RB Installation Clarifications ("Can they be 'crippled?'")

I wonder if factored in to cost in some small way, installations being slightly less than ideal in terms cost:benefit and less likely to be used in that competitive format?

Could not agree more;  What would Huscari say???

  This is what Andy Palmer Said

andypalmer
Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Likes received: 3
Posts: 5570
FLAGS
Post subject: Re: Crippled Instillation? Reply with quote (Liked by:0) Like this post
Admiral Duncan wrote:
Can an instillation be crippled?

Great question!

Based upon a strict reading of the rules, I would have to say, 'No.' Per the rule book, only Ships and Submarines suffer the penalties for being Crippled.

I would have to rule that unless WOTC made a clarification regarding the HSB (i.e., that it gets treated like a Ship), that they cannot be crippled.

     A couple of others questions were once brought up;     Would the MG's of an Installation enact the part of Small Ship Evasion only hitting on a six's;; Rule does say BB's MG's
                                                                                    Can a plane with press the attack use it;; its not a Ships AA
 
  Aside all this if an expansion team cleared it up in the next Installation card would it apply as a basis for all the older ones or should it be left to ponder.
 

That's a good summary.
If I had to run a tournament, I would propose a rule booklet for it, that includes all errata/clarifications as well as the applicable "house/event" rules. In this you can include the fact that you want Installations to suffer the effects of crippled.
Given the amount of stuff that went out (including sea gods) after the latest official rulebook, I feel like we somehow would need a "sea god rulebook" which is up to date.

This is just common sense and Installations should suffer the effects of being crippled. If you take this route then I can make the ridiculous argument that according to the rulebook on page 34 first paragraph under "effects of Damage" Installations would not be not destroyed when they take hull damage equal to or greater than their hull points, or when a single attack equals or exceeds their vital armor. (It only states Ships and Submarines.)

However, the meeting/exceeding the Vital Armor argument would be voided by the last sentence on page 58 under the Attack entry: "If the number of successes you roll equals or exceed the target's vital armor rating, you destroy that target.

But to support my stance, let's look at the definition of Hull Points on Page 14 as it reads: "The number of times a Ship or Submarine must be damaged to destroy it."

The fact that installations were made after the 2010 rulebook (and the 2011 rules clarification), should not prevent Installations from being treated as ships for purposes of being crippled or destroyed. 

Very good point AU64; but its still not that simple;  Page 34 effects and damage clearly talks about a moving object;; losing speed;; Installation don't move.
   I could argue under the Glossary page 60 Hull Damage;  Damage taken from an attack that hits; Hull being just how much damage you take till destroyed. Not literally a ships hull
Players look at unit types in different manors; i see an Installation as a unit you attrition till destroyed; i believe crippled was added for the effect in a naval battle that it had on those type of units. 
    Weeds is right on this and as you stated its after the the final rules;  WOTC was not going to rectify the rules or the units, its up to the players.
You house rule it--agree on it or if you can't, you do what gamers should, roll a die.

Yeah, I agree with Brigman and northstars here. Installations are not covered at all by the original rulebook. If you take it to the extreme, not only can you not damage installations (except with Landing per the SA), you can never even attack with an installation because only Ships are allowed to fire during the Surface Attack Phase!

So, in order for the unit to be usable at all, we have to assume something regarding which rules (as to unit type) to apply to the installation. Neither Air nor Submarine rules make any sense. So we apply the Ship rules--when it attacks, how it attacks, how it is damaged, when it is damaged, effects of attacks, crippled, etc.

It seems easier to do this than piecemeal it the other way, but it raises other questions.

Stacking? Normally it is 2 ships per sector. Huscari clarified stacking for installations--1 per sector.

Brigman asked some questions and got answers:



Asbestos asked other questions and got answers:



But there are more.

Do SAs that list "Ship" types, apply to installations? Huscari said installation is a separate type of unit for stacking, but I think we need to take that ruling with a limited and very specific impact to the question of stacking. Otherwise, we end up with a new unit type again and get back into the argument that it cannot attack or be damaged.

If we are treating it as a ship, then SAs like Press the Attack should work (which makes logical sense).

Can an installation prevent one from capturing an objective? This is the most worrisome issue with treating installations as ships, since installations are immune from submarines and near immune from most destroyers, some light cruisers, and some air. However, if we treat an installation as a ship, this may be the only unresolved issue, which would likely require resolution similar to Huscari's stacking response.

But, that requires only one critical correction as opposed to the many critical ones needed if we treated an installation as a non-ship unit for all rulebook and unit SA purposes.