Well, if I couldn't get a ruling, I'd argue it means strategic movement as the more specific rule, except where it contradicts the strategic movement rules explicitly.

All else is madness.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 03:57 am: Edit

Well, at least this discussion shows why we asked the question

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 10:11 am: Edit

Richard wrote:
>>Well, if I couldn't get a ruling, I'd argue it means strategic movement as the more specific rule, except where it contradicts the strategic movement rules explicitly.>>

I mean, yes. I fully understand that viewpoint. But in this instance, the rule is *soooo* sketchily written, and so clearly just wants to be "you can replace PFs on PFTs as long as they are in supply", for completely practical reasons, that saddling it with extra restrictions seems contrary to the rule's very existence.

Like, again, as noted, the rule (502.43) doesn't reference Strategic Movement except in that is says "special free Strategic Movement" with no further explanation or rules referencing or anything of the sort. What does "special free" even mean?

>>All else is madness.>>

Sure. But is it more madness than having to keep track of individual missing PFs all over the map, 'cause there is a single enemy frigate somewhere?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 11:39 am: Edit

No. We already have to do this for out of supply units, it can be dealt with when necessary.

I'm not going to go study the rule at this time, not having PFs in my games yet; that being said, if you think a rule is broken, make a case for fixing it. You can't just say 'the rules say x, but we should do y' and ignore the strict letter of the rule because of this sort of thing and expect me to agree with it unless the powers that be clarify that it works that way.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 12:05 pm: Edit

I'm not expecting you to agree with me. Why do you think I would need to expect you to agree with me? You aren't a rules authority, and it doesn't matter if you agree with me. You are just a guy I'm discussing this with on the internet, 'cause you are discussing this on the internet. Do what you want. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm just pointing out ambiguity in the rules.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Richard raises a good point - how many games have got to PF's?

There is 1 completed game....and my game with William - so that's 2 games out of probably 50 listed over the last 5 years (might have missed some, but I don't remember games ending beyond turn 21 (the first turn when PFT's can be used)?

How many else got beyond turn 21 and how did the players treat replacements?

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Jason and I finished that game (going to T34) last year. I honestly don't remember that the ins and outs of strategic movement or not ever remotely mattered to the replenishment of PFs.

The Coalition (who I was) generally retrograded PFTs back to retrograde points after combat, and generally had valid strategic movement paths to those retrograde points. It was exceedingly rare that PFTs were left, after combat, in open space, although I suppose it was possible that in a non-phasing turn situation, a reserve fleet or reaction fleet had moved somewhere to open space and needed PF replacement, but IIRC, PF flotillas tended not to blow up that much anyway--ships got directed a lot, there were usually a squadron or two of fighters in a battle force to absorb stray casualties, so unless the Coalition were in a protracted fight over a hard point or something, PFs tended to survive a lot of the time anyway; the Alliance weren't directing PF flotillas, generally speaking, and the Coalition weren't, unless absolutely necessary, absorbing damage on PF flotillas.

It was very rare that the Coalition would field 3 PF flotillas in a force. Usually there was a single PF flotilla in a given force when available (sent forward, or a 5PF casual one; once and a while, a PFT group was on the line; when SCS were common, they showed up all the time, but usually as the only PFT on the line). Once and a while, the Coalition would go with Maximum Firepower, and have 3 flotillas, and then PFs would explode, but those generally resulted in ships retrograding back to repair points anyway, and the PFTs would usually go back with them (along with everything else).

The Alliance had a lot fewer PFTs in circulation, and certainly for the Hydrans and Kzinti, the PFTs ended up in capital hexes (or right near the Hydran Old Colonies), so replenishment wasn't ever a problem. The Gorn had PFTs, but much like the Hydrans and Kzinti, they generally ended a turn near their Capital hexes.

The Feds were using F-111 replenishment like PF flotillas (i.e. they stockpiled F-111 squadrons, and used them to replenish F-111 carriers like PFTs, as that is an option, and probably the better one of the two presented), and again, in that game, were usually on the defensive until very late in the war, and even then, the rules on Strategic Movement or not were only very rarely remotely relevant to F-111 replenishment.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, September 12, 2020 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I believe after perusing this discussion the PF replacement thing may have made more sense when the game had CEDS and out of sequence replacements. Now that the sparkle of that magic is lost this also becomes a little obvious as an odd performance. Of course the suggestions will be logged and when the next rule refresh is made this can be cleaned up.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 03:59 am: Edit

Peter

Thanks.

Lawrence.

A good point!

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 07:15 am: Edit

The PF replacements having special strategic movement, where the end node is a PFT or SCS is still valid even after the elimination of CEDS. The reason for this is that they are quick and cheap to produce just like fighters. The higher crew count is what makes them more expensive than fighters.

When you take a given planet, you usually want to try and hold it, all the more so when it is your own planet. So taking the planet and leaving ships, including PFTs in the hex makes a lot of sense because you probably burned through some, if not all of your PFs to take the planet in the first place.

Just like replacement fighters are shipped on freighters, PFs are shipped in much the same way on those slow freighters. In both cases they may or may not have been shipped on SAVs SAPs respectively that are not shown on the map.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:07 am: Edit

Lawrence,

Yeah, that is probably true, although when the PF replacement rules were originally written, PFTs couldn't have escorts, so may or may not have been CEDS involved, but (checking the texts...)--aha!

In F+E 1st Ed, 1986, the original PF replacement rules say in (502.43) that any PFT that is in supply can, at the end of combat, just get brought up to full Flotilla strength by paying to replace the PFs (like normal), with no mention of "strategic movement" or "special free strategic movement" whatsoever. The original PF replacement rule was simply "if the PFT is in supply, it can get replacement PFs".

Checking the old rulebooks (which I am fond of doing, for exactly these reasons...), there is no mention of "special free strategic movement" for PF replacement in DF+E '89 or F+E '93; the mention of "special free strategic movement" shows up for the first time in F+E 2K (with no further explanation or reference to the strategic movement rules) kind of stuck at the very end of the (502.43) section.

So up until 2K, PF replacement was, in fact, just "if a PFT is in supply, it can get replacement PFs at the appropriate time"; strategic movement had nothing to do with it at all.

In 2K, the phrase "special free strategic movement" was stuck on for reasons that remain unclear, but I'm willing to suspect that it was meant as a vague "clarification" on how PFs were replaced (they got delivered by abstract FCRs or something, as opposed to being generated by the PFTs), not to add to a greater restriction on the distribution of PFs (i.e. that you had to follow the strategic movement restrictions, which at the time it was printed meant that if there was a single enemy FF next to the planet that your fleet of 100 ships and 10 PFTs were sitting on, you couldn't get replacement PFs...)

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:57 am: Edit

Seems we (other than Richard) are getting close to a consensus here that the "strategic movement" part isn't actually intended to require a strategic movement path in anything like the usual sense. Is there a folder or other process we should use to hopefully persuade the powers that be to update their draft of the rulebook?

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 09:09 am: Edit

William, valid strategic movement path is still required. The ending node for PFs is a PFT or SCS instead of a base or planet as is the usual case.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 10:10 am: Edit

Thomas wrote:
>>William, valid strategic movement path is still required.>>

The point here is that in the original (3) rulebooks, there was no need for a valid strategic movement path, just that the PFT was in supply. And that "special free strategic movement" is an undefined concept that was apparently stuck into the PF resupply rule in the 2K rulebook with no further explanation, and may or may not be an intentional rules change. Leading to confusion and a rule that could probably use official clarification.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 10:12 am: Edit

Thomas, I'm having trouble squaring that with your statement

Just like replacement fighters are shipped on freighters, PFs are shipped in much the same way on those slow freighters. In both cases they may or may not have been shipped on SAVs SAPs respectively that are not shown on the map.

If they are shipped the same way, why does one require a strategic movement path while the other requires only a supply path?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 11:36 am: Edit

All this discussion is cool and all, but it seems the old rules were different. Perhaps there is no intention to use strategic movement limits, but the fact remains that the current rules say they use special strategic movement (apparently).

It seems clear by the current rules that strategic movement rules are used; arguing to ignore the strategic movement rules contradicts what is written.

I think a ruling would be helpful here.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:25 pm: Edit

Perhaps the question should be "What's the difference between a 'valid supply path' and 'Strategic Movement path'??"

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Peter, I appreciate the research and it seems to track.

PFs are odd...ships but not quite ships. They can fly around in a casual group yet they are attached and carried by ships. They are rolled out in mass and also a pool item to be tapped into. Like fighters more can be bought.

The added clarification or whatever it really is just an answer to the question of the earlier rules, "How do the PF's get to the PFTs when they are not on a Supply/Strat node?"

I do agree with Turtle and Richard on both counts that the clarification (answer to the question) within the current rules set up both an in-supply status and "special" strategic movement requirement.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, September 13, 2020 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Stewart Frazier -- A supply path is dramatically less restricted.

By (411.31), a hex that is adjacent to both friendly and enemy ships can be part of a supply path.

By contrast, adjacent enemy ships block strategic movement, except for strategic movement nodes which contain more friendly ships than there are adjacent enemy ships. See (204.22).

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, September 14, 2020 - 04:42 pm: Edit

>>I do agree with Turtle and Richard on both counts that the clarification (answer to the question) within the current rules set up both an in-supply status and "special" strategic movement requirement.>>

That certainly seems to be how it is being interpreted.

However, given that:

A) The rule originally only called for the PFT to be in supply (as opposed to be at the end of a valid strategic movement path, which, as William points out, is dramatically more restricted).

B) Fighters get resupplied by being in supply, and there is no reason in the universe that if fighters can be resupplied via supply that PFs should need a valid strategic movement path.

C) There doesn't seem to be a particular compelling reason (game balance or mechanics wise) for PF resupply to be treated differently than fighter resupply.

D) There is no actual explanation and/or connection in the (502.43) rules to Strategic Movement, other than a vague, undefined reference.

and

E) Given that PFs only show up not that often in actual game play, probably not that many people have even noticed this before.

I'd request that someone official make some sort of ruling on this (and would certainly suggest that said ruling be "PFTs need to be in supply to get replacement PFs; a strategic movement path isn't relevant", but that's me).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, September 15, 2020 - 01:58 am: Edit

A formal Q&A asking for clarity on what 'Special Free Strategic Movement' actually means has been posted.

Just waiting for FEAR to formally respond (on both questions asked - Partial Grid v Main Grid and PFT Resupply)

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 06:45 am: Edit

I think it's clear that a partial supply grid can supply homeless ships, provided that a homeless line is available and the usual (413.41) cost is paid. The homeless ships rule (410.5) refers to "a supply grid" in (410.51). If they had meant "a main supply grid", they would have said so.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 07:56 am: Edit

"they would have said so"

I would not count on that. The rules were written over a period of decades. The homeless ship rule is very old, but the partial grid rule is not nearly as old. It is possible that the actual specific homeless text was written before the partial grid concept and was never updated. It is also possible that it was. I'd have to go read the entire text of both rules; not enough has been posted here. (I would be guided by whether the EP cost is paid from the grid.) However, this is the sort of thing that FEAR takes care of then sends me for review. I overturn him once or twice a year but I bet this one can be defined more easily than that.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 09:13 am: Edit

SVC

Happy to go through my box of old rules if it would help arrive at a formal answer to the question.

Anything in particular which would be helpful?

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, September 19, 2020 - 09:44 am: Edit

Hi Steve,

an aside about partial grids in general. The rules try to talk about them as something that changes over time. But in practice that's almost impossible. A partial grid is likely to grow, shrink, be connected to another grid, become disconnected, split, and so forth multiple times during a player turn. By contrast, it is easy to talk about a partial grid at a particular moment. For this reason, a partial grid treasury is awfully nebulous, while a satellite stockpile is perfectly clear. Anyway, back to the rules at issue:

There are two costs involved -- the per-ship-per-turn cost of 413.41:

(413.41) ABILITY: Each Economic Point produced in a Partial Supply Grid can be used to supply up to five units, including up to twelve replacement fighters.

This is obviously paid by the partial grid. The surrounding text makes it clear that it has to be paid every turn. There is also the homeless line setup cost:

(410.51) HOST SUPPORT: In the case of any ship which must draw supplies from a Supply Grid not connected to its own home territory, the host (allied) empire must pay one-half Economic Point per homeless ship (plus one point per carrier) as a one- time expense to set up production lines to provide supplies and spare parts (including fighters) for that ship.

This latter cost was paid by the Empire many turns ago.

As I unfortunately don't have any Vulcan Mind Meld or similar ability, I've been going by the text. In particular, the homeless ships rule says the Empire has to pay, one time, and the partial grid rule says the grid has to pay, once per turn. In the case of an allied ship in a partial grid, it sure looks like both of the above have to happen.

Not saying it couldn't be changed, but I'm unaware of any rule tying homeless support lines to supply grids. For example, if a race has paid for homeless ships and its capital falls, I'm not aware of anything that says that the new capital, which could be in a different grid, would have to pay again.

I haven't seen FEAR here in ages. FEDS has been playing the role lately.