The captain

[PRODIGEE 0]

*The Captain

 Dreamlands Navigator

Independent. Dreamer. 3 CCAI

Heroic. Willpower.

Action: If it is Day, pay 2 to choose a story. Until the end of the phase, count The Captain's icons and skill towards that story without committing him to that story.
 

I'm surprised nobody asked about the way to use the effect of the captain:

What happens when you don't commit a character to a story it's icons are coounted in ? Shall the defender commit ...??

I'd say no, as the rules stated that you need to have one of the attacking characters commited in a story in a way to allow defender to commit his characters.

[Darknight4 0]

ah but the rules also say card text superseeds rules text, i think he can add the icons without a character being there at all

[Dadajef 0]

 

I Think I will play the captain with the same rules for Trent Dixon (cf faq) :

1) The Captain's Action causes the chosen story to resolve, even if there is no physical attackers.
2) This story can be opposed.
3) The captain can't become insane or be killed from lost struggles because he is not committed in the story

What do you think about that ?
 

[PearlJamaholic 0]

Dadajef said:

 

I Think I will play the captain with the same rules for Trent Dixon (cf faq) :

1) The Captain's Action causes the chosen story to resolve, even if there is no physical attackers.
2) This story can be opposed.
3) The captain can't become insane or be killed from lost struggles because he is not committed in the story

What do you think about that ?
 

 

yep trent was exactly what i thought when i saw this card.

[remm2 0]

The Captain is not committing to the story, so there's no way the defender can commit characters to it. It's like the military bike. I'm with Prodigee on this one.

Note: just noticed a mistake in the French edition, as it is not marked as unique.

Note 2: I think I should stop buying the French editions, they have tons of mistakes ...

[Dadajef 0]

PearlJamaholic said:

Dadajef said:

 

 

I Think I will play the captain with the same rules for Trent Dixon (cf faq) :

1) The Captain's Action causes the chosen story to resolve, even if there is no physical attackers.
2) This story can be opposed.
3) The captain can't become insane or be killed from lost struggles because he is not committed in the story

What do you think about that ?
 

 

 

 

yep trent was exactly what i thought when i saw this card.

The difference is the captain has an Action, it's not a permanent effect. So  you can trigger its effect after defensers have been committed and so be alone in the story with no opposition ...

So the rules for Trent are not very useful. 

 

[EchPiEl 20]

But the rules also state that stories without characters commited do not resolve, so the story you used The Captain's ability on wouldn't resolve in that case.

[Amante 0]

My interpretation would be that his ability creates a "ghost" at the story (much like Trent's). Your opponent can defend against the ghost, but icon struggle resolution at the ghost's story can't make your character take a wound, go insane, etc.

Assuming that you use it before the opponent has had a chance to declare defenders, that is. The obvious advantage with the Captain is that you can wait until defenders have been declared and then use his ability, and there's not really much the opponent can do.

Hmm, that's powerful.

[Muzar 0]

EchPiEl is spot-on.  The rules state on Page 9:  "... each story card (that contains committed characters) must be resolved."

The corollary is that story cards without committed characters don't get resolved.  So if the Captain uses his Action on a story but nobody on the attacking side commits to it, then that's a complete waste of his Action.

[B_P 0]

We just have to attack one story with a low cost caracter.

[thehuntercat 0]

Muzar_Nulus said:

EchPiEl is spot-on.  The rules state on Page 9:  "... each story card (that contains committed characters) must be resolved."

The corollary is that story cards without committed characters don't get resolved.  So if the Captain uses his Action on a story but nobody on the attacking side commits to it, then that's a complete waste of his Action.

 

Absolutely.

The Captain's ability is not being "committed", it is simply adding it's Icons and skill. The active player using the Captain's ability without another character card committed to the story, will not cause the story to resolve. The defending player can't even -put- a card there, as there is no character committed to defend against, unless the active player has a character there.

It is still a powerful card, however the Captain's "dream character" cannot take story cards by his lonesome.

That is the way I am reading it.

[B_P 0]

We just don't know. The application of Trent Dixon game's text is just the opposite of what you are saying.

 

 

 

[thehuntercat 0]

True, true...But Trent Dixon also has the added complication of having to be the only character at a story for his ability to kick in. I certainly see the rational of comparing the two cards...but in the end they are two separate cards, and may have two different applications, ya know? I do think this is a valid question that needs to be clarified, because The Captain is used extensively in our play group.