I see, but I don't know that I would call that a super cheesy move. The Klingons had to set up reserves in a way to allow it, and the phasing player can see this ahead of time. You always have to be very aware of how your opponent can react and deploy reserves, and what this means for the next turn.

It can be a surprise when someone uses an unusual move to use defensive movement rules in an offensive manner to set up for next turn or to attack when they are not the phasing player but there are many ways to do this in the game. And the phasing player often has to cooperate, although the opponent may not give them any good options. This is part of the game in my experience.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 11:48 am: Edit

And to be fair, I don't know that "cheesy" is even something anyone should be worried about. The game has rules. You use the rules or not. Like, half of this game revolves around taking as much advantage of certain little bits as you can (like, say, retreat priorities, and using them to force your opponent into places that you want them and they don't want to be, or aggressively using Fighting Retreat to kill things). WHat is important is that rules make sense (in a game/rules kind of way) and are reasonably consistent.

In this instance, I suspect the intention of the original rule (203.731) is what, say, Chuck's clarification above is trying to clarify--if a force is cut off from a valid supply path during combat, you can use a reserve to open up a valid supply path (even if the force was in supply at the start of the turn, as "considered in supply for combat purposes" as that same status doesn't help, say, retrograding either). That is a rule that makes sense. And the clarification Chuck provides makes this clear and unambiguous.

Sure, once and a while, someone might be able to really twist that rule and do something kooky, like, intentionally send a reserve fleet into a location where it is out of supply, and then use a second reserve fleet to then open up supply to that first reserve fleet. That doesn't strike me as any more abusive than, say, forcing a retreating FF to have to retreat over a DN that you put in the hex that is closest to the supply point, so the FF has no choice to retreat there. Even though there is an empty hex that is right next to the DN, and retreating into the DN is certain death. 'Cause the DN hex is closer to supply and doesn't contain more ships. These things happen.

What is important, however, is that the rule in question makes sense and is reasonably consistent. Chuck's proposed clarification above for (203.731) does exactly that.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Peter and Nick

I would respectively disagree.

With Peter's example - the FF doesn't have to retreat (it might die where it is) - and the FF owner might be able to save it by altering other battle plans.

Sending a reserve so it is out of supply so you can send another reserve to re-open a supply line isn't stoppable - and is totally illogical.

It's not even difficult to stop - you just make the rule say reserves to open supply lines is assessed before all Reserve Movement - not during.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 04:33 pm: Edit

I don't think it is illogical. The second reserve fleet is just supporting the mission of the first, and they all end up closer to their targets for future turns. There are many examples in the game of using off-turn movement rules to set up your position for the next active turn.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>With Peter's example - the FF doesn't have to retreat (it might die where it is) - and the FF owner might be able to save it by altering other battle plans. >>

Maybe, maybe not. There are two adjacent FFs. You attack one of them. The other reacts in. You send enough ships to make it so that two FFs fighting will probably die, and then put a DN in the hex that the surviving FF is forced to retreat into. In the first fight, one of the two FFs dies. The other retreats. It is forced to retreat into the hex with the DN (assuming such a situation was trumped up by the attacker). Yeah, it is mostly certain death for the second FF, but the 28% chance (FF survives crippled and/or retreats on a 2, 3, 4, or 5) of survival at the hands of the DN is likely better than staying and fighting the original force and *then* having to also fight the DN. Especially when there is probably another completely empty hex that the FF could theoretically retreat into, but due to it being further from the closest supply point, the FF can't go there. Which is also completely preposterous and illogical, but a quirk of the retreat rules (or, conversely, a clever use of the retreat priorities against your opponent. Depends on your point of view).

>>Sending a reserve so it is out of supply so you can send another reserve to re-open a supply line isn't stoppable - and is totally illogical.>>

It is no more illogical than any other clever (?) use of rules that aren't necessarily intended but certainly possible. I suspect instances of this happening are likely pretty few and far between. And the attacker in this instance can probably avoid it through shrewd play anyway--you see that your opponent has the potential (and incentive) to do this, so you make sure there isn't a place where he can send a reserve that will be out of supply (i.e. they might be able to prevent it by altering battle plans).

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 06:21 pm: Edit

I think the reserve movements just discussed are only legal if they make an EXISTING battle hex unpenalized. If they don't, you cant do them (203.731).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Paul is talking about sending one reserve force to a standard battle hex battle hex that happens to put the reserve fleet out of supply and then sending the next reserve for to go open supply to the first reserve fleet.

But now that I think about it, is this actually possible? If the first reserve force has a legitimate battle hex to go to that is already out of supply (so that the reserve force is going to end up out of supply, allowing the second reserve force to open up supply to the first reserve force), you could already use a reserve force to open up supply to it. If there isn't a legitimate battle hex to send the first reserve force that *isn't* out of supply, how is the first reserve force going to put itself out of supply?

Paul, could you clarify?

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 07:37 pm: Edit

The first battle hex is Hydran vs Lyran, the Klingons send a supporting reserve force (moving it out of Klingon supply) and then send the second force to open the supply.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 07:41 pm: Edit

It can happen in situations where you send a reserve to a battle involving only ships of an ally. The ally is in supply from his main grid, but the reserve you send doesn't have a legitimate path to your main grid. _But_ by creating a new battle hex with an additional reserve you can put your first reserve back in contact with your main grid. Oddball circumstances, but entirely possible in certain parts of the map.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Ah, ok. I can see how that could happen. I mean, like, it still seems really difficult to pull off and highly unlikely to be possible most of the time. But I can see it as possible.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, December 15, 2014 - 09:55 pm: 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 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.

Your comments are welcome.>>

Just checking to see if any decision has been made on this front.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 12:56 am: Edit

I'm wanting this debate to continue as I want all the issues to come to light. I want you guys to site examples to illustrate and explain how you (or someone claims to) think the use of reserve fleet rules in the basic game cannot be used to put a unit back into supply but if using some other F&E module it could.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 08:36 pm: Edit

>>I want you guys to site examples to illustrate and explain how you (or someone claims to) think the use of reserve fleet rules in the basic game cannot be used to put a unit back into supply but if using some other F&E module it could.>>

Well, just to clarify the argument at hand:

If the current (in the sense of 2006 kind of current) errata on rule (203.731), which is written 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)."

Is only enabled by ships being under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81) (as opposed to being enabled by "lacking a valid supply path"), then the ability to use this rule is greatly affected by what particular expansions you happen to be using.

-If you are using only the basic set rules, the only one of those enabling penalties that is possible to suffer from is (309.3), which is the need for drone bombardment ships to have a valid supply path to be able to drone bombard. So to be in a situation where you can utilize rule (203.371), you need to have drone bombardment ships in the force. Which means that empires that don't have access to drone bombardment ships will *never* be able to use rule (203.371)--the Hydrans, for example, will never be able to use this rule in the basic game, as they have no possible way to get drone bombardment ships in their forces. Plasma empires (and Lyrans. And Tholians.) can only ever have the ability to use rule (203.731) if they are paired with drone bombardment enabled allies (and have drone bombardment enabled ships in a given force). The Klingons (who have the most common and ubiquitous drone bombardment ships in the basic game) have the best ability to use this rule.

-If you are using expansion rules, especially salvage (439.13) (or less likely ground combat (521.81)), all empires can always claim to be suffering from a penalty from lack of supply, and enable rule (203.731), as all empires can always claim that they need to have access to a valid supply path for purposes of salvage. The need to have a valid supply path for ground combat purposes (also an expansion rule) do the same thing, but less often as salvage rules, and do so across the board (as all empires have access to ground combat ships).

So you have a very clear dichotomy: if you are using the basic rules only, rule (203.731) is very difficult to take advantage of, and can only be done in instances where the force in question was out of supply at the start of the turn or where there are drone bombardment ships in the force (limiting what empires can actually do this). On the other hand, if you are using the expansion rules, your ability to take advantage of rule (203.731) is greatly increased by virtue of the salvage rules, which allow all forces to always claim that they suffer from a lack of a valid supply path.

If, however, the current errata is interpreted as just requiring a lack of a valid supply path to the force in question (and no need to be suffering a specific penalty), (203.731) can be used equally in all situations, and has no effective difference between how the rule would work in games with salvage anyway.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 16, 2014 - 08:43 pm: Edit

"If, however, the current errata is interpreted as just requiring a lack of a valid supply path to the force in question (and no need to be suffering a specific penalty), (203.731) can be used equally in all situations, and has no effective difference between how the rule would work in games with salvage anyway. "

The errata does mention the need for penalties for being supplied to exist. While the powers that be can CHANGE any rule they want, in my opinion it is beyond mere interpretation to ignore that section of the errata.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 01:27 am: Edit

As FEDS I am not going to support any interpretation of this rule where in an "F&E + any given module" environment one can make some claim of being out of supply for Reserve intervention and have that same situation not apply in basic game or another given module. In the same breath, there should not be an advantage for having a drone ship in your fleet vs. not having one.

In my mind this is a straight up issue (this is not YET an official FEDS ruling):

1. Are enemy units blocking all supply paths to friendly units in combat (which are not stacked with valid friendly base) at this very moment?

2. Would the dispatch of one or more reserve fleets to one or more of the locations of blocking enemy ships open a supply path to said friendly units in combat? [Note that supply can flow through a battle hex under (411.2).]

How does this test above not meet the intent of (203.731)?

Does the above test work the same for all empires, under the same conditions, and under any combinations of F&E module usage?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 02:11 am: Edit

If so, I think that if you can go to a hex that opens supply without creating a new battle hex, then you should be disallowed from creating a new battle hex.

It seems the intent of 203.731 and errate is that if there is no penalty for a force in a battle hex, then you cant enable reserve movement because of that battle hex. Obviously this will be no more if you go ahead with your proposal (which is why in my opinion this is a rules change rather than a clarification).

I don't think it is an enormous problem as it is at the moment - consider how many years have gone by before someone noticed it?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 07:42 am: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>How does this test above not meet the intent of (203.731)? >>

It does, assuming the original intent of rule (203.731) was to allow reserve forces to be moved to open a valid supply path to a force that currently does not have a valid supply path to it. Which I suspect was the original intent of the rule, and what the errata was trying to clarify (although muddily).

>>Does the above test work the same for all empires, under the same conditions, and under any combinations of F&E module usage?>>

I believe it does.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 07:48 am: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>If so, I think that if you can go to a hex that opens supply without creating a new battle hex, then you should be disallowed from creating a new battle hex.>>

That doesn't seem out of the realm of reason. Although, I still suspect that the original intention of the rule is what Chuck seems to be wanting to move it to.

>>It seems the intent of 203.731 and errate is that if there is no penalty for a force in a battle hex, then you cant enable reserve movement because of that battle hex. Obviously this will be no more if you go ahead with your proposal (which is why in my opinion this is a rules change rather than a clarification).>>

I suspect the original intention of the rule was what Chuck seems to be trying to get it to currently; I suspect the errata was just a poorly written attempt to support that idea. I mean, I certainly could be wrong. But how I always thought it worked (and what Chuck seems to be supporting with his tweaks above) seems like a vastly more straight forward and logical way for the rule to work (and be intended to work) as opposed to what a completely literal reading of the errata seems to suggest.

>>I don't think it is an enormous problem as it is at the moment - consider how many years have gone by before someone noticed it?>>

Well, it is a rule that doesn't come up that much in the first place. And then when it does, I suspect that most folks just assume it works one way or the other and haven't thought about it much.

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 09:11 am: Edit

---

Quote:

And then when it does, I suspect that most folks just assume it works one way or the other and haven't thought about it much.

---

By Rob Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 11:50 am: Edit

Yeah, I remember that. Thought it was pretty clever that move. Took me a bit to see it though, it wasn't obvious.

Wow that was 10 years ago???

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 12:38 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Wow that was 10 years ago???

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 - 04:07 pm: Edit

So in looking through all the old rulebooks at the history of the rule:

-(207.731) doesn't exist in the '86 rulebook.

-(207.731) is printed almost exactly as it is currently in the DF+E '89 rulebook (the 2K10 rulebook adds "in combat" to "friendly units", and a note about multiple reserve forces going to separate hexes).

So the rule goes from non existent in the first edition ('86) to pretty much exactly what it is now in the second edition ('89) of the rules. In '89, there was no such thing as salvage or G unit ships, but drone ships did need supply at that point (309.3), but aren't referenced by (207.731), which came in the errata published some time between '89 and 2006, but when (and by whom) is unclear. But as it is stated in the '89 rulebook, if the intent was that this rule could be used *only* if the force in question was out of supply at the start of the turn and at the instance of combat, in the edition that the rule was published in, the only possible instance you could use (207.731) was when a force was out of supply at the start of the turn, and continued being out of supply during combat. Which seems like a really narrow set of circumstances for the rule to have been written for.

I was hoping looking in all the old rulebooks would help clear things up. But it didn't really :-)

By Jeffrey Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Gentlemen,

I have a series of questions which I'll lump together, most related to ground ships and capital assaults:

1. Are the six slots in the support echelon on the battleboard limiting the total number of support ships to just six? If there are only six slots, does this include escorts for ground ships or carriers putting forward their fighters too? Or, if there are just six slots, would the carrier or ground ship's escorts not be counted though it would still be effective?

2. (519) forbids monitors to be placed in the capital hex, but (511.54) refers to monitors being assigned as fixed defenses to capital hex planets, so which is it?

3. Must ground ship escorts be determined prior to the battle and fixed, as carrier escorts are? If escorts for ground ships are lost, can they be replaced on subsequent battle rounds?

4. (521.373) indicates that ground ships subject to directed damage attacks do not count against the one directed damage attack per combat round. Does this mean that every ground unit in a battleforce may be attacked by directed damage at once?

5. (521.381) indicates that the ships in the support echelon deposited their troops prior to the battle and left the area . . . does this mean that if these ships are targeted under echelon 3:1 attack that their G factors are still operable in that battle round? Also, (521.381) says that if these ships are placed in the battleforce, then they may be escorted. It does not say whether they may or may not be escorted within the support echelon.

6. What does the final line in (521.382) mean: “An independent GCE supporting the battalion would be destroyed with the PDU under (521.832).”

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - 03:52 pm: Edit

*Here are my thoughts.

1) No.

2) (519) Does not say what you say. Perhaps you are thinking 519.11 which only limits the initial monitors that you start the game with. 519.112 says monitors built in the capital can be assigned in the capital.

3a) No.
3b) Yes.

4) Only if they are actually performing a ground attack.

5a) No.
5b) I think it implies they cannot be escorted.

6) It means that if an independant GCE is supporting a destroyed battalion (ie PDU) that is destroyed, then the GCE is also destroyed.

By Christopher Schrader (Eastcoastfolk) on Friday, January 02, 2015 - 03:43 am: Edit

Just getting back into F&E by doing a solo F&E2010 game with none of the expansions except the 311.1 ACC table.

I've run into a question on pursuit force creation with groups.

After 7 rounds a Kzinti force is retreating from a raid on 1202. There are several carrier groups with crippled escorts. This is the retreating force:
2(DN), CC, 3(BC), 2(DD), 2(FF), TGPw2(VP), TGCw2(VP), CVL, 2(CV, CLE, EFF), (CVE,EFF), 2(DDcrip), (CVcrip, CLEcrip, EFFcrip), (CV, CLEcrip, EFFcrip), (CV, CLE, EFFcrip), 2(CVL, CLE, EFFcrip), & 1ff

First, does (308.122) allow the carriers to abbandon all their crippled escorts allowing the pursuid force to be:

DN, DN, CC, 2(DDcrip), CVcrip, 2(CLEcrip), 5(EFFcrip), 1ff with 2(EFFcrip) not adding their 1compot. 52 Compot total

Or Second, my reading of (307.3) and (308.12) especialy the "SEE (308.122) which can force carrier groups to be broken up..." has led me to form this pursuid force:

(CVcrip, CLEcrip, EFFcrip), (CV, CLEcrip, EFFcrip), (CV, CLE, EFFcrip), 2(DDcrip), 2(EFFcrip), 1ff with 3(EFFcrip) not adding compot.
37 total compot.

Keeping as many of the Groups intact as the Three uncrippled ships will allow.

Any input welcome.