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.
I think because installations are a different unit type then not all of these points may apply because installations is not ships, they are installations and are different to ships.
I would also think that the logic that installations would attack during the Surface Attack Phase is because they are surface units not aerial or subsurface units.
I've never really thought about installations in such detail before and after reading this thread "my" interpretation/opinion of the type Installation would be that - A) They can be damaged and destroyed as any other surface unit/ship. B) They wouldn't be affected by cripple penalties. C) The HSB can contest objectives but the ANB and FAS couldn't.
These may make the HSB more attractive for its points?
because W@S is an OP game and RB/WotC won't be releasing any clarification on the topic I think the only options we have are to use basic common sense or not allow their use in an tournament. When it comes to friendly games I agree with weedsrock2 that both players will have to agree on installations can and can't do.
I disagree with the argument that installations shouldn't be crippled primarily because their speed wouldn't be effected. It makes perfect sense for the armor and firepower of a fortification to be degraded when it is damaged and armor is weakened and fire control and command and communication facilities are damaged. Also the smoke from the damage makes it easier to target, just like a damaged ship. For these same reasons I would argue SA's would be able to effect this. It also seems perfectly reasonable to me that an installation could contest an objective.
Your A, B and C are all not true. A ship suffers the effects of being crippled simply because it has been reduced to it's last hull point - all that other stuff is just in your head/imagination.
Yes but what does that reduction to one hull point represent which is what I was trying to get at?
When a ship is on the verge of sinking what condition do you think a ship that has being reduced by almost 100% of its integrity would be in?
Installations can take a pounding and still be effective because they don't face the issues a ship has to.
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.
C) The HSB can contest objectives but the ANB and FAS couldn't.
So you have effectively now created two classes of the unit type installation as neither the ANB or FAS have the SA: No Sea Control etc...
I disagree with the argument that installations shouldn't be crippled primarily because their speed wouldn't be effected. It makes perfect sense for the armor and firepower of a fortification to be degraded when it is damaged and armor is weakened and fire control and command and communication facilities are damaged. Also the smoke from the damage makes it easier to target, just like a damaged ship. For these same reasons I would argue SA's would be able to effect this. It also seems perfectly reasonable to me that an installation could contest an objective.
Yes this is also a valid argument which is why I said I would have to look at installations more closely.
I would probably amend my understanding of installations as such -
A) They can be damaged and destroyed as any other surface unit/ship. B) They suffer cripple penalties. C) The HSB can contest objectives but the ANB and FAS couldn't. D) Installations attack in the Surface Phase because they are surface units. E) SA's that affect ships affect installations.
Your A, B and C are all not true. A ship suffers the effects of being crippled simply because it has been reduced to it's last hull point - all that other stuff is just in your head/imagination.
Yes but what does that reduction to one hull point represent which is what I was trying to get at?
When a ship is on the verge of sinking what condition do you think a ship that has being reduced by almost 100% of its integrity would be in?
Installations can take a pounding and still be effective because they don't face the issues a ship has to.
The reduction to the last hull point simply means the unit is about to be destroyed, i.e. in game terms crippled everything else is conjecture on your part.
Your other two points are pure speculation, when an installation is on the verge of being destroyed who is to say there wouldn't be a degradation of its capabilities? They might not face the exact same issues a ship does but they certain face their own set of issues when being struck by bombs/gunfire etc. To think otherwise is a tad callow.
Great discussion. Very good points being brought up.
I'm not sure I like splitting abilities among different installations, because then the list changes with each new installation the expansion decks bring. (Remember that to "contest" an objective, the unit must be adjacent.) So I would say this:
A) They can be damaged/destroyed/crippled as any other surface unit/ship. (heavy fires, explosions of fuel, injured everywhere, etc.) B) part of A C) No, they cannot contest. Any map that allows them placed next to an objective is an outlier, and should not be rewarded. Besides, do we really want 2 categories of "installations"? remember that phrases such as "perfect sense" and "perfectly reasonable" are traps, because this is NOT a simulation. Many rules don't exist that make perfect sense, and many rules exist that are "ridiculous"! (Aircraft re-arming anyone? Crippled carriers operating aircraft?) D) Yes, they are surface units for the attack phase. E) Not totally on to this one yet, have to review more SA's.
C) The HSB can contest objectives but the ANB and FAS couldn't.
So you have effectively now created two classes of the unit type installation as neither the ANB or FAS have the SA: No Sea Control etc...
The ANB and FAS aren't WotC units and I didn't create them so I can't take credit for that. Also there are different classes of the unit type Ship and different classes of unit type Aircraft so what would be wrong with different classes of unit type Installation?
For simplicity (KISS) one could say all installations could contest objectives but it is more logical for the HSB to do so because it has the heavy cruiser/BC size guns that can reach out and cover the objective. Also the ANB and FAS seem to be reasonably priced for what they provide but the HSB does seam to need a bit more "spice" to make it worth its points.
Since the ANB and FAS are Forum cards and due to the revelations made in this thread maybe the "team" could re-release an updated card???
Either way its good to have this discussion so that we can "nut" out the best way to handle installations.
You really want to get into so much "logical" details that we need to create new sub-types? Again, this is NOT a simulation, and you are "pushing" it just as much as I "push" it when I prefer to have all aircraft use a re-arming counter no matter where they land, no matter what their "loiter" or whatever. It is illogical to think that any plane (with loiter) carries enough bombs/torps/etc. to attack over and over and over again.
However, logic is NOT what this game is about, and to apply more "logic" to installations that to aircraft is ... "illogical"?
If the HSB needs more "spice", then it needs a new card. Let's not make "new rules" to upgrade the card, just replace the card, or recost it as The_Lucky_Y did with so many cards in set one.
I agree about the value of the discussion, and do believe that we will get to a good end result.
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
You really want to get into so much "logical" details that we need to create new sub-types? Again, this is NOT a simulation, and you are "pushing" it just as much as I "push" it when I prefer to have all aircraft use a re-arming counter no matter where they land, no matter what their "loiter" or whatever. It is illogical to think that any plane (with loiter) carries enough bombs/torps/etc. to attack over and over and over again.
No not really maybe I should have used a different word?
As for Loiter it was originally given to flying boats because they could operate from forward/temporary bases so their turn around time was less than having to return to a land base.
But you are right W@S is a KISS game and there are a lot of concessions made to keep it an enjoyable game.
If the HSB needs more "spice", then it needs a new card. Let's not make "new rules" to upgrade the card, just replace the card, or recost it as The_Lucky_Y did with so many cards in set one.
Not necessarily if RB meant the HSB to be teated as a ship then it may already be able to contest objectives? Which would mean no "new rules" needed.
However we will probably never know what RB intended and we need to have this discussion to nut it out.
If the HSB needs more "spice", then it needs a new card. Let's not make "new rules" to upgrade the card, just replace the card, or recost it as The_Lucky_Y did with so many cards in set one.
Not necessarily if RB meant the HSB to be treated as a ship then it may already be able to contest objectives? Which would mean no "new rules" needed.
However we will probably never know and we need to have this discussion to nut it out.
Ergo, as much as I agree with you about the "never knowing", it's either a remake ala The_Lucky_Y or "new rules". Neither is "clean" ...
Großadmiral Swizzle
Browncoat by fandom; Cossack by blood; American by birth; Virginian/Husband/Father by wife; Libertarian by choice; Human by race; Christian by grace.
Not necessarily if RB meant the HSB to be treated as a ship then it may already be able to contest objectives? Which would mean no "new rules" needed.
However we will probably never know and we need to have this discussion to nut it out.
Ergo, as much as I agree with you about the "never knowing", it's either a remake ala The_Lucky_Y or "new rules". Neither is "clean" ...
Then the only thing missing from the HSB card is one sentence not a new rule.
"This unit is treated as if it is a ship for damage and cripple effects."
Regardless if players want to be pedantic about RaW then I would suggest that they don't use installations because we don't have anything "official" on them which leads us back to weedsrock2's point.
Anyone actually have RB's contact info? This ended up being quite the discussion considering we've all been playing this unit for what 5 years now without ever stopping to ask how it fit the rules. I say we try to contact the designer himself because this seems pretty deadlocked.