Mixed launch bays: restricted or not?

[Bozeman]

An Imperial Navy player makes a list.  In addition to some other choices (incidental to this argument), the Imperial Navy player's list includes an Emperor class Battleship with Shark assault boats and two Dictator class cruisers. 

The Emperor has a launch bay value of 8 and the Dictators each have 4 for a total of 16 launch bay capacity.  Under the 2010 update, the Imperial player can have 16 attack craft on the board at one time.

During the game, the Emperor launches one wave of 8 Shark assault boats.  The Dictators do not launch.  Next turn, the Sharks are still in play and the Emperor passes a Reload Ordnance special order.  It then launches another wave of 8 Shark assault boats for a total of 16 on the board at the same time.

Is this legal?

A. No.  Each type of attack craft has its own total for launch capacity.  This is similar to Dark Eldar Impalers, which have their own launch capacity different from regular launch capacity (as defined in the Dark Eldar rules).  In this case, the Imperial player could have a mix of 16 fighters and bombers, OR up to 8 assault boats and a mix of 8 fighters and bombers on the board at the same time.

B. Yes.  Other than the specific case of Dark Eldar, there is no RAW saying that launch capacity is different for the various types of "generic" attack craft.  In this case, the Imperial launch capacity is 16, so 16 of any type of Imperial craft can be on the board at the same time.

I'm thinking "A" is correct using the precedent of Dark Eldar Impalers as a reason why each type of attack craft should have its own launch capacity.

Thoughts?

[Xca|iber]

As far as I'm aware, Option B is correct. This can be considered like this: The Dictators are providing landing, refueling, and resupply support for the additional Sharks launched from the Emperor, even though the Emperor is still the Sharks' actual mothership. The Dictators would not be able to do this if they were busy supporting their own attack craft. (We assume here that any Sharks which land on a Dictator will eventually fly back to their home base, but this is ignored/abstracted in game terms since they are not actively engaged in combat).

EDIT: I'm convinced. See second post below.
EDIT2: Guess I was right the first time

[Lotus]

Following this, i could just get 1 eclipse (as allied ship) and use my imperial launch bay capacity to spam eldar ordnance. I could do the same with thunderhawks.

.....

I think A is the right answer, because the ship profiles where created without the ability to "transfer" special ordnance from one ship to another, so RAI is clear in this case.

RAW there is no clear answer to this question, but we have the "impaler case" with supports option A.

Option B would create tons of problems and would not make any sense fluffwise. I doubt that a dictator can resupply sharks - they use a kind of "ammunition" which you won't find on a dictator in large amounts. Or an Eagle, or a thunderhawk.

We can go even further: Is a transport which got refittet into an escort carrier for 60 points able to resupply sharks, eagles, thunderhawks?


edit: not a 100% clear answer, but another support for "Option A is intended":

"Any model or fleet described as not able to run out of ordnance (such as Ork Space Hulks, the Tyranid fleet, etc.) may launch up to twice this number and provide double their number of launch bays to the total amount of markers the fleet may have in play."

[...]may launch up to twice this number[...] -> certain ships may launch "twice the number of their launch bays" -> this wouldn't make sense if every ship in the fleet can launch every type of ordnance. Even if we assume that this part is only needed to describe which ships launch bay limit we have to count twice, it still shows that this rules were written with the thought that every ship launches its own ordnance in mind.

[Xca|iber]

I suppose that makes sense for special ordnance (or ordnance only available on specific ships). It certainly seems unintended to allow allies to provide extra launch capacity for ACs from another race.

On the other hand, it seems perfectly intended to share launch cap between two or more ships that have the same ACs. For example, if the Emperor in the OP launches 8 fighters, then another 8, that's totally kosher since the Dictators can also launch fighters. I guess this would be considered Option A's "each type has its own limit" based on what is available in the fleet?

EDIT: So yes, I guess I'll go with Option A as well.

EDIT2: *sigh* yet another thing I need to go clarify in the BFG:XR rules lol

[Seahawk]

I disagree; I think the rules would allow it. Consider:

- "This total limit applies to the fleet as a whole and not to individual ships in the fleet. Any individual carrier may launch attack craft if they have successfully reloaded as long as the total amount of attack craft in play does not exceed the number of available launch bays."

I'd say this explicitly says that the OP's Option B is the correct way to play. There is a "fleet cap" on attack craft, not a "ship cap".

[Xca|iber]

I disagree; I think the rules would allow it. Consider:

- "This total limit applies to the fleet as a whole and not to individual ships in the fleet. Any individual carrier may launch attack craft if they have successfully reloaded as long as the total amount of attack craft in play does not exceed the number of available launch bays."

I'd say this explicitly says that the OP's Option B is the correct way to play. There is a "fleet cap" on attack craft, not a "ship cap".

I dunno, this seems to fall under the category of "directly contradictory FAQ statements" (compared to the couple of lines previous to that one). In general, I've only ever seen it played as OPs Option B, but I agree with Lotus and Bozeman that in several cases (such as having one ship with special ACs using the entire fleet's AC cap) it seems to produce some unintuitive results.

Moreover, this may be more generally clarifying that if you have a total of 10 launch bays, you can launch 10 ACs from the same ship (over several turns), rather than having to launch from each different ship. It doesn't directly confront the issue of what happens when different ships have different ordnance available.

[horizon]

I'll add it to the WIP FAQ.

Yes, there is a small one in the pipeline.

[Lotus]

Another hint that Option A is intended: There is a big difference between "10 points for allowing something for one ship" and "10 points for allowing every ship ship in the fleet something". Big enough that this should have an impact on the point costs - and because FaQ does change some ship's point values, there is no reason why they should not  have changed the values. Exept if - Option B was never in their minds.


RAW it is just not clear enough. You could read it as Option B, but as Xcaliber said - it doesn't confront the issue directly.
 
Another thing: The FaQ does change some rules, but it was not meant to be a total replacement of the core rules. If we look at the other changes, i always get the impression the FaQ was made to balance stuff while staying as close to the core rules as possible. Option B would contradict this approach...

In germany, we would say this is "ein heißes Eisen" ("hot iron"). Something people could get really upset about on the table. 

[Seahawk]

I dunno, this seems to fall under the category of "directly contradictory FAQ statements"

Not in the slightest. What issue do you see?

Moreover, this may be more generally clarifying that if you have a total of 10 launch bays, you can launch 10 ACs from the same ship (over several turns), rather than having to launch from each different ship.

This is literally what the FAQ is saying, and supports Option B.

It also makes it functionally similar to pre-FAQ. Before, that Emperor could keep pouring out the Assault Boats. Now, it can only pour out as many Assault Boats as there are hangars in the fleet.

The hangar number is simply an arbitrary limit on the number of AC on the table due to previous player whining, and explicitly not a limit to any specific ship. If you need a fluff justification, perhaps all the carriers are coordinating the attack, providing data, etc. Thus, they keep their wings unlaunched and instead help the flagship direct the massive waves.

To me, intent and RAW are perfectly clear and point to Option B *shrug*

The whole Dark Eldar thing shouldn't apply here either, because it's an entirely different and special kind of AC.

[horizon]

It is option B indeed.

Iirc it had been addressed in the Yahoo group long ago.

But it will be added to the list.

[Xca|iber]

I dunno, this seems to fall under the category of "directly contradictory FAQ statements"

Not in the slightest. What issue do you see?

Perhaps contradictory was the wrong word. A better term would just be "badly written." Specifically, the previous sentence states:

"Any model or fleet described as not able to run out of ordnance (such as Ork Space Hulks, the Tyranid fleet, etc.) may launch up to twice this number and provide double their number of launch bays to the total amount of markers the fleet may have in play."

Here, as Lotus pointed out, there is an implication that "may launch up to twice this number" and "provide double their number of launch bays..." are two separate effects. The logical way to interpret this is that the bays on the affected ships count double for both the specific ordnance they may launch, and the overall fleet capacity.

The followup sentence contradicts this, which is where I got confused. Like I said, my first reaction was that Option B was correct (and that's how I've seen it played), but this particular sentence makes it a little weird.

In any case, it doesn't matter since horizon dug up the result of the original debate on the topic. Glad to see that it's all settled.