Note that combat in some cases might not be resolved by SSC. It is possible that it will use normal combat.

Also note that the example quoted above is not meant to define retreat possibilities, but is meant for a different question and is ambiguous enough that it does not settle my question.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 09:39 am: Edit

Yes, but those would then follow the normal retreat rules, right?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 08:46 pm: Edit

FEDS COMMENTARY:

It is clear that the intent of the alternative attack under (314.28) is to allow a raider to rapidly engage a target of opportunity in the raid hex BEFORE raid target hex units retreat. in essence, it is a quasi-pursuit round before retreat where the raider gets an alternative attack against a target of choice (without it actually being a pursuit round).

FEDS NOTIONAL SOP CLARIFICATION (OPEN FOR COMMENT)

3A - STEP 2: NORMAL RAIDS

3A-2A: Specify locations and roll to determine outcome of sabotage and infiltration (537.1).

3A-2B: Designate and move normal raiding ships to raid target hexes (314.21); move Espionage and Sabotage Prime Teams to their target hex (534.15).

3A-2C: Target empire may use Reaction Movement to respond to raids (314.241) OR may call up, if eligible, police ships to fight raiders (314.243), but not both.

3A-2D: Target empire declares which units will fight the raider (314.251).

3A-2E: Raiding ships/reacting units conduct one round of small-scale combat (314.244); see exceptions in (318.7).

3A-2F: Raiders crippled or retreating are returned to raiding pool (314.244).

3A-2G: Raid response units choosing to retreat identify retreat hex.

3A-2H: Conduct specified raid actions:

• 3A-2H1: Record disrupted locations from raiding (314.27) or conduct alternate attack (314.28) if eligible.

• 3A-2H2: Identify, conduct, and resolve Espionage and Sabotage Missions in target hex (534.12).

3A-2J: Return raiders to raiding pool (314.273).

3A-2K: Retreat raid response units and alternative attack survivors (as appropriate) to retreat hex identified in step 3A-2G.


Does the above clarify the issues?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 10:25 pm: Edit

Yes. More much more clear.

Suggest in step 3-A2F revise to "...crippled, or voluntarily retreating before conducting raid actions, are returned..."

Suggest in step 3A-2G revise to "...retreat hex according to normal retreat priority evaluation (307.0)."

And thank you for very quick responsiveness!

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 11:35 pm: Edit

Yes, that resolves some other things that I did not like. Thank you Chuck.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 08:02 pm: Edit

From Q&A:

In the GW, the Romulans can attack the Federation before the 10th turn....and if this is true where is it in the rulebook......Thanks Michael Oliver

As far as I know there are only two ways for the Romulans to attack the Federation prior to turn 10 (in a historical GW game).

#1 is through pre-war raids (Advanced Operations: 314.3).

#2 is through diplomacy (Strategic Operations: 540.42).

By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Thanks Richard I bet it the same way for the Klingon too

By Andrew Bruno (Admeeril) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Hi Mike. Hope you are well-
Just for fun info, in the "Tholian Gambit" scenario the Romulans may enter the GW early if the Klingons destroy/devastate all bases by T3 (CO 615.2).

Cheers!

By Mike Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, March 13, 2014 - 10:25 pm: Edit

ok hmmmmmm

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 15, 2014 - 05:56 am: Edit

In Q&A, Stew remarked:

---

Quote:

The Kzinti would have to select CV2 instead of CLE2 as the Klingon selected CLE2 (312.235).

FEAR, FEDS, I'd like to appeal this as a random result should not take the entire group out of the selection process.

---

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, March 15, 2014 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Which is why I'm asking, as the 'smallest unfrozen' is not eligible to be selected, is it ignored for the selction process making the next escort the 'smallest eligible target'...

As is, this make carrier (and other) groups nastier (for random selection).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 12:32 am: Edit

It was not ignored as it WAS part of the overall selection process -- only it was not selected in the stasis die roll that rolled "Random".

Your suggested process will essentially result in THREE bites at the same group: the original target, attacker random, and defender random. Players will try to game the system in the hope of gaining the RANDOM roll just to dig deep into the targeted carrier group.

FEDS sees nothing wrong with the SFG random selection process as designed.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 03:51 am: Edit

Actually I thought that that was the intent...

This is a case of the general rule (must be selected) overriding the specific rule (cannot be selected)...

[Groups are just that awesome! (G)]

As for gaming the system, everyone does to gain as much advantage as they can (maulers [vs formation] and SFGs [EW/D5A] were detuned to their current states because of the gaming)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 06:02 am: Edit

What I am talking about is under your process players would game it to 'fail' to get their primary SFG target in order to gain the "random" result which is better. One should not be rewarded for planned failure.

The NBA draft process had to be changed because teams eliminated from playoff contention began to purposely lose games in order to get a better draft pick for the next season. The team with the worst record got a the first pick -- it's now a lottery system.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 11:32 am: Edit

chuck

modifiers, negative or positive, to the stasis roll cannot increase the likelihood of a random result. what's to "game"?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 05:51 am: Edit

CU:

Check-out results on the C9A-1 vs C9A-2 SFG chart, the random results are better on the second SGF attempt and the primary target success decreases -- one COULD manipulate the circumstances to increase the likelihood of a random event. The SFG player could even leverage a negative EW shift the changes of a SFG attempt to get the "favorable" random result -- that is why the target (group) cannot be selected AGAIN by the attacker if the random results are rolled. The current process does not allow for the attacker to choose a better target from a group that he failed to stasis in the first place.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Hmmmm, interseting, an SFG against one group (expanded carrier group!), if a random result shows up first the group is immune. Who/what is doing the manipulatiing here??

My main objection is the targeting on an ineligible target.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 01:50 am: Edit

Stew:
Under the interpretation you have suggested the real intent of the SFG player is not to freeze the tailing primary target escort but hope to get the random result so he can select the next interior escort as one of the SFG player's random choices (which is not permitted under the rules) and hope to force the defensive player to choose the CARRIER in a typical 3 ship group.

What you are suggesting is a second bite at the group the SFG player failed to freeze in the first place and a forced bonus third target bite by by the defender.

Under the current rules NO GROUP can have more than TWO targets vulnerable under the ENTIRE SFG process.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 04:53 am: Edit

Even with two SFGs on each of two B10AAs?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 07:28 pm: Edit

Question from Richard Eitzen: "Q704.4 What is the conversion cost of a SN to a BHE (in F&E 2010). It is not on the SIT."


I would presume it no longer exists.

SN to BHE was a cheat because there was no SNE. Now that there's an SNE (though I think you have to wait for an expansion to get it), I would think the SN to BHE is no longer needed.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Well, but BHE is a better ship.

However, I don't see an allowed conversion from SN to BH. So, based on that I'm not sure why Richard thinks it's legal at all?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Under the current rules NO GROUP can have more than TWO targets vulnerable under the ENTIRE SFG process.

Now that is just wrong...the answer will depend on how many SFGs shots the SFG player has (max of 12) and how many of those result in random rolls.

As for intent, not really, it is something that I, personally, could hope for because it does result in widening the selctions - I can get that outer escort, but a chance at an inner one, or even the carrier (remote as it may be), why wouldn't I?

Yes it is a liberal interpretation as an ineligible target (original) to be an ineligible selection when one returns to the group selection (it's not the smallest since it's not selectable) process.

Here's another question, what happens when the SFG has NO selections (ie only one group)?

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 07:56 pm: Edit

Ted, it was legal in the original basic F&E since it was to help keep the WH group up at full strength.

If the individual escorts are in the basic set then it can be removed...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 08:38 pm: Edit

If you go read the rule Q704.4, you will see it stated in that rule as possible to convert a SN to a BHE (if you aren't using expansions).

This came up in my game with Mr. Bakija.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 - 11:51 am: Edit

From the CL48 archive ruling:

---

Quote:

"(540.15) PEACETIME: Diplomatic teams function for empires at peace, so the Federation and Gorns could each use one of their teams to negotiate trade deals with each other and raise some money that could be spent during the pre-war period or saved for later."
"(540.2) [Last line]...Any EPs generated by diplomatic teams may be spent by the owning empire even if at peace."
"(540.251) [Extracted] ...Note that if the planet joins your empire, it is treated as a part of the adjoining fleet and if that fleet is inactive, the new planet is in an inactive fleet area, but defenses can still be added to the planet and it produces income for the gaining empire..."
A: Once diplomats persuade a neutral planet to join their empire the income of the new planet is treated as "normal" income for that empire under the economic conditions for that empire; it is in no way considered "diplomatic" income.

---