PDA

View Full Version : Delayed Actions



TWR
04-30-2016, 19:43
I would like to check my understanding of the planning and execution of delayed actions.

1. A ship that has suffered no damage plans a delayed action of "fighting fires" in the Action Phase of turn one. The aim being to have fire parties standing by. The delayed action is left up.
2. During the combat phase of turn 1 it takes a fire damage marker. This is placed in the special damage section.
3. At the beginning of turn two a fire is raging and a therefore a fire damage covers up a box in the ship damage track.
4. In the Action Phase of turn two the delayed action "fighting fires" is played and the fire is extinguished. The fighting fires action is removed. The damage remains of course.

What would happen if the ship did not take a fire damage in turn 1, point 2 above. Is the delayed action left up ready for a possible future fire, perhaps in the combat phase of turn two or three?

Perhaps delayed actions can not be planned unless a damage for which they can be used has not been taken. For example fighting fires can not be placed until the action phase of turn two, after a fire has started.

TexaS
05-01-2016, 02:52
I'd say that the rules meant that the extinguish fire can't be played until there is a fire, but there are quite a few of us who like to modify the rules a little and fires are very powerful anyway.

I'd say you may play it as you like.

Bligh
05-01-2016, 03:16
Perhaps delayed actions can not be planned unless a damage for which they can be used has not been taken. For example fighting fires can not be placed until the action phase of turn two, after a fire has started.

My interpretation of the rule is as you state here Keith.
We know historically that each Watch had special duties assigned to it in addition to its normal battle station, but that they were not activated until the damage control was needed. The exception to this seemed to be the carpenters mates who were standing by to plug leaks, attend to steering malfunctions etc. They were probably classed as idlers with special duties.
That would account for the leaks being addressed at once and fires getting a hold before the fire party could be sent into action.
Rob.

Comte de Brueys
05-01-2016, 04:04
At the begining of our SoG gaming we tried to play with planed fire extinguish actions in advance.

That's was speaks against:

Fire extinguish has to be used for 2 turns. So if there's no fire you have to execute it anyways.


That's what speaks for:

If you plan a firing broadside action - you don't have to fire it. Why shouldn't this work for fire extinguish if the crew has nothing to do?

With planed fire extinguish action you would loose only one damage box for the rest of the game instead of two.

...and if you do not use fire extinguish it should not lasts two turns.


Summary: I think there is room for interpretation. The rules do not say clearly it's not allowed to plan extinguish fire until a fire starts burning. On the other hand we have the rule that fire extinguish block one crew action for two turns.

If you execute the rules exactly you'll loose 2 damage boxes to fire damage for shure. So fire cripples your ship badly.



I'm in favour of this house rule:

Turn 1: You get the fire damage in the special damage box
Beginning Turn 2: You get one damage box blocked by fire damage
Planing Turn 2: You plan fire extinguish action
Crew action Turn 2: You extinguish the fire in the special damage box because fire extiguish is immediately executed instead of being delayed executed.
(...and the executed fire extinguish action block no crew action of the next turn)

Same goes for repair actions (damage/leaks/mast)

My game group tested it and it was easier for me to keep an eye on correct handling of special damages. :thumbsup:



...or an other option: The same turn you do not plan reload / broadside / increase or decrease sail of Musket fire actions, planned fire extinguish and repair actions are not delayed.

TexaS
05-01-2016, 05:26
It's because it's not clear in the rules I wrote "I'd say the rules meant". It's how I believe they had in mind. It's not the only way.

I wouldn't mind letting players plan extinguish action and then abort it (as with fire broadside/muskets when no enemy is in range) every turn no fire was started only to restart it the next turn.

It's along the way of playing with three broken masts instead of two as written in the rules before a ship strikes. You run less risk of a first rate striking after the first broadside.

I have an option in my app for the masts but right now you can't choose extinguish before there's a fire.

Herkybird
05-01-2016, 07:03
The delayed action is confusing in the heat of play, at least to me, may I make a suggestion too?
When a fire damage is caused, put a fire marker in the damage track immediately, as well as in the special damage caused area, then you can plan a fire fighting action and have it work after the automatic fire spread at next turn start, and the fire is immediately put out.
This gives an automatic minimum of 2 boxes lost as a minimum.

Incidentally, as I dont count a damage box gone until its full, and keep the partial damage counters above the box they are in till its full, I shift the partially filled box counters down one, and put a fire marker in the vacated box, thus destroying it.

Just my thoughts.... :question:

Bligh
05-01-2016, 13:02
Like you Richard, I never close a box until it is full. although I noticed at Praag we surrendered ships as soon as anything went into the last box. I don't suppose it matters as long as both sides play it the same way.
Rob.

Herkybird
05-01-2016, 13:06
Yes, I suspect a lot of us use house rules to make the game play/flow better, it is always hard when playing a new opponent to separate the house rules from 'official' rules - I myself have been challenged for doing something I thought was right but isn't Codex :embarass::smack:

Bligh
05-01-2016, 13:17
It is one of the things about doing so much solo play. We get comfortable with what suits us best, and then are surprised by other peoples take on the rules.
Rob.

Herkybird
05-01-2016, 13:19
Sad, but true!

fredmiracle
05-01-2016, 14:05
I agree about house-ruling, both in general and with respect to fire. I always play that you can "preplan" an extinguish action, as insurance.

BUT, with respect to the official rules, there is strong evidence that this is not allowed. On page 29 it says:


If an illegal action is planned (shoot with unloaded guns, extinguish nonexistent fires and so on) it has no effect and is returned to the pool of available action counters

Note that this is specifically stated in regards to the Action Phase--meaning that the extinguish should be discarded if there is no fire in the Action Phase, not that it hangs around to see if a fire is started during the turn. It's not totally conclusive, perhaps, but pretty strong evidence of the designers' intention

Herkybird
05-01-2016, 14:19
Yes, I agree, it does indeed be the intent of the designers....I think in this case, they are right.

TWR
05-01-2016, 14:36
On page 29 it says:
"If an illegal action is planned (shoot with unloaded guns, extinguish nonexistent fires and so on) it has no effect and is returned to the pool of available action counters"


I had missed this statement on page 29, though I'm not sure how! Certainly it is clear enough for me. Our group will I'm sure stop planning for fires that may appear in the upcoming turn. Interestingly, in our last game Imperial would have suffered terribly having drawn two fires in one turn.

Thank you gentlemen for your responses, they are much appreciated.

Bligh
05-02-2016, 02:37
I agree about house-ruling, both in general and with respect to fire. I always play that you can "preplan" an extinguish action, as insurance.

BUT, with respect to the official rules, there is strong evidence that this is not allowed. On page 29 it says:

If an illegal action is planned (shoot with unloaded guns, extinguish nonexistent fires and so on) it has no effect and is returned to the pool of available action counters

Note that this is specifically stated in regards to the Action Phase--meaning that the extinguish should be discarded if there is no fire in the Action Phase, not that it hangs around to see if a fire is started during the turn. It's not totally conclusive, perhaps, but pretty strong evidence of the designers' intention


Well spotted Fred.
That lays that one to rest then.
Rob.

Hjl
05-02-2016, 08:43
Well what do you know. That is the reason we should play more than just solo games. If enough of us get together, one of us is bound to know how to do it correctly!

Herkybird
05-02-2016, 09:11
'Ignorance is the shield of the innocent' If you don't know better, and are happy - there is never a problem :happy:

TexaS
05-02-2016, 15:03
It surprises me that you would change opinion just because the rules says something. I still think you should play as you wish.

Capn Duff
05-02-2016, 16:00
The delayed action is confusing in the heat of play, at least to me, may I make a suggestion too?
When a fire damage is caused, put a fire marker in the damage track immediately, as well as in the special damage caused area, then you can plan a fire fighting action and have it work after the automatic fire spread at next turn start, and the fire is immediately put out.
This gives an automatic minimum of 2 boxes lost as a minimum.

Incidentally, as I dont count a damage box gone until its full, and keep the partial damage counters above the box they are in till its full, I shift the partially filled box counters down one, and put a fire marker in the vacated box, thus destroying it.

Just my thoughts.... :question:

Initially my small group tried this and we found it led to more confusion and ships took more damage than they should do.
This is why I made up my own Sequence of rules, which anyone is welcome to, just send me your email, if you follow a set sequence it works and is not confusing.
As for the fire bit, it is as been said. If you start with an extinguish fire party ready on turn 1 and receive a fire on turn 2 you will only get 1 fire damage marker.
If no fire on turn 1 the action is removed and returned to the pool ( the party has been tasked with something else).
Under normal circumstances if you have a fire you will take a minimum of two fire damage boxs before you can extinguish a fire.
Just my 2d

TWR
05-02-2016, 18:24
I really appreciate the suggestions of alternatives. However, for now we are trying to keep things as per the rules to ensure it is easy for new players to pick up the sequence by reading the rule booklet. My question came about as I was concerned I was missing something. As I feared I had missed something.

Fires are clearly rather a problem. A ship will take at least two damages from a single fire. In our last game I suspect that if we had played the fire correctly the game would have been closer to being resolved. Imperial, having suffered two fires in one turn, may have suffered six damages from these two fires, shortening the game considerably. Assuming my maths is correct.

One concern that some locals have is the impact of collisions, that is he feels they are too great. If we had played the fire rules correctly collisions would pail in comparison.

TexaS
05-02-2016, 23:30
Yes, it would mean 6 damage, and if you play with the explosions optional rule there'd be one in four to explode for four turns.

Herkybird
05-03-2016, 12:30
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this forum, we do not cause damage in collisions, as this leads to a trireme battle with rams if a ship gets close to striking, and can cause more damage by ramming his opponent!

TWR
05-03-2016, 14:17
Yes, it would mean 6 damage, and if you play with the explosions optional rule there'd be one in four to explode for four turns.

Yes indeed. I haven't tried this optional rule yet.

Herkybird
05-03-2016, 14:46
Don't worry, neither have I! :drinks:

Capn Duff
05-03-2016, 17:47
As I have mentioned elsewhere in this forum, we do not cause damage in collisions, as this leads to a trireme battle with rams if a ship gets close to striking, and can cause more damage by ramming his opponent!

But you dont cause damage to an enemy vessel if you collide, it is only friendly ships that collide that take damage, this is to try and make sure you keep correct distance etc. Or have I missread the ruling?

Comte de Brueys
05-03-2016, 21:42
This is correct, Chris.

Only collision damge to friendly ships to learn the gamers to sail careful. :wink:

TWR
05-04-2016, 00:31
But you dont cause damage to an enemy vessel if you collide, it is only friendly ships that collide that take damage, this is to try and make sure you keep correct distance etc. Or have I missread the ruling?

I agree, only friendly ships colliding with each other have the potential to cause damage, which is different Wings of War.

One of my opponents doesn't like friendly ship collision damage. While I can understand his views, and perhaps the damage is too great, generally I dont have a problem. It certainly encourages players to consider their manoeuvres carefully.

Capn Duff
05-04-2016, 04:57
I agree that it seems strange that only friendly collisions give damage, but I dont mind it as it keeps you thinking so as not to make that mistake.

Bligh
05-04-2016, 05:26
When playing ordinarily, I have collisions for both sides but limit it to 2 B cards for the lighter ship and one for the heavier.
Rob.

TexaS
05-04-2016, 10:03
I do as Rob, but always give 1 B.

That's so you could loose a bowsprit (as happened more than once) but not sink a smaller ship colliding with a third rate. It's really silly that enemies that you ram to board take less damage than a friendly whip which both crews would help fend off.

Bligh
05-04-2016, 10:20
I agree Jonas. It would be great to get Andrea's take on this one. He usually has a reason for these anomalies.
Rob.

Herkybird
05-04-2016, 12:38
Yes, as someone who dislikes the ramming rules, I had forgotten only friendly rams cause damage! My bad, sorry! :embarass:

Capn Duff
05-04-2016, 17:12
The collision rules are, shall we say, a little odd, without knowing the full rational behind them.
I like the idea of friendly only damage as it makes you think more and to keep the correct distances.
I also think its strange that if that much damage is done during a collision that no damage is given when opposing ships collide.
Also again I find it strange that we have friendly collisions at all, surely to become a Captain of a military vessel would mean that most would be competent enough seamen to ensure this would not happen unles it was during a free for all melee, during an approach or a line of battle standing toe to toe as it were, most Captains would be able to keep the distance.
I would be interested in others thoughts on this or should a new thread be opened?

David Manley
05-04-2016, 23:08
The rationale is that it punishes players who are careless enough to drive into their own ships. That's it, just a game mechanic rather than modelling any real world phenomenon

TWR
05-05-2016, 00:22
The rationale is that it punishes players who are careless enough to drive into their own ships. That's it, just a game mechanic rather than milling any real world phenomenon

I think from that perspective, if nothing else, it is very useful. I further believe it encourages players to try and keep ships in line astern, at least until the melee develops.

Hyperfocal
05-05-2016, 02:03
When your playing multiple ships each side I find the chances of colliding with an enemy ship are fairly high. Your both planning two moves ahead on a relatively small gaming area, it can be a real challange to guess what your enemy is doing and have steerage room to avoid him if he does the unexpected. Perhaps the risk of being boarded, if you play these rules, is penalty enough.

Bligh
05-05-2016, 02:08
I still don't accept that what is good for the Goose is not also good for the Gander. As has been said here, friendly ships would tend to try to take avoiding action, and to fend each other off, whilst a collision with the enemy was often intended to run aboard for boarding or to bring already damaged masts down, so why the differentiation? If it is to deter ships from sailing too close it will do that even if it also applies to the enemy.
Rob.

Comte de Brueys
05-05-2016, 04:25
So the bigger burden value wins...?

Problem is, that this will lead to a system like X-Wing. Trash fighters move first into the movement of better ships. Those can't execute turns and loose their actions.

My point of view is that you can prepare for enemy collisions. If your allied 1st rate hits your stern it's an accident.

I really like this rule because games really care for their maneuvers, not only heading for the middle of the gaming area and try to end the game with ram actions, collisions and musket fire. :wink:

Union Jack
05-05-2016, 08:40
Why not take it by having a top down card like in Wings. Move those and if main masts are overlapped by a base (friendly collisions) then take damage as per rules. Otherwise the faster ship hauls off and is moved in a logical manner.

For boarding then both ships should take damage in a collision too. If no boarding take the declining ship/ships haul off in a logical direction.

Just my two penneth non nautical skill idea.

Bligh
05-05-2016, 13:07
:hmmm:Certainly an interesting premise Neil.
I will take it on board for consideration.:question: with some extra stimulus to aid the brain cells.


:drinks:

Bligh.

Where did that cannon ball come from?

Herkybird
05-05-2016, 14:15
I still agree with Capn Duff, the game makes unintentional collisions too easy, and too damaging. It fails to differentiate between glancing collisions and full on ramming.

I would probably just say that a collision stops both ships and make them at backing sails, so they have to regain momentum. That, to me would be much more fun! :question:

fredmiracle
05-05-2016, 16:19
In general, I don't think collisions usually did much damage in the age of sail, unless the ships were very unequal in size.

My house rule, which I think is far from unique, is that no collision does damage, but that you have the risk of entanglement. That seems enough penalty.

Bligh
05-05-2016, 16:42
I would probably just say that a collision stops both ships and make them at backing sails, so they have to regain momentum. That, to me would be much more fun! :question:

Funny that you should mention momentum Richard. I have always assumed that after a hit the ships had to start from backing speed again, or stationary if entangled.
Whilst on that subject, has anyone given any thought to the commonly mentioned fact that a ship who has the wind gauge, draws better than the ship it is attacking which is down wind. In effect taking its wind if at close range.
Rob.

Capn Duff
05-05-2016, 17:22
I would probably just say that a collision stops both ships and make them at backing sails, so they have to regain momentum. That, to me would be much more fun! :question:

I like that idea and seems logical.

How about, if a ship is following a leader or battleline if a collision would occur then drop the rear ship so it touches the base of the ship in front ( the Capt /Sailing master/Crew reef in sails enough to not ram) no collision but a possability of entangling which stops next turn. Then as Herkbird says the ships start off again at backing sails speed for 1 card then back to normal for next card.

If a collision during free for all then both ships take damage, say 2xB, smaller ships would be at a disadvantage here larger ships less so.

TWR
05-05-2016, 17:37
Can a new thread be created for collisions?

Bligh
05-06-2016, 02:21
If you would like to start a new thread entitled collisions and link to it from here Keith, I will direct members to restrict this thread to it's title.
Rob.

TWR
05-06-2016, 07:47
I have started a thread for collisions under the house rules section. It can be found here:

http://sailsofglory.org/showthread.php?4068-Collision-Rules