Post by Solomiranthius on Jun 12, 2017 19:51:13 GMT
Per RB's response, let's put MN's questions and RB's answers together.
Q: 1) Can Installations be damaged and crippled like Ships? A: 1) Yes
Q: 2) If not, how is the process different? A: 2) (see above)
Q: 3) Can Installations contest objectives? A: 3) A guarded "yes" -- the HSB can't claim the objective because it can't ever move into that space, but I think it's okay that the enemy player can't do so either until he removes the HSB from the area. Go secure the other objectives if that's too much trouble.
Q: 4) Do they attack during the Surface Attack Phase? A: 4) Wow, that's a surprising oversight on my part. Yes, it attacks in the surface attack phase.
Q: 5) How do special abilities that reference Ships (Excellent Spotting, Covering Fire, Press the Attack, etc.) interact with Installations? A: 5) Some of the them probably ought to work, but for the purpose of clarity, I guess I'd say that they don't. Installations aren't Ships.
"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
Post by Solomiranthius on Jun 12, 2017 19:57:31 GMT
Thanks MN for asking. Not necessarily the response I would have thought. I would have guessed "no" to contesting objectives, but a hesitant "yes" to SAs. Still, I think this is a fine result and if RB's responses are not official, nothing would be. I doubt WOTC really cares anymore, and anyone who responds probably knows/remembers even less than RB.
I put the questions and answers under weeds' first post.
And, yes, this certainly makes installations more valuable. That HSB contesting the objective just became an even greater threat to torpedo swarms w/out big guns/bombs. Still, there is usually that one objective you know you can sacrifice, so it should have minimal impact outside of getting installations in more games. Huzzah!
"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
"Like I said, I wouldn't consider these official."
Rich Baker
We're lucky we're not the Star Wars Armada forum, they don't consider PM's and emails from the games designer "official", they only accept official FaQ's from the game company as official.
So most of us have been playing installations correctly as ships? The rule against SA's is interesting though.
As I said before I understand why the HSB contests objectives and I'm willing to concede why a ANB would also do so but I still think the FAS should have "No Sea Control". But to keep it KISS this is a good outcome.
Fantastic mnn! I agree there is no better arbiter than RB. Gospel as far as I am concerned. And his answers are also very consistent with his general direction on the game. KISS
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
No reason to try to contact WoTC, they don't care anymore. RB's answers make sense, and I think we can consider them "errata" or "rules clarifications". We need to post these so that all know about them! Where would that be?
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.
This is what I was thinking too. I have the original WotC Updates and Clarification document MS Word file that WotC_Huscarl and RB sent me when we worked on the Set 5 clarifications. We were about to work on the Set 6 updates when they were let go. Anyway, I can add an "Installation" section and remake the pdf and post it.
I am leaving for Origins for a week of WaS gaming tomorrow, so can someone summarize all the Installation clarifications for me? Then we can work out the format and I can add it to the document next week.
Off the top of my head.
Installations attack during the Surface Attack phase Stacking limit of one Installation per sector Installations do not block line of site Installations can suffer the effects of "crippled" Installations can contest objectives, but not capture them SA's that specify unit types like "Ships", "Subs", etc do not affect Installations
What else? And how to write them neatly using WotC terminology?
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Post by Solomiranthius on Jun 14, 2017 17:04:10 GMT
I can help take a look at this sometime soon.
I've pushed this before, but should we look at issuing our own official clarifications for Forumini deck units (not recosts, I know that is strongly opposed, but clarifications to help deal with any issues that come up)?
"You like ships. You don't seem to be lookin' at the destinations. What you care about is the ships, and mine's the nicest." ~ Firefly ~
Installations: Installations are not a ship type and SAs that allow interactions with Ships do not allow interactions with Installations. However, Installations attack and are damaged or crippled in the same manner as Ships. Installations have the No Sea Control ability. There is a one per sector stacking limit for Installations. Landing and Beach Landing are the two SAs that allow an attempt to invade an installation (Secret Cargo, Vital Cargo, Tokyo Express, and Evacuate do not). A unit can score VP from its Landing or Beach Landing SA and 'invade' the Installation on the same turn. The presence of an installation in a sea sector (if it can’t be placed in an island sector) doesn't affect line of sight into, out of, or through that sector.
The first three sentences are new but the last three are from the official clarifications from Wizards.
I've pushed this before, but should we look at issuing our own official clarifications for Forumini deck units (not recosts, I know that is strongly opposed, but clarifications to help deal with any issues that come up)?
We have a Summer 2015 clarifications document that was put out after D. It's got clarifications from MB. 151, Triton, Marasesti, and Texas plus the others from previous documents.