[ACTA:SF] Take Evasive Action vs Ship Adrift

[kyrolon]

This one came up in a game the other day. A ship (due to crits) is "adrift". Now by the rules it doesn't move. The player wanted to do "Take Evasive Action!" as an order.

As far as we can tell the rules allow this. The ship may only move up to 6", but it has no other restrictions.

However, this makes little sense. How can a ship that can't move evade anything?

Did we miss something?

 

[Iain McGhee]

It's been ruled before that adrift ships don't get to use movement-based special actions or traits in other versions of ACTA, although it's not spelled out in the rules (since adrift ships don't get to move in the movement phase). I'd imagine the same applies here.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I think we can chalk that one up to common sense

 

[Myrm]

Its pretty well defined really - Running Adrift ships may not move at all - therefore take no part in the Movement Phase, also by definition means they cannot be nominated to move, therefore since they cannot meet the criteria to do a special action - which is being nominated to move - which can never happen since it is not an eligible choice to move

 

[billclo]

Its pretty well defined really - Running Adrift ships may not move at all - therefore take no part in the Movement Phase, also by definition means they cannot be nominated to move, therefore since they cannot meet the criteria to do a special action - which is being nominated to move - which can never happen since it is not an eligible choice to move

If a ship that is adrift, say due to a failed High Energy turn, which caused massive engine damage, how can said ship conduct special actions to repair itself/boost shields, etc?

I see nothing in the rules that say a ship that is adrift cannot be nominated during the movement phase, nor use Special Actions. I think common sense would indicate that the ship can be nominated and use Special actions, but cannot move (nor turn).

 

[Greg Smith]

Its pretty well defined really - Running Adrift ships may not move at all - therefore take no part in the Movement Phase, also by definition means they cannot be nominated to move, therefore since they cannot meet the criteria to do a special action - which is being nominated to move - which can never happen since it is not an eligible choice to move

I disagree with this.

The movement phase isn't just about movement. It is includes special actions. The ship can and should be nominated. It may not be able to move but it can, and probably will - perform special actions such as All Hands on Deck or Close Blast Doors!

 

[Myrm]

Its pretty well defined really - Running Adrift ships may not move at all - therefore take no part in the Movement Phase, also by definition means they cannot be nominated to move, therefore since they cannot meet the criteria to do a special action - which is being nominated to move - which can never happen since it is not an eligible choice to move

I disagree with this.
The movement phase isn't just about movement. It is includes special actions. The ship can and should be nominated.

...and thats fundamentally where we differ then. Since, special actions specifically require the ship to be nominated to move and Running Adrift pre-emptively precludes all movement (it is not merely a Speed 0 item) making it de facto ineligible for nomination for movement - the option has been removed in advance. If Special Actions were presented as merely something else that is done in the Movement Phase then I would agree with you, but they are not, they are tied in RAW very specifically to nomination for movement (unless I've missed an update somewhere which I could well believe. For me, I cannot nominate something for Movement that isnt eligible to undergo Movement (emphasis mine).

Your Mileage presumably varies on the technicalties.

However Matt has ruled against Running Adrift doing anything on Common Sense - always dangerous, one man's common sense is another man's idiocy as I'd bet that we both think our explanations above are the results of common sense. However the ruling is consistent with the basic concept of dead in the water especially if you consider other versions of the game engine...I think they may have cut and pasted too much from previous version with Running Adrift as this particular version doesnt have a drift, the ship just sits there so far as I can tell (missing something wthstanding of course) so a different name would have been better (Dead in Space, perhaps) to get the right feel over.

 

[Iain McGhee]

It's not dead in the water, just not moving at warp which is why there's no visible drift movement in this version of ACTA. Greg's right though, you've always been able to nominate Adrift ships in the movement phase in ACTA rules (unless decrewed in versions which track crew loss). That's what you appear to be missing.

 

[Myrm]

Fair enough, Im in the minority - just for me the prohibition on All Movement pretty explicitly precluded eligibility to be nominated for movement (on the basis how can you be permitted to nominate it for movement, if movement is explicitly non-permitted, the two just don't separate as written in my mind) and its that loss of nomination that explicitly would chain to No Specials as thats what they are subordinate to - but if people say a Running Adrift ship can be nominated then that would equally directly open the Special Actions to use. Guess its change time for me then.

 

[Greg Smith]

Looking at it from outside a games rules perspective - why should a ship with engine damage not be able to do other actions - in particular assign more crew to damage repair?

 

[Greg Smith]

Looking at it from outside a games rules perspective - why should a ship with engine damage not be able to do other actions - in particular assign more crew to damage repair?