Abilities and Special Situations
I'd like to clarify the "strange" build, and the current rules allowing for a "domino" effect.
- We could simply say that you can only build with a Green that has some free bordering fields; you get as many build actions as pips. However, what do you do when you run out of spaces? Somehow that doesn't seem nice to be stopped dead in your tracks. Solution: Since you have Build actions left, you must be able to Build, but where? Well, intuitively where you could already build, next to another Green. But you would normally not be able to build more than 1 ship next to Small Green or more than 2 ships next to a Medium Green. So, I wanted to limit the number of builds you can do by the size of the action piece that Builds. When you run out of space to Build, you must be able to Build a new Green (if available from the Bank), after which your turn ends. On the other hand, if you start selecting a Green that has all bordering fields occupied, you shouldn't be able to Build 3 pips just because you have a Large. So, you must be able to Build with the next Green as if it is your first. Should it be limited to the original 3? I don't think so. Here's why: all colors have an ability that can be extended to other pieces, as follows: If you move a Yellow, you can then assign left-over action pips to ships that are NOW bordering to it; when you conquer a Red ship, it immediately is part of your Fleet; you can trade and upgrade OR upgrade and trade. Cuc (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (PST)
Proposed Rule Changes
Any proposed rule changes can also be implemented as a variant. Preferably, the rules stay as they are, but clarifications could be needed.
- In the case of Green, you shouldn't be able to build more ships than the pip-size of your original ship. Question: but if your number of Build actions becomes smaller, e.g., when you choose your second Build from a Small, should we then still allow 3 builds, regardless of the piece chosen to continue to build with?
- BC: I like the original idea that the Build action is reset. Yes, it will give an advantage, but only IF you have the skill to pull it off.
- In case of Blue, your trading ship MUST retain its Blue color; when it changes color, your left-over Trade actions are forfeited. Reason: allowing the trading ship to trade color before the last action, would render it too powerful. Current rules would allow the B3 to trade for any color, but also trade a surrounding ship for the B3 just returned AND trade another ship for that Large just returned, depending on the state of the Bank. We considered whether it is desirable that if the B3 is traded, then during this turn it should stay in the Bank. How can we justify that you can trade a Red ship twice (once for another color, and another ship for Red), effectively moving it from one field to another (both surrounding the "Trade" field)?
- BC: I am not in favor of this rule change. If you trade with a B3, you can trade this piece first or last, it is up to you. All you need to know is the number of Trade pips with which you can affect this piece or another neighboring piece. Technically speaking, if the B3 changes, it is no longer the "action piece" you started with, but it is understood that we are talking about the Trade ability to any piece on its field or on surrounding fields. This may require a reformulation of the rule only, that addresses this technical issue.Cuc (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (PST)
- In the case of Yellow. The rule is a bit cumbersome. You don't need to make a partition in advance, although that is what you are going to do anyway. Perhaps the rule can be simplified. As in: You can use 1-3 Yellow pips up to 3 times, and each time up to the number of unused Yellow pips, to move the action piece, or any of the bordering pieces where it is now. That addition ("where it is now") is important, otherwise you could assign the pips to a piece that was bordering to the Yellow action piece before it moved. But that's not desired.
- BC: I agree with this assessment. I am in favor of a simplification of the rule if possible. Is the proposed alternative really simpler?