Played for the first time today, had a blast but still have some questions regarding ports:

When I refer to 'land' I mean the area to which the port is connected.

- Is a port an 'area' on its own right?

- Can a defeated ship at sea retreat to a port?

- Can you give both orders to the units on land and a different order to your ship in port? Or is it 1 order? Example: I place a march order on the land units, can my ship also move with the same order or does it need a seperate order?

- Can a ship in a port defend if the land is attacked? Or does it need a seperate support order assigned to the ship?

- Where can a ship in a port move too when assigned a march order? Example: I have a ship at dragonstone, I give it a march order, can is move to Blackwater Bay or must it first move to shipbreaker bay?

- Can you attack a ship in a port with your own fleet or units?

- If the land is taken by another player, is the ship in the port destoyed? Can it retreat?

A port is its own area. Therefore it has its own army (fleet) and gets its own order. The land area and port have no interaction as far as orders are concerned.

A ship may retreat to port, if the connected land area is friendly. It's not entirely clear, if a ship may still retreat to a port, if the connected land area is empty. I've seen arguments for both options.

A ship in a port may not support or defend the connecting land area. Think of it as all ships in a port are only able to affect the sea area surrounding the port. That is a ship may support, raid and move into the sea area. (Consolidate Power orders are rendered useless, if the sea area is occupied by an opponent's fleet, by the way.)

A ship in port can not be attacked directly. However, if you do attack the land area and win, you gain control of both the land and its port. Any ships in the port may be replaced with your own ships. Otherwise they are just removed from the board.

"A ship may retreat to port, if the connected land area is friendly. It's not entirely clear, if a ship may still retreat to a port, if the connected land area is empty. I've seen arguments for both options."

- This one I know, You can't. I states clearly in the game that only the controller of the land may have a ship in the port.

Which makes the destruction of a fleet quite hard, since it can retreat to a port if defeated but cannot be attacked once it's in the port since you can't enter the port... You need to take the land first....

Nostra said:

I don't know. I mean I agree that if you read it like that, then retreating into an empty port is not allowed. But it doesn't seem to make much sense to me, why an army could retreat into an empty area but a fleet can't.

Not to mention that it's a very dangerous thing to retreat into an empty port, since somebody else can march into the unoccupied area (or even retreat into the unoccupied area) and then choose to take over or destroy your fleet without a fight.

The main reason why I'm leaning towards allowing ships to retreat into an uncontrolled port is that it removes yet another exception and special case in the game. It also makes thematic sense, and I think the influence on the game's balance would be negligible.

Just got a reply from Jason Walden from FFG.

You are right, Nostra. Unoccupied ports may not be entered. I found the reminder very helpful, that as long as nobody occupies the land area, ports are simply ignored.

So if I get it correctly:

- A ship can't retreat to a port wich belongs to no one. But can retreat to a port if the land belongs to him?

Doesn't that make it hard to destroy a fleet? since he can retreat to his own port and once there he can't be attack by sea, the only way to destroy the fleet in the port is actually taking over the land by land forces?

Thanks btw for taking time for this it makes it much clearer.

Nostra said:

That's right. But it's usually not necessary to destroy a fleet. It's often far worse, when they are sitting in port, pushing the supply limit and forcing a player to spend a March order (and a House card) on trying to regain control of the sea zone.

It's rarely necessary to outright destroy enemy armies (although it makes life a little easier, if you get the chance). In fact, if you destroy another player's army or fleet, you're just making it easier for him to pick orders the following turn. After losing a battle most people try to defend and save their troops or at least keep you from advancing. A player who's just lost an entire army or fleet will be far more likely to try to retaliate later, or support an allied attack against you.

It's why I think that, even though player elimination is possible, it's rarely worth the time and effort.

Joe Dizzy said:

Nice case and well said, especially the march order is painfull. Thanks for these insights.

Nostra said:

I had this same question and I noticed that it wasn't really answered. Do you need a march order to leave a port to get into the surrounding sea area or will your march order allow you to travel to adjacent sea areas?

I read the rules again and found that it does say you must use a march order to enter and leave a port so it seems that you exit the port an travel to the sea area the port is connected to not adjacent sea areas from there. If this is incorrect please let me know.

As far As I'm concerned you are correct. The biggest setback with this is losing an order march which you could have used somewhere else.

Nostra said:

Why this fixation on march orders in ports? While you must play an order in your occupied port, it doesn't have to be a march order. It can be any order, even a defend order (which will never do anything as the port cannot be attacked, but can still be placed there). Often a much more useful order in a port is a raid, to prevent the ships in the adjacent sea supporting an attack on the land area connected to the port.

In fact, the only order that can actually harm you through forced placement in this situation is consolidate power, which may give a power token to an opponent if raided.

Otherwise, the requirement to place an order does not restrict your ability to place orders in other areas at all. If you lack the tokens to order all your areas, it forces order placement in Iron Throne order, but even then the port can be (one of) the area(s) you leave unordered.

wraith said:

But consolidate power orders may not be played if an opponent controls the sea area around the port.

kauai1964 said:

Incorrect. They can be played, but are removed without effect during the Resolve Consolidate Power Orders step of the action phase. See page 25 of the (second edition) rulebook.

Which means that if a player places all other available orders in other areas and is only left with Consolidate Power orders to place in a port, that player may be forced to play a Consolidate Power order there, and that order would be vulnerable to raid from the adjacent sea area, as I said. Although, a player in that situation can always choose to play different orders elsewhere, freeing up a non-Consolidate Power order for the port.

true,

it's not fixation, but usually a boat in a port is not very usefull. you need it on the open sea where it can indeed raid lots of areas. But in order to be able to get him there you have to play the march order. Which in my experience and humble opinion is better played somewhere else (expecially later in the game).

But everybody is free to disagree ofcourse

Nostra said:

A ship in a port is much more useful than no ship at all. If you don't control the adjacent sea, it allows you to raid away support tokens placed on that sea (support tokens that would otherwise be aiding attacks against your stronghold or castle, and there is one to attack because there are no ports without them). If you do control the adjacent sea, it is safe support to help you keep it, or a safe location to play consolidate power if you don't think you need the support.

Nostra said:

If you need your ship in the open sea, it's a good thing you had a port there to retreat into. Otherwise, you wouldn't have it at all, and could never put it into the sea.

If you don't need you ship in the open sea, but just want it in the open sea, then if you choose to play a march token which was better played elsewhere, the problem lies in your choices, not in the port. The port is still providing you with an option which will be useful sometimes and not other times, and it is your task to determine which is which.

My group basically ignores ports, with the understanding being they are only there to allow you to always have a place to muster ships to contest a sea area occupied by the enemy. I'm not sure why they need to be separate areas. We believe them to be a way to prevent someone from resting a single ship in the sea and preventing all access to any naval powers. What other good is a port?

If a player leaves the land area connected to a port but still has a ship in the port do they maintain control of that area?

This popped up in a recent game where I attacked the last castle needed for my victory, won the combat but the other player played his Arianne Martell card which meant I couldn't move my troops in. The other player was forced to retreat but still had a ship in the port. What happens to it?

If a player leaves the land area connected to a port but still has a ship in the port do they maintain control of that area?

This popped up in a recent game where I attacked the last castle needed for my victory, won the combat but the other player played his Arianne Martell card which meant I couldn't move my troops in. The other player was forced to retreat but still had a ship in the port. What happens to it?

i have this same problem and was wondering and noticed that nobody addressed this issue. could someone please clarify this for me?

If a player leaves the land area connected to a port but still has a ship in the port do they maintain control of that area?

This popped up in a recent game where I attacked the last castle needed for my victory, won the combat but the other player played his Arianne Martell card which meant I couldn't move my troops in. The other player was forced to retreat but still had a ship in the port. What happens to it?

i have this same problem and was wondering and noticed that nobody addressed this issue. could someone please clarify this for me?

The ship is destroyed as control is lost over the territory - having a ship in port is not sufficient to control an adjacent territory by itself and any power token (if there at all) would have been removed during the course of the battle (your troops were already there, they just had to 'retreat' due to Arianne)