Questions About Game Rules & The Pirate Code

Pirates with Ben – About Pirates CSG Pirates CSG Forums Pirates CSG Questions About Game Rules & The Pirate Code

Viewing 18 posts - 121 through 138 (of 138 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9845
    Ben
    Keymaster

    @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….

    #9867
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10031
    Ben
    Keymaster

    @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.

    #10033
    Woelf
    Moderator

    @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.

    #10040
    Xerecs
    Moderator

    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.

    #10084
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10141
    Ben
    Keymaster

    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)

    #10184
    Ben
    Keymaster

    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)

    #10200
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10206
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10219
    Ben
    Keymaster

    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

    #10222
    Ben
    Keymaster

    Wrecks block lines of fire, correct?

    #10350
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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…

    #10351
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10433
    Ben
    Keymaster

    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?

    #10493
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

    #10494
    Ben
    Keymaster

    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?

    #10516
    Woelf
    Moderator

    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.

Viewing 18 posts - 121 through 138 (of 138 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.