Hull damage, crew casualties and crew actions

[Angiolillo]

I agree with "The illustration could show no hull damage, four crew damage, and the number of Crew Actions would be 3." But on the page 8 the hand is called a CREW action, not a Burden action. It's the crew not the ship that does repairs. So how can ship damage change the number of the crew.

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.

If you look at the pictures on page 31 you will see that the hands are not covered when hull damage is taken, not shared .

True but this is due to some randomness in putting the chits in the boxes. In the example at page 29, the one relevant for action number, the hand and number is half covered by hull damage. Please imagine the whole box covered by the chit. This is the general intention.

[Gunner]

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.


True but this is due to some randomness in putting the chits in the boxes. In the example at page 29, the one relevant for action number, the hand and number is half covered by hull damage. Please imagine the whole box covered by the chit. This is the general intention.

I never thought about the difficulties of performing duties on a nearly wrecked ship, and will correct my incorrect way of applying crew actions.

Thanks for a clear explanation Angiolillo.

[Andy Blozinski]

In the abstraction of the game, this reflects the crew moving more slowly among fallen debris and such. And operating a partially crippled ship, with more effort and less efficiency. Some crew would also be drained to urgent duties. Overall, this means that the number of actions available decreases on a damaged ship.

I understand the way you intend the rules work, but it's obvious something needs to be clearer in the presentation.

On a different note: I do not agree with the logic that the crew is drained to urgent duties or is less efficient. Here are two reasons why:
1) The musketry rating ignores hull damage and only goes off crew damage. The logic for any explanation of the hull damage affecting the crew falls apart if they can freely abandon all those explanations for musketry. It has to either apply to both or neither..or it just doesn't make sense.
2) "Urgent duties". What could be more urgent than a fire damage marker or a leak marker? Whatever non-descript nebulous damage the crew would have been tending to would be dropped in a heartbeat to put out a raging fire. If they can drop that "urgent duty" to fire a musket, they can drop it to put out a raging fire.

[Gunner]

I understand the way you intend the rules work, but it's obvious something needs to be clearer in the presentation.

On a different note: I do not agree with the logic that the crew is drained to urgent duties or is less efficient. Here are two reasons why:
1) The musketry rating ignores hull damage and only goes off crew damage. The logic for any explanation of the hull damage affecting the crew falls apart if they can freely abandon all those explanations for musketry. It has to either apply to both or neither..or it just doesn't make sense.
2) "Urgent duties". What could be more urgent than a fire damage marker or a leak marker? Whatever non-descript nebulous damage the crew would have been tending to would be dropped in a heartbeat to put out a raging fire. If they can drop that "urgent duty" to fire a musket, they can drop it to put out a raging fire.

I agree with what you say Andy but, I backed down because the rules and reasons have been stated by Ares, and rules are rules and we do need a common base.
But I'm sure groups will have their own house rules.

[Andy Blozinski]

I agree with what you say Andy but, I backed down because the rules and reasons have been stated by Ares, and rules are rules and we do need a common base.
But I'm sure groups will have their own house rules.

The point system is going to be fluid (per statement from Ares) and likely to change as an electronic document. The rules, being widely distributed electronically, can be equally as fluid. I'm just trying to get the point out now in case they make any changes. There is room for improvement.
I'll likely be house ruling this.