LAD pallet in spillover - wha?

[sgbeal]

This is a continuation of a BGG thread where we can't reach a consensus:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2143983

To quote the top post of that thread:

Ogre Miniatures 2E pg 17 says: LADs on a pallet that are being transported suffer spillover attacks at defense strength 0 if the transport vehicle is attacked.

There are no combat odds for which 0 is a valid defense score, so the above means, to me, that an LAD in such a situation is automatically disabled (spillover effects are reduced by one level, making an "X" impossible). OTOH, disabling of a palleted LAD doesn't really mean anything. If its transport survives the attack and can unload the LAD on the following turn (in which the LAD is presumably "disabled"), the LAD recovers automatically from the disable effect while it's being unloaded, ergo the end result is that a disable has no effect on being-transported, palleted LAD. (For a palleted LAD which is not being transported, an argument could be made that a disable result means it cannot unpack/deploy on its next turn.)

Alternately, it could be interpreted as the LAD is automatically destroyed by spillover fire.

How are people playing (or ruling) palleted LADs with regards to spillover fire?

In short: we're collectively undecided on whether a "D" result on a palletted LAD really has any meaningful effect, as well as whether a palleted LAD can be destroyed by spillover.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by sgbeal

This is a continuation of a BGG thread where we can't reach a consensus:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/2143983

<SNIP>

In short: we're collectively undecided on whether a "D" result on a palletted LAD really has any meaningful effect, as well as whether a palleted LAD can be destroyed by spillover.

I've always taken it to mean that a palleted LAD has no effective defense when carried on a truck, and it lives and dies with the transporter (just like INF riding inside a vehicle). A palleted LAD "in the field" (possibly quite literally) has the defense of being hidden - unless you're on top of it, it's essentially part of the background return and you can't target it close enough to really do anything to it. But on a truck, you know where the truck is and so you can target it, either directly or indirectly, and if the truck dies the LAD does too. Now, in the case of spillover it's probably more of a "combat kill" in that the LAD is no longer able to be usefully deployed rather than being actually destroyed (i.e., it's stuck in the wreckage of the truck somewhere on the side of the road), but that's close enough for my tastes.

I don't know if this is in agreement with whatever the official answer is, but it fits with KISS by using existing mechanics (LAD in vehicle = INF in vehicle) and doesn't require much (if any) suspension of disbelief to accept. :)

[GranitePenguin]

As Stephen mentions, my argument is based primarily on how Spillover fire works; i.e., there are no auto-kills from spillover because all Xs become Ds.

As I've thought about it some more, having it be an auto-D can be used for in-game in the following way:

A D essentially has no effect on a pallet, because it's just a box sitting there, but it is still disabled for purposes of additional fire. If a _second_ spillover attack hits it, that would be a second D, which would destroy it.

While the rules talk about LAD pallets on vehicles, this is a similar situation for pallets on the ground that is also not clearly defined: what is the defense of a pallet on the ground? Is it D1, or D0? The fact the rules do not specify a distinct difference between a pallet and an active LAD on the ground suggests they are the same D1, but then why have an explicit D0 while loaded for a pallet? That implies all pallets are probably D0 because they have no active defensive capabilities (no ECM, etc) active while powered off. Maybe they have a D1 because they are hard to see/hit when packed? Arguments work both ways.

As the rules are currently written, that's about the only way I can see it being interpreted. The issue of "a D is essentially a NE because of how pallets work" is just an unfortunate (or fortunate) side-effect of the gameplay structure.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by offsides

I don't know if this is in agreement with whatever the official answer is, but it fits with KISS by using existing mechanics (LAD in vehicle = INF in vehicle) and doesn't require much (if any) suspension of disbelief to accept. :)

Which is actually a third discussion point not explicitly stated. What happens to LADs that are on transport when the transport is destroyed? Are the pallets also destroyed (similar to the mounted INF rules you mention) because it's the same die roll being applied to everything "on" the transport and now it's a direct-fire attack against a D0, which is explicitly defined with "it is destroyed by any attack."

[offsides]

Hmm... It appears that my memory is faulty - I could have sworn that any attack on a D0 unit, be it direct or spillover, was an automatic X, yet I see nothing about that in the rules. Whether that's a past rule that got missed, a house rule I learned, or something else, I don't know. So that leads to this question:

1) How does spillover affect D0 units? As I see it, there's 2 possibilities:

a) Automatic kill - D0 is flimsy enough that spillover fire kills it just as easily as direct fire.
b) Automatic disable - Since spillover Xs are downgraded to Ds, and direct fire is an automatic X, spillover fire is an automatic D. Disabled D0 units receiving a second spillover attack are destroyed like any other disabled unit.

Although, something I just noticed in the description of trucks (3.03):

...a defense strength of 0 – if attacked, it is automatically destroyed. In a town hex, and/or undergoing a spillover attack, has a defense strength of 1.

Vs. the description of LADs:

LADs still on a pallet may be attacked directly prior to setting up. A LAD on a pallet is treated as a D0 unit; it is destroyed by any attack. Additionally, LADs on a pallet that are being transported suffer spillover attacks at defense strength 0 if the transport vehicle is attacked.

So a D0 truck is D1 against spillover, but a D0 LAD is D0 against spillover. To me, that differentiation is significant - otherwise, why not make ALL D0 units D1 against spillover, just like they're D1 in Town Hexes (7.14.2)? To me, that difference is key - by making trucks D1 against spillover, it gives them a large chance of being disabled (only A1 or less has a <50% chance of disable). By explicitly stating that LADs are D0 against spillover and on trucks, I would argue that the intent of the rule is that any attack on a LAD pallet is a kill. Perhaps it's not destroyed, but all it takes is one part of the activation sequence failing and the thing's a pile of junk, and even spillover fire can do that.

But I'd also be willing to back up a hair and instead of making it an explicit kill while on trucks no matter what, I would make the LADs live and die with the trucks. If the truck survives, the pallets do to. The one question mark is what to do if the truck is disabled? I'd say that's simple: A disabled truck cannot deploy a LAD pallet by itself, but a squad of INF can manually remove the pallet from the truck to deploy it instead. Since a truck probably cannot "right" itself in any way, a disable result most likely means that the crew is stunned and/or the truck is stuck for a few minutes, and then they are able to go on their way. So if a squad of INF want to manually grab the LAD and haul it off the truck, why not? But the truck crew is too busy to help until they're no longer disabled.

And to me that makes sense. After all, how can a pallet be "disabled"?

[sgbeal]

Originally Posted by offsides

Hmm... It appears that my memory is faulty - I could have sworn that any attack on a D0 unit, be it direct or spillover, was an automatic X, yet I see nothing about that in the rules. Whether that's a past rule that got missed, a house rule I learned, or something else, I don't know.

That's generally the case, but not always: a D0 in certain terrain gets a D1. Also, it's not clear/explicit whether "any attack" covers spillover. Perhaps it does: "spillover attack" is a subset of "any attack". Hmm. (Or is it "spillover fire" instead of "spillover attack"?)

Originally Posted by offsides

<snip> ... By explicitly stating that LADs are D0 against spillover and on trucks, I would argue that the intent of the rule is that any attack on a LAD pallet is a kill.

Which begs the question why the phrasing of the rule is the way it is. They could have said that an "LAD palette is destroyed by spillover fire"

Originally Posted by offsides

...So if a squad of INF want to manually grab the LAD and haul it off the truck, why not? But the truck crew is too busy to help until they're no longer disabled.

That sounds right to me.

Originally Posted by offsides

And to me that makes sense. After all, how can a pallet be "disabled"?

As written, it can't (or it has no well-defined effect), which is why i'm currently leaning towards "a 'D' destroys a paletted LAD, no matter whether the palette is on a transport or on the ground, whether due to direct fire or spillover." It seems reasonable to assume that a paletted LAD is quite fragile - knock any one gear out of place and it cannot assemble itself.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by sgbeal

It seems reasonable to assume that a paletted LAD is quite fragile - knock any one gear out of place and it cannot assemble itself.

It's just as reasonable to assume it isn't fragile in a palletized form. The only thing that backs up the "fragile" nature is the D0 mentioned. That is at least one case of "this thing is easily destroyed" which is explicitly documented.

What it boils down to is rules clarification is needed. As written, we have to work with what's on paper; which is the general case of how spillover fire works. Trucks are a special case that's an exception to the spillover fire rule that, while potentially a good model, is not a direct analog.

[ColBosch]

Per the rules as written, a palletized LAD - on a truck or not - is automatically destroyed by spillover fire ("any attack" is any attack). The questions are therefore: 1) is this intended behavior; and 2) could the rules be rewritten to either be more clear or to correct an error?

[sgbeal]

i'm sidetracking here for a moment to convey a LOL moment...

My housemate came home last night, saw me on the laptop (responding in this thread), and she asked me, "whatcha doing?" i laughed, thought carefully about my response for a moment and said "nerd stuff" (that's her code phrase for anything related to my programming and tabletop gaming hobbies). She pressed the question, forcing me to think carefully about my answer for a moment longer, knowing she would neither understand nor care about a word of it: "we're debating the effects of spillover fire on a palletized LAD."

Her: "Who's winning?"
Me: LOL! "It's not a topic where anyone 'wins' - none of us gain any advantage for a specific interpretation, so there is no 'winning'. We're just trying to reach a consensus about the intention behind a strangely-worded passage in the rulebook. "
Her: "So, kind of like biblical scholars?"
Me: ... ... "yeah, kinda."

[Mack_JB]

My two cents. I've always interpreted LAD as being a fragile piece of tech, and the attacks of any kind destroy them, palleted or set-up.