Scott, it isn't semantics at all, not by a long shot. The meanings are different.

Willing to fight and looking to fight are not even close to the same.

1) You and I have a disgreement. It gets heated. I stand there, ready to defend myself physically

2) You and I have a disgreement. It gets heated. I get in your face, I menace you. I say nasty things to you and wve my fists inches from your head.

Are these the same? Is it semantics?

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 09:01 pm: Edit

Well, yea.


(Bad Dan. Back in your cage)

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Joe- I guess you were watching one of those ultimate fighting matches while you were posting?

By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Scott,

I hae to agree with Joe here in that the differences are not semantics. However, I would modify his anaology.

1) You and Joe are on the Phone and have an argument that gets heated. The next time Joe sees you and you get physical, Joe is prepared to respond in kind while trying to leave.

2) You and Joe are on the phone and have an argument that gets heated. Joe slams the phone down, gets in his car, drives to your house, slams the door open and beats you to a pulp.

In 1) he was willing to fight while in 2) he was looking to fight. Totally different things. One is much more agreesive than the other

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 06:30 am: Edit

Joe, Russ- Let me help ya out (see, I'm just like Fox News, fair and balanced )
Someone willing to fight might be described as someone eager or desires a fight, but is not necessarily seeking one.
Someone looking for a fight could be described as someone eager to fight and actively looking for one.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 09:25 am: Edit

Scott,

Even using those criteria, there is {still} a difference. One is more aggressive than the other.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Well duh... I thought that much was obvious. By definition a person who is looking for a fight is also willing to fight. But not everyone willing to fight is looking for one. See we can keep on playing silly word games, arguing semantics, determining to what degree a adjectives aggressiveness is or discuss the proposed change in rules. Your choice.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Scott,

You seem to be getting agitated over this, and I don't really understand that.

Again, this isn't word games. It comes down to does it make sense for X, Y, or Z to happen or not happen, and for that to be determined, we are looking at what these forces might reasonably do. That's how we got in this wordplay to begin with.

My assertion is that a force willing but not looking for a fight, and more concerned with getting home, is likely to let a ship slip away from them, rather than risk getting trapped behind the lines.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 05:08 pm: Edit

Joe- There is normal retreat and fighting retreat...you are asserting that you want fighting retreat to have fewer battles and do less damage than normal retreat. You wouldn't by chance be a registered Democrat, would you?
Why not call it a rout and be done with it?

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 06:06 pm: Edit

No I'm not. I don't particularly care for where you are going with this, either. Let's not get political, or personal.

I explained to you what the intent was. Now if you disagree with how that should translates to the rules, that's fine. But stick to that.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Scott Hofner: personal attacks such as yours are not helpful in this discussion. Do not do that again. Your "discussion style" is beyond what is polite conversation. Clean up your act.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 02:58 am: Edit

well, back to the discussion about the rule..
I have been thinking this over and I just cannot accept the supply route fix...
First of all, I do not think, on the whole that fighting retreat is broken.. It works 99% of the time and that other 1% is just a silly loophole that can fixed without eliminating fundamental elements of the retreat priorities already set in the rules..

now the sugestion is not with out some merit, I think that the death spiral or great cleave or whatever you want to call it, could be solved by the fleet deciding at the time of retreat what direction they want to go and have to move in a way to reach that goal with the least possible combats and be done with it....
no retreating to an allied supplypoind 40 hexes away, there just isn't any compelling mechanics that can support it.. but a fleet in retreat has a place it wants to go and should retreat accordingly...

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, July 21, 2007 - 09:52 pm: Edit

Reposting an idea, as I think it got lost in the shuffle:

What if the fighting retreat could only be used to retreat towards the capital (or towards the off-map, if the capital had previously fallen)?

That way, it'd be more like a capital-defense priority, if you can't/don't want to retreat to the nearest supply, then it's more of an emergency retreat towards home. And of course, the enemy can plan accordingly, knowing which options are open to the retreating force, instead of just "any of six possible options".

As said before, that doesn't solve the frigate dying when overrun, but unless the attacker set a line of frigates from the battle hex to the capital, the retreating force couldn't go 'frigate-hopping' across the mapboard.

Thoughts?

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 11:39 am: Edit

My sincerest apologies to all who consider my humor to be, "beyond what is polite conversation". I thought my intent at humor to be obvious (smiley face et all); however, again my apoloigies to those offended.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 11:43 am: Edit

Kevin- Doing so would have adverse side effects on the Hydrans getting across Klingon space and a deep strike where you knowingly put units out of supply to wreak some havoc.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, July 22, 2007 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Kevin,
Ditto what Scott said.. at a minimum a ruler for any fix for FR should look at the impact on the expedition run...

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, July 23, 2007 - 09:32 am: Edit

That's what I thought, too. I figured that if the effects on the expedition was the only concern, then that could be fixed by a one-time exemption with the special Hydran supply tug.

Of course, if that's only the *first* of many concerns....

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Here my draft concept for fixing fighting retreats...

Allow the "receiving" player of a fighting retreat to have the OPTION in this ORDER:

1. The receiving player may always choose to fight the fighting retreat battle as written; -OR-

2. The receiving player requires the fighting retreat forces ONLY to withdraw unopposed as the fighting retreat forces are simply passing through the hex unopposed (the receiving player may still retreat himself IF the current hex is or was a battle hex prior to the current fighting retreat); -OR-

3. The receiving player must withdraw unopposed leaving the fighting retreat player holding the hex and ending their fighting retreat.

Daisy chain of retreat hexes: To prevent the attacking player from gaining an advantage of additional retreat hexes AND using his permitted retrograde movement allowance, any additional retreat hexes used by a force beyond the first allowable retreat hex reduce the retrograde range of ALL ships within the combined retreating force regardless if any ships in the retreating force retreated multiple times.

This prevents the attacking player who begins the movement phase in supply, moves to a battle hex 10 hexes from the nearest supply point, conducts a battle, retreats to the adjacent enemy planet (range nine from the supply point), further retreats to the enemy battle station (range 8); then retreats on to the lone enemy frigate (range 7), and then finally retreats to open space six hexes from his desired retrograde point (in other words he gained an advantage through the additional retreat hexes that he could not gain otherwise). In my personal opinion those additional three retreat hexes (beyond the first one) should count against the player's retrograde range allowance.

Note to the F&E community:

Comments on of this proposal is very much encouraged however I am not looking for other entirely new counter proposals unless directed to by ADB. Once we complete this process I will writeup a formal proposal to ADB for their review, comment, and changes as required. Players remain free to propose their own separate proposals but I ask that they be made in another topic other than this one -- thank you.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Chuck, I like your proposal. However, there are rare instances where both sides end up in a hex and both sides are performing a fighting retreat (I've had them happen in my games). There had been a previous ruling on this situation, where both fight at BIR 0 for one round and both retreat again.

However, now we have two players simultaneously being the "receiving" player. What happens if one elects to fight as written (option 1) and the other states that he wishes withdraws unopposed (option 3). Is there a difference between one player selecting option 2 and the other selecting option 3? It's not clear that either player is able to force a result, as both are "receiving" a fighting retreat in that hex.

Suggest that in such a situation, both players much choose to fight, in which case one round is fought at BIR 0 for both sides and then both sides retreat normally; otherwise, both sides withdraw unopposed and retreat normally.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Ted:

My inclination is to still follow the established SoP where the non-phasing player may withdraw his ALL fighting retreat forces first and unopposed then allow the phasing player to withdraw ALL his fighting retreat forces unopposed.

If either one of the fighting retreat force remains in the hex then it ends its retreat in that hex (unless occupied by other non-fighting retreat forces in which case you would revert back to the receiving player options).

If both DO NOT choose to withdraw then ALL forces fight at BIR-0 and then follow established retreat procedures from that point with no pursuit possible.

It is careful to note that a fighting retreat is not used to disrupt an existing but unresolved battle hex by fighting retreat forces just passing through unopposed.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Chuck, that's reasonable. However, it may be worth a mention in the proposed rule in order to prevent confusion or arguments where one player states that he can force a fight and the other says he can force a withdrawl. I'm concerned the established SoP may be argued to be overriden by the rule as stated. Heaven knows the stuff that gets asked and answered on the Q&A...

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 04:57 pm: Edit

That's why we're drafting this rule here Ted.

In the rare case where both fighting retreaters choose the same hex then in this order:

A. The non-phasing player MAY withdraw ALL of his fighting retreat forces, if he does withdraw then the phasing fighting retreat forces end their retreat in that hex (unless non-fighting retreat forces remain in that hex then go to step C below).

B. If the non-phasing fighting retreat forces remain, then the phasing player MAY withdraw ALL of his fighting retreat forces, if he does withdraw then the non-phasing fighting retreat forces end their retreat in that hex (unless non-fighting retreat forces remain in that hex then go to step C below).

C. If any fighting retreat and non-fighting retreat forces remain then revert to the "receiving player" options (above).

D. If both DO NOT choose to withdraw then ALL forces fight at BIR-0 and then follow established retreat procedures from that point with no pursuit possible.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 05:04 pm: Edit

Chuck, that sounds good. It's worded so that it has to be in the specified sequence, but may be worth saying that the situation is resolved in "this order," though it's not required.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 05:13 pm: Edit

"3. The receiving player must withdraw unopposed leaving the fighting retreat player holding the hex and ending their fighting retreat."

I don't think this makes sense, one side retreating should not prevent (by itself) another side from retreating. The daisy chain effect is taken care of by your suggestion that it reduce retrograde range. I like that a lot!

I would suggest that if you have no retrograde range left, then those units can retreat no further (units with remaining range can still retreat, such as the case of mixed fast ships, xships, yships, aux ships and normal ships and that tholian ship with a range of 5).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 05:42 pm: Edit

REB:

The fighting retreat player choose that hex to retreat to and the receiving player "politely" allows him to occupy it. The choice by the fighting retreat player may have consequences that he may not like -- so he needs to choose thoughtfully. Remember that a player is never required to resort to a fighting retreat -- its an option that has consequences.

What this prevents is a massive force benefiting for choosing to "Fighting Retreat" in an effort to smash outlying forces. In all the chaos of a fighting retreat the smaller and organized forces simply withdrew before the fighting retreat forces could do anything about it. The fighting retreat forces got the hell-out-dodge and into a hex they selected where they can reorganize or regroup.