Adam “skinnyghost” Koebel
▶ Stars Without Number
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

Further adventures in Faction Turn rules clarification:

Regarding Lawyers. " Sophists in immaculate suits or charismatic tribal skalds, lawyers have the ability to tie an enemy up in the coils of their own internal rules, damaging assets with confusion and red tape. *Lawyers cannot attack or counterattack Force assets.* "

If a planet contains Faction A's Lawyers an Faction B's Infantry and Base of Influence, and Faction A declares an attack on the BoI by the Lawyers, am I to understand that the Infantry are an invalid choice for defence, and as a result the attack hits the Base of Influence?

Additionally, if Faction B attacks and Faction A defends with their Infantry, the attack is allowed but no counterattack takes place?

Alternately, should this just read "Lawyers cannot cause damage to Force assets?"

Josh Rasey
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

The mental image of legions of briefcase wielding lawyers charging screaming into battle against the mobile infantry is pleasing.

Marshall Brengle
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

📌

Frederick Münch
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

If the attacker (Faction A) launches an attack against another faction, the defender choses which asset is defending. It's not written that the defender has to chose an asset that matches the attackers attack type. I would say that falls under the point 'Handling Special Cases'. "When in doubt, a GM should simply make a judgement based on their own best sense of the situation".

I would rule, the lawyers attack, but the infantry is hindering them, by defending and get no damage. Alternately, the lawyers found a legitimate way supported by the worlds jurisdiction to bypass the infantry guards, who can't do anything.
Whether the infantry can attack the lawyers is your personal judgement again. Also the counter attack.
Just imagine the situation. Is it possible for the infantry to use brute force on the lawyers? Can the lawyers use the planets jurisdiction to hurt the soldier or the BoI directly? I would say, your call.

Kevin Crawford
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

The original intent of the rule was to simulate the haplessness of an asset built entirely around intangible laws being confronted with an asset built fundamentally around killing people and breaking things. Of course, there are plenty of ways a non-violent asset could gum up a military one, but Lawyers, per se, represent the kind of asset that can't do much when nobody's paying any attention to any law but Newton's.

If you wanted to just state "Lawyers cannot inflict hit point damage on Force assets.", it'd be an elegant way of getting to the same point.

Adam “skinnyghost” Koebel
2018-05-04T14:26:56.066Z

+Kevin Crawford thanks Kevin!