DW SAS in 2.5 and beyond

[CDR-G]

So SAS need some work, both in 2.5 and hopefully in 3.0.
CAP- seems messed up and a bit contradictory/not well defined in 2.5.
 It is now an attached unit. you can piece together its limits and uses from different rules sections. It is limited to being taken from Local air with common exceptions for Medium Bombers and other notable ones like the Tunguska. SAS can roam within command distance and can attack and link as other escorts- or be attacked independent of the Parent. It can also be out of ACK ACK Counterair range when its parent is attacked!
It cannot become an attachment after the game starts since it functions like other attachments/escorts and they can't attach or re-attach during a game-even if a parent is lost (or CAN they?).
Like other attachments it can not be detached- except that Disorder detaches it by rule-- then what? No more CAP and an extra activation and an independent SAS unit appears? The Disorder rule is probably an unintended leftover from 2.0 since it confuses the attachment aspect-- are SAS the same as other attached units, (as the rules state) or not?
It can be affected by carrier actions by default, since nothing says it can't. So a nearby carrier can replenish CAP? The rules don't address other carrier actions, like rebuild, or re-task. One infers that since CAP must be fighters re-task is not allowed. Presumably a SAS CAP unit can be rebuilt if lost and then be an independent SAS unit.
Many aspects affect CAP which result from a lack of rules describing it and inferences and generalization from stated rules.
There are more than enough inferential applications of the rules to cause misinterpretation to be common and to deserve a paragraph consolidating them.
I usually ask to not have local air in my games. It cleans things up, lowers the activation count and makes SAS less dominant. Since I play mostly scenarios it is written in. If an airbase is involved we just use the LF unit. Some scenarios have one side with local air.

Re-build needs to be limited-I would make it a commodore ability and limit it to once per game. Units rebuilt would start with an activation marker.

Thoughts?

[Merlin]

SAS as a CAP function in the same manner as all attachments. I don't know where you got the idea that they can detach when the parent suffers a disorder though. No attachment can do that, and as such neither does the CAP.

Carriers can replenish the squadron, but they cannot change the CAP from a Fighter to a Dive Bomber for example as that would break the attachment, which the rules does not allow.
But the carrier can rebuild from the remains of that squadron if it is destroyed as normal.


I personally do not understand many players confusion with the SAS, carrier and CAP rules in v2.5. It is all there and not that confusing. Most of the time it's players reading test too much into it, or not reading the specific limits on such things because they are on a different page to the one that has the rule in question.

[CDR-G]

Disorder and CAP: Page 105
If a Disorder Test is Failed, the Squadron is Disordered. Models that are Disordered cannot:
• Perform ANY Firing Options other than Standard
Fire.
• Have Tactical Action Cards played upon them by
their controlling player.
• Initiate a Boarding Action.
• Perform Carrier Actions or Launch Drones.
• Have a Combat Patrol attach to them.
• Disembark any units Embarked upon the

[CDR-G]

I am not sure I would say CAP functions like other attachments. It can be acted upon by another squadron through Carrier Actions. You may be right that "it is all there," but like I said it has to be pieced together.
So what happens to orphaned attachments? To Escorts and CAP? And where is that addressed in the rules? If it is not addressed in the rules then people have to figure out by inference.  The rules state that attachments, escorts and CAP must be attached to Parent. It is just as valid in logic to infer they are lost when the parent is lost as it is to say they become independent squadrons. Something that is not described in the rules except to imply it is not allowed. It is silly to use that interpretation but the approach you use would allow it.
Lastly the extensive changes from the 2.0 rules and interpretations for SAS should have been addressed specifically. That is just good communication. One can not say that the Spartan rules sets have not needed interpretation and further refinement in the past.None are perfect, so expecting people to understand it when they can't sure it isn't wrong and overcoming past expectations by piecing a rule set together is a bit hard.

[Ruckdog]

I am not sure I would say CAP functions like other attachments. It can be acted upon by another squadron through Carrier Actions. You may be right that "it is all there," but like I said it has to be pieced together.
So what happens to orphaned attachments? To Escorts and CAP? And where is that addressed in the rules? If it is not addressed in the rules then people have to figure out by inference.  The rules state that attachments, escorts and CAP must be attached to Parent. It is just as valid in logic to infer they are lost when the parent is lost as it is to say they become independent squadrons. Something that is not described in the rules except to imply it is not allowed. It is silly to use that interpretation but the approach you use would allow it.
Lastly the extensive changes from the 2.0 rules and interpretations for SAS should have been addressed specifically. That is just good communication. One can not say that the Spartan rules sets have not needed interpretation and further refinement in the past.None are perfect, so expecting people to understand it when they can't sure it isn't wrong and overcoming past expectations by piecing a rule set together is a bit hard.

As I read the rules, there is nothing to support the idea that an attachment of any sort should cease to exist when the parent squadron is destroyed. Regarding the Disorder rules, I think what we have here are some vestigal elements from the edits made to the rules for the 2.0 to 2.5 transition. The specific mention of CAP in the Disorder section on page 105 seems to be a left-over from 2.0 when you could attach and detach CAP at will. Another editing error can be seen when you look at page 186. The CAP section there refers to "Combat Air Patrol rules on Page 86," but that is the wrong page number! So, I think it is probably best to disregard the language on pg 105 given how its inconsistent with the rest of the revised rules.

Here is my interpretation:

-Escorts, CAP, and other models with the Attachment MAR can be attached to a Parent Squadron (Pg 80, and Pg 160)
-A parent squadron with any sort of attachment becomes a Mixed Squadron (Pg 79)
-A Mixed Squadron behaves as any normal squadron would for the purposes of Disorder, command, actions, etc (Pg 80)
-Escorts are an exception from the normal mixed squadron rules in that the loss of an escort does not trigger a Disorder test (Pg 80, Pg 196)
-CAP are an exception from the normal Mixed Squadron rules in that the loss of the CAP does not trigger a disorder test (Pg 80)

So, what that means in the case of the CAP is that it is deployed with its parent model at the start of the game, and activates with the parent model during the Squadron Activation Phase.

Now, what is not covered, and is still open to interpretation IMO:

-Can a completely destroyed CAP be re-launched as a new SAS of any type by a CV?

-Can a CAP be re-tasked by a friendly CV (ie, changed from fighters to dive/torpedo bombers)? Does the answer to this question change if the parent squadron is destroyed, and the CAP is left by itself?

What I'm in favor of is that a destroyed CAP can be re-launched as a standard SAS by a friendly CV, as it keeps the re-launch rules and procedures straightforward (if you have a dead SAS in your scrap yard, its eligible for re-launch). I also think that a friendly carrier should be permitted to perform re-task actions on a SAS that's attached as CAP, regardless of whether the parent squadron is dead or alive; the rules for CV actions (pg 88) state that they can be performed on any SAS, and there are no exceptions for CAP listed.

[Merlin]

Spartan Mike made the correction about retasking CAP from fighter to dive Bombers saying that it just cannot be done. Mostly because it would break the rules as only Fighter CAP can be attached to a parent models. Not dive or torpedo SAS. 

So they cannot be retasked by a carrier, But they can be replenished as normal. If they are destroyed during the game they can be re-launched as an unattached unit, because it is no long a CAP. And similarly, if the parent is desteoyed, it reverts back to its normal SAS state, much like escorts when the parent is destroyed.

Every other rule in the rulebook doesn't support any other interpretation than this as it would break too.many rules.

[CDR-G]

So I can go along with all that.
CAP: no re-tasking.  That makes sense
SAS CAP can be replenished by carrier actions. Why not.
Orphaned SAS become independent. A reasonable interpretation of a missing rule.

[Ruckdog]

Spartan Mike made the correction about retasking CAP from fighter to dive Bombers saying that it just cannot be done. Mostly because it would break the rules as only Fighter CAP can be attached to a parent models. Not dive or torpedo SAS. 

True, but this ruling also “breaks” the rule that CV actions can be applied to any SAS, which makes it unintuitive per the RAW.. This is a case where clarification was legitimately needed, and it’s good that Spartan Mike got the word out on it.

[Merlin]

It's more a case of other rules within the rulebook prevent it. For example, there is no provision for attached models to ever detach from their parent squadron. Since there is no provision for this, in order to stay legal during the game CAP must always be Fighters, otherwise you are trying to force the unit to detach from the parent since only fighters can be CAP. But since there is no way to detach a unit, you've essentially broken the rules in retasking the SAS squadron, since dive and torpedo bombers cannot be a CAP and would have to detach from the parent. But again, since it can't detach you'd  be essentially making a unit that can serve no purpose to the parent since they can't help it in any way during the game.

So the only logical conclusion is that they can never be retasked under any circumstances while the parent is alive

[Ruckdog]

So the only logical conclusion is that they can never be retasked under any circumstances while the parent is alive

It's definitely a logical conclusion, but I maintain that it's not the only logical conclusion. One could also look at the "must be fighters" provision as applying only to when the mixed squadron is deployed at the start of the game, as the rules don't state something along the lines of "CAP must remain fighters throughout the entire game" and elsewhere in the rules it states that CV actions can be performed on any SAS, with no exceptions mentioned for CAP. Logically, if I can use replenish and re-launch CV actions on CAP, there is no reason in the RAW that explicitly prevents me from using the re-task CV action.

As I said, though, this is all a moot point since we have what I would consider an official answer on the question from the dev team .