Archive through May 05, 2013
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through May 05, 2013
Oh right. You're fine then.
Chuck just posted a clarification that we are all good--if you use a released Reserve Marker to make a reserve fleet using both released and unreleased units, if the unreleased units remain unreleased, the previously released units still can operate as a reserve as needed.
Thanks for the quick clarification, Chuck!
But can that single released ship function as the reserve if the majority of the reserve fleet remains unreleased? I.e. if more than half of the reserve fleet (the unreleased portion) cannot move during the reserve movement phase, can the released portion of the fleet do so?
Kosta,
The half of a reserve rule doesn't "kick in" as it were till the reserve actually tries to move. So before you designate "This reserve is going to this hex" you can remove as many units as you wish from the reserve.
So in essence say you have a 10 ship reserve, and someone hits the reserve with 6 ships, pinning 6. You can drop 6 ships from the reserve and legally move the other 4 ships as a reserve. Just make sure the 4 ships you are left with are legal which in this case almost always just means is one of the 4 ships capable of commanding the other 3.
In response to the reaction to raids abuse problem, I think it would be best to clarify the rule by just stating that reaction during raids counts just the same as reacting during operational movement. If you use reaction against a raid, then that unit has reacted and cannot do so during operational movement.
The defending units in raids should (IMO) have the ability to retreat if they desire. They did participate in a battle hex, so retreat should (imo) be applicable.
RBE:
I could live with both or some variation of the above.
Something as a future point of thought if Richard's system ends up being adopted. You might get a strange corner case where fighters react to a raider but their carrier does not, and then they retreat back after raid combat concludes. How would that be handled in the subsequent movement step, if a ship moves into reaction range of the carrier? (Essentially, would the fighters having used their reaction movement prevent their carrier from reacting also, or would the fighters get to react twice... once on their own, once with their carrier)
I would suggest the following change.
"Any ship reacting to a raid that retreats as part of raid combat ignores the standard retreat process and instead returns to the hex it began the turn in." as a clarification "In the case where one ship reacted to a raid and other ship(s) were already present, the groups retreat seperately, with the reacting ship returning to its starting hex, and the already present ship(s) retreating normally"
Along with make the change that a ship that reacts during the Raid phase has made its reaction for the turn an may not again react.
Then I think there would be no other changes needed. You would in effect stop all the problem of ships getting alot of reaction/retreat+reaction/retreat movement to reposition itself. A ship would get no more movement than they could have gotten had they reacted in Op movement. And if they retreat from the raid battle they go back to where they started.
I really like the idea of the Raid phase being such a small part of the turn that the reacting units (should they survive the raid interaction) simply return to their point of beginning (like the raiding units do). This would mean they ALWAYS retreat with no option to remain. I know people would rather have options but it makes sense to have the reaction force match (raiders do not remain in the hex) the raiding force in movement.
This allows reaction and you could still have them operate as normal during OpMove. It avoids the artificially extended move which is the main problem. No other changes necessary. I like this!
Has there ever been a ruling on the question of whether or not it is permissible to use free fighter factors in supply grids other than the main grid?
Specifically, my Hydrans are currently split into a Hydrax grid and an offmap grid. They would like to use some of their free fighters in each. Is that allowed?
William, Free Fighter Factors are only available to be used in the grid that has a functioning capital shipyard. See (431.741). There may be additional rules or rulings that further prohibit such a split of free fighter factors.
Chuck wrote:
>>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.>>
Thank you for the clear ruling. (358.252) seems to want to say this, but it is a little unclear. The short version is "if a given battle round ends with all opposing units gone and/or a devastated planet, you can't generate + points." Nice and clear.
Thank you for the ruling. I've had opponents argue otherwise.
Gary Quick:
Please re-read my ruling carefully and note the use of the term "plus points".
Now that I'm fully awake 
- agree that limiting tpo Plus points resolves my major concerns, as Terry pointed out as well.
Continuing Garth's comment - I think the prior discussion centered around capital-system battles, and not a more general case, such as his situation or this more general ruling. I think this ruling is in line with the prior discussion/ruling as well.
Although - it seems a problem that there is so much clarification and Q&A that not even those answering can access it all.
If desired (and I can get access), I volunteer to compile all the info from prior captain's logs, etc. I believe Mike Curtis has a redacted copy of the online rulings (to screen out comments, etc), but I don't know how far back it goes....
Deleted by Author. FEAR answered the question with more detailed reasoning than my opinion.
Regarding the annexation of NZ hexes, I can't find the rule reference, but it is my understanding that NZ hexes, even after annexation are captured/disrupted the same as non-annexed NZ hexes (IOW easily). We have been playing that annexed NZ hexs gain no benefit beyond providing .4 ep instead of .2 each (economic benefit was a ruling a couple years ago).
Paul, OK - I didn't find the ruling, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
That would make NZ hexes very odd ducks. Theoretically, why could they not be fully annexed just as any other territory?
Meh, whatever. I just want an official answer so I know what to do.
On Raids, reacting and retreating.- my 2p!
The easiest solution looks like if any reacting ships retreats - it goes back to the hex it reacted from (as others have said).
The reacting ship, should be allowed to stay - and for simpliticy - can react again as normal.
(Rembering where a ship reacted from is fairly easy - as it's resolved immediately - remembering what has reacted to raids and has not - which could be hours later (or a different game session), might not be so easy.
retreating from raids:
is the game effect really large enough to warrant an erratum? shouldn't there be some kind of threshold of materiality, before you subordinate the actual dead-trees-and-ink RULES of the game to some ad-lib internet post?
In reply to the discussion in Q&A.
508.235 only says what happens if you don't have enough ships to fully garrison a multi planet hex.
In this case it is not relevant as the Coalition *does* have enough ships to garrison the hex.
Imo, 508.235 would apply (for instance) if after driving off the defenders, the Coalition had fewer ships remaining than planets to garrison.
I believe that it has been previously ruled that you only evaluate the garrison status of planets at the end of the phase. Thus during the combat phase some planets in the capital hex may become temporarily ungarrisoned, as the fight takes place over other planets elsewhere in the hex; but if at the end of the combat phase there remain enough ships to garrison all the planets, they were never considered to have become ungarrisoned for the purposes of the reappearance of the residual defense factor, economic production, etc. I would think this evaluation of garrison status at the end of the combat phase would also apply to the destruction of the shipyard.
Kosta wrote:
>>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. >>
(511.351) says "you must fight on till all enemy units are destroyed or have retreated".
In the instance at hand, this happened.
Round 13, the Coalition offer a fight over the last undevastated planet. The Hydrans decline. The Coalition don't quite devastate the planet. The Hydrans retreat. Round 14, the Coalition devastate the last undevastated planet. At this point:
A) All planets in the Capital are devastated.
and
B) There are no Hydran units in the hex.
This fills the requirements of (508.22) for capturing a planet (which is the important part here). Garrisoning and RDUs don't become an issue until the next turn, as RDUs don't show up until the planet has been captured and then liberated (as otherwise, every time one devastated a planet, left the system for a battle round, and came back the next battle round, the RDU would pop back up like whack-a-mole).
If all the planets are devastated and there are no defending units in the hex, the Capital is captured. If the Capital is captured, the shipyard is destroyed.
>>From that I conclude that if an attacker does not garrison every planet in the capital hex, they do not destroy the shipyard.>>
There is nothing in the rules I can find that links garrisoning to destruction of the shipyard. Just capturing the hex. And capturing the hex is defined by all planets being devastated and no defending units being in the hex. Which happens as soon as the last planet is devastated, given that opposing units have all retreated.
OK, the point is when (via SOP) a planet is considered captured - it's either at 6A (Retrograde) or 7A (Field Repair) since supply is checked (and ships go from 'capturing' to 'garrisoning'). The next supply check is 1A2 of the next player turn in which if a captured planet is garrisoned it is a supply point for that player (and needs one more game turn to contribute EPs).
No, the point that a planet is captured is when you fulfill the conditions for capture (508.22)(imo). The rule is VERY clear.
Saying that the planet is not captured even though I have fulfilled the requirements listed in 508.22 goes directly against 508.22, without some more specific rule to the contrary (imo).
It's not explicitly in the sequence of play. Supply check has nothing to do with determining if a planet is captured or not.
Also, there is no 'capturing' status for ships, so they can't go from 'capturing' to 'garrisoning', imo.