Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
10 Posts

Here I Stand» Forums » Rules

Subject: Minor Power Naval Units rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mindy G
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Mold the chaos into something beautiful
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What happens to the naval units after a minor key is taken over by a Major by force and no one intervened?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris K.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oriecat wrote:
What happens to the naval units after a minor key is taken over by a Major by force and no one intervened?


If they were in the key that was successfully sieged and assaulted, then they are destroyed, placed on the turn order track and are available from next turn to be built by whoever is allied with that power in the future (usual restrictions as to where to build them apply).


If they were in some other port (can happen occasionally) then they stay where they are.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mindy G
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Mold the chaos into something beautiful
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thank you. In the case of Genoa then, would Andrea Dorea be taken prisoner and could be ransomed later if someone allied with Genoa?

Once a minor key has been taken, why would someone choose to ally with them later and are there restrictions on doing so? This is something that hasn't come up a lot for us, so I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. One thing I can think of is the City State Rebels card since that would move the key to the Major Ally if successful.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mindy G
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Mold the chaos into something beautiful
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Just thought of this... if a Major is at war with a Minor, and then another Major allies with that Minor, would those Majors be immediately at war? So is that a cheap way to declare war mid-turn?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oriecat wrote:
Thank you. In the case of Genoa then, would Andrea Dorea be taken prisoner and could be ransomed later if someone allied with Genoa?


Naval leaders are never taken prisoner. They are placed on the turn track. In the rare instance that there are no Genoese ports to place him in in the next Turn, he would just sit out on the Turn track until someone mercifully liberates a Genoese port.

Quote:
Once a minor key has been taken, why would someone choose to ally with them later and are there restrictions on doing so?


In general, they don't. I've never seen anyone do that.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oriecat wrote:
Just thought of this... if a Major is at war with a Minor, and then another Major allies with that Minor, would those Majors be immediately at war? So is that a cheap way to declare war mid-turn?


That's covered in 22.2: The Major Power at war with that Minor can declare war on the other Major Power now allied with the Minor for free.

Yes, it's cheaper, but you have to rely on the cooperation of the other Major Power to ally with the Minor so that you can DoW for free -- not something that's totally within your control.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Delp
United States
Franklin
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oriecat wrote:

Once a minor key has been taken, why would someone choose to ally with them later...One thing I can think of is the City State Rebels card since that would move the key to the Major Ally if successful.


You just answered your own question. Love love love that card.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris K.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
delp1871 wrote:
oriecat wrote:

Once a minor key has been taken, why would someone choose to ally with them later...One thing I can think of is the City State Rebels card since that would move the key to the Major Ally if successful.


You just answered your own question. Love love love that card.


One two or three other, allthough rather questionable scenarios:
- You are French and have committed too many of your ships to the front with England and now want access to the Genoan or Venetian Fleets and Leader for battles in the Med.
For Venice: You want to be able to build some extra fleets or want their fortresses to help protect you against piracy or want to get the troops they have sitting out there.

But without the key attached to the deal it is a somewhat questionable move, considering the CP values of the cards.
On the other hand, with the keys not being attached to them anymore it is a lot less likely that someone will play a card to break the alliance, too.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin B.
Germany
Kiel
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I see the rule for naval units getting eliminated (= send to turn track) after a successfull assault on the fortified space, they are at. (Step 10 of Assault procedure)

What I don´t get is the reason for this rule, since it differs from what happens to naval units in an unfortified port space, that gets taken over by Control Unfortified Space action. In section 12.2 Unfortified Spaces it is specified, that:
Quote:
"If this space is a port that contains naval units, those naval units must immediately retreat to a sea zone adjacent to that port following the instructions found in Step 9 of the Naval Combat Procedure."


Step 9 of the Naval Combat Procedure reads:
Quote:
9. One Power Retreats: If the combat occurred in a port, the attacker retreats to a sea zone connected to that port that is free of enemy naval units. (NOTE: The attacker retreats regardless of whether or not he won the battle.) If the combat occurred in a sea zone, the loser retreats to an adjacent port under its control (free of enemy naval units) or an adjacent sea zone (also free of enemy naval units). If no such location exists, the naval units are eliminated."


Even though none of the literal rules of Step 9 fits, I would read, that the naval units in an unfortified spaces, that gets taken over by an enemy, retreat to an adjacent sea zone free of enemy naval units.

So why do naval units not have the opportunity to retreat when a fortified space is taken over by an assault?
OK, a assault a fortified space with naval units in it the attacker needs more naval units in adjacent sea zone(s), so naval units in single ports will never be able to retreat since there MUST be enemy naval units in the only adjacent sea zone. But what about double ports? As far as I understand the 4th bullet of the requirement for an assault, the attacker needs more naval units outside of the assaulted fortified space then there are inside, but it is not specified that they need to be in both sea zones. If I am wrong with that, the original question is obsolete.

So two questions remain:
1. Am I correct with the interpretation of the assault requirement?
2. If I am, does anyone know, why there is this difference in the rules?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris K.
Germany
Berlin
Berlin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mgep wrote:
I see the rule for naval units getting eliminated (= send to turn track) after a successfull assault on the fortified space, they are at. (Step 10 of Assault procedure)

What I don´t get is the reason for this rule, since it differs from what happens to naval units in an unfortified port space, that gets taken over by Control Unfortified Space action. In section 12.2 Unfortified Spaces it is specified, that:
Quote:
"If this space is a port that contains naval units, those naval units must immediately retreat to a sea zone adjacent to that port following the instructions found in Step 9 of the Naval Combat Procedure."


Step 9 of the Naval Combat Procedure reads:
Quote:
9. One Power Retreats: If the combat occurred in a port, the attacker retreats to a sea zone connected to that port that is free of enemy naval units. (NOTE: The attacker retreats regardless of whether or not he won the battle.) If the combat occurred in a sea zone, the loser retreats to an adjacent port under its control (free of enemy naval units) or an adjacent sea zone (also free of enemy naval units). If no such location exists, the naval units are eliminated."


Even though none of the literal rules of Step 9 fits, I would read, that the naval units in an unfortified spaces, that gets taken over by an enemy, retreat to an adjacent sea zone free of enemy naval units.

So why do naval units not have the opportunity to retreat when a fortified space is taken over by an assault?
OK, a assault a fortified space with naval units in it the attacker needs more naval units in adjacent sea zone(s), so naval units in single ports will never be able to retreat since there MUST be enemy naval units in the only adjacent sea zone. But what about double ports? As far as I understand the 4th bullet of the requirement for an assault, the attacker needs more naval units outside of the assaulted fortified space then there are inside, but it is not specified that they need to be in both sea zones. If I am wrong with that, the original question is obsolete.

So two questions remain:
1. Am I correct with the interpretation of the assault requirement?
2. If I am, does anyone know, why there is this difference in the rules?


The "more Naval Units outside" rule is basically simulating a naval blockade of the harbor. Even though the abstraction of the board game allows for it to look like there is a way to flee via the other sea zone, this is the "simulated" naval blockade prevents the ships from fleeing.

PS: You are right about the interpretation. But don't forget that even a single fleet in that other sea zone will also prevent the assault, no matter how many fleets the attacker has around.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.