I suspect that in case A and C the intent is that the defender MUST accept the approach battle. Presumably the defender can still use withdrawal before combat if not disallowed (by a reserve having show up perhaps).

I'd think that the defender can use whatever ships/etc he like within the normal rules for making battle forces, but fighting retreat penalties will apply.

***

Perhaps case A and B are both meant to not use fighting retreat penalties if the outnumbered condition in B is true.

***

It may be these rules need a good rewrite.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, April 03, 2020 - 06:07 pm: Edit

In cases A and C, the enemy is between you and the base, not accepting the approach battle means you are NOT going to the base.

Case B is you and the other defenders putting the enemy between both your forces.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 03, 2020 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>I suspect that in case A and C the intent is that the defender MUST accept the approach battle.>>

That might have been the original intention, but it isn't what the rules actually say, now that I'm actually reading the rules.

>>It may be these rules need a good rewrite.>>

Yeah, I think that might be the main issue here.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, April 03, 2020 - 07:58 pm: Edit

Stewart wrote:
>>In cases A and C, the enemy is between you and the base, not accepting the approach battle means you are NOT going to the base.>>

That might be the intention, but that isn't what the rules actually say.

Approach battles are something that the attacker (i.e. not the defender) has to offer to the defender. In both situations A and C, the rules are talking about the defender in a hex with a friendly base/base like unit. The defender doesn't ever offer an approach battle. The attacker does. So in cases A and C, the defender fighting retreats into a hex with a friendly base or base like unit, and when the attacker offers an approach battle, the defender (who suffers a significant penalty for accepting the approach battle due to the Fighting Retreat penalties) can just choose not to accept the approach battle (as there isn't anything in these rules that prevents them from doing so), and then all the penalties of Fighting Retreat just vanish with no effect.

Like, it seems possible that the *intention* of this rule was that the defender retreating into a hex with a friendly base or base like unit are supposed to be compelled to fight a disadvantageous approach battle (at BIR0/BIR10). But the rules don't actually indicate that this is mandatory. And as such, why would the defender in this situation accept the approach?

They wouldn't. And as such, in points A and C, these rules are a lot of words that say "Those hexes aren't a fighting retreat anymore".

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, April 04, 2020 - 03:22 am: Edit

We have always played it the player doing the fighting retreat has to accept any approach battle - we might also only allow the Forces doing the Fighting Retreat to be used (but might be wrong on that point) - which as others have said covers the retreater having to break though the enemy line to get to the base.

On 'base like' - are best interpretation was things like a Supply Tug or FRD strategically is static - but tactically is mobile and so they could move a bit to help the retreating force.

A MB, BATS or SB is static (other than rotating round a planet) and the enemy can always work out where it is.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 04, 2020 - 08:58 am: Edit

Paul wrote:
>>We have always played it the player doing the fighting retreat has to accept any approach battle>>

This is not at all unreasonable, and certainly possibly the original intention of the rule. But as noted, and now that I'm reading these rules closely, is not at all what the rules actually say.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, April 04, 2020 - 09:40 am: Edit

Like, it is worth pointing out that *most* of these rules [(302.775)] come up *very* rarely (which is why, I suspect, that I'm only now looking at them closely.

Like, sub point D (fighting retreat into a hex with an enemy base or base like unit) seems like something that happens on a regular basis (i.e. the Kzinti retreat from combat into a hex with a Coalition held, captured Kzinti planet or on an offensive into enemy space, hitting a planet or SB that is behind an existing BATS that you retreat over to get closer to a retrograde point), and seems pretty straight forward; fighting retreat force ends up in the hex, offers an approach (as they are the "attacker" in this instance, as it is an enemy base or base like unit), the defender declines or not, and then the retreating force runs again. Check.

Point A seems like something the comes up rarely, at best? You need to be retreating to a friendly base, which is by definition, going to be the closest supply point, unless you are in a hex that is adjacent to two existing bases? So most of the time, it is only going to be a fighting retreat if there are more total Enemy units in the base hex than combined friendly units. Or there are two adjacent bases. I guess the Feds could be fighting in hex 2909, and SB 2808 could be under attack, and so rather than retreating into the Capital or SB 3008, they could fighting retreat into 2808 under (302.775), point A?

Points B and C seem pretty corner case--fighting retreat into a hex with a "base like unit", which I imagine covers a friendly planet, FRD, and/or convoy? Other than the FRD, the, the other options are likely supply points, making them likely the closest supply point to retreat to, so unless there are more total enemy forces there, it is likely just to be a regular retreat anyway.

Hmm. Arcane.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, April 25, 2020 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Kadelake, reply to your Q&A.

1. PFTs are one per turn by substitution, and one per turn by conversion for a maximum of 2. NOTE: Other limits come into play here. Notably scouts and SCS.

2. A total of 6xD6 are added to the mothball fleet once the 1st IWR Squadron is released. No more are added after that. See (703.122).

3. Not sure on this one. I understand what you are saying, but I think I'm forgetting something, so I will let Mike or Chuck give you the official answer.

4. If does, but not until Y181. The spare fighter is free fighter factor replacement. The limitation is that the replacement factor can not be used for 9H and 10V squadrons that are F-111 and A-20 squadrons respectively. They will replace 1 F-15 fighter factor (CVB carrier) or 1 F-14 or 1 A-10 fighter factor (CVA) or 1 F-18 Factor (any base or CVS).

5. Only the Federation gets special fighter squadrons where 12 fighters equals 7 or 8 fighter factors without a following letter. The Hydran CV and Tholian CVA fighters are "oversized" fighter squadrons meaning all their fighters are used in 1 squadron allowing you to add another 12 fighter factors from other qualified carriers to reach the limit of 3 attrition units. See (318.8) in Advanced Operations. If not using Advanced Operations don't worry about it.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, April 25, 2020 - 05:02 pm: Edit

The UH is also has an oversized squadron.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Saturday, April 25, 2020 - 10:20 pm: Edit

#3 is no as setting an MB starts before movement, though your opponent may invade to destroy the tug before the MB becomes active (raids count!) …

5 - think the Hydran CV becomes a CVD type (oversized squadron) around Y175 or so …

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, April 25, 2020 - 10:27 pm: Edit

A tug carrying a MB cannot enter the hex of enemy ships if my long ago research is correct.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, April 25, 2020 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Found the rule:

(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.

By Nils Kadesjö (Kadelake) on Sunday, April 26, 2020 - 03:59 am: Edit

Thanks for the answers!

So this is how I understood it:

1. PFT limit is per turn. 432.42 is correct, and the 2K10 OOB is not correct.

2. The mothball additions are only for the first IWR-squadron

3. No, 510.213 forbids the transported MB from entering a hex containing enemy units. (I must have completely missed or forgotten that rule!)

4. Since there are no rules for heavy fighters in basic F&E, the spare fighters can be used even for A-20 carriers (only the SCS I think).

5. Oversized squadrons are only used with the expansions, so only the Feds have squadrons larger than 6 fighter factors in basic F&E.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, April 26, 2020 - 06:36 am: Edit

Thanks Richard, I thought that might be the rule, but couldn't remember it.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 08:07 am: Edit

Wondering if there has been any Q&A on the interaction of cloaked escape, withdrawal before combat, and fighting retreat rules. Basically, the player conducting the FR is the defender. Can they use cloak (all ships have it) and withdrawal before combat to potentially avoid the FR battle. Evidence against it is the FR rule 302.771, which says that the retreating player must fight one round with whatever forces are in the hex. So I'm thinking they can't?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 08:42 am: Edit

The Withdraw Before Combat rules (302.1) use the phrase "defender", when it really should be using "non phasing player", (the SOP, under Step 5 "Combat", is clearer and uses "non phasing player" to describe who can withdraw before combat; the rules tend to use "defender" interchangeably with "non phasing player", but probably shouldn't, or at least should have a notation in the Game Terms section clarifying this).

In any case, if the phasing player is performing a fighting retreat, they are not a "defender", as they are the phasing player, and the phasing player can't withdraw before combat. And as such, can't use cloaked evasion (you can only use cloaked evasion as the non phasing player, as cloaked evasion happens when you are trying to withdraw before combat, which the phasing player can't do).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 09:22 am: Edit

It's the non-phasing player

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 10:08 am: Edit

Ah, ok. I see what you are talking about now (the situation presented was unclear :-).

You are wondering if the non phasing player, who is in a fighting retreat hex, but fully equipped with cloaks, can withdraw before combat with cloaked evasion. Hmm. Looking at rules...yeah, I don't see anything that prevents this.

(302.771) says "must fight one round with whatever forces are in the hex", but nothing in the fighting retreat rules suggests that you can't withdraw before combat. But assuming that the opponent will oppose the withdrawing, half the ships get to avoid combat, and then you roll for all the other cloaked ships, and odds are some will be left behind anyway, and then just get vaporized.

So you'd retreat into a fighting retreat hex, announce withdrawing before combat, presumably get opposed, pull out half the ships (but have to leave behind one of the 3 highest CR ships), then roll for cloaked evasion with the stragglers. And anything that doesn't cloak evade is what would be "whatever forces are in the hex", and then at least one of them will be incinerated.

At least that is what the rules would suggest. I don't know if this was ever ruled on or further clarified.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 10:20 am: Edit

Any units that attempted to use cloaked evasion from the original hex cannot do so again. See (306.13).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 10:39 am: Edit

The Romulans couldn't used the Cloaks in the initial compat hex (some where crippled).

Alas William is pretty good also allowing the Romulans to cloak from one hex.... into another battle hex!

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 01:32 pm: Edit

This all seems like a convoluted situation :-)

Like, most of the time, I'd imagine that when one engages the Fighting Retreat option, it is 'cause:

A) It is a big force retreating over a small force (this happens all the time, and I imagine is the most common form of fighting retreat; i.e. "My 30 ship fleet fighting retreats over those 2FFs that are still in that hex. Oops.").

or

B) It is a corner case desperation move to get back into supply from somewhere that ended up being a bad situation and probably didn't start out that way.

I mean, like, it isn't at all impossible that a large enough Romulan force that needs to withdraw before combat is going to retreat into a hex as a fighting retreat with enough enemy ships that they don't actually want to fight (but, well, not *more* enemy ships, as that is still illegal), but in such an instance, they are probably going to have enough ships in the hex that even after withdrawing half of them, there will be a reasonable chance that multiples will fail to cloak evade and have to fight anyway.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, April 29, 2020 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I'd say you can cloak out.

Whenever a rules question comes up with no immediate obvious answer, but of two possibilities one requires implied interpretation of the rules and the other doesn't, I tend to go with the answer that doesn't provide weird results (like a possible poor phrasing implying that cloaks can't be used to avoid a battle).

Keeps things sane imo.

By Greg Ernest (Gernest) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Small question about the beginning of the classic campaign. Core rules only, 2010 edition.

Can a SB in a Partial Supply Grid build a FF? Rules reference, please? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

I'm looking at the Marquis provinces in case anyone cares.

Thank you.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 04:14 pm: Edit

If they have money in the partial grid to build an FF, they can certainly build an FF. It still counts as one of the FF builds from their schedule (i.e. you can't build an *extra* FF), but if the Marquis has 2.5 EPs available, the Kzinti can build one of their FFs at SB 1704, even if 1704 is cut off from the main grid (531.50).

Nothing in (413.4; Partial Supply Grids) indicates that you can't build FFs at SBs, as per (531.50).

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 - 06:43 pm: Edit

There is not a rule that EXPLICITLY states that a SB can produce units in the case of being in a partial supply grid but nevertheless, you can spend EPs in a partial grid on anything unless there's an explicit rule stating otherwise.