Chuck,

On the LSC ruling I have been playing that diplomatic income may not be used to convert or pay for substitutes of the PWC. Does the LSC exception apply only to this particular case or are you saying that diplomatic income can be used to pay for conversions and/or substitutions of PWC ships in general?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 12:33 pm: Edit

(540.2) does allow any EPs generated by diplomatic teams to be spent by the owning empire even if at peace. In addition, (540.22) and (540.23) specifically state that any EPs generated by diplomatic teams in peacetime could be spent freely or saved at the owner's discretion.

This is a case where the general rule is overridden by the specific diplomatic income rules.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck, I had played it for years just as you specify, but something changed my mind on how its supposed to work.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 01:06 am: Edit

richard

a CU isn't a legal downsub for a fusion beam ship. just sayin'

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 10, 2014 - 01:51 am: Edit

Yes, HN then.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 05:45 pm: Edit

ted, i was considering posting a very closely related Q&A question. i think in the case you specified, you are required to put up the D7C, because the non-withdrawn flagship candidate is required to be the eventual flagship. rules not handy so i can't cite it.

but a messier situation is when a mixed force uses withdrawal before combat. ten lyran ships (including 3 CR10) and ten klingon ships want to run: the non-flagship lyrans and three klinks withdraw before combat. the three ostensible flagship candidates are no longer capable of being flags because the force is now required to be klingon-majority.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 06:57 pm: Edit

302.16 says to use the other rule on the first round only and overall otherwise says that withdrawn ships don't count for stuff.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 17, 2014 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Yes, but that begs the question: do you withdraw first or select the flag from among all units first? 302.132 is not clear on this issue - but the SoP is.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 12:16 am: Edit

302.133 Explicitly states that one of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship (302.32) of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round.

The words 'must remain behind' make it clear that this is done even in the case of withdrawal before combat (as remaining behind implies units that left - ie withdrawal). Also, the sentence says first Combat Round, which surely means that it is intended to be used even if withdrawal before combat is used.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 08:13 am: Edit

FEDS: RBE is correct. (FEAR Mistype fixed.)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 10:47 am: Edit

Chuck, in that case you might want to edit the SoP, and/or 302.133 on the next set of revisions. The SoP makes it look like you do withdrawal first *and then* you select a flag from what is left.

And I still think contrary to what Richard said, the question is still begged. Just because 302.133 states that one of the three units with the largest command rating must remain behind and must be the flagship of the battle force in the first combat round does not necessarily mean that you don't conduct withdrawal first and then select the three best commands from the remaining forces.

The words "must remain behind" do *not* make it clear that flag selection is done before conducting withdrawal, *particularly when read in the context of the SoP*. "Remaining behind" does not imply units that left. It implies units that remain behind *after* you conduct withdrawal, particularly if you look at the SoP and the stated order of actions - which *explicitly* calls out *when* the flag is selected in the *following* step (5-1D).

Also "first combat round" does not "surely" mean that flag selection is made before conducting withdrawal, again *in the context of the SoP*. For example, "first combat round" may refer to selection of units after withdrawal, again which the SoP appears to state explicitly.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for an appeal. I'm suggesting that the rules as written and the SoP in particular need to be revised. I'd recommend adding a step to the SoP before 5-1C that states that the flagship to be left behind is selected prior to conducting withdrawal. That would remove all doubt.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 11:28 am: Edit

I will comment this has come up before and been ruled the same way. I also agree an Errata to the SOP is in order for this one, as it does seem to me that by following the SOP you would conclude the E4 can be the flagship... maybe that is just me being confused but I think enough folks might be confused to warrant an Errata.

The real sticky issue is the one Chris Upton brought up about mixed nationality forces. There WAS a solution given in a ruling but I cannot remember nor find it now.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 06:47 pm: Edit

IIRC the flagship HAD to be one that could lead the majority [51+%] of that battleforce (ie a Klingon force with 3 Lyran BCs would have a Klingon flag)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I don't think that's what the rule says. Can you verify that Stewart?

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Sunday, February 23, 2014 - 01:19 pm: Edit

richard:

302.321. it's 50% or more, not more than 50%, but it specifically says ships in the battle force (as opposed to ships in the hex).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 23, 2014 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Right, not ships in the hex.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, February 23, 2014 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Right, I normally assumed more than 50% as if the force is exactly 50% then the normal flagship rules are used...

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, February 27, 2014 - 04:45 pm: Edit

In Q&A the discussion about the formation of retreating units.

The rules indicate it seems to me that all crippled ships are part of the Battle Force, and you discount the COMPOT of included ships that exceed the CR rating of the flagship. Here is the rule

---

Quote:

(307.31)CREATION: The retreating player must form his Battle Force as follows. First include all crippled ships, then add up to three uncrippled ships. From this force designate a flagship. If the Battle Force exceeds the Command Rating the force is used as is although excess ships (specified by the owner) do not count in the Combat Potential but can be damaged. If the Battle Force does not exceed the Command Rating of the flagship additional uncrippled ships may be added up to the maximum ratung.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 01:37 pm: Edit

In regards to Q314.25: I do not believe there is an enabling rule allowing defenders during raid combat to retreat on the map. I do not see such a rule in the rules themselves. There is no enabling step in the sequence of play to allow the defender to retreat *after* the raid combat is already over.

In other words, if the defender sustains a casualty, the defender may possibly use that casualty to retreat. However, if the defender sustains no casualties (or, say, uses all available casualties to cripple or kill defending units), then the defender may not retreat because there is no enabling rule that allows him to do so.

The analogy to regular combat is of no help - as in regular combat there are explicit rules enabling retreat.

Likewise, a defender during a raid cannot withdraw before combat. For the same reason - there is no enabling rule.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 02:41 pm: Edit

I agree with Ted, but I do believe it was ruled upon that retreat is allowed after raid combat.

Also the annihilation clause may come into play in the questions example.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Rob, if you can find it please cite it. Richard and I failed to find a ruling. Which is interesting as I had a recollection (perhaps false) that there was a ruling going the other way (saying no retreat after raid combat absent a retreat result).

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 07:08 pm: Edit

copied from Q&A

(314.274) The defending ship (if it survived) remains in the raid target hex (or a hex it retreated into) and operates from that point normally. It could later use reaction movement in the Operational Movement Phase of the same turn.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Does 'or a hex it retreated into' mean it CAN voluntarily retreat? That is part of why this needs a ruling. IMO.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 07:56 pm: Edit

If the defender isn't hit with at least one casualty then they can not retreat from the way I read (314.274).

FEDS: In SSC you can retreat resolving a "casualty" or as a final choice after an SSC combat round.

---

Quote:

(310.51) STANDOFF: If neither player retreats [either as retreat action (310.32) or normally under (302.7)]…

---

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Wednesday, March 05, 2014 - 07:58 pm: Edit

The retreat is determined in the SSC results.