Fair enough. I agree with the ruling (as if I have a choice), but as I said I've seen it ruled the other way and totally disagreed with that way at the time. Glad to see it won't happen again, and if someone tries it, I'll say "Talk to Chuck Strong." ;-)


Garth L. Getgen

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 06:55 am: Edit

Garth: Where specifically have you seen this ruled the other way -- this is critical as a new FEDS ruling cannot conflict with a prior official ADB ruling.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 07:19 am: Edit

Chuck,

(302.632) If all units in the Battle Force belonging to one player are destroyed but that player still has other units in the Battle Hex, any plus/minus points carry over to a subsequent battle in (or pursuit battle from) the same Battle Hex.

(308.252) If there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in a capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated, or resolved.

(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.

Rules for consideration provided as a friend of the court. No opinion on the matter at hand is inferred.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 09:48 am: Edit

Taken out of context (302.632) and (308.252) appear to be in conflict, but looking at the whole of (302.63) Annihilation and (308.25) Multi-system battles you will find that (302.63) applies to where there are units involved (anything other than the planet) and just the planet (an RDU does not count as a unit).

So, you cannot just "count coup" on a capital planet to pad any +/- points. Anything beyond that is not in the spirit of the game and shall not be allowed.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 10:15 am: Edit

Chuck, it was NOT an ADB ruling, but rather one player's interpretation of how it works.


Garth L. Getgen

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 01:07 pm: Edit

I'll restate this:

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 Current Battle Force.

By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Umm, the problem is that in a capital battle, your rulign would allow the following:

Round 1 - Coalition scores 30, blows up 4xPDU with mauler, leaving 24 plus points for next round (assuming fighters cannot transfer.

Round 2, he only assigns an E4 to that system.
According to your ruling, that would remove all the plus points, as the E4 dies, and no other unts remain.

Round 3, Coalition comes back...
rinse/repeat.

I think that is why Garth recalls a different ruling before, and I do as well. {Pretty old I think, as capital abuse was attempted early on....?}

Further, your ruling would allow a capital assault player to basically wash away all plus points prior to pursuit (except for one system) through this method/your ruling.

I'd request you consider and perhaps rephrase your answer? I am all for clarifying to eliminate abuse, but let's be careful.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Gary, those dead fighters are not plus points but minus points. They are subtracted from the damage done by the Coalition player in the next round(s).

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 12:01 am: Edit

Gary, I don't recall what year it was, but you may be right that it was the older rules set at the time.

In my case, the invaders were building a base inside my territory. It was already a BATS and being upgraded to a SB. I hit it with what I had, mostly CLs and DDs. The first battle fleet got wiped out, but I did do some damage to the base. When I hit it with the second battle fleet, I was told that the six or seven plus points carried over. I didn't think they did if there are no survivors from that battle round, but a more experience player said they did. Of course, I lost another full battle fleet and couldn't afford a third round of battle.


Garth L. Getgen

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 23, 2013 - 01:07 am: Edit

Please don't debate the issues in this topic; take it to the Q&A discussions topic.

FEAR: Please feel free to transfer the above messages as you feel appropriate.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 11:20 am: Edit

Q320.511 May a blockade runner select a hex in a captured enemy province as a destination hex for a one way blockade run? How about a destination hex in a disrupted enemy province that contains friendly units? The rule says the target hex may be "friendly or neutral." Rule 102.0 states "FRIENDLY: This refers to a unit or hex which is owned by forces of the same empire or an allied empire." However, my questions revolve around the word "owned". If an enemy planet or province is captured is it "owned" by the capturing player? In a sense an enemy "owns" the hex it occupies, even if enemy forces are adjacent and in the same province. Certainly, I would think an annexed province or planet is "owned", but what about a "long term captured" province or planet?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 09:52 pm: Edit

In Strat Ops the Lyran OOB (700.11) lists the Home Fleet to add 2xFFT and 1xDWT.
Down below it also has a note that says in scenarios beginning in Y175, replace one FFT with a DWT.

The question I have is when setting up a scenario before the DWT is available (such as the 4 Power War) should the DWT be:
A) replaced with a FFT
or
B) ignored entirely?

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 10:08 pm: Edit

ISC HDW-E in gunline.
324.41 allows ISC battlegroups and gunline groups to include escorts, and directs the player to see the SIT.
324.42 allows six size class 4 ships, with up to three size class 4 destroyers, and allows FF/NFF/DW hulls for balance. Must all be battlegroup eligible.
SIT is confusing, as it clearly lists HDWs as size class 3 battlegroup eligible, then disallows prohibited variants/missions from BG/GL.

Are HDW-Es allowed in gunlines? If not, the GL reference on the prohibited HDW SIT line items should be removed (H P T and V). I also recommend HDWs be explicitly mentioned in 324.422 as Limited Ships not allowed in gunlines.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Q324.41 Are HDW-Es allowed in gunlines? If not, the GL reference on the prohibited HDW SIT line items should be removed (H P T and V). I also recommend HDWs be explicitly mentioned in 324.422 as Limited Ships not allowed in gunlines.

A324.41 Actually, the symbol on the SIT is for Battle Group eligibility and for the ISC HDW there is a special note saying it is size class 3 Battle Group, see (525.225) for the reason why. As such, not being a size class 4 for the battle group, which is a requirement for a gunline group, they cannot be part of a gunline.

Note, also, there are some variants of the HDWs that are, themselves, not battle group eligible. An example is the HDW-P. The reference to GL does not need to be there and that should be noted in the SIT updates section in standard line item format for correction.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Q448.21 What happens to a neutral zone hex that has been annexed by the Klingons, but then later briefly occupied and abandoned by the Kzintis? The cited rule states that neutral zones may be annexed; assume that the neutral zone has been properly annexed. Under 448.23, while this sub-rule only discusses provinces, it appears that the annexed neutral zone is "a province of the capturing player for all purposes" unless it is recaptured and re-annexed, or ceded. However, rule 503.6, governing neutral zones, does not appear to consider or take into account what happens to annexed neutral zone hexes, so the Kzinti player was thinking that the neutral zone hex could be simply re-captured per 503.662, having briefly occupied the neutral zone hex. The Klingon player states that doesn't make sense because the annexed neutral zone hex is treated as being Klingon in all ways; it's annexed. A compromise is hit upon, based on the abandoned occupation rule of 430.24 that the briefly occupied annexed neutral zone hex will produce half income the following turn and on future turns until a friendly ship moves through the annexed neutral zone hex. This result appears to be reasonable, as the annexed neutral zone hex is still treated as being owned by the Klingon, but disrupted as any other Klingon province would be that had been subject to abandoned occupation under 430.24.

Please issue ruling and clarify for the update of Planetary Operations (the product containing the annexation rule under 448).

Thank you.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Q602.5 When setting up the Tempest scenario (or any other mid-war scenario). How do we add the expansion ships? The Hydrans as the example have taken some losses on their main fleet. Do I just add what is given in the OOB for the GW for each or is there a damage ratio where a certain number of ships would be added?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 10:45 am: Edit

Intersection of recent rulings seem to create some undefined situations (raid defenders may retreat and raiders do not pin raid targets).

Q314.244 - Request for clarification/update for the following ruling:

---

Quote:

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.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 28, 2013 - 12:20 pm: Edit

Reference: (314.244-B)

---

Quote:

(314.244-B): A defender forced to retreat would do so under the normal rules for retreating (ignoring all raiding ships for all purposes).

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 06:10 am: Edit

Q625.0 This is a three part question:

1. Do all non Federation bases and remaining PDUs have PFs as provided under (502.62) and (502.63)? A quick count of the remaining and
"newly built" bases shows that each base could the appropriate number of PF modules to make them out. The same is true for remaining planers with PDUs.

2. Do all Federation bases have F-111 modules? Again deployment figures and remaining and "newly built" bases indicate this is true. Along with all planets have double the nubmer of figthters on remaining PDUs. See (502.91).

3. Do colonies and colony bases with PDUs have PFs or double the normal fighter compliment if said colony or colony base has PDUs to begin with?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 10:26 am: Edit

Any word on the scenario questions I had above?
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 09:52 pm
Thursday, April 25, 2013 - 10:28 pm

By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 04, 2013 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Destruction of a Shipyard:

The Coalition are in the Hydran Capital. There is one undevastated planet in the hex. The Coalition attack that last planet. The Hydrans decline to defend it. At the end of the round, all planets in the Capital are devastated. If the Hydrans retreat, the shipyard is destroyed. Can the Coalition then retreat as well, having destroyed the shipyard?

(edit: ) 511.533 indicates that once all the planets are devastated, and the attacker offers a fight/puts up a battle line over a devastated planet, and the defender doesn't accept the fight, the defender is forced to retreat from the hex. Can the attack then retreat after forcing the defender to retreat like this? And if so, is the shipyard destroyed?

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Saturday, May 04, 2013 - 04:33 pm: Edit

Other relevant rules (summarizing my comments from the game topic that is the source of the question):

(511.35): "The only way to destroy the shipyard is to capture the entire hex which contains it. Simply devastating the capital planet or all of the planets in its system will not capture the hex."

(508.22) defines capture as the elimination of all defending units.

(508.23) says there is a requirement for a continuous garrison for a planet to remain captured. It includes the statement "...if the garrison is ever completely removed at the end of any phase, the planet reverts to its original owners and has the nominal three-point defense unit (no fighters or PFs)."

So was the planet ever "captured"? It was never in the possession of anyone but the Hydrans at the end of any phase. At the end of the combat phase during which it was devastated, there remains a Hydran residual defense unit on every planet in the capital hex, so the defenders were not completely eliminated and the shipyard was not destroyed.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 04, 2013 - 04:42 pm: Edit

508.23 is not relevant as it does not speak about how to capture a planet or hex, or how to destroy a shipyard but refers to things not under contention here, imo.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, May 04, 2013 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Hmmm, (511.35) defines it as capturing which requires staying in the capital. Technically, at the end of the Combat Phase, the capital would be captured, but retrograding would place it back in Hydran hands.

So the Q would be if the capital is captured at the end of combat or at the end of the turn...

By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Sunday, May 05, 2013 - 02:10 am: Edit

Upon further review, I think the last part of (511.351) is the specific rule dealing with this situation: "Exception: See (508.235), which would prevent the destruction of the shipyard." (508.235) requires that each planet in the capital hex needs to be fully garrisoned.

From that I conclude that if an attacker does not garrison every planet in the capital hex, they do not destroy the shipyard. And that I believe requires them to stick around to the end of the combat phase.