Archive through November 22, 2014
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through November 22, 2014
I apologize for all use of hyperbole in my arguments. I got over-excited, which is not an excuse.
For example, the rule is not black letter. Black letter would be an affirmative statement that the supply tug must appear on the line, which the rule does not do. In another example, the tug is not invulnerable, though it would be much more difficult to attack if the ruling is upheld.
Nevertheless, it remains my position that 509.1-M lays down the general rule (by negative inference) that a tug cannot change missions until the player's next turn. Specific exceptions can always apply, and 412.23 provides an exception for *retreat*, which does not include a result other than the supply tug actually retreating (whether as a result of withdrawal before combat or otherwise).
I agree it is reasonable that the tug can drop its pods and leave. However, F&E is full of abstractions and is a game designed for a particular result and internal balance. There is much in F&E that does not "make sense" - such as for example the fact that the Klingons cannot enter the hex behind hex 1401 because it is "unknown" or that a Kzinti fleet can choose any of 7 hexes for its first hex of operational movement (as opposed to being required to state which hex it can re-enter earlier in the turn). Thus, plenty in F&E doesn't "make sense" but is presented in order to achieve a desired result.
All other supply points in F&E are vulnerable if sufficient force is brought to the hex. It has been my understanding that supply tugs are (or should be) no different. However, it may very well be the case that it is better for the game to give supply tugs this capability. Also, my very own statement regarding some aspects of F&E not making sense (at least from a non-result oriented point of view) can be used against me in this matter.
So, ultimately, what really matters is not the logic of 509.1-M and 412.23, but rather what is good for the game. That decision should be made, and the wording of the rules changed as needed with the next update.
I will admit, however, to being frustrated at having to know not only the printed rules but also the rulings to play this game "correctly." Hopefully in the next five years or so we can get our dream of a unified Warbook that solves most of these problems.
In the meantime, we soldier on.
Quote:So, ultimately, what really matters is not the logic of 509.1-M and 412.23, but rather what is good for the game.
I agree. What's good for the game is best.
But this isn't an issue that, upon resolution, is going to tip game balance really at all. Both sides use supply tugs, and both sides could lose tugs (or save them) this way.
So, what's "best for the game" in my opinion is to have clarity.
I really don't care which way it's decided. I have (in the Wild Wild West game) interpreted the rules to mean that you couldn't voluntarily change mission without retreating. That's what the rule seems to say to me. I don't think it properly represents the tactical situation, but hey, this wouldn't be the only such issue.
But there was still a way to accomplish what I wanted, which was to get the TG out of the supply role without giving up the hex.
The hex had a supply TG that had accomplished it's entire mission. Everything I needed it for had been accomplished on the Alliance half of the turn.
So, after fighting three approach rounds (getting a little lucky to get all three), and also putting up a cruiser line in the first round at the TG, I lost 2 CC class cruisers and a few AH. But with the extra damage remaining after the Coalition vaporized the last CC at the TG, I voluntarily crippled the TG, even though I had skads of fighters to take damage.
Viola. Supply mission terminated, the TG is now a normal (albeit crippled) warship.
Clarity. I didn't want to give up the hex, and I didn't want to lose the tug cheaply. The only way to do both was to cripple the tug.
This option won't always be available of course. Nor will every opponent target a CC before targetting a simple TG.
But clarity is important. It makes the game more playable. And to me, clarity was worth the 2EP of repair costs.
Quote: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
My thanks to FEDS and FEAR for reconsidering this ruling. Whatever the result I will not further appeal.
It did involve a cross ocean phone call of over an hour. FYI.
Does that mean a ruling is forthcoming?
We are still working on it. Getting some more opinions.
If my opinion matters, I agree with Ted.
This might not be the place for this, sorry if it isn't. What program/web page do you use as a dice roller? thanks in advance.
http://www.pbegames.com/roller/
Status of tug question/rehearing?
Quote:The Kzinti player announces that he will use directed damage on the Lyran SAV, killing it for 6 of that 18 damage.
The Lyrans then have 12 damage to take. The Lyran player announces he will resolve that damage by killing the LAV (resolving 6 points) and by killing 6 of the LAV fighters.
If both Auxes are dead, why is this an issue? Is there a stack of cripples in the hex? Why does it matter if there are minus points if there will not be any further combat in the hex?
The Kzinti player should lighten up. He bagged 24 EP (22.5 after salvage) worth of ships which would otherwise end up as garrison forces in the battle of the line against the Hydrans.
Obviously I'm not presenting an opinion on the rule, but the Kzinti just scored a major victory. Be happy.
In this particular case it doesn't matter - as I'm retreating after 1 round with no cripples (though a FHL will die in slow pursuit).
However, it would be possible, for example, to fight another battle round with a decent -6 to the damage, making it easier to do a bit more damage to the Zin player.
Ted, it looks like Chuck had a very similiar ruling last year:
Quote:By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 - 01:09 pm: Edit
Reference: Involuntary Minus Points
Involuntary minus points can ONLY be created if BOTH of these conditions from (308.23) are met:
1. The support unit of the attrition units is damaged or destroyed by Directed Damage
--AND--
2. The fighters and PFs of the support unit are lost by a lack of carrier/tender transfer facilities.
However, any unresolved damage points must still be resolved during SOP step 5-6A/B. Under (501.72), any attrition units that will not be able to transfer due to a lack of transfer facilities MUST IMMEDIATELY be given up as casualties at that point to satisfy the unresolved damage. “Immediately” means that any attrition units that would otherwise become involuntary points generated under (308.23) MUST IMMEDIATELY be used to satisfy the requirement under (501.72) BEFORE any further damage is resolved during SoP step 5-6A/B.
The actual transfer of surviving attrition units after damage resolution occurs during SoP step 5-6E.
Voluntary and involuntary points cannot normally be combined because if there are unresolved damage points after directed damage AND there are any attrition units that would otherwise become involuntary points generated under (308.23) then these doomed attrition points must immediately be used to satisfy the requirement of (501.72). Therefore, if any doomed attrition units remain after satisfying all remaining unresolved damage points they can become involuntary points during SoP 5-6E because they are unable to conduct a transfer at that point in the SoP. If on the other hand all doomed attrition units are used to satisfy any unresolved damage points under (501.72) and unresolved damage points still remain then if a player legally over cripples or destroys a unit to satisfy remaining damage then these excess points are treated as voluntary minus points.
There are very few ways to combine voluntary and involuntary points:
1. During pursuit from a multi-system battle; see (308.242).
2. During a non-multi-system hex where a player could have over-damaged/destroyed a unit during normal combat resulting in voluntary minus points, then during the marine phase lose a PDU where the attrition units could not transfer resulting in involuntary minus points.
FEDS SENDS
==============
Applicable rules:
(105.0) PHASE 5 - STEP 6: DAMAGE ALLOCATION (302.6)
5-6A: Non-Phasing Player resolves general (non-directed) damage (302.6) to his units. See also (302.617).
5-6B: Phasing Player resolves general (non-directed) damage (302.6) to his units. See also (302.617).
5-6C: Determine the fate of Prime Teams assigned to destroyed units (522.32).
5-6D: Both players resolve shock for maulers (308.42) and non-maulers (311.21).
5-6E: Conduct ship transfers of fighters (501.6) and PFs (502.45).
(501.72) LOST CARRIERS: If the carrier is destroyed or crippled and the fighters cannot be transferred by (501.6), they are given up as casualties immediately at that point in the Combat Round; see (308.23) and (302.614). See (502.45) PFT damage.
(302.5) STEP 5—DIRECTED DAMAGE
(302.53) ATTRITION UNITS: A player using Directed Damage against a unit is not required to destroy its fighters or PFs [see (501.7) and (502.45)]. However, any fighters/PFs remaining at the end of a Combat Round when their support unit is destroyed or crippled must be transferred [see (501.6) and (502.44)] to other units able to carry them (in the same hex), or they can be used to satisfy further damage requirements in that Combat Round. Exception: PFs may transfer (502.44) to a base/tender in an adjacent hex (arriving at the end of the Combat Phase). Fighters and PFs become “minus points” (308.2) only if transfer is impossible. In effect, it is “transfer or die” at the end of EACH Combat Round.
(308.23) ATTRITION UNITS: Fighters and PFs lost by a lack of carrier/tender facilities (501.7) and (502.45) are credited as involuntary minus points if the base were damaged or destroyed by Directed Damage. If a carrier or PFT is crippled or destroyer by voluntary damage resolution, then any fighters and/or PFs lost do not generate minus points, but might count against any remaining unresolved damage points.
(308.242) The number of “involuntary minus points” that can be carried over to the pursuit battle is limited to six (twelve in a capital battle) but this limit includes the number of voluntary points if there are any.
Rob, that ruling is helpful, thanks - but it does not actually answer the question I posed. If anything, the ruling may indicate that the Lyrans do get 6 minus points.
"Therefore, if any doomed attrition units remain after satisfying all remaining unresolved damage points they can become involuntary points during SoP 5-6E because they are unable to conduct a transfer at that point in the SoP."
The case being argued is that there are 6 voluntary and 6 involuntary minus points that arise from the destruction of the fighters. The 6 voluntary minus points disappear. The involuntary ones stay. The above quote supports this position.
On the other hand, it's equally valid to argue that the intent of this rule is to prevent manipulation of homeless fighter losses to generate minus points. In other words, it doesn't matter how you cut the cheese - if there is an arrangement of damage resolution that results in only voluntary minus points, then that is the arrangement that must be taken. In this case, no minus points are generated.
Dunno.
All I really think is that the rule should be clarified for those very rare cases where two carriers go down - one involuntarily and one voluntarily.
As an aside, the ruling will not hold up this game as the result for our situation will end up being the same no matter how the ruling goes down. (Basically I'm not wiling to stay for another round for just a -6, I have no cripples, and the only remaining unit is a FHL that will die in slow pursuit no matter what is ruled - so it's 1 round and run).
As Matt indicated, it's a nice bite out of the Lyran pocket book for the price of a FFK (LAV+SAV traded for dead FFK and fighters) - but them's the breaks. The Lyrans won't cry over it, but rather exact revenge on the surface of Kzintai! 
Quote:(302.61) ORDER OF RESOLUTION: The owning player selects which of his units will be crippled or destroyed to satisfy the Damage Points scored by his opponent. He may select these units in any order, but selects them one at a time.
FEDS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:
Can someone point out in the rule(s) where one is required to choose the attrition units lost form a support unit that was either voluntarily or involuntarily damaged or destroyed to resolve remaining damage points?
Other references:
Quote:(302.53) ATTRITION UNITS: A player using Directed Damage against a unit is not required to destroy its fighters or PFs [see (501.7) and (502.45)]. However, any fighters/PFs remaining at the end of a Combat Round when their support unit is destroyed or crippled must be transferred [see (501.6) and (502.44)] to other units able to carry them (in the same hex), or they can be used to satisfy further damage requirements in that Combat Round. Exception: PFs may transfer (502.44) to a base/tender in an adjacent hex (arriving at the end of the Combat Phase). Fighters and PFs become “minus points” (308.2) only if transfer is impossible. In effect, it is “transfer or die” at the end of EACH Combat Round.
(302.54) OPTIONS: A player designating Directed Damage against fighters or PFs has two options.
(302.451) OPTION #1: The designating player may do so against any or all such units in the opposing Battle Force, not merely against one such factor or “ship equivalent” group of factors. In such case, however, the owning player selects which carriers (bases, tenders, PDUs, etc.) that the destroyed fighters/PFs are removed from.
(302.452) OPTION #2: The designating player can select as the target for Directed Damage all (or some) of the fighters or (not and) PFs assigned to a single given unit. Unit includes a base, PDU, carrier, PFT, or an independent fighter/PF unit. In such case, only a limited number of fighters/PFs can be destroyed, but the designating player can decide which carrier (or whatever) loses them.
Ted,
"However, any unresolved damage points must still be resolved during SOP step 5-6A/B. Under (501.72), any attrition units that will not be able to transfer due to a lack of transfer facilities MUST IMMEDIATELY be given up as casualties at that point to satisfy the unresolved damage. “Immediately” means that any attrition units that would otherwise become involuntary points generated under (308.23) MUST IMMEDIATELY be used to satisfy the requirement under (501.72) BEFORE any further damage is resolved during SoP step 5-6A/B."
"The Kzinti do 18 damage on round 1 due to poor rolling. The Kzinti player announces that he will use directed damage on the Lyran SAV, killing it for 6 of that 18 damage.
The Lyrans then have 12 damage to take. The Lyran player announces he will resolve that damage by killing the LAV (resolving 6 points) and by killing 6 of the LAV fighters."
I dunno, looks pretty clear to me. The Lyrans didn't follow the rules. The Kzinti kills the SAV, 12 points remain. The Lyran MUST kill the six SAV fighters, then he can kill the LAV.
12 voluntary homeless fighters remain. No minus points.
Ted:
How does my April 16, 2013 ruling NOT apply to this case?
After careful consideration, I agree that the prior ruling applies to this case. The SAV fighters have to be taken to resolve remaining damage at the instant the SAV is destroyed by directed damage. Which means that after I self kill the LAV the 12 homeless Lyran fighters generate no minus points under 308.23.
Quote:I dunno, looks pretty clear to me. The Lyrans didn't follow the rules.
Agree - missed 501.72, and didn't read ruling carefully enough.
Quote:How does my April 16, 2013 ruling NOT apply to this case?
It does. Reading it too fast I took one sentence from the ruling out of context. My apologies.
For the warbook, suggest an additional sentence in 308.23 to indicate explicit reference to rule requiring that fighters lost from a carrier killed by directed damage must immediately be given up to satisfy remaining damage.
...unless there is open and legal capacity available for the attrition units to land elsewhere...
Sure. I was talking about the specific situation raised in the questions.
...or choose to ignore (some or all of) the newly homeless fighters and take damage on something else (in case they want to generate greater minus points)?
For example, if after the SAV was killed you still had 6 damage to take - you cold then self kill 5 fighters and take the balance of 1 on another unit - but the non-killed fighter is destroyed for nothing - as you choose to not kill it.
Yes, yes, all legal options.
In my particular situation I really didn't want to fight another round, so it made sense to do what I did. I just get no minus points for it.
I think the ruling says you MUST take it on homeless fighters before taking damage elsewhere. Perhaps I am wrong?
Amusingly, based on the above, it might be possible to obtain a single minus point from the situation: The 6 on the SAV and the 6 for the fighters leaves you 6 to take... take 1 fighter off the LAV, then resolve the remaining 5 points to destroy the LAV, generating 1 minus point. The remaining 11 fighters off the LAV are then lost to no result.
Whether obtaining that single minus point is worth the glares you'd probably get from across the table by using that sequence of damage resolution, of course, I leave to the judgment of the reader...
In the strategic situation stated here, that in fact would seem to be the right call.