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

In a tournament the "letter of the law" applies. This was the risk RB took in creating a new unit type that was not covered in the Rulebook. Allowing an Installation to contest an Objective is a pretty big deal. Far worse than the consequences of the other SAs only working against Ships IMO.

I don't see where an Installation not suffering the effects of Crippled makes it indestructible. It can still be destroyed in the same number of "hull" points. It just doesn't suffer a penalty on the last hull point.

WotC_huscarl's responses indicate to me that they simply did not think through all the implications of creating the Installation unit type. So they were "making it up as they went along" with the clarifications. The answers are not consistently the same as a ship. Unfortunately, this particular question was never asked. As such, at a tournament I can only go by what is written in black and white. I don't know which way RB and WotC_Huscarl would have ruled and have no basis for speculation. At any event, speculation doesn't work at tournaments. And that means Installations don't suffer the effects of Crippled, and they are not affected by SAs that specifically say they impact "ships" versus SAs that specify "units."

IMO the only way to change that is to pre-announce a house rule before the tournament or game. That's okay for local games or online here, but in a "meat-space" tournament like Origins it is simply not possible to communicate a bunch of house rules and unit restrictions. It is difficult enough to communicate the conditions of even a simple set of scenario rules. So let it be written, so let it be done!  

I think Solo brings up an excellent point on Objectives. If a house-rule simply says "Installations are to be treated as Ship except where clarified by WotC" then that also creates a lot of interactions including contesting Objectives. 

Since there will likely never be an official answer, and because no solution is completely satisfying, I think the letter of the law is the only way we can call it.  House rule it otherwise. But be careful how you house rule it. You will likely end up needing to make some clarification "calls" any way you do it.

Look up "attack" in the Glossary. It specifies "a unit can attack." Then it describes how an attack works. 

Then "attack value" in the Glossary. It says "The number of dice a unit rolls when it fires on an enemy unit. Attack values are divided into Gunnery (Main, Secondary, and Tertiary), Bomb, ASW..."

However Crippled in the Glossary. "A Ship or Submarine that has taken damage..."

Attacks are allowed for "units."  Crippled is specific to Ships and Subs.

I am not arguing the "common sense" that Installations should/could be Crippled. But RB often didn't follow "common sense," and in this case we have no indication that an Installation should suffer the effects of being crippled. IMO it is not a huge game breaker that Installations don't suffer the effects of being crippled. We just need to be careful about making "super installations." But making an "official" ruling where none exists is a very bad precedent and I won't follow along with that.

I agree it will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Installations are a valid unit type because WotC introduced it. It has an attack table. It has to attack sometime. I suppose you could argue it could attack during any phase. Go for it. 

But the definition of Crippled is very specific and Installations are not there. I doubt during a tournament anyone will seriously argue an Installation cannot make a Main or secondary gunnery attack (which are made during the Air or the Surface Attack Phase, and since Installations aren't flying in the air...), but I know I will be challenged by someone to show where it says an Installation suffers the effects of being crippled. In fact, I already have in my club which is what started this thread in the first place. And half the people at Origins (and GenCon before) are not Foruminians so they don't care squat what we say here.

This is something I have learned from years of experience as a MechWarrior Battlemaster, and then running WaS tabletop tournaments. Be very specific and pay very close attention to the accepted wording style and terminology of the game rules. And be careful what you create if you are making cards! 

What page? I am curious to look at it.

If it can't be damaged there are a lot more serious issues than just not losing ER4.

Weeds,

If we're going to rules lawyer this thing to say it can't be crippled, then we need to take that to its logical end point.

northstars is pointing out that the very mechanism that describes how a Shore Battery should be able to take damage (i.e., loss of hull points) and thereby become destroyed (i.e., losing all of its hull points), is identical to the mechanism describing how a Shore Battery should be able to become crippled. Both only refer to Ships or Submarines.

The rulebook uses "unit" to describe attack capability and destruction (by exceeding vital armor) because it is applicable to all units then in the game (air, ship or sub). Heck, even the glossary cited defines "unit": "A Ship, Submarine, or Aircraft squadron represented by a single miniature." So even "unit" does not include Installations!

The glossary being referred to is not the rules in and of themselves. If you look at "attack" it says: "A unit can attack an enemy unit in the Air Defense, Air Attack, Surface Attack, or Submarine Attack phases of the game turn. ..."

Without turning to the rest of the rules, one would think that any "unit" can attack in any phase, but you just have to choose one. We know that's not how it works. Each unit has to attack in only one phase in which it is assigned. For that you turn to pages 17 to 21, describing each phase.

An installation is never mentioned in any of these phases. Thus, per the RAW, an Installation is never assigned a phase in which to make an attack. Thus, without making some assumptions, it cannot make an attack even if it has the capability of attacking.

Similarly, because only "Ships and Submarines" take HP damage, the only way to destroy a Shore Battery is either by Landing (per the HSB SAs) or by vitalling the sucker (since a vital destroys a "unit"--except that "unit" does not include Installations, so there goes that option. You have to Land and Invade the installation to destroy it).

Yes, this is nonsensical. But maybe this is how it is supposed to be since, as you state, RB did not always issue "logical" rulings.

Ok, we know that is not the case. So we have to make some type of assumption.

The assumptions you are making are:

1) That an Installation must be treated as a Ship for purposes of when it can attack ("Surface Attack Phase. Attack enemy Ships or Submarines with your Ships, using either ASW attacks or Gunnery and Torpedo attacks." pg. 20)
2) That an Installation must be treated as a Ship for purposes of how it can be damaged. ("Damaged. Ships and Submarines that take hull damage are 'damaged.' A Ship or Submarine can withstand damage equal to its normal hull point rating before it's destroyed. A damaged Ship or Submarine suffers no other penalties until it is reduced to 1 hull point, when it becomes crippled." pg. 34)
3) That an Installation cannot be treated as a Ship for purposes of whether it can be crippled. ("Crippled. Damaged Ships and Submarines that have only 1 hull point remaining are 'crippled.'" pg. 34)
4) That an Installation cannot be treated as a Ship for purposes of SAs (e.g., Covering Fire etc.).
5) That an Installation cannot be treated as a Ship for purposes of Contesting Objectives. ("End of Turn. ... If you have a Ship in an objective sector, and no enemy Ships are in or adjacent to that sector, you may claim the Objective marker." pg. 21)

The same logic you apply to get to 1 and 2, that an Installation has to be treated as Ship under the rules as written, also applies to 3 (and 4 and 5...). In fact, in the very paragraph describing damage under 2, it discusses crippled status.

But why are we able to treat an Installation as a Ship for 1-2, but not 3 or 4 or 5? Either we apply the necessary assumption uniformly (absent an official clarification otherwise), or we don't. But if we don't, then you definitely enter into an area where the cut-off point is pure opinion (house rule) and completely debatable.

So when someone starts arguing whether or not an Installation can be crippled, they better have some as of yet unknown official text describing how they got to the Installation taking damage or being able to attack during any specific phase in the first place. Otherwise their protests are but based upon a cursory reading of the rules and an impression of how an Installation has to work--an opinion.

My 2¢ on this topic.

Lets look at why a ship suffers the effects of being crippled.

A) -1 movement - This is most likely because the ship/sub has taken damage to engineering spaces and possibly some flooding also.
B) -1 armour and -1 vital armour - the ship/sub hasn't physically lost any armour but because it's slower and less manoeuvrable it is easier to hit. This can be backed up by how armour for aircraft is treated, the slower and less manoeuvrable an aircraft the lower its armour value and some ships as well.
C) -1 to all attacks - this not only could be due to damage to targeting systems but also due to listing and loss of crew and communication.

An installation doesn't have an engine room or is prone to flooding, doesn't move or turn and can't list so would all of these conditions apply to installations?

Also I could see the HSB contesting objectives because of the heavy guns but what about the ANB or FAS? These don't have the Area of Effect the HSB does so I don't think they would contest objectives?