Space Station upgrade in Campaign

[Burger]

It doesn't even say that they are excepted from acting as interceptors once destroyed.

Does it really need to say that?? Surely it's a bit obvious?

 

[Triggy]

Just like everything else in the game - fighters can only do things whilst they are still alive and functioning. The instant they are destroyed they can no longer act as interceptors as they are no longer on the table. The wording doesn't say it grants the interceptor trait for the turn, just it gives the interceptor trait.

Rereading the rules, the rules as written really seem to suggest that even if two interceptor dice roll a 1 in a roll (e.g. four interceptors at 2+ and two roll a 1) then only one flight dies. If you rolled another 1 in the next roll (e.g. two interceptors at 3+ both rolling a 1) then one more flight would be destroyed.

To be honest I've never actually been in this situation as I've rarely seen players use more than one flight in such a supporting role at one time.

 

[Democratus]

Just like everything else in the game - fighters can only do things whilst they are still alive and functioning. The instant they are destroyed they can no longer act as interceptors as they are no longer on the table.

I can see where common sense would dictate that. It makes sense from a fluff standpoint. But the rules never say the above.

The wording doesn't say it grants the interceptor trait for the turn, just it gives the interceptor trait.

The rules do state that the ship is given the Interceptor trait: "each supporting flight adds +1 to the ship's Interceptors trait." (p.31) The ship has the trait at this point, not the fighter flights. Once you have determined that X flights are supporting a ship, that ship gets Interceptors +X.

It never says that the trait is removed or reduced when a fighter is killed.

Rereading the rules, the rules as written really seem to suggest that even if two interceptor dice roll a 1 in a roll (e.g. four interceptors at 2+ and two roll a 1) then only one flight dies. If you rolled another 1 in the next roll (e.g. two interceptors at 3+ both rolling a 1) then one more flight would be destroyed.

To be honest I've never actually been in this situation as I've rarely seen players use more than one flight in such a supporting role at one time.

I agree here. The above is a perfectly valid way of reading the rules for fighter losses. I do wish that they had been more specific than "any roll of 1".

Fighter escorts have become very popular in our campaign of late. It isn't unusual to see 4 fighters escorting a single ship that it taking point to draw fire. Our point of contention comes from the fact that different interpretations of the way fighter flights die under fire will leave a ship with its cover for more or fewer turns. It's has a non-trivial effect on tactics.

 

[Greg Smith]

We usually use colored dice to easily see the difference between interceptors granted by flights and those "built-in"
Whenever a die representing a flight rolls a 1 it's removed from the pool.
(indeed we play it same way as Matt and other guys around here)

That was not the intent of the rule. Different coloured dice was considered during playtesting, and the idea was discarded for the sake of simplicity. Role all the interceptors together. Roll a one on any of the dice, a flight dies.

 

[Triggy]

Just like everything else in the game - fighters can only do things whilst they are still alive and functioning. The instant they are destroyed they can no longer act as interceptors as they are no longer on the table.

I can see where common sense would dictate that. It makes sense from a fluff standpoint. But the rules never say the above.

The wording doesn't say it grants the interceptor trait for the turn, just it gives the interceptor trait.

The rules do state that the ship is given the Interceptor trait: "each supporting flight adds +1 to the ship's Interceptors trait." (p.31) The ship has the trait at this point, not the fighter flights. Once you have determined that X flights are supporting a ship, that ship gets Interceptors +X.

It never says that the trait is removed or reduced when a fighter is killed.

Indeed, the rules never strictly say that the trait is lost at the end of the turn either (they only mention that the fighter has to act as an interceptor for the turn, not that the ship loses the interceptor at the end of the turn, nor that a fighter leaving base contact for whatever reason (e.g. gravitic shifters rotating the base so it's no longer in contact) would have any effect one way or the other.

Put it this way, if you ask the question in rulemasters (I actually recommend this if you want a solid answer) then I know exactly what the answer will be as I know how the designer, playtesters and tournaments play the rule. Sometimes the wordings are vague but in this case, we know exactly what Matt meant by the rule.

 

[Iain McGhee]

I can see what Democratus means about retaining interceptors even if the flight is lost, but I doubt that that was the intent of the rule. Ships with interceptors retain some degree of them unless they are knocked out through trait loss or the ship becoming crippled. I'd take that as being how the fighter rule should be used i.e. if the fighter flight is lost, so is any trait the flight gives.

Allowing each roll of 1 to kill a flight makes sense to me, using fighters as interceptors should be pretty risky and not a common tactic. I can only remember it happening once in the series (the Alexander's fighters in Severed Dreams).

 

[Democratus]

I fully agree with your POV on this. But when hashing out a rules disagreement with others, only a litteral black-and-white statement in the rulebook can conclusively end the issue. That...or a ruling from the designers.

Can we still ask Rules Masters about this game? I had avoided going there because of the lapse of the B5:ACTA license.

Thanks for all input and discussion!

 

[Burger]

But when hashing out a rules disagreement with others, only a litteral black-and-white statement in the rulebook can conclusively end the issue. That...or a ruling from the designers.

Sounds like you need a new gaming group! Unless you enjoy that kind of thing.

All I can say is that you must have a hell of a lot of questions, because the book is very vague in many areas, this is one of them where a bit of common sense saves a lot of time and effort.

 

[Democratus]

Heh...the group is fine, I think. We are all ex-Warhammer 40K players and are therefore used to "RAW is the law!" rules discussions. Old habbits are hard to break.

This is one of only a few real disagreements we've had to work out. I think because it makes a huge difference in how you play a campaign.

The Centauri player has centered his tactics around skirmish/raid ships each covered with a cloud of defensive fighters - so he wants the fighters to last as long as possible. Hence, he favors the "only 1 fighter can die per incoming volley" approach.

Playing as the Dilgar, I find myself in a middle ground. All of my weapons can be stopped by interceptor fire - so more survivable fighters is tough for me. On the other hand, fighters are the only way I can even get interceptors. So I favor the "1 fighter can die for each attempt to stop a hit".

Our Earthforce player, who is covered in interceptors and has lots of carriers for free replacements in campaign, wants to use the "every 1 rolled kills a fighter".

Since the rules are vague and allow each of thes interpretations to be valid, you can see how there would be some debate over the issue. I'm hopong we can come to an accord soon - as I'm having a hell of a time playing this game!

 

[Da Boss]

I fully agree with your POV on this. But when hashing out a rules disagreement with others, only a litteral black-and-white statement in the rulebook can conclusively end the issue. That...or a ruling from the designers.

Greg and Triggy are two of the three main playtesters (also they were very heavily involved in the game design of the current edition of ACTA)

to be honest, in the absence of a clear bit in the rules or M.Spranges input, (you could PM him as he is usually good enough to reply) they are close as you are going to get to a formal ruling I should think

(also Mr Spranges interpretations can be a little bit, er, unusual and / or unexpected )

 

[lastbesthope]

(also Mr Spranges interpretations can be a little bit, er, unusual and / or unexpected )

And variable over time, don't forget that. :lol:

LBH