Page 1 of 1
Initative of Corsair
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:44 pm
by Cpt Ric
On the Buccaneer
it lists the stats of the enemy
but doesn't show it's
. This is an issue for the RVD Overtuned Thruster Plate. Would my
have a higher
and get the +1
? Thanks!
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:56 pm
by Horizon Jeff
Any value that isn't provided is 0. We'll be adding exact rules wording to the FAQ soonish.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:20 am
by Bezmozgu
Just to make sure I understand resolving the Buccaneer
correctly: your
would need to play a minimum of 2
to defeat the Corsair's 1
and 1
, and your
would need 1
to avoid paying a
or sustaining 1
from the Corsair's attack. Is this correct?
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:40 am
by Horizon Jeff
Bezmozgu wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:20 am
Just to make sure I understand resolving the Buccaneer
correctly: your
would need to play a minimum of 2
to defeat the Corsair's 1
and 1
, and your
would need 1
to avoid paying a
or sustaining 1
from the Corsair's attack. Is this correct?
Correct.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:21 pm
by GodricTheWell
Hieroglyphics! These posts make me wonder if the Egyptians weren't just gaming on the interior walls of the pyramids.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:15 pm
by Frewfrux
If you have to have 1
to prevent damage, does that mean that combat is simultaneous? Otherwise all you would need would be 2
to make sure you killed the ship before it had a chance to fire back. I was playing that all you needed was 2
. 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
so that a key piece was not available when the defending ship returned fire.
I think I was playing that wrong.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:19 am
by Baron_Gerry_Rail
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
on a defender less important, you're NOT going to prevent it from firing, even if you destroy it.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:08 am
by Frewfrux
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.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:08 am
by Horizon Ian
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.
Re: Initative of Corsair
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:22 am
by Frewfrux
So, I was both right and wrong.
Thanks for the clarification.