Regarding Eric Smith's questions on supply point status, this is not an official answer, but I think the question is settled by 413.2, which provides in the last sentence that "A planet captured during a given Player Turn could not supply ships fighting in other battles during that Player Turn."

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 04:39 pm: Edit

Eric wrote:
>>So a planet is owned by player A during the start of Player B's phase. Player B destroys the forces there. In that same phase is that planet still considered a supply source for purposes of retreat?"

I'm fairly certain the answer is "no".

"(508.22) Capturing: If the planetary defenses are destroyed, and the planet is devastated, and all other defending units are eliminated from the hex, the planet has been captured."

So assuming it is the Coalition turn, and the Coalition are attacking an undefended Hydran planet (undevastated with Hydran PDUs) and a Hydran fleet in another hex:

A) If they fight the planet and capture it before they fight the fleet, the fleet can't retreat towards the planet as if it were a supply point (as it has been captured by the time they retreat).

B) If they fight the fleet before they fight the planet, the Hydran fleet *can* retreat towards the planet as if it were a supply point (as it still is, until the Coalition capture it in a subsequent combat).

>>And if it isn't a supply source, wouldn't the retreating Hydrans be in a partial grid and have the ability to ignore 0519 as a supply node? >>

Assuming that retreating towards 0519 would put the Hydrans into a partial grid (as they have lost their Capital, and their main grid is now based on the Off Map zone), then yes, they could avoid retreating towards 0519 and instead retreat towards a (further away) main grid and avoid the partial grid.

Of course, the tactical situation may indicate that retreating to 0519 is a better plan, but at least they have the option of not doing so.

(None of these answers are official. But I'm pretty sure they are correct.)

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 05:14 pm: Edit

And what if there is a fighting retreat that ends up retaking the planet, would it no longer be a supply source for that turn, even though it both began as a supply source, and would currently be a supply source, but before that it was captured during a brief part of the battle phase?

The thing is, if having a planet taken from you instantly stops its ability to be a supply source, retaking it later in the phase wouldn't re-create that supply source. This makes sense, but there is nothing in the rules that state that.

From the books:
(413.2). If a player captures a planet, he can't use it as a supply source in that turn.
(508.22). Planet is captured when all defenses are gone.
(508.24). If recaptured, it immediately regains a RDU (sounds like this can happen more than once a turn, albeit very unlikely, in a single battle phase!)

I think it is kind of assumed that when a planet is captured, it is no longer a supply source for the original owner (this is a good assumption). However, if retaken in the same battle phase the fact the system was captured even briefly, would destroy its ability to be a supply node on the following players turn.

The rules never actually mention supply specifically on when it is lost for a planet. This is where my question is at. Simply put, if a system is taken, and the possibility still exists for it to be retaken during the same phase, wouldn't the fact that it is a supply point last throughout the battle phase, except in cases of chained retreats (302.733, Priority 3E), mean it keeps that status until the end of the phase?

It isn't hard to assume that when the planet is taken, even briefly, it is considered taken at that moment, for all purposes, and if retaken in the same battle phase it is a "new capture". But that is an assumption.

The rule that a planet doesn't become a supply source until the next turn, hints at the possibility that the capture doesn't take affect until after the turn has been completed (as if the planet was left unguarded, it is essentially regained by the original owner).

But the rules simply don't deal with that, and I hate to assume with rules as that is when mistakes happen. I don't have the "been playing 20 years, that's always the way WE did it" syndrome, so I question everything that doesn't make sense to me as a relatively new F&E player.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Eric wrote:
>>And what if there is a fighting retreat that ends up retaking the planet, would it no longer be a supply source for that turn, even though it both began as a supply source, and would currently be a supply source, but before that it was captured during a brief part of the battle phase? >>

Correct. It stops being a supply source as soon as it is captured. But it doesn't *become* a supply source until you start the turn with it. So if in a given turn, there is a fight over a planet, it gets captured, it stops being a supply source, then there is a fighting retreat over that planet, and the capturing force is forced off (although I can't really envision this happening, but I suppose it is possible), and the planet is liberated (and then the fighting retreat force retreats off the planet), the planet does not count as a supply source for the liberating force until the start of the next turn.

>>The thing is, if having a planet taken from you instantly stops its ability to be a supply source, retaking it later in the phase wouldn't re-create that supply source. This makes sense, but there is nothing in the rules that state that.>>

There are rules that state that if you liberate a planet, it doesn't become a supply source until the next turn (413.2). And that a planet captured on a given turn can't provide supply to ships later in the turn (also 413.2). Basically, (413.2) covers all of this.

>>However, if retaken in the same battle phase the fact the system was captured even briefly, would destroy its ability to be a supply node on the following players turn.>>

Well, no. A captured (or liberated) planet becomes a supply point at the start of the *next* turn. So if the Coalition grabs an Alliance planet on the Coaltion turn, it becomes a Coalition supply point on the next *Alliance* turn. If the Alliance liberate an Alliance planet during the Alliance turn, it becomes an Alliance supply point at the start of the next *Coalition* turn (see: that chart in 508).

>>The rules never actually mention supply specifically on when it is lost for a planet.>>

This seems true. However, the rules are very clear about when a planet is considered "captured". And a "captured" planet is clearly not providing supply to the original owner.

>>This is where my question is at. Simply put, if a system is taken, and the possibility still exists for it to be retaken during the same phase, wouldn't the fact that it is a supply point last throughout the battle phase, except in cases of chained retreats (302.733, Priority 3E), mean it keeps that status until the end of the phase? >>

Nope. A planet is very clearly and definitively "captured" at the point when it is:

A) Devastated.

and

B) There are no friendly forces in the hex.

(508.22)

When the planet is captured, it ceases to be a supply source. If it is then liberated in the same combat phase (by virtue of a kooky retreat scenario), it becomes liberated, and then will become a supply source at the start of the next (player, not similar side) turn.

Similarly, if a planet is captured during combat (devastated and then all friendly forces are driven from the hex), and then abandoned by the capturing force during the retrograde phase (not at all out of the realm of possibility), it becomes liberated, becomes a supply point for the original side at the start of the next turn, but doesn't produce income till the next, next turn (i.e. if the Coalition capture a Kzinti planet on Coalition turn N and then subsequently abandon it during retrograde, it reverts to a Kzinti supply point on Kzinti turn N but doesn't produce money till Kzinti turn N+1).

>>The rule that a planet doesn't become a supply source until the next turn, hints at the possibility that the capture doesn't take affect until after the turn has been completed (as if the planet was left unguarded, it is essentially regained by the original owner).>>

I don't know that it does. The rules state specifically when a planet is "captured" and that a "captured" planet doesn't provide supply during the rest of the turn in which it is captured (413.2 again).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 01, 2012 - 09:31 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

(413.2) CAPTURED PLANETS
Captured (or recaptured) planets form part of the Supply Grid of the player who captured them at the beginning of the Player Turn after they are captured (or recaptured). A planet captured during a given Player Turn could not supply ships fighting in other battles during that Player Turn.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 08:15 am: Edit

Chuck,

Just to get it clear in my mind... you just look at the turn when the planet is either captured by an enemy force or liberated by a friendly force, then use the chart in the 2010 rulebook to determine when the planet starts providing supply.

So in the last example with liberation by retreat you would look at the chart 508 and just read the top section for when supply recovers. Since it doesn't really matter that the planet was captured this turn as the LAST thing to happen was that the planet was liberated by friendly forces.

I am indeed sincerly asking if I am reading things properly... in some ways it seems too simple, but since your chart came out I have always just been following the mantra "Look at Chuck's chart" in every situation.

By Eric Smith (Badsyntax) on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 08:20 am: Edit

Awesome, as we all suspected, but I'd like to see a clarification in the warbook, something like:

"Capturing a planet during a battle phase, will stop that planet from being a supply node for retreat purposes by either side for the remainder of the battle phase."

Though it could be under retreat priorities somewhere.

This would have made it a lot more clear for me when I was reading it.

Thanks for the quick reply!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 02, 2012 - 01:36 pm: Edit

To put a finer point on the issue: Capturing or liberating any planet occurs IMMEDIATELY after the conclusion of any battle within a given battle hex and NOT at the end of the entire combat PHASE of a given player turn. If any planet changes hands at ANY point during the phasing player turn (including raids that destroy the LAST garrisoning UNIT of a planet) then the planet ceases to be a supply point IMMEDIATELY for either player for the remainder of the phasing player turn.

The chart in (508.0) reflects and clarifies the rules for to important but distinctive points:

A. When a planet supply point after capture or liberation
B. When a plantet produces income after capture or liberation

FEDS SENDS

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Q: (527.27)

Can the Federation GVX be in a CVBG with a Federation SCS and non-X ship escorts? (527.27) Says that the GVX must be escorted by X ships or be a single-ship carrier. My opponent contends the GVX is not being escorted, but I contend that since it is in the CVBG it is being escorted and thus in violation of the rule.

I let my opponent fight 3 rounds this way already, so would appreciate a "no" answer immediately. A "yes" answer can wait.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Paul, The way I read (527.27) in conjunction with (502.922) and (523.352) is that the GVX could not be included in the CVBG.

relavent rules:
(527.27) It is a single-ship carrier and does not require escorts, but could be escorted as a medium carrier, but only by X-ships (523.352).

(502.922) If one is a single-ship carrier rather than a group, it cannot be attacked until all escorts in the CVBG are eliminated.

(523.352) X-ships may not be used as ad hoc escorts (515.34) in carrier or other groups; see (318.429) for FEGs. The only other exception is that two escorts (which must be Federation X-ships of size class 4) could be assigned to the Federation GVX under the normal rules for ad hoc escorts; they would lose all other X-effects.

One can also argue that like battlegroups (315.0), X-Ships cannot be included in CVBGs.

(315.244) X-ships can be included in Battle Groups only if the entire group consists of X-ships.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 04:33 pm: Edit

I don't see how your conclusion follows from your rules cites.

527.27 says that it is a single ship carrier. It can be escorted, but the base rule is single ship carrier.

502.922 clearly states that single ship carriers in a CVBG can't be attacked till all escorts in the CVBG are eliminated.

Single ship carriers are allowed in CVBG, and are protected even though they aren't escorted. How does this NOT fit perfectly with a GVX being in a CVBG?

X-ships not being allowed in battle groups might be guidance toward intent, but I don't see how it can be a rule reference for CVBG which is an entirely different rule.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 04:50 pm: Edit

The GVX is a single ship carrier, but can only be escorted by X-Ships. X-Ships and Standard Ships can't be mixed in a battle group (315.244).

The CVBG is a Carrier Battle Group. As such it is a group of ships. X-ships and standard ships can't be mixed in the various groups that include battle groups, flag ship escort groups (FEGs), or carrier groups using an ad-hoc escort, with the exception that up to 2 size class 4 x-ships may escort the GVX.

Because of the restrictions on mixing the types of ships my conclussion is that the CVBG can't contain a mix of X-ships and standard ships.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 07:00 pm: Edit

"Single ship carriers are allowed in CVBG, and are protected even though they aren't escorted."

But they are escorted. The CVBG has escorts and thus is escorting the CVX. And so unless the escorts of the CVBG are X-ships, the CVX could not be part of the CVBG since the CVX would need X-ship escorts.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Sunday, November 25, 2012 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Thank you Turtle. I thought putting the GVX in the CVBG was pushing things a little far.
Nice to know there is one restriction on CVBGs anyway. I shouldn't have allowed it, but wanted to keep the game going.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 10:17 am: Edit

No Offense to Turtle, and I will say he is probably correct. He doesn't provide official Q&A answers. If it is a time constraint issue, I would say his answer is very probably the one that will be given by FEAR/FEDS.

Dlampert makes a good point, but I think a reading of the CVBG rules make it clear that the whole big honkin' thing is a carrier group. It even speaks of how one orders the CV's and then the ESCORTS. So I would think in this case the specific rule "CVX must be escorted by X-ships" trumps the general "CVBG allows single ship CV's" but you should wait for FEAR/FEDS before you consider it official.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, November 27, 2012 - 06:42 pm: Edit

None taken MP, as I stated it was my interpertation of the relevant rules that I found.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, December 02, 2012 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Question regarding ISC War Scenario - Driving Winds.

Cordon Zulu (625.Z) provides no pacification bases, but the victory conditions listed in (624.Z6)say "Determine victory for this cordon as per (625.6)".

Victory conditions for (625.6) are listed, and they all pretty much involve non-aligned empires having ships in the PEZ or CEZ.

The problem I have is I don't see how the PEZ or CEZ would even exist. The Romulan Battlestations are intact, and the ISC have no pacification bases in this scenario. The scenario introduction says the ISC decided to destroy the Romulan battlestations in this area, but the victory conditions don't speak to that.

So, what are the victory conditions in this scenario?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Sunday, December 02, 2012 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Please disregard previous question - already answered.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 02, 2012 - 09:24 pm: Edit

Victory conditions:
Keep the Romulan out of the Pacification Cordon and destroy any bases found there. Rack-up Rom casualties for entering the zones.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 08:40 am: Edit

Pete,

I suggest you try the NA forces superstacking in the PEZ. Rob Padilla and I could find no way for the ISC to defeat this tactic. Well, to be more precise, the ISC had enough power to force one of the NZ powers out of the PEZ (and even the CEZ) but then the other power could run amok.

I'd like to see if you and Joe can come up with a strategy to overcome this tactic. Rob and I couldn't. If we get another data point, either the OOB or the victory conditions might be modified.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 11:26 am: Edit

The OOB are based on established SFU history so unless overruled by ADB, the OOB cannot be changed.

It is far easier to rebalance a given cordon by giving one side a starting pot of victory points. Then as tactics evolve players can bid points to play a given empire.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 01:42 pm: Edit

If it proves to be a problem perhaps have a VP cap per hex per turn of some sort. The NA player should be trying to secure their territory, not laying claim to a single hex with overwhelming force. But we need more games reported to know.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Something like granting a number of points for the hex based on the largest possible legal battleforce rather than the total number of ships. Then it becomes more advantageous to spree out some which seems more realistic.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Here is something that I just thought about given the discussion in the General forum about Small Scale Combat:

How do SSC and pursuit battles combine? I mean, I have always assumed that after a single round of SSC that results in one side still alive (with at least one cripple) but forced to retreat and the other side uncrippled and not forced to retreat, that pusuit happens like normal (i.e. you roll a die, if you roll low ['cause the pursuit force consists of only 2 or 3 ships, max], you catch the fleeing force with whatever can chase it, and then set up another SSC between the pursuing force and the pursued force). But thinking back, the rule isn't completely clear on this point (i.e is *possible* that the intention is that you can't pursue from a SSC. But probably not).

Just checking that my understanding is correct.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, December 03, 2012 - 04:46 pm: Edit

Peter, don't have the rules reference, but you can definitely pursue in ESSC. The pursuit battle is, itself, conducted using ESSC.

Won't happen during raids, but I have seen it happen in regular combat where ESSC is used.