Collected FAQ/Errata Round 2

What would you guys like to see this ruled as?

Because currently rules as written, you cannot purchase an Level 1 Admiral, so cannot upgrade them in a larger ship. Also you do not currently start the game with 1 AV but you do for the purposes of Command Cards.

Actually I just want the last sentence to be "official" as some people deny anything that is not explicitly written down. So write it down so that we can all be happy again.

++1

@Cry: I didn't say that my group said you couldn't Max Thrust a Voidgate and then deploy a Ground Asset token, what I said was that our Shaltari players chose not to do that, you could say for "moral" reasons. Just because something is legal to do doesn't make it "right" -- but, obviously, that is in the eye of the beholder, and up to each individual to choose to either do or not do. Certainly, up until the latest ruling, that was a legal move, and I wouldn't have disputed that based on a strict RAW interpretation...

We had a similar discussion yesterday already but it's something i feel atrongly about: There should never be things that are legal but not "right". It's detrimental to the community and goes against the spirit of the game.

Locally established rule variants also have potential to create awkward situations unless people are very careful to make sure everyone is on the same page. But it's more clear cut and less emotional if there's no "moral" component involved i think.

What would you guys like to see this ruled as?

Because currently rules as written, you cannot purchase an Level 1 Admiral, so cannot upgrade them in a larger ship. Also you do not currently start the game with 1 AV but you do for the purposes of Command Cards.

Personally i think it would be less confusing if the rule was something like "You have a minimum hand size of one even if you AV is zero" than having AV1 for one purpose but not for another.

But it's more clear cut and less emotional if there's no "moral" component involved i think.

That's very German of you. (Yes, that's a compliment.)

Apparently the Shaltari players in Phoenix chose to take the moral high ground. No one forced them to, no one asked them to, they just did it.

And they still won nearly all of their games, and took First and Second at the LVO.

Go figure...

I think you focused on the wrong part of my point J.D. We both use gentlemen agreements at our local clubs. These are not rules (no one is getting in trouble for wanting to measure to the sector in our games) just local guidelines for how a group of people feel the game could be better. There are no morals to be had here. This is a game played for fun and things that get in the way of that are not moral dilemmas to be debated by the clergy. You just gentlemen agreement away things that effect local fun and then go on the forums to get the rules changed so your agreement is no longer needed Again my point is make the main rules clear so we don't have a conflict of gentlemen later on (hunting rifles are typically not used in duels and I'm not handgun trained so would most likely do poorly at 10 paces).

Winning at LVO was because they are good generals with a strong local player base the they can practice with. It's amazing what a small think tank of good generals can come up with if you lock them into a club together! If those same players met with their equals across the world it would be interesting to see how it played out (and when/if it happens please have a table side reporter so we can get some nice batreps out of it).

Do I care if you draw a card with no Admiral selected? Does it effect my fun or will it likely effect the fun of my local players? Will I be sad if Liam's indication of intent that you get a card with no Admiral is clarified and made true in the RAW? The answer is no to all of these things. I don't care one way or the other until I am a rules judge at an event and two people are arguing over some stupid little thing that was easily fixed by a single line.

If I ever go to LVO or someplace else you'll find me quite happy to just play the game and have fun. Bar talk after about rules might get me on my rules tangents like here on the forums (with more or less clarity depending who's tab we are drinking on ) but that is not what I'm looking for across the table. The last big event (60+ players) I was involved in as a player I was voted Best Sportsman so clearly my pedantry online is simply to ensure that we can keep the trend going!

Personally i think it would be less confusing if the rule was something like "You have a minimum hand size of one even if you AV is zero" than having AV1 for one purpose but not for another.

I'd support this.

What would you guys like to see this ruled as?

Because currently rules as written, you cannot purchase an Level 1 Admiral, so cannot upgrade them in a larger ship. Also you do not currently start the game with 1 AV but you do for the purposes of Command Cards.

I'd like to see everyone have 1 AV no matter what, with all the game effects of that including drawing one command card per turn.

I'd like to see everyone have 1 AV no matter what, with all the game effects of that including drawing one command card per turn.

I may be wrong, but believe that everyone gets 1 command card... AV 1 reflecting the capacity of the senior remaining Captain to execute command of the Fleet. The issue to which people are referring is, I think, the idea that the captain of a Battlecruiser could be AV 2 (as admirals get 1 free promotion for being on these) and Battleship captains could be AV 3 (admirals getting 2 free promotions for being on these).
...
The consensus is that these promotions are currently only available to bought admirals, meaning that the 20 point nominal AV 2 Admiral is the most important rank, as it gives you your one or two free promotions based on flagship.
...
While from a fluff perspective I can understand a Battleship captain being much better suited to taking over command in the event of the flagship's destruction, I think giving them free level 3 Admirals would discourage buying bigger admirals, and giving them better fallback AVs would incentivize a return to people putting their purchased admirals on smaller vessels - confident in keeping AV 3 even if one is taken out.
In short, it's a fluff vs game balance question.

I don't know if this topic is still active, but I think the consolidated list is awesome and I have two a questions I'm not sure can be answered with the current rules (though I can be wrong).

When in the "ground combat step" is the firing of the orbital guns and defence weapons taking place? Before movement? In the "resolve combat" step - and in that case, after or before the combat itself?
I would think it makes sense to shoot them before moving tropps so that it is the holding of sectors before the ground combat starts, the decides if you can fire a weapon.

Also, there is some confusion about holding and controlling. On page 74 it says to hold a sector, you need more tokens than your opponent. Later on the same column, it says that you must control more value of sectors than your opponent to control the cluster. I assume that control and hold means the same?

When in the "ground combat step" is the firing of the orbital guns and defence weapons taking place? Before movement? In the "resolve combat" step - and in that case, after or before the combat itself?
I would think it makes sense to shoot them before moving tropps so that it is the holding of sectors before the ground combat starts, the decides if you can fire a weapon.

You are right. It happens first.
P74 "At the beginning of the ground combat step"
P39 "Ground Combat. Resolve any ground asset movements... ->P55 and following-> Ground combat activation P58 1.) Initiative 2.) Movement and so on.
The only thing that is debateable is how initiative concerning the shooting is handled as RAW it happens before initiative deterimnation but that can be solved by common sense I guess.

Also, there is some confusion about holding and controlling. On page 74 it says to hold a sector, you need more tokens than your opponent. Later on the same column, it says that you must control more value of sectors than your opponent to control the cluster. I assume that control and hold means the same?

Right. Control = Hold.

When in the "ground combat step" is the firing of the orbital guns and defence weapons taking place? Before movement? In the "resolve combat" step - and in that case, after or before the combat itself?
I would think it makes sense to shoot them before moving tropps so that it is the holding of sectors before the ground combat starts, the decides if you can fire a weapon.

You are right. It happens first.
P74 "At the beginning of the ground combat step"
P39 "Ground Combat. Resolve any ground asset movements... ->P55 and following-> Ground combat activation P58 1.) Initiative 2.) Movement and so on.
The only thing that is debateable is how initiative concerning the shooting is handled as RAW it happens before initiative deterimnation but that can be solved by common sense I guess.

But I don't think the rules are clear on this. What is "the ground combat step". Is that the entire thing around what is happening on the ground or is it only the subsequent step in which fighting is taking place? They don't use the same terms.