Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Matt]

There has recently been some discussion about how the flexible escort 
rules (S8.315) are applied. The initial situation arose over Survey 
Cruiser Carriers (SRVs) as a Single Carrier Group. Much of the 
interpretations seem to have fallen into two different views:

- The rule comes alongside the escort tables as a set of additional 
escorts (determined by formula) that the players may select when needed. 
Where the published escort table says the ship must be escorted by a 
certain set of ships (which may be "None"), this adds that any other 
escort variant(s) may also be used instead (as long as S8.315 is followed.)

- Or instead that the rule replaces the escort tables with any escorts 
as long as the formula is followed. Anything said about escorts in the 
flavor-text or the escort table is thrown out and applicable escorts in 
the formula of (S8.315) must be used instead.


Reasonings for the first interpretation have been varied. Since the rule 
makes mention that it is derived from F&E, the escort situation in F&E 
should be used. In F&E, some carrier groups have no escorts (notably 
SRVs and DVLs). In the context of SFB, this creates the Single Carrier 
[Group] as another type of carrier <http://sfb.mattnet.org/carrier.html> 
alongside the Casual, Hybrid, and True Carrier.

Other views go to the wording of the rules surrounding (S8.315). Since 
the flexible escort rule is a subsection of the carrier escort rules, it 
is said that it should not replace any of the other rules of the same 
section. Primarily that some carriers that are defined as having no 
escorts should continue to be used as such (S8.311). I've come out that 
(S8.316) allows "fast" carriers to run without escorts in the situations 
described in that rule.


The second interpretation discards the Single Carrier Group concept in 
the context of (S8.315), citing that (S8.311) and the individual carrier 
escort tables are the only source in the rules for such a concept. If 
the flexible escort rule replaces the individual escort tables then 
those sources are, by definition, ignored. This is the viewpoint that I 
have held in relation to the campaign up until this discussion.

Additionally, (S8.315) uses the phrase "/must/ have ... and /may/ have 
..." throughout. In the industry that I work in (cable assembly), the 
industry standards use similar phrasing when describing the various 
levels of workmanship. This wording in (S8.315) strikes me as levels of 
requirements and permissions in order to follow the rule - thus 
overriding the previous rules if (S8.315) is to be used.


By allowing the flexible escort rule to add viable escorts to every 
carrier escort list, quite a bit of flexibility is added. This allows 
many carriers to be escorted with fewer ships, which frees up fleet BPV 
for ships-of-the-line. By replacing the escort tables with the flexible 
escort rule, much the same effect occurs. The difference is when the 
ship's escort table defines /fewer/ escorts than the rule does (such as 
the above Single Carrier Group concept.)


I feel that trying to carry over the Single Carrier Group concept from 
F&E is not a compelling reason to make the flexible escort rule an 
adjunct to the individual carrier escort tables. I will add a note in 
the campaign rules to the effect that (S8.315) overrides the carrier 
escort tables for each carrier. Note that only true carriers need to be 
escorted, so the rule does not effect casual carriers or hybrid carriers.


--Matt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210221/5150ff6b/attachment.html>