Displacement Device and Impacted Seeking Weapons

[gar1138]

If a unit that has impacted seeking weapons (drones, suicide shuttle, etc) held in a tractor beam is displaced, are the impacted seeking weapons also displaced with it? Thanks,

Garrett

[Scoutdad]

If a unit that has impacted seeking weapons (drones, suicide shuttle, etc) held in a tractor beam is displaced, are the impacted seeking weapons also displaced with it? Thanks,

Garrett

Yes.
The "impacted weapon" rule is a fudge to accomodate the lack of firing opportunity at the end of every impulse. In SFB, the impacted weapon would do damage immediately... in FC, you at least get a chance to fire at it before it hits.
For this reason, I'd say that yes, the impacted weapon displaces as well.

[Kang]

I'd agree with 'dad. That makes a lot of sense to me, and that was how I've always thought of it. Impacting weapons is just a way of decluttering the system, to let you put off dealing with them until you've got the movement sorted.

[gar1138]

Hummm, but you have already had a chance to fire at the previously impacted seeking weapons since they are already being held in tractor beams.

So if the impacted seeking weapons do get displaced along with the unit, do they hit immediately? Disruption (5U4b) says that the displaced unit can not use tractor beams after it is displaced.

I was thinking that it might operate like the Stasis Field Generator rules (granted, a BoM rule from Captain's Log) that has the impacted weapons released, but impact harmlessly against the stasis field. In the case of displacement, the weapons might either be removed completely, or continue seeking the target at it's new position?

Also, the same seeking weapons (drone or suicide shuttle) must be displaced separately if they haven't impacted. But if they have impacted (and are being held in tractor beams) then they can be displaced along with the target ship all at once? Would 5U4b2 come into play at this point?

I'm certainly not arguing, I just want to play it correctly.

Garrett

[mjwest]

Oooo Cool question.

On the second issue, you cannot displace impacted weapons. The general rule has always said you cannot target impacted weapons, so you can't displace them either.

On the original issue. My first inclination is actually the opposite of Kang and Scoutdad. However, that would be messy and cause the seeking weapons to become "unimpacted", which is totally without precident. So, that doesn't work.

Instead, let's go with this: The impacted weapons are displaced with the ship due to their ridiculously close proximity. The tractors are broken (5U6e2), and the seeking weapons are freed. However, the displaced seeking weapons lose tracking (5U4b2). The sum total is that seeking weapons impacted on a displaced ship are simply removed from play.

[Scoutdad]

I stick with my original answer (but it'll be up to MJWest to provide the "official" answer)

I tend to think of "impacted" weapons as being differnet than "tractored" weapons, even if the impacted weapon has been fired at, missed and then tractored.
I envision a tractored weapon being held several thousand klicks off the ship (time enough to do something else if the tractor fails - for any reason).
An impacted weapon OTOH, I picture as being grabbed nanoseconds before it hit the shields. From that close, if the tractor fails - BOOM! No time to respond differently.

Now, as for 5U4b... good point. I still think the impacted weapon gets displaced with the ship, but does the tractor continue to hold it?
First inclination would be know... but then you get hit... that makes the DisDev a bit more deadly.
I guess we need mjw after all.

Well... bummer.
I got interupted by the boss and didn't get a chance to submit until after mjwest had answered.

Hmmm. I see Mike's point. I'm not sure I like the "lose tracking aspect"... but I do see a new Command Note!

[gar1138]

On the second issue, you cannot displace impacted weapons. The general rule has always said you cannot target impacted weapons, so you can't displace them either.

Sorry, I meant displacing a non-impacted seeking weapon that was on the board. Seems odd to me that non-impacting seeking weapons (that are tracking their targets) have to be displaced separately, but once they impact, they can all be displaced as a group (along with the target ship).

Thanks, guys. I appreciate the info.

Mike, perhaps this should be put into the next Communique (or CRUL update)?

Thanks,

Garrett

[mjwest]

Hmmm. I see Mike's point. I'm not sure I like the "lose tracking aspect"... but I do see a new Command Note!

Well, don't forget that only seeking weapons held in a tractor will lose tracking. So, if this is a non-Andromedan, the Andro must weigh the benefits of doing the displacement versus the disadvantage of freeing the ship from the held seeking weapons. Also, this would only come up in very exceptional scenarios (where the Andromedan is allied to a drone using empire, or in a free-for-all). If this is an Andromedan, then it likely has at absolute most one seeking weapon held (or they have already burnt up their weapons by using them as tractors), so using the displacement solely for purging the held seeking weapon is of minimal advantage.

Given the rarity of the situation, and that this ruling causes the fewest rule impacts, I think it works well.

[mjwest]

Sorry, I meant displacing a non-impacted seeking weapon that was on the board. Seems odd to me that non-impacting seeking weapons (that are tracking their targets) have to be displaced separately, but once they impact, they can all be displaced as a group (along with the target ship).

That is just the nature of impacted seeking weapons. They are an abstraction used to speed play, as such they have several little exceptions like this. That said, it is still important that impacted seeking weapons be treated consistently across the systems that interact with them.

Mike, perhaps this should be put into the next Communique (or CRUL update)?

I will be gathering up this ruling, along with the other W&P related ones I have made recently, so they can be included in the next Communique. So, I am already on it!

[Scoutdad]

True! It is a rarity... or will on;ly occur in special situations, but since not everone reads the FC Forum or acesses the CRUL...

There may be that one person out there who gets in a situation where the cost of displacing an allies ship (or his own ship with drones tractored) will outwight the cost of not doing so and he'll be extremely greatful for hte Command Note!

[gar1138]

...this ruling causes the fewest rule impacts...

Nice! I see what you did there.

Garrett

[Bolo_MK_XL]

Since an impacted drone held in a tractor is actually at 1 hex -- it really isn't as close as presented ---

[pinecone]

It's only a light year away...

[Kang]

.... cause the seeking weapons to become "unimpacted", which is totally without precident. ...

Well, there kind of is - the rule where if a tractor holding a seeking weapon is disabled, the weapon 'impacts' again next impulse and has to run the entire gamut of defenses again. Please bear this in mind when making the ruling!

Since an impacted drone held in a tractor is actually at 1 hex -- it really isn't as close as presented ---

Not sure it's at 1 hex; remember that the reason why other friendly ships cannot fire at the seeking weapon is that it's too close to the target ship. The 1-hex range for seeking weapon defence (phasers fire defensively as if at range 1, I mean) is because they are firing all the way in, and it's a kind of averaging it out thing, not because they are actually at range 1.

[DirkSJ]

I don't see any problems with drones losing tracking. What they were following just jumped through space to some random other place and has it's fire control disrupted. I could easily see it not being able to relock on properly and just going piffle.

Though really it's only relevant in a 3 side mission in which the other two are shooting each other over the andro. Seems rather rare. Seems like it would be uncommon to want to trade fire and leave the andro to mop up.