The other day we played a game in which there was some disagreement about how to handle the procedure of nominating and attacking targets when in a squadron. And so I thought it would be appropriate to try and get an answer from those more knowledgeable of the matter.
It was a miserable game by the way, which showcased a few weaknesses of the current system. It was a battle level 5 points scenario where I was playing a Brakiri/Pak'ma'ra league fleet with two war level ships, a Takata and as Psuul'shi. According to conventional ACTA wisdom this was by all means a poor fleet and clearly so with 3 activations compared to the 10+ activations of my opponents ISA-fleet. The only strength of the league fleet being the large amounts of e-mines which the Takata and the Psuul'shi squadron could throw. The assassination scenario was randomly selected and my opponent chose to be the attacker, placing a squadron of a White Star Gunship and three White Stars in Hyperspace. Meanwhile I failed to setup huddled in a corner. And that was it. At the beginning of round three and owing to a few runaway beams which defied the beam moderation option we used, my two warships were gone. It was not very exciting.
Next time though I'll bring a small note which says "Is there any reason not to setup in a corner?". No doubt the answer will almost always come out negative and save me a lot of trouble in the process.
Now, the rules disagreement came up when my opponent was about to attack my Takata with his White Star squadron. He then discovered he might possibly manage to destroy more than this war level ship in the first round. Obviously this could have meant wasted shots if he had began the firing phase by targeting the Takata with every ship in his squadron. Meanwhile diverting a few weapons to other targets might leave the Takata alive. Which lead to a discussion about the proper procedure for nominating targets and opening fire with a squadron of ships.
Quite conceivably blinded by his desire for a fleeting battlefield advantage, not that he needed any, it would seem that my opponent came up with the counterintuitive but in his mind no doubt ingenious idea that there were actually two kinds of target "nominations" in the rules. This interpretation was furthermore supported by another esteemed, however in this matter sadly obtuse club member which tried to help sort the situation out. While there seemed to be an agreement that to nominate in the context of a single ship opening fire implied both the selection of a shooter, a target and the subsequent shooting at said target, my opponent insisted that to nominate in the context of squadrons opening fire only implied that the squadron had been chosen as the shooter. Which would allow each ship in the squadron to nominate targets for its weapons systems and open fire sequentially. The advantage of which would naturally be that the results of the fire from his last would be known to my opponent, allowing him to select another target if the previous had already been destroyed.
Meanwhile the obvious interpretation would seem to be that to "nominate" in the context of a squadron opening fire refers to the same concept as the "nominate" mentioned in the context of a single ship opening fire. After all, since the same term is used in very similar contexts in the same rules book, it would be rather impractical and confusing if the term did not refer to the same concept. This interpretation would suggest that the procedure of opening fire with a squadron would consist these steps: First the nomination of a shooter, which in this case would be the whole squadron. Then a target would be nominated for every weapons system of every ship in the squadron. And finally said weapons systems shooting at the nominated targets. Furthermore this would also seem simply make sense. The ships in a squadron are, as I understand it presumed to have synchronized both their movements and their fire so as to effectively act as one ship. From this it seems clear that it would be unrealistic for a ship in the squadron to wait for the results of the shooting from the previous ship of the squadron before deciding what target to shoot at. Clearly that would be acting sequentially, not synchronized as one.
Also, in case it was not obvious, the objective of this post is not only to try and establish the facts of this matter, but also to give these rules cowboys a proper thrashing, so that next time they the try to argue their spaghetti ways they'll do it with the proper expectations.
So, would any of the above interpretations be appropriate for this situation or is there perhaps an entirely different way of interpreting the rules which would be preferrable?
It was a miserable game by the way, which showcased a few weaknesses of the current system. It was a battle level 5 points scenario where I was playing a Brakiri/Pak'ma'ra league fleet with two war level ships, a Takata and as Psuul'shi. According to conventional ACTA wisdom this was by all means a poor fleet and clearly so with 3 activations compared to the 10+ activations of my opponents ISA-fleet. The only strength of the league fleet being the large amounts of e-mines which the Takata and the Psuul'shi squadron could throw. The assassination scenario was randomly selected and my opponent chose to be the attacker, placing a squadron of a White Star Gunship and three White Stars in Hyperspace. Meanwhile I failed to setup huddled in a corner. And that was it. At the beginning of round three and owing to a few runaway beams which defied the beam moderation option we used, my two warships were gone. It was not very exciting.
Next time though I'll bring a small note which says "Is there any reason not to setup in a corner?". No doubt the answer will almost always come out negative and save me a lot of trouble in the process.
Now, the rules disagreement came up when my opponent was about to attack my Takata with his White Star squadron. He then discovered he might possibly manage to destroy more than this war level ship in the first round. Obviously this could have meant wasted shots if he had began the firing phase by targeting the Takata with every ship in his squadron. Meanwhile diverting a few weapons to other targets might leave the Takata alive. Which lead to a discussion about the proper procedure for nominating targets and opening fire with a squadron of ships.
Quite conceivably blinded by his desire for a fleeting battlefield advantage, not that he needed any, it would seem that my opponent came up with the counterintuitive but in his mind no doubt ingenious idea that there were actually two kinds of target "nominations" in the rules. This interpretation was furthermore supported by another esteemed, however in this matter sadly obtuse club member which tried to help sort the situation out. While there seemed to be an agreement that to nominate in the context of a single ship opening fire implied both the selection of a shooter, a target and the subsequent shooting at said target, my opponent insisted that to nominate in the context of squadrons opening fire only implied that the squadron had been chosen as the shooter. Which would allow each ship in the squadron to nominate targets for its weapons systems and open fire sequentially. The advantage of which would naturally be that the results of the fire from his last would be known to my opponent, allowing him to select another target if the previous had already been destroyed.
Meanwhile the obvious interpretation would seem to be that to "nominate" in the context of a squadron opening fire refers to the same concept as the "nominate" mentioned in the context of a single ship opening fire. After all, since the same term is used in very similar contexts in the same rules book, it would be rather impractical and confusing if the term did not refer to the same concept. This interpretation would suggest that the procedure of opening fire with a squadron would consist these steps: First the nomination of a shooter, which in this case would be the whole squadron. Then a target would be nominated for every weapons system of every ship in the squadron. And finally said weapons systems shooting at the nominated targets. Furthermore this would also seem simply make sense. The ships in a squadron are, as I understand it presumed to have synchronized both their movements and their fire so as to effectively act as one ship. From this it seems clear that it would be unrealistic for a ship in the squadron to wait for the results of the shooting from the previous ship of the squadron before deciding what target to shoot at. Clearly that would be acting sequentially, not synchronized as one.
Also, in case it was not obvious, the objective of this post is not only to try and establish the facts of this matter, but also to give these rules cowboys a proper thrashing, so that next time they the try to argue their spaghetti ways they'll do it with the proper expectations.
So, would any of the above interpretations be appropriate for this situation or is there perhaps an entirely different way of interpreting the rules which would be preferrable?
