- This topic has 847 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Let’s say that a ship has an Ex-Patriot crew on her, giving her the Mercenary keyword and all that implies. This same ship also has Eternal, as an ability provided by the ship, not coming from a crew. The ship is sunk. If I have Raft, can I flip it and throw the crew onto the nearby island, thus eliminating the Mercenary keyword from the ship and allowing Eternal to function?
That works, because the Raft removes the crew from the ship before Eternal kicks in, so it won’t be prevented from docking at home.
Does a firepot count as a “hit?” I know that it counts as a mast replacement not an elimination, so it bypasses effects like Acorazado’s, but what about effects like La Belle Etoile, which eliminate cargo when they “hit” a ship, and ships that ignore the first hit each turn?
They do count as hits, so most other abilities and effects that refer to hits will apply.
Since the Flotilla’s flag takes 2 hits from the same shoot action to destroy, what happens if an iceberg drifts into it? Nothing? Does the iceberg just stop?
The iceberg stops, but nothing else happens. They only eliminate masts, but flotillas have none to lose.
My next question is can Flotillas shoot while being towed?
Yes.
However, you cannot give an action in the middle of another, so it would have to shoot either before or after the towing ship moves it. You can’t shoot during the movement, or between separate segments.
Finally, how does a flotilla repair? The keyword states that flotillas may only be given a shoot action and a repair action. So, does that mean that the flotilla needs some creative crew stacking to get a shipwright on board even though flotillas have 0 crew slots? Or does the flotilla need to be towed back to the home island?
The keyword gives the Flotilla the ability to repair itself, and it can do that anywhere without being towed back home.
@Brian: The Flotilla keyword states that it can be given repair actions at sea.
also, you can put Fist Mate Ismial, Dominic Freda, Or even Master bianco. (Both versions work)
And then you can put something else on there like a cannoneer or Musketeer; Witch would kind of be funny considering that it cannot have it’s range increased, And it would have to shoot from the flag. XD
if you sac a sac captain
u get an extra action but cant use the cap ability is that right?
When you sac a crew, that crew’s abilities are gone immediately, so you can’t keep using them.
(This indirectly also prevents a sac character from eliminating itself.)
@Woelf: Do you know why there doesn’t appear to be a shark building guide in the Start Here rules for OE? Maybe Wizkids just forgot, or assumed people wouldn’t need a guide for it?
Do you know why there doesn’t appear to be a shark building guide in the Start Here rules for OE? Maybe Wizkids just forgot, or assumed people wouldn’t need a guide for it?
I have no idea!
They probably just forgot to add it, but it is possible that they had to cut it for space and/or time reasons and assumed by that point that players would be able to figure out how to put the three pieces together?
Ok so this is embarrassingly simple but I suddenly think I’ve been playing forts wrong all this time. If the only gold left in the game is on forts, does the game end? I’ve always played that it did, because no player can load any treasure from wild islands that they don’t already own. But the more I think about it, the more it seems you’re actually supposed to ferry the gold to your home island before the game can end. But that would seem to mean you don’t in any way own the gold in forts?
Not sure if this question goes here but here goes. I’ve noticed a few “unofficial” keywords when describing semi-common abilities, like “Fog-hopper”. If at all possible is there some kind of general list of unofficial keywords of the like.
Ok so this is embarrassingly simple but I suddenly think I’ve been playing forts wrong all this time. If the only gold left in the game is on forts, does the game end? I’ve always played that it did, because no player can load any treasure from wild islands that they don’t already own. But the more I think about it, the more it seems you’re actually supposed to ferry the gold to your home island before the game can end. But that would seem to mean you don’t in any way own the gold in forts?
The rules to forts changed a few times between sets, so the Pirate Code has a full replacement set of rules for them – they start on page 58.
To answer your questions, islands with forts still count as wild islands, so any gold stored there will prevent the endgame condition of all treasure being collected. You can ferry gold home, but when removing gold you have to leave enough there to cover the gold cost of the fort. In other words, if any forts have been built, they all need to be destroyed, or you need to end the game using one of the other conditions (page 14 of the Pirate Code lists the 5 different possibilities).
Not sure if this question goes here but here goes. I’ve noticed a few “unofficial” keywords when describing semi-common abilities, like “Fog-hopper”. If at all possible is there some kind of general list of unofficial keywords of the like.
Once upon a time there was a thread with all of the common abbreviations, acronyms, and such. I think that was back at Miniature Trading, but Ben may have saved it.
It would be worth having something like that again as a sticky thread. I could set something up or add it to one of the posts at the beginning of this thread (near the no-duplicates list), but probably won’t be able to get to it for a few days at the earliest. If Ben or someone else is able to get a thread for it up first and is willing to update it as needed, by all means go for it.
That’s… distressing. At least the rules apparently changed so I feel less bad about not understanding, but forts are suddenly much less powerful now for me. I feel like they lead to a lot more games ended by stalemate then.
Not sure if this question goes here but here goes. I’ve noticed a few “unofficial” keywords when describing semi-common abilities, like “Fog-hopper”. If at all possible is there some kind of general list of unofficial keywords of the like.
Once upon a time there was a thread with all of the common abbreviations, acronyms, and such. I think that was back at Miniature Trading, but Ben may have saved it.
The Information and Stats page of the main menu is my continuation/expansion of that.
You can also check out the first tab of the Customs Database. That does get into a lot of custom keywords though as you scroll down.
That’s… distressing. At least the rules apparently changed so I feel less bad about not understanding, but forts are suddenly much less powerful now for me. I feel like they lead to a lot more games ended by stalemate then.
@Jack: Check out VASSAL Tournament #2 for plenty of battle reports on fort strategy and situations, especially in competitive 1v1 games. Sometimes it takes a while to play a game out to full completion, but it generally shouldn’t end in a tie.
Now I’m confused again. In game 2 between the French fleet and the UPS one, it ends with the Sea Crane establishing the Devil’s Maw. But France can still move. La Courageux is actually a nightmare for the Devil’s Maw to deal with because she can just sit so only one short gun of the fort is in range and fire with impunity. How come the game ended with the fort being built?
Now I’m confused again. In game 2 between the French fleet and the UPS one, it ends with the Sea Crane establishing the Devil’s Maw. But France can still move. La Courageux is actually a nightmare for the Devil’s Maw to deal with because she can just sit so only one short gun of the fort is in range and fire with impunity. How come the game ended with the fort being built?
A good question! I think the reason Xerecs and I stopped playing at that point is because of the extreme odds against the Courageux. All 3 Pirate ships may have been able to ram and/or fire at her before she got to either of the Pirate forts. In addition, the Devil’s Maw also has three 3L guns, so it’s unlikely the Courageux would have been able to destroy the fort without taking a reasonable beating in return, especially with other Pirate ships there to assist the fort.
There may be other reasons behind it as well; not everything discussed on the module or said between the players is in every battle report. It looks like we should have kept playing. That said, I’m kind of glad the Quick fleet won that matchup overall or else I might feel weird about it. (as I said though, there is likely something else that led to the game ending “early” for good reason, and probably a gameplay reason)
Now I’m confused again. In game 2 between the French fleet and the UPS one, it ends with the Sea Crane establishing the Devil’s Maw. But France can still move. La Courageux is actually a nightmare for the Devil’s Maw to deal with because she can just sit so only one short gun of the fort is in range and fire with impunity. How come the game ended with the fort being built?
A good question! I think the reason Xerecs and I stopped playing at that point is because of the extreme odds against the Courageux. All 3 Pirate ships may have been able to ram and/or fire at her before she got to either of the Pirate forts. In addition, the Devil’s Maw also has three 3L guns, so it’s unlikely the Courageux would have been able to destroy the fort without taking a reasonable beating in return, especially with other Pirate ships there to assist the fort.
There may be other reasons behind it as well; not everything discussed on the module or said between the players is in every battle report. It looks like we should have kept playing. That said, I’m kind of glad the Quick fleet won that matchup overall or else I might feel weird about it. (as I said though, there is likely something else that led to the game ending “early” for good reason, and probably a gameplay reason)
Even though it wasn’t forced by things that happened in the game itself, you could still safely count that as using the stalemate ending. If the players mutually agree that the game has reached a point where it’s not worth the time or effort to continue playing things out, it’s perfectly fine to end it there.
I realize I’m not going to win this argument, but I have a bone to pick with the rules. 🙂
The sea creature rules state that sea creatures cannot be assigned crew.
Ex-Patriot
This crew may use its abilities onboard any ship.
The Pirate Code, page 5:
Sea creatures are considered to be ships. Any actions, abilities, or other effects that refer to ships can be applied.
Pirate Code page 15:
-This list applies only when two or more abilities conflict. When an ability and a rule conflict the ability always takes precedence regardless of the terms used, unless specifically stated otherwise.
If abilities take precedence over rules, then Ex-Patriot crew should be able to use their abilities on sea monsters that have cargo. Boom. XD 😉
(Woelf’s Asesino de la Nave arriving shortly to kill my crew idea XD)
I realize I’m not going to win this argument, but I have a bone to pick with the rules. ?
The sea creature rules state that sea creatures cannot be assigned crew.
Ex-Patriot
This crew may use its abilities onboard any ship.The Pirate Code, page 5:
Sea creatures are considered to be ships. Any actions, abilities, or other effects that refer to ships can be applied.
Pirate Code page 15:
-This list applies only when two or more abilities conflict. When an ability and a rule conflict the ability always takes precedence regardless of the terms used, unless specifically stated otherwise.
If abilities take precedence over rules, then Ex-Patriot crew should be able to use their abilities on sea monsters that have cargo. Boom. XD ?
(Woelf’s Asesino de la Nave arriving shortly to kill my crew idea XD)
Shots fired! 😀
An Ex-Pat’s ability allows it to function on any ship, but that doesn’t have any effect on where the crew can be assigned in the first place.
If you can find a way to legally* assign an Ex-Pat to a sea creature, its abilities will work.
*Chariot/Titan
@Woelf: Why does Barrel o’ Monkeys require you to load the transferred UT face down even if the UT transferred is normally always a face up UT?
Can an opponent request or force you to reveal face down crew on a setup with a reducer to prove that it’s legal?
If a ship has a Base Move of L+S/S+L does that ship have to move L then S in that order (and vice versa). If so, what, if any, is the mechanical advantage of one over the other.
Can I link the same crew twice? For example, Mademoiselle Josephine Godiva is a 0LR re-roller, so at set up I pick a crew for her to link to. Can I use this ability on Duc de Valois, who is already “naturally” linked to her, and if so, do both links still count? If I put both of them on board L’Eroica, does it gain 3 links, effectively gaining a cargo space for free?
Why does Barrel o’ Monkeys require you to load the transferred UT face down even if the UT transferred is normally always a face up UT?
That’s intended mostly to hide the value of the transferred non-unique coins from other players, but it also will “reset” a previously used UT that can be loaded face down.
If the UT is one that must be revealed when loaded, it would be flipped back up as soon as it was placed on the new ship.
Can an opponent request or force you to reveal face down crew on a setup with a reducer to prove that it’s legal?
If you need the reducer’s ability to make the ship legal during setup, you have to reveal it during setup. That ability won’t function if it’s face down.
Non-ability links avoid this because they don’t require a face up ability to function, but with those you still have to “reveal” that a link is present. You just don’t have to reveal what specifically is being linked.
Can I link the same crew twice? For example, Mademoiselle Josephine Godiva is a 0LR re-roller, so at set up I pick a crew for her to link to. Can I use this ability on Duc de Valois, who is already “naturally” linked to her, and if so, do both links still count? If I put both of them on board L’Eroica, does it gain 3 links, effectively gaining a cargo space for free?
You can only gain a single +1 Cargo by linking together any two given crew, regardless of how they connect.
Doubling up links doesn’t double up the cargo space gained.
If a ship has a Base Move of L+S/S+L does that ship have to move L then S in that order (and vice versa). If so, what, if any, is the mechanical advantage of one over the other
As Jack said, you can use those segments in any order. There’s no functional difference between L+S and S+L.
The Fine Print: The printed segments of a ship’s base move can be used in any order, but bonus segments from other sources (Helmsman, etc.) always have to be applied after the ship’s own segments. This doesn’t matter most of the time, but it does prevent a whole pile of weird issues with certain ability interactions and timing.
Hey @Woelf, I’ve been wondering can you put a Tribal Chieftain of a different nation Say the Cursed Chieftain on the HMS Concorde, Would the Chieftain still be able to command the Cursed Native Canoes?
And also, can you stack the S-Cancel abilities?
Also if you have someone with SAC and someone with the Doctor ability on the same ship can you SAC the second Oarsman thats on that ship and then flip it face down due to the Doctor on that ship, And if so would you get the extra action from the SAC Ability?
If the UT is one that must be revealed when loaded, it would be flipped back up as soon as it was placed on the new ship.
In that case it wouldn’t take up cargo space once it was face up… so technically you can use Barrel o’ Monkeys to your advantage where the transferred coin does not ever take up cargo space, correct? (Ex: If a ship had a full cargo hold and got to take a face up UT via the monkeys, can they take it? Or does that split second where it’s supposedly face down make that impossible?)
Can an opponent request or force you to reveal face down crew on a setup with a reducer to prove that it’s legal?
If you need the reducer’s ability to make the ship legal during setup, you have to reveal it during setup. That ability won’t function if it’s face down.
I know the reducers have to be face up; my question was if you had to reveal OTHER crew that the reducer is allowing aboard, to prove that the setup is legal. Ex: The Stump is face up as he has to be. He allows a bunch of extra crew aboard. An opponent wants to check the crew on my ship to prove the setup is legal. Am I required to reveal the rest of the setup (in addition to The Stump) to prove I’m not cheating?
it does prevent a whole pile of weird issues with certain ability interactions and timing.
Interesting, I haven’t thought of those possibilities then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.