iancanton wrote:in the losing condition legend, does commander's ship mean exactly the same as command ship in the bonus legend?
is there a need to have them called by two different terms in different parts of the legend?
my question to you...does it matter? Surely players can ascertain that the Commander's ship and Command ship can be one in the same thing.
Trying to get all the grammer/vocab to be absolutely perfect is not my intention, but rather so that it is understandable.
You wouldn't happen to be a virgo by any chance ian?
cairnswk wrote:since a commander's ship consists of both bow and stern, it is necessary to hold both.
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Ship (B & S) will be eliminated
at the start, each player holds only B or S of any ship, not both. in a 1v1 game, let's suppose that player 1 starts with rainbow S
. if he stacks rainbow S
and attacks rainbow B
but fails to conquer it, then he satisfies the losing condition at the end of his turn, therefore player 2 wins the game without playing a turn. is this what u intended? [/quote]
no, he is in no better position than he was at the start of his turn.
in a 1v1 game, how many "player slots" will each player hold? my cals tell me /3 they will hold 4 each since there are 12 player slots, and..
even if we only have 8 player slots (as per game engine), they still have 2 each. This includes the other "shielded ships" which to my reckoning are non-treasury and non-commander ships...
So since holding one of these is a condition of remaining in the game, would not a player be very stupid if he did not try on his first turn to fortify that "remaining in the game" position by taking one of the "unshielded ships" adjacant to his start position.
And remember, the losing condition contains an "and" function not an "or" function.
just so that i understand the assaults from the treasury: a T region can assault the same player's cs, ss or lb,
yes...but let's use commander's (sorry for the ambigiuty of using player)...so a T region can assault the same Commander's cs, ss or lb...
...in other words a T region that green occupies can assault any cs, but only if green already occupies B or S of that cs;
...well, let's get away from green and go to commanders names...(i'll change that)
if you occupy sir Martin Frobishers CS or LB, you can fort to them from SMF's M or T positions.
If your opponent occupies SMF's CS or LB, you would want to assault those posistions from SMF's M or T positions.
however, a green T region can never assault an ss or lb, though he can fort to any ss or lb that is already green. am i right?
yes. SMF's M/T region can fort to his own cs, or lb...and the same for the Spanish.
1. at the start of the game, you can fort to any CS or LB from M of the same commmander
2. at the start of the game, you cannot conquer another Commander's (or players) M position or their CS positions to eliminate them.
3. if at some stage during the game your opponent conquers one of your CS positions, and then conquers your M position, your opponent can also assault your other CS position and LB from your previously held M position. your opponent can then conquer your other T positions.
4. In order for you to get back your M position, you must conquer a S or B position of your opponent's Commander ship.
we have another duplicate: san lorenzo
cs and san lorenzo
next to san cristobal
and la concepción
are missing the ó
will fix. san lorenzo
cs...stet. san lorenzo
next to san cristobal
...changed to Santo Andres