Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
macho_maggot

The Duranium Dreadnaught Problem

Recommended Posts

Orc Conquest said:

I'm glad they answered both with the same rule. But I wish the FAQ didn't give the attacker the power to perform Tactical Retreats. This can be quite abusive.

The Naalu can now attack and then announce a Tactical Retreat and not even suffer a round of combat WHEN ATTACKING!

Hil Colish can attack, perform a Tactical Retreat, and then move to an adjacent system where there is now a "D" wormhole. With Fleet Logistics, the Ghosts can effectively move everything from their homesystem to some destination beyond your picket before you can react.

It seems to me that giving Tactical Retreat powers to the attacker can be abusive. I wish they had ruled on this a bit differently.  serio.gif

You're right, I didn't notice that a Duranium stalemate could also exist with the Hil Colish!  For an attacker to actually be advantaged by this would require a bizarre set of circumstances and a bit of negligence on the part of the defender.  The defender would need an adjacent, empty system left behind whatever they are trying to barricade-- which is already vulnerable to access by other effects such as Light/Wave deflectors and action cards.  They would also need to let themselves get widdled down to just a Dreadnaught or whatever other assortment of ships and conditions this might possibly apply to.  I'd applaud anyone who was actually able to pull it off as a benefit in a real game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why I am concerned is because it augments another strange rule for the attacker: how activation/activating works. If you played Diplomacy II on me or if you played Signal Jam on me, I can still Withdrawal to that system.

I can attack you with a huge fleet, endure 1 round of combat, then withdrawal to the Signal Jammed/Diplomacy II system WITHOUT SPENDING A CC!

Now the attacker doesn't need to have an adjacent system activated; he can activate the adjacent system himself. So when you say, "bizarre set of circumstances", I don't believe you have seen someone actually attack a player for the sole purpose of moving into a system that was the target of Signal Jam/Diplomacy II. With this new FAQ ruling, the attacker has one additional (albeit situational) power to move beyond a picket, move beyond his movement range, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can kind of see the point, the original rules reserves the tactical retreat for the defender, where as the stalemate rules allow a dreadnaught to retreat into a space that is beyond the "picket".

I realized that the silly Creuss flagship has only 1 attack roll and thus can manipulate this rule.

However this a small loophole that seems to be getting overhyped and is easily averted either by decent planning (you can't tactical retreat into hexes with ANY enemy units) or a simple house rule.

Also if you're dealing with the Creuss with Fleet logistics, I don't think your one dreadnaught stands much of a chance anyways.

Your issue is with the way retreat is handled in the system, and your gaming grounds uses the loophole in the system rather then intent.  So it's either an overhaul of the retreat system or a logical discussion with your gaming group.  I've played with rules lawyers before (assuming that's the issue) and they live on the loopholes and shy from house rule fixes. If this is the case, where there is a will theres a way, and one oversight fix isn't going to amount to much in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ErebusDL said:

I can kind of see the point, the original rules reserves the tactical retreat for the defender, where as the stalemate rules allow a dreadnaught to retreat into a space that is beyond the "picket".

I realized that the silly Creuss flagship has only 1 attack roll and thus can manipulate this rule.

Plus Sol's super carriers, plus cruisers with the "Armored Carrier" AC, etc, etc. There are plenty of loopholes. Imagine a Sol Mark II Carrier with 8 GF's on it going toe-to-toe with your enhanced dreadnaught. Now the Sol player can move this top heavy carrier beyond your picket.

ErebusDL said:

Also if you're dealing with the Creuss with Fleet logistics, I don't think your one dreadnaught stands much of a chance anyways.

It's not a Creuss dreadnaught that's the problem--it's Hil Colish/Creuss' home world that is the problem. Hil Colish can move beyond your picket. And then with Fleet Logistics, Hil Colish can move everything from its home system to a system within reach of Hil Colish's current location.

ErebusDL said:

Your issue is with the way retreat is handled in the system, and your gaming grounds uses the loophole in the system rather then intent.  So it's either an overhaul of the retreat system or a logical discussion with your gaming group.  I've played with rules lawyers before (assuming that's the issue) and they live on the loopholes and shy from house rule fixes. If this is the case, where there is a will theres a way, and one oversight fix isn't going to amount to much in the long run.

My issue isn't with the retreat system, it's with the withdrawal system + the new FAQ for stalemates. I would have handled it differently. I wouldn't have given the attacker an additional (albeit situational) power. I would have cancelled the rule that is causing the stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I understood what you meant about the Creuss Flagship.  As I was saying if they have the flagship and fleet logisitcs 1 dreadnaught is not going to cut it, regardless of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orc Conquest said:

I guess I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by "1 dreadnaught isn't going to cut it"?

It's a long tech road to get to Fleet Logistics and a tasty ability after all.. I believe ErebusDL is implying dominance lies with the attacker in the scenario.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orc Conquest said:

The reason why I am concerned is because it augments another strange rule for the attacker: how activation/activating works. If you played Diplomacy II on me or if you played Signal Jam on me, I can still Withdrawal to that system.

I can attack you with a huge fleet, endure 1 round of combat, then withdrawal to the Signal Jammed/Diplomacy II system WITHOUT SPENDING A CC!

Now the attacker doesn't need to have an adjacent system activated; he can activate the adjacent system himself. So when you say, "bizarre set of circumstances", I don't believe you have seen someone actually attack a player for the sole purpose of moving into a system that was the target of Signal Jam/Diplomacy II. With this new FAQ ruling, the attacker has one additional (albeit situational) power to move beyond a picket, move beyond his movement range, etc.

Yeah, if one player has already played Diplomacy II or Signal Jam on you in an adjacent system to the one you've activated, and no one has any ships in that system except maybe yourself, then you can indeed retreat into that system at the cost of 1 CC for the initial attack.  In this case, you've managed to push your way into a position defending the other player's demilaterized zone by the addition of your retreating units.  I've seen this done, but only on purpose by the defender when they want to encourage the attacker to retreat-- either because they want to reduce their own casualties or because they want to entice them into trap.  It hasn't bothered me really.

The new situation with the Stalemate and Tactical retreat-- Stalemate has to occur (which leaves only one unit to retreat unless the attacked system happens to be an Ion Storm), system is adjacent, system is empty or has some of your own units already there, Cost is 2xCC (one from Strategy and one from Command area).  You take any PDS fire, can't land on any planets there this round, and you're likely at risk of counterattack.  It just seems so much clumsier and more wasteful than just using the Light/Wave deflector or Silence of Space, even if it does let you move an additional system inward.  Though, I guess some advantage is possible.  Would it make any difference to you if either player were allowed to retreat normally before the stalemate could be declared?  It makes sense that both players would need to be set against retreating before the stalemate happened.  That way, the defender could retreat to prevent the attacker from being allowed any retreat.  Essentially, in this strange scenario, the attacker wins the stalemate.

Of course, then the attacker could prepare by doing something that prevents the defender from retreating.  If they manage to pull that off too, they deserve their weird little reward, wouldn't you say?  aplauso.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pardon me if im wrong.

but if you retreat/withdrawl in any way u have a cc on the system regardless of how it got there.

so is this flagships movement value of where it can go moot  with the fleetlogistics "abuse"  because its considered "tapped" lack of a better words.

normally i could reach system X to send the other ships but because i cannot move it cannot reach anywhere untill we find a way to get it out from under a command counter.

im not sure how its worded, because my two copies are currently just ordered :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hugesinker said:

 

The new situation with the Stalemate and Tactical retreat-- Stalemate has to occur (which leaves only one unit to retreat unless the attacked system happens to be an Ion Storm), system is adjacent, system is empty or has some of your own units already there, Cost is 2xCC (one from Strategy and one from Command area). 

Granted it costs 2CC's. It's simply an additional way to move beyond your opponents...in addition to the normal Withdrawal rules.

 

Hugesinker said:

You take any PDS fire,
 

You don't take PDS fire when you retreat or withdrawal. There is no PDS fire step during withdrawals. 

 

 Hugesinker said:

 

Would it make any difference to you if either player were allowed to retreat normally before the stalemate could be declared?  It makes sense that both players would need to be set against retreating before the stalemate happened.  That way, the defender could retreat to prevent the attacker from being allowed any retreat.  Essentially, in this strange scenario, the attacker wins the stalemate.


 

The rules allow the Attacker to announce a withdrawal before the Defender can announce a retreat.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orc Conquest said:

 

You don't take PDS fire when you retreat or withdrawal. There is no PDS fire step during withdrawals. 

 

True.  You endure any PDS fire when you make the initial attack, then you will endure a second later on if the opponent activates the system you move into or you later activate that system yourself to land on a planet something-- As opposed to sneaking over to that system using Light/Wave generator or whatnot.  I imagine one of these things is likely to be the case.


 Orc Conquest said:

The rules allow the Attacker to announce a withdrawal before the Defender can announce a retreat.

 

Yes, so what I'm talking about it before a stalemate can even be declared, both parties get a chance to retreat in the normal way.  The attacker has the opportunity to retreat first.  However, if she does declare a retreat at that point, it can't be a Tactical Retreat because the stalemate doesn't officially exist yet.  If the attacker decides not to retreat, the defense gets an opportunity to do so.  Only if the attacker and the defender refuse (or are unable) to retreat in the normal way does a stalemate occur.  Then and only then, can the attacker take advantage of a Tactical Retreat.  If the defender does retreat in this situation, he can prevent the attacker from advancing and cancel the impending stalemate. 

I would also rule that with the Naalu, their special ability to retreat early kicks in before a stalemate can be declared.  If you leave early voluntarily before a shot could even be fired, that shouldn't count as a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempted repost, since things got all farked up.  Hopefully it will work right this time

Orc Conquest said:

You don't take PDS fire when you retreat or withdrawal. There is no PDS fire step during withdrawals. 

True.  You endure any PDS fire once when you make the initial attack, then you will endure a second firing afterwards if your opponent activates the system you retreated into or you activate that system yourself to land on a planet there something-- As opposed to sneaking over to that system using Light/Wave generator or whatnot.  I imagine one of these things is likely to be the case.

 Orc Conquest said:

The rules allow the Attacker to announce a withdrawal before the Defender can announce a retreat.

 

Yes, so what I'm talking about is before a stalemate can even be declared, both parties get a chance to retreat in the normal way if they can.  The attacker has the opportunity to retreat first.  However, if she does announce a retreat at that point, it can't be a Tactical Retreat because the stalemate doesn't officially exist yet.  If the attacker decides not to retreat, the defense gets an opportunity to announce retreat.  If the attacker and the defender refuse (or are unable) to retreat in the normal way, it's now a stalemate.  Then and only then, can the attacker take advantage of a Tactical Retreat.  If the defender does retreat in this situation, he can prevent the attacker from advancing by cancelling the impending stalemate. 

I would also rule that with the Naalu, their special ability to retreat early kicks in before a stalemate can be declared.  If you leave early voluntarily before a shot could even be fired, that shouldn't count as a stalemate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure that a stalemate occurs after a round of combat. The rules for stalemates says, "If a situation ever arises during a Space Battle or Invasion Combat where all ships cannot be destroyed". This situation immediately rises when two Duranium Armored dreads are fighting one another. No round of combat is required to determine that a stalemate has occured. Also, the rules for a Space Battle intrinsically include the announcing of retreats/withdrawals.

The Space Battle Sequence
1) Announce withdrawals/retreats
2) Roll combat dice
3) Remove casualties
4) Execute withdrawals/retreats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orc Conquest said:

I'm not so sure that a stalemate occurs after a round of combat. The rules for stalemates says, "If a situation ever arises during a Space Battle or Invasion Combat where all ships cannot be destroyed". This situation immediately rises when two Duranium Armored dreads are fighting one another. No round of combat is required to determine that a stalemate has occured. Also, the rules for a Space Battle intrinsically include the announcing of retreats/withdrawals.

I was mostly considering the standard definition of the word stalemate, which is simply a situation where no progress can be made by either side.  However, I believe that to recognize the stalemate condition even as the FAQ describes it, at least one full combat round is implied.  For example, if one or both of the players happen to have an action card that they are willing to play that could destroy the opposing ship, it isn't a stalemate since all ships on one side CAN be destroyed.  Any such action card would ordinarily be played or revealed after the normal Announce Withdrawals/Retreats step in the space battle sequence. Therefore, strictly speaking, that step in the sequence should still happen at least once before a stalemate is actually evident.  You could ask the players up front if they have any such cards that they are willing to play, but this may result in one of the players revealing an action card unnecessarily if they end up getting blown up first by an opponent who is aided by their own card.  Likewise, you could call the stalemate early if neither player happens to have any action cards, but this would make the timing non-uniform from one such situation to the next.

Even if you don't buy my logic here, I think it makes a case that is at least strong enough to justify a house ruling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...