Dramatic SFB: Flexible Escorts

[Charles Carroll]

Just having read this and now being certain I have no real understanding.
How about a simple answer...such as No...you cannot run these carriers
unescorted. Or yes. They can. Or even yes they can but only if alone. Or
yes they can but only if part of a fast ship group for deep raiding. The
problem with the last though, is there is no deep raiding per se in these
campaigns. And in normal scenarios, you are limited to 1 and only 1 fast
ship per fleet.

So...how about simply defining this according to what your rule is supposed
to mean? Stating what is...and what is not...allowed.

Chuck the confused.

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 9:15 PM Matt via SFBdrama <
sfbdrama at lists.mattnet.org> wrote:

> 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
> ____________________________________________________
> Dramatic SFB campaign chatter list
> http://sfbdrama.mattnet.org
> SFBdrama at lists.mattnet.org
> http://lists.mattnet.org/listinfo.cgi/sfbdrama-mattnet.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mattnet.org/pipermail/sfbdrama-mattnet.org/attachments/20210221/198613d5/attachment-0002.html>