- This topic has 1,195 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 4 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Name: Ballast
Point Cost: 3
Ability: You may eliminate this crew to give this ship an extra S to this ship’s base move for the rest of the game. (You have to include this crew into the build total.)
This one is game-breaking as written. For only a single point more than a standard Helmsman you’ve got one that is permanent, un-cancellable, takes up no cargo space, AND can still stack with a Helmsman. At the absolute bare minimum the cost needs to be doubled but probably even more. Adding Limit would be a good idea too, especially for higher-point games where players could fit multiples in a fleet, so this doesn’t become another “automatic” item that players would feel they need to have in order to remain competitive.
Tracking of permanent effects can be problematic too, especially in longer games and when ships change hands multiple times. It’s much better for “elimination” effects to apply immediately and only on the turn they’re used, so there’s no need to keep track of which hidden/extra bonuses are still in play a few turns later.
I think something like this would be much better suited as a UT that just remains face up on your ship without taking up space. Then all of the issues above go away entirely.
Name: Joli Rouge
Once per turn, you may roll a d6. On a result of 1-3, give her no action; On a result of 4-6, you may give this ship an extra action.
What is the intended timing on the roll for this ability? Potentially losing the ability to give this ship any actions for a turn is very, very different from being a version of the existing extra action roll with slightly better odds, and it’s not entirely clear from the wording which it’s meant to be.
Either change the “Once per turn…” to “At the beginning of your turn…”, or drop the 1-3 result line entirely, depending on which option you want.
If it’s meant to be the beginning of turn version, you should also add either “may” or “must” into the part about rolling to make it clear if it’s mandatory or not.
Thanks For the input! Will revise. 😉 I think ballast could be a one per fleet crew but not have Limit.
Like: You may only have one of this crew per fleet. You may eliminate this crew to give this ship an extra S to this ship’s base move for the rest of the game. (You have to include this crew into the build total.)
Sound better? :/
Thanks For the input! Will revise.
I think ballast could be a one per fleet crew but not have Limit.Like: You may only have one of this crew per fleet. You may eliminate this crew to give this ship an extra S to this ship’s base move for the rest of the game. (You have to include this crew into the build total.)
If it’s a named crew, the “one per fleet” part is covered by the no-duplicates rule.
Whether it can be duplicated or not is much less of a concern than the granting of a permanent, untouchable effect through elimination. If the goal is just to allow it to stack with a Helmsman, it’s going to be much simpler and far less problematic to just state that directly in the ability text, like, “This ship gets +S to her base move (this ability can stack with a Helmsman).” You can then easily add other effects, like taking up no cargo space or being unable to be unloaded.
There’s also the big question mark about what it represents thematically as a crew that’s being eliminated to gain the effect. It almost seems to imply that bodies are being shoved down into the lower hull to weight it down, when there are numerous less-problematic options for that.
Making it Equipment instead of crew would make it seem far more like a physical upgrade to the ship, and would keep it safe from most cancellers without taking it out of play entirely.
Although the song Barrett’s Privateers got referenced with HMS Antelope (BC 052), I don’t quite feel the piece properly represents the song it’s referencing. so I’ve created a few pieces which I feel better encapsulate the ship and her crew:
Name: Antelope
Cost: 6
Faction: English
Link: Elcid Barrett
Masts: 2
Cargo: 3
Movement: L
Cannons: 3S-3S
Ability: Schooner. This ship sinks when her last mast is eliminated.
Flavor Text: A scummy and poorly-kept vessel, the Antelope has received a letter of marque from King George to raid American waters.
Name: Elcid Barrett
Cost: 1
Faction: English
Link: Antelope, Barrett’s Privateers
Ability: Captain. Non-English ships get +1 to their cannon rolls against this ship.
Flavor Text: Although an incompetent sailor, the ever opportunistic Elcid Barrett has secured himself a ship and a letter of marque from the king. He hopes now to make his fortune raiding American merchant ships in the Caribbean and along the New England coast.
Name: Barrett’s Privateers
Cost: 5
Faction: English
Link: Elcid Barrett
Ability: This ship gets +1 to her boarding rolls. One of this ship’s treasures is worth +1 gold when she docks at your home island.
Flavor Text: Recruited to crew his new raiding vessel, Barrett’s Privateers were told they’d be able to earn easy money and that they’d never have to face any actual combat.
Agree that the Privateers could come down to 4 points, and the Antelope probably could as well. Getting the captain ability for one point however seems a bit strong, especially since Barrett could be placed on a different ship for a budget option captain.
The First Faction of my custom set: Pirates of the Seas and Skies. This set is based around a continuation of Pirates of the Mysterious Islands where many powerful mercenary figures have banded together in order to overthrow the monarchs of old. Age of Sail meets steampunk in the ultimate clash for power, treasure, and world domination!
The faction in review is the ominous Oceanic League, a group of powerful figures and disgruntled peoples who have banded together for a common purpose: overthrow the balance of power and rid the seas of the colonial powers. The league takes to the seas with never before seen technology sailing below the waves and above the clouds! Will the League achieve its goals and forge a new order on the seas, or will the league sink under the oceans it rose from?
Attached are some of the new keywords and an almost completely flushed out Oceanic League roster. Feel free to let me know what you think and stay tuned for more.
Useful Keywords:
Nice! I think Antelope could be 4 points, and the Privateers likely 4 as well.
I think he’s put the Antelope at 6 points so it can use both crew.
Nautilus could maybe go up one point to 17, the auto success on any ram attempt is pretty strong, effectively enabling her to ram a mast off of a healthy ten mast.
Polaris seems okay, but I think the wording of the Torpedo keyword could be refined.
Hephaestus is likely okay at 15, but could go up to match the point cost of the original Nautilus.
Odyssey is likely fine at 12, an interesting gold runner for certain. Her ability will allow her to get within S while still submerged and surface on the next turn keeping her “safe” from opposing ships while she gathers treasure.
This version of the Mobilis is probably too cheap. For a submarine she has excellent speed and good cargo. I’d suggest moving her point cost to 10 or 11.
Mako will likely be a pain to deal with in a game, but she seems okay. You could change her ability to read as one cargo instead of one crew or treasure, as that would catch both as well as anything else the target ship might be carrying.
I’m not sure how I feel about the Erebus. The original version of the Mobilis from MI does the exact same thing for the exact same cost and is a massive headache to deal with in any game, given the double layer of defense. From campaign experience ships like this could easily go to 15 or 16 points, however for more casual games in the 40 or 60 point range I think the Erebus is okay, as she does have less cargo than the original Mobilis, despite her slight speed increase.
Why does the Oceania have that first line of ability text? Per the Air Dragoon keyword, they can be assigned to the ship at the beginning of the game without needing any special parameter, unless I’m missing something somewhere? Moving on from that, I feel that Oceania could move up a point or two, given that the Dragoons are very similar to Native Canoes.
This version of the Matuku is a very good gold runner. That gold bonus ability can win games with only a couple uses, couple that with decent speed and good cargo all for 10 points makes for a very good gold runner. 10 points might be too cheap, but I think testing would lend better results.
Even though it has a negative ability, I don’t feel that the Pacifica is worth 4 points, and could come up one or two.
Even though she’s a small ship, the Perseus should be more expensive. With a captain and helmsman she’s looking at a max speed of S+S+S+S with some very accurate cannons. Moving her point cost to 9 or 10 would be ideal I think.
Fiji has a good ability, but I’m not sure how I feel about the ship. She’s small enough to the point that her ability might not be all that useful (like the Coral from RV), but on the other hand she has good cargo space and a low point cost. Playtesting I think is needed for this one.
Galateia seems okay as-is.
<span style=”caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: ‘Helvetica Neue’, Helvetica, Arial, ‘Lucida Grande’, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; background-color: #fbfbfb;”>Why does the Oceania have that first line of ability text? Per the Air Dragoon keyword, they can be assigned to the ship at the beginning of the game without needing any special parameter, unless I’m missing something somewhere?</span>
Need to update the dragoon keyword. The intention of dragoons is that at the beginning of the game, the crew token takes up 3 cargo space. However, upon revealing the crew and launching the dragoon tokens, each token takes up cargo space and cannot land/take off on ships per the airship keyword unless stated.
The keyword for the Oceania was intended to make it a dragoon tender where dragoons may land and launch from the ship for means of transport.
<p style=”border: 0px; font-family: ‘Helvetica Neue’, Helvetica, Arial, ‘Lucida Grande’, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin: 1em 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;”>Fiji has a good ability, but I’m not sure how I feel about the ship. She’s small enough to the point that her ability might not be all that useful (like the Coral from RV), but on the other hand she has good cargo space and a low point cost. Playtesting I think is needed for this one.</p>
Will look into this one. Fiji could very easily pick up a different ‘merchant’ keyword if the docking immunity isn’t very significant.
I’ll look into adjusting the prices for everything else. I used the UDC calculator with some slight biases to make the ships more competitive. Look for another round of corrections soon.
Next faction has been created for Pirates of the Seas and Skies: The Pirates of course!
I wanted the Pirates to be a little more reflective of what they actually were historically. Faster raiding ships with decent to mediocre cannons with a few interesting vessels in between. Feel free to look them over and stay tuned for the next faction!
As only three of the major factions got subs in MI, I made custom subs for the other three majors who did not get any:
Name: Poseidon
Cost: 14
Faction: English
Segments: 3
Cargo: 4
Movement: S+S
Cannons: 2L-3L-4L
Ability: Submarine. Once per turn, reroll any die roll made for this ship; you must use the second die roll result.
Flavor Text: Following successful experiments with submersible technology, the Royal Navy has developed a new class of ship that will further help them rule the waves.Name: Resurgam
Cost: 13
Faction: English
Segments: 2
Cargo: 3
Movement: L
Cannons: 3L-3S
Ability: Submarine. Once per turn, one crew or ship within S of this ship cannot use its ability that turn.
Flavor Text: Resurgam was designed with the express purpose of disrupting the enemy’s line of battle undetected.
(loosely based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurgam)Name: Peral
Cost: 9
Faction: Spanish
Segments: 3
Cargo: 3
Movement: S
Cannons: 2L-4S-3S
Ability: Submarine. This ship gets +S to her base move if she has all her segments.
Flavor Text: Named for her designer, Peral is the Spanish Navy’s most advanced ship yet.
(loosely based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_submarine_Peral)Name: Ictineo
Cost: 9
Faction: Spanish
Segments: 2
Cargo: 4
Movement: L
Cannons: 3S-4S
Ability: Submarine. If this ship has an Explorer crew, she gets +1 cargo.
Flavor Text: An ingenious design, Ictineo was created to help divers preform their duties in better safety.
(loosely based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ict%C3%ADneo_I & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ict%C3%ADneo_II)Name: Plongeur
Cost: 12
Faction: French
Segments: 3
Cargo: 4
Movement: S+S
Cannons: 3S-4S-4S
Ability: Submarine. This ship gets +2 to her ramming rolls.
Flavor Text: After impressive reports of Nemo’s submarines came back from the Mysterious Islands, French naval engineers were charged with building a vessel capable of similar feats. ‘Diver’ was the result.
(loosely based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Plongeur)Name: Gymnote
Cost: 11
Segments: 2
Faction: French
Cargo: 2
Movement: L
Cannons: 3S-3S
Ability: Submarine. This ship has a 4S cannon that can be fired while she is submerged; it cannot be fired when she is surfaced.
Flavor Text: Gymnote was built to serve as a testbed for an experimental new kind of weapon.
(loosely based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Gymnote_(Q1))Airship – How does the requirement of a 5 or 6 roll to hit an aloft ship interact with other roll modifiers? Does a +1 to cannon rolls allow a 4 to hit? If a ship with the double range ability (normally needs a 6 to hit) rolls a 5, does that hit?
Air Dragoons – I like the idea of mini ships that can be handled like crew, but the wording for how these are deployed and used has several issues that need to be addressed.
ALL crew must begin on a ship or your home island normally, so that first sentence is redundant.
Allowing the main crew with the keyword to function fully on a home island breaks a major rule about crew ability usage, which is okay, but that has to be called out specifically and explicitly, like how it’s done with the Marine keyword. Considering how they’re used, I think it would be simpler to drop that island option entirely, and require being on a ship. Deploying them from an island would require a ship to be there at the time: simply use the free crew transfer while docked option to load the main crew long enough to pop out the dragoons. You’d lose a little bit of a potential surprise factor, but I think most players who see a facedown crew sitting on an island by itself will assume it to be a Marine or Dragoon. Any other crew left behind on the island to make room for more treasure will almost certainly be face up, or it wouldn’t have been brought along in the first place. (Plus, any non-Marine crew left behind can be stolen by any ship that docks there, whether nationalities match or not.)
Having the crew take up 3 cargo spaces while facedown on a ship goes against another major crew usage rule where normally things only function while face up. It could be very problematic to enforce, especially if that crew isn’t revealed until very late in a game and lots of other cargo has been transferred on and off the ship in between. It would be very easy for a player to forget (or “forget”) how much space was actually available, and almost impossible for other players to verify it until after the fact. I suggest dropping the “3 cargo spaces” part and just leave it at 1 like normal crew. Then they can take up one space each after being revealed; instead of deploying in the ship’s cargo hold, instead place them so they’re touching the ship to avoid space issues. Thematically you could say whatever flying gear they use is packed up and compacted in storage until they’re ready to use it, and it can’t be quickly or easily folded back up again.
Removing the crew that generates them (and its point value) raises questions about how that point value applies later if one of the three lands on a ship. Does it count nothing? Does it count the full value? Does it take some partial amount? Keeping the main crew in play like a Chieftain avoids that problem, and also avoids taking that big chunk of points off the board; the downside is that it then becomes dead weight that you could still dump somewhere, unless there’s some maintenance effect like with the Chieftain that hurts the Dragoons if lost. An alternative would be to have the dragoons split the cost between them, with the main crew assuming the combined total until revealed; you’d just have to make sure the dragoon prices were always divisible by 3.
“Cannot have their cargo space increased” implies some could have a non-zero cargo hold. Whether any in your set do or not (I didn’t check that close), it opens the door for the possibility in the future, which in turn could create problems if one with cargo got loaded back onto a ship. Logically, the dragoon and whatever it carried would take up ship spaces separately, but there could also be an argument for nesting them. A much simpler solution is to say they “can never carry cargo”.
————————————————-
@stt1 SkeleboneName: Ictineo
Ability: Submarine. If this ship has an Explorer crew, she gets +1 cargo.
Does this work only with a generic Explorer, or does anyone with the keyword count? Looking specifically at Dominic Freda from RotF (Explorer, +1 cargo, takes up no space), who thanks to the similar-but-technically-stackable wordings would give this ship +2 cargo while taking up none.
Silver Explorers have to be considered too, but they shouldn’t an issue either way.
Name: Gymnote
Ability: Submarine. This ship has a 4S cannon that can be fired while she is submerged; it cannot be fired when she is surfaced.Any restrictions on what it can fire at? This doesn’t override any abilities about shooting at submerged ships, so it would have to be assumed to only work against surface ships unless specifically stated otherwise.
What about a Marine on a island?
Does this work only with a generic Explorer, or does anyone with the keyword count? Looking specifically at Dominic Freda from RotF (Explorer, +1 cargo, takes up no space), who thanks to the similar-but-technically-stackable wordings would give this ship +2 cargo while taking up none.
Silver Explorers have to be considered too, but they shouldn’t an issue either way.
It’s intended to function the same way an ability referencing a Captain does, so any generic explorer or any crew with an Explorer keyword.
Any restrictions on what it can fire at? This doesn’t override any abilities about shooting at submerged ships, so it would have to be assumed to only work against surface ships unless specifically stated otherwise.
What about a Marine on a island?
This ability is intended to indicate that the ship is able to fire a sort of early/primitive underwater torpedo, so in effect it would work mostly the same as a regular cannon. I had forgotten about marines, some clarifying text indicating they cannot be targeted is likely to be in order. With that as well as some clarifying text about submerged pieces (it shouldn’t be able to fire at them regardless of if an ability would allow it) I may end up turning it into a keyword to better abbreviate.
Nereides feels a little cheap, but only just. The first half of your Ironclad keyword scales with the size of the ship, on a small one, it’s almost useless as the small ship is susceptible to ramming. Your keyword solves this a little by throwing in “ramming cannot eliminate this ships masts” ability. Then again, it does move S…….
Text on Kiwa should be fixed to read as this ship instead of this crew. 10 points feels fine for her.
Tinirau seems okay to me, an excellent flotilla tug.
Pegasus has a very useful ability, potentially one of the most powerful in game. She feels like a direct upgrade over the Hessian from DJC. Given her speed I’d probably put her at 10 points instead of 9.
Wurger could get complicated and very headache inducing to play against. Even though she’s a 2 mast ship I’d consider increasing her point cost a little or consider giving her a different ability.
Stratus is going to be a FAST ship. Considering that she’s only a 3 mast ship she feels appropriately costed however.
Cumulus is going to be annoying to deal with while it is aloft. Needing a 5-6 to even hit it while it’s flying and then needing a second 5-6 cannon roll? Not impossible but it will make this ship very difficult to deal with. However she’s costed correctly I feel.
I don’t quite get what you’re intending with the ability of the Cirrus. Airship state is determined at the beginning of your turn, before ships start moving. You can simply declare her to be landed and explore the island normally with an explore action or an explorer crew.
I think that the ability and possibly keyword of Airship would need to be refined and defined if the Altos wants to keep its ability. Mostly I think you’d need to define what would constitute as a ram to an aloft Airship. Since the bow of the vessel technically isn’t in the water, would the bow part of the base be considered for ramming? You could sidestep some of this I think by giving her the regular S-board ability, which ties the boarding party to a move action and is a bit less confusing to work out.
Is Air Dragoon the same as Aerial Dragoon? A ship could do this anyway, not all cannons need to be fired at the same target. Additionally I think shooting needs to be flushed out in the Airship keyword, as other than an opposing ship targeting an aloft Airship it’s not mentioned.
I would recommend switching vessels with ships in the first half of Nemo’s ability. Technically the same thing, but the wordage more closely resembles that used by Wizkids and is a way to avoid confusion. This version of Nemo is too cheap, I’d put him around 12 points, given that the cannon ability is worth about 4 points and his main ability is unchanged from his ME version which was costed around 8 points.
I know Gustav’s ability was 5 points originally, but WK changed it to 6, I’d recommend the same here.
This ability is intended to indicate that the ship is able to fire a sort of early/primitive underwater torpedo, so in effect it would work mostly the same as a regular cannon. I had forgotten about marines, some clarifying text indicating they cannot be targeted is likely to be in order. With that as well as some clarifying text about submerged pieces (it shouldn’t be able to fire at them regardless of if an ability would allow it) I may end up turning it into a keyword to better abbreviate.
Something like this should cover it:
This ship may be given a shoot action while submerged to fire a single cannon; it becomes a 4S cannon that can target only ships on the surface.
If you need/want extra clarification, you could also add “This cannon cannot target submerged ships or Marines on islands.”
You could also steal some of the text from Musketeer about using masts, but I don’t think it’s necessary in this case because it’s implied to be a modifier of an existing cannon/mast rather than an extra cannon using another’s slot.
A ship cannot be given more than two full (non-free) actions on a single turn unless an ability clearly and specifically states that it allows more than two actions. No such ability exists.
If such an ability were to exist, how would it need to be worded?
“This ship may be given up to three actions in a single turn.”
Would the above satisfy the clearly and specifically stated part? Would this be an absurdly OP custom ability?
“This ship may be given up to three actions in a single turn.”
To me this leaves ambiguity on whether or not this is saying that the ship is not subject to the 2-action limit, or can simply be given 3 actions in a turn by default (without needing Sac/EA/etc). I assume the intent is the former, but the latter is a fair interpretation as-is. I recommend this instead: “This ship is not subject to the two action limit.” Woelf may have a better wording of course.
Would this be an absurdly OP custom ability?
Either way, yes. I don’t recommend it. Also worth considering the high likelihood that it gets copied to a 10 master; I don’t like feeling that Copiers have to be considered for all the various “potentially OP” abilities, but it’s still worth noting.
If such an ability were to exist, how would it need to be worded?
“This ship may be given up to three actions in a single turn.”
Would the above satisfy the clearly and specifically stated part? Would this be an absurdly OP custom ability?
That wording would probably work; the intent is clear, at least. Specifically saying “three” means there’s no debate about combining that with some other action generator to get even more.
But, like Ben said, copiers are a huge issue with something like that, even if you made the ability itself really expensive and/or put it on a mediocre ship. Not requiring anything extra to gain the actions is problematic too, and would drive the cost up significantly more.
At the very least, an ability like that would need to have Limit permanently attached to it so a player couldn’t easily abuse it within a single fleet. Multiplayer and especially anything with team play would still have potential issues.
————————–
ADDED: If the intent was just to raise the action limit by 1 without actually generating those actions it gets a little more interesting, but the wording as-is wouldn’t work because that implies it’s also giving the ship those actions.
Something like this instead: “This ship’s action limit is increased to three; all additional actions must still be generated normally by other abilities.”
Limit would still be a good idea either way.
If the intent was just to raise the action limit by 1 without actually generating those actions it gets a little more interesting, but the wording as-is wouldn’t work because that implies it’s also giving the ship those actions.
That was my intent. Whatever ship or keyword this would appear on/in would be able to be given more than 2 actions in a single turn. I did not intend for the ability to generate extra or additional actions.
I intend for the ability to be part of a new keyword for future custom ships. If copying is such a concern, would adding text into the keyword that specifically prevent the keyword from being copied work? I believe that you can pick and choose what abilities to copy if a target has more than one, but you cannot cherry pick a keyword, correct?
The rest of the keyword as it stands now, with an updated text:
—keyword—
This ship’s action limit is increased to three; all additional actions must still be generated normally by other abilities. This ship cannot shoot at ships within S of her. As part of a repair action this ship may be given a move action. While this ship has all of her masts, she cannot be boarded; this ship can always board.When an —keyword— is given a shoot action you may choose whether that action is a normal shoot action or a mortar attack (it cannot perform both with a single action). A mortar attack allows the —keyword— to attack any one target (including submerged ships) within L+L of its hull. Roll a d6; on a roll of 3 or higher the mortar attack is successful and it eliminates up to two masts on the target, and none of the crew or ship abilities may be used on the target’s next turn. No other abilities can be applied to a mortar attack.
I intend for the ability to be part of a new keyword for future custom ships. If copying is such a concern, would adding text into the keyword that specifically prevent the keyword from being copied work? I believe that you can pick and choose what abilities to copy if a target has more than one, but you cannot cherry pick a keyword, correct?
You can pick and choose between separate/individual abilities, but copying a keyword is all-or-nothing, so if this ability is tucked within one, especially one with some negative aspects to it like this, copying becomes much less of a concern.
If this is going to be a unique (physical) ship type, you could indirectly prevent copying by having the keyword refer repeatedly to that ship type, which would prevent it from working on other types of ships, although a simple line saying “This keyword cannot be copied.” would work just as well and would be more universal.
The rest of the keyword as it stands now, with an updated text:
—keyword—
This ship’s action limit is increased to three; all additional actions must still be generated normally by other abilities. This ship cannot shoot at ships within S of her. As part of a repair action this ship may be given a move action. While this ship has all of her masts, she cannot be boarded; this ship can always board.When an —keyword— is given a shoot action you may choose whether that action is a normal shoot action or a mortar attack (it cannot perform both with a single action). A mortar attack allows the —keyword— to attack any one target (including submerged ships) within L+L of its hull. Roll a d6; on a roll of 3 or higher the mortar attack is successful and it eliminates up to two masts on the target, and none of the crew or ship abilities may be used on the target’s next turn. No other abilities can be applied to a mortar attack.
Not being able to shoot within S kills a lot of the copying desire for this one, but not completely, and the bonus mortar attack offsets that somewhat (at least, if only requires the keyword and isn’t ship-type-dependent).
The repair-move part is a little ambiguous. Is that meant to be a free move after repairing, or is it intended to be a full action that counts toward the increased action limit? If it’s meant to be a free move, you should use the exact same wording as the Reverse Captain so it’s clear what else works with it (specifically, not a Captain). If it’s meant to be a full move action, consider making the repair the free part instead, with it worded more like a standard Captain. You could add a provision allowing the repair before the movement, even if the ship is derelict.
Does the mortar attack still obey the keyword’s base minimum range of S, or is it exempt from that because it’s specifically referred to as different from a regular shoot action?
Thematically, this keyword seems to be all over the place. Aside from the large mortar cannon, which is great (and more interesting than Bombardier), what specifically are you going for with the rest of it? Are there thematic/historical justifications for the increased action limit, the repairs while moving, or the boarding protection?
Is that meant to be a free move after repairing, or is it intended to be a full action that counts toward the increased action limit?
Meant to be free, like the reverse captain example.
Does the mortar attack still obey the keyword’s base minimum range of S, or is it exempt from that because it’s specifically referred to as different from a regular shoot action?
I was actually going to ask you that, though for a different reason. I tacked on the Broadsides Attack “no other abilities” line to the very end. I’m not certain if that would “overrule” so to speak the S range requirement.
If this is going to be a unique (physical) ship type, you could indirectly prevent copying by having the keyword refer repeatedly to that ship type, which would prevent it from working on other types of ships, although a simple line saying “This keyword cannot be copied.” would work just as well and would be more universal.
At this point the keyword wouldn’t appear on a unique ship design, I’m envisioning a standard ship. However if I can finagle a way to combine a Bombardier and a Switchblade…….
Are there thematic/historical justifications for the increased action limit, the repairs while moving, or the boarding protection?
Thematic mostly. The base inspiration for the keyword is a suit of armor that was cool but not very battle effective. I’m still in rough draft mode, and haven’t decided anything for the final version.
I was actually going to ask you that, though for a different reason. I tacked on the Broadsides Attack “no other abilities” line to the very end. I’m not certain if that would “overrule” so to speak the S range requirement.
The “no other abilities” text wouldn’t help in that case, for the same reason you can’t use BA against anything with the “Ships within S cannot shoot this ship” ability. If you don’t have a legal shot in the first place, you can’t apply any shooting abilities to it.
The way you have the keyword written above, I would assume the minimum range of S would still apply to the mortar attack.
The repair-move part is a little ambiguous. Is that meant to be a free move after repairing, or is it intended to be a full action that counts toward the increased action limit? If it’s meant to be a free move, you should use the exact same wording as the Reverse Captain so it’s clear what else works with it (specifically, not a Captain).
It is meant to be a free move action, not a full regular move. My main thought process was that you’d use a shipwright to help in a combat situation. I’ll adjust the wording. My original thought for that aspect was being able to shoot as part of a repair action, but I decided that would be too messy with timing and possibly create several problems.
The “no other abilities” text wouldn’t help in that case, for the same reason you can’t use BA against anything with the “Ships within S cannot shoot this ship” ability. If you don’t have a legal shot in the first place, you can’t apply any shooting abilities to it.
The way you have the keyword written above, I would assume the minimum range of S would still apply to the mortar attack.
~~~~~~
Does the mortar attack still obey the keyword’s base minimum range of S, or is it exempt from that because it’s specifically referred to as different from a regular shoot action?
How would the wording need to change to allow a mortar attack to target something within S of the ship?
How would the wording need to change to allow a mortar attack to target something within S of the ship?
Shifting the text around a little would do it.
Remove the “cannot shoot within S” line from the first paragraph, then add it as a modifier to the “normal” shoot action in the second section.
When an —keyword— is given a shoot action you may choose whether that action is a normal shoot action or a mortar attack.
If you choose a normal shoot action, this ship cannot shoot at ships within S. If you choose a mortar attack, [description goes here].
I don’t really like it being called “normal” or even “standard” when there’s a significant modifier added on immediately, but I think it gets the intent across fairly well. The alternative would be to go into much more detail about firing each/all cannons “using the standard rules, but…”
I don’t really like it being called “normal” or even “standard” when there’s a significant modifier added on immediately, but I think it gets the intent across fairly well. The alternative would be to go into much more detail about firing each/all cannons “using the standard rules, but…”
Hmmm. I think I’ll keep the S range for the mortar attack as well, seems less confusing and keeps the keyword for being very wordy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.