Question Major Faction Capital Line Three

[Fatty]

I think the newly updated rules are a good addition, but my only criticism of them is this line:

3. If a Major Faction successfully defends their Capital they may take any non-capital adjacent hex from the attacker. Alternatively they may render any non-capital hex from the attacker as neutral as though they had successfully invaded it. ​

​

Emphasis mine.

Also mid-way through this post, I realized I may have misread this line. So I'll ask my question first, and depending on the answer I'll throw up my own suggestion outlined below.

Question: Is this saying that the Faction that successfully defends their Capital, can take an enemy hex adjacent to THEIR (Defending Faction's) Capital, so long as that hex does not happen to be the Invading factions Capital?

If this is not the case, and the Defender can take any Invader Hex so long as it is not a Capital/Capital-Adjacent Hex, this seems a little silly to me, and I think it should be changed.

Otherwise, I'm just bad at context reading and needed a place for clarity lol

 

[Agrippa]

Not how I understand it. Let me visualize with some pro snipping tool skills.

If the NIO hits Bastion and TSE wins they can either take as their own one of the adjacent hexes (in red)

-or-

turn a NIO hex that's non-adjacent to TSE into neutral (blue pen)

In both cases I think it's a rule that needs changing. Hitting a capital is all risk and no reward already, why double that risk? Let the invasions roll.

 

[Fatty]

Thanks for the graphics, those always help

Though tbh, I think it's fine if the defenders get a hex that is adjacent to their Capital as a reward for victory since otherwise, Capitals are just ordinary hexes now. This would also prevent repeated Capital invasions unless the invaders have multiple adjacent hexes next to the enemy Capital.

Being able to strike within such a vast territory seems to be a bit of a reach to me (pun shamelessly intended)

 

[Agrippa]

Capital planets already can't be invaded unless you're adjacent to them so again - why?