Dune/docs/ECAZ_VICTORY_RULES.md

Ecaz victory implementation contract

The 14 September runtime follow-up connects the explicit Fremen/Ecaz Sietch Tabr exception. The original audit and its unimplemented Habbanya inference remain below as source context.

Primary-source review, 2026-09-07. This separates the explicit three-stronghold rule from its ordinary control and prediction consequences. No combat-rounding decision is needed for a victory predicate operating on an already-settled board. The unrelated rounding conflict remains as corrected in Ecaz Occupy rules.

Ordinary victory and the Ecaz exception

E3 p.8 requires Ecaz and its ally to be “co-occupied in all three” strongholds. Both factions must have effective, non-advisor presence in each of three distinct stronghold territories. Their joint presence counts once per territory; it does not count as two strongholds. Ecaz controls a stronghold co-occupied with its ally. This is a Basic faction advantage, not an Advanced-only permission. GF9 E3, p.8

The ordinary allied route remains available: four distinct controlled strongholds between the pair suffice without requiring both in every location. Ecaz's exception is an additional predicate, not a replacement that makes a four-stronghold alliance lose because it is spread out. An unallied Ecaz uses the ordinary unallied threshold, including the base two-player adjustment where applicable. GF9 base rules, pp.6,12

Evaluate the current reciprocal alliance and final board at the normal victory checkpoint. A historical alliance, earlier co-occupation, or a previous turn's controller is insufficient. Occupy Karama expressly has no effect on this three-stronghold victory. Its printed or BG-converted cancellation must not leave a victory-blocking stamp. E3 p.16

Territory, effective presence and control

Use one common settled-board presence model for ordinary and Ecaz victory:

• Advisors: BG advisors do not hold or block a stronghold. Resolve any mandatory advisor-to-fighter change first. Ecaz plus allied BG advisors is not two-faction co-occupation for victory. Base p.18
• No-Field: E2 p.6 treats an unrevealed marker as one force. Therefore a legal Richese marker can supply its faction's effective presence in an Ecaz/Richese co-occupied stronghold, including a secretly zero-valued marker while still unrevealed. Do not inspect its hidden value, manufacture reserves, or reveal it merely to count victory. After a real reveal, count the actual surviving forces. GF9 CHOAM & Richese, p.6
• Storm: storm protection, losses and battle separation determine which forces survive, but being under storm is not a printed prohibition on controlling a stronghold. Aggregate by territory after effects settle. An unrelated opposing force surviving elsewhere in that stronghold still prevents uncontested control even if storm separation prevented combat. Two Ecaz allies in different sectors of one stronghold still share the territory. These are compositions of ordinary territory control and the absence of a sector-qualified Occupy condition, not a new storm-specific Ecaz FAQ. Base pp.7,10–11, E2 p.9
• Mobile stronghold: E1 p.9 expressly makes the placed Hidden Mobile Stronghold count toward victory and protects it from storm/worms. It can be one of the three if both allies legally occupy it. Count its interior once, separately from the territory its marker points at; an absent/unplaced stronghold contributes nothing. Occupy does not alter its entry restrictions. GF9 Ixians & Tleilaxu, p.9
• Other terrain: ordinary sand, rock, Polar Sink and homeworlds are not strongholds. E3 explicitly excludes Homeworlds from Occupy. A revealed Discovery location counts only if its actual printed effect defines a stronghold; do not convert all discoveries into victory sites. Homeworld-specific alternate victory remains its own module contract. E3 pp.10,13

For the three-co-occupied predicate, require both allied presences and no unrelated non-advisor presence in each counted stronghold. This is a control predicate, not simply an intersection of their location keys.

Tech Tokens and Stronghold Cards

E3 p.15 explicitly rejects pooling Tech Token ownership across the allies: a single player must control all three before they count as a stronghold. This preserves the E1 p.4 rule. The resulting one-stronghold equivalent can contribute to ordinary allied four-stronghold victory. E3 p.15, E1 p.4

It cannot supply a third co-occupied territory: neither ally can place forces in the token set. Thus two physically co-occupied strongholds plus one player's complete Tech Token set do not satisfy Ecaz's special threshold, although a further ordinarily controlled stronghold would complete the four-stronghold route. This is an inference from the explicit co-occupation condition, not a retrieved direct token-substitution answer.

Stronghold Cards are benefits held between end-turn settlements, not additional strongholds and not proof of present occupation. E2 p.9 passes a card to the current controller at turn end or sets it aside if nobody controls the location. E3's specific controller assignment gives the corresponding card to Ecaz when only Ecaz and its ally co-occupy that stronghold; an enemy present still prevents control. Resolve card ownership from the same final board, including when victory ends the game. Do not require Ecaz to have held the cards beforehand to win. E2 p.9, E3 p.8

Fremen's last-turn exception

Base p.16 requires Sietch Tabr and Habbanya Sietch to be empty or occupied only by Fremen for its last-turn special victory. The November FAQ p.5 expressly says ordinary allied forces do not count as Fremen for this restriction. E3 p.15 then specifically allows Ecaz and Fremen co-occupying Sietch Tabr. Base p.16, November FAQ p.5, E3 p.15

The supported narrow implementation requires an actual reciprocal Ecaz/Fremen alliance and Fremen presence in that same territory before ignoring Ecaz's additional presence. Ecaz alone in Sietch Tabr does not meet the stated co-occupation exception. Presence of any further faction remains disqualifying. A blanket p.faction === 'ecaz' exemption would permit non-allied or solitary Ecaz and is not justified by the FAQ.

Protected territory occupants	Result and evidence
Empty or Fremen alone	Permitted by base rule.
Allied Ecaz plus Fremen in Sietch Tabr	Explicit E3 permission.
Allied Ecaz plus Fremen in Habbanya Sietch	Recommended composition: the same Occupy permission applies to both territories subject to the same base restriction. E3's worked question only names Tabr; this extension is an inference.
Ecaz alone in either protected sietch	No retrieved permission; retain the base exclusion. The alliance does not make absent Fremen physically co-occupy.
Ecaz plus Fremen without their current alliance, or another faction's effective presence	No exception; disqualifying.

The Habbanya symmetry is well-supported by the common general rule but is not an explicit second FAQ sentence. No further publisher or attributable designer statement answering Ecaz-alone or Habbanya was recovered in this bounded search. This audit recommends the narrow co-occupation interpretation and does not request another user ruling.

Keep the other Fremen checks unchanged: no earlier stronghold winner; final turn; excluded factions in Tuek's Sietch. Advanced Richese is added to Tuek's prohibited list by E2 p.6. Effective No-Field presence matters there too. If the Fremen special condition succeeds, its ally shares that special win; the Guild fallback only follows an unsuccessful earlier victory condition. Base pp.16,19, E2 p.6

Fremen final-turn runtime follow-up

14 September 2026. The publisher's indexed p.15 FAQ was freshly checked and agrees with the original source record. game/fremen-victory.ts now supplies one shared, public settled-board description to the authoritative victory quote and player guide. It applies the explicit Sietch Tabr exception only when reciprocal Ecaz and Fremen allies both have fighters there. It preserves third-faction blockers, mandatory advisor conversion, accompanied advisors and concealed No-Field presence without reading hidden marker value. Habbanya symmetry remains outside this implemented exception; that is an implementation limit, not a new printed ban.

The final-turn quote retains ordinary stronghold victory and applicable prediction first, then the Fremen special condition, then existing fallback behavior. A successful Fremen special win includes its ally and cannot be intercepted by a Bene Gesserit prediction. No new action, acknowledgement, saved decision or schema is added. The public guide names territory blockers before the check; a successful special victory receives an explanatory chronicle entry.

Independent rules/privacy review found no blocker. Seventeen focused cases cover Basic/Advanced outcome, earlier-turn and normal-winner precedence, all four AI profiles, absent/nonallied/solitary/third-party counterexamples, Habbanya scope, advisor and marker handling, identical public controls, JSON and authenticated SQLite restoration. Competing final readiness commits once; finished or stale actions cannot write again. Cards, Traitors, forces, elites and seat records remain unchanged through the final transition. The endgame fixture explicitly stages a conserved final-turn board and alliance after genuine setup, including a BG prediction of Fremen for turn ten; it does not claim natural arrival at that board.

The checkpoint records browser and complete-sample observations, required broad checks, source fingerprint, live saved-game preservation and verified Git delivery. Full faction, optional-module and publication gates remain unchanged.

The expanded victory regression union passes 83 cases. The browser exercise uses a fresh four-seat lobby and the same explicitly staged genuine-setup final board. The public guide displays the permitted Tabr co-occupation, the existing Ready action reaches the allied win, and the chronicle gives its reason. Pending and finished refresh preserve the human seat, private hand and exact physical state. Independent read-only database comparison confirms unchanged spice, cards, Traitors, leaders, forces and elites; one victory log is present. This remains a targeted endgame exercise, not a ten-turn human game.

Bene Gesserit prediction and implementation order

An Ecaz three-co-occupied win is a stronghold victory with a modified threshold. BG prediction applies when the predicted faction is either winning ally on the predicted turn, including BG's own ally; BG then wins alone. Do not place Ecaz's new predicate after the existing prediction check. Base p.18 excludes the distinct Fremen/Guild special endgame wins from prediction; this Ecaz rule is not one of those named exceptions. Base p.18

Recommended finite order: settle mandatory public board stance; determine ordinary and Ecaz stronghold winners; apply matching BG prediction; only if none, evaluate final-turn Fremen/Guild fallbacks using their existing distinct prediction treatment; settle final Stronghold Card ownership. Private prediction must never appear in other players' eligibility previews. A public prospective Ecaz threshold can be shown without revealing whether it would be intercepted by BG.

Focused acceptance cases: three jointly occupied sites; only two joint sites plus one solo site; ordinary four-site distribution; enemy presence and BG advisors; legal zero No-Field effective presence; placed/unplaced mobile stronghold; storm-covered sole occupation and storm-separated enemy occupation; full versus split Tech Tokens; Occupy canceled yet threshold satisfied; BG predicts either winning member; Fremen/Ecaz actual co-occupation versus Ecaz-alone in each protected sietch; final Stronghold Card assignment and JSON continuation. No force, alliance or card mutations are required merely to quote these outcomes.

No runtime, test, mode or automation changes were made. Sources were checked against the local publisher-authored E1/E2/E3/base extracts and fresh official indexed pages. The earlier Occupy numerical comment was by Jeff C, not Jack Reda; it is not used here as authority.