Lawrence

Two things - the Coalition can create empty fighter bays by directing on fighters over minor planets - so the Alliance never has minus points.

As per Chucks ruling - the Coalition never has positive points of the following rounds.

Including a Mauler each round might ramp up the dead PDU's to 7-9.

All depends on if the attacker wants to avoid self killing or crippling DN/BC#s....

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 11:37 am: Edit

Chuck - to add to Mike's comment, the valid point is this

""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"

- which contradicts rule 302.632 (which pre-dates your ruling).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Paul,

Actually, Lar's point is still valid, even if there is an error that the + points don't carry over on the 4th round of combat in his example.

*At best*, giving your argument maximum possible weight, the Coalition is still *killing* 25 ships or so.

Not. Worth. It. Not in the long term. SEQ loss means giving up theater-wide maneuver advantages.

Besides, I'm betting this whole thing will get cleared up - I doubt Chuck is going to overturn black letter rules and will either "interpret" or reverse the earlier ruling.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Ted

I think your right, it will be corrected.

.... but I can see at times, if you have to self kill 10 'poor' ships - or kill 5 good ships and cripple 7 good ships (which are needed to help win the battle), it would be used.

But from the numbers on expected damaged, 95% of the time, I don't think the Defenders line would be above the threshold which would threaten multiple DN/BC hull dying.

But 5% of the time on Capital assaults - you never know!

* - Poor - would include a CR9 Hull and possibly a mauler!

(The attacker could also reduce the ships self kill by using 3 x 6 IFF's squadrons - but they might then lose a good carrier group - or the line AND have an Escort Directed killed too, so a D7C, D6M, 6 x F5, 3 x 6IFF line might be a fair option at times)

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I don't think the issue is whether or not the fanatical Klingons want to suicide themselves on turn 4 just to take down some PDU's and avoid the excess damage (and then have to deal with the ship-count loss for the rest of the game).

The issue is if the fanatical Federation wants to suicide themselves on turn 34 to take some PDU's on Klinshai and avoid the far greater excess damage, possibly leading to the capture of the Klingon capital, and not have to worry about ship count as the game is then ending.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 03:40 pm: Edit

My example was specific to show the plus points carrying over from round to round in battle hexes that have additional units in the hex that can fight (per the rule). Not the 2013 ruling. Chuck asked what was to prevent the plus points (I was showing him it's a non-issue). Especially since they clarified the "spirit of the rules" discussed before that saying players cannot abuse a planet to generate plus points.

But taking into account your first point about clearing fighter bays. I suppose the coalition could arrange this by by bringing in enough carriers to cover their own losses. Otherwise they will suffer cripples too. (They can self kill if they like). If my opponent wants to kill my fighters at 2-1 in exchange for crippled or dead ships further reducing their SEQs, great!

As for the late war abuses we rarely get there (but that doesn't make it a thing to ignore).
Ship counts do come into play in victory conditions as does capitals held. Its a known issue that end game strategies are a little more suicidal because it doesn't always matter. It more speaks to the character of the opponent after 30+ turns of time invested.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 24, 2022 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Chuck Asked "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?"

Not to be obtuse (obvious answers assumed, such as missing the pursuit roll or letting the attacker go, and examples provided already) but 'why would that be an issue?'
1. The rule (as it was written in 2010) for large fleet engagements, in open space, at hard points, and and Capital Systems already account for this dynamic. F&E is already an abstraction of time over 6 months and breaking down the large engagement into a series of rounds is a game mechanic of resolving battles of enormity. (One idea here would be to allow a self-spend of those excess points on ships in the background...no directing)
2. Damage scored is damage scored. Defeat is hard to swallow, and Capitals are a tough nut to crack sometimes. Considering the 2010 rule already took into consideration other ships in the hex that are ready and able to do battle it becomes a player choice to stay or go. If its too much damage to take then go. If you have to take your lumps on the way out (pursuit) so be it.
3. The rules vs strategy. If a player finds themselves in a situation where they have a small number of crippled units to defend and have to face a larger force. Maybe they should have planned better. The 2013 ruling seems to provide unnecessary charity to accommodate for this. 3 crippled ships vs 25 ships? Do we really think they have good odds of escape?
4. Uncommon to Rare - Most of the time players will not let themselves be in this situation. (Many players subscribe to the cripple not self-kill.)

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 10:20 am: Edit

Just to play devil's advocate, why not limit + points in pursuit? The rules already limit - points in pursuit.

Anyway, it's all - for now - moot as I think the current rules are black and white and work as they do. Chuck will likely affirm the same, he's not one to change black and white rules - unless Steve Cole himself has made the decision to do so and Chuck is just the messenger.

If and when there's a new rules update for the basic game, this is the sort of thing that should be worked out based on "what is good for the game," rather than based on relying on theoretical considerations that can change as easily as technobabble.

For what it's worth, if it were up to me, I would allow the basic strategy. However, I would limit plus points in pursuit so they work the same as minus points on pursuit.

I truly see this idea as a losing strategy and just don't see it as a real issue. Also remember that a "junk force" is realistically unlike to kill more than 2 PDU a round, because involuntary minus points will keep them from doing more damage than that over multiple rounds. In the meantime, you're losing lots of ships.

Mitigating cripples among heavy ships by killing part of the line when you take 110 points of damage is something that is already done. No change there.

I fail to see abuse here, but I do see a trap for the attacker.


FYI, there is already the problem of the "all out crazy assault" on the potential last turn of the game. Frankly, AFAIK, the Coalition gets the advantage at the beginning of the game, so I have no problem with the Alliance getting a last minute push to try to alter victory points if they make it that far.

My two quatloos, for whatever they are worth.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 10:53 am: Edit

Plus points like involuntary minus points are usually self inflicted. If you get yourself in a situation where you give your opponent 10 plus points that is on you. Granted you have no control over VBIR roll or your opponent's combat roll each round.

The whole point of limiting voluntary minus points was to put some teeth back into value of pursuit battles. Plus points should not be limited except for the aforementioned way to deliberately rack them up which is a clear and obvious abuse of the rules.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 11:36 am: Edit

I don't see a need to limit plus points in pursuit. Pursuit is supposed to be punishing. :p

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 03:14 pm: Edit

I appreciate the advocacy Ted but the question wasn't to introduce more limitation but to understand why this one was added.

Currently the game takes care of itself by nature of having to spend the points dealt down to less than 50% of the remaining units otherwise they become owed points next round. The rules until 2013 cleanly explained if you run out of units on the line then they carry over should their be a next round.

Noting already in a 1st round occurrence where everything on the line was destroyed, the remaining fleet would be able to warp away safely (no pursuit)

Turtle noted that the delineation for minus points was made for voluntary vs involuntary points. The big difference being the involuntary being a function of the game, typically out of a players control vs voluntary where player decisions determine the amount in order to set up advantage. The voluntary minus point limit was created to allow player ability to game the system a little sacrificing something for protection but attempting to avoid grotesque abuse.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Preaching to the choir, I think. I don't see the problem with this massive plus point thing that Paul has come up with. IMHO if I play Alliance, I'm more than happy to let the Coalition dash their fleets against the rocks of Hydrax major or Kzintai major - and to let them eat all those plus points in pursuit.

Though, again, probably moot. If you're committed to this crazy tactic, then on approach you'll throw any cripples you have into the capital meatgrinder, or simply self-kill to avoid any kind of pursuit.

YMMV.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 03:36 pm: Edit

So as I read through all this I apologize but it is still unclear to me:

Is the 2010 F&E* base game rulebook (302.632) the current rule?

Or is Chuck's (often quoted above) 2013 ruling the current rule?

Chronologically speaking, in the absence of subsequent ruling overturning the 2013 ruling, 2013 is later than 2010 and is therefore the current rule of the game?

--Mike

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Mike. That is precisely the question. FEDS to answer later.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:02 pm: Edit

To add to Ted's answer, there are 4 levels of 'rule' (low to highest, with each proving 'rule of law until' changed by a higher level)

1) Rule as written
2) FEAR Ruling
3) FEDS Ruling
4) GOD (SVC) Ruling

So at it stands, Chucks (as FEDS) ruling applies and unless Chuck amends his ruling, only SVC can change it.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:54 pm: Edit

I would have put "rule as written" at level 3 (pushing down FEAR and FEDS respectively). At least when the black-and-white of the rule can't really be argued.

Usually "rule as written" is what is in dispute - what do the words "as written" actually mean? So that takes it out of the priority list.

Now, sometimes rules *change* but AFAIK that takes SVC's blessing.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, March 25, 2022 - 05:56 pm: Edit

>> Q537.11 (New PO 2021 rules)

I'd suggest allowing either 2 single G factor ships working together to garrison, or a single G ship with 2 or more G factors, such as D6G or Small/Large Auxiliary Troop Ship.

--Mike

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 04:03 pm: Edit

"Retreat priority question.

There is a substantial Hydran fleet in 0412, and both border BATS are destroyed. The Lyran fleet remaining in 0413 has retreated. There are also Hydrans in 0212, but 0313 and 0513 are open.

Must the retreating Lyrans follow the "shortest supply path" and get mauled in 0412 (I don't think so) or can they under priority 2 ignore 0412 as there are lots of Hydrans there and instead follow a longer supply path to 0313 or 0513 (I believe this is correct)?

Priority 2 has that "unless no other hex is available" language which could be read to mean that you must follow the shortest supply path anyway. But Priority 3 is lower on the totem pole, right?"

Easy on - it's all down to Equivalents (with cripples counting as a full equivalent) - under priority 2.

If there are more Hydrans 412 than Lyrans retreats - Lyrans will go around 412.

If there are equal or greater Lyrans - they will 412 remains a valid hex and rest of the priorities need to be followed.

If 411 lives and as 212 was killed - 412 WILL be the most valid hex to retreat to, if Priority 2 didn't eliminate it.

(Note, generally, Priority 2 will eliminate some but not all hexes - if all the hexes have greater enemy forces in, Priority 2 is ignored).

Forcing a player where you want them to retreat to isn't nice for the retreating player!

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 04:47 pm: Edit

If your Lyrans are in 0413, the closest supply point is 0411 and no other supply points are as close to 0413, if 0412 has fewer or equal number of Hydrans (see rule on how to count them) than Lyrans, the Lyrans must retreat to 0412, as that priority step eliminated all retreat hexes that were more than one hex from a supply source.

If there is ever only one hex you can retreat to in a priority step, you don't need to go further down the priorities as any priority that eliminates all hexes is ignored.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 04:51 pm: Edit

On the retreat priority question.

The best way to think about it is this: Each priority *eliminates* hexes. If you can color-code them, then color hexes excluded by a priority - as hexes excluded by a higher priority cannot be overridden by a lower priority.

There are several ways under priority 2 that no other hex is available. For example, *ALL* hexes surrounding a force contain hexes that would violate priority 2. In this case, priority 2 does not apply and hence no hex is excluded.

In another example, say that you are on the southern map edge and cannot retreat south, and all other hexes surrounding you would violate priority 2. In this case, priority 2 does not apply and hence no hex is excluded.


As for the question itself, the question does NOT have enough information to answer it accurately.. You either need to provide the exact situation, or define that certain hexes have been excluded by priority 2.

For example, let's take what you've said.

---

Quote:

There is a substantial Hydran fleet in 0412, and both border BATS are destroyed. The Lyran fleet remaining in 0413 has retreated. There are also Hydrans in 0212, but 0313 and 0513 are open.

---

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 06:56 pm: Edit

Okay.

That is what I thought would happen, but in the moment we reread the rule (we have a house rule: always reread the retreat priority rules) we tried to confuse ourselves.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, March 27, 2022 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Even FEAR will reread the retreat priorities every time...

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, March 28, 2022 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Here's one man's opinion.

A while ago Mike said, "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." In trying to understand how the rules would work in a logical (that loaded word again) setting, Chuck's 2013 ruling "corrects" rather than contradicts rule (302.632).

Here's my support for this:
1) (103.3) says "DEFENSE FACTOR: The number of damage points the unit can absorb (302.6)" defines the amount of damage a unit can absorb.
2) In (302.60) it says "Units in the Battle Force Reserve cannot be damaged." This rule does not distinguish between voluntary or directed damage.
These units are just too far away.
3) (302.613) says "...; drone ships (309.0) conducting bombardment and carriers (501.4) or PFTs (502.41) sending their attrition units to the Battle Force "could never be given up as voluntary damage" [my quote marks] but could be attacked by Directed Damage (302.563)." (302.563) excludes bases and PDU's.
4) (308.22) says "Any plus points from the previous round are added to the damage scored on the current round "after" [my quote marks] Directed Damage is resolved."

Basically, some units which were exempt from voluntary damage in one round would be required to resolve voluntary damage in the next round. Therefore, (302.632) violates (302.60) and (302.613) which both came first, and Chuck's ruling corrects this.

In any case of annihilation the enemy A simply either expends more firepower than can be resolved by enemy B, or enemy A stops shooting once there are no more targets.

(302.4) isn't currently written to consider annihilations of the enemy forces. It calculates how much damage a battle force can do and is worded in such a way as to be inferred that it must do this much even if the recipient is unable to resolve it all.

(302.632) should be deleted from the rulebook and (302.4) rewritten to define the maximum amount of damage which can be generated regardless of the enemy's ability to resolve it.

Much of the discussion of this subject by people either liking or disliking rule (302.632) discusses its possible application. That's a different subject all together. One player may not like losing an entire moderate battle line due to the pin count loss while another player may like preserving his big guns for later rounds and ignoring over damage. That doesn't address the possibility of annihilations or how to handle them.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, March 28, 2022 - 03:44 pm: Edit

You lost me at the part where units that couldn't take voluntary damage in one round would be required to take voluntary damage on the next round.

Whaaa?!??

By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Monday, March 28, 2022 - 04:06 pm: Edit

Read the rules sited, (302.60), (302.613), and (308.22). The first two don't allow voluntary damage under certain conditions, and the third allows plus points only after directed damage, i.e. voluntary damage.