Change nineteenth century to 19th century Are we oversimplifying things too much to allow both SAs to be used? I mean, if you are playing a convoy scenario you’d just want one of those SAs, right? It’s a yes or no question at this point.
Change nineteenth century to 19th century Are we oversimplifying things too much to allow both SAs to be used? I mean, if you are playing a convoy scenario you’d just want one of those SAs, right? It’s a yes or no question at this point.
We had that discussion, but Flak didn't want the player to be required to declare the intent at the start of the game. I think the main thing is to not allow them to be used simultaneously in the same turn. That could theoretically happen. As stated many times, this is a "2 in 1" card with the complexity/confusion that can create.
What it can do is a lot more important than how it does it.
There are far worse "dont think about it" questions than how many troops consitutes a "landing" or how you'd unload a a ship in 10 minutes.
I am not concerned about that at all. The problem is the SAs are very specific to a very different purpose and have a different outcome in terms of the card staying in the game or being used multiple times. Those two SAs are apples and oranges to me. Not just different colored apples.
My biggest confusion is that I am not really sure what either of you two are debating either. I have been trying to come up with SA combinations that I think describe what you guys want and every time one or the other says no.
So how about this. I would like you and mnn to each post exactly what SAs you would put on the card. Full text. That way we can see exactly what each of you want.
If you want to know what I would put on the card I can do that too. But I think it is getting the two of you to agree that is the roadblock. But then again I could be wrong about that too.
What we have here is a failure to communicate!
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
There is no game rules reason why it needs to either a ship scoring VPs with the Landing SA or with the Vital Cargo SA. Or not use landing then vital cargo in the same turn.
Specific Loadout as on the card image, allowing only one SA to be used in a turn is not something im going argue over. But it is thematic preference, and not rules interaction issue.
The convoy scenario does not use vital cargo in any way. You have 15 turns to deliver the ships across the map and are scored by them reaching the enemy deployment zone
What I’m thinking is if you are going to bring this to a not convoy game you’d use both abilities if you can. I don’t think that’s the intent though as I stated early on. If we can encourage people not to use Landing and then Vital Cargo on the next turn, if for only because it doesn’t make any realistic sense, then it’s easy enough to preclude one SA’s use. Otherwise the general public reads this as a card where the game designers wanted them to on one turn land the troops from the ship and then the next turn drop off the Enigma machine that they stole from the Germans at the secret lab on the same island.
Specific Loadout - This unit can only use one ability that scores victory points during this game.
It can’t say once per game at the end because you need to have Landing available to invade Installations on multiple turns if able.
Rats! Going back and forth between your posts and the card caused me to lose the reply I was constructing.
So Flak wants to have both SAs on the card unencumbered by any restrictions. Mnn wants to only allow one of the SAs to be used per game.
Both of the SAs can only be used once per card/unit by their own definition. One requires the unit to be removed from play, and other is "once per game" for that unit. If the player chooses to remove the card the worst that happens is they get 6 points because both SA's would have qualified. That is still only 6 pts per unit total. If the player can only use on SA per turn (Specific Loadout), then that player will only get 3 points and have to wait (and survive) until the next turn to get the other 3 points. In no case can a single unit score more than 6 points.
So if I have that right then Flak is correct that the "restriction" SA really isn't needed. Except for how it reflects "reality" which isn't a big deal here IMO. But I know I would find it confusing as a player to understand what is really going on with both SAs in play. I have to read those SAs a couple of times to digest them as it is. Even so, it works if you think it through.
If we go with MNN and a player can only use one SA on the unit per game then we would really need to restore the SAs to a value of 6 instead of 3. In this case it would actually be easier for a player to get the full 6 points than Flak's way. I do think we would need to add when the person has to make the decision of which SA to use. I don't see a problem with not declaring it until it is time to use it.
So to me it is a wash if we give the "one SA option (MNN)" a value of 6. Actually, the only use one SA per game option (MNN) is simpler to understand and easier to score 6 points.
The current "Specific Loadout" suggestion to only allow the use of one SA per turn really makes it hard to get those 6 points.
Am I missing something here? Probably?
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
1. Restore the SAs to 6 points 2. Only allow one or the other SA per game, but add that the decision can be made when it is time to declare the SA at the end of the turn.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
1. Restore the SAs to 6 points 2. Only allow one or the other SA per game, but add that the decision can be made when it is time to declare the SA at the end of the turn.
I second this proposal as it combines with the least memory burden a versatile, universal auxiliary.
The main distinction I see between these two is that landing entails greater risk (since the tramp steamer might be sunk after it has scored its points, thereby yielding back to the enemy some value), but it offsets this with the chance to destroy an enemy installation. From a flavour stand-point, the opponent simply does not know the steamers cargo, and must therefore act as if it is capable of either a landing or of depositing vital cargo. I think this suspense would contrast well with the more obvious telegraph that previous units have.
University Student— Lover of Plato, Aristotle, War At Sea, Palestrina, and Mozart
Yes - i do want them to use both, or one oe neither. If they can see a value proposition from both sa's or either that will help them win. That is exactly what i want them to do
6 points wont break the game but a player who get a thrill from using 2 points sa in the same turn or nuking a HSB or refighting Harpoon are all mission successes in my book.
I don't really care how the ship simultaneously conducts a landings and unloads cargo because thats not what the SAs represent. They're an abstraction. To me, its an arguement akin to changing a card to fit the fluff.
I don't really care how the ship simultaneously conducts a landings and unloads cargo because thats not what the SAs represent. They're an abstraction. To me, its an arguement akin to changing a card to fit the fluff.
That doesn't bother me either. For me, it is a matter of KISS. I think that was the primary secret to success of this game. You could actually play a naval game in an hour.
So I generally gravitate toward the simplest solution if it fits. I see now that the current version of "Specific Loadout" on the card (that I came up with) just makes things worse. So now I am down to either just putting both on the card and letting players figure out how to use them, or only allow one of them to be used but with my last proposal to declare the SA you are using at the end of the turn as a compromise.
Flak and MNN are in exactly opposite corners and I don't know how to resolve that. The compromises seem to cause more trouble than they fix.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
I will say that it seems to me this is a unit primarily of interest to minor nation players. In convoy scenarios I much prefer Melbourne Star or Pietro Orseolo. We usually ignore nation affiliation on cargo ships and just pick the ones we want to use. I admit I have never played a specific "landing" scenario because I don't think the game is really structured for that. (It doesn't do convoys very well either.) I just see a Landing or Vital Cargo SA payoff occasionally just out of luck.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!