| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 01:09 pm: Edit |
REB:
Your suggestion is contrary to the written rule:
Quote:(503.623) A ship moving through a neutral zone hex can voluntarily declare that it is not “capturing” that hex. Neutral zone hexes can only be captured by Operational Movement, not other types of movement.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 01:18 pm: Edit |
Nope, but the word occupy elsewhere provides a rationale. Also, 503.623 refers to 'other types of movement', which occupying the hex at the start of a player's turn is not.
It does seem to make sense that if I have a ship sitting in a NZ hex at the start of my turn, that I own that hex, and I feel that the 'occupying' reference in the rule refers to this.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 01:37 pm: Edit |
Well, if at the start of your operational movement phase it occupies the hex and no enemy ships are adjacent then your unit would capture the hex at that point in the SoP. The window to capture neutral zone hexes occurs ONLY during the phasing player's operational movement phase.
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 01:38 pm: Edit |
I don't have much at stake in this particular discussion, and am happy to have a very clear ruling (i.e. you can *only* capture NZ hexes with operational movement). But that being said, the ruling makes the word "occupy" in the rule in question completely redundant, which makes the inclusion of it in the rule not make sense--there is no point at which "occupying" the NZ hex is doing anything different than simply moving through it.
As such, it makes one think that the word "occupying" was included to indicate that something *other* than operational movement could capture a NZ hex. The interpretation I have been operating under (till right now) has been:
A) You can capture NZ hexes by entering them with operational movement (and fulfilling all other requirements).
or
B) You can capture NZ hexes by being in them at the end of some other phase (and as such, "occupying" it) (and fulfilling all other requirements).
Again, I'm not arguing that this *should* be how the rule works (I'm totally ok with the "you can only capture NZ hexes in operational movement" ruling). But the inclusion of the word "occupy" is completely pointless in the rule in this instance. Indicating that the word "occupy" was included for a reason. That the current ruling doesn't take into account.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 02:11 pm: Edit |
Peter:
A unit simply occupying a neutral zone hex during its operational movement phase which does not MOVE and has no enemy ships adjacent to the unit at the end of the operational movement phase would capture the hex at that point in the SoP. The term occupy is needed to prevent arguments from those that would say that the said unit did NOT move through the hex if it remained stationary during its operational movement phase.
| By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 02:21 pm: Edit |
Ah, ok. So "occupy" *does* have an application other than simply moving in this context. So if you end up in a NZ hex during a retreat movement on the previous turn, and are in the NZ hex, and then don't move during the current turn Operational Movement phase, you still capture the NZ hex (assuming all other requirements are fulfilled). Ok. That makes sense.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 02:50 pm: Edit |
Thanks Chuck.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 - 11:27 am: Edit |
Regarding Pete's salvage question:
IMHO this artifact of a rules reference should be removed. If massive fleets controlling a hex after a major battle cannot get any salvage for destroyed enemy ships, then it makes no sense that one or a small squad of ships can get salvage for destroyed enemy ships.
FEDS: Addressed and clarified issue in Q&A.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 01, 2014 - 12:27 pm: Edit |
My bad on the NZ planet thing. I did not have my rules handy and didn't realize they are also being considered diplomatic income as well.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 11:55 am: Edit |
Further input on Q203.731.
Argument 1:
The word "Supply" is defined in 102.0: "SUPPLY: An abstract game function in which ships and other units are provided with fuel, spare parts, and ammunition." (Emphasis supplied). I respectfully submit that "ammunition" should also include drone bombardment. While theoretically a partial grid or a ammunition tug could provide supply for DB purposes under 309.3, when such supply is not actually available (because the partial grid has no saved EPs), opening supply to the main grid provides DB "ammunition" to the partial grid. Sending a reserve fleet under 203.731 to open a path to the main grid does open "supply" (i.e. DB ammunition), and thus I respectfully submit that the ruling should be that 203.731 allows a reserve fleet to open a path from the main grid to the partial grid.
Argument 2:
Under 411.2 "Supply Routes cannot pass through a hex containing enemy units unless that hex also contains friendly units. This applies only during combat (301.2) or one special case in a Free Campaign (652.13)." Thus, whether or not units on a base are "always in supply" per 410.4, the fact remains that an actual supply route has been blocked to the main grid. As 203.731 allows reserves to open supply to *units* (not just ships), and a base is a "unit", then a reserve should be allowed to open a supply route instead of narrowly reading the rule as "any broad level of supply, at the instant of combat".
Argument 3:
203.731 allows reserves to open supply to "units". A base is a unit. Therefore, a reserve may be used to open a supply route from the main grid to a base that is out of supply with respect to the main grid. The fact that a base in friendly territory self supplies in a partial grid does not change the result that the base itself (as a unit) may or may not be in supply with respect to the main grid. As a reserve can open supply to units, and a base is a unit, a reserve should be allowed to connect a main grid to a partial grid when a supply route is cut off between them and the reserve is necessary and sufficient to open supply.
Argument 4:
The intent of 203.731 is to allow units that are otherwise cut off from resources of a supply grid to receive those resources by using a reserve fleet to punch a hole in what amounts to an enemy blockade of a combat hex. To rule that 203.731 cannot be used to open supply to the main grid simply because all battle hexes are on bases or planets would deny the intent of the rule by preventing ships in combat access to resources they could *only* have by access to the main grid. For example, depot level repair is only available if the destroyed ships have a legal supply path to the depot under 424.38 - and that means a legal supply path to the main grid.
Furthermore, while salvage might be accumulated in the partial grid, such salvage would likely be lost without access to the main grid when the supply points in the partial grid are destroyed or captured. Thus, the effective intent of the rule would again be denied.
Finally, for drone races, drone bombardment would be effectively eliminated as in most cases a partial grid does not have saved EPs to pay for the ammunition. Thus, again, blocking supply to the main grid denies the intent of 203.731 by preventing ships in combat from having ammunition and supplies.
Argument 5:
If the rule is read narrowly such that any level of supply prevents the operation of 203.731, then the use of a supply tug (such as a Hydran expeditionary supply tug under 509.5) would preclude 203.731 from being used to open supply to a fleet that is otherwise cut off from supply from the main grid. This result does not seem right, as the result means that the fleet could not use retrograde movement (the supply path is cut even if the ships are "in supply" in a narrow sense), or take advantage of any of the other supply and ammunition rules available when connected to the main grid. Thus, 203.731 should be interpreted as opening a supply route - or more giving more supply functions - rather than a narrow reading of any level of supply.
A ruling in favor of allowing a reserve to open supply from a main grid to a partial grid under 203.731 is respectfully requested. More generally, a ruling in favor of reading 203.731 as allowing a reserve to better the available supply functions of a fleet is respectfully requested.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 11:58 am: Edit |
In the end, I think the issue regarding 203.731 boils down to whether the word "supply" is supposed to be read narrowly or broadly. As the word "supply" in the game is abstract (by definition) you really could go either way.
My feeling is that it should be read broadly to allow additional supply functions that would not otherwise be available had the reserve fleet not moved. That seems to be the intent of the rule - to provide supply functions when otherwise they would not be available.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 01:01 pm: Edit |
Rebuttals:
Argument 1
This argument to me seems spurious. Drone bombardment is possible in a partial grid, so the reserve fleet is not in itself necessary. The fact that you didn't plan for it is irrelevent.
Argumetn 2
Teh reserve rule is specific that it states that it may only be used to unblock supply if that is the only way to avoid being out of supply for combat. It isn't, hence this argument is not relevent.
Argument 3
The base is a unit. But the base itself is always in supply, so the reserve is not necessary to bring the base into supply. The rule says nothing about connecting a partial grid to the main grid, only getting the aforementioned units into supply, which they already are. As for access to resources, the only thing that would be denied to you is the depot. You could kill ships and use the salvage to fund drone bombardment.
Argument 4
Again, the reserve rule says nothing about the main grid being a requirement, only supply.
Argument 5
Yes, that's correct it would. And generally the expeditionary fleet would not use retrograde movement unless it had a valid regtrograde point. But retrograde point is not synonymous with supply point. This is a non-sequiter
General
The rules cannot anticipate what MIGHT happen, but what IS the current state at the time such things are evaluated. Supply is evaluated at the point just before reserves for combat purposes, and that burden has been met, without the reserve.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 01:27 pm: Edit |
Reply to Rebuttals to 203.731 argument.
Quote:Argument 1
This argument to me seems spurious. Drone bombardment is possible in a partial grid, so the reserve fleet is not in itself necessary. The fact that you didn't plan for it is irrelevant.
Quote:Argumetn 2
Teh reserve rule is specific that it states that it may only be used to unblock supply if that is the only way to avoid being out of supply for combat. It isn't, hence this argument is not relevent.
This argument assumes without sufficient basis that the word "supply" is a narrow reading of the word, meaning any level of supply (such as self supply). However, under the definition of the word supply under rule 102, "supply" is an abstract concept that means many different things. Thus, the word "supply" should be interpreted broadly to include any of the various functions of supply.
Quote:Argument 3
The base is a unit. But the base itself is always in supply, so the reserve is not necessary to bring the base into supply. The rule says nothing about connecting a partial grid to the main grid, only getting the aforementioned units into supply, which they already are. As for access to resources, the only thing that would be denied to you is the depot. You could kill ships and use the salvage to fund drone bombardment.
And, again also, this reading inherently assumes that the word "supply" is read narrowly to be "any level of supply" because the base is self supplied. Again, it is respectfully submitted that the word "supply" has a broad definition under 102 and thus should be read broadly here as well to include all functions allowable by "supply".
Quote:Argument 4
Again, the reserve rule says nothing about the main grid being a requirement, only supply.
The point of this argument is to show that there are many functions of supply, and that the word "supply" should not be narrowly interpreted to exclude other functions of "supply."
Quote:Argument 5
Yes, that's correct it would. And generally the expeditionary fleet would not use retrograde movement unless it had a valid regtrograde point. But retrograde point is not synonymous with supply point. This is a non-sequiter
It is respectfully submitted that the first sentence in this argument supports the opposite viewpoint. At the current state at the time of evaluation drone bombardment and depot - both functions of supply - are not possible. As the term "supply" includes both functions, 203.731 should be useable to open a path to the main grid to allow such functions to be used, when otherwise they would not be available without application of the reserve.
Quote:General
The rules cannot anticipate what MIGHT happen, but what IS the current state at the time such things are evaluated. Supply is evaluated at the point just before reserves for combat purposes, and that burden has been met, without the reserve.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 02:13 pm: Edit |
Sur-reply to 203.731 argument:
The purpose of opening the supply "path" is to get the units in question back in supply. The unit is in supply, so it already has a path to supply (in the case of the base, itself)
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 04:07 pm: Edit |
The parties are done with their arguments. Maybe someone else wants to weigh in. Hopefully ruling won't take too long.
| By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 04:53 pm: Edit |
Sounded like you were arguing with yourself, counselor.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 07:03 pm: Edit |
It sounds like it, yes. But I'm not. It's a hot-button issue in a game I'm in right now. The answer will have a significant impact on the game.
My personal position is the broader one - the reading of 203.731 that would allow me to open a supply path from the main grid to the partial grid.
| By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, January 04, 2014 - 12:50 pm: Edit |
You should have reacted a ship to fight, then you would have a battle that would be truly out of supply
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 04, 2014 - 01:21 pm: Edit |
Supply and reserves
I believe the answer is that reserves CAN be sent to the blocking hex.
There was a ruling made a while ago (sorry, no time to search) that allowed you to move a reserve to a legal battle hex - putting the reserve out of supply - and then sending another reserve fleet to open a supply line to it.
(The specific question regarded whether the Klingons on turn 3 could send a reserve fleet to 413 - and then use another reserve fleet to attack one of the Hydran BATS to open supply to those Klingon units in 413).
An illogical ruling (I was the Hydrans) but IIRC, the issue was simple - if the unit is out of full supple, reserve fleets can be used.
| By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, January 04, 2014 - 03:00 pm: Edit |
On the recent ruling about APTs, I think that their should be a rules change in PO saying that transports such as APTs, PTRs and FedEx cannot serve as flag ships if their are non transport type ships in the hex that can do so.
In addition, I think they should be added to the list of units that cannot count as a ship for the purpose of allowing another unit to qualify for formation bonus.
For example, if defending a BATS with a lone DN and APT, it should not be legal (imo) to put the DN in formation because of the presence of the APT.
APTs (and such units) are much cheaper than any warship and imo this is an extremely cheesy way to protect valuable units.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 01:15 am: Edit |
IMHO this will not become a distant corner tactic, but rather a great way to reduce picket costs for the Coalition.
Picket should be Ship, Ship, APT. When a picket destruction force comes, you exclude the 2 ships and present the 1 EP APT for destruction. Typically FFs are given up for this role, costing 2.5 EPs.
If the two ships have 15+compot you can't raid it using ESSC.
Given the ruling I plan on drastically reducing my picket costs by fielding APTs as my pickets.
| By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 04:02 am: Edit |
I am sure I read somewhere, that a APT could NOT be used as a Flagship, as it was Command Zero (or was a non-ship??) - but you could use a PTR.
As a PTR costs 2 Ep's - there is no real saving over using a 2.5 Ep FF.
I have re-read the rules - and can't see anything about this though - might have been a previous Q&A?
I do agree, if APT's could be used - it would have a significant effect on the game - the 'Ship' cost of garrisoning provinces and losing them to counterattacks is nullified by a 1 Ep cost to permanently protect a FF (until the APT dies) is pretty cost effective.
| By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 05, 2014 - 12:26 pm: Edit |
The issue of special mission ships as flagships has been resolved by ADB in the Q&A section.
| By Douglas Saldana (Dsal) on Monday, January 06, 2014 - 09:04 am: Edit |
In regards to the ruling on special missions ships as flagships I would note that in "For the Honor of the Flag" in Captain's Log #26 the Flag for the entire 3rd fleet was transferred from the USS Star League to an armed priority transport.
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, January 06, 2014 - 09:56 am: Edit |
@Douglas,
True. But scenarios or fiction can always present unusual situations. IMHO this ruling is good for the F&E game, as otherwise the Coalition would obtain a significant advantage.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |