Archive through September 24, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A:
Archive through September 24, 2012
Quote:That totally works. And if that is what the designers think is appropriate, they should totally make it say that. I'd be totally ok with that.
Thanks. Writing clearly is what I do for a living (or at least I'm SUPPOSED to write clearly for a living). 
Ted,
Quote:This is exactly the same language I have in my F&E2010 rulebook. I agree that the pronoun "it" refers to the noun "BATS." However, my point is that the word "so" (clearly meant as "therefore" or "as a consequence") is the controlling word here. The first clause says hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet (ends with a comma). The very next word is "so", meaning that given the information in the first clause we conclude what comes next in the second clause. In other words, the sentence clearly means "because the BATS is in hex 1805, this BATS maybe attacked without activating the Federation".
However, the controlling principle here is that the hex is not in the deployment area of Marquis fleet, but rather is in Duke's fleet. If that is true, then there's no good basis to argue that *any* Coalition action that is fully contained in hex 1805 will activate the Fed. This conclusion is true regardless of what is argued with respect to 1804 or 1705. Why? Because the sentence is specific to hex 1805. We're left to other clauses in the rule to figure out how to deal with 1705 and 1804. However, there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever with respect to Coalition entry into hex 1805, regardless of what they do with the BATS there. The fact that other general rules regarding the province are present are irrelevant in view of this specific exception to hex 1805.
There are two flaws with that. First, you're arguing the case for the construction with the comma after the "so" which would open the whole hex to attack. The rule, however, has the comma before the "so", which turns the first clause into an explanation for the second, but tells us nothing about the third.Because hex 1805 is part of the Duke's Fleet, the BATS in that hex may be upgraded. A Coalition attack on that BATS while it has not been upgraded will not activate the Federation.
(The position of the comma changes the meaning of "while" from "whereas/although" -- which is the meaning you want -- to "during the time that" -- which is what the rule actually says.)
Secondly, you're omitting the wider context which is not "the Marquis deployment area", but rather "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone". In this context, fleet deployment areas are irrelevant (do the rules as written not permit the "CC + 5 ships" to move to 1805?), so you can't read anything about the deployment areas into the wider context. Well, not legitimately.
As an aside, and with respect, your proposed rewrite is terrible. You've- moved and/or duplicated deployment information from/in (705.0) to a scenario rule for no reason;
- created a third(!) deployment area for the Marquis Fleet (matches neither F&E prior to AO nor F&E from AO onwards) with no reason given;
- caused a hex (1804) to be in two fleet deployment areas;
- carelessly introduced confusion about what the use of the word "ships" means in the game, by redundantly saying "ships [and not things that are not ships]";
- included a redundancy about the release of the Fed 4th Fleet (which should be included in the Limited War scenario rules);
- unaccountably omitted the rules about Orion pirate units;
- arbitrarily changed the release condition to include Klingon units entering the Neutral Zone, and;
- used the word "plus" as a conjunction which is highly informal and has no place in a rulebook (which is, or should be, a formal document).
Also, the use of the word "only" is redundant. On a positive note, you do use the Oxford comma.
To me, the obvious reading of the text is that 1705 and 1805 are part of the Duke's fleet deployment area, and therefore not part of the Marquis area.
- Marguis is these two provinces (implying that 1705 and 1805 are Marquis). (general)
- 1705 and 1805 are part of Duke's. (specific)
The phrase "...so while the BATS can be upgraded... " is simply noting that the BATS might appear to be in an unreleased fleet zone (and thus ineligible for upgrade) it is part of the Duke's and therefore upgradeable. It also notes that the hex, and everything in it, can be attacked by the Coalition without starting a war with the Feds, because it's part of Duke's.
Terry wrote:
>>To me, the obvious reading of the text is that 1705 and 1805 are part of the Duke's fleet deployment area, and therefore not part of the Marquis area.
- Marguis is these two provinces (implying that 1705 and 1805 are Marquis). (general)
- 1705 and 1805 are part of Duke's. (specific)>>
This is not an unreasonable reading of the rule. But it is also not the only possible reading.
I'm not trying to argue that the rule, as written, means something specific. I realize what the rule is probably *supposed* to mean (which is more or less what you and Ted are saying). But it isn't necessarily clear. And could easily be much clearer, especially given that it is (currently, since Advanced Ops/2K10) a weird kludgey, non-intuitive situation.
Up until the 2000 rulebook, the situation was not completely clear, but mostly clear--the "Marquis Zone" was clearly those two provinces and everything in them (although the Duke's fleet could also set up in some of those hexes, which was weird and likely not fully thought out). In the 2000 rulebook, the issue was clearly and unambiguously solved--the Marquis Zone was those two provinces and everything in them, and the Duke's fleet couldn't set up there, and that was that (and BATS 1805 was part of the Marquis zone). In Advanced Ops and now 2K10, we have this weird situation that is confusingly worded and not fully clear.
Why? I have no idea. We had a perfectly clear, unambiguous rule in the 2000 rules that became a weird, somewhat ambiguous rule in Advanced Ops/2K10. Is it a problem that BATS 1805 can't be attacked (or upgraded) without activating the Feds? I can't see why it would be, as it wasn't between 1986 and 2003. Ted might be on to something as the only thing that makes it make a difference in Advanced Ops (when the change was implemented) are the Raid rules, and maybe someone making Advanced Ops figured that BATS 1805 being unassailable was too powerful with the Raid rules. But then again, it seems like BATS 1805 being unassailable, even in Advanced Ops seemed like something that no one noticed for a while. So it remains to be seen if the change was fully intentional.
Peter, I don't see how any other reading is possible. The sentence in question is clearly constructed as being the rule, (the first clause prior to the first comma) and then pointing out the logical implications of such (the second and third parts of the sentence). As for game balance, or the designer's intention, or why it may have changed, I have absolutely no opinion on that. I just don't have enough experience with F&E to form an opinion on those points. However, I suspect that an attempt to read the rule with prior editions of the game in mind is leading you to interpret the rule in a way that is unnatural.
Gentlemen: Put this in the warbook topic for future updates.
Q524.111 What is the maximum number of casual PF flotillas that the ISC may have under (524.111)? Under (713.0) for the Y186 Order of battle they have 1 CPF for each of their numbered fleets 1 through 6, plus the alloted CPX under (524.14).
Author's Note: I believe that during the final stages of preparing ISC War for publication it was decided the ISC could have six (6) plus the CPX to match those of the Lyrans. However I can find no mention of this in the ISC War rulebook. Additional Information to consider. The ISC have 15 Prime Teams matching the number of Prime Teams for the Federation and Klingons. See (522.13) in the ISC War rulebook.
Mike wrote:
>>Gentlemen: Put this in the warbook topic for future updates.>>
Hey anyone involved in this discussion--anyone wanna volunteer to write up the proposal for the Warbook forum?
FEDS CLARIFICATION: ISC CPFs
Add to page 2 (UPDATES TO EARLIER RULES) of the ISC WAR Rulebook:
(524.111) The ISC may use seven CPFs; one of which may be a CPX (this matches the Lyrans).
Turtle:
See ISC WAR Rulebook page 2 for your other issues.
This post is my last post on the 601.12 issue in this thread, more to explain how I moved the issue. I moved my proposal to the AO warbook thread. I also re-wrote the proposal, as I think Dave had some very good criticisms. Though I didn't agree with all of them, some were quite right. I also moved my continuing debate with Dave over to the general warbook thread.
Thanks.
I moved some discussion of (601.12) there as well. As it isn't the easiest thread in the world to find:
Federation & Empire> F&E Future Products> F&E WARBOOK
A couple random questions:
(309.4): Kzinti Fast Drone Bonus. According to 309.41, the Kzinti get 1.2 EPs per turn to be used for drone bombardment. This cannot be accumulated. Do the Kzinti have to spend the 1.2 EP on *their* player turn (i.e. Turn 29 Alliance), or can they use the 1.2 EP on the next Coalition turn (i.e. Turn 30 Coalition) if they didn't use it on their player turn? (they clearly can't accumulate the drone money between Alliance turns, but can they use it on the Coalition half of a turn?)
(508.237): Garrisoned Planets in a Captured Capital Hex. This rule states that unless an enemy is driven from the hex, a planet can't be liberated. In a multi system hex (i.e. a captured Capital hex), what happens if the Capturing empire doesn't send any ships to fight over a captured Capital planet? Is the planet liberated?
For example--the Hydrans are fighting the Klingons in the Klingon held Hydran Capital hex. The Hydrans send a fleet to fight over Hydramax Major (i.e. one of the outer system planets). The Klingons don't send any ships to fight. The Hydrans can continually offer to fight over this planet. The Klingons can continually refuse to send ships. It seems like in this instance, the planet should be liberated until the Hydrans leave the hex (assuming they don't force the Klingons out). Yeah, the Klingons can then immediately re-capture it with a garrison ship, but would this reset the "get money from a captured planet" clock? Or do the Klingons have no need at all to fight over any of the captured planets and they can just hide behind the assumed Star Base over the Hydran Capital planet until the Hydrans decide to go home and suffer no ill effects?
(309.4) This should be for all of the turn. i.e. 29C and 29A.
Ryan wrote:
>>(309.4) This should be for all of the turn. i.e. 29C and 29A.>>
Ah, ok--so they'd receive the 1.2 EP for drone bombardment at the start of Turn X Coalition and have it till the end of Turn X Alliance. That makes sense.
The planet isn't liberated until the Klingons either leave the hex, or do not have enough garrison ships to assign one when the Hydrans leave.
Nick wrote:
>>The planet isn't liberated until the Klingons either leave the hex, or do not have enough garrison ships to assign one when the Hydrans leave.>>
That makes sense with what the rule says. Ok. Thanks!
That being said, it seems weird that, say, the Klingons can have a SB over one planet in the Hydran Capital, the Hydrans can attack the captured Capital, and the Klingons can hide all their ships behind the SB, abandon all those other planets, not fight the Hydrans, and suffer no ill effect from doing so. And the Hydrans can essentially stay in the Captured Capital hex for an infinite amount of time over other planets, with the Klingons not fighting them.
(511.55) will make the Hydrans attack the capital planet, unless other planets have bases, PDUs, or cripplednships assigned to them to attack. I know it really says you cannot attack a planet devastated this turn, but this is essentially true as those planets are not recovering from prior devestation. The rule is written assuming the defender is the original owner.
The intent is the attacker must attack something significant or retreat. You cannot keep "attacking" an empty devestated planet even if the defender doesn't show up. If there are no such planets (all are empty and devestated) the the attacker can pick any and the defender must show up or retreat.
You cannot have the Hydran say I attack the empty planet and have the Klingon say, well I am not coming, and then have this repeat for 50 rounds. The Hydrans must hit the capital if all other planets are empty, or offer approach or retreat.
fixed
Peter, that is incorrect. See:
(511.551) The Attacker cannot select a planet which was devastated on the current turn unless that planet has crippled ships or other units assigned to it which must be in the Battle Force, or unless there are no planets which meet the above conditions in which case he can select any planet.
If the Hydrans, say, attack Anthraxan I, and the Klingons don't defend it, then the Hydrans will do damage that must be resolved against devastating the planet. Once the five planets without the SB have been 'devastated' that turn, the Hydrans must attack the SB or retreat.
Edit: Beaten by Nick.
This is rediculous. In no case should an empire have to devastate it's own planet, captured or not.
As Nick stated the rule was written assuming the defender is the original owner, and I believe some or none of the planets have been previously devastated.
When playing under the 2010 rules, there is no ability to annex (448.2) the province or planets that the capital is located in. However, as Nick stated the rule also states that the attacker must attack something of value or offer approach or retreat. Note that if the attacker is not the original owner of the planet(s) in question then they can devastate the planet(s) one time to reset the recovery clock on a given turn. See (508.214).
With Annexation (448.2) and (448.28) in play then it would be possible for the Hydrans to devastate their "own" planets one time with out the Klingons coming out to play from their base in the same hex.
I guess what was confusing was that I was looking at the rule that says "If *all* the planets in the system are devastated and the attacker offers a fight and the defender doesn't accept the fight, the defender has to retreat" (the number of which I don't have handy currently). Which lead to confusion.
It still seems weird that the Klingons can completely abandon all planets in the captured Hydran Capital except for the Homeworld with the SB over it, the Hydran fleet can freely fly from planet to planet without running into any Klingons, then leave, and the Klingons have no repercussions for removing the garrison ships from the planets for that time. But ok.
You don't have to devestate your own planets. If you are attacking the original owner you can devestate each planet again before being required to attack the last starbase (or leaving). This is the way the rule is written.
If you are trying to liberate your own capital there is no reason to devestate those planets as you say. In this case you must attack the last defended planet or retreat (or offer approach which won't do any good as the hex defender is going to sit at the base giving you the original choice of coming in and fighting at the only valid target or retreating).
As for garrison ships hiding behind the base, they are probably only gone for a few days, not enough time for those planets to get anything done. In any case the game doesn't change planet status until the end of the combat step, so there is no change if the invader keeps the hex with enough garrison ships even if some planets were not fought over during the combat step.