Support Lance/Fire Lance verbage oddity

[DarkJaguar]

RAW vs. RAI has always been the bane of the rules for games, and this particular scenario is an interesting example in my eyes.  First off, the offending language from the support lance...

Bonus Ability: Before the start of play, each Support Lance must designate one other formation type in its army to support. For every 2 units in the supported formation that make use of a formation-provided bonus ability, 1 unit in its Support Lance receives the same ability. This bonus ability is retained as long as the Support Lance still has three or more active units on the field; they are not lost if the supported lance is reduced below its own ability to retain the bonus ability.

Now here's where it gets wonky...

Bonus Ability: At the beginning of each turn, up to 2 Fire Lance units may receive the Sniper Special Pilot Ability (see p. 56), which will affect their weapon attacks during that turn.

The bonus abilities for the fire lance aren't assigned until the start of a turn.  I'm not arguing that the support lance cannot make use of the fire lance SPA's, but as it's literally written (not intended, again RAW vs. RAI), they can't.

Here's a handy visual aid!

Game Setup
     Assign support SPA's
     Start of play
          First round
               Fire Lance SPA's assigned
               initiative
               movement
               combat
               end
          second round
               ...
          ...

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Scotty]

Support units declare which other formation they're going to piggyback off of at the start of the game.  It does not say that the SPAs are required to be assigned in the other formation for that bonus to continue.

This isn't a RAW issue.  :)

[DarkJaguar]

Support units declare which other formation they're going to piggyback off of at the start of the game.  It does not say that the SPAs are required to be assigned in the other formation for that bonus to continue.

This isn't a RAW issue.  :)

It does say that though.

For every 2 units in the supported formation that make use of a formation-provided bonus ability

The formation they're piggybacking off of doesn't have any units making use of a special abilities, then they cannot assign one to their own units

Edit for clarity of speech.

[Scotty]

The Fire Lance tells you outright that two units in the formation make use of the formation-provided ability.  The fact that which two units that happens to be is not decided until the game starts is irrelevant.

[DarkJaguar]

The Fire Lance tells you outright that two units in the formation make use of the formation-provided ability.  The fact that which two units that happens to be is not decided until the game starts is irrelevant.

That's not entirely true either.  The fire lance states that UP TO two -MAY- make use of the ability.

[Scotty]

That's language to reflect the that failing to choose a unit to get the benefit is a missed opportunity and not an impossible gamestate that must be corrected.  It also reflects that the Support Lance follows the same rules as the formation it supports: you may pick up to one unit to gain the corresponding ability for each two units that would be able to gain the ability of their parent lance.  The Fire Lance explicitly declares that this number is two; the Support Lance therefore gets one.

This is not a RAW issue.

[GoldBishop]

"Assaut Lance" formation (ASC p.151) is the same way; "up to 2 units MAY have the chosen SPA"

I agree with Scotty - the wording is a polite courtesy and does not imply a requirement.  We only get permission to assign that many units a given SPA within the chosen formation.

my Rule of Thumb with Support formations: assume the number of units that MAY have the chosen ability as the maximum when assigning the Support Lance formation abilities.  For instance: the already established 1:2 ratio means you can have a maximum of 50% Forward Observers in a Support Lance that supports a Recon lances (which must have 100% unit SPA assignment). 

At my tables? Unlike Scotty, if the assignment of the ability goes undeclared, whoever had the ability last continues to have it... whether they can use it or not (for Fire Lances, Sniper is wasted on targets outside reach or LoS, Oblique is wasted on targets IN LoS; Assault Lances, Demoralizer is wasted on units outside of movement range, and Multi-Attacker is wasted on a unit without an enemy in LoS).
Again, one simply misses the opportunity to move the assigned ability to someone who would have actual use for it. 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I agree with Scotty.

Basically, the only way this could be a problem with RAW is to ignore alternate ways of reading it in order to make it be broken.

[nckestrel]

That does remind me of one issue though.  A formation of protomechs in a Recon Formation, 100% get Forward Observer.
A Support Star of 'mechs supports that protomech Recon Star, it gets 12 Forward Observers?

[Scotty]

That does remind me of one issue though.  A formation of protomechs in a Recon Formation, 100% get Forward Observer.
A Support Star of 'mechs supports that protomech Recon Star, it gets 12 Forward Observers?

This is exactly why I dislike calling a Protomech "Star" a formation of 25 and not a collection of Point-sized formations.

Less helpful are Vehicle Stars, which can absolutely do the same thing but can't be organized into Points with the same benefit.

[DarkJaguar]

"Assaut Lance" formation (ASC p.151) is the same way; "up to 2 units MAY have the chosen SPA"

I agree with Scotty - the wording is a polite courtesy and does not imply a requirement.  We only get permission to assign that many units a given SPA within the chosen formation.

my Rule of Thumb with Support formations: assume the number of units that MAY have the chosen ability as the maximum when assigning the Support Lance formation abilities.  For instance: the already established 1:2 ratio means you can have a maximum of 50% Forward Observers in a Support Lance that supports a Recon lances (which must have 100% unit SPA assignment). 

At my tables? Unlike Scotty, if the assignment of the ability goes undeclared, whoever had the ability last continues to have it... whether they can use it or not (for Fire Lances, Sniper is wasted on targets outside reach or LoS, Oblique is wasted on targets IN LoS; Assault Lances, Demoralizer is wasted on units outside of movement range, and Multi-Attacker is wasted on a unit without an enemy in LoS).
Again, one simply misses the opportunity to move the assigned ability to someone who would have actual use for it.

Here's my problem with saying that this isn't a RAW issue though.  If you apply stacking order , the assault formation is likewise not eligible to give the support formation any special abilities, not because of the number of abilities that is assigned, but because of WHEN they are assigned.

RAW, the support formation checks the formation it is supporting BEFORE play, if multiples of two units in the supported formation have an ability, then that many units in the support formation get that ability.  Before play starts, 0 units in the assault formation (or any fire support formation) have the formation granted ability, and thus 0 units in the support formation would get  any abilities.  This is obviously not how it's intended (RAI), and I never claimed that this is how ANYONE would use it, but nonetheless it IS how it is written.  If you think it's not written that way, PLEASE diagram with proof how it's written for me, because I'm only using the words that are there to point this out, not adding content (which is what RAI is) to justify a point.

(p.s.  if you add ONE word, it fixes everything, bolded for emphasis.

Bonus Ability: Before the start of play, each Support Lance must designate one other formation type in its army to support. For every 2 units in the supported formation that may make use of a formation-provided bonus ability, 1 unit in its Support Lance receives the same ability. This bonus ability is retained as long as the Support Lance still has three or more active units on the field; they are not lost if the supported lance is reduced below its own ability to retain the bonus ability.

)

This is exactly why I dislike calling a Protomech "Star" a formation of 25 and not a collection of Point-sized formations.

Less helpful are Vehicle Stars, which can absolutely do the same thing but can't be organized into Points with the same benefit.

100% agree with this.  We have yet to come up with an elegant solution though, if you treat a 'point' as 1 unit, does every point member get the SPA, or just 1 of them? 

[Scotty]

You're confusing "make use of" as a criteria with actually having an SPA.

In a Fire Lance, up to two units may make use of Sniper.  Therefore a Support formation would similarly adopt "up to one unit may make use of Sniper", because that fits the defined benefits and criteria of a Support formation.   It doesn't matter at all when the specific SPAs are assigned.  There is no codified pre-game list of steps or phases.  In order for this to be a RAW issue,  you must first assume that such a list exists and is being violated.

There is no list.  This is not a RAW issue.

[GoldBishop]

Although discussing protomechs here is quite a bit off topic, I wouldn't worry about having 25 FOs protomechs.  It's pointless to have that many, and then have a Support formation for more FOs.  I was merely using the Recon Formation as an example of the MAXIMUM total number of units that a Support Formation could attain. (no other formation grants 100% SPAs)... so I apologize if I was misleading anyone there.

I'd also like to point out that 25 Scouts is "cost inefficient" based purely on resource management.  YMMV, but I find that it is a tactical error to spend anywhere between 125 pts (5 PV Erinyes) to 250 pts (Satyr 2 and Centaur 2) on nothing but Forward Observers as it leaves little room for missile platforms, command units, or any other type of unit under a typical PV cap for my pick-up games, (250-400 pts).  ...In a campaign?  Sure, it might help to have that many in reserve, but I've never seen that amount of FOs ever required; I find it completely unnecessary to have that many FOs on the field at one time.

Also, I do not agree to having each POINT be its own formation; that creates up to 5 formations where there should only be 1.
That would be a huge tactical advantage to the protomech player - from initiative sinking to swarms.

I continue to encourage and follow the Standard/TotalWarfare movement for my Protomechs: all 5 move at once as a Point, count as a Point, and are counted as individuals when determining the total % of forces as part of a larger formation (such as when the Formation loses its ability at or below 50%, or when granting a % of the formation the bonus).  They do benefit individually if individual SPAs can be handed out (such as Bloodstalker or Forward Observer) but they cannot "split" an individual SPA between them (such as Oblique Attacker or Sniper). 

[DarkJaguar]

You're confusing "make use of" as a criteria with actually having an SPA.

In a Fire Lance, up to two units may make use of Sniper.  It doesn't matter at all when the specific SPAs are assigned.  There is no codified pre-game list of steps or phases.  In order for this to be a RAW issue,  you must first assume that such a list exists and is being violated.

There is no list.  This is not a RAW issue.

A list of steps and phases does exist though.  It starts on page 23 of the Alpha Strike Manual.  Before the start of the game is everything before  "playing the game" on page 25 of the same.

[Scotty]

There is no codified list of pre-game steps or phases.  Everything before you start rolling dice to determine initiative is a largely undefined "deal-with-it-before-dice-roll" timing window.

The number of units that actually have Sniper in a Fire Lance before the start of the game is irrelevant.  Up to two may make use of it at any given turn.  That doesn't change.  It does not matter how many units have the SPA before game start, because it doesn't say "that have a formation -granted SPA at game start".

This is not a RAW issue.  The only way it even comes close is willfully disregarding valid interpretations of the actual RAW.

[GoldBishop]

Bonus Ability: Before the start of play, each Support Lance must designate one other formation type in its army to support. For every 2 units in the supported formation that may make use of a formation-provided bonus ability, 1 unit in its Support Lance receives the same ability. This bonus ability is retained as long as the Support Lance still has three or more active units on the field; they are not lost if the supported lance is reduced below its own ability to retain the bonus ability

(p.s.  if you add ONE word, it fixes everything, bolded for emphasis.)

RAW works fine as is because the assignment for the exampled formation doesn't begin until play does... which means the Support formation doesn't assign its SPAs until play begins.

Breakdown:

*Prior to play (a) Primary Formations are built.  SPAs are implied but unassigned (Fire/Assault Lances)
*Prior to play (b) Support Lance assigns itself to a parent lance to "copycat".  Follows organization of parent lance and must follow same rules (in this example, Fire Lance is the parent Formation; therefore SPAs are implied but unassigned... again)

** Play begins
*** Fire/Assault Lance assigns SPAs
**** Support Lance assigns SPAs.
Play a round of AlphaStrike until all units have completed End Phase.
** Next Round Begins
*** Fire/Assault Lance assigns SPAs
**** Support Lance assigns SPAs.
Play next round of AlphaStrike until all units have completed End Phase.

Rinse, repeat.

If at any time the Fire Lance breaks formation (loses 50% of its abilities) the Support Lances keeps going at its own strength; it does not break when its parent formation does.  They are separate entities and assigned SPAs. 

RAW works fine as is.

[DarkJaguar]

There is no codified list of pre-game steps or phases.  Everything before you start rolling dice to determine initiative is a largely undefined "deal-with-it-before-dice-roll" timing window.

The number of units that actually have Sniper in a Fire Lance before the start of the game is irrelevant.  Up to two may make use of it at any given turn.  That doesn't change.  It does not matter how many units have the SPA before game start, because it doesn't say "that have a formation -granted SPA at game start".

This is not a RAW issue.  The only way it even comes close is willfully disregarding valid interpretations of the actual RAW.

I'm wondering if we're using different definitions of RAW vs. RAI.  RAW to me is 'Rules as Written'.  You take literally what is printed on the page and ONLY that without any additional interpretation.  RAI is, in contrast, taking what is written, and interpreting it in a way that makes most sense.

What is literally written is an activity, a timeframe, a condition check, and a results.  The activity is assigning bonus abilities.  The timeframe is before the start of play.  The condition check is how many units make use of a formation granted ability.  The result is assigning one instance of that ability for every two units that make use of it in the supported formation.  Before play, in the given examples, no units make use of the POSSIBLE abilities.  RAI is super obvious, I'm not arguing that and at no point ave tried to argue that RAW is the proper way of reading this.  I'm just pointing out what RAW says.  Please diagram and/or cite if RAW does not say that.

RAW works fine as is because the assignment for the exampled formation doesn't begin until play does... which means the Support formation doesn't assign its SPAs until play begins.

Breakdown:

*Prior to play (a) Primary Formations are built.  SPAs are implied but unassigned (Fire/Assault Lances)
*Prior to play (b) Support Lance assigns itself to a parent lance to "copycat".  Follows organization of parent lance and must follow same rules (in this example, Fire Lance is the parent Formation; therefore SPAs are implied but unassigned... again)

** Play begins
*** Fire/Assault Lance assigns SPAs
**** Support Lance assigns SPAs.
Play a round of AlphaStrike until all units have completed End Phase.
** Next Round Begins
*** Fire/Assault Lance assigns SPAs
**** Support Lance assigns SPAs.
Play next round of AlphaStrike until all units have completed End Phase.

Rinse, repeat.

If at any time the Fire Lance breaks formation (loses 50% of its abilities) the Support Lances keeps going at its own strength; it does not break when its parent formation does.  They are separate entities and assigned SPAs. 

RAW works fine as is.

That's RAI.  And of course it works that way.  But that's not what is written.  Nowhere does it say to assign the ability that is available to a formation, or to assign that ability as soon as the supported formation assigns it's abilities.  It says "before the start of play, do this thing".  Just for giggles, what if you DIDN'T assign any units to have the formation granted ability until say, round 3?

[Scotty]

There are no rules without interpretation, interpretation is literally the process of receiving communication and understanding its meaning.  The traditional dichotomy between RAW and RAI isn't of interpretation versus absolute literalism, it more frequently shows up in the form of rules text that is outright broken and contradictory that still has an obvious authorial intent.  A good example recently: the Camouflage force ability in Campaign Ops says, effectively, that a unit that does not move gets a -2 TMM instead of 0.  That's obviously not the intent, it should be a +2, but RAW is very clear that it's a penalty instead.

That kind of thing involves errata.

This kind of thing, the RAW is perfectly fine, but actually getting there following it clause for clause makes for a bumpy ride because of the timing of when SPAs are assigned for two (five) Lances/subtypes.  In an airtight competitive game like (for example) Warmachine and Hordes, it would immediately be rewritten for clarity or someone would try to exploit it for competitive advantage even though the RAW isn't particularly ambiguous.

This isn't either of those games or their communities.   Don't be obtuse*; this isn't a RAW issue.


* not intended as a disparaging remark

[DarkJaguar]

In an airtight competitive game like (for example) Warmachine and Hordes, it would immediately be rewritten for clarity or someone would try to exploit it for competitive advantage even though the RAW isn't particularly ambiguous.

This (and really your whole response) is my whole point.  Yes, I know this isn't either of those games, but what is stated is not exactly what is meant, or at least it's not literally what is meant.  It can be fixed by adding one word, or one tiny phrase.  There's a living errata document, and a new version of the rules coming out in 6 months or so.  Why not address it?  Why not make the language explicitly clear to eliminate any possibility of argument?

[Scotty]

Because it isn't ambiguous, the RAW is fine, and if that's causing an argument in your friendly game (Because there aren't any competitive circuit Alpha Strike games) then you need new friends not a new piece of errata.  That's not me trying to be snarky about it, mind, but that's basically what it comes down to.  Xotl, the errata coordinator,  works entirely on a volunteer basis and this kind of thing is the kind that is not worth the effort to actually make into a formal errata.

[DarkJaguar]

Because it isn't ambiguous, the RAW is fine, and if that's causing an argument in your friendly game (Because there aren't any competitive circuit Alpha Strike games) then you need new friends not a new piece of errata.  That's not me trying to be snarky about it, mind, but that's basically what it comes down to.  Xotl, the errata coordinator,  works entirely on a volunteer basis and this kind of thing is the kind that is not worth the effort to actually make into a formal errata.

It's not causing arguments in our group, mainly because myself and Xochi act as a sort of rules committee, we talk stuff out and deliver a verdict to the group (often after posting here for input).

Our situation is not the default state.

If the answer from anyone officially sanctioned by the publisher is to "play with other people, we don't feel like addressing this thing that we acknowledge could be read in an unintended way, in a competitive setting, paying customer." that's a problem.

This is especially true in a niche game with a small player base.

How many people in your city play Alpha strike with you?  There's 6 here.  The pickings are so slim, that rather than ban someone who was LITERALLY cheating with loaded dice, we just bought casino dice that everyone must use.  Saying "Find other people to play with" is not helpful, not useful, and somewhat insulting.

[nckestrel]

So if you don’t have a problem and Scotty doesn’t have a problem, let’s drop it.  If somebody else is actually having a problem, they can bring it up. Let’s not make straw men to argue on behalf of.

[DarkJaguar]

So if you don’t have a problem and Scotty doesn’t have a problem, let’s drop it.  If somebody else is actually having a problem, they can bring it up. Let’s not make straw men to argue on behalf of.

Sure thing Nickles, lock this thread?

[Weirdo]

Roger Roger.