| Subtopic | Posts | Updated |
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:49 pm: Edit |
Archive through July 09, 2002
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 06:30 pm: Edit
F&E MASTER ERRATA FILE
Since I don't know when Joe will be able to post this permanently to the website's errata page, SVC gave me permission to post this here so it is at least available to those who want to grab a copy.
This contains errata from Captain's Logs #14 through #23. Duplicates and contradictions have been resolved. Anything that was already incorporated into the F&E2K rulebook was removed. That means it applies to F&E2K, CV War, Spec Ops, and Marine Assault. It does not apply to earlier printings of the basic rulebook, i.e. it will not "patch" an earlier printing of the core book to the 2K version.
The stasis chart is totally screwed up by the board. If you copy and past it into something that uses fixed width font (courier is a good choice font for this) they should all look correct, but you will have to add in all the extra spaces manually on your own. The board removes the extra spaces whether you use fixed width font or not, it is really irritating but I don't know what to do about it. I could post it as a table, and it would look correct on the BBS, but when you guys copy and past it, it will be screwed up again so that doesn't fix the real problem. For now you will just have to fix it manually yourself by using courier and adding the extra spacing manually. Just add spaces until the vertical lines "|" all line up with each other, and it should work out. Sorry.
Once Joe posts it it should be a link to a .txt file and it should look correct.
===============================================================================
| FEDERATION AND EMPIRE MASTER ERRATA FILE |
===============================================================================
THIS ERRATA FILE APPLIES TO:
F&E-2000 REV. 4
CARRIER WAR-1993 REV. 0
SPECIAL OPS-1993 REV. 0
MARINE ASSAULT-1995 REV. 0
COMPILED FROM CAPTAIN'S LOGS #14-#23
DOES NOT INCLUDE ERRATA FOR PRE-2000 EDITIONS OF F&E BASIC RULES (REV. 0 THROUGH REV. 3)
CHARTS IN THIS FILE BEST VIEWED WITH A FIXED WIDTH FONT
THIS FILE COMPILED ON 3/2/02
===============================================================================
(302.212) Use this text as (302.232).
(302.742) This includes Monitors. All escorts can stay with their charges, but each escort added to the slow retreat force allows the pursuer to add a ship (up to command limits).
(308.47) Should refer to (308.43) not (203.54).
(308.86) Voluntary SIDS on a BATS resolve 4 points, not 4.5.
(308.87) This replaces (521.82).
(313.33) BASE EW: The changes in Advanced Missions 1999 have no effect on Federation & Empire (at least until Y178).
(317.1) AUXILIARY SCOUTS: The Hydrans have one LAS in the Home Fleet and one SAS (each) in the 1st and 2nd Fleets. The Kzintis have one LAS in the Duke's Fleet and one SAS in the Count's Fleet. More auxiliary scouts can be built, counting against the Auxiliary Carrier limit. See Advanced Ops for LAS/SAS factors.
(317.2) EW FOR PDUs: Each battalion (PDU or PGB) produces 1 electronic warfare point, but the maximum EW that can be produced by all of the battalions on a given planet is four EW points.
(317.41) HYDRAN PGS: The Hydrans have four PGS scouts in their original Order of Battle. These are in the Old Colonies, but three can be brought onto the map one per turn starting Turn #1. The fourth cannot enter the map until it is converted into a PFT. See Advanced Ops for PGS factors.
(410.3) SFGs retain their special ability when out of supply.
(420.2) Should refer to (413.42) not (410.34).
(432.12) DN costs vary; pay the cost on the SIT not 16.
(439.0) For salvage purposes, the cost of a battleship is 24 points. Ships destroyed while in a web yield salvage to the Tholians (not their owners) if the base/planet is not captured or destroyed in that battle.
(439.11) Salvage rate for most races is 25%.
(439.18) Salvage rate for Feds/Klingons 30%.
(439.18) The higher percentages apply to Klingon and Federation ships without separable sections. This reflects the average recovery from both types of ships to simplify the record-keeping.
(439.21) SAFs do not generate salvage when lost.
(439.22) Base hull costs for Hydran salvage are as follows: 16 points for the DN classes, 10 points for BCH classes (OL), 8 points for CA and CC classes (RN, DG, LM, LB, etc.), 5 points for CW classes (HR, TR, etc.), 6 points for DD classes (KN, LN, etc.) and NCA (MHK and IRQ) classes, and 3 points for FF classes (HN, CR, etc.). If this value differs from the salvage shown on the SIT (Advanced Ops), use the SIT value.
(440.4) Carriers with five or more FIGHTER FACTORS....
(503.34) Tholians go neutral except in the case of (602.48).
(511.321) Costs are not doubled on the 3rd or 4th turn.
(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all "static" ships are transferred to the "mobile" fleet element.
(513.6) The Hydran FSP cannot use its special mauler abilities if it is placed in the Formation bonus position (308.7). The Hydran FSP is treated as a mauler unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules, e.g., it must have consorts (the tug cannot be considered a consort to the pod).
(514.1) Revised: The Klingon player rolls one die each turn (two if at war with the Federation). When the running total of these die rolls reaches or exceeds 100, the Klingon can (but does not have to) take a swarm. When a swarm is taken, deduct 100 from the running total and the Klingons lose their free fighters for one year (training cadres used in swarm). If a swarm is taken after the PF3 turn, the PFs are included. Note, rules (514.11) onward remain as printed.
(515.13) ... unless the missing ship is the one required light escort (515.35).
(515.22) The Hydran CVM is artificially classed as a "medium" carrier because the Hydrans usually operated it with 2 escorts.
(515.25) Gorn and Lyran Auxiliary Carriers can have zero, one, or two escorts.
(515.33) Battleships cannot be used as escorts.
(515.33) A ship used as an escort cannot be the battleforce flagship (nor does assignment as an escort remove a ship from the flagship selection procedure) or a member of a Battle Group [Advanced Operations]. Ground combat ships lose their ability if used as ad hoc escorts. Tugs and LTTs (regardless of the pod they are carrying) cannot be used as ad hoc escorts.
(515.34) Hydran destroyers (KN, LN, HDW) used as ad hoc escorts count as heavy escorts (just as Hydran DEs do) in an exception to the general rule. DWEs and DWs used as ad hoc escorts are light escorts. Standard warships serving as ad hoc escorts can be targeted by directed damage even if not the smallest (outer) escort.
(515.35) This rule prohibits the tactic of adding an extra "heavy" escort to the carrier group, then giving up the original "light" escort, providing a group with the original number of ships but with more density. If the required "light" escort is destroyed, its "command space" is still vacant and any "extra" heavy escort is still an "extra" escort taking another command slot.
(515.35) The two parenthesized comments got reversed in editing. The one required "light escort" in a group with two or more escorts can be replaced with an equivalent "light" hull. The other escorts in a group with two or more escorts can be light or heavy escorts (or light or heavy equivalent hull warships). A group with only one escort can have a light or heavy escort, or an equivalent standard (light or heavy) warship.
(515.43) Monitors (even with pallets) cannot be escorted. Special Attack Forces cannot be escorted in this way.
(515.54) Escorts must be the same race as the carrier they are formed into a group with.
(516.21) C: If one of the LTTs is destroyed while setting up the MB, the other LTT can complete the set up.
(516.32) The Klingon D5G can only perform LTT missions D (supply), F (move FRD), H (carry economic points), K (deliver PDUs), or M (normal operations) or N (Marines).
(516.33) Confirm, the Romulan SPH is treated as a CW for purposes of (421.0), not as a LTT or TUG.
(517.24) Pods cease to function on a crippled tug; they have no crippled factors and are not accounted for in subsequent attacks on the tug (they are of course destroyed with the tug).
(517.32) Hydran tugs or LTTs carry one pod at a time.
(517.38) A Gorn tug can carry two pods (it would be overloaded if it did so), but only one of these can be a battle pod and only one can be a PFT pod. If carrying a repair pod, no other pod can be carried. The Gorns do not have carrier pods.
(518.21) This rule is in error. Any Fed ship can carry a swac, but (518.22) defines who can USE one.
(518.45) If two SWACS are assigned to the same mission (bombardment disruption or going wild), the effect is the same, except both SWACs survive on a roll of 4-6, one SWAC is lost on a roll of 2-3, and both SWACs are lost on a roll of 1. (Thanks to playtester Richard Goranson for reminding us of this lost rule.)
(519.11) Each Monitor MUST be placed at a planet not in the capital hex (the shipyard hex for the Gorns and Romulans). If the planet is devastated, the monitor can be redeployed at the start of the owning player's next turn. Once a monitor is deployed at a planet, it cannot leave that hex until an entire defense brigade has been added to that planet or until the planet has the maximum number of PDUs. Whenever a monitor leaves a planet, it must designate what other planet it is moving to and must move there by the most expeditious route. It cannot be assigned to a planet which has the maximum number of PDUs unless there is no planet of the same race which does not have the maximum number of PDUs or a monitor.
(519.2) Monitors could be placed in the formation bonus box. See (521.323) for a special ground attack defense rule.
(519.21) Monitors do count against the command rating and could be given the formation bonus or the "base" position in the battle force. Monitors cannot be escorted (ala carriers).
(519.23) Monitors, even those with fighter or SCS pallets, cannot be escorted (515.4).
(519.32) Monitors assigned to a planet in a multi-planet system can only be reassigned during Operational Movement, not between combat rounds.
(519.32) Monitors are slow units for retreat (302.742).
(519.4) Fighter pallets do not exist at the start of the game and have to be built for Monitors during the game. PFT pallets may be built at the point the race qualifies to build PFTs. SCS pallets must be built new (available third turn of PF deployment); they cannot be produced by converting Fighter or PFT pallets.
(519.42) Monitor pallets do not count against any carrier build limits. A player can build as many monitor pallets as he wants, even more than he has monitors to carry them. [This might be done if some pallets are trapped in separate supply grids.] These pallets are delivered to the point they are needed (within the supply grid that includes the capital which produced them) by dedicated staff officers in the same manner that tug pods are re-routed as needed.
(519.44) Whenever new monitor pallets are built, dedicated staff officers take care of getting them to any monitor in the same supply grid.
(520.21) SAFs cannot use retrograde movement.
(521.31) This rule is in error. PDUs destroyed by (521.0) are in addition to the limit in (508.12).
(521.323) A monitor confers this protection from ground attack on a planet; bases do not benefit from it.
(521.323) This applies for any round in which a monitor is in the defending battle force, even if it is destroyed in that round.
(521.34) Each Ground Combat Unit (G on a ship counter) can make one attack. An FTL with four Gs can make four attacks.
(521.371) An SAV or LAV could be the consort (or escort) of an FTS or FTL, so long as it had not been assigned its own escorts.
(521.372) Auxiliary carriers could be assigned to escort troop ships, but not if they themselves have been assigned escorts.
(521.372) The defending player could target the commando ship if the escorts are crippled, so he could cripple them and then destroy the commando ship, all with one directed damage attack. Note that many commando ships lose this ability when crippled so you might not have to spend all of the damage points.
(521.711) LTTs can carry only one pod, and thus could carry only one of these assault pods. Federation TGs, Gorn TGs, Tholian CPCs can carry two pods (either or both of which could be assault pods), but Hydran TGs can carry only one pod.
(521.81) Ships with "G" factors do not lose those factors if carrying "extra G" units.
(522.13) Wounded prime teams count against the total number a race is allowed to have. A player cannot voluntarily lose or retire a wounded prime team to make room for another team.
(522.36) Prime Teams on a ship in the Formation Bonus Position or the Free Scout cannot perform Missions (522.41), (522.42), or (522.43). Prime Teams on escorted units not in the Formation Bonus position are not affected. Prime Teams on ships supporting but not actually in the battle force cannot perform Missions (522.41), (522.42), or (522.43).
(604.0) Turn 25 is Fall Y180.
(605.0) Turn 26 is Spring Y181.
(607.34) The Count's fleet can also set up on Starbase 0902.
(607.43) May produce D6S Y159+.
(607.44) May produce CD Y132+; may produce SDF Y159+.
(611.0) The Klingons set up first.
(611.32) One of the bases will have five Klingon ships.
(616.33) The secret PDUs can only be placed on original Hydran planets (not Klingon or Lyran planets) and you could easily have a battle with opposing PDUs on the same planet.
(652.211) Overbuilds are not allowed in Limited War.
(652.4) Should refer to (790.4) which replaced (751.0).
(653.9I) The term GSC should be SR two places.
(655.5) The Tholian Border squadron is released only if both the Klingons and the Romulans are at war with the Federation.
(752.0) Build cost 8 = Lyran BP, 4 = Lyran KBP, 2 = Lyran KVP.
(702.0): NCD can be subbed for NCL once/year (440.2).
(703.0): D5D for D5 or D6D for D6/D7 once/year (440.2).
(703.0) Klingon Spring production should have 2xD7.
(703.2) Production of D6S ships is limited to one per year through Turn #7, then one per turn thereafter.
(703.21) Add reference to (308.96).
(704.0): Romulan PHX should not have the scout diamond.
(705.0): CD for BC or DF for FF or MDC for CM once per year; see (440.2).
(751.11) Lyran BCH to True PFT = 3 points. Lyran DN to true PFT = 3 points.
( 757.6): Many Hydran ships are "single ship hybrid carriers", but only those under (515.43) can be escorted.
(757.8) Kzinti DD ad-hoc escort is a "heavy" escort.
SIT-F: Fed Battle pods are 10-4.
SIT-K: C8 to C8S conversion is 5+12.
SIT-R: Base hull of K4 is K4(4) not KR(4). PHX cost is 22+12. SNB and SE cannot be built by substitution.
SIT-G: BDP substitution is 9 points not 8. SCS (ship only) should be 14P(6)/7P(3), while group should be 33P(6)/17P(3).
SIT-H: Conversion of DG to RN is 3+2.
SIT-L: DD to PFW conversion costs 7 (two-step discount).
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
REVISED SAF PROCEDURE FROM CAPTAIN'S LOG #22
THIS MATERIAL COMPLETELY REPLACES THE SAF PROCEDURE FROM CL #20
THIS WAS ADDED TO THE MASTER ERRATA FILE ON 3/2/02
===============================================================================
(520.4) ASSAULT ON BASES
This procedure is used if the SAF is ordered to attack a Starbase, Battle Station, or other base that uses SIDS. (The target of the SAF is designated at the start of the Combat Procedure, after battle forces are formed and EW options are declared; before SFGs.) [The original text of (520.4) remains intact.]
(520.41) STEP A: The defending forces may use their one directed-damage attack to disrupt the SAF. This requires 12 damage points; maulers and SFGs cannot be used. Whichever option the defender picked, proceed to Step B.
(520.42) STEP B: Roll one die and consult the chart below to determine the result of the SAF attack:
DIE ROLL DISRUPTED NOT DISRUPTED
0-2 No Effect 2 SIDS
3-4 1 SIDS 3 SIDS
5-6 2 SIDS 4 SIDS
Note that the SIDS scored in this die roll are in addition to any caused by normal combat damage and does not count as the one directed-damage attack. If an SAF attack is made, the attacker may not make a separate attack with Marines in the same combat round. The die roll is modified by any negative EW shift against the SAF (maximum die roll shift of one).
(520.43) Unchanged from original.
(520.44) Mauler is no longer cumulative with the SAF as the SAF produces SIDS not damage points.
(520.6) ASSAULT ON PLANETS: If a SAF is declared to be targeted on PDUs, use the procedure in (520.4) with the following exceptions:
(520.61) Marine, Fleet, and SAF attacks on planetary defense units can be conducted in the same battle round. SAF attacks are not within the four-per-round limit.
(520.62) EW shifts have no effect on SAF attacks on PDUs, but the presence of a defending monitor produces a -1 die roll shift.
(520.63) Use the chart in (520.42) but read it as PDUs destroyed rather than SIDS scored.
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
REVISED STASIS SHIP PROCEDURE FROM CAPTAIN'S LOG #22
THIS WAS ADDED TO THE MASTER ERRATA FILE ON 3/2/02
===============================================================================
(312.22) FREEZING TARGETS: Each SFG can try to freeze one, two, or three targets (or other eligible units). A ship with two SFGs could make up to six attempts. All attempts must be declared before any are executed.
(312.221) Consult the chart and find the section of the chart for the ship mounting the SFGs. Note that the smaller SFG ships have a lower chance of freezing multiple targets.
(312.222) Roll each attempt on its own line, e.g., a D7A making three attempts would roll the first on D7A-1 (where 1-2 would freeze the intended target), its second on D7A-2, and its third on D7A-3 (where a "6" is a "Total Disaster!"). A B10A making its sixth attempt in a given combat round would use the B10A-6 line (where a "6" is a "Total Disaster!").
(312.223) In the event of a "Total Disaster!", the following effects are imposed on the SFG ship: no ships are frozen by that SFG ship in that round (even if previous die rolls said otherwise) and the SFG ship has an attack factor of zero for that combat round.
(312.231) This rule is subsumed into the chart below.
(312.234) Note that carrier groups are NOT unbreakable.
(312.44) An EW shift in favor of the SFG is ignored.
(312.126) An SBA cannot freeze an SAF targeted on PDUs.
=========================================================================================
| (312.222) SFG PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS CHART |
=========================================================================================
| | Target | Random | Defender | Nothing | Total | % of Freezing |
| Ship Type | Frozen | Frozen | Selects | Frozen | Disaster! | Something |
=========================================================================================
| D5A-1 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D5A-2 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
| D5A-3 | - | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | 50% |
=========================================================================================
| D7A-1 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D7A-2 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D7A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| C7A-1 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C7A-2 | 1-2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C7A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| C5A-1 | 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C5A-2 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C5A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
=========================================================================================
|C9A-1,C10A-1| 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|C9A-2,C10A-2| 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|C9A-3,C10A-3| 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
=========================================================================================
|B10A-1,B8A-1| 1-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | - | 100% |
|B10A-2,B8A-2| 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-3,B8A-3| 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-4,B8A-4| 1-2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-5,B8A-5| 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-6,B8A-6| 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| SBA-1 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| SBA-2 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
| SBA-3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-4 | - | 1-2 | 3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-5 | - | 1 | 2-3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-6 | - | 1 | 2 | 3-6 | - | 33% |
=========================================================================================
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 03:56 pm: Edit
Nick,
Another series of my "am I really doing this right" questions - sorry...
Situation is that 10 SEs of Kzinti ships are in 1504. They are attacked, but the attacking forces retreats after Approach is declined.
1) The Kzinti force still can exercise their 2nd retreat option, correct?
For retreat, there are no neutral hexes involved, there is no adjacent hex with more enemy SEs, 1304, 1405, 1502, and 1704 are all still in Kzinti hands - so no hexes are removed for supply (as all are range 2).
There are enemy forces in 1503 & 1404. They are eliminated - however, a fighting retreat could be conducted to these hexes.
2) Can the Kzinti's conduct a fighting retreat to 1503?
The Kzinti's pound on the lone unit in 1503, destroying it.
3) At this point, are the Kzinti's required to continue retreating?
4) If not, can they voluntarily continue retreating?
5) If 3 or 4 is correct, does the retreat priority reset without any previous history? For example, is 1504 eliminated because that's where I originally retreated from? (sorry if this is covered in the rules - I don't have them with me right now).
6) Assuming I again retreat somewhere, and given that at the start of combat province 1503 was only occupied by a single Lyran ship (now destroyed by retreat), do the Kzinti retain ownership of 1503 province?
Thanks,
Tony
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:19 pm: Edit
1) Rule (302.23) says that the attacker must retreat. I don't think the Kzinti can retreat (no combat actually happened, so you don't use (302.71) to determine who retreats, rule (302.23) already tells you that the attacker retreats). If you wanted the defenders to retreat before any combat happened, you could withdraw before combat.
2) Assuming combat actually happened in 1504 and the Kzinti could retreat, then you are correct, the Kzinti can use fighting retreat to 1503.
3) Yes you are required to contine retreating after each fighting-retreat combat, see (302.771).
4) You don't have a choice, see (302.771).
5) Retreat priorities reset every time, see (302.774).
6) The Kzinti would retain control (assuming the lyran ship entered the province on that player turn and was destroyed/chased out before the end of that player turn). By (438.2) provinces are captured/recaptured at the end of each player turn.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 05:15 am: Edit
A CEDS question (real scenario)
5 ships in hex. CV,MEC,EFF,FF+SE of fighters on CV
Battle is formed and the CV commander decides to withdraw before combat, it is opposed.
So, 2 ships can withdraw. The CV withdraws, taking its fighters, so 2 SEs withdraw.
So, before battle begins, we now have 3 SEs in the fight, the FF is the Flagship. The FF and EFF go on the line to die, while the MEC hangs back.
After the FF and EFF are vaporized the MEC withdraws to the same hex the CV withdrew too.
Now, the question is: Does this CV qualify for CEDS retrograde?
Thanks Nick.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Chris, yes it can, assuming the CV+MEC+EFF was considered a "group" at the start of combat.
See question 510 page 104 of CL#22. You can retrograde an undamaged carrier if it had assigned escorts that were damaged/destroyed.
See question 801 page 105 of CL#22 which deals with withdrawal before combat of carrier groups. You are allowed by (515.15) to break up carrier groups during withdrawal.
So at the start of combat if you assigned the EFF to the CV, and then broke it up again for withdrawal, the CV counts as having lost an escort and thus counts for CEDS retrograde.
Nick
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 12:47 am: Edit
Nick,
Please enlighten me on an issue of retrograde that I have never really understood.
Here's the situation.
- Kzinti CV+MEC in hex 1101.
- The only other Alliance units are in hex 1401 (the capital).
- Coalition units are in hex 1001, 1202, and 1302.
Q: Can the Kzinti CV+MEC (which is eligible for retrograde movement) retrograde to 1401?
Rule (206.22) says, "Retrograde movement cannot enter a hex adjacent to a hex containing enemy ships unless the hex entered contains friendly ships or is also adjacent to a hex containing friendly ships."
1. So if the two ships use retrograde movement to go from 1101 to 1201 they are technically not moving into a hex adjacent to friendly units (unless they are able to count themselves as ships adjacent to themselves) right?
Or is determining a retrograde "path" the same as determining a supply path, as in this case where the units are clearly in supply since the supply "path" can go into hexes 1301 and 1201 since both are "adjacent" to friendly ships? (Which doesn't even take into account the fact that supply could come directly from the Barony.)
2. Does the fact that the off map (Barony) is adjacent to these hexes have any effect?
3. Assume the Barony is not there (it's the edge of the galaxy instead). Does this change the outcome of their retrograde status?
Thanks for the help.
Ken
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 01:29 am: Edit
Ken,
You can retrograde to 1401 in that situation. Your ships in 1101 open hex 1201. Hex 1301 is opened by the Kzinti ships in the capital 1401.
As a rule of thumb, judge the retrograde conditions at the start of retrograde. Hex 1201 is closed by adjacent coalition ships, but opened again by the ships in 1101 (even if those ships are the ones doing the retrograding, they still get to open adjacent hexes, but only adjacent hexes, they cannot open hexes further along the path). Hex 1102 is valid for the same reason, but hexes 1002 and 1103 are closed by adjacent coalition ships, and there is nothing to open them, so they are not valid retrograde hexes.
Hex 1301 is closed by adjacent coalition ships, but opened again by the friendly ships in 1401.
The only effect of the Barony is to give you another retrograde option in this case, you can retro off map. It does not affect the status of closed hexes.
If it were the edge of the map, you could not retrograde off map, but you could still retrograde to the capital.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit
Nick, can you direct on more than one FRD in a given combat round, assuming there are several in the battle force?
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 10:55 pm: Edit
Alan, RE directing on FRDs:
I don't know of anything that provides an FRD exception for the rule about one DD attack per round, so I believe you can only attack one.
Nick
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:03 pm: Edit
Scott, You stated
"VBIR that goes negative might mean that the SFG cannot be used (like Craig choose a 4, and a -1 VBIR came up)"
This is incorrect. Rule (312.122) clearly states that involuntary reductions do not prevent SFG use. If the original BIR the attacker chose was 4 (or 5 when there are no mobile defenders), then the starbase's stasis can be used even if VBIR reduces it below 5.
"I interpret it as, Craig chooses 1, I choose 2, VBIR=+2, so a total of 5. So even if we are both choosing numbers, and VBIR goes up, so it is 5, the SFG works.
Craig interpret's it as, if he's choosing both numbers (and only then) if it goes to 5, the SFG can be used."
If the defender has mobile forces, and picks BIR 2, and the attacker picks BIR 1, and VBIR is +2, then the total is 5 and stasis can indeed be used by the starbase.
The two sentences about variable BIR's effects apply to all situations, not just to when the attacker picks both numbers.
Nick
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:11 pm: Edit
Robert, I have to think about this a bit and remember how the Feds work...
Nick
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:46 pm: Edit
Nick,
There was a similar situation ruled on by you before the board was redone. If you have the archives of the responses, check out the "Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 3:55 pm" post of yours.
Tony
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, July 01, 2002 - 11:48 pm: Edit
Also, another question on Robert's post...
________________________________________
Quote:
If on Alliance turn 6 Coalition ships are forced to retreat into the Marquis provinceses
________________________________________
I thought that you were never force to retreat into the Marquis (or anyplace else) that would be a future belligerent. Does that apply here or not?
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 02:05 am: Edit
Robert/Tony,
I do have the old archives, so here is my post from Feb this year that Tony pointed out. It was what exactly what I was thinking, but I wanted to make sure. Since I don't think the previous ruling was overturned, and since it matches what I was going to answer this time, I will just post it again.
======================================
by Nick Blank (Nickb)
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 3:55 pm:
Dana, I think it would be similar to rule (601.14) where the Hydrans enter Fed space on the alliance turn. The Feds would get to calculate their EPs for that turn retroactively (at 50%), and then moving to 75% on alliance turn 7. The Hydran rule says (spent immediately) whatever that means. Now the Feds would have already done their PWC for that turn (already spent a portion of their 50% income for turn 6), and I don't think you could delete any of that, but it sounds like they would at be able to add to their turn 6 PWC things that could be built at when at limited war (which they sort of now are at, except for the 50% income thing) and carry over any unspent EPs into the next turn.
It is a weird situation, but I would use (601.14) as precedent since that deals with the possability of activating the Feds in the middle of an alliance turn.
So I would say they get 50% income, since that was generated at the start of the turn and can't be changed, the do get to spend the excess or carry it over as per (601.14). Also, they would basically be considered at limited war from that point (middle of alliance turn 6) and could do anything allowed by limited war rules. They could strategically move any of their forces that are released under the limited war state like the 4th fleet, or the CVLs, on Turn 6 (I don't see anything that prohibits StratMove when at limited war). Other forms of movement would not be allowed, as those phases have already passed, and retrograde is only available to units that were in combat.
Turn 7 they would go to 75% economy, and turn 8 or later, assuming the Coalition enters Fed space, to 100% economy.
======================================
Note that you wouldn't be able to move the 4th reserve fleet, since by the time you are retreating all reserve movement is over. You could still use strat move though.
To answer Tony's other question, the Marquis area is NOT a future belligerant, it is part of Kzinti space, and the coalition can go anywhere in Kzinti space they want to since the Kzinti are in the war. The federation itself is a future belligerant, so the coalition cannot enter fed space on turn 6, but they can enter the marquis area, whether by operational or retreat or whatever legally gets them there.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 07:14 pm: Edit
NIck, quick question...
A ship moves 5 times in supply, it's 6 movement would be out of supply. Does that last movement cost 2 movement points as if the ship started out of supply or can it move it's usuall move?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, July 02, 2002 - 08:28 pm: Edit
Rule (410.21) states that supply status is evaluated at the start of Operational Movement. The status does not change during movement.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 01:52 am: Edit
Ok, another question involving withraw before combat.
An F5 is at a BATS. Can the BATS player count the fighter group off the BATS as a ship equiilent and withdraw the F5? Or does it have to fight one round?
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Wednesday, July 03, 2002 - 01:14 pm: Edit
Chris:
1) Supply doesn't change during movement, John W is correct.
2) If the fighters belong to the BATS they can't withdraw, if you transfered them to a mobile ship then they could. I don't think they count for the calculation of what can withdraw. As John D points out, it is largely irrelevent as you F5 doesn't have to fight since it can be an unchosen flagship candidate.
Michael O: That is really something that should be in general discussions, or perhaps proposed changes. This topic is for rules questions, sorry.
Nick
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 04, 2002 - 08:47 am: Edit
Nick, question if I may please!
OK, Battle is fought in a Hex with a base (none Multiple system hex), Player 1 is the attacker and has no slow units, Player 2 is the defender and has slow units.
Option 1 to retreat (Player 2) is declined
Option 2 to retreat (Player 1) is accepted
Option 3 to retreat (Player 2) is accepted
(i.e. both sides are retreating and are retreating to different hexes)
If the Base lives, there is no problem (the slow forces remain in the hex with the base).
If however the base was destroyed (or the battle was in a hex with no base or planet), the Slow units would also be allowed to retreat (and would create a slow battle, but as player 1 is retreating there is no slow battle).
The slow units would then retrograde to base within 3 hexes.
What happens if there is no friendly retrograde point within 3 hexes?
I would assume the slow stuff, even though it was not involved in a slow battle, would all be destroyed as it is unable to retrograde!
(In other words, you can force somebody to stay in a hex if they have slow forces and no retrograde point within 3 hexes, by destroying any base there).
Correct?
Thanks
P.S. If I am right, I will post a Tactic Note!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, July 06, 2002 - 01:08 pm: Edit
Ok Nick another question (just occured in my solo game!) please!
SFG's and Rule 312.235
Ok, situation, SAV is being escorted by 3 Escorts in a Slow Battle (Middle escort is Ad-hoc - AH, RN, FCR, SAV).
Coalition have an SFG in their line and use it (D7A, 2 attempts selected).
Outside Escort is targeted and first attempt rolls a Random Target!
Coalition have to selected 3 targets 1st - they can't select the original target (the AH) and as per rule 312.235 can only select one ship from a carrier group!
So, they can declare the RN as their first Random target, but can not selected a 2nd or 3rd target.
The defender can select the FCR and SAV (twice) for their 3 targets. (The AH is safe, as per 312.233)
So - ......
1 - RN
4 - FCR
5,6 - SAV
If a 2 or 3 is rolled you re-roll until 1, 4, 5 or 6 is rolled, correct?
Thanks!
Paul
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 11:44 pm: Edit
Paul:
1) That's what (302.742-C) says, the slow units are destroyed after the slow combat, even if there is no slow combat.
2) Remember that the defender can also only select one ship from a group as part of the random process (312.235). So the initial AH attempt was a random result, the coalition chooses the RN (the next escort), the defender chooses the FCR (the escort after that), neither can choose the SAV. So it would be a 50-50 decision between the RN and the FCR being frozen for that attempt.
Also see (312.224), only one attempt per target per turn, so if the only target for your stasis ship is the carrier group, you can only do one attempt (not two or three) since initially you can only select one ship from a group (312.271).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:57 am: Edit
Thanks Nick!
Now to write the Tactic Note!
Looks like the RN or FCR will die then (ouch!)
Paul
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:48 am: Edit
Update from Origins: Nobody can take more than 7 minus points into a pursuit battle as the pursued force, including the sacrifice of a Klingon penal ship. If you have more than 7, the others are just lost. Tough noogies. This eliminates the "cripple the B10 for one point to avoid pursuit" tactic that is such utter nonsense.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 11:20 am: Edit
Oh cool.....I think. Anything else?
I sacrificed Penal ship gives you essentailly 12 minus points for a D6J and 8 minus points for an F5J.....
Can we get an example of what it is that mean?
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:51 pm: Edit |
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 02:15 pm: Edit
Can you guys actually READ?
The Penal points are WITHIN not in addition to the 7-point limit. Sheesh. If you have one point of damage, cripple the B10, and sacrifice all seven Penal ships in the same battle, you STILL get SEVEN points PERIOD.
What part of "seven" is confusing?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:15 pm: Edit
SVC,
The confusing part was "Nobody can take more than 7 minus points into a pursuit battle, including the sacrifice of a Klingon penal ship"
Which to me, on the first read meant. During the final battle round a penal could still be used and get it to -7.
Then a penal ship could still be used in the pursuit round to reduce by X more.
So you mean the Pursuer cannot have their damage reduced, by any means, by more than 7. Period.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:48 pm: Edit
Well duh.
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 05:31 pm: Edit
SVC,
No disrespect intended here, but why a maximum of "7" minus points? Is there some significance to "7" minus points vs. any other number?
I was just wondering if there was something special about "7" or if was a number that just "sounded good".
Ken
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 05:33 pm: Edit
Ken: seven is eight minus one.
Eight is the strength of a heavy cruiser, the largest general production ship that you could in theory have a reason to burn for some reason other than to generate phony minus points for an escape.
And one is the smallest number of points you could have to burn off.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 12:32 am: Edit
I am really confused about the monitor rules (519.11). I can't tell what parts of the rule apply to opening setup and which apply at all times.
First question: assuming all of their uncaptured planets have a PDU, would it be legal for the Hydrans or Kzintis early in the war to build an extra PDB on each planet with a monitor, then bring those monitors home to the capitol?
Second question: Is there a limit to how many monitors can be stacked up on a planet? For instance, if Kzintai holds out for a while, could the Kzintis eventually stack up 5 or 10 monitors there?
Third question: (519.21) says monitors count against command limits in all cases. But (519.22) says that monitors in a hex with a planet are treated as bases for purposes of (302.2). And (302.231) says that a base will not count against the command rating. Does a monitor at a planet count against the command rating in a battle at that planet or not?
Thanks
William
By William Hughes (Patchfur) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 11:36 am: Edit
1) Can fighters off of crippled units use reaction movement?
2) Do tugs with the move FRD mission need to be indentified as to which specific FRD they are moving before a combat round?
3) Do the tugs moving the FRDs need to be included in a battleforce if the agressor reaches the base? How about the two cruisers towing them?
4) If so, do these tugs count against the command limit?
5) Does this apply in the pursuit round? Eg: 6 FRD, and 5 tugs. The attacker directs on an FRD. Can he choose a "towed" one so that it is destroyed, and the "untowed" one is lost because it cannot retreat? Or is there just a big pool of FRD, and if 5 live, then 5 get towed.
Regards
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 01:35 pm: Edit
William:
1) In order to move (release) a monitor, you must build 4 additional PDUs (a defense brigade) at the planet. Or you can build a BATS or Starbase (instead of the defense brigade) to release the monitor. So you build 4 PDUs at any planet with a monitor, that monitor could then go to another planet. Here is the errata for that rule, if you don't have it:
(519.11) Each Monitor MUST be placed at a planet not in the capital hex (the shipyard hex for the Gorns and Romulans). If the planet is devastated, the monitor can be redeployed at the start of the owning player's next turn. Once a monitor is deployed at a planet, it cannot leave that hex until an entire defense brigade has been added to that planet or until the planet has the maximum number of PDUs. Whenever a monitor leaves a planet, it must designate what other planet it is moving to and must move there by the most expeditious route. It cannot be assigned to a planet which has the maximum number of PDUs unless there is no planet of the same race which does not have the maximum number of PDUs or a monitor.
2) There is no overall limit, BUT, rule (519.11) does specify that you cannot put a second monitor at a given planet until EVERY uncaptured planet has either a Monitor, Brigade, or base. So as long as all your planets are evenly defended, you could theoretically have several monitors at each, but that so expensive as to be prohibitive. You cannot put two or more monitors at one planet without also beefing up the defenses of your other planets.
3) Monitors count as bases for purposes of triggering an approach battle only, they always count against command limits. They are not "free" like real bases are for command purposes, they are ships.
Nick
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 02:13 pm: Edit
William Hughes:
1) Yes they can. Crippled units generally have fewer fighters, but those they have can still react.
2) Nope, just give them the move FRD mission, they could pick up any FRD.
3) The tugs do not need to be included in general combat that reaches the base (but can be included if you want). If it is a slow unit retreat battle, the tugs are present.
4) If they were included they would count against the command limit like any other ships.
5) Since tugs are not assigned to specific FRDs and can tow any FRD, the pursuer cannot target a specific towed FRD. There is as you say, just a big pool of FRDs, and a pool of available towing ships.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 02:57 pm: Edit
Nick:
Are the Tholians the one known (but unmentioned) exception to the "no monitors deployed at the homeworld rule"?
They start with two monitors (I believe), but only have the one planet.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:20 pm: Edit
Question on Lyran Scout Pods. There are two of these and are they Scout Pallets meaning the Lyrans can have two four point scouts or are they Scout Pods meaning the Lyrans can have one four point scout?
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 06:01 pm: Edit
Greg, It is specifically mentioned in rule (519.11) that the Tholians can start with their two monitors at their capital, so it is not an "unmentioned" exception.
.
Damon, that is an Advanced Ops question, but here is the Lyran scout pod rule as last posted in the AO draft topic:
====================
Lyran: Have one scout pallet at start; can build up to one more (no more than two in service at any given time). Each pallet has 4 EW points (0 if the tug or LTT is crippled). A tug can carry one; an LTT cannot carry one. [Cost = 6 EP] Lyrans can build two smaller scout pods for their LTTs; Each pod has 2 EW points (0 if the tug or LTT is crippled). A tug can carry one or two; an LTT can carry one. [Cost = 3
EP] Klingon tugs and LTTs cannot use Lyran scout pods.
====================
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 11:05 pm: Edit
Where can the first 6 prime teams the Feds will have on Coalition Turn 7 be placed? Can they all be in the 3rd FLeet, or should they be spaced out among the different fleets per the PWC?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 02:28 pm: Edit
As a followup to Q2409 which appeared in CL24:
The answer refered to the Expeditionary Fleet rules for the Lyrans. The question asked about a Lyran K-pod on a Klingon Tug. The answer seem to imply that the supply status of the Lyran pod had to be accounted for separately from the Klingon Tug which is carrying it. Or am I reading too much into the answer that was given, and it is only the tug's supply status that must be checked?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 02:31 pm: Edit
Regarding "F&E Rules and Rulings" on page 106 (and originally posted in the After Action topic):
Q2402 - The answer given is different than the way it is applied in the SFB rules. As noted in the MSC, a tug only gets the addition to its command rating from one of the pods it is carrying. Thus a Kzinti, Klingon, or Lyran get +2 for having one battle pod or two battle pods, or even one battle pod and any other pod. Carrier pods give +1 wether there is one or two pods, but don't get counted if there is a battle pod at +2. Command ratings are the one thing that has been absolutely consistent between SFB and F&E.
This issue appeared in the AO discussions several weeks ago, where I pointed out that a number of pods have the wrong command rating plus listed in the SIT.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 05:57 pm: Edit
Robert:
I know of no rule that limits where those "at peace" prime teams can go, so I suppose you could deploy them where you wish as they are created.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:03 pm: Edit
John,
1) It means that you have to pay under the expeditionary fleet rules for that lyran pod. This means it is supplied by the Lyrans, but through the Klingon network of bases. So you pay for the pod as a Lyran expeditionary unit (since that is the exception that allows Lyran units into Fed space during the time of the question), and then judge supply through Klingon installations back to the Lyran supply grid.
2) Well that's what the answer says, give me a chance to look at it.
Nick
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 06:07 pm: Edit
Nick
Can foreign ships that are 'adopted' be repaired by the adopting race's repair freighters and tugs?
By Gary Quick (Garyquick) on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - 10:02 pm: Edit
Does a planet that has already been attacked and devastated by the enemy in the same turn count as a supply point for retreat? Can it?
410.2 talks about checking supply status for units, but I can't see where it talks about evaluating a "supply point."
Thanks!
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 12:01 am: Edit
Nick, thanks for looking at that Lyran scout pod question. A follow-up though. Just got a copy of the AO rules. Your post came from the rules on Scout Pods; however, in the Lyran OB it says, "2 scout PODS in service, 2 more scout PODS can be built." Any thoughts here?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 02:58 pm: Edit
If a ship is forced to retreat to an enemy planet (creating a new battle hex), but that planet only has PDUs/Monitors which can't be used in approach, does the ship have to fight 1 round at the planet before retreating again (or can it retreat after a "declined approach")?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 03:04 pm: Edit
Also, at what point in the sequence of play does an abandoned planet rejoin the original side?
Examples:
- Coalition has captured 1105 and has a garisoning frigate. The frigate reacts off to a passing ship. Does 1105 revert back to the Alliance at this point? Does it gain it's RDU? Does the planet no longer count as a valid supply point for retreat priority purposes?
- Coalition has 1105. The FF there is attacked and retreats. Later, another adjacent FF is attacked and wants to retreat to 1105 - does it face the RDU?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Final question (for now)
The reserve designation rules indicate that units in a reserve can not op move, retreat, or retro. However, there is nothing about having been involved in combat. I assume this means that (for whatever reason) units that didn't move but become involved in a battle hex can still be designated as reserves?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, July 19, 2002 - 05:15 pm: Edit
Sorry Nick! - Quick Question
Force A Attacks a SB, and has with it a SAV (or any Slow retreat unit)
Force B Defends a SB.
After one approach round, the attacker offers another approach battle.
The defender declines.
The attacking force withdraws...
Does the SAV (and escorts) -
A) Get away
B) Have a chance to get away
C) Fights a slow Round Battle
As far as I can tell, its C), but as normal forces withdrawing have a chance of escaping (i.e. the +1 on the Persuit dice), slow forces possibly should also have a chance?
Tanls
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 05:36 pm: Edit
OK, here are a bunch of answers:
==============================================
John Wyszynski RE: Tug + pod command ratings.
Let me send a note to Jeff and see if it is intentional that this be different from SFB or not. I agree it should probably be the same, i.e. any single battle pod should be +2 to the command rating (so should be listed as +2 on the SIT for both the Fed BP and a single Klingon/Lyran BP), with an overall limit of +2 to any one tug.
==============================================
Trent Tolenko RE: Repairing adopted ships.
I don't think you can do so, there is no rule for adopted ships that overrides the prohibition on using repair ships on other race's ships. Homeless ships that are adopted have their supply abilities/limits changed, but not their repair abilities/limits.
==============================================
Gary Quick RE: Supply from devestated planets.
Devestation has no effect on supply ability. Devestated planets still provide supply for whoever has them as part of their supply grid. What matters is if the planet was captured or not. If a given planet is devestated, but remains in the original owner's posetion, it still counts for supply for the original owner. If it was captured by the enemy, then it no longer counts for supply for the original owner. Once incorporated into the capturing player's supply grid (413.2), i.e. the beginning of the player turn after they are captured or recaptured, it will still be devestated, but will count as one of the capturing player's supply points. If recaptured by the original owner, it will be devestated for four turns, but will provide supply to that player during the recovery period.
==============================================
Damon Robert Anderson RE: Lyran Scout Pods
I don't know the answer to that. Advanced Ops is still in flux. In the OB the listed "2 pods" might match the "1 pallet" that is in the rule, i.e. they start with 4 EW points worth of scout pods, but if it should be 1 pallet or two k-type pods is up in the air. You should ask in the AO topic, not here.
==============================================
Tony Barnes RE: retreats
If you are forced to retreat somewhere, then it is a normal retreat, not a fighting retreat. You can NEVER be forced to do a fighting retreat. So in your example the new battle hex created by a forced retreat is a normal battle hex, like any other battle hex. So you offer the approach battle, and if it is declined, you have the normal options of retreating, or fighting at the planet/base.
RE: Abandoned Planets
See rule (508.23), it states that planets revert to their original owners if it is not garrisoned at the end of any phase. So if a garrison unit reacts off during the (opponent's) operational movement phase, at the end of that op move phase, if there is nothing on the planet it reverts to the original owner, gets its RDU (and rejoins their grid at the start of the next player turn (413.2)). If a garrisoned planet is abandoned during the combat phase, it reverts at the end of the combat phase (after all combat hexes are resolved, including retreats) if it is still ungarrisoned then.
RE: Reserves
Your questions doesn't make sense given the sequence of play. All reserve forces must use their reserve movement before the combat phase. You cannot have any reserve force involved in combat and still be a reserve force, it loses reserve status as soon as the reserve move phase is over, before the combat phase even starts. Now during OP MOVE, enemy forces might seek to pin your reserve forces, and you may go through several pinning calculations that may result in a reserve force able to move after having been "pinned" earlier by enemy forces. At the end of Op Move, all reserve forces are still reserve forces whether they are pinned or not, but they can only use their reserve movement if they are not pinned. Then, after reserve movement, you resolve combat, and at the start of combat (or the end of reserve phase, however you want to look at it) any reserve forces that did not move essentially lose reserve status, since the reserve move phase is over.
==============================================
Paul Howard RE: Retreats
The modifier applies to the normal pursuit battle die roll, but the slow unit battle is unchanged by the situation you describe. They are slow units, and are thus easily caught by pursuing ships, even with the "head start" of a declined approach battle.
==============================================
Hope that helps, and should be all the questions. If I missed anything speak up!
Nick
By Gary Quick (Garyquick) on Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 10:24 pm: Edit
Nick -
What if it is the SAME turn?
Example:
Battle 1 is over - the planet is captured/liberated by the other side.
Battle 2 - must/can I count the planet as a supply retreat point?
413.2 makes the planet change to the other side's grid at the beginning of the player turn after capture/re-capture. How about before that? Does it remain the same side's until the next player turn? does is become "no-one's"?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Saturday, July 20, 2002 - 11:03 pm: Edit
Nick, on the reserve question I asked - here is a scenario...
Planet 1504 has 8 Kzinti ships on it during their turn. They do not move (they Kzinti player intends to designate them as a reserve).
An enemy force in 1503 is attacked. It is forced (or chooses) to retreat to 1504.
a) If the Kzinti accept approach and fight the retreating forces, do they lose the possibility of being declared as a reserve in the later phase?
b) If the Kzinit do NOT accept approach, but the enemy force comes to the planet to fight, do they lose their reserve eligibility?
Hope that clears up the question.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Sunday, July 21, 2002 - 01:51 am: Edit
Gary, remember that you can control a planet without it being part of your supply grid. So if the first battle hex results in the Kzinti (for example) losing control of a planet to the Klingons (i.e. it only has Klingon ships on it after that battle hex is resolved, but remember that it won't be part of the Klingon's grid until the start of the next player turn), the Kzinti cannot use that planet for retreat of forces from a later battle hex. That planet is not part of the Kzinti's grid, and it is also not part of the Klingon's grid (yet), but it is under Klingon control.
Tony, that would not prevent you from declaring such forces as reserve fleets. As it states in (507.2), if those ships didn't move operationally, by retrograde, and didn't retreat, they can be reserve.
Nick
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 - 01:17 am: Edit
Nick, I don't get the Lyran KBPs needing to be paid for as an expeditionary unit. 411.72 "An expeditionary fleet can have 12 ships, one base, and one FRD" As what, exactly, would a tug pod count? No mention is made of a tug with pods counting as TWO ships. Further in 411.75 and 509.31 and 517.13 and 517.34 special exception is made noting the "special" relationship of klingon and Lyran K-pods. Not to list everything verbatim, but in every instance it says that the pods may be exchanged and the only restriction is the Lyrans may not operate Klingon drone pods. Nowhere does it say that additional accounting is required, when there is ample opportunity to do so. In fact, the K-pods are Klingon pods purchased by the Lyrans with a licesne to replace. How could it be that the Klingons could not use their own pods without the Lyrans supplying them as an expeditionary unit? The only restriction I see which could possibly be supported by the rules is that the Klingons would have to use a Strategic move to get it on one of their tugs if it were more than six hexes away from a Lyran SMN.
I would like to submit this as evidence which may have been overlooked to support an appeal.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Damon, I have looked this over some more, and looked at your rule references.
Note that in one of the rules you referenced, (517.13) is clear that Lyran pods on Klingon tugs are still Lyran units.
(411.75) says an expeditionary tug can use strat move to exchange pods with home, or can store them with the local race. You still had to pay for the expeditionary tug in the first place.
(509.31) Just says that Klingon/Lyran pods can be exchanged.
(517.13) Says they can be exchanged but still count as Lyran units.
(517.34) Says Lyran K-pods are purchased Klingon units, but the above rule clearly states that K-pods are Lyran units, not Klingon units, even when used on a Klingon tug.
So the references you state talk about the ability of the two races to share pods, but do not change the ownership of pods, and it is the ownership that is important here.
Since Lyran pods are always Lyran units (even though it is with a Klingon unit), they can only operate in Klingon space during turns #7 to #9 under the Expeditionary rules. So the K-pod(s) MUST be an expeditionary unit, regardless of which tug is carrying them. This is clear from the rules, and from Q2409 in CL#24.
The real question is, does this cost anything under (411.7) since it is just a pod and not a complete Lyran tug+pod(s). There would seem to be a couple of possabilities:
A) One or Two K-type pods take up an expeditionary slot (count as one of the Lyran's 12 possible expeditionary ships) but costs nothing since the Klingons are hauling the pods around.
B) Two K-pods count as one of the 12 Lyran expeditionary ships and must be paid for as one ship (1/4 point) even though their tug is "missing". Under this scheme one could argue that a Lyran tug (which can include pods) could be included in a real Lyran expeditionary fleet (1/4 point) hauling a Lyran expeditionary FRD (another 1/4 point), and has battlepods currently being carried by a Klingon tug travelling with it (now these are free since they were essentially paid for under the cost of the Lyran tug).
The interpretation I would argue for is B. An expeditionary slot can contain a tug + one or two pods, and still takes up a slot (uses one of the 12 slots and costs 1/4 point) even if some of these elements are "missing". The expeditionary rules state that every unit costs 1/4 point, the obvious exception is that a tug plus pods counts as one unit. I don't think this means the pods are free, just that they are free if with another lyran unit that has been paid for.
So in short:
Lyran K-pods on Klingon ships are still Lyran units (clear from the rules).
To operate in Fed space during the second scenario they must be expeditionary units (clear from the rules), and this is what the CL question is about.
And finally you can't get expeditionary units for free (MAYBE subject to interpretation in the case of pods without a tug, but I just think you really should not get something for free, I think one or two pods without a tug should still cost 1/4 point).
If you still want to appeal, I can ask Jeff if you like.
Nick
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, July 25, 2002 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Nick, thanks for your time. A few of the points and problems seem to fixate on Lyran units in Fed space on turns 7-9. Would any of your reasoning be affected by considering the Lyran pods are operating only in Klingon and/or Hydran/Kzinti space?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, July 26, 2002 - 10:42 am: Edit
A ship retreats from combat. The ship cannot retreat such that it would be in supply through its own race's supply grid. The ship could retreat so that it would be eligible to be a homeless ship supplied by an allied supply grid. Must the ship retreat so that it can be homeless and supplied by the ally, or may the ship retreat in such a way that even being supplied and homeless is impossible?
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 03:42 am: Edit
John Wyszynski RE: Tug + pod command ratings.
Here is Jeff's response, he backs up the CL ruling...
==================================
In Carrier War, the Klingon and Kzinti Battle Pods where set at +1 CR each, as well as the Gorn LBP and Fed LBP. F&E sets command ratings, so I've been trying ever since to get the SFB ratings to match F&E.
So, any time this comes up, I make sure to point everyone back to Carrier War.
Jeff
========================================
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 10:58 am: Edit
Nick,
To clarify the 10:42am post on 7/26, and to amplify it slightly, I present the following for your consideration.
Hexes 318, 517, and 616 are occupied by Hydran ships.
Hex 411 has a Lyran SB.
Hexes 416, 617, 718, and 716 are occupied by Coalition ships but none of those hexes are supply points (yet).
A Klingon and Lyran mixed force in 318 successfully retreats from that hex. The last flagship used was Klingon. Where may those Coalition ships retreat to?
--
Please note 302.761, which might force the Coalition ships to retreat to the same hex.
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 11:45 pm: Edit
(310.0) What happens if a previously crippled ship receives a result of "attacker (or defender) crippled and retreats" in single combat?
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:52 pm: Edit |
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 06:47 am: Edit
OK - not sure if this question(s!) have been asked in this manner.
1) - Can you retrograde to a NEUTRAL/FUTURE ALLY base? (i.e. Can the Hydrans before the Federations are at War or limited war retrograde to a Federation base?)
2) Supply and retrograding
Hydrans are in supply at the Start of the Hydran player turn.
Hydrans move - before combat phase, they are still in supply.
Instant of Combat - Hydrans are OUT of supply.
As they was in supply at the start of the player turn, they are considered 'in supply for combat'.
Rule 410.24 - 'Ship was in supply at the time of combat, it is considered to be in supply for purposes of retrograde movement'.
So the ship in question, was considered out of supply at the moment of combat, but in supply for the combat phase.
Can the ship retrograde?
Thanks
Paul
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 04:16 am: Edit
Nick, to further complicate the Lyran/Klingon Tug pod issue. As is clear from the rules, pods can be exchanged and they still count as units of the owning race. Why then, is there no issue of this in the rules, including but not limited to, no special mention of Lyran tugs operating Klingon pods outside of Klingon supply?
If the rules make no special issue of of Klingon pods in Lyran space why should the converse be true? By the transitive property of equality the arguement that Lyran K-pods should be paid for as Expeditionary units makes no sense. I would argue that this is not, "something for free," it is just a function of the Lyran/Klingon alliance; similar to fighter exchanges.
What if a Lyran tug were adopted by the Klingons as a homeless ship and detached its pods for Klingon use; would the rules really justify that the Lyrans must now support the Tug's Pods as an Expeditionary unit?
It seems to me that the rules are consistent and clear when they simply state that Klingons and Lyrans can exchange certain pods. How much more complicated does it need to be? I'm not intending to be a Lyran whiner here, but it just seems to me that a simple issue is being needlessly obfuscated.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 12:43 pm: Edit
Can I build a CA for a DN ( Lyran ) on the Spring turns and for the Fall Turns can I do the same ...BC for a CA
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 02:01 pm: Edit
Michaeal,
Any race can sub a CA for a DN. There is no Lyran sub that allows BC for CA, but you can sub a CL for the CA and convert to a BC.
By Gary Quick (Garyquick) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 04:51 pm: Edit
Question:
According to 308.52, 1 is added to a scout's defense (before directed damage).
However, it seems that I have played that the additional point required is added at the end, and not doubled or tripled.
Whichis correct - and is there another rule/ruling that you can refer me to?
Since Nick is out and about, I'd appreciate any comments.....
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 10:11 am: Edit
(302.732) of retreat priority says (in part)
"The player cannot select a hex containing a number of enemy units greater than the number of ships in his retreating force...any fighters or PFs of the PDU are formed into ship equivalents..."
Because of the discrete use of ships/units, and because it later mentions SEs of attrit units from PDUs, I'm a little confused. Does this mean:
- total SEs of player retreating vs SEs of forces in hex
- total SEs of player retreating (not counting units, but counting their attrit units as SEs) vs SEs of forces in hex.
- total ship hulls only (not SEs, not auxes, etc) vs SEs of forces in hex. I think this is what the rule says, but I'm not sure this was the intent.
- don't count SEs of forces in hex, just hulls (except for PDU fighters)
Also, the rule specifically says a planet with one or more planetary defense units counts as 1. Does this also include RDUs? (speculation) Would it also include PGBs from AO?
Thanks!
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 10:28 am: Edit
Another question on retreat - specifically fighting retreat.
A Coalition force announces a fighting retreat through 1504 (which at the time only had PDUs defending). Before that battle is resolved, a Kzinti force also retreats (normal retreat) onto 1504. Does this effect the previous declared fighting retreat or does the Coalition now have to face the larger force?
Same scenario, but the Kzinti force retreas to 1504 in a fighting retreat instead of a normal one. Are both forces at BIR=0, both at bir=10, ... Any other effect?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 04:53 pm: Edit
SO what you are talking me replacing a DN with a CA.... But not a BC.... In the rulebook wording is a sub...not fulling the DN/BC for a CAs because of money being low.....wish to clear up the wording for the word "sub"
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 09:22 pm: Edit
Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 10:58 am:
Answer: First note that homeless ships can only be supplied at the start of the Player Turn (410.56). Second, since all of the 6 adjacent hexes are out of supply, then you ignore supply for Klingon retreat (302.733-A). Since none of the adjacent hexes have enemy ships, the Coalition can retreat to any of the six hexes.
If (302.761) has been declared to be in effect, then the Lyrans retreat toward their supply. Since the Klingons could retreat into any of the adjacent hexes, they must retreat to the same hex as the Lyrans.
============
JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 11:45 pm:
Answer: The ship is destroyed.
===========
Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 06:47 am:
1) Answer: Future Allies are Future Belligerents (503.4) and are treated as Permanent Neutrals (503.1) until they enter the war. Ships can always retrograde to a Neutral hex (503.12).
2) Answer: No. If the ships don't have a valid supply point at the time of combat or at the time of retrograde, they can't retrograde. Because they were in supply at the start of the turn, they were able to "load up" all of their supplies and fight at full strength during the combat phase. However, since they used their supplies in combat, they need to be able to draw additional supplies in order to retrograde.
===========
Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 04:16 am:
Answer: It's a simple matter of politics. Any Lyran unit in Federation space must be supplied as an Expeditionary unit (602.14) during turns 7-9. Even if the Lyrans have a chain of supply points that would reach Fed space, they still have to be considered an Expedition under (411.7). If a Lyran ship has been adopted as homeless, it still can't enter Fed space without being part of an Expedition Fleet. There is no exception provided for pods; the Lyrans aren't wholeheartedly behind the invasion at this point. Sorry, that's the way it is.
===========
Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 12:43 pm:
Answer: Tony Barnes (31-Jul-02) is correct. "Any race can sub a CA for a DN. There is no Lyran sub that allows BC for CA, but you can sub a CL for the CA and convert to a BC." Also, you can't substitute a CA for a DN and then convert the CA into a DN (431.8).
===========
Gary Quick (Garyquick) on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 04:51 pm:
Answer: Maybe you're thinking of escorts (308.111), which add 1 point per escort after doubling for directed damage. As it says in (308.52), the scout's effective defense is 1 greater than the printed value, and the total has to be doubled or tripled (if in the "free scout") position.
So, escorts double their defense, then add their bonus. Scouts add their bonus and then double the total.
A Kzinti EFF with one other escort requires 10 (4*2 + 2) to cripple, or 6( 4 + 2) with a mauler.
A Kzinti SF requires 10 [(4+1) * 2] to cripple, or 5 (4 + 1) with a mauler.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 09:54 pm: Edit
Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 10:11 am:
The retreating player counts all retreating ships and ship equivalents. Auxes, FRDs, etc are units and do not count.
The retreating player then adds all units in the hex being retreated into, counting Auxes and FRDs already present.
All of the enemy units present in the hex are counted. Although a planet may have 2 or more PDUs, all of the PDUs count as a single unit. PDUs include AO PGBs and RDUs. The fighters and PFs in the hex are counted as ship equivalents.
If there are 20 ships, 48 fighter factors, 4 PDUs, 1 FRD and 1 Aux, the total is (20 + 48/6 + 1 + 1 + 1) 31 units.
=====
Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 10:28 am
Fighting retreat:
The fighting retreat has to be resolved before any other battle hex can be dealt with. So, the only way for the Kzintis to retreat to the same hex is if they retreat from the same battle hex.
If the Kzintis are the non-phasing player, they will retreat first onto their own planet and add to whatever forces are there.
If the Kzintis are the phasing player, then the Coaltion would retreat first, into the planet hex. If there are more Coalition units than Kzinti ships, then the Kzintis can't retreat to the same hex (302.732). If there are fewer Coalition units, the Kzintis can retreat there if there is no other supply point they can retreat onto. If there is a choice of two supply points to retreat on to, and the other had no Coalition units in it, the Kzintis would have to conduct a fighting retreat to enter the hex of the planet and the Coalition ships.
Is this clear? Or does it need more explanation? I realize that multiple retreating sides causes problems in resolution.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Friday, August 02, 2002 - 01:11 am: Edit
Jeff, thank you for the attention given to Lyran/Klingon tug pods. However, I am afraid that in all the writing; my concerns have been misplaced. I do not mind at all the fate of Lyran units in Fed space during the early turns. (They deserve it, they're not supposed to be there). The reason I entered this thread is that I saw a minour point concerning the Feds extending into ALL facets of Lyran/Klingon interaction.
SPECIFICALLY: What are the game designers' thoughts on Lyran/Klingon tug pod sharing while the tugs in question operate in Lyran, Klingon, Kzinti, and Hydran space?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit
Can some one give me to meaning for "sub" base on this game
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 04:46 pm: Edit
Damon,
You're welcome. I understand now that the questions and answers weren't quite in sync.
As a general rule, the Klingons can use the Lyran K-pods anywhere the Lyrans are allowed to be, and the Lyrans can use the Klingon pods anywhere the Klingons are allowed to be.
Michael,
A "sub" is short for substitution. In a production schedule, there are lists of ships that can be produced in place of the scheduled ship, or in other words, substituted for them
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:35 am: Edit
When do partial supply grids link back up to the main supply grid?
Example:
The Kzinti attack Coalition forces and re-establish a supply path to the Marquis area. Is the Marquis Partial grid linked back up immediately to the main grid (able to use strat move, CEDS repairs as they spent all 7 EPs in the Marquis already, etc)? Thanks!
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit
Questions about captured/re-captured planets producing income. I remember this being answered before, but couldn't find it in the archives...
Kzinti planet 1105 is captured on T3C by the Lyrans. When does this planet produce income for the Lyrans (assuming it doesn't change hands again)? I think it's T5C (T4C joins supply grid, T5C produces income) - just wanted to verify my understanding.
1105 is recaptured by the Kzinti on T3A. Does it still take 2 full turns to produce income for the Kzinti (ie, T5A)? Does it rejoin the supply grid on T4A?
1105 (instead of being recaptured as above) is left ungarrisoned during movement on T3A - the garrison reacted out. It rejoins the Kzinti's on T3A combat phase. Does this change when it rejoins the supply grid and produces income?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit
And a supply/retro question...
A hydran force attacks the SR starbase in 1716. The nearest supply point is 1017 (7 hexes away). The are in supply for combat because they were in supply at the start of movement. The attack the SB and retreat to 1616. They are now within 6 hexes of supply. The rule for retro says that you had to be in supply during combat to retro. These forces were in supply from one perspective (ie, they were at the start of movement - therefore combat), but weren't from another perspective (they were 7 hexes away during combat). Can these forces retro?
Tony
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, August 05, 2002 - 12:13 pm: Edit
And yet another question (salvage this time) ...
A Hydran CU in 111 is destroyed. It was in supply at the time (it opened 112, a HN in 114 opened 113). The salvage rules list 2 possibilities on limiting salvage. (439.12) deals with partial grids - not the case for this one. (439.13) deals with being out of supply for combat, and this ship was in supply.
However, after the CU is destroyed, there isn't a valid supply path (it can't open supply any longer since it's not there).
The wording of the salvage rule tends to read that the Hydrans would receive salvage for the CU. However, I see an arguement against them receiving it as well.
Do they get salvage for the CU?
Alternate scenario - the BATS in 114 is killed and the HN retreats prior to the CU being destroyed. In this scenario, the CU is in supply for combat (because it was during movement), but isn't in supply when checked when the combat begins. Do the Hydrans get salvage in this scenario?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:39 pm: Edit
Which of the hydran expidition scenario rules in Marine Assault apply in the general war campaign?
Specifically:
Does 611.111 (territorial integrity) apply? If so, which hydran ships are counted for purposes of the rule? Do ships in rows 01-05 and the old colonies count? Do Lyrans?
What about 611.112-3?
I have to say I am a bit concerned about the extreme restrictions these rules would impose on hydrans in a general war, not least because I am playing them , but also it just feels like a little much.
I understand that 611.14 does apply. Does it have to be the tug with the exp. fleet? Does it have to keep the fighter conveyor palette in order to continue to be the supply tug?
William
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:13 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla:
When do partial supply grids link back up to the main supply grid?
At any point that supply is traced, in your question, it would be when supply is traced for Retrograde.
====
Tony Barnes:
Kzinti planet 1105 is captured on T3C by the Lyrans. When does this planet produce income for the Lyrans (assuming it doesn't change hands again)? I think it's T5C (T4C joins supply grid, T5C produces income) - just wanted to verify my understanding.
Correct
1105 is recaptured by the Kzinti on T3A. Does it still take 2 full turns to produce income for the Kzinti (ie, T5A)? Does it rejoin the supply grid on T4A?
Turn 5A, two full turns.
1105 (instead of being recaptured as above) is left ungarrisoned during movement on T3A - the garrison reacted out. It rejoins the Kzinti's on T3A combat phase. Does this change when it rejoins the supply grid and produces income?
No change, supply grid on T4A, income T5A.
They are now within 6 hexes of supply.
Retrograde supply is evaluated at the start of the Retrograde phase (410.24), and if 6 hexes from a supply source, the ships can retrograde.
If the CU cannot draw a supply path when destroyed, even if it was in supply at some time in the turn, it does not create salvage (439.13). The fact that the CU was in supply means it provides salvage, even though its destruction eliminated the supply path.
John Wyszynski answered your last question.
====
William Jockusch:
None of the special Political rules in (611.11) apply to the General War campaign.
Steve has ruled that the supply tug is the one with the Expedition Fleet at 0716. This mission cannot be assigned to any other tug (509.5). It doesn't have to have the FCP, but it can't have any other pallet.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:15 pm: Edit
I'll be away for GenCon, so no answers from me or Nick until one of us gets back.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 07:41 am: Edit
OK, I know this has been asked before, but here it goes once again. Can the Kzinti move ships into Federation space in turns 1 to 6? Rule 503.61 says that no it can't be done, but rule 503.65 says yes it can be done. So, which is right? I've read something in this topic that said the only way the Kzinti can intern ships in Fed space prior to turn 7 is to be fighting in the Marquis provinces, or in the Klingon east fleet area, so that they could retreat into the NZ. Thanks!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, August 08, 2002 - 11:44 pm: Edit
Hmmm, IIRC if the Kzinti 'retreat' into Fed space (and the NZ is considered Fed space), it means they don't come back to the Patriarch until the Feds join the war, doing otherwise would blow the treaty away and make the Kzinti a Fed enemey...
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 10:35 am: Edit
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, August 04, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit
Can some one give me to meaning for "sub" base on this game
again can someone answer this for me
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 10:38 am: Edit
What I needed to know WHY I cant build CAs in the DN & BC bluiding slots...replacing the DNs & BCs...and NO I have not lost my mind
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 10:54 am: Edit
Michael,
Jeff answered both your questions. Check the archive above for August 1st & August 4th.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 11:17 am: Edit
I think he's asking why can't a CA be subbed for a BC.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:03 pm: Edit
yes Robert that is what I'm sading......why can a CA be suddeb for a BC
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:10 pm: Edit
Plus I'm not conv a CA to a DN ( which cost 14 to prod is 16).... What I'm tring to do is to see if I can get more CAs for other Conv.... I got a few that I can conv to DNs to save a few points... But It a plan ..a idea for a future headace to a fellow player.. And we both feel that you can Bulided small ships in slot make for large ship building... That is what we needeed to know
By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Friday, August 09, 2002 - 01:12 pm: Edit
CL24 does have playtest rules for downgrade substitutions on the production schedule.
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 12:21 am: Edit
I am settled in again and should be able to take a look at questions tomorrow. I have downloaded everything since Jeff's post that he left for Gencon, so I will try to post answers tomorrow evening, and then everything should be caught up.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 11:34 pm: Edit
OK, I got a new account set up so I can post again...
Robert:
Note that rule (503.61) lists rule (503.65) as an exception. So in general you can't enter the territory of a future belligerant except in the case of accepting internment. If you don't want to be interned, then you cannot enter the territory of or neutral zone hexes surrounding future belligerants.
Michael: Remember, if a substitution isn't listed, then you can't do it, see rule (431.8) that states only listed substitutions are allowed. There are some general subs, such as CA for DN, that apply to all races. Some races (like the Fed) list the BC as a sub for the CA, so in those cases you get to build the one you want, but if it is listed in the build schedule as BC (like on the Lyran build schedule), and there is no listed sub of "CA for BC", then you cannot do so. There are playtest rules in CL#24 for various downgrades of your build schedule, but glancing through it quickly I don't see any CA for BC subs, just the generic CA for DN, or sometimes CL for BC.
I "THINK" that is everything. If there are any questions still pending, speak up and I will check them again.
Nick
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 01:58 am: Edit
Are interned ships allowed to be moved by the interning race? If so, are there any movement limitations on interned ships by the interning race?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 08:39 am: Edit
David,
See rule (503.11) that says any ship interned cannot move or fight for the rest of the game (unless released under the various rules, i.e. is no longer interned). There is no rule that allows movement of interned ships. They are interned (and stuck) in the first hex of the neutral power that they enter.
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 02:40 pm: Edit
If a D5A attempts to freeze some 3-ship unbreakable group, such as a 3CPC, what row of the (312.222) chart does it use? Since only a single attempt is made, but since the attack counts as using all three SFG attempts, it isn't really clear.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 10:53 pm: Edit
It is a weird case, but I believe it is treated as "one attempt" at a "three ship group". Since it is one attempt, use the first line for whatever unit (D5A, D7A, etc.) is doing the freezing. That would seem to be the simplest solution. Also note that if you get a random result, you only get one random ship, not three, under rule (312.272). Since the random result is one ship, treat the original attempt against the group as one stasis attempt as well, even though it actually uses all three stasis fields.
Nick
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, August 20, 2002 - 03:37 pm: Edit
Nick.
I am shortly to start playing an AO game with Johnathan dean, and we have several issues from recent conversations at stake.
1) If the Hydrans hold thier capital, is the IC an allowable substitution/conversion on turn 7, or is it an extra DN-hull to build? The Hydrans get 10EP per turn for 5 turns from turn 7 if they hold the capital? Suppose they lost the capital on (coalition) turn 10? Would they get 20EP off-map?
2) What are the factors of the LAD and SAD for the Zin? What is their YIS? Do they get free drone bombardmemt?
3) What are the build costs for the LAD,SAD, LAS,SAS, and PGS? Is my assumption that the Zin FFK costs 3EP correct, or is it 4EP?
4) What is the current status of the penal ship retreating in persuit battles and doing a sacrifice mission? is the *total* number of minus points before the Alliance can dirdam maximised as the damage required to cripple the penal ship, or are the minus points still fully additive?
Many thanks
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:55 pm: Edit
DAS,
I have the same exact questions as your #1 but since its AO stuff maybe you should re-post it in that topic?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:46 pm: Edit
430.24 describes how a captured province may provide the original owner with 1EP if the capturing side leaves the province and an adjoining province is "controlled" by the same original owner as the adjacent province.
My question is, what is the definition of, "controlled?" Does it mean, "no enemy units in the province," or does it mean, "a friendly unit in the province regardless of the presence of enemy units?" In other words, is a disrupted province, "controlled?"
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 01:25 pm: Edit
For turns 7 to 9, do the ships in the allowed Lyran Expeditionary fleet have to be paid for? If those Lyran ships can trace a supply line without going through Klingon bases, do they still need to pay, or just be noted that only 12 Lyran ships are allowed in Fed space? Thanks!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit
RobertP, the Lyran fleet would have to be paid for, even if connected to their own supply grid - as only a Lyran Exp Fleet is allowed inside Fed space during turns 7-9...
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 12:27 am: Edit
(602.12) What happens to a Kzinti Expeditionary Fleet in Fed space turns 7-9 if it is cut off from the Kzinti supply grid?
To be more specific; a Kzinti Exp Fleet using reserve movement heads into Fed space but then finds itself cut-off at the start off the Alliance turn. This fleet can’t be made an Exp Fleet since the EPs are not available from the Kzinti grid but the fleet would qualify as “homeless.” Could the Feds pay for these homeless Kzinti ships or would this violate the terms of (602.12?)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 11:16 am: Edit
David Slatter:
1) Best to ask these in AO topic. On the first thing, I suspect that the IC must be subbed/converted from an existing DN build, it is not an "additional" DN hull.
2) I don't know the factors, I have seen a couple of conflicting in service dates, and I would think you have to pay for DB as usual (or use some of your stockpile). Ask in the AO topic, I am not up on the latest changes.
3) Ask in AO.
4) Ask in AO.
Sorry if that is not much help, but it needs to be in the right topic. I really have not kept a complete list of the changes discussed and decided on for AO (I tend to just skim that topic since I am not playtesting for it). I have the factors for scout auxiliaries, but not for the drone auxiliaries.
===================================
Todd E Jahnke:
I believe a disrupted province is still controlled for the purpose you describe.
===================================
Robert:
Of course you have to pay for the ships to have expeditionary status. Expeditionary ships can be supplied through the owner's grid or an allied grid, but must be paid for to become expeditionary units in both cases.
====================================
John Colacito:
They would be treated as homeless, and the Feds could pay to supply them. However, since the special scenario rule requires that all Kzinti ships in Fed space be expeditionary units, I would think the Kzinti would have to keep paying the expeditionary cost as well each turn, in case the supply lines between the Kzinti and Fed grids are reestablished. And of course the Kzinti ships in Fed space (which are sort of both expeditionary and homeless) would have to observe the various restrictions on both expeditionary and homeless ships (number of ships, movement restrictions, etc.) That is how I see it.
====================================
I think that is everything to date, so if not let me know.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 01:40 pm: Edit
Can both the Klingons and the Lyrans set up a Mobile Base in hex 1807 on Turn 6? The Eastern Fleet has not been released, and since there is no existing Mobile base present, than the Lyrans should be able to set one up along with the Klingons at the same time? Is this right or not? Thanks!
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 08:15 pm: Edit
An additional thought on Rob's question: 600.321 pretty clearly envisions that ONE MB can be built in a hex of an unreleased fleet's area. This rule was inserted, if we all recall, to prohibit the Feds from building a pile of MBs in the Rom border SB hex. If one is allowed to build two at once because "none exists there now" then one could also get six or eight Fed tugs together and build six or eight MBs in one turn on the Rom border SB because "none exists there now."
If we get past intentions and into technical langauge, then as a Klingon MB "exists" (600.321 word) in 1807 on turn 6 in Rob's question (as it must if it is being set up), then the Lyran certainly can't set up their base as the Klingon base "exists" there regardless of whether it is set up or simply sitting there in storage.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:53 pm: Edit |
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 08:35 pm: Edit
I would have to agree with Todd. Being able to set up two at once sounds like a loophole, or a twisting of the intent (not that I think that was Rob's intention).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 09:40 pm: Edit
(600.321) allows for only ONE MB to be setup, that's not per race but total per (unreleased) hex. That said, note that 1707 is in the North Fleet zone and can be used without question...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 11:38 pm: Edit
Robert P.:
I would have to say you can only set one up (your choice Lyran or Klingon), as indeed that is what the rule is supposed to do, limit one MB in a given hex in unreleased fleet areas. Regardless of ownership, or the order they are built in.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit
What happens if some ships want to retreat from a battle, but the only option is a hex containing a greater number of enemy units than friendly units, even after counting the currently retreating ships? If those ships retreat, would it become a fighting retreat? What if some of those ships used withdraw before combat to retreat into the other battle hex? Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 03:01 pm: Edit
The only time you would be forced to retreat to a hex where you are outnumbered is if that is the case for all retreat hexes. This is STEP 2 of the retreat priorities. The only earlier restriction is that you can neglect neutral territory. If this is the case, then it is not a fighting retreat. Fighting retreat only comes up when you have an option on where to retreat to. You must CHOOSE to use a fighting retreat, and the only way to use it is to choose to ignore restriction STEP 4.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 03:22 pm: Edit
So, your saying that if one retreat hex has overwhelming enemy ships, and is the shortest supply path, and say there is another empty hex that is the next closest to supply, that step 2 would require retreat into the empty hex? And that retreat into the other battle hex would force a fighting retreat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 04:02 pm: Edit
No, that's not right at all.
If the hex with overwhelming enemy units is also the shortest path, you don't necessarily have to go there.
Priority 1) Get rid of neutral hexes (unless you want to go there)
Priority 2) Get rid of hexes with overwhelming enemies, unless this eliminates all hexes remaining after step 1.
This likely eliminates the hex you are talking about, so you can't retreat there at all, fighting retreat or no. Note that we have not yet even gotten to considering supply paths, overwheliming hexes are eliminated from consideration before supply length is considered. Note that if all hexes available after step 1 have overwhelming enemies present, then you don't delete any of them from consideration.
Priority 3) Get rid of hexes with longer supply paths, keep only hex(es) with the shortest supply path.
Priorty 4) Eliminate hexes containing any enemies at all, unless this elminates all remaining hexes.
FIGHTING RETREAT: If AFTER step three you have two or more hexes (all equally short supply paths), and step for eliminates one or more of these (due to enemy presence in some but not all), THEN you can choose to ignore step 4 and use fighting retreat to enter one of those hexes anyway.
Now, if there were hexes with overwhelming enemies they were eliminated in step 2 and you cannot use fighting retreat to enter them. The only time they are NOT eliminated in step 2 is when they are the only choices after step 1. In that case they will also not be eliminated by step 4 since they will obviously be all that remains at that point as well (after perhaps deleting some with longer supply paths). In such a case since step 4 eliminates nothing, you can't use fighting retreat to ignore step 4, and any of the overwhelming hexes you retreat to under these conditions will be a normal retreat forming a new normal battle hex.
Clear?
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 09:28 pm: Edit
Yes, clear, finally
Now another question (this must be getting old now
I don't get what allows the Alliance the ability to repair and use a captured mauler. Sure if it shocks it's gone for good, but the Alliance can just cripple it every time it's used, and can then repair it. That just dosen't seem right. Why can they fix it if it gets the poo blasted out of it, but not if it shocks? Why can it even be used at all, as shouldn't it have to be converted over to Alliance tech? Of course I've also wondered why the Alliance couldn't take a captured mauler and dismantle it for research, so they can build their own someday. Sorry for all the questions, it just must be one of those weeks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 12:28 am: Edit
Those are why questions (which often only Steve knows the answers to), and this topic is for rules questions. The Why topic questions sometimes appear in Captain's Log with answers, but not always...
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 08:35 am: Edit
Actually, that was a rules question, just worded badly. What in the rules allows it to happen? When a ship is captured, you can scrap it, convert it, use it right away in the battle force, use it to gain a +1 to the die roll, or give it to an ally. None of those provisions allow for the repair of a captured ship without converting it over first, as far as I can tell.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 10:07 am: Edit
Rule (305.23) allows the conversion of a captured mauler to be a capturing player's ship. This rule states that the ship so converted still has it's former factors.
Rule (305.4) says that captured (i.e. captured ships that you chose option 3 for) ships retain their original capabilities. So a captured/repaired mauler is still a mauler, and if crippled by ordinary combat (directed or voluntary) damage can be repaired.
In an exception to the general rule (305.4), rule (305.41) says that a captured/repaired mauler (i.e. one that you captured and used option 3 on) that self cripples cannot be repaired.
And that is the rules basis for using captured maulers.
As to why? Don't know. Perhaps since they don't really know how the mauler works the capturing race can repair superficial damage, but if the mauler itself (or it's protected internal workings) breaks down then the capturing race is stuck.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Question on the Hydran Supply tug (FE2k only - no expansions) (509.5):
509.51 - "This tug cannot be used for any other purpose". Does this mean that this tug can never be used as a Battle tug (or CV tug) for example or that if it is used for any other purpose, it permanently loses it's supply ability?
509.51 - "This pallet (referring to the FCP) cannot be refilled in F&E but can be in SO". Does this mean that the FCP is on the tug with 27 fighters at start, but is discarded after use? The FCP is introduced in SO, but is it also allowed in FE2k? This rule seems to say so, but it's somewhat confusing.
SVC made a ruling that the supply tug can only replenish it's "supply's" 1 time total (I couldn't find the post with a quick check, but I remember it vaguely). Once it's used up it's 2 loads of supply, can it then accept a configuration (battle or CV)?
Thanks,
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 03:29 pm: Edit
Tony:
1) It means that while it is a supply tug with the fighter pallet, it cannot carry a battle pod, or set up a mobile base, etc. It's mission is "special hydran supply tug", and since each tug can only have one mission at a time, while it is the "special supply tug" it cannot perform any other tug mission.
2) If you are only useing F&E basic, ignore the FCP. The "special supply tug" carries 27 replacement fighter factors, and once gone they are gone. If you are using SO, then the FCP is actually carried by the "special supply tug", and can have its fighters refilled via those rules in SO.
3) Rule (509.53) has no limits on the amount of resupply the tug can receive if conditions allow (open supply path to Hydran grid). I know of no limits on this. The master errata file has no change listed for this rule. You can change the tug's mission from "special supply tug" to any other mission pretty much at any time under the standard rules for changing tug missions (i.e. at the start of any turn during the tug mission step), but then it is no longer the special supply tug.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Edit
A continuation on that question. Can the special supply tug perform a different role, then go back to being the special supply tug? Or is this ability lost once it assumes a different role?
By Osimillarion (Osi) on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 12:05 pm: Edit
Had a rules question regarding the Hydrans and retreat:
Say the Hydrans have 2 ships with 6+ fighters on board between those 2 ships and wish to Withdraw. Could they put up the 6 fighters as a ship equivalent and retreat the other 2 ships?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 01:36 pm: Edit
Robert, I need to look at it a bit. I suspect that the intention is that at the start of the game (or when the Hydrans enter the war) they must decide if the expeditionary fleet tug is an ordinary tug or the special supply tug. They may only get that one chance to designate it, and if it is later changed it may be irreversable. I don't think it is supposed to be treated like another mission that can be assigned as often as you like. Let me query Jeff and see what he thinks.
Osi:
See rule (302.722) that says retreating ships must take their fighters/PFs with them, you cannot leave them behind. You can transfer them to another ship with the capacity to carry them and that ship can stay behind, but you cannot do what you are suggesting.
Nick
By Osimillarion (Osi) on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit
Hiya Nick,
Reading that rule it states about Carriers and PFT's, but nothing about other ships that carry fighters (noticeably the Hydrans).
The withdraw section makes a reference in the last paragraph, of the 2k rulebook, about fighter and pf ship equivalents being in the force.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 11:26 pm: Edit
Pretty much any ship with fighters is a "carrier" for these purposes.
I am a little confused if you are asking about retreat (302.7), or withdrawal before combat (302.1), but suspect you are asking about withdrawal. (It helps if you quote rule numbers when asking about rules).
However, even if you are talking about withdrawal before combat instead of retreat, rule (302.14) references (302.72) and again says that ships cannot leave their fighters behind while they themselves withdraw. Carriers and fighters must stay together for retreats and withdrawals. The carrier+fighters either withdraws/retreats or stays behind.
So if you have two Hydran ships, each with 3 fighter factors, and can only withdraw (before combat) half of them under (302.131), you can only withdraw one ship + its 3 fighter factors.
Now, under withdrawal before combat, if you have three hydran ships, one of which has 6 or more fighter factors, the ship with 6 fighters can stay behind and counts as two ship equivalents (ship plus ship equivalent of fighters), and the other two ships can withdraw.
Going back to the other example of fighters on multiple ships, if you had 5 ships, two of which are carriers with three fighter factors each, then the two carriers could stay behind and count as three ship equivalents (2 ships and 1 of fighters), and thus the other three ships could withdraw, or vice versa of course (2 carriers pluse 6 fighter factors leave, three ships stay behind).
Thus for withdrawal before combat, fighters count as a "ship staying behind" or "ship withdrawing" for each entire ship equivalent (each 6 fighter factors) that stays behind or withdraws, and those fighters must have a carrier or carriers with capacity to house them also staying behind or also withdrawing.
Make sense?
Nick
P.S., welcome to the board, but you should change your screen name to match your real name, the powers that be will probably point it out to you at some point if you don't, see the board posting rules, rule #1. board posting rules are at:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/board-rules.html
Just F.Y.I.
By Jim Castonguay (Osi) on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 12:25 am: Edit
Was talking about withdrawl, sorry about not putting the rule#'s to make it easier to reference for you.
Yep makes sense now -- the Hydran fusion ships with fighters are classified as carriers.
Nick -- Thanx for the patience, answers, and welcome.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 10:06 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla and Tony Barnes:
Hydran supply tug:
Jeff tracked down the previous ruling on these questions by SVC (I had forgotten about them). There is indeed only one refill to the 20 ship turns of supplies allowed. If the supply tug is lost (or I suppose if you change it's mission) then it is gone forever, it is a one time thing. When playing with the expansion the FCP pod can go elsewhere, but minus the expansions the FCP pod can only be on the supply tug. Here is the previous ruling:
===============================================
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 15, 2002 - 02:12 pm: Edit
Ok, the problem (at least my confusion) is two unrelated things by one unit. The FCP pod an the "20 ship-turns of supplies for the expedition".
FCP is a pod. In F&E2K(-no expansions) it can only be with that one tug. In F&E2K(+expansions) it is a pod and you can do with it that which you can do with pods.
"20 ship turns of supplies": This is a one-time pre-war special unit. It is that specific tug, no other, and cannot be transferred to any other tug. It can, by its rules, be refilled. (It isn't clear from the rule, but only one refill is allowed, as this was specific to the one expedition thing.) If that specific tug is destroyed, you lose this ability PERMANENTLY and are not even allowed to complain about it.
================================================
Sorry for the error on my part about the number of refills, I had forgotten about this ruling. I will add it to the master errata file.
Nick
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 02:25 pm: Edit
Nick.
Auxilary pinning question.
513.136 for the purposes of pinning or being pinned, auxilary carriers count as a normal carrier.
Ok, AuxCVs can pin - 2ship equivs for SAV, 3 for LAV.
Troop transports
521.24 Ground combat ships function otherwise as normal warships with their stated factors.
521.61 ....See 513.13 in special ops for additional information on auxilary warships...
So troop transports can pin based on 513.136? Given that rule 513.13 only talks about "auxilary carriers", I assume I insert "troop transports" for "auxilary carriers" to interpret the redirection ruling from 521.61.
I assume, as LAS and SAS are also auxilary warships, they can also pin - indeed any auxilary warship can pin, despite the fact that they are "non-ship units"
Please could you confirm these notions - it may affect our game in play.
Dave
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 04:21 pm: Edit
(602.4)
- In a state of limited war are the Feds and Kzinti allowed to occupy the NZ hexes between them?
- Could the Coalition react into this NZ?
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 05:54 pm: Edit
Not sure where else to ask this question, so here goes. Can a Fed FFG be converted to an FFB? A Klingon F5 to an F6? What about a Fed NCL to NCA, or D5 to D5W? F5 to F5W?
I ask because it bears on a currently running SFB campaign I'm participating in, under the "Player Campaigns" section, the South San Francisco group. It's not an issue YET, as we are in Y171, but it will be eventually. Thanks for any help!
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 05:58 pm: Edit
Not sure where else to ask this question, so here goes. Can a Fed FFG be converted to an FFB? A Klingon F5 to an F6? What
about a Fed NCL to NCA, or D5 to D5W? F5 to F5W?
Yes, all of those conversions are possible.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 07:42 pm: Edit
Thanks Steve!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 09:34 pm: Edit
David S.:
See rule (203.53). Non ship units can be pinned but cannot pin other ships. The rule (513.136) about it being treated "normally" means that the fighters are counted normally, the carrier is a non-ship unit so does not count. So a small aux carrier has 6 fighter factors, which can pin a ship, but the carrier itself cannot pin a second enemy ship. The other non-ship aux ships like the SAS, LAS, FTL, FTS, cannot pin but can be pinned themselves.
Basically the freighter based aux ships are too slow to keep another ship pinned down.
John C.:
Yes they are allowed to grab the NZ hexes between them. Once a race has entered the war (even under limited war rules), they are no longer a "future belligerant" (at least toward the race they allied with, the Feds are still future belligerants with respect to the Klingons for example), and the NZ hexes are freed up for the taking.
Nick
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 11:14 pm: Edit
Nick,
I just noticed that a few messages back you said that you were going to update the FAQ.
Could you please make sure that the CL#24 stuff is added in, along with the Lyran CW and Kzinti BC?
Also, could you open another thread under F&E where you and Steve could keep the running FAQ posted, seperate from conversations? (Make the topic read only for the rest of us to prevent postings?)
Thanks sir!
-Greg E.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 12:01 am: Edit
Note that Dale's question was about his campaign, not about F&E, and my answer applies to such campaigns, not necessarily or entirely to F&E.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 03:58 am: Edit
Right, I was only asking as far as it bore on our campaign; I do OWN F&E but have never had the chance to play it. Thanks for taking the time to answer Steve. ;-)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 09:46 am: Edit
Greg:
I was talking about the Master Errata File which is posted further up this topic in the archives, not the FAQ. Is there an F&E FAQ? If there is I don't have anything to do with it...
Nick
ERRATA FILE most recently posted at:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/656.html?TuesdayApril0920020141am#POST9920
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, September 04, 2002 - 12:39 pm: Edit
I'm sorry.
Yes, I meant the F&E Master Errata File.
Can we get CL #24 and the Lyran CW and Kzinti BC added in?
Thanks.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 10:32 pm: Edit
It is the start of Alliance turn 3. I am about to set up the Hydrans. Where may I put the following:
1) My PWC
2) The two PGS that were "allowed to enter the map" on turns 1-2?
William
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 09:21 am: Edit
William:
1) See rule (600.34), new pre war construction that is not specifically assigned can be assigned to any fleet. So since the Hydran prewar construction is not assigned by the rules, you can start it in any area you wish.
2) They would be treated in a similar fashion, you can assign them to any of the fleet areas you wish, on the turns they appear. According to this rule in CL#22, (also listed in the master errata file), there are four of these units, three of which can be brought onto the map on turns #1-#3, one per turn. The fourth cannot be brought on-map until it is converted to a PFT.
Nick
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 09:39 am: Edit
Nick, follow up on that (PGS question)
Does that mean that the turn 3 PGS can be placed with any fleet during setup, or does it start offmap and can move normally T3?
Thanks,
Tony
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 09:52 am: Edit
And some (maybe silly) slow unit retreat questions:
- Aux carriers are allowed to have their escorts per (302.742B). I assume that any escorts would have to be declared at the beginning of the battle hex (so you can't take a couple of BCs and assign them as ad-hocs at the time of retreat). Is that correct?
- (302.742B) says "pursuit force may then engage in [non-pursuit] combat...". Does that mean that the pursuer can NOT target multiple ships with 1 directed damage attack? I assume so, but I'm not sure if that was meant to only relay that the pursuer could have more than 6 ships, use drone bombardment, command points, etc
- If 2 allies retreat from a hex and decide to use (302.761) to retreat to seperate hexes, and if they both had slow units, would there be 2 slow unit retreats or 1?
Thanks again,
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 01:13 pm: Edit
Tony:
1) Since the Turn #3 PGS enters the map Turn #3, and the Hydrans start operating on Turn #3, it makes sense that it would enter the map during the alliance part of Turn #3, and you would move it accordingly (operationally, or strategically, etc.), it doesn't "magically" appear on the map where you want it.
2) Yes, you have to assign escorts to aux carriers at the start of the battle hex, just like other carriers, you can't just assign (add) them later during the battle, even during retreat (although in certain cases escorts can be swapped or dropped right before retreat). There is also an exception for FCRs, but that I believe that maybe that is only to replace a lost escort that had been assigned at the start of the battle.
3) It is basically like normal combat, except there is only one round of it.
4) I am not sure. I dont' know if there is supposed to be one combined pursuit battle, or two pursuit battles. Same goes for the slow unit retreat battle. Let me check with Jeff L. and see if he knows what was intended, or if this simply never came up before.
Nick
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 01:49 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick!
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 03:02 pm: Edit
Can some one give me the Lyran (new) Order of Battle..All the other races has new Orded of Battle ...does the Lyran get one or not
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:13 am: Edit
Nick-
In the following passage(302.711) this appears to permit a partial retreat in a capital hex from the non pursuing forces at a capital hex, since the defending ships which retreat seperately are not permitted to pursue. Does this mean that I can pursue a retreating force from the capital and then use my 2nd retreat option to have other units at the capital retreat after the pursuit round is completed? Or is the defending force not allowed to do a partial retreat after the attacker has announced he will retreat? Or must the defender select the 2nd retreat option before the pursuit battle is completed?
Bill
From 302.711:
"A player who retreats cannot pursue the other player if he also retreats. Defending ships which retreat separately from a capital hex cannot be used to pursue attacking ships which retreat from that capital hex, but ships which did not retreat could pursue."
Also 302.723 allows the defender to do a partial retreat at the end of every combat round.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:28 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
- (302.742B) says "pursuit force may then engage in [non-pursuit] combat...". Does that mean that the pursuer can NOT target multiple ships with 1 directed damage attack? I assume so, but I'm not sure if that was meant to only relay that the pursuer could have more than 6 ships, use drone bombardment, command points, etc
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quote:
3) It is basically like normal combat, except there is only one round of it
________________________________________
This has some weird implications (maybe I've just assumed wrong all these years - just wanted to verify)...
- Slow unit pursuit units DO receive salvage for the owning race if destroyed
- Units destroyed in slow unit pursuit aren't subject to the increased capture percentage (305.12)
Sorry if I'm just being dense here, I've just never seen the rule used this way - despite the fact that it's written this way
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 03:53 pm: Edit
Tony: On your earlier question about the number of pursuit/slow unit battles if an allied force retreats different directions, Jeff L. as confirmed that in that case there is only one comboned pursuit battle, and one combined slow unit combat.
I am looking at the other questions above and will post when I have answers worked out.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 05:41 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Got a few questions for you. First the situation: coalition turn 2, Klingons invading the Marquis SB has 4 ships + SAV on it that are not part of the reserve or part of the 6 ships that must stay. Klingong have moved a fleet to 1605 where it finfishes it's move. I would like to know if:
1. Can I react the 4 ships + SAV to 1705 then react the 4 Hulls + the fighters from the SAV to 1605 (leaving the SAV itself behind)?
2. Once the four hulls are there can I withdraw 2 before combat (against superior opponent) reject the other 2 as flagships with the effect that I do not have to fight at all (other than with the base itself), or is there a rule saying that I have to put at least one hull in the combat? How would 2 SE of fighters affect this (one from the base and one from the SAV) if at all?
Thanks
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 06:57 am: Edit
Sorry, it looks from the above like the Klingons are invading the Marquis - they are just doing the usual,'bash evething west of 1700.'
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 09:52 am: Edit
Here are some answers, if I missed anything, let me know.
Bill S. RE: capital hex retreat/pursuit.
Essentially each ship is treated separately, any ship that retreats separately from a capital hex cannot pursue, ships that do not retreat at all are available to be used in a pursuit force.
Tony B. RE:slow unit combat.
I can find nothing that says the slow unit battles do not generate salvage normally for both sides (except of course non-ship units don't generate any salvage (439.21) and any other normal restrictions). Rule (439.17) specifically applies to pursuit combat, and the slow unit combat is specifically called "non-pursuit combat". Capture die rolls would seem to be normal for the same reason.
James S. RE: reaction
1. Yes, that would appear legal.
2. I believe it would work out like this: You have BATS, 4 ships, and 2 SEs of fighters (1 from BATS, 1 independant) against a superior force. You could withdraw before combat two of the ships, leaving the BATS+its SE of fighters, 2 ships, and 1 independent SE of fighters. When you form a battleforce, you have three flagship candidates, the BATS and the two remaining ships. You can pick the BATS, and since the two ships are unchosen flagship candidates they don't have to be included in the minimum force calculations. The BATS SE of fighters is included since they are with the BATS. The independed SE of fighters could be included or not (holding them as reserves) if you wish, since (302.36) you must include 1/2 of the ships (not including unchosen flagships candidates, not including the BATS being a non-ship unit) or in other words you must inlude at least 1 of the two SE of fighters in this case.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 09:54 am: Edit
Michael, what are you asking for? The new AO Lyran order of battle? I am not sure what that is now (there may have been changes since it was posted last). Or are you asking about non-AO updates/changes to the Lyran OB (in that case I believe they are getting another CW a turn, or something like that, but I can't recall any other changes)?
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 10:55 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 04:24 am: Edit
Can Allies move each other's FRDs around?
For instance, could a Klingon LTT go grab a Lyran FRD and tow it to Klingon space during Strategic movement?
Also, IF it can be done, how would you count the Strat? Would it count as one Lyran AND one Klingon unit, or just one total?
By David Alsford (Davidals) on Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 02:40 pm: Edit
Reading various Reports from the Front I see admirals and command points being used together. I thought rule 3A.22 from Captains Log#18 said that the command bonus of admirals was to be used instead of and not in addition to command points. Am I wrong or has there been a later rule change?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 22, 2002 - 04:28 pm: Edit
Chris E. Fant,
Yes allied tugs can move FRDs. For strat move, it counts against whoever's strat-move nodes you are using. If a Lyran tug is moving a Klingon FRD through the Klingon grid, that counts as two units against the Klingon's strat move limits. If through the Lyran grid, it counts against the Lyran's limits. If going through both race's grids, the two units both count against both race's strat move limits.
David Alsford,
AO questions should generally be posted in the Advanced Ops development topic, and not here, this topic is really for rules questions from published topics. (The reason is that since the playtest AO rules are changing as development of the product goes along, they have their own devoted topic separate from the rest of F&E.) That said, Admirals are going to be in Advanced Ops, and have been through numerous changes from the version that appeared in Captain's log. Currently I believe you can use both Admirals and command points, but still no more than two extra ships per battleforce, so you can do one extra ship from an admiral, and a second from a command point, for example.
Nick
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit
I am in the process of updating my F& E from the 93 edition to the 2000 editon can someone tell me if there were any changes to the counters or just the rules and Charts. Thanks.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:55 pm: Edit |
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 12:46 pm: Edit
Just the rules and charts.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 03:53 pm: Edit
According to (302.742), once the slow unit battle is done,
"C: If the slow unit(s) survive the battle, it automatically retrogrades to the nearest friendly retrograde point..."
If, for example, the following force was in a slow retreat...
[SAV+2xF5(adhocs)], TG+FRD, some other non-slow unit
which would immediately retrograde?
I think it reads that the SAV & FRD retrograde. However, the FRD can't move without the TG, so I assume it also has to move.
What about the adhoc escorts for the SAV?
What about the other non-slow unit?
Thanks,
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 05:07 pm: Edit
Clell Flint: Rules and charts changed, counter's basically don't change due to the large expense of printing countersheets.
Tony, all units that are in the slow unit battle retrograde together. Remember, you don't have a slow unit battle until the side with slow units retreats. When someone with slow units retreats, you have one pursuit battle round, and one slow unit battle round (and these are considered to happen simultaneously even though you play them out one after the other). These (pursuit and slow unit battle rounds) are the last rounds fought, after they are concluded, all units that retreated either perform retreat, or slow unit retrograde.
Nick
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 05:19 pm: Edit
I have a further question about retreating from a capital hex. YOu answered Bill's question about partial retreats and pursuits. However, I have a question about when a partial retreat can be done. Rule 302.723 states a partial retreat can be done aftereach round of combat.
However, the capital assault rules list the steps in order they should be done. Step Four is where the forces in the Capital are split into the Static and Mobile elements. Step Four is where a partial retreat is mentioned only on the part of the Static defense forces. At this point there is also a comment that this partial retreat is an exception to rule 302.72 which says all ships must retreat at the same time.
Then in Step Five the attacker organized his attack, the Defender deployes his mobile defenses in Step six, Step seven is the resolution of all combat and step 8 is the removal of all but the static defensive units. The very last line of the Procedures for Capital Assault is Repeat steps 5-8 for Each Round.
Now my question is which rule takes precedence here. My Lyran partner and I are interpreting the partial retreat rule as it can only be done once during a capital assault and that is before any dice are rolled. Our reasoning behind this is that the partial retreat is mentioned in Step Four and we are only directed to repeat steps 5-8 at the end.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 05:53 pm: Edit
Nick,
That then raises another question. If all units in Slow retreat are subject to part C, then what about
"(302.742)...C: ... If there is not a valid retrograde path which is no more than 3 hexes long, the units are destroyed after the one round of combat, even if there is no combat."
So, if a TG+FRD, a [SAV+2xF5] is in a slow unit retreat, and the nearest supply point (from the current hex) is 4 or more hexes away, then all the units are destroyed?
Another question (I'm sorry, this is very difficult for me - I'm not trying to be difficult):
Klingon units (including the industrious [SAV+2xF5]) are in 1304. They are forced to retreat. The Klingons currently own 1307 (but not any other territory - so not 1506 or any Kzinti worlds) with a BATS.
A single Kzinti FF is in 1305. It's facing 50 SEs of Klingon ships.
The 1304 battle is done first. When the slow unit retreat happens, there is no retrograde path that is 3 hexes or less (since retro can't be through a hex with any enemy units). Is the whole slow unit group lost?
Thanks again,
Tony
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 11:26 pm: Edit
Russell: At the end of each combat round, the capital hex defender can choose to retreat some of his ships. Now they don't actually retreat yet, but are set aside while you continue to resolve the capital hex combat. When combat is totally completed for that capital battlehex, all retreats are actually performed for both sides, and any defending units that retreated from all rounds then retreat together to the same hex.
The mention of partial retreats in Step 4 of the capital assault procedure is just explaining that fixed defenses can ONLY leave their assigned system if they use partial retreat, they would actually USE partial retreat at the end of a combat round, not during step 4.
Tony:
Usually you will know if the retrograde path is open or not at the time you choose to retreat. If the 3 hex retrograde path is not open, and you retreat, don't leave important units like tugs and escorts with the slow units that are doomed even if they survive slow unit combat round. Remember you can detach escorts during retreat, so before the final slow combat round, the 2xF5 in your example could leave the SAV (since it is doomed no matter what) and retreat normally with the rest of the normal units. If you know the FRDs are doomed before you even start the slow unit combat round, don't leave tugs with them, but send the tugs with the normal retreating force. I would say anything left in the slow unit battle is doomed to their fate. It seems you will know this in advance (of setting up yoru slow unit battleforce), so it should not be a problem. The only reason to leave additional units in this doomed situation would be to inflict more damage on the non-retreating enemy during the slow combat round, but you would be sacrificing important units to do so, and would seem to not be worth the effort.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 01:01 am: Edit
Nick:
Would you mind bumping this last one up to Jeff as (302.742) defines "Slow Units" and escorts with AuxVs/Troop Ships and not stated as such? It could be argued that after a slow unit retreat that the escorts could retro normally without their AuxShip. After all, after normal retreat different elements of a regular carrier group can retro to as many different points as there are ships to retrograde. Thanks.
Chuck
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 10:50 am: Edit
Thanks all for the quick response on upgrading to F&E 2000 from the 93 edition.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 11:49 am: Edit
Thanks Nick. Didn't think of it that way.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:46 pm: Edit
Chuck, that very thing is something I considered but discounted, for a couple reasons:
I didn't think the rule supported it, since there is no mention of splitting forces from the slow battle to retro to different places, only one retro up to 3 hexes is mentioned. Now granted, one could argue that this is an oversight of the rule that was left off when it was written, but then we need errata.
It keeps things a little simpler to give all the slow units the same fate, then you only have the normal retreat units that retreat one hex and can retrograde 6 hexes (normal retreat/retro rule), and you have the surviving slow units that simply retrograde to the nearest retro point up to 3 hexes without retreating 1 hex first (slow unit retreat rule).
If you allow surviving slow battle units to break apart based on whether they are actually slow or not, you have several cases:
1) FRD/LAV/SAV destroyed during slow combat, escorts and tugs survive, do they retrograde 3 hexes, 6 hexes, or give them a choice? Must they all make the same choice?
2) LAV/SAV destroyed, FRD survives, so the tug+FRD retrograde 3 hexes, but do surviving escorts of the SAV/LAV retro 3 hexes, 6 hexes, or get to choose? Must they all make the same choice?
3) LAV/SAV/FRD all survive, tug+FRD retro 3 hexes, aux carriers + escorts can retro 3 hexes, but do they also get a choice of splitting and sending the carriers with the FRD+tug but letting the escorts retro 6 hexes? Must everyone make the same choice?
4) What about the weird case where your retro point is 7 hexes away thus requireing the one hex of retreat (to put you in range) before retrograding (you could be supplied for retro in this case by a convoy within 6 hexes which provides supply but not retro ability). If you choose to allow as a standard rule surving slow battle units that are not actualy slow retro 6 hexes, presumably they couldn't in this case, since they don't retreat first.
Overall, I thought it much simpler to treat all units that were in the slow unit battle the same (using the slow unit retreat rule; retro to nearest retro point up to 3 hexes), and all units that are in the normal pursuit battle the same (retreat one hex, then option to retro up to 6 hexes).
Now if you still want to bump to Jeff I will write something up and send it, but I really think it is simpler to go with the rule as written rather than trying to write a bunch of errata to take care of all the potential cases.
Nick
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:52 pm: Edit
There will be a further complication once AO is released. 1 penal ship MUST be included with slow units during slow unit retreat. That will further complicate things - so if the rule is reviewed, it should be reviewed with that in mind. The ruling above (all units in slow retreat die if there is no retro point within 3) already handles the new case.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 07:37 pm: Edit
Nick:
I contend that the retreat situation of escort ships of slow units are defined already within the rules, consider:
A player decides that he wishes to retreat under (302.72) which states that: "Retreats are conducted immediately AFTER each Battle Hex is RESOLVED."
(302.721) states: "If there are units which cannot retreat, the Battle Hex is NOT RESOLVED and will require additional Combat Rounds"
Point 1: If slow units remain then the Battle Hex is NOT RESOLVED.
So now we must resolve the Battle Hex using slow unit retreat rules.
(302.742) defines what a slow UNIT is (troop freighters, aux carriers, SAF, FRDs, Convoys, LTFs, overloaded tugs).
(302.742B) the exception states: "Escorts assigned to an auxiliary carrier, or towing SHIPS assigned to an FRD, CAN remain with THOSE UNITS" (as is defined in (307.742) above). (The "can remain" is by play choice.)
After the one round of pursuit battle with the slow units, (302.742C) states: "If the slow unit survive the battle, it (the slow unit) automatically retrogrades to the nearest friendly retrograde point."
Point 2: The Battle Hex is NOW RESOLVED and any remaining ships may retreat using (302.72) above.
So here is the sequence:
1. Player decides to retreat
2. Hex must be resolved if slow units remain
3. Conduct slow retreat to resolve Battle Hex
4a. Surviving slow units retrograde immediatly
4b. All remaining SHIPS (to include slow unit escorts) in the hex normally retreat one hex
=================================
Consider this situation:
After attempting to destroy a Rom BATS and occupy the hex, the Fed force finds that after it has destroyed the BATS it does not have the staying power to attempt to take the hex and chooses to leave. The remaining Feds force consists of the CVBG with 3 fighter factors:
LAV+CC+CA+CA+DW
LAV+++CA+DW
The Romulans have:
FFH, SPF, 3xSN, SE, Prime (All are pursuit eligible; fast ship assures pursuit)
Multiple cripples (which cannot pursue but make it not practical for the Feds to stay)
The nearest retrograde point is five hexes away which means that the LAVs will die no matter what happens. The Fed player also knows that if he breaks-up the CVBG that the two crippled CA ad hoc escorts with be directed upon and killed by the mauler if they choose to use the standard retreat option. However if they stick together the Fed fights one round of slow retreat, then takes any damage up to 12 points on the LAVs, he can protect the crippled ad hoc CA escorts inside the CVBG.
The Roms seeing that if they pursue they stand to lose more than they could hope to inflict, choose not to pursue letting the LAVs die as a result.
However, based on your ruling, all ad hoc escorts cannot retrograde normally but share the fate of the LAVs and die also. Even though the remaining Fed force (CC+3CA+2xDW+ 2x = 53 ComPot) will now out-gun and absorb more damage than the NON-PURSUING Roms (FFH, SPF, 3xSN, SE, Prime = 31 ComPot)?.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 07:54 am: Edit
It seems to me that the ships that choose to stay behind with the slow units have tied themselves to such a low speed that they have made themselves excessively vulnerable and easily trapped. They may have superior firepower, but they gave up mobility and initiative to get it. That’s usually a bad choice.
If you go with Chuck's interpretation you are allowing a slow unit retreating force to almost always force the pursuit force to let them go by leaving units that can retreat with them for no penalty. I don't think that that is a good idea.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 10:03 am: Edit
Chuck:
(302.721) You left off that as examples this rule lists PDUs and bases. FRDs/SAVs etc CAN retreat, they use slow unit retreat (302.742).
The slow unit combat round is similar to the pursuit round in that there is only one round, and these are not the additional rounds mentioned in (302.721). (302.721) is referring to additional full fledged combat rounds, not pursuit/slow combat. (302.721) also has a reference to (302.74) for slow units, since slow units are handled differently from (302.721).
"Point 1: If slow units remain then the Battle Hex is NOT RESOLVED."
I don't agree with this, once you declare retreat, the normal battle portion is essentially done with, except for perhaps pursuit (one round), and perhaps slow combat (one round, simultaneous with pursuit).
(302.742) O.K.
(302.742B) The "can remain" indicates that you make the choice between sending the escorts to the slow battle, or send them to the normal pursuit battle. It does not indicate that you can change your mind again after sending units to one battle or another. I think that once this choice is made it is irreversable. It is a one time choice per battlehex. Remember that since the pursuit and slow combat are essentially simultaneous (happenning in different places, moving different directions), you can resolve them in any order, and if you allow escorts to go from the slow combat to the pursuit combat (and if you allow this it have to be included depending on what else is retreating), then it does matter, you have to do slow combat first. I don't think this is the intention, the two combats are simultaneous and independent, that is why the pursuing player has to make a battleforce, and then use ships from that single battleforce for BOTH slow and pursuit combat. If the pursuing player cannot send the same ship to both combats, then neither can the retreating player.
"Point 2: The Battle Hex is NOW RESOLVED and any remaining ships may retreat using (302.72) above."
Again, I don't agree exactly with that sequence. Yes, retreat actually happens (i.e. the ships are moved to new hexes) after the slow/pursuit combat, but I think all units from the slow battle use the 3 hex retrograde option, while the units from the pursuit portion retreat one hex, then can retro 6 hexes.
For units to remain in the slow battle, they must give up their normal retreat option (they must undertake slow speeds and as such have a greatly reduced chance of getting away in the end, the only reason to do this is as protection for the actual slow units, i.e. they are potentially sacrificing themselves, they shouldn't get additional chances to get away themselves, that is not their job at that point).
In your example the Feds are trying to protect the crippled ad hocs by sending them to the slow battle. This is certainly NOT the intention of the rule. The intention is to allow a slight chance of retreat for some units that used to have none, i.e. SAVs LAVs FRDs. Also it stops the silly practice of SAVs blocking pursuit.
It makes no sense to me to use the slow combat to protect units. The slow combat units are essentially more vulnerable, it is a more dangerous position. You leave escorts to protect the vulnerable aux carriers/troopships, but then the escorts themselves are in more danger. That is the way it goes.
"The Roms seeing that if they pursue they stand to lose more than they could hope to inflict, choose not to pursue letting the LAVs die as a result."
This is a bit odd, remember that the Roms could pursue the normal force (with up to 6 ships) without fighting the slow combat (allowing the slow units to retro 3 hexes if they have a path, or killing them without a fight if they don't have a retro path), and the Rom can fight the slow combat without sending any pursuit ships. Or he can do both, or he can do none, the two battles are simultaneous, and independent of each other.
I am afraid that my ruling still stands as it still makes the most sense to me. You can appeal if you want and I will send all the above arguments to Jeff, but my on opinion is unchanged.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 10:08 am: Edit
See, I alwasy thought the retro range was 3 hexes for the aux units because that is the max range they can move in a turn.....seems kinda unusual to say that a F5, that can move 6 hexes is suddenly halved because it spends some time defending a Aux carrier. It can still accelerate and get out of there.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 11:19 am: Edit
Let me see if I've followed the current ruling so far:
If normal-speed warships are ecorting Slow Units in a Slow Combat AND there is no valid Retrograde point for the slow units within three hexes of the Battle Hex, ALL of the retreating units involved in the Slow Combat, regardless of speed, are destroyed after one round of the Slow Combat.
This would apply even if I was using a DDX to escort an AuxCV?
Hmmmm.... I think I agree with CFF.
Nick, can you bounce this one up hill?
Yeah, this is what the letter of the rule says, but it just doesn't feel right.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Two questions:
1) Can a capital without a shipyard build tug pods?
2) What is the base hull value for the Hydran PGS for salvage? The unit can only be subbed for a DD for 7 EPs, so I'd imaging the base hull cost would not be 7, as the scout conversion should then make it cost more than 7.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Nick:
Thanks for your reply.
To clarify a few points, would you agree that a Battle Hex is resolved once all the following occurs:
1. normal combat is concluded
2. non-mobile unit combat rounds are concluded after retreat is declared (which includes slow units)
3. all pursuit is concluded (slow unit pursuit / normal ship pursuit -- if permitted)
Note: The "can remain" indicates that you make the choice between sending the escorts to the slow battle, or send them to the normal pursuit battle. It does not indicate that you can change your mind again after sending units to one battle or another.
I fully concur -- I am not suggesting anything different.
================
You stated: "but I think all units from the slow battle use the 3 hex retrograde option".
This is not support by the rule: (302.742C) "If the slow unit survive the battle, it automatically retrogrades to the nearest friendly retrograde point."
You stated: "For units to remain in the slow battle, they must give up their normal retreat option (they must undertake slow speeds and as such have a greatly reduced chance of getting away in the end".
Again this is not supported by any rule.
One other point, as you and I agree, any slow unit and regular pursuit occurs simultaneously, then if this is true then (307.4) supports my point further by stating: "The final Combat Round is fought normally (and still in the same hex.)" And further down states: "After this final Combat Round is completed, retreat proceeds with without further pursuit." And if "retreat proceeds" then we have meet the requirement from the last line in (302.72) which states: "Retreats are conducted immediately AFTER each Battle Hex is resolved."
My major point of all this is that the rules are already in place to define how retreat occurs for ships and slow units after pursuit.
So here again is the sequence if non-retreating units are present:
1. Player decides to retreat (302.72)
2. Hex must be resolved if non-retreating units AND slow units must remain (302.721) & (302.741)
3. Conduct slow retreat to resolve Battle Hex (302.742)
4. Surviving slow units retrograde immediatly (302.742C) if able, otherwise the slow unit dies
5. All remaining SHIPS in the hex (which can include slow unit escorts) in the hex normally retreat one hex. (307.4) & (302.72 - last line)
And here is the sequence in non-retreating (non-mobile) units are NOT present:
1. Player decides to retreat (302.72)
2. Both these steps are conducted simultaneously:
2a. Conduct slow retreat to resolve Battle Hex (302.742)
2b. Conduct normal retreat (if cripples are present) to resolve Battle Hex
3. Surviving slow units retrograde immediatly (302.742C) if able, otherwise the slow unit dies
4. All remaining SHIPS in the hex (which can include slow unit escorts) in the hex normally retreat one hex. (307.4) & (302.72 - last line)
If you don't concur then I respectfully request an appeal. Thanks.
===============
This is a bit odd, remember that the Roms could pursue the normal force (with up to 6 ships) without fighting the slow combat.
That is the point if the Feds stick together in the CVBG they KNOW that the LAVs are going to die regardless of the outcome AFTER the pursuit is concluded so why not give them up to resolve damage instead of taking damage on the ships. Besides if the Feds used the normal combat pursuit the crippled CAs could be directed upon and killed. This is the power of the CVBG in that it protects ALL the units within the CVBG not just the carriers.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 01:30 pm: Edit
Well, I guess I have been appealed then...
I will write up an appeal on this question for Jeff to review, but I may not send it immediately.
Keep in mind that all the people (all 2 of them) "up the ladder" from me are really trying to spend their F&E time on getting Advanced Ops done. I hate to send something that might delay them.
Does anybody need a ruling on this immediately (I imagine Advanced Ops would have priority...)?
Nick
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Nope. AO gets priority so far as I'm concerned...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 07:48 pm: Edit
Concur.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 11:17 am: Edit
Must a Kzinti ship that is interned in the Federation be paid for as an expeditionary ship when the Federation enters the war?
602.12 says, "Kzinti forces cannot enter the Federation during this scenario; exception (411.7) or a tug to get EPs."
411.7 refers to expeditionary fleets.
Funk and Wagnells defines "enter" as an action of moving into, joining, or becoming party to, and definitely does not include in the definition a preexisting presence inside of something.
By definition then, a Kzinti ship that was interned in the Federation during turns 1-6, when such entry did not fall under the scenario, would thus not be entering the Federation simply by being present there at the beginning of turn 7.
A looser reading of the rules, one more in line with the probable intent, would be that such Kzinti ships would be entering Federation (space) if they moved into any other hex of the Federation or if they left Federation space and then reentered any hex of the Federation.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, September 27, 2002 - 04:22 pm: Edit
Hi Nick - think I know the answer to this one but just checking. 7 SE's in a hex want to avoid combat as much as possible - 3 withdraw, 2 unchosen flagships. Half the force (excluding unchosen flagshps) must be in the battle force. Does the half refer to the remaining untouched ship (so the last one of the 7 must be in the force as well as the flagship) or to the four, so minus the 2 flagships and then halved - means only the flagship must fight.
Always played the former but having reread the rules strongly suspect the latter is correct.
Thanks
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, September 28, 2002 - 02:56 pm: Edit
QUESTION FROM AO TOPIC....
For a long time, I have been confused over what is really meant by four strategic movements in the fleet release schedule.
1) Tholian Border squadron Turn 2 and Fed Gorn border fleet (5th fleet) turn 7.
These are the easiest, as IIRC, the fleets are simply quoted to be released in the strategic movement step. As such, any
movement of their ships counts against the limits as normal. But given the comments below, there is room for confusion here,
namely that these strategic movements may be free.
=========
SVC cannot comprehend any grounds for confusion. They are released in the strategic movement step. Movement by strat (counting against the limits) or don't movement by strat. Why is this complex?
=========
2) Barony fleet turn 2, and Lyran far stars turn 2.
These confuse me no end. The rules say that they can arrive (in their entirety) at 1401 (baron's) or 0104/0109 (far stars)
turn 2. This leaves two questions.
(a) Given that both fleets are larger than the strategic movement limits for thier races, does this movement count against the
limit, or is it additional, "free", strategic movement. I have always assumed the latter, as otherwise surely a comment would
have been made wrt the EP cost of the redeployment. But I don't know.
(b) Can the strategic movement of these fleets on turn 2 go beyond the specified hexes? For instance, could the Lyran Far stars
continue onto 0705 for Kzinti assaults turn 3? I've always assumed that they could not go further, but Peter Dimtri would
disagree given one of the online games here. If they can go further, would this be "free" strategic movement or count against
the limits?
Clarification could be achived with just a few short sentences in the new OBs. As far as I am aware, there are no other sections
in the rules that address this issue.
===============
Both questions are specifically addressed in the rule in black letter law. They arrival hex does NOT count against the strategic movement limit; any further strategic movement DOES count. Why is there any confusion at all?
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Saturday, September 28, 2002 - 05:17 pm: Edit
There is a related question regarding the arrival of those off map fleets - because they arrive by strategic movement at specified hexes, what happens to them if the specified hex is not a legal strategic movement node (usually due to nearby enemy units)?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 03:23 am: Edit
Nick:
While updating the SOP for AO, I noted that the question regarding slow unit retreat will need to be resolved to be properly included in the AO product, so please press ahead with the appeal as this question may impact AO delivery.
Please also note the sequence tie between (302.8) & (302.72).
I have included an extract of the PROPOSED AO SOP with annotations below:
PHASE 5 - STEP 7: RETREAT (302.7)
5-7A1: Non-Phasing Player first option to announce retreat (302.71).
5-7A2: Phasing Player option to announce retreat (302.71).
5-7A3: Non-Phasing Player last option to announce retreat (302.71).
5-7A4: If neither player retreats return to Step-2; if both retreat then the Non-Phasing Player retreats first (302.712).
5-7A5: If the Retreating Player leaves behind a base unit then return to Step-2 until base is destroyed or if the other player chooses to retreat. Base units limit pursuit options (302.741).
5-7B: If one player chooses to pursue then proceed to Step-8.
5-7C: Analyze available retreat paths for ships (307.73).
5-7D: Conduct ship retreat in accordance with the rules (302.72).
PHASE 5 - STEP 8: PURSUIT (302.8 & 307.0)
5-8A: Determine pursuit Battle Force (307.2); adjust die roll for the presence of X-Ships (523.39) and/or F-ships (525.133).
5-8B: Set up retreating Battle Force (307.3); select pursuit units for attack against retreating ships and slow units (302.742).
5-8C: Conduct pursuit battle (repeating Steps 3X through 6).
5-8D: Retrograde eligible, surviving slow units to nearest retrograde point (302.742C).
5-8E: Once all pursuit is resolved for the Battle Hex (302.8), then ship retreat is conducted immediately (302.72).
5-8F: Analyze available retreat paths for ships (307.73).
5-8G: Conduct ship retreat in accordance with the rules (302.72).
Please include this SOP as part of the appeal. Thank you.
By Jonathan Perry (Jonathan_Perry) on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 11:23 am: Edit
Perhaps this isn't the place, but . . .
Why is it that the Kzintis don't seem to see the turn 1 assault coming?
Why is it that the Feds don't seem to see the turn 7 assault coming?
and yet -
Why is it that the Lyrans and Klinks so plainly see the turn 3 assault by the Hydrans coming?
Meaning, the Fed and Kzintis are forced to wait until the invasions are underway in order to react. But the Coalition are allowed to send 40+ ships to the south during turn 3 to stop a Hydran attack that hasn't even been launched yet.
The question that I'd like to have answered is - Does this make any sense?
- yes, I'm a frustrated Hydran...
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 11:31 am: Edit
For the same reason that the Feds can anticipate the Romulan attack. They are already at war.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 08:28 am: Edit
4 Klingon ships react move into a hex that contains 4 Fed ships. However those Fed ships have not moved yet. Are they considered pinned at that point in time? Or can they be freed by 4 other Fed ships moving into the hex?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 10:29 am: Edit
Ok, a reaction question.
A group of ships moves into the 2nd level reaction zone of opposing ships, and those ships do not react.
If the moving ships then end their movement, can the enemy still react to the unspentmovement points of the phasing ships?
So, Lyrans move 4 hexes to a Hydran BATS. The Hydrans do not react to that 4th pulse. If the Lyrans stop there, can the Hydran then react the 2 hexes to the BATS?
Thanks Nick.
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 10:35 am: Edit
Absolutely. Don't have my rulebook handy so I can't give you the exact rule number, but this situation is covered specifically in the rules and examples. Basically if a fleet stops moving before they use all of thier pulses of movement they are considered to spend the unused movement in the same hex and can be reacted to.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 10:58 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Another one for you. I may have dreamt it but Iwas under the impression that a fleet cannot be forced to retreat to an offmap area if it does not want to.
If a Kzinti fleet wants to retreat from 1401 and there are coalition ships at 1502 - is the only way to avoid going to the off-map area to declare a fighting retreat and go to 1502?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 12:12 pm: Edit
Todd Jahnke RE: Kzin interned if Fed space. You don't have to pay the expeditionary cost for released interned kzin ships, but if you don't those ships would have to leave fed space at the earliest opportunity.
James Southcott RE: Minimum Force (302.36) question. The flagship itself is included as part of the calculation, only unchosen flagship candidates may be excused. In your example only the flagship would have to fight.
RE: Strat Move questions regarding off map fleet arrival. The Baron's fleet and Far Stars fleet arrive by strategic movement on the turn indicated in the scenario. The first on-map hex entered does not count against the strat move limits (204.39), so you can always get them on the map without using any of your strat move slots. If you wish, you may move some of them (up to your strat move limits) further under the normal strat move rules. You can of course pay for additional strat move slots for that turn in order to move more units. All of these questions are handled by (204.39)
Andrew Harding RE: Start move off map fleet question. Again, see rule (204.39), the first hex entered does not need to be a strat move node, any hex is fine. The first on-map hex entered counts as the first step of a new strat move "leg" between nodes. In effect, the off map space acts like a strat move node that the fleet is leaving.
Jonathan Perry RE: Why questions. Your right, this isn't the place. There is a topic for why questions, (i.e. why is the game designed to run a certain way as opposed to a different way), this topic is for rules questions.
RE: Slow combat questions. I am working up the file for Jeff to go over.
Robert Padilla RE: reaction question. Those ships could be released by other friendly forces, since they have not begun their move yet.
Christopher Fant RE: reaction question. Yes, in that case the ships can react twice to the last movement pulse that entered the outer reaction zone. See (203.64) and (205.32). The case where they cannot is when the last movement pulse causes an increase in range, see (205.16).
James Southcott RE: retreating off map. You can be forced to retreat off map, there is no rule exempting the off map area from the retreat options. The off map area is essentially treated as a source of supply, so it is similar to retreating from a hex adjacent to a planet, supply-wise. In the example you state, you have two "shortest supply paths" (in this case both length 0), 1502 (assuming it is still actually a supply source, i.e. if you had lost that planet to the coalition on a previous turn it probably isn't a supply source any more) and off map. The presence of enemy units at 1502 would force you off map (this is retreat priority 4 in action), but (assuming you are not outnumbered at 1502) you can use fighting retreat to ignore priority 4 and retreat to 1502. Of course, if you had other friendly units at 1502 (unresolved battle hex), they are now also under the fighting retreat restrictions.
Hope that covered everything, if I missed anyone, let me know.
Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit
OK, new question. When the Romulans come into the game, do they get Prime Teams for all of those turns at a war economy? Or do they start at zero?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 12:43 pm: Edit
Ok, Nick.......I'm just still a little unclear.
If I enter a hex, and ask if a reaction is going on, and there is no reaction, I can say I am stopping and the enemy can then have the option of reacting again?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 02:26 pm: Edit
A question about reaction movement: can a ship that was unable to react at the beginning of a specific pulse of movement be freed to react during that same pulse of movement by the reaction entry of a friendly ship into its hex during that specific pulse of movement, or must it wait a pulse before being freed to react?
For example:
Assume that all command ratings are equal.
The Coalition is moving, the Alliance is reacting.
There is an Alliance ship, a scout, in hex A.
Hex B is adjacent to hex A and has a Coalition ship that already moved and an Alliance ship that reacted one hex to pin it.
Hex C is adacent to hex B and is directly opposite hex A; hex C is empty.
A Coalition ship moves into hex C, hoping to pass through on its way to some other place.
The Alliance ship from hex A reacts into hex B, using extended reaction. Does the entry of that Alliance ship into hex B immediately free the Alliance ship that was already in hex B to react into hex C, or would the Alliance ship in hex B be unable to react during that specific pulse of movement, as it was pinned at the start of that pulse of movement?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 03:20 pm: Edit
Some reaction questions:
1) Does reaction movement have to go "all the way" if possible?
Coalition fleet coming down towards 1401. They reach 1403 (two hex range away), and the Kzin react out to 1402. Coalition stops in 1403. Does the Kzin have to come all the way out, or can they also stop at 1402 in open space and just stare at the enemy? If they do stop, could they use their 2nd reaction later against someone else?
2) Does the reacting force have to all take the same route?
Coalition still on the way to 1401, but coming in via 1503 (two hex range). Can the Kzinti fleet in 1401 react one single frigate to 1402, and stop there, while simultaneously sending the main reaction force through 1502 to either defend the planet or continue on after the coalition fleet?
3) Can you react to one movement to attack another fleet, or do you have to try to move though open territory?
Coalition moving more ships towards 1401, entering the 2 hex reaction range at 1503. Coalition already has a fleet attacking planet 1502 - this new fleet intends to go around that battle (1503-1402-1401) to attack the capital. Can the Kzinti react towards 1503 by going through 1502, thus defending the planet? (And it doesn't matter to me whether or not the Kzin is then pinned there or not - my intention was to stay there anyway and beef up my defense fleet there.)
4) Can the reacting force start a whole new battle (not against the force they were reacting against), if they could have reacted in a way to avoid that battle and reach the moving enemy?
Same example as above, but the coalition already took 1502 on a previous turn and are now setting up bloodwine stands on every streetcorner. Could the Kzin react to the bloodwine supply fleet moving into 1503, by going through 1502, and then attack and retake the planet, or would they have to react through 1402 towards 1503 (going around the enemy held planet if possible)?
Thanks.
By Andrew Harding (Warlock) on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 - 05:24 pm: Edit
Nick,
My question wasn't about strategic movement in general, it was specifically about the entry of new fleets into the game. Since these fleets have precisely defined arrival hexes ("Arrives at 1401 by Strategic Movement") and cannot arrive anywhere else, what happens to these fleets when that hex is not available to them?
Extreme example: The Coalition captures the Kzinti capital on turn two. Where does the Baron's fleet arrive?
The obvious answer, and the one that I've always played with, is that such a fleet arrives instead in the offmap area in the same strategic movement phase, and could use strategic movement from there normally.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 10:47 am: Edit
Found this in AO last may: Can a independent fighter squadron (205.76) get replacement fighters, between combat rounds, from a FCR located at its
base? Rule (205.76) states that the fighters return to their base between rounds, therefore it seems that it would be
possible.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 09:33 am: Edit
Hi Nick - a few more for you.
Slow retreat - example, some slow retreat units are surounded on all sides by one enemy ship. The fleet they are with retreats - there is a base within 3 hex range.
1. Do the slow retreat units, retrograde from the hex they are in (IE in the above they are destroyed) or do the conduct a retreat and then retrograde from there.
2. Same example as above except one of the hexes has a friendly unit in - can the slow retreat units now retrograde through a contested hex? do there have to be more or equal friendly forces or just any number?
3. Is a base with enemy units in the same hex a legitimate retrograde point? If not are there any conditions where it would be? (eg if there were friendly units in the same hex)
Finally - on T4, how many AD5's and FFE's can the coaltion produce by substitution? any idea if AO changes that number?
Thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 01:11 pm: Edit
HEy Nick
IF the Kzinti Capital is cutoff from the Marquis except for 1701, can the EPs from the Marquis get to the capital through the Off-Map area?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 01:45 pm: Edit
Another question:
A ship is out of supply at the start of Operational Movement. It then gets into combat, which puts it back into supply. Assuming the ships stays in supply after combat, what is it's retrograde range? Is it 3 or 6 hexes? If it was out of supply after combat, could it still retro 3 hexes, or none at all? Thanks!
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 02:59 pm: Edit
Question based on SVC's input on (205.76) last Thursday.
OK, so if I understand this correctly, I can keep feeding fighters into a battle from an adjacent hex, as long as I've reacted at least one squadron of fighters from that hex?
Here's a simple example:
1) Klingons attack 1502, Kzinti react 3 fighter squadrons from 1401. The fleet remains to pin the Klingons out of the Capital.
2) Klingons realizing they can be pinned out of the Capital attack other locations.
3) Now, after each round of the Battle in 1502, the Kzinti can replenish the 3 independent fighter squadrons from the Carriers, Bases, and FCRs in 1401.
Conversely, what happens to the fighters if the Base or Carrier which launched them is killed in a different battle before the battle the fighters are in? Are they destroyed after the first round of combat when they return to rearm or may they rebase in the hex they started from or the hex they are in?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 03:03 pm: Edit
Nick,
Here's an example, a CV and an independent fighter squadron from an adjacent hex are in a battle along with a bunch of non-carriers. The first round, the independent fighter squadron is destroyed. The second round, the CV is crippled. Can the CVs fighters be transferred to the independent fighter operating from the adjacent hex and be used in the third round of battle?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 03:06 pm: Edit
I cannot imagine what I would have said that implied you can "keep feeding fighters into a battle from an adjacent hex".
I found the post in question but it doesn't make any sense or look familiar. I cannot recall having ever heard the question and it doesn't look like something I posted.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 03:14 pm: Edit
205.76 doesn't cover the issue mentioned. I don't know who posted that; might have been me but I cannot remember that I have ever studied the question.
It's complex, obviously, as a starbase with scads of fighters could send one squadron and keep feeding fighters. I'm not sure that should be allowed, but the rule does not say anything on the issue. Given that it doesn't, I'd assume the answer is no unless the staff issues errata to say so. There is no enabling rule in the existing text.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 07:19 pm: Edit
Steve, I found a question relating to this issue:
526.31 John Wyszynski (Starsabre) 7-May-02 5:50 PM
Since you cleared the topic, you should be able to find the question. I don't show that you answered it, though.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, October 07, 2002 - 07:52 pm: Edit
Sorry Steve if I wasn't clear.
Your reply on the FCR resupplying base fighters fighting in another hex got me thinking. If an FCR can do it, why can't a standard CV?
Nick,
I found the reference in 205.76 which specifically prohibits my second question.
Thanks.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 06:56 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Yet more - If my opponent moves a number of Lyran FF's over a minor planet (with 2 PDU) of mine with a Hydran HN, how many of the Lyran FF's are pinned?
I'm thinking it is three - 205.7 and 501.9 seem to just limit PDU ftrs from reacting not from being SE's, but I'm not sure if there has been a ruling to the effect that they don't count for pinning either.
Thanks
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 09:29 am: Edit
JS: Rule (203.53) [last sentence] specifically covers your question. As each PDU has 3 fighters factors, there is one SE of fighters. I think the answer is 2 FF are pinned, one for the HN and one for the fighters.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:55 pm: Edit |
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 11:59 am: Edit
Thanks John - got the reference - spot on what I was looking for. Although PDU's have 6 fighters each so looks like three.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 12:02 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla RE Romulan Prime Teams: The Romulans do not receive any prime teams until they are actually at war (politically, not economically) (usually Turn 10 and onward).
Christopher E. Fant RE reaction: Yes, you can skip movement pulses and give the enemy additional chances to react. See rule (203.64) which specifically deals with this.
Todd E Jahnke RE reaction movement: Each ship can only react once, see (205.1) first paragraph, so the alliance ship that reacted into hex B to pin the coalition ship can NOT react out again, even if "unpinned" later by other friendly forces. Each ship gets ONLY one reaction (two hexes if scout supported).
Kevin Howard RE reaction:
1) The Kzin can stop, and if they stop, could use their final reaction later against another enemy force.
2) Very rarely would there be a choice of hexes (certain cases of extended reaction), but in those cases there is nothing that says the entire reacting force must choose the same hex, so they could take two routes. Example, Kzinti force in 1401, coalition enteres 1303, possible reaction hexes are 1302 and 1402, ships from 1401 could react into both.
3) You can do this, it even has a name, "agressive reaction". See the Tac Note "agressive reaction" at the bottom right of page 7 of the core rule book. Note that you must still react toward the force you are reacting to, so you cannot react in a totally different direction to attack something not in your "reaction path".
4) Reaction could start a new battle hex, but again, only if the enemy forces actually lie on the "reaction path". You cannot react away from an approaching enemy to attack something else. The example you give is legal since there is a choice of two reaction hexes for that particular extended reaction.
Andrew Harding RE off map fleet arrival: See the rules I quoted. They are clear that if you enter the hex at a SMN (1401 or 0104 or 0109), you can stop moving there without using any of that race's strategic movement limits. If you enter the map at an empty hex, you keep moving to some other SMN deeper on the map, but this counts against the race's strat move limits. If all strat move paths are blocked (off map is completely cut off from map), then they can't arrive by strat move on that turn, but could enter the map by operational moves on a later turn.
Your example: If 1401 is captured, then the baron's force could move off map to 1701-1801-1802 (or to some other on map SMN), but this counts against the Kzinti's strat move limits.
From AO last may RE FCR question: Don't know why SVC posted this here as it is an Advanced Ops FCR question, but I will send it to Jeff to make sure it gets covered...
James Southcott RE various questions:
1) They retrograde from the battle hex, (they do not retreat first since they don't use normal retreat). So if all retro paths are blocked they would be destroyed.
2) Per (206.21) retrograde cannot enter a hex with enemy units, so you cannot retro through contested hexes. The path is blocked.
3) Whose base are we talking about? If there are any enemy units in the hex you cannot retrograde through it or into it. It is blocked. See (206.21).
4) You can sub the required escorts for any listed carrier group production for that turn. In addition to that you can always sub 3 additional escorts for other scheduled builds.
So on T4 the Klingons can sub the escorts for any allowed carriers listed in (703.3) such as the 2 E4As needed for the D6V, the allowed D5V uses 2 AD5s and 1 F5E so those can be subbed, an FV group needs an E4A so you can sub that. Now that is the max carrier builds allowed per turn, so that gives you the ability to sub 2xAD5s, 1xF5E, and 3xE4As (whether you also sub the associated carriers or not is irrelevent). Now in addition to those 6 escorts, you can sub 3 more (515.53), so you could sub an additional 3xAD5s from the scheduled D5 production for turn 4. In addition to all that, you can use normal conversion capacity to convert more escorts (using conversion slots and done at starbases during the production step). In addition to all that you can do unlimited conversions to replace escorts lost in combat under the CEDS rules (308.132). The Lyrans work in a similar fasion (can sub any escorts allowed by (711.2) and can sub three additional escorts per turn. Also remember that you can't sub a ship before its date of introduction.
Christopher E. Fant RE grid question: If the supply grid is intact, then the EPs get through on map. If the off map grid is separated from the Marquis grid, the EPs do not get through. In your example it looks like the Marquis is still connected to the off map, so the EPs get through. Remember that the off map is essentially treated like a node (actually a source) of your supply grid, and as such, could connect two separated on-map grids to form one total supply grid.
Robert Padilla RE supply: In that case the retrograde range is the normal 6 hexes. In the second case, it would still be six hexes provided the ship really was in supply during combat, this is (410.24).
Craig Tenhoff RE feeding fighters: Please note that that was NOT input from Steve Cole, he was forwarding a question from someone else. It has not yet been determined that this is the case, someone was asking if it is the case or not. It will be handled by the AO crew since it deals with FCRs. Note again, SVC did NOT say this is how FCRs work, it was a question from someone else.
James Southcott RE pinning: Looks like John got it, add up the SEs of fighters for the PDU pinning strength. They don't react out of the planet hex, but they do count for pinning in that hex.
Once again this should be all caught up now. Let me know if I missed any questions prior to this point.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 12:10 pm: Edit
Just a quick one - I think the D5V group only has 1AD5 and 1F5E so I'm guessing allowed is 1AD5, 1F5E, 3E4A + 3 more of any type?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit
Nick: I need you to round up the most important questions-answers and rulings from this topic for CL25. Monday would be fine.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 01:44 pm: Edit
So, I can't build better escorts for the carriers I build, except by using the 3 allowed extra?
FOr example. I Want to build a D5V and a D6V in one turn. If I want to sub escorts, I have to sub E4As for the D6V escorts? Why can't I sub and AD5 and an F5E for the D6Vs escorts? How about the FV allowed? Why must it be an E4A when better escorts exist?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Nick,
I was just pointing something out based on SVCs post. I wasn't trying to imply it was a ruling. I'm sorry if my post implied that.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit
OK, so in 170, you say the Klingons can make, AD5,F5E,3xE4A as part of the normal course.
So does that mean that in 171 they can make 2xAD5,2xF5E,E4A per turn? Then add 3 more?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 02:00 pm: Edit
Nick,
I believe there is an error with your substitution example.
The Klingons can sub two full CV groups and one escort CV group. Depending on the CV group choosen (D6V/CVT or D5V) you end up with 8 E4s (2 per D6V *2 + 1 per FV + 3 extra) or 8 mixed (2 * (AD5 + F5E) per D5V + 1 E4 per the FV + 3 of anything).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 02:19 pm: Edit
See, that is what I thought it to be.
With Carrier War, since you can match any escorts with any carrier, why do the old values still hold with the type of escorts you can build.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Technically, Chris, by the rules, Nick is right. But so is Craig.
If you were to sub a D6V carrier group, then the two escorts MUST be E4A's, unless you voluntarily chose not to make them. You couldn't sub a D5E and F5E in place of the E4A's. You'd have to use two of your three additional substitutions allowed to make the superior escorts for that D6V group.
But... You could choose to substitute 2 D5V groups in a turn - there is no limit listed - and therefore sub 2 D5E and 2 F5E, plus the one E4A, plus three additional escorts of your choise. You are not required to build the carriers with those subs.
Just Say NO to additional D6V substitutions...
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 03:19 pm: Edit
Nick,
Todd E Jahnke RE reaction movement: Each ship can only react once, see (205.1) first paragraph, so the alliance ship that reacted into hex B to pin the coalition ship can NOT react out again, even if "unpinned" later by other friendly forces. Each ship gets ONLY one reaction (two hexes if scout supported).
Kevin Howard RE reaction:
1) The Kzin can stop, and if they stop, could use their final reaction later against another enemy force.
Isn't that contradictory? If a ship cannot make two reactions, wouldn't the Kzin who only reacts one hex and stop then forfeit any further reaction?
If both are true.... If the Kzin reacts (scout supported two hex reaction), but is pinned in the first hex, and then are later unpinned, couldn't they just say "that first move we were just stopping, and now are doing our second hex of reaction?"
Sorry for being a pain in the ..., but that's the joy of F&E - rule nuance questions that can decide the fate of the galaxy...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 03:55 pm: Edit
RE Escort subs. Yes the D5V only has two escorts, not three, my bad. Also, the rule says you can sub a D5V group ONCE PER TURN, so you cannot sub two of them as Kevin stated, there IS a limit. There are of course various possabilities for what the Klingons could do in a given turn, but you do have to watch the per/turn and per/year limits that are listed in the allowed substitutions section.
Also note that carrier war allows different escorts to be assigned, but DOESN'T change the build scheduels or allowed substitution lists. If you start creating different escorts (not normally listed in the production schedule) you start eating into your "3 additional escort sub" limits or your "escort conversion" limits. CV War changes what can be legally assigned, but does not change what is built each turn. The "standard groups" are still on the schedule, you don't get to change those.
Kevin,
There is a difference. If you use your first reaction but don't pin anything, you are free to react again on a later movement pulse. If you use your first reaction to pin something, you don't get to "react & pin" something else at a later movement pulse. The limit I believe is 1 (or 2) hexes of reaction movement, and one "interception", so to speak, for each reacting unit.
Nick
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, October 09, 2002 - 05:08 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick, I missed that 'per turn' line in the production notes.
That does seem to put a limit on the number of AD5/F5Es that the Coalition can build per turn.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 02:12 am: Edit
Oops, yep, missed that too. No limit on the D7V (DVS group) apparently, so I assumed the same for the D5V.
Regarding pinning and two-hex reaction:
OK, I understand the distinction you define, but what if you react towards one force, but are pinned along the way without reaching them, could you later become unpinned and then react again?
Kzin force in 1401. Coalition moves ships to 1402, and then stop (they had moved their full movement allowance). More Coalition ships come along, entering hex 1403. Kzin forces react outward, entering 1402 on their way to 1403, but are pinned by the forces already there.
Later, a single F5 frigate enters 1403, and a bunch of Kzinti ships react out to 1402, thus adding more ships there than coalition ships.
Later, another force of coalition ships enter 1403. Could the original reaction forces, which had never intended to "pin" the original non-moving coalition forces in 1402, and which are no longer pinned due to superior Kzinti forces, now do their second hex of reaction?
Yeah, it's a lousy example, but it's the best I could come up with in the middle of the night. Basically, if you are not "pinning", but are instead "pinned and then later unpinned", can you continue a two-hex reaction? Only one actual "interception", but having been "intercepted" along the way first.
Sorry for pestering you on this trival point.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 02:10 pm: Edit
Kevin,
Last time I answered:
===============================
Kevin,
There is a difference. If you use your first reaction but don't pin anything, you are free to react again on a later movement pulse. If you use your first reaction to pin something, you don't get to "react & pin" something else at a later movement pulse. The limit I believe is 1 (or 2) hexes of reaction movement, and one "interception", so to speak, for each reacting unit.
=============================
After some consideration I don't think this is quite right. See rules (205.34), (205.35), (205.61). The example is sort of helpful too, but doesn't have exactly this situation.
Basically, each unit gets one reaction that can only be used at a time when it is not pinned. If stacked with a scout/base each unit also gets one long range reaction that can also only be used at a time it is not pinned, and must be used before the normal reaction.
So I believe you can use your first long range reaction, end up pinned, be unpinned by other forces, and still get to use your second normal reaction.
The part about pinning cancelling any possability of further movement (even if you are unpinned later) applies to operational movement, see (203.51), I don't think it applies to reaction.
Sorry for the confusion.
Nick
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 03:27 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 07:11 pm: Edit
May ships that have not yet reacted, and that are in a hex with an equal number and command rating of enemy ships, react during a specific pulse of movement if, during that pulse, a friendly stack moves into their hex (via extended reaction) and thus unpins them? May a ship that is pinned at the beginning of a specific pulse of movement ever react during that pulse of movement?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, October 12, 2002 - 03:11 pm: Edit
Hey Nick,
Does an enemy planet with only an RDU block supply? Or can a path be traced though it?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, October 13, 2002 - 02:14 pm: Edit
Can someone tell me right quick the procedure for making an SAF? I seem to recal something about absorbing an Aux troop ship to reduce the cost of one of those things.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 11:41 am: Edit
Nick:
Does a race produce any Free Fighters on the Turns prior to it being able to build carriers?
When we go to annualized Free Fighters in AO where you can keep them for one year, this would mean that they start with one year's fighter production already stockpiled.
If appropriate, could you please make sure your answer is incorporated into AO?
(In a historical game, this really will only apply to the Lyrans. But in a open game starting in Y168, this could apply to at least the Gorns and ISC as well.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:45 am: Edit
Anyone answering questions in here?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:31 am: Edit
Todd RE reaction: I think that in general you cannot move on the same movement pulse that you are "unpinned".
Chris E. Fant RE RDU. RDUs don't block supply as they have no fighter factors.
RE SAF Production: SAFs cost 10 EPs and one can be built in the Spring turn. If you absorb one FTL reduce the cost 5 pts. If you absorb one or two FTS(s), reduce the cost 2 pts each. You can disband an existing SAF into one FTL or two FTSs.
Greg Ernest RE free fighters: I have moved this to Advanced Ops topic, it will get worked on sometime when we get back to Advanced Ops.
Chris E. Fant RE answering questions: I am answering questions as usual, but the delay is that I have also been using F&E time on Advanced Ops and CL#25, sorry for the delay.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 11:59 am: Edit
Ahh thanks Nick. Just thought perhaps you had gone on vacation
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 12:56 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick! That's where I thought I should ask, but it was published rule that started the question.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 12:53 am: Edit
Is a RDU a unit?
Is a fighter a unit?
Is it correct to state that a supply route may be traced through hexes containing enemy units, if those units do not have at least six fighter factors or PF's based at them?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 10:57 am: Edit
Todd, rule (411.2) says any units block supply through their own hex (at least outside of combat, during combat friendly units can offset this), and just about anything in the game is a "unit", ship, fighter, PDU, base, FRD, etc.
The RDU I think is a specific exception since it has no offensive capablity, no mobility, does not block pursuit, etc.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:22 pm: Edit
With a fighter being a unit - does it have to be 6 ftrs to block supply or just one?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 18, 2002 - 03:43 pm: Edit
It takes a ship equivalent.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 09:31 am: Edit
Would the Hydran Special Supply Tug (the one starting with the Expeditionary Fleet) count as a strategic movement node like other tugs performing the supply mission?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 09:57 am: Edit
It would kill you guys to give a rule number for these questions, right? 509.5 in this case.
The tug's mission is specifically defined as carrying fighters and ship-turns of supplies.
It says it cannot perform any other mission while doing this mission.
The "carrying supplies" mission and the "serving as a supply point" mission are two different missions.
I bet you can figure it out from there.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 10:46 am: Edit
In base FE2000, (509.1-O) says "One Hydran Tug can function as a special supply tug (509.5)".
(509.51) then says that the supply tug "carries the FCP (513.5)".
So, 2 questions (very related):
- In base FE2000, does the Hydran Tug performing mission "O" count as a mobile supply tug (ie, can be used for Strat Move purposes)? The rule says it's a "special" supply tug. There is no direct reference to mission "D", ie the regular supply tug mission.
- Does this change at all if using expansions (particularly SO)?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 11:09 am: Edit
Tony: I'm pretty sure I just answered that. The "special" tug carries supplies; it is not a node.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 07:18 am: Edit
Question about slow units - LAV is involved in combat, retreats. After the slow unit pursuit battle it goes to the neareest retrograde point. I can see nothing in 206 that does not allow it to then retrograde in the retrograde phase. Is this correct.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 09:35 am: Edit
Auxes only get 3 retrograde hexes (513.131), if you use it for the slow unit retreat, I believe you don't get to retro again in the retro phase, you already used those three hexes. If you got it both times it would be like 6 hexes of retrograde, which those ships cannot do.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 09:47 am: Edit
So if you use only one point, to go to the nearest retro point, then you get to use 2 later?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 11:19 am: Edit
(302.742C) states: "If the slow unit survive the battle, it automatically retrogrades to the nearest friendly retrograde point."
I don't think your going to find any rule that allows for a second retrograde in a turn.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Another one - Situation is this - Hydran capital under attack ring of coalition in all the hexes arond it - 519,418,417,516,615 - one ship in each. Big coalition fleet at 416 on the direct path between the 2nd SB and the capital. There are two small reserves at the 2nd SB. They cannot get to the capital via the direct path which is 4 hexes (too many ships in the way). Can they take a longer route but going through a hex with one coaltion ship in it?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 12:28 am: Edit
James:
There is no provision in the reserve movement rules that requires you to take the shortest path, in general you can choose any path you wish that is six hexes or less. You must use a path without enemy units over a path with enemy units. If the only paths (6 hexes or less) have enemy units, you can choose any of them. The only ones you can't use are when more than half of the reserve force would be pinned. See (203.74), (203.741), and (203.742).
So in the example you state, you could not go through the hex 416 since it sounds like more than half of the reserve force would be pinned there. You can use reserve movement through any of the hexes you wish with only one ship in them to reach the capital.
Reserve movement is much like operational movement, you don't have to take the shortest path.
Nick
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 12:00 am: Edit
Is there a limit to the number of minus points that may be used in a given round? I remember a discussion, but not the outcome.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 11:15 am: Edit
No real limit. The limit that was decided on is that you cannot take more than 7 minus points into a pursuit battle (to prevent abuse with penal ships), but in other situations there are no limits.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 12:01 pm: Edit
Does that limit also apply to the pursuing ships?
I mean, the Alliance can easliy rack up 50+ minus points when the PDUs go up (fighter losses).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 27, 2002 - 12:31 pm: Edit
I think so, but am not sure. I believe Steve is writing the actual rule/errata for this for CL#25, so I haven't seen what the final version will look like.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:04 am: Edit
I am not clear how you would get fifty minus points. So far as I know, the biggest you could get is to blow up the B10 to resolve one point of damage.
How could you possibly get 50 blowing up PDUs? You would have to blow them up one at a time, meaning that you'd have the factors of one of them MAX.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:56 pm: Edit |
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:14 am: Edit
SVC:
Take the Kzinti Capital hex.
You can accrue 24 minus points per major (different systems) by the coalition directing, leaving 'transfer or die' fighters.
Then 12 per minor.
4 major, 4 minor = 144 theoretical maximum.
50 (or more) is not actually that uncommon in a stripping PDU type raid.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:28 am: Edit
But after doing that, you don't go back until next turn, and the 50-144 never come into play, right?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:39 am: Edit
The 50-144 would be taken by the Kzinti into the pursuit (so they could put up monster lines without fear of losing valuable ships).
Note, the Kzinti in this example have very little option - these minus points are being forced on them.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:40 am: Edit
Those minus points carry over into the pursuit battle. At a capital you add up all the minus points in all the systems, and apply them to the pursuit battle. It is partially a cheese, but it is a cheese that is created by the attacker. When the attacker decides to leave that many minus points laying around, he has to fire at them in the pursuit battle. The defender knows that he can not be hurt in pursuit, and can send his best units forward, but attacker has the choice of allowing the points to stick around or leaving. If the attacker mauls pdu's and chooses to leave them sitting there he still deals with some, but not all of the minus points during the retreat. An option that would protect against this, would be allowing the attacker to direct 10 to kill a pdu, and then spending the next 6 damage to kill fighters, before calculating how much damage he has left to hit the next pdu. Since this would adversly effect the Coalition early and the Alliance late it should be a neutral rule.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 11:48 am: Edit
Bill - just one thing - the proposal to make the attacker chew through the fighters before firing at the next PDU would make capital battles much nastier for the attacker.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 12:18 pm: Edit
That is why I said it would adversly affect the Coalition early, and the Alliance late; therefore, neutral. ;)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 12:26 pm: Edit
I don't see any reason to change anything.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 01:59 pm: Edit
Which battle is fought first from a retreat hex (or what is the proper order):
1.The slow retreat;
or
2. standard pursuit;
or
3. the standard retreat battle after retreat priorities are resolved
or
4. fighting retreats
(Remember it is possible to have split retreats of allies within the same hex.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 03:07 pm: Edit
The slow unit battle and the normal pursuit battle are considered to happen simultaneously. That is why the pursuing player forms one battleforce, part of which stays for the slow battle, and part of which pursues the faster retreating ships. Those two battles are simultaneous, so can actually be resolved in any order.
Fighting retreat is going to happen (if it happens) in a new hex, so would obviously be after the simultaneous slow and pursuit battles.
Not sure what you mean by "standard retreat battle after retreat priorities are resolved". What is a "standard retreat battle", there is no such term as far as I know. Do you mean a (non-fighting) retreat that makes a new battle hex? That would simply be a new battle hex which is resolved in any order along with whatever other battle hexes still need to be resolved.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 01:35 am: Edit
May a unit that wants to retreat be forced to retreat to a hex in which it would automatically be destroyed?
The situation is as follows. I have an fighter squadron that reacted off a BATS to pin a frigate. The fighter squadron won its single combat (or it could have suffered a mandatory retreat from the single combat, either way). The fighter squadron wants to retreat, but the only hex in which it would not automatically be destroyed (for lack of a base) is its own BATS, which is under attack by more numerous enemy forces. The fighter squadron could retreat to an adjacent BATS that is not being attacked, but if it did so then it would have no base facilities and would be destroyed.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 05:05 am: Edit
Couple of quick ones for you Nick
Firstly - is it possible to build pods without a functioning shipyard.
Also - Would a line that included two Lyran CW and a CWS allow one CW to claim the leader bonus, or do they all have to be vanilla hulls? Also would a line including CW and 2xD5 allow one to be a leader? Also if there are multiple sets of 3 war cruiser hulls is the one point bonus allowed for each set of 3?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 07:38 am: Edit
And while were on odd fighter questions, are fighters allowed to attempt to carture an enemy ships it just killed in single combat? Also, can the fighers get the salvage for a ship it destroyed in single combat?
Both of these situations seem rather silly, as how could a group of fighters tow home a captured ship, or even board it in the first place?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 10:37 am: Edit
Is retreat allowed for a victorious unit after single combat?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 31, 2002 - 04:19 pm: Edit
413.41 allows five units to be supplied by an EP in a partial supply grid, including up to 12 replacement fighters. May a fractional EP be spent to supply less than five ships or to generate fewer than 12 replacement fighters?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, November 01, 2002 - 03:14 am: Edit
A question on Salvage.
The situation.
A battle happens at SB 215. Let us assume there are ships blocking all the hexes to the Old Colonies. The Hydran force retreats to 116, forcing another battle and allowing the Hydran ships to then be back in supply.
Would Hydran ships destroyed at 215, prior to a retreat, produce salvage as they are not connected to the grid at the time of destruction?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 09:21 pm: Edit
Todd E. Jahnke RE retreat: See rule (205.73) which deals with exactly this situation. The fighters will retreat to their original base but won't arrive until after the battle. If the BATS is destroyed they have the option to return to some other port if there is space for them. If not they are indeed destroyed.
James Southcott RE pod construction: You need a shipyard to build anything on the construction schedule, with the exception of frigates (431.5) and some replacement attrition units.
RE Leader bonus: See rule (303.5) which specifically says CWs (not variants), so the CWS does not count toward gaining the CWL bonus. Each group of three units must be of the same race to get the leader. As far as number of leaders, I believe you can have multiples, but you must have 3 CWs to get one CWL, and you must have 6 CWs to get two CWLs (5 CWs is not sufficient).
Robert Padilla RE single combat questions: It does seem odd that fighters could capture a ship, but the salvage question is not as certain. Salvage is not necessarily "captured" by the warships, it is often something that happens sometime after the battle by salvage ships. However, the usual practice is that each side gets its own salvage, so the fighter side wouldn't salvage the destroyed opponent ship, that ship's side would get the salvage for their own destroyed ship, as per the normal rules.
I suppose it would make sense to say a battleforce of attrition units only cannot capture ships (do not do a capture die roll at the end of combat if that battle round had a side of only attrition units), this may need errata if approved.
Salvage, I don't see why this needs anything special, the side that owned the ship gets the salvage, no matter what composition of the force that destroyed it. In the weird cases like being destroyed in Tholian web, then you would still follow the normal rule where the tholians would get the salvage, it is "unseen" salvage ships that does the salvaging after the battle, not the warships/fighters.
Todd E Jahnke RE retreat: Every side always has the option to retreat after any battle.
RE partial grid supplies: I would say you have to spend the 1 EP, it does not specify how to divide it up among the 5 ships/12 replacement fighters, so I don't think you can do so.
Chris E. Fant RE salvage: See rule (439.12) It looks like you have (at the time of the starbase battle) a divided supply grid. The off map grid is your main grid (assuming the capital has fallen) and the starbase is part of (or entirely) a partial grid. As per (439.13), if the ship in question was in supply for combat, it will produce salvage. This goes to the central node of the partial grid. If that grid falls, this would be lost of course.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, November 03, 2002 - 10:57 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 12:15 am: Edit
Nick,
I believe that I think 439.16 covers the situation as to which side gets salvage after single ship combat. However, I don't have the latest errata handy, so I may have missed something.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 08:29 am: Edit
Craig, good catch, I missed that one for single combat.
The point is though, if you are in supply, then your "unseen" salvage ships are doing the salvaging (sometime, maybe weeks or months, after the battle), not the fighters that destroyed the enemy, so it is not a problem to get salvage from a battle where the winning side only had fighters.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 11:47 am: Edit
CL25 file:
RULES & RULINGS
UPDATES TO “NEW CARRIERS” IN CL#24
The Federation DVL is converted from a DNL. Historically, this was done in Y173. The eight fighter factors are a single F14 squadron. No more than one can be in service at any given time. This ship can function as an unescorted carrier only when used on raids under the AO rules.
The note on the Federation CVF means just what it says; you get to build this one ship outside of the normal production system. Only one can be in service at a time; building a replacement for the original CVF would mean converting a CF (2 points) or a CA (5 points) or building it as a substitution for a CF (10 points), plus the cost of fighters. This ship can function as an unescorted carrier only when used on raids under the AO rules.
Only one oversized squadron can be in a given battle force, and only with its carrier. If used as an independent squadron, it must be reorganized into standard-sized squadrons. If two carriers with oversized squadrons are in a battle force, one of them must reorganize its fighters into standard-sized squadrons.
Area control ships have one squadron of six standard fighter factors and one squadron of eight heavy fighter factors (unless operating as a single 14-factor oversized squadron).
STRATEGIC MOVEMENT UPDATE
Players have noted a glitch in that ships trying to reach an embattled base or planet are often prevented from doing so by the presence of small enemy units that are clearly no threat to the base. These rules fix this. While the resulting change is favorable to the Alliance, it is not regarded as a serious game balance issue and no counter-balance is needed.
(204.22) The moving units can never enter a hex containing enemy units or which is adjacent to a hex containing enemy units (not merely ships) except as provided below.
(204.221) The Outer Reaction Zone of units with a two-hex Reaction Zone does not block Strategic Movement.
(204.222) Units can leave (i.e., begin their strategic movement in) a hex adjacent to enemy units by Strategic Movement if they meet all other conditions.
(204.223) Units using Strategic Movement can enter a hex containing a Strategic Movement Node even if enemy units are adjacent to that node, so long as:
a- The hex which the moving units entered the node hex from is a hex legal for Strategic Movement and
b- The number of friendly ships in the node hex exceeds the total number of enemy ships in all adjacent hexes.
CEDS CONVERSIONS
The CEDS escort replacement rules (allowing you to convert existing ships or even borrow ships from the next turn’s production) have been controversial from the beginning. These are, obviously, a fudge to make the carrier groups work, and in a very real sense should be ignored after the publication of Carrier War. This isn’t possible, however, as the effect on game balance of eliminating this “cheat code” (which is vital to the Alliance on the first few turns) would be devastating. Even so, it is obviously “wrong” and requires a correction.
(308.132A) If borrowing a ship from the next turn’s production, you must pay a penalty of one EP for “accelerated” completion of a previously scheduled unit. No penalty for mothball ships.
(308.132B) If converting an existing ship, the conversion counts against the next turn’s conversion capacity for the owning race. Each starbase can make one three-point conversion, and each escort conversion would take one of these points (so three escort conversions would use the entire capacity of one starbase). Any unused capacity would be available for normal use on the next turn. The capital starbase is assumed, for purposes of this rule only, to be capable of making five-points of conversions, so any escort conversions would reduce its maximum. Example: The Kzintis need to convert five assorted standard warships into escorts to replace losses. They use the starbase in 1704 to convert three of these, and use two points from the capital starbase to make two more conversions, leaving it able to make a single three-point conversion on the next turn.
THE PRICE OF PURSUIT
There has been much discussion over the issue of how many minus points someone can take into a pursuit battle. At a public meeting with the staff, playtesters, and players at Origins 2002, it was decided that there should be a limit.
(308.2) No battle force in a pursuit battle can use more than seven minus points. If there are more than seven minus points from previous battles in that hex, they are ignored.
Exception: In a retreat from a battle in a capital hex, the maximum is 14 points, with no more than seven from any one system.
THE DAWN OF THE FIGHTERS
F&E is focused on the General War, and attempts to use it for Free Campaigns tend to generate hundreds of questions about the timing of certain units. For example, can a race that hasn’t even invented fighters accumulate hundreds of “free fighter factors” or start operating generic auxiliaries? Apparently not.
(442.64) In a free campaign, no race begins receiving free fighter factors until it is scheduled to produce its first regular carrier. Generic carriers, such as auxiliaries and monitor pods, do not become available until that date and do not change the date.
QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS
By Nick Blank
Q2601: Is there a way to get the complete errata file for F&E?
A: Yes. It’s on the web site. I recompile it after each issue of Captain’s Log and have Joe Butler load it into the F&E section. You can also get a printout by sending a self-addressed envelope with two stamps or ask for it to be included in your next mail order.
Q2602: Since The Hurricane (603.14) says to set up the Gorns after Turn #11, does this mean that Gorn ships can react to Coalition movements during the Coalition player turn of Turn #12, or that Gorn reserve fleets can be sent into Fed-Romulan battles on the Coalition portion of Turn #12?
A: No, it does not. The Gorns enter the General War on the Alliance player-turn of Turn #12. The rules have you set up before the Coalition Player Turn so the Romulans get a chance to defend against your impending invasion.
Q2603: If I send ships out of supply as a reaction on the enemy player turn, can my ally adopt them as homeless ships and provide them fuel and ammunition during that enemy player turn?
A: Rule (410.56) says that a player-race declares which Homeless ships he is supporting at the start of his player turn, so ships which arrived during the previous enemy-player turn cannot be adopted until the start of the host race’s player turn.
Q2604: Is the Kzinti DDE a heavy escort as in recent rulings or a light escort as in CL20?
A: It is a heavy escort due to the doctrine of its deployment. If you have any left in Y176 or later, you can reclassify them as light escorts. The ship will be in AO and formal rules there may change this.
Q2605: If the Lyrans do not attack the Kzintis on Turn #1, what Kzinti fleets can be used to attack the Lyrans?
A: The answer is in the rulebook. The Duke, Count, and Home Fleets are released no matter what the Lyrans do or do not do. But why attack your neighbor? Surely you could just send a diplomatic delegation to resolve the issues amicably?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 03:52 pm: Edit
If an enemy's slow units retreat from a battle hex, does the participation of friendly ships in battle against those retreating slow ships prohibit friendly ships from then retreating from the hex?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 04, 2002 - 05:11 pm: Edit
Todd, it works like pursuit. If you pursue (and/or decide to fight the enemy's retreating slow units), then you don't retreat.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 07:47 am: Edit
Q2603 refers to a player sending ships out of supply range as a reaction movement. The player asked if the ships could be adopted at that point. I thought that the supply status of all ships was determined at the start of the phasing players movement (not just the phasing players ships). If the defending players ship was in supply at that point, does it not remain in supply for combat?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 08:56 am: Edit
Does the conversion of a newly captured, and thus crippled, ship to one's own service use up repair point capability for the turn? Could a Lyran SB repair four Lyran CA's and also convert a captured FF to Lyran service?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 09:51 am: Edit
A better question is:
Does converting a captured ship also repair that ship? Would the converted ship still be crippled?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 11:18 am: Edit
DGK: That wasn't the question. They wanted to adopt the ships, not just feed them.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 06, 2002 - 03:38 pm: Edit
Daniel, the point is that you cannot declare ships homeless in the middle of a turn, they must be declared and supported by an ally at the start of a player turn.
Todd Jahnke and Robert Padilla, the rule says "repaired and refitted" so I believe it is two separate things. You have to pay for repairs, and converting to your own tech, and these would each use the appropriate "capacity" of repairs/conversion slots.
Nick
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 07:14 pm: Edit
The Kzintis have moved all but 6 ships from the Marquis fleet out of the Marquis area. Later some ships from the Marquis fleet move back into the Marquis area. Can some of the original 6 now move out? Does it matter if the ships that moved back in are crippled?
William
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 07, 2002 - 10:10 pm: Edit
You cannot exchange released and unreleased ships like that. The six ships you decide to leave behind are "unreleased" and are ONLY released as per the rules for that scenario. The ships that moved out of the Marquis earlier are "released" and stay that way, they cannot be declared "unreleased" again to release some of the original six.
If you could do that then you could do so with any unreleased fleet (exchange released and unreleased ships, it would be like allowing the Klingons to swap crippled ships for uncrippled ships from the unreleased Eastern Fleet), and I know you can't do that.
Nick
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 07:22 am: Edit
SVC & Nick,
I understand that the question was about adopting a homeless ship, but I believe that the question was asked because of a false assumption that when the ship moved beyond supply range by reaction, it became unsupplied. Why adopt a ship that has all ready been supplied? Does moving the ship in question, in Q2603, beyond supply range by reaction movement cause it to fight at a disadvantage on that turn?
"Q2603: If I send ships out of supply as a reaction on the enemy player turn, can my ally adopt them as homeless ships and provide them fuel and ammunition during that enemy player turn?"
The player is specifically asking about fuel and ammunition. I think that the player believes that by reacting out of supply, he'll have to fight as an unsupplied ship, i.e. at a disadvantage. If I'm correct, the ship was in supply at the start of the current Phasing player’s movement and is considered to be in supply for combat. If so, then there is no reason to want to adopt the ship before the owning players next turn, when it could be adopted normally. Is the ship considered to be supplied during the current combat phase if it started out in supply but reaction movement moved it out of supply range or not?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 09:58 am: Edit
True, if you started in supply you are automatically in supply to the end of combat on that same player turn (but not necessarily for retrograding, so what the player is asking could still have an effect at that point).
Doesn't change the fact that you also can't adopt it at that point (for supply in order to allow retrograde for example, which otherwise isn't guaranteed), so the answer isn't wrong. CL#25 went to press anyway so it is too late to change anything.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 10:28 am: Edit
Doesn't change the fact that you cannot adopt it. Doesn't change the fact that once it's out there isn't going to be out of supply the next time the sequence of play clicks around to that point. The question and answer were correct. We are now way past the point of wasting bandwidth. Let's move on.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 12:41 pm: Edit
600.31 states that un-released ships can not use reaction movement to move outside of their territory, bat can use it to move within their territory. Could a carrier reacting in this manner react it's fighters outside of it's territory?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 12:42 pm: Edit
Nick,
That's what I thought, and I wanted that point clarified for future refrence (for me personally). Thank you.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 03:35 pm: Edit
Robert:
If a carrier is unreleased and thus cannot react outside of its "fleet territory", I can't imagine things would by any different for its fighters...
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 03:53 pm: Edit
I found this one in the file. Nick thinks its an official ruling that got lost somewhere. Anyway, here it is. Assuming someone doesn't find a memo from me saying "forget that, do this" we'll put this into CL26.
(302.775) In the event that a "fighting retreat" enters a hex with a base (or a non-base unit which is treated as a base for combat purposes) special cases apply as follows:
A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., SB, BATS, BS, MB, LTF) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply {After the first approach battle?}. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally. (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat.)
B: If the hex contains a friendly "base-like unit" (e.g., FRD, Convoy, Tug acting as a supply point, Tug setting up mobile base) AND (after the retreat) the total friendly forces in the hex (not including those conducting the fighing retreat) have more ships than the total enemy forces (or equal attack factors), the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally. (I.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat.)
C: If the hex contains a friendly "base-like unit" (e.g., FRD, Convoy, Tug acting as a supply point) AND (after the retreat) the total friendly forces in the hex have fewer ships than the total enemy forces, the conditions of "fighting retreat" apply and the ships would have to fight one round [an approach battle, technically] under the penalty of (302.77) and then continue retreating as required by (302.771). This could involve a separate slow-unit retreat (302.742) by any units of that type. [Note that units are never forced to use a "fighting retreat" and could retreat somewhere else, but that the tactical situation would probably make the choice irrelevant.]
D: If the hex contains an enemy base or "base-like unit", the conditions of "fighting retreat" apply and ALL of the ships would have to fight one round [an approach battle, which the base-defending player might decline] under the penalty of (302.77) and then continue retreating (effectively abandoning the planned attack on the base). This could involve a separate slow-unit retreat (302.742) by any units of that type. [Note that units conducting a normal retreat would not disrupt the attack on the enemy base. It may be possible in some situations provided in the rules to enter the hex by either a fighting or normal retreat.]
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 04:10 pm: Edit
For condition "C":
If the friendly forces have fewer forces than the total enemy forces, then by retreat priority 2, the retreating ships couldn't have come here to begin with. Fighting retreat doesn't come into play until retreat priority 4. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation.
Example:
Kzinti are retreating from 1304 (after it's been destroyed) with 10 ships.
1403 has a tug acting as a supply point (for whatever reason). There are 5 Kzinti defenders and 20 Klingons here.
The Kzinti can't retreat to 1403.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 04:24 pm: Edit
If carrier fighters can not react out of a deployment area, can base fighters react out of the same deployment area. I have used this tactic(base fighters) on numerous occasions.
Example - I have 15 ships in the Marquis fleet, 9 of which are released as soon as the Klingon attack the Kzin on turn 2. The Klingon move adjacent to the Marquis starbase, but do not enter Marquis territory. I can now react out with 9 the ships from the SB, can the 2 fighter squadrons from the Marquis starbase move out of the Marquis provinces and pin an additional 2 Klingon ships?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, November 08, 2002 - 05:01 pm: Edit
On impulse 4, A klingon force moves to attack a BATS two hexes away from some Kzinti ships which have extended reaction capability. The kzintis do not react. The klingons do not move on impulse 5. The kzintis still do not react. The klingos do not move on impulse 6. Can the kzintis now react two hexes into the BATS?
William
By David Alsford (Davidals) on Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 02:46 pm: Edit
If the Hydrans conduct a succesful expedition, entering Fed space on an alliance turn the Feds get to spend 50% and move that turn, correct? If the Feds do not attack the Klingons can the Klingons invade before turn 7? And is the IWR activated?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 08:11 pm: Edit
Bill S. RE fighter reaction: in general I believe bases go along with the fleet status, but note that in the case of the Marquis, all of Marquis (including bases) is released EXCEPT the six ships, so that is a valid tactic in the early period of the game.
William J. RE reaction: I would think in that case the Kzinti could only move one hex. Rule (205.32) says "...if the approaching ship moved into the Outer Reaction Zone on the sixth pulse, the reacting ships can move two hexes..." However, the Klingons did not enter the outer reaction zone on the sixth pulse, but earlier, so if the Kzintis wanted to react they should have done so earlier.
Now you can delay like that, and still react to past movement on a later pulse, but you still can only react one hex per pulse. The only rule that lets you react two hexes in one pulse is (205.33) which doesn't apply to your situation.
David A. RE economy question: The rules say 50% spent on that turn yes. As far as moving goes it depends on the sequence of play, if the Hydrans entered during the op move phase then yes, if the Hydrans entered during (after?) combat (as in a retreat into fed space), then only strategic. If the Feds do not actually attack the Klingons, they are still "at war" and the Klingons could themselves attack. The IWR would be released.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, November 11, 2002 - 10:42 pm: Edit
Quick SFG question:
Can I unconvert an SFG-equipped ship and use the SFG package on another unit?
(Specifically, after the Home Fleet is released, I'm considering unconverting the D7A so that I can use it on a C8 or something larger later on.)
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 07:51 am: Edit
I don't have my rules on me, but if I remember correctly the only way you can remove an SFG from a ship is if it is destroyed and the boom recovered. Someone who has their rules handy can post you the relevant rule.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 10:11 am: Edit
Greg, the rule you are looking for is (312.111) which says there is no provision for removing a SFG from a unit after it has been installed. So you cannot do what you propose. The only exception (stated in the rule) is a SFG can be salvaged from a destroyed stasis unit on a die roll of 6, see (312.47).
Nick
Clell, check the topic instructions, in general only Steve, Jeff, and I should be posting answers. You were correct this time, but you didn't have the rule reference, and often that leads to people posting incorrect or incomplete answers which just clutters up the topic making the real questions and answers harder to find. Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 09:45 am: Edit
RULING ON SLOW RETREAT ESCORTS
I sent the slow retreat escort question to Jeff to look over. He agreed with me that the escorts should suffer the same fate as the slow units (they die if there is no retro hex within 3 hexes) but also questions why this is an issue (and he has a point unless we are both missing something). Here is his e-mail:
========================================
I can see both arguements. However, I think that intent is important. I searched the archives for comments on slow retreats, and found Steve's answers from 2000. He didn't want to add any defenders to the slow units. In addition, he did add that the pursuer is allowed to add one ship for each escort that the slow unit force has.
Since it seems to me that the only purpose for adding a lot of units to protect ships that will die anyway is to inflict damage, that's counter to Steve's intent as shown in the accompanying text "Because I do not want stay-behinds. It's a door to abuse." So, I would agree that the escorts suffer the same fate as the slow units. If anybody complains, we'll bounce it up to Steve.
After further reflection, I'm wondering why this is even an issue. The pursuing player is not obligated to fight the slow pursuit battle in the first place (302.742B, last sentence). So, if the slow units don't have a valid retrograde point within 3 hexes, the pursuing player declines the battle, and they die anyway!
So, why would the fleeing player add ships to a fight that can't be won?
Jeff
========================================
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 07:00 pm: Edit
Can you increase your production of FF if you build extra SBs. eg The Hydran player builds 2 extra SB will this increase his production by 2 extra FFs assuming no other SBs have been destroyed.
Thanks
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 09:15 pm: Edit
Nick,
On the slow unit retreat question, carrier groups must be assigned their carriers at the start of combat phase.
So, if the defender has a SB (for example) and wants to feed fighters forward into the battle, it would be very possible to put a couple of FFs on a LAV as adhoc escorts (to protect it from the 3x1 damage). These carrier groups (unless I missed an exception somewhere) can't be broken up for slow unit retreat, so you're forced to include the extra ships in the slow battle.
This isn't a case of trying to inflict more damage on the enemy necessarily.
Tony
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 09:24 pm: Edit
Tony, see (302.742-B) "Escorts assigned to an auxiliary ... CAN remain with those units."
They aren't required to stick around, it's at the retreating player's option.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 10:36 pm: Edit
There is also a rule in carrier war (515.15, last sentence) that allows carrier escorts to be dropped just prior to the pursuit battle. Mainly intended for an undamaged carrier to keep a crippled escort from holding it in the pursuit battle, but can also be used to separate escorts from a doomed aux carrier.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 10:38 pm: Edit
John Wong, extra starbases do not increase frigate production, and losing starbases does not decrease it. That rule simply allows you to build some of the scheduled frigates at a starbase instead of at the homeworld. Starbases do NOT let you build frigates in excess of what is listed on the race's build schedule, they just give you a different place to build the already scheduled frigates at.
Nick
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:58 pm: Edit |
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, November 17, 2002 - 11:33 am: Edit
Couple of quickies for you Nick
As far as I understand it SB's have an intrinsic G which can only be used to defend the base (not to improve capture etc). If the G is destroyed and there is a G ship in the hex, can it replace the intrinsic G? If they can would this function like a normal G or like the intrinsic again.
Also, In a battle at a capital, what happens to AUX ships. We've always assumed that they can only be based at the capital planet but I can't find anything in the rules. Is this correct or do they get split into mobile and static, are they all static but can be based in other systems?
Thanks
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 09:15 am: Edit
Nick
I'm still not clear on this fighting retreat buisness...
The klingons are attacking the Zin planet at 1504. All the klingon BATS are still intact. The Klingons are forced to retreat from 1504, but there is a smaller Zin fleet at 1505. Assume no other considerations apply.
Under steps 1-3 of retreat, all hexes are eliminated for the Klingons except 1505, as that is the only hex which shortens the Klingon supply line (although the Klingons are still in supply if they retreat to other hexes).
My protagonist, Jonathan dean, argues the following.
to invoke a fighting retreat there must be a
choice of retreat hexes at the end of step 3 (302.733) and while the desired
retreat hex is eliminated by step 4 at least one other hex legally availably
at the end of step 4 because if all potential retreat hexes are eliminated
by step 4 then it is ignored by (302.73) without needing to resort to
(307.77). Basically, a fighting retreat is always a voluntary act by the
retreating player, and can never be forced by the opponent.
(302.731) Eliminates no hexes.
(302.732) Eliminates no hexes.
(302.733) Eliminates all hexes except 1505.
(302.734) Would eliminate 1505, however by (302.73) "If a given priority
eliminates all remaining hexes, ignore it but continue to analyze the
remaining priorities." So, priority 4 is thrown out by (302.73), and thus
1505 is a legal retreat hex since there are no further priorities to
consider. I do not have to ignore the step via (302.77) because it was
already ignored without penalty.
I have a problem aesthetically here. How can a fleet retreat into an enemy fleet hex (where there are no bases to complicate things, which you have dealt with above) and it not be called a "fighting retreat?".
My main sore point in Jonathan's argument, is that priority (302.734) should not be thrown out, because it does not eliminate 1505, namely you are allowed to retreat to 1505 under the fighting retreat rules of (302.77). I.e. the fighting retreat rule should kick in BEFORE 302.734 is ignored.
If for some reason you could not retreat to 1505 under (302.77), then I would agree that step 4 is eliminated, and step 3 kicks back in, where you are still forced to go to 1505, but not under fighting retreat restrictions.
It all depends on what point in the preocess you apply (302.77). I'm happy to accept Jonathan's view of things in the sense that it could be a crinkle in the complex retreat rules, but aesthetically it seems wierd.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 09:26 pm: Edit
A couple of things about the fighting retreat issue.
(302.771) "If the retreating player wants to conduct a fighting retreat, then he has the option to ignore (302.734) and retreat into any hex available at the end of Step 3."
To me this indicates indicates that the fighting retreat rule is a voluntary decision by the retreating player since it seems to specifically spell out a decision to be made. In the case in question (retreating from 1504), what happens if I say "I do not want to conduct a fighting retreat from 1504 to 1505?" Then I cannot ignore priority 4 (302.734) by using (302.77). The question to me here is whether it creates a paradox situation. However, that does not seem to be the case since by (302.73) it is clear that priority 4 would be thrown out, and that 1505 would be eligible for a normal retreat.
A second issue is that if fighting retreat can be forced then it can be fashioned into a very powerful (and IMO very abusive) weapon to club your opponent with (ok, mainly club the Alliance with). Take SB 1304 for example. Once the border BATS are taken down and planets 1202, 1105 and 1504 are captured, it is pretty clear that it must retreat to 1303 or 1403 (towards the capital or major 1502 which would be the nearest supply points). Station some ships in each (6-12 should be adequate). If (302.77) is an involuntary decision when all of the hexes surviving priority 3 are "eliminated" by priority 4, then if the Alliance retreats from 1304 it is forced through the additional indignity of a fighting retreat (either through 1303 or 1403). If you want to be really excessive, station ships in 1302, 1402 and 1503 and extend the fighting retreat. With patience and care, it isn't that hard to craft situations where most major Alliance defeats would be followed up by forced fighting retreats.
As much as it would benefit me as the Coalition player to be able to force fighting retreats, I do not believe that is the way the rule was intended to be used. Of course, if the involuntary use of fighting retreats is upheld I will be using it. Alot.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 18, 2002 - 11:37 pm: Edit
James Southcott:
Errata for rule (521.383) in CL#24 says that one troopship can provide a defending G to defend any base (it can be in addition to the starbase intrinsic G). This would function like a ship based G since it is from the ship and not actually from the starbase.
In capital assaults I belive aux ships are treated like ships, not like cripples/FRDs/convoys. Let me do some checking on this one though...
David Slatter: Fighting retreat never "kicks in", it is always an option.
=================================
to invoke a fighting retreat there must be a
choice of retreat hexes at the end of step 3 (302.733) and while the desired
retreat hex is eliminated by step 4 at least one other hex legally availably
at the end of step 4 because if all potential retreat hexes are eliminated
by step 4 then it is ignored by (302.73) without needing to resort to
(307.77). Basically, a fighting retreat is always a voluntary act by the
retreating player, and can never be forced by the opponent.
(302.731) Eliminates no hexes.
(302.732) Eliminates no hexes.
(302.733) Eliminates all hexes except 1505.
(302.734) Would eliminate 1505, however by (302.73) "If a given priority
eliminates all remaining hexes, ignore it but continue to analyze the
remaining priorities." So, priority 4 is thrown out by (302.73), and thus
1505 is a legal retreat hex since there are no further priorities to
consider. I do not have to ignore the step via (302.77) because it was
already ignored without penalty.
===========================
The above is correct.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 05:22 am: Edit
On the g thing, and just to check - so, it would be allowed to place a G from a troopship (without having to put the ship in the battleforce) and the G will both defend the base and can be used to improve capture rolls?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 06:13 am: Edit
Nick
Thanks for the ruling. Just one comment. (302.734) is written in a way could imply that as the last priority, it can only be ignored by fighting retreat. Your ruling shows that it can also be ignored the standard way under the section heading.
Some rewording would be helpful to avert further question on this.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 08:45 am: Edit
I think a G can be used for combat or a capture die roll modifier, not both. (521.5) Says to modify the die roll it must give up its attack, and if you are defending I believe this includes the supporting role.
I think it is clear that the exception in the section heading applies to all the sub-rules, that is why it is in the section heading and why it says "if a given priority...". The exception note in the last priority about fighting retreats is in addition to the section heading exception.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 09:26 am: Edit
Nick, could you check that, as I thought G's on bases could not be used for capturing enemy ships under any circumstances. If they can be used as such, you would surely have had people buying extra G's for starbases by now.
And please do check the other half of James' question - can G's be transferred from troopship to base, and does the troopship have to be in the battleforce to do it? One could also query whether the G on a SB could be moved to an empty commando ship to allow a capture roll.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 07:15 pm: Edit
David, I was referring to the G from the ship. If a G from a ship is used under (521.38) to defend the starbase, that G doesn't get the capture ship die modifier. That's all I was saying. You are correct that the intrinsic G on the starbase cannot capture ships.
Troopship based G's can defend a starbase, they must be in the battle hex, but do not need to be in the battle force. This is in (new) rule (521.381) which is in Captain's Log #24.
The marine assault fixes (CL#24) have not yet been added to the master errata. After I get my staff copy of CL#25 I will add F&E errata from these two CLs to the master errata file and repost it.
Sorry I didn't reply the other day, but I had worked a 9 hour shift, and the day before that I had taken the GRE for grad school, and my brain was just mush...
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 07:32 pm: Edit
The errata from CL24 and CL25 is in the Q&A Archives topic. Has been for weeks.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 10:48 pm: Edit
Nick (or SVC, or someone 'official'):
In F&E, how is the Lyran BC (the CL conversion, not the BCH)deployed? Is it a 'command ship' that leads entire fleets (solo), or is it deployed in squadrons like a 'normal' cruiser?
I've heard from one source that it only leads fleets (like a CC), and another that suggests it is pretty interchangeable with CAs. Clarification? Is it a 'command varient' or no?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 11:55 pm: Edit
The klingons capture a kzinti minor planet on turn 3. If I am reading (508.22) correctly, this means it starts producing EPs for them on turn 5.
Suppose the Kzintis liberate it on turn 6. When does it start producing for them?
William
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:19 am: Edit
Nick, sorry, my question wasn't very clear.
What I was trying to ask is - when you have a G ship in the hex (but not in the battle-force) can it transfer it's G to the SB. Either as a visiting GCE, or if the SB loses it's intrinsic G, as a replacement for that (in the same way you can between G ships).
If so, when the GCE is on the SB how does it function (can it just defend the SB from G attacks, or if it is not needed to do that in one round, can it improve capture attempts).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:41 am: Edit
Dale,
In F&E there is no such thing as "only deployed as" for most ships. That is left up to the players. So for the Lyran BC, you can choose to only lead fleets (one per fleet) with them as they do have a command rating of 10 and thus make good substitutes for dreadnoughts. But you can also if you choose, build a bunch of BCs and collect them all together and use them exclusively in one fleet at the same time. There is no F&E rule that restricts this in any way. The balance factor is that if you put all the BCs in one fleet some fleets will obviously be without.
If you are asking this for SFB fleet building procedures you should really check rule (S8.0). It lists the BC in the HEAVY SHIPS rule (S8.33) with some guidelines for its use. It is not a size 2 ship, and it is not considered as a BCH, so presumably that rule also allows more than one per fleet. I would double check this in the SFB Q&A though, as SFB questions aren't really my domain...
William, here is the sequence:
Turn 3 Coalition half, Klingons capture Kzinti planet.
Turn 3 Alliance half, planet is now part of Klingon supply grid (413.2).
Turn 4 Coalition half, this is one turn of continuous possession.
Turn 4 Alliance half, no change.
Turn 5 Coalition half, this is the second turn of continuous possession so the Klingons now get the reduced (devestated) income.
Turn 5 Alliance half, no change.
Turn 6 Coalition half, Klingons again get devestated income.
Turn 6 Alliance half, Kzinti retake planet.
Turn 7 Coalition half, planet is now part of Kzinti supply grid.
Turn 7 Alliance half, first turn of possession, (also first of the four turns of recovery 508.21).
Turn 8 Coalition half, no change.
Turn 8 Alliance half, second turn of possession so Kzinti get devestated income.
Turn 9 Coalition half, no change.
Turn 9 Alliance half, third turn of possession, Kzinti get devestated income.
Turn 10 Coalition half, no change.
Turn 10 Alliance half, fourth turn of possession, Kzinti get devestated income (which also completes the 2 complete years of recovery for rule 508.21).
Turn 11 Coalition half, no change.
Turn 11 Alliance half, fifth turn, Kzinti now get full income once again.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 09:48 am: Edit
James, I see.
Check rule (521.5), it is very clear. It says if there is a ground combat ship present in a Battle Force which qualifies (521.32)...then you get the modifier.
So it must actually be a ship (not a base or starbase, i.e. it must have mobility on the space battlefield), it must be in the battleforce, and the troopship must survive the battle with its G intact, and (the part I was trying to say) you must not have used the G for other things during that round of combat. Another way to look at it is that it is not a G that is modifying the die roll, it is a troopship that has a G on it that together modifies the die roll.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 10:10 am: Edit
Ah right - thanks - the only other thing is (sorry about this, just can't get my head round the marine assault rules though I've read them a number of times) - can I put an extra GCE on the SB to defend it from attack, and or use the GCE from a G ship to replace the intrinsic SB G if it is lost during an enemy marine assault. Both without putting the G ship in the battle force.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 10:59 am: Edit
James, see rule (521.834) in the Marine Assault errata in the F&E Q&A Archive topic.
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1036788919
It discusses the different types of Gs on starbases. There is the intrinsic one. Then you can have an IGCE added (that you paid for under the IGCE rules), you can have a "visiting" G that is actually based on a ship, this is rule (521.38). You can never have more than 2 Gs associated with a starbase at any one time.
Again, rule (521.381) says that for "visiting" Gs the troopship itself does not need to be in the battle force but must be in the hex, but again any given battleforce cannot have more than 2 Gs associated with the starbase. There is nothing preventing two ship-based "visiting" Gs from being used after the intrinsic G is destroyed (and note that rule (421.4) discusses using 2 ship Gs in this case in the last paragraph of the rule), there is only the maximum of 2 at any given time (i.e. per battleforce).
Make sure to read all the stuff in the archive listing, it clarifies a lot of fuzzy areas in the published marine rules.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:22 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 11:33 am: Edit
Nick,
Thanks! I'll take it up in the SFB Q&A. It bears on a local campaign so I'm trying to get a resolution.
By Matt Gardner (Dreissen) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 02:41 pm: Edit
Can a BATS (or SB/FRD) do CEDS repair on a carrier fleet on the Coalition turn, then also do normal repair on the Alliance Turn?
Pertinent example: I am playing the Lyrans and just killed the Kzinti 902 SB during Turn 2 Coalition. I crippled a large number of Kzinti ships, including all his carriers. I assume he is going to retrograde them to his BATS, which were bypassed to take out his Starbase. Each BATS has 4 repair points. Can he use these 4 repair points to fix his carriers during CEDS repair and then continue on and repair 4 more points at each BATS during the repair phase of Turn 2 Alliance?
Technically a BATS/SB/FRD could get 3 times its allotted repair capability each turn. 2xCEDS repair and 1 normal repair.
Although it is costing him EP's each time he repairs (which is nice), I am currently more concerned with how many ships he will have repaired to counterattack me.
Thanks
Dreissen
By David Johnson (Djj) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:04 pm: Edit
Nick:
Don't the rules say that if I retake my own planet that I don't RECAPTURE it but that I LIBERATE my planet and can collect the next turn?
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 03:09 pm: Edit
For homeless ships (410.5) when are the support lines purchased?
410.51 talks about the cost and 410.56 says that an already existing one can be changed as to what ship it is supporting at the begining of the host player's turn but I can't find anything that specifies when in the turn you can build a new one. I could argue it one of two ways:
1) anytime a ship becomes homeless a support line could be built (if available) or
2) only at the beginning of a player's turn can a support line be built.
Please let me know which (if either) of these is the correct answer.
Thanks,
Clell
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 09:09 am: Edit
Question on base upgrades
Scenario: 2 Kzinti MB's previously laid in the game. Turn 8 there are 2 tugs over Kzintai space, 1 Kzinti and 1 Federation. Alliance player decides to upgrade both MB's to Bat's, who pays the cost? Do the Kzinti's pay for one upgrade as it uses the Kzinti tug and the Fed's pay for one as it is a Fed tug? Or are both paid for by the Kzinti's as they are Kzinti MB's?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, November 22, 2002 - 08:49 pm: Edit
Matt, See rule (308.131-B) "...and use some of that base's repair capacity from the next Repair Step..." So you do NOT get 3x the repair capacity.
David, there is no such rule. Rule (508.22) applies to both capturing and re-capturing (or liberating) planets.
Clell, rule (410.56) says homeless ships are designated (or changed) at the start of the host's Player Turn.
Jimi, rule (433.41-A) says the base must be in the supply grid (of the base owner). This is because the owner of the base always pays for the upgrade (ships the new parts to the base's location, which requires the grid connection) regardless of whose tug is doing the actual work.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 12:30 pm: Edit
BTW - anything further on the aux's in capital assaults Nick? - or as you said, just treat them like proper ships
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, November 25, 2002 - 01:26 pm: Edit
In slow retreat with a tug & FRD -- are they treated as a combined unit (8+4=12 defense) for a directed attack? IOW are they a form of tug+pod combinations?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit
James, Yes just treat them as standard ships. So auxes get divided between the mobile and static forces. Note that auxes have reaction ability, while FRDs, crippled ships, Monitors, etc do not, which seems to be a common factor here.
David, tugs and FRDs are never treated as a combined unit. They are only "combined" for movement purposes, never for combat purposes.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 10:30 am: Edit
Thanks very much Nick
By David Johnson (Djj) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 11:00 am: Edit
Thanks Nick.
But now the kicker...
This is my slow retreat force from our game:
Hydran Tug+FRD (tug in form bonus slot)
Small Troop Ftr (crippled)
The pursuers now have enough points (10) to direct and kill the FRD and the Troop Ship leaving just the tug. What retreat movement rules does the tug use? Auto-retrograde (as it is no longer a "slow Unit" without the FRD) or regular retreat to a retreat hex (because it is a "ship")?
Dave
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 26, 2002 - 11:33 pm: Edit
David, anything in the slow unit battleforce uses the slow unit retreat rules, regardless of what does (or doesn't) survive the slow unit battle. Even if a unit is faster normally, it gave that ability up to stay behind to try to protect the slow units, so it uses the auto-retrograde-3 hexes rule.
Nick
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 09:10 am: Edit
Nick, it was posted that the errata is kept up to date by you. Would you kindly inform me in which link I can locate the F&E errata for download or printout on the website so me and my friend can stay up to date on all the F&E changes?
Thanks in advance =)
Jimi
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 11:58 am: Edit
There are two parts. The most recently posted Master Errata file is way back in the archives, but there is a newer version I will post below. This is the file that I have just recently compiled (just prior to CL#25 getting published). It contains everything up through CL#24 (although not all the marine assault fixes).
Note that the stasis chart at the end of the file below is screwed up by the board, just put your copy in a fixed width font (like courier) and insert extra spaces (which the board removes for some reason) to get everything to line up.
The second part has stuff from CL#24 (marine assault fixes) and from CL#25 was separately posted by Steve at:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1036788919
So the file below (first part) and the stuff from the above link (second part) should give you the complete errata document.
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 12:00 pm: Edit
===============================================================================
| FEDERATION AND EMPIRE MASTER ERRATA FILE |
===============================================================================
THIS ERRATA FILE APPLIES TO:
F&E-2000 REV. 4
CARRIER WAR-1993 REV. 0
SPECIAL OPS-1993 REV. 0
MARINE ASSAULT-1995 REV. 0
COMPILED FROM CAPTAIN'S LOGS #14-#24 AND ON-LINE RULINGS
DOES NOT INCLUDE ERRATA FOR PRE-2000 EDITIONS OF F&E BASIC RULES (REV. 0 THROUGH REV. 3)
CHARTS IN THIS FILE BEST VIEWED WITH A FIXED WIDTH FONT
THIS FILE COMPILED BY NICK BLANK ON 3/2/02
MODIFIED BY NICK BLANK ON 6/1/02
MODIFIED BY NICK BLANK ON 6/2/02
MODIFIED BY NICK BLANK ON 10/17/02 (just prior to CL#25)
See separate supplementary section for Stasis Ship changes (Originally published in CL#22).
See separate supplementary section for SAF procedure changes (Originally published in CL#22).
See posting at http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1036788919 for extra material published in CL#24 and CL#25.
===============================================================================
(302.212) Use this text as (302.232).
(302.742) This includes Monitors. All escorts can stay with their charges, but each escort added to the slow retreat force allows the pursuer to add a ship (up to command limits).
(303.5) Hydran DDs (Lancer and Knight) are included in this leader rule, and a combination of Hydran DDs and DWs can gain the leader bonus.
(308.47) Should refer to (308.43) not (203.54).
(308.86) Voluntary SIDS on a BATS resolve 4 points, not 4.5.
(308.87) This replaces (521.82).
(313.33) BASE EW: The changes in Advanced Missions 1999 have no effect on Federation & Empire (at least until Y178).
(317.1) AUXILIARY SCOUTS: The Hydrans have one LAS in the Home Fleet and one SAS (each) in the 1st and 2nd Fleets. The Kzintis have one LAS in the Duke's Fleet and one SAS in the Count's Fleet. More auxiliary scouts can be built, counting against the Auxiliary Carrier limit. See Advanced Ops for LAS/SAS factors.
(317.2) EW FOR PDUs: Each battalion (PDU or PGB) produces 1 electronic warfare point, but the maximum EW that can be produced by all of the battalions on a given planet is four EW points.
(317.41) HYDRAN PGS: The Hydrans have four PGS scouts in their original Order of Battle. These are in the Old Colonies, but three can be brought onto the map one per turn starting Turn #1. The fourth cannot enter the map until it is converted into a PFT. See Advanced Ops for PGS factors.
(410.3) SFGs retain their special ability when out of supply.
(420.2) Should refer to (413.42) not (410.34).
(432.12) DN costs vary; pay the cost on the SIT not 16.
(439.0) For salvage purposes, the cost of a battleship is 24 points. Ships destroyed while in a web yield salvage to the Tholians (not their owners) if the base/planet is not captured or destroyed in that battle.
(439.11) Salvage rate for most races is 25%.
(439.18) Salvage rate for Feds/Klingons 30%.
(439.18) The higher percentages apply to Klingon and Federation ships without separable sections. This reflects the average recovery from both types of ships to simplify the record-keeping.
(439.21) SAFs do not generate salvage when lost.
(439.22) Base hull costs for Hydran salvage are as follows: 16 points for the DN classes, 10 points for BCH classes (OL), 8 points for CA and CC classes (RN, DG, LM, LB, etc.), 5 points for CW classes (HR, TR, etc.), 6 points for DD classes (KN, LN, etc.) and NCA (MHK and IRQ) classes, and 3 points for FF classes (HN, CR, etc.). If this value differs from the salvage shown on the SIT (Advanced Ops), use the SIT value.
(440.4) Carriers with five or more FIGHTER FACTORS....
(503.34) Tholians go neutral except in the case of (602.48).
(509.211) under Mobile Base construction should be replaced with (510.211).
(511.321) Costs are not doubled on the 3rd or 4th turn.
(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all "static" ships are transferred to the "mobile" fleet element.
(551.551), (551.552) and (551.553) should be replaced with respectively (511.551), (511.552) and (511.553).
(513.6) The Hydran FSP cannot use its special mauler abilities if it is placed in the Formation bonus position (308.7). The Hydran FSP is treated as a mauler unless specifically noted otherwise in the rules, e.g., it must have consorts (the tug cannot be considered a consort to the pod).
(514.1) Revised: The Klingon player rolls one die each turn (two if at war with the Federation). When the running total of these die rolls reaches or exceeds 100, the Klingon can (but does not have to) take a swarm. When a swarm is taken, deduct 100 from the running total and the Klingons lose their free fighters for one year (training cadres used in swarm). If a swarm is taken after the PF3 turn, the PFs are included. Note, rules (514.11) onward remain as printed.
(515.13) ... unless the missing ship is the one required light escort (515.35).
(515.22) The Hydran CVM is artificially classed as a "medium" carrier because the Hydrans usually operated it with 2 escorts.
(515.25) Gorn and Lyran Auxiliary Carriers can have zero, one, or two escorts.
(515.33) Battleships cannot be used as escorts.
(515.33) A ship used as an escort cannot be the battleforce flagship (nor does assignment as an escort remove a ship from the flagship selection procedure) or a member of a Battle Group [Advanced Operations]. Ground combat ships lose their ability if used as ad hoc escorts. Tugs and LTTs (regardless of the pod they are carrying) cannot be used as ad hoc escorts.
(515.34) Hydran destroyers (KN, LN, HDW) used as ad hoc escorts count as heavy escorts (just as Hydran DEs do) in an exception to the general rule. DWEs and DWs used as ad hoc escorts are light escorts. Standard warships serving as ad hoc escorts can be targeted by directed damage even if not the smallest (outer) escort.
(515.35) This rule prohibits the tactic of adding an extra "heavy" escort to the carrier group, then giving up the original "light" escort, providing a group with the original number of ships but with more density. If the required "light" escort is destroyed, its "command space" is still vacant and any "extra" heavy escort is still an "extra" escort taking another command slot.
(515.35) The two parenthesized comments got reversed in editing. The one required "light escort" in a group with two or more escorts can be replaced with an equivalent "light" hull. The other escorts in a group with two or more escorts can be light or heavy escorts (or light or heavy equivalent hull warships). A group with only one escort can have a light or heavy escort, or an equivalent standard (light or heavy) warship.
(515.43) Monitors (even with pallets) cannot be escorted. Special Attack Forces cannot be escorted in this way.
(515.54) Escorts must be the same race as the carrier they are formed into a group with.
(516.21) C: If one of the LTTs is destroyed while setting up the MB, the other LTT can complete the set up.
(516.32) The Klingon D5G can only perform LTT missions D (supply), F (move FRD), H (carry economic points), K (deliver PDUs), or M (normal operations) or N (Marines).
(516.33) Confirm, the Romulan SPH is treated as a CW for purposes of (421.0), not as a LTT or TUG.
(517.24) Pods cease to function on a crippled tug; they have no crippled factors and are not accounted for in subsequent attacks on the tug (they are of course destroyed with the tug).
(517.32) Hydran tugs or LTTs carry one pod at a time.
(517.38) A Gorn tug can carry two pods (it would be overloaded if it did so), but only one of these can be a battle pod and only one can be a PFT pod. If carrying a repair pod, no other pod can be carried. The Gorns do not have carrier pods.
(518.21) This rule is in error. Any Fed ship can carry a swac, but (518.22) defines who can USE one.
(518.45) If two SWACS are assigned to the same mission (bombardment disruption or going wild), the effect is the same, except both SWACs survive on a roll of 4-6, one SWAC is lost on a roll of 2-3, and both SWACs are lost on a roll of 1. (Thanks to playtester Richard Goranson for reminding us of this lost rule.)
(519.11) Each Monitor MUST be placed at a planet not in the capital hex (the shipyard hex for the Gorns and Romulans). If the planet is devastated, the monitor can be redeployed at the start of the owning player's next turn. Once a monitor is deployed at a planet, it cannot leave that hex until an entire defense brigade has been added to that planet or until the planet has the maximum number of PDUs. Whenever a monitor leaves a planet, it must designate what other planet it is moving to and must move there by the most expeditious route. It cannot be assigned to a planet which has the maximum number of PDUs unless there is no planet of the same race which does not have the maximum number of PDUs or a monitor.
(519.2) Monitors could be placed in the formation bonus box. See (521.323) for a special ground attack defense rule.
(519.21) Monitors do count against the command rating and could be given the formation bonus or the "base" position in the battle force. Monitors cannot be escorted (ala carriers).
(519.23) Monitors, even those with fighter or SCS pallets, cannot be escorted (515.4).
(519.32) Monitors assigned to a planet in a multi-planet system can only be reassigned during Operational Movement, not between combat rounds.
(519.32) Monitors are slow units for retreat (302.742).
(519.4) Fighter pallets do not exist at the start of the game and have to be built for Monitors during the game. PFT pallets may be built at the point the race qualifies to build PFTs. SCS pallets must be built new (available third turn of PF deployment); they cannot be produced by converting Fighter or PFT pallets.
(519.42) Monitor pallets do not count against any carrier build limits. A player can build as many monitor pallets as he wants, even more than he has monitors to carry them. [This might be done if some pallets are trapped in separate supply grids.] These pallets are delivered to the point they are needed (within the supply grid that includes the capital which produced them) by dedicated staff officers in the same manner that tug pods are re-routed as needed.
(519.44) Whenever new monitor pallets are built, dedicated staff officers take care of getting them to any monitor in the same supply grid.
(520.21) SAFs cannot use retrograde movement.
(521.31) This rule is in error. PDUs destroyed by (521.0) are in addition to the limit in (508.12).
(521.323) A monitor confers this protection from ground attack on a planet; bases do not benefit from it.
(521.323) This applies for any round in which a monitor is in the defending battle force, even if it is destroyed in that round.
(521.34) Each Ground Combat Unit (G on a ship counter) can make one attack. An FTL with four Gs can make four attacks.
(521.371) An SAV or LAV could be the consort (or escort) of an FTS or FTL, so long as it had not been assigned its own escorts.
(521.372) Auxiliary carriers could be assigned to escort troop ships, but not if they themselves have been assigned escorts.
(521.372) The defending player could target the commando ship if the escorts are crippled, so he could cripple them and then destroy the commando ship, all with one directed damage attack. Note that many commando ships lose this ability when crippled so you might not have to spend all of the damage points.
(521.711) LTTs can carry only one pod, and thus could carry only one of these assault pods. Federation TGs, Gorn TGs, Tholian CPCs can carry two pods (either or both of which could be assault pods), but Hydran TGs can carry only one pod.
(521.81) Ships with "G" factors do not lose those factors if carrying "extra G" units.
(522.13) Wounded prime teams count against the total number a race is allowed to have. A player cannot voluntarily lose or retire a wounded prime team to make room for another team.
(522.36) Prime Teams on a ship in the Formation Bonus Position or the Free Scout cannot perform Missions (522.41), (522.42), or (522.43). Prime Teams on escorted units not in the Formation Bonus position are not affected. Prime Teams on ships supporting but not actually in the battle force cannot perform Missions (522.41), (522.42), or (522.43).
(604.0) Turn 25 is Fall Y180.
(605.0) Turn 26 is Spring Y181.
(607.34) The Count's fleet can also set up on Starbase 0902.
(607.43) May produce D6S Y159+.
(607.44) May produce CD Y132+; may produce SDF Y159+.
(611.0) The Klingons set up first.
(611.32) One of the bases will have five Klingon ships.
(616.33) The secret PDUs can only be placed on original Hydran planets (not Klingon or Lyran planets) and you could easily have a battle with opposing PDUs on the same planet.
(652.211) Overbuilds are not allowed in Limited War.
(652.4) Should refer to (790.4) which replaced (751.0).
(653.9I) The term GSC should be SR two places.
(655.5) The Tholian Border squadron is released only if both the Klingons and the Romulans are at war with the Federation.
(752.0) Build cost 8 = Lyran BP, 4 = Lyran KBP, 2 = Lyran KVP.
(702.0): NCD can be subbed for NCL once/year (440.2).
(703.0): D5D for D5 or D6D for D6/D7 once/year (440.2).
(703.0) Klingon Spring production should have 2xD7.
(703.2) Production of D6S ships is limited to one per year through Turn #7, then one per turn thereafter.
(703.21) Add reference to (308.96).
(704.0): Romulan PHX should not have the scout diamond.
(705.0): CD for BC or DF for FF or MDC for CM once per year; see (440.2).
(705.1): New Kzinti Schedule
Fall Y168: BC, CL, DD, 2xFF.
Spring Y169: BC, 2xCM, 2xDD, 3xFF.
Fall turns Y169-Y174: CV, BC, CL, 2xCM, MEC, 5xFF, EFF.
Spring turns Y170-Y175: DN, BC, 4xCM, 6xFF.
Fall turns Y175-180: CV, BC, NCA, 2xCM, 2xDW, 3xFF, MEC, DWE
Spring turns Y176-180: DN, BC, NCA, 3xCM, 3xDW, 3xFF.
Fall turns Y181+: CV, BC, NCA, 2xCM, HDW, 4xDW, MEC, DWE.
Spring turns Y181+: DN, BC, NCA, 3xCM, HDW, 5xDW.
(The HDW listed is the allowed substitution.)
(705.2) Kzinti can sub FFK for DW.
(751.11) Lyran BCH to True PFT = 3 points. Lyran DN to true PFT = 3 points.
(757.6): Many Hydran ships are "single ship hybrid carriers", but only those under (515.43) can be escorted.
(757.8) Kzinti DD ad-hoc escort is a "heavy" escort.
SIT-F: Fed Battle pods are 10-4.
SIT-K: C8 to C8S conversion is 5+12.
SIT-R: Base hull of K4 is K4(4) not KR(4). PHX cost is 22+12. SNB and SE cannot be built by substitution.
SIT-G: BDP substitution is 9 points not 8. SCS (ship only) should be 14P(6)/7P(3), while group should be 33P(6)/17P(3).
SIT-H: Conversion of DG to RN is 3+2.
SIT-L: DD to PFW conversion costs 7 (two-step discount).
===============================================================================
| END OF MASTER ERRATA FILE |
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
REVISED SAF PROCEDURE FROM CAPTAIN'S LOG #22
THIS MATERIAL COMPLETELY REPLACES THE SAF PROCEDURE FROM CL #20
THIS WAS ADDED TO THE MASTER ERRATA FILE ON 3/2/02
===============================================================================
(520.4) ASSAULT ON BASES
This procedure is used if the SAF is ordered to attack a Starbase, Battle Station, or other base that uses SIDS. (The target of the SAF is designated at the start of the Combat Procedure, after battle forces are formed and EW options are declared; before SFGs.) [The original text of (520.4) remains intact.]
(520.41) STEP A: The defending forces may use their one directed-damage attack to disrupt the SAF. This requires 12 damage points; maulers and SFGs cannot be used. Whichever option the defender picked, proceed to Step B.
(520.42) STEP B: Roll one die and consult the chart below to determine the result of the SAF attack:
DIE ROLL DISRUPTED NOT DISRUPTED
0-2 No Effect 2 SIDS
3-4 1 SIDS 3 SIDS
5-6 2 SIDS 4 SIDS
Note that the SIDS scored in this die roll are in addition to any caused by normal combat damage and does not count as the one directed-damage attack. If an SAF attack is made, the attacker may not make a separate attack with Marines in the same combat round. The die roll is modified by any negative EW shift against the SAF (maximum die roll shift of one).
(520.43) Unchanged from original.
(520.44) Mauler is no longer cumulative with the SAF as the SAF produces SIDS not damage points.
(520.6) ASSAULT ON PLANETS: If a SAF is declared to be targeted on PDUs, use the procedure in (520.4) with the following exceptions:
(520.61) Marine, Fleet, and SAF attacks on planetary defense units can be conducted in the same battle round. SAF attacks are not within the four-per-round limit.
(520.62) EW shifts have no effect on SAF attacks on PDUs, but the presence of a defending monitor produces a -1 die roll shift.
(520.63) Use the chart in (520.42) but read it as PDUs destroyed rather than SIDS scored.
===============================================================================
| END OF SAF REVISION SECTION |
===============================================================================
===============================================================================
REVISED STASIS SHIP PROCEDURE FROM CAPTAIN'S LOG #22
THIS WAS ADDED TO THE MASTER ERRATA FILE ON 3/2/02
===============================================================================
(312.22) FREEZING TARGETS: Each SFG can try to freeze one, two, or three targets (or other eligible units). A ship with two SFGs could make up to six attempts. All attempts must be declared before any are executed.
(312.221) Consult the chart and find the section of the chart for the ship mounting the SFGs. Note that the smaller SFG ships have a lower chance of freezing multiple targets.
(312.222) Roll each attempt on its own line, e.g., a D7A making three attempts would roll the first on D7A-1 (where 1-2 would freeze the intended target), its second on D7A-2, and its third on D7A-3 (where a "6" is a "Total Disaster!"). A B10A making its sixth attempt in a given combat round would use the B10A-6 line (where a "6" is a "Total Disaster!").
(312.223) In the event of a "Total Disaster!", the following effects are imposed on the SFG ship: no ships are frozen by that SFG ship in that round (even if previous die rolls said otherwise) and the SFG ship has an attack factor of zero for that combat round.
(312.231) This rule is subsumed into the chart below.
(312.234) Note that carrier groups are NOT unbreakable.
(312.44) An EW shift in favor of the SFG is ignored.
(312.126) An SBA cannot freeze an SAF targeted on PDUs.
=========================================================================================
| (312.222) SFG PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS CHART |
=========================================================================================
| | Target | Random | Defender | Nothing | Total | % of Freezing |
| Ship Type | Frozen | Frozen | Selects | Frozen | Disaster! | Something |
=========================================================================================
| D5A-1 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D5A-2 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
| D5A-3 | - | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | 50% |
=========================================================================================
| D7A-1 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D7A-2 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| D7A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| C7A-1 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C7A-2 | 1-2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C7A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| C5A-1 | 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C5A-2 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| C5A-3 | 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
=========================================================================================
|C9A-1,C10A-1| 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|C9A-2,C10A-2| 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|C9A-3,C10A-3| 1 | 2-3 | 4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
=========================================================================================
|B10A-1,B8A-1| 1-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | - | 100% |
|B10A-2,B8A-2| 1-3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-3,B8A-3| 1-2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-4,B8A-4| 1-2 | 3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-5,B8A-5| 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
|B10A-6,B8A-6| 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5 | 6 | 67% |
=========================================================================================
| SBA-1 | 1 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 6 | - | 83% |
| SBA-2 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 5-6 | - | 67% |
| SBA-3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-4 | - | 1-2 | 3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-5 | - | 1 | 2-3 | 4-6 | - | 50% |
| SBA-6 | - | 1 | 2 | 3-6 | - | 33% |
=========================================================================================
===============================================================================
| END OF STASIS REVISION SECTION |
===============================================================================
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Would it be possible to post the master errata in the Archive topic (so it doesn't get lost)?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 12:59 pm: Edit
It would even be better if was made into a web page and linked into the main site. Putting it under the Errata and/or the Federation and Empire section would make it far easier for people to find, or point others towards. (Good use of web tech)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 01:33 pm: Edit
Nick, email Joe Butler and tell him to put it on the site.
By fowldv@accesscomm.ca (Celebrindal) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 02:11 pm: Edit
Where does one go to register for playtesting for F&E?
Thanks.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 02:33 pm: Edit
fowldv: First, you need to re-register and use your real name and complete your profile. We don't use handles, code names, acronyms, and secret passwords here. I'm Steve and everybody else has a name (a real one) as well.
I presume you mean playtest new F&E products. We're done with playtesting AO pretty much (anyway, too late for you to start new). Combined Operations will be a revision to SpecOps and MarAss so we'll see how much playtesting is needed.
Best thing you can do after re-registering with your correct and full name is to take part in the discussions and on-line games. As new playtest projects start, you'll find them easily.
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 04:50 pm: Edit
Sorry bout that steve. Actually I was asking about the ISC stuff. I'm rushing out to get CL25 so I can have the ISC counters, i'm hoping the OB for them is in there and all that. And saw that ISC was going to be released after AO and thought that might be a good oportunity to do some playtesting.. I used to love playing the ISC and Andro's in SFB and have been waiting for them in F&E. :-)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 04:57 pm: Edit
Yes, all of the ISC data is in CL25, and there are ISC playtest counters available (either for the cost of postage or free with your order).
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 05:27 pm: Edit
Right, so my original question stands, how does one become a playtester for F&E, i.e. the isc stuff, or can anyone post comments etc regarding it?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:25 pm: Edit
Dave F.
anyone can post comments, however if you make significant claims about things being broken (i.e. the alliance is unbeatable) you will be challanced and need to defend your position, possibly to the point of playing an online game with some of the experts. there are a lot of different playing styles out there and people who think they have found an unbeatable strategy that works in their local group may find that against a radicly different strategy it will collapse.
it's not that folks here are hostile to new ideas, we want to know if the game is broken so that we can fix it, but we have also had people show up who claimed that they had an unbeatable strategy and then in a game get into very poor position in just a couple turns. one thing this board is good for is to bounce ideas off other people to see how they would respond to it. usually there are a bunch of similar answers and a few odd answers and it's just as likly that either set results in a 'gee, nice idea, but it only works if your opponent does _____'
the best way to conduct a playtest is to plan a game and then provide detailed reports here in the 'reports from the front' section, people will kbitz, but the more info that's provided the more useful the game is as far as playtesting goes. Don't use house rules (unless that's what your are playtesting) so that you minimize the variables.
If you want there is an online map available to use that's currently in alpha release, eventually it will be like sfbol and there will be a charge for it, but during the early testing stages it's free for playtesters. go to http://lang.hm/SFB/FE/login.cgi to look at what's in place now.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:28 pm: Edit
I remember fondly those two guys who said "the coalition cannot lose" and after six months of arguing we finally saw one of their games and the alliance guy was using nothing but directed damage every round of every battle.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:33 pm: Edit
Dave F: Ok, what you do is this. You get CL25 and you get the counters. Then you get a buddy and try to play the scenario and then post questions, comments, observations, etc. in the ISC WAR topic.
Or, you ask around on the BBS and get someone to play you in an on-line/PBEM game and your game produces questions, comments, observations, etc. which go into the ISC WAR topic.
For that matter, the same thing applies to all of the various playtest rules published in Captain's Log. You could....
1. Read a rule (e.g., base stations) and see if any questions come to mind.
2. Set up a small piece of a game and try to use one of the new rules and see if you run into anything that isn't defined.
3. Get a buddy to play a live game (at home or through the BBS/Email) and agree to use certain rules from Captain's Log and see how the rules affect your plans and your operations.
Remember that the most unpredictable model is a dynamic one. A given rule might produce 1% more casualties but if it changes the way you pick your targets, or the way you set up battle forces, or the way you select directed damage victims, the effect can be far greater (or almost nil).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 06:35 pm: Edit
Hey, that's pretty good, let me copy that into CL26.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 08:35 pm: Edit
Here Here!
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Wednesday, November 27, 2002 - 10:32 pm: Edit
Inspiration strikes.
And pages get filled
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Sunday, December 01, 2002 - 05:32 pm: Edit
A couple of quick monitor questions:
1) Can a monitor be captured?
2) Does a monitor generate salvage? If so, what percentage?
I'm not entirely sure what rules the monitor acts like a ship and what rules it acts like a non-ship unit.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 01, 2002 - 08:04 pm: Edit
In general I believe they are non-ship units, so they cannot be captured. IIRC, the exception is that they do produce salvage, and I imagine it will be at the lower rate (not the bonus Fed/Klingon rate).
Remember that all units will have their own individual salvage numbers on the new AO SITs, but I haven't seen the entry for the Monitor so I don't know what it will be.
Nick
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 - 04:17 pm: Edit
I was reading the rules of uses for captured ships.
And this question came up:
I capture a Kz EFF, I retreat now, can I use it go gain +1 BIR during the pursuit battle? Or does it have to be included with the other captured ships, and he has the OPTION to retake it for 3x(2)=6?
I read the CAPTURE rules only, and didn't say I couldn't use it for the +1 BIR.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:59 pm: Edit |
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 04, 2002 - 09:49 pm: Edit
can I use it go gain +1 BIR during the pursuit battle?
ANSWER: The rule says you can do that in any subsequent battle round of that battle hex of that battle phase, so sure, you can use it during pursuit.
Or does it have to be included with the other captured ships, and he has the OPTION to retake it for 3x(2)=6?
ANSWER: If you choose option 1 you don't include the ship in the battle force (the rule says this) and the original owner cannot recapture it (that can happen under option 5). If you use option 5 then you do put it in the battle force and the original owner can recapture it. Remember, you only use one option at any given time, and only use the rules for the option you are using.
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 09:59 am: Edit
Here is a bitty question for you, regarding withdrawl before combat and reserve movement.
If I pass over a first battle hex containing enemy ships with a reserve fleet in order to get at a more distant second battle hex, and leave behind a few ships to satisfy the pin requirements, may I then subsequently withdraw before combat from the first (pinning) battle hex?
Is it only the target battle hex of a reserve fleet that has the restrictions imposed on the defender withdrawing before combat? Or is it any battle hex that the reserve fleet happens to drop ships off in as it warps along?
I've got a rum and coke and a crippled battle tug teetering on the cusp of destruction! I hope you take your responsibilities seriously!
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 12:45 pm: Edit
Some questions that popped up in our mini play that we were doing before jumping back into a full general war were:
If i've moved a group of ships up, and they are in an empty hex. The other side then reaction moves ships into the hex, and later sends reserve ships in as well, who would be considered the defender and attacker. The reason I ask is after the result of sending these billions of ships in I sure didn't want to be in the hex anymore, but couldn't attempt to avoid combat as that is only offered to the defender. (we assumed that who ever was running the turn was the attacker.)
Second, why no pursuit battle at battle/star base combats. If they attacker has such an overwhelming force and would want to split part of it off to pursue, while leaving the rest to fight it out with the base that would make sense wouldn't it?
Third, if both the attacker and defender retreat from a hex, say defender doesn't retreat, then attacker retreats, finally the defender retreats, can the defender do a pursuit battle. We kinda intrepreted the one rule to say that if the combat was considered over as soon as both sides retreat that a pursuit battle couldn't happen.
As a follow up if the defender can pursue, do the pursuing ships stay in the battle hex or retreat with the rest of the ships.
Last question, I wanted to post some questions in the isc war area, but there was no add a message box. Is there something wrong, or are only certain people allowed to post there?
Thanks mucho.
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Thursday, December 05, 2002 - 07:07 pm: Edit
I know this is not exactly what Q&A is for but I'm not sure where to ask this.
Why is it impossible to capture a base?
I don't mean what is the rule that says this....I mean is the only reason game mechanics?
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 09:38 am: Edit
David,
1) The moving (phasing) player is always considered the attacker, regardless of the tactical situation in any given battle hex.
2) It is assumed that a base/PDU/etc. make enough of a distraction that the retreating ships can get away. That plus it would probably break the game otherwise.
3) Any unit which retreats cannot be involved in a pursuit battle. Period. In most hexes this means that if the defender takes a retreat option then they cannot attempt a pursuit. In the capital hex (where the defender can retreat some ships and continue fighting with others) the defender can pursue, but cannot involve ships which had already retreated. As such, your follow up question has no meaning as a given ship cannot be retreating and pursuing.
4) The ISC War area was closed because it started to distract SVC from completing AdvOps so it was given a rest. It appears to be open for discussions now though.
Darin,
It could also be argued that the base defenders cannot be wiped out fast enough that the attackers could prevent the base from scuttling itself.
However, it would be a significant playbalance issue. If the Coalition captures a base (esp. a SB) then they get a defensible forward position assuming they can repair it, and given the number of ships the Coalition typically has available a pin-out defense is an option. Even if it isn't repaired it is a forward logicistics node until the Alliance attacks it (on the Coalition's terms).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 07, 2002 - 10:04 pm: Edit
I apologize for the delay, I have been working a lot lately. But, since I only work 4 hours tomorrow, I should be able to get to these...
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 08, 2002 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Alright, here are the answers. Note that Jonathan Dean is correct in his answers...
William Hughes RE withdrawal before combat: I would presume that it is the actual target hex that has the restriction, and not hexes with pinned reserve units.
Dave Fowler RE combat. First question, the phasing player is the attacker, the defender is the non-phasing player (the one who used reserve movement). If you are the phasing player you cannot withdraw before combat, even if you are unexpectedly outnumbered. That's how the starship crumbles...
Second, I don't know why, but that's the rule. Design and balance wise.
Third, If you retreat you cannot pursue, if you want to pursue, don't retreat. See rule (307.1) the last sentence.
Fourth, ISC war area seems to work now.
Darin Smith RE capture. I don't know why the game was designed that way, but that is the way it is. The most important reason is play balance, if the Klingons could capture Hydran bases, it would be much harder for the Hydrans to come back onto the map. Bases (especially starbases) are very powerful, and there needs to be an economic cost to build them, getting them free (as a capture) would be too unbalancing.
Nick
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, December 09, 2002 - 09:03 am: Edit
In the scenario the Wind it says on T3 that the Hydrans may attack the Klingons and/or Lyrans, but that the Klingons and Lyrans can not attack unless attacked.
1)Does this mean that the Hydrans can fly through the Neutral zone hexes on T3 without worrying about the Klingons and/or Lyrans reacting into their hex and creating a battle unless the Hydrans have already created a battle hex with that race?
2)Does this mean that the Hydrans can enter Klingon and/or Lyran space and not be reacted onto to create a battle hex unless they have already created one by a direct attack of their own?
my guess is that the answer to 1) is yes and 2) is no but I would like a clarification.
Thanks,
Clell
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, December 09, 2002 - 09:35 am: Edit
1) No, once the Hydrans enter a NZ hex, that counts as an attack and they can be reacted to.
Note that the Neutral zone rules state they can be entered once you are at war with someone, and if you decide to attack on turn 3, then the Hydrans are at war with the coalition from the start of their half of turn 3.
2) Again no, once you leave Hydran territory the Hydrans can be reacted to. The prohibition is only against the coalition attacking the Hydrans on the coalition half of turn 3.
By William Hughes (Patchfur3) on Monday, December 09, 2002 - 11:40 am: Edit
Excellent! My battle tug survives! Sadly, the rum and coke is long gone.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, December 09, 2002 - 04:29 pm: Edit
Questions about the North/South F&E scenario. Are there any static defenses? (i.e battlestations, PDU's, SB's) in the newly acquired Gorn space? (The neutral zone hexes east of normal Gorn space)?.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 12:11 am: Edit
Jimi,
Rule (699.3) says that planets have PDUs, so I presume the planet in that area would have PDUs, but it says no additional bases can be bought so there are no bases in that area.
I suppose you could experiment with adding a border bats or two, or allow the gorn to spend part of his initial cash on BATS for that area... But I belive the intention is that the only things in that area are PDUs on the one planet.
Nick
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 09:03 am: Edit
I'm a little confused about how the escort bonus for an escort of a carrier group interacts with direct damage, the example in the rulebook doesn't help that much because it uses a mauler.
If I use DD against a 4 defense factor escort that has a 2 bonus does it take 10 pts (4x2)+2
or does it take 12 pts (4+2)x2 to cripple?
I think it is the first (10 pts) but not sure.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 01:58 pm: Edit
Need to make sure that I am doing retros correctly. I am playing the North/South scenario atm. Just finished combat phase of T1 North. I have fleet 1 which consists of 4 healthy and 2 crippled ships at hex 4209. Fleet 2 of 6 healthy ships at 4211 adjacent to devestated planet 4210. Fleet 3 of 26 healthy ships at 4410. Fleet 4 of 6 healthy ships at 4510 (blown up bats). Fleet 5 of 6 healthy ships at 4609 (blown up bats at 4710. Enemy has 24 healthy ships at sb 4411 and 10 healthy 2 crippled ships at healthy bats 4310. My specific question is...what are the retro routes (if any) for my 6 healthy ships at 4211 with my fleets at 4410 and 4209?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, December 10, 2002 - 11:16 pm: Edit
Clell,
The first (10) is correct. Double the defense factor, then add the bonus points.
Jimi, the fleet at 4310 could retro through 4210 and 4311, 4209, 4410, 4409, 4309, as those hexes are adjacent to other friendly ships. Also remember that the retrograding fleet itself opens the first adjacent hexes (in this case 4210 and 4311), you only need other friendly units to open farther hexes (like 4410) on the retro path.
For all practical purposes in your example the only blocked hexes are those actually containing enemy ships or ship equivalents of fighters.
Nick
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 07:59 am: Edit
Thanks Nick that was what I thought but wanted to be sure.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 09:02 am: Edit
Thanks Nick, feels good to know that we have been playing these rules properly =)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 12:42 pm: Edit
Another North/South question. Which neutral zone hexes make up provinces in the area east of Gorn space. Could come in handy when and if the South player moves ships in the direction to conquer/disrupt provinces.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 11, 2002 - 09:51 pm: Edit
Jimi, that doesn't matter. In basic rules every 5 NZ hexes makes a province (1 EP), it doesn't matter which hexes and it can change from time to time.
Under Advanced Ops rules, every NZ hex is .2 EPs.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, December 12, 2002 - 07:10 am: Edit
Nick, can you convert a Rom FH directly into a SUP variant (like a TH or a SUN) as a two step conversion (FH -> NH/SUP -> TH/SUN), or do you have to convert a FH into an NH and then into a SUP before you can convert it into a SUP variant (FH -> NH -> SUP -> TH/SUN)?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 11:52 am: Edit
Nick,
Is salvage generated after each combat round, or after combat is over?
For example, Hydran Capital falls after the Hydran Fleet retreats. There is no supply path to the Old Colonies at that time.
Do the Hydrans get salvage added to the treasury before they retreat and thus it can be evacuated via the Orions?
Thanks Nick.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 11:27 pm: Edit
Chris, the salvage rule clearly says (439.11) this is up to the players. It is really a matter of preference. It is, however, always before the actual retreat is conducted in either case (calculated after each round, or all at once after all combat rounds are complete).
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, December 16, 2002 - 03:41 pm: Edit
Nick
We had a strange stasis situation at the Hydran capital - as it was it worked out OK but would like to clear it up for the future. The whole thing went something like this -
My line was PAL, CV, DE, DE, DE, AH, CVT, DE, DE, AH, SAV, CR, CR
D7A used and chose AH, CR and CR.
The AH roll was a success. The second I got to chose and chose the SAV, the third was random. As far as I understand it - each side choses 3 ships and cannot chose the original target of the attempt. Chris chose DE (group with frozen AH), other AH and I could see nothing in the rules stopping me from chosing the already frozen AH and SAV in my three.
Please could you give me a quick rundown on how we should have resolved the three attempts and the options we could have chosen - for example - the first attempt froze an AH - for the second attempt (defender choses result) could I have chosen to refreeze that AH?
Also something I have been meaning to check for some time. If three ships are frozen can a mauler be used to direct at 1:2 on all three targets (up to its limit of 10 points). I thought I had seen somewhere that it can only be used for one target but since I can't find it again am seriously thinking it may have all been a dream!
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 08:36 pm: Edit
I have a couple of interesting questions.
Situation:
A carrier in 0902 reacts its fighters to 0802. Both 0802 and 0902 become battle hexes, and the phasing player chooses to resolve 0902 first.
1) What happens to the fighters in 0802 (which is currently unresolved) if the carrier (and the rest of the force) retreats from 0902 to 1001?
2) What happens to the fighters in 0802 (which is currently unresolved) if the carrier is destroyed?
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 08:02 am: Edit
Another question.
Awhile back (November 8th), SVC posted in this topic the update to fighting retreat rules with regards to bases (302.775).
In section A: It says "{After the first approach battle?}". This looks like an internal note for a later decision. Has a decision been made? It seems weird that a player retreating to a "base-like unit" gets to ignore the fighting retreat penalties, while a player conducting a fighting retreat to an actual base (including his own capital) may or may not be under the fighting retreat restrictions for the first approach battle.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:56 am: Edit
And another one from me.
Is it possible to set-up a tug pipeline to transport EP's to the Kzinti from the feds - Basically have 1 tug in each of the Kzinti capital, the Kz off-map, the fed off-map, and the fed capital. The one from the fed capital strats 10ep and dumps them at the fed off-map SB - then strats back to capital. The tug in the fed offmap then does the same between the fed and kz off-map areas, and so on.
Result would be that the EP get there as quickly as a direct strat to the Kzinti capital, just takes more tugs and more strat moves.
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 07:38 pm: Edit
What exactly is the "double-SWAC" rule? I know that somewhere in a Captain's Log exists a rule about using two SWACs in concert. Could I beg for a reprint of that rule here?
By Bret O'Neal (Fiverdown) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:19 am: Edit
hopefully quick Q.
I was reading/working through 606.0 The intro sinario.
The 5th paragraph states that the Zin must retreat to 0704 due to 302.73. Problem is I don't see it. Since there are Zin units in 0801 isn't 0702 in supply? Or is 0702 illegal for some other reason.
Thanx
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:12 pm: Edit
Daniel Knipfer RE: rom two step conversions:
ANSWER: If it is not in the two step conversion lists (437.1) or listed on the SIT than you cannot do it. I don't know the current state of the AO SITs, which may add some things like that. I know Jeff was planning to look at some of the Rom heavy hawk conversions, but I don't know the status of these. Now looking at the two step conversion lists in Carrier War, it does list FH to NH to SUP/SUB/TH, so the answer is yes, you can do a two step conversion like that, it says so in the rules on two step conversions at the top of the list. The SUN is not listed as it hadn't been published yet, but it is likely this will be on the AO SITs when they are finalized.
James Soutcott RE:
ANSWER: after something is frozen you cannot reselect that same thing. Because the result is random frozen target, you must freeze something if there are any more valid targets. You cannot choose targets already frozen. For the second question, see rule (312.212) that specifies that all directed damage on frozen ships counts collectively as the one allowed DD attack. As such, a mauler can be used against all three frozen ships as if it were one target.
Jonathan Dean RE fighter reaction:
ANSWER: See rule (205.76) which answers all your questions. It says fighters are assumed to fly back to their home carrier between battle rounds. So if the carrier is destroyed (or if it moved out of range of the fighters) earlier in the combat sequence, after the first battle round in the fighter hex the fighters must find a new base (transfer to another unit with capacity to hold them) or be lost as homeless fighters.
Jonathan Dean RE fighting retreat:
ANSWER: I don't know if any decision has been made. If you will note, SVC said it is on file for CL#26, and will be looked at sometime between now ant the time CL#26 is published. If it is decided that the first approach battle still has the penalties, I would imagine it will apply to both situations A and B, not just one. If it doesn't apply, then it will likely not apply to situation A or B.
James Southcott RE: strat move question.
ANSWER: I don't know if you can do exactly that. Really you would just transfer the EPs from tug to tug, but it would NOT take less time. Each tug still has to wait for the previous one to arrive, which would use up the strat move portion of the turn, and as such it will still take several turns for a group of EPs to make the trup. OR you could have several tugs each making the entire trip, but simply have a tug at each "stage" of the journey. So turn 7 a tug can go from the Fed capital to Fed off map. Turn 8 another tug can do that while the first goes from Fed off map to Kzin off map, and so on. After several turns you have a "train" with 10 EPs arriving every turn, but it will still take several turns for each group to make the transit. There is simply no way to do it through the off map in only one turn.
John Colacito RE: "double swac" I can't say I am familiar with this. Do you (or does anyone else) know what CL# it is in?
Bret O'Neal RE: example
ANSWER: The example is correct. In retreat priority 2 hexes 0802 and 0803 are eliminated since the Kzintis are outnumbered there. In retreat priority 3 (supply), it forces you to pick the hex with the shortest supply path (assuming there are hexes in supply). The hex with the shortest supply path at the time of retreat is hex 0704, it is adjacet to a Kzinti BATS. All other hexes are eliminated by step 3, and even though 0702 is in supply, it's supply path is 2 hexes, 0704's path is one hex, so you MUST pick 0704.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:22 pm: Edit
Nick,
602.48 Feds go to limited war if the coalition attacks the Tholians turn 7 forward if they do not attack the Federation.
602.52 Under the auspices of 602.5 Set-up for independent scenario states, "The coalition can invade Tholian terriroty starting on turn 7."
I find no such statement under the 601 section. I am Klingon and I want my darn planets back from the Tholians as soon as possible. Can I attack the Tholians on Turn 2 if I wish, similar to the Tholian Gambit scenario but with none of the special effects of Romulan entry, etc? If so, does the Federation go to limited war status on turn 2?
It looks like I have to wait until turn 7. My only thought is that I would like to try this, yes the Kzintis will in all likelyhood stay on map for sure now an be much more powerful, but 21 EP's a turn are mmm mmm good.
This also leads me to another question that is also valid if the Hydrans reach Fed space in the expedition 601.14, or the Coalition attacks the Marquis 601.12. The Fed DNs in Fall 69 and Fall 70 are now activations. So if at limited war does the Fed get 2 DN hulls for those turns? One now built from the schedule and one that is activated. It would seem so to me, just wanted some clarification.
Thanks.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:28 pm: Edit
John,
double SWAC
Captain's Log 14 page 74
518.45 summary, If 2 SWAC's assigned same mission, 4-6 both survive, 2-3 one SWAC destroyed, 1 both SWAC's destroyed.
Add this to CO even though it is to be used for MA and AO instead of carrier war? It would be nice to get all of these obsure rules printed in something official and since I believe I remember SVC saying that carrier war would not be reprinted til 2005+ that CO would be a good place for inclusion.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:48 am: Edit
Michael Benson,
You have to wait to Turn & to attack the Tholians I believe. It is not mentioned in scenario one because you can't attack them in scenario one.
Also, thanks for the double SWAC reference, I didn't have CL#14 so I have never seen the rule.
Nick
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 08:34 am: Edit
Question about substititions. We are playing Base F&E only, without expansions.
Zins can substitute BC for DN.
Zins can substitite CV for BC.
So can Zins substitute CV for DN?
Similarly:
Hydrans can substitute TR for LB.
Hydrans can substitute KN for TR.
Hydrans can substitute LN for KN.
So can hydrans substitute LN for LB?
William
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 10:07 am: Edit
Nick Blank,
My question was for converting a SP directly into a SUP or varriant. You did however answer my question, which is no. Thanks.
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 10:48 am: Edit
Nick,
What about my follow up question on the Federation? (I know I rambled a bit).
If the Feds go to limited war during turns 1-6 do they get double DN production in essence during those two fall turns? One activation for 3 pts. and now one build because your supposed to use the T7 and T8 build schedules.
Thanks
Mike
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 11:07 am: Edit
William Jockusch RE: substitutions
ANSWER: Yes, you are allowed to "sub for a sub" in that manner.
Michael Benson RE: Fed DN production
ANSWER: I believe that the activation is intended to replace the normal DN build for that turn. You don't get double DNs, just a cheaper one on that turn. The PWC DNs for some races are activations, as listed in that rule that I can't remember right now, but if that race is activated early (i.e. what was PWC is now wartime construction) you simply pay the DN activation cost for those turns, and then (on later turns after the DN activations are used up) you pay the full build cost for future DNs), you do not activate one DN and build another DN on the same turn.
Nick
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 11:46 am: Edit
Nick
ANSWER: See rule (205.76) which answers all your questions. It says fighters are assumed to fly back to their home carrier between battle rounds. So if the carrier is destroyed (or if it moved out of range of the fighters) earlier in the combat sequence, after the first battle round in the fighter hex the fighters must find a new base (transfer to another unit with capacity to hold them) or be lost as homeless fighters.
Ok Jonathan has a SAV in 1507. It's fighters are at 1506. Both are battle hexes in the Zin turn.
There has been a previous battle at 1504 where a CVT retreated to 1505, having lost 1 fighter. No other carriers are in range.
I fight 1507 first and blow up the SAV along with the BATS (probable result). 1506 comes next.
What exactly do you mean?
1) Jonathan's 6 fighters from the SAV still fight the first round at 1506, 5 are then automatally lost after the first round (6th supplied by spare slot in CVT)
2) Jonathan's 6 fighters from the SAV still fight the first round at 1506, all are then automatally lost after the first round (CVT has already fought)
3) All 6 fighters are they lost before the combat starts (SAV dead)
4) 5 of the 6 fighters are lost before the combat starts (CVT supplies 6th)
5) 1 of the 6 fighters are lost before the combat starts (CVT trashes its current fighters at 1505 and supplies the ones at 1506).
Some other permutation????
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 11:50 am: Edit
A couple of quick, if weird questions.
If a BATS is selected as a flagship, does it count as a ship towards satisfying the minimum fleet requirements? Does it make any difference if the BATS has or doesn't have its fighters?
Example: 3xF5, BATS in a hex. Two of the F5's could be excused as unchosen flagships, leaving just the F5 and the BATS. Now, the BATS has to participate both by being a base and as fleet flagship. However, is the last F5 forced to participate?
Does a SAV itself count as a ship towards satisfying the minimum fleet size, even if it doesn't have any fighters?
Example: 5xF5, SAV(no fighters). Lets say two F5's are excused as unchoosen flagships, leaving 3xF5, SAV(no fighters) to calculate the minimum fleet. The minimum battle line size is two. Could the battle line be just the F5 (flagship) and SAV (no fighters)?
As a side question, does a SAV (no fighters) count as a ship towards determining the minimum battle line size?
Example: Instead of 5xF5, SAV(no fighters), say you had 6xF5, SAV (no fighters). Excuse the two unchoosen flagships leaves 4xF5, SAV(no fighters). If just the F5's count then the minimum size is two, if the SAV counts as well it is three.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 12:53 pm: Edit
Trying to understand rule (430.24), which I will quote for convenience:
(430.24) "If the enemy occupies (sole possession) a province and voluntarily withdraws from it during his player turn (no friendly units are in the province), the originally owning player, provided he controls a provice adjacent to the abandoned province, receives one Economic Point from it on his following Player Turn and can re-occupy it to gain the full production on later turns. If the original owner does not have an adjacent province, no one receives the EPs for that province on the current turn."
My question is: what does it mean to "occupy" a province? Is it the same as conquering? Here are some examples. In each case, has the province been "occupied" or not?
1) Enemy forces enter the province during their op move and destroy the only friendly base there during combat. They then retrograde out of the province. The province contains no friendly fleets.
2) As above, but the enemy forces retreat out of the province after destroying the base. At the end of combat, no forces are in the province.
3) There is a combat in the otherwise empty province, which both sides retreat from. However, the friendly forces retreat first.
4) Enemy forces pass through the empty province during movement.
William
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 04:03 pm: Edit
Michael Benson, thanks for the 2xSWAC answer.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, December 20, 2002 - 11:36 pm: Edit
Nick,
I'm going to preempt a possible arguement in my game by asking the question before the situation might arise
This is from 302.775A that SVC posted in Q&A some time ago:
A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., SB, BATS, BS, MB, LTF) or planet, the conditions and penalties of a fighting retreat do not apply {After the first approach battle?}. The retreating units are merged with the friendly units at the base/planet and conduct future rounds of combat normally. (i.e., a fighting retreat just turned into a normal retreat.)
Has any determination been made regarding the 'approach battle'? And is an approach battle necessary in this case?
There are potentially a couple cases in my game against Scott where this will come into play, depending on where my Reserves go. I'd like to understand the implications of this before I move my Reserves.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 10:19 am: Edit
Craig, I asked a very similar question a few days ago. Here is Nick's answer:
"ANSWER: I don't know if any decision has been made. If you will note, SVC said it is on file for CL#26, and will be looked at sometime between now ant the time CL#26 is published. If it is decided that the first approach battle still has the penalties, I would imagine it will apply to both situations A and B, not just one. If it doesn't apply, then it will likely not apply to situation A or B. "
Its tough to try and guess which way its going to go. On the one hand, you don't necessarily want to allow the retreating player to get away scott free. On the other, applying the BIR 0/10 to the first approach battle will essentially mean there will not be a first approach battle because the defender cannot achieve anything meaningful from it and by extension pretty much cannot conduct a fighting retreat to any location where they want to do a "prevent" type defense, like say their own Capital.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, December 21, 2002 - 11:12 am: Edit
May a RESV fleet choose as its objective hex a neutral planet at which only enemy and neutral units are present? (Assume that 203.731, the rule about opening supply paths, does not apply.)
203.73 provides for a RESV fleet to go to a battle in which friendly or allied forces are present
503.63 provides for the defending player to be an ally of neutral forces if defending and neutral forces are present
Logically then, a RESV fleet could indeed move to defend a neutral planet, subject to the restriction that it could not pursue the attacking player at the end of battle because the force that RESV'd into the hex would have to retreat at the end of combat.
By Dave Fowler (Davefowler) on Sunday, December 22, 2002 - 10:56 am: Edit
Todd, I'd have to say no myself, as 503.63 stated 'if defending and neutral' and you indicated that there were only neutral and enemy forces present.
By Jonathan Dean (Nightshade) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 09:38 am: Edit
Ok, I have another set of questions, and this is a fairly complex situation.
At the start of a combat, I have the following units in the hex: BATS, D6J, 2xD5, 2xF5, 2xE4, SAV. 6 fighters (nomininally from the SAV) reacted out of the hex leaving only the fighters from the BATS. Due to the tactical situation, forces here are about to be pounded.
I choose to withdrawal before combat. I have eight ship equivalents (D6J, 2xD5, 2xF5, 2xE4, 1 ship-equivalent of fighters), so I withdraw 1xD5, 2xF5, E4. This leaves BATS, D6J, D5, E4, SAV (no fighters). So far that seems clear.
Because of (302.133) one of the original flagship candidates must be the flagship of the first battle round. I left all of my original flagship candidates here presuming that the normal (302.32) procedure is used, and therefore I would generate a flagship (my BATS), and two unchoosen flagship candidates (D6J, D5).
QUESTION 1: Is it correct to use the normal flagship selection procedure for the first round after withdrawing before combat? [I believe the normal procedure is used.]
QUESTION 2: If I had withdrawn 2xD5, 2xF5 instead, the normal flagship selection I my candidates would be BATS, D6J, E4. However, by (302.133) the E4 cannot be selected. Would the E4 be considered an "unchoosen flagship" for purposes of (302.36) despite not being a serious candidate? [I really don't know, but it doesn't seem right for the E4 to be considered an "unchoosen flagship"]
Moving on to the minimum fleet (302.36) calculations. I exclude my two unchoosen flagships (D6J, D5). This leaves the follow units which may or may not be counted towards minimum fleet size: BATS(flagship), E4, SAV, 6xfighters. I believe only the E4 and the SAV count towards minimum fleet size, meaning only one would have to participate. Therfore I feel that a Battle Force of: BATS(6ff), SAV(0ff) is legal. My opponent contends the minimum size would be based on E4, 6xfighters, and that the SAV would not count towards satifying the minimum fleet size.
QUESTION 3: Is the BATS counted for (302.36)? I know in normal conditions it is not, but does being selected as flagship might change that status. [I suspect not.]
QUESTION 4: Is the SAV counted for (302.36)? By (513.12)&(513.121) it says "Auxilary carriers function as any other ship would, but are under various movement restrictions." [I believe that because of (513.121) the SAV is treated as a ship for purposes of both generating the minimum fleet size and of satifying it.]
QUESTION 5: How are the fighters handled for generating the minimum size of the fleet? Rule (302.36) specifies "ships" and not "ship-equivalents", which normally means that fighters don't count, but it allows independent fighters to count towards satifying them and possibly implies that independent fighters count towards generating the minimum Battle Force as well. [Off hand I believe fighters in this case don't count, but I'm not sure.]
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, December 23, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit
Nick
At the end of the day, the rub of all the above is:-
Does Jonathan have to have an E4 in his minimum force, or can he simply have SAV (no fighters), and the BATS with its fighters?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 25, 2002 - 11:40 pm: Edit
I will TRY to get to these tomorrow night, but I have been busy with the holiday rush and haven't had a chance to look at any of these yet...
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, December 26, 2002 - 08:17 pm: Edit
Saw an odd post and I thought I would get clarification:
Do destroyed bases generate Salvage if destroyed in supply?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 12:28 am: Edit
David Slatter: I think the answer is your option 1. The rule does not say where the new home must be (other than it presumably must be in range.)
Jonathan Dean: Rule (302.32) says the base can be a flagship but is still a nonship unit. Rule (302.36) deals with ships, so the base does not count towards the minimum force requirements. In your example the BATS and the F5 would have to participate.
SAVs are generally treated as ships in combat.
William Jockusch: For those purposes it is assumed that you actually captured an enemy province, and then later moved out.
Craig Tenhoff: sorry, but as far as I know this has not been finalized yet.
Todd E Jahnke: Sorry, but I believe you have to already have some of your own units there to move a RSV there as well, unless you are opening supply.
Jonathan Dean:
QUESTION 1: Not sure what you mean. The first round you have the extra requirement for flagship selection, but AFTER that you would use the normal procedure.
QUESTION 2: The E4 wouldn't be an "unchosen flagship candidate" since you have extra restrictions on the flagship for that first round.
QUESTION 3: Battlestation does not count for "minimum force", bases have special rules to determine their inclusion (i.e. approach battle procedure).
QUESTION 4: SAV would be treated for a ship for this purpose.
QUESTION 5: fighters don't count as a ship for minimum force calculations, they simply go with the SAV.
David Slatter: Assuming you broke throught the approach, the base is included. THEN you must include half of the ships, there are two ships, E4 and SAV, so he can pick one of them to include with the BATS.
Christopher E. Fant: bases are non ship units, and you don't get salvage for non ship units. So, no salvage for bases.
Hope that helps,
Nick
By Michael Benson (Michaelbenson) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 01:25 pm: Edit
Nick,
When did the below happen (see SVC post)? And what is the rule #? 439.21 from Carrier War states, "Salvage is received for ships (including pods) lost. It is not received for lost bases..."
12/26 SVC post in New Product Development "Telenko wants XTP salvage for X-bases. If regular bases get EP salvage then I can see X-bases getting XTP salvage. But I think that is already in the rule.
SVC: Yep, already there."
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 27, 2002 - 01:44 pm: Edit
No salvage for bases? Hmm... I think that Trent and I both assumed there was salvage for bases and his question was simply whether the salvage for X bases was XTPs or EPs.
Ok, the only salvage clause of the X-ship rule simply says X-ships produce XTPs for salvage, nothing about bases. So bases default to the original rule (no salvage) even though Trent and I thought they defaulted to the imaginary rule (salvage: yes!) which we thought they remembered. The CVW rule is correct, nothing in AO changed it, and the existing AO text as of a week ago is correct as written.
By John V. Christiansen (Roscoehatfield) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 12:19 pm: Edit
Just for clarification in my greedy mind, in CL25 Pg.108 (391.63), even if the command rating of the command ship with the inclusion of command points and/or admirals allows for an 11 ship fleet, 8 of the command slots may not consist of 2 gunline groups in the same battle force. Is this true or may the ISC create a 15 ship fleet?
John
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, December 29, 2002 - 12:34 pm: Edit
Only one gunline/battlegroup per fleet.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 01:16 pm: Edit
Nick
Just a quickie on a possible situation
End-of-turn Admiral transfers (strat-move). I have an 2 admirals at 1401, both on DNs. We are not playing the variable admiral rule.
At 1304 I have a Battletug, a SB, a CC, and a CV group.
Admiral's can only tansfer to a "larger" ship. I
Can I strat move the ADM to any of the ships at 1304?
(what qualifies as "larger"? Compot? Compot + fighters?)
I suspect the answer is no.
Given that answer, is there any way I can transfer the ADMs off those DNs short of the DNs being crippled/destroyed? Under size class and command considerations, not even SCSs, CVAs or B10s are larger.
The thing is, I want to get an Admiral to 1304 not to abuse the system, but to stick it on my CV to give the fleet battletug extra command capacity and spread my ADMs out without risking my DNs away from 1401. Later on, I can really see people wanting to transfer the ADMs to CVAs.
So this is a kind of question, but also if the answer is "no", as I suspect it is currently is, any rationale would be helpful. Currently, most of the Admiral transfer rules are written to stop people fiddling which Admiral fights when they are different quality, and the "not on tugs" rule more or less solvs that problem. If you do not play with admiral quality, it would make much more sense to simply allow the ADM to be on any 9 or 10 command unit.
There is another rationale behind my thinking, even if this is superflous to the question. It makes "realistic" sense for a Zin admiral to prefer being on a CV group over a DN, as the Admiral can convey his command benefit from the CV's flag bridge while remaining in the relative safety of the group.
PS I'm happy with a big "no you can't do this transfer", even if it is very annoying for the ZIn.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 11:13 am: Edit
Nick.
I was reading SO(?) about AuxCarriers. And in there it explicitly states, that AuxCarriers cannot use Free Fighters to pay for the fighters.
Is this still the case? Or has it changed.
By JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 04:17 pm: Edit
(308.131) B and C.
If I retrograde a carrier group to a mobile base, and wish to conduct CEDS, what is the CEDS repair cost? Do the repair ships pay field rate or base rate?
Note (420.2) only specifies field rate if used during the field repair phase but this would be during the CEDS/retro phase.
Also (308.13C) specifies field rate only if the carrier is not in a base hex.
For example; a crippled Kzinti CVA retrogrades to a MB; does it pay 3EP at the base/CEDS rate, or 6EP at the field rate?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, December 31, 2002 - 09:37 pm: Edit
Question on monitor pallets...
(519.4) doesn't specify the deployment of monitor pallets.
Can they be purchased and not placed on a monitor?
Can they be placed on a monitor & later moved to a different monitor?
Is there any tug requirement (or is it dedicated staff doing the moving)?
Is there any pallet limit for monitors (1 per turn, 1 per year, etc)?
Can fighters from a monitor pallet react out of hex (as base fighters can)?
Can free fighters be used for a monitor pallet? (519.42) doesn't prohibit it, but it says they are at the base rate (432.22). 432.22 also doesn't prohibit it. However, from (431.74), bases & PDUs can't use free fighters. There is no direct prohibition of free fighters, but it could be argues they can't be used for monitor pallets.
Thanks in advance, Tony
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |