Beta Rules Clarification--Small Ships

[Enalut]

I read the rule on small ships:

"When you purchase two ships for a single Patrol point for use in a game of Raid level or higher, then they must be placed in a squadron with another ship. They need not be placed in the same squadron as one another, but they cannot be used independently. They must stay in this squadron unless the other ships are destroyed."

and am confused by the wording.

Can they be (1) put into a squadron with their mate or do they have to be (2) put into a squadron with another, not 2:1 ship?

If it is 1, then I can see them being taken still, as they are a valid tactical choice, but if it is (2) then the initiative penalty will mean that they are not likely to ever be chosen (essentially having to devote at least 2 patrol points to each initiative unit)

At least as written, the rule seems to imply #2.

It seems that if #1 was intended, that the rule could be redrafted slightly to say that each initiative unit must start as at least 1 full patrol point.

 

[Foxmeister]

I read is that they have to be put into a squadron with at least one other ship - I see no reason why that other ship can't be its mirror.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

As written it implies (1). Each of the 2 small ships must be in a squadron with another ship... it doesn't state that it can't be another "small ship", since small ships are still ships.

 

[AdrianH]

"When you purchase two ships for a single Patrol point for use in a game of Raid level or higher, then they must be placed in a squadron with another ship. They need not be placed in the same squadron as one another, but they cannot be used independently."

This does tend to favour (2) - both must be placed into a squadron with something else. They can be split to go into squadrons with two different ships but there must be at least one other ship involved.

However, as Burger says, small ships are still ships. Which means you could buy two pairs of Tethyses; split them both; and form two squadrons each containing one ship from each pair. From each pair, both ships are now in a squadron with another ship, and each squadron is a pair of Tethyses.

So even if the above interpretation is correct, you can still end up with pairs of two-for-one ships as squadrons. You could insist that anyone wanting to do this must buy two pairs and then rearrange them, or you could just allow a pair to count as a squadron.

 

[Foxmeister]

I think you are reading too much into this rule. IMHO, the "they" you have bolded refers to each of the ships - so each one must be squadroned with "another ship" but there is no reason why that ship can't be its two'fer cousin.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

the "they" you have bolded refers to each of the ships

Yeah thats how I read it, "they" refes to them both individually, not them both as one unit. If "they" referred to both as one unit then it would contradict with the next part, since "they must be placed in a squadron" would prevent them being placed in different squadrons to each other.

 

[Triggy]

OK, the wording needs tightening up but the intention is that so long as each of the ships are in a squadron (whether only with each other, paired with two other ships or all in one big happy family) then it's your choice.

 

[AdrianH]

I think you are reading too much into this rule. IMHO, the "they" you have bolded refers to each of the ships - so each one must be squadroned with "another ship" but there is no reason why that ship can't be its two'fer cousin.

My point was that even if the rule was supposed to mean that the squadron(s) must involve another ship outside the pair, it's easy enough to form up a squadron consisting of two two-for-one ships. So, regardless of what was originally meant, the effect may as well be to allow a pair of two-for-ones to count as a squadron. In other words, if you assume interpretation (2) then you end up with the effect of interpretation (1) anyway, so you may as well assume interpretation (1) and be done with it.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

If there really is this much of a balance issue with twofers in the game why bother having put them in there in the first place.

 

[l33tpenguin]

To have a PL lower than Patrol without actually adding one Because, to be honest, thats really all it is.

And, the rules read to me that the two-fors had to be teamed up with *something* else, regardless of whether it was their partner or another ship.

I don't mind two-fors now. Before they were unbalanced because of their awesome init sinking ability. They no longer have that. Problem solved!

 

[katadder]

the original reason they were added is because they were ships no one ever used. as seperate ships in twofers they were a bit too good for the init sink mentioned. as squadroned ones they are now not too bad.

 

[CZuschlag]

Agreed. We also need to be careful about large squadron special rules that counteract this downside of squadrons already, if the fix to a ship is a forced squadron.

We have two large-squadron special rules right now, but only one race that has twofers and a large squadron rule. The Dilgar don't have a twofer, although you really have to check as the Jashakar is NASTY, ad the Jashakar Tae may be out of balance to borderline broken.

The Haven is the concern here when in concert with various Centauri Hunting Pack tricks.

 

[Enalut]

My point is that the rule is ambiguously worded and should be tigghted up. The simplest solution would sem to say that any 2:1 ship must be part of a squadron, which may include its mate.

If we are looking at these beta rules, isn't it better to catch this now and clean up the laguage to prevent the need to do address it after the book is published?

 

[l33tpenguin]

My point is that the rule is ambiguously worded and should be tigghted up. The simplest solution would sem to say that any 2:1 ship must be part of a squadron, which may include its mate.

If we are looking at these beta rules, isn't it better to catch this now and clean up the laguage to prevent the need to do address it after the book is published?

I didn't think it was unclear, but, since this thread exists, it is obvious not everyone does. So yes, I agree, the wording should be made more clear

 

[Greg Smith]

I have to admit I was slightly confused by the wording too.

I also thought that the restriction for breaking the squadron was a little harsh - crippled would be better than destroyed.

 

[Ripple]

Similar to Greg's comment... what happens if the squadron is forced to break? I have two havens and a Sulust acting as a squadron, not optimal but it makes me happy. The Sulust is cast adrift by a lucky crit, and the Havens are facing the other way, one of which is also cast adrift. What happens when they pass out of coherency?

Ripple

 

[Methos5000]

Similar to Greg's comment... what happens if the squadron is forced to break? I have two havens and a Sulust acting as a squadron, not optimal but it makes me happy. The Sulust is cast adrift by a lucky crit, and the Havens are facing the other way, one of which is also cast adrift. What happens when they pass out of coherency?

Ripple

My solution would be that they still move at the same time, the ship (or ships) out of squardon range must attempt to get back into squardon formation (within 6"). Until it can do that it cannot fire or do any SA other then movement based SA that could help it get back into formation.

Just an idea, it keeps it from becoming a free init sink as they still move at the same time it just doesnt give any stray ships from firing off shots as something they shouldnt normally be near.

 

[Triggy]

Similar to Greg's comment... what happens if the squadron is forced to break? I have two havens and a Sulust acting as a squadron, not optimal but it makes me happy. The Sulust is cast adrift by a lucky crit, and the Havens are facing the other way, one of which is also cast adrift. What happens when they pass out of coherency?

Ripple

My solution would be that they still move at the same time, the ship (or ships) out of squardon range must attempt to get back into squardon formation (within 6"). Until it can do that it cannot fire or do any SA other then movement based SA that could help it get back into formation.

Just an idea, it keeps it from becoming a free init sink as they still move at the same time it just doesnt give any stray ships from firing off shots as something they shouldnt normally be near.

Agreed that ships must try to get back into squadron range otherwise players with simply position the ships facing away from each other to "force" them to split apart!

 

[Burger]

But you can't re-squardon ships once they have split (unless you're Gaim)... we'd need an exception to that rule also? Yet another exception... sigh...

 

[Triggy]

But you can't re-squardon ships once they have split (unless you're Gaim)... we'd need an exception to that rule also? Yet another exception... sigh...

It's more a way of stopping people from "accidentally" deliberately breaking a squadron. That's why I like the wording cannot break formation unless a ship is stricken/destroyed as it forces people to adhere to the intention rather than saying a ship has to stay in formation until a ship is adrift, etc.

These small ships are mainly escorts in battles (rather than one ship patrols) so even if their mothership/partner goes adrift, they'd still escort it.