I mean, again, it is certainly possible that that is how it all works. Like, I totally see that the reserve rule could totally mean that if a ship was in supply at the start of the turn, there is no way to use it to enable rule (203.371), as even if it is now cut off from supply, it is still technically in supply during reserve moves. But then, the rules for drone bombardment, retrograding, and salvage (presumably--I don't know for sure on that one) do the exact opposite thing. Which certainly could be the way things work. It just seems weird.

By chris upson (Misanthropope) on Friday, December 12, 2014 - 12:37 am: Edit

and then there is the last sentence of 410.24 that explains that ships coasting on having supply from the beginning of the turn aren't in "real" supply. it's a mess.

kind of awesome to see how "treated as in supply" means PRECISELY that you treat it differently from if it were in supply; sort of the G23.44 of F&E.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, December 12, 2014 - 07:39 am: Edit

Yeah. That's why I'm hoping we get a clear, unambiguous answer on this front.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 12, 2014 - 09:10 pm: Edit

Has this not already been addressed by past rulings guys?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, December 12, 2014 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Found it, thanks Chuck. Further question:

(203.731) A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force which is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path" and would be under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81).


(410.22) Does not list any penalties. Is the rule reference meant to be (410.32)?

(309.3 is supply and drone bombardment, 439.13 is supply and salvage, and 521.81 is for purchasing ground troops).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, December 12, 2014 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Ok, so the errata has the rule in question. It seems like:

A) If you have a force that is "in supply for purposes of combat" but "lacks a valid supply path" and it wants to drone bombard, purchase ground troops, or provide salvage, you *can* send a reserve fleet to a non battle hex to open up a valid supply path.

yet:

B) If you have a force that is "in supply for purposes of combat" but "lacks a valid supply path" yet it isn't using drone bombardment, ground combat, and you aren't using salvage rules, you then *can't* send a reserve fleet to a non battle hex to open up a supply path.

Which seems like a kind of silly parsing of the rule--it seems like it is easier to use reserve fleets to open supply when you are using salvage (or just happen to have a G ship or drone bombardment ship) than it is when you aren't.

Why isn't the rule just:

A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force with is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path".

Which has the exact same effect in a game where you are using salvage rules as the rule written above, but doesn't suddenly stop being something you can do when you *aren't* using salvage rules?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 12:03 am: Edit

Essentially the errata says you can do it when the force in question NEEDS supply open to avoid an out of supply penalty (of the kinds listed)(imo).

If there isn't going to be any sort of out of supply penalty (of the kinds listed), then you can't use a reserve that way.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 08:45 am: Edit

Well, yes. But the practical reality of the errata is:

-If you are using the salvage rules, you can *always* invoke the (203.731) rule when appropriate.

-If you are not using the salvage rule, you can only very rarely invoke the (203.731) rule when appropriate.

Which means that the rule works completely differently in games where you are using expansions and games where you are not. Which I can't imagine was intentional (and likely the result of whomever wrote that errata just not paying attention to the idea that someone might be playing the game without expansion rules…)

The salvage rules being in play mean that a force that was in supply at the start of the turn but is cut off from supply during movement will *always* be suffering an out of supply penalty, regardless of the composition of the force or what actually happens. As salvage rules are not conditional (like, say, having a DBB ship or a G unit ship). If salvage rules are being used, you can *always* claim that you need supply open. For salvage.

So the end result of this errata/ruling is that if you are using the expansion rules, you can *always* invoke this rule when appropriate, but if you are playing the basic game, you can only very rarely invoke it. Which seems like a really bad way to write a rule.

I mean, yes. I agree with you that that is how the rule apparently reads. But if that is the intention of the rule (i.e. that if you are using salvage rules, (203.731) is incredibly easy to use liberally and regularly, but if you aren't using the salvage rules, (203.731) is a very restrictive, corner case rule), it is a very badly written piece of errata.

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 09:45 am: Edit

I think that there is a difference between being in supply and being attached to the main supply grid.

A partial supply grid does allow the storage of salvage EPs if there is a node, and also allows the use of drone bombardment if there are EPs in the grid. Actually, you could probably use Orion smuggling for bombardment if you really really want it, but that's expensive.

The most ready example I guess is the Marquis starbase and provinces. They can be cut off from the main grid, but the ships are in supply if on the starbase and the partial grid does have EPs (unless you already spent them of course).

So I guess I'm saying that I don't know that the rule says you can use the reserve just to connect the grid to make sure that the salvage goes to the capital instead of the partial grid.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 11:32 am: Edit

I don't think you are in supply to a partial grid unless you paid to be or are actually on a friendly base (that can supply units in its hex) or are on a friendly planet (not allied but your own in either the case of bases or planet).

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 08:06 pm: Edit

I want to make something very clear. I think it is bad for the game to have a core rule (i.e. sending reserves to save out of supply units) that works one way in basic set but then works differently depending on which F&E module is being used. I also find equally disturbing to have a rule that works one way for one empire but differently if the empires where swapped but under the same circumstances.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, December 13, 2014 - 10:23 pm: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>I think it is bad for the game to have a core rule (i.e. sending reserves to save out of supply units) that works one way in basic set but then works differently depending on which F&E module is being used.>>

That strikes me as a reasonable and admirable viewpoint.

The rule in question (203.731) has an errata in the master errata list (last updated in 2006, although I don't know when it was actually issued) that seems to do exactly this.

If using the advanced rules (specifically salvage), the ability to send a reserve fleet to open supply to a now out of supply force is completely trivial (as any force that was in supply at the start of the turn, and then lost a valid supply path during operational movement can claim it is suffering a penalty, in that it can't send salvage back if out of supply) and incredibly easy to arrange.

If using just the basic game (and no salvage rules), rule (203.731) is a completely corner case rule that can only be engaged in the instance when you have a drone bombardment ship in the force in question (as it is the only way in the basic game rules to suffer a penalty from lack of a valid supply path during combat). As such, it is incredibly difficult to arrange, and also impossible to arrange for empires that have no drone bombardment ships.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 04:44 am: Edit

Ref

---

Quote:

(203.731) The moving Reserve Fleet could have as its objective a hex which is not a Battle Hex, but which contains enemy units which are blocking a supply path [see (411.0) and (410.22)] to friendly units in combat, which otherwise would be out of supply during the ensuing Combat Phase.

---

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 09:04 am: Edit

That is how I always understood it to work. The start of turn supply carryover applies to combat itself only, and never for any other purpose. The first sentence of (410.22) says it is for purposes of combat, and I think the rule only works if you take that quite literally and don't try to extend that special supply exception to other systems or rules.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 09:12 am: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>How's this for a notional check-list to apply (203.731):

1. Are friendly units involved in combat? Y/N (if Y then continue);

2. Conduct an IMMEDIATE supply check on the combat engaged friendly unit(s) (regardless of its presumed supply status for battle). Do the combat engaged friendly unit(s) have its supply path blocked to the main grid by enemy units? Y/N (if Y then continue)

3. Would the dispatch of one or more reserve fleets open an immediate and valid supply path to the main grid for the combat engaged friendly unit(s)? Y/N

If all three questions are answered affirmative then the player attempting to send reserves to a valid hex(es) is permitted to do so.>>

That seems like a completely straightforward way to make rule (203.731) work.

It is clear, concise, and affects the game the same regardless of what rule set is used and what empires are in question. And seems to support the original intention of the rule.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 01:52 pm: Edit

This is a proposal to change the errata:

"(203.731) A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force which is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path" and would be under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81)."

?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 01:56 pm: Edit

My opinion is that as the current errata is clear on the point that the rules NOT be changed to Chuck's proposal until such time as the game gets a complete revision.

I am opposed to changing of the rules after they have been clarified, which in this case they have been.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 02:54 pm: Edit

If the Reserve/Supply rule is being correct - can the illogical issue of being able to send one of your own reserve fleets into a hex thereby putting it out of supply - and sending one or more reserve fleets to open up a supply route to it.

i.e. if you willingly put a reserve fleet out of supply - why should you be able to put it back into supply - it was your choice to send it there!

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 02:54 pm: Edit

That errata is confusing, the statement itself "..a force which is in supply for purposes of combat but which lacks a valid supply path..." implies that said force was in supply at the initial supply check. It then says "and would be under the penalties of..." But the penalties of (410.22) can't apply to such a force (it only applies if you had no supply path at both check points), so then why does the errata list (410.22) when it can't possibly apply to a force which is under the stated conditions? It doesn't even make sense to me as written. Is it trying to say you can only move such reserve fleets to relieve a fleet in combat that was out of supply at both checkpoints? (Cause that is not what it starts out trying to say)

I think this errata does need to be fixed.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 02:56 pm: Edit

But are you actually willingly putting the first reserve fleet out of supply if you know you can open supply with a second reserve fleet? The fleets are working together to accomplish a mission. Is it abusive to allow this? (honest question)

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 03:12 pm: Edit

410.22 doesn't list any penalties Nick. 410.32 does (I assume 410.22 is a typo and was meant to be 410.32).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>This is a proposal to change the errata:

"(203.731) A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force which is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path" and would be under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81)." >>

I don't know that it is actually changing the errata. It could just be clarifying the errata--if the sentence above is read as:

"(203.731) A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force which is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path" [and would be under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81).]"

Such that the enabling information is:

a force that is "in supply for purposes of combat" which "lacks a valid supply path".

And the rest of the information is just reminder text (of what it means when one is in that situation) rather than the information that enables the rule to work, then the clarification that Chuck proposes above is just that--a clarification, and not a change of anything.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 05:30 pm: Edit

But you are not under the (410.32) penalties either if you are "in supply for purposes of combat". You cannot both be in supply for combat (but lacking a supply trace at that time) AND be under the penalties in (410.23). If you are "in supply for combat" it specifically means you get to ignore those combat penalties.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 06:24 pm: Edit

That is true in the case of 410.32. In that case the whole reference to 410.22 shouldn't be there as 410.22 doesn't list any penalties at all. Unless you mean 'out of supply only if no supply chain at the beginning of op move and moment of combat'.

The penalty referring to G factors is a bit weird, as the rule about purchasing G factors doesn't seem to require being in supply (though IMO it should).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 04:20 am: Edit

"By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 14, 2014 - 02:56 pm: Edit


But are you actually willingly putting the first reserve fleet out of supply if you know you can open supply with a second reserve fleet? The fleets are working together to accomplish a mission. Is it abusive to allow this? (honest question)"

Nick - although personally I felt it was very cheesy to do so - my opponent quite rightly said - the rules allow it.

The issue arose on turn 3 - I was the Alliance - Hydrans attacked 413 - Klingons sent one reserve to 413 (which was OOS) and one to 714 (Hydran BATS) - so got 2 dozen Klingon hulls within range of 617 for turn 4 - all in supply.

As I said - very very very cheesy and not what I felt the rule intended to be - but it, within the letter of the law (i.e. rules) and so was legal.

Will not happen very often - but if 1 player things they can get a major strategic boost - and it's legal, what is to stop them?