Q531.212 Ted asked about Police ships and Reserve Movement.

203.71 <-- I found this rule which says that (generally) Reserve movement uses the same rules as operational movement. So this probably means POLs cannot enter hexes with more than one enemy ship or some such as that is the limit by operational movement.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 03:29 pm: Edit

FEDS answered the question within the Q&A topic.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Thank you for fast ruling - I missed that reference.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Thank you as well. I'm still a tad confused on the sequencing of Partial Retreating (302.723)--it is unclear on when it actually happens in the SOP (although it happens in Step 8 of the Capital Assault procedure), and it is unclear how it prevents pursuit (other than, well, a vague sentence that says it does somehow).

If Partial Retreat happens at the regular time that retreats happen (i.e. the defender gets a chance to retreat, the attacker gets a chance to retreat, and then the attacker gets another chance to retreat), then it would make sense that the defender decides to Partially Retreat at ether point, the attacker retreats, and then you get to the Pursuit step, and you pursue. At least that is how the SOP reads.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 08:26 pm: Edit

If I remember right, retreat prevents pursuit, there's nothing in 'partial' that allows the exception...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 09:19 pm: Edit

Maybe? Here are the relevant points in (302.723):

"In the event that some of the defending player's units conducted a partial retreat from a capital battle and others did not, and subsequently the attacking player retreats his forces, those ships from the defending players forces which did not retreat may pursue the retreating units of the attacking player."

Which indicates that if I partially retreat, and then the attacker retreats, I can then pursue with the units left behind.

But then it says:

"If the defending player elects to conduct a pursuit, he may not conduct a retreat with other units as the partial retreat option is available only during the combat procedure."

Which makes no sense at all, given that pursuit happens after retreats, so once you decide to pursue, you can't retreat anyway. As you decide to conduct a pursuit after retreats are declared (retreats happen during step 5-7A and you decide to pursue during step 5-7B).

So all together, these rules are kind of not super sensical. And I haven't found any errata about this.

(302.723) says you can partial retreat, and then pursue a retreating attacker with what you leave behind in the hex, but then says if you pursue, you can't partial retreat.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 10:26 pm: Edit

How critical is this question Peter? Can it wait and for how long?

We are in the CL50 window and it may take some time to research. Thanks.

By Nick Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Peter, I think the second sentence means you cannot conduct further partial retreats after choosing to pursue. And I think partial retreats happen in the normal retreat sequence. Example:

Defender of a capital hex gets the first retreat option. He decides to split his defenders into groups A and B, and retreat force A (a partial retreat as force B stays to fight on).

The attacker decides to retreat.

The defender decides to pursue with elements of force B. The remainder of force B cannot also do a partial retreat at this point, even if not all of them are in the pursuit battle.

In other words, when the second sentence says "...retreat with other units..." it means "...retreat with more units..."

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - 08:07 am: Edit

Chuck wrote:
>>How critical is this question Peter? Can it wait and for how long?

We are in the CL50 window and it may take some time to research. Thanks.>>

Not super critical. It came up in my ongoing game, but we came up with a solution (which may or may not have been right, and didn't work to my advantage, but still :-), but we moved on, so an answer would be god at some point, but it doesn't need to happen immediately. Thanks!

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - 08:12 am: Edit

Nck wrote:
>>Peter, I think the second sentence means you cannot conduct further partial retreats after choosing to pursue.>>

That seems likely, but why would it feel the need to say that, as you can't retreat after pursuing anyway (due to the SOP). But yeah, I suspect you are right.


>>And I think partial retreats happen in the normal retreat sequence. Example:

Defender of a capital hex gets the first retreat option. He decides to split his defenders into groups A and B, and retreat force A (a partial retreat as force B stays to fight on).

The attacker decides to retreat.

The defender decides to pursue with elements of force B. The remainder of force B cannot also do a partial retreat at this point, even if not all of them are in the pursuit battle.>>

That's how I read it. And there doesn't seem to be anything that prevents the defender from declining the first retreat option, seeing the attacker retreat during the attacker's retreat option, then deciding to partially retreat a chunk of their forces in the capital and then also pursuing the retreating attacker with the remaining forces in the capital.

>>In other words, when the second sentence says "...retreat with other units..." it means "...retreat with more units…">>

So it seems like the second sentence referenced exists to say "you can't partially retreat a second time after pursuing, even though you already couldn't retreat after pursuing due to the SOP and when pursuit happens".

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 07:42 am: Edit

Peter,

Were you trying to retreat and pursue after the same combat round?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

But if you retreated a small "keeping supply open" force after the first round, or really any round except the last, and then wanted to pursue after the last round, I think the rules as written support that idea very clearly.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 08:37 am: Edit

Matt wrote:
>>Were you trying to retreat and pursue after the same combat round?>>

I was trying to partially retreat and pursue in the same round. Which the rules seem to not actually prevent.

>>That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.>>

On the grounds of what? Retreating happens during the retreat step. Pursuit happens during the pursuit step. Partial retreat allows you to retreat some units and leave other units behind. It is clear from (302.723) that when you partially retreat, you can also pursue with the remaining forces.

>>But if you retreated a small "keeping supply open" force after the first round, or really any round except the last, and then wanted to pursue after the last round, I think the rules as written support that idea very clearly.>>

Sure, but the SOP indicates that the defender has two opportunities to retreat--one before and one after the attacker. And (302.723) indicates that there is nothing preventing a force that has partially retreated from also pursuing. And the SOP has a clear order in which things happen (defender retreats, attacker retreats, defender retreats, pursuit happens).

There is certainly the mostly non-sensical last sentence of (302.723) which indicates that once you pursue, you can't partially retreat again, which, well, yes, is true, but that is simply the way the SOP works (you can't pursue and non-partially retreat afterwords, either), which I think is just confusing the issue.

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 01:15 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

On the grounds of what?

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 01:32 pm: Edit

IMHO no matter when a defender decides to conduct a partial retreat, so long as some of the defending units stay then those units that do stay could be used to pursue.

Why not? The staying units are, after all, staying.

Yes, this gives the defender a lot more flexibility, but he is supposed to have that flexibility when defending the capital.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Matt wrote:
>>On the grounds that first retreat option is decided before the attacker announces retreat.>>

Well, sure. But nothing is saying that you can only use partial retreat during the first retreat option.

>>1st defender option: Defender stays (or partial retreats)
attacker option: Attacker retreats.
2nd defender option: Defender retreats or pursues.>>

See, if the SOP (or rules on partial retreats) indicated that this is the case, I'd be right there with you. But they don't. The SOP says nothing at all about partial retreats, so presumably, they operate like and when regular retreats (unless something indicates otherwise, but nothing does).

>>If it just so happens that you decided to retreat a small force to keep supply open, but only remembered during the fifth round to do so, but that happened to be the same time the attacker elected to retreat, and you took your first retreat option before you knew what your opponent was going to do, then yes, I'd agree that the rules do seem to allow that.

But if your opponent announced retreat and then you said (at 2nd option) that you want to both retreat a partial force and also pursue, then I'd say that's probably prohibited, or will shortly be prohibited.>>

But again, what would make that prohibited? If you have units in the hex that aren't retreating, they should be able to pursue, as that is how pursuit works. I can't see why some units partially retreating (and leaving other units behind to not retreat) would prevent the non partially-retreating units from pursuing. Especially given that the rule itself says "...and subsequently the attacking player retreats his forces, those ships from the defending players forces which did not retreat may pursue the retreating units of the attacking player."

Attacking units that retreat always retreat after defending units (when retreats are conducted, the defender always conducts his actual retreat before the attacker conducts his actual retreat, so the attacker *always* "subsequently" retreats his force (as if the defender declares a retreat during the first or second retreat option, the attacker always actually retreats second), so the issue of "subsequent" isn't really something to worry about. But the line does certainly say "forces which did not retreat may conduct a pursuit".

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 04:15 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

But again, what would make that prohibited? If you have units in the hex that aren't retreating, they should be able to pursue, as that is how pursuit works.

---

---

Quote:

If the defending player elects to conduct a pursuit, he may not conduct a retreat with other units as the partial retreat option is available only during the combat procedure.

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 04:38 pm: Edit

Matt wrote:
>>If the defending player elects to conduct a pursuit, he may not conduct a retreat with other units as the partial retreat option is available only during the combat procedure.>>

See, the problem with this sentence being used to limit pursuit on the same round as partial retreat is that it expressly says that:

A) If you conduct a pursuit.

then

B) You cannot conduct a retreat.

Which doesn't seem to have any bearing on the following chain of events:

A) I conduct a partial retreat.

then

B) Conduct a pursuit.

Because the order of things on the SOP indicates that you retreat during the retreat step and then pursue during the pursuit step. Which is after the retreat step. Once you pursue, yes, you can't then retreat (with units left behind, even though you have partially retreated earlier). But that has nothing to do with your ability to conduct a partial retreat (which happens during the retreat step, presumably) and then pursuing (which happens after the retreat step).

The sentence in question, I suspect, exists to indicate that you can't partially retreat, then pursuit, and then retreat again. As the rules (and SOP) don't allow that to happen. By virtue of the order of the SOP.

>>That's how I read the rule. After your opponent says he's retreating, you can either retreat (partial or full) or pursue, but not both. >>

That seems to be a way that some folks are interpreting that, but I don't think it is what it actually says. Again, the SOP has an order that things happen. You retreat. Then you pursue. A sentence saying "If you pursue, you can't then retreat" is both true, and not really relevant to "If you partially retreat, can you then pursue?"

Like--look at the sentence. It points out that if you elect to pursue, you can't then elect to conduct a retreat. But that is not the order in which those things *happen*. You elect to retreat and *then* elect to pursue (as that is the order these things happen in the SOP). Reading that sentence to mean that you can't partially retreat and pursue on same round is accepting that that sentence is working in reverse order. As you don't have to decide to pursue until *after* you retreat (or not, as the case may be). "If you decide to pursue…" is part of a standard if-then statement. If you do X, you do Y (or can't do Y). But when X and Y happen in opposite order, that doesn't work. If you pursue, you can't retreat isn't a logically constructed idea. Yes. If you retreat, you can't pursue, sure. But that isn't what the sentence says.

Like, I'm not trying to be an overly argumentitive loon here or anything, but I really think that there is nothing there that, when you actually pay attention to the SOP and what is actually written, prevents partially retreating and then pursuing with what is left behind on the same round.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 06:01 pm: Edit

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL FEDS RULING.

========================

Ref:

---

Quote:

(302.723) The Defender of a capital hex can, at the end of each combat round, retreat some of his units from the hex without having to retreat all of them. Slow units (e.g., FRDs, convoys, monitors, etc.) cannot retreat by this method. This is known as a “partial retreat” and is separate from the more general retreats covered by (302.7). In the event that some of the Defending Player’s units conducted a partial retreat from a capital battle and others did not, and subsequently the Attacking Player retreats his forces, those ships from the Defending Player’s forces which did not retreat may pursue the retreating units of the Attacking Player. If the Defending Player elects to conduct a pursuit, he may not conduct a retreat with other units as the partial retreat option is available only during the combat procedure.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 06:08 pm: Edit

I can live with that.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Nice.

By Matthew Smith (Mgsmith67) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Chuck,
That seems pretty clear to me, but for the attacker's option, and the 2nd defender option, I'd use the word "decides" vice "announces" and then also state the obvious in that the attacker may in fact decide to stay and fight another round.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 07:46 pm: Edit

>>Does that seem to make better sense? >>

It makes more sense than the current rule (as the current rule doesn't make a lot of sense :-). But if this is to be the case, then it is important to add to the rule (or the SOP) that Partial Retreating can only be announced during the defender's first retreat option.

At which point (if I understand the suggestion correctly):

-You can announce a partial retreat during the defender's first retreat option, see if the attacker retreats, and if they do, you can then pursue them with what is left behind.

or

-You can not announce a partial retreat during the defenders first retreat option, and if the attacker then retreats, you can either fully retreat or not retreat at all and pursue (if you are inclined).

Is this a correct understanding?

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 08:15 pm: Edit

But the ships that are conducting the partial retreat are committed to that action, right? You can't choose to 'take it back' on the partial retreat?

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 08:18 pm: Edit

There's no rule enabling such a thing, anywhere.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Yeah, if you announce a retreat, you have to retreat.

Assuming that my understanding of what Chuck is suggesting is correct, a round of combat would be like:

-(first defender retreat option): "I partially retreat with this here DN, 3xCV, 3xMEC, 3xEF, 2xBC, and an SF".

-(attacker retreat option): "I retreat."

-(second defender retreat option): "No further retreat. I pursue your retreating forces with my remaining ships."

or

-(first defender retreat option): "I partially retreat with this here DN, 3xCV, 3xMEC, 3xEF, 2xBC, and an SF".

-(attacker retreat option): "I don't retreat."

-(second defender retreat option): "Doh. No further retreat. More combat ensues."

etc.