- This topic has 847 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 4 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@Woelf: What do you think the “UT Hoard” ability is really worth? (Once per turn, if this ship is touching another ship, reveal all face-down treasure aboard the other ship. This ship can take as much unique treasure from the other ship as she can carry.)
The original WK price of 4 definitely seems too high, but I know you’re a big fan of Rollando. I think I like 2 points for it. I’m even considering going to 1 for my “total recosting” since other abilities are getting a redress as well….
2 points is fine for UT Hoard. I like it a lot, and it can be very powerful in the right situations, but 4 is a little high for general use – especially in standard games where there will be few UTs, and even fewer worth stealing.
@Woelf: Strictly as a matter of opinion, do you think that ships should be able to tow other friendly ships that are dismasted but have oarsmen?
With the Oarsman keyword as it stands now, it sounds like that would be illegal since the rules say you can only tow derelicts. However, I think having the option of using the oars is more realistic. I’m rereading the BR’s for CG1 and I think some of the English ships did more towing than rowing.
I also wish you could scuttle with no masts remaining, regardless of technical derelict status.
@woelf: Strictly as a matter of opinion, do you think that ships should be able to tow other friendly ships that are dismasted but have oarsmen?
With the Oarsman keyword as it stands now, it sounds like that would be illegal since the rules say you can only tow derelicts. However, I think having the option of using the oars is more realistic. I’m rereading the BR’s for CG1 and I think some of the English ships did more towing than rowing.
I don’t think that would change things too much to allow that. The normal towing reduction pulls the towing ship down to the speed of an Oasman anyway, so it’s mostly a matter of slowing down two ships at once versus just one. Other movement abilities can make up the difference, but the majority of those work the same whether towing or rowing.
I also wish you could scuttle with no masts remaining, regardless of technical derelict status.
I never liked the scuttle rules at all. It always felt like a Band-Aid intended to avoid a few gamey situations.
If you wanted to make it actually realistic, it would be allowed at any time regardless of the status of the ship, but that would create more problems than it would solve. In this case, allowing it only when derelict (with no Oarsman) is better because it still gives opposing players a chance to prevent the scuttle and take the ship. If that can’t be prevented by towing/capturing, it’s basically a free option to nuke your ships at will with little to no penalty.
How are ships that are physically built like a certain ship-type, like the HMS ye from SCS, but don’t have the associated keyword treated?
The Code says:
Ships (particularly galleys, schooners, and turtle ships) have only the abilities printed on their deckplate cards.
–While certain ship types and certain keyword abilities are often associated together, they are independent concepts that cannot be interchanged even if they have similar names.
–A ship does not automatically gain the associated keyword based on its type, nor does the presence of a keyword automatically determine a ship’s type.Does the first or last line of text take precedence? The first line seems to indicate that a ship only has the abilities printed on it’s deckplate, and if the Galley keyword is not part of that text then it doesn’t have the abilities of a Galley. The last line seems to indicate that it could still be treated like a Galley, even if the Keyword isn’t on the deckplate, since it’s built like a Galley.
Does the first or last line of text take precedence? The first line seems to indicate that a ship only has the abilities printed on it’s deckplate, and if the Galley keyword is not part of that text then it doesn’t have the abilities of a Galley. The last line seems to indicate that it could still be treated like a Galley, even if the Keyword isn’t on the deckplate, since it’s built like a Galley.
Simply put, play them as printed, unless it’s noted otherwise in the errata section.
Don’t assume that a ship has a keyword just because of its physical design, and don’t assume a ship cannot (or should not) have a keyword because it’s some other design. “Mismatched” ships like that are few and far between, but examples do exist that cover both possibilities.
This has probably already been talked about…
I assume an “action canceller” wouldn’t work? Just by definition it sounds too broken. Trying to make it as “fair” as possible: “Once per round during an opponent’s turn, you may cancel one action taken by any ship within S of this ship. The controller of that ship may choose to give the ship a different action, if able.”
That way your opponent could move if you cancelled their shoot action. In that case however, a Captain would circumvent that, because the shoot is considered part of the move.
The reason I thought about this is because I’ve run into a lot of game situations where cancellers become less valuable once there’s a close quarters battle area with a ton of shots flying on both sides. Eventually your non-canceller enemies can just sit there and shoot, at which point the cancellers are less effective than usual, hence the idea of an action canceller. (I’ve literally thought to myself “cancellers can’t cancel shoot actions” many a time during campaign games)
Consider a scenario like this with all 3 ships lined up:
[Submerged submarine][Surfaced submarine][Enemy ship on the surface]
I assume that if the submerged sub shoots at the ship on the surface with a Marine, the surfaced submarine blocks that line of fire?
(not what happened in CG2, just curious)
Perhaps a better question would be if Cadara or Shaihulud (This sea monster can attack submerged submarines) can use their ability in a similar scenario – to shoot at a submerged enemy from underwater, underneath a surfaced ship that theoretically shouldn’t be in the way. [submerged][surfaced][submerged] (like a “direct torpedo attack”, from one submerged entity to another while passing underneath an unsuspecting ship above them)
This has probably already been talked about…
I assume an “action canceller” wouldn’t work? Just by definition it sounds too broken. Trying to make it as “fair” as possible: “Once per round during an opponent’s turn, you may cancel one action taken by any ship within S of this ship. The controller of that ship may choose to give the ship a different action, if able.”
That way your opponent could move if you cancelled their shoot action. In that case however, a Captain would circumvent that, because the shoot is considered part of the move.
The reason I thought about this is because I’ve run into a lot of game situations where cancellers become less valuable once there’s a close quarters battle area with a ton of shots flying on both sides. Eventually your non-canceller enemies can just sit there and shoot, at which point the cancellers are less effective than usual, hence the idea of an action canceller. (I’ve literally thought to myself “cancellers can’t cancel shoot actions” many a time during campaign games)
There was a ship in the unreleased RtSS that kinda did something like this, by preventing a shot from being made.
With some careful wording it could probably be made to work, but no matter how well it was devised it would inevitably become a nightmare of an entry in the Pirate Code, just on timing issues alone.
I think the most important aspect is that the effect would have to be applied before any actions were given to the target ship. Anything like that hitting in the middle of an action is begging for problems.
Consider a scenario like this with all 3 ships lined up:
[Submerged submarine][Surfaced submarine][Enemy ship on the surface]
I assume that if the submerged sub shoots at the ship on the surface with a Marine, the surfaced submarine blocks that line of fire?
(not what happened in CG2, just curious)
Perhaps a better question would be if Cadara or Shaihulud (This sea monster can attack submerged submarines) can use their ability in a similar scenario – to shoot at a submerged enemy from underwater, underneath a surfaced ship that theoretically shouldn’t be in the way. [submerged][surfaced][submerged] (like a “direct torpedo attack”, from one submerged entity to another while passing underneath an unsuspecting ship above them)
Submerged ships won’t block lines of fire, but that effect doesn’t apply backward to non-submerged ships nearby.
In both scenarios, (sub/non-sub/non-sub or sub/non-sub/sub) that middle ship would block the shot to the one on the right because it’s on the surface, where normal blocking rules apply.
If the middle ship was submerged, any combination of submerged and non-submerged ships on the outsides would work.
Awesome, thanks Woelf! Interesting that a submerged ship with that ability could shoot through a nearby submerged ship to shoot at another submerged ship. XD
Awesome, thanks Woelf! Interesting that a submerged ship with that ability could shoot through a nearby submerged ship to shoot at another submerged ship.
I think the most logical way to look at it is to assume that the torpedoes or whatever else is being used to make the attack needs to travel at or near the surface, so the middle ship on the surface will be in the way. When the middle ship is submerged and not directly engaged in the attack, you can assume it’s deep enough to be out of the potential path of those torpedoes.
It breaks down somewhat when the attacker and the target are both submerged, but maybe the same surface-travel limitations on the weapons could still apply even if the ships themselves can go deeper.Of course, then there are the sea monsters that can attack submerged ships…
Wrecks block lines of fire, correct?
I don’t think it actually specifies one way or the other anywhere in the rules, but the fact that the ship remains in play after sinking means that the LOS blocking rule should still apply to it.
This must have been answered before but I can’t find full confirmation in the Code. If a Sea Monster does not have sufficient cargo space and wins a boarding party, can it eliminate a non-Unique Treasure from the enemy ship?
Suppose a derelict is still pinned to the Sea Monster that rammed it. Can a separate enemy ship initiate a tow while the ship is still pinned to the monster?
This must have been answered before but I can’t find full confirmation in the Code. If a Sea Monster does not have sufficient cargo space and wins a boarding party, can it eliminate a non-Unique Treasure from the enemy ship?
No, it only gets the eliminate effect for UTs. If it doesn’t have space, it can’t touch non-uniques.
Suppose a derelict is still pinned to the Sea Monster that rammed it. Can a separate enemy ship initiate a tow while the ship is still pinned to the monster?
Being pinned restricts movement, which includes the movement caused by towing, so the Sea Monster has to release it first.
Being pinned restricts movement, which includes the movement caused by towing, so the Sea Monster has to release it first.
If Fear on a nearby ship hit that same Sea Monster with a 5 roll, that would theoretically release that pinned ship correct? (since then the Sea Monster would be pinned instead with the keyword cancelled) If that happened, would the ship become pinned again once the effect of Fear subsided if the Sea Monster didn’t move away and regained the use of the Sea Monster keyword?
If Fear on a nearby ship hit that same Sea Monster with a 5 roll, that would theoretically release that pinned ship correct? (since then the Sea Monster would be pinned instead with the keyword cancelled) If that happened, would the ship become pinned again once the effect of Fear subsided if the Sea Monster didn’t move away and regained the use of the Sea Monster keyword?
This works the same as when a normal ship is pinning another, becomes derelict, then gets repaired while still touching the opposing ship’s bow. (Repairs cannot cause pins.)
When Sea Monster is shut down by Fear it breaks the pin. When the ability comes back the following turn, it does not re-pin the other ship unless the Sea Monster rams again. Un-canceling an ability cannot cause a pin.
I have an idea for an ability, but I want to ask a question first. An ability that specifically allowed for crew stacking; would that break the game? If not, about how many points would said ability be worth?
Does the action limit apply to a Treasure Ship’s ability to move after loading treasure? So if a treasure ship uses an ability to gain a second action, then uses it to explore, can it now move S away per the Treasure Ship ability?
Does the action limit apply to a Treasure Ship’s ability to move after loading treasure? So if a treasure ship uses an ability to gain a second action, then uses it to explore, can it now move S away per the Treasure Ship ability?
What you’re outlining seems to be legal. The movement is a free action if I recall correctly, which would not apply to the action limit. Now, you wouldn’t be able to give your treasure ship a move action after using the loading/unloading movement ability. As per your example, you’ve already given the ship two actions.
I have an idea for an ability, but I want to ask a question first. An ability that specifically allowed for crew stacking; would that break the game? If not, about how many points would said ability be worth?
A general ability that allowed others to stack is just begging to be abused. I don’t think it would work at any price, at least not without causing all sorts of problems.
An individual ability that can stack with itself would be okay in theory. Whether or not it will break the game depends on what the rest of the ability does.
Does the action limit apply to a Treasure Ship’s ability to move after loading treasure? So if a treasure ship uses an ability to gain a second action, then uses it to explore, can it now move S away per the Treasure Ship ability?
What you’re outlining seems to be legal. The movement is a free action if I recall correctly, which would not apply to the action limit. Now, you wouldn’t be able to give your treasure ship a move action after using the loading/unloading movement ability. As per your example, you’ve already given the ship two actions.
It depends on the wording of the ability.
If it grants a move action, the action limit will apply.
When it just provides a segment or two, like Treasure Ship‘s “move S after loading or unloading” it does not count as a move action, and is not affected by the limit.
An individual ability that can stack with itself would be okay in theory. Whether or not it will break the game depends on what the rest of the ability does.
I was thinking about an ability that would allow only a couple versions of a generic ability to stack up, and I was thinking about chieftains for Native Canoes.
As it is though, I think multiple Chieftains can be used at once in a game. If they were all transferred to the same ship, would there be any kind of problem with stacking?
As it is though, I think multiple Chieftains can be used at once in a game. If they were all transferred to the same ship, would there be any kind of problem with stacking?
That’s perfectly legal, as long as the ship has room for them.
You could even unload all but one to your home island or some other “safe” place without penalty.
(At least until something happens to your one active Chieftain, then you’ll need to pull one of the others off the bench to regain full use of your canoes.)Does the damage caused by Neptune’s Trident count as hits for the purposes of abilities like Cargo Wrecking? (eliminating cargo for each hit)
Does the damage caused by Neptune’s Trident count as hits for the purposes of abilities like Cargo Wrecking? (eliminating cargo for each hit)
No. The Trident eliminates masts within the target area but does not cause “hits”.
Can the Selkie “mix and match” her ability with the Eye of Maru UT? (shoot one cannon at doubled range, regular rank; but other 2 with sniping – using both abilities in the same action) (not talking about combining both on the same shot)
Selkie: You may double the range of this ship’s cannons each turn, but you must roll a 6 to hit.
Eye of Maru: When this ship is given a shoot action you may double the range of one of her cannons.
Can the Selkie “mix and match” her ability with the Eye of Maru UT? (shoot one cannon at doubled range, regular rank; but other 2 with sniping – using both abilities in the same action) (not talking about combining both on the same shot)
Selkie: You may double the range of this ship’s cannons each turn, but you must roll a 6 to hit.
Eye of Maru: When this ship is given a shoot action you may double the range of one of her cannons.
Thanks for posting the ability text! Without an easily searchable database like MT had, that makes it a lot easier to find relevant answers without having to go digging into various spreadsheets.
The “double range, roll 6” ability is an all-or-nothing effect, so you can’t pick and choose specific cannons. You either use it with all of them, or none of them.
With this combo, you could fire a single cannon at 4x and the rest 2x range, all needing a 6 to hit, OR you could fire a single cannon at 2x and the rest at their printed ranges and ranks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.