Stewart,

The question is, after the one round of combat fought between the raider and the defending ships do the defending ships get to retreat even if the raider scores 0 casualties in SSC.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, April 10, 2013 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Michael, in that case, no, because it was not 'forced' by SSC.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Stewart wrote:
>>Note that the Kzinti FF leader rule is if you are not using the FFK in AdvOps. >>

Can you reference the rule that indicates this?

(It is certainly possible that there is a line in AO somewhere that says this that I haven't seen, but the rule in the 2K10 book doesn't indicate that this is the case).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 04:46 pm: Edit

These are not rulings but....

I'm inclined to look at any non-phasing ship that reacts during the raid phase is deemed to have reacted during the movement phase. Additionally, I'd consider any reacting scout could not support extended reaction of friendly forces if itself reacted to a raid.

I'm also inclined to consider that raid combat is so short that defending units don't actually retreat from the hex but fall fallback within the hex knowing the raid ship's time-on-target is very short and that pursuit is not tactically possible.

What I am starting to see here is a bit of rule "cheese" developing during the raid phase where:

A. Defending DN on BATS hex xxx1;
B. Enemy raid occurs in xxx3
C. DN uses extended reaction to move to xxx3
D. DN defeats raider and retreats to friendly base in xxx4
E. During the subsequent movement phase, DN uses extended reaction to move to xxx6

Total reaction related movement equals FIVE hexes. This is clearly not what was intended when the rules were developed.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 04:56 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I'm inclined to look at any non-phasing ship that reacts during the raid phase is deemed to have reacted during the movement phase. Additionally, I'd consider any reacting scout could not support extended reaction of friendly forces if itself reacted to a raid.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 05:15 pm: Edit

I would also say its important to consider that raid combat is so short in time, that why would it prevent reaction in normal op movement? If its too short to allow retreat why is it hindering reaction during op movement?

While I am in some ways championing the retreat after a raid.. the reasoning is because the rules as written just dont make alot of sense if you do not allow it. The not making sense comes from.

1) Retreat is just plain part of SSC now
2) If your allowed to retreat with 1 casualty then retreat is certainly something that is possible in raid combat.

One way I can see to 'rationalize' the whole raid combat is to say something like

Raid combat uses the SSC procedure to resolve the combat with the exception that neither side may use retreat to resolve a casualty. And once all casualties are assigned the players return to step 3A-2H and eliminate 2F and 2G.

Alternatively clarify that while SSC combat is used in raids one does not proceed to the retreat portion of SSC as normal and instead after allocating casualties (including retreat) then one immediatly returns to 3A-2F where "forced to retreat" is interpreted as "took a casualty as a retreat" this is probably the best way to clarify the rules. It still leaves the whole "If 1 casualty is scored I get to retreat, but if 0 is scored I cannot" which is just a big *smack my head and wonder* moment to me. But if it became the law of the land I would quickly just file it away as "stuff under the hood that is not fully detailed"

The problem is right now, the rules say raid combat must use SSC, and SSC only operates as advertised if your using the retreat rules from regular combat.

In the long run it just needs to be clarified is all.. so it makes good logical sense when your trying to parse it out.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I believe, without checking, there is already a ruling to the effect that says you can indeed react twice - during raids and movement. So, a change here would reverse an existing ruling (I think).

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 06:59 pm: Edit

...but my point is that players could use raid reaction as a way to tactically re-deploy a key unit from one location to another. My example shows a DN in hex xxx1 using raid reaction and combat to re-deploy to hex xxx4 AND then use that same unit to react and move to hex xxx6 ALL IN THE SAME PHASE!

Had the raid never occurred then the key unit would not be able to redeploy in the first place. What rationale explains the ABILITY of a unit to be capable of moving five hexes related to raid reaction ALONE?

Since AO and its raid rules has not yet been updated yet then this might be something I will suggest to ADB we consider for revision.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 08:17 pm: Edit

A revised ruling on CWL/DWLs serving as escorts while also serving as ad hoc escorts was posted in the Q&A section.

FEDS

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Let's see -
A - (314.241) allows extended reaction,
B - retreat, if forced (one causulty) follows normal retreat rules (maybe a forced retreat should head back to its starting point??),
C - reaction movement is allowed by (314.274) for the OpMovement Phase (restrict a raid defender to one hex??)...

Plus that same DN could retrograde back to xxx1 or to xx12 ...

But it's not that much different than starting in xxx1, moving to xxx7 and then retrograding to xx13, is it?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 12, 2013 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Noted.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 03:30 am: Edit

Raid Retreats Commentary (NOT a FEDS official ruling)

---

Quote:

There is indeed a disconnect, the old 310 SSC rules were partioned and dichotomous, one side always retreated (or was killed) and the other "won" the engagement. Using the new SSC there is no clear cut situation, both sides can receive some amount of casualties which may or may not be resolved with retreat as the rules allow... but in any case it seems there is a full retreat phase built into SSC and hence now the resolution of normal raid combat.

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, April 13, 2013 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Chuck, copied and placed in the AO-300 for future consideration...

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, April 15, 2013 - 09:31 am: Edit

Chuck,

Perhaps a way to handle it would be something like this.

"A reacting ship in a raid that retreats ALWAYS returns to the hex it reacted from even if they arrived by extended reaction"

Then all you deal with vis a vis ridiculous relocation during raid phase is ships the raider dropped on top of, which one can just say "Maybe you shouldn't have done that"

I stole the idea from comments someone made somewhere... it seemed a real simple solution. Allow retreat to occur in raid combat as normal, just with the one exception that a reacting ship in raid combat MUST retreat to the hex it was in originally if it retreats.

This seems a good rule for the game in the sense of stopping some chicanery... and it has the added virtue of making sense... a ship reacting to go handle some commerce raid then returns to its duty station (original location) once the raid is dealt with(it retreats), or it stays there to render assistance to the civilians local to the hex (it does not retreat).

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 05:02 pm: Edit

The - point ruling is contrary to the rules I believe. It is my opinion that the FEDS ruling is a rules change... it is my further opinion that it is a darned good change for the better!

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 01:33 am: Edit

Gary Quick stated in the Q&A section:

---

Quote:

Lastly, Rule 308.242 clearly contemplate a situation where both involuntary and voluntary minus points are carried over, as there is a different limit for normal hexes and for capital hexes. If it were capital hexes only, there would be no need for a lower limit.

---

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 09:50 am: Edit

Peter,

On your reserve question. As long as the released ship(s) can command themselves I am pretty sure they can use reserve movement. Basically at the point you begin to reserve you eject all the unreleased ships out of the reserve. Provided the remaining ships can command themselves you can reserve. If the remaining ships cannot command themselves just continue with the ejections until morale.. I mean command improves.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 10:25 am: Edit

Yeah, that was my understanding/assumption as well, but it is not completely clear.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 10:27 am: Edit

I think this came up before. The reserve marker itself is unreleased, so any ship assigned to it has to be under the same restriction... if I recall correctly.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 10:58 am: Edit

Hmm. The Reserve Marker in question is a released Reserve Marker (from some other fleet that was previously released). I think the sentence that Pete quoted in the Q+A thread covers what you can do with released/unreleased Reserve Markers (i.e. a Reserve Marker that comes set up with an unreleased fleet, as opposed to a released Reserve Marker that has some unreleased ships assigned to it).

But then this does all remind me of "You can't put too much water into a nuclear reactor"...

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 11:57 am: Edit

I hadn't thought about an unreleased marker but the Old Colonies squadron doesn't have a marker assigned does it? (yes too lazy to check the OOB)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 12:46 pm: Edit

It does. My recollection is that this all came up before and it was rules that you CAN add released ships to an inactive reserve, but the ship cannot use reserve movement unless the reserve marker is released.

By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Chuck,
Agree that point 2 in your ruling, and the example provided is an instance where voluntary & involuntary could result from a non-Capitol battle under your recent ruling.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 01:36 pm: Edit

The Old Colonies Squadron does not *come* with a Reserve Marker (they are with, IIRC, the 1st and 2nd fleets). I am placing an already released Reserve Marker on to the ships from the Old Colonies Squadron under the assumption that by the time reserve movement comes around on CT4, they will be released (due to the Klingons entering the Capital hex, i.e. "attacking" it).

And then, in addition, there is an 8th, already released ship that is also in that Reserve Fleet. Just to make things confusing.

The issue here is not the status of the Reserve Marker (it is an already released Reserve Marker). And you can clearly place released Reserve Markers with unreleased ships (see: making the Kzinti Marquis Fleet a reserve on AT1, which happens all the time; that is also a released Reserve Marker that is placed on an unreleased fleet). The issue is if there is a mix of released and unreleased ships in the same reserve fleet (which is perfectly possible, as far as I can tell), if the unreleased portion remains unreleased at the point when the reserve fleet wants to move, can the previously released portion use reserve movement?

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 01:37 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>> My recollection is that this all came up before and it was rules that you CAN add released ships to an inactive reserve, but the ship cannot use reserve movement unless the reserve marker is released. >>

Ah. I understand where you are coming from. I think. In the instance at hand, the reserve marker already *is* released (it came from, like, the 1st fleet or whatever). The Reserve Marker is released. The Old Colony Squadron ships may or may not be. The extra TG in the reserve fleet *is* already released.