Pak questions

[prelude_to_war]

Just looking for confirmation as we begin a new campaign...

The Simple Trader rule states, 'in a campaign game, no one may attack a Strategic Target that has been claimed by a pak'ma'ra fleet in the same or previous turn, unless the pak defeated them in the previous turn...'

So for turn 1 of a campaign, does this mean the pak player will win targets regardless of initiative?

Or does it mean that since you have a meeting engagement at a given location you have not claimed that system yet. So not on turn 1, but for subsequent turns...?

 

[LaranosTZ]

Actually Jay, the save on Pak ships is a 6+ for crew loss and damage loss. If you use the 'Close all blast doors' special action, that 6+ save becomes a 5+ save, there is no way to reduce that further, though.

 

[MustEatBrains]

Actually Jay, the save on Pak ships is a 6+ for crew loss and damage loss. If you use the 'Close all blast doors' special action, that 6+ save becomes a 5+ save, there is no way to reduce that further, though.

Oh, you´re right, just looked it up

 

[Greg Smith]

So for turn 1 of a campaign, does this mean the pak player will win targets regardless of initiative?

I think so. No-one expects the pak to be laying claim to worlds. Also it isn't an overpowering ability because of the pak's low initiative.

 

[MustEatBrains]

I think so. No-one expects the pak to be laying claim to worlds. Also it isn't an overpowering ability because of the pak's low initiative.

Exactly - normally they should get the last pick of the more interesting targets, so they might as well keep it.

 

[Ripple]

Yeah, we're playing a varaint of the campaign with an actual map you move around on so you can hit more than one site per turn. This rule is a bit too strong in those context...but normally I would say yeah, once you own it...you keep it for at least one turn.

Ripple

 

[prelude_to_war]

Hm, yeah I can see how that would be overpowered. I wonder if there's a fair compromise?

 

[tneva82]

Hm, yeah I can see how that would be overpowered. I wonder if there's a fair compromise?

Limit it to affect only 1 strategic target per campaign turn regardless of how many targets they take?

 

[Na-Po]

Well right now I'm playing pak in a campaign and i don't realy find it
overpowered.
The worlds I own are very "low" in RR and i own a comet whereas all the others have one jumpgate. I won no world this turn so any of my world can be targeted next turn even if they are "small" ones.
My best protection is not the rule it is the fact I do not own the most interesting worlds

 

[prelude_to_war]

Hm, yeah I can see how that would be overpowered. I wonder if there's a fair compromise?

Limit it to affect only 1 strategic target per campaign turn regardless of how many targets they take?

For our map based campaign - where one can take multiple targets in the same turn, the Simple Trader rule would protect 1 target I've taken over this turn, and protect it the following turn (since the original rule states the same or previous turn)?

If I took another territory on turn 2, I'd have two protected territories, but it would max out there?

 

[Ripple]

I think so...as a territory is only protected for the turn it is taken (with or without a fight) and the turn following. If limited to one site per turn that would in effect limit you to a max of two sites protected at any one time. Basically an unoccupied one you went to this turn and another you took in any way from the previous turn.

That's the other reason on the map campaign that things are a bit different from the standard challenge list. Folks cannot always defend as their forces may be literally elsewhere. In a standard campaign they can always assign ships from the fleet list to defend against the Pak attack. On a map they would have to move back through normal means.

Ripple