Seems that authors didn't want to leave space for ramming, so they probably decided to exclude collisions between the enemies.
Printable View
Seems that authors didn't want to leave space for ramming, so they probably decided to exclude collisions between the enemies.
In the conversations I have had, it seems like many people are dropping the damage from collisions with friendlies. The amount of damage done is just too harsh. I have seen two 3rd rates severely damaged by a single collision that really took away from the game.
The most common house rule for collisions I have seen is:
1. Both ships drop to Backing Sails to represent speed loss
2. No damage in a collision unless at Full Sail (in which case take 1 "C" damage token)
3. Check for entanglement as normal
Original discussion here: http://www.sailsofglory.org/showthre...mage-too-Harsh
After two "firts" games without collisions, I think it's a good educational effect to reward friendly collisions with a penalty.
Maybe A damage instead of B damage.
In my second game I had a situation were my opponent blocked my SoL between his frigate and SoL because he caused a collision betweeen his ships with his maneuvering.
I know it was no purpose, but I want to avoid situations were gamers use collisions the wrong way. (...like it's possible in the X-Wing game :hmmm:)
Here was a new one on me. Two ships plotted moves that would end with them overlapping. Per the rules, the heavier ship moved first, and slid along about 80% of its movement until it hit the smaller ship. Now the smaller ship not only *could* complete its move, but ended up about 1/8 inch away from the larger ship. So technically it was a "collision," but it didn't really make sense to see if ships that weren't even touching were entangled. I guess the big ship swerved out of the way to make room for the smaller ship?
Yeah, they *would* have overlapped if each had done it's movement. But after the first one moved as far as it could, the other could end its movement without overlapping and without even touching.
It seems like every time there's a "collision" it works out differently, with seemingly arbitrary and sometimes odd results.
Could you post a picture resembling the situation with both ships before their movement? And with the movement cards they are going to use.
Seems impossible that the second ship didnt touch the first ship when it moved, since the first ship had to stop its movement when it was touching the second ship?
It seems like this was a situation where the heaviest ship (with the highest burden) was stopped by a lighter ship and the lighter ship could move normally?
Seems like a odd situation?
I have a situation like you mentioned above in mind but dont know If its the same situation as you had...
This issue and question has come up for me in some of the solo games I've played, but tonight I took pictures in hopes of getting a better handle and/or opinions on resolving this type of collision.
Ship A (right side and top, USS Philadelphia) has the larger burden and would move first.
Ship B (Royal Fortune) is going to be taken aback, but because Ship A moves first it collides with Ship B before it can execute the first taken aback maneuver.
(overlap occurs even if both move)
Attachment 11415
On the next turn Ship B is still taken aback, but because it did not put down a maneuver card for part 1 of a taken aback maneuver, would it try to use part 1 again, or move to part 2?
Attachment 11416
Regardless if a part 1 or part 2 taken aback maneuver card is placed there's going to be another collision, seemingly the ships stay locked in this position until one or both plays a card the moves them apart? What I decided to do was move both ships incrementally until the next collision took place. In effect the Philadelphia pushes back the Royal Fortune for the next turn. Does this seem appropriate?
Attachment 11417
As an added note. The Philadelphia is AI run and does not plan out 2 maneuver cards. I was playing the Royal Fortune and using 2 card planning, so I have to plan a regular maneuver card that I hope will execute as a taken aback card that will move me away from further collisions. Ironically, although it's hard to see, the last movement lets the Royal Fortune take a shot on the Philadelphia, which has no reciprocal shot at all, outside of musketry.
You should move to "Part 2." The determination to use the two sandglasses maneuver on the taken aback card is based on the number of consecutive turns taken aback (in this case 2 or more), and has nothing to do with whether or not you were actually able to execute the one sandglass maneuver ("Part 1") in the previous turn.
They are not "locked" per se, but it may take some time for them to clear. In turn 2, Ship A will not move (since the maneuvers of both ships would result in overlap again, it moves first, and it is already touching Ship B) and Ship B will then move second and slide back with the taken aback card. In turn 3, depending on maneuvers selected, Ship A will move up and collide with Ship B again and then ship B will move back a little more. Eventually they would clear, depending on how the maneuvers work out.
You can also take the common sense approach here and rather than having ship A draw randomly, let them continue making the sharpest starboard turn possible to get the bow rake, which is likely what a real player would do and then once clear go back to random movement.
Hmm, were you using Entanglement and Boarding rules.....?
Following a collision, assuming no entanglement, I play a house rule that both ships start next turn at backing sails, which in your case may allow Philadelphia to turn in front of Royal Fortune, especially if Royal Fortune plays a turning card while taken aback on turn 2+. When I referee I also play a house rule so that ships are not locked into multiple turns of "collisions" and let them pass through the next turn, within reason of course.
I agree that you would use the 2-hourglass part of the card. And in that case, it seems like a collision could be avoided, given that Royal Fortune would be moving backwards pretty substantially and assuming Philadelphia is still playing a sharp turn as shown in the photo (?)
It seems like in most or all cases, if two "live" ships are in contact and both commanders want to break contact, it should be possible. But I know I had a jam up where two ships had collided with a surrendered prize, and since the prize couldn't move, it was literally impossible for any of them to break free from the collision...
These close-quarters situations can feel VERY arbitrary, with minor differences in positioning or facing making a huge difference in the combat potentials. But I think maybe it's realistic, it does seem like actual battles often turned on a small twist of fate allowing one ship a slight positional edge, which it then used to pummel the other with impunity
Thanks all, for the feedback. Your unanimous position on using the 2nd hourglass makes sense and it's how I will proceed in future if this comes up again.
I wasn't using entanglement or boarding rules.
If I go with Rob's call on the actual movement Ship A moves first, but cannot move as it is already base to base with Ship B. Then Ship B would move using phase 2 of the #5 taken aback maneuver. That's not how I did it, but if I had it would have put the distance of the #5 taken aback card between the Philadelphia and the Royal Fortune. I can see the logic in this.
On the other hand I can see why Eric has a House Rule that addresses these situations. Rules, House Rules and common sense should allow me to handle this in future.
Thanks again!