Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through March 16, 2023	25		03/16 09:31pm
	Archive through May 24, 2023	25		05/25 03:10am
	Archive through June 16, 2023	25		06/18 09:30am
	Archive through June 22, 2023	25		06/26 09:32am
	Archive through August 21, 2023	25		09/25 06:13am
	Archive through January 12, 2024	25		01/12 09:14pm
	Archive through March 02, 2024	25		03/03 11:31am
	Archive through March 23, 2024	25		03/30 06:33pm
	Archive through May 30, 2024	25		07/11 09:02am
	Archive through November 03, 2024	25		11/10 12:03am
	Archive through December 22, 2024	25		12/23 05:59am

---

Quote:

(314.3) The Romulans conducted a series of “privateer” raids into the Federation during the period before their invasion. These rules reflect this campaign. Pre-war raids by Romulans or Klingons are limited to province disruption only (314.27).

---

By Benjamin Lee Johnson (Jedipilot24) on Sunday, December 22, 2024 - 07:24 pm: Edit

If the Fed decides to intercept with a real ship instead of a police ship that's just going to die pointlessly and does detect the raider, then the 6th Fleet could take losses.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 22, 2024 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Ryan,

On turns 7-9, it doesn't. I got that wrong. And turn 10 depends on whether or not the Klingons have activated 6th fleet. Per 314.28, the alternative attack can not be done in the area of an inactive fleet.

I still think the situation starting on turn 11 is nuts.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 22, 2024 - 10:39 pm: Edit

William,

The other issue with using a SUP in the raid pool is the ship are as follows:
1. Limited build 1/turn
2. Takes one of your carrier builds
3. Is a 9 point command ship.

While certainly usable in the raid pool, it has many uses outside of the raid pool and many ships that are just as useful, if not as powerful, for the raid pool.

The opportunity cost of that ship being in the raid pool and being risked there since he could lose, is probably greater than the gain.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, December 23, 2024 - 05:59 am: Edit

The opportunity cost is high, no question. But being able to kill a DN+ in a fleet that is sitting on an SB is a tremendous deal.

If one computes the SSC modifiers for SUP+PT versus DN+ with PT, it comes out like this:

SUP+PT 16 compot vs 11 defpot is +3. One needs 3 casualties to kill the DN+. That means a modified roll of 10 or more on 2 dice. Hence a raw roll of 7 or more, or which happens 21/36 of the time, or about 58%. However, the DN+ then gets a 1/6 chance to make depot. So it dies about 48% of the time, with an additional 10% chance of being removed from play for 4 1/2 game turns.

Furthermore, on a raw roll of 5 or 6, the Feds take 2 casualties, so the only way for the Feds to save the DN+ is to retreat their fleet off of the SB. That may not be worth it. So the chance of killing the DN+ may be even higher.

The DN+ with PT meanwhile has 13 compot vs 14 DefPot. So it rolls at -1. Because of the fighters, it takes 4 casualties to kill the SUP, or a modified roll of 11 or higher. This happens only on a raw roll of 12, or about a 3% chance.

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Monday, January 06, 2025 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Would not the CVF/DVL be able to adequately stop that (where they are)? Not sure the DVL would be allowed to intercept by itself though. Also, would not a DNL do a bit better than the DN+? Been a long time since I played but thought those may help.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, January 07, 2025 - 02:36 am: Edit

DVL yes. But you only get one of them, and that only in Y173.

CVF also becomes available in Y173. It is borderline. The SSC math is that SUP+PT rolls at +1 versus CVF+PT. Meanwhile, CVF+PT rolls at even versus SUP+PT. This is not great, especially considering that the CVF costs 23-24EP, while a SUP costs 19EP. It's also quite bad if the Feds are not willing to retreat their fleet to satisfy SSC casualties. But it's better than letting the SUP hunt unhindered.

Neither of these can react to raids. They only protect the hex they are in.

By Timothy Linden (Timlinden) on Tuesday, January 07, 2025 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Theoretically the DVL likely should be doing its own such raiding instead. Perhaps even against SUP's without PT's.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, January 07, 2025 - 09:33 pm: Edit

I am now thinking I may just have the whole thing wrong. There is a sentence I missed. I've bolded the sentence below:

(314.244)Reaction Battle: The raiding ship and reacting ship (or equivalent), possibly combined with any defending units already in the hex (314.25), then fight one round of combat; no pursuit is possible. The players must use Small-Scale Combat (310.0) if the requirements for its use are met. A defending unit could decline battle, and the raid would then be resolved under (314.252). A cloaked raider cannot use (314.28). Rules (318.7) and (314.73) allow for larger forces in some circumstances, and these would be resolved by regular combat. See also (314.25), which allows defending ships in the raid target hex to join the reaction

(314.28) is the rule that allows a raider to attack a ship. It's what I've been whining about.

It's a bit weird that this sentence is in the middle of the reaction battle rule. But it may be saying that a raider that uses its cloak can't make that alternative attack.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 02:51 am: Edit

William

'Best guess' is that the powers that be noticed that certain ships in certain situations become too powerful and they changed the rule?

i.e. Raid+Cloak+Powerful Ship was unbalancing.

I don't have the update AO Rules - but I do have the original 2003 Rules and 314.244 DOESN'T have the text in bold.

In addition AO 2003 in rule 314.246 does state a Cloaked Ship can use 314.27 or 314.28.

So if your playing old AO - it is an issue - if your playing new AO - the SUP has to decide whether to use it's Cloak - and can't then target a ship under 314.28 - or not use it's Cloak and try to target a key target if it lives (not likely if it's a DN or something hiding....).

In other words- check what version your using (and relevant for me, as I always miss a key rule) - actually fully read all the rules!

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, January 08, 2025 - 04:29 pm: Edit

I did read the rules, multiple times. But I was focusing on (314.246) and (314.28). Neither of those has the sentence.

At this point, it seems to me that someone must have previously raised concerns similar to my own, and the sentence was likely added as a response.

Assuming the sentence really means what it appears to mean, I think it's a good add. But it should be in (314.246) or in (314.28), not in (314.244). Additionally, what is likely really meant is that if a raider has a cloak, it cannot gain the benefit of both (314.246) and use (314.28). That is, a raider with a cloak should of course be allowed to use (314.28), provided it forgoes the benefit of (314.246).

Brief rules index for this post:
(314.246) says that cloaked raiders are difficult to intercept.
(314.28) is the rule that allows a raider to attack a ship in the target hex.
(314.244) is the reaction battle rule.

By Chris Larkin (Cupcakus) on Sunday, February 23, 2025 - 05:38 pm: Edit

I've decided to blow the dust off my F&E and SFB stuff after many years. Is the Discord for the community active, or is this board the only place the community actively hangs out?

All the invite links I've found for the Discord don't work, if someone could send me a recent one I'd appreciate it.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, April 23, 2025 - 04:14 pm: Edit

The ancient F&E sheets K and L have been combined into the new Sheet KILO which has 64 new counters.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/42347.html?1732055263

The Old F&E sheets V1+V2 has been replaced by the new Sheet VULKAN which has 64 new counters.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/42346.html?1732054529

The old Sheet SIERRA has been updated to include 64 new counters.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/43046.html?1733100327

The recent Sheet INDIGO was reprinted with one or two trivial updates.

The recent sheet for PLANETARY OPS has been reprinted with a trivial update or two.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, May 30, 2025 - 01:00 pm: Edit

Chris Larkin, there are folks on discord and active is a relative term. I am sure you understand if you had to blow the dust off your game materials

I hope someone reached out if not you should be able to find me on discord.