[Galactic Council]

Tattersail_, on 12 February 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

The question I have is about a specific unit - the Saar Floating Factory. It counts as a ship for movement, so would one be able to move it with Warfare secondary?

Well if you are allowing a carrier to carry fighters, then you'd have to let the factory take it's giant fleet.

I think 2 ships total as per the wording would be best or change the wording.

The ships would need to follow normal movement rules without effects.

The problem with that, Tatts, is that you might then move a Carrier but have to leave Fighters behind, which then get destroyed. Of course, that might be more what D'rek was initially envisaging, which was moving Destroyers and Cruisers around.

[Blend]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:14 PM, said:

I believe that we've always played it as Warfare sec NOT initiating PDS fire, as the systems the ships travel to are not activated.

That's correct, Space Cannon offense is part of the movement phase of a tactical action while space cannom defense is part of the invasion phase of a tactical action.

Activating the secondary of Warfare is not a tactical action.

[Tapper]

Imperial Historian, on 12 February 2019 - 02:08 PM, said:

Tapper, on 12 February 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:

My 2 cents: we need a working solution now and a clearer wording or a whole a new power that still feels like something warfare-like, next game.


I'd personally say that if the ships move as is, with anything they had on board but not dropping or taking anything else on board, whether at the start, at the end or midway through the move, feels about right.

And no matter how we define it, the shit starts slowly hitting the fan when looking at additional effects.

First, we encounter a split between technology that applies to tactical actions (Gravity Drive, Lazax Gate Folding) and those that do not but still apply to moves (Light/Wave Deflector, Anti-Mass Deflectors, Magmus Reactor).
It seems logical that technology that applies to tactical actions does not apply. After all, this is not a tactical action.
Other tech that does not mention tactical action but affects pathing and possibilities seems okay to apply to Warfare's Secondary: language wise those three all define what can be travelled through on a move, without mentioning anything about Tactical Actions.

Secondly, and much worse: the question begs itself what to do with effects (including but perhaps not limited to Neuroglaive, Nullification Field, Spacial Conduit Cylinder and E-res Siphons) that touch on activation of the system the ship travels to.
Practically speaking, the ship moves but the system it moves to is not activated, so it should not count.

However, such a definition would also preclude Warfare's secondary from activating PDS fire. Space Cannon is, per the glossary, exclusively activated as part of a Tactical Action per rule 66.2 ("during a tactical action, after the Move Ships substep of the Movement step,....". And by that reading, this Secondary would in one fell swoop become the king of all late game Secondaries.

I think the key is that warfare only targets empty systems, so not triggering PDS would be fine, most of your other options would not trigger as a result.

I think your other points feel about right for me, but we need it defining (and preferably this definition added to the starting post)

But PDS II?

[Tattersail_]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:24 PM, said:

Tattersail_, on 12 February 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

The question I have is about a specific unit - the Saar Floating Factory. It counts as a ship for movement, so would one be able to move it with Warfare secondary?

Well if you are allowing a carrier to carry fighters, then you'd have to let the factory take it's giant fleet.

I think 2 ships total as per the wording would be best or change the wording.

The ships would need to follow normal movement rules without effects.

The problem with that, Tatts, is that you might then move a Carrier but have to leave Fighters behind, which then get destroyed. Of course, that might be more what D'rek was initially envisaging, which was moving Destroyers and Cruisers around.

Yes I understand that. Like D'rek said, it is used to blockade rather than sneak up on someone. I could take a carrier with 1 fighter as that is 2 ships. If there is a spacedock then it can look after the rest for me, if not then it is a decision to be made.

[Galactic Council]

I guess it depends on whether people prefer it to be a defensive action in the main, or potentially an aggressive action as well. With the latter, I can see it being of great use to those races which will rely on large fighter fleets. Perhaps that might be too unbalanced.

[Tapper]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:39 PM, said:

I guess it depends on whether people prefer it to be a defensive action in the main, or potentially an aggressive action as well. With the latter, I can see it being of great use to those races which will rely on large fighter fleets. Perhaps that might be too unbalanced.

Well, so far most games have trended towards using a duo of Dread II + Duranium for firepower, with carried fighters as initial cover.
We'll have a true fighter threat when someone actually starts building Destroyers and/or researches Destroyer II.

[Galactic Council]

Tapper, on 12 February 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:39 PM, said:

I guess it depends on whether people prefer it to be a defensive action in the main, or potentially an aggressive action as well. With the latter, I can see it being of great use to those races which will rely on large fighter fleets. Perhaps that might be too unbalanced.

Well, so far most games have trended towards using a duo of Dread II + Duranium for firepower, with carried fighters as initial cover.
We'll have a true fighter threat when someone actually starts building Destroyers and/or researches Destroyer II.

I'm sad that you didn't consider either of my large fighter fleets in the two previous games a threat

[D'rek]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

I personally like Warfare sec to include moving whatever is 'on board' at the time the ship is moved, but they cannot pick up or drop off. As IH mentioned, those techs you raise talk about activating systems, and Warfare does not do that, so they wouldn't apply. Other 'passive' effects, such as being able to go into supernovas if you have Magmus Reactor, would apply.

There's no such thing as "on board" when the unit is stationary in 4th edition. Stationary units can either be on planets (ground forces) or in the space area of a system (ground forces and ships). So it would have to be that the ships can transport with them any transportable units that are in its space area (but not on planets of that system).

[D'rek]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

The question I have is about a specific unit - the Saar Floating Factory. It counts as a ship for movement, so would one be able to move it with Warfare secondary?

The Floating Factory is not a ship, so no. Unless you change the wording to say "units" instead of "ships".

[Galactic Council]

D, on 12 February 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:19 PM, said:

The question I have is about a specific unit - the Saar Floating Factory. It counts as a ship for movement, so would one be able to move it with Warfare secondary?

The Floating Factory is not a ship, so no. Unless you change the wording to say "units" instead of "ships".

Makes sense to me.

[Galactic Council]

D, on 12 February 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

I personally like Warfare sec to include moving whatever is 'on board' at the time the ship is moved, but they cannot pick up or drop off. As IH mentioned, those techs you raise talk about activating systems, and Warfare does not do that, so they wouldn't apply. Other 'passive' effects, such as being able to go into supernovas if you have Magmus Reactor, would apply.

There's no such thing as "on board" when the unit is stationary in 4th edition. Stationary units can either be on planets (ground forces) or in the space area of a system (ground forces and ships). So it would have to be that the ships can transport with them any transportable units that are in its space area (but not on planets of that system).

In which case that would need to be specified in the wording. It would be simpler to just say exactly one-to-two ships period. Perhaps that is the way we should go. My concern would be that it neuters the secondary a bit too much, but then again 1) people have been using it often enough anyway; 2) as a secondary action, it should be weaker in some ways.

Edit: I suppose the counter-argument could be that the fact that the secondary is already limited to moving the ships to unopposed systems only is already the weakening agent.

This post has been edited by Galactic Council: 12 February 2019 - 03:37 PM

[D'rek]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 03:34 PM, said:

D, on 12 February 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

I personally like Warfare sec to include moving whatever is 'on board' at the time the ship is moved, but they cannot pick up or drop off. As IH mentioned, those techs you raise talk about activating systems, and Warfare does not do that, so they wouldn't apply. Other 'passive' effects, such as being able to go into supernovas if you have Magmus Reactor, would apply.

There's no such thing as "on board" when the unit is stationary in 4th edition. Stationary units can either be on planets (ground forces) or in the space area of a system (ground forces and ships). So it would have to be that the ships can transport with them any transportable units that are in its space area (but not on planets of that system).

In which case that would need to be specified in the wording. It would be simpler to just say exactly one-to-two ships period. Perhaps that is the way we should go. My concern would be that it neuters the secondary a bit too much, but then again 1) people have been using it often enough anyway; 2) as a secondary action, it should be weaker in some ways.

Edit: I suppose the counter-argument could be that the fact that the secondary is already limited to moving the ships to unopposed systems only is already the weakening agent.

Saying the ship can transport up to its capacity of ground forces from the space area but it's not allowed to use that same capacity for fighters in the space area seems really weird though?

[Galactic Council]

D, on 12 February 2019 - 03:40 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 03:34 PM, said:

D, on 12 February 2019 - 03:05 PM, said:

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

I personally like Warfare sec to include moving whatever is 'on board' at the time the ship is moved, but they cannot pick up or drop off. As IH mentioned, those techs you raise talk about activating systems, and Warfare does not do that, so they wouldn't apply. Other 'passive' effects, such as being able to go into supernovas if you have Magmus Reactor, would apply.

There's no such thing as "on board" when the unit is stationary in 4th edition. Stationary units can either be on planets (ground forces) or in the space area of a system (ground forces and ships). So it would have to be that the ships can transport with them any transportable units that are in its space area (but not on planets of that system).

In which case that would need to be specified in the wording. It would be simpler to just say exactly one-to-two ships period. Perhaps that is the way we should go. My concern would be that it neuters the secondary a bit too much, but then again 1) people have been using it often enough anyway; 2) as a secondary action, it should be weaker in some ways.

Edit: I suppose the counter-argument could be that the fact that the secondary is already limited to moving the ships to unopposed systems only is already the weakening agent.

Saying the ship can transport up to its capacity of ground forces from the space area but it's not allowed to use that same capacity for fighters in the space area seems really weird though?

Sigh, yes it does. And we certainly can't propose to also leave those ground forces floating in space when the carrier or whatever moves! We can fudge it by saying 'well, they're not ships, so aren't beholden to the move 1-2 ships rule, and also carrying fighters for a stealthy blockade move is bad because the ships carrying them will make more...noise...in space...'

[Galactic Council]

As I said before, personally I like the idea that you can use it to carry fighters as well. I just can also see why that might be too powerful a secondary for certain fleet builds.

[Tattersail_]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 03:54 PM, said:

As I said before, personally I like the idea that you can use it to carry fighters as well. I just can also see why that might be too powerful a secondary for certain fleet builds.

Well you can make a final decision now for this game and we can work from there. You are the mod. You can say what will happen during the secondary. Will the ship move with fighters or will it just be 2 ships that are being moved or something else?

[D'rek]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 03:50 PM, said:

Sigh, yes it does. And we certainly can't propose to also leave those ground forces floating in space when the carrier or whatever moves!

Why not? You can do it with a tactical action, so why not with warfare secondary? If a player leaves ground forces behind, they're not supported and immediately die, then that's the player's own fault for choosing to do so... same as if they had done so with a tactical action. (and same for fighters)

[Imperial Historian]

I mean is moving a fully laden carrier really any more powerful than moving a dread? If anything disabling moving fighters pushes dreads into being even more powerful, as your mobility with carriers is significantly reduced compared to other fleet builds.

[Gnaw]

We are not happy with fighters but not infantry considering our flagship’s ability.

[Gnaw]

I’m curious why we’re having this argument now. I bet I can go back and find ten examples of this secondary being moved offensively to move fighters and or infantry.

[Tapper]

Galactic Council, on 12 February 2019 - 03:54 PM, said:

As I said before, personally I like the idea that you can use it to carry fighters as well. I just can also see why that might be too powerful a secondary for certain fleet builds.

But not allowing it creates logically stupid situations.

"The USS Nimitz is needed in the Pacific Ocean."
"Yes admiral! We are on our way! Lieutenant, throw the F15s and their pilots overboard!"