| Subtopic | Posts | Updated |
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 09:54 am: Edit |
January - Feburary 2006 Archive
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 12:25 am: Edit
Rule 312.47. D7A Salvage. If lost in pursuit do the Klingons roll for Boom seperation? There is no salvage or depot on pursuit. We don't think that they should be able roll for boom recovery.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 06:25 am: Edit
Chuck
Exactly - we want to use the raid phase to cut off some Romulan ships and it's looking rather difficult.
QUESTION.
We are placing 2 POLs in Fed territory. Can the second Pol be placed in a hex that only becomes in supply due to the presence of the first Pol?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 02:57 pm: Edit
RE: Raids vs Supply
Check the archives NOV 2003.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 09:22 am: Edit
Question about the Tug Rescue Mission (537.2). If the destroyed ship was part of a CV group, like an escort, would rescuing that ship remove that escort from the CV group? What if the CV was destroyed, could it still be part of the CV group?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 09:57 pm: Edit
ANSWER TO QUESTIONS
Apologies for the ridiculous delays here. I am always extremely busy during the holidays. And since the end of the holidays then I have just been lazy with regards to this topic.
=====================================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
1) Rule (534.14) states that "The two E&S teams cannot conduct the same type of mission on the same turn." Does this mean that a race cannot conduct two of the same mission (such as two 534.215 - Base Disruption missions or two 534.223 - Cripple a Ship mission) on the same turn) or two of the same category of missions (Disruption, Sabotage, Assassination, or Stealing)? Basically what is meant by "type" of mission - specific 534.2XX or one of the four catergories?
ANSWER: You cannot do the same exact mission twice. You cannot (534.213) disrupt the economy twice, you cannot (534.214) disrupt reaction movement of two enemy forces. You can disrupt the economy and disrupt the reaction movement of one enemy force at the same time however.
2) Rule (534.25) has modifiers for different size class ships with a +4 listed when a Battleship is the target. Since the success of a mission versus a ship occurs only on a roll of 2-5, a +4 modifier makes any mission against a BB an automatic failure. Are there any modifiers that would make it possible to achieve success on a mission vs. a BB other than rolling a natural two? Are there any modifiers at all that increase the chances of success on any E&S mission?
ANSWER: I am not aware of any other modifiers. "Results of 2 or 12 are never adjusted." insures you can still succeed with a result of 2, and even if the mission fails, the team will return on a roll of 3 (modified to 7). Battleships have the highest security as they were so expensive to build.
====================================
John Doucette:
Got a question on the B10. When forgoing a C8 for a second roll, does the Klingon player have to make that decision before rolling at all, or can he make a roll, see the results, then make the decision on subbing a second roll for his C8?
ANSWER: (436.21) says you pay 10 EPs and then you roll two dice. So you must decide to roll one die or decide to delete the scheduled DN, pay 10 EPs, then roll both dice. No rolling one die then deciding to roll the second.
=====================================
Ryan Opel:
Kzinti Marquis Fleet reaction. BATS 1805 is Duke Deployment Zone but Marquis Provinces. Can the Marquis fleet hold back react to an attack on the BATS? It is within the Marquis provinces.
ANSWER: BATS 1805 is Duke Deployment Zone. The Marquis Deployment Zone was changed to not include that BATS. The term "Marquis Provinces" doesn't really mean anything gamewise since the Deployment Zone is what counts. This is a case where the deployment zone does not match the province, and the zone is what is important for fleet release status and reaction, not the province. See (705.0), it says the Marquis deployment is provinces 1902 and 1803 but not within two hexes of the Klingon neutral zone but including hex 1704. You can call those province the Marquis provinces, but the lower province extends out of the marquis deployment zone so it is sort of a misnomer at this point.
=====================================
John Robinson:
Do replacement Federation CVLs count against the scout and/or carrier production limits?
ANSWER from Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 01:57 pm:
Yes, both. (At least, I think so.)
ANSWER from Nick Blank: I'll go with that.
======================================
Paul Howard:
Raids - 312
Just checking some (If I am right, it seems very odd!).
it seems, that a ship can react into a hex (314.24) and the, with the existing ship in the hex and can then refuse combat (314.244) - i.e it reacts into the hex to engage in combat - and then refuses it!
Logically - any force reacting must fight.
So question in case I have missed it - can a ship react into a raided hex and then refuse combat (the Reacting ship isn't a called up police ship)?
(The Intention is to keep a ship in certain hexes AFTER raids have occured!! - and this seems to be a way of guaranteeing it, as the raider can then target only one of the two ships in the hex - the existing ship and the reacting ship!) If this is illogically correct - tactic note to follow.
ANSWER: (314.244) says that the raider fights one round with the reacting ship and any defending ships. Then it says the defending ships may decline to fight. Rule (314.25) says any ships already in the hex may decline to fight. There is nothing that allows the reacting ship to decline that one round however. As far as I can tell, the reacting ship MUST fight one round of raid combat. Ships already present in the raid hex have the option (unless the raider uses the alternative attack to go after them), the reacting ship is committed since it is being directed to the enemy raider (that is what reaction is).
============================
By Ryan Opel:
Rule 312.47. D7A Salvage. If lost in pursuit do the Klingons roll for Boom seperation? There is no salvage or depot on pursuit. We don't think that they should be able roll for boom recovery.
ANSWER: I would have to agree. The salvage numbers for Klingons/Feds are higher to reflect boom/saucer recovery. Since you get no salvage for ships destroyed in pursuit, that means you are not recovering booms/saucers in pursuit. So it makes sense you wouldn't get stasis ship boom separation in pursuit either.
=============================
David Slatter:
We are placing 2 POLs in Fed territory. Can the second Pol be placed in a hex that only becomes in supply due to the presence of the first Pol?
ANSWER: I don't think so, the two POLs are called up simultaneously, so they must both follow the same restrictions on placement.
===============================
Robert Padilla:
Question about the Tug Rescue Mission (537.2). If the destroyed ship was part of a CV group, like an escort, would rescuing that ship remove that escort from the CV group? What if the CV was destroyed, could it still be part of the CV group?
ANSWER: It would still be part of the group (since it was in fact never actually destroyed). You could of course drop it from the group later under the normal rules. If the CV is destroyed, I don't think you have a group anymore, any surviving escorts are single ships at that point.
===============================
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, January 16, 2006 - 10:21 pm: Edit
Question on raids (AO-314.0): When a ship reacts to a raid (by (314.24)) and gets pinned in an intervening hex, when is the combat in the intervening hex resolved? (We played it that it waited until the Combat Phase, since it did not involve a raiding ship, but I'm wondering what the official word is.)
(The specific situation had a handful of Coalition ships on 0519 (including a D6 and a DWS) and a lone D6D on 0718. The Hydrans called a police ship up in 0618, then sent an RN(w/prime) to raid 0718 (trying to clear the D6D away). The Klinks used (314.241) to react a D6 from 0519 to 0618 (heading towards 0718), where it was pinned by the Hydran POL (per the usual Reaction rules referenced in (314.241)).)
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 09:28 am: Edit
Nick,
Were you able to bump up and get an answer on the question on how many points a Penal PF Flotilla's sacrifice mission resolves? Thanks.
--Paul
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 03:29 pm: Edit
Nick - I don't think my 'appeal' was ever answered - copy of post -
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
...............................
Specifically, Rule 203.731 - as Reserve fleets move 'simultanously'(?) - At the start of phase 203.731, no forces will be out of supply (and hence not eligible for rule 203.731) and so should the reserve fleet owner be willing to place a fleet out of supply - they will have to wait until the following turn to get them into supply. (It was the players choice to play the units out of supply, and so why should they be allowed to attack forces unrelated to any existing battles or supply lines?)
(As precedents go, this would be similar to Police Ship placement which was ruled that they are placed at the same time)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 04:51 pm: Edit
Sending appeals tonight as they are needed for Cap Log 32.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 01:11 am: Edit
Okay. Tried to work this out in my own head and am more confused than ever. Romulan SPH + FRD. For some reason the SPH counts as a CW for movement of a tug as its still just a CW hull (aren't all LTT just CW hulls?)
So
516.33 ... SPH functions as a full-sized tug with some limits provided in (509.21)...It cannot move an FRD by itself as it is still just a war cruiser hull.
Looking at FRD's
421.21 ...(Romulan SPH's are CW's for this rule.)...
Does this mean 421.21 specificly or 421 as a whole. Can the SPH move the FRD strategicly by itself. If it cannot this should be spelled out better and the Mission F should be listed in 509.21 as unavailable.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:12 am: Edit
While it's probably to late (what with the appeal having been sent off last night and all), I'd like to point out that Mr. Howard's last argument (saying that Reserve Fleets move simultaneously) is less than accurate. First off, there is no "phase 203.731": it's a rule number; the only timing listed is in the SoP, which simply refers back to the whole of (203.7). Hence (203.731) should apply at all times during Reserve Movement. Secondly, rule (203.732) states outright that Reserve movement is not simultaneous: you can't have a "subsequent" fleet to move unless there's an order to the movement; that's what the word means. Now, maybe the rules are hyper-specific, and (203.732)'s order of movement only applies for the specific situation in (203.732), but I can "abuse" that just as well as I can "abuse" your ruling. (Which, incidentally, I think was correct.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:19 am: Edit
I sent the last several months Q&A stuff, as well as what I had for appeals/rulings requests to Steve last night for inclusion in cap log.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 11:20 am: Edit
I will send this to him as well though, I don't know if he is working on it yet (s'posed to be today sometime).
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 06:44 pm: Edit
Nick,
Found another small one last night in some late night planning to invade the Feds...
When a ship returns from the Depot Repair System, does it get the same free Strategic Movement allowance as new construction and repaired ships?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 07:00 pm: Edit
No,
Signed.
His opponent
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:40 pm: Edit
Depot repaired ships get free strat; see (424.31) line 5.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 09:57 pm: Edit
ToddL, IIRC an FRD can be moved by a tug or LTT or a pair of warships (min COMPOT of 7). Due to the Romulan modular system, the SPH does not count as an LTT for FRD transport, but does count as a CW (7) hull so that 2 (or SPH/SPA) could transport an FRD under the warship rules.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 03:38 am: Edit
Nick - Please disregard - it's right there in the rules. DOH!
Chuck - Thanks. I hate it when I get a brain fart like that. Guess that will happen when you get off work after 1 a.m. and try to plot the course of the galaxy on too little sleep.
Ryan - It's only a D5 and an F5 ... they won't make that much of a difference storming over your Fed border. Besides, with as lousy as I have been rolling for Depot (those "1's" only seem to come up on my combat rolls, dang it!), you should give me double free strat moves!
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 02:20 pm: Edit
Stewart,
Not wanting to fuddle the Q&A with a running discussion 421.2 is relates to operational movement. 421.3 relates to strategic movement of the FRD, and there is nothing specificly in this portion of the rule that prohibits the SPH from moving the FRD via strat move. The entire rules sequence regarding the SPH, under Tugs, LTTs, and FRD's seems inconsistent.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:30 am: Edit
Todd, the Rom SPH is a special case in that it was part of the basic F&E to be used as tug in some cases (509.21).
Moving the FRD operationally, as a tug, was not one of them (421.21), therefore one would not think it could do so strategically (tug only, no subs - 421.3).
When LTTs were added, it was noted under limitations (516.33) that the SPH could not move FRDs as an LTT but as a warship.
Where's the inconsistency?
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 01:19 am: Edit
Stewart,
I'm really meaning that the wording is inconsistent.
To start, for vanilla F&E 509.21 does not say what the SPH CAN do but what it cannot do, which is missions A,B,G or L. Move an FRD is mission F and references 421.0.
So by not preventing mission E it gives the appearance of being able to move an FRD, and sends us to rule 421.0. When we read the 421.0 we see that in the section about Operational movement the SPH is considered a CW for this rule but no further prohibition is made under the Strat move section which states that the FRD can move via Strat as long as a Tug moves with it.
Now jump to 516.33 "Romulans: SPH functions as a full-sized tug with some limits provided in (509.21)" Mission E: moving an FRD is not a limit placed on the SPH in 509.21
Last line in 516.33 is "It (SPH) cannot move an FRD itself as it is still just a war cruiser hull." This seems to cover all types of movement (maybe) while looking at 421.21 may only relate to operational movement.
This is also important when looking a Vanilla F&E vs Combined Ops, CO has the most definative statement even if it is confusing. In vanilla F&E is appears to me that the SPH can haul via strat but not operational.
If the SPH is prevented from movement or an FRD by any means other than one of a pair of vanilla ships moving it operationally then mission E should be listed in 509.21 as prohibited.
And last just why is the SPH so much less capable than the other LTT's. I'm just curious, I have looked at an SSD in a decade or more and don't know what the radical difference it.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 08:23 am: Edit
FYI: He means Mission F throughout his whole post. "F" & "E" the two just seem to go together.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
While you're thinking about missions for LTT-like ships, which (if any) of the new missions in (PO-537.6) can the Klingon D5G perform? (I'm guessing that U (Haul DB points) and V (supply Special Raid) are likely okay, since the ship can both act as a supply source (mission E) and carry EPs (mission H). The Rescue Tug mission (W) I don't know about; I don't think there's anything physically stopping the ship from doing it.)
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 01:31 pm: Edit
Lar-
Thanks for the catch.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 02:16 pm: Edit
One more part to that question, Nick. Can the D5G do either of (a) colony development (PO-446.1) or (b) create a colonial base (446.5)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 08:51 pm: Edit
Yet another D5G mission question. Can it build minor shipyards (PO-450.1)?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:22 am: Edit
Todd, I agree on the wording and that the SPH should have been excluded from Mission F (or rather Mission F should have been added to the SPH's can not do list) then only the CW exception would be needed.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:45 am: Edit
Todd,
In order to perform any mission, a tug (or LTT) must be assigned it. Even though a SPH cannot move an FRD by itself, it still needs to be assigned that mission in order to assist.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 10:54 am: Edit
Nick, two quick questions:
First, sorry to be repetitive, but any progress on the question of how many points a Penal PF sacrifice mission resolves? I'm not sure if you noticed my nudge. Sorry if I'm being a pest.
Second question (or series of questions) about X-bases:
It's turn 24 (spring 180). The Klingons and Feds reach their X intro dates, and get their free X-starbase as a result.
a) can they use that starbase for x-conversions on T24, or do they have to wait until T25
b) do they get the free bonus XP on T24?
c) can they updgrade other bases to XSB, or do they have to wait until the SIT date of 182?
Thanks.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 12:25 pm: Edit
Rules references for Paul's questions:
(523.413) in Advanced Ops says that the base can be used for X-conversions on the turn it's upgraded.
(523.413) in the Q&A Archive File says that the base upgrade happens in the Production Step (implying that the bonus XTP is not received, since that would have happend in Economics).
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 02:50 pm: Edit
Jeff, Stewart-
I've got a headache now. This all needs to reworded for the Warbook to make it all easier to understand.
Lawrence and I were just discussing 421.23 and when the two reg ships are assigned to replace the tug for towing purposes. Is this on an as needed basis or is it done when Tug missions are assigned?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 04:15 pm: Edit
Indeed. Can a Tug with battle pods (or any other mission, for that matter) tow an FRD as one of the two ships per (421.23)?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 04:48 pm: Edit
Nick:
Maybe if you make a matrix and place an "X" where tug missions are authorized:
Mission Short Description Tugs LTTs SPH D5G Rom DN-Tugs
A . . . . . .
B . . . . . .
C . . . . . .
D . . . . . .
E . . . . . .
F . . . . . .
G . . . . . .
H . . . . . .
J . . . . . .
K . . . . . .
L . . . . . .
M . . . . . .
N . . . . . .
P . . . . . .
Q . . . . . .
R . . . . . .
S . . . . . .
T . . . . . .
This might be something we add to the War Book.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 09:55 pm: Edit
Great idea Chuck!
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 01:13 am: Edit
Dave, no, a BT has the Mission A and couldn't be assign another tug mission. Also, IIRC ships towing an FRD are physically attached to the FRD with a cradle system...
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 01:37 am: Edit
So the two ships in (421.23) are actually assigned a tug mission, despite them not being tugs?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 01:47 am: Edit
Logic would say that under (421.23) if two ships can take on a tug substitute mission then they too would have to be assigned a tug mission; therefore a tug with a mission already could not assume another.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 09:10 am: Edit
Chuck, I would tend to agree with that logic. Now all we need to add along with your table above is a clarifying statement (from Nick)regarding this issue. It would then appear in CL33 and then a formal ammendment in the Warbook.
I have to believe that SVC was/is planning a consolidation of all Tug(LTT) missions for the warbook anyway. Clearing this up now would get chalked up as progress on the warbook.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, January 23, 2006 - 07:08 pm: Edit
Question and an observation:
The question is about B8 production. Assuming a B8 candidate B10 is incomplete, can the Klingon player make his construction roll, then decide to forgo the C8 in order to bring out the B8, or does the incomplete B10 have to be at 20+ points at the start of the Production Phase? For example, a B10 is at 18 points. Can the Klingon roll for construction, then decide on B8 production, or does he have to make the B8 decision first?
On the Rom SPH, it was explained upthread (can't recall where and I don't feel like plowing through the clunky search engine) that the SPH was not a true LTT, in that the SPH's ability to perform tug missions was due to the fact that the SPH had a limited (or slightly better, depending on one's POV) pallet capacity but that otherwise it was just a regular CW; its warp engines, unlike those on LTTs and TGs, cannot form a warp bubble as those ships can.
I agree that the rule was hideously worded and needs a fix in the Master War Book.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 11:37 am: Edit
John,
Thanks for the techno-speak explaination of the SPH's apparent short comings.
Another question regarding LTT's in general. (516.21)Mission C:Deploy Mobile Base requires 2 LTT's to set up or move the MB.
Are 2 LTT's able to move a MB (undeployed of course) via strategic movement? If they are allowed is there any difference between the SPH and any other LTT?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar) on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 12:12 am: Edit
Todd, yes two SPHs can move/setup the MBs (the MB modules replace the cargo modules)...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 08:38 am: Edit
Actually according to 516.14, the SPH is treated as a standard tug, with the exception of 516.33 which specifically states it can not move an FRD by itself. And 509.21 only prohibitd the SPH from using battle/carrier/PF pods and from carrying DB points.
So that SPH should be allowed to move and setup a MB all by itself.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:29 am: Edit
Actually, there's no rule against the SPH carrying DB points (mission U, in PO); the prohibition is on Mission L (act as a DB platform). Can the SPH (or any tug of a race that cannot do DB) perform mission U? (I can see a certain logic in allowing it; after all, the drones are just cargo, and everyone has cargo pods. Also, there's no rule prohibiting it.)
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 01:25 pm: Edit
A single Romulan SPH is capable of carrying both halves of a MB. In fact a single SPH must move both halves to maintain balance.
This is cover in SFB (R1.24B) ... The Romulans can carry the MB pods on a KRT or SPH (two at a time) or on a SkyHawk (one at a time, ...). ... and (R4.31).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 04:18 pm: Edit
Nick,
A question about the timing of creating a Colony Base (PO-446.52):
The wording makes the following legal (we'll assume a Klingon colony and LTT):
• T(X)-Alliance: LTT moves (by Reaction or Reserve) to the colony hex (Reaction and Reserve are both "legal form[s] of movement"), if the LTT had carrier pods it might also be able to CEDS Retrograde to the colony hex (assuming some Retrograde point existed in the hex, since the colony isn't an RP);
• T(X+1)-Coalition (Production): 7 EP paid for colony base (this is the next production step after the LTT moved);
• T(X+1)-Coalition (OpMove): LTT moves (as this is the next OpMove phase after paying for the colony);
• T(X+1)-Alliance (Production): colony replaced with colony base (this is the next production phase after paying for the colony).
Was this the intention? (I've no problem with this being correct, it's just that the rule is written so unusually that I want to check that I'm parsing the English correctly.)
Amusingly, by the wording of the rule, if the upgrading unit retreats from (or is destroyed in) combat on T(X+1)-Coalition anywhere on the board, the upgrade is lost, despite the unit being up to several thousand parsecs away from the colony.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 10:59 pm: Edit
================================
Appeals were dealt with by SVC and will be in Cap Log 32. I believe the only new rulings were:
Upgrading Klingon CVT carriers (5 fighter factors to 6 fighter factors) does not count against carrier builds. The deciding factor here is that regardless of other arguments/rules/rulings, no Klingon would give up a carrier build slot to add one fighter factor to a CVT, so in the interest of actually having people use such units, they don't count against your carrier production.
Replacement fighter factors for carriers supplied by partial grids must be paid for with EPs from the partial grid, even if stacked with a base/planet and thus eligible for "free" supplies.
All other rulings were upheld.
================================
Dave Butler:
Question on raids (AO-314.0): When a ship reacts to a raid (by (314.24)) and gets pinned in an intervening hex, when is the combat in the intervening hex resolved? (We played it that it waited until the Combat Phase, since it did not involve a raiding ship, but I'm wondering what the official word is.)
(The specific situation had a handful of Coalition ships on 0519 (including a D6 and a DWS) and a lone D6D on 0718. The Hydrans called a police ship up in 0618, then sent an RN(w/prime) to raid 0718 (trying to clear the D6D away). The Klinks used (314.241) to react a D6 from 0519 to 0618 (heading towards 0718), where it was pinned by the Hydran POL (per the usual Reaction rules referenced in (314.241)).)
ANSWER: One could make the argument that you cannot react in such a case. Rule (314.243) says what to do if no units are within range to react, and this case could fall under that description. (314.241) allows you to react to the raid target hex, but only lets you reach that specific hex. I suspect that if you cannot reach the hex (either by distance or because of blocking forces), then you cannot react at all.
======================================
Paul Bonfanti:
Nick,
Were you able to bump up and get an answer on the question on how many points a Penal PF Flotilla's sacrifice mission resolves? Thanks.
ANSWER: Yes, SVC says the answer is 3 (same as if the PF flotilla were crippled under other rules), leaving 7 points that could be directed on by the enemy.
======================================
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 17, 2006 - 03:29 pm: Edit
Nick - I don't think my 'appeal' was ever answered.
(situation involved Reserve Fleet A deliberately moving out of supply to allow Reserve Fleet B to move to an otherwise "out of bounds" hex under (203.731).)
ANSWER: This one was upheld by SVC, the tactic is legal. Rule (203.732) shows that each reserve fleet's movements are sequential, not simultaneous. See Cap Log 32.
====================================
Todd Lovas:
Okay. Tried to work this out in my own head and am more confused than ever. Romulan SPH + FRD. For some reason the SPH counts as a CW for movement of a tug as its still just a CW hull (aren't all LTT just CW hulls?)
ANSWER: A SPH is a CW hull, but is considered a full sized tug for most rules. I.e. unless told otherwise, treat it as a full sized tug. The otherwise cases include most missions requiring pods (battle, carrier, PFT) as the romulans don't have any pods to use, moving a FRD (specifically says it takes two SPHs to do this, treating each SPH as any other CW rather than a tug), among others. This question has been in Cap Log before.
=============================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Found another small one last night in some late night planning to invade the Feds...
When a ship returns from the Depot Repair System, does it get the same free Strategic Movement allowance as new construction and repaired ships?
ANSWER: Rule (424.31) specifically says that it does get the free strat move, not as new repair, but because it is considered new construction.
=============================
Ryan Opel:
No,
Signed.
His opponent
ANSWER: Yes. Signed, The FEAR.
============================
Todd Lovas:
Not wanting to fuddle the Q&A with a running discussion 421.2 is relates to operational movement. 421.3 relates to strategic movement of the FRD, and there is nothing specificly in this portion of the rule that prohibits the SPH from moving the FRD via strat move. The entire rules sequence regarding the SPH, under Tugs, LTTs, and FRD's seems inconsistent.
ANSWER: And since moving a FRD (by op move or strat move) is actually the same mission (LTT/Tug Mission F), it takes two SPHs either way.
============================
Dave Butler:
Nick,
While you're thinking about missions for LTT-like ships, which (if any) of the new missions in (PO-537.6) can the Klingon D5G perform? (I'm guessing that U (Haul DB points) and V (supply Special Raid) are likely okay, since the ship can both act as a supply source (mission E) and carry EPs (mission H). The Rescue Tug mission (W) I don't know about; I don't think there's anything physically stopping the ship from doing it.)
ANSWER: I will try to do Chuck's proposed chart. I would note that the D5G rule (516.32) only allows specific missions, presumably disallowing everything else. But it may need to be looked at since the new missions were not around when this rule was written.
==========================
Jeff Laikind:
Todd,
In order to perform any mission, a tug (or LTT) must be assigned it. Even though a SPH cannot move an FRD by itself, it still needs to be assigned that mission in order to assist.
ANSWER: Right, even though it "counts" as a CW, it still "functions" as a tug, and can "move an FRD" when you have two of them, operationally or strategically.
=========================
Paul Bonfanti:
Nick, two quick questions:
First, sorry to be repetitive, but any progress on the question of how many points a Penal PF sacrifice mission resolves? I'm not sure if you noticed my nudge. Sorry if I'm being a pest.
ANSWER: It resolves 3 points, as per SVC, just like rule (318.723) crippled result.
Second question (or series of questions) about X-bases:
It's turn 24 (spring 180). The Klingons and Feds reach their X intro dates, and get their free X-starbase as a result.
a) can they use that starbase for x-conversions on T24, or do they have to wait until T25
ANSWER: Rule (523.413) specifically says you can do x-conversions on the same turn. Did you think they were kidding?
b) do they get the free bonus XP on T24?
ANSWER: Previous rulings stated the free XSB upgrade appears in the production step, and since the XTP is generated in the Economic step, the answer is no.
c) can they updgrade other bases to XSB, or do they have to wait until the SIT date of 182?
ANSWER: You must wait until 182 for more beyond the first freebie.
=========================
Todd Lovas:
Lawrence and I were just discussing 421.23 and when the two reg ships are assigned to replace the tug for towing purposes. Is this on an as needed basis or is it done when Tug missions are assigned?
ANSWER: Something I never thought of, but the way the rule reads to me, presumably they must be assigned. They take the place of the tug, and the tug must be assigned, so....
==========================
Dave Butler:
Indeed. Can a Tug with battle pods (or any other mission, for that matter) tow an FRD as one of the two ships per (421.23)?
ANSWER: No, remember that tugs can only have one mission assigned at a time (509.1). So you would have to assign mission M (regular ship) and then also mission F (FRD movement). Or battle tug mission A and mission F, impossible either way.
======================
Chuck Strong:
Nick,
Maybe if you make a matrix and place an "X" where tug missions are authorized:
This might be something we add to the War Book.
ANSWER: More work? I shan't forget this....
========================
Todd Lovas:
Great idea Chuck!
ANSWER: THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT!
=======================
Dave Butler:
So the two ships in (421.23) are actually assigned a tug mission, despite them not being tugs?
ANSWER: Wacky, isn't it?
======================
John Doucette:
Question and an observation:
The question is about B8 production. Assuming a B8 candidate B10 is incomplete, can the Klingon player make his construction roll, then decide to forgo the C8 in order to bring out the B8, or does the incomplete B10 have to be at 20+ points at the start of the Production Phase? For example, a B10 is at 18 points. Can the Klingon roll for construction, then decide on B8 production, or does he have to make the B8 decision first?
ANSWER: You have to make any decisions before rolling any B10 construction dice.
=======================
Todd Lovas:
Another question regarding LTT's in general. (516.21)Mission C:Deploy Mobile Base requires 2 LTT's to set up or move the MB.
Are 2 LTT's able to move a MB (undeployed of course) via strategic movement? If they are allowed is there any difference between the SPH and any other LTT?
ANSWER: This is one case where the SPH is treated as a full sized tug. Only one is needed to move/setup a MB.
=======================
Dave Butler:
Actually, there's no rule against the SPH carrying DB points (mission U, in PO); the prohibition is on Mission L (act as a DB platform). Can the SPH (or any tug of a race that cannot do DB) perform mission U? (I can see a certain logic in allowing it; after all, the drones are just cargo, and everyone has cargo pods. Also, there's no rule prohibiting it.)
ANSWER: This will have to be answered by Chuck's chart, which apparently I am suddenly supposed to create. So it should be called my chart. Like (deep breath):
The FEARsomly Monstrous Chart of Tug and LTT and SPH and D5G and "Two Uncrippled Ships Each With A Defense Factor Of 7 Or More Towing An FRD" Missions
has a nice ring to it. Or just "The Tug Chart." If you want to be boring.
======================
Dave Butler
Nick,
A question about the timing of creating a Colony Base (PO-446.52):
The wording makes the following legal (we'll assume a Klingon colony and LTT):
T(X)-Alliance: LTT moves (by Reaction or Reserve) to the colony hex (Reaction and Reserve are both "legal form[s] of movement"), if the LTT had carrier pods it might also be able to CEDS Retrograde to the colony hex (assuming some Retrograde point existed in the hex, since the colony isn't an RP);
T(X+1)-Coalition (Production): 7 EP paid for colony base (this is the next production step after the LTT moved);
T(X+1)-Coalition (OpMove): LTT moves (as this is the next OpMove phase after paying for the colony);
T(X+1)-Alliance (Production): colony replaced with colony base (this is the next production phase after paying for the colony).
Was this the intention? (I've no problem with this being correct, it's just that the rule is written so unusually that I want to check that I'm parsing the English correctly.)
Amusingly, by the wording of the rule, if the upgrading unit retreats from (or is destroyed in) combat on T(X+1)-Coalition anywhere on the board, the upgrade is lost, despite the unit being up to several thousand parsecs away from the colony.
ANSWER: Yes, it is confusing. Essentially, the tug/LTT/convoy has to start the turn in the colony hex. In production you pay 7 EPs. In production of the next turn the colony base appears. The weirdness is that the tug can leave partway through the process (virtually at the start of the process), but if killed stops the process. Possibly the tug should be required to stay for the whole thing (allowed to move on the op move step after the colony base actually appears), OR, the provision of a destroyed tug cancelling the process is bogus, since in the stated version there is no real chance for the tug to be attacked before it is legally allowed to leave. And if it is allowed to leave, why would its destruction cancel the upgrade? As worded now, it is virtually impossible to stop such an upgrade (unless you must declare a colony upgrade mission when the tug arrives at the colony on the previous turn, allowing the opponent to kill the tug in the intervening player turn, thus cancelling the upgrade but still requiring the expenditure of 7 EPs on the next production step (as the EPs are then "lost" even if you haven't actually spent them yet). It's goofy all around. Something for the warbook.
=================================
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:51 am: Edit
Nick,
I'd like to appeal (or at least get some clarification on) the ruling on PPF damage resolution with regards to the sacrifice mission. It seems rather odd that a flat-rate of 3 damage points would be resolved, given that the strength of a PPF may vary. Shouldn't the amount of damage be calculated based on the current strength of the PPF as opposed to its maximum authorized? There is nothing in 528.28 that says that an understrength PPF must be brought up to full strength, only that it can be. If the intent of 528.28 is that any PPFs must be brought up to full strength or the penalties of 528.211 or 528.24 apply, then that should be so stated in 528.28. As the rule reads now, one could easily say that 528.24 does not apply, since PFs are either fully functioning or not at all, and therefore PPFs are either fully functioning or destroyed, in which case 528.211 would apply once the last PF in a PPF is lost.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 03:14 pm: Edit
John/Nick:
I would imagine it is 1/3 to the PPFs present based on the CL32 ruling.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 03:18 pm: Edit
Right, the 3 pts assumes a full strength flotilla. Just take 1/3 damage as described in the existing advanced small scale combat rules.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 05:19 pm: Edit
Danke, that's what I thought
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 06:07 pm: Edit
So the extra PPF point would be resolved normally, I'm guessing? (I can find no rule that allows for a "fractional" PF, so the PPF sacrifices for 3, then has to lose an extra point (because PFs are 2 point units) at some point in damage resolution.) Can it be a minus point?
(The rule should probably have been 1/3rd of the PFs not 1/3rd of the factors, but oh well.)
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 11:26 pm: Edit
Can a pursued force have a carrier send its fighters forward to be in the battle line as part of the uncrippled units?
for example, the pursued force consist of 3x(NCL), (FF), FF, SC, Pol, CVA (w/o escorts). Can the Battle line consist of 3x(NCL), (FF), FF, SC, & 15 fighters sent forward by the CVA?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 09:12 am: Edit
Question about the following from Q&A archive:
(515.534) Escorts can also be produced by conversion at any starbase from the equivalent warship hull for one point, up to the limit of the conversion capacity. (A very few escorts have fighters, and the cost of the fighters must also be paid at the appropriate rate.) Conversion costs are listed on the SIT.
(515.535) As provided in (308.132) Carrier Escort Damage System, escorts can be produced at the end of the turn to fill carrier groups. As per (308.132B) in CL#25, these do count against the conversion capacity of the starbases used for the conversions. See the penalties in (515.54). [At the present time, (308.132B) is the only means by which a starbase may do multiple conversions in a given turn, each using some of its capacity. New rules in a future product will make this a general rule.]
Is it possible for an off-map Hydran SB (which is now the capital) to convert HR and 4xHN to NEC and 4xAH? IIRC there is an intention in the future to allow multiple conversions up to the value of the SB's conversion capacity, but currently the rule is that multiple conversions are only allowed if they are the standard production escorts of a carrier group curently available forconstruction. However the above seems to suggest otherwise.
Also what is the effect of 515.54?
Many thanks James
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 09:17 am: Edit
Double post
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 01:47 pm: Edit
James, Planetary Ops did finally give that rule, allowing for multiple conversions per SB. The capital is allowed 5 points I do believe if doing seperate units.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 10:14 am: Edit
AH - thanks Chris
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 12:08 pm: Edit
ANSWERS
=====================
Dave Butler:
So the extra PPF point would be resolved normally, I'm guessing? (I can find no rule that allows for a "fractional" PF, so the PPF sacrifices for 3, then has to lose an extra point (because PFs are 2 point units) at some point in damage resolution.) Can it be a minus point?
(The rule should probably have been 1/3rd of the PFs not 1/3rd of the factors, but oh well.)
ANSWER: I assume so, (resolve the odd point normally that round, might produce a minus point), otherwise you are tracking half a PF. I have asked Steve if this is the intention.
=======================
Russell J. Manning:
Can a pursued force have a carrier send its fighters forward to be in the battle line as part of the uncrippled units?
for example, the pursued force consist of 3x(NCL), (FF), FF, SC, Pol, CVA (w/o escorts). Can the Battle line consist of 3x(NCL), (FF), FF, SC, & 15 fighters sent forward by the CVA?
ANSWER: While fighters are specifically not allowed to pursue (307.23), the pursued force rule (307.3) does not specifically mention fighters or PFs. I would have to say they cannot do this though, as rule (307.3) only allows you to add ships to the pursued force, not ship equivalents. You could specifically include the carrier itself in the force, and then its fighters would be available.
======================
James Southcott:
Is it possible for an off-map Hydran SB (which is now the capital) to convert HR and 4xHN to NEC and 4xAH? IIRC there is an intention in the future to allow multiple conversions up to the value of the SB's conversion capacity, but currently the rule is that multiple conversions are only allowed if they are the standard production escorts of a carrier group curently available forconstruction. However the above seems to suggest otherwise.
ANSWER: Rule (515.534) from the errata file allows you to do multiple escort conversions at a given starbase up to the conversion capacity, which is three pts per starbase (even the capital for this purpose, see the next rule).
In Planetary Ops, rule (450.5) Flexible Conversions allows regular SBs and minor conversion facilities to do up to three conversions of any type (not just escorts) so long as the total cost is not over 3 pts. The Capital SB and major conversion facilities can make up to three conversions costing up to 5 pts total. (i.e. you can't just do five 1pt escort conversions as you are still limited to three conversions per facility, the new rule simply allows you to do other conversions besides escorts while still keeping the same overall limits as before.)
You could of course still do "a carrier group conversion" under (433.14) even if it consisted of more than three ships as this still counts as "a conversion", but it must be a legal carrier group, you can't do four escorts as part of an escort carrier group conversion as that carrier isn't allowed four escorts, and you can't just do 4 or 5 escorts as without a carrier it is not a group and thus not "a conversion".
Also what is the effect of 515.54?
ANSWER: Not sure what you are asking. Rule (515.52) and (515.53) lets you build carriers and escorts independently of each other. This rule just says you don't have to immediately form them into groups, they can remain independent ships, but there are penalties to doing so, as carriers still take multiple command slots and so on.
=========================
Christopher E. Fant:
James, Planetary Ops did finally give that rule, allowing for multiple conversions per SB. The capital is allowed 5 points I do believe if doing seperate units.
ANSWER: But note there is still an overall limit of 3 ships converted, or one legal carrier group as I noted above (even at the capital starbase or major conversion facility).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 03:27 pm: Edit
Nick,
Here's an old comment that you'd made (on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:09 pm):
________________________________________
Quote:
Interestingly, what the rule [Advanced Deficit Spending: (PO-447.0)] 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.
________________________________________
Seeing as the next CapLog is (I think) done, what's the answer to when (or if!) money borrowed for ADS can be repaid?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 03:37 pm: Edit
Nick,
Since the on-going discussion over on the General Discussion topic turned up the fact that a CC is a "base hull type."
Does that preclude a CA->CC conversion using Continuous Damage Repairs in P.O.?
IIRC, you cannot change a “base hull type” via CDR.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 05:32 pm: Edit
The rule (FO-439.22) is quite clear that CCs (specifically, command variants) are a "base hull type" only for the purposes of salvage.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 12:37 pm: Edit
Trent: CC and other command variants are base hull for purposes of salvage, just like the rules say. Not for anything else.
Dave: The ADS thing has been clarified in Cap Log 32. If you borrow 20 EPs, and spend it to build extra stuff, then get 10 EPs from your allies later that turn, you cannot "pay down the debt" mid turn. On your next income/production step you first pay the interest on what your current debt is (2 EPs for this example), then you can pay down the debt. The payback step is what is clarified (I don't remember specifically the step off hand, but it is AFTER you pay interest on any given turn).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit
Hey Nick, if you sell a F5L to the WYN, how much do you get for it?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 07:21 pm: Edit
6EP -- since the base hull type is an F5 per (449.23) and since we all now know that an F5L is a base hull for salvage only.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, February 04, 2006 - 10:22 pm: Edit
Correctomundo. Selling to WYN is not salvage. Only salvage is salvage.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 04:36 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
Urgent question
Hex A is in supply (Friendly Forces in it)
Hex B is EMPTY (both Friendly and Enemy adjacent, so in supply)
Hex C is Empty
Hex D has enemy ships in it
(Hex C has no friendly forces adjacent to it and B and D are adjacent to it)
We have read it that Hex C is in Supply - only that supply can not pass through the hex.
Actual hexes...
Hex A is 2815 (Friendly Forces in)
Hex B is 2916 Empty
Hex C is 3015 Empty
Hex D is 3016 (Enemy Forces in)
(2915, 3014 amd 3115 are empty, 3116 has Enemy forces in it - so they don't effect the result)
We believe only Hex D is NOT in supply, as it has enemy forces in it. The other 3 are all in Supply.
Right or Wrong?
Thanks
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 04:53 pm: Edit
Just to clarify - this is for purposes of placing a pol. The hex which is the desired point for the pol is adjacent only to enemy ships.
The rules say enemy ships block a supply path going through the hex. The question here is supply into the hex rather than through it. I think the problem may be that until the pol rules came into effect there was never a situation where the the target hex did not have a unit in it so questions about supply into rather than through a hex did not come up.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit
I know this question has come up before (question of supply into a hex or through a hex, is it the same thing, different, or what?) I don't have my rules here at work, but I can check when I get home. Won't be until like, 10 PM though...
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 07:15 pm: Edit
Last time this came up it was ruled that supply does go into the hex, just not through it.
Was in relation to supply from the Barony to an on hex map that did not have an enemy in it, but adjacent.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 08:08 pm: Edit
Do you know where the discussion is? I remember the discussion, but can't remember the result...
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 09:53 pm: Edit
15th March 2004 mentions it - guess it's legal Paul
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 07, 2006 - 11:10 pm: Edit
If you can trace a supply path from the hex to a supply point (note that this path does not include the hex in question, just like tracing a supply path to a fleet), then you can put a police ship there. So if you can trace a valid supply path to hex 3015, say from the planet 2715, hex 2815, hex 2916, if those hexes are valid supply path hexes, then yes, hex 3015 is in supply even if 3015 itself is not a valid supply path hex for something further out.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 01:33 am: Edit
Hi Nick - another one - for the purposes of: maximum two carriers plus one FV/DWV per turn, does the DVL count as one of the carriers?
Thanks
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 02:53 am: Edit
Heh, this has been answered many times James, to my detriment each time. Yes it does.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 04:08 am: Edit
Thanks Nick and Chris! Sorry to have repeated the question.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 08, 2006 - 10:13 am: Edit
Well, if Nick would update the online errata
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:11 am: Edit
I don't do the online stuff, but SVC does, and just put up the CL23 items into the Q&A archive.
I will likely be offline for the next week. Flying from snowy Ohio to sunny San Francisco, CA for a friend's wedding. Back next week.
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Thursday, February 09, 2006 - 12:56 am: Edit
Nick,
A couple of questions regarding Colonial Development:
(1) Rule (446.11) says: "A colony (or colony base) could be built in the area of an inactive fleet or in captured enemy space."
Q: If the colony can be built in an "inactive" fleet area, could it also be constructed using a tug of an "inactive" fleet (assuming the tug never leaves the fleet's deployment area)?
(2) Rule (446.11) also says: "A race must be at war or limited war to build colonies. (This means actually at war, not just on a wartime economy.)"
Q: Since the Klingon's are on a pseudo-war economy on turn 1 (different from the Hydran's and Romulan's "wartime" economies prior to their entrance to the war), can the Klingons start construction of a colony on turn 1, or must they wait until turn 2 when they actually invade the Kzinti?
Thanks,
Ken.
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 12:24 am: Edit
Nick,
I'm a little confused regarding Commando Raids (320.4), specifically how combat and reaction interact with the rule.
Example: Klingons raid Kzinti planet 1802 with a D6G, D7 (with Prime Team), and F5. All ships originate from the raid pool and the D7 and F5 are acting as "consorts" as per (320.222). ... Assume the Kzinti's react 6 fighter factors from the BATS in 1902, and the planet has 2 PDUs.
Now rule (320.222) says the consorts "would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle. Consorts of a commando ship could absorb damage from the raid battle, but could not contribute to the attack."
Given that the consorts "might fight in the Interception Battle", would their compot be applicable in the combat created by the reaction (314.25)? As well, rule (314.253) talks about a raider having to fight all bases, PDU's, etc, in a hex BEFORE a specific PDU could be attacked. But since this is a "commando raid" and the purpose is to attack one or more of the PDU's with "G" factors, I am thoroughly confused as to the sequence of events for the combat resolution.
And when the combat does take place what units would the Kzinti use in any battle prior to the "G" attack? Would they only have the 6 fighters reacted from the base, OR would they have 18 fighter factors (6 ff's from the BATS plus the 12 ff's from the PDU's)? Or would the group fight one PDU as a whole unit (compot 9), then fight the other with a "G"? Or am I completed misunderstanding the intent of the rule and the combat is completely different...?
...I am thoroughly confused here.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, and I hope my question is not TOO confusing.
Ken
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 03:26 pm: Edit
Nick,
We're just starting a campaign based on 691 from CL16. In this ruleset, it mentions a specific rule for capturing provinces, quoted here:
"(691.223) Provinces are captured as per (430) and (438). Unoccupied provinces are captured by entering any hex of the province. Provinces already captured by someone else are disrupted by sending a ship into the province or captured when all enemy forces are driven out of the province. It is not necessary to garrison captured provinces."
The question is this - does any ship which just passes thorugh a province during Op movement capture it, or does the ship need to end its movement there, and the provinces status changes during the economics phase?
Thanks,
Geof aka Spartan
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 12:04 pm: Edit
Nick
is a fighting retreat concidered combat for purposes of Retrograde?
Can units that did not see regualr combat, but instread have a fleet fighing retreat over them retro back to a base at the retro phase?
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 07:02 pm: Edit
Question on XTP calculation. 523.12 mentions XTPs received for an undevestated capital, but it's unclear if that means each planet in the capitl hex or the capital planet itself.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 08:46 pm: Edit
Question on Penal ship repair penalty.
528.24 says that penal ships must be repaired "as soon as possible". The following sentence thenb states that penal ships left unrepaired at the end of the Klingon Production step cost the Klingons 2 Ep/ship. My opponent says that the first sentence means that the penalty only applies if the crippled penal ship has gotten to a repair facility and the Klingon player has forgotten to repair the ship. I maintain that the second sentence is the governing sentence.
Here is our situation: A D5J was crippled in an unsuccessful Fed counterattack on T23A and is sitting on a captured Fed planet. No Klingon repair facilities are present. It is now T24C and we need to know if the Klingons have to pay the penalty for having an unrepaired Penal ship.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 09:50 pm: Edit
John, the +5 XTP is for the original actual caplital planet.
About Penals: The second sentance is the operative one, if a J ship is unrepaired at the end of the phase, you must pay the 2 EP.
Of course Nick has to confirm, but we hashed out this type of thing back when AO was printed.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 13, 2006 - 11:32 pm: Edit
Well, San Francisco was sunny and nice, but now I'm back in the cold of northern Ohio.
====================
James Southcott (Yakface):
Hi Nick - another one - for the purposes of: maximum two carriers plus one FV/DWV per turn, does the DVL count as one of the carriers?
ANSWER: Yes, of course. It is a medium carrier in the online SIT.
=====================
Ken S. Towery (Maxoman):
A couple of questions regarding Colonial Development:
(1) Rule (446.11) says: "A colony (or colony base) could be built in the area of an inactive fleet or in captured enemy space."
Q: If the colony can be built in an "inactive" fleet area, could it also be constructed using a tug of an "inactive" fleet (assuming the tug never leaves the fleet's deployment area)?
ANSWER: I can't see why not. If the inactive tug moves it does so as one of the "six ships" allowed to move within the inactive area under (600.31).
(2) Rule (446.11) also says: "A race must be at war or limited war to build colonies. (This means actually at war, not just on a wartime economy.)"
Q: Since the Klingons are on a pseudo-war economy on turn 1 (different from the Hydran's and Romulan's "wartime" economies prior to their entrance to the war), can the Klingons start construction of a colony on turn 1, or must they wait until turn 2 when they actually invade the Kzinti?
ANSWER: They are not at actual war until the second turn, so not on turn 1, they must wait until turn 2.
=====================
Ken S. Towery (Maxoman):
I'm a little confused regarding Commando Raids (320.4), specifically how combat and reaction interact with the rule.
ANSWER: Good questions here. The short answer? Reaction/Interception rules don't interact with the commando raid rule at all. Only regular combat vs the fixed defenses happens, and you only have the fixed defenses making a single combat roll, followed by ground attacks by surviving G factors.
Example: Klingons raid Kzinti planet 1802 with a D6G, D7 (with Prime Team), and F5. All ships originate from the raid pool and the D7 and F5 are acting as "consorts" as per (320.222). ... Assume the Kzinti's react 6 fighter factors from the BATS in 1902, and the planet has 2 PDUs.
Now rule (320.222) says the consorts "would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle. Consorts of a commando ship could absorb damage from the raid battle, but could not contribute to the attack."
ANSWER: First, under (320.222), "interception battle" rule (320.35) ONLY applies to fighter/pf and drone raids. Commando raids instead use the last parenthetical sentence from that rule (320.222). In fact all of (320.3) applies ONLY to fighter-pf and drone raids.
Given that the consorts "might fight in the Interception Battle", would their compot be applicable in the combat created by the reaction (314.25)? As well, rule (314.253) talks about a raider having to fight all bases, PDU's, etc, in a hex BEFORE a specific PDU could be attacked. But since this is a "commando raid" and the purpose is to attack one or more of the PDU's with "G" factors, I am thoroughly confused as to the sequence of events for the combat resolution.
ANSWER: You don't have an "interception battle" or a reaction battle for a commando raid. You just have the one round of the fixed defenses plus a ground attack roll, consorts in a commando raid absorb damage but do not contribute compot as per the last sentence of (320.222). Rule (314.253) is referring to an alternative attack (314.28) made against a PDU after the reaction battle in a regular raid. In such a case of a regular raider attacking a PDU instead of disrupting the province you do have two combats (the reaction battle and then the alternative attack). In a commando raid (320.41) the commando ship makes its G attack INSTEAD of its normal attack in the one battle against the fixed defenses, and it then cannot disrupt a province or use (320.41), it just goes back to the raid pool, so rule (314.253) never applies in a commando raid.
And when the combat does take place what units would the Kzinti use in any battle prior to the "G" attack? Would they only have the 6 fighters reacted from the base, OR would they have 18 fighter factors (6 ff's from the BATS plus the 12 ff's from the PDU's)? Or would the group fight one PDU as a whole unit (compot 9), then fight the other with a "G"? Or am I completed misunderstanding the intent of the rule and the combat is completely different...?
ANSWER: As per (320.42), only the fixed defenses fight. Thus it is sort of pointless to react something (or call up a police ship) to a commando raid as due to (320.42) you simply cannot stop them that way, such a unit cannot interact with the raiders. The way to block commando raids is with Monitors (320.46). Without a Monitor, IGCEs are great as they can affect the G attack roll and can be given up in place of damage.
The reason for the attacker to bring consorts is that with only a commando ship, it would be crippled or destroyed by the fixed defenses, degrading or eliminating the G factor prior to its ground combat roll (some crippled ships lose their G factor, and G attacks from crippled ships suffer a die roll penalty). With consorts, they can absorb the damage (barring the enemy having enough damage to direct on the commando ship) thus allowing the G factor to make its roll from an uncrippled troopship.
I know the rule can be confusing. Please note that (320.1) and (320.2) apply to special raids in general. Rule (320.3) applies ONLY to fighter/PF and Drone raids. Rule (320.4) is only for commando raids, and rule (320.5) is only for blockade running. Note that blockade running and fighter/PF/Drone raids have separate "interception" rules. Commando raids do not have interception at all, they only have to worry about surviving the fixed defenses or being blocked by the presence of a Monitor.
Consorts in fighter/pf and drone raids can contribute compot to and absorb damage in the interception battle, but have nothing to do with the attack on the "target" of the raid by PF/fighter/drone factors. Consorts in commando raids are there only to draw damage away from the commando ship. There is actually no "combat" roll for the attacker in a commando raid, only the fixed defenses get a combat roll vs. the commando ship and consorts, then (assuming the G factor survived), the raider rolls a G attack vs. the target. The real question not answered in the commando raid rule is what BIR do the fixed defenses roll at? The commando raid rule does not say, but presumably we are still using rule (521.0) when not modified by (320.4), so under (521.33) this would be BIR=5 plus or minus the variable BIR (troopship+consorts vs only fixed defenses, they pick both BIR numbers which must equal 5). Note that the variable BIR result would affect the combat roll of the fixed defenses and the ground attack roll of any surviving G factors.
It is actually much simpler than you are making out. The problem is that rule (320.3) should really be called "Conducting Fighter/PF and Drone Raids" instead of "Conducting Special Raids."
Also note that because of this, Commando Raids and Blockade runners must actually move into the "target hex", they cannot just move to an adjacent "attack hex" as such a concept ONLY applies to fighter-pf and drone raids.
Another fun question is can a commando raider use (521.39) to get the +1 on the G roll even knowing you are sacrificing the ship as you will not control the hex at then end of the raid? Can a troop tug dump its pods on the planet (ultimately sacrificing them and the marines on board) as it warps by? "Express elevator to hell!!!" Probably not allowed to do this though as (521.392) requires you to perform a normal commando operation while this is a special raid. Landing on the planet assumes you are trying to capture the planet, while you are definitely not doing this on a raid. But the troop tug pod thing would be pretty funny.
======================
Geof Clark (Spartan):
We're just starting a campaign based on 691 from CL16. In this ruleset, it mentions a specific rule for capturing provinces, quoted here:
"(691.223) Provinces are captured as per (430) and (438). Unoccupied provinces are captured by entering any hex of the province. Provinces already captured by someone else are disrupted by sending a ship into the province or captured when all enemy forces are driven out of the province. It is not necessary to garrison captured provinces."
The question is this - does any ship which just passes thorugh a province during Op movement capture it, or does the ship need to end its movement there, and the provinces status changes during the economics phase?
ANSWER: It looks to me like you have to end your move there. Then on your next economics phase you capture it and then you no longer have to garrison it. Prior to satisfying (438) if the enemy enters one of your captured provinces he can disrupt or capture it (depending on if it also contains your own ships). After you satisfy (438) for a province you captured, the province cannot be disrupted by the enemy, but can still be captured if your forces are driven out. Then the enemy can try to satisfy (438) for himself.
======================
Tim Losberg (Krager):
is a fighting retreat concidered combat for purposes of Retrograde?
Can units that did not see regular combat, but instread have a fleet fighing retreat over them retro back to a base at the retro phase?
ANSWER: Sure. (206.33) say all ships from battle hexes can retrograde, and such hexes run over by fighting retreats were battle hexes since they did contain units from both sides.
===================
John Doucette (Jkd):
Question on XTP calculation. 523.12 mentions XTPs received for an undevestated capital, but it's unclear if that means each planet in the capitl hex or the capital planet itself.
ANSWER: The 5 Bonus XTPs are for just the capital planet itself. The other major and minor planets in the capital hex generate XTPs like other planets (40% if the income from them is in XTPs). Your race can only get the bonus one time, not multiple times.
================
John Doucette (Jkd):
528.24 says that penal ships must be repaired "as soon as possible". The following sentence thenb states that penal ships left unrepaired at the end of the Klingon Production step cost the Klingons 2 Ep/ship. My opponent says that the first sentence means that the penalty only applies if the crippled penal ship has gotten to a repair facility and the Klingon player has forgotten to repair the ship. I maintain that the second sentence is the governing sentence.
Here is our situation: A D5J was crippled in an unsuccessful Fed counterattack on T23A and is sitting on a captured Fed planet. No Klingon repair facilities are present. It is now T24C and we need to know if the Klingons have to pay the penalty for having an unrepaired Penal ship.
ANSWER: It doesn't matter if the crippled ships is at a repair facility or not, or if you forgot, or couldn't reach a repair facility. If it is still crippled at the end of the repair phase you pay the penalty. This is one of the down sides to the powerful penal ship advantages.
======================
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 01:54 am: Edit
Should have posted here oops..
508.25 Recovery from Devestation.
When does the 4 turn recovery start?
Example:
Klingons devastate a Kzin Planet on T2C but doesn't keep the hex. When does the recovery start? T2A or T3.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:57 am: Edit
For special raids, can the Origin (320.32) hex and the Attack hex be the same hex?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 05:02 pm: Edit
When a battle force is attacking a location in a multiple location hex and the defender has crippled ships in the hex that are allocated to the location being attacked but are not in the battle force or contributing compot to the battle force, the attacker can target those cripples. 511.573 makes this clear.
Normal directed damage uses a 2:1 ratio, per 302.52, and a mauler could make things more efficient, but in this question there are no involved maulers.
302.563 directs players to use a 3:1 ratio when directing damage against targets that are not in the battle force but are contributing compot to the battle force, excepting PDUs and bases which are also not under question here.
Is the ratio used to attack the cripples etc 2:1 or is 3:1 used?
==
Related question: when are cripples in a multi-location battle allocated specifically to one location? Is it only during static/mobile split steps (after each approach battle that is followed by a non-approach battle) or is it whenever a round ends with a defending ship crippled?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 08:13 pm: Edit
A follow up to that last question, as I think we need a bit more detail there. The situation is this:
Several rounds of combat have been fought over the Romulan capital, resulting in Romulan cripples. Some of those cripples were taken on static ships, and some of those cripples are from mobile ships. 511.573 seems to be making a distinction between crippled ships that are static, and cripple ships that are from the mobile pool. Which of these cripples can be directed on by the attacker?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 09:47 pm: Edit
A question concerning the scenario Backdraft (619.0) and Federation production on turns 7-9. My opponent says that rule (431.42) prevents the Federation from substituting or converting any ships on his production schedule for turns 7-9 as he is not at war or limited war if the Coalition does nothing to activate the Federation under (619.312). The Fed should only be allowed to build the wartime schedule without any substitutions or conversions of base hulls on turns 7-9 as this is in effect his pre-war schedule if the Fed is not at war.
I say that rule (431.42) covers turns 1-6 for the Fed, 1-9 for the Rom, and 1-11 for the Gorn. These are the turns that these races have published pre-war schedules for. (431.42) was not intended to cover the turns after the printed pre-war schedules. As there is no listed Pre-War construction for later turns for these races (only their standard production list from that point forward) and they should be able to build, sub, and convert ships on their new production schedules as they choose once they are beyond the published pre-war production schedules. Of course they cannot build Aux units, FRDs, MBs, PDUs, or convert pre-existing ships as they are not at war or limited war but that is a different issue.
Which is correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 10:41 pm: Edit
====================
Ryan Opel (Ryan):
508.25 Recovery from Devestation.
When does the 4 turn recovery start?
Example:
Klingons devastate a Kzin Planet on T2C but doesn't keep the hex. When does the recovery start? T2A or T3.
ANSWER: As per (508.21), the owner must undergo two years, or four turns (four economic phases), of reduced income. So:
T2C planet is devestated
T2A (first turn of reduced income)
T3A (second turn...)
T4A (third turn...)
T5A (fourth turn...)
T6A (full non-devestated income is received)
Assuming the planet is not redevestated or captured during this process.
==================
Robert Padilla (Zargan):
For special raids, can the Origin (320.32) hex and the Attack hex be the same hex?
ANSWER: Sure, (320.311) says you MAY move from the Origin hex to the Attack hex, so you don't have to move out of the Origin hex if you don't want to. Then just designate a Target Hex adjacent to that Origin/Attack hex.
===================
Todd E Jahnke:
When a battle force is attacking a location in a multiple location hex and the defender has crippled ships in the hex that are allocated to the location being attacked but are not in the battle force or contributing compot to the battle force, the attacker can target those cripples. 511.573 makes this clear.
Normal directed damage uses a 2:1 ratio, per 302.52, and a mauler could make things more efficient, but in this question there are no involved maulers.
302.563 directs players to use a 3:1 ratio when directing damage against targets that are not in the battle force but are contributing compot to the battle force, excepting PDUs and bases which are also not under question here.
Is the ratio used to attack the cripples etc 2:1 or is 3:1 used?
ANSWER: As far as I know it is 2:1 as that is the standard rate and there are no rules that say it should be otherwise.
Related question: when are cripples in a multi-location battle allocated specifically to one location? Is it only during static/mobile split steps (after each approach battle that is followed by a non-approach battle) or is it whenever a round ends with a defending ship crippled?
ANSWER: As per (511.53), ships crippled during combat rounds of a capital/multi-location battle hex are added to the static pool round by round.
==============
Robert Padilla (Zargan):
Several rounds of combat have been fought over the Romulan capital, resulting in Romulan cripples. Some of those cripples were taken on static ships, and some of those cripples are from mobile ships. 511.573 seems to be making a distinction between crippled ships that are static, and cripple ships that are from the mobile pool. Which of these cripples can be directed on by the attacker?
ANSWER: From (511.53) crippled ships are treated as static forces (no longer mobile), so any of them could be directed on (assuming the planet they are at is being attacked).
===================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
A question concerning the scenario Backdraft (619.0) and Federation production on turns 7-9. My opponent says that rule (431.42) prevents the Federation from substituting or converting any ships on his production schedule for turns 7-9 as he is not at war or limited war if the Coalition does nothing to activate the Federation under (619.312). The Fed should only be allowed to build the wartime schedule without any substitutions or conversions of base hulls on turns 7-9 as this is in effect his pre-war schedule if the Fed is not at war.
I say that rule (431.42) covers turns 1-6 for the Fed, 1-9 for the Rom, and 1-11 for the Gorn. These are the turns that these races have published pre-war schedules for. (431.42) was not intended to cover the turns after the printed pre-war schedules. As there is no listed Pre-War construction for later turns for these races (only their standard production list from that point forward) and they should be able to build, sub, and convert ships on their new production schedules as they choose once they are beyond the published pre-war production schedules. Of course they cannot build Aux units, FRDs, MBs, PDUs, or convert pre-existing ships as they are not at war or limited war but that is a different issue.
ANSWER: I would say the Feds are still under the restrictions of not controlling their economy. They are not at war or limited war. Under such conditions you are not supposed to be able to sub/convert/save EPs etc... The Fed OB only has PWC for turns 1-7 because at that point you should be at war in the General War scenario, and the OBs were written for that General War scenario, even though other scenarios are available. In this case the easiest thing to do is to begin the wartime build schedule without changes (subs/conversions/etc.) and without saving any extra EPs. However, I will withhold final ruling on this until I dig out the Cap Log that has the article on PreWar Feds and how to handle them in weird cases. I want to see if it has any more info (been a while since I read it).
=============================
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 09:52 am: Edit
Nick, I think the question on crippled ships at a capital needs some additional clarification.
511.53 specifically states that ships crippled during the combat rounds of the current turn are taken from the designated static and mobile forces and added to the crippled ships pool. The last sentence says that they are available to be placed as static ships, not that they are static ships.
Then we have 511.573 with states crippled ships in the same system (in the fixed, not mobile box) are assigned to the planet with the most PDUs and can be attacked by directed damage....
Why would there be a distinction in 511.573 for crippled ships being in the fixed not mobile box, since all crippled ships go into the crippled ships pool? And by 511.53, the ships are neither mobile nor static, but was the intent for them to be tracked seperately in the crippled ships pool?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 01:26 pm: Edit
And why the heck would they go to the planet woth the most PDU's if that's not the planet with SB? The SB is gonna provide more defense then a minors PDU's and then you can Rapid Repair.
By John Doucette (Jkd) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 09:00 pm: Edit
I'll add my voice to the wonkiness of the workings of 511. In the old rule set, there was a specification of shooting at static cripples not in the line using a 3:1 ratio, and I'd like to know why it was removed, or was it simply an oversight?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 09:35 pm: Edit
Nick,
Push the pre-war Fed question up the chain. When I wrote Backdraft I based all my estimates and calculation on the Fed having control of his production on turns 7-9. Had I even imagined that anyone would consider the pre-war production restriction to go past the published pre-war turns 1-6 I would have written a Fed production schedule for those turns to extend their original pre-war production through turn 9.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:16 pm: Edit
JD: I looked in the F&E 1990 version at 511.5 Step 7, pg 52-REV.2 and it doesnt show 3:1 it only says directed damage. I also looked in the 1986 version 511.5; Step 7, pg 30 and it says the same. So unless it was changed in 1989 and then changed back...?
(That is unless I am looking in the wrong spot.)
I do have to admit I always thought it WAS 3-1.
By james robertson (Mordak5) on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 06:25 pm: Edit
I am sure this must have come up before, but i was attacking the Kzinti Capital and the Kz player has 20 pdu's on the capital and he is putting them into the battle line all at the same time. As I can only target 4 at a time it seems strange to me that he can put all 20 into the battle line, is this correct can he do this??#
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Edit
James, yes, that is correct. A common tactic is to do raids on the kzinti capital over the course of the early turns to destroy some PDUs each turn so that the Kzinti has a hard time to build up to the full 20. If he gets there though it is a major operation to take out. You can ask in the General Discussion thread for advice from others if you like. Good luck.
By Cliff Yahnke (Sarumanthewhite) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 12:56 am: Edit
Hey guys,
Please help me out. When you are converting a Base/Battle Station to a Starbase, when does the actual conversion take place? I realize that you have to pay the EP's in step 2B3 and that the tug has to be there at the start of the turn, however, I couldn't find the specific step in the sequence of play which identifies the conversion as being complete. This obviously affects when/if you can use the increased repair/production capacity, etc.
Thanks,
Cliff
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 01:39 am: Edit
Cliff:
See SoP step (2B3); upgrade bases. This step comes after repairs & production of new units
By Cliff Yahnke (Sarumanthewhite) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 09:07 am: Edit
Chuck:
Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, I probably didn't phrase my question clearly, so let me try another way.
Is the upgrade effective immediately (i.e. at the moment I spend the EP's)? Saying it another way, at the end of step 2B3 on turn 1, do I put the unit on the board, or do I have to wait until some point in turn 2 (or perhaps some later point in turn 1 after 2B3).
The reason I ask is that 433.41B makes reference to the unit being destroyed or crippled "while being upgraded." This would seem to imply that the upgrade is not instantaneous as it is with normal ship upgrades.
Thanks again,
Cliff
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 09:24 am: Edit
Cliff: I don't have my rules here, but I know that the conversion is not complete until the upgrading player's next turn. The enemy gets their turn to come in and try to nuke the base before it gets upgraded.
(How you doing? Long time, no chat!)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 02:07 pm: Edit
Okay, so in a given step -- let's say 2B3 -- each item happens in the order printed? Specifically, on T1C-2B3 we build stuff, then convert stuff, then pay to upgrade a BATS to SB (using a tug assigned back in phase 1F). Then on T2C-2B3, we build stuff, convert stuff, and then place the new SB (which can't be used for conversions, since we're past that stage), right?
This makes DLR a little more interesting than I thought: the choice to add a cripple to the DLR holding box would be made after ships advance, so you're betting that none of that hull type that you'll self kill this turn will end up in depot.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 02:43 pm: Edit
Nick,
Some questions regarding Depot Level Repair (PO-424.0):
Rule (424.37) states that a number of unit types can't be repaired by DLR; rule (424.31) says that ships in the repair track can use conversion during repair; what happens when a ship on the track is converted to a ship that can't be repaired by DLR (e.g., D7 -> D7A)?
If you can convert to those unit types, then can you advance a crippled such unit placed into the holding box by (424.35)? (The rules are pretty clear that you can place anything you like into the holding box (if only to salvage it later), however (424.37) might prohibit some units from advancing, but isn't clear as it contains an implication that the prohibition is restricted to units lost in combat ("are considered destroyed outright").)
If there exists any way to have a stasis ship on a DLR track, what happens to the stasis module if the ship is converted to the base hull type?
When, precisely, are the ships considered repaired? (I've come up with two possibilities: first, when they leave box #1; second, when they enter box #4. The attraction of the second is that it answers my first question. If the ship is repaired upon entering box #4, then it's okay to convert to a repair-prohibited ship, because it's already been repaired (in the game-use of the word).)
By Cliff Yahnke (Sarumanthewhite) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 04:26 pm: Edit
Dave,
Thanks for the thoughts, I agree with your perspective. I guess the key part here is WHERE in the rules does it say that it takes one turn for a base conversion to take effect? There's some innuendo about it in 433.41B, but I couldn't find anything explicitly saying that it doesn't occur at the moment you spend the EP's.
Can anyone find the rule reference for me?
Greg: Good to see you're still out there...
Thanks everyone,
Cliff
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 07:03 pm: Edit
433.41B is not suggesting, it is saying specifically that a BATS (for example) is still a BATS on the turn of the upgrade. If you dont kill it, it becomes a SB the next turn. If you cripple it, you get a crippled SB next turn.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 03:31 am: Edit
Okay, hold on, that means there's something left out of the SoP. If the BATS is crippled, then it converts to a crippled SB at the end of that Combat Phase, per (433.41B). I can't see a crippled unit getting a bonus that's denied an uncrippled one, so there should be a note in the SoP that base upgrades, while paid for in 2B3, actually complete some time after the end of Phase 5 on the next player turn.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 01:31 pm: Edit
Moving this to Discussions.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 02:52 pm: Edit
Nick,
The (unstated) question in my previous post is: How much after the Combat Phase does the phrase "after the Combat Phase" in (FE2K-433.41B) mean? (While the SoP implies the answer is "five-and-a-half (of nine) phases later" -- which is certainly 'after' Combat -- it's a strange use of the word, in that it's being used to mean "at the regular time in the sequence of play". Simply put, I do not see why there's a special mention of timing if there's nothing special about the timing.)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 08:10 pm: Edit
Perhaps best to think of the spirit of the rule rather than the letter of the rule.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 09:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
Yet more questions regarding base upgrades. If the base takes the whole of the enemy Player Turn to upgrade (and there's no rule that actually says that it does; (433.41B) refers to "this turn", which could be interpreted as either "player turn" or "game turn", and if it means "game turn" then Alliance base upgrades complete faster than Coalition ones), then what happens if I pay to repair a crippled BATS that's being upgraded to a SB? Rule (433.41B) says that the base upgrades crippled, but the SoP allows me to repair some of the damage (phase 2A3) and uncripple that BATS before the upgrade completes (phase 2B3).
When can I assign a new mission to a tug upgrading a base? The SoP says existing tugs are assigned missions in phase 1F, but the upgrade isn't complete until 2B3. On a related note, when (in the SoP) do MB become active? If it's after phase 1F, when can I assign the tug a new mission (since the tug can't leave the MB before it's operational)?
Can I assign a tug a mission related to a target that doesn't yet exist? Specifically, can I assign (in phase 1F) a tug the mission to upgrade a BATS that won't become active until phase 2B3? (As a related question, can I assign to a tug (in phase 1F) pods that I won't build until 2B3?)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Edit
Nick,
Sorry about ruining your weekend, but here's some questions about supply grids:
Assume Hydran territory has been split into two grids by the Coalition; one contains the Capital, the other connects to the Off-map Area. Neither are Partial Grids (by (FE2K-413.4), to qualify as Partial a Grid can't connect to either the Capital or the Off-map). Can I use (410.34)'s Orion smuggling to transfer EP between these Grids? (The rule allows transfers from general treasury to a Partial, and from a Partial to the "main grid" (a term not defined), but is silent on transfers between two non-Partial grids.)
Can the Supply Grid that includes the Off-map Area but not the Capital pay for a Command Point (308.9)? Can I buy Command Points without a shipyard (after my Capital falls)?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:42 pm: Edit
Dave:
One intent of the the tug assignemnt and base upgrade rule over a WHOLE player turn is allow the enemy player a shot at stopping the upgrade before it is complete. Since you are raising the issue, please post a line item in the MWB section stating you cannot find the rule stating it tkes ONE FULL TURN to build/upgrade a base so we can codify more clearly.
Re: Tug Assignments
Just for you, when I do the SoP for the StratOps or ISC War, I will add a phrase in step 1F that will state missions assigned on a previous turn ARE FULLY completed and new assignments can be declared.
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 02:13 am: Edit
Nick,
I searched for a previous answer on this one long and hard, because I know you've been asked this before....
Can a player remove a PDU/PGB from a planet to reposition it on another planet? If so, what is the process.
Many Thanks,
Geof Clark
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 08:47 am: Edit
508.14 states you can not remove them.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 09:51 am: Edit
But have no fear. When I arrive with my attacking fleet, I'll kindly remove them for you.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:07 am: Edit
BASE UPGRADES:
The implication has always been that the upgrade process follows the same timing as setting up the initial mobile base. I never noticed that it is not directly stated though. The reference to "after the Combat Phase" in rule (433.41B) should more properly be "at the start of the owners next player turn" from my understanding (and this is, technically, after combat).
So:
Turn 1A: Kzinti tug moves a MB to their capital and begins setting up.
Turn 2C: Coalition (Lyrans) theoretically have a chance to attack and destroy the tug (or force it to retreat), stopping the setup and destroying the MB. The MB itself cannot be attacked as it is still disassembled.
Turn 2A: MB is now set up at the start of the Kzinti player turn. The Kzinti can now reassign the tug or give it the base upgrade mission and pay the cost for a BATS upgrade. Assuming you upgrade:
Turn 3C: The coalition could attack, but destroying the tug will not stop the upgrade, they must destroy the base, which still has the factors of a mobile base during this time.
Turn 3A: At the start of the Kzinti player turn the base is now a BATS. It could perform repairs as such in the repair step of this turn. The Kzinti could reassign the tug or keep the tug with the base upgrade mission and pay the cost of a starbase upgrade. Assuming that you upgrade again:
Turn 4C: The coalition has one more chance to stop the starbase from appearing by destroying the base, which still has the factors of a BATS during this time.
Turn 4A: Assuming the BATS survived, it is considered a Starbase from the start of the Kzinti player turn. It can do starbase level repairs and conversions on this turn in the appropriate step. The tug can be given a new mission at the appropriate point this turn as well.
If a lesser base were crippled but not destroyed during the upgrade turn, then it would still upgrade, but would be still also be crippled as the larger base (433.41B). You could start repairing it immediately of course by changing the tug from the upgrade mission to base repair mission.
As far as I know this is how it has always been, and how most have been playing. (could be wrong on the second count though...)
We should clarify this in the warbook. Please keep any more discussion on this in the discussion topic though. Thanks!
I will get to the other questions this weekend.
By Ken Kazinski (Kjkazinski) on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:12 am: Edit
Captain's Log 13 gave a Order of Battle for the ISC shows there are survey cruisers in the OB.
The ISC ship information table (1 May 2005) does not have any listings for the SR's.
Were they removed from the OB or not listed in the SIT?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 03:52 am: Edit
Sorry, the 'thick brain wave' beam hit the UK (well Reading anyway) over the weekend!
3 Questions
Retreats
1) - Do you actually calculate the hex for being in supply/supply range, from the Hex your currently in, or what the situation would be if you was in the new hex?
Example
Enemy Ship in 1304 - Closest Supply point is 1506.
Forces retreat from 1105
If it's the former, 1204 is 4 hexes away (it has to go around 1304 and 1305) whereas 1205 is only 3 hexes away (so you would have to retreat to 1205).
However, if it's the latter (i.e. ranges/supply AFTER the retreat), both 1204 and 1205 are only 3 away (as supply can now pass through 1305 as it both friendly and enemy forces adjacent to it) - thereby allowing you to retreat to 1204.
(Both me and James scratched our head on this...we think it's the latter but that seems wrong!)
Combats with RDU
2) If a force retreats onto a planet which only has a RDU - does that count as combat, or an automatic victory?
Example - 1202 is Friendly. Enemy forces retreat from 1102 onto 1202 (which only has an RDU 'on it'). While combat continues in 1102, will 1202 still count as a friendly supply point?
i.e. Does 1202 have to be resolved 'as a combat' (even if no dice are rolled)
As far as I can tell - the answer is yes - it doesn't differentiate between an attack on a RDU via Operational movement (a reserve could be sent to the Hex) and retreat movement.
3) If Forces v an RDU is deemed as a combat - would it be done via Small Scale Combat if the forces was small enough?
Example is 2 x F5 retreat onto it - so technically it is 0/3 v 10/10 (Off Compot/Def Compot) - so would combat occur with a +2 to the F5's?
Lastly - would it make a difference if the planet was undevastated, but with no PDU (i.e. just an RDU)
Thanks
Paul
....hopefully the thick ray will now move away for a while.....
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 04:45 am: Edit
Here's an interesting question for everybody... If the Federation can upgrade their CVL into a GVX when X-tech is available, why can't the Hydrans upgrade their carriers to X-tech too, even if it's only just the fighters.
For example the Iron Duke would go from a 10-12(12) to a 10-12(18) [Possibly with a redesignation of IDX] and an upgrade cost of the 6 extra X-fighters [Similar to the Heavy Fighter upgrade cost of 2 extra heavy fighters {SD}]. This also makes it similar to the FCX, a normal ship carrying X-Fighters.
Since at that point they are trying to upgrade their fleet as much as possible without going too heavily into debt this would be the best overall upgrade and cheaper in the long run than PF's. It works out even better for combat density when you make them Mega X-Stingers. This does not require any additional rules, just a few extra counters.
This also makes the Hydrans seriously consider the Third Way option and not doing PF's which will give the Lyrans and Klingons an edge for the turns between PF introduction and X-ship introduction.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 02:54 pm: Edit
Michael:
You may want to repost this question in the F&E discussion forum as this is the F&E Rules Question Topic.
Cheers,
Chuck
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 04:12 pm: Edit
Where is the rule that states that base upgrades can only be paid for by the owning race? I know you can use an allied tug but can't find a rule that an allied player cannot pay for it.
Whatever the answer is, we should include this in the MWB update.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 04:19 pm: Edit
Thanks.
Reposted to General Discussions.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 04:21 pm: Edit
Memo for Record
1. We need to resolve/clarify base upgrade timing in the SoP for the MWB.
2. We need to clearly define tug mission completion points and availability in the SoP for the MWB.
3. Recommend adding a simple table to show when a captured/liberated planet becomes a supply point and produces income in the MWB.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 04:38 pm: Edit
re: Base Conversions.
Can any race convert an allies unit? IE the Klingons converting a L-CA->CC, the Feds convert a G-HDD->HDV?
Same rules would apply.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 09:54 am: Edit |
March - April 2006 Archive
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 07:51 am: Edit
Nick, a few more questions have come up from our group, some of them are cute. Let’s start with Tholian Web.
1) 512.5 states that Battle intensity for ships in the web is four plus whatever number the Tholian player picks.
Question: What about non-ship units in the web?
2) 512.5 does not, however, say that the attacking player does not select a battle intensity, nor does it say the attacker must select a 4 for battle intensity to put ships into the web.
Now, assuming that the Klingons attack and pick a 1, and the Tholian player picks a 1, the rules clearly tell us that the drone bombardment points will be on BIR 2+VBIR-EW+Dice, any other ships outside the web cannot contribute COMPOT due to web rules, and the Klingon ships in the web are on BIR 5+VBIR-EW+Dice. The Tholians would then be on BIR 2+VBIR-EW+Dice. This result is, of course, grotesque.
Question: Is there any way you can rectify this insanity for us?
3) Rescue tugs in Planetary Ops clearly cannot save a ship in the web. A D5S that is outside the web, however, could equally clearly be saved, and absorbing 11 damage would not be a stupid use of the craft, especially if more scouts were available for later rounds. Fair enough.
Question: Is the rescue tug “part of the battle force”, as the language in 537.21 seems to imply?
If so, it can clearly pull a cripple out of the web at the end of the round in addition to performing its rescue function, since it is a ship in the battle force which is not in the web.
4) 512.32 Discusses pulling cripples out of the web at the end of the round. It says that an uncrippled ship outside the web can pull out any ship with a defence factor no more than 2 higher than it. Now, unless we somehow get a police ship or battleship attacking web, we note that the defence factors of the crippled ship are unlikely to be above 6, and the defence factors of the uncrippled ship are at least 4.
Yet the rule goes on to note that LTTs can withdraw any ship of 10 or less defence factors (a crippled B10 being the only one I can find) and a tug being able to pull any ship out of the web.
Question: Is this rule intended to include pulling uncrippled ships out of the web, is it intended to reference the original uncrippled defence strength of the ship, or is it simply very redundant in phrasing?
Enough Tholians, on to the Gorn:
5) 433.12 discusses Major Conversions. We all know that we can ‘upgrade for a turn’ a minor conversion opportunity to a major conversion opportunity for 5ep. We know that this must be done at a starbase in the “capitol/shipyard” hex.
Now, a slash in the English language means either, and while the Gorn only have one shipyards hex, they have three capitol hexes.
Question: Does that mean that a second major conversion can be purchased for one of the starbases in the other two capitol-but-non-shipyards hexes?
Related Question: By dint of the same language, does that mean that the first major conversion could be done at either of the other two hexes?
Enough about the Gorn, on to the Romulans:
6) Looking at the pre-war construction [order of battle] of the Romulans, we note that there are 27 various SP hulls listed (28 if you use C.O. due to the SPG), but that pre-war construction [turn by turn] only produces 25 such hulls.
Question: Where did the other two (or three) SPs come from?
7) Looking at the pre-war construction [order of battle] we see variant hulls, looking at the pre-war construction [turn by turn] we see vanilla hulls.
Question: When do the modules get produced and attached?
Question: Are the basic modules from these ships still in the pool, in case the Romulans want to re-convert their variant ships back to their “vanilla” configurations.
8) There are also three SP:SPC conversions listed for T9.
Question: Is that subsumed in the 3 SPCs of the Home Fleet PWC, or is it in addition to them?
Related Question: Do those conversions have to take place in the home fleet?
Related Question: Do those conversion have to be SP:SPC, or can they be SP(any variant):SPC?
Now, before you dismiss these questions as purely academic, consider that the Romulans can begin using their Home Fleet to launch raids against the Federation as early as turn 7, and thus need to know the composition of their fleet. Furthermore, if they have pods available, they can use their modular conversions by giving up their operational movement (up to six ships per fleet are entitled to operational movement within their deployment zone during inactivity), which they may want to do, to shift the location of specialty hulls in anticipation of such raids.
And one for the road …
9) The rules regarding SAFs are unclear with regards to timing:
Question: When, exactly, in the sequence of play, is an SAF included in the battle force, 5-3E, or 5-4A6?
Conditional Question: If they are included at 5-3E, are they removed from the battle force if they become illegal, such as in the case of an insufficient battle intensity selection by the operating player, or in the case where they have no target (IE: the tholians elect not to include their base in their battle group)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 11:44 am: Edit
As a supplemental question to Mark's Question 9 (Conditional): If SAFs are included at 5-3E, and are not removed in the case where they cannot assault, then can the procedure in (CO-520.5) be used (with the SAF having escorts, which presumably would have to have been assigned in 5-3C)?
Regarding Scottt's question: Isn't that covered by (FE2K-433.22) ("starbases can only convert ships of their own race [except Romulan KR conversions and captured ships]")?
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 02:23 pm: Edit
Nick and/or SVC,
There seems to be a debate in the F&E Tactics about whether being at limited war knocks a race out of Future Belligerent Status. Rule 503.4 defines Future Belligerents as "Races which have not entered the war but are scheduled to do so in the future."
The question seems to be has a race that has gone to Limited War entered the war?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 02:37 pm: Edit
Specifically if you can capture NZ hexes between you and a race you are at Limited War with.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 03:10 pm: Edit
602.49 B and D disallow either the race at Limited War, or the supported race to capture NZ hexes.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 04:20 pm: Edit
Robert,
The question is more can the Klingons capture hexes in the K-F NZ and the Z-F NZ thereby keeping the Federation from crossing them after the Federation has gone to limited war in support of the Kzinti.
There was a tactic suggesting this is allowable because the Feds lose Future Belligerent Status by going to limited war. Since the Feds are no longer future belligerents, the Klinks can enter the Fed NZ hexes. These then become Klink space, and since the Feds are not allowed to enter Klink space until T10, the Feds cannot send any ships into Kzinti space.
Since the Klinks are neither the race at limited war nor the supported race, it doesn't that 60249B & D would apply
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 06:07 pm: Edit
Correction: the Feds would still be allowed to enter Kzinti and/or Klingon (or Lyran, or Hydran) space.
The prohibition against entering Klingon space is in (602.4), which ceases to apply once the Klinks enter a NZ hex adjacent to the Feds (as listed in (602.4)). At that point, the normal (602) rules apply, and the Feds can go just about anywhere (I think it's (602.15) that has the list).
Note that the list of fleets released (which I seem to recall is (602.2)) depends on the Klinks attacking the Feds (which clearly isn't the case if the Klinks limit themselves to the NZ, because the NZ isn't the Federation, duh), so the only ships available in this case would be the 4th fleet (which is released at the start of T7C, by (602.4)), new construction (which is always released (somewhere in the (600) rules, if memory serves)), and the ships (but not the SB, if my memory of the wording of (602.4) is correct) of the 2nd fleet.
This would force the Federation to declare War on the Klingons, which I'm not certain is allowed on T7-9, but since there are no rules for the declaration of War in the first place and the Feds are most clearly allowed to enter Klink space in this situation, I can only assume that the Feds can (but need not) declare War in the face of such Klingon provokation. They would, sadly, be limited in the number of ships they could use to prosecute such a war (no 3rd fleet, until the Klinks attack, or T10).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit
The Klingons can't capture NZ hexes adjacent to the Feds prior turn turn 7 (not even the ones between Kzin and Fed space). If the Klingons attack the Marquis area, the Feds go to limited war, and will send 4th fleet ships into the Kzinti area to support them. This does not permit the Klingons to take Fed NZ hexes. That is the same as an attack on their territory proper which is not allowed prior to turn 7.
I will check the rules when I can, but am pretty sure that is how it is intended to work.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 06:18 pm: Edit
Even if the Feds go to limited war, I am guessing they are still "future belligerants" for purposes of full war.
Please no more discussion here in Q&A, but only in the discussion topic.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit
Nick,
There's a whole bunch of discussion on the subject in the TacNotes topic which relates to the question.
I'd like to ask you how you justify your ruling that the Klinks can't capture the Fed NZ hexes, since the black letter rules indicate that they should be able to. (I've explained my logic for this in the TacNotes section, and am willing to repeat it here if you ask, but don't want to clutter Q&A needlessly.)
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 12:17 am: Edit
(602.4) Limited War Scenario: If the Klingons do not move any ships into Federation territory, or into neutral zone hexes adjacent to Federation territory, these special "Limited War" rules remain in effect.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:59 am: Edit
(602.4) says that while supporting the Kzintis, the Feds are not at war. Yes, this means they are not at full war.
Rule (503.4) says a race is a future belligerant until it enters the war. Yes, this also means "Full War." In general (sort of an unwritten rule that probably needs to be written in the warbook) when the rules say "War" they mean "Full War", unless "Limited War" is specifically stated.
Rule (503.61) says you cannot enter NZ hexes of Future Belligerants untill you are either at war or allied with them. Yes, this means full war.
If the Klingons invade the Marquis area, the Feds go to Limited War mode (economically and militarily) to support the Kzinti. The 4th fleet is released under the Limited War rules, which allows them to enter Kzinti space. The Feds are not at war with the coalition/klingons, and the Klingons still consider them future belligerants since that rule deals with full war conditions. Neither the Feds nor the Klingons (nor the Lyrans for that matter) can enter NZ hexes on the Fed Klingon Neutral Zone.
The Feds don't declare limited war on the Klingons, they go to limited war economy and can move some ships into Kzinti space, and fight any coalition or orion pirate units they find there. They are still at peace with the Klingons, Lyrans, Romulans.
The point is that the Klingon-Fed status is independent of the Fed-Kzinti status. The Fed-Kzinti have a Limited War alliance support status, while the Fed-Klingons have a peacetime status. This Fed-Klingon relationship cannot escalate to (full) war until turn 7, that's just how the General War Scenario works. Without war status, you cannot invade NZ hexes of the race involved.
Now, if the Klingons don't invade the Feds on turn 7, then the Feds are still considered a Future Belligerant. Even if they are supporting the Kzinti, their peacetime relationship with the Klingons/Romulans with respect to each race's home territory is unchanged. Future Belligerant status doesn't change until one race in question declares full war on the other race in question.
Also note (602.49E) and (314.35) which allow the Klingons Pre-War raids against the Feds once the Feds are at Limited War supporting the Kzinits. These are of course called pre-war raids since the Feds/Klingons are not at war with each other during this period of the game. So you can do limited in-and-out raids, but cannot conquer territory (whether NZ or Fed provinces).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 11:12 am: Edit
All pending questions downloaded.
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 06:59 pm: Edit
Question About Fighter Strikes:
"(319.23) A carrier which conducted such a strike could retrograde as would any other carrier that used it's fighters in combat."
What about other friendly ships that may have had to been brought along to ensure the safty of the carrier(s) or get past pinning(but the defender chooses not to react)?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:03 pm: Edit
I think your basic question Grant is, does the hex a carrier is in that conducts a fighter strike count as a battle hex for retrograde since some of the units in that hex (the fighters) participated in combat? Does that make sense?
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:18 pm: Edit
I guess that's a way of putting into one sentence
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
Rule (PO-320.334) indicates that the various pre-war raids (AO-314.3) can be special raids. (314.33) clearly indicates that at most three ships can be used for Pre-War Raids.
• First question: If I'm going to be performing a Special Raid (out of Planetary Ops) as a Pre-War Raid, do the ships I use have to be from the raid pool? ((314.31) implies yes, but AO was written before PO, so the option of using on-map ships didn't exist. This has implications if the Klingons wish to use (FO-602.49E) against the Federation.)
• Second question: Am I correct in my reading that the Klingons, if they are carrying out a Pre-War Raid (Special or otherwise), cannot use a size-class 2 ship for the purpose? (I'm 99% certain that I'm correct, (314.35) says "use above rules", and (314.31) says "no SC 2". I just want confirmation.)
• Third question: Do the Klingons have to use ships from their Home Fleet for Pre-War Raids? (The letter of the rule is yes: (314.35) points to (314.31) which says "Home Fleet", but the Klingon Home Fleet got released on T4 and could be anywhere (and I really would prefer not to track the ships). However, the prohibition against using ships from the East Fleet, while redundant by a strict interpretation of the rule, might imply that the Klingons could use other fleets' ships.)
• Related question: If the Klingons can use ships from Fleets other than the Home Fleet for Pre-War Raids, can they use ships from the Imperial War Reserve? I know that the IWR isn't released, but the Romulan Home Fleet isn't released and the Roms can use its ships for Pre-War Raids.
• Fourth question: If a Drone Raid targets a group (320.438) that includes a slow unit (e.g., [SAV+EFF]) are the drone factors doubled, per (320.332)? What if only the outside escort is targeted?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 01:15 am: Edit
Question about FEGs and carrier groups:
Normally DNs have to use FEGs to be escorted, what about Paladins? Can the Hydrans escort them as medium carriers instead if they count the fighter group as 1 of the 3 squadrons allowed?
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Nick,
Can the Klingon's call up their allowed two police ships on turn 1?
The rules referring to police flagship (531.31) and police carrier (531.41) activations refer to the necessity of a race being "actively at war with an enemy and on a wartime economy". But the rule for police cutter activation (531.12) only refers to a race being "at war" to allow the call ups.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks, Ken.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 10:58 am: Edit
Hi Nick - this one has come up again and again and I still can't ermember the answer.
the maximum of -7 in a pursuit battle. Does this apply to only the pursued battle force or both?
Thanks
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 07:09 pm: Edit
615.32 says 12 ships from the Klingon home fleet are released if the Tholians enter Klingon space. Does this include Tholian raids?
707. "2XTPod" -- What's a TPod? Is it a T-PACK (available in Y179)? Are they part of Tholian Gambit?
308.9 Do the Klingons really get to use their 6 command points in Tholian Gambit?
Thanks, Dave
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 11:18 pm: Edit
Would (314.29) apply to Dwalend's raid question?
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 12:28 am: Edit
Thanks Dave Butler. I think that answers one of them. Too bad the Tholians don't have anything better than a CA.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 04:26 pm: Edit
==================
Robert Padilla:
511.53 specifically states that ships crippled during the combat rounds of the current turn are taken from the designated static and mobile forces and added to the crippled ships pool. The last sentence says that they are available to be placed as static ships, not that they are static ships.
Then we have 511.573 with states crippled ships in the same system (in the fixed, not mobile box) are assigned to the planet with the most PDUs and can be attacked by directed damage....
Why would there be a distinction in 511.573 for crippled ships being in the fixed not mobile box, since all crippled ships go into the crippled ships pool? And by 511.53, the ships are neither mobile nor static, but was the intent for them to be tracked seperately in the crippled ships pool?
ANSWER: I don't know why that parenthetical is there, could be it is just clumsily reiterating that such crippled ships are in the static box and not the mobile box. Crippled ships go to the crippled ships pool. The only difference between the crippled pool and static ships is that crippled ships are designated as being at a specific planet, static ships are designated as being at a specific system.
================
Ryan Opel:
And why the heck would they go to the planet with the most PDU's if that's not the planet with SB? The SB is gonna provide more defense then a minors PDU's and then you can Rapid Repair.
ANSWER: You got me, but that's what the rule says. If a planet has a starbase but no PDUs, and the only other planet in that system has one PDU, then they go to the planet with one PDU. You can of course pick which system the crippled ships go to as they are crippled round by round.
================
John Doucette:
I'll add my voice to the wonkiness of the workings of 511. In the old rule set, there was a specification of shooting at static cripples not in the line using a 3:1 ratio, and I'd like to know why it was removed, or was it simply an oversight?
ANSWER: Which rules printing? Unfortunately the only previous rules I have are the 1993 printing, and they don't specify one way or the other either. Assuming an older set specified, that was before my time so I couldn't say if it was a change or an omission. I only know that now it does not specify either way.
===================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
Push the pre-war Fed question up the chain. When I wrote Backdraft I based all my estimates and calculation on the Fed having control of his production on turns 7-9. Had I even imagined that anyone would consider the pre-war production restriction to go past the published pre-war turns 1-6 I would have written a Fed production schedule for those turns to extend their original pre-war production through turn 9.
ANSWER: Just let me know what your intention was, and I will add it to the master errata file, since you are the scenario author. You probably want to do it as errata for (619.2) to specify future turns to say when Feds are released to regular production. Does this simply lead into one of the regular scenarios? Also, (619.2) says when the scenario begins, but does not specify when it ends or how many turns it is inteded to run or what scenario it connects to. I guess the assumption is that it is an alternate start for the General war, but this is not directly stated.
===================
Lawrence Bergen:
JD: I looked in the F&E 1990 version at 511.5 Step 7, pg 52-REV.2 and it doesnt show 3:1 it only says directed damage. I also looked in the 1986 version 511.5; Step 7, pg 30 and it says the same. So unless it was changed in 1989 and then changed back...?
(That is unless I am looking in the wrong spot.)
I do have to admit I always thought it WAS 3-1.
ANSWER: Hmmmm.... Probably needs to be clarified in the Warbook. Is the crippled ship pool in the "support" area (3:1), or at the base/planet location (2:1) (i.e. in the battleforce but not contributing to it).
====================
james robertson (Mordak5):
I am sure this must have come up before, but i was attacking the Kzinti Capital and the Kz player has 20 pdu's on the capital and he is putting them into the battle line all at the same time. As I can only target 4 at a time it seems strange to me that he can put all 20 into the battle line, is this correct can he do this??#
ANSWER: Yes, that is correct. A common tactic is to do raids on the kzinti capital over the course of the early turns to destroy some PDUs each turn so that the Kzinti has a hard time to build up to the full 20. If he gets there though it is a major operation to take out. You can ask in the General Discussion thread for advice from others if you like. Good luck.
==========================
Lots of base upgrade timing questions/discussion.
ANSWER:
The implication has always been that the upgrade process follows the same timing as setting up the initial mobile base. I never noticed that it is not directly stated though. The reference to "after the Combat Phase" in rule (433.41B) should more properly be "at the start of the owners next player turn" from my understanding (and this is, technically, after combat).
So:
Turn 1A: Kzinti tug moves a MB to their capital and begins setting up.
Turn 2C: Coalition (Lyrans) theoretically have a chance to attack and destroy the tug (or force it to retreat), stopping the setup and destroying the MB. The MB itself cannot be attacked as it is still disassembled.
Turn 2A: MB is now set up at the start of the Kzinti player turn. The Kzinti can now reassign the tug or give it the base upgrade mission and pay the cost for a BATS upgrade. Assuming you upgrade:
Turn 3C: The coalition could attack, but destroying the tug will not stop the upgrade, they must destroy the base, which still has the factors of a mobile base during this time.
Turn 3A: At the start of the Kzinti player turn the base is now a BATS. It could perform repairs as such in the repair step of this turn. The Kzinti could reassign the tug or keep the tug with the base upgrade mission and pay the cost of a starbase upgrade. Assuming that you upgrade again:
Turn 4C: The coalition has one more chance to stop the starbase from appearing by destroying the base, which still has the factors of a BATS during this time.
Turn 4A: Assuming the BATS survived, it is considered a Starbase from the start of the Kzinti player turn. It can do starbase level repairs and conversions on this turn in the appropriate step. The tug can be given a new mission at the appropriate point this turn as well.
If a lesser base were crippled but not destroyed during the upgrade turn, then it would still upgrade, but would be still also be crippled as the larger base (433.41B). You could start repairing it immediately of course by changing the tug from the upgrade mission to base repair mission.
As far as I know this is how it has always been, and how most have been playing. (could be wrong on the second count though...)
We should clarify this in the warbook. Please keep any more discussion on this in the discussion topic though. Thanks!
===================
Dave Butler:
Rule (424.37) states that a number of unit types can't be repaired by DLR; rule (424.31) says that ships in the repair track can use conversion during repair; what happens when a ship on the track is converted to a ship that can't be repaired by DLR (e.g., D7 -> D7A)?
If you can convert to those unit types, then can you advance a crippled such unit placed into the holding box by (424.35)? (The rules are pretty clear that you can place anything you like into the holding box (if only to salvage it later), however (424.37) might prohibit some units from advancing, but isn't clear as it contains an implication that the prohibition is restricted to units lost in combat ("are considered destroyed outright").)
If there exists any way to have a stasis ship on a DLR track, what happens to the stasis module if the ship is converted to the base hull type?
ANSWER: I don't see a problem with CDRing a D7A from a D7 in the depot. The rule prevents a destroyed D7A from going to the depot (becase they have the boom recover/stasis kit rule instead), but a plain D7 could go to the depot and then get converted. Rule (312.111) pretty much means that if you then change your mind and conver the D7A to something else, you lose that stasis kit. Once it is installed in a boom, you can't get it out. You can put the whole boom onto a new ship though.
When, precisely, are the ships considered repaired? (I've come up with two possibilities: first, when they leave box #1; second, when they enter box #4. The attraction of the second is that it answers my first question. If the ship is repaired upon entering box #4, then it's okay to convert to a repair-prohibited ship, because it's already been repaired (in the game-use of the word).)
ANSWER: Not really defined. Shouldn't matter for anything I can see. I would say the prohibition is against putting a destroyed ship from the prohibited list into the depot system (holding box) to start with. Such prohibited ships simply generate salvage under the normal rules and that's that. The repair doesn't happen at a specific point, but is spread out over time (the nature of the depot system). A destroyed ship goes in the depot system, when it comes out of the #1 box it is considered new construction (424.31).
========================
Dave Butler:
Assume Hydran territory has been split into two grids by the Coalition; one contains the Capital, the other connects to the Off-map Area. Neither are Partial Grids (by (FE2K-413.4), to qualify as Partial a Grid can't connect to either the Capital or the Off-map). Can I use (410.34)'s Orion smuggling to transfer EP between these Grids? (The rule allows transfers from general treasury to a Partial, and from a Partial to the "main grid" (a term not defined), but is silent on transfers between two non-Partial grids.)
Can the Supply Grid that includes the Off-map Area but not the Capital pay for a Command Point (308.9)? Can I buy Command Points without a shipyard (after my Capital falls)?
ANSWER: Orion smuggling between off map grid and capital grid? I don't see why not. I don't think Command Points are tied to any specific grid, they are extra planning, not a physical resource. "Stored" command points are an empire wide resource, they can be used anywhere. An out of supply force could use a command point if you wanted. If you have the money, you can buy one, I can't tell that it matters where the money came from.
==================
Geof Clark:
Can a player remove a PDU/PGB from a planet to reposition it on another planet? If so, what is the process.
ANSWER: Robert Padilla is correct, (508.14) prevents you from moving them once they are placed.
====================
Ken Kazinski:
Captain's Log 13 gave a Order of Battle for the ISC shows there are survey cruisers in the OB.
The ISC ship information table (1 May 2005) does not have any listings for the SR's.
Were they removed from the OB or not listed in the SIT?
ANSWER: The new survey ship rule (still playtest) is in CL #31. The SIT there shows an ISC survey ship.
=====================
Paul Howard:
Retreats
1) - Do you actually calculate the hex for being in supply/supply range, from the Hex your currently in, or what the situation would be if you was in the new hex?
ANSWER: For (302.733), you judge what the supply path would be once if the retreating force went to each potential retreat hex. You are trying to retreat into supply and into the hex with the shortest supply path, so this is what needs to be judged.
Combats with RDU
2) If a force retreats onto a planet which only has a RDU - does that count as combat, or an automatic victory?
Example - 1202 is Friendly. Enemy forces retreat from 1102 onto 1202 (which only has an RDU 'on it'). While combat continues in 1102, will 1202 still count as a friendly supply point?
ANSWER: It still has to be resolved as a combat, even if the outcome is obvious. So during the remainder of the first combat hex, that adjacent RDF is still present.
3) If Forces v an RDF is deemed as a combat - would it be done via Small Scale Combat if the forces was small enough?
Example is 2 x F5 retreat onto it - so technically it is 0/3 v 10/10 (Off Compot/Def Compot) - so would combat occur with a +2 to the F5's?
Lastly - would it make a difference if the planet was undevastated, but with no PDU (i.e. just an RDU)
ANSWER: Why bother? Just say the F5s bombard from orbit, devestate if they need to, and capture the planet. They are not going to run from a 0 compot attack right?
==========================
Chuck Strong:
Where is the rule that states that base upgrades can only be paid for by the owning race? I know you can use an allied tug but can't find a rule that an allied player cannot pay for it.
Whatever the answer is, we should include this in the MWB update.
ANSWER: I believe it is just assumed. Base upgrades are essentially a special type of Conversion, and you always pay for your own conversions. Base upgrades (in addition to the cost) also require the presence of a tug, and this part specifically says you can use an allied tug. But by default it still falls under the conversion rules, and those are paid for by the owner of the item being converted.
======================
Scott Tenhoff:
Can any race convert an allies unit? IE the Klingons converting a L-CA->CC, the Feds convert a G-HDD->HDV?
ANSWER: Rule (433.22) prevents such things.
==========================
Mark Ermenc:
1) 512.5 states that Battle intensity for ships in the web is four plus whatever number the Tholian player picks.
Question: What about non-ship units in the web?
ANSWER: I'm sure it would be the same. It should probably say "units in the web" as opposed to "ships" in the web.
2) 512.5 does not, however, say that the attacking player does not select a battle intensity, nor does it say the attacker must select a 4 for battle intensity to put ships into the web.
ANSWER: The attacking ships in the web get BIR 4 INSTEAD of what they would pick. The reason is that to get into the web you must move to within a couple of SFB hexes of the base/planet, and this is what picking BIR 4 means.
3) Rescue tugs in Planetary Ops clearly cannot save a ship in the web. A D5S that is outside the web, however, could equally clearly be saved, and absorbing 11 damage would not be a stupid use of the craft, especially if more scouts were available for later rounds. Fair enough.
Question: Is the rescue tug “part of the battle force”, as the language in 537.21 seems to imply?
ANSWER: Huh? Rule (537.21) clearly says it is "supporting the battle force" in the same manner as DB ships and carriers sending fighters forward, so no, it is not part of it. The fact that it is directed at with the 3:1 ratio clarifies this. If you want the tug to be able to pull a crippled ship out of the web, then it must be in the battleforce proper (and able to be directed on by the Tholians at 2:1). If you want it to perform the rescue mission, it follows those rules instead.
4) 512.32 Discusses pulling cripples out of the web at the end of the round. It says that an uncrippled ship outside the web can pull out any ship with a defence factor no more than 2 higher than it. Now, unless we somehow get a police ship or battleship attacking web, we note that the defence factors of the crippled ship are unlikely to be above 6, and the defence factors of the uncrippled ship are at least 4.
Yet the rule goes on to note that LTTs can withdraw any ship of 10 or less defence factors (a crippled B10 being the only one I can find) and a tug being able to pull any ship out of the web.
Question: Is this rule intended to include pulling uncrippled ships out of the web, is it intended to reference the original uncrippled defence strength of the ship, or is it simply very redundant in phrasing?
ANSWER: Since the point is that we are comparing relative sizes of ships to determine if ship A can pull out ship B, I would say you are meant to compare the original uncrippled defense factors of the ships in question.
5) 433.12 discusses Major Conversions. We all know that we can ‘upgrade for a turn’ a minor conversion opportunity to a major conversion opportunity for 5ep. We know that this must be done at a starbase in the “capitol/shipyard” hex.
Now, a slash in the English language means either, and while the Gorn only have one shipyards hex, they have three capitol hexes.
Question: Does that mean that a second major conversion can be purchased for one of the starbases in the other two capitol-but-non-shipyards hexes?
ANSWER: Here it means "and". The shipyard hex itself is the only one that can support major conversions. So the Gorn (like the Lyrans) must build a second starbase in the shipyard hex to be able to pay for the extra major conversion. Major conversion facilities in PO are a way around this.
Related Question: By dint of the same language, does that mean that the first major conversion could be done at either of the other two hexes?
ANSWER: All major conversions must be done at the shipyard hex itself, or at major conversion facilities.
6) Looking at the pre-war construction [order of battle] of the Romulans, we note that there are 27 various SP hulls listed (28 if you use C.O. due to the SPG), but that pre-war construction [turn by turn] only produces 25 such hulls.
Question: Where did the other two (or three) SPs come from?
ANSWER: This has been screwed up in every printing. The problem was fixed when the three SPCs were specified as conversions and not as 3 extra hulls, but at the same time 2 extra SPs were incorrectly added to the PWC build schedule (and that was my fault, darn it to heck. I wanted to account for the 2 SPs in home fleet, but at the time I forgot those were built prior to Turn #1 and thus should NOT be in the PWC build schedule). Hopefully I got this corrected in the newest printing of Advanced Ops. (at least I sent the corrections to Steve). The correct form is:
HOME FLEET: 2 SPs (these were built prior to turn 1 and thus are not on the PWC build schedule of turns 1-9)
HOME FLEET PWC: 9 SP hulls (including the SPG, the 3 SPCs are simply conversions of 3 of the 6 SPs listed here)
NORTH FLEET PWC: 8 SP hulls
WEST FLEET PWC: 6 SP hulls
PATROL DETACHMENT PWC: 2 SP hulls
TOTAL: 25 SP hulls in the PWC sections of the order of battle. They actually start with 27 on the board since they built 2 SPs prior turn turn 1.
If you count the builds of SP hulls from turns 1-9 you will get 25 hulls:
Turn 1: 2
Turn 2: 2
Turn 3: 3
Turn 4: 3
Turn 5: 3
Turn 6: 3
Turn 7: 3
Turn 8: 3 (was mistakenly changed to 4 but 3 is correct)
Turn 9: 3 (was mistakenly changed to 4 but 3 is correct)
Total: 25 SP hulls built.
Then, starting with turn 10, the construction schedule includes 4 SP hulls each turn.
7) Looking at the pre-war construction [order of battle] we see variant hulls, looking at the pre-war construction [turn by turn] we see vanilla hulls.
Question: When do the modules get produced and attached?
ANSWER: Unknown, not defined.
Question: Are the basic modules from these ships still in the pool, in case the Romulans want to re-convert their variant ships back to their “vanilla” configurations.
ANSWER: Yes. Rule () says you always have the vanilla modules for every modular hull.
8) There are also three SP:SPC conversions listed for T9.
Question: Is that subsumed in the 3 SPCs of the Home Fleet PWC, or is it in addition to them?
ANSWER: You started with 6 SPs. You end with 3 SPs and 3 SPCs.
Related Question: Do those conversions have to take place in the home fleet?
ANSWER: Yes, that is why they are listed in the HOME PWC.
Related Question: Do those conversion have to be SP:SPC, or can they be SP(any variant):SPC?
ANSWER: It is intended that 3 of the 6 vanilla SPs will become SPCs.
Now, before you dismiss these questions as purely academic, consider that the Romulans can begin using their Home Fleet to launch raids against the Federation as early as turn 7, and thus need to know the composition of their fleet. Furthermore, if they have pods available, they can use their modular conversions by giving up their operational movement (up to six ships per fleet are entitled to operational movement within their deployment zone during inactivity), which they may want to do, to shift the location of specialty hulls in anticipation of such raids.
ANSWER: You could just assume that the Home fleet conversion happened first... Really, some of it is just not defined in that much detail. Sorry. Also, even if using them for raids, the fleets themselves are unreleased, and it was already clarified that unreleased fleets cannot swap modules fleet to fleet, to prevent just concentrating modules like you propose.
9) The rules regarding SAFs are unclear with regards to timing:
Question: When, exactly, in the sequence of play, is an SAF included in the battle force, 5-3E, or 5-4A6?
ANSWER: Step 5-3E when the battle force is constructed. Step 5-4A6 is the decision point to attack a base or PDUs.
Conditional Question: If they are included at 5-3E, are they removed from the battle force if they become illegal, such as in the case of an insufficient battle intensity selection by the operating player, or in the case where they have no target (IE: the tholians elect not to include their base in their battle group)?
ANSWER: No, they are not removed. Better be sure when you put them in.
=======================
Dave Butler:
As a supplemental question to Mark's Question 9 (Conditional): If SAFs are included at 5-3E, and are not removed in the case where they cannot assault, then can the procedure in (CO-520.5) be used (with the SAF having escorts, which presumably would have to have been assigned in 5-3C)?
ANSWER: No, as you have to assign the escorts first, and you can't assign escorts if you intend to make an assault. I.e., escorts are for when your SAF gets attacked before reaching the target hex.
===========================
Questions on Klingons taking NZ hexes on the Fed border without going to war with the Feds:
Jeff Laikind:
(602.4) Limited War Scenario: If the Klingons do not move any ships into Federation territory, or into neutral zone hexes adjacent to Federation territory, these special "Limited War" rules remain in effect.
Nick G. Blank:
(602.4) says that while supporting the Kzintis, the Feds are not at war. Yes, this means they are not at full war.
Rule (503.4) says a race is a future belligerant until it enters the war. Yes, this also means "Full War." In general (sort of an unwritten rule that probably needs to be written in the warbook) when the rules say "War" they mean "Full War", unless "Limited War" is specifically stated.
Rule (503.61) says you cannot enter NZ hexes of Future Belligerants untill you are either at war or allied with them. Yes, this means full war.
If the Klingons invade the Marquis area, the Feds go to Limited War mode (economically and militarily) to support the Kzinti. The 4th fleet is released under the Limited War rules, which allows them to enter Kzinti space. The Feds are not at war with the coalition/klingons, and the Klingons still consider them future belligerants since that rule deals with full war conditions. Neither the Feds nor the Klingons (nor the Lyrans for that matter) can enter NZ hexes on the Fed Klingon Neutral Zone.
The Feds don't declare limited war on the Klingons, they go to limited war economy and can move some ships into Kzinti space, and fight any coalition or orion pirate units they find there. They are still at peace with the Klingons, Lyrans, Romulans.
The point is that the Klingon-Fed status is independent of the Fed-Kzinti status. The Fed-Kzinti have a Limited War alliance support status, while the Fed-Klingons have a peacetime status. This Fed-Klingon relationship cannot escalate to (full) war until turn 7, that's just how the General War Scenario works. Without war status, you cannot invade NZ hexes of the race involved.
Now, if the Klingons don't invade the Feds on turn 7, then the Feds are still considered a Future Belligerant. Even if they are supporting the Kzinti, their peacetime relationship with the Klingons/Romulans with respect to each race's home territory is unchanged. Future Belligerant status doesn't change until one race in question declares full war on the other race in question.
Also note (602.49E) and (314.35) which allow the Klingons Pre-War raids against the Feds once the Feds are at Limited War supporting the Kzinits. These are of course called pre-war raids since the Feds/Klingons are not at war with each other during this period of the game. So you can do limited in-and-out raids, but cannot conquer territory (whether NZ or Fed provinces).
===========================
Grant Strong:
Question About Fighter Strikes:
"(319.23) A carrier which conducted such a strike could retrograde as would any other carrier that used it's fighters in combat."
What about other friendly ships that may have had to been brought along to ensure the safty of the carrier(s) or get past pinning(but the defender chooses not to react)?
ANSWER: Rule (319.23) only provides for the carrier to retrograde. Not other ships that came along or were present in such a "launch" hex to begin with.
====================
Dave Butler:
Rule (PO-320.334) indicates that the various pre-war raids (AO-314.3) can be special raids. (314.33) clearly indicates that at most three ships can be used for Pre-War Raids.
First question: If I'm going to be performing a Special Raid (out of Planetary Ops) as a Pre-War Raid, do the ships I use have to be from the raid pool? ((314.31) implies yes, but AO was written before PO, so the option of using on-map ships didn't exist. This has implications if the Klingons wish to use (FO-602.49E) against the Federation.)
ANSWER: I would say such ships have to be from the raid pool.
Second question: Am I correct in my reading that the Klingons, if they are carrying out a Pre-War Raid (Special or otherwise), cannot use a size-class 2 ship for the purpose? (I'm 99% certain that I'm correct, (314.35) says "use above rules", and (314.31) says "no SC 2". I just want confirmation.)
ANSWER: Right. No size 2s.
Third question: Do the Klingons have to use ships from their Home Fleet for Pre-War Raids? (The letter of the rule is yes: (314.35) points to (314.31) which says "Home Fleet", but the Klingon Home Fleet got released on T4 and could be anywhere (and I really would prefer not to track the ships). However, the prohibition against using ships from the East Fleet, while redundant by a strict interpretation of the rule, might imply that the Klingons could use other fleets' ships.)
Related question: If the Klingons can use ships from Fleets other than the Home Fleet for Pre-War Raids, can they use ships from the Imperial War Reserve? I know that the IWR isn't released, but the Romulan Home Fleet isn't released and the Roms can use its ships for Pre-War Raids.
ANSWER: In this case the Klingons could use any ships that are released. Just put them in the raid pool, and use them for pre-war raids keeping in mind the special pre-war raid limitations (such as only 3 ships, no size 2 raiders).
Fourth question: If a Drone Raid targets a group (320.438) that includes a slow unit (e.g., [SAV+EFF]) are the drone factors doubled, per (320.332)? What if only the outside escort is targeted?
ANSWER: Presumably yes, they would be doubled. Escorts are not slow units however.
====================
Michael Lui:
Question about FEGs and carrier groups:
Normally DNs have to use FEGs to be escorted, what about Paladins? Can the Hydrans escort them as medium carriers instead if they count the fighter group as 1 of the 3 squadrons allowed?
ANSWER: No. Paladins are defined as hybrid ships and can not be escorted as carriers. You cannot "choose" to treat it as a carrier. You could convert the paladin to a CVA (true carrier) and then it could have escorts.
======================
Ken S. Towery:
Can the Klingon's call up their allowed two police ships on turn 1?
The rules referring to police flagship (531.31) and police carrier (531.41) activations refer to the necessity of a race being "actively at war with an enemy and on a wartime economy". But the rule for police cutter activation (531.12) only refers to a race being "at war" to allow the call ups.
ANSWER: Yes they can. (601.161) says they are under no restrictions other than things that involve leaving their territory or Lyrans entering Klingon territory. They are at wartime level, but not at war with a specific enemy.
====================
James Southcott:
the maximum of -7 in a pursuit battle. Does this apply to only the pursued battle force or both?
ANSWER: It applies to each side. Each side can bring up to 7 minus points.
===================
David Walend:
615.32 says 12 ships from the Klingon home fleet are released if the Tholians enter Klingon space. Does this include Tholian raids?
ANSWER: I would guess no.
707. "2XTPod" -- What's a TPod? Is it a T-PACK (available in Y179)? Are they part of Tholian Gambit?
ANSWER: It should say T-PACK as tholians do not use pods. They would not be available prior to the date on the SIT.
308.9 Do the Klingons really get to use their 6 command points in Tholian Gambit?
ANSWER: Rule (615.43) says they get free command points (the one you get each turn) but not the stockpiled command points.
====================
Dave Butler:
Would (314.29) apply to Dwalend's raid question?
ANSWER: No, that deals with raiding the inactive fleet area itself, I don't think that is not happening here. The ships are to be released if the Tholians move in operationally or by reaction, I believe.
====================
MASTER WARBOOK QUESTION FILE
(I will try to keep this updated)
1. We need to resolve/clarify base upgrade timing in the SoP for the MWB.
2. We need to clearly define tug mission completion points and availability in the SoP for the MWB.
3. Recommend adding a simple table to show when a captured/liberated planet becomes a supply point and produces income in the MWB.
4. Crippled ship pool attacked with DD at 2:1 or 3:1?
5. Specify base upgrades only paid for by the owner?
6. Rule (512.5) should say "units in the web" not "ships in the web"
==================================
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 07:04 pm: Edit
When and where did the rules change that altered the cost of carrier conversions/substitutions? I am really confused as AO says the C8V cost 2 ep but the online one is different; is there a synopsis of the carrier cost by sizes? If not, what are the different costs by size?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 07:10 pm: Edit
THe online SIT has all the current costs for both production and conversion. Basically CVA=4,CV/CWV=2 DWV/FV=1.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 07:40 pm: Edit
If all CVAs cost 4ep over there base hull, then why does a C8V cost 18 to build (C8 cost 16 + carrier 2)? Why does a B10, B10-, B10S and a B10V all cost the same for direct build (36ep)?
BTW are the 4 fighters on the B10 hybrid factors?
Nick, can you please provide some clarity on this?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 08:08 pm: Edit
Sorry, but I can't. I have absolutely nothing to do with picking the costs for things on the SIT. Steve Cole alone sets the values and costs on the SIT, and the online ones are the most updated and correct versions available.
I think some things like carrier costs were reviewed and revised when Fighter Ops came out, that may be where it was changed, not sure though.
If you think an SIT value is just plain wrong (and there could still be some errors), you need to post it in the MASTER SIT UPDATE topic, not this one.
B10 fighters are not hybrid fighters, as seen from the cost on the SIT, 8 EPs for 4 fighter factors.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 09:32 pm: Edit
Memo For Record (MWB)
We may need to update (436.0) B10 (Battleships) rules to reflect current versions of these ships and their costs. If a direct cost B10 costs 36EP does that cost include the light carrier cost of 1EP; examples:
B10-: 35EP = Direct cost (35EP for base hull + 0 EP for non-carrier)
B10: 36EP = Direct cost (35EP for base hull + 1 EP for Light Carrier cost)
B10V: 39EP = Direct cost (35EP for base hull + 4 EP for Heavy Carrier cost)
B10S: 40EP = Direct cost (35EP for base hull + 5 EP for SCS cost)
Note: (426.26) also needs to be updated as there are now different racial versions of BBs.
I'll post a note also in the Master SITs section as I have found questions about various battleship salvage costs.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 10:47 am: Edit
A followup on Grant Strong's question about fighter strikes:
________________________________________
Quote:
"(319.23) A carrier which conducted such a strike could retrograde as would any other carrier that used it's fighters in combat."
What about other friendly ships that may have had to been brought along to ensure the safty of the carrier(s) or get past pinning(but the defender chooses not to react)?
ANSWER: Rule (319.23) only provides for the carrier to retrograde. Not other ships that came along or were present in such a "launch" hex to begin with.
________________________________________
Question: Would the escorts assigned to such a carrier be entitled to retrograde, or would the carrier have to break out of its group and retrograde alone? What if the flexible carrier group rules from Fighter Ops were not being used?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 12:31 pm: Edit
CVA Cost History: [Removed due to discussion in SIT topic]
Dang. And I still like the analogy of the adulterous relationship CVA-at-the-capital had with both Scale-CV-cost-by-N(fighters) and My-CVA-costs-too-much. Such is life.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 08:15 pm: Edit
Nick,
I will e-mail you the Backdraft update mid April when I finish up my TDY (temp duty) here in Florida. They're keeping me fairly busy and I won't have time to polish it up till then.
My apologies to anybody out there who is currently running a Backdraft game. When I finish the update for Nick I plan to include a proper Pre-War turn 7-9 production for the Fed. It isn’t going to be anything amazing or go beyond their peace-time economy. It will simply be an expansion and extension of their turn 1-6 production. I will also include a note to end the scenario on turn 9 unless using Backdraft as an alternate GW opening. Starting turn 10 use the standard turn 10 scenario.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 09:43 pm: Edit
Nick,
Can the drone factors on a ship be split between two drone raids (PO-320.0)? Obviously, both raids would have to come from the same Attack Hex. The rules are silent on the matter, so far as I can tell.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 12:58 am: Edit
Memo for Record (MWB)
(432.12) needs to be updated to reflect new carrier production costs.
(433.455) limits CVA production only at the capital shipyard. I would assume that this also applies to SCSs but this current rule do not specifically state so.
Also note that the last sentence of (433.455) limits CVA production ONLY at the capital shipyard. If room permits then consider a note under (433.1) "Where Conversions Are Done" to avoid confusion.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 05:35 pm: Edit
Another Hydran question:
Since FO put in CVDs and made them medium carriers when are you going to reclassify the Hydran CV as a medium carrier instead of a heavy carrier?
Heck, it's not even a good CVD with only 11 fighters. Or, as an option if you absolutely don't want to change the number of escorts, a medium carrier that is escorted as a heavy.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 05:56 pm: Edit
Michael, that really needs to be in the proposals topic. Q&A is for questions on the existing rulesset, and there is currently no plan to change the Hydran carriers (or any other carriers that I know of). Proposals is for proposed new rules and changes to existing rules. It is at:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/4099.html?1141725006
At the bottom of the above list you can create a new conversation (thread) about Hydran carriers if you wish. If you generate enough interest, there might be a change.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Sorry.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 07:26 pm: Edit
No prob. There are so many topics here, with little explanation of their purpose, it is hard to know.
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 11:16 pm: Edit
Nick,
Are there any production restrictions with regard to building CVD-class interdiction carriers (either by substitution or conversion) beyond the normal racial limits for CV construction?
In other words, does a CVD count as a CVA (since the CVD has the same number of fighters as an equivalent CVA) when produced?
For example, it's turn 10 (Y173) and the Klingons want to build a D6U. Theoretically are they allowed to build two of them per turn (under the restrictions of their maximum two carrier groups per turn)?
If they wanted to convert a D6V to a D6U would this fall under the CVA production restriction of (515.52) or would it simply be a minor (2 EP plus fighter expense) conversion as per the SIT?
Ken
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 03:34 am: Edit
Well, going by the Romulan DMH-B rulling, they'd count as medium carriers because they're escorted as medium carriers. I'll be interested to see what happens, however.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 07:35 am: Edit
Yes, I wouldn't mind so much if everyones CVD production counted as CVAs. Then the Hydrans escorting their CV would just be their doctrine rather than an old ship prejudice. (However, I would still want it to be declared a CVD but that's for a different topic.)
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 09:48 am: Edit
My scout got crippled. Can I put it back into the battleforce in the scout formation slot?
It has no scout functions, but it's still a scout. It obviously would provide no benefits in the scout slot, but it could simply absorb damage.
If legal, dibs on the tac note...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 10:24 pm: Edit
I certainly hope this is legal, I already do this in my games.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 07:23 am: Edit
You would put an ineffective crippled scout in the scout box just so you can self-destroy it?
I'd never voluntarily self-destroy any crippled ship unless I had to, especially a scout. And I can't envisage a situation where I would really need to be able to take the 3-4 damage on a crippled scout to achieve an objective.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 07:27 am: Edit
David, not wanting to spoil the Q&A topic - reason is the crippled scout is safer in the Scout Box, than out of the battle line - if it's at the home world, as unless it changes/corrected you can direct at it for 2:1 and the scout box is 3:1. Is also relevant for persuit battles (cripples out of battle force 2:1, scout box 3:1!)
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, March 10, 2006 - 07:34 am: Edit
Paul - no scout box in a pursuit
By Ken S. Towery (Maxoman) on Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 02:42 am: Edit
Nick,
A bit of errata found within the online SIT for the Kzinti:
CVH: In service date shows Y176 (turn #16), but rule (530.223) indicates H-ftr carriers available on turn #20 (Y178).
[Note that the SIT correctly(?) lists the Z-MVH date as Y178.]
VHP Pod: same as CVH above; (530.225) indicates pod should be available (Y178)
Thanks, Ken
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 10:03 am: Edit
David
Sometimes I am really desperate to be able to take 2-4 more damage, it doesn't happen often but when the enemy is teetering on the edge of staying or leaving, taking the extra damage might just make the difference. And cracking the Enemies Blood Starbase on turn 3 sometimes calls for really desperate measures, especially if you ALWAYS do this and the Lyrans send all of their turn 3 production south. Also what PAUL said about the Homeworld.
By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 01:18 pm: Edit
Given the "new" map SVC provided describing Alpha, I was wondering just how large Fed Space is; ideally its diameter or radius from the Fed core.
Thanks much in advance.
p.s. I also ask this to help generate a hexless map for a set of campaign rules I'm working on.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 05:51 pm: Edit
George, check out the F&E large scale map here:
http://www.starfleetstore.com/MERCHANT2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=S&Product_Code=5010
Hexes are 500 parsecs each, so fed space is 10 hexes from Earth to the NZ, or roughly 5000 parsecs in radius. You can get other distances by counting carefully.
By George M. Ebersole (George) on Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 07:16 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By George M. Ebersole (George) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:04 am: Edit
Nick; on another thread SVC stated the galaxy was larger than initially thought (for SFV and F&E purposes). Does this new map take that into account?
I guess that's my real question. Sorry I wasn't clear.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:10 am: Edit
No, that doesn't change the area of the F&E map, it is still the same number of 500 parsec hexes.
With the idea of a 100,000 light year diameter galaxy, the F&E map takes up a large chunk, stretching from the rim to 2/3 or 3/4 of the way to the core. Adding Omega sector and 2/3 or more of the galaxy is full. With a larger galaxy, the F&E map is the same size as before, but now only stretches from the edge to maybe 1/3 of the way to the core, and takes up a smaller "arc" of the galaxy side to side. This provides more room for omega sector, sargasso sector, Xorkalian sector, Xorkalian slave sectors, and the sigma sector. Cap Log #27 had this map of the galaxy in it.
Enlarging the galaxy simply provided more space for future products, it didn't change the size of the Alpha sector F&E map. The map is now a smaller part of the galaxy, is all.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit
===============
Mark Ermenc:
Quote:
"(319.23) A carrier which conducted such a strike could retrograde as would any other carrier that used it's fighters in combat."
What about other friendly ships that may have had to been brought along to ensure the safty of the carrier(s) or get past pinning(but the defender chooses not to react)?
ANSWER: Rule (319.23) only provides for the carrier to retrograde. Not other ships that came along or were present in such a "launch" hex to begin with.
:End Quote
Question: Would the escorts assigned to such a carrier be entitled to retrograde, or would the carrier have to break out of its group and retrograde alone? What if the flexible carrier group rules from Fighter Ops were not being used?
ANSWER: In general, the rules provide for the escorts of a carrier group to retro after combat as well (obviously the only choice if you are only using the group counters/vanilla F&E). This carries forward if using the separate counters (fighter ops), assigned escorts can retro as well.
========================
Dave Butler:
Can the drone factors on a ship be split between two drone raids (PO-320.0)? Obviously, both raids would have to come from the same Attack Hex. The rules are silent on the matter, so far as I can tell.
ANSWER: Rule (320.21) says Drone Raids are conducted by 1 to 3 ships. Each such grouping is a separate raid for purposes of (320.12). Each raid can only attack a single target under (320.33). There is no provision for a given ship to be in multiple raids, so that is disallowed. To attack another target you need a second raid, which requires separate ships. The way raids are defined prevent what you are proposing.
======================
Ken S. Towery:
Are there any production restrictions with regard to building CVD-class interdiction carriers (either by substitution or conversion) beyond the normal racial limits for CV construction?
In other words, does a CVD count as a CVA (since the CVD has the same number of fighters as an equivalent CVA) when produced?
For example, it's turn 10 (Y173) and the Klingons want to build a D6U. Theoretically are they allowed to build two of them per turn (under the restrictions of their maximum two carrier groups per turn)?
If they wanted to convert a D6V to a D6U would this fall under the CVA production restriction of (515.52) or would it simply be a minor (2 EP plus fighter expense) conversion as per the SIT?
ANSWER: They are listed as medium carriers on the SIT, and without any other specific production rules relating to them (for example, DCSs (440.6) have an additional limit of one per year), they therefore fall under the medium carrier production limits. Klingons could build 2 D6Us a turn (as their two allowed medium carrier builds). Converting a D6V to a D6U counts as a minor conversion, and counts as one of that turn's medium carrier builds since you added fighter factors to the carrier.
========================
Kevin Howard:
My scout got crippled. Can I put it back into the battleforce in the scout formation slot?
It has no scout functions, but it's still a scout. It obviously would provide no benefits in the scout slot, but it could simply absorb damage.
ANSWER: I don't think you can, since the scout rule (308.51) says only scouts can get the special benefit of the "free scout slot", and that rule (205.31) defines which ships are scouts. Rule (205.31) does say that most ships lose the scout ability when crippled (as shown by the lack of the scout symbol on the crippled side of the counter). I would have to say the ship would have to have a functioning scout symbol to count as a scout and go in the scout slot.
========================
Ken S. Towery:
CVH: In service date shows Y176 (turn #16), but rule (530.223) indicates H-ftr carriers available on turn #20 (Y178).
VHP Pod: same as CVH above; (530.225) indicates pod should be available (Y178)
ANSWER: What you are missing is that there are two slightly different versions of (530.225). The first version was printed in advanced ops, and is a bit ambiguous, the general heavy fighter date doesn't always match the SIT date for specific units. The second version of this rule was printed in fighter ops, and has an extra note explaining that the various SIT dates are indeed correct for those specific carriers. The general heavy fighter date listed in the rule is the date a race can convert (or sub) any old carrier to use heavy fighters.
=======================
By George M. Ebersole (George) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 06:19 pm: Edit
Nick,
I am appealing the Penal PF sacrifice ruling to higher authorities based on the following:
1) Rule (502.42) which states: "Each PF has a combat factor of two and counts as a single unit for the purposes of combat. There is no crippled state for PFs."
And
2) Rule (302.612) which states “…A each PF is a 2-point unit, a single remaining Damage Point would destroy a PF but leave one “minus point” (308.2)."
Given the above, a penal casual PF flotilla of five PFs should lose two complete PFs and absorb four damage points in the penal sacrifice mission.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 07:40 pm: Edit
Steve Cole wrote the above ruling, so who are you going to appeal to?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 07:44 pm: Edit
Although Someday I might ask him if that is really what he meant, as I agree it is odd. Someday being Master Warbook Day, whenever that is. The problem is that is also how the small scale combat thing is written, in terms of destroying PF factors and not in terms of PFs, so that probably needs to be looked at as well. For now, that is how it works though...
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Monday, March 13, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Edit
Nick, can SAFs attack PDUs and bases inside the web if the Tholians use the web to keep them out of the battle force?
I think 512.34, 'SAFs designated as "in the web" attack any base or PDU inside the web normally.' means that an SAF can attack a base or planet that is in the web, even if the Tholians use 512.2 to keep the base or planet out of the battle force. I believe that 512.34 is a modification of 511.572. The base or planet would normally have to be in the battle force, but because it is in the web it doesn't have to be in the battle force. The base or planet is "in the web" so SAFs can attack.
Some experienced players following PO Tholian Gambit were surprised by my interpretation. One observer stated that simply not being in the battle force would protect the base or PDU, suggesting that 512.2 was analogous to needing an approach battle. I don't think that's a particularly good fit. The pursued force in a pursuit battle might be a stronger analogy. However, 511.573 provides an example of directed damage to targets not in the battle force if they take shelter at a planet.
Thanks, Dave
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 06:10 pm: Edit
Nick,
Then you point out to him the rules I cited gently and G.O.D. can tell me to go to hell. ;-)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 01:24 pm: Edit
Nick,
I've a question about (528.434) in the errata, which allows a Penal Ship to honour duel fighters. I can honour duel a SE of fighters, or a partial squadron (if one exists), that much is clear, but how am I supposed to view hybrid fighters? Suppose, for the sake of argument, there's a battle that involves three Hydran RN (all on the line, and no other units) vs. some Klingon ships which include a penal ship. Do the Klingons have to view the 12 fighters as two squadrons (and thus duel 6 fighters), or can they duel the fighters from a single RN (viewing it as a "partial squadron")?
By paul ranta (Paul) on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 05:06 pm: Edit
2 questions:
1) can a reserve fleet be sent to help out a neutral planet?
2) The klingons have 3 d6v's and 1 ffv for a total of 19 fighters. the klingon player wants to send 3 independent fighter squadrons into the battle. He CAN or CAN NOT combine the 19 fighters to form 3 independent squadrons of 6 fighters each?
i apologize if these questiosn have already been asked. I'm new to posting at this board so please forgive.
By Andrew White (Andreww) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 09:04 am: Edit
Rules I can't figure out:
105.0 Step 2A+B - The rules don't specifically say one way or another whether newly built ships can move in the immediately following operational movement phase. I assume that they can?
304.5 - how does this work in with 304.1 (determine new intensity every round)?
308.131 - these rules aren't very clear about how CEDS repair fits in with the repair and fighter replacement rules for the non-phasing player. Can I get an example?
410.24 - Does the exception "in supply during combat -> can retrograde in supply" include 410.22? IE: if a unit was in supply at the start of the turn but out of supply during combat (and thus "in supply" for the purposes of the Combat Phase), is it considered "in supply" for the purposes of 410.24? The confusion comes because 410.22 allows a unit to be simultaneously "out of supply" and "in supply", and it's not clear which term 410.24 is refering to.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 02:10 pm: Edit
======================
Dave Butler:
I've a question about (528.434) in the errata, which allows a Penal Ship to honour duel fighters. I can honour duel a SE of fighters, or a partial squadron (if one exists), that much is clear, but how am I supposed to view hybrid fighters? Suppose, for the sake of argument, there's a battle that involves three Hydran RN (all on the line, and no other units) vs. some Klingon ships which include a penal ship. Do the Klingons have to view the 12 fighters as two squadrons (and thus duel 6 fighters), or can they duel the fighters from a single RN (viewing it as a "partial squadron")?
ANSWER: The rule doesn't mention hybrid fighters, but I would think you would treat them as each a partial squadron of 4, since that is how they are organized on the ships when the ships are on the line. If the Hydran player had sent the 12 fighter factors forward as two squadrons/command slots (keeping the RNs in the support echelon), then you would have to honor duel a squadron of 6 factors.
======================
paul ranta
1) can a reserve fleet be sent to help out a neutral planet?
ANSWER: Rule (203.73) prevents this since such the destination must include your units, or allied units. Rule (203.731) or (203.732) might provide a way depending on how other forces on the map are arranged. In general though, you cannot move a reserve fleet to a battle you are not a part of to begin with.
2) The klingons have 3 d6v's and 1 fv for a total of 19 fighters. the klingon player wants to send 3 independent fighter squadrons into the battle. He CAN or CAN NOT combine the 19 fighters to form 3 independent squadrons of 6 fighters each?
ANSWER: You can do this, you would have three squadrons of 6 factors each (taking up three command slots and using up the allowance of three groups of attrition units in the battle force), the carriers would be in the support echelon (could be directed on at 3:1), and one carrier would have one remaining fighter factor held out of combat. The rule is (302.351) which notes that a given group of 6 independent fighter factors are not necessarily from the same ship.
==========================
Andrew White:
105.0 Step 2A+B - The rules don't specifically say one way or another whether newly built ships can move in the immediately following operational movement phase. I assume that they can?
ANSWER: Yes they can, see (203.33).
304.5 - how does this work in with 304.1 (determine new intensity every round)?
ANSWER: First determine intenisty (each player picks his number, then roll for variable intensity). After this final BIR is determined, the attacker can then chose to increase the intensity by 1 more if he wishes and if allowed by the rule (i.e. after every 4th round). This extra increase stays in effect unless the attacker wishes to drop it on a future round, which resets the 4 round count.
308.131 - these rules aren't very clear about how CEDS repair fits in with the repair and fighter replacement rules for the non-phasing player. Can I get an example?
ANSWER: The Klingons are attacking the Kzinti. The Klingons move a small force toward a border BATS, and the Kzinti react a carrier and a couple of other ships, pinning the Klingons away from the BATS. A larger Klingon force attacks the Kzinti Duke Starbase which is stacked with a large Kzinti force of several carriers and ships. In the first battle, the Klingons retreat after destroying the Kzinti carrier's escort. In the starbase battle the Klingons damage some carrier escorts and the starbase, but were unable to finish the task. In the retrograde step, the Klingons (having been ignominiously defeated) fall back to their bases. The Kzinti as a general rule cannot retrograde as they are not the phasing player. Their carrier groups that were in combat can however. The first battle resulted in a carrier with a missing escort. This can retrograde to a starbase and replace the FFE escort. If this comes from future production, remember to delete one FF from next turn's production. If this is a conversion of an existing FF, then the starbase will likewise have one fewer conversion points on the Kzinti's turn. The second battle resulted in a carrier with a crippled escort. It is already at a starbase, but could retrograde to another point if the owner wishes, perhaps to the homeworld. In anycase, the escort can be immediately repaired in this retrograde step, but the facility that does the repairs will have fewer repair points in the next kzinti repair phase since it used some now. After all retrogrades and CEDS repairs/replacements, carriers from both sides that are in supply receive replacement fighters up to their carrying capacity.
410.24 - Does the exception "in supply during combat -> can retrograde in supply" include 410.22? IE: if a unit was in supply at the start of the turn but out of supply during combat (and thus "in supply" for the purposes of the Combat Phase), is it considered "in supply" for the purposes of 410.24? The confusion comes because 410.22 allows a unit to be simultaneously "out of supply" and "in supply", and it's not clear which term 410.24 is refering to.
ANSWER: This one gets everyone. You cannot however "link" the rules together (the second does not include the first). If you are in supply at the start of Operational movement, then move out of supply range to attack, you fight as if you were in supply since the supply carries over into combat (410.22). But, since you were really out of supply during the combat step itself, you cannot retrograde (410.24) (unless a retreat brings you back into supply for the retrograde step). What the second rule allows is the case where you were in supply (really in supply) during combat, but retreated out of supply range. You can still retrograde. Not very useful unless you have a retro point like a FRD, any other retro point is usally a supply source as well, so this case doesn't come up often. Supply from the start of the op movement phase does not carry all the way through to the retrograde phase. This means that you can attack targets within supply range and still retrograde to a defensive position, but if you attack a target outside of supply range you will not be able to fall back again, and you will be out of supply on future turns. This puts a range limit on effective attacks, until you expand your base network.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 06:21 pm: Edit
Nick, I swear you have ruled on this before but I cannot seem to find it.
Does the presence of a BATS(with full fighters) along the NZ border prevent the enemy from gaining EP from them?(this assumes that they were moved through during OP).
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:00 pm: Edit
Nick, regarding your rulings about honour duelling hybrid fighter factors:
1) I was under the assumption that hybrid ships couldn't forward fighters to the line from the reserve echelon, thus invalidating your example.
2) Specifically because of the inseperability of the hybrid ship from its fighters, I was assuming that it was impossible to attack one without the other. Surely if dueled, a hybrid ship would get its fighters ... I would similarly assume that the fighters would get their ship!
3) Hydran fighters from Hybrid ships use a different doctrine from carrier fighters. They do not come out in a wave that rolls in slowly, engaging at range, but are rather held aboard ship until the last instant, relying on launch tubes to squirt them out in bulk, overwhelming point defence measures, while the Centre Hull of the hybrid ship protects them. As such, they're generally physically inside their ships until the first weapons exchange, where they're close enough to threaten slow ships such as cripples, bases, auxiliaries or starcastled forces.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:04 pm: Edit
Nick, at what stage in the Depot Level Repair process are ships considered "repaired"?
That is to say, exactly when do I flip the counter over?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:29 pm: Edit
Mark raises some interesting points, which I'll rephrase as questions:
1. Is a hybrid ship a carrier, as the game uses the term? (432.24) refers to them as "hybrid-carriers", and uses the term "non-carrier" for Hydran ships without fighter factors, but (302.332-B) says that Hydran "non-carrier ships" can have fighter factors.
2. Does (501.7) "For combat purposes, fighters and a carrier are independant" mean that one can be honour dueled without the other being involved? (I.e., in my 3xRN vs. Klingons example, could the Klingons honour duel a RN and not include the RN's fighters in the duel?)
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:40 pm: Edit
Yeah,I really have to appeal that ruling. Hybrid fighters are not the same as carrier fighters. I do not think that they should be able to be the target of an Honor Duel.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 08:56 pm: Edit
Nick,
Some of questions about the Hydran Supply Tug (509.5):
1. Clearly, (509.1) prevents me from using the supply function if the Tug is crippled, but what happens to the supplies if the Tug is later repaired? (Suppose the Tug arrives in Federation space crippled, but having only used 10 of its 20 ship-turns of supplies; if the Feds repair it, does it still have the supplies?)
2. How long is a ship supplied from the tug in supply? (The rule says "one turn", but isn't clear as to whether that's a Player turn, or a Game turn.)
3. Since the ships supplied from the tug are in supply, they get replacement fighters per (501.5), correct? ((509.55) explictly applies only to ships that are out of supply, and they can't be both in and out of supply at the same time.)
4. Does (509.52) mean that the supplied ships cease to be supplied by the tug if they're no longer stacked with it? (The language says a rather emphatic yes, but I'd like confirmation.)
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:14 pm: Edit
A particularly fierce and large battle hex is about to conclude. One side has ten medium carriers crippled, each with one crippled and one uncrippled escort. How could this force form a legal retreat force (leaving aside many, many rescue tugs)?
Dropping escorts, whether crippled or not, does not help because the empty slots still count as uncrippled ships - more than three would be counted in total and that would be illegal.
Breaking up the groups completely does not help because each carrier will still count as having two uncrippled ships with it.
Is there an answer that is legal?
Surely the answer is not that seven uncrippled escorts must be dropped in order to avoid having more than three uncrippled ships even though the force would then still compute as having ten uncrippled ships.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:14 pm: Edit
===================
Christopher E. Fant:
Does the presence of a BATS(with full fighters) along the NZ border prevent the enemy from gaining EP from them?(this assumes that they were moved through during OP).
ANSWER: (503.62) only provides for enemy "ships" to prevent EP collection (prevents the hex from being considered "captured" during the income step), so no, fighters and bases have no effect.
===================
Yes, I forgot that (302.53) applies to true carriers and not hybrid ships. Sorry about that.
===================
Mark Ermenc
1) I was under the assumption that hybrid ships couldn't forward fighters to the line from the reserve echelon, thus invalidating your example.
ANSWER: Right Right, I screwed that one up.
2) Specifically because of the inseperability of the hybrid ship from its fighters, I was assuming that it was impossible to attack one without the other. Surely if dueled, a hybrid ship would get its fighters ... I would similarly assume that the fighters would get their ship!
ANSWER: Well, they are seperable in some cases, as you can direct on the ship without the fighters. In general though, if you honor duel the ship you get the fighters as well as they do go together as you point out. However, rule (528.434) specifically gives you an exception and allows you to honor duel fighters without the ship, and note it makes no mention of where the fighters come from (carrier/hybrid/base/PDU/Monitor/FRD/whatever).
3) Hydran fighters from Hybrid ships use a different doctrine from carrier fighters. They do not come out in a wave that rolls in slowly, engaging at range, but are rather held aboard ship until the last instant, relying on launch tubes to squirt them out in bulk, overwhelming point defence measures, while the Centre Hull of the hybrid ship protects them. As such, they're generally physically inside their ships until the first weapons exchange, where they're close enough to threaten slow ships such as cripples, bases, auxiliaries or starcastled forces.
ANSWER: And so if you duel the ship, the fighters come along as well, but there is a specific rule allowing you to duel just the fighters.
===================
Mark: There is no specific point when the depot ship is flipped right side up (other than when you get to put it back on the board of course). If you move it along the track with the crippled side up (flipping it right side up when putting it on the board again), OR if you move it along the depot track with the uncrippled side up, there is no difference. It doesn't matter. As the ship moves along the depot track you can convert the ship or not as you choose, the ship's status is neither crippled nor uncrippled, you could say it has a "depot" status. Once the depot process is finished, it is considered new construction. While it is on the depot track, its crippled status does not affect anything else, it is simply "in the depot system". I just answered this in the last couple of weeks or so.
============
Dave Butler:
Clearly, (509.1) prevents me from using the supply function if the Tug is crippled, but what happens to the supplies if the Tug is later repaired? (Suppose the Tug arrives in Federation space crippled, but having only used 10 of its 20 ship-turns of supplies; if the Feds repair it, does it still have the supplies?)
ANSWER: I would say no. In general, in F&E and SFB, when a tug is crippled/cargo boxes damaged, their contents are lost. A crippled tug carrying EPs loses the EPs. I would say a crippled supply tug loses the supplies.
How long is a ship supplied from the tug in supply? (The rule says "one turn", but isn't clear as to whether that's a Player turn, or a Game turn.)
ANSWER: Game turn, as you need to count each ship-turn from a given supply check step (when you start drawing supplies from the tug instead of your supply grid) to just before the same supply check step in the owner's (Hydran's) next player turn. Each ship that draws supplies counts as a "ship turn" used, and that same ship can continue to use the tug as a supply source for each supply check step over the course of one game turn from the first time it did so, all as part of "one ship-turn". One might ask if ship A can can get supplied during op movement, and ship B can get supplied during the combat step and only count this as one ship-turn used, but I would say no. Mainly the bookeeping would be a nightmare, clearly each ship must use a different ship-turn of supplies, even if it only uses part of the ship-turn.
Since the ships supplied from the tug are in supply, they get replacement fighters per (501.5), correct? ((509.55) explictly applies only to ships that are out of supply, and they can't be both in and out of supply at the same time.)
ANSWER: No, the intention is that you get "supplies" (to prevent ships having to fight at half compot) from the supply tug, and replacement fighters come from the fighter conveyer pallet. In rule (509.55) the phrase "while out of supply" means "while the tug and ships stacked with it are out of supply" or "while the expeditionary force is out of supply", not "while the given ship is not supplied by the tug". The supply tug does not produce fighters on its own (it is already full of fuel, food, and other mundane supplies), only the conveyer pallet carries replacement fighters. That is why it has the conveyer pallet. That is why (509.51) has the [quickie square bracket explanation] of the fighter conveyer pallet so you can use it in vanilla F&E (without refills) even if you don't have special ops, because you need both the supply tug and conveyer pallet to both supply ships and replace fighters. Or in other words, the conveyer pallet is to provide fighters to the ships supplied by the tug, not necessarily only to provide fighters for additional ships beyond the tug's supply capacity (although it could do this if you wanted, but such ships would be operating under the out of supply limitations if not also supplied by the tug).
Does (509.52) mean that the supplied ships cease to be supplied by the tug if they're no longer stacked with it? (The language says a rather emphatic yes, but I'd like confirmation.)
ANSWER: Not necessarily, it means the ship in question can use the tug as a supply source when stacked with the tug. Of course this is only necessary during a supply check point of the sequence of play. The ship could then move away from the tug and retain that "in supply" status until the next time it checks for a supply source (this is indeed how normal supply works, you only check supply at certain points, and that status continues until the next point that requires a supply check). If not in the same hex as the tug it cannot count the tug as a supply source for a given supply check phase.
Keep in mind that the supply tug lets you supply some ships and provide some replacement fighters when outside of your supply grid, it is better than nothing, but it is by no means as good as have a true link to your supply grid.
==================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:25 pm: Edit
Todd E Jahnke:
A particularly fierce and large battle hex is about to conclude. One side has ten medium carriers crippled, each with one crippled and one uncrippled escort. How could this force form a legal retreat force (leaving aside many, many rescue tugs)?
ANSWER: Rule (308.122) can force you to break up the groups.
Dropping escorts, whether crippled or not, does not help because the empty slots still count as uncrippled ships - more than three would be counted in total and that would be illegal.
ANSWER: No, while the empty slots still count against command ratings they do not count as uncrippled ships, they are not ships, they are empty slots.
Breaking up the groups completely does not help because each carrier will still count as having two uncrippled ships with it.
ANSWER: No, each group then consists of a crippled carrier, a crippled escort, and an additional command slot filled with... nothing.
Is there an answer that is legal?
Surely the answer is not that seven uncrippled escorts must be dropped in order to avoid having more than three uncrippled ships even though the force would then still compute as having ten uncrippled ships.
ANSWER: That is the answer, you have three crippled groups with one uncrippled escort each. You have 7 crippled groups that are each also missing an escort entirely. This counts as 10 crippled carriers, 10 crippled escorts, and 3 uncrippled escorts, thus satisfying the pursued force rule (all cripples, only three uncrippled). This is a total of 30 command slots (well, 29 as one ship will be the flagship) however, so you will not be able to add additional uncrippled ships. Any ships beyond the command limit do not contribute compot, but you can of course choose which ships contribute and which don't and you will pick as many empty command slots as possible to be the "non contributing" ships.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:47 pm: Edit
Nick
Sorry, but one minor question about the Hydran Supply Tug. You just pointed out that "In General" tugs lose everything that the're carring when crippled. Now, most tugs are carrying everything in their pods and I have no problem accepting that everything on the pallets is gone. But the Hydran tug on the Expedition carries extra fighters in its pallets and its supplies internally. So when it's crippled it loses everything at once? Shouldn't it be it loses all the fighters on the pallet and only half of its supplies (eg. If it had 11-20 turns left, crippled it has 10 turns left.) After all carriers lose only half of their fighters.
Note: I have never done the Expedition myself and never plan to, but it seemed illogical that it would lose all of what it was carrying internally as well as externally when a CV wouldn't. However, if that's what is required for game balance then so be it.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:22 am: Edit
Actually Nick, the DLR question does matter. (PO-447.51) allows for any ship in supply to be scrapped for half its base hull's build cost; (PO-424.13) tells us that the Depot is either at the Capital or off-map (depending on the race), in either case the ships are in supply. Now, (447.51) allows for damaged units to be scrapped for salvage value instead of the normal amount. (424.34) allows ships in the DLR holding box to be salvaged.
So. Ships on the actual DLR tracks can be scrapped (they are in supply), but they are in an indeterminate damage state. At some point in the process, they are repaired (no longer damaged), at which point their value as scrap improves (it doubles, in the typical case). Therefore, it'd be nice to know when this actually happens, so everything is in a defined state and we have sufficient information to make decisions.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:41 am: Edit
That's a good one.
But, if it's repaired it wouldn't be in the Depot would it?
So, that would mean it's flipped when it comes out.
And if you want to scrap a ship that has "One Previous Captain" but is otherwise "Like New" after it comes out, that would be up to you. Otherwise it would still be in the Depot as crippled.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 04:12 am: Edit
Dave:
A ship is either damaged or undamaged. If a ship is in the track it must be damaged until it completes the track. If the ship is undamaged anywhere in the track logic says that the ship is damage free and does not need to be in the track any longer could move out without completing the track and this violate the procedure.
It seems very clear to me but I'll add a word to the updated SoP in the MWB for the rule lawyers.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 10:09 am: Edit
Actually, ship in the depot are beyond even damaged/crippled; they were considered destroyed. There are only two ways out of the depot. If a ship is scrapped, you get the salvage value on the SIT; it doesn't matter if you say its damaged or not. If the ship completes the depot process, the ship is as if it were brand new. So it never matters which way the counter is flipped while in the depot.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:11 am: Edit
Chuck,
Except, of course, that you can have "damaged" ships that scrap for full value (instead of salvage). Consider a battle hex that resolves, on the Kzinti turn, to a lone Lyran BC and 4 Kzinti plus points (alternatively, a CCX vs 11 +points). Is the Lyran ship "damaged"? Most assuredly yes; even with damage control it's still got the equivalent of me putting plastic over a broken window on my car. Can it be scrapped for more than salvage? Again, yes (if it's in supply), because we aren't into the pain it would cause to track such things. At some point on the DLR track, the ship becomes repaired enough to no longer qualify as "damaged"; I just want it explicitly stated when that is.
John,
Not true. The DLR rule regarding salvage says "holding box"; if the ship's on the track, it's not in the Holding Box, and the normal rules apply. Hence, it's required to know when the ship is no longer "damaged". However, as I just pointed out to Chuck, there are times when ships that have taken damage are not considered "damaged", and so the ball lands in Nick's court.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:17 am: Edit
Groan. The ship is on the crippled side till it gets taken off the track and flipped to its non crippled side.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 06:46 pm: Edit
Concur with Chris -- IMO I have to say that is a bit nit-picky.
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 12:27 pm: Edit
Hello Nick,
I've got a question about retreat after pursuit. After 2 rounds of combat, we had a Klingon defender retreat, and was pursued unsuccessfully by the Hydrans. The Hydrans then wanted to retreat from the hex. Is this legal?
According to 307, the pursuit battle is conducted just as a normal battle, in terms of retreat afterwards, but our group has a feeling that no retreat after pursuit is the standard rule. Please clarify this for us.
Many Thanks,
Geof Clark
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 02:13 pm: Edit
Geoff, check out the first paragraph of rule (307.1). Also rule (302.713). Pursuit happens after retreat is announced for both players, and if both sides declare retreat then there is no pursuit. In order to be able to pursue, you must not have declared retreat for your side. At that point you perform the pursuit battle round, then the side that previously announced retreat does so, and the side that pursued takes possession of the hex. There is not another option to retreat.
(307.4), last paragraph, says that after the pursuit battle retreat proceeds without further pursuit. This means you finish performing the earlier declared retreat, you don't go through another round of retreat opportunities for both sides.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 04:48 pm: Edit
Very well, then. Ships in the Depot track have a "Depot" status.
Nick:
(PO-447.51) defines the value I receive from scrapping a hull that is "uncrippled" or "crippled". What value do I receive from scrapping a hull that has "depot" status?
Everyone else:
I honestly don't care what you think about my questions, I'm here to get official rulings on them, not to be heckled for them. Please contain your derision to General Discussions.
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 04:52 pm: Edit
Mark, rules lawyers get heckled, deal with it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 08:31 pm: Edit
Mark please use some logic here. If damaged ships can be scrapped for their salvage value under (447.51) and (424.34) says the ships in the holding box can be removed and salvage AND it it has been determined that ships moving through DLR are NOT uncrippled and therefore unable to be salvaged at the undamaged rate. That leaves you with the following:
Unit Status Scrap or Salvage Value
Undamage 50% of production value (447.51)
Crippled Salvage (447.53)
Depot Salvage (424.34)
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 08:08 am: Edit
At risk of getting heckled... Nick, can you look in on the question I posted Monday, March 13, 2006? Neither Mark nor I caught the answer.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 01:05 pm: Edit
Memo for Record (MWB)
Suggest rewording as follows:
(424.34) Ships placed into holding boxes do not count for salvage. Ships taken out of holding boxes (without going into the repair track) or ships anywhere in the repair track during the Production Phase and in these cases are counted for salvage.
Rational:
Eligible ships destroyed in combat can be salvaged;
Ships in Depot Level Repair can be removed from the holding box and salvaged.
Ships in the repair track are in no less status than the above and should be considered for salvage (and clarifies ship salvage status while in the track).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 02:06 pm: Edit
Chuck,
It'd be simpler to to use the following phrasing (rather that what you suggest in your latest Memo for Record (MWB)):
(424.34) Salvage: Ships placed into the Holding Box do not count for salvage. Ships anywhere in the DLR system may be scrapped for their salvage value. Players are not obliged to place ships into the Holding Box at all, if they want to count them for salvage immediately.
Rationale:
1) Maintains core principle that ships in DLR aren't fully repaired.
2) Is shorter.
3) Moves the point in the SoP up to 1C3 (from 2B3). This unifies the timing of all the scrapping rules and shortens (simplifies) the SoP. Note that this may not be desired, as the money from such scrapped ships could be used for purposes that, currently, DLR salvage can't be (paying debt, repairs, construction). (Honestly, I don't think it's a problem: if they wanted the money, they could have taken the salvage in the first place.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit
I don't understand at all where the problem is.
Rule (424.34) says destroyed ships that go into the holding box do not generate salvage (because they went into the depot instead). It says you can later (during a later production step) change your mind, take a ship out of the holding box and get salvage for it.
There is no provision for getting salvage for ships that are in one of the other boxes (1,2,3,4,), so I don't think you can do that.
Salvage is salvage, so the state of the ship doesn't matter (although it seems like would still be crippled until it comes off of the #1 box). There really isn't a "depot" status as such a thing is not defined in the rules, and I still don't see what it affects, I was just trying to get my head around what is being asked.
What is the rule for scrapping ships (Can't remember right now), I don't think you can do that for depot ships (off hand guess), but I need to see the rule to be sure.
I really don't get what the big deal is.
What specifically are you trying to do that you need a ruling on?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 05:58 pm: Edit
The rule for scrapping ships is (PO-447.5); the only requirement is that the ship in question be in supply (ignoring mothballed ships); I've previously provided a rationale as to why Depot ships should be in supply. There is a difference in the scrap value, depending on if the ship is "damaged" or not. There is, however, no game definition of "damaged", and using the English meaning of the word, coupled with the implications of plus points, leads to absurdity. The best ruling I can advise you to make is to say that ships are repaired when they leave Box 1 (just before they're placed on map), and are considered damaged until that point.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 06:58 pm: Edit
Agreed but it would be better to say that ships in the depot in relation to your PO 447.5 rule be excluded (I.E. No scrap value possible) for all reasons discussed over in General Discussions.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 09:12 pm: Edit
OK, I finally read the scrapping rule (I had only vaguely remembered that it exists, I haven't used it in a game yet). I would agree with Lawrence. Scrapping is for ships that are in play on the board. Rule (447.51) should obviously say "crippled" instead of "damaged". You can't scrap a destroyed ship, that is what the salvage rule is for. If you scrap a crippled ship, you get the salvage value.
The scrap rule allows you to scrap any ships in supply, but the depot system is its own rule, and has additional limitations on what happens to the ships in it. The depot rule specifically provides for salvage (from the holding box only). There is no reason/need to have a depot/scrap interaction, the two rules are just never used for the same ship, it's that simple.
The only thing that this would entail is if you want to remove a depot ship from say, box #3 instead of finishing the depot repair because you want the money at that point. This would leave an empty box on the track (the other ships would not move up a box). However, the rule doesn't allow that.
Rule (424.34) says you can salvage ships in the holding box. If it allowed you to salvage ships on the track, it would simply say something like "you can remove ships from the DEPOT SYSTEM for their salvage cost", but it doesn't, it says "remove ships from the holding box".
In any case, I have to say ships in the holding box/depot system are still crippled until they come of off box #1. Ships in the holding box are still crippled. Either the ship was crippled and put there deliberately under (424.35), or it was crippled in combat, then destroyed in combat, then rolled a "1" for the depot roll. Rule (424.33) says they then go into the holding box instead of counting as destroyed. They are thus still crippled, as that was their state prior to being destroyed, and they go to depot instead of being destroyed. As crippled ships this means their salvage value and scrap value are the same (447.51), so even if you could scrap you just get the salvage value.
The depot rule has its own limits on what happens to the ships in the depot system, and that overrides the general rules on scrapping. You can't scrap or salvage ships on the track. Ships on the track can only move from box to box to get repaired/rebuilt. Or they can be lost when the depot is destroyed. So in the holding box they are crippled (as explained above), and could still be salvaged. There is nothing allowing the state of the ship to change until it comes off of box #1 as then it counts as new construction, and new construction is of course placed on the board right side up. So even if it mattered, the ships are still crippled side up as they move along the track.
Does that make sense?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 09:41 pm: Edit
David Walend:
Nick, can SAFs attack PDUs and bases inside the web if the Tholians use the web to keep them out of the battle force?
I think 512.34, 'SAFs designated as "in the web" attack any base or PDU inside the web normally.' means that an SAF can attack a base or planet that is in the web, even if the Tholians use 512.2 to keep the base or planet out of the battle force. I believe that 512.34 is a modification of 511.572. The base or planet would normally have to be in the battle force, but because it is in the web it doesn't have to be in the battle force. The base or planet is "in the web" so SAFs can attack.
Some experienced players following PO Tholian Gambit were surprised by my interpretation. One observer stated that simply not being in the battle force would protect the base or PDU, suggesting that 512.2 was analogous to needing an approach battle. I don't think that's a particularly good fit. The pursued force in a pursuit battle might be a stronger analogy. However, 511.573 provides an example of directed damage to targets not in the battle force if they take shelter at a planet.
ANSWER: David, I do remember reading this, but don't know how I missed answering it, sorry.
To start with, the 512.34 rule is not a special case of 511.572. 511 is for capitals only, and 512 is for tholians in general. The general rule is not a subcase of the specific. The presence of web does not mean you get to use 511 (I know that is not really what you are arguing), if web only appeared at the Tholian capital then 511 would have more weight in its effects.
SAFs can attack bases/pdus in the battleforce under their rules. Under the web rules, the target might not even be in the battleforce, so it could not be a target. The rule (512.34) is another way of stating the exception in (512.1), although that is no longer exactly correct since SAFs do a number of SIDS steps/PDUs destroyed instead of the old direct damage system, but they are intended to mean basically the same thing.
The tholians can use the base making it vulnerable to SAF attack/direct damage, or it can keep it out of the battleforce and not get to use it. If they insist on doing this, the only way to damage the base is to drive the ships off so that the base must be included (512.2).
In general, things not in the battleforce cannot be targeted. There are specific exceptions, support ships like carriers/drone ships, crippled ships at the capital, etc... There is no specific exception for SAFs in this instance though, sorry.
The reason I think it is confusing is that originally, SAFs did x amount of directed damage. The web prevents directed damage, so an exception was made for SAFs. This exception for SAFs of course only applied if the base was also in the battleforce to be targeted. Then SAFs were redesigned to deal SIDS damage or destroy X PDUs instead of directed damage points. Whereas at that time in the SAF/direct damage days, the exception in (512.1) and rule (512.34) were clearly the same thing, that is less obvious now.
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:40 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick. Now the Tholians just need a reason to risk ships while keeping ~230 compot off the line...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:45 pm: Edit
Nick:
I'd suggest that this Tholian/SAF rule and the Depot scrap/salvage be added to the MWB review just for clarification.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Sunday, March 19, 2006 - 10:51 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 01:17 am: Edit
I cannot seem to find the reference: Does a ship repaired by an allied race get free strategic movement within that allied race's system from the allied repair node?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 10:23 am: Edit
Chuck, (204.313) says that a repaired ship does not count against the owners strategic movement limits. When repaired at an allied facility in an allied grid, it does count against the ally's strat move limits. So you only get free strat moves through the owner's grid, not the allied grid, even when the ally performed the repair.
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Monday, March 20, 2006 - 07:54 pm: Edit
In Tholian Gambit, can the Klingons enter 2617?
2617 is the only hex 12 hexes from 1411 and 3 hexes from 2919. It's the difference of having slow units built turn 2 in the battle over Tholia in turn 3.
503.62 says, "Hexes 2617 and 3217 are a special case. They are treated as if they were adjacent to the Federation for all purposes." 615.12 says "Both races are restricted to Klingon and Tholian space and the Neutral Zone hexes between Klingon and Tholian space.." My guess is the scenario rule trumps the general rule.
Thanks, Dave
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 02:41 am: Edit
Memo for Record (MWB)
(422.8) Need a reference to the LTT rule explaining that the repair tug mission for the Romulans is conducted by the SPH (516.33).
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 03:06 am: Edit
An odd situation was pointed out to me just today. I was playing "Reptilicon Revenged" with a friend, and I was explaining what conversions were possible for the Romulans. Obviously, since the SP and SK hulls are only introduced in 168, any conversions for them are listed as "168 only".
Then my friend pointed out that the entire list is noted as "168 only" - including all the old style ships and Kestrals, heck I can't convert a FAL or extra SE or anything, not until 168.
So, my question is: Can I do any conversions at all in the first two turns of "Reptilicon Revenged", or do I have to wait until 168 (turn 3)?
If it is possible, is there any errata somewhere that corrects this misprint? If not allowed, was that what was intended, or simply what it ended up being?
Thanks Nick.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 03:08 am: Edit
Oh, and while we are at it (and my apologies if this has been answered before), but can I unconvert anything in "Reptilicon Revenged"? It has a specific list of allowed conversions, and unconversions are not listed, but it also does not specifically disallow unconversions.
I don't need the 3 FE, I want to unconvert them back to 3 WE. Can I?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:57 pm: Edit
Memo for Record:
Lyran Repair Ship Quandary (for MWB):
Does the Lyran Repair Tug carry a 2 repair pods or one repair pallet (they have both in SFB)? If it is a pallet then only full sized tugs could carry them.
This answer effects the Four Powers War (Y157-162)
R-Pallet Available: Y160
Klingon R-Pods in Lyran Service Available: Y166
LTT Quandary (for MWB):
(516.21E) If a Kzinti/Lyran/Klingon LTTs can only carry one pod how are they able to repair as much as their full sized tugs? I would think that they would be limited to half (4 repair pts) of the normal repair capacity of the full sized tug (8 repair pts).
So, under (516.21E), do we need a note that limits Kzinti/Lyran/Klingon LTTs to 4 repair points?
Note: If we someday include repair auxes we may want to give the Kzinti, Lyrans and Klingons a set of 2 repair pods (of 4 repair points each).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:41 am: Edit
In the historical scenario (607.143) says the Lyran repair tug (pallet) is available in Y160 and is confirmed by the SFB MSC; the F&E SIT says Y159 -- which is correct?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:04 am: Edit
Chuck, that level of detail is simply not part of the game (yet).
There is a rule (422.0) for repair tugs, that says each race can have one repair tug (Gorns get more as a special thing). It works in such and such way, and is treated as a tug mission in the basic rules. Then you get the LTT which says it can function as a repair tug just like a regular tug, use the same mission and the same rule.
Then you get the expansion that adds pods and pallets as actual units for carrier tugs, battle tugs, and so on. But, you don't actually get repair pods/pallets. You get a "repair tug" marker for each race, and the repair tug and repair LTT still uses the original "repair mission" rule. This was really the first of the tug mission markers like supply tug and cargo (EP transport) tug. We simply aren't tracking which race uses paired repair pods and which uses single large repair pods and which uses repair pallets.
To do the level of detail you want, we would have to add repair pods/pallets as actual units to the game rather than a tug mission marker.
This would change some things, as LTTs from races that use repair pods in pairs would only likely carry on, would have only 4 repair instead of 8, and would give the race the ability to split up their field repair tug capability to two different locations (at the cost of requiring two tugs/LTTs), something that now they cannot do, all 8 points must be on one tug and must perform all its repairs in the same hex.
Currently repair pods are abstracted as a tug mission, not detailed as actual units. It only appears as a general SIT entry instead of having different stats for each race on that race's SIT. That is why the Lyran year doesn't match up.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:06 am: Edit
Or in other words, Y160 is probably correct for the Lyrans, but the General SIT entry can only have one value so...
I will get to other questions this weekend.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 11:22 am: Edit
Nick,
Here are 10 sticky F&E questions for you to contend with:
1) Is a Federation NCL=>NCA=>NHV a legitimate double conversion? Ditto for all the other CW=>NCA=>NCA-Variant hulls?
2) Can a Federation Monitor with Fighter, F-111 or CVA pallet be in a CVBG?
3) Can a Federation GVX F-111 carrier form a battle group with non-X-ship carriers and escorts? If yes, can the GVX include ad-hoc X-ship escorts to the CVBG?
4) Does a Federation Tug or LTT with an F-111 HFP pod operate as a CV-tug under (515.26), AKA it requires another command slot or as a Tug+PFT pod which does not?
I would say as a PFT since the HFP was built Y181, after rule (527.21FO) comes into effect in Y180 letting F-111 carriers act as unescorted carrier/PFT analogs.
5) Since rule (527.21FO) states the following:
"...All F111/A20 carriers must be escorted as carriers until Spring Y180. From that time, the Federation may operate any or all carriers with F111s as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers (or some of each)..."
I should be able to use not just NVH F111 carriers, but also the Federation F111 carrying CVH, BCS, DCS, NCS, and NHV as unescorted single ship carriers for combat and raids. Is that interpretation correct? It is what the wording states.
Or is the intent of the rule for just for pure F111 carriers like the NVH, NHV and CVH, AKA the non-control ship PFT analogs?
6) Since (527.21FO) says this:
"...Note that an NVH (unlike other carriers capable of functioning in either mode) which is designated at the start of the Combat Phase (Y180 or later) as having escorts could not be converted to a single-ship carrier during that same Combat Phase."
a) Does this restriction also apply to the CVH, BCS, DCS, NCS, and NHV (or whatever F111 carriers are eligible based on #5 above)?
b) Can an escorted F111 carrier in the Combat Phase change back to single ship carrier status in the Pursuit Phase, thus releasing non-crippled escorts for other (crippled) carriers to pick up via (308.122)?
7) Can an oversized Ftr squadron escort a ground combat ship per (521.373CO) if its carrier is in the battle force?
8) Since (521.373CO) says fighters or PFs can be escorts for ground combat ships, and (521.372B CO) says that the escorts must first be crippled for an escorted ground combat ship to be destroyed by directed damage, exactly how many fighters or PFs are destroyed when a fighter squadron or PFF are crippled in this role?
Please note we have the following:
a) Ftr squadron strengths that range from 3 (CVE) to 12 (CVD),
b) Heavy fighters from 8 (everyone but the Feds) to 10 (Fed A20) and
c) Three kinds of PF flotillas CPF (up to 10), PPF (ditto) and PFF (up to 12) that are broken into distinct 2 compot units that have no crippled side per (302.661 F&E2K) AKA they are destroyed by one damage point with one more minus point generated.
9) What would be the “outside escort” for an escorted marine ship if it had a ship like a CW and anyone of the following: Federation special (F14/F15/A10), Hydran Stinger-X squadron, oversized fighter squadron, PF flotilla, as an escort for purposes of Penal Honor Duel rule (528.433)?
The CW has a compot of seven and all the attrition unit escorts have a higher compot but potentially a lower crippled strength.
10) Since stasis rule (312.217) states that a single fighter factor or single PF are frozen as ships, what does that mean for a fighter squadron or PF escorted ground combat ship? Does the escorted ground combat ship array that is targeted by Stasis freeze attempts get as many stasis freezing targets as there are escorting fighter factors or PFs?
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 01:22 pm: Edit
The CL31 SIT lists Federation FFB variants that can be substituted for the DW and FF but the official SIT lists only a DW -- can the FFB be subtituted for the FF now?
(I didn't know if this was the proper topic for CL F&E questions so I'll post it here and in the playtest section).
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 07:33 pm: Edit
What is the story with the Police ships?
CO (531.122) says you call up a Police Ship for 2 EP.
PO (531.122) then says you build additional Police ships but the online SITs don't list a cost.
How much does a generic POL cost and does it vary by race? If so, how much do each cost?
(BTW can you guys clear up these ploice ship rules in the new warbook? And why did you mess with the rule just a year after in was published in the first place?)
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:26 am: Edit
Nick,
rule 305.25 allows using a captured but unrepaired/unconverted ship in a battle force, but allows for the original player to recapture it by spending 3xdefense in directed damage. is this only for the turn on which it is captured, or can it be recaptured on subsequent turns.
e.g. Kzintis capture a Klingon F5 on T2 and then use it in combat on T3 without converting it. Can the Klingons use 9 points to recapture it?
I would think the answer would be no, since (I think) the recapture rule reflects that the ship is badly damaged with a skeleton crew of junior officers, something that would not be the case on a later turn.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 01:03 pm: Edit
Nick,
How are Tug Missions (F&E-509.0) and Romulan Modular Ships (F&E-433.43) supposed to interact? I'm supposed to assign missions in Phases 1 or 2, but the modular conversion is done in phase 3. Can I assign a mission to a module in the pool (i.e., "if this module is attached to a ship, it will do [foo]")?
(The specific case I'm dealing with is that I'm overbuilding a SP; the rules are quite clear that I can't make it a SPH during construction (tugs can't be overbuilt). I do, however, have an H-module in the pool (built on the previous turn). I've got a mobile base that I'd like to set up, and this SP is the only one that's in range of both the stored base and the destination hex. So, I'd like to perform the modular conversion (part of OpMove), move the SP to the SB where the MB is stored, and take the MB to its desired hex.)
[Even without the strangeness of having the overbuilt SP (I'm playing a variant of Reptilicon Revenged that doesn't have quite so restricted builds, so I can only make SP by overbuilding), the more general case still exists. E.g., 4411 could have a stored MB and no other ships, and there could be a SP in 4510 (and an H-module in the pool). Provided the MB's desired location is within three hexes of 4411 (perhaps the planet in 4309), the same potential is there.]
Now, I'm fairly sure that the missions that require a tug to start in the hex (i.e., upgrade base) couldn't work, even though that might be a nice bonus for the Romulans, but I don't see why the missions that allow the tug to pass through (i.e., mobile base, carry EP) shouldn't work. I just don't know if I'm allowed to do them.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 02:34 pm: Edit
I think this needs to be 'appealed' as I don't think it has been thought all the way through.
(From Q&A Achives, November 2002)
CEDS's replacement of Escorts - SB can now do up to 5 (if Major/Capital) or 3 (if minor).
What happens if a race is Off Map and only has the Off Map SB?
In between the new Shipyard coming on line - the race will only be able to replace 5 Escorts (and build 1 new escort at the SB) - so if a race is losing more than 6 escorts a year - it will be forced to turn weaker carriers into defacto FCR's.
It might make those Carrier races waiting for the new Shipyard to come 'on-line' - unknowingly alot weaker.
The Kzinti could easily lose 3 or 4 escorts a player round - the Hydrans (if hiding the cruisers and using a Carrier line) are not as affected - but could be squeezed to using Cruisers again.
Primarily, I am concerened about the Kzinti - because they don't have much other than carriers - and so if after 3 or 4 turns of being off map (and counter attacking were they can) - they might be forced to stop attacking (which isn't good for the game!!) - is this an unknown (and unwanted) side effect?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 10:18 pm: Edit
=================
Michael Lui: Sorry, but one minor question about the Hydran Supply Tug. You just pointed out that "In General" tugs lose everything that the're carring when crippled. Now, most tugs are carrying everything in their pods and I have no problem accepting that everything on the pallets is gone. But the Hydran tug on the Expedition carries extra fighters in its pallets and its supplies internally. So when it's crippled it loses everything at once? Shouldn't it be it loses all the fighters on the pallet and only half of its supplies (eg. If it had 11-20 turns left, crippled it has 10 turns left.) After all carriers lose only half of their fighters.
ANSWER: Unfortunately there is no special exception in the rules for the Hydran tug, it is treated like any other tug. Regardless, as you say, when crippled a large number of its internal cargo boxes (and their contents) would be destroyed as well, so somewhat less than half of the original tug's contents is all that might survive and I imagine that it was not enough to justify a special rule.
==================
There was lots of discussion about the status of ships in the depot status (crippled, uncrippled, or something else), and whether you can scrap or salvage them and what the value is in either case.
SHORT ANSWER: The final ruling was that ships anywhere in the depot system are crippled until they are removed from the #1 box on the depot track (as then they are considered new construction). Nothing in the depot system can be scrapped. Ships in the depot holding box can be salvaged for their normal salvage value.
DETAILED ANSWER: Scrapping is for ships that are in play on the board. Rule (447.51) should obviously say "crippled" instead of "damaged". You can't scrap a destroyed ship, that is what the salvage rule is for. If you scrap a crippled ship, you get the salvage value.
The scrap rule allows you to scrap any ships in supply, but the depot system is its own rule, and has additional limitations on what happens to the ships in it. The depot rule specifically provides for salvage (from the holding box only). There is no reason/need to have a depot/scrap interaction, the two rules are just never used for the same ship, it's that simple.
The only thing that this would entail is if you want to remove a depot ship from say, box #3 instead of finishing the depot repair because you want the money at that point. This would leave an empty box on the track (the other ships would not move up a box). However, the rule doesn't allow that.
Rule (424.34) says you can salvage ships in the holding box. If it allowed you to salvage ships on the track, it would simply say something like "you can remove ships from the DEPOT SYSTEM for their salvage cost", but it doesn't, it says "remove ships from the holding box".
In any case, I have to say ships in the holding box/depot system are still crippled until they come of off box #1. Ships in the holding box are still crippled. Either the ship was crippled and put there deliberately under (424.35), or it was crippled in combat, then destroyed in combat, then rolled a "1" for the depot roll. Rule (424.33) says they then go into the holding box instead of counting as destroyed. They are thus still crippled, as that was their state prior to being destroyed, and they go to depot instead of being destroyed. As crippled ships this means their salvage value and scrap value are the same (447.51), so even if you could scrap you just get the salvage value.
The depot rule has its own limits on what happens to the ships in the depot system, and that overrides the general rules on scrapping. You can't scrap or salvage ships on the track. Ships on the track can only move from box to box to get repaired/rebuilt. Or they can be lost when the depot is destroyed. So in the holding box they are crippled (as explained above), and could still be salvaged. There is nothing allowing the state of the ship to change until it comes off of box #1 as then it counts as new construction, and new construction is of course placed on the board right side up. So even if it mattered, the ships are still crippled side up as they move along the track.
==================
Geof Clark: I've got a question about retreat after pursuit. After 2 rounds of combat, we had a Klingon defender retreat, and was pursued unsuccessfully by the Hydrans. The Hydrans then wanted to retreat from the hex. Is this legal?
According to 307, the pursuit battle is conducted just as a normal battle, in terms of retreat afterwards, but our group has a feeling that no retreat after pursuit is the standard rule. Please clarify this for us.
ANSWER: Geoff, check out the first paragraph of rule (307.1). Also rule (302.713). Pursuit happens after retreat is announced for both players, and if both sides declare retreat then there is no pursuit. In order to be able to pursue, you must not have declared retreat for your side. At that point you perform the pursuit battle round, then the side that previously announced retreat does so, and the side that pursued takes possession of the hex. There is not another option to retreat.
(307.4), last paragraph, says that after the pursuit battle retreat proceeds without further pursuit. This means you finish performing the earlier declared retreat, you don't go through another round of retreat opportunities for both sides.
=================
David Walend: Can SAFs attack PDUs and bases inside the web if the Tholians use the web to keep them out of the battle force?
I think 512.34, 'SAFs designated as "in the web" attack any base or PDU inside the web normally.' means that an SAF can attack a base or planet that is in the web, even if the Tholians use 512.2 to keep the base or planet out of the battle force. I believe that 512.34 is a modification of 511.572. The base or planet would normally have to be in the battle force, but because it is in the web it doesn't have to be in the battle force. The base or planet is "in the web" so SAFs can attack.
Some experienced players following PO Tholian Gambit were surprised by my interpretation. One observer stated that simply not being in the battle force would protect the base or PDU, suggesting that 512.2 was analogous to needing an approach battle. I don't think that's a particularly good fit. The pursued force in a pursuit battle might be a stronger analogy. However, 511.573 provides an example of directed damage to targets not in the battle force if they take shelter at a planet.
ANSWER: To start with, the 512.34 rule is not a special case of 511.572. 511 is for capitals only, and 512 is for tholians in general. The general rule is not a subcase of the specific. The presence of web does not mean you get to use 511 (I know that is not really what you are arguing), if web only appeared at the Tholian capital then 511 would have more weight in its effects.
SAFs can attack bases/pdus in the battleforce under their rules. Under the web rules, the target might not even be in the battleforce, so it could not be a target of the SAF. The rule (512.34) is another way of stating the exception in (512.1), although that is no longer exactly correct since SAFs do a number of SIDS steps/PDUs destroyed instead of the old direct damage system, but they are intended to mean basically the same thing.
The tholians can use the base making it vulnerable to SAF attack/direct damage, or it can keep it out of the battleforce and not get to use it. If they insist on doing this, the only way to damage the base is to drive the ships off so that the base must be included (512.2).
In general, things not in the battleforce cannot be targeted. There are specific exceptions, support ships like carriers/drone ships, crippled ships at the capital, etc... There is no specific exception for SAFs in this instance though, sorry.
The reason I think it is confusing is that originally, SAFs did x amount of directed damage. The web prevents directed damage, so an exception was made for SAFs. This exception for SAFs of course only applied if the base was also in the battleforce to be targeted. Then SAFs were redesigned to deal SIDS damage or destroy X PDUs instead of directed damage points. Whereas at that time in the SAF/direct damage days, the exception in (512.1) and rule (512.34) were clearly the same thing, that is less obvious now.
==============
Chuck Strong: I cannot seem to find the reference: Does a ship repaired by an allied race get free strategic movement within that allied race's system from the allied repair node?
ANSWER: Chuck, (204.313) says that a repaired ship does not count against the owners strategic movement limits. When repaired at an allied facility in an allied grid, it does count against the ally's strat move limits. So you only get free strat moves through the owner's grid, not the allied grid, even when the ally performed the repair.
=============
David Walend: In Tholian Gambit, can the Klingons enter 2617?
2617 is the only hex 12 hexes from 1411 and 3 hexes from 2919. It's the difference of having slow units built turn 2 in the battle over Tholia in turn 3.
503.62 says, "Hexes 2617 and 3217 are a special case. They are treated as if they were adjacent to the Federation for all purposes." 615.12 says "Both races are restricted to Klingon and Tholian space and the Neutral Zone hexes between Klingon and Tholian space.." My guess is the scenario rule trumps the general rule.
ANSWER: No, the general rule still stands. The general rule says that hex 2617 and 3217 are considered federation adjacent NZ hexes. Hex 2617 is a Fed/Klingon NZ hex just like 2616, it is not a Tholian/Klingon NZ hex.
================
Kevin Howard: An odd situation was pointed out to me just today. I was playing "Reptilicon Revenged" with a friend, and I was explaining what conversions were possible for the Romulans. Obviously, since the SP and SK hulls are only introduced in 168, any conversions for them are listed as "168 only".
Then my friend pointed out that the entire list is noted as "168 only" - including all the old style ships and Kestrals, heck I can't convert a FAL or extra SE or anything, not until 168.
So, my question is: Can I do any conversions at all in the first two turns of "Reptilicon Revenged", or do I have to wait until 168 (turn 3)?
ANSWER: As far as I know that is the intention, the Roms don't get any conversions until Y168. The entire conversion list says Y168 only, and rule (613.4) says to use the scenario listings in place of the order of battle and (751.0) which is now the SIT.
===================
Kevin Howard: Oh, and while we are at it (and my apologies if this has been answered before), but can I unconvert anything in "Reptilicon Revenged"? It has a specific list of allowed conversions, and unconversions are not listed, but it also does not specifically disallow unconversions.
I don't need the 3 FE, I want to unconvert them back to 3 WE. Can I?
ANSWER: The scenario says that its own lists replace the OB and the SIT. It does not replace other rules like the unconversion rule, so you could still use that I believe. As far as I know unconversions are always allowed (provided a conversion facility).
===============
Chuck Strong:
In the historical scenario (607.143) says the Lyran repair tug (pallet) is available in Y160 and is confirmed by the SFB MSC; the F&E SIT says Y159 -- which is correct?
ANSWER: Chuck, that level of detail is simply not part of the game (yet). Perhaps for strategic ops? Currently:
There is a rule (422.0) for repair tugs, that says each race can have one repair tug (Gorns get more as a special thing). It works in such and such way, and is treated as a tug mission in the basic rules. Then you get the LTT which says it can function as a repair tug just like a regular tug, use the same mission and the same rule.
Then you get the expansion that adds pods and pallets as actual units for carrier tugs, battle tugs, and so on. But, you don't actually get repair pods/pallets. You get a "repair tug" marker for each race, and the repair tug and repair LTT still uses the original "repair mission" rule. This was really the first of the tug mission markers like supply tug and cargo (EP transport) tug. We simply aren't tracking which race uses paired repair pods and which uses single large repair pods and which uses repair pallets. To do the level of detail you want, we would have to add repair pods/pallets as actual units to the game rather than a tug mission marker.
This would change some things, as LTTs from races that use repair pods in pairs would only likely carry on, would have only 4 repair instead of 8, and would give the race the ability to split up their field repair tug capability to two different locations (at the cost of requiring two tugs/LTTs), something that now they cannot do, all 8 points must be on one tug and must perform all its repairs in the same hex.
Currently repair pods are abstracted as a tug mission, not detailed as actual units. It only appears as a general SIT entry instead of having different stats for each race on that race's SIT. That is why the Lyran year doesn't match up.
Or in other words, Y160 is probably correct for the Lyrans, but the General SIT entry can only have one value so...
========
Trent Telenko:
1) Is a Federation NCL=>NCA=>NHV a legitimate double conversion? Ditto for all the other CW=>NCA=>NCA-Variant hulls?
ANSWER: If it has the double conversion note on the SIT conversion column (double dagger) then it is, if not then it isn't. You might want to put this in the SIT topic and see if anyone else wants it added to the online SITs as double conversions though.
2) Can a Federation Monitor with Fighter, F-111 or CVA pallet be in a CVBG?
ANSWER: No, rule (519.23) prevents any monitor (even with fighters) from being escorted. So no carrier groups or CVBGs with monitors in them.
3) Can a Federation GVX F-111 carrier form a battle group with non-X-ship carriers and escorts? If yes, can the GVX include ad-hoc X-ship escorts to the CVBG?
ANSWER: Rule (523.352) prevents x-ship ad hoc escorts for all groups. The exception is the GVX, but this exception does not include CVBGs, as that falls under the earlier restriction. I can't find anything preventing the GVX from being in a CVBG (provided it is operating as a single ship carrier, or with non-x escorts).
4) Does a Federation Tug or LTT with an F-111 HFP pod operate as a CV-tug under (515.26), AKA it requires another command slot or as a Tug+PFT pod which does not?
ANSWER: Carrier tugs never "require" another command slot. Escorts for carrier tugs are optional (515.26). Such a tug with F111s could be escorted though, if you wish. Carrier tugs are different from regular carriers.
5) Since rule (527.21FO) states the following:
"...All F111/A20 carriers must be escorted as carriers until Spring Y180. From that time, the Federation may operate any or all carriers with F111s as escorted medium carriers or as unescorted single ship carriers (or some of each)..."
I should be able to use not just NVH F111 carriers, but also the Federation F111 carrying CVH, BCS, DCS, NCS, and NHV as unescorted single ship carriers for combat and raids. Is that interpretation correct? It is what the wording states.
Or is the intent of the rule for just for pure F111 carriers like the NVH, NHV and CVH, AKA the non-control ship PFT analogs?
ANSWER: The intention is that any ship with ONLY F111 fighters can be "single ship carriers" under that rule. Any ship with F111s and another regular fighter type are still treated as regular carriers requiring escorts.
6) Since (527.21FO) says this:
"...Note that an NVH (unlike other carriers capable of functioning in either mode) which is designated at the start of the Combat Phase (Y180 or later) as having escorts could not be converted to a single-ship carrier during that same Combat Phase."
a) Does this restriction also apply to the CVH, BCS, DCS, NCS, and NHV (or whatever F111 carriers are eligible based on #5 above)?
ANSWER: I belive it applies to all carriers with pure F111 groups. If you assign escorts, they retain those command slots for the duration of the combat hex. In this sense they are different from other single ship carriers that can switch back during combat.
b) Can an escorted F111 carrier in the Combat Phase change back to single ship carrier status in the Pursuit Phase, thus releasing non-crippled escorts for other (crippled) carriers to pick up via (308.122)?
ANSWER: According to the above, no, it is still a carrier group. But see (515.15 last sentence) with allows any escort (even non-crippled ones) to be dropped during retreat. Also note that (308.122) does NOT allow you to add uncrippled escorts to crippled carriers, it allows you to join cripples with cripples and non-cripples with non-cripples to satisfy pursuit requirements.
7) Can an oversized Ftr squadron escort a ground combat ship per (521.374CO) if its carrier is in the battle force?
ANSWER: Yes, but only with the carrier present as otherwise the squadron is broken up into multiple ship equivalents under (318.8).
8) Since (521.374CO) says fighters or PFs can be escorts for ground combat ships, and (521.372B CO) says that the escorts must first be crippled for an escorted ground combat ship to be destroyed by directed damage, exactly how many fighters or PFs are destroyed when a fighter squadron or PFF are crippled in this role?
ANSWER: 1/3 of the attrition factors of each ship equivalent must be destroyed. Possibly this will change to 1/3 of the PFs (instead of PF factors), but right now the rule is to track factors (possibly generating a minus point when PFs are involved).
9) What would be the "outside escort" for an escorted marine ship if it had a ship like a CW and anyone of the following: Federation special (F14/F15/A10), Hydran Stinger-X squadron, oversized fighter squadron, PF flotilla, as an escort for purposes of Penal Honor Duel rule (528.433)?
ANSWER: The escort or ship equivalent with the smallest uncrippled defense factor is the outermost escort (308.114). You could have CW-7 (inner) and fighter squadron-6 (outer). You could have oversized squadron-12 (inner) and CW-7 (outer).
10) Since stasis rule (312.217) states that a single fighter factor or single PF are frozen as ships, what does that mean for a fighter squadron or PF escorted ground combat ship? Does the escorted ground combat ship array that is targeted by Stasis freeze attempts get as many stasis freezing targets as there are escorting fighter factors or PFs?
ANSWER: Only a single factor could be targeted since the SFG can only catch one fighter in a given field, not the whole group. Makes fighter escorted troopships immune to stasis given the restriction of only targetting the escorts. I'm going to ask about this one for the warbook. It could be it needs its own rule. Good question.
=================
Peter A. Kellerhall: The CL31 SIT lists Federation FFB variants that can be substituted for the DW and FF but the official SIT lists only a DW -- can the FFB be subtituted for the FF now?
ANSWER: You will want to post this in the SIT topic, as I don't know which is correct. I don't know what Steve's intention is with all the new FFB variants.
=================
Peter A. Kellerhall: What is the story with the Police ships?
CO (531.122) says you call up a Police Ship for 2 EP.
PO (531.122) then says you build additional Police ships but the online SITs don't list a cost.
How much does a generic POL cost and does it vary by race? If so, how much do each cost?
(BTW can you guys clear up these ploice ship rules in the new warbook? And why did you mess with the rule just a year after in was published in the first place?)
ANSWER: The online cost should be 2 EPs as far as I know (cheaper than a FF at 2.5). It does not vary by race. The old rule was 1 (or 2) free per turn, plus one additional at 2 EPs allowed. The new rule is like the old rule as far as police cutters are concerned (but now accounts for police carriers and police flagships). You are right, the basic police cutter cost got lost in the update, it should show up on the SITs when they get updated.
=================
Paul Bonfanti: Rule 305.25 allows using a captured but unrepaired/unconverted ship in a battle force, but allows for the original player to recapture it by spending 3xdefense in directed damage. is this only for the turn on which it is captured, or can it be recaptured on subsequent turns.
e.g. Kzintis capture a Klingon F5 on T2 and then use it in combat on T3 without converting it. Can the Klingons use 9 points to recapture it?
ANSWER: Only on the same combat phase.
==================
Dave Butler: How are Tug Missions (F&E-509.0) and Romulan Modular Ships (F&E-433.43) supposed to interact? I'm supposed to assign missions in Phases 1 or 2, but the modular conversion is done in phase 3. Can I assign a mission to a module in the pool (i.e., "if this module is attached to a ship, it will do [foo]")?
(The specific case I'm dealing with is that I'm overbuilding a SP; the rules are quite clear that I can't make it a SPH during construction (tugs can't be overbuilt). I do, however, have an H-module in the pool (built on the previous turn). I've got a mobile base that I'd like to set up, and this SP is the only one that's in range of both the stored base and the destination hex. So, I'd like to perform the modular conversion (part of OpMove), move the SP to the SB where the MB is stored, and take the MB to its desired hex.)
Now, I'm fairly sure that the missions that require a tug to start in the hex (i.e., upgrade base) couldn't work, even though that might be a nice bonus for the Romulans, but I don't see why the missions that allow the tug to pass through (i.e., mobile base, carry EP) shouldn't work. I just don't know if I'm allowed to do them.
ANSWER: I don't see why not. You build the SP in production step (however you build it). During Op move you spend a movement point to convert to the existing H modules (SPH), then use any remaining movement points to pick up the MB and begin setting it up.
=================
Paul Howard: I think this needs to be 'appealed' as I don't think it has been thought all the way through.
(From Q&A Achives, November 2002)
CEDS's replacement of Escorts - SB can now do up to 5 (if Major/Capital) or 3 (if minor).
What happens if a race is Off Map and only has the Off Map SB?
ANSWER: Huh? What decision are you appealing, I can't tell (I did look at the archive, but I am still confused). If you only have one off map SB, and no shipyard, that SB can only do 3 pts of conversions. In order to do a major conversion you need a starbase in the capital/shipyard hex (433.17) (which means you need a functioning shipyard), and that gives you the major conversion or 5 pts of flexible conversions. Of course, under Planetary Ops you can now also build minor conversion facilities and major conversion facilities to help out with additional capacity.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 11:11 pm: Edit
Nick:
You need to see (433.12); a replacement capital can make major conversions immediately (you do NOT need a funtioning SY to do so).
(BTW, I know this one very well as Joe S and I hashed this one out back in 2000.)
Cheers,
Chuck
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:58 am: Edit
Nick
Regarding Trent's Question 4) about carrier tugs using up a command slot if unescorted: (515.26) in FO, pg. 7.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:03 am: Edit
Paul
I have noticed the same thing; a while back I suggested building a minor shipyard (minor conversion) to supplement the Kzinti so that they don't cut into their CVL->CVS conversions. However, the effect is not as bad as you think because you get conversion points per turn, not per year. So the Kzinti can replace 12 escorts a year (6 a turn) through, as you say, 5 from breaking down the major conversion and 1 through SB production. This means the Kzinti are relatively safe and if they are losing more than 6 frigates a turn, they have bigger problems.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 04:18 am: Edit
Nick
On the Tholian production the Spring builds through Y177 list 1 DN and 1 PC (or 1 CA and 2 PCs). Can you instead substitute a CC and 2 PCs since you can sub a CC for a DN? Or would this be considered a sub of a CA (which you can't do until Y178). The Tholians seem to be able to build 4 PC hulls in the Spring during this time period so it is not extra production.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 05:14 am: Edit
One more question:
If the Tholians use ADS for X amount of EPs and are then conquered, do the Klingons have to pay it off or are the minus EPs a "PERMANENT" minus EPs for if the Feds retake Tholia and give it back to the Tholians and then it's repaid?
What if the Feds never retake Tholia?
Or if the Feds take and keep Tholia?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 11:03 am: Edit
The rule in (701.0) states that you can always sub a CC for a DN.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:20 pm: Edit
Raider
Yes, that is correct, but for the Tholian production if you take the CC instead of the DN do you get the 2 PCs or just 1?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Micheal:
You need to examine the Tholian substitution chart -- I seem to recall that you can sub the DN for 3xPC or CA+PC (or CC+PC in this case).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:04 pm: Edit
Regarding the Tholian deficit question, wouldn't (PO-447.24) come into play (and cause the Tholians to implode)?
Related question: What happens if a race's capital falls, but it doesn't have a planet or starbase to designate as a new capital? (This primarily affects the Tholians, but could apply to the Klingons and Romulans (although the game would quickly be over if it did).)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:14 pm: Edit
Regarding the Tholian substitution question, (F&E-707.2) only allows DD+CW as a substitution for DN (or DH), other than the general CC/CA for DN that everyone can do. Now, the CW isn't available until 179 (according to the SIT (which, incidentally, contradicts (707.1)), but there's a substitution of PC+DD for CW.
Question: Can I substitute PC+2xDD for DN by going through the CW substitution before the CW is available? (I.e., I have a DN on the schedule. I substitute DD+CW for it, but am not allowed to build the CW due to the year; I therefore substitute DD+PC for the unbuildable CW.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:20 pm: Edit
Fleeing the Alliance tyranny, they become rag-tag fugitive fleet on a lonely quest to a shining planet, known as...oh...sorry...wrong universe.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:25 pm: Edit
Dave:
It has been ruled in the past that you can always sub for a sub.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Bonus question on SP-H mission declaration:
Do you have to declare a mission for the H-module (alone) during phase 1, as Dave Butler is implying, or do you simply declare it at the first moment you have an actual Tug? (In this case during movement when the SP spends a point of movement to swap its A/K modules for the pre-existing H module.)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:05 pm: Edit
Chuck,
Not my question. Can I sub for a sub that I'm not currently permitted to do? (I can't sub DD+CW for DN in Y169, the CW doesn't exist yet, so can I sub for the CW?)
(Consider it a confirming question regarding just how much ground "always" is supposed to cover.)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:30 pm: Edit
Raider
Not since first edition. Probably BOTH of us need to reread the rules since I made a bad call on a post over in "Reports from the Front: PO Tholian Gambit". Now the Tholian production is DN+PC (or CA+2xPC) and the only subs for the DN are:
DD + CW
DH
CA or CC
That gives me an idea, if they do a sub for a sub (Daves idea) then they can get 2 DDs and 1 PC. They can not produce the CC but they can convert a CA for that. And it only comes out to .5 EPs more expensive for 7 more COMPOT and the same command rating in the Holdfast. And they can still get the regular PC with it for 2 DD and 2 PC and a cost of 15 EPs. Thanks. Oh yeah by the way, that's the COALITION tyranny.
Sorry Nick, you can still answer the question if you want but I have a better idea now.
Dave
No, 447.24 wouldn't come into play unless the Klingons suffered it since Tholia would then be "just" another planet in their empire. It would only come into play if Tholia was freed by someone and it was still there. However this gives me an idea for another question (Sorry Nick).
By John Robinson (John_R) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:32 pm: Edit
I'm playing the Coalition for the first time in about 4 years. I seem to recall that the Klingons can only build 1 D6S per year by any means, but cannot find the rules to that effect. 703.3 says one D6S subbed for D7/D6 once per year (until Turn 7). 701 says unlimited scout conversions. SO, other than the limitations of the major conversion capacity, is there a hard limit on the production of D6S?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:43 pm: Edit
Nick
If Tholia was conquered and then freed by someone would they have the same number of turns of war accumulated as the conquering race when freed or their own number plus the number of turns of war under the other race or something else?
For example:
If the Klingons attack Tholia on turn 7 instead of the Feds and conquered it on turn 9 and then attacked the Feds with the Romulans on turn 10 and kept the Feds away from it until turn 20 would the Tholians have 20 turns of war accumulated, 13 turns accumulated, or some other number?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:48 pm: Edit
John
On page 58 of AO 703.4 Production Notes: Other.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Gah. Thank you Michael.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 06:02 pm: Edit
Michael,
You really should let Nick answer the questions. (Talk all you want in General Discussion.)
I will, however, clarify my question about the Tholian ADS problem by pointing out that the Tholians are still an active race even when conquered. It may well be that they have an income of zero, and possibly no capital (due to a lack of SB and planets), but they still exist as an economic entity. It's the case that deficits live even if the capital falls; it makes sense that the debt should do likewise. So, if the Tholians have any debt, and their capital falls, then just how bad are the things that happen?
(There are a bunch of rules at play here. Without a SB or planet, there can be no replacement capital. Without a capital or off-map area, any supply grid is a Partial Grid. Without a supply point, the Partial Grid can't accumulate economic points (more precisely: all accumulated economic points are lost when the last supply point in the grid vanishes). The debt probably remains, even without a capital. So, in a typical case, the Tholians will have an income of 1 EP (disputed provence). If their debt is 3 EP or more, they must pay immediately and scrap ships to do so if required. Of course, since it's a Partial Grid, it's possible that none of the ships are in supply -- I don't see in the SoP when I pay for (F&E-413.41) -- so it's possible that none of them can be scrapped for money, because (PO-447.51) requires that the ships be in supply or they scrap for nothing. So the spiral repeats.)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Dave
Sorry about not letting Nick answer the question, but I knew WHERE it was so pointed him towards it instead of answering it directly where I could have gotten something wrong.
The Tholian province would not be in dispute. The Klingons would activate the colonies there and claim the extra-large province as theirs. Interestingly enough the Tholians are the only race that this can happen to so as to have a LOT of exceptions to the rules. That's another question for Nick (Sorry Nick).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 06:38 pm: Edit
Nick
When the Klingons activate their colonies of Kalesta, Kelanon, and Kordahn does the Ex-Tholian province count as Klingon or does it still have to suffer through long term province capture rules? After all, it used to be a Klingon province and the race that took it is now a Klingon subject race.
Note: In the MWB you may want to put a separate section for all the Tholian exceptions.
By David Walend (Dwalend) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:26 pm: Edit
Nick, follow up to _Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:05 pm_ and _Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 02:30 pm_ .
In 707.2 (AO p 61), is "PC and DD for CW" a typo for "PC or DD for CW"? It lets the Tholians build five PC/DD hulls in the spring. "CA + 2xPC" lets them build only four PC/DD hulls.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 04:13 am: Edit
David
Our ~2:00 pm posts only add up to 2xDD and 2xPC for the spring builds, not 5.
The math looks like this:
PC + DN = PC + (DD + CW) = PC + DD + (CW) = PC + DD + (PC + DD) = 2xPC + 2xDD.
The total spent on MY post would be 2xDD (8) + 2xPC (5) = 13 + converting CA to CC (2) = 15.
Buying a DN (12) + PC (2.5) = 14.5
Providing that Daves post is legal (Which I'm pretty sure it is but am still waiting for the ruling, just in case) the Tholians get 21 COMPOT and a CR 10 in the Holdfast instead of 14 COMPOT and the same CR 10 for just an extra .5 EPs and their conversion slot.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 - 11:35 am: Edit
I'm told that this has been asked before, but I can't find it.
The Lyrans have a certain number of EP in their wynkovia balance. (say, 10EP for convinience). They are already donating 20EP to the klingons this turn (during strat move).
1) Can the Klingons have a tug in the wyn cluster and drain the Lyran Wynkovia balance, transferring the monies to the klingon economy?
2) Can the Lyrans drain their balance and transfer an additional 10EP to the klingons direct, the money never having gone into the Lyran economy?
3) Do the tugs have to start in the cluster? IIRC, you can't move in and out of the cluster in the same turn, even when using blockade running.
4) Suppose no money had been sent to the Klingons by the lyrans this turn. Does it make any difference, or do the monies have to go into the Lyran economy before they can be transferred to the Klingons?
5) Suppose the wyncovia monies were transferred to the klingons during opmove, would that reduce the amount that could be shifted during stratmove?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 06:51 am: Edit
Nick
Another question about the web:
Can slow units stuck in a web leave by themselves or do they need to be pulled out?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 04:37 am: Edit
Nick
Why was the Hydran CV not changed to a CVD when CVDs were introduced into the game?
(I've heard a lot of other answers, but I would like the OFFICIAL one.)
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:30 am: Edit
Like the name of the ship?
Like changing the counter? Counter changes aren't allowed (printing issues)
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit
He's talking about an oversized squadron ruling (or lack thereof) for the H-CV. Which would be a SIT change, but not really a counter change.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 01:12 pm: Edit
It already has an oversized squadron. He wants it changed from a Heavy Carrier to a Medium Carrier for escort and construction purposes. But actually being treated as Heavy Carrier puts it in the same league as the Lyran and Gorn CVDs.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, April 03, 2006 - 07:10 pm: Edit
F.O lists the Hydran carrier's that are eligable under the oversized squadron rule.
The H-CV is one ship listed.
What has not changed is the production notes that make the H-CV a heavy carrier for the purposes of Hydran ship production.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 12:27 am: Edit
Hey guys, the discussion for this is in the Gerneral Discussions board starting on March 8. I don't think Nick would want us to clutter up his board for this discussion, and all of these points were already covered there. If you want to continue this discussion please read the posts and I will meet you there, otherwise I think a lot of people are tired of this one, except me. I would really like the OFFICIAL reason why it wasn't changed before I start it up again but I can continue at any point you wish to start at. Just start typing....
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 09:53 am: Edit
Michael,
Nick can go ahead and give his own personal answer, but technically, this thread is for rule answers, not rule reasonings. In essense, Nick can tell you what the rules says, but he can't tell you the 'official reason' why the rule says that. It's not his job to give justification for, only clarification of, the rules as written.
Just so you know.
Try and bump the question on up to SVC, and if he has time, and he might be able to give the reason behind the design decision. Or, he might not take the time to even think about it, as he's got a company to run.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 04, 2006 - 03:44 pm: Edit
Kevin
Not a problem, but the rules don't say why the Hydran CV was not reclassified as a CVD.
SVC
I recently had a discussion on the General Discussions board about the Hydran CV not being a CVA anymore since you put in the CVDs. Quite a lot of people had things to say about it, both for and against, but I could get no real answer as to why it was not changed except for a vague "Balance". This seems like a dodge to me since no one explained WHY this would unbalance the game. And some of them started trying to "Browbeat" me implying that I didn't have enough experience with the game to question them. Could you please tell me why they weren't changed?
A. Everyone forgot about them.
B. Nobody wanted to bother.
C. You're coming out with a new Hydran CVD.
D. You're coming out with a new ruling on Hydran CVs.
E. It somehow seriously unbalances the game.
If it's "E" could you tell me HOW it unbalances the game.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 07:33 pm: Edit
How's about F: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 12:03 am: Edit
James... sounds like you believe in the KISS method... keep it simple silly (taking the PC route)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit
OK I need to find time to answer questions this weekend.
I am sorry about the carrier tug thing, I screwed up. If I had read one more sentence (or read it more carefully the first time) I would have seen that unescorted carrier tugs do indeed take up two command slots.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 06:56 am: Edit
Sorry Nick, this might have been asked before, but I can't find it!
Raids against Romulans ships (Not Police Ships or Aux Ships - i.e. normal warships) 314.246 states what a CLOAKED raider can do - but doesn't mention at all about a potentially cloaked ship being raided.
Can the Romulan Warship attempt to cloak before the raid combat? (Normal combat rules do not apply to Raids and so 306.1 doesn't appear to coming into it)
If it is allowed and it failed - can it use the cloak in SSC (Failed evaded roll's don't allow you to use it in the first round)?
Thanks
Paul
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, April 08, 2006 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Nick
Another Tholian question:
Shouldn't Penal ships not be allowed to "Honor Duel" Tholian ships in the web? Or at least have a 1 point DM penalty since the F5J is going to have to go on the other side of the web (I can't see a THOLIAN ship coming out of there)?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 01:53 pm: Edit
Hi Nick - question about raids and supply. I know you have answered this one before but I can't find the details.
I have a fleet that is out of supply at the beginning of my turn. I raid one of the ships blocking supply and destroy it so that there is now a valid supply path to the fleeet. Does my fleet now get full moves etc (it's the old - raids don't affect supply thing again)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 05:50 pm: Edit
James,
From the Warbook topic:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 09:48 am:
Well, any past Q&A item that needed a rules change or errata has already resulted in such.
________________________________________
So, all you need to do is check the errata (last posted April 2005) and the Q&A Archive File, and if there's nothing there -- and there isn't -- then the rules act as written.
(The confirmation of this can be found in November of 2003 (probably in the first half of that month).)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 06:21 pm: Edit
The presence of the raider itself does not affect supply directly (the raider itself cannot block/open supply), but the raider can attack other units and those units affects supply. So after the blocking ship is destroyed by the raider, supply would available at the next supply check in the SOP.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 06:26 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick - as a follow-up though:
Was the supply step for assessing whether ships get full MP's moved to before the raid phase? Paul found something to that effect. If it was then they don't get full moves, if not then they do (I've looked in the errata and Q&A archives and can't see anything)
James
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 06:36 pm: Edit
(105.P) Phase 3B1 evaluates supply for movement AFTER ALL raid actions.
SVC once stated that raiders by themselves do not effect supply -- the EFFECTS of raiding do.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 07:20 pm: Edit
Nick:
This may need to go up to SVC for inclusion on the Warbook, but do you know if MBs listed in scenarios are allowed to be deployed at scenario start as part of an onging war scenario? Specifically the historical scenarios like the Tempest, Hurricane GF and WoF?
I know MBs are not allowed to deployed when starting at peace but cannot find a reference on this issue during an on-going war where play begins in the middle. Thanks.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 11:10 pm: Edit
As Chuck said, the SOP tells you that raids happen in step 3A, (the blocking ship is destroyed), then Op Movement is 3B, with supply checks for op move at 3B1 (supply is now open as blocking ship is gone at this point), so they are in supply and get full movement.
Chuck, I would say the default is follow the normal rule unless a specific scenario rule allows them to be setup. There is no current rule that covers this that I know of, so should probably just be dealt with scenario by scenario. You should put a scenario rule defining this as part of the setup of forces (can they have already set up one MB, two, all?) and note that it is a new item when you submit the scenario updates to Steve, he can keep it or shoot it down as he likes.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 12:20 am: Edit
Is the Hydran Monarch BB a hybrid ship like the the Paladin DN?
Factors are:
18-20(9)/9-10(4 )
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 01:09 am: Edit
OK thanks Nick
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 02:54 am: Edit
Raider
The counter of the Hydran Monarch BB that I have out of the reinforcements pack has factors of 20(9)/10(4.5). (I don't know how to do a triangle)
Using the Hydran ship rule it shouldn't be, but I believe I saw a ruling that it was (In a Captains Log). I hope Nick reverses this decision, especially since the Master Ship Chart in Module R5 does not list these fighters as True CV fighters (It would need a N1 under the Notes column and only has a V [Like all Hybrid ships] and a CJ).
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 06:11 am: Edit
Nick. Can you answer my Wyncovia economic transfer question sometime?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 08:09 am: Edit
Nick -
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, April 09, 2006 - 11:10 pm: Edit
As Chuck said, the SOP tells you that raids happen in step 3A, (the blocking ship is destroyed), then Op Movement is 3B, with supply checks for op move at 3B1 (supply is now open as blocking ship is gone at this point), so they are in supply and get full movement.
Sorry to raise/appeal this, but the following two posts confirm the reverse of this -
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:30 pm: Edit
Raids cannot unblock supply.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 02:54 pm: Edit
(None relevant Text Deleted)
Big Huge Raid/Supply discussion: In case you weren't paying attention, the final result is there should be errata to the Advanced Ops SOP (page AO-93) to move step 3B1: op move supply check to be prior to Phase 3A: Raids. This means that even if a raid destroys an enemy ship blocking supply, you still have reduced Op Moves since supply was checked before raids. You may be in supply later, i.e. the supply check for combat, but the Op Move supply check is already done.
Nick, your post even confirms that even if a ship is destroyed by raids, Op moves still count as being out of supply.
Has there been a MAJOR change in the Rules, or has the original ruling been forgotten about?
Thanks
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 08:14 am: Edit
Raven,
Check for a couple of posts in November of 2003 (sometime about the 10th).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 10:45 am: Edit
Paul, those posts were made as part of the Raid/Supply debacle. SVC clarified what could and could not happen in one of the recent Captain's Logs.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Paul, those rulings were later overturned by Steve Cole.
A RAIDER cannot unblock supply. This applies to the RAIDER only. A raider's actions may change the situation however, as the raider's actions CANNOT affect supply but a raider's actions CAN affect other ships. And other ships affect supply.
Say you have a Klingon fleet blocking supply. The Kzinti cannot raid an adjacent hex (with nothing in it) and claim that the presence of the raider opened supply (as a Kzinti ship/fleet actually present in that hex would).
In another case, you have a single Klingon F5 blocking supply. A Kzinti raider can attack that F5 specifically, and if the F5 is destroyed supply will be open, or if the F5 is forced to retreat supply may be open depending on where the F5 retreated to.
The raider cannot affect supply by it's own presence (it does not count as an adjacent ship under the supply path rules), but if it moves or destroys other ships, that could change the supply situation.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 05:21 pm: Edit
Nick
Do you have the time to answer a few of the Tholian questions I posted?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 09:40 pm: Edit
anyone ....help I think this is illegal ...but Im going to ask any way ......moving Lyran Forces into hexes 0805 & 0905 to hit the BattleStation in hex 1004 on the very 1st turn and Klingon is on "wartime" economy thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 09:55 pm: Edit
That is illegal. Lyrans cannot enter any NZ hexes adjacent to Klingon territory until turn #2.
Questions downloaded to this point.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit
Ok I was thinking that I was right ty mhoiver...
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:04 am: Edit
(503.61) specifically prohibits the Lyrans from entering hexes 0805 and 0905 on Turn 1. However, it does allow the Lyrans to capture the other neutral hexes between Lyran and Klingon space on Turn 1.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 07:39 am: Edit
so what you are saying Jeff hex 0805 but not hex 0905 because its in the Klingon_Kzinti Neutral Zone...
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 07:44 am: Edit
Now if that the case you then cant take hexes 0912 & 0812 LRD-Klingon Neutral Zone... But in hex 0805 & 0911 can you take them or not in the 1st turn.....mholiver
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:11 am: Edit
Mholiver and Nick,
Some rules numbers for you: (F&E-503.61) allows the Lyran capture of hexes bordering the Klingons (except 0805 and 0905), and (503.64) allows capture of the hexes adjacent to the LDR while the Lyrans are "at Wartime status".
By the language of the rules, therefore, the Lyrans may enter (and capture) any NZ hex adjacent to the Klingons but not adjacent to the Hydrans or Federation (and not 0805 and 0905). Note that this explicitly includes all of the K-Z neutral zone -- except 0905 -- because those are hexes "bordering the Klingons".
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:22 am: Edit
Nick,
A question about the offensive use of the Cloaking Device (F&E-306.2): The rule requires the entire battle force to have cloaks, but Romulan fighters, if memory serves, don't have cloaks. Does this mean that if there are Romulan fighters present, the cloak can't be used offensively (on that round)? (The rules say I'm right, but I'd like to confirm it.)
Also, as another confirming question, since ship in the support echelon aren't in the Battle Force, it's okay to have Klingon drone bombardment ships firing in support of a all-Romulan line using offensive cloak, correct?
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:38 am: Edit
Splitting hairs again eh Dave?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:57 am: Edit
ANSWERS POSTED
==============
Chuck Strong: Nick, you need to see (433.12); a replacement capital can make major conversions immediately (you do NOT need a funtioning SY to do so).
ANSWER: Oops. You're right on that, thanks. Can do major conversions immediately when you declare the new capital so long as there is a starbase present.
==================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
Regarding Trent's Question 4) about carrier tugs using up a command slot if unescorted: (515.26) in FO, pg. 7.
ANSWER: Oops. You're right on that, thanks. They count as two command slots even if unescorted.
=====================
Michael Lui:
On the Tholian production the Spring builds through Y177 list 1 DN and 1 PC (or 1 CA and 2 PCs). Can you instead substitute a CC and 2 PCs since you can sub a CC for a DN? Or would this be considered a sub of a CA (which you can't do until Y178). The Tholians seem to be able to build 4 PC hulls in the Spring during this time period so it is not extra production.
ANSWER: You can always sub a CC for the DN, giving you 1 CC and 1 PC (or 1CA and 2PC). You cannot sub the CC for the CA until Y178 as the substitution list says.
======================
Michael Lui:
If the Tholians use ADS for X amount of EPs and are then conquered, do the Klingons have to pay it off or are the minus EPs a "PERMANENT" minus EPs for if the Feds retake Tholia and give it back to the Tholians and then it's repaid?
ANSWER: The debt stays with the Tholians as far as I know.
What if the Feds never retake Tholia?
ANSWER: Then it would never get repaid, and see (447.6) for if the Tholians have joined one side or the other.
Or if the Feds take and keep Tholia?
ANSWER: Then the Tholians still have no income and cannot repay the debt. Normally however, if the Klingons attacked the Tholians first, this makes the Tholians join the Alliance, then when the Feds retake Tholia, it is assumed to revert to the Tholians it would not normally become a Fed-controlled captured planet.
=======================
Dave Butler:
Regarding the Tholian deficit question, wouldn't (PO-447.24) come into play (and cause the Tholians to implode)?
ANSWER: Yes, it comes into play. Also see (447.4).
Related question: What happens if a race's capital falls, but it doesn't have a planet or starbase to designate as a new capital? (This primarily affects the Tholians, but could apply to the Klingons and Romulans (although the game would quickly be over if it did).)
ANSWER: The race has no income, no supply grid, no treasury (which you only keep if you have another grid to evacuate it to). A single province does not produce income unless there is a grid to collect it, no planets or bases means no grid which means no income. Deficit/Debt would remain. See (511.35). Any remaining ships would be out of supply (although some could be supplied by an ally as homeless).
========================
Dave Butler:
Regarding the Tholian substitution question, (F&E-707.2) only allows DD+CW as a substitution for DN (or DH), other than the general CC/CA for DN that everyone can do. Now, the CW isn't available until 179 (according to the SIT (which, incidentally, contradicts (707.1)), but there's a substitution of PC+DD for CW.
Question: Can I substitute PC+2xDD for DN by going through the CW substitution before the CW is available? (I.e., I have a DN on the schedule. I substitute DD+CW for it, but am not allowed to build the CW due to the year; I therefore substitute DD+PC for the unbuildable CW.)
ANSWER: I don't think so as the CW sub doesn't exist until the CW itself does.
=====================
Chuck Strong:
It has been ruled in the past that you can always sub for a sub.
ANSWER: Yes, but the CW sub doesn't exist until the CW itself does, so you can't sub a CW into the schedule in the first place, even if you are going to immediately sub it back out again for something else. Once the CW entry date arrives however, you can indeed do this.
======================
James Lowry:
Do you have to declare a mission for the H-module (alone) during phase 1, as Dave Butler is implying, or do you simply declare it at the first moment you have an actual Tug? (In this case during movement when the SP spends a point of movement to swap its A/K modules for the pre-existing H module.)
ANSWER: Pre-existing tugs get missions at the start of a turn. Newly built tugs get missions at the production step. In this vein, I would say new modular tugs get missions on the same step they swap modules. Note this precludes certain missions that require the tug to take all turn, or to be in a location during an earlier step, like base repair.
=======================
Dave Butler:
Chuck,
Not my question. Can I sub for a sub that I'm not currently permitted to do? (I can't sub DD+CW for DN in Y169, the CW doesn't exist yet, so can I sub for the CW?)
(Consider it a confirming question regarding just how much ground "always" is supposed to cover.)
ANSWER: Always covers ships that currently exist at that point in the game. If the construction schedule includes ship A, and you want to sub C for B for A, B has to have been invented to sub in for A in the first place, even if you immediatly sub C for B. You can do sub for a sub for a sub any time, but each sub in the chain must be legal in its own right, and can't be done before the date the ship in question is available.
=========================
John Robinson:
I'm playing the Coalition for the first time in about 4 years. I seem to recall that the Klingons can only build 1 D6S per year by any means, but cannot find the rules to that effect. 703.3 says one D6S subbed for D7/D6 once per year (until Turn 7). 701 says unlimited scout conversions. SO, other than the limitations of the major conversion capacity, is there a hard limit on the production of D6S?
ANSWER: Michael Lui correctly pointed out AO (703.4) page 58, under the category OTHER. It says D6S production by any means is limited to one per year until Turn #7, then one per turn.
========================
Michael Lui:
If Tholia was conquered and then freed by someone would they have the same number of turns of war accumulated as the conquering race when freed or their own number plus the number of turns of war under the other race or something else?
ANSWER: I would say their own number including the number of turns it took to free their capital.
=================
Michael Lui:
When the Klingons activate their colonies of Kalesta, Kelanon, and Kordahn does the Ex-Tholian province count as Klingon or does it still have to suffer through long term province capture rules? After all, it used to be a Klingon province and the race that took it is now a Klingon subject race.
ANSWER: But the province was Tholian territory proper at the start of the game (they took it from the Klingons decades ago) so it must go through the long term province capture/annex rules. The only exception provided in the rules is for the former colony planets.
=========================
David Walend:
In 707.2 (AO p 61), is "PC and DD for CW" a typo for "PC or DD for CW"? It lets the Tholians build five PC/DD hulls in the spring. "CA + 2xPC" lets them build only four PC/DD hulls.\
ANSWER: As far as I know PC and DD is correct. A CW is two PC hulls put together differently than a CA, end to end rather than side by side. The CW is like a DD with half a PC attached to its back end, really. A CA is like two PCs side by side.
=========================
David Slatter:
The Lyrans have a certain number of EP in their wynkovia balance. (say, 10EP for convinience). They are already donating 20EP to the klingons this turn (during strat move).
1) Can the Klingons have a tug in the wyn cluster and drain the Lyran Wynkovia balance, transferring the monies to the klingon economy?
ANSWER: Well, what you really do is under rule (449.132) the Lyrans agree to transfer the EPs in the Lyran WYNCOVIA account to the Klingon WYNCOVIA account (this does NOT generate another 150% increase), then the Klingon tug withdraws the EPs from their own account and brings it home. Such a transfer counts against the normal transfer limits of course (20 EPs per turn sent).
2) Can the Lyrans drain their balance and transfer an additional 10EP to the klingons direct, the money never having gone into the Lyran economy?
ANSWER: Sure, the Lyran tug can pick up the cash from their account in the cluster, then instead of taking it to the Lyran grid it goes to the Klingon grid, and this counts against the normal transfer limit of 20 EPs sent (loaded) per turn.
3) Do the tugs have to start in the cluster? IIRC, you can't move in and out of the cluster in the same turn, even when using blockade running.
ANSWER: You can move in and out in the same step provided the money was already present in the race's account, you can't move money in, have it increase, and move it out in the same step as the increase doesn't happen until the end of the turn.
4) Suppose no money had been sent to the Klingons by the lyrans this turn. Does it make any difference, or do the monies have to go into the Lyran economy before they can be transferred to the Klingons?
ANSWER: As noted above, there are ways to go directly to the Klingons.
5) Suppose the wyncovia monies were transferred to the klingons during opmove, would that reduce the amount that could be shifted during stratmove?
ANSWER: It counts against the per turn transfer limits however you do it, yes.
=================
Michael Lui:
Can slow units stuck in a web leave by themselves or do they need to be pulled out?
ANSWER: If not crippled, I think they can leave on their own. There is no special slow-unit-web rule, so it would work like any other ship.
================
Michael Lui:
Why was the Hydran CV not changed to a CVD when CVDs were introduced into the game?
ANSWER: The Hydran CV does use all its fighters as a single oversized squadron under (318.8), like a CVD. It counts as a heavy carrier for production and escort requirements as shown on the SIT and Hydran (709.2), (709.3) sections. It was kept as its own unique type of ship. I don't know why, I just know that's the way it is. If I had to guess I would say it is because the Hydran CV always was a CVA class before, and the escorts it had were already defined. Steve hates changing the history (a good thing as it keeps the universe consistent). Also, changing it to a medium class CVD means the escorts change, which means the group counter has to change, which means reprinting tons of countersheets to fix one counter. Easier to allow it the oversized squadron, and keep the rest of the existing history intact (preserving consistency in the history, and every SFB scenario that had a CV, and story that had a CV and so on), so it is still a CVA class for production/escorts just like it always was. Don't think it's gonna change, as that change affects way more than just F&E.
=================
Paul Howard:
Raids against Romulans ships (Not Police Ships or Aux Ships - i.e. normal warships) 314.246 states what a CLOAKED raider can do - but doesn't mention at all about a potentially cloaked ship being raided.
Can the Romulan Warship attempt to cloak before the raid combat? (Normal combat rules do not apply to Raids and so 306.1 doesn't appear to coming into it)
If it is allowed and it failed - can it use the cloak in SSC (Failed evaded roll's don't allow you to use it in the first round)?
ANSWER: The cloak has no effect on the raider finding the rom ship to attack. The problem is that the Rom ship has no idea when (or if) the Raider will appear over the six month period. It cannot have the cloak on constantly just in case, it would run out of fuel/supplies. Under (310.2) the cloak allows you to roll for modifiers (306.2) as part of small scale combat.
==================
Michael Lui:
Shouldn't Penal ships not be allowed to "Honor Duel" Tholian ships in the web? Or at least have a 1 point DM penalty since the F5J is going to have to go on the other side of the web (I can't see a THOLIAN ship coming out of there)?
ANSWER: The rules seem to allow it so... They honor duel in their own little corner of the web, I guess. The rules treat it like any other honor duel however.
===================
James Southcott:
I have a fleet that is out of supply at the beginning of my turn. I raid one of the ships blocking supply and destroy it so that there is now a valid supply path to the fleeet. Does my fleet now get full moves etc (it's the old - raids don't affect supply thing again)
ANSWER: The presence of the raider itself does not affect supply directly (the raider itself cannot block/open supply), but the raider can attack other units and those units affects supply. So after the blocking ship is destroyed by the raider, supply would available at the next supply check in the SOP.
========================
James Southcott:
Was the supply step for assessing whether ships get full MP's moved to before the raid phase? Paul found something to that effect. If it was then they don't get full moves, if not then they do (I've looked in the errata and Q&A archives and can't see anything)
ANSWER: It was not moved, the printed SOP is correct. We tried to move it, but that was when we misunderstood SVC, once SVC clarified the process it was clear the SOP was indeed correct as printed. Movement supply check is after raids, before op moves.
As Chuck said, the SOP tells you that raids happen in step 3A, (the blocking ship is destroyed), then Op Movement is 3B, with supply checks for op move at 3B1 (supply is now open as blocking ship is gone at this point), so they are in supply and get full movement.
=======================
Chuck Strong:
This may need to go up to SVC for inclusion on the Warbook, but do you know if MBs listed in scenarios are allowed to be deployed at scenario start as part of an onging war scenario? Specifically the historical scenarios like the Tempest, Hurricane GF and WoF?
I know MBs are not allowed to deployed when starting at peace but cannot find a reference on this issue during an on-going war where play begins in the middle. Thanks.
ANSWER: I would say the default is follow the normal rule unless a specific scenario rule allows them to be setup. There is no current rule that covers this that I know of, so should probably just be dealt with scenario by scenario. You should put a scenario rule defining this as part of the setup of forces (can they have already set up one MB, two, all?) and note that it is a new item when you submit the scenario updates to Steve, he can keep it or shoot it down as he likes. It needs to be a scenario setup rule, not a general rule.
===============
Chuck Strong: Is the Hydran Monarch BB a hybrid ship like the Paladin DN?
Factors are:
18-20(9)/9-10(4.5)
ANSWER: Theoretically it should be the same as SFB, right? SFB G2 uses N1 in the notes column for Hydran true carriers like the UH and CV, and the monarch does not have N1, so it looks like hybrid fighters to me. It needs to be added to the SIT for clarification.
====================
Michael Lui:
Using the Hydran ship rule it shouldn't be, but I believe I saw a ruling that it was (In a Captains Log). I hope Nick reverses this decision, especially since the Master Ship Chart in Module R5 does not list these fighters as True CV fighters (It would need a N1 under the Notes column and only has a V [Like all Hybrid ships] and a CJ).
ANSWER: Do you know which cap log that was in?
==================
Paul Howard: Asked about prior rulings on raiders/supply.
ANSWER: That ruling was overturned by SVC shortly thereafter. The correct ruling is as follows.
A RAIDER cannot unblock supply. This applies to the RAIDER only. A raider's actions may change the situation however, as the raider's actions CANNOT affect supply but a raider's actions CAN affect other ships. And other ships affect supply.
Say you have a Klingon fleet blocking supply. The Kzinti cannot raid an adjacent hex (with nothing in it) and claim that the presence of the raider opened supply (as a Kzinti ship/fleet actually present in that hex would).
In another case, you have a single Klingon F5 blocking supply. A Kzinti raider can attack that F5 specifically, and if the F5 is destroyed supply will be open, or if the F5 is forced to retreat supply may be open depending on where the F5 retreated to.
The raider cannot affect supply by it's own presence (it does not count as an adjacent ship under the supply path rules), but if it moves or destroys other ships, that could change the supply situation.
===================
Michael H.Oliver: Moving Lyran Forces into hexes 0805 & 0905 to hit the BattleStation in hex 1004 on the very 1st turn and Klingon is on "wartime" economy thanks
ANSWER: That is illegal. See (503.61) as noted by others. Missed that rule myself.
===================
Dave Butler:
A question about the offensive use of the Cloaking Device (F&E-306.2): The rule requires the entire battle force to have cloaks, but Romulan fighters, if memory serves, don't have cloaks. Does this mean that if there are Romulan fighters present, the cloak can't be used offensively (on that round)? (The rules say I'm right, but I'd like to confirm it.)
ANSWER: Good question. The fighters don't matter if the carrier is present. Their carrier is cloaked, and thus so are the fighters until they launch (SURPRISE!!!, which is what the offensive cloak rule is all about). An independent fighter squadron would be a problem since it has nothing in the battleforce to cloak it, and so would prevent offensive cloak use.
Also, as another confirming question, since ship in the support echelon aren't in the Battle Force, it's okay to have Klingon drone bombardment ships firing in support of a all-Romulan line using offensive cloak, correct?
ANSWER: Sure, assuming they have a supply path to pay for the DB of course.
===========================
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:33 pm: Edit
Nick,
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: The cloak has no effect on the raider finding the rom ship to attack. The problem is that the Rom ship has no idea when (or if) the Raider will appear over the six month period. It cannot have the cloak on constantly just in case, it would run out of fuel/supplies. Under (310.2) the cloak allows you to roll for modifiers (306.2) as part of small scale combat.
________________________________________
so a raided Romulan cannot use (306.1) to evade combat?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 01:12 pm: Edit
Chris,
Nope, just being capable of understanding the English language.
Nick,
So, if the unit that has fighters can cloak and is in the battle force, then the cloak can be used offensively. That makes for an interesting visual when Romulan bases (which have fighters and cloaks) are involved.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 05:08 pm: Edit
Nick
The Hydran BB ruling was in CL#23 page 108: Special Ships Q2201.
I know it's wrong and was a little irritated at the time but was waiting for your ruling to correct it.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 07:07 pm: Edit
Nick
If PO 447.24 comes into play after the Tholians are conquered, do the Klingons actually get ANY EPs for it until they break even or will the Feds (or Tholians) have to pay off a _HUGE_ deficit when they are freed?
And if the Neo-Tholians have already arrived, retreated from the Tholian Capitol battle, and happen to be in Fed space getting fixed (This happened in my Cloudburst Scenario, the Neo-Tholians have an Admiral who is not going to be stupid enough to DIE over the Capitol when there are allies nearby who will help them retake it), Do they have to scrap these ships to pay off the deficit when they can't even get the EPs to the Capitol to repay it or can they get a loan from the Feds (They Feds give EVERYONE EPs)?
And if the Tholians are still conquered when the Seltorian date rolls around: Do the Seltorians get offed by the Klingons that want to keep a planet that produces 9 EPs a turn?
And if the Tholians are freed after the Seltorians are killed off can they ignore the part of 604.151 that specifies that ALL Tholian ships must be back inside Tholian space by the end of Turn 28 (And stay there unless they want to lose 10 EPs a turn per ship outside).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 08:13 pm: Edit
Memo for the Warbook:
Recommend that the Tholian schedule allow substitutions for DN as follows:
A. CC/CC + PC
B. CW + PC
C. DD + PC + PC
D. PC + PC + PC
Rational: A DN is essentially three PCs welded together with additional systems and capabilities. With their limited economy the Tholians should be allowed to not weld three hulls together as they may not have the cash to build the larger hulls.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:17 pm: Edit
Question on Withdrawal Before Combat
302.14 says "Any withdrawal or retreat by either player is done using the procedures for Retreat given in Step 7 below. All retreating ships go to the same hex; see (302.73)" (302.73 being the Retreat Priority rule.)
Can forces withdrawing before combat use the Allied Forces Advanced rule (302.761) to retreat to two different hexes?
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:47 am: Edit
TO BUILD AND SUB A UNIT IS THIS RIGHT ON THE COST..SPRING TURN Y168..TO SUB A CW TO A DD AND CONVERT IT TO A DDG ( YES I KNOW YOU CAN SUB A DW FOR A DD TOO.)
CW SUB FOR A DD TO BUILD COST 5 AND IF SUB THIS TO A DDG....DOES IT COST THE 2 EPTS TO CONVERT THIS A DDG
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:23 pm: Edit
Just sub the DDG for your CW as your one allowed G ship for the turn. Costs only 5.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit
THANKS Chris...I was thinking that and been playing that way for a while till this game Im in a player had a good issue about it....I was thinking I was right thank again...mholiver
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 03:21 pm: Edit
Nick,
I'd like to appeal an older ruling...
________________________________________
Quote:
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.
________________________________________
I would say that the definition of FRD allows it.
________________________________________
Quote:
(421.1) Function
Fleet repair docks function as a repair facility (with their specific repair capacity) exactly the same (for repair purposes) as a base. FRDs differ from bases in being mobile and requiring supply to function. FRDs could draw supply from a partial grid (410.34)
________________________________________
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 02:18 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Question about slow retreats. Coaltion attacks the Zin capital, fights a 1 round approach battle and then retreats. The alliance fleet also decides to retreat. As well as ships the alliance has some Aux ships and an FRD. The FRD is untowed and according to 302.742 FRD's that are untowed are destroyed. Does this hold true even if there is no slow retreat battle (the coaltion was retreating so could not pursue).n If not where does the FRD end up - does it leave the hex (and retreat off-map) or does it stay at the capital. Thanks
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 02:31 am: Edit
Memo for Warbook
The at start Klingon OOB under (703.0) FO line needs to replace one D6V with D6Y in the Northern Fleet to comply with (R3.113).
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 12:03 pm: Edit
At a capital, wouldn't the defender simply do a partial retreat, as allowed by capital retreat rules?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 05:28 am: Edit
Nick
Can the E+S mission 534.23 Assassination be used on your own -1 Admirals? Nothing seems to prevent this.
534.1 Says nothing about choice of targets except that Allies can't conduct the same type of E+S mission against the same enemy on the same turn.
534.23 Says nothing about the choice of targets except to pick one before you roll the dice.
If you want a definition of the term enemy, I use: The being/race/nation that is hurting you.
If you can't kill your own admiral this way can you kill an ALLIES admiral or vice versa?
And if it's illegal for the Alliance races to do it, can the Klingons and Romulans still do it? They are always killing their own people off in this manner in quite a few (MOST) of the things that I have read.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:01 am: Edit
Nick
Quick question
Rule 203.741 allows Reserve fleets to move into hexes where enemy forces currently are to get to the target hex.
203.741 states enough ships MUST be left to pin the enemy.
How does rule 203.51 and 203.55 come in to this.
The question is - can a reserve leave sufficent numbers to pin the enemy and then NOT apply 203.55, which would have allowed further ships to leave.
i.e. is 203.55 optional for the Reserve Fleet, or must it be used to reduce the numebers left?
Thanks
Paul
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:50 am: Edit
Thick ray is working wonders in the UK.
Devastated Kzinti (1802) planet is recaptured on Alliance turn 10.
Does it provide Ep's on Alliance Turn 11?
508.22 refers to capturing - and 508.24 (recapturing) doesn't menion any delays, so I assume it's immediate?
Thanks
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 05:51 pm: Edit
as a supplementary question to the last question - If a planet is captured on coaltion 11 and then the fleet leaves (so reverts to alliance control) does it produce income on Alliance T11
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:34 am: Edit
Quick question of the date of availibility for the Romulan Vulture:
Rule (525.66) says two were in service before the General War and two more (sublight) were in mothball for activation. The most recent version of the SIT that I have lists it available in Y164. The GURPS 4/e ROMULANS book says that all VUL were upgraded to full tactical warp by Y162.
I am working a scenario that involves this ship and is prior to Y165. Which year can I use and if Y162, does this need to be changed on the SIT?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 02:43 am: Edit
Memo for Warbook
Lyrans have both pods and pallets, but (711.0) does not list any per turn production limits on either.
Tholians do have repair "pods" (or packs?) under (707.3); the "Pods" note there need to address this.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 08:30 am: Edit
Raider,
Check the third item under "Regular Ships" in (AO-701).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 08:10 pm: Edit
Logic would say one pallet or one set of pods. But not both on the same turn.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:53 pm: Edit
PGB upgrades to PDU. Does the upgrade take any time. Are they activate immediately?
If done outside the capital does the PGB->PDU ugrade require a tug to take something? from the capital or do you just pay for the fighter upgrades?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 06:37 pm: Edit
Follow up PGB to PDU question. Can you do more than four at time?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 09:09 pm: Edit
questions downloaded
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 08:38 am: Edit
can Heavy figher factor be added and SB,Bs,BATs and Planets defends.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 06:36 pm: Edit
Nick
A lot of people are taking as a standard rule the Note in 316.14 that says:
Note: Most of rule (316.14) is not needed if (316.22) is not used. It would be sufficient to require admirals to be kept on ships with CR8 or more and not allow them to function on the ships listed in (316.146).
By the wording I believe this to be an option. Nowhere in the rules does it specifically say that you can't put an admiral on a FF if you want to. It would be a waste but still allowable if you arranged things properly. (Kind of tricky but it can be done. I have a post on the Stategy Discussions thread [4/26/06 5:04 PM] that shows 1 way, but there are others.)
Am I wrong or is this NOTE not supposed to be an optional rule but a standard rule? ie. Admirals MUST be on CR8 ships or bigger in order to function regardless of other rules or lack thereof.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 01:29 am: Edit
Nick,
Stasis vs carrier groups...
as a result of random rolls... the Carrier and its inner escort are crippled but the outer is not...
Can the Coalition direct the group for 1to1 for the Carrier & inner escort + 2to1 for the outer escort or for the full cost of the group as if it was not stasised?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 11:55 am: Edit
This answer needs to go into the Warbook also.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 07:09 am: Edit
Nick
Question - Scenario/Full Campaign - 603.0 - the Hurricane.
This isn't really a normal question...
Assumed Situation is as follows - Romulans have attacked the Feds on turn 10.
The Gorn have 2 options on turn 12
Attack the Romulans
Not attack the Romulans
If they DON'T attack the Romulans, as the Gorn as part of the Alliance, can they act at war with the 'Coalition' (builds suvery etc) and send ships/aid to the Federation and other Allies. (i.e. Similar to Fed limited war in effect, but with more options, i.e. they are at War with the Coalition, but have NOT attacked the Romulans).
If they do this - and the Gorn avoid any attacks on 'home provinces' of the Romulans (i.e. NOT attacking the Romulans) - is the Romulan Northern Fleet ever released?
(Basically, if the Gorns never attack the Romulans, the Romulan Northern Fleet can only ever be used defensively, and is extermely limited in more etc)
Thanks
Paul
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 07:23 am: Edit
Paul:
Note that, under the scenario schedule, the Romulans are allowed to attack the Gorns on turn 13, even if the Gorns have not attacked, which presumably releases the Northern Fleet. (i.e a Romulan Attack on the Gorns releases Northern Fleet) This is the situation envisioned under the 603.6 Federation Limited War rule.
Jason
By paul ranta (Paul) on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 06:42 pm: Edit
Question about the Depot
Single ships by themselves, for example an E-4 garrisoning a Kzinit province, that are attacked by a group of ships and destroyed CAN or CAN NOT go to the depot?
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 08:29 pm: Edit
Rule (521.323) states that ground combat ships cannot attack forces on a planet if there is a MON in the enemy Battle Force. If the MON is crippled, is this still in effect? The only mention of crippled MONs is (519.16) about it being released to go get repaired. Rule (301.82) lists some restrictions on crippled units, but nothing about MONs.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 08:40 pm: Edit
I would assume that since (521.323) says the prohibition applies "even if [the Monitor] is destroyed in that round", it still applies if it's crippled.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 09:57 am: Edit |
May - June 2006 Archive
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 12:48 am: Edit
Nick,
I have a question about EP accumulation, and economy status, especially as it relates to scenario 621, Demon of the Eastern Wind.
In general, I had assumed that races at a peacetime economy cannot accumulate EPs, for example 602.17. I have researched the economic levels in 652.2, but I did not find the EP accumulation is strictly prohibited at a peacetime economy, as I thought it was. Can you please elaborate on the general legality of peace-time EP accumulation, independent of a scenario - i.e. what is the default?
Also, for 621 in particular, can the Feds bank EPs while at peace on turns 1-3 before going to Limited War to support the Gorns on turn 4?
Thank you,
Geof
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 12:49 pm: Edit
======================
Tim Losberg:
so a raided Romulan cannot use (306.1) to evade combat?
ANSWER: I don't think raid combat has a withdrawal before combat step, so no. I could be wrong though, I will put this in the file I send Steve for Cap Log 33.
========================
Michael Lui:
The Hydran BB ruling was in CL#23 page 108: Special Ships Q2201.
I know it's wrong and was a little irritated at the time but was waiting for your ruling to correct it.
ANSWER: As far as I know it is correct. It is a true carrier (single ship carrier), same as any other battleship. Pay 2 EPs per fighter factor.
======================
Michael Lui:
If PO 447.24 comes into play after the Tholians are conquered, do the Klingons actually get ANY EPs for it until they break even or will the Feds (or Tholians) have to pay off a _HUGE_ deficit when they are freed?
ANSWER: Tholian debt doesn't affect the Klingons, or any other race, unless an ally wants to pay them money to pay down the debt.
And if the Neo-Tholians have already arrived, retreated from the Tholian Capitol battle, and happen to be in Fed space getting fixed, do they have to scrap these ships to pay off the deficit when they can't even get the EPs to the Capitol to repay it or can they get a loan from the Feds (They Feds give EVERYONE EPs)?
ANSWER: Tholians have no income/treasury until they retake their supply grid (Tholia). Can't pay back the debt until then.
And if the Tholians are still conquered when the Seltorian date rolls around: Do the Seltorians get offed by the Klingons that want to keep a planet that produces 9 EPs a turn?
ANSWER: If the Tholians are gone, selts don't show up.
And if the Tholians are freed after the Seltorians are killed off can they ignore the part of 604.151 that specifies that ALL Tholian ships must be back inside Tholian space by the end of Turn 28 (And stay there unless they want to lose 10 EPs a turn per ship outside).
ANSWER: The penalty wouldn't apply if the Selts don't show up.
=========================
Derek Meserve:
Question on Withdrawal Before Combat
302.14 says "Any withdrawal or retreat by either player is done using the procedures for Retreat given in Step 7 below. All retreating ships go to the same hex; see (302.73)" (302.73 being the Retreat Priority rule.)
Can forces withdrawing before combat use the Allied Forces Advanced rule (302.761) to retreat to two different hexes?
ANSWER: Yes.
===========================
Michael H.Oliver:
question on DDG subs.
ANSWER: Chris is right, just sub the DDG for your allowed troopship under rule (521.23). Sub the DD for the schedule CW, then sub the DDG for the DD and just pay the cost to build the DDG, no conversion costs/slots are used.
========================
Tim Losberg:
Nick,
I'd like to appeal an older ruling...
ANSWER: OK.
=========================
James Southcott:
Question about slow retreats. Coaltion attacks the Zin capital, fights a 1 round approach battle and then retreats. The alliance fleet also decides to retreat. As well as ships the alliance has some Aux ships and an FRD. The FRD is untowed and according to 302.742 FRD's that are untowed are destroyed. Does this hold true even if there is no slow retreat battle (the coaltion was retreating so could not pursue).n If not where does the FRD end up - does it leave the hex (and retreat off-map) or does it stay at the capital. Thanks
ANSWER: Just do a partial retreat and leave the untowed FRD at the capital where it started. Without the slow unit battle, and if the hex is not captured, it would simply not retreat in any case. The auto destroy is when you retreat everything else, and it still survived the slow battle, it is autodestroyed to keep from having to do yet another meaningless battle round where you know it will be destroyed anyway.
=====================
Michael Lui:
Can the E+S mission 534.23 Assassination be used on your own -1 Admirals? Nothing seems to prevent this.
ANSWER: No. Incompetant admirals hire the best bodyguards. Among their many other faults they also exhibit extreme paranoia. Obviously, the unwritten assumption is that E+S missions can only be used on opponents, not your own forces.
=======================
Paul Howard:
Rule 203.741 allows Reserve fleets to move into hexes where enemy forces currently are to get to the target hex.
203.741 states enough ships MUST be left to pin the enemy.
How does rule 203.51 and 203.55 come in to this.
The question is - can a reserve leave sufficent numbers to pin the enemy and then NOT apply 203.55, which would have allowed further ships to leave.
i.e. is 203.55 optional for the Reserve Fleet, or must it be used to reduce the numebers left?
ANSWER: It must be used to reduce the numbers left, the reserve rule is clear that you must leave behind the minimum number of pinning ships. Note also, however, that you cannot leave the reserve's flagship behind, so you may not have a great command rating ship to leave.
========================
Paul Howard:
Devastated Kzinti (1802) planet is recaptured on Alliance turn 10.
Does it provide Ep's on Alliance Turn 11?
508.22 refers to capturing - and 508.24 (recapturing) doesn't menion any delays, so I assume it's immediate?
ANSWER: Rule (508.22) says that income is generated on the second subsequent turn of possession.
So if you recapture Alliance 10, then Alliance 11 is the first subsequent turn (no income), and Alliance turn 12 is the second subsequent turn (devestated income is generated). Note that turn 11 does count as the first of the four recovery turns, even though you get no income. Turn 12 is the second of four recovery turns. Alliance 13 and 14 are the third and fourth turns of recovery (devestated income). Full income would be restored on Alliance turn 15, after the four turns have passed.
=======================
James Southcott:
as a supplementary question to the last question - If a planet is captured on coaltion 11 and then the fleet leaves (so reverts to alliance control) does it produce income on Alliance T11
ANSWER: If the coalition retreated out of the hex, it means they never actually captured it (you must stay in the hex to capture), so yes, it produces income on Alliance T11 as the first of four devestated turns.
======================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Quick question of the date of availibility for the Romulan Vulture:
Rule (525.66) says two were in service before the General War and two more (sublight) were in mothball for activation. The most recent version of the SIT that I have lists it available in Y164. The GURPS 4/e ROMULANS book says that all VUL were upgraded to full tactical warp by Y162.
I am working a scenario that involves this ship and is prior to Y165. Which year can I use and if Y162, does this need to be changed on the SIT?
ANSWER: Remember that there are multiple "tactical warp" versions of the vulture. First is sublight, then sublight+, then the "war vulture" with some warp (which might be what the gurps book is talking about), then finally the "king vulture" with even more warp. For F&E purposes use the SIT date matching the ship you want to use. I think F&E just has the King Vulture (later warp version).
=======================
Ryan Opel:
PGB upgrades to PDU. Does the upgrade take any time. Are they activate immediately?
ANSWER: Same as adding more PDUs, so since you are adding them to existing defenses (PGBs) they activate immediately (441.31).
If done outside the capital does the PGB->PDU ugrade require a tug to take something? from the capital or do you just pay for the fighter upgrades?
ANSWER: Yes, see (441.31).
Can you do more than four at time?
ANSWER: Same as PDUs, so no more than four at a time.
====================
Michael H.Oliver:
can Heavy figher factor be added and SB,Bs,BATs and Planets defends.
ANSWER: I'm not sure what you are asking. Only units allowed to convert under (530.2) can get heavy fighters, it does include carriers, bases, and PDUs.
====================
Michael Lui:
A lot of people are taking as a standard rule the Note in 316.14 that says:
Note: Most of rule (316.14) is not needed if (316.22) is not used. It would be sufficient to require admirals to be kept on ships with CR8 or more and not allow them to function on the ships listed in (316.146).
By the wording I believe this to be an option. Nowhere in the rules does it specifically say that you can't put an admiral on a FF if you want to. It would be a waste but still allowable if you arranged things properly. (Kind of tricky but it can be done. I have a post on the Stategy Discussions thread [4/26/06 5:04 PM] that shows 1 way, but there are others.)
Am I wrong or is this NOTE not supposed to be an optional rule but a standard rule? ie. Admirals MUST be on CR8 ships or bigger in order to function regardless of other rules or lack thereof.
ANSWER: It is the standard rule unless you use variable admirals. The idea is to relax the restrictions when using only standard admirals, but there are still some restrictions. The text in the note replaces the rule in such a case.
=========================
Tim Losberg:
Stasis vs carrier groups...
as a result of random rolls... the Carrier and its inner escort are crippled but the outer is not...
Can the Coalition direct the group for 1to1 for the Carrier & inner escort + 2to1 for the outer escort or for the full cost of the group as if it was not stasised?
ANSWER: Once part of a group is stasised, it is essentially no longer considered part of the group. Read all of rule (312.271). You can chose to direct on the stasised ships, OR on the unstasised parts of the group (treating it as a new, smaller, group), but there is NO WAY to direct on both stasised and unstasised parts of the original group in one step. In effect, stasis splits groups up in the middle of combat for purposes of applying damage only, (after damage is applied, any surviving ships are again a group as that status cannot change until combat is over).
=========================
Paul Howard:
Question - Scenario/Full Campaign - 603.0 - the Hurricane.
Assumed Situation is as follows - Romulans have attacked the Feds on turn 10.
The Gorn have 2 options on turn 12
Attack the Romulans
Not attack the Romulans
If they DON'T attack the Romulans, as the Gorn as part of the Alliance, can they act at war with the 'Coalition' (builds suvery etc) and send ships/aid to the Federation and other Allies. (i.e. Similar to Fed limited war in effect, but with more options, i.e. they are at War with the Coalition, but have NOT attacked the Romulans).
ANSWER: They are just at limited war in such a case.
If they do this - and the Gorn avoid any attacks on 'home provinces' of the Romulans (i.e. NOT attacking the Romulans) - is the Romulan Northern Fleet ever released?
(Basically, if the Gorns never attack the Romulans, the Romulan Northern Fleet can only ever be used defensively, and is extermely limited in more etc)
ANSWER: As noted, the Roms can attack the Gorn (which would release the north fleet) on turn 13.
====================
paul ranta:
Question about the Depot
Single ships by themselves, for example an E-4 garrisoning a Kzinit province, that are attacked by a group of ships and destroyed CAN or CAN NOT go to the depot?
ANSWER: If they are in a position (in supply during the combat step) to provide salvage, they can also go to the depot. If supply is cut off, then no salvage or depot.
======================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Rule (521.323) states that ground combat ships cannot attack forces on a planet if there is a MON in the enemy Battle Force. If the MON is crippled, is this still in effect? The only mention of crippled MONs is (519.16) about it being released to go get repaired. Rule (301.82) lists some restrictions on crippled units, but nothing about MONs.
ANSWER: The presence of a monitor (regardless of its status) prevents ground attack on that round. If the monitor is destroyed on turn X, then ground attacks can be performed on turn X+1.
=======================
Geof Clark:
I have a question about EP accumulation, and economy status, especially as it relates to scenario 621, Demon of the Eastern Wind.
In general, I had assumed that races at a peacetime economy cannot accumulate EPs, for example 602.17. I have researched the economic levels in 652.2, but I did not find the EP accumulation is strictly prohibited at a peacetime economy, as I thought it was. Can you please elaborate on the general legality of peace-time EP accumulation, independent of a scenario - i.e. what is the default?
ANSWER: A race at peacetime cannot accumulate EPs. See (431.4). Limited War and Full War allows the accumulation of EPs.
Also, for 621 in particular, can the Feds bank EPs while at peace on turns 1-3 before going to Limited War to support the Gorns on turn 4?
ANSWER: No. You get 50%, can spend it all if you want, but unspent points are not carried to the next turn.
===================
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 01:32 pm: Edit
Nick,
Please clarify your answer:
________________________________________
Quote:
James Southcott:
as a supplementary question to the last question - If a planet is captured on coaltion 11 and then the fleet leaves (so reverts to alliance control) does it produce income on Alliance T11
ANSWER: If the coalition retreated out of the hex, it means they never actually captured it (you must stay in the hex to capture), so yes, it produces income on Alliance T11 as the first of four devestated turns.
________________________________________
What happens if the coalition retrogrades out of the hex? The planet is clearly (508.22) captured, and equally clearly (508.23) has reverted back to the original owner. I assume that the regular rules apply (income shows up on second Alliance econ phase, all else being equal).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 02:56 pm: Edit
Nick
Your ruling on the Hydran BB directly contradicts the one you just gave Chuck Strong on 4/12/2006 11:57 AM. This "question" you answered was actually a response to your question to me (which was in the same post as Chucks answer, 1 down) of which CL a previous ruling was in.
If the Tholians are conquered would the banks put a "hold" on the interest penalties of ADS? Or would they try to get the EPs out of the Klingons, get eliminated for their troubles, and then the debt disappears? I think the ADS section needs a slight fix to what happens when a race is conquered, especially if you're planning to do a module for the Omega Quadrant where races were conquered all the time.
So if the restrictions are lifted and replaced by "any CR8 ship" when not using variable admirals, can he jump around to any ship in the battlehex at need? At least one person was figuring on swapping the admiral between CV groups when the ESCORTS were damaged/destroyed.
Can the E+S mission: Asassination be used on your allies admirals?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 03:35 pm: Edit
Nick,
Do Orion pirates (per (504.34)) count as "enemy ships" for the purposes of (652.25)? (I.e., do they force and/or allow a change in economic status? The rules as written indicate that the answer's yes, but I'm not certain that that's the intent.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 04:59 pm: Edit
Dave, right. It would then follow the regular rules, the next (alliance) turn it would be under their control, can count that turn toward recovery, but would not produce income until the second turn of control.
Michael, I am going to stick with the most recent printed/published info on the Hydran BB, which as you pointed out is true carrier fighter factors. My earlier ruling to Chuck would be wrong based on the published info. That cap log info was approved by Steve Cole, so you have to argue a change with him I am afraid.
Debt after a race is conquored isn't really defined, is the problem. Presumably it sits around waiting for the race to make a reappearence (i.e. reestablish a supply grid/income/treasury), it would not be collected from anyone else in the meantime.
Admirals changing carriers, sure, you can do that between each battle round when using the simple rule.
No, you can't assassinate your ally's admirals with E&S teams. Only ENEMY admirals, generals, etc... The whole point is that you can't just ditch incompetant admirals, you have to make the "retirement" roll (316.229). The "retirement" roll is actually what represents (among other things) such internal assassinations (Klingon/Romulan) as you noted. It actually lists assassinations as one of the reasons for "retirement" in rule (316.229). What you are asking for is already in the game, just not under player control, which is as it should be.
Dave, Orion ships hired as mercenaries (therefore under player control) would do so, but they can only attack a race if the race that hired them goes to war with that race (they are essentially no different from other player ships). Orion ships placed by the Orion player, or by the Orion Committee for Redistribution of Assets, as piracy ships, would not. Piracy ships do not activate fleets either, etc...
By paul ranta (Paul) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 05:51 pm: Edit
One more question about the depot
sorry to press the issue but...
ships that die from directed damage can not go to depot. I know this. So... if you send a sufficient number of ships with a high enough compot to kill a single ship by directed damage, is that ship still aloud to go to depot.
My logic is this. If you want to devote enough ships to make a compot sufficient to score 20 points against a single e-4, you are scoring more than enough points to kill it by directed damage (Captain's order--"Blast that ship into atoms and leave nothing left!") and ships killed by DD can not go to depot. Does this make any sense?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Right. You always have the option to direct if you have enough damage points, and that prevents the depot roll.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 06:00 pm: Edit
Unless you are doing single ship combat, which doesn't use the direct damage concept...
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 06:05 pm: Edit
Out of curiosity, does a ship lost in single combat have a chance to go to the depot? (PO-424.37) denies the depot to "ships lost in situations that would not generate salvage", but single combat does generate salvage (for the victor).
[Edit, due to crossed posts] (I.e., clarify your last comment.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 06:13 pm: Edit
Maybe I've got that wrong. I have to check the rule when I get home. I was assuming that either side can get salvage in single combat, but don't remember for sure.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 06:50 pm: Edit
(FO-439.16): "Ships lost in single combat ((310.0) or (504.4)) count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or on expedition, etc.). See (314.35) for raids."
Now, (314.35) talks about Klingon pre-war raids, but the errata tells us to look at (314.25), which has a few words on salvage: "destroyed raiding ships produce no salvage (destroyed defending ships do if they have a valid supply route to a supply point)". By the normal rules of salvage, this money would typically go to the raiding player (since raids typically use either single combat or small scale combat, which tells us to use (310.0) with modifications, and (439.16) applies to ships lost when using (310.0)).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 07:00 pm: Edit
Nick
Can I ask you to send the data up for an appeal then? Maybe I can get an answer of why the Hydran BB is considered a True CV in F+E?
A. For play balance ALL BBs are considered true CVs.
B. Forgot about it being a Hybrid CV in the R5 Module.
C. Something else.
By paul ranta (Paul) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 01:39 pm: Edit
I should know this but...
Ships in the Kzinti offmap (Barony area) can't react into the capital if the capital is attacked right?
just making sure.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 02:33 pm: Edit
Ships offmap cannot react to onmap movement.
By Mark Ermenc (Mermenc) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 04:24 pm: Edit
The Klingon SIT indicates that the CVT is produced from a tug and pods. It does not specifically say a TGA+pods, so is it intended that I can make the CVT with a TGB+pods, or is the SIT in error?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 04:41 pm: Edit
A TGA has 8 Attack, a TGB has 4 Attack, so it should be kinda obvious that it needs to be a TGA.
As a non-NickB answering......
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Yes, but Mark does not know what the word obvious means.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 06:38 pm: Edit
Obvious? Isn't that like, a dirty word or something?
(Actually, in the Q+A section, it just might be.)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:58 am: Edit
Micheal,
Well, "clarity in the rules" certainly seems to be an offensive phrase, to some.
Nick,
Some question about GCEs:
1. Rule (521.22) tells us a whole bunch of stuff about GCEs; in particular, they are replaced at the end of the turn (with a parenthetical note about ships in supply). Rule (521.83) talks about independant GCEs, but doesn't talk about whether they're replaced if destroyed. So, should I interpret (521.22) to mean "all GCEs are replaced (and if they're on a ship, that ship must be in supply)" or "all GCEs are replaced (but only if they are on a ship, which must be in supply)"? Do GCEs put on starbases (521.834) come back if destroyed?
2. How many GCEs can I destroy from orbit, per (521.833)? The rule specifically says that attacking GCEs treat defending GCEs as if they were PDU, implying that everything else doesn't treat them as PDU.
3. What's the interaction, if any, between maulers and the six points of damage to kill a GCE on a planet (521.833)? The rule makes no mention of maulers, so I presume that they do nothing, but I'd like that confirmed.
Regarding the Sequence of Play:
What constitutes a step, for the purposes of the very first paragraph of the SoP ("Each player turn consists of the following steps, which must be completed in the precise order given")? I ask because I'd assumed that it meant the 2A3, 2A4 (for example) entries (and each part of that entry, i.e., "perform conversions" happens before "upgrade bases" in 2B3), but 3B2 and 3B3 make a mockery of that assumption, since if 3B2 (do OpMove) must be completed before 3B3 (perform Reaction Moves), there's no movement to be reacted to.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 08:43 am: Edit
Paul Wittekind asks:
In rule 527.143 on the initial deployment of F111s, it reads: "Under the standard rules, the Federation must pay one EP for each point of F111s received for bases to reflect the replacement annuity, up to a maximum of 50 EPs even if they have more than 50 F111 points.
The Federation may use a separate deficit spending
account for this cost which is to be repaid at a rate of at least 10 EPs per turn."
Our question was whether this was a one-time charge of 50 EPs or whether the Federation paid 50 EPs on each of the three turns of the initial deployment of F111s for bases (thus a total cost of 150 EPs)?
It seemed to us that the rule was a little vague in its wording. At first glance, our first
interpretation was a one time charge of 50 EPs. But because the Federation might receive more that 50 points of F111s on each of the three turns of the initial F111 deployment, a 50 EP charge per turn did not necessarily seem unreasonable.
ANSWER: Since the rules does not say "per turn" I must conclude that it is a maximum limit of 50 EPs. This will likely be reached on the first turn of PF deployment, as you note.
==================
Other questions downloaded to this point.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:39 am: Edit
Kzinti Heavy Fighter Introduction date is Turn 20 (Y178). Yet, 6 turns earlier (Y175), they have 2 ships available which carry heavy fighters.
1) Is the date correct for these two ships (ACS and CSV)?
2) Do they operate with heavy fighters at that point?
3) Or do they operate as normal fighters and then magically transform to Heavy Fighters when they are introduced? (ala Fed F-15s ~Y170)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:55 am: Edit
Part 1 of John's question is covered by (FO-530.223).
Nick,
One more (two-part) question regarding GCEs:
(CO-521.831) says that after placing an independant GCE, the ship can retrograde. (1) The wording of the rule is that the GCE is only replaced if the ship retrogrades; is this the intention? (2) What's the interaction with unreleased fleets? The specific rule (I-GCEs) allows the ship to retrograde to the closest point to the capital, the more general rule (unreleased fleets) forbids the ship leaving the fleet zone, and the overriding concept is that the specific rule trumps the general rule. Hence, it seems as if G-ships can be pulled out of unreleased fleets; I presume that they'd function much like ships seeking conversion and have to return on their next turn.
By Jeff Tiel (Platoaquinas) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:59 am: Edit
When must the Hydrans set up in a normal full war game? Are they required to set up their forces prior to Coalition T3 or may they wait until after they see the deployment of Coalition reserve forces at the beginning of Alliance T3?
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 12:40 pm: Edit
530.223 does not address the 2 carriers that are listed on the SIT as available on Turn 14 (Spring 175)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 01:24 pm: Edit
"(FO-530.223) [...] Certain carriers (such as CSVs and ACSs) [...] have earlier dates on the SIT and can be produced [...] as of those dates."
(Only covers whether the earlier date is accurate; no definitive help on the other parts of the question (do they use heavies, or upgrade a la Fed CVB).)
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 02:27 pm: Edit
Thanks Dave. I did not catch that difference between the AO and FO 530.
I read the rest of the rule to indicate that they do operate with heavy fighters at that point. Of course, replacements will be limited, but c'est la vie.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Question about escorts and flagships.
The end of 515.33 says "A ship used as an escort cannot be the battle force flagship (nor does assignment as an escort remove a ship from the flagship selection procedure) or a member of a battle group."
What happens if your force consists of 3 SAVs, each escorted by an F5? The three F5s have the highest command ratings, so one of them must be the flagship (as they have the highest CR and are not eliminated from the selection process because they are escorts). However, because they are escorts, they can not be the flagship.
I would normally say the general (302.32 Flagship Selection) is overriden by the specific (515.33), but 515.33 both requires the F5s to be included in the selection process and prevents them from being selected.
So which part wins? Does a SAV have to be the flagship because the F5s can't, or does an F5 have to be the flagship because they are the only ones allowed?
[edit] Or is 515.33 a misprint that was meant to eliminate an escort from the flagship selection process? The problem with this is the potential for abuse by artificially elminiating high CR units and reducing your minimum force size.
By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 04:27 pm: Edit
A 2006 ruling states that a cripple not in a battleforce at a capital is more vulnerable (2:1 directed damage) than the ship in formation bonus in the battleforce defending the capital (3:1 directed damage). I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I believe the intent should be to treat such cripples as supporting units (3:1 directed damage).
A 2006 ruling states that a ship making a commando raid (and coming within 5 SFB hexes of the planet or base by definition) cannot be intercepted or otherwise reacted to except by the planet or base itself, in contrast to a ship making a normal raid against the same target (perhaps at extreme weapons range) or a group launching fighters and/or drones at a presumably much greater distance. I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I suggest the commando raiders should face an interception combat as would any other special raider.
- - - - -
Initially my comments were in fact non-productive bitching just to feel good. I hope this presentation is more productive.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 02:47 pm: Edit
Question on pinning, reserves, and command ratings.
Here's the situation:
Two Klingons reserves are at a battle station. One is commanded by a C8, the other by a C5. A large number of Hydrans (enough to pin by numbers) arrive, commanded by a DG/RN. The C8 can leave, taking one ship with it, because of the CR difference.
1) Can the second ship be a ship out of the second reserve, having them both go to the same target?
2) Can the second ship be a ship out of the second reserve, but go to a different target (because they are both from different reserve fleets)?
3) After the C8 leaves, taking one ship from its reserve, can the C5 then make the CR comparison again and go to another target hex?
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit
A reserve fleet can't leave more than 1/2 of its ships behind, so the C8 can't move anyway.
(203.742) The Reserve Fleet cannot leave more than half of its ships (counting fighter or PF equivalents; round fractions down in determining this) behind in this manner and cannot leave its flagship behind (203.551). Carriers and PFTs cannot leave their fighters or PFs behind, but if the carrier or PFT (including a base) is itself left behind, its fighters/PFs would count for purposes of counter-pinning (203.54). The Reserve Fleet must select the route which requires the detachment of the fewest ships. If two or more routes requiring the same number exist, the Reserve Fleet must select the one which requires entry into the fewest hexes containing enemy units. If two or more such routes exist, the Reserve Fleet may select any of them.
(203.743) If it cannot fulfill these requirements, the Reserve Fleet cannot move to the designated Battle Hex and will be unable to move at all (unless another Battle Hex is designated).
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 05:27 pm: Edit
(203.72) The Defending Player may move any portion of a designated Reserve Fleet, but the portion that does move must all move together. The moving portion must include a ship capable of commanding that portion (303.0), this can include a "free scout" (308.53). The unmoving portion loses its status as a Reserve Fleet.
Does this not mean that you can opt to move only one ship in the reserve if you want to?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 05:29 pm: Edit
Sean:
AFAIK, 203.742 only applies to ships left behind _during_ the movement of a reseve fleet under the provisions of 203.741. Rule 203.72 allows the owning player to leave any portion of a reserve fleet behind in the hex of origin, so long as the moving portion includes a sufficient flagship. (The unmoving portion loses its reserve status.)
Cheers,
Jason
By Sean Dzafovic (Sdzafovic) on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 01:28 am: Edit
Seems like a meaningless distinction to me. As per (203.72/73) if the reserve fleet is more than 50% pinned at any point of its movement (including before it ever moves, due to enemy ships entering its hex during their opmove phase) then it cannot move.
Otherwise (203.72) allows you to move all, some or none of a reserve fleet which is otherwise eligible for movement (ie less than 50% pinned).
That would be my take on it unless Nick rules differently.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 03:01 am: Edit
Actually, Jason has interpreted the words correctly; (203.72) applies to the fleet before it starts moving, and (203.74*) cover the fleet while it's moving (note that (203.74*) covers entering hexes with enemy units, and the case described had the enemy enter your hex).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 11:31 am: Edit
=======================
Paul ranta:
One more question about the depot
ships that die from directed damage can not go to depot. I know this. So... if you send a sufficient number of ships with a high enough compot to kill a single ship by directed damage, is that ship still aloud to go to depot.
My logic is this. If you want to devote enough ships to make a compot sufficient to score 20 points against a single e-4, you are scoring more than enough points to kill it by directed damage (Captain's order--"Blast that ship into atoms and leave nothing left!") and ships killed by DD can not go to depot. Does this make any sense?
ANSWER: Right. You always have the option to direct if you have enough damage points, and that prevents the depot roll.
=========================
Dave Butler:
Out of curiosity, does a ship lost in single combat have a chance to go to the depot? (PO-424.37) denies the depot to "ships lost in situations that would not generate salvage", but single combat does generate salvage (for the victor).
[Edit, due to crossed posts] (I.e., clarify your last comment.)
ANSWER: Since small scale combat only generates slavage for the victor, and only if they would otherwise qualify, then the loser would never roll for a depot entry. SSC says ONLY the winner gets salvage, and ONLY the loser would roll for depot (since they lost a ship), and the loser NEVER gets salvage in SSC, and you can't roll for depot if you aren't eligible for salvage.
==========================
Michael Lui:
Can I ask you to send the data up for an appeal then? Maybe I can get an answer of why the Hydran BB is considered a True CV in F+E?
A. For play balance ALL BBs are considered true CVs.
B. Forgot about it being a Hybrid CV in the R5 Module.
C. Something else.
ANSWER: sent to Jeff.
============================
paul ranta:
Ships in the Kzinti offmap (Barony area) can't react into the capital if the capital is attacked right?
ANSWER: Right, you cannot react from off map to on map, see rule (207.24).
============================
Mark Ermenc:
The Klingon SIT indicates that the CVT is produced from a tug and pods. It does not specifically say a TGA+pods, so is it intended that I can make the CVT with a TGB+pods, or is the SIT in error?
ANSWER: The SIT only shows what happens when you add pods to a TGA, as we see from the factors (CVT factors equals TGA factors plus Pod factors). If you add pods to a CVB, it is still no cost, and would have the smaller CVB+pod factors.
============================
Dave Butler:
Rule (521.22) tells us a whole bunch of stuff about GCEs; in particular, they are replaced at the end of the turn (with a parenthetical note about ships in supply). Rule (521.83) talks about independant GCEs, but doesn't talk about whether they're replaced if destroyed. So, should I interpret (521.22) to mean "all GCEs are replaced (and if they're on a ship, that ship must be in supply)" or "all GCEs are replaced (but only if they are on a ship, which must be in supply)"?
ANSWER: Free replacements are for ships (with G factors) and the starbase intrinsic G factor, not IGCEs. Note that capital IGCE replacements are paid for under (521.835).
Do GCEs put on starbases (521.834) come back if destroyed?
ANSWER: The intrinsic one returns for free, but an IGCE is "one use" like planetary IGCEs.
How many GCEs can I destroy from orbit, per (521.833)? The rule specifically says that attacking GCEs treat defending GCEs as if they were PDU, implying that everything else doesn't treat them as PDU.
ANSWER: THe rule provides no limit to number "bombarded", other than requiring 6 damage points (directed) or 3 damage points (voluntary), i.e. you can direct on as many as you have the damage points to kill.
What's the interaction, if any, between maulers and the six points of damage to kill a GCE on a planet (521.833)? The rule makes no mention of maulers, so I presume that they do nothing, but I'd like that confirmed.
ANSWER: Not sure, I will forward to Jeff.
Regarding the Sequence of Play:
What constitutes a step, for the purposes of the very first paragraph of the SoP ("Each player turn consists of the following steps, which must be completed in the precise order given")? I ask because I'd assumed that it meant the 2A3, 2A4 (for example) entries (and each part of that entry, i.e., "perform conversions" happens before "upgrade bases" in 2B3), but 3B2 and 3B3 make a mockery of that assumption, since if 3B2 (do OpMove) must be completed before 3B3 (perform Reaction Moves), there's no movement to be reacted to.
ANSWER: According to the original sequence of play, there were the following steps:
1 Economics
2A Repair
2B production
3 Operational Movement
4 Reserve Movement
5 Combat
6 Retrograde
7 field repairs
8 strategic movement
9 establish reserves.
In the newer SOPs this is greatly expanded, and many "steps" were renamed "phases" with substeps. I would have to say that each named item (2A1, 3A-2B, 3B2) is essentially a step in the old sense, i.e. you perform them sequencially in order. Of course, 3B2 and 3B3 alternate during each movement pulse of each stack, so you are right, it is different in that case, becuase originally it was just the "operational movement" step (the back and forth was within one step), and now it is the Op Move Phase with substeps (and two of those substeps are repeated alternatingly), and the old rule that steps are always sequential was carried over and no one noticed that it no longer quite applies in that instance.
=============================
Paul Wittekind asks:
In rule 527.143 on the initial deployment of F111s, it reads: "Under the standard rules, the Federation must pay one EP for each point of F111s received for bases to reflect the replacement annuity, up to a maximum of 50 EPs even if they have more than 50 F111 points.
The Federation may use a separate deficit spending
account for this cost which is to be repaid at a rate of at least 10 EPs per turn."
Our question was whether this was a one-time charge of 50 EPs or whether the Federation paid 50 EPs on each of the three turns of the initial deployment of F111s for bases (thus a total cost of 150 EPs)?
It seemed to us that the rule was a little vague in its wording. At first glance, our first
interpretation was a one time charge of 50 EPs. But because the Federation might receive more that 50 points of F111s on each of the three turns of the initial F111 deployment, a 50 EP charge per turn did not necessarily seem unreasonable.
ANSWER: Since the rules does not say "per turn" I must conclude that it is a maximum limit of 50 EPs. This will likely be reached on the first turn of PF deployment, as you note.
==================
John Robinson:
Kzinti Heavy Fighter Introduction date is Turn 20 (Y178). Yet, 6 turns earlier (Y175), they have 2 ships available which carry heavy fighters.
1) Is the date correct for these two ships (ACS and CSV)?
2) Do they operate with heavy fighters at that point?
3) Or do they operate as normal fighters and then magically transform to Heavy Fighters when they are introduced? (ala Fed F-15s ~Y170)
ANSWER: Advanced ops was confusing on rule (530.223). The rule was clarified in Fighter ops. Essentially, all SIT dates are correct. Some races get heavy fighter carriers prior to their heavy fighter date given in rule (530.223). Those dates (Turn #20 and later depending on race) are when you are allowed to convert other normal carriers to heavy fighters (530.222), when heavy fighter pods are availaible, when heavy fighters can be added to bases, etc...
====================
Dave Butler:
One more (two-part) question regarding GCEs:
(CO-521.831) says that after placing an independant GCE, the ship can retrograde. (1) The wording of the rule is that the GCE is only replaced if the ship retrogrades; is this the intention?
ANSWER: Yes. Note the exception for placing IGCEs in capital hex planets in (821.831C).
(2) What's the interaction with unreleased fleets? The specific rule (I-GCEs) allows the ship to retrograde to the closest point to the capital, the more general rule (unreleased fleets) forbids the ship leaving the fleet zone, and the overriding concept is that the specific rule trumps the general rule. Hence, it seems as if G-ships can be pulled out of unreleased fleets; I presume that they'd function much like ships seeking conversion and have to return on their next turn.
ANSWER: No, it's the other way around. The more general rule is all troopships can deploy G factors on planets. The specific rule is that this specific ship is unreleased and thus cannot do this.
======================
Jeff Tiel:
When must the Hydrans set up in a normal full war game? Are they required to set up their forces prior to Coalition T3 or may they wait until after they see the deployment of Coalition reserve forces at the beginning of Alliance T3?
ANSWER: They set up after Coalition Turn #3 is complete, just prior to Alliance Turn #3. Apologies that this is not stated in rule (601.162). I was in the old revision 3 rulebook rule (601.15), but appears to have gotten lost when the Hydran info was moved to (601.162).
=======================
Derek Meserve:
Question about escorts and flagships.
The end of 515.33 says "A ship used as an escort cannot be the battle force flagship (nor does assignment as an escort remove a ship from the flagship selection procedure) or a member of a battle group."
What happens if your force consists of 3 SAVs, each escorted by an F5? The three F5s have the highest command ratings, so one of them must be the flagship (as they have the highest CR and are not eliminated from the selection process because they are escorts). However, because they are escorts, they can not be the flagship.
I would normally say the general (302.32 Flagship Selection) is overriden by the specific (515.33), but 515.33 both requires the F5s to be included in the selection process and prevents them from being selected.
So which part wins? Does a SAV have to be the flagship because the F5s can't, or does an F5 have to be the flagship because they are the only ones allowed?
[edit] Or is 515.33 a misprint that was meant to eliminate an escort from the flagship selection process? The problem with this is the potential for abuse by artificially elminiating high CR units and reducing your minimum force size.
ANSWER: I would say that you have to use one of the F5s, and thus, one SAV is no longer escorted. But I am not positive and will ask Jeff.
===========================
Alan De Salvio:
A 2006 ruling states that a cripple not in a battleforce at a capital is more vulnerable (2:1 directed damage) than the ship in formation bonus in the battleforce defending the capital (3:1 directed damage). I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I believe the intent should be to treat such cripples as supporting units (3:1 directed damage).
ANSWER: I really don't know what the intention is, and admit that everyone has played at 3:1 (even me) in the past. I can't find a rule that says this though. Sent to Jeff.
A 2006 ruling states that a ship making a commando raid (and coming within 5 SFB hexes of the planet or base by definition) cannot be intercepted or otherwise reacted to except by the planet or base itself, in contrast to a ship making a normal raid against the same target (perhaps at extreme weapons range) or a group launching fighters and/or drones at a presumably much greater distance. I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I suggest the commando raiders should face an interception combat as would any other special raider.
ANSWER: Sent to Jeff. As far as I know commando raids do not have an interception battle. They only fight the planet defenses as stated in the rule.
========================
Derek Meserve:
Question on pinning, reserves, and command ratings.
Here's the situation:
Two Klingons reserves are at a battle station. One is commanded by a C8, the other by a C5. A large number of Hydrans (enough to pin by numbers) arrive, commanded by a DG/RN. The C8 can leave, taking one ship with it, because of the CR difference.
1) Can the second ship be a ship out of the second reserve, having them both go to the same target?
ANSWER: You must move reserve fleets in sequence, not simultaneously.
2) Can the second ship be a ship out of the second reserve, but go to a different target (because they are both from different reserve fleets)?
ANSWER: Well, each reserve fleet moves in turn, not simultaneously. This allows among other things one fleet to open a path for a second fleet. If the C8 moves alone to target A, you might no longer have the command rating boost to move the second ship to target B (pinning calculation is redone when you try to move the second ship).
3) After the C8 leaves, taking one ship from its reserve, can the C5 then make the CR comparison again and go to another target hex?
ANSWER: Yes.
=======================
Sean Dzafovic:
A reserve fleet can't leave more than 1/2 of its ships behind, so the C8 can't move anyway.
(203.742) The Reserve Fleet cannot leave more than half of its ships (counting fighter or PF equivalents; round fractions down in determining this) behind in this manner and cannot leave its flagship behind (203.551). Carriers and PFTs cannot leave their fighters or PFs behind, but if the carrier or PFT (including a base) is itself left behind, its fighters/PFs would count for purposes of counter-pinning (203.54). The Reserve Fleet must select the route which requires the detachment of the fewest ships. If two or more routes requiring the same number exist, the Reserve Fleet must select the one which requires entry into the fewest hexes containing enemy units. If two or more such routes exist, the Reserve Fleet may select any of them.
(203.743) If it cannot fulfill these requirements, the Reserve Fleet cannot move to the designated Battle Hex and will be unable to move at all (unless another Battle Hex is designated).
ANSWER: That applies to trying to (203.74) enter hexes with enemy units while moving.
=====================
Derek Meserve:
(203.72) The Defending Player may move any portion of a designated Reserve Fleet, but the portion that does move must all move together. The moving portion must include a ship capable of commanding that portion (303.0), this can include a "free scout" (308.53). The unmoving portion loses its status as a Reserve Fleet.
Does this not mean that you can opt to move only one ship in the reserve if you want to?
ANSWER: Right.
=======================
Jason E. Schaff:
AFAIK, 203.742 only applies to ships left behind _during_ the movement of a reseve fleet under the provisions of 203.741. Rule 203.72 allows the owning player to leave any portion of a reserve fleet behind in the hex of origin, so long as the moving portion includes a sufficient flagship. (The unmoving portion loses its reserve status.)
ANSWER: Right. Initially you decide how much of the reserve fleet to move (which may be reduced by an initial pinning calc), then as you move that part of the fleet it must adhere to (203.74), i.e. you ignore any ships that never moved when doing the (203.74) calculation.
========================
Sean Dzafovic:
Seems like a meaningless distinction to me. As per (203.72/73) if the reserve fleet is more than 50% pinned at any point of its movement (including before it ever moves, due to enemy ships entering its hex during their opmove phase) then it cannot move.
Otherwise (203.72) allows you to move all, some or none of a reserve fleet which is otherwise eligible for movement (ie less than 50% pinned).
ANSWER: No, there is a difference.
=====================
Dave Butler:
Actually, Jason has interpreted the words correctly; (203.72) applies to the fleet before it starts moving, and (203.74*) cover the fleet while it's moving (note that (203.74*) covers entering hexes with enemy units, and the case described had the enemy enter your hex).
ANSWER: Correct.
===========================
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 06:25 am: Edit
Salvage and Economic Exhaustion. (439) and (652.3)
Are salvage amounts reduced by Economic Exhaustion status? Example on T7A the Federation income is reduced to 75%, does this include salvage proceeds from T7C? The Klingons have reached Economic Exhaustion are their salvage proceeds reduced by the current economic status.
My argument is no. The parts have a set worth no mater what economic status.
- According to the Econ Chart salvage is below the line used to calculate economic status.
- Carryover from previous turns is also listed below that line and that’s where I would carry forward any salvage proceeds from T7C.
My opponent says they are reduced by the current economic status.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:25 am: Edit
Ryan, salvage is not reduced by economic status. Only planetary and provincial income. The layout of the economic form show this as you noted. Salvage, money from trade with the WYN cluster, transfers from other races, etc... are not reduced by economic exhaustion.
Rule (430.11) shows the sources of "income."
Rule (430.12) defines the treasury as your income plus carryover from last turn.
Rule (430.7) and (652.3) state that income is reduced, not the treasury.
The eco form shows the process, add up income from planets, provinces, captured planets and provinces, and that total is reduced by the exhaustion level. Everything you receive during the turn is simply added to the treasury and carried forward.
This is also shown on the sequence of play in PO, step 1C3 tells you to determine income of EPs under (430.1), (and XTPs if playing in the later period), and then to apply the effects of exhaustion at that point. During the turn any money received is simply added to the treasury and carried forward.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 10:43 am: Edit
Note that EPs are reduced, then XTPs are calculated from that lower level. So some XTPs (20% of income) are accordingly reduced, while others (the 40% bonus planetary XTPs) are not reduced, see (523.125)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 05:33 pm: Edit
F&E MASTER ERRATA FILE
Complete through Cap Log 32
This was sent to Joe to put on the website errata page, posting here so people will have it in case he isn't able to get it up right away.
=============================
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 #32.
Does not include SIT errata since all SITs are now updated online.
This file updated on 5/14/06 by Nick Blank.
=======================================
(103.22) Should refer to (502.92) not (502.652).
(104.2) Hydrans and Tholians no longer share fleet charts.
(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.
(203.731) 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).
(203.742) Consider this rule to refer to "units" instead of "ships."
(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).
(305.26) This rule was misnumbered (302.26), it should be (305.26).
(305.26) The reference to (302.21) should be to (305.21).
(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. They use the starbase in 1704 to convert three of these, and use two points from the capital starbase to make two more conversions, leaving it able to make a single three point conversion on the next turn.
(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) While a die roll shift cannot produce a die roll of less than one, that can be used to reduce the intensity rating (308.6).
(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).
(314.248) The Raiding ship is always in supply. The defending ship is in supply if it was in supply before the Raid Phase.
(314.251) Because some ships can be "with the base", these ships could not participate in a reaction battle against a raider, but would be with the base if a successful raider proceeded to do an alternative attack on the base (which might be an FRD).
(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.
(314.253) "Residual Defense Unit" should be "Residual Defense Factor"
(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 Combat 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.
(317.4) The fourth PGS is not "inactive" so it cannot come onto the board if the Hydran capital is devastated.
(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.
(320.314) Should say that the entering ship "engages" rather than "pins" the raiders.
(320.351) This rule is incorrect, in that these same three groups are used to intercept all of the multiple raids into the hex, and if a group intercepts a raid, it is an "empty group" when rolling for the next raid under (302.352).
(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.
(411.71) Ships could be designated as an Expeditionary fleet without a valid supply path, although there is no benefit to doing so. You would have to pay the cost but the ships still wouldn't be in supply until a supply path was connected.
(420.2) Should refer to (413.42) not (410.34).
(420.432) Reference to (410.41) should be (413.41).
(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
(446.4) The reference to (508.3) should be to (508.2).
(447.3) Debts are repaid in step 5 of this sequence. So if you borrow money at the start of Turn #6 and have income later on Turn #6 you still have to pay interest on what you borrowed at the start of Turn #7. Otherwise, the miscellaneous income just becomes a weasel rule to avoid paying interest.
(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.
(449.2) This rule forms an exception to (601.161). While the ship is technically leaving Klingon space, it is also technically no longer Klingon. Specific rules always overrule general rules, so the specific (449.2) [you can sell it!] overrules the more general (601.161) [you can't leave!]. Had we known that (449.2) was going to happen before we printed (601.161) it would have included a reference to (449.2). We'll add one in the Warbook.
(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.
(508.21) The 10 points of damage for devestation can not be taken voluntarily by an already devestated planet to "reset the recovery clock" and soak up extra damage.
(508.23) As every planet must have a garrison ship of the conquering race, if the Klingons asked the Lyrans to garrison some of the planets in the captured Kzinti capital, it is defacto handing over those planets to the Lyrans.
(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.
(511.223) If the old Klingon colonies are reactivated, they could be devastated or captured by any race except the Tholians (which, if it "captured" them, would restore them to the previous "non-existent" condition).
(511.321) Costs are not doubled on 3rd or 4th turn.
(511.51-Step 1) You divide up the plus and minus points between the systems of the capital hex at the end of this step and before Step 2.
(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.
(515.14) A carrier that retreats into another battle hex during the same Combat Phase cannot get new escorts under the "once per battle hex" provision.
(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). [With these rules, (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 Planetary Operations (450.5) 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.
(523.352) : Reference to (315.34) should be (515.34).
(523.353) X-ships conducting drone bombardment pay EPs.
(524.23) As PFs cannot transfer from a CPF (524.231) delete the words "or 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. Up to 4 PGVs taken under this rule have free fighters, further free PGVs must have their fighters paid for normally (with EPs or free fighter factors). The free Pegasus ships do not count against any of the production limits (scouts, carriers, PFTs, etc.). See (709.1B)
(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.
(525.64) Since this rule says a DemonHawk with SPH modules uses the SPH rules, it would not count as a full tug and could not move an FRD.
(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).
(528.41) Penal PF sacrifice missions (similar to (318.723), or 1/3 of 10) absorb 3 damage points leaving 7 which could be targeted as directed damage.
(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).
(531.212) A police ship can enter space containing enemy units during the retreat process.
(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).
(537.112) In effect, the -1 modifier is always active, and has to be countered by one of the additive modifiers in (537.113).
(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.
(600.32) If a modular ship is converted, the modules remain with the unreleased fleet until the fleet is released.
(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.
(602.49) The host race does not have to pay for the repairs or provide them, and if it doesn't, the crippled ships can be moved back to home space. The total number of such ships present at any instant cannot exceed the base's repair capacity.
(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!
(703.21) 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).
(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).
(709.1B) Delete the in service limit of four of each type (impossible to keep track of what with conversions, substitutions of regular production, etc.). There is no in service limit, only a limit of one free Pegasus ship per turn, and only the first four free PGVs come with free fighters, a fifth, sixth, etc. PGV is still itself free, but the fighters must be purchased normally (with EPs or free fighter factors).
(709.1 B) This rule includes a limit of four Pegasus-type ships of anyone subclass in service at any given time. This is complicated by the four free pre-war PGS, and by any built as substitutions for destroyers. Making the complication impossible is the question of converting some free ones to another subtype. Adding insult to injury, actually having to go through the entire Hydran fleet and count the Pegasus hulls is just ridiculous. So, overturning all previous rules, rulings, errata, and judgements, there is no in-service numerical limit. You can take your free one as any type you like, build any type you like, and convert existing ones into any type you like.
(709.3) If the Hydran capital survives to Turn #10, it uses the Spring Y177-Y180 schedule in spring turns, and Fall Y176Y180 schedule in fall turns so that it can start building DWs.
(709.33) Since the HN and CU are both part of the "FF base hull" you could un-convert an AH or SC into either.
(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. (although free fighters cannot be used on bases).
(756.0) Non-ship units include Auxiliaries, SAFs, SWACS, Swarms, and LTFs.
(756.0) Add Base Station to non-ship units.
(756.0) Non-ship units includes Military Convoys, LTFs, and all Auxiliaries. The two paragraphs listing Slow Units and Strategic Movement Nodes do not imply that those are non-ship units.
(756.1) Add Commercial Convoy to slow units.
(756.2) Add Base Stations to Strategic Movement Nodes.
(757.7) The note about the Hydran and Kzinti destroyers belongs to (757.8).
EW SUMMARY:
Federation, add E2 SWAC (1 EWP) and E3 Heavy SWAC (2 EWPs).
TUG INFO:
Klingon Tug+SCP is overloaded.
Kzinti Tug+SCP is overloaded.
Gorn Tug+SP+pod is overloaded.
Lyran Tug+2xKSP see (317.53).
See (317.53) for LTTs an d(517.4) for overloaded tugs.
COMBINED OPS COUNTERS:
Fighter Module counters provided are two and four modules. Single modules have 3 fighter factors.
Kzinti HDW-D should have AF+1.
ADVANCED OPS COUNTERS:
Orion DWV listed as 45 combat instead of 4 fighter and 5 combat.
Lyran 3xCWX is listed as 3xCW.
The Generic ASC has -4 instead of 1-4.
The Federation LAH should be 1-4 not 4.
The Gorn BDSX should be 4-9.
The Lyran SCX should be a 4-8.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Re: 709.1B as posted above.
Did you accidentally type 1 Pegasus per TURN or is it supposed to be this and not per YEAR?
Re: 525.318 as posted above.
Do Pegasus class PFTs taken under this rule have their first load of PFs free? Or do they have to pay for them like the 5th+ PGV fighters?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 07:49 pm: Edit
Thanks, Nick!
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 09:45 pm: Edit
(709.1B) D'oh. should be one free each SPRING turn. I.e. the restrictions on numbers of each subtype were lifted, but the production rate was not increased. It remains one free Pegasus ship per spring turn starting Y172 as the rule says. Thanks for the catch. I will update my master copy.
(525.318) PFs are paid for, as there is nothing that says they are free.
By Joseph Butler (Admin) on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 10:33 am: Edit
Master Errata file posted on main site. http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/New%20Master%20Errata.pdf
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 10:32 am: Edit
Mothball activation question for the Warbook:
Can activation slots be subed to a smaller hull? IOW, can the Klingon choose to use one of their D6 activation slots to activate an additional F5 instead of D6 or can the Feds use their CA slot to activate an additional FF once they run out of mothballed CAs?
(Note to SVC: I would say yes as long as it is a smaller or like hulls only. We do this already in a free campaign where Klingon gift KR hulls are added back the the mothball fleet (K7Rs/KRT are activated using the D6 slots)
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 09:00 am: Edit
Nick, we need a ruling on this one from the Warbook thread, please.
1) Can a capital without a shipyard build tug pods?
NO ANSWER WAS GIVEN in the Q&A thread? I looked at rules (431.22), (509.3) and (511.33). None of these places had the answer, although (431.22) says that one set can be constructed each turn within the limits but it is indicated (not clearly) to be either a part of the production schedule or in adition to it. We need a ruling and thus a clarification added to (509.3) and (431.22); and if the answer is 'yes' then it would be an addition to the list in rule (511.33) as well. (L.bergen 5/21/06)
This is more of a request that a Q&A (but its important for the warbook). I cannot find the actual rule that says Allies can move each other’s FRDs. If it is an implied rule I am recommending (in the Warbook thread) insertion of a clarifying rule into (421.0) FRD’s. If it is there somewhere can someone point me to it, please?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:34 pm: Edit
APPEALS RULED ON BY JEFF.
All of these were sent on to SVC as well for Caplog 33.
Q1) Why is the Hydran BB a true carrier instead of a hybrid carrier (as per former cap log ruling) like other Hydran ships?
A1) Hydran BB. Since this is already in print, it has to be appealed to Steve. I would point out to him that G2 does not list it with the "True Carrier" note, so either: a) it has to pay the carrier price for fighters like all other BBs and unlike Hydran hybrids, or b) it must be escorted unlike all other BBs.
Q2) Can a mauler get its benefit when bombarding an IGCE from orbit under (521.833)?
A2) Maulers and IGCEs. It looks to me that the mauler can kill one for 3 points. It probably should have been written better: "An IGCE can be resolved through normal combat with a defense factor of 3." PDUs and SIDS have different values for voluntary vs involuntary destruction, the IGCE doesn't appear to be different.
Q3) What happens if your force consists of 3 SAVs, each escorted by an F5? The three F5s have the highest command ratings, so one of them must be the flagship (302.32) (as they have the highest CR and are not eliminated from the selection process because they are escorts). However, because they are escorts, they can not be the flagship (515.33).
A3) Escorts and Flagships. (515.33) was written to prevent abuse by hiding high CR ships as casual escorts. A group would have to be broken up.
Q4) Is the crippled ship pool (511.53), (511.573), directed on by an attacking battle force at 2:1 or 3:1 direct damage ratio? The rules do not specifically say.
A4) Capital cripple pool. It would seem to me that (302.563) would apply, support ships not in the battle force, and they can only be attacked at 3:1. Again something for the Warbook.
Q5) A 2006 ruling states that a ship making a commando raid (and coming within 5 SFB hexes of the planet or base by definition) cannot be intercepted or otherwise reacted to except by the planet or base itself, in contrast to a ship making a normal raid against the same target (perhaps at extreme weapons range) or a group launching fighters and/or drones at a presumably much greater distance. I believe this is counter-intuitive and not the intent of the rule, and I appeal this ruling. I suggest the commando raiders should face an interception combat as would any other special raider.
A5) Commando Raids: (320.42) looks specific in only allowing the fixed defenses to fight the commando ship. However, I think that the commando actually has to survive one round of combat in order to get that G attack, as (314.25) is referenced at it has one round of combat before the raider can do it's thing.
Q6) 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?
A6) CEDS and FRDs. I think FRDs would count as bases, since you can retrograde to an FRD (206.21) in addition to the FRD being considered as base for repair purposes. Something for the Warbook.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 11:52 pm: Edit
Lawrence:
As pods are not in the (511.33) list I would say they cannot be built without a shipyard. However the list does allow mobile bases, which are essentially composed of pods so perhaps pods should be added to this list as in one Def Bat OR one mobile base OR one set of pods?
It is implied that allied tugs can be used for FRD movement. Rule (421.2) and (421.3) both say "a tug" as opposed to "owning race's tug" or something like that.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:54 am: Edit
Further questions on Q3 above.
1) What if the force consisted of 3 SAVs and 3 F5Es? Would one group still have to be broken up?
2) If it is a slow unit pursuit, would 2 groups have to be broken up to allow an F5/F5E to be the flagship, but still have all the slow units in the battle force?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 04:11 pm: Edit
Nick
A1) Hydran BB. Thanks, I couldn't ask for more....Well, then again...
Depending on the ruling:
A) If it has to have CV factors and count as an Oversized Squadron, can it then be in a CVBG as the large CV and a CVE as the small one (a total of 12 factors/2 squadrons)? Normally 318.435 prohibits this, but I believe that's because people would want to include BBs as the CVL/CVE and the Monarch with an oversized squadron would not be able to be classified as a CVL or CVE.
B) If it has hybrid factors but must be escorted, can it use normal CV escorts (i.e. AH, DE, etc.)? And how many?
C) If the ruling is changed so it has hybrid factors and does not need to be escorted, can it still be escorted as a CV or would it have to use the FEG rules?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:42 am: Edit
CEDS.
Does a group have to take ship damage in order to use CEDS Retrograde(308.131)? I have a ad-hoc TUG-CV/SP, FFE that took fighter damage. I want to CEDS retro to a BATS in order for the TUG to start the BATS->SB upgrade (See TACNOTE A Little Reserve Can Go a Long Way, pg 90 CL32).
206.1 says "The non-phasing may use Retrograde Movement for those units eligible under CEDS (308.131).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 12:47 am: Edit
306.2. The addition and subtraction of die rolls need to be spelled out for Single ship Combat. As it reads now on a success the enemy is shifted -1 and failure is shifted +1 on the Combat Coefficient Chart. In SSC since the defender doesn't roll it should be stated that the die roll is shifted -1 for failure and +1 for success on the SSC table.
By Ken Watanabe (Watank) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 02:46 pm: Edit
Have there been any revised printings of Planetary Ops? We've run into a situation while setting up for Origins Iron Man where there are two versions of the 619.2x notes concerning Lyran fleet restrictions... we're working things out, just wanted to check re: print runs before we get too freaked out.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 04:50 pm: Edit
Can't say I am aware of this. which probably means I once was and have since forgotten.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 06:14 pm: Edit
Ken, you might want to post the two versions of the rule here, word for word, and we can figure out which is correct.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 06:20 pm: Edit
>(528.41) Penal PF sacrifice missions (similar
>to (318.723), or 1/3 of 10) absorb 3 damage
>points leaving 7 which could be targeted as
>directed damage.
I believe this one should be changed based on the fact that PFs are 2 compot units which generate one "plus point" is the final damage point of a round is resolved on a PF.
I am blanking on the rule cite, but I mentioned it here previously.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 09:19 pm: Edit
I can't post what the other guys says, but mine and Kens read this way:
This is from 619.21
"Lyrans: All fleets are active except Far Stars and Home. Individual ships are released by an enemy in their reaction zone, but the reserve marker remains inactive"
Other people (Lar, Sandro, and Ryan) say theirs says something to the effect of all fleets except Far Stars are active. Hopefully one of those three will copy post their exact text here.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 10:03 pm: Edit
From (619.0) BACKDRAFT, Pg 27, Planetary Operations
(619.21) TURN 1, FALL Y168
Lyrans: All fleets are active except Far Stars.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 01:51 am: Edit
Mine agrees with Lar's.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 06:51 am: Edit
SVC, et al. Actually there was more to it but my hi-speed wnet down last night due to a storm…so here is what I was trying to edit in just as I went down.
From (619.0) BACKDRAFT, Pg 27, Planetary Operations
(619.20) TURN 0, SPRING Y168
Lyrans: The Red Claw and Enemy's Blood Fleets are activated by the respective invasions. The Home Fleet cannot use its reserve marker. The Far Stars Fleet is inactive.
(619.21) TURN 1, FALL Y168
Lyrans: All fleets are active except Far Stars.
(619.22) TURN 2, SPRING Y169
Same as Spring Y169 except that the Lyran Far Stars Fleet enters the map by (204.39) and the Klingons may (using the war option) invade Kzinti and/or Hydran space. Klingon Home Fleet is released.
SIDEBAR: There seems to be a typo in this last one. “Same as Spring Y169 except that the Lyran Far Stars Fleet enters the map by (204.39) and the Klingons may (using the war option) invade Kzinti and/or Hydran space. Klingon Home Fleet is released.” The item in red may have been fixed with the AAR. Why would it be same as the year it is telling you about...maybe means F168? I will also post this over in Warbook as a line item.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 07:10 pm: Edit
Just checked my copy of the PO rules, and the text there agrees with Lar's post. Curiouser and curiouser.....
Cheers,
Jason
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 06:17 pm: Edit
Do fighters that react away from their base and then have their base removed while they are in the adjacent hex, provide minus points when they are destroyed due to being homeless after the first combat round?
I observe that their base may have been directed, may have succumbed to general damage, or may have moved away after the fighters reacted away. I am unsure whether the answer to the question is the same under each condition.
The condition in which this question is other than academic is when the reacting fighters do not find destruction in the first combat round, for whatever reason.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 09:59 pm: Edit
I searched the PO AAR topic, and didn't find any comment on (619.22).
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit
Nick,
Can a Tug on mission F, which towed an FRD for max moves during Op Movement, react to enemy moves leaving the FRD behind?
Thanks
Geof Clark
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 12:10 am: Edit
Nick,
As a spinoff, can a tug involved in setting a MB in one hex, abandon that mission and react to another hex leaving the MB behind?
Our dilemma here, is reacting jeopardizing/contradicting the mission a tug had been assigned, or is it even a a question of that.
Thanks
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 01:35 am: Edit
While (510.221) covers Dave Whiteside's question, I'd like to know when I'm supposed to declare that I'm dropping a MB off at a SB. (I.e., can dropping off a MB be done as part of Reaction Movement?)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 07:28 am: Edit
Well, my real question would be, if a tug is assigned a mission, when is that mission over, and can it act as a normal ship on the in between when that itself(acting as a normal ship-mission M) is a mission that needs to be assigned.
The MB one is agreed, I was just using another mission as an example.
I'm done...I'll wait for an answer.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 09:28 am: Edit
Tugs switching missions:
This is a great question!
Take a homeworld assualt. What if the tug gets done upgrading a base early in the turn and later gets attacked in the opposing player's turn. Can the tug then participate in the battle and be used to help a cripple get away, despite the fact that it was assigned to a base upgrade mission for the entire 'turn'?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 11:07 am: Edit
The SoP covers 99% of tug assignments (happens in Phase 1 for existing tugs; late in Phase 2 for new construction); it's really only the "I'm carrying something, when am I allowed to put it down" missions that are a bit fuzzy.
(E.g., I can drop EP the instant I get to my destination; can I decide during Reaction move that the SB I'm at is actually my destination and drop my EP off (as a satellite stockpile) before I react out?)
By Ken Watanabe (Watank) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 02:44 pm: Edit
John and Lar have covered what we've noticed so far for (619) Backdraft... trying to see if we can look over the text some more, I may also try to sit down with Jason at our next session in a couple of weeks to compare the books side-by-side.
My guess is that Lar's version is the correct one as it makes more sense... we're just mystified that the different versions exist.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 02, 2006 - 09:10 pm: Edit
Yes, very bizarre.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Saturday, June 03, 2006 - 06:43 pm: Edit
Two questions
1) Rule 206.22 - Do the ships determining a retrograde path open the adjacent hexes to the one they start in that might otherwise be blocked by adjacent enemy ships or bases? I have seen a ruling on another subject make reference to this (Nick - 2/12/2003 @ 1:57 PM - though the question could be considered leading on this aspect) and have had conversations with people at Origins about this, but I have never seen it officially asked and answered point blank.
2) Rules 509.5 and 302.733- Can the Hydran Supply tug and ships stacked with it, if in supply from the main grid, retreat away from the main grid, effectively using the tug as their supply point (and thus ignore Step 3)? Does any of this change if the retreat is a fighting retreat? There is an errata about 509.5 ("The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.") 509.52 would seem to indicate that the supply tug only acts in that role if it is not connected to a supply grid.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 08:38 am: Edit
Answers by FEAR in the 02/01/05 archive, with my comments in red.
==========================================================
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.
Suggest adding to the preamble of 318.3 the text, "If the Hydrans abandon their capital, it counts as captured for the purposes of this rule." (J. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
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.
Suggest adding, at the end of 511.62, the statement, "For powers with multiple capital hexes, these effects apply only to the hex with the main shipyard." (J. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
==============================================
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.
No clarification needed.
==============================================
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.
No clarification needed.
==============================================
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).
Already addressed in comments on the 01/25 archive, posted 06/03/06. (J. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
==============================================
Mark Ermenc: 1) A single ship (of 14 or less COMPOT) retreats from a battle, doesnÕt 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).
No clarification needed.
2) (521.394) in CO discusses G-ships that land on a planet. It says that such a ship ÒÉ takes no further part in combat in that hex ÉÓ (with limited exceptions for ships which drop assault pods) until the end of the combat round, at which point it is either ÒÉ considered destroyed ÉÓ or ÒÉ returns to normal operations ÉÓ. ??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 Òa normal commando operationÓ(521.292), and the declaration of retreat. Is this rule as meaningless as it appears, or should ÒAt the end of the combat round ÉÓ actually read ÒAfter the resolution of combat in the hex ÉÓ?
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.
Suggest changing text in 521.394 as proposed by the questioner. (j. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
3) The Federation COV and survey duty. (505.31) indicates that ÒThe Federation can increase its survey ships by up to three by sending some or all of the three CVLs ÉÓ. (521.63) in CO says that ÒÉ It can be sent off map for use as a survey ship in addition to the survey ships already there.Ó 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.
Suggest rewording 505.31 to reflect that 4 Fed ships may be added to the survey force. (J. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
4) The Hydran IC (525.316) in AO. ??If the Hydran Shipyard doesnÕt fall before t6 (S171) when the design comes Òinto serviceÓ, 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.
No clarification needed.
===============================================
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.
No clarification needed.
===============================================
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 captured 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.
No clarification needed.
===============================================
James Southcott: 1) what is the command rating of a POL
ANSWER: According to SFB it is 3 if I recall correctly. ??
Command ratings for police ships should be added to the SIT. (j. E. Schaff 06/04/06)
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.
No clarification needed.
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.
This ruling was overturned on appeal. No clarification needed.
===============================================
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.
No clarification needed.
===============================================
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 supply 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.
No clarification necessary.
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. ??
No clarification needed.
===============================================
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.
No clarification needed.
===============================================
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.
No clarification needed. The one confusing point was addressed in the PO expanded SoP.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit
Jason - So this does not get lost, you should repost it in the Warbook thread.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 09:32 am: Edit
Oh crud! Had both threads open and posted to the wrong one.
!@#$%^&* Will fix momentarily. Thanks for the catch.
Jason
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, June 04, 2006 - 09:43 am: Edit
JOE BUTLER:
Please delete my post in this thread from 06/04/06 at 08:38. Posted to the wrong topic, and the edit time limit has expired. Info reposted in the correct topic. (This post can then be deleted as well.)
Thanks,
Jason
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 12:24 pm: Edit
========================
Derek Meserve:
1) What if the force consisted of 3 SAVs and 3 F5Es? Would one group
still have to be broken up?
ANSWER: I suppose so since you have the unusual case of an escort with
a higher command rating than the carrier.
2) If it is a slow unit pursuit, would 2 groups have to be broken up to
allow an F5/F5E to be the flagship, but still have all the slow units
in the battle force?
ANSWER: I don't see why both would be broken up, you need one F5/F5E
for the flagship, but the other slow unit can have an escort under the
rules, even if the escort is not "slow."
==========================
Michael Lui:
I haven't gotten a ruling yet from Steve Cole.
===========================
Ryan Opel:
CEDS.
Does a group have to take ship damage in order to use CEDS
Retrograde(308.131)? I have a ad-hoc TUG-CV/SP, FFE that took fighter
damage. I want to CEDS retro to a BATS in order for the TUG to start
the BATS->SB upgrade (See TACNOTE A Little Reserve Can Go a Long Way,
pg 90 CL32).
206.1 says "The non-phasing may use Retrograde Movement for those units
eligible under CEDS (308.131).
ANSWER: I belive that the ruling is any ship that used its fighters in
combat can retrograde during the CEDS step. I believe I answered a
similar question differently in the past, but I was wrong.
========================
Yodd E Jahnke:
Do fighters that react away from their base and then have their base
removed while they are in the adjacent hex, provide minus points when
they are destroyed due to being homeless after the first combat round?
I observe that their base may have been directed, may have succumbed to
general damage, or may have moved away after the fighters reacted away.
I am unsure whether the answer to the question is the same under each
condition.
The condition in which this question is other than academic is when the
reacting fighters do not find destruction in the first combat round,
for whatever reason.
ANSWER: Yes they generate minus points. Rule (308.23) only lists one
exception, if the carrier/base was destroyed voluntarily by the owner,
so in that case you would not get minus points. Treat it the same as
if it were one battle hex, with the base destroyed after the first
combat round in the "fighter" battle hex.
=========================
Geof Clark:
Can a Tug on mission F, which towed an FRD for max moves during Op
Movement, react to enemy moves leaving the FRD behind?
ANSWER: Any ship that can react can still react even after moving the
full range in op move, so I don't see why not. The two forms of
movement occur in different steps of the sequence of play. Of course
you cannot tow the FRD during the reaction movement step.
=========================
Dave Whiteside:
As a spinoff, can a tug involved in setting a MB in one hex, abandon
that mission and react to another hex leaving the MB behind?
Our dilemma here, is reacting jeopardizing/contradicting the mission a
tug had been assigned, or is it even a a question of that.
Thanks
ANSWER: You must stay with the base as setting it up is a continuous
process.
===========================
Dave Butler:
While (510.221) covers Dave Whiteside's question, I'd like to know when
I'm supposed to declare that I'm dropping a MB off at a SB. (I.e., can
dropping off a MB be done as part of Reaction Movement?)
ANSWER: I think you can do that (store the MB) at any time, as long as
you hadn't yet declared you were setting it up. A disassembled MB can
be dropped at any of your starbases, just like an FRD can be dropped in
any hex.
===============================
Dave Whiteside:
Well, my real question would be, if a tug is assigned a mission, when
is that mission over, and can it act as a normal ship on the in between
when that itself(acting as a normal ship-mission M) is a mission that
needs to be assigned.
The MB one is agreed, I was just using another mission as an example.
I'm done...I'll wait for an answer.
ANSWER: Depends on the tug mission.
==============================
Greg Ernest:
Tugs switching missions:
This is a great question!
Take a homeworld assualt. What if the tug gets done upgrading a base
early in the turn and later gets attacked in the opposing player's
turn. Can the tug then participate in the battle and be used to help a
cripple get away, despite the fact that it was assigned to a base
upgrade mission for the entire 'turn'?
ANSWER: Rule (509.1) only allows one tug mission per turn, so you
cannot setup a base and rescue a ship on the same turn. But if the
base upgrade were completed at the start of a given turn, you can then
assign the rescue tug mission in the assign tug missions step of that
turn. Also, some missions allow the tug to move and/or engage in
combat, and some missions do not.
===========================
John Robinson:
1) Rule 206.22 - Do the ships determining a retrograde path open the
adjacent hexes to the one they start in that might otherwise be blocked
by adjacent enemy ships or bases? I have seen a ruling on another
subject make reference to this (Nick - 2/12/2003 @ 1:57 PM - though the
question could be considered leading on this aspect) and have had
conversations with people at Origins about this, but I have never seen
it officially asked and answered point blank.
ANSWER: As far as I know they do. Somethign to clarify in the warbook
however.
2) Rules 509.5 and 302.733- Can the Hydran Supply tug and ships stacked
with it, if in supply from the main grid, retreat away from the main
grid, effectively using the tug as their supply point (and thus ignore
Step 3)? Does any of this change if the retreat is a fighting retreat?
There is an errata about 509.5 ("The Hydran supply tug can be
considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.")
509.52 would seem to indicate that the supply tug only acts in that
role if it is not connected to a supply grid.
ANSWER: Rule (509.52) says the tug must be out of supply in order to
use its special supply ability. This applies in all cases. This makes
it possible for the Klingons to bounce the suppy tug back to Hydran
space if they are not careful when trying to perform an expedition.
The Hydran expeditionary force with the supply tug must ensure it cuts
itself off from home in order to retreat towards fed space.
======================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 12:27 pm: Edit
ORIGINS
Are we going to have both versions of the PO Backdraft lyran schedules at origins? My copy is the version that says Turn 1: Lyrans: All fleets are active except Far Stars.
Is someone with the longer version coming? I don't know if Steve will have time to look at it before Origins.
By Ken Watanabe (Watank) on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 02:52 pm: Edit
I'll bring my current copy of PO, and I also have another PO rulebook on order so should have both available for side-by-side comparison.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 10:58 pm: Edit
Nick can you clarify this one from the errata file? I couldn't find it in the rule book in that manner.
(521.35) Reference (321.393) should be (521.393).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 10:52 am: Edit
Lawrence, go to rule (521.35) MODIFIERS:
Go to the last modifier in the list:
+1.....Bonus for landing the whole ship (321.393).
Unfortunately rule (321.393) does not exist, it would be under marine major generals if it did. The reference should be to (521.393) which is the rule detailing the source of this +1 bonus.
Note this errata applies to the 2003 printing of Combined Ops. There may have been a later Kyocera printing that was fixed? I don't know.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 03:36 pm: Edit
Nick another errata question:
Item:
(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).
Doesnt this contradict the chart in (531.12) regarding the Tholians and Orions (or am I missing something)?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 06:11 pm: Edit
Errata clarification:
(533.41) The Orions can build four PDUs on Vegas, not six. This matches the limit in (533.43).
This is a change for rule (533.412) rather than (533.41)
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 03:28 pm: Edit
Nick, please can you clarify which rule I must use when raiding
(439.16) SINGLE COMBAT :Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0) or (504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or on expedition, etc.).
AND
(314.244) The raiding ship and reacting ship (or equivalent) combined with any defending units already in the hex then fight one round of single combat. Players must use the advanced small combat rule (318.7) [which, for a single-ship duel, will default back to (310.0)]...
• A: ... There is no salvage for destroyed raiding ships.
Seem to contradict.
Thanks
By Lee Winstead (Gonzo) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 05:37 pm: Edit
I believe the second means there is no salvage for the raiding player for destroyed raiding ships.
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 01:00 am: Edit
Yes, but according to 439.16, this salvage should go to the non-raiding player?
By Lee Winstead (Gonzo) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 04:45 am: Edit
No, the rule references 314.25 (314.35 in mine, but that's an obvious error). That rule states that 'destroyed raiding ships produce no salvage'. The defending ship does produce salvage if it is in supply. It's not a contradiction, though. Just that 314.25 takes precedence if it's the single ship combat is the result of a raid and not a normal battle.
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 03:08 pm: Edit
I understand why a destroyed raiding ship would produce no salvage for its owner, but (314.244) says you must use "advanced small combat" rule and (439.16) says a ship destroyed in single ship combat produce salvage for the winner.
If the winner is the raided player's ship, and this ship is in supply (which is certainly true if the combat happened in the raided player's territory), for me it seems sane to think that he can collect some salvage from the destroyed raider.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Similarly, the rule says that the raiding ship "produces no salvage", not that the raiding empire "collects no salvage". Strict reading of the rules results in the defending empire not collecting salvage for destroying the raider (which produces no salvage), but the attacking empire collecting salvage for destroying the defender (which does).
By Lee Winstead (Gonzo) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 04:13 pm: Edit
314.244 B states that Destroyed Defending ships produce salvage for their owner (except for police). If you want the logic for the difference, raids are quick strikes, get in and get out before the enemy can send a significant force to stop you. There isn't time to stop and collect salvage.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, June 09, 2006 - 04:33 pm: Edit
Please move discussions to General Discussions, let Nick answer the question.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 12:50 am: Edit
Nick,
I rarely do this, but I have to challenge your ruling to Ryan Opel on CEDS:
___________
"Ryan Opel:
CEDS.
Does a group have to take ship damage in order to use CEDS Retrograde(308.131)? I have a ad-hoc TUG-CV/SP, FFE that took fighter damage. I want to CEDS retro to a BATS in order for the TUG to start the BATS->SB upgrade (See TACNOTE A Little Reserve Can Go a Long Way, pg 90 CL32).
206.1 says "The non-phasing may use Retrograde Movement for those units eligible under CEDS (308.131).
ANSWER: I belive that the ruling is any ship that used its fighters in combat can retrograde during the CEDS step. I believe I answered a similar question differently in the past, but I was wrong."
___________
I cite the following as reasons that a unit using CEDS must have a crippled / destroyed escort to be eligible, not just having its fighters destroyed:
1) (308.11) "The opposing player can use Directed Damage against the smallest remaining escort on each Combat Round. This is known as the Carrier Escort Damage Sysytem or CEDS." Note it does not say use against fighters.
2) (308.13) "To resolve CEDS, the owner must repair any damaged escorts and replace any lost escorts. This procedure could be used to repair carrier groups damaged at earlier times which have not been repaired until this point." Again, resolved by fixing / replacing escorts, not fighters.
3) (308.131-A) "Carrier groups with CEDS damage are allowed to retrograde on the opposing player's turn; this is an exception to the rules. Carriers are repaired before fighter replacements are obtained." Makes the distinction between repairing CEDS damage and receiving fighter replacements.
4) (105.P) Sequence of Play
"Phase 6: Retrograde Movement
6D: Conduct CEDS repairs and replacements (308.13)
6E: All players may replace fighters (501.5)...if in supply"
Two separate and distinct steps - not part of the same action.
5) Errata - "The CEDS escort replacement rules (allowing you to convert existing ships or even borrow ships from the next turn's production) have been controversial from the beginning. These are, obviously, a fudge to make the carrier groups work, and in a very real sense should be ignored after the publication of Carrier War."
If it is just a fudge and should be ignored (even though it can't), its use should be minimized as much as possible. The fighter replacement system works fine; it should not be tied up with CEDS. The CEDS system should only be used for carriers and escorts crippled or destroyed.
6) The name "Carrier Escort Damage System" is not "Carrier Escort and Fighter Damage System". If a carrier group that takes no damage and loses no fighters, but is on the battle line is not able to use CEDS retrograde, then a carrier group that suffers no damage except to its fighters should have no more justification to use this system. The ships are intact and the fighter replacement system will bring them to full strength before they see combat again. Just because there is a need for the carrier and its escorts elsewhere is not enough - the same could be said of any ship.
7) (501.5) "All carriers (for all players) that are in supply during the Retrograde Phase (for any player) automatically receive replacement fighters up to their full capacity... If a given carrier is out of supply and cannot receive replacement fighters, it must wait until the next Production Phase or the end of the next Retrograde Phase to obtain them." If there was a time when anything would justify a carrier retrograding out of turn, it would be when out of fighters - the most dire situation for a carrier. Even when this happens, however, a carrier must stay where it is and wait to get them, not use CEDS.
I know that CEDS is retained to the extent it is because of Alliance claims of necessity for play balance, however the ability to retrograde out of turn merely due to fighter loss is far outside the scope of why CEDS is still in the game. It needs to be, and appears to be, according to the rules, reserved as a system for only damaged and / or crippled carriers and their escorts.
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 03:36 am: Edit
Nick,
Question on 618 Crosswinds Scenario rules. The stated triggering ratio is 2-1 advantage allows release and war. The example in 618.32 gives the original Enemy's Blood total attack compot at 129. This is mistaken, the Red Claw is 129, while Enemy's Blood is 107. Does this change the triggering ratio for the release of EB or Hydran 2nd fleet? If so, what is the correct ratio to use?
Thank you,
Geof Clark
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 02:51 pm: Edit
Nick, there has been some questions in Tac Notes as to when escorts have to be set and can be chagned for ground combat ships.
looking at the SOP, we have
________________________________________
Quote:
PHASE 5 - STEP 3: BATTLE FORCE DETERMINATION (302.3)
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.
________________________________________
However rule 521.372 states that these escorts are not "Carrier-like"
________________________________________
Quote:
(521.372) Ground combat ships in a battle force (whether making an assault, or supporting planetary defenders, or even in a hex without a planet) can be (but do not have to be) "escorted" in a manner that is different from "carrier escorts"
________________________________________
the SOP has no step to assign these escorts though, so that is something that will need to be adjusted...
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Nick,
How many PDU can the captured Tholian capital support?
(The problem is that (433.424) says:
1. Minor planets can have 6 PDU.
2. Major planets can have 10 PDU.
3. Capitals (one per race) can have 20 PDU.
While the Tholians hold it, Tholia is a racial capital, and can thus hold 20 PDU; once someone (the Klingons, say) captures it, we check the list:
1. It's not a minor planet;
2. it's not a major planet ((511.21) and (AO-523.12) indicate that Tholia doesn't follow the same rules as a major planet);
3. the Klinks already have a capital.
Its status is therefore undefined; a strict reading of the rules would then allow an infinite number of PDU on captured Tholia ((508.11) directs us to (433.424) for the limit, and no limit is given for this case). I suspect that that's not the intention, however.)
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 04:38 am: Edit
Hi Nick
question about 302.36.
2NCL's and an independent fighter squadron are faced with a battle they cannot win and want to avoid combat.
302.36 says that unchosen flagships can be excused from the 1/2 ship calculation for minimum fleet. But also says that fighter squadrons cannot contribute more than half of the battle force unless there are not enough ships present to make up their required portion.
Would the Feds be allowed to fight only with the fighters (after designating the NCL's as rejected command ships). The NCL's are still present in the hex, so would it contravene the second part of 302.36?
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:46 am: Edit
===================
Lawrence Bergen:
Nick another errata question:
Item:
(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).
Doesnt this contradict the chart in (531.12) regarding the Tholians and Orions (or am I missing something)?
ANSWER: I believe the errata was for the combined ops version of the police rule, which put one of the many optional police ship limits at 5 sheets of counters, and since the rule didn't say how many this actually was, the errata was necessary if you couldn't remember how many counters this was after punching out sheet TU. The planetary ops version of the rule had the chart you note, with specific limits (incorporating the errata). There may have been no tholian/orion police ships on chart T+U (and hence not in the errata), but some were included in planetary ops so there needed to be a non-zero limit for those two on the new chart.
===================
Lawrence Bergen:
Errata clarification:
(533.41) The Orions can build four PDUs on Vegas, not six. This matches the limit in (533.43).
This is a change for rule (533.412) rather than (533.41)
ANSWER: Ah, that is because the sub rules are misnumbered. Fixed in the master errata file (I will bring one to Origins).
===================
Philippe le bas:
Nick, please can you clarify which rule I must use when raiding
(439.16) SINGLE COMBAT :Ships destroyed after single-combat [(310.0) or (504.4)] count as salvage for the winning ship if it would otherwise qualify (in supply, not adopted or on expedition, etc.).
AND
(314.244) The raiding ship and reacting ship (or equivalent) combined with any defending units already in the hex then fight one round of single combat. Players must use the advanced small combat rule (318.7) [which, for a single-ship duel, will default back to (310.0)]...
• A: ... There is no salvage for destroyed raiding ships.
Seem to contradict.
ANSWER: The first rule is general to all single combat. The second rule is specific to raids with single combat, and thus is the operative rule, and it says there is no salvage in such a case. Rule (315.25) (this reference is wrong in the printed rule, corrected in the master errata file) says the raider prodeces no salvage, so there is no salvage for the defender to collect in such a case.
====================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Nick,
I rarely do this, but I have to challenge your ruling to Ryan Opel on CEDS:
ANSWER: Given just the rules I would probably agree with you (and I accidentally ruled that way in the past), but there is a cap log ruling that says you can use ceds retrogrades after having used fighters in combat, even if the ships are undamaged. I will try to find that ruling and double check though.
=======================
Geof Clark:
Question on 618 Crosswinds Scenario rules. The stated triggering ratio is 2-1 advantage allows release and war. The example in 618.32 gives the original Enemy's Blood total attack compot at 129. This is mistaken, the Red Claw is 129, while Enemy's Blood is 107. Does this change the triggering ratio for the release of EB or Hydran 2nd fleet? If so, what is the correct ratio to use?
ANSWER: If the number is wrong, that still doesn't change the ratio needed for imbalance which would still be 2-1, but it would be comparing the new corrected numbers to the 2-1 ratio. The number in the example is wrong, but the procedure stands.
========================
Tim Losberg:
Nick, there has been some questions in Tac Notes as to when escorts have to be set and can be chagned for ground combat ships.
ANSWER: My understanding is that they are assigned and changed in the same way as carrier escorts. Any differences from the carrier escort system are SPECIFICALLY listed as differences, like the ability to direct on and destroy the troopship after only crippling the escorts as opposed to requiring the escorts be destroyed. Any thing not specifically listed as different must be assumed to be the same as the carrier system. The rule says it is different, and then through the rule tells you what the differences are, you don't get to make up new differences. This should be clarified in the warbook though.
====================
Dave Butler:
How many PDU can the captured Tholian capital support?
(The problem is that (433.424) says:
Minor planets can have 6 PDU.
Major planets can have 10 PDU.
Capitals (one per race) can have 20 PDU.
While the Tholians hold it, Tholia is a racial capital, and can thus hold 20 PDU; once someone (the Klingons, say) captures it, we check the list:
It's not a minor planet;
it's not a major planet ((511.21) and (AO-523.12) indicate that Tholia doesn't follow the same rules as a major planet);
the Klinks already have a capital.
Its status is therefore undefined; a strict reading of the rules would then allow an infinite number of PDU on captured Tholia ((508.11) directs us to (433.424) for the limit, and no limit is given for this case). I suspect that that's not the intention, however.)
ANSWER: Something for the warbook, but with no other definition I would say it just drops one category, treat it as a captured major planet, so the Klingons could put up 10 PDUs. Actually, since anything not mentioned/dealt with in the rules is specifically not allowed, a strict reading of the rules (with this absence of a definition) would permit zero PDUs on captured Tholia, not an infinite number.
========================
James Southcott:
Hi Nick
question about 302.36.
2NCL's and an independent fighter squadron are faced with a battle they cannot win and want to avoid combat.
302.36 says that unchosen flagships can be excused from the 1/2 ship calculation for minimum fleet. But also says that fighter squadrons cannot contribute more than half of the battle force unless there are not enough ships present to make up their required portion.
Would the Feds be allowed to fight only with the fighters (after designating the NCL's as rejected command ships). The NCL's are still present in the hex, so would it contravene the second part of 302.36?
ANSWER: First you must pick a flagship from the three highest command ratings. This means picking from the 2 NCLs, as the fihters only get a command rating if there are no ships present at all (303.7). After picking an NCL, the other NCL is an "unchosen flagship candidate." Then, the minimum force rules say you must include half of the ships (not include the unchosen NCL in this calc. So the only unit you must include is the flagship NCL. The fighter squadron is optional, and the second NCL is optional. The fighters cannot fight alone as they cannot be the flagship in this situation.
===========================
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:07 am: Edit
Nick,
We have run into some questions regardring raids and small scale combat interactions with bases.
Here's the situation -
A hydran THR with Prime Team raids a Klingon BATS with full fighter squadron and a crippled D6D. Another D6D reacts into the hex.
The D6D and ship equivalent of fighters choose to fight the THR under (314.244) and (318.72) - Small Force Single Ship Combat (SFSSC), leading to the first question -
1) Does the Prime Team (PT) impart a +2 to the COMPOT of the THR as per (522.3) AND a +1 to the SFSSC roll as per (318.74) OR just the +1 to the SFSSC roll? The rules for Prime Teams for raids, Single Ship Combat, and Prime Team embarkation seem to support the former. Aditionally, is there a maximum modifier to the Small Ship Combat roll? A PT on a ship like a THR or DNL almost instantly gives it a +2 on the roll from the COMPOT differential modifier and the PT bonus. PTs become huge force multipliers in a raid - but begs the question, how are they effective if you are fighting only fighters? Beam over and strap a limpet to the outside of a fighter?
We continued the fight as the THR having both and rolled a 4 for SFSSC, resulting in a Defender Retreats result (+1 for Prime Team offset by -1 for the scout function of the D6D), leading to the second question -
2) On a SFSSC retreat result, what is the procedure for the base's fighters? The D6D retreats out of the hex, but the fighters cannot. Do they retreat back to the base, able to participate in defending the base or are they in the hex, but at a different location and not able to defend the base on the next step of the raid?
We continued on with the fighters not present at the base as the THR exercises its option under (314.28) to go after the Crippled D6D. However, (314.254) states that the raider must first fight the base, which leads to a bunch more questions -
3) Is the BATS - ftrs vs. THR w/ PT battle a single round Single Ship Combat fight? If so, how would the result of "crippled" or "destroyed" be applied to the BATS ("retreat" seems to be answered by the last line in (318.74), but only to determine if the raider can carry on with the attack - or get a negative result applied to itself)? If not, is it multiple rounds with accumulation of +/- points? If this same scenario were against a SB, the SFSSC would apply because the SB has more than 14 attack factors, making a raid on a SB a no-win situation; however, a BATS without fighters makes this a Single Ship Combat qualifier - if a base fights a single raider using SSC or not.
After this, assuming the THR does not get crippled, destroyed, or forced to retreat in any of the rounds, it may then fight the crippled D6D normally.
Working through all this, we think the procedure is something like this:
1) Raider fights reacting / defending units for one round; if survives / not driven off, it may continue.
2) The raider fights the base. Defending fighters previously forced to retreat do not participate. The battle lasts one round. The raider can be driven off, crippled, etc. as normal. A "crippled" or "destroyed" would not affect the base (maybe a SIDS step), but means the raider "blew by" the base and can continue in to hit the target. A "retreat" result for the base puts it back inthe raiders hands - continue or leave, kind of a "roll again" result.
3) Normal SSC on the target of the raid.
If this is the case, it needs to be spelled out much clearer in the rules. If not, please clarify.
Thanks!
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:50 pm: Edit
For the record, and this isn't an appeal, this is wrong:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:46 am
Actually, since anything not mentioned/dealt with in the rules is specifically not allowed, a strict reading of the rules (with this absence of a definition) would permit zero PDUs on captured Tholia, not an infinite number.
________________________________________
Reasons why it's wrong:
•
• (508.11) says that planets start with PDU and have a maximium listed in (433.424);
• (508.33) says PDU can be placed on captured planets;
• (511.21) indicates that Tholia is a planet (for F&E purposes).
Hence, captured Tholia may have PDU, subject to any limit mentioned in (433.424). There was no such limit until your ruling, and thus there was no limit on the number of PDU that could be built.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Memo for whoever's doing the Warbook:
You want to have the "anything not permitted by the rules is forbidden" rule right up at the front of the book. In big, bold-faced type.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 12:56 pm: Edit
Does't captured Tholia revert tp the 3 Klingon planets that where there before the Tholians showed up?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 01:19 pm: Edit
The klingons get Tholia + 3 colony planets.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 01:40 pm: Edit
On placing non-Tholian PDU's on Tholia.
I don't believe there is a practical way to do this other than handwavium. When the data comes out on just what a Tholian sphere is you all will probably agree. I think this will need to be specifically rules on by SVC once we finish working out the Sphere details. It is a complex issue. The Sphere is and isn't a planet. It has properties of a planet in a stratigic sense but is extremly different in many other ways. It isn't as easy as dropping a foreign base on a planet surface.
Now, there would be no real limitation to putting a base in orbit around the captured sphere and to be liberated the base would have to be destroyed first before the Tholians could build any sort of PDU of their own.
I suspect that when PD Tholians goes to print a good working draft of a special Tholian Sphere rule for F&E could be printed in whatever CL comes next.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 04:13 pm: Edit
But everybody wants it (the final rule in whatever form it takes) in the warbook, which may be done sometime after Origins...
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 09:39 pm: Edit
Well then, we'll have to get it done in time. I'm up for it. The critical data has been worked out. I spent a day figuring out the raw tonnage of material it take to build one so that I could determine how it was built and where the materials came from. There were lots of REALLY big numbers. I have the artwork done too that is very reveiling. After Origins SVC and I and the whoever can certainly finalize this data. I have the Original F&E specs that is the current draft and I have endevored to stick to those.
Questions like above though are important ones and more should be asked now rather than later.
Maybe there should be a special forum created after Origins.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:47 pm: Edit
Considering that Tholia is a Dyson Sphere you should be able to put the defenses of over 100 Major Planets on it. That means that the real limit of defenses on Tholia is what they can maintain, not what they can buy (Something that's not in F+E). If you want to make your own limit for your personal games, then it's whatever you want to set it at, but officially it's whatever you can put on a captured Capitol planet. I don't know if I would actually want to see new rules published to increase this limitation for just Tholians.
By Stacy Brian Bartley (Bartley) on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 11:53 pm: Edit
I think Tholia should be hard d•mn hard to conquer. And if conquered I'm not sure how much use it would be for non-Tholians. In a way it should be like a web generator-if you capture it you can't make it work.
regards
Stacy
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 12:24 am: Edit
The Tholian Sphere is 25,000 KM in diameter. That's just short of three hexes.
It should be noted that a major planet could hold the defenses of a 100 major planets. It's not like a PDU takes up all that much room. Maybe, at most, the size of a small town.
No, the limitation of PDUs has to do with other factors than ground coverage.
Still, as written, there is a lot of defense on the Tholian Sphere and if you can stand the heat it's a nice place to live.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 12:33 am: Edit
Actually, from what I've read here on the net, since the Ground Based Phaser 4s need their stabilizers deployed and working to fire them, you might not be able to put that many Ph-4s on a planet. You could however put a h*ll of a lot of fighter and bomber bases on them though.
And I agree that the PDU limitations are based on other factors. Probably on the fact that there's no way to take out any planet with 100 PDUs on it.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Hi Nick - question about retreats
Two races attack a base. The defender refuses the appraoch and the attacker decides not to go in but retreats with no combat being fought. Which race is considered to haver provided the command ship for the purposes of retreat priorities?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 01:33 pm: Edit
On the Klingon SIT, for the megafighter packs, there is an (A) and a (B). On the Lyran SIT, there is only the (B). What do those letters mean?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 09:17 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
Question about 410.22. Is salvage the only exception to this rule or are there others. Specifically can Romulans use their cloaks if they were in supply at the beginning of the turn but out of supply at the point of combat.
Also (I'm sure you have ruled on this but am •••••• if I can find it) can a reserve be sent to open a supply route to ships considered to be in supply under 410.22 but with no valid supply path (basically to ensure that salvage is recovered).
Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 04:06 pm: Edit
Nick, another question.
BATS without Fighters is attacked by 2 x Fed FF's and a GMC - this is NORMAL combat and not a Raid
Is Advanced Single Combat used?
As one side has no ships, I would think not?
Compot values are 14 Attack (16 defence) versus 12/12 - so on that value, it technically would be - but ASC states Ships, not bases!
Also, if ASC is used, the G currently doesn't have a value in Single Combat and perhaps a G in the attacking force should be a +1 against a Base.
Thanks
By Ken Watanabe (Watank) on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 01:06 pm: Edit
Update on PO Rulebook printings differences:
We'll need to grab a 3rd set from someone to do the side-by-side comparisons - the PO rulebook I ordered earlier this month (loose-leaf, 3-hole punched) has some differences (p5 LSM note, p16 minor planet name in 533.412)... but the text in (619.21) matches my old rulebook (picked up Origins 2005) WRT Lyran Far Stars AND Home Fleet being unreleased on T1/F168.
I'm beginning to think a spot-check on rulesbooks during Wed night setup would be good to see if there are any other printing versions (I'm counting 3 now)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:01 pm: Edit
Nick...a Z-FFK moves from 1504 to 1404 to pin a K-F5....this mvt triggers reaction from a D7 and a F5S from two hexes away and they react to 1405.
The FFK has ended its mvt due to being pinned. Can the D7 and F5S react into 1404 now? In other words, does a pinned ship still pulse for the remaining mvt allwwing a reacting ship to enter the hex?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:17 pm: Edit
Dave - IIRC Nick said pinned pulses are reactable. It was within the last 2 or 3 months so you may want to look back a bit.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 10:44 pm: Edit
...another Warbook item...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:52 pm: Edit
Roger D. Morgan:
A hydran THR with Prime Team raids a Klingon BATS with full fighter squadron and a crippled D6D. Another D6D reacts into the hex.
The D6D and ship equivalent of fighters choose to fight the THR under (314.244) and (318.72) - Small Force Single Ship Combat (SFSSC), leading to the first question -
1) Does the Prime Team (PT) impart a +2 to the COMPOT of the THR as per (522.3) AND a +1 to the SFSSC roll as per (318.74) OR just the +1 to the SFSSC roll? The rules for Prime Teams for raids, Single Ship Combat, and Prime Team embarkation seem to support the former.
Aditionally, is there a maximum modifier to the Small Ship Combat roll? A PT on a ship like a THR or DNL almost instantly gives it a +2 on the
roll from the COMPOT differential modifier and the PT bonus. PTs become huge force multipliers in a raid - but begs the question, how are they
effective if you are fighting only fighters? Beam over and strap a limpet to the outside of a fighter?
We continued the fight as the THR having both and rolled a 4 for SFSSC, resulting in a defender Retreats result (+1 for Prime Team offset by -1 for the scout function of the D6D), leading to the second question -
2) On a SFSSC retreat result, what is the procedure for the base's fighters? The D6D retreats out of the hex, but the fighters cannot. Do they retreat back to the base, able to participate in defending the base or are they in the hex, but at a different location and not able to defend the base on the next step of the raid?
We continued on with the fighters not present at the base as the THR exercises its option under (314.28) to go after the Crippled D6D.
However, (314.254) states that the raider must first fight the base, which leads to a bunch more questions -
3) Is the BATS - ftrs vs. THR w/ PT battle a single round Single Ship Combat fight? If so, how would the result of "crippled" or "destroyed" be applied to the BATS ("retreat" seems to be answered by the last line in (318.74), but only to determine if the raider can carry on with the attack - or get a negative result applied to itself)? If not, is it multiple rounds with accumulation of +/- points? If this same scenario were against a SB, the SFSSC would apply because the SB has more than
14 attack factors, making a raid on a SB a no-win situation; however, a BATS without fighters makes this a Single Ship Combat qualifier - if a
base fights a single raider using SSC or not.
ANSWER: You cannot use small scale combat with the base. The raid rules require you to use (318.7) to resolve the raid battle. Rule
(318.71) does not apply as a base is not a ship or ship equivalent, one side has a ship (plus prime team and fighters), the other side has a
ship equivalent (fighter squadron) and a base (neither a ship nor a ship equivalent), so you go on to rule (318.72). This rule also does
not apply for the same reason. So on to (318.73) which forces you back to the normal combat procedure. This is necessary as the small scale combat rules cannot account for SIDS steps as you noted.
Similarly, note rule (314.253) that requires a (single in this case) round of NORMAL combat vs. a base. A similar situation vs PDUs/PGBs, as they cannot "retreat" or be crippled as well.
===========================
James Southcott:
Two races attack a base. The defender refuses the appraoch and the attacker decides not to go in but retreats with no combat being fought.
Which race is considered to haver provided the command ship for the purposes of retreat priorities?
ANSWER: You would have to use the advanced rule (302.761) which has no such requirement. You cannot meet the requirement, so that would be the only option.
=============================
Robert Padilla:
On the Klingon SIT, for the megafighter packs, there is an (A) and a (B). On the Lyran SIT, there is only the (B). What do those letters
mean?
ANSWER: I am looking at both my Planetary Ops SIT, and the on-line SIT, and I cannot find these letters anywhere, so perhaps they mean nothing? Are they in a particular column, or part of an entry, or where are they?
===========================
James Southcott:
Question about 410.22. Is salvage the only exception to this rule or are there others. Specifically can Romulans use their cloaks if they were in supply at the beginning of the turn but out of supply at the point of combat.
ANSWER: I believe they can, as rule (410.22) says in supply at the start of the turn gives you supply for the COMBAT PHASE, so if it happens in that phase you get supply. Also note that some functions require supply (covered by this rule), and some functions require an actual supply path (not covered by this rule).
Also (I'm sure you have ruled on this but am •••••• if I can find it) can a reserve be sent to open a supply route to ships considered to be
in supply under 410.22 but with no valid supply path (basically to ensure that salvage is recovered).
ANSWER: Yes, you can, this is in the master errata file.
==========================
Paul Howard:
BATS without Fighters is attacked by 2 x Fed FF's and a GMC - this is NORMAL combat and not a Raid Is Advanced Single Combat used?
As one side has no ships, I would think not?
ANSWER: A base is not a ship so no smale scale combat, see similar question above.
==========================
Dave Whiteside:
A Z-FFK moves from 1504 to 1404 to pin a K-F5....this mvt triggers reaction from a D7 and a F5S from two hexes away and they react to 1405.
The FFK has ended its mvt due to being pinned. Can the D7 and F5S react into 1404 now? In other words, does a pinned ship still pulse for the
remaining mvt allwwing a reacting ship to enter the hex?
ANSWER: Pinned pulses are reactable if the last moving pulse was reactable. If the force moved away from ship A, then was pinned, ship A cannot react to the subsequent pinned pulses. If the force moves toward ship A and was pinned, ship A can react to the subsequent pinned pulses. See (205.16) and (203.64).
========================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:54 pm: Edit
SCREEN TURN ON!
Step 1) process Q&A: DONE!
Step 2) sleep: IMMINENT!
Step 3) depart for origins: YEA!
END TRANSMISSION.
SCREEN TURN OFF!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 04:06 am: Edit
Hi Nick
Hopefully you will get chance to read this while enjoying Origins!
Declined Approach - If the Attacker offers and Approach and is declined, was it ever decided that the Defender can still retreat....your post from 2002 -
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:19 pm: Edit
1) Rule (302.23) says that the attacker must retreat. I don't think the Kzinti can retreat (no combat actually happened, so you don't use (302.71) to determine who retreats, rule (302.23) already tells you that the attacker retreats). If you wanted the defenders to retreat before any combat happened, you could withdraw before combat.
There was various comments but nothing appears to have changed - except the SOP still refers to 'Step 7', which technically gives the defender the right to withdraw.
SVC quoted -
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 10:59 pm: Edit
I can make the case either way.
"Procedures of step 7" to my mind refers to how you select the hex that you will retreat to, not to giving the defender a second retreat option, since you already resolved who is going to retreat and step 71 is irrelevant.
On the other hand, I can see legitimate situations in which a retreat would be plausible, although I'm loathe to give players that much fine control over an issue decided two steps down the command chain. Simply put (since Nick will kick this to me anyway) I cannot decide what I meant or which is better and the staff can prepare position papers for me to review at origins.
I can't see anything in the achive or further comments on this!
So the question is -
If the approach is declined and the Attacker withdrawals, under Step 7 do you ONLY deal with 'Attacker Retreats' and no other elements of that step (i.e. Defender CAN NOT retreat)?
Thanks
Happy hunting!
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 10:54 am: Edit
When is the status of Partial grids assessed?
1) only at the economic phase (phasing player)
2) Continuously
3) at the beginning of either player's economic phase.
4) at the beginning of any phase.
This is crucial for the purposes of retreats. Opmoves can easily allow partial supply grids to have a supply route to the main grid. Does this mean that the partial grid becomes part of the main grid such that ex-partial grid hexes can no longer be eliminated as a retreat option?
Qu 2)
What happens if as a result of retreating to a hex, that hex then becomes part of a newly-formed partial supply grid (the hex of combat being the last supply link)? Could I have eliminated that hex as a retreat option in step 3?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:08 pm: Edit
The Klingon SIT I am looking at is dated 3 May 2005. In the date available column, it has Y177(A) and Y177(B).
The Lyran SIT is dated 3 May 2005. In the date available column it has Y177(B).
On the SITs that are in alphabetical order there is no A or B. They are dated 30 April 2005.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 12:53 pm: Edit
The (A) and (B) are SVC's way of indicating Spring and Fall, respectively. It's done, IIRC, so that the sorting works (although I would have expected that using Y177 and Y177(F) would also result in a correct sort, but with less confusion; I don't know the program being used, however).
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Friday, June 30, 2006 - 05:29 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
Question about retreats. Here's the situation: The Romulans are trying to trap some Fed ships in 4111 behind Romulans lines. A battle has been fought in 4110 and a CON and cripppled SK have retreated to 4010 where there is a second battle.
In 4010 there are an additional 6 or so Romulan ships, the BATS fighters and the fighters from the BATS at 4110 which reacted there during the op move. During the 1 round of combat the Feds do 8 damage.
The Fed ships retreat from 4010 and the Romulans announce retreat as well.
1) Is 4110 a supply source for the retreat from 4010? 302.733 in the errata says that ships retreating from a bae hex can no longer consider taht base a supply source for a subsequent retreat. In the above, only the CON and a crippled SK retreated from 4110. The CON became the command ship for the second battle but it was joined by ships that were already in 4010, never at 4110. Is 302.733 excluding the base at 4110 still in effect?
2) During which step of the SOP are fighters transferred? If the Feds direct on the fighters that were from the 4010 BATS (destroying 4 of them) will the declaration of a retreat send the 6 fighters from 4110 back to their home base, or can 4 of them stay to bring the 4010 BATS up to strength and so stop a retrograde through that hex.
GCE's are transfered during step 5-6x as are fighters that are homeless if a ship/base is destoyed. 501.6 says between combat rounds, which would suggest after retreats are declared and after any pursuit (so carriers which have taken fighter casualties could not be brought up to strength for pursuit?).
Thanks Nick
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 10:03 am: Edit |
July - August 2006 Archive
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 04:30 pm: Edit
Nick:
The folowing rules questions came up, and were ruled upon, in the Hurricane scenario at Origins, and it would probably be useful for everyone to have your final rulings for reference.
===============
Infiltration attempts by resistance movements (537.12): If an infiltration attempt achieves a "crippled" result against an already crippled target, is that target destroyed?
===============
Recapture of provinces held by an enemy under the provisions of long term capture (438.13 and 430.22): Suppose the following situation: The Kzinti eject all Lyran forces from an original Kzinti province that had been held by the Lyrans under LTC, but _not_ yet annexed. At the start of the next Kzinti economic phase, there are still no Lyran forces in the province in question. How many economic points do the Kzinti receive for the province? (i.e. Is the province in question considered Kzinti territory (2EP), or captured Lyran territory (1EP) at this point?)
===============
Strategic movement into a hex adjacent to enemy units (204.223 from the Master Errata File): For clarification, is the count used to determine the legality of strategic movement into such a hex ships, or ship equivalents. (i.e Do fighters count for closing/opening such a hex for use as the final hex of strategic movement, and do crippled ships count at full or at half strength?)
===============
Many thanks Nick.
Cheers,
Jason
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 06:11 pm: Edit
Nick
In the Cloudburst scenario are the fighters on the at start PGV included in the 4 free PGV fighters limit since they are not choosing any of these ships but are being given them? In other words, does the 4 PGV limit that you don't pay for fighters on start when the GAME starts or regardless of how you received them?
The Hydrans have a limitation on the fighters of 4 free PGVs and then they have to pay for the rest of the fighters on the PGVs that they take. If they only have 4 PGVs and one of those is destroyed, will the Old Colonies make a replacement with free fighters or do the Hydrans still have to pay for them?
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:39 am: Edit
Nick,
Are we at a resolution of the CEDS retrograde with only fighter damage issue I had asked about? You had mentioned there was a ruling somewhere in CL, but that was last I saw. If so, I would like to forward my earlier post from 10 JUN 06 on the issue bumped up to Jeff on appeal.
Thanks.
Roger
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:14 pm: Edit
Can an engineer brigade add a third PDU to a colony (like they can add one PDU in excess of the normal limit to a planet)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 03:08 pm: Edit
Given that the Corps of Engineers is a playtest rule, I think you'd do better asking questions about Engineer Brigades in its own topic (at least until the rule gets published).
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 03:13 am: Edit
Is it possible to retreat before combat or withhold ships from combat prior to Small Ship Combat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 08:36 am: Edit
Questions Downloaded
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:34 am: Edit
===================
Paul Howard:
Declined Approach - If the Attacker offers an Approach and is declined, was it ever decided that the Defender can still retreat....your post from 2002 -
By Nick Blank (Nickb) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:19 pm: Edit
1) Rule (302.23) says that the attacker must retreat. I don't think the Kzinti can retreat (no combat actually happened, so you don't use
(302.71) to determine who retreats, rule (302.23) already tells you that the attacker retreats). If you wanted the defenders to retreat before any combat happened, you could withdraw before combat.
There was various comments but nothing appears to have changed - except the SOP still refers to 'Step 7', which technically gives the defender the right to withdraw.
SVC quoted -
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 10:59 pm: Edit
I can make the case either way.
"Procedures of step 7" to my mind refers to how you select the hex that you will retreat to, not to giving the defender a second retreat option, since you already resolved who is going to retreat and step 71 is irrelevant.
On the other hand, I can see legitimate situations in which a retreat would be plausible, although I'm loathe to give players that much fine control over an issue decided two steps down the command chain. Simply put (since Nick will kick this to me anyway) I cannot decide what I meant or which is better and the staff can prepare position papers for me to review at origins.
I can't see anything in the achive or further comments on this!
So the question is -
If the approach is declined and the Attacker withdrawals, under Step 7 do you ONLY deal with 'Attacker Retreats' and no other elements of that step (i.e. Defender CAN NOT retreat)?
ANSWER: We didn't discuss this at Origins, so I will have to e-mail it to Jeff and Steve and see what they say.
=========================
David Slatter:
When is the status of Partial grids assessed?
1) only at the economic phase (phasing player)
2) Continuously
3) at the beginning of either player's economic phase.
4) at the beginning of any phase.
This is crucial for the purposes of retreats. Opmoves can easily allow partial supply grids to have a supply route to the main grid. Does this
mean that the partial grid becomes part of the main grid such that ex-partial grid hexes can no longer be eliminated as a retreat option?
ANSWER: Right, for that purpose you essentially assess the status at the time the retreat happens. There is no defined point in the sequence of play when partial grids are created/rejoined to the main grid as this can happen at many points. There are defined points for moving things like EPs and tug pods into/out of the grid, but the grid itself can be formed/destroyed at many points.
Qu 2)
What happens if as a result of retreating to a hex, that hex then becomes part of a newly-formed partial supply grid (the hex of combat
being the last supply link)? Could I have eliminated that hex as a retreat option in step 3?
ANSWER: I think you could eliminate that hex. All other substeps of step 3 (a, b, d) are based on what the conditions would be after the retreat, and whild substep c says "are supplied" as opposed to "would be supplied" I think it was meant to work the same way.
=========================
James Southcott:
Question about retreats. Here's the situation: The Romulans are trying to trap some Fed ships in 4111 behind Romulans lines. A battle has been
fought in 4110 and a CON and cripppled SK have retreated to 4010 where there is a second battle.
In 4010 there are an additional 6 or so Romulan ships, the BATS fighters and the fighters from the BATS at 4110 which reacted there during the op move. During the 1 round of combat the Feds do 8 damage.
The Fed ships retreat from 4010 and the Romulans announce retreat as well.
1) Is 4110 a supply source for the retreat from 4010? 302.733 in the errata says that ships retreating from a bae hex can no longer consider
taht base a supply source for a subsequent retreat. In the above, only the CON and a crippled SK retreated from 4110. The CON became the command ship for the second battle but it was joined by ships that were already in 4010, never at 4110. Is 302.733 excluding the base at 4110 still in effect?
ANSWER: It is still in effect.
2) During which step of the SOP are fighters transferred? If the Feds direct on the fighters that were from the 4010 BATS (destroying 4 of
them) will the declaration of a retreat send the 6 fighters from 4110 back to their home base, or can 4 of them stay to bring the 4010 BATS up to strength and so stop a retrograde through that hex. GCE's are transfered during step 5-6x as are fighters that are homeless if a ship/base is destoyed. 501.6 says between combat rounds, which would suggest after retreats are declared and after any pursuit (so carriers which have taken fighter casualties could not be brought up to strength for pursuit?).
ANSWER: Between combat rounds means you could transfer them after the last regular combat round, and before retreat/pursuit (remember that pursuit is another combat round with special rules). You can transfer fighters between regular combat and pursuit as far as I know.
=======================
Jason E. Schaff:
The folowing rules questions came up, and were ruled upon, in the Hurricane scenario at Origins, and it would probably be useful for
everyone to have your final rulings for reference.
Infiltration attempts by resistance movements (537.12): If an infiltration attempt achieves a "crippled" result against an already
crippled target, is that target destroyed?
ANSWER: Sure. The rule says exactly that: If the result is a "10" the ship is crippled (a crippled ship would be destroyed). I don't remember this one from Origins, but it is right there in the rules in the rule number you gave me above.
Recapture of provinces held by an enemy under the provisions of long term capture (438.13 and 430.22): Suppose the following situation: The
Kzinti eject all Lyran forces from an original Kzinti province that had been held by the Lyrans under LTC, but _not_ yet annexed. At the start
of the next Kzinti economic phase, there are still no Lyran forces in the province in question. How many economic points do the Kzinti
receive for the province? (i.e. Is the province in question considered Kzinti territory (2EP), or captured Lyran territory (1EP) at this point?)
ANSWER: It is Kzinti territory (2EP), the only way for it to be captured Lyran territory at that point is for the Lyrans to have annexed it earlier.
Strategic movement into a hex adjacent to enemy units (204.223) from the Master Errata File): For clarification, is the count used to determine the legality of strategic movement into such a hex ships, or ship equivalents. (i.e Do fighters count for closing/opening such a hex for use as the final hex of strategic movement, and do crippled ships count at full or at half strength?)
ANSWER: I believe I said (correct me if I'm remembering wrong) all ships count as ships, since the rule does not mention ship equivalents or crippled ships. For this rule ships are ships. Crippled ships are ships. Ship equivalents are not ships.
==========================
Michael Lui:
In the Cloudburst scenario are the fighters on the at start PGV included in the 4 free PGV fighters limit since they are not choosing
any of these ships but are being given them? In other words, does the 4 PGV limit that you don't pay for fighters on start when the GAME starts
or regardless of how you received them?
ANSWER: I would imagine the first ones count against your freebies regardless of whether you chose them or started the scenario with them.
The Hydrans have a limitation on the fighters of 4 free PGVs and then they have to pay for the rest of the fighters on the PGVs that they
take. If they only have 4 PGVs and one of those is destroyed, will the Old Colonies make a replacement with free fighters or do the Hydrans
still have to pay for them?
ANSWER: You get the first four free PGVs with free fighters as well. A fifth, sixth, etc... PGV is still free itself, but you pay for their fighters, even if an earlier free one had been destroyed. The rule allows four freebie PGV fighter squadrons received, not necessarily in service, if you lose them then they are gone.
============================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Are we at a resolution of the CEDS retrograde with only fighter damage issue I had asked about? You had mentioned there was a ruling somewhere in CL, but that was last I saw. If so, I would like to forward my earlier post from 10 JUN 06 on the issue bumped up to Jeff on appeal.
ANSWER: I am away from my cap logs until next week, but will find the ruling then.
============================
Derek Meserve:
Can an engineer brigade add a third PDU to a colony (like they can add one PDU in excess of the normal limit to a planet)?
ANSWER: please put this in the engineer brigade topic, so it can be incorporated in the rule when it is finalized, it will get lost here. I don't know the answer until Steve writes the rule so....
=============================
Grant Strong:
Is it possible to retreat before combat or withhold ships from combat prior to Small Ship Combat?
ANSWER: Depends. In a regular combat hex, withdrawal and force determination are done before checking the actual battle forces of a given round to see if you need small scale combat. In raids, these functions effectively don't happen, you are often directed immediately to the combat step.
================================
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:38 am: Edit
If a Tug starts the strategic movement phase on a SMN, can it strategic move to another SMN that has an FRD at it, pick that FRD up, and then move it the 12 hexes allowed?
That same question, but for MBs? (i.e. can a Tug strategic move to a location with an unassembled MB, pick it up, and then SM somewhere and set up the base?)
Thanks,
-Peter
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:12 pm: Edit
Can the Tholians upgrade their BATTS and why wouldn't they if they can?
I mean, if the Tholians can hold off from being attacked why couldn't they start upgrading their BATTS to Sector Bases or even Starbases?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:45 am: Edit
===========================
Peter D Bakija:
If a Tug starts the strategic movement phase on a SMN, can it strategic move to another SMN that has an FRD at it, pick that FRD up, and then move it the 12 hexes allowed?
ANSWER: Yes.
That same question, but for MBs? (i.e. can a Tug strategic move to a location with an unassembled MB, pick it up, and then SM somewhere and set up the base?)
ANSWER: Yes.
=====================
Loren Knight:
Can the Tholians upgrade their BATTS and why wouldn't they if they can?
I mean, if the Tholians can hold off from being attacked why couldn't they start upgrading their BATTS to Sector Bases or even Starbases?
ANSWER: Like any other race, they can upgrade their bases when the fleet setup area containing said base is released. Inactive areas cannot upgrade bases.
==========================
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:36 am: Edit
But they never did historically, did they? Well, not prior to Y205 anyway.
Hmmm...
Now I need to look up to see if it's cheeper to go to X-BATTS or a Sector Base.
Thanks Nick.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:58 am: Edit
If the Tholians fleets are released, it means they are being attacked. Could the really afford to upgrade bases when they are under attack?
-Peter
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:43 am: Edit
Wait, so unless they are attacked they cannot build up their forces at all?
That makes sense for sector senario (particularly for the bigger races) but it makes no sense for a campaign. I guess no one plays only the Tholians and the rules are more automatic.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit
Loren wrote:
>>Wait, so unless they are attacked they cannot build up their forces at all? >>
The Tholians (and everyone else) have a set Pre War Construction schedule, where as there is a war going on around them, they get a certain number of ships added to their forces per turn automatically, so if they are attacked on Turn X, they have Y ships available. But the Hydrans, Feds, Romulans, and Gorns have the same PWC schedule.
But until someone is actually at war (they are attacked ot attack someone), the PWC is set and their fleets are unreleased. Bases in unreleased fleet areas can't be upgraded until the fleet there is released. So essentially, yeah, the Tholians can't upgrade any of their bases till someone attacks them. Or until theoretically, they attack someone, but as most scenarios are written, the Tholians don't ever attack anyone.
>>hat makes sense for sector senario (particularly for the bigger races) but it makes no sense for a campaign. I guess no one plays only the Tholians and the rules are more automatic.>>
Correct. In reality, as most F+E games go, the Tholians rarely even bother having counters on the map, as the Coalition never attacks them. Sometimes, under the more recent rules where there is actually a resonable incentive for the Klingons to capture Tholia, they'll be attacked. But mostly, the Tholians are a total non issue in most historical F+E campaigns.
-Peter
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 01:53 pm: Edit
Without my rules at the moment, but don't the tholians join the alliance for a few turns (until the selts show up) if not attacked previously? The Tholians just don't have that much money, and it is up to the player controlling them whether to spend it on a base upgrade or more ships...
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 04:38 pm: Edit
It is possible that in one of the more recent expansions (Planetary Ops?) that the Tholians get to join the Alliance late in the game, but I haven't seen that yet :-)
-Peter
By Chris Mannall (Cmannall) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 05:22 pm: Edit
Nick/Peter: Never mind the expansion, it's in F&E 2000 (possibly the earlier versions too, but I'm a fairly new player and don't have those). Check rule 604.151.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 07:03 pm: Edit
I have to wonder if the Tholians ever upgrade their bases to X-Tech. Perhaps post-GW. I would think it prudent but perhaps that is a question for Background Q&A.
Thanks for the replies guys.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 09:22 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
APPEALS RULED ON BY JEFF.
All of these were sent on to SVC as well for Caplog 33.
Q1) Why is the Hydran BB a true carrier instead of a hybrid carrier (as per former cap log ruling) like other Hydran ships?
A1) Hydran BB. Since this is already in print, it has to be appealed to Steve. I would point out to him that G2 does not list it with the "True Carrier" note, so either: a) it has to pay the carrier price for fighters like all other BBs and unlike Hydran hybrids, or b) it must be escorted unlike all other BBs.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick
A1) Hydran BB. Thanks, I couldn't ask for more....Well, then again...
Depending on the ruling:
A) If it has to have CV factors and count as an Oversized Squadron, can it then be in a CVBG as the large CV and a CVE as the small one (a total of 12 factors/2 squadrons)? Normally 318.435 prohibits this, but I believe that's because people would want to include BBs as the CVL/CVE and the Monarch with an oversized squadron would not be able to be classified as a CVL or CVE.
B) If it has hybrid factors but must be escorted, can it use normal CV escorts (i.e. AH, DE, etc.)? And how many?
C) If the ruling is changed so it has hybrid factors and does not need to be escorted, can it still be escorted as a CV or would it have to use the FEG rules?
________________________________________
Nick
Sorry, but since I will not be able to get a copy of CL#33 here in Hawaii for 2 months can you print the ruling from it for me and then answer my questions?
Thanks.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:59 am: Edit
OK, I ask about this in Background Q&A and here's the result:
==============
SVC: I've got a Tholian background question. When might the Tholians start, if ever, upgrading their BATTS to X1?
Post-GW seems likely, even while being involved in Operation Unity. Actually, that seems the perfect time to conduct such an upgrade. Their input into Unity is limited and they know they will not likely be attacked by any of their neighbors. Perhaps they were gearing up during the ISC war but delayed that because of that possible threat so they put all of their X-EP into ships.
=====================
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:10 am: Edit
No idea, Loren, you might ask the F&E guys. Whatever I decide, they;ll change it anyway.
====================
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit
I was discussing it with them but I guess they couldn't really answer either becuase it would turn to the question of "When does anyone get to have their BATTS converted to X-Tech?" and since Tholians aren't on the top of anyones stratigic interest list the larger question would have to be answered first. Sigh.
========================
So I'm back here to ask but I fear that since the era of Op Unity (and ISC war) aren't written yet, you would be reluctant to say anything about the stratigic condition of the Holdfast.
But then maybe it's obvious that the Tholians would take the opertunity to upgrade all their bases to X-Tech. I can tell you from a sociological stand point they would very much want to do this. The threat of growing X-tech forces makes them uncomfortable to say the least. Even though they are allied with their former enemies they cannot trust that they will be safe after the assault is over (win or lose). Their ancient history prooves to them that no alliance will stand forever and that all Biologicals will betray you eventually.
Would it at least be allowable to say that during Op Unity the had begun a X-Upgrade program of their bases?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 12:10 pm: Edit
Loren: No race can upgrade it's bases prior to entering a war, be they the aggressor or defender.
Historically, as mentioned in a CL story somewhere in the 20's, all of the Tholian bases outside of the Capital were destroyed during the opening phases of Operation Nutcracker. This happened before the Tholians recieved X Tech.
As mentioned in the F&E scenario "Winds of Fire" in Advanced Operations, all of the Tholian bases were rebuilt by this time (Y181?). At this point, the Tholians are full Alliance members and can spend their resources as they choose. I would imagine that until the Tholians withdraw to deal with the Selts, they were interested in fielding offensive units. After the Selts showed up, they probably started upgrading all their defences as best that they could.
However, upgrading all five border BATS to SBX's is way too much for the Tholian economy to support while fighting back against the Selts, IMHO.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 07:19 am: Edit
Nick,
Your response to my question
"Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Are we at a resolution of the CEDS retrograde with only fighter damage issue I had asked about? You had mentioned there was a ruling somewhere in CL, but that was last I saw. If so, I would like to forward my earlier post from 10 JUN 06 on the issue bumped up to Jeff on appeal.
ANSWER: I am away from my cap logs until next week, but will find the ruling then"
wasn't about finding the actual CL. I, too, am away from my CLs, but will be back in country in 10 days and will look, too. What I was hoping for was that if the ruling is actually that you can CEDS retrograde based on soley fighter damage, I would like that particular ruling appealed per the procedure above based on the arguments I posted on 10 JUN.
Thanks.
Roger
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 05:31 pm: Edit
Well, the appeal process is for my answers here, in case I screw up. They get appealed to Jeff Laikind/Steve Cole. He can then change my answer if he thinks it is wrong.
The rulings in cap log are already approved by Steve Cole before printing (i.e. already approved by the top of the appeal chain). So an appeal doesn't really work for something already published in cap log, unless it is proved to cause a problem or leave a loophole that needs fixing.
What you want I guess is a rules change, which normally goes in the rules changes/proposals topic, but perhaps it should go in the warbook topic these days? You would have to make a case for the change, asking Steve to change it just for the sake of making a change isn't likely to happen.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 12:18 am: Edit
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/11825.html?MondayOctober1720051123am#POST271001
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 10:35 am: Edit
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).
===================================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 05:13 pm: Edit
Yes, I said that. I think I am wrong though, based on a cap log entry (still have to find it) that said something to the effect of: "such and such new ship type/unit can retrograde on the opposing player turn just like any carrier that used its fighters in combat."
But I don't know which is really right, what do you think Jeff? I am not really stuck to a particular one, but the rules as written support my old post you put up above.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 08:49 pm: Edit
So as it might actually happen in the game I'm playing right now--what happens if the Hydrans succeed in the expedition on Alliance T6? Does it have any actual effect (as the Klingons attack the Feds on Coalition T7 anyway)?
Thanks,
-Peter
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 10:27 pm: Edit
I think that's what you call a pyrrhic victory
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 12:10 am: Edit
I once had an expedition succeed on T6A. The way we played it was that the Feds got a full T6A. However, I don't remember if that was based on a ruling or just a house rule.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 09:15 am: Edit
The rules say something like "If the Hydrans activate the Feds on an alliance turn, the Feds are at 50% that turn (spent immediately), 75% the next turn and 100% thereafter."
I interpret that to mean the Fed gets the EP left after his T6 PWC builds to build something else (like PDUs for vulnerable planets), and they then get to manuever the Home, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and elements of the 5th fleets into something approaching a defensive posture, set up MBs, etc... (Unlike that ridiculous "we don't want to upset the Klingons, they may attack" posture they maintain for turns 1-6.) Oh, and the COMCON back from the Marquis should be reaching the 4th fleet SB on turn 6, so that's another 10 EP that doesn't have to wait a turn.
By Scott Burleson (Burl) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 10:37 am: Edit
I know we always played that since it was after construction, the Feds could not do what Matt described, but I am not sure if we ever saw a ruling. The rule that he is quoting is a little confusing. The Fed's can move strategically, though, and I think we played they could with the Home Fleet which does allow them to have a much better posture against the Klingon for the turn 7 attack, so it is worthwhile but not as overpowering as the turn 5 activiation.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 11:07 am: Edit
Nick,
Can a Pursuing Force use Option 1 for a captured ship (305.21)?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 12:20 pm: Edit
Don't the rules say that the Feds can immediately do their turn (the very second that the Hydrans cross the border) regardless of what phase the game is on?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 02:00 pm: Edit
... and one other thing. You get to use the T8 builds for the Feds on turn 6, with T9 builds on turn 7 and then T10 and later builds starting with T8.
But, that's assuming that "spent immediately" means what I believe it means. Nick may have a different interpretation.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 02:08 pm: Edit
Nick,
Now I have a question. If the Orion Enclave is neutral, and the Feds close off the supply path, they capture the ship in the enclave. That much is clear.
Is it crippled?
If not, then if I scrap it, do I get half the crippled defense factor or do I get half the uncrippled defense factor as EP?
503.5 is silent on this. 305 assumes every captured ship is crippled first, but if the ship was interned, I'm not sure that it would be necessary to cripple it in order to capture it.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 03:45 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
Two questions: Fed fleet in 0101, coaltion fleet in 0102 and the Coaltion raids 0103. Can a ship from 0101 react through 0102 to get to 0103 or would it be pinned?.
Also during the coalltion turn a fed planet is captured. This becomes a supply point at the beginning of the next player turn. If this is the only coaltion supply point with a route to the Orion Enclave (with a coaltion ship in it), does it remain neutral during the Fed turn (assessing the status of the Orions and the planet becoming a COaltion supply source seem to happen at the same time in the SOP)?
Thanks
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 01:23 am: Edit
A couple questions about the Hydran Expedition which is about to succeed on T6 in the game I am currently playing as the Coalition :-)
-As I understand it, the fully fleshed out rules for what happens to the Feds when the Hydran ship enters Fed space is in CL 27. Has anything changed since then?
-As the Feds are going to certainly be activated on T6 (Alliance), can the Klingons attack the Feds on T6 (Coalition)? I don't think they can (as all indications point to that the Klingons are forbidden from entering Fed space till T7 (Coalition). But maybe I missed something?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 09:35 am: Edit
Apparently, the fleshed out Expedition rules are *not* in CL27. Anyone know what CL it is in?
-Peter
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:26 am: Edit
Hey PDB try pg.110 of CL#26...it may be what you're thinking of.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 11:25 am: Edit
Lar,
Thanks!
-Peter
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 02:18 pm: Edit
Nick - was anything further decided for the ultimate raid?
If not (and there are only interim provisions of the Q&A archive) I assume it is possible for the Roms to switch off their cloak and conduct the raid normally. Otherwise the fix at the moment allows alliance ships to avoid the consequence of a raid completely:
If the Klingons raided a single Fed FF and make it the target of a 314.28 attack the ship can't avoid battle. If the Romulans do the same thing and are forced to use a cloaked raid, then under the fix the FF can be excused from the hunt, making it inelligible for the target of the raid.
Assuming the Romulans can decide to conduct an uncloaked raid, at what point would they decide which to do? Would it be declared before or after the alliance have decided which ships to react into the target hex?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 12:52 am: Edit
Nick,
During a Gorn offensive, a fleet passes through 4309, the Romulans react the fighters off of BATS 4310 and the Gorns leave behind a DD and continue on.
The Romulans then send their reserves to 4309, destroying the DD. Can the Roms then attack and conquer the minor planet there?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:07 am: Edit
Ok, more on the Expedition.
Rule (601.14) states that if the Hydrans enter Fed territory, the Feds join the Alliance and can attack the Klingons immediately. If they enter on an Alliance turn (as is going to happen in the current game on A6), the Feds are at 50% econ immediately, 75% the next turn, and 100% the turn after that. There is no discussion in this rule in regards to the Fed build schedule being moved forward or anything of the like.
In CL#26 (p110), there is a clarifying article on the early Fed entry into the war. It details everything that the Feds build for the first X turns of the game with their PWC. From my understanding of these two rules sections, her is what I think is going to happen when the Hydrans hit Fed space:
-Alliance T6. Hydrans move a ship from the neutral zone into Fed space during operational movement. The Feds suddenly get activated. They instantly generate 110.5 EPs (50% economy). As it is after the production phase, they can't build ships, but have already built (during "pre-war" production of T6) a CVA group, 3xNCL, 3xFF, FFS, and the cost of these ships are subtracted from the 110.5 EPs available to the Feds, who can use the rest of the money for movement/combat/post combat expenses and just to save for the next turn. The Feds can then move the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fleets, attack the Klingons, and so on. On Alliance T7, the Feds generate 75% of their economy and build their normal T7 build schedule (DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF), and procede normally from there, generating 100% income on T8+
Is this a correct understanding of what happens if a Hydran ship enters Fed space on operational movement of Alliance Turn 6?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit
Except that 50% economy is, essentially, Peace economy and you can't save the money (except what you can load onto tugs).
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 01:04 pm: Edit
>>Except that 50% economy is, essentially, Peace economy and you can't save the money (except what you can load onto tugs).>>
From CL#26 (p110):
"As noted in (601.14), the Federation receives a percentage of its income for these early turns. If the Federation enters the war on its own turn (after production) then the 50% of the budget pays for the PWCs and anything left over is available for other costs or carried over."
Looks to me like that 50% of the income that is generated when a Hydran ship enters Fed space during operationbal movement of T6 Alliance pays for the PWC and then is left in the Federation coffers for any other costs (drone bombradment, field repair, strategic moves?) and the rest is saved for the next turn.
-Peter
By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 02:00 pm: Edit
I would say that is what "available for other costs or carried over." means.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 03:51 pm: Edit
Ah, I'd missed that bit. I still wonder if it's intentionally different from Peace economy, or if (431.4) got forgotten when the clarification was written.
My ability to get the search function to dance and sing seems to have failed me: has it been asked when in the SoP a race at Peace economy loses unspent EP (and if so, what was the answer)?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 04:48 pm: Edit
>> Ah, I'd missed that bit. I still wonder if it's intentionally different from Peace economy, or if (431.4) got forgotten when the clarification was written.>>
Either is possible, but I'd think that once the Feds are activated by the Hydran Expedition, they are no longer at a Peace Economy, what with attacking the Klingons and all.
-Peter
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 06:01 pm: Edit
By the rules, you can be at Peace economy and attack an enemy. Of course, you can't leave ships in their territory, so doing so for more than one turn is pretty much an exercise in futility (war of devastated zones), but it's legal.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 08:42 pm: Edit
You cannot be at peace and attack anyone. If you are at peace your fleets are in your original territory. The very moment you cross your border into the neutral zone you are at war.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 04:38 am: Edit
Read what I wrote: "at Peace economy". That's a different kettle of fish from political Peace. The rules allow me to be politically at War with everyone (I can attack them, they can attack me), but run a Peace economy at the same time (provided I obey certain restrictions).
The restrictions regarding maintaining Peace economy (can't start the turn with enemy ships inside your territory, or with your ships outside your territory) are such that a successful conflict could not be waged, nor would it be smart to try. It would, however, be legal; the rules allow one to do numerous things that are completely brain-dead ideas (e.g., Feds attack Tholians).
(Note that this primarily applies to Free Campaigns; the only place where it really comes up in the Grand Campaign is if you want the Romulans to shoot themselves in the foot really creatively.)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 09:32 am: Edit
I think I know the answer to this one, but I have to ask since I originally read the rule differently, and it still isn't 100% clear.
307.4 says in part about pursuit battles "The pursuing player by designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for directed damage, and use the special ability of a mauler in resolving this attack."
I had always read that as "and a mauler, if in the pursuit force, can use it's 1:1 damage ability against all ships so grouped."
I'm playing a game now, and my opponent had read that as "and the battle force can direct against all crippled ships at 1:1, even if a mauler isn't used." (And the mauler has a different special option for ship capture.)
Which is the most common interpretation? Which is correct?
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 01:57 pm: Edit
Most common interpretation is that your opponent is taking the ****
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 08:56 pm: Edit
I'd be most curious as to what that phrase actually completes as. "Taking the ......"?
Well, that's a poorly written rule if there ever was one. The problem is, we all had a hand in developing it, and we knew what it was when we wrote it, and so it made total sense to us when we wrote it. Yet there it is, clearly stating that any battleforce can use the special ability of a mauler, without stating it needs a mauler to do that.
The only thing I can think of is when you look into the list of special abilities of the mauler, look at rule 308.47. "As an alternative for being used for directed damage in a pursuit battle, each mauler uses its own die roll to attempt to capture an enemy ship."
The way I see it, if the rules define ship capture as an alternative to being used as directed damage, then that implies it was needed to do that type of directed damage in the first place. That's the best I can come up with for reasoning to justify that the mauler is needed.
Of course, Nick is the one to rule on this, I'm just ruminating, and pointing out 308.47 to Nick if he needs it.
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 08:59 pm: Edit
Sorry - I forget most of you are Yanks. A coloquialism which translates as urine, completes the well know British phrase.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 03:32 pm: Edit
questions downloaded
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:03 am: Edit
===========================
Loren Knight:
Wait, so unless they are attacked they cannot build up their forces at all?
That makes sense for sector senario (particularly for the bigger races) but it makes no sense for a campaign. I guess no one plays only the Tholians and the rules are more automatic.
ANSWER: Yes, rule (604.151) in the F&E2K rulebook allows the tholians to join the alliance from turn 22 thru turn 28. Otherwise, they can only build up bases when attacked.
===========================
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 09:22 am: Edit
Monarch BB:
A) If it has to have CV factors and count as an Oversized Squadron, can it then be in a CVEG as the large CV and a CVE as the small one (a total of 12 factors/2 squadrons)? Normally 318.435 prohibits this, but I believe that's because people would want to include BBs as the CVL/CVE and the Monarch with an oversized squadron would not be able to be classified as a CVL or CVE.
ANSWER: As a battleship it cannot be part of a CVEG as per (318.435). BBVs and SDSs can be though.
B) If it has hybrid factors but must be escorted, can it use normal CV escorts (i.e. AH, DE, etc.)? And how many?
ANSWER: It has regular fighter factors (not hybrid, see Cap Log 23 page 108, Q2201) and is a single ship carrier. As such it can have one or two escorts under (515.42). It is not considered an oversized squadron as far as I know.
C) If the ruling is changed so it has hybrid factors and does not need to be escorted, can it still be escorted as a CV or would it have to use the FEG rules?
ANSWER: It is a single ship carrier and can have one or two (or no) escorts.
Sorry, but since I will not be able to get a copy of CL#33 here in Hawaii for 2 months can you print the ruling from it for me and then answer my questions?
ANSWER: Unfortunately it did not make it into cap log 33, Steve removed that page of Q&A for other material. Does the above answer your questions?
==================================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
ANSWER: I didn't find the one I was looking for, but I did find:
Cap Log 22 page 104 Q510
Q: Can I retrograde an undamaged carrier?
A: Only if it had its escorts (assigned before battle) crippled or destroyed.
Now that ruling makes sense with the way the rules are written, so if no one has a fit that is what I will rule, you cannot retrograde based solely on fighter damage. The other ruleing was on something else and only mentioned the fighter damage thing in an offhand manner, so I will assume it was incorrect in that regard.
===================================
Peter D Bakija:
So as it might actually happen in the game I'm playing right now--what happens if the Hydrans succeed in the expedition on Alliance T6? Does it have any actual effect (as the Klingons attack the Feds on Coalition T7 anyway)?
ANSWER: Rule (601.14) says if the Feds are activated on an Alliance turn, they get 50% economy that same turn spent immediately. Now CapLog 26 page 110 says that since you are past the regular production step, you get that 50% minus what was needed for that turns PWC, PWC turn by turn is also in caplog 26 for the feds, but you cannot build mor stuff since production is over. You could spend it on things that happen from that point in the turn onward (which may be limited depending on when the activation occurs). YOu do get to carry over any money not spent to the next turn, and you would get to move in whatever phases were left, such as strat moves. You could buy more strat moves, for example with that money to help prepare your defenses.
====================================
Tim Losberg: Can a Pursuing Force use Option 1 for a captured ship (305.21)?
ANSWER: No, a crippled ship cannot pursue.
===================================
Matthew G. Smith:
If the Orion Enclave is neutral, and the Feds close off the supply path, they capture the ship in the enclave. That much is clear.
Is it crippled?
ANSWER: It would not be crippled. But, the rule 305.22 says when scrapped you get EPs equal to half the crippled defense factor, it does not specify that this ship in question is actually crippled. I.e. you get the same amount for scrapping whether the captured ship is crippled or not.
========================================
James Southcott:
Two questions: Fed fleet in 0101, coaltion fleet in 0102 and the Coaltion raids 0103. Can a ship from 0101 react through 0102 to get to 0103 or would it be pinned?.
ANSWER: Rule (314.241) says reacting ships follow all normal rules, so yes, it could react but would be pinned.
Also during the coalition turn a fed planet is captured. This becomes a supply point at the beginning of the next player turn. If this is the only coaltion supply point with a route to the Orion Enclave (with a coaltion ship in it), does it remain neutral during the Fed turn (assessing the status of the Orions and the planet becoming a COaltion supply source seem to happen at the same time in the SOP)?
ANSWER: First, the partial supply grid must pay the EP cost of supplying ships for the supply path to be valid. It would then be neutral as far as I can see.
==========================================
Peter D Bakija:
A couple questions about the Hydran Expedition which is about to succeed on T6 in the game I am currently playing as the Coalition :-)
-As I understand it, the fully fleshed out rules for what happens to the Feds when the Hydran ship enters Fed space is in CL 27. Has anything changed since then?
ANSWER: actually it is Caplog 26, page 110. It is all still valid.
-As the Feds are going to certainly be activated on T6 (Alliance), can the Klingons attack the Feds on T6 (Coalition)? I don't think they can (as all indications point to that the Klingons are forbidden from entering Fed space till T7 (Coalition). But maybe I missed something?
ANSWER: No, since the feds join the war at some midpoint of alliance turn 6, coalition turn 6 is already complete. They were not at war at coalition turn 6, and the coalition is not authorized to attack yet (normally turn 7 as you note).
========================================
James Southcott:
Nick - was anything further decided for the ultimate raid?
If not (and there are only interim provisions of the Q&A archive) I assume it is possible for the Roms to switch off their cloak and conduct the raid normally. Otherwise the fix at the moment allows alliance ships to avoid the consequence of a raid completely:
If the Klingons raided a single Fed FF and make it the target of a 314.28 attack the ship can't avoid battle. If the Romulans do the same thing and are forced to use a cloaked raid, then under the fix the FF can be excused from the hunt, making it inelligible for the target of the raid.
Assuming the Romulans can decide to conduct an uncloaked raid, at what point would they decide which to do? Would it be declared before or after the alliance have decided which ships to react into the target hex?
ANSWER: I would say you can chose to make a normal raid or a "cloaked raid." This choice would be stated when placing the raiding ship in the raid hex, before any reaction, i.e. it would be known if the ship entered the raid hex cloaked or uncloaked.
=================================
Tim Losberg:
During a Gorn offensive, a fleet passes through 4309, the Romulans react the fighters off of BATS 4310 and the Gorns leave behind a DD and continue on.
The Romulans then send their reserves to 4309, destroying the DD. Can the Roms then attack and conquer the minor planet there?
ANSWER: Yes they can attack the planet. It is possible to have both sides attack the same neutral planet at the same time, see (503.63).
==================================
Peter D Bakija:
Rule (601.14) states that if the Hydrans enter Fed territory, the Feds join the Alliance and can attack the Klingons immediately. If they enter on an Alliance turn (as is going to happen in the current game on A6), the Feds are at 50% econ immediately, 75% the next turn, and 100% the turn after that. There is no discussion in this rule in regards to the Fed build schedule being moved forward or anything of the like.
In CL#26 (p110), there is a clarifying article on the early Fed entry into the war. It details everything that the Feds build for the first X turns of the game with their PWC. From my understanding of these two rules sections, her is what I think is going to happen when the Hydrans hit Fed space:
-Alliance T6. Hydrans move a ship from the neutral zone into Fed space during operational movement. The Feds suddenly get activated. They instantly generate 110.5 EPs (50% economy). As it is after the production phase, they can't build ships, but have already built (during "pre-war" production of T6) a CVA group, 3xNCL, 3xFF, FFS, and the cost of these ships are subtracted from the 110.5 EPs available to the Feds, who can use the rest of the money for movement/combat/post combat expenses and just to save for the next turn. The Feds can then move the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fleets, attack the Klingons, and so on. On Alliance T7, the Feds generate 75% of their economy and build their normal T7 build schedule (DN, CA, 3xNCL, 3xFF), and procede normally from there, generating 100% income on T8+
Is this a correct understanding of what happens if a Hydran ship enters Fed space on operational movement of Alliance Turn 6?
ANSWER: Looks good to me.
===============================
Dave Butler:
Except that 50% economy is, essentially, Peace economy and you can't save the money (except what you can load onto tugs).
ANSWER: Yes, they can save it. They are at war, but with a special limit on their income. It is a peacetime limit, but under the wartime restrictions on its use, so they can save it turn to turn. See cap log 26.
================================
Peter D Bakija:
>>Except that 50% economy is, essentially, Peace economy and you can't save the money (except what you can load onto tugs).>>
From CL#26 (p110):
"As noted in (601.14), the Federation receives a percentage of its income for these early turns. If the Federation enters the war on its own turn (after production) then the 50% of the budget pays for the PWCs and anything left over is available for other costs or carried over."
Looks to me like that 50% of the income that is generated when a Hydran ship enters Fed space during operationbal movement of T6 Alliance pays for the PWC and then is left in the Federation coffers for any other costs (drone bombradment, field repair, strategic moves?) and the rest is saved for the next turn.
ANSWER: Correct.
=====================================
Dave Butler:
Ah, I'd missed that bit. I still wonder if it's intentionally different from Peace economy, or if (431.4) got forgotten when the clarification was written.
My ability to get the search function to dance and sing seems to have failed me: has it been asked when in the SoP a race at Peace economy loses unspent EP (and if so, what was the answer)?
ANSWER: SUch a race would lose the EPs I think at the start of their next player turn (i.e. when calculating next turn's income, do not add in the carryover amount, it disappears at that point). However, in this case the Feds are in the unique position of begin at wartime production rules with peacetime economic levels, so while it is only 50%, they can treat it as wartime income and save it turn to turn.
====================================
Matthew G. Smith:
307.4 says in part about pursuit battles "The pursuing player by designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for directed damage, and use the special ability of a mauler in resolving this attack."
I had always read that as "and a mauler, if in the pursuit force, can use it's 1:1 damage ability against all ships so grouped."
I'm playing a game now, and my opponent had read that as "and the battle force can direct against all crippled ships at 1:1, even if a mauler isn't used." (And the mauler has a different special option for ship capture.)
Which is the most common interpretation? Which is correct?
ANSWER: The meaning is as you stated, IF the pursuit force includes a mauler, that mauler's 1:1 direct damage effect can be used toward a group of crippled ships rather than the normal single target. If no mauler is present, the pursuit forces does not get the 1:1 benefit, they must direct at the normal 2:1 rate. Sorry the rule is confusing, it is a bit sloppy. One for the warbook.
If you have a mauler you can use it against the group of cripples, the pursuit force is not simply granted the mauler ability.
======================================
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 12:55 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 02:19 pm: Edit
Nick,
Also thanks!
-Peter
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 04:00 pm: Edit
Nick,
Thanks from me too.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 04:52 pm: Edit
Unfortunately I'd really like the ruling about the Hybrid/True CV factors. Previously you stated that SVC was holding the answer to that question for CL 33 so I've been patiently waiting for it for since APRIL, can you ask him about it? Also the Monarch doesn't say whether or not it has an oversized squadron because it is not currently on the Hydran SIT. All the above questions kind of depend on the True/Hybrid ruling that must be gotten from SVC.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 05:40 pm: Edit
Michael, I have sent him an appeal file on the Hydran BB, so hopefully he can look at it soon, since he is working on F&E (strat ops) at present.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 05:46 pm: Edit
Thanks.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 06:09 pm: Edit
Going to be a while before I can get to it, but it's in my stack.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 06:45 pm: Edit
Nick
320.141 Limits DNs from raiding.
320.22 Allows PFTs, CVs, and SCSs.
SCSs are DNs.
This seems to allow CVAs, also DNs, to do fighter-PF raids under the "CV" designation since SCSs are allowed to do them.
Taking that premise, the IC can do a fighter-PF raid with a CPX and 2 Mega-fighter counters. This comes out to 34-30.
Can the IC break up its oversized squadron to use a 3rd Mega-fighter counter and make this 36-30?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:50 am: Edit
Nick to expand on MichaelL's question about Advanced Raids. Is there a limit on the number of fighter/PF squadrons which can attack a single hex from a single Fighter/PF raid?
IE Can I have a DCS (ftr+PF squadron), CWE, DWE (w/ CPX+4PFs), then a PFT added to the raid (320.222) with another PF flotilla (4th).
Michael, you'd have to use a SCS with an advanced raid if it was assigned outside the raid pool (320.24)
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit
Isnt the main difference between a DD and a DW is that DDs are built to be in service for 20/30 years and have a measure of luxury/redundant systems while DWs and NCAs are expected to be dead in a few years and built with a view to pure combat utility. The DD will have simpler more robust engineering while the DW will be designed to run constantly at 120% (of DD) efficency which will require more expensive construction equipment and see more compents blow up when first turned on.
A new shipyard will have less old hands that know what safety standards can be cut in tweeking performance than the captial shipyard
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:21 pm: Edit
questions downloaded
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 06:22 pm: Edit
Nick,
One more advanced raid question:
The rule for advanced raids says the following:
>(320.347) In the case of a fighter-PF raid, it
>is of course the fighter and/or PF factors
>which make the attack. _Oversized squadrons can
>be used._ Hybrid fighters cannot be used. (All
>factors on an HDW-V are normal fighters.) CPFs
>can be used (but only if the raiders are from
>the Raid Pool) and only the one special CPF
>allowed in the Raid Pool can be used).
(Much snipped away)
Yet the rule for oversized fighters says the following:
>"Oversized squadrons cannot be used as
>independent squadrons, so one of the above
>carriers would have to divide its fighters into
>groups of six if sending them to a battle
>force"
According ot the Fighter/PF raid rules, the attack hex and target hex are two different hexes.
In the case of a fighter strike or reaction from one hex distant, the break up of oversized squadrons into six factor independent squadrons is required.
I contend that this breakup of oversized squadrons is required for Fighter/PF strikes as well.
Please also evaluate this for combined Fighter/Drone strikes where the attack and target hex are the same hex.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 06:25 pm: Edit
Scott T,
See (320.22)
"Fighter-PF Raids are conducted by one carrier, SCS, or PFT and its escorts."
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 07:05 pm: Edit
But (320.222) right below it states, "Additional ships could be assigned as "consorts"... These ships could only come from the Raid Pool and could be used with a carrier/PFT or commando ship from the Raid Pool. They would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle."
Well PFTs can be in the Raid Pool.
I could send it along to "escort" the DCS group, but could I then send the PFs on a strike? That's my question.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:22 pm: Edit
Actually, the key phrase in your post would be the last sentence:
________________________________________
Quote:
They would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle.
________________________________________
However, I can see that depending on how you define terms it may let you do this, so Nick is definately going to have to go over this one way or another.
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:34 pm: Edit
SVC once wrote in the National Gaurd topic that there are four Klingon Dukes and four regions (I presume duchies that the dukes rule) in the Klingon empire.
I am just curious as to what the regions are?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit
Scott,
By your reasoning Rule (320.222) would also allow "consorts" from the raid pool with a Marine Major General or Prime team on Fighter/PF raids when the rule clearly state they are not allowed on Fighter/PF raids.
"One Carrier, SCS or PFT" means just that.
If the "consort" from the raid pool is a single ship carrier or PFT, it cannot join a fighter/PF raid by another carrier/PFT any more than a "consort candidate" from the raid pool with a MMG or Prime Team can.
I contend that this would also disallow a Kzinti Battle-Carrier, even if it were a "consort" going on a combined fighter/drone raid providing only drone COMPOT support to the atrrition unit raiders, for example.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 03:23 pm: Edit
Nick,
Let's say I react a SE worth of fighters from a BATS to combat a raid. Let's now say that I win the battle.
At what point do the fighters return to the BATS?
Immediately? Only if they can react back during operational movement? Retrograde movement?
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 12:57 pm: Edit
Nick,
Suppose it is the end of economics at T26. The Federation has a balance of 0 EP and 20 XP. (we are not playing with advanced deficit spending)
In the first battle of the round, the Feds do 3 rounds of drone bombardment, costing them 3.6 EPs. Can they go into deficit in EPs, or do they have to spend the available XPs for that DB?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 02:27 pm: Edit
Nick - In addition to Paul's question, woudl it matter if he got salvage in the battle.
example-
in round 1 of combat Fed uses 1.2 in drone bombardment. CC is destroyed via directed damage (yielding 2.7 in salvage).
Does the Fed have -1.2 +2.7 (1.5ep) + 20 xtp's in treasury after round 1?
Does the Fed have 2.7 ep + 18.8 xtp in treasury?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 04:24 am: Edit
Re: (318.5) Tholian Reaction:
When it says the Tholians, under this, have their shipbuilding schedule realeased, do they also get command points, Prime Teams and do they accumulate Free Fighter Factors?
By Troy Hammermann (Troy) on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 03:45 pm: Edit
Re: Advanced Operations (706) Gorns:
(706.2) Allowable Substitutions:
LTT can be sub'd or converted from HD once per turn in 172+
(706.3) Production Notes: Special
Can produce one LSC on turn 5 and one per year thereafter.
Both of these are prior to the Gorns going to war (Turn 12) historically. Do the Gorns get to thus 'modify' their Pre-War Construction, should they so desire, while at peace?
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 02:56 pm: Edit
Can we allow Fed-BCS to use (502.94) and to have one "FCR" fighter. R2.75 says that BCS had cargo storage able to use (R2.R5)
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 11:46 am: Edit
I feel something is waterdown when using their 2 rules are put together..Are we losing a command slot here...that is how it look to me
(315.0) BATTLE GROUPS
(315.2) COMPONENTS OF BATTLE GROUPS
Each Battle gruop must consist of exactly six ships
(315.21) SIZE CLASS 3: No more than three of the ships in a Battle Group can be Size Class 3, and these may be only War Cruisers or Light Cruisers.
(315.22) SIZE CLASS 4: The rest of the ships in the Battle Group (i.e., 3 to 6 ships ) must consist of class 4 ships
And this Group counts for 5 ships for Command
(303.5) This rule gives CWL & DWL a one additional (uncrippled) attack factor and a command rating one point higher.
And if I’m missing something here …please show it in a example…mholiver
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 06:51 pm: Edit
and if you used those to 2 rules together are we lossing a comand slot
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:40 pm: Edit
Let's suppose you have a stack of Lyran DWs, which have a command rating of 5 each.
One is chosen as the flagship, with 5 others in the battleforce, for a total of 6 DWs.
(303.5) gives two of the DWs (one of which is the flagship) a command rating of 6 and attack factors of 7. This allows an additional DW to be added to the battleforce, for a total of 7 DWs.
(315.2) counts 6 of the DWs as only 5 against the command rating, so another DW can be added, bringing the total to 8 DWs.
In summary:
1xDW (flagship)
5xDW (command rating of DW)
+1xDW (303.5 command rating bonus)
+1xDW (315.2 Battle group bonus)
If a larger ship with a higher command rating is the flagship (such as a Lyran CA), the (303.5) command rating bonus won't apply, but the attack factor bonus from (303.5) and the battlegroup bonus (315.2) still apply.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
A single ship carrier or PFT with scout functions is used in the scout box, and does not deploy its fighters or PFs. The scout is destroyed by directed damage. Do the attrition units create minus points, or is their destruction "free" since they were on the carrier when destroyed?
Thanks.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:56 pm: Edit
Their destruction would only be "free" if it was destroyed by the owner, not by directed damage.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:23 pm: Edit
Gorn Off Map 7th Fleet:
Can the Gorns convert any of these ships before they are released?
Can the Gorns convert the one ship that does get released on a given turn at the off map SB before it moves during operational movement?
Does the 2EP "refit" that you have to pay for the newly released off map ship on a given turn count as a conversion at the off map SB?
Thanks,
-Peter
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 10:04 am: Edit |
September - October 2006 Archive
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, September 01, 2006 - 08:21 am: Edit
Nick,
Another question.
If I use a "G" ship for the "assist in ship capture" mission (521.5) and an enemy ship is destroyed, but the die roll doesn't result in capture, what happens to the "G"? Is it still there? Can I use the same "G" ship the next turn for the same mission?
Is the result different if the capture suceeds?
I see a PT has the same die roll modifier, but there are better rules about what happens if the ship isn't captured, and specifically gives a chance for the PT to be WIA or KIA.
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 10:14 pm: Edit
(304.24) defines what happens when the attacker has a base in the hex. I can not find a rule stating what happens when both sides have a base in the hex, e.g. the attacker moves a convoy on top of an enemy BATS. So, what does happen in this case?
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Sunday, September 03, 2006 - 10:55 pm: Edit
You mean (302.24)? It cannot happen. Convoys cannot enter a hex with enemy units in it (414.2). Also a FRD cannot do so either (421.22). A tug being used as a supply point cannot move, so could not enter a hex with an enemy base (412.2); a retreating tug losses it status as a supply point. Tugs transporting mobile bases cannot enter a hex with enemy units (510.213). And of couse planets cannot move into a hex with an enemy base.
The Free Campaign rules do have an exception under (652.13).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, September 07, 2006 - 12:32 am: Edit
My apologies for not getting to these in August. Just been busy as usual, and the annual county fair, and also had two unexpected funerals on two of the weekends, and that just sucks free time away. Hopefully this should get us back up to date.
==============================
Michael Lui:
Normally you can do double conversions with a 1 point discount, can you do a triple conversion with a 2 point discount?
ANSWER: No, there is no rule for triple conversions so none are allowed.
==============================
Dave Butler
How are Penal Ships in the Depot interact with the "Penal Ships must be repaired as soon as possible" rule?
ANSWER: Until it is fully repaired you would have to pay the penalty for not having the ship available. I.E., don't bother to put them in the depot, scrap them and just convert/build a new one.
==============================
Michael Lui:
Here's another one: Can you upgrade an FCR into an FCX?
ANSWER: Only if such a conversion is on a race's SIT.
For that matter, Can you use the FCX with regular CVs?
ANSWER: X fighter factors from an FCX cannot go onto a non-X ship.
===============================
James Southcott:
Going back to the raid example in my question above. The alliance reacts to the raid and is pinned by the static fleet. When does combat occur - during the raid phase or the ordinary combat phase?
ANSWER: Ordinary combat from what I can tell.
================================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
Medium Shipyard (450.2) (PO pg. 13) rule clarification. This might be something to consider for the Warbook. I checked the "Q&A Archive File", but not the previous archives in the Q&A directory.
"(450.21) Status: Medium Shipyards include all production of the original capital shipyard except for FFs, DWs, and CWs." [emphasis original].
Here is the potential problem. DDs and NCAs. DDs are not DWs, and thus if the Hydrans build a Medium Shipyard, they will (by strict reading of the rules) also be able to produce a LN/KN per turn starting on T11. Any empire with a Medium Shipyard will also be able to start producing NCAs.
Question: Should this be how the game is? I would argue that a Medium Shipyard should be able to produce NCAs since these are CAs and the Medium Shipyard builds the biggest ships (even if this 'expands' their schedule). I would argue that the Medium Shipyards should not be able to produce DDs from the intent of the rule.
ANSWER: I don't have a problem with the Medium shipyard producing LN/KN and NCAs for the Hydrans. Seems to be the way the rule works.
Finally, my interpretation is that HDWs are forbidden from a Medium Shipyard because they are subbed for a DW. Is this correct? They would certainly be forbidden from being built in a Minor DW Shipyard because they are not a DW variant (don't have DW as base hull). The relevant Minor Shipyard rule is (450.18) on pg. 13.
ANSWER: The HDW can be subbed for any DW (but not in a DW small shipyard), and a DWF can be subbed for a MHK via rule (450.4). So a Medium shipyard gets you MHK, and you sub a DWF for that, then immediately sub an HDW for the DWF. So Hydran Heavy War destroyers can come from medium shipyards in place of a New Heavy Cruiser.
===================================
John Colacito:
(450.16) and (709.2) Can the Hydrans begin production of a DW minor shipyard on T13?
ANSWER: It's going to depend on (709.3) the Capital subheading. Normally the hydran capital is captured and they don't get the DW until Fall Y176 (and could do a minor shipyard at that point), but if the capital is still standing by Y173, they get DWs earlier and could build a DW minor shipyard at that earlier point. The short answer is if the DW is on their schedule they can build the minor shipyard for it.
=================================
Michael Lui:
320.141 Limits DNs from raiding.
320.22 Allows PFTs, CVs, and SCSs.
SCSs are DNs.
This seems to allow CVAs, also DNs, to do fighter-PF raids under the "CV" designation since SCSs are allowed to do them.
Taking that premise, the IC can do a fighter-PF raid with a CPX and 2 Mega-fighter counters. This comes out to 34-30.
ANSWER: Note rule (320.23) and (320.347) allows the one special casual raid PF counter (CPX) to be used for raids ONLY if the ship carrying it is in the raid pool (not outside the raid pool on the map). So the IC AND ALL (320.221) its required escorts must be in the raid pool to do this.
Can the IC break up its oversized squadron to use a 3rd Mega-fighter counter and make this 36-30?
ANSWER: Rule (535.32) seems to allow this, so yes.
==================================
Scott Tenhoff:
Is there a limit on the number of fighter/PF squadrons which can attack a single hex from a single Fighter/PF raid?
ANSWER: All the Fighters/PFs from a single ship/group can be used.
IE Can I have a DCS (ftr+PF squadron), CWE, DWE (w/ CPX+4PFs), then a PFT added to the raid (320.222) with another PF flotilla (4th).
ANSWER: The DCS can send all its attrition units, but rule (320.222) specifically prohibits consort ships from contributing to the raid attack. They are there only to fight in the interception battle to protect the raiding carrier.
==================================
Trent Telenko:
The rule for advanced raids says the following:
>(320.347) In the case of a fighter-PF raid, it
>is of course the fighter and/or PF factors
>which make the attack. _Oversized squadrons can
>be used._ Hybrid fighters cannot be used. (All
>factors on an HDW-V are normal fighters.) CPFs
>can be used (but only if the raiders are from
>the Raid Pool) and only the one special CPF
>allowed in the Raid Pool can be used).
(Much snipped away)
Yet the rule for oversized fighters says the following:
>"Oversized squadrons cannot be used as
>independent squadrons, so one of the above
>carriers would have to divide its fighters into
>groups of six if sending them to a battle
>force"
ANSWER: Raids are a special exception to the general rule. In general Oversized squadrons must be split up to be used as independent squadrons. But in a raid, you can keep them together as an oversized squadron.
According ot the Fighter/PF raid rules, the attack hex and target hex are two different hexes.
In the case of a fighter strike or reaction from one hex distant, the break up of oversized squadrons into six factor independent squadrons is required.
ANSWER: No, raids are a specific exception to that requirement, as you noted in the rule quote above.
=================================
Scott Tenhoff:
But (320.222) right below it states, "Additional ships could be assigned as "consorts"... These ships could only come from the Raid Pool and could be used with a carrier/PFT or commando ship from the Raid Pool. They would make no contribution to the Raid Attack but might fight in the Interception Battle."
Well PFTs can be in the Raid Pool.
I could send it along to "escort" the DCS group, but could I then send the PFs on a strike? That's my question.
ANSWER: No, they could only be used in an interception battle if there is one. Any "consort" forces cannot contribute to the raid attack.
==================================
Troy Hammermann:
SVC once wrote in the National Gaurd topic that there are four Klingon Dukes and four regions (I presume duchies that the dukes rule) in the Klingon empire.
I am just curious as to what the regions are?
ANSWER: You got me. Anybody else know? If not you will have to ask SVC himself.
==================================
Matthew G. Smith:
Let's say I react a SE worth of fighters from a BATS to combat a raid. Let's now say that I win the battle.
At what point do the fighters return to the BATS?
Immediately? Only if they can react back during operational movement? Retrograde movement?
ANSWER: They are not present at the BATS for the rest of the combat phase.
====================================
Paul Bonfanti:
Suppose it is the end of economics at T26. The Federation has a balance of 0 EP and 20 XP. (we are not playing with advanced deficit spending)
In the first battle of the round, the Feds do 3 rounds of drone bombardment, costing them 3.6 EPs. Can they go into deficit in EPs, or do they have to spend the available XPs for that DB?
ANSWER: I don't see why not. EPs and XTPs are essentially two separate running totals. You MAY spend XTPs in place of EPs, but you don't have to.
======================================
Bill Schoeller:
Nick - In addition to Paul's question, woudl it matter if he got salvage in the battle.
example-
in round 1 of combat Fed uses 1.2 in drone bombardment. CC is destroyed via directed damage (yielding 2.7 in salvage).
Does the Fed have -1.2 +2.7 (1.5ep) + 20 xtp's in treasury after round 1?
ANSWER: Right.
Does the Fed have 2.7 ep + 18.8 xtp in treasury?
ANSWER: You can do this if you want to (spend the XTPs as EPs for the DB before the salvage money shows up), but you don't have to.
=====================================
Troy Hammermann:
Re: (318.5) Tholian Reaction:
When it says the Tholians, under this, have their shipbuilding schedule realeased, do they also get command points, Prime Teams and do they accumulate Free Fighter Factors?
ANSWER: Sure, while not yet at war they can build normally as if they were.
====================================
Troy Hammermann:
Re: Advanced Operations (706) Gorns:
(706.2) Allowable Substitutions:
LTT can be sub'd or converted from HD once per turn in 172+
(706.3) Production Notes: Special
Can produce one LSC on turn 5 and one per year thereafter.
Both of these are prior to the Gorns going to war (Turn 12) historically. Do the Gorns get to thus 'modify' their Pre-War Construction, should they so desire, while at peace?
ANSWER: No, you cannot convert/sub ships until you are at war. You could do so in a scenario that had the Gorns at war at that time.
====================================
Philippe le bas:
Can we allow Fed-BCS to use (502.94) and to have one "FCR" fighter. R2.75 says that BCS had cargo storage able to use (R2.R5)
ANSWER: Rules changes must go in the rules change/proposal topic, not here. This topic is for questions on existing rules, sorry.
===================================
Michael H.Oliver:
I feel something is waterdown when using their 2 rules are put together..Are we losing a command slot here...that is how it look to me
(315.0) BATTLE GROUPS
(315.2) COMPONENTS OF BATTLE GROUPS
Each Battle gruop must consist of exactly six ships
(315.21) SIZE CLASS 3: No more than three of the ships in a Battle Group can be Size Class 3, and these may be only War Cruisers or Light Cruisers.
(315.22) SIZE CLASS 4: The rest of the ships in the Battle Group (i.e., 3 to 6 ships ) must consist of class 4 ships
And this Group counts for 5 ships for Command
(303.5) This rule gives CWL & DWL a one additional (uncrippled) attack factor and a command rating one point higher.
And if I’m missing something here …please show it in a example…mholiver
ANSWER: I'll just leave Jeff Laikind's answer:
Let's suppose you have a stack of Lyran DWs, which have a command rating of 5 each.
One is chosen as the flagship, with 5 others in the battleforce, for a total of 6 DWs.
(303.5) gives two of the DWs (one of which is the flagship) a command rating of 6 and attack factors of 7. This allows an additional DW to be added to the battleforce, for a total of 7 DWs.
(315.2) counts 6 of the DWs as only 5 against the command rating, so another DW can be added, bringing the total to 8 DWs.
In summary:
1xDW (flagship)
5xDW (command rating of DW)
+1xDW (303.5 command rating bonus)
+1xDW (315.2 Battle group bonus)
If a larger ship with a higher command rating is the flagship (such as a Lyran CA), the (303.5) command rating bonus won't apply, but the attack factor bonus from (303.5) and the battlegroup bonus (315.2) still apply.
=========================
Paul Bonfanti:
A single ship carrier or PFT with scout functions is used in the scout box, and does not deploy its fighters or PFs. The scout is destroyed by directed damage. Do the attrition units create minus points, or is their destruction "free" since they were on the carrier when destroyed?
ANSWER: As far as I can tell they still generate minus points. Even fighters left out of combat entirely are homeless (and potential minus points) if the carrier is destroyed (302.334). Remember that the owner of the unit is still losing the "annuity" of replacement fighters and the attacker must still pay the damage points to account for this (doesn't necessarily make logical sense, but it is part of the annuity system that carriers are based around).
==============================
Peter D Bakija:
Gorn Off Map 7th Fleet:
Can the Gorns convert any of these ships before they are released?
ANSWER: No, you cannot do anything with them until you successfully roll to get them, they are off running around off map somewhere having adventures in their own private little world.
Can the Gorns convert the one ship that does get released on a given turn at the off map SB before it moves during operational movement?
ANSWER: Sure, the 2 EP cost does not count as a conversion, it is more like an activation cost (like the Klingon mothball units), so you can pay the 2 EP when the ship is rolled for and convert it at the off map starbase at the same time.
Does the 2EP "refit" that you have to pay for the newly released off map ship on a given turn count as a conversion at the off map SB?
ANSWER: No, the rule specifically says the 2 EP cost does not use a conversion slot.
===============================
Matthew G. Smith:
If I use a "G" ship for the "assist in ship capture" mission (521.5) and an enemy ship is destroyed, but the die roll doesn't result in capture, what happens to the "G"? Is it still there? Can I use the same "G" ship the next turn for the same mission?
ANSWER: The G is still there and can be used again.
Is the result different if the capture suceeds?
ANSWER: No difference.
I see a PT has the same die roll modifier, but there are better rules about what happens if the ship isn't captured, and specifically gives a chance for the PT to be WIA or KIA.
ANSWER: PTs are different, it is a group of 4-6 people. The G factor is a much larger group of people 20-30? and is not going to be completely lost if things go wrong on the capture attempt.
===============================
Courtenay Footman:
(304.24) defines what happens when the attacker has a base in the hex. I can not find a rule stating what happens when both sides have a base in the hex, e.g. the attacker moves a convoy on top of an enemy BATS. So, what does happen in this case?
ANSWER: As John Wyszynski said, that cannot happen. Such units are not permitted to enter such a hex, and it should never come up in normal games with fixed alliances.
===============================
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 01:05 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Matthew G. Smith:
Let's say I react a SE worth of fighters from a BATS to combat a raid. Let's now say that I win the battle.
At what point do the fighters return to the BATS?
Immediately? Only if they can react back during operational movement? Retrograde movement?
ANSWER: They are not present at the BATS for the rest of the combat phase.
________________________________________
What "rest of the combat phase"? The raid would happen in Operational Movement.
Also, you imply that a unit victorious in SSC can't retreat. Was that your intention?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 01:17 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Dave Butler
How are Penal Ships in the Depot interact with the "Penal Ships must be repaired as soon as possible" rule?
ANSWER: Until it is fully repaired you would have to pay the penalty for not having the ship available. I.E., don't bother to put them in the depot, scrap them and just convert/build a new one.
________________________________________
Presumably one could put the ship into its track and use the free conversion to base hull (and then immediately build or convert a replacement, natch), right?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 07:06 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
What "rest of the combat phase"? The raid would happen in Operational Movement.
Also, you imply that a unit victorious in SSC can't retreat. Was that your intention?
________________________________________
Regardless of when the reaction or battle was done, in the rules on reacting fighters to ANY enemy movement, the fighters don't return until after the combat phase.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 09:15 am: Edit
Nick,
I will clarify my first question. I read 314.274 this morning, and it says that ships remain in the hex (or where they retreated to) and that PF's and fighters return to their base.
I didn't see this the first time since I stopped reading all of 314.27 because the first part of that rule is talking about province disruption, which only happens when the raider is victorious against the defending ship (or unopposed).
However, after reading 314.274 I had to ask myself a question - why would the defending ship still be in the hex if the raiding ship was victorious? 310 goes right from "attacker retreat" to "defender retreat" without anything else.
So now I wonder, is 314.274 really intended to apply only to situations where the raider is victorious, or does it also apply when the defender wins?
The wording of the paragraph seems to imply resolution of defending ship / fighter / pf locations and movement regardless of who won, but the numbering of the paragraph seems to mean that it only applies if the conditions of 314.27 are satisfied (i.e., raider is victorious or unopposed.)
So, now two real questions:
Does 314.274 provide the rules for what happens to the defender regardless of who won/lost the SSC or single combat?
If 314.274 provides rules regardless of who won, am I right to say that PFs and fighters return to their base during the same movement phase where the raider is returning to the raid pool?
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 04:35 pm: Edit
This may exist somewhere but I dont remember seeing the thought that has been plaguging me recently
Do battle groups have any effect on the comparison of highest command rating for the purpose of pinning? I assume that the CR comparision represents the logistics of finding and enguaging enemy ships. My ertwarz CWL can command seven ships with a free eighth if I have a battle group somewhere in the hex but my free eighth ship is discounted in pinning calcs.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, September 11, 2006 - 09:25 pm: Edit
Your ninth ship is not ignored in pinning calculations. If you have 9 ships you pin 9 enemy ships. And then the command ratings are compared so that the enemy can take out more ships if he has a higher CR.
If you don't have 9 ships and are just saying that you have an eighth command slot that you want counted, you're out of luck, the free scout isn't counted in the calcs if it's not present either.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 11:49 am: Edit
What everyone seems to be forgetting in this PDU or ship argument is that PDU's are one shot wonders. They get one turn of use then they are lost forever while ships keep fighting and fighting for, sometimes, 32 game turns.
If you build PDU's over ships, those PDU's will cripple a half dozen enemy ships. But, if you build the ships over the PDU's, those ships will cripple many times that amount over their lifespan.
At 7EP per PDU, you could have instead build 3 FF's for 7.5EP (2 FF for 6 at basic rules which saves you 1). Those 3 (or 2) FF's will fight at minimum a dozen times during their lifespan, and probably many more than that.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 10:26 pm: Edit
Board master, please delete my above post, it was placed into the wrong forum.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, September 15, 2006 - 09:16 pm: Edit
Ok, this is probably an easy one, but oddly enough it has never come up in my games.
Attacking fleet hits a neutral planet. I come out to defend the neutral planet, my reserve was much larger than the attacker had sent. I get my free bite on his ships, he runs, I pursue and kill some cripples.
I then realize my fleet cannot retreat, because it had just pursued, and I think the neutral planet remains neutral, therefore I am attacking the planet. I don't want to.
Question: Do I have to attack the planet, since I cannot retreat after pursuing? Or can I just declare I am doing an approach battle, then refuse to come in, and retreat?
For that matter, was I able to pursue in the first place, or would the neutral planet I was defending 'block' my pursuit?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 11:28 am: Edit
If an escort for an auxiliary carrier is crippled, is it still allowed to participate in the slow unit retreat (continuing to escort its carrier), or will it be stripped off and dumped into the standard retreat force?
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - 11:45 am: Edit
Clarification on a previous ruling:
________________________________________
Quote:
May 11, 2:29pm:
What happens if your force consists of 3 SAVs, each escorted by an F5? The three F5s have the highest command ratings, so one of them must be the flagship (as they have the highest CR and are not eliminated from the selection process because they are escorts). However, because they are escorts, they can not be the flagship.
June 5, 12:24:
2) If it is a slow unit pursuit, would 2 groups have to be broken up to allow an F5/F5E to be the flagship, but still have all the slow units in the battle force?
ANSWER: I don't see why both would be broken up, you need one F5/F5E for the flagship, but the other slow unit can have an escort under the rules, even if the escort is not "slow."
________________________________________
The question was proorly worded and made the assumption that the F5, once no longer an escort, could function as the flagship. The problem with this is that as soon as the F5 is stripped from its carrier, it is no longer allowed in the battle force.
So now there are 3 SAVs, two of which are escorted. One of the SAVs is now allowed to be the flagship, but with a CR3 it can only command the 2 SAVs and one escort. Since the SAVs must be in the battle force, does this mean that one of the remaining escorts gets stripped off because it exceeds the command capacity of the flagship?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 03:33 am: Edit
Nick, sorry to sneak in...
Derek, the F5's would actually be the Flagships, as they are CR4.
So SAV+F5, SAV+F5, SAV would be legal (Flag plus 4 ships).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 07:35 am: Edit
Paul,
Except that (FO-515.33) states: "[...] A ship used as an escort cannot be the battleforce flagship (nor does assignment as an escort remove a ship from the flagship selection procedure) [...]."
So the rules that I can find would indicate that the second group probably needs to be broken up, but we'll see what Nick says.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, September 21, 2006 - 11:45 pm: Edit
If your fleet contains 3xSAV & 2xF5 why not just send the 3 fighter squadrons forward from the 0-compot carriers and use one F5 as the flag and the other to round-out the CR? Why cut the F5 compot if it is used as a ad-hoc?
SAV+F5, SAV+F5, SAV = 22 compot
My above = 28 compot
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 02:47 am: Edit
Well, the first problem would be people making massive lines in Slow-Unit Retreat out of former escorts of AuxCarriers.
Also your line would be illegal under (302.36): "[...] independant fighter/PF ship equivalents cannot account for more than half (round down) of the Battle Force unless there are not enough ships to make up their required portion [...]". Captain Antecedent tells us that the ships' required portion is "the Battle Force must include at least half of that player's ships in the hex (round fractions up)".
So. Since you can include half your ships in the hex (unless you declare the F5s as excluded flagship candidates, and assuming that the third F5 in the example is actually booted out of consideration), you do have enough ships to make up their required portion and so can have at most two SEs of fighters (if both F5s exist).
However, you could, I suspect, exclude both F5s and put two squadrons of fighters forwarded from the support echelon up on the line along with the SAV acting as flagship (because, having excluded the F5s, there are no "ships in the hex" (SAV are non-ship units after all), and thus you can break the 50% fighters barrier. (And this means that at most one SAV dies (by direction), because the owner can't resolve damage on the support echelon.)
(This ignores the bit that, in the strict mathematical sense, you'll always have enough ships to meet your "50% ships in hex" requirement. If you have zero ships in the hex, then you also have the 50% of zero ships that you must put up, and thus can forward fighters into the force up to 50% force's composition. The rule is therefore somewhat odd, in that you can only forward fighters effectively when you've got fewer than a couple of dozen ships in the hex. (ADM/command points/command ratings make the exact number nebulous, but if you've got 30 ships in hex, you need to put ~15 of them on the line; given that the best non-carrier fleet is 15 ships, there's not much space left for the fighters.))
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 07:41 am: Edit
Raider
You missed the problem. The problem is that the SAVs are in a SLOW UNIT RETREAT and the Klingon is trying to protect them as best as he is able.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 22, 2006 - 09:50 am: Edit
If I have 9 EPs sitting in the WYN Cluster (449.0), is it legal to use Blockade Running (320.5) to deliver more EPs to the WYN, then on the return trip pick up the 9 EPs that were there from a previous turn?
By Michael Tisdel (Jmt) on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 11:40 am: Edit
Nick,
This is a product question more than a rules question. After years, I've finally dusted off my copy of F&E - I've finally found some folks who want to play! Looking at what I have, I noticed my rules were woefully out of date - I have Deluxe F&E. So, I ordered the F&E 2K rules. Now, however, I'm curious about the expansions I bought.
Specifically, I have Carrier War and Special Operations, both 1993 versions. Are these the current versions, or are their new ones to coincide with the 2k rule book?
Thanks,
jmt
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 04:26 pm: Edit
JMT
Carrier War was updated to Fighter Operations and Special Operations was combined with Marine Assault to be Combined Operations.
By Michael Tisdel (Jmt) on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 08:55 pm: Edit
Thanks for the info!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 11:14 pm: Edit
If a ship is used to react (or uses an extended reaction) in the raid phase, can the same ship react during the regular movement phase of the same player turn?
+++++++++++++++++++
Can a ship use extended reaction during a raid to move one hex toward a raiding ship but not enter the raid hex? If so, can it still use reaction movement during regular movement of the same turn? (Rational: might be used to keep a supply line open after a successful raid but moving into the hex would endanger the reacting ship also.)
Ex: Raiding CC(9) vs a crippled FF(2) with a FLG(3) reacting
++++++++++++++++++
If slow unit is raided can it auto-retrograde at some point after the raid? If so, when?
++++++++++++++++++
Can raided ship(s) retreat after a raid? If so, when?
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 08:24 pm: Edit
In the Demon of the Eastern Wind scenario do the Romulans' WE->KE conversions on the first few turns of the build schedule cost anything? Do those scheduled conversions use up one of the Romulan's conversions at their capital or other starbase?
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Friday, September 29, 2006 - 04:44 pm: Edit
Darin, I've been playing Roms in this scenario, and I consider that it does use a conversion facility, but that it does not cost any EPs. Sometimes I do this at the West Fleet starbase, so I can do other conversions at Romulus and Remus. I'd be interested to learn the answer.
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 09:55 am: Edit
In Demon of the Eastern Wind what is the status of the unexplored Romulan areas as per 603.15? Do they need exploration at all since 603.15 is a rule for a different scenario? Are they explored in the same way? Do BATS and PDUs need to be deployed in difference from 603.15?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 05:37 pm: Edit
questions downloaded
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Thursday, October 05, 2006 - 05:14 pm: Edit
Nick,
Can a single SB Convert a B10 to a B10VAA or does it take 3, one for each conversion?
By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 10:09 am: Edit
Which Federation & Empire products contain the Neo-Tholians? Advanced Operations? Reinforcements? I am attempting to update my set to include them but my local stores don't carry F&E products and the descriptions available online seem contradictory. Thank you.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 08, 2006 - 10:38 am: Edit
Neos are in Advanced Ops according to the SIT.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 12:10 am: Edit
Dave Butler:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Matthew G. Smith:
Let's say I react a SE worth of fighters from a BATS to combat a raid. Let's now say that I win the battle.
At what point do the fighters return to the BATS?
Immediately? Only if they can react back during operational movement? Retrograde movement?
ANSWER: They are not present at the BATS for the rest of the combat phase.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What "rest of the combat phase"? The raid would happen in Operational Movement.
ANSWER: Sorry, I misunderstood. The operative rule is (314.274) which says that reacting fighters/PFs return to their base, and this happens at the end of the raid phase (same time that raid ships return to the raid pool).
Also, you imply that a unit victorious in SSC can't retreat. Was that your intention?
ANSWER: If this is the raid phase, then I believe yes. There is no retreat step in the raid phase. Note you can retreat if the SSC result is a mandatory retreat for your unit, but you don't get to choose whether to retreat or not. The normal retreat step (Phase 5 Step 7) only occurs in the combat phase, the same way that Pursuit (Phase 5 Step 8) only occurs in regular combat, not raid combat.
=========================
Dave Butler:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Dave Butler
How are Penal Ships in the Depot interact with the "Penal Ships must be repaired as soon as possible" rule?
ANSWER: Until it is fully repaired you would have to pay the penalty for not having the ship available. I.E., don't bother to put them in the depot, scrap them and just convert/build a new one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presumably one could put the ship into its track and use the free conversion to base hull (and then immediately build or convert a replacement, natch), right?
ANSWER: Sure.
=====================================
Matthew G. Smith:
I will clarify my first question. I read 314.274 this morning, and it says that ships remain in the hex (or where they retreated to) and that PF's and fighters return to their base.
I didn't see this the first time since I stopped reading all of 314.27 because the first part of that rule is talking about province disruption, which only happens when the raider is victorious against the defending ship (or unopposed).
However, after reading 314.274 I had to ask myself a question - why would the defending ship still be in the hex if the raiding ship was victorious? 310 goes right from "attacker retreat" to "defender retreat" without anything else.
So now I wonder, is 314.274 really intended to apply only to situations where the raider is victorious, or does it also apply when the defender wins?
The wording of the paragraph seems to imply resolution of defending ship / fighter / pf locations and movement regardless of who won, but the numbering of the paragraph seems to mean that it only applies if the conditions of 314.27 are satisfied (i.e., raider is victorious or unopposed.)
Does 314.274 provide the rules for what happens to the defender regardless of who won/lost the SSC or single combat?
ANSWER: I believe so.
If 314.274 provides rules regardless of who won, am I right to say that PFs and fighters return to their base during the same movement phase where the raider is returning to the raid pool?
ANSWER: Yes, as noted above they return at the end of the raid phase.
===================================
jason murdoch:
This may exist somewhere but I dont remember seeing the thought that has been plaguging me recently
Do battle groups have any effect on the comparison of highest command rating for the purpose of pinning? I assume that the CR comparision represents the logistics of finding and enguaging enemy ships. My ertwarz CWL can command seven ships with a free eighth if I have a battle group somewhere in the hex but my free eighth ship is discounted in pinning calcs.
ANSWER: There is no such effect. The battle group allows you to fit an extra ship under a given command rating, it does not modify the command rating. The battle group rule thus applies during the battle force formation step of the combat phase, it does not apply during movement/pinning calculations.
======================================
Kevin Howard:
Attacking fleet hits a neutral planet. I come out to defend the neutral planet, my reserve was much larger than the attacker had sent. I get my free bite on his ships, he runs, I pursue and kill some cripples.
I then realize my fleet cannot retreat, because it had just pursued, and I think the neutral planet remains neutral, therefore I am attacking the planet. I don't want to.
Question: Do I have to attack the planet, since I cannot retreat after pursuing? Or can I just declare I am doing an approach battle, then refuse to come in, and retreat?
ANSWER: See rule (503.63). If you send forces to defend a neutral planet, it counts as an "allied" planet for the duration of the combat phase. Thus it does not block pursuit, and there will be no combat between your forces and the planet defenses. You can end the turn in the same hex, and there will be no further interaction between your fleet and the planet (you can freely move off as they do not pin you, such neutral planets never pin any forces), or you can later choose to attack. In fact, you can always move into the same hex as such a planet and simply choose to ignore it, and it will ignore you.
For that matter, was I able to pursue in the first place, or would the neutral planet I was defending 'block' my pursuit?
ANSWER: Yes, you can pursue since it is considerd an allied planet for that combat step.
=========================================
Derek Meserve:
If an escort for an auxiliary carrier is crippled, is it still allowed to participate in the slow unit retreat (continuing to escort its carrier), or will it be stripped off and dumped into the standard retreat force?
ANSWER: It can stay with the carrier, or be stripped off during retreat, just like any escort under rule (515.0).
=============================================
Derek Meserve
Clarification on a previous ruling:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
May 11, 2:29pm:
What happens if your force consists of 3 SAVs, each escorted by an F5? The three F5s have the highest command ratings, so one of them must be the flagship (as they have the highest CR and are not eliminated from the selection process because they are escorts). However, because they are escorts, they can not be the flagship.
June 5, 12:24:
2) If it is a slow unit pursuit, would 2 groups have to be broken up to allow an F5/F5E to be the flagship, but still have all the slow units in the battle force?
ANSWER: I don't see why both would be broken up, you need one F5/F5E for the flagship, but the other slow unit can have an escort under the rules, even if the escort is not "slow."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was proorly worded and made the assumption that the F5, once no longer an escort, could function as the flagship. The problem with this is that as soon as the F5 is stripped from its carrier, it is no longer allowed in the battle force.
So now there are 3 SAVs, two of which are escorted. One of the SAVs is now allowed to be the flagship, but with a CR3 it can only command the 2 SAVs and one escort. Since the SAVs must be in the battle force, does this mean that one of the remaining escorts gets stripped off because it exceeds the command capacity of the flagship?
ANSWER: As far as I can tell you must break up one group. The fact that the three F5s are assigned escorts allows them to be left behind in the first place. The fact that they are escorts does not excuse them from the flagship selection process. The three F5s have the highest rating, so one of them must be the flagship. The flagship cannot be an escort so I must conclude that one is stripped out of its carrier group at that point. Just because you strip it out does not prevent it from participating in the slow unit battle (even if at the point of retreat a normal F5 could not have been left behind), at the point you chose to leave it behind it was an escort and you were allowed to do so). So then you have an F5 flagship, build your battle force (from F5=flagship, axCV+F5, axCV+F5, axCV) accordingly under all the normal rules. Fight the slow unit battle. Done.
=============================
Robert Padilla:
If I have 9 EPs sitting in the WYN Cluster (449.0), is it legal to use Blockade Running (320.5) to deliver more EPs to the WYN, then on the return trip pick up the 9 EPs that were there from a previous turn?
ANSWER: Yes, so long as the EPs you are carrying out were there at the start of the turn, remember that any you are dropping off do not generate more until the end of the turn.
==============================
Michael Tisdel:
This is a product question more than a rules question. After years, I've finally dusted off my copy of F&E - I've finally found some folks who want to play! Looking at what I have, I noticed my rules were woefully out of date - I have Deluxe F&E. So, I ordered the F&E 2K rules. Now, however, I'm curious about the expansions I bought.
Specifically, I have Carrier War and Special Operations, both 1993 versions. Are these the current versions, or are their new ones to coincide with the 2k rule book?
ANSWER: As noted by others, Carrier War was updated and is now called Figter Operations. Special Operations and Marine Assault were updated and re-published together under the name Combined Operations.
The current line consists of:
F&E core set
Fighter Ops (used to be Carrier War)
Combined Ops (used to be Special Ops and Marine Assault)
Advanced Ops
Planetary Ops
Reinforcements (more counters)
Strategic Ops (coming soon)
==================================
Chuck Strong:
If a ship is used to react (or uses an extended reaction) in the raid phase, can the same ship react during the regular movement phase of the same player turn?
Answer: Yes, see rule (314.274).
Can a ship use extended reaction during a raid to move one hex toward a raiding ship but not enter the raid hex? If so, can it still use reaction movement during regular movement of the same turn? (Rational: might be used to keep a supply line open after a successful raid but moving into the hex would endanger the reacting ship also.)
Ex: Raiding CC(9) vs a crippled FF(2) with a FLG(3) reacting
ANSWER: I think you have to continue to move into the raid hex, unless pinned along the way. (314.241).
If slow unit is raided can it auto-retrograde at some point after the raid? If so, when?
ANSWER: Only if the SSC resulted in a retreat result for the slow unit, as otherwise there is no retreat step during the raid phase.
Can raided ship(s) retreat after a raid? If so, when?
ANSWER: Only if the SSC resulted in a retreat result for the slow unit, as otherwise there is no retreat step during the raid phase.
===============================================
Darin Smith:
In the Demon of the Eastern Wind scenario do the Romulans' WE->KE conversions on the first few turns of the build schedule cost anything? Do those scheduled conversions use up one of the Romulan's conversions at their capital or other starbase?
ANSWER: Rule (621.12) says that normal rules apply unless otherwise noted. So any such conversions must be paid for and would take up the appropriate conversion slot. The only difference is that you have control over your production and can choose when and where to do them, you don't have to follow the historical conversion schedule. In other words, all WE->KE conversions are at your discretion, you can do as many as allowed by the rules, or none if you wish. All normal conversion rules apply.
================================================
Darin Smith:
In Demon of the Eastern Wind what is the status of the unexplored Romulan areas as per 603.15? Do they need exploration at all since 603.15 is a rule for a different scenario? Are they explored in the same way? Do BATS and PDUs need to be deployed in difference from 603.15?
ANSWER: Rule (621.12) specifies that they must be activated just like in the normal scenarios.
===================================================
Tim Losberg:
Can a single SB Convert a B10 to a B10VAA or does it take 3, one for each conversion?
ANSWER: The stasis conversion is a separate conversion from the carrier. You can do two stasis kits as one minor 6 pt conversion under the rule (312.32), and the carrier as a second conversion, before or after the stasis conversion. You cannot do the stasis and carrier conversions together as a single conversion.
=================================
Jeremy Scott:
Which Federation & Empire products contain the Neo-Tholians? Advanced Operations? Reinforcements? I am attempting to update my set to include them but my local stores don't carry F&E products and the descriptions available online seem contradictory. Thank you.
ANSWER: Neos are in Advanced Ops according to the SIT.
================================
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 10:56 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
In fact, you can always move into the same hex as such a planet and simply choose to ignore it, and it will ignore you.
________________________________________
Does this mean you can move through the neutral zone hex and claim it, despite the neutral minor being there? Would you then be able to annex it in 10 turns?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, October 09, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Also, you imply that a unit victorious in SSC can't retreat. Was that your intention?
ANSWER: If this is the raid phase, then I believe yes. There is no retreat step in the raid phase. Note you can retreat if the SSC result is a mandatory retreat for your unit, but you don't get to choose whether to retreat or not. The normal retreat step (Phase 5 Step 7) only occurs in the combat phase, the same way that Pursuit (Phase 5 Step 8) only occurs in regular combat, not raid combat.
________________________________________
Nick, what about cases where the compot of the unit precludes SSC (ie Hydran LGE or Fed DVL)? does that mean that if it goes to normal combat, no one can retreat from the battle?
By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 10:51 am: Edit
This is going to seem a very stupid question, but I haven't played F&E in almost ten years and am just starting to play again. Do races really earn income every turn (meaning twice in one year)? In other words does the Federation earn 220 EP (approximately) in the Fall and Spring Economic Phases? I have a vague recollection of only earning money every other turn but that doesn't seem to be in the rules, even though the production schedules for most races (save the Tholians) seem to be almost exactly half their income. My info is from the 1989 edition. My 2000 edition hasn't arrived yet.
By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 02:52 pm: Edit
Does anything prohibit the Lyran Enemy’s Blood Fleet and the Klingon Western Fleet from each beginning to upgrade a BATS to a Starbase (in their deployment area) on the Coalition part of turn three? The scenario instructions for The Wind indicate that these forces are available, even though the Hydrans have not had a chance to invade yet.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 05:39 pm: Edit
Jeremy
Wait for your 2000 Edition. But the answer to your question is that yes, every race earns income every turn. And add up the Hydran builds from turn 4+, they have to struggle to even build their full construction schedule.
Ken
The only thing that I know of to prevent the Lyrans and Klingons from each upgrading a border BATS on their part of Turn 3 is the Hydran fleet. On Turn 3 they have enough ships to kill them while they are still BATS and the Coalition would be out 72 EPs, IF the BATS you are thinking about converting are the ones within 6 hexes of the Hydran capitol. If not, they may not bother depending on what they are planning to do.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 10:04 pm: Edit
The EB and the Klingon Western Fleet are unreleased fleets (and hence zones) for the Coalition half of T3. This means you cannot upgrade bases in those zones. You can lay an MB in those zones if you so desire.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 10:30 pm: Edit
Unfortunately the rules say:
________________________________________
Quote:
TURN 3, FALL Y169
Klingons and/or Lyrans cannot attack Hydrans. If Hydrans do not attack, released Coalition Forces available against the Kzinti.
LYRAN: All Forces are available.
KLINGON: All except Eastern Fleet and Home Fleet. Home Fleet is released if Hydrans enter Klingon territory. The Southern Reserve is released on Turn #3 only if the Hydrans attack.
________________________________________
This means that the EB and Western Fleets are released but since they are not at war with the Hydrans, and the rules say they cannot attack the Hydrans on Turn #3, they can't do much. And what I highlighted in blue means that if by strange happenstance the Kzinti are assaulting Coalition Fleets/Bases/Planets/Whatever within 6 hexes of the EB or Western Fleets, the Coalition can use those 2 fleets against them.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 09:26 am: Edit
A few questions on the Four Powers War scenario:
A) The game essentially starts on Alliance T1 when the Hydrans attack the Lyrans, but it states that the Coalition part of T1 is "played". Does this mean that the Klingons and Lyrans on T1 Coalition get to build their 3 or 4 pre-war ships? And if yes, presumably the Kzintis get to do that on T1 Alliance, too.
B) On some turn in the middle of the scenario (5? 6?), the Treaty of Smarba is established, which releases 6 ships from the Klingon home fleet and requires the Klingons to activate and send ships to the Romulans. Can the Klingons release any 6 ships from the home fleet? How many ships do the Klingons have to activate to send to the Romulans?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 01:54 pm: Edit
Peter: I am beginning that scenario as well (we have had a rough start schedule wise and are still in T1) and what we found in our Q&A search is:
A) I believe the previous Q&A on the 4PW says that they (K,L,Z) only get the stated ships as PWC. No expeditures, no left over EPs, no conversions, just the PWC.
B) I think it is any ships and the Klingon (ADM) which starts in the Home Fleet. The Klingons send ALL activated ships to Roms VIA the treaty, I believe 7EP worth IIRC.
Further 4PW related question: The SIT shows a few carrier based units that actually pre-date the Historical 4PW scenario. Are these units ignored? Some examples are SAV (which we are currently ignoring) and PDU's (which could obviously considered PGBs for the scenario).
Peter: I was going to email you the results of our 4PW info quest but I seem to have misplaced the doc. Maybe Todd can forward it to you if he reads this.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 02:34 pm: Edit
One other question (may be silly but it is not defined): In the VC section of the 4PW rules (607.5) it says that you get 1 victory point for every 20 points of opponents ComPot destroyed does that number count both side of the counter (crippled and uncrippled) or just the uncrippled strength?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 03:31 pm: Edit
Peter, good point but if you follow the sequence of play, the Alliance turn comes AFTER the Coalition turn, so how can the Coaliton do ANYTHING with those fleets during their turn when they are not available?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 03:43 pm: Edit
Peter: Found it...incoming. Hope it helps.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 04:20 pm: Edit
Are the Hydran "Free Fighter Points" referred to in the 4PW (607.41) Hybrid or Carrier Factors?
(This needs to be more clearly defined in the Warbook.)
By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 04:42 pm: Edit
Michael, Jimi
Thank you for you help. It is somewhat confusing. I’ll restate my understanding to make sure that I’m not wrong.
For the Klingons:
The Western Fleet is listed as available, as it is a subset of “All except Eastern Fleet and Home Fleet”. It cannot attack the Hydrans, upgrading a base in the deployment area is not an attack, only a provocation.
The Home and Southern Reserve are only available if the Hydrans attack, which would be the case if they tried to stop the conversion during their half of turn three.
The Home fleet set up within two hexes on 1411. So portions of the Home fleet could be set up within extended reaction range of the Bats at 1214.
Between the Home fleet (reaction and reserve), the Southern Reserve, any other released forces, and any of the turn 1-3 builds, the Klingons could have a considerable force waiting at that Bats should the Hydrans decide to attack; albeit at the cost of the offensive against the Kzintis.
The same pretty much stands for the Lyrans, except they don’t have as many ships.
I don’t think the Hydrans have enough forces to stop both upgrades (at least in FE2K, we don’t own the expansions yet). I also don’t think the Lyrans or the Klingons have enough force to pin the Hydrans out, should they commit to throwing everything at the Bats. The Hydrans would need several rounds to destroy the Bats (approach and SIDS), and they’d lose at least a cruiser a round to DD, so the cost of stopping the conversion would be about a wash with the dead cruisers.
So my question for you who are more experienced is: Is it worth it?
Is it worth it for the Coalition to have at least one (possibly two) Starbases, six hexes from the Hydran Homeworld?
Is it worth it to the Hydran to take a bunch of cripples and lose (4-5) cruisers to kill a over glorified supply point?
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 05:54 pm: Edit
Some quick questions on F&E Operational movement please.
I wanted to confirm the reference I've read before on Andro operational movement of speed 15 (while others move at 6).
1a. Is it correct that Andro's move at 15 only when units are DisDev Equipped AND following the Rapid Transit Network?
1b. Does each RTN node need to be in every campaign hex moved through to keep this speed? or do the nodes only need to be within 6 hexes of each other?
1c. Andros are not normally allowed to use Strategic movement right?
2. What is the speed of overloaded tugs and what constitutes an "Overloaded Tug"?
3. Are Skiff's & Couriers capable of Operational movement on the F&E map? If so what are their speeds?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 06:19 pm: Edit
Ken
It is worth a few dead ships to kill the BATS before it gets upgraded. It's not just a supply point but a repair point as well. And it's 36 EPs EACH you get to kill. You would have to kill 5 CAs to get as good a return on your investment.
From the Coalition side: it's nice to have that SB 6 hexes away from the Hydran Capitol, especially since you can "hide" the FRDs there, however I would rather have the 36 EPs. You are going to need those EPs eventually.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 09:21 am: Edit
Lawrence wrote:
>>One other question (may be silly but it is not defined): In the VC section of the 4PW rules (607.5) it says that you get 1 victory point for every 20 points of opponents ComPot destroyed does that number count both side of the counter (crippled and uncrippled) or just the uncrippled strength?>>
I'd likely think it was just the uncrippled side, as really, using both sides is kind of a zero sum--If we both blow up a CA, we both either get 8 compot for victory points or 12 compot for victory points which results in an identical score differential. Although if one side kills a lot of ships and the other side doesn't, the 8 vs 12 will be significant. So yeah, that is actually a good question.
And to add to it, do you count the fighter factors on the Hydran ships? I.e. if you blow up a Ranger, does it count as:
-6 compot (just attack value)
-10 compot (attack value plus fighters)
Or something else by virtue of calculating in the crippled side?
Another question:
-On T2, the Klingons attack the Kzintis (at least in theory). The Kzinti fleets available to combat this are "fleets released by the Klingons, plus the home fleet". Presumably, this means that they only get the Duke's fleet (as the Klingons can't attack the Kzintis without entering the Duke's deployment zone, really) and the Home Fleet, unless the Klingons go and enter the Count's and Marquis' deployment zones--unlike the GW, the Kzintis can't use the Count's Fleet Reserve to fight the Klingons on the 2nd turn (unless the Klingons go somewhere dumb). Is this correct?
-Peter
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 02:58 pm: Edit
When defending a capital hex that contains more than one system, with no fixed defenses present, must a defender send at least one ship to defend each system that an attacker sends a force into? In other words, does 551.553 mean that the defender must fight at ONE planet or at ALL planets?
I note that a DN defending a capital against an attack by three small ships which had already won an approach battle would not, if this is correct, even be allowed to fight - it would be forced to retreat because the smaller vessels would split up to attack at least two systems and the DN could not be present at both, thus being forced to retreat.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 02:15 am: Edit
Nick,
Got two quick ones for you that popped up tonight:
1) Can a single ship with no other units of any kind be the target of Direct Damage or is it just subjected to normal damage allocation? In this case, a crippled F5 was attacked by five ships and 6 points of damage were scored. Obviously it is going to be destroyed, but can it be directed upon as well? Isn't a single ship being "directed" on (receiving all the fleet's fire) by default? It seems like it would not make a difference one way or another, since letting it fall would be enough to kill it anyway, but if directed upon, it would then not be eligible for depot level repair.
2) If crippled ships that withdraw before combat are pursued, are the ships that pursue them able to return and participate in further combat rounds with the ships / units in the hex that did not withdraw or are they considered out of the fight for the rest of the turn?
Thanks,
Roger
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 09:04 am: Edit
Another 4PW question.
In the 4PW rules, it states "you cannot draw supply from captured planets". I initially took this to obviously mean that captured planets can't be used as supply points in any way (i.e. you they aren't part of the supply grid, you can't trace supply to them, you can't retrograde or strategic move to them, etc.) Now that I am thinking about it more, it is possible that this line could mean something different, involving partial supply grids and what not.
The simple answer is, presumably, "Captured planets don't count as supply points for any purpose". Is this the intention of that rule?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 11:05 am: Edit
Well they have to be Supply Points, otherwise you can't get EPs from them. It probably just means you can't use captured planets to extend your supply range.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 11:14 am: Edit
Robert wrote:
>>Well they have to be Supply Points, otherwise you can't get EPs from them. It probably just means you can't use captured planets to extend your supply range.>>
Likely, although I'm unclear why they need to be supply points to get EPs from them--you get EPs from captured provinces without them being supply points, as long as they are "in supply" themselves.
My assumption for the "you can't draw supply from captured planets" rule is that:
-They don't count as supply points.
-They don't extend the supply grid.
-They don't count as retrograde points.
-You can't use them as strat move nodes.
But it is possible that the intention of that line is that you can't, if based on a captured planet but otherwise out of supply, use that planet to supply your ships (which might be an incredibly literal yet wildly overthought interpretation). I'm inclined to go with the easy one (i.e. captured planets are in no way supply points), but who knows?
-Peter
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 11:50 am: Edit
If that were the case, then I would think the rule in the scenario would state that the planets do not become part of the supply grid. Instead it says you can not draw supplies from a captured planet. If you're correct, then captured planets can not become part of the supply grid, because they are not supply points.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 12:32 pm: Edit
Robert wrote:
>>If that were the case, then I would think the rule in the scenario would state that the planets do not become part of the supply grid.>>
You'd think, wouldn't you? The rule (as a lot of rules in that particular scenario) is vague (other vagueties include a lot of the VP rules, Kzinti fleet readiness, PWC, etc.) such that it is unclear enough to likely require some clarification. I mean, like, yeah, we could just guess and go with it (which would work fine), but as it is a pretty significant issue covered by a pretty vague statement, it couldn't hurt to get it clarified :-)
>>Instead it says you can not draw supplies from a captured planet. If you're correct, then captured planets can not become part of the supply grid, because they are not supply points.>>
That is what I think the intention is, but who knows? If it is the intention, it goes along with the significant supply line limits built into the scenario (4 hex range, only 1 tug as supply and only 1 convoy), which helps explain why "historically", no one's capital was under really any significant threat (due to it being really difficult to attack a capital significantly due to the lack of supply points in range).
-Peter
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit
>>which helps explain why "historically", no one's capital was under really any significant threat (due to it being really difficult to attack a capital significantly due to the lack of supply points in range).>But making captured planets supply points does not change this, as the scenario rules state that you can not draw supply from captured planets. You still have to build bases to get into range of any capital. I think you're taking it a step too far believing they are not supply points.>>
Huh. Interesting. I'm not seeing the difference between "not drawing supply" and "not being supply points", but then, that is probably why I am confused in the first place :-)
>>Do you have a copy of the old scenario? Maybe some of the vague rules were more clear there?>>
Yeah, I do somewhere. Lemme look for that.
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 02:06 pm: Edit
SVC
Thanks. I really appreciate the time you took out of your other work to get my question answered.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 05:25 pm: Edit
Robert wrote:
>>Do you have a copy of the old scenario? Maybe some of the vague rules were more clear there?>>
Heh. I looked up the original scenario in CL#9, and the planet rule is either more or less vague, depending on your point of view:
"No supply from captured planets."
So yeah, that doesn't really clear anything up :-)
-Peter
By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 09:31 am: Edit
I started playing the 2000 Edition for the first time and I've forgotten a lot of basics (things the other players used to know, I guess). I'm confused by the section on building PDU's, especially in the capital hex. What is the absolute limit on the number of PDU's that you can build in a capital system? It doesn't seem to be based on tugs. Could, for example the Kzintis lose all of their capital defenses on the Coalition Phase of Turn 3 and then rebuild up to 4 battalions on each world on their Phase of Turn 3, so that the Coalition must face the 8 battalions on Turn 4? That seems kind of powerful, but the rules do seem to say that Tugs aren't required in the capital hex.
Another issue. A MB has a 0 combat factor immediately after being placed. But if a Tug converts a MB to a Bats during its phase of a turn, is it immediately a Bats during the following player's phase? Again, back to the capital scenario. The Kzintis lose their capital starbase on Turn 3, place a MB on their phase of turn 3, and upgrade the base to a Bats on their phase of Turn 4. Does the Coalition then face a Bats during their phase of Turn 5 or does it not become a full bats until the Kzinti phase of turn 5?
Thanks.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 09:58 am: Edit
Jeremy wrote:
>>What is the absolute limit on the number of PDU's that you can build in a capital system? >>
Putting PDUs on your capital is different than putting PDUs everywhere else--you don't need tugs or anything. You can build a maximum of 4 per turn at 7 EPs per PDU (4+3 for fighters). If you build them on acapital planet with pre-existing PDUs, they are active immediately. If you build them on a capital planet without PDUs (i.e. one that has been attacked and devestated, say), it takes a turn for them to become active (i.e. if you build them on T2, they aren't active till T3).
>> Could, for example the Kzintis lose all of their capital defenses on the Coalition Phase of Turn 3 and then rebuild up to 4 battalions on each world on their Phase of Turn 3, so that the Coalition must face the 8 battalions on Turn 4?>>
The Kzinti Homeworld starts the game with 8PDUs. If the Coalition kill 4 of them on Coalition T3, during the Kzinti build phase of T3, they can build 4 more, and they would immediately be active, putting them back up to 8PDUs. If all 8PDUs are killed on Coalition T3, the Kzinti could build 4 more on Kzinti T3, but as there were no PDUs already on the planet (as they had been destroyed previously), they would not be active till Kzinti T4.
>> That seems kind of powerful, but the rules do seem to say that Tugs aren't required in the capital hex.>>
PDUs are kind of powerful.
>> A MB has a 0 combat factor immediately after being placed. But if a Tug converts a MB to a Bats during its phase of a turn, is it immediately a Bats during the following player's phase?>>
Bases take a turn to set up counting phase to phase. You start setting them up on, say, Alliance Turn N, and they aren't active till Alliance turn N+1. For example:
Kzinti T1: Tug moes to hex and starts setting up MB. The MB is essentially non existant, except as part of the tug setting it up, till the start of Kzinti T2. If the tug is killed, the MB dies with it. If the tug flees the hex, the MB is destroyed.
Kzinti T2: MB is active. It has 8 compot and scout functions. The tug could now upgrade the MB to a BATS--pay 15 EPs, assign the tug to base upgrade, but the base is still a MB until the start of Kzinti T3.
Kzinti T3: MB is now a fully functional BATS. The tug could now start turning it into a SB, which would work just like the BATS upgrade. But more expensive.
>>The Kzintis lose their capital starbase on Turn 3, place a MB on their phase of turn 3, and upgrade the base to a Bats on their phase of Turn 4. Does the Coalition then face a Bats during their phase of Turn 5 or does it not become a full bats until the Kzinti phase of turn 5? >>
Given this scenario, the MB is non existant (except as something attached to the tug) during Coaltion T4; it is a MB being upgraded to a BATS on Coalition T5, and is a fully functional BATS on Kzinti T5 (and probably will be dead by then...)
Hope this helps.
-Peter
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Sunday, October 15, 2006 - 11:20 am: Edit
I have a question about the "East Wind" scenario. (621.0)
It says in 621.113 that "All races have full control over their economies. The historical production schedules become what the shipyard can build if you have the money, ..."
For the Klingons and Lyran, that's pretty easy since their schedule is so big even on turn 1.
The Kzinti aren't so bad, since building a CV group without free fighter factors costs 34.5 EP and the DD and extra FFK on turn 1 bring it up to 43.5. That's only 3 EP less than their 50% economy. Later turns they easily exceed 46.5 EP.
The Hydran also aren't so bad, since their schedule ramps up pretty quick, although they will have excess EP available on T1 and T2.
But how's this apply to the Feds? It also says (in 621.142 for the Feds) that "It will, however, keep the published production schedule and will not use the "early war" production schedule."
So, for the first turn, F168, the only thing on the Fed schedule is a 3 EP activation of an old DN. What remains of the Fed economy, even at peace, is 107.5 EP. If the Feds really have "full control" what's that mean?
Can they use overbuilds? Rule 602.49B says no, even during limited war, so I assume that means for peace too. But specific overrides general, so does 621.113 override?
Can they convert ships? Rule 600.32 says that ships of inactive fleets can be converted if on a wartime status. Specific overrides general though, so does 621.113 allow the Federation to convert ships even on Turns 1, 2 and possibly 3 when they're at peace?
What about T4+? Is "limited war" a "wartime status" for purposes of that rule?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 01:23 pm: Edit
Four Powers War Question:
The starting OOB for the Klingons gives the Pods available. It does not list (overlooked?) the Drone Pods despite the availability date (Y149) being prior to the war start.
Should we:
A) Say they are immediately available for construction by the Klingon player upon starting the game?
B) Add them to the starting OOB?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 03:24 pm: Edit
As one the guys who updated that scenario, I would say that the Klingon DP pods are available at start (this will need to be confirmed with ADB).
BTW, do the Kzinti have the DB pods at start (I don't have any documentation with me at the moment)?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, October 16, 2006 - 03:31 pm: Edit
The Kzinti DB pods are their battle pods, which include DB factors.
By Cliff Yahnke (Sarumanthewhite) on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 04:13 pm: Edit
Hey guys,
I have a question regarding reserve movement. Group A with a Reserve marker is pinned by 24 ship equivalents moving into its hex during Operational Movement. Groups B & C (consisting of 12 ship equivalents each) each have a Reserve marker and are within 6 hexes of the soon-to-be-battle in Group A's hex.
Can Groups B&C reserve move to Group A's hex, thereby freeing it (Group A) to use its reserve move???
Thanks,
Cliff
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 04:57 pm: Edit
Yes.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 05:01 pm: Edit
Cliff, you can under (203.732).
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:31 am: Edit
Some quick questions on F&E Operational movement please.
I wanted to confirm the reference I've read before on operational movement & Andro movement of speed 15 (while others move at 6).
1a. Is it correct that Andro's move at 15 only when units are DisDev Equipped AND following the Rapid Transit Network?
1b. Does each RTN node need to be in every campaign hex moved through to keep this speed? or do the nodes only need to be within 6 hexes of each other?
1c. Andros are not normally allowed to use Strategic movement right?
2. What is the speed of overloaded tugs and what constitutes an "Overloaded Tug"?
3. Are Skiff's & Couriers capable of Operational movement on the F&E map? (I'm assuming they are like PF's in this respect but require no "Tender"). And if so what are their speeds?
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 01:07 pm: Edit
Overloaded Tug is the same speed as an Aux (3 Op, 12 Strat).
The exact configuration of tug pods that make a tug overloaded are defined in the rule, but is generally any Tug that in SFB would have a move cost 2 or any LTT carrying a double weight pod (Fed TG BP + CV or CVA+CV are two examples, Fed LTT+BP is another). I think the Klingon and Kzinti SCP are also overloaded.
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Craig,
I assume your SCP reference is the SCS Pod?
Well I can't comment on F&E but as a long time Klingon player I know that the SFB speed cost of the Klingon Space Control Tug is 1.5 (Kzinti too I believe).
That said maybe F&E has different associations for some pods.
I have ordered a new copy of F&E that's yet to arive but my last copy is lost and we need some of this info for a campaign we are setting up.
Thanks
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 04:35 pm: Edit
Having read up in other threads I've found the needed information on the Courier/Skiff query and Craig's info mostly settles the info needed on the Overloaded Tug thing.
Could someone please shed some light on the Andro portions of my questions?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 06:36 pm: Edit
Robert,
Generally speaking, Nick answers questions officially as often as he can (a collected answer file shows up every few weeks, where Nick answers all of the questions since he last posted an answer file). If other folks have easy answers to easy questions (i.e. ones that don't require official ruling), they will tend to post them, but if there are complicated/obscure questions that no one feels confident in answering, we have to wait for Nick.
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 06:42 pm: Edit
And for this question, we're going to have to wait because that information is still in the designing phase/playtest AFAIK.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 02:51 pm: Edit
What happens if I Annex a Neutral Zone hex (448.2) that has a planet in it (448.28), but I never capture the planet? Do I automatically get the planet?
By Jeremy Scott (Jscott991) on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 11:31 pm: Edit
Another very basic question. If a force decides to use directed damage against a target and fails to score enough Damage Points to cripple it, what happens? Do they lose all their damage for the round? For example, if a battle force is directing damage against a Bats and scores 22 points of damage, what happens? They haven't scored the 24 needed to cripple it.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 02:21 am: Edit
You cannot cripple it outright -- you could opt to do a SIDS for 18 pts -- three SIDS cripple a base.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 06:15 am: Edit
Jeremy:
Directed damage is not declared until after the amount of damage generated is known. (damage determination is step 5.4 in the SoP: step 5.5 is directed damage) If you don't have enough damage to at least cripple a given target, you can't declare directed damage on it. (excepting SIDS for bases as noted by Chuck)
Cheers,
Jason
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 07:00 pm: Edit
Peter Bakija,
Thanks for the update.
One thing anyone here might help with though is whether or not anyone remembers the speeds they have used for Andromedans on the Operational Movement. And maybe how this was integrated with other turns phases etc...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 22, 2006 - 11:33 pm: Edit
Sorry I did not get to Q&A this weekend. I was working on some Maelstrom scenario stuff for the next product.
The only Andro info for F&E is in the playtest rules, so I have no idea what the final form will be, it will be quite a while before that product comes out. When I do the questions I will look up which cap log the playtest info is in.
Hopefully this week if I can get the rest of my Maelstrom stuff done.
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Hi Nick,
Thanks, I am looking forward to your info.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 07:51 pm: Edit
If a planet goes into Rebellion, does suppressing the Rebellion make the hex a Battle Hex?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 10:58 pm: Edit
When does a planet become part of the Supply Grid. The example is the Klingons recapture Cygnus on T8A. Does Cygnus become part of the Supply grid at the begining on T9C.
By the way 413.2 reads "Captured (or recaptured) planets form part of the Supply Grid at the beginning of the Player Turn after they are captured (or recaptured)." It would seem that the rule seems to be written to have a 6 month delay but in this case it's not gonna happen.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, October 23, 2006 - 11:05 pm: Edit
Question on Infilitration. 537.12 says "Once per turn, one resistance movement on one planet can attempt to infiltrate one of the ships (not bases) at the planet's location."
Is this one per side or one per race? Why couldn't each race do this? I would think it would under the same conditions as 537.11 Sabotage that say's one of each race's planets.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 08:48 am: Edit
Ryan, the next Player Turn in your case would be the Alliance. So the planet becomes a supply point at the beginning of T9C, just like you said.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 01:03 pm: Edit
Robert, et al.
The example that Ryan is referring to happened this way:
1) Klingons capture Cygnus on Coalition Turn 8 (T8C).
2) On the Alliance Turn 8 (T8A), the garrison ship is forced off during a raid, planet reverts to Fed control with no ships in the hex.
3) Later in T8A, the Klingons use extended range reaction movement to move a number of ships on to the planet, recapturing it on T8A.
The question is when does it become a supply point for the Klingons? The way (413.2) reads, it would be one at the start of Coalition Turn 9 (T9C). For income purposes, it is the second subsequent player turn after capture. It seems it can become a supply point much faster than start generating EPs, which fits with how quickly supply points can be established (convoy, tug, etc.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 01:35 pm: Edit
Right, so in that case the planet is a supply point at the beginning of T9C, even though it changed hands during T8A, the next Player Turn is still T9C. For income, I would think loosing the planet during the turn would reset the clock. However it is not the second Player Turn for income, just the Second Turn. Which I think means in this case you would not get income until T11A (which may as well be T11C).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 03:42 pm: Edit
Hi Nick
I need a logical answer to a question - because currently there is a totally stupid answer to the question as it stands.
Situation (Hull numbers are off, but are approximate).
Battles in - Coalition are attacking/Kzinti are defenders
1401 120 Kzinti Ship (All planets undevatstated) v 180 Coalition Ships
1502 3 Kzinti Ships plus 3 PDU's on an undevastated planet v 20 Coalition Ships
1402 1 Kzinti Ship v 1 Coaltion Ship
If the Kzinti retreat from 1401 - they can retreat to either Barony (Range Zero) or 1502 (Range Zero, with enemy ships - so tecnhnically a Fighting Retreat).
However, the Coalition are also retreating - and they can go to either 1402 (Range 2 with Enemy Ship) or 1502 (Range 2 with Enemy Ships)
However, as it stands, I have to Fighting Retreat to my base - whereas the Coalition can freally move onto it - all due to 1 Ship (equivalent) in 1402.
Logically, if BOTH sides wanted to go to 1502 - both should have to Fighting Retreat there.
So, basically, should 1 ship equivalent in 1 hex allow an enemy to treat it as the same as a hex with 100 in it (and assuming they have more than 100 ship equivalents)?
Should the base make a difference?
What I have seen in games, is that the Fighting Retreat Rule is being used massively by the Coalition, for the wrong reasons (kill extra ships), rather than as intended (to allow ships to not be herded) - and therefore I think the rule should be changed. On top of this, this true example shows the stupidty of the retreat priorities and Fighting Retreat Rules -
Namely, I have to Fighting Retreat to MY base, and the enemy can freely retreat there.
So proposal (i.e. what I think the Rule should LOGICALLY say)- Step 2 should take into account the forces in the hexes and the player should be required to retreat to the hex with the LOWER number of ships in it, unless they wish to do a fighting retreat.
So on this occasion - the Coalition would be required to retreat to 1402, and could do a fighting retreat to 1502.
Sounds logical doesn't it.
Can you please send this up to SVC to confirm that the intention of the rule is as above.
Thank you
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 05:07 pm: Edit
Paul,
I can't answer the question, but have you looked at the CL26 rule clarification concerning fighting retreats?
In part it says:
FIGHTING RETREAT
(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).
It's in the Q&A archives if you want to see more of the rule. But maybe this answers part of your question.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 08:17 pm: Edit
Nick:
Maybe this chart would help (please confirm as correct):
If: Captures (or Liberates) a planet during: Then it becomes a SUPPLY POINT on: And begins PRODUCING EPs during:
Alliance Player Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+1 Alliance Turn X+2
Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X Alliance Turn X+2
.
Coalition Player Alliance Turn X the start of the Coalition Turn X+1 Coalition Turn X+2
Coalition Turn X the start of the Alliance Turn X Coalition Turn X+2
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 08:26 pm: Edit
But if the Coalition conquers a planet on the Alliance part of a turn, wouldn't it start producing EPs on Coalition turn X+3 since the Alliance part of the turn is the second half of the turn? Basically 2 FULL turns, but since the Coalition can't collect EPs on the Alliance part of the turn they'd be out of luck.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - 05:31 am: Edit
Matthew - Yes
1 Round of Approach at Fighting Retreat Odds (for me) - Normal though for the Coalition (even though there is a much more logical retreat hex for them).
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 03:21 am: Edit
Nick, Ever catch which Captains Log that Andro F&E info was in?
By Darin Smith (Dsmith) on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 08:28 am: Edit
In retrograde movement does a fleet "hold open" neighboring hexes for it's own retrograde path? The reason I ask is that 206.22 does not state this the way 411.31 does for supply. If it does then can it not continue to hold open the path for all 6 hexes of movement since these are hexes moved and not a "path" like supply?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 09:30 am: Edit
Only the first surrounding hexes. After that the fleet itself does not hold open any hexes.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 12:25 pm: Edit
OK I have an interesting little situation, I think that I know the answer but I'm going to ask anyway.
A battle hex contains three out of supply Federation ships and three in supply Romulan ships. Both sides decide to retreat, and teh Federation was the defender. The Romulans have exactly one hex that is one hex distant from supply, and three hexes that are two hexes distant from supply. The Federation force opts to retreat into the hex that would be one hex distant from supply for the Romulans. Since the Federation force does not outnumber the Romulan force, is the Romulan force conpelled to retreat into the same hex as the Federation force?
I believe they would be forced into the same hex and forced into another battle round, even though they clearly do not want to fight another battle round. This is because 302.73 Step 3 I believe should take priority over 302.73 Step 4, as Step 4 would eliminate all hexes left after Step 3 (which in this case is the hex with Federation ships in it).
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 12:42 pm: Edit
When defending a multi-system hex, in which all locations are devastated and without fixed defenses so that the defending force is placed entirely in the "mobile" pool (with no forces placed for duty at individual systems), is the defender required to fight at every system to which the attacker sends a force, or is it only required that the defender fight at one system per combat round?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 01:46 pm: Edit
Todd,
You're probably looking (and still waiting) for Nick's answer. But that hasn't come, so if you want I'll give you my take.
Rule 551.553 you cited the first time is the "the defender must defend something" rule to prevent the defender from saying "I'm not engaging your forces anywhere, but I'm also not retreating."
I believe the defender only has to offer battle at one location.
Of course, that one location can change each turn, which makes the tactic of taking a bunch of minus points to prevent Directed Damage next round a little risky.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 01:54 pm: Edit
Wow, there's one for the Warbook. I just realized after all this time playing F&E that that rule number is wrong. It should be 511.553, not 551.553. Same goes for 551 and 552 right above it.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 03:00 pm: Edit
I think those got covered in the AAR for that printing. I remember making the note in the margin from the CL publishing of the AAR. Still, good to double check and place over in Warbook.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 10:05 am: Edit |
November - December 2006 Archive
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 01:07 am: Edit
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak:
Nick, Ever catch which Captains Log that Andro F&E info was in?
===================
It is Cap Log #11.
The andros are presented as a sort of wandering monster and as such do not have any movement rates listed.
It was one page of rules, they list the different mother ship counters and their factors, (sat ships are factors like fighter factors, some of which can sometimes count for EW points or mauler points instead of normal combat factors).
The andros operate as an automatic thing at the end of each game turn, three new motherships are added randomly to the F&E map, if they survive the next game turn then they place a satbase there, another mothership at the base, and then the largest mothership randomly moves to an adjacent province to repeat the process.
So they randomly show up, disrupt provinces, and begin expanding. If they run into anything as they move to an adjacent province then they attack it. If they loose all their sat ships they try to retreat, they can even retreat off map back to the LMC (effectivly gone from the game until placed randomly again). If you can wipe out the last andro in an area it will likely be some time before they come back (as that spot would have to be chosen randomly for a future andro raid), so that would effectivley end the infestation at that location.
Fairly simple set of rules, but there is no info on how fast they might move operationally/strategically if they were a player operated race.
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - 04:05 pm: Edit
GREAT THANKS!!
I still remember somewhere seeing a reference to them being speed 15 while the other races move at 6 so I will have to delve deep to try and locate that reference I read. (Maybe an old Nexus)?
Thanks a bunch. Your info here goes a long way toward helping us setup our campaign. And I will dig up my old CL #11 to read further.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 10:17 am: Edit
If an FRD with an attending tug does not move during op moves, but performs CEDS repair, can it still move via strategic movement?
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 12:17 pm: Edit
Can a FRD do CEDS repair? I thought only a base could do so.
By Derek Meserve (Sepeku) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 12:40 pm: Edit
It was a recent ruling confirming it.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 01:04 pm: Edit
I have a question relating to special raids. If the target race uses reaction movement in response to a special raid in step 3A-3C, does the resulting combat happen immediately, before the raid takes place, or in step 3A-3H with any potential reacting forces?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 07:52 pm: Edit
Questions Downloaded to this point.
By Kerry Drake (Kedrake) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 01:22 pm: Edit
In Scenario 682 (The Second Fed-Kzinti War), rule (682.14) states:
________________________________________
Quote:
All battle stations are base stations with a factor of 8 when undamage and 4 when crippled.
________________________________________
Do you use SIDS on a Base Station, and if so is it still 3 SIDS steps of 18 points (directed damage) or 4.5 points (voluntary damage)?
I am thinking 2 SIDS Steps would be more appropriate.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 07:08 pm: Edit
The SIT lists CL29 as the reference for the Hydran PGG -- which page is it on or is it somewhere else?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 07:45 pm: Edit
Chuck:
The PGG is in CL25 along with most of the other Pegasus varients. SSD is on p50, description is on p68, class history is on p26.
Cheers,
Jason
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Sorry typo -- I meant the PGE.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 08:13 pm: Edit
HMM... Can't help you with that one. The PGE is definitely not in either CL25 or CL29, and isn't listed on the SFB MSC.
By John Wyszynski (Starsabre) on Thursday, November 09, 2006 - 08:17 pm: Edit
Does upgrading a non-X base to an X base (423.415) require a Tug or LTT? I assume that procedure (433.41) is used, but it doesn't actually state that.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 04:17 pm: Edit
A question on raids. By 314.21 ships from the raid pool start in the capital hex, then move to any SMN to conduct the raid. That same rule also states that the raiding ships are not actually in the capital hex. What I am wondering is if raiding ships can move into an off-map area, then use that off-map area to conduct their raid. As an example, say the Kzinti have a BC in the raid pool. They have no on-map SMNs left, expect 1401 and the off-map. Does the raid have to target six hexes from 1401, or can it be six hexes from the off-map area (which would allow for greater reach of the raid). I believe that raiding ships can use the off-map area, but it never hurts to be sure.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 07:14 pm: Edit
Robert
I'm no Nick (and I don't have my books in front of me), but I do know a few things about raids. Unfortunately, the answer is no. If you read the rules on strategic movement (which is how raid pool ships initially move), you cannot both enter and exit the OffMap using that form of movement. I've wanted to do that with the Kzinti when they've been pushed back to the capital, but alas no. Another way strategic movement rules affects this is for example:
Situation: T6A. The Kzinti are pushed back to the capital and the Marquis. The Coalition has cut off the Marquis with a bunch of FFs making the Marquis a partial supply grid. The Coalition has a bunch of FRDs sitting on 1807 (the upper-right BATS if I got the number wrong). The Kzinti cannot use their ships in the raid pool to hit those FRDs because while 1807 is within range of SMNs in the Marquis, the raid ships cannot get to the Marquis in the first place because they do not have a strategic movement path to those SMNs from their capital.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Friday, November 10, 2006 - 11:29 pm: Edit
Question:
Pinning rules per 203.5 state that 6 fighters equate to a full ship in pinning.
Fighter ship equivalent rules per 501.9 state 3-5 fighters equate to a crippled ship.
In pinning 2 crippled ships can pin 1 non crippled ship.
Cripples can form togethor to pin a non crippled ship, so can fighters form 2 groups of 3-5 fighters to pin a ship as well? I would think so.
This all leads up to the following question:
Do fighters off a carrier or hybrid ship that are only 2 fighters (A Hydran DG is a good example) have no pinning ability what so ever and can not mate up with say a Hydran Rangers fighters (4) to form a full 6 fighter equivalent?
The rules are vague (suprise!).
If so this makes Dragoons & Lord Bishops (good fighting ships) weak when it comes to pinning as there fighters are of no value at all.
It also makes lancers loose out as well.
John
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 07:56 am: Edit
You add all the fighters up in the hex and divide by 6, that's how many pinning equivalents you can get from the fighters regardless of what they're being carried by.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 08:00 am: Edit
John:
IANN, but everyone I have played with simply counts the total number of eligible fighter factors present in the hex and divides by six to get the number of ship equivalents of fighters for pinning purposes. Any remainder is evaluated by 501.9 do determine if it counts as a 1/2 ship equivalent for pinning.
Thus, RN+DG is three ship equivalents for pinning (2 ships plus 1 SE of fighters), RN+DG+LN is 4 SE (3 ships, plus 1 SE of fighters, with the 2 leftover fighters not counting for anything), and RN+DG+HR is 4.5 SE (3 ships, 1 full SE of fighters, and the 3 leftover fighters, which count as a crippled ship).
Cheers,
Jason
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 09:01 am: Edit
John it has been discussed many times that what is clear to some may not be so clear to others. The warbook project (at this point a backburner pipe dream) will hopefully eliminate some of these problems but I am sure not all.
As Micheal and Jason have described above.
Your results showing the math and looking at rule (501.9) would be:
You simply add all of your fighters up in the hex and divide by 6.
• A result of a number "X.166" you have one extra fighter and do not have enough for even a half of an equivalent.
• A result of a number "X.333" you have two extra fighters and do not have enough for even a half of an equivalent.
• A result of a number "X.5" you have three extra fighters and do have enough for a half of an equivalent but not for a full equivalent.
• A result of a number "X.666" you have four extra fighters and do have enough for a half of an equivalent but not for a full equivalent.
• A result of a number "X.833" you have five extra fighters and do have enough for a half of an equivalent but not for a full equivalent.
This could all very easily have been written up into a "Could you give me an example of..." article (I miss those for F&E) because you never know what you don't know.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 10:31 am: Edit
Michael, Jason, & Lawrence
Thanks for the interpretation, I agree in full.
The second part of this question then comes into play:
Heavy Fighters and F-14/F-15 are a group of 6 fighters per the rules with "added" combat ability due to thier quality.
A group of 6 F-14/F-15 fighters = 8 combat.
A group of 6 Heavy Fighters = 9 combat.
The rules state quit clearly that these fighter squadrons (I would assume a Romulans SPB squardron of 8 combat would also be included) equate to "6" fighters.
If this is the case then when determining pinning these special cases (not so special for late war situations, in fact quite common) it would be an advantage to count the combat factors of a carrier group (etc...) instead of the actual fighters as more factors will come up this way.
To wit: a 3NVH group has, by the stated rules, 6 fighters that equate to 9 combat factors. Now, within the letter of the rules, how many ships does a 3NVH group pin? 4 or 4.5?
It gets trickier the more rules you add to the game. It is better (IMO) to have a blanket rule here instead of several rules that need to be adhered to. I opt for simply counting up the total and dividing by 6. But what do the rules imply?
John
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 11:19 am: Edit
A 3NVH group with full fighters pins four. The "rule of six" is only applicable to standard fighters. Anytime you have any of the special fighters (F-14, F-15, A-10, A-20, F-111, standard heavies) you have to take them by type and use their speical divisor (seven, eight, nine, or ten) to determine the total ship equivilants *of that type.* Then combine with SEs of fighters, ships, fast ships, etc., for your total pin count.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 11:26 am: Edit
Note that odd-size groups of standard fighters (SPB, UH, etc) still use a divisor of 6. Thus, a [3SPB]+[2SKB] has a pin count of 7SE (5 for the ships plus 2SE for the 12 "normal" fighter factors). Only those fighter groups with explicit special rules would use special divisors.
Cheers,
Jason
By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 02:06 pm: Edit
UNDER WHAT RULE IS THE "SUPPORT ECHELON" DEFINED IN FEDERATION AND EMPIRE? I CAN FIND NO REFERENCE TO IT. I KNOW THE ISC HAS A DEFINED "SUPPORT ECHELON" THAT IS WHERE A "FREE SCOUT" IS FOUND BEHIND THE DN THAT IS THE CORE OF A NORMALLY DEPLOYED ECHELON, BUT THAT IS TERM I INVENTED FOR SFB. I CANNOT FIND ANY MENTION OF A "SUPPORT ECHELON" IN FEDERATION AND EMPIRE.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 02:19 pm: Edit
SPP,
Looks like 302.563 is the answer. It then references rules 309, 501.4 and 502.41
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 03:03 pm: Edit
That's it. Thanks, Ryan.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 05:32 pm: Edit
1st batch finished.
2nd batch downloaded to this point.
Will post when 2nd batch is done tonight.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 06:16 pm: Edit
==========================
Derek Meserve:
Quote:
In fact, you can always move into the same hex as such a planet and simply choose to ignore it, and it will ignore you.
Does this mean you can move through the neutral zone hex and claim it, despite the neutral minor being there? Would you then be able to annex it in 10 turns?
Answer: Yes, see the last sentence of (430.25). This allows you to capture the hex but ignore the planet. Then in 10 turns you can annex the hex (and get the planet along with it at that time). You are of course giving up 10 turns of potential income (devestated of course) from the planet to do this.
================================
Tim Losberg:
Quote:
-----------
Also, you imply that a unit victorious in SSC can't retreat. Was that your intention?
ANSWER: If this is the raid phase, then I believe yes. There is no retreat step in the raid phase. Note you can retreat if the SSC result is a mandatory retreat for your unit, but you don't get to choose whether to retreat or not. The normal retreat step (Phase 5 Step 7) only occurs in the combat phase, the same way that Pursuit (Phase 5 Step 8) only occurs in regular combat, not raid combat.
-----------
Nick, what about cases where the compot of the unit precludes SSC (ie Hydran LGE or Fed DVL)? does that mean that if it goes to normal combat, no one can retreat from the battle?
ANSWER: If you do regular combat you get the regular retreat step as well. See rule (318.731) which specifies that in this case you do regular combat rounds until one side is destroyed or "voluntarily retreats". Remember that in SSC any retreats are built into the combat result table rather than being voluntary.
=============================
Jeremy Scott:
This is going to seem a very stupid question, but I haven't played F&E in almost ten years and am just starting to play again. Do races really earn income every turn (meaning twice in one year)? In other words does the Federation earn 220 EP (approximately) in the Fall and Spring Economic Phases? I have a vague recollection of only earning money every other turn but that doesn't seem to be in the rules, even though the production schedules for most races (save the Tholians) seem to be almost exactly half their income. My info is from the 1989 edition. My 2000 edition hasn't arrived yet.
ANSWER: Yes you get income every economic phase which is twice a year. You may be thinking of rule (430.13) which says an income source (planet/province) only produces income once a turn, but this means once a game turn (only once in a given spring turn and again once in a given spring turn) which prevents a planet from providing money to both sides, first coalition, then immediately to the alliance on the same spring or fall game turn.
============================
Ken Cole:
Does anything prohibit the Lyran Enemy’s Blood Fleet and the Klingon Western Fleet from each beginning to upgrade a BATS to a Starbase (in their deployment area) on the Coalition part of turn three? The scenario instructions for The Wind indicate that these forces are available, even though the Hydrans have not had a chance to invade yet.
ANSWER: Not that I am aware of. Those forces are specifically available (i.e. released), but have the special prohibition against attacking the Hydrans on turn 3. To me that means you can do anything you want with them on Turn 3 except moving into/across the Hydran Neutral Zone hexes.
==============================
Peter D Bakija:
A few questions on the Four Powers War scenario:
A) The game essentially starts on Alliance T1 when the Hydrans attack the Lyrans, but it states that the Coalition part of T1 is "played". Does this mean that the Klingons and Lyrans on T1 Coalition get to build their 3 or 4 pre-war ships? And if yes, presumably the Kzintis get to do that on T1 Alliance, too.
ANSWER: Sure, build the designated PWC, but those races don't have "control" of their economy yet so you can't make changes to the schedule.
B) On some turn in the middle of the scenario (5? 6?), the Treaty of Smarba is established, which releases 6 ships from the Klingon home fleet and requires the Klingons to activate and send ships to the Romulans. Can the Klingons release any 6 ships from the home fleet? How many ships do the Klingons have to activate to send to the Romulans?
ANSWER: Looks like any six to me, these are released for use against the Kzintis/Hydrans. The ships that go to the Roms are all possible mothball activations from turn Spring Y159.
Looks like Lawrence got both of those for you.
==============================
Lawrence Bergen:
Further 4PW related question: The SIT shows a few carrier based units that actually pre-date the Historical 4PW scenario. Are these units ignored? Some examples are SAV (which we are currently ignoring) and PDU's (which could obviously considered PGBs for the scenario).
ANSWER: Right, see rule (607.11), the only carriers allowed in this scenairo are the Hydran warships and the GRV. PDUs and Bases have no fighters (except for Hydran PDUs and bases). Existing Kzinti Bases and PDUs get fighters on turn 8 and can (must if not using advanced construction rules) buy them from that point.
==============================
Lawrence Bergen:
One other question (may be silly but it is not defined): In the VC section of the 4PW rules (607.5) it says that you get 1 victory point for every 20 points of opponents ComPot destroyed does that number count both side of the counter (crippled and uncrippled) or just the uncrippled strength?
ANSWER: I would say just the uncrippled as that side effectivly includes the crippled value. If it didn't the real uncrippled value would be the sum of both sides, and that would be annoying to add up for every combat round!
=============================
Lawrence Bergen:
Are the Hydran "Free Fighter Points" referred to in the 4PW (607.41) Hybrid or Carrier Factors?
ANSWER: They can only be regular fighter factors, 4 carrier pts counting as 8 hybrid pts. Rule (432.242) applies to all scenarios containing Hybrid ships (i.e. it is a general rule, not a scenario specific rule).
=============================
Ken Cole:
For the Klingons:
The Western Fleet is listed as available, as it is a subset of “All except Eastern Fleet and Home Fleet”. It cannot attack the Hydrans, upgrading a base in the deployment area is not an attack, only a provocation.
ANSWER: Right.
The Home and Southern Reserve are only available if the Hydrans attack, which would be the case if they tried to stop the conversion during their half of turn three.
ANSWER: Right.
The Home fleet set up within two hexes on 1411. So portions of the Home fleet could be set up within extended reaction range of the Bats at 1214.
ANSWER: Right, a common set up to take advantage of!
Between the Home fleet (reaction and reserve), the Southern Reserve, any other released forces, and any of the turn 1-3 builds, the Klingons could have a considerable force waiting at that Bats should the Hydrans decide to attack; albeit at the cost of the offensive against the Kzintis.
ANSWER: Right again.
The same pretty much stands for the Lyrans, except they don’t have as many ships.
ANSWER: Yup. I will leave the tactical questions aside.
=============================
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak:
Some quick questions on F&E Operational movement please.
I wanted to confirm the reference I've read before on Andro operational movement of speed 15 (while others move at 6).
1a. Is it correct that Andro's move at 15 only when units are DisDev Equipped AND following the Rapid Transit Network?
1b. Does each RTN node need to be in every campaign hex moved through to keep this speed? or do the nodes only need to be within 6 hexes of each other?
1c. Andros are not normally allowed to use Strategic movement right?
ANSWER: None of the above has been officially defined as far as I know. Knock yourself out and let us know what works and what doesn't.
2. What is the speed of overloaded tugs and what constitutes an "Overloaded Tug"?
ANSWER: See rule (517.4) in Combined Operations. Overloaded tugs have a speed of 3 Operational/Reserve/Retro movement, and cannot move strategically. They use the slow unit retreat rules. There is a complete list of which pod combinations are overloaded, but generally any LTT carrying a heavy battle/carrier pod, or a Tug carrying a pair of "heavy" pods, or the Fed Tug carrying a heavy and a standard pod simultaneously (it cannot carry two heavy pods). Space Control tugs are overloaded, except for Lyrans.
3. Are Skiff's & Couriers capable of Operational movement on the F&E map? If so what are their speeds?
ANSWER: I don't think any of those are in F&E as of yet, but I would assume so and I would assume speed 6 until told otherwise.
=============================
Peter D Bakija:
-On T2, the Klingons attack the Kzintis (at least in theory). The Kzinti fleets available to combat this are "fleets released by the Klingons, plus the home fleet". Presumably, this means that they only get the Duke's fleet (as the Klingons can't attack the Kzintis without entering the Duke's deployment zone, really) and the Home Fleet, unless the Klingons go and enter the Count's and Marquis' deployment zones--unlike the GW, the Kzintis can't use the Count's Fleet Reserve to fight the Klingons on the 2nd turn (unless the Klingons go somewhere dumb). Is this correct?
ANSWER: That is correct.
=============================
Todd E Jahnke:
When defending a capital hex that contains more than one system, with no fixed defenses present, must a defender send at least one ship to defend each system that an attacker sends a force into? In other words, does 551.553 mean that the defender must fight at ONE planet or at ALL planets?
I note that a DN defending a capital against an attack by three small ships which had already won an approach battle would not, if this is correct, even be allowed to fight - it would be forced to retreat because the smaller vessels would split up to attack at least two systems and the DN could not be present at both, thus being forced to retreat.
ANSWER: You can fight at one planet since you have one ship. The rule is to prevent the defender from sitting on a dead capital hex without fighting at all thus preventing the capture/destruction of the shipyard. You do not have to fight at all threatened planets, just one. But if you decline to fight at any of them, then you must retreat under those conditions.
=============================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
1) Can a single ship with no other units of any kind be the target of Direct Damage or is it just subjected to normal damage allocation? In this case, a crippled F5 was attacked by five ships and 6 points of damage were scored. Obviously it is going to be destroyed, but can it be directed upon as well? Isn't a single ship being "directed" on (receiving all the fleet's fire) by default? It seems like it would not make a difference one way or another, since letting it fall would be enough to kill it anyway, but if directed upon, it would then not be eligible for depot level repair.
ANSWER: You can direct on it. There is no prohibition against doing so.
2) If crippled ships that withdraw before combat are pursued, are the ships that pursue them able to return and participate in further combat rounds with the ships / units in the hex that did not withdraw or are they considered out of the fight for the rest of the turn?
ANSWER: Rule (307.1) says pursuit always takes place in step 8 of the combat procedure, and can be done after any retreat, including opposed withdrawal.
So this means that even though the force withdrew crippled ships at the start of combat, you only get to pursue in the normal step after the regular combat sequence. Then you do one pursuit of the withdrawn crippled ships plus any other crippled ships that are retreating. If you retreat yourself, you cannot pursue at all, neither the withdrawn crippled ships nor any crippled ships that may be retreating normally. You do not pursue the withdrawn cripples before combat and then possibly another pursuit after combat, you only have one pursuit step for all retreating crippled units. This happens even though the retreat hex itself was chosen in the withdraw step rather than the retreat step.
So if crippled ships withdraw, and then more crippled ships retreat normally (or you destroyed the remaining defenders), you would do one pursuit of all retreating crippled ships. If you retreat yourself (or are destroyed) you get no persuit at all.
=============================
Peter D Bakija:
In the 4PW rules, it states "you cannot draw supply from captured planets". I initially took this to obviously mean that captured planets can't be used as supply points in any way (i.e. you they aren't part of the supply grid, you can't trace supply to them, you can't retrograde or strategic move to them, etc.) Now that I am thinking about it more, it is possible that this line could mean something different, involving partial supply grids and what not.
The simple answer is, presumably, "Captured planets don't count as supply points for any purpose". Is this the intention of that rule?
ANSWER: The simple answer is correct, I believe. Captured planets never provide supply. This is why the 4PW never advanced significantly beyond the borders. There is no prohibition against using them as retro points or whatnot, just the prohibition against supply. I wouldn't try to read more into it.
=============================
RULING
Steve Cole:
Did anybody get the word that the Hydran Monarch BB is a Hybrid Carrier? No escorts required (or allowed).
The BBV and BBS are true carriers.
=============================
Jeremy Scott:
I started playing the 2000 Edition for the first time and I've forgotten a lot of basics (things the other players used to know, I guess). I'm confused by the section on building PDU's, especially in the capital hex. What is the absolute limit on the number of PDU's that you can build in a capital system? It doesn't seem to be based on tugs. Could, for example the Kzintis lose all of their capital defenses on the Coalition Phase of Turn 3 and then rebuild up to 4 battalions on each world on their Phase of Turn 3, so that the Coalition must face the 8 battalions on Turn 4? That seems kind of powerful, but the rules do seem to say that Tugs aren't required in the capital hex.
ANSWER: You can build (431.21) as many PDUs as you can afford (remember that you can store these things for later use). You can place (433.423)/(508.32) them on capital system planets without tugs. You can place (433.424) a maximum of 4 per planet per turn, and of course observing the overall limits in that same rule.
Another issue. A MB has a 0 combat factor immediately after being placed. But if a Tug converts a MB to a Bats during its phase of a turn, is it immediately a Bats during the following player's phase? Again, back to the capital scenario. The Kzintis lose their capital starbase on Turn 3, place a MB on their phase of turn 3, and upgrade the base to a Bats on their phase of Turn 4. Does the Coalition then face a Bats during their phase of Turn 5 or does it not become a full bats until the Kzinti phase of turn 5?
ANSWER: Here is the sequence:
T C3: Coalition destroys a Kzinti Starbase.
T A3: Kzinti send the tug/MB and declare setup of a MB.
T C4: Coalition can attack the tug (but not the MB), if the tug is destroyed or retreats, the MB is automatically lost. If not:
T A4: The MB is now operational at the start of the Kzinti turn. The Kzinti can assign the base upgrade mission to the tug in the tug assignment step and pay the upgrade cost for the BATS in the production step.
T C5: The coalition can attack, and will face a functional MB. If they destroy it the BATS upgrade is lost. Note that destroying the tug at this point has no effect on the upgrade (it will be completed anyway). If they fail to destroy the MB:
T A5: The Kzintis now have an operational BATS, and can pay the upgrade cost for a Starbase (assuming there is still a tug available with that mission to start the process).
T C6: The Coalition can attack and will face an operational BATS. Again, if they destroy the BATS the Starbase upgrade is lost, but destoying the tug will not stop the upgrade. If they fail to destroy the BATS on this turn:
T A6: The Kzintis now have an operational Starbase at the start of their turn. The tug (if it has survived to this point) can be given any new mission you want.
=============================
Matthew G. Smith:
I have a question about the "East Wind" scenario. (621.0)
It says in 621.113 that "All races have full control over their economies. The historical production schedules become what the shipyard can build if you have the money, ..."
For the Klingons and Lyran, that's pretty easy since their schedule is so big even on turn 1.
The Kzinti aren't so bad, since building a CV group without free fighter factors costs 34.5 EP and the DD and extra FFK on turn 1 bring it up to 43.5. That's only 3 EP less than their 50% economy. Later turns they easily exceed 46.5 EP.
The Hydran also aren't so bad, since their schedule ramps up pretty quick, although they will have excess EP available on T1 and T2.
But how's this apply to the Feds? It also says (in 621.142 for the Feds) that "It will, however, keep the published production schedule and will not use the "early war" production schedule."
So, for the first turn, F168, the only thing on the Fed schedule is a 3 EP activation of an old DN. What remains of the Fed economy, even at peace, is 107.5 EP. If the Feds really have "full control" what's that mean?
Can they use overbuilds? Rule 602.49B says no, even during limited war, so I assume that means for peace too. But specific overrides general, so does 621.113 override?
Can they convert ships? Rule 600.32 says that ships of inactive fleets can be converted if on a wartime status. Specific overrides general though, so does 621.113 allow the Federation to convert ships even on Turns 1, 2 and possibly 3 when they're at peace?
What about T4+? Is "limited war" a "wartime status" for purposes of that rule?
ANSWER: While the Feds are on peacetime they get their normal PWC as listed in the OB (it is shown as what goes to each starting fleet as opposed to showing an actual schedule). Once activated (i.e. limited war or wartime), they still build the same stuff as listed there, but it is as released new construction and not assigned to specific fleets, i.e. you can now send it where you like. While at peace you cannot do anything that requires a wartime economy, of course. Captain's log 26 has a more complete explanation of the early war Fed situation and how to gradually ramp up their production schedule.
=============================
Lawrence Bergen:
Four Powers War Question:
The starting OOB for the Klingons gives the Pods available. It does not list (overlooked?) the Drone Pods despite the availability date (Y149) being prior to the war start.
Should we:
A) Say they are immediately available for construction by the Klingon player upon starting the game?
B) Add them to the starting OOB?
ANSWER: I will agree with Chuck and say they should probably be present at the start of the scenario.
=============================
Cliff Yahnke:
I have a question regarding reserve movement. Group A with a Reserve marker is pinned by 24 ship equivalents moving into its hex during Operational Movement. Groups B & C (consisting of 12 ship equivalents each) each have a Reserve marker and are within 6 hexes of the soon-to-be-battle in Group A's hex.
Can Groups B&C reserve move to Group A's hex, thereby freeing it (Group A) to use its reserve move???
ANSWER: Yes under rule (203.732).
=============================
Robert Padilla:
What happens if I Annex a Neutral Zone hex (448.2) that has a planet in it (448.28), but I never capture the planet? Do I automatically get the planet?
ANSWER: Yes, you automatically get the planet.
=============================
Jeremy Scott:
Another very basic question. If a force decides to use directed damage against a target and fails to score enough Damage Points to cripple it, what happens? Do they lose all their damage for the round? For example, if a battle force is directing damage against a Bats and scores 22 points of damage, what happens? They haven't scored the 24 needed to cripple it.
ANSWER: Note you decide to direct on a given target after rolling to find how much damage you generated, and you cannot direct on a given target unless you have the required damage to do so. Step 4 (302.4) tells you how much damage you have to work with while Step 5 (302.5) allows you to direct on any target provided you have enough damage points to do so. If you don't have enough points, you simply cannot direct on that target, you must choose a smaller target, or simply let the damage fall normally. You could of course do a directed damage SIDS step as Chuck pointed out.
=============================
Robert Padilla:
If a planet goes into Rebellion, does suppressing the Rebellion make the hex a Battle Hex?
ANSWER: Presumably it is once you send a troopship there.
=============================
Ryan Opel:
When does a planet become part of the Supply Grid. The example is the Klingons recapture Cygnus on T8A. Does Cygnus become part of the Supply grid at the begining on T9C.
By the way 413.2 reads "Captured (or recaptured) planets form part of the Supply Grid at the beginning of the Player Turn after they are captured (or recaptured)." It would seem that the rule seems to be written to have a 6 month delay but in this case it's not gonna happen.
ANSWER: There is not a six month delay. The rule means the planet joins your grid at the start of the next player turn, regardless of whose player turn that is. So if you capture a planet on your own player turn, it joins your grid at the start of the next enemy player turn.
=============================
Ryan Opel:
Question on Infilitration. 537.12 says "Once per turn, one resistance movement on one planet can attempt to infiltrate one of the ships (not bases) at the planet's location."
Is this one per side or one per race? Why couldn't each race do this? I would think it would under the same conditions as 537.11 Sabotage that say's one of each race's planets.
ANSWER: I would assume one planet per race as you say.
=============================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
The example that Ryan is referring to happened this way:
1) Klingons capture Cygnus on Coalition Turn 8 (T8C).
2) On the Alliance Turn 8 (T8A), the garrison ship is forced off during a raid, planet reverts to Fed control with no ships in the hex.
3) Later in T8A, the Klingons use extended range reaction movement to move a number of ships on to the planet, recapturing it on T8A.
The question is when does it become a supply point for the Klingons? The way
ANSWER: It would rejoin the Klingon grid at the start of T9C which is the next player turn of the game. You would not get income that turn, not until your second subsequent economic phase that you possess the planet.
=============================
Paul Howard:
Battles in - Coalition are attacking/Kzinti are defenders
1401 120 Kzinti Ship (All planets undevatstated) v 180 Coalition Ships
1502 3 Kzinti Ships plus 3 PDU's on an undevastated planet v 20 Coalition Ships
1402 1 Kzinti Ship v 1 Coaltion Ship
If the Kzinti retreat from 1401 - they can retreat to either Barony (Range Zero) or 1502 (Range Zero, with enemy ships - so tecnhnically a Fighting Retreat).
ANSWER: Right so far.
However, the Coalition are also retreating - and they can go to either 1402 (Range 2 with Enemy Ship) or 1502 (Range 2 with Enemy Ships)
ANSWER: Right so far.
Should the base make a difference?
ANSWER: I assume you mean the planet. Yes it should. Yes it does. See the master errata file, or the cap log 26. If doing a fighting retreat onto your own base/planet, you fight the approach battle under the fighting retreat penalties, and then you arrive at the base/planet and get to fight further rounds normally.
What you are pointing out has already been addressed, please see the cap log article or the master errata file on-line for the rule update. If you are playing without it you should get it. I doubt there will be any more changes unless there is a big problem with the fix already posted.
=============================
Chuck Strong's chart posted at:
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 08:17 pm: Edit
is correct.
=============================
Michael Lui:
But if the Coalition conquers a planet on the Alliance part of a turn, wouldn't it start producing EPs on Coalition turn X+3 since the Alliance part of the turn is the second half of the turn? Basically 2 FULL turns, but since the Coalition can't collect EPs on the Alliance part of the turn they'd be out of luck.
ANSWER: You get income from new planets on the second subsequent economic phase that you possess the planet. (508.22) I.e. your second subsequent player turn.
=============================
Darin Smith:
In retrograde movement does a fleet "hold open" neighboring hexes for it's own retrograde path? The reason I ask is that 206.22 does not state this the way 411.31 does for supply. If it does then can it not continue to hold open the path for all 6 hexes of movement since these are hexes moved and not a "path" like supply?
ANSWER: Robert Padilla is correct, only the immediatly surrounding hexes are assumed open by the fleet itself for retro movement. Think about what happens if you only want to retrograde half the fleet. The half that stayed behind would open the surrounding hexes for the moving portion, but only the surrounding hexes. This is sort of what happens even if you retro the entire force.
=============================
Robert Padilla:
A battle hex contains three out of supply Federation ships and three in supply Romulan ships. Both sides decide to retreat, and teh Federation was the defender. The Romulans have exactly one hex that is one hex distant from supply, and three hexes that are two hexes distant from supply. The Federation force opts to retreat into the hex that would be one hex distant from supply for the Romulans. Since the Federation force does not outnumber the Romulan force, is the Romulan force conpelled to retreat into the same hex as the Federation force?
I believe they would be forced into the same hex and forced into another battle round, even though they clearly do not want to fight another battle round. This is because 302.73 Step 3 I believe should take priority over 302.73 Step 4, as Step 4 would eliminate all hexes left after Step 3 (which in this case is the hex with Federation ships in it).
ANSWER: Sounds right. If a given step (in your case step four) eliminates all remaining hexes then you ignore it and it has no effect. So because the Roms are not outnumbered, that hex is not eliminated until step 4, and as that eliminates all hexes you instead ignore that step.
=============================
Todd E Jahnke:
When defending a multi-system hex, in which all locations are devastated and without fixed defenses so that the defending force is placed entirely in the "mobile" pool (with no forces placed for duty at individual systems), is the defender required to fight at every system to which the attacker sends a force, or is it only required that the defender fight at one system per combat round?
ANSWER: Only one. If you fight at one you do not need to retreat. If you chose to fight at none, then you must retreat out of the hex.
=============================
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak:
Nick, Ever catch which Captains Log that Andro F&E info was in?
ANSWER:
It is Cap Log #11.
The andros are presented as a sort of wandering monster and as such do not have any movement rates listed.
It was one page of rules, they list the different mother ship counters and their factors, (sat ships are factors like fighter factors, some of which can sometimes count for EW points or mauler points instead of normal combat factors).
The andros operate as an automatic thing at the end of each game turn, three new motherships are added randomly to the F&E map, if they survive the next game turn then they place a satbase there, another mothership at the base, and then the largest mothership randomly moves to an adjacent province to repeat the process.
So they randomly show up, disrupt provinces, and begin expanding. If they run into anything as they move to an adjacent province then they attack it. If they loose all their sat ships they try to retreat, they can even retreat off map back to the LMC (effectivly gone from the game until placed randomly again). If you can wipe out the last andro in an area it will likely be some time before they come back (as that spot would have to be chosen randomly for a future andro raid), so that would effectivley end the infestation at that location.
Fairly simple set of rules, but there is no info on how fast they might move operationally/strategically if they were a player operated race.
=============================
By Derek Meserve:
If an FRD with an attending tug does not move during op moves, but performs CEDS repair, can it still move via strategic movement?
ANSWER: Sure.
=============================
Peter A. Kellerhall:
Can a FRD do CEDS repair? I thought only a base could do so.
ANSWER: Yes, this was a recent one. The FRD counts as a base for purposes of CEDS.
=============================
Adam Hickey:
I have a question relating to special raids. If the target race uses reaction movement in response to a special raid in step 3A-3C, does the resulting combat happen immediately, before the raid takes place, or in step 3A-3H with any potential reacting forces?
ANSWER: If a ship reacts under rule (320.314) it will not engage in normal combat, and it will not "pin" the raiding force, but it will be present for the interception procedures of (320.35)
=============================
Kerry Drake:
In Scenario 682 (The Second Fed-Kzinti War), rule (682.14) states:
---------------------
Quote:
All battle stations are base stations with a factor of 8 when undamage and 4 when crippled.
---------------------
Do you use SIDS on a Base Station, and if so is it still 3 SIDS steps of 18 points (directed damage) or 4.5 points (voluntary damage)?
I am thinking 2 SIDS Steps would be more appropriate.
ANSWER: You are looking for rule (444.15) from Combined Ops. Base Stations are crippled with two SIDS steps (5 pts if voluntary). Crippled Base Stations do not use SIDS.
=============================
Chuck Strong:
The SIT lists CL29 as the reference for the Hydran PGE -- which page is it on or is it somewhere else?
ANSWER: May not have made it to SFB yet. I can't find it.
=============================
John Wyszynski:
Does upgrading a non-X base to an X base (423.415) require a Tug or LTT? I assume that procedure (433.41) is used, but it doesn't actually state that.
ANSWER: Since no procedure is specified (only the cost) I would imagine the standard procedure is still in effect (i.e. a tug performs the upgrade).
=============================
Robert Padilla:
A question on raids. By 314.21 ships from the raid pool start in the capital hex, then move to any SMN to conduct the raid. That same rule also states that the raiding ships are not actually in the capital hex. What I am wondering is if raiding ships can move into an off-map area, then use that off-map area to conduct their raid. As an example, say the Kzinti have a BC in the raid pool. They have no on-map SMNs left, expect 1401 and the off-map. Does the raid have to target six hexes from 1401, or can it be six hexes from the off-map area (which would allow for greater reach of the raid). I believe that raiding ships can use the off-map area, but it never hurts to be sure.
ANSWER: I will say no for now, but it is something that needs to be clarified. The rules are unclear in my opinion, I can see arguments for it either way (there already is an exception for tugs delivering EPs to go into/out of the off map area in one step, so what about blockade runners to the WYN cluster carrying EPs?). I will try to get this one sent to Jeff and Steve.
=============================
John Slattery:
Pinning rules per 203.5 state that 6 fighters equate to a full ship in pinning.
Fighter ship equivalent rules per 501.9 state 3-5 fighters equate to a crippled ship.
In pinning 2 crippled ships can pin 1 non crippled ship.
Cripples can form togethor to pin a non crippled ship, so can fighters form 2 groups of 3-5 fighters to pin a ship as well? I would think so.
This all leads up to the following question:
Do fighters off a carrier or hybrid ship that are only 2 fighters (A Hydran DG is a good example) have no pinning ability what so ever and can not mate up with say a Hydran Rangers fighters (4) to form a full 6 fighter equivalent?
The rules are vague (suprise!).
ANSWER: All the fighters in your fleet combine their efforts for pinning. Crippled ships can combine for pinning. But you cannot combine say 3 fighter factors and a crippled ship for 1 pinning point (203.54). Only like things can combine: fighters with fighters, PFs with PFs, crippled ships with crippled ships.
=============================
John Slattery:
The second part of this question then comes into play:
Heavy Fighters and F-14/F-15 are a group of 6 fighters per the rules with "added" combat ability due to thier quality.
A group of 6 F-14/F-15 fighters = 8 combat.
A group of 6 Heavy Fighters = 9 combat.
The rules state quit clearly that these fighter squadrons (I would assume a Romulans SPB squardron of 8 combat would also be included) equate to "6" fighters.
If this is the case then when determining pinning these special cases (not so special for late war situations, in fact quite common) it would be an advantage to count the combat factors of a carrier group (etc...) instead of the actual fighters as more factors will come up this way.
To wit: a 3NVH group has, by the stated rules, 6 fighters that equate to 9 combat factors. Now, within the letter of the rules, how many ships does a 3NVH group pin? 4 or 4.5?
It gets trickier the more rules you add to the game. It is better (IMO) to have a blanket rule here instead of several rules that need to be adhered to. I opt for simply counting up the total and dividing by 6. But what do the rules imply?
ANSWER: You have to stick to ship equivalent/pinning points rather than combat factors. Rule (203.54) says each ship equivalent of fighters pins one ship. A group of 8 factors of F-14s is still only one ship equivalent according to (302.352). You must count ship equivalents, not attack factors.
=============================
Steve Petrick:
UNDER WHAT RULE IS THE "SUPPORT ECHELON" DEFINED IN FEDERATION AND EMPIRE? I CAN FIND NO REFERENCE TO IT. I KNOW THE ISC HAS A DEFINED "SUPPORT ECHELON" THAT IS WHERE A "FREE SCOUT" IS FOUND BEHIND THE DN THAT IS THE CORE OF A NORMALLY DEPLOYED ECHELON, BUT THAT IS TERM I INVENTED FOR SFB. I CANNOT FIND ANY MENTION OF A "SUPPORT ECHELON" IN FEDERATION AND EMPIRE.
ANSWER: Ryan Opel got that one for me: Looks like 302.563 is the answer. It then references rules 309, 501.4 and 502.41
==============================
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Sunday, November 12, 2006 - 09:59 pm: Edit
My apologies for posting this without the rule references, but I am on vacation without my books, and remebered we had a question.
Situation: Rom SN is in supply at start of turn. During Alliance movement, the SN is put out of supply. At the instant of combat, the SN is out of supply. The Rom wishes to use cloaked evasion. The cloaked evasion rule states that any ship that is 'in supply' can use cloaked evasiion. Is this reference to 'in supply' referring to in supply for purposes of combat, or in supply at the instant of combat?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 12:12 am: Edit
Bill, I believe that it means you must be in supply, you do not need a supply path. So if the SN was in supply at the start of the turn, it is still in supply for combat (even without a supply path at the instant of combat). This is good enough for Cloaked Evasion as it happens during the Combat phase.
Certain things you do need a supply path at the instant you do it, like drone bombardment, but as far as I know Cloaked Evasion is not one of those things.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 13, 2006 - 07:08 am: Edit
Urgent clarification required-
.........................................
Paul Howard:
Battles in - Coalition are attacking/Kzinti are defenders
1401 120 Kzinti Ship (All planets undevatstated) v 180 Coalition Ships
1502 3 Kzinti Ships plus 3 PDU's on an undevastated planet v 20 Coalition Ships
1402 1 Kzinti Ship v 1 Coaltion Ship
If the Kzinti retreat from 1401 - they can retreat to either Barony (Range Zero) or 1502 (Range Zero, with enemy ships - so tecnhnically a Fighting Retreat).
ANSWER: Right so far.
However, the Coalition are also retreating - and they can go to either 1402 (Range 2 with Enemy Ship) or 1502 (Range 2 with Enemy Ships)
ANSWER: Right so far.
Should the base make a difference?
ANSWER: I assume you mean the planet. Yes it should. Yes it does. See the master errata file, or the cap log 26. If doing a fighting retreat onto your own base/planet, you fight the approach battle under the fighting retreat penalties, and then you arrive at the base/planet and get to fight further rounds normally.
What you are pointing out has already been addressed, please see the cap log article or the master errata file on-line for the rule update. If you are playing without it you should get it. I doubt there will be any more changes unless there is a big problem with the fix already posted.
...........................
Hi Nick, sorry I don't think I made it clear (I know about what happens when the Kzinti retreat).
The question was with regard to the Coalition.
Hex 1401 - 100 Alliance, 150 Coaltion
Hex 1402 - 1 Alliance, 1 Coalition
1502 - 5 Alliance, 20 Coalition.
Coalition Declare a Retreat from 1401 - and then the Kzinti declare a retreat - but Kzinti retreat first.
So from, 1401 - Alliance Fighting Retreat to 1502 (rather than retreat to Barony). Before 1502 is resolved (as far as I know*) - the Coalition then actually retreat - as both 1402 and 1502 will have less Alliance in than the Coalition, both are eligible to be retreated to - however, the Coalition can retreat normally to 1502 WITHOUT declaring a Fighting Retreat.
So, we have the Kzinti having to do a Fighting Retreat to 1502 (which is their supply point), whereas the Coalition can retreat normally there - as it has the same conditions are 1402 (namely Equal distance and less ships than them).
What my question/logical request was that the Coalition should be required to retreat to 1402 (as currently, it has equal Ship equivalents), rather than 1502, which before the retreat has greater Alliance forces in (and have paid the penalty of moving there, and being forced to do a fighting retreat into it).
I suppose, what the Retreat Rules SHOULD say, is that if one hex before the Retreat has equal or less enemy forces in than is currently in the hex, you are required to retreat to that hex, if otherwise they have the same priority as another hex with more than you currently have in an otherwise equal priority - unless you declare a fighting retreat.
Currently, it is totally illogical in that -
The Coalition declare a retreat
The Alliance declare a retreat
The Alliance have to Fighting Retreat to the hex of their choice (I.e. their planet and supply range Zero)
Coalition can then retreat to the same hex - under no penalties at all.
All due to a single ship equivalent in an adjacent hex!!!!!
I.E. The Step that currently has 'is there enemy forces in the hex', should be broken down into sub priorities, with A being the highest priority Hex and C the lowest Priority (and therefore requring a Fighting Retreat)
A) Hexes where the Retreating force currently has more forces than the enemy
B) Hexes where the Retreating force currently has equal forces than the enemy
C) Hexes where the Retreating force currently is has than the enemy.
(So if there is A, any other hexes require a FR, and if there is no A, but a B, the C would require a FR)
So in this case = Hex 1402 would be Priority B, and Hex 1502 would be Priority C.
The Coalition would therefore retreat normally to 1402 - or fighting Retreat to 1502.
To me, that sounds logical and hence is what my question/proposal is.
Thank you.
* - It may be I have totally mis-understood the Fighting Retreat Rules - and 1502 is resolved after all combat in 1401 - but before any other hexes AND before the Coalition actually Retreat.
I.E.
i) Coalition Annouce Retreat
ii) Alliance Annouce Fighting Retreat (and go to 1502)
iii) Battle in 1502 is resolved (1 Round at FR, rest as normal).
iv) Coalition Retreat from 1401
v) Continue phase as normal.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 07:42 am: Edit
Easy Question.
Orion leaves the Federation.
At the start of the turn, it re-joins the Federation (no Valid Supply path) - the rules say that the ship (a K4) that was interned, when Orion ceceeded is now treated as captured.
What does it cost to turn the K4 into a Fed-K4 - the 3 Ep's for the normal captured ship cost, or as it's undamaged, a different cost (or even nothing!)?
As it's undamaged - could it be scrapped for a higher value?
Thanks
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:29 am: Edit
Paul,
I asked part of your question a few months back. Scrapped value is exactly as written in the rules, (i.e. half the crippled defense factor.) There is no "bonus" for scrapping from the uncrippled state.
I didn't ask about conversion cost, but I can bet what Nick's answer would be on that.
Anyway, here's what Nick said:
Matthew G. Smith:
If the Orion Enclave is neutral, and the Feds close off the supply path, they capture the ship in the enclave. That much is clear.
Is it crippled?
ANSWER: It would not be crippled. But, the rule 305.22 says when scrapped you get EPs equal to half the crippled defense factor, it does not specify that this ship in question is actually crippled. I.e. you get the same amount for scrapping whether the captured ship is crippled or not.
I hope that helps.
By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:24 am: Edit
Nick,
We’re playing through the Tholian Gambit scenario as an alternate start to the general war. The Coalition invasion of Tholian space releases the Fed (7th?) fleet, but by rule, the Tholians will not allow Fed’s into their territory. What exactly can the Fed do with this released fleet? Does this trigger limited war? It's turn 2.
Also, when the Tholian HW went down, we assumed the the shipyard and depot went with it. Does the Tholian salvage just go to the nearest SB (partial grid)where it can be used for repair and constuction of one PC/turn? or is it lost?
I’m sorry I don’t have rule numbers handy, the game is at home and the internet is not.
As a side note this was the bloodiest F&E battle i've ever participated in, The klingons lost 42 hulls, (very few cripples)and was on their last battle line when the tholians had lost all fixed defenses and crippled all their ships. Klingon salvage for the turn was 57 EPs. They may have won the battle, but themsleves the war.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 01:01 pm: Edit
The Klingons lost *only* 42 hulls?
I don't know the Tholian Gambit scenario, so maybe that's typical of that situation. If that were a regular (General War) scenario, the usual expected loss is closer to 100 hulls.
And yes, you're right - They can win the battle, but might lose the war.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Oops, sorry, forgot this was Q&A. I shouldn't be making this another general discussions thread. My apologies.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 05:04 pm: Edit
Ken
Page 66, 602.48:
________________________________________
Quote:
If the Coalition invades the Tholians without going to war with the Federation, then the above Limited War conditions also apply to the Federation and Tholians. The Federation may send the 7th Fleet into Tholian territory (but cannot send it into Kzinti territory) along with elements of the 2nd Fleet and any new construction.
________________________________________
You should redo the battle as the 7th Fleet would be above the Tholian Homeworld. Probably between the 2nd and 3rd layers of the web. It will also mean that the Klingons will take a LOT more damage. And I don't know how you did the damage for the Tholians, but 42 hulls is very light. May I suggest that you do not do any Directed Damage, take damage on your ships before any damage on PDU fighters, and buy 4 PGBs on Turn 1 before the Klingons assault your planet?
By Ken Cole (Kencole) on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 09:51 am: Edit
Michael,
________________________________________
Quote:
Page 66, 602.48:
If the Coalition invades the Tholians without going to war with the Federation, then the above Limited War conditions also apply to the Federation and Tholians. The Federation may send the 7th Fleet into Tholian territory (but cannot send it into Kzinti territory) along with elements of the 2nd Fleet and any new construction.
________________________________________
Is clear, but my confusion stems from:
________________________________________
Quote:
503.34
The Tholians will not allow Federation, Klingon, or Romulam ships to enter their territory even if allied to one side or the other. If this is done the Tholians revert to neutral status.
________________________________________
These two rules seem to contradict each other, and the 615 (the scenario printed in CO) has no mention of the Fed forces.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 03:31 pm: Edit
Since you said you were using 615.2, which is an alternate start to the General War, you use 600, 601, 602, etc. for the "standard rules" as modified by 615.
602.48 is an exception to 503.34 and used only when the Klingons are NOT at war with the Federation. It is more of a "balance" type thing than anything else since the Kzinti or Gorn can't help the Tholians if the Feds aren't at war. Also it is a "Federation" type thing to do.
The only problem with it is that: What happens after the Tholians are destroyed?
Do the Feds go back to inactive?
Do they keep attacking the Klingons in Tholian space to "liberate" them from Klingon oppression (and let the Tholians kill off the new colonists on Kalesta, Kelanon, and Kordahn)?
If they go back to inactive, do they replace/beef-up the 7th Fleet first?
If they keep attacking the Klingons in "Tholian space", do they have to declare war on the Klingons?
I think this is one for the Warbook.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 06:55 pm: Edit
Another dumb 4PW question:
What happens if the Lyrans never attack the Kzintis? Under the fleet release schedule, it says that the Kzintis can attack the Lyrans on T2 if the Klingons haven't attacked them, and the Lyrans can attack the Kzintis on T3, but if the Lyrans decline to attack the Kzintis on T3, can the Kzintis attack the Lyrans at any point? Say, on T4 (the Count's Fleet is released on T4 even if the Lyrans don't attack, according to the schedule).
Logic would dictate that even if the Lyrans don't attack the Kzinti, the Kzinti can attack the Lyrans at some point, presumably T4 when the Count's Fleet is released. But the rules are kinda ambigious.
Thanks,
-Peter
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 06:21 pm: Edit
Rule (515.52) in FO states the following:
"CVA's cannot be produced outside a working shipyard hex."
What does this mean for "heavy carriers" that are not CVA's such as SCS, see (515.44)?
Ditto, the Romulan SUB or modular DN's with SPB modules?
what about the Lyran CV, which is a "Heavy carrier" per (515.21)?
Or the other Gorn and Lyran heavy carriers per rule errata (440.6) "The Gorn CVD, Lyran DCS, and Lyran NDS are all counted as heavy carriers."
Or the Gorn MCS, which is a heavy CV per its SIT?
Which carriers listed above are required to be built/converted in the Shipyard hex and which can be made elsewhere?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, November 17, 2006 - 12:48 am: Edit
And the Hydran Cavalier which is a CVA until Y175, and then is reclassified a CVD?
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 05:21 pm: Edit
I am sure this is an old question but I am going to ask it again as I have my doubts:
1) The Klingons surround the capital except the Major in 0718 and go in for a final attack on the Hydran homeworld (turn # is irrelevant). If/when the Hydrans retreat do they retreat to the Major? It is a supply node only because of its location adjacent to the Homeworld. If the Homeworld is no longer a supply source then either is the Major. But at the same time the major can be considered a grid by itself if the homeworld has fallen and of course could supply all ships on it regardless.
2) By the rules of retreat the Hydrans could choose another a Coalition occupied hex using 302.77 which abridges 302.734 but can not abridge 302.733 the supply situation.
The Hydrans at this stage do NOT want to retreat to the Major as it is in the wrong direction, so do they have to?
3) After a combat round in the capital hex where the Coalition is retreating due to lack of muscle to take the hex, and the Hydrans choose to retreat also, once again do they have to go to the major if is is not captured? If not can they retreat in any direction they want to as they are retreating away from the one and only supply source (not node mind you).
John
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 03:37 am: Edit
John
If 718 is part of the major supply grid, which will now originate from the Off Map area (upon the Hydrans retreating from 617, as 617 is ignored).
If 718 isn't connected - the Hydrans do NOT have to retreat there, as long as one of the other potential hexes is supplied by the main grid.
Hope this helps
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 02:04 pm: Edit
The last message helped in the case of a off-map supply line leading to a hex (any hex) surrounding the capital that a coalition ship is in.
But if that case does not exist (Coalition forces cutting the Off map supply in hexes 01 or 02) and the Major in 0718 is accessible then must the Hydran retreat thier? I would gather the rules say "yes" as it is a partial supply grid even though the Hydran would NOT want to retreat thier. But I would like any opinion I can get of course. Thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 03:37 pm: Edit
You would be forced to retreat to 0718 if there is no other retreat hex that would be in supply from the main grid. If you have a situation where your retreat could open up a supply path to the main grid, then you could retreat to one of those hexes instead of 0718.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 03:59 pm: Edit
Nick,
1) Can the Federation over produce [AKA (431.3) Overbuilds, Overproduction] and produce via production over ride [AKA (450.3) Production Overrides] F111 carriers? I think the answer is "Yes."
See the following line in (431.32):
"PFTs (except the Lyran BCP and DNP and the Romulan ROC) can be produced by over production, but total production is limited."
and see (527.22AO):
"Additional NVH's can be built in the spring of Y180 (with the Trudeau) counting against the limits of PFTs which can be built."
2) Can DCS/NCS be over produced via (431.32) and over ridden via (450.3). They seem to qualify since they are;
a) Carriers with fewer than 8 fighters,
b) They are CA/NCA hulls that can otherwise be over produced and
c) PFTs are allowed for over production.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 08:06 pm: Edit
Another couple 4 Powers War questions:
-The Lyrans decline to attack the Kzintis on T3, leaving the Kzinti Count's Fleet unreleased. They are not technically at war with the Kzinti at this point. Can they still move ships, FRDs, and money into Klingon space, repairing Klingon ships, even though they aren't fighting the Kzinti? What happens if the Kzinti encounter Lyran ships (i.e. Reserves or ships protecting an FRD) in Klingon space?
-The Kzinti Marquis fleet isn't released unless their deployment zone is violated, or on T4 if a SB is destroyed or the capital is attacked. Does the Marquis fleet get released before T4 if a SB is destroyed or the capital is attacked before then (i.e. if the Klingons attack the Capital on Coalition T3, is the Marquis fleet released on Kzinti T3, or do they still have to wait till T4?)
Thanks,
-Peter
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 12:17 pm: Edit
Nick,
The reason for Trent's question about overproduction of F111 carriers is that he holds that they're PFTs -- and fall under the rules he's mentioned -- while I claim that they're carriers, and thus are subject to the first part of (431.32) "carriers with more than 8 fighter factors can't be overproduced".
(The distiction being that, while the F111 carriers may count against the PFT limits for construction, they're actually carriers.)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 01:04 pm: Edit
Nick,
Here are other rules cites for Dave and my arguement:
See Rule (530.121AO) and this statement:
"Heavy fighter factors are different from standard fighter factors."
See Rule (530.222AO):
Production of a heavy fighter carrier or conversion of a carrier to heavy fighter counts against the race's limit on PFT production (after PFTs are available.)
Rule (527.22FO) has slightly different wording:
"Additional NVH's can be built starting the spring of Y180 (with the Trudeau), countiong against the limit of PFTs which can be built. That limit is two per turn (432.42), one as a substitution for the NCL and one as a conversion. Neither count against the limit on carrier production; they technically count against the Federation PFT limit (which is the same as the Klingons).
...and finally, see Rule (530.223FO) which states:
"Each race may, on or after the date specified for the introduction of heavy fighters, produce one carrier per turn (by substitution or conversion) for use with heavy fighters. This is above the carrier limit but counts against the PFT limit. (This is true even before there is a PFT limit; in fact, PFTs count against the Heavy fighter carrier limit.) The Kzintis however, are allowed to produce two such carriers per turn for turns #20 through #24, after which they are limited to one per turn. Lyrans and Gorns are limited to one per year. Once the PFT limit is in place (on PFT2 turn), a race can build heavy fighter carriers only under the PFT limit (except the Federation A20 carriers which are built under the carrier limit) but can build as may as they want (at the cost of PFTs).
Thus my position is that F111 carriers are PFTs for over production and over ride purposes and A20s come under the carrier restrictions and can't be produced via either of those forms of production.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 07:26 pm: Edit
SAF's & Tholia
Can SAF's be used against the SB over Tholia and the PUD's on Tholia itself while a WEB is present?
The "WEB" rules do not exclude SAF's, but then when the "WEB" rules where created there were no SAF's.
By Logic (I know, strong word in this game) they could not as they, the SAF ships, are well ships and so would be caught in the web as well.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 12:44 am: Edit
(512.1) in F&E2K states "Directed Damage cannot be used against a Tholian base or planet. [Exception: SAFs (520.0) in Marine Assault.]
So, SAFs can be used against Tholian bases/planets in web.
By Kirk Knapp (Captain_Kirk) on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 12:51 pm: Edit
If a crippled ship in a retreating force uses the formation bonus during the pursuit battle, is it targeted by directed damage at 1:1, 3:1, or somewhere in between?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 02:28 pm: Edit
All crippled ships in a pursuit battle are targeted at 2:1 with the exception of a crippled ship in the form slot as it is targeted at 3:1.
By Kirk Knapp (Captain_Kirk) on Friday, November 24, 2006 - 10:08 pm: Edit
The way rule 307.4 is worded lead me to believe that crippled ships could be targeted at 1:1 regardless of whether or not a mauler is included in the pursuing force.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 06:45 am: Edit
Kirk:
I have always read the text of 307.4 to mean that a mauler's 1:1 special attack may be used on multiple targets in a pursuit battle (up to the limit of the mauler's compot), not that all directed damage in a pursuit battle enjoys the 1:1 mauler benefit. Hmmm, sounds like another item for Warbook clarification.
Cheers,
Jason
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 08:17 am: Edit
I asked this very question a few months back. Nick confirmed Jason's interpretation, and confirmed that this is a Warbook clarification.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 12:02 pm: Edit
Right, it means you can target multiple crippled ships at 2:1. If you use a mauler, you can use it to target multiple crippled ships at 1:1 up to the mauler's rating.
It does not mean any old ship gets to direct at 1:1, that ability is still reserved for maulers.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, November 26, 2006 - 08:03 am: Edit
And X-ships and X-fighters.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 03:51 am: Edit
Sorry to chase Nick - any thoughts about my question on retreats and whether the number of enemy forces in the hex (i.e. specifically - 1 ship equivalent in Hex A v 100+ Equivalents, but less than the retreating force in Hex B) should make a difference?
Thanks
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:16 pm: Edit
Strat Ops Questions:
Looking over Strat Ops I have a few questions. Didn't bring these up in the development process because I wasn't involved this time. Sorry.
I also have a few AAR's. I'll post them when the topic is opened.
540.23 If two races have a DIP team in each other's capital, do they get 2 EP's each? If it follows 540.22, then they are cumulative, but the example in the second paragraph indicates otherwise: There's no reason for one of the Feds or Klingons to send the second team.
542.27 If the survey ship is crippled, does the player have to pay to repair it, or does the player only loose one turn of survey?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 05:33 pm: Edit
From the F&E stuff in Cap Log 34, there was one correction to a recent ruling here.
Raids from the off-map area are allowed.
Dale (I believe) asked if raids can move from the capital to an off map strat move node, and then move their final six hexes from that location back onto the map. This gives the Kzinti raiders great flexability, but seems to break the rule on moving back and forth between the on-map and the off-map in the same movement stage.
This is in fact allowed in this case, and is the original intention of the rule. If you disallow such a raid because of the off-map movement rules, you have to disallow all raids originating off-map, and it was always intended that a race with an off-map capital (and thus an off-map raid pool) should still be able to conduct raids onto the map. Details in Cap Log.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 12:55 am: Edit
Was working on a Tac Note for the Federation and was wondering if a race has to be at war to use the E&S mission (534) for their Prime Teams?
I couldn't find anything in the rules regarding war status to use the mission.
While this would primarily impact the Federation in the General War, there are other scenarios where it may also apply.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 02:24 am: Edit
Nick
I wasn't the askee, but a person trying to help answer the question (and being wrong). This sounds good, but since you're here (and CL34 isn't yet), I'm curious about one point. I can see the raider using strategic movement to move to the OffMap and then launching a raid from there. Can the raider move to the OffMap, then move to another SMN on map and launch a raid from there? I'm mainly thinking about if the Marquis is isolated from the capital, but not from the OffMap. Can raiders from Kzintai move to the OffMap, then move back on map to a SMN in the Marquis, then launch an attack against the north-east corner of Klingon space? Or once the raiders have moved to the OffMap, are they limited to the 6 (or 7) hex pinless movement?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 08:58 am: Edit
The question was mine. Thanks for the reversal, as that's how I thought raids should work in the first place.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:45 am: Edit
There is a process. The process works. Trust the process. The process is your friend.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:36 pm: Edit
QUESTION:
Admirals:
Under 316.229 if an Admiral is removed from play by rolling a "6" at the BEGINING OF THE TURN does the player get to replace that Admiral, in the Capital, that turn or the next turn?
Under 316.32 Replacement of an Admiral happens in the production phase of the players NEXT TURN. Ergo, does that mean the production phase following the removal of the Admiral at the begining of the TURN (therefor before production) or is there a penalty involved where a new Admiral is not picked until the following turn production?
I would "guess" that the new Admiral would be chosen during the production phase of the Turn in which the old Admiral was removed (but the new Admiral must begin in the Capital and so may not be able to participate in combat that round unless the war is at the footsteps of the Capital in question).
Otherwise the race must endure that whole turn with at least one less Admiral and then the following turn as well as the new Admiral must take ship in the Capital and then move out to the combat zone by strat or otherwise (a 1 year process seems a bit long for getting a new commander on scene).
ANYONE who has an opinion please speak up.
Thanks!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:56 pm: Edit
Seq 1E Determine if Admirals are removed from play.
Seq 2B6 replace Admirals as required.
So removed in Econ phase and replaced in Production phase.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 10:44 am: Edit
Thanks Ryan!
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 12:56 am: Edit
Have a quick question for you F&E guys. How do Romulan sublight/NTW ships work in F&E? How do they compare to "normal" warp ships on the strategic map?
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 02:28 am: Edit
They're not in the game yet as there is no published scenario with the Romulans prior to 167(613.0 Reptilicon Revenged)
Here's a "best guess" from what I can infer from various early years histories and how it might translate into F&E
NTW=Non TACTICAL warp, still means they can move strategicly normally(which I think in the early years period is only 4)
Now while they may be able to move normal distances strategically, their compot is going to absolutly blow.
My guess is about
SN 1 compot
BH & WE 2
VUL 3
So you're talking about 20-25 compot for a 10 ship fleet, prepare to get kicked in the teeth.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 09:07 am: Edit
While the game "mechanics" may deem that a ship with "sublight" propulsion systems move 1 or more hexes in strategic or normal movement the logic of the situation dictates otherwise. Any sublight ship could not make it out of the hex they where in (assuming starting dead center in the hex) for many many many centuries at best.
Hex = 1630 light years distance side to opposite side.
Movement from the center of a hex would take 815 years at the "speed of light" to get to the next hex.
Flop...
How did the Romulans establish the Rom/Fed boarder????? They couldn't, it's a Star Trek / SFB mis-calc.
On the other hand who needs stinkin logic anywho?
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 10:20 am: Edit
No.
'Sublight' ships are referred to as such since they have Non-Tactical Warp engines - they can travel at FTL speeds (about ninety parsecs a day, according to Prime Directive, and three hexes per turn in F&E) but have to go to sublight speeds in combat.
In contrast, more powerful Tactical Warp engines can maintain a stable warp field in combat, but only up to Warp 3.2 (as portrayed in FC and SFB). They are much quicker in Fed and Empire terms, too.
The 'sublight' term is a bit unfortunate - and it shows the more militaristic view of the Universe than you might see in other incarnations of the source material - but in this case you need not worry about the ship not being able to leave its home hex...
Gary
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 11:32 am: Edit
John,
Gary is right. It's all in the background material.
By Dale McKee (Brigman) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 02:02 pm: Edit
Thanks for the response guys. I'll be honest, my interest lies in how to handle "NTW" ships in an SFB campaign, so I was wondering if F&E had any insights for such things.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 02:56 pm: Edit
They're half-speed and their combat power, while much lower, is not miniscule.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 03:01 pm: Edit
Nick, just where is a PRD located?
On the planet or around the planet. The rule states "at a planet", but it specifically states "airless planet or moon", which to me means on the surface (why does it matter if the planet has air if it's in orbit?) I understand that being airless would allow anything to land via tractor beam I believe (haven't delved into the appropriate SFB-rules though).
A PRD prevents devestation, like a PGB/PDU, so to me that also means that it protects the ground somehow (don't ask me how with a FRD's copious ammount of P3s, well it's tractors would stop drones). No other space-based unit stops devestation (ie. Monitor)
The list in Advanced Raid Targets doesn't except the PRD like PDUs, here:
"(320.331) Cloaked units, PDUs, FDUs, Romulan bases (which have cloaks), and Tholian bases cannot be attacked by drone raids. The listed units can be targeted by fighter-PF raids, but those would have to fight all fixed defenses in the same location (but could select the target that had to take the damage at a 1-1 ratio). (The following units located with a Tholian base can be assumed..."
This matters to being a target for Drone Raids, as you've probably seen in the Term Paper area.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, December 05, 2006 - 10:49 am: Edit
When an Attacker offers an approach battle and the Defender declines the Attacker then (under rule 302.23) has two options:
1 Move in to fight at the 'base'.
2 Retreat from the hex (with a +1 for 307.2)
The question is has it ever been determined (I thought it had) if the Defender can then retreat from the hex?
(I may be remembering this to be a Warbook clarification but I am not sure.)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 08:52 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have some Tholian Monitor questions for you to chew on.
SAF rule (520.62) states: "...but the presence of a defending Monitor produces a -1 die roll."
Monitor Rule (519.11) says "The Tholians are allowed two at their capital."
1) Does this mean the Tholians get a cumulative "minus two" SAF effect die roll shift? Or is it "minus one" until both Monitors are destroyed?
2) Do Tholian Monitors have to be in the battle force to achieve this shift? Webs mean they can be left out of the battle force, even if the planet's PDUs are in it.
3) What are the movement and basing restrictions of Tholian Monitors built in addition the two already at the capital? Are they free to move to any Tholian base and stay there since there are no other Tholian planets?
4) How would those restrictions change in event the Tholians started a colony. and then fortified it enough to justify releasing the monitor?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 03:25 pm: Edit
Nick, how is Blockade Running R-SPH supposed to be used to gain Klingon Spare Parts for the Romulans?
If I start out with a R-SPH in Romulan space (at Romulas, and as a Blockade Runner) and can get to a Klingon SMN (lets say a K-MB south of the Orion Cluster), that won't get me the supplies I need right?
Since to gain the Spare Parts, the Romulans have to make a transit to the Klingon Capital (442.82).
With the Blockade Run, I don't get to the Capital, but just that Klingon SMN.
Is this an exception then to use a Blockade Runner, it doesn't have to get to the Klingon Capital?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 09, 2006 - 04:36 pm: Edit
questions downloaded
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 02:33 pm: Edit
A question about The War That Almost Was (Fed vs Gorn) from CL#21:
It is fairly vague as to when or if the Federation can enter Gorn space. It states in a few places that the Federation specifically *can't* enter Gorn space (if they move first, under the Fed fleet release status for T1), but then also states that various Gorn fleets are only released if the Federation enter Gorn space. This being the case, when (if ever) are the Federation allowed to actually enter Gorn space (as opposed to just the Neutral zone)?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 06:25 pm: Edit
Here is an interesting question that I thought up while playing my FTF game this last Saturday. Starting T2 the Klingons begin rolling for offmap new provinces. They usually get this income starting on T4...BUT... are survey required to be in supply from the main grid? in addition how does the Klingon offmap survey points get to the Klingon onmap income since there is what 9 hexes between the the Lyran offmap and Klingon bases?
Can offmap income use allied strategic points to move to the main grid?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 07:25 pm: Edit
And does it take any strat-move if it can?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 03:40 am: Edit
Nick
If the Romulans build additional survey ships (SO 542.1), can they assist in the exploration of the on-map provinces (2K 603.15)?
Also, with the publication of SO part of (603.15) is obsolete "They do not provide income until a SPC (Sparrow-Hawk-C scout/survey cruiser) has spent an entire opposing Player Turn in that province." since now two of the survey ships are PEs. That is nitpicking of course, but hey, Warbook. My main question still stands, though. An additional survey ship will help them get one of their on-map provinces a turn quicker.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 06:55 am: Edit
By rule as written, a crippled ship cannot combine with a half ship equivalent of fighters or PFs to form a full SE for pinning purposes.
By ruling, a fast ship is pinned by a non-fast ship because the fast ship cannot leave half of itself behind to satisfy pinning requirements.
Therefore, a crippled CV with three fighters aboard would pin two fast ships, all else being equal.
I suggest that either the rule or the ruling should be changed.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 09:13 am: Edit
Todd
Assuming I am remembering this right....
In your example - nothing would be pinned.
A crippled ship would not pin anything - the moving force would not need to leave anything behind - 1/2 always being rounded down as you need whole points to pin anything,
So the crippled CV pin's nothing, and 3 Fighters pin nothing.
If the rule was changed (Cripples and Half equivalents of PF/Fighters combine), they would pin 1 normal ship.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 11:29 am: Edit
That seems to me to contradict the ruling that an F ship is pinned by a non-F ship specifically because the F ship cannot leave anything behind and must leave something behind.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 11:42 am: Edit
Paul,
There's nothing I can find in the pinning rules to indicate that there's any rounding done. (There's nothing supporting your "whole points" concept.)
(203.5) does say that there's got to be a number of friendly ships remaining equal to the number of enemy ships for any friendly ships to leave. Standard English (and math) would then indicate that if you've got 3 1/2 enemy ships, say, then you have to leave 3 1/2 friendly ships behind (and might well need to leave 4, if you don't have any "half ships" kicking about).
(The principle argument would be by comparison: if a fast ship "cannot leave half of itself behind", as the errata states, then why should a normal ship be allowed to do so?)
Todd is quite correct.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 12:31 pm: Edit
Has there ever been a ruling that says 1/2 SE pins anything?
There has been a ruling that 1 SE pins something, even if that something is itself worth 2 SE. But I've never seen a ruling that says 1/2 SE pins anything.
To me, clearly the intent of the "you can't combine the crippled ship 1/2 SE with the fighter 1/2 SE to make a whole SE" rule is to make it harder to pin, not easier.
But, even if I'm totally wrong on everything I just posted, the situation Todd originally posted is also wrong. If by some means "1/2 + 1/2 = 2" then only one fast ship is pinned, not both, since the one fast ship is worth 2SE.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 01:18 pm: Edit
Matthew,
Does there need to be? "You have to leave behind a number of ships equal to enemy ships" is the rule, paraphrased, and if they've got 3 1/2 ships, then you must leave 3 1/2 ships. Three ships is not equal to 3 1/2 ships; four ships is the 3 1/2 you need to equal, plus an extra half that you were "forced" to leave behind.
It's also not clear that your fourth paragraph is correct: the "can't combine 1/2 SE from different sources" rule can be interpreted to mean that you have to pin different things with each equivalent. (If you can, in fact, count one ship (fast or not) as being half-pinned by both cripples and fighters, then how is that different from combining the SE?)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 02:50 pm: Edit
"Does there need to be?"
Yes. The rule (when written) wasn't about fast or x-ships, it was simply about ships and SE. And somebody thought it was important to say that you can't combine 1/2 SE from 3 fighter factors, and 1/2 of a crippled FF to form a full SE for pinning purposes.
This rule was either written from the perspective of the player whose ships are being pinned or the perspective of the player whose pinning another's force.
From the wording, it's clear (to me, but perhaps not everybody) that it's written to prohibit using a crippled CV (which lost its escort, but retains half of its fighters) to combine to form a full "SE" for pinning purposes.
(However, since it's not clear to everybody, that's why Nick's here.)
But two crippled CV each with half the original fighters would pin 2 SE. That's clearly spelled out in the rules.
As for my last paragraph, it's entirely correct. Change the situation to what I just described, which is two crippled CV and two half squadrons of fighters. That's 2 SE, just like one fast ship for pinning purposes. 2=2. By no interpretation of the rules can you possibly claim that the 4 SE worth of fast ships can be pinned by 2 SE worth of other stuff. To further claim that 4 SE worth of fast ships can be pinned by half that amount is beyond ludicrous.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 02:53 pm: Edit
Nick,
what ever happened to my question concerning the Federation Prime Teams and E&S missions during turns 1-6?
Craig
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 06:19 pm: Edit
Now reading the rules, it's a bit more clear, and better than relying on memory.
203.54 states: Crippled ships (301.8) count as one-half of a ship for pinning purposes. That is, a ship can pin or offset a ship, a crippled ship can pin a crippled ship, two crippled ships can pin a ship, and a ship can pin two crippled ships. Fighter (501.9) and PF (502.46) "ship equivalents" count as ships for purposes of pinning and counter-pinning. Fighters, PFs and crippled ships cannot be combined in "ship equivalents."
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 07:53 pm: Edit
Matthew,
Of course, that's nowhere as clear as you claim it is. (Although useful for those who don't have the books at hand.)
What you've quoted doesn't actually answer or clarify the question. Nobody has ever denied anything that's in (203.54); it's what's in (203.5) -- including its errata -- and what's not in (203.54) that's causing the questions.
(Specifically, there's nothing in (203.54) saying whether or not a crippled ship can pin a non-crippled ship. (The list is not declared to be exhaustive.) However, (203.5) says you have to have "a number of friendly ships remaining in the hex equal to the number of enemy ships". Now, the errata to (203.5) says that a fast ship "cannot leave half of itself behind in the hex", so we have to ask if a normal ship can leave half of itself behind. Presumably, it cannot, so a crippled ship (or half squadron of PFs or fighters) should pin a non-crippled ship.
Note that even without the errata (and fast ships), the argument still holds, based on the use of the word equal in (203.5).
The next problem is of how to handle seperate 1/2 SE. They're not allowed to be combined to be treated as a full SE, so they can't both pin the same ship (which would have the same outcome as combining them), hence they must pin different ships.
Now, it turns out that the wording of (525.132) could be read such that only a single fast ship would be pinned by two 1/2 SE. "Fast ships count as two ships for the purposes of pinning". This is slightly different from a fast ship being a single ship worth two SE; counting as two ships allows it to count against both pinning 1/2 SE. (It also means that it's harder to pull out of the hex by (203.55), which counts units and not SE.))
Going back to an earlier post of yours:
"This rule was either written from the perspective of the player whose ships are being pinned or the perspective of the player whose pinning another's force."
Perhaps, but it should have been written from the perspective of someone indicating what the rules actually are. (And, by extension, the perspective of the players is meaningless in the consideration of the rule.)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 03:44 am: Edit
Dave - sorry to say this, but I have no idea how you are reading the rule - it's pretty clear to me.
203.54 states what A CRIPPLED ship can pin - another crippled ship - it does not state a CRIPPLED ship can pin a ship. TWO CRIPPLED ships are required to pin 1 uncrippled normal ship.
So by defintion one crippled ship - does not pin anothing other than a crippled ship.
(As a side note which supports this - when you react fighters - you have to react a minimum of 6 fighters - you can't react 3 - ergo, to pin anything, you need 1 equivalent.)
(Sorry Nick for discussing in Q&A!)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:06 am: Edit
Paul,
All I can do is ask if '3 == 3.5' (three is equal to three and a half) is a true expression in your universe.
As I've previously said, the list in (203.54) is not stated to be exhaustive. Therefore, you can't use it as proof that a single cripple doesn't pin a single uncrippled ship.
(Note that if your argument is correct, then crippled ships can't pin fighter factors, regardless of the number of each.)
Regarding your definition point, by definition (102.0 -- CRIPPLE), a crippled ship doesn't pin.
Finally, you can react partial squadrons (but only if a ship is also reacting, so an FF and 3 fighters from a BATS is legal by (205.71)). As near as I can figure your argument, those fighters wouldn't even pin a passing (i.e., OpMoving) crippled ship because fighters aren't mentioned in (203.54).
(Nick, I don't see this as discussion, per se, but more of a search for available rules so you can make a fully informed ruling (preventing it from being passed up the chain); please correct me if I'm mistaken.)
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:16 am: Edit
I gotta agree with Paul. The list in 203.54 is not stated as being exhaustive, but it sure looks that way.
"That is, a ship can pin or offset a ship, a crippled ship can pin a crippled ship, two crippled ships can pin a ship, and a ship can pin two crippled ships."
That looks to me like the complete list of possible pinning combinations, complete with the note that half factors of different types cannot be combined (crippled ships and half squadrons of fighters). It's clear to me that a single crippled ship cannot pin a healthy ship.
*~*~*
On a side note, Paul, where does it say you have to react a full squadron of fighters? Yes, you wouldn't pin anything with a single fighter, but what if I only wanted one fighter factor into a battle? Did I miss a rule?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 11:21 am: Edit
Kevin,
You've missed (205.71).
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 12:11 pm: Edit
Dave,
Naw, I saw that. That confirms it too - I can react with one fighter. I just need to have a ship reacting with it.
You send a SN, I react with a DD, it's single ship combat with no advantage. I send a single fighter with my DD, that's 6 points vs 4, and I got a bonus to win the combat (or a spare point of compot if we choose to play it out by regular combat.
Maybe I should write up a tac note on this. I think I will.
Anyway, this is way off the Q&A topic, so I end this line of thought here.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 12:47 pm: Edit
OK, I'm going back on what I just said, as I'm posting again already, but as it were, this is for an actual question.
Nick,
Rule 205.71 says that groups of fighters or PF's less than a full ship equivalent cannot react unless ships are also reacting. Therefore, as in the example I gave in the previous post, if the Roms send a SN and the Gorns react to pin it with a DD, they could also react with a single fighter to add a +1 to their chances of winning the ensuing Advanced Small Scale battle (6 compot to 4).
But then the Roms send an additional SN, and the Gorns don't want to be on the losing end of that advantage shift (now 8 to 6)... could they then react with a single fighter to even the odds, or would they have to react with a ship (with or without additional fighters), or at least a full squadron of fighters, to add to that fight?
Argument for: A ship has already reacted to this hex, therefore the single fighter is reacting "with a ship", as in reacting to a hex where ships are already present.
Argument against: The rule states fighters less than a ship equivalent's worth cannot react unless reacting "with a ship". Doesn't matter what they're reacting to, it's what they're reacting *with* that matters.
If the answer is the reaction must accompany a ship, then as a further clarification, and I admit this one's much more of a stretch...
Can I react a squadron's worth of fighters, plus an extra fighter or two, if no ships accompany? Say, if the Roms wanted to react with just their fighters from a SPB, with no ships - could they send all 8, or only 6 at a time? Stated another way, in 205.71, is a "ship equivalent" equal to a "ship" for purposes of allowing spare fighters to join in the reaction?
Thanks in advance, Nick.
*~*~*
Busy writing that tac note already.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 03:08 pm: Edit
Sorry, yes - what I was getting at was that you have to react atleast 1 equivalent of Ships when you react!
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 06:39 pm: Edit
Jimi
While looking up something else I found (505.23) in 2K pg 55.
The Klingons can move their survey EPs home through Lyran bases and do not have to build bases in Lyran territory to do so. However, they must have a valid strategic movement path (using Klingon or Klingon-allied bases) from the Far Stars to their capital.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 06:52 pm: Edit
Nick
(544.22 SO pg. 12) states that the two original Klingon survey ships (the D6E and D7E) move through Lyran space to the Far Stars for free on T1.
Question: Does this allow newly built Klingon survey ships to move through Lyran space on T1 as well?
Example: I build 1xD6E on T1 (I don't have to be at war to do so, so it is a valid build). Can I strat it along with the other two to the Far Stars so that it can begin surveying along with them on T2? I would expect the additional ships would cost both the Klingons and the Lyrans strat.
I'm not asking if the new ones get the free strat of the original ships, but asking whether it newly built survey ships can move through Lyran space on T1 at all. The general rule answer would be no, but an exception was made for some survey ships, so why not more?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 04:03 am: Edit
Nick
Can I add a comment to Dale's question?
I think the answer should be 'No' - no additional Coalition ships should be allowed to move through Lyran space.
Reason - Various rules preclude the Lyrans and Klingons actively doing things, which would show the Klingons are about to join the war/be in an alliance (no Lyran ship in certain NZ hexes - no movement into each other's territory etc).
One would assume, Ship yard production would be watched by the Kzinti - and a new ship being built and immediatly sent to Lyran space would clearly breach the above rule restriction.
As a side note - it's much easier to send 2 existing ships - which are anyway in the Klingon empire to the Lyran off map area un-noticed - hence why the 2 existing Survey ships can move.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 12:07 pm: Edit
The survey surcharge may be one way to explain why new survey ships can move there for free...?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 06:11 pm: Edit
Questions Downloaded.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 06:27 pm: Edit
ANSWERS POSTED and sent to Steve Cole for inclusion in his weekly work schedule.
======================
Bill Schoeller:
Situation: Rom SN is in supply at start of turn. During Alliance
movement, the SN is put out of supply. At the instant of combat, the SN
is out of supply. The Rom wishes to use cloaked evasion. The cloaked
evasion rule states that any ship that is 'in supply' can use cloaked
evasiion. Is this reference to 'in supply' referring to in supply for
purposes of combat, or in supply at the instant of combat?
ANSWER: Bill, I believe that it means you must be in supply, you do not
need a supply path. So if the SN was in supply at the start of the turn,
it is still in supply for combat (even without a supply path at the
instant of combat). This is good enough for Cloaked Evasion as it
happens during the Combat phase.
Certain things you do need a supply path at the instant you do it, like
drone bombardment, but as far as I know Cloaked Evasion is not one of
those things.
===================
Paul Howard:
ANSWER: It looks to me like you understand the rule, but want a rules
change. I think it is fine as is, but you might post it in the rules
change topic if you want to pursue it.
===================
Paul Howard:
Orion leaves the Federation.
At the start of the turn, it re-joins the Federation (no Valid Supply
path) - the rules say that the ship (a K4) that was interned, when Orion
ceceeded is now treated as captured.
What does it cost to turn the K4 into a Fed-K4 - the 3 Ep's for the
normal captured ship cost, or as it's undamaged, a different cost (or
even nothing!)?
ANSWER: Same amount, you just don't have to repair it as well.
As it's undamaged - could it be scrapped for a higher value?
ANSWER: No, there is only one scrap value listed for each ship, and that
is the only amount you can get.
==============
Ken Cole:
We’re playing through the Tholian Gambit scenario as an alternate start
to the general war. The Coalition invasion of Tholian space releases the
Fed (7th?) fleet, but by rule, the Tholians will not allow Fed’s into
their territory. What exactly can the Fed do with this released fleet?
Does this trigger limited war? It's turn 2.
ANSWER: As per (615.2), (602.17) the Feds do nothing before turn 7, as
per normal rules (short of a Hydran expedition). Remember that rule
(602.2) and (602.4) are intended to apply turn 7 and later, not during
turns 1-6.
Also, when the Tholian HW went down, we assumed the the shipyard and
depot went with it. Does the Tholian salvage just go to the nearest SB
(partial grid)where it can be used for repair and constuction of one
PC/turn? or is it lost?
ANSWER: Salvage would go to the partial grid, assuming the ship in
question was supplied from that partial grid (439.12), (439.13).
===============
Peter D Bakija:
4 powers war
What happens if the Lyrans never attack the Kzintis? Under the fleet
release schedule, it says that the Kzintis can attack the Lyrans on T2
if the Klingons haven't attacked them, and the Lyrans can attack the
Kzintis on T3, but if the Lyrans decline to attack the Kzintis on T3,
can the Kzintis attack the Lyrans at any point? Say, on T4 (the Count's
Fleet is released on T4 even if the Lyrans don't attack, according to
the schedule).
Logic would dictate that even if the Lyrans don't attack the Kzinti, the
Kzinti can attack the Lyrans at some point, presumably T4 when the
Count's Fleet is released. But the rules are kinda ambigious.
ANSWER: Sure, turn 4 sounds good.
===============
Trent Telenko
Rule (515.52) in FO states the following:
"CVA's cannot be produced outside a working shipyard hex."
What does this mean for "heavy carriers" that are not CVA's such as SCS,
see (515.44)?
Ditto, the Romulan SUB or modular DN's with SPB modules?
what about the Lyran CV, which is a "Heavy carrier" per (515.21)?
Or the other Gorn and Lyran heavy carriers per rule errata (440.6) "The
Gorn CVD, Lyran DCS, and Lyran NDS are all counted as heavy carriers."
Or the Gorn MCS, which is a heavy CV per its SIT?
Which carriers listed above are required to be built/converted in the
Shipyard hex and which can be made elsewhere?
ANSWER: Anything that counts as a CVA for production must be produced in
the shipyard hex. Some ships count as medium carriers for production,
but can be escorted as heavies.
=================
John Slattery:
I am sure this is an old question but I am going to ask it again as I
have my doubts:
1) The Klingons surround the capital except the Major in 0718 and go in
for a final attack on the Hydran homeworld (turn # is irrelevant).
If/when the Hydrans retreat do they retreat to the Major? It is a supply
node only because of its location adjacent to the Homeworld. If the
Homeworld is no longer a supply source then either is the Major. But at
the same time the major can be considered a grid by itself if the
homeworld has fallen and of course could supply all ships on it
regardless.
ANSWER: The planet at 0718 is considered a partial grid at this point.
Any ships that retreat there would be in supply (since they would be
stacked with a planet).
2) By the rules of retreat the Hydrans could choose another a Coalition
occupied hex using 302.77 which abridges 302.734 but can not abridge
302.733 the supply situation.
The Hydrans at this stage do NOT want to retreat to the Major as it is
in the wrong direction, so do they have to?
ANSWER: It depends on if they are outnumbered in the other hexes. If
the retreating force is outnumbered in hexes 0618, 0518, 0517, 0616,
0717, then these hexes are eliminated in step 2. At that point the only
option is to retreat to 0718. If there are hexes adjacent to the
homeworld were the retreating force is not outnumbered, those hexes are
not eliminated in step 2. Step three then lets you eliminate 0718 as it
is a partial grid (you can't eliminate partial grid hexes if that
eliminates all remaining hexes). Then you could retreat normally (not
fighting) to one of the hexes where you are not outnumbered (as step 4
does not apply if it eliminates the last hex.
3) After a combat round in the capital hex where the Coalition is
retreating due to lack of muscle to take the hex, and the Hydrans choose
to retreat also, once again do they have to go to the major if is is not
captured? If not can they retreat in any direction they want to as they
are retreating away from the one and only supply source (not node mind
you).
ANSWER: If the capital is not captured, then hex 0718 is a regular grid
supply point, and since it would be the shortest distance (zero hexes),
it is your only retreat option.
=================
Trent Telenko
1) Can the Federation over produce [AKA (431.3) Overbuilds,
Overproduction] and produce via production over ride [AKA (450.3)
Production Overrides] F111 carriers? I think the answer is "Yes."
See the following line in (431.32):
"PFTs (except the Lyran BCP and DNP and the Romulan ROC) can be produced
by over production, but total production is limited."
and see (527.22AO):
"Additional NVH's can be built in the spring of Y180 (with the Trudeau)
counting against the limits of PFTs which can be built."
ANSWER: I don't think any of those let you overrule (431.32) which
prevents overbuilding a ship with more than 8 fighter factors.
2) Can DCS/NCS be over produced via (431.32) and over ridden via
(450.3). They seem to qualify since they are;
a) Carriers with fewer than 8 fighters,
b) They are CA/NCA hulls that can otherwise be over produced and
c) PFTs are allowed for over production.
ANSWER: As long as they meet with the other requirements, I don't see
why not.
===================
Peter D Bakija:
Another couple 4 Powers War questions:
-The Lyrans decline to attack the Kzintis on T3, leaving the Kzinti
Count's Fleet unreleased. They are not technically at war with the
Kzinti at this point. Can they still move ships, FRDs, and money into
Klingon space, repairing Klingon ships, even though they aren't fighting
the Kzinti? What happens if the Kzinti encounter Lyran ships (i.e.
Reserves or ships protecting an FRD) in Klingon space?
ANSWER: If not at war, then they can't do those things. If they go to
war turn 3 without actually attacking (releasing the Kzinti border fleet
and allowing the Kzinti to attack the Lyrans on T3A), then they could do
these things.
-The Kzinti Marquis fleet isn't released unless their deployment zone is
violated, or on T4 if a SB is destroyed or the capital is attacked. Does
the Marquis fleet get released before T4 if a SB is destroyed or the
capital is attacked before then (i.e. if the Klingons attack the Capital
on Coalition T3, is the Marquis fleet released on Kzinti T3, or do they
still have to wait till T4?)
ANSWER: Wait to turn 4.
===================
John Slattery:
SAF's & Tholia
Can SAF's be used against the SB over Tholia and the PUD's on Tholia
itself while a WEB is present?
The "WEB" rules do not exclude SAF's, but then when the "WEB" rules
where created there were no SAF's. By Logic (I know, strong word in this
game) they could not as they, the SAF ships, are well ships and so would
be caught in the web as well.
JEFF LAIKIND ANSWERS: (512.1) in F&E2K states "Directed Damage cannot be
used against a Tholian base or planet. [Exception: SAFs (520.0) in
Marine Assault.]
So, SAFs can be used against Tholian bases/planets in web.
===================
Kirk Knapp (Captain_Kirk):
If a crippled ship in a retreating force uses the formation bonus during
the pursuit battle, is it targeted by directed damage at 1:1, 3:1, or
somewhere in between?
CHUCK STRONG ANSWERS: All crippled ships in a pursuit battle are
targeted at 2:1 with the exception of a crippled ship in the form slot
as it is targeted at 3:1.
NICK ANSWERS: You do not get the mauler ability unless you have a mauler
present. If you do have a mauler, then the pursuit rules allow that
mauler to target multiple crippled ships as a single target. Normal
ships do not get the mauler bonus in pursuit.
==================
Adam Hickey:
Strat Ops Questions:
Looking over Strat Ops I have a few questions. Didn't bring these up in
the development process because I wasn't involved this time. Sorry.
I also have a few AAR's. I'll post them when the topic is opened.
540.23 If two races have a DIP team in each other's capital, do they get
2 EP's each? If it follows 540.22, then they are cumulative, but the
example in the second paragraph indicates otherwise: There's no reason
for one of the Feds or Klingons to send the second team.
ANSWER: Don't try to link 540.22 and 540.23. Rule 540.22 only applies
to allies (both nations in the game at war). They can each send a
diplomatic team for cumulative effect. Rule 540.23 is only for trading
with a neutral race. The klingons can trade with the Feds on turn 1-6
with this rule. The example is sort of wrong, as the Feds are
themselves neutral, and the klingons are not, I don't see how the Feds
can use this rule at all (other than the one EP benefit they get when
the Klingons use the rule).
542.27 If the survey ship is crippled, does the player have to pay to
repair it, or does the player only loose one turn of survey?
ANSWER: Presumably you have to repair it via the normal rules.
==============
Nick G. Blank:
From the F&E stuff in Cap Log 34, there was one correction to a recent
ruling here.
Raids from the off-map area are allowed.
It was asked if raids can move from the capital to an off map strat move
node, and then move their final six hexes from that location back onto
the map. This gives the Kzinti raiders great flexability, but seems to
break the rule on moving back and forth between the on-map and the
off-map in the same movement stage.
This is in fact allowed in this case, and is the original intention of
the rule. If you disallow such a raid because of the off-map movement
rules, you have to disallow all raids originating off-map, and it was
always intended that a race with an off-map capital (and thus an off-map
raid pool) should still be able to conduct raids onto the map. Details
in Cap Log.
==============
Craig Tenhoff:
Was working on a Tac Note for the Federation and was wondering if a race
has to be at war to use the E&S mission (534) for their Prime Teams?
I couldn't find anything in the rules regarding war status to use the
mission.
While this would primarily impact the Federation in the General War,
there are other scenarios where it may also apply.
ANSWER: I belive you do have to be at war to do these missions, just
like you have to be at war to conduct raids (normally).
==============
Dale Lloyd Fields:
This sounds good, but since you're here (and CL34 isn't yet), I'm
curious about one point. I can see the raider using strategic movement
to move to the OffMap and then launching a raid from there. Can the
raider move to the OffMap, then move to another SMN on map and launch a
raid from there? I'm mainly thinking about if the Marquis is isolated
from the capital, but not from the OffMap. Can raiders from Kzintai move
to the OffMap, then move back on map to a SMN in the Marquis, then
launch an attack against the north-east corner of Klingon space? Or once
the raiders have moved to the OffMap, are they limited to the 6 (or 7)
hex pinless movement?
ANSWER: As far as I know under the new ruling you can do that (strat
move off-map and back on) during the raid step.
==============
John Slattery:
Admirals:
Under 316.229 if an Admiral is removed from play by rolling a "6" at the
BEGINING OF THE TURN does the player get to replace that Admiral, in the
Capital, that turn or the next turn?
ANSWER: Replace it on the same turn, production step.
==============
Scott Tenhoff:
Nick, just where is a PRD located?
On the planet or around the planet. The rule states "at a planet", but
it specifically states "airless planet or moon", which to me means on
the surface (why does it matter if the planet has air if it's in orbit?)
I understand that being airless would allow anything to land via tractor
beam I believe (haven't delved into the appropriate SFB-rules though).
A PRD prevents devestation, like a PGB/PDU, so to me that also means
that it protects the ground somehow (don't ask me how with a FRD's
copious ammount of P3s, well it's tractors would stop drones). No other
space-based unit stops devestation (ie. Monitor)
The list in Advanced Raid Targets doesn't except the PRD like PDUs,
here:
"(320.331) Cloaked units, PDUs, FDUs, Romulan bases (which have cloaks),
and Tholian bases cannot be attacked by drone raids. The listed units
can be targeted by fighter-PF raids, but those would have to fight all
fixed defenses in the same location (but could select the target that
had to take the damage at a 1-1 ratio). (The following units located
with a Tholian base can be assumed..."
This matters to being a target for Drone Raids, as you've probably seen
in the Term Paper area.
ANSWER: I belive it is on a planet/moon. SVC may have to clarify this
one, and whether the PRD can be raided under the various options.
=============
Lawrence Bergen:
When an Attacker offers an approach battle and the Defender declines the
Attacker then (under rule 302.23) has two options:
1 Move in to fight at the 'base'.
2 Retreat from the hex (with a +1 for 307.2)
The question is has it ever been determined (I thought it had) if the
Defender can then retreat from the hex?
ANSWER: They can retreat as well.
=============
Trent Telenko:
I have some Tholian Monitor questions for you to chew on.
SAF rule (520.62) states: "...but the presence of a defending Monitor
produces a -1 die roll."
Monitor Rule (519.11) says "The Tholians are allowed two at their
capital."
1) Does this mean the Tholians get a cumulative "minus two" SAF effect
die roll shift? Or is it "minus one" until both Monitors are destroyed?
ANSWER: It is minus one until both monitors are destroyed. Remember
they could have more than two monitors.
2) Do Tholian Monitors have to be in the battle force to achieve this
shift? Webs mean they can be left out of the battle force, even if the
planet's PDUs are in it.
ANSWER: They must be in the battle force.
3) What are the movement and basing restrictions of Tholian Monitors
built in addition the two already at the capital? Are they free to move
to any Tholian base and stay there since there are no other Tholian
planets?
ANSWER: All monitors must be assigned to a planet, and the Thlians only
have one planet.
4) How would those restrictions change in event the Tholians started a
colony. and then fortified it enough to justify releasing the monitor?
ANSWER: Then the normal rules would apply of course. You cannot assign
monitors to bases, only to planets.
=====================
Scott Tenhoff:
Nick, how is Blockade Running R-SPH supposed to be used to gain Klingon
Spare Parts for the Romulans?
If I start out with a R-SPH in Romulan space (at Romulas, and as a
Blockade Runner) and can get to a Klingon SMN (lets say a K-MB south of
the Orion Cluster), that won't get me the supplies I need right?
ANSWER: Right, you need to get to the Klingon capital and back to the
Romulan capital.
Since to gain the Spare Parts, the Romulans have to make a transit to
the Klingon Capital (442.82).
With the Blockade Run, I don't get to the Capital, but just that Klingon
SMN.
Is this an exception then to use a Blockade Runner, it doesn't have to
get to the Klingon Capital?
ANSWER: No exception that I am aware of. If you had a network of Rom
mobile bases or other SMNs streatching within blockade-running reach of
the Klingon capital it would work. (or klingon SMNs within range of the
Rom capital.)
================
Peter D Bakija:
A question about The War That Almost Was (Fed vs Gorn) from CL#21:
It is fairly vague as to when or if the Federation can enter Gorn space.
It states in a few places that the Federation specifically *can't* enter
Gorn space (if they move first, under the Fed fleet release status for
T1), but then also states that various Gorn fleets are only released if
the Federation enter Gorn space. This being the case, when (if ever) are
the Federation allowed to actually enter Gorn space (as opposed to just
the Neutral zone)?
ANSWER: It seems to be dependent on when the Gorn attack, the Feds are
free to enter Gorn space after the Gorn invade the Federation (with the
second fleet).
================
Jimi LaForm:
Here is an interesting question that I thought up while playing my FTF
game this last Saturday. Starting T2 the Klingons begin rolling for
offmap new provinces. They usually get this income starting on
T4...BUT... are survey required to be in supply from the main grid? in
addition how does the Klingon offmap survey points get to the Klingon
onmap income since there is what 9 hexes between the the Lyran offmap
and Klingon bases?
Can offmap income use allied strategic points to move to the main grid?
ANSWER: I think if you have a friendly or allied strat move path all
that just happens (without using any capacity). It is part of the
background deal that lets the Klingons lease the territory off map in
the first place.
==============
Dale Lloyd Fields:
If the Romulans build additional survey ships (SO 542.1), can they
assist in the exploration of the on-map provinces (2K 603.15)?
ANSWER: I suppose so.
Also, with the publication of SO part of (603.15) is obsolete "They do
not provide income until a SPC (Sparrow-Hawk-C scout/survey cruiser) has
spent an entire opposing Player Turn in that province." since now two of
the survey ships are PEs. That is nitpicking of course, but hey,
Warbook. My main question still stands, though. An additional survey
ship will help them get one of their on-map provinces a turn quicker.
ANSWER: Any Romulan Survey ship can activate those provinces by spending
a turn there.
=================
Todd E Jahnke (Tej):
By rule as written, a crippled ship cannot combine with a half ship
equivalent of fighters or PFs to form a full SE for pinning purposes.
By ruling, a fast ship is pinned by a non-fast ship because the fast
ship cannot leave half of itself behind to satisfy pinning requirements.
Therefore, a crippled CV with three fighters aboard would pin two fast
ships, all else being equal.
I suggest that either the rule or the ruling should be changed.
ANSWER: I think SVC already has this under review (ships/PFs/fighters
combining for pinning).
===============
Paul Howard:
Todd
Assuming I am remembering this right....
In your example - nothing would be pinned.
A crippled ship would not pin anything - the moving force would not need
to leave anything behind - 1/2 always being rounded down as you need
whole points to pin anything,
So the crippled CV pin's nothing, and 3 Fighters pin nothing.
If the rule was changed (Cripples and Half equivalents of PF/Fighters
combine), they would pin 1 normal ship.
ANSWER: That looks good to me.
======================
Todd E Jahnke:
That seems to me to contradict the ruling that an F ship is pinned by a
non-F ship specifically because the F ship cannot leave anything behind
and must leave something behind.
ANSWER: In one case you have a whole number (1 pin point) pinning a fast
ship (2 pin points that can't split up), in the other case you have two
halves that can't combine getting rounded down to zero pin points
(assuming Paul Howard is correct above), there being no half points
(such as crippled ships moving with the fast ship) for them to pin. I
can't remember any ruling that says unused half points get rounded down,
but it seems to work.
======================
There was more discussion on pinning on Dec 19th-20th, but I won't
include it here. SVC can find it in the F&E Q&A topic of Dec 19th and
20th if he wants to review it.
======================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
(544.22 SO pg. 12) states that the two original Klingon survey ships
(the D6E and D7E) move through Lyran space to the Far Stars for free on
T1.
Question: Does this allow newly built Klingon survey ships to move
through Lyran space on T1 as well?
Example: I build 1xD6E on T1 (I don't have to be at war to do so, so it
is a valid build). Can I strat it along with the other two to the Far
Stars so that it can begin surveying along with them on T2? I would
expect the additional ships would cost both the Klingons and the Lyrans
strat.
I'm not asking if the new ones get the free strat of the original ships,
but asking whether it newly built survey ships can move through Lyran
space on T1 at all. The general rule answer would be no, but an
exception was made for some survey ships, so why not more?
ANSWER: Unless SVC overrules me, I suppose you can. If it is new
construction it would not count against the Klingon strat move, but it
would count against the Lyran capacity.
===================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 06:27 pm: Edit
Stupid extra double spacing that I didn't want.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 07:44 pm: Edit
I actually liked the extra double spacing. Made it a little easier to read.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 11:53 pm: Edit
Nick, thank you for your answer. However, I would like you to reconsider your response on 540.23 in light of 540.15 that says that diplomatic teams fuction for races at peace. 540.15 also specifically says the Feds and Gorns can trade with each other at peace and raise money, which seems to me to be the spirt of the rule. (For the record, I didn't mention 540.15 in my original question because I didn't think that the use of 540.23 by neutral races was an issue.)
If 540.15 is correct and races that are "neutral to each other" trade, and both send teams, is one economic point generated for each, or two?
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |