I'd like to appeal the ruling on Involuntary Minus Points.

The ruling is not fully supported by the applicable rules cited.
In addition to arguments previously presented regarding attrition units-fighters, the ruling is contradicted by the attrition procedure for PFs as clarified and used in 502.452, which also defines the term "immediately" by usage as occurring in the 'cannot transfer step' (i.e. 5-6E). Rule 502.452 also clearly distinguishes between 308.23 "involuntary" and the ability to give up PFs voluntarily to resolve damage (i.e. PFs can be given up as damage, but if not, count as involuntary points if they cannot transfer).

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 Gary Quick (Northquick) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 03:39 pm: Edit

In addition, the ruling creates out of thin air a mandatory "attrition unit loss step" that does not exist in the SOP, is not mentioned in the rules, and ignores implementation of the use of the transfer or die step in the rules.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Anyone is always welcome to ask for an appeal.

May I point out that that the way some players WANT this to be ruled will hamper planetary assaults. What some players have been doing is wrong from the start.

Here is how the improper play by some players is being abused...

An attacking player wishes to conduct a late war capital assault. There is no prior damage and all supporting attrition unit carriers are at capacity. The attacker scores 48 points of damage and chooses to use 40 points in a directed damage assault on four PDUs resulting in 24 fighter factors and 12 PFs to potentially have no transfer options. The defender, has 48 non-transferable points chooses (improperly) to NOT resolve those points on the remaining eight but unresolved damage points but instead cripples a CW for 7 points leaving 1 unresolved. He the chooses to cripple a DNH for 14 points resulting in an ADDITIONAL 13 minus points added to the 48 unused but doomed attrition units; he then tries to claim that he has 61 minus points available for the next round. The defender is improperly attempting to inflate the minus points in an effort to discourage further assault in the face of outrageous minus points.

The rules are being improperly interpreted. It is not the intent that 48 DOOMED attrition points can be ignored to create additional minus points when eight doomed attrition units should have been used to resolve the eight remaining points in the first place.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 08:11 pm: Edit

My main hope with rulings is that they not be rules changes but instead be rules clarifications (essentially) and that they be complete and iron-clad so as hopefully settle matters.

Whether they go for or against me is not particularly important, as long as they don't go back and forth over time.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 08:29 pm: Edit

My ruling is a clarification of existing rules and not a change to the existing rules.

This appears to me to be a classic case of playing the rules the wrong way for years.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Indeed. That IS one reason I like to play different people, it increases the likelihood that errors in play will be discovered and corrected.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 08:47 am: Edit

A non +/- point rules question!

Ok. If you make a reserve force out of some ships that are released, and then some ships that are not currently released (but might be at the point you need them to be a reserve), and the unreleased ships *don't* get released when reserve movement happens, what happens with the released ships in the reserve?

A) The released ships can use reserve movement, leaving the unreleased ships behind?

or

B) The released ships are stuck with the unreleased ships and *can't* use reserve movement?

For example (i.e. the actual situation where this is coming up): It is Alliance Turn 3. The Hydrans establish the whole of the Old Colonies Squadron (7 ships that are not released as of the end of AT3, but can be released on CT4 if the Coalition enter the Hydran Capital), and they add an extra, currently released ship to those other 7 in the Reserve Fleet (resulting in a reserve fleet of 7 currently unreleased ships and 1 released ship). During CT4, the Coalition does *not* enter the Hydran Capital, and do not release the Old Colonies Squadron. Can the 8th ship still move as a reserve fleet?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 10:28 am: Edit

(507.43) INACTIVE FLEETS may be assigned reserve markers not part of their original order of battle, but a reserve marker assigned to an inactive fleet cannot be reassigned to an active fleet until the inactive fleet becomes active.

You can't assign the reserve marker both an active and an inactive fleet. In this case, once you put the reserve marker with the Old Colonies, the extra ship, being active, is effectively part of a released fleet. So it can't be part of the reserve.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 10:41 am: Edit

I don't know that is what that sentence means.

I read that sentence as:

-Reserve Markers that come with inactive fleets as part of setup can't be moved from that fleet until they are released.

-You can put already released reserve markers on unreleased ships.

It is a sentence that defines what you can do with Reserve Markers, not ships.

But then, who knows?

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 11:19 am: Edit

I also question when exactly and under what conditions the Old Colonies fleet is released during the Coalition half of Turn 4, and whether there is any point in establishing it as a reserve. Paraphrasing the rules (since I don't have them with me), it is released when a SB is destroyed or the capital is attacked.

So an attack on a SB will not release the fleet during the Coalition half of Turn 4, but if that SB is destroyed in that attack, the fleet is release for the Alliance half of Turn 4. No point in setting it up as a reserve in this case.

However, I am not sure if the case of the capital attack is really any different. It all depends on how you define "attack." Is a pinning action, which results in an approach battle but no actual attack on any of the planetary systems, sufficient? Or does it require that one or more of the planets be attacked? Or does it require an attack on the capital planet itself? In the latter two cases, there would thus be no point in setting up the Old Colonies fleet as a reserve.

I ask this because in my games we always interpreted the rules to mean destroying an SB or attacking the capital does not release the Old Colonies fleet until the Alliance half of the Turn. Based on the discussions here, I think that was wrong, but I would like that confirmed.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 12:25 pm: Edit

I think based on all other aspects of the rules, an "Attack on the Capital" is "Enemy units in the Capital Hex". i.e. as soon as a Klingon F5 goes into the Hydran Capital, the Old Colonies Squadron is released (which is in time for reserve moves).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Reference (507.0) Reserve Fleets

An activated reserve marker may contain both activated and inactivated elements so long as the marker is within the setup area of the inactive fleet. During Reserve Movement (SoP Phase 4) if the inactive elements have NOT been activated then only the active elements may be moved as a reserve fleet. Activated elements retain their reserve status if they would otherwise qualify as a Reserve Fleet. This includes the designation of a new, activated flagship. If the newly designated flagship cannot control all remaining active units, those units in excess to its command limits immediately lose reserve status.

FEDS SENDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 02:02 pm: Edit

FEDS reminds everyone that discussions and debates regarding F&E Q&A issues will take take place in the F&E Q&A Discussions.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Unless specifically stated elsewhere in the rules, an attack on a hex is defined as any hostile action conducted by an enemy within that hex; this includes moving into the hex or any raid action taken within the hex.

FEDS SENDS

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 05:44 pm: Edit

RAID DEFENDER RETREATS

FEDS finds that there is a disconnect with the OLD 310 rules, the 2004 AO raid rules, and the newer F&E2KX (310.0) rules. The term "forced to retreat" was indeed a legacy of the OLD (pre-F&E2010) 310 rules that was cited in the 2004 AO rules. Additionally, if a raid were to take place in a hex where the forces of one side exceed the limit of (310.0), then the standard combat rules are used where retreat is part of the normal combat resolution sequence.

In my opinion, either the raid defender can either retreat or he cannot. However, the rules indicate that he can in most cases. I'm finding that I'm in a situation where I may have to rule that the term "forced to retreat" is obsolete.

FEDS RULING: Based on the current F&E2010 rules and the intent of the raid rules in the 2004 edition of Advanced Operations a raid defender may retreat after raid combat is conducted.

===========

FEDS COMMENTS

FEAR and FEDS may only clarify and interpret rules, or resolve or remedy rule conflicts or issues; ADB is wholly within its right to expand or modify any ruling, rewrite the original rule, or issue a different interpretation. FEAR and FEDS are not permitted to change or create any new rules without the approval of ADB. FEAR and FEDS may make recommendations to ADB.

FEDS ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT RULE FOR ADB

FEDS is not comfortable how the raid defender players are now abusing this rule. Raid defending players can abuse these rules to gain a tactical advantage using raid reaction as a way to tactically re-deploy a key unit from one location to another. EXAMPLE:

A. Defending DN is stationed at BATS hex 0001;
B. Enemy raids 0003;
C. Raid defending DN uses extended reaction to move to the raid in 0003;
D. DN battles the raider and retreats to friendly base in 0004;
E. During the subsequent movement phase of the same turn, the same DN uses extended reaction to move to 0006

The above example shows the DN in hex 0001 using raid reaction and combat to re-deploy to hex 0004 AND then use that same DN to react and move to hex 0006 all in the same player phase.

Total reaction related movement equals FIVE hexes within the same turn. In FEDS opinion, this is clearly not what was intended when the raid rules were developed. Had the raid never occurred then the key unit would not be able to redeploy in the first place.

Since AO and its raid rules has not yet been updated then this might be something I will suggest to ADB we consider for revision to correct this unintended second order effect when we update AO.

FEDS RECOMMENDATION TO ADB

1. FEDS recommends that any non-phasing ship that reacts during the raid phase be 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.

2. FEDS further recommends ADB considers that raid combat is so short that raid-defending units don't actually retreat from the hex but instead fallback within the hex knowing the raid ship's time-on-target is very short and that retreat and pursuit is not tactically practical.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 07:04 pm: Edit

Chuck,

One more question on this. If fighters react to a raid, then they can also retreat?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Yes - fighters retreat just as in any other battle hex.

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 03:40 pm: Edit

The Coalition attacks an undefended Capital planet. The undefended Capital planet is undevastated with an RDU on it.

The Coalition does 30 damage to the undefended, undevastated planet. 13 damage is absorbed by the RDU and planet, leaving 17 damage left over.

Does the Coalition get credit for +17 damage at this planet, or is this where (308.252) comes into play (and the +17 points vanish).

What if the planet is undefended and undevastated, but has a single PDU on it before it is hit?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 07:55 pm: Edit

The intent of plus points is to carry over damage points that COULD have been given up (but was not) to resolve damage but did not meet the REQUIREMENT where the remaining number of unresolved damage points is less than half of the smallest defense factor of the remaining units in the Battle Force.

However, when all damage points have been given up to resolve damage in a battle round and all eligible units from that battle round are annihilated then there is no way to carry over any damage points as plus points since there are NO units remaining that COULD have absorbed the damage but did not.

Examples:

A. An attacker scores 30 damage points against an undefended, undevastated planet. Ten points is absorbed by the planet and three points against the Residual Defense FACTOR (RDF), leaving 17 damage unresolved. Since there are NO remaining units that COULD absorb the remaining damage (the defending battle force was annihilated) then there are NO plus points carried over.

B. An attacker scores 30 damage points against an undevastated planet with one defending PDU. Three points are absorbed by the PDU, six points are absorbed by the PDU fighters and ten points are absorbed to devastate the planet, leaving 11 unresolved. Since there are NO remaining units that COULD absorb the remaining damage (the defending battle force was annihilated) then there are NO plus points carried over.

FEDS RULING:

There can be no carry-over of plus points from a battle round if all units from the absorbing side from that battle round have been annihilated and/or devastated.

FEDS SENDS

===========

FEDS COMMENTARY:

There are players out there who THINK they can attack an undefended multi-system planet where the planet is one point from devastation, score more than enough points to devastate the planet then claim the remaining over-kill points as plus points in pursuit. This ruling clarifies that that is clearly not the intent of the plus point system.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 09:20 pm: Edit

FEAR Concurs. FEDS just beat him to the punch.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 09:33 pm: Edit

It can be inferred that Free Fighter Factors are only available to the grid connected to the functioning Shipyard:

---

Quote:

(511.33) INTERIM PRODUCTION: During the period when no shipyard exists, the new capital can produce (each turn):......
Free fighter factors are NOT received.

---

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 09:37 pm: Edit

FEAR Concurs.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, April 21, 2013 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Copied to Warbook to ensure inclusion...

FEDS: Thanks Stewart - I'm going to make this your official specialized F&E Staff duty to capture verbatim staff and ADB initiated quandaries, rulings & clarifications and assign them to the appropriate update topic. Please let me know if you cannot take on this additional duty and I'll work something different.

Good job! Carry-on!

Chuck

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 02:01 am: Edit

"There can be no carry-over of plus points from a battle round if all units from the absorbing side from that battle round have been annihilated and/or devastated."

This makes sense. But what if the roles are reversed? If the attacking battle force is annihilated by the planet's defenses, do the plus-points carry over to the next battle round over that planet in the same combat phase? I've seen that ruled both "yes they do" and "no they don't".


Garth L. Getgen

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 02:38 am: Edit

Garth, the ruling is really clear as it matters not who the absorbing side is.