John L. Stiff:

My memory is not what it was, so someone may correct me, but to the best of my memory the only reasons the Jindarians are denied the use of bombers is a case where they are using the original bomber dates that were in Module F1 and superseded by Module G3 (Jindarian bombers begin appearing in the Alpha Octant in Y172, not Y88). Or other special scenario rules denied the use of bombers for the given scenario, or the player tried to put bombers on a non-asteroid ship, or the player tried to put bombers and fast patrol ships on one ship (even the Jindarians are not allowed to put heavy fighters, a class that for this purpose includes bombers, on a space control ship/stellar domination ship, or any ship that is otherwise a true PF tender

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Hi Steve,

Yes, the F1 module for YIS of bombers is rather early - Perhaps an update to F1 will be made down the road? I will use G3 for yis.

Maybe "yes" for the Heavy Fighter. For example, R16.3 (CVA) lists 2xDDA,FFA Escorts, 12xMet3 and 6xMET-4 (Heavy FTR) for y178. G3 does not have this breakdown. Perhaps G3 should be updated down the road? Just above in the G3 Jindarians Carriers, I see that the Seltorians have an ACS listed with 12+6H - i.e. the notation for fighters and heavy fighters.

F1 does not show Heavy Figthers with the SCS nor the BCS. Maybe things are OK here.

R16.FB does say that any Rock ship may carry bombers. Seems that there is an "attrition limit" though. "A squadron of up to 6 bombers counts as one of the three attrition squadrons allowed by S8.32". So perhaps a CVA with 6x"bomber landing pads" is allowed if the "attrition limit" is obeyed.

It is unfortunate that a player abused the Jindarians in the distant past.

It looks like to me that Jindarian Bombers were intended as part of the "flavor" of the Jindarians. Further, three Bomber squadrons would max out this "attrition limit". And a combination of FTRS, PF, Bombers would be allowed if the "attrition limit" was not violated.

As my purchase was intended for me to refresh myself with the Jindarian rules, which it did! - I see that perhaps another revision may be needed down the road.

I have begun work on my next Jindarian Battle Force entry - yes it will have bombers and FTRS within G3 yis and "attrition limits". I'm thinking a CA with Prosp-shuttles being replaced by FTRS and 6 landing pads for bombers.

Thanks,

John

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 02:06 pm: Edit

John Stiff:

Maybe "yes" for the Heavy Fighter. For example, R16.3 (CVA) lists 2xDDA,FFA Escorts, 12xMet3 and 6xMET-4 (Heavy FTR) for y178. G3 does not have this breakdown. Perhaps G3 should be updated down the road? Just above in the G3 Jindarians Carriers, I see that the Seltorians have an ACS listed with 12+6H - i.e. the notation for fighters and heavy fighters.

RESPONSE: The listing in Annex #7G are the normal deployments of fighters. Area Control Ships (ACS) generally always operated one squadron of size 1 fighters and one squadron of size 2 fighters. Rule (J10.0) allows eligible carriers to replace a squadron of size 1 fighters with a squadron of size 2 fighters, which allows any CVA operating two squadrons of size 1 fighters to replace one of the squadrons with size 2 fighters. No carrier is currently allowed to operate two squadrons of size 2 fighters. And no "True PF tender" can operate heavy fighters at all.

F1 does not show Heavy Figthers with the SCS nor the BCS. Maybe things are OK here.

RESPONSE: As noted above, both of these ships are "true PF tenders" and cannot operate heavy fighters at all.

R16.FB does say that any Rock ship may carry bombers. Seems that there is an "attrition limit" though. "A squadron of up to 6 bombers counts as one of the three attrition squadrons allowed by S8.32". So perhaps a CVA with 6x"bomber landing pads" is allowed if the "attrition limit" is obeyed.

RESPONSE: I would have to say so.

It is unfortunate that a player abused the Jindarians in the distant past.

RESPONSE: I was not trying to say it was a deliberate abuse. People make mistakes or misunderstand deployment limits.

It looks like to me that Jindarian Bombers were intended as part of the "flavor" of the Jindarians. Further, three Bomber squadrons would max out this "attrition limit". And a combination of FTRS, PF, Bombers would be allowed if the "attrition limit" was not violated.

RESPONSE: Not just "attrition limit." As noted, you cannot put heavy fighters on a true PFT, and that extends to bombers. So you could have a PFT, and if the PFT is a space control ship or a battle control ship, or a division control ship, it would be prohibited from also operating heavy fighters or bombers (in the case of the Jindarians). But you could have a PFT and CVA with two squadrons of fighters, one of which could be heavy fighters, maxing out your attrition units (PF flotilla on PFT, heavy and size-1 fighter squadrons on the CVA).

I have begun work on my next Jindarian Battle Force entry - yes it will have bombers and FTRS within G3 yis and "attrition limits". I'm thinking a CA with Prosp-shuttles being replaced by FTRS and 6 landing pads for bombers.

RESPONSE: That would be illegal. There is no rule allowing the Jindarians to replace prospecting (or admin shuttles) with fighters. Annex #6 only allows the replacement of shuttles by fighters on ships specifically authorized to do so, e.g., Heavy War Destroyers. Note that you are allowed to replace prospecting shuttles with bombers for the Jindarians.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

On Jindarians fighters replacing prospecting shuttles , I have Module F1 2005 publication, has (R16.R2) Hybrid Carrier Variants that allows shuttles to be replaced (empire specific). A Jindarian CA can replace up to six.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Steve Petrick:

The (R16.R2) is a Refit and Conversion (R16.R0), and yes there is no mention in Annex #6, so the change out can not be done in COs?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 06:05 pm: Edit

John Stiff:

Re: Replacing prospecting shuttles with fighters.

I am wrong, as Wayne Douglas Power has pointed out. I did not check the Jindarian refits rules, so missed that allowance. I just looked at Jindairan fighters (R16.F) and Commander's Options, it did not dawn on me to check their refits. So, yes, you can within the limits on (R16.R2) replace prospecting shuttles with fighters on a Jindarian ship. Note, however, that nothing in the rule makes such a ship a "true carrier," so it will operate as a "casual carrier," which means it will lack many of the amenities of a "true carrier." That means you are not required to have an escort for your heavy cruiser hybrid ship, but you cannot loan the fighters any electronic warfare and you will not have any fighter pods and cannot purchase any such pods with Commander's Option items. (The Hydrans are an exception as their Hybrid ships are considered to be fully capable carriers except that they cannot operate heavy fighters ... or bombers like the Jindarians can.

Wayne Douglas Power:

The available mention in Annex #6 says it can be done on ships authorized to do so, and (R16.R2) authorizes Jindarian ships to replace prospecting shuttles with fighters. Basically your situation would be that you can buy the fighters as part of the force in a "patrol" battle, In a "historical battle" (published historical scenario) you could purchase the fighters with Commander's Options." That is to say that historically the Jindairian force might have had no such fighters (although they were available) or less than the full number, and a given ship could use its commander's option points to replace some prospecting shuttles with fighters up to the limits on the number of fighters allowed, or the limits on the Commander's Option Points available.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Look at SH170.0 In The Open. In the force description it says all Ships are carrying there Allowed Complement of Meteor-1 fighters (R16.R2)

I have replaced The Prospecting shuttles with fighters this way before. The ship is then a Hybrid carrier. I have always wondered what was better the fighters are the bombers. Most of the scenarios I have seen show fighters over the bombers.

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 07:11 pm: Edit

What annoys me most is that I did have a niggling in my mind that there was something about replacing prospecting shuttles with fighters in the Jindarians, but the only two places I thought to look were in the Jindarian fighter rules (R16.F) and Annex #6. It just did not dawn on me to look at the refits rules.

By Daniel Eastland (Democratus) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Hi, Steve Petrick.

Thank you for the list of sources!

I have all of the CLs listed above except CL38.

None of these had data on what Lyran/Hydra/ISC ships to play in a Captains Game set in the normal history time period. CL39 did have these forces for Early Years.

CL44 had the Peladine and set it against a Hydran DG (3xSt-1). So maybe this is the Hydran captain’s ship? But that might not be right because the normal Rom ship is a KR, though in CL48 the Paravian fights a Rom KE. CL44 also had a Lyran setup for “Surprise Reversed”, so I do have that now.

I really just want to be certain of what cruiser the Lyran, Hydran, and ISC are officially supposed to fly for U2.0 - and what their OpFor for the base attack mission would be.

Thanks again for taking the effort to look all that up.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 07:13 pm: Edit

All good

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Gregory S Flusche,

you can have both on the Jindarian Asteroid ships as an option. The fighters internal, replacing prospectors, and place the bombers on external landing pads (R16.FB2).

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Wednesday, January 29, 2020 - 09:46 pm: Edit

Wayne

Yeah expensive to do it. I was going by the published scenarios.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Saturday, February 01, 2020 - 11:25 am: Edit

Hi Steve,

Cool! So we can do that under R16.R2.

John

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, February 01, 2020 - 11:31 am: Edit

John L Stiff:

Uhm, I do not see the conflict. As I noted, when I went looking to check and see if the Jindarians were allowed to replace prospecting shuttles with fighters, I did not check the refits rules specific to the Jindarians, and so missed (R16.R2). I then acknowledged that I was error and that a Jindarian cruiser (rock ship) could replace prospecting shuttles with fighters. Rule (R16.R2) enables this.

See my January 29, 2020 - 06:05 pm post.

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Sunday, February 02, 2020 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Hi Steve,

I can ask my first Jindarian question regarding the next Battle Force.

When replacing Prospecting Shuttles with Fighters, does one get a credit? I ask because the Prospecting Shuttle shows 7/2 (EPV/BPV). The Met-2 Y174 shows 11 BPV (6/11 EPV/BPV). It looks like a 1 EPV credit per Met-2.

Thanks,

John

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Sunday, February 02, 2020 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Yes as far as I know you get the points back for the Prospecting shuttles. I think at Economic value?

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Monday, February 03, 2020 - 04:26 pm: Edit

John L. Stiff:

That is kind of one of those "interesting, but of little note" things.

The upshot is that there is no provision to use "economic points" for Commander's Options. Even though you technically get the credit, there is nothing you can spend it on.

On the plus side, should your ship be destroyed, the "stockpile" of unspent economic points does not become an additional boon to your opponent for his victory calculations.

Basically you get a trade in value of 2 points and pay only nine points for the fighter. But the fighter will still net the enemy six economic points for killing it, the economic points for the prospecting shuttle do not reduce its value when destroyed.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Monday, February 03, 2020 - 05:31 pm: Edit

yeah been there done that. Played a battle vs a friend and he killed my Prospecting shuttles and ran away. After checking the points he won growl

By John L Stiff (Tarkin22180) on Tuesday, February 04, 2020 - 10:42 am: Edit

Hi Steve,

Got it. Use the BPV. Still the "trade in" value is nice to have.

Thanks,

John

By Majead Farsi (Devil) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 06:45 am: Edit

Hi I need a little clarification on the Heel Nipper rules for the Carnivon.
When the Heel Nipper hits it causes 1 point of damage to the warp engine it targeted but also causes the ship to lose its next scheduled movement (if was going to move!)on the following impulse and be forced to turn Right or Left depending on which warp engine was hit (with all TM being set to zero). Now this is where I need clarifying: When can the said ship use a HET to counteract this? On the same impulse as it is forced to turn or on the subsequent one (one after!)?
HET are done before movement so if the HET can be done on the same impulse as the turn forced by the Heel Nipper, does it need to be done first then?
If HET can be done on the subsequent impulse then its straight forward and the tactical implications are also obvious.
Thanks for the help in advance!

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Majead Farsi:

(YE24.31) EFFECT OF A HIT: In the event that the heel nipper strikes the target, the following effects are resolved:
3. The target is involuntarily forced to turn (YE24.32) [but not move] on the next impulse, and its Turn Mode and sideslip mode are reset to zero. Any directed Turn Mode (C3.8) accumulation is lost.

(YE24.312) Heel nippers do not affect reserve power, so reserve warp power could be used by the target to execute an High Energy Turn or a warp Tactical Maneuver on the impulse following a heel nipper hit.

(YE24.315) As heel nippers do not block High Energy Turns, a unit struck by a heel nipper being forced to turn or not turn normally can use an allocated or reserve High Energy Turn to overcome this on the subsequent impulse

You cannot use a HET on the impulse the heel nipper hit because the heel nipper is a direct-fire weapon and is fired near the end of the impulse well after all movement has taken place.

Rule (YE24.315) specifically allows you to use a High Energy Turn to partially void the maneuver restriction of the heel nipper hit. Note that "partially" in this case means you can use the high energy turn to move in a direction of your choosing at the cost of five hexes of movement energy and burning your HET bonus (if you had not previously lost it) or risking a HET breakdown, but you turn mode and side slip modes are still reset to zero by using the HET even if technically you could claim to have evaded them being reset by using the HET. If a heel nipper hits you, whether you HET or not, your turn mode and side slip mode are reset to zero.

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 06:19 pm: Edit

The Plasma Empires need to either get that Tech are higher a few Mercenary Puppies to use it. One good hit and turn and blam Plasma will HIT

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Good timing with the Heel Nipper could steer the ship into big Death Bolts.

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 10:33 am: Edit

Heel Nippers are good for derailing an opponents plans, but are less reliable for enhancing your own.

What I mean is, when I was working on the tactics for the new Battleforce article, one of my opponents for it was your Carnivron force, Majead, and in the "Simulations" I ran, I had them using Heel Nippers to break up my Tholian Destroyer formations and to disrupt attempted Hydran overruns.

Overall, I found them too unreliable when it came to forcing an enemy along the path of an incoming Death Bolt, and I find it reasonable to believe the same would end up being true for Plasma Torpedoes as well.

As far as COUNTERING the effects, sure, allocating power for HETs is an option, but I found that even my beloved Tholian Destroyers didn't have enough power to do that on a regular basis AND have enough power for what was GOING to be done that turn.

The other option I found was to have the rest of my flotilla turn to stay with the Heel Nipped unit. By keeping formation integrity and the mutual defensive fire, I found that the Nippers had the least effect on my offensive plans (such as they were).

For the Hydran Hunters and Horseman, the disruption of their overrun attacks was devastating.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 08:38 pm: Edit

Heel nippers also have an INSANELY short range.

And yeah, you can mess with their overruns. But then you need to deal with the fighters.