@Chuck: My LDR POL->MP question is for an ongoing game. While waiting for the answer will not delay the game, it's not just an academic question.

Take your time as needed.

Thanks!
-T

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 13, 2020 - 08:10 am: Edit

When can Orion Smuggling occur?

Situation - Stockpile of Eps in a Satellite Stockpile (413.45) (which happens to be on a Neutral Minor Planet).

Both sides retreat from the hex - so the Planet goes neutral.

Can prior to combat, can Orion smuggling take half of the 3.4 Gorn Ep's to the main supply grid (which is within range etc).

410.341 doesn't say when it can be done.... and 413.442 refers to 435.3 - which doesn't exist in my rule book (432.252 under Other transfers goes onto 436.00 - Battleships).

...Wlliam and I are none the wiser!

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, August 13, 2020 - 09:18 am: Edit

My copy of the rules has 413.442 refer to 435.25.

Note that when a capital falls, it is possible to evacuate some EPs by Orion Smuggling. There is no rule that I can find really saying whether you can in your situation, but my bet based on existing similar rules is that you can. You may wish to search the Q&A archives, I did not search them.

(511.352) If the capital has a supply path to another base or planet
at the instant before it falls, the Treasury (430.1) can be evacu-
ated to that base or planet; treat this as a transfer to a partial grid
(435.24). If not, some of it can be evacuated by Orion smuggling
(410.34) and the rest is lost; it cannot be captured. Any deficit
(430.63) is evacuated automatically.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Thursday, August 13, 2020 - 08:53 pm: Edit

(410.341) shows a partial grid receiving those EPs in Production (as it covers a greater cost than the partial grid can provide) though the cost of doing so shows up in the post-combat.

As for partial to main, probably via the 435 (planned during income and received in the post-combat).

Paul, offhand, I'd say no with the EPs being lost.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Lets see if their is a uniformity in Reponses to this question then?

"Retreat and 302.733.

When does the requirement to retreat towards a Partial Supply Grid apply?

Situation

Force A is in a battle and wishes to retreat.

It started the turn in full supply and no Partial Supply Grid (413.41) Supply has been paid for.

At the moment of combat, no retreat hexes are connected to the Main Supply grid, but some hexes are within range of a Partial Supply Grid.

Does the force have to retreat towards the Partial Supply Grid supply point, which could supply it at a later point, or can it count all hexes Out of Supply, as no partial supply grid cost (413.41) was previously paid?


I do not believe having paid for supply* from a Partial Grid effects the definition of whether for a force, a hex is in Full Supply, Partial Grid Supplied or no supply - i.e. if a force could be in partial grid supply, it is required to retreat towards that source - and William disagrees on the basis that at the moment of combat, the fact their is a Partial Grid supply point, has no bearing on the retreat options.

* - i.e. I believe the paying for supply converts a ship from being 'out of supply' to 'into supply' and it has no bearing on the ability of a hex to be counted as full supply or partial supply for the rest of the turn.

Thank you"

Cheers

Paul

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 03:31 pm: Edit

Supply for where you retreat is judged for each RETREAT HEX seperately; not the battle hex.

The conditions off the top of my head are these:

If the retreating force has a choice of a main grid or a partial grid, the partial grid can be ignored.

If there is no main grid, then the partial grid MUST be used for determining a retreat hex.

It does not matter if you have or have not paid to be in supply by a partial grid when determining retreat hexes.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 08:04 pm: Edit

I think it's perfectly clear it does matter. Excerpts from the rule:

SUB-PRIORITY-3A: If none of the potential retreat hexes
would be in supply, Priority 3 is ignored. It does not matter if one
potential retreat hex is closer to a supply point than a different
hex if both are out of supply.

SUB-PRIORITY-3D: 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.

The "in which his force would be in supply" in 3D is the answer.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Note that this rule you quoted does not specifically state what to do about limited supply grids.

There is a more specific rule about that.

SUB-PRIORITY-3C: The player may voluntarily eliminate all
(not some) potential retreat hexes which are supplied only from
Partial Supply Grids IF there is a potential retreat hex supplied
by the Main Supply Grid. He is not required to do so. If none of
the potential retreat hexes are supplied by the Main Supply Grid,
this Sub-Priority is ignored; the player cannot eliminate hexes
supplied by a Partial Supply Grid unless this leaves hexes sup-
plied by the Main Supply Grid.

Note that the rule says hexes supplied by a partial supply grid, not units. As you cannot pay to supply a hex, it has been my understanding that this means hexes where units could be in supply if supply is paid.

This is probably because the retreat rules essentially require you to retreat such that supply is easiest, which it would be if you move closer to a partial supply grid (as you could pay to be supplied by it on your next turn ).

Still, you could have a case; check the Q&A, if you don't see a resolution there I suggest that you ask a very specific question about SUB-PRIOITY-3C.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 09:44 pm: Edit

But there is still more evidence that the issue is supply for the ships:

SPECIAL-PRIORITY-3F: In the expansions, there are units
with various lengths of supply paths (e.g., X-ships have a seven-
hex path). Since the whole force must retreat together, a hex that
is out of supply for some units is out of supply for all units.

3F is nonsensical if the issue is supply to hexes.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, August 14, 2020 - 10:27 pm: Edit

On the contrary, the issue is the hex being in supply, it says 'hex that is out of supply', not 'ships that are out of supply in a hex'.

Anyway, it's not ME that you have to convince, it's your opponent, which might best be done with a specific Q&A question. I suggest that it be very narrow in scope with two specific examples that clearly delineate situations that are relevant to your concern.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 11:31 am: Edit

Not to mention, the length of the supply HEX will increase for the X and fast ships.

I think Richard has the right of it here, but I do see the argument. I just think it's a losing argument. What matters is whether the hex you are retreating to is in supply at the moment of combat before you retreat.

Here's the confusion I think is happening. When you retreat you check, AS IF YOU HAD CONDUCTED RETREAT MOVEMENT, to see whether the retreating force would be in supply, and how close to a supply point you would be retreating to. In other words, you check to see what would happen if you retreated to a particular hex. At each possible hex surrounding the combat hex you make this check. Eliminate hexes at each priority level until all priorities have been checked. Remaining hexes are eligible hexes.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 11:36 am: Edit

The argument of course is that you don't have to consider a partial grid at all if it doesn't supply your empire's _entire_ force because you didn't pay for that.

Perhaps it's been answered before, but I'm not gonna wade through all of Q&A for the people involved; they should do that themselves. :p

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 02:35 pm: Edit

It's not just the entire force. It's any of it. The partial grid has not to date had any EP.

What is being proposed amounts to saying that, if a conquering power takes two planets deep in enemy territory, both of which are immediately cut off and attacked, the force from the first one would have to retreat towards the second one, assuming the surrounding hexes are all also cut off.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 02:43 pm: Edit

Paul found it. I still think it's nuts, retreating towards phantom supply you don't actually have, and in many cases surely never will, but it is what it is. http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/27816.html?ThursdayAugust1820110606pm

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Sure. Even if cut off, you could then supply ships from that grid, using Orion smuggling if you had to.

Good times.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 02:49 pm: Edit

No, in a lot of cases (though not the present one), the other planet will fall later in the same combat phase.

Speaking of Orion smuggling, we don't know when it can be done. The rules for a capital falling outright say that one can do it when the capital is just about to fall. The rules for a partial grid falling strongly suggest that one can't do it when the partial grid is about to fall, even if it has a supply path to the main grid at the time.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 02:51 pm: Edit

(413.443) Unexpended EPs cannot be captured but are lost when
the last supply point in the Partial Supply Grid is destroyed or
captured.

(511.352) If the capital has a supply path to another base or planet
at the instant before it falls, the Treasury (430.1) can be evacu-
ated to that base or planet; treat this as a transfer to a partial grid
(435.24). If not, some of it can be evacuated by Orion smuggling
(410.34) and the rest is lost; it cannot be captured. Any deficit
(430.63) is evacuated automatically.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, August 15, 2020 - 05:48 pm: Edit

I think you can use Orion smuggling to spend EPs whenever you want to (within the spending cap).

As for transferring EPs off a non-capital hex, it's hard to say. My gut feeling is no, but there's that capital hex thing, so I would take it to Q&A if it was important in a game of mine.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, September 03, 2020 - 07:40 pm: Edit

So I found a Q that said it was "very clear" that one could only have one CVBG in a particular battle line. The "battle group" part of the name certainly suggests that this is the case. However, I can't find any such limitation in the actual rule (502.92). Are my eyes failing me?

Note that a player who has not purchased AO would have no reason to think that "battle group" means "at most one on the battle line."

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, September 03, 2020 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Ok, it's clear in AO rule 315.6. They just forgot to put it into the basic game rules I guess.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 03, 2020 - 08:46 pm: Edit

There is a difference between a Battle Group (315.0) and a CVBG (502.92). What limits the use of CVBGs to 1 is the limit of attrition units in the battle force.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, September 04, 2020 - 04:19 am: Edit

That alone would not be enough. For example, one could have two CVBG with 12 fighters each, matching the Fed Third Way limit of 4 squadrons.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 04, 2020 - 05:05 am: Edit

Here is the answer by Chuck. It is limited to one. Just do a search for 502.92 on the page to find it exactly.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 04, 2020 - 05:05 am: Edit

Deleted by author, duplicate post.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 04, 2020 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Sorry William, wrong link in the first reply above.

Here is correcet link and answer by Chuck.