These rulings are arrived at jointly by the Rules Committee. I just make the questions generic and post the answer/explanation.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, February 02, 2009 - 12:47 am: Edit

On Tugs and Pods.

Please clarify (D1.30). Can I tow tug pods?

Answer: Yes, you can. For these extended journeys, the tug pods are emptied and are non-functional. However, pods with independent operation require a tug for an extended journey (an extended journey is any one which uses Strategic Movement). Empty pods are merely targets and have no offensive ability.

What about special crew on towed pods?

Answer: Outstanding crew are pod specific and would be lost if the pod were towed. Poor crew would be returned to the attrition stock to be reassigned to a new ship (bad pennies always come back to haunt you!). Green crew pods cannot be towed.

How do special crews on pods interact with tugs?

Answer: A pod’s crew must match the tug’s crew. If it does not, the worst category applies to the ship or pod. Example: An outstanding-crewed tug is assigned to move a poor-crewed troop transport pod. While the tug is moving that pod, for all intents and purposes the tug acts as a poor-crewed tug. Once the bad influence (i.e., the pod) is transferred, the tug’s crew is again outstanding. If the tug had the poor crew and the P-T were outstanding, the tug would act as if it had poor crew as would the troop transport pod.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 - 09:16 pm: Edit

On the Merchant Marine, MRR, and CAN.

From Rule (E4.20): Ships being used for MRR are considered to be in the Strategic Defense. This is the only case where SD can be used with military ships.

Do these two sentences mean that an FOL and an FPL can only support an MRR if they are in Strategic Defense?

Answer: No. Rule (E2.20) states MM ships can be transferred to the military. Obviously military ships can work together. Rule (E4.20)explains how and why the SD, in this one instance, can work with the military.

If I were to transfer an FOL and an FPL to the military and have them join a (military) MRR SQ, would these freighters be able to support an MRR? After all, they are not in SD, but are military transfers.

Answer: Of course. Rule (E4.20) simply states what must be present and allows ships in the SD to work on MRR.

Would an SQ of (FOL, FPL) in SD supporting an MRR be considered an SQ "kept above CAN"?

Answer: Rule (B12.120) states the CAN of any unit cannot fall below 1. Two ships may ALWAYS form an SQ.

What if my empire is at CAN-3?

Answer: Even at CAN-3, the CAN of a ship will always be at least 1.

Can an MM freighter with a CAN of 0, if in a single ship SQ (i.e., by itself), command itself? Or would it be considered an SQ "kept above CAN"?

Answer: CAN is really the number of ships besides itself that a ship can control. In GC, since the CAN is never reduced below 1 (B12.120), ships can always have a "buddy". A ship is certainly not over CAN if it is by itself as it has zero ships in addition to itself.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Rule B8.451 states, in part: "Once built, an HDW's configuration is permanent and cannot be changed."

SFB Module X1R introduced the HDWX design to the game. Can an already built HDW be converted to a HDWX by using a SC4X conversion slot? Or is the wording of B8.451 all inclusive and disallow this?

Gary

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Saturday, July 11, 2009 - 10:31 pm: Edit

In the example provided for rule B11.83 (BB construction), it details what will happen if you start construction on 2 or more BBs in the same turn.

What if, on a given turn, you have a BB half built (and pay to finish it) and start a new BB? Would a 20% surcharge have to be paid in this instance?

Gary

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 08:16 pm: Edit

I would assume that any "war" class built in a DW/CW SY would not be able to be converted to X tech, while any built in SC2/3/4 yards would be. HDW would fall in the later category. The B8.451 comment "Once built, an HDW's configuration is permanent and cannot be changed" is presumably to lock you into HDW-SR, HDW-P, etc.


I would expect that the BB construction would, like conversions and other limited things (maulers come to mind) be based upon completion turn. I.e. you can start one BB in a SC2SY, and start a second one on the same turn at a BSSY without the surcharge.

While start turn is more logical in general, I'd go with completion turn. If you don't go with completion turn, you end up with headaches when you build a B10BKAA due to limits (presumably, anyway), on K refits and SFG installation would be done on the completion turn.


Both these questions and presumed answers have been added to the List.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:11 pm: Edit

The only probelm I see is in ordere for a SC3 or larger ship to have spent a turn being built 50% of its total cost must be paid on the inital turn. Did we throw that rule out?

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 10:42 pm: Edit

John, we discussed that and with smaller empires in the mix, we decided to keep the pro-rated amounts, except for discounted CW/DW. For those ships, to get a discount, the ships must be paid for in one turn, but the crew is generated as the ships roll out. No saving EPs for rebuild then paying for a jillion CWs and DWs to generate a gazillion outstanding crew units.

Or so I think. With this infection, I could be hallucinating.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 12:21 am: Edit

This is going to be embarrassing. I know we talked about it. I can not find anything in the rulebook (search terms of "1 EP", "prorated", and "portional". B12.92 matches what Jean specified).

I can not find it in the rulebook, but I thought the consensus was that for 2 turn builds in shipyards and other limited building capacity cases you could do 1EP on the first turn, and all remaining EPs on the second; 3+ turns- you could do the 1EP start, but then had to make it up (i.e. 1/1//rest was illegal). I couldn't find the discussion in my mail archive (must have used some word other than the above terms). Bases, due to their not needing shipyards you had to do the 50% (or 1/N where N is the # of turns to build it) rule because they didn't require shipyards to build and we didn't want a forest of BSs appearing the turn after someone invaded (spend 1EP per base before the invasion, when invaded, spend the 119 additional ones).

It really isn't important what the answer is, only that we use a consistent one.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:35 am: Edit

Howard, I think we went with the 1/1/rest for the three-turn ship-builds because the ships fight as a proportion of their completeness and there is a limit to how many ships you can have "under construction". An empire that goes this route ties up too many shipyards. I think we decided that we weren't going to deal with if you have to put 1/half/rest or 1/two thirds/rest or whatever. I think we did that so small empires could get economic aid on Turn 3 and finish a large ship if they needed to do so. If you were forced to be on RB/RB/something else, that might be the only way to afford a ship!

Somewhere it niggles at my mind that we talked about having to put an EP into construction if you are "holding" it, so it doesn't go off the radar, as it were, and get accidentally dismantled. But that may have been back when we were playing with doing a deeper revamp that would have meant far more time in development -- my memory has Charles involved in that discussion.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:57 am: Edit

Just a quick note... could we please get the GMs to weigh in on the HDW to HDWX question with an official ruling. Depending on which way their decision goes will determine SC4 X Ship R&D project decisions.

For example, if a Kzinti HDW can be converted to a HDWX then I won't bother creating a FKX timed tech project to bring that design forward 10 years.

On the other hand, if the HDW to HDWX conversion is not allowed, then I will HAVE to undertake the FKX +10 years project so that my SC4X conversion slots have a use and to make it easier to fill out Elite X SQs.

Gary

By John Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 12:52 pm: Edit

My rule book (at work) is the prior version to the offical one. (I'll have to rectify this.)

Yet:

(C19.50) For those empires that have them, CWX and DWX hulls are new construction only and must be built in SC3SY and SC4SY.

I presume that the HDWX (and DNLX) would follow the same idea.

My guess would be new construction, using a conversion slot. (This is slightly different from non-x to x using a conversion slot.)

Just a player's opinion (not official, etc).

John

By ROBERT l cALLAWAY (Callaway) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Actual I'd have to say that CW/DW should not be considered fixed once it leaves the yards.
A conversation has been handled as a simple economic action to date. We pd any difference in cost and get the new SC/PFT/DDG within 4 inpluses of the turn which it is ordered. even X conv have been handled this way. HDW/CM/CS.
We have permited multi builds of BB in the past in U1 the Gorns had as many as 9 layed down at one time.
the Cw/Dw class were build to add flexablity to war effort and limiting their conv status seem wrong

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 01:34 pm: Edit

I will caution those that are considering X-Ship R&D technologies to be sure they have G3 and/or X1R. The BPV on some of the early versions of the X-ships has changed from X1.

Gary, the Rules Committee is discussing the HDW -> HDWX case. Just reading X1R, historically, for the Kzinitis, it appears the HDWX was not converted from an existing HDW hull.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Multiple BB builds are still allowed in this revision of the rulebook, they just cost more.

Remember that not every empire gets CWXs and DWXs, yet every empire that gets CWs and DWs can have a hefty discount on those hulls. My guess is the "build new" is a game-balance decision.

By William Gary Glattli II (Wglattli) on Monday, July 13, 2009 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Just a clarification here but, remember that I am the Kzinti in U4, but also playing the Seltorians in U5. The Seltorians (as well as the ISC) don't get a HDW, but a HDD (and therefore a HDDX) instead. Please keep this in mind when doing your deliberatons as your decision should address both types of units.

Thank you.

Gary

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Thursday, July 16, 2009 - 08:41 pm: Edit

See offical ruling on HDWX in Q and A.

I think this addresses all issues here, correct?

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Monday, December 07, 2009 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Questions on C19.0 (aka "All things X")-

Q: I want to produce a CWX, DWX, or empire specific "war" hull, but existing war hulls can not be converted to X tech. How do I do this?

A: You can direct build the CWX/DWX (with the 20% markup per C19.10) in a SC3/SC4 shipyard per C19.50, or you can build the CW/DW in the SC3/SC4 shipyard and convert it during construction (or the turn immediately after) to X tech. CW/CWX/DW/DWX hulls built this way would not get the B11.80 4% discount. Automated shipyard (B8.83) or shipyard specialization (B8.80) discounts would be applicable, as per C19.50.


Q: I want to build a CL based X scout, DDX, or some other "obvious" varient X design.

A: With the publication of X1R, most empires have a good mix of X hulls. Unless there is a major hole in the published mix (like no X scout), you'll just have to make due with what is presently published. Most empires have a "hole" or three in their ship matrix.


Q: I have a major hole in my ship mix (and the GM has agreed that it is one). How would I fix it via R&D?

A: You would do R&D into the hull (crash, normal or a combination of the two). The "historical" date will be set by the GM (roughly the "historical" YIS of the other X tech hulls of similar size built by your empire, possibly later). If you wanted to move up that production date, you'd have to start a second R&D project to move the YIS date up.

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, February 13, 2011 - 08:44 am: Edit

Official clarification:

(D1.10) The rule is absolute, no matter how you do the warp math, freighters (except those noted in the rules) will move no more than 2 hexes on the strategic map. They may, however, use DTM which means, on a TR, a FL and FS can move 4 hexes in a turn.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Official clarification: (C14.50) Prime Teams. These cost 200 EPs to create AND another 200 EPs to train at 50 EPs per turn for two years.

By Howard Bampton (Bampton) on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 01:07 am: Edit

When asking rules questions, please try and cite relevant rule numbers, just as one does for FEAR et al for SFB/FC/F&E. For example, if you are asking about Expeditionary Fleets, you'd want to cite B10.56. This makes it less time consuming for us to research your answer (and you may find a reference that I/we miss that could change the answer in your favor...).

I try and provide citations when I explain my conclusions to Jean and John. This makes it quicker for them to either tell me I'm mistaken (it happens...), agree with my conclusion, or something else.

Thanks
(removes "Rules Lawyer*"
"*the less annoying kind" hat).

P.S. This also means I'm more likely to find errors like the "rolls" instead of "roles" one I spotted in A12.212 a little while ago, or the use of "ship" instead of "unit" or "ship or unit" in A12.32c... [Said errors have been noted for future repair.]

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 11:06 am: Edit

Please note new rule

(C9.11) A computer-operated ship cannot have special crew (i.e. no green, poor, or outstanding crew units). The only Legendary Officer (A12.0) that may be assigned to a computer-operated ship is a Legendary Doctor. Prime Teams (C14.50) may not be assigned to a computer-operated ship.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Sunday, January 29, 2012 - 12:27 pm: Edit

(A13.00), page 11: "Fusion Beam Ground Base" should change "Beam" to "Bomb" so it reads "Fusion Bomb Ground Base". Reason: rule is discussing bases that use "fusion bombs" not the Hydran "fusion beam" weapon. - Terry O'Carroll, 30-Jan-2012

By John D Berg (Kerg) on Wednesday, February 01, 2012 - 09:09 pm: Edit

After consultation with Steve Cole about base construction, the following rules changes/clarifications are now in force.

(B11.60) Direct Base Construction Rates. Small and medium ground bases take two segments to build. Base modules, system activity maintenance stations (SAMSs), defense satellites (Def Sats), and commercial platforms take six segments to build. Mobile bases (MB) take one turn to build. Base stations (BSs) and commercial bases (CBs) take one year to build and are the largest bases that can be built independently without following an upgrade path.

(B11.61) Upgraded Base Construction. All larger bases [i.e., those not mentioned in (B11.60)] must be upgraded from existing bases. Upgrade paths are listed in (B11.70). Steps may not be skipped; i.e., a starbase or sector base cannot be upgraded directly from a base station or mobile base and a BATS must be upgraded from a base station, not a mobile base. Using the Star Fortress (B11.75) or Star Palace (B11.77) techs also means upgrading an existing starbase to a star fortress and an existing star fortress to a
star palace.

By Bennett Eugene Snyder (Planner) on Friday, June 29, 2012 - 11:40 am: Edit

In regards to the BSSY, the rules state that new construction takes an additional turn plus 30% more in cost.
I can't find anything concerning refits (CA to a CAR) or a conversion (CL to MS). As far as I know a shipyard takes one turn plus the difference in EP between the original hull and what it is becoming.