Hull damage, crew casualties and crew actions

[Blipvert]

Lets assume a scenario in which you get 5 hull boxes knocked out and only 1 crew casualty.

Is the number of crew actions available the worst of the two? Or is it always the next open crew box?

[Hobbes]

The worst!




Page 29: "When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ships Damage and CRew Damage track."

[Diamondback]

I would say it makes sense... the more beat up your hull gets, the more crew you need to strip from other tasks and put on Damage Control duty just to stay afloat.

Job One: Keep the ship afloat.
Job Two: Maintain combat effectiveness.
Job Three: Close with, engage and neutralize the enemy.

Remember, all pay, benefits, medals and such were only valid if you LIVED through the entire voyage to collect...

"Remember: If You Die, They Don't Have To Pay You."

[David Manley]

I would say it makes sense... the more beat up your hull gets, the more crew you need to strip from other tasks and put on Damage Control duty just to stay afloat.

Job One: Keep the ship afloat.
Job Two: Maintain combat effectiveness.
Job Three: Close with, engage and neutralize the enemy.

Remember, all pay, benefits, medals and such were only valid if you LIVED through the entire voyage to collect...

"Remember: If You Die, They Don't Have To Pay You."

Remember the old damage control school priorities

Float

Move

Fight

:)

[fredmiracle]

Its clearly spelled out in the rules, and underscored by the graphic layout on the chart, but I missed this rule for several weeks also. I guess because it isn't fully intuitive that hull damage reduces your crew actions

[Andy Blozinski]

I wouldn't necessarily say it means that. It could just as easily be a reminder that the tracks are separate the way that's worded. If the intention was for you to take the lower of the two, then stating to take the lower of the two would be a clear statement.
If you ignore the crew damage track for crew actions, you're kind of a dummy to do anything but shoot at the hull. Even a chance to use grapeshot isn't going to catch you up to hull damage.

[Blipvert]

That's the section, page 29, I was referring to. Missed it the first several times I played and just wanted to make sure I had read it correctly.

[fredmiracle]

I wouldn't necessarily say it means that. It could just as easily be a reminder that the tracks are separate the way that's worded. If the intention was for you to take the lower of the two, then stating to take the lower of the two would be a clear statement.
If you ignore the crew damage track for crew actions, you're kind of a dummy to do anything but shoot at the hull. Even a chance to use grapeshot isn't going to catch you up to hull damage.

I can see your point about the wording, but the example on the same page in the rules makes it clear--the number of actions is determined by whichever track has lost MORE boxes--either hull or crew

[Andy Blozinski]

I can see your point about the wording, but the example on the same page in the rules makes it clear--the number of actions is determined by whichever track has lost MORE boxes--either hull or crew
Actually..no it doesn't. It gives an example where your crew has taken more damage than the hull and shows that you use the damage to the crew to determine your crew actions. If it had a case where the hull has taken more damage than the crew and said to use the crew actions corresponding to the hull damage and not the crew damage, then that would be different. Essentially this example is inconclusive for that point.
Check out the rules on page 16. They specify the only criteria is the upper row in that situation.
Check out the rules on page 17. They specify the only criteria is the lower row in that situation.
The rule on page 19 could be interpreted both ways. It's crappy rules wording. One interpretation makes sense in the context of page 16 & 17. One interpretation contradicts the rules logic of page 16 & 17.
If you can ignore crew damage for hull damage to determine crew actions, I can tell you several things that will happen:
1) You'll never see me use grapeshot. I'll keep hitting the hull and knock their cannons and their crew down with every hull hit, but it doesn't happen vice versa.
2) I'll probably tell everyone to completely drop the crew damage rules as an unnecessary complication with little effect on the game.

I haven't played too many games so far, but of the (20) or so ships involved in the games, I think I saw one case of a ship taking more crew damage than hull damage. That pretty much makes the crew damage track and any connected rules a waste of paper space.

[fredmiracle]

Actually..no it doesn't. It gives an example where your crew has taken more damage than the hull and shows that you use the damage to the crew to determine your crew actions. If it had a case where the hull has taken more damage than the crew and said to use the crew actions corresponding to the hull damage and not the crew damage, then that would be different. Essentially this example is inconclusive for that point.
Check out the rules on page 16. They specify the only criteria is the upper row in that situation.
Check out the rules on page 17. They specify the only criteria is the lower row in that situation.
The rule on page 19 could be interpreted both ways. It's crappy rules wording. One interpretation makes sense in the context of page 16 & 17. One interpretation contradicts the rules logic of page 16 & 17.
If you can ignore crew damage for hull damage to determine crew actions, I can tell you several things that will happen:
1) You'll never see me use grapeshot. I'll keep hitting the hull and knock their cannons and their crew down with every hull hit, but it doesn't happen vice versa.
2) I'll probably tell everyone to completely drop the crew damage rules as an unnecessary complication with little effect on the game.

I haven't played too many games so far, but of the (20) or so ships involved in the games, I think I saw one case of a ship taking more crew damage than hull damage. That pretty much makes the crew damage track and any connected rules a waste of paper space.

The p. 29 example, unlike 16 and 17, MENTIONS both tracks, which is a pretty strong hint that you need to take them both into account. The hand is in the middle of the two tracks. I don't think it's really ambiguous what they meant, although I agree it's not all that well written.

I haven't played yet, so I'm sure your experience is more indicative; but my feeling was that maybe crew damage would be a way for 2-3 frigates to try to take out a SOL. I agree that in a relatively even 1-on-1 battle crew damage shouldn't be decisive except maybe in boarding cases

[David Manley]

Page 29: "When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ships Damage and CRew Damage track."

Seems pretty conclusive to me. And the hand symbol spanning both tracks is pretty clear too. It may just be me but i really don't see why there is any confusion here. :question:

FWIW, whilst I've observed that the majority of our ship strikings have been caused by hull damage loss, the number of ships lost to crew damage has been significant (around 1/4), and the likelihood of a ship succumbing to crew loss is (I suppose) rather higher if it has been involved in a boarding - either as a loser in a BA or having won but suffered heavy losses in doing so which sets it up for a fall to gunfire induced casualties later.

[David Manley]

Check out the rules on page 16. They specify the only criteria is the upper row in that situation.
Check out the rules on page 17. They specify the only criteria is the lower row in that situation.
The rule on page 19 could be interpreted both ways. It's crappy rules wording. One interpretation makes sense in the context of page 16 & 17. One interpretation contradicts the rules logic of page 16 & 17..

The rules on page 16 relate only to gunnery, the rules on page 17 only to musketry. In both cases the reference to a single row is correct. Not sure what rules are being referred to on page 19, its only an example. Crew actions are only introduced in the advanced rules starting page 28 and the rule explaining the number of actions is on page 29 (and is clear). Help me out here chaps, what is the problem?

[Andy Blozinski]

The rules on page 16 relate only to gunnery, the rules on page 17 only to musketry. In both cases the reference to a single row is correct. Not sure what rules are being referred to on page 19, its only an example. Crew actions are only introduced in the advanced rules starting page 28 and the rule explaining the number of actions is on page 29 (and is clear). Help me out here chaps, what is the problem?
I meant 29, not 19. It's not worded well, but it does seem to be you use the worst of the two tracks. This is unfortunate because it makes the game less fun and contradicts rules logic in other sections. We were having fun keeping track of separate damages on a capital ship. Now we only need to keep one damage track. It is no longer a capital ship. It's not quite as bad as an old school D&D style hit point system, but it's close. The one time we had a ship exceed hull damage with its crew damage was because it was involved in a boarding action. If you use nothing but ball and double shot, you easily keep the hull damage track ahead of the crew damage. Bummer. Now I'm less enthusiastic.

[Hobbes]

I'm no expert, but isn't that more or less supported by historical evidence? Grape shot should always be more circumstantial. You have to be at close quarters, you must have it loaded, unless opponent is severely damaged on lower decks only sailors on the main deck will be affected and your ships has to be bigger than your opponent. So using grape shot prior to boarding to get rid of nasty defenders sounds viable, otherwise shoot into the hull or rigging.

[7eat51]

Has anyone transferred crew from a heavily damaged ship to another ship that has taken crew damage but still has its hull fairly intact?

[AlyssaFaden]

We totally have not been playing with the "worst of two tracks" approach. I did not read the rules that way at all on any read through and nor does it seem to make any sense to me.

You have hull/ship damage which you may have to pull crew off other duties to repair.

And you have crew damage, which can impact your actions, including loading, firing, and general repair.

As two separate tracks it seems natural, flows well and is - seemingly - what I READ.

Nothing I have seen in the rules contradicts this.

I am not sure what the wordage on page #29 is trying to say, but I have an opinion on it:

1 - there are several ships that have tracks where one is longer than the other. Having a rule where the worst of one drives the other would seem to suggest that different lengths mean nothing, as it's always the track with the most damage that 'claims all.'

2 - there's zero, zero, ZERO point in targeting the crew if it's a combined track approach. Now you may as well just pound the hull into oblivion and it will also limit crew ability.

I'm not saying that it wasn't the intention of the designer to have a "worst track determines crew actions," but it's an over simplification and I am happy to house-rule that they are separate tracks.

And these rules seem to benefit from a little house-ruling.

[David Manley]

I'm no expert, but isn't that more or less supported by historical evidence? Grape shot should always be more circumstantial. You have to be at close quarters, you must have it loaded, unless opponent is severely damaged on lower decks only sailors on the main deck will be affected and your ships has to be bigger than your opponent. So using grape shot prior to boarding to get rid of nasty defenders sounds viable, otherwise shoot into the hull or rigging.

Spot on

[fredmiracle]

Well, like I said, it confused me too at first.

Having said that, when I was misunderstanding how it worked, there was an inkling in my mind that something was wrong. The idea that a ship had been pummelled down to one hull box, and was just about to come apart at the seams, and yet the entire crew could still be happily working away at full efficiency firing, repairing, raising sail, etc. didn't quite sit right. So the way it really works does "feel" better to me.

I still haven't played, but my sense is that the idea that this would make crew damage largely meaningless is overstating the case. Especially for smaller ships attacking bigger ones, I remain inclined to believe that playing for crew death against the larger ship might a good and viable strategy...

[7eat51]

On page 29, the rule states: When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.

Is it possible that the rule is stating that you use the leftmost symbol that is not covered by both ship and crew damage? Thus, in order to reduce the number of crew actions, there must be damage to both tracks covering the symbol fully. If, for example, there are five hull boxes covered, and only two crew boxes covered, you would use the hand symbol in the third box space, as it is the leftmost symbol not covered by both ship and crew damage? As such, one would want to inflict both types of damage if the crew ability reduction is desired.

If the intention was to use the leftmost fully uncovered symbol, the authors could have simply stated so. The rule, to me, seems to indicate the symbol must be covered from above and below to become inoperative.

[Andy Blozinski]

OK, it's time to shoot holes into why this even makes sense.
So..it is said that ignoring crew damage in favor of hull damage makes sense because the crew is fighting for survival by taking care of minor unspecified damage control from the excessive hull damage.
But...you suddenly ignore hull damage when using musketry or boarding actions and switch back to actually using the crew damage track. One might say this is another form of fighting for survival as an excuse for the switch in rules logic. They abandon dealing with minor damage to repel boarders or fire muskets. But...is musketry really fighting for survival? I don't think so.
If you're going to use fighting for survival as some explanation, how come the crew actions are reduced for minor unspecified damage control, but they can't put this to the side in the name of survival (like they do with musketry) when the ship gets a critical fire or leak...or both.
"Seamus...keep patching on that minor damage or it might turn into a leak."
"But Angus...we have a fire that's about to make the ship explode and we have a REAL leak that's making us list 10 degrees!"
"Oh shut up Seamus and keep on the minor patchwork that will only have the chance to affect us half an hour from now..we wouldn't want to stop this work for something that will kill us right now."
So...you can't ignore the hull damage track and use the crew damage track to fight for survival and save the ship....but you can to fire a musket? I'd want to pull my guys off minor damage control and have them put out a fire.

This does not make sense. Crew capabilities should be tracked as separate damage from the hull. We have a set of rules for crew management for a reason. When they need to do damage control..the crew gets taken up with leaks, fires, rudder and mast damage. We have to manage that. Degenerating this into unspecified nebulous minor damage ignores a fun aspect of the rules and robs us of the fun of crew management, as well as reducing this game damage to nothing more than a single track hit point system.

They're flip flopping on rules logic and reducing the whole point of the crew management rules..which I think is one of the better designed aspects of the game.

[Diamondback]

Sounds like somebody with a Commodore pack needs to lay out two identical games, play 'em side-by-side one each as-written and split, and report back on how the results differ... I might, except that I have no space and nobody to assist.

[csadn]

Sounds like somebody with a Commodore pack needs to lay out two identical games, play 'em side-by-side one each as-written and split, and report back on how the results differ... I might, except that I have no space and nobody to assist.

I'm not busy anytime soon. ;)

[Пилот]

If, for example, there are five hull boxes covered, and only two crew boxes covered, you would use the hand symbol in the third box space, as it is the leftmost symbol not covered by both ship and crew damage?

That was my interpretation, too.

[Andy Blozinski]

On page 29, the rule states: When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.

Is it possible that the rule is stating that you use the leftmost symbol that is not covered by both ship and crew damage? Thus, in order to reduce the number of crew actions, there must be damage to both tracks covering the symbol fully. If, for example, there are five hull boxes covered, and only two crew boxes covered, you would use the hand symbol in the third box space, as it is the leftmost symbol not covered by both ship and crew damage? As such, one would want to inflict both types of damage if the crew ability reduction is desired.

If the intention was to use the leftmost fully uncovered symbol, the authors could have simply stated so. The rule, to me, seems to indicate the symbol must be covered from above and below to become inoperative.
I'm just kind of snapping to what you've said. We now have three interpretations of the rule. This just goes to show how badly it's working.
Interpretation #1:
Both tracks are completely linked. They're codependent. You must cover boxes simultaneously in both tracks to reduce crew actions. This would mean you have 4 actions in the diagram from page 29 because that's as far as both tracks have full coverage.
Interpretation #2:
You use the left most undamaged box from either track if they are considered as not codependent. This kind of goes with the wording of the rules, but contradicts the diagram shown, because..have you noticed that diagram actually uses the rightmost undamaged box. If you use the leftmost, you should use the hull track in the diagram and thus have 4 crew actions.
Interpretation#3:
Use the rightmost box from either track if they are considered as not codependent. This contradicts the rules, but actually goes with the diagram.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

I really don't understand the fuss here. We've played several games, which had ships lost due to hull damage and other ships lost to crew damage.

The rules and diagrams seem pretty straightforward to me and our group; regardless of which damage track, the number of available actions is the one to the right of the longest damage track. This seems to make sense, as you either don't have the crew left to perform a number of actions, or the hull is so damaged that the crew is "busy elsewhere."

I agree the rules may not be clearly written:
When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.

but Interpretation #3 applies as can be seen by the diagram. Perhaps if you think of laying the damage counters closer to the midline, you then see there is only one crew-action number visible, as shown in the diagram on page 29.

Cheers!

[Andy Blozinski]

The rules and diagrams seem pretty straightforward to me and our group... the number of available actions is the one to the right of the longest damage track.
"When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered"


First sentence says use the rightmost.
Second sentence says use the leftmost.

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself. This is why I'm trying to say this rule is badly worded crap.

All our interpretation problems are solved if the rules are changed to ignore the hull damage track and only pay attention to the crew damage track.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

First sentence says use the rightmost.
Second sentence says use the leftmost.

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself. This is why I'm trying to say this rule is badly worded crap.

All our interpretation problems are solved if the rules are changed to ignore the hull damage track and only pay attention to the crew damage track.

I really don't see the frustration here, regardless of how badly worded the rules (page 29) might be; it really seems straightforward to our group. I am not contradicting myself -- whether you read from right to left (as the rules state), or left to right -- it doesn't matter, there is only one crew action symbol that is uncovered.

According to the diagram:
The ship has three boxes filled in the Ship Damage track and four boxes filled in the Crew Damage track. The number of crew actions is reduced to 3.

So whichever damage track is longest (has the most damage applied to it) is the one used to determine the number of possible actions. As I said, if you place either damage counters (hull or crew) closest to the midline, they will cover the Hand/number of actions. Then the Hand/number of actions not covered is the one to pay attention to.

There are no problems to be solved, and the text and diagram match (page 29):

When a ship is damaged, use the leftmost symbol still uncovered [reading right to left, or from "dead" to no damage] by damage counters in both the Ship Damage and Crew Damage track.

The ship has three boxes filled in the Ship Damage track and four boxes filled in the Crew Damage track. The number of crew actions is reduced to 3. This perfectly illustrates what the designers mean -- I'll give you that they should have worded the text better so everyone understood what they meant by rightmost/leftmost.

So both types of damage affect the number of crew actions, and the uncovered crew action symbol is how many actions you have -- easy!

Cheers!

[Andy Blozinski]

I showed my buddy John the rules and I think I figured out where the rules wording is bad. They need to take out "leftmost", for starters. That whole sentence needs to be re-done. Like I said before, it gets really easy and clear if they changed it to only pay attention to one track...like every other damage system in this same rule set.
It doesn't matter what your opinion or my opinion is on the clarity of these rules. We've had people interpret it three different ways and they were neither of us. That's the measured non opinion data. Therefore, this rule is badly worded. It's clear to everyone in your group is a bad measure. I went to a Flames of War tournament one time and EVERYONE at that group club house turned out to be playing a rule differently than the rest of the country because everyone in that club interpreted it the wrong way.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

That is true, damage only applies to one track -- it is either crew or hull. And I do agree with you, that the sentence structure (leftmost) is poor -- perhaps lost in the translation?

Seems we both agree on the "correct" interpretation of the rule -- and I do concede that using my group as an example was a bad measure. :surrender: I suppose I am guilty of assuming (yes, I know...) that the graphic clarified everything, and couldn't understand what the fuss was over. Perhaps others will read this thread and come to the same conclusion. Ares seems keen on feedback. Perhaps you should send them some on this and they might think of adding it to a FAQ or second printing.

Cheers!

[David Manley]

I have emailed Ares asking them to read the thread and for Andrea to pronounce on the correct interpretation

[Berthier]

I have emailed Ares asking them to read the thread and for Andrea to pronounce on the correct interpretation

We wait with baited (!) breath for the answer from upon high:pray:

[DeRuyter]

Maybe the rule is clearer written in Italian? :sly:

[David Manley]

Andrea has advised me that he has seen the emails and is aware of the issue.....

[John Paul]

We're in for it now, me thinks! :takecover:

[Gunner]

No matter the decree, my house rules will be the separation of church and state, I mean hull and crew.

[Demiurgo]

I have emailed Ares asking them to read the thread and for Andrea to pronounce on the correct interpretation

I have not seen the mail but somebody pointed out this thread to me.

Whenever the rules use the word LEFTMOST, it's always the "leftmost EMPTY" box. That, is the box that is more to the left between the EMPTY ones.

There is only one instance I found of the word RIGHTMOST in the rules (in the rules for Pumping Water), and it refers to the rightmost box with DAMAGE.

I am not a good and impartial judge about the rules being clear or not, as the person who did the most editing on them, but in terms of the wording itself, they seem to be correct, and we were in the hope that the examples could dispel any remaining confusion.

[Demiurgo]

And regarding Hull and Crew - the Crew Actions are dictated by the "first" symbol which is fully clear of damage chits - that is, the leftmost (!!!) of the symbols which are clear of damage chits. Or the one immediately to the right of the rightmost damage chit. Or :beer:

[Horatio Le Rêve]

And regarding Hull and Crew - the Crew Actions are dictated by the "first" symbol which is fully clear of damage chits - that is, the leftmost (!!!) of the symbols which are clear of damage chits. Or the one immediately to the right of the rightmost damage chit. Or :beer:

Thanks for taking the time to reply Demiurgo! I am sure we can lay this matter to rest now -- this presents the matter succinctly:
Or the one immediately to the right of the rightmost damage chit. I agree that the example (graphic) should have dispelled confusion -- I think leftmost is just a word that most Americans come across infrequently enough that it may have lead to confusion; I am happy to know that our group has been playing this correctly.

Cheers!

[AlyssaFaden]

SO if I may get this straight in my own head:

If a ship has taken 4 HULL and 2 CREW damage, you determine crew actions according to the 3rd (uncovered) crew box.
If a ship has taken 2 HULL and 4 CREW damage, you determine crew actions according to the 3rd (uncovered) HULL box?

This could mean that your crew is wiped out bar 1 man, but if it's taken 1 hull damage it would operate a near maximum capabilities.

Is this right? :shock:

[Andy Blozinski]

Here's what I THINK they mean:
The first box uncovered in both damage tracks simultaneously.
His answer was not any clearer.

[Horatio Le Rêve]

Crew Actions are dictated by the "first" symbol which is fully clear of damage chits

Seems pretty clear to me -- exactly like the illustration on page 29. It doesn't matter which damage track, hull or crew, is longer (in this illustrative example, the crew damage is longer, but it could just as easily be the other way around). It only matters that the actions are dictated by the first "fully clear" symbol next to the longest track.

No AlyssaFaden, that is not correct.

The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3.
Or the illustration could show four hull damage, and no crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would still be 3.

Remember, the Crew Action symbol is shared between damage tracks -- once damage is laid down, regardless if it is hull or crew, the corresponding shared Crew Action symbol is also "covered." Since it is covered, the number of Crew Actions is given by the next open symbol -- determined by the longest track.

Cheers!

[Angiolillo]

Sorry, I just now solved a login problem on this site.

The number of actions to be used must be totally clear of any damage chit. If a hand symbol with number is partially covered, either by a damage to the hull or by a damage to the crew, do not use it and skip to the one on the right. Again and again. Until you find one that's totally clear of damages.

The example at page 29 looks pretty clear to me:


PLANNING CREW ACTIONS – EXAMPLE
The ship has three boxes filled in the Ship Damage track and four boxes filled in the Crew Damage track. The number of crew actions is reduced to 3.


If the partially uncovered number of actions would count, it would say "reduced to 4" and the white circle would be on the 4th box, not on the 5th.

9129


The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3.
Or the illustration could show four hull damage, and no crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would still be 3.
Remember, the Crew Action symbol is shared between damage tracks -- once damage is laid down, regardless if it is hull or crew, the corresponding shared Crew Action symbol is also "covered." Since it is covered, the number of Crew Actions is given by the next open symbol -- determined by the longest track.

True. If only crew counted, we wopuld have put the number of action just in the crew box. As the Musketry Firepower. Not in the middle of the two boxes.


If a ship has taken 4 HULL and 2 CREW damage, you determine crew actions according to the 3rd (uncovered) crew box.
If a ship has taken 2 HULL and 4 CREW damage, you determine crew actions according to the 3rd (uncovered) HULL box?

No, 5th.


This could mean that your crew is wiped out bar 1 man, but if it's taken 1 hull damage it would operate a near maximum capabilities.
Is this right? :shock:

No. ;)

[AlyssaFaden]

okay, got it, thank you guys. I've been grouping crew actions and crew together and not including hull damage in with the calculation. This makes sense.

[Gunner]

The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3.
Or the illustration could show four hull damage, and no crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would still be 3.

Remember, the Crew Action symbol is shared between damage tracks -- once damage is laid down, regardless if it is hull or crew, the corresponding shared Crew Action symbol is also "covered." Since it is covered, the number of Crew Actions is given by the next open symbol -- determined by the longest track.
Cheers!

I agree with "The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3." But on the page 8 the hand is called a CREW action, not a Burden action. It's the crew not the ship that does repairs. So how can ship damage change the number of the crew. That's what the crew damage markers are for. If you look at the pictures on page 31 you will see that the hands are not covered when hull damage is taken, not shared . M(not so)HO.:takecover:

[Angiolillo]

I agree with "The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3." But on the page 8 the hand is called a CREW action, not a Burden action. It's the crew not the ship that does repairs. So how can ship damage change the number of the crew.

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.


If you look at the pictures on page 31 you will see that the hands are not covered when hull damage is taken, not shared .

True but this is due to some randomness in putting the chits in the boxes. In the example at page 29, the one relevant for action number, the hand and number is half covered by hull damage. Please imagine the whole box covered by the chit. This is the general intention.

[Gunner]

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.


True but this is due to some randomness in putting the chits in the boxes. In the example at page 29, the one relevant for action number, the hand and number is half covered by hull damage. Please imagine the whole box covered by the chit. This is the general intention.


I never thought about the difficulties of performing duties on a nearly wrecked ship, and will correct my incorrect way of applying crew actions.

Thanks for a clear explanation Angiolillo.

[fredmiracle]

I have a strong mental image from some account I read years and years ago of the Bon Homme Richard vs. the Guerriere, at the point where both ships were locked together and essentially shattered, and in my recollection of the story, the battle almost died down to nothing because of the terrible state both ships were in. Of course there had been lots of crew casualties, but the bigger factor was that both crews were just completely shell-shocked, and either finding a place to hide or completely occupied trying to keep their ship afloat. So the rule seems to fit my perception of the historical reality pretty well...

[7eat51]

Thank you Roberto and Angiolillo.

I like the comment about moving amidst debris and such. The abstraction makes sense.

[Пилот]

Thanks, guys! Lot of help!

[csadn]

I have a strong mental image from some account I read years and years ago of the Bon Homme Richard vs. the Guerriere,

I think you mean "_Bonhomme Richard_ and _Serapis_".

[fredmiracle]

I think you mean "_Bonhomme Richard_ and _Serapis_".

No I'm pretty sure it was Bon Homme Richard and Guerriere, :drinks: :happy: everyone has a purpose in life, and mine is to make other people look smarter by opening my mouth !

[Gunner]

Constitution and Guerriere
Bon Homme Richard and Serapis

[Andy Blozinski]

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.


I understand the way you intend the rules work, but it's obvious something needs to be clearer in the presentation.

On a different note: I do not agree with the logic that the crew is drained to urgent duties or is less efficient. Here are two reasons why:
1) The musketry rating ignores hull damage and only goes off crew damage. The logic for any explanation of the hull damage affecting the crew falls apart if they can freely abandon all those explanations for musketry. It has to either apply to both or neither..or it just doesn't make sense.
2) "Urgent duties". What could be more urgent than a fire damage marker or a leak marker? Whatever non-descript nebulous damage the crew would have been tending to would be dropped in a heartbeat to put out a raging fire. If they can drop that "urgent duty" to fire a musket, they can drop it to put out a raging fire.

[Gunner]

I understand the way you intend the rules work, but it's obvious something needs to be clearer in the presentation.

On a different note: I do not agree with the logic that the crew is drained to urgent duties or is less efficient. Here are two reasons why:
1) The musketry rating ignores hull damage and only goes off crew damage. The logic for any explanation of the hull damage affecting the crew falls apart if they can freely abandon all those explanations for musketry. It has to either apply to both or neither..or it just doesn't make sense.
2) "Urgent duties". What could be more urgent than a fire damage marker or a leak marker? Whatever non-descript nebulous damage the crew would have been tending to would be dropped in a heartbeat to put out a raging fire. If they can drop that "urgent duty" to fire a musket, they can drop it to put out a raging fire.

I agree with what you say Andy but, I backed down because the rules and reasons have been stated by Ares, and rules are rules and we do need a common base.
But I'm sure groups will have their own house rules.

[Andy Blozinski]

I agree with what you say Andy but, I backed down because the rules and reasons have been stated by Ares, and rules are rules and we do need a common base.
But I'm sure groups will have their own house rules.

The point system is going to be fluid (per statement from Ares) and likely to change as an electronic document. The rules, being widely distributed electronically, can be equally as fluid. I'm just trying to get the point out now in case they make any changes. There is room for improvement.
I'll likely be house ruling this.

[David Manley]

Maybe the assumption is that musketry is being performed by marines, naval infantry, etc. and therefore a smaller pool of personnel who are also less likely - or maybe even trained - to do DC

[Horatio Le Rêve]

I believe that I remember Andrea stating that musketry, and boarding, was handled by the Marines rather than the "crew" of Crew Actions.

Regardless, these rules work fine for now, and the simplicity is what drew me to the game (as in WoG). I think we can weigh anchor this for now. :happy:

Cheers!

[Diamondback]

Try thinking of it as "First Release is a Public Beta Test", establishing the basic rule-set and letting us handle the debugging and enhancing for historical realism, etc.

Axis & Allies War at Sea saw the game rules almost completely rewritten before the second set was released, based on reported results with Set 1, for example.

[John Paul]

As David mentioned above, and to clarify crew assignments more completely in a general sense;
Marines were the only ship's company armed with muskets, gun crews were kept to their guns until ordered to their boarding/repel boarders stations, if they were given a fire arm (pistol or musketoon) for such work it was generally a one shot deal as the weapons were loaded by the gunner's mate in charge of the armory before being issued. A select group of topmen were stationed aloft to handle the sails in battle, while another small select group were stationed to handle hauling lines. The "wasters" (those not otherwise assigned) were left to deal with damage control, fires, as well as hauling away the dead and wounded as needed. That's the general breakdown of the crew assignments. Each man of the crew knew what his assignment was, and who the petty officer in charge he was required to report to during battle.

[7eat51]

Try thinking of it as "First Release is a Public Beta Test", establishing the basic rule-set and letting us handle the debugging and enhancing for historical realism, etc.

One nice thing about GMT is the living rules links on the different game pages. I have several games in which the rules are 2.0 or some such thing. I cannot imagine a new game like SoG would have a set of rules in place that would not need some tweaking, in time. WoG has been out a lot longer, and folks are still developing house rules, some of which are well worth adopting.

[csadn]

No I'm pretty sure it was Bon Homme Richard and Guerriere, :drinks: :happy: everyone has a purpose in life, and mine is to make other people look smarter by opening my mouth !

Well, if the game lasts long enough, maybe we can see what Jones could have done against Dacres.... >;)

[Пилот]

Reduced number of actions makes crew to do what is urgent - stop the leak or fight fire.

House rule could cover redeploying of marines to ship-saving duties, when such action is necessary.

For example:

Move 1 - marines shot musketry (or not).
Move 2 - marines are announced to help the crew. Can't shoot musketry, preparing for new duty.
Move 3 - marines used as firefighters. Can't shoot musketry. Can continue to fight fire, or can be transfered to leaks.
Move 4 - assuming action was successful, marines are returning to their posts. Can't shoot musketry.
Move 5 - Marines can shoot musketry again.

[DeRuyter]

As David mentioned above, and to clarify crew assignments more completely in a general sense;
Marines were the only ship's company armed with muskets, gun crews were kept to their guns until ordered to their boarding/repel boarders stations, if they were given a fire arm (pistol or musketoon) for such work it was generally a one shot deal as the weapons were loaded by the gunner's mate in charge of the armory before being issued. A select group of topmen were stationed aloft to handle the sails in battle, while another small select group were stationed to handle hauling lines. The "wasters" (those not otherwise assigned) were left to deal with damage control, fires, as well as hauling away the dead and wounded as needed. That's the general breakdown of the crew assignments. Each man of the crew knew what his assignment was, and who the petty officer in charge he was required to report to during battle.

Well said. I was about to chime in with marines when I saw David's post and now yours.

One other point is that the damages tracks also represent crew morale whether due to casualties or ship damage. So you can also view the damage tracks as both affecting crew morale leading to a reduction in game actions.