Initative of Corsair

[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!

[Horizon Jeff]

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

[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?

[Horizon Jeff]

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.

[GodricTheWell]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Frewfrux]

So, I was both right and wrong.

Thanks for the clarification.