January - Febuary 2005 Archive

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Nick,
When doing a capitol assult, if the attacker only spends enough command points to be used in 1 system, when is that system announced, at the first round of approach (when command points are reveailed) or after revealing the first set of attacks inside the cap system?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Sorry for the delays here, I have been very busy over the holidays, and am just finishing up housesitting. I will be home and hope to get to questions this week.

Nick
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 09:12 pm: Edit

Tim, the number of CPs are announced for the first approach battle but are not tied to any system (308.94). Example, 1 CP would allow one system to have the extra ship and the system could be changed once per 'round' (though after all declared system(s) has/had been fought).
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 01:04 pm: Edit

well, the way I read 308.94...
________________________________________
Quote:
...and this selection (including the system involved) must be announced the first time the points are used.
________________________________________

seems to state that when the points are first used (in the approach battle) that the system allocation is announced.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:16 pm: Edit

Tim, that sentence is an option, ie instead of 2 CP = +1 CR in all systems, 2 CP = +2 CR in one (announced) system.

Odd CPs usage results in a 'floating' system (one system will have an extra ship).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:27 pm: Edit

Nick,
Regarding the note in (704.2) about Romulan payment for the KC9, when (i.e., during which game phase of T6C) are the 13 EP added to the Klingon economy? Also, do they show up as part of the general economy, or are they dropped as a Satelite Stockpile at one (or more) of the hexes on the Klingon-Tholian border?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 01:03 am: Edit

Nick,
I hate to do this to you, but I need something clarified, and I think it's one of those "appeal" things.
On February 15th, 2004, you ruled that it was impossible for the defending player to assign ships to a base during the resolution of a raid unless those ships were crippled.
Later that day, Fabio Poli requested a "Second Appeal" on this ruling, but there appears to have been no action taken regarding it, so far as I can tell (there's an awful lot of stuff since then, and I may have missed it).
So. If one cannot assign non-crippled ships to a base, what purpose is served by (314.251)?
I note that rule (314.254) indicates that crippled ships are, by default, assigned to the base (unless the defending player chooses to send them into combat, by (314.25)).
It also seems to me that the bit from CL26 -- upon which your ruling was, in part, based -- saying that uncrippled ships aren't protected by bases, could be interpreted as a simple prohibition against having a ship out fighting the raider and then sheltering under the guns of a base when the raider invokes (314.28).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 10:07 pm: Edit

David Slatter: 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.

ANSWER: Having a second swac changes the results of the die roll, but it doesn't change the die roll itself or the modifier from sacrificing compot. So with one swac and a + 2 modifier from sacrificing 12 compot means a roll of 4, 5, or 6 (+2=6, 7, or 8) saves the swac while a roll of 1 (+2=3) would mean swac destroyed. If this were two swacs with a +2 modifier from sacrificing 12 compot then a roll of 4 (+2=6) would mean both swacs survive while a roll of 1 (+2=3) means one swac survives and one is destroyed.

==========================================================

Nathan Leonard: 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.

ANSWER: I don't know of any other ruling, so the on-map province exploration should probably be treated like surveying as you say. They have to attack and enter the war if they want to explore outside their initial set up areas.

===================================================

Dave Butler: 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?

ANSWER: Questions and Answers accumulate in this topic. When each cap log rolls around the topic is scanned for fun things to use for the Q&A part of cap log. Anything that was more than just clarification or a simple rules answer (i.e. something that is a change or requires errata) is written up as such and used in the RULES and RULINGS part of cap log. Also, Origins tends to generate some important rulings when the gang gets together there with Steve Cole, and I keep a log of such rulings and they also make their way into the RULES and RULINGS in the next cap log. The RULES and RULINGS section of each cap log then gets added to the master file. I know, I know, I need to do that for the last few cap logs, something I have let slide for too long. Must find the time to sit down and do it. If you have the master file and any cap logs since the master file's last update, then you should have everything published so far.

=================================================

Tim Losberg: When doing a capitol assult, if the attacker only spends enough command points to be used in 1 system, when is that system announced, at the first round of approach (when command points are reveailed) or after revealing the first set of attacks inside the cap system?

ANSWER: I believe it would be revealed with the first battleforce in the system in question (not used in the approach battle). If you spend two command points to be used in only one system, that system is revealed if you use one of the points in the approach battle as per (308.94).

==============================================

Dave Butler: Regarding the note in (704.2) about Romulan payment for the KC9, when (i.e., during which game phase of T6C) are the 13 EP added to the Klingon economy? Also, do they show up as part of the general economy, or are they dropped as a Satelite Stockpile at one (or more) of the hexes on the Klingon-Tholian border?

ANSWER: The 13 EPs are paid in the economic phase of turn 6, as the rule states delivery by tug is not necessary, they appear on the klingon books on the economic phase of turn 6. They show up as part of the general economy in the main grid.

=============================================

Dave Butler: On February 15th, 2004, you ruled that it was impossible for the defending player to assign ships to a base during the resolution of a raid unless those ships were crippled.
Later that day, Fabio Poli requested a "Second Appeal" on this ruling, but there appears to have been no action taken regarding it, so far as I can tell (there's an awful lot of stuff since then, and I may have missed it).

So. If one cannot assign non-crippled ships to a base, what purpose is served by (314.251)?
I note that rule (314.254) indicates that crippled ships are, by default, assigned to the base (unless the defending player chooses to send them into combat, by (314.25)).

It also seems to me that the bit from CL26 -- upon which your ruling was, in part, based -- saying that uncrippled ships aren't protected by bases, could be interpreted as a simple prohibition against having a ship out fighting the raider and then sheltering under the guns of a base when the raider invokes (314.28).

ANSWER: That is why the CL26 ruling provided more clarification. Only certain things can be assigned to the base under (314.251). The CL is correct. Also CL29 had some additional stuff regarding cloaked raiders.

===========================================
By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:50 am: Edit

In Planetary Ops... E&S Raids
534.15 states that the max range for a E&S raid is 9 hexes from the primary supply grid.

In regards to legality of items such as 534.212 (production dsruption), and 534.216 (free fighter disruption); these activities will apparently take place at the capitol (or a new shipyard). I can think of several situations when the attacker on an E&S would have a supply grid outside of the 9 hex limit. An example would be when the Hydrans are driven into the old colonies. According to what I read. They would be unable to disrupt production activities of, say the Klingons, due to the 9 hex max range.
Is this correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:13 am: Edit

Steve Cain:

Correct, your supply grid must be within 9 hexes of the enemy capital to perform certain raid missions, and if you are beyond that range then you can't perform that raid mission.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Would abandoning a capital qualify as the enemy capturing it for political purposes? For example, in Demon of the East Wind would the Gorn abandoning their capital cause the Federation to declare war on the Romulans?

If the Gorn (or Romulans) abandon their capital, do the negative effects apply to all the capital hexes or just the shipyard hex?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 02:10 pm: Edit

Derek, no because the enemy only captures the planet if they have ships at taht point/province etc at the end of the turn. If they do not have ships there, and you abandon the capital, the only thing that happens is you lose your shipyard and have to spend 15EP per turn to recreate a new shipyard offmap (or back on the capital).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Just to check that I'm reading the rules correctly:
If I attack my opponent's Tug that's acting as a supply point, I'm forced to offer an approach battle, after which, assuming he accepts, the Tug can retreat without seeing combat, correct?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 09:41 pm: Edit

If the Supply Tug retreats, however, it loses its status as a Supply Tug, so, mission accomplished either way.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 10:35 pm: Edit

Uh, no, I want to kill the bloody thing, not drive it off. Short of using a raid, there seems to be no way of doing so.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:17 pm: Edit

That would be about right Dave. Unless you can surround it with enough forces that it has to retreat through a fight.
By Edward Kroeten (Ekroeten) on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 09:30 pm: Edit

This question may have been asked before but how can someone raid a hex and get to an FRD or supply tug. In rule 314.25 it states "if there are already two or more enemy ships....then ALL of them may fight the raiding ship. I have yet to see in a live game where a FRD, supply tug or any other worthwhile target was left alone or unguarded. Am I reading the rule correctly or are raids only for isolated units and cloaked ships?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Raids work best in small, isolated areas.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 01:08 pm: Edit

(503.62) says, in part: ...A Neutral Zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to it.... Neutral Zone hexes can only be captured by Operational Movement....

I have traditionally figured that to mean a ship did not capture the NZ hexes when it moved through them if there were enemy ships adjacent to them at that time.

However, actually looking at the rule again, it could seem that you keep track of every hex you were the last to move a ship through, and you get income if there is not an enemy ship adjacent to it when you do your economy.

Example: Turn 1: Lyran fleet moves 0502-0601-0701. There is a Kzinti force in 0701. Turn 2: There is a Kzinti force in 0701; 0601 is not counted as part of the Lyran economy. Turn 3: The Kzintis have left; 0601 is counted for the Lyran economy despite the fact they have not moved through the hex since Turn 1.

I guess it comes down to does "no enemy ships are in or adjacent" mean during Operational Movement, or when the status actually means something, i.e., during Econ.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 05:04 pm: Edit

We've always played capturing NZ hexes using the interpretation that passsing through the hex captured it, but you could only count it for econ if there were no eneny ships adjacent, etc, as ther wording does not speak of enemy ships in or adjacent to at the time of movement.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 12:39 pm: Edit

JKD is correct, you capture it while moving through, but don't count EP's unless there are not enemy fighter/ship equivs adjacent. At least that is how my group has interpreted the rule.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 01:09 pm: Edit

My group has taken the opposite interpretation. You only capture the hex if there was no enemy adjacent to it at the end of operational movement. Enemy position does not interfere with EP collection from a neutral zone hex once captured.

I believe we take this approach because the rule is a definition of capture and references the Operational movement phase and says nothing about EP collection.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Nick/Jeff/SVC please verify the interpretation or intent of (503.62) "Capture of Neutral Zones". (See above discussion – thank you.)

TK
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Good news! This was ruled by Nick on August 29 2004
________________________________________
Quote:
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.
________________________________________
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Moving through a NZ hex (you were the last to move through) means you "own" the neutral zone hex. During income, if there are no adjacent enemy ships then you get the income. If there are adjacent enemy ships then you don't collect the money, but you still own the hex (at least until an enemy ship actually moves through it to capture it for their side).
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 04:05 pm: Edit

By Tim Losberg (Krager)-

Good news! This was ruled by Nick on August 29 2004

Argh! I went looking through the archives for something on this. Learned a lot, but didn't get that far....
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 03:23 am: Edit

A few questions, Nick

1) A single ship (of 14 or less COMPOT) retreats from a battle, doesn’t like its retreat options, and so elects to implement a fighting retreat (302.77) in order to step onto an enemy ship (of 14 or less COMPOT). This does not violate (302.732), so it seems to be a legal move.

What happens now?

The Fighting Retreat rules (302.77) have a very specific description of what happens next, however the resultant combat is 1 ship against 1 ship, and so the Single Combat rules (310.0) seem to apply.

These have drastically different results. In a fighting retreat, even a retreating 14 COMPOT ship can do no more than 4 damage, while a similar defending ship will do 5 to 7 damage. Assuming ships of equal size, the defender is totally safe, and the attacker is likely to be safe, but could be crippled. Only one side is at any risk. In a single combat, there is no modifier to represent the grotesque advantage a defender is given in a fighting retreat. Hence, evenly matched ships face a 33% chance of being crippled or even destroyed, with the salvage claimed by the other player. A prime team affects one tremendously, and the other hardly at all.

So which rule takes precedence?

2) (521.394) in CO discusses G-ships that land on a planet. It says that such a ship “… takes no further part in combat in that hex …” (with limited exceptions for ships which drop assault pods) until the end of the combat round, at which point it is either “… considered destroyed …” or “… returns to normal operations …”.

The question here is this: What does this mean? Based on the turn sequence, there is no legal way in which a ship could engage in combat between the ship conducting “a normal commando operation”(521.292), and the declaration of retreat. Is this rule as meaningless as it appears, or should “At the end of the combat round …” actually read “After the resolution of combat in the hex …”?

3) The Federation COV and survey duty. (505.31) indicates that “The Federation can increase its survey ships by up to three by sending some or all of the three CVLs …”. (521.63) in CO says that “… It can be sent off map for use as a survey ship in addition to the survey ships already there.”

Should (505.31) be considered limiting in restricting the Federation to an increase of three ships maximum, including all CVLs and COVs? Or should (521.63) be considered a separate issue, thus permitting all three CVLs and the COV to be sent off-board?

Opinions vary about the clarity of this rule, so our group simply wants to hear the official ruling.

4) The Hydran IC (525.316) in AO.

If the Hydran Shipyard doesn’t fall before t6 (S171) when the design comes “into service”, can the IC class be built? Is the destruction of the shipyards a prerequisite for the construction of this class of dreadnought?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 07:23 am: Edit

Mark, the IC issue was already ruled on (though, of course, I can't find the exact ruling), and the decision was that, yes, the IC can be built regardless of the original shipyard status. Destruction of the original shipyard is what triggers the discount for the first one, but that's all.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 02:28 pm: Edit

There is a -1 penalty for SSC using a fighting retreat.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Question on the CVF. The CL29 AAR states:

(440.7) The first Federation CVF is built in addition to the normal production schedule and limits, costing 11 EPs plus the fighters.

My question is, how much is the CVF above production limits? May I build/convert another fast ship and two other standard carriers on the same turn (say DVL and CVS)?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:54 pm: Edit

Nick, if the colaition has neutralized orion and then later attacks it, can the ship that entered priviously take part in that attack or does is it treated a a cpatured ship for the federation?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 06:58 am: Edit

Couple of questions that I think have been answered before but I can't find them.

1) what is the command rating of a POL

2) A force is trying to avoid combat (as much as possible) 302.133 says that one of the 3 ships with the highest CR must stay behind and be the flagship. Just making sure that this mean a force of 3CA's and 3FF's would be obliged to at least put up the CA to be shot at (2CA and 1FF retreat, the other 2FF's are unchosen flagships) rather than just a single FF? Thanks

If the force above had cloaks the could the CA still have a shot at cloaked withdrawl?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 11:12 am: Edit

What does the Fed have to do to get the captured Orion ship prepared to fight for the alliance? Is it considered crippled? Does it need to spend 3 ep to convert it to Fed tech? Does this have to be performed at a SB? Can it be used at its current factors?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 09:03 am: Edit

OK, two questions here:

There is a combat in hex 5012. Gorn ships are also present in hex 4912,4811, and 4712,4713, meaning the BATS in hex 5010 is cut off from the main grid (the other borcer BATS being destroyed). The Romulan and Gorn forces both decide to retreat (Gorns were the attackers). Can the Romulan force retreat to hex 5011, allowing that BATS to become part of a larger supply grid (not sure yet if it will be the main grid), or would it be forced to retreat to either 5013 or 4913?

Second question, if a force has a defensive compot of X (counting crippled sides, planet devastation points, and everything)and takes X+1 damage, does that leave a plus pt even though
the force was annihilated? I know that a location w/o any forces cannot accumulate points, but is that w/o any forces before or after combat?

Thanks!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:25 am: Edit

OK, another question:

If a ship is destroyed via directed damage from the support area (like DB ships, carriers feeding fighters forward, etc), is that ship eligible to be captured? Likewise, if a crippled ship in a capital hex is direct killed in the support area (3 to 1), can it be captured? I seem to remember that they can not be captured, but I can not find the rule that says this.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:09 pm: Edit

All questions downloaded for processing to this point.

Nick
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Can ships in the IWR be converted on an earlier turn and be activated on a later turn.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 03:21 pm: Edit

(703.21) IMPERIAL WAR RESERVE:
... These ships can be converted while in the IWR.
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

Does the same rule apply to the Fed, Rom and Gorn ships awaiting activation?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Mothballed ships are not the same as the IWR.
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:28 pm: Edit

But don't they pay the same activation costs (1EP per ship)? Where in the rules is that distinction (Mothball/IWR)?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:29 pm: Edit

Yea, but the IWR is a special fleet, not really a mothball fleet but 3 active fleets that are kept in reserve incase the war goes bad (at war with all 3 border enemies at once).
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:32 pm: Edit

What about the Gorn ships in the offmap, they are "active".
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:49 pm: Edit

IWR does not pay for activation, they are not mothballed, they are active ships held in reserve.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Bingo. IWR pays no activation fee, nor do they get free strat. That and the rule specifically says IWR ships may be convereted prior to activation. There is no such enabling rule for Mothballs.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:40 pm: Edit

IWR is its own special entity governed by its own special rules, not the same as mothballed ships. Note that the Klingons have both mothballed ships and the IWR.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:35 pm: Edit

I have a question regarding ships in partial grids.

As I understand the rule, ships in a partial supply grid stacked with a base are considered in supply as long as they remain with the base.

In order to move their full allowance of 6 hexes, they must be supplied from an outside source, either Orion smuggling or now blockade runners in PO.

When are the EPs moved? Can they be shipped at the start of operational movement (when the op move supply check is made), and therefore use deficit spending? Or must they be shipped during the econ phase when EPs are sent for other purposes, such as repair or conversions in partial grids (and used later during the op move phase)?

There was an earlier question regarding Orions smuggling to partial grids (on 4 Nov 2003), but it doesn't seem to address this specific point.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:49 am: Edit

Derek Meserve:

Would abandoning a capital qualify as the enemy capturing it for political purposes? For example, in Demon of the East Wind would the Gorn abandoning their capital cause the Federation to declare war on the Romulans?

ANSWER: In general, no. The only exception is that the Hydrans can abandon their capital and it will count as captured for purposes of the optional Federation Reaction rule.

If the Gorn (or Romulans) abandon their capital, do the negative effects apply to all the capital hexes or just the shipyard hex?

ANSWER: The effects are for the primary shipyard capital hex, not other capital hexes.

======================================================

Dave Butler:

Just to check that I'm reading the rules correctly:
If I attack my opponent's Tug that's acting as a supply point, I'm forced to offer an approach battle, after which, assuming he accepts, the Tug can retreat without seeing combat, correct?

ANSWER: Correct, but as noted the tug would no longer be a supply point if it retreated.

=========================================================

Edward Kroeten:

This question may have been asked before but how can someone raid a hex and get to an FRD or supply tug. In rule 314.25 it states "if there are already two or more enemy ships....then ALL of them may fight the raiding ship. I have yet to see in a live game where a FRD, supply tug or any other worthwhile target was left alone or unguarded. Am I reading the rule correctly or are raids only for isolated units and cloaked ships?

ANSWER: Right, raids work best with isolated units. If he has a whole fleet on top of his FRDs, then you will not likely get one with a raid. However, see the Romulan cloaked raiding rules.

===========================================================

James Lowry:

(503.62) says, in part: ...A Neutral Zone hex is "captured" if it is occupied, or if the capturing player was the last to move a unit through it and no enemy ships are in or adjacent to it.... Neutral Zone hexes can only be captured by Operational Movement....

I have traditionally figured that to mean a ship did not capture the NZ hexes when it moved through them if there were enemy ships adjacent to them at that time.

However, actually looking at the rule again, it could seem that you keep track of every hex you were the last to move a ship through, and you get income if there is not an enemy ship adjacent to it when you do your economy.

ANSWER: Right on the second thing, Moving through a NZ hex (you were the last to move through) means you "own" the neutral zone hex. During income, if there are no adjacent enemy ships then you get the income. If there are adjacent enemy ships then you don't collect the money, but you still own the hex (at least until an enemy ship actually moves through it to capture it for their side).

================================================

Mark Ermenc:

1) A single ship (of 14 or less COMPOT) retreats from a battle, doesn’t like its retreat options, and so elects to implement a fighting retreat (302.77) in order to step onto an enemy ship (of 14 or less COMPOT). This does not violate (302.732), so it seems to be a legal move.

What happens now?

ANSWER: See rule (318.74), there is a modifier for fighting retreat, apply it as appropriate (i.e. as a penalty to the retreating ship).

2) (521.394) in CO discusses G-ships that land on a planet. It says that such a ship “… takes no further part in combat in that hex …” (with limited exceptions for ships which drop assault pods) until the end of the combat round, at which point it is either “… considered destroyed …” or “… returns to normal operations …”.

The question here is this: What does this mean? Based on the turn sequence, there is no legal way in which a ship could engage in combat between the ship conducting “a normal commando operation”(521.292), and the declaration of retreat. Is this rule as meaningless as it appears, or should “At the end of the combat round …” actually read “After the resolution of combat in the hex …”?

ANSWER: Right, it means the end of the combat hex, not just that round. I.e. a given commando ship with this ability can only land on a planet once per combat hex. Then it is out of action for the remainder of that combat hex. If you win the hex, then the ship returns (takes off from the planet) to your fleet. If you do not win the hex (i.e. retreat), then the landed ship is considered destroyed.

3) The Federation COV and survey duty. (505.31) indicates that “The Federation can increase its survey ships by up to three by sending some or all of the three CVLs …”. (521.63) in CO says that “… It can be sent off map for use as a survey ship in addition to the survey ships already there.”

Should (505.31) be considered limiting in restricting the Federation to an increase of three ships maximum, including all CVLs and COVs? Or should (521.63) be considered a separate issue, thus permitting all three CVLs and the COV to be sent off-board?

Opinions vary about the clarity of this rule, so our group simply wants to hear the official ruling.

ANSWER: Two separate things. You can send up to three CVLs off map to survey, and the one COV can also be sent off map.

4) The Hydran IC (525.316) in AO.

If the Hydran Shipyard doesn’t fall before t6 (S171) when the design comes “into service”, can the IC class be built? Is the destruction of the shipyards a prerequisite for the construction of this class of dreadnought?

ANSWER: It can still be built at normal cost.

=======================================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

Question on the CVF. The CL29 AAR states:

(440.7) The first Federation CVF is built in addition to the normal production schedule and limits, costing 11 EPs plus the fighters.

My question is, how much is the CVF above production limits? May I build/convert another fast ship and two other standard carriers on the same turn (say DVL and CVS)?

ANSWER: I believe it is separate from everything. The first one is in addition to all other production and limits.

==========================================================

Tim Losberg:

Nick, if the colaition has neutralized orion and then later attacks it, can the ship that entered priviously take part in that attack or does is it treated a a cpatured ship for the federation?

ANSWER: Since it is essentially the same as (503.4) Future Belligerent, i.e. a neutral party joined the enemy's side, I would use that rule. It says any interned enemy ships would be automatically captured. The Klingon ship which earlier caused Orion neutrality was interned, and when the Orions rejoin the Feds they would turn the interned enemy ship over to the Feds as a captured enemy ship.

======================================================

James Southcott:

1) what is the command rating of a POL

ANSWER: According to SFB it is 3 if I recall correctly.

2) A force is trying to avoid combat (as much as possible) 302.133 says that one of the 3 ships with the highest CR must stay behind and be the flagship. Just making sure that this mean a force of 3CA's and 3FF's would be obliged to at least put up the CA to be shot at (2CA and 1FF retreat, the other 2FF's are unchosen flagships) rather than just a single FF? Thanks

ANSWER: Right, one CA must remain and must be the flagship of the first battle round after withdrawal.

If the force above had cloaks the could the CA still have a shot at cloaked withdrawl?

ANSWER: I don't think so, rule (302.133) is specific to the ship with highest command rating that it must remain and be the flagship, while the cloak rules is a general die roll for ships that have not yet withdrawn.

==================================================

Bill Schoeller:

What does the Fed have to do to get the captured Orion ship prepared to fight for the alliance? Is it considered crippled? Does it need to spend 3 ep to convert it to Fed tech? Does this have to be performed at a SB? Can it be used at its current factors?

ANSWER: Since there is no special rule that I can find, I would simply treat it like any other captured enemy ship.

===================================================

Robert Padilla:

There is a combat in hex 5012. Gorn ships are also present in hex 4912,4811, and 4712,4713, meaning the BATS in hex 5010 is cut off from the main grid (the other borcer BATS being destroyed). The Romulan and Gorn forces both decide to retreat (Gorns were the attackers). Can the Romulan force retreat to hex 5011, allowing that BATS to become part of a larger supply grid (not sure yet if it will be the main grid), or would it be forced to retreat to either 5013 or 4913?

ANSWER: Tricky one. During retreat you must retreat to a hex in supply that is as close as possible to a valid supply source. If BATS 5010 was previously cut off, then since it is in a partial grid it only provides supply to hex 5011 if you paid EPs from the partial grid to do so, or if it can trace a suppy path back to the main grid. If you had paid the EPs for supply under (413.41), then you can retreat to hex 5011 (you would be one hex from a supply source). If your retreat would result in BATS 5010 rejoining the main grid then you can do so since again you will be one hex from a supply point. If the retreat only causes BATS 5010 to join another partial grid, then you can only retreat to 5011 if you had paid EPs under (413.41) from either partial grid.

Second question, if a force has a defensive compot of X (counting crippled sides, planet devastation points, and everything)and takes X+1 damage, does that leave a plus pt even though
the force was annihilated? I know that a location w/o any forces cannot accumulate points, but is that w/o any forces before or after combat?

ANSWER: Rule (308.25) says if there are no defending units in a battle (undefended devestated planet in a capital system), then there are no plus/minus points. If there were units at the start of that combat round (even if they were all subsequently destroyed), then there would be plus/minus points, but they would be the last such points to possibly accumulate in that battle.

==========================================================

Robert Padilla:

If a ship is destroyed via directed damage from the support area (like DB ships, carriers feeding fighters forward, etc), is that ship eligible to be captured? Likewise, if a crippled ship in a capital hex is direct killed in the support area (3 to 1), can it be captured? I seem to remember that they can not be captured, but I can not find the rule that says this.

ANSWER: They can be captured as far as I know.

=============================================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Sean Dzafovic:

I have a question regarding ships in partial grids.

As I understand the rule, ships in a partial supply grid stacked with a base are considered in supply as long as they remain with the base.

In order to move their full allowance of 6 hexes, they must be supplied from an outside source, either Orion smuggling or now blockade runners in PO.

When are the EPs moved? Can they be shipped at the start of operational movement (when the op move supply check is made), and therefore use deficit spending? Or must they be shipped during the econ phase when EPs are sent for other purposes, such as repair or conversions in partial grids (and used later during the op move phase)?

ANSWER: If you start stacked with the base, then you were in supply at the start of the turn and get you full movement and combat abilities during that turn even if you move off to attack something. Note that you probably could not then retrograde after combat as that requires you to actually be in supply at the start of the retrograde step. You would begin to suffer out of supply penalties (movement/combat) later if you started a turn out of supply range. If you paid the supply EPs, then you could stay supplied at a distance (up to 6 hexes). Such EPs can either be paid from money in the partial grid, or shipped in via Orions or other method according to the appropriate rules. I believe such supply is paid during the economic step like homeless/expeditionary expenses.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Nick, Thanks - but on the question about cloaked withdrawl - does this mean all those "Romulans cloak and withdraw completely avoiding combat" that I've seen reported are incorrect because there always has to be a command ship? 'Course it wouldn't be the first time we had all been doing it wrong.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I would like to challange the ruling on James' Cloaked withdrawl question above.

306.11 is very specific in its wording:

If the opposing player refuses permission to withdraw in Step 1 of the Combat Procedure(302.13), withdraw the ships allowed to do so, then roll a die for EACH remaining cloaked ship. If the result is 1-4, that ship can also retreat without permission of the opposing player.

Emphasis mine above. Each remaining ship is allowed to make a cloaked withdrawl role, and in my mind that includes the command ship of the remaining forces.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Also see (105.P) SoP 5-1E in PO for specific wording there also.

Only if that choosen ship fails it MUST be used as the flagship.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:49 pm: Edit

Ah, see, Staff Teamwork at work
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 03:18 pm: Edit

I stand corrected.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Note to players:

Remember that the SoP IS part of the the rule set under (105.0) and can help in determining HOW things work in F&E.
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 02:05 am: Edit

Can someone tell me which counter sheet in CO the Lyran KVH pod can be found on? Thanks in advance.
By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 01:39 pm: Edit

It is the single sheet found in Advanced Operations. P+Q i believe.
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Ok, my question involves the Lyran order of battle. I am guessing that the Lyran Foremost Duchy ships are actually in the Home Fleet? Is this a correct assumption? If not what is the OB for them?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Basically. There is no Foremost Fleet at the start of the game, though the Home Fleet can start on the FM starbase in 608.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 05:18 pm: Edit

OK, two questions arose on exactly when reactions occur during the movement of a stack.

The situation:

Gorns have taken planet 4309, and are operating from there. BATS 4310 has long since destroyed. One Gorn DD is sitting in 4411.

The Romulans have a big fleet in the capital, 4514, plus a smaller fleet in 4513. Gorns want to avoid the big capital fleet, so attacking planet 4313 is off limits.

Romulans have a small but capable defense fleet on planet 4112, but nothing on BATS 4214, or planet 4313.

Gorns concoct a plan: Send a force from their base of operations, 4309, straight south, 4310, 4311, 4312, making the Romulans not react yet since the planet would be protected by a reaction force from the capital if planet 4313 is attacked. Then, the Gorns would turn to 4212, as if changing target planets, and the Romulans still would not react (the 4112 defense force is not large enought to pin out the Gorns), and finally, turn south again, 4213, to attack the real target, BATS 4214, without any reaction being done. Gorns retreating after the BATS falls, to 4213, and the one DD in 4411, insures the supply line (through 4212, 4312) is open for safe extraction of the Gorn force.

Here comes the two problems:

First, the Gorns move south, from 4309, to 4310, 4311, 4312. Romulans react their force from 4513, extended reaction to 4412. Gorns turn away from this force, still on course, to hex 4212. At this point in time, the supply line is still open, since the Gorn in 4411 is still keeping supplies open to hex 4312, even with the Romulans in 4412.

Then the Romulans complete their initial reaction, to 4312, blocking the planned supply and retrograde route.

Question #1 is, can the Romulans complete their reaction if the Gorn is turning away from them?

It says that one cannot react to a force moving away from you, but this technically is just the Romulans completing a two-step reaction that was legal to start with (the Gorn entering their two-hex extended reaction range). Also note that I asked this many many moons ago, and at the time you said yes, they could complete their reaction, even if they found no enemy in the hex when they finally arrive.

The Gorns, undeterred, continue on with their plan with only a minor modification: They will leave a DD in hex 4212. With ships in 4212 and 4411, the supply line remains open through 4213, 4212, 4211, 4311, and on to home. Gorns 4th move was to 4212, and the Romulans did not react, so they feel safe, and move the 5th movement pulse to 4213 while leaving off the one DD.

Romulans then see that the DD has stopped movement, and declares their intent to react from planet 4112 to kill the DD at 4212, thus cutting off the Gorns planned retrograde route..

This is where stack splitting and end of movement declarations got really tricky for us. Rule 203.64 says that a ship that stops movement with movement still available is assumed to use it's last movement pulses in the hex it stopped in, which of course means that the DD can be reacted to on it's 5th or 6th unmoving "movement pulses". However, it's not as clear as to whether or not the rest of the Gorn force has continued on at this point or not. Does the Romulan react to the sub-stack of a single DD, before the main stack continues on south, or does the main stack move to 4213, then the Romulans react to the ended movement of the DD?

To try to clean that up:

Question #2: When a force is leaving behind a part of a stack, when exactly does reaction to the force that ended movement? Before the main force continues on (thus is still in the hex of the force that stopped movement), or is it that the main force moves on, thus showing the secondary force has ended movement, which allow reaction to the secondary force after the main force has continued on?

I think I know the answer by reading the section on splitting sub stacks carefully, but my Gorn opponent doesn't agree with me.

Edit: It should also be noted that if reaction does not occur until after the main force continues on to 4213, then an argument could be made that the next stack has started it's move, thus ending any possible reaction to the last stack, and so the Romulans could not react to the DD in 4212 at all. (Which is why I think reaction to the DD would occur before the main stack would have moved from the hex.)

Thanks for you help, and sorry for such a complicated scenario.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Question regarding (449.2) Selling Warships to the WYN Cluster:
(449.23) states that "if an X-ship is sent, the WYN pay in XTPs," but (449.22) states that "No ship larger than 6 combat points...can be sold to the WYNs."
Unfortunately, no X-ship has 6 or fewer factors so this rule seems unusable as of the current ruleset. I'm not petitioning for a change (future expansions may enable this rule), I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:31 am: Edit

Question on reserve fleet movement.

The enemy attack a base that is six hexes from one of my reserve fleets.
The enemy also put interevening forces such that my reserve fleet cannot get to the base under any circumstances. These intervening forces are not involved in battle.
The Base is cut off from general supply, athough it is of course always in supply as it is a base.

the rule 203.74 starts as follows
"if the reserve fleet can reach the target battle hex without containing enemy units, it must do so"

203.743 says that if I cannot get to the battlehex I am unable to move at all unless another battle hex is created.

I would just like to confirm that 203.743 is referring to a total non-movement of the reserves as opposed to the reserves being allowed to move as far as intervening forces and then being forced to stop.

It seems decidely odd to me that a base can be under attack, but the reserves cannot move to help it at all, not even to attack forces surrounding the base (and thus make it much easier for ships defending the base to retreat). If this is correct, it is certainly worth a tacnote. When you have a lot of ships, stopping the enemy reserves from doing anything at all is a great way to reduce casualties over a base. The only penalty is that you cannot retrograde ships which were not in a fight (the surrounding ships).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:19 pm: Edit

DavidS, I believe that you can use a Reserve to open a supply path ... (203.731) ...
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 04:27 am: Edit

But the base is not out of supply, neither are any ships stacked with it. And that rule specifically goes on to say that you can only use the reserve to open a supply path IF the friendly units in combat would otherwise be out of combat supply during the ensuing combat phase. Hence I can't do it.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:38 am: Edit

You should be able to use the Reserves to open a path to the main grid, even for ships in supply in a partial grid.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:48 am: Edit

But currently you cannot.

Another side-show of this is - suppose the base was not cut off from the main grid, but the reserves cannot get to the base. It looks as if the reserves definately cannot even attack the blocking forces.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

There is a ruling in a recent captains log that says you can use a reserve to open a supply path to a base or other such unit or group of units. Ya just need to find it.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 09:45 am: Edit

Well, there's nothing on this in the Q&A archive file.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 01:07 pm: Edit

David, see rule 203.71. Cap Log 27. Page 102.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Chris - CL27 seems to be missing from both the master errata and the Q&A archive files - any chance you could spell it out for me (I haven't got the CL's).

I don't think it will help David in this situation as the base and ships are connected to the main grid, but it would be good to know for future.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:17 pm: Edit

The master errata file hasn't been updated in at least (3) CL's.

I hope Nick can get to it before Origins. :-)
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:44 pm: Edit

When placing a Police ship during construction can it be placed in a hex adjacent to an enemy ship if that hex does not have a friendly ship adjacent? There is some question if that hex would be considered to be "in supply" since the enemy ships are "closing" supply and nothing is holding that supply open. Normally a ship holds supply open itself but in this case the hex has to be in supply before the POL can be placed.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 06:44 pm: Edit

James, I will post the gist of that rule over in general discussions.

A more specific add-on to Darins post above.

The hex in question is hex 212 in Lyran space. Hex 212 can trace a supply path of 313...412...411...410...409...408.

Darin's contention is that hex 212 is not in supply becuase of Hydran ships in 211.

I feel that 212 is indeed in supply as 313 passes supply into it, but Hydran ships would prevent supply passing out of it.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

Questions downloaded.

You guys do find some fun ones, don't you?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Here are some answers, not as complicated as I thought based on all the discussion in the other topic.

=====================
Hugh Bishop:

Ok, my question involves the Lyran order of battle. I am guessing that the Lyran Foremost Duchy ships are actually in the Home Fleet? Is this a correct assumption? If not what is the OB for them?

ANSWER: Right. The Foremost fleet counter itself is unused during setup. You can use it however you want during the setup process. If you set up the Red fleet on two BATS in its setup area, you could call half of it the Red fleet and the other half the Foremost fleet. You could use it to organize the farstar fleet into two groups if you wanted to. The foremost fleet marker is not a setup fleet, it is only a marker for use after you start moving things.

=====================================

Kevin Howard: OK, two questions arose on exactly when reactions occur during the movement of a stack.

The situation:

Gorns have taken planet 4309, and are operating from there. BATS 4310 has long since destroyed. One Gorn DD is sitting in 4411.

The Romulans have a big fleet in the capital, 4514, plus a smaller fleet in 4513. Gorns want to avoid the big capital fleet, so attacking planet 4313 is off limits.

Romulans have a small but capable defense fleet on planet 4112, but nothing on BATS 4214, or planet 4313.

Gorns concoct a plan: Send a force from their base of operations, 4309, straight south, 4310, 4311, 4312, making the Romulans not react yet since the planet would be protected by a reaction force from the capital if planet 4313 is attacked. Then, the Gorns would turn to 4212, as if changing target planets, and the Romulans still would not react (the 4112 defense force is not large enought to pin out the Gorns), and finally, turn south again, 4213, to attack the real target, BATS 4214, without any reaction being done. Gorns retreating after the BATS falls, to 4213, and the one DD in 4411, insures the supply line (through 4212, 4312) is open for safe extraction of the Gorn force.

Here comes the two problems:

First, the Gorns move south, from 4309, to 4310, 4311, 4312. Romulans react their force from 4513, extended reaction to 4412. Gorns turn away from this force, still on course, to hex 4212. At this point in time, the supply line is still open, since the Gorn in 4411 is still keeping supplies open to hex 4312, even with the Romulans in 4412.

Then the Romulans complete their initial reaction, to 4312, blocking the planned supply and retrograde route.

Question #1 is, can the Romulans complete their reaction if the Gorn is turning away from them?

It says that one cannot react to a force moving away from you, but this technically is just the Romulans completing a two-step reaction that was legal to start with (the Gorn entering their two-hex extended reaction range). Also note that I asked this many many moons ago, and at the time you said yes, they could complete their reaction, even if they found no enemy in the hex when they finally arrive.


ANSWER to #1: No. No reaction is possible against a force increasing the range, even if you reacted to that force earlier. You must judge this for each hex of reaction, not just at the start of reaction. Rule (205.33) says that after the extended (long range) reaction, the reacting ships are treated just the same as ships with a standard one hex reaction, and notes you cannot react to something moving away from you. So after the Romulans react to 4412, the are considered to be like any other group of ships with a one hex reaction range. So when the Gorn then increase the range, they cannot react again. They could later react to another moving force that moved into a hex adjacent to 4412 however. If I said otherwise before I apoligize, I was wrong. I must have learned more since then. So in your example the Romulans would react from 4513 to 4512, and when you move away they would be stuck there and your supply/retro path is still open.

The Gorns, undeterred, continue on with their plan with only a minor modification: They will leave a DD in hex 4212. With ships in 4212 and 4411, the supply line remains open through 4213, 4212, 4211, 4311, and on to home. Gorns 4th move was to 4212, and the Romulans did not react, so they feel safe, and move the 5th movement pulse to 4213 while leaving off the one DD.

Romulans then see that the DD has stopped movement, and declares their intent to react from planet 4112 to kill the DD at 4212, thus cutting off the Gorns planned retrograde route..

This is where stack splitting and end of movement declarations got really tricky for us. Rule 203.64 says that a ship that stops movement with movement still available is assumed to use it's last movement pulses in the hex it stopped in, which of course means that the DD can be reacted to on it's 5th or 6th unmoving "movement pulses". However, it's not as clear as to whether or not the rest of the Gorn force has continued on at this point or not. Does the Romulan react to the sub-stack of a single DD, before the main stack continues on south, or does the main stack move to 4213, then the Romulans react to the ended movement of the DD?

To try to clean that up:

Question #2: When a force is leaving behind a part of a stack, when exactly does reaction to the force that ended movement? Before the main force continues on (thus is still in the hex of the force that stopped movement), or is it that the main force moves on, thus showing the secondary force has ended movement, which allow reaction to the secondary force after the main force has continued on?

ANSWER to #2: When you split a stack into substacks, you decide in what order to move the substacks (or not move them for that matter). So if you split off a single ship (the DD in your example), you have two options. You can finish moving the substack consisting of the DD first, which would consist of declaring its movement over (and the enemy could then react into the hex in response to the DD using up its remaining movement points in that hex), and then you could move the substack consisting of the rest of the fleet (of course now some or all of this substack may not be able to move due to pinning). OR do it the other way around, after splitting the stack you can move the substack consisting of the majority of the fleet first, and since you are moving away from the enemy this allows no reaction, after that substack is done you must go back to the substack consisting of the DD and resolve its remaining movement by declaring it is done moving which would allow reaction into the DD's hex at that point. When you split a stack into substacks you decide what order to move the substacks in, and the enemy can react only to the currently moving substack (since he doesn't know what you will be doing with the other substacks until you actually do it). You must move all substacks (or declare their movement over) of a given stack before moving to a different stack. This is rule (203.44).

I think I know the answer by reading the section on splitting sub stacks carefully, but my Gorn opponent doesn't agree with me.

Edit: It should also be noted that if reaction does not occur until after the main force continues on to 4213, then an argument could be made that the next stack has started it's move, thus ending any possible reaction to the last stack, and so the Romulans could not react to the DD in 4212 at all. (Which is why I think reaction to the DD would occur before the main stack would have moved from the hex.)

Thanks for you help, and sorry for such a complicated scenario.

ANSWER: The point is that when you split a stack into substacks with the intention of leaving a unit behind, you don't actually have to declare that given unit is ceasing movement until after the other substacks are done moving. For all the enemy knows, the DD is going to move another direction after the bulk of your forces reaches its destination.

=====================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

Question regarding (449.2) Selling Warships to the WYN Cluster:
(449.23) states that "if an X-ship is sent, the WYN pay in XTPs," but (449.22) states that "No ship larger than 6 combat points...can be sold to the WYNs."
Unfortunately, no X-ship has 6 or fewer factors so this rule seems unusable as of the current ruleset. I'm not petitioning for a change (future expansions may enable this rule), I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something.

ANSWER: Interesting. No, you're not missing anything as far as I can tell.

===================================

David Slatter: Question on reserve fleet movement.

The enemy attack a base that is six hexes from one of my reserve fleets.
The enemy also put interevening forces such that my reserve fleet cannot get to the base under any circumstances. These intervening forces are not involved in battle.
The Base is cut off from general supply, athough it is of course always in supply as it is a base.

the rule 203.74 starts as follows
"if the reserve fleet can reach the target battle hex without containing enemy units, it must do so"

203.743 says that if I cannot get to the battlehex I am unable to move at all unless another battle hex is created.

I would just like to confirm that 203.743 is referring to a total non-movement of the reserves as opposed to the reserves being allowed to move as far as intervening forces and then being forced to stop.

It seems decidely odd to me that a base can be under attack, but the reserves cannot move to help it at all, not even to attack forces surrounding the base (and thus make it much easier for ships defending the base to retreat). If this is correct, it is certainly worth a tacnote. When you have a lot of ships, stopping the enemy reserves from doing anything at all is a great way to reduce casualties over a base. The only penalty is that you cannot retrograde ships which were not in a fight (the surrounding ships).

ANSWER: Legal options are 3, 1) move to a battle hex, 2) open supply path to a battle hex, 3) open a path for another reserve fleet to either of the first two options. You can move the reserves to a battle hex. (in your example they can't get through the blockade pinning requirements and thus can't move at all). You can move reserves to open a supply path (CL27 clarified this as a "supply path" not just "supply status") to ships in combat. (in your example the combat hex has a supply path so the reserve can't move at all. Under (203.732) you could move a reserve fleet to open a path for another reserve fleet trying to reach either of the above destinations. (in your example, if you had a second nearby reserve fleet it could attack one of the blockade hexes provided this brings enough pinning forces there for the second fleet (or at least half of it) to reach the battle hex at the base.

If you have only one reserve fleet then no, it cannot move under the conditions you state. The CL27 ruling just stated that opening a supply path to a battle hex that had no supply path is what the rule means. The ships in your example have a supply path (even though it is to a base in the same hex that might be its own partial grid). You could still buy DB points, extra Gs, etc, either with EPs from the partial grid, or from Orion smuggling for double cost under (410.34).

================================

Darin Smith:

When placing a Police ship during construction can it be placed in a hex adjacent to an enemy ship if that hex does not have a friendly ship adjacent? There is some question if that hex would be considered to be "in supply" since the enemy ships are "closing" supply and nothing is holding that supply open. Normally a ship holds supply open itself but in this case the hex has to be in supply before the POL can be placed.

ANSWER: Right, the way the rule is worded the hex must be part of a supply path before the POL is placed on the map.

================================

Christopher E. Fant: A more specific add-on to Darins post above.

The hex in question is hex 212 in Lyran space. Hex 212 can trace a supply path of 313...412...411...410...409...408.

Darin's contention is that hex 212 is not in supply becuase of Hydran ships in 211.

I feel that 212 is indeed in supply as 313 passes supply into it, but Hydran ships would prevent supply passing out of it.

ANSWER: Not correct I think, rule (411.31) specifies that a supply path cannot pass through a hex adjacent to enemy ships. This does not mean "can enter but not leave", to me it means "cannot enter" or more correctly worded "cannot be part of the supply path". A hex adjacent to enemy ships and no friendlies present is disallowed as part of a supply path. Saying the supply can enter but not leave is making it too complicated, it makes a "maybe" situation of what should be either clearly part of the supply path or not part of the supply path. If there are enemies present as in your example, then it is not part of the supply path.

If the police rules were worded like the retreat rules (which judge retreat hexes based on what the supply status would be if you retreated there), then this would work, but it is not worded that way. The police rules are worded to judge the supply situation before the POL is placed on the map.

==============================
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Nick, with the supply thing above, lets say that the hex were 1701, being connected to the offmap.

Can I place a POL in 1701 if there is an enemy in 1702? The supply path from the offmap travels into 1701 and is not blocked, but from the above it would seem to say that any hex an enemy is adjacent to is not in supply, even if it is connected to a supply path.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:24 am: Edit

Nick - something you mentioned above prompted a thought:

when evaluating supply for retreat purposes is the route assessed with the fleet in the hex it is retreating from or from where they would retreat to?

For example if there were a fleet in combat with a supply hex 6 hexes to the left and one three hexes to the left but with a solid line of frigates blocking supply . This solid line passes through hexes directly through hexes next to the battle hex.

If the supply status for hexes is assessed with the retreating fleet in the battle hex then it would retreat towards the planet that is to the left. If it were assessed from where it will retreat to then the fleet would retreat ontop of one of the blocking frigates, towards the nearer planet.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:46 am: Edit

and a second one - do admirals add to the CR rating of the ship for purposes of pin calculations or just to the size of the battleforce?

Thankses in advance
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit

Christopher E. Fant: Nick, with the supply thing above, lets say that the hex were 1701, being connected to the offmap.

Can I place a POL in 1701 if there is an enemy in 1702? The supply path from the offmap travels into 1701 and is not blocked, but from the above it would seem to say that any hex an enemy is adjacent to is not in supply, even if it is connected to a supply path.

ANSWER: Ah, I see where the confusion is, let me think about this again. The problem is that the rules do not really define what it means for a hex to be in supply. The supply rules (410), (411), (412), (413) are written from the point of view of units/ships. A given ship or other unit is in supply or it is not. A supply path to a ship does not actually include the hex the ship is in but includes the hex containing the supply point you are linking to. Now we have the police ship rule that suddenly asks us to determine whether a hex is in supply or not, so how does one do this? The only choice I see (having no other procedure in the rules) is to treat the hex as a unit (even if there are no units present in said hex) and judge supply status of the hex that way. So if a given hex has a valid supply path, it must be in supply. So that means for your off map example, yes the hex is in supply (police ship can be called up). The hex itself cannot be part of a supply path due to enemy adjacent ships, but according to (411.1) the hex itself doesn't need to be part of the supply path. In the earlier example, testing supply status of hex 0212, if 0313, 0412, 0411, 0410, 0409, 0408 is a valid supply path according to the rules then hex 0212 must be in supply even if 0212 cannot be part of a supply path itself.

I was originally thinking that to be in supply the hex had to be a valid supply path hex, but that is not true according to (411.1).

I see what you were saying by supply can enter but not leave, but that is a confusing way to put it, at least to me.

====================================

James Southcott: Nick - something you mentioned above prompted a thought:

when evaluating supply for retreat purposes is the route assessed with the fleet in the hex it is retreating from or from where they would retreat to?

For example if there were a fleet in combat with a supply hex 6 hexes to the left and one three hexes to the left but with a solid line of frigates blocking supply . This solid line passes through hexes directly through hexes next to the battle hex.

If the supply status for hexes is assessed with the retreating fleet in the battle hex then it would retreat towards the planet that is to the left. If it were assessed from where it will retreat to then the fleet would retreat ontop of one of the blocking frigates, towards the nearer planet.

ANSWER: Note rule (302.733) always says things like "would be in supply," "would not be in supply," "the force would be in supply". You judge what the supply situation of the retreating force would be if you were to retreat to each given hex, you are not judging the supply status of the hexes before you retreat to them. So in your example you would retreat into one of the blocking frigate hexes toward the closer supply point. If you would be outnumbered in such a hex then it would have been eliminated by priority 2 before judging supply. Note that so long as all hexes remaining after priority 3 have an enemy frigate in them, then this is not a fighting retreat, it is a normal retreat that makes a new battle hex. You are never forced to perform a fighting retreat.

=========================

James Southcott:

and a second one - do admirals add to the CR rating of the ship for purposes of pin calculations or just to the size of the battleforce?

ANSWER: The rules do not mention one way or the other that I can see, so no, the admiral only increases the command rating for the size of the battleforce but not for purposes of pinning calculations under (203.55). In this way an admiral is very similar to a command point.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:42 pm: Edit

Note to players:

Remember that the SoP IS part of the the rule set under (105.0) and can help in determining HOW things work in F&E.
By KC Grant (Kcg) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 02:05 am: Edit

Can someone tell me which counter sheet in CO the Lyran KVH pod can be found on? Thanks in advance.
By Nick Samaras (Koogie) on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 01:39 pm: Edit

It is the single sheet found in Advanced Operations. P+Q i believe.
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Ok, my question involves the Lyran order of battle. I am guessing that the Lyran Foremost Duchy ships are actually in the Home Fleet? Is this a correct assumption? If not what is the OB for them?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Basically. There is no Foremost Fleet at the start of the game, though the Home Fleet can start on the FM starbase in 608.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 05:18 pm: Edit

OK, two questions arose on exactly when reactions occur during the movement of a stack.

The situation:

Gorns have taken planet 4309, and are operating from there. BATS 4310 has long since destroyed. One Gorn DD is sitting in 4411.

The Romulans have a big fleet in the capital, 4514, plus a smaller fleet in 4513. Gorns want to avoid the big capital fleet, so attacking planet 4313 is off limits.

Romulans have a small but capable defense fleet on planet 4112, but nothing on BATS 4214, or planet 4313.

Gorns concoct a plan: Send a force from their base of operations, 4309, straight south, 4310, 4311, 4312, making the Romulans not react yet since the planet would be protected by a reaction force from the capital if planet 4313 is attacked. Then, the Gorns would turn to 4212, as if changing target planets, and the Romulans still would not react (the 4112 defense force is not large enought to pin out the Gorns), and finally, turn south again, 4213, to attack the real target, BATS 4214, without any reaction being done. Gorns retreating after the BATS falls, to 4213, and the one DD in 4411, insures the supply line (through 4212, 4312) is open for safe extraction of the Gorn force.

Here comes the two problems:

First, the Gorns move south, from 4309, to 4310, 4311, 4312. Romulans react their force from 4513, extended reaction to 4412. Gorns turn away from this force, still on course, to hex 4212. At this point in time, the supply line is still open, since the Gorn in 4411 is still keeping supplies open to hex 4312, even with the Romulans in 4412.

Then the Romulans complete their initial reaction, to 4312, blocking the planned supply and retrograde route.

Question #1 is, can the Romulans complete their reaction if the Gorn is turning away from them?

It says that one cannot react to a force moving away from you, but this technically is just the Romulans completing a two-step reaction that was legal to start with (the Gorn entering their two-hex extended reaction range). Also note that I asked this many many moons ago, and at the time you said yes, they could complete their reaction, even if they found no enemy in the hex when they finally arrive.

The Gorns, undeterred, continue on with their plan with only a minor modification: They will leave a DD in hex 4212. With ships in 4212 and 4411, the supply line remains open through 4213, 4212, 4211, 4311, and on to home. Gorns 4th move was to 4212, and the Romulans did not react, so they feel safe, and move the 5th movement pulse to 4213 while leaving off the one DD.

Romulans then see that the DD has stopped movement, and declares their intent to react from planet 4112 to kill the DD at 4212, thus cutting off the Gorns planned retrograde route..

This is where stack splitting and end of movement declarations got really tricky for us. Rule 203.64 says that a ship that stops movement with movement still available is assumed to use it's last movement pulses in the hex it stopped in, which of course means that the DD can be reacted to on it's 5th or 6th unmoving "movement pulses". However, it's not as clear as to whether or not the rest of the Gorn force has continued on at this point or not. Does the Romulan react to the sub-stack of a single DD, before the main stack continues on south, or does the main stack move to 4213, then the Romulans react to the ended movement of the DD?

To try to clean that up:

Question #2: When a force is leaving behind a part of a stack, when exactly does reaction to the force that ended movement? Before the main force continues on (thus is still in the hex of the force that stopped movement), or is it that the main force moves on, thus showing the secondary force has ended movement, which allow reaction to the secondary force after the main force has continued on?

I think I know the answer by reading the section on splitting sub stacks carefully, but my Gorn opponent doesn't agree with me.

Edit: It should also be noted that if reaction does not occur until after the main force continues on to 4213, then an argument could be made that the next stack has started it's move, thus ending any possible reaction to the last stack, and so the Romulans could not react to the DD in 4212 at all. (Which is why I think reaction to the DD would occur before the main stack would have moved from the hex.)

Thanks for you help, and sorry for such a complicated scenario.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Question regarding (449.2) Selling Warships to the WYN Cluster:
(449.23) states that "if an X-ship is sent, the WYN pay in XTPs," but (449.22) states that "No ship larger than 6 combat points...can be sold to the WYNs."
Unfortunately, no X-ship has 6 or fewer factors so this rule seems unusable as of the current ruleset. I'm not petitioning for a change (future expansions may enable this rule), I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:31 am: Edit

Question on reserve fleet movement.

The enemy attack a base that is six hexes from one of my reserve fleets.
The enemy also put interevening forces such that my reserve fleet cannot get to the base under any circumstances. These intervening forces are not involved in battle.
The Base is cut off from general supply, athough it is of course always in supply as it is a base.

the rule 203.74 starts as follows
"if the reserve fleet can reach the target battle hex without containing enemy units, it must do so"

203.743 says that if I cannot get to the battlehex I am unable to move at all unless another battle hex is created.

I would just like to confirm that 203.743 is referring to a total non-movement of the reserves as opposed to the reserves being allowed to move as far as intervening forces and then being forced to stop.

It seems decidely odd to me that a base can be under attack, but the reserves cannot move to help it at all, not even to attack forces surrounding the base (and thus make it much easier for ships defending the base to retreat). If this is correct, it is certainly worth a tacnote. When you have a lot of ships, stopping the enemy reserves from doing anything at all is a great way to reduce casualties over a base. The only penalty is that you cannot retrograde ships which were not in a fight (the surrounding ships).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:19 pm: Edit

DavidS, I believe that you can use a Reserve to open a supply path ... (203.731) ...
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 04:27 am: Edit

But the base is not out of supply, neither are any ships stacked with it. And that rule specifically goes on to say that you can only use the reserve to open a supply path IF the friendly units in combat would otherwise be out of combat supply during the ensuing combat phase. Hence I can't do it.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:38 am: Edit

You should be able to use the Reserves to open a path to the main grid, even for ships in supply in a partial grid.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:48 am: Edit

But currently you cannot.

Another side-show of this is - suppose the base was not cut off from the main grid, but the reserves cannot get to the base. It looks as if the reserves definately cannot even attack the blocking forces.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 09:28 am: Edit

There is a ruling in a recent captains log that says you can use a reserve to open a supply path to a base or other such unit or group of units. Ya just need to find it.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 09:45 am: Edit

Well, there's nothing on this in the Q&A archive file.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 01:07 pm: Edit

David, see rule 203.71. Cap Log 27. Page 102.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 02:57 pm: Edit

Chris - CL27 seems to be missing from both the master errata and the Q&A archive files - any chance you could spell it out for me (I haven't got the CL's).

I don't think it will help David in this situation as the base and ships are connected to the main grid, but it would be good to know for future.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:17 pm: Edit

The master errata file hasn't been updated in at least (3) CL's.

I hope Nick can get to it before Origins. :-)
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 05:44 pm: Edit

When placing a Police ship during construction can it be placed in a hex adjacent to an enemy ship if that hex does not have a friendly ship adjacent? There is some question if that hex would be considered to be "in supply" since the enemy ships are "closing" supply and nothing is holding that supply open. Normally a ship holds supply open itself but in this case the hex has to be in supply before the POL can be placed.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 06:44 pm: Edit

James, I will post the gist of that rule over in general discussions.

A more specific add-on to Darins post above.

The hex in question is hex 212 in Lyran space. Hex 212 can trace a supply path of 313...412...411...410...409...408.

Darin's contention is that hex 212 is not in supply becuase of Hydran ships in 211.

I feel that 212 is indeed in supply as 313 passes supply into it, but Hydran ships would prevent supply passing out of it.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

Questions downloaded.

You guys do find some fun ones, don't you?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Here are some answers, not as complicated as I thought based on all the discussion in the other topic.

=====================
Hugh Bishop:

Ok, my question involves the Lyran order of battle. I am guessing that the Lyran Foremost Duchy ships are actually in the Home Fleet? Is this a correct assumption? If not what is the OB for them?

ANSWER: Right. The Foremost fleet counter itself is unused during setup. You can use it however you want during the setup process. If you set up the Red fleet on two BATS in its setup area, you could call half of it the Red fleet and the other half the Foremost fleet. You could use it to organize the farstar fleet into two groups if you wanted to. The foremost fleet marker is not a setup fleet, it is only a marker for use after you start moving things.

=====================================

Kevin Howard: OK, two questions arose on exactly when reactions occur during the movement of a stack.

The situation:

Gorns have taken planet 4309, and are operating from there. BATS 4310 has long since destroyed. One Gorn DD is sitting in 4411.

The Romulans have a big fleet in the capital, 4514, plus a smaller fleet in 4513. Gorns want to avoid the big capital fleet, so attacking planet 4313 is off limits.

Romulans have a small but capable defense fleet on planet 4112, but nothing on BATS 4214, or planet 4313.

Gorns concoct a plan: Send a force from their base of operations, 4309, straight south, 4310, 4311, 4312, making the Romulans not react yet since the planet would be protected by a reaction force from the capital if planet 4313 is attacked. Then, the Gorns would turn to 4212, as if changing target planets, and the Romulans still would not react (the 4112 defense force is not large enought to pin out the Gorns), and finally, turn south again, 4213, to attack the real target, BATS 4214, without any reaction being done. Gorns retreating after the BATS falls, to 4213, and the one DD in 4411, insures the supply line (through 4212, 4312) is open for safe extraction of the Gorn force.

Here comes the two problems:

First, the Gorns move south, from 4309, to 4310, 4311, 4312. Romulans react their force from 4513, extended reaction to 4412. Gorns turn away from this force, still on course, to hex 4212. At this point in time, the supply line is still open, since the Gorn in 4411 is still keeping supplies open to hex 4312, even with the Romulans in 4412.

Then the Romulans complete their initial reaction, to 4312, blocking the planned supply and retrograde route.

Question #1 is, can the Romulans complete their reaction if the Gorn is turning away from them?

It says that one cannot react to a force moving away from you, but this technically is just the Romulans completing a two-step reaction that was legal to start with (the Gorn entering their two-hex extended reaction range). Also note that I asked this many many moons ago, and at the time you said yes, they could complete their reaction, even if they found no enemy in the hex when they finally arrive.


ANSWER to #1: No. No reaction is possible against a force increasing the range, even if you reacted to that force earlier. You must judge this for each hex of reaction, not just at the start of reaction. Rule (205.33) says that after the extended (long range) reaction, the reacting ships are treated just the same as ships with a standard one hex reaction, and notes you cannot react to something moving away from you. So after the Romulans react to 4412, the are considered to be like any other group of ships with a one hex reaction range. So when the Gorn then increase the range, they cannot react again. They could later react to another moving force that moved into a hex adjacent to 4412 however. If I said otherwise before I apoligize, I was wrong. I must have learned more since then. So in your example the Romulans would react from 4513 to 4512, and when you move away they would be stuck there and your supply/retro path is still open.

The Gorns, undeterred, continue on with their plan with only a minor modification: They will leave a DD in hex 4212. With ships in 4212 and 4411, the supply line remains open through 4213, 4212, 4211, 4311, and on to home. Gorns 4th move was to 4212, and the Romulans did not react, so they feel safe, and move the 5th movement pulse to 4213 while leaving off the one DD.

Romulans then see that the DD has stopped movement, and declares their intent to react from planet 4112 to kill the DD at 4212, thus cutting off the Gorns planned retrograde route..

This is where stack splitting and end of movement declarations got really tricky for us. Rule 203.64 says that a ship that stops movement with movement still available is assumed to use it's last movement pulses in the hex it stopped in, which of course means that the DD can be reacted to on it's 5th or 6th unmoving "movement pulses". However, it's not as clear as to whether or not the rest of the Gorn force has continued on at this point or not. Does the Romulan react to the sub-stack of a single DD, before the main stack continues on south, or does the main stack move to 4213, then the Romulans react to the ended movement of the DD?

To try to clean that up:

Question #2: When a force is leaving behind a part of a stack, when exactly does reaction to the force that ended movement? Before the main force continues on (thus is still in the hex of the force that stopped movement), or is it that the main force moves on, thus showing the secondary force has ended movement, which allow reaction to the secondary force after the main force has continued on?

ANSWER to #2: When you split a stack into substacks, you decide in what order to move the substacks (or not move them for that matter). So if you split off a single ship (the DD in your example), you have two options. You can finish moving the substack consisting of the DD first, which would consist of declaring its movement over (and the enemy could then react into the hex in response to the DD using up its remaining movement points in that hex), and then you could move the substack consisting of the rest of the fleet (of course now some or all of this substack may not be able to move due to pinning). OR do it the other way around, after splitting the stack you can move the substack consisting of the majority of the fleet first, and since you are moving away from the enemy this allows no reaction, after that substack is done you must go back to the substack consisting of the DD and resolve its remaining movement by declaring it is done moving which would allow reaction into the DD's hex at that point. When you split a stack into substacks you decide what order to move the substacks in, and the enemy can react only to the currently moving substack (since he doesn't know what you will be doing with the other substacks until you actually do it). You must move all substacks (or declare their movement over) of a given stack before moving to a different stack. This is rule (203.44).

I think I know the answer by reading the section on splitting sub stacks carefully, but my Gorn opponent doesn't agree with me.

Edit: It should also be noted that if reaction does not occur until after the main force continues on to 4213, then an argument could be made that the next stack has started it's move, thus ending any possible reaction to the last stack, and so the Romulans could not react to the DD in 4212 at all. (Which is why I think reaction to the DD would occur before the main stack would have moved from the hex.)

Thanks for you help, and sorry for such a complicated scenario.

ANSWER: The point is that when you split a stack into substacks with the intention of leaving a unit behind, you don't actually have to declare that given unit is ceasing movement until after the other substacks are done moving. For all the enemy knows, the DD is going to move another direction after the bulk of your forces reaches its destination.

=====================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

Question regarding (449.2) Selling Warships to the WYN Cluster:
(449.23) states that "if an X-ship is sent, the WYN pay in XTPs," but (449.22) states that "No ship larger than 6 combat points...can be sold to the WYNs."
Unfortunately, no X-ship has 6 or fewer factors so this rule seems unusable as of the current ruleset. I'm not petitioning for a change (future expansions may enable this rule), I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something.

ANSWER: Interesting. No, you're not missing anything as far as I can tell.

===================================

David Slatter: Question on reserve fleet movement.

The enemy attack a base that is six hexes from one of my reserve fleets.
The enemy also put interevening forces such that my reserve fleet cannot get to the base under any circumstances. These intervening forces are not involved in battle.
The Base is cut off from general supply, athough it is of course always in supply as it is a base.

the rule 203.74 starts as follows
"if the reserve fleet can reach the target battle hex without containing enemy units, it must do so"

203.743 says that if I cannot get to the battlehex I am unable to move at all unless another battle hex is created.

I would just like to confirm that 203.743 is referring to a total non-movement of the reserves as opposed to the reserves being allowed to move as far as intervening forces and then being forced to stop.

It seems decidely odd to me that a base can be under attack, but the reserves cannot move to help it at all, not even to attack forces surrounding the base (and thus make it much easier for ships defending the base to retreat). If this is correct, it is certainly worth a tacnote. When you have a lot of ships, stopping the enemy reserves from doing anything at all is a great way to reduce casualties over a base. The only penalty is that you cannot retrograde ships which were not in a fight (the surrounding ships).

ANSWER: Legal options are 3, 1) move to a battle hex, 2) open supply path to a battle hex, 3) open a path for another reserve fleet to either of the first two options. You can move the reserves to a battle hex. (in your example they can't get through the blockade pinning requirements and thus can't move at all). You can move reserves to open a supply path (CL27 clarified this as a "supply path" not just "supply status") to ships in combat. (in your example the combat hex has a supply path so the reserve can't move at all. Under (203.732) you could move a reserve fleet to open a path for another reserve fleet trying to reach either of the above destinations. (in your example, if you had a second nearby reserve fleet it could attack one of the blockade hexes provided this brings enough pinning forces there for the second fleet (or at least half of it) to reach the battle hex at the base.

If you have only one reserve fleet then no, it cannot move under the conditions you state. The CL27 ruling just stated that opening a supply path to a battle hex that had no supply path is what the rule means. The ships in your example have a supply path (even though it is to a base in the same hex that might be its own partial grid). You could still buy DB points, extra Gs, etc, either with EPs from the partial grid, or from Orion smuggling for double cost under (410.34).

================================

Darin Smith:

When placing a Police ship during construction can it be placed in a hex adjacent to an enemy ship if that hex does not have a friendly ship adjacent? There is some question if that hex would be considered to be "in supply" since the enemy ships are "closing" supply and nothing is holding that supply open. Normally a ship holds supply open itself but in this case the hex has to be in supply before the POL can be placed.

ANSWER: Right, the way the rule is worded the hex must be part of a supply path before the POL is placed on the map.

================================

Christopher E. Fant: A more specific add-on to Darins post above.

The hex in question is hex 212 in Lyran space. Hex 212 can trace a supply path of 313...412...411...410...409...408.

Darin's contention is that hex 212 is not in supply becuase of Hydran ships in 211.

I feel that 212 is indeed in supply as 313 passes supply into it, but Hydran ships would prevent supply passing out of it.

ANSWER: Not correct I think, rule (411.31) specifies that a supply path cannot pass through a hex adjacent to enemy ships. This does not mean "can enter but not leave", to me it means "cannot enter" or more correctly worded "cannot be part of the supply path". A hex adjacent to enemy ships and no friendlies present is disallowed as part of a supply path. Saying the supply can enter but not leave is making it too complicated, it makes a "maybe" situation of what should be either clearly part of the supply path or not part of the supply path. If there are enemies present as in your example, then it is not part of the supply path.

If the police rules were worded like the retreat rules (which judge retreat hexes based on what the supply status would be if you retreated there), then this would work, but it is not worded that way. The police rules are worded to judge the supply situation before the POL is placed on the map.

==============================
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, February 13, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Nick, with the supply thing above, lets say that the hex were 1701, being connected to the offmap.

Can I place a POL in 1701 if there is an enemy in 1702? The supply path from the offmap travels into 1701 and is not blocked, but from the above it would seem to say that any hex an enemy is adjacent to is not in supply, even if it is connected to a supply path.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:24 am: Edit

Nick - something you mentioned above prompted a thought:

when evaluating supply for retreat purposes is the route assessed with the fleet in the hex it is retreating from or from where they would retreat to?

For example if there were a fleet in combat with a supply hex 6 hexes to the left and one three hexes to the left but with a solid line of frigates blocking supply . This solid line passes through hexes directly through hexes next to the battle hex.

If the supply status for hexes is assessed with the retreating fleet in the battle hex then it would retreat towards the planet that is to the left. If it were assessed from where it will retreat to then the fleet would retreat ontop of one of the blocking frigates, towards the nearer planet.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 07:46 am: Edit

and a second one - do admirals add to the CR rating of the ship for purposes of pin calculations or just to the size of the battleforce?

Thankses in advance
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit

Christopher E. Fant: Nick, with the supply thing above, lets say that the hex were 1701, being connected to the offmap.

Can I place a POL in 1701 if there is an enemy in 1702? The supply path from the offmap travels into 1701 and is not blocked, but from the above it would seem to say that any hex an enemy is adjacent to is not in supply, even if it is connected to a supply path.

ANSWER: Ah, I see where the confusion is, let me think about this again. The problem is that the rules do not really define what it means for a hex to be in supply. The supply rules (410), (411), (412), (413) are written from the point of view of units/ships. A given ship or other unit is in supply or it is not. A supply path to a ship does not actually include the hex the ship is in but includes the hex containing the supply point you are linking to. Now we have the police ship rule that suddenly asks us to determine whether a hex is in supply or not, so how does one do this? The only choice I see (having no other procedure in the rules) is to treat the hex as a unit (even if there are no units present in said hex) and judge supply status of the hex that way. So if a given hex has a valid supply path, it must be in supply. So that means for your off map example, yes the hex is in supply (police ship can be called up). The hex itself cannot be part of a supply path due to enemy adjacent ships, but according to (411.1) the hex itself doesn't need to be part of the supply path. In the earlier example, testing supply status of hex 0212, if 0313, 0412, 0411, 0410, 0409, 0408 is a valid supply path according to the rules then hex 0212 must be in supply even if 0212 cannot be part of a supply path itself.

I was originally thinking that to be in supply the hex had to be a valid supply path hex, but that is not true according to (411.1).

I see what you were saying by supply can enter but not leave, but that is a confusing way to put it, at least to me.

====================================

James Southcott: Nick - something you mentioned above prompted a thought:

when evaluating supply for retreat purposes is the route assessed with the fleet in the hex it is retreating from or from where they would retreat to?

For example if there were a fleet in combat with a supply hex 6 hexes to the left and one three hexes to the left but with a solid line of frigates blocking supply . This solid line passes through hexes directly through hexes next to the battle hex.

If the supply status for hexes is assessed with the retreating fleet in the battle hex then it would retreat towards the planet that is to the left. If it were assessed from where it will retreat to then the fleet would retreat ontop of one of the blocking frigates, towards the nearer planet.

ANSWER: Note rule (302.733) always says things like "would be in supply," "would not be in supply," "the force would be in supply". You judge what the supply situation of the retreating force would be if you were to retreat to each given hex, you are not judging the supply status of the hexes before you retreat to them. So in your example you would retreat into one of the blocking frigate hexes toward the closer supply point. If you would be outnumbered in such a hex then it would have been eliminated by priority 2 before judging supply. Note that so long as all hexes remaining after priority 3 have an enemy frigate in them, then this is not a fighting retreat, it is a normal retreat that makes a new battle hex. You are never forced to perform a fighting retreat.

=========================

James Southcott:

and a second one - do admirals add to the CR rating of the ship for purposes of pin calculations or just to the size of the battleforce?

ANSWER: The rules do not mention one way or the other that I can see, so no, the admiral only increases the command rating for the size of the battleforce but not for purposes of pinning calculations under (203.55). In this way an admiral is very similar to a command point.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

I've got a quick question on the NZ hexes north of ISC and west of Gorn space. If the Gorns occupy and claim all the hexes not adjacent to ISC space, but do not have a supply chain built within those hexes (beyond 6 hexes from the bats line at the 52xx line) can the Gorns claim the EP's from any of the NZ hexes at the 59xx line and west?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Excellent, thanks for clearing that up Nick, appreciate it.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 01:58 pm: Edit

Jimi La Form: I've got a quick question on the NZ hexes north of ISC and west of Gorn space. If the Gorns occupy and claim all the hexes not adjacent to ISC space, but do not have a supply chain built within those hexes (beyond 6 hexes from the bats line at the 52xx line) can the Gorns claim the EP's from any of the NZ hexes at the 59xx line and west?

ANSWER: Right. It has to connect to your supply grid to generate the income. If the Gorns captured the neutral planet 5403 (Pavarak, have to start using those large scale map details like planet names!), then that would get you almost to the edge.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 03:18 pm: Edit

Nick, Can cloaked ships use (306.3) to avoid the approach battle and leave, or only to close with the base?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Thanks Nick, that is what I figured the answer was
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 09:00 pm: Edit

Nick, I recall that 6101 and 6102 were allowed to count if 5403 is part of the (Gorn) supply grid...but I don't think there is anything 'official' to that effect...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:07 pm: Edit

What is the maximum number of minus points the defender in a capital hex (or any hex) can take into a pursuit round? I thought that only the attacker was limited, but can not find any evidence to back that up. Thanks!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, February 14, 2005 - 10:47 pm: Edit

Last ruling was 14 minus points in a capital. I believe that is for both sides.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 09:08 am: Edit

I saw that as well, but it does not help the poor defender who just built up 24 minus points, only to be able to take 7 of them into pursuit and loose the rest. That's free damage for the attacker in my opinion.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:37 am: Edit

On the above, as a continuation of Robert's question - whats the maximum PLUS points that can be taken into a persuit battle.

(From the 'Reports from the Front' topic, Several capital assaults have posted that the attackers have built up alot of PLUS points after devastating undefended planets (which had some form of defence BEFORE that round of combat, so the 'Devastated and undefended planet' rule (i.e. zero plus points generated) doesn't come into effect). It may be that this rules point DOES come into effect during a combat round, if excess damage is done???

Example.

Minor Planet has 1 PDU left (undevastated). Attacker does 30 damage.

9 Kills the PDU and fighters
10 Devastates the planet
Leaves 11 'plus' points of damage at that system.

When the persuit is done, it appears those 11 plus points would have been added to the attackers damage in the persuit round (I think the defender has declined to persuit, as there was so many plus points from the system battles, i.e. the persuer will take alot more damage than the persuid).

To me, this seems wrong, as the plus points should vanish!!! (How can smashing a planet allow greater damage to be done in a persuit battle!!) In effect, it allows the attacker to get away, without risking a persuit battle, all because they absolutely totally obliterated a planet and techically still had damage to resolve spare!!!!!!
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:11 am: Edit

Shoulda put a fleet there to resolve damage against
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:49 am: Edit

There is no maximum on Plus Points.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 03:04 pm: Edit

I want to check something. With normal units, 1/2 the points until the next damage step force the step, e.g. 3 points cripples the DW. Does this also apply to SIDS? If I deal 2 points of damage to a lone SB with no fighters, does it have to take the SIDS and 2 minus points?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 04:45 pm: Edit

For a quick non-official answer -

Taking SIDS is always voluntary. You are never forced to take a SIDS step. I have a house rule that if you have taken SIDS step you can not accumulate more minus points than SIDS you have left to take. (I am not aware of this being an official ruling).

For example - if you have you lone SB with no fighters/ships defending it, and have taken 6 SIDS to the SB, the rules state that you do not have to take a SIDS, so you could accumulate 17 points of damage without having any effect (It takes 18 points to cripple an uninjured SB). With my house rule, since 9 damage (2 SIDS steps) will cripple the base, the base is crippled when 9 damage is scored.

Mike - I would like to confirm that my example is correct based on the actual rules. I understand you should not rule on a house rule.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 05:01 pm: Edit

Mike?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 05:58 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 01:00 am:
308.8, SIDS. If a BATS has 2 SIDS steps nad 3 fithers left, the enemy does 7 points of damage is the defender required to: A. destroy 3 fighters and the attacker is at +4? or B. Defender has to loose 3 fighters and take the 3rd SIDS to cripple the BATS?
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 14, 2003 - 03:58 pm
Tim: I don't think you can be forced to voluntarily take the SIDS step like that (except under (302.615) which is not the same as this), the plus points would accumulate until you got to 6, then the defender must cripple the base, resolving four points. I cannot find anything that forces you to use the last crippling SIDS step, and the only other rule is that which requries crippling when 1/2 of the defense factor is reached
________________________________________
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 06:02 pm: Edit

oops, and just found the overturn decision by Jeff
________________________________________
Quote:
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, February 16, 2003 - 01:30 am
Nick et al, SIDS: I would have to agree that the defender uses the remaining SIDS value to determine whether or not the 50% level is reached, except that (302.615) still applies. If a BATS has had two SIDS inflicted, it will have to be crippled if the attacker causes 4 points of damage. It won't have to be crippled if only 3 points were scored, as doing so would create minus points (302.615)
________________________________________
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Just curious, but can a Romulan WH be operated alone, or must they be used in pairs? And if it can be operated alone, would it be allowed one or two escorts? Thanks!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 11:37 pm: Edit

I hope Bill meant "Nick" and not "Mike". I am not and in no way want to have the mistake of me being FEAR. I know the rules, but not that well.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 06:29 am: Edit

"Shoulda put a fleet there to resolve damage against"

You should not be required to put up a fleet to avoid the enemy accumulating plus points in this manner. Had Paul put up a fleet to defend a planet with just one PDU, this would have been used as an opportunity to direct damage his ships. In my experience, it ends up being very difficult for the defender to actually apply that damage to the PDU/planet, as usually only 1-6 pts remains after DD.

It's even more questionable after the PDU is destroyed but the planet is not devastated. Theoretically, the attacker can just put up a line, do 30 damage, apply 10 to the planet, and rack up 20 plus points. Unless the defender again puts up a line, which would clearly be daft in a situation where the defender is outclassed and needs a base to fight behind, this acts a persuit shield (from a multi-system hex).

I would recommend that plus points cannot be accumulated in an assault where the defence has only a base/planet present, and said base/planet was destroyed/devastated.

(personal note - I would prefer a suitation where +/- points did not exist, you just took at least X damage and any excess you took is hard cheese; however I understand that +/- points are too deeply ingrained intoe the game).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 06:46 am: Edit

1 point voluntarily resolved (ie after directed) is enough to kill the base - the fighters then go as minus points, so it's only a disadvantage for one round. Just one of those advantage/disadvantage that are to be exploited/countered. It's easily avoided: as the defender make sure that you never leave one PDU on it's own if you are not willing to defend it.

IIRC plus/minus points cannot be racked up in a battle where there is no enemy offensive compot. But I could be wrong.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 07:00 am: Edit

comment moved to general discussions.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 09:37 am: Edit

Sorry - Yes I meant Nick, not Mike.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Well, now that Bill have given me the go-ahead I can answer the questions.

===========================

Tim Losberg: Nick, Can cloaked ships use (306.3) to avoid the approach battle and leave, or only to close with the base?

ANSWER: It is simply used to skip the approach battle sequence and have the first battle round be at the base. You must still have a first battle round before you (the attacker) can retreat. The only way to try to avoid combat entirely is with withdrawal which is only for the defender, or as the attacker to offer the normal approach that is then declined and then to refuse to fight at the base.

================================

Stewart W Frazier: Nick, I recall that 6101 and 6102 were allowed to count if 5403 is part of the (Gorn) supply grid...but I don't think there is anything 'official' to that effect...

ANSWER: Sounds vaguely familiar, but I know of no official errata either.

=============================

Robert Padilla: What is the maximum number of minus points the defender in a capital hex (or any hex) can take into a pursuit round? I thought that only the attacker was limited, but can not find any evidence to back that up. Thanks!

ANSWER: Master errata file lists a maximum of 7 minus points for either battle force (attacker and defender), and a maximum of 14 minus points from a capital (multi-system) hex. It specifically says "any battle force", not just the attacker.

=============================

Paul Howard: On the above, as a continuation of Robert's question - whats the maximum PLUS points that can be taken into a persuit battle.

ANSWER: There is no maximum on plus points. Note rule (308.25) which says that if the battle has no defending ships/bases/PDUs then there are no plus or minus points accumulated. So if the PDUs are already gone and there are no defending ships, the attacker cannot just devestate the planet (or re-devestate it on a later turn) to rack up points. Remember the residual defense factor is not a unit for any purpose and would not allow plus/minus points to be accumulated.

============================

Dale Lloyd Fields: I want to check something. With normal units, 1/2 the points until the next damage step force the step, e.g. 3 points cripples the DW. Does this also apply to SIDS? If I deal 2 points of damage to a lone SB with no fighters, does it have to take the SIDS and 2 minus points?

ANSWER: This one I remember since Jeff corrected my on it. You do have to take into account existing SIDS steps when determining if you must resolve remaining damage (the 50% defense factor rule). You then cannot cripple the base if it would produce minus points, but you can do a voluntary SIDS step as you state. Jeff's quote above should make it clear.

====================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:14 pm: Edit

If you had a starbase with no SIDS on it, and no fighters, then two points would not have to be resolved (it is less than half the defense factor/damage absorbtion factor). If you had no fighters, a crippled starbase, and it had 3 more SIDS on it after it was crippled, then you would have to resolve the 2 points (destroying the starbase) since the crippled/SIDSed base can only resolve 4 more points.
By Paul Joseph Hurley (Catwhonevereats) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 06:23 pm: Edit

1. In a CL, it states that:

"The item with the highest priority in the economics department is a construction of an extra starbase in the capital. ...... Granted, the drain on the economy is high, but it is absolutely essential that the Lyrans be able to perform two major conversions per turn."

I thought the second major conversion required BOTH an extra starbase AND the required balance option (excepting K + F). (If not, the balance option is useless!)

2*. Hydran Tugs carry one pallet. Mobile Bases? (Or can we assume Hydran mobile bases are only one pallet?)

3*. The Kzintis can use the War Cruiser Leader Rule for Light Cruisers. I cannot find a copy of The Command Light Cruiser however.

4*. Related to the above - is the leader version of the Kzinti FF the FH?

5. Only Repair Tugs can repair bases - in that case, how do the empires manage before Y160? (1st 4 Powers for instance.)

6. Is the Hydran GRV an early years unit using the rules as published in CL#13 for The Hydran Liberation? Or can it be assumed the tech has been updated?

* These questions relate to possible campaign games, and so might be more appropriate on SFB sections. Kick me if so.
By Paul Joseph Hurley (Catwhonevereats) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 06:43 pm: Edit

Sorry, me again.

These questions (two stars) refer to CL matters in some way, and so might not be classed as official anyhow. They might be important if you do oficially publish it however.)

1**. The Kzinti OOB in the 1st 4 powers war states they are using the BC, not the CS/CA. In CL13, scenario on 2nd Fed-Kzinti War, the CS has a factor of 7, implying that the unrefitted version is categorically weaker - even when you take in to account the 'creeping-unseen' effects of refits. Can you clarify?

2**. Also in the 2nd Fed-Kzinti war article, it uses starbases 2 years before they were built, but then refers to them. Can you also clarify this? (If they are BATS - as implied in SFB - this creates problems with conversions.)

3**. Furthermore, the Command Cruisers are not available. I have a suggestion for this though! - See SFB section.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:47 am: Edit

Paul Joseph Hurley:

1. In a CL, it states that:

"The item with the highest priority in the economics department is a construction of an extra starbase in the capital. ...... Granted, the drain on the economy is high, but it is absolutely essential that the Lyrans be able to perform two major conversions per turn."

I thought the second major conversion required BOTH an extra starbase AND the required balance option (excepting K + F). (If not, the balance option is useless!)

ANSWER: The Lyrans get one major conversion a turn at normal cost. If the Lyrans build a second starbase, they can have a second major conversion for normal cost plus 5 extra EPs under (433.16). This is the standard rule, so even without the balance option if the lyrans built the extra starbase they can do two major conversions per turn. The Balance option is for another major conversion in addition to this.

2*. Hydran Tugs carry one pallet. Mobile Bases? (Or can we assume Hydran mobile bases are only one pallet?)

ANSWER: The Hydran Tug can carry/set up a mobile base in place of a pallet.

3*. The Kzintis can use the War Cruiser Leader Rule for Light Cruisers. I cannot find a copy of The Command Light Cruiser however.

ANSWER: The SSD for the Kzinti light cruiser leader variant for SFB is in Capt. Log #20.

4*. Related to the above - is the leader version of the Kzinti FF the FH?

ANSWER: Not really. There technically isn't a "leader" version of the Kzinti FF. The FFK sort of fills this role, but is not handled by the leader rule used by CWs and DWs and the Kzinti CL.

5. Only Repair Tugs can repair bases - in that case, how do the empires manage before Y160? (1st 4 Powers for instance.)

ANSWER: Under rule (420.6) a tug is required to repair a base. Note that the tug in question doesn't actually use the repair pod. After Y160 for example, you could have one tug with the repair pod acting as a repair ship under (422.8), while a second, third, or more, tugs are repairing various bases under (420.6).

6. Is the Hydran GRV an early years unit using the rules as published in CL#13 for The Hydran Liberation? Or can it be assumed the tech has been updated?

ANSWER: GRV is listed on the Fighter Ops SIT, but I can't find a specific F&E rule for it. The expedition scenario was republished in combined ops, but I can't find the GRV mentioned in it either. In SFB, the GRV is in module J2, it was an early years ship upgraded with later tech, but it still had the older engines.

* These questions relate to possible campaign games, and so might be more appropriate on SFB sections. Kick me if so.

By Paul Joseph Hurley (Catwhonevereats) on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 06:43 pm: Edit


Sorry, me again.

These questions (two stars) refer to CL matters in some way, and so might not be classed as official anyhow. They might be important if you do oficially publish it however.)

1**. The Kzinti OOB in the 1st 4 powers war states they are using the BC, not the CS/CA. In CL13, scenario on 2nd Fed-Kzinti War, the CS has a factor of 7, implying that the unrefitted version is categorically weaker - even when you take in to account the 'creeping-unseen' effects of refits. Can you clarify?

ANSWER: I don't think the CS/CA has really been added to F&E yet, it may just have been in that scenario in CL.

2**. Also in the 2nd Fed-Kzinti war article, it uses starbases 2 years before they were built, but then refers to them. Can you also clarify this? (If they are BATS - as implied in SFB - this creates problems with conversions.)

ANSWER: They were probably being used since the earlier versions (docks from Module Y, or something else) had not been created at that time.

3**. Furthermore, the Command Cruisers are not available. I have a suggestion for this though! - See SFB section.

ANSWER: Keep in mind that anything from CL#13 was written for the old 93 (or older?) version of F&E which has evolved considerably since then.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Nick, I think the real question on the first question number two was intended to be, "How does a tug that can only carry one pod/pallet transport a Mobile Base that consists of at least two pods?"

I would note, that to be a supply point (which all set up F&E MBs are), SFB requires two cargo pods along with the two MB pods. As there is no tug that can carry four pods at once (that I've heard of), so I've always assumed that the rest of the base is carried in extra trips or on accompanying freighters, either of which helps explain why it takes six months to set up.

Though hearing any official word on the subject would be interesting, now that it's come up.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 03:45 pm: Edit

Nick, also, on Paul's question 1 about major conversions and balance options, my understanding was that the balance option allowed a second major conversion FOR FREE, as per the Klingons and Feds (assuming, of course, that a second SB was built in the capital) and that the reason for choosing that option was to avoid having to pay 5 extra EPs every time one wished to perfom a second major conversion.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Nick,
If using the Fed Reaction rules, can the Fed BB be converted to carrier or SCS varient like the B10?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 10:14 pm: Edit

We dont have counters for those yet do we?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 12:45 am: Edit

Nick,

Got some questions on Advanced Raids (320.0) from Planetary Ops. Under (320.314) one ship is allowed to react to a raid by using (314.241) but that may not stop all ships in a multi ship drone raid. A fast ship could stop a two ship drone raid but it can’t pin all the units in a three ship drone raid (except for a Hydran LGE or Fed DVL). Am I right that I can only react one ship into the Attack Hex of the drone raid or can I react one ship for each drone ship in the raid? Is this different if the raiding ships come from the raid pool (314.1) & (320.24) or if they come from ships on the map (320.31)? Previously all the ships in the raid pool had different targets and could be reacted to individually. Now they can be part of a single drone raid. If using the raid pool ships for a single drone raid can each ship be reacted to individually or do I react to all of them as a single raid with just one ship? If I react one ship out to try to block a Drone raid does it have any effect if I can't pin all the raiding drone ships? In effect, do I pin part of the raiding force or do I have to be able to pin all of the raiding force to stop any of it? In addition, if I pin two of the ships in a three ship drone raid and one of his three ships is a scout can the third ship that I have no way to stop still raid if the scout is blocked (and the unblocked raider is not a scout and drone ship)?

Also, do scouts in the target hex collocated with the target of the raid help defend the target of the raid? Rule (320.34) states that the attacking die role might be shifted by (313.21) but does not stipulate if this only happens if the target of the raid is itself a scout or if a target collocated with a scout or base is also protected by an EW generated shift. And if a collocated scout does help to defend a target can more than one collocated scout do so to try to get a +2 shift.

No major hurry here. We won't be playing again until next month. Thanks.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 04:07 pm: Edit

Okay I perused the Q&A Archive and I did not see the answer to this. I make the assumption I know the answer but cannot specifically find it.

Can you raid a ship disrupting your own territory?
I assume yes.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 05:35 pm: Edit

I asked a similar question back on Oct 8th, 2004; at the time, Nick couldn't see any prohibition against raiding enemy ships in your own territory (but noted that you can't raid Orion raiders).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Using logic:

(314.21) States that a raid movement ends in a "Hex" known as the Raid Target Hex (so you cannot send a raider into the off-map).

(314.23) The last line states specifically where raids CANNOT enter.

There is no rule that states that you cannot raid ships in your territory.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Okay, got it.

What about Orions in the Cloudburst Scenario? Can a raid be done into the Orion Province after its announced it has joined the Coalition side and has been connected?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 12:10 am: Edit

The Orions in CloudBurst can be raided as they are a member of the Coalition.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 08:25 am: Edit

Thanks Chuck.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 12:47 am: Edit

Designer's Intent Question (537.1)

A. Under (537.11) Sabotage the rule states:
"Roll two dice. If the result is a "10", "11", or "12" a single battalion or IGCE on that planet is destroyed."

B. Then, (537.111) states:
"If there are no IGCEs or PDUs on the planet, there is nosabotage attack on PDUs."

C. Followed by, (537.112) (the first bullet):
"Subtract one from the die roll for each occupying IGCE or PDU on the palnet." (Meaning that a die roll of only 11 or 12 will be successful and conflicts with "A".)

"A" & "C" seem to be in conflict. Should (537.112) be amended to read:
"Subtract one from the die roll for each ADDITIONAL (BEYOND THE FIRST) occupying IGCE or PDU on the palnet."
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 09:38 am: Edit

I don't think that's a designer's intent question; that category of questions go much deeper into the game system.

Send it up through Nick and Jeff and when I get it with their comments and annotations I'll look at it.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:58 am: Edit

Nick,
A question regarding (PO-449.23): The rule says that the WYN pay double the construction cost of the ship (to a maximum of 10 EP), and that they pay in XTP if they buy an X-ship. Does the 10 EP limit also apply to XTP, or does the sale of a six-point X-ship net me 12 XTP (and 0 EP, which is below the cap of 10 EP)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Nick,
Regarding X-ships (AO-523.0) and Capturing Ships (FE2K-305.0), can you convert an enemy ship that you've converted to your tech (per (305.23)) to X-tech (per (305.45) and (523.424))? Rule (523.116) says that a captured X-ship cannot be converted to the capturing race's tech, but there's no rule prohibiting a captured-and-converted non-X-ship from being upgraded to X.
(Hence, I assume that the general rule (305.45) (may convert to anything not prohibited, for double cost) remains in effect and, since there is no prohibition, the conversion is allowable (and hideously expensive). In effect, I think that (523.116) represents the difficulty involved in getting all the foreign advanced technology to work with your advanced technology (i.e., you can't), and using (305.23) and (305.45) to convert a non-X ship to X represents replacing the hodgepodge of foreign and domestic 'normal' components with advanced domestic tech (which is expensive almost beyond reason, but doable).)
I've got a prospective tacnote posted that hinges on the answer. (Tacnote posted Feb 25th, 10:47am.)
By Joseph A. Mannino (Joemannino) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:03 am: Edit

Back in December there were some questions about the VLV in mothballs/IWR. A case file was requested, but I have an additional question. I will restate the non fighter cost questions as well, as the fighter cost became the forefront issue, and I did not see a comment on 2 other questions. Sorry if they are all in the works...

The IWR/mothballs require 1 ep for activation, except for the Vuls, as they are sublight and require a 4 point minor conversion (525.66). The first question is the VLV like the other Vuls- sublight and requires a minor conversion, or is it like the rest of the IWR/mothballs and only requires a 1 ep activation?

My next question has more bearing if the Roms still have to pay 20 eps for the fighters- can the VLV be unconverted during activation/conversion? 433.24 address unconversions, so maybe I could pay 1 ep to unconvert and then activate/convert?

Finally does the VLV count against any carrier production for that turn/year?

Joe
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:33 pm: Edit

questions downloaded
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 01:03 am: Edit

This is more of an After Action Report for PO.

(537.12) Infiltration. "Designate the target (which must be one of the three ships with the lowest defence factors)..." I just want to point out that I realized that this applies to FCRs as well. Since it would be very powerful effect killing an FCR outright with a roll of 11 or 12 or crippling (but removing its fighter factors from play) on a 10. I would guess that this was not intended, but I have no ready solution. I just thought I should bring it up.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, February 28, 2005 - 05:50 am: Edit

Dale

FCRs are way too good. They need an achillies' heel badly.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:33 pm: Edit

March - April 2005 Archive

By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 11:40 am: Edit

Nick,

A couple questions about when the racial construction schedules disagree with the SIT.

The Klingon SIT says that the C7 is available in Y177 as a sub for a C8 or D7. However, 702.0 says it is not available until Y178. Which is right?

Similarly, the Romulan SIT says that the HDW is not available until Y180. However, the construction schedule for the Romulans says they may start building it in Y178. Again, which is right?

Thanks!
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 04:15 pm: Edit

OK, here's a minor poser:

PF's get deployed over a three turn process, where you get a dozen or more free squadrons of PF's. You put these PF's on bases, if there are enough bases to house them all.

If there are more bases than free PF squadrons, you can either buy the PF's for the remaining bases, or leave them empty.

But do these empty bases have the modules added for free? Are they capable of just receiving PF's at this point, or do they have to buy a PF module as well?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 02, 2005 - 08:24 pm: Edit

How would a released monitor be treated if it happened to be in a hex with a planet that is under attack, if that planet was not the destination of the monitor? Would it just be considered a slow unit present in the battle hex, or would it be considered with the planet and provide that planet the associated monitor bonuses? Could the monitor even enter that hex at all? Thanks!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 11:59 am: Edit

Another Monitor related question. Rule 519.13 states that a MON can not be assigned to a planet with max PDUs. However, a MON can be released by placing 4 PDUs (or the max), or by building a base os at least 12 factors. It does not seem to make sense that a MON can be released under those conditions, but that the release conditions are not part of 519.13 which only prohibits a MON from being asigned to a planet with max PDUs. I am just looking for some clarification here, should 519.13 also cover bases for restricting MON assignment, or is it just supposed to be max PDUs? Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 03, 2005 - 12:58 pm: Edit

more questions downloaded
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 11:18 am: Edit

James Lowry:

Nick, I think the real question on the first question number two was intended to

be, "How does a tug that can only carry one pod/pallet transport a Mobile Base

that consists of at least two pods?"

I would note, that to be a supply point (which all set up F&E MBs are), SFB

requires two cargo pods along with the two MB pods. As there is no tug that can

carry four pods at once (that I've heard of), so I've always assumed that the rest

of the base is carried in extra trips or on accompanying freighters, either of

which helps explain why it takes six months to set up.

Though hearing any official word on the subject would be interesting, now that

it's come up.

ANSWER: From the standpoint of F&E, it's not important. I don't know if the

hydran tug can move both halves of the MB or not at once, but in F&E it can move

and set up a mobile base. I don't know if it really makes two trips, or something

else is happening that is not shown. The cargo pods are probably found locally as

opposed to moved by the tug. It is probably easier to exchange cargo pods when

new supplies are needed (brought by civilian freighters as part of the background

supply system), rather than move cargo from a freighter to the base.

===================================

John Doucette: Nick, also, on Paul's question 1 about major conversions and

balance options, my understanding was that the balance option allowed a second

major conversion FOR FREE, as per the Klingons and Feds (assuming, of course, that

a second SB was built in the capital) and that the reason for choosing that option

was to avoid having to pay 5 extra EPs every time one wished to perfom a second

major conversion.

ANSWER: Could be, but then it is curious that the balance option references rule

(433.16) instead of (433.15). As a balance option you could concievably play it

however you want since it sort of falls under the house rules category.

====================================

Tim Losberg: If using the Fed Reaction rules, can the Fed BB be converted to

carrier or SCS varient like the B10?

ANSWER: Those variants aren't on the SIT that I can see. Once they are published

I suppose they could be used under those conditions. I don't know if they are in

a Capt. Log or not.

===================================

Daniel G. Knipfer: Got some questions on Advanced Raids (320.0) from Planetary

Ops. Under (320.314) one ship is allowed to react to a raid by using (314.241) but

that may not stop all ships in a multi ship drone raid. A fast ship could stop a

two ship drone raid but it can’t pin all the units in a three ship drone raid

(except for a Hydran LGE or Fed DVL). Am I right that I can only react one ship

into the Attack Hex of the drone raid or can I react one ship for each drone ship

in the raid? Is this different if the raiding ships come from the raid pool

(314.1) & (320.24) or if they come from ships on the map (320.31)? Previously all

the ships in the raid pool had different targets and could be reacted to

individually. Now they can be part of a single drone raid. If using the raid pool

ships for a single drone raid can each ship be reacted to individually or do I

react to all of them as a single raid with just one ship? If I react one ship out

to try to block a Drone raid does it have any effect if I can't pin all the

raiding drone ships? In effect, do I pin part of the raiding force or do I have to

be able to pin all of the raiding force to stop any of it? In addition, if I pin

two of the ships in a three ship drone raid and one of his three ships is a scout

can the third ship that I have no way to stop still raid if the scout is blocked

(and the unblocked raider is not a scout and drone ship)?

Also, do scouts in the target hex collocated with the target of the raid help

defend the target of the raid? Rule (320.34) states that the attacking die role

might be shifted by (313.21) but does not stipulate if this only happens if the

target of the raid is itself a scout or if a target collocated with a scout or

base is also protected by an EW generated shift. And if a collocated scout does

help to defend a target can more than one collocated scout do so to try to get a

+2 shift.

ANSWER: Rule (320.314) specifically says only one ship can react per raid (even if

the raid has multiple ships in it), and a given ship can only react to one raid.

Rule (320.312) says that reacting ships do not pin raiders, but are used for the

interception only. For EW, I believe you only count the EW from the target, not

other units in the hex that are not in the raid battle.

====================================

Lawrence Bergen:

Can you raid a ship disrupting your own territory?
I assume yes.

ANSWER: Sure, but not Orion raiders (314.247).

=====================================

Lawrence Bergen:

What about Orions in the Cloudburst Scenario? Can a raid be done into the Orion

Province after its announced it has joined the Coalition side and has been

connected?

ANSWER: As Chuck said, those are coalition ships, not true Orion (504.0) ships, so

they could be attacked by raiders.

=====================================

Chuck Strong

A. Under (537.11) Sabotage the rule states:
"Roll two dice. If the result is a "10", "11", or "12" a single battalion or IGCE

on that planet is destroyed."

B. Then, (537.111) states:
"If there are no IGCEs or PDUs on the planet, there is nosabotage attack on PDUs."

C. Followed by, (537.112) (the first bullet):
"Subtract one from the die roll for each occupying IGCE or PDU on the palnet."

(Meaning that a die roll of only 11 or 12 will be successful and conflicts with

"A".)

"A" & "C" seem to be in conflict. Should (537.112) be amended to read:
"Subtract one from the die roll for each ADDITIONAL (BEYOND THE FIRST) occupying

IGCE or PDU on the palnet."

ANSWER: Chuck, you have to also account for the next set of bulleted items, which

allow positive modifiers to the die roll. If you had one PDU you have a -1

against that die roll, but if you also sent a prime team you would get a +1 and

you would be back to 10,11,12 die roll success. The 10,11,12 is still the base

that is modified by many things, granted, the PDU modifier will ALWAYS be present

in some form (minimum -1), but that is the way it is written. I will send

something to Jeff and Steve though to see if what you propose was the original

intent.

==================================

Dave Butler: A question regarding (PO-449.23): The rule says that the WYN pay

double the construction cost of the ship (to a maximum of 10 EP), and that they

pay in XTP if they buy an X-ship. Does the 10 EP limit also apply to XTP, or does

the sale of a six-point X-ship net me 12 XTP (and 0 EP, which is below the cap of

10 EP)?

ANSWER: The limit would be 10 XTPs in that situation, but as noted earlier it is

hard to find an X-ship that is allowed to be sold by the rule.

====================================

Dave Butler: Regarding X-ships (AO-523.0) and Capturing Ships (FE2K-305.0), can

you convert an enemy ship that you've converted to your tech (per (305.23)) to

X-tech (per (305.45) and (523.424))? Rule (523.116) says that a captured X-ship

cannot be converted to the capturing race's tech, but there's no rule prohibiting

a captured-and-converted non-X-ship from being upgraded to X.
(Hence, I assume that the general rule (305.45) (may convert to anything not

prohibited, for double cost) remains in effect and, since there is no prohibition,

the conversion is allowable (and hideously expensive). In effect, I think that

(523.116) represents the difficulty involved in getting all the foreign advanced

technology to work with your advanced technology (i.e., you can't), and using

(305.23) and (305.45) to convert a non-X ship to X represents replacing the

hodgepodge of foreign and domestic 'normal' components with advanced domestic tech

(which is expensive almost beyond reason, but doable).)
I've got a prospective tacnote posted that hinges on the answer. (Tacnote posted

Feb 25th, 10:47am.)

ANSWER: I don't see anything that prohibits it, other than the high cost as you

note. Perhaps your tac note will produce errata?

===========================================

Joseph A. Mannino:

The IWR/mothballs require 1 ep for activation, except for the Vuls, as they are

sublight and require a 4 point minor conversion (525.66). The first question is

the VLV like the other Vuls- sublight and requires a minor conversion, or is it

like the rest of the IWR/mothballs and only requires a 1 ep activation?

ANSWER: I suppose it is a 4 pt minor conversion since the VLV rule (440.7) says to

use the IWR rule which says 4 pts for vultures. According the SFB the VLV was not

a sublight ship, but it did apparently need lots of work to convert it to a

carrier, it was in an uncompleted state. You have to pay for the fighters.

My next question has more bearing if the Roms still have to pay 20 eps for the

fighters- can the VLV be unconverted during activation/conversion? 433.24 address

unconversions, so maybe I could pay 1 ep to unconvert and then activate/convert?

ANSWER: You have to pay for the fighters (EPs and/or Free Fighter Factors), but

you could unconvert it I suppose (4 pt activation and 1 pt conversion to base

hull).

Finally does the VLV count against any carrier production for that turn/year?

ANSWER: It is technically still an activation not construction so I it would be in

addition to regular carrier production.

====================================

Dale Lloyd Fields: This is more of an After Action Report for PO.

(537.12) Infiltration. "Designate the target (which must be one of the three ships

with the lowest defence factors)..." I just want to point out that I realized that

this applies to FCRs as well. Since it would be very powerful effect killing an

FCR outright with a roll of 11 or 12 or crippling (but removing its fighter

factors from play) on a 10. I would guess that this was not intended, but I have

no ready solution. I just thought I should bring it up.

ANSWER: Right, and FCR could be a likely target. Still, it you have to roll a

10,11, or 12 to do anything.

=======================================

Paul Bonfanti:

Nick,

A couple questions about when the racial construction schedules disagree with the

SIT.

The Klingon SIT says that the C7 is available in Y177 as a sub for a C8 or D7.

However, 702.0 says it is not available until Y178. Which is right?

Similarly, the Romulan SIT says that the HDW is not available until Y180. However,

the construction schedule for the Romulans says they may start building it in

Y178. Again, which is right?

ANSWER: Klingon C7 is Y177 in SFB, and the on-line SIT Y177 is a later publication

than the rulebook, so go with Y177. The Romulan HDW is Y180, the rulebook was

saving space to avoid another set of construction lines starting in Y180. Note

that the listed HDW in the construction schedule is the allowed sub, which isn't

actuall allowed until Y180.

=====================================

Kevin Howard:

OK, here's a minor poser:

PF's get deployed over a three turn process, where you get a dozen or more free

squadrons of PF's. You put these PF's on bases, if there are enough bases to house

them all.

If there are more bases than free PF squadrons, you can either buy the PF's for

the remaining bases, or leave them empty.

But do these empty bases have the modules added for free? Are they capable of just

receiving PF's at this point, or do they have to buy a PF module as well?

ANSWER: I think all existing bases get free modules for PFs. The modules built

separately are generally for FRDs and MBs and such.

===============================================

Robert Padilla:

How would a released monitor be treated if it happened to be in a hex with a

planet that is under attack, if that planet was not the destination of the

monitor? Would it just be considered a slow unit present in the battle hex, or

would it be considered with the planet and provide that planet the associated

monitor bonuses? Could the monitor even enter that hex at all? Thanks!

ANSWER: I suppose it would fight under the normal monitor rules, but would not

officially be assigned to that planet. It must continue moving to its actual

destination at the next opportunity, unless you chose to asign it to said planet.

==================================================

Robert Padilla:

Another Monitor related question. Rule 519.13 states that a MON can not be

assigned to a planet with max PDUs. However, a MON can be released by placing 4

PDUs (or the max), or by building a base os at least 12 factors. It does not seem

to make sense that a MON can be released under those conditions, but that the

release conditions are not part of 519.13 which only prohibits a MON from being

asigned to a planet with max PDUs. I am just looking for some clarification here,

should 519.13 also cover bases for restricting MON assignment, or is it just

supposed to be max PDUs? Thanks!

ANSWER: Bases do not restrict monitor placement, just max PDUs. Eiter max PDUs or

a new base can release an assigned monitor. It's just different like that.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 01:32 pm: Edit

>ANSWER: Rule (320.314) specifically says only
>one ship can react per raid (even if the raid
>has multiple ships in it), and a given ship can
>only react to one raid.


I do not belive that is correct. Special raids -- AKA Drone and Carrier Raids -- are governed by (320.35). There multiple ships can react either in the attack hex or the target hex.

Commando raids are in the Raid (314.0) as opposed to the "Special Raid" (320.0) attack segment. However, commando ships can have consorts per (320.222).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Nick,

(320.314) says that "A single enemy ship could react to a special raid by (314.241), moving into the "Attack Hex" to pin the raiders." What effect does this have? Are the raiding drone ships pinned out?

(320.312) states that, "If ships react into a valid attack hex they will not block the raiders by pinning but would make interception (320.35) very dangerous for the raiders." (320.312) and (321.314) seem to contradict each other. (320.312) says that a reacting ship will not pin out the raid but (320.314) says that it will. This needs to be cleared up. (320.312) also says that, “Ships cannot use their command rating (203.55) to avoid pinning in this case.” But this doesn’t make sense as the same rule says you can’t pin. Which is it?

Also, (320.312) says that a reacting ship "would make interception very dangerous" but (320.35) makes absolutely no mention of reacting ships making raids more dangerous for the raiders. It doesn't alter the chance of intercepting at all except by placing one ship in range to be part of an interception force, and the reaction of a single ship isn't going to be much of a threat as an interception force to three raiding drone cruisers. Besides, the defender gets to set up a full set of interception groups from ships in the target hex.

There are some strange inconsistencies here that I just can’t seem to wrap my brain around. Can we get a clarification on how (320.3) works? Part of the rule says you don’t pin special raids out, part says that you can pin special raids out. Part of (320.312) implies that reacting ships will help Interception but (320.35) Interception does not include any reference to what help (ships reacting under (320.312) provides.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 04, 2005 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Let me re-read the whole special raid rule again when I have some time to think it through and see if I can make sense of it. Those were the last questions I did while trying to get out the door to go to work.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 05:49 am: Edit

I'm really sorry to do this to you, Nick, but it's not really covered at all in the rules ...

Imagine this scenario:

1) A tug with carrier pod(s) and some escorts are taken into a battle hex and called a group, thanks to the flexible carrier group rules in Fighter Operations.

2) They all survive and retrograde back somewhere safe to live happily ever after.

3) At the start of the next player turn, the player in question reassigns tug pods, leaving the tug with non-carrier pod(s). Let's say scout pod(s) just for fun.

At no point in this process did the player elect to dissolve the carrier group, nor (as far as I can tell) did he have to. So as near as I can tell from my understanding of the rules, the resultant mess is still technically a carrier group. The ship acting as a carrier is illegal to be placed into the position it is in, but no step in the process ever checks to see if your groups could legally be formed ... once you're in, you're in. (Worse yet, I'm pretty sure the whole mess is still eligeable for CEDS retrograde/repair).

I'm hoping you can point out something I've missed.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 11:41 am: Edit

Mark:

Speaking as the F&E Sequence of Play coordinator and as an amicus curiae (friend of the court and having no bidding authority on rule Q&As), IMHO once a player elects to reassign the carrier pods on a given tug the old carrier group dissolves as there is no carrier to escort (unless of course the given tug is eligible to retain the escorts (515.43) (changes carrier pod types (say V to VA or SCS pods); carries EPs; serves as a PFT; acts as a supply point).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 05, 2005 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Mark, if the new tug pods results in a tug-pod combination that cannot be escorted, then the group would be automatically dissovled at that point. I don't think there is a specific rule for this beyond the rules about what can/cannot be escorted. If the new combination could still be escorted, then you could keep the group together.

Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 11:28 am: Edit

Trent Telenko

>ANSWER: Rule (320.314) specifically says only
>one ship can react per raid (even if the raid
>has multiple ships in it), and a given ship can
>only react to one raid.

I do not belive that is correct. Special raids -- AKA Drone and Carrier Raids -- are governed by (320.35). There multiple ships can react either in the attack hex or the target hex.

Commando raids are in the Raid (314.0) as opposed to the "Special Raid" (320.0) attack segment. However, commando ships can have consorts per (320.222).

ANSWER: O.K. I re-read everything. I think you are confusing REACTION and INTERCEPTION which are two different concepts here. Rule (320.314) quite clearly states that the defender can react a single ship to each special raid (i.e. drone or PF/fighter raid), there is no mention of number of ships in the raid defining the number of reacting ships. You get one reaction period. So after the raiding ships move by strat/raid movement to the attack hex, the defender can react one ship, or call up one police ship. Just like any other raid. Rule (320.35) does deal with multiple ships, but this is INTERCEPTION which is different from REACTION. You can REACT one ship per raid (i.e. move a new ship into the attack hex). Then the raider performs the ATTACK, then you deal with the INTERCEPTION which can involve many defending ships (assuming there were many ships to begin with in either the attack and/or target hexes.

============================================

Daniel G. Knipfer:

(320.314) says that "A single enemy ship could react to a special raid by (314.241), moving into the "Attack Hex" to pin the raiders." What effect does this have? Are the raiding drone ships pinned out?

ANSWER: It is clear from the other rules and the sequence that the reacting ship does not pin anything. I don't know why that rule says "pin", but that is not what happens.

(320.312) states that, "If ships react into a valid attack hex they will not block the raiders by pinning but would make interception (320.35) very dangerous for the raiders." (320.312) and (321.314) seem to contradict each other. (320.312) says that a reacting ship will not pin out the raid but (320.314) says that it will. This needs to be cleared up. (320.312) also says that, “Ships cannot use their command rating (203.55) to avoid pinning in this case.” But this doesn’t make sense as the same rule says you can’t pin. Which is it?

ANSWER: What is meant is that when the raiders move into the attack hex, that hex cannot contain pinning forces equal to the raiders or the raid can't happen. If you had a raiding force of a CVA and 3 escorts, and the attack hex had exactly enough frigates to "pin" and prevent the raid (pin the four ships and fighters), then the raider cannot go to that attack hex at all, the raider CANNOT claim command rating superiority to allow the raid. ALL it means is that you ignore command ratings when determining if the raid is blocked by preexisting pinning forces.

Also, (320.312) says that a reacting ship "would make interception very dangerous" but (320.35) makes absolutely no mention of reacting ships making raids more dangerous for the raiders. It doesn't alter the chance of intercepting at all except by placing one ship in range to be part of an interception force, and the reaction of a single ship isn't going to be much of a threat as an interception force to three raiding drone cruisers. Besides, the defender gets to set up a full set of interception groups from ships in the target hex.

ANSWER: If a ship reacted, then that gives you another ship to put in an interception group. That is the only thing a ship reacting to a special raid can do, take part in the interception attempt. It does not pin out the raid, as that calculation is done before the reaction happens. As to making the raid "very dangerous", well, if you reacted a FF or POL, then no. If you reacted a single ship with lots of attack factors/EW points or other such advantages, then it could make things dangerous provided it makes the interception roll. Kind of a silly phrase really.

There are some strange inconsistencies here that I just can’t seem to wrap my brain around. Can we get a clarification on how (320.3) works? Part of the rule says you don’t pin special raids out, part says that you can pin special raids out. Part of (320.312) implies that reacting ships will help Interception but (320.35) Interception does not include any reference to what help (ships reacting under (320.312) provides.


ANSWER: There is some sloppy writing here, probably because the rule went through different versions. Commando raids use the normal sequence but do a G attack instead of province disruption/alternative attack. The sequence as I see it for special (fighter/PF and drone raids) is:

1) Raiding force (if from the raid pool) moves by strat movement to the Origin hex.

2) Raiding force moves by raid movement (ignore enemy forces) from the Origin hex to the Attack hex. This Attack hex cannot have defending forces able to pin the raiders, if it does the raiders can't go there and must pick a different Attack hex. Ignore command ratings when making this calculation (higher command rating does not benefit the raiders).

3) One defending ship can react into the Attack Hex, OR, one defending Police ship can be called up. This ship does not affect pinning above, but can participate in interception.

4) Roll the battle against the designated target. The target's EW may provide a shift, but other defending ships are not involved.

5) Defender may try to intercept in either the Attack or Target hexes (fighter/PF raiders can only be intercepted in the Attack hex). From defending ships in the hex build your interception groups and roll for interception. The number of groups you can make are dependant on the number of defending ships (only one defending ship, you can of course have only one group), whether you are using (320.37), and the presence of an early warning network.

6) If interception occured, fight that battle.

7) Special raid ships retrograde (ignoring enemy forces) in the RECOVERY step.

Really, the only confusing thing to me is step 5, interception groups. Rule (320.351) seems to say that a given defending ship can only try to intercept one raid, so if there are two or more raids, you need separate interception groups for each. This implies perhaps that you have to creat all your interception groups for all raids in that hex before making any interception die rolls.

Then rule (320.352) says that a given ship can be in multiple interception groups vs different raids, but if it intercepts one then it is no longer available for the later raids. One could interepret that as: from the "pool" of defending ships in the hex form the groups for the first raid and roll. Then any groups that failed to intercept that raid go back into the "pool" to build the interception groups for the second raid, and so on.

I suppose I would lean toward the second interpretation myself. I will have to ask Steve if the above is correct or not.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Okay, Now it makes sense. Thanks Nick.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 02:24 pm: Edit

Hey Nick, I think I figured out how a reacting ship under (320.314) could pin out a raid. It could do so if there where all ready other ships in the hex so that the defender now has enough ships to block the raid when including the reacting ship.

Example, the Kligons send three D6Ds to raid a Hydran FRD. The Hydrans have two ships in the Target Hex. The Hydrans react a ship into the target hex, giving them three ships in the target hex which is enough to block the raid.

Please confirm that this will work. I have a term paper I'm submitting based on this idea.
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Daniel, since pinning is considered in step 2 and reaction in step 3 I don't think your tacnote will work. That is, you consider pinning the raid when the raiders attempt to move into the attack hex, but the reaction of a ship to the raid has no effect on pinning. At least, if I'm reading Nick's response correctly.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 06:30 pm: Edit

The rule says that a reacting ship does not pin. That is because the pinning calculation is done first just to determine if the raiding ships can enter the attack hex or not, after that it is irrelevant. Thus the reacting ship cannot invalidate the raid, but could be an intercepting ship.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Nick, I'm going to ask that this get bumped up for review. (320.314) specifically allows reaction "to pin" which strongly suggests the defender should be able to pin out an attack if he has his ships deployed right. It doesn't make it automatic, making raids imposible, as the defender still has to have enough ships. If it said "Intercept" the raiders I wouldn't dispute this.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 01:48 pm: Edit

Dan, I'm sorry, you're wrong. Speaking as one of those who (hopefully) helped in the drafting of the raid rules (along with about 12+ others), the clear intent of the rule was/is that any potential Attack Hex be evaluated for pinning out the raid before reaction takes place.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 07, 2005 - 07:44 pm: Edit

John, speaking as one of the people who helped draft most of the Planetary Ops rules I hope you don't mind if I ignore you and wait for judgment from Jeff or SVC. They have the authority to tell me I'm wrong, you do not. Until your name appears at the top of this topic as part of the appeals process I will defer to their judgment not yours.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 12:37 pm: Edit

Go ahead, Dan. I was one of those who helped draft the rules, too. You're still wrong.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 01:19 pm: Edit

John:

Please allow the process to work. Dan is entitled to ask for a ruling appeal. I'd recommend that if you have information you feel that Jeff needs then send him an e-mail with the details. It does no good to argue who's right or wrong on any issue.

Respectfully,
Chuck
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Nick, thanks for the answer about the tug/carrier pods grouping ... just to make certain I have it clear, I have a follow-up question:

If we imagine the following:
1)The Kzinti have a TGC(VP+VP), MEC, EFF.
2)The coalition mauls the group for 28 damage, crippling the group.
3)The tug pods cease to function when the tug is crippled.
4)According to your ruling, the tug is illegal to be escorted (It is not a carrier), and thus the group is broken at this point.
5)Thus the crippled tug is unescorted during pursuit. Furthermore, the crippled MEC and EFF must show up on the line. Since they're not escorting anything any more, the escorts are down one COMPOT each.

Right?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 03:29 pm: Edit

No, just because the tug is crippled doesn't mean it lost the pods, they are still there even if non-functioning and the tug is escortable as long as it has them even when crippled. Once you reassign new pods in the tug mission step at the start of a turn, then the group would be broken up if the new tug was not escortable.

A crippled carrier tug would still be escorted as it is still a carrier tug.

I will write up the appeal stuff for the raid rules and send it on, there does not need to be any more discussion here.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 07:13 pm: Edit

Thank you Nick.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, March 08, 2005 - 07:26 pm: Edit

Apparently this was addressed in CL#30, but I don't have it (yet), so I need to ask:

What Federation A-20 carriers are conjectural?

The full list of A20 ship carriers as far as I know:

ACS
CAV
CSV
HDWA (HDWH)
NVA
SCS

I take it from other places on the board that the ACS is conjectural, and the HDWA and SCS are "real." I would assume the NVA is also regular production, but what about the CAV and CSV?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 12:01 am: Edit

Nick,
When a tug is captured (FE2K-305.0), does anyone get salvage (FO-439.0) for the pods? I can interpret the section of (305.4) dealing with tugs+pods both for and against one side or the other getting salvage.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 07:05 am: Edit

Does a Fed DVL raider use the SSC chart or normal combat?
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 09:08 am: Edit

Nick, I have a few questions:

(448.26) Does the 20 turns to capture the capital include the 4 turns to Long Term Capture the province?

(448.27) For the original owner to re-annex a non-capital province, if counting in Long-Term Capture time how long would it take, 7 (4+6/2) or 5 ([4+6]/2) turns?

(450.18) Per (450.18) "Minor shipyards . . . cannot do substitutions of other hull types (so a Federation NCL yard could not produce destroyers or old light cruisers). . ." Per the errata in CL30 (page 84): "...nor is there anything stopping you from using (450.4) to produce a Lyran DD in a Lyran CW shipyard." Don't these two rules contradict each other (if so, which is correct)?

(502.72) Per this rule "Space control ships count against the CVA limit." Does an SCS also count against PFT or scout production limits?

Thanks,
Jeff
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 09:54 pm: Edit

JTC, the Lyran DD/CW may be the exception that proves the rule as they are made from the same components other that the center section...
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 01:22 pm: Edit

I have a question on (527.21). The question has been asked before, but I did not see/find an answer.

The wording for (527.21) in FO is different from AO. In AO it says"...until spring of Y180. from that time, the Federation may operate its NVHs as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers..."

In FO its says "...until spring of Y180. From that time, the Federation may operate any or all carriers with F111s as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers...".

I understand that an NVH can operate alone. Does the wording of (527.21) in FO allow ships like the CVH, DCS, and BCS to operate alone as these are carriers with F111s?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 06:42 am: Edit

I asked that. The response IIRC was that any carrier that flew F111s and no other fighter types could be a single ship carrier.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 08:37 am: Edit

Hello Nick!

When the Klingon chooses to take a Swarm, he loses one year's free fighters to pay for it. If he receives the swarm on a Fall turn but has already used his free fighters, may he "borrow forward" next year's fighters, or must he delay a turn until the spring?

Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:05 am: Edit

Nick,

I have a question that has been ruled on before(Sept 27 2004 archive I believe), but I think the ruling was in error. It involves Fast ships and withdraw before combat. Two ships are in a battle hex and one of them is fast, and there are no opposing fast ships. The non-fast ship withdraws per normal rules, leaving the fast ship. Now the way I see it the fast ship should be allowed to withdraw, as 523.363 states the order for withdraw is determine any fast/X ships that loose their ability to withdraw, withdraw any ships per the normal 302.1 rules, then conduct the special fast/X withdraw before combat, which would refer to rule 523.36. I would think that 523.36 would trump 302.1 for the rules of withdraw since it is a 'special' withdraw and not an ordinary one.
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:29 am: Edit

Nick

Per David's response I read the same thing, but the language of "any or all carriers with F111s" does convey that meaning. So what does this rule allow?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 10:55 am: Edit

Another question:

The rules for SSC in AO (318.7) does not seem to account for this situation:

Say we have a battle hex with two defending ships of 9 total Compot versus an attacker who has three ships of 14 total Compot, but one of those three ships is a CVE without it's fighters. Does the CVE still count as two ships due to a missing escort? If the attacker wanted to use SSC, would he be forced to ad-hoc an escort for the CVE to make the requirements? Note that if a CV in this situation does not have to be escorted, then CVs have become very dangerous in SSC.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 11:38 am: Edit

Nick,
B10 rule (436.1)
....He can begin construction of a second (and third, and fourth, etc.) ship two years after beginning construction of the previous ship.

The 2 year gap, is that calendar year or 4 turns. Can B10 #2 be started in S171 for F171?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Could a tug be given the mission D and be used to form a partial supply grid? If a tug is acting as a supply point and it is the only point in a partial supply grid, can it be used to supply ships via Orion smuggling?
By Frank DeMaris (Kemaris) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla: Aren't tugs in mission D (and convoys) limited to being able to extend an existing supply grid by an additional 6 hexes? IOW, they do not act as a supply point themselves, but extend the range from a supply point at which supply can be maintained. If I am remembering that rule correctly then I very much doubt they could be used as the basis of a partial grid.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Frank: I am thinking that too, but I can not find the verbage that says exactly that it extends the grid but is not part of it. 412.2 does not say anything like that (they are supply points), and 413.3 does not say the tug would not be part of the supply grid, but that it does extend it.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Are prime teams defending against a raid wounded if their ship is forced to retreat? This will happen to a prime carried by an attacker.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

Can Minor shipyards be built while not at 'War' status?

If a race is driven off-map, does 450.13 prevent it?

And how is the EPs for the Hydran Treasury delivered? Does it just show up somehow or must there be a path from the OC to the Capital open, assuming the Hydrans still hold their capital on T7+?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 10:43 am: Edit

Rules contradiction:

The Kzinti OOB (705.0) lists three SADs in each of the Marquis', Duke's and Count's fleets. The chart in (762.0) incorrectly lists SADs at a limit of two.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:20 am: Edit

Questions downloaded.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:34 am: Edit

Nick,
While we're on the subject of "how many of these can I build", how do replacement penal ships (AO-238.0) work? Rule (528.211) says that, if the Klingons do not have a combined total of three D6Js and D5Js on any Fall turn, they must build one or pay a 5 EP penalty. Rule (528.27) says that the Klingons can't have more than 2 D6Js after one is destroyed. The SIT says that the D5J is available in 172.
It's Fall of 171 and the Klingons have 2 D6Js in service; they must therefore build a third penal cruiser, but are prohibited from building either a D5J (not available) or a D6J (service limits). Are they therefore forced to pay the 5EP penalty (and really should have self-killed a D6J on the previous turn)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Nick,
I just want to check that I'm reading a rules interaction correctly. By (515.533 -- in the Q&A archive; replaces the version in FO), I'm allowed to make three escort substitutions in addition to the "group substitutions". Since an FCR is (kinda, sorta) an escort, does the production of an FCR by substitution count against the escort substitution limit?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 07:59 pm: Edit

Point of reference:

FCRs have there own specific limits under (701.0) (Gorns/Lyrans/Tholians further under their even more specific limits).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 09:02 pm: Edit

As do drone ships and scouts, but a scout-drone ship (the Klingon D6D, say) counts against both limits. Likewise, most SCS count against both the carrier and PFT limits. Other combination ships don't have any clarifying text, so it's unclear whether or not they count against all the limits they qualify for.
Nick,
Here's a couple more cases that I'm wondering about in regards my question on substitution limits:
+ Do PFTs (or CSV, ACS, DCS) with scout capability count against both the scout substitution limit and the PFT/heavy fighter carrier limit?
+ Does the Hydran PGG, if built as a substitution for a DD, count against both the scout and G-ship limits?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Dave Butler,

I believe for those additional cases, the answer is yes. PFT's count against scout and PFT substitution limits. (Of course, wait for Nick to confirm).

But an interesting point on that: The Romulans have a note clealy saying they can substitute a SPC per turn, and a SPE per turn (both at the same time). So apparently they can exceed the generel rule, or I misunderstood the rules.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:11 pm: Edit

Nick,
Regarding Special Raids (PO-320.0), is a Battleship (FE2K-436.0) under construction a unit for the purposes of target selection (320.33)? If so, and if the battleship is not capable of combat (436.33), does it count as a "slow unit or base", with the doubling of drone factors that involves?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:24 am: Edit

Point of reference:

Drone-Scouts count as both limits as there is a specific rule stating so in (432.4). I know of no specific rule that states PFTs count against BOTH PFT limits AND scout limits. However, there are several dual-type ships listed with specific instructions stating that they count against both limits such as:
D5Gs (703.4)(LTT/Commando limits);
BCSs (525.54)(carrier/PFT limits);
SCSs (502.71)(CVA/PFT limits).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 09:52 am: Edit

Under the Limited War rules (602.49) it states that NZ hexes between the supporting and supported race can not be captured by either side (602.49 B&D). Can ships of the supported race move throught he NZ hexes between them and the supporting race? They are allowed to set up a base in the NZ, but I am wondering if that is a special case. I would speculate the the supporting race is no longer treated as a Future Belligerant (503.4).
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:13 am: Edit

When exactly in the turn sequence are upgrades to bases placed? The Mobile Base rules mention the start of the player's following turn but there is no specific mention of when MBs become BATS and BATS become SB (that I can find in F&E2K anyway).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 11:33 am: Edit

Did you check the SoP (105.0) from AO or PO?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Chuck. No - I just have F&E2K.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 03:07 pm: Edit

Point of reference

From SoP extract...
Step 2B3:
Produce new units and assign build site (431.0); perform conversions (433.0); upgrade bases (433.41) and PDUs (433.42); pay for final turns of colonial development; pay for colonial bases; call up and place police ships (531.12); announce and/or pay for shipyard facility construction; progress and/or place ships using Depot Level Repair; remove and salvage ships using DLR; choose to add one crippled ship to any DLR holding box.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Chuck. That's an important clarification since it means that newly upgraded/built bases can't be used for Repair.

Are the steps within each STEP in order (ala SFB) or just a list of possible actions? This matters as to whether a newly upgraded SB can be used for conversions.

Regardless, an "F&E2K friendly" version of this should be posted as Errata/Clarification (since not everyone who picks up the F&E2K box will fork out the extra $$ for the expansions)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Maybe we could ask SVC to post a PDF of the PO version of the SoP?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 04:57 pm: Edit

I stuck it in the archive file. Somebody make sure I got the right version.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 05:37 pm: Edit

The SoP in the archive is the latest one from PO (105.P). (Note that the italics could not transfer from the text cut & paste -- not a big deal however.)

Thanks Steve.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 05:51 pm: Edit

So can you perform conversion with a newly built SB (both are 2B3)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 06:08 pm: Edit

I thought (offhand) that there is a rule somewhere that says bases don't get their repair/conversion abilities on the turn they are built/upgraded. Let me look for it though.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Of course I may be thinking of the rule on repairs, (base can't use its repair on the turn it itself is uncrippled), but let me look when I get back to my books.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 06:35 pm: Edit

You pay for the conversion during the Econ Phase, it actually gets done during the production phase.

It would have to be able to do the conversion during the Econ phase.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:12 am: Edit

433.41 would seem to suggest that base upgrades become effective in a manner somewhat similar to the procedure for setting up a mobile base. 433.41B talks about the tug doing the upgrade being destroyed and the upgrade continuing apace, and 433.41C talks about the base being upgraded being crippled during the combat phase. These two cases would seem to imply that, while the upgrade is paid for during the econ phase, the upgrade is not completed until the end of the enemy's next combat phase.
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

So, to clarify, you pay for it in Fall Y168 2B3, it's placed at that time, but remains inactive until (effectively) Spring Y169 1A, at which point it is fully capable?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 05:17 pm: Edit

That is how I have always followed it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 02:54 am: Edit

Nick:

Recommend a note in the next CL Rules & Rulings article that we note the missing Hydran GRV is added to the Home Fleet.
________________________________________
Quote:
By Robert Merkamp on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 12:05 pm

Quick question on the J2 ships. Where does the Hydran GRV set up, it mentions that one is included but no hint as to which fleet. I need this (as well as info on my diplomatic ships questions above) for a game I'm playing.

By Steve Cole on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:14 pm

GRV home fleet (pilot training).
________________________________________
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:03 am: Edit

last questions downloaded to start working on
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:51 pm: Edit

===================================

Dale Lloyd Fields: What Federation A-20 carriers are conjectural?

The full list of A20 ship carriers as far as I know:

ACS
CAV
CSV
HDWA (HDWH)
NVA
SCS

I take it from other places on the board that the ACS is conjectural, and the HDWA and SCS are "real." I would assume the NVA is also regular production, but what about the CAV and CSV?

ANSWER: From SFB Module G2

ACS conjectural
CAV is this the CVH in SFB? That ship is limited production
CSV is this the DCS in SFB? That ship is limited production
HDWA (HDWH) don't know, probably real for F&E purposes.
NVA (NHV in SFB) Regular production built in limited numbers
SCS limited production.

Of course in F&E if there is no special limit on a given ship then you can build them. Not entirely sure what you are asking, since F&E lets you do some things differently from SFB S8 limits.

===================================

Dave Butler: When a tug is captured (FE2K-305.0), does anyone get salvage (FO-439.0) for the pods? I can interpret the section of (305.4) dealing with tugs+pods both for and against one side or the other getting salvage.

ANSWER: Since pods have a salvage value on the SIT I would have to say they generate salvage normally. Since no salvage is generated for a captured ship the pods get you nothing in that instance.

===================================

John Robinson: Does a Fed DVL raider use the SSC chart or normal combat?

ANSWER: I don't know what the factors are (and can't find it at the moment), but if they add up to more than the 14 attack factor limit then you would use normal combat. There is no special exception for the DVL.

===================================

Jeffrey T. Coutu:

(448.26) Does the 20 turns to capture the capital include the 4 turns to Long Term Capture the province?

ANSWER: I assume it would be 20 turns after you achieved long term capture (i.e. 20 turns in stead of 6, not 20 turns instead of 4+6).

(448.27) For the original owner to re-annex a non-capital province, if counting in Long-Term Capture time how long would it take, 7 (4+6/2) or 5 ([4+6]/2) turns?

ANSWER: It would be 4 turns for long term capture, then only 3 turns (instead of 6) for re-annexation.

(450.18) Per (450.18) "Minor shipyards . . . cannot do substitutions of other hull types (so a Federation NCL yard could not produce destroyers or old light cruisers). . ." Per the errata in CL30 (page 84): "...nor is there anything stopping you from using (450.4) to produce a Lyran DD in a Lyran CW shipyard." Don't these two rules contradict each other (if so, which is correct)?

ANSWER: There is no conflict as the rules are about two different issues. Rule (450.18) is about minor shipyards only, which says the Lyran CW minor shipyard cannot produce DDs. Rule (450.4) is not about minor shipyards at all, it is about substitutions done by the normal shipyard. The errata is for (450.4) subs in general rather than (450.1) minor shipyards which do have the specific prohibition. I'm not sure what the errata is for since the rule itself already lists DD for CW as allowed, but still, they are different rules and it doesn't apply to minor shipyards which have their own special limits.

(502.72) Per this rule "Space control ships count against the CVA limit." Does an SCS also count against PFT or scout production limits?

ANSWER: An SCS counts against the carrier (as a CVA) and PFT limits. Does not count against the scout limit. See (502.71) and (502.72).

===================================

Joseph R Carlson:

The wording for (527.21) in FO is different from AO. In AO it says"...until spring of Y180. from that time, the Federation may operate its NVHs as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers..."

In FO its says "...until spring of Y180. From that time, the Federation may operate any or all carriers with F111s as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers...".

I understand that an NVH can operate alone. Does the wording of (527.21) in FO allow ships like the CVH, DCS, and BCS to operate alone as these are carriers with F111s?

ANSWER: Fighter Ops was printed second so it replaces the earlier version. Note that only ships with ONLY F111 fighters can be operated alone. If a ship has F111 fighter factors mixed with another type of fighter factor, it must be escorted as normal.

===================================

Paul Bonfanti:

When the Klingon chooses to take a Swarm, he loses one year's free fighters to pay for it. If he receives the swarm on a Fall turn but has already used his free fighters, may he "borrow forward" next year's fighters, or must he delay a turn until the spring?

ANSWER: He must delay taking the swarm until he has the necessary free fighter factors built up. There is nothing that allows "borrowing forward" in this case.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

I have a question that has been ruled on before(Sept 27 2004 archive I believe), but I think the ruling was in error. It involves Fast ships and withdraw before combat. Two ships are in a battle hex and one of them is fast, and there are no opposing fast ships. The non-fast ship withdraws per normal rules, leaving the fast ship. Now the way I see it the fast ship should be allowed to withdraw, as 523.363 states the order for withdraw is determine any fast/X ships that loose their ability to withdraw, withdraw any ships per the normal 302.1 rules, then conduct the special fast/X withdraw before combat, which would refer to rule 523.36. I would think that 523.36 would trump 302.1 for the rules of withdraw since it is a 'special' withdraw and not an ordinary one.

ANSWER: The thing to rememeber is there are two categories here, 1) non-fast ships and fast ships that lost the special ability, 2) fast ships. In your example, first you determine that the fast ship gets to use the special rule (no opposing fast ships). Then you withdraw the normal ships by the normal rules, and since you only have one normal ship it can't withdraw without permission. Last you withdraw the special fast ship.

Or say you had 12 normal ships, and 5 fast ships, and the enemy had 2 fast ships and 30 normal. First determine that only 3 of your fast ships get the special rule, 2 are treated as normal since the enemy has 2 fast ships. Then that leaves 14 normal ships to withdraw by normal rules, and since the enemy has more ships than you, you get to withdraw 7 of the 14 (which may be any 7 of the 14 including the two (normal) fast ships). Finally, you withdraw the three fast ships, leaving only 7 ships in the hex to fight in combat.

The fast ships withdrawing by the special rule do not get to also count for the normal withdraw calculation, that is wrong. The fast ships get to leave unapposed themselves because they are fast, they don't ALSO get to help other normal ships leave while they themselves leave by the special rule, that would be a double benefit.

===================================

Joseph R Carlson:

Per David's response I read the same thing, but the language of "any or all carriers with F111s" does convey that meaning. So what does this rule allow?

ANSWER: The intention was that F111 only carriers are sort of the Feds versions of PF tenders, so they can be used either escorted or unescorted like other race's PFTs. If there are other fighters as well, then it is more along the lines of a carrier/PF tender combo unit like a SCS, which requires escorts. So only ships with F111 and no other fighters can be used unescorted.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

The rules for SSC in AO (318.7) does not seem to account for this situation:

Say we have a battle hex with two defending ships of 9 total Compot versus an attacker who has three ships of 14 total Compot, but one of those three ships is a CVE without it's fighters. Does the CVE still count as two ships due to a missing escort? If the attacker wanted to use SSC, would he be forced to ad-hoc an escort for the CVE to make the requirements? Note that if a CV in this situation does not have to be escorted, then CVs have become very dangerous in SSC.

ANSWER: It counts as the full number of ships for command purposes, so one of the three ships would have to be able to command the group plus the missing escort. The missing escort does not count toward requiring normal combat (more than 4 Ship equivalents) since it is not actually present. Of course if you have CVs running around without escorts to take advantage of this they will be easy prey for Direct Damage if something like a reserve fleet catches them. Such a carrier still couldn't be put in the raid pool either, of course.

===================================

Tim Losberg:

B10 rule (436.1)
....He can begin construction of a second (and third, and fourth, etc.) ship two years after beginning construction of the previous ship.

The 2 year gap, is that calendar year or 4 turns. Can B10 #2 be started in S171 for F171?

ANSWER: Another can begin four game turns after one is started, so Fall Y171 assuming the first was started Fall Y169.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

Could a tug be given the mission D and be used to form a partial supply grid? If a tug is acting as a supply point and it is the only point in a partial supply grid, can it be used to supply ships via Orion smuggling?

ANSWER: A supply tug extends the supply range from a valid supply point to ships, it is not really part of the supply grid itself so it can't do that (413.3). That is what is meant when it says it can't connect two supply points more than six hexes from each other, the tug/convoy is not really a supply point itself.

===================================

Sean Dzafovic:

Are prime teams defending against a raid wounded if their ship is forced to retreat? This will happen to a prime carried by an attacker.

ANSWER: Just the raider Prime Team as this disadvantage, (at least there is no equivalent to (314.17) for the defender at all.) Perhaps they assume the defender is closer to medical facilities, and the raider is presumed to be in hostile space, so a greater chance the team is wounded. Not always the case, but usually.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

Can Minor shipyards be built while not at 'War' status?

ANSWER: I think so (I don't see a rule preventing it), but most pre-war races would have to cancel ship production to generate the money to do so.

If a race is driven off-map, does 450.13 prevent it?

ANSWER: No, I think what is meant is that you can't build a minor shipyard in the capital hex where your original shipyard is.

And how is the EPs for the Hydran Treasury delivered? Does it just show up somehow or must there be a path from the OC to the Capital open, assuming the Hydrans still hold their capital on T7+?

ANSWER: It just appears. Of course if the capital hasn't fallen then rule (442.42) is in effect so you get in 5 EP pieces instead of one lump-sum.

===================================

Chuck Strong:

The Kzinti OOB (705.0) lists three SADs in each of the Marquis', Duke's and Count's fleets. The chart in (762.0) incorrectly lists SADs at a limit of two.

ANSWER: Probably need to fix the chart. (flips through the rulebook)... Actually my rulebook has the 2 crossed off and a 3 written in on the chart, so this was probably in a capt log somewhere already.

===================================

Dave Butler:

While we're on the subject of "how many of these can I build", how do replacement penal ships (AO-238.0) work? Rule (528.211) says that, if the Klingons do not have a combined total of three D6Js and D5Js on any Fall turn, they must build one or pay a 5 EP penalty. Rule (528.27) says that the Klingons can't have more than 2 D6Js after one is destroyed. The SIT says that the D5J is available in 172.
It's Fall of 171 and the Klingons have 2 D6Js in service; they must therefore build a third penal cruiser, but are prohibited from building either a D5J (not available) or a D6J (service limits). Are they therefore forced to pay the 5EP penalty (and really should have self-killed a D6J on the previous turn)?

ANSWER: I have noticed that myself. Needs errata of some sort. For now I would say you continue to build D6J replacements as needed (so as to have three penal cruisers) until the D5J is available, then the rule about no more than 2 penal cruisers of the same type would be in effect.

===================================

Dave Butler:

I just want to check that I'm reading a rules interaction correctly. By (515.533 -- in the Q&A archive; replaces the version in FO), I'm allowed to make three escort substitutions in addition to the "group substitutions". Since an FCR is (kinda, sorta) an escort, does the production of an FCR by substitution count against the escort substitution limit?

ANSWER: kinda, sorta doesn't mean it's so. An FCR has its own limits, and while it can be used as an escort it is not considered one for production purposes. An FCR counts agaisnt the FCR production limits, not the escort production limits.

===================================

Dave Butler:

Here's a couple more cases that I'm wondering about in regards my question on substitution limits:

+ Do PFTs (or CSV, ACS, DCS) with scout capability count against both the scout substitution limit and the PFT/heavy fighter carrier limit?

ANSWER: Do not count against the scout limit, PFTs have their own limit.

+ Does the Hydran PGG, if built as a substitution for a DD, count against both the scout and G-ship limits?

ANSWER: I suppose so. The free PGG class ship each turn after 172 is in addition to any limits, but additional Subs would count against all applicable limits.

===================================

Dave Butler:

Regarding Special Raids (PO-320.0), is a Battleship (FE2K-436.0) under construction a unit for the purposes of target selection (320.33)? If so, and if the battleship is not capable of combat (436.33), does it count as a "slow unit or base", with the doubling of drone factors that involves?

ANSWER: I would say it cannot be attacked by a special raid.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

Under the Limited War rules (602.49) it states that NZ hexes between the supporting and supported race can not be captured by either side (602.49 B&D). Can ships of the supported race move throught he NZ hexes between them and the supporting race? They are allowed to set up a base in the NZ, but I am wondering if that is a special case. I would speculate the the supporting race is no longer treated as a Future Belligerant (503.4).

ANSWER: I think they could move through the NZ hexes, you have move into it to to be able to build a base, and you would want to support the new base with a fleet, not just send a tug by itself.

===================================

Andy Palmer:

When exactly in the turn sequence are upgrades to bases placed? The Mobile Base rules mention the start of the player's following turn but there is no specific mention of when MBs become BATS and BATS become SB (that I can find in F&E2K anyway).

ANSWER: Step 2B3 in the SOP is I believe when the upgrade is paid for, and according to the rules (510.221) it is operational at the start of your next turn (not really seen on the SOP), so it could be used for construction/repair/conversion on the same turn it is "completed". There is a specific rule about repairs, a repaired base can't repair other units on the turn it is itself repaired because that happens at the same time. This however does not apply to base construction/upgrades which use the MB setup rule.

===================================

Andy Palmer:

Chuck. That's an important clarification since it means that newly upgraded/built bases can't be used for Repair.

Are the steps within each STEP in order (ala SFB) or just a list of possible actions? This matters as to whether a newly upgraded SB can be used for conversions.

Regardless, an "F&E2K friendly" version of this should be posted as Errata/Clarification (since not everyone who picks up the F&E2K box will fork out the extra $$ for the expansions)

ANSWER: I belive in this case a list of possible actions, it is the "pay for base upgrade" action, and the base is upgraded over a period of time ending at the start of your next turn.

===================================

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 02:54 am: Edit


Nick:

Recommend a note in the next CL Rules & Rulings article that we note the missing Hydran GRV is added to the Home Fleet.

ANSWER: noted.

===================================
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 01:04 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
CAV is this the CVH in SFB? That ship is limited production
CSV is this the DCS in SFB? That ship is limited production
________________________________________


The CAV is a CVS with F-18s replaced by A-20.
The CSV are Scout-Carriers, not related to DCS. The DCS and ASC have identical SSD, but different fighters. (Have different F&E factors which have been discussed else and will remain different.)
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 01:25 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
HDWA (HDWH) don't know, probably real for F&E purposes.
________________________________________


This would be an HDW w/ the 4NWO+4APR+2Weapon mounts filled with A-20s, and the existing 2 hybrid fighters converted to an single A20.

The fact that in SFB you can't put heavy fighter readyracks into a HDW hasn't been solved yet... (In R6 you can only put superiority, read F-18, ready racks into an HDW)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Just for clarification, does 442.72 let the Gorn use 3 or 4 tugs/LTTs for repair duty? The wording of the rule is they get 'extra' pods, but it also says it replaces 422.8. Thanks!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:29 pm: Edit

Nick, question on 314.248

It says that in the case of raid combat, all ships are considered to be in supply.

Is this talking about the raiders only, or does this also mean that if you raid a ship or group of ships that is out of supply, they too get to count full compot?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:44 pm: Edit

A question on Modular Conversions.

Can you take modules off of ships in an inactive fleet and then on a later turn add them to an active ship somewhere else?
By Andy Palmer (Andypalmer) on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 01:22 pm: Edit

If a lone BATS has taken 2 SIDS and then takes 12 damage, could it just self-cripple?

These seems to be an advantage over taking 11 damage and being forced to take a SIDS (302.615) and then would be destroyed by the remainder.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 03:13 pm: Edit

If you self cripple you have to subtract off previous damage from existing sids when figuring the amount of damage absorbed. For starbases this is 4.5 per sids, for BATS it is 4 pts per sids.

So if you had a bats with 2 SIDS on it, and wanted to self cripple it, it would only resolve 12-4-4=4 damage, not 12. If the enemy directs on it, it still takes 2x12=24 pts though (of course they could just do the final SIDS step instead).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Hey Nick, do you think you will get to my above 2 questions before Monday?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 10:08 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla:

Just for clarification, does 442.72 let the Gorn use 3 or 4 tugs/LTTs for repair duty? The wording of the rule is they get 'extra' pods, but it also says it replaces 422.8. Thanks!

ANSWER: I believe that they start with their normal one (when the enter the war in Spring Y174. Then they get an extra one in spring 175, spring 176, spring 177 for a final total of four. Not sure why it says "replaces".

============================

Christopher E. Fant:

Nick, question on 314.248

It says that in the case of raid combat, all ships are considered to be in supply.

Is this talking about the raiders only, or does this also mean that if you raid a ship or group of ships that is out of supply, they too get to count full compot?

ANSWER: As far as I know all ships means all ships, raider and defender, for purposes of the raid combat.

=========================

Christopher E. Fant:

A question on Modular Conversions.

Can you take modules off of ships in an inactive fleet and then on a later turn add them to an active ship somewhere else?

ANSWER: Sort of. You can convert ships in inactive fleets (600.32), and this is just a special type of conversion. The problem is that a modular ship cannot exist/function without some sort of modules. You can't remove the modules off of a given ship without simultaneously putting on some other type (i.e. converting it using starbase capacity). So if you do a modular conversion to an inactive ship to convert it to a new type (which often will involve paying for the new modules) the old modules go into your grid and can later be used elsewhere for another conversion of another ship. Of course going from module type "whatever" to module type "A" (standard combat type) costs 0, which I am guessing is your point (tac note?). At least I don't know of any rule that requires you to keep certain modules in certain fleets until released.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 11:45 pm: Edit

Nick:

You may want to appeal that raid supply question up -- if a ship (target) is out of supply and a raider attacks it how does the target magically "gain supply"? I really think that the rule meant that all raiders are considered in supply because in many cases where it makes its strikes it would be behind enemy lines and normally be out of supply.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:00 am: Edit

Nick, I would agree with Chuck here, and also request it gets bumbed up. HAving out of supply ships suddenly gain supply makes no sense to me.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 03:04 am: Edit

Nick - Can I appeal your answer on Christopher E Fant's question on Modules in unreleased fleets?

Christopher E. Fant:

A question on Modular Conversions.

Can you take modules off of ships in an inactive fleet and then on a later turn add them to an active ship somewhere else?

ANSWER: Sort of. You can convert ships in inactive fleets (600.32), and this is just a special type of conversion. The problem is that a modular ship cannot exist/function without some sort of modules. You can't remove the modules off of a given ship without simultaneously putting on some other type (i.e. converting it using starbase capacity). So if you do a modular conversion to an inactive ship to convert it to a new type (which often will involve paying for the new modules) the old modules go into your grid and can later be used elsewhere for another conversion of another ship. Of course going from module type "whatever" to module type "A" (standard combat type) costs 0, which I am guessing is your point (tac note?). At least I don't know of any rule that requires you to keep certain modules in certain fleets until released.

............

Reason for Appeal - the fact those modules exist in those fleets is not just for military reasons - they may be political - i.e. we need carriers to face the Gorns.

By allowing the removal of the Carrier 'pods', you are effecting both the military strength of those inactive (which you can replace the turn the fleet becomes active), but more importantly, the political aspect of a much weaker fleet isn't being taken into account.

i.e. why can't the Gorns say - well, as the Romulan northern fleet is now weaker, lets invade a turn earlier?

I did think ANYTHING in an inactive fleet remained inactive (other than 'patrol ships'/ships moving to be converted at SB's - but must immediately move back). So I would say, technically - yes, the Modules could be removed, but the Modules remain INACTIVE and therefore ineligible to be used by other fleets.

Whats the difference between Romulan Modules being taken away (and potentially being replaced) versus MB's or FRD's being taken away from an inactive fleet and replaced when the fleet becomes active - nothing - so why should one aspect be allowed, and the other isn't?

Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:21 pm: Edit

If the Hydran capital is still around on T10(709.3), is it the Y174-Y176 build schedule they start with, or is it the Y177-Y180 schedule? Thanks!
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 02:04 pm: Edit

A Module is more akin to a pod than to an FRD or MB. Pods are assigned to a grid, so are modules.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 09:28 pm: Edit

Nick,

If, under the Limited War rules in FO, you send crippled Kzin ships to a Fed base capable of repairing them, do the Feds HAVE to repair them, or can they just sit there till the Feds are no longer at Limited War?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 03:06 am: Edit

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 02:04 pm: Edit


A Module is more akin to a pod than to an FRD or MB. Pods are assigned to a grid, so are modules.


I would disagree Chris - Pods are seperately defined - Modules are already WITH a designed Ship and Fleet. If you was correct, Modules would be seperately listed (as Pods already are) - however, I'll let Nick decide!
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 08:11 am: Edit

Modules should not be released until the ship they are on is released. Sounds like a loophole that needs to be closed.

A player can unconvert a carrier hull in an inactive fleet, but loses the fighters. Changing the modules on inactive ships carries no such penalty.

Once the Gorns attack, the Rom player should have the option to mass all his carriers against the Feds, but not until the fleet is released.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 02:27 pm: Edit

please no more discussion in this topic, see the rules at the top. I will of course send the appeal to Steve, (but remember he has some other F&E questions pending as well that he hasn't had time to get to yet). Please be patient, and if you want to discuss this do so in the general topic.
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Do auxiliary ships and other slow ships count as ships that can pin and/or need to be pinned, or is it just their fighters? I seem to remember different things based upon different editions of the rules.

Also, would the pin count of 3 Hydran LN 4(2)-6 be 3 or 4 (i.e. do the 6 fighter factors get combined into a single unit)?

Thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Nick, question.

WIth a capital hex, do you have to put a capturing races ship over each planet or can you declare that this hex is owned by a race that has a ship there, and the other ships used to garrison could be from other races?

Example:

Kzinti capital is captured, contains 8 planets. 5 Klingon ships and 3 Lyran are present in the hex. Can the Klingons own the 3 other planets that have Lyrans helping to garrison, or do the Lyrans own those three planets?
(This is assuming the same player is running both races.)
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 12:42 am: Edit

Sequence of play question:

At what exact point in the sequence of play are plus and minus points (which were generated in an approach battle) divided up between the systems.

It makes a bit of a difference if the defender gets to see them put down before they have to place their ships.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:59 am: Edit

questions downloaded
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:31 pm: Edit

Marc, (308.24) notes that the points are divided evenly between the systems with the attacker placing any odd (left-over) points to the system of his choice.

Personally, I'd say that the odd points would have to be placed before any system battles take place...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:30 am: Edit

What would happen if a raider attacked a hex with a FRD, and a few other defending ships? Would the raider fight one round of normal combat against the defending ships, then be allowed to attack the FRD using SSC? Or would the raider have to fight all of the ships present and the FRD?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, April 09, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Here's an interaction that I don't think anyone's dealt with yet. Tholians and annexation.

(511.223) The Klingon colonies in Tholian space "... once activated could be devastated or captured by other races."

(448.28) "Planets in a province are annexed along with that province. Devastated planets would begin the time period to recover from devastation after annexation is complete."

So, seeing how (511.221) has the Klingon colonies starting up only after two complete turns, if the Tholians recapture their province before the Klingons fully annex it, wouldn't the Tholians immediately annex the three Klingon colonies since they own the province?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Can the Hydrans convert a CU to a DWH, and then convert the DWH to a DWE on the same turn as a double conversion?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 02:52 pm: Edit

The converion from a CU to DWE is on the master SIT. Cost 2+1.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Sorry, it wasn't on mine, the one I have only lists the conversion from HN to DWE, hence my question. Thanks!
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Robert: check the topic list for this one:

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: MASTER SIT UPDATES

and pull down the latest -&- greatest SIT files.


Garth L. Getgen
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 09:29 pm: Edit

9 March 2004 is the latest one I have, is there a later one, as I do not see it. Thanks!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Nevermind, just noticed that the non-chronological order SIT is more up to date. Sorry for not checking that first.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit

Nick, any idea when you might get to the downloaded questions?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Pertaining to cloaked movement:

Rule 203.82 says that when cloaked, you only need to leave behind one half of the required number of ships when calculating pinning. I have some questions related to that.

I would assume that the ships leaving the hex are using cloaked movement, therefore taking 3 movement points to leave the hex?

Also, I would assume that as such, only 3 stacks of 12 ships could use rule 203.82, as per the maximum number of ships that can use cloaked movement (203.85)? (Note, there is no maximum of ships that can use cloaked withdrawal, rule 306.11)

Do I calculate pin factors normally (i.e., a SPB would count as two ship equivalents for determining how many are pinned), or is it only ships, not ship equivalents (because the fighters of the SPB cannot cloak individually, and thus would be on board while the ship is cloaked)?

If I sent a force of a dozen cloaked vessels through a hex of a dozen Gorn vessels, cloaked and left the hex, I'd only need to leave 6 Romulan ships behind. Does that mean that the 12 Gorn vessels are pinned, or only 6 of them? (If only 6 were pinned, the other 6 could later react out to pin a different force of Romulan vessels, right?)

I would assume that if there were enough enemy ships, the whole cloaked force can be pinned? For example, 12 cloaked vessels can be pinned by 24 Gorn vessels?

If I then entered the hex again with another force of cloaked vessels, is the original force still considered to be cloaked (thus affecting the pin calculation)? For example, the 12 Cloaked vessels is pinned by 24 Gorns, so the second force of 12 cloaked vessels gets to move through the hex unpinned?

Or... would only 12 Gorn ships be pinned, the other 12 Gorn vessels be considered "unpinned", therefore meaning they could stop 6 of next force of cloaked vessels? (After all, the previously pinned romulan ships are done moving either way, so the Gorns could in theory turn their attention away from them - thus meaning there are 12 Romulans, pinning 12 Gorns, the other 12 are free to try to pin the next force of Romulans.)

And if so, what happens if I came through with a force of *uncloaked* vessels into a hex where 24 Gorns had pinned a dozen previously cloaked vessels? Would the previously cloaked vessels remained cloaked? How would it affect pinning?

For that matter, what if a force tries to use cloaked movement when there were already uncloaked ships in the hex? Rule 203.84 clearly says you could not use cloaked movement to enter a hex containing friendly uncloaked units, but there is no prohibition to using cloaked movement to leave a hex containing friendly uncloaked units. Consider the following:

60 Romulan ship equivalents are pinned by a force of 60 Gorn ship equivalents, while moving towards their target. Could the Romulan split off a force of a dozen ships (possibly more than a dozen ship equivalanents if there were carriers or PFT's), use cloaked movement to exit some of them and continue on to the target - then split off a second stack of 12 and do the same, then split off a third stack and do the same, finally having the remainder be pinned? How would 203.82 be used to calculate pinning in that situation?

And finally (well, I'll probably think up more later), looking at the use of the cloaking device in combat (rule 306), it specifies that if you use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle, you could then not use it offensively in that battle. Is there a similar rule saying something to the extent of "If a ship uses cloaked movement, it cannot then use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle and/or use it offensively in combat"?

Thanks Nick, no massive rush on these.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 05:51 pm: Edit

I should get caught up this weekend, sorry for the delay.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 06:34 pm: Edit

Kevin, read the cloaked movement rule again to determine if it can be used in a hex containing enemy units.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Kevin

Some of your question has already been answered (I know because I asked it a while ago). My question is at:

Monday, August 23, 2004 - 12:24 am

And Nick's answer to me is at:

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 09:49 am
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:22 am: Edit

Dale, thank you. That did answer some of my questions, though others are still unclear to me (like for example, if the cloaked ships truly have double pin power, or can the extra pinning defenders react elsewhere after the current stack of cloaked ships have stopped moving).

One question came to me as I was looking at Nick's answer to you. Actually, I had already asked this above, but this is a good example to highlight.

Nick wrote: "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?"

But the way I see it, only 3 stacks of 12 each can use cloaked movement, right? Therefore, if there were 60 pin points, and the Roms have 50, but only 36 can cloak, then 14 would be pinned by 14, and then the 46 remaining Fed ships would pin 23 Roms, so only 13 make it through, leaving 37 behind. Or is it that all can cloak, but only 36 can move, thus proving Nick's example?

I'll let Nick sort it all out.

*~*~*

Alan, I don't understand your comment. Of course cloaked movement can be used in a hex with enemy ships - in order to leave the hex. They just can't use it to *enter* a hex containing enemy units. What am I missing?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:45 am: Edit

Nick,
Regarding (AO-318.7) "Advanced Small-Scale Combat": are the various instances of "you must use (310.0)" intended to override the 'power level check' (I don't know what else to call it) in the first paragraph of (310.0)?
For example, an E4 (4/2) somehow ends up in combat with a SAS (0-2/0-1) carrying a Prime Team. (318.71) says to use (310.0), and (310.0) says we need to take 1.5 times the SAS' defense factor (1.5x2=3) and see if it's greater than the E4's attack factor (4). Since it isn't, use of (310.1) "Single Combat Table" is not manditory, except that (318.71) can be interpreted that it must be used.
Unfortunately, the two readings produce very different results: if the 'power check' allows regular combat to be used, then the E4 almost certainly cripples the SAS and might, with good dice rolls, destroy it during Slow Unit Retreat (salvage going to the owner of the SAS); the E4 might theoretically be crippled if the Prime Team scores enough plus points. If we're forced to use the Single Combat Table, then the SAS has a one-in-three chance of destroying the E4 and collecting its salvage, and can't possibly be destroyed; the E4 can't destroy the SAS, and has less of a chance of crippling the SAS than the SAS has of destroying the E4.
Admittedly, the E4 vs. SAS(w/PT) is an extreme example, in that a "weaponless" freighter can destroy a weak warship, but there are less extreme cases out there.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Can a race designate ships that are out of supply as an Expedtion fleet if there is not connection between the races Main grid and the allied grid?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 16, 2005 - 10:03 am: Edit

All questions downloaded. I should get answers up this weekend.

Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 17, 2005 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Answers:

=====================================

Appeals noted. raid supply thing and romulan inactive fleet module thing.

=====================================

Robert Padilla: If the Hydran capital is still around on T10(709.3), is it the Y174-Y176 build schedule they start with, or is it the Y177-Y180
schedule? Thanks!

ANSWER: What is meant by 176-177 schedule is the Spring Y177-Y180 schedule in spring turns, and Fall Y176-Y180 schedule in fall turns, as those have the DWs on them. The point was they get to start building DWs at that time, (173 instead of 177).

=====================================

Christopher E. Fant: If, under the Limited War rules in FO, you send crippled Kzin ships to a Fed base capable of repairing them, do the Feds HAVE to repair them, or can they just sit there till the Feds are no longer at Limited War?

ANSWER: I don't think you have to repair them, but if you don't you can't move more in due to the restriction on not more ships than the base's repair capacity on the next turn.

=====================================

Erik Underkofler: Do auxiliary ships and other slow ships count as ships that can pin and/or need to be pinned, or is it just their fighters? I seem to remember different things based upon different editions of the rules.

ANSWER: An auxiliary can be pinned (you must have enough counterpinning forces when trying to move an auxiliary out of a hex with enemy ships), but they do not themselves pin another ship, and leaving an aux behind does not
count for counterpinning. Fighters/PFs on such ships count normally.

Also, would the pin count of 3 Hydran LN 4(2)-6 be 3 or 4 (i.e. do the 6 fighter factors get combined into a single unit)?

ANSWER: The fighters combine. Fighters can combine with other fighters, PFs can combine with other PFs, crippled ships can combine with other crippled ships, but you cannot combine two unlike quantities, you cannot have 3 fighter factors and 3 PFs being one ship equivalent, that is two half ships for various purposes.

=====================================

Christopher E. Fant:

WIth a capital hex, do you have to put a capturing races ship over each planet or can you declare that this hex is owned by a race that has a ship there, and the other ships used to garrison could be from other races?

Example:

Kzinti capital is captured, contains 8 planets. 5 Klingon ships and 3 Lyran are present in the hex. Can the Klingons own the 3 other planets that have Lyrans helping to garrison, or do the Lyrans own those three planets?
(This is assuming the same player is running both races.)

ANSWER: Rule (508.23) says that every planet must be garrisoned by a ship/PDU of the conquering race. So if you had Klingon ships they would be Klingon planets, and if you had Lyran ships, they would be Lyran planets. Note that this can be changed under the last sentence of (508.232), so if the Klingon player moved more ships in on a later turn, the Lyran player could declare his captured planets are now Klingon planets under those garrison forces, and
his garrison forces could move elsewhere.

=====================================

Mark Ermenc:

Sequence of play question:

At what exact point in the sequence of play are plus and minus points (which were generated in an approach battle) divided up between the systems.

It makes a bit of a difference if the defender gets to see them put down before they have to place their ships.

ANSWER: I think they would have to be divided up before any battle forces are created by either side. Under rule (511.5) this would be done as the last action of (511.51) Step 1. I.e. as soon as you determine that the approach battle has ended (either attacker broke through and moves to the planets, or defender does not fight the approach battle and the attacker moves to the planets) you divide up the +/- points from the last approach battle round, then proceed to (511.52) Step 2.

=====================================

Robert Padilla:

What would happen if a raider attacked a hex with a FRD, and a few other defending ships? Would the raider fight one round of normal combat against the defending ships, then be allowed to attack the FRD using SSC? Or would
the raider have to fight all of the ships present and the FRD?

ANSWER: YOu fight all the ships in the normal reaction battle, if you survive you can either disrupt the province, or do alternative attack. If you do alternative attack you get to attack just the FRD. If the FRD is with a base/planet, you would have to fight the fixed defenses as well as the FRD.

However, note that under (314.251) you can declare some ships to be at a "base" (which could be the FRD), so some defending ships might fight in the reaction battle (only), and other ships might fight with the FRD in the alternative attack battle (only), but a given defending ship would not fight in both the reaction and alternative attack battles.

=====================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:
Here's an interaction that I don't think anyone's dealt with yet. Tholians and annexation.

(511.223) The Klingon colonies in Tholian space "... once activated could be devastated or captured by other races."

(448.28) "Planets in a province are annexed along with that province. Devastated planets would begin the time period to recover from devastation after annexation is complete."

So, seeing how (511.221) has the Klingon colonies starting up only after two complete turns, if the Tholians recapture their province before the Klingons fully annex it, wouldn't the Tholians immediately annex the three Klingon
colonies since they own the province?

ANSWER: The planets don't "appear" until the end of the 2 turns of activation. If that is interrupted, the activation is cancelled, so there are no planets for anybody capture or annex. After the period of reactivation, the planets are like any other planet on the board and could be annexed by the Tholians as you say.

There is another issue here. If the Tholian province had only been held by the Klingons for say two or three turns, then the Tholians would only be recapturing it, not really re-annexing it, it had never been annexed by the Klingons in the first place, not after only a couple of turns. So the klingon planets would be treated as captured (devestated and such) not instantly annexed, not until after the normal annex time period of 10 total turns. It is a weird case of klingon planets in a tholian province, and I would think they would thus be treated dfferently.

If the Tholians had recaptured the area after the Klingons legitimately annexed the province (10 turns), then they re-annex it in half that time, but the planets are still original klingon planets, not tholian planets, and I would think those would still take 10 turns to annex. (The Klingons would re-annex the planets in half the time, 10 turns for the tholian province).

Of course all of these cases are very unlikely scenarios. Once they Tholians are wiped out, they are not likely to come back, not in 2 turns, not in 12 turns.

=====================================

Robert Padilla: Can the Hydrans convert a CU to a DWH, and then convert the DWH to a DWE on the same turn as a double conversion?

ANSWER: as noted it is on the on-line SIT as a 2+1 conversion.

=====================================

Kevin Howard: Pertaining to cloaked movement:

Rule 203.82 says that when cloaked, you only need to leave behind one half of the required number of ships when calculating pinning. I have some questions related to that.

I would assume that the ships leaving the hex are using cloaked movement, therefore taking 3 movement points to leave the hex?

ANSWER: Correct.

Also, I would assume that as such, only 3 stacks of 12 ships could use rule 203.82, as per the maximum number of ships that can use cloaked movement (203.85)? (Note, there is no maximum of ships that can use cloaked withdrawal, rule 306.11)

ANSWER: Correct.

Do I calculate pin factors normally (i.e., a SPB would count as two ship equivalents for determining how many are pinned), or is it only ships, not ship equivalents (because the fighters of the SPB cannot cloak individually,
and thus would be on board while the ship is cloaked)?

ANSWER: Count the number of enemy pin factors, divid by 2 round up. This is the number of pin factors that must stay behind for the rest of the cloaked ships to leave the hex. The pin factors of the ships/fighters/PFs that stay
behind are calculated normally.

If I sent a force of a dozen cloaked vessels through a hex of a dozen Gorn vessels, cloaked and left the hex, I'd only need to leave 6 Romulan ships behind. Does that mean that the 12 Gorn vessels are pinned, or only 6 of them? (If only 6 were pinned, the other 6 could later react out to pin a different force of Romulan vessels, right?)

ANSWER: This only affects the ships moving out now, so if you had to recaculate pinning later, the remaining 6 rom ships would only pin 6 gorn
ships, not all twelve. Essentially, cloaked movement reduces the number of your ships that get pinned, it does not increase the number of enemy ships that are pinned.

I would assume that if there were enough enemy ships, the whole cloaked force can be pinned? For example, 12 cloaked vessels can be pinned by 24 Gorn vessels?

ANSWER: Correct.

If I then entered the hex again with another force of cloaked vessels, is the original force still considered to be cloaked (thus affecting the pin calculation)? For example, the 12 Cloaked vessels is pinned by 24 Gorns, so the second force of 12 cloaked vessels gets to move through the hex unpinned?

ANSWER: If the ships leaving the hex are using the cloaked movement rule, then the number of ships required to be left behind is cut in half. It's that simple. The ships left behind may or may not be cloaked, it doesn't matter.

Or... would only 12 Gorn ships be pinned, the other 12 Gorn vessels be considered "unpinned", therefore meaning they could stop 6 of next force of cloaked vessels? (After all, the previously pinned romulan ships are done
moving either way, so the Gorns could in theory turn their attention away from them - thus meaning there are 12 Romulans, pinning 12 Gorns, the other 12 are free to try to pin the next force of Romulans.)

And if so, what happens if I came through with a force of *uncloaked* vessels into a hex where 24 Gorns had pinned a dozen previously cloaked vessels?

Would the previously cloaked vessels remained cloaked? How would it affect pinning?

ANSWER: You are making this way more complicated than it is. There is no pinning then un-pinning then re-pinning or whatever. Whenever you move a stack or a sub-stack by cloaked movement out of an enemy occupied hex, during the pinning calulation for that movement pulse only you get to cut the requirement for ships left behind in half. After which everything returns to normal. The ships left behing may or may not have been using cloaked movment, it doesn't matter. Prior conditions don't really matter so long as you observe all the rules for cloaked movement (limited to how many ships can
do it, etc..). Another group of ships leaving by cloaked movement from the same hex would have no interaction with the earlier cloaked movement from that hex, it would be its own situation with its own pinning calculation.

For that matter, what if a force tries to use cloaked movement when there were already uncloaked ships in the hex? Rule 203.84 clearly says you could not use cloaked movement to enter a hex containing friendly uncloaked units,
but there is no prohibition to using cloaked movement to leave a hex containing friendly uncloaked units. Consider the following:

60 Romulan ship equivalents are pinned by a force of 60 Gorn ship equivalents, while moving towards their target. Could the Romulan split off a force of a dozen ships (possibly more than a dozen ship equivalanents if there were carriers or PFT's), use cloaked movement to exit some of them and continue on to the target - then split off a second stack of 12 and do the
same, then split off a third stack and do the same, finally having the remainder be pinned? How would 203.82 be used to calculate pinning in that situation?

ANSWER: you can do that by splitting sub-stacks of cloaked moving ships off of the main force. Each instance would involve its own pinning calculation involving all ships in the hex at that instant and that had no interaction
with prior or future pinning calculations. With 60 ship equivalents on each side, you move 12 out (leaving 48 behind) which meets the requirement of half the 60 gorn ships, 60/2=30 ship equivalents. Then you move 12 more (leaving 36 behind) which still meets the requirements of 60/2=30 ship equivalents.

Then you want to move more out (the third cloaked moving stack), but you must still leave 30 ship equivalents behind since there are still 60 Gorn ships, which means you can only move by cloaked movement 6 more ships of your 36
currently in the hex.

And finally (well, I'll probably think up more later), looking at the use of the cloaking device in combat (rule 306), it specifies that if you use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle, you could then not use it
offensively in that battle. Is there a similar rule saying something to the extent of "If a ship uses cloaked movement, it cannot then use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle and/or use it offensively in combat"?

ANSWER: Nope, you can use cloaked movement, and perhaps some of the other cloak benefits in combat on that same turn.

=====================================

Dave Butler:

Regarding (AO-318.7) "Advanced Small-Scale Combat": are the various instances of "you must use (310.0)" intended to override the 'power level check' (I don't know what else to call it) in the first paragraph of (310.0)?
For example, an E4 (4/2) somehow ends up in combat with a SAS (0-2/0-1) carrying a Prime Team. (318.71) says to use (310.0), and (310.0) says we need to take 1.5 times the SAS' defense factor (1.5x2=3) and see if it's greater than the E4's attack factor (4). Since it isn't, use of (310.1) "Single Combat Table" is not manditory, except that (318.71) can be interpreted that it must be used.
Unfortunately, the two readings produce very different results: if the 'power check' allows regular combat to be used, then the E4 almost certainly cripples the SAS and might, with good dice rolls, destroy it during Slow Unit
Retreat (salvage going to the owner of the SAS); the E4 might theoretically be crippled if the Prime Team scores enough plus points. If we're forced to use the Single Combat Table, then the SAS has a one-in-three chance of destroying the E4 and collecting its salvage, and can't possibly be destroyed; the E4 can't destroy the SAS, and has less of a chance of crippling the SAS than the SAS has of destroying the E4.
Admittedly, the E4 vs. SAS(w/PT) is an extreme example, in that a "weaponless" freighter can destroy a weak warship, but there are less extreme cases out there.

ANSWER: I believe the intention behind raids was to use small scale combat whenever possible in order to resolve them quickely (one die roll instead of multiple rounds of accumulating one plus point at a time until you get enough to actually do damage) simply to make the game quicker. I would say the raid rules mean to ignore the opening paragraph of (310) and just use the ssc rule for raids. In other words, if the power check fails, it only means that ssc
is not mandatory, you still could use it if you want, and the raid rule tells you to use it anyway. However, as demonstrated here and in the past, there are extreme cases where small scale combat doesn't work logically, and while
officially it should probably be used regardless, you could of course play it
out the longer way for the more realistic result if your group prefers.

=====================================

Tim Losberg: Can a race designate ships that are out of supply as an Expedtion fleet if there is not connection between the races Main grid and
the allied grid?

ANSWER: As far as I can tell you can do so, but in declaring them expeditionary you have to pay the cost specified, and you would get no actual
benefit until the supply grids were reconnected.

=====================================
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:10 pm: Edit

Nick,
Two things:
(a) My question regarding SSC does not mention raids and so your remarks regarding the use of SSC in raids, while interesting and welcome, do not actually answer the question asked. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the subject again, with the clarification that the question is only concerned with Phase 5: Combat.
(b) Does the Hydran "kinda-sorta at War economy" rule (FE2K-601.162) count towards the restrictions in (FE2K-652.23)? Specifically, what is the earliest possible turn on which the Hydrans can declare something other than a Wartime economy when playing (FE2K-651.0) "The Grand Campaign"?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Dave:

A: The thing about advanced small scale combat is that it was really added to the rules because raids required a more robust version of the existing small scale combat rule from the core rulebook. The existing (310) could not properly handle everything that raids added to the game. It (advanced small scale combat with the existing 310) could of course be used under normal combat conditions involving a couple of units to speed play. Whether this was meant to be required for all situations? It does sort of read that way, but I think the intention was really to require it for raids, and maybe have it be optional for other situations. A group could easily decide before a game started whether they wanted to enforce the SSC test everytime or not. As noted there are still some situations where the SSC system produces odd results, and in such situations it may be best to use SSC only when both sides agree to do so. I forget what they did at Origins last year, but I think they did not enforce SSC in all instances.

B: The rule (601.162) states that Hydrans during turns 1 and 2 are at war for purposes of later exhaustion only (meaning they become economically exhausted on the same schedule as the Lyran/Klingon/Kzinti/Romulan assuming you all follow the normal entry schedules), they are not actually at war during those two turns. They don't actually get to go to wartime status for real until alliance turn 3, so no, those first two turns do not count toward the restrictions in (652.23). The only thing (601.162) means is that when you figure out Hydran economic exhaustion later in the game, you count the first two turns before they entered the game as if they had been at war.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 03:49 pm: Edit

When you unconvert a Hydran AH, can it become either of the 2 FF types (CU or HN)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:09 pm: Edit

Sean, Yes. When you unconvert a ship it always becomes the "base hull". On the SIT the base hull for the AH is the FF. Under (709.3) CLASSES the FF comprises both the HN and CU.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:39 pm: Edit

wait, not ready yet.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:08 am: Edit

F&E Master Errata File.

Contains Errata for F&E2K, Fighter Ops, Combined Ops, Advanced Ops, and Planetary Ops, as previously published in Captain’s Logs #21 through #30.

Does not include SIT errata since all SITs are now updated online.

This file compiled on 4/25/05 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).

(203.5) This rule requires leaving ships behind 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.

(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.

(302.133) 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) MULTIPLE BASES: It would theoretically be possible for several "bases" to be in the same hex, and these might be at the same location or at different locations (creating what amounts to a multi-system hex). Of course, many capital hexes have multiple systems, each with multiple planets, and more than one base (each with a different planet).

(302.2121) Bases in a hex are recorded at the time they are first built as being with a planet (or a previously-built base) or at a separate location. Upgrading a base does not change its location. Note that the definition of "location" provides that all of the fixed defenses at a location are part of the battle (possibly under the special rules below).

A: In the case of multiple bases at a planet or colony, one base (usually the one provided in the game set up, if any) is designated as being "adjacent to" the planet (302.2123D) and the others are assumed to be "located near" the planet (130,000 km or more away from it). All of these bases are in the same "location" although the rules below will limit all but one base to half of their combat strength, and only if the base "adjacent to" the planet is the primary focus of the battle can the PDUs be damaged (by voluntary or directed damage). If this base is lost, then no base is "adjacent to the planet" until a new one is built there.

(302.2122) Convoys, FRDs, and tugs serving as supply points (collectively known as "sheltered units") are designated as to their location (whether they are co-located with other "bases") at the start of each round. They can only be damaged if that base is the "focus" of the attack. See (511.5) to resolve this. They cannot be sheltered by the "excluded" base (302.2123A).

(302.2123) In the event that two or more bases of any type or types (system bases, mobile bases, operational bases, base stations, battle stations, starbases, or star fortresses) are at the same "location," none of them count against the command limits. The attacker may use the standard combat system or he may (each Combat Round) elect to use the special rules below.

A. The Defender may, but does not have to, designate one base as "excluded." This cannot be the base with the planet. This "excluded base" cannot then use any of its combat, EW, fighter, or PF factors in the battle. The Defender may, after any combat round, drop this exclusion, but he cannot change it to another base. Once all other bases in the location are destroyed, these rules will not apply and the excluded base will then be in the battle.

B. The attacker selects (at the start of each combat round) any base other than the "excluded base" as the "focus of attack."

B1. The base designated as the "focus of attack" is the only base: able to use its full combat power (adjusted for electronic warfare), able to use an SFG, that can be attacked by any means (directed damage, voluntary damage, Marines, or a special attack force), that can be the flagship of the defending fleet, or that can use X-ship counter-attrition damage (523.32).

B2. Other bases (which are 130,000 kilometers away due to positional stabilizer interactions) contribute half of their combat power. The owner selects the EW and Attack ratings and reduces them by 50%. After all are totalled, any last half-factor is ignored.

C. All fighters and PFs from all bases (except for one selected by the owner which are included beyond the limit) count at their full value against the three-squadron attrition limit (302.332) although additional squadrons can be counted as "independent" sqauadrons (302.35) against the command limit (in excess of the attrition limit). In some cases, a base or bases may be required to keep their fighters or PFs out of the battle in order to respect the limit. Bases in the location can transfer fighters and PFs between each other under the normal rules between rounds.

D. PDUs are not considered bases for this rule. All PDUs may use their fighters and/or PFs in excess of other limits. The PDUs can only use their attack factors if the focus of the attack is the base located "adjacent to" the planet (302.2121A). The PDUs can only be attacked or given up as voluntary damage if the focus of the attack is that base. Colonies and colony bases are considered PDUs for this purpose only.

SPECIAL SEQUENCE:

1. Defender designates the excluded (302.2123A) base (not changeable, but droppable on any round) and the location of "sheltered (302.2122) units" (changeable every round).

2. Attacker selects one defending base as the "focus of his attack" (302.2123B). This selection can be changed each round.

3. Both select battle forces, and combat is conducted normally. "Other bases" are treated under the restrictions above.

Notes: F&E does not distinguish between bases on planets and bases in orbit around a planet. Two bases in the same hex would count as only one base for purposes of victory conditions. There is no special exception to this rule for capitals.--Steve Cole.

====================================================

(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".

(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.

(309.3) The drone bombardment ship must have a valid supply path during its combat in order to conduct drone bombardment.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(315.5) : Reference to (312.61) should be (312.261).

(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.

(318.74) : Reference to (317.71) should be to (318.71). Reference to (317.72) should be to (318.72)

(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.

(321.12) You can indeed purchase a Marine General (one is allowed per year) even if the first turn of war is a Fall turn.

(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).

(424.2) mentions what to do if a Depot holding box is full, but a holding box can never be full. We had (during on draft) put a limit on holding boxes but later removed it and missed one reference to that removed limit.

(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.

(439.16) The reference to (314.35) should be to (314.25).

(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.

(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)scout/8(3)scout. 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.

(450.12) There is nothing in this rule to stop a Conversion Facility from making a double conversion, nor is there anything stopping you from using (450.4) to produce a Lyran DD in a Lyran CW shipyard.

(450.4) You can substitute a D7V or D6V for a C8V.

(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.

(511.53) Auxiliary ships (aux carriers, troopships, aux scouts, etc,) are also split 50/50 between the mobile and static elements.

(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.

(518.35) 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.

(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.

(523.212) A police ship can enter space containing enemy units during the retreat process.

(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).

(533.41) The Orions can build four PDUs on Vegas, not six. This matches the limit in (533.43).

(534.244) The rescued ship is moved to the nearest supply point in the rescuing supply grid, same as (535.245).

(537.13) The Residual Defense Unit is more properly Residual Defense Factor as it is not a "unit" in the way the rules use the term.

(601.12) The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Coalition invades this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

(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.

(618.0) Crosswinds. The Kzinti Marquis fleet stays in its traditional home of 1704; a type on the Turn #2 rules moved him to 1304.

(619.0) Backdraft. The Lyran Home Fleet (Spring Y168) is under this additional restriction: Individual ships in the Home Fleet are activated only when enemy units enter the reaction zone of any unit in the hex that that ship is in. All other units, including the reserve marker, from the Home Fleet remain inactive.

(621.0) Demon of the Eastern Wind. The Fed-Gorn commercial convoy could easily reach the Feds on Turn #3, when the Federation (being at peace) wastes the profit rather than being able to save or use it. Gosh, that's just too bad! You can of course delay the convoy a turn but that might cost the Gorns more than it gains the Federation. No special exception is needed, just decide if you're willing to wast Fed money or delay Gorn money.

(621.13) These are "minor shipyards" rather than "auxiliary shipyards" and have no relation to the productio nof "auxiliary ships." These can produce ships at their normal rate if money is available.

(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.

(673.1L) The Lyran Jagdpanther starts the Cloudburst Scenario in the command configuration.

(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!

(703.0) Klingon eastern fleet is divided into three fleets (northeast, east, southeast) each with the strength listed for east.

(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:
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.

SEQUENCE OF PLAY:
Step 5-3F: If the Tholians turn down the approach battle, the combat round is treated as a null round with no casualties; either side may retreat after such a round. In Step 5-8C, this is done if the roll is NOT successful as 5-8D covers a successful role.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 11:46 pm: Edit

Nick, (309.3) should have "Exception: DB ships accompanied by a Tug on Mission U can preform the DB mission." added...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:07 am: Edit

I don't think that needs to be in the errata for the basic rules since mission U is a published addition in Plantary Ops.

Or in other words without PO you can't do that.

I did notice a duplication and a couple of items out of order in the above, I have corrected them in my copy. I will leave the above for everyone to look over, if I missed something let me know. I will do final corrections after a bit and then hopefully get Joe Butler to put this up on the errata section of the main website to replace the old one that is currently there.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

Note on the Errata:
(515.535) has the disclaimer that "New rules in a future product [will allow SB to do multiple conversions]". Such rules were published in Planetary Operations as (450.5) Flexible Conversions.
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 03:22 pm: Edit

Does this:

(703.0) Klingon eastern fleet is divided into three fleets (northeast, east, southeast) each with the strength listed for east.

really mean that the Klingons add 60 some ships to their easter border?

Also for,
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF (524.231) delete the words "go to" in this rule

shouldn't into a CPF be from a CPF?
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Nick;

The errata includes the following:

(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.

I have a few questions about that ...

1) How exactly does that work? IE: Which interpretation is correct:

1A) The limit is 4 of any hull except PGS, which is 8.

1B) The limit is 4 of any hull, plus 4 vessels of any type.

1C) The four actual pre-war PGS hulls must be tracked carefully, via paper record, as these physical hulls are the ones above and beyond all such limits.

1D) Something else.

2) Is the limit of 4 of any type of PG? vessel in service supposed to begin on 172, or is it supposed to always be in effect?

3) One of the four "original" PGS vessels is pinned off-board, unable to enter the map until it is converted to a PF-tender, so it is nearly guarenteed that there will be a PGS:PFT conversion of this hull, at some point (180+). When this conversion occurs, is the resultant PFT above and beyond the "4 of any PG? ship" limit?

4) Wouldn't it be easier to change the "4 in service" rule to instead read: "The guilds will produce no more than four 'free' hulls of any given variant over the course of the war. Use paper records to track such constructions."?
Such a rule would still give 28 hulls, at one per year, if I recall correctly, which would take the Hydrans to Y200, and aught to cover the general war just fine.
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:40 am: Edit

Just to put in my recollection, the ruling was 4 free ships of each type, not 4 total hulls of each type. You can have 50 PGVs (subbed for war cruisers, under carrier limits) if you want to pay for them, but you can only get 4 free.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 02:07 am: Edit

There's a rule (A0-709.1B) which says: "Old Colonies shipyard builds one Pegasus-hull each Spring turn Y172+ at no cost (including free fighters). Select from available types but no more than four of any one type can be in service at any one time."
Just thought I'd try to help by saving rule-search time.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 02:27 am: Edit

How is that confusing?

It says 4 ships of each type, and the starting PGS are not against this limit. So I can build 4 of each type.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:20 pm: Edit

One thing about the 4 starting PGs is that only three can be used as PGS. Wouldn't it simply be easier to give the Hydrans 3 PGS at start and a PG-based PFT once those come in that does not count against the limit of 4 and has a "production" cost of 5 (or whatever the conversion is)? That, at least, would be in line with all the other AO special ship rules.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Yeah, but history says the 4th PGS was there on traffic duty, so its easier to just leave it sit.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Nothing like wasting a counter
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 01:46 pm: Edit

I think that part of Mark's question (and one that I'm asking even if he isn't) is "if a pre-war PGS is converted to anything else (a PGG in Y172, say), how many more 'something elses' (PGG, in this example) may I have in service?" The answer is either three (max four PGG in service, and I've just made one) or four (service limit is still four, but I'm using one of the pre-war PGS, which "[does] not count against the limits of four ships of any type" [my emphasis]).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Dave Butler, Thanks. I changed the part about future rules to say instead PO has the new rule.

============================

Erik Underkofler

Does this:

(703.0) Klingon eastern fleet is divided into three fleets (northeast, east, southeast) each with the strength listed for east.

really mean that the Klingons add 60 some ships to their easter border?

ANSWER: Oops. That was a joke posted by Steve Cole once upon a time (due to alliance protests of Klingons bolstering their east fleet prior to Fed entry), I inserted it into the master errata just for Origins to see if anyone would catch it. I then forgot to take it out of my master copy. Gone now (sorry coalition).

Also for,
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF (524.231) delete the words "go to" in this rule

shouldn't into a CPF be from a CPF?

ANSWER: It is correct. You can transfer PFs from other carriers into a CPF, so the rule should say that the transfers can COME FROM any other base/carrier. Rule (524.231) says no transfers out of a CPF, so the first rule should NOT say transfers can GO TO any other base/carrier. Deleting the words GO TO makes the rule correct.

============================================

On the Hydran PGSs. You get the 4 at start ones. You can get 4 of each type free from the guilds. You can build more at normal cost. As far as I know that is how it works. I need to ask why the one rule says "in service at any one time" as that would require tracking the "guild built" Pegasus ships, which I don't think was the intention.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Nick,
Please do ask about the Pegasus limits. (I suspect that you've already done so, or were about to do so, but I figure that I'll officially put in a request.)
I'm also appealling your decision that you can only get four of each type of PG? free from the guilds. The language of the rule (AO-709.1B) is quite clear: the guilds will produce any number of one type of Pegasus hull (but only one per year), provided that there are never more than 4 of that type in service; it's possible that they produce a PGV per year from Y172 to Y185, provided that at least one PGV is destroyed per year (keeping the number in service below four). Your ruling directly contradicts the rules as written.
Mark is quite correct that it's the errata that muddies the waters. Prior to the errata, the rules were fairly clear: (525.318) indicated that (a) one PG? is built for free on each year in Y172+, and (b) that it's possible to substitute a PG? for a DD; (709.1B) indicated that (c) the free PG? was received in the Spring, and (d) one could have at most four of each type in service at any one time. Rule (317.4) says that the Hydrans get four PGS "at start", three of which may step onto the map, and may build more. (And so we have the question of how the Hydrans can build more PGS if they're at their service limit of 4.)
In answer, the errata says that the four "at start" PGS do not count against the service limit of four of any type. This creates a problem, because the errata itself is unclear on how we're supposed to handle these now special PGS. The rest of the rules are still clear; we still get a PG? free each Spring in Y172+, we can still sub PG? for DD, and we can only have 24 PG? hulls (4 of each type) in service (by (709.1B)), except that the four "at start" PGS don't count (per the errata). What I think Mark's asking (and what I most definitely am asking) is how these special four ships should be treated.
The easiest answer would be just to say that the Hydrans can have eight PGS in service at any one time, plus four of each other type, and may count a (single) PFT (the Pegasus variant, not the generic ship type) against the PGS service limit. This would eliminate any need for record keeping, and would be the most consistent with the rules as they currently stand. The next easiest answer would be to say that the Hydrans have a service limit of four of each type of PG?, plus another four (total) PG? hulls which may be of any type. This is more complex, but also more flexible, and is still at least somewhat consistent with the rules as written.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Thanks for bumping that up the line for us, Nick.

Frankly I'd be just as happy if the rule was changed to be: "The guild makes a free hull each year, up to a maximum of 4 of each type, but there is no limit of hulls in service, sorry for the confusion, game on ..."

That wouldn't really bother me, because I can look back in my construction records to track it. No problem.

Dbutler is correct that my primary concern here is how to handle the errata as it stands. If I have to track each of those four individual hulls by paper record so that I know when a "pre-war" PGS hull is blown as opposed to a "constructed" PGS hull ... I'm going to go even more stark, raving bonkers.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 11:41 pm: Edit

While we're on about the "pinned off-board" PGS, I have another question:

When a capitol is razed, all "inactive" ships are released. (Sorry, someone else will have to look up the rule number here, the books are elsewhere.)

1) Does this rule override the "4th PGS can't come on-board" limitation?

2) On a similar note, in Kzinti space, the errata now says the following:

(601.12) The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Coalition invades this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

In the case that the Kzinti capitol is razed, which rule takes precedence? IE: Is the fleet/area released because the capitol was nailed, or is it still inactive because the Federation hasn't yet activated.

3) While we're on that bit of the errata, does "until the Federation enters the war" mean "until the Federation activates", or "until the Federation declares political war on another empire"?
By Erik Underkofler (Eunderko) on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Nick,

Not sure from your reply if you got what I was trying to say.
In the errata,
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF

this first part says that PFs cannot transfer into a CPF, which is contradicted by what you say after that. I think that the into should have been from. I understand that the rest, removing the "Go To", is the correct way to fix the rules.

I did remember the Klingon east fleet thing as a joke, but then when I saw it in the Errata, I started to second-guess myself. thanks for correcting.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:38 pm: Edit

May - June 2005 Archive

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 01:14 am: Edit

I apologize for this question, as I am sure it has been answered before, but I can never get the search function to work for me.

I have a partial economic grid cut off from the main, and I have a fleet parked on a base there. I know that as long as the fleet is parked on the base, it's in supply, but is it in supply for movement that turn? Or do they lose supply status the instant they leave the base unless supply is paid for?

If anyone knows remembers the answer, go ahead and answer it so that Nick doesn't have to constantly reanswer everything. Thanks!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:40 am: Edit

Nick:

Can a DemonHawk with SparrowHawk-H modules transport an FRD since the DMH is NOT a war cruiser hull I would conclude that it could.

Chuck
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:40 am: Edit

My question pertains to the cloaked movement question a few weeks ago:

If a Rom fleet of 45 ships has been pinned out of a Gorn minor point by 45 SE of Gorn, and a 3 FE marker is added to that fleet (not pinned), what happens if a stack of 30 ships (36 Ship equivalents) moves into the hex, and that movement is reacted to by 39 SE of Gorn. When the Rom player invokes the half the cloak rule, half of the force is 42 SE (less than the original pinning force). Does this mean the entire cloaked force of 36 SE is able to continue moving unimpeeded through the hex?

Do ships that have moved previously into a hex count for counter pinning a cloaked stack attempting to avoid combat?

My interpretation on reading 203.82 (certainly could be wrong) was that the cloaked ships alone would count as half a count for pinning purposes, i.e in the above example, half of the 36 SE of cloaked vessels could go through. If you ignored the other 48 vessels that the Rom/Gorn each have in the hex (because they have moved previously, and have completed their movement), the Gorn would have 36 SE to pin the 36 SE of Roms. This would allow 18 SE of Roms to continue onto their target.

If the entire force is allowed to move into the forward hex, it would seem that if you are attempting to pin the Roms out of a hex, you need to have as many ships as they have +36. Then if you react out you need to send 36 extra SE into every hex they move into adjacent to the target, because they could invoke cloaked movement to get in.

Here are clipped passages from the question a few weeks ago.

Kevin Howard: Pertaining to cloaked movement:

Rule 203.82 says that when cloaked, you only need to leave behind one half of the required number of ships when calculating pinning. I have some questions related to that.
Do I calculate pin factors normally (i.e., a SPB would count as two ship equivalents for determining how many are pinned), or is it only ships, not ship equivalents (because the fighters of the SPB cannot cloak individually,
and thus would be on board while the ship is cloaked)?

ANSWER: Count the number of enemy pin factors, divid by 2 round up. This is the number of pin factors that must stay behind for the rest of the cloaked ships to leave the hex. The pin factors of the ships/fighters/PFs that stay
behind are calculated normally.

ANSWER: You are making this way more complicated than it is. There is no pinning then un-pinning then re-pinning or whatever. Whenever you move a stack or a sub-stack by cloaked movement out of an enemy occupied hex, during the pinning calulation for that movement pulse only you get to cut the requirement for ships left behind in half. After which everything returns to normal. The ships left behing may or may not have been using cloaked movment, it doesn't matter. Prior conditions don't really matter so long as you observe all the rules for cloaked movement (limited to how many ships can
do it, etc..). Another group of ships leaving by cloaked movement from the same hex would have no interaction with the earlier cloaked movement from that hex, it would be its own situation with its own pinning calculation.

For that matter, what if a force tries to use cloaked movement when there were already uncloaked ships in the hex? Rule 203.84 clearly says you could not use cloaked movement to enter a hex containing friendly uncloaked units,
but there is no prohibition to using cloaked movement to leave a hex containing friendly uncloaked units. Consider the following:

60 Romulan ship equivalents are pinned by a force of 60 Gorn ship equivalents, while moving towards their target. Could the Romulan split off a force of a dozen ships (possibly more than a dozen ship equivalanents if there were carriers or PFT's), use cloaked movement to exit some of them and continue on to the target - then split off a second stack of 12 and do the
same, then split off a third stack and do the same, finally having the remainder be pinned? How would 203.82 be used to calculate pinning in that situation?

ANSWER: you can do that by splitting sub-stacks of cloaked moving ships off of the main force. Each instance would involve its own pinning calculation involving all ships in the hex at that instant and that had no interaction
with prior or future pinning calculations. With 60 ship equivalents on each side, you move 12 out (leaving 48 behind) which meets the requirement of half the 60 gorn ships, 60/2=30 ship equivalents. Then you move 12 more (leaving 36 behind) which still meets the requirements of 60/2=30 ship equivalents.

Then you want to move more out (the third cloaked moving stack), but you must still leave 30 ship equivalents behind since there are still 60 Gorn ships, which means you can only move by cloaked movement 6 more ships of your 36
currently in the hex.

And finally (well, I'll probably think up more later), looking at the use of the cloaking device in combat (rule 306), it specifies that if you use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle, you could then not use it
offensively in that battle. Is there a similar rule saying something to the extent of "If a ship uses cloaked movement, it cannot then use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle and/or use it offensively in combat"?

ANSWER: Nope, you can use cloaked movement, and perhaps some of the other cloak benefits in combat on that same turn.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 02:29 pm: Edit

=======================================

Mark Ermenc:

While we're on about the "pinned off-board" PGS, I have another question:

When a capitol is razed, all "inactive" ships are released. (Sorry, someone else will have to look up the rule number here, the books are elsewhere.)

1) Does this rule override the "4th PGS can't come on-board" limitation?

ANSWER: No, I don't think so. That ship is not defined as "inactive", but simply has a special limit (317.4) that you can't bring it on-map until it is converted.

2) On a similar note, in Kzinti space, the errata now says the following:

(601.12) The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Coalition invades this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

In the case that the Kzinti capitol is razed, which rule takes precedence?

IE: Is the fleet/area released because the capitol was nailed, or is it still inactive because the Federation hasn't yet activated.

ANSWER: This is specifically an unreleased fleet area, so it would be released by (511.41).

3) While we're on that bit of the errata, does "until the Federation enters the war" mean "until the Federation activates", or "until the Federation declares political war on another empire"?

ANSWER: It means when A) the feds are attacked, or B) when the feds can attack the klingons directly. If the Klingons attack the Feds (or the marquis area itself) on turn 7, 8, or 9, then the marquis is released at that time. If the klingons don't attack the Feds at all during the second scenario, then the Feds can go to war themselves on turn 10 and this would release the Marquis (assuming the coalition had not attack it either yet).

================================================

Erik Underkofler:

Not sure from your reply if you got what I was trying to say. In the errata,
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF
this first part says that PFs cannot transfer into a CPF, which is contradicted by what you say after that. I think that the into should have been from. I understand that the rest, removing the "Go To", is the correct way to fix the rules.

ANSWER: Ah, got it. The master errata now says:

(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer from a CPF (524.231) delete the words "go to" in this rule.

===================================================

Kevin Howard:

I have a partial economic grid cut off from the main, and I have a fleet parked on a base there. I know that as long as the fleet is parked on the base, it's in supply, but is it in supply for movement that turn? Or do they lose supply status the instant they leave the base unless supply is paid for?

ANSWER: They are in supply at the start of the turn. This gives them full movement and combat factors for the duration of the player turn, even if you lack a valid supply path at the instant of movement or combat (i.e. because
you moved off the base). Without a valid supply path you cannot do drone bombardment or buy extra G factors during combat, and you can't get
replacement fighters/PFs when away from the base without a valid supply path at the instant of resupply, but you do get full movement (6 hexes or whatever) from the base, and your regular combat factors are unaffected.

===================================================

Chuck Strong:

Can a DemonHawk with SparrowHawk-H modules transport an FRD since the DMH is NOT a war cruiser hull I would conclude that it could.

ANSWER: Nope. See rule (525.64) H: it says that H modules give the Demonhawk the abilities of an SPH (the LTT). It does not get the abilities of a full tug, so you must use the SPH rules. I know the reason the SPH can't move an FRD by itself is that it is too small, and the Demonhawk is obviously bigger than a regular tug, but the rule still says you must use the SPH rules. Now even if you could, would you really use your Demonhawk to move an FRD?!?

===================================================

Bill Schoeller:

My question pertains to the cloaked movement question a few weeks ago:

If a Rom fleet of 45 ships has been pinned out of a Gorn minor point by 45 SE of Gorn, and a 3 FE marker is added to that fleet (not pinned), what happens if a stack of 30 ships (36 Ship equivalents) moves into the hex, and that
movement is reacted to by 39 SE of Gorn. When the Rom player invokes the half the cloak rule, half of the force is 42 SE (less than the original pinning force). Does this mean the entire cloaked force of 36 SE is able to continue moving unimpeeded through the hex?

ANSWER: First of all, if you move 45 rom ships into a hex, and the gorn react 45 ships into that hex, and the roms then move a new stack (the 3FE unit), those first 45 rom ships are DONE MOVING. Even if they become "unpinned" due
to more ships entering the hex, they can't move again. See rule (203.51). Once you stop moving a stack and move a later stack, you can't go back to the first stack and move it again, whether cloaked or otherwise. If you wanted
to use the cloaked rule, you had to do so as part of that stack's original movement. You must keep in mind the rules for moving stacks and substacks.

Do ships that have moved previously into a hex count for counter pinning a cloaked stack attempting to avoid combat?

ANSWER: The pinning calculation is made at the instant you do the cloaked movement out of that hex, and would include all units in that hex regardless of whether they entered this movement pulse, or on an earlier movement pulse, or whether they started the entire movement phase in that hex. The ships left behind to satisfy pinning on a given movement pulse may be ones that started in that hex and haven't begun to move yet, they may be ones that moved in as part of an earlier stack and are thus done moving, they may be a substack of the current stack and thus only stopping temporarily, it doesn't
matter. See the example at the very bottom.

My interpretation on reading 203.82 (certainly could be wrong) was that the cloaked ships alone would count as half a count for pinning purposes, i.e in the above example, half of the 36 SE of cloaked vessels could go through. If
you ignored the other 48 vessels that the Rom/Gorn each have in the hex (because they have moved previously, and have completed their movement), the Gorn would have 36 SE to pin the 36 SE of Roms. This would allow 18 SE of
Roms to continue onto their target.

ANSWER: No, you cut the entire requirement in half, it is not more complicated than that. If you had 100 enemy ships, and 90 rom ships, when
you invoke (203.82) the pinning requirement is 50 instead of 100. So long as you leave 50 ships behind you can continue to move cloaked ships out (but only up to the 36 ships that can use cloaked movement). So you move 36 out,
leaving 54 behind. (you have to leave 50 behind becasuse that is what (203.82) says: half of the normal requirement 100/2=50, and you have to leave 4 more behind because only 36 ships can use (203.82) in any case.

If the entire force is allowed to move into the forward hex, it would seem that if you are attempting to pin the Roms out of a hex, you need to have as many ships as they have +36. Then if you react out you need to send 36 extra
SE into every hex they move into adjacent to the target, because they could invoke cloaked movement to get in.

ANSWER: If you want to completely pin a force of 90 pin equivalent rom ships, you need 179 ships (pin equivalents) to react into their hex. If they want to move out even 1 of those 90 ships with cloaked movement, they would have to leave 179/2=89.5 ships behind. If they moved 1 ship with cloaked movement, that would only leave 89 which is not enough so no ship can move and all are pinned. This example assumes all ships are 1 pin equivalent.

If the Roms had 90 pin equivalents, and say you reacted with only 170 ships, they only have to have 170/2=85 pin equivalents left behind, and could thus move 5 of the 90 ships with the cloaked movement rules.

To put it in plain english, normally you need one ship to counter-pin each enemy ship thus allowing any number of friendly ships beyond that requirement to continue moving at the normal 1 move point per hex.

In the case of cloaked movement Romulans only require one ship to counter-pin every two enemy ships thus allowing rom ships beyond that requirement (but only up to the limit of 36) to continue moving at 3 move points per hex.

Another example, if the Roms had 100 ships and the enemy had 90 ships that react into the rom hex, the roms can split the 100 ship stack into a sub-stack of 90 ships and a sub-stack of 10 ships. Continue moving the sub-stack of 10 (leaving behind 90 to satisfy pinning by the 90 enemy ships). Then go back to finish the movement of the sub-stack of 90 and split it into a substack of 36 and a sub-stack of 54. Use cloaked movement (@ 3 movement points per hex) to move the 36 (which are really three sub-stacks of 12 if you prefer), leaving the sub-stack of 54 which more than satisfies the
pinning requirement 90/2=45. Then finish the movement of the substack of 54 which simply involves declaring its movement to be finished since it is pinned by 90 enemy ships. Then you can continue moving any other completely different stacks you want elsewhere on the board.

And since you can mix cloaked and normal movement the ships in the above example could move one hex, get reacted to by the 90 enemy ships, move the substack of 10 ships up to 5 more hexes, go back to the substack of 90 and
move 36 ships by cloaked movement one hex (4 move points used up so far), and then finish moving by normal movement 2 more hexes, then go to the final substack of 54 and declare its movement over.

Roms are just slippery.

==============================================
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Now even if you could, would you really use your Demonhawk to move an FRD?!?
________________________________________
Yes, if the DMH-HS is heading there already.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Chuck, I think NickB was really asking,

"Would you really put H-modules on your DMH and use it as one of the 2 ships towing an FRD, instead of slapping A/B/E modules on it and making actually combat-worthy once it got there?"
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Scott:

The DMH-Hf makes for a great base deployment & upgrade platform.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Any further information on the current appeals?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:13 pm: Edit

I've been busy. I'll get to them after the current crisis passes.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Steve, I have a couple more as well, do you want them sent to do with the first batch, or after you do the first batch?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Nick: Let's just forget that you sent me anything. Send me ONE question and I'll deal with it ASAP, then we'll move forward.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:12 am: Edit

Steve, one question sent.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:34 am: Edit

Nick, can the Feds convert their starting COV to a CVL, even if they have not lost any of the 3 starting CVLs?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

Chris,

The Fed order of battle (702.4) says:

CVLs cannot be built except to replace lost CVLs.
COVs cannot be built except to replace lost COVs.

I am assuming that includes production by any means, so no conversions either, except to replace losses of the original starting ones.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:27 am: Edit

That would be correct.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:50 am: Edit

If a fleet conducts a fighting retreating to a friendly base or planet, can they decline to fight the approach battle and avoid the round of combat at BIR 0/10? Or if they decline the approach would that round of BIR 0/10 be fought at the base or planet?

For example, the Romulans hold 4402 and have their next nearest supply point at 4705. They retreat into 4503 (not a fighting retreat since the SBs are still in both 4403 and 4503). The attacking Gorn fleet then conducts a fighting retreat into the same hex. Can the Gorn decline the approach battle? Do they have to fight one round at a disadvantage (either approach or at the SB) for conducting the fighting retreat?

Apparently, there's a ruling in CL30 (which I haven't received yet) that brings up this question.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit

Great, wanted to confirm.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Derek, if you scroll into the recent archives, check the master errata file I posted. It contains the CL ruling about fighting retreats onto friendly and enemy bases/planets. Should answer your question. Basically the Gorns fight one round at the disadvantage (which is the approach battle not at the base/planet), then retreat again, but check the errata file above.

It is in the April 27, 2005 archive, the big post I made on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:08 am:
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 07:40 pm: Edit

My question is can the Gorn decline the approach battle or are they forced to fight it? (Under normal circumstances, the owner of the base does not have to fight an appoach battle.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:14 am: Edit

Derek, see case D of that section of the errata:

During fighting retreat:

D: If the hex contains an enemy base or "base-like unit", the conditions of "fighting retreat" apply and ALL of the ships would have to fight one round [an approach battle, which the base-defending player might decline] under the penalty of (302.77) and then continue retreating (effectively abandoning the planned attack on the base). This could involve a separate slow-unit retreat (302.742) by any units of that type. [Note that units conducting a normal retreat would not disrupt the attack on the enemy base. It may be possible in some situations provided in the rules to enter the hex by either a fighting or normal retreat.


Note that it says the base defender can decline the approach battle, so when the Gorn use fighting retreat onto the Rom base, you fight an approach battle to the base, Gorn at BIR 0 and Roms at BIR 10, then the Gorn retreat again never going near the base. If the Roms decline the approach battle, there is not combat and the Gorns retreat again.

The base defender in this case can decline to fight, not the player using the fighting retreat.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

No, it's a Romulan standard retreat on to a Gorn base. The Gorn then conduct a fighting retreat in to the same hex. Fighting retreat because there's another supply point (4403), but there are enemy ships (the Roms that just retreated from the same hex) in 4503. Are the Gorn ships conducting the fighting retreat required to fight an approach battle at BIR 0/10 against the Romulans?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

OK, Romulan normal retreat to Gorn base would mean a new normal combat hex with approach, then base battle.

Gorn then do fighting retreat to that hex, which means you would use case A:

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).

In this case you have to fight the approach battle at BIR 0/10 because the Gorns are "breaking through" the blocking Rom force to reach their Base. The Roms will almost certainly generate more damage than the Gorn in that approach round, and thus the 2nd round (first round of normal combat) will probably be at the base unless the Roms offer a second approach round.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Got it. Thanks.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Nick,

Can I convert a 3FE group to 3WE (for 3 EP), and then use a two-step conversion to immediately convert one of them to a KE for 2 EP, (5 EP) total? Could I do all this at one starbase if it was at Remus or Romulus?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 02:48 pm: Edit

302.742 requires slow units to go to the nearest friendly retrograde point within 3 hexes. However, normal retreats can always retreat into neutral territory if they so desire (302.731).

Shouldn't a slow unit have the same option to retreat into neutral territory?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:13 am: Edit

Paul Bonfanti: You can unconvert 3FE into 3 War Eagles for 3 points because anything can be unconverted to the base hull. You have to do all three at once of course. You cannot do a double conversion FE to WE to KE because it is not listed as a double conversion anywhere (either in the double conversion rule, or the KE line on the SIT, and any given double conversion that is not actually listed is not allowed by (437.1)).


Derek Meserve: The way the rules are written, no. The regular retreating force uses (302.73) to determine the retreat hex. Bases and Slow units use (302.74) to determine retreat hex (bases can't, and slow units have their own procedure). Neither bases or slow units use (302.73) at all. It is a good question however, and I will ask Steve sometime (when he gets through some other questions), whether such an option should be added to (302.742-C).
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I hate to ask an utterly stupid question that is clearly defined in the rules, but:

How are megafighters deployed in F&E? In particular, what portion of total fighter production (or deployment, however it's measured) is allowed to be megafighters?

The reason I ask is that I'm not really an F&E player, but I need some guidelines for an SFB campaign. But the SFB rules only say megafighters were "limited" without really saying how limited. Looking for some guidance here.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 09:18 pm: Edit

William: When megafighters are invented, everyone gets one free megafighter counter which when placed with a fighter squadron equips that squadron with mega packs (so generally this means a megafighter counter is 12 packs for 12 fighters, plus the supply train to replace losses and such). Each race can build one addition counter (packs for one squadron) per turn which means two squadrons equipped per year. Klingons and Feds can build 2 per turn (4 squadrons equipped per year). So the Feds might equip two CVS carrier groups, and a starbase's two squadrons of 24 fighters with megafighter packs in one year. The Lyrans would be able to equip two BATS (12 fighters each) with mega packs in one year.

Anyone can build even more megafighter counters by not building their regular PF groups. So the Lyrans could build 4 a year like the Klingons if they didn't build two PF tenders and their PFs that they otherwise could have built during that time.

So basically, you can equip two fighter squadrons per year.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Contrast this with carrier production, which is normally limited to 2 carrier groups per turn, plus one escort (FF or DW) carrier per turn. One of the above groups in a given year can be a CVA group. This gives you 1 CVA, 3 CVS, and 2 CVE carriers per year, and only 2 squadrons worth (4 for Feds/Klingons) of them will have megafighters.

So that means for most races unless they give up PF construction every 6 new squadrons built could contain 2 megafighter squadrons, or one out of every three squadrons built has megafighter packs, but remember there are lots of carriers around from earlier times so the actual chances of running up against megafighters is probably much less than 1 in 3.

Note that this is an overall per turn construction limit, not a percentage of what is built, so even if you only built 2 squadrons in a year (2 new CVS carriers), they could both be megafighter squadrons.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:21 am: Edit

Nick,
Regarding Paul's question and your answer to it, whiie you're right about the double conversion thing, I'm pretty sure that Paul was refering to (FE2K-433.24) which allows variants of a hull to be converted to a different variant for a 1 EP surcharge. Thus, the question should probably have been something akin to "since (433.24) allows me to convert a FE to a KE, and since the 3FE counter is unbreakable and all three ships must be unconverted together, is the fact that the rules currently allow me to convert a 3FE counter to 2WE + KE as a 6 EP minor conversion intentional, or is it an oversight of some kind?"
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 01:58 am: Edit

Excellent, thanks for your help
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 11:52 pm: Edit

I have a question about fighter factors. When attacking a Ranger adds his fighter factors to the attack factor of the ship. However when computing defense does the Ranger add his fighter factors to the defense factor of the ship? Also can fighter factors on hybrid ships be expended in defense in lieu of applying damage to the parent ship if the ship is in the battleline?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 12:26 am: Edit

Dave Butler: Silly 3FE counter. I would say no. You are already getting three warships from the 3FE tug counter for a minor conversion. Rule (433.24) says that a 3 point conversion, with the 1 point unconversion surcharge is still a minor conversion. In this case it is a 3 point conversion (WE to KE) with a 3 point surcharge (for 6 total), which is not really the same thing.

Hugh Bishop: The fighters are different units from the ship. When you cripple the ship this resolves a number of damage points equal to its defense factor, the fighters are undamaged by this (unless you have to many to land afer all damage is resolved, extra fighter factors are then lost for no gain). Yes, you can destroy the fighters independently of the ship to resolve damage as well (which is smarter to do then letting them die due to lack of a home base).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Okay Nick, slightly different question: if I have three starbases in the same hex, can I convert a 3FE into three WE variants (within any production limits that might apply, natch)? (My point being that it's not a three point surcharge, it's a one point surcharge, but I'm also forced to pay to unconvert the other two FE.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 09:41 am: Edit

I suppose so. If the Romulans built three starbases in one hex.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 09:09 am: Edit

Nick, A question on Tholian Space and Klingon liberation thereof: According to 511.222 after two complete turns of liberation from the Tholian menace the three planets in 2919 become full producing planets for the Klingons. Does this mean this is Klingon territory where a Starbase could be built and then be an anchor point for a Commercial Convoy with the Romulans?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:25 am: Edit

Nick,

Mike C's Alliance counterparts request that you not answer this as everyone knows the Klingon Empire would only return to the extortion and resource pillaging that was originally taken place in that province.

The Tholians were liberators and should be lauded as such. Providing the Klingon Empire with the above stated benefits only serves to demean the values that the Tholains were attempting to instill in the indigenous population of this area once they had helped to overthrow the oppressive dictatorial leadership of the incompetent, Klingon Emperor...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Mike, just ignore Tony. I believe your question has been answered before. Unfortunately the answer was no (IIRC) but I'm not sure. You'll need to scan the archives.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Dan, Mike etc...

its in the eratta posted a few archives back...
________________________________________
Quote:
(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.
________________________________________
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Thanks Tim.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:24 pm: Edit


By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 11:55 pm: Edit


By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 11:40 am: Edit

Another Klingon Question: (I checked the Errata and Q&A archive first this time )

601.161 specifically says the Klingons cannot leave their territory on turn one of the GW. 449.2 says the Klingons can sell one ship per year to the WYN with no requirement to be "at war". Can the Klingons on turn one send one ship to the WYN cluster for sale?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

\waving hand in front of Nick...{ }

Ignore the Klingon question, this isn't the question you're reading...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Ahhh...old Jedi mind tricks...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Ha!! You imply that Nick is weak minded but you underestimate how strong the Force is with Darth 'FEAR'!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 03:38 pm: Edit

URGENT QUESTION!!!!

Have the scenario forces/rules for East Wind actually been published and if so what Captains Log or expansion is it in?

Cheers

Paul
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Planetary Ops.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Nick

My CVS group loses an EFF escort.

It retreats normally onto another combat hex.

Can the intact CVL group that retreated with it transfer its EFF to the CVS group prior to the combat at the new hex?

i.e. Can I rearrange carrier escorts? As far as I can tell - yes - as I run through combat step 5-3C again.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Nick answered that over in Q&A with the answer no. Was a while back.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 02:46 pm: Edit

...but the SoP does not support that position as far as I can tell. The SoP is the rule (105.0), so can anyone cite any specific rule that overrides the general rule? No where in the retreat rules does it state that position. Also, each new combat hex must follow the SoP completely, so unless there is some specific exception (a la Fighting Retreat), I cannot see how it was ruled this way.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:30 pm: Edit

The rule, though, is that groups are formed at the beginning of the phase, not each new battle, isn't it?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

JD: Checkout the SoP.
________________________________________
Quote:
(105.P)
PHASE 5: COMBAT
Each hex in which both players have units becomes a Battle Hex. Phasing player selects a battle hex and combat within that hex is completely resolved (using the steps below); repeat these steps for every battle hex until all combat is resolved (302.9).

Then...
5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and carrier-like escort groups (515.15); assign Megafighters (535.31). These cannot be changed until the retreat phase.
________________________________________
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I believe that Chuck has to be right.

Carrier groups are formed at the beginning of each battle hex, not at the beginning of combat.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:47 pm: Edit

I might also note that many folks forget that the SoP IS a rule in and of itself (105.0) and not just a gaming tool or annex.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Okay, no problem. This is yet one more round of ammo for a careful re-write of the rules WRT to the Warbook.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

JD: How do carriers get another round of ammo? There is no resupply between battle hexes, so if a carrier uses his fighters in a battle hex then retreats into another, he does not get any more additional fighters until a resupply phase.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Another round of ammunition in the magazine of folks advocating for a careful re-write of the rules, Chuck, not a reference to game functions
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:25 pm: Edit

A re-edit to clarify an existing rule and correct typos/errors -- I could support.

A 'careful' rewrite of the rules however I would find hard to support (we just did this in 2000).
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I know, Chuck, but with all the contradictions that have crept in, re-write and edit are almost interchangeable terms at this point.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:23 am: Edit

Another related question to the first.

Suppose I am allowed to put the EFF into the CVS group.

In the following fight, neither carrier group has any ships crippled or destroyed.

Which carrier group, if any, is elegible for CEDS retrograde? My hunch is that the CVL group is, as CEDS was originally written for vanilla F&E, and in this case, the CVL group would be the group for which the player had no counter.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 08:53 am: Edit

Carrier Groups and the SOP:

First, note that by strict reading of the SOP step 5-3C comes up every battle round, not just every battle hex. So clearly using the SOP alone allows you to get new escorts every round. We all know this is wrong. Thus the SOP is not quite correct on this point by itself, you also need the rules.

Rule (515.4) says two things. First it says this designation is done at the start of the combat step. Then it says it is done once per Battle Hex. I think that the first line is correct (really meaning once per combat phase), it is done when the first battle hex is resolved involving the carrier group (thus the second phrase), not EVERY battle hex a given carrier is in.

So, taking this with regards to the SOP, step 5-3C really only applies to each carrier group once at the start of combat. On subsequent passes through the SOP you can't add more escorts each time 5-3C comes up. The SOP is only showing you the correct point you assign escorts for your carrier groups the first time through in the first battle hex.

Now going back, a strict reading of the rules and SOP would tell you to do this once per battle hex even for the same carrier, but I think that is still wrong. The rule was written when a given group participating in more than one battle hex was very rare, and was probably forgotten about. With fighting retreats, this possibility is more likely, thus this question keeps coming up. (need to errata it I think, if it hasn't been done yet).

My ruling has always been that escorts are assigned once at step 5-3C in the first battle hex a given carrier is in. If you end up in a whole new battle hex due to retreats you don't get more escorts. If that were the case, a given carrier could get a new set of escorts every time you used fighting retreat to a new hex, which could be many times in a row, to me that is clearly wrong. One carrier might get one set of escorts, another carrier (that spent most of its time running away) gets several sets, just not right.

So my ruling is: Each carrier group gets one set of escorts at step 5-3C during the first battle hex it is in. Those escorts must last you throughout the combat step (although you can drop them during any retreat).

So you see Chuck, while the SOP is a rule, occasionally it is like the pirate code, more a set of guidelines.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 08:54 am: Edit

David, anther reason why it isn't allowed to add escorts after they were destroyed, even if you move to a new battle hex. It just gets too confusing.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:57 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
First, note that by strict reading of the SOP step 5-3C comes up every battle round, not just every battle hex. So clearly using the SOP alone allows you to get new escorts every round. We all know this is wrong. Thus the SOP is not quite correct on this point by itself, you also need the rules."
________________________________________
That is an incorrect statement.

The SoP clearly states:
5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and carrier-like escort groups (515.15); assign Megafighters (535.31). These cannot be changed until the retreat phase.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:23 pm: Edit

That's true, thanks Chuck. So combat round to combat round within one battle hex would not have a retreat between them so you can't add more escorts when you get to the next round.

Really, the rule is correct. It says you get one "assign escorts to carriers step" each battle hex, and that is true. The trick is that any given specific carrier can only benefit from this (can have escorts assigned) once per combat phase, even if it moves battle hex to battle hex due to retreats.

If force A fights in hex A, and then retreats to force B in hex B, you still need to assign escorts to any carriers in force B, but the carriers from force A had escorts assigned already (they may have dropped crippled escorts in retreat, but they can't have more added just because they retreated).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Nick,
________________________________________
Quote:
The trick is that any given specific carrier can only benefit from this (can have escorts assigned) once per combat phase, even if it moves battle hex to battle hex due to retreats.
________________________________________

Please quote me a rule number for this, because I can't find it anywhere, and I'd really like to know where I failed my reading comprehension check.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Nick: I sent you an Email about answering the unanswered questions.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I agree with Nick. Once a carrier group has been formed, you don’t get to rearrange it if it retreats into a new battlehex.

Step 6C is where carrier groups are dissolved.

Carrier groups can be rearranged to concentrate cripples for retreat or to concentrate uncrippled ships for pursuit (308.122). Otherwise, they are to remain the same for the entire combat phase (515.15). Yes, (515.15) does say Combat “STEP” but Vanilla F&E also uses the term “STEP.” The term “PHASE” was introduced in Advanced Ops and Fighter Ops did not include that change. This is confirmed by:

(526.353) one uncrippled FCR could be added to any carrier group during the Combat Phase (during which carrier groups cannot otherwise be formed, reformed, broken up, reinforced, or have ships removed from or added to them). . . .Once added to a carrier group, the FCR could not be removed from it until the end of the Combat Phase.
(my emphasis)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Dave, there isn't a specific rule and that is why the question came up. My ruling reflects the way I understand the rule to work and the way I understand the intent behind it to be. I have added it to the rulings/questions sent to Steve so it should make it into the next CL if not overturned for another interpretation.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit

On the wyn cluster question, I belive the Klingons can sell a ship on turn #1, the WYN rule overriding the scenario rule, they might have been selling ships earlier while at peace so...

In any case I added it to the questions sent to Steve to double check.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit

Steve, e-mail sent with rulings and unresolved questions/appeals for CL#31.

Nick
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 09:58 pm: Edit

I need help understanding this question and am not sure if Nick will get the email I just sent him.

(320.346) says that only the target's EW is considered, but it was asked whether a base can contribute its EW to the battle if the target is something at the base like a FRD.


I'm confused by "at the base" and want the rule number which establishes that something is "at the base". Is the above talking about 314.254? Is this base that the FRD is "at" contributing combat factors? If so, it's contributing EW as part of that.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

Well, I've read all of (PO-320.0) Advanced Raids, and I couldn't find anything that puts an FRD anywhere specific in a hex. I assume that the asker of the question assumed that (AO-314.254) applied to Advanced Raids as well. Alternatively, (FE2K-302.212) would allow an FRD to be "at the base" (but possibly only if that hex had been attacked previously). Was this of any help to anyone?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 01:45 am: Edit

Nick, can a peacetime race build MBs? I don't think there's anything prohibiting it but on the other hand, there's nothing authoriziing it either...

Is there anything (other then the PWC) a peacetime race can build?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:33 am: Edit

Steve, I replied to your e-mails, hopefully covered everything. I will be away from internet until late tonight however, but I will double check all the stuff you sent me for CL#31 then and get back to you.

I've got to go eat lunch now or I won't get to until who knows when...

Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

Oh, I didn't put it in the e-mail but the base in question is not contributing combat factors, so is probably not contributing EW as well.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 04:41 pm: Edit

(442.82) Does the TG have to complete the transfer in one turn? I’m assuming not otherwise blockade running (320.512) would not work.

Can the transfer occur if the Klingons are at peacetime or limited war? Such a situation would be valid in certain scenarios like East Wind.

Can 2-3 tugs travel back and forth in the same turn thus picking up several turn’s worth of spare parts?

(450.18) and (621.123) Can a KR yard sub a KRM and KRV? How about a KRT, K7R, or KRC?

(621.0) and (704.0) What’s the status of the VLV in East Wind? Its YIS is Y170 but as the Romulans enter the war in Y168 could they activate it earlier?

If not would it activate as a standard VUL? Would the cost be 1EP not 4EP since this VUL isn't sublight? (See Q&A reply August 29, 2004 - 10:02 am.)
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 08:30 pm: Edit

If a fleet makes a fighting retreat over some fixed defences, does the retreating player have the option to fight at the planet/base if the owner declines the approach battle? Or does the declined approach comprise the single required round of combat?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 08:15 pm: Edit

just noticed this passage in the Fighter Modules rule and wanted to verify its meaning
________________________________________
Quote:
(441.431) A BATS originally built without fighters or PFs can be given a maximum of 2 fighter modules and 1 PF module. (Note that the published BATS counters already show these modules present. In fact, the six fighter factors on a BATS are the two modules allowed, and when added the PF module is the one allowed. The base cannot add to the standard modules except to replace the PF one with a fighter one.
________________________________________


Does this mean that by replacing a PF module with a Fighter Module, you can increase the fighters on a BATS to 9?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 06:58 am: Edit

Tim,

I believe so but I don't think you can do it until PFs become available.
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

Quick question: what is the operational range of a tug in F&E? I know standard ships have a range of six, and some, like x or fast ships, have more. How about tugs?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Non-Overloaded Tugs have Speed 6.

Overloaded Tugs (Fed with 3 Pod weights, Kzinti/Klingon SCS, & others) have Speed 3 and suffer the limitations of Auxiliary Units.

Don't have the exact rules #s, but hope this helps.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Correct. A tug operating as a warship, or carrying a MB has an operational range of 6.

Overloaded or hauling an FRD is a range of 3. 12 Strategic.
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 01:57 pm: Edit

What is the operational range of an LTT with a single weight pod or a double weight pod? I don't have the CO rules.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:31 pm: Edit

LTT with single weight pod is standard. Double weight...if it can carry a DOUBLE some can't I believe, is overloaded and speed 3/12.
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Thanks Chris.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 11:44 pm: Edit

In (706.3), can the noted Gorn LSC be converted before the Gorn entry (pre-turn-12) in the standard General War scenario? If so, which fleet is assigned the LSC that was converted on turn-5+?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:15 am: Edit

Chuck,

If you chose to convert an existing CL to the LSC then it would remain with whatever fleet the original CL was assigned to. If you sub the LSC for a PWC CL, then it would be assigned to whatever fleet the CL was going to go to. If you sub it on turn #5 it would be 6th fleet. Turn #5 PWC is for the 6th fleet, and you would have to sub the LSC for the HD on that turn. If you sub the LSC instead on Turn #8 it would be assigned to 2nd fleet.

Later you could convert it as per the normal rules for converting inactive ships (600.32). The special rule just lets you make one change to your PWC schedule, something you normally have no control over, it lets you change one scheduled ship into the LSC. Whether you took the original ship or the LSC in its place, what you do with it after that is subject to all normal rules. I doubt you could convert it before Gorn entry, as normally you can't do anything in that period as you don't have the funds to do so. You get to upgrade one ship for free to the LSC, but you don't get to keep converting it for free, any further conversions will cost you normally.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:39 am: Edit

Stewart Frazier: can you build MBs at peactime?

ANSWER: (431.21) says if at war you can build one MB per turn. So if not at war you can't.

====================================

John Colacito:

(442.82) Does the TG have to complete the transfer in one turn? I’m assuming not otherwise blockade running (320.512) would not work.

ANSWER: You have to start at the Klingon capital and end at the Romulan capital, this could take multiple turns as far as I can tell. Each time you finish such a trip the Roms are credited with the noted supplies.

Can the transfer occur if the Klingons are at peacetime or limited war? Such a situation would be valid in certain scenarios like East Wind.

ANSWER: I think you would be subject to the normal rules. I.e. if the roms are at war, but the Klingons have not entered yet, the roms can't enter Klingon space (future belligerant) and the Klingons can't leave (all fleets inactive). The limited war situation is more complicated, but would depend on those rules as normal.

Can 2-3 tugs travel back and forth in the same turn thus picking up several turn’s worth of spare parts?

ANSWER: Don't see why not.

(450.18) and (621.123) Can a KR yard sub a KRM and KRV? How about a KRT, K7R, or KRC?

ANSWER: Presumably the non-historical KR yard can do any KR variants (D6 based variants) but not K7R or variants (D7 based ships). The klingons can sub D6s for D7s, but not the other way around, the Roms should work the same way.

(621.0) and (704.0) What’s the status of the VLV in East Wind? Its YIS is Y170 but as the Romulans enter the war in Y168 could they activate it earlier?

ANSWER: Presumably cannot be activated before it's year in service, so unless anther rule allows it I would say no. Perhaps you could do them as regular Vulture activations and convert them to VLV later?

If not would it activate as a standard VUL? Would the cost be 1EP not 4EP since this VUL isn't sublight? (See Q&A reply August 29, 2004 - 10:02 am.)

ANSWER: Assuming that ruling was never overturned in a CL or something then sure.

=============================

Sean Dzafovic:

If a fleet makes a fighting retreat over some fixed defences, does the retreating player have the option to fight at the planet/base if the owner declines the approach battle? Or does the declined approach comprise the single required round of combat?

ANSWER: Assuming the blocking player is the base owner, the declined approach battle was the one required round, you would retreat again without going near the enemy base. You are retreating, you are not going to fly obliviously into the PH-4s of the base, the blocking player must fight approach without the base if they want to fight the one round at the BIR-10/BIR-0 advantage.

==================================

Tim Losberg:

Does this mean that by replacing a PF module with a Fighter Module, you can increase the fighters on a BATS to 9?

ANSWER: As stated above, yes, but not before PFs are deployed. You can't replace the PF module with a fighter module until the PF modules is there, or until you have the ability to have the PF module there.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Nick:

I'm not clear on your answer; are you saying that the noted Gorn LSC CANNOT be converted (one for free) before the Gorn entry (pre-turn-12) in the standard General War scenario?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:07 pm: Edit

You get one LSC conversion/sub for free before gorn entry as the rule says. You cannot then convert it to something else (or do any other conversions) until you get some control over your economy (i.e. money to do conversions with).

The rule effectively allows you to change one ship on your scheduled pre war construction to a LSC by using the sub rules, or instead of that you can convert an existing CL into a LSC before gorn entry.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

I feel like this has been asked and answered before, but

When a ship or fleet uses its one hex reaction, does it give up the ability to subsequently do a two hex reaction on that turn?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Question on escorts for SAF's (non assult mode)
since SAF's caught outside of an assult can be escorted, do the escorts cout against comand limits for the defending fleet?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Paul: Not necessarily since the one hex reaction itself is the first part of the two hex reaction. There might be other circumstances that prevent the second hex of reaction though, such as lack of a valid enemy movement to react to.

Tim: I would assume so.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Paul - can you give an example of what you are looking at? The semantics aren't quite clear to me.

You cannot react one hex, and then react to a unit that is two hexes away from your new hex, for example.

You can react one hex as extended reaction, and then be left unable to continue reacting toward your original target. Later in the turn you could then do a one-hex reaction toward a different target that entered an adjacent hex.

My own answer doesn't look clear to me, but I'm not sure how to better phrase it. 8^O
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Ben, looks right to me.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Nick, there has been a some discussion on what restrictions are placed on the Hydran Supply tug. Some are confirmable bt the rules, some are based on what "Steve said" but are not listed in the errata. can we get a specific restriction on the supply tug.
Can it tow FRDs?
Act as a normal supply point?
Set up (not carry) mobile bases?
Upgrade bases or planetary defences?
etc.
Also how ofton can it be refilled?
when supplying ships does it act as a supply point (ie is it stationary)?
thanks.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:55 pm: Edit

...can it be assigned to carry a pod? (the FCP comes to mind)
By John Robinson (John_R) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Trab - It starts off with the FCP.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Is the supply tug a FCP (in and of itself) or must the only FCP that the Hydrans have be assigned to it?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Trab, it has the FCP built in only if you do not have CO (which introduces the rule for the Hydran FCP).
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I think you're wrong, there, Tim. Nowehere is the specification that the FCP must start with the Tug-S rescinded. Doesn't mean it can't be reassigned on T3, but the FCP still starts with the Tug-S.

I also don't see why the Tug-S couldn't do everything a normal tug could; there's nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise.

As for how often it can be refilled, the rules again don't put a limit on frequency.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Actually, they do:

Found the Supply tug ref,
from CL 26

Q2614: Considering this magical Hydran tug that has 20 ship-turns of supplies and a bunch of spare fighters. Is this a mission or a pod? Does transferring the FCP pod from Combined Operations to a different tug give that tug the supply ability?
A: There is much confusion as these are two different things, and the way you handle them varies between standard F&E and F&E+CO.
The FCP pod (spare fighters) and the supplies are two separate functions. A single tug (the one for the expedition) has both. The supplies are a major pre-war logistic trick that cannot be repeated once itÕs used up. In F&E, they both stay with that tug; in CO you can move the pod to another tug but only the original tug has the supplies. The FCP pod can be refilled indefinitely and you can build a new one (if you can afford it) after losing one. The supply tug cannot be replaced and can only be refilled once.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

[quote]
Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?
[/quote]

My interpretation is - No, that is not legal. Each ship is allowed one and only one standard reaction movement per turn.

Nick, feel free to correct if necessary.
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Nick! Hi - first time message here! Hope it is worthy !! ;)

All these questions assume the Roms delay entry into the war, by not attacking Feds T10, T11, T12. I cant decide if Roms can hit Gorns T12 or not.

When can Romulans attack Gorns, if they have not attacked Feds on T10,11,12?

603.2 schedule T12 says "if Romulans have entered Fed territory, the Gorns enter the war". What if Roms have not entered Fed territory? Are Gorns "released" on T12 anyway? (My guess - no idea!)

If Roms have not attacked anyone on T10,11,12, can they build BATS/SB at the capital since they are on full wartime economy? (My guess, yes, because of economy - although technically they are bases in an unreleased fleet area, so could be no).

603.5 describes what the Gorns can do if they are not attacked, but not what the Roms can do. Should there be a link to 603.6 as well? It seems to apply more.

603.2 schedule states on Turn 13 "if the Gorns have not attacked (on 12), then Romulans may attack on 13. North Fleet released." 603.63 lists Home, North, Patrol as available "in such a war against the Gorns". Does this override Turn 13 description of North fleet only. (My guess, yes)
What about new turn production from T10 onwards? (My guess, also available.)

If Gorns attack on T12, and attack 4010, but not North Fleet zone, is West Fleet released? If so, is Fed 6th fleet still unreleased? (My guess, yes, 600.31 would seem to be the trigger here.)

603.2 schedule on Turn 10 "The Romulan Home Fleet, West Fleet and Patrol Det are available". Are these *only* available if the Roms attack Feds? (My guess, yes)

In a limited war with Gorns, will Rom West and Fed 6th, be unreleased bystanders? (My guess, yes)

Hope you can help.
RichK
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Kevin - as I understand, if you decline the reaction at range 2 (bonus move), and react at range 1, you have used all reaction movement.
RichK
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 08:02 pm: Edit

(434.0) (442.51) and (525.66)
Does the 4EP Vulture ‘activation’ assume 1EP for the mothball activation and 3EP for the conversion? I ask because this may make a difference in the amount of conversion capacity a SB uses.

(434.21) Where exactly is the Romulan Imperial War Reserve located? Does it have to be in Romulus or can it also be in Remus? The rule says mothballs are located in the capital not necessarily in the shipyard hex.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 01:35 pm: Edit

The Hydrans are building their shipyard in the offmap. It will be completed on Turn 11 (Fall 173). Do they receive any free fighter factors?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Two carrier groups are in a battle force. Each suffers an escort crippled. May the cripples concentrate in one group for the pursuit round without any uncrippled escorts shifting from one group to another?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 04:13 pm: Edit

A battle force that includes a mauler resolves some damage and is left with plus points. The mauler was used to maul and then shocks. The plus points exceed half the mauler's crippled defense value. Must the damage be immediately resolved or do the plus points (anywhere from +2 to +4 depending upon the situation) remain as plus points until the next round (or simply get ignored if it was a pursuit round)?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 06:42 pm: Edit

A question regarding Fighter-Strikes:

Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter strikes into an adjacent hex.

Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 04:33 am: Edit

A question on Drone Raids

Can PGBs be targeted by Drone raids? They are not listed in the exceptions mentioned in (320.331), where PDUs and FDUs cannot be targeted.

Can FGBs be built at all? (an FDU without fighters).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 06:56 am: Edit

I don't think you can target any ground base because of the 5 hex range to target restriction in SFB.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 07:05 am: Edit

Neither do I, but this needs to be made clear, esp as some F&E players do not play SFB.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

I suppose the core of Davidas' question would be: "Are there any times where (441.1) does not apply, and a PGB is treated differently from a PDU?"
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 06:58 am: Edit

Another Qu.

I capture a SC4 ship, and want to sell it to the Wyn.

Can I repair it, not convert it to my technology, and send it to the Wyn? What happens if it is intercepted on its way there? Does it have normal defence and 0 compot?

If I choose not to repair it, I can presumably send it to the wyn for half the usual amount, and it gets there by blockade movement or standard opmove.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:42 am: Edit

Would it be cheaper to just sell it crippled?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit

Kevin Howard: Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?

ANSWER: No, once you do a short range reaction you are done. See rule (205.35), if you want both a long range reaction and a short range reaction, you MUST do the long range reaction first. If you use the short range reaction first (reacting to an enemy moving into the inner reaction zone), you don't get a later long range reaction. You never get more than one reaction of the same type (short and long).

============================

Tim Losberg:
Nick, there has been a some discussion on what restrictions are placed on the Hydran Supply tug. Some are confirmable bt the rules, some are based on what "Steve said" but are not listed in the errata. can we get a specific restriction on the supply tug.

ANSWER: The ruling from CL#26 posted above should cover this. If not let me know.

=================

Richard Kempton:
All these questions assume the Roms delay entry into the war, by not attacking Feds T10, T11, T12. I cant decide if Roms can hit Gorns T12 or not.

When can Romulans attack Gorns, if they have not attacked Feds on T10,11,12?

ANSWER: The Roms cannot attack the Gorn until turn 13.

603.2 schedule T12 says "if Romulans have entered Fed territory, the Gorns enter the war". What if Roms have not entered Fed territory? Are Gorns "released" on T12 anyway? (My guess - no idea!)

ANSWER: Assuming the Klingons and/or Lyrans have attacked the Feds, the Gorn go to limited war on turn 12 under (603.5).

If Roms have not attacked anyone on T10,11,12, can they build BATS/SB at the capital since they are on full wartime economy? (My guess, yes, because of economy - although technically they are bases in an unreleased fleet area, so could be no).

ANSWER: Right, unreleased fleet areas cannot upgrade bases.

603.5 describes what the Gorns can do if they are not attacked, but not what the Roms can do. Should there be a link to 603.6 as well? It seems to apply more.

ANSWER: The Romulans can attack the Feds from turn 10 on. They can attack the gorns from turn 13 on. Their specific fleets are released according to (603.2).

603.2 schedule states on Turn 13 "if the Gorns have not attacked (on 12), then Romulans may attack on 13. North Fleet released." 603.63 lists Home, North, Patrol as available "in such a war against the Gorns". Does this override Turn 13 description of North fleet only. (My guess, yes)
What about new turn production from T10 onwards? (My guess, also available.)

ANSWER: The Roms can use Home, North, and Patrol. The turn 13 description lists north only because it assumes you have attacked the Feds and released the Home, North, and Patrol already. New production is of course available.

If Gorns attack on T12, and attack 4010, but not North Fleet zone, is West Fleet released? If so, is Fed 6th fleet still unreleased? (My guess, yes, 600.31 would seem to be the trigger here.)

ANSWER: Since 4010 is West fleet territory, if the Gorns attack it they will activate the West fleet per the normal rules. The North fleet is released whether you attack in its area or not due to (603.2 turn 13 description). Fed 6th fleet is released when Roms attack that territory.

603.2 schedule on Turn 10 "The Romulan Home Fleet, West Fleet and Patrol Det are available". Are these *only* available if the Roms attack Feds? (My guess, yes)

ANSWER: I believe they are released only if you attack the Feds.

In a limited war with Gorns, will Rom West and Fed 6th, be unreleased bystanders? (My guess, yes)

ANSWER: Assuming their areas are not attacked, yes the stay inactive as they are busy watching each other across the neutral zone.

===================================

John Colacito:
(434.0) (442.51) and (525.66)
Does the 4EP Vulture ‘activation’ assume 1EP for the mothball activation and 3EP for the conversion? I ask because this may make a difference in the amount of conversion capacity a SB uses.

ANSWER: Rule (525.66) specifically says it is a 4 point minor conversion, so it would use 4 points of the starbase conversion capacity.
(434.21) Where exactly is the Romulan Imperial War Reserve located? Does it have to be in Romulus or can it also be in Remus? The rule says mothballs are located in the capital not necessarily in the shipyard hex.

ANSWER: I would say they are all in the shipyard hex (Romulas).

==================================

John Robinson:
The Hydrans are building their shipyard in the offmap. It will be completed on Turn 11 (Fall 173). Do they receive any free fighter factors?

ANSWER: Rule (511.32) says the shipyard begins production the turn AFTER it is paid for. So if you made your last payment in the economic phase of turn 11, then the shipyard can be used starting turn 12. It produces nothing on turn 11 as you are still building it. You would still get 3 free fighter factors from the guild shipyard on turn 11 (since the new shipyard is still not operational). Turn 12 you would get the regular production, regular free fighter factors, and the old guild shipyard would shut down.

======================================

Todd E Jahnke:
Two carrier groups are in a battle force. Each suffers an escort crippled. May the cripples concentrate in one group for the pursuit round without any uncrippled escorts shifting from one group to another?

ANSWER: In general no. You can always drop escorts. You can only "swap" escorts under (308.122). This must be an exchange, you cannot just move an escort from one group to another.

========================================

Todd E Jahnke:
A battle force that includes a mauler resolves some damage and is left with plus points. The mauler was used to maul and then shocks. The plus points exceed half the mauler's crippled defense value. Must the damage be immediately resolved or do the plus points (anywhere from +2 to +4 depending upon the situation) remain as plus points until the next round (or simply get ignored if it was a pursuit round)?

ANSWER: The points carry over. All damage is resolved by step 5-6B. At that point any plus/minus points are recorded to carry over. Maulers roll for shock in step 5-6D. Even if plus points would finish off the mauler, you are already past damage resolution, so they must carry over to the next round (if any).

====================================

Trent Telenko:
Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter strikes into an adjacent hex.

Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?

ANSWER: Since it is not on the prohibited list I assume it can make offensive fighter strikes.

=====================================

David Slatter:
Can PGBs be targeted by Drone raids? They are not listed in the exceptions mentioned in (320.331), where PDUs and FDUs cannot be targeted.

ANSWER: No. A PGB uses the rules of PDUs except where noted as different, so they cannot be targeted.

Can FGBs be built at all? (an FDU without fighters).

ANSWER: Huh? You cannot build a base with fighters but not offensive weapons (i.e. 0 compot but 3 fighter factors). A fighter base can only be added to an existing PGB to make a PDU.

=====================================

David Slatter:
I capture a SC4 ship, and want to sell it to the Wyn.

Can I repair it, not convert it to my technology, and send it to the Wyn? What happens if it is intercepted on its way there? Does it have normal defence and 0 compot?

ANSWER: Good question. I will try to find out at Origins. The way the rule is written you could probably do it. Repair a captured cruiser for 2 EPs to get 16 EPs instead of 8 from the Wyn. The problem is the rule does not tell you how to treat the ship in the meantime if attacked. Which may mean it is not allowed, you may have to do the conversion/repair together. I will ask though.

If I choose not to repair it, I can presumably send it to the wyn for half the usual amount, and it gets there by blockade movement or standard opmove.

ANSWER: Sure.

======================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:07 am: Edit

Next stop, ORIGINS...

To the FEARmobile!!!

na na na na na na na na,
na na na na na na na na,
NAA NAA!
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:12 am: Edit

Nick

Clarification.

A PGB is a PDU without fighters - i.e. 3 compot.

A FGB would be an FDU withough fighters - i.e. 3 compot.

However, there is nowhere in the rules where the possibility of an FGB is mentioned or that it can be built, implying that PGB-type units may only be allowable on printed on-map planets. I would assume that you could build such a unit (FGB), but this is merely a logical extension.
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Nick
Many thanks for answers. I didnt expect a reply pre-Origins, so thanks for efforts.
Richard
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 02:12 pm: Edit

If the attack hex of a drone raid contains defender ships (but not enough to block the raid), can the defender call up a police ship to help in the interception combat (assuming the hex is home territory)?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 03:24 pm: Edit

DAS, by using the term FGB, that's the same as the SFB term for a Fighter Ground Base (FGB-S, FGB-M), you are a little confusing their.

A Fighterless Forward Defense Unit (FDU) from PO, would be kinda pointless as the fighters being there means it can't be bypassed.

A big rock with guns behind your lines isn't going to do anything. A big rock behind your lines with 12 fighters will do something until it's taken care of.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 06:46 pm: Edit

I would very much like a big rock with guns. It gives 3 extra compot and an EW point for my fleet to sit with (and my fleet can't be bypassed), and is dirt cheap to boot, barely worth the enemy directing on.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 09:26 am: Edit

Instead of FGB (Fighter Ground Base), shouldn't a non-fighter FDU more properly be referred to as an FDB (Forward Defence Base)? Regardless, David's got a good question there that needs official answering.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:04 am: Edit

Uh, guys? What about (PO-526.11)? "[...] Note that PDUs built without fighters can also be used for this [FDU] mission."
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:23 am: Edit

Missed it. Thanks, Dave.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 07:19 pm: Edit

The point of a fighterless FDU would be to create a early warning net for a particular base or planetary hex.

The advent of engineering brigade rule makes this a viable tactic as they can build infrastructure of up to 5 ep's value per turn at zero cost.
By John Cummings (Fadeiv) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Hello. Just started to play F&E. Played SFB years ago. I hope I dont upset some of the F&E Vets, but I have a few very noob questions here. Tried using search, but I get over 100 pages to sift through, so I hope this is fine.

Question #1:Rule # 302.335 says no more than 3 total ship equivalents of fighters and/or PFs in any one battle force. Does this mean I can have 3 figher ship eqivs. and 3 PFs eqivs. or just 3 Total?

Question #2: Could someone please give me an example of retreat using slow units. I have read rule #302.742 several times, and still dont get it. Please have the example include ships from a previous combat round with a battlestation, and the retreating player having a FRD.

Question #3:The Directed damage rule #302.51 says the ATTACKING player may use directed damage on one unit. Does this mean the defender does not have the option to use Directed damage?

Again, thanks for your help, and please let me know if this is the proper area to ask such questions.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:46 pm: Edit

July - August 2005 Archive

By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 01:14 am: Edit

I apologize for this question, as I am sure it has been answered before, but I can never get the search function to work for me.

I have a partial economic grid cut off from the main, and I have a fleet parked on a base there. I know that as long as the fleet is parked on the base, it's in supply, but is it in supply for movement that turn? Or do they lose supply status the instant they leave the base unless supply is paid for?

If anyone knows remembers the answer, go ahead and answer it so that Nick doesn't have to constantly reanswer everything. Thanks!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:40 am: Edit

Nick:

Can a DemonHawk with SparrowHawk-H modules transport an FRD since the DMH is NOT a war cruiser hull I would conclude that it could.

Chuck
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:40 am: Edit

My question pertains to the cloaked movement question a few weeks ago:

If a Rom fleet of 45 ships has been pinned out of a Gorn minor point by 45 SE of Gorn, and a 3 FE marker is added to that fleet (not pinned), what happens if a stack of 30 ships (36 Ship equivalents) moves into the hex, and that movement is reacted to by 39 SE of Gorn. When the Rom player invokes the half the cloak rule, half of the force is 42 SE (less than the original pinning force). Does this mean the entire cloaked force of 36 SE is able to continue moving unimpeeded through the hex?

Do ships that have moved previously into a hex count for counter pinning a cloaked stack attempting to avoid combat?

My interpretation on reading 203.82 (certainly could be wrong) was that the cloaked ships alone would count as half a count for pinning purposes, i.e in the above example, half of the 36 SE of cloaked vessels could go through. If you ignored the other 48 vessels that the Rom/Gorn each have in the hex (because they have moved previously, and have completed their movement), the Gorn would have 36 SE to pin the 36 SE of Roms. This would allow 18 SE of Roms to continue onto their target.

If the entire force is allowed to move into the forward hex, it would seem that if you are attempting to pin the Roms out of a hex, you need to have as many ships as they have +36. Then if you react out you need to send 36 extra SE into every hex they move into adjacent to the target, because they could invoke cloaked movement to get in.

Here are clipped passages from the question a few weeks ago.

Kevin Howard: Pertaining to cloaked movement:

Rule 203.82 says that when cloaked, you only need to leave behind one half of the required number of ships when calculating pinning. I have some questions related to that.
Do I calculate pin factors normally (i.e., a SPB would count as two ship equivalents for determining how many are pinned), or is it only ships, not ship equivalents (because the fighters of the SPB cannot cloak individually,
and thus would be on board while the ship is cloaked)?

ANSWER: Count the number of enemy pin factors, divid by 2 round up. This is the number of pin factors that must stay behind for the rest of the cloaked ships to leave the hex. The pin factors of the ships/fighters/PFs that stay
behind are calculated normally.

ANSWER: You are making this way more complicated than it is. There is no pinning then un-pinning then re-pinning or whatever. Whenever you move a stack or a sub-stack by cloaked movement out of an enemy occupied hex, during the pinning calulation for that movement pulse only you get to cut the requirement for ships left behind in half. After which everything returns to normal. The ships left behing may or may not have been using cloaked movment, it doesn't matter. Prior conditions don't really matter so long as you observe all the rules for cloaked movement (limited to how many ships can
do it, etc..). Another group of ships leaving by cloaked movement from the same hex would have no interaction with the earlier cloaked movement from that hex, it would be its own situation with its own pinning calculation.

For that matter, what if a force tries to use cloaked movement when there were already uncloaked ships in the hex? Rule 203.84 clearly says you could not use cloaked movement to enter a hex containing friendly uncloaked units,
but there is no prohibition to using cloaked movement to leave a hex containing friendly uncloaked units. Consider the following:

60 Romulan ship equivalents are pinned by a force of 60 Gorn ship equivalents, while moving towards their target. Could the Romulan split off a force of a dozen ships (possibly more than a dozen ship equivalanents if there were carriers or PFT's), use cloaked movement to exit some of them and continue on to the target - then split off a second stack of 12 and do the
same, then split off a third stack and do the same, finally having the remainder be pinned? How would 203.82 be used to calculate pinning in that situation?

ANSWER: you can do that by splitting sub-stacks of cloaked moving ships off of the main force. Each instance would involve its own pinning calculation involving all ships in the hex at that instant and that had no interaction
with prior or future pinning calculations. With 60 ship equivalents on each side, you move 12 out (leaving 48 behind) which meets the requirement of half the 60 gorn ships, 60/2=30 ship equivalents. Then you move 12 more (leaving 36 behind) which still meets the requirements of 60/2=30 ship equivalents.

Then you want to move more out (the third cloaked moving stack), but you must still leave 30 ship equivalents behind since there are still 60 Gorn ships, which means you can only move by cloaked movement 6 more ships of your 36
currently in the hex.

And finally (well, I'll probably think up more later), looking at the use of the cloaking device in combat (rule 306), it specifies that if you use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle, you could then not use it
offensively in that battle. Is there a similar rule saying something to the extent of "If a ship uses cloaked movement, it cannot then use the cloaking device to avoid an approach battle and/or use it offensively in combat"?

ANSWER: Nope, you can use cloaked movement, and perhaps some of the other cloak benefits in combat on that same turn.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 02:29 pm: Edit

=======================================

Mark Ermenc:

While we're on about the "pinned off-board" PGS, I have another question:

When a capitol is razed, all "inactive" ships are released. (Sorry, someone else will have to look up the rule number here, the books are elsewhere.)

1) Does this rule override the "4th PGS can't come on-board" limitation?

ANSWER: No, I don't think so. That ship is not defined as "inactive", but simply has a special limit (317.4) that you can't bring it on-map until it is converted.

2) On a similar note, in Kzinti space, the errata now says the following:

(601.12) The Marquis area remains an "unreleased fleet" until the Federation enters the war or until the Coalition invades this area, so bases there cannot be upgraded or built. Hex 1805 is part of the Duke's fleet, so while the BATS can be upgraded, a Coalition attack on it will not activate the Federation.

In the case that the Kzinti capitol is razed, which rule takes precedence?

IE: Is the fleet/area released because the capitol was nailed, or is it still inactive because the Federation hasn't yet activated.

ANSWER: This is specifically an unreleased fleet area, so it would be released by (511.41).

3) While we're on that bit of the errata, does "until the Federation enters the war" mean "until the Federation activates", or "until the Federation declares political war on another empire"?

ANSWER: It means when A) the feds are attacked, or B) when the feds can attack the klingons directly. If the Klingons attack the Feds (or the marquis area itself) on turn 7, 8, or 9, then the marquis is released at that time. If the klingons don't attack the Feds at all during the second scenario, then the Feds can go to war themselves on turn 10 and this would release the Marquis (assuming the coalition had not attack it either yet).

================================================

Erik Underkofler:

Not sure from your reply if you got what I was trying to say. In the errata,
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer into a CPF
this first part says that PFs cannot transfer into a CPF, which is contradicted by what you say after that. I think that the into should have been from. I understand that the rest, removing the "Go To", is the correct way to fix the rules.

ANSWER: Ah, got it. The master errata now says:

(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer from a CPF (524.231) delete the words "go to" in this rule.

===================================================

Kevin Howard:

I have a partial economic grid cut off from the main, and I have a fleet parked on a base there. I know that as long as the fleet is parked on the base, it's in supply, but is it in supply for movement that turn? Or do they lose supply status the instant they leave the base unless supply is paid for?

ANSWER: They are in supply at the start of the turn. This gives them full movement and combat factors for the duration of the player turn, even if you lack a valid supply path at the instant of movement or combat (i.e. because
you moved off the base). Without a valid supply path you cannot do drone bombardment or buy extra G factors during combat, and you can't get
replacement fighters/PFs when away from the base without a valid supply path at the instant of resupply, but you do get full movement (6 hexes or whatever) from the base, and your regular combat factors are unaffected.

===================================================

Chuck Strong:

Can a DemonHawk with SparrowHawk-H modules transport an FRD since the DMH is NOT a war cruiser hull I would conclude that it could.

ANSWER: Nope. See rule (525.64) H: it says that H modules give the Demonhawk the abilities of an SPH (the LTT). It does not get the abilities of a full tug, so you must use the SPH rules. I know the reason the SPH can't move an FRD by itself is that it is too small, and the Demonhawk is obviously bigger than a regular tug, but the rule still says you must use the SPH rules. Now even if you could, would you really use your Demonhawk to move an FRD?!?

===================================================

Bill Schoeller:

My question pertains to the cloaked movement question a few weeks ago:

If a Rom fleet of 45 ships has been pinned out of a Gorn minor point by 45 SE of Gorn, and a 3 FE marker is added to that fleet (not pinned), what happens if a stack of 30 ships (36 Ship equivalents) moves into the hex, and that
movement is reacted to by 39 SE of Gorn. When the Rom player invokes the half the cloak rule, half of the force is 42 SE (less than the original pinning force). Does this mean the entire cloaked force of 36 SE is able to continue moving unimpeeded through the hex?

ANSWER: First of all, if you move 45 rom ships into a hex, and the gorn react 45 ships into that hex, and the roms then move a new stack (the 3FE unit), those first 45 rom ships are DONE MOVING. Even if they become "unpinned" due
to more ships entering the hex, they can't move again. See rule (203.51). Once you stop moving a stack and move a later stack, you can't go back to the first stack and move it again, whether cloaked or otherwise. If you wanted
to use the cloaked rule, you had to do so as part of that stack's original movement. You must keep in mind the rules for moving stacks and substacks.

Do ships that have moved previously into a hex count for counter pinning a cloaked stack attempting to avoid combat?

ANSWER: The pinning calculation is made at the instant you do the cloaked movement out of that hex, and would include all units in that hex regardless of whether they entered this movement pulse, or on an earlier movement pulse, or whether they started the entire movement phase in that hex. The ships left behind to satisfy pinning on a given movement pulse may be ones that started in that hex and haven't begun to move yet, they may be ones that moved in as part of an earlier stack and are thus done moving, they may be a substack of the current stack and thus only stopping temporarily, it doesn't
matter. See the example at the very bottom.

My interpretation on reading 203.82 (certainly could be wrong) was that the cloaked ships alone would count as half a count for pinning purposes, i.e in the above example, half of the 36 SE of cloaked vessels could go through. If
you ignored the other 48 vessels that the Rom/Gorn each have in the hex (because they have moved previously, and have completed their movement), the Gorn would have 36 SE to pin the 36 SE of Roms. This would allow 18 SE of
Roms to continue onto their target.

ANSWER: No, you cut the entire requirement in half, it is not more complicated than that. If you had 100 enemy ships, and 90 rom ships, when
you invoke (203.82) the pinning requirement is 50 instead of 100. So long as you leave 50 ships behind you can continue to move cloaked ships out (but only up to the 36 ships that can use cloaked movement). So you move 36 out,
leaving 54 behind. (you have to leave 50 behind becasuse that is what (203.82) says: half of the normal requirement 100/2=50, and you have to leave 4 more behind because only 36 ships can use (203.82) in any case.

If the entire force is allowed to move into the forward hex, it would seem that if you are attempting to pin the Roms out of a hex, you need to have as many ships as they have +36. Then if you react out you need to send 36 extra
SE into every hex they move into adjacent to the target, because they could invoke cloaked movement to get in.

ANSWER: If you want to completely pin a force of 90 pin equivalent rom ships, you need 179 ships (pin equivalents) to react into their hex. If they want to move out even 1 of those 90 ships with cloaked movement, they would have to leave 179/2=89.5 ships behind. If they moved 1 ship with cloaked movement, that would only leave 89 which is not enough so no ship can move and all are pinned. This example assumes all ships are 1 pin equivalent.

If the Roms had 90 pin equivalents, and say you reacted with only 170 ships, they only have to have 170/2=85 pin equivalents left behind, and could thus move 5 of the 90 ships with the cloaked movement rules.

To put it in plain english, normally you need one ship to counter-pin each enemy ship thus allowing any number of friendly ships beyond that requirement to continue moving at the normal 1 move point per hex.

In the case of cloaked movement Romulans only require one ship to counter-pin every two enemy ships thus allowing rom ships beyond that requirement (but only up to the limit of 36) to continue moving at 3 move points per hex.

Another example, if the Roms had 100 ships and the enemy had 90 ships that react into the rom hex, the roms can split the 100 ship stack into a sub-stack of 90 ships and a sub-stack of 10 ships. Continue moving the sub-stack of 10 (leaving behind 90 to satisfy pinning by the 90 enemy ships). Then go back to finish the movement of the sub-stack of 90 and split it into a substack of 36 and a sub-stack of 54. Use cloaked movement (@ 3 movement points per hex) to move the 36 (which are really three sub-stacks of 12 if you prefer), leaving the sub-stack of 54 which more than satisfies the
pinning requirement 90/2=45. Then finish the movement of the substack of 54 which simply involves declaring its movement to be finished since it is pinned by 90 enemy ships. Then you can continue moving any other completely different stacks you want elsewhere on the board.

And since you can mix cloaked and normal movement the ships in the above example could move one hex, get reacted to by the 90 enemy ships, move the substack of 10 ships up to 5 more hexes, go back to the substack of 90 and
move 36 ships by cloaked movement one hex (4 move points used up so far), and then finish moving by normal movement 2 more hexes, then go to the final substack of 54 and declare its movement over.

Roms are just slippery.

==============================================
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Now even if you could, would you really use your Demonhawk to move an FRD?!?
________________________________________
Yes, if the DMH-HS is heading there already.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Chuck, I think NickB was really asking,

"Would you really put H-modules on your DMH and use it as one of the 2 ships towing an FRD, instead of slapping A/B/E modules on it and making actually combat-worthy once it got there?"
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Scott:

The DMH-Hf makes for a great base deployment & upgrade platform.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Any further information on the current appeals?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:13 pm: Edit

I've been busy. I'll get to them after the current crisis passes.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Steve, I have a couple more as well, do you want them sent to do with the first batch, or after you do the first batch?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 07:45 pm: Edit

Nick: Let's just forget that you sent me anything. Send me ONE question and I'll deal with it ASAP, then we'll move forward.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:12 am: Edit

Steve, one question sent.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:34 am: Edit

Nick, can the Feds convert their starting COV to a CVL, even if they have not lost any of the 3 starting CVLs?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

Chris,

The Fed order of battle (702.4) says:

CVLs cannot be built except to replace lost CVLs.
COVs cannot be built except to replace lost COVs.

I am assuming that includes production by any means, so no conversions either, except to replace losses of the original starting ones.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:27 am: Edit

That would be correct.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:50 am: Edit

If a fleet conducts a fighting retreating to a friendly base or planet, can they decline to fight the approach battle and avoid the round of combat at BIR 0/10? Or if they decline the approach would that round of BIR 0/10 be fought at the base or planet?

For example, the Romulans hold 4402 and have their next nearest supply point at 4705. They retreat into 4503 (not a fighting retreat since the SBs are still in both 4403 and 4503). The attacking Gorn fleet then conducts a fighting retreat into the same hex. Can the Gorn decline the approach battle? Do they have to fight one round at a disadvantage (either approach or at the SB) for conducting the fighting retreat?

Apparently, there's a ruling in CL30 (which I haven't received yet) that brings up this question.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit

Great, wanted to confirm.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 06:42 pm: Edit

Derek, if you scroll into the recent archives, check the master errata file I posted. It contains the CL ruling about fighting retreats onto friendly and enemy bases/planets. Should answer your question. Basically the Gorns fight one round at the disadvantage (which is the approach battle not at the base/planet), then retreat again, but check the errata file above.

It is in the April 27, 2005 archive, the big post I made on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:08 am:
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 07:40 pm: Edit

My question is can the Gorn decline the approach battle or are they forced to fight it? (Under normal circumstances, the owner of the base does not have to fight an appoach battle.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:14 am: Edit

Derek, see case D of that section of the errata:

During fighting retreat:

D: If the hex contains an enemy base or "base-like unit", the conditions of "fighting retreat" apply and ALL of the ships would have to fight one round [an approach battle, which the base-defending player might decline] under the penalty of (302.77) and then continue retreating (effectively abandoning the planned attack on the base). This could involve a separate slow-unit retreat (302.742) by any units of that type. [Note that units conducting a normal retreat would not disrupt the attack on the enemy base. It may be possible in some situations provided in the rules to enter the hex by either a fighting or normal retreat.


Note that it says the base defender can decline the approach battle, so when the Gorn use fighting retreat onto the Rom base, you fight an approach battle to the base, Gorn at BIR 0 and Roms at BIR 10, then the Gorn retreat again never going near the base. If the Roms decline the approach battle, there is not combat and the Gorns retreat again.

The base defender in this case can decline to fight, not the player using the fighting retreat.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

No, it's a Romulan standard retreat on to a Gorn base. The Gorn then conduct a fighting retreat in to the same hex. Fighting retreat because there's another supply point (4403), but there are enemy ships (the Roms that just retreated from the same hex) in 4503. Are the Gorn ships conducting the fighting retreat required to fight an approach battle at BIR 0/10 against the Romulans?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

OK, Romulan normal retreat to Gorn base would mean a new normal combat hex with approach, then base battle.

Gorn then do fighting retreat to that hex, which means you would use case A:

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).

In this case you have to fight the approach battle at BIR 0/10 because the Gorns are "breaking through" the blocking Rom force to reach their Base. The Roms will almost certainly generate more damage than the Gorn in that approach round, and thus the 2nd round (first round of normal combat) will probably be at the base unless the Roms offer a second approach round.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Got it. Thanks.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:26 pm: Edit

Nick,

Can I convert a 3FE group to 3WE (for 3 EP), and then use a two-step conversion to immediately convert one of them to a KE for 2 EP, (5 EP) total? Could I do all this at one starbase if it was at Remus or Romulus?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 02:48 pm: Edit

302.742 requires slow units to go to the nearest friendly retrograde point within 3 hexes. However, normal retreats can always retreat into neutral territory if they so desire (302.731).

Shouldn't a slow unit have the same option to retreat into neutral territory?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 10:13 am: Edit

Paul Bonfanti: You can unconvert 3FE into 3 War Eagles for 3 points because anything can be unconverted to the base hull. You have to do all three at once of course. You cannot do a double conversion FE to WE to KE because it is not listed as a double conversion anywhere (either in the double conversion rule, or the KE line on the SIT, and any given double conversion that is not actually listed is not allowed by (437.1)).


Derek Meserve: The way the rules are written, no. The regular retreating force uses (302.73) to determine the retreat hex. Bases and Slow units use (302.74) to determine retreat hex (bases can't, and slow units have their own procedure). Neither bases or slow units use (302.73) at all. It is a good question however, and I will ask Steve sometime (when he gets through some other questions), whether such an option should be added to (302.742-C).
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 07:21 pm: Edit

I hate to ask an utterly stupid question that is clearly defined in the rules, but:

How are megafighters deployed in F&E? In particular, what portion of total fighter production (or deployment, however it's measured) is allowed to be megafighters?

The reason I ask is that I'm not really an F&E player, but I need some guidelines for an SFB campaign. But the SFB rules only say megafighters were "limited" without really saying how limited. Looking for some guidance here.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 09:18 pm: Edit

William: When megafighters are invented, everyone gets one free megafighter counter which when placed with a fighter squadron equips that squadron with mega packs (so generally this means a megafighter counter is 12 packs for 12 fighters, plus the supply train to replace losses and such). Each race can build one addition counter (packs for one squadron) per turn which means two squadrons equipped per year. Klingons and Feds can build 2 per turn (4 squadrons equipped per year). So the Feds might equip two CVS carrier groups, and a starbase's two squadrons of 24 fighters with megafighter packs in one year. The Lyrans would be able to equip two BATS (12 fighters each) with mega packs in one year.

Anyone can build even more megafighter counters by not building their regular PF groups. So the Lyrans could build 4 a year like the Klingons if they didn't build two PF tenders and their PFs that they otherwise could have built during that time.

So basically, you can equip two fighter squadrons per year.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Contrast this with carrier production, which is normally limited to 2 carrier groups per turn, plus one escort (FF or DW) carrier per turn. One of the above groups in a given year can be a CVA group. This gives you 1 CVA, 3 CVS, and 2 CVE carriers per year, and only 2 squadrons worth (4 for Feds/Klingons) of them will have megafighters.

So that means for most races unless they give up PF construction every 6 new squadrons built could contain 2 megafighter squadrons, or one out of every three squadrons built has megafighter packs, but remember there are lots of carriers around from earlier times so the actual chances of running up against megafighters is probably much less than 1 in 3.

Note that this is an overall per turn construction limit, not a percentage of what is built, so even if you only built 2 squadrons in a year (2 new CVS carriers), they could both be megafighter squadrons.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:21 am: Edit

Nick,
Regarding Paul's question and your answer to it, whiie you're right about the double conversion thing, I'm pretty sure that Paul was refering to (FE2K-433.24) which allows variants of a hull to be converted to a different variant for a 1 EP surcharge. Thus, the question should probably have been something akin to "since (433.24) allows me to convert a FE to a KE, and since the 3FE counter is unbreakable and all three ships must be unconverted together, is the fact that the rules currently allow me to convert a 3FE counter to 2WE + KE as a 6 EP minor conversion intentional, or is it an oversight of some kind?"
By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 01:58 am: Edit

Excellent, thanks for your help
By Hugh Bishop (Wildman) on Monday, May 16, 2005 - 11:52 pm: Edit

I have a question about fighter factors. When attacking a Ranger adds his fighter factors to the attack factor of the ship. However when computing defense does the Ranger add his fighter factors to the defense factor of the ship? Also can fighter factors on hybrid ships be expended in defense in lieu of applying damage to the parent ship if the ship is in the battleline?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 12:26 am: Edit

Dave Butler: Silly 3FE counter. I would say no. You are already getting three warships from the 3FE tug counter for a minor conversion. Rule (433.24) says that a 3 point conversion, with the 1 point unconversion surcharge is still a minor conversion. In this case it is a 3 point conversion (WE to KE) with a 3 point surcharge (for 6 total), which is not really the same thing.

Hugh Bishop: The fighters are different units from the ship. When you cripple the ship this resolves a number of damage points equal to its defense factor, the fighters are undamaged by this (unless you have to many to land afer all damage is resolved, extra fighter factors are then lost for no gain). Yes, you can destroy the fighters independently of the ship to resolve damage as well (which is smarter to do then letting them die due to lack of a home base).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Okay Nick, slightly different question: if I have three starbases in the same hex, can I convert a 3FE into three WE variants (within any production limits that might apply, natch)? (My point being that it's not a three point surcharge, it's a one point surcharge, but I'm also forced to pay to unconvert the other two FE.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 09:41 am: Edit

I suppose so. If the Romulans built three starbases in one hex.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 09:09 am: Edit

Nick, A question on Tholian Space and Klingon liberation thereof: According to 511.222 after two complete turns of liberation from the Tholian menace the three planets in 2919 become full producing planets for the Klingons. Does this mean this is Klingon territory where a Starbase could be built and then be an anchor point for a Commercial Convoy with the Romulans?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:25 am: Edit

Nick,

Mike C's Alliance counterparts request that you not answer this as everyone knows the Klingon Empire would only return to the extortion and resource pillaging that was originally taken place in that province.

The Tholians were liberators and should be lauded as such. Providing the Klingon Empire with the above stated benefits only serves to demean the values that the Tholains were attempting to instill in the indigenous population of this area once they had helped to overthrow the oppressive dictatorial leadership of the incompetent, Klingon Emperor...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Mike, just ignore Tony. I believe your question has been answered before. Unfortunately the answer was no (IIRC) but I'm not sure. You'll need to scan the archives.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 08:01 pm: Edit

Dan, Mike etc...

its in the eratta posted a few archives back...
________________________________________
Quote:
(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.
________________________________________
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Thanks Tim.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 10:24 pm: Edit


By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 11:55 pm: Edit


By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 11:40 am: Edit

Another Klingon Question: (I checked the Errata and Q&A archive first this time )

601.161 specifically says the Klingons cannot leave their territory on turn one of the GW. 449.2 says the Klingons can sell one ship per year to the WYN with no requirement to be "at war". Can the Klingons on turn one send one ship to the WYN cluster for sale?
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

\waving hand in front of Nick...{ }

Ignore the Klingon question, this isn't the question you're reading...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 01:23 pm: Edit

Ahhh...old Jedi mind tricks...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 08:40 pm: Edit

Ha!! You imply that Nick is weak minded but you underestimate how strong the Force is with Darth 'FEAR'!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 03:38 pm: Edit

URGENT QUESTION!!!!

Have the scenario forces/rules for East Wind actually been published and if so what Captains Log or expansion is it in?

Cheers

Paul
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 04:18 pm: Edit

Planetary Ops.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Nick

My CVS group loses an EFF escort.

It retreats normally onto another combat hex.

Can the intact CVL group that retreated with it transfer its EFF to the CVS group prior to the combat at the new hex?

i.e. Can I rearrange carrier escorts? As far as I can tell - yes - as I run through combat step 5-3C again.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 01:32 pm: Edit

Nick answered that over in Q&A with the answer no. Was a while back.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 02:46 pm: Edit

...but the SoP does not support that position as far as I can tell. The SoP is the rule (105.0), so can anyone cite any specific rule that overrides the general rule? No where in the retreat rules does it state that position. Also, each new combat hex must follow the SoP completely, so unless there is some specific exception (a la Fighting Retreat), I cannot see how it was ruled this way.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:30 pm: Edit

The rule, though, is that groups are formed at the beginning of the phase, not each new battle, isn't it?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

JD: Checkout the SoP.
________________________________________
Quote:
(105.P)
PHASE 5: COMBAT
Each hex in which both players have units becomes a Battle Hex. Phasing player selects a battle hex and combat within that hex is completely resolved (using the steps below); repeat these steps for every battle hex until all combat is resolved (302.9).

Then...
5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and carrier-like escort groups (515.15); assign Megafighters (535.31). These cannot be changed until the retreat phase.
________________________________________
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I believe that Chuck has to be right.

Carrier groups are formed at the beginning of each battle hex, not at the beginning of combat.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:47 pm: Edit

I might also note that many folks forget that the SoP IS a rule in and of itself (105.0) and not just a gaming tool or annex.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:48 pm: Edit

Okay, no problem. This is yet one more round of ammo for a careful re-write of the rules WRT to the Warbook.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

JD: How do carriers get another round of ammo? There is no resupply between battle hexes, so if a carrier uses his fighters in a battle hex then retreats into another, he does not get any more additional fighters until a resupply phase.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:03 pm: Edit

Another round of ammunition in the magazine of folks advocating for a careful re-write of the rules, Chuck, not a reference to game functions
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:25 pm: Edit

A re-edit to clarify an existing rule and correct typos/errors -- I could support.

A 'careful' rewrite of the rules however I would find hard to support (we just did this in 2000).
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I know, Chuck, but with all the contradictions that have crept in, re-write and edit are almost interchangeable terms at this point.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 04:23 am: Edit

Another related question to the first.

Suppose I am allowed to put the EFF into the CVS group.

In the following fight, neither carrier group has any ships crippled or destroyed.

Which carrier group, if any, is elegible for CEDS retrograde? My hunch is that the CVL group is, as CEDS was originally written for vanilla F&E, and in this case, the CVL group would be the group for which the player had no counter.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 08:53 am: Edit

Carrier Groups and the SOP:

First, note that by strict reading of the SOP step 5-3C comes up every battle round, not just every battle hex. So clearly using the SOP alone allows you to get new escorts every round. We all know this is wrong. Thus the SOP is not quite correct on this point by itself, you also need the rules.

Rule (515.4) says two things. First it says this designation is done at the start of the combat step. Then it says it is done once per Battle Hex. I think that the first line is correct (really meaning once per combat phase), it is done when the first battle hex is resolved involving the carrier group (thus the second phrase), not EVERY battle hex a given carrier is in.

So, taking this with regards to the SOP, step 5-3C really only applies to each carrier group once at the start of combat. On subsequent passes through the SOP you can't add more escorts each time 5-3C comes up. The SOP is only showing you the correct point you assign escorts for your carrier groups the first time through in the first battle hex.

Now going back, a strict reading of the rules and SOP would tell you to do this once per battle hex even for the same carrier, but I think that is still wrong. The rule was written when a given group participating in more than one battle hex was very rare, and was probably forgotten about. With fighting retreats, this possibility is more likely, thus this question keeps coming up. (need to errata it I think, if it hasn't been done yet).

My ruling has always been that escorts are assigned once at step 5-3C in the first battle hex a given carrier is in. If you end up in a whole new battle hex due to retreats you don't get more escorts. If that were the case, a given carrier could get a new set of escorts every time you used fighting retreat to a new hex, which could be many times in a row, to me that is clearly wrong. One carrier might get one set of escorts, another carrier (that spent most of its time running away) gets several sets, just not right.

So my ruling is: Each carrier group gets one set of escorts at step 5-3C during the first battle hex it is in. Those escorts must last you throughout the combat step (although you can drop them during any retreat).

So you see Chuck, while the SOP is a rule, occasionally it is like the pirate code, more a set of guidelines.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 08:54 am: Edit

David, anther reason why it isn't allowed to add escorts after they were destroyed, even if you move to a new battle hex. It just gets too confusing.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:57 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
First, note that by strict reading of the SOP step 5-3C comes up every battle round, not just every battle hex. So clearly using the SOP alone allows you to get new escorts every round. We all know this is wrong. Thus the SOP is not quite correct on this point by itself, you also need the rules."
________________________________________
That is an incorrect statement.

The SoP clearly states:
5-3C: Players secretly establish carrier and carrier-like escort groups (515.15); assign Megafighters (535.31). These cannot be changed until the retreat phase.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:23 pm: Edit

That's true, thanks Chuck. So combat round to combat round within one battle hex would not have a retreat between them so you can't add more escorts when you get to the next round.

Really, the rule is correct. It says you get one "assign escorts to carriers step" each battle hex, and that is true. The trick is that any given specific carrier can only benefit from this (can have escorts assigned) once per combat phase, even if it moves battle hex to battle hex due to retreats.

If force A fights in hex A, and then retreats to force B in hex B, you still need to assign escorts to any carriers in force B, but the carriers from force A had escorts assigned already (they may have dropped crippled escorts in retreat, but they can't have more added just because they retreated).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Nick,
________________________________________
Quote:
The trick is that any given specific carrier can only benefit from this (can have escorts assigned) once per combat phase, even if it moves battle hex to battle hex due to retreats.
________________________________________

Please quote me a rule number for this, because I can't find it anywhere, and I'd really like to know where I failed my reading comprehension check.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 03:58 pm: Edit

Nick: I sent you an Email about answering the unanswered questions.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:11 pm: Edit

I agree with Nick. Once a carrier group has been formed, you don’t get to rearrange it if it retreats into a new battlehex.

Step 6C is where carrier groups are dissolved.

Carrier groups can be rearranged to concentrate cripples for retreat or to concentrate uncrippled ships for pursuit (308.122). Otherwise, they are to remain the same for the entire combat phase (515.15). Yes, (515.15) does say Combat “STEP” but Vanilla F&E also uses the term “STEP.” The term “PHASE” was introduced in Advanced Ops and Fighter Ops did not include that change. This is confirmed by:

(526.353) one uncrippled FCR could be added to any carrier group during the Combat Phase (during which carrier groups cannot otherwise be formed, reformed, broken up, reinforced, or have ships removed from or added to them). . . .Once added to a carrier group, the FCR could not be removed from it until the end of the Combat Phase.
(my emphasis)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 11:40 pm: Edit

Dave, there isn't a specific rule and that is why the question came up. My ruling reflects the way I understand the rule to work and the way I understand the intent behind it to be. I have added it to the rulings/questions sent to Steve so it should make it into the next CL if not overturned for another interpretation.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit

On the wyn cluster question, I belive the Klingons can sell a ship on turn #1, the WYN rule overriding the scenario rule, they might have been selling ships earlier while at peace so...

In any case I added it to the questions sent to Steve to double check.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 12:02 am: Edit

Steve, e-mail sent with rulings and unresolved questions/appeals for CL#31.

Nick
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 09:58 pm: Edit

I need help understanding this question and am not sure if Nick will get the email I just sent him.

(320.346) says that only the target's EW is considered, but it was asked whether a base can contribute its EW to the battle if the target is something at the base like a FRD.


I'm confused by "at the base" and want the rule number which establishes that something is "at the base". Is the above talking about 314.254? Is this base that the FRD is "at" contributing combat factors? If so, it's contributing EW as part of that.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:28 am: Edit

Well, I've read all of (PO-320.0) Advanced Raids, and I couldn't find anything that puts an FRD anywhere specific in a hex. I assume that the asker of the question assumed that (AO-314.254) applied to Advanced Raids as well. Alternatively, (FE2K-302.212) would allow an FRD to be "at the base" (but possibly only if that hex had been attacked previously). Was this of any help to anyone?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 01:45 am: Edit

Nick, can a peacetime race build MBs? I don't think there's anything prohibiting it but on the other hand, there's nothing authoriziing it either...

Is there anything (other then the PWC) a peacetime race can build?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:33 am: Edit

Steve, I replied to your e-mails, hopefully covered everything. I will be away from internet until late tonight however, but I will double check all the stuff you sent me for CL#31 then and get back to you.

I've got to go eat lunch now or I won't get to until who knows when...

Nick
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

Oh, I didn't put it in the e-mail but the base in question is not contributing combat factors, so is probably not contributing EW as well.
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 04:41 pm: Edit

(442.82) Does the TG have to complete the transfer in one turn? I’m assuming not otherwise blockade running (320.512) would not work.

Can the transfer occur if the Klingons are at peacetime or limited war? Such a situation would be valid in certain scenarios like East Wind.

Can 2-3 tugs travel back and forth in the same turn thus picking up several turn’s worth of spare parts?

(450.18) and (621.123) Can a KR yard sub a KRM and KRV? How about a KRT, K7R, or KRC?

(621.0) and (704.0) What’s the status of the VLV in East Wind? Its YIS is Y170 but as the Romulans enter the war in Y168 could they activate it earlier?

If not would it activate as a standard VUL? Would the cost be 1EP not 4EP since this VUL isn't sublight? (See Q&A reply August 29, 2004 - 10:02 am.)
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 08:30 pm: Edit

If a fleet makes a fighting retreat over some fixed defences, does the retreating player have the option to fight at the planet/base if the owner declines the approach battle? Or does the declined approach comprise the single required round of combat?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 08:15 pm: Edit

just noticed this passage in the Fighter Modules rule and wanted to verify its meaning
________________________________________
Quote:
(441.431) A BATS originally built without fighters or PFs can be given a maximum of 2 fighter modules and 1 PF module. (Note that the published BATS counters already show these modules present. In fact, the six fighter factors on a BATS are the two modules allowed, and when added the PF module is the one allowed. The base cannot add to the standard modules except to replace the PF one with a fighter one.
________________________________________


Does this mean that by replacing a PF module with a Fighter Module, you can increase the fighters on a BATS to 9?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 06:58 am: Edit

Tim,

I believe so but I don't think you can do it until PFs become available.
By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:57 am: Edit

Quick question: what is the operational range of a tug in F&E? I know standard ships have a range of six, and some, like x or fast ships, have more. How about tugs?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 12:40 pm: Edit

Non-Overloaded Tugs have Speed 6.

Overloaded Tugs (Fed with 3 Pod weights, Kzinti/Klingon SCS, & others) have Speed 3 and suffer the limitations of Auxiliary Units.

Don't have the exact rules #s, but hope this helps.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 01:47 pm: Edit

Correct. A tug operating as a warship, or carrying a MB has an operational range of 6.

Overloaded or hauling an FRD is a range of 3. 12 Strategic.
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 01:57 pm: Edit

What is the operational range of an LTT with a single weight pod or a double weight pod? I don't have the CO rules.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 04:31 pm: Edit

LTT with single weight pod is standard. Double weight...if it can carry a DOUBLE some can't I believe, is overloaded and speed 3/12.
By Joseph R Carlson (Jrc) on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 07:12 pm: Edit

Thanks Chris.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 11:44 pm: Edit

In (706.3), can the noted Gorn LSC be converted before the Gorn entry (pre-turn-12) in the standard General War scenario? If so, which fleet is assigned the LSC that was converted on turn-5+?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:15 am: Edit

Chuck,

If you chose to convert an existing CL to the LSC then it would remain with whatever fleet the original CL was assigned to. If you sub the LSC for a PWC CL, then it would be assigned to whatever fleet the CL was going to go to. If you sub it on turn #5 it would be 6th fleet. Turn #5 PWC is for the 6th fleet, and you would have to sub the LSC for the HD on that turn. If you sub the LSC instead on Turn #8 it would be assigned to 2nd fleet.

Later you could convert it as per the normal rules for converting inactive ships (600.32). The special rule just lets you make one change to your PWC schedule, something you normally have no control over, it lets you change one scheduled ship into the LSC. Whether you took the original ship or the LSC in its place, what you do with it after that is subject to all normal rules. I doubt you could convert it before Gorn entry, as normally you can't do anything in that period as you don't have the funds to do so. You get to upgrade one ship for free to the LSC, but you don't get to keep converting it for free, any further conversions will cost you normally.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:39 am: Edit

Stewart Frazier: can you build MBs at peactime?

ANSWER: (431.21) says if at war you can build one MB per turn. So if not at war you can't.

====================================

John Colacito:

(442.82) Does the TG have to complete the transfer in one turn? I’m assuming not otherwise blockade running (320.512) would not work.

ANSWER: You have to start at the Klingon capital and end at the Romulan capital, this could take multiple turns as far as I can tell. Each time you finish such a trip the Roms are credited with the noted supplies.

Can the transfer occur if the Klingons are at peacetime or limited war? Such a situation would be valid in certain scenarios like East Wind.

ANSWER: I think you would be subject to the normal rules. I.e. if the roms are at war, but the Klingons have not entered yet, the roms can't enter Klingon space (future belligerant) and the Klingons can't leave (all fleets inactive). The limited war situation is more complicated, but would depend on those rules as normal.

Can 2-3 tugs travel back and forth in the same turn thus picking up several turn’s worth of spare parts?

ANSWER: Don't see why not.

(450.18) and (621.123) Can a KR yard sub a KRM and KRV? How about a KRT, K7R, or KRC?

ANSWER: Presumably the non-historical KR yard can do any KR variants (D6 based variants) but not K7R or variants (D7 based ships). The klingons can sub D6s for D7s, but not the other way around, the Roms should work the same way.

(621.0) and (704.0) What’s the status of the VLV in East Wind? Its YIS is Y170 but as the Romulans enter the war in Y168 could they activate it earlier?

ANSWER: Presumably cannot be activated before it's year in service, so unless anther rule allows it I would say no. Perhaps you could do them as regular Vulture activations and convert them to VLV later?

If not would it activate as a standard VUL? Would the cost be 1EP not 4EP since this VUL isn't sublight? (See Q&A reply August 29, 2004 - 10:02 am.)

ANSWER: Assuming that ruling was never overturned in a CL or something then sure.

=============================

Sean Dzafovic:

If a fleet makes a fighting retreat over some fixed defences, does the retreating player have the option to fight at the planet/base if the owner declines the approach battle? Or does the declined approach comprise the single required round of combat?

ANSWER: Assuming the blocking player is the base owner, the declined approach battle was the one required round, you would retreat again without going near the enemy base. You are retreating, you are not going to fly obliviously into the PH-4s of the base, the blocking player must fight approach without the base if they want to fight the one round at the BIR-10/BIR-0 advantage.

==================================

Tim Losberg:

Does this mean that by replacing a PF module with a Fighter Module, you can increase the fighters on a BATS to 9?

ANSWER: As stated above, yes, but not before PFs are deployed. You can't replace the PF module with a fighter module until the PF modules is there, or until you have the ability to have the PF module there.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Nick:

I'm not clear on your answer; are you saying that the noted Gorn LSC CANNOT be converted (one for free) before the Gorn entry (pre-turn-12) in the standard General War scenario?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:07 pm: Edit

You get one LSC conversion/sub for free before gorn entry as the rule says. You cannot then convert it to something else (or do any other conversions) until you get some control over your economy (i.e. money to do conversions with).

The rule effectively allows you to change one ship on your scheduled pre war construction to a LSC by using the sub rules, or instead of that you can convert an existing CL into a LSC before gorn entry.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

I feel like this has been asked and answered before, but

When a ship or fleet uses its one hex reaction, does it give up the ability to subsequently do a two hex reaction on that turn?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Question on escorts for SAF's (non assult mode)
since SAF's caught outside of an assult can be escorted, do the escorts cout against comand limits for the defending fleet?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 01:57 pm: Edit

Paul: Not necessarily since the one hex reaction itself is the first part of the two hex reaction. There might be other circumstances that prevent the second hex of reaction though, such as lack of a valid enemy movement to react to.

Tim: I would assume so.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Paul - can you give an example of what you are looking at? The semantics aren't quite clear to me.

You cannot react one hex, and then react to a unit that is two hexes away from your new hex, for example.

You can react one hex as extended reaction, and then be left unable to continue reacting toward your original target. Later in the turn you could then do a one-hex reaction toward a different target that entered an adjacent hex.

My own answer doesn't look clear to me, but I'm not sure how to better phrase it. 8^O
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Ben, looks right to me.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 07:19 pm: Edit

Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Nick, there has been a some discussion on what restrictions are placed on the Hydran Supply tug. Some are confirmable bt the rules, some are based on what "Steve said" but are not listed in the errata. can we get a specific restriction on the supply tug.
Can it tow FRDs?
Act as a normal supply point?
Set up (not carry) mobile bases?
Upgrade bases or planetary defences?
etc.
Also how ofton can it be refilled?
when supplying ships does it act as a supply point (ie is it stationary)?
thanks.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:55 pm: Edit

...can it be assigned to carry a pod? (the FCP comes to mind)
By John Robinson (John_R) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 01:25 pm: Edit

Trab - It starts off with the FCP.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 01:43 pm: Edit

Is the supply tug a FCP (in and of itself) or must the only FCP that the Hydrans have be assigned to it?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Trab, it has the FCP built in only if you do not have CO (which introduces the rule for the Hydran FCP).
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:49 pm: Edit

I think you're wrong, there, Tim. Nowehere is the specification that the FCP must start with the Tug-S rescinded. Doesn't mean it can't be reassigned on T3, but the FCP still starts with the Tug-S.

I also don't see why the Tug-S couldn't do everything a normal tug could; there's nothing in the rules to suggest otherwise.

As for how often it can be refilled, the rules again don't put a limit on frequency.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Actually, they do:

Found the Supply tug ref,
from CL 26

Q2614: Considering this magical Hydran tug that has 20 ship-turns of supplies and a bunch of spare fighters. Is this a mission or a pod? Does transferring the FCP pod from Combined Operations to a different tug give that tug the supply ability?
A: There is much confusion as these are two different things, and the way you handle them varies between standard F&E and F&E+CO.
The FCP pod (spare fighters) and the supplies are two separate functions. A single tug (the one for the expedition) has both. The supplies are a major pre-war logistic trick that cannot be repeated once itÕs used up. In F&E, they both stay with that tug; in CO you can move the pod to another tug but only the original tug has the supplies. The FCP pod can be refilled indefinitely and you can build a new one (if you can afford it) after losing one. The supply tug cannot be replaced and can only be refilled once.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 05:06 pm: Edit

[quote]
Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?
[/quote]

My interpretation is - No, that is not legal. Each ship is allowed one and only one standard reaction movement per turn.

Nick, feel free to correct if necessary.
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Nick! Hi - first time message here! Hope it is worthy !! ;)

All these questions assume the Roms delay entry into the war, by not attacking Feds T10, T11, T12. I cant decide if Roms can hit Gorns T12 or not.

When can Romulans attack Gorns, if they have not attacked Feds on T10,11,12?

603.2 schedule T12 says "if Romulans have entered Fed territory, the Gorns enter the war". What if Roms have not entered Fed territory? Are Gorns "released" on T12 anyway? (My guess - no idea!)

If Roms have not attacked anyone on T10,11,12, can they build BATS/SB at the capital since they are on full wartime economy? (My guess, yes, because of economy - although technically they are bases in an unreleased fleet area, so could be no).

603.5 describes what the Gorns can do if they are not attacked, but not what the Roms can do. Should there be a link to 603.6 as well? It seems to apply more.

603.2 schedule states on Turn 13 "if the Gorns have not attacked (on 12), then Romulans may attack on 13. North Fleet released." 603.63 lists Home, North, Patrol as available "in such a war against the Gorns". Does this override Turn 13 description of North fleet only. (My guess, yes)
What about new turn production from T10 onwards? (My guess, also available.)

If Gorns attack on T12, and attack 4010, but not North Fleet zone, is West Fleet released? If so, is Fed 6th fleet still unreleased? (My guess, yes, 600.31 would seem to be the trigger here.)

603.2 schedule on Turn 10 "The Romulan Home Fleet, West Fleet and Patrol Det are available". Are these *only* available if the Roms attack Feds? (My guess, yes)

In a limited war with Gorns, will Rom West and Fed 6th, be unreleased bystanders? (My guess, yes)

Hope you can help.
RichK
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 03:47 pm: Edit

Kevin - as I understand, if you decline the reaction at range 2 (bonus move), and react at range 1, you have used all reaction movement.
RichK
By John Colacito (Sandro) on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 08:02 pm: Edit

(434.0) (442.51) and (525.66)
Does the 4EP Vulture ‘activation’ assume 1EP for the mothball activation and 3EP for the conversion? I ask because this may make a difference in the amount of conversion capacity a SB uses.

(434.21) Where exactly is the Romulan Imperial War Reserve located? Does it have to be in Romulus or can it also be in Remus? The rule says mothballs are located in the capital not necessarily in the shipyard hex.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 01:35 pm: Edit

The Hydrans are building their shipyard in the offmap. It will be completed on Turn 11 (Fall 173). Do they receive any free fighter factors?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Two carrier groups are in a battle force. Each suffers an escort crippled. May the cripples concentrate in one group for the pursuit round without any uncrippled escorts shifting from one group to another?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 04:13 pm: Edit

A battle force that includes a mauler resolves some damage and is left with plus points. The mauler was used to maul and then shocks. The plus points exceed half the mauler's crippled defense value. Must the damage be immediately resolved or do the plus points (anywhere from +2 to +4 depending upon the situation) remain as plus points until the next round (or simply get ignored if it was a pursuit round)?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 06:42 pm: Edit

A question regarding Fighter-Strikes:

Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter strikes into an adjacent hex.

Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 04:33 am: Edit

A question on Drone Raids

Can PGBs be targeted by Drone raids? They are not listed in the exceptions mentioned in (320.331), where PDUs and FDUs cannot be targeted.

Can FGBs be built at all? (an FDU without fighters).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 06:56 am: Edit

I don't think you can target any ground base because of the 5 hex range to target restriction in SFB.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 07:05 am: Edit

Neither do I, but this needs to be made clear, esp as some F&E players do not play SFB.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:16 am: Edit

I suppose the core of Davidas' question would be: "Are there any times where (441.1) does not apply, and a PGB is treated differently from a PDU?"
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 06:58 am: Edit

Another Qu.

I capture a SC4 ship, and want to sell it to the Wyn.

Can I repair it, not convert it to my technology, and send it to the Wyn? What happens if it is intercepted on its way there? Does it have normal defence and 0 compot?

If I choose not to repair it, I can presumably send it to the wyn for half the usual amount, and it gets there by blockade movement or standard opmove.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:42 am: Edit

Would it be cheaper to just sell it crippled?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:04 am: Edit

Kevin Howard: Well, how about this?

10 ships come within one hex of my BATS, I react with 12 to pin them. Then another fleet moves by that pin battle, and since I have 2 ships that are not required to pin the 10 ship force, they react to pin two of the second force. Or perhaps, they "react" back to the base itself, to help in the defense.

I only ever reacted two hexes, but they were both "short range reactions"; neither one was an "extended range reaction". Is that legal?

ANSWER: No, once you do a short range reaction you are done. See rule (205.35), if you want both a long range reaction and a short range reaction, you MUST do the long range reaction first. If you use the short range reaction first (reacting to an enemy moving into the inner reaction zone), you don't get a later long range reaction. You never get more than one reaction of the same type (short and long).

============================

Tim Losberg:
Nick, there has been a some discussion on what restrictions are placed on the Hydran Supply tug. Some are confirmable bt the rules, some are based on what "Steve said" but are not listed in the errata. can we get a specific restriction on the supply tug.

ANSWER: The ruling from CL#26 posted above should cover this. If not let me know.

=================

Richard Kempton:
All these questions assume the Roms delay entry into the war, by not attacking Feds T10, T11, T12. I cant decide if Roms can hit Gorns T12 or not.

When can Romulans attack Gorns, if they have not attacked Feds on T10,11,12?

ANSWER: The Roms cannot attack the Gorn until turn 13.

603.2 schedule T12 says "if Romulans have entered Fed territory, the Gorns enter the war". What if Roms have not entered Fed territory? Are Gorns "released" on T12 anyway? (My guess - no idea!)

ANSWER: Assuming the Klingons and/or Lyrans have attacked the Feds, the Gorn go to limited war on turn 12 under (603.5).

If Roms have not attacked anyone on T10,11,12, can they build BATS/SB at the capital since they are on full wartime economy? (My guess, yes, because of economy - although technically they are bases in an unreleased fleet area, so could be no).

ANSWER: Right, unreleased fleet areas cannot upgrade bases.

603.5 describes what the Gorns can do if they are not attacked, but not what the Roms can do. Should there be a link to 603.6 as well? It seems to apply more.

ANSWER: The Romulans can attack the Feds from turn 10 on. They can attack the gorns from turn 13 on. Their specific fleets are released according to (603.2).

603.2 schedule states on Turn 13 "if the Gorns have not attacked (on 12), then Romulans may attack on 13. North Fleet released." 603.63 lists Home, North, Patrol as available "in such a war against the Gorns". Does this override Turn 13 description of North fleet only. (My guess, yes)
What about new turn production from T10 onwards? (My guess, also available.)

ANSWER: The Roms can use Home, North, and Patrol. The turn 13 description lists north only because it assumes you have attacked the Feds and released the Home, North, and Patrol already. New production is of course available.

If Gorns attack on T12, and attack 4010, but not North Fleet zone, is West Fleet released? If so, is Fed 6th fleet still unreleased? (My guess, yes, 600.31 would seem to be the trigger here.)

ANSWER: Since 4010 is West fleet territory, if the Gorns attack it they will activate the West fleet per the normal rules. The North fleet is released whether you attack in its area or not due to (603.2 turn 13 description). Fed 6th fleet is released when Roms attack that territory.

603.2 schedule on Turn 10 "The Romulan Home Fleet, West Fleet and Patrol Det are available". Are these *only* available if the Roms attack Feds? (My guess, yes)

ANSWER: I believe they are released only if you attack the Feds.

In a limited war with Gorns, will Rom West and Fed 6th, be unreleased bystanders? (My guess, yes)

ANSWER: Assuming their areas are not attacked, yes the stay inactive as they are busy watching each other across the neutral zone.

===================================

John Colacito:
(434.0) (442.51) and (525.66)
Does the 4EP Vulture ‘activation’ assume 1EP for the mothball activation and 3EP for the conversion? I ask because this may make a difference in the amount of conversion capacity a SB uses.

ANSWER: Rule (525.66) specifically says it is a 4 point minor conversion, so it would use 4 points of the starbase conversion capacity.
(434.21) Where exactly is the Romulan Imperial War Reserve located? Does it have to be in Romulus or can it also be in Remus? The rule says mothballs are located in the capital not necessarily in the shipyard hex.

ANSWER: I would say they are all in the shipyard hex (Romulas).

==================================

John Robinson:
The Hydrans are building their shipyard in the offmap. It will be completed on Turn 11 (Fall 173). Do they receive any free fighter factors?

ANSWER: Rule (511.32) says the shipyard begins production the turn AFTER it is paid for. So if you made your last payment in the economic phase of turn 11, then the shipyard can be used starting turn 12. It produces nothing on turn 11 as you are still building it. You would still get 3 free fighter factors from the guild shipyard on turn 11 (since the new shipyard is still not operational). Turn 12 you would get the regular production, regular free fighter factors, and the old guild shipyard would shut down.

======================================

Todd E Jahnke:
Two carrier groups are in a battle force. Each suffers an escort crippled. May the cripples concentrate in one group for the pursuit round without any uncrippled escorts shifting from one group to another?

ANSWER: In general no. You can always drop escorts. You can only "swap" escorts under (308.122). This must be an exchange, you cannot just move an escort from one group to another.

========================================

Todd E Jahnke:
A battle force that includes a mauler resolves some damage and is left with plus points. The mauler was used to maul and then shocks. The plus points exceed half the mauler's crippled defense value. Must the damage be immediately resolved or do the plus points (anywhere from +2 to +4 depending upon the situation) remain as plus points until the next round (or simply get ignored if it was a pursuit round)?

ANSWER: The points carry over. All damage is resolved by step 5-6B. At that point any plus/minus points are recorded to carry over. Maulers roll for shock in step 5-6D. Even if plus points would finish off the mauler, you are already past damage resolution, so they must carry over to the next round (if any).

====================================

Trent Telenko:
Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter strikes into an adjacent hex.

Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?

ANSWER: Since it is not on the prohibited list I assume it can make offensive fighter strikes.

=====================================

David Slatter:
Can PGBs be targeted by Drone raids? They are not listed in the exceptions mentioned in (320.331), where PDUs and FDUs cannot be targeted.

ANSWER: No. A PGB uses the rules of PDUs except where noted as different, so they cannot be targeted.

Can FGBs be built at all? (an FDU without fighters).

ANSWER: Huh? You cannot build a base with fighters but not offensive weapons (i.e. 0 compot but 3 fighter factors). A fighter base can only be added to an existing PGB to make a PDU.

=====================================

David Slatter:
I capture a SC4 ship, and want to sell it to the Wyn.

Can I repair it, not convert it to my technology, and send it to the Wyn? What happens if it is intercepted on its way there? Does it have normal defence and 0 compot?

ANSWER: Good question. I will try to find out at Origins. The way the rule is written you could probably do it. Repair a captured cruiser for 2 EPs to get 16 EPs instead of 8 from the Wyn. The problem is the rule does not tell you how to treat the ship in the meantime if attacked. Which may mean it is not allowed, you may have to do the conversion/repair together. I will ask though.

If I choose not to repair it, I can presumably send it to the wyn for half the usual amount, and it gets there by blockade movement or standard opmove.

ANSWER: Sure.

======================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:07 am: Edit

Next stop, ORIGINS...

To the FEARmobile!!!

na na na na na na na na,
na na na na na na na na,
NAA NAA!
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:12 am: Edit

Nick

Clarification.

A PGB is a PDU without fighters - i.e. 3 compot.

A FGB would be an FDU withough fighters - i.e. 3 compot.

However, there is nowhere in the rules where the possibility of an FGB is mentioned or that it can be built, implying that PGB-type units may only be allowable on printed on-map planets. I would assume that you could build such a unit (FGB), but this is merely a logical extension.
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Nick
Many thanks for answers. I didnt expect a reply pre-Origins, so thanks for efforts.
Richard
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 02:12 pm: Edit

If the attack hex of a drone raid contains defender ships (but not enough to block the raid), can the defender call up a police ship to help in the interception combat (assuming the hex is home territory)?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 03:24 pm: Edit

DAS, by using the term FGB, that's the same as the SFB term for a Fighter Ground Base (FGB-S, FGB-M), you are a little confusing their.

A Fighterless Forward Defense Unit (FDU) from PO, would be kinda pointless as the fighters being there means it can't be bypassed.

A big rock with guns behind your lines isn't going to do anything. A big rock behind your lines with 12 fighters will do something until it's taken care of.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 06:46 pm: Edit

I would very much like a big rock with guns. It gives 3 extra compot and an EW point for my fleet to sit with (and my fleet can't be bypassed), and is dirt cheap to boot, barely worth the enemy directing on.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 09:26 am: Edit

Instead of FGB (Fighter Ground Base), shouldn't a non-fighter FDU more properly be referred to as an FDB (Forward Defence Base)? Regardless, David's got a good question there that needs official answering.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:04 am: Edit

Uh, guys? What about (PO-526.11)? "[...] Note that PDUs built without fighters can also be used for this [FDU] mission."
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:23 am: Edit

Missed it. Thanks, Dave.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 07:19 pm: Edit

The point of a fighterless FDU would be to create a early warning net for a particular base or planetary hex.

The advent of engineering brigade rule makes this a viable tactic as they can build infrastructure of up to 5 ep's value per turn at zero cost.
By John Cummings (Fadeiv) on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Hello. Just started to play F&E. Played SFB years ago. I hope I dont upset some of the F&E Vets, but I have a few very noob questions here. Tried using search, but I get over 100 pages to sift through, so I hope this is fine.

Question #1:Rule # 302.335 says no more than 3 total ship equivalents of fighters and/or PFs in any one battle force. Does this mean I can have 3 figher ship eqivs. and 3 PFs eqivs. or just 3 Total?

Question #2: Could someone please give me an example of retreat using slow units. I have read rule #302.742 several times, and still dont get it. Please have the example include ships from a previous combat round with a battlestation, and the retreating player having a FRD.

Question #3:The Directed damage rule #302.51 says the ATTACKING player may use directed damage on one unit. Does this mean the defender does not have the option to use Directed damage?

Again, thanks for your help, and please let me know if this is the proper area to ask such questions.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 11:09 pm: Edit

Nick,

You posted this earlier in answer to a quation I asked:

>Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well
>as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter
>strikes into an adjacent hex.
>
>Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with
>it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it
>restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?
>
>ANSWER: Since it is not on the prohibited list
>I assume it can make offensive fighter strikes.


I was reading though CL 31 and saw the following on page 28:

"The HAV and HCS are still auxilliaries and are thus not capable of offensive fighter strike F&E rule (319.0)."

The HCS is the heavy armed freighter module version of the ASC.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 02:35 pm: Edit

A reserve fleet wants to move to a battle hex. However, it has no choice but to go through a hex containing enemy ships. There is a path that will allow the reserve fleet to move through, and only leave one ship behind.

If the reserve fleet moves through that hex where it only has to leave one ship behind, can it leave behind an aux unit to cover? Would that aux unit have to have fighters, as aux units in and of themselves do not pin? Would a player be able to leave behind a SAV and 4xSAS' to cover the one ship? In that case, even though 5 auxes are being left behind, it's only 1 SE worth of pinning.

In a related question, the same reserve fleet is moving to a battle hex that is more than three hexes from the reserves current location. Can it take aux units along, and use them to meet the pinning requirements to allow the rest of the reserve fleet to move?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 03:55 pm: Edit

(519.14) states that monitors may retreat as a slow unit at the same time as the fleet does.

Does this mean that the monitor MUST retreat, or can I choose to leave it at the planet? (I get salvage for it if it fights another combat round at the planet, and none for losing it during pursuit).

P.S. I always used to think that monitors could not retreat anyway. Was this changed when the slow retreat rules were put in place in F&E 2K - it slipped below my radar....
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 07:31 pm: Edit

Nick.

On Turn 10 (spring 173) The Roms build an SUB
On Turn 11, can they build a DMH with SPB and SKB modules as new consttruction (forgoing the SKB and SPB production that year) esentially producing a 2nd CVA for the year or does the DMH-BB count against CVA limits?
If the modules are added later in the game, dose that re-configuration count against the CVA limits?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 01:32 am: Edit

I can't believe I can't find this answer myself, but...

If I repair a Starbase (it has 8 SIDS, I'm repairing at least one SIDS), can I then use the Starbase to produce a frigate and/or convert a ship during the same turn?

Repair phase does occur before production/conversion phase.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 07:50 am: Edit

Question on a Scenario - The Wayward Wind (IIRC - the Alternative start to the GW - Hydrans 1st)

- Combined Ops, alas rules at home so I don't know the Rule number!

When is the Klingon Home Fleet released?

Upto turn 3, is says if the Hydran's enter Klingon space or if the Kzinti destroy a Klingon base - it is released.

(Hydrans can enter turns 2 or 3, Kzinti only enter the War on turn 3).

Turn 4, is says only the Eastern Fleet is unreleased.

Does this mean the Home fleet is released?

I don't think so, as -

Home Fleet is released IF Hydrans enter or Kzinti destroy a base.

If the Kzinti enter AND destroy a base, the home fleet IS released - but after combat (and so this release doesn't do anything, is of no use on turn 3) - on turn 4 it would be released as normal.

i.e. it doesn't matter what the Kzinti do, as the Klingon home fleet would be able to do stuff on turn 4, either way - so by deduction, it would only be released under the existing two pre-conditions (Hydrans enter/Kzinti kill a base) and not by the passage of turns from 3 to 4+!

Thanks

Paul
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 08:21 pm: Edit

RE: CLOUDBURST SCENARIO

First Issue

Okay still wanting clarification on how the Tholians are handled (or were handled) in the situation that was the Coalition strategy. I thought that the Strategy used was brilliant in the way it was designed but ‘hokey’ in the way in which it related back to the rules as written.

What happened was the Klingons entered Tholian NZ and Space via 2718, 2818 respectively. The Romulans also entered Tholian NZ and space via 3118, 3018. The Klingons then tried to send a fleet through Tholian space to Romulan space through 2818, 2918, 3018 (to retro later to Rom Space). This is a great plan to get the two Klingon made ships over to the Romulans without attacking the Feds.
The resulting battles ended up with no Tholian bases destroyed and very few ships killed on either side. The concept was that since a base for the Tholians wasn’t destroyed they are not ‘at war’ even though their fleets are released by (503.31).

What I would like, is a more specific ruling on this for future reference regarding the status of the Tholians if something like this occurs. It is my opinion that the ships entering the Tholian space have two options under the rules.

A – Be interned using rule 503.65
-or-
B – Declare open war against the Tholians and invade.

It would go even further to say that the Tholians would consider the mere entrance into their space an act of war using rules (503.31), (503.34), (503.61), and (503.65).

Second Issue

I would like some revisions to the Cloudburst Scenario regarding the release status of fleets beginning on Turn 1. As of now the entire Romulan West Fleet can re-deploy to the North Fleet area if they do not attack the Federation on turn one. This leaves the entire Romulan border open to attack (they are fanatical war mongers not idiots). This needs to be amended to say something like the Rom West fleet can be released but needs to leave enough ship equivalents on the border to match initial Fed 6th fleet strength. The Rom Tholian Border Squad is also released under the current rules and should not be if they do not attack the Federation or Tholians on turn 1.

Similarly as of now the entire Klingon East Fleet can re-deploy to another area if they do not attack the Federation on turn one. Again this is utter foolishness and would never happen. This needs to be amended to say something like the East fleet can be released but needs to leave enough ship equivalents on the border to match initial Fed 3rd fleet strength. The Klingon Tholian Border Squad is also released and should not be if they do not attack the Federation or Tholians on turn 1.

This situation was well thought out by the Coalition players and I am not saying anything they did was a cheat or illegal. I am saying that this is highly irregular and an extremely unlikely situation. I truly doubt that this was the intent of the scenario design and it should be ammended and a ruling given.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 09:01 pm: Edit

But Lar, the Klingons have been violating the Tholian border for decades without an open declaration of war.. its called harassment
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:26 pm: Edit

In FO it (532.121) says that a Fed FCR can replace any fighter type (not F111) and the efficient staff will 'make it happen'.

Does this restrict said FCRs to one type of fighter? (Example: Say I have a fleet with a NVA with 10 A20s. In battle I lose them all. I have also with the fleet 2 FCRs which can resupply the 10 fighter factors with 2 to spare. Consequently on that next round I lose all the fighters again. If I pull the NVA off the line and on another round in the same battle hex lose fighters from say a DWV also in the fleet. Can I use the remaining 2 factors on the FCR to replace the DWV fighters or are they only considered A20s now since that is what I took from this ship before?

Also with regards to this same line of thinking for the Feds, if a fighter is a fighter is a fighter (532.121) on their FCR & FCAs. Do the FCA fighters work for replacing standard fighters the way that FCR fighters replace A20s? Could it be said then that it is legal (and better...dibs on Tacnote if not one) to build the FCA since it has the most factors for replacement?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Tim I would buy that if it was specifically in the rules as such. I know that there has been some fiction leading us to buy into that but no clear rules to support it and after having looked it over a bit more I think we need the clarification from Nick or somebody up the chain of command for future reference.
By John W. Lawton (Kyloth) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 03:48 am: Edit

Hi:
I've been trying to organize my rule book and when I went through the Index of Planetary Ops, I noticed that it referred to section 445.0 for Fighter Storage Modules. I have 444.0 & 446.0. I don't seem to have this section. Is it a misprint? I am unable to find it listed with any of the addons.
Thanks
John
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 07:46 am: Edit

(319.0) Offensive Fighter/PF Strikes and (443.0) Fighter Storage Depot are on p16 of FO [on the flip side of (602.49) Limited War on p15].
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, July 14, 2005 - 12:48 pm: Edit

On fighter depots...

(443.21) Each depot has six spare fighter factors [6] which can be transferred to any unit in the base's hex [or within supply of the base] between combat rounds. These factors function as factors on an FCR. (The base does not count as an emergency escort.)

Does this mean that these replacement fighters can be sent to a battle, between combat rounds, that is occuring several hexes away?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 03:46 am: Edit

Sorry Nick, further question on Sean's Question!

.............
Sean Dzafovic:

If a fleet makes a fighting retreat over some fixed defences, does the retreating player have the option to fight at the planet/base if the owner declines the approach battle? Or does the declined approach comprise the single required round of combat?

ANSWER: Assuming the blocking player is the base owner, the declined approach battle was the one required round, you would retreat again without going near the enemy base. You are retreating, you are not going to fly obliviously into the PH-4s of the base, the blocking player must fight approach without the base if they want to fight the one round at the BIR-10/BIR-0 advantage.

.......................

OK situation -

Devastated (and captured Alliance) planet, which is garrisoned by Coalition forces (no Defences set up on planet/base at planet).

If the Alliance does a fighting retreat onto the planet, and the Coalition rejects the Approach battle, can the Alliance attack the planet (there are no additional defences at the planet, so they are not flying into PH4 etc!) if they wanted to?

i.e. The Alliance WOULD like to generate 1 battle round (even at the 10/0 BIR penalty), as there would be no difference between a deep space battle, or a battle at a Zero Compot base.

Logically yes, as there is no additional risk (it may be that you will answer at Zero Compot Bases Yes, at any other bases no).

Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

I have been busy since returning from Origins, but should get to the questions this weekend.

Nick
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 03:55 pm: Edit

We are just starting up a Four Powers War game and came up with some questions that we cannot find the answers to:

1) (607.2) states that none of the Coalition ships can move on Turn #1 because none of the fleets have been released. Does this include the Pre-War Construction and where is the PWC placed?

2) Can reserves be set among the Lyran fleet on Turn #1 in anticipation of the Hydran half of Turn #1?

3) (607.33) states the Klingons must conduct and pay for activations and give ships to the Romulans starting in Y159. How many and how often?

4) How many police ships can be used by each race initially? Can any of the five POL limit be flagships?

5) Can Depot Level Repair be used in the 4PW scenario?

6) (607.15) excludes tugs and CCs from the rolls for Lyran Civil War damage. Are the DNEs or any other ships from the other rules exempted?

7) What is the correct starting economy for the Klingons? The scenario states 116 EPs, but if the reductions are made for the 7 Fed border provinces and 2 x major and 1 x minor planets, it comes out to 115 EPs.

8) What is the correct starting economy for the Lyrans? The scenario states 93 EPs, but the reduction from the off-world areas is 4 x Provinces, 2 x minor, and 2 x major planets (24 points) brings the total to 91 EPs.

9) Can the Marine Major general be used in 4PW?

10) Can Espionage & Sabotage (534.0) be used in 4PW?

Thanks.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 01:43 pm: Edit

This came up around a tac-note I wrote:

So till, like T7, the Kzinti are required to keep 6 ships unreleased in the Marquis Zone. They clearly can't react out of the Marquis Zone, but can fighters on unreleased Marquis Zone ships (i.e. the 6 mandated original ships watching the Feds) react out of the Marquis Zone?

For instance, if the unreleased Marquis Fleet contained an SAV and the SAV is stationed on the edge of the Marquis Zone, could the SAV's fighter squadron react out of the Marquis Zone to pin a Klingon ship?

Thanks,
-Peter
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:39 am: Edit

ANSWERS:

John Hall:

1) 431.23 & F-111 rule says that a fed starbase can build 6 F-111s per turn. Can a BATS build 2 F-111s per turn as a BATS can build 2 PFs per turn?

ANSWER: I suppose so, but a BATS (which can do 2 PFs or 1/3rd of a flotilla) would do 3 F111 factors (2 fighters at 1.5 factors each), or 1/3rd of a squadron.

2)On the new large scale map, The capital hex planets have 2 numbers listed with them. What do those numbers mean? (I think its either economic value or # of PDUs)

ANSWER: It is the economic value and, after the slash, the devestated economic value. Thus if the planet is devestated/captured, (and you have a laminated map), you can scribble off the larger number leaving just the economic number.

======================================

Richard Kempton:

Dont know if this is the right place to mention it... I was just updating my copy with the Errata in the Master Errata File.

The table for the (312.222) SFG PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS CHART has the 4th column as "Nothing Frozen", and the 5th column as "Something Frozen". Should these column titles not be the other way around? ie. 4th col "Something", 5th col "Nothing". The stats % given in the rightmost column seem to work if this correction is made.

ANSWER: Well, the copy of the master errata I most recently posted above (newest version) does not have the SFG chart in it since that is now officially published in Combined Operations. The chart was originally placed in the errata file when it appeared in Cap Log. When it moved to its official place in Comined Ops it was removed from the errata. The 6 columns should be:

| Ship Type | Selected Target Frozen | Random Target Frozen | Defender Selects | Nothing Frozen | Total Disaster! |

I don't think any of it actually changed when it moved from Cap Log (errata file) to Combined Ops.

=================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

Special Raid Question:

(320.342) says "Defending fighters and PFs cannot be used to absorb the losses from a drone raid attack as the drones target the ship or base in question, but they could be used to absorb the damage of a fighter-PF attack."

Does this apply to the fighters/PFs on the target only or does "defending" mean any attrition units in the hex?

ANSWER: It means the target only. Other units in the hex only get involved via the intercept rules (320.35).

=================================

David Slatter:

Did you ask about selling captured ships to the Wyn?

ANSWER: No. It is on my list of questions from Origins to send to Jeff and Steve. Really need to do that.

====================================

Richard Kempton:

Reaction question:
I cant decide quite how this small aspect of reaction works. Can someone clarify?


Richard Kempton:

Should have done the Search first... looks like NickG has answered this (several times ;)

So the answer appears to be: ships can 2 hex react to any 6th movement pulse spent inside the ORZ, be it arriving, moving from one hex to another, or staying still.

That is the way we've played it, but Im not convinced the rules (2k) are clear enough.

ANSWER: That is correct. The point is when you declare you are done moving you burn any remaining movement points (203.64) and those can be reacted to UNLESS your last movement was away from the potentially reacting ship (movement away cannot be reacted to).

================================

Ryan Opel:

Question of 607.34 The OB lists the the CL as added for CO. Shoudn't this be the CLG instead?

ANSWER: Right, the CLGs should be in the Combined Ops column, not the Advanced Ops column.

===============================

Trent Telenko:t

Nick,

You posted this earlier in answer to a quation I asked:

>Currently Aux-CVs both large and small as well
>as small Aux-PFT's cannot conduct fighter
>strikes into an adjacent hex.
>
>Can an Aux-SCS launch a figher-strike _with
>it's PFs_ as a large Aux-PFT, or is it
>restricted like a small Aux-PFT or Aux-CVs?
>
>ANSWER: Since it is not on the prohibited list
>I assume it can make offensive fighter strikes.


I was reading though CL 31 and saw the following on page 28:

"The HAV and HCS are still auxilliaries and are thus not capable of offensive fighter strike F&E rule (319.0)."

The HCS is the heavy armed freighter module version of the ASC.

ANSWER: Alright, it looks like that was wrong then. Auxiliary carriers cannot do offensive fighter strikes at all, regardless of what type. Presumably large auxiliaries can send their PFs on such strikes, but not their fighters.

=========================================

Robert Padilla:

A reserve fleet wants to move to a battle hex. However, it has no choice but to go through a hex containing enemy ships. There is a path that will allow the reserve fleet to move through, and only leave one ship behind.

If the reserve fleet moves through that hex where it only has to leave one ship behind, can it leave behind an aux unit to cover? Would that aux unit have to have fighters, as aux units in and of themselves do not pin? Would a player be able to leave behind a SAV and 4xSAS' to cover the one ship? In that case, even though 5 auxes are being left behind, it's only 1 SE worth of pinning.

ANSWER: As auxes do not pin it would need the fighters to do this. You must still leave behind the minimum number of ships required to pin. The minimum number could be one aux and its fighters. Additional ships cannot be left even if they do not contribute to pinning.

In a related question, the same reserve fleet is moving to a battle hex that is more than three hexes from the reserves current location. Can it take aux units along, and use them to meet the pinning requirements to allow the rest of the reserve fleet to move?

ANSWER: Yes, but you could only bring the minimum needed to pin. Any in excess of this could not move at all since you can only detach the minimum and they cannot move beyond 3 hexes to reach the battle hex.

===================================

David Slatter:

(519.14) states that monitors may retreat as a slow unit at the same time as the fleet does.

Does this mean that the monitor MUST retreat, or can I choose to leave it at the planet? (I get salvage for it if it fights another combat round at the planet, and none for losing it during pursuit).

P.S. I always used to think that monitors could not retreat anyway. Was this changed when the slow retreat rules were put in place in F&E 2K - it slipped below my radar....

ANSWER: This retreat option was added in the slow retreat rules in F&E2K. Since it says "may" you don't have to if you don't want to.

==============================

Tim Losberg:

On Turn 10 (spring 173) The Roms build an SUB
On Turn 11, can they build a DMH with SPB and SKB modules as new consttruction (forgoing the SKB and SPB production that year) esentially producing a 2nd CVA for the year or does the DMH-BB count against CVA limits?
If the modules are added later in the game, dose that re-configuration count against the CVA limits?

ANSWER: A new set of cruiser-sized "B" modules counts as a CVA build, regardless of what actual ship you build them to go on.

================================

Kevin Howard:

If I repair a Starbase (it has 8 SIDS, I'm repairing at least one SIDS), can I then use the Starbase to produce a frigate and/or convert a ship during the same turn?

Repair phase does occur before production/conversion phase.

ANSWER: Rule (420.62) prevents a crippled base from becoming uncrippled and then immediatly providing repairs to itself or other units since that would be happening simultaneously in the same step. Presumably a repaired base could do production/conversion though as that happens as you say in a later step of the sequence of play.

===============================

Paul Howard:

Question on a Scenario - The Wayward Wind (IIRC - the Alternative start to the GW - Hydrans 1st)

- Combined Ops, alas rules at home so I don't know the Rule number!

When is the Klingon Home Fleet released?

Upto turn 3, is says if the Hydran's enter Klingon space or if the Kzinti destroy a Klingon base - it is released.

(Hydrans can enter turns 2 or 3, Kzinti only enter the War on turn 3).

Turn 4, is says only the Eastern Fleet is unreleased.

Does this mean the Home fleet is released?

I don't think so, as -

Home Fleet is released IF Hydrans enter or Kzinti destroy a base.

If the Kzinti enter AND destroy a base, the home fleet IS released - but after combat (and so this release doesn't do anything, is of no use on turn 3) - on turn 4 it would be released as normal.

i.e. it doesn't matter what the Kzinti do, as the Klingon home fleet would be able to do stuff on turn 4, either way - so by deduction, it would only be released under the existing two pre-conditions (Hydrans enter/Kzinti kill a base) and not by the passage of turns from 3 to 4+!

ANSWER: There is something the home fleet could do turn 3 if released. You could place a reserve marker (from a released fleet) on some of it on turn 3. If released under the conditions mentioned the reserved portion of home fleet could move turn 3 to counter Hydrans or Kzintis before it gets released automatically on turn 4. This potentially allows a few more already released ships to attack on coalition turn 3 that otherwise would have been held back to be used as a reserve fleet.

====================================

Lawrence Bergen

RE: CLOUDBURST SCENARIO

ANSWER: Cloudburst issues will take some more work...

==================================

Lawrence Bergen:

In FO it (532.121) says that a Fed FCR can replace any fighter type (not F111) and the efficient staff will 'make it happen'.

Does this restrict said FCRs to one type of fighter? (Example: Say I have a fleet with a NVA with 10 A20s. In battle I lose them all. I have also with the fleet 2 FCRs which can resupply the 10 fighter factors with 2 to spare. Consequently on that next round I lose all the fighters again. If I pull the NVA off the line and on another round in the same battle hex lose fighters from say a DWV also in the fleet. Can I use the remaining 2 factors on the FCR to replace the DWV fighters or are they only considered A20s now since that is what I took from this ship before?

ANSWER: You are not required to keep track of what a given FCR supplied on an earlier round/turn. Except for F111s, a given (or any number of ) FCRs can supply any types of fighter factors on a given turn.

Also with regards to this same line of thinking for the Feds, if a fighter is a fighter is a fighter (532.121) on their FCR & FCAs. Do the FCA fighters work for replacing standard fighters the way that FCR fighters replace A20s? Could it be said then that it is legal (and better...dibs on Tacnote if not one) to build the FCA since it has the most factors for replacement?

ANSWER: An FCR can do anything but F111s. An FCF (527.25) can ONLY do F111 factors. The FCA? Hmm... can't find the rule. Is that in a cap log?

===============================

John W. Lawton:

I've been trying to organize my rule book and when I went through the Index of Planetary Ops, I noticed that it referred to section 445.0 for Fighter Storage Modules. I have 444.0 & 446.0. I don't seem to have this section. Is it a misprint? I am unable to find it listed with any of the addons.

ANSWER: As stated that rule (along with 319.0 are in Figter Ops). They ended up in a weird place due to the page count of that product.

===============================

Derek Meserve:

On fighter depots...

(443.21) Each depot has six spare fighter factors [6] which can be transferred to any unit in the base's hex [or within supply of the base] between combat rounds. These factors function as factors on an FCR. (The base does not count as an emergency escort.)

Does this mean that these replacement fighters can be sent to a battle, between combat rounds, that is occuring several hexes away?

ANSWER: Yes it does mean that. If you have a valid supply path to the base during combat you can get the fighters between combat rounds.

=================================

Paul Howard:

OK situation -

Devastated (and captured Alliance) planet, which is garrisoned by Coalition forces (no Defences set up on planet/base at planet).

If the Alliance does a fighting retreat onto the planet, and the Coalition rejects the Approach battle, can the Alliance attack the planet (there are no additional defences at the planet, so they are not flying into PH4 etc!) if they wanted to?

ANSWER: No, you are retreating (a fighting retreat) which does not permit you to turn around and stage a planetary assault even if the planetary defenses are small or nonexistant.

=============================

Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:

We are just starting up a Four Powers War game and came up with some questions that we cannot find the answers to:

1) (607.2) states that none of the Coalition ships can move on Turn #1 because none of the fleets have been released. Does this include the Pre-War Construction and where is the PWC placed?

ANSWER: Rule (600.34) says that PWC not specifically allocated to a given fleet can be assigned to any fleet the player wants. Simply decide which fleet to assign it to and place it in that fleet's deployment area (you don't have to worry about actually "moving" it there during the turn due to the free strategic movement given to new construction). It is now released when that fleet is.

2) Can reserves be set among the Lyran fleet on Turn #1 in anticipation of the Hydran half of Turn #1?

ANSWER: You can set reserves in an inactive fleet if that fleet has a reserve marker listed in its order of battle. The lyarn Enemy's blood fleet has such a reserve marker. The trick is that the inactive reserve fleet can only move if it is released under scenario rules.

3) (607.33) states the Klingons must conduct and pay for activations and give ships to the Romulans starting in Y159. How many and how often?

ANSWER: Presumably the maximum you can activate (7 ships) must be activated and sent to the roms.

4) How many police ships can be used by each race initially? Can any of the five POL limit be flagships?

ANSWER: I would think you would use the police rules as stated. If a given race's police flagship is in service (as per the date on the SIT) then you could get them under the usual rules.

5) Can Depot Level Repair be used in the 4PW scenario?

ANSWER: Sure.

6) (607.15) excludes tugs and CCs from the rolls for Lyran Civil War damage. Are the DNEs or any other ships from the other rules exempted?

ANSWER: It would make sense to me that the DNEs are exempted since they are command platforms like the CCs, but I don't think anything else is.

7) What is the correct starting economy for the Klingons? The scenario states 116 EPs, but if the reductions are made for the 7 Fed border provinces and 2 x major and 1 x minor planets, it comes out to 115 EPs.

ANSWER: I belive you are correct, when I did this scenario at Origins I noticed that discrepency as well.

8) What is the correct starting economy for the Lyrans? The scenario states 93 EPs, but the reduction from the off-world areas is 4 x Provinces, 2 x minor, and 2 x major planets (24 points) brings the total to 91 EPs.

ANSWER: Yes, I need to double count these and do the errata.

9) Can the Marine Major general be used in 4PW?

ANSWER: If you want to, sure.

10) Can Espionage & Sabotage (534.0) be used in 4PW?

ANSWER: If you want to, sure.

==============================

Peter D Bakija:

This came up around a tac-note I wrote:

So till, like T7, the Kzinti are required to keep 6 ships unreleased in the Marquis Zone. They clearly can't react out of the Marquis Zone, but can fighters on unreleased Marquis Zone ships (i.e. the 6 mandated original ships watching the Feds) react out of the Marquis Zone?

For instance, if the unreleased Marquis Fleet contained an SAV and the SAV is stationed on the edge of the Marquis Zone, could the SAV's fighter squadron react out of the Marquis Zone to pin a Klingon ship?

ANSWER: Any fighters in an unreleased fleet are also unreleased and cannot react out of the setup area.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 07:48 am: Edit

Sorry Nick..

ANSWER: There is something the home fleet could do turn 3 if released. You could place a reserve marker (from a released fleet) on some of it on turn 3. If released under the conditions mentioned the reserved portion of home fleet could move turn 3 to counter Hydrans or Kzintis before it gets released automatically on turn 4. This potentially allows a few more already released ships to attack on coalition turn 3 that otherwise would have been held back to be used as a reserve fleet.

I understand the Release rule for the Hydrans, but it has no value against the Kzinti!

If the Kzinti attack the Klingons on turn 3 - it does NOT release the Klingon Home Fleet - only AFTER the Kzinti have destroyed a base, would the Klingon Home fleet be released (i.e. after the Reserve Phase, so no use on turn 3!).

So, I should have asked this question (again with reference to just the Wayward Wind Scenario!) -

If the Hydrans have NOT entered Klingon space AND the Kzinti have NOT destroyed a Klingon base - is the Klingon Home fleet released on turn 4?

Thanks for answering my Fighting retreat Question!

Paul
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Nick, could you give a rules ref for counting SPB modules as being CVA builds?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:11 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: A new set of cruiser-sized "B" modules counts as a CVA build, regardless of what actual ship you build them to go on.
________________________________________


Nick, these are't Cruiser B modules, these are the SP B modules (8 fighter Factors) and the Romulans are specifiaclly allowed 1 per turn. What I wanted to know is of combining these with an SK B Pod (4 Fighter Factors, also 1 allowed per turn) on a DMH constitutes a CVA production or just counts as the allowed medium and escort carrier production for that turn.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:42 pm: Edit

And what about using modules that already exist, pulling them off their current ships, and putting them on the DMH? (This would be later than T10, of course.)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:51 pm: Edit

>The FCA? Hmm... can't find the rule. Is that in
>a cap log?

Nick,

Try the Fighter Operations SIT.

A FCA is an FCF that carries 10 factors of A-20s rather than nine factors of F111.

Given:
1)The ruling that FCRs can carry heavy fighters except for F111s and
2) the FCF R-note in CL22 and later SFB materials stating that the FCF class carried F111, A20 and sometimes even F-18s.

I see the FCA as being able to resupply anything except F111s and the FCFs only supplying F111s.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Paul, as far as I can tell the home fleet is released turn 4 regardless of what happens on turn 3.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:48 pm: Edit

FCA - listed under (532.22), FO pg. 14. Text:

FCA, an FCR with spare A20 fighters. While any FCR can carry six factors of A20s, only the FCA can carry a full squadron of ten.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:36 am: Edit

Nick.

I just want to check that I understand your ruling here, as I am not sure you understood Derek's question.

(443.21) Each depot has six spare fighter factors [6] which can be transferred to any unit in the base's hex [or within supply of the base] between combat rounds. These factors function as factors on an FCR. (The base does not count as an emergency escort.)

----DEREK's QU----
Does this mean that these replacement fighters can be sent to a battle, between combat rounds, that is occuring several hexes away?

----YOUR ANSWER----
ANSWER: Yes it does mean that. If you have a valid supply path to the base during combat you can get the fighters between combat rounds.

---MY QU-----
So, I have a fighter depot in my Klingon starbase on the Tholian border. My Klingon carriers are fighting against the Zin at 1401. They lose 6 fighters.These can be replaced, the *next battleround*, by the six fighters in the depot at the Tholian border starbase, provided I can trace a supply line from the TBS to 1401?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:50 am: Edit

Additionally, would an offmap fighter depot be able to send its fighters on map?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:03 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Additionally, would an offmap fighter depot be able to send its fighters on map?
________________________________________

(445.15) Off-map bases cannot have depots.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 11:14 am: Edit

BTW, I think the notion of the TBS being able to send fighters to 1401 between battlerounds is plain weird, and would rather it was not possible.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 01:24 pm: Edit

To be within supply of a base, the ship must be within 6 hexes of the base, as counted along a valid supply path. Being in the supply of a base is different than being in the same supply grid.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 06:05 pm: Edit

If a captured ship gets destroyed before you can do anything with/to it, do you get salvage for it?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 06:53 pm: Edit

Nick, did you see my comments on the DMH? You were referring to cruiser Modules and it user SP and SK Modules.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Tim Losberg:

On Turn 10 (spring 173) The Roms build an SUB
On Turn 11, can they build a DMH with SPB and SKB modules as new consttruction (forgoing the SKB and SPB production that year) esentially producing a 2nd CVA for the year or does the DMH-BB count against CVA limits?
If the modules are added later in the game, dose that re-configuration count against the CVA limits?

ANSWER: A new set of cruiser-sized "B" modules counts as a CVA build, regardless of what actual ship you build them to go on.

This answer makes no sense.

According to (704.0), the Roms can produce one SPB and one SKB per turn.

And, according to (525.64), putting SPB modules on a DMH counts as a CVA.

So, does putting the SPB and SKB module combo on a DMH count as a CVA build, regardless of when the modules themselves were built (ie. on that turn or an earlier turn)?

Similarly, does putting a SPE/SKC module combination on a DMH (with both modules having been built on earlier turns) count as "production of a PFT" and prevent the Roms from building an additional tender that turn?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 10:31 pm: Edit

525.64 says nothing about the mounting of SPB modules counting as CVA production. What it does say is that mounting them on a modular dreadnought means the dreadnought is then treated as a CVA for escort purposes.

In the same vein, the only prohibition regarding PFT modules is production; nothing is said in the rules about mounting them.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 04:41 am: Edit

John

Good point, but if you are correct, why not avoid the confusion and simply say "within 6 hexes of the base and being able to trace a supply path".
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 06:52 am: Edit

The DMN question was ruled on once before. I'm not going to dig through everything right now to find it because I don't have time right now but here are the basics. If the modules are built that turn and put on the DMN it counts against your CVA production. If the modules all ready exist from a previous turns production and are installed onto the DMN as a modular conversion it does not count against your CVA production.

Can somebody find that ruling? I've got to go to work.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 08:16 am: Edit

Found this after bothering to do a search.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/7533.html?1087236485
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 08:33 am: Edit

That ruling doesn't answer the current question on the Demonhawk, though. I may have missed it, but I found only one ref to the Demonhawk in the link, and the ruling did not say that putting the two carrier modules on the Demonhawk, regardless of when they were constructed, had anything to do with CVA limits.

The ruling simply said that if the modules were built on the same turn the ship was, they count against the normal carrier limits, and if merely installed from an existing pool, then they do not.
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 09:21 am: Edit

It seems to answer the question I asked.

If you build a SPB module and it ends up on the DMH *that turn*, that is a CVA build.

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 you are using modules built on a previous turn than it will not count as a CVA build.

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.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 09:38 am: Edit

That'll teach me to answer without a rulebook in hand (you would think anyway...). Let me look over the carrier module thing again.

Of course I know the Demonhawk uses the SP modules... by "cruiser module" I mean the Sparrowhawk/Firehawk B modules as opposed to the Skyhawk B module, you know, the ones used by the light/heavy CRUISERS not the ones used by the DESTROYER.

Anyway, let me just start this one over from scratch...
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:15 am: Edit

Sean, that is not what I read from the above ruling, what I read from that is taking moduels from storage does not count against normal Carrier production limits (if I hace a strored B module and slap it on a SP, that does not count against my 1 SPB per turn, however if I produced the module it would) Limits for the Romulans are 1 SPB and 1 SKB per turn, In a sense I built those modules as allowed but instead of putting on 2 hulls I put on one hull...
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:33 am: Edit

Once again, the ruling in the link does not prohibit building both SP and SK carrier on the same turn and then installing them both on the DMH that same turn.

All the ruling says is that building both modules and installing them on the DMH on the same turn that the modules and DMH are built counts against the Rom carrier limits.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:44 am: Edit

It really sounds like the Roms should be limited in the number of SP-B modules and SK-B modules (or whatever are the proper names for the 8 and 4 ftr modules) rather than by a different limit imposed by carrier type.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 04:32 pm: Edit

Leave the Rom carrier limits alone. This is trying to make a law to fit one isolated case. There's also nothing wrong with allowing the Roms to effectively build 2 CVAs in one year when one of those is a modular dreadnought. It's a ont-time event, or, at best, an event repeated with the single DMH in play. It's hardly a game-altering problem that needs fixing.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 05:13 pm: Edit

not to mention it is a ship that takes roughtly 43% of the Romulan economy on T11 (46 EP's if you used all your free fighters on T10)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 05:47 pm: Edit

So hypothetically speaking, can the Hydrans convert (unconvert?) a Tug into a cruiser of some type?

In the current situation, I have a Hydran TG stuck off map without any pods (which are all in the capital--the off map TG moved an FRD off map the previous turn, so didn't have any pods, although there are unused pods in the Capital somewhere). The Capital is isolated from the off map area. I'd like the TG to get turned into a DG or something--I have a SB and a whole lot of unused EPs in the off map satalite stockpile.

Assuming I can't un/convert the TG, at what point can I give it pods? If during, like, combat on Coalition 5, the TG reserves somewhere and finds itself in supply of the Capital, can it suddenly get a pod stuck on?

Thanks,
-Peter
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 12:32 am: Edit

funny all the discussion in here.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 05:26 am: Edit

Hi Nick

Question for you - There is a battle at a planet which was devastated on a previous turn and has not yet recovered (just the RDU and the nominal 10 damage to re-devastate). After one combat round the defenders decide to retreat.

Can the attacker pursue or does the planet block pusuit?

Assuming the attacker can pursue are they then able to return to the planet kill the pdu and re-devastate and then retreat.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:24 am: Edit

Slight Correction (pdu is an rdu!)

By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 05:26 am: Edit


Hi Nick

Question for you - There is a battle at a planet which was devastated on a previous turn and has not yet recovered (just the RDU and the nominal 10 damage to re-devastate). After one combat round the defenders decide to retreat.

Can the attacker pursue or does the planet block pusuit?

Assuming the attacker can pursue are they then able to return to the planet kill the RDU and re-devastate and then retreat.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:29 am: Edit

Oh yeah - thanks Paul.

It's probably a question that has been answered before so if anyone knows where could they point us to the answer please. Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 10:40 am: Edit

If a G ship is included in the battle force, is it succeptable to the extra directed damage attack? By the rules it looks like it's only vulerable if it is possible to conduct a ground attack (521.373). If it can be used for capture(521.5), would the same penalty apply?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 01:14 pm: Edit

Really silly question

How does 307.1 work, when the defender uses 'Opposed Withdrawal before Combat'?

Do you immediately do a persuit battle (6 persuing ships v withdrawn forces)?

What happens if a base exists?

.....the only logical thing I can think of is that the crippled withdrawing ships are added back into the retreating force after the one or more rounds of battle have been fought (so therefore generating a persuit battle, even if no cripples was taken in the battle!).

Or I could be totally wrong (hence the question!)

Cheers

Paul
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 04:18 pm: Edit

All withdrawn (crippled and uncrippled) forces are added back in with the retreating ships (crippled and uncrippled) after normal retreat is declared. These could then be pursued. Thus if there is a base there is no pursuit of either the retreating ships or withdrawn ships.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:02 am: Edit

Hold up...

So, if I have 7 healthy ships and a cripple in a hex (I am defender)...

I choose to withdraw the cripple and 3 healthy ships (half)

After the combat round with my 1 Flagship in the battle my remaining 3 ships retreat.

The attacker can pursue the defender, even though the cripple was withdrawn before combat began and there are no crippled units from the battle.

Is that what you are saying here?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:00 am: Edit

I'm with Chris here, in saying "Wha?"

I've always read the withdraw (even opposed) to say that I can get half my ships out without combat. Thus Chris's one cripple, and the three healthy ones, would escape without pursuit, and in fact not be eligible to participate in any pursuit battle involving the remaining ships.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 11:15 am: Edit

Specifically, doesn't (302.16) contradict the ruling? If the ships aren't even in the hex at the time of persuit, how can they be persued?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 01:39 pm: Edit

Exactly.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Can an Admiral change ships during operational movement. For example, Lyrans have 2 Admirals pinned in 1203 and no Admiral on the kzin minor in 1202. Can a DN move through 1203, pick up the extra Admiral and continue on to 1202

(316.144) seems to say that the only time an Admiral can change ships is when the ship dies, via stratgic movement and at the end of the player turn among ships of equal command rating in the same hex.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:42 am: Edit

(307.1) Pursuit can be done after any enemy retreat, including opposed Withdrawal Before Combat.
(302.134) Ships that retreat after the combat and those that withdraw before combat all go to the same hex.

These agree with Nick's ruling.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:22 am: Edit

Questions downloaded, should get answers up sometime over the weekend.

Nick
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:56 am: Edit

Do minus points apply to determining approach battle success? By the SoP it looks like they would count, but 308.3 makes no mention of plus or minus points. Thanks!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 10:54 am: Edit

ANSWERS (including more info on the SPB modules, and the pursuing of withdrawing ships).

===========================

Paul Howard:

I understand the Release rule for the Hydrans, but it has no value against the Kzinti!

If the Kzinti attack the Klingons on turn 3 - it does NOT release the Klingon Home Fleet - only AFTER the Kzinti have destroyed a base, would the Klingon Home fleet be released (i.e. after the Reserve Phase, so no use on turn 3!).

So, I should have asked this question (again with reference to just the Wayward Wind Scenario!) -

If the Hydrans have NOT entered Klingon space AND the Kzinti have NOT destroyed a Klingon base - is the Klingon Home fleet released on turn 4?

ANSWER: Yes, because that turn simply says Home Fleet is released. Turn 3 has the special rules. It does have a little value, if the Hydrans don't enter, and the Kzinti come in and destroy a base, Home fleet is released. The only option to it at this point is Strategic movement, but you could move it forward to a surviving BATS for an attack on the Kzinti homeworlds, or move it down to a southern BATS for attacking the Hydrans with on turn 4. Otherwise it is released normally on turn 4 but is out of position for use on that turn.

==========================

Multiple:

Limits on B (carrier modules) for sparrowhawks, superhawks, modular dreadnoughts.

ANSWER: Modules count against whatever limits they count against when built. So if you build a SPB medium carrier from scratch it counts against the medium carrier production limits. If you build a modular dreadnought with sparrowhawk B modules from scratch it counts against the heavy carrier production limits. If you convert a modular ship to a carrier and as part of that conversion you build new B modules for the ship, it counts against whatever carrier limit is appropriate. Converting a modular ship to a carrier by using existing B modules from storage does not count against carrier production limits. So yes, you can build a new SPB (a medium carrier), and then on a later turn convert that SPB to a regular SP (storing the B modules), and then on a later turn build a CNV heavy carrier and move the B modules to a modular Dreadnought thus getting two "new" heavy carriers on the same turn. But the B modules were not themselves new construction so they don't count against carrier production on that turn, they counted against the production on the earlier turn when they were actually built. Yes the modules went from a medium carrier to a heavy carrier, but the number of fighter factors was not increased, they just went to a bigger ship, it is a quirk of the Romulan modular ship system.

============================

Trent Telenko:

Try the Fighter Operations SIT.

A FCA is an FCF that carries 10 factors of A-20s rather than nine factors of F111.

Given:
1)The ruling that FCRs can carry heavy fighters except for F111s and
2) the FCF R-note in CL22 and later SFB materials stating that the FCF class carried F111, A20 and sometimes even F-18s.

I see the FCA as being able to resupply anything except F111s and the FCFs only supplying F111s.

ANSWER: I don't agree. The Fighter Ops SIT says the FCA specifically carries A20 factors, "[10V]" in the fighter position, not just "[10]". Rule (532.22) also specifically says the FCA carries A20 factors. Rule (532.121) says that a carrier with 10V (A20) factors can accept replacements from any FCR, but that a carrier with 10V (A20) factors can not send replacements to ships with regular or F111 factors, only to ships with A20 factors. So the way I see it, the FCR can supply regular fighter factors or A20 factorss. The FCA can only supply A20 factors. The FCF can only supply F111 factors. If the FCA (10 fighter factors) could supply regular carriers, why build FCRs (6 fighter factors)?

==============================

David Slatter:

I just want to check that I understand your ruling here, as I am not sure you understood Derek's question.

(443.21) Each depot has six spare fighter factors [6] which can be transferred to any unit in the base's hex [or within supply of the base] between combat rounds. These factors function as factors on an FCR. (The base does not count as an emergency escort.)

----DEREK's QU----
Does this mean that these replacement fighters can be sent to a battle, between combat rounds, that is occuring several hexes away?

----YOUR ANSWER----
ANSWER: Yes it does mean that. If you have a valid supply path to the base during combat you can get the fighters between combat rounds.

---MY QU-----
So, I have a fighter depot in my Klingon starbase on the Tholian border. My Klingon carriers are fighting against the Zin at 1401. They lose 6 fighters.These can be replaced, the *next battleround*, by the six fighters in the depot at the Tholian border starbase, provided I can trace a supply line from the TBS to 1401?

ANSWER: No, that is not what it means. You must be within supply range of the base in question. They can supply their FCR [6] factors to a carrier at a distance between combat rounds so long as there is an uninterrupted supply path, 6 hexes or less, from the base in question to the battle hex. You cannot string these fighter replacements through multiple bases/planets to get more than six hexes.

===========================

Derek Meserve:

Additionally, would an offmap fighter depot be able to send its fighters on map?

ANSWER: As noted off map bases cannot have depots (443.15).

===========================

Derek Meserve:

If a captured ship gets destroyed before you can do anything with/to it, do you get salvage for it?

ANSWER: Sure. (305.25) says that if used in a battle force as is, it is treated as a ship of the capturing player for all purposes with one exception that has nothing to do with salvage.

===========================

Peter D Bakija:

So hypothetically speaking, can the Hydrans convert (unconvert?) a Tug into a cruiser of some type?

In the current situation, I have a Hydran TG stuck off map without any pods (which are all in the capital--the off map TG moved an FRD off map the previous turn, so didn't have any pods, although there are unused pods in the Capital somewhere). The Capital is isolated from the off map area. I'd like the TG to get turned into a DG or something--I have a SB and a whole lot of unused EPs in the off map satalite stockpile.

Assuming I can't un/convert the TG, at what point can I give it pods? If during, like, combat on Coalition 5, the TG reserves somewhere and finds itself in supply of the Capital, can it suddenly get a pod stuck on?

ANSWER: Rule (433.24) allows any variant ship (except maulers) to be unconverted to the base hull type for 1 EP. Looking at the Hydran SIT the TG entry says the base hull is CA, which for Hydrans includes the RN and DG. So a TG can be unconverted to eitehr a Ranger or Dragoon for 1 EP, but remember you do also have to pay for the hybrid fighter factors in addition to the 1 EP. For the second question, you can only assign pods at the start of the turn, or right after the tug was built in the construction phase, and you can only assign pods to tugs in the same supply grid (509.36).

============================

James Southcott:

Question for you - There is a battle at a planet which was devastated on a previous turn and has not yet recovered (just the RDU and the nominal 10 damage to re-devastate). After one combat round the defenders decide to retreat.

Can the attacker pursue or does the planet block pusuit?

Assuming the attacker can pursue are they then able to return to the planet kill the RDU and re-devastate and then retreat.

ANSWER: The planet blocks pursuit as normal. Even a devestated planet does this. Assuming the planet is currently controlled by the defender of course.

=========================

Robert Padilla:

If a G ship is included in the battle force, is it succeptable to the extra directed damage attack? By the rules it looks like it's only vulerable if it is possible to conduct a ground attack (521.373). If it can be used for capture(521.5), would the same penalty apply?

ANSWER: No, I don't think so. The penalty applies when you have troopships and you picked BIR 4 (521.33) in order to allow an assault. There is no similar requirement for the capture bonus, and no similar penalty.

===========================

Paul Howard:

How does 307.1 work, when the defender uses 'Opposed Withdrawal before Combat'?

Do you immediately do a persuit battle (6 persuing ships v withdrawn forces)?

What happens if a base exists?

.....the only logical thing I can think of is that the crippled withdrawing ships are added back into the retreating force after the one or more rounds of battle have been fought (so therefore generating a persuit battle, even if no cripples was taken in the battle!).

ANSWER: Modifiying my original answer here a bit (the part about combining withdrawn and retreating ships for pursuit was bogus):

When you have a withdrawing force, the opposing player may pursue (if the withdrawal was not opposed then there is no pursuit). This pursuit battle is done vs the withdrawing ships only and is done before regular combat. Then the withdrawing forces retreat a hex. Then you do regular combat with all remaining ships in the battle hex. If after regular combat the defenders retreat their remaining ships there could be a second pursuit round, after which the retreating force retreats to the same hex that the withdrawn ships went to earlier. If there is a planet/base present at the time in question there can of course be no pursuit rounds (but you can still oppose the withdrawal). Also if there are no crippled ships in the withdrawing/retreating force there is of course no pursuit of that force. Rule (307.1) says you can pursue after any retreat including withdrawal before combat. The Advanced Ops sequence of play step 5-1F says that you may have a pursuit round after withdrawal but before regular combat, and then you may of course have a regular pursuit round after regular combat.

===================================

Dave Butler:

Specifically, doesn't (302.16) contradict the ruling? If the ships aren't even in the hex at the time of persuit, how can they be persued?

ANSWER: This is the part I screwed up. You don't wait until the end of combat to pursue crippled ships withdrawn before combat, you have an earlier pursuit round before regular combat and before the withdrawing ships retreat to their new hex, as shown in the rule and the sequence of play.

====================================

Russell J. Manning:

Can an Admiral change ships during operational movement. For example, Lyrans have 2 Admirals pinned in 1203 and no Admiral on the kzin minor in 1202. Can a DN move through 1203, pick up the extra Admiral and continue on to 1202

(316.144) seems to say that the only time an Admiral can change ships is when the ship dies, via stratgic movement and at the end of the player turn among ships of equal command rating in the same hex.

ANSWER: You cannot transfer during operational movement as that is not listed in the rule:

Can transfer during battle force selection in a battle hex.

Can transfer after the ship containing the admiral is destroyed or crippled.

Can transfer at the end of a player turn.

Can transfer via strategic movement.

Can transfer to a base only when all ships in the hex were destroyed.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

Do minus points apply to determining approach battle success? By the SoP it looks like they would count, but 308.3 makes no mention of plus or minus points. Thanks!

ANSWER: If the rule makes no mention then go by the SOP (which is itself, a rule). So it looks like minus points are applied, then determine if attacker scored more damage for purposes of approach, then plus points are applied.

=========================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:35 pm: Edit

James Southcott:

Question for you - There is a battle at a planet which was devastated on a previous turn and has not yet recovered (just the RDU and the nominal 10 damage to re-devastate). After one combat round the defenders decide to retreat.

Can the attacker pursue or does the planet block pusuit?

Assuming the attacker can pursue are they then able to return to the planet kill the RDU and re-devastate and then retreat.

ANSWER: The planet blocks pursuit as normal. Even a devestated planet does this. Assuming the planet is currently controlled by the defender of course.

Hi Nick - could you take another look at this one.

302.741 doesn't include planets - devastated or undevastated.

Also 508.16 says that an RDU does not block pursuit. There can be no RDU on a planet devastated on the current turn (earlier in 508.16). The 'does not block pursuit' would be completely redundant if a devastated but unrecovered planet blocked pursuit, so logically the devastated planet doesn't of itself screen the retreating force.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Right, right, the PDU blocks pursuit, an RDF doesn't. So they could pursue in that situation. If they did pursue, they cannot retreat (if you retreat you cannot pursue). They would capture the hex and destroy the RDF (do not need to re-devestate), the planet would start the revival process over again if recaptured again by the original owners. If they did not pursue, they could fight another round to re-devestate the planet (killing the RDF and resetting the recovery clock) and then retreat themselves (at which point the RDF would reappear).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 04:40 pm: Edit

OK no pursuit and retreat - thanks Nick
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 05:45 pm: Edit

The SIT that I have notes the DVL as having an oversized fighter squadron. Is that correct? Other ships with a squadron of F14's don't have their's noted as oversized.
--
Appeal to the decision that minus points count before determining the success of an approach battle:

308.22 says, "Any minus points are deducted from the damage scored..." The relevant meaning of this phrase is that "damage scored" is determined before minus points are applied.

308.31 says, "Score more Damage Points..."

For minus points to count toward the success or failure of approach would thus also mean that "damage scored" is not the same as the damage that a fleet inflicts (scores).
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 06:28 pm: Edit

The Federation DVL on the "Master SIT Updates" topic has been corrected to say "Special (302.352) squadron (F14s)."
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Nick, you are wrong on the modular dreadnought built with an SPB module counting as a CVA build. The rules only say that attaching an SPB module to a modular dreadnought requires that dreadnought to be escorted as if it was a CVA. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stating the attaching SPB modules to a modular dreadnought counts against CVA bulld limits.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:09 pm: Edit

On the minus points thing - If you apply the minus points to the current round and then consider whether the attacker has done more damage and can proceed to the planet.....then surely you should add the minus points to the previous round (in which they were generated) otherwise the side overcrippling is effectively eliminating some damage for the who has won the approach calculations.

It does seem the easiest method would be that it would be done on unajusted damage
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Nick, you are wrong on the modular dreadnought built with an SPB module counting as a CVA build. The rules only say that attaching an SPB module to a modular dreadnought requires that dreadnought to be escorted as if it was a CVA. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stating the attaching SPB modules to a modular dreadnought counts against CVA bulld limits.

525.64 'The ship would be treated as a heavy carrier' would seem to cover pretty much everything - if it is treated as a heavy carrier wouldn't that include construction John?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:18 pm: Edit

No, James, that doesn't follow, as the rules make mention throughout as carriers being treated as medium or heavy for escort purposes, and the same would seem to apply here.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:19 pm: Edit

On the HDW-Q mission, can the Romulans have such a ship, since there is a requirement to convert the ship in the off-map area and the Roms don't have a base that can do that, or was that an oversight, since the rules also mention that each race can have an HDW-Q?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:46 pm: Edit

On the subject of auxiliaries being left behind during reserve fleet movement:

-Nick ruled about a week ago that only a minimum number of auxiliary carriers could be left behind to fulfill a pinning requirement (with their fighters, as the auxiliaries do not themselves pin or counterpin). Additional auxiliaries could not then be left behind whether with or without fighters (aux scouts, aux troop ships, aux drone bombardiers, or aux carriers without fighters) as they would be beyond the minimum number of ships allowed to be left behind.

-The reserve movement rule mentions only ships and ship-equivalents. No mention is made of non-ship units, which is what I understand auxiliaries to be, per the text of the auxiliary carrier rule.

-How does the restriction of leaving behind only a minimum number of ships and/or ship-equivalents to counter-pin in any way restrict the number of non-ship units that can be left behind. Clearly a larger than necessary force of auxiliary carriers containing ship equivalents of fighters could not be left behind, but that would be because the fighters form ship equivalents that could not be left behind with or without their carriers. Other auxiliaries, however, would not change the number of ships or ship equivalents being left behind and should not thus be restricted.

-Given that the reserve movement rules were written before reserve-capable non-ship units and fast ships were in the game, perhaps the rules ought to be clarified via errata to account for these units. It makes no logical sense that a reserve fleet would be forced to detach numerous units before moving (aux units and even 6-move ships) and then would move through a battle hex where it would be forced to leave some of its remaining units before finally passing along to its final destination (up to 7 hexes from its start point). The forces to be left at the intervening battle would necessarily be weaker than they could be without in any way increasing (or preventing a decrease in) the strength of the force to reach the ultimate destination. Clearly, the rule was written to prevent the abuse of leaving extra ships behind that could have reached the main battle, but that intent is itself abused when forces that could have reached one battle but not another are forced to remain entirely inactive even when their fleet's only path led through one battle en route to the other.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 01:27 am: Edit

Perhaps this questions has been answered previously. If so I apologize.

Can a double subsitution be done e.g.
The Gorn take a CL in place of an HD and then sub out the CL for an LSC
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 09:51 pm: Edit

It looks like PO 5.37.2 -- tug mission W -- Combat Rescue -- lets you take a ship from killed to crippled for 0 EP. Is that right? (It could be the most lame tac note ever.)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:14 am: Edit

Some questions we can'f figure out:

1) If you repair an ally's ship, where does that ship get its free strategic move? On its own grid, or on your grid? Does it make a difference what grid the unit is on? (I.e a Lyran FRD repairs a Klingon inside Klingon territory, and another Lyran FRD repairs a Klingon inside Lyran territory. In each case, who gets the free strategic movement?)

2) If one starts from a node on ally's strategic movement grid and move directly to a node on your strategic movement grid, does that movement count against both grids, or just the second grid?

3) Can you overbuild at the Hydran old shipyard?

3a) What does rule (431.36) mean? (it says you can overbuild when you have no shipyard--can you only overbuild FFs? Can you overbuild CAs?)

Thanks,
-Peter
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 10:57 am: Edit

A Zin CV group looses it's light escort in combat, and later CEDS retros to a planet that happens to have an EFF sitting there. Can that EFF be converted into a FKE? If it can be converted, would it first have to be unconverted from being an EFF? 308.13 B. Existing Ships does not seem to allow it, but C1 does seem to support it.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 09:38 pm: Edit

How do you read the Romulan Modular Dreadnought Table on page 65 of AO?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, July 29, 2005 - 11:13 pm: Edit

The Demonhawk is equiped with both a set of Sparrowhawk modules and a Skyhawk module. The Columns designate which Sparrowhawk modules are mounted. The Rows designate which Skyhawk module. Cross refrence the column for the Sparrowhawk mods you want on the ship with the row for the Skyhawk mods you want. That gives you the combat capability of the ship in that configuration. The default is to have all A modules.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 09:17 pm: Edit

There are a number of entries in AO, FO, PO and combined ops where the product has changed, i.e. Fed A-Pod changed from MA to CO in Planetary Ops.

Should these be listed as errata?

Thanks,

Ken
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 10:40 pm: Edit

Is 511.53 always in effect, or only during the same combat phase where all of the planets have been devistated, and there is nothing left to defend? If the planets have their RDUs, and have started recovery, would 511.53 still apply? Thanks!
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 03:39 pm: Edit

I'm not sure this has been asked before. I apologize if so (as long as I find out the answer). This subject is kinda minor, but I want to get this straight so I can figure out the potential implications. It may be I've missed some section of FO that fixes this.

Question: In the production phase, how does one handle the escort assignments for carriers which do not have defined carrier groups (e.g. Interdiction, Patrol, Scout, etc. carriers).

The basic carrier production notes are that you can build up to your limit on carriers and their escorts plus three additional ones. This worked fine in F&E2K and the original Carrier War because all the carrier groups were defined. F-4CVA = CVA+ECL+DE+DE. F-4CVN = CVA+NAC+DWA+FFE. Fine. If I choose not to build my CVA for that turn, I can get those three escorts in my substitution schedule no problem without dipping into my three bonus "out-of-group" escorts. What happens when the Fed want to build the CSV?

Ideas:

1) Call up someone with SFB info and find out if its traditional escorts are listed there. Ideally, someone would then be nice enough to dig through the SFB material and find out what the "defined" escorts are and post them here.

2) Just build a traditional carrier group of N escorts with N-1 heavy escorts and 1 light escort.

Now, 2) sounds reasonable to me, but then there are things like the Fed who have carrier groups (4CVA, 4CVN, 3CVS, etc.) which don't have the maximum number of heavy escorts. There are many examples of this (Hydrans, Z-CVN, Romulans) so I would assume that the "new" carrier groups that have been added to the game would sometimes follow this "light escorts for everyone!" historical strategy. If the new carriers can pick their escorts, shouldn't this also apply to the carriers with defined groups? I mean if I build a Fed CVS, can I build it with 2xFFE escorts or ECL+DE escorts and not have either of those count against my 3 "out-of-group" escorts? If I build a F-FV, can I have its escort be a NAC, because that (CVE+heavy escort) is a legal carrier group? I assume that carriers like the F-DCS which is either a heavy or medium carrier can decide which it is going to be during production and get that many free escort subsitutions? I would assume that substituted carrier groups would have to be legal so that the Fed on Y175 couldn't Heavy CV + 3xNAC + Medium CV + 2xNAC + CVE + NAC without even touching their three bonus out-of-group escorts?

The reason I ask this question is because of the implications that I can see.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 04:07 pm: Edit

I would say that it would be sensible to say you are subbing the undefined carrier for a carrier that is allowed for the hull substitution. For instance, the CSV is a substitution of an NCL hull, so assume you are subbing a CSV for a 3NVD or a 3NVL, or a 3NVS group when determining which escorts would be allowed to be built by substitution.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 05:07 pm: Edit

Isn't this covered by (431.7), (FO-515.53) and the various (7xx.4) sections? (I.e., you can substitute the escort group of any available group on the SIT by building the escorts but not the carrier; anything else gets counted as your "three extra", and you're limited in the number of escort groups you can build (typically, two per year, plus an CVE 'group', max one CVA group.)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, August 01, 2005 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Nick,
Can a FRD be used for CEDS repair? Rule (308.131-B) says that 'normal cost' repairs can only be done in a base hex, by the base. Rule (421.1) says that FRDs "function as a repair facility [...] exactly the same (for repair purposes) as a base." Which takes precedence: (308.131-B)'s 'can only be done at a base hex' or (421.1)'s 'a FRD is kinda, sorta a base'?
Personally, I'd go with FRDs not being allowed to do CEDS repair (anything that limits CEDS is good in my book), but I rather suspect that this is a "designer's intent" question.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Nick

Single combat is supposed to supplant the combat system when small fleets are involved.

At what point in the combat seqeunce is it determined that the situation is small scale combat?

The situation at hand is that the attacker has a D6 and crippled E4A at a Fed base. The Federation has reserved a CD with a prime team to the base.

Can the Klingon use the minimum force or rejected flagship rule to exclude the D6, or does the fact this is a small scale combat kick in before these rules can be enacted?

The small scale combat ruling says that it replaces the combat rules when fleet go down to a certain size (14 compot or less). Strictly speaking, this would imply the entirety of the 300 block rulings (entitled "combat"). However, those rulings include many non-combat rules, such as approach battels, withdrawals, and many other factets. Hence the question.

There is a small clue in that there is a "withdrawal before combat" option for the defender. One could concieve that anything after this is "combat". However, I still think that involves problems as it means mobile bases are automatically included in any single combat when they are supported by ships of 6 compot or less.

Is there a notion therefore that if I have a MB and F5L, they will automatically be lumped together in a small scale combat, with no approach battle concept? Suppose I have BATS with figheter? Is it impossible for small scale combat to happen as an approach battle? Indeed - If I have a Bats defending, I cannot use small scale combat (I have 18 compot), so must offer an approach battle, ending up with a situation with just fighters against, say, a pinning E4 - a small scale combat situation that is actually resolved using the normal combat rules?

Very confused now!

David.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Nick -

rule 527.25 (FCF) Says the Fed can build an FCF for each original NVH built, and can then produce more (counting against the FCR limits) starting in Y180.

Does this mean that the Fed can build and FCF and an FCR in the same turn (if this is one of the first 2 FCF's built)?

We are getting together this Sunday when my econ will be in question. Can you get this request answered by then?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Nick -

Rule 502.95 (Fed special fighters (F14, and F15's)

states that if destroyed the F-14's and F-15's may be designated at the start of the next Fed turn as being at another planet.

Can the Fed player delay the appearance of these fighters to be replaced at a future time. I see no enabling rule, but the word may implies that it might be legal.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 10:57 pm: Edit

I should get to the questions before the weekend.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 08:11 pm: Edit

OK, here's a series of questions dealing with the interaction of X-ships and Scouts. All rule quotes are actually paraphrased to simplify. Rule numbers are cited for easy reference.

*~*~*

The rules states: 523.38: "For every X-ship in the battleforce, reduce the total number of enemy EW by 1/2 point" 523.381: "Round the final total up. An EW factor of .5 would count as a EW factor of 1."

Question #1: So the enemy has a CWS, I have 3 X-ships. I reduce the enemy EW rating by 1.5 Do I round up the reduction of EW rating to 2 (reducing him to 1 EW), or do I reduce him to 1.5, and then round his EW up to 2 EW?

*~*~*

In Special Operations, Electronic Warfare Rule 313.0, you compare the EW ratings of each side, and if you have a 2 point EW advantage, you shift the enemy by one point. Rule 313.22 cites the exception that "If one side has a scout and the other does not, a Net EW of 1 will produce a -1 shift".

Question #2: If you have 3 EW points, and the enemy has 6 X-ships, reducing you to zero EW - all he has is 1 EW - does he get a -1 shift against you? You have no EW rating, but technically, you do have a scout.

(I don't have Combined Operations, so there may be an update I'm not aware of.)

*~*~*

And finally, I question along the lines of "Am I missing something?"

Rule 523.382 says: "EW generated by X-Scouts cannot be reduced by enemy X-ships" Rule 523.38 says "The maximum you can reduce the enemy's EW rating by is 3 points of reduction."

Since most X-Scouts are worth 3EW, and they can't be reduced, you'd think those 2 rules were written to show how they would cancel each other out in a pure X-ship environment. But by the late war, there will be PFT's, Extra scouts, SWACS, PDU and Base EW, maybe even scout-carriers. It becomes rare to not have extra EW on the line.

Question #3: So if you have an X-Scout, as well as regular sources of EW, and the enemy has X-ship reduction of your EW, does the reduction get stopped by the X-Scout, or does the reduction apply to the regular EW first.

And I think I know the answer to that - it applies to regular EW first, so that leads me to Question #4: What's the point of X-Scouts? Their 'Reduction-Free' EW is of no use if you always have extra EW being reduced by the enemy X-ships.

But that last question is not really for you, Nick, but more for the group to discuss. Thanks in advance for the first 3 questions.
By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Kevin, I'm not Nick, but here's my read on that:

#1 "Round the final total up" ... I read that as the final EW total, not the reduction. I read it as you would reduce the 3 EW by 1.5 then round up to 2.

#2 I read the key part of that as "a Net EW of 1", but you have a Net EW of 0, so there is no shift. By my read ... I could be wrong.

#3 I read it as you have two separate "pools" of EW -- regular, which can be reduced, and X-Scouts, which cannot. Ergo, by my read, the reduction does apply.

#4 X-Scouts are still very useful. You might not have a Scout or PFT or whatnot in your battle fleet, or you might have more than one X-Scout. Either way, your X-Scout EW is "safe" from reduction.


Garth L. Getgen
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 12:31 pm: Edit

Answers:

============================

Todd E Jahnke:

The SIT that I have notes the DVL as having an oversized fighter squadron. Is that correct? Other ships with a squadron of F14's don't have their's noted as oversized.

ANSWER: The FED SIT that I downloaded from the website does not list the DVL as having an oversized squadron.

Appeal to the decision that minus points count before determining the success of an approach battle:

308.22 says, "Any minus points are deducted from the damage scored..." The relevant meaning of this phrase is that "damage scored" is determined before minus points are applied.

308.31 says, "Score more Damage Points..."

For minus points to count toward the success or failure of approach would thus also mean that "damage scored" is not the same as the damage that a fleet inflicts (scores).

ANSWER: Look at the SOP. The minus points are applied before the test for approach battle success. (308.22) is telling you to apply minus points before directed damage, it is not attempting to define "damage" for purposes of a different rule. Follow the SOP.

====================================

John Wyszynski:

The Federation DVL on the "Master SIT Updates" topic has been corrected to say "Special (302.352) squadron (F14s)."

ANSWER: Right.

====================================

John Doucette:

Nick, you are wrong on the modular dreadnought built with an SPB module counting as a CVA build. The rules only say that attaching an SPB module to a modular dreadnought requires that dreadnought to be escorted as if it was a CVA. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stating the attaching SPB modules to a modular dreadnought counts against CVA bulld limits.

ANSWER: No, I'm not wrong. After looking through the rules again, here is what I found. The Rom order of battle lets you build one SPB and one SKB each turn. And it lets you build one of CNV, SUB, PHX per year. One SUP and one WH per turn. Note that the CNV, SUB, PHX are all heavy carriers/space control ships per the SIT, while the SPB is a medium carrier. This means that building B modules with a sparrowhawk counts as a medium carrier build (one per turn) and building those exact same B modules with a command cruiser (superhawk) means it counts against the heavy carrier build (one per year). This means the modules don't have a particular limit, but it depends on what ship they are built with. This is how the game has worked, and the module DN rules do not change this at all.

The Demonhawk/Megahawk/Omnihawk modular rules (525.64) say that putting B modules on a modular dreadnought is treated as a heavy carrier. The same rule says that when building the modules with the dreadnought you must count the modules against the "relevent limits" (if you use existing modules from storage they don't count as you counted them against some limit when they were built previously). If you get one medium SPB per turn, and only one heavy SUB per year, then a dreadnought heavy carrier of course counts against the one per year limit, not the one per turn limit. You can build an SPB and an SUB on the same turn, or you can build an SPB and a CNV on the same turn, or you can build an SPB and a Demonhawk-B on the same turn, but you can't build a Demonhawk-B and a SUB on the same turn (or even in the same year) unless you are using existing B modules that were built on previous turns.

=================================

James Southcott:

On the minus points thing - If you apply the minus points to the current round and then consider whether the attacker has done more damage and can proceed to the planet.....then surely you should add the minus points to the previous round (in which they were generated) otherwise the side overcrippling is effectively eliminating some damage for the who has won the approach calculations.

It does seem the easiest method would be that it would be done on unajusted damage

ANSWER: According to the way the SOP works now, yes, overcrippling something allows the defender to try to stretch out the approach battles. You can't add points from overcrippling to the current approach check since the check for approach happens before damage resolution (and thus before any overcrippling has been done). To fix this you have to rearrange SOP steps 5-4E, 5-4F, and 5-4G so that minus points are applied after the check for approach success. Is this the change you guys want to appeal/campaign for?

================================

By John Doucette (Jkd) on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 08:19 pm: Edit

On the HDW-Q mission, can the Romulans have such a ship, since there is a requirement to convert the ship in the off-map area and the Roms don't have a base that can do that, or was that an oversight, since the rules also mention that each race can have an HDW-Q?

ANSWER: An oversite I would imagine. Technically then the Roms can't do this unless they build an off map starbase or conversion facility. However, what you could do (assuming you want to allow the Roms this abilty without forcing them to construct an off map base) in the meantime is move the HDW off map, declare the conversion (using some onmap conversion capacity even though the ship is off map) and proceed as normal. The point is mission Q HDWs cannot operate on map. I will note this as an item needing attention or clarification though. I don't know what the original intent was with regards to the Roms.

===============================

Todd E Jahnke:

On the subject of auxiliaries being left behind during reserve fleet movement:

-Nick ruled about a week ago that only a minimum number of auxiliary carriers could be left behind to fulfill a pinning requirement (with their fighters, as the auxiliaries do not themselves pin or counterpin). Additional auxiliaries could not then be left behind whether with or without fighters (aux scouts, aux troop ships, aux drone bombardiers, or aux carriers without fighters) as they would be beyond the minimum number of ships allowed to be left behind.

-The reserve movement rule mentions only ships and ship-equivalents. No mention is made of non-ship units, which is what I understand auxiliaries to be, per the text of the auxiliary carrier rule.

-How does the restriction of leaving behind only a minimum number of ships and/or ship-equivalents to counter-pin in any way restrict the number of non-ship units that can be left behind. Clearly a larger than necessary force of auxiliary carriers containing ship equivalents of fighters could not be left behind, but that would be because the fighters form ship equivalents that could not be left behind with or without their carriers. Other auxiliaries, however, would not change the number of ships or ship equivalents being left behind and should not thus be restricted.

-Given that the reserve movement rules were written before reserve-capable non-ship units and fast ships were in the game, perhaps the rules ought to be clarified via errata to account for these units. It makes no logical sense that a reserve fleet would be forced to detach numerous units before moving (aux units and even 6-move ships) and then would move through a battle hex where it would be forced to leave some of its remaining units before finally passing along to its final destination (up to 7 hexes from its start point). The forces to be left at the intervening battle would necessarily be weaker than they could be without in any way increasing (or preventing a decrease in) the strength of the force to reach the ultimate destination. Clearly, the rule was written to prevent the abuse of leaving extra ships behind that could have reached the main battle, but that intent is itself abused when forces that could have reached one battle but not another are forced to remain entirely inactive even when their fleet's only path led through one battle en route to the other.

ANSWER: The reserve movement rule says "ships" and not "non-ship" units, but I would say the intent is clearly to leave behind the minium number of units. The way the rule works is if you create extra battle hexes with reserve movement, you must create the smallest possible number of new battle hexes, and these battles must contain the minimum number of units. If you put a bunch of auxes in your reserve fleet, you have to accept that you are only going to be able to move the entire fleet to a destination within three hexes. Moving to a destination six hexes means the auxes can't be part of that move. Having a destination at 6 hexes and a blocking enemy force within 3 hexes lets you move some of the auxes, but only enough to pin the blocking force. You don't get to move all the auxes just because there is a blocking force.

========================================

Russell J. Manning:

Perhaps this questions has been answered previously. If so I apologize.

Can a double subsitution be done e.g.
The Gorn take a CL in place of an HD and then sub out the CL for an LSC

ANSWER: Yes, you can do this.

========================================

David Walend:

It looks like PO 5.37.2 -- tug mission W -- Combat Rescue -- lets you take a ship from killed to crippled for 0 EP. Is that right? (It could be the most lame tac note ever.)

ANSWER: Right, there is no economic cost.

==========================================

Peter D Bakija:

1) If you repair an ally's ship, where does that ship get its free strategic move? On its own grid, or on your grid? Does it make a difference what grid the unit is on? (I.e a Lyran FRD repairs a Klingon inside Klingon territory, and another Lyran FRD repairs a Klingon inside Lyran territory. In each case, who gets the free strategic movement?)

ANSWER: Rule (204.31) says repaired units do not count against the owner's grid, but do count against allied grids. It makes no other provision for ships repaired by allies, so a Klingon base that repairs a lyran ship allows that lyran free strat moves on the lyran grid, but not the klingon grid.

2) If one starts from a node on ally's strategic movement grid and move directly to a node on your strategic movement grid, does that movement count against both grids, or just the second grid?

ANSWER: It counts against both grids.

3) Can you overbuild at the Hydran old shipyard?

ANSWER: I don't think so, beyond FFs at starbases, and items from (511.33).

3a) What does rule (431.36) mean? (it says you can overbuild when you have no shipyard--can you only overbuild FFs? Can you overbuild CAs?)

ANSWER: Presumably frigates, and items from (511.33).

=================================

Robert Padilla:

A Zin CV group looses it's light escort in combat, and later CEDS retros to a planet that happens to have an EFF sitting there. Can that EFF be converted into a FKE? If it can be converted, would it first have to be unconverted from being an EFF? 308.13 B. Existing Ships does not seem to allow it, but C1 does seem to support it.

ANSWER: I would say that if the ship in question is already an escort it would just be included in the group as is. You go through the extra trouble (i.e. get to break the normal rules) when the only ship available is not an escort already. Allowing existing escorts to be upgraded as part of CEDS retro/repairs/replacement seems wrong.

==================================

Ken Kazinski:

How do you read the Romulan Modular Dreadnought Table on page 65 of AO?

ANSWER: There are really three tables in one here. The bottom two lines (separated by thick black lines) are for the Megahawk and Omnihawk, simply read along cross indexing with the column listing the sparrowhawk modules used, and the result is the factors of the Megahawk/Omnihawk in that configuration. The leftmost box represents the counters as printed with basic combat modules.

Everything above these two lines are for the Demonhawk, you cross index the Sparrowhawk modules across the top with the SKyhawk module from the side, and the result is the factors of the ship in that combined configuration. The top left position represents the counter as printed with all basic combat modules.

===================================

Ken Kazinski:

There are a number of entries in AO, FO, PO and combined ops where the product has changed, i.e. Fed A-Pod changed from MA to CO in Planetary Ops.

Should these be listed as errata?

ANSWER: Not sure what you are talking about. Just tug pods, or other things? I know I don't have such a list...

==================================

Robert Padilla:

Is 511.53 always in effect, or only during the same combat phase where all of the planets have been devistated, and there is nothing left to defend? If the planets have their RDUs, and have started recovery, would 511.53 still apply? Thanks!

ANSWER: Are you asking about (511.53) splitting and merging of mobile/static defending ships or (511.553) retreat requirement? What is your actual situation?

===================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

I'm not sure this has been asked before. I apologize if so (as long as I find out the answer). This subject is kinda minor, but I want to get this straight so I can figure out the potential implications. It may be I've missed some section of FO that fixes this.

Question: In the production phase, how does one handle the escort assignments for carriers which do not have defined carrier groups (e.g. Interdiction, Patrol, Scout, etc. carriers).

The basic carrier production notes are that you can build up to your limit on carriers and their escorts plus three additional ones. This worked fine in F&E2K and the original Carrier War because all the carrier groups were defined. F-4CVA = CVA+ECL+DE+DE. F-4CVN = CVA+NAC+DWA+FFE. Fine. If I choose not to build my CVA for that turn, I can get those three escorts in my substitution schedule no problem without dipping into my three bonus "out-of-group" escorts. What happens when the Fed want to build the CSV?

Ideas:

1) Call up someone with SFB info and find out if its traditional escorts are listed there. Ideally, someone would then be nice enough to dig through the SFB material and find out what the "defined" escorts are and post them here.

2) Just build a traditional carrier group of N escorts with N-1 heavy escorts and 1 light escort.

Scott Burleson:

I would say that it would be sensible to say you are subbing the undefined carrier for a carrier that is allowed for the hull substitution. For instance, the CSV is a substitution of an NCL hull, so assume you are subbing a CSV for a 3NVD or a 3NVL, or a 3NVS group when determining which escorts would be allowed to be built by substitution.

Dave Butler:

Isn't this covered by (431.7), (FO-515.53) and the various (7xx.4) sections? (I.e., you can substitute the escort group of any available group on the SIT by building the escorts but not the carrier; anything else gets counted as your "three extra", and you're limited in the number of escort groups you can build (typically, two per year, plus an CVE 'group', max one CVA group.)

ANSWER: I would agree with Dave Butler above. If you want to build a special carrier, build a regular carrier group but sub the special carrier for the regular carrier. So long as they both fit under your various build limits that would make the most sense.

===============================

Dave Butler:

Nick,
Can a FRD be used for CEDS repair? Rule (308.131-B) says that 'normal cost' repairs can only be done in a base hex, by the base. Rule (421.1) says that FRDs "function as a repair facility [...] exactly the same (for repair purposes) as a base." Which takes precedence: (308.131-B)'s 'can only be done at a base hex' or (421.1)'s 'a FRD is kinda, sorta a base'?
Personally, I'd go with FRDs not being allowed to do CEDS repair (anything that limits CEDS is good in my book), but I rather suspect that this is a "designer's intent" question.

ANSWER: I honestly never thought about it before, but according to the rule you must either use a Base or a Repair Ship for CEDS repairs. There is no mention of allowing FRD repairs out of sequence. Repair rules are the most general, then the FRD rules are a bit more specific, then the out of sequence CEDS repairs are the most specific of all so I would say those rules trump everythign else when doing out of sequence carrier group repairs.

==================================

David Slatter:

Single combat is supposed to supplant the combat system when small fleets are involved.

At what point in the combat seqeunce is it determined that the situation is small scale combat?

The situation at hand is that the attacker has a D6 and crippled E4A at a Fed base. The Federation has reserved a CD with a prime team to the base.

Can the Klingon use the minimum force or rejected flagship rule to exclude the D6, or does the fact this is a small scale combat kick in before these rules can be enacted?

The small scale combat ruling says that it replaces the combat rules when fleet go down to a certain size (14 compot or less). Strictly speaking, this would imply the entirety of the 300 block rulings (entitled "combat"). However, those rulings include many non-combat rules, such as approach battels, withdrawals, and many other factets. Hence the question.

There is a small clue in that there is a "withdrawal before combat" option for the defender. One could concieve that anything after this is "combat". However, I still think that involves problems as it means mobile bases are automatically included in any single combat when they are supported by ships of 6 compot or less.

Is there a notion therefore that if I have a MB and F5L, they will automatically be lumped together in a small scale combat, with no approach battle concept? Suppose I have BATS with figheter? Is it impossible for small scale combat to happen as an approach battle? Indeed - If I have a Bats defending, I cannot use small scale combat (I have 18 compot), so must offer an approach battle, ending up with a situation with just fighters against, say, a pinning E4 - a small scale combat situation that is actually resolved using the normal combat rules?

ANSWER: The answer is on the SOP. Step 5-3J checks to see of small scale combat applies. This is after approach battles are offered, and after battle forces are built and revealed, so if you withdrew ships and only put the minimum force into the battleline, you might use small scale combat even if there were more ships in the hex. Having a FF and a MB still means the attacker must offer an approach battle, even if small scale combat is used to resolve that combat before moving in to the base.

================================

Bill Schoeller:

rule 527.25 (FCF) Says the Fed can build an FCF for each original NVH built, and can then produce more (counting against the FCR limits) starting in Y180.

Does this mean that the Fed can build and FCF and an FCR in the same turn (if this is one of the first 2 FCF's built)?

We are getting together this Sunday when my econ will be in question. Can you get this request answered by then?

ANSWER: I belive so.

==================================

Bill Schoeller:

Rule 502.95 (Fed special fighters (F14, and F15's)

states that if destroyed the F-14's and F-15's may be designated at the start of the next Fed turn as being at another planet.

Can the Fed player delay the appearance of these fighters to be replaced at a future time. I see no enabling rule, but the word may implies that it might be legal.

ANSWER: The word may implies it is an option to assign them, so I suppose you could delay the new assignment if you planned to replace them at a planet you are about to recapture or a base you are about to rebuild. You would have to take the planet on turn X and then place the squadron there at the start of turn X+1 of course...

================================

Kevin Howard:

The rules states: 523.38: "For every X-ship in the battleforce, reduce the total number of enemy EW by 1/2 point" 523.381: "Round the final total up. An EW factor of .5 would count as a EW factor of 1."

Question #1: So the enemy has a CWS, I have 3 X-ships. I reduce the enemy EW rating by 1.5 Do I round up the reduction of EW rating to 2 (reducing him to 1 EW), or do I reduce him to 1.5, and then round his EW up to 2 EW?

ANSWER: It says you round up the final total, not the reduction. So three X-ships generate a reduction of 1.5 EW. The Scout has 3 - 1.5 = 1.5 EW. The final total is 1.5, which rounds up to 2 EW points. Basically you need an even number of X-ships to get an additional effect. An odd x-ship by itself does nothing.

In Special Operations, Electronic Warfare Rule 313.0, you compare the EW ratings of each side, and if you have a 2 point EW advantage, you shift the enemy by one point. Rule 313.22 cites the exception that "If one side has a scout and the other does not, a Net EW of 1 will produce a -1 shift".

Question #2: If you have 3 EW points, and the enemy has 6 X-ships, reducing you to zero EW - all he has is 1 EW - does he get a -1 shift against you? You have no EW rating, but technically, you do have a scout.

ANSWER: I would say no shift, as techincally each side has a scout.

And finally, I question along the lines of "Am I missing something?"

Rule 523.382 says: "EW generated by X-Scouts cannot be reduced by enemy X-ships" Rule 523.38 says "The maximum you can reduce the enemy's EW rating by is 3 points of reduction."

Since most X-Scouts are worth 3EW, and they can't be reduced, you'd think those 2 rules were written to show how they would cancel each other out in a pure X-ship environment. But by the late war, there will be PFT's, Extra scouts, SWACS, PDU and Base EW, maybe even scout-carriers. It becomes rare to not have extra EW on the line.

Question #3: So if you have an X-Scout, as well as regular sources of EW, and the enemy has X-ship reduction of your EW, does the reduction get stopped by the X-Scout, or does the reduction apply to the regular EW first.

ANSWER: The reduction applies to the regular scout EW only, to a maximum of 3, and never reduces x-scout EW. So if the Feds have a SC (4 EW) and an X-scout, and the Klingons have 6 x-ships, the SC is reduced to 1 EW point. If the Feds have a 1 EW normal scout, and an x-scout, and the Klingons have 6 x-ships, then the Feds only lose the 1 normal EW point and their x-scout continues to produce its full EW.

And I think I know the answer to that - it applies to regular EW first, so that leads me to Question #4: What's the point of X-Scouts? Their 'Reduction-Free' EW is of no use if you always have extra EW being reduced by the enemy X-ships.

ANSWER: The point is if you have a force supported by only X-scouts, that EW cannot be reduced by enemy x-ships.

But that last question is not really for you, Nick, but more for the group to discuss. Thanks in advance for the first 3 questions.

ANSWER: This topic is not for discussion, if you want to discuss put in the discussion topic.

======================================
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 01:14 pm: Edit

I'm appealing your decision on the SPB modules, Nick. There is no language in the rules to support your logic, either in terms of language talking about how modules are treated differently based on their end-use, or in terms of the DMH being "treated as a heavy carrier" meaning it counts against the CVA limits.

The only limits on Rom carrier modules refer to one SPB and one SKB per turn. The heavy carrier limits that exist are in addition to the allowable module builds. Nothing is said about having to use an SPB module to build a heavy carrier. The CON is not a modular ship, for example, so why would production of SPB and SKB modules affect it at all in it's CVA variant?

Throughout the entire rule set, the convention has always been to explicitly state when a ship or unit counted against a certain limit, especially when dealing with special ships. I'd argue that if the intent was to have the DMH count against the CVA limits, then that language would have been present. It sounds to me as if what you're trying to come up with is a justification for ruling that the DMH with both carrier modules counts as a CVA for production purposes in order to avoid some perceived abuse of the rules. I maintain that handling the DMH as any other modular ship is a case of working as designed.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 01:22 pm: Edit

On the HDW-Q question, Nick, the Roms are prohibited from building a base in their off-map area, which is what resulted in the question. My take on the issue is that the Roms are prohibited from using HDW-Qs, because there is specific language allowing the Klingons (who also do not have an off-map base and cannot build one) to use the Lyran off-map SB whereas such language is absent for the Roms.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 02:34 pm: Edit

Question that may have already been asked. Is the Lyran FF->DWS two step conversion considered a minor conversion (like the DD->CWS), even though it costs 4 EP?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 02:45 pm: Edit

Yes, it's minor
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 03:51 pm: Edit

In reference to my question below. The situation is that the Hydrans have recaptured their homeworlds on AT 15. It is not CT 16 and the Coalition is attacking and just got through fighting approach. Does the Hydran have to split his forces, or does 511.53 mean that all of his ships are mobile? Thanks!
==================================

Robert Padilla:

Is 511.53 always in effect, or only during the same combat phase where all of the planets have been devistated, and there is nothing left to defend? If the planets have their RDUs, and have started recovery, would 511.53 still apply? Thanks!

ANSWER: Are you asking about (511.53) splitting and merging of mobile/static defending ships or (511.553) retreat requirement? What is your actual situation?

===================================
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 03:54 pm: Edit

And a related question about my Zin CV CEDS question. What if a CV group that consisted of a CV-MEC-FKE lost it's FKE, then CEDS retroed to a hex that happened to have an EFF present. Can that EFF be converted to a FKE, since it was an FKE that was lost by the CV group?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 06:15 pm: Edit

My point was that if a SUP with B modules (SUB) counts as a heavy carrier build, then so does a Dreadnought with B modules. The presence or lack of a skyhawk B module is irrelevent, the rule says when you put sparrowhawk B modules on a modular dreadnought (Demonhawk/Megahawk/Omnihawk) it is a heavy carrier, so OF COURSE it will count against the heavy carrier build limit, I cannot imagine that it would not. But I will pass the question up the chain.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the answers you are providing.


For the Romulan Modular Dreadnought is there a preferred or accepted way to identify the current configuration the modular ship is in?

>>There are a number of entries in AO, FO, PO and combined ops where the product has changed, i.e. Fed A-Pod changed from MA to CO in Planetary Ops.

Should these be listed as errata?

ANSWER: Not sure what you are talking about. Just tug pods, or other things? I know I don't have such a list...

Nick - there are a number of entries where the product has changed. If you need I can get a list.

Thanks again,

Ken
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 11:47 pm: Edit

Nick,
Jkd's point is that your ruling isn't based on the rules, and, quite frankly, makes no sense. It's not supported by the rules because -- unlike every other race -- the Romulan carrier builds aren't limited by carrier class (CVA, CV, CVE, etc.) but rather by carrier hull. Maybe it'd be good to rewrite (704.4) to refer to carrier classes, but that's beside the point that there's no Romulan CVA limit in print.
It makes no logical sense because it's entirely pointless: your ruling only limits DMH-Bx that are produced by substitution or conversion during construction. My carrier production has only been limited in that there's just one more hoop for me to jump through; if I say toe-MAY-toe I get my DMH-Bx, if I say toe-MAH-toe I don't: guess how I'm always going to pronounce the word.
(Just so everyone knows, here's how you build a SUB and a DMH-BB on the same turn: (1) Build the SUB; (2) build a DMH-?B (counts against the SKB limit, plus whatever limit the ?-module counts against if any); (3) declare that a SB is producing SPB modules by conversion, but without putting them on a ship (permitted by (433.432)); (4) have the DMH-?B converted to a DMH-BB during OpMove (again, by (433.432)), without leaving its construction hex (the ?-modules go into the pool, natch); (5) StratMove the DMH-BB and SUB wherever you want.)
[edited to improve the build method. (I'd forgotten that a DMH-?B only counts against the SKB limit, provided ? B. This saves some conversion capacity from my original method.)]
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 11:56 am: Edit

Nick:

Did you get the E-Mail I sent you from the Tac Notes topic?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 07:35 pm: Edit

Yes, can look it over this weekend.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

Nick wrote:
>>3a) What does rule (431.36) mean? (it says you can overbuild when you have no shipyard--can you only overbuild FFs? Can you overbuild CAs?)

ANSWER: Presumably frigates, and items from (511.33). >>

Still confused. Does (431.36) mean that you can overbuild FF's when you have no shipyard at your off map SB, beyond the 1 FF you are allowed to build at a given SB?

Can, say, the Hydrans when they are stranded off map without a shipyard, overbuild FF's with whatever money they have available? Over and above the 1 they can already build at the SB?

Thanks,

-Peter
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 11:06 am: Edit

Nick,

Which of the following builds count against the PFT limit?

SCS
PFT Pod
SCS Pod
Lyran DNP or BCP

Thanks!
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Robert Padilla:

Is 511.53 always in effect, or only during the same combat phase where all of the planets have been devistated, and there is nothing left to defend? If the planets have their RDUs, and have started recovery, would 511.53 still apply? Thanks!

ANSWER: Are you asking about (511.53) splitting and merging of mobile/static defending ships or (511.553) retreat requirement? What is your actual situation?
==

One hopes that the answer to both of these possible questions is the same. If the RDU's count as PDU's for purposes of requiring a division of the defending fleet into static and mobile halves then an attack against a planet bearing a RDU and not defended by any ships should not force the entire defending force to retreat from all planets. If the RDU's do not require a division of the defending fleet into mobile and static elements, which is to say if they do not count as PDUs, then an attack against an RDU bearing planet that is not then defended should indeed cause a complete retreat from the hex.

So the question is simple: is a RDU the equivalent of a PDU for purposes of all of rule 511?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 09:58 am: Edit

For the purposes of adding ships to the Raid Pool, with the Romulans and Gorn they have multiple capital hexes. Can they add ships from any of their Capital Hexes, or just the shipyard hex?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 03:06 pm: Edit

An RDF (formerly known as RDU) is not the equivalent of a PDU for any purpose. PDU is an actual unit, RDF is simply a defense factor assigned to a devestated planet, it doesn't really do anything or affect anything else. Giving such a planet a defense just requires you to have a ship with some offensive compot to capture it.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 08:56 am: Edit

Actually I was not asking the question is a RDF a PDU for the purposes of rule 511.53. The way I see it, 511.53 is meant handle the occasion of when during a capital assault, once all of the defenders planets are devistated and all defenses gone, then all the ships present become 'mobile'. But what if it's the next turn, and all of those planets can have damage scored on them again to re-devistate them? Since each planet can absorb another 10 damage, is it right that all of the defending ships would be mobile? Would not the defender be required to defend those planets as they are vulnerable?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Quick question.

Alliance T3
Hydrans hit Lyran space ignoring Klingon space and hit 0413, 0212 and 0411. The question is, can the Klingons (that have 2 reserves at 1013) move one reserve to 0714 (hydran bats non combat hex prior to reserve movement) so that the second reserve can move to 0413 and be in supply of 1013?

The Klingon player is moving reserve 1 to 0413 (which puts his reserve out of supply) then moving reserve 2 to 0714 re-enable supply to his reserve 1.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Another quick question... the rules state that a direct damage SIDS on a SB is 18 or 4.5 if a SIDS is taken voluntarily. A voluntary SID on a BATS is 4 but it does not specify how much a direct damage SIDS is for a Bats... what is it?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 01:50 am: Edit

Jimi, 18 (kludgey, but...)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 07:46 pm: Edit

Heh, I dont think I have ever tried to SIDS a BATS...
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Well, its for those times when you have to take down a BATS but all you have are 57 size class 4 ships...
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 09:40 pm: Edit

Dale, get over here right now!

I just sprayed Pepsi all over my computer screen, and •••••• if I'm going to clean this up. You do it!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 05:07 am: Edit

The Hydran and Tholians have additional Fleet Markers that I can't find the supplemental fleet chart for. Was one published?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 04:09 pm: Edit

The "tholian" extra fleet markers were actually intended as extra gorn fleet markers, (but printed accidentally in the wrong reversed colors). The gorn eventually got their "color corrected" extra fleet markers in another product, leaving the reversed color gorn counters for use by the tholians if you make your own chart.

The Hydran extra fleet markers were in the product with the "generic" fleet chart (the small cardboard one with four fleet slots and a battle board), and it was intended that you use that.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 04:25 pm: Edit

questions downloaded
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:07 am: Edit

The special raid rules say that you select the target unit, but it makes no mention not being able to target escorted units (like carriers). Am I missing something or can the special raids really pluck a unit out from behind its escorts?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Nick -

A Rom force attacks a Fed force garrisoning a neutral minor. Can the Roms, after the Fed has announced he will retreat in their 2nd option, decide to engage a possible rdu and devestate the neutral minor? Does the rdu exist if the Feds were garrisoning the planet?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Another drone raid question:

Three D6Ds conduct a drone raid against a target and are intercepted by a Kzinti SF and CLG, each carrying a prime team.

320.353 says the D6Ds have half compot because they're conducting a drone raid, so 11.

320.354 says to check 318.7 to see if it's small scale combat.

318.7 checks a few things:
3 ships or less each side: yes

not more than 14 attack factors each side: yes

Therefore use 310.0

310.0 says to compare attack and defense factors:
Klingons: 21 def * 1.5 greater 3 attack

Kzintis: 10 def * 1.5 NOT greater than 11 attack

So 310.0 says it can't be small scale combat.

Does the fact that this is a raid force it to be small scale combat anyway?

If yes....
Do 2 Kzinti prime teams give +1 each, or only +1 for there being a prime team on that side?
Does the +1 to the Kzintis for the D6Ds conducting a drone raid stack on top of the halfed attack factors?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 01:32 pm: Edit

And another drone raid question.

Can the Kzintis and Federation combine their drone raiders against a single target?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 11:54 am: Edit

The ruling on whether auxiliaries can all reserve move to a battle hex through which the remainder of their reserve fleet is moving to reach a further away battle hex is based on design intent, per the snipped quote, "...but I would say the intent is clearly..."

Is not the intent of the reserve movement rule also that the whole reserve fleet go to combat? Only the minimum ships can be left behind in pinning en route but all ships can go to combat somewhere. None are left sitting out of combat, by the rule. Given that it doesn't make any 'real world' sense for forces that could contribute to combat to not attempt to influence it in any way, wouldn't the two "intent" issues cancel out and the text of the rule thus remain the deciding factor?

Larger question arising from this: who has the authority to overrule the text of a rule in favor of design intent?

Below is snipped the discussion preceding my comment:


Todd E Jahnke:

On the subject of auxiliaries being left behind during reserve fleet movement:

-Nick ruled about a week ago that only a minimum number of auxiliary carriers could be left behind to fulfill a pinning requirement (with their fighters, as the auxiliaries do not themselves pin or counterpin). Additional auxiliaries could not then be left behind whether with or without fighters (aux scouts, aux troop ships, aux drone bombardiers, or aux carriers without fighters) as they would be beyond the minimum number of ships allowed to be left behind.

-The reserve movement rule mentions only ships and ship-equivalents. No mention is made of non-ship units, which is what I understand auxiliaries to be, per the text of the auxiliary carrier rule.

-How does the restriction of leaving behind only a minimum number of ships and/or ship-equivalents to counter-pin in any way restrict the number of non-ship units that can be left behind. Clearly a larger than necessary force of auxiliary carriers containing ship equivalents of fighters could not be left behind, but that would be because the fighters form ship equivalents that could not be left behind with or without their carriers. Other auxiliaries, however, would not change the number of ships or ship equivalents being left behind and should not thus be restricted.

-Given that the reserve movement rules were written before reserve-capable non-ship units and fast ships were in the game, perhaps the rules ought to be clarified via errata to account for these units. It makes no logical sense that a reserve fleet would be forced to detach numerous units before moving (aux units and even 6-move ships) and then would move through a battle hex where it would be forced to leave some of its remaining units before finally passing along to its final destination (up to 7 hexes from its start point). The forces to be left at the intervening battle would necessarily be weaker than they could be without in any way increasing (or preventing a decrease in) the strength of the force to reach the ultimate destination. Clearly, the rule was written to prevent the abuse of leaving extra ships behind that could have reached the main battle, but that intent is itself abused when forces that could have reached one battle but not another are forced to remain entirely inactive even when their fleet's only path led through one battle en route to the other.

ANSWER: The reserve movement rule says "ships" and not "non-ship" units, but I would say the intent is clearly to leave behind the minium number of units. The way the rule works is if you create extra battle hexes with reserve movement, you must create the smallest possible number of new battle hexes, and these battles must contain the minimum number of units. If you put a bunch of auxes in your reserve fleet, you have to accept that you are only going to be able to move the entire fleet to a destination within three hexes. Moving to a destination six hexes means the auxes can't be part of that move. Having a destination at 6 hexes and a blocking enemy force within 3 hexes lets you move some of the auxes, but only enough to pin the blocking force. You don't get to move all the auxes just because there is a blocking force.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 03:01 pm: Edit

During a grand campaign, the Kzinti can't enter Federation space on turns 7-9, except by virtue of making an Expeditionary fleet (the 2K rules specifically make an exception for an expeditionary fleet, but not for homeless ships).

If the 12 ship Expeditionary fleet gets cut out of supply during some point on turns 7-9, can it become adopted as homeless ships? Or does the out of supply Kzinti expeditionary fleet stay out of supply even though it could very well be sitting on a Fed SB or the Capital or something?

Thanks,
-Peter
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Ah, how are the Auxiliaries getting into the Reserves? Aren't the Reserves restricted to ships and not non-ship units??
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 09:51 am: Edit

In general yes, but the rules for Auxiliary carriers movement options specifically allow for reserve movement of 3 hexes. (513.131) and (513.135).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 05:51 pm: Edit

PRIME TEAMS

(522.14) DATE: For scenarios before the General War, it can be assumedthat Prime Teams were available in Y100.

This conflicts with the SITS which have most being avail in Y120 with the exception of the Hydran Y135 and Andro Y165.
By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Can a Theater Transport from CL#29 pg101 act as a tug and set up a mb or deploy a pdu?

I can't find anything one way or the other.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Lyran Conversion Question:

Given that the Lyrans can convert CAs to DNs, can convert CAs to DNLs, and the CF is based off of the CA hull, shouldn't there be a conversion from the CF to the DNL? I'm guessing that the reason is SFB related (of which I have no knowledge). If the CF->DNL conversion is allowed, would it count against the fast ship limit? I would guess no as the Federation has conversions (CF->CVF, DNL->DVL) that retain "fastness" though admittedly, those aren't changing the base hull type.

This is a random thought, and nothing is riding on this, so take your time.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 12:54 pm: Edit

The Lyran CA to CF conversion involves replacing the engines and modifying the weapon suites of the side sections. The CA to DNL involves inserting a new center section, the original engines and weapons remain the same. So the modifications are unrelated, and would have to be undone for a CF to DNL conversion.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 05:52 pm: Edit

Okay, so would that mean that (433.24) would allow a CF->DNL conversion (costing 7 EP)? Or is (433.24) strictly limited to units with the same base hull (I'm goind to guess that the DNL isn't a "variant" of the CA)?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 03:14 am: Edit

Nick, when do you think you'll be able to post up answers to the downloaded questions?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 06:50 am: Edit

I am fighting an approach battle at my capital.

Does the Early warning network allow me +1 BIR, or does the "non capital battle" restriction apply to any battle in the hex?

Likewise, suppose the enemy has captured my capital and has set up an EWN. Does the restriction vanish on him because it is not his capital? Or is it still a "capital hex".

Currently I assume all I get at my approach battle is +1 EW.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Sorry for the delays, work, car problems, helping paint parent's house, etc...

=========================================

John Doucette:

On the HDW-Q question, Nick, the Roms are prohibited from building a base in their off-map area, which is what resulted in the question. My take on the issue is that the Roms are prohibited from using HDW-Qs, because there is specific language allowing the Klingons (who also do not have an off-map base and cannot build one) to use the Lyran off-map SB whereas such language is absent for the Roms.

ANSWER: Then under the current rules the Roms cannot really use HDW-Qs. If you wanted to give them that ability for balance or whatever, you could let them move the HDW off map, convert it off map (as the rule states) but simply use some of their on map conversion capacity.

================================================

Derek Meserve:

Question that may have already been asked. Is the Lyran FF->DWS two step conversion considered a minor conversion (like the DD->CWS), even though it costs 4 EP?

ANSWER: Yes, it is minor because the two conversion making up the two-step are both themselves minor (437.21).

============================================

Robert Padilla:

In reference to my question below. The situation is that the Hydrans have recaptured their homeworlds on AT 15. It is not CT 16 and the Coalition is attacking and just got through fighting approach. Does the Hydran have to split his forces, or does 511.53 mean that all of his ships are mobile? Thanks!

ANSWER: I would say yes, those rules are still in effect. There are no defenses to guard, so there is no static fleet element.

===================================

Robert Padilla:

And a related question about my Zin CV CEDS question. What if a CV group that consisted of a CV-MEC-FKE lost it's FKE, then CEDS retroed to a hex that happened to have an EFF present. Can that EFF be converted to a FKE, since it was an FKE that was lost by the CV group?

ANSWER: I suppose you get to replace the type of escort that was destroyed, yes.

======================================

Ken Kazinski:

For the Romulan Modular Dreadnought is there a preferred or accepted way to identify the current configuration the modular ship is in?

ANSWER: Any way your group can agree to do it is fine. I don't think there is a specified way in the rules.

>>There are a number of entries in AO, FO, PO and combined ops where the product has changed, i.e. Fed A-Pod changed from MA to CO in Planetary Ops.

Should these be listed as errata?

ANSWER: If you are talking about instances of the words "carrier war" that should be changed to "fighter operations" and such, then yes, that should be errated. If you have a list e-mail it to me.

====================================================

Peter D Bakija:

Nick wrote:
>>3a) What does rule (431.36) mean? (it says you can overbuild when you have no shipyard--can you only overbuild FFs? Can you overbuild CAs?)

ANSWER: Presumably frigates, and items from (511.33). >>

Still confused. Does (431.36) mean that you can overbuild FF's when you have no shipyard at your off map SB, beyond the 1 FF you are allowed to build at a given SB?

ANSWER: I believe so.

Can, say, the Hydrans when they are stranded off map without a shipyard, overbuild FF's with whatever money they have available? Over and above the 1 they can already build at the SB?

ANSWER: I believe so.

================================================

Paul Bonfanti:

Which of the following builds count against the PFT limit?

SCS
PFT Pod
SCS Pod
Lyran DNP or BCP

ANSWER: SCS counts against the CVA limit (502.72). Pods only count against the pod limit (526.611), (431.22). The Lyran DNP or BCP count against the PFT limits (525.41), (525.42).

================================================

Robert Padilla:

For the purposes of adding ships to the Raid Pool, with the Romulans and Gorn they have multiple capital hexes. Can they add ships from any of their Capital Hexes, or just the shipyard hex?

ANSWER: Just the shipyard hex I would say.

===============================

Robert Padilla:

Actually I was not asking the question is a RDF a PDU for the purposes of rule 511.53. The way I see it, 511.53 is meant handle the occasion of when during a capital assault, once all of the defenders planets are devistated and all defenses gone, then all the ships present become 'mobile'. But what if it's the next turn, and all of those planets can have damage scored on them again to re-devistate them? Since each planet can absorb another 10 damage, is it right that all of the defending ships would be mobile? Would not the defender be required to defend those planets as they are vulnerable?

ANSWER: The rule (511.53) does not specify the abilty of the planet to take damage, it specifies the presence of PDUs or Bases and whether the planet is currently devestated. If there are no PDUs, no Bases, and all planets are devestated (whether on this turn or in previous turns), the rule kicks in and there is no static fleet element.

=========================================

Jimi LaForm:

Alliance T3
Hydrans hit Lyran space ignoring Klingon space and hit 0413, 0212 and 0411. The question is, can the Klingons (that have 2 reserves at 1013) move one reserve to 0714 (hydran bats non combat hex prior to reserve movement) so that the second reserve can move to 0413 and be in supply of 1013?

The Klingon player is moving reserve 1 to 0413 (which puts his reserve out of supply) then moving reserve 2 to 0714 re-enable supply to his reserve 1.

ANSWER: That looks legal to me. The move to 0413 is legal and moves and puts friendly forces out of supply. That allows the move to 0714 since it contains the units blocking supply (203.731).

===========================================

Jimi LaForm:

Another quick question... the rules state that a direct damage SIDS on a SB is 18 or 4.5 if a SIDS is taken voluntarily. A voluntary SID on a BATS is 4 but it does not specify how much a direct damage SIDS is for a Bats... what is it?

ANSWER: It is the same as a SB for a directed damage SIDS. 18 points, 9 with a mauler.

=============================================

Ryan Opel:

The Hydran and Tholians have additional Fleet Markers that I can't find the supplemental fleet chart for. Was one published?

ANSWER: The "tholian" extra fleet markers were actually intended as extra gorn fleet markers, (but printed accidentally in the wrong reversed colors). The gorn eventually got their "color corrected" extra fleet markers in another product, leaving the reversed color gorn counters for use by the tholians if you make your own chart.

The Hydran extra fleet markers were in the product with the "generic" fleet chart (the small cardboard one with four fleet slots and a battle board), and it was intended that you use that.

=============================================

Derek Meserve:

The special raid rules say that you select the target unit, but it makes no mention not being able to target escorted units (like carriers). Am I missing something or can the special raids really pluck a unit out from behind its escorts?

ANSWER: You are looking for rule (320.348). Only the outermost escort (or the entire group) can be declared a target of a special raid.

=============================================

Bill Schoeller:

A Rom force attacks a Fed force garrisoning a neutral minor. Can the Roms, after the Fed has announced he will retreat in their 2nd option, decide to engage a possible rdu and devestate the neutral minor? Does the rdu exist if the Feds were garrisoning the planet?

ANSWER: There would be no need to devestate the planet, it is already devestated and will not start the 4 turn count to become undevestated unless it was returned to neutrality (it is a captured planet for both sides). There is an RDF present which the roms would need to destroy to capture the planet though.

============================================

Derek Meserve:

Three D6Ds conduct a drone raid against a target and are intercepted by a Kzinti SF and CLG, each carrying a prime team.

320.353 says the D6Ds have half compot because they're conducting a drone raid, so 11.

320.354 says to check 318.7 to see if it's small scale combat.

318.7 checks a few things:


3 ships or less each side: yes


not more than 14 attack factors each side: yes

Therefore use 310.0

310.0 says to compare attack and defense factors:

Klingons: 21 def * 1.5 greater 3 attack


Kzintis: 10 def * 1.5 NOT greater than 11 attack

So 310.0 says it can't be small scale combat.

Does the fact that this is a raid force it to be small scale combat anyway?

ANSWER: (310) is general to all combats, while the raid rule says to use the other test, so with less than three ships and less than 14 attack factors, I would use SSC (unless your group playes without it).

If yes....
Do 2 Kzinti prime teams give +1 each, or only +1 for there being a prime team on that side?

ANSWER: I belive only +1 per side, not per Prime Team.

Does the +1 to the Kzintis for the D6Ds conducting a drone raid stack on top of the halfed attack factors?

ANSWER: I don't know what you mean here...

========================================

Derek Meserve:

Can the Kzintis and Federation combine their drone raiders against a single target?

ANSWER: (320.333) allows two different raids to target different units in the same hex, but NOT the same unit/target.

=====================================

Peter D Bakija:

During a grand campaign, the Kzinti can't enter Federation space on turns 7-9, except by virtue of making an Expeditionary fleet (the 2K rules specifically make an exception for an expeditionary fleet, but not for homeless ships).

If the 12 ship Expeditionary fleet gets cut out of supply during some point on turns 7-9, can it become adopted as homeless ships? Or does the out of supply Kzinti expeditionary fleet stay out of supply even though it could very well be sitting on a Fed SB or the Capital or something?

ANSWER: I belive they can be adopted as homeless ships, but the Kzintis still have to pay the expeditionary cost as only expeditionary ships can be in Fed space.

====================================

Ryan Opel:

PRIME TEAMS

(522.14) DATE: For scenarios before the General War, it can be assumedthat Prime Teams were available in Y100.

This conflicts with the SITS which have most being avail in Y120 with the exception of the Hydran Y135 and Andro Y165.

ANSWER: Hmmmm.....

=====================================

Kenneth Jones:

Can a Theater Transport from CL#29 pg101 act as a tug and set up a mb or deploy a pdu?

I can't find anything one way or the other.

ANSWER: I don't think so. There are lots of theater transports, but only a few tugs and base construction should be limited by your actual tugs.

=======================================

Dale Lloyd Fields:

Lyran Conversion Question:

Given that the Lyrans can convert CAs to DNs, can convert CAs to DNLs, and the CF is based off of the CA hull, shouldn't there be a conversion from the CF to the DNL? I'm guessing that the reason is SFB related (of which I have no knowledge). If the CF->DNL conversion is allowed, would it count against the fast ship limit? I would guess no as the Federation has conversions (CF->CVF, DNL->DVL) that retain "fastness" though admittedly, those aren't changing the base hull type.

ANSWER: This should really be in the proposal topic, or a topic for the SIT. Until it is added to the SIT it is not allowed, and you have to convince Steve Cole to add it, not me.

============================================

David Slatter:

I am fighting an approach battle at my capital.

Does the Early warning network allow me +1 BIR, or does the "non capital battle" restriction apply to any battle in the hex?

ANSWER: You only get the EW, not the BIR at any battle in the capital hex.

Likewise, suppose the enemy has captured my capital and has set up an EWN. Does the restriction vanish on him because it is not his capital? Or is it still a "capital hex".

Currently I assume all I get at my approach battle is +1 EW.

ANSWER: It does not say the "owners capital", but any capital, so all they get is the EW advantage, as far as I can see.

====================================

Rom Modular DN carrier limits under appeal.

Auxiliaries reserve movement under appeal.

====================================
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Quote:-

David Slatter:

Did you ask about selling captured ships to the Wyn?

ANSWER: No. It is on my list of questions from Origins to send to Jeff and Steve. Really need to do that.


Anything on this Nick?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 07:44 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Does the +1 to the Kzintis for the D6Ds conducting a drone raid stack on top of the halfed attack factors?

ANSWER: I don't know what you mean here...
________________________________________


320.353 says the D6Ds have half compot because they're conducting a drone raid. This allows it to be small scale combat.

The next paragraph (that I don't know the number for because I don't have my rules with me) says that the raiders suffer a one point penalty in SSC because they're conducting the drone raid.

My question is do the two conditions stack? In the example I gave, it was only possible to have SSC because of the halved atacked factors (from the first rule). Does the second rule also apply, further penalizing the drone raiders?

To continue with the example, is an intercept by a CLG and SF with prime team going to be +1 for the Kzintis or +2?

Klingon 11 compot vs 10 defense, no mod.
Kzinti 4 compot vs 24 defense, no mod.
SF 1 EW vs 3xD6D 6 EW, no mod.
Kzinti Prime Team, +1
Drone raid, +1?

(Just as an aside, I would think that halving their attack factors would be penalty enough.)
By Richard Kempton (Richk) on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 09:23 pm: Edit

I have a few questions about the Lyran/Klingon relationship in the first 2 turns.

601.16 and .161 nicely cover the Turn 1 position. In 601.2, it states that the Klingons are not required to attack on Turn 2.

1) If the Klingons do not attack, does the Pre-War status of 601.16 still apply?

2) Most importantly does "All Klingon fleets are unreleased" still apply on a non-attacking Turn 2, or does the 601.2 availability take precedence?

3) Does the TBS move by strat move on Turn 2 if Klingons do not attack?

4) Can Lyrans enter Klingon territory on Turn 2 if Klingons have not "joined" the Coalition?

My thinking is that if the Klingons can move the NR and TBS, along with NTP1 & NTP2 to the Northern border, it concentrates the capital attack potential for turn 3, gives the Klingons a maximum "no repairs" build for turns 1, 2, and 3, and stops the Kzinti using the Marquis fleet until T3 - and then only as reserve (I would avoid reaction zones). This also forces the Kzinti to "lose" a reserve on T2 - most Kzinti players will put one marker onto the Marquis fleet, as no sane Coalition player will try to pin it.

Is this correct?

Regards, Richard
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 04:16 am: Edit

Nick can I appeal your answer to Jimi's question?

=========================================

Jimi LaForm:

Alliance T3
Hydrans hit Lyran space ignoring Klingon space and hit 0413, 0212 and 0411. The question is, can the Klingons (that have 2 reserves at 1013) move one reserve to 0714 (hydran bats non combat hex prior to reserve movement) so that the second reserve can move to 0413 and be in supply of 1013?

The Klingon player is moving reserve 1 to 0413 (which puts his reserve out of supply) then moving reserve 2 to 0714 re-enable supply to his reserve 1.

ANSWER: That looks legal to me. The move to 0413 is legal and moves and puts friendly forces out of supply. That allows the move to 0714 since it contains the units blocking supply (203.731).

==============================================

Allowing one reserve to go to a battle and deliberately making it out of supply, so you can send another reserve fleet to attack somewhere will create some very strange tactics - for no logical reason.

I don't know the rules with me - but I thought the key thing with reserves going to a non-battle hex, to open supply to another force was, that BEFORE the reserve phase, the force was out of supply - not DURING the reserve phase something becomes out of supply.

If a unit gets cut off out of supply due to enemey actions - reserve fleets allow you to re-open supply. Willingly sending a fleet to get cut off, so that you can then send another fleet to re-open supply just smacks of being extremely illogical!

I can just see very strange tactics - create a battle in enemy space, get a unit cut off - and then attack a SB (with no defenders on it!) with another reserve fleet - 'to open supply'.

I can see turn 2 and 3 against the Kzinti and turn 3 and 4 against the Hydrans creatiing some very strange results which will effect the game long term(specially as the Coalition can ensure say the Klingons are in supply - but a Lyran reserve fleet isn't - so they can then actually attack somewhere to open the supply with a Lyran or Klingon reserve fleet) - which I am pretty sure would not be the 'designers' intent!

This will allow those 'creative' players out their the ability to attack both on their turn against Defended Targets AND on the enemy's turn against undefended targets (unless they leave alot of their forces at home!)....

Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 01:37 pm: Edit

A planet is captured by the Gorn, with Federation support. The Gorn decides to switch ownership over to the Feds the next turn. On the turn the Gorn give the planet over to the Feds, is it a supply point? 508.233 does state that the capturing player can use the planet as part of their supply grid, etc, etc. Then it goes on to state See 413.2 for the time required before the captured planet is part of the supply grid. Thanks!
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 07:16 pm: Edit

In case it matters, regarding Robert Padilla's question immediately preceding:

The planet in question was originally a Coalition planet (I don't suppose the answer for an originally neutral planet would matter, but I could see it being different if it were variously originally a F/G/Z/H/T planet).

The planet in question has uncrippled ships of both F and G present in its hex; some of each have been continuously in the hex since the planet was taken from the Coalition.

The working assumption is that current ownership of the planet is determined/decided after the first combat supply check, during economic income determination, and before tug-pod combinations are changed.

The Alliance races are in agreement regarding the desire for a change in ownership. Neither side is invoking the option to form a battle force and determine high compot.

There are no ground defenses on the planet or bases in the hex.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 12:43 pm: Edit

I'm looking for a pdf file for the economics and build forms. Have these been posted in the BBS. Can they be reposted in the play aides section.

Thanks.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 07:22 pm: Edit

The following is from the Q&A Update file:

--
STRATEGIC MOVEMENT UPDATE
Players have noted a glitch in that ships trying to reach an embattled base or planet are often prevented from doing so by the presence of small enemy units that are clearly no threat to the base. These rules fix this. While the resulting change is favorable to the Alliance, it is not regarded as a serious game balance issue and no counter-balance is needed.
(204.22) The moving units can never enter a hex containing enemy units or which is adjacent to a hex containing enemy units (not merely ships) except as provided below.
(204.221) The Outer Reaction Zone of units with a two-hex Reaction Zone does not block Strategic Movement.
(204.222) Units can leave (i.e., begin their strategic movement in) a hex adjacent to enemy units by Strategic Movement if they meet all other conditions.
(204.223) Units using Strategic Movement can enter a hex containing a Strategic Movement Node even if enemy units are adjacent to that node, so long as:
a- The hex which the moving units entered the node hex from is a hex legal for Strategic Movement and
b- The number of friendly ships in the node hex exceeds the total number of enemy ships in all adjacent hexes.
--

Does this mean that:

-ship equivalents of fighters and PF's don't count toward calculations regarding whether or not strategic movement is allowed in a certain place?

-auxiliaries (drone, carrier, marine, and/or scout versions) don't count toward those calculations?

-crippled ships count as one each, just the same as uncrippled ships, for purposes of these calculations?

Of course, I know that the text says "ships" which makes the answers "no they don't" for the first two questions and "each is one" for the third question, but what I know to be correct is wrong so often that I thought I'd ask again.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 11:20 am: Edit

The rules provide that the Tholians join the alliance as a "Limited Partnership" on T22. Does that mean that they can use reserve and reaction movement on the Coalition half of T22 to support the Alliance, or are their ships inactive until the Alliance half of T22?
By S Steiner (Xilana) on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 09:40 pm: Edit

My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. Does the current Federation and Empire map contain the Vudar enclave?

Does the special release (80 USD) release version include this information?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 10:20 pm: Edit

The Vudar Enclave is on the Large Scale Map (LSM) that's about 5' wide and $80+, and maybe out of stock.

Advanced Ops has the provinces the Vudar took over written down.

There was a color-cardstock map with the Vudar Enclave that SVC produced once, is it available still, I do not know.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:04 pm: Edit

That last item is in Planetary Ops I believe.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 09:51 pm: Edit

September - October 2005 Archive

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Quick question - I'm fairly sure this has been asked before, so if anyone knows on the spot, just say.

An planet with no bases is attacked in the capital system. The defender doesn't put up a line. Can the attacker rack up plus points after devastating the planet for use in the pursuit battle? If he can, how many can be carried?

I suspect that no plus points are allowed to be accumulated once all the defending forces are eliminated, but am pretty sure that this was tucked away in a very obscure ruling.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 06:11 pm: Edit

David, I don't have the rulebook with me right now, but check the rules for plus/minus points. There is a clause IIRC that no points are accumulated when there are no defending units present in the round (i.e. when the defender doesn't put up a battle force at that planet).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 08:06 pm: Edit

There was also a ruling on the boards here that says if there is nothing (or just a RDF) that no minus points are collected. PDU by themselves though DO allow the enemy to generate minus points.
By S Steiner (Xilana) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 01:14 am: Edit

Looking to Buy F+E spare parts through the website - leads to a few questions.

1. Does anyone know what counters are still from the 1993 era of printing. I'd generally like to avoid those in favor of the newer printing items. I landed a good deal on Reinforcement Packs (x3), so won't need anything included there.

2. What is on F+E sheet 1 (ie races)?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 09:15 am: Edit

OK

I found the rule - 308.25

states.

"if there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in the capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated, or resolved."

My oppenent says that it is crystal clear that an undefended *undevastated* planet does not qualify, and +/- points can be added/accumulated/resolved against it. i.e. an undevastated planet counts as a unit.

There is also the point that ALL devastated planets acquire an RDU over the turn if still in orginal hands. An RDU is a unit. Therefore, suppose I was the coalition attacking Kzintai where the capital had just one planet devastated. Unless the defender puts up a line so that they can lose that RDU, I can attack the devastated planet and accumulate plus points on the Kzinti for the later pursuit because the RDU was there. Note that should the Zin put up a line (which would be badly disadvantaged), I will be very happy dirdamming their ships, and it may be a round or two before they can self-destroy the RDU.

So. Question

Can plus points be accunmulated against
1) lines which compose only of an undevastated planet
2) lines which compose only of an RDU and devastated planet. If yes here, can I choose not to put an RDU on my planet?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:29 am: Edit

Addendum

Under 756.0, any planet, devastated or not, is a unit. Therefore 308.25 is self-contradictory anyway and needs to be resolved.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:02 pm: Edit

please
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:02 pm: Edit

Like I said, there is a ruling on the BBS.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Per an earlier ruling from SVC years ago...

RDUs are NOT -- repeat NOT -- units, but were redefined by SVC as a residual defense FACTORS (RDF).
________________________________________
Quote:
(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.
________________________________________
Source: Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: Q&A Archive File
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 25, 2002 - 10:12 am: Edit

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:39 pm: Edit

C Fant

Where is the ruling? I thought it was made, but I can't find it. While Chuck has sorted out the RDF issue, the undevastated planet issue is still not resolved, and my opponent will want a concrete ruling here. To a certain extent, I don't mind which way it goes - I can take the lump of not being able to pursue if I have to - but we are at loggerheads over this, and a non-referenced quote/memory will not satisfy the situation.

Chuck

Thankyou for clarifying the RDU/RDF issue.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Let me dig a little and see if I can pull that up.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 07:01 pm: Edit

Re. the pending question whether a planet that switches ownership between allies immediately becomes a supply point for the new owner or if there's a delay, two points.

1) There is no rule enabling a delay in this circumstance, while there is a rule saying that allies can transfer ownership and there is a rule saying that a planet taken from an enemy has a delay. This speaks, perhaps, to a design intent that there be no delay. This also speaks to there being a delay sometimes and this not being (at least explicitly) one of those times.

2) Speaking again to intent of design, if a tug can instantly become a supply point in deep space then why would there be a delay for a planet where there are both vast tracts of depopulated or secured land and a convenient near space where there is an orbit to keep cargoes corraled and assorted small economic assets for infrastructure.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 07:34 pm: Edit

When doing G attacks upon a SB, if the attacker has a +2 modifier to his G assault and rolls a 10 (+2 makes it a 12) does the attacker get to roll again? In other words, does the modified die roll get the benefits of the 12 result which is to reroll a second time.

If so, when doing the second round roll does the attacker get the +2 bonus again?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 09:12 pm: Edit

REMINDER TO DO THESE QUESTIONS...

I should get to these over the holiday weekend (since I only work half a day on Monday...)
By John W. Lawton (Kyloth) on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 01:07 am: Edit

Hi:
I'm trying to do a production check list of what a race can build per year. My question is in Annex 701
under Drones, it says " Can produce one Drone Ship per year by substitution plus limited conversions by race." Under Federation 702.4 Production it says "Max. of one drone ship per year by substitution"
Is this in addition to Annex 701 or is this just a repeat of the rule from above.
Thanks in advance
John
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:35 am: Edit

=========================================

Derek Meserve:

320.353 says the D6Ds have half compot because they're conducting a drone raid. This allows it to be small scale combat.

The next paragraph (that I don't know the number for because I don't have my rules with me) says that the raiders suffer a one point penalty in SSC because they're conducting the drone raid.

My question is do the two conditions stack? In the example I gave, it was only possible to have SSC because of the halved atacked factors (from the first rule). Does the second rule also apply, further penalizing the drone raiders?

To continue with the example, is an intercept by a CLG and SF with prime team going to be +1 for the Kzintis or +2?

Klingon 11 compot vs 10 defense, no mod.
Kzinti 4 compot vs 24 defense, no mod.
SF 1 EW vs 3xD6D 6 EW, no mod.
Kzinti Prime Team, +1
Drone raid, +1?

(Just as an aside, I would think that halving their attack factors would be penalty enough.)

ANSWER: As far as I know they both apply.

===========================================

Richard Kempton:

I have a few questions about the Lyran/Klingon relationship in the first 2 turns.

601.16 and .161 nicely cover the Turn 1 position. In 601.2, it states that the Klingons are not required to attack on Turn 2.

1) If the Klingons do not attack, does the Pre-War status of 601.16 still apply?

ANSWER: No.

2) Most importantly does "All Klingon fleets are unreleased" still apply on a non-attacking Turn 2, or does the 601.2 availability take precedence?

ANSWER: All ships released are still released, it is your option to actually attack or not.

3) Does the TBS move by strat move on Turn 2 if Klingons do not attack?

ANSWER: If you want, it is released.

4) Can Lyrans enter Klingon territory on Turn 2 if Klingons have not "joined" the Coalition?

ANSWER: You have joined the coalition, you just didn't attack.

My thinking is that if the Klingons can move the NR and TBS, along with NTP1 & NTP2 to the Northern border, it concentrates the capital attack potential for turn 3, gives the Klingons a maximum "no repairs" build for turns 1, 2, and 3, and stops the Kzinti using the Marquis fleet until T3 - and then only as reserve (I would avoid reaction zones). This also forces the Kzinti to "lose" a reserve on T2 - most Kzinti players will put one marker onto the Marquis fleet, as no sane Coalition player will try to pin it.

Is this correct?

ANSWER: As far as I can tell, yes.

===============================

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 01:37 pm: Edit


A planet is captured by the Gorn, with Federation support. The Gorn decides to switch ownership over to the Feds the next turn. On the turn the Gorn give the planet over to the Feds, is it a supply point? 508.233 does state that the capturing player can use the planet as part of their supply grid, etc, etc. Then it goes on to state See 413.2 for the time required before the captured planet is part of the supply grid. Thanks!

ANSWER: I belive the delay is only for the initial capture, not for changing hands between allies.

=====================================

Ryan Opel:

I'm looking for a pdf file for the economics and build forms. Have these been posted in the BBS. Can they be reposted in the play aides section.

ANSWER: It was posted once upon a time, but I don't remember where or when. I can e-mail you the one I have.

=====================================

Todd E Jahnke:

The following is from the Q&A Update file:

--
STRATEGIC MOVEMENT UPDATE

Does this mean that:

-ship equivalents of fighters and PF's don't count toward calculations regarding whether or not strategic movement is allowed in a certain place?

-auxiliaries (drone, carrier, marine, and/or scout versions) don't count toward those calculations?

-crippled ships count as one each, just the same as uncrippled ships, for purposes of these calculations?

Of course, I know that the text says "ships" which makes the answers "no they don't" for the first two questions and "each is one" for the third question, but what I know to be correct is wrong so often that I thought I'd ask again.

ANSWER: I would agree with those conclusions.

========================================

Paul Bonfanti:

The rules provide that the Tholians join the alliance as a "Limited Partnership" on T22. Does that mean that they can use reserve and reaction movement on the Coalition half of T22 to support the Alliance, or are their ships inactive until the Alliance half of T22?

ANSWER: I would assume they join on the Alliance half of turn 22, and ends on the Alliance half of turn 28.

======================================

David Slatter:

Quick question - I'm fairly sure this has been asked before, so if anyone knows on the spot, just say.

An planet with no bases is attacked in the capital system. The defender doesn't put up a line. Can the attacker rack up plus points after devastating the planet for use in the pursuit battle? If he can, how many can be carried?

I suspect that no plus points are allowed to be accumulated once all the defending forces are eliminated, but am pretty sure that this was tucked away in a very obscure ruling.

ANSWER: Rule (308.25) applies. A residual defense factor is not a unit. Remember they changed the name from RDU to RDF.

========================================

S Steiner:

Looking to Buy F+E spare parts through the website - leads to a few questions.

1. Does anyone know what counters are still from the 1993 era of printing. I'd generally like to avoid those in favor of the newer printing items. I landed a good deal on Reinforcement Packs (x3), so won't need anything included there.

2. What is on F+E sheet 1 (ie races)?

ANSWER: All my counters are punched so I don't know the answer to this. Weren't the countersheet listings placed anywhere?

===========================================

David Slatter:

I found the rule - 308.25

states.

"if there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in the capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated, or resolved."

My oppenent says that it is crystal clear that an undefended *undevastated* planet does not qualify, and +/- points can be added/accumulated/resolved against it. i.e. an undevastated planet counts as a unit.

There is also the point that ALL devastated planets acquire an RDU over the turn if still in orginal hands. An RDU is a unit. Therefore, suppose I was the coalition attacking Kzintai where the capital had just one planet devastated. Unless the defender puts up a line so that they can lose that RDU, I can attack the devastated planet and accumulate plus points on the Kzinti for the later pursuit because the RDU was there. Note that should the Zin put up a line (which would be badly disadvantaged), I will be very happy dirdamming their ships, and it may be a round or two before they can self-destroy the RDU.

So. Question

Can plus points be accunmulated against
1) lines which compose only of an undevastated planet
2) lines which compose only of an RDU and devastated planet. If yes here, can I choose not to put an RDU on my planet?

ANSWER: 1) No. 2) No.

==========================================

Jimi LaForm:

When doing G attacks upon a SB, if the attacker has a +2 modifier to his G assault and rolls a 10 (+2 makes it a 12) does the attacker get to roll again? In other words, does the modified die roll get the benefits of the 12 result which is to reroll a second time.

ANSWER: Yes.

If so, when doing the second round roll does the attacker get the +2 bonus again?

ANSWER: Yes.

==========================================

John W. Lawton:

Hi:
I'm trying to do a production check list of what a race can build per year. My question is in Annex 701
under Drones, it says " Can produce one Drone Ship per year by substitution plus limited conversions by race." Under Federation 702.4 Production it says "Max. of one drone ship per year by substitution"
Is this in addition to Annex 701 or is this just a repeat of the rule from above.
Thanks in advance
John

ANSWER: It is a repeat of the general rule. You get one sub, and others by conversion, and you must always observe other limits such as no more than one of a specific type in a year and so on.

===================================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 03:48 am: Edit

Hi Nick

Question for you.

Here's the situation: alliance fleet has been defending a starbase for 8 or so rounds. Within this fleet carriers have had escorts assigned to them and an FCR has been added half way through as an emergency escort. Round 9 the fleet retreatsinto an adjoining hex. Round 10, after finishing of the the SB, the coalition fleet retreats into the same hex (normal retreat not fighting retreat).

Questions - is this treated as a new battle hex and carrier escorts be freshly assigned or is the alliance forced to maintain the same carrier groups?

Also - during combat the FCR was crippled. If this is a new battle and escorts are to be reassigned would the FCR only be eligible as an ad-hoc or could it be a full (crippled) escort as it was crippled whilst part of a group?

Many thanks
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 11:53 am: Edit

I guess I have to appeal your ruling on 308.25 Nick, since your "no" directly contradicts the written rule, which gives an example of undefended AND undevastated planet generating no +/- and allowing none to be resolved. (your ruling implies that 308.25 will be changed to say just undefended)

Please pass this up the chain and let us know if 308.25 is to be changed. Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 01:13 pm: Edit

Question on the SITs:

For heavy fighters, the earliest introduction date is Turn 20 (S178) by 530.223. Is it correct on the Kzinti/Romulan (T22 for Roms) SIT to have a Heavy Fighter carrier available as early as Y175? Or on the Klingon/Lyran (T21 for Lyrans) SITs as early as Y176? Or the Feds/Hydrans in Y177? Or the Gorn in Y178 (T22 for Gorn)?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 04:28 pm: Edit

>>Jimi LaForm:

When doing G attacks upon a SB, if the attacker has a +2 modifier to his G assault and rolls a 10 (+2 makes it a 12) does the attacker get to roll again? In other words, does the modified die roll get the benefits of the 12 result which is to reroll a second time.

ANSWER: Yes.

If so, when doing the second round roll does the attacker get the +2 bonus again?

ANSWER: Yes.>Jimi LaForm:

When doing G attacks upon a SB, if the attacker has a +2 modifier to his G assault and rolls a 10 (+2 makes it a 12) does the attacker get to roll again? In other words, does the modified die roll get the benefits of the 12 result which is to reroll a second time.

ANSWER: Yes.

If so, when doing the second round roll does the attacker get the +2 bonus again?

ANSWER: Yes.CVT+ counts against carrier production limits. Similar to the conversion of a CVL->CVS.

However, this is an odd duck because one is upgrading the PODS that are on the CVT. Basically welding VP3s in place of VP2s. And upgrading the other VP2s VP3s does not count against carrier limits.

I would like to appeal that ruling.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 07:10 pm: Edit

Concur with Chris.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 07:50 pm: Edit

Are you upgrading any actual pods (i.e. you have pod counters with a tug), or one of the permanently converted CVTs?

I thought the permanent conversions were essentially treated like any other carrier...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 07:51 pm: Edit

Not that I really remember said ruling. When was it?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 08:39 pm: Edit

I thought that the Kzinti CVL to CVS upgrade counted against the limit because you where making a new carrier (CV) out of an old one (CVL). The Klingon CVT is still the same type of carrier (a CV) on the same basic hull. All it is receiving is a refit.

Concur with Chris and Chuck.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:10 pm: Edit

The ruling was in CL #26 Q2606. Basically stating that if the carrier gains fighters, it counts against the approproiate carrier build based on it's new fighter capacity.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Is it legal for a race to raid a province from which it drew income it its current player turn?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Nick

You had ruled on the CVT->CVT+ on Sunday, April 11, 2004. It was on the "hard-welded" pods version.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 09:33 am: Edit

Another question, that I know has been asked many a time, but I cannot find something that covers it.

If a non-phasing carrier is in combat and loses fighters, can it retrograde on the phasing player turn?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 06:49 pm: Edit

Can a tug acting as a supply point use reaction movement?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 09:17 am: Edit

To gain the CR increase of an ADM, does the ADM and the flagship have to be of the same race?

The rules under 316.0 make no mention that they have to be of the same race. So it's possible, for example, to have a Lyran ADM on a BC augment a Klingon fleet with a +1 to CR, if the Klingons do not have an ADM.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 09:08 pm: Edit

I just read through 316.0 again and I don't see anything that stops an Admiral from effecting a Battler Force with an Allied Flagship.

In fact 316.228 says that an Incompitent Admiral will actually have its full function (+1 CR and -1 BIR) when on an allied ship. Other Admirals only work when on their own ships.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 03:03 pm: Edit

In 604.0 Tholians get PF1 on turn 24 (spring 180). In the ship information table for 2K the Tholian PFT has an intro date of Y179. Do the Tholians get prototype PF's early?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit

ANSWERS POSTED

============================

Robert Padilla:

Nick, you didn't answer part of my PDU question. Is the tug forced to fight or loose the PDU? By part of your answer "The tug must stay in the hex, but not necessarily at the planet/location itself" seems to say that the tug does not have to fight, and the PDU would be OK.

ANSWER: Rule (508.32) says PDU is setup AS a Mobile Base, i.e. use the same rules, so if the tug is destroyed or retreats, the PDU is gone unless there were other PDUs on the planet already (which allows instant PDU setup, something a Mobile Base cannot benefit from).

In addition to Todd's MON question, what if you recapture your own previously captured MON? Use this example: The MON was captured by the Klingons on the Coalition half of Turn 16. Before it has a chance to be converted or scrapped, the Feds re-capture that same MON on their part of Turn 16. Note that the triple damage rule was not used to recapture it, just blissful lucky chance. How then is that MON treated?

ANSWER: I would treat it as still assigned to the planet then since none of the conditions were met to allow it to be reassigned, and you haven't lost the planet yet so it still needs a monitor right? If you recaptured it in another hex on a different turn before it was scrapped/converted by the Klingons I suppose you would have to treat it as a new monitor.

=======================================

Robert Padilla:

Repair ship question:

The Hydrans have been kicked off map. Therefore their repair ships also start in the off-map area. The old Hydran capital hex has recently been taken back by the Hydrans, and EPs have accumulated in that hex (since the old Hydran capital has been cut off from the OC). If the Hydrans decide to send a repair ship to 617 to perform some repairs, can that repair ship use the EPs stored in 617?

ANSWER: I don't see why not. It seems logical that the grid containing the repair ship is the grid that should pay for the repairs.

===================================

Daniel G. Knipfer:

Robert P,

If 0617 is cut off from the main (off-map) grid, how can the repair ships get there? Don't they require a valid supply path? If there's a valid supply path then there's no partial grid.

ANSWER: This is not mandatory due to (422.13) which allows you to swap your repair ships between a capital grid and the off map grid turn to turn as you see fit. The repair ships can start their "movement" at either grid as you see fit. And if there are two grids they are by definition cut off from each other.

======================================

Tim Losberg:

Nick, regarding Colonies.

There is nothing specific in the 446.4 rules about how it interacts with raids. Raids for example can destroy the defences of a planet but cannot devestate the planet. Can a raid, through selective attack) destroy the Colony or would that level of damage be more akin to what is needed to devestate a planet?

ANSWER: Rule (446.4) has a reference to (508.3) PDU construction which makes no sense. I suspect that it is supposed to be (508.2) or (508.21), i.e. is refering to devestation. The remainder of (446.4) seems to me to bear this out as it compares the 8 colony damage points to the 10 required to devestate a planet. Also note that like planetary devestation, colony damage is repaired for free (although much quicker than planetary devestation). Assuming that is correct then I would say a raid cannot destroy a colony as raids cannot do "devestation" damage.

====================================

Sean Dzafovic:

I'll have to ask for an appeal on that question regarding Paul Howard's question about when a planet joins the owners supply grid.

ANSWER: You have to give some evidence why this would be the case (ruleswise). The rule says "next player turn", not "next owner player turn", or "next capturing player turn". Next player turn means next player turn unless there is another rule that says otherwise.

======================================

John E. Kollar:

Okay quick question about the Federation Limited War. If there is no attack on the Fed on Turn 7, then rule 602.46(F&E2K) says that the Fed economy if limited to 0.75. Also, rule 602.15 (F&E2K) says that for Turn 7 the Fed has 0.75x economy (it is 1.00 for turns 8 and 9). So what does the Fed get on Turn 7? Is it 0.75, 0.75x0.75? Also, does 602.46 hold during limited war, then when the Fed goes to "full war" they get 0.75 the first turn and 1.00 for the second turn and later. Also, does Fed exhaustion get put off one turn?

Basically, which case is right?

Case 1: Turn 7: 0.75; Turn 8+: 1.00
Case 2: Turn 7: 0.75x0.75; Turn 8+: 1.00
Case 3: Turn 7: 0.75; Turn 8: 0.75; Turn 9+: 1.00

Assuming that the Klingon assault happens on Turn 8.

ANSWER: Why is there no attack??? This is a war game!!!! You are the Klingons!!!! ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!! KILL KILL KILL!!!! C'MON PEOPLE!!!!! Sigh...

You are at .75 while at limited war. Just .75 times your full economy. When you go to full war you get all of it. Which case it is depends on when you go to full war, but Case 2 above is wrong in either case.

================================

Sean Dzafovic:

And why would the planet be integrated into the Coalition supply grid when its not the Coalition player's turn?

ANSWER: Because that is what the rule says.

It doesn't make alot of sense when you combine it with the rule that you have to wait two turns to gather income from a captured planet.

At least this progression makes sense:

Capture on Coalition T8.
Connect to Coalition supply grid on Coalition T9.
Get income on Coalition T10.

Being able to immediately use a captured enemy planet as a supply node does not.

That is the basis for my appeal/question anyway. Is it current owning player turn? Or any player turn?

ANSWER: It is next player turn period. The rule for inclusion in your supply grid and getting income are two separate rules with two separate time limits.

========================================

Robert Padilla:

Is it correct that by the SIT the Lyrans (or another race if it applies) can build a DCS in Y177 (T18), a full two turns before PF are introduced? Are they treated the same way as heavy fighter carriers before heavy fighter introduction?

ANSWER: I would imagine that is an error. The heavy fighters existed before the "heavy fighter date" which tells you when you can do certain things like pods. Some heavy fighter carriers are available before said date. PFs did not exist before the PF date, so I can't see how you could have a ship carrying PFs before that date. Perhaps it is carrying interceptors, but I don't know what interceptor factors look like. For now I would say it is best to limit all PF tenders/carriers to the PF introduction date as you have always done. Is there a topic for SIT issues? I can't remember. If so this should be posted there.

====================================

Sean Dzafovic:

Can a single cripple block or unblock supply?

The relevant rules seem to be:

(411.31) The Supply Route cannot pass through a hex adjacent to enemy ships unless the Supply Route hex contains friendly ships or is adjacent to friendly ships (including the ships being supplied). Note the distinct use of the terms "ships" and "units".

(411.34) Units (e.g. monitors) which cannot react do not block (or unblock) supply in an adjacent hex. Fighters or PFs based on such a unit (not a PDU) could react and would block (but not unblock) supply.

(411.31) mentions ships but does not mention repair status.
(411.34) says that any unit [that by (102.0) includes ships] which cannot react does not block/unblock supply, and cripples can't react due to (205.14).

I know what I'd like the answer to be, but then again I'm biased in this situation.

ANSWER: Right, units (crippled ships) that cannot react do not block/unblock supply. That makes sense to me.

=================================

Fabio Poli:

PDU construction on a devastated capital planet.

PDU construction on a capital planet does not need any tug and if there are any other PDU present they start functioning immediately.
On a capital planet without PDU they start functioning at the start of the next friendly turn.

Is there anything the enemy,in his turn, can do to prevent the placement? (aside conquer the capital hex)
I mean, are the PDU already at the planet in the enemy turn so they can be destroyed? (and BTW how?)

ANSWER: You cannot target PDUs in the process of being set up (same as you cannot target a Mobile Base in the process of being set up. If you redevestate the planet (502.21) then any PDUs in the process of being set up are destroyed. Stewart Frazier is correct.

==============================

Christopher E. Fant:

NIck, I have a petition for appeal.

You ruled that upgrading a CVT->CVT+ counts against carrier production limits. Similar to the conversion of a CVL->CVS.

However, this is an odd duck because one is upgrading the PODS that are on the CVT. Basically welding VP3s in place of VP2s. And upgrading the other VP2s VP3s does not count against carrier limits.

I would like to appeal that ruling.

Chuck Strong:

Concur with Chris.

ANSWER: But there are no pods anymore. Hardwelding them to the ship makes them part of the ship. Yes, you can pull them off for free to get the tug back, but you lose the pods in the process as they are no longer independent units. You are upgrading the ship to get more fighter factors, and thus it would seem to fall under that cap log 26 ruling which says the general rule is any ship that gains fighter factors in a conversion counts against your carrier production. The ruling lists an exception or two, but does not list the klingon CVT. I don't want to change it now as it has been in print for several years. Do you have a REAL GOOD REASON why it should be changed (i.e. rule contradiction, major balance problem)? If not just let it be. I really really really don't want to add to the list of things in cap logs that have been rescinded. I don't even have such a list, I know there are a couple of such items, but I don't want to add more.

Appealing is to correct ruling errors posted in this topic before the get printed in Cap Log. Remember that the rulings in Cap Log have already been reviewed by SVC, so how can you appeal it to me? It is more along the lines of a rules change, and there is a separate topic for that.

===================================

Todd E Jahnke:

Is it legal for a race to raid a province from which it drew income it its current player turn?

ANSWER: You cannot raid a province you control (or I can't think why you would want to), but you can raid (attack) an enemy ship in such a province. If you don't control the province then you can raid it. I don't think you can "preemptivly raid" a province you think you are about to lose to the enemy.

====================================

Christopher E. Fant:

Another question, that I know has been asked many a time, but I cannot find something that covers it.

If a non-phasing carrier is in combat and loses fighters, can it retrograde on the phasing player turn?

ANSWER: I don't think fighter loss counts as CEDS damage. Damage to escorts and the carrier allow you to retro on the opposing player's turn (308.131A).

===================================

Robert Padilla:

Can a tug acting as a supply point use reaction movement?

ANSWER: Reaction (205.0) is a type of movement. Rule (412.2) first sentence says a supply tug cannot move by any means. So no, a supply tug cannot react.

===============================

Robert Padilla:

To gain the CR increase of an ADM, does the ADM and the flagship have to be of the same race?

The rules under 316.0 make no mention that they have to be of the same race. So it's possible, for example, to have a Lyran ADM on a BC augment a Klingon fleet with a +1 to CR, if the Klingons do not have an ADM.

ANSWER: Rule (316.228) provides for an incompentent admiral to have its effect (you have no choice). Any other admiral is prevented (316.146) from functioning on an allied ship.

======================================

Bill Schoeller:

In 604.0 Tholians get PF1 on turn 24 (spring 180). In the ship information table for 2K the Tholian PFT has an intro date of Y179. Do the Tholians get prototype PF's early?

ANSWER: No, could be an error on the SIT. As far as I know there are no exceptions to the PF intro dates.

=====================================
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 10:49 am: Edit

Nick

(sound of broken record track again....)

Can I repair sell captured ships which have not been converted to my technology at normal prices to the Wyn? In our game, we are assuming it is allowed (both sides have done it).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 11:20 am: Edit

Another question.

The Zin start the turn with two supply grids, one being the Marquis provinces, and the other being the Home/off-map area. By the end of their turn, there is a supply route between the two. While EPs cannot be transferred from the EP stockpile in the Marquis grid to that of the Home grid, could I use Marquis-grid EPs to CEDS-repair carriers at 1401 without having to pay smugglers? I note that this effectively happens all the time - the SBs in the main grid outside the homeworld must draw EPs from the supply grid in order to effect repairs, else they would not be able to use their full repair capacity. All that happens now is that the EPs are being drawn from a specific stockpile in the Marquis grid (at the SB presumably).

On a further note, in the case in question, the Duke's SB formed a third grid at the beginning of the turn. Suppose that was also connected up dring the Kzinti turn? Could I move a repair ship (from 1401) to the Duke's SB to aid a repair effort there, using Marquis-grid EPs?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Can I get some further clarifiaction on a tug acting as a supply point reacting? I realize 412.2 says that is can not move during the "Player Turn" it is acting as a supply point. But, is that Player Turn just the turn it is designated as a supply point, or all player turns until the owner changes it's role?

About my ADM question, I was not asking if an allied admiral was on one of your ships, but having the case where an allied admiral and an allied ship (same race) are in the battle force, but the flagship of the battle force is of a different race (since admirals do not have to be on the flagship).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Another question.

Small scale combat.

We have the Zin at 0802 attacking a DWS, DD and FF with a CD,PT, FFG and 6 fighter factors.

During battleforce determination, the DWS and FF are shunted out as unchosen flagships, and the FFG is also left out. I assume that is legal (withdrawals and unchosen flagships can still be used in SSC).

This leaves a CD+PT and 6 fighter factors vs an DD.

Questions
1) Does 318.71 apply? I.e. As there is only one ship and 6 fighter factors on the Zin side, are we immediately shunted onto 310.0? Or do the 6 fighter factors count as a ship here? Suppose the Zin had 18 fighter factors and a CD - would 310.0 still be invoked as it may be for 6 fighters?

2) If 318.71 does not apply we are shunted onto 310.0 by 318.72 anyway.

Now both these shunts say that 310.0 must be used if the conditions are satisfied.

Going onto 310.0, it says that 310.0 is only used if the defence factor of the defending unit is less than 1.5 times the attack factor of the attacking unit. So, do we then move onto normal combat despite being told we "must" use 310.0? In that case, the rest of the 318.72 rule becomes decidedly wierd as it obviously assumes that you are not going to be shunted out of 310.0 into normal combat. Indeed, 318.74 even gives modifiers for combat under 318.72, so how would these modifiers be applied if the 318.72 combat is done using the normal combat system??

Would it make any difference if we were shunted onto 310.0 by 318.71 as opposed to 318.72? Note that in the case given, if we are shunted into 310.0 by 318.71, the CD and fighters are not combined into a single unit. One could therefore argue that (5*1.5 = 7.5) is greater than the CD or the fighter's individual combat factors, leaving the combat as single combat.

Please clarify this situation. My interpretation was that once 318.71/318.72 put you into single combat, 310.0 could not bounce it back out into normal combat - indeed, the whole section where 310.0 describes when it is used is rendered redundant by the advanced small scale combat rule, which takes over.

It would also be useful to have a ruling on whether a force of one ship and fighters/PFs counts for SSC under 318.71. Indeed, can the PAL count for SSC?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 05:41 pm: Edit

A mixed SFU history and rules question (for the update of The Hurricane (603.0) I'm working on.) How do I reconcile the following inconsistency:

From the A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GENERAL WAR - 1995:
________________________________________
Quote:
ROMULAN INVASION OF THE FEDERATION, Y173

Then it got worse. The Day of the Eagle (4 January Y173) dawned, and the Romulan Fleet drove across the Federation border, smashing two starbases (those of the 6th and 7th Fleets)... (Note: The 7th Fleet SB (Tholian Border) is in 2915.)
________________________________________
However in the original Hurricane scenario (603.42) (unchanged from 1986 edition), it states:
________________________________________
Quote:
KLINGONS: Captured provinces 2007, 2010, 2210, 2212, 2512, 2514, 2813 and 2815.
All bases in this area are destroyed. (Note: Province 2813 contains the 7th Fleet SB at 2915.)
________________________________________
So, can this be reconciled by:

1. Is the 1986 (unchanged in F&E2K**) version correct and the 1995 dated on-line history wrong?

OR

2. (Recommended) Should the scenario reflect the more up-to-date "history" and change the (603.42) text to read from:
All bases in this area are destroyed.
to
All BATS in this area are destroyed . (This leaves the history correct as stated.)

OR

3. (Some other answer)

**Final Note: When we updated F&E2K, I seem to recall that we largely ignored the four scenarios [(602.0) - (605.0)] as there was not enough time to update the with other material from the old CvW/SO/MA modules and that we did not have many reports on them to start.

Thanks,
Chuck
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 04:00 am: Edit

Nick,

You did not answer Robert P.'s Question on Admirals. The question is; If I have a Klingon Admiral on a D7C in a Battle Force being commanded by a Lyran battle tug (or any other CR-10 Lyran ship) does the Klingon Admiral provide it's +1 to the command rating of the flag ship. If the Flag ship was a Klingon battle tug it would do so. But does it do so for an Allied Flag Ship?

(316.21) says that an Admiral increases the max command rating even if not on the nominal flag ship. No where that I can find requires the Admiral to be of the same race as the flag ship. Only to be on a ship of his own race.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:03 am: Edit

======================================

David Slatter:

Can I repair sell captured ships which have not been converted to my technology at normal prices to the Wyn? In our game, we are assuming it is allowed (both sides have done it).

ANSWER: I don't see why not. The WYNs are just going to convert it again regardless of whose tech the ship is to begin with so...

==================================

David Slatter:

The Zin start the turn with two supply grids, one being the Marquis provinces, and the other being the Home/off-map area. By the end of their turn, there is a supply route between the two. While EPs cannot be transferred from the EP stockpile in the Marquis grid to that of the Home grid, could I use Marquis-grid EPs to CEDS-repair carriers at 1401 without having to pay smugglers? I note that this effectively happens all the time - the SBs in the main grid outside the homeworld must draw EPs from the supply grid in order to effect repairs, else they would not be able to use their full repair capacity. All that happens now is that the EPs are being drawn from a specific stockpile in the Marquis grid (at the SB presumably).

ANSWER: I don't see why not.

On a further note, in the case in question, the Duke's SB formed a third grid at the beginning of the turn. Suppose that was also connected up dring the Kzinti turn? Could I move a repair ship (from 1401) to the Duke's SB to aid a repair effort there, using Marquis-grid EPs?

ANSWER: Sure.

=====================================

Robert Padilla:

Can I get some further clarifiaction on a tug acting as a supply point reacting? I realize 412.2 says that is can not move during the "Player Turn" it is acting as a supply point. But, is that Player Turn just the turn it is designated as a supply point, or all player turns until the owner changes it's role?

ANSWER: Presumably until it changes its role.

About my ADM question, I was not asking if an allied admiral was on one of your ships, but having the case where an allied admiral and an allied ship (same race) are in the battle force, but the flagship of the battle force is of a different race (since admirals do not have to be on the flagship).

ANSWER: It seems to be allowed. It is not specifically disallowed, and so long as you meet all other rules requirements, then the admiral has the stated effect.

=====================================

David Slatter:

We have the Zin at 0802 attacking a DWS, DD and FF with a CD,PT, FFG and 6 fighter factors.

During battleforce determination, the DWS and FF are shunted out as unchosen flagships, and the FFG is also left out. I assume that is legal (withdrawals and unchosen flagships can still be used in SSC).

ANSWER: The ships you left out I believe can be left out, but I don't understand the parenthetical part you said, it makes no sense, if you left them out then they aren't in combat, small scale or otherwise, because you left them out, right?

This leaves a CD+PT and 6 fighter factors vs an DD.

Questions
1) Does 318.71 apply? I.e. As there is only one ship and 6 fighter factors on the Zin side, are we immediately shunted onto 310.0? Or do the 6 fighter factors count as a ship here? Suppose the Zin had 18 fighter factors and a CD - would 310.0 still be invoked as it may be for 6 fighters?

ANSWER: No, I believe that term "ships" in (318.71) is meant to include "ship equivalents" as well. So in your case one side as 1 ship, and the other side has 2 ships or equivalents.

2) If 318.71 does not apply we are shunted onto 310.0 by 318.72 anyway.

ANSWER: Right.

Now both these shunts say that 310.0 must be used if the conditions are satisfied.

Going onto 310.0, it says that 310.0 is only used if the defence factor of the defending unit is less than 1.5 times the attack factor of the attacking unit. So, do we then move onto normal combat despite being told we "must" use 310.0? In that case, the rest of the 318.72 rule becomes decidedly wierd as it obviously assumes that you are not going to be shunted out of 310.0 into normal combat. Indeed, 318.74 even gives modifiers for combat under 318.72, so how would these modifiers be applied if the 318.72 combat is done using the normal combat system??

ANSWER: It depends. If this is a raid, you should do small scale combat in any case, and use the appropriate modifiers. If this is a general combat situation, you could do normal combat, and if so you would not use any small scale modifiers since you aren't doing small scale combat, right? The test at the start of 310 is meant to apply when you are in a general combat hex to help determine whether to use normal combat or small scale. Raids and certain other things tell you to use small scale combat by default, so the 310 test is unnecessary.

Would it make any difference if we were shunted onto 310.0 by 318.71 as opposed to 318.72? Note that in the case given, if we are shunted into 310.0 by 318.71, the CD and fighters are not combined into a single unit. One could therefore argue that (5*1.5 = 7.5) is greater than the CD or the fighter's individual combat factors, leaving the combat as single combat.

ANSWER: Moot, see above. You are sent to 310 by the small force rule, not the single ship rule since one side has more than one ship or equivalent.

Please clarify this situation. My interpretation was that once 318.71/318.72 put you into single combat, 310.0 could not bounce it back out into normal combat - indeed, the whole section where 310.0 describes when it is used is rendered redundant by the advanced small scale combat rule, which takes over.

ANSWER: Right, the 310 test was originally for use before advanced small scale combat, raids and other stuff was added. When you had two small ships meet in a regular combat hex, the 310 test was to help determine if small combat or regular combat was better. It doesn't work so well when mixing it with the advanced rules.

It would also be useful to have a ruling on whether a force of one ship and fighters/PFs counts for SSC under 318.71. Indeed, can the PAL count for SSC?

ANSWER: See above, I would say that (318.71) includes checking for ship equivalents.

===================================

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 05:41 pm: Edit


A mixed SFU history and rules question (for the update of The Hurricane (603.0) I'm working on.) How do I reconcile the following inconsistency:

Is the Fed 7th starbase historically destroyed by the Klingons or the Romulans? (paraphrased)

ANSWER: I don't know. This is a question for Steve not me, you might just want to ask him. No doubt the scenario could be balanced either way you see fit.

========================================
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Nick, I think that DavidS real question is whether one can go to the small scall combat after starting the regular combat sequence (as that's how the number of ships were reduced)...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:42 pm: Edit

Stewart,

Yes. The small scale combat is determined round by round after such things as withdrawal, unused flagships, general losses of ships, etc... One round could be regular while another round could be small scale.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 11:30 pm: Edit

Okay, so both sides start with 4 ships and winnow it down to SSC (each excludes two candidates, and only puts the one required ship up); the result ends up being "defender withdraws", say. This forces all four defending ships out of the hex, right? (Just checking that I'm reading the rules correctly.)
By John W. Lawton (Kyloth) on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 02:50 am: Edit

Hi:
I was looking over Starbases and I was wondering, if a SFG Starbase can have 2 SFGs, 4 Ftr modules and also add 2 PF modules(or PAM instead of 1 PF Module) as well or is it limited to 2 SFGs and the 4 Ftr Modules?
Thanks
John
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 11:48 am: Edit

Dave: I would imagine so. Crippled or destroyed result would logically only apply to the ship that was in combat, but the retreat result must apply to all ships in the hex since you can't retreat just one ship (except for capital battles). Raids may sometimes work a bit differently, as stated in their rules, I am talking about general combat situations here.

=====================

John:

SFGs are internal to the starbase core. The fighter modules and PF modules are external latch on modules, so a single starbase can have two SFG kits, two PF modules, and 4 Fighter modules all at once.

The Power module also is external and must replace a PF module as you noted.

=========================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 11:55 am: Edit

Correction to an earlier ruling on monitors and captured monitors.

If a monitor is crippled, it is automatically released as per (519.16). So all captured monitors are logically released since they will by default be crippled when captured or re-captured.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Nick, I did not know that, is the use of SSC optional or forced?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 11:41 pm: Edit

Nick, this is the opposite of the ruling you gave on SSC before. Why the change?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 08:54 am: Edit

I'm with Chris on this one, as I was the one that asked a very similiar question back in Jan 2004, and these were the answers:

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 07:19 pm

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

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 Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 01, 2004 - 09:10 pm

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 Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:23 am: Edit

I don't know. Its in the sequence of play (which step you test for SSC), but I am away from my rules for the next week.

Look in the sequence of play (Advanced Ops) and go with that.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:34 am: Edit

SSC determination is Step 5-3J (PO SOP)

That's right at the end of battleforce dermination. After withdrawals and rejected flagships. Even after penal honor duels have been resolved and battleforces exposed. Right before Battle intensity choices.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 04:30 pm: Edit

There you go then. If a prior ruling was different it may have been before the later versions of the sequence of play that clarified things more. As far as I know the current sequence of play is how it is resolved.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I know there are some unanswered issues here as well, but that's because all the small scale combat stuff was printed in a number of places across several products. Whenever one rule grows like that it gets messy. One thing is that mentioned above, if you have a ship in small scale combat and a second ship left off due to the unchosen flagship rule, and the small scale combat ship is forced to retreat by the SSC table, does the unchosen flagship also have to retreat, or can you choose to fight another round with it? The answer may depend on whether this was a raid (supposed to be one round) or regular combat. The simplest solution (which may or may not be the best solution) is to require all ships in the hex at that point to retreat. A cripple/destroyed result would only apply to the ship in combat of course, requiring a subsequent combat round to deal with any remaining ships that chose not to retreat at that point. There are other issues as well. It is something that will need to be looked at when the master war book is done.
By John W. Lawton (Kyloth) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 02:47 pm: Edit

Hi:
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I am trying to make Base counters for my game and I need to double check the values.
If I have a Federation BATS with 1 Fighter Module and 1 Heavy (F111) Module and it is crippled, the values on the back are:
1 with triangle (to represent 1 1/2 Fighters left)
4H with triangle (to represent 4 1/2 Fighters left)
6 defense strength.
If yes to the above, how about a Klingon BATS with 1 Fighter Module and a PF Module. The values would be the same for defense and Fighters (assuming the above is corrrct), but what happens to the P, is it displayed on the back or do I indicate that it is a 1/2 P, or drop it altogether?
Thanks
John
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 02:54 pm: Edit

according to the SIT, Crippled Bats still retain their "P"
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 07:43 pm: Edit

I believe all crippled PF tenders retain their P.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 08:05 pm: Edit

I think they can hold only 3xPF not the full 6xPFs...that is the way my group play it ...like a crippled carries or bases have their fighters capability half ....mholiver
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 08:20 pm: Edit

From F&E 2K
"(502.32) ....Crippled PFTs can carry a full flotilla but (like crippled scouts) do not have scout functions."

PFTs get their full 6 PFs. Only SBs loose any PF carrying capability as a crippled SB only has one flotilla of 6 PFs (not their full 12). All other units retain their full 6 PFs.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:27 am: Edit

And DGK wins the prize!
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 05:08 pm: Edit

ok..... I was wrong....hhhhmmmm new ideas in the next game Im in....mholiver
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Oh, I get a prize!!! I'll take Tholia. That sounds like a nice prize.
By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 08:14 pm: Edit

How about a tribble?
You can use it as a toupee, just like William Shatner did.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Roger,

Hair is overrated. I think I'll stick with Tholia.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:20 am: Edit

And then, Mike Curtis will atteck with the Klingon / Romulan Coalition, lose 71 ships and take the Dyson Sphere as spoils of war...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Once upon a time I answered a question in this topic and the prize I won was to then get to answer all the questions...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Getting tired of it yet
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 07:47 pm: Edit

A question on Prime Team Espionage & Sabotage rules.

In my current game I have captured a Klingon D7. In retrograde I moved it to the Marquis’ SB for conversion. During the next Coalition turn the Klingon player was all set to go rescue it before I can convert it until we realized that rule (534.244) doesn't specify automatically moving the ship to a friendly supply point. The rule says, “On a successful mission, one specific size-3 ship previously captured by the enemy is returned to its owner.” If the Klingons succeed in their rescue attempt does the ship magically appear at a friendly node or does it wait for the movement phase to move? It would be moving away from the SB so nothing at that base could react during movement.

And regardless of how a rescued ship moves, would rescuing a captured Klingon ship inside of the Marquis' deployment zone using (534.244) activate the Federation under (601.12)? Also, would the very attempt to conduct a rescue activate the Fed under (601.12) as the rule says that any Coalition unit entering the Marquis’ zone activates the Fed?

We’ve stopped at the Movement phase and can easily back up to handle the rescue attempt as it doesn’t affect any other movement. Thanks.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:13 am: Edit

Technically, the answer would be no Fed activation as the Klingons did not ENTER Marquis space (as the Kzinti moved the hull to the SB)...
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 05:20 am: Edit

Yes they did - they entered an Esponiage/sabotage team. Might like to check whether that triggers anything.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 05:30 am: Edit

Prime Teams are Units so David is right that something entered the Marquis', but as it is not the normal movement step is that enough to trigger the Fed?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:38 am: Edit

A question about advanced deficet spending:

Once a race starts using ADS, would it be true to say that race's carry over of economic points from that point forward could never be less than zero (since the negative would become the National Debt)?

Also, if that same race used drone bombardment, CEDS repair, or any of the other things that can be used to spend EPs outside the production step, does that debt simply get added onto the National Debt? If the race happens to have a positive income balance, can that race opt to deduct the EPs spent from what they have available instead of increasing the National Debt?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 01:37 pm: Edit

That raises a couple of interesting questions: By the second paragraph of rule (PO-447.0), once you start using ADS you can't use (430.6). This means that if you use ADS, you can only borrow money in the Economics Phase (447.11) and combat (477.2), and can't borrow money at any other time (e.g., Strategic Movement). However, the first paragraph indicates that this is additional borrowing. So which is right, paragraph one (you can borrow in Economics, and in other phases per (430.6)), or the second paragraph (once you use ADS, you can't use normal deficit spending, and thus can't borrow outside of Economics)?
Secondly, is the reference in (447.0) to the borrowing in the Economics phase being "additional" to be taken literally? If so, this would mean that I can borrow up to the limit in (430.62) during Economics, and up to that same amount in the Combat Phase (since the Economics borrowing is "additional" to what I could do before). This'll blow me through exhaustion turns like crazy, natch.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 02:10 pm: Edit

I took 447.0 to mean that you can borrow in the Production phase as well as the other phases where you normally could borrow. But where it starts getting funny is when you have stuff like transfers, ComCons, selling ships to the WYN, WYN trade, scrapping ships, etc where you can make money after the Production phase. Does future deficiet spending subtract from that kind of stuff, or does it just add up in the National Debt, meaning there's no way to avoid racking up debt, but at the same time you'd have more disposible income.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Nick,
Fed Tug+BATS over Kzinti is cut off from the Fed grid by distance, can I set the Tug or the BATS as a expedition fleet and upgrade the BATS to a SB? Whould both need to be set or can I just set the Base and the base itself supplies the tug to do the upgrade?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Nick, will you be getting a chance to tackle the outstanding questions this weekend?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 10:33 pm: Edit

Since I actually have a day off work Sunday, yes, this topic is on my to do list.
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:47 am: Edit

Nick, some B9 questions (CL31):

Can the B9 be used in raids? Carrier raids?

Can it mount an SFG? Two SFGs? Does it rate a new entry in the SFG table, or can we just use the B10 entry?

How do the Klingons construct a B9?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:09 pm: Edit

=========================================

John W. Lawton:

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I am trying to make Base counters for my game and I need to double check the values.
If I have a Federation BATS with 1 Fighter Module and 1 Heavy (F111) Module and it is crippled, the values on the back are:
1 with triangle (to represent 1 1/2 Fighters left)
4H with triangle (to represent 4 1/2 Fighters left)
6 defense strength.
If yes to the above, how about a Klingon BATS with 1 Fighter Module and a PF Module. The values would be the same for defense and Fighters (assuming the above is corrrct), but what happens to the P, is it displayed on the back or do I indicate that it is a 1/2 P, or drop it altogether?

ANSWER: As others pointed out the crippled side still has a full PF flotilla. The other things make sense.

========================================

Daniel G. Knipfer:

A question on Prime Team Espionage & Sabotage rules.

In my current game I have captured a Klingon D7. In retrograde I moved it to the Marquis’ SB for conversion. During the next Coalition turn the Klingon player was all set to go rescue it before I can convert it until we realized that rule (534.244) doesn't specify automatically moving the ship to a friendly supply point. The rule says, “On a successful mission, one specific size-3 ship previously captured by the enemy is returned to its owner.” If the Klingons succeed in their rescue attempt does the ship magically appear at a friendly node or does it wait for the movement phase to move? It would be moving away from the SB so nothing at that base could react during movement.

ANSWER: I assume the intention was that it "instantly" moves to the required supply node within six hexes at the time the rescue attempt succeeds.

And regardless of how a rescued ship moves, would rescuing a captured Klingon ship inside of the Marquis' deployment zone using (534.244) activate the Federation under (601.12)? Also, would the very attempt to conduct a rescue activate the Fed under (601.12) as the rule says that any Coalition unit entering the Marquis’ zone activates the Fed?

ANSWER: I don't think so, I believe it was ruled that a raid (province disruption) in the Marquis does not activate the Feds, so I don't think this will either.

======================================

Robert Padilla:

A question about advanced deficet spending:

Once a race starts using ADS, would it be true to say that race's carry over of economic points from that point forward could never be less than zero (since the negative would become the National Debt)?

Also, if that same race used drone bombardment, CEDS repair, or any of the other things that can be used to spend EPs outside the production step, does that debt simply get added onto the National Debt? If the race happens to have a positive income balance, can that race opt to deduct the EPs spent from what they have available instead of increasing the National Debt?

ANSWER: I belive the intention was that the advanced rules are in addition to the regular rules, so you can both deficit spend during production and during the game turn (combat and otherwise). The part that is irrevocably changed is the payback method, you can never go back to the basic (free) repayment method, you must use the new system (paying interest). Note that you still use the limits in (430.62) under the new system, and this is a total limit for the turn (production borrowing, plus borrowing during the turn). And if you have a balance of EPs, you can always spend those before adding to your debt.

===================================

Dave Butler:

That raises a couple of interesting questions: By the second paragraph of rule (PO-447.0), once you start using ADS you can't use (430.6). This means that if you use ADS, you can only borrow money in the Economics Phase (447.11) and combat (477.2), and can't borrow money at any other time (e.g., Strategic Movement). However, the first paragraph indicates that this is additional borrowing. So which is right, paragraph one (you can borrow in Economics, and in other phases per (430.6)), or the second paragraph (once you use ADS, you can't use normal deficit spending, and thus can't borrow outside of Economics)?
Secondly, is the reference in (447.0) to the borrowing in the Economics phase being "additional" to be taken literally? If so, this would mean that I can borrow up to the limit in (430.62) during Economics, and up to that same amount in the Combat Phase (since the Economics borrowing is "additional" to what I could do before). This'll blow me through exhaustion turns like crazy, natch.

ANSWER: The new borrowing in the production step is in addition to the original borrowing during the turn, but the limit is still a per turn limit just like before.

============================================

Robert Padilla:

I took 447.0 to mean that you can borrow in the Production phase as well as the other phases where you normally could borrow. But where it starts getting funny is when you have stuff like transfers, ComCons, selling ships to the WYN, WYN trade, scrapping ships, etc where you can make money after the Production phase. Does future deficiet spending subtract from that kind of stuff, or does it just add up in the National Debt, meaning there's no way to avoid racking up debt, but at the same time you'd have more disposible income.

ANSWER: The limit you can borrow per turn is based on your actual income as calculated at the start of the turn. Money received during the turn as transfers and such does not let you borrow more later in the turn than the limit calculated, see (447.12). In the old system any money received from transfers would just go into the bank, perhaps givin you a positive total again, or in other words you could spend more than you had and pay it back asap. In the new system you must keep track of all borrowed money. You could for example, borrow money and not spend it during production, saving it for use during the turn. You could have debt, and then receive money during the turn from an ally giving you a positive total AND unpaid debt. In the basic system you have one thing to keep track of, your treasury which could be positive or negative. In the advanced system you have two things to keep track of, your treasury and your debt, and you can simultaneously have money in the treasury and have a non-zero debt.

Interestingly, what the rule lacks is a point in the sequence at which you are allowed to repay the debt. I think that it is meant to be in step 5 or 6 of the sequence in (447.3), i.e. if you borrow money at the start of the turn, and then get money form a mid-turn source during the turn, you cannot pay it back and reduce the interest payment required. You must wait until the production step, pay the required interest on what you actually borrowed, and then pay down the debt.

The other option is to allow mid-turn repayments. I.e. borrow 20 EPs in production, during your turn receive 10 EPs from a transfer and put that toward debt payment (reducing debt to 10 EPs), then on the next turn only have to pay 1 EP interest rather than 2 EPs interest.

I suspect the first case is correct (no mid-turn) repayments, but I will ask that this be clarified in the next Cap Log.

=============================================

Tim Losberg:

Fed Tug+BATS over Kzinti is cut off from the Fed grid by distance, can I set the Tug or the BATS as a expedition fleet and upgrade the BATS to a SB? Whould both need to be set or can I just set the Base and the base itself supplies the tug to do the upgrade?

ANSWER: The base is in supply anyway because it is a base (410.4). The tug would normally be in supply since it is stacked with the base (410.4), but not when in allied territory (410.54) so you need expeditionary status to get the tug in supply. You need the expeditionary status for the base to get the 30 EP starbase conversion cost paid (you can only smuggle 14 EPs via orions). I would say then that both units need to be declared expeditionary, the tug so it is in supply, and the base since that is what is being converted. I don't think you can pay the cost for just the base and get the tug in supply, the point to an expeditionary fleet is that you must pay the cost for each unit due to the distance.

==========================================

David Walend:

Nick, some B9 questions (CL31):

Can the B9 be used in raids? Carrier raids?

ANSWER: The rule says no battleships as raiders, but presumably this one can be used in raids since it is in fact called a fast RAIDING battleship in the notes on the SIT.

Can it mount an SFG? Two SFGs? Does it rate a new entry in the SFG table, or can we just use the B10 entry?

ANSWER: The SSD shows two SFGs, so sure. I would use the B10 entry on the stasis chart.

How do the Klingons construct a B9?

ANSWER: The sit shows a cost of 30, so I would use that if you are going for the direct build option (436.26). If using the standard dice rolling method, there is nothing defined, so I would use the same B10 system, roll dice to reach a total of 40. I suppose you could reduce that by the same percentage as the direct build cost (B9=30, B10=36), 30/36 is equal to 34/40 (rounding 33.33 up to 34), so under the standard dice rolling method you would roll to 40 for a B10 or 34 for a B9. Decide which one you are building when you make the first roll of course.

=====================================
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 09:34 am: Edit

I'm not sure where else to post this, so if this is not the right place I apologize.

According to 516.21F, and LTT can move a FRD as a full sized tug can. However, the Romulan SPH can not do this. The reason given is that it is still just a CW hull after all (516.33). But I would like to note that every other LTT is also 'just a CW hull'. So is the SPH really supposed to be limited like this, or is it perhaps a mistake?
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 02:17 pm: Edit

The Klingons are targeting a SAV in a Drone raid with 3 D6D.

There are plenty of other hydran ships in the hex. Can one be assigned as an ad-hoc escort on the spot?

If on-the-spot ad-hocs are not allowed in this case, is there anytime post combat that I could allocate an escort to the SAV during my previous turn. In the case in question, the SAV was escorted the previous turn, but the escorts retrograded elsewhere.

I assume that if I had an ad-hoc with the SAV previously and it retrograded with the SAV, it remains with the SAV for raid purposes?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 09:23 pm: Edit

Robert P.,

The SPH suffers from the CW curse because it isn't a purpose built LTT. It really is just a SP with a couple of special cargo containers strapped to the Module ports. Because of that it doesn't have engines specifically designed for an LTT so it can't modify its warp field in the same way that purpose built tugs & LTTs can.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 10:05 pm: Edit

OOO....techno babble
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 10:55 pm: Edit

It's even pre-existing techno babble. I'm just echoing what has been said before about tugs & LTTs.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:19 pm: Edit

==========================

Robert Padilla:

According to 516.21F, and LTT can move a FRD as a full sized tug can. However, the Romulan SPH can not do this. The reason given is that it is still just a CW hull after all (516.33). But I would like to note that every other LTT is also 'just a CW hull'. So is the SPH really supposed to be limited like this, or is it perhaps a mistake?

ANSWER: It is specifically limited. It is not quite a tug and not quite an LTT. It follows its own rules, see (516.33).

============================

David Slatter:

The Klingons are targeting a SAV in a Drone raid with 3 D6D.

There are plenty of other hydran ships in the hex. Can one be assigned as an ad-hoc escort on the spot?

ANSWER: I don't think so. In a normal battle where all the ships in the hex are in combat, you get to form groups at the start and end of combat. With the raid, the SAV is the only target, and if it didn't have escorts prior to this point then I believe it is stuck by itself.

If on-the-spot ad-hocs are not allowed in this case, is there anytime post combat that I could allocate an escort to the SAV during my previous turn. In the case in question, the SAV was escorted the previous turn, but the escorts retrograded elsewhere.

ANSWER: You can change/add escorts at the start and end of the combat step (515.15). CEDS can replace lost escorts during the retrograde step.

I assume that if I had an ad-hoc with the SAV previously and it retrograded with the SAV, it remains with the SAV for raid purposes?

ANSWER: Right. Rule (320.348) says carrier groups (and similar groups) WHICH HAVE REMAINED INTACT continue to function in that way. If you split the escorts off during retrograde or other movement, then I think you are stuck with that.

======================================