|
Hello everyone. Sorry for the grammar, all this it´s made by google translator
In the last session I had as a GM, my players and I had a little disagreement regarding a point in the rules of the movement of spaceships.
I see it very clearly, with respect to the turns that a spaceship can make with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) a ship can move a hexagon and make up to two 60º turns, or what is the same, turn up to two verticals of a hex to its starboard or port sides.
Now we have the pilot action of *Maneuver*: Improve the distance between turns by 1 (to a minimum of 0).
The discussion comes from the fact that as I see it, a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) cannot improve more... that is, the pilot action *Maneuver* would not benefit a ship that already has perfect maneuverability. Since you already have the maximum distance between turns of 0.
As they see it, by saying that it improves the distance between turns...a ship with perfect maneuverability (distance between turns of 0) could benefit since the distance between turns they see it as that hex that the ship needs to move before turn...therefore it could turn twice and then move.
What do you think?
PS- I may be very intransigent... but I think my way of seeing it is correct.
|
You are both right! Sort of :D
1. You are correct that Perfect Maneuverability is as good as it gets. There's no reason to do the Maneuver pilot action if you're already at Perfect Maneuverability.
2. Your players are correct in that Perfect Maneuverability lets you turn twice in one hex. It's discussed in the "Turns" section on starship movement: "If a starship has perfect maneuverability (the distance between turns is 0), the ship can make two turns for each hex that it moves (allowing it to turn around a single point)."
|
|
The thing is, from their point of view, the *Maneuver* action with a ship with perfect maneuverability (turn distance 0) allows two turns BEFORE moving a hex. That is the point where the conflict arises.
Clarification: This happens in the first combat round. Where the ships have not yet moved a single hex or on the first move of any combat round when they have not moved any hexes yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, and suspect by intent perfect is supposed to be as good as it gets. The 0 turn distance means you get to turn twice per 1 hex moved, as this is explicitly defined. This clarifies the intent pretty clearly, and the word choice of Perfect implies there isn't any way to make it any better as well. So I think the Intent is, the Maneuver action wouldn't do anything for you. Choose a different action.
On the other hand, it isn't unreasonable to consider a rule-0 option, if it makes the game more fun, to allow an improvement. And being able to do one turn before and one after the movement seems like a viable option if you wanted to allow for it. I honestly would have probably instead had a different thought, allowing 3 facing changes instead of 2 for the improvement (effectively allowing them to turn around on a dime, within a single hex, instead of turning around a single hex).
So rule-wise, I don't think you do improve. If giving them an option to make better-than-perfect maneuverability makes the game more fun, you may have an reasonable option if you all agree on it. But it would be good for them to understand it would be seen as a house-rule, so shouldn't expect to see others doing likewise.