Yeah I saw that too, but it really doesn't not apply to Troop ships. If that were the case, they would have to be defined very early in the process and could never be changed.

The reason this is an issue is because Troop escorts suck way more than other types of escorts, and they can include squadrons of fighters with the other groups cannot. Also remember that 515 does not cover troop ships, but instead it is covered under 521.37.

There are enough differences here to merit a ruling. I expect the ruling would be an update to the SoP to cover when this exactly happens. Maybe it would indeed be 5-3C, but if it is there still needs to be an update for Troop ships IMO. Locking those escorts in for the remainder of the battle hex does not appear to jive with the wording in 521.37.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Rob, I can't see anyone assigning fighters to escort a G-Ship. One because they would still count against the 3 squadron limit on attrition units, they take up a command slot, and they don't count for compot.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 06:10 pm: Edit

They don't take a command slot if they are one of the 3 attrition groups from a carrier in the battle force.

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 03:34 pm: Edit

521.374 states that "Ship equivalents of fighters and PFs CAN be escorts for ground combat ships."

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 12:15 pm: Edit

Rob:

FEDS answers your troop ship escort assignment and attrition unit escort questions in the Q&A section under your original question.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 01:49 pm: Edit

Mike Calhoon:

FEDS answered your abandonment of tug during assigned supply mission question in the Q&A section.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Moved from Q&A to discuss -

Ref: Abandonment of Tug During Assigned Supply Mission

Unless overruled by ADB, tugs assigned to a supply mission (509-D) must be in the Battle Force, or they are judged to have abandoned their supply mission from that same point in the SoP (this may have repercussions during the current combat phase). A tug that abandons this mission CANNOT be used for any other tug mission during the remainder of the current turn; exception: mission-M (standard warship) or if crippled, mission-I (Tug Under Repair).

This ruling is supported by the precedence under (302.233) whereby a tug abandons its assigned mission and reverts to mission "M" under (509-M) immediately upon said abandonment.

I believe Ted is correct in requesting a revision to this ruling - but rather than from a rule point of view I believe a game mechanic point of view it will improve the game.

If a Tug is allowed to drop a supply mission 'at will', it would be impossible (outside of a raid possibly) to kill a Supply Tug, if the owner is prepared to lose it's supply status for a turn.

Example
Current Ruling
Hex has 1 Tug in it - which at start of combat is a Supply Tug.

An approach battle if fought - and after the attacker wins (or round 3), the defender declares the Supply Tug is changing it's mission to 'M' and the Tug is then safe from being attacked (unless the Defender Places it on the line).

Defender then wins the hex - and the start of their next turn, the Tug takes on a Supply mission again.

The only way to stop there being a Supply Tug in that hex at the start of the net turn is to win the hex and force the defender to retreat.

Suggested Game benefit Ruling
Hex has 1 Tug in it - which at start of combat is a Supply Tug.

An approach battle if fought - and after the attacker wins (or round 3), the defender has two choices -

a) Retreat - which keeps the Tug safe - but not in the hex you want it in (and possibly before you wanted to retreat)
b) Stand and fight - the Supply Tug is required to be on the line, so the attacker can kill it - but the Tug is fulfilling it's mission but at a risk. To keep the Supply Tug in that hex - you have to hope it doesn't die AND you win the hex

In other words - by allowing the mission change - it removes the downside of having a Supply Tug - which in my humble opinion isn't good for the game.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 03:28 pm: Edit

I agree with Paul. This ruling effectively makes a supply tug IMMUNE to attack. It can be taken off the line after the approach battle - and then all of a sudden it can become a supply tug again on the next phase of the turn.

The worst you can do to the now "combat mission" tug is force it to retreat.

This is, in my opinion, unfair and not intended by the rules. It is also, in my opinion, bad for the game.

All a player has to do is put a few other ships with the tug. The tug now is immune to raids and will never be forced on the line during combat. The sole way to attack a supply tug, with this ruling, is with an unreliable E&S mission, which can be made very difficult with a single defending prime team.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 06:48 pm: Edit

A few ships does not make the tug immune to raids. For example, a Hydran RNX with 2 PFs could easily survive one round of combat vs a few ships uncrippled (soaking damage on fighters and PFs, then needing a full 12 points to cripple the ship). Then the raider could select the TG as an alternative attack.

Otherwise the tug should be able to easily drop any cargo pods and skedaddle vs normal combat (as it can do similar things in the examples that Chuck gave).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 09:18 pm: Edit

A Hydran RNX with 2 PFs won't show up in the game until Y182, turn 29 - about 5 turns before game end.

Even a Lyran BC with 6 PFs doesn't show up until Y178, turn 25.

And it doesn't change the point - it only changes the number of ships you add to make the supply tug utterly immune to ever being destroyed - absent an E&S mission.

This is not the intent of the supply tug rule. This is not the way the game has EVER been played, at least I have never seen it.

Frankly, I do not understand - at all - how the black letter of these rules can be read in any way other than what they say: the supply tug can change missions ONLY when it retreats (destruction being irrelevant, as the tug ceases all possible missions because it's not there any more).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 09:36 pm: Edit

I suppose you could use a Fed DVL, Rom SUP or a Hydran LGE earlier in some cases.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Yes. But again that only changes the number of ships to make the supply tug immune to attack.

It also doesn't change the black letter of the rules.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, November 04, 2014 - 10:24 pm: Edit

You said that raids wouldn't work, I just wanted to point out that they could - sometimes you just cant spare the ships or forget or whatever.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 09:09 am: Edit

Ted:

Please define what you mean by "the next phase" in your statement: "...then all of a sudden it can become a supply tug again on the next phase of the turn."

The next phase after combat phase-5 is retrograde movement phase-6 for the phasing player and there is no way under the rules where the tug can revert back to a supply tug.

FEDS

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 09:34 am: Edit

Chuck

"Next Phase" - I think Ted meant to write next turn.

For example

Alliance Turn 8 - Kzinti set up a Supply Tug in 902 and use it on their turn.

Coalition Turn 9 - It supplies Kzinti Ships at the start of the turn (so those ships count as in supply for combat) and 902 is attacked by the Coalition.

After the Coalition win an approach battle - the Kzinti declare the Supply Tug reverts to mission 'M'. With their target now gone - and not wanting to allow the Kzinti to burn through their 70 fighters* in the hex - the Coalition Retreat.

Alliance Turn 9 - The Tug resumes it's supply mission in 902....

* - There are many reasons why the attacker may not want to fight to win the hex and so this is just an example.

The only 'loss' to the Kzinti would be if the Coalition did the battle order so 902 was done before other related battles - where the Kzinti would now be out of supply and so those ships would not benefit from Salvage (if the rule is being played) or Depot Rolls (again if the rule is being played) and retreat priorities may be different.

Basically - with the current ruling, it gives the defender a nearly (as raids might get it) un-killerable supply point - as the attacker might never face it in combat.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 10:04 am: Edit

One does have options...

1. Kill the tug upon entry to the hex BEFORE it becomes a supply tug ***OR***

2. Force the tug player to retreat from the hex ***OR***

3. Kill it if on the line if he wishes to keep using it as a supply point for retreat during the current combat phase...

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 10:09 am: Edit

The TG is also clearly allowed to retreat, so even by Ted's interpretation of the rules it can retreat after an approach battle from attacking forces.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 10:22 am: Edit

Once the tug retreats it is no longer a supply point, therefore it is no longer a valid retrograde or strategic movement point.

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 10:23 am: Edit

Yeah, the options the enemy has are very limited.

Kill it upon entry? Only if you can get forces there.

Force it to retreat? Sure, but it only works if the retreat hex isn't a good location for a new supply source next turn. Often the tug can choose a location forward enough to become a supply point, be forced to retreat one hex, become a supply point next turn there, be forced to retreat again, use that hex as the next supply point. By the time you're forced back enough that you're out of range for effective supply, you probably have a new tug already moving forward to set up a new supply point.

Tugs as supply points are effectively unkillable supply lines.


The only thing I see wrong, however, is that to my understand, this has *always* been the rule. The current ruling doesn't change this, or if it does, I don't see the distinction. So while I do believe there should be change to the rules, the *interpretation* of the current rule seems to be correct.

Or is there something here I'm missing??

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 11:02 am: Edit

Chuck,

Paul Howard's example is spot on. I used "phase" but I should have used "turn".

Upon further reflection, however, my primary beef with the ruling is that it is contrary to the *black letter* of 412.23 and 509.1-M, as I detailed in my request for rehearing.

Your ruling addresses neither of these rules, but rather imports rules for other tug missions. I believe that the ruling should address the black letter of the rules in 412.23 and 509.1-M. It is my personal opinion that these rules are absolutely clear and unambiguous. It is my personal opinion that Richard's asserted ambiguity is in fact non-existent. Even if the word "forced" makes 412.23 a tiny bit ambiguous, I see *no way* to read this rule as allowing the supply tug to turn off its supply status *before* retreat actually happens. I see "forced" to retreat in rule 412.23 as mere flavor text to reflect the probable scenario that the enemy has attacked with overwhelming force and the owning player has simply elected to retreat in favor of the tug's destruction.

It is my personal opinion that - in this particular case - it is not appropriate to bring in other tug mission rules when the black letter of 412.23 and 509-1M are so clear, especially when these rules are not addressed at all by the ruling. While these other tug missions are analogous, they are not the same - and it's my belief that the supply tug has *always* been intended to be something that is vulnerable to enemy attack. However, with the current ruling (which in my opinion is unsupported by the black letter of the rules that apply to supply tugs), now a fleet of about 10 decent defending ships and a defending prime team, the supply tug is almost completely immune to raids and to normal combat, and extremely resistant to E&S missions. It is my personal opinion that the ruling changes rule 412.23 instead of clarifying it, and changes the intent of the rule - which is to require some kind of vulnerability of the supply tug during regular combat *IF* the owning player wants that tug to keep its supply status through the enemy's turn. If the owning player is unwilling to risk the tug, then the owning player must actually retreat the tug and give up its supply status. Otherwise, the supply tug has to appear on the line during combat and become vulnerable (though of course it could receive the form bonus).

I challenge Richard, or anyone else, to show how rule 412.23 is *actually* ambiguous and can allow a supply tug to change its mission during combat - *without* retreat - especially in view of the prohibition in 509.1-M that effectively prohibits any tug from changing its mission until the owning player's next turn. Because that is what this ruling allows - it allows a tug to change its mission during combat, without retreat, in violation the black letter of both of these rules.

It is my personal opinion that no reasonable interpretation of these two rules can support the notion of a supply tug changing missions unless the supply tug *actually* retreats.

In view of the fact that ruling does not address the actual text of 412.23 and 509.1-M, but rather is based on rules for different tug roles, it is my personal opinion that FEDS erred in his ruling. For this reason, the ruling should be reversed - or at least modified so that it at least addresses the governing rules for supply tugs.

I mean everything I say with all possible respect - to both Richard and you. I understand that the dry text of what I write might possibly imply that I'm angry or disrespectful, but I am not. I'm just calling it like I see it and being direct about my opinion.

-T

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 11:04 am: Edit

---

Quote:

The only thing I see wrong, however, is that to my understand, this has *always* been the rule. The current ruling doesn't change this, or if it does, I don't see the distinction. So while I do believe there should be change to the rules, the *interpretation* of the current rule seems to be correct.

Or is there something here I'm missing??

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 11:15 am: Edit

Chuck,

Summary of my position, because I want to be as clear as day:

1) The ruling does not address the black letter of 412.23 and 509.1-M. The ruling should address these two rules, whether you rule in favor of my position or against it, as they directly bear on supply tugs.

2) The black letter of these two rules effectively (if not explicitly) requires the tug to be on the line during regular combat *if* the owning player wants to keep the supply tug's status in the hex in which the combat takes place. Naturally, the owning player can take advantage of the approach battle (302.21) and the form bonus to help protect the tug - but if the enemy appears in sufficient force the enemy will get a bite at that supply tug.

3) The ruling makes it impossible to get a bite at the supply tug during combat. The owning player turns off the supply mission during combat and then turns it back on his turn. So long as the opponent keeps the hex the supply tug does not have to retreat and essentially maintains it's supply status. It is my opinion that this tactic violates the black letter of 412.23 and 509.1-M when read together, and changes the original intent of the rules.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 11:21 am: Edit

Edit: Upon further reflection there is some effect to the supply tug giving up its status during combat and the ruling is upheld. For purposes of retreat of *other remaining* combats conducted after the combat having the supply tug, the tug is no longer a supply point. Thus, retreats could be affected by the loss of supply status during the combat phase.

But the fact remains that the ruling makes it nearly impossible to attack and disrupt a tug being used as a supply point.

NO other supply point gets this kind of immunity. All other supply points can, with sufficient force, be attacked directly during combat after a maximum of 3 rounds of approach battle.

Why should the supply tug be treated any differently?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Edit: In F&E terms, because it can drop pods and has a move of 6, which convoys and bases do not.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, November 05, 2014 - 01:07 pm: Edit

A motion for reconsideration and re-hearing on the ruling of Abandonment of Tug During Assigned Supply Mission has been granted and the FEDS will stay the implementation of the ruling while it is under review and advisement.

FEDS SENDS