Pete, if what you say is true, then both sides in a capital assault must *decide* what forces are in a battle force in step 5-3E before they are revealed in step 5-3G.

However, it is also already conceded (I think) that the defender in a capital assault gets to see the enemy battle force *and then* build his line accordingly.

If so, then your argument regarding command points being *decided* before they are revealed doesn't work for the same reason. There is a specific exception for capital assaults (rules quoted above) that allows the defender to see the attacker's line (including command points) *and then* build a line and commit command points.

Conversely, if *deciding* has to be done before reveal - and that concept controls - then the defender would not get the advantage of seeing the opponent's line and then building it. IMHO this would constitute a rule change.

As an aside, it's been like this in the game as far as I can remember - at least they way I've played it (but nothing in this game seems set rule-wise). Also, I don't see this as being some huge game-changing advantage for the defender even if it is a "change" to the rules. If anything, it's primary advantage is to save the Alliance some badly needed EPs, as they don't have to commit to use of command points until it's clear the enemy is coming in (since they control whether approach is accepted or not).

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Pete.

---

Quote:

Nice try, but you are being disingenuous. You know that battle forces are revealed simultaneously and that is what the rule refers to. 5-3G specifically says this.

The exception is the capital hex, and there is nowhere that you can point to that says command point announcement is not simultaneous in the capital hex.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 01:12 pm: Edit

IF a hex is a capital hex that uses that system, then the first time you put up a battle force, you must decide on the number of command points.

At that point, you can spend one command point for +1 ship in one system. If the currect battle is an approach battle, then you dont get any extra ship at this point.

If you spend two command points for +2 ships in one system (no admirals) then you don't get any extra ship if the current battle is an approach battle.

If you spend two command points for +1 ship to any system, then you DO get +1 ship during an approach battle, as it's +1 for anywhere in the hex.

And so on.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 02:10 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

5-3D: Players secretly select flagships (302.32) based on eligible Command Ratings (302.33). Use Command Points (first round only) to increase command limits (308.9). The presence of an admiral on a flagship in the Battle Force increases that ship’s Command Rating. The presence of a Marine Major General may allow for one commando ship from the same empire to be added to the Battle Force above Command Rating (321.31).

---

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 02:12 pm: Edit

For what it's worth, I think Rob has it correct.

But...

I don't have my 2k10 rules with me, but isn't it true that a refused approach battle counts as a "round of combat" as far as the auto-kill rule is concerned? If so, there is precedent for a refused approach to count as the first round of combat, in which case Pete could have a good argument for the command point decision to be simultaneous even before he announces that he is coming in to fight at the planets.

OTOH, there's no battle force built for the approach if the approach is refused. The capital assault process clearly allows the defender to see the attacker's line before he forms his own, thereby creating an exception to SOP steps 5-3D/E/G.

Like I said, I think Rob has it correct. But with ADMs and MMGs, the effect is muted somewhat. The defender can still get two extra ships fighting at his capital planet, as long as one of them is a G ship.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Matt,

Yes a refused approach battle does count as a round of combat under that auto-kill rules.

Rob,

I disagree, there is absolutely no reason why you can't select flagship candidates before knowing what systems are being attacked. I'm pretty sure you already know what they are. In any case, you would be able to at least select one flagship, since you know that at least one system is being attacked.

The point is the the decision to use the command points is made before any battle forces are selected, let alone revealed.

Ted,

Conversely, I've played mostly the Alliance, and I've never played that I could see the Coalition's command points and then decide. Viva La Difference.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 02:32 pm: Edit

It's pretty easy to read this one both ways.

I can't wrap my head around how the Attacker can "build a battle line" and not have to be required to say HOW they made it legal.

Pete feels it's an extra Defender (i.e. Alliance) advantage to get to know the use of Command Points before they get to make their own line.

Both sides have valid points and counterpoints and I fear this one is all going to come down to the "intent" question. In other words what is the intent of the Capital Assault rules?

If we were just playing Basic F&E it would be a no-brainer. I'd see more than 11 ships on the line and know for sure Command Points were used to make the Battle Force legal. And maybe that's wrong too, but it does make the game play differently depending on which expansions are used.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Well, I guess my point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the *decision* to use command points controls under the SoP then so too does the *decision* to build the battle force control what is in the battle force. Thus, if the *decision* in the SoP controls, then the capital assault defender does not get to see the opposing line before forming his (which is contrary to the quoted exception rule). Since command points are otherwise revealed with the line, and since the defender gets to see the opposing line before building his own, it must be the case that the defender sees the attacker's command point use before choosing to spend his own command points.

By Michael Alan Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 07:23 pm: Edit

I have to agree with Ted, as "specific overrides general" comes into play here as well. I in no way see it as being realistic to force the defender of the capital hex to pick his battle force before seeing the attacker's line.

The splitting of the defender's units into the various systems and mobile elements is NOT the determination of a battle force; it is the determination of which units may legally be used in each system's battle in a given battle round (assuming that there is one).

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Way I see it, it's just easier to have both players declare their CP use after the defender declines the approach battle. That way both sides know where any 'extras' are going to be.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 09:50 pm: Edit

I think part of the point is that the defender has the advantage, and the command point thing reflects this.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 10:51 pm: Edit

The attacker forms his battle forces for each system. He does not declare CP usage until later, but if is going to use them in the initial attacks he needs to place the forces with the command slots used by either CPs or ADMs. If the defender is of the observant sort he will figure it out before the declaration.

This is called "home field advantage" in the NFL. It is a game and so is this. I personally don't see a problem with it.

Note, this is by me, not FEAR.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, April 25, 2014 - 11:03 am: Edit

I suppose the only problem with that procedurally is that it allows mistakes to become potentially worse.

For example attacker forms a battleforce that would be legal with the expenditure of a CP but it was a mistake say for arguments sake he put a non BG capable ship in a BG. Now what happens when he doesn't declare his CP use later? In a gentleman's game if I were defender I soud just say "Remove an extra ship somewhere" but I can see it being a problem. I know I usually look at the battleforce and will ask "THis looks like too many ships are you using a command point?" but I don't always catch it.

The same sort of thing happens in non-capital battles also... folks sometimes make mistakes and put up too many or too few ships. I suppose in my capital example above when I ask "You using a CP?" the answer could be "I'll tell you later" but that does let the cat out of the bag doesn't it? But much more often I think the response would be "Oh heck I screwed that one up can I just remove an FF from the line?"

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, April 25, 2014 - 11:06 am: Edit

Well, that's up to the players really. You have to work it out, it's a player personality thing really, not a rules thing.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, April 25, 2014 - 11:43 am: Edit

You can always tell the opponent to write down his CP usage before revealing the battle lines and fold it up in plain view on the table and then show when it is required. There are other ways, but you get the idea.

By Mike Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, April 25, 2014 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Yep Mike I Grok you.... just in capital assaults I do not see the advantage of keeping CP use secret, only disadvantages. For regular battles its decidedly beneficial to have it secret and when you reveal your line you state any CP spends.

And I have never played with anyone I think would abuse this in any case. All the F&E players I have played with are above board!

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, April 25, 2014 - 04:02 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

And I have never played with anyone I think would abuse this in any case. All the F&E players I have played with are above board!

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, May 10, 2014 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Peter Bakija asks in Q&A:
(303.5) War Cruiser Leaders: Do CWLs only exist in combat, or if you have 3 or more CWs in a given hex, can you assume one is a CWL for the purposes of its increased command rating even when they are not in combat?

(i.e. if you establish a reserve fleet made of exactly 8xCWs, is this a legal reserve fleet, as it requires the CWL command rating of 7 to exist?)

Me: I believe 303.51 (3rd sentence) addresses this quite clearly, saying that this happens in a battle force, and after the battle is concluded the CWL reverts to CW factors in all ways. So, no.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, May 10, 2014 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Yeah, that is how the rule seems to read, but I figure it is worth asking for clarification, as it is a little vague. Mostly, I'm just curious.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 08:37 am: Edit

---

Quote:

Bottomline: (340.42) limits only the fixed target location to participate in its defense but it does not limit other mobile forces in the hex for assisting in that defense. Remember that a commando raid is a still a subset of normal raids but in this special case the raider elements don’t return fire and only the fixed target itself can participate in it defense along with the mobile responders.

FEDS SENDS

---

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 08:49 am: Edit

Chuck,

The only thing I note about your ruling (and I'm happy you made one) is that basically the commando ship is always going to be crippled if it goes on a raid against a regiment and it would be insane to go against a raid against a brigade. That would mean that really the only ships that could go on raids would be those that have a G on their crippled side.

This does functionally mean that commando raids are not terribly useful, considering that they will only kill a PDU on a roll of 8 or more and they will start with -1 since the ship will be crippled.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 09:24 am: Edit

Pete, they can be escorted.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 09:37 am: Edit

Right, and that means that a valuable raid slot is taken up, and that you are going to have a crippled escort. This for a pretty small chance to kill a PDU.

So, it's a definite crippled ship vs. a less than even chance to kill a PDU.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 09:41 am: Edit

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 16, 2014 - 10:38 am: Edit

Just carry an added GCE on an escort.