Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: Rules Questions

  1. #1

    Default Rules Questions

    Here's a copy and paste from the web site article on the Standard Rules:

    "During the Combat phase, when a ship fires on another ship, place the target ruler on the central firing cone on the shooting side of the firing ship, and measure to the main mast of the targeted ship. If the ruler passes through the short side of the target base (either the front one or the rear one), it’s a raking shot,"
    There are three arcs on each side of the ship. This implies you can only get a rake with the center arcs on either side. Would you interpret it that way as well?

  2. #2

    Default

    Good pick up Andy, yes I would interpret the same. Could be tricky measuring to the mainmast when the ruler runs close to short edge and long edge junction of the target base, all sorts of observer variability could come into that.

  3. #3
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Blozinski View Post
    Here's a copy and paste from the web site article on the Standard Rules:
    "During the Combat phase, when a ship fires on another ship, place the target ruler on the central firing cone on the shooting side of the firing ship, and measure to the main mast of the targeted ship. If the ruler passes through the short side of the target base (either the front one or the rear one), it’s a raking shot,"

    There are three arcs on each side of the ship. This implies you can only get a rake with the center arcs on either side. Would you interpret it that way as well?
    I actually don't interpret it that way.
    The way I read it, all this operation is doing is attempting to see if the shot is more towards the side of the target ship or one of the ends of the ship.
    If the firing side of the ship is more or less pointed at the corner of the base, there needs to be a rule of some kind as to the procedure to determine if the target is the side or an end of the ship.
    The way that the rules have determined to do this is by drawing a line from the dot on the center cone of the firing ship to the main mast and determine whether the line crosses the end or the side of the target ship.
    I don't read it as requiring the shot to use the center arc, the center arc is just used to determine if it is a raking shot or not.

    I would guess that in most cases you would want to use the central arc as the firing arc due to greater damage inflicted, but there might be a ship position situation where either the fore or aft arc winds up being close range where the center arc is at long range. In that case you may want to use the less effective but shorter range arc, but the raking or not determination would still be made using the center firing arc.

  4. #4
    Comptroller of the Navy Board
    Captain
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    WA
    Log Entries
    4,298
    Name
    [RESTRICTED]

    Default

    My read is, any fire arc, passing through front or rear short side of target base.

  5. #5
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardPF View Post
    but there might be a ship position situation where either the fore or aft arc winds up being close range where the center arc is at long range. In that case you may want to use the less effective but shorter range arc, but the raking or not determination would still be made using the center firing arc.
    I see this as being one of the worst aspects of the way that firing arcs are managed in this game. The idea that part of the ship can be at one range band whilst the rest is at another falls firmly within the "codex de fromage". There are simple ways around this that were proposed during playtesting, but they didn't win out.

  6. #6
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    I see this as being one of the worst aspects of the way that firing arcs are managed in this game. The idea that part of the ship can be at one range band whilst the rest is at another falls firmly within the "codex de fromage". There are simple ways around this that were proposed during playtesting, but they didn't win out.
    I can imagine that there was a lot of discussion involved in coming up with the tradeoffs and compromises necessary to abstract from a more accurate portrayal of a battle to a playable game.
    It sounds like you were involved with much of the process and might have "war stories" of a different kind to tell someday.

  7. #7
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Someday, yes. Its only a minor point; the arcs as they are are over complex, but they work. And the game system is definitely one of the better ones I've used for AoS games ;)

    I've just checked and in fact there is a rule that closes the "chose which range to use" question - where a ship can be engaged using the central arc as well as a forward and aft arc the firing factors for the central arc are used. It can still give rise to some interesting debates over range but to be honest the circumstances in which they are likely to occur are rare.

  8. #8
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Someday, yes. Its only a minor point; the arcs as they are are over complex, but they work. And the game system is definitely one of the better ones I've used for AoS games ;)
    I would agree. The game mechanic that is used to translate simultaneous action to turn based action here and in Wings and how firing takes place is quite elegant.

    I will likely remain skeptical however, at least until I have first hand game play experience, about what kind of "interesting" combat strategies may emerge because of the fore and aft extent of the firing arcs.


    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    I've just checked and in fact there is a rule that closes the "chose which range to use" question - where a ship can be engaged using the central arc as well as a forward and aft arc the firing factors for the central arc are used. It can still give rise to some interesting debates over range but to be honest the circumstances in which they are likely to occur are rare.
    Of course, it is often the situations that come up along these rule transition edges that cause the spirited discussussions during play.

  9. #9

    Default

    Needless to say whatever the rules, someone will modify them and house rules will abound. The success of SOG will to a small extent be determined by how robust it is to the "insults" house rules apply to it, that is, how well can the rest of the system deal with changes imposed by tinkerers.

    I don't believe there is any miniatures system that is played the way the designer intended, they are always being modified, disagreed with and altered in small or large ways by players and there is nothing wrong in this. The strength, or as I like to call it, robustness, of a system thus lies in the systems internal cohesion that allows these changes to be made without distorting the underlying game system itself. Designers don't design for robustness mind you, they design for you to play the rules as written but players being players they just have to tinker.....thus "oh that 74 was better built than it's sister ships, they used this aged oak from a small shipyard in Devon so the defense factor should be a point higher than the rest of it's class... " and similar minutiae.

  10. #10
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    I don't believe there is any miniatures system that is played the way the designer intended, they are always being modified, disagreed with and altered in small or large ways by players and there is nothing wrong in this. The strength, or as I like to call it, robustness, of a system thus lies in the systems internal cohesion that allows these changes to be made without distorting the underlying game system itself. Designers don't design for robustness mind you, they design for you to play the rules as written but players being players they just have to tinker.....thus "oh that 74 was better built than it's sister ships, they used this aged oak from a small shipyard in Devon so the defense factor should be a point higher than the rest of it's class... " and similar minutiae.
    I've come across some rules writers who positively headfit when someone suggests amending their rules, whether it is a "tweak" to cover a particular situation or a change to cater for something that is demonstrably wrong. I've always taken the view that the rules that I have published are my view on the world, that the purchasers' view may be different and that I may indeed have got something wrong, so I have on many occasions publicly encouraged players to modify them if they don't like them the way they are (I encourage players to feed back comments, and later editions of the rules have often incorporated the results of that feedback). I guess one of the benefits I have is that my rules aren't intended for "tournament" play and so the need for a rigid rule definition isn't so crucial as it would be in a set where tournament play was popular (e.g DBA - just see the debate going on there about DBA 3, version 2.2, the so called 2.2+, rules interpretations etc.)

    i try to cover as many eventualities as I can (for example, I catered for the idea of better or worse ships within a broad group through the idea of "superior" or "inferior" ships within those classes) but do miss things, and occasionally the editors have chopped stuff out in order to satisfy page limits and formatting. But still, tinkering is fun and I'm frequently amazed and very pleased to see what people have done in terms of developing my basic ideas.

  11. #11
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Log Entries
    1,601
    Name
    Paul

    Default

    That is the way it should be. It can be difficult at the gaming table when one person sees flexibility in the rules and another wants strict adherence to the letter. I've left gaming groups because of it. I like to have fun not watch a couple of guys battle over the rules every week.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    My read is, any fire arc, passing through front or rear short side of target base.
    I would surmise that this makes sense, but the text statement requires use of the central arc. We don't have the full rules in front of us. Hopefully that snippet is only an example. They will need to clarify, or people will start house ruling this.

  13. #13
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Looking at the raking rules (at least in the version I have) it is clear that the line of fire is measured from the centre arc of the firing ship to the mainmast of the target, and that the line of fire must pass through the rear or front face of the target ship's base. Bow rakes increase damage by 1/3, stern rakes by 1/2

  14. #14
    Midshipman
    Netherlands

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Holland
    Log Entries
    362
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    Rules are simply a toolbox for the gamer. Play them as you see fit. Only thing is, don't expect everyone to agree with your interpretation and adjustments.

  15. #15
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default

    I anticipate playing different versions with different groups of players. Some friends will simply want to move around the board trying to outwit each other and blast each other out of the water. As long as there is some degree of thinking, they will be satisfied. I have other friends who will want more detail and options. This is one of the reason I look forward to house rule discussions once the game is out. I am adopting different ideas for different games in WoG, and I am glad to benefit from folks' creativity.

    The one thing I dislike, however, is rules lawyers who seem to derive more pleasure combatting off the game table than on. I was at one convention in a Pathfinder game and a guy at the table argued with, and seemed to derive pleasure from embarrassing and disrespecting, the GM, a GM who spent time preparing to give us a good time for a few hours. The rest of us were rather pissed with the kid. I found out later, he alienated other tables in other games earlier in the day. Makes one wonder why some folks feel the need, and why some cannot recognize we're simply playing a game.

  16. #16
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Log Entries
    2,027
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    I guess one of the benefits I have is that my rules aren't intended for "tournament" play and so the need for a rigid rule definition isn't so crucial as it would be in a set where tournament play was popular (e.g DBA - just see the debate going on there about DBA 3, version 2.2, the so called 2.2+, rules interpretations etc.)
    Oh god, do *NOT* get me started on this -- I remember the dark days of _CAR WARS_, where every duelling group had its own pet system; it was almost-impossible for two groups to play against each other without months of negotiations over how to interpret this, that, and the other (and if something cropped up mid-game...).

    This also explains why SJG's in-house duelling group always won the "World" Championship; they played with the people who'd be running the event, and so always knew well in advance how a given rule would be interpreted. The rest of us had to guess -- usually incorrectly.

  17. #17
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Log Entries
    1,601
    Name
    Paul

    Default

    Does not sound fun at all. Makes my back and neck tighten up just thinking about it.

  18. #18
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Oh god, do *NOT* get me started on this -- I remember the dark days of _CAR WARS_, where every duelling group had its own pet system; it was almost-impossible for two groups to play against each other without months of negotiations over how to interpret this, that, and the other (and if something cropped up mid-game...).

    This also explains why SJG's in-house duelling group always won the "World" Championship; they played with the people who'd be running the event, and so always knew well in advance how a given rule would be interpreted. The rest of us had to guess -- usually incorrectly.
    Personally, I would be happy to play campaign games with folks here and bypass any type of tournament games. I am currently in the Final Months portion of OTT on the Aerodrome. Everyone is gracious, rules are discussed with interest and kindness - it is a real cooperative experience in which the goal is to have fun and create an interesting story together. At my stage in life, that is what I am interested in. I'ld rather make friends than win trophies, especially at the cost of friendship.

    Once the game is in-hand, I am sure we'll create such an experience here.

  19. #19
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Washington
    Log Entries
    1,601
    Name
    Paul

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 7eat51 View Post
    Personally, I would be happy to play campaign games with folks here and bypass any type of tournament games. I am currently in the Final Months portion of OTT on the Aerodrome. Everyone is gracious, rules are discussed with interest and kindness - it is a real cooperative experience in which the goal is to have fun and create an interesting story together. At my stage in life, that is what I am interested in. I'ld rather make friends than win trophies, especially at the cost of friendship.

    Once the game is in-hand, I am sure we'll create such an experience here.
    Well said. Here, here.

  20. #20
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Oh god, do *NOT* get me started on this
    OK, we won't

  21. #21
    Midshipman
    Netherlands

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    North Holland
    Log Entries
    362
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    I'm too old now to put up with rules lawyers spoiling my games. If they don't like how the game is being played I will gladly tell them to bugger off and go find somewhere where they do like the way the game is played. If they don't, then I leave the table. Simple. It's easier when you have a regular crew to game with who have the same aim ... to have fun regardless of the result. Of course we all try our best to win, but the result is secondary to the enjoyment we want to experiance.

    I have received my copy of WoG and a balloon this week. I expect my friends to be pestering me to give them a game within the next week or so. Something that won't take up the whole day, will provide enjoyment for all and maybe they can invest in themselves to play with their kids (preparing the next generation so to speak ).

    In short I've no interest in competition games, hence no interest in points systems. If I want a slug-fest it's a simple case of bring what you've got painted and let's get going.

    I fully expect SoG to tick all my boxes for a good, fun game. That's why I'm in at the start. Of course the community here , as at the Aerodrome, is a great bonus regardless of the game's characteristics.

    Chris

  22. #22
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Log Entries
    2,027
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Gull View Post
    I'm too old now to put up with rules lawyers spoiling my games. If they don't like how the game is being played I will gladly tell them to bugger off and go find somewhere where they do like the way the game is played. If they don't, then I leave the table.
    Much the same here -- and after being at this for some 35 years (and I'm 40), I have no compunctions about calling things as I see them (witness across the hall, and the argument over what constitutes "iconic" WW2 US units).

  23. #23
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    As I understand it, each of the ship packs will include the ship, a deck of movements cards, a two sided ship information card, and And AND...
    A ship log.

    Other than the ship log, all of the other components are pretty much analagous to what is packed in a WINGS airplane box so no difficulties there.

    The ship log, however, looks to be about 8 x 10 inches (maybe a bit bigger).

    I don't see how that can be included in the ship pack box without greatly increasing the size of the box or folding the ship log.
    Neither of which seems to me to be a good solution.

    Does anyone have any more information/thoughts on this?

  24. #24
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Not yet. It will be interesting to see how they approach this conundrum. I'm guessing a folded one at this point.

  25. #25
    Midshipman
    United States

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NH
    Log Entries
    365
    Name
    Lawrence

    Default

    My gut feeling was that it may be something like a light-weight version of a boardgame board. Something like a couple pieces of cardboard for rigidity but 'wrapped' in the printed paper. As such you can have a couple folds in there and it will still lay mostly flat. It would be a bit bulky but the only other thing I can think of would be either rolled or folded paper. Folded would NOT work good in the long run and would almost immediately have to be pressed and laminated (with a surface that isn't too slick).

    Can't wait for the shipment to arrive...so many questions...so much anticipation...

  26. #26
    Ordinary Seaman
    United States

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Alabama
    Log Entries
    29
    Name
    Roger

    Default

    Look at the current game of Sorry on how to do folds. When I was kid the game folded down the middle. Now it fold down both middles. Making a nice square to pack the game away. And if the creators don't mind, you could make fabric/felt versions of the ships log.

  27. #27
    Master & Commander
    United States

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Log Entries
    2,027
    Name
    Chris

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasperrdm View Post
    you could make fabric/felt versions of the ships log.
    *That's* how to fix the "shifting counters" problem: Make felt ship logs; then glue the plastic-hook part of Velcro to the backs of the chits; when a chit is used to cover a space, it will stick. :)

  28. #28

    Default

    I would guess either section folded thick card stock or rubber like the mats.

  29. #29

    Default

    Was there anything about
    a) double shotting guns
    b) first broadside having a greater effect
    in any of the rules/videos published to date. I can't recall seeing it.

    I would think first broadside benefit, for having the guns pre-loaded, time to aim, non fatigued crews etc could be as simple as an additional chit pick, double shotting could also add additional chits but should perhaps be a two turn loading procedure.

  30. #30
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default

    I believe we'll see some interesting home-brewed ship logs, and maybe something in an Anchorage store. With the amount invested in the game just to start, I don't want ship logs that look like something from a bargain basement sale in comparison - and I am not saying this, in fact, will be the case. I look forward to having Ares' version in hand and to play a few games so I could then build something different if desired - this is something I believe I could do even with limited modeling skills.

  31. #31
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    Was there anything about
    a) double shotting guns
    b) first broadside having a greater effect
    in any of the rules/videos published to date. I can't recall seeing it.

    I would think first broadside benefit, for having the guns pre-loaded, time to aim, non fatigued crews etc could be as simple as an additional chit pick, double shotting could also add additional chits but should perhaps be a two turn loading procedure.
    No, not in the "Official" rule and video fragments that have been published so far...

  32. #32
    Midshipman
    United States

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    NH
    Log Entries
    365
    Name
    Lawrence

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    Was there anything about
    a) double shotting guns
    b) first broadside having a greater effect
    in any of the rules/videos published to date. I can't recall seeing it.

    I would think first broadside benefit, for having the guns pre-loaded, time to aim, non fatigued crews etc could be as simple as an additional chit pick, double shotting could also add additional chits but should perhaps be a two turn loading procedure.
    I think A&B would be the same. From the historic reading I've done (admit...limited) I haven't come across references of loading double-shot after the battle has been engaged. It seems to be something done in advance for extra damage on that first shot.


  33. #33

    Default

    Ok here is my guess on the ship logs. In production they will be smaller, say the size of the latest WoG aircraft cockpit board. This would put it in the 10" x 4" size range. or maybe 8"x3". With this size a ship log could fit in a ship pack since they will be much larger than a WoG single seater box for sure. So the ship pack would be comparable to the Milennium Falcon box for X-Wing, or a bomber in WoG maybe a bit longer.

    Eric

  34. #34
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    Was there anything about
    a) double shotting guns
    b) first broadside having a greater effect
    in any of the rules/videos published to date. I can't recall seeing it.

    I would think first broadside benefit, for having the guns pre-loaded, time to aim, non fatigued crews etc could be as simple as an additional chit pick, double shotting could also add additional chits but should perhaps be a two turn loading procedure.
    Both are included in the advanced rules

  35. #35
    Retired Admiral of the Fleet
    Admiral
    United States

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago/Bloomington IL
    Log Entries
    5,095
    Name
    Eric

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Both are included in the advanced rules
    Is there anyway of accessing the advanced rules, or do you have access from play testing? Fully understand if you can't discuss them.

  36. #36
    Surveyor of the Navy
    Captain
    UK

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Gloucestershire
    Log Entries
    3,143
    Name
    David

    Default

    It was from playtesting. I suggested the initial broadside and some other additions :)

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Manley View Post
    Both are included in the advanced rules
    Thanks David I knew you would come through with an answer.

    Next questions

    - how are "elite captains" modelled? For example what would a Nelson card do?
    - is there the ability to anchor on cables thus allowing The Nile or Copenhagen to be done as a solitaire game?

  38. #38
    Able Seaman
    United States

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    colorado
    Log Entries
    82
    Name
    tom

    Default

    If you look on the video is shows a space for anchoring next to the sails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Berthier View Post
    Thanks David I knew you would come through with an answer.

    Next questions

    - how are "elite captains" modelled? For example what would a Nelson card do?
    - is there the ability to anchor on cables thus allowing The Nile or Copenhagen to be done as a solitaire game?

  39. #39
    Awards Officer
    2nd Lieutenant
    United States

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Log Entries
    661
    Name
    Bruce

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardPF View Post
    As I understand it, each of the ship packs will include the ship, a deck of movements cards, a two sided ship information card, and And AND...
    A ship log.

    Other than the ship log, all of the other components are pretty much analagous to what is packed in a WINGS airplane box so no difficulties there.

    The ship log, however, looks to be about 8 x 10 inches (maybe a bit bigger).

    I don't see how that can be included in the ship pack box without greatly increasing the size of the box or folding the ship log.
    Neither of which seems to me to be a good solution.

    Does anyone have any more information/thoughts on this?
    From a BGG post on April 21 by Roberto Di Meglio on April 21 I think that the ship logs are smaller than they appear:

    "...5 logs take up about as much space as a Letter/A4 sheet..."

    http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/9640...t-am-i-expecti
    (14th post on the thread)

  40. #40

    Default

    Page 18:
    "If, at any time, all the boxes of either the Ship
    Damage track or the Crew Damage track are covered
    by a counter, the ship surrenders and is removed
    from the gaming table."

    OK...so if you have a ship with a burden of 5 and it's last box has a damage 1 token, even though it's burden for that box has not been reached and it's not "Full", is it considered "Covered"?

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Blozinski View Post
    Page 18:
    "If, at any time, all the boxes of either the Ship
    Damage track or the Crew Damage track are covered
    by a counter, the ship surrenders and is removed
    from the gaming table."

    OK...so if you have a ship with a burden of 5 and it's last box has a damage 1 token, even though it's burden for that box has not been reached and it's not "Full", is it considered "Covered"?
    I think it is considered covered when the counters are turned over once the burden has been reached. Also from page 18.

    Eric

  42. #42
    First Naval Lord
    United States

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Log Entries
    1,551
    Name
    Keith

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Blozinski View Post
    Page 18:
    "If, at any time, all the boxes of either the Ship
    Damage track or the Crew Damage track are covered
    by a counter, the ship surrenders and is removed
    from the gaming table."

    OK...so if you have a ship with a burden of 5 and it's last box has a damage 1 token, even though it's burden for that box has not been reached and it's not "Full", is it considered "Covered"?
    For the most part yes. Once there is any counter on a box, that box is no longer available for use in the game. All of the guns are considered destroyed and the ship has no firepower. If you have not already used the Repair Ship action that game, I guess it would be possible to plan that action to remove the damage for that last box. However, even just a single point of damage taken after that would again knock the ship out of the game.

    I also think that you could play that rule logically based on the scenario. If the scenario is a simple fight to the death, or kill the other ship, then as soon as that ship is out of guns, game over for it. If on the other hand, said ship's job is to escape the table, I would say as long as it has crew to sail it and at least some damage left in the last hull box, then it could sail on.

    Once the last box is closed out, nothing can save it.

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Royal Hajj View Post
    For the most part yes. Once there is any counter on a box, that box is no longer available for use in the game. All of the guns are considered destroyed and the ship has no firepower. If you have not already used the Repair Ship action that game, I guess it would be possible to plan that action to remove the damage for that last box. However, even just a single point of damage taken after that would again knock the ship out of the game.

    I also think that you could play that rule logically based on the scenario. If the scenario is a simple fight to the death, or kill the other ship, then as soon as that ship is out of guns, game over for it. If on the other hand, said ship's job is to escape the table, I would say as long as it has crew to sail it and at least some damage left in the last hull box, then it could sail on.

    Once the last box is closed out, nothing can save it.
    Ah yes now I see it after a more through reading of course! The rules do clearly state when a box is not available, in other words when it is considered covered for both shooting and surrendering. Just one counter no matter the value and it is covered. (In compliance with your request in another thread I won't quote the rules or pages).

    Eric

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •