| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 185
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
 |
|
| weedsrock2 wrote: | | Where is that in the document? I don't see that in the ASW section. |
This part has been there awhile, before "ASW Threat" existed I think:
| Quote: | | A crippled Ship or Submarine rolls one less attack die when making Torpedo attacks, if they have one (to a minimum of 1 die). If that Ship or Submarine has a special ability that grants a bonus Torpedo attack die in certain conditions, then they still get that bonus die (2 dice) when attacking under those conditions. |
Also under ASW threat:
| Quote: | | Even if a Submarine's Torpedo attack rating is reduced to 0 or less after all penalties and bonuses are assessed, its Torpedo attack is always a minimum of 1 die. |
I hope when they published the revised rulebook with the new starter set that they spend some time tidying up the piecemeal rulings they've put in place to make it a little more consistent. |
|
 Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:48 am |
|
|
Has nothing to say.
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 3847
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I decided I should finally jump in on all this.
The relevant passages from the clarifications:
| Quote: | Crippled
Crippled flagships don't add their flagship bonus to the initiative roll.
A crippled Ship or Submarine rolls one less attack die when making Torpedo attacks, if they
have one (to a minimum of 1 die). If that Ship or Submarine has a special ability that grants a
bonus Torpedo attack die in certain conditions, then they still get that bonus die (2 dice) when
attacking under those conditions.
|
| Quote: | ASW threats stack; if you have several destroyers nearby, you can reduce a Submarine's attack to
0 dice or less. Special abilities apply normally, however, and abilities such as Wolfpack or
Destroyer Killer may offset some of the ASW Threat attack penalty. Even if a Submarine's
Torpedo attack rating is reduced to 0 or less after all penalties and bonuses are assessed, its
Torpedo attack is always a minimum of 1 die. |
To me, it looks like the two rules were written without looking at the effect the have on each other.
The way I read it is as such:
For healthy submarines, only the second passage applies (duh).
For crippled submarines, you apply all of the harassed penalties. Actually, let me use an example here.
U-510 has wolfpack, but is crippled.
Range 1 shot = 3 dice
4 adjacent destroyers = -4.
Currently at -1.
Kondor is pinpointing. Brings it to 0 (you add this now because it's another unit's SA, not its own).
Because you have added all outside bonuses and penalties (excluding the own unit's SA), and the result is zero, you make it the minimum of 1.
But because you are crippled, you still get the benefits of your own SA, so you add 1 die, for 2 total.
So in a bizarre way, the crippled sub is actually better than the healthy one.
_________________
I have to make a new sig because my old one is too wide for this new look... |
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:50 am |
|
|
Posts: 185
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I think back in that Feb disaster of rule rewriting they clarified the issue of harassment vs crippling after about 4 reprints of the Rule Mudi...er, Clarification. Once the dust settled, crippled was applied first such that harassment trumped it to avoid situations as you just described. |
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:23 am |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 4166
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Hmm. I see where you are coming from. I agree this is an 'artifact' of the harrassment rules being created after the Advanced Rules were created. I think we should post this on the WotC board and see what Steve says about it.
_________________
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care"
Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship! |
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:24 am |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I really do think it should be a two-step sort of process. Add all bonuses, subtract all negatives (crippled and harassment), then apply the min. one rule.
Now it feels more complicated.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
|
Forum Administrator
Posts: 6928
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | I really do think it should be a two-step sort of process. Add all bonuses, subtract all negatives (crippled and harassment), then apply the min. one rule.
Now it feels more complicated. |
I agree that this makes the most sense. I also think Weeds is correct that this is probably a rules artifact that needs a clarification.
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:54 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok, I guess I'll post this one in the other forum.
_________________
|
|
| Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
|
Posts: 591
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Aquarius wrote: | | So in a bizarre way, the crippled sub is actually better than the healthy one. |
This is why the crippled status is applied before any threat and SAs. In the end a crippled sub can be just as good as a healthy one, but never better, which is how it should be. I crippled unit should never be able to outperform it's "full" self.
wilt57
_________________
 |
|
| Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:22 am |
|
|
Love this Picture
Posts: 125
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| wilt57 wrote: | | I believe swarbs is correct here. The crippled status is not really a penalty as it is a "state of being."Thus it is applied first... |
This is the only way these two situations occurring together makes any sense.
| wilt57 wrote: | and then the harrassment penalties and SA bonuses apply against each other, a 0 resulting in 1 die.
This is how we have always played it and this is how the rules make most sense to me. That said WotC's ruling may be different.
wilt57 |
_________________
 |
|
| Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way -- G.S. Patton
Posts: 2828
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Let me muddy the waters a bit....we had not played much since the harrassment ruling until now.
1. Does harassment only count if a unit actually makes an ASW attack on the sub in the same sector or just if a unit is in the same sector and has an ASW value?
Examples: S
-Swordfish makes a torp attack, but has an ASW value would this count as harrassment?
-Destoyer with ASW value makes gunnery/torp attack against another ship. Harrassment or not?
2. Does it only apply during the sub phase? For example I have 2 destroyers that make ASW attacks, but are eliminated due to enemy gunnery attack. Common sense tells me they harrassed the sub, but they are no longer there during the actual sub phase. No harrassment or -2?
TIA,
_________________
Aaron
"Focus on your own character and your reputation will take care of itself" |
|
| Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:12 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Afilter. It is different for different unit types. You only count aircraft if they made an attack on the sub this turn (hit or not). Ships are counted, but not until the sub phase itself. Count all local and adjacent units with ASW, whether they made an attack or not.
_________________
|
|
| Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:06 pm |
|
|
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way -- G.S. Patton
Posts: 2828
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | | Afilter. It is different for different unit types. You only count aircraft if they made an attack on the sub this turn (hit or not). Ships are counted, but not until the sub phase itself. Count all local and adjacent units with ASW, whether they made an attack or not. |
OK, so it is adjacent as well. So a DD does not have to make an ASW attack or even be in the same sector where a plane does.
I guess that makes sense and takes a bit of the sting out of a wolf pack.
We were playing local only and only if it made an ASW attack.
_________________
Aaron
"Focus on your own character and your reputation will take care of itself" |
|
| Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
AHF Bronze-Rated Trader
Posts: 296
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| swarbs wrote: | Greyh, here's a quote from the clarifications document. I had always played as you did also, but I guess in error, unless this sentence is new:
A crippled Ship or Submarine rolls one less attack die when making Torpedo attacks, if they
have one (to a minimum of 1 die). If that Ship or Submarine has a special ability that grants a
bonus Torpedo attack die in certain conditions, then they still get that bonus die (2 dice) when
attacking under those conditions.
As others have said, I guess crippled is sort of counted first, this can take you no lower than one. Add bonuses, subtract harassment, then it is lower than one, bump it up to one.
I think the problem is these two rules weren't really considered together, so it might be a valid question for the other board. |
This is how I understand it as well and there is a post on the AH site under clarifications stating the basic formula. In one of the examples in a previous entry there was no harrassment so the formula was correct. In fact I believe that all the examples were correct. The largest factor is always the harassment. I have used PT boats in tandem with DD's and was consistantly able to reduce my opponent (GE) to 1 die per attack even though he had Wolfpack and Pinpointer (or whatever it is they get from the Condor). In total the harrassment was around a -6 or -8 in some cases. The addition of the harassment rules really makes DD's and PT/MTB's worth bringing along. Especially if your opponent is sub heavy. |
|
| Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:27 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Yep, this is one that was just clarified with a change to the rules update doc by WAS. Effectively they've removed the guarantee that an SA always give a unit a +1 that can't be harassed or modified away.
Now it's simple. Add all positives and negatives. Raise the result to a minimum of one. Fire away.
_________________
|
|
| Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 249
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
What ships contribute to ASW negative modifiers on the sub--all ships in the vicinity that turn, or only the ones remaining by the submarine attack phase?
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:00 am |
|
|
Posts: 622
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Only those remaining during the sub attack phase. |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:16 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tincancaptain wrote: | | Only those remaining during the sub attack phase. |
Exactly
_________________
|
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:27 pm |
|
|
Thank God I have done my Duty
Posts: 392
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Isn't all of this debate about WHEN a crippled sub recieves its SA irrelevant, crippled units don't benefit from their own SAs. So there is no "when".
_________________
...it is good that war is so horrible, lest we grow too fond of it. -Bobby Lee
W@S BS 64/64 TF 60/60 FS 40/40 |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:16 pm |
|
|
Posts: 622
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Lobukia wrote: | | crippled units don't benefit from their own SAs. |
Say again? |
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:37 pm |
|
|
Nothing but Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash.
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I believe that crippled ships only lose the benefit of their flags, not their SA's.
_________________
|
|
| Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
