Without a R and D project u cant specifically raid a TP pool.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:30 pm: Edit

BBSY are not included as part of the B8.3 restrictions.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 02:01 pm: Edit

John/Mike

Question:

This is a question I need answering.

If I have sqdns in hexes A4 and A5, both are at spd 1 with 2 Rx-BN each. The enemy has a sqdn in A5 and is moving to A4, A3, A2, at speed 3, but between hexes A1 and A2 is a MX - A1/A2. Enemy Sqdn does not have a MS.

So on impulse 4 the enemy sqdn gets stuck in the MX - A1/A2, and my sqdns in A1 and A2 both activate their first RX-BN. Assuming they dont attempt to run the MX.

So does the enemy sqdn stuck in the MX get BN by both of my Sqdns on impulse 5? and again on impulse 6? for the first RX-BN from each. Then again on Impluse 7 for Sqdn in A5 hex, and then again on impulse 8 by Sqdn in A4 after enemy sqdn moves into A4 from their 2nd BN? So in theory my 2 sqdns could engage the enemy sqdn 4 times with 4 x Rx-BNs? Correct? over 4 impules?

Or does the enemy sqdn get BN first by Sqdn in A5 and then again by sqdn in A4 on impulse 5 first? Then again on impulse 6 get hits again by Sqdn in A5 followed by Sqdn in A4 on impulse 6 for its 2nd Rx-BN operation?

In theory i can see this as being the correct result, because the enemy sqdn is stuck betweeen both hexes at the same time. Therefore, subject to punishment from both Sqdns at the same time.

If not then why not? I need to make sure my understanding of the rules is correct.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:19 pm: Edit

Ummm..can u make this a bit simpler? If a SQ gets stuck in a MX they have NOT crossed into a hex yet so no RX can be used on them til they do.

Hows is that?

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 05:40 pm: Edit

Sounds like a wimpy answer for the GM. If according to the rules, any movement in the 6 hexes ZOC sets off an RX, then the RX can be set off. Regarding if Force A can attack Force B stuck in a MX,well if they are trying to cross Force A MX then I would be logical that Force A Could have the option to stop them with an RX.

Unless the GM, wants to create a "magical 3rd Hex" Between each Hex running along their hex spine where anyone who wants to hide can hide from their enemies. If you are suggesting that a magical hexspine space be created please amend the rules. Also,It was my understanding that the MX was on Force A side of their space. Is it not in our space then were is Force A MX? In Force B space?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Confusious say....."the best solution to overly complex question simple"

hehehe

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 01:46 pm: Edit

translate:john a Klingon at heart fire weapons
range 2 follow up with bording party take heads
problem solved, new wall decoration so mate will stop complaining old one smells.
if problem continues repeat pior action till it goes away. check head shop for any special wall mount deals.

By Ken Riffle (Jindarian) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:55 pm: Edit

Dear Confusious:

I thought the best solution to an overly complex Question was a simple answer.... either yes they are in the hex where the MX is locatted or no they are not in the hex where the MX is located?

Maybe we should re ask the question: 1. IS Force A's MX located in there space or the enemy's space? 2. If it is located in Force A's space then the RX movement apply do they not? 3. If Force A's RX do not apply in there space then why do they not apply?

How about Confusious answering these simple questions.... simply...

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:51 am: Edit

Hi John! I wouldn't want your life to get boring, so I decided to ask ANOTHER rules question! ;)

This one is concerning the production of PFs...

A perusal of rules section B8.0 only lists PF production in one place and that is rule B8.40 where it provides the production rate for a Starbase (6xPFs per turn), however, I can find no other listed examples of where PFs might be built.

I would assume that since both SYs and SBs can produce FTRS (36 and 12 respectively per turn) that a SY could produce PFs at the same ratio (i.e. SY can produce "3x" more PFs than a SB). Ergo, a SY can build 18 PFs per turn.

If this is correct, then this constitutes an oversight in the rules and rule B8.40 will have to be amended to correct this.

Thanks

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Any ship? Even a lowly FS?

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:33 am: Edit

I guess the rules do not prohibit that, although you would have to have it transfered to military and or SD. That would limit its usfulness.

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 08:30 am: Edit

Great! It would free up the real military ships for fighting.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:26 am: Edit

Are NCA ships (new heavy cruiser expansions of war cruiser hulls) built using CW shipyards and CW rules?

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 02:00 pm: Edit

This question came up during the planning for the new rulebook between Berg, Bampton, and myself. If memory serves (and Berg can correct me if I am wrong), you CANNOT build a NCA in a CWSY. Only CW class ships can be built in a CWSY. You have to build NCA class ships in standard SC3SYs... BUT you can use a SC3 conversion slot on a CW and create a NCA or one of its variants.

Example- The Lyrans need another mauler to feed into the Andro meat grinder. Rather than build a STJ (CW mauler) they decide to create a NMC (New Mauler Cruiser - NCA variant) by bringing a CW into a shipyard and using a SC3 conversion slot to convert it into the NMC.

Gary

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:18 pm: Edit

OK, I get it. Thanks.

As the Feds in Universe 3, I think I will stay with the standard Constitution class CAR+ rather than build NCAs in my SC3SY. Traditional aesthetics and all. Only reason to build pure NCAs instead would be if there was a production efficiency involved.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 03:39 pm: Edit

gary is correct

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Isn't the CB a bit better than the CAR+, or is it a CC derivative?

There is a slight advantage to the NCA vs CA debate. Consider:

build 2 NCL's per turn in CW slips, move them over to the SC3 SY's on the following turn (burning conversion slots, of course) for NCA conversion. Repeat with the next two.

This would allow you to get 4 "CA's" per year from two SC3 yards, vs. 2 true CA's the normal way. You may also be able to get them at 24% to 25% off via the CW discounts and specialized and automated shipyards.

By John Sickels (Johnsickels) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 04:59 pm: Edit

I was looking at the CB as a derivative of the CC+, yes, which would limit some of the deployment possibilities in accordance with the command rules.

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 05:04 pm: Edit

If it a conversation why use a SC3 SY when a SB can do it instead

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 06:10 pm: Edit

I could be wrong but... If memory serves, the CB is actually the replacement for the CC+. Anyway, they both count as command ships and they both require a conversion slot to build so the point is kind of moot.

Gary