No, no. The "crippled carriers that are in the pursued force but not contributing attack factors to the pursued force can't take damage on their fighters, even though they are in the battle force, due to the rules on pursuit" ruling (see: the official Q+A topic. And the context of the discussion just above my comment) is the weird and arbitrary one I am referring to.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, June 20, 2016 - 07:36 pm: Edit

I mean, to be fair, now that we know this is the case, it is mostly irrelevant--if you have a [d6v, f5, e4a] group in your crippled force, you might as well just put it on the line, 'cause it still contributes 9 compot and gives you 2 fighters to soak spare points of damage on, and that crippled CV group is still available to kill, but still. This recent (i.e. today) ruling seems counter to the pursuit rule which is:

"the force is used as is although excess ships (selected by the owner) do not count in the combat potential but can be damaged."

But again, at least it is a clear and decisive answer to my original question.

By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Monday, June 20, 2016 - 11:32 pm: Edit

"But again, at least it is a clear and decisive answer to my original question."

Yep, and it now means the fleeing forces of mine will use crippled carriers if they have any fighters left, so they can soak up the last bits of damage.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 - 02:47 am: Edit

It prevents abuse where the pursued player may already have up to three attrition units legally deployed in his pursued battle force, then the pursuing player chooses to attack some other crippled carriers NOT contributing compot but then they are now somehow able to deploy additional attrition units beyond the three squadron/flotilla limit to a absorb damage if their carrier is attacked.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 - 08:27 am: Edit

Ah, ok, fair enough. But then, why not make the rule "crippled carriers not contributing attack factors to the pursued force can count their fighters for taking damage, as long as they don't exceed the standing limit of 3 squadrons of attrition units" (Or whatever the better wording is to make that functional)?

And again, to be fair, the vast majority of the time, none of this will be particularly relevant--if the pursued force has 18 fighters (or whatever) in it from non crippled carriers that are contributing attack factors (we need a better, shorter term for that :-), it is super unlikely that the pursued force would need to use more than those 18 fighters; if the pursued force has crippled carriers that that went to use fighters, you might as well put the crippled carrier group on the line, as the loss of a couple points of attack factor is likely less of a negative than having a couple fighters to soak stray damage is a positive.

But in either case, thanks for the quick, clear answer!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, July 02, 2016 - 05:40 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 02, 2016 - 05:24 pm: Edit

Q453.0 Can an operational base act as it's own beginning Strategic Movement Node for either moving by StratMove on it's own or being towed by a tug?

---

---

Quote:

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 02, 2016 - 05:25 pm: Edit

Q453.0 Can an operational base move during the operational portion of the turn and then be towed by a tug during the StratMove portion of the turn?

---

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 03:56 am: Edit

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 02, 2016 - 05:04 pm: Edit


Q302.7. Retreat into off map area or staying on the map. Example: The Hydrans are on the map fighing in the 01xx row adjacent to their off map area. They have an adjacent hex also in 01xx row with no enemy forces in it. Do they have to retreat to the off map area since this is their supply source or could they retreat to the open hex on map thus staying on the map and still being 0 hexes from supply?

Not an official answer - but if the on map hex has a supply point in it (so would be range 0 from a supply point) - yes, otherwise no - as Off Map will be range 0 and on map range 1.

It doesn't matter that the Off Map is a primary supply point and the on map supply point just part of the chain.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 11:45 am: Edit

Disagree. Both the offmap and the other hex are range 1, so both are valid.

Range 0 is, by definition, the *same* hex. The offmap is not in the same hex as 0101, for example, or any other of the 01xx hex column. Thus, the offmap cannot be range 0.

Since the offmap is not range 0, it must be treated as range 1+. The adjacent hex (say 0201) will also be range 1 to the offmap; therefore (assuming no other retreat priority applies) BOTH the offmap and the adjacent hex (also adjacent to the offmap) are valid retreat options.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 02:59 pm: Edit

Ted

Surely, it's range from the supply source that is relevant?

So for example - a Lyran ship in 0102 needs to retreat - all Lyran bases are intact and all hexes are empty of Kzinti forces and are in supply

If the Lyran ship retreats, Far Stars is Range 0 and 0103 is Range 1 (from 0104 or Far Stars), from a supply point - therefore it would have to retreat to Far Stars.

Can't see how this isn't correct

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 06:28 pm: Edit

If a unit is on a point of origin of supply, then the range to that supply point is by definition "ZERO".

If a unit is in an empty hex but adjacent to a supply point, then the range to that supply point is one hex.

---

Quote:

(302.733D): Of the remaining available retreat hexes in which his force would be in supply, the player must select the one with the shortest supply path to a supply point.

(413.1) DEFINITION
The Supply Grid is a network of bases and planets. It consists of a friendly capital hex (or off-map area), any friendly (i.e., same empire) bases or planets that have a valid Supply Route (six hexes or less) to that hex, any friendly bases or planets that have a valid Supply Route (six hexes or less) to any of those hexes, etc. As long as a base or planet has a supply path (any length, as long as there is a base or planet every six or fewer hexes along that path) to a capital hex (or off map area), it is part of the Supply Grid.

---

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, July 04, 2016 - 05:41 am: Edit

STRATEGIC MOVEMENT PROCEDURES

---

Quote:

(204.21) The moving units must begin and end their Strategic Movement on a friendly Strategic Movement Node. They must not have moved by any other means on the current Player Turn.

---

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, July 04, 2016 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Yup, Paul, you are right; I am wrong.

And FEDS confirmed it.

/me eats crow.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, July 15, 2016 - 03:42 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Questions about (302.742D) Slow Unit Retreat.

1) For purposes of Plus and Minus Points (308.2), does Slow Unit Retreat count as a Pursuit Battle (308,24), limiting minus points to -3; or does it count as a regular battle with no such limit?

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 15, 2016 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Kind of? (302.742A) says the pursuer gets to divide minus points between the Slow Unit Retreat and the Pursuit battles as they see fit. And it is certainly possible for there not to be a Pursuit at all (due to no cripples) but still a Slow Unit Retreat.

Let's say the attacker has -8 points to deal with when his opponent decides to flee, and has a lot of cripples and some slow units. How can the pursuer divide those points?

Can he put them all on the Pursuit battle, and see all but -3 of them vanish? Can he put -3 on the Pursuit and then have to put -5 on the Slow Unit Retreat? Does the Slow Unit Retreat have a limit of -3 points, just like the Pursuit battle does, so he has to put -3 on the Pursuit, -3 on the Slow Unit Retreat, and -2 vanish?

If Slow Unit Retreat has no limit to voluntary minus points, can the pursuer put all -8 points on the Slow Unit Retreat and no minus points on the Pursuit?

The short version is--either Slow Unit Retreat counts as a "Pursuit" (and has a limit of -3 voluntary points) or it does not count as a "Pursuit" (and does not have a limit of -3 voluntary points, which then opens up all the other questions above).

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, July 15, 2016 - 08:25 pm: Edit

The pursuit battle would be limited to 3 minus points. The rest would carry over to the slow unit retreat as that is not a pursuit battle as defined in (307.0).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 15, 2016 - 11:01 pm: Edit

The question that is being asked is if the Slow Unit Retreat is *intended* to act like a Pursuit battle (for the things I questioned in the Question topic). Given that the Slow Unit Retreat rules have been completely re-written in the most recent Captain's Log, and it has been rewritten to mostly reflect the effect of a Pursuit fight, it seems like determining whether or not Slow Unit Retreat is supposed to work like a Pursuit fight in regards to minus points and capture rolls is something worth doing.

The question being asked has a very easy answer one way or the other. But the rules in question *don't* have a specific answer in them. Thus, the question at hand.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Saturday, July 16, 2016 - 07:19 pm: Edit

It could be seen in either direction as there is only one pursuing battle force, that's split between the 'slow units' and 'cripples' (302.742A). With the rewrite, the slow unit battle is closer (in spirit) to pursuit...

In regards to plus/minus points, since the pursuit battle itself is limited, the slow unit battle should be taking the leftovers (but if pursuit restrictions apply, then one must be more careful when allocating damage with this in mind).

In regards to capture attempts, most slow units don't have as many BPs (or militia) as a crippled warship as well as usually being of lesser quality (though being regarded as 'excellent' as opposed to 'outstanding' may not mean much on that scale of things)...

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 16, 2016 - 10:59 pm: Edit

All of these things are certainly reasonable ideas.

In the end, here, the question is one with an easy answer--either:

A) Slow Unit Retreat counts as a Pursuit Battle, and has the limits on minus points and ships are captured on a 2-3.

or

B) Slow Unit Retreats *don't* count as a Pursuit Battle, and there is no limit on minus points and ships are only captured on a 2.

Just, ya know, someone in charge needs to pick one of them and clearly indicate this is the case.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, July 17, 2016 - 07:39 am: Edit

Pursuit and Slow Unit Retreat are for, a lack of a better description, conducted at the same time; but they are not the same thing.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 17, 2016 - 09:52 am: Edit

Pretty much *everything* about Slow Unit Retreat were lacking a better description :-)

Captain's Log #51 did a lot to help that situation. But this ambiguity that I'm asking about still should get clearly addressed. As noted above, either answer is a reasonable one. But there should be a line in the rules that specifically provides that answer.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 03, 2016 - 09:22 am: Edit

Question for the hive mind: Is there anything that prevents TGs carrying MBs (stored, as cargo, not being deployed) from entering hexes with enemy ships? Or moving via retrograde?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, August 03, 2016 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Peter:

---

Quote:

(510.213) Mobile bases can be transported and placed only by tugs of the same empire. Tugs transporting mobile bases cannot enter hexes containing enemy units. A tug is required even in the capital hex.

(510.121) A non-functioning mobile base can be destroyed only by destroying the unit (starbase or tug) that is storing, transporting, or deploying it. A tug that is transporting (as opposed to deploying) an MB is treated exactly as it would be if it were not carrying anything; if deploying the MB, the MB may be lost (510.22).

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 03, 2016 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Ok, thanks! I was looking for a rule that said exactly that, and for some reason couldn't find it.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 03:26 pm: Edit

DISCUSSION MOVED TO THIS TOPIC - FEDS

Question asked in Q&A:

By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 11:29 am: Edit

(Probably asked but i could not find it.) How do SIDS interact with crippling a base.
I dont see anything about SIDS changing the defense value of the BATS.

Example: The defender has voluntary taken 2 SIDS on a BATS already. (It takes 3 to cripple it.)
This round the defender takes 12 points of damage. Not enough for the attacker to demand a SIDS. Since the defense value of the BATS is still 12, the defender can choose to cripple the BATS.
(Since per 308.84 it is voluntary for the defender to choose to take a SIDS, he does not have to.)
(Per 308.861 SIDS cannot be used on a crippled BATS. It is not clear but i take that to mean that SIDS have no effect on a crippled BATS since it does not say they do.)
It is now a crippled BATS with 2 SIDS.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 11:39 am: Edit

Marc,

In this case the defender takes another SIDS for 4 to cripple the base and then has an additional 8 points of damage to take. The back side of a BATS is only 1 SIDS step. So he couldn't take 12 damage and have 2 SIDS steps on the crippled base.

Also the attacker could direct damage a SIDS for 8 points crippling the base and leaving the defender to take 4 points of damage.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 11:59 am: Edit

SIDS are 18 points (9 w/ a mauler) each by directed damage, not 8, regardless of how many have already been scored.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 12:13 pm: Edit

SIDS on a BATS are 4 points not 4.5 points so a directed SIDS on a BATS would be 16 points (8 w/ a mauler)

So my last line in my previous point is incorrect.

By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 12:53 pm: Edit

In my above example lets assume the 2 SIDS came from his opponents Directed damage. The Defender has not taken any voluntary SIDS. So there is not implied idea that once he starts taking SIDS he must continue.
Per 308.84 he does not have to take another SIDS.
And Per 308.112 it is the expectation that the defender will keep accumulating "Plus Points" until he has enough to cripple the base. The attacker cannot demand a SIDS and the defender does not have to take one.
THe attacker is suppose to expect that he must accumulate 12 points, or the Defender can take a voluntary SIDS.

This is supported by 308.83, that until the BATS third SIDS is scored , the first two have no effect on combat, presumably including any limits on choosing to cripple the base.

I realize that is probably not the idea behind the SIDS, but that seems to be what the rules say. And each of the sections of the rule seem be read to support it.

By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 12:59 pm: Edit

I think a better solution is not that another SIDS is REQUIRED. But that a Crippled BATS that already had a SIDS on it, should be destroyed. The rule does not specificlly say that, but could be interpreted that way without bending the other rules.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 01:20 pm: Edit

See (308.84) second sentence.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, August 26, 2016 - 01:24 pm: Edit

See (308.861) for how much damage a SIDS steps on a BATS resolve.