| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, December 04, 2025 - 05:33 pm: Edit |
Specific (can build SCS) overides general ((1 A-20 per turn in the fall...)
| By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 09:23 am: Edit |
The Kzinti capital is captured by the Coalition. They relocate the shipyard to the offmap.
If they subsequently recapture the capital hex, is Kzintai a "capital" planet for purposes of PDUs (ie: max 20)? Or a major since it's where the capital and shipyard are currently located?
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Monday, December 22, 2025 - 06:20 pm: Edit |
Once liberated, Kzintai is a major world until the Kzinti make it into a capital again [by (re)building the shipyard] … (IIRC)
| By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Friday, January 02, 2026 - 12:41 pm: Edit |
What size class does an OPB count as for purposes of removing a ship from a slow unit pursuit?
| By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Friday, January 02, 2026 - 10:27 pm: Edit |
OPB [OAL] (R1.45A) is SC3,
| By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 10:03 am: Edit |
What size step for (537.222)? 3A? 3B?
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, January 03, 2026 - 03:31 pm: Edit |
(537.22) doesn't apply to OPBs. An OPB is not a ship.
The applicable rule would be (453.22).
| By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, March 21, 2026 - 02:50 pm: Edit |
Why is it that the Fed SIT has an "Operates in many ways as a PFT" note for the NVA but not for the CSV?
Perusing the rulebook, I see one costing difference between them. The "if A-20 fighters are used" below appears to refer to the NVA.
Is that the only difference?
(440.1) FEDERATION HEAVY FIGHTER CARRIERS
This rule from the original Carrier War is replaced by rule
(527.0) on a later page. As a special discount, the first two NVHs
cost seven points plus nine points for the F-111 fighters (10 if A-
20 fighters are used)
| By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Saturday, March 21, 2026 - 09:31 pm: Edit |
I searched the F&E BBS for the following question under "NPF" and "502.611" (separately, two searches) and could not find an answer.
Here's my Q:
Issue Statement: (A question in two parts)
Q502.611, Part 1:
In view of the Lyran SIT read in the light of 502.611, can the Lyran NPF be built in the spring of Y178?
502.611, Part 2:
If yes to Part 1, can the Lyran NPF be built with PFs in the spring of Y178?
Relevant Rules:
Rule (502.611) states, in relevant part, "These free PFs cannot be transferred, and additional PFs cannot be purchased." (Emphasis supplied.)
The Lyran SIT indicates that the NPF is available in Y178. No "F" (for "Fall turn" follows that production year)
Every other Lyran PFT on the SIT that can be produced in Y178 states Y178F specifically - except - the Lyran DNLP, which is listed as a "future" unit (and therefore not officially part of the game yet).
Analysis:
The production limitation of Y178F on the other PFTs makes sense, as 502.611 indicates that no additional PFs can be built on turn PF1, which is Y178S for the Lyrans. Therefore, it may be inferred that there is a typo for the Lyran NPF on the master SIT, and that its YIS should be Y178F, like all other Lyran PFTs available that year.
However, under the strict reading of the SIT it is possible to produce the NPF in Y178S.
Equally under a strict reading of 502.611, said newly produced NPF in Y178S could not be provided with PFs.
Nevertheless, it is possible that an exception was intended for the Lyran NPF, though one was never expressed explicitly. Under the principle that nothing is allowed unless expressly allowed, this argument is deemed weak.
SFU JAG Recommendation:
JAG recommends that the Lyran Master SIT be updated so that the NPF YIS is changed to "Y178F" from "Y178." That one change makes the problem go away, and makes all Lyran PFT availability in that year consistent.
In the alternative, JAG recommends that an explicit exception be stated when updating the basic ruleset - a new rule that indicates an exception for the Lyran NPF (permitting it to buy PFs in Y178S).
With respect to the Lyran DNLP, again recommend updating the SIT to indicate a YIS of Y178F, even though it is a future unit and not yet part of the game (for players who want to experiment with it).
Prayer for Relief
Ruling on the two-part question is respectfully requested.
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, March 21, 2026 - 10:41 pm: Edit |
As the SITs guy I have updated the Y178 Lyran PF ships to Y178F.
FEDS: Concurs.
| By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, March 22, 2026 - 08:39 pm: Edit |
Question on - Nevertheless, it is possible that an exception was intended for the Lyran NPF, though one was never expressed explicitly. Under the principle that nothing is allowed unless expressly allowed, this argument is deemed weak.
Would not the NPF have Interceptors, which have a YIS of Y176, and not PFs?
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, April 02, 2026 - 12:15 am: Edit |
Per (523.12) GENERATING XTPs, do the Tholians get 5 XTPs for their undevastated capital planet and 12 XTPs for the undevastated Tholian homeworld, or is it just the homeworld? The way the rule is written, it is arguable that they can get both bonuses.
FEDS:
The Tholians SPECIFICALLY receive 12 BONUS XTPs for their UNdevastated home world as opposed to the GENERAL rule that covers other undevastated home worlds; they don't receive both.
Note however that capital planets (either devastated or undevastated) are still counted towards the overall bonus equal to 40% of the EPs generated normally by ALL planets in the line above it in (523.12).
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Thursday, April 02, 2026 - 06:52 pm: Edit |
FEDS, thanks. It is as I first understood it to be. It was a further reading of it that it made my list of "things that make you say, 'Hmm'".
| By John Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Friday, April 10, 2026 - 12:51 am: Edit |
FEDS, another question based on the above, please. For that "bonus equal to 40% of the EPs generated normally by all of their planets", is the Dyson sphere considered a planet?
In the (753.0) Economics Chart it is listed as a major planet, but in the OOB (707.41) chart it is excluded as a planet and in (707.42) it is specified by write-in as a Dyson sphere. Do the Tholians receive the 8 XTP in that line above in (523.12)? You neither included nor excluded it in your answer above.
My apologies for being a rules lawyer.
| By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 - 10:37 am: Edit |
A military convoy has 3 escorts, so the group is [MC+AD5+AD5+FWE].
The group can be crippled for 60 points of directed damage (50 with an X-ship/mauler).
Does this destroy the milcon, since all units are flipped and the MC has no uncrippled side? Or do the escorts have to all be destroyed before killing the milcon?
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, June 01, 2026 - 04:41 pm: Edit |
***Sent by email to SVC:
In a recent game of F&E, some arguments came up about the production capacity of weird ships in the MSIT.
The main offender here is the Klingon D6Y - it was reasoned that, as an experimental testbed, it isn't meant to be produced and should be limited to the one counter the Klingons have at game start. The logic is that the FO 440.7 subsection 2 states "...It does not count against carrier production limits" - and the player wanted to build these early on and then convert them to D6Us later on.
There has also been questions on the production capacities of the oddball ships present in TacOps - the suggestion is for the Gorn to build their DND via conversion to be popping out 10 command dreadnoughts faster.
So, my question is: what, if any, are the production limits of any of these ships?
***Answer by FEAR:
First, all questions for FEAR response should be posted in the appropriate topic on the BBS: http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/ Federation & Empire Questions Q&A You don't need my personal email to post a question there. I will see it there and my spam filter here might delete your email here.
Second, While the D6Y was experimental it should count against the extra escort carriers that the Klingons can produce via production limits for carriers in (703.0). Limiting it to just one would limit the Klingons too much. Players should be able to build as they wish as the cost of building a D6V and then converting it to a D6U later is the same cost as building a D6Y and converting it to a D6U according to the SIT. The D6V is much more useful early in the General War, but if players want to have a more than one D6Y in their fleets it is their choice on how they do it. We will be adding a limitation in 440.7 that the D6Y counts as an escort carrier in the build limits.
As for the Gorn DND, the Gorns are limited on the number of conversions they can do a turn and, historically, this is sufficient to limit such things. We don't see a need to change that.
This was sent via email back to Alex, FEAST, and SVC and took way too long to do both.
| By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, June 15, 2026 - 10:05 pm: Edit |
Jay and I are playing Scenario 612 for a difference. Do the Hydrans use the "pre-war" construction for Turns 1 and 2 or do they use the "wartime" production that they'd usually get at Turn 3?
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 - 12:35 am: Edit |
Pre-War schedule. They have to ramp up to the wartime schedule.
Kzinti use the same schedule, but at 50% economy they will be limited as to what they can build. No carryover of EPs until at War.
Ryan
F&E OB Specialist
(I maintain the OOBs)
| By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 - 03:50 am: Edit |
Ryan, I would have thought that the Kzintis would simply be purchasing what's flatly listed in their build schedules. They can't make substitutions or conversions or anything, can they?
| By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, June 16, 2026 - 03:13 pm: Edit |
The Kzinti can purchase anything on their build schedule. I don't belive they can make substitutions or conversions.
| By John M. Williams (Jay) on Wednesday, June 17, 2026 - 12:11 pm: Edit |
I believe that the AT1 and AT2 production schedule for the Kzintis simply becomes PWC. See 612.151.
Another question on Scenario 612: when does the Kzinti Barony Fleet arrive? Still during the strategic movement phase of AT2 or is its entry delayed by the Kzintis entering the war later?
FWIW - in Demon of the Eastern Wind, the Barony Fleet's arrival is delayed because the Kzintis join the war later.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |