Initative of Corsair

A place to find, request and discuss rulings and errata.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cpt Ric

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Easter Egg Miscellaneous Contribution Boardgamegeek Rating Facebook Twitter
Term 3
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:15 am
Medals: 7
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Initative of Corsair

Post by Cpt Ric » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:44 pm

On the Buccaneer :complication it lists the stats of the enemy :ship but doesn't show it's :initiative . This is an issue for the RVD Overtuned Thruster Plate. Would my :ship have a higher :initiative and get the +1 :av ? Thanks!

User avatar
Horizon Jeff

Merchant Prince Free Trader Network Member
Term 4
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:08 pm
Medals: 2
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Horizon Jeff » Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:56 pm

Any value that isn't provided is 0. We'll be adding exact rules wording to the FAQ soonish.

Bezmozgu

Merchant Prince Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Ghost Easter Egg Event Organizer Miscellaneous Contribution Boardgamegeek Rating
Term 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:00 pm
Medals: 7
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Bezmozgu » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:20 am

Just to make sure I understand resolving the Buccaneer :complication correctly: your :ship would need to play a minimum of 2 :av to defeat the Corsair's 1 :dv and 1 :structure, and your :ship would need 1 :dv to avoid paying a :credit1 or sustaining 1 :structure from the Corsair's attack. Is this correct?

User avatar
Horizon Jeff

Merchant Prince Free Trader Network Member
Term 4
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:08 pm
Medals: 2
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Horizon Jeff » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:40 am

Bezmozgu wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:20 am
Just to make sure I understand resolving the Buccaneer :complication correctly: your :ship would need to play a minimum of 2 :av to defeat the Corsair's 1 :dv and 1 :structure, and your :ship would need 1 :dv to avoid paying a :credit1 or sustaining 1 :structure from the Corsair's attack. Is this correct?
Correct.

GodricTheWell

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Miscellaneous Contribution Boardgamegeek Rating Google+ Twitter
Term 1
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:43 am
Medals: 6
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by GodricTheWell » Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:21 pm

Hieroglyphics! These posts make me wonder if the Egyptians weren't just gaming on the interior walls of the pyramids. :)

User avatar
Frewfrux

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Shadow Easter Egg Easter Egg Miscellaneous Contribution Facebook
Term 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:07 am
Medals: 6
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Frewfrux » Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:15 pm

If you have to have 1 :dv to prevent damage, does that mean that combat is simultaneous? Otherwise all you would need would be 2 :av to make sure you killed the ship before it had a chance to fire back. I was playing that all you needed was 2 :av. Whoops.

While I have yet to play a multi-player game, I imagine this would be important as the attacker assigns the type of damage, correct? If it wasn't simultaneous an attacker could choose to put the damage towards :structure so that a key piece was not available when the defending ship returned fire.

I think I was playing that wrong.
tn+ru+ge+!3ic-jt-au+pita*he+

Baron_Gerry_Rail

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Easter Egg Boardgamegeek Rating YouTube
Term 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:25 pm
Medals: 5
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Baron_Gerry_Rail » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:19 am

In the resolution of Piracy example, it seems the defender always gets to shoot back. So I would think that this makes it simultaneous, though you work thru the Attacker's shot and then the Defender's shot. Huh, that makes hitting the :hardpoint on a defender less important, you're NOT going to prevent it from firing, even if you destroy it.
1) :tech+ :admin-
2) "Travelling" since 1978.
3) tc+, mt, 23++, ru+, ge+, 3I++, c, jt+, au, ls, pi+, ta+, he, kk, hi, as+, va+, dr+, ith-. vr,ne??, so+, zh+, vl+, da+,sy++
4) Homeport: Toronto/Canada/Terra/Sol/Solomani Rim

User avatar
Frewfrux

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Shadow Easter Egg Easter Egg Miscellaneous Contribution Facebook
Term 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:07 am
Medals: 6
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Frewfrux » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:08 am

If the example you're referring to is the one in the rule book, the attacker did nothing that would have prevented the defender from firing back at full strength after taking the damage into account. In that example, the result would be the same if combat was simultaneous or not.

If, however, you're referring to the example provided by the OP which Jeff said was correct, that *would* indicate that combat was simultaneous. I'm just a bit surprised is all because the language used in the rule book sounds like the attack is resolved first, then the defense.
tn+ru+ge+!3ic-jt-au+pita*he+

User avatar
Horizon Ian

Merchant Prince Free Trader Network Member
Term 3
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:32 am
Medals: 2
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Horizon Ian » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:08 am

This thread was about combat with a complication, which is simultaneous. In player vs. player, the attacker deals damage first, which could remove an upgrade that is going to provide AV, then the defender deals damage. As a defender, I would be inclined to take out AV granting upgrades of the attacker so that the next time I am in combat the attacker is not as dangerous or to remove the attacker's ability to deal with complications where AV is useful.

By the way, a question came up about Defensive Mines and what happens while dealing with an enemy ship complication. The ruling is that the captain dealing with the complication may choose to be the attacker or the defender, so Defensive Mines will do what needs to be done. This is a natural thing to be clarified at the time it is written up what complication initiatives are.
:connection
Ian Lee
Lead Developer
:connection

User avatar
Frewfrux

Free Trader Network Member Kickstarter Backer Shadow Easter Egg Easter Egg Miscellaneous Contribution Facebook
Term 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:07 am
Medals: 6
Player Locator: Enrolled in the Player Locator

Re: Initative of Corsair

Post by Frewfrux » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:22 am

So, I was both right and wrong. :lol:

Thanks for the clarification. :)
tn+ru+ge+!3ic-jt-au+pita*he+

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests