Q521.38:
A planet has a single PDU but three GCEs present to defend it. The attacker is making two marine assaults. Can each GCE defend the PDU once, or can only one GCE total defend the GCE? Example:

PDU supported by a GCE
Attacker rolls an assault and scores a casualty
Defender takes the GCE as the casulty
Can the next available GCE take over and continue defending the PDU from the next marine assault?

Per 521.38 it states:
"If there are defending ships with GCEs on board present in the battle hex and qualified under (521.32), then those GCEs may help defend the PDUs on the planet the base. Each defense battalion or base can be supported by one friendly GCE (starbases by two)."

"These defending GCEs designated by the owning player to defend GCEs are automatically assigned to whichever units are under attack, it being assumed that the most critical or vulnerable such units are known to all."

"This defensive support results in a die-roll modifier..."

I believe this rule is tallking about the die roll modifier only and not the ability for multiple GCEs to be able to support a single PDU, though they woulod support it one at a time of course.

Then we have 521.382:
"If the defender provides multiple GCEs from supporting ships, each one can provide the noted support for one attack in each Combat Round. If the attacker has, for example, five GCEs but the defender has provided three, the attacker would have to conduct the first three attacks against
a "supported" battalion (allowing the defender to use the supporting units to absorb casualties) before conducting the final two attacks against an un-supported battalion."

I highlight the singular nature of the example, there is only one PDU in this case.

Then we have 521.383:
"No more than one defending G can be used to support any base in a single combat round."

"(Note that many Gs can be deployed on a planetary surface to support PDUs because there is much more room for them to deploy.) While each GCE on a planet can only defend against a single marine assault in a given combat round,..."

So the first quote seems very black letter, but in the same rule we get the second quote which seems to imply that many GCEs can be used in defending against marine assaults.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 11:59 am: Edit

Counter-argument to Q521.38:


The black letter of 521.38 states that "Each defense batallion or base can be supported by one friendly GCE (starbases by two)." The very next sentencee states "These defending GCEs designated by the owning player to defend GCEs are automatically assigned to whichever units are under attack..."



So, in context, you apply one GCE to each batallion, and the next sentence says that whichever batallions are under attack will get defended first. In other words, if I have 2 GCEs, you have 2 GCEs, and you have 3 PDUs, I can't attack an "undefended" PDU by saying that I'm ignoring your defended PDUs. Instead "it being assumed that the most critical or vulnerable such units are known to all" I have to go after your defended PDUs first. If I happen to have a 3rd GCE and you don't, then I can go after your third PDU and it will be undefended.



Apply this context to the example in 521.382. This rule only confirms what 521.38 already says. Again, we have the black letter statement that"each one (defender GCE) can provide the noted support for one attack in each combat round." The remainder of the example pretty much says exactly what I said above, but uses a different number of GCEs and PDUs for the example. In other words, there is an implied fourth OR fifth undefended PDU that I might be able to attack. That's why it says "an" unuspported battalion, as I have gone through the first three defended ones and the fourth is unsupported.



Reading on in 521.382 it says "A supporting GCE can be given up in place of a defense batallion only if it supported the defense of that batallian against that specific attack." Add to this the context earlier in the same rule that "each one (defender GCE) can provide the noted support for ONE attack in each combat round."



So, read together, 521.38 and 521.382 provide pretty clear rules that you assign defending GCEs to PDUs on a 1:1 basis only. There is no explicit support for the proposition that an extra GCE somehow "steps in" the place of another that dies.



Your counter for this last assertion is the "automatic" assignment of PDUs. However, when read in context, this language is just setting up the idea that I have to attack defended PDUs first before I can start attacking undefended PDUs. There is no support, in context, for the proposition that *additional* GCEs step in to absorb casualties.



Furthermore, 521.383 goes on to say that "While each GCE on a planet can only defend against a SINGLE marine assault in a given combat round....(ignore provisions about base)." If GCEs are assigned to PDUs on a 1:1 basis (521.38), can only provide support for one attack (521.382), and can be given up only if defending a PDU (521.382), then I'd say that's pretty clear language that says that once a GCE is gone, then other GCEs can't step in to take another casualty - because they (the other GCEs) haven't had a chance to be re-assigned to the PDU yet. That is only done once per combat round.





There is only one sentence in 521.383 that I think might possibly be used to support your position: "Note that may Gs can be deployed ona a planetary surfacace to support PDUs because there is much more room for them to deploy". However, that doesn't create a "step in" provision - it just says you can deploy more. Thus, for example, if you had 20 PDUs on a capital you could deploy 20 GCEs to defend them.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Further counter-arguments to 521.38 question:

The SoP supports the proposition that additional GCEs cannot step in when the first GCE falls. Step 5-6X3 states that you designate units participating in ground assault (521.36). You then conduct assaults in step 5-6X4. In the context of 521.83, once per round, you do the 1:1 designation - and thereafter you conduct the ground assaults. So, the SoP supports the proposition that you do one assignment at 1:1 and the defender does not get the opportunity to insert another GCE during the same combat round.


In addition, Finally, the logical conclusion of the opposing interpretation is that it is impossible to score a PDU kill unless you burn through *ALL* defending GCEs that are available on the planet. That doesn't comport with reality. On Omaha beach the army didn't have to destroy every single German brigade in the entire area in order to destroy a single pill box. Likewise, it makes no sense to assert that I have to burn through fifty GCEs (if they're available) before I could score the first PDU damage. That's hyperbole, of course, but the logical point is still the same.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Q521.0

The idea of G-Ship attacks. At first blush it may seem like this is a trivial issue. Do you declare before Directed Damage that G-Ships are attacking or do you not? Why is there a difference?

If you do not declare your g-ships are going to attack, then what it means is the other side now can choose to DD each and every one of your g-ships on the line. EVEN if you only put them up for compot. Say for example you put a Fed CV tug with a G-pod up like [TG+CV+T ECL] well this group that you put up to add 12 compot and 6 fighters is now assumed to approach the planet or base and is subject to free DD attacks.. when you would not be giving such an order in this case.

If however you announce at the moment your opponent is deciding upon DD options if units are intending to make a G attack (In other words are they approaching a planet or Base) then such silly situations as above do not occur.

That is my logical argument, that there are certainly some instances where not announcing makes for situations that would not occur.

Now for my rules argument.

(521.32)... The attacker may elect to cancel the ground attack before conducting it.

(521.373) Because they are moving to close range, directed damage atttacks on ground combat ships making an assault (and their escorts)do not count against the one directed damage attack per combat round (302.5)(emphasis mine)

The condition upon which the defender may make 'free' directed damage attacks is that the ship MUST be making an assault; however, by 521.32 the attacker may call off his ground attack. This strongly suggests that at some point after the lines are revealed to each side, that the attacker can say "Well these G-Ships are on the line but they are not going to actually make an assault" when is this decision made? If we go strictly by the SOP then 5-6X3 apparently and this is after damage is resolved. But does this make sense? If an attacker is allowed to cancel an assault why would he do so after he has already risked his ships by 'bringing them close to the target' He would call it off when he sees that the battle isn't favourable to making a ground assault (i.e. when the VBIR is determined the sway of battle); or he would call it off simply as a pro forma declaration when it was never his intent in the first place to make a ground attack with a certain unit.

If we let the SOP entry control, which the version of the SOP in CO where the marine rules reside did NOT have (and the later SOP entry might have been put in without thought to exactly how it might change the way this is intended to work), then basically it amounts to "Every time there is a G-ship on the line with BIR of 5 or if the attacker picked 4 then it is eligible to be directed upon as an extra DD attack". Is this really the intention of those rules? Or if one reads the CO rules as written and appeal to the SOP as it then existed, does it mean that the attacker has the option before the opponent makes his damage decision to 'cancel the attack'.

Believe me as one often on the receiving end of Ted Fay's G-Storms I would love to punish him when he has g-ships on the line and VBIR goes -2, but I do not believe it is the intent of the rules in CO. It also has the effect of severly cooling the idea of putting a g-ship on the line so you have a G to help with capture rolls, and it makes for silly results with things like CV/Troop tugs or any other situation where it is obvious the intent is not to be making ground attacks but the SOP entry basically forces you to bring a G bearing unit "close to the target" and suffer a free DD attack. On the other side I will point out on the other side it allows an attacker to put G-ships on the line, and only pull the trigger when vbir goes his way. This however makes sense to me.. the marine forces commander sees the battle is going in the tank and his troops have a lower chance to succeed so he decides not to engage in ground operations and calls up the Admiral to request more support for his approach to the target (Read that as gets on the horn and &^*@#es about the naval support he is getting).

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Likewise, it makes no sense to assert that I have to burn through fifty GCEs (if they're available) before I could score the first PDU damage. That's hyperbole, of course, but the logical point is still the same.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:55 pm: Edit

On Q521.0, an observation. I believe the opposing position is that if the player putting up G ships and also declares BIR4, then all G ships are automatically fair game for the extra directed damage attacks whether or not there is an announcement (and in turn I don't have to announce whether they're approaching the planet if I declare BIR 4). After all, if I declare BIR 1-3, then the rules preclude me from making G attacks at all; and thus the ability to direct on more than one G unit cannot apply.

Personally I have no investment in the outcome and don't care which way this is ruled. However, my personal opionion is that the approach of G ships should not be announced. If I go BIR 4, then the opponent can blast them using extra dir dam attacks, and I can make the election (or not) to make G attacks if he doesn't

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:58 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Ted Fay's G-Storms

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:59 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Likewise, it makes no sense to assert that I have to burn through fifty GCEs (if they're available) before I could score the first PDU damage. That's hyperbole, of course, but the logical point is still the same.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not as much Hyperbole as you might think at first. Over a Major planet you can face 11 PDU's (10 + 1 from a COE) for 11 possible IGCE's an FTL orbiting plus a few G ships amongst the defenders could easily see 18 or so defending G's meaning you would theoretically need to cause 19 casualties to get the first PDU via ground attack... that doesn't seem right to me.

---

By Timothy Mervyn Linden (Timlinden) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 04:05 pm: Edit

I played G ships on the line declare whether they are closing for a G attack right along with announcing BIR. Then they can choose afterwards (5-6X3) to not follow through if the VBIR drops/etc.

I merely presumed that step was left out. After all, if the only mention of when you declare G assaulting ships is way after damage allocation, you won't ever get the extra DD allowance, as strictly then no ship is assaulting.

Forcing the G ships to automatically be closing if you pick BIR 4 to me is a 'mind control' rule. My ships - they'll do what I want, not what the opponent wants. Nothing wrong with making me choose at an appropriate time - LOTS wrong with not letting me choose when it makes a difference.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 07:34 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Not as much Hyperbole as you might think at first. Over a Major planet you can face 11 PDU's (10 + 1 from a COE) for 11 possible IGCE's an FTL orbiting plus a few G ships amongst the defenders could easily see 18 or so defending G's meaning you would theoretically need to cause 19 casualties to get the first PDU via ground attack... that doesn't seem right to me.

---

---

Quote:

The SoP supports the proposition that additional GCEs cannot step in when the first GCE falls. Step 5-6X3 states that you designate units participating in ground assault (521.36). You then conduct assaults in step 5-6X4. In the context of 521.83,once per round,you do the 1:1 designation - and thereafter you conduct the ground assaults. So,the SoP supports the proposition that you do one assignment at 1:1 and the defender does not get the opportunity to insert another GCE during the same combat round.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Because 1) it doesn't make sense and 2) it's fair that if you get lucky you can bag a PDU.

Hey, if the photon grenades and disintegration phasers are flying it only makes sense there's going to be property damage. It also doesn't make sense to say that there's *no* chance to score a single PDU hit until you've busted through all GCE defenders (however many there may be).

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 09:54 pm: Edit

I'm having trouble understanding the Q521.0 argument:

5-4A5 Players identify units that are eligible to participate in troop assaults (521.3) during this round.

This is after all BIR steps (5-3X), and before SAF announcement (5-4A6) and SFG usage (5-4A7). This isn't saying they are conducting the attacks, that's down in 5-6X3. This just declaring which ones are *eligible* and therefore are subject to extra DirDam attacks.

Is there something I'm missing here?

(All SOP references taken directly from ISC War.)

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 02:21 pm: Edit

Ted, you miss the point that a breakthrough would not be defended, since that's still the same assault. So there's your lucky break yoiu'd be looking for.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Still makes no sense and creates an essentially ludicrous result.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 07:47 am: Edit

James, not as far as I can tell. All 5-4A5 does is specify which units are eligible to participate in a G attack. As Tim stated above battle conditions above may make you decide not execute the actual attack in 5-6X.

Note if your enemy directs on your G-ships, like Lee H. did to me in the Wild Wild West game, then you probably won't have to worry about conducting the G attack because there won't be anything to conduct it with.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:16 am: Edit

Yes, but you're not _allowed_ to direct the G ships (in addition to your normal directed damage attack) _unless_ they are actually performing a G attack.

So, the opponent has to know if they are going to do the G attack during damage resolution, otherwise you cannot know if they are, so cannot know if you can direct them.

Timothy's argument that declaring BIR 4 is sufficient is silly, as it's certainly possible to declare BIR 4 and then not actually do a G attack (making a preemptive directed damage use on the G ships illegal).

The simplest solution might involve either announcing intent to G attack before damage resolution occurs, or to allow unlimited directed damage on G ships if BIR 4 is selected. I don't like the 2nd, as the whole point of getting that bonus directed damage attack is because the G ships have to come to close range and are vulnerable (which they aren't if they're not doing a G attack).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:50 am: Edit

Just because you can make a "second" directed damage attack doesn't mean you have to or even have enough damage points to do so.

One little escorting ship can be enough to make your enemy direct on the G group or something else but not both.

By putting the G unit and choosing BIR 4 it should be obvious enough that intending to make a G attack.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 09:17 am: Edit

---

Quote:

By putting the G unit and choosing BIR 4 it should be obvious enough that intending to make a G attack.

---

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 10:22 am: Edit

Richard,

But by announcing the ships before directed damage you also take all of the mystery out of the decision. If your opponent *knows* your coming in, they'll be far more likley to blast your G ships. But if they have to choose to direct damage them not knowing your intent, they may instead be wasting damage on a feint you never meant to carry throuh.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 11:38 am: Edit

Yes, but the rule says you only get to direct them if they carry out the attack. 521.373 is very clear. It's black letter right there in the rules. Your interpretation directly contradicts this. Barring a ruling or some other rule that explains it otherwise and is more specific, I am unconvinced at this time.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 01:11 pm: Edit

You can place ships/units in a eligible battle force position to make a ground assault but can later choose in the SoP NOT to attack with your GCEs.

Placing ships/units in an assault ground battle force position makes them vulnerable to directed attacks but does not require that their on-board GCEs must conduct a ground attack.

From SoP: "5-6X3: Designate units participating in ground assault (521.36)."

One can simply designate ZERO GCE units to participate in a ground assault.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Precisely, which is why it is not black letter in the rules that you must announce the approach of the G ships in order to trigger the extra directed damage provision - just announcing BIR 4 *may* be enough.

But Richard also has a good point. You'd think that you know which G units are coming in close enough to get ground units deployed, and blast them accordingly. In SFB that's generally range 5 or less, which is plenty close enough to get *savaged* by phaser-IVs whether or not the G unit actually decides to deploy Gs.

Which is why we need a FEAR ruling. To announce or not announce, that is the question.

By Mark Lurz (Marklurz) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 07:32 pm: Edit

got a good question from my game tonight, I was able to move a Romulan ship into the Orion Enclave at hex 3012 and Immediately declared internment to force the Orions to go Neutral, the Federation had two police cruisers (one at each planet 2811 and 2812) which he reacted to my ship instead of leaving the now neutral territory and attacked my ship. as I read 503.511, would this not constitute "reconquering"? and if so what effect would this have on the Federation? rules state a dozen provinces would secede, which ones if this is so?

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:00 pm: Edit

(521.32) 'To conduct a ground attack, the ground combat ship must have been part of the Battle Force and survived the battle...'

That seems clear enough to me that having a G-ship on the line with a 4 BIR is enough to trigger the free directed damage ('...survived the battle...'), the final 'go/no go' remains for the survivers.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 08:33 pm: Edit

No, survived the battle can merely mean that it didn't get directed after you designate it in an assault ground battle force position (according to Chuck, is this a rule?).