- This topic has 849 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 hour, 54 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well i’m glad its not just me who thinks so. So it would be safe to say that the Sea Monster keyword over rules the sea creature “type” then? Because without ramming the few decent sea monsters are significantly worse IMO.
Abilities, including keywords, always overrule the rulebook unless something specifically says otherwise.
So yes, a Sea Monster can grab treasures after ramming and boarding a ship.
Can a player choose the order with a Switchblade ram when there’s a blade ram and a regular ram? (or must blades come first)
Thematically it would make sense for the blades to apply first and in the order contact occurs, but the rules don’t mandate that, so you can do them in any order.
Can you explore two friendly ships at once with one explore action? (between three ships at once for a double/three-way transfer)
A Hoist can do this legally with its crane, but other ships can only “explore” one thing at a time regardless of how many they are touching.
When towing, can you move S, drop the derelict/flotilla, and then continue with the rest of the segments you’d normally have? (and if so, can you use a helmsman bonus after dropping the flotilla)
You can drop a towed object at any point during your move action, but any restrictions imposed by that object continue to apply for the entire move action.
Instantly restoring a ship’s full movement mid-move would create a bunch of weird timing and measuring issues.
I looked here and Miniaturetrading but could not find it. I want to know what the real difference the Captain’s ability to move and shoot with the move action and the interactions between the Same Action and Extra Action?
I ask because I have the HMS GT and I have Crimson Angel. would I be able to move and shoot (captain) than use the same action, to move no distance (In case I was within S range) and shoot again? or is this not allowed? I did not see that a ship had to move it’s full distance.
(merged to this thread)
This is the sticky thread for ALL Rules questions, so please post any future questions in this thread.
I ask because I have the HMS GT and I have Crimson Angel. would I be able to move and shoot (captain) than use the same action, to move no distance (In case I was within S range) and shoot again? or is this not allowed? I did not see that a ship had to move it’s full distance.
Technically you must be given the Same Action Twice as the ability states. However, there is really no “minimum” distance required for movement, so you could move a fraction of a millimeter and then shoot with all the cannons still in range. It’s one of those “fudgey” things that doesn’t matter a whole lot, since you can kind of “simulate” the movement and basically keep the ship in the same place. A little funky, but for official purposes you could just bump the ship a tiny bit forward or whatever to satisfy the “move action”.
Thanks for the clarification. So to keep things a little more simulated, I would see the opportunity to move around a ship I am already attacking, but root of the question was if I could move + Shoot again or if the “Same Action” only allowed the move. Awesome. Thank you.
And sorry about that misplacement of my post.
I’ve checked around he site and the web but can not wind what ‘Trade Currents’ do. what are they?
You can see in Page 10 of the Combined Set Rules. (which I have linked on the homepage for convenience)
These questions come from my latest game.
If you have Filching Gold but also want to board a ship to steal an additional coin, which happens first? (I assumed the Filching Gold; perhaps the owner of the ship can decide?)
If Neptune’s Figurehead kicks in right after scuttling, can that ship be given a move action right away? (more of a clarification; in this case the ship sunk via scuttling at the beginning of the turn, then appeared at the HI fully repaired and immediately sailed out and rammed a ship!)
Can you activate Ghost Ship while that ship is being towed? (for example, to prevent opponents from ramming a towed derelict to steal gold from it)
What do you think of letting submerged game pieces ignore fog banks while submerged?
If you have Filching Gold but also want to board a ship to steal an additional coin, which happens first? (I assumed the Filching Gold; perhaps the owner of the ship can decide?)
Filching applies when the ships first touch, so you use it before boarding.
If you lost the boarding, you could potentially return the coin that you’d just stolen seconds earlier.
If Neptune’s Figurehead kicks in right after scuttling, can that ship be given a move action right away? (more of a clarification; in this case the ship sunk via scuttling at the beginning of the turn, then appeared at the HI fully repaired and immediately sailed out and rammed a ship!)
As long as the ship hasn’t been given its action for the turn, it can be given a move action immediately.
Can you activate Ghost Ship while that ship is being towed? (for example, to prevent opponents from ramming a towed derelict to steal gold from it)
You can activate it on either ship involved at the beginning of your turn, but that immediately breaks the tow.
What do you think of letting submerged game pieces ignore fog banks while submerged?
For the purposes of moving through (under) a fog bank that wouldn’t be that big of a deal, aside from adding complexity for the sake of complexity.
It’s not going to change anything as far as interactions with other ships go, for the same reason abilities that ignore terrain when moving don’t change things. Your ship might be able to ignore the terrain, but that doesn’t mean other ships can too, so their positions remain undefined in the fog.
Thematically, the subs in the game aren’t equipped with sonar, and using a periscope to look for other ships in fog runs into the same visibility problems as someone standing on a deck.
Can you activate Ghost Ship while that ship is being towed? (for example, to prevent opponents from ramming a towed derelict to steal gold from it)
You can activate it on either ship involved at the beginning of your turn, but that immediately breaks the tow.
That makes perfect sense and I don’t disagree with it. Part of the reason I asked is because the keyword and the Code say nothing about towing (that I saw) in regards to Ghost Ship.
A ghostly ship ignores islands, terrain, and other ships when moving
I guess I wish it said “when moving or being moved”. 🙂
Towing probably should be specifically mentioned in the keyword, but it is covered under the heavily-implied “ghostly ships can’t touch anything” blanket rule. It would be so much simpler if the rule could just say that, but rules like that always seem to run into problems when you get into the countless nuances and interactions with other abilities.
Chariot of the Gods, from the code:
If there are no sea monsters in play when this unique treasure is revealed, it remains aboard the ship that found it and has no other effect.
This has come up in CoEC, the Chariot has been found, but there are no Sea Monsters in play when it was found. What would happen if a Sea Monster came into play? Would the Chariot immediately apply to that Sea Monster that just came into play?
Chariot of the Gods, from the code:
If there are no sea monsters in play when this unique treasure is revealed, it remains aboard the ship that found it and has no other effect.
This has come up in CoEC, the Chariot has been found, but there are no Sea Monsters in play when it was found. What would happen if a Sea Monster came into play? Would the Chariot immediately apply to that Sea Monster that just came into play?
The placement effect only applies when it’s first revealed, so if there isn’t a Sea Monster in play when that happens, it does nothing further.
Granted, having Sea Monsters enter a game that’s already in progress isn’t really a thing under the official/standard rules, so if everyone in the game is okay with it, feel free to house rule it so the Chariot jumps to the first viable target that appears.
Granted, having Sea Monsters enter a game that’s already in progress isn’t really a thing under the official/standard rules, so if everyone in the game is okay with it, feel free to house rule it so the Chariot jumps to the first viable target that appears.
Thanks, I’ll probably do this.
A couple things i would like expanded upon and some clarification, if possible.
From the code, Chariot of the Gods:
-A crewmember assigned to a sea monster using this unique treasure ignores all cargo space requirements.
I’m taking this to mean that a Sea Monster with a cargo of 0 would be able to have a crew assigned to it, as long as it was through the UT, is this correct? What happens when the Sea Monster in question HAS cargo, does the crew assigned by the treasure not take up cargo space?
Some clarification o UT’s and abilities that allow you to steal a treasue/gold coin.
From the code, UT section (pg 10):
-UTs may be transferred between ships like standard treasure (via an explore action), and may be transferred by abilities and effects that steal, take, or trade treasure, unless an ability specifically prevents them from being unloaded or removed from a ship.
Specifically the last bit, does this mean that abilities like Filching Gold, Hoard/Hoarding Gold would allow me to take a UT from an enemy ship, even if it was face-up?
For example, the Zeus wins a board against a ship with Metal Hull, Shipping Chats and Homemade Flag on it. Would the Hoard ability allow me to take the UT’s as well as any other treasure the target ship may have?
-A crewmember assigned to a sea monster using this unique treasure ignores all cargo space requirements.
I’m taking this to mean that a Sea Monster with a cargo of 0 would be able to have a crew assigned to it, as long as it was through the UT, is this correct? What happens when the Sea Monster in question HAS cargo, does the crew assigned by the treasure not take up cargo space?
Think of the crew as if it links to the Chariot. It does not require or use any other cargo space, whether the Sea Monster has some or not.
Some clarification o UT’s and abilities that allow you to steal a treasue/gold coin.
From the code, UT section (pg 10):
-UTs may be transferred between ships like standard treasure (via an explore action), and may be transferred by abilities and effects that steal, take, or trade treasure, unless an ability specifically prevents them from being unloaded or removed from a ship.
Specifically the last bit, does this mean that abilities like Filching Gold, Hoard/Hoarding Gold would allow me to take a UT from an enemy ship, even if it was face-up?
For example, the Zeus wins a board against a ship with Metal Hull, Shipping Chats and Homemade Flag on it. Would the Hoard ability allow me to take the UT’s as well as any other treasure the target ship may have?
You can steal most UTs the same as standard treasures, whether they’re face up or not. The only ones you can’t take are the UTs that specifically say they cannot be unloaded/removed from the ship, or those that are on a ship where stealing is blocked (Secret Hold).
Thanks, most of these were pertinent in CoEC, though recent developments there have changed some things around.
One more question, if a UT remove, like Pirate Codex or some such was revealed and all face-up UT’s are removed, in the case of the Chariot, what happens to the crew that was brought in?
One more question, if a UT remove, like Pirate Codex or some such was revealed and all face-up UT’s are removed, in the case of the Chariot, what happens to the crew that was brought in?
Without the Chariot to ride on, that crew is in an illegal situation and has to get tossed (out of the game) immediately.
Is ‘This crew takes up no cargo space’ an ability unto itself that is subject to the no-stacking rule? For years now I assumed it wasn’t, probably because it always comes bundled with another ability, and for whatever reason in my head I thought of no-stacking rule as applying to the suite of abilities in total in the case of such crew. But it seems like if you put Master Bianco and an Oarsman on the same ship, one of them would have to take up cargo space just as if you had two Oarsman crew, right? Is Oarsman different in any way because the ability is part of a keyword? The ‘stowaway’ crew like Amos seem like they would stack, since the ability is different (only taking no cargo space when revealed instead of ‘always’).
Another related question – if you have used links and/or crew that do not take up cargo space to exceed the printed cargo capacity of a ship, do you have to reveal to your opponent that your arrangement is legal? Does that count as ‘using the ability’ of the crew in question (meaning you would have to flip them during crew placement)? What about when you load treasure? That seems more vague, since you could have loaded UTs, which don’t take space. Is this just a matter of checking the fleet lists after the game is over to verify that all crew assignment was legit?
Is ‘This crew takes up no cargo space’ an ability unto itself that is subject to the no-stacking rule?
Yes. Which is actually good because otherwise you’d be able to use a TON of oarsmen without regard to cargo limitations on a ship with a Sac Captain. The first crew with that ability on a ship doesn’t take up space, but the rest do. (therefore the answers to the other 2 questions in that paragraph are yes, no)
I’ll let Woelf handle that distinction on the recruiter crew. It does seem like they would stack with the regular “no space” ability text, but only one of each per ship of course.
Another related question – if you have used links and/or crew that do not take up cargo space to exceed the printed cargo capacity of a ship, do you have to reveal to your opponent that your arrangement is legal?
Check out Page 4.
—If a linked crew is facedown and its link is required to make the setup legal you must indicate to your opponents that a link is present, but you are not required to indicate which specific link is in use. If necessary, a Privateer may be asked to verify it is legal without revealing the crew.
Does that count as ‘using the ability’ of the crew in question (meaning you would have to flip them during crew placement)?
Even if you had to reveal it to other players as a kind of courtesy house rule (which I think would be reasonable), the ability should not trigger either way because it’s not during gameplay or on a specific turn. Again though, Woelf can clarify better than me.
What about when you load treasure?
I think all UT’s that are loaded facedown take up cargo space normally. Not sure if that answers your question.
I think all UT’s that are loaded facedown take up cargo space normally. Not sure if that answers your question.
The rules say that crew must be turned face up “when using its ability” – but crew like Master Bianco have a passive ability that is always active. I was thinking in terms of a situation like this: you have a ship docked at a wild island with a cargo capacity of 4, and 4 crew tokens are present on the ship, all face down. Then you indicate you intend to load some treasure. At that point, your opponent goes “how do you have space to load the treasure?” Is this the point where you would be ‘using’ the ability on Master Bianco and thus have to turn him face up? Or can you just say “some of these crew don’t take up cargo space.”
@Woelf: Do you see any nasty rules issues by making Ransom faction specific, similar to Hostile and Loyal?
For example, “Ransom: Spain” would mean that only the Spanish could get the benefit of the keyword. This is for thematic reasons of course and to simulate some but not all nations putting a price on someone’s head.
Could even try to apply it in-game: once a named crew is hostile against a faction, they get a “Ransom tag” almost like the Bounties in Merchants and Marauders.
Master Bianco’s “takes up no space” ability is the same as an Oarsman, so the stacking rule does apply. Only the first would take up no space, everyone after takes up one.
Amos’s “recruiter” ability is a little different, so it could be used along with Bianco or an Oarsman. Two different crew with Amos’s ability would run into the stacking rule, though.
The rules say that crew must be turned face up “when using its ability” – but crew like Master Bianco have a passive ability that is always active. I was thinking in terms of a situation like this: you have a ship docked at a wild island with a cargo capacity of 4, and 4 crew tokens are present on the ship, all face down. Then you indicate you intend to load some treasure. At that point, your opponent goes “how do you have space to load the treasure?” Is this the point where you would be ‘using’ the ability on Master Bianco and thus have to turn him face up? Or can you just say “some of these crew don’t take up cargo space.”
Normal links are not treated as abilities, so you would not have to reveal the specific crew to use them.
If you load stuff that would put you over the cargo limit you will have to state that a link is present, but (as the Pirate Code states) you don’t have to announce which specific crew are creating the link. It will have to be verified as legal at some point, of course. You can wait until the crew are revealed later by using their abilities, you can show it immediately after the game ends (or their ship sinks) if they didn’t get revealed, or you can find an impartial bystander (the “Privateer” back in the days of official WK events) to verify it.
If you use the “no space” ability of Bianco or an Oarsman to make room for the new cargo you DO have to reveal them, because then they would be using their ability.
Do you see any nasty rules issues by making Ransom faction specific, similar to Hostile and Loyal?
For example, “Ransom: Spain” would mean that only the Spanish could get the benefit of the keyword. This is for thematic reasons of course and to simulate some but not all nations putting a price on someone’s head.
Could even try to apply it in-game: once a named crew is hostile against a faction, they get a “Ransom tag” almost like the Bounties in Merchants and Marauders.
Mechanically and thematically it should work without any major issues.
Game balance is where it gets dicey. Being faction-specific, I’d be very hesitant to make it anything other than a 0-point ability, and not even as a “half point” that could put you over the top when paired with a Hostile or Loyal. Like either of those, but Loyal especially, that would make it way too easy to purposely under-price crew with little to no penalty.
The other thing to watch for, whether the tag can be applied after the fact or not, is tracking. Is it based on the ship that captures the crew, the ship that unloads the crew, whatever nation is the majority in your fleet, or something else?
Being faction-specific, I’d be very hesitant to make it anything other than a 0-point ability, and not even as a “half point” that could put you over the top when paired with a Hostile or Loyal.
Absolutely, I was not wanting it to be a -1 for cost or anything. It would be “free” as a thematic negative, especially since if it applied to only one faction, it probably wouldn’t matter much in most games.
The other thing to watch for, whether the tag can be applied after the fact or not, is tracking. Is it based on the ship that captures the crew, the ship that unloads the crew, whatever nation is the majority in your fleet, or something else?
My thinking was the aggressor, meaning the ship/crew that eliminated or captured the crew. Definitely a tougher one that would have to be more clear for use though.
What hangups might “This ship may eliminate one treasure that she carries to gain a second action” or “This ship can only be hit by ships within S of her” run into? I think that S-only must be excluded from S-immune; and S-only makes cancel crew more powerful.
An alternative to S-only is “L range cannons can only hit this ship at S range” which is a weaker version of the current L-immunity ability and seems safer to create than S-only.
“This ship may eliminate one treasure that she carries to gain a second action”
I’ve got a custom crew with that ability. I don’t see too much problem with it, since you’d have to find treasures in the first place as opposed to starting the game with a bunch of oarsmen. It would be a great way to recycle negative UT’s though. Could make for an incredible hybrid or gold runner if you were able to sac those along with 0’s and 1’s.
Of course, Woelf will have the real lowdown on the actual rules issues.
What hangups might “This ship may eliminate one treasure that she carries to gain a second action”…
That should work okay, and the existing action limit will prevent most of the potential abuse.
I’d personally prefer if it only worked on non-UT treasures so you can’t burn through all of those negative effects, but because this would only appear on a few ships/crew it won’t break things if UTs are allowed too.
…or “This ship can only be hit by ships within S of her” run into? I think that S-only must be excluded from S-immune; and S-only makes cancel crew more powerful.
An alternative to S-only is “L range cannons can only hit this ship at S range” which is a weaker version of the current L-immunity ability and seems safer to create than S-only.
On its own this ability sounds fine, albeit largely pointless. Lining up a shot so that your entire ship is outside of S-range can occasionally happen, but more often than not at least some part will be closer even if some of your cannons still need the extra range, so it’s only protecting against that very specific situation.
The biggest problem with this is when it gets combined with other effects. Forcing ships within canceler range is the obvious one, but there are a lot of other effects that apply within S-range too, like specialists and such. This could get particularly ugly if it found its way onto a ship that could not be shot at within S – even with this version appearing only on a ship or two, recruiters+copiers could pull it over to other places it’s not supposed to be.
Thanks Woelf. I think the restriction to “numbered treasure coins” makes sense and is more in line with the concept. As for the pointless ability; yes, it is redundant; it was thought up as a weaker version of L-immunity. I will keep that in mind if I use it, but it seems more trouble than I first thought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.