Archive through March 24, 2022
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E QUESTIONS:
F&E Q&A Discussions:
Archive through March 24, 2022
>> The SB can send Fighters (and PF's) to other planets in the SAME system (and the approach battle too) - but can't sent fighters (and PF's) to other systems.
And strangely enough, I believe the SB could react out fighters into an adjacent hex to participate in a battle (other rules permitting). So the prohibition is only for sending fighters into other systems in the same hex?
--Mike
Presumably once the enemy is in Hex, the base commanders are unwilling to fly their fighters all that far from home lest they be destroyed in transit or unavailable when he needs them.
It's simpler than that, I think; once the fight in the capital hex is begun, reaction movement is no longer possible and while fighters CAN transfer between systems between rounds, they cannot do so within a combat round or fly to a different hex and act as IFFs within a combat round.
Not only that, PDU fighters can't react normally anyway. So if that's the thought process behind the rule, it's consistent. It would explain why bases can provide the fighters and not PDUs, anyway
PDU Fighters and PFs may be used in an approach battle. If used as such they are treated as an IFF for the purpose of the approach battle only.
Quote:(302.222) If the Attacking Player makes the challenge and the Defending Player accepts, proceed to Step 3, but the base (including its scout sensors) is not used in resolving the battle. The base’s fighters and PFs may be used as independent units; see (501.4) and (502.41). Fighters and PFs from the base or PDUs used in the approach battle count against the command limits of the Battle Force.
Posted in Q&A for a formal ruling : -
Question both about owed points and the annihilated rule.
"By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 22, 2013 - 01:07 pm: Edit
I'll restate this:
The intent of plus points is to carry over damage points that COULD have been given up (but was not) to resolve damage but did not meet the REQUIREMENT where the remaining number of unresolved damage points is less than half of the smallest defense factor of the remaining units in the Current Battle Force.
The damage absorbing player must have a remaining unit in the current battle force in order to carry-over any plus points into a following round battle (or pursuit).
Absurd example for illustrative purposes:
Three crippled ships (B10-, B10-, and E4) remain to enter the first round of battle verses a Hydran fleet of PGF and 11xHN.
The Klingon selects the E4 to face the Hydrans and exclude the 2xB10s as unchosen flagships; the crippled B10s have no part of this battle round.
The Hydrans manage to score 15 points of damage; the crippled E4 does no damage.
The E4 is destroys leaving 13 points unresolved.
The Hydran player cannot claim there are 13 plus points available to take into a following standard battle round OR even three points into a pursuit battle round BECAUSE there are NO remaining units from the current round that could have taken the excess damage but did not meet the minimum damage requirements.
FEDS SENDS"
So the question is : -
1) Does 'over damage' (classic definition of the battle force line was annihilated) carry over
2) Does excess damage taken carry over
3) Rule 302.55 AND 302.63 (specifically 302.632).
From Chucks post he is saying point 1 doesn't apply - which is fair enough and 95% logical*.
It doesn't cover off point 2 though - and from 308.252, it only covers devastated and non-defended planets - so as an example.
Attacker v 2 PDU's+ Defenders in a hex
Round 1 - 100 v 40 = both sides do 25% damage
So 25 v 10 and both sides let fall.
Defender self kills 2 x PDU's and the 12F and takes 7 of the 10 damage on the planet - no owed.
Attacker crippled a D5 and F5 and is owed 2.
Round 2 - Defender doesn't defend the planet and it's 100 v 0 (noting planet is NOT devasteted).
Attacker does 50% and 50 damage and defender does no damage.
The planet is devastated and the balance of 47 damage is cancelled - as there is no defenders to take it on (as per Chucks ruling).
The attacker took no damage and so the 2 damage from round 1 is still available to be carried over to the pursuit battle.
So owed points to the attacker, can carry over it would seem?
Point 3 (and hands up, I have NEVER noticed this).
Who has in either their printed 2010 rules or the F&E 2010 PDF rules -which has a rule (302.55) Annihilation and (302.63) Annihilation?
302.63 has 3 points to it - and 302.632 does state owed points after a battle line has been destroyed DOES carry over if thee are other forces in the hex (so in Chucks example, the 13 points would carry over to round 2 or 3 points to the pursuit).
Best guess - 302.63 should be deleted?
There is also a forth 'weird' possibility for Capital Assaults - what happens if the defences of a planet which through 511.573 originally received the crippled ships have all been destroyed - but other planets still have defences and the attacker attack the planet with cripples?
The cripples can be targeted via 511.573 - but other than the planet (which could be devastated as 511.551 can be applied), the defender might have no line to defend with?
So - the attacker gets one attack on the planet - kills a ship via directed damage and the cripples ships must then retreat - to avoid the Attacker repeating the legal attack?
Not sure that is the intention, but as far as I can tell, it is legal? i.e. other than retreating, it's not possible to guard crippled ships after the 'crippled ship planet' is reduced to no defences?
(Yes, the Defender might be able to send ships to the planet, but if there is a planet with defences and they don't want to waste ships defending the other planet, as it could make it easier to capture the hex etc).
* - 95% point and it may just be 'it will not occur often and so can be ignored'.
What is to stop an attacker creating a terrible line to achieve an objective - and then putting in a proper line?
example
Attack against a Capital Planet, which has 300 Compot in Fixed Defences (and 120 compot in the ships linbe say).
Attacker builds a force of
CC, 8 x Frigates and 1 x 10 pt Mauler.
Attacks, gets 20 damage and kills 3 PDU's - 18 Fighters find a new base (there are various ways to achieve this).
Defender does 120 damage - Attacker self kills everything for say 76 damage - and the balance of 44 damage is cancelled.
Attacker then repeats to kill another 3 PDU's twice - and then with the Fixed Compot down to say 221, a main full line is then sent in.
In other words, is the intention to allow an attacker to take down defences, potentially by deliberately putting up weak lines and being allowed to ignore excess damage?
(Yes, the Attacker is going to lose a lot of hulls - but if the attacker can self kill 20 Frigates over 20 CA's or better hulls**, the gain (an extra PDU is killed a round say), it would seem to be a very cheap way to deal with high compot hexes?)
** - It's possible a good attacking force might be able to handle 100+ damage being taken by self crippling everything, but if you get over 120 damage, it may mean CA or better hulls may die anyway - and it may give the attacker a 'free' choice - Self cripple a line of DN's or self kill a line of mainly Frigates??
So, is that the intention?
What do people think??
>> So owed points to the attacker, can carry over it would seem?
I read the spirit of Chuck's 2013 post is that in F&E one only has the uncrippled, crippled, and destroyed statuses for a ship. If there are not enough damage points to cleanly move from one state to another, then those points are recorded to see if they will match up with other points later to complete a state change for a ship.
Once you get to the point where there are no applicable ships to carry over this partial state change, then they are simply dropped. There is nothing to be 'partially crippled' or 'partially destroyed' to carry those points forward.
>> Who has in either their printed 2010 rules or the F&E 2010 PDF rules -which has a rule (302.55) Annihilation and (302.63) Annihilation?
My 2010 F&E PDF copy (with the *) was purchased on 2/15/2021 and it contains both 302.55 and 302.63 Annihilation. I believe Chuck's 2013 message appears to conflict with 302.632 as printed.
\i(>> In other words, is the intention to allow an attacker to take down defences, potentially by deliberately putting up weak lines and being allowed to ignore excess damage?}
Based upon Chuck's quoted 2013 post, that appears to be the intent. Please bear in mind, we must be careful of taking a single 2013 post potentially out of context, particularly if there have been subsequent discussions that we aren't seeing right now.
Personally, I rather like the idea of giving a Coalition player the option of taking suicide runs at max defended Capital planets with weak lines to strip off PDUs. It's very Klingon, and plays to the Klingon strength of lots of somewhat lower quality ships. Logically (a loaded word!), if a suicide PDU killing battle force goes in for an attack and then is utterly obliterated, it isn't clear to me how the extra weapons fire over and above needed to wipe out the line would somehow magically strike an entirely new set of Klingon ships in the next round, fighting perhaps days or weeks later in the 6 month turn.
Returning to Chuck's 2013 post again, since in this "total wipe" scenario there are no common Klingon ships at all between our hypothetically wiped suicide battle force and the subsequent round's battle force, there are no "partially crippled" or "partially destroyed" ships to carry that damage forward. And that's why that damage dissapears, as I read it.
--Mike
It would be shocking to me if you couldn't do that. Yes, self-killing CAs really hurts - but the whole idea of sending a big line is not the extra damage you do but being able to avoid self-killing a bunch. If the Coalition want to lose 3CC, 3 maulers, and 24 FFs to kill 9 PDU, that seems fine.
Typically, a battle line against 16 or so PDU takes 20-35 EP of damage, losing a mauler or DN in exchange for 4PDU (28 EP). That is, the Alliance doesn't cause a disproportionate amount of economic damage without really good rolls.
If the Coalition wants to instead pay 9 (CC) + 10 (mauler) + 24 (8FF) = 43EP to kill 3PDU, that seems fine. They're trading money (and pincount) for tempo, because they have more uncrippled cruisers with which to take the capital in fewer turns.
Personally, I'd never do this except maybe in the first round over Hydrax - and then only if I'd let the Hydrans get up to 20 PDU.
But even then, that line is only 59/0 (assuming 8F5), which needs 35% to do 20 damage. With a -2 shift it'd be tricky because the defender isn't going to go high BIR if all they need to hit is 92 total damage (that's 22.5% of the theoretical line's 420 compot).
I'd say this is a non-issue.
"it isn't clear to me how the extra weapons fire over and above needed to wipe out the line would somehow magically strike an entirely new set of Klingon ships in the next round, fighting perhaps days or weeks later in the 6 month turn."
I might be totally wrong - but I am sure 'we' (as in the F&E Community!) had a conversation about this a while ago - and one suggestion was if one side got all destroyed - they would do less damage to simulate the ships dying quicker???
Example - So if a line can take 80 damage before all dying - and it takes say 120 damage, it only does 2/3rds of the damage it would have done??
Idea got killed IIRC.....
Maybe I am missing something about your question but it seems to me
Per the rules for (non-capital) battle hexes plus points carry over in the battle hex from round to round even if everything died with the current battle force. If at that point someone tries to leave they would also carry into pursuit (if there are no ships to generate a pursuit or slow pursuit then maybe you get away clean) and maybe that is your point (or tactic or some sort of abuse).
Per the rule for capitals (multi target) it works similarly with the caveats that the points (plus or minus) get split on the way in (approach). Points remain at the planet they occur.
Points transfer to the pursuit/slow pursuit.
The reason for the two rules is a Step definition of when to carry forward. If there was only one ship and its killed in directed damage step then that ends the Battle hex (as the fleet has been annihilated) so no need to go to the next step where the excessive damage is spread to other ships.
There is a nuance in the rules that defines plus/minus points in a hex are lost once a battle hex is resolved...if during retreats or some other strangeness a new battle hex is created in that same location on the same turn/phase. Those points are not there at this later point.
@Paul Howard: I apologize, because apparently I don't have the mental wherewithal to dig through your question and example to figure out the real beef here.
In your example, I can perceive no abuse. AFAIK the rules are clear that - if you send in your CC, 9FF, and a mauler that gets wiped out with +40 damage remaining - the next line at the capital will have to deal with that +40 damage. It doesn't go away.
The only way the + points go away is if the enemy retreats (as only a limited number are allowed to come away during pursuit).
So:
1) What, succinctly, is the argument that the rules don't work that way?
2) Why does this matter? Who in the right mind would deliberately outright destroy 10 or 11 ships during a capital assault? What a waste of pincount! (I mean, even at the Hydran capital against a monster line with a high roll I have not yet had to kill an entire line, so long as I have a line of heavy ships).
Inquiring minds want to know!
Chucks example seems to violate the rule for annihilation 3026.32. I followed the original discussion and it made sense to prevent using planets to generate false plus points.
In that example I would argue that despite being held out of the combat being excused as a flagship they 'could have' been included in the force They just weren't due to the flag exception. Once they go to pursuit (an extension of the current battle hex as well as the next round) these cripples are required to be included in battle (no more exceptions). The plus points all 13 of them should carry to that round (note there is no limit to plus points, nor should there be).
Either way the Hydrans would pursue and likely kill at least one crippled B10- needing only generate 5 points. They are guaranteed both dead if the plus points carry.
No matter what happens the Klingon player made a grave error and the Klingon high command would execute not only the commander of any surviving ship but quite possibly the whole command structure for fear the incompetency runs deeper than that one leader. Hydrans on the other hand would write songs and legendary battle stories lasting years.
>> Chucks example seems to violate the rule for annihilation 302.632.
That's precisely the question at hand. Is Chuck's post from 2013 still valid today and does it supersede 302.632 as printed in the 2010 Basic Set rulebook (* version, page 36)?
--Mike
Ted
Sorry - should have tried to keep the question shorter.
1) Lawrence and Mike have highlighted the issue - 302.632 refers to doing it one way and Chucks answer cancels that rule.
2) Because someone might use a silly tactic to gain an advantage (it does seem a little silly a force which is 100% destroyed does the same damage in a battle which takes either no damage or a low damage amount 
).
I have seen modest parts of a DN heavy lines get self killed over Hydrax - certainly 150 damage was done - and there just wasn't enough heavy hulls to self cripple the entire line.
If more games gets to the PF points, more evidence might come up as the Damage Potential will go up and so a 'Swarm' tactic with light ships might become more common.
My 'beef' as you put it, is I am trying to understand the rules better and I if I think another game has got it wrong on a rule, I will ask them!
@Paul, thanks! It makes more sense now.
I have the 2010 version of the rules. The rule states:
Quote:(302.632) If all units in the Battle Force belonging to one
player are destroyed but that player still has other units in
the Battle Hex, any plus/minus points carry over to a subsequent
battle in (or pursuit battle from) the same Battle
Hex.
Of course, there are provisos - limitations in the case of a pursuit battle, and capital systems limit +/- to the planets themselves.
However, overall, the rule seems to be plain - black letter with little room for interpretation - and it works like the way I described. If someone wants to send a pittance force to a capital planet to get wiped out, then the +40 damage (in your example) is going to make life pretty misreable if the enemy comes back to the capital planet on a subsequent round.
Now, that being said, it's a longstanding tactic to generate lots of involuntary minus points for the defender at the planets of a capital system and then leave without chewing through most of them (i.e., "free" damage, but for the 12 the defender can take on pursuit). However, that's so notoriously well known for so long, it's really part of the game.
Thus, I suppose there's no reason why the attacker couldn't generate +40 damage points by allowing a pittance line to get completely wiped out in exchange for a few PDUs killed at the capital planet - and then retreat without having to suffer most of the +40 (combined, likely, with involuntary minus points for the defender). However, there is an *enormous* cost to such a choice - the loss of 10+ SEQ, which IMHO is simply not worth the benefit in view of the overall course of the game. In my opinion, if my opponent wants to do such a thing, I say - rejoice! For the opponent is being penny-wise, but pound-foolish.
On the other hand, if Chuck's ruling was incorrect or perhaps being misunderstood, then clarification is always good.
/me shrugs.
Maybe 302.632 just isn't supposed to apply to a capital engagement. I know it doesn't say that, but it makes sense for normal battle hexes and the weird corner cases come up when it is combined with the Rule 511 procedure.
Hi Ted
I would agree - 302.632 is very clear.
However, Chuck's ruling is equally clear and so unless SVC says otherwise, the current FEDS ruling applies?
Personally, I would prefer a damage reduction rule applying if one side was annihilated - as I don't think 'damage disappearing' (as per Chucks ruling and therefore current rule) or 'damage added to the next round' seem logical
With a late war capital assault- I feel the sacrificial line might hold value (or a well defended Hydrax or Gorn Capital might cross the 'threshold' to potentially do say 140+ damage) if the excess damage is cancelled?
I suppose, but even late war I don't see much value to the sacrificial line. You still lost 10 precious SEQ for little benefit, as the opponent is likely to replace those PDUs after you run away. EP-wise, it's also a victory for the defender.
Maybe it's an issue, but I'm not seeing it being advantageous, much less an abuse.
Maybe I also need to re-read Chuck's ruling, but I thought it was the case that the B10s retreat after the plus points are generated - and that's why they go away (which is the way the current rule works). Did I miss something?
But clarity is always nice.
To be advantageous, maybe you do it multiple times? As long as you have no cripples, there's no pursuit, so spend 30 SEQ to kill 9ish PDU and then leave with +120?
Still seems like a bad deal.
>> Did I miss something?
I suggest you read the ruling. It is 100% opposite of what you are saying, and also what the 2010 rulebook says. Thats the point of confusion that I believe Chuck would be best positioned to resolve.
--Mike
Ted
The key part of the Chuck example was both B10's was crippled - so there potentially would be a retreat round against two crippled B10's.
My concern with the ruling is the Coalition potentially would be able to take Capital hexes alot easier...
i.e. Round 1 - Use Rubbish (stripping fighters from other PDU's so they don't go homeless)
Round 2 - Use Rubbish
Round 3 - Use Rubbish
(7 PDU's killed say)
Round 4 - Bring out the Big guns and yes you have lost 30 equivalents.... but can use your big ships for much longer.
i.e. 140 Damage would be Kill 3 x DN for 54 and cripple 2 x DN for 24, 3 x BC's for 30 and 4 x D6D/D6S for 32 ....???
If they did that on round 1... outside of a couple of CR 10 Flags, for the rest of the battle, they will down to normal hulls to use?
So probably more pain earlier (as a horrible roll could see several big ships die) - but less pain later
Well, OK, then let Chuck clarify his ruling.
I still take issue with Paul's example as being *wise*. All those ships hand-waived away as "rubbish" actually do have utility. Sure, they can't generate much in the way of compot, but they are SEQ - and in F&E SEQ is also very important because you use it to dominate the board or limit opponent's options.
Compot/SEQ/specialty ships/economy form a 4-way Venn diagram, where you want to be in the sweet spot (always VERY hard to do, and probably not possible deterministically). However, it seems to me that tanking your SEQ by taking 3 rounds of crushing annihilation seems like a good way of winning the battle, but losing the war.
Anyhoo, the wisdom of the tactic isn't really important - clarification of the rule is. So... carry on with your bad self!
SO what prevents this rack-um-up strategy from over three plus rounds of battle at a capital system planet from carrying over 120 plus points into a pursuit round?
Your 2013 ruling! :-O
--Mike
Probably the fact that after 3 rounds of Annihilation there will not actually be a pursuit. Only Salvage. (Note: A Smart Alliance player on the Approach will DirDam cripple the largest thing they can to try and force a pursuit.)
As Ted mentioned SEQs are the thing the Coalition has as its advantage early and standing there dying makes for a shorter war. But Can it work?
Assume T4 Kzintai and everyone rolls a 3 for everything.
Coalition 'Rubbish' Force on Round 1 BIR 4 + 4
CC, CW, CLx3, DWx3, F5x3 (No Scout, why bother)
64 Cp w/ 0 EW
Vs 350 Capital start and between 9-11 EW.
Attacker delivers 20 dmg (-2 PDU, is -12 ftrs which likely land after an approach where Kz took -18 ftrs, Zero minus points)
Defender delivers 123 dmg (Entire line vapors for 104 so +19 on rnd2)
Rinse and Repeat with a diminishing Capital.
ROUND 2:
Attacker delivers 20 dmg (-2 PDU, is -12 ftrs 6 of which likely land after that approach where Kz took -18 ftrs, SIX minus points)
Defender delivers 116 dmg + 19 for 135 (Entire line vapors for 104 so +31 on rnd3)
ROUND 3:
Attacker delivers 20 - 6 dmg for 14 (-1 PDU and 4
of the 6 ftrs, 2 ftrs still cannot land so -2 pts next round)
Defender delivers 110 dmg + 31 for 141 (Entire line vapors for 104 so +37 on rnd4)
After 3 rounds of this Rubbish attack
The Coalition has lost 33 SEQs
3xCC, 3xCW, CLx9, DWx9, F5x9.
The Alliance has lost 5 PDUS
If you bring in the big guns Coalition can step up the compot a bit bring in the SAFs or whatever but that loss of 33 SEQs to start hurts and they are instantly facing a +37 on round 4...even if this excess damage cannot be used to direct they are going to have a bad day on Round 4 (close to another annihilation of the good ships)
Running away with no pursuit yields no additional damage and the Alliance for their next turn will replace 4 of the 5 PDUs.
This doesn't seem to hold water for long.
Notes:
+ Die rolls can affect the outcome...YMMV here.
+ Maybe they add in some SAFs which will force the defender to disrupt them.
+ A mauler to sacrifice will allow a few more PDUs to die but then these Key ships become single use.
+ adding things like the SAF and Mauler eat Alliance damage and potentially land the Coalition in a pursuit round. (I mean they are already okay with death so maybe this matters not)
I don't believe this is a hack or abuse but just a poor strategy with a lot of risks and it seems to lead to defeat.
Can you do this over the Kzinti and Hydran Capital?? I think not.