Introducing: the Merchant ability!
The idea of a crew that is a Merchant or Trader (leaning towards Merchant for the name). The Age of Sail is littered with people who weren’t pirates or warlords, but the game doesn’t have many ways or abilities to reflect on amicable relations.
This is something I’ve developed for Seas of Japan Part 3 that I’m quite stoked about. I’ve become a little obsessed with it. This has the potential to open up vast new possibilities in gameplay, especially in terms of logistics, diplomacy and duplicity. The wording is extremely intentional, so if you think something is a possibility because of it, it probably is….
Merchant: Once per turn if this crew or ship is within S of any ships, home islands, or forts, the controllers of each game piece may agree to trade any number of cargo between the game pieces as a free action (if applicable, up to their available cargo space). If the trade is between friendly game pieces, all friendly game pieces involved must unload at least one non-identical cargo; you cannot trade between friendly ships and your own home island.
Current cost: 2 points
Clarifications:
“Once per turn”: This means once per player turn, as opposed to “once during each of your turns” or “once per round of turns”.
“If this crew or ship”: This means only the crew must be within S of X game piece, so the ability can be used while the crew is on an island. “Or ship” is mostly added to clarify that the ability can be used normally while the crew is assigned to a ship.
“Is within S”: The crew with this ability must be within S of ALL parties involved in the trade. You cannot have a trade “chained” by game pieces within S of one another but not the crew – they all have to be within S of the Merchant crew. (unless of course there are additional Merchants that would make the situation legal)
“Any ships, home islands, or forts”: Including both enemy and friendly game pieces of those types. Since each is plural, it also means you can do 3 (or more) way trades, or broker deals between third parties without the Merchant player being one of the parties to give or receive a cargo (however, since it says “each game piece”, the Merchant player still has to agree to the trade!).
“May agree to trade”: Trades must be fully consensual when a deal is struck.
“Any number of cargo”: That number could be zero, allowing for gifts/bribes/tribute/payments to be given and received.
“Between the game pieces”: For example, a ship trading with a fort, or ship to (enemy) home island.
“non-identical” : This is to prevent friendlies from swapping oarsmen along with another item to basically make it a one-way trade.
This keyword is subject to change if it is found to be broken/etc.
Additional explanation:
“If the trade is between friendly game pieces, all friendly game pieces involved must unload at least one cargo”: This is to prevent the ability from being used primarily to expedite friendly gold logistics with gift transfers (which can get really powerful, as the Hoist keyword shows, and would therefore increase the ability cost too much).
“you cannot trade between friendly ships and your own home island.”: This is to prevent the ability from breaking the gold factory meta – if not for this clause, you could simply park a ship next to your HI and trade a crew for a coin already on your HI, dock to give it +2 (or more) gold, then reload the crew via the free transfer rule and do it again next turn.
By allowing its usage on any player’s turn, it opens up new options for trade and friendly relations. It’s not just about the player who controls the crew – other players may want to get in the Merchant’s good graces so they can trade with another 3rd party (as long as the Merchant agrees to broker the deal of course).
Random exposition and thoughts:
I want it to be as flexible as possible, which is why I opened it up for ship-island/etc transfers rather than just ship to ship (especially because many historical merchants would have stayed in port and hardly gone to sea). This way you could pay gold from your home island to swap it for a useful crew on a nearby ship via mutual exchange.
I think allowing wild islands into the equation gets weird, both logistically and in the case of the Merchant being outnumbered by enemy crew on the island (+you shouldn’t be able to trade freely if you have an enemy Marine right next to you on the island).
Obviously there is nothing in the rules that would prevent players from making tentative trade agreements before having their game pieces within S of the Merchant. The key is that the trade is mutually agreed upon when the game pieces are within S – by that point, the situation in the game may have changed….
I think it will open up the game for both more player interaction (almost always a good thing to have more of, as Pirates can often just be “turn taken, everyone sits around, next turn taken, etc”), and certainly more opportunities for actual piracy. (which the game arguably doesn’t have enough of given the original boarding rules, although my Restarting Rules help with that a bit) I’ve often found that players want more combat in their games, and I think the wild options for duplicity this opens up could promote more secret player conversations, and retaliatory attacks. Players might get suspicious of whispered conversations had by other players and then they might go full pirate to interrupt a deal/etc. A face down Merchant could be a way to put someone on the spot with a trade option. Plus, someone with completely unwanted cargo (ex: Plague UT that another player wants to use as a weapon) could accept a “loot box” where they don’t know what face down coin they’ll receive from someone else as payment . The face up/down differences could be interesting too, where 3rd parties who aren’t privy to the trade details wonder what’s being traded, or they see the face up cargo but not the face down one being traded. Plus, saying things out loud vs private convos – 3rd parties might want to know what’s being traded, and if the traders don’t fess up, that could lead to hostility. A player could bluff that a face down crew is a Merchant and use it to lure a player into a trap. All the risks involved make the crew less likely to be used, which should help keep the cost cheap. I think it will shine most in multiplayer games.
If you request a face down coin, I think it would be fair to ask that player to show it to you privately to trust their end of the deal (but of course, nothing in the rules or ability requires them to show it to you).
There’s a fun “reputation” mechanic that would naturally develop with Merchants, because players would be less likely to trade with a Merchant/player that has duped someone in the past (likely even extending across separate games in a play group, due to the human element). That incentivizes players to be “good” in their dealings.
If both players agree to the trade and the cargo are facedown, the trade happens simultaneously and then both players can see if they got what they expected. Since it’s at such close range, if either player isn’t happy, combat might erupt. This could lead to any number of new possibilities: players being overly generous as a sign of goodwill, or getting another player involved as an enforcer – if someone doesn’t hold up their end of the deal, maybe a 3rd player is waiting to whack any dishonest merchants
It might make the spying abilities even better, since those could be really useful for ensuring that a player can verify that the other party even has what they claim to have.
Between the factors of player interaction, opportunities for realistic trade and piracy, and the lack of “ideal” use cases (to keep it from being too powerful/expensive), I think it’s worth the risk. The game has arguably been broken since Spanish Main, and I don’t think this will come close to Banshee’s Cry/mermaids/Captain Jack Sparrow/etc; if anything it might be quite impractical in 90%+ of situations where it even becomes plausible to trade.
Imagine a trade like Captain Nemo for a powerful UT….
Ex-Patriots could be interesting with this, switching sides for payment.
I do think in most games/situations, trading will either be too much of a hassle, or not much of an advantage. It can also be high risk, which will likely dissuade players from engaging with the ability to some extent. Which is all fine with me, since it helps keep it cheap.
I’m excited about how this might open up gameplay, especially with diplomacy and alliances in multiplayer games.