Hi all, something that recently came up in a campaign for us:

During an early round, one player lost all of his ships. During that time, he didn't have enough repair points to fix them all, so one of the larger ships he has is scarred.

He has asked to skip the match with me and accept defeat; is that allowed?

Here are just a few of the points for and against:

For:

1) Withdrawal is a perfectly viable strategy, especially if they were just going to hold the line until they could escape.

2) They still lose the campaign points for losing the battle

Against:

1) This denies the other player the chance to destroy ships, or scar others during the campaign.

2) This means that any fleet could simply retreat and repair.

I'm sure there are many more points that could be made either for or against, and i'll leave them to the forums to debate as needed/wanted. I think there may be a lot of spirit of the game vs. letter of the game, so I figured it best to ask the source what the FFG stance was on this.

Any constructive input is appreciated.

Thanks!

There is no written rules Mechanic to do so in the Corellian Conflict... For lack of a better set of terms, this is "FFG"s take on it, based on the rules they have included, in my interpretation:

If most of your ships are scarred, and you're having to play a game, then you're playing a different game than normal. You have to play preservation of equipment, on top of anything else... Its a balancing act between personal survival, and not letting your team down by just rolling over.

If you;re really having the hard time, and there's no recovery - that's what the fleet retirement rules are for, in essence... I fyou play that game above, lose horribly , and can't rebuild...

Just not playing is not kosher. At the very least, turn up, set up, see what is going to happen, and attempt to play for at least 4 turns , before Hyperspacing out. You may have to cinematically sacrifice something smaller or lesser to be able to survive with the more important things... It always sucks losing, please don't get me wrong there, but it sucks more to give up .

Even retiring a fleet isn't giving up. ,.. Its Rebuilding and re attempting to play .

This is something that all of you could decide as a house rule as the rulebook doesn't mention something like this, but I think that the match should be played.

Of course he can try to avoid combat once in the match to preserve his ships, but the opponent should have the chance to attack and destroy those scarred ships and if he could achieve that, his team maybe would have gained the campaign point for that match and another later as the opponent might want to retreat his fleet as it is no longer competitive and build a new one

I think it goes against the spirit of the game. Why can't I hound the injured fleet and try to remove some ships? Sure, it may not be fun for one side, but this is a game after all. And it gives one side a clear advantage. The guy who doesn't want to play has no risk to any of his ships, and gets another 30+ points of repair for free. His opponent gets a win, but he will have 30+ points of repair just sitting around.

At the very least, give the guy who got cheated of his match the 30 points of repair and allow him to build a base/outpost.

The game has a mechanic for allowing you to admit defeat in a battle, it's the Hyperspace Retreat. If a player wants to deploy on the opposite side of the map and then retreat everything on round 4, there's nothing bad about that. It may even be strategic.

I don't think it's cool to not play the game at all though. I mean... why even play the campaign to begin with?

Can I decide to not bring a ship to battle and rather leave it in the docks, like I could do with upgrade Cards?

I think he should have the option of forfeiting, but has to count everything in his list as destroyed.

The High Command insists that the enemy fleet must be opposed. You may not decline combat simply because of risk. That decision was already made at the highest level. Any evasion on your part can't be tolerated, Commander. Too much is at risk. Your sector commander is likewise bound by this order.

Fight it out. Preserve your fleet if it is weak. But fight you must.

you can hyper out in the first round.

6 minutes ago, TheRealStarkiller said:

you can hyper out in the first round.

The rules only allow you to use hyperspace escape in rounds 4 or 5.

2 minutes ago, RobertK said:

The rules only allow you to use hyperspace escape in rounds 4 or 5.

oh i missed that rule. Then you cant refuse defending.

7 hours ago, Sbloom141 said:

I think he should have the option of forfeiting, but has to count everything in his list as destroyed.

Exactly. Normal rules still apply if non contradictory

Just now, Ginkapo said:

Exactly. Normal rules still apply if non contradictory

I agree, but, it got me thinking.........

Should we? Even if they are Tournament Rules , and not " Rule Book " Rules ?

Just a thought I was having - where do we fit "The rules" on the scale of things?

Obviously, our main, definitive reference is the RRG... And the CC Rulebook is a Suppliment to them. Is it also a Suppliment to the Tournament Rules, or are the Tournament Rules a Suppliment to the RRG, and thus, on equal footing with the CC Rulebook, as a suppliment...

Do we cross-reference things?

I mean, because, here's the forward thinking - if we get a Campaign in the future, that is a separate set of rules from the Corellian Conflict, and if, for example, they had some missing rules or rules holes, would we feel comfortable with taking rules from the Corellian Conflict to fill those gaps?

just thoughts....

In answer to the arguments of "No you must play, hyperspace is the rules only way of withdrawing."

What about setting up, facing all your ships towards you, and simply 'tabling them' round 1?

Nothing.

But they're all actually destroyed that way... At least playing the game - until Turn 4 Hyperspacing - you have a chance to preserve something.

That's better than no-game at all, in my opinion... But that's an opinion, not a fact.

Dras, I waited till I got home to respond with the CC rules in hand.

Why on earth is there no explanation for how the Rules Reference Guide fits into the CC game? There are new rules that affect everything, such as the short side deployment. And then the rest appear to just be advice more than rules..... Pirates code and all that.

Shameful

Like I said, it got me thinking (which is never a good thing...)

Perhaps I'm odd and thinking too much 'in the box' if you will... I understand a lot of this stuff is supposed to just be "worked out" in the confines of the gaming group - but it doesn't need to be with just a little bit more.

I mean, I love the very concept, and the campaign side of it is awesome ... But I feel my time and devotion to rules is wasted upon it.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

I agree, but, it got me thinking.........

Should we? Even if they are Tournament Rules , and not " Rule Book " Rules ?

Just a thought I was having - where do we fit "The rules" on the scale of things?

Obviously, our main, definitive reference is the RRG... And the CC Rulebook is a Suppliment to them. Is it also a Suppliment to the Tournament Rules, or are the Tournament Rules a Suppliment to the RRG, and thus, on equal footing with the CC Rulebook, as a suppliment...

Do we cross-reference things?

I mean, because, here's the forward thinking - if we get a Campaign in the future, that is a separate set of rules from the Corellian Conflict, and if, for example, they had some missing rules or rules holes, would we feel comfortable with taking rules from the Corellian Conflict to fill those gaps?

just thoughts....

I don't see why not. It's all FFG material, and you need to reference the CC rules for the tournament stuff like the blockade run and how dust fields work.

If we did get another campaign, and in that box there was a campaign objective that said you add 2 dust fields, but the box doesn't come with it or tell you what dust fields are, what do you think you should do? Fill in the gaps. I think in general, you should use the CC rules to supplement the RRG where the RRG is missing something in a competitive setting. Where as if you play CC, the CC rules is supplemented by the RRG. Otherwise you run into the conundrum of how do you build your fleet? However you want (RRG) or 1 upgrade for each ship (CC)?

8 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I don't see why not. It's all FFG material, and you need to reference the CC rules for the tournament stuff like the blockade run and how dust fields work.

If we did get another campaign, and in that box there was a campaign objective that said you add 2 dust fields, but the box doesn't come with it or tell you what dust fields are, what do you think you should do? Fill in the gaps. I think in general, you should use the CC rules to supplement the RRG where the RRG is missing something in a competitive setting. Where as if you play CC, the CC rules is supplemented by the RRG. Otherwise you run into the conundrum of how do you build your fleet? However you want (RRG) or 1 upgrade for each ship (CC)?

Dust fields is specifically stated as a new rule.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Dust fields is specifically stated as a new rule.

Right, but it's listed in the CC rule book. If I understand what Dras was asking, which was: "When and how should we reference rules from the CC rule book? And how does the CC rule book influence how future cmapaign rulebooks are written?"

It's really no different than the flotilla key word or contain. They both had an insert with the pack that said how it is used. And we even have another card that builds off of contain: Damage Control Officer. So neither of these are listed in the RRG, tournament guide, or LTP, yet they are common place in our games. We understand what they do, and we have already filled in the gaps that the RRG does not cover. And how could it?

Dras asked a good question, but I think the answer is rather easy. I think the CC rules should be supplement to the RRG, but the RRG still has the final word. It is possible that CC and the RRG do not provide the answers to a specific answer, and we refer to the FAQ for that. But I can't think of anything off the top of my head that fits into either that category. I mean, the current questions we have right now are edge cases where the RRG doesn't help. RLB and the whole Snipe debate are perfect examples of this.

I was considering more rules that are found only in the Tournament Regulations document, that are not reflected in the FAQ or RRG...

These include (but are not limited to... Just in case I missed something)

The One Tool Rule.
Tabling an opponent ships at end of round instead of immediately

Granted, yes, its not a big issue - but that second one listed is... Do we refer to the RRG for the original rule (as its not modified by the FAQ, is it?)

I mean, if Common Sense (TM) prevailed, then we'd say "Of course"... And Of course, I do state where we reference where something is directly referenced (Dust Fields in Corellian Conflict).... But the End of Round destruction of ships is in a Tournament Document, and we're playing a Campaign, and we're not told by a lack of a rule to reference it... Should we?

So, with respect to referencing rules outside the RRG: the ISD/MC80 shipped with the rules for contain; the flotillas shipped with the rules for flotilla units and "-" firing arcs. If we object to bringing the supplementary rules in the CC book in, do we not similarly object to those supplements being officially official?

I mean, it's pretty well academic, I think, but just for the sake of hashing it out...

Hmmmmmmmm... I think we should use the RRG as our base and first source for questions, and then go to the FAQ. In regards to the tournament rules, since it is a living document (being updated) I think it should overrule anything the RRG has, such as the round ending issue.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Hmmmmmmmm... I think we should use the RRG as our base and first source for questions, and then go to the FAQ. In regards to the tournament rules, since it is a living document (being updated) I think it should overrule anything the RRG has, such as the round ending issue.

I wouldn;t disagree.

But wouldn't some guidance be nice on the matter?

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I wouldn;t disagree.

But wouldn't some guidance be nice on the matter?

Yes that would help. But alas, FFG is amazing at providing guidance.