community rules changes - ideas/direction

[Asuo]

An easy way to understand the SAS issue is the trays, you can only rebuild if you have a tray in your graveyard to rebuild.

[Amiral X]

It's not said in the rules ! they only say you need to have enough SAW ! And Trays are optional game help, lots of players play without trays...
This doesn't solve the issue...

Here is the rule text :
"The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it."

So, it is not a mandatory to have loose a full SAS before, and SAW can come from the local air support looses. And nothing is mentionned about trays.
We all agree with the fact that there is an issu with that rule. we just need to find the proper way to solve it...

[erloas]

It's not said in the rules ! they only say you need to have enough SAW ! And Trays are optional game help, lots of players play without trays...
This doesn't solve the issue...

Here is the rule text :
"The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it."

So, it is not a mandatory to have loose a full SAS before, and SAW can come from the local air support looses. And nothing is mentionned about trays.
We all agree with the fact that there is an issu with that rule. we just need to find the proper way to solve it...

Except that we had an official clarification on RAI.

I think the key is the fact that the skill is re-build, not launch or build.  You can only rebuild something that already exists, so you can only rebuild a SAS if a SAS was destroyed.  That SAS is made up of SAW and the SAW must come from your graveyard.  The point being that you are rebuilding a SAS unit and you can only rebuild once it is destroyed.  SAS and SAW are not the same thing (related and interconnected, but not the same)

The problem with you're quote is you left off half of the rule, the full rule is:

Sometimes SAS will be completely eliminated by the enemy either through heroic Dogfights or sheer volumes of AA! In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a lost SAS. The Carrier Model may then immediately launch the new SAS equal to the permitted Squadron size stated in the Carrier’s MAR. This new SAS can only be Re-Built from SAW casualties taken from a player’s Scrapyard. The newly created SAS must be deployed within 4” of the Carrier Model which created it

I have highlighted the key points you left out.

Granted since the rules are moving into community territory we can change the "official" RAI if that is what we think is best.
I personally think keeping the limitation on SAS having to be destroyed to re-build a SAS is the way to go.  About the only change I would see is something alone the lines of "if the SAS was lost in the same turn it is being rebuild then the re-built SAS keeps the activation/not-activated status of the lost SAS, if the SAS was lost in a previous turn then the rebuild SAS has no activation marker"

[Amiral X]

Keeping tracks of which SAS has been destroyed in the current turn and if it were already activeated or not sounds complicated and heavy to do. But why not... différents options have to been tested, event keeping the actual rules if you think that there is no problem with it... The only thing I was pointed out is that the rules are at least unclear and probably (IMHO) unbalanced. 

[Asuo]

I've played only three games since the new edition came out and seen a few games played, the potential is there but the practicality doesn't work out. I mentioned the trays as it's a good way to track your current units.

A force can be set up for carrier spam, FSA seem best due to lots of cheap carriers, this can be strong but your ships can easily be dealt with due to being of a weaker build.

[Elessar]

Keeping tracks of which SAS has been destroyed in the current turn and if it were already activeated or not sounds complicated and heavy to do. But why not... différents options have to been tested, event keeping the actual rules if you think that there is no problem with it... The only thing I was pointed out is that the rules are at least unclear and probably (IMHO) unbalanced.

Unbalanced perhaps if played the way you initially outlined, yes.  As it is, with the requirement for an SAS to be destroyed, not merely SAW, it is a powerful option that detracts from the fleet ability to do much else the more resources you dedicate to doing it. 

That is, in a nutshell, how you try to balance such things.

[Amiral X]

Last week I played 2 test game with a Savannah on one side and no skyfortress on the other side.
First game, 800pts RoF fleet cleared out of the table in 3 turn,
second game 1000pts Chinese fleet cleared out of table in 4 turn.
Games were played with restricted rules (SAS rebuild only if tray avalaible in scrapeyard, and number of SAS rebuild in a single turn limited by carrier rule (meaning 2x4 SAS a turn foir a SAvannah)

In both game FSA fleet damage very low and most of damage down to ennemy large have been made by SAS Bombers from Savannah.

This just pointed out that the actual rules a really unbalanced...

We are looking for balancing modifications, probably :
- no carrier action if carrier is Stratospheric
- rebuild SAS enter whith an "activated" marker.

More test will be made with these modifications.

[Elessar]

Maybe because you are playing with such small forces that it exacerbates the issues? 800 points is not a real game, and I know for a fact the game was not really tested at that level.

[erloas]

Without knowing lists and what happened it is of limited value.  For all we know the FSA player could be really good and the other players new or working with really weird lists.  (back when I played a game not to be mentioned the army I had chosen was considered sub-par, I went on to win something like 90-95% of the games I played.  My brother also mentioned how tactically inept so many of the players in the area are).

Was the Savannah the key to victory?  If the bombers did most of the work then what was the rest of the fleet doing?  And if the bombers were destroying everything then they clearly weren't being shot down and rebuilt constantly (because a shot down SAS unit deals no damage).  The Savannah was implied to be stratospheric the whole time, but did that actually make a difference?  If the FSA had clear air superiority it could have been just as one sided if it had never left obscured (which is what it could do in 2.0).  Would the outcome have been much different if the Savannah had been switched out for a San Francisco or a Saratoga?

[Amiral X]

I already posted a AAR for these 2 games in french on the french forum... don't have much courage to write them again in English

The fact is that players are of equivalent skills in both games, and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.

For the two games, the savannah was clearly the central unit of FSA victory. In the 2 games it goes straospheric as the first activation of FSA player in turn 1 and remains their until last activation in turn 3 at which point it fly down in obscured in the middle of enemy fleet (meaning in RB1 of any potential threat). In addition, in the two games the FSA had a clear SAS superiority but without tha ability to recycle SAS directly on the front line, this superiority wouldn't have been so deadly for enemy fleet.
I don't think the result would have been the same with Saragota or San Francisco, because they can cycle SAS directly in attacking range without exposing themselves to enemy fire, which mean they will be quickly killed by enemy fire, while the Savannah in obscured is completly safe...

But as I said, I think more play testing should be made arround this issu, including battle opposing skyfortress fleet against fleet carrier escorted one.

[Elessar]

and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.

I accept you believe so, but the version 2.0 rules were apparently not tested at all at that level, and I really see no likelihood 2.5 was either.  Especially when 800 points is such a bizarre number to pick.

If the game was untested at such points levels, there is little reason to expect it to be balanced at such, especially when we are using the 2.0 Orbats with added typos and a small fraction of extra units.

[Amiral X]

I don't agree : as an active member of the V2.0 beta test process, I assure that lots of game have been made at this level of point !

In addition, for balance purpose, such size of game are really relevent because it allow to point out the balance issue more easily and quickly. And a problem that appears in 800 pts because of a unbalanced model will also happen in a 1500 pts game where a player field 2 of this model !

[Merlin]

The rulebook is quite clear as to how Re-Building works. It was even clarified on the Spartan Forums long before it shut down.

You can only re-build a squadron if One of the SAS you had on the table at the beginning of the game has died. It doesn't matter if the SAWs are taken from casualties of another SAS as the individual SAWs do not matter for the calculation.


To quote the important part of the rule from the rulebook, word for word:

In order to execute a Re-Build Carrier Action, a Carrier Model must spend 3 Carrier Points to Re-Build a LOST SAS.

It goes like this.

You start with 4 SAS on the table. At some point in the game one of those SAS is destroyed

4SAS - 1SAS = 3SAS

At a later point, a Carrier Re-Builds a new SAS

3SAS + 1SAS = 4SAS


Later in the game 2SAS are destroyed (or lost)

4SAS - 2SAS = 2SAS

Then the Carrier activated and Re-Builds a Single SAS as it does not have the points to create 2 of them at the same time

2SAS + 1SAS = 3SAS


See? Its does not matter how many SAWs you have in your scrapyard. They do not even come into the equation. It only matters how many SAS you have on the table and how many you started with. You cannot have more SAS than you started the game with and that is because the rule says you can only rebuild a LOST SAS. Not half of the loses of 2SAS, but one full SAS that has been sent to the scrapyard.



There is nothing wrong with the rule or the rulebook. Your just wrong. The rulebook is clear and it has been clarified before. And it is not hard to keep track if an SAS has died. You just look for a tray in your Scrapyard.

[CDR-G]

I already posted a AAR for these 2 games in french on the french forum... don't have much courage to write them again in English

The fact is that players are of equivalent skills in both games, and 800-1000pt games are perfect for play testing purpose.

For the two games, the savannah was clearly the central unit of FSA victory. In the 2 games it goes straospheric as the first activation of FSA player in turn 1 and remains their until last activation in turn 3 at which point it fly down in obscured in the middle of enemy fleet (meaning in RB1 of any potential threat). In addition, in the two games the FSA had a clear SAS superiority but without tha ability to recycle SAS directly on the front line, this superiority wouldn't have been so deadly for enemy fleet.
I don't think the result would have been the same with Saragota or San Francisco, because they can cycle SAS directly in attacking range without exposing themselves to enemy fire, which mean they will be quickly killed by enemy fire, while the Savannah in obscured is completly safe...

But as I said, I think more play testing should be made arround this issu, including battle opposing skyfortress fleet against fleet carrier escorted one.

Two 2x4 bombers did all that damage? Where they always destroyed completely AFTER attacking? Did the targets not have any escorts or CAP? Wow! That's some bombing, especially if the bombers were not within four inches of the Saratoga or not completely destroyed. Maximum of 6/8 attacks-IF there are in range on turn one. This is not my experience. If I faced a Saratoga, a Rousseau or a squadron of Voltaires should make it a more dicey.

[Amiral X]

It's not only the 2x4 SAS from the Savannah that did all the dommage, the 2x5 SAS from local air support also did lost of dommage when turn into bomber by retask action...
With an additionnal SAS from the B72, I had 5SAS to cycle around my Savannah. In a 800 pt game its very efficient...