| Subtopic | Posts | Updated |
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:46 pm: Edit |
January - Feburary 2004
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:15 pm: Edit
Is there any posted errata for CO?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit
Sean: If there is, it would be in CL27 and then reposted by SVC in Q&A Archives thread.
However, in CL27 there is only one small section of errata. Compared to CL26, it's practically nothing.
In this small section, there are some great clarifications about LineOfSupply, including a new rules that allows Tugs to carry Drone Bombardment points to supply Drone ships!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit
You can read through the Combined Ops after action topic to get some items that have been reported (and be sure to check the archive at the top as well):
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/16/4148.html?1068316768
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 10:41 pm: Edit
I've tried to do my homework this time, so I hope this hasn't been already answered. The Federation 5th Fleet release notes in 2K (502.2) give the released ships as CC, 2xCA, 2xDD, 2xFF, SC, RESV. It says "The remainder of the 5th Fleet is inactive." In 2K this is CA, DD, FF, TG. The only other things added to the 5th Fleet in the other modules are a CFF and an Admiral. I have no problem with the CFF remaining inactive, but wouldn't it make sense for the Admiral to be released along with the 5th Fleet's command ship?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 07:25 am: Edit
Not really, Dale, as 5th Fleet itself isn't being released, only "elements". Officially, 5th Fleet (and hence it's Admiral) is still posted on the Gorn border.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit
But, the Admiral would have to be assigned to the CC as the highest CR unit, so would be released???
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit
makes sense.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 08:00 pm: Edit
OK, the Fed Reaction rule states in part:
(318.33) Deficit Spending: The Federation can spend 20 EPs as deficit spending beyond the normal limits (430.6), paying this back at 5 EPs per turn. This can be used once; it is used during any Production Phase within five game turns of the qualifying condition.
This seems pretty unclear. It could either mean
a) that the Feds can spend to -20 EPs in any Production Phase once up to five turns after the Coalition takes 2 capitals, in an exception to (430.61).
or
b) they use deficit spending as normal, except they have an extra 20 EPs to work with, and don't have to pay it all back during the next Production Phase in an exception to (430.63).
Please clarify.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 09:34 pm: Edit
This one needs Nick, Tony, as the rules forget to mention the Admirals. This failure to address such important details in the expansions is more than a little annoying.
I'd say on balance that the Admiral remains with the rump of 5th Fleet. Bottom line, it's your game, Tony, go with what your group can agree on and what makes the most sense to you.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit
When does the Lyran get their STJ?
OOB says Y170;
SIT says Y171;
MSC say Y171.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 01:27 am: Edit
This is what I have:
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 29, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit
711.2 Kenneth Jones (Kludge) 21-Mar-02 4:53 AM
711.2 (Subs) The Lyran OB lists the STT&STJ as coming out in 170&171
resprctively. The SIT chart lists them a coming out in 169&170 respectively, a
year earlier. I presume the OB is correct since it is matching the previous
Substitutions.-Kenneth Jones
RESPONSE BY Pete DiMitri (Petercool) 21-Mar-02 6:25 AM
The OB is correct.
SVC: Then this should be reported in the SIT not here.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit
Dale L. Fields: wouldn't it make sense for the Admiral to be released along with the 5th Fleet's command ship?
ANSWER: Makes sense to me. The admiral rules are clear that the admiral must be on the CC, there is no other legal place for him to be, so he would be released with the CC.
=============================================
Sean Dzafovic: question on Fed Reaction Deficit spending (318.33).
ANSWER: You get to spend 20 EPs beyond the normal limit, and the extra 20 only needs to be paid back at 5 EPs a turn rather than all at once. So, if you income was 150, then normally that means you can deficit spend up to 30 pts. If that is the case when this rule applies, then on that turn you could deficit spend up to 30+20=50 pts. On the next economic phase, you would pay back the normally required 30 plus 5 of the "special" 20, thus paying back only 35 instead of all 50. The next turn you pay back 5 more (in addition to any other normal deficit), and so on for the next couple of turns until the extra 20 is paid back...
===============================================
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit
Do you used the rule 411.7 EXPEDITIONARY FLEET. In the Scenarios of
THE WIND ,THE TEMPEST and THE HURRICANE
In which that the COALITION does not attak the Fed.And the Fed are at a state of Limited War.
Are the Fed limted to the number of ships you can send as it say in 411.7 or the Fed can send those key Fleets and new constructions into say territories of the Kzinti and Gorn
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit
oh one more thimg to asks
(This may be old new on this.)
In AO ANNEX (701) ORDED OF BATTLE
709.0 HYDRAN KINGDOM
EXPEDITIONARY FLEET
AO: 2xLGE,FRC,Admiral,ScoutPod,CU
The LGE is the Fast Dreadnought.....it show 2 in the set up. Is this a typo or the number is right
An if the number is right...How can the Hydran build 2 Fast Dreadnought when the rules say only 1 can be build bt any meaned. The SIT Chart say the LGE may in service in y168
By Harry Theodore (Harryt) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:03 pm: Edit
A question on capture of neutral zone hexes. How does one go about transfering control of them and/or capturing them for an ally? The specific instance is the Lyran's romp through the Lyran/Klingon NZ hexes on turn 1. Can they immediately be "given" to the Klingons so they are included in the Klingon turn 2 production? If not, when and what is the proceedure to allow the Klingons to use these points? The economic rules don't appear to address this and are very basic. Any help appreciated.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit
Nick, a recent ruling regarding multiple system battles indicated that the static/mobile split by the defender is not done if there are only defenses in one system (such as where all planets in a capital but one are devastated). If this is the case, is the attacker's battleforce still known in advance by the defender? If the system battle is simplified to a single system battle (removing the static/mobile requirement), it stands to reason the advance knowledge of the attacker battleforce would also be removed.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:50 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
Questions on supply/ reserve movement.
It's CT9 - the Feds have not been attacked and are at limited war, so they can operate in Kzinti territory.
Are they able to use a supply path which goes partly through either:
A) Klingon territory?
B) Hexes that were originally part of the Kzinti/Klingon NZ? (does it make a difference if the hexes have been captured by the Kzinti or Klingons)
Also are the able to move a reserve fleet through these areas to get to a hex within Kzinti territory?
Thanks
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit
410.4 states: "Units stacked with friendly planet, starbase, or battle station are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path."
Assume I have a fleet stacked with a friendly planet which is cut off from the main supply grid(s). If I move off that planet, either by op moves or reaction, are the ships still in supply (i.e., do they get 6 movement points, extended reaction, and full attack factors) since they were in supply at the beginning of the turn?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit
Federation Fighter Question. Please note I do not play SFB so I am especially lost.
With all the talk in the FO topic about A-20s I'm getting confused and trying to figure out what converts into what. From (302.352) and the SIT I count the fighters and their squadron strengths as: F-14 (8), F-15 (8), F-18 (6), F-111 (9), A-10 (7), and A-20 (10). Fighters that I'm pretty sure can be magically converted into each other between rounds are the F-14, F-15, F-18 and A-10. FCRs can refill these fighers. F-111 are the Federation Heavy Fighter and follow those rules. FCFs refill these. Where exactly do A-20s fit in? So far I find A-20s on the Federation SCS and the HDW=H. On the SIT, the A-20s are not indicated to be a heavy fighter. (527.21) says "the A20 is not represented as a distinct unit in F&E, being subsumed into the overall fighter factor concept..." However, (525.23H) has the HDW under the Heavy fighter carrier mission carrying A-20s.
Are A-20s considered a normal fighter such that they can be magically created from all other federation fighters except the F-111? If so, is the Federation HDW-H considered not to actually carry Heavy Fighters (under 530), just more normal fighters (10 factors instead of the HDW-V's 6)? (530.0) calls A-20s "heavy fighters" but says they "are not changed or affected by these rules [Heavy Fighters] in any way." Now my brain hurts even more. Are A-20s heavy fighters, but not Heavy Fighters?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit
Deleted by author.
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Friday, January 16, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit
Per (518.45), if two SWACS are assigned to the same mission one SWAC is lost on a roll of 2-3. If one SWAC is an E2C and one is an E3A I assume the E2C SWAC is destroyed. Is this correct?
One side may create multiple battle forces in a capital assault (511.55) or a multi-sided battle (301.71). How is this handled for such rules as flagship determination (302.32) and minimum force (302.36)? My assumption is that you form the first battle force as normal, and then you form the second (or higher) battle force but any units placed in a previous battle force are ignored, so the 3 flagship candidates (302.32) and the minimum force (302.36) would be redetermined but only from units not already placed in a previous battle force. Is this correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit
Getting caught up on the questions here:
==========================================
Michael H. Oliver: question on expeditinary fleets and fed limited war:
ANSWER: An expeditionary fleet under (411.7) is only for purposes of supplying ships beyond your normal supply range. When the feds send ships into Kzinti/Gorn space when at limited war, they can send anything that is released. However, if the feds want to suppy any of those ships as they move into allied space beyond the fed supply range, then you need to use (411.7) and/or (410.5) which have limits on the number of ships that can be so supplied. There is no limit on the number of ships that can enter allied space other than the various release limits, etc...
Question on Hydran order of battle: The LGE is the Fast Dreadnought.....it show 2 in the set up. Is this a typo or the number is right
ANSWER: It is correct, there are two. Don't worry about how you got them, you weren't in control of the economy then, and all sorts of exceptions happen in the initial startups sometimes.
======================================
Harry Theodore: question on capture of neutral zone hexes. How does one go about transfering control of them and/or capturing them for an ally? The specific instance is the Lyran's romp through the Lyran/Klingon NZ hexes on turn 1. Can they immediately be "given" to the Klingons so they are included in the Klingon turn 2 production? If not, when and what is the proceedure to allow the Klingons to use these points? The economic rules don't appear to address this and are very basic. Any help appreciated.
ANSWER: There is no provision in the rules for "giving" or ceding territory (captured or otherwise) to an ally or other player. There are some rules along these lines under consideration for a future supplement "Eco War" or "Economic Operations" or whatever the title will be. For now, if the Klingons want the hexes after the Lyrans have captured them, simply send one of your many E4s along the neutral zone, recapturing them in the name of the Klingon Empire.
==============================================
Alan De Salvio: Nick, a recent ruling regarding multiple system battles indicated that the static/mobile split by the defender is not done if there are only defenses in one system (such as where all planets in a capital but one are devastated). If this is the case, is the attacker's battleforce still known in advance by the defender? If the system battle is simplified to a single system battle (removing the static/mobile requirement), it stands to reason the advance knowledge of the attacker battleforce would also be removed.
ANSWER: So far as I know you still follow the rest of the capital procedure, so the attacker would form his battleforce first, and then the defender would deploy his battleforce. The ruling removed the static/mobile split step, but not the rest of the capital procedure. Sure, you don't need to defend all the other devestated planets anymore, but whatever is in the capital hex (better sensors infrastructure, or whatever) that makes advance warning possible for the defender is still functioning.
================================================
James Southcott: It's CT9 - the Feds have not been attacked and are at limited war, so they can operate in Kzinti territory.
Are they able to use a supply path which goes partly through either:
A) Klingon territory?
ANSWER: Sure, nothing in the rules prevents this (assuming nothing in Klingon space is blocking supply paths).
B) Hexes that were originally part of the Kzinti/Klingon NZ? (does it make a difference if the hexes have been captured by the Kzinti or Klingons)
ANSWER: Same as above, so long as there is nothing (ships or whatever) to cut supply, then ownership of a hex or province does not block supply.
Also are the able to move a reserve fleet through these areas to get to a hex within Kzinti territory?
ANSWER: I don't think you can do this, since the rules prevent your warships from entering enemy territory under the limited war conditions.
=================================================
Derek Merserve: 410.4 states: "Units stacked with friendly planet, starbase, or battle station are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path."
Assume I have a fleet stacked with a friendly planet which is cut off from the main supply grid(s). If I move off that planet, either by op moves or reaction, are the ships still in supply (i.e., do they get 6 movement points, extended reaction, and full attack factors) since they were in supply at the beginning of the turn?
ANSWER: When you move off the planet you are moving out of supply the same as if you started the turn six hexes from a supply point but then moved beyond that range during operational movement. Since you had a valid supply path (being on the planet) at the start of movement, you get all six movement pulses. You will not fight at a penalty since for combat you do not suffer the penalty if you had a valid supply path at the start of the turn (which you did) OR during combat (which you didn't). However, at the point of retrograde, you will likely not have a valid supply path, and since you didn't have a valid supply path during combat either (you moved out of range, remember?) you do not get to retrograde. Now the exception is if you paid for supply from the partial grid containing the planet under (413.41) which allows you to trace a supply path up to six hexes from that planet (instead of having to be stacked with the planet to get supplied).
==============================================
Dale Loyd Fields: Are A-20s considered a normal fighter such that they can be magically created from all other federation fighters except the F-111? If so, is the Federation HDW-H considered not to actually carry Heavy Fighters (under 530), just more normal fighters (10 factors instead of the HDW-V's 6)? (530.0) calls A-20s "heavy fighters" but says they "are not changed or affected by these rules [Heavy Fighters] in any way." Now my brain hurts even more. Are A-20s heavy fighters, but not Heavy Fighters?
ANSWER: The current rules regarding A20s in F&E are a kludge. They say that a squadron of A20s are worth 9 pts (fed CVA has 15 fighter factors, 6 are considered F18s, 9 are considered A20s). Now, currently they are just fighter factors, same as on any fed ship. So if you have your CVA in combat, and all 15 fighter factors get destroyed, and you have several strike carriers in the reserves you can transfer a total of 15 fighter factors from those ships to the CVA. Don't worry about the fighter types, or even about the supposed true number of SFB fighters involved, a fighter factor is a fighter factor is a fighter factor. Now, the F111 factors (under Advanced Ops) are considered heavy fighter factors, which must be accounted for separately, and cannot be mixed and matched, etc... Even with this, the A20s are still considered normal fighter factors, so the Fed HDW-H carriers F111 replacements, not normal or A20 replacements (normal and A20s still being the same thing however unrealistic it is). SVC is making the push to somehow account for the A20s in a similar fashion, to get rid of the annoying kludge of one type of figher (F18, F14) becoming another (A20). For now you can still do this though, at least until SVC writes the new rule, so stay tuned.
Also, don't assume that (530.0) applies to F111s, it does not, that is what (527.0) is for. Really, (530.0) applies to neither F111s or A20s, but mainly to Kzinti heavy fighters.
============================================
Jeffrey Coutu: Per (518.45), if two SWACS are assigned to the same mission one SWAC is lost on a roll of 2-3. If one SWAC is an E2C and one is an E3A I assume the E2C SWAC is destroyed. Is this correct?
ANSWER: Presumably it would be the owner's choice on which survived.
One side may create multiple battle forces in a capital assault (511.55) or a multi-sided battle (301.71). How is this handled for such rules as flagship determination (302.32) and minimum force (302.36)? My assumption is that you form the first battle force as normal, and then you form the second (or higher) battle force but any units placed in a previous battle force are ignored, so the 3 flagship candidates (302.32) and the minimum force (302.36) would be redetermined but only from units not already placed in a previous battle force. Is this correct?
ANSWER: Yes, that is correct.
=============================================
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit
Nick, not that big a deal, but in your above post about A-20s you noted them as
1. 9 pt squadrons and
2. Being on a Fed CVA.
A-20s are 10 pt squadrons last time I checked, though I might be in error there. And a Fed CVA carries 7 A-10 factors and 8 F-14 factors for a total of 15.(A-20s not involved.) If A-20s replaced the A-10s then you would have 10+8 for 18 total.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Are they able to use a supply path which goes partly through either:
A) Klingon territory?
ANSWER: Sure, nothing in the rules prevents this (assuming nothing in Klingon space is blocking supply paths).
________________________________________
Nick, doesn't (411.4) prevent the Supply from passing through Future beligerents?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Oops, I was thinking A-20s but your right, A-10s, I always get those mixed up. Have to check that again, thanks...
Tim, yup, missed that too.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 04:46 pm: Edit
Nick: the A20's are on the SCS, however.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit
Nick, the 'reason' for the A20 magic replacement was that they only appeared on the SCS, it wasn't worth the effort for separate rules at that point. The only other A20 platform is the CSV (currently) although the interplay between (J10) and (530) [any 'true' carrier can carry heavy fighters] may force SVC into considering an add-on to 530 for the A20s...
By David Johnson (Djj) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 02:55 am: Edit
(535.316) Hydran IC: If the Hydran capital does not fall at what point can the discounted IC be built at the original capital?
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit
Nick,
I don't want to be beating a dead horse here, but I have some more questions about the Fed limited War status. You have earlier ruled that the Feds get Free Fighters ('and such' I believe was your wording)
As far as I can tell there are 3 other restriction on races at limited War. No Survey Ship operation, no Overproduction (or advanced prioduction, I think) and no mothball activations. (although the Fed OB has a limited war mothball activation of 1 CL 1FF).
In the Free Campaign it specifies that overproduction and other retrictions on production are removed when a race is at LImited War or War. Does this rule apply to the general war (T7-T9)? And if so, do mothball activations count as a 'production' restriction. How about Survey Ships?
I also have a request. When next you guys revise the rules can you do a search for every instance of the words War, Limited War, and Peace and slap the word 'economic' or 'political' in front as appropriate. Trying to decipher what is meant by the shared use of the term limited war is endlessly frustrating.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit
But the free campaign is not the General war. 431.4 specifically says that limited war is not allowed to use overproduction or accelerated production. Giving the Feds all the abilities of a Wartime schedule defeats the purpose of having a "Limited War" status. They also cannot do things like build FRDs or MBs.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit
They also can lay the MB's at limited war but cannot upgrade those bases.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit
Chris,
651.1 states that the Economic Levels and Economic Exhuastion rules of the free campaign apply to the Grand campaign, so I don't think this question is out of line. But thanks for pointing out that FRD's and MB's cannot be built at Limited War - so the new tally...
Survey Ships
MB's
FRD's
Mothballs
Free Fighters
Overbuilds
A brief yes no on these would be cool Nick. Thanks.
And just as a point of reference, here is a cut of the ruling I was seeking clarification on... (its from the Dec 10th Archive)
********************************************
Dale L. Fields:I am trying to figure out what exactly the limitations are on the Federation if they are at Limited War supporting the Kzinti.
Paul Howard: Dale, I think the answer is they ARE considered at war, but not at war with the Klingons(/Coalition) -
So they receive everything they normally would do so if they was at war - but CAN'T attack the Klingons (outside Kzinti space) and have additional limitations (other fleets stay in Fed space etc).
ANSWER: Paul is right, limited war you can do most of that stuff since you are now in control of the economy (even if only a percentage of it). They are not at war with the Klingons (i.e. fed ships cannot enter klingon territory), but they do get free fighters and such.
**********************************************
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit
I just don't see how the Feds can be coonsidered "At war" when they are not at war with anyone. It's like tthe US during the oopening oof WWII. THey sent supplies and some ships, but they were not gearing for war at the maximum or anything.
It makes zero sense to ohave a Limited War Status if you can do all the things a race "At War' can do.
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit
I can't do everything a race at war can do -- I can't attack the Klingons
The confusion that we have always had (and it appears others share it by postings I have seen here) is that they seem to use the term Limited War for both a political state and an economic state. Then in the rules they don't specify which is meant when they refer to one.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 07:56 am: Edit
I think they are one and the same.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 09:28 am: Edit
I to feel at this does limited the fed a lot and a game i hope to plat some will help me to win
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit
Please, lets take the debate to general discussions and not clutter up Nicks room.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit
Two questions on slow unit retreats:
First, in a slow unit battle, do I have to include all slow units, or only all slow units up to the best CR in the battle? For example if I have 10 auxes retreating, and the best one is a LAV with CR 6, do I only include 7, or must I use all 10, having three that do not count for compot?
Second, if a retreating unit is killed in the slow battle, is there any salvage for it?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 01:47 am: Edit
David Johnson:
(535.316) Hydran IC: If the Hydran capital does not fall at what point can the discounted IC be built at the original capital?
ANSWER: I would presume that ordinary construction would be Y171 as per the SIT. Note that while rule (525.316) says you can build it any time after the capital falls, on the third turn (or later) of building the new shipyard, but the earliest this can happen is Y171. T1 F168, T2 S169, T3 F169 (Hydrans attack coalition), T4 S170 (coalition attacks and takes Hydran homeworld, hydrans begin rebuilding shipyard off map), T5 F170 (second turn of rebuilding hydran shipyard), T6 S171 (third turn, can build IC with the special rule).
=================================================
Peace/Limited War/Wartime status:
My understanding is that there are two things here.
One is economic status defined by (652.2) and used in all scenarios. Many scenarios will tell you what economic status you are using at any given time, the free campaign lets you choose this for yourself each turn, with some restrictions based on where you have ships deployed (in enemy territory means you must pick wartime economy) or how long you have been at a given status.
The second is "military" status, which is essentially just who you are at war with and who your allies are. Now the confusing part is that the military status is NOT defined in the rulebook by a specific rule simply because it depends on the scenario. Most scenarios will tell you what this is on each turn, with very little choice on the player's part, you go to war on turn X, etc. If you are playing a free campaign then the "military status" is essentially defined by 652.1, in that presumably any one you are not allied to on a given turn you are (potentially) at war with and thus free to attack (assuming you operate your economy at the "wartime" level as per (652.2)).
Now, as far as I can tell, nearly everything in the general rules that says you can do X or cannot do Y unless you are at war or when you are at limited war or whatever, refers to the economic level.
Then, there are scenario specific things like (601.161) that say since you are at wartime economy, but not "at war" with anyone in particular, you can (or cannot) do certain things.
Let me look through the book and see if I can find anything that is an exception to this, but I think in general nearly everything is dependent on the economic status level as far as the non-scenario specific rules go.
If you see an exception to the above, point it out. Also keep in mind I am writing this at one thirty in the morning, and may be missing something, so let me take another look when I am more awake.
===============================================
Robert Padilla:
First, in a slow unit battle, do I have to include all slow units, or only all slow units up to the best CR in the battle? For example if I have 10 auxes retreating, and the best one is a LAV with CR 6, do I only include 7, or must I use all 10, having three that do not count for compot?
ANSWER: You would include all slow units, but any beyond the command rating (owner's choice) would not contribute compot. All could be targeted or be used to resolve damage.
Second, if a retreating unit is killed in the slow battle, is there any salvage for it?
ANSWER: I can't remember if this was ruled on before, but let me look when I am more awake.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 01:54 am: Edit
Nick, I hear that in a previoous ruling you stated that the Federation Home Fleet MBs can be setup if the Feds go too limited war?
How can this be? The Home Fleet is still inactive, it has just had the movement restrictions lifted off of it...i.e. they can move moore tthan 6 of the Home Fleet ships in a turn.
If this is indeed a ruling, I wouold like to appeal it and get a shot at a higher hearing.
Thanks.
Chris
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:41 am: Edit
And some other questions on the Limited War topic:
Can a race at Limited War (i.e. the Feds Turns 7 to 9) build: MB, FRD, PDUs, PGBs, fighter modules, or MON?
Can the Fed 3rd and Home fleets move anywhere in Fed territory from Turns 7 to 9, or are they limited to teit setup areas?
Does the Federation get one or two Prime Teams when at Limited War? I seem to remember reading a rule that stated the Feds treat Limited War as War for the purposes of PTs, but of course I can not find it now.
Can a race at Limited War adopt homeless ships from an ally?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:23 am: Edit
Nick, I think you missed one important thing about David Johnson's question.
He asks "(535.316) Hydran IC: If the Hydran capital does not fall at what point can the discounted IC be built at the original capital?"
If the Hydran capital never falls can you build the IC at the 'discounted' price? I thought you can only ever build the IC at that 'discounted' price after the capital has fallen. If it never falls you can build the IC, but not at its discounted price.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit
Nick,
On the slow unit retreat battle, I asked a series of questions on this about a year ago.
The most relevant post by you is
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3618.html?1048531362
Friday, March 21, 2003 - 08:05 pm
There was another Q/A (but I couldn't find it with a quick search) that pointed out that the slow unit retreat isn't a pursuit - so none of the special rules (only 3 uncrippled ships, no salvage, etc) apply.
Tony
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 09:19 pm: Edit
So why would the Hydran be "penalized" on the IC discount if he somehow holds on to his capital?
There is a provision with the Hydran Treasury that if the capital is held they get the EPs over a period of time; this should be considered.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit
True, but the IC is coonsiiderred an unfinished PAL hull.
If the Capital holds, you just get to build it as normal.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit
Chris, I don't understand your point.
Are you arguing that the Hydran ONLY gets the discount because they failed to hold their capital, then somehow had to use additional resources to move an incomplete hull to the off-map, then finish building it at an antique shipyard? Would it not cost far less in resources to complete it at a fully capable shipyard?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit
Chuck,
my point is that the IC that you buy for 9 points is a hull the Hydrans were already working on and managed to save, so you only have to pay the 9 pooints to finiish it up. Your other points have no representation in the game.
If the capital does not fall, then it is not a hull they were working on, and you have to build it from scratch.
The IC is a fudge bonus for losing your capital. I do not see why the Hydrans should get this bonus if they manage to savee thier capital.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:34 am: Edit
The IC bonus was a balance feature that was accounted for in the production of AO. Surely if the Hydrans are rewarded in failure, then why not at least equally so in success? IOW, the Coalition is rewarded for failing to capture the capital.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit
The Hydrans are rewarded for success. THey get to ostart their iimprooved schedule early if they keep the capital.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 03:48 am: Edit
Chris:
Then how does maintaining control of the capital INCREASE the cost of the FIRST IC that when losing the capital gives you a discount (within the representation in the game)?
By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 07:47 am: Edit
Maybe if you lose the capital, the Guilds refund what you've already spent on that incomplete PAL, with the 9-EP going into final construction costs. Best I can come up with. 42
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit
Chuck,
It is a fudge. If you loose the capital, then that incomplete PAL that the Hydrans arer worlking on get magiically rescued and toowed out. If you do onot loose it, then there is no magical PAL.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit
The Hydrans are rewarded by keeping their shipyard and quickly becoming a force that the Coalition cannot defend against, that is reward enough.
The reduced IC cost is their to help a beleaguered Hydran player after losing his shipyard.
Why ask why, build the IC dry is my answer to it all.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:00 am: Edit
I thought we were triing to lose these "magical" things in F&E like the "magical" conversion of F-18s to to A-20s....
Some rule like:
If the hull exists at the Capital then X turns after both the Klingon AND Lyrans invade the Hydrans can choose to complete the incomplete PAL into the IC."
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:20 am: Edit
Lets take this discussion out of F&E Q&A and take it to F&E General Discussions please. We are cluttering Nick's board.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:23 am: Edit
If the Gorn attack the Romulans on Turn 12, can the Romulans use a reserve from the North Fleet to defend with? I would think that the Romulan North Fleet would be released if the Gorn attack. Thanks!
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit
Generally speaking, if you are attacked many fleets (and their reserve markers) are released. Some fleets have special rules that are released only at certain points (e.g., Klingon invasion does not release the Fed fleet on the Romulan border).
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit
A note on the IC.
During AO development, there was discussion on this exact point. The other goodies were granted to the Hydrans if they held their capital when the Klingons & Feds went to war. However, the IC discount was specifically not to be included.
That's all IIRC. I don't have my final AO rules here at work, so I can't see exactly what the final rule says.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit
Question about CEDS repair - during my opponents turn some of my carrier groups get crippled. They do not CEDS retrograde that turn.
During my own turn they are in combat and retrograde normally to a base. Are they eligible for being repaired using CEDS at the end of my turn?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:25 pm: Edit
And another two:
1) 302.761......if it is possible for both races to retreat tO the same hex after all four steps then they must do so.
Force of Zin and Fed ships are retreating and want to avoid going to the same hex. The only hex that the Zin fleet can go to (because it is closest to a supply source) is one with some opposing ships in. The federation fleet has no supply anywhere near. There are some empty hexes available, so the hex the Zin are retreating to is eliminated. However, if the Feds were to use 302.77 (fighting retreat) then they could join the Kzinti. Are they obliged to do so?
2) Completely separate from the above situation. A force is retreating. All but two hexes are eliminated after step 3. The final choice is between two locations both of which have enemy ships in:
a) a hex with a single ship
b) a hex with multiple ships, though fewer in number than the retreating fleet.
Is the retreating fleet obliged to go to the hex with fewer ships, or is it a free choice between the two?
Thanks Nick
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit
Was there a ruling that CALLED-UP (reacting) Fed Police Ships are now valued at 4 compot? If so, where?
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit
Quick clarification please.
Police ships can be called up in any hex of a race's original territory. Can they be called up in the off map as it is not literally a 'hex'?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit
If a single carrier or an escort of a carrier group responds to a raid and is crippled, can they use CEDS?
================
Next situation:
0001 Z-FF
0002 K-F5
0003 Z-CLD (scout with extended reaction)
Klingons raid 0001 with D5
Kzinti CLD reacts to raid in 0001
Q1: Is the CLD pinned in 0002?
Q2: If so, is 0002 resolved in raid combat or during the standard combat phase? Can it also then retreat in the raid phase?
Q3: If 0002 is resolved during raid combat and the F5 survives can it retrograde later in the combat phase if it does NOT participate in further combat that turn?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit
If the Federation 4th Fleet has not been activated, can the Kzinti still pay for an expeditionary fleet on turn-6 in anticipation of a Klingon invasion of the Federation on turn-7?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit
Can a race build a SB in allied territory and conduct ComConvoy exchange operations ONLY within that territory?
Examples:
K-SB in 1411 and L-SB in 1613 with supply paths back to their main grid?
R-SB in 3516 and L-SB in 3116 with supply paths back to their main grid?
(Grant claims a TacNote if these are legal.)
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit
We looked at a similar one - build a Lyran base at the Klingon capital. 10EP for Klingn or Lyran every turn rather than once per four - the payback is great.
Couldn't see anything in black and white that prohibitted it but I still I got slapped until I came out my criminal abuse of the rules moment.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit
Some clarification on my Romulan North Fleet question. According the the scenario rules 603.2, this fleet only gets released on the Coalition part of Turn 13 if the Gorn attack. This does not make sense as even if the Gorn were to invade Romulan territory on Turn 12, more specifically the North Fleet area, the fleet is still not released even though it is being attacked. Is this correct, or should the Romulan North Fleet be released on Turn 12 if the Gorn invade instead of T13?
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit
The Kzinti OOB allowable substitution shows they can sub a DWE for an FF once a year Y173-Y174. This seems to say the DWE becomes available in Spring 173 yet the SIT shows a YIS of 174 for the DWE. I am assuming the OOB is a misprint. Can anyone confirm this for me?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit
The commercial convoys have to use bases in the territory of their owners.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit
Chuck, James, direct your attention to the last sentence of (443.53) [can deliver only to allied SB at least 4 hexes away]...
RobertP, the way I see it, the last line of Turn 13 [Rom North release if Gorn attack] should be part of Turn 12. The North is released if the Gorns attack the Romulan otherwise the North is released on Turn 13 so the Romulans can attack the Gorns...
RussellM, it's not a mistype, its the prototyping 'rule' in action...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 02:13 am: Edit
Stewart:
We knew that you had to travel four hexes; the issue was one of an allied SB in the same territory.
Note to Nick:
Rule 443.52 will need to be modified to reflect SVC's ruling, this topic, on January 24, 2004 - 11:40 pm.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: See (600.31) "Note that in the event that enemy ships enter the area of the unreleased fleet, the fleet is immediately released..."
If the Gorn do not enter the North Fleet deployment area, it is not released until Turn 13.
The Gorns can only reach two provinces (4010 and 4012) in Romulan space that aren't in North Fleet's area (plus 4015 if a fast ship is used, of course) or they can attack Romulan ships in Fed space. Neither of these will release North Fleet. But, if North Fleet's territory is entered, it is released.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit
Chuck, 1613 is not a good example for the Lyran SB, as it is only 3 hexes from the Klingon SBs at 1411 and 1716.
The Klingons and Lyrans start with SBs 8 hexes apart: 0606 and 1411. The Commercial Convoy takes 4 turns to travel this for a 10EP profit, or 2.5 EP per turn. If the path is reduced to 4 hexes, the profit will be 5 EP per turn, an increase of 2.5 EP per turn.
Building a Lyran SB that is 4 hexes from 1411 costs a minimum of 8 + 7 + 28 = 43 EP. After only 17.2 turns, the Lyran SB will have paid for itself . So, around Turn 25 or so, the Coalition will show a profit for their investment.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Jeff:
My typo 1613 was intended as 1813. Grant built the Lyran SB there for more than collecting ComConvoy EPs; he intends to use it as a base against the Federation so it was a fortuitous bonus that it was also four hexes away (which SVC has now invalidated).
By Chris Levy (Clevy) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 04:32 pm: Edit
I have a question about self-destructing bases. Can this be done? My point is to stop the Hydran expedition by opening up their supply (via the dead BATS) and forcing them to retreat backwards.
As a Klingon, I would rather lose a measley BATS than have the Feds activated early.
Any thoughts?
CL
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 11:08 pm: Edit
Chris: it's actually easier than that.
A base with a full ship-equivalent of fighters or PF's blocks line of supply in hexes adjacent to it. The loss of the fighters will open line of supply, or simply don't send the fighters out to interdict enemy frieghters...
(Of course, will Hydran freighters still travel to the fleet? That would remain to be seen!)
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 02:31 am: Edit
Nick,
I have some more questions to bother you with. I sure hope they pay you really well for this job!
Single Ship Combat stuff first:
1) The scout bonus is a bit wierd. It lists it as a -1 penalty to your opponents die roll. So is it good only for the defender (as there is only one attacker roll), good for either but only to offset an existing bonus of thiers, or just another modifier like everything else.
2) Is the Fighting Retreat -1 treated the same way.
3) 318.72 Says that you must use Single Ship combat if the forces are each less than 3 ships or equivalents. Do fast ships count as 2 equivalents here? What about fighters that are on their carriers? So 3 LNG would count as 4 equivs and thus not use single ship combat?
4) Small Group interaction with the Single ship limitation of a 1.5:1 advantage seems a bit odd. If one side has a DWS, Prime Team, 2FF and the other defender has 2CL, it seems to me that the defender can still avoid single ship combat. They withdraw one ship then the old 1.5:1 rule kicks in and they escape with a likely crippling unless the opposing 14 pt force can somehow muster 8 damage in one round and a possible pursuit. In the olden days we never used single ship combat. We fought a dumbround and someone retreated. After thinking that AO forced the issue a bit, we found this way to evade it yet again. Is this the correct and intended interpretation?
Finally, on a different topic.
Rule 318.3 the very first paragraph of the Fed reaction says that the reaction only occurs if the coalition HOLDS both capitols for one consecutive year. So if the coalition had the Hydrans stuffed safely off map they could leave Hydrax every other turn (forgoing the 9EP's pretty much forever) and the Federation reaction would never occur. Although the rules state this pretty clearly, it seems like an exploit to me. 99% of the damage has already been done. and if the coalition is willing to forgo those 9 economics for a while, the Feds never get their quick boost in ships (early mothballs) or the BB (which is really the lesser loss in comparison to getting ships on the front to make up for Kzin/Hydran lost production). Whereas the Coalition has denied the cash strapped Kzin and Hydrans the money from the capitols as well as the loss of pretty much all ship production for 6 turns.
I guess this is less of a question, than a petition. If the Fed reaction is going to mean anything, it shouldn't be so easily exploitable by the Coalition. I would think this rule should not be conditional on the Coalition HOLDing the capitols for a clear year. My two cents.
Thanks, as always
Mark Sayther
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit
Situation:
It's Coalition turn 7, and the Klingons are attacking the Federation. However, the sly Kzinti have placed all their Reserve fleets in the Marquis' territory.
If one of these fleets is small enough to fit under the requirements of a Expeditionary fleet, can they reinforce a battle inside Federation territory?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit
Greg (sorry Nick!), I think the answer is no, as -
Expeditionary Fleets are set up (and paid for) during the economic part of the turn, which would be Alliance turn 7. As only a Expeditionary Fleet (and EP Tug!) can enter Federation space on turns 7-9, the answer, in my mind has to be no!
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:40 am: Edit
If a mauler is captured by the alliance, and it is used in a battle force, what happens if it is challenged to an honor duel by a penal ship? Does it lose half its attack strength due to not having consorts?
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:50 pm: Edit
Greg:
If those kzinti fleets are in supply from Kzinti spacethere is no need for expeditionary status.
Now as the supply raneg is 6 and I'm assuming they are on the SB - they will be in supply (even if only from a partial grid)
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 01:04 pm: Edit
A questions about raids.
The Alliance has a mobile base set up but no ships protecting it. In response to a coalition raid, the alliance reacts a ship into the hex. Can that ship decline to fight and be "with" the MB thereby forcing the raiding ship to fight both the MB and reacting ship at the same time?
Follow up, Does it change any if the reacting ship is a police ship that was called up in reaction to the raid and disappears after the raid is done?
Additional follow up, Does it change if the raiding Coalition ship is a Romulan?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit
The reactor can choose to hide by the base, those are rules in the game. ATM I cannot remember how a Romulan cloaked ship interacts with such a case though.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 01:24 pm: Edit
The Rom raid detail allows him to pick off a target of his choice as an alternative attack. The other Rom advantage is that ships have to attempt to react to the raid individually, not as a group in normal cases.
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 02:05 pm: Edit
Richard:
You may want to look at the scenario rules as the Kzinti is prevented from operating in Fed space except with an expeditionary fleet during turns 7-9.
Nick:
The above begs the question, can the Kzinti pay for an expeditionary fleet that they are not yet an ally with (ie the Federation on turn six), but knowing that the Klingons could likely attack on turn seven?
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit
Davod - my mistake, sorry
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit
Nick,
Does a base (in this case a mobile base) in single combat get the -1 self protection bonus? It does not get the bonus in regular combat, but it's not clear if it gets it in single combat.
--Paul
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit
Nick - with respect to Paul Bonfanti's post - I think the point is not whether the base gets the self protection bonus, it is whether the 1 ew point that the base generates counts as being a scout for purposes of single ship combat.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit
Rule 310 Single ship combat refers to ships. I do not think the rule exists for the use of base's. Also, how would a base retreat if the die roll resulted in its retreat?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 04:49 pm: Edit
Jimi - Paul is planning on raiding a Fed MB on a Gorn planet without any pdu's or defending ships. Our question is how should we resolve this raid when it happens next time. i.e. How do you resolve an alternative attack on a mobile base. Can the called up police ship defend the base (giving it 11 compot)? Does the ew count for the single ship combat with a base? What happens to the base if it is forced to retreat?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit
OK, overlooked both the raids rule (314.2) and the advanced small scale combat rule (318.7)
In rule 314.251 it says a defender can choose to either have the unit (in this case the defending POL) fight one round of single ship combat using 310.0 or can choose to 'defend' the base (in this case the MB). If the attacker decides to attack the base they would fight an approach battle (like a normal combat).
Now as you mentioned cloaked units use rule (314.246). This rule says that the defender units must rule a D6 to see if they locate the cloaked unit. A roll of 1-3 means they locate the cloaked unit, a 4-6 means a failure. The raider may then disrupt the province or use 314.28. This rule allows the cloaked unit to specify any single unit (some units like carriers will get to use all their component parts i.e. escorts and the carrier) and fight it using rule 318.7 which is the single ship combat rule. Note last sentence of 318.74 which says "if a unit cannot retreat, the other ship can decide to fight another round of combat or retreat itself".
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit
Jimi - We have read through those passages, and the key question is can the cloaked atacker use (314.246) to avoid the police ship which has been called up for the specific purposes of defending the mobile base, and attack the mobile base alone.
Nice catch on 318.74. The MB can not retreat so if it must retreat the Rom will get another shot (perhaps at improved odds if the base is crippled as well).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit
The POL would have to roll a dice6 to see if it can locate the romulan vessel. On a 1-3 it succeeds, on a 4-6 it fails to locate the raider.
Of course, Nick hasn't ruled yet so hopefully he gets here soon.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit
Jimi, The point is the POL is not looking for the Romulan Raider. It is sitting at the MB saying I am going to protect this base. The Romulan has to uncloak to attack the base, therefore, the POL can see the Romulan and should not have to roll.
And don't forget, this question is actually two fold because Paul feels that a ship reacting to a raid must attempt to fight it. That it should not have an oppurtunity to decline the combat in order to protect the base.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit
The reacting ship does not have to engage the raider, it can hide with the base, those are in the rules.
Guess we'll have to wait on Nick to give his official ruling though as this question is a little tough =)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:04 pm: Edit
Chris Fant: Nick, I hear that in a previoous ruling you stated that the Federation Home Fleet MBs can be setup if the Feds go too limited war?
ANSWER: Well, Jeff Laikind said that the 4th fleet MBs and the new construction MBs can be deployed under the limited war conditions (based on stuff from SVC), so you can't go much higher than that. The problem is there are no 4th Fleet MBs, so I assumed he meant the Home Fleet MBs (the only ones besides the new construction). But let me ask him again to be sure.
And next time post a link if there is a past post involved, it took me twenty plus minutes to dig through the past archives many times over to even find the thing and work out what you were talking about, then write a response and e-mail Jeff, then get attacked by a vicious rampaging horde of blue screens of death and have to start all over again (well, except for the e-mail). This is not going well so far, I have been working for 45 minutes and only got one question (of many) done. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR....
==============================================
Robert Padilla: Can a race at Limited War (i.e. the Feds Turns 7 to 9) build: MB, FRD, PDUs, PGBs, fighter modules, or MON?
ANSWER: I believe so.
Can the Fed 3rd and Home fleets move anywhere in Fed territory from Turns 7 to 9, or are they limited to teit setup areas?
ANSWER: If you are playing the general war scenario, then under special scenario rule (602.43) they can move anywhere is Fed space.
Does the Federation get one or two Prime Teams when at Limited War? I seem to remember reading a rule that stated the Feds treat Limited War as War for the purposes of PTs, but of course I can not find it now.
ANSWER: I belive they get two (treated as war).
Can a race at Limited War adopt homeless ships from an ally?
ANSWER: Sure.
===============================================
Jimi LaForm: If the Hydran capital never falls can you build the IC at the 'discounted' price? I thought you can only ever build the IC at that 'discounted' price after the capital has fallen. If it never falls you can build the IC, but not at its discounted price.
ANSWER: I believe that is correct, if the capital never falls then you don't get the discounted IC. This is why (525.316) option E says "...the shipyard is destroyed and then rebuilt..." The shipyard must be destroyed to get the various benefits of this rule.
============================================
Robert Padilla: If the Gorn attack the Romulans on Turn 12, can the Romulans use a reserve from the North Fleet to defend with? I would think that the Romulan North Fleet would be released if the Gorn attack. Thanks!
ANSWER: The north fleet would be released under the general rule (652.5) second paragraph. The north fleet reserve element can defend in those circumstances.
==========================================
James Southcott: Question about CEDS repair - during my opponents turn some of my carrier groups get crippled. They do not CEDS retrograde that turn.
During my own turn they are in combat and retrograde normally to a base. Are they eligible for being repaired using CEDS at the end of my turn?
ANSWER: Yes you can, but be careful. While you can do CEDS repairs after the fact (308.13) you can only do replacements of destroyed escorts in the CEDS retrograde phase immediately following the combat phase they were lost in (308.132), not later.
QUESTION: Force of Zin and Fed ships are retreating and want to avoid going to the same hex. The only hex that the Zin fleet can go to (because it is closest to a supply source) is one with some opposing ships in. The federation fleet has no supply anywhere near. There are some empty hexes available, so the hex the Zin are retreating to is eliminated. However, if the Feds were to use 302.77 (fighting retreat) then they could join the Kzinti. Are they obliged to do so?
ANSWER: Rule (302.761) says it is your choice whether you use combined or separate retreat priorities. You are not abliged to do anything. It sounds like this will not be a fighting retreat in any case since there is only one hex the Kzinti will be in supply, so retreat step 4 is eliminated in any case. If you choose combined retreat, then you have one cohesive force that retreats under the priorities of one race, so if the Kzinti are not under the fighting retreat restrictions, neither are the Feds. If you choose to use separate retreat options, then the Kzinti will enter that hex as a normal retreat since it is the only supply path, and the Feds (with no supply path) could enter it under fighting retreat, but why do so when you can simply use the combined option?
QUESTION:Completely separate from the above situation. A force is retreating. All but two hexes are eliminated after step 3. The final choice is between two locations both of which have enemy ships in:
a) a hex with a single ship
b) a hex with multiple ships, though fewer in number than the retreating fleet.
Is the retreating fleet obliged to go to the hex with fewer ships, or is it a free choice between the two?
ANSWER: The rules make no distinction between the two, so it is the retreating player's choice, and there is really no difference between the two. Neither of these will be a fighting retreat since when all options after step 3 contain enemy ships step 4 is eliminated be default.
=================================================
Chuck Strong: Was there a ruling that CALLED-UP (reacting) Fed Police Ships are now valued at 4 compot? If so, where?
ANSWER: Use (314.26) when playing with Advanced Ops (3 factors for Fed POL), but Combined ops counters maybe changed this to 4? I can't remember, and of course am away from my counters so I can't check. If CO counters changed it than so be it...
=========================================
Mark Sayther: Police ships can be called up in any hex of a race's original territory. Can they be called up in the off map as it is not literally a 'hex'?
ANSWER: Rule (531.12) says "on the map in any hex" so presumbably not "off map," right?
================================================
Chuck Strong: If a single carrier or an escort of a carrier group responds to a raid and is crippled, can they use CEDS?
ANSWER: Since raiders can only be repaired after they are removed from the raid pool (314.12), you would have to do that first, then you could presumably use CEDS repairs under the normal rules.
QUESTION: 0001 Z-FF
0002 K-F5
0003 Z-CLD (scout with extended reaction)
Klingons raid 0001 with D5
Kzinti CLD reacts to raid in 0001
Q1: Is the CLD pinned in 0002?
Q2: If so, is 0002 resolved in raid combat or during the standard combat phase? Can it also then retreat in the raid phase?
Q3: If 0002 is resolved during raid combat and the F5 survives can it retrograde later in the combat phase if it does NOT participate in further combat that turn?
ANSWER: Rule (314.241) says to use all normal reaction rules, so it would be pinned, and would create a normal battle hex to be resolved in the normal combat phase.
QUESTION: If the Federation 4th Fleet has not been activated, can the Kzinti still pay for an expeditionary fleet on turn-6 in anticipation of a Klingon invasion of the Federation on turn-7?
ANSWER: Sure. Nothing prevents this. Expeditionary fleets are designed to operate in allied space, but nothing says you have to have an ally before you can have an expeditionary fleet. If you don't get an ally then you wasted the EPs though.
QUESTION: Can a race build a SB in allied territory and conduct ComConvoy exchange operations ONLY within that territory?
Examples:
K-SB in 1411 and L-SB in 1613 with supply paths back to their main grid?
R-SB in 3516 and L-SB in 3116 with supply paths back to their main grid?
(Grant claims a TacNote if these are legal.)
ANSWER: SVC posted above that the starbases in question must be in their respective owner's territories.
==============================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 11:25 pm: Edit
Russel Manning: The Kzinti OOB allowable substitution shows they can sub a DWE for an FF once a year Y173-Y174. This seems to say the DWE becomes available in Spring 173 yet the SIT shows a YIS of 174 for the DWE. I am assuming the OOB is a misprint. Can anyone confirm this for me?
ANSWER: I would have to check the SFB data taking into account the prototype rule to double check, which I don't have with me at the moment. As Stewart says it is probably just the prototyping rule in action. Anybody else know?
=================================================
Chris Levy: I have a question about self-destructing bases. Can this be done? My point is to stop the Hydran expedition by opening up their supply (via the dead BATS) and forcing them to retreat backwards.
As a Klingon, I would rather lose a measley BATS than have the Feds activated early.
ANSWER: If the rules do not allow something then you cannot assume you can do it, in general. In other words, since there is not a rule allowing the scrapping (self destruction) of bases, then you cannot do so.
============================================
Mark Sayther: 1) The scout bonus is a bit wierd. It lists it as a -1 penalty to your opponents die roll. So is it good only for the defender (as there is only one attacker roll), good for either but only to offset an existing bonus of thiers, or just another modifier like everything else.
2) Is the Fighting Retreat -1 treated the same way.
ANSWER: Yes, these were written badly in that they are written from one sides view, in practice you must apply the modifier one way or the other depending on who it affects, common sense will help here. (the rule sort of assumes that each side is rolling a die, but it was forgotten that there is only one die roll in single combat, so the modifiers are sometimes + and sometimes - depending on who has it).
3) 318.72 Says that you must use Single Ship combat if the forces are each less than 3 ships or equivalents. Do fast ships count as 2 equivalents here? What about fighters that are on their carriers? So 3 LNG would count as 4 equivs and thus not use single ship combat?
ANSWER: Fast ships are 2 equivalents for pinning, they are one for other purposes like this. Fighters would count.
4) Small Group interaction with the Single ship limitation of a 1.5:1 advantage seems a bit odd. If one side has a DWS, Prime Team, 2FF and the other defender has 2CL, it seems to me that the defender can still avoid single ship combat. They withdraw one ship then the old 1.5:1 rule kicks in and they escape with a likely crippling unless the opposing 14 pt force can somehow muster 8 damage in one round and a possible pursuit. In the olden days we never used single ship combat. We fought a dumbround and someone retreated. After thinking that AO forced the issue a bit, we found this way to evade it yet again. Is this the correct and intended interpretation?
ANSWER: I believe that is correct. The point to the added rules in AO was really to be able to apply single combat to more complex situations that were suddenly required by the raid rules, although they do apply to some regular combat situations as well IF YOU WANT. It was really only "forcing" the issue for raids since single combat is required there. In normal combat you can still play the old way (normal combat with plus points) if you want.
QUESTION: Rule 318.3 the very first paragraph of the Fed reaction says that the reaction only occurs if the coalition HOLDS both capitols for one consecutive year. So if the coalition had the Hydrans stuffed safely off map they could leave Hydrax every other turn (forgoing the 9EP's pretty much forever) and the Federation reaction would never occur.
ANSWER: Interesting point. Let me check with others...
=============================
Greg Ernets: It's Coalition turn 7, and the Klingons are attacking the Federation. However, the sly Kzinti have placed all their Reserve fleets in the Marquis' territory.
If one of these fleets is small enough to fit under the requirements of a Expeditionary fleet, can they reinforce a battle inside Federation territory?
ANSWER: You could if you had already declared (and paid for) said ships as an expeditionary fleet.
=============================================
More answers to come later...
Nick
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit
Confirmed, the Kzinti DWE has YIS of Y174 (G1), the Y173 allowance would therefore be a prototype 'field testing' under actual working conditions...
As for #4, remember that by withdrawing, they have already decided to use the 'regular' combat rules...(otherwise, no withdrawal is possible)...
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 02:29 am: Edit
Nick,
I apologize for posting this again if you were planning on getting back to it. But you half answered the question about the Fed abilities while at Limited War T7 and if you forgot it, I feel the need to pester you yet some more
You clarified that Economic Status and Military Status are distinct, and that you believe economic status is what is being referred to in various rule restrictions. Does that then mean that a race at Military limited war (the Feds) ignores various restrictions as per 652.211.
If that is so, are POL, Prime Teams, and Mothball activations considered a production restriction that can be ignored, or is it just things in 431 and 432.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 09:08 am: Edit
Hi nick - just to clarify an answer (original question and answer below)
QUESTION: Force of Zin and Fed ships are retreating and want to avoid going to the same hex. The only hex that the Zin fleet can go to (because it is closest to a supply source) is one with some opposing ships in. The federation fleet has no supply anywhere near. There are some empty hexes available, so the hex the Zin are retreating to is eliminated. However, if the Feds were to use 302.77 (fighting retreat) then they could join the Kzinti. Are they obliged to do so?
ANSWER: Rule (302.761) says it is your choice whether you use combined or separate retreat priorities. You are not abliged to do anything. It sounds like this will not be a fighting retreat in any case since there is only one hex the Kzinti will be in supply, so retreat step 4 is eliminated in any case. If you choose combined retreat, then you have one cohesive force that retreats under the priorities of one race, so if the Kzinti are not under the fighting retreat restrictions, neither are the Feds. If you choose to use separate retreat options, then the Kzinti will enter that hex as a normal retreat since it is the only supply path, and the Feds (with no supply path) could enter it under fighting retreat, but why do so when you can simply use the combined option?
The Fed ships desperately want to go to a different hex to the Kzinti as doing so would mean that they cut an enemy fleet out of supply.
If they must go to the same hex as the Zin then they would be better retreating as a combined fleet. However what they would really like to do is retreat separately and say 'OK - Zin go to hex A under priority 3, Feds can't go there because they have no supply anywhere and there is an alternative empty hex, so priority 4 excludes hex A and they must go to hex B- bingo your fleet can't retrograde'. The only thing that might stop this is that fighting retreat allows you to ignore hexes excluded under priority 4 by making it a fighting retreat.
The question really is whether the requirement to retreat together is assessed at the end of the four steps (ie they go to separate hexes) or whether it takes into account fighting retreats (in which case even if the fleets retreat separately they still go to the same hex, so better to retreat together and avoid the fighting retreat)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:23 am: Edit
Nick, are there any restrictions on the Federation during a turn 7-9 Limited War status?
Perhaps, if there are any, you could list them here for us?
Things I think I know;
Reduced Mothball activation. CL+FF only.
Home and 3rd Fleets can move, but are still on unreleased Fleet status.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit
James, we coverd this type of thing in the Hydran fron in AVEW - and it had very major effects on the Hydran front!
The rules allow a multi-side force to retreat as one force, or two seperate forces.
Logically the assessment on whether to retreat as one or two forces in made at stage 1 - but there is nothing to stop one side working out where there forces (i.e. in effect mentally going through the 4 steps) go, to see where they would end us as either a joint or seperate force - and then declaring it and going through the 2 options.
Nick - did you receive my question which I sent by e-mail to you (answer is needed ASAP!)?
Thanks
Paul
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit
Nick, just been told you don't answer e-mails...so here's the question!
.....
Slow Retreat - Can Kzinti forces NOT designated as an Experditionary Fleet enter Federation space on turns 7-9, to retrograde to a Federation base, if there are no valid Kzinti bases?
302.742 Slow Retreats mentions 'nearest friendly retrograde point'
602.12 confirms what can enter Federation space (voluntarily).
'Logically', Slow retreating forces would be allowed to enter Fed space, and either leave on their turn or accept internment/accept immediate internment - rather than die!
A quick reply would be appreciated!
Cheers
Paul Howard
........
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 09:30 am: Edit
In addition to Pauls question and along the same lines -
302.742C says slow retreating units that survive must retrograde to the nearest friendly retrograde point.
If the slow retreating Kzinti units are in a hex that is 2 waway from a Federation base and 3 away from a Kzinti, and it is decided that they are allowed to retrograde to a Federation base, are they obliged to go there - on the basis that if the federation base is considered friendly then it is the nearest point and if not friendly they cannot go there at all?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit
If the Federation is not attacked on Turn 7, they get to go to Limited War to support the Kzinti. Can the Feds in the 4th Fleet area (which gets released) upgrade bases/defenses in that area?
Also, can the Kzinti, or the Feds, use the off-map strategic route during these three turns (7-9)?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit
Base upgrades: NO.
Off-map strategic route: YES.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit
Question about Police ships.
Rule 531.11 says that the races starting Police ships cannot start in a non-border province and they must be placed in different provinces (one ship per province) and are always 'released'. At the start of the scenario the Commercial convoy leaves its Fed SB (typically 2204) towards Kzinti space to meet up with a Kzinti SB and drop off its cargo (10 EP's). Rule 531.211 says that a Police ship cannot leave its space unless escorting a convoy.
My question is this: Can the 4 Fed police ships link up with the commercial convoy enroute to Kzinti space and defend it?
If they can, isn't this a loophole that the owning race can take advantage of?
i.e. one possible loophole advantage is that a race can place his/her Pol's on the map a turn early and move them (as they are always released). This can then lead to a race having his/her starting Pol's on the border provinces breaking the rule of 531.11 (initial deployment)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit
This might be a case where a specific rule supercedes a general rule.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit
so maybe they can ONLY move/place early if they are linking up with a convoy (in this case a commercial convoy)?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:37 am: Edit
Ok no up grade Base in Fleet area which are released.......
But can you upgrade a Fed MB in Kzinti/Gorn when Fed is at limited war
and let say we got a Fed Fleet in Kzinti ....can you move the Fed Fleet into Klingon and attack Klingon units,bases and Planet and still be at limited war and the same with the Roms too
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit
Delete
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 11:59 am: Edit
If the Feds are at limited war they can attack Klingons units that are in Kzinti space only. Fed units cannot enter Klingon space and attack any Klingon unit/planet/base until at full war. This goes for Fed/Romulan interactions until at full war.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit
I was thinking that but with all this chat about limited war for the Fed .....my head was in the clouds with all the talked about this hot subject
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit
But can the Fed upgrade MBs in Kzinti/Gorn then ...I think yes ...but need a answer
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit
Do the Hydrans start getting the Guild EPs on Turn 7 if they hold their capital and the Federation has not yet been invaded?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit
That is covered in the rulebook (442.42).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit
No fed bases upgraded in fed territory during limited war.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 02:25 pm: Edit
What is the earliest turn that an Alliance unit can 'capture' the NZ hexes between Kzinti/Federation space?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit
Depends on who is at war. Feds and Kzintis both have to be at full war.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 02:37 pm: Edit
That is what I thought, just confirming, thanks Steve.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 03:38 pm: Edit
so NO up grade of Fed MBs in Kzinti/Gorn if Fed at limited war then
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit
That is what it sounds like I think
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 03:53 pm: Edit
so much for that idea gggggggrrrrr ok
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit
Can you use Single ship combat if there is a small/medium fleet in a hex, and the two battle lines built happen to only use 2 or ships?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit
No wanting to misquote Steve....
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit
No fed bases upgraded in fed territory during limited war.
....
It 'appears' the Feds CAN upgrade bases outside of Federation territory - so if they are at Limited War, they can build and upgrade bases in Kzinti/Gorn Space.
.................
General comment - Not wanting to say Steve is 'wrong', but it appears the Federation are being put on some very restrictive conditions while at Limited War (Namely, no Base upgrades in Fed Space and I am not sure if it has been confirmed what the Feds can build while at Limited War, for example MB's!) - whereas the Coalition gets a free hand to do what it pleases.
Surely there should be some benefit to the Alliance (over an above not being invaded on turn 7-9) from the Limited War, whereas the Coalition gets major benefits by not invading (namely being able to concentrate against the Kzinti and Hydrans).
P.S. - Nick, sorry for discussing things in your Q&A (I'll post this in General discussions too, please reply there!!)
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, January 30, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit
Couple of questions about reforming carrier groups during a retreat.
a CVL group + MEC and EFF are all crippled during combat. There are other carrier groups in the force and an FCR.
During retreat you are allowed to transfer escort of the same class between groups 'in order to concentrate the cripples' (308.122)
Questions:
1) As the whole CVL group is crippled, and nothing else in the fleet is damaged (so cripples are as concentrated as they can get), can uncrippled escorts from other carrier groups be assigned to the CVL to make it harde to kill during pursuit?
2) How does this affect the use of the FCR (ie can it be used as an emergency escort as the group already has as many escorts as it is allowed)?
3) If the answer to 1) is that assigning uncrippled escorts to the group is allowed, or the FCR can be assigned, then does it become the outside escort. My thinking: If an FCR is used as a normal escort, rather than in it's emergency roll then it does not automatically become the inside escort but is assigned according to the normal 'defence factor' criteria. During retreat rebuilding carrier groups is not an emergency use of the FCR. Therefore it would potentially be the outside escort????
Thanks Nick
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 11:38 am: Edit
Excuse me for my ignorance (probably due to me not having chance to read the CO rules). But I was looking at the latest Battle Board from Chuck Strong that was included in CO, IIRC. Is there a particular reason why there are 4 "Fleet" boxes instead of the one "Reserves" that the AO one had? And if it is because it is better, can you explain why?
Paul Franz
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit
That battle board is also meant to be the new hydran fleet chart (since they got four new fleet markers in that product). However, it does not have the Hydran specific fleet names on it so it can also be used for any race.
The idea is that instead of having the existing fleet boards and a separate battleboard with a reserve space that you move counters back and forth between (from fleet board to battle board and back, every battle hex), you have a bunch of this new style of fleet boards with battle boards built onto them, so theoretically you have less counter shuffling overall (just move from fleet space to battle space on the same board).
I actually have some time off this weekend, so I am planning to get caught up on the questions. Sorry for the delay.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit
Nick,
Thanks. So it was designed to speed up play by reduing the amount of time spent transfer the counters off the F&E map and moving them to the battle board. Got it.
Paul Franz
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit
Paul:
I found that I was spending a lot of time organizing dozens of counters on the fleet boards to keep track of the organization of a given fleet. Then when combat phase came around, I had to move them to a battle board an spend time reorganizing the counters yet again.
I have created several such custom color battle boards that we used at Origins last summer -- maybe in the future we could find a way of publishing them.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Chuck,
Thanks for the clarification.
Paul Franz
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit
To expand on Chris Fant's question above:
If I have five ships in a hex, and my opponent has three ships in the same hex, can I hold out two of my ships as unchosen flagships so that small scale combat can be invoked? This scenario is assuming that all of the ships that are going to fight for each side will meet the advanced small scale combat rules.
Battle lines are built before the decision to use single, or small scale combat, which makes me think that I can do the example above. Thanks!
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 09:29 pm: Edit
I don't think so but I haven't checked the rulebook. I kinda thought SSC was picked only before you got into the battleforce selection thing, which would mean that the flagship candidates step comes after it's too late to use SSC. I could be wrong and haven't checked the rule, but it doesn't seem like that kind of "screwing with the system" is something I'd have intentionally allowed.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit
In Phase 5 - Step 3 of the AO SoP, parts 5-3D(flagship selection) and 5-3E(battleforce determination) both come before part 5-3H(single or advanced small combat if eligible). So going by that would give the impression that one could do what either myself or Chris Fant have described.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit
Bill Schoeller: If a mauler is captured by the alliance, and it is used in a battle force, what happens if it is challenged to an honor duel by a penal ship? Does it lose half its attack strength due to not having consorts?
ANSWER: It would be halved due to (318.74) since it is still a mauler.
============================================
Russel J. Manning: The Alliance has a mobile base set up but no ships protecting it. In response to a coalition raid, the alliance reacts a ship into the hex. Can that ship decline to fight and be "with" the MB thereby forcing the raiding ship to fight both the MB and reacting ship at the same time?
ANSWER: You can decline to fight and remain with the base, but in that case the raider gets to either disrupt the province unapposed, or do an alternative attack against the base + ship. See (314.251) and (314.252)
Follow up, Does it change any if the reacting ship is a police ship that was called up in reaction to the raid and disappears after the raid is done?
ANSWER: No.
Additional follow up, Does it change if the raiding Coalition ship is a Romulan?
ANSWER: No, other than rolling under (314.256) if you wish to attack the romulan rather than simply hiding at the base.
The defending player has an option, the police ship can try to intercept the romulan raider, in which case you roll to see if you find it, if so then you have a single ship battle between the two ships, if you fail then the Rom gets to disrupt the province or do an alternative attack.
The second option is to park the police ship by the base. The romulan gets to either disrupt the province for free, or do an alternative attack, and if he attacks the base, then the police ship will be there waiting as well so you would do a single combat with all three units.
=============================================
Paul Bonfanti: Does a base (in this case a mobile base) in single combat get the -1 self protection bonus? It does not get the bonus in regular combat, but it's not clear if it gets it in single combat.
ANSWER: Since bases don't get self defense jamming normally, I don't see that they would get it in single combat either. And the advanced single combat rules (318.74) does specifically say the EW modifier is due to the self defense jamming, and the scout rule (308.52) says bases do not get self defense jamming so...
================================================
James Southcott: The Fed ships desperately want to go to a different hex to the Kzinti as doing so would mean that they cut an enemy fleet out of supply.
If they must go to the same hex as the Zin then they would be better retreating as a combined fleet. However what they would really like to do is retreat separately and say 'OK - Zin go to hex A under priority 3, Feds can't go there because they have no supply anywhere and there is an alternative empty hex, so priority 4 excludes hex A and they must go to hex B- bingo your fleet can't retrograde'. The only thing that might stop this is that fighting retreat allows you to ignore hexes excluded under priority 4 by making it a fighting retreat.
The question really is whether the requirement to retreat together is assessed at the end of the four steps (ie they go to separate hexes) or whether it takes into account fighting retreats (in which case even if the fleets retreat separately they still go to the same hex, so better to retreat together and avoid the fighting retreat)
ANSWER: For every retreat you choose whether you will retreat together or separately at the start of the retreat process (before doing any of the 4 steps for either race). You never have to choose a fighting retreat, this is ALWAYS an option. If I understand your example, you can retreat to separate hexes since the Kzinti only have one option and the Feds have that same hex eliminated under step 4.
=============================================
Paul Howard:Slow Retreat - Can Kzinti forces NOT designated as an Experditionary Fleet enter Federation space on turns 7-9, to retrograde to a Federation base, if there are no valid Kzinti bases?
302.742 Slow Retreats mentions 'nearest friendly retrograde point'
602.12 confirms what can enter Federation space (voluntarily).
'Logically', Slow retreating forces would be allowed to enter Fed space, and either leave on their turn or accept internment/accept immediate internment - rather than die!
ANSWER: Since the rules say nothing can enter fed space except for established expeditionary forces, I see no way for anything else to enter fed space during that time. (602.42) says any previously interned ships are released in this scenario (and would presumably have to leave or be designated expeditionary), so no more ships would be interned from this point onward. I don't see how any more ships could enter from this point unless they are expeditionary though. Presumably the Kzinti get to use Fed retro points (as friendly retro points), but with the special restriction in place this only works for expeditionary units.
Maybe this is one to bring up in the fed limited war topic if you like since many questions will ultimately be answered there.
==============================================
Jimi LaForm: Rule 531.11 says that the races starting Police ships cannot start in a non-border province and they must be placed in different provinces (one ship per province) and are always 'released'. At the start of the scenario the Commercial convoy leaves its Fed SB (typically 2204) towards Kzinti space to meet up with a Kzinti SB and drop off its cargo (10 EP's). Rule 531.211 says that a Police ship cannot leave its space unless escorting a convoy.
My question is this: Can the 4 Fed police ships link up with the commercial convoy enroute to Kzinti space and defend it?
ANSWER: I don't see why not. If you move them then you don't have them for other things so... And if you are using the pirate rules then if you move them from their starting positions early you may open up areas for pirates to attack more easily.
================================================
Robert Padilla: Do the Hydrans start getting the Guild EPs on Turn 7 if they hold their capital and the Federation has not yet been invaded?
ANSWER: (442.42) says you get it when the feds enter, but not before turn 7. So if the feds haven't entered yet, you don't get it until they do, right?
================================================
Chris Fant: Can you use Single ship combat if there is a small/medium fleet in a hex, and the two battle lines built happen to only use 2 or ships?
ANSWER: In general, single combat is supposed to resolve the battle hex so it is determined if you use it before any of the normal combat steps, rule (310.0) first sentence says "...only two relatively equal units in the battle hex..", not "in a battle force". I know the sequence of play has single combat listed later in the combat sequence, but it also says "if applicable", and I belive you determine IN GENERAL if it is applicable or not before the normal combat steps.
Now since it has a semi-optional status, there are weird cases, you could start with several ships and after many are destroyed you may use single combat if each side has one ship left (or whatever). However, if you did this, then on the round that you use single combat you would skip flagship selection and all the rest, so in general you wouldn't do single combat after removing rejected flagship candidates in a normal battleforce... Single combat should include everything in the hex (but I am not including things like honor duels or raids here of course). In a raid battle or honor duel there will often be other things in the hex not taking part, the point is when using single combat to resolve (or finish resolving) a normal battle hex, skip all the flagships selection and battleforce construction steps, you are using single combat to resolve the battle hex, not a battle round. Or in other words after using single combat there shouldn't be any thing left to resolve.
If you did this, then after rejecting nonused flagship candidates, and the single combat resolved two of the ships (one from each side), what happens? Do all the ships on the losing side retreat or get destroyed? Do you continue with single combat for the remaining ships (which remember was only supposed to be one round)? It simply is not supposed to work this way. Single combat should include all remaining units.
================================================
James Southcott: a CVL group + MEC and EFF are all crippled during combat. There are other carrier groups in the force and an FCR.
During retreat you are allowed to transfer escort of the same class between groups 'in order to concentrate the cripples' (308.122)
Questions:
1) As the whole CVL group is crippled, and nothing else in the fleet is damaged (so cripples are as concentrated as they can get), can uncrippled escorts from other carrier groups be assigned to the CVL to make it harde to kill during pursuit?
ANSWER: No, as you say it is already "concentrated".
2) How does this affect the use of the FCR (ie can it be used as an emergency escort as the group already has as many escorts as it is allowed)?
ANSWER: CVL is medium, so it can have 2 or 3 escorts. An FCR could be added, rule (526.353) gives it this special exception to be added to a group during combat even after groups are normally formed. Even if the group were full, since rule (515.15) allows the dropping of escorts during retreat, you could drop a crippled escort and add the FCR under (526.353).
3) If the answer to 1) is that assigning uncrippled escorts to the group is allowed, or the FCR can be assigned, then does it become the outside escort. My thinking: If an FCR is used as a normal escort, rather than in it's emergency roll then it does not automatically become the inside escort but is assigned according to the normal 'defence factor' criteria. During retreat rebuilding carrier groups is not an emergency use of the FCR. Therefore it would potentially be the outside escort????
ANSWER: The FCR is always the innermost escort under (526.353), FCRs are never "normal" escorts.
===============================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit
I have skipped all the fed limited war questions since those will all be answered once and for all in the new topic for fed limited war questions to be answered in Captain's Log. Check that topic and if you don't see your question, then I suggest you add it.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit
Thanks for the answers Nick, so good I gotta keep coming back for more.
Firstly I want to check that I've got something right. Lets say there are 2 ships - one is a carrier with 6 ftrs and the other a frigate. Opposed withdrawl allows up to half the ships to withdraw. Full squadrons of fighters count as ships. So am I right in saying that the carrier could not withdraw as there are 3 SE's of ships present and the carrier would have to take it's fighters with it which would count as two? Therefore only the frigate could withdraw.
Secondly, 302.135: slow units are not allowed to withdraw, but can retreat under the provisions of 302.72. Does this mean that they could do their retrograde before combat (please God no, or Paul gets away Scot free) or just that the only time they are allowed to exit the hex is by a slow retreat - with all its restrictions?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit
Do later editions of rules officially modify earlier editions of rules, if the later edition clarifies, expands upon, rewrites, changes, or shifts the sequence of things said to happen by earlier rules?
In other words, if F&E2K, for example, is contradicted or elaborated upon by F&E AO, does AO take precedence, assuming that all players agreed beforehand to use both F&E2K and AO?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit
Well, F&E2K and AO are not two different editions, but two different products. Generally, specific overrules general, and (when it's the same rule, such as the SIT) later overrules earlier. But it is often worth asking because there are cases where a later product contains an uncorrected copy of something that an earlier product did correct, both having come from the same original source.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Also on the escort questions: FCR can be inserted in a crippled group which already has it's maximum numbers of escorts, by shedding an escort.
Does that mean that a crippled escort, say a heavy escort, shed cannot join another uncrippled group (and in doing so so become 'undirectable' as an inner escort) as the only type of excort swapping allowed by 308.122 is for concentrating cripples?
By Gene Van Hook (Gvanhook) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 10:56 am: Edit
Hopefully quick newbie question
Using just F&E 2000 rules at the moment.
Does the Hydran Pre-war construction from FallY168 and SprgY169 have to start in the Capital? I assume so, but wanted to be sure.
Also the Tholian Border Squadron and its Strategic move on Spring Y169, this would have to be paid for correct? I think the confusion is the "activated units" reference at 204.31, I take it to mean Mothballs and IWR as in 434.0, but here and there the rules talk about unreleased fleets being "activated" so this has caused some slight confusion.
Any help appreciated, I know these are baby questions.
Thanx
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit
The hydran prewar can be placed anywhere in Hydran space. The TBS is free strat.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 11:22 am: Edit
TBS free Strat ? I don't think so unless I missed a change in F&E2K.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit
my bad, supposed to say non free... dyslexic fingers sometimes
By Gene Van Hook (Gvanhook) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit
Is there any place I can find a rule to help me come to the conclusion about Hydran Pre-war starting anywhere? I see the Feds have there pre-war designated as do the Roms, but Hydran doesn't, that was the only clue I had that maybe I could place anywhere, but I can't find a rule anywhere stating this? I would like some back up, when I present this to my group if I can find it.
Yeah, was pretty sure I had the TBS right, thanx allot guys for helping me clear these up.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit
Hmmm, anyone have the rules for Hydran prewar and their placements. I don't have my rulebooks with me today.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit
We certainly have always played they could be placed anywhere within an existing fleets deployment area, i.e. all ships could be incorporated as part of the second fleet but they could not be put in hex 1216. We never found rules to back this up or contradict it, but seemed most logical and the only way to allow flexible Hydran starting strategy. They only get a couple of turns of fun, so might as well let them have it.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 01:21 pm: Edit
There is no rule that specifies that the Hydrans can or cannot place those T1/T2 builds in any specific spot. It is assumed they can put them anywhere as they do not place their fleets until the Alliance phase of T3. The prewar can go anywhere while the other fleets are given specific spots they can start (though the 1st and 2nd fleet have a large range of choices). This gives the Hydrans the 'surprise' attack ability.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 01:23 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Is there any place I can find a rule to help me come to the conclusion about Hydran Pre-war starting anywhere?
________________________________________
There is no specific rule, this is implied because the Hydrans do not set up their fleets until beginning of Alliance T3, the new production would be moved to where it was needed before placement.
By Gene Van Hook (Gvanhook) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit
Okay guys,
Thanx allot for the information. I was kind of leaning in that direction, and hopefully with your back up, I can make a good argument, as obviously I want the PWC to be used in my "fairly" set piece battle if I can.
Once again, my thanx to the members of the Board, for the quick and accurate information. : )
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit
You can tell them the Game Designer said Hydran PWC can be put anywhere in Hydran territory. They can't argue with that (unless they find a black and white statement to the contrary in the rulebook that I forgot about).
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit
Actually I think the designer wrote exactly that in the scenario notes. "PWC not specifically assigned can be placed anywhere"
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit
(521.83) states that any Battle Force can buy a G for 1 EP. It also says
________________________________________
Quote:
The player using the extra GCE must designate one ship (at least 7 attack factors) to carry it; this ship loses 50% of its offensive potential and all special abilities (mauler, stasis, etc.). Restriction (521.374) applies to this selection. This is also done for the Gorn bonus (308.87). The extra G is lost if the ship carrying it is crippled.
________________________________________
Can you buy a G to replace one that has already been lost in combat, thereby eliminating the need to designate a ship to carry it, with the above penalties. (since it goes to the now empty troop ship)?
On a similar note, would it be legal to buy an IGCE, assign it to a CW or larger, but never have the CW enter combat with the G on board. It will simply transfer the G when a dedicated troop ship loses one, and then fight as a normal warship. Note this doesn't make alot of sense unless the above option is illegal.
By Gene Van Hook (Gvanhook) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit
Wow, straight from the top. Well you definitly can't beat that. : )
Alan, do you know where that is? I am certain I won't be needing it now the that Steve Cole, himself, has put his weight behind it, but it would be nice to see how/where I missed it.
Thanx Guys
By Gene Van Hook (Gvanhook) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 04:07 pm: Edit
Found it. 600.34 New Pre-War production ships not specifically designated for a given fleet can be assigned to any fleet.
If it were a snake it would have biten me. I think my eyes were lumping that in with something do do with Piracy Patrol, which is a few rules above in Bold.
My thanx to everyone. This board is always extremely helpful and friendly.
By Scott Kunselman (Scottkuns) on Wednesday, February 04, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit
I have a military raid situation I am not sure how to handle. Anyone feel free to comment. A Hydran LGE has defeated a Klingon POL as per 314.244 in a Battlestation hex that has a crippled D6 with it. The LGE wants to attack the D6 using 314.28. The D6 is assumed to be with the battlestation as per 314.251 and 314.254. Does the LGE attack the combination of the two or must it fight them in sequence? Since the battlestation, the LGE, and the Klingon combination all exceed 14 attack factors, must the regular combat rules be used as per 318.731?
Thanks in advance.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit
You would indeed have to fight the D6 and the BATS together, since the D6 declined combat and hid with the base, see rule: (314.251). You would use regular combat with several rounds if needbe.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 06:41 am: Edit
Question about planets and retreat.
Coaltion fleet is attacking a planet with no defending fleet. The planet has previously been devastated (and has no PDU's). After redevastating the planet does the coaltion fleet have the option to retreat.
Would the answer be any different if: The planet has a defending fleet. During the first round of combat the alliance takes the damage on the fleet and RDU, then retreats. The planet still needs redevastating so the coaltion pursues the retreating fleet then comes back to the planet to redevastate. Can the coatlion fleet now retreat?
How about if it did not pursue but just spent another round re-devastating the planet?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit
This one I am sure has been answered but I can neither remember what the decision wasw, nor find the answer anywhere.
Two fleets are retreating from a hex. The defender decides to retreat under fighting retreat rules to a hex with an enemy frigate in it. The attacker goes to the same hex under normal retreat priorities.
What is in the hex when the fighting retreat is conducted - Is it just between the frigate and the retreating defenders fleet, or is combat only conducted once both retreats have been concluded (so both fleets and the frigae are present).
Thanks Nick
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit
What does the SoP say?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 10:32 am: Edit
James
Case 1: Attacker vs devestated planet yes the attacker can retreat.
Case 2: Attacker cannot pursue as the planet blocks pursuit.
Case 3: As it could not pursue, they devestate the planet like normal and then can retreat if they want.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit
Jimi, the planet is already devastated and has not recovered, though you have a good point. I have always considered a planet devastated (and therefore unable to block pursuit) until it recovers. That may not be correct.
Chuck - my SOP is not specific about when fighting retreats are fought, maybe there is a more recent.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit
The planet has to be re-devestated every turn or it resets itself.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:24 pm: Edit
In that case what is the effect of 508.211 - the attacker need not redevastate to capture the planet?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit
It is kind of just assumed that a planet being captured is being devestated. Also it is assumed that your garrison ship is redevestating that planet turn by turn so that when/if it is re-captured by the enemy that they have the maximum 4 turn delay before its economy goes back online.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit
Hmmm - I can see no other interpretation than once a plant is devastated it remains so until recovered. I'm aware of the ruling allowing a defender to voluntarily redevastate a planet. That's not the way I would have interpretted it, but it's Nick's opinion that matters and it's only a small thing. Them's the rules, so you are probably right about the questions I posted.
By Dan Syrek (Spooky) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit
Hello All, Im totally new here, and just started playing F&E. I played a little back many years ago, but was hoping someone could help me clarify a rule or so (Im reading up and learning tons)
Its about CEDS and retro moves....
It says in 308.13 A: that carrir groups with CEDS damage can retro on the opposing players turn.
Now my question, what if CEDS was not used, and it was simply direct (like a mauler) damage that crippled the whole group??
Does it make a difference?
Saying that, if that does make a difference, what about the case where the player damages his own escorts of his own free will, does that allow this CEDS rule to apply?
Thanks for any help!!!!!!
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit
Dan, does not make a difference how the damage was applied. If the carrier or escorts are wounded in combat they can retro back to a repair point.
By Dan Syrek (Spooky) on Thursday, February 05, 2004 - 07:01 pm: Edit
Thanks for the help. thats how we were doing it so its good to know. Of course still as a new player CEDS seems (too)powerful. The ships are always moving and getting fixed!
Thanks again!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 08:37 pm: Edit
Hi Nick - couple more and I'll stop hogging the topic
Is there a withdrawl before combat step for the defender durring a fighting retreat?
Does it make a difference if the defenders fleet is the one doing the fighting retreat or if the attacker is doing the fighting retreat?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, February 08, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit
For the purposes of using the rule (443.0) Commercial Convoys, who initiates the commercial convoys in the beginning of the game? The Feds and the Klingons?
Can the Klingon-Romulan convoy move through Federation space, or the Neutral zone between the Feds and either power, when the Feds are not at war?
Can the Commercial Convoy be protected from a (443.24) RAID if it is colocated with a planet with PDUs or a armed base? That is, if a raider wants to hammer the comercial convoy, it has to fight the defenses first?
What is the interaction between pirates and the commercial convoy, if any? Do they conduct (443.24) raids and get to keep the EPs?
When (443.22) says "four full turns of movement" it means that the convoy departs during the operational movement phase of turn 1 and arrives at the end of turn 4's operational movement phase, that is after the production phase of the turn? Correct? So I couldn't use the cash until a CEDS repair phase of the production phase of the next turn?
By Dan Syrek (Spooky) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 01:11 pm: Edit
Another Newbie question that I hope will be quick and easy for someone. Its seems straight forward, but its on Retros...
You map need to pull up the map, but here is is.
Kzinti Fleet in 1104
KZinit CM in 1102
Lyrans in 1202, Klingons in 1304 and 1402
Now the KZ Fleet, during retro, finsihed its battle in 1104, goes to 1103, to 1102, now is 1201 a valid hex? I know the rule says the there must be a ship in an adjcent hex, but that ship is in 1102 (where the KZ fleet just went), but not apart of the 1102 fleet.
Sorry for the newbie questions, but we want to enjoy are games and do it right so there is no dreaded re-start cause of past mistakes
Thanks! (im sure the guy that Im against will see this)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit
Dan, first of all 1102 is not a valid retro point so the 1104 fleet cannot retro to that point, but, if you meant that they are retrotraging through 1102 then yes, 1201 is a valid retro point as the CM in 1102 has opened 1201 for the 1104 fleet.
James, don't have my rulebooks with me today so cannot answer those questions.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit
if you are trying to get that fleet to 1401, you can legally get there...
1103, 1102, 1201, 1301, 1401.
the presence of the retro units does not open the rout for itself (except from where it started) so the fleet itself opens 1103 (which the CM does as well) and the CM in 1102 opens 1201 and 1301 is not blocked.
By Dan Syrek (Spooky) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit
Thanks again guys, It helps, hope you dont mind the new player questions.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 04:44 pm: Edit
Nope, keep em comin Dan, that is what we are all here for =)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit
I plan to work on answering pending questions tomorrow when I am off, tonight I work late.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit
Nick, a question regarding Police Ship placement (Rule 531.12). Here is the situation: Coalition ships are present in 1601 and 1801, and no Kzinti unit is in 1702. Can a Police Ship be placed in 1701 (which is vacant)? My thought is that a supply route cannot exist into that hex since 411.31 is in force by 411.33, and so it is not in supply for purposes of 531.12. Thanks.
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit
A question which may, or may not, have been posed or answered.
I'll use a specific example:
The Kzinti have lost their capital and so their Main Grid originates from Off Map now.
If there are coalition ships in 1601 and 1801, and *no* Alliance ships/units in 1701 *or* 1702, can a Police Ship be placed in 1701 during Kzinti Production?
That is, is 1701 considered a hex in supply from the main supply grid?
I *know* from 411.31 that 1701 is not a valid hex *through* which to draw a supply route. But is 1701 itself in supply?
Thanks,
John
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 02:48 pm: Edit
A question about raids (which may have been asked before, but I didn't see it).
314.244 specifies using advanced small scale combat (318.7), which goes to 310.0 in the case of a single ship duel.
310.0 gives a calculation to see if the normal combat sequence would work (defense * 1.5 Ah, but Trent, the SSD for the Hvy Pack only
>shows 4 cargo (?) boxes, so presumably from the
>SSD in CL26 it uses the FCR's fighter storage >to carry the fighters, and the Pack's 2-space >shuttle box to prepare the fighter.
The Tholian FCR SSD in CL 26 (page 56) shows six cargo boxes on the Tholian HF pallet and one HF sized shuttle bay.
The Gorn HF pod carries 12 HF with 12 cargo while the Kzinti HF pod had has two cargo tracks one numbered one carrying HF and a much larger second one carrying drones and other fighter consumables.
The Tholian R-note is on page 46 and states that the HF pallet can supply both types of fighters and FCRs often carried pallets to do just that.
As to whether that means [8H] and [8H6], your guess is as good as mine.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit
302.77 - Rules appear to allow this, but wouldn't seem to be within the spirit of the rules.
Force does a Fighting Retreat -
FR Force has to then retreat again.
Does the force have to continue retreating with the same flagship, or can it -
Switch to a Flagship of an allied Race
Retreat seperate
If they can switch Flahship, they could Retreat back to where they came from (which clearly isn't the idea of the rule!).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 07:25 pm: Edit
There is an update somewhere that says the place you retreated from is no longer a valid retreat option.....can;t remember where though.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 08:43 pm: Edit
Yep, I remember reading that somewhere too CFant. Though too tired to browse the archives and find where.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 06:27 am: Edit
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 21, 2003 - 08:48 pm: Edit
Daniel Knipfer, In F&E2K we added a rule in (302.733) that says the hex you are retreating from does not count as a supply point for purposes of that retreat. It would make sense to me to extend that rule to say that if you have a chain of retreats (retreat + fighting retreat + fighting retreat + fighting retreat, etc...), any previous hexes retreated from are not considered supply points for purposes of further retreats (since all of those hexes are ones you were trying to get away from).
So in your case, the Hydrans invoke fighting retreat and leave the capital hex, the Coalition then also retreats with their option (never capturing the hex), and when the Hydrans finish their fighting retreat battle in the hex adjacent to the capital and retreat again, they do not have to count the capital as a supply point since that is where they are originally retreating from, and thus they can continue to the old colonies and not be constantly bounced back.
A few days before I had suggested excleuding the hex as an eligible retreat target
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit
Questions downloaded to work on.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 12:08 pm: Edit
NIck, question on fighting retreat timing I guess...
Only way to ask this is to put an example in:
Kzinti(phasing) and Lyran forces do battle in hex 607.
The Kzinti forces decide to withdraw after the Lyran decline the first option to retreat. The Lyran then also decide to retreat.
Now, the Kzin must go to 707 as it is the closest supply point hex, and at the time of retreating there are no Lyran ships there and 2 more Kzinti ships.
The Lyran can either go to 707 or 608 for supply, but 608 has no enemy ships. The Lyran player chooses to go to 707 using the fighting retreat rules.
Now, what exactly happens here? The Kzinti decided to withdraw and declared their hex first, then the Lyran decided to retreat as well and chose the same hex.
Do the Lyrans withdraw first and fight a battle with the 2xKzinti units that are in 707? Or DO you resolve the first battle hex completely through the retreat element(both stacks of ships retreat to the same hex) and then the Lyrans fight their one round of fighting retreat before hiding with the base?
Sorry for the long one, just could not think of a better way to get that across.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit
Just a note - March 14, 2003 - 2:48pm, there was a ruling by Nick on the same issue (fighting retreat)
________________________________________
Quote:
Tim Losberg: I couldn't find the discussion I was thinking of, but on more thought it does not apply to this situation at all anyway, since it is definitely not a Rom fighting retreat, only a Fed one. The rules say the Defender conducts his retreat first, then the attacker, and logically fighting retreat is part of that defender (Fed) retreat, so conduct the fighting retreat before the Romulan retreat. So the fighting retreat battle would only use the single Rom garrison ship and the retreating Fed ships, not the retreating Rom ships, since they conduct their retreat second
________________________________________
I looked (very briefly) for any over-ruling of that, but didn't see anything.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit
But that makes no sense as the other battle hex is not yet resolved. There are still ships in it that are in the process of conducting Phase 5-Step 7 of the previous battle hex.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 09:30 pm: Edit
OK, does rule 602.12, which allows the Kzinti to send a tug into Federation space to get EPs, only count for one tug? Personally I read that sentence as being an example of what kind of ships, or better put, what the status of the ships must be, in order to enter Federation space.
Also, in 602.42, the Feds can send EPs to the Kzinti's. Can tugs from the Federation Home Fleet be used to transport these EPs, or can only tugs from the 4th Fleet or new construction be used?
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:51 pm: Edit |
March - April Archive
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit
Nick, a while ago (Jan 26/27) I posted about the Fed reaction being manipulated by the Coalition to never occur...
***********************************************
QUESTION: Rule 318.3 the very first paragraph of the Fed reaction says that the reaction only occurs if the coalition HOLDS both capitols for one consecutive year. So if the coalition had the Hydrans stuffed safely off map they could leave Hydrax every other turn (forgoing the 9EP's pretty much forever) and the Federation reaction would never occur.
ANSWER: Interesting point. Let me check with others...
********************************************
Did you ever get a chance to follow up on this or get feedback? I don't believe I ever heard anything more about it.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 12:33 pm: Edit
And one other question about tugs and getting EPs from the Feds. Is it legal to allow the Federation to setup a satellite stockpile in their off-map area, and then to send a Kzinti tug to pick up the EPs from this stockpile instead of having to travel all the way to Earth?
Also, if the Kzinti are kicked off-map, does the special Strategic Movement exception 207.292 apply? For example, if the Federation delivers 10 EPs by tug on turn 9 to the Kzinti, in their off-map capital, can that tug then continue to strat back to the Federation off-map area?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit
Jimi LaForm: Nick, not to be argumentative, but the answer to JStephens seems to be at odds with one you made on a similar question last year.
ANSWER: As far as I can tell, my previous ruling was also wrong.
When you stop moving, you still expend your remaining movement pulses, and these can be reacted to so long as your last actual movement did not increase the range from the ships intending to react.
============================================
Tim Losberg: The rule states that only if a unit moves into reaction on the 6th pulse (not spends the 6th pulse in the reaction zone) can the nonphasing player react 2 hexes at once...
ANSWER: I believe that the rule in question allows an extra reaction pulse when the last move was on the 6th op move pulse. In other
cases, since you are still expended unused movement pulses when you stop moving the enemy gets to react to these normally. The rule in
question allows a special extra pulse in certain situations, in other situations it does not disallow anything, the normal rules allow
reaction.
==============================================
Robert Padilla: OK, just making sure that I am not missing something.
Is it correct that a unit does not have to be in supply to use Strategic Movement? It is not one of the limitations in 410.3 for being out of supply, nor does 204.0 imply that only units in supply can Strat move. And 204.32 talksa bout supply, but only for on map Strat movement, and only for the issue of not using up your allies
Strat Movement allowance.
The specific situation I have is that the Kzinti have been kicked off-map, and want to start sending tugs to the Feds for EPs, since it
is now Turn 7. I am trying to make sure that those ships can indeed strat to the Fed capital and back again. Would the Feds have to pay
for the Kzinti tugs strat movement once they are in Fed space, or would the Kzinti still have to pay?
ANSWER: Strat move has its own limites (so many per race, have to pay for more, need a network of bases/planets), and it does not depend on
supply status. If kzinti tugs use strat move to fed bases/planets, then it counts against the fed strat move limits (and against the kzinti limits if it used kzinti bases/planets during strat move). SUpply is not necessary/relevant.
=====================================================
Jeffrey T. Coutu: In a capital assault, can fighters be transferred between the static and mobile forces between combat rounds?
ANSWER: They can be transferred between rounds, but not between different systems on the same round, all combat is simultaneous within a given round (this assumes that the attacker is attacking more than one system simultaneously).
When setting up the static and mobile forces for a capital battle, do prime teams affect the setup in any way or could all prime teams be
put in the mobile force?
ANSWER: Prime teams have no effect on that procedure.
===========================================================
Paul Howard : 302.77 - Rules appear to allow this, but wouldn't seem to be within the spirit of the rules.
Force does a Fighting Retreat -
FR Force has to then retreat again.
Does the force have to continue retreating with the same flagship, or can it -
Switch to a Flagship of an allied Race
Retreat seperate
If they can switch Flahship, they could Retreat back to where they came from (which clearly isn't the idea of the rule!).
ANSWER: The ruleing was that previous hexes retreated from do not count as supply sources for future retreats of that combat. As far
as flagships go, I believe you use the one that was the flagship of the last battleforce for allied retreat purposes. Does that help?
==================================================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:29 pm: Edit
Christopher E. Fant :Kzinti(phasing) and Lyran forces do battle in hex 607.
The Kzinti forces decide to withdraw after the Lyran decline the first option to retreat. The Lyran then also decide to retreat.
Now, the Kzin must go to 707 as it is the closest supply point hex, and at the time of retreating there are no Lyran ships there and 2 more Kzinti ships.
The Lyran can either go to 707 or 608 for supply, but 608 has no enemy ships. The Lyran player chooses to go to 707 using the fighting retreat rules.
Now, what exactly happens here? The Kzinti decided to withdraw and declared their hex first, then the Lyran decided to retreat as well and chose the same hex.
Do the Lyrans withdraw first and fight a battle with the 2xKzinti units that are in 707? Or DO you resolve the first battle hex completely through the retreat element(both stacks of ships retreat to the same hex) and then the Lyrans fight their one round of fighting retreat before hiding with the base?
ANSWER: I have always ruled that you finish the first retreat, then do the second, since the rules say defender conducts retreat first. So, the Lyrans would fighting retreat to the BATS, and would fight the fighting retreat battle. Since there is a base this means you fight the approach battle (no BATS present) with the Lyran ships at BIR 1 and the Kzinti ships at BIR 10. This then become a normal battle hex (retreat is over) so you do the Kzinti retreat (their ships move into 707) and treat hex 707 as a normal battle hex (with the first approach battle over).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: OK, does rule 602.12, which allows the Kzinti to send a tug into Federation space to get EPs, only count for one tug? Personally I read that sentence as being an example of what kind of ships, or better put, what the status of the ships must be, in order to enter Federation space.
ANSWER: I would say multiple tugs are allowed, but not the limits on EP transferred per turn.
Also, in 602.42, the Feds can send EPs to the Kzinti's. Can tugs from the Federation Home Fleet be used to transport these EPs, or can only tugs from the 4th Fleet or new construction be used?
ANSWER: Any released tugs. If home fleet is unreleased, then those cannot be used.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:37 pm: Edit
Capital Defence:
Nick as I'm about to launch into my first full game of the AO era I was re-checking the rules changes in F&E 2K.
As you state above under F&E 2K rules (511.57), combat at a capital system is simultaneous. (under a set of prevous rules it was conducted sequentially.)
2 Questions:
case 1) Kzinti capital all PDU's have the full ftrs. there are free spaces on some aux-CV's from the appraoch. The attacker comes into all systems and directs to kill PDU's in all the systems.
Can I as the defender choose which ftrs from the PDU's and which die as minus points ?
(RJA reading of the rules is yes )
case 2) (Kzinti Capital again) No spare capacity on any carriers. The Coalition attack the capital system and one other minor. The attackers maul ftrs fom the PDU's on the minor, creating spaces. The capital system attack they target PDU's creating homeless ftrs.
Under "transfer or die" - these ftrs go to the minor planet to the capacity of the spaces created, before they can be taken as losses (and hence minus points for the next round). Is this correct ?
( Again, RJA reading of the rules is yes )
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: And one other question about tugs and getting EPs from the Feds. Is it legal to allow the Federation to setup a satellite stockpile in their off-map area, and then to send a Kzinti tug to pick up the EPs from this stockpile instead of having to travel all the way to Earth?
ANSWER: I believe so. See rule (413.45) which allows EPs in a stockpile to be moved by the tug transfer rule (435.0) with a same race or allied tug.
Also, if the Kzinti are kicked off-map, does the special Strategic Movement exception 207.292 apply? For example, if the Federation delivers 10 EPs by tug on turn 9 to the Kzinti, in their off-map capital, can that tug then continue to strat back to the Federation off-map area?
ANSWER: No, the special exception is to allow movement from off-map to on-map and back to off- map within one turn (which is normally prohibited). You cannot use this exception to move from off-map to adjoining off-map and back in one turn since that is not what it says.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit
Mark Sayther: Nick, a while ago (Jan 26/27) I posted about the Fed reaction being manipulated by the Coalition to never occur...
***********************************************
QUESTION: Rule 318.3 the very first paragraph of the Fed reaction says that the reaction only occurs if the coalition HOLDS both capitols for one consecutive year. So if the coalition had the Hydrans stuffed safely off map they could leave Hydrax every other turn (forgoing the 9EP's pretty much forever) and the Federation reaction would never occur.
ANSWER: Interesting point. Let me check with others...
********************************************
Did you ever get a chance to follow up on this or get feedback? I don't believe I ever heard anything more about it.
ANSWER: This did get sent to Jeff and Steve, and their response was that they didn't think it a big problem that needed errata or anything and they cited the capital abandonment rule. So presumably if the Coalition is doing this then you can abandon the Hydran capital.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit
Richard Abbott :
2 Questions:
case 1) Kzinti capital all PDU's have the full ftrs. there are free spaces on some aux-CV's from the appraoch. The attacker comes into all systems and directs to kill PDU's in all the systems.
Can I as the defender choose which ftrs from the PDU's and which die as minus points ?
ANSWER: I am not sure of your question, but the fighters could transfer to empty carriers in the hex after any given combat round.
(RJA reading of the rules is yes )
case 2) (Kzinti Capital again) No spare capacity on any carriers. The Coalition attack the capital system and one other minor. The attackers maul ftrs fom the PDU's on the minor, creating spaces. The capital system attack they target PDU's creating homeless ftrs.
Under "transfer or die" - these ftrs go to the minor planet to the capacity of the spaces created, before they can be taken as losses (and hence minus points for the next round). Is this correct ?
ANSWER: Yes, first transfer, and anything that can't transfer dies (becoming minus points if the PDUs were directed on). If you have multiple combats happening at once (multiple systems are attacked), remember to resolve each system (since they are simultaneous this is all the same combat round) and then deal with homeless fighters from all battles all at once between combat rounds.
( Again, RJA reading of the rules is yes )
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:15 pm: Edit
I think that answers all the questions. If I missed something then let me know.
I am going to write up and send the thing about big romulan cloaked raiders killing DNs and see if Jeff thinks it is a problem that needs fixing, or if that is indeed how things work. I was waiting for FO to get done, and now that it is I have to sit down and do this.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 01, 2004 - 02:54 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: I believe that the rule in question allows an extra reaction pulse when the last move was on the 6th op move pulse. In other
cases, since you are still expended unused movement pulses when you stop moving the enemy gets to react to these normally. The rule in
question allows a special extra pulse in certain situations, in other situations it does not disallow anything, the normal rules allow
reaction.
________________________________________
Nick, I would like to have this sent to Jeff. The way this is ruled, These forces cna basically act like mini reserve fleets, able to react to a bats assult without any chance on interception by the attacking units..
As such there is little reason for anyone to react normally using extended reaction, instead all they have to do is wait for the ememy stack to stop moving and zip some extra units over.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:44 am: Edit
If an enemy ship spends a movement pulse by staying in place, it can be reacted to (205.1).
If an enemy ship stops moving, for whatever reason, it is considered to spend all of its remaining pulses (203.64).
Ships can use extended reaction to react to enemy ships that have stopped, provided they didn't move away on their last movement (205.33).
The rules are quoted as follows:
(203.64) The Phasing Player may skip his movement during some impulses in an attempt to deceive the Non-phasing player. A stack which ends its movement (announced by the owner) with unspent Movement Points is assumed to spend those points in the last hex.
EXAMPLE: A Klingon force has entered the outer reaction range of a Kzinti force (with a scout) 2 hexes away. The Kzinti frce did not react as the Klingons hoped. The Klingon player states he will not move during his 4th pulse to give the Kzinti player another opportunity to react.
(205.11) The reaction to a given enemy unit can occur immediately after a pulse of movement by the unit or (203.64) after a later non-moving pulse of that unit.
(205.33) Whenever an enemy unit enters a hex of the defending ship's Outer Reaction Zone, the defending player may move in Reaction Movement to a hex adjacent to the approaching enemy unit. Also see (203.64) for data on skipping movment pulses. Exception: No reaction is allowed to units moving away (205.1).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 05:19 am: Edit
Jeff a couple of questions on the above
1) If there is a coatlion fleet in 0001 and another in 0003 with an alliance fleet in 0002 would the 0001 fleet be allowed to react 2 hexes should the coatlion move into 0001 and then stop (it appears 'yes' from the above). Would it make any difference if moving into 0003 completely pinned the coaltion fleet (it appears that it would not make any difference from the above).
2) (this is the one about which there is current discussion) Can a fleet use the full 2 hex reaction to a 6th impulse movement (or MP's expended in place) within the outer reaction zone (eg can a fleet at 0902 react to a coaltion moving, on its 6th impulse, from 0702, which is already in its ORZ, to 0701.....or the situation where the attacking fleet entered 0701 on it's 5th impulse, to which the defenders do not want to react, and then expended the last MP in the same hex).
205.32 is the real sticking point here. It provides that a ship can react 2 hexes 'if the approaching ship moved into the ORZ on the 6th impulse' (emphasis mine).
The arguments are quite technical so apologies if I am not clear.
Some are arguing that 'into' means the ship must come from outside the ORZ to a hex in the ORZ on the 6th impulse for the defenders to react 2 hexes immediately. Looking at the wording literally this appears to be correct. And therefore that it does not cover a situation where the fleet is moving (on its 6th impulse) from one hex of the ORZ to another. In these situations the defender could use extended reaction but would only be able to react one hex as there are no more MP's after the attackers 6th to react any further.
Others (me included) think there is no difference between a ship spending its 6th MP moving from outside to inside the ORZ compared to one moving from one ORZ hex to another, or just expending a the 6th MP in a hex of the ORZ. The 'into' would appear to me just accidental and was not intended to exclude the 2 hex reaction in the latter two situations. I am of the opinion that 'into the ORZ' should be interpretted as 'into a hex of the ORZ' excluding movements away.
It has big implications for how well a defender can support minor targets like BATS and planets. The significance being: if the defender can react 2 hexes to a 6th expended by an enemy fleet moving from one ORZ hex to another, or staying in the same hex, then the defender can wait to see where the attacker is deploying the fleet and then react to support the BATS. If the defender cannot react 2 hexes in these situations then there is no way to get to the BATS without allowing the attaker to trigger an open space battle with your reacting fleet (and therefore, in many situatuions, the defender will not be able to support these minor targets at all).
I've tried not to put spin on any of the arguments...if Tim or Jimi wants to add anything I have missed for their POV then please feel free.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 06:57 am: Edit
Error in "1)" above (got my alliances and coaltions mixed up half way through). Please ignore what is written there and replace with:
1) If there is a coatlion fleet in 0001 and another in 0003 with an alliance fleet in 0002 would the 0001 fleet be allowed to react 2 hexes should the alliance move into 0003 and then stop (it appears 'yes' from the above). Would it make any difference if moving into 0003 completely pinned the alliance fleet (it appears that it would not make any difference from the above).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit
Jeff, last question for my own clarification on this ruling.
Example, Coalition fleet is at range 3 and moves into range two on pulse 1, the Alliance declines to react (for whatever strategic reason). The Coalition player then sits in the hex and physically calls out pulse 2 - pulse5 and the Alliance player still refuses to react. Pulse 6 the Coalition ends its move in that hex at range 2. Can the Alliance player now move 2 hexes post the 6th pulse to attack the Coalition player?
From my understanding that is the ruling as given by Nick that the Alliance player can do so (if I am misunderstanding Nick then I apologize in advance).
In my understanding of the rule the Alliance player would have to use the extended reaction to range 1 somewhere in those pulses 1 - 5 and then react into the hex on range 6.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit
James,
There has to be movement to cause reaction. The movement from 0002 to 0003 is moving away from the units in 0001. Therefore, that movement does not trigger reaction. That is why there is the clause at the end of 205.33. If the ships had been in 0004 and moved to 0003 (and stopped), the ships could have been reacted to by the ships in 0001, regardless of the pinning situation in 0003.
"Ships can use extended reaction to react to enemy ships that have stopped, provided they didn't move away on their last movement (205.33)."
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit
Ah misread what Jeff had posted...thanks Scott.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit
What happens if a tug carrying EPs uses Op Move to arrive at the destination capital, but that movement allowed enemy ships to react into the capital hex? Are the EPs considered delivered first before reaction?
Also, what if I have the same situation, but add into the mix another group of friendly ships preforming a fighting retreat into the hex. If the same tug carrying EPs is there, does it have to participate in the first approach battle at 10/0 BIR?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit
Jimi, (205.33) allows extended reaction against ships that skip pulses. Even if that pulse happens to be #6.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:20 am: Edit
Nick, please clarify regarding Fed Reaction. Here is the situation. Kzinti capital is taken Coalition Turn 6. Kzintis do not retake capital. Hydran capital is taken Turn 7. Neither capital is retaken. Coalition abandons Kzinti capital Turn 8 (returning it to Kzinti control automatically due to a lack of garrison). This does not satisfy the Fed Reaction rule, which requires holding both capitals simultaneously for one year. Your posting suggests the Kzintis could abandon the capital voluntarily on Alliance Turn 8 (even though it does not contain a shipyard, and in fact is not the Kzinti capital at this time), somehow rendering it captured even in the absence of a Coalition unit, and therefore trigger a Fed reaction. Is this correct? If so, please confirm with SVC/Jeff, because I think someone has to be confused - there is no precedent for gifting an entire capital hex.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, March 03, 2004 - 11:54 am: Edit
Can the Coalition keep the other 5-8 planets in the hex while allowing the Capital itself to go back to the original owning players control? It does take 6 ships to occupy the Hydran capital, could the Coalition player just leave 5 ships there every otehr turn?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 12:02 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: What happens if a tug carrying EPs uses Op Move to arrive at the destination capital, but that movement allowed enemy ships to react into the capital hex? Are the EPs considered delivered first before reaction?
ANSWER: Sure. (435.24) says the points are delivered when the tug arrives at the receiving capital.
Also, what if I have the same situation, but add into the mix another group of friendly ships preforming a fighting retreat into the hex. If the same tug carrying EPs is there, does it have to participate in the first approach battle at 10/0 BIR?
ANSWER: The EPs would be delivered allready since they are delivered as soon as the tug arrived, then just follow the normal rules for fighting retreats.
=============================================
Alan DeSalvio & Bill Schoeller: Fed Reaction.
I was vague because Steve's e-mail to me was vague. He said he thought there was no problem, but maybe something could be done with capital abandonment.
Let me try to make sense of this then.
If the coalition attacks the Hydran capital, devestates everything, and then retreats, the capital hex was never captured. Since it was not captured, the shipyard is still intact, the Hydrans do get income (although at the devestated rate) from those systems, and can still build their build schedule. This would not count for Fed reaction.
If the coalition captures the hex (coalition ships are still in the hex at the end of the combat phase), then the shipyards are destroyed, the Hydrans follow rule (511.3) and this counts toward fed reaction.
If the coalition captures the hex (destroying the shipyard), but doesn't garrison all planets, this still counts since the shipyard is destroyed and the Hydrans are under rule (511.3).
The tricky part is what happens if the coalition captures the hex but then abandons it back to the original owners as in your example above. Presumably the time after the Coalition leaves does not count toward Fed reaction.
I belive that all Steve was suggesting was that (511.6) could perhaps also count for fed reaction in such a case. Note that normally abandoning the capital does not "gift" it to anybody. You still retain control of it, but you get to start building a new capital since (511.6) says the capital counts as captured for (511.3) even though it is not really captured.
In a similar way we could say that (511.6) allows the capital to count as captured for purposes of Fed reaction even if it isn't really captured. This means that when the coalition captures the hex and then leaves, you could declare (511.6) (not a huge deal since stuff was already devestated and the shipyards and PDUs and such are already gone, but you would lose that turn of income from those planets) and thus still use Fed reaction after the requisite amount of time (one total year from initial capture).
Now this wasn't really a ruling by Steve, just a suggestion, but does it solve the "problem" to everyone's satisfaction?
Nick
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit
Doesn't seem consistent with "hold both for one consecutive year." Instead this suggestion implies the Fed reaction occurs one year after the second capital is retaken. If this is the intent, I'd like SVC to state that deinitively.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 11:43 pm: Edit
It's more of a suggestion than a ruling. It was an offhand comment from Steve, so I wouldn't try to put too much "intent" behind it. If you don't agree with it, or don't like it, or whatever, then I imagine that this will stay as is (as currently written in the rules), since Steve didn't seem to think there was a problem with the rule as it currently stands.
I mean, if the coalition abandons the capital then it reverts to the owner who starts getting income again (probably in a partial grid for the Hydrans, but goes off map to the main grid for the Kzintis), so you still get something even if you don't get the Fed reaction.
Also if the coalition abandons the capital like this it makes it more likely the original owner can move back in force and start rebuilding defenses (especially for the Kzinti), so it's not like there isn't a trade off if the Coalition does this to avoid the fed reaction.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 06:32 am: Edit
Can the Hydran Old Colonies Squadron be declared a reserve fleet before the conditions of it's release (destruction of a SB or assault on the capital)?
By Mark Sayther (Msayther) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit
Nick, it is not the case that the alliance ever gets anything from the evacuated capitol as they have to hold it for two turns to start generating economy.
By not ruling on this you are making the Fed reaction rule read 'Coalition must give up 9 (or 12) economy if they take both Hydran and Kzin capitols'
The Alliances lose 6 turns of ship production, and they forever lose the economy from their capitol(s). And I don't see how you can expect them to start rebuilding and holding their capitol when they are without a shiyard and probably seriously licking their wounds. They will just be throwing money away as the Coalition comes in there the next turn and takes it from them again destroying any little PDU's or MB's the Alliance tried to set up there (with no ability to build said PDU's or MB's since they have no shipyard for 6 turns this is probably a moot point anyway.)
Unless this rule's intent was to deprive the Coailition of 9 or 12 of their potential 55 captured economy it is broken as currently written.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 03:40 pm: Edit
John Robinson, Yes you can do that. It can't move untill released, but could be ready to do so.
Mark Sayther. I will ask Steve again, because I simply don't know what else to tell you. His original position was "this is not a problem".
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 08:48 am: Edit
Nick, I am confused about G assaults on bases. The list of modifiers in (521.35) was written for assaults on planets, and in the case of base assaults, it can be difficult to figure out which ones apply.
For instance:
The Lyrans are making two G attacks on a Kzinti starbase. The starbase has suffered at least one SIDS already this turn.
The starbase has its intrinsic G, and no other.
The Kzinti also have one G available on a ship in the support rank.
VBIR was +0.
1) Which of the modifiers in (521.35) apply to the first attack?
2) Assuming the first attack does not have any effect, which modifiers apply to the second one?
3) (521.41) says that "308.81 only allows one SIDS to be scored in any battle round, so after a successful "G" attack, further "G" attacks are cancelled." OK, suppose that the first attack was successful, and the Kzinti choose to lose the starbase's "intrinsic "G"". Is the second attack cancelled, or not? If not, what modifiers apply?
Thanks,
William
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit
William:
1) Let's see:
The supporting attack (+1) could apply since you have two Gs to attack with and one could support the other.
There is a defending element on the base (-1).
That looks like it, most of that stuff is planet specific and does not apply to a BATS or Starbase.
2) Second attack would be the same, there would only be the -1 for a defending element. Remember that the starbase G can defend against multiple attacks until it is given up in place of a SIDS step, while the G from the ship can only defend against one attack per round. But since you only have two Gs to attack with, even if the first scores a SIDS step, the defender can give up one of the Gs instead, leaving the other defending G to defend against the second attack.
3) If the defender gave up a defending G instead of a SIDS step, then you didn't score a SIDS, and so you get to attack with your remaining offensive Gs until you really do score a SIDS step or until you run out of marines. See the first half of (521.44) which says only one SIDS step, but multiple marine casualties are permitted per round (the second half discusses a different case of multiple rounds).
If the intrinsic G was lost, the defending G from the ship can still defend (but only one time per round (even if it survives), not multiple times per round like the starbase intrinsic G). In this situation that point is moot since there will be at most two attacks, there only being two G factors in the attacking force, and if the first attack destroys the intrinsic G, the starship G is only needed for one more attack anyway.
Now if there were more attacking Gs, like 3 or 4, then it would make more sense to defend with the ship's G first, so if the first G attack is successful the ship's G can be given up instead of a SIDS step and the starbase G can continue providing the defense modifier (providing it lives) for several future attacks until it is given up in place of a SIDS step. Independent Gs placed on a starbase and the starbase intrinsic G can defend multiple times per round (521.834) while ship-based defending Gs can defend against only one G attack per round (521.382).
In the (521.35) modifier list, all modifiers can apply to attacks on PDUs, while against bases only the following (could) apply:
(-1) Ground ship crippled in that round
(+1) Supporting attack
(+1) Prime Team supported attack
(+-?) Variable intensity
(-1) Defending G
(-1) Defending unit has SFG
I am guessing that memories of the previous version of this rule is where the confusion comes from. In the older version whenever it said "PDU" you had to think, "maybe this can also apply to SIDS if attacking a base". It was very unclear when you could do this (mentally substitute SIDS for PDU) and when you couldn't.
In the current version, NEVER EVER assume you can perform this substitution of text. That sillyness has (hopefully) all been fixed, so if something says "defender casualty" it indeed means either SIDS or PDU depending on what the target of the attack is. But when something actually states the word "SIDS" or the word "PDU" specifically, then it applies only to that case and not to the other.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 01:12 am: Edit
A question on the above answer:
"The supporting attack (+1) could apply since you have two Gs to attack with and one could support the other.
2) Second attack would be the same, there would only be the -1 for a defending element."
I was under the impression that if you have 2 G forces, you can either do one supported attack, or two individual (unsupported) attacks, but not both.
Can I have a G element support another G element in an attack, and in the same round do it's own attack as well?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 05:49 am: Edit
Question over escorting of single ship carriers - notably the Fed CVL and Rom SUP.
515.23 says that light carrier groups include a CVE or CVL with 4 or fewer fighter factors with one or two escorts. It then specifically notes that lyran CVLs are medium carriers (but interestingly does not note that Zin CVLs are medium carriers).
515.26 also defines what happens to a single ship carrier (a tug in this case) - 4 or fewer fighter factors means it is a "light" carrier, 10 or less is "medium".
However, the SIT for both the SUP and fed CVL say they are medium carriers.
I personally would be tempted to follow the Tug rules and say that these carrier are "light" for escorting purposes. The Fed CVL and Rom SUP may be defined as a "medium" carrier purely for build purposes.
James Southcott suggested that the SIT should take precedence and that these two carriers are "medium" for escorting purposes.
I would comment that it would seem odd for a Fed CVL, with only 3 fighter factors, to have 3 escorts.
As a matter of urgency, I would like also to comment that under the current definition of 515.23, Zin CVLs are LIGHT carriers, just defined as a medium carrier in the SIT. It is possible that one could argue that they are medium for the puposes of builds, and that the Zin historically used 2 rather than 1 escort.
This really needs some clarification. Pity it didn't come up before FO.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 08:40 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Just an addition to Daivd's question....he is right about the 515 references, but they seem to be at odds with the carrier type table in 757.7 which has the Fed CVL listed as a medium carrier.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit
I also note
515.42 Carriers which do not normally have escorts (757.6) can be used to form carrier groups. They can be assigned one or two escorts....
I'm sorrt I didn't notice that rule earlier - obviously it supercedes the tug escort rulings in this case.
In my opinion, If you read the whole of 515.42, there is little room for doubt. However, James still disputes that the SIT takes precedence, pointing out the inconsistency of the Zin CVL (apparently you ruled earlier that the Zin CVL is indeed a medium carrier). he argues that having had one carrier that breaks the rules in 515, it's possible that the whole of 515 could be considered invalid or "weak", and the SIT takes precedence.
I also note that the Fed CVL is specifically said to be a single ship carrier in the SIT, and would contend therefore that the SIT itself suggests that its escorting should be under the single ship carrier rules, where 515.42 says that the CVL has 1 or 2 escorts.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 09:06 am: Edit
On 757.7, James has a valid point. Other things to note
The Rom SUP and Klingon B10 are not listed in 757.7. Does that make them not carriers at all? Is the fed CVL in the medium column simply because there is no single ship carrier column? Was the Fed CVL never a single ship carrier, and always a medium carrier that must be escorted? (which means the SIT is wrong, and the initial issue of the Fed CVL one-ship counter seem very strange).
Or did SVC simply forget to put the SUP and B10 in?
Is this table corrected/updated in FO?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 09:42 am: Edit
I think there must be a possibility that a ship can be both a single ship carrier and a medium carrier. If that's the case, it's a medium carrier for builds, and single ship for escorting as specifically under the rules in 515.42. If its a medium carrier for builds and escorting, and just so happens it can do without escorts, then 515.42 becomes a totally pointless and unnecessary rule - it is never invoked, as all of the single ship carriers (Fed CVL+GVX, Rom SUP are all I can find) are also quoted in the SIT as medium carriers. There are no single ship carriers in the SIT which are just "single ship carriers".
Goodness knows what the B10 is - the SIT says nothing.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit
Hmmm, I hadn't given 515 much thought, just the SIT rating, but that may be for production rather than escorts. Ah well
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit
First, 757.7 is gone, it was incorporated into the SIT. So, whatever the SIT says is correct.
Second, the Kzinti CVL technically should have 4.5 factors. But, it lost one in the rounding, and it hasn't been put back yet (I think). I recommended that the Kzinti CVL be referenced in (515.23).
The Romulan SUP and Fed CVL are both Medium Single ship carriers. This is an instance where the specific rule overrides the general rule. Either ship can be used without escorts, but if it is escorted, then it needs at least 2 escorts.
The B10 is not designated, so it can have one or two escorts under (515.42).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 04:30 am: Edit
Jeff.
515.42 *is* a specific rule for single ship carriers. There are only 3 in the game (four if you include the B10). The way you reply, 515.42 ONLY applies to the B10, even though it doesn't even say on the SIT that the B10 is a single ship carrier (it could be a hybrid for all joe bloggs knows).
I'll wait for Nick. I'm afraid that if he agrees with you, I'd like to appeal to Steve, as before the new SIT was introduced, 515.42 was undisputably the rule. The SIT then has changed things without any warning.
I'm also pretty sure the Fed CVL is quoted to have 1 or 2 escorts in SFB.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 06:39 am: Edit
Jeff
Sincere apologies. You trump Nick, so the previous post is somewhat disrepectful.
Seriously, before the SIT for AO and CO came out saying those carriers were medium, 515.42 was the rule for all single ship carriers. The SIT to me has at least changed the rule for the Rom SUP (which wasn't on 757.7, so therefore must have been subject to 515.42). It would also seem odd under the orginal carrier war that the Fed CVL was not subject to 515.42, seeing that it *is* a single ship carrier. And the basis for it not being under 515.42 is simply because it was listed as a medium carrier in 757.7 - not the first place people will look.
If 515.42 has been rewritten in FO to be specifically for the B10 (I don't have the FO rulebook), then I can understand that things have changed. But if it is unchanged, I really wonder what its function is if not to also apply to the SUP, CVL, and GVX.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:00 am: Edit
Kevin Howard: A question on the above answer:
"The supporting attack (+1) could apply since you have two Gs to attack with and one could support the other.
2) Second attack would be the same, there would only be the -1 for a defending element."
I was under the impression that if you have 2 G forces, you can either do one supported attack, or two individual (unsupported) attacks, but not both.
Can I have a G element support another G element in an attack, and in the same round do it's own attack as well?
ANSWER: No, the rules clearly prohibit that (521.369). My point was that if you did two normal attacks then the defending G modifier will apply to both since either A) the starbase G will defend both times if it survives the first attack, and B) if it doesn't then the ship based defending G will provide the defense bonus for the second attack. There can be two attacking Gs and thus there can only be two attacks a round, and there are two defending Gs (one of which can defend multiple times per round), so with only two attacking Gs there will always be a -1 defending G modifier.
If you do a supporting attack (one attacking G supporting the other) then there will be only one attack that round with an extra +1 modifier, and of course only one defending G can provide the -1 modifier to that attack.
==========================================
FROM SFB
The Fed CVL can have from 0 to 3 escorts according to its SFB description, so that isn't going to match the F&E rule (which depending on the ship will be 0 OR 1-2 OR 2-3 OR 3-4 escorts, F&E has no provision for 1-3 escorts) no matter what you do. Best to just leave it as it currently is, but it's up to Jeff.
Appeals to Steve may be delayed since he has to go to GTS soon, and in the meantime is busy getting ready to go to GTS.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit
Nick,
Question on Victory Conditions for the Grand Campain (603.3) which state in part:
"Then add a 100-point bonus for each enemy capital captured."
Does this bonus apply if at anytime during the game an enemy captital has been captured and then lost or must the capital be held at the time of victory point calculation?
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit
re: Fed CVL and Rom SUP
Jeff said, "Either ship can be used without escorts, but if it is escorted, then it needs at least 2 escorts."
Does this mean that the CVL & SUP can have 3 escorts?
By John Conniff (Johnconn) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit
Nick, you had ruled about a similar situation before, but I want to see if there is a difference between it and the following.
The former ruling was that a Kzinti Police Ship could not be placed in 1701 when there were Coalition Ships in 1601 and 1801 and no Kzinti units present in 1701 or 1702.
I didn't agree with that ruling since 411.31 uses the word "through" a hex adjacent to enemy units defining a supply path. But then, you ruled as you did and we moved on.
A similar question is whether a Police Ship can be placed in the Kzinti Capital. The Coalition voluntarily left it Turn 8C. On Turn 8A it is now a Kzinti Supply point.
There are Coalition ships in 1302 and 1502 and no Kzinti units in 1401 or adjacent hexes.
Not only was it claimed that I could *not* put a Police Ship there, but it was also *claimed* that 1401 constitutes a Partial Supply Grid.
I feel that since it is a Supply Point and there are no enemy units blocking its connection to the Main Grid, originating off map, that it is connected to the Main Grid *and* a valid location for a Police Ship.
I also feel that there is *no* way that 1401 can be cut off from the off map supply grid without it being captured.
Thanks,
John
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit
Mike, I don't have my rules on me (at work), but I will look at it when I next get a chance.
John, yes, a medium carrier must have 2, but can have three.
Also guys, don't forget the Kzinti DDV single ship carrier, it doesn't need escorts, but can have one or two (since it is classed as an escort carrier), which means it uses the general single ship escort rule along with the B10.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit
David Slatter, no problem. I don't post here very much.
Please look at auxiliary carriers in (515.42) and(515.27).
(515.42) Carriers which do not normally have escorts can be used to form carrier groups. ... Auxiliary carriers can be, but don't have to be, assigned escorts (513.123).
(515.27) Auxiliary carriers do not require escorts, but can be provided with escorts. SAVs are treated as medium carriers (515.22), and LAVs are treated as heavy carriers (515.21). There is no minimum size for these groups.
The last phrase, in bold, does not appear in (515.26) for escorted carrier tugs, which are also single ship carriers.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 04:47 am: Edit
Another rule on the CVL escorting problem.
Annex 757.6 in CARRIER WAR.
Verbatim quote:-
""Single ship carriers
Federation CVL, Orion CVL,CVS, Auxilary SAV,LAV, Romulan SUP, Klingon B10,B10A, Any Carrier Tug (except klingon 3CVT)
Many hydran ships are "single ship hybrid carriers"
These ships can be escorted under (515.42)""
Now this opens a real can of worms.
1) Obviously, no-one has ever escorted a Hydran RN, yet this implies it may allowable - depending on whether you consider "single ship hybrid carriers" to be a subset of "single ship carriers" in the title or a different entity. SVC NOTES THAT 515.42 CLEARLY SAYS YOU CANNOT ESCORT A RANGER.
2) This raises the possibility that the federation CVL may be escorted either as a Medium carrier (from the SIT) or as a single ship carrier (here). I.e. it can have 0-3 escorts as quoted in the SFB R-section. Certainly, 757.7 in the same rulebook quotes the CVL as a medium carrier.
3) If this table is simply now redundant, then we have had a rule change on introducing AO, where AO has no (new) rules on escorting single ship carriers. This would seem very strange. At the very least, AO should have had a note that the SIT may have changed single-ship carrier escort rules.
4) The Orion CVL and CVS are not quoted in the AO SIT as single ship carriers. Unless one had carrier war, one would assume that they are escorted as medium carriers (on fighter numbers).
5) This is the only place where I can find the B10 listed as a single ship carrier (it is not done so in the AO SIT). If the B10 then can be escorted with 1 or 2 ships under this rule, then it would seem very odd to disallow the other ships in this rule from using 515.42.
6) This table agrees with 515.27 as quoted by Jeff above. Because that rule says that there is no minimum size for aux carrier groups, it would make sense to allow them to be escorted as single ship carriers undere 515.42. That way, 515.42 and 515.27 do not clash.
Conclusion.
The impression that I am getting is that escorting under 515.42 is an *additional option* for single ship carriers, and does not prevent them being escorted under their normal carrier designations as well. The converse is true.
i.e.
Rom SUP, Fed CVL,GVX, Orion CVL,CVS, Auxilary SAV, can have 0-3 escorts.
(effectively can choose between medium carrier escorting and single ship escorting)
the LAV can have 0-4 escorts (can choose between heavy carrier and single ship escorting)
The B10(A) can have 0-2 escorts (not listed as any type of carrier, so only can be single ship carrier escorted).
Tugs are a little more obtuse, but again there is the implication that they can be escorted under 515.42 or 515.26. So, a CVA-tug can have 0-4 escorts, a CV-tug 0-3, and a CVL tug 0-2 escorts. There is a stronger argument for tugs that 515.42 should not apply because they have the 515.26 rule however, and that 757.6 is in error.
I really think this requires SVC.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 08:49 am: Edit
If I may, rule 515.42 also state explicitly that "Hydran hybrid 'non-true' carriers cannot be assigned escorts unless they qualify under 515.43." And 515.43 does not allow anything but tugs carrying EPs or acting as supply points, convoys, and PFTs.
So, I do not think escorting RNs or other hybrids should be an issue.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 09:39 am: Edit
Single ship hybrid carriers are not true carriers and cannot be ecorted; see 515.42.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 09:41 am: Edit
Steve.
Just a reminder (in case all the above is confusing).
The main question is how many escorts can a federation CVL be escorted by.
1) 0-3? (medium carrier and 515.42 + single ship)
2) 0-2? (515.42 + single ship)
3) 0 , 2-3 (AO sit trumps 515.42).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit
I didn't address that question. There is a procedure for getting me to answer a question (arguing your way past Nick and Jeff). I was just commenting on something obvious.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit
Jeff, can you reconsider your answer in the light of annex 757.6 and given that if your answer is true and 757.6 is not, then the B10 cannot be escorted.
I remind you that ONLY 757.6 quoted the B10 as a single ship carrier. The SIT does not help.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit
I am not aware that the B10 can be escorted.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:04 am: Edit
One of Jeff's comments on this topic (see above)
"The B10 is not designated, so it can have one or two escorts under (515.42). "
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit
Mike Curtis: Question on Victory Conditions for the Grand Campain (603.3) which state in part:
"Then add a 100-point bonus for each enemy capital captured."
Does this bonus apply if at anytime during the game an enemy captital has been captured and then lost or must the capital be held at the time of victory point calculation?
ANSWER: It must be captured at the end of the scenario to count for victory. See how it is handled in the earlier scenarios as well, must be held at the end to count as captured for victory.
==============================================
John Conniff: The former ruling was that a Kzinti Police Ship could not be placed in 1701 when there were Coalition Ships in 1601 and 1801 and no Kzinti units present in 1701 or 1702.
I didn't agree with that ruling since 411.31 uses the word "through" a hex adjacent to enemy units defining a supply path. But then, you ruled as you did and we moved on.
A similar question is whether a Police Ship can be placed in the Kzinti Capital. The Coalition voluntarily left it Turn 8C. On Turn 8A it is now a Kzinti Supply point.
There are Coalition ships in 1302 and 1502 and no Kzinti units in 1401 or adjacent hexes.
Not only was it claimed that I could *not* put a Police Ship there, but it was also *claimed* that 1401 constitutes a Partial Supply Grid.
I feel that since it is a Supply Point and there are no enemy units blocking its connection to the Main Grid, originating off map, that it is connected to the Main Grid *and* a valid location for a Police Ship.
I also feel that there is *no* way that 1401 can be cut off from the off map supply grid without it being captured.
ANSWER: You are correct, 1401 is in supply. For one thing, it contains planets and anything stacked with a planet is automatically in supply (410.4). There is no way it can be cut off from the off map (main grid) unless the hex is occupied.
For another thing, on the earlier ruling you mentioned, oops. I ruled that way because hex 1701 is NOT a valid supply route hex without friendly ships already in it or adjacent to it (and that hasn't changed, it is still not a valid supply route hex in the given situation). But then, it doesn't have to be part of a supply route to have supply. I see what you meant by "through", but I had to read (411.1) again to see it, which says that the supply route does not include the hex containing the unit in question, but does contain the supply point, so hex 1701 (in the example given) has supply (i.e. has a valid supply route to off map) whether there are friendly ships in it/adjacent to it or not. The supply route in that case consists of only the off map area. Sorry for the flub, you were right, I was wrong.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:04 pm: Edit
Nick, then why is there a rule that says the off-map area is not adjacent to the map for opening supply purposes? Based on your ruling, that rule never applies.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 01:42 pm: Edit
Alan, yes it does apply. Consider the following:
Kzinti Marquis areas are cut off from the main supply grid by coalition ships at 1601, 1502, 1504, etc...
If there are no on-map frindly forces adjacent to 1701 or in 1701, then the marquis provinces cannot trace a supply route through 1701 to connect to the off map main grid, and the marquis makes a partial grid. The kzinti player cannot claim that off map ships open the supply route through 1701 since as per the rule you stated they are not considered adjacent. That hex itself (1701) can trace supply off map, but other on-map hexes cannot trace supply through it (1701) without other on-map forces to "reopen" the supply route.
See?
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 02:23 pm: Edit
So the supply route can enter the hex, just not leave it? I don't see, but I understand your ruling. In any event, the issue only comes up in the rather strange case of placing Police Ships.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit
A question related to Fed Limited War. Currently, the Kzinti, (or the Gorn) are allowed to send crippled ships into Fed space for repairs, if they are in supply. Does this also apply to sending crippled ships from say the Kzinti's off-map capital into the Federation off-map area to utilize the SB there for repair?
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 08:59 pm: Edit
Gentlemen, and that is a loose term...could someone point me to where in the rulebook it discusses a MB moving operationally and immediately deploying so it would be active on the next turn.
Also, point me to the section that discusses an FRD moving operationally and becoming an immediate retrograde point in its new hex
Thank you for any assistance
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit
SO, let me get this straight.....you come in here and are rather insulting, and request an answer that has already been provided for you when you asked the first time?
What gives? Someone rub you wrong?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:08 am: Edit
Alan De Salvio:
Sort of. In the first case (placing a police ship in 1701 when there are adjacent enemy units), it is a matter of being able to trace a supply route FROM 1701 to the off map. You can since the supply route from 1701 to off map DOES NOT INCLUDE 1701 as part of the route, see (411.1), a supply route does not include the hex you are evaluating supply for. Since 1701 is not part of the supply route for things in 1701, the adjacent enemy ships do not block supply TO THAT HEX from offmap. In this case the route is essentially the off map area, and does not consist of any on map hexes.
In the second case, tracing supply from a supply node in the Marquis area to off map (in order to connect the marquis to the main grid), the supply route must go from, say, the planet at 1802 to the off map. So now you are seeing if the 1802 planet has a supply route the off map. Such a supply route will not include 1802, but would include (for example) 1801, 1701, and off map. These are the hexes that must meet the requirements for valid supply route hexes, and so enemy forces adjacent to 1701 mean it cannot be part of a supply route, so unless you have other friendly forces on map to "reopen" that hex the marquis is cut off. The rule you cited means that to do this you must have something actually on the map to open the route, units off map in the barony cannot be considered adjacent to 1701 in order to open supply through 1701 to the marquis supply grid.
The first case is supply from any units in 1701, which is different from the second case of tracing a supply route from something else through 1701, because of (411.1), supply route does not include the hex the unit is in.
================================================
Robert Padilla, I would prefer to wait on that answer until I get my copy of Fighter Ops (should be monday according to UPS tracking) since the final version of the Fed Limited war stuff should be there. I would prefer to have the final version in my hands before answering. I don't know if the answer is in there, you may have wanted to ask that question before FO went to press, but too late now. I will see what was included when I get my copy.
=============================================
Dave Whiteside: Um, o.k...
Rule (510.21), a tug moves the MB by op move to the setup hex.
Rule (510.22), tug arrives in setup hex by op movement and declares the base is being setup.
Rule (510.221) At the start of the owner's next player turn the base is operational.
Rule (510.222) During the intervening enemy player turn the base cannot be attacked, but is destroyed if the tug is destroyed or forced to otherwise abandon the base.
FRDs
Rule (421.21) discusses tug moving an FRD operationally.
Rule (206.21) says that bases, planets, and FRDs are always valid retrograde points.
There is no "setup time" for a FRD, it is always a valid retrograde point at all times (assuming the ships in question are capable of retrograde movement under other rules, i.e. were in combat, are in supply, etc...).
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 05:42 pm: Edit
Cfant...I assume you may be concerned with the manner in which I asked my question. If you feel that is insulting, then you obviously havent met me before. Lighten up a little and enjoy the game. You are obviously very knowledgeable of the game from your posts, so dont let a post not intended for you be taken out of context. From the information listed at the top of this page, Nick is the guru answering questions and behind him is Jeff and Steve...all of whom I have met at Origins for the last few years. Now I have no intention of making any assumption of you, having not knowing you, but I assume you are familiar with the above 3, and probably know them as well. So, until I make a post on a board that has Chris Fant's name as administrator, or such, please do not accuse me of anything.
Besides that..look at the facts...I posted on Tactical Notes first...after doing so, I realized no one had posted there for a considerable amount of time, and decided to post here because it had recent activity...AFTER I made the 2nd post, was my answer given on 'tactical' (check the times)...so I wasnt refuting the first answer. So to answer your question, nothing has rubbed me wrong.
And understand...I'm not mad...I know when we read posts, we cant hear tone of voice or see facial expressions and things are taken out of context....dont take this outta context.
Nick, thank you for your simple clarification..for some reason I had my head in a twist and just needed to hear it/read it somewhere else to get straight. Have a nice day.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Dave, well written. It is so easy for us to 'hear' something that was not there or intended to be there.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 07:26 pm: Edit
Dave, I think what tweaked people was the phrase "Gentlemen, and that is a loose term...".
Might have been intended as a joke but I know it rubbed me the wrong way....
Nick. Situation, Klingons attacking 1001, Lyrans attacking 0902. Both hexes have Kzinti Defending fleets.
Can the Kzinti retreat normaly from one hex to the other (assuming ship superiority) or would this be concidered a fighting retreat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 12:43 am: Edit
Tim, go through the retreat priorities step by step.
Step 1. can retreat to neutral space (this doesn't apply).
Step 2. Eliminate any hexes where you would be outnumbered after you retreated there (assuming this is not the case as you stated above, kzinti have numerical superiority), so no potential retreat hexes eliminated.
Step 3, You must retreat to the hex with the shortest supply path. In this case this step will eliminate all hexes except one. If you are evaluating retreat from 0902 say, then after step three the only valid hex remaining is 1001 since the supply path from that hex is zero since it is a suppy point.
Step 4. eliminate all hexes containing enemy units. This will eliminate the only remaining hex.
Now, always remember the general rule (302.73) second paragraph last sentence, if a given step eliminates all remaining hexes, ignore that step. So, since step 4 eliminated the last hex, you get to simply ignore it and retreat to any hex remaining after step three, of which there is only one.
So you retreat from 0902 to 1001 (or presumably vice versa depending on the order of battle hex resolution) and it is a normal retreat.
The only time you can have a fighting retreat is when you have multiple hexes with the same supply distance, and some of those hexes have enemy units and some don't. For example, if (after step 3) you had three hexes remaining each with the same supply path distance, and one of those three hexes had enemy units and the other two don't, then step 4 will eliminate that one hex with enemy units leaving you two choices. Instead of taking either of those two choices, you can invoke fighting retreat to ignore step 4 and retreat to any hex remaining after step three, and thus enter the one hex with enemy units.
In your case since step 4 itself eliminated all remaining possabilites, you must ignore it due to the general rule (302.73) second paragraph last sentence, and there is never the need or the chance to choose fighting retreat.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 07:58 am: Edit
Nick, I know Jeff has made a comment, but can you weigh in with your opinions on the Fed CVL escort problem - just in case you recall it coming up earlier? SVC wants things to go through the procedure before I can ask him, and that involves at least some kind of answer from you, even if it is just to say - talk to Jeff from now on seeing as he has answered it so far.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit
I thought the issue of single-ship/medium carrier had been resolved. Unfortunately whichever discussion this appeared seems to have been purged. (It was lost in either the AO or FO development discussions I guess. I think it was discussed in relation to Scout Carriers.) My notes had the following:
Some ships such as the Federation CVL (and the initial CLV) can operate as either a single-ship carrier (no escorts) or as a medium carrier. The decision is made at the time of forming carrier groups in the battle hex. This decision cannot be changed between combat rounds. If the medium carrier option is chosen, this carrier group occupies the normal 3 command slots even if the escorts have been lost. [The rule also applies to BCV and BCS in chosing to be treated as a medium or heavy carrier. (The choice is made when forming groups.)]
The Klingon B10 is considered a carrier but cannot be escorted as a carrier. (That is the fighters are considered carrier based, not hybrid; both for build cost and squadron limit.) The B10 can be escorted under the Flagship Escort Group rule instead.
(These are my notes. They could be wrong, but I'd bet they're not.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:30 am: Edit
Since Jeff as already answered you go from there I would imagine. So far as I know he is correct. The SIT shows the carrier size and that determines the number of escorts for that specific carrier.
The general rule for single ship carriers says 1 or 2 escorts, but if there is SIT info that would overrule it.
It wouldn't be the first time that new or updated info in one rule (or the SIT) made something else still in the rules obsolete (although it isn't really obsolete per say). It still applies to the B10, other battleships (if used), Kzinti DDV (although the SIT says the DDV is a light "escort" carrier so it is simply agreeing with the basic rule).
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:06 am: Edit
Thanks for the clarification, Nick.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:25 am: Edit
Ok, I can see things are going against me somewhat, and that the AO sit did indeed dictate a rule change under some interpretations.
However, several comments.
1) I can offer a challenge to John's statement.
"Some ships such as the Federation CVL (and the initial CLV) can operate as either a single-ship carrier (no escorts) or as a medium carrier. The decision is made at the time of forming carrier groups in the battle hex."
This bracketed (no escorts) here is the most significant point. Why does that statment have to be there? The AO SIT says - single ship carrier, medium carrier. The CVL is both, not either. So, why can't it choose between single ship carrier status (0-2 escorts) and medium carrier status (2-3 escorts) at the beginning of the combat at John says? Why does that "medium carrier" statement exclude use of the single ship carrier escort rules?
Nick.
Under your ruling, the single ship carrier escorting rule in carrier war is now entirely obsolute. There is not a SINGLE ship in the AO SIT that is put in the notes as just a "single ship carrier".
Let's list what the AO SIT has to say on all the relevant ships.
CVL - single ship carrier, medium carrier.
GVX - Medium carrier (NOT quoted as a single ship carrier)
B10 - SIT says nothing, but you say it can be escorted
SUP - Medium carrier (NOT quoted as a single ship carrier)
DDV - Escort carrier (NOT quoted as a single ship carrier) I note in 525.313 with interest that the DDV counts as a medium carrier for production purposes but a light carrier for the required escort - I cannot find a reference to it being a single ship carrier anywhere in the AO rules.
Orion CVL, CVS - Medium carrier (NOT quoted as a single ship carrier).
(Fed NVH acts like a single ship carrier under its own special PFT-like rules, so does not enter this discussion).
So, can I please get some clarity here. If the SIT ovverules everything, then.
1) Romulan SUP must be escorted (this will make the Roms very unhappy).
2) B10 cannot be escorted (except as a flagship)
3) DDV must have 1-2 escorts.
4) GVX must have 2-3 escorts.
5) Fed CVL can choose between 1-2 or 2-3 escorts in my opinion still. This is because 515.42 now only applies to the Fed CVL and is now a specific rule for the Fed CVL just as the AO SIT is a specific rule for the Fed CVL. If it does not apply to the CVL, then it applies to nothing, and it is surely not SVC's intent to put in a rule that is a waste of space. (unless 515.42 has been pulled in FO).
I would like consistency. Either the SIT is always correct and dominates, or the old annexes (757.6, 757.7) are correct. You can't pick and choose. You cannot say that the B10 and DDV can be escorted or not escorted under 515.42 and ignore the fact that under AO they are NOT single ship carriers.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit
If the Rom SUP must be escorted then does that mean it can not raid?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit
The online SIT has the SUP as a single ship/medium carrier combo.
The DDV does not have the single carrier note - not sure if this is in error (and should be updated) or correct.
The GVX (DVL CFV in the ref no) is also noted as medium carriers or single ship carrier on raids. Following the logic - if single ship meant 'could be escorted by 1-2 ships' the note should be 'unescorted single ship' rather than 'single ship'. But that's probably just getting too deep.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:03 pm: Edit
Thanks (genuine) James - so what we have now (using the online situation) is several ships which are single ship carriers/medium.
If we then use the online SIT (and we are on dodgy ground doing rulings which pertain to carrier War/FO based on the online SIT), I retract part of point (5) above, in that 515.42 cannot now be a specific rule for the Fed CVL. Of course, there is still no ship on the online SIT that is just a single ship carrier, so we are now in the situation that 515.42 is totally redundant under Nick's ruling.
Perhaps I am asking the wrong questions - they should be.....
"Has the information in the SIT rendered 515.42 redundant?"
If no...
"Does the definition "medium carrier" prevent ships which are also defined as "single ship carriers" from escorting under 515.42?"
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:15 pm: Edit
It is in the wording.
The Fed CVL can be a single ship, however, IF it is excorted then it is treated as a medium carrier, requiring 2 escorts and can use a third.
The Rom SUP can be a single ship, however, IF it is escorted then it is treated as a medium carrier requiring 2 escorts and can use a third.
The Fed GVX can operate as a single ship only on raids, if in a normal combat it must operate as a medium carrier with 2 escorts and a possible third.
The DDV is treated as ITS particular rules says. Light carrier for escort requirements, unless none are built at which point is can be a single ship carrier.
B10 is not a carrier and cannot be escorted.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit
Huh? Where is that wording? Give me the rule number. To me, the Fed CVL is a single ship carrier or a medium carrier -its choice. Each has its own rules. People are saying "medium carrier" means it must have 2-3 escorts if escorted. Why can't we have some interpretation such as "counts as medium carrier for builds, can choose to have 2-3 escorts if declared as medium at point of combat".
And those statements leave no comfort on where rule 515.42 is now - still out in the cold.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Well, there is reason that the SITS are worded the way they are. It is either/or, pick at the beginning of combat.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit
I absolutly agree with you Cfant. You choose at beginning of combat. Either single ship (0-2 escorts under 515.42) or medium (2-3 escorts).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit
No,
you get to choose single ship carrier, all by itself
OR
You must escort it the way the SITs says you must. (Medium Carrier, etc)
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit
Aha - and that's where the difference in interpretation arises. What rule says you are correct? Why can't I say it's a single ship carrier using the SIT and escort it as a single ship carrier? I have a rule - 515.42. Where is your rule that says I can't do this?
The AO and online SIT says (verbatim).
Medium carrier, Single ship carrier, Scout ...
It does not say... Medium carrier when escorted, can be a single ship carrier.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 02:02 pm: Edit
Is up to Jeff, and he already ruled that if you escort them they need to escorts.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 02:39 pm: Edit
There is also a rule or ruling (within the last few years) that states that if the CVL's escorts are ALL lost that the single ship carriers revert to the zero escort requirement.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit
Nick, please clarify the Single Ship Carrier/Medium Carrier/Rule 515.42 ruling.
Can a ship that has the Single Ship Carrier reference in the most recent SIT be escorted under rule 515.42 if it chooses to be a single ship carrier at the beginning of combat, or must it accept escorts of the appropriate size & type for the size of carrier that it is in order to have any escorts? Rule 515.42 allows a single ship carrier to have zero, one, or two escorts.
CFant claims that you must choose between being a Single Ship Carrier or being a Light/Medium/Large Carrier. There is no "or" reference in the SIT stating that a ship can be a Single Ship Carrier or a Light/Medium/Large Carrier.
Davidas claims that he should be able to use rule 515.42 to give a ship that has chosen Single Ship Carrier status to have one escort. The SIT lists most ships that are single ship carriers by their carrier type as well, but does not say why. Is it because the ship must act as one or the other?
Please note that the On-Line SIT is inconsistent in the way it lists a ship as a Single Ship Carrier. The Fed CVL Notes section is written this way; Medium Carrier, Single Ship Carrier, Scout; (4EW:2AF)(1EW:6AF). The Rom Sup Notes section is written this way; Medium Carrier (single ship) Command Cruiser. This inconsistency may cause further debate on this subject later on.
DGK
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 04:47 am: Edit
Daniel
The SIT lists ALL ships that are single ship carriers by their carrier type as well. Under Jeff's ruling (and Nicks), that makes 515.42 totally redundant - and that *assumes* their interpretation is right - an interpretation which has no back-up in any rules. On that basis, I would like to bounce the ruling up to SVC so he can confirm that 515.42 is now a useless rule. Only he can do that. (unless it is already pulled from FO, whereupon all this is hot air)
I also note that there is no intention (AFAIK) to introduce more single ship carriers, so one cannot argue (on dodgy grounds) that 515.42 has been left in for a future product. The Fed fast carriers to my knowledge have only been allowed single ship status for the purposes of raids, and thus operate somewhat differently.
BTW, AO notes in 757.6 that "single ship carriers are listed as such on the SIT" - these have changed since carrier war and are now much fewer - just the SUP and CVL - and only the Fed CVL if you are using the AO (not online) SIT . This comment presumably replaces the carrier war Annex.
Nick, Jeff. If you want me to write a summary (either for you or SVC) of the arguments so far presented, I can. I will do my best to show your points as view as well. There are pros and cons to each interpretation.
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit
Upgrade question-
When a tug upgrades a MB or a BatS, it has to stay for the upgrade (433.41), and must be present in the battle force (302.233).
Other upgrades start working immediately: Fighter module additions (441.422) and PDU additions (508.33). There is no specific mention of it, but does the upgrading tug in the latter cases have to be included in the battle force, same as a MB or BatS upgrading tug?
302.233 is specific, saying that the tug must be present and included, but only references 433.41. The PDU upgrade was in the ruleset at that time and since the base upgrade is done over the turn rather than being functional immediately, it is a different type of upgrade. Therefore since it is a different type of upgrade and as the rule does not specify reference 508.33 as well, I'd say the tug does not have to be present and included in the battle force (but I've been wrong before).
Thanks,
Joe
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:53 pm: Edit
David Slatter,
If you would like to summarize your points, please e-mail them to me. I'll send it along with my comments to Steve.
Thanks,
Jeff
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 01:43 am: Edit
Can the winning side voluntarily retreat after small scale combat?
William
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:28 am: Edit
Jeff.
I'm waiting on some help from Richard Abbott, who has just received FO (I won't have mine for a little while - it's on order). This is so that I won't end up talking about defunct rules, or be entirely wrong due to a subtle rewording. I'll write my summary when I have the information.
His help will be purely factual - as far as I know, he is neutral on the matter, waiting for this to pan out.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit
Nick, a couple supply questions:
1. A Romulan fleet is sitting atop a captured Gorn planet with no PDUs. At the start of the Gorn turn, they are in supply. The Gorns call up a police ship, cutting the supply path to the fleet and planet. The Romulans are therefore out of supply for operational movement. Can they use two hex reaction?
1b. The Gorns attack that fleet. It will be in supply for combat (since the fleet was in supply at the start of the turn), but will not have a valid supply path at the time of combat. Can the Romulans send a reserve fleet to the police ship to open up the supply path?
2. The Gorns have a large fleet on a starbase, which is connected to the main grid. The Romulans attack the starbase while also cutting it off from the main grid. Can the Gorns send a reserve fleet to attack a Romulan ship cutting it off from the main grid?
3. In the aforementioned starbase assault, the Gorns have two ships killed. The Gorn fleet retreats while the starbase is still alive. This retreat opens a supply path both to the retreating fleet and the doomed base. The base is then immediately destroyed. Do the Gorns get the salvage in their main grid, or is it destroyed with the base?
Thank you.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 02:41 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: Currently, the Kzinti, (or the Gorn) are allowed to send crippled ships into Fed space for repairs, if they are in supply. Does this also apply to sending crippled ships from say the Kzinti's off-map capital into the Federation off-map area to utilize the SB there for repair?
ANSWER: No, because the kzinti supply routes/grid does not extend to the Fed off map area, see (411.5).
================================================
Joe Manino: When a tug upgrades a MB or a BatS, it has to stay for the upgrade (433.41), and must be present in the battle force (302.233).
Other upgrades start working immediately: Fighter module additions (441.422) and PDU additions (508.33). There is no specific mention of it, but does the upgrading tug in the latter cases have to be included in the battle force, same as a MB or BatS upgrading tug?
ANSWER: There is a specific mention (441.421) that says to do it like a MB, the tug must remain in that hex. Since you are using the same rules as MB, the tug must be in the battleforce (after the approach battle). For the PDU case, (508.32) is similar and notes to again use the MB rules. So in both cases, unless there is a specific exception (like the one that says "operational immediately), simply use the MB rules.
302.233 is specific, saying that the tug must be present and included, but only references 433.41. The PDU upgrade was in the ruleset at that time and since the base upgrade is done over the turn rather than being functional immediately, it is a different type of upgrade. Therefore since it is a different type of upgrade and as the rule does not specify reference 508.33 as well, I'd say the tug does not have to be present and included in the battle force (but I've been wrong before).
ANSWER: No, the module/PDU rules say "Use the MB rules for setup", so you use them as stated unless there is another specific exception.
==============================================
William Jockusch: Can the winning side voluntarily retreat after small scale combat?
ANSWER: Sure.
===============================================
Paul Bonfanti: 1. A Romulan fleet is sitting atop a captured Gorn planet with no PDUs. At the start of the Gorn turn, they are in supply. The Gorns call up a police ship, cutting the supply path to the fleet and planet. The Romulans are therefore out of supply for operational movement. Can they use two hex reaction?
ANSWER: The rules do not provide a specific point to evaluate supply for purposes of reaction movement. For operational movement this is judged at the start of that phase, and since reaction takes place in that phase I would say supply for that is judged at the same time. So yes, in your example they can use extended reaction since they were in supply at the start of the Gorns operational movement phase.
1b. The Gorns attack that fleet. It will be in supply for combat (since the fleet was in supply at the start of the turn), but will not have a valid supply path at the time of combat. Can the Romulans send a reserve fleet to the police ship to open up the supply path?
ANSWER: No, since the Roms have captured that planet it is part of their supply grid. Under (410.4) all those ships are always in supply while stacked with the planet. Even if the planet is cut off from the rom main grid, it is still a valid supply point for everything else in its hex, so the roms are in supply at the start of the gorn player turn AND in supply at the instant of combat.
2. The Gorns have a large fleet on a starbase, which is connected to the main grid. The Romulans attack the starbase while also cutting it off from the main grid. Can the Gorns send a reserve fleet to attack a Romulan ship cutting it off from the main grid?
ANSWER: No, since everything stacked with a base (and the base itself) are always in supply (410.4).
3. In the aforementioned starbase assault, the Gorns have two ships killed. The Gorn fleet retreats while the starbase is still alive. This retreat opens a supply path both to the retreating fleet and the doomed base. The base is then immediately destroyed. Do the Gorns get the salvage in their main grid, or is it destroyed with the base?
ANSWER: Since you are allowed to calculate salvage at the end of the combat round (439.11), it will appear in the main grid since that is where your supply originates from at that point.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Nick,
On the answer for Joe Manino:
A tug setting up a base could refuse the battleforce line saying that is abandoning the base (forfeiting it), so i thought you may abandon the PDU (it's already active!) and refuse the battleline.
Or not?
I caught some weird comment on the forum about fighting withdrawal so i need some clarification:
say that the Coalition is raiding the kzinti capitol (again)...
1) After a bitter struggle the Coalition ships (many cripples) declare a retreat and move out of the hex; then the kzinti refuse the pursuit and also retreat (fighting withdrawal!) in the same hex of the coalition ships. Can do that?
2) (if 1 is YES) after 1 battle round (0 to 10 BIR) the coalition ships MUST retreat and so the kzinti refuse again the pursuit and also retreat (again fighting withdrawal) in the same hex of the Coalition ships. Can do that?
3) As point 2 etc....
4) What happen if the Coalition fleet retreat into a coalition base hex if the kzinti follows up?
I left my rulebook at my gaming club so maybe i'm wrong or i mislead some rules so forgive me ....
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:40 pm: Edit
Nick, I think a recently posted ruling in a Captains Log says you CAN send a reserve fleet to a hex that is blocking supply to a location that would otherwise be able to trace supply, and I think it uses the exact example of doing this in support of an attacked fleet only in supply by virtue of stacking with a base or planet. Please confirm your answer citing 410.4.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
William Jockusch: Can the winning side voluntarily retreat after small scale combat?
ANSWER: Sure.
________________________________________
A reminder however that the retreat process must still be followed.
IOW, if the losing side is the attacker and the winning side is the defender that the defender chooses his retreat hex first.
OTOH, if the losing side is the defender then Nick will have to rule which option of the retreat process is deemed that the defender has taken; the defender's first option or the second.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 05:11 pm: Edit
The above dialog begs the next question:
1. If after small scale combat one side is crippled and retreats, can the winning side pursue?
2. Can a defender withdraw before combat in what would normally be a small scale combat situation?
3. Can a player choose to hold back up to one half of his fighters per (302.334) to acheive a small scale combat situation? (If so, I claim this as a TacNote).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Small scale combat is a .....continuation or expansion of....single ship combat. There is no pursuit allowed in single ship combat.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 06:47 am: Edit
To all StarFleet's Officer.
A major failure in the transporter room of the banana's freighter ITALY caught is captain and is pet tribble.
The brain of the tribble was accidentally implanted in the head of the Captain Fabio Poli (gambler) ...
so, please forget his questions (1,2,3,4) on the fighting retreat rule. pleeeease.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit
The only reason you cannot pursue in single ship combat is that a single ship cannot pursue due to die rolls rules (you have to roll on a D6 less then the number trying to pursue so i.e. you cannot roll a 0 on a D6).
In small scale combat you can have up to 3 ships... so if the enemy retreats you should have a 2 in 6 chance to pursue.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 10:41 am: Edit
Nick, thanks for your answers to my supply questions... A quick follow up to your answer to question "1b"--I believe 410.4 says that a captured planet only provides supply to ships on it if a PDU has been based there, so the ships located at that planet are in fact out of supply. Does this change the response? thanks.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit
Jimi:
A single fast ship...
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit
Chuck... good point. Typically having a fast ship in pursuit adds +1 to the die roll... so it would seem that a single fast should might be able to pursue (1 in 6 chance)
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 12:02 pm: Edit
(523.391) If the entire pursuit force consists of X-ships and/or F-ships, the pursuit force automatically engages the fleeing enemy cripples without the die roll of (307.21).
So a single fast ship will always find the retreating unit. Could this be taken to mean that the crippled retreat forced by single ship/ small scale combat should be a kill instead?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit
I believe this hasn't been covered before (I can't find it in the archive). I would like a ruling of SWACs in small scale combat. All of the SWAC rules only cover their usage in normal combat. With FO now out, SWACs can be dumped on the CVF and the DVL which means they will see small scale combat during raids. Most of the SWAC abilities do not seem like they would be easily transferable to small scale combat with the exception of (518.41), the EW point. Since there is no directed damage in small scale combat, the SWAC will always survive using this mission.
By Stephen Rasmussen (Razman) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 10:29 am: Edit
Just a minor clarification.
A Kzinti CV starts the kzinti turn in 1401. It sends its fighters to help drive off the klingon invaders in 1402. This is part of an offensive fighter strike.
Is it considered to have moved, or could it later be included in a reserve fleet in 1401?
Could it later strat to the barony and form part of a reserve fleet there?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit
SR:
See (319.21): if the carrier is deemed to have used its "last movement pulse" of operational movement then it has "moved" even if it has not left the hex. IOW, the carrier gave-up its first 5 pulses just to launch the fighters on its last pulse.
Also see (319.23): this rule supports the concept that the carrier has "moved" into combat as it can now retrograde.
Chuck
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit
That would also beg the question if that CV in question can be reacted to or not. If it can be reacted to, then using a fighter strike so may not be all that desirable.
By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 08:21 pm: Edit
In FO, 515.53 has been changed to the following (third para, third sentence)...Escorts produces as substitutes for standard warships count against limits on conversions by starbases. Was the "do not" removed on purpose and if so why is it called a substitution and not just say conversion. Just wondering...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 10:01 pm: Edit
Robert:
The carrier (or base for that matter) does not actually move the last pulse but "gives it up" to enable the O-strike.
(319.21) (last line) is also clear in that you can react to the strike but not the strike support element (that is of course if the strike support element did not move prior to the launch).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:54 am: Edit
Fabio Poli:
A tug setting up a base could refuse the battleforce line saying that is abandoning the base (forfeiting it), so i thought you may abandon the PDU (it's already active!) and refuse the battleline.
Or not?
ANSWER: Good point, I didn't think of that, but I believe you are right. Other questions ignored as you asked.
=======================================================
Alan De Salvio,
Nick, I think a recently posted ruling in a Captains Log says you CAN send a reserve fleet to a hex that is blocking supply to a location that would otherwise be able to trace supply, and I think it uses the exact example of doing this in support of an attacked fleet only in supply by virtue of stacking with a base or planet. Please confirm your answer citing 410.4.
ANSWER: Could be, do you know which captain's log?
===========================================================
Chuck Strong:
1. If after small scale combat one side is crippled and retreats, can the winning side pursue?
ANSWER: Rule (310.0) last sentence says no pursuit in single combat. Small combat (318.7) does not change this. The point is to resolve the entire battle hex at that point with only one die roll and only one round.
2. Can a defender withdraw before combat in what would normally be a small scale combat situation?
ANSWER: I believe you could have withdrawal before combat in a normal combat hex (not a raid).
3. Can a player choose to hold back up to one half of his fighters per (302.334) to acheive a small scale combat situation? (If so, I claim this as a TacNote).
ANSWER: I belive that rule is really meant to allow the inclusion of a carrier that otherwise could not be included due to having more than 3 SEs of attrition units. In single combat this will never apply so I don't think you can do that. It seems like it would be too abusive if allowed (you could tailer your force to be just under the limits of small combat and routinely get a big advantage by using that instead of normal combat).
=========================================================================
Paul Bonfanti: Nick, thanks for your answers to my supply questions... A quick follow up to your answer to question "1b"--I believe 410.4 says that a captured planet only provides supply to ships on it if a PDU has been based there, so the ships located at that planet are in fact out of supply. Does this change the response? thanks.
ANSWER: Right, forgot about that. So the fleet is not actually in supply, and you can send a reserve fleet to reopen the path. Also would be different in either case if there is a captain's log ruling, but I haven't found that yet.
==============================================================================
Dale Loyd FIelds: I believe this hasn't been covered before (I can't find it in the archive). I would like a ruling of SWACs in small scale combat. All of the SWAC rules only cover their usage in normal combat. With FO now out, SWACs can be dumped on the CVF and the DVL which means they will see small scale combat during raids. Most of the SWAC abilities do not seem like they would be easily transferable to small scale combat with the exception of (518.41), the EW point. Since there is no directed damage in small scale combat, the SWAC will always survive using this mission.
ANSWER: Since there is no rule to cover it, SWACS would currently have no effect in small/single combat.
=========================================================================================
Stephen Rasmussen: A Kzinti CV starts the kzinti turn in 1401. It sends its fighters to help drive off the klingon invaders in 1402. This is part of an offensive fighter strike.
Is it considered to have moved, or could it later be included in a reserve fleet in 1401?
Could it later strat to the barony and form part of a reserve fleet there?
ANSWER: Confirming Chuck Strong's answer above.
=============================================================================
Robert Padilla: That would also beg the question if that CV in question can be reacted to or not. If it can be reacted to, then using a fighter strike so may not be all that desirable.
ANSWER: Chuck is right.
========================================================================
Scott Hoffner: In FO, 515.53 has been changed to the following (third para, third sentence)...Escorts produces as substitutes for standard warships count against limits on conversions by starbases. Was the "do not" removed on purpose and if so why is it called a substitution and not just say conversion. Just wondering...
ANSWER: That doesn't make sense to me. I don't know why it was changed, I didn't know it was changed. I am going to put it into the after action topic for Fighter Ops.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit
Oops - brain fart. Please ignore
By Gary Plana (Garyplana) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit
Has the maximum extent of Paravian Space (hexes on the F&E map) ever been defined? I need this info for MPB.
If not, I'm proposing 4901, 4902, 5001, 5002, 5101, 5102, 5103, 5201, and 5202 per the map on GPD page 145 amd elsewhere. Home system in 5001, marked with a small planet on the F&E map (until the Sunsnake destroyed it in Y85); this mainly for non-historical campaigns.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 09:25 am: Edit
Probably easier to make it provinces like 5101 , then most of the neautral zone area above ISC space. The Gorn felt bad about that whole thing, so it would make some sense that they never colonized it.
Just a thought.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit
Nick:
(509.92) CVBG question
Whilst the rule is very clear that only one can be in the battle line.
Is it possible to create 2 (or more) CVBG's in a hex so one can come in to replace the other after escorts have been targeted by dirdam ?
(Obviously would be created at the start of the battle hex at the same time as other CV groups)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit
Richard:
There can be as many as you can legally form as a CVBG is treated like any other carrier group; from (502.922): "All normal rules then apply..".
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit
Richard you only create CVBG's when you put them on the line, not during 'carrier creation' when you create CVEG.
(318.434) for CVEG says when they are put made during carrier creation. (509.???) says when they are put into the battleforce they are formed into a CVBG.
So if you have CVBGs, you leave them all 'standalone' groups.
Then if the 1st CVBG is driven off the line, you choose a new CVBG to create at will.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 06:03 pm: Edit
Scott:
The rule is (318.433) for CVEGs formation.
I cannot find anything in (502.9) that supports your assersion that "you choose a new CVBG to created at will". Please explain how you came to this conclusion as I don't see it. Thanks.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit
I don't have the rules infront of me, but the CVBG explicitly states that it is formed when you create your battle line (and once it is created it stays a CVBG once its formed).
CVEG explicitly states they are formed when you form flexible carrier groups.
That was the MAJOR difference I remember between them, and a over-the-top advantage for the Feds.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit
Re: commercial convoys.
I understand there is a recent ruling somewhere that commercial convoys have to arrive at a starbase that is connected to the main grid. I can't find this ruling, and if someone could point me to it I would be glad.
Furthermore, I am unclear about the timing -- that is, *when* does the starbase need to be connected. Specifically:
The Fed convoy arrived at the Marquis SB during operational movement of Alliance turn 3. At the time, the starbase was connected to the main supply grid, so 10EP were added to the Kzinti economy.
During the following Coalition turn, the starbase was cut off.
On Alliance turn 4, can the convoy resume its journey towards the Feds, or not?
If the Alliance re-opens a supply line to the starbase during their op move, does that make a difference?
William
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit
Scott said: "...but the CVBG explicitly states that it is formed when you create your battle line..."
I'm sorry Scott, but I cannot see anywhere in the entire (502.9) rules where it "explicitly" states this.
Can someone else show me where he might be getting this notion?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit
William:
(443.51) and (443.52) require the Convoy to travel between the main supply grids.
So, when it arrives in Kzinti space, it reaches the Main grid and unloads. But when it's time to leave, it's no longer in the main grid. So, I think it has to go to another SB, in the main grid, in order to pick up a new load for Fed space.
Chuck and Scott:
Phase 5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and carrier-like escort groups (515.15). These cannot be changed until the retreat phase.
(515.15) carrier and escort counters ... must be formed into groups at the start of the Combat Step (whether or not they are in the first Battle Force deployed)...
I also don't see anywhere that CVBGs can be formed on the fly.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit
Nick, the ruling I am referring to is in Captain's Log #27, page 102, the first ruling under The Value of Supply, referencing 203.71.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit
Jeff or David, on Comercial Convoys:
Can the Kzinti, in this example, wait until they open the connection with the main grid by op movement to move the convoy towards the Federation since the partial grid is then connected to the main grid for the rest of the op movemnt phase?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 04:09 am: Edit
Jeff
Any idea when SVC will rule on the single ship carriers? You should have my report in your email. I can make one or two small amendments..
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 07:31 am: Edit
In my previous message I should have addressed it to Nick or Jeff. Sorry for the confusion.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit
David,
I waited until Steve returned from GAMA and got settled before I sent him the question.
I would like to point out this message from last year:
Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 09:56 pm
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3924.html?1051101947
By John Robinson (John_R) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 05:47 pm: Edit
I have a LAV on a SB next to an enemy fleet (pinning force). I am trying to get as many ships past this pinning force as possible. I don't want to move the LAV into the hex since it in itself does not count for pinning. Can I move the fighters through operational movement into that hex to add pinning ship equivalents?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit
Are you playing with Fighter Ops?
Without FO, you can't have fighters/PFs leave the hex of their carrier/tender.
From the way you said it, it is your phase, and the defender is reacting to you.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit
John:
Auxiliary carriers cannot use OFS; see (319.13).
The SB fighters can use OFS per (319.12).
By John Robinson (John_R) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit
I don't have FO yet, and even if I did, it sounds like it would not be allowed. Thanks Scott, Chuck.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:09 pm: Edit
From AO SOP:
5-3C, all Carrier groups established, this includes CVEG (318.433)
5-3E. Select Battle force including everything you want...DB, CVEG, Battle groups, etc.
From FE2K (502.922) it says, in basic F+E (without carrier war expansion) simply stack the two carrier groups together and allow CEDS attacks....
I was told during AO development and WoF playtesting, that yes, CVBGs are announced in the reveal battleforce phase of the battle round. As it never says in AO of when CVBGs (explicitly) must be formed, that they are infact formed when battle force determination.
I brought it up that 'That just sucks!', and was told 'Yup, that's the 3rd Way.'
(502.92) reinforces this by implying the following. It says:
...Once a CVBG is formed, it cannot be disbanded until the end of the Combat Phase.
Since CV groups may ONLY be formed at the begining of the combat phase, it should of said something like They are formed at the begining of the combat round and disbanded at the end of the combat round.
Implying that it may be formed at any time. Besides the fact that normal 'battlegroups' may be formed at will (one reason I thought that the term CVBG was chosen).
That was my interpretation, and Craig's and what we were told.
If I was misled during AO development, then I'm sorry for cluttering Nick's space. If you missed the discussion during AO development Chuck I'm sorry.
(EDIT) The key was, that it falls under 'Battle Group' and not a special CVEG.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 04:00 am: Edit
Jeff.
Thankyou for the pointer on CV tug escorting. It's more or less what I thought, but I didn't make it clear in the report I gave( which focussed on the CVL and SUP), and the post certainly gives a clear answer.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit
I need some clarification on the following rules.
"531.212 Police ships cannot enter a hex containing more than one enemy ship."
"302.72 The player...moves all of his ships in the Battle Hex...one hex in any direction..."
What happens if you have a police ship that is the in a hex that became a larger battle through reaction movement that then wants to retreat, but the only valid hex is another multiship battle hex? There are currently equal amounts of ships (this is a pinning battle.) I see four options:
1) Everyone retreats to the valid hex (violates 531.212)
2) Main ships retreat to one hex and the police retreat to another (violates 302.72 on many levels)
3) Main ships retreat leaving the police behind (similar to the requirements of 302.721 concerning bases)
4) Ships can't retreat at all
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit
John:
I'd have to say that (531.212) is a general police movement rule (for cases like operational, reaction and reserve movement where movement is fully controlled by the player) and that retreat is specifically governed by rule leaving little chioce if any choice to the player.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit
Hi Nick - quick question about a fast ship tacnote reproduced here:
Leave no ship behind
Peter Riewe, HDMS Denmark
When approaching a base, the enemy will often react out fighters or a single ship to force the creation of a battle hex where reseves can be sent, possibly creating havoc with retreat and retrograde movement.
If your fleet contains a fast ship (or an x-ship), you have the option of by-passing this single ship and avoid the creation of a battle hex.
After the enemy ship reacts out, split your fleet into two substacks before you continue movement. Substack A should contain the single fast ship and substack B should contain the remainder of the fleet.
First continue movement of substack B (the main element of the fleet) onto the base. The fast ship left behind will fulfill any pinning requirements. After substack B ends movement on the base, move substack A onto the base. This will leave the enemy's ship behind with no battle to fight in (except a possible fighting retreat when your fleet leave victorius from the base) and no major reserve will appear behind your fleet to disrupt retreat or retrograde.
Note: The validity of this tacnote is depend on whether fast ships extends rule 203.54 so that you need two regular ships to pin a fast ship, just like you need two crippled ships to pin a regular ship.
Is this legal? Just felt a bit um, illegal to me. But if it's OK then I want to use it.
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 09:38 am: Edit
I sent pending appeals (Rom SUP on raids, and Fed Reaction thing) to Steve and Jeff now that GAMA is over. Questions downloaded to work on this weekend.
Nick
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 11:31 am: Edit
On the CC question, am I correct in interpreting the rules to read that a race cannot receive the benefit unless the race as at War, and not just Limited War?
And, if so, would that then relieve the Kzin from the need to have the CC stop at a connected SB before beginning the return trip to a Federation at Limited War or Peace?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit
OK, if for example I have a SAV full of fighters fighting an E4, would there be any shift for single ship combat? I would see that as the SAV getting a -1 for the 6 fighters being 2 compot over the E4 defense, but would the E4 also get a bonus of +1 for it's compot being 2 points over the SAVs defense?
By Peter Riewe (Riewe) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit
James,
If my memory serves me right (the archives have been deleted), the tactic was ruled illegal by Nick.
As noted at the end, the validity of the tac note was dependent on a single regular ship not being able to pin a single fast ship.
Nick ruled that a single regular ship does pin a single fast ship, which means there is absolutely no point in this tac note.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit
Ah - Thanks Peter. It did seem to be a bit too good to me. Nice idea though.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 02:40 pm: Edit
I have several questions all tied around one situation. We are about to have a battle involving 4 FRDs under tow by LTTs at a BATS, along with other defending ships as well.
I know the FRDs have to be in the battle force and don't count against the command rating.
1) Since the FRDs are under tow, do the LTTS have to be in the battle force?
1a) If so, do they count against the command limits?
1b) If not, can they be in the battle force?
2) If a LTT or TUG is crippled, can it continue to tow a FRD?
By M Taylor (Cartman) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit
Can Pirates be used to transfer economic points between allies in a free campaign?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:31 am: Edit
Richard Abbott (509.92) CVBG question
Whilst the rule is very clear that only one can be in the battle line.
Is it possible to create 2 (or more) CVBG's in a hex so one can come in to replace the other after escorts have been targeted by dirdam ?
(Obviously would be created at the start of the battle hex at the same time as other CV groups)
ANSWER: They are treated like other carrier, and expanded carrier, groups. Create them at the start of combat, and you could create more than one in a given battle hex. Rule (515.15) still applies to CVBGs. Rule (502.922) "all normal rules then apply". If you could create them on the fly then nothing would prevent you from simply adding more escorts to a CVBG as they got destroyed, and this is always illegal for any carrier group. It can't possibly work on the
fly like that. It is a special carrier group, not a special battle group. I don't remember any discussion otherwise.
======================================================
Alan De Salvio: Nick, the ruling I am referring to is in Captain's Log #27, page 102,
the first ruling under The Value of Supply, referencing 203.71.
ANSWER: I belive that is what I was saying (If not then I apologise). You can move a reserve force to open a valid supply path to a fleet in a battle hex that lacks one, whether said fleet started the turn in supply or not. The CL ruling is correct.
=======================================================
Mike Curtis: Jeff or David, on Comercial Convoys:
Can the Kzinti, in this example, wait until they open the connection with the main grid by op movement to move the convoy towards the federation since the partial grid is then connected to the main grid for the rest of the op movemnt phase?
ANSWER: If I understand Jeff's ruling above, yes, you could do this.
====================================================
John Robinson
I need some clarification on the following rules.
"531.212 Police ships cannot enter a hex containing more than one enemy ship."
ANSWER: I belive this refers to operational movement.
"302.72 The player...moves all of his ships in the Battle Hex...one hex in any direction..."
ANSWER: This is retreat.
What happens if you have a police ship that is the in a hex that became a larger battle through reaction movement that then wants to
retreat, but the only valid hex is another multiship battle hex?
There are currently equal amounts of ships (this is a pinning battle.)
ANSWER: You follow the normal retreat rules, the police restriction is on operational movement.
=============================================================
James Southcott Hi Nick - quick question about a fast ship tacnote reproduced here:
Leave no ship behind
Peter Riewe, HDMS Denmark
ANSWER: I don't think you can do that. The rule on crippled ships is specific, while the x-ship/fast ship rule has no such specific clause
(you can't assume the one applies to the other). The general pinning rule is you can move a ship out of a hex only if you leave behind a sufficient pinning force. With 1 SE of fighters, and one fast ship, you cannot move the one fast ship since you aren't leaving behind a
counter-pinning force to deal with the fighters.
=========================================================
FED REACTION: Steve has ruled that you indeed can use the capital abandonment rule to count your capital as captured for purposes of
Fed reaction. So if the coalition is subsequently capturing and abandoning an alliance capital to deny the race its capital, but avoiding fed reaction (due to the time requirement), the affected race can declare the capital abandoned, and after the requisite amount of time the fed reaction kicks in.
ROM SUP on RAIDS: Still under discussion, but it seems we will restrict this in some way (seems at extreame case that is more powerful than was intended).
============================================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:33 am: Edit
Remaining questions downloaded to this point.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Hi Nick I was wondering if there was any news on the Fed CVL escort appeal
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit
Why doesn't the Tholian OoB include 1xDN?
(707.0) states the Tholians can build their first in spring of Y169 but indeed there is a DN in at least Y167; The Defender fought in the Battle of Base Station Argon against Kumarian. (SH 6.0) Assault on the Holdfast.
The Defender was damaged but did survive historically.
SVC: Perhaps it was destroyed in Y168 and replaced in Y169? Maybe ever nearly destroyed but took this long to get back into the fleet?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 03, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit
James, Jeff is handling that one I believe, so I don't know.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 09:23 pm: Edit
OK, I know this has come up before, but here it goes:
Is it legal, rules-wise, to have more than three ships in a hex, on either one or both sides, and be able to invoke Small Scale Combat? Now for the example:
4 Kzinti ships, CV,MEC,MSC,BC do a fighting retreat onto 1504 which is Coalition controlled and has 2xFFs garrosning it. Can Small Scale Combat be invoked in this case by withholding the CV and MEC as unchosen flags? If it can be, can the Coalition escape it's fate by not accepting the approach battle?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 11:50 pm: Edit
Rob, NIck already answered this same quewstion posted by you and me on Feb 1, 2004.,
Chris Fant: Can you use Single ship combat if there is a small/medium fleet in a hex, and the two battle lines built happen to only use 2 or ships?
ANSWER: In general, single combat is supposed to resolve the battle hex so it is determined if you use it before any of the normal combat steps, rule (310.0) first sentence says "...only two relatively equal units in the battle hex..", not "in a battle force". I know the sequence of play has single combat listed later in the combat sequence, but it also says "if applicable", and I belive you determine IN GENERAL if it is applicable or not before the normal combat steps.
Now since it has a semi-optional status, there are weird cases, you could start with several ships and after many are destroyed you may use single combat if each side has one ship left (or whatever). However, if you did this, then on the round that you use single combat you would skip flagship selection and all the rest, so in general you wouldn't do single combat after removing rejected flagship candidates in a normal battleforce... Single combat should include everything in the hex (but I am not including things like honor duels or raids here of course). In a raid battle or honor duel there will often be other things in the hex not taking part, the point is when using single combat to resolve (or finish resolving) a normal battle hex, skip all the flagships selection and battleforce construction steps, you are using single combat to resolve the battle hex, not a battle round. Or in other words after using single combat there shouldn't be any thing left to resolve.
If you did this, then after rejecting nonused flagship candidates, and the single combat resolved two of the ships (one from each side), what happens? Do all the ships on the losing side retreat or get destroyed? Do you continue with single combat for the remaining ships (which remember was only supposed to be one round)? It simply is not supposed to work this way. Single combat should include all remaining units.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 04:43 am: Edit
Nick.
1) Can you deploy a mobile base while out of supply?
IF no, then
2) Can you deploy a mobile base while your tug is supplied as a homeless ship or is part of an expeditionary fleet?
My instinct tells me that you should not be able to deploy mobile bases unless you are in general supply from the off-map or capital, but I can find nothing preventing a deployment of a MB pretty much anywhere anyone chooses regardless of supply status.
I note that bases upgrades require the MB/BATS to be part of the main supply grid, making this ability of MBs even stranger.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 05, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit
My question was answered by a more thurough reading of ADVANCED OPERATIONS where the T-DN IS listed in the OoP (707.0).
Sorry.
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 03:48 pm: Edit
Nick -
Follow up to POL question above - does 531.212 apply to reaction movement as well as operational movement? It seems that both operational and reaction are voluntary movement, while retreat movement is involuntary. However, I realize that may not be the deciding factor. We just want to clarify it to all movement types, not just operational vs retreat.
Or, should we just pencil in the rule to read:
"531.212 Police ships cannot enter a hex // during operational movement // containing more than one enemy ship."
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit
I think it makes perfect sense that POLs can't enter hexes with more than one unit via reaction movement. It's a restriction preventing a cheap unit from being used as a cheap pin factor.
The restriction could also apply to reserve movement.
Retreat movement is an entirely different question, and it maybe should be waived for this situation
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit
I'm of the opposite view, to me the Police are defenders, not an offensive unit. Police ships cooming tto the aid of a newrby base under attack fits in with the doctrine of the ships.
By Dan Syrek (Spooky) on Tuesday, April 06, 2004 - 07:52 pm: Edit
quick question Can both the defending fleet and the attacking fleet retreat into the same hex (thus creating another battle hex) if all the retreat priorities are met??
Thanks!
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 01:15 am: Edit
OK, here's (yet) another question on retreats to confirm:
A hydran fleet retreats to 0212 and kills the BATS there. In considering his retreat options, he notes that 0112 and 0113 have larger Lyran forces and are eliminated from consideration. 0211 and 0312 are eliminated because they are further away from his nearest supply point (BATS 0114). Is 0313 eliminated because it is the same distance from the supply point (however, it is currently unoccupied), while 0213 is 1 hex closer? Does the presence of a smaller Lyran force (a crippled frigate, in fact) in 0213 invalidate that hex as a retreat option, or is priority 4 ignored because applying it would eliminate all remaining hexes under consideration? (Note: We are still playing with the '93 rules, so no fighting retreat applies).
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit
I agree that Tim's point on POLs makes sense too - hence the question.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, April 07, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit
Nick,
I checked the archives for an answer for this and didn't come up with one.
According to (601.162) The Hydran PWC is received but cannot build other ships, or convert ships, use overproduction, or accumulate economic points.
It also states several other things the Hydrans cannot do, but does not state anything about substitutions in PWC.
My question is this: Can the Hydran substitute in PWC for the same or less eps? What I am thinking about is subbing a TG for a CA production. It will be 2 less eps in the substitution.
If this hasn't been done as a tacnote I reserve the right to it.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 12:43 am: Edit
Since Nick has stated that F&E uses the 'if it's not permitted it's prohibited' basis, I'd say PWC changes are verbotten unless specified in the rules.
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit
Despite my joke in Klinshai v. Earth, I don't think you can change PWC. (601.162) I think a substitution is covered by the "cannot build other ships, or convert ships".
In particular, it seems to me that a Hydran Tug would count either way. It would be an "other ship" than the schedule calls for, and it also is a conversion from a cruiser.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, April 08, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit
Well 601.162 does state that the Hydrans recieve their scheduled PWC, but can not build other ships. Subs are not clearly spelled out, but the can not build other ships seems to cover that for me.
And if the Hydrans can do something like this, then what stops the Romulans, Federation, or any other race to recieves PWC from doing the same thing? Something like this could get the Romulans, for example, 9 extra maulers (at a minumum) from the WEs built over those first few turns, and for no additional cost. That hardly seems right, or fair.
--Sorry for this reply, I didn't notice the topic I was in until after I posted.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit
Three questions:
(431.73) says "A player may replace a specified carrier group on the production schedule with equivalent standard warships."
Is the Z-BC considered the equivalent standard warship prior to the deployment of the BCH in Y180? That section states that the Z-CV cannot be unconverted before Y180, but it doesn't mention how substitution fits into it.
My second question is nominally about the K-CVT to CVT+ conversion. The Q&A Archive for CL#26 has Q2606 stating that "He intended that [the CVL->CV counts as a carrier build] to be a general rule, so any conversion of a carrier to another kind of carrier counts if the ship gains fighter factors in the deal." Does the CVT -> CVT+ count under this? This ship gains fighters, but does not (in some ways) become a different carrier (both are 7-8/3-4).
My final question regards the construction of the Fed CVF. In CL#25 it reaffirms that the CVF is built outside of the production schedule. CL#24 gives it as costing 11+fighters (counting as overbuild). However, I can't find a relevant section in FO. Was this changed by the time FO went to press (and I just missed it), or was it unintentionally left out?
I couldn't find anything about the CVT question with a keyword search. The Kzinti BC for CV question returned too many pages for me to scan so it may have already been answered. I can take the CVF question to the FO After Action Reports if you like.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit
John Doucette: On the CC question, am I correct in interpreting the rules to read that a race cannot receive the benefit unless the race as at War, and not just Limited War?
ANSWER: Right. In peacetime the benefit is absorbed into the civilian economy (443.0) second paragraph, and in Limited War you still get no benefit (602.49A) in Fighter Ops.
And, if so, would that then relieve the Kzin from the need to have the CC stop at a connected SB before beginning the return trip to a Federation at Limited War or Peace?
Answer: No, the convoy still operates under the normal rules, there is simply no economic benefit to the Feds until they are at war.
===================================================
Robert Padilla: OK, if for example I have a SAV full of fighters fighting an E4, would there be any shift for single ship combat? I would see that as the SAV getting a -1 for the 6 fighters being 2 compot over the E4 defense, but would the E4 also get a bonus of +1 for it's compot being 2 points over the SAVs defense?
ANSWER: No, I believe that you add the fighter's and SAV's defense factors together for purposes of that modifier
=====================================================
John Robinson: I have several questions all tied around one situation. We are about to have a battle involving 4 FRDs under tow by LTTs at a BATS, along with other defending ships as well.
I know the FRDs have to be in the battle force and don't count against the command rating.
1) Since the FRDs are under tow, do the LTTS have to be in the battle force?
ANSWER: No.
1a) If so, do they count against the command limits?
ANSWER: They do if you include them anyway.
1b) If not, can they be in the battle force?
ANSWER: Yes, counting against command limits like normal ships.
2) If a LTT or TUG is crippled, can it continue to tow a FRD? .
ANSWER: No they cannot. See (509.1) which says crippled tugs cannot perform any mission.
==================================================================
M Taylor: Can Pirates be used to transfer economic points between allies in a free campaign?
ANSWER: There is no provision in the rules for this, so officially no, but it might make a fun house rule.
=================================================================
David Slatter
1) Can you deploy a mobile base while out of supply?
ANSWER: I don't see why not, the rules do not specify a need for supply.
===================================================
Gary Quick: Follow up to POL question above - does 531.212 apply to reaction movement as well as operational movement? It seems that both operational and reaction are voluntary movement, while retreat movement is involuntary. However, I realize that may not be the deciding factor. We just want to clarify it to all movement types, not just operational vs retreat.
Or, should we just pencil in the rule to read:
"531.212 Police ships cannot enter a hex // during operational movement // containing more than one enemy ship."
ANSWER: I would say it applies to reaction as well, i.e. voluntary movement. Police ships are for reacting to single ship incursions (raiders and the like), they are not to defend against enemy fleets, that is what your own fleet is for. Retreat is just different.
=====================================================
Dan Syrek: Can both the defending fleet and the attacking fleet retreat into the same hex (thus creating another battle hex) if all the retreat priorities are met??
ANSWER: This can occur under arcane circumstances, and it is legal in such cases.
========================================================
Frank DeMaris: A hydran fleet retreats to 0212 and kills the BATS there. In considering his retreat options, he notes that 0112 and 0113 have larger Lyran forces and are eliminated from consideration. 0211 and 0312 are eliminated because they are further away from his nearest supply point (BATS 0114). Is 0313 eliminated because it is the same distance from the supply point (however, it is currently unoccupied), while 0213 is 1 hex closer? Does the presence of a smaller Lyran force (a crippled frigate, in fact) in 0213 invalidate that hex as a retreat option, or is priority 4 ignored because applying it would eliminate all remaining hexes under consideration? (Note: We are still playing with the '93 rules, so no fighting retreat applies).
ANSWER: If I understand correctly, priority 2 eliminates 0112 and 0113 due to superior enemy forces. Then priority 3 eliminates all but hex 0213 since that is one hex from supply (I am assuming 0114), and the other remaining hexes are farther away. Then priority 4 eliminates the last hex 0213 due to an inferior enemy force. In that case you ignore priority 4 since it eliminated the last hex, so you would retreat to 0213 and have another battle hex.
=============================================================
Mike Curtis: According to (601.162) The Hydran PWC is received but cannot build other ships, or convert ships, use overproduction, or accumulate economic points.
It also states several other things the Hydrans cannot do, but does not state anything about substitutions in PWC.
My question is this: Can the Hydran substitute in PWC for the same or less eps? What I am thinking about is subbing a TG for a CA production. It will be 2 less eps in the substitution.
ANSWER: You cannot make such changes to the PWC, you must take it as is (it was built before you gained control of the Kingdom. You receive your schedules ships, that is all. There is a rule that allows you to cancel some PWC to generate EPs (when playing with Orions in order to bribe them), but nothing allows subs or conversions.
===========================================================
Dale Lloyd Fields
Three questions:
(431.73) says "A player may replace a specified carrier group on the production schedule with equivalent standard warships."
Is the Z-BC considered the equivalent standard warship prior to the deployment of the BCH in Y180? That section states that the Z-CV cannot be unconverted before Y180, but it doesn't mention how substitution fits into it.
ANSWER: You cannot sub a BCH for the CV before the BCH's intro date.
My second question is nominally about the K-CVT to CVT+ conversion. The Q&A Archive for CL#26 has Q2606 stating that "He intended that [the CVL->CV counts as a carrier build] to be a general rule, so any conversion of a carrier to another kind of carrier counts if the ship gains fighter factors in the deal." Does the CVT -> CVT+ count under this? This ship gains fighters, but does not (in some ways) become a different carrier (both are 7-8/3-4).
ANSWER: I believe so. Granted the "pods" are really what is changing, but since they are considered an integral part of the ship you are thus essentially changing the ship so...
My final question regards the construction of the Fed CVF. In CL#25 it reaffirms that the CVF is built outside of the production schedule. CL#24 gives it as costing 11+fighters (counting as overbuild). However, I can't find a relevant section in FO. Was this changed by the time FO went to press (and I just missed it), or was it unintentionally left out?
ANSWER: I honestly don't know. I will post the question to the after action topic to make sure it gets handled in the proper place.
==============================================================
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit
Nick, DLFields first question was whether the Kzinti BC would be considered the 'standard warship' for the Kzinti CV prior to Y180...
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Sunday, April 11, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit
Nick, 531.211 clearly does not allow police ships to leave original territory (except certain escort situations). However, 314.243 allows the call-up of a police ship in a long-term capture area. This suggests to me that a police ship ought to be able to operate in a long-term capture area. Can you rule on this, and perhaps ask up the chain if this is a needed rule change?
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 03:09 am: Edit
Nick:
Is there a consolidated update for the errata files post F&E2K/AO/FO/CO? If so where? Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 06:46 pm: Edit
Stewart: Yes, use the BC before the intro date for BCH.
Alan: I need to look at my rules to answer that (which are not with me at work).
David: Does not exist yet, see various captain's logs. When the after action topic for Fighter Ops is finished and closed off (next Cap Log I would imagine) I will do one.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, April 12, 2004 - 09:54 pm: Edit
Nick
Thanks for the answers on all my questions. I appreciate the quick turnaround.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 06:44 am: Edit
Nick/Jeff/SVC
Any chance of a ruling on the CVL and SUP escorting sometime soon? We have been waiting quite a while..
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 02:45 pm: Edit
A different question-
Does a tug need to be with pods for conversion, specifically for upgrading VP2 to VP3 pods?
Or is it a loyal staff officers' operation, taking the pods out of service, upgrading them at a SB with conversion capacity and then having them available next turn?
(Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, it's for the pods only, not for the CVT to CVT+ conversion)
Thanks,
Joe
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 01:59 am: Edit
Are there any rules regarding terrain in F&E? (Asteroids, Nebula etc.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 02:54 am: Edit
Nope, does not apply on the Strategic scale.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit
What are the Hydran options for building the Iron Chancellor if the capital is intact? As has already been clarified, they can build or convert one outright. Assuming the shipyard never falls, can they ever build the IC with the special discount or build a reduced cost Paladin?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 04:43 pm: Edit
Nope.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:17 pm: Edit
We are having some stasis confusion.
I am pursuing with CVS+CLE+EFF, DNL, TGCBB, and TGCBV(form). He has a D7A, and elected to accept the auto-kill and use it 3 times.
The first attempt froze the DNL.
The second attempt froze the TGCBB.
The third attempt, on the EFF, came up "random".
It would appear there is nothing he can select for his random target. He is not allowed to accept the original target (the EFF), an inner element of a group (the CVS or CLE), the ship in form (the TGCBV), or a ship already frozen (the DNL or TGCBB).
For my part, I can take the innner escort (CLE) as my random selection, but what can he do?
William
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:15 pm: Edit
I think the only choice there would be to select the fighters on the CV(312.236) since the EFF did not get frozen, further escorts can not be selected (312.235). Nothing else is an eligible target. So my personal opinion is the since the defender can not select the fighters (or anything else), those slots would all be empty, and since the attacker can only select the fighters, all three of his choices would be for them (or nothing). So, 50% chance to freeze the fighters, or the attacker could not bother to freeze anything with that 3rd attempt.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:18 pm: Edit
Fighters cannot be selected, I believe the FB ship could be seleted as a random roll
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit
312.215, the ship in formation bonus can not be frozen. I doubt the random roll would change that.
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:58 pm: Edit
I know this is Q&A, but,
312.235 explicitly allows more than one choice from a carrier group - and in fact, requires it. The discussion in 312.235 states that "if the Attacker selects the smallest unfrozen escort ... the Defender can only select the next smallest excort (or the carrier itself if there are no more escorts)."
As the EFF is not a valid choice (per 312.223), the question really boilds down to whether the attacker can choose the CLE as the smallest unfrozen escort available to be selected. If so, then following 312.235 seems to force the defender to select the CVS.
The other option seems to be that the Attacker must select the EFF, which is an invalid target, and thus equivalent to no selection. The Defender would then select the CLE as the next smallest escort.
Or, perhaps there are other options as well...
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:59 pm: Edit
Nick:
Stasis ships in the pursued force.
(312.47) doesn't explicitly mention the chance of boom recovery in the case of a pursued force.
Normal salvage rules say there is no salvage (439.17).
I woudl say it is pretty clear that there is no chance of boom recovery, but a clarification on this interaction is needed.
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit
If you raid a defender crippled ship and get a result of defender crippled - what happens?
crip+crip = kill?
crip+crip = crip?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit
OFFICIAL RULING
Rule (515.42) is hereby changed to read as follows:
(515.42) Carries which do not normally have escorts (757.6) can be used to form carrier groups. They ARE ASSIGNED A NUMBER OF ESCORTS BASED ON THEIR CATEGORY (HEAVY, MEDIUM, LIGHT/ESCORT). If they are assigned escorts, they must be treated as a group, but if all escorts are lost or reassigned, they can again be treated as non-group carriers STARTING WITH THE CARRIER GROUP ORGANIZATION STEP OF THE NEXT COMBAT ROUND. Other carriers are treated as groups even if all escorts are lost. Hydran hybrid non-true carriers cannot be assigned escorts unless they qualify under (515.43). Auxiliary carriers can be, but do not have to be, assigned escorts (515.123).
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit
Finger missed the R in the first instance of Carriers.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 19, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit
Thanks SVC.
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:12 am: Edit
Can you convert a Fast DN to a Standard DN. If so how much would it cost?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 04:44 am: Edit
Thanks for the ruling Steve.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit
I think it would be so expensive to convert a fast DN to a regular DN that you wouldn't do it. But another alternative might be to "add something, maybe a flying bridge" to the fast DN which would have the effect of slowing it down and upping its guns.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit
I thought fast ships were un re-convertable?
(525.12)
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 12:48 pm: Edit
Hence, Module R9.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit
A question came up over in Tactical Notes.
During pursuit, the pursuer designates their force first, rolls to see if the pursuit is successful, and *then* the retreater forms his own battleforce.
However, as the battle is fought semi-normally, I would assume that both battleforces are revealed simultaneously. Yes, you'd know how many ships are in the pursuing force, but not what they are until both forces are revealed.
However, Jimi suggested that when the pursuer designates his force, he also reveals the exact composition, allowing the retreater to form his force after seeing the pursuer.
So, does the pursuer have to reveal his battleforce first, or do both battleforces get revealed simultaneously?
Thanks in advance, Nick.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:00 pm: Edit
Kevin:
This is nothing new. The pursuer still forms his battleforce in secret, be it a known force of six or less ships (IOW, the pursued force will not know what's in the bonus box or how the carriers are escorted or if the pursuer chooses to leave out a unit from the final battleforce).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit
Chuck, if you check the SOP for normal combat both sides choose 'secretly' their units and reveal simultaneously (step 5-3C) while the pursuit phase specifies pursuer first (5-8A) then rolls, then the pursued (5-8B).
Following these steps the pursued should see the enemies pursuing ships.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Questions downloaded for processing
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit
Jimi:
I'm not diagreeing with you:
The Pursuer picks up to six specified ships and rolls,
then both players form their battleforces.
The only difference is that the pursuer secretly chooses his battleforce from those six specific six ships including which ship is in the form box(in most cases it is ALL six ships).
If the Fed pursuer had a COV and CVA,4xDE you don't know if he would form:
CVA+COV+DE+DE+DE+DE (a CVBG)
CVA+DE+DE+DE & COV+DE (a carrier group & a escorted commando ship)
CVA+DE+DE+DE+DE & COV(form) (an oversized carrier group with a scout in the form box)(example only - tactics aside)
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 02:52 pm: Edit
A COV is not a carrier, so it can't be part of a CVBG.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit
Sorry...
Drop the CVBG, but the point remains the same.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit
Hmmm.... Nowhere in the text does it specify that the chosen six ships must be revealed, but neither does it specify that they are hidden either. I have always assumed the pursuer declares how many ships are pursuing, rolls to see if he succeeded, and *then* shows what six ships they were simultaneously with the formation of the retreating battleforce.
The rules do not support my interpretation.... but neither do they specify the opposite.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit
Well, you would at least have to specify if 1 (or more) are fast ships or x-ships and whether or not all of them were fast/x-ships.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 02:33 am: Edit
(307.21): "The non-retreating player designates some of his uncrippled ships (no more than six; a flagship able to control the force must be included) as a Battle Force to pursue the retreating enemy."
Designate:
1. To indicate or specify; point out.
2. To give a name or title to; characterize.
3. To select and set aside for a duty, an office, or a purpose.
The text is clear:
One disignates, then rolls, then (if sucessful) forms & fights one more round.
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Saturday, April 24, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit
A clarification question:
520.5- when the hex an SAF is in is attacked, the SAF may be escorted by up to 2 ships.
Escorted like a ground combat ship or like a carrier?
I presume it would be like a ground combat ship (521.372), but there is no specific reference in 520 nor 521.372.
Thanks,
Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit
Alan De Salvio:
Nick, 531.211 clearly does not allow police ships to leave original territory (except certain escort situations). However, 314.243 allows the call-up of a police ship in a long-term capture area. This suggests to me that a police ship ought to be able to operate in a
long-term capture area. Can you rule on this, and perhaps ask up the chain if this is a needed rule change?
ANSWER: Two different rules. Your "permanent" police ships cannot leave the original territory, but your "temporary" police ships can
be called up in response to raids in long term captured territory.
===========================================================
Joseph A. Mannino:
Does a tug need to be with pods for conversion, specifically for upgrading VP2 to VP3 pods?
Or is it a loyal staff officers' operation, taking the pods out of service, upgrading them at a SB with conversion capacity and then having them available next turn?
(Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, it's for the pods only, not for the CVT to CVT+ conversion)
ANSWER: I would assume it can be done if the pods are in a supply grid containing a starbase, and it would count as that starbase's
conversion for that turn (for a pair of pods).
====================================================
John Robinson:
What are the Hydran options for building the Iron Chancellor if the capital is intact? As has already been clarified, they can build or
convert one outright. Assuming the shipyard never falls, can they ever build the IC with the special discount or build a reduced cost Paladin?
ANSWER: No, you can only build it at the normal cost unless you lose the capital.
=======================================================
William Jockusch:
I am pursuing with CVS+CLE+EFF, DNL, TGCBB, and TGCBV(form). He has a D7A, and elected to accept the auto-kill and use it 3 times.
The first attempt froze the DNL.
The second attempt froze the TGCBB.
The third attempt, on the EFF, came up "random".
It would appear there is nothing he can select for his random target.
He is not allowed to accept the original target (the EFF), an inner element of a group (the CVS or CLE), the ship in form (the TGCBV), or
ship already frozen (the DNL or TGCBB).
For my part, I can take the innner escort (CLE) as my random selection, but what can he do?
ANSWER: Since the EFF was the original target, it is not considered in random selection. The attacker can select (312.235) only one ship
from a carrier group in random selection, and since the smallest (EFF) is excused since it was the original target he must select the next smallest escort, the CLE, and the defender can select the CVS.
===========================================================
Richard Abbott:
Stasis ships in the pursued force.
(312.47) doesn't explicitly mention the chance of boom recovery in the case of a pursued force.
Normal salvage rules say there is no salvage (439.17).
I woudl say it is pretty clear that there is no chance of boom recovery, but a clarification on this interaction is needed.
ANSWER: Since stasis kit recovery is not the same as salvage (as far as the rules go), you could still recover the stasis kit in such a
situation. There is nothing in the rules preventing this.
================================================================
Gary Quick :
If you raid a defender crippled ship and get a result of defender
crippled - what happens?
crip+crip = kill?
crip+crip = crip?
ANSWER: I can't remember if I have ruled on this before or not, but I would think that you still take the result as stated, if a crippled
ship gets the result "crippled and retreats", then that is what happens, it is not destroyed. Remember that a crippled ship will likely have a modifier making the "destroyed" result more likely.
==========================================================
John Wong
Can you convert a Fast DN to a Standard DN. If so how much would it cost?
ANSWER: Presumably not based on Steve's responses.
============================================================
Kevin Howard
During pursuit, the pursuer designates their force first, rolls to see if the pursuit is successful, and *then* the retreater forms his
own battleforce.
However, as the battle is fought semi-normally, I would assume that both battleforces are revealed simultaneously. Yes, you'd know how
many ships are in the pursuing force, but not what they are until both forces are revealed.
However, Jimi suggested that when the pursuer designates his force, he also reveals the exact composition, allowing the retreater to form
his force after seeing the pursuer.
So, does the pursuer have to reveal his battleforce first, or do both battleforces get revealed simultaneously?
ANSWER: I believe it is secret and simultaneous like other battle rounds. See (307.1) which says "both sides will form a new battle
force and may fight a final Combat Round." So even though the retreating player ALWAYS creates a "pursued" battle force, the pursuer may miss the die roll and no battle will happen.
If you played it the other way if the pursuer missed the die roll the retreating player would not create another battleforce and the rules say otherwise.
========================================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit
Joseph A. Mannino:
A clarification question:
520.5- when the hex an SAF is in is attacked, the SAF may be escorted by up to 2 ships.
Escorted like a ground combat ship or like a carrier?
I presume it would be like a ground combat ship (521.372), but there is no specific reference in 520 nor 521.372.
ANSWER: The reference is there, but it is cleverly hidden. Rule (520.5) says to treat the SAF like a convoy when it gets attacked. Rule (515.43) provides for escorting convoys. So do not use the troopship escort rule which do not apply to convoys, use (515.43) which does apply to convoys (SAF in this case).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 04:13 am: Edit
Nick:
You need to remember that the SoP is a rule in itself (105.0). That said, check out Phase 5 - Step 8:
In 5-8A the Pursuer picks up to six specified ships and rolls. Then in 5-8B both players form their battleforces.
The only difference is that the pursuer secretly chooses his battleforce from those six specific six ships including which ship is in the form box(in most cases it is ALL six ships).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, April 26, 2004 - 05:11 am: Edit
Chuck
5-8A does not require that the 6 ships selected be revealed, just designated - it could be a simple matter of putting the ships into a "designated" area, behind a screen.
There is somewhere (think it is 307.4) a line that says the battle round is fought normally, so if there is no requirement for the pursuing force to be revealed early it goes with the general (ie in secret).
Looking beyond the rules, I can't see any 'logical' reason why the retreating force would know what ships were coming at them.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit
Nick,
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: I would assume it can be done if the pods are in a supply grid containing a starbase, and it would count as that starbase's
conversion for that turn (for a pair of pods).
________________________________________
Last year you had ruled the other way on this. ( original post)
________________________________________
Quote:
Tim Losberg, the cost listed must be for one, since you are adding (to one pod) half a fighter factor, and the SIT cost is 1+1. So a pair of pods must cost 2+2 since the pair adds one fighter factor between them. I imagine could do both pods at a single starbase as "a conversion" to a carrier group under (433.14) but note the cost (4 EP), and this probably requires them to be on a ship (tug).
________________________________________
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, April 30, 2004 - 08:45 am: Edit
Here is a variation on a question asked Feb 23 by John Stephens, answered by Nick on Feb 25, challenged by Jimi LaForm on Feb 25, and reanswered by Nick on Mar 1.
The Hydran Fleet is in 617. A group of Klingon ships in is 717. The Klingons move one hex to 716 (2 hexes from 617) and stop. I know that the initial movement cannot be reacted to. The question is, can any Hydran ships react to 716 on later pulses? I contend that 203.64 allows me to. He contends that the combination of 205.15 and 205.16 prevent me from reacting. Who is correct? Me? Him? Neither?
Thanks.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 07:57 pm: Edit |
May - June 2004 Archive
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 10:39 am: Edit
Nick:
(620.94) in FO says the Feds can use new construction to support another race while at limited war.
Are activations treated like "construction" for this purpose?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit
(307.21): "The non-retreating player designates some of his uncrippled ships (no more than six; a flagship able to control the force must be included) as a Battle Force to pursue the retreating enemy."
Hey Chuck, according to this rule you posted, you can't exclude any of the ships you choose for your pursuit force. They are all chosen as a Battle Force, not as a Potential Battle Force Pool. They aren't reveled in advance, but they should all have to fight according to the way the rule you pulled up is written.
Nick can you confirm if I've got this right please?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit
Hopefully this is an easy question.
Can a player accumulate plus points at a planet that is not devistated, but also has no defending units. For example, if 15 damage is scored on the planet, would there be 5 plus points?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit
Dan:
What does the SoP lay-out (I don't have a SoP with me presently)?
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit
Nick,
A kzinti fleet has caught a few Klingon auxiliaries in a slow unit pursuit.
One of the auxiliaries is a SAV, escorted by an F5E and E4A.
Can the Kzinti player legally direct his damage as follows:
22 damage to cripple the entire group
4 damage to destroy the crippled E4A outside escort?
We are under the impression that this would not be legal in normal situations, as the Kzinti's options will be destroy the whole group, cripple the whole group, or destroy or cripple the outside escort only. But we thought that being a (slow) pursuit, the rules changed.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit
Nick, 704.0 and 706.0 list a set of provinces as set-up locations for several fleets (Rom North, Rom West, Gorn 1st, Gorn 2nd, Gorn 6th). Does this mean at least one ship from the specified fleet must be set-up in each province listed for that fleet?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, May 07, 2004 - 08:06 pm: Edit
Alan, the short answer is yes, alas. Read the setup instructions again. If there is an "and/or" in there, that's your out. If it only says "and", tough luck
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:10 am: Edit
PHASE 5 - STEP 8: PURSUIT (302.8) and (307.0)
5-8A: Select pursuit units for attack against retreating ships and slow units (302.742); roll die to determine pursuit success; adjust die roll for the presence of X-Ships (523.39) and/or F-ships (525.133) or declined approach battle (302.23).
5-8B: Set up retreating Battle Force (307.3)
5-8C: Conduct pursuit battle (repeating Steps 3X through 6).
Chuck, the SOP does not say. It only says to select pursuit units for attack against retreating and slow units. That doesn't clarify because you have to pick your pursuit force from the units you have in the Battle Force that fights the last round against any Slow Units retreating anyway (302.742). The SOP treats it as a single event.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 08:23 am: Edit
A Federation fleet has two LTFs, and is 4-6 hexes from a supply/retro point.
If the fleet is forced to retreat, can the LTFs use each other as a retro point for slow unit retreat? Or must they retreat to another retro point?
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 04:21 pm: Edit
(523.112) Any X-ship can be produced by overbuilding or by Accelerated Production, but a given race may produce only one X-ship per turn by such a method. This is an exception to the 8-point limit in (431.31).
Question: Does this mean a race can produce one X ship per turn either by overbuilding or by advance building, or two (one by both methods)?
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit
Can a captured Gorn DN be converted to a DNT?
(305.45) states that a captured ship can't be converted to a mauler, but a DNT isn't a mauler, just has an effect similar to one.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 10:25 am: Edit
Questions downloaded for processing.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:24 pm: Edit
Must a monitor stationed at a planet be in every battle force formed by its side when fighting at that planet (not in approach but actually with the planet and any PDUs and/or bases on or around the planet)?
I note that monitors have been ruled to count against command ratings and that forcing the inclusion in a non-pursued battle force of a unit that counts against command ratings is not something otherwise done by F&E rules (FRD, PDU, and bases may be forced to be included but do not count against command ratings).
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit
Quick question.
Coalition forces in Hydran space assaulted by the Hydrans. 25 Coalition ships in hex, 12 withdraw before combat (Hydrans opposed withdrawal). The two forces do an round of combat (remaining 13 coalition ships vs Hydran line). 24 points of damage falls onto the Coalition fleet and I have a choice between crippling some ships or self killing to prevent pursuit.
Here is my question. During pursuit when I build my pursued line, do I use just the 13 ships that stayed in hex? or can I add the 12 withdrawn ships into my pursued force?
My guess is only the 13 but be nice to have confirmation.
Thanks in advance
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 09:37 am: Edit
Hi Nick
I've seen a few players using a tactic in building a reserve gorups - basically it involves putting the escorts in a battle group to get extra ships to the combat. Using an Admiral, not to add to the size of the group directly, but to justify the battle line as legal (a requirement for reserves). Thought I'd check it was legal before using it myself.
To give an example, it may go like this
C8(admiral), D6S(as free scout), 3xD5V, [3AD5, 3F5E] 2F5.
A total of 13 ships which is legal (cos of the battle group).
However it would not be a legal battle line without the admiral becuase the escorts cannot both be part of the BG and escorting the carriers. Seems to me that the admiral indirectly allows the extra BG ship and so falls into "admirals can't enlarge a reserve fleet". However it's quite ingenious (somebody said there was a tacnote about it but I can't see it) and might be considered worthy of an official 'OK'.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit
Another question (this one has probably been answered before but couldn't find it)
Does the retreating player get salvage during the slow pursuit?
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:14 am: Edit
James,
Why would you need an admiral for that line to be valid? If the escort in battle group tactic is legal, does the admiral make a difference?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit
Chuck Strong and James Southcott: Re pursuit:
ANSWER: The point is that selecting the (up to six) pursuing ships and selecting the pursued
force is done independently of the other. One side does not build his force based on knowledge
of the other (although the pursued force obviously will include crippled ships). It doesn't matter if you wait to build the pursued force until after the pursuit die roll, so long as the pursued player doesn't know what ships are coming after him.
=========================================================================
Tim Losberg Re: pod conversions.
ANSWER: At the time I ruled that I don't think there was a provision in the rules to allow pod
conversions, just ship conversions. Now with the SIT, the pod conversion data is listed on it's own line separate from the ship (carrier tug) conversion data, so it would seem to be legal now for that reason.
======================================================================
John Robinson:
Here is a variation on a question asked Feb 23 by John Stephens, answered by Nick on Feb 25,
challenged by Jimi LaForm on Feb 25, and reanswered by Nick on Mar 1.
The Hydran Fleet is in 617. A group of Klingon ships in is 717. The Klingons move one hex to 716 (2 hexes from 617) and stop. I know that the initial movement cannot be reacted to. The question is, can any Hydran ships react to 716 on later pulses? I contend that 203.64 allows me to. He contends that the combination of 205.15 and 205.16 prevent me from reacting. Who is correct? Me? Him? Neither?
ANSWER: Ships at 617 cannot react to movement from 717 to 716 whether those ships then stop or
not. See rule (205.16), it is quite clear and even has the exact same situation you describe.
If a coalition force moves away from an alliance force, there can be no reaction even if the
coalition force only moves one hex.
========================================================================
William Jockusch (620.94) in FO says the Feds can use new construction to support another race
while at limited war.
Are activations treated like "construction" for this purpose?
ANSWER: Yes, although you only get the one CL and one FF per turn activations at limited war.
=======================================================================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
Hey Chuck, according to this rule you posted, you can't exclude any of the ships you choose for your pursuit force. They are all chosen as a Battle Force, not as a Potential Battle Force Pool.
They aren't reveled in advance, but they should all have to fight according to the way the rule
you pulled up is written.
Nick can you confirm if I've got this right please?
ANSWER: Right, if you pick some number of ships to base the pursuit die roll on, then all those
ships are included if you made contact with the retreating force. They are not revealed before
the retreating player builds his force.
===========================================================================
Robert Padilla:
Can a player accumulate plus points at a planet that is not devistated, but also has no defending units. For example, if 15 damage is scored on the planet, would there be 5 plus points?
ANSWER: See (308.25), if there are no defending units, i.e. no PDUs or ships, the residual
defense is not a unit and thus does not count, then there are no plus/minus points accumulated.
=========================================================================
Paul Bonfanti: A kzinti fleet has caught a few Klingon auxiliaries in a slow unit pursuit.
One of the auxiliaries is a SAV, escorted by an F5E and E4A.
Can the Kzinti player legally direct his damage as follows:
22 damage to cripple the entire group
4 damage to destroy the crippled E4A outside escort?
We are under the impression that this would not be legal in normal situations, as the Kzinti's
options will be destroy the whole group, cripple the whole group, or destroy or cripple the
outside escort only. But we thought that being a (slow) pursuit, the rules changed.
ANSWER: There is no rules change that I know of since it should use the normal escort rules, so
you go for either the whole group (cripple or destroy), or use CEDS to hit one escort.
=========================================================================
Alan De Salvio: Nick, 704.0 and 706.0 list a set of provinces as set-up locations for several
fleets (Rom North, Rom West, Gorn 1st, Gorn 2nd, Gorn 6th). Does this mean at least one ship from
the specified fleet must be set-up in each province listed for that fleet?
ANSWER: No, you can set up as you wish. If a given fleet lists 4 provinces as their set-up area, then you can put some of the fleet in each province, or all in one province, or whatever. The entire fleet must be somewhere within the area specified, but it could all be on one hex if you wish.
=========================================================================
John Doucette: Alan, the short answer is yes, alas. Read the setup instructions again. If there is an "and/or" in there, that's your out. If it only says "and", tough luck
ANSWER: Nope, they all work the same for all races. So even though the Klingon setup says
and/or, and the romulan just lists provinces, you can set up however you wish within that area.
The romulans could put the entire north fleet in hex 4310 if they want, and the Kzinti marquis
fleet could all be on the marquis starbase.
===========================================================================
Sean Dzafovic :A Federation fleet has two LTFs, and is 4-6 hexes from a supply/retro point.
If the fleet is forced to retreat, can the LTFs use each other as a retro point for slow unit
retreat? Or must they retreat to another retro point?
ANSWER: Not if they are in the same hex. Retreat means you leave the battle hex, and if they are both in the battle hex and there is no retro point within three hexes (that is itself not in the battle hex) then they are stuck.
==========================================================================
Sean Dzafovic: (523.112) Any X-ship can be produced by overbuilding or by Accelerated Production, but a given race may produce only one X-ship per turn by such a method. This is an exception to the 8-point limit in (431.31).
Question: Does this mean a race can produce one X ship per turn either by overbuilding or by
advance building, or two (one by both methods)?
ANSWER: You can only have one overbuilt X-ship per turn, which is in addition to other
construction.
=============================================================================
Sean Dzafovic: Can a captured Gorn DN be converted to a DNT?
(305.45) states that a captured ship can't be converted to a mauler, but a DNT isn't a mauler,
just has an effect similar to one.
ANSWER: I will say no. The reason for the mauler effect in this case is the plasma-Rs, and a given race that captured the ship may not have them. Granted, the Roms do, but no one else does, and I don't want to go down that road based on race tech, simpler to have the basic rule that applies to all.
===============================================================================
Todd E Jahnke: Must a monitor stationed at a planet be in every battle force formed by its side when fighting at that planet (not in approach but actually with the planet and any PDUs and/or bases on or around the planet)?
I note that monitors have been ruled to count against command ratings and that forcing the
inclusion in a non-pursued battle force of a unit that counts against command ratings is not
something otherwise done by F&E rules (FRD, PDU, and bases may be forced to be included but do
not count against command ratings).
ANSWER: Rule (519.22) says to treat the monitor as a base for purposes of approach battles, which means after the approach battle when the planet is reached, the monitor must be included. It is too slow to avoid combat at that point.
======================================================================================
Jimi LaForm: Coalition forces in Hydran space assaulted by the Hydrans. 25 Coalition ships in
hex, 12 withdraw before combat (Hydrans opposed withdrawal). The two forces do an round of combat (remaining 13 coalition ships vs Hydran line). 24 points of damage falls onto the Coalition fleet and I have a choice between crippling some ships or self killing to prevent pursuit.
Here is my question. During pursuit when I build my pursued line, do I use just the 13 ships that
stayed in hex? or can I add the 12 withdrawn ships into my pursued force?
My guess is only the 13 but be nice to have confirmation.
ANSWER: See (302.14) and (302.16), the withdrawn ships are no longer in the hex and could not be
included in a pursuit battle round. Withdrawn ships actually retreat out of the hex before
combat, and (302.134) later ships that retreat then go to that same hex.
==================================================================================
James Southcott: I've seen a few players using a tactic in building a reserve gorups - basically
it involves putting the escorts in a battle group to get extra ships to the combat. Using an
Admiral, not to add to the size of the group directly, but to justify the battle line as legal (a requirement for reserves). Thought I'd check it was legal before using it myself.
To give an example, it may go like this
C8(admiral), D6S(as free scout), 3xD5V, [3AD5, 3F5E] 2F5.
A total of 13 ships which is legal (cos of the battle group).
However it would not be a legal battle line without the admiral. Seems to me that the admiral indirectly allows the extra BG ship and so falls into "admirals can't enlarge a reserve fleet".
However it's quite ingenious and might be considered worthy of an official 'OK'.
ANSWER: This is not legal. They are putting the escorts in a battle group, which is allowed, but
then they added the unescorted carriers to the fleet as well (remember that a single ship cannot be both in a carrier group and a battle group at the same time). Remember that without escorts the carriers still count as the minimum size even in a reserve fleet (507.2). So in your example: C8(admiral), D6S(as free scout), 3xD5V, [3AD5, 3F5E] 2F5, with the escorts as a battle group, you have 16 ships (when you coun't the "missing" escorts) plus the DN and scout, clearly illegal. If the escorts are in the carrier groups, then you have 11 ships plus the DN and scout, still illegal by one ship.
The important point is that rule (507.2) says the entire reserve fleet must be a legal battle group, NOT COUNTING THE ADMIRAL. This is simply not the case in your example, without the admiral it can not be a legal battlegroup, thus it cannot be a legal reserve fleet.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit
Nick, your ruling on placement of forces has a huge impact and seems at odds with the way language is handled throughout the rules. I'm not going to appeal, because it allows for great flexibility, but maybe it's time to decide exactly how legalistic the rules will be written as? In some sections, exact wording is paramount, yet in others it seems to matter not so much. How are we supposed to know the difference?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit
Question: may a monitor at a planet to which it was assigned and from which it was not released by construction of sufficient PDUs or a base ever retreat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit
John, as far as I know that is how it has always worked. NEVER EVER have I heard of someone requiring a given fleet to have something in every province in their setup area. Have people played this way at Origins? It was a huge surprise to me to read that someone was playing that way. I don't know what to say.... A fleet area is an area, and within that area you can set up how you please, and that's how I always played, regardless of whether it says "set up in a, b, and/or c" or if it said "set up in e, f, and g".
Note that the rules (600-something) that allow you to move 6 ships of an unreleased fleet around within a setup area each turn make no mention of requiring something in each province as you move. You are free to move around as you see fit within the area(up to six ships a turn per unreleased fleet), and setup works the same.
If everybody plays the other way let me know...
Todd, I think that was ruled on somewhere before, so let me look for it.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit
I can vaguely recall some rule (maybe a scenario rule) requiring an inactive fleet to distribute its ships evenly on its bases, but I can't find it and that may just be the way I used to play.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit
SVC:
It is WOF -- Roms & Gorns do so on the ISC border.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 04:07 pm: Edit
Nah, I'm thinking of something to do with the Klingon eastern fleet.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit
I don't remember any ruling forcing the Klingon player to distribute his Eastern Fleet. But I'm notorious for forgetting the rules sometimes =)
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 04:17 pm: Edit
I believe there was a tac note written on the Klingon east fleet, saying to put the entire fleet up near the Kzinti border right from the beginning. I think this is one of the first tac notes ever published.
I don't have my CapLogs handy, or I'd find it for you, but if so, this clearly suggests that no such restriction ever existed on placements for at least the east fleet.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:45 pm: Edit
My group always interpreted the "and" differently from "and/or" because language seemed very important (i.e. units and ships) throughout the rules, so we've been requiring fleets without "and/or" to setup at least one ship/unit in each area listed. Was that not the intent? If not, my Coallition opponent will be very happy the next time he plays the bad guys ;)
CL29: No such rule exists or is implied.--SVC
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit
Never was in this situation and I did not see a rule about it-
308.85 allows an uncrippled SB to repair a SIDS. Costs 4 repair points each from the SB's repair capacity.
420.61 Speaks generically about repairing crippled bases using a tug.
The question- what about a BatS? I've never had a BatS survive a battle being only damaged with one SIDS. Do I need a repair tug, or can I use the 4 BatS repair points to repair the SIDS?
Thanks,
Joe
CL29: Rule (308.85) allows an uncrippled Starbase to repair one of its own SIDS damage steps (deducting 4 points from its next repair phase). No such provision is allowed to smaller bases (BATS or Base Stations).--SVC
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 03:35 am: Edit
We are playing Cloud Burst and need the following question answered.
(523.12) on the Hydran SIT the following ships
and units are avaiable one year before they recieve XTP. BTX,LNX,RNX,SBX.
1) Is this correct.
2) I have checked all the other races and they get there XTPs when they produce their first X ship. Only the Hydran get their XTPs a full year later than when their X ships are avaiable.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit
John,
I would say that since the SIT (which lists some x-ships as Y182) is correct since it matches the data in SFB Module X-1. So the date of Y183 listed in (709.3) looks wrong and should be Y182 since X-ships can be built then.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit
What happens if you decide to retreat after an approach battle?
Can you use the base to screen pursuit?
If the base is not a base, but is a tug acting as a supply tug and there are no cripples, can it be pursued?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit
I am not clear on who is retreating, the ships on the same side as the base or the ships attacking the base.
1: If the Klingons attack a Kzinti base, the Klingons offer the approach battle, Kzinti don't accept, Klingons refuse to fight at the base and retreat. The Kzinti can pursue, but at a penalty to the die roll (Klingons had a head start) (302.23).
2: Klingons attack Kzinti base, offer approach battle, whether Kzinti accept or not, if they retreat while the base is still present then the Klingons cannot pursue.
3: Klingons attack Kzinti "base" (which is really a supply tug), and if the Kzinti retreat the tug is no longer a supply source and now counts like any other retreating ship (412.2), Klingons can pursue. Note that supply tugs are not listed in (302.741) which is the rule about bases blocking pursuit.
Does that answer your question? If not then I need more info.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:34 pm: Edit
Bill's asking about two similar situations that came up yesterday. Here are specific examples:
Large klingon fleet is attacking a Kzinti base with only a FF present. Can the Kzintis send the fighters to the approach battle and then retreat the FF without it ever seeing combat?
Gorn fleet attacks a hex with a Romulan supply tug and a frigate. Can the supply tug withdraw before combat? or can the frigate go to die in the approach battle and then can the supply tug retreat without ever seeing combat?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit
Nick,
Mostly for my own peace of mind:
The CVBG rules state that a single ship carrier may be included in the group without their normally assigned escorts.(502.921)
With the recent changes to (515.42), would that disallow Single ship carriers from doing that anymore? I.E. sticking a Fed CVL in with a SCS to form a CVBG with only the SCSs escort group? a 5 ship group counting a 4 slots?
SVC NOTES THAT THE SINGLE-SHIP ABILITY IS NOT CHANGED.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit
Also, the rule 527.21 changed in FO to mention all ships with F-111/A-20s.
Do ships like the Fed CVH (the CVS with F-111s) get to start functioning like a Single ship carrier? Or the BCS? (F-111+F-14)
The rule made sense when it was just ships that were the Fed equivelent of PFTs.....but to include line carriers as well? THat seems not the intended goal.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 06:55 am: Edit
Hi Nick - thanks for the answer to the reserves question, any thoughts on the question about salvage from slow pursuit?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit
This was in the FO AA topic and doesn't apply to FO rules so it cannot be addressed there.
John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 -
Is the DCS(H) to DCS(P) conversion covered under (442.1) [SCS Conversions]? That is do the 8 Heavy Fighter Factors
become 16 PFs [or transfered to a new carrier]?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 02:53 pm: Edit
The Hydran OB (709) in AO lists one 'Scout Pod' from AO in Exp. Fleet, and one 'Scout Pallet' from AO in the General pool. Are Scout Pod and Scout Pallet the same thing?. However, under the Production Notes (709.3) only one Scout Pallet is listed in the 'Start' column. 317.51 notes they have one in storage and can build one more.
Please clarify as to what is correct or incorrect as the situation may be.
Also, where is the Master SIT located online?
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Master SITs: click on the F&E topic, they are in the "MASTER SIT UPDATES" subtopic. Go into the archives to find the actual SITs, as the most recent messages are proposed changes and corrections.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Odd question here.
Is the Hydran Old Colony Fleet released on turn 7 if not released before that? Or if the Hydrans never lose a starbase or have thier capital attacked, does it just sit out the war?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Edit
Thanks Adam.
Anyone able to clarify about the Hydran Scout Pod/Pallet issue?
Also:
The Lyran SIT lists the STJ as available in Y171, the OB in AO says 170. Which is correct?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit
always follow the SIT.
The Hydrans only use pallets, but use the term Pod and pallet interchangebly.
A note, you may set up your pods anywhere you like, they do not have to start with a certain fleet or anything. The best pallet for the Exp Tug is the FCP, as it is the only pallet that will function with the Special Tug's ability.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 01:20 pm: Edit
Thanks Cfant, what about the note that the Hydrans only have one Scout Pod in (709.3), and this is also implied in (317.51), however in their OB (709) two are listed?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 02:03 pm: Edit
they start with one, and can build a second.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit
So the OB is incorrect?
Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 02:35 pm: Edit
Paul Bonfanti:
Large klingon fleet is attacking a Kzinti base with only a FF present. Can the Kzintis send the fighters to the approach battle and then retreat the FF without it ever seeing combat?
ANSWER: I believe that is legal. The FF could also withdraw before combat leaving the fighters behind (302.14) under the "withdraw half the ships" rule (302.131).
Gorn fleet attacks a hex with a Romulan supply tug and a frigate. Can the supply tug withdraw before combat? or can the frigate go to die in the approach battle and then can the supply tug retreat without ever seeing combat?
ANSWER: Both of those are legal.
Anytime you retreat and leave a base behind there is no pursuit. If a base-like unit (such as supply tug) is retreating, then there can be pursuit unless there is still a real base left behind.
===========================================================
Chris E. Fant: Also, the rule 527.21 changed in FO to mention all ships with F-111/A-20s.
Do ships like the Fed CVH (the CVS with F-111s) get to start functioning like a Single ship carrier? Or the BCS? (F-111+F-14)
The rule made sense when it was just ships that were the Fed equivelent of PFTs.....but to include line carriers as well? THat seems not the intended goal.
ANSWER: I would say the single ship carrier option applies to the ships with ONLY F111s, not to ships with a mix of F111s and ordinary fighters, those ships must still be escorted normally.
=======================================================
James Southcott: Hi Nick - thanks for the answer to the reserves question, any thoughts on the question about salvage from slow pursuit?
ANSWER: Did I forget this one? Sorry. I would say (439.17) applies to both normal and slow pursuit, so no salvage for either player.
==========================================================
John Wyszynski: Is the DCS(H) to DCS(P) conversion covered under (442.1) [SCS Conversions]? That is do the 8 Heavy Fighter Factors become 16 PFs [or transfered to a new carrier]?
ANSWER: I don't think so since the rule says "only for CVA/SCS and BCV/BCS conversions."
=========================================================
Tony Hammermann: The Hydran OB (709) in AO lists one 'Scout Pod' from AO in Exp. Fleet, and one 'Scout Pallet' from AO in the General pool. Are Scout Pod and Scout Pallet the same thing?. However, under the Production Notes (709.3) only one Scout Pallet is listed in the 'Start' column. 317.51 notes they have one in storage and can build one more.
Please clarify as to what is correct or incorrect as the situation may be.
ANSWER: They should start with just one (the "pallet", no such thing as a Hydran scout pod) in general storage in the main supply grid. The pods/pallets do not start in specific fleets, they should just be listed on the "general" lines for each race. (i.e. 709.3 is correct.)
=====================================================
Chris E. Fant: Odd question here.
Is the Hydran Old Colony Fleet released on turn 7 if not released before that? Or if the Hydrans never lose a starbase or have thier capital attacked, does it just sit out the war?
ANSWER: The rule in (709) applies in the first scenario as it is referenced in each of the rules for the first six turns under (601.2). Once you get to scenario 2, rule (602.13) releases the Old Colony fleet if it hadn't been released prior to that point.
===============================================
Troy Hammermann: The Lyran SIT lists the STJ as available in Y171, the OB in AO says 170. Which is correct?
ANSWER: What does the online SIT say? I think it has been ruled on before so I assume the online SIT is correct whatever it says.
==========================================
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit
The online SIT says 171 as well.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 04:41 pm: Edit
Nick, just so I am clear...
The Fed CVH carries only F-111, so it could operate as a single ship carrier after 181?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Chris, presumably.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 05:19 pm: Edit
That seems very odd.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 05:27 pm: Edit
Why? The rule says any ships with F111...
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit
But back in AO, the only ships to operate F111s were Aux Carriers, Aux SCS, and NVH. Well GVH and CF1's also.
CVH, DCS weren't around yet.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit
Some rules are written "applies to ships X, Y, and Z" while some rules are written "applies to ships with X property".
One is limited to what is specifically listed, the other is open to new ships being added to the game.
That's the way the rule reads, so that is how I ruled, that's all...
If something is overpowered about it perhaps you can make a case that there needs to be an additional limit, but right now there is no such limit in the rules.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit
The rule wasn't written with the idea of new ships being added, so any openness is accidental. Whether a ship could or should depends on PFT ness. If it works like a PFT, it get the "feel free to skip the escorts" rule. If it works like an SCS or BCS, then it doesn't. As for the CVH, I'm not sure, I'd have to go do some digging. If it's like a D6P then it's in. If it's some other critter it isn't.
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit
I know that a SCS counts against CVA production limits.
Does it also count against PFT and/or scout production limits?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 08:08 pm: Edit
The CVH......it is just a standard Fed CVS with F-111s instead of F-18s.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 04:40 am: Edit
Just to clarify for the moment then (also so SVC can see the implications of Nick's current ruling):-
Federation F111 single ship carriers after Y180
CVH (9H) YES - Query.
BCS (9H4) NO
DCS (9H6) NO
NDS (9H6) NO
ASC (9H6) NO
LAH (9H) YES - Query.
NHV (9H) YES - also specified PFT-like in SIT.
NVH (9H) YES - also specified PFT-like in SIT.
GVX (9H) YES - Query. - note that it does NOT say in SIT that it must be escorted, only that it was used as a single ship carrier in raids. I temporarily can't find any other GVX reference ( but I think there is one).
Federation A20 single ship carrier after Y180
NVA (10V) YES - because specified PFT-like in SIT.
Am I correct (currently) on this?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 08:33 pm: Edit
In the F&E errata file it states:
"(520.21) SAFs cannot use retrograde movement."
The rule in Combined Ops. suggests something different. I understand that the errata file is for Marine Assault, but the the errata file note should probably be changed for clarification to avoid confusion, if the rule in Combined Ops. is indeed correct.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit
For clarification please:
The Lyran DN costs 16 to build.
The Lyrans can substitute a CA for a DN on their build schedule.
The Lyran CA can be converted to a DN for 6.
A Lyran CA can be converted to a DN for 6.
The Lyran CA costs 8.
Technically I can substitute the CA (8) for the DN (16) and then convert it to a DN (+6) for a cost of 14, and a savings of 2 EP.
Correct?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit
Please ignore the previous question (posted 05/21/04, 11:31pm). Found the answer.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit
David, let me look through each of those ships and see what they look like, based on SVCs comments above.
Troy: I belive they (SAFs) can use the "slow unit retrograde" (i.e. retreat) rule (302.742) only, they cannot use regular retrograde movement.
Troy: There is a rule (431.8) last sentence, that states you cannot substitute a ship and then convert it during that construction step into the originally scheduled ship type. This prevents saving EPs through such jiggery-pokery.
Once the next CL (#30) comes out (and I get my copy in the mail) I will take all the errata for the current printing of F&E products and update the master errata. The errata from CL#30 (for Fighters Ops) is the only stuff left I need to do this.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit
Nick, I hope you mean CL #29; #30 isn't come out until November.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 01:52 pm: Edit
29, 30, whatever... The next one that just went to press.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Nick,
Maybe I've missed it but....
Any news about the SUP+Prime team raiders rules?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 04:30 pm: Edit
Fabio, will be in CL#29. I belive the final concensus was:
1. The defender in the hex attacked by a cloaked raider can pick ships to NOT make the "find the cloaked raider" die roll. This keeps the fed DN (or whatever) from randomly running into the SUP+prime team all by itself.
2. If the raider uses the cloak (to avoid fighting a huge reaction battle vs everything in the hex) then he only gets to raid the province, no alternative attack is allowed. If the Romulan forgoes the cloak die roll (using all normal raid reaction battle rules), then he can do alternative attack if he survives the reaction battle.
NOTE: I haven't seen the final version of this errata, but that was my understanding at the time it went to press. I believe that using the cloak in single combat is still allowed in either case.
So basically, if you use the cloak to avoid the big reaction battle when you raid a hex containing a fleet, then you get no alternative attack, only province disruption. Sort of like you are spending too much time cloaked and thus you can't scan for/find a specific target, but can only hit random shipping you come across. If you spend the time to scan for a particular target, you aren't cloaked long enough to avoid everything else in the hex.
This keeps the super sized Rom raiders under control with regards to alternative attack, but still lets them raid provinces easily.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 05:15 pm: Edit
Nick: email Leanna and ask her to post it. Until she fixes my computer I cannot access pagemaker files.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Just want a clarification.
Pertinent rules section is (511.53).
Am about to start the third round of an assualt on the Kzinti capital. At the end of the second round the major planet in Vronket System (there is only one planet there) was devestated (and, of course, has no PDU's left).
The (uncrippled) 'static forces' assigned to it before the first round are still required to remain in Vronket until all the planets in the entire capital region have been similarly dealt with, correct?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 09:21 pm: Edit
Troy, they can withdraw from the hex, but if they stay, then they have to stay at that planet See (511.54, 4th Sentence)
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:39 am: Edit
Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 02:33 pm:
John Stephens: Lets say the Klingon (with a D6M) has a total ComPot of 130 and ends up with a combat coefficiency of 30%...thus doing 39 points of damage to me. He decides to direct on my Form Box (a Kzinti DN...12/6). He uses the Mauler for 5 points at 1:1...leaving him to do 7 points at 3:1. A total of 26 points to cripple the DN (We all agreed to that point). Our disagreement comes to this: How much damage is left for me to resolve? Is it 39(damage total)-5(mauler shot)= 34? Or is it 39(damage total)-10(mauler shot/5 effective) = 29?
ANSWER: Ok, 39 pts of damage, and you are directing on a 12/6 unit in formation bonus. So since a mauler is only "half as effective", you can do this with your 39 pts of damage. Spend 5 at 1:1 and 21 at 3:1 which equals 5+(21/3) = 5+7 = 12 which cripples the DN. If you also want to destroy it that would take 18 more which you don't have. So you can cripple the DN for 26 pts leaving 13 pts (39 starting damage - 26 spent = 13 remaining) for the defender to allocate himself. The mauler does not get you "extra" points, it allows you to spend a given amount (usually 10) of your damage you rolled for at 1:1 instead of 2:1 when you direct.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
I think your math is off here:
If the mauler spent its 10 points getting 5 DD points on the pursued DN in formation that would leave 29 points, with another 21 DD points for the remaing 7 points left on the DN. That would leave 39-10=29-21=8 points left not 13.
As per your post two days earlier:
" When you attack the form bonus position, for every 2 actual mauler pts you have you get 1 effective mauler pt. So a 10 pt mauler gets you only 5 pts of 1:1 directed damage, the rest must be at the regular 3:1 for a form bonus target. There is no other 5 pts, since all 10 mauler pts were "spent", those 10 mauler factors just earned you 5 pts at 1:1 on a form bonus target instead of 10 pts at 1:1 on a regular target."
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 13:
I can vaguely recall some rule (maybe a scenario rule) requiring an inactive fleet to distribute its ships evenly on its bases, but I can't find it and that may just be the way I used to play.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, May 13:
SVC:
It is WOF -- Roms & Gorns do so on the ISC border.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 13:
Nah, I'm thinking of something to do with the Klingon eastern fleet.
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Scenario 681: Hydran Expedition (681.32)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:31 am: Edit
Troy, the math is correct, it just looks funny. Essentially, just look at it as (3:1)-10 points if using a 10 point mauler. So, a 12/6 DN cost 54 to kill normally, 44 with a 10 point mauler. Cost 36 to cripple, 26 with a 10 point mauler.
39 Damage:
(12-5)*3+5=26, 13 damage left over. OR
12*3-10=26, 13 damage left over.
308.45 States that maulers used on ships in formation use only half their COMPOT in mauling, 5 or 4 (on a 10 or 7 point, round up), so it is only 5 points used, not all 10.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:49 am: Edit
Cfant,
In the previous message (Monday Feb. 23 about 12 or 12:30) Nick Blank wrote:
"There is no other 5 pts, since all 10 mauler pts were "spent", those 10 mauler factors just earned you 5 pts"
If there are 39 points, 10 of which are mauler points spent on DDing the DN for five points you would have 29 points left (39-10).
These 10 mauler points cause 5 points of damage to the DN (10/2). The DN has 7 points left (12-5).
Of the 29 remaining points 21 are used to DD the DN for 7. This leaves 8 points left (29-21).
39-10-21=8.
12-(10/2)=7(*3)-21=0
Otherwise the Mauler did not expend its 10 points mauling the DN it only expended 5 points, and contributed its other 5 the 'normal' damage pool.
39-5=34-21=13.
A similar circumstance exists with the Mauler use against the regular formation bonus (i.e. 7 effective for the 10 mauler points points).
That is, you have to use that whole 10 to get that 5 or 7 (otherwise they are just firing 1/2 or 2/3 strength shots, i.e. the mauler is only expended 5 point to hit the ship in the pursuit formation bonus, or 7 in the regular formation bonus).
At least thats how I have always played it.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 07:56 am: Edit
Troy wrote:
10 of which are mauler points spent on DDing the DN for five points you would have 29 points left (39-10).
Chris wrote:
308.45 States that maulers used on ships in formation use only half their COMPOT in mauling, 5 or 4 (on a 10 or 7 point, round up), so it is only 5 points used, not all 10.
Troy, read what Chris said here. Half of the maulers COMPOT is used for mauling....not half of the DAMAGE scored. Your cheating yourself outta 5 pts by doing it your way. Now read your own statement....a 10 pt mauler mauls a ship in formation for 5 pts (of DAMAGE). Since at this point we are dealing with damage, subtract the 5 pts of DAMAGE from the 39, which leaves 34..and so forth. Just because its a 10 compot ship, doesnt mean it can do 10 pts worth of damage. Plus, the mauling damage is not being done solely by the mauler anyway...its only DIRECTING damage done by the entire battle line.
The way these guys have nailed it in my head at Origins is that you take the normal damage needed to cripple/kill a ship in formation and subtract the COMPOT of the mauler.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit
Dave:
How many nails did it take ?
Was it you in that online picture with all the nails in the skull ?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:57 am: Edit
If you maul a ship in formation, you really only have a 5 point mauler, not a 10 point mauler (pretend the little number on the counter is 5 instead of 10 for mauling purposes, it is still 10 for purposes of overall battleforce compot).
You mauler is not as good at mauling formation ships than normal ships, so it is treated as a "smaller" mauler. Hey, that rhymes!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit
If you had 29 damage, normally directing means you spend 2 damage for one effective damage point. Ships in formation the ratio is 3:1 instead of 2:1.
A mauler lets you spend some amount of that 29 at 1:1 instead of 2:1. Usually this is 10 (or 7 of CW maulers) of the 29 at 1:1, and any remaining that might still need to be dealt is at the normal 2:1. In formation, you only get to do half that, 5 (or 4 for CW maulers) of the original 29 at 1:1, and any remaining directed damage against the formation ship is at the normal 3:1. See?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:05 am: Edit
Troy: Just want a clarification.
Pertinent rules section is (511.53).
Am about to start the third round of an assualt on the Kzinti capital. At the end of the second round the major planet in Vronket System (there is only one planet there) was devestated (and, of course, has no PDU's left).
The (uncrippled) 'static forces' assigned to it before the first round are still required to remain in Vronket until all the planets in the entire capital region have been similarly dealt with, correct?
ANSWER: There is one piece of errata in the master errata file:
(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.
So, under those conditions yes, they all go to the "mobile" element. If only the one planet is devestated, then the static ships stay in that system, or can retreat from the hex.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit
David, haven't forgotten you, just digging through my SFB stuff to compare the ships case by case looking for "PFTness".
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit
Dave Whiteside wrote:
[i]Troy, read what Chris said here. Half of the maulers COMPOT is used for mauling....not half of the DAMAGE scored.[/i]
I read what Chris wrote. I also read what Nick (the FEAR) wrote. The first thing Nick suggested the way I had been doing it. The second thing Nick wrote (after my veiw was (mistakenly) confirmed by reading the first) suggested a miscalculation in the math.
Dave Whiteside wrote:
[i]Your cheating yourself outta 5 pts by doing it your way. Now read your own statement....a 10 pt mauler mauls a ship in formation for 5 pts (of DAMAGE).[/i]
I read my own statement. In fact I wrote my own statement.
Dave Whiteside wrote:
[i]Since at this point we are dealing with damage, subtract the 5 pts of DAMAGE from the 39, which leaves 34..and so forth.[/i]
Which seemed to disagree with Nick's first statement on the issue:
"There is no other 5 pts, since all 10 mauler pts were "spent", those 10 mauler factors just earned you 5 pts".
Dave Whiteside wrote:
[i]Just because its a 10 compot ship, doesnt mean it can do 10 pts worth of damage.[ Plus, the mauling damage is not being done solely by the mauler anyway...its only DIRECTING damage done by the entire battle line.[/i]
A 10 compot mauler does 10 damage when mauling a ship on the line (not accounting for other factors).
Dave Whiteside wrote:
[i]The way these guys have nailed it in my head at Origins is that you take the normal damage needed to cripple/kill a ship in formation and subtract the COMPOT of the mauler.[/i]
That just seems off to me, though Nick's next two posts do confirm that statement (as does SPP's CL 8 "Can You Give Me An Example Of...").
Thanks for the answers all.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit
What are the codes for italicising (etc.) here?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit
Goto "Formatting" on the left side of the Webpage, and it'll have details their.
Along with
________________________________________
Quote:
quote
________________________________________
, bold, etc
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit
Look to the menu to the left - there is a formatting section.
You use \ i { text }
(lose the spaces)
You can do bold, different colors etc.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:07 pm: Edit
The mauler provides its attack factor (10) as compot to the battle line (like any other ship with an attack factor). This total compot gets multiplied by the % obtained by your die roll, 30%, 25.5%, whatever. This gives you some amount of damage pts, let's say 25.
The mauler then has the additional ability to let you direct up to 10 OF THAT 25 damge at some target at 1:1 ratio instead of the noraml 2:1 ratio for directed damage. BUT, if you direct against the formation bonus ship then that same 10 pt mauler only lets you direct up to 5 OF THAT 25 total damage at 1:1, the rest directed at the formation ship must be at 3:1.
This is what rule (308.45) means. A 10 pt mauler still contributes 10 attack factors to your force's compot for purposes of rolling for damage, but can only direct 5 points OF THAT ROLLED DAMAGE at 1:1 against a formation bonus ship.
See?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 04:37 pm: Edit
Scott and Richard thanks.
Nick, as I wrote above:
"That just seems off to me, though Nick's next two posts do confirm that statement (as does SPP's CL 8 "Can You Give Me An Example Of...").
Thanks for the answers all."
So yes, I do see. It still seems off to me. The compot has nothing to do with why it seems off. Merely the (what I see as an) inconsistant manner of damage allocation.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 08:17 pm: Edit
Sorry, Troy...guess you didnt like my explanation....just trying to help. Good luck in understanding.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit
I had no problem with your explanation.
The condescending phrases in your explanation are another matter.
"read what Chris said here... Now read your own statement..."
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit
Troy, perhaps you could say what about the allocation seems off or inonsistant...
Let's see, 39 damage to allocate, DN in formation requires 12 * 3 or 36 (normally), leaving 3 left for defender allocation. Mauler function allows for 5 damage to be at 1:1 instead of 3:1, moving 10 points (5 at 2:1 [difference from 3:1 and 1:1]) over to defender allocation. Total left for the defender is 13 (and his crippled DN).
That make anything clearer (just another way of looking at it)?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit
The way my gaming group handles mauler damage is to subtract the mauler damage first, then resolve the remainder normally.
I'll use the 39 damage pts in the original thread starter with a DN(12/6) in the form bonus box. The mauler would normaly allow 10 of the 39 points to by scored at 1:1, but the target in the form bonus box means the mauler can only score 5 points at 1:1.
That leaves the calculation as follows: 5 points of damage are scored on the DN, reducing the defence factor to 7 (12-5) and reducing the damage remaining to 34 (39-5). The 7 defence factors left on the DN require 21 damage points to resolve (form bonus), crippling the DN and reducing the damage remaining to 13 (34-21). The crippled DN now has a defence factor of 6, which requires 18 pts to resolve. Since there are only 13, those 13 go to general.
It's exactly the same procedure as explained by the others, just worded differently (and perhaps even coming at the problem from the opposite direction).
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit
Stewart Frazier wrote:
Troy, perhaps you could say what about the allocation seems off or inonsistant...
I would have, but the answer had been given, and this did not seem the appropriate place for it.
I am not having a problem with the clarity of the answers given. I do not understand why that keeps being suggested. I have already acknowledged the the answers are correct.
The reason (presuming this is the appropriate forum) that I think it is off is this:
For the sake of simplicity lets just say I have a force (including a Mauler(10)) with a compot of 100 and that nets me 50 damage.
1). I want to kill a Fed DN on the line so I hit it with the Mauler.
50-10=40, it is crippled (and I now kill it with 10 more, 40-10=30). I have to use the full attack factor of the mauler to get those first 10 points to cripple the DN and deduct those 10 from the the available damage points.
2) I want to kill a Fed DN in formation.
50-7=43. Note that at this point I now have 3 additional points from my attempt to cripple the DN with my Mauler left over in my damage points, despite the Fed DN being in formation, I did not have to expend more from my Mauler in my attempt to cripple it, the other points that I expended when the DN was on the line just shifted to the general damage pool. (On the other hand, to continue in my attempt to kill the DN I have to expend more ((3*3+(5*3)=24, in effect I lose damage points over Directing oversomething outside of formation.)). By attacking something in formation with my Mauler I am not losing any damage ponts, I am shifting those damage ponts to the general pool. Now the way I have been doing it to get those 7 cost me 10 (the Mauler compot). Thus I am losing something (3 points of damage) to direct on something in fomation with a mauler, over directing at something in the line, just as I lose something by regular DD at something in formation, over regular DD something on the line (the difference between 3 to 1, opposed to 2 to 1).
This can continue for the pursuit formation bonus. 50-5=45 (I also am not particularly sure why the is no detraction from the DD penality on the line or in formation between pursuit and regular combat while there is for the Mauler use but that is something completely different) as opposed to 50-7=43 or 50-10=40.
That is what I see as inconsistant. It is not costing me additional points to use the Mauler against a formation bonus ship.
I just see that there is more consistancy in the way I had been doing it. To use the Mauler against on line cost me 10 points of damage for 10. To use the mauler against in formation cost me 10 points of damage for 7. To use the mauler against in pursuit formation cost me 10 points for 5. To use DD against on line costs me 2 points for 1. To use DD against in formation costs me 3 points to 1.
I hope that is clear. I am not questioning the ruling given. As I noted previously what Nick originally wrote last Monday seemed to confirm what I had been doing (at least in context with the question he had been answering), while the math provided in the responce two days later seemed to contradict that first statement. Nothing was unclear in the following responces (and nothing was unread or misread in those responces despite another suggestion ).
Again, I hope the above is clear and if not I will tip another shot of Bushmills to you and try again.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit
In responce to John Doucette:
I had always done it that the mauler damage was 1:1 or 7:10 or 2:1 rather than 1:1 with no points left over, 1:1 with 3 points left over and 1:1 with 5 points left over.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit
You totally lost me.....why are you subtracting 7 from the damage against the ship in formation?
A Fed DN in formation takes 45 to kill. 35 with a mauler.
A Fed DN on the line take 30 to kill, 20 with a mauler. (we agree here)
Line: (10-10)+(5*2) = 20
Form: (10-5)*3+5+15 = 35
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:12 am: Edit
Cfant:
I think the confusion may be about the two different formation attacks both of which I am using in my latest example.
I have 100 compot. After modifications and rolls I have 50 actual damage points to expend. I have a Mauler(10) in line. I want to use the mauler attack against a ship in formation bonus. I subtract 7 from the 50 damage total for the Mauler(10) that I am using for my special mauler attack, if I use the Mauler against attack a ship in pursuit formation I would only subtract 5.
We agree on the on line attack (10-10 from the 50 original points leaving 40).
We did not agree with the in formation (10-7 from the original 50 leaving 43) or the pursuit in formation (50-5 from the original 50 leaving 45 damage to be resolved) in which Nick's original statement (last Monday) seemed to agree with how I had been doing it.
Is that clear?
As I stated above, I understand the ruling, I do not agree with it at this point (nor do I recall agreeing with SPP's 'Can You...' way back in CL 8, I recall sending in a query about that but can not find it in my papers, no suprise considering the going on 20 years since then) but I understand it and will use it.
Much of this seems to be starting to become General Discussions rather than Q&A about rules.
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:22 am: Edit
Dumb Question Alert!!
Are the capital hexes the only hexes that can contain multiple planets?
Paul Franz
By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:31 am: Edit
Paul, the current map has only the capitol with multiple planets, but any hex can have multiple systems by a player building multiple bases and declaring that they are not next to each other.
this includes various base-like things that include tugs that are acting as supply points, FRD's, etc.
so multi-system hexes can appear anywhere.
also to keep the client flexible to be able to handle future maps (LMC, Omega, etc) and future rules (new colony development, etc) don't assume that only the capitols will have multiple planets
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:49 am: Edit
Nick or anyone....the SIT in CO and AO has an SAF with no crippled side factors, while the counter itself has 0-3 on its crippled side. In CO, 520.5 also says it has a defense factor of 3. We are assuming that the SIT is wrong, but are not sure.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 08:41 am: Edit
David,
Ok. I was just concerned on representing planet/capitols on the map. If it is only capitols that can contain multiple planets then I will just show the capital star in that hex. I don't care about the multi-system per hex yet. That is only needed when combat occurs.
Paul Franz
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit
Can groups of captured NZ hexes be used for the long-term capture (438.1) rule, thereby allowing a police ship to be called to to defend them from a raid?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:52 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Two questions about the Romulan DMH.
1) is it possible to produce a SUB and SPB on T10 and a DMH as a carrier with 12 fighters on T11 (no other carriers produced that turn)?
If so what is the cost of the DMH?
2) is it possible to produce a SUB and SPB on T10 and a DMH with 8ftr factors and a G factor on T11?
What is the cost?
IIRC an escorted DMH in this configuration can use the G factor for extra cpature but cannot use it to marine assault. Is that correct?
Thanks
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:37 pm: Edit
Cfant wrote:
"You totally lost me.....why are you subtracting 7 from the damage against the ship in formation"
It was just pointed out to me that there is a rules change in the 2000 edition (which I just got last week). The old edition has 7 allowed against a ship in formation.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit
Tossed my 93 copy a while back....ah well, that does explain it.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:52 pm: Edit
93? But thats so young... I was using the 89 (my 86 having been stolen).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit
Someone stole your F&E rules? Wow. A thief wanted these things????
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit
Yeah well, I like to be up to date.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit
302.761
Is this a rule that a player may choose to use or ignore on a case-by-case basis? The phrasing could lend itself to that interpretation, but that would make is a sort of unusual rule. I would suppose that a group would either choose to use the rule, or not, then stick with that decision. The second sentence, OTOH, is a bit vague regarding which decision it is that "can be made each time a retreat is required."
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit
Troy, I think that this may be a case of nectarines and oranges. It may be better to think of the mauler as a bonus to the general damage than anything else (the math works that way).
Looking at the 50 damage vs a Fed DN (10/5), under normal DD its 50 - 10*2 + 5*2 = 20.
In formation its, 50 - 10*3 + 5*3 = 5.
The use of a mauler changes this to -
50 - [(10-10)*2+10] + 5*2 = 30 (mauler full effect, adds 10 to general)
Form = 50 - [(10-5)*3+5] + 5*3 = 15 (mauler at half effect, adds 10 to general)
Basically do the DD normally then add the maulers to the remainder, although an odd mauler COMPOT would add one to formation ships due to rounding.
BTW, a war mauler (7) leads to -
50 - [(10-7)*2+7] + 5*2 = 27 (mauler full effect, adds 7 to general)
Form = 50 - [(10-4)*3+4] + 5*3 = 13 (mauler at half effect, adds 8 to general)
Lyran STL (12) -
50 - [(10-10)*2+10] + [(5-2)*2+2] = 32 (mauler full effect, adds 12 to general)
Form = 50 - [(10-6)*3+6] + 5*3 = 17 (mauler at half effect, adds 12 to general)
Gorn DNT (14) -
50 - [(10-10)*2+10] + [(5-4)*2+4] = 34 (mauler full effect, adds 14 to general)
Form = 50 - [(10-7)*3+7] + 5*3 = 19 (mauler at half effect, adds 14 to general)
New Mauler (9) [R10, Klingon and Lyran]
50 - [(10-9)*2+9] + 5*2 = 29 (mauler full effect, adds 9 to general)
Form = 50 - [(10-5)*3+5] + 5*3 = 15 (mauler at half effect, adds 10 to general)
The fun can really start for the SFG/mauler effect together, but that's for another missive...
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Rule (207.21) states that ships cannot leave the off-map area on the same turn they entered it.
Turn 5 Coalition, the Klingons and Lyrans just took the Kzinti capital. At the end of combat the Kzin retreated off map.
It is now turn 5 Alliance. By the above rule the Kzinti cannot launch attacks from the off-map area (with the ships they retreated off-map in the coalition part of the turn). They must wait until turn 6.
Is this correct?
Any speed to the reply would be appreciated because alliance op moves are about to start.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 06:53 pm: Edit
I belive what is meant (rules at home, not with me at work) is player turn. So you cannot do some something like retreat ships off map during combat, and then retrograde them back onto the map on that same player turn.
On different player turns like you say is fine.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 07:40 pm: Edit
I can find no mention of it being okay on different player turns, it just says "...units... cannot leave such areas on the same turn they entered them." Turn in this case is not distinct.
If it is in fact the case that this is referring only to player turns (rather than a game turn) it should be made more clear.
(207.26) Says you can't exit and enter on the same Movement Phase, but you can leave the off-map on one move phase (Operational) and then re-enter it on another move phase (Retrograde).
And then there is a specific partial exception given for Tugs delivering EP's (207.292).
So basically the section allows for exiting and entering on the same player turn. It does not allow for the opposite, but is unclear if the "turn" referred to in (207.21) is referring to a a "half", or player, turn (ie Alliance or Coalition) or a "full", or game, turn (ie Spring or Fall, 5 or 6).
This seems to be the only case where something like that can happen. Any other circumstances are going to necesitate waiting until the next game turn anyways. Leave by op move on turn 5, will not be able to re-enter until turn 6 (whether by op. or strat). Retro on turn 5, will not be able to re-enter until turn six (whether by op. or strat). If they strat move off on turn 5 they will only be able to re-enter on turn 6 (op. strat or reserve).
No big hurry now, as alliance moves are on hold for a couple hours.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit
At home and looking at the rules.
It is the case that you can move out of the off map area, and on a different movement phase of the same player turn move back off-map (207.26).
Rule (207.21) does mean player turn as far as I know. So if you move off map during op movement or retreat, you cannot get back on-map until the next player turn.
The Lyrans could, for example, build something on turn 1 coalition, and strat move it off map at then end of turn 1 and then designate it as a reserve. Then on alliance turn 1, the lyrans could bring it back on-map during reserve movement, say to one of the BATS under Kzinti attack.
Similarly the Kzintis could build something alliance turn 1, strat it offmap and make it a reserve, and then use that reserve on coalition turn 2 by bringing it back on map during reserve movement.
Sometimes it is a bit fuzzy if Game Turn, or Player Turn is meant at various places in the rules. This time it is player turn.
You can exit, then enter offmap, on the same player turn (just not in the same movement phase), but cannot enter and then exit off map on the same player turn. Except for tugs delivering EPs...
Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 09:51 pm: Edit
So the reason it goes by player turn is you can place stuff off map into reserve fleets and expect to be able to use that on the next player turn, whether it is across a Game Turn break or not. If it worked the other way only the alliance could do this.
Granted, normally only the alliance does do this, but it should be possible for the coalition as well (read Lyrans), so it must be Player Turn in (207.21).
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 09:59 pm: Edit
Thanks.
(It is a good thing that I set my defences up for that (the Kzin was only going to attack out of the Marquis area because of it, but now will probably attack all over when the person gets here...).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 11:51 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Is there a difference between 'conjectural' ships (eg the Lyran CVA) and 'historically never built' (eg Lyran CVD).
Does building conjectural ship require opponents agreement and the never-built ships not?
By Andrew Patterson (Warhawktbc) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 04:44 am: Edit
In addition to James question which I have been wondering about, let me ask this one as well.
With the advent of many special carrier groups in Fighter Operations, and no special surcharge, is the F-15 surcharge rule really needed any longer?
With the rules on oversized squadrons, or so many ships with special fighters within a couple turns of the war, do we need to pay 8 extra for these? There are a bunch of other ways to get fighter squadrons larger than the normal 6 now. Yes a lot of them except CVA come after 172 or even after 175, but this just seems to be an archaic rule. You don't pay a special surcharge for F111's or A-20's. Just 2 points per fighter factor. So why make a lesser, superior fighter pay this surcharge?
The only immediate answer staring me in the face is so that you don't exclusively build these in the early years. But that could be corrected by a 1 per year ruling or some such.
Just a thought to chew on. I'm not really expecting it to change.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit
Nick,
Does (515.26 FO) mean that carrier tugs or battle carrier tugs can no longer use the formation protected position.
It states:
"Unescorted carrier tugs count as two ships for command rating purposes."
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit
Hey Nick, another question on 515.26
Says that Tugs with cv pods do not require escorts but count as 2 command slots if they do not have any. THen goes on to say what each type of Tug is depending on fighters.
Does this mean that a Tug with 6 fighters must have 2 escorts? Or that it can have 1, 2 or 3?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit
Chris F.
(515.26) says:
"Carrier tugs with 4 or fewer fighter factors are treated as CVLs (515.23) Carrier tugs with 10 or fewer factors are treated as CVs (515.22)."
(515.22) says 2-3 escorts are required and (515.23) says 1-2 escorts are required.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 01:21 am: Edit
Thanks Trent, I have read it several time. Just thought I would check with Nick.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 09:35 am: Edit
Questions Downloaded to this point.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 02:14 pm: Edit
May neutral planets with defenses have their fighters fight approach battles?
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit
Todd: Doesn't the opposing player get to run neutral planet defenses, period, end of sentence? Sounds like he could do whatever he wants with them, including fight an approach battle if that seems best.
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit
A couple of SFG/X-ship questions.
For random target selection, if the following units are the set available: RN, LBX, RNX, DGX, KNX, LNX what attacker slots can be filled and which defender slots can be left blank (AO 523.342). In particular, if the attacker picks the RN (only non-X) for slot #3, then can he pick an X-ship for #2 (or does the presence of a non-X ship in the force prevent that? If not allowed, can he pick the RN for both #2 and #3?)
If the attacker chose the RN, is the defender required to pick it again for slot #4, or is he allowed to leave #4 blank?
If there are blanks in the selection, and a blank is chosen via die roll, does this mean nothing is frozen?
Finally, did the reduction of SFG AF/DF when freezing multiple targets get removed/replaced by the total disaster stuff? For some reason I thought that it didn't, but I couldn't find any reference to it in the new rules.
By Joseph Tipton (Crunchyklingons) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit
Do base stations not exist in F&E?
It states in 510.3 that Mobiles can be upgraded to battle stations. Maybe I have an older version.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 01:37 pm: Edit
We added base stations in an expansion (CO I think) with the ability to upgrade MBs to BS or BATS.
By Jim Mattaboni (Jmatta) on Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 09:01 pm: Edit
When is the border and bases between the Lyrans & Klingons released? The reason I ask is I'm trying to determine what turn I can upgrade one of the Klingon Border BATS on the lyran border to a SB.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 11:35 am: Edit
Jim, I had asked this in the past, they are released with the Home Fleet (T4)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit
I apologize for the delay in getting to questions, I have been working more than usual over the last week or so and the rest of this week is not looking better. I will plan on getting caught up by this weekend though.
Nick
By Jim Mattaboni (Jmatta) on Wednesday, June 09, 2004 - 08:31 pm: Edit
Thanks Tim, I tried looking for it using the search option but had no luck.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit
Can a Commercial Convoy be escorted with ad-hoc escorts as a normal convoy can?
If so, since a commercial convoy has no crippled side, can the CC be targeted by directed damage after the escorts are crippled, or do they have to be destroyed first?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 04:02 pm: Edit
Jim,
here you go
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit
Nick:
Is there a consolidated errata sheet available for the most current rule sets: F&E2K, AO, CO, FO?
IOW, if I own all of the above, is there a current errata sheet relevant only to these rulesets?
If so, I'd like to get a copy ready to take to Origins. Thanks.
V/R,
Chuck
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit
When looking at the rules for Commercial convoys it says that they have to move between starbases in a race's main supply grid.
Does that mean that if I build a Fed Starbase in the Kzinti off-map area that they can deliver point each turn? does that mean they need to be the equivilant of 4 hexes away so it's every two turns?
Can the Feds build a starbase in Kzinti off-map space?
Can a commerical convoy work when a starbase in in foreign space but still connected to the main supply grid?
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 10:27 pm: Edit
I believe this guestion was answered previously by saying the SB has to be in your home territory but does not have to be an original SB
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:05 pm: Edit
Darin, you also can't put a Fed SB in the Ksinti Barony (or MB for that matter)...[433.412]
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 11:36 pm: Edit
More questions downloaded. Answers on Monday.
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 03:46 am: Edit
What are the standard escorts for the Fed CAV (A-20 fighters)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:17 am: Edit
ANSWERS POSTED
============================================================
David Slatter on F111 single ship carriers after year 180:
ANSWER:
CVH (9H) YES seems to me to be the same class as NHV.
BCS (9H4) NO
DCS (9H6) NO
NDS (9H6) NO
ASC (9H6) NO
LAH (9H) YES rule (526.45) says to treat them as aux PFTs in all regards, also all auxiliary carriers have escorts optional as a general rule.
NHV (9H) YES has SIT note.
NVH (9H) YES as it is specifically stated in (527.21).
GVX (9H) YES rule (527.27) specifies that it does not need escorts.
NVA (10V) NO rule (527.21) says these must always be escorted.
The above is what makes sense to me.
So the only ambiguous cases (that don't have some other specific rule) would be the CVH and NHV, cruiser sized "PFTs". These seem to be the same type of ship. From the wording of the rule (527.21) these do not need escorts after Y180, but they were added to the game after the rule. The NHV does have the same SIT "PFT" note as the NVH so one would assume it is treated the same. The CVH could be argued either way, it fits the wording of (527.21) but does not have the SIT "PFT" note. However, I would allow it though unless a specific exception is later made requiring escorts.
======================================================================
Paul Franz: Are the capital hexes the only hexes that can contain multiple planets?
ANSWER: David Lang is correct, the only at-start such hexes are the capitals, but over the course of the game these multi-location hexes can be created by building new bases or other circumstances. Note that the new rule to be included in Planetary Ops provides for the creation of colonies, but not in hexes with existing planets.
======================================================================
Dave Whiteside: Nick or anyone....the SIT in CO and AO has an SAF with no crippled side factors, while the counter itself has 0-3 on its crippled side. In CO, 520.5 also says it has a defense factor of 3. We are assuming that the SIT is wrong, but are not sure.
ANSWER: I would go with the counter, the SAF has a crippled side. Can be crippled if the enemy attacks it before it reaches its target as per (520.5). Now the trick is what to do with a crippled SAF under (520.4) as this rule makes no provision for a crippled SAF attack. It handles "crippling/disrupting" a normal SAF with 12 directed damage (defense factor of 6), and states that the SAF cannot be destroyed by directed damage. I think the simplest thing would be to say that the SAF must be repaired before attacking, as rule (520.4) only handles uncrippled SAF attacks. A crippled SAF is too weak to make such an attack. I know there is no specific rule stating this, but (520.4) is clearly set up to only apply to uncrippled SAFs, so that makes the most sense to me.
=======================================================================
Robert Padilla: Can groups of captured NZ hexes be used for the long-term capture (438.1) rule, thereby allowing a police ship to be called to to defend them from a raid?
ANSWER: No, there is no such provision in the rule. Under (503.62) five NZ hexes give you the economic credit of a captured province, but they do not count as a province for any purpose. Under later rules each hex gives you .2 EP, and are no longer grouped together for any purpose at all.
=======================================================================
James Southcott: Two questions about the Romulan DMH.
1) is it possible to produce a SUB and SPB on T10 and a DMH as a carrier with 12 fighters on T11 (no other carriers produced that turn)?
If so what is the cost of the DMH?
2) is it possible to produce a SUB and SPB on T10 and a DMH with 8ftr factors and a G factor on T11?
IIRC an escorted DMH in this configuration can use the G factor for extra cpature but cannot use it to marine assault. Is that correct?
ANSWER: This really depends on where the modules are coming from. If you are building the various carrier modules with the ship, then they count against the appropriate carrier limits for the turn/year in which you are building them and cost full price plus fighters in addition to the cost of the ship. If they were built on previous turns and were just in storage in the supply grid, or are being removed from other ships for use on new construction, then those modules do not count against the current turn/year's construction limits, and you pay the cost of the new ship plus the conversion cost to add the existing modules. Does that help?
=====================================================================
Todd E Jahnke: (302.761 ) Is this a rule that a player may choose to use or ignore on a case-by-case basis? The phrasing could lend itself to that interpretation, but that would make is a sort of unusual rule. I would suppose that a group would either choose to use the rule, or not, then stick with that decision. The second sentence, OTOH, is a bit vague regarding which decision it is that "can be made each time a retreat is required."
ANSWER: The owner(s) of the units in question can make this decision either way every time they retreat their units. It is a standard rule on the order of variable battle intensity, capturing ships, pursuit, and any other rule marked "ADVANCED". When first learning the game you should probably not use such rules, but after gaining experience and playing with the full ruleset it is considered a standard rule.
=======================================================================
James Southcott: Is there a difference between 'conjectural' ships (eg the Lyran CVA) and 'historically never built' (eg Lyran CVD).
Does building conjectural ship require opponents agreement and the never-built ships not?
ANSWER: Unless there is an overriding specific rule, any ship can be built as the player wishes within the normal construction limts, regardless of what happened historically. The CVA Gorn/Lyran thing has a specific rule allowing construction only when both Gorn/Lyran players agree. If the CVD has no special rule then you are free to build them under the normal limits, as far as I know.
=======================================================================
Andrew Patterson: With the advent of many special carrier groups in Fighter Operations, and no special surcharge, is the F-15 surcharge rule really needed any longer?
ANSWER: As far as I know there are no plans to change this. If you want to campaign for it there is a rules change topic.
=======================================================================
Trent Telenko: Does (515.26 FO) mean that carrier tugs or battle carrier tugs can no longer use the formation protected position.
ANSWER: I belive they can still use formation. I do not think that (308.74) applies to single ship carriers which did not have assigned escorts, which an unescorted tug is, despite the special command rating rule (515.26).
=======================================================================
Christopher E. Fant: Hey Nick, another question on 515.26
Says that Tugs with cv pods do not require escorts but count as 2 command slots if they do not have any. THen goes on to say what each type of Tug is depending on fighters.
Does this mean that a Tug with 6 fighters must have 2 escorts? Or that it can have 1, 2 or 3?
ANSWER: If unescorted the cv tug takes two command slots. If escorted then the minimum size is based on the number of fighters.
======================================================================
Todd E Jahnke: May neutral planets with defenses have their fighters fight approach battles?
ANSWER: I don't see why not, if the player operating the neutral defenses wishes to do so.
======================================================================
Erik Underkofler: A couple of SFG/X-ship questions.
For random target selection, if the following units are the set available: RN, LBX, RNX, DGX, KNX, LNX what attacker slots can be filled and which defender slots can be left blank (AO 523.342). In particular, if the attacker picks the RN (only non-X) for slot #3, then can he pick an X-ship for #2 (or does the presence of a non-X ship in the force prevent that? If not allowed, can he pick the RN for both #2 and #3?)
If the attacker chose the RN, is the defender required to pick it again for slot #4, or is he allowed to leave #4 blank?
ANSWER: The presence of the RN prevents the attacking from picking an X-ship for position 2, so the smart thing would be to pick an X-ship for position 1, and then the RN for position 2. Three has to be blank as there are no more non-x-ships. Then the defender can never be forced to put an x-ship into slot 4. The only non-x-ship is already chosen by the attacker, the defender cannot chose it again unless there are no other valid targets to chose. There are valid targets, the X-ships, which he can chose to leave out of 4, so 4 can be blank. The defender would then put x-ships into 5 and 6.
If there are blanks in the selection, and a blank is chosen via die roll, does this mean nothing is frozen?
ANSWER: Right. Normally if there are not enough ships then some ships get extra slots, but the X-ship rule specifically says to leave the slot blank.
Finally, did the reduction of SFG AF/DF when freezing multiple targets get removed/replaced by the total disaster stuff? For some reason I thought that it didn't, but I couldn't find any reference to it in the new rules.
ANSWER: Right, total disaster is the only case where the SFG ship has its attack factor reduced. Freezing multiple targets does not do this anymore. Any SFG ship that uses its SFG can be attacked by directed damage at 1:1 regardless of the Stasis rolls.
===================================================================
Jim Mattaboni: When is the border and bases between the Lyrans & Klingons released? The reason I ask is I'm trying to determine what turn I can upgrade one of the Klingon Border BATS on the lyran border to a SB.
ANSWER: I know it was answered before, and I think the correct answer is with the home fleet as stated above.
=====================================================================
Paul Bonfanti: Can a Commercial Convoy be escorted with ad-hoc escorts as a normal convoy can?
If so, since a commercial convoy has no crippled side, can the CC be targeted by directed damage after the escorts are crippled, or do they have to be destroyed first?
ANSWER: They can have 2 escorts. In both cases Convoy and CC, I think you have to destroy the escorts before destroying the convoy as they cannot be crippled.
=======================================================================
Chuck Strong: Is there a consolidated errata sheet available for the most current rule sets: F&E2K, AO, CO, FO?
ANSWER: Such a document does not exist, other than the after action listed in captains logs. I plan to make this and bring it to Origins though, as soon as I get the latest captains log with the official errata for Fighter Ops.
=======================================================================
Darin Smith: When looking at the rules for Commercial convoys it says that they have to move between starbases in a race's main supply grid.
Does that mean that if I build a Fed Starbase in the Kzinti off-map area that they can deliver point each turn? does that mean they need to be the equivilant of 4 hexes away so it's every two turns?
Can the Feds build a starbase in Kzinti off-map space?
Can a commerical convoy work when a starbase in in foreign space but still connected to the main supply grid?
ANSWER: I belive the above is correct, it must be a starbase in the original territory of the appropriate race to count as a CC destination.
=======================================================================
James Pyke (via e-mail): I have a question dealing with the retreat rules and empty planet hexes.
The situation is this: the phasing player has moved all his ships from his planet hex into an adjacent hex to attack the other player. The planet hex has no other units. In the course of the battle, the defender retreats. The planet from which the attacker moved is a legal retreat point after Step 3 of the retreat procedures. It is supplied and is exactly as far from a supply source as two other hexes that could be retreat points.
My question is this: Can the defender retreat into the planet hex? Is he forced to use fighting retreat rules (302.77) in doing so? The attacker's claim is that the planet has a residual defense force at the planet and that this 0-3 "unit" counts as the unit needed to force a fighting retreat. However, the defender is not convinced that the planet hex has any units.
I guess the short of it is: does the residual defense force constitute a unit under rule Step 4 (302.734)?
Also: If the planet hex is a valid normal retreat point, does the defender capture it? Devastation is assured after all.
ANSWER: A residual defense factor is not a unit for any purposes, hence the recent name change from RDU (unit) to RDF (factor). If such a retreat is legal in a given case under other rules the retreat priorities then it will essentially create a new battle hex, even if that battle will only result in devestating and capturing the planet. It is still a new battle hex and is treated like any other.
=======================================================================
James Pyke (via e-mail): If a crippled ship retreats to an unprotected planet, can he capture it? I know he cannot garrison it - or at least I infer that since a cripple cannot garrison a province - and so it will revert back to the other player. But can he do any more than devastate it?
ANSWER: I believe it counts as captured as (508.22) makes no provision for requiring uncrippled ships, but without a non-crippled garrison (508.23) it will immediately revert back to the original owner and return to their supply grid at the start of the next player turn.
======================================================================
John Wong: What are the standard escorts for the Fed CAV (A-20 fighters).
ANSWER: Not yet published as far as I know. The CAV would seem to be the A-20 equipped version of the Fed CVH, which is SFB (R2.100) in module J2. It had escorts of NAC, DWA for Y177 and later, which would be a good guess for the CAV.
====================================================================
That should be everything. If I missed your question, apologies, and let me know.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:19 am: Edit
Chuck,
If CL#29 staff shipments are being delivered at Origins rather than mailing before then I will just bring the errata up to that point. I hope they are mailing them before Origins, but I don't know what ADB's plan is.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit
Plan is to mail CL29 with R8 (or bring to Origins). I can Email you the errata but I think I already posted it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:41 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Such a document does not exist, other than the after action listed in captains logs. I plan to make this and bring it to Origins though, as soon as I get the latest captains log with the official errata for Fighter Ops.
________________________________________
Nick: If you complete this soon I'd like to get an e-copy so I can include a copy of the errata in the player folios. Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 10:52 am: Edit
Steve Cole, I believe I found it, thanks.
Chuck, I will get it together in the next day or so and send it to you.
Nick
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 11:17 am: Edit
Thanks buddy.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:05 pm: Edit
Would there be any interest in an F&E Master rulebook?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:14 pm: Edit
Aye!
By David Johnson (Djj) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit
YES! YES! YES!
I'll go and order two now.
*******************
Tick-tock
*******************
Hey Steve, how come I cannot find it at ADB's online store; is it not ready yet?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:19 pm: Edit
With the introduction of Planetary Ops/ISC Wars later this year/early next, I would prefer that you spend your time working on those, than a Master F+E rulebook.
F&E does not have the volumes of pages as SFB does, and has largely, been entirely reprinted since 2000, and is fairly up to date, with no major changes in errata (with many changes available in the Master SITS online).
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit
F&E Rulebook: At the very least a fixer update that properly orders the various new rule sections. For those of us that have stuck the rules in a binder, it is a pain to find the various sections that are out of order.
By Will Culbertson (Willc) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:27 pm: Edit
I would certainly like a master F&E rulebook. I already have a large binder with rules here and there. A complete, up to date with errata version would be something I would certainly be interested in (and have been for some time).
Would this have the rules from ALL the expansions? The SITs, OOB and Production Schedules are the areas that really need the work but integrating all the rules would be very helpful to have.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Pffftt, oh ya!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 12:34 pm: Edit
I would like a copy that would include everything up through PO...
PO will be the last of the "Operations" expansions for a while right? The rest being ISC War Civil War, etc?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit
Yes a Master F&E Rulebook would be great, but preferably for next year after Planetary Ops and I.S.C. Wars. If you print it this year for Origins I'll buy it. If you wait till next year when it's a bit beafier I'll buy it then. Just please don't do both.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:33 pm: Edit
I wouldn't buy it. I think the volume of rules is so much lower than in SFB, and the rules are only in four (soon to be five) places. I think my binder with the four books in it is good enough.
Just a small voice of dissent
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit
Like the SFB MRB I'd bet there could be update packs when needed. The MRB can be bought loose leaf so it is easy to integrate the packs.
Now that's the SFB MRB. I only assume the F&E MRB would be similar.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit
While I like the idea of one rulebook, I think I can wait until PO & ISC are ready.
...wow a new mail-order product idea -- "General War in a Box": the new F&E MRB; a complete counter set (with double sets of critical sheets); a map & dice...
By Javier D Benvenuti (Javierb) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:56 pm: Edit
Yes,
I would buy it as well...
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 01:57 pm: Edit
Chuck, would that the the big map?
That is the really big map you're doing?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit
Thumbs up for the one rule book.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit
(adds his thumbs up in there for 'The One'
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit
Ok, I just finished the NEW PRODUCT MASTER ERRATA FILE for F&E (errata for F&E2K, FIGHTER OPS, COMBINED OPS, ADVANCED OPS). Not included were SIT items, since those are all on-line now, right? I have to go to work now, but I will look it over again and then send it out to Chuck when I am done.
Nick
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 03:47 pm: Edit
I already have a MRB thanks...maybe at the end of 2006 or after ecowar. I'd buy it then since my current copy will be tattered and torn. I am bringing it again to Origins for the 4th year.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 05:44 pm: Edit
I'd like to see a master rule book - but mainly as a vehicle to deal with all the errata and rulings that have slowly come up over the years - i.e. you get an updated rulebook. If it is just a reprint including all the current rulebooks, then no.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 06:11 pm: Edit
There wouldn't be any point in doing it if we didn't fix everything we knew was busted.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 09:56 pm: Edit
I would definitely getting it.
By Andrew Patterson (Warhawktbc) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 03:47 am: Edit
I would buy one as well.
Nick, in regard to commercial convoys, and an earlier question.
It was asked if you could build a starbase in a friends territory, and you said you believe it had to be in your original territory, and not an allies. Does this include captured territory?
I.E. the Klingons want to build a Starbase in captured fed territory so that they convoy is much closer to the romulans? That is not allowed either?
Because it only states it has to be in the Main supply grid.
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit
Master F&E, where do I send my pre-order.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 06:40 am: Edit
Question on Internement
Can I do the following?
It is turn 9, Feds are at limited war.
The Zin move a fleet via strategic movement to the 4th fleet starbase. It is immediately interned as they are not allowed to do this under the limited war rules without internment.
However, the Zin fleet is immeditely released also under the limited war rules, and can (but does NOT have to), move released interned ships into their own territory immeditely upon the next opportunity.
The Zin choose not to move the ships further by strategic movement, leaving them at the 4th fleet starbase (or wherever in the Fed supply grid within 6 hexes of a Zin base). The ships are now released, but cannot move, having missed their one opportunity. However, because the ships are still released and only moved by stratmove, the Zin can legitimately put a reserve marker on them.
When the Klingons invade turn 10, the Federation supply the Kzinti ships under the homeless rules (this can be done immeditely). There is now a viable Zin reserve in Fed space as the Kzinti ships are immeditely allowed to move again as the Federation is at full war.
Is that all legal? Looks OK to me. I don't see why I can't play a similar game with opmove, except of course the Zin cannot get any further than a boder BATS that way (not being allowed to move further into the Federation) and a reserve marker can't be used.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit
David, a few things....
Ships of a supported race cannot send ships into the territory of the supporting race (except cripples to a base for repair) (see 602.49D)
Released ships MUST move out of the Federation immediately upon the next opportunity. (see 602.49C)
So, your above move is illegal.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 04:41 am: Edit
C fant
Wrong and Wrong
You can always move ships into the space of a neutral power. They simply get interned. Has there not been talk about moving Lyran ships to be interned into Klingon space turn 1 so as to get within range of 1401 turn 2? The Klingons are not even at limited war at that time. The above rule you qoute simple means they cannot enter the space under normal movement rules. It would be diabolical if you could move ships into a totally neutral power for internment, but not at all into a power that that is supporting you at limited war, particularly given that Gorn ships can move *through* Federation space at limited war into Zin space and vice versa. When those Gorn ships enter Fed Space, the Feds would have no way of being sure they were actually destined for Kzinti space. In reality, the Gorn ships would be interned and released at the other end of Fed space.
Please also reread 602.49C The first sentence is:-
"A race being supported by another race's limited war campaign can do the following"
(bold is as done in rulebook)
point three is then:-
Move released interned ships into their own territory immediately upon the next opportunity.
You are the one that put "MUST" in there instead of "can". The only logical interpretation of that particular rule is the one I have given - if you don't move the ships out immediately, they can no longer move. I might just have considered your view if the "can" was not bold, but it is in bold. Indeed, one could come up with a reasonable view that the ships can always move out immediately at any movement opportunity, but do not have to - effectively staying in Fed space as long as they want.
There is also no proviso under 602.49D that says interment is no longer allowed. The only quibble you could have is the statement "Anything not otherwise covered". However, I would contend that Limited war is supposed to allow more capability to the Federation, not less by forbidding it to intern ships.
Finally I have a realism point. How are the federation going to stop those Kzinti ships going across the Fed border when the Feds are at limited war supporting the Zin? The Zin persist in moving them into Fed space - Are the Feds going to blow the ships up? Not likely - only the ISC do that. The Feds will intern them, and the Zin will be very happy to have them interned.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit
Well, you are twisting the intent of the rule , and when Nick gets back from Origins he will agree with me.
Also, if you switch can with allowed (they mean the same thing) then the Kzin are allowed to move out immediately. That means at the first available opportunity they immediatley leave.
And Nick has ruled several times that the Kzin are just not allowed to send ships (outside of an expeditionary unit) into Fed space during this time period. So 602.49D means exactly what it says. Cripples for specific repair only.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 09:19 am: Edit
Andrew, I will try to ask that at Origins. I think that Jeff L. ruled along those lines, but I am not positive.
On the Fed/Kzinti thing, (after dragging my rulebook out of the suitcase, thanks guys).
I would note that rule (503.4) says that before such powers (e.g. Fed) enter the war, treat them as (503.1). This says that no matter how you enter such a power, you are interned in the first such hex. So even if the Kzini moves by strat movement, you won't make it to the starbase, you will be interned in the first fed hex you enter after the neutral zone. Also, homeless or expeditionary ships must be specified at the start of the turn (I belive), not on the fly (note the position of these two items on the economics form).
I hope that helps. I don't have time to dig through the rest of this indetail, as I really need to pack the car and leave for Origins. If there is still a question I will deal with it when I return.
Please please please, I don't want to find a 5-10 page discussion on this when I return. I really hate that. Questions only please. Perhaps Jeff will take over while I am gone if things pile up too much.
Nick
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 09:24 am: Edit
Chris
Moving discussion to "general discussions" to comply with Nick's request.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:50 pm: Edit
Nick, assuming the Feds are at limited war on turn 7 becuase no Coalition invasion occured.
Looking at the FO Limited War Rules, a point of clarity is needed on
602.49C
Would the Kzinti be required to move their ships out of Federation Territory immediately at the start of an Alliance turn? Or do they have a choice of leaving their ships in Fed space and building up as many ships as they like?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit
If the Federation is at Full War, due to a Klingon attack, the Kzinti are only allowed to send in an Expeditionary Fleet (602.12) or a Tug for EPs. "Kzinti forces cannot enter the Federation." So, any in excess would have to leave.
If the Feds only go to Limited War, the Kzinti aren't even allowed to send an Expedition Fleet (602.49D in FO). The Feds aren't allowed to adopt Kzinti ships (602.49B). The Kzinti are allowed to use strategic movement to go through Fed space to reach another race that is being supported (the Tholians, for example), but cannot stop in Fed space (602.49A).
(602.49C) says that interned Kzinti ships "Move released ships into their own territory immediately on their next opportunity." I would take that "immediately" to mean that any Kzinti ships interned in Fed space before Turn 7 would be absolutely required to leave on the Alliance part of Turn 7.
In an earlier Captain's Log, SVC stated that the Lyrans and Kzintis are prohibited from being "mercenaries" for the Klingons and Feds, respectively, as they have their own priorites the first 3 turns of war between the Feds and Klingons.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:15 am: Edit
Bless you Jeff, you are a wonderful man.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 02:09 am: Edit
Jeff,
Understand your Answer but would like to clarify some things. First 602.49A allows Kzinti ships into Federation space during limited war to be repaired at Federation bases. Therefore, some Kzinit units are allowed to stop in Federation space.
Also 602.49C says the Kzintis can immediately move the ships. (the bolding of can is in the text) This implies they can move it immediately but does not have to. If that is not the intent, then the word must should be included in that phrasing. Otherwise, a new player may read it incorrectly.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit
I agree with Russell. If the intent of the rule is to say that Kzin ships can reside in the Federation only until repaired, then the rule is badly written. If the intent is otherwise, the rule is still badly written and should include the phrase "but are not required to" in there somewhere.
I realize the intent is as clear as crystal to the drafters of the rule, but no two people read a given text the same way, which is why we have (more or less) standard rules of grammar.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Hey Guys....Lets go easy eh: we all missed that one when the draft rule was posted . We can't reprint the 'can' as 'must' in the rule books now.
I think it's expecting a little too much for every rule to be word perfect, especially in a game this compex. That's why we have the Q&A facility run by designer and staff. I can't think of a similar facility for any other game!
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit
The problem is that there are a couple things that the supported race "can" do, but don't have to.
But, the rule does say "immediately upon the next opportunity."
I guess the only thing to do then, is to get clarification from on high. But, based on previous rulings, the Kzintis will be required to move out, and not build up a fleet in Fed space.
From CL10:
Q1005 Why are the Kzintis and Lyrans prohibited from entering Federation territory on turns 7-9?
A This reflects the national priorites of those races. The Kzintis are not quite ready to abandon their country to become Federation mercenaries, and the Lyrans went into partnership with the Klingons to divvy up Kzinti and Hydran space, not to become Klingon mercenaries against a race (the Federation) with which they have no dispute.
So, please explain the logic of how the Kzintis can't build up a fleet in Fed space with the Feds at Full War, but can if the Feds are at Limited War.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 09:45 am: Edit
Nick:
Our group has a few questions here, but let me preface them by thanking you (and the entire team) for doing such a great job of supporting the product. I have tried to look through the Q&A to make sure I'm not asking questions that were already asked and answered, but I couldn't find these, so please forgive me if I'm covering old ground. That said, here goes.
1) Can an available Neutral Territory hex force a fleet into taking a fighting retreat to avoid internment?
Our specific example is as follows: Alliance Turn One: The Kzinti player establishes a presence in 0703, 0704, 0802, 0803, 0903 and 0904, surrounding and striking a Lyran fleet in 0803. The Lyran player fights his obligatory round, and having had enough of the carriers, wishes to withdraw.
Thus, we consider the retreat options (302.73). Step one tells us that 0804 (internment into the WYN cluster) is always an option. The Lyran player would like to avoid that, so we continue. Step two tells us that the massive fleets in 0703 and 0903 prevent withdrawl into those hexes. Step three tells us that despite the fact that he is currently out of supply the hexes 0704 and 0802 would both become "in supply" if he retreated into them, due to Lyran units in 0602, while 0904 would not, since the Klingons are not yet active, and hence the Neutral Zones cannot be used to trace supply. Substep A is thus not engaged, as there are hexes that would be in supply. Substep B rules out 0904, as it would be out of supply. Substep C is irrelevant in this case, as all supply would be from the main grid. Substep D then rules out 0802, as it is farther from supply. This leaves 0704.
Now, up to this point, both players agree, and feel confident with the interpretation of the rules. Here comes the fun part:
The Kzinti player feels that step four prevents Lyran retreat into 0704, since there is a perfectly good hex that contains no enemy units: 0804. In you go. If you don't like it, overrule step 4 by doing a fighting retreat into 0804, they've been waiting for you.
The Lyran player feels that the line in (302.731) that reads: "This is always a voluntary action." should permit him to ignore the existance of hex 0804 (he elects not to inter himself, please and thank you) and perform a normal retreat into hex 0704, taking advantage of the weak force there.
The question arises as to the intent behind the phrasing of the last line of step 1. The Kzinti position is that internment in this case is not manditory, the Lyrans can always elect not to retreat. If they insist on retreating, the path of least resistance is clear, and if they insist on retreating to 0704, that would be a fighting retreat. The Lyran position is that they cannot be forced into accepting 0804 as a legal retreat path if they do not want to take it, and can thus disallow 0804, leaving them "no choice" but to retreat normally to 0704.
Which is the correct interpretation of step four, with regards to step one?
2) Could you define "points" in the Kzinti Drone Stockpile (318.2)?
(318.2) says "... the Kzintis do not pay for their first 48 points of drone bombardment ..."
Do you mean 48 drone factors (4.8 EP) or 48 economic points (480 factors)?
(309.0) refers only to "drone factors" and "economic points".
3)a) Does the conversion of a tug into another tug (Lyran TGP -> TGC, Kzinti TGT -> TGC, etc.) count as the production of a tug? (specifically in terms of yearly production limits)
3)b) Same question, but for commando ships.
4) When, exactly, is the capturing of Neutral Zone Hexes (503.62) evaluated?
Specifically, when do enemy ships in adjacent hexes cancel the capturing? If I retrograde or strategic move a ship to a battle station adjacent to a neutral zone hex captured by the enemy, do I uncapture it? Or does the movement have to occur during operational movement? What about retreat movement?
5) At what ratio does an SFG ship using its SFG outside the Tholian Web get directed against?
(512.31) says 3:1 for being a ship outside the web.
(312.24) says 1:1 for using its SFG, though it does make reference to that being "(rather than the normal 2-to-1 ratio)".
6) The table for SFGs (in 312.222) lists a "nothing frozen" result. Is that intended to imply nothing frozen on this attempt, nothing frozen by this SFG generator, or nothing frozen by this SFG unit?
7) The Hydran economy turns 1&2.
(601.162) essentially has them draw their full war-time production, build with a fraction of it, and then offer the Orion Pirates about 50EP in bribes, since they can't accumulate economic points anyway. The point-by-point nature of the allowed/disallowed builds, however leaves some debate as to what can actually be built. The rule says that the Hydran player "... cannot build other ships (including non-ships such as an FRD) ..." and then goes on to list prime teams, command points and other non-"non-ship units". Should the rule thus be interpreted as "cannot build other ships (including non-ship UNITS such as an FRD) ..."?
If so, can the Hydran player build HDW operational groups, such as the HDW-COG or HDW-FOP? No, the Heavy War Destroyers themselves are not yet available, but the HDW-FOP is available as soon as FCRs are (525.23R) and HDW-COGs don't even have that limit (525.23V), so they can theoretically be constructed, are not listed as "units" anywhere, are not on the SITs (implying that they would not BE a unit), and are certainly not ships. Lord knows the Hydrans have the cash to spare, and they'll be a bit strapped later to make them, so why not stockpile them?
If not, and the intent of (601.162) is to prevent the Hydran player from getting a penny before turn 3, then perhaps the following phrasing could be used to replace the entirety of (601.162):
The Hydrans on Turn 1 and 2 are considered to be on wartime economy only for the purposes of later exhaustion, and in all other ways should be considered at peace. They receive the exact hulls listed in their scheduled PWC.
8) What is a pod, in F&E game terms?
The SITs say they're units, since they're listed there.
(756.0) does not list them as "non-ship units".
(102.0, under "Ship") says that "All units are ships except those designated as 'non-ship units'..."
Of course, it also says that Ships are self-mobile warships, and I hate to think that we've been attaching Pods to Tugs all these years for no reason. (grin). Hence, there's some debate as to whether they're "non-ship units" or "non-units".
9) (522.44), more or less in its entirety.
It notes that "... if on a survey cruiser, each Prime Team adds two to the die roll ...", but later says that "No more than one Prime Team can be used by any given race for this type of mission each turn." Is this to imply that multiple teams can attempt the task, but only one can succeed? Only one can attempt the task? Only one must roll?
It indicates that we should add two, but later resolve whether or not we should have added after all.
It seems to imply that if a Prime Team is wounded in action, it does not add to the die roll, but if it is killed, it does. Is that the intent?
Needless to say, the wording of this rule has made it somewhat difficult to determine the intent of the rule.
10) (530.222) includes the line "Changeovers of existing carriers to heavy fighters are limited only by the rules herein ...". To which rule does "herein" refer: (530.222)? (530.22)? (530.2)?, (530.0)? (Advanced Operations)? Something else?
11) If a BATS being upgraded to a SB takes a SIDS step but is not crippled, how many SIDS steps does the resulting SB have? One, since it had one SIDS step before? Three, to maintain 1/3 damage? Six, since it had two SIDS steps remaining before? (433.41B) is silent on this issue.
12) During slow unit retreat (302.742), if there are non-slow units (either due to an LAV or SAV being escorted, or due to an FRD being under tow), and there is no valid retrograde path of 3 or less hexes in length, are the non-slow units destroyed as well as the slow units? If they survive, can they seek a retrograde six hexes in length, or do they retreat normally? If they retreat normally, can this retreat be once again persued?
Thanks in advance for your time.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit
Phew....there goes any hope Nick had of a holiday this year . How long have you been storing those up Mark?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 02:56 pm: Edit
I am leaving for work now, but will get to these as soon as I can in the next day or so.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 08:03 pm: Edit |
July - August 2004 Archive
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit
Mark Ermenc, welcome to the board, and I am happy to help. And thank you for putting in the applicable rule numbers in with your questions, that makes answering much easier.
1) Fighting retreat can never be forced (the voluntary elimination of retreat priority 4), it is ALWAYS simply an option.
On neutral hexes, once the Lyrans decided not to enter the WYN cluster in priority 1, that hex is eliminated. Then after steps 2 and 3, if the only remaining hex is 0704, that is where the Lyrans retreat to. Step one is always an option, you can never be required to retreat into neutral space, and once step 1 is done without retreating to a neutral hex, such hexes are eliminated from further consideration. (302.731) says "No player can be forced to enter Neutral territory..."
Since the wyn hex is eliminated after step 1, after step 3 the only hex left is 0704. Step 4 eliminates this, but any step that eliminates all remaining hexes is ignored due to (302.73) last sentence of last paragraph, step 4 is ignored, and the Lyrans retreat to 0704 and it is not a fighting retreat. Fighting retreat is only if step 4 does not elminate all remaining hexes. In this case it does, as the WYN hex was eliminated in step 1 when the Lyrans chose not to go there (since retreat into neutral space is also an option and never forced).
2) It referes to drone factors, so 48 drone factors, not EPs. (Yes, they get used up fast).
3)a) I don't think so.
3)b) I don't know, no one asked this before. Carrier converted into a new carrier counts as new carrier construction if you added fighter factors, so I suppose troopship converted to another troopship would also count against construction limits if you increased the number of "G" factors on the ship.
4) The last person to have moved through (operational movement) captures the hex. They get EPs if there is no enemy presence adjacent to it. If there is an enemy adjacent to it, they still "own" the hex but don't get money. If the enemy moves away, they were still the last to have moved through it, so they still own it and get money. If an enemy moves through the hex, then the enemy owns it and gets money if you have none of your own forces adjacent to it. Basically for income purposes, check for adjacent enemy ships during income phase, for outright ownership, check who moved through the hex last.
5) (312.43), a stasis ship cannot freeze tholian stuff unless it is in the web (1:1 DD). If a SFG ship outside the web defensively freezes friendly ships in the web, it would also be 1:1 DD. Rule (312.24) takes precedence, the specific stasis ship rule has precedence over the general web rule.
6) The nothing frozen line of just for the current die roll. A D7 that tries to freeze three things could roll a 1 on the first attempt (target frozen), then roll a 6 on the second attempt (nothing frozen), then roll a 4 freezing a ship of the defender's choice. You would end with two ships frozen. If you roll total disaster, then all previous successful rolls for that stasis ship on that combat round become "nothing frozen" (312.223).
7) "The Hydrans on Turn 1 and 2 are considered to be on wartime economy only for the purposes of later exhaustion, and in all other ways should be considered at peace. They receive the exact hulls listed in their scheduled PWC." This is the intention. This is exactly what the phrase "Hydrans on Turns 1 and 2 are at wartime economy for later exhaustion but are not at war." in (601.162) means.
8). Sort of a moot point. They NEVER physically appear in the game except when attached to a tug. When they are floating around in your supply grid, they are invisible and unattackable (short of destroying the entire supply grid containing them). I would say non-ship unit, but since they only appear on a tug (becoming a ship), what is the difference? And no, they are not self-moble. Actually there is one case, (521.391) allows troop pods to land on enemy planets during a ground attack. In the absence of any other rules I would say non-ship unit when separated from their tug.
9) The first part is sloppy, only one can attempt the survey mission per turn. The sequence is correct, first roll the survey roll (with the bonus +2), then resolve if the Prime Team was injured or killed, regardless of the result of the second roll, the bonus still applies to the survey roll (since you did that one first). I.e. they were able to help even if they died in the proccess.
10) Not sure how to answer, you are not allowed to violate any rules unless specifically told you can so I would say it is under all of them. Note that conversion of an existing carrier from normal to heavy fighters doesn not use conversion capacity and does not have a cost beyond paying for the additional fighter factors. It count's against PFT production limits.
11) It would have one SIDS step. Otherwise you are multiplying the damage done for no reason. More damage would be "magically" appearing as construction proceeded. If crippled BATS, you upgrade to SB and then cripple the SB, if the BATS had 2 SIDS steps, you upgrade to SB (undamaged), and then apply the 2 SIDS steps in the same fashion.
12) I belive that anything that survives the slow unit combat is under the "3 hex retrograde slow retreat" rule. They do not revert to normal retreat if they chose to take part in the slow unit battle.
I hope that helps, if you have further questions let me know.
Nick
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit
re: 3b) troop-ship to troopship.
This really only applies to the L-DDG->L-CWG. (or H-HNG->DWG) I can't think of any other ones that would apply. (Since the benefit of going to SC3 is lost on the Hydran on, ie being crippled and still having a G-factor). That's why it is really only the Lyran. (Well survivability too, but if you are converting a H-HNG before a H-HN, I got a bridge to sell you).
And possibly some CW->NCA troopship conversions (Kz/Kl) come to mind (but those aren't official yet).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 02:57 pm: Edit
Nick, I would like to appeal your answer to number 9) above, in reference to 522.44
The sentance says: "On a result of 2-10, ignore it, but if the roll is 11 for that survey crusier, the Prime Team bungles a treaty negotiation and is wounded without adding to the die roll; on a die roll of 12 they are killed."
To me this says that if the Prime Team screwed up, then that roll gets no bonus, "...wounded without adding to the die roll." , and the team is wounded or killed.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 04:51 pm: Edit
Thank you very much, Nick.
One question to explicitly clarify Question 7 above: (IE: the Hydran opening game economy)
Should they gather their income as if on wartime economy, spend whatever the PWC costs and then waste the rest, or should they be considered on peacetime economy, in that they have to cancel a build to have any money in their reserve?
This will make a very large difference to those games being played with an Orion player, since we're talking about a 100EP jumpstart in bribes over the first two turns (and why not give it to them, the Feds will be able to out-bribe the coalition later), since the Hydrans are being forced to waste about 50EP a turn anyway. This allows the Orions to have quite the influential little fleet to put up for auction, as well as allowing the Hydrans to be "helping" on turn 1 and 2 without directly acting by bribing the Orions to reinforce the Kzinti front. That always seemed to be a nice kind of touch for them; trying an under-the-table solution until it became apparent they'd have to get their hands dirty.
Furthermore, having the money then throwing it away vs. never having the money does make a 10EP difference to the Hydrans themselves, as they can load 10EP into the tug that starts in the capitol for later transfer, then when they gain control of their economy transfer it back to themselves and carry on. (This idea of "mailing yourself 10EP to escape the tax collector" is something we do, given our understanding of the Hydran Economy, and a clarification on this would be helpful before I post a tac note to this effect.)
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 05:25 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
The Hydrans on Turn 1 and 2 are considered to be on wartime economy only for the purposes of later exhaustion
________________________________________
Mark, I'm not Nick, but the above seems perfectly clear to me. The EPs above what is needed for Hydran PWC is completely and entirely taken up by a variety of fleet upgrades and construction efforts that are abstracted in the game architecture. For example, the Hydrans are in the process of developing fleetwide refits of every ship larger than an FF to upgrade the warp engines, and upgrading their production facilities to produce Stinger-IIs rather than the slower, less well armed and less well armored Stinger-I. Those 100 or so EPs are never available for player use in the regular campaign, nor can they ever be. For all practical purposes the Hydrans do not exist until the Alliance half of turn 3, when they set up with their normal fleets and their assigned PWC, minus any construction that has been cancelled to free up some EPs.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 07:41 pm: Edit
Thanks once again to the fine folk who support our wonderful game, especially poor Nick for putting up with questions like the ones I'm about to pose.
Revisiting #8 above: (Regarding Tugs and whether or not they are Non-Ship Units)
There are a few instances where it matters if they are non-ship units or non-units. For instance, increasing intensity (304.5) permits the attacker to up the intensity in combats "... involving non-ship units (756.0) in a given Battle Hex." Thus, if a tug pod is a non-ship unit, and an attacker has a tug (with pods) in his attack force, he can technically jack the battle intensity after four rounds, since there are non-ship units somewhere in the battle hex. While not as rediculous as Pods being "self-mobile warships", this consequence is still relevant. Hence, it matters: are pods actually Non-ship units, as if listed in 756.0, or are they non-units (ie: part of a tug), with counters provided merely to save on written records?
(And no, I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse about this, it's merely one of those fine points that begs for the law of unintended consequences.)
Revisiting #9 above: Christopher strikes on a very good point. Do you mean to overrule the part of 522.44 that says that wounded prime teams do not add to the roll, or do you mean that killed prime teams add, but wounded ones still do not?
1) Commercial Convoys.
a) When they operate, they have to "... move between starbases of the main supply grids of the partners." (443.51 in CO) When is this checked?
For instance, a convoy arrives at a starbase in the main grid. Since it must end its move there, it will be at that starbase for an opponent's move. During the opponent's move, that starbase is cut from the main grid. Can the convoy begin its journey back? Must it wait there until the supply path is reopened? Can it move the instant the supply path is opened, or does it have to be open during the economic phase? Can it begin a journey towards a starbase in the main supply grid? Must it? Can it leave "empty"? Must it?
b) Sorry to go over some old ground here, but there is a fine distinction we'd like clarified:
________________________________________
Quote:
Steve Cole ruled on January 24, 2004 - 11:40 pm that:
The commercial convoys have to use bases in the territory of their owners.
________________________________________
Is that the ORIGIONAL territory of their owners or the CURRENT territory of their owners. No, territory cannot be voluntarily ceeded, but it can be captured, and if the Kzinti capture a pocket of Federation space, and form a line of BSs through to it, could a SB there be used after long-term capture kicked in?
If it must be the original territory, what about the Klingons in 2919? No, not Tholia itself ... the forgotten Klingon colonies referred to in (511.2). These are treated as Klingon Planets in all respects, not captured planets, providing their normal undevastated EPs two turns after Tholia is captured. The Klingons would claim that these were in their origional territory, please and thank you, and have now been liberated. As such, would a SB in that hex qualify for the Klingon-Romulan run? If so, would it have to be built at one of those planets, or would orbit over Tholia suffice?
2) Bases without fighters.
a) Can Base Stations (444.0 in CO) be built without their fighters for a discount the way you can build BATS and SB without their fighters (441.2 in AO)?
It specifically lists BATS and SB in AO, and CO came after AO if I recall correctly, so is the omission of any such reference deliberate, or can we claim the discount?
If you are not allowed to do so, then is it correct to presume that BATS built before fighters cost 5EPs and then 1+6(for the fighters) for the upgrade for a total of 6+6 instead of the 5+6 for doing it direct?
If you are allowed to do so, is the cost of the base still reduced by two points as per 441.2? That would make the MB to BS(0) 3 points, and the addition of fighters under 444.23 later would be 1+6 for a total of 4+6 instead of the 5+6 for doing it direct.
b) Can an X-base (523.4 in AO) be built without its fighters? Is the discount still 2 points? What kind of points?
For instance: a MB to BTX is 17+6EP (701.S), and hence 8.5 must be XTP, 8.5 may be XTP or EP and the fighters are plain fighters (unless they're not, such as Heavy fighters, Hydran X-fighters, etc, but they are still a separate issue).
Is a MB to BTX(0) thus 15 due to a 2 point discount (441.21)?
If so, does that mean 7.5 which must be XTP and 7.5 which may be either? 8.5 which must be XTP and 6.5 which may be either? Something else?
If it just comes "off the top", and we end up with 7.5 and 7.5, can the BTX can be upgraded to a full BTX later with just EPs, thus conserving 1 XTP (albeit for the cost of 2 EP: 2 fighter modules at 1+fighters plus the PF module at 2+PFs or a power augmentation module at 2), or would special X-Fighter Modules be required?
3) Survey Areas: (505.21)
a) The "steps" become larger as one continues to locate new provinces, but is the listing of "steps" on the chart supposed to be for the total number of provinces explored off map (including the at-start provinces) or for the number of provinces discovered since the game began?
b) The Lyrans permit the Klingons to survey in Lyran territory. Does this mean that since they're sharing the area, their "steps" are based on the total number of provinces the two races have discovered in that region?
If so, in a free campaign where the Klingons leased survey areas from multiple races (or a non-klingon player who wishes to lease survey rights from another race), are the survey "steps" based on the total number of provinces that race has gathered, or does it base off the number of provinces discovered in that space? Would survey ships in two separate survey areas be working towards a common "step", or would each fleet have to work towards it's own step?
Thank you again for your time.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit
Frank: Yes, it's pretty clear to me, too ... now that Nick has ruled that way ... but around here, F&E is an exacting game played by exacting players. It pays to be precise, and focus on the minutia. (It also avoids a lot of arguements later.)
Mostly, the additional question was just to ensure that this wasn't generating unintentional consequences. Appologies if it came across as beating a dead hydran ... er ... anyway.
[There is a difference of opinion among F&E players about whether or not the Hydrans / Federation / Gorn / Romulans "exist" before they are required to be put on the board, and that leads to a great amount of bias about what they can legally do. If one uses the perspective that they do in fact exist, can take actions and are merely constrained by very strict rules, then the question makes more sense. This, however, is becoming a thread for another board, such as General Discussions.]
There is also the implied question about whether or not one can (in general) build HDW-COGs or HDW-FOPs before the advent of HDWs, but it seems fairly clear from the rules that if you really want to, you can.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 08:28 pm: Edit
Thank you very much again, Nick, I pinned down the source of the confusion that had led to the first question 1) as the phrase:
"This is always an option." (what is written)
Which is very distinctly different from:
"This is always optional." (what was intended)
It's little things like that that lead to radically different interpretations of the rules, and I wanted to offer a special thanks for making yourself available for interpreting them for us.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 12:03 am: Edit
Guys, no discussions
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 11:41 am: Edit
Chris Fant: Ah, it does say "without adding to the die roll" then that is what is meant of course. I missed that part, sorry. So on an 11 or 12 you ignore the previous bonus to the survey roll.
Others:
The Hydrans on turns 1 and 2 have no control over their economy, they are essentially at peace. Those turns count for future economic exhaustion, but otherwise they are like the Feds/Gorns/Roms before they enter the war. So yes, they must cancel production if they want to pay Orions.
Races that have yet to enter the war do exist, but they are more or less irrelevant since they do nothing other than build their PWC schedules. With player orions you can cancel builds of such races to make money to influence the Orions.
Tug pods, when on the tug, the tug+pod combination is treated as a ship, basically the pods augment the ship's abilities, and you then ignore the pods. When the tug is crippled, the pods cease to function and you continue to ignore them (beyond remembering that they are still on that tug) If you dump the pods in combat (i.e. to avoid overloaded tug status (517.44)), they are considered destroyed, except for troop pods making a planetary assault under (521.39).
Commercial convoy travel between starbases of the main grids in the ORIGINAL territory of their owners. A starbase in captured territory does not count, even if connected to your main grid. If the starbase's connection is lost, it no longer counts. You must both leave from a valid starbase, and arrive at a valid starbase. I belive that is how Jeff has ruled in the past. So if your starbase is disconnected, any com convoy there still needs to go to a valid starbase before starting the return journey.
The question on whether the tholian area after captured by the Klingons counts for this or not (the planets are theirs, but the province is still captured territory) is an odd case and needs to be addressed, but when Steve gets a chance to look at it.
Base rules, I have to go over this in more detail, but as far as I know you can build any base that normally has fighters without them. The cost discount would be similar, but Hydran X-fighters might make a difference.
Survey steps are from when you started surveying during the game, and does not include any off-map provinces you started with.
The Klingons and Lyrans are separate steps, not combined, as far as I know, and this would apply in the free campaign as well for the Klingons using off map space of another race.
That's all the time I have today, off to work. I will try to look at the base/fighter module question in more detail.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit
Silly question sorry!
Normal campaign game
It is turn 9 - the Federation HASN'T been invaded and so they are at Limited War.
As only crippled/Tugs ships (602.12) can go into Federation space - is they any reason to designate a Kzinti Fleet Experditionary on turn 9 - as if the Coalition invades on turn 10 - they Feds will be at Full war status.
I can't think of one - and rules are not clear on if normal Kzinti ships can enter Federation space when they are at full war status, on turns 10 + (I can see an Experditionary Fleet IS required on turn 7-9 if the Feds are invaded), so -
Is there a reason? (One reason being it makes a difference on declaring any ships in Fed Space an experditionary one on turn 10 - if they are not in Kzinti supply at the start of Alliance turn 10, they can't be supplied by Experditionary Supply on Alliance turn 10)??????
I doubt it makes a difference, but the ships at the start of Coalition 10 would be in normal supply aswell!
Thanks
Paul
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 05:07 pm: Edit
I can't think of a reason under the conditions you state. Doesn't mean there isn't one somewhere though. On turn 10 (if the feds are at war) rule (603.11) allows normal kzinti units to enter fed space.
Any ships not in supply at the start of a given turn could be declared expeditionary and set up as such by paying the cost (411.74) assuming there is an unbroken line of supply from your main grid through an allies grid to the units in question. The initial paragraph of (411.7) says such ships do not necessarily have to draw thier supplies through the allied grid at the time they become expeditionary. That means they can be in range of home supply, or not, at the time you make them expeditionary.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit
Base Station without fighters.
Rule (444.0) says to treat the Base Station as a battle station unless noted otherwise. So that means to treat the Base Station as a BATS for purposes of building without fighters. Also rule (444.2) says base stations can use rule (441.21). Basically discount the upgrade cost (MB to BS) by 2 pts (1 pt for each fighter module of 3 fighter factors), and also don't buy the fighters. So a MB to BS without fighters would cost 3 EPs (5-2=3).
Then BS to BATS (both without fighters) would cost the same as normal (4 EPs). This is because the BATS doesn't add any fighters to leave off. And BATS without fighters converted to Starbase without fighters follows the normal rule.
Note that rule (444.23) says that adding fighter factors to a base station costs 1 EP plus fighter costs, but this is for bases from the four powers war (or those without advanced missions). If you build a base station normally during the general war and then add fighters on a later turn, it costs 1 EP per module of 3 fighter factors, or 2 pts plus the fighter costs as normal under (441.411). Base stations are like BATS, can have 2 fighter modules, 6 total fighter factors.
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 01:15 am: Edit
We talked about this in War between the States, but we need an official answer.
The Lyrans captured 0416 on turn 5 and the Hydrans cut it off on turn 6, so it forms partial grid. There is no PDU on the planet. Are ships stacked on 0416 in supply? 410.4 seems to imply they are not. By 413.2 a captured planet can be part of the supply grid (and hence a supply point), but it does not specify that a PDU is required to make that captured planet part of the grid. Is it only a supply point when attached to the main grid and not as part of a partial grid? Or is 410.4 a specific rule overshadowing a general 413.2?
I had a vague memory there was a ruling that ships stacked on a planet without a PDU on a partial grid were still in supply, and any ships drawing from the partial grid had to be paid for by 413.41. I looked through the board and CLs, but couldn't find it, if it exists...
Now if the planet is not a supply point, can a tug declare mission D, a supply source? The tug would have to be paid for by 413.41, and as supply is checked in Phase 1A, so when tug missions are declared in Phase 1G, the tug would appear to be eligible. Legal?
Thanks!
Joe
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 01:19 am: Edit
The CL article "The price of Pursuit" limits non capitol assults to a maximum of -7 in a pursuit, is there a cooresponding limit to plus points?
By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:18 am: Edit
no, but plus points doen't apply to directed damage.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit
no, but when you bring forward 40 Plus points you do not need to direct
By David Johnson (Djj) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit
What is the "Official" ComPot of the E4R (FCR)? The CL answer was not clear.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit
whatever the counter says it is.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:58 pm: Edit
Whatever the master SIT says it is.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit
lol
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 07:11 am: Edit
Counter trumps SIT normally. (at least that was the case for the Gorn DNC).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit
Joe Mannino:
Rule (410.4) says you need a PDU on a captured planet in order to get free supply for all your units stacked in that hex.
Rule (413.2) tells you that a captured planet will become part of a supply grid, in your case a partial grid since it is cut off from the Lyran main grid. So, it can (as a partial grid) collect it's own income (and income from any captured provinces if applicable) under the partial grid rules. This money can be spent (413.41) to supply ships in the hex and up to six hexes (if they trace supply) from the planet.
Having a PDU allows you to supply units at the captured planet for free. Not having one means you must pay EPs from the partial grid to supply units in the hex.
Whether you have a PDU or not, you always have to pay EPs under (413.41) to supply units at a distance from the planet when it is a partial grid. Having a PDU on the captured planet and being able to use (410.4) is only good for units in the hex.
In order for the tug to be a supply point it must still trace supply back to the main grid or a partial grid that you paid EPs for supply in. Rule (410.1) requires that for a unit to be in supply that unit must have a supply route to a supply point that is in a supply grid. If the supply tug (the supply point) is not connected to a grid (main or partial) it gets you nothing, and if in a partial grid you must pay the EPs for supply when not stacked with a planet or base or captured planet with PDU.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit
Tim Losberg, no there is no limit to plus points. 7 minus points are the most that can be taken into pursuit, and this limit goes up to 14 minus points from a capital multi-location hex battle. This is in the published errata for rule (308.2).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:51 am: Edit
David Johnson: That is a tricky one since some counters say one thing and some say another. The CL was saying that you can continue to use both counters (to avoid making a bunch of printed counters useless), and just accept that some are different. You can randomly get one each time you build it, or use the better ones first until you run out of that type of counter, or whatever. Or use whatever the current SIT says and just not use the "wrong" counter. It is not a ship you will have lots of, (and even if you do, they are not one you often put in combat), so it is not a big deal.
Basically deal with it however your play group can agree to. Saying officially that one or the other is correct automatically makes a bunch of counters useless, and I think that is why the CL thing says both are right.
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit
Thanks Nick!
I don't know if I was just dense about it, but that was incredibly clear.
Thanks again!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit
Couple of questions -
The limited war provisions say that ships from the supported power which are retroed to a Fed base and repaired, must leave immediately. Does this mean that they must leave during opmove, or could they leave during strat move. If strat move then you could have the situation where they find that there is no route open and are forced to stay put. What would happen in that situation?.
Secondly. If the defender has a comcon and some police ships at a planet with 2PDU's and an attacking fleet does a fighting retreat into the hex ,can the defender avoid combat by stayingwith the planet. IIRC during a fighting retreat over an enemy planet the only battle is an approach just want to check before possibly making a grave gaff.
Thanks Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:26 pm: Edit
Joseph Mannino: One additional note: There is one exception, the Hydran supply tug can supply units when cut off from normal supply grids, but that is a special circumstance.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit
James Southcott:
I belive you must use op move since you must move them back out as soon as possible.
You can only use strat move to completely move units through fed space (cannot end in fed space).
If an attacking fleet uses fighting retreat to enter an opposing controlled planet hex, then you fight one round (the approach battle) at the fighting retreat penalties, and the attacking fleet continues its fighting retreat to another hex. Any defending owned units that stay at the planet are not in the approach battle (planet defender can keep everything at the planet as per usual approach battle rules). If there is no approach battle then there is no fighting retreat battle for that hex and the attacking fleet continues the fighting retreat into a new hex.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit
Nick, we have a few clarifications we’d appreciate, if you please:
431.3 discusses overbuilds. It specifically (431.36) states that overproduction is permitted while building a replacement shipyard.
431.5 discusses starbase frigate production. It specifically (431.51) states that overproduction is permitted, but only one ship be constructed there, disallowing a build and an overproduction.
511.32 indicates that the reconstruction of a primary shipyards restores the original production schedule, thus implying that either the original production schedule either does not exist during this period, or exists, but is not constructible during this period.
Question 1: Which interpretation is correct?
A)The production schedule does not exist, and hence any construction must be done by overproduction, which would permit one frigate to be overproduced at every starbase, except for the “Capitol” Starbase/Planet, which would have no limit on overproduction.
B)The production schedule exists, but one cannot build it without a primary shipyards, thus making it mostly irrelevant, except that regular frigate production could go on at starbases, as normal, but any additional hulls would need to be overproduced.
A further, and very related question springs from the following:
511.321 describes the Hydran old shipyard, and gives a table of permitted builds there.
Question 2: Aside from the one hull construction on turns 5 and 6, what precisely is the purpose of the listings of turns 1-4, since this allows the construction of a single hull at double cost, and Overproduction (431.36) permits the construction of any number of hulls at double cost? Is this an artifact of an old rules revision, or is there some form of limitation on overproduction (especially during the period without a shipyards) that this production would be considered above the limits of? (511.33) [legal production at a new capitol] does not include (431.36) [overproduction] in the list, is that to imply that overproduction can not be performed except to generate (431.51) [starbase overproduction] and that “the usual limited production at starbases” is meant to imply overproduction, or that overproduction can be performed normally, and that the list of items in (511.33) is not subject to the doubling of cost due to overproduction?
Perhaps this is in reality only one question, but we hope that you can shed some light on this subject.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 07:05 pm: Edit
Nick, there was a ruling eliminating the ability to feeze FRD's with PF (or VF) module but keep their Attrition un-stasised. Can a stasised FRD with an empty module take excess PF's (or fighters) left over from from lost capacity due losses from that round of combat? (to avoind having the units as -points)?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit
Mark, what it all means is that although you are replacing your main shipyard, your SBs can still produce frigates and if you had enough SBs, any over your normal FF limit would be by overbuilding (most races have 3 FF for production and if they lost their main shipyard and had 4 or more SBs they can build their 3 FF at normal cost and any over that at the overbuid price)...note that only the Feds could have this happen in a historical context...
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 02:08 pm: Edit
I have a question on SIDS. 308.81 mentions the attacker being able to continue to add up plus points to damage the base if no defending ships or units are present. The rule also states that the attacker is not required to use SIDS, but could instead allow the defender to score the points on the ships defending the base.
This seems to imply that SIDS must be used against a SB or BATS until the defending fleet is forced to retreat or unless the defender scores damage against the base himself.
I maintain that it does not imply that, but my opponent claims that it does. Who is right?
By Will Culbertson (Willc) on Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 07:02 pm: Edit
Nick,
Is there any eta on the updated Master Errata? You had last posted you were sending it off to Chuck for checking. I think that was before Origins.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit
(698.0) The War that Almost Was (CL#21)
I am setting up this scenario to play soon. I would assume that since this is at concurrent with the Four-Powers War (Y157), its rules concerning the odd units apply:
Military Raids: one per turn
Battle Groups: Yup
Admirals: One in the Home Fleet
SAFs: one at a time
POLs: 5 each max
Now, the direct question:
What about Prime Teams? (522.14) in CO states that Prime Teams are assumed to be available Y100. I would guess with the other "number" limits on raids, admirals, SAFs, POls, etc., that the number of Prime Teams would be reduced from their GW maxes. If so, what would this number be?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit
Mark Ermenc:
431.3 discusses overbuilds. It specifically (431.36) states that overproduction is permitted while building a replacement shipyard.
431.5 discusses starbase frigate production. It specifically (431.51) states that overproduction is permitted, but only one ship be constructed there, disallowing a build and an overproduction.
511.32 indicates that the reconstruction of a primary shipyards restores the original production schedule, thus implying that either the original production schedule either does not exist during this period, or exists, but is not constructible during this period.
Question 1: Which interpretation is correct?
A)The production schedule does not exist, and hence any construction must be done by overproduction, which would permit one frigate to be overproduced at every starbase, except for the “Capitol” Starbase/Planet, which would have no limit on overproduction.
B)The production schedule exists, but one cannot build it without a primary shipyards, thus making it mostly irrelevant, except that regular frigate production could go on at starbases, as normal, but any additional hulls would need to be overproduced.
ANSWER: B is correct. The build schedule is there, but is mostly irrelevent without a shipyard. SBs can build frigates, so if your production schedule shows 3 frigates, and you have 4 starbases, you can build those 3 frigates at normal cost, one at each of the first three starbases, and then you could also build a 4th frigate at the overbuild cost at the 4th starbase.
A further, and very related question springs from the following:
511.321 describes the Hydran old shipyard, and gives a table of permitted builds there.
Question 2: Aside from the one hull construction on turns 5 and 6, what precisely is the purpose of the listings of turns 1-4, since this allows the construction of a single hull at double cost, and Overproduction (431.36) permits the construction of any number of hulls at double cost? Is this an artifact of an old rules revision, or is there some form of limitation on overproduction (especially during the period without a shipyards) that this production would be considered above the limits of? (511.33) [legal production at a new capitol] does not include (431.36) [overproduction] in the list, is that to imply that overproduction can not be performed except to generate (431.51) [starbase overproduction] and that “the usual limited production at starbases” is meant to imply overproduction, or that overproduction can be performed normally, and that the list of items in (511.33) is not subject to the doubling of cost due to overproduction?
ANSWER: The hydrans are special. When the shipyard is destroyed, they, like any other race, can still build their frigate production at any starbases they may still have (one FF per starbase). The off map shipyard in (511.321) simply lets you build some ships in addition to the FF starbase production. So normally a race pushed off map (with all on map bases destroyed), could build one frigate at their off map starbase, but no other ships until their starbase is rebuilt. The Hydrans get to build a FF at their off map starbase, plus whatever ships they want from the chart in (511.321). Remember that errata has fixed this chart, the only ship that should be listed at double cost is the turn 2 HN (as the guild shipyard is gearing up). Turns three and four on that chart should be at normal cost. The only overbuilding the Hydrans could do even when using the chart would be if they had more starbases then FFs on their build schedule and they wanted to overbuild an extra FF at an extra starbase.
================================================
Tim Losberg: Nick, there was a ruling eliminating the ability to feeze FRD's with PF (or VF) module but keep their Attrition un-stasised. Can a stasised FRD with an empty module take excess PF's (or fighters) left over from from lost capacity due losses from that round of combat? (to avoind having the units as -points)?
ANSWER: Rule (312.216) says that after the combat round fighters can transfer to a carrier that was frozen. So if the frozen FRD survives that round, fighters can transfer to any empty fighter modules it has. Does that answer your question?
================================================
John Doucette: I have a question on SIDS. 308.81 mentions the attacker being able to continue to add up plus points to damage the base if no defending ships or units are present. The rule also states that the attacker is not required to use SIDS, but could instead allow the defender to score the points on the ships defending the base.
This seems to imply that SIDS must be used against a SB or BATS until the defending fleet is forced to retreat or unless the defender scores damage against the base himself.
I maintain that it does not imply that, but my opponent claims that it does. Who is right?
ANSWER: You (the attacker) are never required to direct on a base. You can always just let the damage fall regardless of what the defender has present. If you direct, then the damage goes where you direct it (of course). If you let the damage fall, then the defender can resolve that damage on ships, or the base, or both, as he sees fit. If the defender has no defending ships, then it is pointless to direct, as letting the damage fall will force him to (eventually) apply it to the base, which may require saving up some plus points until there is enough to require damaging the base (e.g. 1 plus point will not need to be resolved against a lone starbase without fighters or other defenders (36 defense - any previous SIDS damage), it would likely be a plus point until enough plus points were built up to require crippling the base).
================================================
Will Culbertson: I did not send them to Chuck for checking, I sent them to Chuck for use at Origins. The problem with Origins is that it always generates some more errata since we have a bunch of players in close proximity to Steve Cole and I, and more things get answered or clarified. So while the Master Errata was essentially complete at the time of Origins, now there is more to add to it. So after I e-mail a couple of items to Steve to get the final wording, I will post the updated version. Hopefully soon, but Steve is busy with his new print on demand equipment, and getting GURPS Romulans ready (and I also have some things for that to get in to him). Apologies for any further delays, but it won't be ready immediately.
Let me post what I have below (most of it in other words), but there are three or four more items to go to Steve before the final version is posted to the errata portion of the website.
===============================================
Dale L. Fields: I am setting up this scenario to play soon. I would assume that since this is at concurrent with the Four-Powers War (Y157), its rules concerning the odd units apply:
ANSWER: That would make sense.
What about Prime Teams? (522.14) in CO states that Prime Teams are assumed to be available Y100. I would guess with the other "number" limits on raids, admirals, SAFs, POls, etc., that the number of Prime Teams would be reduced from their GW maxes. If so, what would this number be?
ANSWER: Without a limiting rule I would have to assume they are the same as in the General War. You could always reduce them if you want to play that way, but I think they would be available as normal.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:41 pm: Edit
MASTER ERRATA FILE
====================================
NOTE: This is the file as used at Origins 2004 The gaming at Origins '04 produced almost a dozen more items (errata and or clarifications) that I still need to add to this document before this is posted to the permanent errata part of the website.
====================================
Contains Errata for F&E2K, Fighter Ops, Combined Ops, and Advanced Ops, as previously published in Captain’s Logs #21 through #29.
Does not include SIT errata since all SITs are now updated online.
This file compiled on 6/14/04 by Nick Blank.
(103.22) Should refer to (502.92) not (502.652).
(104.2) Hydrans and Tholians no longer share fleet charts.
(105.0) The Non-Phasing player can also perform carrier retrogrades in Step 6.
(105.0) 3A4: Reference to (317.773) should be (318.731).
(105.0) 5-4C2: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-4D: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-7C: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 5-8F: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 9B: Reference to (314.144B) should be (316.144B).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (503.34) should be (504.34).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (529.265) should be (529.25).
(105.0) SoP Step 3A4: Reference to (317.773) should be (318.73).
(203.71) A reserve fleet can be used to open a supply path to allow a force which is "in supply for purposes of combat" but which "lacks a valid supply path" and would be under the penalties of (309.3), (410.22), (439.13), or (521.81).
(203.8) Should refer to (504.2) not (504.1).
(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.
(302.733) In the case of multiple or chain retreats, any hex abandoned during a previous combat round in the same chain of events cannot be considered a supply point for subsequent retreats. For example, a Hydran force on 0617 which retreats to 0718 cannot thereafter retreat back into 0617 as part of the same "battle".
(309.3) The drone bombardment ship must have a valid supply path during its combat in order to conduct drone bombardment.
(315.5) : Reference to (312.61) should be (312.261).
(318.74) : Reference to (317.71) should be to (318.71). Reference to (317.72) should be to (318.72)
(302.133) Cloaks: If the chosen flagship successfully uses a cloaked evasion (306.1), a new flagship is chosen from those eligible units which failed to evade.
(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).
(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 fighting retreat) have more ships than the total enemy forces, 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 battle at a base).
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 coudl 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.]
(303.5) Kzinti CLs should be listed under the CWL rule.
(303.5) Hydran Lancer and Knight destroyers and war destroyers can use this rule, and any combination of three DDs and/or DWs is a valid squadron.
(304.4) Variability against non-moble defenses: This includes both slow-retreat units and non-retreating bases. WE apologize that it was not reworded when "slow-retreat units" were created in the 2K revision.
(305.12) The procedure beginning "Select one..." is used for both this rule and (305.11).
(305.47) Uses of captured ships. These are some additional notes, rules, and restrictions in response to player questions:
Captured Lyran twin-hull ships cannot be converted into trimarans by the capturing power (e.g., no CL to BC conversions).
Captured Gorn "single bubble" ships cannot be converted into "double bubble" ships (e.g., no DD to BDD conversions).
Captured Romulan SPs cannot be converted into heavy hawks.
No captured ship can be converted into a survey ship.
(308.131) This rule allows you to retrograde carrier groups during the enemy player turn, and allows you to repair a carrier group damaged in a previous turn. It does not provide an exception to (206.33) which prohibits retrograding a carrier group that was not in combat on the previous combat phase, so you cannot use this rule to keep retrograding a crippled carrier group twice a turn all the way across the Federation.
(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. The 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.
(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.
(308.47) Should refer to (308.43) not (203.54).
(308.85) This self-repair ability is not available to BATS or BS.
(308.86) Voluntary SIDS on a BATS resolve 4 points, not 4.5.
(308.87) This replaces (521.82). Note that (521.82) was removed in Combined Ops.
(312.218) This rule incorrectly says that an SAF can be placed in stasis. Rule (520.41) is correct in stating it cannot.
(312.233) "Another attempt" should be "a previous attempt."
(312.283) Delete irrelevant reference to (312.22).
(312.44) Reference to (313.231) should be (313.21).
(313.21) Add reference (308.6) to end.
(314.246) The non-raiding player may excuse any (or all) of his units from rolling to detect the cloaked ship. A cloaked raider may not use (314.28).
(314.253) If the raider attacks a PDU, it must first fight a round of normal combat against all bases, PDUs and monitors assigned to the planet. Then, if it survives, (314.28) will allow the raider to attack a single PDU. There are no approach battles during raids. A result of crippled or retreat would destroy the battalion.
(314.254) This rule requires some further elaboration.
As you can designate that a fixed unit (e.g., a base) is or is not in the same location (system) as another fixed unit, it is entirely possible that not all of these units might be in the same location. If, for whatever reason, you set up two bases at different locations (or a base in a different location from a planet), each of the items listed in this rule would have to be designated as being at one or the other location.
A tug or LTT setting up or upgrading a base or PDU would of course be located with that base or PDU and subject to the defense provisions of this rule. If you had caputred Kzinti planet 1202 and had put four PDUs on it, then a tug setting up a mobile base in the same system as that planet could not be attacked by a raider who had not first battled all of those PDUs. Note, however, that two tugs setting up mobile bases (or doing something else) in this hex would not defend each other. Let's say that in 1202 you have four Klingon PDUs, a Klingon BATS being upgraded by a Tug, and a Lyran tug setting up an MB. TO attack either tug means first fighting the BATS and the PDUs, but not the second tug. Similarly, a tug performing any mission in the hex is not part of the "fixed defenses" protecting anything else there.
A tug acting as a supply point is also covered by this rule since it could be designated as being co-located with a planet or base (if no declaration is made, this is in fact assumed to be true). While one might think that a tug serving as a supply point would never be located with a base or planet which is itself a supply point, this could easily happen when it is an allied tug.
Special Attack Forces are considered convoys in some respects, including this one. Monitors are by definition of their own rules "with" the planet, and hence are protected by all of the bases and PDUs associated with that planet's location.
A warship in the hex is not protected by the bases or PDUs unless crippled since it is assumed to be on patrol.
(314.28) Note that any alternative attack must use the Single Combatt Table, not the regular combat system, unless it qualifies for the exceptions in (318.7).
(315.26) LNH is sometimes misspelled LHN.
(316.229) If an Admiral is removed from an inactive fleet then an admiral produced under the normal rules (316.32) could be sent to that fleet without actually needing a ship.
(318.3) The Federation can start building subsequent battleships under the regular rules two years after this event is triggered.
(318.36) If a capital is abandoned (511.61) it counts as captured for purposes of (318.3) four turns later.
(318.8) Hydran tugs or LTTs with CV pods: fighters from the pod are a squadron and the fighters on the ship are casual fighters.
(319.12) Swarms cannot launch offensive fighter strikes.
(410.22) Only if the unit lacks a valid supply path at the start of a player turn and lacks a valid supply path during its combat on that player turn is it penalized under (410.3).
(410.3) SFGs retain their special ability when out of supply.
(420.2) Should refer to (413.42) not (410.34).
(431.1) Shipyard: The capital hex is the shipyard hex. (It is curious that this common term was never defined). For the Romulans this is 4613, for the Gorns this is 4402.
(431.5) Starbases can produce PFs and an FF at the same time.
(431.8) Substitutions: Lyrans can freely substitute the catamaran version of a scheduled trimaran, e.g., CA for DN, CL for BC, DD for CW, FF for DW. Why they would want to is not clear.
(432.12) DN costs vary; pay the cost on the SIT not 16.
(432.42) Should refer to (600.2) for PF deployment.
(432.5) Should refer to (502.96) for F-15s.
(433.3) Reference should be to (431.37) not (431.36).
(433.31) Lyrans cannot get maulers until Y170. Feds cannot build NAC earlier than its service date.
(439.13) Salvage is not collected for ships which at the instant of their loss have no valid supply path, or are adopted or homeless.
(440.6) The Gorn CVD, Lyran DCS, and Lyran NDS are all counted as heavy carriers.
(440.7) We considered several ways to restrict the production of the Lyran CVM and finally just gave it a higher cost. The SIT refers vaguely to a production restriction, and that is it. The Federation DVL is escorted as a medium carrier. The first Federation CVF is built in addition to the normal production schedule and limits, costing 11 EPs plus the fighters.
(441.341) Federation PDUs do not use F111s but standard fighters, so all references to F111s and their cost should be ignored. Rule (527.14) is correct.
(441.413) The Federation pays 2.25 EPs for the module (not zero) under option (527.16) to pay for the first load of F111s.
(441.432) Should refer to a published SB counter having 12 fighter factors, not 24.
(441.443) This rule is incorrectly numbered (411.443).
(442.31) Also available to carry EPs are the Romulan DemonHawk when using SPH (10 EPs) or SKH (2 EPs) modules and the Hydran LNH using Mission T (5 EPs).
(442.321) is misnumbered as (441.321).
(442.54) Lyran ships sent to the LDR for repairs are exempt from internment. Repaired ships must leave the LDR on the turn they are repaired. No more ships can be sent than can be repaired on the next turn; payment is made when the ships are sent. If the Hydrans return to the map, ships in LDR space can complete their repairs and leave normally (otherwise they would be interned) but no others can be sent there while this condition persists.
(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.
(442.91) : Reference to (517.1) should be (317.1).
(442.93) Should say one SAF per year in either turn.
(443.0) This rule number is used for both Commercial Convoys in Combined Operations and for Fighter Storage in Fighter Operations. We were in such a hurry to get the fighter storage rule into the product that nobody checked the rule number. Fighter storage should be (445.0).
(443.11) (445.11) The (xxx.xx) should be (441.4). When SVC writes a new rule he does all of the cross references like that and lets the staff hunt them down. This saves him time. We missed a couple of these for what seems to be the first time. Base Stations can have depots; see (444.11).
(443.21) (445.21) These fighters can be provided to any carrier "within supply" which (assuming no pesky enemy ships are in the way) could be six hexes away.
(443.24) As (515.43) only allows two escorts, only two escorts could reduce the loss to a raider.
(502.65) Fed PFT service date is Y181 not Y171.
(502.91) Fed F111s: The Federation has to pay 10 EPs on each of the three turns that bases get extra fighters to reflect that other races are paying for their PFs. This reflects rule (527.14) in Advanced Operations which has the same cost.
(503.34) Tholians go neutral except in the case of (602.48).
(508.16) Residual Defense Factors are not units in any sense. They do not block retreat or pursuit. You cannot re-devastate them over and over to rack up points. Any mention of Residual Defense Unit should be read as Residual Defense Factor.
(509.1) Tug Mission U. Haul Drone Bombardment points. Each tug can carry 24 factors of DB ammunition (pay for these when the tug mission is declared); LTTs can carry 12 factors. This allows DB ships to conduct bombardment without a supply path.
(509.5) The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.
(511.321) Costs are not doubled on 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.
(515.42) Carriers which do not normally have escorts (757.6) can be used to form carrier groups. If so, they are assigned a number of escorts based on their category (heavy, medium, light/escort) as defined in (515.2). If they are assigned escorts, they must be treated as a group, but if all escorts are lost or reassigned, they can again be treated as non-group carriers starting with the carrier group organization step of the next Pursuit Step. Other carriers are treated as groups even if all escorts are lost. Hydran hybrid non-true carriers cannot be assigned escorts unless they qualify under (515.43). Auxiliary carriers can be, but do not have to be, assigned escorts (515.123).
(515.53) ESCORTS: Escorts can be produced in several ways, even without producing a carrier. [This rule got badly garbled when we tried to include the CL#25 ruling. The following text is the new complete version which replaces all previous versions.]
(515.531) If a carrier group is scheduled for production and you do not want the carrier but do want the escorts, replace the carrier (and possibly some of the escorts) with equivalent standard warships (757.1) and pay the assigned cost for each ship.
(515.532) If a carrier group is an allowed substitution, you can substitute escorts for some or all of the specified (757.1) equiva-lent ships and simply not bother to substitute a carrier for the corresponding hull. (In this case, you would build the originally-scheduled stan-dard warship.) Escorts produced as substitutes for standard warships do not count against limits on conversions by starbases. The cost of an escort is defined by the SIT.
(515.533) In addition to (515.532), any race may substitute equiva-lent carrier escorts for up to three ships on the production schedule or produced as overbuilds in addition to specified carrier group production.
(515.534) Escorts can also be produced by conversion at any star-base from the equivalent warship hull for one point, up to the limit of the conversion capacity. (A very few escorts have fighters, and the cost of the fighters must also be paid at the appropriate rate.) Conversion costs are listed on the SIT.
(515.535) As provided in (308.132) Carrier Escort Damage System, escorts can be produced at the end of the turn to fill carrier groups. As per (308.132B) in CL#25, these do count against the conversion capacity of the starbases used for the conversions. See the penalties in (515.54). [At the present time, (308.132B) is the only means by which a starbase may do multiple conversions in a given turn, each using some of its capacity. New rules in a future product will make this a general rule.]
(517.21) Add to pods list: N (troop), P (PF replacement), Q (space control), R (VHP), S (scout).
(518.22) BCV and BCS can have one SWAC. Base Stations cannot use SWACs.
(518.37) SWACs cannot produce a shift in small scale combat or single combat.
(519.12) Reference (763.0) should be (701.0).
(520.1) Reference (763.0) should be (701.0).
(520.22) SAF initial movement is at no cost, but subsequent movement counts as three ships.
(520.61) Reference (508.122) should be to (508.123).
(521.35) Reference (321.393) should be (521.393).
(521.394) The third sentence should say "...at the end of the combat phase..." rather than "...combat round...".
(521.43) Reference (512.34) should be (521.34).
(521.81) A battle force cannot buy extra G factors without a valid supply path during its combat.
(523.125) Captured and devastated planets produce XTPs based on their current rates (not affected by exhaustion but still affected by all other conditions).
(523.134) Applies only to Gorn, Romulan, and ISC non-X BSs.
(523.352) : Reference to (315.34) should be (515.34).
(523.353) X-ships conducting drone bombardment pay EPs.
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF (524.231) delete the words "go to" in this rule.
(524.41) : Reference to (502.231) should be (524.231).
(525.318) The Hydran player may select a PGS, PGC, PFT, PGF, PGG, or PGV (subject to year of availability) as his free Pegasus. The free Pegasus-hull ships built by the Guilds include their fighters at no cost to the Hydran player. The free Pegasus does not count against any of the limits (scouts, carriers, PFTs, etc.). The four pre-war PGS ships do not count against the limits of four ships of any type.
(525.326) You can combine a CA and a DND and three EPs to get a DN. This is listed under the Order of Battle production notes but some have missed it.
(526.258) : Reference to (562.261) should be (526.261).
(526.264) : Reference to (523.453) should be (523.452).
(526.47) This free production is outside of the normal PFT production limits.
(527.14) The double fighters cost double as per (502.91).
(528.434) A Penal ship could honor duel with a single ship-equivalent of PFs or fighters. It could select a partial flotilla or squadron. It could not pick a single fighter or PF out of such a squadron or flotilla.
(529.14) : Reference to (529.34) should be (529.24).
(530.221) : Fed reference to (529.0) should be (527.0).
(530.221) The Hydran LE and MKH also have heavy fighters.
(530.221) Romulan SPBH proper designation is SPV.
(530.225) The Klingon and Kzinti VHPs are standard pods the same size as cargo pods. They are not under VAP restrictions.
(531.121) For reference, the number of police ships on the TU countersheet (and maximum in play) are: Fed 5(25), Klingon 5(25), Romulan 4(20), Kzinti 4(20), Gorn 4(20), Tholian 0, Orion 0, Hydran 3(15), Lyran 4(20).
(532.121) This rule is confusing in its reference to (526.36). It means that FCRs can carry heavy fighters but not F111s.
(532.22) The Federation HDW with A20s is variously referred to as the HDWH and HDWA.
(532.224) Reference to (532.222) should be to (530.222).
(518.35) This rule contains an obsolete reference to SWACS having no effect on fighter limits, but the new mission in (518.46) allows them to do so. This was one of the many sloppily-edited changes made in a flurry of last second euphoria as everyone was happy about the product going to press and determined to shoehorn his favorite rules change into it.
(603.2) While the Gorns are set up before Turn #12, they cannot leave Gorn territory until the Gorns enter the War on the Gorn player-turn of Turn #12. This prevents them from establishing reserves which could enter the war during the Romulan portion of Turn #12.
(604.0) Turn 25 is Fall Y180.
(605.0) Turn 26 is Spring Y181.
(607.61) Kzinti DNE should have salvage 3; Klingon C6 should have salvage 3.6.
(608.F) See (617.F) for updated sector boundary.
(616.31) Raids (314.0) would not activate the Coalition.
(617.B1) Any returning Remus forces arrive by Strategic Movement in that phase.
(652.211) Overbuilds are not allowed in Limited War.
(652.4) Should refer to (790.4) which replaced (751.0).
(653.4G) The six free fighters here are in addition to those added in F&E 2K.
(701.0) Should say one SAF per year in either turn.
(702.4) : Heavy Fighter reference to (529.0) should be (527.0). Auxiliary reference to (763.0) should be (762.0).
(703.0) Klingon Spring production should have 2xD7.
(703.0) the E4R appears as a 2-4 in FO and a 1-4 in AO. It all depends on how aggressive the skipper is!
(703.21) Add reference to (308.96).
(703.3) : Reference to (515.12) should be (525.12).
(704.0) Activation of the VLV requires buying its fighters.
(704.0) The three SPCs in the home fleet are the pre-war free conversions listed in (704.1).
(704.1) Turns #8 and #9 should show four SPs.
(705.0) Kzinti F&E2K construction schedule changed to:
Fall Y168: BC, CL, DD, 2xFF
Sprint Y169: BC, 2xCM, 2xDD, 3xFF
Fall turns Y169-Y174: [CV+MEC+EFF], BC, CL, 2xCM, 5xFF
Spring turns Y170-Y175: DN, BC, 4xCM, 6xFF
Fall turns Y175-Y180: [CV+MEC+DWE], BC, NCA, 2xCM, 2xDW, 3xFF
Spring turns Y176-Y180: DN, BC, NCA, 3xCM, 3xDW, 3xFF
Fall turns Y181+: [CV+MEC+DWE], BC, NCA, 2xCM, HDW, 4xDW.
Spring turns Y181+: DN, BC, NCA, 3xCM, HDW, 5xDW
(The HDW listed is the one substitution allowed by the Advanced Operations rules.)
(705.3) Kzinti FFK: Any FKEs produced by CEDS replacements count against the limit of three FFK/FKEs per turn.
(706.3) Carriers: Reference to (525.84) should be (525.85).
(709.1B) : Reference to (515.316) should be (525.316).
(711.0) JagdPanther sometimes listed as JPG.
(711.3) The Lyrans receive their free fighters from Turn #1, having JGP-Vs and Auxiliary carriers and fighters on bases from that time or before.
(756.0) Non-ship units include Auxiliaries, SAFs, SWACS, Swarms, and LTFs.
(756.0) Add Base Station to non-ship units.
(756.0) Non-ship units includes Military Convoys, LTFs, and all Auxiliaries. The two paragraphs listing Slow Units and Strategic Movement Nodes do not imply that those are non-ship units.
(756.1) Add Commercial Convoy to slow units.
(756.2) Add Base Stations to Strategic Movement Nodes.
(757.7) The note about the Hydran and Kzinti destroyers belongs to (757.8).
EW SUMMARY:
Federation, add E2 SWAC (1 EWP) and E3 Heavy SWAC (2 EWPs).
TUG INFO:
Klingon Tug+SCP is overloaded.
Kzinti Tug+SCP is overloaded.
Gorn Tug+SP+pod is overloaded.
Lyran Tug+2xKSP see (317.53).
See (317.53) for LTTs an d(517.4) for overloaded tugs.
COMBINED OPS COUNTERS:
Fighter Module counters provided are two and four modules. Single modules have 3 fighter factors.
Kzinti HDW-D should have AF+1.
ADVANCED OPS COUNTERS:
Orion DWV listed as 45 combat instead of 4 fighter and 5 combat.
Lyran 3xCWX is listed as 3xCW.
The Generic ASC has -4 instead of 1-4.
The Federation LAH should be 1-4 not 4.
The Gorn BDSX should be 4-9.
The Lyran SCX should be a 4-8.
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 04:09 am: Edit
Hi Nick I have a few question about Xships
(523.31)X Mauler effect
523.315 states that x ships in the formation bonus cannot use the mauler effect. How about the fighters on Hydran ships?
523.511 you add the fighters to the ship to determine the strength of the mauler effect.
eg RNX in formation bonus. Would the 7 fighter factors count as mauler effect?
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 04:26 am: Edit
One more question Nick
The SIT shows that the Hydran LNX and RNX have the following build cost 9+6 for the LNX and
10+14 for the RNX. Should they not use 432.24 to get the construction costs.
Just a comment The Klingon DX cost 13 pts for a 13 complot ship while a LNX cost 15 pts for a 10 complot ship. Why would you build a LNX. Never mine the RNX which cost 10+14 =24 pts.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 19, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit
John Wong:
I would say that the mauler effect is from the ship+fighters, or the ship (if fighters have been lost), but not fighters only. So if the ship is in formation, neither the fighters or the ship count for the mauler effect. I.e. if it's in formation, don't count it or its fighters at all, if it's not in formation, count both.
Hydran LNX and RNX, go with the SIT. The SIT has lots of exceptions to rule (432.0) built into it. In the old (pre-SIT) days, we all had to use rule (432.0) to figure ship costs, and also had to remember all the silly exceptions. Now with the SIT, just follow that, the exceptions are built in so you don't have to remember or calculate them. Lots of rule (432.0) is now just there to give you an idea of where the costs came from, although there are many exceptions. Remember, the SIT always trumps the basic cost rules in (432.0).
DX vs LNX, well, you build a LNX because you simply can't build a DX (you are the Hydrans, so you don't get a choice between Klingon DX and your own LNX right?). As for the cost, the LNX must also pay for fighters that come back every turn for free, so it costs more than a basic ship (even a larger one) without fighters.
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit
Nick IN SFB history the Hydrans switch to Hellbore only ships during X ship deployment. What year does this happen.
I would assume Y188 as shown in the notes in (R9.200) SFB rule book.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 01:53 am: Edit
John, Hydran X ships are available starting in Y182.
However, there is no switching to only Hellbore units in F&E, the late war build schedule for the Hydrans includes RNs, HRs (if desired) MHKs, PALs, etc.
IOW, still build just as many fusions as they like really.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 09:36 am: Edit
If I have ships in a battle hex, and an independent fighter squad, can the fighter squad be selected as a command ship?
As an example, say I have 2xCVE,2xCLE,FF, and 6 fighters. The CVEs and one CLE withdraw, leaving CLE,FF and the fighters. Can the fighters be the flagship, thereby allowing the other two ships to escape unharmed?
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit
(302.133) One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round."
So, the CLE must be the command ship.
But, you have seven ship equivalents. 2xCVE, 2xCLE, FF, 6xFighter (independent). If the CVEs have 3 fighters each, that makes 7, so only 3 ship equivalents are allowed to withdraw: 2xCVE.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:30 am: Edit
Following on from Roberts questio above - I seem to remember a debate about this one some time ago. Is the 3rd highest command ship assessed before withdrawl, or after?
I seem to remember (though by no means certain) it was previously said that the rules were a little misleading in their construction and the third best command ship was assessed after withdrawl.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:34 am: Edit
Jeff
I think the 6 fighters in Robert's example were the 6 fighters from the CVEs - no independent fighters.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit
No, they were an independent squad from an adjacent BATS.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit
What is the rule number for Orion Smuggling EPs. I couldn't find it last night, and wanted to reread it.
Anyone can answer that, it doesn't have to be Nick.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 11:16 am: Edit
Scott, 410.34
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Thank You
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Sorry to do this to you again, Nick, but I've got another one here for you, regarding CEDS.
We keep looking for a way to close a "loophole" but can't find it, so I can't exactly quote a rule number, but the relevant sections seem to be: 515.0 from Carrier War (Flexible Carrier Groups ... presumably 515.3 is the relevant section) and 308.1 from 2000 (Carrier groups, the relevant chunk seeming to be 308.13: CEDS repair).
Note that I don't have Fighter Ops, so if the loophole gets closed there, that'd answer my question just fine.
Here's the situation: Player A attacks with a mighty force including a weak carrier group (2EV for the Klingons, for instance). The carrier group in question never sees the battle line, and may in fact actually give up it's outside escort during the initial carrier group formation to a more worthy target (an LAV forwarding fighters, for instance) in the realization that it'll never see the battle line anyway, and only exists to bring a few replacement fighters to the fight.
Fair enough, no problems so far.
Now, the battle is over and we are entering the retreat phase. At this instant, the carrier groups can be re-scrambled, and the carrier group collects a valuable cripple as an ad-hoc escort, and an outside escort (D6M and E4A in the case of the Klingons above). Now, if there is a pursuit battle, the attacker has to blow apart the outside escort to get at the cripple, even if there isn't enough command rating to include the carrier group (or the cripple) on the battle line (it's still directable, because it's a group that includes a cripple)
That's kind of a rude use of a carrier group, but I can still see it SFB-wise, so while it's a handy way to evac a mauler or other valuable cripple, it's not that big a deal.
Here's my real concern:
The carrier may never once have contributed COMPOT, but it was in the hex, and can hence retrograde. Thus, the group then retrogrades to a repair facility of choice, regardless of whos turn it is, and repairs out-of-turn, thanks to CEDS. On the next movement phase, the group simply breaks up again, and the valued cripple is back in service. This lets the 2EV in the example above get a mauler back on the line (at base rates, or in situ for field repair rates) for the upcoming alliance turn ... or allows it to retrograde on the alliance turn to a repair facility where it can be repaired in one shot, instead of being "trapped" at a BATS where it would take two turns to repair.
The mauler (or cruiser, or what have you) is repaired as an escort, even though it doesn't become one, never wanted to be one, never will be one, and is just hitching a ride for the free milk and cookies, please and thank you.
Help.
We're certain that there must be something that prevents this kind of abuse, but we can't find it. If there really isn't, we'll post a tacnote to this effect, which will no doubt lead to a resurgance of interest in the use of tiny carrier groups to act as ambulances, but understand that we claim tacnote here under duress, and would rather see this whole thing shot down, perhaps by making cripples ineligible to be assigned as ad-hoc escorts (while of course permitting them to stay escorts if they already were such).
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 04:45 pm: Edit
Ad-hoc's are never elegible for Ceds Reapirs
Also Ad Hocs can be targeted for DD regardless of position (very end of 515.34)
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit
Tim, I'm assuming you're referring to some rule from FO here ... 515.34 in CW says nothing of the sort.
As for the ineligibility of ad-hoc escorts, do you have a rule number for that? I can't find one anywhere.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 05:50 pm: Edit
Mark, as far as I know, the ineligibility for CEDS repair is a ruling as I cannot find it in my rulebook, I'll let Nick confirm or deny that one,
I am 100% positive on the targeting for DD and that was back in Carrier War, very end of 515.34 is the mention:
________________________________________
Quote:
Standard warships serving as ad hoc escorts can be targeted by directed damage even if not the smallest (outer) escort.
________________________________________
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Mark,
1. Ad-Hoc escorts are not CEDS eligable, as they are not escorts, just filling in. (third sentence of 515.34).
2. Ad-Hoc escorts can only be assigned at the beginning of the combat phase, so you cannot plug in a ship into a carrier group as an Ad-Hoc escort after combat before pursuit.*also said in 515.34)
By John Wong (Johnwong) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 03:44 am: Edit
I do need a ruling for Hydran built after Y188.
We are playtesting ISC soon.
Please see my question on Tuesday June 20th at 1:07 am.
Thanks
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 06:15 am: Edit
Fantastic. (sigh)
Tim: Apparently, I have a different version than you folks do, because that text string does not appear in my version of 515.34 ... I'm holding it in my hand right now, having read it three times to make certain. (F&E Carrier War, Copyright 1993)
Chris: That's an interpretation, and quite frankly a reasonable one, but it's not stated that way explicitly. Hence other interpretations could be argued. That's why I'm seeking official clarification.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit
Mark, you are correct, I just checked my actual rule book and it was not there either. I just checked and this is in the errata (qoute was from my electronic copy which already had all the errata included)
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit
Aha, thanks Tim ... that's one half of the abuse put to rest.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 09:21 am: Edit
Nick,
A question about supply and captured planets.
The Hydrans captured a Klingon planet on T12 Alliance. On T13 Coalition, the Klingons do not liberate the planet, but surround it so that it cannot connect to the Hydran grid at the start of their turn. At the beginning of T13 Alliance, and at the beginning of operational movement, the planet is cut off from the main Hydran grid. However, at the start of the combat phase, the planet is able to trace a path to the Hydran grid.
My questions:
1. Can the Hydrans consider the planet a supply point for purposes of retreat?
2. If the path to the planet is still open at the beginning of the retrograde phase, can the Hydrans retro to it?
3. Can the Hydrans strat to the planet if the path is open?
Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 24, 2004 - 10:39 am: Edit
questions downloaded
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Sunday, July 25, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit
I have a question about (521.81) EXTRA TROOPS
It puts a requirement of 7 AF on the ship carrying the extra GCE, but 521.812 adds a rule for troop ships that are missing GCEs being able to carry the extra GCE. However, it doesn't say anything about eliminating the 7 AF requirement, and not many troop ships have 7 AF. Should ships like the Lyran CWG (3-7) or DWG (4-6) be able to carry extra GCEs?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit
Nick, couple of questions from this weekend...
1. Pursuit battle, when using a mauler against multiple cripples, how is damage resolved against a unit in Formation Bonus? Example is directing on a crippled Z BC in formation and 2 crippeld CL's. Using the 1/2 effect against FB, thats 5 points against the BC out of which only 4 is needed, how much is left from the mauler after that, 1 (out of 5) or 2 (1 doubled)?
2. 308.122 allows for the reshuffling of escorts for a pursuit. In it is the line:
________________________________________
Quote:
...Carrier groups can be broken down in Carrier War (515.15), allowing crippled escorts to be left behind, and this must be done if this is the only way to meet the requirements of (307.3)
________________________________________
Ok, here is the situation we had disagreement on, Kzinti are fleeing with 3 crippled EFF and a crippled MEC. Kzinti built the line of [CV MEC crippled MEC crippeld EFF] [CV 2xMEC crippled EFF] crippled EFF on the line (lead by a DNL) Is this legal or did the Kzinti have too sub the crippled EFF on the line for one of the healthy MECs?
By Bill Su (Wsu) on Monday, July 26, 2004 - 03:57 pm: Edit
At Grant Strong's suggestion, I have moved this here from the Fighter Ops After Action:
I'm having a hard time understanding 607.5, the Four Powers War Victory Conditions.
1) Are the points awarded as they happen, so that devestating a planet on Turn 1, and redevestating it on Turn 11 scores points each time? Or do the points only get awarded based on conditions after Turn 11, so devestating a planet on Turn 1, but never again, does no good because the planet will have recovered? Or does devestating the planet at any time over the course of the scenario earn points, but only once per planet?
2) Does a base that is destroyed and rebuilt count as destroyed or not?
3) Why are there no additional points (or automatic victory!) for capturing enemy capitals? Is it impossible?
4) Is victory determined by simply having more points than the other player? I would guess so, but it's not stated. Also, there are no "levels of victory" specified, as in most other scenarios.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 01:26 am: Edit
Nick, one more question from the weekend. Is a Fleets starting MB assumed to be stored at the Fleet's SB?
Example, Hydrans succesfully destroyed the EB Starbase. However the Hydrans retreated afterwards and the Lyrans did not. Is the MB destroyed with the SB?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 02:01 am: Edit
Tim, since the MB is in storage and has a counter, it's where-ever you place it during setup...if it was at the SB then yes it is destroyed with the SB...
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 10:55 am: Edit
Stewart, even with the Lyrans winning the hex? If it is that is cool with me, I had no present plans for the bugger anyways.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit
Found my answer to the MB question
________________________________________
Quote:
(510.12) Non-functional mobile bases can be stored at any starbase. Note that non-functional mobile bases cannot be used for any base function. A nonfunctioning mobile base can only be destroyed by destroying the unit (starbase or tug) that is storing, transporting or deploying it.
________________________________________
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit
Some questions on Admiral replacements and on CEDS.
On Admirals:
316.32 states that a player is entitled to a replacement in the Production Phase of his next turn.
316.322 states that replacement occurs during the owning players next Production Phase.
Does 316.322 apply only if the effectiveness rule is being used and, if so, does this mean that if not using the effectiveness rule, admirals are replaced in next turn, regardless of method of elimination (retired or KIA) while, when using the effectiveness rule, admirals are replaced on the turn they are retired?
On CEDS:
There seems to be a conflict between the rules and the SOP published in AO.
Both 308.131 and the 105.0 agree that CEDS repairs are conducted during the Retrograde Phase (6D).
However, 308.132 states that replacements are resolved at the end of the combat round, whereas in 105.0, Step 6D (Retrograde Phase) states that repairs and replacements are resolved at that time.
Which is correct with regards to replacements?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:55 am: Edit
By John Wong: Nick IN SFB history the Hydrans switch to Hellbore only ships during X ship deployment. What year does this happen. I would assume Y188 as shown in the notes in (R9.200) SFB rule book.
ANSWER: I dont' think that they only build hellbore ships, there are still plenty of regular (non-x) fusion ships in production. The note in (R9.200) refers to x-ships only I believe. So Y188 they stopped making fusion X-ships (with existing fusion X-ships moved to service with normal fleets (non-x fusion and non-x hellbore) ships, while hellbore X-ships were used in the so called X-squadrons. In F&E you can build whatever you like of course, ships with fighters being very useful, since the hellbore/fusion difference is not readily apparent.
=========================================
By James Southcott: Following on from Roberts question above - I seem to remember a debate about this one some time ago. Is the 3rd highest command ship assessed before withdrawl, or after?
I seem to remember (though by no means certain) it was previously said that the rules were a little misleading in their construction and the third best command ship was assessed after withdrawl.
ANSWER: According to the advanced sequence of play, withdrawal is done in step 1 of the combat phase, while flagship selection, being part of battleforce determination, is not done until step 5-3D of step 3, so determine your three flagship candidates after withdrawal.
====================================
By Mark Ermenc: Here's the situation: Player A attacks with a mighty force including a weak carrier group (2EV for the Klingons, for instance). The carrier group in question never sees the battle line, and may in fact actually give up it's outside escort during the initial carrier group formation to a more worthy target (an LAV forwarding fighters, for instance) in the realization that it'll never see the battle line anyway, and only exists to bring a few replacement fighters to the fight.
Fair enough, no problems so far.
Now, the battle is over and we are entering the retreat phase. At this instant, the carrier groups can be re-scrambled, and the carrier group collects a valuable cripple as an ad-hoc escort, and an outside escort (D6M and E4A in the case of the Klingons above). Now, if there is a pursuit battle, the attacker has to blow apart the outside escort to get at the cripple, even if there isn't enough command rating to include the carrier group (or the cripple) on the battle line (it's still directable, because it's a group that includes a cripple)
ANSWER: OK, for one thing, you don't get to "re-scramble" your carrier groups in retreat, that is a common mistake. There are certain re-organizational things you can do, but there are limits. Rule (515.15) specifically allows you to remove escorts during retreat, so an uncrippled carrier with crippled escorts can drop those escorts to avoid pursuit itself. Rule (526.353) allows FCRs to be added to carrier groups pretty much on-the-fly during combat, to prop up an otherwise vulnerable carrier group. Rule (308.122) is the tricky one. It allows you to trade like escorts between groups in order to concentrate the cripples and non-cripples together. This is allowed in order to meet the requirements of (307.3) which says you must include all cripples but only three uncrippled in a pursuit battle, and because vanilla F&E only has group counters not individual carrier and escort counters. In FO, it is easier to just drop the crippled escorts in this step. So, if the Kzinti ended combat with say a CV group with one crippled EFF, and a CVL group with one crippled EFF, and an uncrippled CVE group, that means you would normally have include all the groups in pursuit (in order to include all the cripples), but that would also have 4 uncrippled ships (CV-MEC, CVL-MEC) which is illegal (assuming the rest of the pursuit command spaces were taken up with other cripples, FFs, CLs, BCs, whatever). So you would then be allowed to swap around escorts moving the CVL's EFF to say the CV group, and vice versa. Then in pursuit you have a CVL group with one crippled escort, and a CVE with one crippled escort, but only 3 uncrippled ships. Note the attacker can do this also in order to make an uncrippled group able to pursue, but it is still limited to SWAPPING like escorts, it is not a willy-nilly reorganization, in other words no adding escorts that were never escorts earlier in this combat step, except perhaps for FCRs. There is NO RULE that allows adding ad-hoc escorts in the pursuit step. You build your groups at the start of combat, then they are fixed except for FCRs, dropping escorts in pursuit, or swapping like escorts, there are no other changes allowed that I can remember.
Here's my real concern:
The carrier may never once have contributed COMPOT, but it was in the hex, and can hence retrograde. Thus, the group then retrogrades to a repair facility of choice, regardless of whos turn it is, and repairs out-of-turn, thanks to CEDS. On the next movement phase, the group simply breaks up again, and the valued cripple is back in service. This lets the 2EV in the example above get a mauler back on the line (at base rates, or in situ for field repair rates) for the upcoming alliance turn ... or allows it to retrograde on the alliance turn to a repair facility where it can be repaired in one shot, instead of being "trapped" at a BATS where it would take two turns to repair.
The mauler (or cruiser, or what have you) is repaired as an escort, even though it doesn't become one, never wanted to be one, never will be one, and is just hitching a ride for the free milk and cookies, please and thank you.
ANSWER: Since you can't add ad-hoc escorts during combat, we will assume a group that had an ad-hoc escort added at the start of combat (keeping in mind that such ships lose their special abilities as per (515.33 second paragraph). Now, during retreat/retrograde, such ad-hoc units can retrograde with the carrier group as part of CEDS retrograde if the group is otherwise eligible, but it cannot be repaired (308.13 last sentence) under CEDS. So in summary, can you use a mauler as a mauler, then in retreat add it to a carrier group as an ad-hoc escort, retrograde and repair it under CEDS, then return it to mauler use, no you can't, definitely illegal. You can add it do a carrier group at the start of combat (to gain the use of CEDS retrograde but you still can't use CEDS repair on it), but then it is an escort, not a mauler, it loses combat factors and cannot use it's special mauler ability.
==================================
By Paul Bonfanti: The Hydrans captured a Klingon planet on T12 Alliance. On T13 Coalition, the Klingons do not liberate the planet, but surround it so that it cannot connect to the Hydran grid at the start of their turn. At the beginning of T13 Alliance, and at the beginning of operational movement, the planet is cut off from the main Hydran grid. However, at the start of the combat phase, the planet is able to trace a path to the Hydran grid.
My questions:
1. Can the Hydrans consider the planet a supply point for purposes of retreat?
ANSWER: At the start of T13 coalition, it is added to your grid (413.2), if it can't (as in your example it is cut off) it becomes its own partial grid. At the start of combat since you can trace a path to the main grid, it is part of the main grid (an accumulated EPs can be moved in the next economic phase under (413.44)). At the start of combat it is reconnected to the main grid in your example. If it is still part of the main grid at the instant of retreat, (note there is no specific point in the sequence of play where you judge main or partial grid every turn, you judge it whenever it is necessary under (413.1)), you can use it as a supply point. If it was still (or again) a partial grid, then you could use it as a supply point (for some units) by paying EPs from the partial grid for supply (413.41).
2. If the path to the planet is still open at the beginning of the retrograde phase, can the Hydrans retro to it?
ANSWER: This is independent of the supply question. If the Hydran units have a valid supply path at the start of the retrograde step, or had a valid supply path in combat, then they can retrograde. Since they can retrograde, they can do so to any retrograde point, whether it is the point supplying them or not. So you could have a valid supply path to a main grid, but retrograde to some other valid retro point, even if that takes you away from the point originally supplying you. In your example, if said hydrans had a supply path during combat or at the start of retrograde, then they can retrograde to any point that they are allowed to under the retrograde rules, and if they can reach that planet, then they can retrograde there.
3. Can the Hydrans strat to the planet if the path is open?
ANSWER: Yes, you just need a valid strat move path, and a strat move node every six hexes.
=================================
Erik Underkofler: I have a question about (521.81) EXTRA TROOPS
It puts a requirement of 7 AF on the ship carrying the extra GCE, but 521.812 adds a rule for troop ships that are missing GCEs being able to carry the extra GCE. However, it doesn't say anything about eliminating the 7 AF requirement, and not many troop ships have 7 AF. Should ships like the Lyran CWG (3-7) or DWG (4-6) be able to carry extra GCEs?
ANSWER: The second rule is separate from the first (note they are on the same "level", the second is not a subrule of the first). You either put the extra G on a regular warship of 7 or more attack factors (and this reduces its attack factors) OR you put the extra purchased G on any troop ship that already lost its own (or one of its own) G factors. There is no other requriement for a troop ship beyond having the space (already lost a G), you can use any such troopship regardless of its combat factors.
================================
By Tim Losberg:
1. Pursuit battle, when using a mauler against multiple cripples, how is damage resolved against a unit in Formation Bonus? Example is directing on a crippled Z BC in formation and 2 crippeld CL's. Using the 1/2 effect against FB, thats 5 points against the BC out of which only 4 is needed, how much is left from the mauler after that, 1 (out of 5) or 2 (1 doubled)?
ANSWER: The second thing you said. A 10 point mauler would use 8 of its 10 mauler effect to hit the 4 defense ship in formation (this would use up 4 of the damage points your battleforce generated to kill that ship). That would leave 2 mauler effect points for use against other cripples. So, if you wanted to kill the 4 defense BC in formation, and another 4 defense crippled BC in the line, and a 2 defense crippled FF on the line, that would use up all 10 mauler effect, and would take 14 damage points. (4 damage against the formation bonus ship (using 8 mauler effect) + 6 damage to the line ship (useing 2 mauler effect and the remainder regular directed damage) + 4 damage to the line FF (using normal directed damage)).
2. 308.122 allows for the reshuffling of escorts for a pursuit. In it is the line:
------------------------------------------------
Quote:
...Carrier groups can be broken down in Carrier War (515.15), allowing crippled escorts to be left behind, and this must be done if this is the only way to meet the requirements of (307.3)
-----------------------------------------------
Ok, here is the situation we had disagreement on, Kzinti are fleeing with 3 crippled EFF and a crippled MEC. Kzinti built the line of [CV MEC crippled MEC crippeld EFF] [CV 2xMEC crippled EFF] crippled EFF on the line (lead by a DNL) Is this legal or did the Kzinti have too sub the crippled EFF on the line for one of the healthy MECs?
ANSWER: You can only A) Drop escorts from groups formed at the start of combat, or B) swap like escorts between groups that were formed at the start of combat. You don't get to completely rearrange your groups. I can't tell exactly what you did, but so long as you only used the two options A, B, above, and formed your pursued force legally (include all cripples, only three uncrippled unless there are more command slots available), then you are fine. If you added any escorts in the pursuit step, that was illegal (except for FCRs). Remember, you don't get to reshuffle any way you want, you get to drop escorts, swap like escorts (to concentrate cripples/noncripples), or add FCRs. You don't get to form all new groups in this step, only at the start of combat.
==========================================
By Bill Su:
I'm having a hard time understanding 607.5, the Four Powers War Victory Conditions.
1) Are the points awarded as they happen, so that devestating a planet on Turn 1, and redevestating it on Turn 11 scores points each time? Or do the points only get awarded based on conditions after Turn 11, so devestating a planet on Turn 1, but never again, does no good because the planet will have recovered? Or does devestating the planet at any time over the course of the scenario earn points, but only once per planet?
ANSWER: Points for destroyed ships/bases are earned as you destroy those targets (or add such things up at the end of the game). Captured/devestated planets and provinces are earned for such targets based on their status at the end of the game, so can only be earned once per planet/province. If it were scored as earned, then if race A invaded and conqured parts of race B, then race B retook that territory (back to the original border) and recovered their planets by the end of the game, it should be a draw (assuming equal ships destroyed on each side during the game), not a victory for A. If you scored points for planets/provinces as earned, then A would win in the example above, and that doesn't make sense to me.
2) Does a base that is destroyed and rebuilt count as destroyed or not?
ANSWER: Barring a rule that says rebuilding does so, it does not. So a destroyed base counts for points for the side that destroyed it regardless of whether it gets rebuilt or not.
3) Why are there no additional points (or automatic victory!) for capturing enemy capitals? Is it impossible?
ANSWER: I think it is supposed to be very unlikely, if you managed to do so, you are likely so far ahead in points in other areas that not getting more beyond the 10 doesn't matter.
4) Is victory determined by simply having more points than the other player? I would guess so, but it's not stated. Also, there are no "levels of victory" specified, as in most other scenarios.
ANSWER: Most points wins.
========================================
John Doucette:
On Admirals:
316.32 states that a player is entitled to a replacement in the Production Phase of his next turn.
316.322 states that replacement occurs during the owning players next Production Phase.
Does 316.322 apply only if the effectiveness rule is being used and, if so, does this mean that if not using the effectiveness rule, admirals are replaced in next turn, regardless of method of elimination (retired or KIA) while, when using the effectiveness rule, admirals are replaced on the turn they are retired?
ANSWER: I am confused by your question. Both replacement (normal and optional effectiveness) take place every production step for said player. Killed admirals are replaced on the next production step, effectiveness admirals are retired and replaced in the production step. If you are not using effectiveness, there is no retirement roll, so any killed admirals are replaced in the next production step. If using effectiveness, every prodction step you roll for retirement of existing admirals, then replace all retired admirals and all admirals killed in previous turns.
On CEDS:
There seems to be a conflict between the rules and the SOP published in AO.
Both 308.131 and the 105.0 agree that CEDS repairs are conducted during the Retrograde Phase (6D).
However, 308.132 states that replacements are resolved at the end of the combat round, whereas in 105.0, Step 6D (Retrograde Phase) states that repairs and replacements are resolved at that time.
Which is correct with regards to replacements?
ANSWER: Do everything in the retrograde step (which is at the end of the combat round).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 12:51 pm: Edit
Nick:
Please define "like" escorts:
1. Does "like" mean hull types or size class or EXACT types?
2. IOW can a CWE by swapped for a CWA? (Both are like variants War Cruiser escorts on a like hull.)
3. Ad hoc CW for CWE/CWA? (Both share a like War hull.)
4. FKE for EFF? (Both share the fact they are can be converted from the same like frigate - ie the FF.)
5. E4E for F5E? (Both share the fact that they are like sized escorts - IOW both are light escorts.)
6. Hydran DDE (SC4) for NEC (SC3)? (Both are like sized (large) escorts but are a different size class.)
7. Prior round emergency inserted FCR for FFE (same base hull)?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Nick, could you also clarify the definition of Combat Phase, Combat Step, and Combat Round?
And thanks for pointing out that my admirals question was brought about by my having not noticed, despite having the rule right there in front of me, that the replacement rules depend enitrely on whether effectiveness is used or not
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 04:59 pm: Edit
they are still killed if their ship is captured
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 07:14 pm: Edit
Chuck, "like escorts" means whatever rule (308.122) says it does (don't have the rule with me at work now, but I belive it defines this). That is what I am referring to.
John, with respect to what? Or how so? Off hand answer without rulebook handy: Combat phase is the whole combat part of the turn that happens after op move and before retrograde, combat step is maybe a smaller part of that (like withdraw before combat step, retreat step, whatever), a combat round is one play through of the sequence of steps that you do over and over and over and over until a combat hex is resolved, forming your battleforce and rolling damage, then resolving damage, then decide whether to retreat or keep fighting. Was there a more specific thing you were referring to? Did I use something incorrectly earlier?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 08:42 pm: Edit
Well, I was wondering if phase, step, and round had certain specific meanings within the rules or whether the terms were sometimes used interchangeably. I think what brought up my clarification question was a combination of SVCs earlier ruling that "and" and "and/or" (in the scenerio setups) mean "and/or" and the genesis of my CEDS question about replacement occuring after the combat ROUND but with the sequence of play stating replacement occured in the retro PHASE.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit
ANSWER: According to the advanced sequence of play, withdrawal is done in step 1 of the combat phase, while flagship selection, being part of battleforce determination, is not done until step 5-3D of step 3, so determine your three flagship candidates after withdrawal.
Nick, did you miss Step 5-1D: "Non-phasing player selects flagship of non-withdrawing force; this unit MUST serve as flagship in the first combat round (302.133)."
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:59 pm: Edit
Nick, also what about rule: 302.133
"...One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round"
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit
John, in general they are specific terms. However, CEDS repairs and replacements are done at the same time, when you do retrograde movement.
Jeff/Chris: Yeah, I missed it. Really, you do the flagship selection at whatever step you need to. I guess I am still not sure what the original question was about... 'pick the third best flagship'? What does that mean? I mean, you pick them all (the three best command ratings) at the same time, then pick one of those three to actually be the flagship, and you do all this whenever you form a battleforce, right? Why would you ever just determine the third best? Also, don't you have to find the first and second best in order to even know which is the third best?
James Southcott, I'm just not sure what you were asking. I don't remember a discussion/ruling on this before (which doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that I can't remember it).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:37 am: Edit
Nick, it is basically only used when a player has a bunch of big ships he wants to protect, and a single FF in the hex. 302.133 prevents that player from pulling all his CAs out before combat (for example) and leaving the FF to command, when there are clearly other higher CRs.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 02:06 am: Edit
Nick:
Ref - (308.122)
Change your term "like" to rule's term "same type/class" and define what "same type/class" means using my questions above. Thanks.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 08:53 am: Edit
Nick
I have always selected flagship candidates before withdrawal. Being able to do it after has quite an impact..
e.g. 5D7 and E4.
If I select before withdrawal, my flaship has to be a D7, and two rejected flaships are also D7s.
I withdraw the E4 and 2D7s, can miss out 2 D7 rejected flaships, but must put in at least 1D7, which will be blown up.
If I select after withdrawal, I withdraw 3 D7s, have 2 D7 rejected flaships, and only have to put in an E4.
Are you sure your ruling is correct? Doing the "flagship selection at whatever step you need to" seems abusive.
Incidently, the only use I have ever seen for the rejected flaship rule is to use it as a cheesy way to withdraw a bigger proportion of the fleet. The rule probably wasn't designed with this in mind. Given its complexity, I sometimes wonder why it was put in. It's also a minor contributer, along with the minimun force rule, towards reducing the damage that players take, which is not good IMHO. (PS this is not a call for change, just some musings).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 12:06 pm: Edit
Hi Nick. I think the debate we are having now is exactly the one I remembered. The rules are clearly written that one of the ships with the best CR rating must remain behind to be the flagship, but the SOP suggests that withdrawl precedes the 'flagship rejection' step.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit
Stasis ship question with carriers:
When facing stasis it is considered standard to use carriers. I found a situation that appears strange. Please let me know if this is the way stasis/carrier interaction should work.
Hydrans put up a line of a single carrier with 3 escorts. Hydran Hybrids add their fighters to the line cowering in fear from the stasis ships. This line has an UH, DE, AH, AH and 9 fighters (there are 8 ships in the force to meet minimum force).
1) The 2 stasis ships attempt to stasis. They can only target 1 ship (the outside AH) of the carrier group, they can also target a single fighter factor with each other stasis attempt.
2) The first stasis is successful.
3) The stasis on the first fighter results in a random selection. The stasis player selects the other AH and 2 fighters, the non-stasis player selects. Does the defender have to pick the interior escot (DE) 3 times? Is there anything else that can be selected? Assume the AH is frozen.
4) The second stasis ship tries to snag the second fighter, resulting in random choice. Assume the DE is selected.
5) The final stasis ship attempt resolves as defender choice. Does the defender have to select his carrier (since the 3 escorts are all frozen), as his selection?
This does involve very fortunate dice rolling by the stasis ship player, but I intentiionally create a strong example to show the issue completely.
In our actual game I adjusted my line and put the 3 LN in the line, and offered the fighters of the RN up to the line, the stasis still snagged 2 escorts and a LN all of which were killed.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, July 30, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit
One night of gaming yielded 3 rules questions. Here's the 3rd:
The Klingons have captured a Kzinti minor planet on T10 and hold it continuously, making it part of their supply grid and an econ source.
On T13, the Kzintis succeed in destroying all supply points further than 6 from the planet, putting it into a partial supply grid.
T14C rolls around, and the Klingon player notes that the captured planet is the center of a supply grid with 4.6 EPs in it. he spends 1 of the EPs to put 5 ships in the grid into supply.
Can the Klingon do either the following:
Smuggle any of the EP back into the main grid, at the cost of 2:1?
Save an EP in the partial grid, and use it to supply his ships on Alliance Turn 14?
Thanks
P.S. If Nick rules that all of the above stasis machinations are legal, dibs on the tac note. It's cheesy, yes, but it's my cheese
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 05:08 pm: Edit
Advanced Operation question on Rule 525.318.....
It says the Hydran receive any one Pegasus class ships of their choice at no cost. Other Pegaus-class hulls could be built as substitions for DD's.
I assume this means they Hydrans get 1 free PGS per year - and can pay to make it one of the other PG's class hulls - or does it mean, the Hydrans can pick ANY of the hulls (In effect getting a 8 Ep ship and 6 extra Free carrier Fighters) for 'free'?
I can't see any reason to pick the PGS/PGG - and the PGV/PGC/PGF (in that order) being the pick of the bunch.
Thanks
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit
Bill:
As the attacker, why would you select a single fighter factor (or PF)? As the attacker, you are never required to target these units per rule.
By Will Culbertson (Willc) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit
Chuck,
I think he's doing so to force the defender to pick a carrier as required so he has a shot at the random roll for it. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to freeze it.
Paul,
You are limted to 4 of any one type in service at a time. Granted, it would be Y185ish by the time you would have to pick another one (baring replacing destroyed ones or extra builds).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 08:32 pm: Edit
Paul, Nick answered this in the archives a long while back, they can build any ship they like of types available, up to max of 4 each. The fighters are free.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:07 am: Edit
Nick, does a garrisoning force at an enemy capitol have to keep units static in each system if under attack or can the all concetrate at one system?
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit
In a capital fight, let's say that the outer systems have already been devestated and the defenders are down to defending the home system as that is all that still has defenses and is undevestated.
The outer systems are not defended from the attacker since they have ship superiority. The attacker enters and redevestates the outer systems at high BIR and generates alot of plus points that cannot be assigned since the residual defence unit is only 3 points. In Kzinti space this can be done on 6 planets outside the capital system.
If the defenders successfully force the attacker to retreat after they finally attack the capital hex and the defenders pursue to kill some of the attackers cripples do all those points generated at the devestated planets appear in the pursuit battle forcing the defender to resolve this large amount of damage on his ships?
If so I have a tac note.
By Edward Reece (Edfactor) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:07 pm: Edit
There is a limit to the total +/- points somewhere. I think only 7 or so would count.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit
I think that +/- 7 is for the pursued force, there is no maximum +/- for the pursuer in my recollection.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Errata 308.2 "No battle force in a pursuit battle may 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."
By David Lang (Dlang) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 02:36 pm: Edit
this still doesn't say anything about a limit on plus points (which was the portion being abused in the origional post)
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit
I had asked this question a few weeks ago...
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 10:46 am: Edit
Tim Losberg, no there is no limit to plus points. 7 minus points are the most that can be taken into pursuit, and this limit goes up to 14 minus points from a capital multi-location hex battle. This is in the published errata for rule (308.2).
________________________________________
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:13 pm: Edit
From MASTER ERRATA FILE (18 July 2004)
(508.16) Residual Defense Factors are not units in any sense. They do not block retreat or pursuit. You cannot re-devastate them over and over to rack up points. Any mention of Residual Defense Unit should be read as Residual Defense Factor. [Emphasis added.]
It looks like the tactic has been banned.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:16 pm: Edit
Ahh, good catch John. I was very afraid Tim was going to do the exact tactic vs me in our FtF game we have going.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:18 pm: Edit
John, that really clears nothing up. You still have to attack the planet to kill the RDF. That takes 3 points. What happens to the rest if the defender decides not to show up? If a FF where or anything else, it would generate plus points.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:29 pm: Edit
What it means (at least to me) is that you need to attack it with a warship to kill the RDF, but you do not accumulate plus points for doing so. In other words a single 1 strength unit can redevestate a non-defended planet.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit
Nick answered this question on May 13, 2004. You cannot do this.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit
Ah well, I lose.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 05:24 pm: Edit
Sorry Nick, I am answering for you!
Basic Rule 308.25 - If there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in a capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated or resolved.
So, no building up of + points for the attacker, to use up in the persuit battle when they retire!
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit
Is the defender still hosed if he elects not to defend a system with only a PDU for defense?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit
Dale, yes. If there is defense (only 1PDU in that case) then the attacker can build up a pretty huge number of plus's.
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 08:35 pm: Edit
the question has been answered.
no tac note.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 03:59 am: Edit
...
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit
Dale, yes. If there is defense (only 1PDU in that case) then the attacker can build up a pretty huge number of plus's.
...
I would point out one thing here - if there is a PDU left, the Planet is almost certainly not devastated, and so the PDU and Planet could take 19 damage, therefore not leaving alot of plus points anyway (Unless you send a super line there, and then the defender can send a single FF to set the BIR, as at BIR 8, 35 odd damage could easily be done (leaving +16 points).
At BIR 5, it is unlikely many plus points could be created (6 for FF, PDU 9, Planet 10, so even if 30% was done, it might create 5 or 6 plus points).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 09:48 am: Edit
Nick
Romulan and Gorn Set-up.
The rulebook states that the Romulans can set up after turn 9 and before turn 10. (603.14). This seems to allow them to react to any defensive deployment the Federation 6th fleet may try turn 9 by putting their West fleet anywhere on the front. The Romulans then move first turn 10.
Is this correct?
(PS this makes the defence of the 7th fleet SB extremely difficult - normally speaking, one would think the federation would know where the west fleet was based and react accordingly).
Likewise, the Gorns set-up after turn 11. The Romulans now get coalition turn 12 to react to any Gorn deployments, partially nullifying the Gorn assualt.
Is this also correct?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 09:57 am: Edit
I think that the rule should be adjusted so that if there are no mobile units defending a planet no plus points can be carried on to an other battle by the attacker. After all, plus points imply that something was damaged, just not enough to cripple it. If there's nothing left there to take that extra damage how can it be carried on to another battle?
Trying to carry plus points over from an undefended PDU is just cheese. Enjoy the cheep kill on the PDU and move on.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:39 pm: Edit
Daniel
You could generalize that a little bit and just say that if there is no remaining way for a battle force to resolve damage, any remaining damage disappears. This would resolve this problem, the issue of attacking a Homeworld with a SB, 20xPDUs and PFs and a defending fleet, and maybe a few other miscellaneous cases.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 12:45 pm: Edit
If there are planetary defenses and the defender 'chooses' to not put ships there to defend the attacker then that is the players choice. If the defender does not want to give the attacker plus points then self kill your PDU's and self devestate the planet.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit
What Jimi said.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 03:23 pm: Edit
what is brutal is when you do enough damage to strip the PDU's and pay for most of the fighters so that there is not enough damage to devestate the planet, forcing the defender into another round in that system with no static defenses to bose Compot.
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 09:16 am: Edit
I think it was Joe S. (aka He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named) suggested that is you completely annihilate the other side, any extra damage you did should be deducted off the damage they did to you. Of course, such a rule might make Ultra-Fortress hexes (twin-SB, mega Home Systems, etc) utterly impossible to attack ......
Garth L. Getgen
By Gary Quick (Northquick) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:09 am: Edit
Salvage Q:
With the following "hypothetical" situation:
1) Hydrans are completely cutoff from off-map
2) Hydran HN dies - but can trace supply to Hydrax
3) DG destroyed over Hydrax
4) Hydrax falls and Hydrans retreat
At this point, the treasury and free figters are evacuated, but have no supply point in range and so do not transfer.
The question is, what happens to the salvage? Does salvage get added to the treasury when a ship is destroyed, after the battle, or at the end of turn? Does salvage just "float" as long a supply path can be traced, or does it actually have to reside somewhere? Does the salvage from the HN and DG get treated the same or differently?
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 12:28 pm: Edit
The Orions come and pick it up, of course.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 03:17 pm: Edit
Aux carriers in capital assaults.
I had always been under the impression that, like other slow units, these were assigned to a specific system when the defender splits up forces for the cap assault.
But I can't find that rule anywhere.
Can anyone help me? Hopefully soon, since we want to continue our game at 6pm Pacific time today . . .
Thanks
William
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit
WJ:
This was asked and answered at Origins but I don't recall the answer. I seem to recall that mobile AUX units were split also.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 09:50 am: Edit
questions downloaded for processing. Sorry for the delays, last week was very busy, and next week is worse, so I will get caught up this weekend.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 10:52 am: Edit
William--
I can't remember where, but there was a ruling in Q+A that Aux units were split. I think it was around April of 04. If you do a search in Q+A on "Auxiliaries," you'll find it.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit
OK I found it -- thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:09 am: Edit
Peter Riewe: Aux ships are split between static and mobile forces.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit
By Chuck Strong: Please define "like" escorts
ANSWER: If using only vanilla F&E, like escorts are the same type. So you can swap a crippled EFF for a non-crippled EFF, or a crippled MEC for a non-crippled MEC, and so on. If using fighter ops flexible carrier groups then use same class, heavy escorts can swap and light escorts can swap.
============================================
Flagship selection: Really I suppose you keep track of the top three flagship candidates at all times, (which is why the new fleet charts have these boxes on them), so you always know at any given time (before withdrawal, after withdrawal, whatever) what your options are.
===========================================
Bill Schoeller: Stasis ship question with carriers:
When facing stasis it is considered standard to use carriers. I found a situation that appears strange. Please let me know if this is the way stasis/carrier interaction should work.
Hydrans put up a line of a single carrier with 3 escorts. Hydran Hybrids add their fighters to the line cowering in fear from the stasis ships. This line has an UH, DE, AH, AH and 9 fighters (there are 8 ships in the force to meet minimum force).
ANSWER: Shouldn't there bee 11 fighter factors? I will assume two are dead already, making 9.
1) The 2 stasis ships attempt to stasis. They can only target 1 ship (the outside AH) of the carrier group, they can also target a single fighter factor with each other stasis attempt.
ANSWER: So your are initially targetting the outer AH, and 5 fighter factors (six stasis attempts, three per stasis ship)? Also note that rule (312.224) allows different stasis units to target the same targets with their SFGs.
2) The first stasis is successful.
ANSWER: Ok.
3) The stasis on the first fighter results in a random selection. The stasis player selects the other AH and 2 fighters, the non-stasis player selects. Does the defender have to pick the interior escot (DE) 3 times? Is there anything else that can be selected? Assume the AH is frozen.
ANSWER: Remember that units originally selected for future stasis attempts are valid selections for a given random targetting result. So you initially selected one AH, and 5 fighter factors when you declared stasis. Then you froze the AH. Then the first fighter attempt resulted in a random choice. The ONLY things that cannot be chosen are things in groups too "deep" to target, the already frozen AH, and the fighter factor that was the original target of this now random selection. The other 4 fighter factors that you originally selected when declaring stasis are valid targets for this random selection process. If you now randomly freeze one of these originally targetted units, then when you get around to resolving the originally scheduled attempt against it, you must still attempt to do so using (312.202 last sentence) even though it is already frozen due to the earlier random effect.
So, you already froze one AH, and the fighter factor you were trying to get generated a random result. So the attacker picks three things, he can pick the second AH (smallest unfrozen group unit), and any two fighter factors not frozen yet (which can be ones that were already (at the start of the stasis step) designated as targets that have not yet been resolved). The Defender then can at first select only the DE (smallest unfrozen, unselected group unit) since he cannot select fighter factors or PFs. Once the DE is selected all valid targets are taken, so the Defender is now allowed to select any ships (but not fighters or PFs) the attacker selected, i.e. the second AH (312.233). The Defender's third selection must now place a second number on one of these, it can be either the DE or the second AH.
4) The second stasis ship tries to snag the second fighter, resulting in random choice. Assume the DE is selected.
5) The final stasis ship attempt resolves as defender choice. Does the defender have to select his carrier (since the 3 escorts are all frozen), as his selection?
This does involve very fortunate dice rolling by the stasis ship player, but I intentiionally create a strong example to show the issue completely.
In our actual game I adjusted my line and put the 3 LN in the line, and offered the fighters of the RN up to the line, the stasis still snagged 2 escorts and a LN all of which were killed.
ANSWER: Just remember that in the initial targetting declartion, the attacker can only select one ship per carrier group per stasis ship (two ships can both select the smallest escort as one of their three targets). The attacker can select fighter factors or PFs.
When you get a random selection, any originally declared targets (of this stasis ship or another stasis ship) not yet resolved have no bearing on this random process (i.e. the random process being resolved now can freeze something you already declared you were going to freeze, but have not yet gotten around to resolving yet). When you eventually get to resolving the original attempt to freeze something that was randomly frozen earlier, see (312.202) last sentence of the last paragraph.
When you select random targets, fighter factors or PFs may be selected, but don't have to be (312.236). I.e., fighter factors are not considered valid targets for random selection unless the attacker specifically wants to select them.
The Attacker can pick three things that were not frozen earlier and that are not the original target of the current attempt (and only one unit per group). If there are fewer than three valid options, then some targets get more than one number.
The defender can only pick ships (not fighters/PFs and only one unit per group) that the attacker hasen't picked for random selection, unless you run out of valid targets in which case the defender can then pick any of the same targets as already selected by the attacker. If there are fewer than three then some targets get more than one number
So if you have 8 valid targets (even if some of these 8 are targets of already declared but not yet resolved attempts they still may get picked now, alternatively some may be the original targets of earlier resolved failed attempts) at the start of random selection, the attacker picks three and the defender picks a different three.
If you have 4 valid targets at the start of random selection, the attacker picks 3, then the defender must first pick the last one, then can pick any that the attacker picked, but still only one number per target per player (overlap between the two 3 unit lists).
If you had only 3 valid targets at the start of random selection, the attacker and defender must both pick the same three unit list of random targets (so each of the three units will have two numbers each, one number from the attacker and one number from the defender).
If you have 2 valid targets at the start of random selection, then the attacker must give one ship 1 number and the other ship 2 numbers, and the defender must give one ship 1 number and the other ship 2 numbers (overlapping lists and multiple numbers assigned by each player).
If you have only 1 valid target at the start of random selection, then each player gives that target 3 numbers, and it's not really random is it?.
I hope that helps, I also hope that I got everything right.
===========================================
Paul Bonfanti:
The Klingons have captured a Kzinti minor planet on T10 and hold it continuously, making it part of their supply grid and an econ source.
On T13, the Kzintis succeed in destroying all supply points further than 6 from the planet, putting it into a partial supply grid.
T14C rolls around, and the Klingon player notes that the captured planet is the center of a supply grid with 4.6 EPs in it. he spends 1 of the EPs to put 5 ships in the grid into supply.
Can the Klingon do either the following:
Smuggle any of the EP back into the main grid, at the cost of 2:1?
ANSWER: Yes (410.34).
Save an EP in the partial grid, and use it to supply his ships on Alliance Turn 14?
ANSWER: I belive that the EPs you paid on 14C last until the same point on 15C, i.e. the supply you paid for lasts for a game turn, not just a player turn.
=========================================
Paul Howard: Advanced Operation question on Rule 525.318.....
It says the Hydran receive any one Pegasus class ships of their choice at no cost. Other Pegaus-class hulls could be built as substitions for DD's.
I assume this means they Hydrans get 1 free PGS per year - and can pay to make it one of the other PG's class hulls - or does it mean, the Hydrans can pick ANY of the hulls (In effect getting a 8 Ep ship and 6 extra Free carrier Fighters) for 'free'?
ANSWER: You get one pegasus hull ship free, any variant. If you want more than one a year, then you sub additional ones for DDs.
=========================================
Tim Losberg: Nick, does a garrisoning force at an enemy capitol have to keep units static in each system if under attack or can the all concetrate at one system?
ANSWER: They can concentrate during combat, but if you do not have enough garrison units at the end of combat (i.e. the end of any given phase as in (508.23)) some planets will revert to the original owner.
==========================================
Darin Smith:
In a capital fight, let's say that the outer systems have already been devestated and the defenders are down to defending the home system as that is all that still has defenses and is undevestated.
The outer systems are not defended from the attacker since they have ship superiority. The attacker enters and redevestates the outer systems at high BIR and generates alot of plus points that cannot be assigned since the residual defence unit is only 3 points. In Kzinti space this can be done on 6 planets outside the capital system.
If the defenders successfully force the attacker to retreat after they finally attack the capital hex and the defenders pursue to kill some of the attackers cripples do all those points generated at the devestated planets appear in the pursuit battle forcing the defender to resolve this large amount of damage on his ships?
ANSWER: This got resolved by other posts, if there are no defending units (RDF not counting) then no plus points accumulate, if there are defending units (PGBs, PDUs, and/or ships) plus points accumulate and transfer to pursuit.
NOTE: You guys really shouldn't encourge me like this. If I leave the topic alone long enough the questions answer themselves. Answering for me only allows me to slack off more, which I shouldn't do.
=========================================
David Slatter: The rulebook states that the Romulans can set up after turn 9 and before turn 10. (603.14). This seems to allow them to react to any defensive deployment the Federation 6th fleet may try turn 9 by putting their West fleet anywhere on the front. The Romulans then move first turn 10.
Is this correct?
(PS this makes the defence of the 7th fleet SB extremely difficult - normally speaking, one would think the federation would know where the west fleet was based and react accordingly).
Likewise, the Gorns set-up after turn 11. The Romulans now get coalition turn 12 to react to any Gorn deployments, partially nullifying the Gorn assualt.
Is this also correct?
ANSWER: Both correct, sorry, that's just the way it works.
===========================================
Gary Quick: Salvage Q:
With the following "hypothetical" situation:
1) Hydrans are completely cutoff from off-map
2) Hydran HN dies - but can trace supply to Hydrax
3) DG destroyed over Hydrax
4) Hydrax falls and Hydrans retreat
At this point, the treasury and free figters are evacuated, but have no supply point in range and so do not transfer.
The question is, what happens to the salvage? Does salvage get added to the treasury when a ship is destroyed, after the battle, or at the end of turn? Does salvage just "float" as long a supply path can be traced, or does it actually have to reside somewhere? Does the salvage from the HN and DG get treated the same or differently?
ANSWER: Salvage can be recorded during combat (i.e. round by round) as per (439.11). Thus where the salvage EPs go is determined by the supply status of the location during combat, if you have a valid supply path during combat then salvage EPs go into whatever grid you have a valid supply path to. So if you owned Hydrax during combat, and were fighting over it, then any salvage goes into that main grid round by round, or at the end of combat if you prefer, not at the end of the turn. If your retreat causes the loss of that grid, and there is no connection to another grid, then the EPs go poof.
============================================
William Jockusch: Aux carriers in capital assaults.
I had always been under the impression that, like other slow units, these were assigned to a specific system when the defender splits up forces for the cap assault.
ANSWER: They are mobile enough to get around a single hex, so are split 50/50 between the static and mobile forces. Chuck is right, this was answered at Origins.
=============================================
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:10 am: Edit
Nick -
In this particular example I left the UH group in the line, and offered up 9 other independent fighter factors (from a RN and 3 LN) into the line.
The key question is if there are no other ships in the line, (just independent fighters), does the defender have to pick the next escort (or the carrier) in the group.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:26 pm: Edit
If the only valid target left is the next smallest escort in the group (and if the defender has not yet picked an escort of that group for random targeting, remember each player can only pick one ship per group to assign numbers to), then yes, you assign that escort a number.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:35 pm: Edit
But do you have to assign it all 3 numbers. I have no other targets so it appears to be just automatically snagged.
Consider the case of a CVE group with 1 stasis attempt. It attempts to target the escort and gets random target. It can not get the escort (the roll failed). Is the carrier automatically in stasis if it is the only ship left?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit
But do you have to assign it all 3 numbers.
ANSWER: In your example (if I remember it all correctly), no. You stated that the attacker assigned the 3 attacker random numbers as one number to the second unfrozen AH, then to fighters. The defender (before assigning any of the three defender numbers) has only one option (there is only one unfrozen, unselected, target) at that point, the DE. BUT, after assigning the first of 3 defender numbers to the DE, you still have two defender numbers to assign, but are out of legal targets (all targets are now either already frozen, like the first AH, or already selected, like the second AH (by attacker) and DE (by defender)), SO, you are NOW allowed to assign numbers to things the attacker already did (i.e. NOW the defender is allowed to overlap the attacker/defender lists), so you can assign the second defender number to that second unfrozen AH (which now has one attacker number and one defender number). Then (with one defender number left to assign) you are again out of targets, so (as a last resort) the last defender number can go on either the second AH or the DE (defender must now assign multiple defender numbers to the same target, normally you can't do this at all, only when you totally run out of unique targets).
SUMMARY: You must try to assign one number per target per player (ideally you end up with six targets, each with one number). But this only works if you had 6 or more valid targets at the start of assigning the random selection numbers.
If you have less than 6, but at least 3, then there will be some overlap in the attacker/defender lists (some targets will have both an attacker number and defender number, but nothing will have two numbers from a given player), but no individual player can put more than one number on the same target. So with 4 targets, the attacker must pick three of them giving them one number each. Then the defender must put one of the defender numbers on the 4th target (because you can't pick something the attacker picked if there is an unselected alternative), then can put the second defender number on one of the attacker's selected targets, then puts the last defender number on a different one of the attacker's selected targets.
Thus if you have three targets at the start of the random selection, then the attacker puts one number on each, and then the defender puts one number on each. Complete overlap, each target has two numbers, but only one attacker number and one defender number each.
If you have two targets, then the attacker puts one number on one target, and two numbers on the other, and the defender does likewise.
If you have one target at the start of random selection, then well, it gets all six numbers, doesn't it?
Put another way, the attacker must pick three different targets, unless there aren't that many so he picks as many as there are (1 or 2).
The Defender must also pick three targets, and these must be different from the attacker's, unless there aren't that many (i.e. less than 6), in which case he first picks the ones the attacker didn't, then can pick any targets (even ones chosen already by the attacker), unless there aren't that many so he picks as many as there are (1 or 2).
Clear?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit
If you have a [CVE, EFF] group as your complete defending battleforce. There is only one valid initial target, the EFF, so there will be only one stasis attempt.
If you roll that attempt, and get random result, then all six numbers go on the CVE.
The result of the random roll CAN'T be the original target since you didn't roll success, and you didn't roll a failed attempt so you must freeze something, so you MUST pick a random target from those left, and if there is only one left, then it will be picked.
A more interesting question is if there is only one ship in the defending battleforce, and you try to freeze it, but get a random result. That is something not quite covered by the rules...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 08:43 am: Edit
A salvage question:
Say the Kzinti capture a D6M, and keep it so that they can use it as a mauler. Now, later on, that Zin-D6M is destroyed yielding salvage. Does it produce salvage at 25%, or 30%? In other words, is it worth 2 or 2.4 EPs?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 08:48 am: Edit
A salvage question:
Say the Kzinti capture a D6M, and keep it so that they can use it as a mauler. Now, later on, that Zin-D6M is destroyed yielding salvage. Does it produce salvage at 25%, or 30%? In other words, is it worth 2 or 2.4 EPs?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit
Sorry about the dup message, only just realized it.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit
Robert,
I believe that all salvage values are on the SIT now.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit
I guess the real question would be, do captured ships produce salvage at the rate for the original owner, or at the rate of the current owner (or always at 25%)?
Is a Z-KD6M 2 or 2.4?
Is a K-ZBC 2 or 2.4?
Is a K-FCA 2 or 2.4?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:21 am: Edit
Yes, what Tony said
By David Johnson (Djj) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:38 am: Edit
Salvage should remain the same no matter who owns the unit.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:47 am: Edit
I agree that it 'should' but be good to get a confirm on that though as a just in case.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 02:04 pm: Edit
I realise that this is not a discussion area, but IMO salvage for captured units should be half what it would be for the original owner. How useful are spare parts when most of the fleet can't use them.....some use, but not as much as if you have a whole load of other similar ship, or can do a major rebuild using the 'destroyed' ship as a starting point.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit
I would think that separateable units no longer separate if captured (there are in game examples of this from historically captured Klingon ships) in which case the salvage would revert to what similiar class ship would be for that race.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit
KISS guys
We have a number on the SITS - just use that
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit
Ok, so the Hydran OOB says that the 176-177 Build schedule may begin in 173 if the capital has not fallen.
The SIT has the IRQ and MHK available in 175.
Can the Hydrans build IRQs and MHKs starting in 173, or would those slots on the 176-177 Build schedule still be CWs?
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 07:44 pm: Edit
After a capital falls there are normally alot of slow units.
If all the ships in the capital retreat, can slow ships retreat if there is still a base active over the capital or are they forced to fight it out. 302.741 and 302.742 could use some clarification.
If there are 2xLAV, 3xSAV, 2xFTS, LAS, LAD, 3xSAD, FTL, SAS. Can the pursuer direct on all these ships even those that are not in the actual battle force? Do I have to take damage on ships not in the battle force if he does not direct or just ships in the battle force? My opponent claims that 302.742D means he can direct on any slow ships (though on one) and that they all must take the damage even if not in the battleforce
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 01:06 am: Edit
1. If the Romulans don't invade the Feds on turn-10 and invoke the Gorn limited war status (605.3) on turn-10, what is the Gorn build schedule for turns 10-11 (IOW, do they get their Y174 build schedule)?
2. If the Romulans don't invade the Feds on turn-10 and invoke the Gorn limited war status (605.3) on turn-10, do they set up their Second (Fed border) Fleet after the Romulan turn-10 non-invasion of the Federation so as to move it into within Fed space on turn10?
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 03:39 am: Edit
A carrier looses an escort and seeks a new one using CEDS. It is co-located with a base hull frigate. Can it upgrade the frigate to an FCR? The FCR is an escort, after all.
Assuming that it can, which turn's FCR limitation does this count against?
(CEDS is 308.1, FCRs are 526.3)
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit
Can the Hydran THR be built in the "Old Colonies Shipyard", by subbing it for the RN?
The THR lists it as a sub for a "CA", but it's a Hellbore-armed ship.
Maybe the SITS needs to be updated.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Nick,
In Captain's Log #29, Tactical Notes
heading "The double double carrier group by Paul Howard
The Kzinti group is formed by 2 Cv group+TGC(BP+CV pod)+TGC(SP+CV pod)...
Aren't those 4 fighter groups?
Have i miss something?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit
Fabio, the 2 tugs only have a single VP (3 fighters each) for a total of 3 squadrons
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit
I believe that Kzinti CV pods have three factors on them. A set of pods has 6.
I'm too slow.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Ok You are right!
Forget me.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 10:59 am: Edit
Posted following the discussion under Tac Notes. Not that I am part of the discussion, just curious.
(511.573) FRDs and convoys at the planet (battle location) can be attacked by Directed Damage. Crippled ships (and groups including crippled ships) in the same system (in the fixed, not mobile box) are assigned to the planet with the most PDUs (largest, then first listed if this is a tie) and can be attacked by directed damage if that planet is under attack, even if not part of the battle force. If not part of the battle force, they cannot cause damage to enemy forces.
Question: Can the cripples not in the battle force in the above rule be targeted by a mauler at 2-1? Or must all directed damage against them be at 3-1?
(302.563) states in part that "Support ships outside of the Battle Force but contributing to its combat potential can be attacked by Directed Damage, but it takes three actual Damage Points for each effective point rather than the usual ratio of two actual to one effective point in (302.52) and maulers do not have the (308.4) effect."
However the cripples are not contributing to the defender's combat potential. Would it be correct to state that units not either on the battle line or in form cannot be dirdamed by maulers?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit
Hey Nick, quick one here.
The Hydran CV on the build schedule. Can you sub either a DG or an RN, or is only an RN allowed?
Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 11:28 am: Edit
questions downloaded
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:59 pm: Edit
Okay several questions that I should probably know the answer to already, but here they are anyway.
1) Can Police Ships retreat from behind a friendly base?
2) I thought that a raider cannot capture a destroyed ship during a raid but I cannot find a specific rules reference.
3) In 310.2 of Single Combat ...If one ship has a cloak, roll for modifiers (306.2).
Do I HAVE to roll if I have cloak or is it an option? As written it sounds like its mandatory but that seems to be against the spirit of the rules.
Thanks Nick.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 10:21 pm: Edit
Two questions please...
1) To go back to the stasis discussion with Bill, if the defender fleet is a HR(in formation), HN, & TR (2 eligible ships) and the 1st attempt freezes its target(TR) and on the 2nd attempt we get a random, then what gets frozen (if any)...is the HR in formation now a valid selection?
2) Two neutral zone hexes (1215 & 1316) owned by the K with a G2 in 1315....a single Hydran ship moves thru the 2 NZ hexes and continues....by 503.62, as discussed at Origins with Chuck, the Hydrans do not 'capture' these hexes because there is an adjacent ship....however, do these hexes stay under K control or revert back to neutral?
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 03:54 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have a feeling the answer to this is yes, but I have to ask.
The Hydrans capture a D7A, and then immediately retreat. The Klingons pursue, and the Hydrans burn the D7A for a +1 rather than have it recaptured. Do the Klingons still pay the penalties for a captured stasis ship (i.e. 10 EP loss and execution of the admiral?)
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 08:30 pm: Edit
If a planet with a monitor is the only friendly units in a province and an enemy ship enters the province, is the province captured by the enemy or is it disrupted?
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 03:02 am: Edit
Sorry to do this to you again, Nick, but here are two more:
1) A Klingon Penal Ship challenges a Hydran tug with the Fire Support Pallet (513.6 in CO) to an Honour Duel (525.43 in AO). At this point, they enter into single combat, and, if we understand correctly, the modifiers for small scale combat (318.74 in AO) are used. Now we get to the meat of the issue: the modifier for a mauler without consorts. What exactly happens now?
a) No effect on the TG+FSP, because it’s not a mauler in this case, the Penal Frigate isn’t a base.
b) The factors of the TG+FSP are halved because it’s a mauler without consorts … or is it the factors from the FSP that are halved, since the TG factors aren’t part of the mauler anyway?
2) FO says that a race at limited war receives free fighter factors. (602.49A in FO). AO says that a race only receives free fighter factors when at war. (442.63 in AO). Are we to thus assume that FO overrules AO?
(I ask only to hear this one “from the horse’s mouth” as it were)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:07 am: Edit
Nick, can the Federation build and deploy PDUs in Kzin space if at limited war? I know that can put them down in the 4th Fleet area, but FO is unclear about Kzin space.
Thanks./
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 01:40 pm: Edit
Chris:
Ref FO -- Would (602.49B)(the third bullet; last part) not cover this situation?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit
Indeed it would
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 08:14 am: Edit
Sorry for the delay here, I have been working two jobs for 12 hours a day for the last couple of weeks (one if which is moving our waldenbooks store from one space in the mall to our new space, no fun at all), but today I only work a mere 8 hours, and it involves a lot of sitting around, so I will work on these. I hope to get answers up late tonight or tomorrow.
All questions to this point downloaded.
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 02:59 pm: Edit
Retreat Priority question-
It might just be me on a nice sunny day, but the way I read the rules, I can not retreat into supply from my 1902 battle hex.
The situation: Klingons are attacking 1902 and 1802. Reserve movement put 2 reserve fleets at 1802 and one at 1902. I will need to retreat from 1902, and the closest supply points are 1507 and 1807. So step by step:
Step 1: 1903, 2002: Neutral Zone and I'd have to interred or start full war. I want to do neither.
Step 2: 1802 has a larger enemy force, so it is eliminated. But then it says 'unless no other hex is available'. Right now supply has not been looked at, so there are other hexes available: 1801, 1901 and 2001.
Step 3: Only 1802 is in supply, but this was eliminated in step 2. Does the 'unless no other hex is available' kick in now, even though we are currently using criteria from step 3?
Step 4 would not apply either way, as either 1802 has been eliminated or it would be the only hex.
Now, 302.77 a fighting retreat is also not an option, as 1802 was eliminated in step 2, not step 4. So if all that follows, I could only retreat out of supply into 1801, 1901 or 2001, unless the criteria from step 2 kicks in during step 3, in which case I can go to 1802. But when I read the rules strictly, I don't believe I can.
Thanks,
Joe
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:24 am: Edit
Note: This question is theoretical (for the moment) so this isn't a priority, but I want to understand a cloak rule before I face the Rom invasion.
Two questions relating to:
How does Cloaked Movement Away (203.82) work, exactly? This section kinda confuses me and I want to be sure I have it correct.
Set up: Alliance is protecting a target base. Alliance fleet reacts out to pin the Romulans which have just moved on their third pulse (three pulses remaining so it can use one hex of cloaked movement to move onto the base). Let's say 36 Romulan ships, no additional Romulan ship equivalents (to make things easier for now). No other Romulan ships used cloaked movement yet (so the Roms have the full 3 stacks of 12 ships available). Assume Romulan and Federation flagship CR rating is the same.
Question: How many Romulan ships can use cloaked movement to escape the pin battle?
Example 1: Fed reacts out 36 ship equivalents. Rom considers a sub-stack of 12 ships. 12 ships must stay behind. 6 use cloaked movement to move to the base. Rom considers sub-stack #2 of 12 ships. 12 must stay behind, the Rom moves 6. Sub-stack #3 gets to move 6 ships. Result, 18 Rom ships move to the target, 18 ships stay behind to face the pin battle.
Example 2: If Example 1 is correct, then logically if the Fed react out 752.4 ship equivalents, the Roms still get 18 ships to the target.
Example 3: The Feds react out 30 ship equivalents. Rom first of all moves out 6 ships because they aren't pinned (not using cloaked movement). The Rom then forms sub-stacks #1 and #2 of 12 ships each which must then each leave 6 ships behind (using cloaked movement). Sub-stack #3 of the remaining 6 ships must leave behind 3 ships (also by using cloaked movement). The final tally is 21 ships on the target, 15 ships in the pinning hex.
Now question 2: (interaction of ships and ship-equivalents)
Roms have 12 ships, 16 ship-equivalents, pinned by 16 ship-equivalents. Roms must leave behind 12 ships, and use cloaked movement to only leave 6 behind. Roms hit the base with 6 hulls (10 ship-equivalents), leave behind 6 hulls (6 ship equivlents). I just want to confirm that cloaked movement ignores ship-equivalents completely when it comes to the calculation on what remains pinned.
Again, this is a low-priority question. Get to it when you can.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:03 am: Edit
I still have 6 more after this, and will get to them when I can, sorry again for the delay.
===================
Robert Padilla: Say the Kzinti capture a D6M, and keep it so that they can use it as a mauler. Now, later on, that Zin-D6M is destroyed yielding salvage. Does it produce salvage at 25%, or 30%? In other words, is it worth 2 or 2.4 EPs?
ANSWER: use the SIT, even though you couldn't use the mauler itself, all those batteries and other parts are still recoverable.
=========================
Christopher E. Fant: Ok, so the Hydran OOB says that the 176-177 Build schedule may begin in 173 if the capital has not fallen.
The SIT has the IRQ and MHK available in 175.
Can the Hydrans build IRQs and MHKs starting in 173, or would those slots on the 176-177 Build schedule still be CWs?
ANSWER: Just use the order of battle as stated in the rule, you don't have to modify it like that.
===========================
Darin Smith: After a capital falls there are normally alot of slow units.
If all the ships in the capital retreat, can slow ships retreat if there is still a base active over the capital or are they forced to fight it out. 302.741 and 302.742 could use some clarification.
ANSWER: The rules you stated seem clear that they cannot use their slow retreat rule until all bases are destroyed. Rule (302.741) says if you retreat but leave a base, then slow units stay with the base.
If there are 2xLAV, 3xSAV, 2xFTS, LAS, LAD, 3xSAD, FTL, SAS. Can the pursuer direct on all these ships even those that are not in the actual battle force? Do I have to take damage on ships not in the battle force if he does not direct or just ships in the battle force? My opponent claims that 302.742D means he can direct on any slow ships (though on one) and that they all must take the damage even if not in the battleforce
ANSWER: If there is a base left behind, then these units will be at the base, and will be in the battle force. So they could be directed on. Once the base is destroyed, any remaining slow units then go to rule (302.742) and if they survive that last battle round without the base retreat by the 3 hex retro rule.
=============================
Chuck Strong:
1. If the Romulans don't invade the Feds on turn-10 and invoke the Gorn limited war status (605.3) on turn-10, what is the Gorn build schedule for turns 10-11 (IOW, do they get their Y174 build schedule)?
ANSWER: Nothing says to change their schedule, so I would simply continue with the schedule printed in (706.1).
2. If the Romulans don't invade the Feds on turn-10 and invoke the Gorn limited war status (605.3) on turn-10, do they set up their Second (Fed border) Fleet after the Romulan turn-10 non-invasion of the Federation so as to move it into within Fed space on turn10?
ANSWER: Well, they would have to, right? You could of course set up all the Gorn forces at that point.
=========================
Mark Ermenc:
A carrier looses an escort and seeks a new one using CEDS. It is co-located with a base hull frigate. Can it upgrade the frigate to an FCR? The FCR is an escort, after all.
Assuming that it can, which turn's FCR limitation does this count against?
(CEDS is 308.1, FCRs are 526.3)
ANSWER: Rule (526.355) forbids replacing a destroyed FCR with SIDS, so I don't think you could create an FCR during SIDS at all, even to replace some other escort.
=========================
Scott Tenhoff:
Can the Hydran THR be built in the "Old Colonies Shipyard", by subbing it for the RN?
The THR lists it as a sub for a "CA", but it's a Hellbore-armed ship.
ANSWER: Rule (511.321) says no hellbore armed ships, so, no. In the normal shipyard, yes. Granted you need SFB for that info, but it needs to be on the SIT since it can be done at the normal shipyard.
=========================
Sean Dzafovic:
(511.573) FRDs and convoys at the planet (battle location) can be attacked by Directed Damage. Crippled ships (and groups including crippled ships) in the same system (in the fixed, not mobile box) are assigned to the planet with the most PDUs (largest, then first listed if this is a tie) and can be attacked by directed damage if that planet is under attack, even if not part of the battle force. If not part of the battle force, they cannot cause damage to enemy forces.
Question: Can the cripples not in the battle force in the above rule be targeted by a mauler at 2-1? Or must all directed damage against them be at 3-1?
ANSWER: I must assume all directed damage against such targets is at 2-1 since nothing tells you to use the 3-1 ratio. They are not in formation, and they are not supporting the battle force. Normally they could not be attacked at all, rule (511.573) says in this specific case they can be attacked with directed damage. Now, nothing in rule (302.56) tells you to use the 3-1 ratio in this case (crippled ships at a planet in a capital battle), so you have to use the general directed damage rule, 2-1 ratio.
(302.563) states in part that "Support ships outside of the Battle Force but contributing to its combat potential can be attacked by Directed Damage, but it takes three actual Damage Points for each effective point rather than the usual ratio of two actual to one effective point in (302.52) and maulers do not have the (308.4) effect."
However the cripples are not contributing to the defender's combat potential. Would it be correct to state that units not either on the battle line or in form cannot be dirdamed by maulers?
ANSWER: See above, use the 2-1 ratio for all DD attacks in such situations. They are not in formation, they are not the fleet scout, they are not contributing, so use the general DD 2-1 ratio.
=========================
Christopher E. Fant:
The Hydran CV on the build schedule. Can you sub either a DG or an RN, or is only an RN allowed?
ANSWER: I would imagine either is allowed, the CV can be subbed for either. In general, any listed carrier on the OB can instead be built as the base hull, and the SIT lists the base hull for the CV as CA, which means either DG or RN.
===================
Todd Lovas:
1) Can Police Ships retreat from behind a friendly base?
ANSWER: Why not? Police ships follow all the normal combat/retreat rules according to (531.22).
2) I thought that a raider cannot capture a destroyed ship during a raid but I cannot find a specific rules reference.
ANSWER: See rule (314.244-C) the last sentence prevents a raider from capturing a defending ship.
3) In 310.2 of Single Combat ...If one ship has a cloak, roll for modifiers (306.2).
Do I HAVE to roll if I have cloak or is it an option? As written it sounds like its mandatory but that seems to be against the spirit of the rules.
ANSWER: It is an option according to (306.2), and small combat says to use (306.2) so it is also an option under small combat.
===============================
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:30 am: Edit
Nick Blank:
________________________________________
Quote:
Mark Ermenc:
A carrier looses an escort and seeks a new one using CEDS. It is co-located with a base hull frigate. Can it upgrade the frigate to an FCR? The FCR is an escort, after all.
Assuming that it can, which turn's FCR limitation does this count against?
(CEDS is 308.1, FCRs are 526.3)
ANSWER: Rule (526.355) forbids replacing a destroyed FCR with SIDS, so I don't think you could create an FCR during SIDS at all, even to replace some other escort.
________________________________________
Nick, in the last answer, you did mean CEDS instead of SIDS, right?
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:47 am: Edit
Nick....I asked my second question poorly. That question was is this how combat and damage is resolved while in the slow pursuit round.
Can the pursuer direct on any slow unit and does excess damage beyond your battleforce have to be taken on other slow ships in the hex not in the battleforce.
By Robert Cole (Zathras) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit
FO gives the Romulans a VLV in their Imperial War Reserve / Mothballs. However, FO doesn't tell me what the activation cost for this ship would be.
Per 525.66 (in AO) the two VUL are 4 point conversions to activate (they are sublight ships being 'brought up to spec').
The VLV, on the other hand, is not sublight. Should this ship activate for 1 EP? 4 EP? 1 EP + fighters?
Apologies if this was addressed during AAR.42
**EDIT: AAR notes that the VLV must buy the fighters. Cool. Now, is it a 1 EP activation or 4 EP conversion?**
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:08 am: Edit
Nick, on the accelerated Hydran OOB question ChrisF posed, there was a ruling that an accelerated Fed production schedule does have to take availability dates into account. Shouldn't the same ruling be applied to the Hydrans?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:07 pm: Edit
Was just going to post that.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:16 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick said:
Christopher E. Fant:
The Hydran CV on the build schedule. Can you sub either a DG or an RN, or is only an RN allowed?
ANSWER: I would imagine either is allowed, the CV can be subbed for either. In general, any listed carrier on the OB can instead be built as the base hull, and the SIT lists the base hull for the CV as CA, which means either DG or RN.
________________________________________
Looking at the complete Hydran Build schedule, it seems that the original Carriers (UH/CV) listed on the Production schedule are eventually replaced by CC's, so should you be able to sub CC's for them?
See (709.1):
FY169: CC downsubbed to UH
FY170: CC downsubbed to CV
FY171: CC downsubbed to UH
FY172: CC downsubbed to CV
FY173-175: CC built
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit
you want to be able to build a CC for a UH??!!?
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:47 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Christopher E. Fant: Ok, so the Hydran OOB says that the 176-177 Build schedule may begin in 173 if the capital has not fallen.
The SIT has the IRQ and MHK available in 175.
Can the Hydrans build IRQs and MHKs starting in 173, or would those slots on the 176-177 Build schedule still be CWs?
ANSWER: Just use the order of battle as stated in the rule, you don't have to modify it like that.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick, on the accelerated Hydran OOB question ChrisF posed, there was a ruling that an accelerated Fed production schedule does have to take availability dates into account. Shouldn't the same ruling be applied to the Hydrans?
________________________________________
The difference here is that (based on a vague recollection from AO development) the Hydrans "historically" could have built all their war hulls sooner, but were too busy rebuilding their shipyard to do so.
I can see it going either way.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:57 pm: Edit
OK, I'm reciding that statement, as I've gone through the trouble to tablize the Hydran's total build schedule.(so if anyone wants to use it in a CL article, feel Free).
Year DN CC CA CW DD FF
FY168 1 1 3
SY169 1 1 3
FY169 1 2 1 6
SY170 1 3 8
FY170 2 3 2 8
SY171 1 1 3 6
FY171 1 3 2 8
SY172 1 1 3 6
FY172 2 3 1 8
SY173 1 1 3 6
FY173-175 1 1 3 1 6
SY174-175 1 1 3 1 6
So it seems the Hydran eventual build schedule is:
Spring: DN, CA, 3CW, DD, 0(3) DW, 6(3) FF
Fall: CC, CA, 3CW, DD, 0(3) DW, 6(3) FF
So SOMEWHERE, there is 2 CA's built (FY170/FY172, CV's BTW), so those are presumably built in CC-slips.
Where the extra DD/FF slips are squeezed in, I don't know. (Possibly subbing a DD+FF for a CC?)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 01:22 pm: Edit
Tony, the DWs sure, that is why they are allowed to build a few between loss of the shipyard and the new one. But a YIS of 175, I really dont think you should get to build a ship till the date it was in service. It is very much like the Feds, in that the NCL does not exist till a certain year, given on the SIT, and they cannot built it till that time.
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit
In a PURSUIT battle, if there is a carrier that is crippled but has uncrippled escorts or a group with a crippled inner escort but uncrippled outer escort, can the crippled ships be directed on as part of 307.4?
My opponent says that if the outer escort is uncrippled it protects the crippled inner escort or carrier and that you would have to kill the entire group to kill the crippled inner escort or carrier. This allows the carrier to cripple ships with little chance of losing a ship in pursuit.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 03:59 pm: Edit
Darin,
Carrier groups are still carrier groups (smallest escort or whole group) so I think he's right. That's been a standard alliance tactic for years, hasn't it?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:00 pm: Edit
Yes.
By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit
Quick question here:
Can a player upgrade a BATS to a SB if the BATS is in the zone of an unreleased fleet?
Example: I am playing the Lyrans, and wish to upgrade the BATS at 0413 to a SB.
Is this legal?
Would it be legal if I used the tug in the Enemy's Blood fleet?
Would I have to assign a tug from the Homeworld to perform the task?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:23 pm: Edit
Mike that is not legal
released tugs can lay released MB's in unreleased zones but bases cannot be upgraded over that.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit
Mike, no, see 600.32
By Mike Dowd (Mike_Dowd) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit
Thanks.
This is my second game, and was looking for ways to prevent what I did to the Coallition in the last game.
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit
I seem to have lost my old rules set of F&E but our local group is using elements of some of those rules in a campaign recently begun. I am in need of refreshing something for memory and for this campaign.
1. In F&E what is the operational movement speed of Civilian freightors (large & small), Free Traders, APT's, Skiffs?
2. What is the operational movement speed of the military versions of said Freightors (i.e. Armed Auxilliaries and Aux Carriers etc...)?
3. What is the operational movement speed of the standard wartime units? i.e. DN's, CA's, FF's etc...
4. What is the operational movement speed of the 1X ships like the Fed CX, Klingo FX, etc?
5. I seem to recall that there was a rule stating that some ships (i.e. DN's or BB's had a higher move than the rest of the units and that they moved at 7 rather than the 6 most ships do). Also, Doesn't the Federation Expess also have that higher speed?
6. Lastly, are there some exceptions to the norm of move speeds? i.e. do early years move slower (and if so what's the speed?) and are there other exceptions like Rom Eagle series that might move slower (warp versions not sublight)?
-------------------------------------------------
In Essence I recall that:
-freightors move at 2
-Aux units move at 4
-General War ships at 6
-X-Ships, BB's, Fed-Ex and Fast cruisers move at 7
-Would an X1 Fed-Express move @ 8?
-------------------------------------------------
Sorry for the long windedness but I sure would appreciate a little help on these queries. Thanks in advance to all who can help.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:43 am: Edit
Nick:
I'd like to appeal the Gorn build schedule to Jeff for turns 10-11 if they go to limited war -- 706.1 is PWC and not a standard schedule. I believe this is something that slipped though the cracks (Gorn limited war) and should have a formal build schedule if they do.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit
Robert, I'll answer those for you over in General Discussions.
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit
Nick:
(312.31) states that 'conversions of SFG units lose the SFG'
Does this apply to B10A to B10AV (or S) ?
or C9A to C10A ?
(SFB knowledge would suggest not, but the rule text is pretty definitive)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit
Nick, a question.
430.25 says that you can capture a NZ hex without capturing the planet in that hex.
Would that allow you to move FRDs into that hex, as you are not attacking the planet, and thus there is no enemy there to prevent FRDs into the hex?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:28 pm: Edit
Nick, to follow up with Chris' question:
(421.22) prohibits FRD's from entering hexes containing enemy units.
Do the PDU's on the NZ planet count as enemy units for this rule?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Just to clarify the situation, the Coalition would not be attacking the planet, just moving into the hex.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:36 pm: Edit
Also, what would happen if the Federation then attacked the hex? Would the planet help defend the Coalition?
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:22 pm: Edit
Cfant,
Thanks a bunch.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 07:33 pm: Edit
Jeff:
Any chance you could look at my Gorn limited war schedule appeal soon? Thanks.
Chuck
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit
Nick, do you think you will have time to get to some questions this weekend?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 09:49 am: Edit
Dave Whiteside:
1) To go back to the stasis discussion with Bill, if the defender fleet is a HR(in formation), HN, & TR (2 eligible ships) and the 1st attempt the 2nd attempt we get a random, then what gets frozen (if any)...is the HR in formation now a valid selection?
ANSWER: Nope, rule (312.215) says that a formation bonus ship cannot be frozen, and nothingl else in the rules changes this. There are only two eligible ships in your example.
2) Two neutral zone hexes (1215 & 1316) owned by the K with a G2 in 1315....a single Hydran ship moves thru the 2 NZ hexes and continues....by 503.62, as discussed at Origins with Chuck, the Hydrans do not 'capture' these hexes because there is an adjacent ship....however, do these hexes stay under K control or revert back to neutral?
ANSWER: I don't know what discussion you are referring to, if you move through the NZ hexes they you capture them, but you just don't receive income while there are enemy ships adjacent.
======================
Paul Bonfanti:
The Hydrans capture a D7A, and then immediately retreat. The Klingons pursue, and the Hydrans burn the D7A for a +1 rather than have it recaptured. Do the Klingons still pay the penalties for a captured stasis ship (i.e. 10 EP loss and execution of the admiral?)
ANSWER: Yes.
=======================
Darin Smith:
If a planet with a monitor is the only friendly units in a province and an enemy ship enters the province, is the province captured by the enemy or is it disrupted?
ANSWER: Disrupted, Monitor counts as a ship in this case.
========================
Mark Ermenc:
1) A Klingon Penal Ship challenges a Hydran tug with the Fire Support Pallet (513.6 in CO) to an Honour Duel (525.43 in AO). At this point, they enter into single combat, and, if we understand correctly, the modifiers for small scale combat (318.74 in AO) are used. Now we get to the meat of the issue: the modifier for a mauler without consorts. What exactly happens now?
a) No effect on the TG+FSP, because it’s not a mauler in this case, the Penal Frigate isn’t a base.
b) The factors of the TG+FSP are halved because it’s a mauler without consorts … or is it the factors from the FSP that are halved, since the TG factors aren’t part of the mauler anyway?
ANSWER: The rules (513.6) says that the FSP allows the tug to function as a mauler, and to treat it as a mauler for all purposes unless a rule says otherwise. So, you would halve the entire attack factor of the tug+pod for not having escorts. It always has the penalties of the mauler, but only gets the benefit against bases.
2) FO says that a race at limited war receives free fighter factors. (602.49A in FO). AO says that a race only receives free fighter factors when at war. (442.63 in AO). Are we to thus assume that FO overrules AO?
(I ask only to hear this one “from the horse’s mouth” as it were)
ANSWER: Often times "war" includes "limited war" unless told otherwise, so really they are saying the same thing. FO is being more specific, or more clear, or what have you.
=========================
Joseph A. Mannino
It might just be me on a nice sunny day, but the way I read the rules, I can not retreat into supply from my 1902 battle hex.
The situation: Klingons are attacking 1902 and 1802. Reserve movement put 2 reserve fleets at 1802 and one at 1902. I will need to retreat from 1902, and the closest supply points are 1507 and 1807. So step by step:
Step 1: 1903, 2002: Neutral Zone and I'd have to interred or start full war. I want to do neither.
Step 2: 1802 has a larger enemy force, so it is eliminated. But then it says 'unless no other hex is available'. Right now supply has not been looked at, so there are other hexes available: 1801, 1901 and 2001.
Step 3: Only 1802 is in supply, but this was eliminated in step 2. Does the 'unless no other hex is available' kick in now, even though we are currently using criteria from step 3?
Step 4 would not apply either way, as either 1802 has been eliminated or it would be the only hex.
Now, 302.77 a fighting retreat is also not an option, as 1802 was eliminated in step 2, not step 4. So if all that follows, I could only retreat out of supply into 1801, 1901 or 2001, unless the criteria from step 2 kicks in during step 3, in which case I can go to 1802. But when I read the rules strictly, I don't believe I can.
ANSWER: Sounds like you can only retreat to 1801, 1901, or 2001. You eliminated two NZ hexes in step 1, step 2 eliminated the hex with overwhelming enemy forces, step 3 did not apply since there is no supply to remaining 3 hexes, and step 4 does not apply since the last 3 hexes are empty.
============================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
How does Cloaked Movement Away (203.82) work, exactly? This section kinda confuses me and I want to be sure I have it correct.
Set up: Alliance is protecting a target base. Alliance fleet reacts out to pin the Romulans which have just moved on their third pulse (three pulses remaining so it can use one hex of cloaked movement to move onto the base). Let's say 36 Romulan ships, no additional Romulan ship equivalents (to make things easier for now). No other Romulan ships used cloaked movement yet (so the Roms have the full 3 stacks of 12 ships available). Assume Romulan and Federation flagship CR rating is the same.
Question: How many Romulan ships can use cloaked movement to escape the pin battle?
Example 1: Fed reacts out 36 ship equivalents. Rom considers a sub-stack of 12 ships. 12 ships must stay behind. 6 use cloaked movement to move to the base. Rom considers sub-stack #2 of 12 ships. 12 must stay behind, the Rom moves 6. Sub-stack #3 gets to move 6 ships. Result, 18 Rom ships move to the target, 18 ships stay behind to face the pin battle.
ANSWER: First of all, figure how many you can move before placing them into 12 ship stacks, it is easier. The Feds have 36 "pinning points", so the Roms must leave 36/2, or 18 pinning points behind. So you can move 18 of your 36 ships out with cloaked movement, which can be a stack of 12 and a stack of 6, or two stacks of 9, or three stacks of 6, or some other combination.
Example 2: If Example 1 is correct, then logically if the Fed react out 752.4 ship equivalents, the Roms still get 18 ships to the target.
ANSWER: No, the number of ships you must leave behind is equal to the enemy force (pinning), and cloaked movement (203.82) lets you cut this requirement in half, so if the enemy has say 50 ship equivalents, and the Roms have 30 ships, normally none can move. With cloaked movement, they only need to leave behind 25 ships, so 5 rom ships can move out of said hex but they must all use cloaked movement.
Example 3: The Feds react out 30 ship equivalents. Rom first of all moves out 6 ships because they aren't pinned (not using cloaked movement). The Rom then forms sub-stacks #1 and #2 of 12 ships each which must then each leave 6 ships behind (using cloaked movement). Sub-stack #3 of the remaining 6 ships must leave behind 3 ships (also by using cloaked movement). The final tally is 21 ships on the target, 15 ships in the pinning hex.
ANSWER: Ok, first you moved out 6 ships normally, leaving 30 roms and 30 Feds. Again, don't form your cloaked stacks untill you know what has to stay and what can go. If moving out with cloaked movement, you only need to leave behind 15 ships (half of the 30 Fed ships), and (assuming no other cloaked movement) this cloaked movement of 15 ships can be any combination of up to three stacks so long as no individual stack is more than 12 ships.
Now question 2: (interaction of ships and ship-equivalents)
Roms have 12 ships, 16 ship-equivalents, pinned by 16 ship-equivalents. Roms must leave behind 12 ships, and use cloaked movement to only leave 6 behind. Roms hit the base with 6 hulls (10 ship-equivalents), leave behind 6 hulls (6 ship equivlents). I just want to confirm that cloaked movement ignores ship-equivalents completely when it comes to the calculation on what remains pinned.
ANSWER: No, it does not ignore ship equivalents. It really says the normal requirements are cut in half. If the enemy has 16 ship-equivalents, then if moving out with cloaked movement, you must leave behind 8 ship equivalents (pinning points), and so long as you leave that 8 pps behind (wheather ships, fighters, fast ships, whatever), the rest of your stuff above those 8 points can move out of the hex with cloaked movement, assuming they meet the other requirements for cloaked movement.
You seem to be making it more complicated than it is, you calculate what must be left behind based on the entire hex when you move, don't figure it for only the stack you are currently moving. If there are 60 enemy pin points, and you have 50 pin points, and you want to move a 12 ship cloaked stack, you cut the enemy 60 points in half (30 points), and when you move 12 you are leaving behind 38 so you are fine. Then you want to move another cloaked stack, and again, you must leave behind half of 60 (i.e. 30), so you second cloaked stack can only have 8 ships, leaving 30 behind. See?
==========================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 09:54 am: Edit
Mike Curtis asked:
Nick, in the last answer, you did mean CEDS instead of SIDS, right?
ANSWER: Yes, CEDS not SIDS.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 09:57 am: Edit
Darin Smith asked:
Nick....I asked my second question poorly. That question was is this how combat and damage is resolved while in the slow pursuit round.
Can the pursuer direct on any slow unit and does excess damage beyond your battleforce have to be taken on other slow ships in the hex not in the battleforce.
ANSWER: Under (302.742) ALL slow units are in this battleforce. Command limits will dictate that only so many can contribute compot, but all slow units are present in the battleforce for damage purposes (whether directed damage or normal defender applied self damage).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:02 am: Edit
Robert Cole asked:
FO gives the Romulans a VLV in their Imperial War Reserve / Mothballs. However, FO doesn't tell me what the activation cost for this ship would be.
Per 525.66 (in AO) the two VUL are 4 point conversions to activate (they are sublight ships being 'brought up to spec').
The VLV, on the other hand, is not sublight. Should this ship activate for 1 EP? 4 EP? 1 EP + fighters?
Apologies if this was addressed during AAR.42
**EDIT: AAR notes that the VLV must buy the fighters. Cool. Now, is it a 1 EP activation or 4 EP conversion?**
ANSWER: Given lack of a specific rule, I would use the general 1 point activation rule, plus the cost of the fighters.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit
John Doucette asked:
Nick, on the accelerated Hydran OOB question ChrisF posed, there was a ruling that an accelerated Fed production schedule does have to take availability dates into account. Shouldn't the same ruling be applied to the Hydrans?
ANSWER: Sure, fine whatever.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit
Scott Tenhoff asked:
Looking at the complete Hydran Build schedule, it seems that the original Carriers (UH/CV) listed on the Production schedule are eventually replaced by CC's, so should you be able to sub CC's for them?
ANSWER: I don't think so. You can sub a base hull for a listed carrier, nothing else. So you can build a cruiser hull for the CV and a DD hull for the UH. Just because the schedule changes later doesn't mean you can make such changes earlier and call it a sub.
As far as accelerated production, I belive the DWs can be built earlier at least according to SFB, not sure about anything else but I wouldn't count on it, hence the ruling about accelerated production obeying YIS dates.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:11 am: Edit
Darin Smith asked:
In a PURSUIT battle, if there is a carrier that is crippled but has uncrippled escorts or a group with a crippled inner escort but uncrippled outer escort, can the crippled ships be directed on as part of 307.4?
My opponent says that if the outer escort is uncrippled it protects the crippled inner escort or carrier and that you would have to kill the entire group to kill the crippled inner escort or carrier. This allows the carrier to cripple ships with little chance of losing a ship in pursuit.
ANSWER: You opponent sounds right to me. (307.4) does not get you around the abilities of a carrier group.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:13 am: Edit
Mike Dowd asked:
Can a player upgrade a BATS to a SB if the BATS is in the zone of an unreleased fleet?
ANSWER: No, you cannot upgrade bases in an unreleased fleet area (600.32).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak asked:
I seem to have lost my old rules set of F&E but our local group is using elements of some of those rules in a campaign recently begun. I am in need of refreshing something for memory and for this campaign.
1. In F&E what is the operational movement speed of Civilian freightors (large & small), Free Traders, APT's, Skiffs?
ANSWER: Convoys (civilian freighters) move 2 hexes per turn.
2. What is the operational movement speed of the military versions of said Freightors (i.e. Armed Auxilliaries and Aux Carriers etc...)?
ANSWER: Auxes move 3 hexes per turn.
3. What is the operational movement speed of the standard wartime units? i.e. DN's, CA's, FF's etc...
ANSWER: 6 hexes per turn.
4. What is the operational movement speed of the 1X ships like the Fed CX, Klingo FX, etc?
ANSWER: 7 hexes per turn.
5. I seem to recall that there was a rule stating that some ships (i.e. DN's or BB's had a higher move than the rest of the units and that they moved at 7 rather than the 6 most ships do). Also, Doesn't the Federation Expess also have that higher speed?
ANSWER: only X ships and fast ships move 7 hexes per turn, all DNs and normal general war era ships move 6 hexes per turn.
6. Lastly, are there some exceptions to the norm of move speeds? i.e. do early years move slower (and if so what's the speed?) and are there other exceptions like Rom Eagle series that might move slower (warp versions not sublight)?
ANSWER: may have been defined somewere, but not in the official rules as the game does not yet cover this time period. Make something up that sounds good.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:18 am: Edit
Chuck Strong asked:
I'd like to appeal the Gorn build schedule to Jeff for turns 10-11 if they go to limited war -- 706.1 is PWC and not a standard schedule. I believe this is something that slipped though the cracks (Gorn limited war) and should have a formal build schedule if they do.
ANSWER: Fine, whatever. That will ultimately requre a Cap Log article like what was done for the Feds, I suspect. Either Jeff or Steve will have to write it.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:22 am: Edit
Richard Abbott asked:
(312.31) states that 'conversions of SFG units lose the SFG'
Does this apply to B10A to B10AV (or S) ?
or C9A to C10A ?
ANSWER: Rule (312.265) implies that the B10V keeps the sfg.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:26 am: Edit
Christopher E. Fant asked:
430.25 says that you can capture a NZ hex without capturing the planet in that hex.
Would that allow you to move FRDs into that hex, as you are not attacking the planet, and thus there is no enemy there to prevent FRDs into the hex?
ANSWER: I would say no, the FRD rule prevents you from moving in, whether you attack the neutrals or not.
Mike Curtis asked:
Nick, to follow up with Chris' question:
(421.22) prohibits FRD's from entering hexes containing enemy units.
Do the PDU's on the NZ planet count as enemy units for this rule?
ANSWER: PDUs are always units, right?
Christopher E. Fant asked:
Also, what would happen if the Federation then attacked the hex? Would the planet help defend the Coalition?
ANSWER: No, the planet would not side with the coalition. It will attack whoever attacks it.
Chuck Strong asked:
Jeff:
Any chance you could look at my Gorn limited war schedule appeal soon? Thanks.
ANSWER: I will try to e-mail him on this tonight.
Christopher E. Fant asked:
Nick, do you think you will have time to get to some questions this weekend?
ANSWER: Yes.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:27 am: Edit
That should be everything, if I missed you question, let me know.
Nick
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:41 am: Edit
Awesome, thanks Nick.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:27 am: Edit
Jeff Laikind: We are on-hold in a game pending an appeal to you on the Gorn limited war schedule. The Gorn PWC is just that "Pre-war" and the Gorns should have a formal schedule just like the Feds do if the are activated early.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:50 am: Edit
Nick regarding the Hydran 176-177 production schedule in AO, that is allowed in 173 if the Hydrans keep their capital.
I would like to appeal to Jeff about the YIS date of Hydran NCAs et al for this build purpose. They should not be allowed prior to 175.
DWs have a YIS date of 173, even though you usually cant build them till you have a new shipyard, but Hydran NCAs have a YIS date of 175 for both versions. I don't think you would be able to build them earlier....reference Fed early war build schedule etc.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit
I could see the NCAs being dropped to "CW" on the accelerated schedule until Y175.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Indeed, that is my thinking as well.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit
Chuck and Nick:
I think that the last sentence in (602.49A) should answer Chuck's question.
Hydran NCAs:
I'm of two minds on this.
SFB lists all of the Hydran NCAs with a Y2 note: "Could have been built earlier, but for various reasons the start of series production was delayed (i.e., prototypes are available several years early; consult ship description)."
OTOH, I dredged up the files from the AO development, and saw that the initial discussion only moved the start date by 1 year; the Y176 schedule was to start in Y175. Which is when the NCAs are introduced. I can't find when the date was changed to Y173.
I would go with the SIT dates unless SVC decides otherwise.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 03:41 pm: Edit
Thanks Jeff.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Jeff:
So okay, the Gorn can ignore their PWC. So does that mean that the Gorn then uses the the Y174 schedule in Y173 if activated early under (603.5)? (You only answered half the question).
There needs to be a war time schedule for the Gorn a la (702.5) if they go to limited war on turn 10.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit
Great, thanks Jeff, Nick.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 08:04 pm: Edit
Chuck, yes, just use the existing Y174 schedule earlier.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 11:04 am: Edit
Nick/Jeff:
Thanks.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit
Nick
I didn't say so before, but thanks for the clarifications.
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:36 pm: Edit
Ok....bare with me on this one Nick but I'm dying to know. If the Feds lost their capital or abandoned it and decided to use Orion (I know, I know, all joking aside) as the place to build the new capital, and the coalition were able to get a line of supply to it which would normally cause it to go neutral......what would happen? Specifically would the fed capital go neutral? Or would this prevent the Orions from going at all?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 10:45 pm: Edit
Ya cant put a capital on map if you have an offmap area, (511.31).
Interesting question though.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 08:09 pm: Edit |
September - October 2004 Archive
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:26 am: Edit
A few quick Hydran questions:
Is the Hydran PGE a light or heavy escort?
Is the Hydran GNV considered a light carrier, or is it a medium carrier that is built against the escort carrier limit?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 01:14 pm: Edit
Hydran GNV is a Police Carrier to have rules in Planetary Ops.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 06:05 pm: Edit
Nick or Jeff:
Would you please sent me all resolved errata files on the SoP? Also, if there are any pending SoP questions would you see if you can get them resolve soon? I'm working with SVC to produce an updated SoP for PO to include your errata, FO and PO.
Thanks,
Chuck
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 08:22 am: Edit
Scott, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the GNV was both a Navy ship and a Police ship, depending on how you bought it ... the Navy version has a crippled side and the Police version doesn't. If I'm understanding how that was worked out. No???
Garth L. Getgen
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit
Darin Smith: Question on capital placement in Orion province.
ANSWER: As was pointed out, you can't do that (511.31).
=====================
Chuck Strong: all I have is from the master errata file, but here it is again:
(105.0) The Non-Phasing player can also perform carrier retrogrades in Step 6.
(105.0) 3A4: Reference to (317.773) should be (318.731).
(105.0) 5-4C2: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-4D: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-7C: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 5-8F: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 9B: Reference to (314.144B) should be (316.144B).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (503.34) should be (504.34).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (529.265) should be (529.25).
(105.0) SoP Step 3A4: Reference to (317.773) should be (318.73).
=====================================
Mark Ermenc:
Is the Hydran PGE a light or heavy escort?
ANSWER: It is size class 3, so I would say heavy escort.
Is the Hydran GNV considered a light carrier, or is it a medium carrier that is built against the escort carrier limit?
ANSWER: The GNV is in Fighter Ops as a regular navy ship, I don't know the plans for PO. The escorts listed in SFB show it operating as an escort (light) carrier (so you get one or two escorts, minimum one escort). Productionwise, I would say light as well since it is still size 4.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:43 am: Edit
The GNV is being resolved by http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/8149.html?1094146766 (531.45).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:45 am: Edit
OK, I'm trying to figure something out. When it comes to pursuit, it appears that the Pursuer has to reveal his or her line first, before the pursued. Is this the case?
Step 8 of the AO SoP has the order as 5-8A, se;ect pursuit units and roll for pursuit (and not secertly), then 5-8B is Set up the retreating force, again not secretly.
Thanks!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit
Robert, this was answered earlier in recent archives. You still reveal them simultaniously.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:04 pm: Edit
So is that just an oversight for the prusuit round in to SoP? In the regular combat steps, it specifically calls out that the selections are secret, and that they get revleaed at the same time.
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit
Snipping out the extranious stuff:
(531.4) POLICE CARRIERS
(531.45) Some special cases should be noted.
The Hydran GNV from Fighter Operations is used for "purchased additional" ships while the PV in this product is used for the "called up" ships. They are the same ship but by doctrine can be used in two different ways.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Friday, September 03, 2004 - 06:51 pm: Edit
GNV: Thanks, Nick, it was one of those odd cases where it was produced as one thing, but the number of fighters it carried said another.
And yes, guys, I know it's going to see more ruling under PO, but unless the SIT gets updated, the ruling wouldn't have cleared the question up.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 10:15 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla, it is supposed to be simultaneous, the reason it is apparently split like that is so that if the pursuer fails the die roll the pursued player doesn't have to bother building a line. So the pursuer builds his (up to 6 ship) battle force, rolls, if he succeeds then the retreating player builds his line, and both are then revealed. The die roll success would be verified when the lines are revealed.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, September 06, 2004 - 10:39 pm: Edit
I have a question(s) on CVA/SCS convserions (442.1). Does the conversion cost listed in the SIT for the various races still have to be paid (in addition to the provisions of 442.11) or is it a case or either/or?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 07, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit
Nick:
Do you have any SoP errata from AO & FO? If so, please sent them to me if you get a chance. Thanks.
Chuck
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, September 09, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit
Nick:
Question on Free Fighters being evacuated from the Capital when it falls. (442.62) allows for the evacuation of the fighters when the capital falls and it references (511.35). (511.35) says the treasury can be evacuated, and if a supply path is not open to the new capital the orions can evacuate according to their rules. Can Free Fighters be evacuated without a supply path to the new capital? If not, anyway the Orions can do this at a cost?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:27 pm: Edit
A defender has a fleet that includes fast ships that are among the three highest CR ships chosen as flagships. The defender chooses to withdraw as much as possible before combat and is opposed by the attacker, who has no fast ships in the hex. May the fast ship first stay in the hex as one of the three ships with the highest CR and then withdraw before combat as is normally allowed for unmatched fast ships, or must one of the three highest CR ships stay even if it is fast?
I note that unless all three of the highest CR ships were fast, it would be possible to remain within both rules by choosing to leave a non-fast, high-CR ship as flagship and then having the fast ship withdraw either as half the force or as an unopposed fast ship. Must a player obey both rules if possible or does the ability of an unmatched fast ship to withdraw before combat negate the rule that mandates that one of the three highest CR ships in the hex remain and fight?
I am away from my books today. What is the CR of a fast cruiser (a light DN being reduced from a DN, I wonder if a fast cruiser is reduced from a cruiser.)?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit
CFs are CR8 .
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 03:47 pm: Edit
How do Monitors, which must be assigned to a planet, interact with intercepting Raiders (314.25).
Are they allowed to 'leave' the planet to intercept them before reaching the planet?
This matters significantly for Commando Raids for PO, as you couldn't just leave a Monitor to garrision a planet, you'd need at least 2 Frigates to garrision it, to prevent a CAG/CWG coming in, blowing past your FF/POL, then proceeding to Commando attack your PDU and then getting away. As the Commando Ship ignores the target's COMPOT and goes directly to the Marine chart. Their is no 'retribution' to attacking a Minor or larger w/ 18+ COMPOT.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 06:41 pm: Edit
NICK NICK NICK
JEFF JEFF JEFF
I am currently working the SoP for PO and I need your assistance...
Do either of you have any SoP errata from AO & FO? If so, please sent them to me as soon as practical when you get a chance. Thanks.
Chuck
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit
I don't have any errata for the SOP
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 07:58 am: Edit
The only thing I know of is the above recent question about pursuit. The SOP is not clear that the pursuer and pursuee reveal their battle forces simultaneously. The pursuit sequence should be as follows:
Player declares retreat.
Other player declares pursuit.
First the pursuer builds a battleforce (secretly, up to 6 ships).
Next he rolls (publicly) to see if he catches the retreating force.
If he doesn't, do the retreat and go to the next battle hex or next phase, you don't have to build the retreating battle force.
If he does succed at the die roll, the retreating force builds their battleforce (secretly, all crippled ships, up to three non-crippled ships).
Finally reveal both battle forces (verify the pursuit die roll), and fight the battle.
======================
I know of no other issues with the SOP.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 07:59 am: Edit
Pending Questions Downloaded.
Nick
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 10:41 am: Edit
Question regarding Commercial Convoy replacement.
Races which are not yet active, such as the Federation in the early game, are listed as not being able to produce additional ships or non-ship units. Does the replacement of a Commercial Convoy constitute the production of a ship or non-ship unit?
By the letter of the rules, I'm thinking yes, but I'm hoping that this gets an exception.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 08:58 pm: Edit
SVC, Chuck, Nick
It was stated in the Planet Ops PRD topic that the Tholian's can't build FRDs. Where is this rule? It's not in (431.21), (421.0) or (707.0).
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 02:34 pm: Edit
What's the rule # of the Gorn's improved Field Repair rate from AO?
I couldn't find it quickly, and didn't have a ton of time.
Thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 04:39 pm: Edit
Scott, 442.7, AO Page 16.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit
Jeff, I think it's bcause the Tholians don't have any FRD counters...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 09:38 pm: Edit
Jeff, I will look. I will catch up on questions this weekend.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit
Jeff, SFB rule (R1.10C) says that Tholians, Andros, WYN, and Orion do not have FRDs.
I don't know if it is directly stated in F&E though...
By M Taylor (Cartman) on Saturday, September 18, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit
Re: Hydran NSC's
what are the correct values?
one counter sheet says 2-7 with 2 FTR factors, another says 4-7 with 3 fighters and a 3rd value still in the SIT?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 19, 2004 - 10:49 am: Edit
John Doucette: I have a question(s) on CVA/SCS convserions (442.1). Does the conversion cost listed in the SIT for the various races still have to be paid (in addition to the provisions of 442.11) or is it a case or either/or?
ANSWER: Use both. The regular conversion cost is to convert the ship from CVA to SCS. In giving up the fighters under (442.11) (really, giving up the fighter production facilities associated with the lost CVA), you get some free PFs for your first loading of the SCS, or for another ship.
==========================
Mike Curtis: Question on Free Fighters being evacuated from the Capital when it falls. (442.62) allows for the evacuation of the fighters when the capital falls and it references (511.35). (511.35) says the treasury can be evacuated, and if a supply path is not open to the new capital the orions can evacuate according to their rules. Can Free Fighters be evacuated without a supply path to the new capital? If not, anyway the Orions can do this at a cost?
ANSWER: The free fighters go with the treasury when you have a supply path. Rule (410.34) does not permit the Orions to smuggle any other than EPs, so I believe the fighters would be lost without a supply path.
============================
Todd Jahnke: A defender has a fleet that includes fast ships that are among the three highest CR ships chosen as flagships. The defender chooses to withdraw as much as possible before combat and is opposed by the attacker, who has no fast ships in the hex. May the fast ship first stay in the hex as one of the three ships with the highest CR and then withdraw before combat as is normally allowed for unmatched fast ships, or must one of the three highest CR ships stay even if it is fast?
ANSWER: One of the three highest must stay even if fast because rule (302.133) says such a ship must be the flagship of the first battle round. It cannot withdraw since it must participate in combat.
I note that unless all three of the highest CR ships were fast, it would be possible to remain within both rules by choosing to leave a non-fast, high-CR ship as flagship and then having the fast ship withdraw either as half the force or as an unopposed fast ship. Must a player obey both rules if possible or does the ability of an unmatched fast ship to withdraw before combat negate the rule that mandates that one of the three highest CR ships in the hex remain and fight?
ANSWER: I believe that if only some of the 3 highest CR ships were fast, the non-fast ship could be the one left, and the fast ships could withdraw under the various rules.
I am away from my books today. What is the CR of a fast cruiser (a light DN being reduced from a DN, I wonder if a fast cruiser is reduced from a cruiser.)?
ANSWER: Fast Cruisers are CR 8 as stated above.
===================================
Scott Tenhoff: Your question is being handled in the PO topics, right?
===================================
Mark Ermenc: Question regarding Commercial Convoy replacement.
Races which are not yet active, such as the Federation in the early game, are listed as not being able to produce additional ships or non-ship units. Does the replacement of a Commercial Convoy constitute the production of a ship or non-ship unit?
By the letter of the rules, I'm thinking yes, but I'm hoping that this gets an exception.
ANSWER: Yes, you would have to cancel some other production to replace the CC. However, note that under (443.31) either of the races involved can replace the lost CC, so if the Fed/Kzinti CC were destroyed by the Klingons on turn 3, the Kzinti could replace it themselves and the inactive Feds wouldn't have to come up with a way to pay for it.
=================================
M Taylor: I would go with the current SIT factors which were just re-uploaded recently, they are:
2-7(3)scout/0-4(1)
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 01:58 pm: Edit
This is a completely easy question that I'm asking because my rulebooks are currently in another state. What year and season does the General War start?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 20, 2004 - 02:06 pm: Edit
Fall (August I think) Y168 Lyrans invade Kzintis.
Fall (August, pretty sure) Y171 Klingons invade Feds.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 05:52 pm: Edit
Hi,
A way back I asked a question regarding the role of the Neo-Tholian 312th in F&E, to which I was informed that at the time none was there to be found.
Considering that in the historical campaign the arival of the Neo-Tholians prevented the conquest of their assembly...sorry, Holdfast (But does TOS not refer to it as the Tholian Assembly anyway? But I digress...)
My question, albeit a multi-part one, is this:
*Are there rules for the relevant Neo-Tholian vessels in any of the addons for F&E (I noted that in CL25 two variants of the Neo-Tholian NCL were listed, it would be surprising if the actual NCL type itself was not represented...)?
*Can an accurate fleet composition for the 312th be sourced from any current SFU materiél, or if not could one be conjectured for the purposes of F&E?
*Which turn would the 312th arrive in the historical campaign? Would the fleet's arrival in the Tholian capital hex always occur (Was Tholia their arrival node in the galaxy or not) or should Tholia already have fallen where would the 312th deploy, and what fate would they suffer?
One or two other questions as well (forgive me if I am supposed to only have 1 question per post):
The ISC rules, OBs etc in CL25 include a number of units and so forth that are not of a type represented in the F&E rulebook, but rather in one of the varied addons. Have (or indeed are) the ISC rules designed to allow those of us with just the rulebook to filter out the additional units and use the Concordium as a player race, at least in the historical campaign where the lack of X-ships in the Alliance and Coalition fleets are not a factor, or is one obliged to use all of the addons to have the ISC as a viable race?
It would seem unfortunate that one would need to buy at least three additonal modules (one of which, Carrier War, awaits replacement next year) before one could even play the historical scenario for the ISC.
Also, what is the LAV as listed for the ISC in CL25?
One final question (maybe I should put a health warning on these posts!):
In the historical scenario for the ISC, the victory conditions require the Concordium to, among other conditions, construct all 12 border battlestations as represented on the F&E map, yet the Y168 fleets possess a total of only 4 MBs. How may the ISC construct the additional 8 (at least) MBs to turn into BATS, and what, if any, differences in construction times are there for MB construction in peacetime compared to limited war and/or full war status?(One would assume that, for the ISC to have any chance of winning the scenario, that the ISC can produce at least 1 MB a turn, otherwise they simply could not have enough MBs to build all twelve in the alotted time - and even then it would be a stretch... though I guess that would be part of the challenge!)
I fully accept that the last question may prove to show my relative ignorance of the F&E rulebook, yet as I have still not found an opponent in Ireland (and the year I recently spent in Canada had other priorities!) I hope this is forgivable!
Gary
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 06:42 pm: Edit
The Neos are available, I will check my books when I get home.
I too have noticed the problem with the ISC general war scenario, there is not enough time to accomplish their victory conditions given the build limits of one MB per turn, the time it takes to set them up, and the fact that you WILL lose some to enemy action. They really need to start that scenario with a stockpile of some number of MBs. What that number should be is open for debate.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 07:00 pm: Edit
The Neo's were added in Advanced Ops, pretty nasty too (one more reason to wipe out the rocks early)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit
Carrier Wars was replaced last Spring by Fighter Operations.
By David Lang (Dlang) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 07:59 pm: Edit
the ISC has some special bases that they can setup FAR faster then the 1 MB per turn so that they can accomplish their missing (barely) in time.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 11:37 pm: Edit
Gary, the LAV is the F&E 'title' for the SFB AxCVA AKA the large auxiliary carrier.
On the Neo-312th, it exact composition isn't known (currently) and some support ships and Neo-SC4s (NDD/NFF) are believed to have arrived but were scrapped to keep the main 12 in fighting trim. Rumor has it the 312th first appreared in the Hydran Old Colonies and were given directions to the Holdfast (Arrival time at Tholia is Y178Spring [Turn #20] plus they are crippled to show lack of maintenance over the journey to this galaxy).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:10 am: Edit
David, those rapid deploy bases are used in their conquest of the alpha sector scenario, but not in their general war build up the ISC territory scenario (so far as I know), which is the problem.
Gary Carney:
*Are there rules for the relevant Neo-Tholian vessels in any of the addons for F&E (I noted that in CL25 two variants of the Neo-Tholian NCL were listed, it would be surprising if the actual NCL type itself was not represented...)?
ANSWER: These are in the Advanced Ops expansion.
*Can an accurate fleet composition for the 312th be sourced from any current SFU materiél, or if not could one be conjectured for the purposes of F&E?
ANSWER: Shown as 2 NDNs, 4 NCAs, 6 NCLs. Presumably there were some assortment of NDDs and NFFs, but these were scrapped to bring the size 3 and size 2 ships up to fighting readyness after their long voyage (not mentioned in the rules, but mentioned elsewhere in the background), since the pre-existing tholians already had plenty of small ships.
*Which turn would the 312th arrive in the historical campaign? Would the fleet's arrival in the Tholian capital hex always occur (Was Tholia their arrival node in the galaxy or not) or should Tholia already have fallen where would the 312th deploy, and what fate would they suffer?
ANSWER: They arrive on turn 19 retrograde phase. If the tholians have been wiped out prior to this, then the Neos don't even arrive(nothing to home in on).
One or two other questions as well (forgive me if I am supposed to only have 1 question per post):
The ISC rules, OBs etc in CL25 include a number of units and so forth that are not of a type represented in the F&E rulebook, but rather in one of the varied addons. Have (or indeed are) the ISC rules designed to allow those of us with just the rulebook to filter out the additional units and use the Concordium as a player race, at least in the historical campaign where the lack of X-ships in the Alliance and Coalition fleets are not a factor, or is one obliged to use all of the addons to have the ISC as a viable race?
ANSWER: The CL article is just the playtest presentation, so if you don't have one of the expansions, you won't know what everything is. Presumably the real ISC War product will include everything, so that people with all the expansions can use them. I don't know if there will be a "vanilla" F&E ISC setup included or not. Something to bring up maybe after PO is finished.
It would seem unfortunate that one would need to buy at least three additonal modules (one of which, Carrier War, awaits replacement next year) before one could even play the historical scenario for the ISC.
ANSWER: Carrier War has already been reprinted and renamed FIGHTER OPERATIONS, should be on the shopping cart. All F&E products are available, except for PO, ISC WAR, and others that are not yet finished. Everything that was printed before is in print, although some products have a new name.
Also, what is the LAV as listed for the ISC in CL25?
ANSWER: LAV is large auxiliary carrier, a large freighter with fighters. In Fighter Ops (the reprint of carrier war).
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 05:22 am: Edit
Thank you everyone for your swift replies!
Now, the reason why I ask about whether a vanilla F&E use for the ISC is acceptable (at least in the context of the General War and the historical claim-the-outer-ISC-provinces scenario) is that sadly it has proven difficult enough to find opponents for F&E as is here in Ireland, and while I am a fan of the ISC (albeit with a heavy influence from how the Concordium is presented, Meskeen and all, in SFC2 - gotta love the immortal frogpeople!) and would be happy to pick up the ISC War expansion when it arrives, it is sadly not feasible to afford all of the other expansions, and while I understand that playing the ISC in a Pacification campaign with the vanilla product is... well... a poor fit, at least I could use the historical General War and/or Free Campaign rules for the time being.
A side question: Does there exist some sort of card-based or plastic fleet counter holder, to allow easy use and storage of the various fleets during a game or in storage (for example, one could have the Hydran home fleet in one such holder, perhaps with a fold-up or removable clear plastic cover and grooves in the back to hold the counters in place, and one each for the other required fleets, avoiding having to empty out the pile of counters onto the table and try and fit the counters onto those small fleet boxes in the fleet list)? Seems like a pretty good way of speding up the placing and setting up of fleets and counters...
Gary
By Richard Abbott (Catwhoorg) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 08:41 am: Edit
Gary (with Apologies to Nick for the clutter)
the more modern scenarion formats have each scenario broken down as to the added units for each expansion.
I see no reason why the ISC war would not be done in the same way.
example:
Eggs Home fleet:DN, 3CA, 3CL, 3DD, 3FF
FO: CVL, DDE, EFF
CO: CLG, DDG
AO: Admiral, CF, DNL
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit
Gary - I responded over here:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/3491.html?1095869333#POST198778
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Wednesday, September 22, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit
I think the ISC war booklet, should the fleets be done in such a way, would do just fine!
Plus it will help when/if I get around to the various addons should I get around to them in the future, so I will know which I can use with which!
Thanks for all your help.
One other question though, and it relates to the production of MBs (I had this as part of another question):
How is MB construction handled in F&E, and are the rules for production different in peacetime, limited war and wartime?
Thanks again
Gary
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit
I'm sorry to be asking such basic questions, but what year did the Klingons sign their treaty with the Romulans? Did they start sending them ships that year?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 06:19 pm: Edit
Treaty of Smarba.....Y158/59. Looks liek ship sales started at the same time from the SIT..YIS of 159 for the KRs and K5s.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 08:23 pm: Edit
OK, a simple question, one that I seem to have missed until just recently.
Can a D7C be converted into anything a D7 can?
I know that it's a standard that a CC can be converted into anything a CA can, but I don't find a rule that states that is true for all races. Instead, I find that definition for each race individually, except for the Klingons. In place of that, it says "A D7 can be converted into anything a D6 can", with no mention of the D7C. A corresponding rule notes the same with the Romulans (K7R can be converted into anything a KR can, but nothing about the KRC).
If the D7C can be converted into anything the D7 can be... where is the rule for that?
If the D7C cannot be converted into anything the D7 can be... why not?
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 10:06 am: Edit
Maybe I'm not reading this right, or maybe I'm appling "Vulcan Logic", but the wording of pinning rule (203.55) doesn't match the example given.
"(203.55) In the event that enough enemy ships are in the hex to completely pin (i.e. prevent the departure of) a friendly force ...."
The example shows a force of 13 Klingon ships intercepted by 3 Federation ships (FFs). Maybe I'm misreading this, but 3 ships are not enough to completely pin 13 ships. No?? Only three ships are pinned, the other ten continue on. Would it not take at least 13 ships to "completely pin" this Klingon force?? Ergo, I fail to see how the rest of (203.55) applies in this situation. What am I missing????
Garth L. Getgen
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:52 am: Edit
Garth, what you're missing is that the examples given are attempting to provide examples of the entire pinning rule, not only the sections they're written under.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 06:43 pm: Edit
Gary Carney: MBs can be purchased once per year, it takes a turn and a tug to set it up, then a turn and a tug and money to upgrade it to a battle station, then a turn and a tug and more money to turn it into a starbase. At peacetime you don't really control the economy, so you don't buy any then.
==================================
Kevin Howard: OK, a simple question, one that I seem to have missed until just recently.
If the D7C can be converted into anything the D7 can be... where is the rule for that?
ANSWER: Remember you can always use rule (433.24) that allows you to change any variant to the base hull, and then to a new variant, all at once. So you can for example do D7C->D7->D7D in one step for an extra 1 point surcharge.
If the D7C cannot be converted into anything the D7 can be... why not?
ANSWER: The only such general rule that I can remember at the moment is the one above.
======================================
Garth L. Getgen: Maybe I'm not reading this right, or maybe I'm appling "Vulcan Logic", but the wording of pinning rule (203.55) doesn't match the example given.
"(203.55) In the event that enough enemy ships are in the hex to completely pin (i.e. prevent the departure of) a friendly force ...."
The example shows a force of 13 Klingon ships intercepted by 3 Federation ships (FFs). Maybe I'm misreading this, but 3 ships are not enough to completely pin 13 ships. No?? Only three ships are pinned, the other ten continue on. Would it not take at least 13 ships to "completely pin" this Klingon force?? Ergo, I fail to see how the rest of (203.55) applies in this situation. What am I missing????
ANSWER: Not quite right John. Garth, you are missing that this is done in "steps," even within one movement "pulse". First you can remove as many ships as possible, in this case leaving just three (including the D7C) to counter-pin the three Fed ships under the normal pinning rules, then before actually moving those ships you move more ships out based on command ratings. Then all the ships you picked in both "steps" actually move together to the next hex. The example does match the rule. Simply realize that when it says (whenever there are enough ships to completely pin...) it really means "whenever", not just at the start of a given movement pulse.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 06:45 pm: Edit
Garth, in other words, the example covers both rule (203.55) and rule (203.551)
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 08:38 pm: Edit
Okay, that's what threw me ... the example comes BEFORE (203.551). Also, it references back to (203.5), which wasn't making sense at first because "isn't (203.55) part of (203.5)?" ... now that I re-re-read the WHOLE thing, it's making sense now. Tho I must wonder if it could not have been worded more clearly.
Garth L. Getgen
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 10:02 pm: Edit
Nick, Isn't the MB (and FRD) a once per turn addition to the schedule or am I misremembering (430.21)? [or was something added in a CL]?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit
Stewart, I am not sure what you are asking. Without my rules with me at work, I am thinking it says something to the effect of "when at war you can build one MB and one FRD per turn" which is in addition to the build schedule. Right?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:08 pm: Edit
Nick, you wrote - Gary Carney: MBs can be purchased once per year... rather than once per turn
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit
Yes, per turn, sorry.
By robert lagowski (Rob) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit
I have a question that came up in are game.
Ok its like this. The way I read 302.73 is ... If you retreat from a battle you must use retreat priority "The retreat priorities are in order from 1 (highers, most important) to 4 (lowest, leat important)". In this case I see it like this.
Step 1 No neutral hex is possible.
Step 2 I can select 1627 as a retreat possibility as I have more SE then the enemy in that hex
step 3 a) all hexes are in supply use step 3
b) all hexes are in supply
c) all hexes are in the main supply grid
d) hex 1627 is the same distance to a supply point as other hexes and none are closer then it.
Step 4 I can not select hex 1627 as it has enemy units.
As step 2 has a higher priority then step 4 I can goto 1627. In effect step 2 overrules step 4. And if you wish to ignore step 4 and you dont have the SE to use step 2 then you must use 302.77 fighting retreat. If this is not the case then why is thier a step 2 that will be over ruled by step 4 every time?
Thank
Rob
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 02:26 pm: Edit
You use the priority to eliminate hexes not free up hexes. If after step 3, 1627 is the only hex that has not been eliminated, then step 4 is ignored. However, if after step 3 there are other hexes that are eligible for retreat besides step 4, then step 4 must be considered. If it eliminates 1627 but not the others, then 1627 is no longer a valid retreat hex.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit
ANYONE (ASAP) -- where is the rule that says if you add an escort to a Aux-V in a slow retreat battle, then the other player can add another ship to the battle force?
I seem to recall it as an errata item but can't find it.
Thanks.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit
Chuck, this is in the Master Erata file on the main page at this link;
http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/erratfne.html
(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).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:12 pm: Edit
Thanks Dan.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:13 pm: Edit
Don't beat Grant up too badly.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit
I just needed the info for the update to PO's SoP -- see below.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit
Nick,
I have a number of questions on for you to chew on.
1) First, (525.85 AO) states “The Gorns may match each Romulan modular DN with a CVS or BCV at their option. This is in addition to the normal carrier production limit.”
Does this make the following legal, assuming Romulan Modular DN production has occurred?
a) On turn 12 the Gorns produce three medium CVs. One newly built CV, one converted HV and one more CVS under (525.85 AO) via either conversion or new build substitution.
b) A mauler destroyed the CVS on a spring turn and all the Gorn CV build/conversion slots for that year have been used and there is still a fielded Romulan modular DM. I can still produce another CVS by any means that year since it is “in addition to the normal carrier production limit.”
c) In the Y180 spring turn I have three CVS countering three Romulan modular DN. I want to start converting them to BCV since it is available in the SIT. Am I limited to one a year under the BCV/BCS limits, or can I convert the CVS as fast as I have available conversion capability because it is “in addition to the normal carrier production limit?”
d) Can I convert a CVS or BCV to a to a BCS. Neither is listed in the SIT. They look to be a five point and a three point conversion respectively.
2) What is the salvage for a destroyed Federation LTF?
As a minimum the salvage for the warships listed in (526.242 AO) as a part of the LTF looks about right (and I understand this require more book keeping to track).
3) Rule (532.22 FO) lists what Federation carriers my deploy A20 heavy fighters. Then in rule (532.222 FO) it states:
“Changing an existing carrier to use A20s is done as a conversion as per (530.222).
When you cross-index to (530.222 FO) you see the following passage:
“Changing an existing carrier to use heavy fighters requires payment of the EPs (or free fighter factors) for the larger fighter group. This change over has no other cost and does not require the use of conversion capability of a base.”
I have a hard time swallowing that a Federation CVS=>ACS or a NVL=>CVS can be done without a minor conversion being used.
Nor do I see a Federation CVA=>SCS without a major conversion.
I can see the following as being legal ‘field’ heavy fighter conversions under (532.222 FO):
a) HDW+COG=>HDW+HOG AKA an HDW carrier goes from F18s to A20s
b) NVH=>NVA whether it requires one or 10 fighter factors depending on what payment choice the Federation player made under (527.16 AO)
c) CVS=>CAV with the extra ‘conversion cost’ in the SIT being a one time logistical cost of using photon freezers on a ship not originally designed for them.
Is this a proper analysis of the rules?
4) There are a number of conflicts with the production rule (532.223 FO) with F&E2K, AO and within FO. Rule (532.223 FO) states the following:
The Federation may produce one carrier with A20s per fall turn and one carrier with F111s per spring turn Y177-Y179. Both count against the PFT limit and A20 carriers (limited to one per turn) count against the carrier limit.
Conflict #1 with (502.73 F&E2K) “The Federation can build an SCS after any other race does.”
The Lyrans build their first SCS in Spring Y179. That is the same turn that a Fed CVA is scheduled for build and prior to FO it could have an SCS substituted for it as the Federation production phase is after the Lyran. Now FO, if I am reading this correctly, delays that production to Fall Y179 as a major conversion of a CVA, unless SCS rule is considered “more specific” than the “general rule’ (532.223 FO)?
Which rule takes precedent, (502.73 F&E2K) or (532.223 FO)?
Conflict #2 with (527.16 FO) “”…if these ships are built as NVAs then they use A20s and no F111 stockpile ensues.”
The Y177 and Y178 NVH are both built in the spring, yet one or both can be replaced with NVAs.
Which rule takes precedent, (527.16 FO) or (532.223 FO)?
Conflict #3 includes HDW rules (525.23H AO) and (525.23P) as well as (530.222 AO) on HF carriers counting as PFT production.
The two rules former defines the Federation version of the Heavy Fighter Operations Group (HOG) and the second states that you can build either HOG or PF operations groups (POG), with the POG being in addition too normal PFT production. Rule (530.222) states that HF production counts as PFT production from PF deployment turn two onwards.
Taken together, it looks like the Federation can build an A20 carrier per turn and upon PF2 (turn 27) build a second A20 carrier per turn based on the HDW+HOG. Given the costs of doing so, (18 EP for nine A20 HOG factors) I don’t see this as a particularly game breaking interpretation, but there it is.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 02, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit
questions downloaded to this point
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit
Situational question I am pondering:
How does a raid into a lone BATS work?
Can the base race call up a POL to help (I think no here since it has an SEQ of fighters to react)?
The base cannot 'intercept' the ship but the fighters can, right?
If the fighters remain with the base (ie. do not fight) is this considered 'surviving the reaction battle' of (314.27 and 314.28)?
Okay so if the above happens and the ship survives it can raid the province and go home, correct?
This information seems hidden from me in the rules, please point out any specific rules or rulings (in CLOG) that address this for my own future reference. Thanks.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 10:14 pm: Edit
Oh yeah one more Q on this. Do the POL called up for raid reaction by the Roms have cloak?
Thanks again
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit
robert lagowski:
I have a question that came up in are game.
Ok its like this. The way I read 302.73 is ... If you retreat from a battle you must use retreat priority "The retreat priorities are in order from 1 (highers, most important) to 4 (lowest, leat important)". In this case I see it like this.
Step 1 No neutral hex is possible.
Step 2 I can select 1627 as a retreat possibility as I have more SE then the enemy in that hex
step 3 a) all hexes are in supply use step 3
b) all hexes are in supply
c) all hexes are in the main supply grid
d) hex 1627 is the same distance to a supply point as other hexes and none are closer then it.
Step 4 I can not select hex 1627 as it has enemy units.
As step 2 has a higher priority then step 4 I can goto 1627. In effect step 2 overrules step 4. And if you wish to ignore step 4 and you dont have the SE to use step 2 then you must use 302.77 fighting retreat. If this is not the case then why is thier a step 2 that will be over ruled by step 4 every time?
Thank
Rob
ANSWER: You start with all surrounding hexes as possible, and each step in the retreat procedure removes some hexes as retreat possibilities. Step 1 allows you to choose a neutral hex if available regardless of other steps. Step 2 eliminates all hexes where you would be outnumbered. Step 3 takes the hexes remaining after step 2 and eliminates all hexes except those with the shortest supply path. Step 4 takes all hexes remaining after step 3 and eliminates any containing enemy forces. If any step eliminates the last remaining hexes then you ignore that step. The fighting retreat rule allows you to ignore step 4 (assuming it didn't already eliminate all remaining hexes) if you want but with a penalty.
In your case steps 2 and 3 did not allow you to "select" hex 1627, they simply failed to eliminate it. After step 3 you had several hexes (including 1627) that had not yet been eliminated. Step 4 does eliminate hex 1627 since it contains enemy units, but leaves you with any hexes that do not contain enemy units. Thus you must retreat to one of the hexes remaining after all 4 steps. You can instead choose to ignore step 4 and retreat to hex 1627 but under the fighting retreat penalties.
====================
Trent Telenko:
1) First, (525.85 AO) states “The Gorns may match each Romulan modular DN with a CVS or BCV at their option. This is in addition to the normal carrier production limit.”
Does this make the following legal, assuming Romulan Modular DN production has occurred?
a) On turn 12 the Gorns produce three medium CVs. One newly built CV, one converted HV and one more CVS under (525.85 AO) via either conversion or new build substitution.
ANSWER: yes assuming there is a rom modular DN running around.
b) A mauler destroyed the CVS on a spring turn and all the Gorn CV build/conversion slots for that year have been used and there is still a fielded Romulan modular DM. I can still produce another CVS by any means that year since it is “in addition to the normal carrier production limit.”
ANSWER: I suppose so.
c) In the Y180 spring turn I have three CVS countering three Romulan modular DN. I want to start converting them to BCV since it is available in the SIT. Am I limited to one a year under the BCV/BCS limits, or can I convert the CVS as fast as I have available conversion capability because it is “in addition to the normal carrier production limit?”
ANSWER: Because the CVS and BCV are under the same limits (one per Rom modular DN), you can simply convert them under the normal conversion rules, it does not count as new carrier production as you don't gain fighter factors.
d) Can I convert a CVS or BCV to a to a BCS. Neither is listed in the SIT. They look to be a five point and a three point conversion respectively.
ANSWER: If it isn't on the SIT then you can't. Well, you can unconvert to the base hull and then convert to the BCS for the appropriate cost.
2) What is the salvage for a destroyed Federation LTF?
ANSWER: Why do you ask? This info is on the federation SIT for the LTF, salvage of 6.
3) questions on fed heavy fighter contradictions.
ANSWER: Note that rule (530.0) specifically states that (530) does not apply to the Feds who use other rules for the 3rd way, F111 and A20. Rule (532.223) specifies that the feds get one A20 carrier per fall turn and one F111 carrier per spring turn until Y180, after which F111 carriers count against the PFT limit, and A20 carriers count against the carrier limit and also that you can only get one F111 carrier per turn. To convert a carrier to A20s is done as per (530.222) which is used for the Feds for this purpose only. Prior to Y180 such a conversion is limited to one per fall turn, and after Y180 counts against the Fed carrier limit and would count as your one allowed A20 carrier per turn. Does that help?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit
Lawrence Bergen:
How does a raid into a lone BATS work?
Can the base race call up a POL to help (I think no here since it has an SEQ of fighters to react)?
ANSWER: I assume you mean the base's hex is the raid target hex? Rule (314.243) allows you to call up a police ship if you have nothing to react or if you chose not to react. Using the base's fighters in the battle or keeping them at the base is not the same as reacting to the raid. Rule (314.241) allows for a ship (or ship equivalent) to move to the raid hex, this is the reaction step. If you do this you don't get a police ship. If you didn't move/react anything, you can get a police ship if you want. Now, whether you reacted or not, or whether you called up a police ship or not, the base's fighters can choose to fight or not to fight in the reaction battle under rule (314.25). The choice of reaction/police ship, and the use of the base's fighters in battle are two independent steps/decisions.
The base cannot 'intercept' the ship but the fighters can, right?
ANSWER: Right. You could chose to call up a police ship, and then fight a battle against the raider with the police and fighters together away from the base.
If the fighters remain with the base (ie. do not fight) is this considered 'surviving the reaction battle' of (314.27 and 314.28)?
ANSWER: Yes, if he raids the BATS hex, and you keep the fighters at the base and do not fight him then he can raid the province or choose alternative attack.
Okay so if the above happens and the ship survives it can raid the province and go home, correct?
ANSWER: Yes.
Oh yeah one more Q on this. Do the POL called up for raid reaction by the Roms have cloak?
ANSWER: Rom police ships do not have cloaks as per SFB.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 08:32 am: Edit
Great job Nick. Thanks very much for your expedience. I think it should be added info into the next CLog regarding the POL not having cloak. [Other than purchase of the new Master Rulebook (still in the plastic wrap) I have not touched SFB in years and probably won't until sometime around 2008.]
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 01:48 am: Edit
Nick,
Not sure if this has been answered before, but does the activated Gorn TG from offmap count against the limits of TG production?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 02:25 am: Edit
Tim:
The tug has already been produced; its just in the off-map region.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit
Just double checking, could not find it, but I remember there being a scen (Eastern Marches maybe) where the Roms did not have the KR's and the notes had said that activating the mothballed TGA counted against tug production.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 01:15 pm: Edit
Nick,
I've tried searching the Q&A archive, and have read the errata, but haven't found anything answering this:
Regarding raids (314.0), the rules regarding province disruption (314.27) seem to be absolute: if I raid a province successfully, I must disrupt it (in the case of a NZ hex, that hex and all adjacent hexes must be disrupted), unless there's an alternative target for the raiding ship to attack. I normally wouldn't have a problem with this, but there's no exception for the case where you raid a friendly province. So, if the Kzinti manage to move a provence raiding FF into Lyran territory (say to 0101) and the Lyrans decide to use a raid to destroy it rather than pull ships off the front, then, if the raid is successful, province 0101 will be disrupted until after the next Lyran Economics Phase. (And similarly, a raid on a NZ hex would disrupt friendly control of adjacent NZ hexes.)
Have I missed a rule? Was this the intention of (314.27)?
By benjamin sun (Ben2207) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:14 pm: Edit
Question, has the dual starbase ruling been made and if so where is the link?
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:24 pm: Edit
Ben. Probably is SCV's head but it's slated to be in CL30 for the rest of us.
Keep a watch though. Maybe it will show up soemwhere about publishing time, who knows.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 08:51 pm: Edit
Yeah, I gotta post that.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:49 pm: Edit
Tim Losberg: Gorn Tug Activation
ANSWER: It does not count against tug production. While you do pay a 2 EP "refit" cost, it does not use production/conversion capacity. Those ships are outside the normal limits since they already exist, i.e. the SC does not count against scout production limits on the turn you bring it onto the map.
========================
Dave Butler: Raiding your own province to dislodge an enemy ship.
ANSWER: The problem is that there is an unwritten assumption behind the raid rules (that you are raiding enemy controlled territory). When it was written I don't think anyone considered ending raid movement inside your own territory to attack an enemy target. One could make the argument that the raid rules were never intended to move a raid pool ship into your own space, and thus you shouldn't be doing this (see rule (314.247) which essentially prohibits a raid ship from attacking an Orion Pirate, which seems really similar to your situation if you put some enemy ship in your space in the pirate's place). However, nothing in the rule really prohibits such movement. Also, the point about NZ hexes is a good one. If you raid an enemy controlled NZ hex you shouldn't have to also disrupt an adjacent NZ hex that you controlled. I would have to say that logically, you would not "disrupt" territory that you control after successfully defeating the enemy target, you would simply return to the raid pool.
============================
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit
I've got an odd raid question. I've tried to research this, but I can't see where it's been covered. What happens if I raid a hex with friendly units in it? Specific situation: The Klingons have destroyed BATS 2615 and left behind an F5Q. Arcturia (Minor 2715) is untouched (still has 2xPDU). Now, as of the start of the Alliance turn, the Klingons have captured the province, but not the planet (430.25). The Federation wishes to raid the province to make it disrupted on the following economic turn. What happens when the Federation raids hex 2715 and the Klingons react over a ship? (314.244) only says "The raiding ship and reacting ship (or equivalent) combined with any defending units already in the hex then fight one round of single combat." In the context of single combat, the PDUs would be attacking units. If the PDUs are not combined with the attacking (raiding) ship, and the raiding ship withdraws, there is still a Klingon ship in the same hex as Federation PDUs. Do these then battle? Does it become a battle hex to be resolved during combat and thus be eligible for a RESV fleet destination? I have no intuition on this.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 01:01 pm: Edit
Nick I need a clarification on the re-devestation of enemy held Planets..
here is an example situation:
Klingons are sitting on 1504, Kzintis move in to re-take the planet. Can the Klingons take 10 of the damage points scored against them on the planet (re-devestating it)? Can The Kzinti's (since it is their planet)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit
Dale Lloyd Fields: The PDUs are not defending units, they belong to the alliance (raider), not coalition (defender). In that situation, the rule is clear that the local PDUs on the planet do not take part in the raid combat. Think of it this way: The raider is attacking Coalition shipping in the province in order to disrupt it, right? And such shipping cannot go near the alliance planet because of the PDUs, right? So the alliance raider will not be found at the planet when the reacting coalition ship arrives since it will be found attacking freighters and whatnot away from the planet, right? So the rule is correct as written, the PDUs have no effect on the single combat involving the raider and reactor.
=========================
Tim Losberg: There can be no more devestation in the case you state. The planet was devestated when the klingons captured it. It does not begin recovery from devestation until the Kzinti recover it. During the recovery period (when in Kzinti hands) it could be redevestated to reset the clock on recovery, but while the klingons hold it nothing is getting rebuilt on the planet (no recovery), so there is nothing to absorb damage unless they added PDUs. Rule (508.21) simply says the planet defender can voluntarily apply damage to the planet toward devestation, but really this applies to the original owner, if in enemy hands it is already devestated. You can only devestate a planet that is undevestated or in the recovery period, you cannot devestate an already devestated planet.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:51 am: Edit
Nick, thanks for the ruling on the raid. Unfortunately, I also have a Reserve Fleet question. Well, it is more like a "please tell me that what I'm planning is legal." Nathan, if you're reading this, STOP NOW. Pretty please.
Anyway, this is about supply paths and using RESV fleets to unblock supply.
Set up: Klingon BATS 1807 is destroyed and the Klingons have fleets in 2106 and 1707. Klingon supply points are 1707, 1509 and 1809. Klingon E4s are in 1705. Kzinti BATS 1805 is still alive. All relevant Federation BATS are destroyed.
Op Move: The Alliance does an independent fighter strike from BATS 1805 to the E4s in 1705. The Kzinti also attacks BATS 1707. Expendable Alliance ships are then placed in 1807 and 2008 (assume no Coalition ships will be able to react to these two locations). Battles are fought deeper in Federation space that rely upon 2106 as part of the supply path.
Question: Can Coalition RESV fleets in 1509 or 2106 do anything to stop 2106 (and thus Klingon ships deeper in Federation space) from being cut out of supply at the beginning of the Coalition turn?
Because Kzinti BATS 1805 has no fighters (they are off fighting E4s in 1705), the Klingons have a supply path 1411 -> 1707 then 1806, 1906, 2006, 2106. Hex 1806 is unblocked because of Klingon ships and fighters in 1707, and hex 1906 is unblocked because Z-BATS 1805 does not have fighters. Supply through hexes 1907 and 2007 is blocked by the Alliance ships in 1807 and 2008. Because the Klingons have a valid supply path to all ships in combat, (203.731) never applies. In this case, by (203.74) the Coalition RESVs cannot enter any hexes with enemy units. Regardless of the outcomes of the battles of fighters vs. E4s in 1705 (stay or retreat to 1706), or the battle at the BATS in 1707 (stay or retreat to 160x because of K-BATS 1507), at the end of the turn the Kzinti fighters in 1805 regenerate, and supply through hex 1906 is now blocked by (411.32), therefore blocking supply in time for Coalition Op Move (assume that the Alliance forces in 1807 and 2008 are big enough to be raid-proof).
Op Move will be done Wednesday night, so I am in a bit of a rush (sorry). If I can bribe you for a quick answer, I'll owe you a soda at Origins (regardless of which way this ruling goes).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit
Dale, I am at work now without rules, but I will take a look tonight when I get home.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit
Dale, I am afraid you are stuck. A very sneaky move on the part of the Alliance.
You are correct, during combat you have a supply path to all battle hexes, thus your reserve fleets cannot create new battle hexes and cannot attack the alliance ships at 1807 or 2008.
If the fighters at Kzinti BATS 1805 continued to cut supply through hexes adjacent to their BATS during combat in addition to the offensive strike you could move the reserve fleets to attack the ships you want. This is the fuzzy part of the rules as this is not specified either way.
But since they are not considered to be at the base during combat it does not make sense that they could be cutting supply.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit
Nick
Thanks a bunch for getting me an answer in so short a time. I really appreciate the job you do as FEAR. Now to start work on the TacNote resulting from this...
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 02:22 pm: Edit
Questions on Salvage (and Raids):
(My appologies if this was already covered in the past, I couldn't find it if it is)
A raider strikes a hex containing a single enemy ship, and engages the target in single combat. Let us say for the sake of arguement that the target is not in its home territory, and thus cannot call up a police ship for extra firepower, and nothing chooses to react in. Single combat ensues.
Because this is single combat, (439.16) indicates that the salvage goes to the victor ... in the case of raids, see (314.35).
So, we look up (314.35): "KLINGONS: If the Klingons do not attack the Federation on turn #7 ..."
Pardon? (This is not addressed by the master errata file, by the way.)
Nonetheless, the rules on raids clearly state:
... (314.244A) - "... there is no salvage for destroyed Raiding ships."
... (314.244B) - "... Destroyed defending ships yield salvage points for their owners except under (314.26) ...", which is the rule discussing calling the police.
So, returning to the situation at hand, if the defender wins, he claims the salvage of the raider (0EP, because it's a raider), but if the raider wins, what happens? Does he claim the salvage of the defender since it's single combat, or does the defender claim the salvage because it's a raid?
A second but sometimes related question: (318.7) ... small scale combat ... it says to reduce the combat to the single combat system. Does it also mean that salvage of the loosing group should go to the victor, as it would in single combat?
Thanks, Nick!
(... and sorry to keep doing this to you.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:29 am: Edit
Mark Ermenc:
Correcting the reference will help. Rule (439.16) has a reference to (314.35) that should be to (314.25) which says a destroyed raider never produces salvage, while a destroyed defending/target ship only produces salvage if it had a valid supply path.
So the two rules match since the single combat rule references the raid rule. If the raider is destroyed, no salvage for anyone. If the defender is destroyed, he gets salvage sent to whatever grid he had a valid supply path to, and if he had no valid supply path then again, no salvage for anyone.
You used the special raid movement system to get to and get from the target hex (wherever it is), and in so doing you give up salvage rights to the battle. The defender only gets salvage from his ship if he had a valid supply path.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick.
A second but sometimes related question: (318.7) ... small scale combat ... it says to reduce the combat to the single combat system. Does it also mean that salvage of the loosing group should go to the victor, as it would in single combat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 03:27 pm: Edit
Salvage should depend on the situation. If it is a raid, then use the raid-salvage rules, regardless of whether you use regular or advanced small scale combat.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 09:20 pm: Edit
All right, and how about if it's not in a raid?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:24 am: Edit
If its not a raid then the normal rule applies (439.16) which says the winner gets salvage from the loser after single combat if he otherwise qualifies.
Whether you are using normal combat, or single combat, the salvage rule used depends on whether it is a normal combat hex or a raid hex, not the combat system used.
Normal Combat: Each player gets their own salvage.
Single Combat: Winner gets salvage from loser's ship.
Raid Combat (single or otherwise): Only the defender can get salvage, not the raider (he has no time).
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 01:40 pm: Edit
And for this purpose, Small Scale Combat (318.7) is considered normal combat? Or single Combat?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 02:19 pm: Edit
In (443.0) Fighter Storage Depot a issue came up in a game I'm in....In (443.12) say to move a Fighter Storage Depots , simply "disband" an existing one and build a new one
In (443.3) Cost.....say Each modules cost 6 EPs. Each race ca build one such depot per turn.
In (443.1) Deployment ....(443.11) say Each race can deploy two such depots ( total, at any given time)( yes I know the fed and Klingon can do 4)
what we do not understand is this .... the rule say you can BUILD one a turn ....but you can deploy 2 per turn (Fed& klingon do 4 per turn)..
then How do you Deploy the depots if you DISBAND a depot.....but you can BUILD only one per turn...
Can you show us how this work....
Thanks
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 04:31 pm: Edit
I believe that Build is used to indicate how many can be constructed a turn, while Deploy indicates how many total can be on the board.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit
Right, you can buy (build) one depot per turn. Each race can have two in service, Fed/Klingons can have 4 in service.
The deployment limit in (443.11) is a total in service limit, not a per turn limit.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 01:02 pm: Edit
ok.....that clear up that part....I was thinking that ...but a couple of the other players beleive the way I typed it up......and the 6EPs to build with the fighters too.....(mine thinking it does not)
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit
Nick, (1) A Commercial Convoy arrives at its destination starbase but the starbase is located within a race that is at peace (peace economy and not at any war status with anyone). What happens to the income?
(2) A ComCon arrives at a Fed starbase under limited war econ/limited war political. What happens to the income?
(3) A ComCon arrives at a Fed starbase under limited war econ/full war political. What happens to the income?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 10:08 am: Edit
Hi Nick
I'm told that there is a CL ruling prohibiting a force from retreating to a hex from where they retreated earlier that turn (rather than it just being no longer a supply source). I couldn't see it on the Master Errata (I haven't got the CL's), the issue number would be useful in my search. Thanks.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 07:58 pm: Edit
Hmm, I looked through the last 5 or so and did not spot it, but I might have missed it.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit
I believe that ruling actually orginated on the board. I at least remember it being mentioned in an official capacity on the website previously. Perhaps a keyword search would turn it up.
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit
Before I start getting detailed here's the quick version of what I'm asking. Can the Romulans attack the Tholians on turn 10(or a turn close to that) without giving the Federation the ability to attack Romulan space?
603.16 "The Coalition may attack the Tholians if it has not done so in a previous scenario."
603.2 "...Either Side may attack the Tholians"
If the Klingons/Lyrans attack with them does it effect anything?
If this turns out right I reserve the tac note.
Thanks Nick!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 01:07 pm: Edit
this makes like the 7th time soneone brought that up.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:27 pm: Edit
I found these earlier from last year.....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 02, 2003 - 10:05 pm: Edit
Peter Riewe: small scale battle/withdrawal. Whether you use normal or small scale combat won't be decided until the size of the battleforce is known, so you would have to have done withdrawal before combat already.
James Robertson: Kzinti MBs inactive? Tony is correct, the MBs start in storage, and are released with the appropriate fleet. FRDs are always retrograde points, whether they moved or not on any given turn.
Scott Tenhoff: small combat/fighting retreat. There is a problem with using small scale combat for fighting retreat in that the BIR difference 0-10, is not represented. You should probably use the standard combat with plus-minus points since the BIR is important to fighting retreat. If you do destroy the "blocker", you still retreat again since that is what the rule says, fight one round, then retreat again, the results of the "one round" are unimportant.
Scott Tenhoff: SWACS You are correct, see the sequence of play for combat in Combined Ops and Advanced Ops, this is clearly explained in both places.
James Robertson: Lyran first attack restrictions. See (503.61), it has the specific restriction, and the reason. The Klingons and Lyrans are sharing NZ hexes, but also don't want to "tip off" the Kzintis of their alliance until turn 2 (the Klingon attack).
John Smedly: 7: Jeff may be wrong on letting the Roms attack Tholians independently of the Feds, I would point out that there is no rule allowing the Romulans to attack the Tholians on turn 10 (unless they join the coalition at the same time by attacking the Feds). Rule (603.2) says the Roms may attack the Feds (they may not attack Tholians, Gorns, or anybody else, since only the Feds are listed). It also says "either side may attack the Tholians", but this refers to the Alliance or Coalition, since the General War campaign is set up strictly as a two sided scenario, and never should you have more than two sides (which is essentially what happens if you allow the Roms to attack Tholians without joining the Coalition). Now, if the Roms attack the Feds (joining the Coalition in the process), they may now also attack the Tholians.
8: Rule (706.1) lists specific Gorn construction turn by turn, so use that. If the Gorn are at war, they could of course use subs/conversions.
9: I would say they continue under limited war (specific scenario rule), since (603.5) has no rule allowing the Gorn to go to war like (603.64) for the Feds.
Chris Fant: As I noted above, this should not be permitted for this reason, the General war has no provisions for more than two sides (alliance/coalition).
Chris Fant: limited war. You are correct, limited war lets you enter allied territory, but not enemy territory.
AND THEN......
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 07, 2003 - 02:21 pm: Edit
Roms on Limited War sending ships into Tholian space could only happen if the Roms were defending the Tholians from somebody else.
It was sent to SVC for the final word, but I cannot find his answer to the question....perhaps it was overlooked in the mayhem?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:32 pm: Edit
Alan De Salvio:
(1) A Commercial Convoy arrives at its destination starbase but the starbase is located within a race that is at peace (peace economy and not at any war status with anyone). What happens to the income?
ANSWER: Rule (443.51) says you get the EPs immediately after the convoy's arrival, but you couldn't carry them over to the next turn since you can't acumulate EPs before entering the war.
(2) A ComCon arrives at a Fed starbase under limited war econ/limited war political. What happens to the income?
ANSWER: This is just like the normal situation. You get the 10 EPs when the convoy arrives (since this amount is not adjusted for economic status) at the starbase, and it can be carried over under these conditions (602.46).
(3) A ComCon arrives at a Fed starbase under limited war econ/full war political. What happens to the income?
ANSWER: No different from #2 above.
Economic status does not really affect this, political status determines what you can do with the money.
========================================
James Southcott:
I'm told that there is a CL ruling prohibiting a force from retreating to a hex from where they retreated earlier that turn (rather than it just being no longer a supply source). I couldn't see it on the Master Errata (I haven't got the CL's), the issue number would be useful in my search.
ANSWER: Master errata file (302.733) In the case of multiple or chain retreats, any hex abandoned during a previous combat round in the same chain of events cannot be considered a supply point for subsequent retreats. For example, a Hydran force on 0617 which retreats to 0718 cannot thereafter retreat back into 0617 as part of the same "battle".
Note this is from the next version of the master errata file which I will send to Joe to post after incorporating errata from the next Capt Log.
========================================
Grant Strong:
Before I start getting detailed here's the quick version of what I'm asking. Can the Romulans attack the Tholians on turn 10(or a turn close to that) without giving the Federation the ability to attack Romulan space?
603.16 "The Coalition may attack the Tholians if it has not done so in a previous scenario."
603.2 "...Either Side may attack the Tholians"
If the Klingons/Lyrans attack with them does it effect anything?
ANSWER: There isn't a specific rule to cover the Romulans attacking only the Tholians, only to cover attacking the Feds Turn 10 and/or Gorns Turn 13. Rule (603.2) Turn 10 says that the coalition or "either side" (which means coalition/alliance) may attack the Tholians. It says if the Roms attack the Feds (turn 10) they join the coalition. So if the Roms don't attack the Feds then they haven't joined the coalition, and thus can't attack the Tholians since there is no enabling rule. If they attack the Gorn turn 13 they would also have to join the coalition I would assume(since the general war is strictly a two sided scenario), and could thus also attack the Tholians at the same time. I cannot find a rule that says Roms may attack tholians independently, only one that says the coalition may attack the tholians, and a rule for the Roms to join the coalition (by attacking Feds or Gorns). So presumably if the Roms wait until Turn 13 to join the coalition and at that point only attack the Gorn/Tholians (but could not attack only the Tholians), then the entire coalition could attack the Tholians without the Feds being able to enter Rom space. At such a point the Feds would be at war with the Klingons, could offer limited war support to the Gorn, and could attack the Roms after three turns of Gorn/Rom war status. The only way for the Roms to join the coalition prior to turn 13 is to attack the Feds, and I don't see anything that allows them to attack the Tholians without also attacking the Feds or Gorns.
That's how I see the rules anyway.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:42 pm: Edit
Chris, please don't clutter the topic with extra stuff, questions only please.
Nick
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 04:45 am: Edit
Nick, Thanks for the answer
Just checking I understand it correctly, the hex is not actually excluded as a retreat possibility, it is simply no longer a supply source (if it ever was). So in the example given 0617 would be a retreat possibility under some priority other than 3 (eg all other hexes around 0817 other than 0617 had more ships than the retreating force)? or if the line of supply was traced through 0617 rather than 0617 being a source?
My understanding was as you have written, I only asked cos others think the hex is actually totallyt eliminated as a retreat possibility.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 11:40 pm: Edit
After reading over 448.2 (Annexing Provinces), I am a bit confused by the rule. Does the race that annexes a province now become the 'owner' of that province instead of just an occupier? Do they get the full economic benefit of that province? If captured provinces would give the full economic benefit, then how would neutral zone hexes that are annexed be treated (is each hex worth 0.4 instead of 0.2?)? Do planets generate their full economic value, since they start the recovery cycle? Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 12:35 am: Edit
Robert, they get the full benefit. Also see rule (448.28) which says you also get the planet (i.e. it becomes your planet, not a captured planet). Since it was devestated, it begins the four turn recover period from the time you annexed it, thus after that time it would be just like any of your original planets.
NZ hexes cannot be annexed, they always produce .2 EPs per hex, i.e. 5 is equal to a province. Note that the start of (448.2) says it applies to captured enemy provinces, not captured neutral areas.
Once a province is annexed (or ceeded), it becomes for all intents and purposes the territory of the annexing player.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 08:13 pm: Edit |
November - December 2004 Archive
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 02:13 pm: Edit
Nick, question on Random SFG selections. If there are only 4 valid ships, and the attacker picks his 3, leaving 1 left for the alliance to pick, does the other 2 "choices" have to go to 2 different selected ships or can multiple selections go on a single ships?
rule (312.233) states
________________________________________
Quote:
The Defender cannot select (312.232) the same targets as the Attacker unless all valid targets have been given a number. If there are fewer than six eligible ships, there may be some overlap in the lists created by the two players. If there are fewer than three, some ships must be given more than one number, but every valid target must have a number.
________________________________________
but it doesn't give anymore specifics.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit
Nick, thanks for the clarification. However, rule 448.21 does state that 'Neutral Zone hexes can be annexed ten turns after they are captured.' Is that a typo in the rules, or can they be annexed? Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 07:39 am: Edit
Tim Losberg, your answer is in rule (312.232) which states that each player must pick three different ships (if possible).
If you had six (or more) ships each player can only assign one random number to a given ships and you will have a selection pool of six ships.
If you had five ships:
DN attacker 1
CA attacker 2
DD attacker 3
FF defender 4
POL defender 5
The Defender still must pick a #6, and since the above rule requires three ships he cannot put the 6 on the FF or POL, it must go on one of the attacker's choices.
If you had 4 ships
DN attacker 1
CA attacker 2
DD attacker 3
FF defender 4
the Defender could put 5 and 6 on either the DN or CA or DD, but would have to put them on different ships and could not do the FF since he picked it already.
If you had only three ships each would get one number from each player (each ship would have to have two and only two numbers).
Only when you have fewer than three ships can you ignore the above rule and allow a given player put more than one of his three numbers on the same ship:
DN attacker 1,2; defender 4
CA attacker 3; defender 5,6.
Basically you have to spread the numbers out as much as possible, the only exception is when there are not enough ships. Each player must pick different ships from the other player unless there are fewer than six when the defender must have some of the same picks as the attacker, and each player must pick three different ships as his picks unless there are fewer than three.
make sense?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 07:44 am: Edit
Robert:
Then I guess they can be annexed. I don't know what the effect of that is other than you get to say they are annexed. One could argue that they should be worth .4 EPs each in such a case, but there is no such rule. These are supposed to be relatively undeveloped or developing areas compared to the internal provinces, so they simply may not be worth .4 EPs and remain .2 EPs each in any case.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 07:48 am: Edit
James Southcott:
I think the intention was to prevent such a hex from being considered a source of supply, not necessarily completely eliminate it from retreat consideration. It is an extension to (302.733) which said the hex you retreat from is no longer considered a source of supply for retreat priorities. This errata extends that to any hexes retreated from as part of a chain of retreats of the same "battle". The example in the arrata was assuming other things being normal (i.e. you are not completely surrounded by overwealming forces).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 09:01 am: Edit
Thanks Nick on that. I can see they would not be worth 0.4 each, but I'm sure that someone down the line will ask that question, so it might be worth clearing up. So just to clarify, once they were annexed, then they cound no longer be taken away by enemy action, or captured by enemy action, right? Thanks!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 09:14 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:54 pm: Edit
Nick
A POL question. Regular police cutters have no command rating in F&E. Can they be chosen as your flagship? I find that this was asked in the Dec 29, 2003 archive, but never definitively addressed. Situation: A defender has two ships in a hex: an FF and a POL. Withdrawl before combat doesn't affect the outcome so just ignore it. The defender has to choose a flagship candidate which will fight in the battle (and get blown away), while the other ship retreats (uncrippled) without a problem. Currently in F&E, the POL has no command rating. One side might say that this requires the FF to be chosen as the sacrificial lamb. The other side might say that even if the command rating is 0, it is still one of the three highest, and therefore can be chosen as the flagship (thus saving the "real" warship, the FF).
In analogy, on May 19, 2004 you said that a defending BATS and FF could send the fighters to fight the approach battle, leaving the FF out of the fight and allowing it to retreat. Fighters, as I understand it, have no command rating.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:06 pm: Edit
Nick,
I think you need to revisit this answer:
>ANSWER: Note that rule (530.0) specifically
>states that (530) does not apply to the Feds
.who use other rules for the 3rd way, F111 and
>A20. Rule (532.223) specifies that the feds get
>one A20 carrier per fall turn and one F111
>carrier per spring turn until Y180, after which
>F111 carriers count against the PFT limit, and
>A20 carriers count against the carrier limit
>and also that you can only get one F111 carrier
>per turn. To convert a carrier to A20s is done
>as per (530.222) which is used for the Feds for
>this purpose only. Prior to Y180 such a
>conversion is limited to one per fall turn, and
>after Y180 counts against the Fed carrier limit
>and would count as your one allowed A20 carrier
>per turn. Does that help?
We both missed Fighter Operations rule (440.0). It states:
"This rule from the original CARRIER WARS is replaced by rule (527.0) below. As a special discount, the first two NVHs cost 7 points plus 9 for the F111 fighters (10 if A20 fighters are used.)"
This gets us back to my original questions on Federation Heavy Fighter production.
What are the Heavy Fighter general versus specific rules for production. (440.0) makes clear that (527.0) and (530.0) are not iron clad rules. They have exceptions.
I would like those exceptions adressed and defined. For instance, rule (440.0) makes clear that rule (532.223 FO), which states:
"The Federation may produce one carrier with A20s per fall turn and one carrier with F111s per spring turn Y177-Y179."
can't be correct. The NVHs built under (527.0) were built in the Spring of Y177 and Y178.
This is part of what I asked originally:
>3) Rule (532.22 FO) lists what Federation
>carriers my deploy A20 heavy fighters. Then in
>rule (532.222 FO) it states:
>
>“Changing an existing carrier to use A20s is
>done as a conversion as per (530.222).
Please note the text of rule (532.222 FO) states that (530.222) _APPLIES_ to Federation heavy fighter deployment.
If (530.222) applies to Federation heavy fighter production, then how A20 conversions are done under this rule needs to be addressed.
This is the rest of what I asked about before.
>When you cross-index to (530.222 FO) you see
>the following passage:
>
>“Changing an existing carrier to use heavy
>fighters requires payment of the EPs (or free
>fighter factors) for the larger fighter group.
>This change over has no other cost and does not
>require the use of conversion capability of a
>base.”
>
>I have a hard time swallowing that a Federation
>CVS=>ACS or a NVL=>CVS can be done without a
>minor conversion being used.
>
>Nor do I see a Federation CVA=>SCS without a
>major conversion.
>
>I can see the following as being legal ‘field’
>heavy fighter conversions under (532.222 FO):
>
>a) HDW+COG=>HDW+HOG AKA an HDW carrier goes
>from F18s to A20s
>b) NVH=>NVA whether it requires one or 10
>fighter factors depending on what payment
>choice the Federation player made under (527.16
>AO)
>c) CVS=>CAV with the extra ‘conversion cost’ in
>the SIT being a one time logistical cost of
>using photon freezers on a ship not originally
>designed for them.
>
>Is this a proper analysis of the rules?
>
>4) There are a number of conflicts with the
>production rule (532.223 FO) with F&E2K, AO and
>within FO. Rule (532.223 FO) states the
>following:
>The Federation may produce one carrier with
>A20s per fall turn and one carrier with F111s
>per spring turn Y177-Y179. Both count against
>the PFT limit and A20 carriers (limited to one
>per turn) count against the carrier limit.
>
>Conflict #1 with (502.73 F&E2K) “The Federation
>can build an SCS after any other race does.”
>
>The Lyrans build their first SCS in Spring
>Y179. That is the same turn that a Fed CVA is
>scheduled for build and prior to FO it could
>have an SCS substituted for it as the
>Federation production phase is after the Lyran.
>Now FO, if I am reading this correctly, delays
>that production to Fall Y179 as a major
>conversion of a CVA, unless SCS rule is
>considered “more specific” than the “general
>rule’ (532.223 FO)?
>
>Which rule takes precedent, (502.73 F&E2K) or
>(532.223 FO)?
>
>Conflict #2 with (527.16 FO) “”…if these ships
>are built as NVAs then they use A20s and no
>F111 stockpile ensues.”
>
>The Y177 and Y178 NVH are both built in the
>spring, yet one or both can be replaced with
>NVAs.
>
>Which rule takes precedent, (527.16 FO) or
>(532.223 FO)?
>
>Conflict #3 includes HDW rules (525.23H AO) and
>(525.23P) as well as (530.222 AO) on HF
>carriers counting as PFT production.
>
>The two rules former defines the Federation
>version of the Heavy Fighter Operations Group
>(HOG) and the second states that you can build
>either HOG or PF operations groups (POG), with
>the POG being in addition too normal PFT
>production. Rule (530.222) states that HF
>production counts as PFT production from PF
>deployment turn two onwards.
>
>Taken together, it looks like the Federation
>can build an A20 carrier per turn and upon PF2
>(turn 27) build a second A20 carrier per turn
>based on the HDW+HOG. Given the costs of doing
>so, (18 EP for nine A20 HOG factors) I don’t
>see this as a particularly game breaking
>interpretation, but there it is.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:09 pm: Edit
Nick,
By way of back ground information for my questions, I tracked down and compiled every published Federation Heavy fighter carrier in SFB and listed references.
=============================
Federation Heavy Fighter Carrier Production
Y177
F-111 Carriers and logistics units
Ship name - Hyuga
NVH Heavy Fighter Carrier w/F-111
References – SFB (R2.56); FO (440.1), (527.0 FO & AO); FO SIT; AO SIT
Ship name – USS Monaco
GVH National Guard F-111 Carrier
Reference – (R2.126); F&E Legal Operations?
Note – It built as a training carrier for F-111 class carriers. The Cygnans later converted a second GVH at a date uncertain.
P-FCF F-111 VHP heavy fighter replacement pod
Reference – SFB (R2.101); FO/AO
Note -- One built as a resupply pod until the Y180 “PF Panic” caused a second to be built.
Fast Heavy Carrier Resupply ship (FCF)
Reference – SFB (R2.102); FO & AO SIT; AO (???)
Note – One built in Y177 and Y178, until Y180 “PF Panic” resulted in more being produced.
A-20 Carriers and logistics units
Ship Name – Several available.
CSV A-20 Scout Carrier
Reference – SFB (R2.99)
Note – This design was the largest class of A-20 platforms by published ship name count. It is the most likely first carrier for the A-20.
A-20 VHP heavy fighter replacement pod
Reference – FO SIT
Note – One was built prior to the Y180 “PF Panic,” when a second was produced.
Fast Heavy Carrier Resupply ship (FCA)
Reference – SFB (R2.102); FO & AO SIT; AO (???)
Note – One built per year, two total, until Y180 “PF Panic,” when production resumes. The DW hulled FCF/FCA replaced the FF hulled FCR in the new fast supply ship production from this point on.
Heavy Fighter Carrier Build Status: All historic heavy carrier build slots are accounted for per F&E rule build rate plus on additional Guard CVH.
Heavy Fighter Designs available and not built until later or at all:
CVH Heavy Fighter Carrier
Ship Name – Benjamin “Something”
Reference – SFB (R2.100)
Note - There is no historical production date associated with each name and there are more named ships than production slots until Y180 per FO (????).
VDB Bombardment Carrier
Ship Name – USS Agincourt
Reference – SFB (R2.130)
Note – This was the proposal to have the crippled USS Agincourt be repaired with a CVH rear hull in Y180. The design was available as early as Y177.
CAV A-20 Strike Carrier
Reference – FO (532.0)
Ship Name – None assigned
Note – This is a conversion of the CVS to carry A-20 attack shuttles in F&E that does not exist as a SFB unit. This may be an upgrade of an A-10 carrying CVS variant?
ACS Area Control ship w/F-18 & A-20
Reference – SFB (R2.129)
Note – A never built conjectural variant
Y178
NVH(called NVA in FO) w/A-20
Ship name -- ISE
Reference – SFB (R2.56); FO (440.1), (527.0 FO & AO); FO SIT; AO SIT
Note – This ship historically had A-20s and Fighter Operations allows it to be built.
DCS (CA hull based) W/F-18 and F-111
Ship name - VERCINGTORIX
Reference -- Captain’s Log 25, page 68
Note – This is one of the earliest built Division Control Ships. It was built as the F-111 carrier opposite of the A-20 carrying ISE.
SAP/LAP Auxiliary F-111 carriers available for limited production
Reference – SFB (R2.103), SFB (R2.104); AO(???) (limit one ea. SAH & LAH)
Heavy Fighter Carrier Build Status: All historic heavy carrier build slots allowed per F&E’s Fighter Operations are accounted for.
Y179
F-111 Carriers and logistics units
NHV New Heavy Fighter Carrier w/F-111
Ship name – Chicago
Reference – SFB (R2.113)
Note – A damaged NCA converted to a carrier
A-20 Carriers and logistics units
Federation SCS available for production/conversion…none were built until after the General war.
Heavy Fighter Carrier Build Status:
One A-20 build slot/conversion per F&E is not assigned per published SFB histories. The most likely candidate for this build slot is a new CSV followed by conversions of a NVS to CSV or a CVS to a CAV.
Y180
Ship Name – Pompeii
NDS New Division Control Ship
Reference – SFB (R2.111)
Note – New construction.
Ship name – Dayton
NHV New Heavy Fighter Carrier w/F-111
Reference – SFB (R2.113)
Note – A damaged NCA converted to a carrier
A-20 Carriers
Ship Name – USS Betio
NSV Heavy Scout Carrier
Reference – SFB (R2.122)
Note – This is a NCA conversion of an earlier CSV of the same name?
Heavy Fighter Carrier Build Status:
Heavy Fighter Carrier Full production of four F-111 and two A-20 carriers is achieved. There are two F-111 build slots/names and two A-20 build slots/names allowed per F&E rules that are not assigned per published SFB histories for this year.
Y181
HDWA/HDW+HOG
Ship Names – Several available
Reference – AO
HVP F-111 operations pod
Reference – Captain’s Log 22 (R2.A8) pages 45 & 50; AO (????)
Note – AO allows only one built per year in the spring.
Heavy Fighter Carrier Build Status:
Heavy Fighter Carrier Full production of four F-111 and two A-20 carriers is achieved. There are four F-111 build slots/names and two A-20 build slots/names allowed per F&E rules that are not assigned per published SFB histories for this year. The HDW rules make clear that heavy fighter –HOG are in addition to normal Heavy Fighter/PFT production and could allow the Federation to build two A-20 equipped HDWA/HDW–HOG per year, assuming the funds were available for the fighter factors needed.
Y182
HVP F-111 operations pod
Reference – Captain’s Log 22 (R2.A8) pages 45 & 50; AO (????)
Note – AO allows the second to be built in the spring of this year.
Y183
BCV/BCS
Ship name - Shangri-La
Reference – (R2.74)
Note – Originally this was a Battle carrier that was later converted to a Battle Control Ship.
GVX Galactic Survey F-111 carrier
Ship Name – Field Marshall Collin Powell
Reference – Captain’s Log 22, page 45, (R2.A7); AO
Note – AO rules count this F-111 against Federation CF1 production limits and not HF/PFT production limits. So in Y183 the Federation can produce five F-111 carriers.
NDS New Division Control Ship
Ship Name – Pompeii
Reference – SFB (R2.111)
Note – New construction.
Y184
BCS
Ship name – Atlantis
Reference – (R2.75)
Note – This was built as a new construction BCS.
Y185+
End of the General war, new heavy fighter carrier production is cancelled.
Two A-20 equipped Federation SCS are later produced, one by conversion during the ISC War and a new construction during the Andromeden War.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:13 pm: Edit
Doesn't the POL have a com rating of 3?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit
Jimi,
According the MSC it does, but there is no listing of it in the SIT's (which I think was Dale's point)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 07, 2004 - 10:07 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: I don't know. Presumably not, it seems it would take a garrison ship in the NZ hex to "disrupt" it like a province. But, a garrison ship per hex or per group of hexes or what? And what is the result (a province is reduced from 2 to 1 EP, but how does this apply to an annexed NZ hex? It is not clear. I am going to ask Steve Cole what the intention is here.
==========================================
Dale Loyd Fields: The Tholian POL in Planetary Ops has command rating 3 on the SIT. Presumably all the police ships should have command ratings matching the SFB value.
===========================================
Trent Tolenko: You must remember that Fighters Ops came out after Advanced Ops and added the A20 rule and so some things from Advanced Ops with regards to Fed heavy fighters are overruled. If you have a contradiction between the two I would go with Fighter Ops, which is what I tried to answer above. (532.223) One F111 carrier in the spring, and an A20 carrier in the fall is the rule. Rule (440) provides the discount for the first NVH and NVA built, and if you do it in Y177 and Y178 then do one on a spring turn and one on a fall turn as appropriate. Both on a spring turn was when both were F111 NVHs if you do not have the A20 rule. If you have the A20 rule then it is one NVH and one NVA built spring or fall as appropriate in Y177 and Y178 as the rule states. Right?
(530.222) does apply to Fed A20 conversions as you stated. Why is this confusing? Simply pay the EPs for the larger fighter group while obeying the limits of (532.223). It does not take a conversion slot, but it does count against the heavy carrier production limit of (532.223).
If you are asking something else then I am not sure what. If something contradicts the SFB backgroud, then that's just the way it is I guess. The rule is what it is, and F&E doesn't match SFB on every detail.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, November 08, 2004 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Nick quick question on (203.55)
Rule states
________________________________________
Quote:
...If the Moving Player's rating is higher, he may move a number of units equal to the difference in the Command Ratings out of the hex.
________________________________________
Does "Moving Player" mean "Phasing Player"? can a reacting foce use this to get some units to get an additional hex of reaction (extended reaction)?
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 04:42 pm: Edit
I need some clarification on Advanced Raids - Planetary Operations.
1)
I'm executing a Drone raid against a FRD, i have 12 drone points that are counted as 24 (against a slow unit) and a BIR of 4.
The rule say that the damage is resolved only against the FRD. If this is a sort of Direct Damage (on a 1-1 basis) i need to do at LEAST 4 damage point to destroy it; if not it seem i need only 2 damage point to destroying it and leaving at least some minus points in the hex.
I'm frightened of the latter!
2)
Against a special raid, the defender could "react" to the attack hex.
Is it a normal "reaction" or an "interception" with only 1 ship?
Thank for any answer Nick
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 05:01 pm: Edit
Another one, sorry
I don't recall where but i think a rule say that province are captured and treated for many circumstances apart from planet inside them.
Under the new rule on province's annexions the planets inside provinces are annexed when the province is.
What if the planet is unconquered?
I think to know the answer, but....
Bye
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 05:43 pm: Edit
Speaking as one of those who contributed (negatively or positively is another issue) to the Advanced Raid discussions, Fabio, I think I'm safe in saying that the damage scored in an Advanced Raid is treated as regular, normal damage. If you want to DD, then the normal 2:1 applies, if you chose general, then it is 1:1. Of course, some restrictions apply, for example, damage inflicted during a Drone Raid cannot be scored on attrition units, but that's it.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 09:09 pm: Edit
Which produces the strange situation where fighters based on the FRD can't defend their base...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:21 am: Edit
It's not that strange considering the size difference of the two units. Long Lance drones (the ones used for bombardment missions) are set to target by size class. So any drones sent in to target the FRD are targeted on the FRD's size class, not the size class for a fighter. As a DB mission is a raid, the fighters only have a limited time to launch and try to defend against the incoming mass of some 2 or 3 hundred drones all at once.
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit
I have the current rule books and have read through them twice in the last four weeks looking for an answer to three questions. I've seen postings here that contradict, so I'm now going to ask directly:
1. What are the max PDU's I can expect to find in, say, the Kzinti capitol Hex? One rule states Min planets max 6, Maj planets max 10, Capitol planets max 20. Another rule says most races have ONE Capitol planet. So I figure:
KZINTAI system 26
KEEVARSH system 16
VIELSALM system 22
VRONKETT system 10.
2. The rules say all PDUs in the system count in the compot. I assume that means their fighters too, but I've seen postings hinting otherwise. For example, when I face KZINTAI system, I expect to face a compot of 234 from the 26 PDUs alone, then add the SB and battle force. Have I missed something?
3. In a capitol assault against massive compot, my entire battle force will be vaporized for a maximum of 4 PDUs destroyed. Directed damage on a SAF only reduces it's affectiveness, it is always destroyed. Can I send in a minimum battle force (all will be vaporized anyway) with a SAF and hope to bag 0-2 PDUs?
Thanks for any help with these questions that have been nagging me for well over a month.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 01:45 pm: Edit
Nick - quick (urgent!) Question
If a Carrier/Base used 205.7 to react it's fighters into the adjacent hex - can the Carrier/base be the target for directed damage (carrier in this case)?
302.563 (Directed Damage) refers to 'support units', which mentions 501.4 (which refers to Independent Fighters Squadrons) which mentions the Carrier/base must be in the hex or use 205.7!
So no direct mention that Direct Damage can be used, but 'yes' in a roundabout way!
Thanks
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 01:48 pm: Edit
David, you only count the PDU's on the specific planet you are attacking (up to 20 on the capital planet itself).
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit
Also, David, don't forget that those are maximums; unless a player actually adds PDUs to his planets, all majors start with 4, all minors with 2, but capital planets (the one's with the * next to them) begin with 8.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Friday, November 12, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit
Are the free PF factors granted the Gorn and Lyran under 442.23 still received if the race is not 'at war'?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit
May a Fed GSC be used in a Fighter Raid?
May drone ships be used as consorts under (320.222)?
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 12:19 am: Edit
Nick,
My coalition is a fighter and mauler using Juggernaut. Screw the drone and scout ships (too expensive). The problem is... I've read through the entire archives for Q&A and my production/substitution/conversion appears to be wrong. (I've been playing since the game first replaced Federation Space.
The final word from SVC's Q&A Archive file below appears to sink me.
(515.534) Escorts can also be produced by conversion at any starbase from the equivalent warship hull for one point, up to the limit of the conversion capacity. (A very few escorts have fighters, and the cost of the fighters must also be paid at the appropriate rate.) Conversion costs are listed on the SIT.
(515.535) As provided in (308.132) Carrier Escort Damage System, escorts can be produced at the end of the turn to fill carrier groups. As per (308.132B) in CL#25, these do count against the conversion capacity of the starbases used for the conversions. See the penalties in (515.54). [At the present time, (308.132B) is the only means by which a starbase may do multiple conversions in a given turn, each using some of its capacity. New rules in a future product will make this a general rule.]
I always understood the phrase from 515.534 ", up to the limit of the conversion capacity." to mean the conversion limit was 3 for starbases. I've been converting 3 escorts per starbase as needed to make my CV groups the way I wanted. 433.14 seems to supports this (multiple ships counting as one conversion).
My new understanding that a starbase can only do one conversion period, (exception CEDs) also means CV groups can no longer be converted at a starbases.
I've never used CEDs (don't like the "cheat" feel of the rule), but CEDs would make my escort replacement policy possible, I suppose, just harder to implement.
On another note, the strict policy on substitution also wrecks my p/s/c system. I've been free to substitute the escorts I wanted (within heavy/light rules) in my build schedule. Now I understand I have to use conversion instead of substitution to build the C8V groups I want.
If I had my way, I would delete CEDs and replace it with unlimited allowed substitutions. Example: Scheduled 9D5, sub 9AD5 ... K.I.S.S.
The fun thing about a game is redoing strategy brought about by changing situations.
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 04:24 pm: Edit
Nick,
Question with specific example and general implication/application:
Q: Is the only way to produce the Lyran FCR in an historical scenario to convert a FF?
Specifically, the Lyran FCR is not included in allowable substitutions. So production (by any means) is limited to conversion only for this ship.
(701) Regular Ships: Can produce one FCR per turn by any means (526.34).
(711.2) LYRAN ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS: No listing of FCR.
(711.3) PRODUCTION NOTES: No more than one FCR per year by any means.
SIT: LYRAN FCR has a conversion column AND a substitution column.
I'm learning to read the OB better, using the SIT less.
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 04:35 pm: Edit
Nick,
Q1: Does the SIT count as a source for allowing substituions?
Q2: Does "production by any means" allow substitutions that aren't listed on the OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
From reading the entire Q&A archives, I've been led to believe subs are not allowed unless listed. Each OB has a list of allowable substitutions. A quick scan shows many classes not listed as allowed, the FCR from the previous post, X ships, escorts for PFTs right up front.
Thanks for the dedication to this game I love.
David
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit
During AO development, I asked this question of SVC and he indicated at the time that where the SIT & OOB differ, the SIT is correct. I don't know of an official ruling (or rule) on the matter however.
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 10:28 pm: Edit
Nick,
This is frustrating.
IRT FCR substitution:
(526.34) CREATION: Each race can build one FCR per turn, either by substitution or conversion for the appropriate hull type.
This would be a general rule?, superceded by a specific rule? i.e. OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
IRT X-Ship substitution:
(523.111) X-ships replace non-X ships of the equivalent hull type on the production schedule.
This would be a general rule?, superceded by a specific rule? i.e. OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
I'm spending way too much time researching rules instead of playing right now.
I'm setting up my long range build schedules for an upcoming game (the last before FO an PO).
Later
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit
It's fairly simple. The general statements at the start of the OOBs apply unless specifically contradicted in the race OOBs and/or SIT (SIT applies mainly for YIS).
This is pretty much standard wargame design, though, admittedly, F&E does tend to have a lot more If-Then-Else cases than most other games
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 05:18 pm: Edit
What is the rule number for the Hydran expedition?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 05:31 pm: Edit
SVC-
Rule 601.14
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit
601.14
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 05:32 pm: Edit
509.5
EDIT, well excuse me, that was the 5xx section number.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit
What is the number for adding modules to a base?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 08:40 pm: Edit
What is the number for adding modules to a base?
AO 441.4 [HBM, PFM], 441.5 [PAM]
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 11:26 am: Edit
There is also the FSM (Fighter Storage Module) in Planetary Ops, no rule # in front of me. 5xx.00 section.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 12:18 pm: Edit
FSM is 445.00
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 02:29 pm: Edit
PO (450.5) FLEXIBILE CONVERSIONS (That's the way it's printed.) :-))
This new rule finally allows me to make the escort conversions I've been doing all along.
Thank-you to Steve, Jeff, and Nick. Life is good.
David
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Sunday, November 21, 2004 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Nick, may I conduct a E&S Prime Team mission, to disrupt a SMN, BEFORE a SMN is activated?
Here is the sequence as I understand it.
C.Turn X. Coalition captures planet
C.Turn X+1 Coalition has kept planet, eligble as an SMN.
Now if the Alliance wants to disrupt it (and they can't retake it). They would have to conduct the mission on A.Turn X, because on C.X+1 it's already activated.
Does the Alliance have to wait to conduct the mission on A.Turn X+1? Thus giving the Coalition 1 turn's use of it as a SMN.
This could also be applied to setting up a MB, can I disrupt it being used as a SMN on the Alliance part of the turn it's being assembled.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 06:31 am: Edit
Hi Nick - I've got a question about minimum force requirements.
The Hydrans are the phasing player and have got themselves into a battle that they really want to avoid. With this in mind they want to put the minimum number of ships into the battle force and then retreat. The force present is THR, PGV, DE, AH, CR, SC.
That’s 6 units + 1.5 SE of fighters.
Minimum force allows 2 ships to be rejected as command ships (lets say the PGV and THR).
This excludes 2 ships and 1 SE of fighters. Leaving 4.5 units.
2 Questions – How many are forced to fight? – I’m guessing just 2 and the fractions are lost.
Secondly – could the ships that have been excluded from the ‘½ the ships must fight’ calculations (on the basis that they were rejected command ships) provide fighters into the line from the support echelon? So, if the answer to part 1 was 2 ships then could the Hydrans put the CR on the line with 6 ftrs delivered from the escorted PGV?
This would seem a bit odd because the fighters have been excluded from adding to the number of ships which are then halved to give the minimum that must fight, but are able to fulfill part of the minimum force.
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 12:49 pm: Edit
I have a question regarding rule 709.0 Hydran OB
Are the hex numbers listed for setting up each fleet supposed to mean you can only setup on those bases, or are they supposed to define those provinces. I've always assumed bases because 1217 and 1219 both listed for the 1st fleet are in the same province. Also most other races specifically state things like within 2 hexes of ...
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 02:09 pm: Edit
The Hydran setup question was answered a while ago, Clell, as part of a wider set up question and the answer to your question is no. Apparently, the use of 'and' and 'and/or' means the same thing in the context of F&E setup. So, basically, those hexes define the provinces, though why one would want to set up in deep space baffles me I think it's safe to say that the reason the Hydrans don't have an X hexes within Y statement is that the Hydrans have such a small territory in which to set up (imagine if the Fed OOB listed provinces individually). Then again, the Roms' does, so, go figure.
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 06:00 pm: Edit
I know the wider question you are referring to, but disagree that it specifically answers this question it just simply states that within the listed bases I can put stuff where I want.
As to why I would want to put ships in "empty" space it would give a wider range of potential targets for the Hydrans to attack on T3 (the only turn they are likely to do any major attacks on until late in the game)
Also 0714 is listed for 2nd fleet setup and 0915 for 1st fleet setup and both bases are in the same province. If the reference is supposed to be provinces this means the Hydrans can stack the 1st and 2nd fleet in one hex which I suspect was not the intent.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 06:32 pm: Edit
Sorry for the delays here. I will download questions tonight, and try to get caught up over the next couple days. Should have time over thanksgiving if not before.
Nick
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 09:47 am: Edit
Question regarding Hydran pre-war setup 601.162:
If the Hydrans continue to not be at war past T2 are there fleets restricted to thier initial deployment zones or are they released. Based on 601.2 Turn 3 Forces available you could say they are released, but if they don't attack and aren't attacked it seems like they shouldn't be.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 10:24 am: Edit
This is the CL30 rulings file if anybody has a question.
(203.5) This rule requires leaving ships beind equal to the enemy, so a single non-fast ship can pin a single fast ship because the fast ship cannot leave half of itself behind in the hex.
(313.21) While a die roll shift cannot produce a die roll of less than one, that can (308.6) be used to reduce the intensity rating.
(314.21) If the capital (when it falls) does not have a supply path to the new capital (ignoring enemy ships in the old capital hex or surrounding hexes), the raiding pool cannot be transferred and all ships from it are immediately placed on the map in the capital hex and retreat with the remainder of the fleet.
(439.16) The reference to (314.35) should be to (314.25).
(443.51) The destination starbase must be in the original territory of the receiving race. A starbase in captured territory does not count, but one in annexed territory would count. A Klingon starbase on one of the Klingon colonies in Tholian space would not count.
(444.33) It has been decided to allow X-Base Stations. Such a unit is 16(6)u/8(3)u. Conversion costs are on the Master SITS on-line. The unit requires four SIDS steps to cripple and it requires two SIDS steps to destroy a crippled BSX. The EW ratings are:
EWF 1 2 3
ATTACK: 16 9 3
ATTACK(Drone) 16 9 6
ATTACK(Crippled) 8 3 NA
ATTACK(Crip-Drn) 8 5 NA
(448.21) Annexed neutral zone hexes produce double income (0.4 EPs per turn). If an enemy ship enters an annexed Neutral Zone hex, it reverts to a normal NZ hex and can be captured normally.
(511.53) Auxiliary ships (aux carriers, troopships, aux scouts, etc,) are also split 50/50 between the mobile and static elements.
(523.413) This upgrade is applied in the Production Step of the player turn of the race in question. If there is no base at the shipyard planet on the X-date, the race gets the free X-base upgrade after a base is built there. A player may, if he so elects, delay the X-upgrade of a base in the shipyard hex, perhaps to allow it to be upgraded to a larger base.
(531.212) A police ship can enter space containing enemy units during the retreat process.
(601.12) The Marquis area remains an “unreleased fleet” until the Federation enters the war or until the Klingons invade this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke’s fleet, so while that BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.
(673.1L) The Lyran Jagdpanther starts the Cloudburst Scenario in the command configuration.—Nick Blank
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 11:11 am: Edit
(444.33) The Master SIT has this as a 15(6)/8(6) unit. If 16(6)/8(3) is now the correct factors, it will need to be changed there. Wyszynski 10/24/2004
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Wednesday, November 24, 2004 - 02:55 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
(601.12) The Marquis area remains an “unreleased fleet” until the Federation enters the war or until the Klingons invade this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke’s fleet, so while that BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.
________________________________________
I knew it! I knew I had seen a ruling to that effect, I just couldn't remember where for the Double Starbase discussion.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 12:10 pm: Edit
Tim Losberg:
Nick quick question on (203.55)
Rule states ".If the Moving Player's rating is higher, he may move a number of units equal to the difference in the Command Ratings out of the hex."
Does "Moving Player" mean "Phasing Player"? can a reacting foce use this to get some units to get an additional hex of reaction (extended reaction)?
ANSWER: It means whoever is trying to move past the pinning force, it can be either the phasing or non-phasing player as the situation dictates.
====================================
Fabio Poli: I need some clarification on Advanced Raids - Planetary Operations.
1) I'm executing a Drone raid against a FRD, i have 12 drone points that are counted as 24 (against a slow unit) and a BIR of 4.
The rule say that the damage is resolved only against the FRD. If this is a sort of Direct Damage (on a 1-1 basis) i need to do at LEAST 4 damage point to destroy it; if not it seem i need only 2 damage point to destroying it and leaving at least some minus points in the hex.
I'm frightened of the latter!
ANSWER: With 24 compot at BIR 4, say you roll a 3. This is 25%, or 6 damage. There is only one target, so don't bother directing (which would require 8 damage to destroy the 4 defense factor FRD). The damage is then applied normally to the FRD, which is destroyed by 4 damage points, leaving 2 plus points.
2) Against a special raid, the defender could "react" to the attack hex.
Is it a normal "reaction" or an "interception" with only 1 ship?
ANSWER: Rule (320.314) says a single defending ship can "react" into the attack hex under rule (314.241), so it is not a normal reaction, it is an interception with one defending ship.
====================================
Fabio Poli: I don't recall where but i think a rule say that province are captured and treated for many circumstances apart from planet inside them.
Under the new rule on province's annexions the planets inside provinces are annexed when the province is.
What if the planet is unconquered?
ANSWER: Rule (448.28) says you get the planet as well. While possible, it would be unusual for a planet in an annexed province to be uncaptured due to the large amount of time needed to control the province before you can annex it. You would likely have captured the planet at some point during that period.
===================================
David Baldwin:
1. What are the max PDU's I can expect to find in, say, the Kzinti capitol Hex? One rule states Min planets max 6, Maj planets max 10, Capitol planets max 20. Another rule says most races have ONE Capitol planet. So I figure:
KZINTAI system 26
KEEVARSH system 16
VIELSALM system 22
VRONKETT system 10.
2. The rules say all PDUs in the system count in the compot. I assume that means their fighters too, but I've seen postings hinting otherwise. For example, when I face KZINTAI system, I expect to face a compot of 234 from the 26 PDUs alone, then add the SB and battle force. Have I missed something?
ANSWER: Only the planet under attack can contribute its PDUs. The PDUs on other planets in that system are not in the battleforce. See rule (511.572).
3. In a capitol assault against massive compot, my entire battle force will be vaporized for a maximum of 4 PDUs destroyed. Directed damage on a SAF only reduces it's affectiveness, it is always destroyed. Can I send in a minimum battle force (all will be vaporized anyway) with a SAF and hope to bag 0-2 PDUs?
ANSWER: You must meet the minimum force rules (302.36), but if you comply with that you can create whatever size battleforce you wish.
==========================================
Paul Howard:
If a Carrier/Base used 205.7 to react it's fighters into the adjacent hex - can the Carrier/base be the target for directed damage (carrier in this case)?
ANSWER: No. Rule (302.563) handles attacking carriers/PFTs in the "support echelon" that are sending their attrition units forward as independent squadrons. It specifically says bases cannot be so attacked.
302.563 (Directed Damage) refers to 'support units', which mentions 501.4 (which refers to Independent Fighters Squadrons) which mentions the Carrier/base must be in the hex or use 205.7!
So no direct mention that Direct Damage can be used, but 'yes' in a roundabout way!
ANSWER: No, it specifically says "Bases and PDUs cannot be attacked by this rule."
=======================================
Craig Tenhoff: Are the free PF factors granted the Gorn and Lyran under 442.23 still received if the race is not 'at war'?
ANSWER: I do not think so. Those PFs are similar to free fighter factors (some races give up free fighter factors for free PFs, some races also get free PFs in addition to the free fighter factors), and you don't get free fighter factors while not at war (442.63).
=====================================
Greg Ernest: May a Fed GSC be used in a Fighter Raid?
ANSWER: (320.141) says survey cruisers cannot be used except for carrier variants. CVL can be used, GSC cannot be used. GSC is the galactic survey cruiser right? I can't find it so I'm not positive, but I think so.
May drone ships be used as consorts under (320.222)?
ANSWER: No. (320.222) says the consorts must come from the raid pool, and any drone ships in the raid pool can only be used for drone raids, see (320.144).
============================================
David Baldwin: My coalition is a fighter and mauler using Juggernaut. Screw the drone and scout ships (too expensive). The problem is... I've read through the entire archives for Q&A and my production/substitution/conversion appears to be wrong. (I've been playing since the game first replaced Federation Space.
The final word from SVC's Q&A Archive file below appears to sink me.
(515.534) Escorts can also be produced by conversion at any starbase from the equivalent warship hull for one point, up to the limit of the conversion capacity. (A very few escorts have fighters, and the cost of the fighters must also be paid at the appropriate rate.) Conversion costs are listed on the SIT.
(515.535) As provided in (308.132) Carrier Escort Damage System, escorts can be produced at the end of the turn to fill carrier groups. As per (308.132B) in CL#25, these do count against the conversion capacity of the starbases used for the conversions. See the penalties in (515.54). [At the present time, (308.132B) is the only means by which a starbase may do multiple conversions in a given turn, each using some of its capacity. New rules in a future product will make this a general rule.]
I always understood the phrase from 515.534 ", up to the limit of the conversion capacity." to mean the conversion limit was 3 for starbases. I've been converting 3 escorts per starbase as needed to make my CV groups the way I wanted. 433.14 seems to supports this (multiple ships counting as one conversion).
ANSWER: Right, You can only do that during CEDS conversions. During CEDS (in the retrograde step) each starbase can do multiple escort conversions for replacing escorts lost in combat. (up to 3 pts). During the production step each stabase can do one conversion period, you cannot do 3 one point conversions at one starbase.
On another note, the strict policy on substitution also wrecks my p/s/c system. I've been free to substitute the escorts I wanted (within heavy/light rules) in my build schedule. Now I understand I have to use conversion instead of substitution to build the C8V groups I want.
ANSWER: Rule (515.53) allows you to build all escorts specifically listed on your build schedule (i.e. your build schedule might list one carrier plus one escort carrier per turn, max one heavy carrier per year). In addition to that it allows up to three addition escort substitutions (to get different escorts than those normally listed). In addition to that you can convert one escort per starbase in the production step. In addition to that you can replace lost escorts during retrograde with the CEDS rules (multiple conversions per starbase, pull production from next turn, etc). Rule (450.5) in planetary ops changes the standard rule to allow multiple conversion in the production step per starbase (up to the cost limits).
If I had my way, I would delete CEDs and replace it with unlimited allowed substitutions. Example: Scheduled 9D5, sub 9AD5 ... K.I.S.S.
ANSWER: lots of people don't like CEDS, but the balance of the game is built around it and removing it now would cause an entire cascade of changes, so it's not likely.
===============================================
David Baldwin: Question with specific example and general implication/application:
Q: Is the only way to produce the Lyran FCR in an historical scenario to convert a FF?
Specifically, the Lyran FCR is not included in allowable substitutions. So production (by any means) is limited to conversion only for this ship.
(701) Regular Ships: Can produce one FCR per turn by any means (526.34).
(711.2) LYRAN ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS: No listing of FCR.
(711.3) PRODUCTION NOTES: No more than one FCR per year by any means.
SIT: LYRAN FCR has a conversion column AND a substitution column.
I'm learning to read the OB better, using the SIT less.
ANSWER: Since the FCR has a substitution column on the SIT, that is the same as having an allowed substitution. So you can always simply build an FCR in place of one of your scheduled FFs for the build cost listed. Thus you get an FCR and don't use one of your conversion slots in the process.
==================================================
David Baldwin:
Q1: Does the SIT count as a source for allowing substituions?
ANSWER: Yes
Q2: Does "production by any means" allow substitutions that aren't listed on the OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
From reading the entire Q&A archives, I've been led to believe subs are not allowed unless listed. Each OB has a list of allowable substitutions. A quick scan shows many classes not listed as allowed, the FCR from the previous post, X ships, escorts for PFTs right up front.
ANSWER: The substitution list in the OB is pretty general. It gives you some of the more common subs, but the SIT has many more. Subs listed in both places are allowed so long as the ships in question have met the year in service date and various other limits.
=================================================
David Baldwin:
IRT FCR substitution:
(526.34) CREATION: Each race can build one FCR per turn, either by substitution or conversion for the appropriate hull type.
This would be a general rule?, superceded by a specific rule? i.e. OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
IRT X-Ship substitution:
(523.111) X-ships replace non-X ships of the equivalent hull type on the production schedule.
This would be a general rule?, superceded by a specific rule? i.e. OB ALLOWABLE SUBSTITUTIONS?
ANSWER: The allowed substitutions are those in the OB and on the SIT. So you can build one FCR per turn either by Sub or conversion. This is why the SIT entry has a conversion cost and a sub/build cost column. X ships also list the sub/build cost and conversion cost on the SIT. The sub list in the OB is general, it is by no means complete.
==================================================
Scott Tenhoff: Nick, may I conduct a E&S Prime Team mission, to disrupt a SMN, BEFORE a SMN is activated?
Here is the sequence as I understand it.
C.Turn X. Coalition captures planet
C.Turn X+1 Coalition has kept planet, eligble as an SMN.
Now if the Alliance wants to disrupt it (and they can't retake it). They would have to conduct the mission on A.Turn X, because on C.X+1 it's already activated.
Does the Alliance have to wait to conduct the mission on A.Turn X+1? Thus giving the Coalition 1 turn's use of it as a SMN.
This could also be applied to setting up a MB, can I disrupt it being used as a SMN on the Alliance part of the turn it's being assembled.
ANSWER: I think you have to wait. The rule allows the prime team to attack a SMN, but the planet/base is not a SMN under the situation you describe.
===================================
James Southcott: The Hydrans are the phasing player and have got themselves into a battle that they really want to avoid. With this in mind they want to put the minimum number of ships into the battle force and then retreat. The force present is THR, PGV, DE, AH, CR, SC.
That’s 6 units + 1.5 SE of fighters.
Minimum force allows 2 ships to be rejected as command ships (lets say the PGV and THR).
This excludes 2 ships and 1 SE of fighters. Leaving 4.5 units.
2 Questions – How many are forced to fight? – I’m guessing just 2 and the fractions are lost.
ANSWER: First, rule (302.36) says "round fractions up" so you don't drop fractions. I don't think the fighters count in the calculation unless they are independent though. So 2 ships must be included.
Secondly – could the ships that have been excluded from the ‘½ the ships must fight’ calculations (on the basis that they were rejected command ships) provide fighters into the line from the support echelon? So, if the answer to part 1 was 2 ships then could the Hydrans put the CR on the line with 6 ftrs delivered from the escorted PGV?
This would seem a bit odd because the fighters have been excluded from adding to the number of ships which are then halved to give the minimum that must fight, but are able to fulfill part of the minimum force.
ANSWER: Odd but irrelevent. It was excluded from the 1/2 calculation, not from the battleforce.
========================================
Clell Flint: I have a question regarding rule 709.0 Hydran OB
Are the hex numbers listed for setting up each fleet supposed to mean you can only setup on those bases, or are they supposed to define those provinces. I've always assumed bases because 1217 and 1219 both listed for the 1st fleet are in the same province. Also most other races specifically state things like within 2 hexes of ...
ANSWER: It does not say provinces, so you set up in any of those specific hexes. The earlier discussion was on whether some races could set up all in one such hex, or if they had to put at least one ship in each such hex listed (they don't).
=======================================
Clell Flint: Question regarding Hydran pre-war setup 601.162:
If the Hydrans continue to not be at war past T2 are there fleets restricted to thier initial deployment zones or are they released. Based on 601.2 Turn 3 Forces available you could say they are released, but if they don't attack and aren't attacked it seems like they shouldn't be.
ANSWER: I believe they are still released. You are just not required to attack. The Coalition can attack you on turn 4 regardless of whether you attack or not on turn 3.
==============================================
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 09:25 pm: Edit
Something I've been meaning to ask....I thought I had at one point.
A captured ship can be converted into anything the original owning race can convert it to (with some exceptions).
What about unique ships or ships that have limits on their number in service? How many can the capturing race make?
I mean if the klingons captured 3 Fed CA's could they convert them to 3 CADs? (not that they would, just wondering if it's possible?)
Here's a wierder possibility if the Klingons captured a CA and turned it into a CAD and the Feds were able to capture it back and already had a CAD in service, what happens? Is this an exception to the rule of number in service because of how unlikely it is to occur?
I also assume that "production by any means" includes conversion of captured ships to variants....Otherwise all the •••••• E4s I've captured recently could have been made into FCRs
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit
You cannot convert to limited types.
By David Baldwin (Djdave) on Sunday, November 28, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit
Nick,
Thanks. Go SIT!
Dave
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 01:55 am: Edit
I must say after reading the ruing for (601.12) above (24 Nov) that I am really confused by its meaning and the meaning of the exisiting rule as written. I thought that it was ruled years ago that if the Klingons invade Kzinti that the Marquis fleet area was released; this new ruling seems counter to that. Nick, can you clarify what this ruling means and what can and cannot happen as a result?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit
The ships are released except for six ships including the CC when klingons enter kzinti space. The marquis territory itself is not released, so no upgrading bases in that area. If the Klingons invade the marquis area itself then it is fully released.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit
The following question is posed with the proviso that I am referencing F&E2K for rules 601.12 and 601.2 (the 24th through 26th lines of text of 601.2 specifically state that the Marquis Fleet is released, excepting only the six ships and making no mention of the territory not being released with the fleet). If there was a change to this rule, would someone please reference the product for me?
So the following ruling is now countermanded? Was there considered discussion or will there be discussion later?
---
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.
---
I am sure I've seen this ruling in several other places too, but the above was simply the first one that came up on a keyword search using 'marquis release' in the FE topic.
I note that building the dual Marquis SB on turns 2-5 was a widely known tactic that had been accepted-as-legal by everyone I know of on this board for as long as I've been playing FE (until the recent dual-SB discussion, of course).
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit
I agree with Todd. So why are we going back and changing rulings yet again? We all have been playing with the ruling that said ALL BUT THE SIX SHIPS are released from the Marquis for the past few years.
I must say that I am disappointed with ADB's consistency on this point; first we are told you could not upgrade bases in the Marquis, then we are told only the six ships are locked in the Marquis area and now we go back. If this can be changed back and forth what's next?
This reminds me of the OLD days were you had to carry around a stack of Nexus mags to follow the series of SFB rule changes then overrides. Back then it was called ADDENDA and it appears to have raised its head in F&E.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 12:54 am: Edit
Hopefully one of many things that will get laid to rest when someday arrives, and F&E gets its doomsday edition.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 02:11 pm: Edit
Don't have my rules handy. Will provide the appropriate paragraph references tonight if needed.
Can a Commando Raid and a Special Raid be launched against the same target? The way I read the SoP they could, since the Commando Raid is during the Normal Raid phase and the Special Raid is during the Special Raid phase.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Guys, that is the ruling. If you want to discuss it please put it in another topic.
During the double SB discussion the Marquis area status was also discussed, the original (area not released), and the older change (area is released, can build starbases without coalition interference). Steve Cole noted that the marquis question was something that could be looked at as a separate issue.
While putting together the rulings for CL#30 I noted to Steve that the marquis release status was in question, and that was the ruling he made.
You can appeal to him I suppose, but he made the ruling, not me. If I didn't give him enough info then that's my fault, but I think I was clear on what was going on.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 03:55 pm: Edit
Craig, I can check when I get to my rules, don't have them here at work.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit
The F&E2K rules are absolutely clear that the Marquis area is released. Is there a later rule that is printed somewhere?
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 09:10 pm: Edit
Appeal text from F&E2K:
(601.12) Kzinti Marquis Fleet may move freely after the Klingons enter Kzinti territory, but must leave six ships from the original fleet, including a Command Cruiser, in the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone. These ships (and the Federation 4th Fleet) are released if a Coalition (or Orion mercenary hired by the Coalition) unit enters either of those provinces.
(600.3) FLEET RELEASE STATUS
(2nd Paragraph)
If the fleet is released (activated), all restrictions are dropped immediately. These rules cover only unreleased fleets. Note that the provinces occupied by an unreleased fleet are restricted by these rules as well as the fleet itself.
I'll let you guys argue it out as there is no way Steve (IMHO) will want to change his mind after he posted the re-revised ruling.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 09:48 pm: Edit
From my viewpoint, SVC just made the Marquis like the Fed 5th Fleet - most of the fleet gets to play with the invaders though the territory (and bases) remain inactive, the Kzinti just have more ships in their detachment than the Feds do...
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit
KC posted some useful ammunition for this issue, but F&E2K's 601.2 isn't even arguable:
"If the Klingons enter Kzinti territory, the Marquis Fleet (except for the designated six ships) is released."
There's nothing there to interpret. The fleet is released and KC's 600.3 quote then applies. A change may have been made in a later product, but no one has said so here that I've read.
So my question stands. Has there been a change to this rule in a published product?
Further, if not, is SVC aware of the contradiction between the clearly printed rule and the most recent ruling? Also, given the new rules on dual bases, what reason would there be to change the Marquis status?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 08:38 am: Edit
The marquis TERRITORY is only released if Klingons enter the Marquis TERRITORY. It's always been that way since 1986.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit
601.2 turn 2 refers ONLY to the SHIPS of the fleet. It does NOT release the TERRITORY.
This has been a point of confusion which is now unconfused. Not all F&E players accepted either interpretation but the ruling makes this abundantly clear.
I've got notes of making this ruling on the BBS about two weeks after the 2K rulebook came out but I think they got lost and were never "published".
At least now it is absolutely clear what it ALWAYS meant. There never was a change from the 1986 rule.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 01:41 pm: Edit
When activating the Romulan VLV from the Imperial War Reserve (mothballs), do you have to pay for the fighters?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit
Craig Tenhoff:
Can a Commando Raid and a Special Raid be launched against the same target? The way I read the SoP they could, since the Commando Raid is during the Normal Raid phase and the Special Raid is during the Special Raid phase.
ANSWER: I don't see why not. There is a prohibition against attacking the same target unit with two simultaneous special raids, but a commando raid is as you note a normal raid.
====================================
Derek Meserve:
When activating the Romulan VLV from the Imperial War Reserve (mothballs), do you have to pay for the fighters?
ANSWER: The VLV rule says it is activated under the IWR rules. The IWR rules says one EP per ship, and the Vultures (added in AO) are a 4 pt minor conversion to activate.
Presumably the VLV would thus require a 4 pt minor conversion to activate, and so I suppose the fighters already exist (they were paid for when the VLV was originally built, right?).
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 02:54 pm: Edit
Nick - I think you previously ruled (although I can't find it now) that the fighters had to be paid for on the VLV
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 03:51 pm: Edit
Here's another question on the VLV: does activating it count against the one CNV/SUB/PHX per year? For example, could I activate one in Spring, then build one in Fall?
(I'm assuming the VLV would count against the CNV limit.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 07:28 pm: Edit
The Hydrans gets their DN activations with fighters included, I dont see why the Roms would be different.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 06:40 am: Edit
From the Q&A archive file:
(704.0) Activation of the VLV requires buying its fighters
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 09:46 am: Edit
The Hydrans and Roms should be the same. I'll let Nick work up a case file so I can decide which rule they will both use.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 10:02 am: Edit
Then there is the Zin DDV which gets half it's fighters free.
IIRC the PAL and VLV they were given different rules because the VLV came in as part of FO and there was no equivalent for the Alliance in that product(CR10 escortable ship with 10 free fighters).
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Friday, December 03, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit
The DDV (6 EPs of free fighters) and PAL (6 EPs of free fighters) were worked into the balance equations for AO.
Note that in AO,
(442.51) provides for reduced cost activation, with 0 cost fighters. These are hybrid fighters. The rule specifically notes that these are free "reflecting the activation of reserve units".
(525.313) provides for free activation of a carrier, the DDV. The fighters have to be paid for at half the normal rate (1 EP each).
(525.314) provides for free activation of a carrier, the CLV. However, the fighters have to be paid for at the full rate (2 EPs each).
There are already at least 3 different methods for calculating fighter costs for activated ships. I'm not sure there is a need to make them all the same.
The (704.0) rule above (the VLV has to buy its fighters) was from the CL29 AAR for FO.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit
Ok, so the VLV must buy its fighters since that was in CL#29 (I forgot about that, sorry about the error).
I don't know if Steve wants to make all carrier activations the same rule or not, but as it stands it seems to be on a case by case basis (which must be why I can never remember how it works).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:42 am: Edit
Nick,
Which, if any, methods of producing a police flagship [(PO-531.3) and (PO-531.122)] count against the production limit of ground combat ships (CO-521.23)? Also, does the use of (PO-531.122) to substitute an FLG for an FF count against the scout substitution limit (FE2K-432.41)?
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 01:27 pm: Edit
Nick,
giving your precedent ruling on (448.28) - unconquered planets being captured after their province is annexed-
1) What are the status of these planets? Devastated or not? Supply? Strategic Node? Long term captured as the province?
2) What is the fate of PDU, PGB, PRD, Monitors?
3) What is the fate of other non ship units?
Another topic, Raids & interception
I've always thought that the phasing players was the "attacking player" but the last PO rules say that the intercepting player get a +1 when attacking raiding drone ships if using the small combat rule. This used give me some doubts.
I think that there are many occasion where the raiding player don't want to be the attacker, blockade runners first. So,...
Who is the attacker in the resolution of small combat during raids?
Bye
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit
Nick
Expeditionary Fleet (411.7) question.
In my current game it was pointed out that a player only designates an "Expeditionary Fleet" and not specific expeditionary ships. As long as the designated Expeditionary Fleet exists, can which units are covered by that fleet change during a turn? (411.72) only sets maximum limits on the size of an Expeditionary Fleet and how close the ships have to be to be considered in the Fleet. (411.74) only refers to the cost of an Expeditionary Fleet calculated by how many units it will support.
Example:
The Lyrans pay 3 EP for an Expeditionary Fleet on T9C. This fleet loses 3 ships attacking a Federation target. The Lyrans argue that their Expeditionary Fleet supplies 12 ships and they then want to retrograde 3 ships from Kzinti space to the location of the Expeditionary Fleet (in Fed space). The Lyrans note that the extra 3 ships satisfy (411.72) in that they are less than six hexes from the Expeditionary Fleet. Also, at no time was the max limit on the number of units in the Expeditionary Fleet violated.
The Federation cannot find a technical argument against this, but notes that regardless, that's just stupid and the logical consequence is for the Lyrans (or Kzinti) to op move 12 ships into the Federation, cripple or destroy them all, retro out any survivors and retro in another fresh batch for the opponent's upcoming turn.
Both sides acknowledge that this is a "letter of the law" vs. a "spirit of the law" argument. Both sides would just like an official ruling so we can get on with snuffing out the lives of millions of simulated sentients.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit
Dale, personally I wouldn't allow it. An Expeditionalry fleet is designated during the Economic Phase (and moved in the Movement Phase) and regardless of what happens to it, cannot be added to until the next Economic Phase (where it is designated). Otherwise you'd end up with more than 12 designated ships. Especially in this case, in which only an Lyran Exp could be in Fed space until after Turn 9 (602.14).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 09:56 am: Edit
On the VLV and PAL, one is a true carrier while the other is a hybrid, so they are not quite the same... If you wanted to be absolutly fair, the VLV should pay 1 per fighter factor.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Nick,
A couple of "am I reading this right?" questions, from FE2K:
1) Two CWs are towing an FRD, per (421.23); if one of the CWs is crippled during Slow Unit Retreat (302.742), the FRD is no longer under tow and is destroyed as per point C of that rule, correct?
2) Regarding captured Hydran ships, is (305.43) absolute, with no exceptions? I find that it makes for some odd results, generally with the scouts and ground attack ships, so I'm wondering if there was a limitation printed that I've missed.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit
Nick,
A standard kzinti CV group (CV, MEC, EFF) is being pursued by klingon.
The MEC is crippled, FF and CV not. They remain disposed as a group.
(308.1) say that the pursuit is resolved as a normal combat round. The pursuer can target any crippled ship he want to and they count all as is single dirdam attack.
Does this mean that he can target the MEC alone avoiding the FO rule that say that you can only target the entire group OR the most "small" escort? ("small" is incorrect, i know but... it's too late now, i'm going to sleep )
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 01:28 am: Edit
wow, this same question was asked just recently.
The MEC cannot be targeted, just the EFF.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 08:21 am: Edit
Thank you Chris, i've missed it.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit
Something for Nick and SVC:
Page nine of Planetary Operations (PO) has the sector deployment of both raids and megafighters
1) It repeatedly uses "Command" rather than "Commando." This looks to be a global spell check error from MS Word.
2) For the Federation megafighter deployment it as one Megafighter per spring turn for sector C, one per fall turn for sector E and _one per year_ for Sector D, the Federation main effort sector.
The Feds can build six megafighter counter per year, four of various types and two National Guard F16. This should read at a minumum of one megafighter counter per turn for Sector D and mention the availability of the National Guard F16.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 05:58 pm: Edit
Nick,
From Advanced Operations, Sequence of Play, Step 5, Combat:
"5-1F: If all defending units withdraw from the hex then the battle hex is resolved, return to the start of the combat proceedures. If withdrawing units contain crippled units, then attacker may choose to pursue using step 8 below. If any opposing units remain then resolve combat using the steps below."
But in F&E2K rulebook, rule 302.12, states:
"If the attacking player did not oppose the withdrawal, the defender may retreat some or all of his ships and there is no pursuit. Note that only ships can retreat, not non-ship units."
Rule 302.15 also confirms there will be no pursuit if the withdrawal was unopposed.
So... which is correct? Can I withdraw my cripples along with the rest of my fleet and avoid pursuit, or must I always leave behind at least one frigate to block the pursuers?
Also note that 302.12 and 302.15 implies that I can withdraw my cripples as long as the withdrawal was unopposed. But if it were opposed, I could still use 302.13 to pull out half my ships (approximately), thus probably evacuating the cripples safely. Any pursuit would be dependant on any cripples being around after a minimum of one battle round. But 302.12 and 302.15 seem rather specific that *unopposed* withdrawal can escape without pursuit, implying that opposed withdrawal is different and would have pursuit. Why the implication - is there something I am missing?
If you wish an example:
I have 20 ships in an open space hex. 10 of them are crippled. You attack with 20 ships. I attempt withdrawal.
A.O. 5-1F implies that even if you do not oppose my withdrawal, you can still pursue my cripples.
F&E2K 302.12 and 302.15 says that if you did not oppose withdrawal I escape for free, but by ommission seems to imply that if you did oppose my withdrawal, I could withdraw half (the 10 cripples), self kill 3 ships in combat (thus no new cripples), and maybe there still would be a pursuit battle? Or perhaps I'm reading to much into an implication by ommision. If so, then AO sequence of play is incorrect.
Thanks in advance.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:18 pm: Edit
questions downloaded. I hope to have answers up this weekend.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 11:01 pm: Edit
Kevin, I believe the unopposed withdrawal is referring to the withdrawal before combat. If you're in Step 5, then you've already skipped the withdrawal step.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit
Intra-Racial Transfer (455.3) question.
A on-map partial supply grid is formed and has 10 EP in it. At what point can a TG be sent to grab those EP? If a TG in the main supply grid is designated mission H (move EP) and a strat path is opened up to the grid by the strategic movement phase, can the TG go in, grab the EP and deliver them back to the capital on the same turn?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 07:57 pm: Edit
Dave Butler: Which, if any, methods of producing a police flagship [(PO-531.3) and (PO-531.122)] count against the production limit of ground combat ships (CO-521.23)? Also, does the use of (PO-531.122) to substitute an FLG for an FF count against the scout substitution limit (FE2K-432.41)?
ANSWER: I would say that anything "called up" does not count against any production limits, rule (531.12) and (531.31) both say it does not count against production limits. Building any additional ships (531.122) would presumably count against any applicable limits.
=============================
Fabio Poli: giving your precedent ruling on (448.28) - unconquered planets being captured after their province is annexed-
1) What are the status of these planets? Devastated or not? Supply? Strategic Node? Long term captured as the province?
ANSWER: Not devastated (assuming they were not devastated to begin with) since they switched sides non-violently over a long term period. They would join the new owners supply grid on the next player turn as usual.
2) What is the fate of PDU, PGB, PRD, Monitors?
ANSWER: There wouldn't be PDUs (fighters), monitors and so on since then it wouldn't count as a captured province (430.22) and thus wouldn't be a long term captured province and thus you couldn't annex it in the first place.
3) What is the fate of other non ship units?
ANSWER: I don't think there would be any since then the province couldn't be annexed in the first place.
Another topic, Raids & interception
I've always thought that the phasing players was the "attacking player" but the last PO rules say that the intercepting player get a +1 when attacking raiding drone ships if using the small combat rule. This used give me some doubts.
I think that there are many occasion where the raiding player don't want to be the attacker, blockade runners first. So,...
Who is the attacker in the resolution of small combat during raids?
ANSWER: Simply do it however it makes the most sense. Since the chart in (310.0) is symmetrical it doesn't matter too much. The rule is probably written with the intention that the interceptor is "attacking" the drone ship (which was itself attacking another target), thus the +1 is correct. If you wish to keep the raiding drone ship as the "attacker", then you would have to use a -1 modifier so as to remain in the interceptor's favor. You end up with the same result either way. Just be clear which way you are handling it before you roll the die.
=============================
Dale Lloyd Fields: Expeditionary Fleet (411.7) question.
In my current game it was pointed out that a player only designates an "Expeditionary Fleet" and not specific expeditionary ships. As long as the designated Expeditionary Fleet exists, can which units are covered by that fleet change during a turn? (411.72) only sets maximum limits on the size of an Expeditionary Fleet and how close the ships have to be to be considered in the Fleet. (411.74) only refers to the cost of an Expeditionary Fleet calculated by how many units it will support.
Example:
The Lyrans pay 3 EP for an Expeditionary Fleet on T9C. This fleet loses 3 ships attacking a Federation target. The Lyrans argue that their Expeditionary Fleet supplies 12 ships and they then want to retrograde 3 ships from Kzinti space to the location of the Expeditionary Fleet (in Fed space). The Lyrans note that the extra 3 ships satisfy (411.72) in that they are less than six hexes from the Expeditionary Fleet. Also, at no time was the max limit on the number of units in the Expeditionary Fleet violated.
The Federation cannot find a technical argument against this, but notes that regardless, that's just stupid and the logical consequence is for the Lyrans (or Kzinti) to op move 12 ships into the Federation, cripple or destroy them all, retro out any survivors and retro in another fresh batch for the opponent's upcoming turn.
Both sides acknowledge that this is a "letter of the law" vs. a "spirit of the law" argument. Both sides would just like an official ruling so we can get on with snuffing out the lives of millions of simulated sentients.
ANSWER: Good question, and the rule could probably be interpreted either way. I think though that it makes more logical sense to treat it the same as the homeless situation where you designate the specific ships in the economic step and can only change it in the next turn economic step. For one from the precident of homeless ships, but also from the perspective of what the rule is simulating: You are paying money to ship supplies long distance. So if you had a carrier group and drone ships in your exp fleet, the supply train you paid for on the start of the turn has replacement fighters, booster packs, extra drones etc, but won't have those photon torp circuit breaker replacements. So if your exp fleet carrier group and drone ships get blown away, and you want to replace them mid turn with NCL war cruisers, the supplies currently in the pipeline (stretching perhaps from Earth to the Kzinti Count territory) won't be the right types for those ships. On the next turn you can designate which new ships are in the exp fleet by making sure the correct supplies get funneled on their way.
=======================
Dave Butler: A couple of "am I reading this right?" questions, from FE2K:
1) Two CWs are towing an FRD, per (421.23); if one of the CWs is crippled during Slow Unit Retreat (302.742), the FRD is no longer under tow and is destroyed as per point C of that rule, correct?
ANSWER: Correct.
2) Regarding captured Hydran ships, is (305.43) absolute, with no exceptions? I find that it makes for some odd results, generally with the scouts and ground attack ships, so I'm wondering if there was a limitation printed that I've missed.
ANSWER: I don't know of any exceptions off hand.
==========================
Fabio Poli: A standard kzinti CV group (CV, MEC, EFF) is being pursued by klingon. The MEC is crippled, FF and CV not. They remain disposed as a group. (308.1) say that the pursuit is resolved as a normal combat round. The pursuer can target any crippled ship he want to and they count all as is single dirdam attack.
Does this mean that he can target the MEC alone avoiding the FO rule that say that you can only target the entire group OR the most "small" escort? ("small" is incorrect, i know but... it's too late now, i'm going to sleep )
ANSWER: No, the pursuit rule ONLY allows you to target more than one unit as a direct damage attack so long as ALL the targets are crippled. There is no provision to change the way carrier groups (CEDS) are handled so you must still observe the CEDS rules. Also, note that rule (307.4) says "only crippled ships can be targeted in this way) when talking about directing on multiple ships. So, if you are pursuing 3 crippled FFs, and a carrier group with one crippled escort, you have a choice. You can either target 1-3 FFs as a DD attack under the pursuit rules, or you can direct on the carrier group under the normal rules (hitting either the smallest escort which may or may not be the crippled one, or hitting the entire group as a unit). You cannot direct on both the carrier group and the FFs using the special pursuit rule unless ALL the units in question are crippled. I.e. if you had a completely crippled carrier group, you could direct on the entire group in addition to other crippled ships assuming you had enough damage to do so.
==========================
Kevin Howard: From Advanced Operations, Sequence of Play, Step 5, Combat:
"5-1F: If all defending units withdraw from the hex then the battle hex is resolved, return to the start of the combat proceedures. If withdrawing units contain crippled units, then attacker may choose to pursue using step 8 below. If any opposing units remain then resolve combat using the steps below."
But in F&E2K rulebook, rule 302.12, states:
"If the attacking player did not oppose the withdrawal, the defender may retreat some or all of his ships and there is no pursuit. Note that only ships can retreat, not non-ship units."
Rule 302.15 also confirms there will be no pursuit if the withdrawal was unopposed.
So... which is correct? Can I withdraw my cripples along with the rest of my fleet and avoid pursuit, or must I always leave behind at least one frigate to block the pursuers?
Also note that 302.12 and 302.15 implies that I can withdraw my cripples as long as the withdrawal was unopposed. But if it were opposed, I could still use 302.13 to pull out half my ships (approximately), thus probably evacuating the cripples safely. Any pursuit would be dependant on any cripples being around after a minimum of one battle round. But 302.12 and 302.15 seem rather specific that *unopposed* withdrawal can escape without pursuit, implying that opposed withdrawal is different and would have pursuit. Why the implication - is there something I am missing?
If you wish an example:
I have 20 ships in an open space hex. 10 of them are crippled. You attack with 20 ships. I attempt withdrawal.
A.O. 5-1F implies that even if you do not oppose my withdrawal, you can still pursue my cripples.
F&E2K 302.12 and 302.15 says that if you did not oppose withdrawal I escape for free, but by ommission seems to imply that if you did oppose my withdrawal, I could withdraw half (the 10 cripples), self kill 3 ships in combat (thus no new cripples), and maybe there still would be a pursuit battle? Or perhaps I'm reading to much into an implication by ommision. If so, then AO sequence of play is incorrect.
Thanks in advance.
ANSWER: We probably messed up on the SOP, it was not meant to change the rule. On this point treat the SOP as more of a summary, since the rule itself contains more information go with that as correct. The SOP simply does not have the space to reprint the complete rule and so had a shortened version (which we probably shouldn't have mentioned pursuit on), it is meant to give you the sequence, not necessarily all the details of exactly what is permitted in each step.
========================================
Dale Lloyd Fields: Intra-Racial Transfer (455.3) question.
A on-map partial supply grid is formed and has 10 EP in it. At what point can a TG be sent to grab those EP? If a TG in the main supply grid is designated mission H (move EP) and a strat path is opened up to the grid by the strategic movement phase, can the TG go in, grab the EP and deliver them back to the capital on the same turn?
ANSWER: I don't see why not. Keep in mind when income is actually generated though (430.13). If you start turn 3 with fully connected supply grid, all income goes to the capital in the turn 3 economic phase. During the turn an enemy's sneaky reserve fleet movement cuts your grid in half making a partial grid. If you still somehow have a strat move path, you can't pick up EPs from the grid on that same turn (turn 3), since the income from that partial grid area was already transferred to the capital earlier in the turn. On your next turn (turn 4), if the partial grid is still cut off, then in the economic step it would generate say, 10 EPs. These could then be picked up on that turn by a tug at various times (op move, strat move).
====================================
By David Bloomberg (Davidb) on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit
Hi all, a newbie question;
I've acquired what I guess to be an older copy of F&E which I believe it is the pre-deluxe version. I'm an old SFB'er but am anxious to try F&E. Can I use the old counters from my version or the deluxe version reinforcements pack with the F&E2000 rules? If not, are there a lot of counters that need replacing and what product would I buy to bring my counter set up to date?
Thanks for your help,
David
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 06:50 am: Edit
Deluxe reinforcements replaced most of the 'bad' counters from the pre-deluxe game. I would recommend that you order the newer reinforcements pack and a copy of the F&E2K rules. That should have your basic set completely caught up and give you enough counters to play with for a while.
Fair warning though. There never seem to be enough counters in F&E no mater how many extra counters you get.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 08:09 pm: Edit
Nick/Jeff/SVC:
(601.12) I am very confused by CL30's ruling. Please define the term "area" in this statement from CL30 "...or until the Klingons invade the area."
Side note so does the ruling also mean that the Lyran/Orions can attack the Marquis and NOT activate the Feds?
The original (601.12) from F&E2K defined this area as "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone".
Please clarify -- thanks.
Chuck
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 08:49 am: Edit
I don't understand the confusion.
The area is the marquis set up area.
Orion pirates wouldn't activate anyone (although Orion mercenaries would). Lyrans would too.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 09:11 am: Edit
Nick
Suppose I use 2 Wild SWACS to remove enemy drone bombardment or reduce the battle BIR for both sides as given in that table.
The rule says that neither blow up on 4-6, one blows on 2-3, and both blow on a 1.
Can I assign compot as normal to protect these SWACS? i.e. does 18 compot generate a +3 mod such that both SWACS are automatically saved, or does 18 compot only give a +3 mod to "one" SWAC, giving the following interpretation of the table....
roll 1 - one swac dead. (equiv. 1 and 4)
roll 2-3 - 50% chance of one Swac dead. Roll again to see if the one you protected was the one that would have died (and is thus saved by the protection).
There is another possible interpretation. Because this involves 2 SWACS, I need to spend 12 compot for a +1 modifier to the roll.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:38 am: Edit
Then what is the significance the phrase in (601.12) of: "the two provinces adjacent to the Federation Neutral Zone"?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:42 am: Edit
Asked and answered.
The original rule was confused, contraditory, nonsensical, wrong, and a hodge-podge of two different concepts (one of which was right, one of which was wrong).
The CL30 data corrects and consolidates this. Anything in F&E which doesn't mesh with CL30 is WRONG and can be ignored. CL30 IS THE RULE.
The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean I didn't give you the answer.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 12:09 pm: Edit
Cross-post deleted by author.
BTW, the fact that I didn't fully understand the original answer doesn't mean I didn't like your answer. I was confused and wanted to clearly understand the ruling.
Nonetheless, thank you for making it very clear to me now.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 07:45 pm: Edit
One other thing, Chuck. In Advanced Ops the Marquis lost 3 hexes to the Duke's Fleet. So, the Marquis doesn't have two full province anymore. Just one and a half.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit
Jeff, I can see two hexes shifted to the Duke (1705, 1805) but not a third...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit
Stewart:
Hex 1804 is also within two hexes of the Klingon border -- see (705.0 DUKE'S FLEET).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 09:57 pm: Edit
Aahhhh, forgot about that, since 1804 is on the Fed border...oh well, goes to prove that the Kzinti have been losing ground to the Klingons for some time now....hehehehe
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit
The double SB topic in proposals seems to have disappeared. Can someone either repost the final rule here or send it to sdzafovic at canada.com. Thanks.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 04:11 pm: Edit
It's in CL30. I'll send it to Nick and Joe to include in the on-line rulings file.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 04:20 pm: Edit
Ok, I posted it to the topic and we'll see if it migrates to the on-line database.
By Nathan Leonard (Nwlaz) on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit
Quick question. If the Romulans do not attack the Federation on Turn 10, can they begin to survey their on-map provinces?
Rule 602.49B states that races at Limited War cannot conduct surveys, but I want to ensure that there hasn't been a ruling that I might have missed.
Thanks for the clarification.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit
Nick,
What's the proceedure for converting your answers to questions into official errata (by which I mean the file found by following "Online Resources"->"Errata"->"Federation & Empire Errata" from the main page)? The reason I ask is that I'm pretty sure that I've seen Nwlaz's question asked and answered before (the answer being, as I recall, that (505.0) requires you to be at a War economy, and that's it), but I can't find it using the Search. So I'm wondering how your answers -- which of course have Force of Rules -- get translated into actual compiled rules changes, and don't require using Search (or wading through 3000 posts). On a related topic, what sort of timeframe are we looking at for the Errata file be updated with the CL30 stuff?
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 02:46 pm: Edit
I asked this over in the ISC War topic, but there was no response.
What are the Depot Level Repair tracks for the ISC?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 08:20 pm: Edit
Sean, I'd assume that the ISC Depot would follow either the Fed or Klingon pattern...
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 09:43 pm: Edit
The ISC are still under deveolpment, so it's not appropriate IMHO to ask that here.
Besides, the only one who can really answer is SVC, and he's on vacation, so to speak.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:51 pm: Edit
Greg, while true, speculation is still allowed...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 06:56 am: Edit
The ISC has its own topic for such speculation during playtesting.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:11 pm: Edit
I posted to the topic and noone answered. So it got posted here.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 04:37 am: Edit
Sean, the reason it didn't get answered is that they probably have never been published. Ergo, you got no answer. I read your post and could not comment. You are welcome to try again in ISC war, actually asking people to reply "no" if they don't know. Another option is to look through the ISC war archives, but I have never heard any mention of this there.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 07:37 pm: Edit
Sean, I don't know if steve has determined what those are for the ISC or not yet, so I can't answer.
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |