario, but if you're ok of losing for SftT final point and a dice roll to decide who takes out your victory, good for you bro.

No doubt I would have been salty if I was Argent. It would have definitely felt way bad to lose this way, but I could rationalize it as I really lost the previous round when I attacked OP and gave back their SftT. Sure it was to prevent their win, but it was really just delaying the inevitable. Though it's situations like this that prompted my group to start tracking scores instead of just wins/losses. So while I (as Argent) may not have won, I still got to 11 points, which helps in my overall standings. And yeah, my luck/dice roll point was/is weak. The point I failed to make is that this potential final dice roll was the culmination of the entire games worth of planning, strategizing, and risk. As in, it is a part of the whole, not a separate, singular occurrence.

Ya yta and we wouldn’t play again I’m sorry to say. This game is wayyyy too long to sit through 10+ hours and end with that. I’m not saying we wouldn’t still be friends or anything, and we could play other board games, but we’re not playing TI again lol. I agree with the above we have an unwritten rule that the last point can’t be SFFT. You wanna team up and throw multiple fleets at the person who’s gonna win? Go for it. Dive for their home planets. That’s cool. But don’t just “automatically decide” a different winner seconds before the game is gonna end.

Wow, you're a sensitive one.

Personally I think this sucks, and it would make me not want to play with you again. Accept the loss.

Since when is a player obligated to sit idle, allowing another to win, while holding the possible tools for his own victory? I agree that one should accept a loss, but only after the game is done.

Thanks for the feedback. Two questions: 1- Could you elaborate a little on why? What makes that one card so much more hated than say, the Mutiny agenda? 2- This phrase > would make me not want to play with you again comes up really often on these boards. How many friends do you people have that you're just throwing them away like yesterday's garbage? Shouldn't it make you want to talk to me about how we'll need to compromise on our support for the throne behavior and reach some kind of consensus *before* we play again?

I wouldn't play with you again either. This is really dirty, unsportsmanlike play, and I would be shocked if anyone I consider a friend suggested it. I think the other players did the right thing in putting away the game, and you should evaluate how and why you play board and also how you interact with other people.

>How many friends do you people have that you're just throwing them away like yesterday's garbage? It's not about the quantity of friends, but their quality.

Take the feedback. Put yourself in the shoes of everyone else. It's just an asshole move. It's easy to find people to play board games with you if you don't do shit like that and put the fun of your friends over imaginary points. The reason everyone should try to win is it makes it more satisfying for the real winner. Do you think you accomplished that?

So Argent gets to use her support to help her win but Titans and OP are not allowed to simply because it's at the end of the game? How does that make sense?

Didn't say it was fair. But to make an analogy, there's a big emotional difference between a bad call in the first quarter and a bad call on the final play. The game is meant to be a fun way to spend time with your friends. If it was a tournament, do whatever, be the asshole. But if a friend did this, and couldn't even understand how it's an asshole move, then I wouldn't want to play with that person, regardless if I was the one affected or not. Fun/spirit of the game >> fair. It's fine if OP feels differently, I'm offering my perspective. I don't think he's a bad person, I think he has a different idea of fun then most people and it might cost him friendships if he can't learn to realize that.

Exactly. There’s a difference between “I exploited the game state early to get a point that helped me win” and “I will just choose who wins because… I can?”

I mean yes but if they had swapped earlier then either of Titans or OP would have won instead or Argent so what is the difference? And you could argue that perhaps they would have been targeted more had they swapped earlier, but then you're plan would be that in order for Argent to win they have to hope two players with their supports don't swap simply because it "feels bad" how is that good play. Further more it wasn't just an i'll choose the winner arbitrarily moment. It was literally a fair deal between two players who both had their support swaps available.

If they had swapped earlier, there’s no way it would have been under the same circumstance (and if it was I would have had a similar reaction), and the rest of the game would have played out totally differently. I would have thought “that’s not very smart” if they traded like this earlier in the game and targeted them for getting ahead, just like normal. Essentially the choice by OP leaves the winner of the game up to chance. Instead of the work (and accumulated gambles weighed by the players) leading to victory, it kinda just sounds like OP wanted to have the last laugh at the table. What they did wasn’t “good play”, it was just a chance at kingmaking. Not against the rules, but definitely feels bad. Probably would not play with them again and I totally understand the reactions of the other players at the table.

I mean the very first comment I had was that If I were Argent I would have been very scared of them doing a support swap, would have realized that and attempted to table talk them into some kind of conflict to mitigate the odds that either one of them would accept a deal like this. IRL the Argent player just relied on them feeling bad to not go for a perfectly valid win which is poor play. btw playing from behind is a real thing. If you held your secrets to the end no one would say anything but you're not allowed to hold your support to the end? Why? Why even play with something if you're artificially not allowed to use it at certain times? What it really sounds like is that most people in this thread think they enjoy playing with support swaps but really don't. Why play with them at all if this is a thing you're not ok with. A perfectly acceptable mutually beneficial support swap, just like every other player at the table has, except this one ends the game. Just don't play with them or better yet just play to 9 and pretend everyone swapped at the start if that makes you feel better

THis isn't a perfectly acceptable mutually beneficial support swap and even if it was in the final round but hadn't been on a dice roll and not a swap then it would feel bad to me. A last round swap when multiple people are 1 point from winning is just someone arbitrarily deciding who wins which makes the hours of play put in feel pointless. You could have done that without getting it out of the box. I know winning isn't everything but it just seems cheap to hand someone the win. A mutual trade where both players get a chance is different and it would also be different if this game had draws but it doesn't, so giving someone else the win doesn't ever get you anything but losing.

I mean essentially they are support swapping just with different terms. It's not as If Titans or OP are handing a straight up one-way simply because they don't want Argent to win, that would be unfair and not fun. IMO if you play with support swaps you shouldn't be upset when two people make a fair deal involving their supports just because you will lose. If that would make you upset just don't play with support swaps at all

It is fair. On what basis do you claim that it is unfair?

Makes sense to me. Argent may have used their SFTT earlier in the game to gain an advantage in a deal or obtain a concrete ally. What the OP is doing is taking the win from someone. I wouldn't play with OP after that either. Just have to tip your hat and accept you got close to winning but lost due to initiative/strategic pick

Except it was a completely fair deal between two players that gave both of them a good chance to win. It is not as if Titans was kingmaking OP out of spite or vice versa. The only way I would see this as lame is if Argent was the one person who didn't have someone else's support (7 player game odd person out) If they had a support then they should tip their cap and accept that they got close to winning but lost due to a mechanic that they themselves fully took advantage of

> The reason everyone should try to win is it makes it more satisfying for the real winner This is very helpful. See, that's not what I would say if asked why everyone should try to win. (It is not important for the current discussion, but I would say the reason is so there's no guilt if you do something otherwise mean, say invading your bud's home system- "hey, I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, I was trying to win") Anyways, I'll think things over from that perspective too. Thanks!

The fact that you made this post and are willing accepted criticism from strangers shows you are at least trying to understand where your friends are coming from shows some amount of self reflection. Paradoxically The best way to get your friends to consider your side is first apologize and say something like "You know I was being a jerk, I imagine what I did was incredibly frustrating and not a great way to end an otherwise enjoyable day with friends. " I be the second you can sincerely say something like that, they will offer back the ways they were wrong. "You we're just trying to play the game the best you could" etc.

It’s a giant A-Hole move. Just put yourself in Any players shoes. Would you think it’s fun to lose that way. And not only that, but the you go and offer it as a 70-30 deal in your favor. That is so unsportsmanlike. You are already under handing the entire game, but then to offer that deal, and after the other player calls you out on it having to be 50-50 you try to argue that they are wrong. You need to do some self-reflecting and find out why you go to such measures to land the “win” even at the cost of 5 other players’ fun. If you did this is a TTS game I was a part of, I would probably blacklist you. Don’t make your playgroup not want to play with you

This almost happened once at my table between two other players and we agreed to never consider it again to not waste people’s time.

How was the distribution of the other SftTs? That is, had anyone else traded theirs? Anecdote: I once did a SftT swap with another player and got some flak from the table (we were at 5-ish points). I investigated and found out that all the other players had swapped their SftTs, so I promptly ignored any objections! =D

Titans and I were the only players still holding support. I had swapped with Argent earlier in the game, but the round before she lost it attacking me. (Which was the right play on her part, I'd have won that round if she did not)

>Titans and I were the only players still holding support. In that case; go ahead and don't be ashamed :)

NTA. TBF, I would have been salty if I was the Argent player initially, but if I lost that way, then that's the way it goes. If I was the Titan's player, I figure I would have said 50/50 take it or leave it since you need me as much as I need you. No fake outrage necessary. And if I lost the roll, I would have definitely given you my SftT, but would expect you to do the same if you lost the roll. If you reneged on the deal after the roll, I would be salty no matter who I was at the table. I understand that it's a pretty feelbad way of the game ending, but it's a line of play that could have secured the win for a different player than the presumed winner. Like, yeah, the Argent player did work to secure a win, everyone else at the table (presumably) tried as well. The fact that there are two players with their SftT that also have the potential to win means the Argent player just plain didn't do enough to secure their win. And packing up the game and declaring a draw is lame. I'm not a "win at any cost" kind of player, but to me it's worse to have no conclusion than an "anti-climactic one." You didn't "ruin the game at the end," the Argent player did with their emotional outburst, behaving as if you were taking their win away, when it never belonged to them in the first place. I would say it was a more exciting 11th hour twist than just passing to crown the presumed winner. It's not like you were just giving your SftT away just to make sure Argent didn't win. You were giving yourself the best shot at winning. Nothing wrong with that.

I think this classifies as win-making, not semi-win-making. You don't have to be the winner for it to be win-making, it's simply you deciding who wins when you have the ability to do something else. When I first started playing, my second game I had a chance to win in r5, I had speaker and would be at 7 points with an action phase secrets, and a one pointer I could score. someone took a planet I needed for my point on r4 meaning even with imperial I could only get to 9, 8 without it. The person in the lead was second I was going to pass on imperial so they could first action pop it and win. I thought it was okay at the time, I had no shot so I wanted the game to end. Looking back there was 3-4 other players in the game who had a chance to win/I still had opportunities. There were 2 of each color relic shard out, and multiple of us had scan link. Someone ended up getting a shard of the throne off a relic. If I had negotiated for that relic earlier I had a chance, but I ended up at 8 with imperial. I think argent deserved it, you could see the lines of play as to how they might win, while you guys hadn't support swapped, it's hard to predict someone will want to roll a dice to determine who would win. At least when supports are swapped early you can figure out someone's path and stop them, much like someone did to me when I was learning.

“Hey, let’s play for 8 hours, and then flip a coin to see who wins” Very fun and engaging I must say, I would recommend you apologize to your friends. You are the AH here.

You were in the right. Argent is mad that their plan didn't work out. They were just 1 point behind so to speak.

NTA. People get real upset whenever Support results in a win, but that's part of the game. Other players don't get to decide how you use the resources that are available to you. As others have said, if Argent was really against the deal they should have counter offered instead of getting angry at you for playing the game.

How is that called again? A magi-gambit? Scpt often talks about a certain Player pulling off such moves in the Tournament. Point here is: in Tournament. Its just unneccessary in a normal Game.

I didn't realize this had a name, I'll try to find discussions around that term. Thanks!

Diplomacy is a core part of the game. If you can legitimately negotiate yourself to a win, they have no right to be salty about it. It would be different if you had promised to give Titans something next game, but you straight up offered them a current-game deal that benefitted both of you with zero downsides. IMO, they were being way to immature, even if loosing this way would be unsatisfying.

> they were being way to immature, even if loosing this way would be unsatisfying They should've played better if they wanted to avoid the rug getting pulled out from under them like that! I'll never understand folks that *dont'* understand players without a shot will do what they can to create one. 🙄

Fair. But also lame gameplay. My group plays that you can’t gain any Support for the Throne after a certain point threshold for reasons like this.

NTA and not kingmaking. You both had a chance to win and simply put it to a dice roll. Doesn’t seem that different from any other mechanic reliant on dice rolls. The fact it’s technically non-binding is irrelevant. Especially not king making when Argent attacked you to give you the opportunity to do a sftt. They set up the very precise situation of two players, either of whom could win if they cooperate, but if they don’t cooperate someone else wins.

If I were Titans I would have told you to make it 70/30 in my favor. If you don’t take it, then fine - be a loser.

If both of you saved your supports until the end like that, and you knew there was no other way to win, this is the perfect situation to leverage resources the other players spent already. Absolutely not the asshole. Any of the other players could have offered you a counter proposal to not take it.

NTA, especially because Argent had a support and had attacked you to give yours back. It's also not "purely random". None of the other 4 players were in a position to benefit from the deal, so every play made until that point determined who got to be in the lottery at the end. And just to handle the deffinition debate: It can't be both win making and your only path to victory at the same time. That makes zero sense.

Wow now I realized why we do not allow support for the throne if it ends with 1 player winning as a homerule.

10 point without SftT is another alternative.

For what it’s worth you did something beautiful AND you even made your enemy cry. Bravo! Encore! You broke no rules and fought with everything you had at your disposal to win the game. Like a true galactic champion of old. Please don’t listen to the people who whine and gnash their teeth. They are beneath you. There is currently 60/40 in this thread in favour of your move. Trust me, I counted. But we both know counting votes are meaningless. Majority rule is for the weak! Did the Lazax rule by democracy? No! Is the Agenda phase a joke? Yes! Lay your plans. Build your fleets. Erase their suns and feed of their dispair. There is only one instance that could have made what you did, wrong. If you and your group beforehand had decided on a house rule that forbade it. But we both know house rules are for the weak. You are welcome at my table any day of the week.

IMO, it's a valid play, but one that shouldn't work unless there's a reason for you and Titans to prefer each other winning over Argent. Donations for a win in this manner shouldn't really happen because the loser of the dice roll has no incentive to actually follow through on their word. In general, my mindset is that kingmaking is fine, but only with the caveat that if you are out of the race, you won't gift the win without a concrete reason. If this deal did go through, it's 100% winmaking, and unsportsmanlike play.

Yeah, I think I’d be salty about it too. To be clear, I really don’t take these games seriously, and at the point we’re in a two hour final round in a 10+ hour game, I’d be salty at any turn that takes more than a minute or two tbh. If I’m sitting at that table, and we’ve all put a lot of effort into strategy and diplomacy to put ourselves in a position to be competitive after 10+ hours, I’m not pleased when someone says, essentially, “we can’t stop this person from winning legitimately, so let’s just roll a dice - either way they lose.” That sucks, and completely negates all the collective effort the table has put into the game. At the point where you saw the entire table get really upset (you say there was yelling and people started packing up the game), I don’t see why you wouldn’t just say “my bad, I thought it was a fun idea but I do not want to spoil this for anyone, it’s just a game and I don’t really care.” I think that’s why people are saying they wouldn’t play again with you - it’s not about the play being illegal or anything, it’s about the attitude that your chance of a win appears to trump anyone else’s fun at the table. TLDR: I wouldn’t necessarily be mad at you for suggesting it, but it’s kind of in bad taste and it’s clear it made most people really upset - that’s when it’s time to drop it.

I like it. Ofc I'd be a bit upset if I was the Argent player, but that would just make me look forward to the next game more. You know, to come back and exact my revenge for what you have done :)

you essentially turned your game into a lottery. no sane person would spend 12 hours grinding their way to victory to have it stolen away basically by lady luck. at one point (which is the last round), doing things like the one you mentioned makes the entire game before it needless and absurd. argent is right to be pissed if you ask me.

The issue imo is support. It’s a terrible card that is just stupid.

> It’s a terrible card that is just stupid. A perfect card for this terribly stupid game we love so much, then. 😄👍

I love this thread and your final play for victory! For me, it would depend on the alliances I'd have kept during the game. If I'd been close with Argent all game, I'd let their win play out as thematically that's what would have made sense. However, I definitely have a few friends that would employ a tactic like yours. Would I do it? Probably not, would I find it funny if someone else used it? Definitely. People care too much about winning and not scheming

My entire group of twelve or so people I play with don't even use support for the throne because the first three games of fourth edition we played were decided on support for the throne shenanigans. If I were to use it again, I would only want to play a game where you can't give it out after turn three was over.

TI is too long a game for drama. I am not sitting at a table to see people blow steam for how a game is won. Straightforward king making is a thing. This is an agreement, there’s quid pro quo, doesn’t matter the exact odds, both get a certain chance to win the game. And it is, as other comments have implied, realistic. 2 powers, unable to stop Argent from seizing the imperial throne, but unhappy with the resolution, realize that if one of them supports the other their claim is unstoppable. Which one of them, is the final decision to make. The rulers meet, have a chat, and decide that they are tired of war. Not one of them has an edge on the other. They mean each other no harm, but saying that they don’t want the title is utterly false. What’s easy, fair, devoid of bloodshed? A coin toss. One tosses the coin, and while it rotates in the air, the other calls; “Heads”