Printable View
We just had an instance where the French are taken aback for the second turn using a veer of 5 on the (original)planned maneuver. Does the ship really turn around 180 degrees? Or did I miss something in the rules. My understanding of the maneuver planning in standard/advanced rules is that you select from the blue maneuvers and substitute from the taken aback maneuvers if you find yourself in that situation due to wind direction change.
Attachment 8702
:question:
"Rear of the ship." whoops! Figured it out.
They're going to need to reprint that card as it is wrong. It's supposed to look like this:
Attachment 8735
What's wrong with the card? You do realize that I'm using a B maneuver deck and the page in the rulebook is showing an A maneuver deck card? My card is oriented to the second hour glass if that's what you mean.
I think the image of the #6 red card in the OP might be causing a bit of confusion.
So were you originally picking up the ship, turning it 180 degrees, and then placing it down, like an Immelmann for ships?
You mean the 5 veer taken aback card? I answered my own question in the 2nd post. We initially missed the part in the rules that said to place it at the stern slot of the base for 2nd hourglass, taken aback maneuvers.
I'm starting to think people only read the bottom post of a thread. :happy:
I wasn't completely sure, at first, because I thought you played a #6+ followed by a #5, and that the combo turned you around, which didn't make sense (the picture in the OP).
the "aback" mechanics do seem to generate a disproportionate percentage of the rules questions and problems...
Being a landguy, I don't know much about sailing. But I guess that 180 degree turn represents bad wind, spinning the ship arround. Now, I don't know is it possible at all, specially with big ships...
Imagine if they'd been able to go whole-hog with the naval lingo -- there's maybe four people on this forum who'd actually be able to play the game.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by fredmiracle
The card he shows says to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7eat51
The whole rule book does not mention Port or Starboard even once :shock:Quote:
Originally Posted by csadn
I just can't fathom that :takecover:
How so? It's a little hard to make out in the photo, but the first Hourglass arrow is pointing towards the middle of the card. When played in front of your ship, that will move your ship forward a small distance. The second Hourglass arrow is pointing towards the bottom of the card (in the photo, or towards the two Hourglass icon). When played out the back of the ships, that card will move the ship straight backwards a little ways, with the ship facing the exact same direction as it started... no turn involved at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Blozinski
Remember, number 1 out the front, number 2 out the rear ;)
I believe at this time period, it would have been Larboard and Starboard... even more confusing to non ship types like my self. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Avi
I don't think the Royal Navy started using port until the mid 1800s or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Royal Hajj
From Wikipedia:
An early version of "port" is larboard, which itself derives from Middle-English ladebord via corruption in the 16th century by association with starboard. The origin of lade has not been determined but some would connect it with the verb lade (to load), referring to the side on which cargo was loaded. The term larboard, when shouted in the wind, was presumably too easy to confuse with starboard and so the word port came to replace it. Port is derived from the practice of sailors mooring ships on the left side at ports in order to prevent the steering oar from being crushed.
Larboard continued to be used well into the 1850s by whalers, despite being long superseded by "port" in the merchant vessel service at the time. "Port" was not officially adopted by the Royal Navy until 1844 (Ray Parkin, H. M. Bark Endeavour). Robert FitzRoy, captain of Darwin's HMS Beagle, is said to have taught his crew to use the term port instead of larboard, thus propelling the use of the word into the Naval Services vocabulary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_and_starboard
So I guess it was an evolutionary change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coog
:rum:
It could make problem even to native speakers which is left, and which is right. It took me some time to learn, an I used method: "port" and "left" have the same number of letters. And I even red somewhere (maybe even here, at Anchorage) that terms used at Napoleonic time were "larboard" and "starboard", and that "port" comes into the use later, in mid XIX century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi
Serbian (and Croatian, too) simply use same words for "left" and "right" and for ship sides, respectively. What's the case in Hebrew? Do you have different words for that, or the same?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzHfPN2SC1IQuote:
Originally Posted by The Royal Hajj
In the Israeli Navy its officially Green and Red, but in practice every one uses Right and Left (looking at the bow of course)Quote:
Originally Posted by Пилот
Thanks!
I just figured it out. He has the card upside down.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Royal Hajj
Even if the #6 card is played back-to-back, it wouldn't result in a 180 degree turn. It will swing around quite a bit, though.
I just compared the #6 card for an SoL and a frigate - same degree of turn but different arrow length. For some reason, I thought the angle on the smaller ship would have been more than the larger one, swinging it around to a greater degree.
It will be fun learning how to use these effectively.
On Sunday's game my son was heading for the edge of the map and we were worried the French SoL couldn't turn fast enough (he would have had to reverse his turn and veer was a factor). We tried seeing if he could do better turning into the wind and the Taken Aback not only prevented him from going off the board but also positioned him to bring his port guns (not yet used) to bear because it turned him faster.
I would not suggest Taken Aback as normal tactic but I can see where it can have useful situations for sure.
:rum:
Nice move! sounds like something Jack Aubrey would do...Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf03809
Aubrey: Pullings, sheet the bowlines, trim the stun'sails and bring her up into the wind
Pullings: but Captain... (light dawns) Yes sir!
Killick: (eavesdropping) Cap'ns gone to give them Frenchies a right turn this time, he he.
Aubrey: (to Maturin) It'll be a dam close thing, Stephen, but by thunder we might just pull it off!
Maturin: eh? is the ship turning?
During USS Constitution's fight against HMS Cyane and HMS Levant, Constitution's Captain, Charles Stewart, backed into Cyane's path after the opening exchange of fire. Cyane's Captain, Gordon Thomas Falcon, was able to maneuver to avoid being raked but still found himself being pummeled by Constitution.
Attachment 8760
"Bootlegger Reverse, Mr. Sulu!" ;)
Great story and serendipitous move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf03809
Watching Tim (crashx) use Taken Aback at Rockcon to position his ship for firing really sparked my interest in this as a tactical maneuver. I think the name of the maneuver lends itself a bad rap, as something always negative. There are times it can be used to advantage, though.
Remember: The phrase "taken aback" can also mean "to be extremely surprised by the unexpected". >:)Quote:
Originally Posted by 7eat51
Using TA card as maneuver is good idea. If one could use it right.
That is, actually, helpful as a reminder. When teaching the game, we can tell players that, when played wisely, utilizing the red cards can cause your OPPONENT to be taken aback. Thanks, Chris.Quote:
Originally Posted by csadn
I agree with you the name is misleading. In sailing "taken aback" is used when you inadvertently come up into the wind and the wind comes on to the wrong side of the sails for the tack that you are on. This can happen with a wind shift, etc. So technically the name is correct but in the game it is also used when you voluntarily tack across the wind - you actually brace the heads'ls and foreyards to be deliberately taken aback to help push the bow over on to the new tack. (I've done this with the jib on catamarans which are notoriously slow to tack.) So yes it absolutely is a viable tactic especially as noted in frigate actions where there can be a lot of maneuvering. It doesn't help that the card is the "Red" card intimating a penalty, etc.!Quote:
Originally Posted by 7eat51
"All warfare is based on deception."
- Sun Tzu
:rum: