| Subtopic | Posts | Updated |
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:27 am: Edit |
January - Feburary 2007 Archive
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, January 01, 2007 - 10:55 am: Edit
Not really a rules question, but could someone point me to where the Demon of the Eastern Wind scenario is located?
Thanks!
-Peter
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, January 01, 2007 - 12:10 pm: Edit
Planetary Ops, 621.0, page 29.
Cheers,
Jason
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit
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.
mmh, i think the mauler can only pick ONE target on 1:1, any others must be killed on 2:1 (or 3:1)
F&E old rulebook (307.4)
Maybe the new rulebook...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 01:44 pm: Edit
Gambler
Yep, the "new" Y2K rulebook changed it. I think you may want to upgrade your rulebook.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 03:07 pm: Edit
ok, thanks!
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Nick Said:
>ANSWER: I don't think any of those let you
>overrule (431.32) which prevents overbuilding a
>ship with more than 8 fighter factors.
Nick, I posted several rule cites in a later message that reflected upon your answer you seem to have not considered. Here are other rules cites for my arguement:
See Rule (530.121AO) and this statement:
"Heavy fighter factors are different from standard fighter factors."
Thus (431.32) would not apply since it applies to standard fighters.
Then 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), counting 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 Federation F111 carriers are PFTs for over production and over ride purposes. While Federation A20s would come under the carrier restrictions and couldn't be produced via either of those forms of production.
Also, by extension, other faces heavy figher carriers should be considered "PFTs" for purposes of overproduction and over rides.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 - 04:19 pm: Edit
re:530.121 Yes, but 530.12 specifies that "Losses among heavy fighters are replaced automatically and for free just as with any other fighters, at the end of each Combat Phase. 530.121 just points out that they are different enough to not be able to accept or make transfers of non-heavy fighter factors for replacements.
So heavy fighters are still fighters and 431.32 still applies. Even though the base ship is under the PFT limit it is still carrying more than 8 factors of fighters. I think you're going to have to ask SVC for an exception for this (unless it's already been done somewhere).
________________________________________
Quote:
Also, by extension, other races heavy figher carriers should be considered "PFTs" for purposes of overproduction and over rides.
________________________________________
They already are. 530.223: Once the PFT limit is in place, a race can build HF CVs only under the PFT limit (except for A20 CVs) but can build as many as they want (at the cost of PFTs).
However, since HF squadrons are 8 factors (except for Feds), they can still be overproduced.
Hmmm, just noticed this:
431.33: Fed CVB cannot be overproduced
432.5: The surcharge is not doubled if the CVB is overproduced.
Did someone already get this for the MWB? There is soooo much stuff out there I don't know if it was found already.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 12:12 am: Edit
Not sure if this has been asked before, but....
Klingons are leaving 1401 after a Z Capital assault. They offer approach which is declined. There are cripples and slow units in the retreat. The Z pursue.
The Z decide to fight the slow units and also pursue. They build their line, and take 6 ships for the pursuit, leaving the balance for the slow units.
For the pursuit, if the roll fails to pursue, can those 6 ships now come back and take part in the slow unit battle?
My opinion is that 302.742-B infers no. But would like to get a ruling from someone smarter than me(which is probably everyone on this board)
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 04:41 pm: Edit
In a slow battle plus pursuit, you make one battle line, and strip out six ships from that line to pursue. The raminder of the line is for the slow unit battle. The six pursuing ships cannot take part in the slow battle, whether they catch the retreating cripples or not.
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 04:50 pm: Edit
Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but...
If the defender declines the approach battle, doesn't the attacker get to withdraw without pursuit?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 06:27 pm: Edit
Greg:
Per 302.23, the defender is still allowed to pursue, but has a +1 penalty on the pursuit die roll.
Cheers,
Jason
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 07:39 pm: Edit
Jason is correct.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 07:43 pm: Edit
But there still must be a crippled ship for there to be a normal pursuit. Often if the defender refuses approach, and the attacker doesn't press the attack, the attacker doesn't have a crippled ship in the hex.
(Slow unit is another matter.)
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 09:34 am: Edit
A chain of questions regarding two turn set-up of MB in 4PW.
Rules (510.21 & 510.22) state the procedure for setting up a MB.
Rule (510.232) states that (in combat) if the tug is not with the MB its considered abandoned.
Rule (607.16) describes the scenario rule for settin up a MB as taking two turns for Step 2 (510.22).
Situation: A Tug which began setting up a MB on the Strat Move portion of its previous turn wants to change missions during the Econ Phase (Step 1F: (509.32) Declares roles for tugs) of the current turn.
Questions:
1. If the tug voluntarily changes missions is the MB lost/destroyed?
2. Would the MB be considered still 'packed' since it has not been a full turn OR is it considered 'partially set up'?
3. If the answer to 2 is 'packed' could another tug (assume a valid SMN exists) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn and pick up the MB for movement and/or set up elsewhere?
4. If the answer to 2 is 'partially set up' could another tug (assuming a valid SMN) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn to complete the MB basically picking up where the first tug left off?
4b. If the MB is considered partially set up does the interruption of the set up this turn force the proces to begin again on the next turn (ie a tug could strat-move there this turn but would not be able to continue deployment until the following turn)?
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 11:24 am: Edit
Hi!
Are there any provisions in Fed and Empire for glassing a planet (rendering it uninhabitable), rather than just devastating it?
It might not be the first choice for many empires, but when it comes to representing the kind of treatment that certain worlds have suffered at the hands of the Andromedans (such as the Uthiki homeworld in the Cloud) or the mass xenocide inflicted on Carnivon planets by the Lyrans and Kzintis, there might be cases where the choice might be made to put a world to the torch for good.
(It might be just a tad dangerous in a General War scenario, but in other eras - or in free campaigns - it might be an option.)
Gary
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Sunday, January 07, 2007 - 10:21 pm: Edit
Rule (505.33) limits the Tholians to only operating within 2 hexes of their border. Does this affect E&S attacks and raids since they are beyond that limit?
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 10:53 pm: Edit
Fed GVX.
1) I see in 527.27 that the Feds can build the GVX on turn 29 (fall 182). The SIT lists it available in 182. Assuming that the GVX is NOT available on turn 28 (spring 182), the SIT should be changed to fall 182.
2) 527.27 says that the GVX is escorted as a medium carrier, but can only be escorted by x ships. It also says that it can be operated as a single ship carrier. Can the GVX be used as a single ship carrier in a CVBG; therefore, being escorted by non x-ships in this configuration.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 09:48 am: Edit
Can a carrier leave its fighters behind to resolve pinning requirements and continue moving?
Example: a force of 26 Hydran ships equivelants is moving towards a target. One hex out away from the target, the Lyrans react 25 ship equivelants out. The Hydran player wants to have a PAL leave its six fighters behind (along with 24 other ship equivelants) and move into the target hex. Is this legal?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 10:45 am: Edit
Paul, no. See rule (203.53).
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, January 12, 2007 - 03:16 pm: Edit
RE: Question posted January 05, 2007
Any word on these?
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 08:04 pm: Edit
Another question (or few):
In which supplement is the Hydran Liberation (of Y135) included?
Also, aside from the Four Powers' War and the Hydran Liberation, are there any other Middle Years historical scenarios lying around (such as for the Second Fed-Kzinti War, or one of the later Gorn-Romulan Wars)?
And does the Hydran scenario give enough data on the EY Klingons to allow a Klingon-Tholian War scenario to be written up?
Gary
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:16 pm: Edit
When Single Ship Combat?
If a Klingon F5 is on a garrision asssignment at Kz planet and a Kz FF drops in for a visit, do we have SSC or normal combat? Rule (310.0) gives some guidelines for computing if SSC exists but the planet under Klingon control could be used to absorb damage. Does this skew the calculation? Does the planets existence in the hex automatically eliminate the chance for SSC? Why did the Kzinti's send a kitten to do a cat's job?
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:38 pm: Edit
Previously devestated planets do not have the ability to absorb damage.
If the original owner liberates his/her planet then the planet gains a 3 point non ship defender on it which the attacker would then have to destroy to redevestate the planet (until the planet has gone 5 turns to become undevestated).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 10:41 pm: Edit
The Kzinti planet would have to be recovered from devastation before the Klingon could assign damage to it. And I don't think that that can happen, can it? (Unless it was ceded to the Klingons for some reason.)
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 12:10 am: Edit
Nick, any chance you can take a look at the outstanding questions this week?
I am interested particularly in my own (of course) from 5-Jan.
Thanks in advance...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 02:29 pm: Edit
Nick
For the Lyran JGP, AO 525.241 says (assumed to be in K mode...) whereas 673.1L in CL 30 states that it is in C mode for the Cloudburst scenario. Does this mean that the at start JGP in the historical scenario (601) can start off in C mode, since it is only assumed to be in K? Or should I scratch out the "assumed to be" in my AO rulebook?
By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 07:17 am: Edit
Nick - Here is a convoluted situation concerning economy. The Kzinti are being overrun. The Marquis is cutoff from the main grid. Province 1503 is unoccupied by anyone and will produce 1 EP for the Kzinti this turn. The question is, does the EP go to 1401 or 1704? There are Kzinti ships in 1401 and Coalition ships in 1701, 1502, and 1504. It is the Kzinti opinion that hex 1503 (and subsequently the province) is linked to 1401 through 1402. It is the Klingon opinion that the supply path through 1503 is blocked by the Coalition ships in 1502 and 1504, forcing the EP back to the Marquis grid.
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 02:50 pm: Edit
Nick-
A long time ago it was decided that +/- points can't transfer between systems in a capitol hex. Obviously it is too good to be able to work off 28 minus points from PDUs over some minor planet outside of the main system. Great.
There is a way to "pre work off" you minus points.
Go into a system with PDUs. Direct on the fighters. (this leaves space). Then go fight in the capitol. The homeless fighters now flow to a any other PDU/Base in the hex. (PDU fighters can't go to CVs the way I read the rules)
Viola, no negative 28 to work off.
Is this legal?
(If it is, I call dibs on the tac note)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Larry
Someone already wrote a Tacnote on this. If you go look in that section you can find it. I don't know how far back though.
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 03:12 pm: Edit
Legal, and tac note was published in a cap. log long ago.(still don't understand why so many people don't use it)
By Javier D Benvenuti (Javierb) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 03:25 pm: Edit
Fighter Shell Game by Roger Morgan
By Geof Clark (Spartan) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 03:32 pm: Edit
Nick,
We have just been using the new Advanced Deficit Spending rules in our campaign. Based on our reading of the rules, the Klingon spent 120% of the points available to him in the econ phase, then spent additional points during combat (drone bombardment) and field repair. Is this legal? One of the other guys notes that you ruled a while ago that the 120% cap was a maximum for the whole turn. We did not find a reference for that interpretation in the rulebook.
Thanks,
Geof
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 04:02 pm: Edit
Once a race starts using ADS they can never ever ever use regular deficit spending. In other words say the Klingons ADS 20% of their economy for say... 40 EP's, their end of economy form should show them as at or near 0 EP's at the end of econ phase. They cannot, under any circumstances, go into the negatives in their economy for things like drone bombardment, CEDS repair etc for the rest of the game. They can use things like salvage etc to pay for extraneous costs like DB or CEDS repair etc, but cannot go into further negatives for such.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:55 pm: Edit
At what point during the SOP are you able to repay your debt?
Econ? Prod? Bueller?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 02:42 am: Edit
Whoa!
..a Larry Ramey sighting...don't anyone make any direct eye contact else we lose this rare moment...
Seriously Larry, it is nice to see you back on-line and hanging around the F&E BBS. Welcome back.
Cheers
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 03:41 am: Edit
Ditto Chuck
In best Dan Aykroyd voice "We're puttin' the band back together..."
Welcome back Larry
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 07:21 am: Edit
Jimi,
I don't think you got the intent right on ADS. Yes, in the beginning paragraph of the rule, it says "but once a race starts using it, it cannot revert to (430.6)."
But I think that's talking about the fact that you'd have to pay interest after borrowing during combat, not that you can't borrow during combat.
Support for this view:
1st paragraph of 447.2: "This includes deficit spending made during combat under the previous rules."
and
447.44 "A race in default can use deficit spending in combat as always..."
Has there been an AAR which clarifies this?
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 07:56 am: Edit
The way I understand it now, is that if your econ is 100 and you want to borrow EP using ADS, you,for example, add 20 EP(20% maximum) to your econ BEFORE spending for production. That gives you a new total of 120. Your total may be higher(or lower) depending on xfers/carryover/scraps etc, but your debt is only 20 EP. (Definitely need to redo econ sheets for this)
Now, you spend for the turn for production. You cannot go below zero at any point. This means if you spend 120 during production, you do NOT have any to spend during the combat phase!!!! So, make sure you leave a bit if you anticipate need. Keep in mind, salvage is calculated AFTER the combat phase of the phasing player's turn. So, it is possible to earn salvage to spend for the 'non phasing' combat phase.
Basically, you can spend during combat, but you have to save EP during production to allow you to do that....cant go negative like we used to..thats a big difference here.
I hope I understand that correctly, otherwise, I just wasted about 2 minutes of everybody's time;
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 11:24 am: Edit
I don't know about the 20% per turn rule. I believe that is the intent, and apparently it's been ruled that way before, in which case, yes, somebody who borrowed (and spent) the full 20% during production, would have nothing left for later in the turn.
But that does leave open the question of "borrow 10% during production, then borrow another 10% during the rest of the turn." I believe that's legal.
As for salvage, I believe that can be taken at any time. Maybe I've been wrong to do this, but I've even used salvage at an out of supply SB to fund "rapid combat repair." In fact, the rules say "(or combat round if the players find that more convenient)." (439.11)
But (again) since I'm not Nick, I'll bow out now. (I do that sometimes, get involved in a discussion in the Q&A topic.)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 02:53 pm: Edit
"But that does leave open the question of "borrow 10% during production, then borrow another 10% during the rest of the turn." I believe that's legal."
You only borrow once...prior to production. What you spend of what you borrowed is up to you. You may borrow the full 20%, but not spend any of it for production, but choose to spend it during combat..or vice versa. Or, as you say spend half now and half later. Or spend none of it at all(defeats the purpose of borrowing in the first place)..either way you have the exact same debt.
If I understand it correctly, we have to suspend the thinking of how we've done deficit spending before. Old system was we borrowed as we needed by going negative on our econ during combat phase...this is different...now we borrow BEFORE the turn even begins.
Of course, you may choose to ignore ADS entirely and continue to do it the old way.
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 02:23 pm: Edit
I'm teaching my wife, so I guess I'll be around.
She started asking "Why does F&E work this way?" questions so I guess I'll teach her SFB too.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 04:43 pm: Edit
Ytside,
I think the answer to "when is ADS repaid" was in a recent CL (#32?). (The answer was "in Step 5 of the ADS procedure [right before you borrow money]".)
Mattsmith (and others),
The SoP states that salvage is calculated in Step 5-6X7, after the DLR rolls and before RCR. Thus you can always have money for combat repair (or next round's drones), provided you're willing to have something die.
In any case, Nick's already answered Geof's (and others') question (on October 30, 2005, 10:09pm). ADS allows you to borrow in the Economics Step in addition to the other times you may borrow. However, the "20% borrow per turn" (430.62) is an absolute cap on the total amount of money you may borrow during the turn.
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 01:31 am: Edit
I would swear it was decided at one point that a PDU provides an EW factor......
I can't find it in my copy of F&E 2K, Marine or Carrier War. (or the errata file)
Anyone know where to find it? (or am I smoking Peter's Crack Pipe? )
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 01:38 am: Edit
A.O., page 9, 317.2 EW for Planetary Defenses.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 02:41 am: Edit
Larry:
1EW per PDU/PGB; max EW=4.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 08:00 am: Edit
Dcbutler,
In that issue #32(?), does it state whether the interest due for the current turn includes any repayment done on that same turn or only what was repaid through the previous turn?
In other words, if on turn 5, my debt is 50 EP after repaying 10 EP on turn 5...before borrowing, do I owe interest on the full 50, or 40?
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:22 am: Edit
Thanks, I never bought AO, that explains it.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:33 am: Edit
Going by the SoP, 1C1 Calculate overall debt,1C2 Calculate interest on debt,1C3 determine income from economic points,1C4 pay interest on debt. So looks to me you pay the interest before anything else you buy.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 03:14 pm: Edit
Thanks, I never bought AO, that explains it.
Well the rulebook is available for $15.00 here.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 06:39 pm: Edit
Ok...let me try this another way.
I assume that paying interest on the debt and paying 'principle' on the debt are two different events. The SoP clearly states when to pay interest. I'm confused when during the SoP we repay on the 'principle'. At this time, this part does not seem to be clearly stated to me.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 07:09 pm: Edit
Larry wrote:
>> would swear it was decided at one point that a PDU provides an EW factor...... >>
As noted, it is in AO. It was also in the ExFix article in some CL in the mid 20's (the same one where they fixed the SFGs, SAFs, and Ground Attack units and gave the Kzintis and Hydrans all sorts of free scouts at the start of the war). PDUs didn't originally give out EW, which was a significant flaw. Luckily, it got fixed. Eventually (but not till my group was so traumatized by the EW rules that we never touched them again...)
>>Anyone know where to find it? (or am I smoking Peter's Crack Pipe? )>>
Good to see you are back, Larry!
-Peter
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 08:03 pm: Edit
Was i asking in the wrong section about the historical campaigns, and if so where should I post the question instead?
Gary
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit
Well, It must be in a Captains Log after CL21. CL21 was issued just after F&E2K. (CL21 Trivia.... I am in Paul Scott's Victory at Origins article.... I am the friend who gave Tos the advice on how to fight the andro that got him killed. Paul was too nice to mention me by name)
Next Question:
Rule 700: OB and Production
Carrier War Rev0 has 3 Free Fighters/turn for Romulans.
F&E@K Rev4 has 6.
Obviously F&E2K overrides CVWar. However there are units in CV War that aren't in F&E2K. So assuming I WANT to play with CVWar (though as a card carrying member of the AWC, I'm not sure what I gain.....) is there an updated master OOB and Production? Since I am a competent computer programer I run a diff and merge on the CVwar/Marine/F&E2K to come up with a OOB but I'd rather download an "official" one.
Is the ExFix file anywhere I can download? (I didn't see it)
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:22 pm: Edit
Oh for the love of cheese.....
I just answered my own question. I guess THAT is what Fighter Operations is.
*sigh*
Silly me, I thought it was a bunch of Mega fighter stuff.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 12:27 am: Edit
Ytside,
Check the Q&A Archives File for the CL32 Rules & Rulings; the answer was that "[d]ebts are paid in Step 5 of the (447.3) Sequence", which puts as part of 1C5 in the SoP.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 02:05 am: Edit
Gary Carney,
This is as good a section as any to ask that question (about the historical campaigns). Nick will get to it when he can, unless someone else can find your answer earlier. I don't know the answer off the top of my head, and I don't know where to look for it, but somebody else will track it down, I'm sure.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 08:36 am: Edit
Actually Dcbutler, I found it last night in the errata file Nick updated last May.
The answer is 'repayment of principle' happens after interest is paid and after borrowing is done. So whatever you repay on the current turn does not save you interest until the following turn. Makes sense because thats what a credit card company would to do you.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 11:40 am: Edit
X-Ship Economics Questions:
After reading through all the rules backward and forwards I see the following:
1. A player may convert up to 20% of his total EP's for a turn into XTP's.
2. A player may convert 10 additional EP's to XTP's at no cost (what does no cost mean?).
3. A player will recieve 40% of the total economic value of all planets he controls (regardless of devistation or exhaustion).
4. A Player may recieve +5 if they have a un-devistated Homeworld (disregarding Tholians for the moment).
5. A player may recieve +1 for each X-Star Base they currently have.
A player may use all or some accumulated XTP's as EP's if they so choose per 523.126.
Now on turn #24 the Klingons & Federation are able to start creating X-Cruisers (the only ones available are DX and CX respectively).
The Klingon XTP economics goes as follows (example):
1. 27 XTP converted from EP's (20%).
2. 10 XTP bonus converted from EP's.
3. 56.8 XTP 40% planetary bonus.
4. 5 XTP bonus for the un-devistated Home World.
5. 1 XTP bonus for having a X-Star Base.
Total = 99.8 XTP!
The Klingons (as an example) have only 1 X-Star Base in action. They decide to convert the D7 and D7C in construction to X-Technology and convert a D7 in the hex to a DX as well (the maximum they seem to be able to do).
The cost is DX = 13, DX = 13, and convert D7 to DX = 7, for a total of 33 XTP points. The Star-Base did not cost anything and no repair is required.
So, 99.8 - 33 = 66.8 left over which can be converted back into EP's per 523.126.
Of these 66.8, 37 where directly bought from EP's and so are simply being returned to the pool.
That leaves 29.8 XTP's being converted into EP's.
That is 29.8 EP's the Klingons gain in a "wind-fall" of mana from heaven for no reason what-so-ever? In fact they got the lions share of said EP's from counting planets as double+ income?
Why?
They gained 6 EP's from having an un-devistated Home World and X-Base. This is manufacturing raw material that appears from no-where. Better yet is that this EP is not discounted for exhaustion.
Now I understand the opposition (alliance) will also gain EP's from heaven as well, but the whole point of economic exhaustion is not to have more economics than your opponent but to stop them from building a full "build" of ships.
If an opponent can continue to build all thier list of ships turn after turn as 1 to 1 cost then they are really not hurting. The opponent will have even more but to outbuild the Klingons the Feds will have to resort to costly overbuilds.
Why is this?
Why are XTP's convertable back to EP's???
I understand the 20% of EP's to XTP's that the player simply does not do and keeps the EP's as EP's. The +10 bonus is not used and kept as origianl EP's. But the Planet Bonus + Homeworld Bonus + X-Base Bonus if used only for X-Ships that would sound reasonable. Why can these be converted into EP's at no penalty what-so-ever?????
This does not sound right.
What am I missing here????
John
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 07:08 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
2. A player may convert 10 additional EP's to XTP's at no cost (what does no cost mean?).
________________________________________
It means that you can convert them without paying the penalty of the last line of that chart: "+Up to 10 XTPs can be brought at a cost of 2 EPs each."
________________________________________
Quote:
Why are XTP's convertable back to EP's???
________________________________________
523.126 does not allow you to convert them back to EPs. It allows you to spend them "for any purpose for which EPs can be spent." It is an important distinction.
________________________________________
Quote:
Why can these be converted into EP's at no penalty what-so-ever?????
What am I missing here????
________________________________________
I think you need to reread the entire page. Especially 523.13: REPAIRS, 523.4: X-BASES, and 523.123.
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 07:48 pm: Edit
It means that you can convert them without paying the penalty of the last line of that chart: "+Up to 10 XTPs can be brought at a cost of 2 EPs each.
Ah, good point!
523.126 does not allow you to convert them back to EPs. It allows you to spend them "for any purpose for which EPs can be spent." It is an important distinction
I thought this was a minor distinction? If your going to use a EP to gain a physical return (i.e. a ship etc...) then XTP's can be used the same exact way. What is out there exactly that you can not "spend" EP's on and therefor can not "spend" XTP's on? The only way to get tangible return on your payment of EP's is to "spend them" I would think? Maybe I'm thinking only one-dimensionaly here along a logic path?
I think you need to reread the entire page. Especially 523.13: REPAIRS, 523.4: X-BASES, and 523.123
I think you are correct!
It just seems to be a lot of EP's that one can use to supplement your economy with that fall out of heaven.
Now if these points where "only" usable for X-Tech such as X-Tech repair and X-Tech bases and X-Tech ships etc... it would allow low economy races to have the economic power to produce X-ships and allow strong economic powers to produce even more X-ships "but" would not allow one to supplement ones income with XTP's that seemingly fall out of heaven and allows one to "buy" items, such as ships, that you would not normally be allowed to buy becuase your economy is not high enough.
I "think" that XTP's for the 40% of planets and the +5 for Homeworld and +1 for each X-Base should only to toward X-Tech production.
The 20% or the +10 of EP to XTP conversion is fine and came from the EP total to begin with so it can go right back thier with no wrinkle in the rules.
What it comes down to is it is "Free" economy on, sometimes, a massive scale.
That is the concept I am either hitting right on the head or missing? But I'm not intelegent enough to know the difference....
???John???
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 01:36 am: Edit
John Slattery asked:
This does not sound right.
What am I missing here????
Answer: Doctrine
By John Slattery (Jslat) on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 08:34 am: Edit
Answer: Doctrine
True enough my friend, true enough.
So be it, I'll acquiesce to to the rules as written and play on faith, unless of course my opponent has reservations about these rules as well.
:-)
John
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 03:52 pm: Edit
I'm going to comment over in General Discussion.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 05:24 pm: Edit
Quick question.
I have one of those armed priority transports, and want to use it to supply 2 ships, or move 4 drone factors. It's my opmove. The 2 ships or ships needing drones start out of supply. How does this work?
i.e. I start opmoving. During the opmove, I assume I have to move the APT to same hex as the ships involved. They are now in supply or have drones immediately? Do newly supplies ship have the ability to opmove 6, or are they still limited to 3 opmove?
Puzzled - there seems to be no definitions on how this is enacted.
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:14 pm: Edit
You probably should've sent it there via Blockade Running during the Raid Phase.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:33 pm: Edit
Since 3B1, supply for op movement, is evaluated for all phasing player ships at the same time, I would handle it as if the ships moved back into supply DURING their movement. IOW, they are in supply for combat but still have only 3 hexes of movement.
By David Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 08:10 am: Edit
I guess one could always have them in an out-of supply fleet at the start of a phase, and use them like a poor-mans hydran supply tug.... i.e. supply warships but not themselves... (dibs on tacnote).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 09:31 am: Edit
Would supplying ships with an APT or PTR cost anything? I know the DB points cost per the rule, but there is no rule reference for supplying other ships. If it costs I would imagine it would be at the regular rate for paying to supply a ship?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 04:21 pm: Edit
Nick,
Please clarify the "guild shipyard" free fighter factors in (511.321):
________________________________________
Quote:
The old shipyard produces three free fighter factors (for hybrid ships) per turn [...]
________________________________________
Are these three "free hybrid ship fighter factors" (worth 3 EP) or three "free fighter factors, usable only on hybrid ships" (worth 6 EP, as you get two factors on ships for each FFF spent)?
On a related note, the Hydrans can build an IC without a shipyard, and are allowed by (AO-525.316D) to use free fighter factors to offset costs; can they use the aforementioned old shipyard FFF for this purpose?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 07:54 am: Edit
Also, to add to the above question: Since the FFF for all the races were changed to a yearly supply, does the O.C. shipyard produce 6 FFF per year or does it still produce 3 per turn? (It does make a slight difference when you're saving up for a large purchase)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 02:42 pm: Edit
Questions downloaded. I meant to do all these today, but got called in to work to replace someone else who was out sick (only 2 work on Sundays at the Library), so I will see how much I can do tonight.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 04:08 pm: Edit
ANSWERS POSTED
===================================
Adam Hickey:
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?
ANSWER: According to the rule it is one for each side per team. So with two teams it would be two EPs per side per turn.
==============================
Fabio Poli:
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.
mmh, i think the mauler can only pick ONE target on 1:1, any others must be killed on 2:1 (or 3:1)
F&E old rulebook (307.4)
Maybe the new rulebook...
ANSWER: Rule (307.4) in the current rulebook states that multiple crippled ships in pursuit can be declared to be one target for a direct damage attack and that a mauler can be used for this "one" attack.
==============================
Trent Telenko:
Nick Said:
>ANSWER: I don't think any of those let you
>overrule (431.32) which prevents overbuilding a
>ship with more than 8 fighter factors.
Nick, I posted several rule cites in a later message that reflected upon your answer you seem to have not considered. Here are other rules cites for my arguement:
ANSWER: Yes, I read everything you posted the first time. I still haven't changed my mind (I would think you need a specific exception to overrule the general prohibition against overbuilding a ship with that many fighters, and there isn't one, the other exceptions you mention do not apply to overbuilds), but I will send the question to Jeff.
=============================
Michael Lui:
Hmmm, just noticed this:
431.33: Fed CVB cannot be overproduced
432.5: The surcharge is not doubled if the CVB is overproduced.
Did someone already get this for the MWB? There is soooo much stuff out there I don't know if it was found already.
ANSWER: Doesn't look like it has been caught before. CVB cannot be overproduced, so the reference in (432.5) is meaningless.
================================
Dave Whiteside:
Klingons are leaving 1401 after a Z Capital assault. They offer approach which is declined. There are cripples and slow units in the retreat. The Z pursue.
The Z decide to fight the slow units and also pursue. They build their line, and take 6 ships for the pursuit, leaving the balance for the slow units.
For the pursuit, if the roll fails to pursue, can those 6 ships now come back and take part in the slow unit battle?
My opinion is that 302.742-B infers no. But would like to get a ruling from someone smarter than me(which is probably everyone on this board)
Thanks
ANSWER: In a slow battle plus pursuit, you make one battle line, and strip out six ships from that line to pursue. The raminder of the line is for the slow unit battle. The six pursuing ships cannot take part in the slow battle, whether they catch the retreating cripples or not.
====================================
Greg Ernest
If the defender declines the approach battle, doesn't the attacker get to withdraw without pursuit?
ANSWER: See rule (302.23), you can still pursue, but with a die roll penalty to catch the retreating ships (provided there were retreating crippled ships present).
=================================
Lawrence Bergen:
A chain of questions regarding two turn set-up of MB in 4PW.
Rules (510.21 & 510.22) state the procedure for setting up a MB.
Rule (510.232) states that (in combat) if the tug is not with the MB its considered abandoned.
Rule (607.16) describes the scenario rule for settin up a MB as taking two turns for Step 2 (510.22).
Situation: A Tug which began setting up a MB on the Strat Move portion of its previous turn wants to change missions during the Econ Phase (Step 1F: (509.32) Declares roles for tugs) of the current turn.
Questions:
1. If the tug voluntarily changes missions is the MB lost/destroyed?
ANSWER: Yes.
2. Would the MB be considered still 'packed' since it has not been a full turn OR is it considered 'partially set up'?
ANSWER: it is partially set up, it has no combat factors, but can no longer move or retreat with the tug.
3. If the answer to 2 is 'packed' could another tug (assume a valid SMN exists) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn and pick up the MB for movement and/or set up elsewhere?
ANSWER: N/A
4. If the answer to 2 is 'partially set up' could another tug (assuming a valid SMN) show up during the Strat Move phase of the current turn to complete the MB basically picking up where the first tug left off?
ANSWER: I would say no, if the first tug leaves (or is given another mission at the start of the turn), the MB would be lost at that point.
4b. If the MB is considered partially set up does the interruption of the set up this turn force the proces to begin again on the next turn (ie a tug could strat-move there this turn but would not be able to continue deployment until the following turn)?
ANSWER: Interrupting the setup process loses you the MB as far as I can tell. There is no chance for another tug to show up from elsewhere. I don't think there is any provision in the rules for one tug to take over the mission of another tug in the middle of the mission, even if the mission takes more than one turn.
===========================================
Gary Carney: Are there any provisions in Fed and Empire for glassing a planet (rendering it uninhabitable), rather than just devastating it?
ANSWER: Nope.
============================================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Rule (503.33) limits the Tholians to only operating within 2 hexes of their border. Does this affect E&S attacks and raids since they are beyond that limit?
ANSWER: Rule (503.33) is referring specifically to ships, and does not apply to E&S teams.
===========================================
Bill Schoeller:
Fed GVX.
1) I see in 527.27 that the Feds can build the GVX on turn 29 (fall 182). The SIT lists it available in 182. Assuming that the GVX is NOT available on turn 28 (spring 182), the SIT should be changed to fall 182.
ANSWER: I moved this to the SIT topic.
2) 527.27 says that the GVX is escorted as a medium carrier, but can only be escorted by x ships. It also says that it can be operated as a single ship carrier. Can the GVX be used as a single ship carrier in a CVBG; therefore, being escorted by non x-ships in this configuration.
ANSWER: I don't think so. It looks like they cannot be mixed, normal escorts cannot escort the X ship, and X ships cannot escort the normal carrier, so you are stuck either way. I suppose you could pair the GVX with another non-X single ship carrier, i.e. a CVBG with no escorts.
==========================================
Paul Bonfanti:
Can a carrier leave its fighters behind to resolve pinning requirements and continue moving?
Example: a force of 26 Hydran ships equivelants is moving towards a target. One hex out away from the target, the Lyrans react 25 ship equivelants out. The Hydran player wants to have a PAL leave its six fighters behind (along with 24 other ship equivelants) and move into the target hex. Is this legal?
ANSWER: Paul, no. See rule (203.53).
============================================
Gary Carney:
In which supplement is the Hydran Liberation (of Y135) included?
ANSWER: Nothing that early has been done for F&E.
Also, aside from the Four Powers' War and the Hydran Liberation, are there any other Middle Years historical scenarios lying around (such as for the Second Fed-Kzinti War, or one of the later Gorn-Romulan Wars)?
ANSWER: Not that I am aware of.
And does the Hydran scenario give enough data on the EY Klingons to allow a Klingon-Tholian War scenario to be written up?
ANSWER: No such EY scenario exists.
=========================================
Lawrence Bergen:
When Single Ship Combat?
If a Klingon F5 is on a garrision asssignment at Kz planet and a Kz FF drops in for a visit, do we have SSC or normal combat? Rule (310.0) gives some guidelines for computing if SSC exists but the planet under Klingon control could be used to absorb damage. Does this skew the calculation? Does the planets existence in the hex automatically eliminate the chance for SSC? Why did the Kzinti's send a kitten to do a cat's job?
ANSWER: The planet cannot absorb damage, unless it has coalition PDUs for the Kzinti to shoot at (then it is the PDUs taking damage, not the planet in any case). Then you would have to determine if the battle was approach or at the planet before computing for small scale combat.
====================================
Michael Lui:
The Kzinti planet would have to be recovered from devastation before the Klingon could assign damage to it. And I don't think that that can happen, can it? (Unless it was ceded to the Klingons for some reason.)
ANSWER: Right, that can only happen if the klingons annex the planet, in which case it is a klingon planet, not a kzinti planet.
===================================
Michael Lui:
For the Lyran JGP, AO 525.241 says (assumed to be in K mode...) whereas 673.1L in CL 30 states that it is in C mode for the Cloudburst scenario. Does this mean that the at start JGP in the historical scenario (601) can start off in C mode, since it is only assumed to be in K? Or should I scratch out the "assumed to be" in my AO rulebook?
ANSWER: No, Cloudburst is a special exception for that scenario. In any scenario that does not specify this, the rule provides the starting mode.
======================================
John Robinson:
Nick - Here is a convoluted situation concerning economy. The Kzinti are being overrun. The Marquis is cutoff from the main grid. Province 1503 is unoccupied by anyone and will produce 1 EP for the Kzinti this turn. The question is, does the EP go to 1401 or 1704? There are Kzinti ships in 1401 and Coalition ships in 1701, 1502, and 1504. It is the Kzinti opinion that hex 1503 (and subsequently the province) is linked to 1401 through 1402. It is the Klingon opinion that the supply path through 1503 is blocked by the Coalition ships in 1502 and 1504, forcing the EP back to the Marquis grid.
ANSWER: Rule (430.12) says one hex of the province must be linked to the supply grid to get the income. The presence of Kzinti ships in 1401 opens supply to hex 1503 so you could collect the income in the capital grid. (411.1) says that the supply path does not include the hex in question, only hexes from that point and including the hex containing the supply point. So for hex 1503 the supply path is 1402-1401. This is a valid supply path, so that province can be connected to the main grid.
======================================
Geof Clark:
We have just been using the new Advanced Deficit Spending rules in our campaign. Based on our reading of the rules, the Klingon spent 120% of the points available to him in the econ phase, then spent additional points during combat (drone bombardment) and field repair. Is this legal? One of the other guys notes that you ruled a while ago that the 120% cap was a maximum for the whole turn. We did not find a reference for that interpretation in the rulebook.
ANSWER: It is intended to be a total limit for the turn as far as I know.
==============================
Dave Whiteside:
At what point during the SOP are you able to repay your debt?
Econ? Prod? Bueller?
ANSWER: Step 5 of (447.3) is when repayment occurs, after you calculate and pay interest. This was in Cap Log 32, page 88.
=============================
Matthew G. Smith:
Jimi,
I don't think you got the intent right on ADS. Yes, in the beginning paragraph of the rule, it says "but once a race starts using it, it cannot revert to (430.6)."
But I think that's talking about the fact that you'd have to pay interest after borrowing during combat, not that you can't borrow during combat.
ANSWER: Right, You can still "borrow" during the turn (increasing your debt, but not over the turn limit provided by the rules), but you will have to now pay interest on that debt before you repay it, you can no longer repay debt interest free as under the old rule.
==========================================
Dave Whiteside:
The way I understand it now, is that if your econ is 100 and you want to borrow EP using ADS, you,for example, add 20 EP(20% maximum) to your econ BEFORE spending for production. That gives you a new total of 120. Your total may be higher(or lower) depending on xfers/carryover/scraps etc, but your debt is only 20 EP. (Definitely need to redo econ sheets for this)
Now, you spend for the turn for production. You cannot go below zero at any point. This means if you spend 120 during production, you do NOT have any to spend during the combat phase!!!! So, make sure you leave a bit if you anticipate need. Keep in mind, salvage is calculated AFTER the combat phase of the phasing player's turn. So, it is possible to earn salvage to spend for the 'non phasing' combat phase.
Basically, you can spend during combat, but you have to save EP during production to allow you to do that....cant go negative like we used to..thats a big difference here.
I hope I understand that correctly, otherwise, I just wasted about 2 minutes of everybody's time;
ANSWER: Correct Dave. In the old system you had one treasury number that could be positive or negative. You could not go negative during production, only during later stages of the turn. In the new system you have two numbers, treasury (now always positive) and debt. You can borrow during production and/or during the turn, but not over the original per turn limit which is still based on your start of turn income. See page 88 of cap log 32.
==========================================
Matthew G. Smith:
I don't know about the 20% per turn rule. I believe that is the intent, and apparently it's been ruled that way before, in which case, yes, somebody who borrowed (and spent) the full 20% during production, would have nothing left for later in the turn.
ANSWER: Correct.
But that does leave open the question of "borrow 10% during production, then borrow another 10% during the rest of the turn." I believe that's legal.
ANSWER: Correct.
As for salvage, I believe that can be taken at any time. Maybe I've been wrong to do this, but I've even used salvage at an out of supply SB to fund "rapid combat repair." In fact, the rules say "(or combat round if the players find that more convenient)." (439.11)
ANSWER: salvage can be calculated after every combat round, which gives you more money to spend, but it does not allow you to borrow more or recalculate the borrowing limit. If you borrowed the full 20% already in production and spent it, then you have no money left for drone bombardment. Say then you get 10 points of salvage, that gives you 10 points for DB or field repairs, or whatever, but you cannot borrow another 2 points (for 12 EPs total for DB) as your borrowing limit was set at the start of the turn and you already met it.
===============================
Dave Whiteside:
"But that does leave open the question of "borrow 10% during production, then borrow another 10% during the rest of the turn." I believe that's legal."
You only borrow once...prior to production. What you spend of what you borrowed is up to you. You may borrow the full 20%, but not spend any of it for production, but choose to spend it during combat..or vice versa. Or, as you say spend half now and half later. Or spend none of it at all(defeats the purpose of borrowing in the first place)..either way you have the exact same debt.
If I understand it correctly, we have to suspend the thinking of how we've done deficit spending before. Old system was we borrowed as we needed by going negative on our econ during combat phase...this is different...now we borrow BEFORE the turn even begins.
Of course, you may choose to ignore ADS entirely and continue to do it the old way.
ANSWER: You can "deficit spend" during the turn as always, but it increases your debt instead of draining the treasure below zero, and it is still under the overall turn limit for borrowing.
=================================
Larry E. Ramey
I would swear it was decided at one point that a PDU provides an EW factor......
I can't find it in my copy of F&E 2K, Marine or Carrier War. (or the errata file)
Anyone know where to find it? (or am I smoking Peter's Crack Pipe? )
ANSWER: It was a change when they fixed the original supplements. As stated by others, 1 EW point per PDU, max of four EW per planet. And in any case give Peter back his pipe.
=================================
Dave Whiteside:
Dcbutler,
In that issue #32, does it state whether the interest due for the current turn includes any repayment done on that same turn or only what was repaid through the previous turn?
In other words, if on turn 5, my debt is 50 EP after repaying 10 EP on turn 5...before borrowing, do I owe interest on the full 50, or 40?
ANSWER: Yes, you pay interest on the full 50. The sequence is collect income. You calculate interest. You then pay said interest. You then either repay debt, or borrow more, or leave it as is. Then proceed with normal production/repairs.
=================================
Dave Whiteside:
Ok...let me try this another way.
I assume that paying interest on the debt and paying 'principle' on the debt are two different events. The SoP clearly states when to pay interest. I'm confused when during the SoP we repay on the 'principle'. At this time, this part does not seem to be clearly stated to me.
ANSWER: You can repay on the principle right after calculating and paying interest. Basically step 5 in rule (447.3) changes to pay principle instead of borrow money.
================================
Larry E. Ramey:
ANSWER: here is a quick rundown if you still need it.
F&E2K (current base set)
Fighter Ops (used to be Carrier War, has all that plus new stuff)
Combined Ops (used to be special ops and marine assault, has all that plus more)
Advanced Ops (all new, x-ships, late war stuff)
Planetary Ops (all new)
Strategic Ops (all new)
Reinforements (more counters)
Large Scale Map/extreame scale map (very cool, get one of these)
==================================
John Slattery:
X-Ship Economics Questions:
Why are XTP's convertable back to EP's???
I understand the 20% of EP's to XTP's that the player simply does not do and keeps the EP's as EP's. The +10 bonus is not used and kept as origianl EP's. But the Planet Bonus + Homeworld Bonus + X-Base Bonus if used only for X-Ships that would sound reasonable. Why can these be converted into EP's at no penalty what-so-ever?????
This does not sound right.
What am I missing here????
ANSWER: That's just the way it works. I don't know why. Presumably you want to spend the XTPs on X-tech stuff. Once you build X ships you will need it to repair those ships.
=====================================
David Slatter:
I have one of those armed priority transports, and want to use it to supply 2 ships, or move 4 drone factors. It's my opmove. The 2 ships or ships needing drones start out of supply. How does this work?
i.e. I start opmoving. During the opmove, I assume I have to move the APT to same hex as the ships involved. They are now in supply or have drones immediately? Do newly supplies ship have the ability to opmove 6, or are they still limited to 3 opmove?
Puzzled - there seems to be no definitions on how this is enacted.
ANSWER: Use the Standard rules. Op move range is determined based on supply at the start of the op move phase (410.21). So if you had arranged for an APT with supplies in storage to be in a hex with out of supply ships at that point, they could use the supply to get full movement. If the APT was not in the same location as the out of supply ships at the start of that turn then this won't work.
=================================
Craig Tenhoff:
You probably should've sent it there via Blockade Running during the Raid Phase.
ANSWER: That would be a good plan.
=================================
Michael Lui:
Since 3B1, supply for op movement, is evaluated for all phasing player ships at the same time, I would handle it as if the ships moved back into supply DURING their movement. IOW, they are in supply for combat but still have only 3 hexes of movement.
ANSWER: Right.
==================================
David Slatter:
I guess one could always have them in an out-of supply fleet at the start of a phase, and use them like a poor-mans hydran supply tug.... i.e. supply warships but not themselves... (dibs on tacnote).
ANSWER: Another option.
==================================
Robert Padilla:
Would supplying ships with an APT or PTR cost anything? I know the DB points cost per the rule, but there is no rule reference for supplying other ships. If it costs I would imagine it would be at the regular rate for paying to supply a ship?
ANSWER: If it picked up the supplies from the main supply grid in the first place then it costs nothing. If it picked up supplies from a partial grid I suppose that would cost money as per (413.41).
=================================
Dave Butler:
Nick,
Please clarify the "guild shipyard" free fighter factors in (511.321):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
The old shipyard produces three free fighter factors (for hybrid ships) per turn [...]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are these three "free hybrid ship fighter factors" (worth 3 EP) or three "free fighter factors, usable only on hybrid ships" (worth 6 EP, as you get two factors on ships for each FFF spent)?
ANSWER: I think they are three hybrid factors, presumably worth 3 EPs.
On a related note, the Hydrans can build an IC without a shipyard, and are allowed by (AO-525.316D) to use free fighter factors to offset costs; can they use the aforementioned old shipyard FFF for this purpose?
ANSWER: I don't think so as those are hybrid factors, not full fighter factors. Presumably you could use them at a 2-1 rate though for non-hybrid ships like the IC. Two hybrid factors discounting one regular factor of the fighter cost of the ship.
====================================
Michael Lui:
Also, to add to the above question: Since the FFF for all the races were changed to a yearly supply, does the O.C. shipyard produce 6 FFF per year or does it still produce 3 per turn? (It does make a slight difference when you're saving up for a large purchase)
ANSWER: Yes, presumably it would go to 6 hybrid factors every spring turn.
================================
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 07:18 pm: Edit
Nick, you are the hardest working man I have had the pleasure of meeting.....well, maybe not, but it sounded good.
Thanks for the clarification.....I'm such a rookie at this
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 10:59 pm: Edit
...but I wish he would prove to us at Origins that he really plays the game instead of being some sort of rules-lawyer-hack...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 11:17 pm: Edit
What was that?
(looks around)
Huh, thought I heard something.
(goes back to playing Fed Commander)
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 02:21 am: Edit
Nick,
You poasted the following answer to my question about the Tholian 2 hex limit:
"Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Rule (503.33) limits the Tholians to only operating within 2 hexes of their border. Does this affect E&S attacks and raids since they are beyond that limit?
ANSWER: Rule (503.33) is referring specifically to ships, and does not apply to E&S teams."
Half of my question was answered (the part on E&S Teams), but I should have written it more clearly, i.e. "Does this effect E&S attacks and Military Raids (314.0) since they are beyond that limit?"
I assume from your answer that it does affect Military Raids since they are ships and would be limited to raiding just one Romulan and one Klingon hex (well, maybe a bunch of Fed ones if they are going after them). Would this be a correct assumption?
Thanks,
Roger
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, February 10, 2007 - 01:59 pm: Edit
2 questions:
*In Advanced Operations, page 27, the DNT (525.82) is listed as counting as a mauler, since it has 2 Type-R plasma torpedoes.
However, the Romulan Vulture (525.66) is not, despite the fact that it has two R-torps, too (albeit on a less sturdy frame than the massive GOrn dreadnought).
Should the same effect not apply for the Vulture as for the DNT?
*In WInds of Fire, both the Klingons and Lyrans are listed as having forces set aside for attacks on the WYN Cluster (AO page 45, 617.B6). However, acording to the background in SFB Module C3 for the 'fish' ships, it states that the Kzintis also launched an assault on the Cluster in Y182 (from which the WYNs managed to capture a drone frigate (R12.30)).
Should there not be a similar list of ships in the Kzinti OOB for Winds of Fire which must follwo the same kind of rules as those assembled by the Lyrans and Klingons (possibly rolling for them in Fall Y182, or Turn 29, so as not to coincide with the Klingon attack)?
Gary
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 01:35 am: Edit
Two questions:
Does an operable SWAC count as a scout for purposes of generating a modifier in small scale combat?
==
Ten Lyran normal ships, five Klingon normal ships, and one Lyran fast ship retreat from a hex. In one available retreat hex, the Lyran fast ship and the Klingons will be in supply, but that hex contains eight Hydran ships. In other hexes, no ships are present and the Coalition would not have any ships in supply. Lyrans commanded in the last battle force and during the retreat battle. Must the Lyrans retreat so that their fast ship and the Klingons are in supply, or may they retreat so that no ships are in supply?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 01:45 pm: Edit
Todd:
You need to also check (302.733) Step 3-B: "The player may not select a hex in which his force would be out of supply..."; not just one (fast) ship.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit
Roger D. Morgan:
See rule (314.19) which allows Tholian Raiding ships to ignore the 2 hex restriction.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 04:47 pm: Edit
Gary Carney:
Neither of those are rules questions, they are more design questions which I can't answer. The likely answers are (guesses on my part):
A) Romulan Vulture not getting the mauler bonus of the Gorn DNT: Doctrine.
B) Lack of Kzinti forces attacking the WYN cluster in WINDS OF FIRE: Kzinti attack may have been too small to depict, or play balance.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 04:53 pm: Edit
Todd E. Jahnke:
A) I don't think so. There is no provision for SWACS in SSC.
B) Given a choice between hexes where you would be in supply and hexes where you would be out of supply, you have to move so that you are in supply. (302.733-B) as Chuck noted above. Unless the in-supply hex is previously eliminated for some other reason, i.e. under (302.732).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 06:35 pm: Edit
Winds of Fire question.
Checking through all of the Lyran sectors in (617.0) I have located the two Lyran KTP (Troop Pods with 1 G). I can not locate the original A-Pod (Troop Pod with 2 G). The Lyrans can also build a second A-Pod acording to (711.0). Prior to Y181 did the Lyrans loose all of their A-Pods to combat, should one or both of the KTP pods be A-Pods, or are the A-Pods missing from Winds of Fire?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 06:51 pm: Edit
Gary
Not doctrine, but that the Vulture doesn't have the warp power to get it into and out of position as well as the Gorn ship. Yes, it does have the cloak, but the use of cloak is handled differently in F+E.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, February 11, 2007 - 07:29 pm: Edit
Daniel G. Knipfer:
WINDS OF FIRE
Sector A shows no troop pods
Sector B shows two "troop pods" one in Lyran Forces and one in GHQ forces, but does not specify if these are KTP or AP+.
Sector C shows one "troop pod" in the GHQ forces and again does not specify the type.
They cannot have more than 2 AP+ (2 G each, only one per tug, tug only) and cannot have more than 2 KTP (one G each, 2 per tug or 1 per LTT).
So these cannot all be the same pod type as you cannot have three of the same type.
At the start of the General War they had one AP and two KTPs.
In Galeforce, sector A has one AP, sector B has one AP and one KTP and sector C has one KTP (maximum built).
Maelstrom had one AP and one KTP each in sectors A and B, nothing in the Lyran force in sector C. (maximum built)
Winds of Fire shows troop pods in B and C. Assuming the maximum are still built it might be that Sector B has one AP in the Lyran Forces, two KTPs in the sector B GHQ forces (this is where most of the LTTs are which would most likely use them), and Sector C has the second AP.
Any objections?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 09:25 am: Edit
Nick,
What does this answer mean:
"B) Given a choice between hexes where you would be in supply and hexes where you would be out of supply, you have to move so that you are in supply. (302.733-B) as Chuck noted above. Unless the in-supply hex is previously eliminated for some other reason, i.e. under (302.732)."
Does that mean Chuck is right, and a single fast ship would not be able to determine supply status for the entire fleet? Or does it mean that a single fast ship can determine the supply status for an entire fleet, even though the rest of the fleet would still be out of supply? In Todd's above example the Klingon ships have no bearing on the supply status, as 302.76 clearly states that Allied ships can be forced to retreat out of supply by the rule, if they were not the ones in command of the last battle force.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 01:06 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 01:41 pm: Edit
Hey Nick,
I also noticed that there are two Lyran PTP pods in the Lyran forces. One in sector B and one in sector C. The Lyrans can have 1 PTP pallet and 4 K-PTP pods max.
I believe that the sector B PTP should be the PTP+ and the sector C PTP should be a K-PTP. And obviously the other three K-PTP have not yet been built.
Does this sound correct to you? And if so should I drop this note in the Master War Book board?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 02:37 pm: Edit
Nick,
According to (702.5) Federation Early War the Fed replace NCLs with DDs or CLs if they go to war on turns 1 (168F), 2 (169S), or 3 (169F). The latest on line SIT lists the Date Available for the NCL as Y169. Does this mean that the Fed can overbuild (431.3) NCLs if they wish on turns 2 & 3 (if at war)? Can they use accelerated production ((431.37) on turn 3 for one NCL when at war? Is the current SIT wrong? Does 702.5 need to be corrected to allow Federation production of NCLs on turns 2 and/or 3 when at war? Should the Fed Pre-War construction be adjusted to show that one or two of the pre-war NCLs where built on turns 2 and/or 3 (no additional ships, just an adjustment of date built)?
For background information;
The F&E2K SIT lists an Availability Date of 170.
The Advanced Ops SIT lists an Availability Date of 169.
The On-Line Sit dated 13 Dec 06 lists an Availability Date of 169.
Until you have a chance to rule on this I’ll go with DD/CL as regular production with the option to overbuild NCLs on turns 2 & 3 when at war.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit
Robert Padilla: The wording of the rule is that you determine supply for the force (i.e. all the ships must be in supply if possible, not just one of them).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 04:47 pm: Edit
Daniel G Knipfer:
RE PTP pods, what scenario are you looking at? You didn't say. Winds of Fire again?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, February 12, 2007 - 09:21 pm: Edit
Yes, Winds of Fire for the PTP question.
Early Fed War for any scenario involving a Fed early war entry (Fire in the East (620.0) is best example).
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 01:55 am: Edit
Pardon my denseness, but if all of the ships can't be in supply, is it then the case that it doesn't matter if any can be? So that a force can retreat so that none is in supply if there is no hex where all can be in supply (leaving aside the possibility of an enemy force outnumbering the retreaters in one or more specific hexes)?
We have the exception about an Allied force being required to retreat out of supply if the last battle force commander so decides, but that is different from a commander purposely retreating so that some of his own ships are out of supply when he could retreat so that they are in supply.
For design intent, how can supply matter only if all can be in it? How does it make sense that supply for some ships can be ignored when supply for all ships is important?
I suspect this is a F or X ship issue that hasn't arisen before. It may be wise to consider input from an appeals authority in this case.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 08:17 am: Edit
Previous Question "Ten Lyran normal ships, five Klingon normal ships, and one Lyran fast ship retreat from a hex. In one available retreat hex, the Lyran fast ship and the Klingons will be in supply, but that hex contains eight Hydran ships. In other hexes, no ships are present and the Coalition would not have any ships in supply. Lyrans commanded in the last battle force and during the retreat battle. Must the Lyrans retreat so that their fast ship and the Klingons are in supply, or may they retreat so that no ships are in supply?"
Previous answer "The wording of the rule is that you determine supply for the force (i.e. all the ships must be in supply if possible, not just one of them)..."
So, to look again at the situation and push it up against the retreat rules, we see that we are:
Ignoring Step 1, referring to neutral hexes as none are nearby.
Ignoring Step 2, larger number of enemy ships, as no adjacent hex meets that criteria.
302.733 Step 3:
Sub-A: "If none of the potential retreat hexes would be in supply, Step 3 is ignored. It does not matter if one potential retreat hex is closer to a supply point than a different hex if both are out of supply."
Sub-B: "The player may not select a hex in which his (entire) force would be out of supply if there is a hex (not previously eliminated) in which his (entire) force would be in supply."
Sub-C refers to partial grids and none exist in this question.
Sub-D: "Of the remaining available retreat hexes in which his (entire) force would be in supply, the player must select the one with the shortest supply path to a supply point."
If “force” means “entire force” then B and D are ignored b/c they only refer to entire forces and a retreat hex exists in which a part of the force would be in supply while another part would be out of supply.
Therefore, the only remaining substep of step 3 is A. In sub-A, we learn that if the no hexes (meaning ships in those hexes) would be in supply, step 3 is ignored. This is not the case in this example, as six ships would be in supply in one retreat hex and no ships would be in supply in any other retreat hex. Therefore we cannot ignore step 3, the basic message of which is that a force must retreat where there is supply, which is to say that the force in question must retreat to the only hex where any supplies are available.
Is that correct?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 16, 2007 - 06:21 pm: Edit
Scenario vs SIT question (also posted in the SIT area in case the SIT is wrong.)
Question on the SIT when compared to the scenario rule (607.2: Turn #6). The rule allows for the appearance of the Lord Marshall CC on Turn 6: Spring Y160. The SIT says the LM is available Y159.
Do we:
- override the scenario rule in favor of the SIT date and give the Hydrans the LM 2 turns earlier?
- override the SIT in favor of the scenario rule and give the Hydrans the LM historically 2 turns late?
- compromise and give them one conversion as a prototype in Y159 and then go with the unlimited conversions in Y160?
- do something else entirely?
Is this a play balance issue that the LM was inserted later? Or is the SIT wrong?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 01:30 pm: Edit
Nick,
During combat if a multi-force (say Klingon-Lyran) wins a hex (either the Alliance side retreats or is destroyed) can only one of the co-belligerents retreat using the advanced rule (302.76 and 302.761)? I have a potential case like this where one side wants the hex its in and the other side will need to retreat in order to maintain supply.
This (or something like it) may come up down the road (and maybe even be changed) for ISC war where you could have 3 sided battles.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, February 19, 2007 - 02:25 pm: Edit
Nick,
The last on-line Errata list is dated 5/14/06. Will this listing be updated any time soon or will it wait until after Cap Log 35 is out?
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/New%20Master%20Errata.pdf
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 05:42 pm: Edit
There used to be a consolidated Order of Battle with all the modules together in file. Is that been taken down? Is it possible to get one done and posted in the player resource section?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 05:47 pm: Edit
Ryan, are you talking about this:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/6548.html?1171683221
The Master SITS online?
There is a "Current SITS" archive, and a "Dec-06" archive also.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 08:01 pm: Edit
Nope not the SITs. The 700 block in the rulebooks.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 08:47 pm: Edit
I think he is taling about the consolidated OB's that Lar compiled, Steve had posted it up a while ago but I don't rembmer where it was, I have a copy I can email you Ryan.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 09:26 pm: Edit
Its about time to update them again since the last time was when PO came out. I need to do the Cyberboard gbx file also eventually.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 09:32 pm: Edit
quit slacking
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 - 11:18 pm: Edit
I have the one that was posted but can't find it. Was at work and don't have a rulebook available and was trying to figure someting out.
Would be nice to get it updated, I can update them to SO and send to SVC for posting.
Oh and Lar...What Tim Said.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 03:52 pm: Edit
Okay quick question on Retreats. Maybe this has been asked before but I have not been able to find the reference.
Situation: A retreating (out of supply) fleet has the option of an enemy minor that has been previously devastated and liberated so that the recovery period has begun. The planet has no planetary defenses (it would have the residual) and no ship units are in the hex. The original owner was last in control so it was a source of econ/supply for him.
First of all, retreat rule (302.732) says a Planet with 1 or more planetary defense units counts as one enemy unit. So does the residual constitute an enemy unit for purposes of retreating into the minor planet's hex (making this a fighting retreat)?
Secondly (similar to question above but for a different reason), would the absence of any planetary defenses or ships allow the retreating fleet to remain at the planet or was the RDU enough to push this to a 'fighting' retreat forcing them to leave yet again?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:20 pm: Edit
This is in the archive dated Monday, June 14, 2004 from Nick. The RDU has been renamed the RDF and does not count as a unit.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:38 pm: Edit
This may be an interesting one if it's your turn and not his.
If you are allowed to stay in the hex with the planet it is still not yours since you can only capture territory with operational movement, not retreat. In this instance you will be above a planet that is not yours during the enemies Economic Phase. AFAIK there are no rules yet for disrupted, devastated planets.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 04:59 pm: Edit
Thanks Rob. I meant to use RDF.
I still have the question though if I can retreat to the minor and remain there.
ML: It is my opponents turn. With regards to the battles/retreats I am the defending/non-phasing player. I am not as concerned with actually capturing the planet for my own gain. I would assume though (maybe incorrectly) that his supply from that planet would cease which is the effect I am looking for. I would be happy to capture it on my next turn.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:33 pm: Edit
756.0 lists planets as a non-ship unit. So it looks like retreating over an enemy planet with only a RDF would cause a fighting retreat unless you can avoid step 4 of the retreat priorities.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 07:27 pm: Edit
When you update the consolidated 700 make sure to check FO as well for a couple of minor changes to the OB from CW. I know that the VLV was added to FO.
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 10:00 am: Edit
Okay this is a long and drawn out question of retreat priorities. The game is a FPW scenario and here is the setup, starting with the relevant hex in question. I will only be counting ships and bases that are within 4 hexes of the target hex. Advanced rule for allied retreat is in play.
1009 12 K ships, 21 L ships, 3 Z ships
0707 1 L BS, 20 Z ships
1009 1 K BS, 9 K ships, 16 Z ships
1209 1 K BS, 1 K ship (crip), 16 Z ships
1208 2 K ships, 2 Z ships
Relevant supply points remaining
0705 L BS
0707 L BS (battlehex)
0709 L M Planet, Klingon Convoy
0809 L BS
1009 K BS (battlehex)
1209 K BS (battlehex)
1307 K BATS
1105 Z M Planet
1004 Z BATS
Z frigates messing things up.
0805, 1007, 1108, 1106
If hex 1006 is fought first and Klingons supply the command vessel, can they elect to fighting retreat to 1106 taking the Lyrans out of supply? In the subsequent retreat from 1106 if the Coalition then chooses to split the K and L forces, the Klingons would be required to retreat to 1206. Could the Lyrans then retreat to 1105 as they are not in supply, or would they be forced to retreat into the 1006 hex previously vacated as they would then be back in supply?
Back to the beginning, 0907 is in supply for both K and L, doesn’t require a fighting retreat, but is one hex longer for the K, shortest route for the L. If this hex is available and Klingons supplied the Command ships is it required to retreat to keep the entire force in supply if possible?
Looking at is a third way 1007 is tied with 1106 with regards to supply length, both require a fighting retreat, but 1007 keeps the Lyrans in supply. Would this hex be required in lieu of 1106 do to the Lyran supply factor?
Obviously the Coalition wants to cut off the Z deep fleets and the Z just want to get back home. Any help, comments, suggestions, would be greatly appreciated.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 07:44 pm: Edit
Strat Ops Question for Nick or for Chuck Strong.
Rule (675.E2) on page 25 of Strat Ops shows a PRD being added to the Rom forces when using PO but does not say which planet it was built on. Please advise which planet the PRD belongs on. Thanks.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 12:34 am: Edit
Dan: The PRD is assigned to the Romulan Colony Base at 3518 (co-located with the SB).
Sorry about the omission.
Nick: please add this to the errata file - thanks.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 01:05 pm: Edit
Thanks Chuck.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 09:00 pm: Edit
Strat Ops Question.
675.E41 says "the Romulans have THREE turns of spare parts for their KRs (covering all ships for sectors E and F)."
675.F41 says " the Romulans TWO turns of spare pares for their KRs (covering all ships for sectors E and F).
So what's the correct answer?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 09:14 pm: Edit
Strat Ops Question.
675.A2 "All Lyrans have retreated into Lyran Territory." Since the Lyrans deploy a PGB in 0416 and still control Hydran provinces, is this sentance a hold over from Winds of Fire in the writeup?
Is their an AAR file for Strat Ops?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 09:23 pm: Edit
Ryan:
Ref: KR Parts
Two is a subset of three...
So the most correct answer is THREE turns of KR parts remain for the Romulans -- therefore (675.F41) should read three turns not two. (The Romulans will need the extra turn to plan and run the blockade. )
=======================================
Ref: Lyran Deployment
See Long Term Capture (LTC) Chart in (675.A2). The Lyrans have retreated into Lyran Territory (which includes annexed territory and LTC territory). Provinces 0614 & 0617 are "held" under LTC and do not require any ship garrison by rule but the Lyrans may still initially deploy to these provinces. The PGB at 0416 remains there as a legacy site. Also see (675.A1) where it states that ANY Coalition Force may deploy there. The Lyrans cannot deploy to Klingon controlled or contested areas.
Sorry about the confusion.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 04:21 am: Edit
Nope, makes sense to me now.
Another question? (Can you tell I'm setting up a game?)
675.D2 "All planets are undevasted and have their orginal defenses with two exceptions:
The planet in 2610 has four defense battalions. ..."
It then goes and talks about destroyed Federation Bases. Nothing is listed for a second exception?
The Intelligence Analyst in me says that your talking about planet 2715. When was it recaptured? What are its defenses? Where is it at for devastation recovery?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 03:39 pm: Edit
What is the Gorn Peacetime Construction schedule? The reason I ask is that with the new Diplomacy rules they could build some extra ships, but only if they have available build slots. The OOB has their PWC schedule, but it's so small that I would think they could have built more ships, but decided not to.
I would ask the same question for the Romulans, as they also may have the ability to build a few extra ships.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 04:40 pm: Edit
As the Romulans are at a Wartime construction schedule from Turn 1, I don't think they can build extra ships without resorting to overbuilds. After all, they are in the middle of upgrading their sublight fleet into warp capable ships as well as building all of their new ships. They can use those points to "activate" police CVs and Flagships at normal cost however. At least that will help with their defenses later.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 07:48 pm: Edit
Is the Fed CB listed in one of the current F&E supplements?
Gary
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 11:33 pm: Edit
The Fed CB is not in F&E. Currently, only the Gorn CCH has been published (Advanced Ops).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 01:09 am: Edit
Ryan asked:
(675.D2) 'All planets are undevasted and have their orginal defenses with two exceptions:
The planet in 2610 has four defense battalions. ...'
It then goes and talks about destroyed Federation Bases. Nothing is listed for a second exception?
The minor planet at 2610 was recaptured by the Federation on their player-turn in Y176S; it has recovered and 4xPDUs assigned.
The minor planet at 2715 was recaptured by the Federation on their player-turn in Y176F; it has three turns logged toward recovery and 1xPGB assigned.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:29 pm: Edit
Michael,
And that's why I ask the question. If they are on a Wartime econ, it makes sense that they have a Wartime build schedule too. They just don't have the extra money to build a full schedule while re-tooling the fleet. Since they now have a way to make some extra money before they enter the war, I think it makes sense they may have the ability to build a few more ships.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 12:34 pm: Edit
Thanks Jeff!
Gary
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit
Zargan
What I meant is that all those building slips may be occupied by the sub-light ships being upgraded. They may not be able to build any more ships without giving up a sublight ship upgrade. Similar to the Hydran build schedule as they're supposedly in the middle of upgrading their shipyard from Turn 1 also (the Romulans could also have this problem of upgrading their shipyard too).
However, whatever Nick decides for the Romulans should be able to be used for the Hydrans too (although they don't have as many EPs to play with).
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 04:41 pm: Edit
For the Hydrans it really will not matter, as they only get a turn's worth of diplomatic econ, which can barely buy a FF. But you do make a valid point.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 05:48 pm: Edit
Can we finally open up a seperate Strat Ops Question/errata topic?
I have a bunch of Strat Ops scenario set up questions and I would rather they not be mixed in with the normal Q&A
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 08:17 pm: Edit
Nick,
B10VA question, if the B10VA uses it's SFG, it is then directly targetable, what happens with the escorts? Do they retain their Escort status (can only target the outer one) and compot or do they revert to 515.54 (-1 to their compot)?
if it is the latter, what about ad-hoc's? would they regain their compot since they are not ecorting that round?
(I call tac note if that is the case)
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:30 am: Edit |
March - April 2007 Archive
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 03:44 pm: Edit
(320.331) allows a base with a SFG to protect FRDs, SAFs, LTFs, troop ships, and monitors (in certain situations) from drone raids. Why can't SFG ships do the same?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 03:54 pm: Edit
The units that are being protected are usually next to the base which is immobile. The SFG ship is cruising around the hex. A drone raid can come at any time and from any direction. It's just that for ease of play the game is broken up into two player turns and individual parts of the turn instead of everybody doing everything at the same time. Otherwise the Kzinti/Feds would do the drone raid at the same time they assault the Hex from a different direction and your SFG ship would still not be able to protect those ships since it would be responding to the enemy movements, but the base would still be there.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 06:37 pm: Edit
Nick,
From Strategic Operations:
Can a Klingon F6J conduct the (528.42) "Special Attack" mission?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 06:40 pm: Edit
Chuck Strong:
From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.69)
Do the Federation minor ship yards really send *all* their production to Sector E (AKA the Romulan Front)?
That is what the rules says.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 06:56 pm: Edit
Chuck Strong:
From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.63) Police Assignments:
initial called up combat loses total at start lifetime limits
Kzinti 2C 18C, 3F, 4V -6C, -1F 7C, 2F, 2V 20C, 6F, 6V
This does not compute.
At scenario start, given what was called up and lost, I should be seeing 12C, 2F, 4V.
Did the Kzinti actually send five police cutters and two police CV back to police duties in the middle of a war?!!?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 07:07 pm: Edit
Chuck Strong:
From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.B2) LYRANS :
Shouldn't there be a SAP in the Lyran at start forces?
Rule (527.47) has the Lyrans getting one on the previous turn to scenario start.
Scenario Rule (674.463) only refers to free Auxiliary production, not what has been already produced.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 07:14 pm: Edit
Nick,
From Strategic Operations Rule (675.465)
This rule says all "Unique units" production must be designated for the Main effort.
Does this mean if the Federation loses a CVF or CLD on the Romulan Front (Sector E), their "Unique Unit" replacements can only be allocated to Sector C?
This language is also used in Fighter Operations Rule (608.465).
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 07:31 pm: Edit
Anyone report a Nick sighting lately? He hasn't posted in Q&A since 12 Feb. I hope he is okay.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 08:30 pm: Edit
RE: Police ships for Kzinti in Maelstrom. Mistake is mine. I did those calculations. Should be 12C,2F,4V in service. Nick: should be added to errata.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 02:44 pm: Edit
Nick or Chuck,
A question from Strategic Operations Rule (542.27)
Does a colony created by a roll of two on a high risk survey count against the "one colony per five new off-map provinces" limit of rule (446.15) in PO.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 02:49 pm: Edit
And if not, is there any limit to how many times you can roll this?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 05:27 pm: Edit
Chuck,
Strategic Operations Question
Federation sectors C, D and E show only one old CL based CLV hull.
Is there a second CLV waiting to be activated per (525.314) or was the second one destroyed?
If a CLV is available for activation, can it be allocated to any theater or only the Federation "Main Effort?"
By John Cummings (Fadeiv) on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 10:50 pm: Edit
Very new to the game, and trying to read as many tactical notes as possible. In captains log #30, in the tactical notes section under NOT REALLY A TACTIC, it says that Joe Stevenson noted that you should take out Tholian Fighters because they cannot replace them. Could someone please tell my why this is. I have read every rule about the Tholians, and fighters, etc, and found nothing. Thanks.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 11:06 pm: Edit
John, go over the General Discussions. This area is primarly for Nick Blank, the official answer guy, to do his work. I will elaborate there.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 09:09 am: Edit
Nick (or anyone smarter than me),
A ship is out of supply at the beginning of its phasing turn. It says in 410.31 that the movement rate is reduced by 50%. Does this mean for the entire turn, or only the phase for which it is out of supply.
In other words, if a ship is out of supply, but gets itself into a battle, eligible to retrograde, and retreats to a hex that is in supply for that ship, can he retro is full 100% or only 50%.
410.24 says supply is checked at the beginning of the retro phase, so I cant tell if these things are saying the same thing or contradicting one another.
Taking it a step further, if a ship is out of supply, moves 3 hexes to a battle hex putting it in supply, but then retreats out of supply again(it can happen), what is his status?
We've always seen the battle where the ship uses op mvt to go 8 hexes away from his nearest supply pt(because he started 2 away), but since he was in supply at the beginning of the turn, he is considered in supply for battle. But the wrench came when he retreated and found himself 7 hexes from his retro pt. At that point, he cannot retro because he is out of supply; but we, in the past, read 410.24(exception) as that he could...but since he is 'actually' out of supply at his battle hex, he cannot. Didnt know if it worked the other way.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 11:18 am: Edit
Another ship question:
Are the Fed CS and NCF featured in a Fed and Empire supplement?
Gary
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 11:34 am: Edit
Gary: You can answer that for yourself by checking the master SITs in that topic. If they're listed on the SIT, it will tell you what product they are in.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 11:38 am: Edit
Thanks for the help.
Gary
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Nick, WYN trading question.
________________________________________
Quote:
(449.133) The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can receive them (at least a partial grid)....
________________________________________
Does this mean that the tug taking the EP's out of the cluster need only stop at any base in the grid or does it still need to go to the Capital to drop off the EP's from the cluster?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit
Questions Downloaded to this point.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 05:49 pm: Edit
wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 07:30 pm: Edit
This isn't the Origins topic Tim...
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 07:35 pm: Edit
Hey, Nick, Do you know where the Origins F&E topic is? Didn't think so... You never play...
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Monday, March 05, 2007 - 09:52 pm: Edit
Can Crippled ships "Block" and/or "Unblock" supply in F&E?
Please forgive my obvious ignorance on the matter but I seem to recall something indicating that crippled ships were different in this matter but could locate the relevant rule (Assuming it exists)
Thanks in advance, RusMan
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 03:34 am: Edit
Conflict in scenarios.
In Gale Force (Y175) 608.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1305.
In Winds of Fire (Y181) 617.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
In Maelstrom (Y178) 675.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
Reccommend that the Gale Force be changed for the Warbook to reflect the BATS being in 1307 since it's extrmely unlikey that the Kzinti could have destroyed the BATS in 1305 in Y175-8. Since 1307 is colocated with a Klingon BATS it better reflects a combined defensive strategy.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 08:43 am: Edit
Are the Fed CS' in mothballs (from SO) activated in place of a CA? Or do they have a special rule?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit
Nick,
Question for Colony Bases (446.5)
1) Is a colony base (CB) a “mobile base” or a fortification for the purposes of limited war deployment or deployment in an inactive fleet?
2) Does a Federation CBs get F111’s rather than PFs? Or just more fighters via another fighter pod of PBU type fighter base?
3) Can a Fed CB use a CF1 casual F111 sqd?
4) If so, does a CB count as a base of a PDU in terms of deployment “stickiness?”
5) Does deploying a CB plus fighters count as far as “unsticking” a Monitor for deployment elsewhere?
6) Does a CB have a mobile base's (MB) electronic warfare capability? The SIT says see the rule and the rule is silent on that.
7) Can a CB’s fighters and/or PFs/F111s react or affect supply?
8) Is a CB a “Planetary location” like a PDU or another base as far as the multiple base ruling is concerned? The rule says the CB “…is the colony.”
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 01:26 pm: Edit
Nick,
Questions on the Federation CF1 casual F111 squadron rule (527.26)
1. Can CF1’s react and affect supply per (206.22)?
This seems very situational. Rule (527.261) says that CF1’s act like CPFs. CPFs react with their carrying ships. CF1s don’t have ships to react with. They are on bases.
Rule (527.62) defines what can “bases” a CF1 can be placed on, basically MB/OB, BATS, SB, Monitors, and PDUs. The first two can react fighters and affect supply while PDU’s can’t.
2. Can CF1’s perform Offensive Fighter Strikes like CPF’s (319.11)?
Again, rules (527.261) and (527.262) seem to make it “Base Dependent” as bases can do Offensive Fighter Strikes while Monitors and PDU’s cannot.
3. What are the command slot implications of a CF1 in a battle force?
Rules (302.333) and (302.334) say that fighters and PFs on bases and PDUs don’t count against the “three sqd limit.” Yet Monitors fighters do count against that limit.
4. Also, the “multiple base ruling” established what amounted to a “four sqd limit” for more than one base in a battle force. Does that mean a CF1 would take up a command slot in the battle force if it was stationed at a Federation SB that was "the focus of battle?"
5. Can CF1's be used in approach battles for a base?
6. Can they be used with a Federation CVBG away from a base or with a Monitor present in a battle force?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 04:07 pm: Edit
Mike, the point is Tim knows where it is.... :P
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Questions downloaded to here now.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 07:09 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have a number of questions regards the application of rule (527.142) [which references (502.62) AO and places Federation F111s from destroyed bases into a “PF Replacement pool.”] as applied to annuity F111 factors.
Given that F111s at mobile unit rates cost 2 EPs per factor and annuity F111 factors at base rates cost 1 EP per each, see (527.13), (432.33) and the Federation SIT. I think the following are legitimate uses of the “Annuity F111 Replacement Pool” that is made up of 1 EP F111 annuity fighter factors.
Please tell me yes or no if I am correct in my interpretations below:
1. Annuity Pool F111s can be used on (441.4) AO “PF Modules,” whether they are deployed on Federation bases or FRDs.
2. Annuity Pool F111s can be used on Federation Monitor “PF Pallets,” see (519.421), (519.422), (519.432) in CO and (537.4) in PO, since Monitor fighter factors are at “base rates.”
3. Annuity Pool F111s can be used to purchase CF1 casual F111 squadrons because they are both 1 EP F111 factors.
4. Annuity Pool F111s can be used as F111 factors on VHP F111 resupply pods and on FCF fast resupply ships since both are 1 EP each.
5. Annuity Pool F111s can be used a two to one rate (two base F111 squadrons for a single carrier F111 squadron) for deployment on F111 carriers and auxiliaries. [This would be the annuity F111 version of “stripping bases” of PFs or “pay as you go” F111 factors.]
The last will be considered by some as controversial. Yet as I see it, there had to be some game reason for the Federation to go the historical annuity F111 route.
As it stands right now, Federation players ignore the annuity option because they can avoid a 50 EP surcharge for the “privileged” of using annuity F111s and they are minus the ability to strip attrition factors from bases and the replacement pool for their fleet like other races do with their PFs.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 07:20 pm: Edit
Nick or Chuck,
A Strategic Operations question for rule (540.11) and (700.3).
Are the Klingons missing a diplomatic team or a diplomatic cruiser?
Rule (540.11) says initially “Klingons have one D7N and one D5N (three teams)” while and the Klingon order of battle (700.3) shows only D7N and one D5N.
Rule (540.31) also says something about a D7N requiring two diplomatic teams to build.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 08:15 pm: Edit
D7N has two teams on the one ship.
(540.31) These ships cost the same as a basic D5, D5W, or D7 (plus the cost of a diplomat team; for the D7N this is the cost of two teams, requiring them to build a team on a previous turn and then add it to the D7N) and have the same factors.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 03:00 am: Edit
A PT is a unit, per its rules. It is not a non-ship unit as listed in the appropriate annex. It is apparently not a factor, as only a RDU/RDF is so described. So a PT is a ship?
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 04:35 pm: Edit
Hi.
A while back I had asked which supplement the Four Powers' War was included in, and at the time I was told (I don't recall by whom) it was Planetary Operations.
After having waited for a month for the store to order it in, and opening it up after purchase, it turns out not to be there... and naturally enough, since I had already opened it to check the booklet, I'm stuck with it.
(Which wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for the need not to be spending too much on ADB stuff until I get a new job sorted out.)
Which supplement is the 4PW actually in?
Gary
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 05:08 pm: Edit
Fighter Ops.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 05:17 pm: Edit
Thanks Bill.
Gary
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 11:24 am: Edit
Nick, have a question about Offensive fighter strikes and FCRs.
Hypothetical example: I have several carrier groups paired up with some FCRs, and the carriers are sending their fighters on offensive strikes in adjacent hex(s).
I understand that the OFS are considered to return to their carriers between each combat round to refuel/rearm (319.3).
My question is this: can FCRs in the same hex/battleforce as the Carriers take some of their fighters out of storage and refill the carriers after a round in which the fighters took casualties, thereby refilling them for the next combat round and allowing the next round to be at full strength again?
Example: 2 Carrier groups (6 ftrs each), send 12 fighters on a strike. The fighters take 3 casualties and return to the carriers. Can the FCR take 3 ftrs from storage and refill the carrier, allowing the fighters going out for the next round at full strength (12 ftrs).
Or is more of a situation where if you originally committed 12 ftrs that is all you ever get and can't replace losses to keep the strikes going at full strength?
I note that 526.315 allows FCRs located with a base to replace fighters lost when the base conducted an independent fighter squadron attack. But it's unclear whether this means the base can top off it's fighters in case the bsae will be attacked in an unresolved attack later this combat phase, or this means the FCR can top them off between rounds so their attacks can continue at full strength until they either win or all die.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 04:17 pm: Edit
Hi!
Does the Four Powers' War scenario give information on the correct factors for the earlier DNs which were involved in that conflict (such as the Lyran Royal Tiger, or the Klingon C6)?
Also, I didn't see the early DN in the Lyran SIT - has it (along with the other early DNs) yet to be introduced into Fed and Empire?
Gary
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 04:53 pm: Edit
Gary,
The early DN's were given for the four races as a special rule. Basicly it gave the stats and info and what counter can be used as a substitute.
The counter subs are H-LGE (Ignore the fast part), K-C7, Z-BCH, L-BC.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 05:05 pm: Edit
Thanks Ryan.
I wonder if the proper counters will make it into print someday (alongside the National Guard ships perhaps?).
Gary
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit
Civil Wars would be a good spot
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 06:28 pm: Edit
Ryan:
Good point -- the Lyrans have just completed a civil war just prior to the start of the 4PW scenario.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit
I posted it over at the Civil Wars general thread - thanks for the tip!
Gary
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 11:19 am: Edit
Nick, did SVC ever issue a clarification on this issue:
quoted:
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.
By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 01:46 am: Edit
I'm having trouble with the YIS date of the B10S.
In SFB, the Rule for the ship says Y186.
The MSC in R5 says Y189.
G2 Says Y189.
What does the F&E rules say?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 02:59 am: Edit
FO SIT says Y179, but that is the earliest players may build them in F&E.
In a nut shell, in SFB the MSC year is when a given ship was actually built; in F&E it is the date that it can be built.
By SSG Staley Aaron M. (Awwwdrat) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 03:05 am: Edit
Crud.
By stuart (Stuuk) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 08:29 am: Edit
Hi all. I am confused about how to conduct commando raids.
Can the raiding ship be escorted?
Can it be reacted to as with a standard raid / police ships?
When it chooses to make an attack what is the sequence? Do defenders fire before the 'G' attack.
The rule states that only fixed defebces fire - does that include the fighters assigned to them?
Also - special raids. A ship may react to the raid as normal, but does that ship then fight them, or does it just allow that ship to be part of an interception group?
I don't get it.. :|
Thanks all. Stu.
By stuart (Stuuk) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 03:58 pm: Edit
Oh also - why does a SIDS step cost 18 directed damage?
If the value of the damage is 4.5, then surely directing it costs 9 ?
At 18 it makes starbases worth 216 damage to direct all the required 12 SIDS steps
At 9 each the total is 108 - or the value of the full base if you were to direct it as a counter - is there a correction to the rulebook?
By Martin Read (Amethyst_Cat) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 04:20 pm: Edit
Stuart: The precise point of SIDS is that, even if you put a mauler in your battle line every round (halving the cost of each directed-damage SIDS step to 9 points), it costs more total damage to kill a base by directing for SIDS damage than it does to kill it by just bringing an enormously powerful battle line. Crippling an SB by directed damage, with the benefit of a 10-point mauler, requires you to score 62 damage in a single battle round, which is extremely hard for an attacker to achieve.
However, by directing on the base for SIDS steps, you can kill a base by directed damage a little at a time, without having to present an eleven-DN line and fight at maximum BIR.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 04:21 pm: Edit
Stuart,
No correction needed. It's correct as written.
Think of it this way - after each battle round, the SB can fully regenerate the shields and recharge the batteries. That only takes power, no supplies needed, and actually takes less than an hour if only one shield was pierced.
If you can score enough damage to cripple in one shot (62 with a mauler) than that represents an overwhelming attack where you break through the shields and keep scoring damage against the internal structure. Next round you come back with an attack that doesn't have to be nearly so overwhelming to score the 36 damage to kill (26 with a mauler.)
It's clearly easier to kill the SB with SIDS, since you don't need to score the 62 damage all in one round, but it's going to be much more expensive as you're allowing it time to recover between each round.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 05:16 pm: Edit
Deleted by author.
By Stuart Tonge (Stuuk) on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 06:16 pm: Edit
Thanks for the answers Martin & Matthew.
Should have my full name now.
I think I found answers to the other questions in older messages. The only remaining two are for commando raids:
1. Can the raiding ship be escorted? - And if so from the raid pool only?
2. The rule states that only fixed defences fire - does that include the fighters assigned to them?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 06:19 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have more questions in line with Bill Stec’s Friday, March 09, 2007 post:
>Nick, have a question about Offensive fighter
>strikes and FCRs.
>
>Hypothetical example: I have several carrier
>groups paired up with some FCRs, and the
>carriers are sending their fighters on
>offensive strikes in adjacent hex(s).
>
>I understand that the OFS are considered to
>return to their carriers between each combat
>round to refuel/rearm (319.3).
>
>My question is this: can FCRs in the same
>hex/battleforce as the Carriers take some of
>their fighters out of storage and refill the
>carriers after a round in which the fighters
>took casualties, thereby refilling them for the
>next combat round and allowing the next round
>to be at full strength again?
Would you please also evaluate the possibility of between round resupply of Offensive Fighter Strikes via rule (205.76) by
1) Fighter Storage Depots (445.0),
2) Federation 3rd Way escorts (502.94),
3) Federation LTFs (526.262),
4) Other fighter/PF carriers in the same hex as the CV launching the OFS, like
a. CV Auxiliaries (513.0),
b. Hybrid CV’s or
c. Monitors plus fighter/PF/SCS pallets (519.4).
assuming that the carrier launching the fighter/PF strike has those units in the same hex, or otherwise in range, for resupply.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, March 15, 2007 - 11:44 pm: Edit
Situation: Two allied races are in a battle hex aganist a lone enemy. The Allied races force considerably out number the lone enemy forces.
After round(s) of combat where the defeated lone enemy retreats from the hex or is destroyed can one of the allied races retreat from the hex leaving the other in the conquered hex?
Does it matter that the Allied race (wanting to retreat) would be out of supply if it remained in the hex and would need to retreat in order to be in future supply?
From the standpoint of separate nations this does not seem like a partial retreat (302.723) outlined under those rules. The rules (302.761) do allow for allies to retreat to separate hexes but are silent on one retreating ally and one remaining in the hex they just won. Am I missing something? Is this something that can already be done under the current rules? It seems logical that they'd be able to do this and maybe this will be fleshed out in the future.
By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 02:27 am: Edit
Can the Retreat priorities be simplified to be based on the decisions you could make?
i.e.,
1 Optionally, select a Neutral hex
2 Required, select an in-supply hex (full or partial grid) with no enemy units
3 Required, select an in-supply hex with enemy units equal or less than yours(Must Already be a battle hex with enemy ships and allied units)
4 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with no enemy units
5 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with enemy units equal or less than yours
6 Required, select an in-supply hex with enemy units greater than yours. (Must Already be a battle hex with enemy ships and allied units)
7 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with enemy units greater than yours
Note: (2,3,6) Partial grids may be ignored if you have a retreat to a main grid.
Note: (5,6,7) Fighting retreats only happen when you skip steps 1-4
I think this would separate out what your options are instead of going through the mechanics just to determine
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, March 16, 2007 - 05:00 am: Edit
Lawrence - It's an all or nothing rule.
If you retreat - everything retreats. If you stay, everything stays.
The only partial exception is if your defending a Capital System and use partial retreats during the battle - one ally retreats and at the end of the battle, the other ally stays.
However, that only works for the defender - the attacker can't use it (and so can't win the hex that way!)
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 04:28 am: Edit
Nick, where oh where are our answers??
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 03:40 pm: Edit
Trent Telenko asked on Friday, March 02, 2007:
________________________________________
Quote:
Strategic Operations Question
Federation sectors C, D and E show only one old CL based CLV hull.
Is there a second CLV waiting to be activated per (525.314) or was the second one destroyed?
If a CLV is available for activation, can it be allocated to any theater or only the Federation "Main Effort?"
________________________________________
Maelstrom has one CLV listed in sector D; the other CLV is missing from sector C and needs to be added to the AO portion of the scenario OOB.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 11:40 pm: Edit
I've looked in the Master Errata and flipped through this section but I can't find this answer.
In F175 Gale Force (608) the Federation has built an additional Starbase in 2908.
This starbase is not mentioned in either F178 Maelstrom (675) or S181 Winds of Fire (617).
Was it destroyed sometime between F175 and F178 or was it missed when the updates where done?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:05 am: Edit
I can say that I missed it in Maelstrom; please add it to the OOB.
I would also say that it is missing from AO's WoF OOB and would also add it to the OOB.
Nick: Please add these to the errata and the Warbook files. Thanks.
Chuck
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:15 am: Edit
Ryan asked:
________________________________________
Quote:
In Gale Force (Y175) 608.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1305.
In Winds of Fire (Y181) 617.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
In Maelstrom (Y178) 675.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
Reccommend that the Gale Force be changed for the Warbook to reflect the BATS being in 1307 since it's extrmely unlikey that the Kzinti could have destroyed the BATS in 1305 in Y175-8. Since 1307 is colocated with a Klingon BATS it better reflects a combined defensive strategy.
________________________________________
The location of the Lyran BATS in Gale Force is a typo; the correct location is 1307.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 12:51 am: Edit
Trent Telenko asked on Thursday, March 01, 2007:
________________________________________
Quote:
From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.69)
Do the Federation minor ship yards really send *all* their production to Sector E (AKA the Romulan Front)?
________________________________________
STRONG: The number of MSYs are correct but the sector assignments are typos; the rule should state:
Federation
MSY - NCL: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
MSY - DW: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
MSY - FF: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
=================================
STRONG: From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.63) Police Assignments: rule should show 12C,2F,4V Kzinti police ships called-up.
=================================
________________________________________
Quote:
From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.B2) LYRANS :
Shouldn't there be a SAP in the Lyran at start forces?
Rule (527.47) has the Lyrans getting one on the previous turn to scenario start.
Scenario Rule (674.463) only refers to free Auxiliary production, not what has been already produced.
________________________________________
STRONG: Add one SAP with PFs to the Lyran OOB for sector B.
==============================
Are there any other scenario questions still pending?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 01:06 am: Edit
Found one more...
________________________________________
Quote:
From Strategic Operations Rule (675.465)
This rule says all "Unique units" production must be designated for the Main effort.
Does this mean if the Federation loses a CVF or CLD on the Romulan Front (Sector E), their "Unique Unit" replacements can only be allocated to Sector C?
This language is also used in Fighter Operations Rule (608.465).
________________________________________
STRONG: The rule speaks to NEW unit production not replacements -- suggested rule addition:
(608.467) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
(617.467) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
(675.466) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 01:31 am: Edit
I actually have another one. The Setup order list Fed Sector F GHQ setting up last. Since there is not Fed Sector F GHQ and Fed Sector D isn't listed I assume that it should read sector D GHQ as having final setup.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 09:00 pm: Edit
Ryan:
Correct...
(475.14) SET UP last line should read: Fed Sector E GHQ Forces. STRONG 19 Mar 2007
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 12:27 am: Edit
A force has the option to retreat into 3 hexes. on hex is a NZ hex (not future belligerent NZ). The other two are in his own territory. Since the force contains POLs is that force required to retreat within his own territory? Can he choose the NZ? Would the POLs disappear if he chooses the NZ?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 02:56 am: Edit
Chuck I think your 19 Mar 9pm is mistaken.
AS PUBLISHED:
(675.14) SET UP in this order when playing multiple sectors: All Coalition Non-GHQ Forces, All Alliance Non GHQ-Forces, Lyran GHQ Forces, Fed Sector C GHQ Forces, Romulan GHQ Forces, Fed Sector E GHQ Forces, Klingon GHQ Forces, Fed Sector F GHQ Forces.
SHOULD READ (I THINK):
(675.14) SET UP in this order when playing multiple sectors: All Coalition Non-GHQ Forces, All Alliance Non GHQ-Forces, Lyran GHQ Forces, Fed Sector C GHQ Forces, Romulan GHQ Forces, Fed Sector E GHQ Forces, Klingon GHQ Forces, Fed Sector D GHQ Forces.
AND KNOW THAT I LOOK AT WINDS OF FIRE:
(617.14) SET UP in this order when playing multiple sectors: All Coalition Non-GHQ Forces, All Alliance Non GHQ-Forces, Lyran GHQ Forces, Fed Sector C GHQ Forces, Romulan GHQ Forces, Fed Sector E GHQ Forces, Klingon GHQ Forces, Fed Sector F GHQ Forces, Operation Remus Forces.
SHOULD READ:
(617.14) SET UP in this order when playing multiple sectors: All Coalition Non-GHQ Forces, All Alliance Non GHQ-Forces, Lyran GHQ Forces, Fed Sector C GHQ Forces, Romulan GHQ Forces, Fed Sector E GHQ Forces, Klingon GHQ Forces, Fed Sector D GHQ Forces, Operation Remus Forces.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:12 am: Edit
Warbook Scenario Issues
Gale Force in F175 has the Romulans with a new Starbase at 4613.
Maelstrom in F178 has the Romulans with a new Sector Base at 4613.
Winds of Fire in S181 has the Romulans with a new Starbase at 4613.
Recommend that in the Warbook the Gale Force SB be downgraded to a BATS (avail in basic book that the scenario is in) or a STB.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 03:28 am: Edit
I think this one has bee brought up before.
In Hurricane it has the Klingons holding province 2813 and 2815 with all the bases in those provinces have been destroyed.
In the History of the General War http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/general_war.htm
"The Day of the Eagle (4 January Y173) dawned, and the Romulan Fleet drove across the Federation border, smashing two starbases (those of the 6th and 7th Fleets) and eight battle stations of the "paper tiger" of the 6th Fleet..."
When you look at Gale Force these 8 BATS as mentioned in the history appear to be BATS 2816, 3016, 3212, 3414, 3613, 3812, 3810 and 3212.
I'd recommend giving the Feds back prov 2813 and 2815 as well as the bases present in the provinces.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 10:04 pm: Edit
Ryan, the Federation's Operation Wedge in Y176 may have destroyed the Romulan SB in 4613 and the STB in Maelstrom may be the rebuilt base.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:37 am: Edit
4613 is the Romulan Homeworld so Operation Wedge is no where close to there. It's possible, though I don't think likely, that the Gorns managed to get there in the 3 year period between the scenarios.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 02:14 am: Edit
Ryan:
Since the GF scenario was part of FO (and CvW before that) Sector Bases were not part of the F&E universe at the time.
Suggested Warbook solution, add note:
(608.F1) Note: If playing Gale Force with SO then downgrade the Starbase at 4613 to a Sector Base and add 18EPs to the Romulan at-start economy to account for the downgrade.
====================
I stand yet corrected again...
(675.14) SET UP last line should read: Fed Sector D GHQ Forces. STRONG 22 Mar 2007
(617.14) SET UP last line should read: Fed Sector D GHQ Forces. STRONG 22 Mar 2007
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 03:09 am: Edit
I have been updating the original 1986 Hurricane scenario for the Warbook and (603.42) specifically states that provinces 2813 and 2815 were captured by the Klingons (this means that the Klingons had to destroy the SB and 2xBATS in those provinces to do so).
My take on this for the update of Hurricane is to use this specific 1986 rule to override the general 1995 history and recommend that we correct the history to state "smashing many of the border and interior bases..."
(Chalk it up as a historical glitch and a misread of the tapes by the intel analysts...)
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Hey Chuck,
Since SVC said the warbook is on indefinite hold, is there any chance we players can get the new and improved scenarios as you update them?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 08:51 pm: Edit
DRA:
See my updated Hurricane post starting at February 21, 2005 at 03:12 am located in:
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Scenario Proposals: Archive through February 21, 2005
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 09:10 pm: Edit
Thank you, sir.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 09:15 pm: Edit
A CC with a Legendary Commodore is with 2 other ships. They do not have a valid supply path to a supply point and are thus out of supply. However, with the LC, they are considered 'in supply'.
If on the first round of combat, the CC is directed on and destroyed, killing the LC, are the other two ships in supply for the 2nd round of combat(or pursuit round for that matter)?
Supply, for combat, is determined at the beginning of the combat phase, but I was wondering whether this special rule has a special circumstance that would put those remainging ships OOS.
Thanks
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 11:25 pm: Edit
Nick, where oh where are our answers??
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 01:23 am: Edit
Dave:
Since this is a playtest rule that doesn't specify any special circumstance in this case, I would fall back on the SoP which states that the group started combat "in supply" and continue from there.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 08:05 am: Edit
Chuck, I dont have it yet, but I thought the LC was in SO?
If it's still playtest, then I'd tend to agree with you.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:40 pm: Edit
Still Play Test.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:55 pm: Edit
Tos,
Working on them. I will try to get most or all up this week. Not as much time to work on these as I would like right now.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 06:59 pm: Edit
Downloaded to this point. That's three downloads worth now. I will try to get some answers up tonight, but it won't be till late (get home around 9 tonight).
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 07:00 pm: Edit
Chuck, you missed this Strat ops question:
-----------------------------------------
Nick or Chuck,
A question from Strategic Operations Rule (542.27)
Does a colony created by a roll of two on a high risk survey count against the "one colony per five new off-map provinces" limit of rule (446.15) in PO
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 08:53 pm: Edit
Trent:
Nick is THE FEAR (F&E Answer Rapporteur) -- he is authorized to answer questions about the F&E rules.
I am but the FESTIVUS (Federation & Empire Scenario & Timing Investigative Voice Unless Superseded). I provide insight to the F&E Q&A team relating to the rational and development of the Sequence of Play & Scenario coordination and continuity and recommend error corrections.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 09:37 pm: Edit
Trent, I believe SO AAR's are emailed directly to SVC..
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 10:35 pm: Edit
Chuck, I thought you were a FELLOW(Federation & Empire Logistics Licenser Outwitting Wankers) or was that a FEMALE(Federation & Empire Makes (me) A Little Excited)
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 11:33 pm: Edit
Chuck,
How goes the three player rules set draft for ISC War?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 03:56 pm: Edit
OK I didn't post any answers. I'm a very bad man. But I did work on them, and will work on them more tonight (although I have less time to do so tonight than last night). Wed night/Thurs morning I will have more time, and hopefully get caught up.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 11:51 am: Edit
Nick,
Some HDW rules questions for your consideration:
The Gorns (706.3) and Lyrans (711.3) are limited to the production of one FCR per year. Does Modular Heavy Destroyer rule (525.23R) mean they get one more FCR equivalent HDW-FOP per turn in addition to that one FCR per year?
The Gorns and Lyrans are limited to the production of one Heavy Fighter CV per year (see 530.223) in AO until PF deployment. Does (525.23H) in AO mean they can produce one more heavy fighter armed HDW-HOG per turn in addition to that limit?
How does (525.23H) in AO mean the Federation may make one more A-20 carrier per turn in addition to the one per year/turn limits of (532.223) FO?
Does (532.222) in FO [which references (530.222)] mean that a Federation F18 armed HDW-COG can be converted to an A20 armed HDW-HOG per (530.222)?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 12:38 am: Edit
Some Answers posted long overdue.
Trent's question above added to my list.
Half-way there guys. I fear the FEAR has More Work to do to get caught up though. More to come this week.
================
Roger D. Morgan, Jr.: Nick,
You poasted the following answer to my question about the Tholian 2 hex limit:
"Roger D. Morgan, Jr.:
Rule (503.33) limits the Tholians to only operating within 2 hexes of their border. Does this affect E&S attacks and raids since they are beyond that limit?
ANSWER: Rule (503.33) is referring specifically to ships, and does not apply to E&S teams."
Half of my question was answered (the part on E&S Teams), but I should have written it more clearly, i.e. "Does this effect E&S attacks and Military Raids (314.0) since they are beyond that limit?"
I assume from your answer that it does affect Military Raids since they are ships and would be limited to raiding just one Romulan and one Klingon hex (well, maybe a bunch of Fed ones if they are going after them). Would this be a correct assumption?
ANSWER: See rule (314.19) which allows Tholian Raiding ships to ignore the 2 hex restriction.
================================
Gary Carney:
2 questions:
*In Advanced Operations, page 27, the DNT (525.82) is listed as counting as a mauler, since it has 2 Type-R plasma torpedoes.
However, the Romulan Vulture (525.66) is not, despite the fact that it has two R-torps, too (albeit on a less sturdy frame than the massive GOrn dreadnought).
Should the same effect not apply for the Vulture as for the DNT?
*In WInds of Fire, both the Klingons and Lyrans are listed as having forces set aside for attacks on the WYN Cluster (AO page 45, 617.B6). However, acording to the background in SFB Module C3 for the 'fish' ships, it states that the Kzintis also launched an assault on the Cluster in Y182 (from which the WYNs managed to capture a drone frigate (R12.30)).
Should there not be a similar list of ships in the Kzinti OOB for Winds of Fire which must follwo the same kind of rules as those assembled by the Lyrans and Klingons (possibly rolling for them in Fall Y182, or Turn 29, so as not to coincide with the Klingon attack)?
ANSWER: Neither of those are rules questions, they are more design questions which I can't answer. The likely answers are (guesses on my part):
A) Romulan Vulture not getting the mauler bonus of the Gorn DNT: Doctrine.
B) Lack of Kzinti forces attacking the WYN cluster in WINDS OF FIRE: Kzinti attack may have been too small to depict, or play balance.
=============================
Todd E Jahnke: Two questions:
Does an operable SWAC count as a scout for purposes of generating a modifier in small scale combat?
==
Ten Lyran normal ships, five Klingon normal ships, and one Lyran fast ship retreat from a hex. In one available retreat hex, the Lyran fast ship and the Klingons will be in supply, but that hex contains eight Hydran ships. In other hexes, no ships are present and the Coalition would not have any ships in supply. Lyrans commanded in the last battle force and during the retreat battle. Must the Lyrans retreat so that their fast ship and the Klingons are in supply, or may they retreat so that no ships are in supply?
ANSWER:
A) I don't think so. There is no provision for SWACS in SSC.
B) Given a choice between hexes where you would be in supply and hexes where you would be out of supply, you have to move so that you are in supply. (302.733-B) as Chuck noted above. Unless the in-supply hex is previously eliminated for some other reason, i.e. under (302.732).
===========================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
Winds of Fire question.
Checking through all of the Lyran sectors in (617.0) I have located the two Lyran KTP (Troop Pods with 1 G). I can not locate the original A-Pod (Troop Pod with 2 G). The Lyrans can also build a second A-Pod acording to (711.0). Prior to Y181 did the Lyrans loose all of their A-Pods to combat, should one or both of the KTP pods be A-Pods, or are the A-Pods missing from Winds of Fire?
ANSWER:
Sector A shows no troop pods
Sector B shows two "troop pods" one in Lyran Forces and one in GHQ forces, but does not specify if these are KTP or AP+.
Sector C shows one "troop pod" in the GHQ forces and again does not specify the type.
They cannot have more than 2 AP+ (2 G each, only one per tug, tug only) and cannot have more than 2 KTP (one G each, 2 per tug or 1 per LTT).
So these cannot all be the same pod type as you cannot have three of the same type.
At the start of the General War they had one AP and two KTPs.
In Galeforce, sector A has one AP, sector B has one AP and one KTP and sector C has one KTP (maximum built).
Maelstrom had one AP and one KTP each in sectors A and B, nothing in the Lyran force in sector C. (maximum built)
Winds of Fire shows troop pods in B and C. Assuming the maximum are still built it might be that Sector B has one AP in the Lyran Forces, two KTPs in the sector B GHQ forces (this is where most of the LTTs are which would most likely use them), and Sector C has the second AP.
===========================
Robert Padilla: Nick,
What does this answer mean:
"B) Given a choice between hexes where you would be in supply and hexes where you would be out of supply, you have to move so that you are in supply. (302.733-B) as Chuck noted above. Unless the in-supply hex is previously eliminated for some other reason, i.e. under (302.732)."
Does that mean Chuck is right, and a single fast ship would not be able to determine supply status for the entire fleet? Or does it mean that a single fast ship can determine the supply status for an entire fleet, even though the rest of the fleet would still be out of supply? In Todd's above example the Klingon ships have no bearing on the supply status, as 302.76 clearly states that Allied ships can be forced to retreat out of supply by the rule, if they were not the ones in command of the last battle force.
ANSWER: The wording of the rule is that you determine supply for the force (i.e. all the ships must be in supply if possible, not just one of them).
========================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
I also noticed (WINDS OF FIRE) that there are two Lyran PTP pods in the Lyran forces. One in sector B and one in sector C. The Lyrans can have 1 PTP pallet and 4 K-PTP pods max.
I believe that the sector B PTP should be the PTP+ and the sector C PTP should be a K-PTP. And obviously the other three K-PTP have not yet been built.
Does this sound correct to you? And if so should I drop this note in the Master War Book board?
ANSWER: Sure.
=========================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
According to (702.5) Federation Early War the Fed replace NCLs with DDs or CLs if they go to war on turns 1 (168F), 2 (169S), or 3 (169F). The latest on line SIT lists the Date Available for the NCL as Y169. Does this mean that the Fed can overbuild (431.3) NCLs if they wish on turns 2 & 3 (if at war)? Can they use accelerated production ((431.37) on turn 3 for one NCL when at war? Is the current SIT wrong? Does 702.5 need to be corrected to allow Federation production of NCLs on turns 2 and/or 3 when at war? Should the Fed Pre-War construction be adjusted to show that one or two of the pre-war NCLs where built on turns 2 and/or 3 (no additional ships, just an adjustment of date built)?
For background information;
The F&E2K SIT lists an Availability Date of 170.
The Advanced Ops SIT lists an Availability Date of 169.
The On-Line Sit dated 13 Dec 06 lists an Availability Date of 169.
Until you have a chance to rule on this I’ll go with DD/CL as regular production with the option to overbuild NCLs on turns 2 & 3 when at war.
ANSWER: If you go with early war, you don't get scheduled NCLs until turn 4. The SIT date is unchanged, so presumably you could overbuild them. You could presumably accelerate one from turn 4 to 3. SIT is right for the normal schedule.
=======================
Todd E Jahnke:
Pardon my denseness, but if all of the ships can't be in supply, is it then the case that it doesn't matter if any can be? So that a force can retreat so that none is in supply if there is no hex where all can be in supply (leaving aside the possibility of an enemy force outnumbering the retreaters in one or more specific hexes)?
We have the exception about an Allied force being required to retreat out of supply if the last battle force commander so decides, but that is different from a commander purposely retreating so that some of his own ships are out of supply when he could retreat so that they are in supply.
For design intent, how can supply matter only if all can be in it? How does it make sense that supply for some ships can be ignored when supply for all ships is important?
I suspect this is a F or X ship issue that hasn't arisen before. It may be wise to consider input from an appeals authority in this case.
ANSWER: No, that's not the case. If you use the standard rule (allied ships use retreat priorities for the last commanding flagship), then some ships might be forced out of supply. If you use the advanced rule, allied forces can be split, and must be split if necessary for each force to get to supply. In the example above 10 Lyran, 1 Fast Lyran, 5 klingon, and you have the choice of hex A with 8 hydran ships and hex B with no enemy ships.
If you use allied retreat, we only look at Lyran priorities, klingon supply is ignored when picking the retreat hex. They can go to A (one ship out of 10 in supply), or hex B (no lyran ships in supply). The rule here is not written to take into account the fast ship, it assumes suppy is the same for the entire force, but in this case it is not. I would rule that you still try to get as much into supply as possible (seems to be the intent), so I would say you must pick hex A.
If you use separate retreats, the Lyrans go to A as above, the Klingons go to A as well where they are in supply.
==========================
Lawrence Bergen:
Scenario vs SIT question (also posted in the SIT area in case the SIT is wrong.)
Question on the SIT when compared to the scenario rule (607.2: Turn #6). The rule allows for the appearance of the Lord Marshall CC on Turn 6: Spring Y160. The SIT says the LM is available Y159.
Do we:
- override the scenario rule in favor of the SIT date and give the Hydrans the LM 2 turns earlier?
- override the SIT in favor of the scenario rule and give the Hydrans the LM historically 2 turns late?
- compromise and give them one conversion as a prototype in Y159 and then go with the unlimited conversions in Y160?
- do something else entirely?
Is this a play balance issue that the LM was inserted later? Or is the SIT wrong?
ANSWER: SIT is right. SFB says Y160 (production year), F&E SIT says Y159 (possible prototype). In the four powers scenario, they HISTORICALLY built it in Y160. You can build the first in Y159 (conversion) as per the SIT.
==========================
Lawrence Bergen:
During combat if a multi-force (say Klingon-Lyran) wins a hex (either the Alliance side retreats or is destroyed) can only one of the co-belligerents retreat using the advanced rule (302.76 and 302.761)? I have a potential case like this where one side wants the hex its in and the other side will need to retreat in order to maintain supply.
This (or something like it) may come up down the road (and maybe even be changed) for ISC war where you could have 3 sided battles.
ANSWER: If allied, use either rule as you wish, depends on if you are using the standard or advanced rule, I really don't understand the question in this context. If this is a three way battle then I don't see why boths sides in question that won the hex couldn't both use the advanced rule.
===========================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
The last on-line Errata list is dated 5/14/06. Will this listing be updated any time soon or will it wait until after Cap Log 35 is out?
http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/New%20Master%20Errata.pdf
ANSWER: Don't know. I will put it on my list of things to do, but can't say when I can get to it. I only have two Cap Logs to add at this point, so it shouldn't be too bad.
===========================
Ryan Opel:
There used to be a consolidated Order of Battle with all the modules together in file. Is that been taken down? Is it possible to get one done and posted in the player resource section?
ANSWER: As noted this was done by others, maybe they will update it?
==========================
Lawrence Bergen:
Okay quick question on Retreats. Maybe this has been asked before but I have not been able to find the reference.
Situation: A retreating (out of supply) fleet has the option of an enemy minor that has been previously devastated and liberated so that the recovery period has begun. The planet has no planetary defenses (it would have the residual) and no ship units are in the hex. The original owner was last in control so it was a source of econ/supply for him.
First of all, retreat rule (302.732) says a Planet with 1 or more planetary defense units counts as one enemy unit. So does the residual constitute an enemy unit for purposes of retreating into the minor planet's hex (making this a fighting retreat)?
Secondly (similar to question above but for a different reason), would the absence of any planetary defenses or ships allow the retreating fleet to remain at the planet or was the RDU enough to push this to a 'fighting' retreat forcing them to leave yet again?
ANSWER: RDF (no longer RDU) is not a unit for ANY purpose. It would not block retreat, and would not trigger fighting retreat. You would end at the planet, and the planet would still have the RDF.
===========================
Michael Lui:
This may be an interesting one if it's your turn and not his.
If you are allowed to stay in the hex with the planet it is still not yours since you can only capture territory with operational movement, not retreat. In this instance you will be above a planet that is not yours during the enemies Economic Phase. AFAIK there are no rules yet for disrupted, devastated planets.
ANSWER: I belive the planet would simply be considered to be in its own isolated grid (it could not ship the EPs to the owner's main grid due to the enemy ships present, but it would still generate them. They would then be subject to loss if the enemy destroyed the RDF and captured the planet on a future turn. Note that adjacent friendly (to the planet) ships would open this path under the normal rules.
===========================
Lawrence Bergen:
I still have the question though if I can retreat to the minor and remain there.
It is my opponents turn. With regards to the battles/retreats I am the defending/non-phasing player. I am not as concerned with actually capturing the planet for my own gain. I would assume though (maybe incorrectly) that his supply from that planet would cease which is the effect I am looking for. I would be happy to capture it on my next turn.
ANSWER: You can retreat and remain there as noted above. The potential suppy path from that planet to other forces could be opened under the normal rules (411.31) by adjacent ships friendly to the planet. Remember that the hex containing the planet is part of the suppy path (411.1).
========================
Robert Padilla:
756.0 lists planets as a non-ship unit. So it looks like retreating over an enemy planet with only a RDF would cause a fighting retreat unless you can avoid step 4 of the retreat priorities.
ANSWER: You forget rule (302.732) which says that (for retreat) a planet with PDUs is a unit. A planet with only a RDF is not a unit for retreat.
==========================
Todd Lovas:
Okay this is a long and drawn out question of retreat priorities. The game is a FPW scenario and here is the setup, starting with the relevant hex in question. I will only be counting ships and bases that are within 4 hexes of the target hex. Advanced rule for allied retreat is in play.
1009 12 K ships, 21 L ships, 3 Z ships
0707 1 L BS, 20 Z ships
1009 1 K BS, 9 K ships, 16 Z ships
1209 1 K BS, 1 K ship (crip), 16 Z ships
1208 2 K ships, 2 Z ships
ANSWER: I can only assume the first line above is meant to be 1006 and not 1009.
Relevant supply points remaining
0705 L BS
0707 L BS (battlehex)
0709 L M Planet, Klingon Convoy
0809 L BS
1009 K BS (battlehex)
1209 K BS (battlehex)
1307 K BATS
1105 Z M Planet
1004 Z BATS
Z frigates messing things up.
0805, 1007, 1108, 1106
If hex 1006 is fought first and Klingons supply the command vessel, can they elect to fighting retreat to 1106 taking the Lyrans out of supply?
ANSWER: Sure, since using the advanced allied retreat rule is always optional when in play, and if you use the Klingon priorities, the Lyrans can be forced to retreat out of supply.
In the subsequent retreat from 1106 if the Coalition then chooses to split the K and L forces, the Klingons would be required to retreat to 1206. Could the Lyrans then retreat to 1105 as they are not in supply, or would they be forced to retreat into the 1006 hex previously vacated as they would then be back in supply?
ANSWER: Klingons to 1206, correct. If 1006 is the only hex where Lyrans are in supply, then it will be the only retreat option remaining after step 3, and they would have no choice but to retreat there when using the advanced rule.
Back to the beginning, 0907 is in supply for both K and L, doesn’t require a fighting retreat, but is one hex longer for the K, shortest route for the L. If this hex is available and Klingons supplied the Command ships is it required to retreat to keep the entire force in supply if possible?
ANSWER: Since it is a longer supply path, it would be eliminated in step 3 when using klingon only priorities (standard rule). You must go to the shortest supply path, and other hexes give you a 2 hex path so the 3 hex path and hex 0907 is eliminated.
Looking at is a third way 1007 is tied with 1106 with regards to supply length, both require a fighting retreat, but 1007 keeps the Lyrans in supply. Would this hex be required in lieu of 1106 do to the Lyran supply factor?
ANSWER: If you are using klingon only priorities (standard rule), then you ignore any lyran requirements. If you are doing advanced rule split retreat priorities, then you judge each race on their own merits. Using only the last command ship's priorities (standard rule) may force one race out of supply as you see above.
=========================
Daniel G. Knipfer: Strat Ops Question
Rule (675.E2) on page 25 of Strat Ops shows a PRD being added to the Rom forces when using PO but does not say which planet it was built on. Please advise which planet the PRD belongs on. Thanks.
ANSWER: As Per Chuck Strong, the PRD should be with the Rom Colony Base at 3518 co-located with the SB.
==========================
Ryan Opel: Strat Ops Question.
675.E41 says "the Romulans have THREE turns of spare parts for their KRs (covering all ships for sectors E and F)."
675.F41 says " the Romulans TWO turns of spare pares for their KRs (covering all ships for sectors E and F).
So what's the correct answer?
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong, should be 3 turns for sectors E and F, not 2 turns.
===========================
Ryan Opel: Strat Ops Question.
675.A2 "All Lyrans have retreated into Lyran Territory." Since the Lyrans deploy a PGB in 0416 and still control Hydran provinces, is this sentence a hold over from Winds of Fire in the writeup?
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong: See Long Term Capture (LTC) Chart in (675.A2). The Lyrans have retreated into Lyran Territory (which includes annexed territory and LTC territory). Provinces 0614 & 0617 are "held" under LTC and do not require any ship garrison by rule but the Lyrans may still initially deploy to these provinces. The PGB at 0416 remains there as a legacy site. Also see (675.A1) where it states that ANY Coalition Force may deploy there. The Lyrans cannot deploy to Klingon controlled or contested areas.
==========================
Ryan Opel:
675.D2 "All planets are undevasted and have their orginal defenses with two exceptions:
The planet in 2610 has four defense battalions. ..."
It then goes and talks about destroyed Federation Bases. Nothing is listed for a second exception?
The Intelligence Analyst in me says that your talking about planet 2715. When was it recaptured? What are its defenses? Where is it at for devastation recovery?
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong: The minor planet at 2610 was recaptured by the Federation on their player-turn in Y176S; it has recovered and 4xPDUs assigned.
The minor planet at 2715 was recaptured by the Federation on their player-turn in Y176F; it has three turns logged toward recovery and 1xPGB assigned.
============================
Robert Padilla:
What is the Gorn Peacetime Construction schedule? The reason I ask is that with the new Diplomacy rules they could build some extra ships, but only if they have available build slots. The OOB has their PWC schedule, but it's so small that I would think they could have built more ships, but decided not to.
I would ask the same question for the Romulans, as they also may have the ability to build a few extra ships.
ANSWER: As far as I know it is not defined at this time. With the stingy Gorn legislature, the Gorn peactime schedule may actually be that small. The roms are so busy updated everything at once to modern tech, I doubt they could do much more.
=============================
Gary Carney:
Is the Fed CB listed in one of the current F&E supplements?
ANSWER: As per Jeff Laikind: The Fed CB is not in F&E. Currently, only the Gorn CCH has been published (Advanced Ops).
==============================
Tim Losberg:
B10VA question, if the B10VA uses it's SFG, it is then directly targetable, what happens with the escorts? Do they retain their Escort status (can only target the outer one) and compot or do they revert to 515.54 (-1 to their compot)?
if it is the latter, what about ad-hoc's? would they regain their compot since they are not ecorting that round?
ANSWER: The escorts are still escorts and subject to all escort rules. Just the B10VA is now vulnerable do to the SFG use. The B10VA is still part of the group (you could still target the entire group if you wanted, you just now have a special exception to allow you to target the stasis ship by itself is you wish.
==============================
Mike Curtis:
(320.331) allows a base with a SFG to protect FRDs, SAFs, LTFs, troop ships, and monitors (in certain situations) from drone raids. Why can't SFG ships do the same?
ANSWER: Because those units are kept at the stasis equipped (or any) base. So on any given day when the drone attack happens to occur, the base is co-located and can protect them. A stasis ship is a ship not a base, it is mobile and is out scouting/patrolling around the hex as a matter or course. It is not a dedicated escort ship for the listed units. On any given day when the drone attack happens to unexpectedly show up, the stasis ship is not physically present at the same location as the listed units (or is so unlikely to be present at the site of the drone attack that the rule assumes it is not). Michael Lui is correct.
=================================
Trent Telenko: From Strategic Operations:
Can a Klingon F6J conduct the (528.42) "Special Attack" mission?
ANSWER: No, as it is not a cruiser class ship.
===============================
Trent Telenko: From Strategic Operations Scenario rule (675.69)
Do the Federation minor ship yards really send *all* their production to Sector E (AKA the Romulan Front)?
That is what the rules says.
ANSWER: Presumably yes. But this does give sector E more production than the main effort, so at least some sould probably be D. I will ask Jeff and Chuck.
===============================
Trent Telenko: From Strategic Operations Scenario rule (675.63) Police Assignments:
initial called up combat loses total at start lifetime limits
Kzinti 2C 18C, 3F, 4V -6C, -1F 7C, 2F, 2V 20C, 6F, 6V
This does not compute.
At scenario start, given what was called up and lost, I should be seeing 12C, 2F, 4V.
Did the Kzinti actually send five police cutters and two police CV back to police duties in the middle of a war?!!?
ANSWER: As per Mike Curtis: Should be 12C,2F,4V in service. Nick: should be added to errata.
================================
Trent Telenko: From Strategic Operations Scenario rule (675.B2) LYRANS :
Shouldn't there be a SAP in the Lyran at start forces?
Rule (526.47) has the Lyrans getting one on the previous turn to scenario start.
Scenario Rule (675.463) only refers to free Auxiliary production, not what has been already produced.
ANSWER: It could have been destroyed?
===============================
Trent Telenko: From Strategic Operations Rule (675.465)
This rule says all "Unique units" production must be designated for the Main effort.
Does this mean if the Federation loses a CVF or CLD on the Romulan Front (Sector E), their "Unique Unit" replacements can only be allocated to Sector C?
This language is also used in Fighter Operations Rule (608.465).
ANSWER: I would say yes.
=============================
Trent Telenko: A question from Strategic Operations Rule (542.27)
Does a colony created by a roll of two on a high risk survey count against the "one colony per five new off-map provinces" limit of rule (446.15) in PO.
ANSWER: It is a separate limit. The standard rule lets you develop one colony per five new off map provinces. The high rist rule might give you one in addition to this standard effort, but has its own limit after which that result has no effect.
=============================
Trent Telenko: Strategic Operations Question
Federation sectors C, D and E show only one old CL based CLV hull.
Is there a second CLV waiting to be activated per (525.314) or was the second one destroyed?
ANSWER: If there is no mention of it, then presumably it is still waiting to be activated.
If a CLV is available for activation, can it be allocated to any theater or only the Federation "Main Effort?"
ANSWER: Any sector.
==============================
Dave Whiteside:
A ship is out of supply at the beginning of its phasing turn. It says in 410.31 that the movement rate is reduced by 50%. Does this mean for the entire turn, or only the phase for which it is out of supply. In other words, if a ship is out of supply, but gets itself into a battle, eligible to retrograde, and retreats to a hex that is in supply for that ship, can he retro is full 100% or only 50%.
ANSWER: Yes, you can do that. The reason is you are really just out of supply until the next supply check. As you can see (410.24), you get to check for supply in the Retrograde step, and any ship in supply at that point can retro the full amount, regardless of status prior to the retrograde phase.
410.24 says supply is checked at the beginning of the retro phase, so I cant tell if these things are saying the same thing or contradicting one another.
Taking it a step further, if a ship is out of supply, moves 3 hexes to a battle hex putting it in supply, but then retreats out of supply again(it can happen), what is his status?
We've always seen the battle where the ship uses op mvt to go 8 hexes away from his nearest supply pt(because he started 2 away), but since he was in supply at the beginning of the turn, he is considered in supply for battle. But the wrench came when he retreated and found himself 7 hexes from his retro pt. At that point, he cannot retro because he is out of supply; but we, in the past, read 410.24(exception) as that he could...but since he is 'actually' out of supply at his battle hex, he cannot. Didnt know if it worked the other way.
ANSWER: For retrograde purposes, you only need to check at the start of the retro step. If you are out of supply, you cannot retro, regardless of past status that turn. EXCEPTION: if you were in supply during that combat round (meaning you had to have actually had a valid supply path from the combat hex), then you can still retrograde if you are in range of a retro point.
=================================
Gary Carney: Another ship question:
Are the Fed CS and NCF featured in a Fed and Empire supplement?
ANSWER: As Steve Cole pointed out, there are on-line SITs available with this info in them.
===============================
Tim Losberg: WYN trading question.
Rule (449.133) The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can receive them (at least a partial grid)....
Does this mean that the tug taking the EP's out of the cluster need only stop at any base in the grid or does it still need to go to the Capital to drop off the EP's from the cluster?
ANSWER: It could drop them at any grid (but that would make a satelite stockpile if not the capital). If you want the cash to go into your treasury, you need to bring it all they way to the capital.
=================================
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak: Can Crippled ships "Block" and/or "Unblock" supply in F&E?
Please forgive my obvious ignorance on the matter but I seem to recall something indicating that crippled ships were different in this matter but could locate the relevant rule (Assuming it exists)
ANSWER: Crippled ships continue to block/unblock supply.
=================================
Ryan Opel: Conflict in scenarios.
In Gale Force (Y175) 608.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1305.
In Winds of Fire (Y181) 617.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
In Maelstrom (Y178) 675.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
Reccommend that the Gale Force be changed for the Warbook to reflect the BATS being in 1307 since it's extrmely unlikey that the Kzinti could have destroyed the BATS in 1305 in Y175-8. Since 1307 is colocated with a Klingon BATS it better reflects a combined defensive strategy.
ANSWER: Noted.
================================
Robert Padilla:
Are the Fed CS' in mothballs (from SO) activated in place of a CA? Or do they have a special rule?
ANSWER: I would have to say activated instead of a CA on a given turn, not in addition to.
==============================
Trent Telenko:
Question for Colony Bases (446.5)
1) Is a colony base (CB) a “mobile base” or a fortification for the purposes of limited war deployment or deployment in an inactive fleet?
ANSWER: Yes.
2) Does a Federation CBs get F111’s rather than PFs? Or just more fighters via another fighter pod of PBU type fighter base?
ANSWER: It could get an F111 module instead of a PF module. If there are PDUs, then those PDUs get what any other PDUs get.
3) Can a Fed CB use a CF1 casual F111 sqd?
ANSWER: Yes.
4) If so, does a CB count as a base of a PDU in terms of deployment “stickiness?”
ANSWER: CB is a base (not sticky). You could also have PDUs at the colony which might host the CF1 (sticky).
5) Does deploying a CB plus fighters count as far as “unsticking” a Monitor for deployment elsewhere?
ANSWER: Rule (519.111) says the base must have 12 factors (including fighters) in order to release the Monitor. So yes, 8 (CB) + 9 (CF1) is more than 12.
6) Does a CB have a mobile base's (MB) electronic warfare capability? The SIT says see the rule and the rule is silent on that.
ANSWER: Yes it does. The rule is not silent, the rule says "functions as a mobile base except...", and there is no EW change listed in the exceptions.
7) Can a CB’s fighters and/or PFs/F111s react or affect supply?
ANSWER: Sure.
8) Is a CB a “Planetary location” like a PDU or another base as far as the multiple base ruling is concerned? The rule says the CB “…is the colony.”
ANSWER: It would count as a mobile base (it is another base co-located with the colony which is a planet).
=============================
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 12:48 am: Edit
Nick,
I hate to be a nit picker, but this:
>1) Is a colony base (CB) a “mobile base” or a
>fortification for the purposes of limited war deployment
>or deployment in an inactive fleet?
>
>ANSWER: Yes.
...is not a clear answer. A Mobile base may be set up during limited war.
Fortifications -- PDU, PGB, Fighter bases, Mobile base fighter pods may not be.
What is a CB?
and this
>8) Is a CB a “Planetary location” like a PDU or
>another base as far as the multiple base ruling
>is concerned? The rule says the CB “…is the
>colony.”
>
>ANSWER: It would count as a mobile base (it is
>another base co-located with the colony which
>is a planet).
...is also less than clear.
If the CB is on the planet without (presumably) positional stabilizers of orbital bases, does it count for full effect compot and EW effect with another base (BATS, SB) or not?
Does its attrition units from the planet count as PDU's attrition units do -- AKA in addition to the base defacto four sqd limit?
Or do they count against that same limit from the two or more bases ruling?.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 10:14 am: Edit
Nick, I would request an appeal on this decision, based on the fact that you and Chuck seem to have differing views on how this type of retreat should work. It does not make sense to me that a single fast ship can cause an entire fleet to retreat to a particular hex. If the fast ship was the command ship I could see it, but in this case it is not.
=======================
Todd E Jahnke:
Pardon my denseness, but if all of the ships can't be in supply, is it then the case that it doesn't matter if any can be? So that a force can retreat so that none is in supply if there is no hex where all can be in supply (leaving aside the possibility of an enemy force outnumbering the retreaters in one or more specific hexes)?
We have the exception about an Allied force being required to retreat out of supply if the last battle force commander so decides, but that is different from a commander purposely retreating so that some of his own ships are out of supply when he could retreat so that they are in supply.
For design intent, how can supply matter only if all can be in it? How does it make sense that supply for some ships can be ignored when supply for all ships is important?
I suspect this is a F or X ship issue that hasn't arisen before. It may be wise to consider input from an appeals authority in this case.
ANSWER: No, that's not the case. If you use the standard rule (allied ships use retreat priorities for the last commanding flagship), then some ships might be forced out of supply. If you use the advanced rule, allied forces can be split, and must be split if necessary for each force to get to supply. In the example above 10 Lyran, 1 Fast Lyran, 5 klingon, and you have the choice of hex A with 8 hydran ships and hex B with no enemy ships.
If you use allied retreat, we only look at Lyran priorities, klingon supply is ignored when picking the retreat hex. They can go to A (one ship out of 10 in supply), or hex B (no lyran ships in supply). The rule here is not written to take into account the fast ship, it assumes suppy is the same for the entire force, but in this case it is not. I would rule that you still try to get as much into supply as possible (seems to be the intent), so I would say you must pick hex A.
If you use separate retreats, the Lyrans go to A as above, the Klingons go to A as well where they are in supply.
==========================
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 05:18 pm: Edit
Trent:
1) sorry, meant to say treat like a mobile base, not PDU or other fortification.
8) It is treated like a mobile base. It would count as one base at the colony location. If you had a colony, a colony base, and a BATS all together in the same location, that would be the same as two bases at a planet.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 05:19 pm: Edit
Robert:
I will send it up to Jeff/Steve. The problem is the rule is written assuming all ships in the force have the same supply range, when there are now (in later products) more units with different ranges. So as such there is currently no clear answer.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 05:41 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick for your detailed answers to each of our questions. Your diligence is appreciated.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 05:43 pm: Edit
Nick,
Thanks.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 06:14 pm: Edit
Nick,
You said:
>It is treated like a mobile base. It would
>count as one base at the colony location. If
>you had a colony, a colony base, and a BATS all
>together in the same location, that would be
>the same as two bases at a planet
So a colony with a CB and PDU(s) would count as an EW network from P.O if it added another base or FDU?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 07:36 pm: Edit
Thanks Nick!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 09:07 am: Edit
Thanks Nick. I understand the problem, hopefully we'll have a clear answer after all this
By Craig Tenhoff (Cktenhoff) on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 02:35 pm: Edit
Actually a EW Network requiers three different bases at three different locations, not three bases at one location.
By Robert Russell Lender-Lundak (Rusman) on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 02:44 am: Edit
Thanks Nick
By Todd Lovas (Qwerty) on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 10:48 pm: Edit
Nick,
Parrotting Lawrence above, thanks for the hard work in dealing with our detailed issue. You diligence is greatly appreciated.
Todd
By Chris LaRusso (Soulcatcher) on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 11:18 am: Edit
Nick, can you address my question on looking at retreat priorities from a decision makers perspective rather than a game mechanic or should I post this elsewhere?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 01:40 pm: Edit
Trent, Craig is right, you need different locations for the Early Warning network, not three things at one location.
Chris, that should go in the proposals or warbook topic, not the Q&A topic.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 01:43 pm: Edit
THE REST OF THE ANSWERS
This should get me caught up now. There may be a few scenario based questions that I answered, and then Chuck answered. I tried to then sort out my answers in favor of his, if I missed any his answers supersede mine.
===============================
Trent Telenko: Questions on the Federation CF1 casual F111 squadron rule (527.26)
1. Can CF1’s react and affect supply per (206.22)?
This seems very situational. Rule (527.261) says that CF1’s act like CPFs. CPFs react with their carrying ships. CF1s don’t have ships to react with. They are on bases.
Rule (527.62) defines what can “bases” a CF1 can be placed on, basically MB/OB, BATS, SB, Monitors, and PDUs. The first two can react fighters and affect supply while PDU’s can’t.
ANSWER: Rule (524.311) says CPFs cannot react, so neither can CF1s. Thus they do not block retrograde (206.22) or supply (411.34).
2. Can CF1’s perform Offensive Fighter Strikes like CPF’s (319.11)?
Again, rules (527.261) and (527.262) seem to make it “Base Dependent” as bases can do Offensive Fighter Strikes while Monitors and PDU’s cannot.
ANSWER: Rule (319.11) says CPFs in general can, and thus so can CF1s, in general. The rule (319.13) gives you additional restrictions.
3. What are the command slot implications of a CF1 in a battle force?
Rules (302.333) and (302.334) say that fighters and PFs on bases and PDUs don’t count against the “three sqd limit.” Yet Monitors fighters do count against that limit.
ANSWER: Rule (524.42) says all CPFs (and thus CF1s) count as an independent squadron/flotilla. So they would count against command limits regardless of what unit is carrying the casual counter.
4. Also, the “multiple base ruling” established what amounted to a “four sqd limit” for more than one base in a battle force. Does that mean a CF1 would take up a command slot in the battle force if it was stationed at a Federation SB that was "the focus of battle?"
ANSWER: Yes.
5. Can CF1's be used in approach battles for a base?
ANSWER: Rule (524.41) prevents such use as it requires the unit carrying the CPF (CF1) counter to be in the battle force. So if the base is not in the battle force (approach battle), the CF1 cannot be either.
6. Can they be used with a Federation CVBG away from a base or with a Monitor present in a battle force?
ANSWER: They can only be used if the carrying unit is present in the battleforce as well, the CVBG cannot carry them, but the monitor can.
===============================
Trent Telenko:
I have a number of questions regards the application of rule (527.142) [which references (502.62) AO and places Federation F111s from destroyed bases into a “PF Replacement pool.”] as applied to annuity F111 factors.
Given that F111s at mobile unit rates cost 2 EPs per factor and annuity F111 factors at base rates cost 1 EP per each, see (527.13), (432.33) and the Federation SIT. I think the following are legitimate uses of the “Annuity F111 Replacement Pool” that is made up of 1 EP F111 annuity fighter factors.
Please tell me yes or no if I am correct in my interpretations below:
1. Annuity Pool F111s can be used on (441.4) AO “PF Modules,” whether they are deployed on Federation bases or FRDs.
ANSWER: Sure.
2. Annuity Pool F111s can be used on Federation Monitor “PF Pallets,” see (519.421), (519.422), (519.432) in CO and (537.4) in PO, since Monitor fighter factors are at “base rates.”
ANSWER: Sure.
3. Annuity Pool F111s can be used to purchase CF1 casual F111 squadrons because they are both 1 EP F111 factors.
ANSWER: Sure.
4. Annuity Pool F111s can be used as F111 factors on VHP F111 resupply pods and on FCF fast resupply ships since both are 1 EP each.
ANSWER: Sure.
5. Annuity Pool F111s can be used a two to one rate (two base F111 squadrons for a single carrier F111 squadron) for deployment on F111 carriers and auxiliaries. [This would be the annuity F111 version of “stripping bases” of PFs or “pay as you go” F111 factors.]
The last will be considered by some as controversial. Yet as I see it, there had to be some game reason for the Federation to go the historical annuity F111 route.
As it stands right now, Federation players ignore the annuity option because they can avoid a 50 EP surcharge for the “privileged” of using annuity F111s and they are minus the ability to strip attrition factors from bases and the replacement pool for their fleet like other races do with their PFs.
ANSWER: Makes sense to me. Rule (502.615) allows the replacement pool to be placed on ships in addition to bases.
============================
Trent Telenko:
A Strategic Operations question for rule (540.11) and (700.3).
Are the Klingons missing a diplomatic team or a diplomatic cruiser?
Rule (540.11) says initially “Klingons have one D7N and one D5N (three teams)” while and the Klingon order of battle (700.3) shows only D7N and one D5N.
Rule (540.31) also says something about a D7N requiring two diplomatic teams to build.
ANSWER: Daniel Knipfer answered this one, the D7N requires two teams, so one D7N and one D5N will have three teams between them, the rules are correct.
=============================
Todd E Jahnke:
A PT is a unit, per its rules. It is not a non-ship unit as listed in the appropriate annex. It is apparently not a factor, as only a RDU/RDF is so described. So a PT is a ship?
ANSWER: Obviously it is a non-ship unit not yet on the appropriate list (756.0)
==============================
Gary Carney:
A while back I had asked which supplement the Four Powers' War was included in, and at the time I was told (I don't recall by whom) it was Planetary Operations.
After having waited for a month for the store to order it in, and opening it up after purchase, it turns out not to be there... and naturally enough, since I had already opened it to check the booklet, I'm stuck with it.
(Which wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for the need not to be spending too much on ADB stuff until I get a new job sorted out.)
Which supplement is the 4PW actually in?
ANSWER: Fighter Ops, as answered by others.
====================================
Bill Stec:
Nick, have a question about Offensive fighter strikes and FCRs.
Hypothetical example: I have several carrier groups paired up with some FCRs, and the carriers are sending their fighters on offensive strikes in adjacent hex(s).
I understand that the OFS are considered to return to their carriers between each combat round to refuel/rearm (319.3).
My question is this: can FCRs in the same hex/battleforce as the Carriers take some of their fighters out of storage and refill the carriers after a round in which the fighters took casualties, thereby refilling them for the next combat round and allowing the next round to be at full strength again?
Example: 2 Carrier groups (6 ftrs each), send 12 fighters on a strike. The fighters take 3 casualties and return to the carriers. Can the FCR take 3 ftrs from storage and refill the carrier, allowing the fighters going out for the next round at full strength (12 ftrs).
Or is more of a situation where if you originally committed 12 ftrs that is all you ever get and can't replace losses to keep the strikes going at full strength?
I note that 526.315 allows FCRs located with a base to replace fighters lost when the base conducted an independent fighter squadron attack. But it's unclear whether this means the base can top off it's fighters in case the bsae will be attacked in an unresolved attack later this combat phase, or this means the FCR can top them off between rounds so their attacks can continue at full strength until they either win or all die.
ANSWER: I believe you can do this at the end of each round (526.31). The requirement is that the carrier and FCR be in the same hex at the end of any round that you transfer fighters, and this is true for your example. The only difference is the combat is actually happening in the adjacent hex.
================================
Gary Carney:
Does the Four Powers' War scenario give information on the correct factors for the earlier DNs which were involved in that conflict (such as the Lyran Royal Tiger, or the Klingon C6)?
Also, I didn't see the early DN in the Lyran SIT - has it (along with the other early DNs) yet to be introduced into Fed and Empire?
ANSWER: Ryan Opel answered: The early DN's were given for the four races as a special rule. Basicly it gave the stats and info and what counter can be used as a substitute.
The counter subs are H-LGE (Ignore the fast part), K-C7, Z-BCH, L-BC.
====================================
Bill Stec:
Nick, did SVC ever issue a clarification on this issue:
quoted:
--------------------
Scott Tenhoff:
Nick, just where is a PRD located?
On the planet or around the planet?
--------------------
ANSWER: Nope. I will send to Jeff and SVC.
======================
SSG Staley Aaron M.:
I'm having trouble with the YIS date of the B10S.
In SFB, the Rule for the ship says Y186.
The MSC in R5 says Y189.
G2 Says Y189.
What does the F&E rules say?
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong, FO SIT says Y179, but that is the earliest players may build them in F&E. In a nut shell, in SFB the MSC year is when a given ship was actually built; in F&E it is the date that it can be built.
============================
stuart (Stuuk):
Hi all. I am confused about how to conduct commando raids.
Can the raiding ship be escorted?
Can it be reacted to as with a standard raid / police ships?
When it chooses to make an attack what is the sequence? Do defenders fire before the 'G' attack.
The rule states that only fixed defebces fire - does that include the fighters assigned to them?
ANSWER: Cannot be escorted (commando raids are like normal raids, only one ship can raid a given location). Even if reacted to, only the defenses (including fighters) at the location fight the raider, so there is little point.
Also - special raids. A ship may react to the raid as normal, but does that ship then fight them, or does it just allow that ship to be part of an interception group?
I don't get it.. :|
ANSWER: Ships reactig to special (drone/PF/Fighter) raids can only take part in interception.
Oh, also - why does a SIDS step cost 18 directed damage?
If the value of the damage is 4.5, then surely directing it costs 9 ?
At 18 it makes starbases worth 216 damage to direct all the required 12 SIDS steps
At 9 each the total is 108 - or the value of the full base if you were to direct it as a counter - is there a correction to the rulebook?
ANSWER: It is correct as stated. A SIDS step is 9 points (with mauler), 18 when directing. The 4.5 is only used when the SIDS is self inflicted. Yes, overall this means going the SIDS route requires more damage overall then directing all at once, but sometimes you cannot do it all at once.
===========================
Trent Telenko:
Would you please also evaluate the possibility of between round resupply of Offensive Fighter Strikes via rule (205.76) by
1) Fighter Storage Depots (445.0),
ANSWER: Sure.
2) Federation 3rd Way escorts (502.94),
ANSWER: Sure.
3) Federation LTFs (526.262),
ANSWER: Sure.
4) Other fighter/PF carriers in the same hex as the CV launching the OFS, like
a. CV Auxiliaries (513.0),
b. Hybrid CV’s or
c. Monitors plus fighter/PF/SCS pallets (519.4).
assuming that the carrier launching the fighter/PF strike has those units in the same hex, or otherwise in range, for resupply.
ANSWER: Sure, as long as the units in question can otherwise legally transfer fighter factors between themselves.
==========================
Lawrence Bergen:
Situation: Two allied races are in a battle hex aganist a lone enemy. The Allied races force considerably out number the lone enemy forces.
After round(s) of combat where the defeated lone enemy retreats from the hex or is destroyed can one of the allied races retreat from the hex leaving the other in the conquered hex?
Does it matter that the Allied race (wanting to retreat) would be out of supply if it remained in the hex and would need to retreat in order to be in future supply?
From the standpoint of separate nations this does not seem like a partial retreat (302.723) outlined under those rules. The rules (302.761) do allow for allies to retreat to separate hexes but are silent on one retreating ally and one remaining in the hex they just won. Am I missing something? Is this something that can already be done under the current rules? It seems logical that they'd be able to do this and maybe this will be fleshed out in the future.
ANSWER: You have to either retreat your side or not retreat your side. If you retreat your side, then if it contains allied units, you can either retreat together or separately. These are the only options I see in the rules, you cannot retreat one ally and not the other.
============================
Chris LaRusso:
Can the Retreat priorities be simplified to be based on the decisions you could make?
i.e.,
1 Optionally, select a Neutral hex
2 Required, select an in-supply hex (full or partial grid) with no enemy units
3 Required, select an in-supply hex with enemy units equal or less than yours(Must Already be a battle hex with enemy ships and allied units)
4 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with no enemy units
5 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with enemy units equal or less than yours
6 Required, select an in-supply hex with enemy units greater than yours. (Must Already be a battle hex with enemy ships and allied units)
7 Required, select an out-of-supply hex with enemy units greater than yours
Note: (2,3,6) Partial grids may be ignored if you have a retreat to a main grid.
Note: (5,6,7) Fighting retreats only happen when you skip steps 1-4
I think this would separate out what your options are instead of going through the mechanics just to determine
ANSWER: Perhaps for the warbook? Any suggestions like this should go into that topic. This topic is not for rules changes or rules rewriting. The problem with rewriting is that one is never sure how many other rules assume the current version, you can easily have ripple effects that cause other problems down the road.
===============================
Trent Telenko:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Strategic Operations Question
Federation sectors C, D and E show only one old CL based CLV hull.
Is there a second CLV waiting to be activated per (525.314) or was the second one destroyed?
If a CLV is available for activation, can it be allocated to any theater or only the Federation "Main Effort?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong: Maelstrom has one CLV listed in sector D; the other CLV is missing from sector C and needs to be added to the AO portion of the scenario OOB.
I answered this differently above in my last post, but I will defer to Chuck "the scenario man" Strong on this one.
======================
Ryan Opel:
I've looked in the Master Errata and flipped through this section but I can't find this answer.
In F175 Gale Force (608) the Federation has built an additional Starbase in 2908.
This starbase is not mentioned in either F178 Maelstrom (675) or S181 Winds of Fire (617).
Was it destroyed sometime between F175 and F178 or was it missed when the updates where done?
ANSWER: As per Chuck Strong: I can say that I missed it in Maelstrom; please add it to the OOB. I would also say that it is missing from AO's WoF OOB and would also add it to the OOB.
=========================
Ryan:
In Gale Force (Y175) 608.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1305.
In Winds of Fire (Y181) 617.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
In Maelstrom (Y178) 675.B2 it states the Lyrans have built a BATS in 1307.
Reccommend that the Gale Force be changed for the Warbook to reflect the BATS being in 1307 since it's extrmely unlikey that the Kzinti could have destroyed the BATS in 1305 in Y175-8. Since 1307 is colocated with a Klingon BATS it better reflects a combined defensive strategy.
ANSWER: Chuck Strong: The location of the Lyran BATS in Gale Force is a typo; the correct location is 1307.
===========================
Trent Telenko: From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.69)
Do the Federation minor ship yards really send *all* their production to Sector E (AKA the Romulan Front)?
ANSWER: From Chuck Strong: The number of MSYs are correct but the sector assignments are typos; the rule should state:
Federation
MSY - NCL: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
MSY - DW: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
MSY - FF: Three Off-Map-C/D/E (one each sector)
=================================
STRONG: From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.63) Police Assignments: rule should show 12C,2F,4V Kzinti police ships called-up.
=================================
Quote: From Special Operations Scenario rule (675.B2) LYRANS :
Shouldn't there be a SAP in the Lyran at start forces?
Rule (527.47) has the Lyrans getting one on the previous turn to scenario start.
Scenario Rule (674.463) only refers to free Auxiliary production, not what has been already produced.
ANSWER: From Chuck Strong: Add one SAP with PFs to the Lyran OOB for sector B.
==============================
Quote: From Strategic Operations Rule (675.465)
This rule says all "Unique units" production must be designated for the Main effort.
Does this mean if the Federation loses a CVF or CLD on the Romulan Front (Sector E), their "Unique Unit" replacements can only be allocated to Sector C?
This language is also used in Fighter Operations Rule (608.465).
ANSWER: From Chuck Strong:The rule speaks to NEW unit production not replacements -- suggested rule addition:
(608.467) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
(617.467) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
(675.466) Limited production units assigned to a sector may be REPLACED if lost.
===============================
Ryan Opel:
I actually have another one. The Setup order list Fed Sector F GHQ setting up last. Since there is not Fed Sector F GHQ and Fed Sector D isn't listed I assume that it should read sector D GHQ as having final setup.
ANSWER: From Chuck Strong:
(675.14) SET UP last line should read: Fed Sector D GHQ Forces. STRONG 22 Mar 2007
(617.14) SET UP last line should read: Fed Sector D GHQ Forces. STRONG 22 Mar 2007
===========================
Lawrence Bergen:
A force has the option to retreat into 3 hexes. on hex is a NZ hex (not future belligerent NZ). The other two are in his own territory. Since the force contains POLs is that force required to retreat within his own territory? Can he choose the NZ? Would the POLs disappear if he chooses the NZ?
ANSWER: NZ hexes on the border of an active race are not neutral territory for (302.731), So step 1 does not apply. If you retreat out of your own territory, the police ships are lost (destroyed or go back to police duty, same thing).
============================
Ryan Opel: Warbook Scenario Issues
Gale Force in F175 has the Romulans with a new Starbase at 4613.
Maelstrom in F178 has the Romulans with a new Sector Base at 4613.
Winds of Fire in S181 has the Romulans with a new Starbase at 4613.
Recommend that in the Warbook the Gale Force SB be downgraded to a BATS (avail in basic book that the scenario is in) or a STB.
ANSWER: from Chuck Strong:
Since the GF scenario was part of FO (and CvW before that) Sector Bases were not part of the F&E universe at the time.
Suggested Warbook solution, add note:
(608.F1) Note: If playing Gale Force with SO then downgrade the Starbase at 4613 to a Sector Base and add 18EPs to the Romulan at-start economy to account for the downgrade.
====================
Ryan Opel:
In Hurricane it has the Klingons holding province 2813 and 2815 with all the bases in those provinces have been destroyed.
In the History of the General War http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/general_war.htm
"The Day of the Eagle (4 January Y173) dawned, and the Romulan Fleet drove across the Federation border, smashing two starbases (those of the 6th and 7th Fleets) and eight battle stations of the "paper tiger" of the 6th Fleet..."
When you look at Gale Force these 8 BATS as mentioned in the history appear to be BATS 2816, 3016, 3212, 3414, 3613, 3812, 3810 and 3212.
I'd recommend giving the Feds back prov 2813 and 2815 as well as the bases present in the provinces.
ANSWER: From Chuck Strong:
I have been updating the original 1986 Hurricane scenario for the Warbook and (603.42) specifically states that provinces 2813 and 2815 were captured by the Klingons (this means that the Klingons had to destroy the SB and 2xBATS in those provinces to do so).
My take on this for the update of Hurricane is to use this specific 1986 rule to override the general 1995 history and recommend that we correct the history to state "smashing many of the border and interior bases..."
(Chalk it up as a historical glitch and a misread of the tapes by the intel analysts...)
==============================
Dave Whiteside:
A CC with a Legendary Commodore is with 2 other ships. They do not have a valid supply path to a supply point and are thus out of supply. However, with the LC, they are considered 'in supply'.
If on the first round of combat, the CC is directed on and destroyed, killing the LC, are the other two ships in supply for the 2nd round of combat(or pursuit round for that matter)?
Supply, for combat, is determined at the beginning of the combat phase, but I was wondering whether this special rule has a special circumstance that would put those remainging ships OOS.
Thanks
ANSWER: This did not make it to publication yet, but I would say the supply lasts until the next supply check. If the commodore is lost in combat, the other two ships would be out of supply again at the retrograde step.
==============================
Trent Telenko:
Some HDW rules questions for your consideration:
The Gorns (706.3) and Lyrans (711.3) are limited to the production of one FCR per year. Does Modular Heavy Destroyer rule (525.23R) mean they get one more FCR equivalent HDW-FOP per turn in addition to that one FCR per year?
ANSWER: Rule (525.23R) specifically says you can build one FOP in addition to your normal FCR, and can build another FOP in place of the regular FCR, so yes.
The Gorns and Lyrans are limited to the production of one Heavy Fighter CV per year (see 530.223) in AO until PF deployment. Does (525.23H) in AO mean they can produce one more heavy fighter armed HDW-HOG per turn in addition to that limit?
ANSWER: It is in addition to the normal heavy carrier production.
How does (525.23H) in AO mean the Federation may make one more A-20 carrier per turn in addition to the one per year/turn limits of (532.223) FO?
ANSWER: It means you can build one HOG in addition to any other normal carrier builds on a given turn.
Does (532.222) in FO [which references (530.222)] mean that a Federation F18 armed HDW-COG can be converted to an A20 armed HDW-HOG per (530.222)?
ANSWER: You cannot convert COGs to HOGs. You don't convert a HDW directly from carrier to heavy carrier mode, you build a COG and a HOG, and you can switch them out with the HDW modularity rules. As HDWs they work differently from normal conversions.
===========================
By Bill Sheely (Bsheely) on Friday, April 13, 2007 - 02:08 pm: Edit
Hi Nick,
I had a question on 542.16 in Strategic Operations.
It states that further production of obsolete types of survey ships is prohibited for the Federation CLS and Hydran SR.
Is the word 'production' here used in the strict sense of 431.0/432.0 (Production Rates, Production Costs). Meaning you can't build a new SR type hull, but that conversions (433.0) are OK?
So one can't sub in a SR on the production schedule.
But one can convert an existing DD hull into a SR (or any of it's sub types).
Thanks in advance for your time.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:12 pm: Edit
Sorry for the basic question...
What is the LTF newly mentioned in the player campaign "General War 2006?"
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:20 pm: Edit
It's a super Fed repair yard. Logistical Task Force. From Advanced Operations. It's moblie, can fix X-ships, only two allowed.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 04:25 am: Edit
And it takes SIDS. Really obnoxious.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:35 am: Edit |
May - June Archive
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:57 am: Edit
Bill Sheely:
I had a question on 542.16 in Strategic Operations.
It states that further production of obsolete types of survey ships is prohibited for the Federation CLS and Hydran SR.
Is the word 'production' here used in the strict sense of 431.0/432.0 (Production Rates, Production Costs). Meaning you can't build a new SR type hull, but that conversions (433.0) are OK?
So one can't sub in a SR on the production schedule.
But one can convert an existing DD hull into a SR (or any of it's sub types).
ANSWER: I belive production in this case is referring more to the step 2B in the sequence of play that includes new production, subs, and conversions. Those survey types can no longer be produced by any means, and would be replaced with newer types, unless you and your opponents agree to allow more production.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 11:13 am: Edit
At this point sending all Q&A to SVC and all Appeals to SVC and Jeff Laikind and Chuck Strong.
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 03:52 pm: Edit
I recently puchased a copy of F&E (revision 4), and I've noticed several references to "Carrier War", "Special Operations", and "Marine Assault". I'm not seeing these products on the shopping cart though.
Should these references be changed to something else [appears to be "Fighter Operations" (Carrier War) and "Combined Operations" (Special Operations and Marine Assault)]?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 04:15 pm: Edit
Right:
Carrier War is now Fighter Ops
Special Ops/Marine Assault are now Combined Ops
When the warbook gets worked on I'm sure the references will be updated.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 11:19 am: Edit
Nick,
Pursuit question for you.
After a lengthy capital assault, the Hydrans are retreating with many crippled CVA groups as follows. Cripples are in paranthesis:
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E),AH
(ID),(HDW-E),NEC,AH
(ID),(NEC),NEC,DWE
LP,(NEC),(NEC),DE,DWE
Frankly, we are at a total loss on how to make a line out of this. There are 12 crippled ships and 10 healthy ones. The final battle force can have no more than 3 healthy ships, right? Are there limitations on which ones? What about the other healthy ships that are being dragged there by the cripples they're escorting? Their compot is ignored, right? In general, help! Thanks.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 11:54 am: Edit
Paul, I ran into this problem after my first assault on Remus in The Long, Long War and asked an identical question. The answer then was that you must detach sufficient uncrippled ships that not more than three remain. You may, however, consolidate your crippled and uncrippled group members, so that in your example the LP could gather up a large group of uncrippled escorts and its two crippled NECs could add themselves into groups with crippled carriers.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Ok I am intrigued about the results from last night.
By Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:17 pm: Edit
so, does that mean he is forced to detach escorts, exposing his carriers to damage? It seems like that's pretty unfair, and might lead to the destruction of a CVA.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit
The rules covering this situation are (307.3), (308.122) and (515.15).
Rule (307.3) governs meeting command requirements in pursuit. In a nutshell, if there are more crippled ships than command slots, only three ships in the battle force may be uncrippled and anything over the command limits does not add to the combat potential of the force.
Rule (308.122) states in part:
“Carrier groups can be broken down in Carrier War (515.15), allowing crippled escorts to be left behind. And this must be done if it is the only way to meet the requirements of (307.3). Two carrier groups could exchange escorts of the same type/class in order to concentrate the cripples (or non-crippled) in a single group. (This could produce an uncrippled group able to pursue, and could produce an uncrippled carrier with some or all of its escorts crippled.) If escort exchanges do not meet the requirements of (307.3), the carrier group must be broken up.”
The NEC, DE and HDW-E are all heavy escorts and qualify as “of the same type/class” per the rule. So the two crippled NECs in the LP group can be traded for uncrippled NECs in other groups yielding this group array:
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E),AH
(ID),(HDW-E),(NEC),AH
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
LP,NEC,NEC,DE,DWE
The LP group can now exit the pursuit force leaving these ships:
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E),AH
(ID),(HDW-E),(NEC),AH
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
None of the light escorts are crippled and there are five escorts with room for only three per (307.3)
Rule (515.15) states in part:
“Escorts can be transferred between into or out of carrier groups at he start and end of the Combat Step.””
and
“Escorts can be removed from carrier groups when the force is retreating.”
Based on this, the FCR and AH from one ID group can be dropped from that ID group to meet those requirements yielding this array for pursuit.
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),(NEC),(HDW-E)
(ID),(HDW-E),(NEC),AH
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
This array now has two DWE and one AH meeting the requirements of (307.3).
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:35 pm: Edit
>It seems like that's pretty unfair, and might
>lead to the destruction of a CVA.
The way to beat that is to remember to voluntarily cripple some light escorts to trade for uncrippled ones.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 06:40 pm: Edit
>It seems like that's pretty unfair, and might lead to the destruction of a CVA.
Well, it's all about choices during damage allocation (for the most part).
and the strategic decision of when to withdraw.
Stay too long, and you face serious consquences.
(in my best Yoda voice)...
that is the way of things.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 06:48 am: Edit
I'd still swap the AH for the other DWE beefing up that third line even if only by a few. Of course his target is going to be the smallest group with no Lt. escort so I might even swap the HDWE for an NEC (same combat factors) if for nothing but to preserve the modular ships.
(I'll go back to lurking now here in Q&A, sorry Nick)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 06:17 pm: Edit
>..so I might even swap the HDWE for an NEC
>(same combat factors) if for nothing but to
>preserve the modular ships.
The issue is concentrating crippled or uncrippled escorts under rule (308.122). The trades between groups under that rule require the trade concentrate either type.
Look at your options with this:
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
(ID), FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E), AH
(ID), (HDW-E), NEC, AH
(ID), (NEC), NEC, DWE
LP, (NEC), (NEC), DE, DWE
If, say, you use Rule (515.15) first to drop intact escorts from these groups, you have nothing to trade under (308.122) as the groups that drop them are now "pure cripple."
The only way to have the HDW-E’s eligible for rule (308.122) trade is if damage was allocated to NECs instead of HDW-E's during combat, with the resulting array looking like this:
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
(ID), FCR, (NEC), HDW-E, AH
(ID), HDW-E, (NEC), AH
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
LP, (NEC), (NEC), DE, DWE
Then you could do this…
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
(ID), FCR, (NEC), (NEC), AH
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), AH
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
LP, HDW-E, HDW-E, DE, DWE
...with the modular escorts getting away.
Then, repeating the use of rule (515.15) in dropping of the FCR and AH from the previous example, we would have this force left behind as mauler bait.
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
(ID), (NEC), (NEC)
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), AH
(ID), (NEC), (NEC), DWE
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:03 am: Edit
Can someone give me a quick example of how (505.2) Survey Ship Exploration works? Specifically the "Each time the total reaches a designated step, deduct that step and add one province to the off-map area." part?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 05:00 pm: Edit
Frank:
for say, when the step is 10 points per new province:
Roll 4 Total 4
Roll 3 Total 7
Roll 1 Total 8
Roll 5 Total 13 - 10 = 3 (subtract 10 and get another province)
Now if that province was enough to bump you to a bigger step size, say 20 (going from memory here, size may be wrong, but the concept is the same):
Roll 4 Total 7 (4 plus the 3 left over from before)
Roll 5 Total 12 (if step size was still 10 you would subtract 10 here and get a province, with a bigger step keep going)
Roll 4 Total 16
Roll 6 Total 22 - 20 = 2 (subtract the bigger step size and get another province)
Roll 5 Total 7
Roll 2 Total 9 and so on...
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 05:01 pm: Edit
I will do an example of the above escort question when I get a chance with the rulebook, but the answers given above are correct, you will have to swap and/or drop escorts in order to meet the requirements of the pursuit rules.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 05:20 pm: Edit
Nick
For the Hydran PG shipyard, does it produce PGs regardless of whether the Hydrans are at war, or only after they get into a war? In the Cloudburst scenario it is producing PGs while at peace and they have not been attacked, is this the default for "Free Campaigns"? The specific rule, 525.318 AO page 25, doesn't really put any other limitations on it.
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:13 pm: Edit
Nick,
Thanks. It makes sense now.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 05:40 am: Edit
Nick,
Have a question. Hypothetical Kzin homeworld. Built 4 more PDU for it(total 12), and 8 PGB. Klingons come in with a SAF and score say, 3 PDU destroyed with the SAF. (520.6) says all the PDU are grouped as one target. So who decides which units are destroyed? The attacker may prefer the PDU to die, leaving the PGBs, whereas the defender may prefer the PGB to die, leaving the PDUs intact.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:09 pm: Edit
Could the fighters of a destroyed PDU find a new home on a PGB?
If a PDU is directed on, then the fighters still survive or are taken as minus points if they cannot find an eligible home...correct?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:52 pm: Edit
The PGB lacks the hangers to operate fighters; that is the main difference in price.
If you have no fighter capacity, you can't land fighters.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:17 am: Edit
Fighter can land on a planet regardless if there is a base there or not. Shortly after a casual base can be set up but it is most likely that the supplies to service the fighters were destroyed with the PDU. Of course, those don't take long to build back up.
My guess would be that the fighters would remain at the planet of their original PDU and you would then build a new PDU the next turn.
I'm not sure how the fighters survive though.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:30 am: Edit
Loren,
Do you have rules reference? In the past, homeless fighters go boom.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:14 am: Edit
Nah, no rule needed for that. The fighters can survive by landing, though the landing might better be referred to as 'crash landing', and since it'd be a whole turn before a base could be built, salvaging the downed fighter is rule-functionally no different that building a whole new set of fighters for the newly placed PDU.
Fighters don't go 'boom' when their base goes down in flames - they just can't be used until a new base is set up to operate from. They can, however, offer air conditioned seating to view the conquest of your homeworld.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:27 am: Edit
PGB's cannot support or Hold PDU fighters.
Loren may be correct in an SFB sense, but not in an F&E sense.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 01:35 am: Edit
Yeah, I think SFB too much.
I have no F&E rule ref.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 03:06 am: Edit
Thanks, Jimi. I was pretty sure that was the case.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 07:43 am: Edit
So...'BOOM' it is.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 04:59 pm: Edit
Right, the fighters would be homeless and would be destroyed. PGBs were originally built without fighter facilities and cannot house fighters without paying the upgrade cost, which you can do on your next turn. The fighters would die during the combat step however.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Having said that, wouldnt the attacking player choose the target rather that defending? Would the SAF attack be considered a directed attack in that instance? (not as far as damage, but just selection of target(s))
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:13 pm: Edit
Nick,
per current rules perhaps that is the effect but that doesn't bear out on the SFB side of things. The fighters, should they survive all combat somwhow, can just land on the base-less planet and wait until something happens.
It would further seem to me that you would have to destroy the fighters during the combat round else you could not take the planet/system.
One combat is over the fighters would become non-operational until a new PDU was set up. So the fighters would either have to be directly destroyed by the enemy or the next fighter PDU should cost less. That's what seems logical to me but I know that the rules don't work that way.
That is I accept your ruling just think that F&E isn't quite getting it right in this instance. All in all it's not that big of a deal though.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:13 pm: Edit
"No one knew the answer difinatively"
Loren,
Yes we do. Not everyone liked the answer:
(501.7) Damage
For combat purposes, fighters and carrier are independent. Directed Damage against thecarrier need not include the fighters; see (302.53). If the carrier is destroyed or crippled andthe fighters cannot be transferred by (501.6), they are given up immediately at that point in the Combat Round; see (308.23)
PGB do not have fighter capacity, hence they cannot receive fighers.
"per current rules perhaps that is the effect but that doesn't bear out on the SFB side of things"
We aren't playing SFB.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:16 pm: Edit
"It would further seem to me that you would have to destroy the fighters during the combat round else you could not take the planet/system. "
See above. They are independent. They are capable of transferring (in theory), and must have a home (that can operate fighters) to survive
"One combat is over the fighters would become non-operational until a new PDU was set up. So the fighters would either have to be directly destroyed by the enemy or the next fighter PDU should cost less."
Without a proper base, there is no way to service the fighters, as the supply network and supporting equipment is destroyed. The fighters fall into disrepair, and are unsalvageable.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:22 pm: Edit
No Joe, we are playing SFU. You've been gone a while and probably didn't see the many discussions of how the two games are related and tied.
When I write a story for the SFU I MUST follow the rules of both SFB and F&E (and now PD but that's not very restrictive). I must follow F&E's OOB's and procedures when writing about stratigic level situations.
MANY rules in F&E have ties to SFB and there are rules in F&E that are in SFB (command points is one of the BIG ones).
F&E purists often complain how SFB messes with thier game and just as many complain the other way around.
The truth is that the two are better off with each other. Each bennefits greatly from the other. So when I hear "We aren't playing SFB" it really means very little to me.
Just so you know I do have a complete understanding of the difference in strategic and tactical game scales.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:25 pm: Edit
"You've been gone a while and probably didn't see the many discussions of how the two games are related and tied. "
I was in tons of conversations on the subject before you ever got here.
I know the relationship. I also know that there are some things that don't relate directly between the two.
I refer you to F&E2K rev 4, og 90, 2nd column 2nd paragraph.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:28 pm: Edit
"The truth is that the two are better off with each other. Each bennefits greatly from the other. So when I hear "We aren't playing SFB" it really means very little to me. "
But it should. If you want to propose a CHANGE to the rules of F&E to make it more compatible with SFB, by all means, please do so. I might even support you.
But you asked a RULES question, and the F&E rules are what they are. You are using SFB rationalizations to argue established F&E rules. It doesn't work.
If we were talking about a NEW rule, then your argument would be perfectly valid about how the rule SHOULD be.
But that is a differnt conversation.
You'll note that I also provided an explanation that includes an SFU perspective. You are still wrong.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:35 pm: Edit
Joe S. (re, second post)
I realize the rules say they are independant. In SFB if a carrier is destroyed the fighters do not have the range to make it back to a base and are generally considered to be lost (unless there is some other place for them). This is an example of an F&E rule that has its roots in SFB.
But also in SFB fighters from a PDU could lose their PDU but the planet remains and you do not need a PDU to support the fighters like a ship carrier. THe planet remains and if not occupied it is a perfectly suitable place to land. Like I said though, they would become inactive because there is nothing to load on them or to repair them with. Do you seriously think that a 23rd centry shuttle fighter just sitting on the ground will fall into unsalvagable disrepair in six months? Really?
Look, I accept the rules as they are. It's easier and F&E is complex enough. There are possabilities that could explain the destruction fo the fighters. Really nasty planet, for instance. But not all PDU's are going to be one really nasty planets. But to make a rule that would say this PDU is on a nice planet and this one isn't would be just dumb. So the rules stay the same.
Maybe when the fighters are discovered they are picked up and put into the pool of free fighter replacements and some smart politition pockets the cash (or pirates pick them up!).
I just can't accept that they go "Boom". More like sucked into the background?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:38 pm: Edit
"Do you seriously think that a 23rd centry shuttle fighter just sitting on the ground will fall into unsalvagable disrepair in six months? Really? "
Actually, yes.
Try it with an AH-64 Apache. The same might not be true of an AH-1 cobra
More complex means more fragile and prone to problems, and more maintanence needed.
An Apache is a tinker toy next to a 23rd century fighter. More advanced doesn't always equate to "less maintenance"
We aren't talking Vorlon fighters
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:42 pm: Edit
Ah, you were the FEAR guy.
Well, I knew you were big in F&E Joe and that does change my perspective a bit. I do think my last post explains my possition a bit. I was not really trying to make any change. Just chatting really.
On shuttle disrepair we'll just have to disagree then. Space craft have to be held to MUCH higher standards than 21st century craft do. If you'll check PD write-ups on shuttles you find that civilian shuttles have to be in constant operation for months in space with no external service. I just don't see fighters falling apart that easy. They have to withstand increadible stress's in combat so just hanging about on the ground isn't going to do anything but weather the paint.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:44 pm: Edit
Loren:
The representation in F&E is probably more equivalent to something in SFB along the lines of:
The surviviing fighters, without proper bases, continue such ad-hoc combat operations as they can, but rapidly fall into disrepair and are lost due to lack of adequate support and maintenance facilities.
Remember that the homeless fighters from a dirdam killed base / PDU / carrier still soak up damage points, and generate carryover if necessary. Also remember that, with the probable exception of small scale combat, an F&E battle is not a single F&E scenario: It might be equivalent to an SFB campaign with a dozen or more scenarios, especially for an assault on a well defended fixed position.
Cheers,
Jason
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:51 pm: Edit
Jason: Right. In that case they are destroyed during the combat phase. That's fine with me. It was the issue of fighters surviving the combat phase. I'm not sure how that would ever happen though. Fighters tend to die fairly early (in SFB too if the enemy is competent.)
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 08:53 pm: Edit
Loren,
The one thing you are missing here is that the 2 (or 1 in the case of PDUs) EP per fighter FACTOR is not for one set of fighters. Your replacements are unlimited. The cost of one sqn of fighters, amortized is FAR less than that 1 EP. It also covers operations of the fighters, their fuel, ordinance, personnel, etc.
So even if you want to picture those fighters landing, and being reused later, that's nice, but the value of that sqn in EP terms is likely 0.00001
enjoy.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:23 pm: Edit
Geez....I just wanna know how many fighters I'd have left.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 10:29 pm: Edit
Loren/Joe,
Aren't fighters in excess of capacity (in F&E) lost and counted as minus points in the next round of combat? If these minus points are accumulated during the last round of combat then they are lost.
In SFB the impact of losses are defined in victory conditions.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:01 pm: Edit
"Aren't fighters in excess of capacity (in F&E) lost and counted as minus points in the next round of combat? If these minus points are accumulated during the last round of combat then they are lost.
"
Yup. More precisely, they would be used to resolve any remaining damage, and if there was not enough damage remaining to account for the fighters, the excess would count as minus points.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:06 pm: Edit
Joe:
"So even if you want to picture those fighters landing, and being reused later, that's nice, but the value of that sqn in EP terms is likely 0.00001"
Did you read the last part of my 8:35pm post? I'm generally agreeing that the rules handle the situation.
We are starting to talk in circles, I think.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:23 pm: Edit
Loren,
We were posting a lot of stuff at the same time.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:31 pm: Edit
Concur with both...
1. F&E rules must be followed as written...
2. Some F&E rules don't seem to follow the other background material in the SFU.
May I suggest we move on? -- thank you gentlemen.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:34 am: Edit
Nick,
I think this is a new one for you:
Capital assault; there are cripples which are, per (511.52) and (511.573), assigned as static defenses at the planet with the most PDU in a system (I'm going to assume the capital planet). Then rapid combat repair (PO 425.3) takes place between combat rounds, and one or more of those cripples is repaired.
Question 1: Is my understanding that those ships are still static defenders (at least until such time as a new force split is required) correct?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, then am I also correct that if a defending mobile ship is crippled it will be thereafter be a static defender (511.53) even if rapid combat repair is used on it in the round that it was crippled (assuming that no subsequent approach battle forces a new split)?
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 09:18 am: Edit
So, back to the original question. Can the attacker choose whether PGBs or PDUs blow up?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 10:46 am: Edit
Damon,
The rulebook stands mute on the subject.
I just did a thorough reading. (302.5) (508.1) (441.1)
That said, precendence of (302.53) and (508.123) suggests that the attacker can.
Of course, only Nick (and untimately SVC) can gives us a definitely answer in this case.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:07 pm: Edit
Damon, in my group the attacker does choose what he's killing (PDU's or PGB's). I don't know if that is a fudge or if that is a rule (don't have my rule books with me)
Jimi
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 02:23 pm: Edit
it's in the rules,
________________________________________
Quote:
(441.14) Limits: PGBs count against the limits for PDUs added to planets and for the total number of defense units (433.24) deployed on a planet. PGBs are destroyed by the same method (and for the same number of points) as PDUs. If both PDUs and PGBs are present on a given planet, then the attacker selects which to destroy by directed damage and SAFs, while the planet defender selects those voluntarily given up to resolve damage.
________________________________________
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit
I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks Tim!!!
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 05:20 pm: Edit
I missed it also. I know how we missed it; there's too many rules.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 05:44 pm: Edit
Tim is right of course, the attacker picks which ground bases get hit with the damage.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 05:47 pm: Edit
Dave Butler:
Capital assault; there are cripples which are, per (511.52) and (511.573), assigned as static defenses at the planet with the most PDU in a system (I'm going to assume the capital planet). Then rapid combat repair (PO 425.3) takes place between combat rounds, and one or more of those cripples is repaired.
Question 1: Is my understanding that those ships are still static defenders (at least until such time as a new force split is required) correct?
ANSWER: Right, even if repaired in the combat step, the composition of the static/mobile forces doesn't change until the existing rules say they do.
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, then am I also correct that if a defending mobile ship is crippled it will be thereafter be a static defender (511.53) even if rapid combat repair is used on it in the round that it was crippled (assuming that no subsequent approach battle forces a new split)?
ANSWER: Sounds correct. Crippling it drops it into the static forces (existing rules), it is then available to be repaired if you choose using the rapid combat repair rule.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 05:48 pm: Edit
Can we please keep the discussion here to a minimum? You can post questions and appeals, but that is all that should really be here. All the extra stuff makes finding the questions harder.
Thanks,
Nick
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 06:39 am: Edit
Nick
Can you get my PG question from 5/8/07 5:20 PM.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:55 pm: Edit
Michael Lui:
For the Hydran PG shipyard, does it produce PGs regardless of whether the Hydrans are at war, or only after they get into a war? In the Cloudburst scenario it is producing PGs while at peace and they have not been attacked, is this the default for "Free Campaigns"? The specific rule, 525.318 AO page 25, doesn't really put any other limitations on it.
ANSWER: Does not seem to have a wartime requirement, so sure.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:56 pm: Edit
Sorry for the delay on that one. If there are any more outstanding questions, let me know as I think I am caught up.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 06:50 am: Edit
Rob and I are still awaiting the question about ships retreating into partial supply (F ships and minorities).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 09:33 pm: Edit
Todd, that is one of the rulings going into Cap Log 35.
The ruling is that if the potential retreat hex does not supply the entire force, then it does not count as a supplied hex for the retreat priorities.
So a retreating force composed of fast/x-ships AND regular ships would consider a potential retreat hex that had a 7 hex supply path as an unsupplied retreat hex for the retreat priorities.
This is a change from my original ruling.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 02:05 am: Edit
This should be reconsidered before publication. If this ruling stands, then every large fleet should operate with a single allied frigate that is nowhere near its own supply grid, thus allowing the large fleet to retreat in any desired direction. The allied frigate will be at half speed, certainly, but could easily arrive at major battle hexes along with auxiliary carriers, troop ships, and SAFs that will move in from a strategic movement node three hexes or less away, where they arrived during the previous turn. And unlike the SAF, the allied frigate can avoid ever being in the battle force.
At the least, this ruling should be modified to disallow fighting retreats when retreating so that some ships are unsupplied that could be supplied if a different retreat route were chosen. I don't think this modification will suffice, but it would make the ruling less open to abuse.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:51 am: Edit
Or at least say that you may only count hexes as being able to be counted as supplied if at least half of the force can be supplied from that hex.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 09:14 am: Edit
Nick, is there a way to simplify retreat rules? Now, they seem too horribly complex and open to multiple interpretations? I suggest all options be considered, even some option removals, so the retreat rules could be done in 4-5 sentences.
Not trying to get a discussion going here, but simply asking if this is possible.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 11:13 am: Edit
Todd, that doesn't work at all. Read (302.76). If you have a big fleet of Klingon ships on the Fed border, and one Lyran frigate, then you have a choice.
Use unified retreat (klingon priorities since the Lyran FF was certainly not the last flagship) or use allied retreat (separate Lyran and Klingon priorities).
So with unified retreat you only check supply for the Klingon ships the Lyran FF has NO EFFECT. It is forced to retreat to an out of supply hex while the klingons go toward their own supply grid.
With allied retreat, the Klingons still have the same requirements, and the Lyran FF can retreat in any direction.
Not possible to abuse in the way you are thinking.
In any case, cap log should be on the presses now, so too late to change for printing.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 11:14 am: Edit
Damon, there is a rules change proposal topic, but I think the retreat rules (while tricky in some situations), work quite well.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:20 pm: Edit
Nick, I can't read the text of the newly written rule. It seems in your example that the Lyran FF is part of the Coalition force under discussion so that I don't see how it would not count as part of that force. Perhaps you could post the text?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:44 pm: Edit
Todd, the ruling in question has nothing whatsoever to do with allied forces such as klingon fleet plus one lyran FF.
That force retreating is still handled by the existing allied retreat rule. When it retreats under existing rules you use the klingon retreat priorities, the lyran simply follows along, and the lyran's supply status in the various potential retreat hexes has NO EFFECT. That is how the existing rules always worked.
The new ruling does not change this preexisting rule at all. So adding one Lyran FF to a klingon fleet will not (and never did) change the klingons retreat rules. The new ruling only handles cases when the force whose priorities are being checked has fast and regular ships (by definition of the same race), something the existing rules don't handle.
I don't have the final wording, not until I get cap log 35.
Look at it this way, the coalition force has 25 ships and 2 fast ships and 2 X-ships and one Lyran FF.
It finishes a battle and declares retreat.
Since there are both lyran and klingon ships, you must decide to either retreat together or separately.
=======================
If you retreat separately:
The Lyran FF runs through the retreat priorities on its own, all hexes are out of supply, so it can retreat to any hex otherwise allowed (where it is not outnumbered by enemy forces.
The Klingons can retreat to any hex that has a supply path of 6 hexes or less. Even though some ships can have a supply path of 7 hexes, those hexes are disallowed as the entire KLINGON FORCE is not in supply there. (THIS IS THE NEW RULING, before it was unclear how to handle this step).
Note the Lyran FF had no effect on the klingon's retreat.
=======================
=======================
If you retreat together:
You use the priorities of the last flagship (which pretty much had to have been klingon).
The Klingons can retreat to any hex that has a supply path of 6 hexes or less. Even though some ships can have a supply path of 7 hexes, those hexes are disallowed as the entire KLINGON FORCE is not in supply there. (THIS IS THE NEW RULING, before it was unclear how to handle this step).
Note the Lyran FF had no effect on the klingon's retreat.
=======================
The abuse you are stating cannot happen. A single allied frigate cannot change a larger force's retreat due to this ruling. The ruling only applies when you are checking ONE RACE's priorities involving fast and regular ships. (I.e. ships with different supply path lengths).
You never check two different race's supply priorities except when doing separate retreats. And in that case the two races don't influence each other's retreats.
When doing a combined retreat you only check ONE RACE's supply priorities, so the other race has no effect.
The ruling just made has NO RELATION to allied forces in any case, it has to do with checking the retreat priorities when ships of ONE RACE have different supply path lengths.
The two concepts do not interact in the way you state above, the Lyran FF will not invoke the ruling and allow the klingons greater retreat options, the Lyran FF is already taken out of the calculations by existing allied retreat rules BEFORE the new ruling kicks in.
Does that make sense?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:46 pm: Edit
Note, this is another reason why X-squadrons came about, they only get the greater supply range during retreats when not paired with regular ships.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 01:23 pm: Edit
I sent Nick the rulings file a minute ago.
The on in question is this:
Q: I have a fleet that I need to retreat, and those troublesome retreat priorities are driving me crazy when they interact with more recent rules. My fleet includes mostly normal ships, but it also has a Fast Ship and two X-ships, which can use a seven-hex supply chain. So my question is, if there is a candidate retreat hex that is seven hexes from a supply source, can I (or must I) count it as a “hex in supply” for retreat purposes?
Ruling: Not unless the entire retreating force is composed of such ships. The whole force must retreat together, and if some of the ships would be out of supply and others not, then the hex is not “in supply” for “the entire retreating force” and is treated as “a hex out of supply” for purposes of the retreat priorities.
Now, this does not mention the allied thing, but that is a specific rule and would subdivide this one. If you have Klingons and Lyrans, and decide to retreat them separately, then each national force would be treated as above.
The above simple says that the fast/X ships do not change the retreat priority rules for the entire force. They go where the non-X/non-fast ships go unless the entire force is composed for X/Fast ships.
And in answer to Todd, the retreat rules are already as simple as they can be made. Retreat is a complex situation as there are factors of supply, geography, and enemy forces which must all be considered. The only simpler rule is "retreat anywhere you want" which would bring total chaos to the game system and make it unplayable.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 03:59 pm: Edit
Actually, Todd is correct. Unless you put a rule in that joint fleets must retreat seperately, then a lone Lyran FF can allow a Klingon fleet to retreat almost anywhere it wants. Here's how:
Fleet composition is any positive number of Klingon F- and X-ships, no Klingon ships that are not F- or X-ships, and any positive number of non-Klingon non-F-, non-X-ships that is not more than the number of Klingon ships (and this number should be small, because you don't want the non-Klingon ships to be in a battle force).
Fleet location is anywhere that the non-Klingon units are out of supply, and where one hex of movement can not put them into supply. Assume that the Klingon units either are in supply, or would be if they retreated.
Now, during retreat, we choose to not use the seperate retreat option in (302.761). We then run through the priorities: we choose to not intern the fleet in Step 1; we eliminate anyplace we'd be outnumbered in Step 2; in Step 3, all the surrounding hexes are out of supply (by the ruling, any hex where even one ship of the retreating force would be out of supply is not "in supply" for retreat, and we've got unsupplied non-Klingon units in the force), so we simply ignore Step 3; Step 4 can then be ignored or not, depending on how much we want a fighting retreat.
So the Klingons can now go anywhere they're not outnumbered (Step 2 still applies).
The ruling is actually backwards. If it were, essentially, "any hex where any ship of the retreating force would be in supply is 'in supply' for retreat", then F- and X-ships would be forced to retreat into supply, instead of the "normal" ships allowing their betters to go wherever they wanted. (I'd want to think more about my precise wording, but it's close.)
(Additional potential problem with the current ruling: Klingon-only force containing X-ships and normal ships fights 8 hexes from supply, then retreats. Under the current ruling, they can retreat anywhere not excluded by Step 2, even though the X-ships, if they were alone, would have been forced to retreat into supply. So the normal ships aren't a maneuver liability at all; they're actually a benefit.)
By Ken Watanabe (Watank) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:01 pm: Edit
Nick,
can we bump the (525.318) Hydran Old Colonies PG question up the line for intent/clarification regarding free campaigns? It doesn't make any sense to me that the Guilds would provide free ships while at peacetime, and I see the Cloudburst rule as applicable in its own case since that scenario had a shipbuilding moratorium in its back story.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:09 pm: Edit
Dave Butler:
quote:
===================
Now, during retreat, we choose to not use the seperate retreat option in (302.761). We then run through the priorities: we choose to not intern the fleet in Step 1; we eliminate anyplace we'd be outnumbered in Step 2; in Step 3, all the surrounding hexes are out of supply (by the ruling, any hex where even one ship of the retreating force would be out of supply is not "in supply" for retreat, and we've got unsupplied non-Klingon units in the force),
=================
OK, HERE IS WHERE YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THE MISTAKE
You don't include the Lyran in the "total" force when testing supply. You are only testing klingon retreat priorities, not lyran, because you ALREADY chose to retreat together.
The unsuplied non-klingon units have no effect at this point because you chose to use the klingon priorities, and you therefore use ONLY the klingon priorities.
When the ruling says all ships must be supplied, it doesn't mean ALL SHIPS IN THE HEX, it means ALL SHIPS FOR WHICH YOU ARE TESTING THE RETREAT CONDITIONS.
The Lyran ship's requirements are already eliminated from consideration during retreat by the allied retreat rule, that is how the rule has always worked. The ruling only deals with the force belonging to one nation due to the point in the SOP where it is applied.
You only have two cases:
Retreat together (and only test retreat/supply conditions for ONE RACE), so the Lyran has no effect on the Klingon.
OR
Retreat separately (and test retreat/supply conditions for BOTH RACES), which then retreat separately and again, the Lyran has no effect on the Klingon.
You guys are making it harder than it is.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:12 pm: Edit
Ken, sure.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:25 pm: Edit
Dave Butler:
quote:
==============
(Additional potential problem with ruling: Klingon-only force containing X-ships and normal ships fights 8 hexes from supply, then retreats. Under the current ruling, they can retreat anywhere not excluded by Step 2, even though the X-ships, if they were alone, would have been forced to retreat into supply. So the normal ships aren't a maneuver liability at all; they're actually a benefit.)
================
That's true, and it does indeed work that way.
And you may get some benefit from doing so, but you will have to put a force (including X-ships/fast ships) out of supply to take advantage of it, so I don't see it as a big problem.
I mean, you can do that before the ruling right? Push a force out of supply and it can retreat any direction. This just changes the distance it happens at for some forces by one hex.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:55 pm: Edit
Nick,
Re: your first response to me:
Now I'm confused. Do retreating allied ships count towards not being outnumbered in Step 2, or am I only checking that the last-commanding race isn't outnumbered?
(IOW, when are allied ships considered part of my "retreating force"? Your rulings indicate that they are not part of my force for Step 3 (supply), so I suppose they shouldn't be in Step 2 (numbers). After all, I'm not testing their retreat conditions.)
Re: your second response to me:
Except, of course, that supply is fluid, and the whole force may well be in supply on the next player turn (as a captured joins the supply grid, for example). So I can, if I'm lucky and/or good, hang some truly powerful ships out of supply on my turn, yet suffer no real penalties for doing so.
I was under the impression that Step 3 existed to prevent "forward retreat". It seems I was wrong.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 06:24 pm: Edit
Dave:
Sure the allied retreating ships count toward the step 2 (are you going to be outnumbered or not) calculation. Note that you also include any friendly ships already in the potential retreat hex in this step 2 calculation, but you are not really checking the retreat priorities of those ships. They still contribute to your total ship count in the potential retreat hex, and so do any allied ships retreating with you.
You simply do not consider the allied supply status is all, see rule (302.76) which states that allies may be forced out of supply. The whole point to (302.76) is to deal with situations where you have ships retreating to different supply grids, it eliminates one grid in favor of another, even if some ships would be out of supply. This rule works fine.
The rule that didn't work fine was the next step, when you are checking supply for one race and it contained ships with different supply path lengths. This is what the ruling fixes. There is no real interaction between the two at the point you are checking supply, and everything works out fine.
And you are still right, step 3 is to prevent forward retreats, but if you are already so far forward that you are out of supply and behind enemy lines, it no longer applies. That has always been the case.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 02:21 am: Edit
Another pursuit question.
How does one build a line for the force being pursued?
The Kzinti player has 7 CVS+MEC+FKE groups where the internal MEC is crippled for everyone so the group looks like CVS+(MEC)+FKE? In addition the Kzinti player has Federation allies in the hex who has a crippled SC, CC, and a crippled internal DE in a CVB group.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 02:46 am: Edit
3x CVS+(MEC)+FKE [one of the CVS in command)
SC in Scout, CC in Form
Or retreat seprately.
Kzinti
3x CVS+(MEC)+FKE [one of the CVS in command)
Fed
Add 3 NCLs from rest of Fed forces CC in Cmd Form Box, SC in box, CVB+(DE)+FFE add 4FF to fill BG+FF
(IF NO FREE SCOUT (CAN'T REMEMBER) SC IN FORM)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 07:26 am: Edit
what about the other 4 CVS groups with the crippled MEC? don't you have to have them somehow in the pursued force since they are crippled too? In addition, you can only have up to 3 healthy ships if you have a certian number of crippled ships, and in the question above there were like 15 cripples, albeit they were internal escorts.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 07:26 am: Edit
Does Separate retreat produce 2 pursuits?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:33 am: Edit
The other 4 can be shot at bout not used in calculating damage. Yes up to 3 healthy ships can be added but they would probably be an easier kill than the CVS group.
What's the fighter situation? If you have fighter he has to direct in order to kill smething. I think he's gonna have trouble doing that.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:58 am: Edit
Jimi LaForm:
Another pursuit question.
How does one build a line for the force being pursued?
The Kzinti player has 7 CVS+MEC+FKE groups where the internal MEC is crippled for everyone so the group looks like CVS+(MEC)+FKE? In addition the Kzinti player has Federation allies in the hex who has a crippled SC, CC, and a crippled internal DE in a CVB group.
ANSWER: You have:
7 x CVS+(MEC)+FKE
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
So that makes 10 crippled ships. These all have to be in the pursuit force, and you may (if you wish) add only three uncrippled ships.
This is impossible while keeping the groups intact since every group has a crippled ships, and including all groups you would have 16 uncrippled ships when you are only permitted three.
Rule (308.122) gives you two options, swapping escorts or dropping escorts under (515.15).
Obviously swapping escorts gets you nowhere since you can only swap the same kind, and since you only have one type of Kzinti escort crippled you will end up with the same groups you start with. The (DE) has nothing to swap with in any case.
If you had some groups with crippled MECs and others with crippled FKEs, then escort swapping could be used to put the crippled escorts into the same groups which might allow more carriers into the pursued force (if you ended with say 3 x CVS+(MEC)+(FKE) you could have included three uncrippled CVS). But that is not the case here.
So that leaves the last sentence of (515.15) which allows any escorts to be separated from their groups during pursuit.
You could (for example) have a pursued force that has all the crippled ships and two uncrippled ships and looks like:
CVS+(MEC)+FFE
6 x (MEC)
(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
You could also have left the (DE) with the CVB and just dropped the FFE, which gets you the three maximum uncrippled ships:
CVS+(MEC)+FKE
6 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
Or you could separate all the escorts and include no uncrippled ships:
7 x (MEC)
(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
Or you could preserve the fed carrier group instead of the Kzinti:
7 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
or even
CVS+(MEC)
6 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
Any combination that has all crippled ships and no more than three uncrippled ships is allowed. You can drop escorts. You can swap escorts (crippled swapped with uncrippled) of the same kind between different carrier groups. You cannot make any other changes to groups than dropping or swapping like kinds.
In all cases any uncrippled ships not included simply do not participate in the pursuit battle (as usual for any ships beyond the three uncrippled allowed), and any included ships that don't fit within the command limits do not contribute to the compot of the battleforce (but are still targets).
If you retreat separately (Fed/Kzinti), there is still only one combined pursuit battle that takes place just before the retreat happens.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 02:26 pm: Edit
Nick thanks, that is awesome help.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 01:19 am: Edit
What limits does the Romulan BEV carrier count against? WH? SPB?
By Michael C. Mikulis (Michael) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 01:32 am: Edit
Nick,
Thank you for giving a very thorough response. I feel a little sorry for the escorts being abandoned by their carrier though, after the fleet commander chose them to resolve damage on earlier.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:45 am: Edit
By Joe Stevenson:
What limits does the Romulan BEV carrier count against? WH? SPB?
ANSWER: As a medium carrier it would count against the SPB limit like the KRV does.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:47 am: Edit
Michael, that's the escorts job. They fling themselves into the fire so the carrier can live to fight again.
Feel sorry for them, do not.
Mourn them, do not.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 01:08 pm: Edit
Nick,
I've always read (307.32) as indicating that missing (destroyed) escorts always counted as "uncrippled ships" when building the retreating battle force.
On a related note, since I'm pretty sure I can swap a missing escort for a crippled one:
([CVS+(MEC)+missing] + [CVS+missing+(FKE)] => [CVS+(MEC)+(FKE)] + [CVS+missing+missing])
can I consolidate my cripples and use (515.2) to produce "padded" groups?
If I can't create "padded" groups for retreat, can existing, partially crippled, "padded" groups swap escorts and still remain padded?
And while I'm on the topic of (515.0) groups, how does (515.43) react with the damage rules in the specific case of convoys? (Specifically, do I have to destroy all the escorts in order to destroy the convoy (which has no crippled side), or can I destroy the convoy by "flipping" the group (which would then, presumably, release the escorts from that duty)?)
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 04:22 pm: Edit
"What limits does the Romulan BEV carrier count against? WH? SPB?
ANSWER: As a medium carrier it would count against the SPB limit like the KRV does. "
Nick,
The WH is also a medium carrier. It seems to me that the BEV is more like the WH than the SPB
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 04:50 pm: Edit
I am away from my rules at work at the moment, but from memory and the on-line SITs, the WH is a weird weird critter.
It has its own build limit, sort of like an escort carrier. It has only 2.5 fighter factors (escort carrier sized), and you can sub an SEB (escort carrier) for it.
The WH is really a smallish escort carrier that belongs in the same class as the SEB and SKB. It is so wimpy that it operates with a second WH in groups. (The first expanded carrier group?)
The BEV is more of a true (smallish) medium carrier with 5 fighter factors and a regular escort group. It seems to me the BEV is more like the SPB than the WH. It would count against the SPB medium carrier build slot.
Remember that all of these old carriers are smaller than they class they are purported to be:
SNV = police carrier (built under police rules)
WH = escort carrier (built as an escort carrier)
BEV = medium carrier (built as medium carrier)
VLV = heavy carrier (built as heavy carrier)
Most of these carry fewer fighters than a "normal" carrier of that class, due to the fact they are built on the old cramped sublight hulls. That's just the way it is.
The BEV is a medium carrier, it is not a great medium carrier, but then none of the old style ships were great carriers.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 04:53 pm: Edit
Joe:
The WH is not a medium carrier: the master SIT lists it as "special type" where classification is listed for other carriers.
Cheers,
Jason
(Ooops: crossed posts with Nick: sorry!)
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 05:02 pm: Edit
"The BEV is more of a true (smallish) medium carrier with 5 fighter factors and a regular escort group. It seems to me the BEV is more like the SPB than the WH. It would count against the SPB medium carrier build slot. "
I guess I should have said "The 2WH are just like a BEV"
Note that the SIT lists the group as medium carrier group. The WH does not operate by itself, but always in pairs. So evaluting it as one ship isn't really representative of what it is. In terms of fighter factors, it brings just as many as the BEV to the table.
Either that, or should we interpret the fact that you can sub an SEB for a WH, and you can build one WH GROUP per turn, that you could sub 2xSEB in place of a WH group? It seems to me that by your interpretation, this should be the case.
I never really thought of building WHs way back when (and neither did anyone else), so this never really came up when I was FEAR. BUT, now I'm taking a new look at everything, and the WH (or 2 SEB) just my be something I'd do.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 05:10 pm: Edit
I will look at my rules when I get home, but I think the listed sub is one SEB for the WH thing.
Again, the WH is just really weird and it is hard to compare to the regular classes/slots in the game.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 05:28 pm: Edit
SEB production cost (in the Dec 06 SIT):
SEH costs 2.5
SEH->SEB costs 1 (+ fighters)
SEB costs 4.5
Is the direct build cost of the SEB in error? It seems it should be 3.5 (which would also be consistent with the SKB and SPB)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 07:22 pm: Edit
Technically, you're only allowed to build "one WH per turn" (704.4 Carriers). So it takes a full year to build the group. (Ah, those wacky Romulans!) Of course, the SEB you're allowed to sub for the WH is so much better, the WH can really only be viewed as comedy value.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 08:49 pm: Edit
Actually no, it's one WH GROUP per turn.
Teh text is a leftover from the F&E2K rules. Take a look there. It says 1 WH.
Well, in F&E2K, you cannot build the indivual carrier, only the group. The text was never corrected for the succeeding products.
So, no joke, just faulty text.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:36 pm: Edit
Whether it's leftover text or not, the rules are what the text says (modified by errata). Currently, it says "one WH". So, as much as you and I might like it to be otherwise (and even play that way), the rule is one, lone, WH. Maybe, if we're good, Nick will change the rules for us.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:42 pm: Edit
Dave,
again, I'm fairly certain that you are wrong on this. It isn't a matter of "changing" the rule, rather clarifying it.
Read F&E2K. There is no such thing as 1 WH at that point, it is the group, and at that time, an unbreakable group.
sorry, but you are misreading the rule.
Note that in (704.0), under substitutions is specifically mentions subbing a WH group for 2xBH (+2xBH or SN for the escorts). If you interpretation was correct, this would not be possible, and there would be a discrepancy within (704.0)
(be clear also; Nick cannot change rules. Only SVC can do that)
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 01:13 am: Edit
Sometimes you have to think about the 'intent' of the rule. Seem's pretty self-explanatory that it would be a full WH group as opposed to building half a carrier group.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 03:17 am: Edit
*shrug* The WH exists on the F&E2K SIT as an individual ship; it's also stated that you can only build WH (in F&E2K) by conversion. Now, yes, AO does have the 2xWH thing going, and that wording differs from the carrier limits (and also wants to be reconciled with (431.62), since that rule forbids building two BH hulls on a turn (can't sub BH for WE)).
As for intent, well, you get to sub one SEB for WH each turn, so it's equally self-explanitory that that carrier production slot is for one with three-ish fighters. There's a lot of odd stuff in F&E, and the Roms having to take a full year to build a defective carrier group would not be the oddest. This could be one of those "well, we're not going to forbid it, just make it completely unreasonable to do" things.
(And, honestly, I've lost the ability to divine the intent of the rules. This happened about the time the word "and" was redefined to mean "and/or". So I just go ahead and take the rules as they're written.)
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 05:10 am: Edit
Please. Nick made a ruling. There was an appeal. If you don't like the answer, please move the discussion out of the Q&A topic.
Thank you.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 09:54 am: Edit
Actually, Nick has not made a ruling, yet. He has said that he needs to look at his rules when he gets home and separately that he is away from his rules. He has also mentioned his statements are what he thinks is correct at the moment from memory and SITs.
Not to bust your chops, but no ruling and no appeal, yet. These boards get confusing enough without us not being absolutely clear on what is fact and what is what we remember.
Now, your second point has some validity as Nick has mentioned a desire for discussions to quit obfuscating specific questions in this thread.
Cheers.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:04 am: Edit
Jeff,
All of the discussion is directly germaine to the question at hand, and important information for Nick to have. I'd much rather provide him with the information up front, rather than have him answer and have to appeal something that could have been dealt with on the front end.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 03:24 pm: Edit
Well, the WH on the schedule is obviously a WH group (WH+WH+BHE+BHE), or whatever escorts it is supposed to have if not BHEs (going from memory here). Of course not all those hulls (4 hawk destroyers) are on the schedule, so either you convert from existing ships or sub those hulls for other things that are on the schedule as per the normal rules in order to produce it.
Note that the rom schedule also simply says SPB when it means SPB group and so on.
And Joe is right in that the WH group is a medium carrier group, even if the WH singly is a "special type". It is the only "carrier" in the game that consists of two ships rather than one. So when you sub an escort carrier for the WH group allowed build, you only get one escort carrier group build, not two. That WH slot is only one carrier group slot, not two.
And I must admit there is a certain logic to building a BEV group (three ships and 5 fighter factors) in place of the WH group (four ships and 5 fighter factors), as far as carrier build limits go (I mean, the BEV group isn't exceeding anything the WH group did, right?). So even though you can normally only build an escort group in place of the WH group, the BEV makes a certain sense.
However, all of the above is just a symptom of something far more sinister.
The real problem here is that this situation is familiar. A little too familiar.
Aha! Found it. We all had this discussion a year or so ago, only it had to do with Romulan CVA build slots. There was a ruling in Cap Log that fixed the original CVA build question (namely that a modular DN built with SPB modules is indeed a heavy carrier build, and not a sub for the SPB build, at least it is when you want to build the DN with B modules simultaneously), but the published ruling also said something along the lines of "by the way, sorry the Rom carrier build schedule is really so screwy and hard to understand, we will get around to fixing that someday".
See, in the old days, every race got their "2 medium/strike carrier builds per turn, plus 1 escort carrier build per turn, plus one CVA build per year" carrier limits, everything laid out in general terms. That didn't work for the Roms because all their carriers are goofy and don't necessarily fit the usual categories. So the roms got specific limits on each carrier type, and everything was clear, and it was good.
Then came SFB Module J2, and R10, and more Cap Logs, and Fighter Ops, and interdiction carriers, and patrol carriers, and NEW interdiction carriers, and NEW patrol carriers, and scout carriers, and orangutans, and breakfast cerials, and suddenly there are another dozen carrier types.
This is fine for the other races as everything is still pretty clear, you just check a given carrier to see if it is medium or heavy, and count it against the appropriate limits, but the Rom system falls apart, and I keep having to make rulings on it.
So I am going to try to get this fixed properly (since we promised to do so once upon a time) once and for all, but I will have to write up something and get it to SVC and F&E staff. So give me some time to work on it, OK?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 03:30 pm: Edit
Or in other words, on this one no matter how I rule someone is going to appeal it (as there are very good arguments on both sides), so I am just going to auto appeal it up the chain as it has to do with other known problems that need to be fixed.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 03:48 pm: Edit
Nick,
That sounds fine to me. Thanks for getting back to us.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 04:20 pm: Edit
Ah. Mission accomplished.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 05:08 pm: Edit
And the reward for a successful mission is: Another mission.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 10:23 am: Edit
Rule 302.212 states that if youhave multiple bases in different locations in a hex, that create what amounts to be a multi-system hex. Then it says to see 511.5 to resolve this. Later on in the rules (302.232), it states that the Attacker must select one base to attack and the other base is not to be used. If that is the case, then we're really not using 511.5 to help resolve the hex, because if we were than both bases could be attacked at the same time.
So my questions are, does a multi-system hex use all of the rules present in 511.5, or just parts of those rules? And if enough bases are destroyed to make the hex a single-system hex, what happens to all the ships allocated to the other location(s)? At the moment the hex becomes a single-system hex, do all the provisions in 511.5 go away or would they carry on until the end of the combat phase?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 04:40 pm: Edit
Under (302.232) you are attacking one base, the other base is not used IN THAT BATTLE FORCE. You could also be attacking/defending it simultaneously with another battle force under the multi-system rules. You do use the multi-system rules in such a case. This rule states that the attacker selects one base to attack (and any sheltered units of that base are in the battle force), but he can also attack the other bases at the same time if he forms multiple attacking battle forces under the multi location hex rules. Any sheltered units of a given base would be included in the appropriate battle.
Under (433.411) it states that at the end of a given battle round, if there is only one location remaining, then the hex reverts to a single location (normal) battle hex.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 05:18 pm: Edit
Next time you guys do an updated OOB can you put a note under 709.2 Allowable Substitutions and 709.3 Production Notes (for Hydrans) that the Hydran CV is now a CVD and they may produce them under the medium CV limits.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 11:09 pm: Edit
Is there an official ruling from Nick/Jeff/SVC. I have the updated one that I was joing to send in when Matt gets back.
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 04:48 am: Edit
Nick,
(441.344) The Kzinti PDU with heavy fighters (4H6) has a fighter cost of 4+3 EPs. Was it intentional that the heavy fights cost one point each (4 EPs), or should the have cost been 1/2 point each (2 EPs) as the multiple for the normal fighters?
(530.212) This rule indicates that Kzinti bases can get heavy fighters for free. I just want to confirm, this rule is not intended to apply to PDUs (since they are not bases), correct?
The SIT for SB and SBX has 2 PF flotillas on the counter front and a 1 PF flotillas on the counter back. Is this correct or should SBs have 2 PF flotillas on the back of the counter?
Thanks
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 05:00 pm: Edit
Nick,
Does (515.27) mean a Federation Tug with a single HFP F111 pod must be escorted as a heavy carrier even though an NVH/CVH/NHV does not?
What are the escorts required for a Federation Tug carrying two single weight HFP pods (with 9H factors per pod)?
The rules that seem to govern are
1) Rule (515.21) which classify tugs with nine or more fighter factors as heavy carriers.
2) Rule 527.2 which says ships with F111s are unescorted single ship carriers or normal carriers?
How many command slots do a Federation tug with one or twp HFP pods take up. CV pod equipped tugs take two slots while PFT pod equipped tugs only take one.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 05:57 pm: Edit
I am not lost - are carrier tugs no longer single-ship carriers? Is that term no longer valid?
If not, what single ship carriers still remain in the game?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:06 pm: Edit
Nick,
Got some fun ones for you.
1) The Hydran Expedition has succeeded; its ships have been assigned to the Kzinti-Federation-Klingon border area, and the Kzinti and Federation have both adopted Hydran ships (not the same ships, natch). Now, a Z-H-F combined force attacks a Klingon target and then retreats, electing to retreat by race (302.761). Due to prior Klingon action, Federation supply is in a different direction than Kzinti, and the ships of those races end up in different hexes. What happens with the Hydrans? (Assume they're retreating from 1707, that 1807 has been destroyed, Fed supply is from 2008, Kzinti supply is from 1704. Kzinti-supplied Hydrans must retreat to 1706; Federation-supplied Hydrans must retreat to 1807, but all Hydrans must go to the same hex.)
(And yes, this actually came up in my game.)
2) To what race does a Comercial Convoy belong? This matters because they can be escorted (they're convoys), but only by ships of the owning race (308.132-C3). (We played that it belonged to the sending race, but equally valid arguments could be made for the receiving race, both races, and neither race.)
3) How do units that can't be crippled (e.g., convoys) interact with CEDS? Assume a Kzinti [Convoy+EFF+EFF] group. Can I pay 28 points to "cripple the group" and thereby destroy the Convoy (which has no crippled side)? Or does the fact that the Convoy can't be crippled -- only destroyed -- mean that the group costs 16 to cripple (both EFFs), and then 20 to destroy (assuming no mauler)?
3.1) Should the repeated use of the word "ships" in (308.1-B) be "units" instead? Note that if "ships" is correct, then a [LAV+EFF+EFF] group only costs 16 to cripple because the LAV is not a ship, and thus isn't considered when crippling the group.
4) If there are both cripples and slow units retreating from a hex can the persuer use (302.742-A) to assign plus/minus points to the persuit battle if he declines to form a persuit force and just does the slow-unit battle?
4.1) Same as (4), but this time persuit is attempted, but fails.
5) After the slow-unit retreat battle, the units must retrograde to the "closest allied retrograde point". What happens if this point has enemy units present (which would prevent retrograde (206.21))? (IOW, if I'm a monitor doing SUR from 1802, and 1902 is destroyed and 1803 is an unresolved battle hex, may I retrograde to 1704 (which would be the closest retrograde point that I'm permitted to retrograde to)?)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:07 pm: Edit
Trab,
CV-Tugs are single ship carriers that take up two command slots per (515.26FO).
Once you start adding escorts, they are light (515.23FO) medium (515.22FO) or Heavy CVs (515.21FO) for escort purposes.
I simply want to know where Fed F111 carrying tugs are for the purposes of those rules.
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:14 pm: Edit
So, if I DON'T add escorts to a cv-tug do they use more than one or two command slots on top of it's own?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:38 pm: Edit
"CV-Tugs are single ship carriers that take up two command slots per (515.26FO). "
Ick. I go away for a little while......
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:49 pm: Edit
Trab,
That is what the rules in Fighter Operations say.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:50 pm: Edit
I don't understand why it was changed, but that does seem to be the current rule.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 04:10 am: Edit
So what does it mean then to call CV-tugs a "single ship carrier"?
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 06:58 am: Edit
Nick,
(441.22) Normally a BATS to SB upgrade only adds six fighters and one PF flotilla. Can a BATS(0) [one with no fighters or PFs] be converted to a SB(12PP) for a Cost of 30+12 (and PF cost) and only one tug?
(441.434) Each module on an MB reduces the cost of upgrading that MB to a BATS by the cost of the module. If a MB(3P) was converted to a BATS(6P) the cost would be 6+3 (9 for MB to BATS, -1 for FTM, -2 for PFM, +3 for new fighter factors), correct?
(530.212) This rule indicates that Kzinti bases built automatically get free heavy fighters unless they opt to take PFs instead. Per (441.444), Kzinti heavy fighter module cost 2+8 EPs. Am I right that the only time you would need to pay this module cost is if you wanted to add heavy fighters to a MB or FRD?
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 05:59 am: Edit
(516.2J) Normally it take two LTTs to upgrade a base. However, it only take one LTT to upgrade a MB to a BS (444.21) and a STB to a SB LTT (452.22). Is the above list the only times a single LTT can be used to upgrade a base, or can an single LTT be used to upgrade any base that an engineer regiment can [(541.33D) and (541.35)]?
(519.1) A minor planet with three defense battalions and a BATS is assigned a monitor. Can the monitor be reassigned (since a BATS is already at the planet) or would another qualified base be required to be built to release the monitor?
(541.21) When an engineer regiment moves by Strategic movement, it moves as a military convoy. Does this include (526.131)? If it does, do engineer regiments have a separate limit or do they count against the military convoy limit?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 11:23 am: Edit
Well, (444.31) indicates that only one LTT is needed to do BS->BATS.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 02:05 pm: Edit
Question for SVC (or Jeff Laikind). This is based on a question I asked about 14 years ago, so I don't know that Nick would have the context to answer this one.
I asked back a million years ago about CVTs (the hard-welded ones). Specifically, can they drop their pods? The answer at the time was yes, even in open space, but the pods were considered lost. I no longer have the GEnie archive (Jeff sent it to me once, but after I left the last time, I deleted almost everything I had that was F&E except for my PC code and the econ spreadsheet).
Has this ever come up again (in which case, a more recent ruling would be in effect)?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 04:26 pm: Edit
Joe, here is the only relevent ruling I could find...
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 - 03:14 pm: Edit
...
RE klingon at start CVTs: Also note that unconverting them to tugs is free, and you lose the "pods".
Someone was concerned that I implied this cost EPs by the term "welded on", which is not true, they can dump the pods (destroying them) for free.
________________________________________
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 04:37 pm: Edit
Right, you can dump them (getting the tug back) for no cost. You cannot remove the pods to be saved for later.
You can also convert them from CVT 5 factor carriers to CVT+ 6 factor carriers (actually converting the pods) without counting against your carrier builds (recent ruling).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 05:25 pm: Edit
Just for clarification: do the pods vanish into the aether, or are they considered destroyed (which would produce salvage)?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 06:06 pm: Edit
Nick,
Follow up to your answer:
Back in 93/94, I was told that this can be done anywhere. Your reference to "dumping" the pods seems to reinforce that, but I don't want to assume that's what you meant.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 07:36 pm: Edit
Dave and Joe, I have to go back and double check the ruling (In a Cap Log I think). From memory I am thinking no salvage, I am not sure about location (requires a conversion or not?).
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 11:02 pm: Edit
The Klingon SIT for the CVT says "Unconvert to TGA no cost (pods lost)". The 6 fighter version is the CVT+, available Y172.
By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 11:05 pm: Edit
Cap Log#14 (circa 1994) page 69, "Admiral, I'm Tired of Being a Carrier"
Q1417F: If a Klingon CVT loses its escorts, can it drop its pods (for no cost) and become a TGA or does it still cost 1 point to convert it back to a standard ship? Logically, it shouldnt cost anything since it is a standard tug with CV pods. If converted back to a TGA, do the klingons get another set of CV pods added (the ones removed from the CVT)?
A:A Klingon CVT (the permanent kind on the starting OB, not a tug counter with a Pod counter) can drop its pods (which are then lost forever) and becomes a TGA, even without losing its escorts first, at no cost for the "conversion".
I checked captains logs#14 thru cap log#34 (havent gotten #35 yet) and did not see a ruling on salvage values for dropped carrier tug pods.
I limited the search to only F&E rulings... it might have been a posted tactic in the F&E tactics section(s) and I didnt search that.
Will look again later.
Upgrading Klingon CVT to a CVT+ (ie from 5 fighter factors to 6) was published in cap log#32, page #88.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 01:36 am: Edit
Thanks, Jeffs
Oddly enough, I think the CL14 Q came from me
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:24 am: Edit
What are the limitations on retereating a tug that is acting as a supply point?
412.2 says that a tug acting as a supply point cannot move by any means during the player turn. Then says if it is 'forced to retreat' it loses it's supply status. As far as I am aware a retreat is always voluntary and I can't see anything that allows it to abandon it's supply mission.
Thanks
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 03:42 pm: Edit
Nick,
Please help me with (501.9) as it relates to the Romulans and their NH/FH/SPBs.
"Six (actually 6-8) fighter factors are equivalent to one ship for the purposes of various rules."
Question: Can I count the 8-factor squadrons on the NH/FH/SPBs as 1 SE each for the purposes of (302.332)?
"Three (actually 3-5) fighter factors would be equivalent to a half-ship [...]"
Question: If 6-8 FF are 1 SE, and 3-5 FF are ½ SE, what are 1 or 2 fighter factors? By exclusion, they would seem to be zero SE. Could I have a CNV and a SPB on the line and still use the two "extra" fighters on the SPB because they aren't an equivalent (or even half of one)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 06:57 pm: Edit
Nick,
I'd like a clarification of (706.2), please.
There's an entry that says: "CVA: If this type is allowed (513.41), no more than one per year may be built; this does not count against the overall carrier limit".
Now, is the "does not count" bit specific to the CVA, or to all heavy carriers? (I.e., should I count the build of a Gorn CVD against the (706.3) limit of two carriers/year, or against the (706.2-CVA) comment?)
Does the answer change depending on if I'm allowing (513.41), and if so, how?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:10 pm: Edit
Nick,
Please note as well that the Gorn division control ship, the MDS, is also described as a "Heavy carrier" and needs to be considered in the answer above.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:29 pm: Edit
Dave Butler,
The text is a hold over when no other Gorn heavy carrier existed. In the absence of a specific rule otherwise, all heavy carriers and CVA would be the same thing.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:30 pm: Edit
As the the Rom fighters, the fighters in excess of 18 (or 20 if the FAB is employed) cannot be used.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 08:02 pm: Edit
Joe,
Let Nick do his job; you are, WADR, too close to the argument. Further, even if you are correct (and I've no strong feeling one way or the other), what I'm after is an official ruling, which ain't you.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 08:10 pm: Edit
WADR?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 12:27 am: Edit
"With all due respect."
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 02:54 am: Edit
Nick
________________________________________
Quote:
523.53 X-fighter Squadrons: Hydran X-fighters formed into squadrons can have up to 9 factors per squadron. 6-8 counts as 1 ship for pinning, 9 counts as 2 ships.
________________________________________
Okay, only the SBX and BTX have squadrons of X-fighters and so don't need this rule, just a notation that "6-8 X-fighter factors equal 1 SE and 9 equals 2 SEs". I would presume it's for the "Hybrid" X-ships. Can the Hybrid X-ships send their fighters forward as independant squadrons as true CVs? (They are paying those rates after all AND in PURE XTPs or FFFs.)
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 11:15 am: Edit
Micheal,
This question was answered in the Q&A section CL #26.
All hybrid fighters can be sent forward into the battle line in groups of up to six fighters.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 11:58 am: Edit
Trent
Really? I seem to remember a ruling that whereas hybrid fighters could send their fighters forward to replace losses, their fighters could NOT be sent forward as independent squadrons. Of course that COULD be my memory going....
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 12:56 pm: Edit
Michael,
________________________________________
Quote:
Q2603: Can Hydran hybrid carriers send their fighters forward as independent units? And if they can, I'd assume they are stil under the 18 fighter limit, and are treated as carrier fighters.
A: Hydran hybrid carriers use rule (302.35) for sending their fighters forward as independent ship equivalents just like any other race, they get no special benefit or difference. Under (302.35) every six independent fighters count against the command limits as a ship equivalent, and they count against the limit of three ship-equivalents of fighters in the battleforce under (302.332-B) because their carrier is absent.
________________________________________
You can find this in the Q&A Archive File
I think you may be confusing it with the ruling that Hybrid Fghters cannot react....
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 01:57 pm: Edit
Dave Butler,
also from the Q&A Archive File
Q2610: Doesn’t (501.9) which says “Six (actually 6-8)...” mean that the SPB and any other carrier with seven or eight fighter factors automatically has an oversized squadron?
A: No, it means and says no such thing. All that “6-8” part means is that with less than 9 fighter factors you cannot claim 1.5 pinning equivalents.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 02:45 pm: Edit
Jeff,
Okay, but that wasn't my question. (Assume, for the sake of argument, that I don't have FO (and therefore no access to (318.8)).)
Y'see, (501.9) just indicates that it applies to "various rules". Fair enough. Thing is that (302.332-A) and (302.334) just say "three ship equivalents", so it's possible, particularly without Fighter Operations, to read the rules as allowing three SPBs on the line to field all their fighters (8 factors is a SE, three 8-factor squadrons is three SE, and therefore legal).
Even if we go with customary practice and use six-factor SE, it's still possible to read the rules as allowing CNV+SPB to fly all their fighters (because the two extra fighters on the SPB don't form even a fractional SE and could (501.9) be part of a SE with 8 factors).
(I know how most people seem to play the game; the rules indicate something slightly different. I point out the difference so that Nick (or you) can add the appropriate clarifying note/rule and then everybody'll be playing the same game.)
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 07:46 pm: Edit
Dave,
He just answered your question. "Officially"
The answer was specific. The inclusion of "6-8" was intended for pinning purposes ONLY. It's right up there. Go look at it.
You are trying to make the rules say something they don't.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 08:09 pm: Edit
6-8 Fighter Factors is one SE for pinning (9 FF would be 1.5 pinning points)
6 FF is one SE for command and counts as one squadron for the "three squadron limit". (7 FF would be two SE/command slots and would count as 2 squadrons).
The tricky part is that while rule (302.332) refers you to (501.9) you have to read the whole rule. When you read (501.9) for command (as opposed to pinning) you must follow the extra cross reference to (302.35) which is the correct rule. (501.9) is "for various rules", but you must keep reading the rest of the paragraph where it says to use (302.35) when dealing specifically with fighters in a battle force.
Perhaps rule (302.332) should reference (302.35) directly as opposed to the roundabout way through (501.9) as it does now.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 10:44 pm: Edit
Ok, I am a little confused here on the 6-8 thing. If I have 3 SPB's in a hex does each one count as 2SE for pinning or can you combine the fighters into 24 fighters(3x8)= 4SE(6/24=4) so there are 7SE in the hexfor pinning.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 12:07 am: Edit
You can always add the fighters up for pinning purposes, you just can't field more than 18 in a battleforce without OS rules (which the SPB doesn't use).
I guess that since Nick skipped my question the CL 26 ruling is correct and my mind is starting to go....
However, that leads me to my next question:
Nick
523.511: Add the attack factors of the ship and its fighters when determining the strength for the mauler effect (523.312), but of course ignore anything over 10 points.
Can independant squadrons of X-stingers act like a mauler up to their attack factors (max 10)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 02:34 am: Edit
Nick & Jeff,
Okay, I see where the problem is. It's that the references to (302.35) are currently exclusive to forwarded fighters. All the references in (302.332) that send you to (501.9) apply to forwarded fighters, and (501.9)'s reference to (302.35) is for dealing with "extra fighters/PFs in the Battle Force" (which I have to read as being forwarded fighters/PFs, else how are they "extra" to the Force?).
So yeah, (302.332) needs to have a direct, up-front reference to (302.35).
(Also, if "various rules" means "pinning" in (509.1), then perhaps the former should be replaced by the latter.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:17 am: Edit
QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT.
Michael, just cause I skipped your question, don't assume one answer or the other. I will give you an answer one way or the other. I was just able to answer some of the others from work.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 01:57 pm: Edit
ANSWERS TO THIS POINT DONE & SENT TO SVC for the next Cap Log file.
==========================
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 03:52 pm:
I recently puchased a copy of F&E (revision 4), and I've noticed several references to "Carrier War", "Special Operations", and "Marine Assault". I'm not seeing these products on the shopping cart though.
Should these references be changed to something else [appears to be "Fighter Operations" (Carrier War) and "Combined Operations" (Special Operations and Marine Assault)]?
ANSWER: Right, Carrier War is now Fighter Ops
Special Ops/Marine Assault are now Combined Ops. When the warbook gets worked on I'm sure the references will be updated.
========================
Paul Bonfanti (Bonfanti) on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 11:19 am:
Pursuit question for you.
After a lengthy capital assault, the Hydrans are retreating with many crippled CVA groups as follows. Cripples are in paranthesis:
(ID),(NEC),(NEC),DWE
(ID),FCR,(NEC),(HDW-E),AH
(ID),(HDW-E),NEC,AH
(ID),(NEC),NEC,DWE
LP,(NEC),(NEC),DE,DWE
Frankly, we are at a total loss on how to make a line out of this. There are 12 crippled ships and 10 healthy ones. The final battle force can have no more than 3 healthy ships, right? Are there limitations on which ones? What about the other healthy ships that are being dragged there by the cripples they're escorting? Their compot is ignored, right? In general, help! Thanks.
ANSWER: See rules (308.122) and (515.15). The first lets you swap escorts in order to concentrate cripples into one group, and non-cripples into another. The second allows you to drop escorts during pursuit (your only option if the first does not resolve the conflict). In any case, you cannot have more than three uncrippled ships after including the cripples (unless command limits so allow).
========================
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 09:03 am:
Can someone give me a quick example of how (505.2) Survey Ship Exploration works? Specifically the "Each time the total reaches a designated step, deduct that step and add one province to the off-map area." part?
ANSWER: When the step is 20 points per new province:
Roll 4 Total 4
Roll 3 Total 7
Roll 1 Total 8
Roll 5 Total 13
Roll 8 Total 21 - 20 = 1 (subtract 20 and get another province)
Now if that province was enough to bump you to a bigger step size, say 30:
Roll 6 Total 7 (6 plus the 1 left over from before)
Roll 5 Total 12
Roll 4 Total 16
Roll 6 Total 22 (If step size was still 20 you would subtract 20 here leaving 2 and getting another province)
Roll 7 Total 29
Roll 5 Total 34 - 30 = 4 (subtract 30 and get a new province)
===========================
Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 05:20 pm:
For the Hydran PG shipyard, does it produce PGs regardless of whether the Hydrans are at war, or only after they get into a war? In the Cloudburst scenario it is producing PGs while at peace and they have not been attacked, is this the default for "Free Campaigns"? The specific rule, 525.318 AO page 25, doesn't really put any other limitations on it.
ANSWER: Yes, they get them at peace.
APPEAL: Sent for appeal.
=========================
Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 05:40 am:
Hypothetical Kzin homeworld. Built 4 more PDU for it (total 12), and 8 PGB. Klingons come in with a SAF and score say, 3 PDU destroyed with the SAF. (520.6) says all the PDU are grouped as one target. So who decides which units are destroyed? The attacker may prefer the PDU to die, leaving the PGBs, whereas the defender may prefer the PGB to die, leaving the PDUs intact.
ANSWER: When directed (or SAF attack), the attacker decides. When voluntary, the owner (defender) decides as per (441.14).
=========================
Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:09 pm:
Could the fighters of a destroyed PDU find a new home on a PGB?
If a PDU is directed on, then the fighters still survive or are taken as minus points if they cannot find an eligible home...correct?
ANSWER: The fighters would be homeless and would be destroyed. PGBs were originally built without fighter facilities and cannot house fighters without paying the upgrade cost, which you can do on your next turn. However, that is too late to save the fighters in that combat step, they would be minus points.
=========================
Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:17 am:
Fighter can land on a planet regardless if there is a base there or not. Shortly after a casual base can be set up but it is most likely that the supplies to service the fighters were destroyed with the PDU. Of course, those don't take long to build back up.
My guess would be that the fighters would remain at the planet of their original PDU and you would then build a new PDU the next turn.
ANSWER: While SFB has such a provision (assumed to be short term), F&E's six month turns preclude this tactic. The fighters would not survive.
===========================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 01:34 am:
Capital Assault; there are cripples which are, per (511.52) and (511.573), assigned as static defenses at the planet with the most PDU in a system (I'm going to assume the capital planet). Then rapid combat repair (PO 425.3) takes place between combat rounds, and one or more of those cripples is repaired.
Question 1: Is my understanding that those ships are still static defenders (at least until such time as a new force split is required) correct?
Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is yes, then am I also correct that if a defending mobile ship is crippled it will be thereafter be a static defender (511.53) even if rapid combat repair is used on it in the round that it was crippled (assuming that no subsequent approach battle forces a new split)?
ANSWER: Sounds correct. Crippling it drops it into the static forces (existing rules), it is then available to be repaired if you choose using the rapid combat repair rule.
=======================
RULING FROM CAP LOG 35:
Q: I have a fleet that I need to retreat, and those troublesome retreat priorities are driving me crazy when they interact with more recent rules. My fleet includes mostly normal ships, but it also has a Fast Ship and two X-ships, which can use a seven-hex supply chain. So my question is, if there is a candidate retreat hex that is seven hexes from a supply source, can I (or must I) count it as a “hex in supply” for retreat purposes?
Ruling: Not unless the entire retreating force is composed of such ships. The whole force must retreat together, and if some of the ships would be out of supply and others not, then the hex is not “in supply” for “the entire retreating force” and is treated as “a hex out of supply” for purposes of the retreat priorities.
SVC: Now, this does not mention the allied thing, but that is a specific rule and would subdivide this one. If you have Klingons and Lyrans, and decide to retreat them separately, then each national force would be treated as above.
The above simple says that the fast/X ships do not change the retreat priority rules for the entire force. They go where the non-X/non-fast ships go unless the entire force is composed for X/Fast ships.
======================
Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 02:05 am:
This should be reconsidered before publication. If this ruling stands, then every large fleet should operate with a single allied frigate that is nowhere near its own supply grid, thus allowing the large fleet to retreat in any desired direction. The allied frigate will be at half speed, certainly, but could easily arrive at major battle hexes along with auxiliary carriers, troop ships, and SAFs that will move in from a strategic movement node three hexes or less away, where they arrived during the previous turn. And unlike the SAF, the allied frigate can avoid ever being in the battle force.
At the least, this ruling should be modified to disallow fighting retreats when retreating so that some ships are unsupplied that could be supplied if a different retreat route were chosen. I don't think this modification will suffice, but it would make the ruling less open to abuse.
ANSWER:
Todd, that doesn't work at all. Read (302.76). If you have a big fleet of Klingon ships on the Fed border, and one Lyran frigate, then you have a choice.
Use unified retreat (klingon priorities since the Lyran FF was certainly not the last flagship) or use allied retreat (separate Lyran and Klingon priorities).
So with unified retreat you only check supply for the Klingon ships the Lyran FF has NO EFFECT. It is forced to retreat to an out of supply hex while the klingons go toward their own supply grid.
With allied retreat, the Klingons still have the same requirements, and the Lyran FF can retreat in any direction.
Not possible to abuse in the way you are thinking.
================
Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 12:20 pm:
It seems in your example that the Lyran FF is part of the Coalition force under discussion so that I don't see how it would not count as part of that force.
ANSWER: Todd, the ruling in question has nothing whatsoever to do with allied forces such as klingon fleet plus one lyran FF.
That force retreating is still handled by the existing allied retreat rule. When it retreats under existing rules you use the klingon retreat priorities, the lyran simply follows along, and the lyran's supply status in the various potential retreat hexes has NO EFFECT. That is how the existing rules always worked.
The new ruling does not change this preexisting rule at all. So adding one Lyran FF to a klingon fleet will not (and never did) change the klingons retreat rules. The new ruling only handles cases when the force whose priorities are being checked has fast and regular ships (by definition of the same race), something the existing rules don't handle.
I don't have the final wording, not until I get cap log 35.
Look at it this way, the coalition force has 25 ships and 2 fast ships and 2 X-ships and one Lyran FF.
It finishes a battle and declares retreat.
Since there are both lyran and klingon ships, you must decide to either retreat together or separately.
-----
If you retreat separately:
The Lyran FF runs through the retreat priorities on its own, all hexes are out of supply, so it can retreat to any hex otherwise allowed (where it is not outnumbered by enemy forces.
The Klingons can retreat to any hex that has a supply path of 6 hexes or less. Even though some ships can have a supply path of 7 hexes, those hexes are disallowed as the entire KLINGON FORCE is not in supply there. (THIS IS THE NEW RULING, before it was unclear how to handle this step).
Note the Lyran FF had no effect on the klingon's retreat.
-----
-----
If you retreat together:
You use the priorities of the last flagship (which pretty much had to have been klingon).
The Klingons can retreat to any hex that has a supply path of 6 hexes or less. Even though some ships can have a supply path of 7 hexes, those hexes are disallowed as the entire KLINGON FORCE is not in supply there. (THIS IS THE NEW RULING, before it was unclear how to handle this step).
Note the Lyran FF had no effect on the klingon's retreat.
-----
The abuse you are stating cannot happen. A single allied frigate cannot change a larger force's retreat due to this ruling. The ruling only applies when you are checking ONE RACE's priorities involving fast and regular ships. (I.e. ships with different supply path lengths).
You never check two different race's supply priorities except when doing separate retreats. And in that case the two races don't influence each other's retreats.
When doing a combined retreat you only check ONE RACE's supply priorities, so the other race has no effect.
The ruling just made has NO RELATION to allied forces in any case, it has to do with checking the retreat priorities when ships of ONE RACE have different supply path lengths.
The two concepts do not interact in the way you state above, the Lyran FF will not invoke the ruling and allow the klingons greater retreat options, the Lyran FF is already taken out of the calculations by existing allied retreat rules BEFORE the new ruling kicks in.
=============
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 03:59 pm:
Actually, Todd is correct. Unless you put a rule in that joint fleets must retreat seperately, then a lone Lyran FF can allow a Klingon fleet to retreat almost anywhere it wants. Here's how:
Fleet composition is any positive number of Klingon F- and X-ships, no Klingon ships that are not F- or X-ships, and any positive number of non-Klingon non-F-, non-X-ships that is not more than the number of Klingon ships (and this number should be small, because you don't want the non-Klingon ships to be in a battle force).
Fleet location is anywhere that the non-Klingon units are out of supply, and where one hex of movement can not put them into supply. Assume that the Klingon units either are in supply, or would be if they retreated.
Now, during retreat, we choose to not use the seperate retreat option in (302.761). We then run through the priorities: we choose to not intern the fleet in Step 1; we eliminate anyplace we'd be outnumbered in Step 2; in Step 3, all the surrounding hexes are out of supply (by the ruling, any hex where even one ship of the retreating force would be out of supply is not "in supply" for retreat, and we've got unsupplied non-Klingon units in the force), so we simply ignore Step 3; Step 4 can then be ignored or not, depending on how much we want a fighting retreat.
So the Klingons can now go anywhere they're not outnumbered (Step 2 still applies).
The ruling is actually backwards. If it were, essentially, "any hex where any ship of the retreating force would be in supply is 'in supply' for retreat", then F- and X-ships would be forced to retreat into supply, instead of the "normal" ships allowing their betters to go wherever they wanted. (I'd want to think more about my precise wording, but it's close.)
(Additional potential problem with the current ruling: Klingon-only force containing X-ships and normal ships fights 8 hexes from supply, then retreats. Under the current ruling, they can retreat anywhere not excluded by Step 2, even though the X-ships, if they were alone, would have been forced to retreat into supply. So the normal ships aren't a maneuver liability at all; they're actually a benefit.)
ANSWER:
quote:
-----
Now, during retreat, we choose to not use the seperate retreat option in (302.761). We then run through the priorities: we choose to not intern the fleet in Step 1; we eliminate anyplace we'd be outnumbered in Step 2; in Step 3, all the surrounding hexes are out of supply (by the ruling, any hex where even one ship of the retreating force would be out of supply is not "in supply" for retreat, and we've got unsupplied non-Klingon units in the force),
-----
OK, HERE IS WHERE YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THE MISTAKE
You don't include the Lyran in the "total" force when testing supply. You are only testing klingon retreat priorities, not lyran, because you ALREADY chose to retreat together.
The unsuplied non-klingon units have no effect at this point because you chose to use the klingon priorities, and you therefore use ONLY the klingon priorities.
When the ruling says all ships must be supplied, it doesn't mean ALL SHIPS IN THE HEX, it means ALL SHIPS FOR WHICH YOU ARE TESTING THE RETREAT CONDITIONS.
The Lyran ship's requirements are already eliminated from consideration during retreat by the allied retreat rule, that is how the rule has always worked. The ruling only deals with the force belonging to one nation due to the point in the SOP where it is applied.
You only have two cases:
Retreat together (and only test retreat/supply conditions for ONE RACE), so the Lyran has no effect on the Klingon.
OR
Retreat separately (and test retreat/supply conditions for BOTH RACES), which then retreat separately and again, the Lyran has no effect on the Klingon.
You guys are making it harder than it is.
quote:
-----
(Additional potential problem with ruling: Klingon-only force containing X-ships and normal ships fights 8 hexes from supply, then retreats. Under the current ruling, they can retreat anywhere not excluded by Step 2, even though the X-ships, if they were alone, would have been forced to retreat into supply. So the normal ships aren't a maneuver liability at all; they're actually a benefit.)
-----
That's true, and it does indeed work that way.
And you may get some benefit from doing so, but you will have to put a force (including X-ships/fast ships) out of supply to take advantage of it, so I don't see it as a big problem.
I mean, you can do that before the ruling right? Push a force out of supply and it can retreat any direction. This just changes the distance it happens at for some forces by one hex.
======================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 04:55 pm:
Re: your first response to me:
Now I'm confused. Do retreating allied ships count towards not being outnumbered in Step 2, or am I only checking that the last-commanding race isn't outnumbered?
(IOW, when are allied ships considered part of my "retreating force"? Your rulings indicate that they are not part of my force for Step 3 (supply), so I suppose they shouldn't be in Step 2 (numbers). After all, I'm not testing their retreat conditions.)
Re: your second response to me:
Except, of course, that supply is fluid, and the whole force may well be in supply on the next player turn (as a captured joins the supply grid, for example). So I can, if I'm lucky and/or good, hang some truly powerful ships out of supply on my turn, yet suffer no real penalties for doing so.
I was under the impression that Step 3 existed to prevent "forward retreat". It seems I was wrong.
ANSWER:
Sure the allied retreating ships count toward the step 2 (are you going to be outnumbered or not) calculation. Note that you also include any friendly ships already in the potential retreat hex in this step 2 calculation, but you are not really checking the retreat priorities of those ships. They still contribute to your total ship count in the potential retreat hex, and so do any allied ships retreating with you.
You simply do not consider the allied supply status is all, see rule (302.76) which states that allies may be forced out of supply. The whole point to (302.76) is to deal with situations where you have ships retreating to different supply grids, it eliminates one grid in favor of another, even if some ships would be out of supply. This rule works fine.
The rule that didn't work fine was the next step, when you are checking supply for one race and it contained ships with different supply path lengths. This is what the ruling fixes. There is no real interaction between the two at the point you are checking supply, and everything works out fine.
And you are still right, step 3 is to prevent forward retreats, but if you are already so far forward that you are out of supply and behind enemy lines, it no longer applies. That has always been the case.
====================
Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 02:21 am:
Another pursuit question.
How does one build a line for the force being pursued?
The Kzinti player has 7 CVS+MEC+FKE groups where the internal MEC is crippled for everyone so the group looks like CVS+(MEC)+FKE? In addition the Kzinti player has Federation allies in the hex who has a crippled SC, CC, and a crippled internal DE in a CVB group.
ANSWER: You have:
7 x CVS+(MEC)+FKE
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
So that makes 10 crippled ships. These all have to be in the pursuit force, and you may (if you wish) add only three uncrippled ships.
This is impossible while keeping the groups intact since every group has a crippled ships, and including all groups you would have 16 uncrippled ships when you are only permitted three.
Rule (308.122) gives you two options, swapping escorts or dropping escorts under (515.15).
Obviously swapping escorts gets you nowhere since you can only swap the same kind, and since you only have one type of Kzinti escort crippled you will end up with the same groups you start with. The (DE) has nothing to swap with in any case.
If you had some groups with crippled MECs and others with crippled FKEs, then escort swapping could be used to put the crippled escorts into the same groups which might allow more carriers into the pursued force (if you ended with say 3 x CVS+(MEC)+(FKE) you could have included three uncrippled CVS). But that is not the case here.
So that leaves the last sentence of (515.15) which allows any escorts to be separated from their groups during pursuit.
You could (for example) have a pursued force that has all the crippled ships and two uncrippled ships and looks like:
CVS+(MEC)+FFE
6 x (MEC)
(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
You could also have left the (DE) with the CVB and just dropped the FFE, which gets you the three maximum uncrippled ships:
CVS+(MEC)+FKE
6 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
Or you could separate all the escorts and include no uncrippled ships:
7 x (MEC)
(DE)
(SC)
(CC)
Or you could preserve the fed carrier group instead of the Kzinti:
7 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
or even
CVS+(MEC)
6 x (MEC)
CVB+(DE)+FFE
(SC)
(CC)
Any combination that has all crippled ships and no more than three uncrippled ships is allowed. You can drop escorts. You can swap escorts (crippled swapped with uncrippled) of the same kind between different carrier groups. You cannot make any other changes to groups than dropping or swapping like kinds.
In all cases any uncrippled ships not included simply do not participate in the pursuit battle (as usual for any ships beyond the three uncrippled allowed), and any included ships that don't fit within the command limits do not contribute to the compot of the battleforce (but are still targets).
If you retreat separately (Fed/Kzinti), there is still only one combined pursuit battle that takes place just before the retreat happens.
===========================
Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 07:26 am:
Does Separate retreat produce 2 pursuits?
ANSWER: There is only ever one pursuit battle (or a pursuit battle and a slow unit battle). Then the retreating forces go their separate ways.
==========================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 01:08 pm:
I've always read (307.32) as indicating that missing (destroyed) escorts always counted as "uncrippled ships" when building the retreating battle force.
On a related note, since I'm pretty sure I can swap a missing escort for a crippled one:
([CVS+(MEC)+missing] + [CVS+missing+(FKE)] => [CVS+(MEC)+(FKE)] + [CVS+missing+missing])
can I consolidate my cripples and use (515.2) to produce "padded" groups?
If I can't create "padded" groups for retreat, can existing, partially crippled, "padded" groups swap escorts and still remain padded?
And while I'm on the topic of (515.0) groups, how does (515.43) react with the damage rules in the specific case of convoys? (Specifically, do I have to destroy all the escorts in order to destroy the convoy (which has no crippled side), or can I destroy the convoy by "flipping" the group (which would then, presumably, release the escorts from that duty)?)
ANSWER: Um, no. If you want to swap escorts, you must swap an escort for an escort, not an escort for an empty space. That would be the equivalent of adding an escort to a group during the same combat phase it was destroyed in. Not allowed to do that (even if you are stripping another carrier to do so). You definitely cannot use this to pad an extra escort into a group that wasn't assigned such an escort before hand. Any groups that have escorts qualified to swap can swap them, whether they are normal or extra escorts, they just have to actually be present to swap.
On the question of escorted convoys, "flipping" the group would destroy the convoy and cripple the escorts. Presumably the group would be disbanded at that point, leaving the escorts as individual ships.
===========================
Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 10:23 am:
Rule 302.212 states that if youhave multiple bases in different locations in a hex, that create what amounts to be a multi-system hex. Then it says to see 511.5 to resolve this. Later on in the rules (302.232), it states that the Attacker must select one base to attack and the other base is not to be used. If that is the case, then we're really not using 511.5 to help resolve the hex, because if we were than both bases could be attacked at the same time.
So my questions are, does a multi-system hex use all of the rules present in 511.5, or just parts of those rules? And if enough bases are destroyed to make the hex a single-system hex, what happens to all the ships allocated to the other location(s)? At the moment the hex becomes a single-system hex, do all the provisions in 511.5 go away or would they carry on until the end of the combat phase?
ANSWER:
Under (302.232) you are attacking one base, the other base is not used IN THAT BATTLE FORCE. You could also be attacking/defending it simultaneously with another battle force under the multi-system rules. You do use the multi-system rules in such a case. This rule states that the attacker selects one base to attack (and any sheltered units of that base are in the battle force), but he can also attack the other bases at the same time if he forms multiple attacking battle forces under the multi location hex rules. Any sheltered units of a given base would be included in the appropriate battle.
Under (433.411) it states that at the end of a given battle round, if there is only one location remaining, then the hex reverts to a single location (normal) battle hex.
===================
Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 04:48 am:
(441.344) The Kzinti PDU with heavy fighters (4H6) has a fighter cost of 4+3 EPs. Was it intentional that the heavy fights cost one point each (4 EPs), or should the have cost been 1/2 point each (2 EPs) as the multiple for the normal fighters?
ANSWER: Probably should be 2 EPs since PDUs are supposed to pay 1/2 EP per fighter factor.
(530.212) This rule indicates that Kzinti bases can get heavy fighters for free. I just want to confirm, this rule is not intended to apply to PDUs (since they are not bases), correct?
ANSWER: Right.
The SIT for SB and SBX has 2 PF flotillas on the counter front and a 1 PF flotillas on the counter back. Is this correct or should SBs have 2 PF flotillas on the back of the counter?
ANSWER: Only one P on the crippled side.
=====================
Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 05:00 pm:
Does (515.27) mean a Federation Tug with a single HFP F111 pod must be escorted as a heavy carrier even though an NVH/CVH/NHV does not?
What are the escorts required for a Federation Tug carrying two single weight HFP pods (with 9H factors per pod)?
The rules that seem to govern are
1) Rule (515.21) which classify tugs with nine or more fighter factors as heavy carriers.
2) Rule 527.2 which says ships with F111s are unescorted single ship carriers or normal carriers?
How many command slots do a Federation tug with one or twp HFP pods take up. CV pod equipped tugs take two slots while PFT pod equipped tugs only take one.
ANSWER: Escort the F111 tug (1 or 2 F111 pods) as a PFT. Since the F111 pods are essentially PFT pods, the F111 tug would be one command slot (like PFT tugs), not 2 command slots (like carrier tugs).
=====================
Trab Kadar (Trab) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 05:57 pm:
I am not lost - are carrier tugs no longer single-ship carriers? Is that term no longer valid?
If not, what single ship carriers still remain in the game?
ANSWER: Single ship carriers still exist, but carrier tugs take two command slots without escorts per (515.26) in Fighter Ops.
=====================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 06:06 pm:
1) The Hydran Expedition has succeeded; its ships have been assigned to the Kzinti-Federation-Klingon border area, and the Kzinti and Federation have both adopted Hydran ships (not the same ships, natch). Now, a Z-H-F combined force attacks a Klingon target and then retreats, electing to retreat by race (302.761). Due to prior Klingon action, Federation supply is in a different direction than Kzinti, and the ships of those races end up in different hexes. What happens with the Hydrans? (Assume they're retreating from 1707, that 1807 has been destroyed, Fed supply is from 2008, Kzinti supply is from 1704. Kzinti-supplied Hydrans must retreat to 1706; Federation-supplied Hydrans must retreat to 1807, but all Hydrans must go to the same hex.)
ANSWER: The Fed supported Hydrans would retreat with the Feds, the Kzinti supported Hydrans would retreat with the Kzinti. Each ship follows it's supply path while retreating, so to speak.
2) To what race does a Comercial Convoy belong? This matters because they can be escorted (they're convoys), but only by ships of the owning race (308.132-C3). (We played that it belonged to the sending race, but equally valid arguments could be made for the receiving race, both races, and neither race.)
ANSWER: I would say the race that started it owns it. If it is destroyed, whichever race replaces it owns it.
3) How do units that can't be crippled (e.g., convoys) interact with CEDS? Assume a Kzinti [Convoy+EFF+EFF] group. Can I pay 28 points to "cripple the group" and thereby destroy the Convoy (which has no crippled side)? Or does the fact that the Convoy can't be crippled -- only destroyed -- mean that the group costs 16 to cripple (both EFFs), and then 20 to destroy (assuming no mauler)?
ANSWER: Flip the group, destroy the convoy (cripple the escorts).
3.1) Should the repeated use of the word "ships" in (308.1-B) be "units" instead? Note that if "ships" is correct, then a [LAV+EFF+EFF] group only costs 16 to cripple because the LAV is not a ship, and thus isn't considered when crippling the group.
ANSWER: Right, that was written before all the non-ship units could be put into groups. Units would be more correct.
4) If there are both cripples and slow units retreating from a hex can the persuer use (302.742-A) to assign plus/minus points to the persuit battle if he declines to form a persuit force and just does the slow-unit battle?
ANSWER: No, you have to resolve the plus/minus points in one battle or the other. If you only fight one, then that is where the points go.
4.1) Same as (4), but this time persuit is attempted, but fails.
ANSWER: The same, you must resolve the points, so if pursuit fails, the points go to the slow battle (assuming you are fighting that). Make sure you roll for pursuit before you resolve the slow battle!
5) After the slow-unit retreat battle, the units must retrograde to the "closest allied retrograde point". What happens if this point has enemy units present (which would prevent retrograde (206.21))? (IOW, if I'm a monitor doing SUR from 1802, and 1902 is destroyed and 1803 is an unresolved battle hex, may I retrograde to 1704 (which would be the closest retrograde point that I'm permitted to retrograde to)?)
ANSWER: You must go to the closest valid retro point within 3 hexes. If you have a point 2 hexes that is blocked, and valid path to a point that is 3 hexes, you go to the 3 hex one as it is the closest point with a valid retro path.
========================
Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 06:58 am:
(441.22) Normally a BATS to SB upgrade only adds six fighters and one PF flotilla. Can a BATS(0) [one with no fighters or PFs] be converted to a SB(12PP) for a Cost of 30+12 (and PF cost) and only one tug?
ANSWER: Yes, but don't forget to also pay for any modules that were missing on the BATS. e.g. When you do BATS(6) to SB(12) you pay 30+6 which gets you two additional fighter modules plus the fighters. So going from BATS(0) and paying 30 EPs only gets you the ability to have a SB(6). you would have to pay 32+12 to get a SB(12) from a BATS(0)
(441.434) Each module on an MB reduces the cost of upgrading that MB to a BATS by the cost of the module. If a MB(3P) was converted to a BATS(6P) the cost would be 6+3 (9 for MB to BATS, -1 for FTM, -2 for PFM, +3 for new fighter factors), correct?
ANSWER: Right.
(530.212) This rule indicates that Kzinti bases built automatically get free heavy fighters unless they opt to take PFs instead. Per (441.444), Kzinti heavy fighter module cost 2+8 EPs. Am I right that the only time you would need to pay this module cost is if you wanted to add heavy fighters to a MB or FRD?
ANSWER: Kzintis get free ones, but other races could choose to build heavy fighter modules, so a cost is needed. Heavy fighters cannot go on MBs (530.211) FRDs are probably out as the are not listed.
====================
Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Thursday, June 07, 2007 - 05:59 am:
(516.2J) Normally it take two LTTs to upgrade a base. However, it only take one LTT to upgrade a MB to a BS (444.21) and a STB to a SB LTT (452.22). Is the above list the only times a single LTT can be used to upgrade a base, or can an single LTT be used to upgrade any base that an engineer regiment can [(541.33D) and (541.35)]?
ANSWER: (444.21) and (444.31) lets you do MB to BS, and BS to BATS. That would essentially cover OPB to BS as well. (452.21) and (452.22) covers the STB upgrade and STB to SB. So taking the slow route lets you get away with only one LTT.
(519.1) A minor planet with three defense battalions and a BATS is assigned a monitor. Can the monitor be reassigned (since a BATS is already at the planet) or would another qualified base be required to be built to release the monitor?
ANSWER: You must add 4 PDUs or a BATS (if not already present) to release it. however, you cannot add 4 PDUs, only 3 PDUs as that is the maximum for a minor planet. So, you must add 3 PDUs (up to the maximum) to release the monitor.
(541.21) When an engineer regiment moves by Strategic movement, it moves as a military convoy. Does this include (526.131)? If it does, do engineer regiments have a separate limit or do they count against the military convoy limit?
ANSWER: Since the engineer rule says it moves (strategically) as a military convoy, I would say it counts against the military convoy limit. There is nothing that gives it a separate "engineer" limit.
===================
Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 02:05 pm:
I asked back a million years ago about CVTs (the hard-welded ones). Specifically, can they drop their pods? The answer at the time was yes, even in open space, but the pods were considered lost. I no longer have the GEnie archive (Jeff sent it to me once, but after I left the last time, I deleted almost everything I had that was F&E except for my PC code and the econ spreadsheet).
ANSWER: You can dump them (no salvage, but getting the tug back) for no cost (can be done anywhere). You cannot remove the pods to be saved for later.
You can also convert them from CVT 5 factor carriers to CVT+ 6 factor carriers (actually converting the pods) without counting against your carrier builds (recent ruling).
=======================
James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:24 am:
What are the limitations on retereating a tug that is acting as a supply point?
412.2 says that a tug acting as a supply point cannot move by any means during the player turn. Then says if it is 'forced to retreat' it loses it's supply status. As far as I am aware a retreat is always voluntary and I can't see anything that allows it to abandon it's supply mission.
ANSWER: You can always choose to retreat the tug (giving up the supply status). Also, a raider could "force a retreat" on the small scale combat chart. Retreat is not strictly defined as movement, it is a function of combat.
======================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 03:42 pm:
Please help me with (501.9) as it relates to the Romulans and their NH/FH/SPBs.
"Six (actually 6-8) fighter factors are equivalent to one ship for the purposes of various rules."
Question: Can I count the 8-factor squadrons on the NH/FH/SPBs as 1 SE each for the purposes of (302.332)?
ANSWER: See the reference to (302.35) as relates to fighters when in a battle force, so 6 factors counts as one squadron/command slot, not 8. 8 FF is still only one SE for pinning.
"Three (actually 3-5) fighter factors would be equivalent to a half-ship [...]"
Question: If 6-8 FF are 1 SE, and 3-5 FF are ½ SE, what are 1 or 2 fighter factors? By exclusion, they would seem to be zero SE. Could I have a CNV and a SPB on the line and still use the two "extra" fighters on the SPB because they aren't an equivalent (or even half of one)?
ANSWER: Half SEs have no meaning in a battle force, only for pinning. So 1 or 2 FF is one squadron/command slot for a battle force, but do not count at all for pinning. For pinning you need at least 3 FF which only gets you 1/2 pinning point (can pin a crippled ship).
===================
Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 06:57 pm:
I'd like a clarification of (706.2), please.
There's an entry that says: "CVA: If this type is allowed (513.41), no more than one per year may be built; this does not count against the overall carrier limit".
Now, is the "does not count" bit specific to the CVA, or to all heavy carriers? (I.e., should I count the build of a Gorn CVD against the (706.3) limit of two carriers/year, or against the (706.2-CVA) comment?)
Does the answer change depending on if I'm allowing (513.41), and if so, how?
ANSWER: The Gorn CVD is actually a medium carrier so it counts against the normal carrier 2/turn limit.
========================
Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 07:10 pm:
Please note as well that the Gorn division control ship, the MDS, is also described as a "Heavy carrier" and needs to be considered in the answer above.
ANSWER: The MDS still counts against the normal limits (as the Gorns do not have a normal CVA build slot). Adding the CVA slot would let you build the CVA (or SCS) in addition to the normal schedule. Also note the limit in (440.6) of one MDS per year.
========================
Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 02:54 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
523.53 X-fighter Squadrons: Hydran X-fighters formed into squadrons can have up to 9 factors per squadron. 6-8 counts as 1 ship for pinning, 9 counts as 2 ships.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, only the SBX and BTX have squadrons of X-fighters and so don't need this rule, just a notation that "6-8 X-fighter factors equal 1 SE and 9 equals 2 SEs". I would presume it's for the "Hybrid" X-ships. Can the Hybrid X-ships send their fighters forward as independant squadrons as true CVs? (They are paying those rates after all AND in PURE XTPs or FFFs.)
ANSWER: The X-ships can combine fighters with each other for pinning calculations. All Hybrid carriers and "send the fighters forward". The difference is that x-fighters get to become 9 factor squadrons.
=======================
Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 10:44 pm:
Ok, I am a little confused here on the 6-8 thing. If I have 3 SPB's in a hex does each one count as 2SE for pinning or can you combine the fighters into 24 fighters(3x8)= 4SE(6/24=4) so there are 7SE in the hexfor pinning.
ANSWER: You combine the factors when doing the pinning calculation.
=======================
Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 12:07 am:
523.511: Add the attack factors of the ship and its fighters when determining the strength for the mauler effect (523.312), but of course ignore anything over 10 points.
Can independant squadrons of X-stingers act like a mauler up to their attack factors (max 10)?
ANSWER: No. Rule (523.31) says you must have uncrippled x-ships in the force to get the mauler effect. When the ship is present, you can add its fighters when calculating the effect, but the ship must be present to get the effect in the first place.
=========================
By James Southcott (Yakface) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Hi Nick, thanks for the answer, just to check: effectively I can avoid a supply tug ever being attacked by leaving one ship in the hex with it. When my opponenet attacks I accept the approach, lose the frigate and retreat. IIs that correct?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 06:10 pm: Edit
Do you even need to accept the approach? Could you not choose to retreat (the tug) before combat, and then lose the frigate in the normal combat? (Although I'm not sure why one would do things in this order.)
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit
James, Dave, as far as I know you can do either of those things.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 06:55 pm: Edit
Of course, your opponent could surround the hex.....
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 07:25 pm: Edit
I left my rulebooks at the office.....
I know an unreleased fleet can send send 1 ship per turn to a SB just outside of their deployment area. I also seem to recall that for intial deployment, you can do the same thing.... but I'm not positive of this last part, or where the rule reference is.... and w/o the books, I can't look for it (and I don't want to wait until tomorrow).
If Nick (or anyone else) can reference the appropriate rule...
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 07:32 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
(600.32) UPGRADES: The ships, but not the bases, of an inactive fleet can be converted at the starbases in that fleet's area if the race is on Wartime status. Ships from other friendly fleets can enter the area to use repair/conversion facilities.
....
(600.322) An inactive fleet without a starbase may send one ship per turn to the nearest friendly starbase to be converted. (If a multi-ship conversion to a group is planned, enough ships for that group can be sent.) The ship/group must return to its fleet area on the next turn. If enemy forces attack the starbase doing the conversion, the ship(s) sent there for conversion are released.
________________________________________
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 07:54 pm: Edit
Wouldn't the effect of retreating the tug (even when leaving behind an FF to fight) end the tugs status as a supply point?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 08:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
Nothing on the issue of the new Rom carriers and which they replace in the build schedule?
For instance, IMO, the BEV should count against the WH limits and not the SPB limits, as the WH group is also a medium carrier, and both have the same number of fighters.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:45 pm: Edit
Daniel, yes, the supply status would end if the tug retreats. No one said it wouldn't. The question was whether you could even retreat or not.
Joe, not yet. I am writing it up, but had to go back and get the other Q&A in order as I was way behind on that.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 07:37 am: Edit
Nick, a question following Jimi's question about crippled escorts in pursuit. If I have a (CV)/MEC/FKE in the pursuit battle force, can my opponent direct on the (CV) ignoring the escorts? Or do they have to go thru the escorts(or group) as in normal combat? I have maintained that it is a carrier group like any other carrier group and that the (CV) is 'protected'
There seems to be debate every year in Colombus over this, and a ruling prior to us going would be beneficial, in my opinion.
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 10:36 am: Edit
It is a carrier group like any other. If you want to destroy the carrier, you have to cripple/destroy the escorts first.
In pursuit, you have to include the carrier as it is crippled, the escorts, as uncrippled ships, could be included as well, as such, it is still a normal carrier group.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 08:38 pm: Edit
Just to clarify:
"If you want to destroy the carrier, you have to cripple/destroy the escorts first."
That means I have to cripple *and* destroy the escorts first, not cripple *or* destroy them?
I know the answer, but someone new, reading the Q&A file, might misread the intent of that.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 09:24 pm: Edit
Kevin,
Yes, cripple AND destroy.
You can attack the group to cripple the remaining ships, then contine to destroy the cripples (for as far as you have damage points)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 11:56 pm: Edit
How does that work? If I attack the carrier group as a group [(CV)/MEC/FKE] wouldnt it work the same as Nick's example with the convoy? Meaning, if I cripple the entire group, I flip the escorts and destroy the (CV)? Or does it work otherwise?
And, if I attack the outer escort, I can destroy it, but can no further in the group because I have exhausted my one DD on an uncrippled ship?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:11 am: Edit
You can either:
Cripple each escort in turn (skip over already crippled escorts), then the CV and then
kill ships starting with the smallest escort, all the up to the carrier, if you have enough points.
-OR-
destroy the outer escort outright.
So, in your example, you could cripple the FKKE, then the MEC.... now the group is crippled. You can continue and then kill the FKE, MEC then the CV in order.... assuming you scored enough damage (12 + 15 + 6 + 8 + 10 = 51, or 41 with a 10-pt mauler)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:20 am: Edit
Joe,
I thought you could direct on the outer escort or the entire group as a single attack. Not kill each escort one at a time till you run out of damage.
Dave, crippled CV is different than a convoy as a convoy has no crippled side. You direct to cripple the group (discounting the cost of any all ready crippled units in the group) then destroy it. Crippling the group in your example is cheap as you don't have to spend the 20 damage points to cripple an escorted CV but you still have to kill the escorts to kill the CV. A crippled CV is still less fragile than a convoy.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 12:26 am: Edit
Dan,
That's what you're doing. I'm just illustrating it piecemeal to make it easier to see what's going on.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 01:03 am: Edit
Okay, it was a bit confusing in that it looke dlike you could have desided at each step if you wanted to do more.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 02:09 am: Edit
Plus, if you were directing on the group, not each piece one at a time, then the escort bonus doesn't apply.
Cripple FKE and MEC -- (5+7)x2 =24.
Kill (FKE), (MEC), & (CV) -- (3+4+5)x2 =24.
48 total if done in one shot.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 09:03 am: Edit
Kevin,
Ah, yes. You are correct.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit
Attacking any carrier group either in pursuit or regular combat, you have two options.
Cripple or kill the group outright (no escort bonuses). As a subcase of this option, cripple or kill the remaining ships in the group if some are already dead or crippled.
Or cripple or kill the outermost escort under CEDS (escort bonuses apply to uncrippled escorts).
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 03:32 pm: Edit
Is the B11 a legal unit?
SIT has it listed as part of the Reinforcements product(with the corresponding counter provided) with a YIS of 175 with a 6 point conversion cost from a B10.
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 03:15 am: Edit
After the end of turn 28 when the Tholians are forced to return to their space...
Are they allowed to strike out on following turns, but if not able to get ships back by retro forced to pay the 10EP per turn per ship penalty?
Are they able to collect funds and/or build ships?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 01:29 pm: Edit
Grant, all Tholian ships are tied up fighting the Selts, so I don't think they could venture outside their space after that event.
Presumably they still build ships (are still at war fighting the selts). I suppose the coalition could still choose to attack them (bringing them back into the general war).
Historically, the Selts arrived in Klingon space and started attacking the Tholians in Y182, this is the Turn 28 rule in F&E. The tholians signed a ceasefire with the Klingons, but not with the Selts. This lasted until Y186 when the ISC arrived and "dealt" with the Selts, and the Klingons mopped up the remainder.
So, the Selts will keep the Tholians occupied from turn 28 through the end of the game, effectively putting them out of the game at turn 28.
Presumably Civil Wars will have more detail on this aspect of the game, but until then when you hit turn 28, Tholians effectivly go away.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 18, 2007 - 01:33 pm: Edit
Grant, the B11 was not a historical unit, the counter was included in reinforcements as people asked for it. The SIT includes it on-line, but it has not be published in any other source (that I can find).
I would imagine it can be used at a given groups decision, but it is not a "stock" unit of the game.
One idea of course is that if you allow battleships for all races, the Klingons should probably get the B11 as compensation.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 - 11:59 pm: Edit
Thank you for your input(s) on the carrier group. Your responses were exactly my understanding. We have had some situations where we would have a CV/(MEC)/FKE in a pursuit battle and people were under the impression they could kill the crippled MEC as a single stand alone ship...which totally defeats the purpose of self crippling the middle escort. But the point stands that it is still a carrier group. Thanks again...cya in a couple weeks.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 02:13 am: Edit
Nick,
If I use a mauler in Advanced Small Scale Combat (AO:318.74) and get the +1 bonus, do I need to roll to see if it shocks?
(Nothing in the rule says I do (as I didn't use it to direct, (308.42) shouldn't come into play), but I just want to check that I get the bonus without risk.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 05:39 pm: Edit
Isn't the AF of a mauler reduced by 50% if it doesn't have two consort ships with it by (308.43)? Except for the Lyran STL I don't think any mauler would have a high enough AF to get a +1 in small scale combat due to the consort requirement.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 08:07 pm: Edit
If you read (318.74), it says that (a) the mauler loses 1/2 ComPot if it doesn't have its consorts, but (b) gives a +1 bonus if the consorts are present.
So, if I have, say, MD5(prime)+F5S+F5, I qualify for a +1 for the scout, a +1 for the Prime Team, and a +1 for the mauler, plus however much an O-ComPot advantage might give me. I would just like to be sure that the mauler's +1 is risk-free.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 09:02 pm: Edit
True. You didn't refer the other ships in your force so I didn't consider them. My bad.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 10:54 pm: Edit
How can anyone argue for a (+1) mauler modifier and then say it doesn't roll for shock if it would normally do so?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 11:14 pm: Edit
Chuck,
The mind continues to boggle
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 11:39 pm: Edit
Chuck,
That's my point. The ASSC rules say "if you've got a consorted mauler, you get +1". The mauler rules say "if you direct with the mauler, roll for shock".
So, by what is written, there's no risk of shock in ASSC because you don't direct with the mauler.
Now maybe the +1 is supposed to model using the mauler to direct and there should be a shock roll.
Or maybe the +1 is modelling the mauler having tons of batteries and charging up for an anchor. (Much like how I envision the extra capture chance maulers have in persuit working.) In this case, there shouldn't be a shock roll.
Or it could be that the +1 is supposed to represent the mauler being able to soak a huge amount of damage on reinforcement, and so the force whose side it's on has a better chance of getting real damage in first, and therefore a better chance of winning the fight outright. (And again, no shock.)
I dunno, so I ask Nick.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 11:54 pm: Edit
You know, I don't think we have ever had a Mauler roll for shock for using the +1 in Single Ship Combat. (However, Paul and Bill would have to confirm because I am not any of the Mauler using races.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, June 22, 2007 - 12:30 am: Edit
NM. found it
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Sunday, June 24, 2007 - 11:45 am: Edit
As the rules are quite clear, this isn't really a question, but a request for higher-level review at some point (possibly for the Warbook).
The chart in (444.14) tells us that a Base Station has 5 AF at 2 EW unless it belongs to a drone race, in which case it keeps its full AF of 10.
CL30 then established that there are X-Base Stations, and that their AF falls from 16 to 9 for all races at 2 EW (drone races get a bonus at 3 EW).
This means that a regular BS can perform better (10 vs 9) than an X-BS for the Feds, Klingons and Kzinti. I would suggest that the 2 EW AF for a regular BS should be something like 7 or 8 for the drone races instead.
By Roger D. Morgan, Jr. (Sonofkang) on Sunday, June 24, 2007 - 09:47 pm: Edit
Here's one to file away under the "When the **** would that ever happen?" file...
If a Tholian CMC is part of a pinwheel (322.0), would it be able to gain the +1 ship capture modifier (521.5)? Would it make a difference whether it is behind a web (say at a BATS) or not?
Roger
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 12:49 am: Edit
Hey Nick,
I hate to bug you again, but with Origins rapidly approaching, I'm trying to nail down my production.
For the moment, the biggest issue is the BEV; it would seem to me, that as a medium carrier with 5 fighters, it should count as a WH group, which is also classed a medium carrier group, and has 5 fighters.
At the very least, if Nick is unable to provide an answer prior to Origins, do the players of the Hurricane scenario object to playing it that way until a firm decision can be reached?
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 01:49 pm: Edit
All,
I remember someone mentioning that it was ruled that if the Roms do a conversion of an existing SUP + and existing SPB to a SUB (yielding a SUB, NH, and SP), that it did not count as building a SUB/CVA. Is this correct? If so, can you point me to the source? I want to confirm if I was informed correctly, or if my memory is faulty
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 05:53 pm: Edit
Joe, what exactly are you converting there? You seem to start with two ships (SUP and SPB), and end with three ships (SUB, SP, NH). Huh?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Go ahead and sub the BEV group for WH group for now, keeping the same escorts. I don't know if that will hold, but I can't get it fixed for real until after Origins.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 05:59 pm: Edit
Nick..OOPS
SUP + SPB = SUB + SP
No net fighter increase.
Count as CVA or no?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 06:18 pm: Edit
Nick,
Exactly when does the Federation get CVBG technology on turn 26?
The Alliance half of the turn 26 or the _Coalition_ half of turn 26?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 06:59 pm: Edit
Joe, thanks, I couldn't figure where that NH came from.
In that case, I think what you really end up with is:
SUP + SPB = SUB + SP + one set sparrowhawk B modules in storage (using one regular conversion and one modular conversion)
And thus the SUP to SUB is like any other heavy carrier conversion (counts as the CVA build).
There is no provision in the rules that I know of for the SUP (or any heavy hawks) to use the sparrowhawk modules (even though they essentially do from looking at the SFB SSD). There is simply no provision to "absorb" the modules into a non-modular ship.
Skyhawks use Skyhawk modules
Sparrowhawks use Sparrowhawk modules
Megahawks and Omnihawks use Sparrowhawk modules
Demonhawk uses Skyhawk and Sparrowhawk modules
Nothing else can use the modules.
In any case, even if the SUP could use the B modules (which it can't), the modular rules themselves prevent a given set of modules from being used on two ships on the same turn (433.432).
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 07:01 pm: Edit
Trent, The rule simply says Y181, so the could form CVBGs on that date, I don't think they have to wait until the Alliance half of that turn.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 07:09 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
In any case, even if the SUP could use the B modules (which it can't), the modular rules themselves prevent a given set of modules from being used on two ships on the same turn (433.432).
________________________________________
Nick,
An SPB can be converted into a SUB; take a look at the SIT. It is a non-modular conersion, but it is clear that is does, in fact, consume the SP-B modules. There IS a provision to aborb the modules, as evident by virtue of this conversion.
In a related question,
What about on a Demonhawk, which CLEARLY can use the B modules? If I add previously existing modules to a Demonhawk, does it count as a CVA build?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 07:43 pm: Edit
The question of adding existing modules to a Demonhawk has been asked before. It does not count as a CVA build if the modules come from an existing pool and therefor counted against a previous limit.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 08:32 pm: Edit
Dan,
Yeah, I thought I remembered hearing that, but I wanted to make sure.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 09:39 pm: Edit
Part of the Demonhawk ruling was in CL32, which can be found in the archive:
http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/197.html?1139414637
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 09:46 pm: Edit
Jeff,
All it says there is :\
________________________________________
Quote:
Modular Romulan Dreadnoughts: When a Romulan modular DN is built with SparrowHawk “B” (carrier) modules, it counts as a “heavy carrier” for purposes of being escorted. Players asked, however, if it counted as a heavy carrier for production purposes, or counted against the SPB medium carrier limit. It would seem obvious that it counts as a CVA, but confusion is caused by the fact that the Romulan carrier production limits are written in a different (ship specific) form than other races. We apologize for the confusion and will try to rewrite those limits for a broader range of classes at some future time, but a carrier-DN that is escorted as a CVA counts as a CVA for production.
________________________________________
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 12:04 am: Edit
Joe, but that conversion is SPB to SUB which is a listed conversion. It is specifically allowed. You cannot move the B modules from a SPB to a different SUP, that is what there is no provision for in the rules. The only way to move modules from ship A to ship B is with the modular rules, which a SUP does not use.
If you use pre-existing B modules on a new production Demonhawk, that does not count against the CVA (or any carrier) build slot. Those B modules counted against a carrier build slot when they were originally built. But you still cannot move the B modules directly from a SPB to another ship on the same turn.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 12:39 am: Edit
One other oddity:
The SP->FH conversion is 3 pts
The FH->NH conversion is 2 pts
Teh SP->NH conversion is 5 pts, but is listed as a 2-step conversion. Shouldn't this be 4?
By Greg Ernest (Grege) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 12:20 pm: Edit
Joe: are you going by the on-line SIT or the one printed in one of your books?
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 02:43 pm: Edit
Which is true ?
FO says Klingons get heavy fighter S178
PO says Klingons get Megafighter packs for heavy fighter F177
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 03:10 pm: Edit
Greg,
Online SIT, dated 26 December 2006.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 03:27 pm: Edit
The SP->NH conversion is specifically 5, so you can't build a SP for 5, then convert it to a NH for 4, netting you a NH that cost you 9EPs, when a straight build it would cost you 10EPs.
It'd use the same parts to complete, but be cheaper somehow because you use a "conversion" to create it. That doesn't make sense, so we forced the conversion cost to be 5.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 04:15 pm: Edit
----------------------------------------
Quote:
It'd use the same parts to complete, but be cheaper somehow because you use a "conversion" to create it. That doesn't make sense,.....
----------------------------------------
If I'm not mistaken, haven't we found that some Hydran carries do this very thing?
CV converts from RN:2+18, RN costs 6+4 total=30
CV subs for CA:10+22 total=32
savings by conversion=2EP
UH converts from LN:2+14, LN costs 4+2 total=22
UH subs for DD:8+16 total=24
savings by conversion=2EP
UH converts from DE:2+13, DE costs 5+3 total=23
UH converts from DD:8+16 total=24
savings by conversion=1EP
Source: Online SITs 6DEC06
Joe, I'll let you take it from here......;-).
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 04:24 pm: Edit
Scott,
Not only is everything that Damon said correct, but also, it is true for the Lyran CA->DN conversion.
As it is, the Roms got killed on some of their SUB conversion and direct build cost, all because new carriers got shoehorned in (ones I'd NEVER build, BTW). Now all of a sudden, they can't get a nice bennie because it is "too good" even though others get it. (just like the WE->KE is limited)
This, coupled with the CVD and FCR thing have me pretty frustrated. The Roms seem to have gotten the shaft across the board. It's like, we did something good for the Roms 8 years ago, and they've been ignored since.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 04:42 pm: Edit
Quite correct, Joe, that Lyran conversion has been there since Day One. Plus the Lyran CC->DN conversion is cheaper, too.
By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 04:51 pm: Edit
Rom also got some goodies: FAK, FHC, FHM
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 05:15 pm: Edit
FAK - It's OK, it lets me bring 2 more fighters in, but I'd rather have a CVD
FHC - I won't build many
FHM - I'll never build this.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 05:30 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have some Logistical Task Force (LTF) question for you.
1) Rules (523.451AO) and (526.264AO) state that LTF’s get X-FRDs, AKA FRX “for free” when X-ships become available to the Federation.
Rule (523.451AO) says that a FRX has 18 repair points, compared to 12 repair points for a FRD (See the SIT).
Since the Feds LTF get the FRX upgrade included “for free, does the 12/24 repair point limit of (526.261) get increased by six repair points?
I would say yes it does.
2) Can LTF’s conduct Rapid Combat Repair per rule (425.3PO)?
I say “yes” -- because (425.31PO) says a FRD can use its full repair points and that by (526.242AO) an LTF includes a FRD -- and that it could do 12. Then after Turn 24 X-ship deployment, 18 repair points of rapid combat repair.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 01:02 am: Edit
Rihan
Nice try, but the Novahawk ADDS an extra engine and its associated S torp, whereas the Hydran ships REMOVE things to install "empty" space and fighter recharging racks.
Now, I will admit that it is a little strange that the Hydran CVs are cheaper when converted instead of built directly, but they are usually using their major conversion slot to do a minor conversion (unless the Capital is held). I would have no problem having a rule put in that any race using a major conversion slot for a minor conversion gets 2 EPs off the cost (not including fighters/PFs), minimum 1 EP cost. See who else uses it.
However, the new DNWs also use the "cheaper by conversion" rules, so we can't really complain about the Lyran.....except for the fact that the DNWs count as production even when converting them.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 12:18 pm: Edit
Lui, not 'trying' anything. Just pointing out that the 'cheaper by conversion doesn't make sense' arguement is flawed.
Ever seen a navy ship overhauled? Ripping things out and putting new things in, is MUCH more difficult than bolting some Tommahawk box launchers to the deck. The carrier Service Life Extesion Programs (SLEP) could take over a year.
You and I did not design the game. Someone spoke in authority as to why a decision was made, but gave an example which is clearly not the case. I don't care that your 'little green machines' ;-) have a couple of good deals. Not trying to take them away. However, Mr. Tenhoff's reason is flawed. Now, if he had said we didn't want the Rommies to get a good deal, it would affect game balance, blah blah blah; so the SP->NH conversion won't follow the rules on two-step conversions, that would be one thing. Instead he said they used a justification which does not exist.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 10:14 pm: Edit
I guess he should have said:
It's the same justification as the Kzinti FF->FKE "2-step" conversion. Too good a deal if allowed.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 10:24 pm: Edit
and that's cheesy, too.
If they don't want it to get the benefit, don't make it a 2-step. The Z are losing out, too. Fix 'em both.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:01 pm: Edit
Lui, Joe, right. The Zin already have a limit on how many FKs they can make a turn, a la WE->KE, it should cost what it should cost.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:29 am: Edit
I think the real problem is that they made the FH too big for the cost. The FH is obviously a NCA, which normally cost 3 EPs to convert a 7/4 to a 8/4 and cost 6 EPs straight build, but they made it a 9/5 with a straight build cost of 8.
The original conversion of SP->FH should have been 5 EPs as it receives 2 uncrippled Compot (attack and defense) and 1 crippled Compot. It would also have matched the CW->NCA conversion by being 2 EPs more expensive to convert than to purchase. Then the FH->NH would still be 2 but the SP->NH would be 6 (with the double dagger).
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:52 am: Edit
I agree. Everyone else's NCA is an 8 pt unit, so it's only slightly better. Perhaps it should have costed 7, since it is better than other NCAs, but 8 but it right out.
Of course, a similar thing happned to the Gorns when the CM price was changed. Perhaps we can revisit both of them together and do something that helps them both and is balanced.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:09 am: Edit
No, it's a lot better. It gets higher attack AND defense when pristine and when crippled. And the Romulans get it several YEARS before everyone else gets their NCAs. Y170, at this point in time, most other races CCs cost 9 EPs and they can't build them directly without trading in a DN build. The FH doesn't have the CR of a CC but functions the same in all other ways. And the NH also comes out before everyone else's' NCCs too.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:12 am: Edit
Time in service does not affect the COST of any other ship.
"FH doesn't have the CR of a CC but functions the same in all other ways"
That's nonsense. A CC is a CC. It has 9 CR. A FH is not.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:23 am: Edit
Yes, that's why it only costs 8 instead of 9.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:29 am: Edit
Again, it is an NCA, with ONE more attack and defense factors, that costs TWO EP more. It isn't a CC.
And again, the Gorns lose out as well, and that's not fair either. (it used to cost 6 way back when, and that's a TEN point ship)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 01:44 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Again, it is an NCA, with ONE more attack and defense factors, that costs TWO EP more.
________________________________________
AND one more attack and defense factor when crippled.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 03:54 am: Edit
As Nick looks busy - might I suggest you take your discussion to the discussion topic.
Thanks
By Peter S. DiMitri (Petercool) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 07:44 am: Edit
Just to throw in 2 cents here:
The FH wasn't originally an NCA... the design came out before NCA's existed. However, it turns out now that it is, functionally, an NCA.
This leads to two problems that the Roms have with the hull:
1 -- The cost of the baseline NCAs for other races is 6 EPs, or .75 of the Combat factor of the ship. For the Romulan FH cost to be in line, it would have to be 6.75. That indicates that at 8 EPs, their NCA is somewhat overpriced.
2 -- While other races get an additional cruiser with the advent of the NCA, the Romulans do not. Every other race builds 2 heavy cruiser hulls a turn (in addition the the alternating CC/DN), whereas the Romulans get only one.
I think both of these problems are relatively easy to fix... add an FH to the schedule and lower the cost to 7 EPs (slightly higher than the baseline .75, but perhaps justified by the higher crippled factors and also it's a little easier).
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:16 am: Edit
Can we move this thread over to to the general discussions topic?
Nick already has enough problems with signal to noise in Q&A as it is.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:28 am: Edit
Actually, make a topic under the proposals section and put all your discussion there for future consideration so someone doesn't have to wade through 60+ pages of stuff to work out the issue.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit
Appealing a “Minor Ruling”
In CL # 34, page 88, there was a “Minor Ruling” that Federation size-4 DDX’s should only be treated as size class three units for battle groups.
The exact wording of Nick’s ruling was:
The Federation DDX and HWX are size-4 units, but when used in battle groups count against the limit of size-3 units (i.e., such a battle group can only have a total of three). This eliminates a problem caused by the 6xDDX superpack destroying everything in site during Y184. The changing in size class is justified in both cases. The DDX is in fact a cruiser, not a destroyer, but is classified as size-4 due to its unique design history. We may yet change the master SIT.
As one of the F&E staff for the creation Advanced Operations, I am appealing that published decision for the Federation [6 x DDX] battle group based on the following analysis that shows:
1) Coalition Bases & unescorted high compot units are supposed to die in the X-ship period;
2) That the [6 x DDX] battle group’s combat potential is not out of line with those of the Coalition;
3) That the Coalition in fact has X-Battle group superiority and;
4) Delaying and neutering Federation X-battle groups has a game breaking effect on historic Federation SB assaults in the late war period.
First, this is a line the Federation can field in Y181 Fall using the published rules set:
72 Compot - CVBG: [SCS(w/F14&A20)+CVD(w/F18)+NAE+HDW-E+NAC+DWE+DWE+E3A+E2A]
09 Compot - F111 CVBG 4th Squadron,
06 Compot - SCS F-18s included via E3A
40 Compot - 4xNCC
12 Compot - CX
14 Compot – DNH W/Adm in Formation
18 Compot – Drone Bombardment
04 Compot – 2x Prime Teams
08 Compot – A-20, F-14, 2xF-18, F-111 Megaftr Markers
00 Compot - SC in Scout Formation
-------------
183 Compot
1) The Federation force above achieves 64 damage points at 35% on the BIR tables. The magic number for a SB assault one-shot cripple with a full 10 point mauler 1-to-1 damage capacity is 62 damage points.
2) This same force with a 35% BIR will allow the directed damage crippling of a B-10 in formation without X-ship mauling effect.
3) Using a CX to provide 7 points of 1-to-1 directed damage, that “B-10 in formation cripple” threshold drops to 46 damage points (25% BIR).
4) Against this line, a Coalition 14/7 DNH in formation takes 28 damage points to cripple (15% BIR) and takes 49 damage point to kill (27.5% BIR).
5) Against this line, a Lyran 11/6 BCP in formation takes 19 damage points to cripple (12.5% BIR) and takes 37 damage points to kill (20% BIR).
The Coalition complaint that Federation [6 x DDX.] battle groups are uniquely game unbalancing because they can destroy Coalition bases, or B-10s, DNH’s, DNP’s and BCP’s in formation is not supported. All that is required to kill those units is the Federation 3rd Way and the mauler style directed damage effects of a single X-Cruiser.
In short, those ships dying in formation is an artifact of the late war period. Federation [6 x DDX.] battle groups are just another source of high combat potential to fuel a X-mauler attack. The “Problem” is not “Fixed” by banning the Federation [6 x DDX.] battle group.
If the Coalition wants to keep those hulls safe from Federation directed damage. They need to use flagship formation to protect them or convert them to space or battle control ships. Removing the Federation [6 x DDX] battle group game is irrelevant as far as keeping B-10s, DNH’s, DNP’s and BCP’s “safe” in formation. Which appears to be the primary Coalition objection to the Federation [6 x DDX], other than it exists at all.
The following is a spreadsheet of F&E X-battle group deployment and the combat potentials of the various X-battle groups:
Battle Group Race/Combatants Spring Y181 Fall Y181 Spring Y182 Fall Y182 Spring Y183 Fall Y183 Spring Y184
Turn 26 Turn 27 Turn 28 Turn 29 Turn 30 (&) Turn 31 (@) Turn 32
Compot Compot Compot Compot Compot Compot Compot
Klingon - 6xFX 54 54 54 54 54 54 54
Klingon -- 3xD5X + 3x FX 0 0 57 57 57 (*) 57 (*) 57 (*)
Lyran -- 5xCWX 0 0 50 50 50
Lyran -- 3xCWX + 3xDWX 0 0 0 0 54 54 54
Romulan -- 5xSPX 0 0 60 60 60
Romulan -- 3xSPX + 3xSKX/K5X 0 0 0 0 63 63 63
Romulan -- 3xSPX + 3xSEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
Kzinti -- 5xCMX 0 0 50 50 50
Kzinti -- 3xCMX + 3xFKX (**) 0 0 0 0 51 (*) 51 (*) 51 (*)
Gorn -- 5xHDX 0 0 55 55 55
Gorn -- 3xHMX + 3xBDX 0 0 0 0 60 60 60
Federation -- 5xDDX 0 0 50 50 50
Federation -- 3xDDX + 3xFFX 0 0 0 0 51 51 51
Federation -- 6xDDX 0 0 60 60 60 60 60
Hydran -- 6xLNX 0 0 0 60 (***) 60 60 60
Tholian -- 6xDDX 0 0 0 0 0 48 (***) 48 (***)
Note 1 (*) - Scout-drone combatants Note 2 (**) - Fast Drone +1 BIR Note 3 - (***) Soonest racial build slots allow X-Battle Groups Note 4 - (&) General X-Scout Deployment Note 5 - (@) Rom/Gorn X-Scout Deployment
The spread sheet shows several things.
First, the Klingons have unchallenged X-battle group superiority for three Coalition and two Alliance player turns. Thanks to Nick’s “Minor Ruling” the Alliance now faces five Coalition and four Alliance player turns of unanswered X-battle group superiority.
Second, pre-ruling CL #34 ruling the Federation ranks second in terms of X-battle group combat potential. Post ruling, the Federation is now ranked 6th, after the Kzinti due to their late war Kzinti fast drone BIR shift.
See the smaller table below:
X-BG Compot Rank
Romulan -- 3xSPX + 3xSKX/K5X 63 1
Romulan -- 3xSPX + 3xSEX 60 2
Gorn -- 3xHMX + 3xBDX 60 2
Federation -- 6xDDX 60 2
Hydran -- 6xLNX 60 2
Klingon -- 3xD5X + 3x FX 57 3
Klingon - 6xFX 54 4
Lyran -- 3xCWX + 3xDWX 54 4
Kzinti -- 3xCMX + 3xFKX (**) 51 5
Federation -- 3xDDX + 3xFFX 51 6
Tholian -- 6xDDX 48 7
In game terms, the Klingons start with the following economically in Winds of Fire:
1 Capital (5)
8 Majors (40)
1 Captured Major (2)
15 Minors (45)
4 Captured Minors (4)
Total 96
XTP @ 40% per (523.12AO)= 38.4
Provinces and NZ = 75.4
XTP for SB and Capital = 6
So before exhaustion the Klingons have 171.4 EP and 44.4 XTP
Exhaustion is 50%, so (171.4 EP)/2 = 85.7 EP
Converting 20% EP to XTP (17.14) per (523.12AO) leaves you with 68.56 EP and 61.54 XTP
Converting 10 addition EP to XTP at 1:1 per (523.12AO), the Klingons will have 71.54 XTP.
This allows the following Klingons X-ship production options on turns 26 & 27:
1) 3 DX & 1 D7C->DX conversion & 2 FX (63 XTP)
2) 3 DX & 3 FX (66 XTP)
3) 2 DX & 1 D7C->DX conversion & 4 FX (68 XTP)
4) 2 DX & 5 FX (71 XTP)
5) 1 DX & 6 FX (67 XTP)
6) 1 D7C->DX conversion & 7 FX (69 XTP)
Worst case, the Federation could be facing 21 Klingon FX in three X-battle groups by the time it produces its first DDX on turn 28.
More likely, the Klingons will use Coalition Turn 28 to produce D5X rather than FX, giving them up to six D5X and 14 FX. This also provides for three full X-battle groups, with two of them fielding 57 compot, before the first Federation DDX arrives.
This Federation X-battle group demotion is functionally much worse when X-scouts appear in Y183. Players replace their normal scouts with X-scouts and often place an additional X-battler group scout in the flagship protected formation slot. The Klingon D5DX and the Kzinti CMX are both 10/5 (4/1 EWP) scout-drone ships. The Federation SCX is a 6-10/3-5 (3/1 EWP) scout. Using a SCX to replace a DDX drops the Federation X-Battle Group compot to 48 -- a tie with the Tholians.
My evaluation of the effect of the “Minor Ruling” on Federation SB assaults shows the following with [5 x DDX] pre-Y183 and with [3 x DDX, 3 x FFX] or [2 x DDX, 3x FFX, 1 x SCX]:
SB Assault Combat Round Coalition Attrition Units Saved Pre-Y183 * EWP Shift Pre-Y183 ** EWP Shift Y183(+) @ Compot Damage Lost Pre-Y183 Compot plus AU Damage Lost Pre-Y183 Compot Damage Lost Y183(+)
1 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
2 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
3 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
4 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
5 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
6 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
7 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
8 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
9 1 Minus 1 EWP Minus 3 EWP 2 to 4 3 to 5 3 to 5
9 18 to 36 27 to 45 27 to 45
* Assumes five DDX in battle force ** Non-X EWPs are reduced by 2 EWP by five X-ships by 3 EWP with six X-ships. @ Assumes X-scouts in both protected formation positions
Summary:
The CL #34 DDX “Minor Ruling” was anything but. It does not “fix the problem” of “Y184 Superdense” [6 x DDX] battle groups. The “Problem” is caused by the existence of Federation 3rd Way high combat potential allied the arrival of X-ship mauler damage.
Further, the “Minor Ruling” is based on a false premise about the relative power of Federation X-Battle groups compared to other races.
Finally, the shift of 27 to 45 damage points by the “Minor Ruling” makes the burden of Federation assaults on Klingon X-ship and PF protected SB about 3-4 destroyed NCL worse than it was pre-“Minor Ruling.”
Based upon the above, the Game Designer should overturn this ruling in CL #34.
Trent J. Telenko
Former Member of the F&E design Staff during AO development.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 07:03 pm: Edit
At first blush, I have no objection.... not that I have any say in the matter, I'm not even on staff anymore. But as a primarily Coalition player, I do not object. I'm all for fairness and balance.
Generally speaking, I think we could probably trade off a number of limitations that are in the game solely for balance purposes, and make everyone happy.
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 11:17 pm: Edit
This ruling wasn't in the PDF of rulings for review, so I didn't notice it in CL34.
I searched my old files, and did see that there was some controversy about the Fed DDX. While I can't find the exact ruling, the DDX was originally listed as size 3, but was changed to size 4 to match SFB. During Advanced Ops development, this was resolved to let the Feds put 6 DDX in a battlegroup.
I don't why this popped up again, but the Fed DDX is the same size as all the other DWX ships, with the same warp. It just happens to have a slightly higher firepower than the others.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 11:19 pm: Edit
I don't remember how it got there, but I have almost zero interest in reviewing it for the fourth time.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 08:44 am: Edit
Just to be clear then Jeff...
Is the DDX SC3 or SC4 within a BG?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 10:52 am: Edit
F&E MASTER ERRATA FILE.
Contains Errata for F&E2K, Fighter Ops, Combined Ops, Advanced Ops, Planetary Ops, and Strategic Ops as previously published in Captain’s Logs #21 through #35.
Does not include SIT errata since all SITs are now updated online.
This file updated on 6/30/07 by Nick Blank.
=======================================
(103.22) Should refer to (502.92) not (502.652).
(104.2) Hydrans and Tholians no longer share fleet charts.
(105.0) The Non-Phasing player can also perform carrier retrogrades in Step 6.
(105.0) 3A4: Reference to (317.773) should be (318.731).
(105.0) 5-3F: If the Tholians turn down the approach battle, the combat round is treated as a null round with no casualties; either side may retreat after such a round. In Step 5-8C, this is done if the roll is NOT successful as 5-8D covers a successful role.
(105.0) 5-4C2: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-4D: Reference to (305.211) should be (305.21).
(105.0) 5-7C: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 5-8F: Reference to (307.73) should be (302.73).
(105.0) 9B: Reference to (314.144B) should be (316.144B).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (503.34) should be (504.34).
(105.0) Orion Step 9: Reference to (529.265) should be (529.25).
(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".
(302.733) In the case of a force including units with different supply path lengths (e.g. normal and fast or X-ships), a hex is not considered "in supply" for purposes of retreat if it is not in supply for the entire force for which you are testing the retreat priorities.
(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).
(302.761) This rule can be invoked during withdrawal before combat (302.14).
(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.
(306.1) This rule cannot be used during the raid (314.0) procedure, as there is no withdrawal before combat step during raids.
(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.
(314.21) Raid movement (the strategic portion and the operational portion) can pass through or originate from the race's off-map area.
(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.
(425.16) Planetary Repair Docks are in orbit of the planet in question. They cannot be targeted by drone raids.
(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.
(431.32) The Federation can overbuild its single-ship F111 carriers (e.g. NVH) that are "stand-ins" for PFTs.
(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.
(432.5) Delete the sentence regarding CVB overproduction, as CVBs cannot be overbuilt.
(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.
(433.41) Each upgrade step takes one complete game turn, but you can start the next upgrade at the point you finish the previous one, so a mobile base placed on Turn #1 could be a starbase on Turn #4.
(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.
(440.6) The Hydran CV counts as a medium carrier (instead of a heavy carrier) startig in Y176.
(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.
(441.14) Reference to (433.24) should be to (433.424).
(441.31) Reference to (441.113) should be to (441.11).
(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.
(452.11) Reference to (442.0) should be to (445.0).
(452.13) Reference to (413.35) should be to (413.45).
(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.
(508.213) A previously devestated (and not yet recovered) planet can be re-devestated by an attacker (with another 20 points of directed damage) in order to "reset the recovery clock".
(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.
(511.321) The 3 free fighter factors are hybrid factors worth 3 EPs. They could be used on a true carrier, but each one would count for half a true fighter factor. These could be annualized and received as 6 free hybrid fighter factors on the Spring Turns.
(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 subrules under this rule are misnumbered. They should be, in order, (533.411), (533.412), (533.413).
(533.412) The Orions can build four PDUs on Vegas, not six. This matches the limit in (533.43).
(534.23) Prime Teams cannot assassinate friendly/allied units.
(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).
(537.12) This allows one resistance movement per race.
(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.
(542.16) Obsolete survey ship production is prohibited "by any means". You cannot get around the prohibition on production by using conversions.
(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.
(607.2) The Kzintis can attack the Lyrans on Turn #4 if the Lyrans have not attacked them.
(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.
(675.69) There are three shipyards each for NCLs, DWs, and FFs. One of each type should be sent to sectors C, D, and E.
(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).
(703.4) Production Notes. One D7D produced per year (by any means) has a purchase cost of 8.5 (instead of 9) or a conversion cost from a D7 of 0.5 (instead of 1).
(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.
(756.0) Add Prime Teams to the list of 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 Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 10:52 am: Edit
The above is for Origins goers (or anyone else who really needs it right now). It will be uploaded to the proper place on the website after Origins.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 11:09 am: Edit
Nick: be sure you send that to Matt and make sure he knows where to put it.
Chuck: Just to be clear, whatever the last ruling is, that is the ruling.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 01:50 pm: Edit
Steve. Indeed. Often Origins comes up with a handful of additional items, so I will be sure to send it in afterward.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 05:03 pm: Edit
High Risk Survey (542.27)
Are the Five EPs found subject to exhaustion?
I would think not since you "found" them; these EPs have clearly not been part of your wartime economy prior to finding them in your backyard.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, June 30, 2007 - 08:06 pm: Edit
>Is the DDX SC3 or SC4 within a BG?
Chuck,
It remains SC-4 in either case.
The CL #34 ruling "promoted" the DDX to the same level of "artificial SC-3" as the HDW, HDX & F6 for purposes of BG inclusion.
My appeal is a request to void that ruling.
SVC just said up thread he did not want to revisit the issue, so it looks like the CL #34 ruling stands.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:39 am: Edit |
July - August 2007 Archive
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 03:15 am: Edit
Trent,
I can only say that you're vastly overstating your case. I've built the second off-map SB; yeah, it hurts (it would have hurt less if I'd had Engineers), but it can be done.
What's more, the instant it's completed, you can use the Engineers for shipyards (assuming Y170+). As such, you lose at most four turns of your ER (place MB, MB->BS, BS->BATS, BATS->SB), and three of those can use the ER (admittedly, you only save money on two of those three).
All in all, you're out 13 notional EP (from the ER benies you didn't use), plus 28 real EP (for the SB), for a total of 41 EP's "worth" (51, if you didn't plan ahead and save a MB for the contingency, 31 if you happen to lose the capital late enough to be able to do the STB step), which is a long way from your 100 EP figure.
On the subject of contingency planning, I note that the ER could easily have a BATS in place in the off-map by the end of T3 at no cost (because, really, what else is it going to do; you aren't allowed to upgrade the Marquis, and the Coalition will smash it anywhere else on-map). Then you're only out the 28 EP for the SB, which you can pay (or not) depending on how likely your capital falling seems to be.
You've asked an important question, and it needs to be answered, but it's nowhere near the end of the world (or game) if the major and SB are colocated.
(All that said, I think they should be seperate, even if it means the Kzinti declare a SB their capital in preference to the major (so they can do major conversions).)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 03:58 am: Edit
Can we move the discussion to the Discussion topic...Nick's got a big hammer and he is coming this way!
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:03 pm: Edit
Just one point before I wander off to Discussion: the new capital could be one of the Kzinti minor planets (which allows the Major/SB to do the minor shipyards, but denies a major conversion (until a SB is built)).
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 01:19 pm: Edit
Chuck,
In a situation where the Kzinti lose their capitol. The likelyhood they will have any remaining SB are vanishingly small.
_Especially_ when those SB have an Eng Regiment and minor shipyards operational/under construction present.
I repeat, there is a huge incentive here for a Coalition "Kzinti to the exclusion of everything else" strategy. If after the capitol hex falls, the Kzinti cannot build minor shipyards off-map without having to build a new SB there first.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 01:58 pm: Edit
>All in all, you're out 13 notional EP (from the
>ER benies you didn't use), plus 28 real EP (for
>the SB), for a total of 41 EP's "worth" (51, if
>you didn't plan ahead and save a MB for the
>contingency, 31 if you happen to lose the
>capital late enough to be able to do the STB
>step), which is a long way from your 100 EP
>figure.
Dave,
The total at start off-map Kzinti economy is _12 EP_.
The total Marquis is _7 EP_.
The co-location of the SB and major planet is a negative swing of 102 EP in terms of Kzinti mobile fleet expenditures now having to be sunk into off-game map infrastructure.
This also leaves out the fact that;
1) Any off map minor shipyard construction that happens at the co-located SB/Major planet prior losing the capital is immediately deactivated (Per (450.13) Minor shipyards cannot be located in the Main shipyard), and
2) The BATS->SB upgrade will delay the new shipyard construction, given the small off-map/Marquis Kzinti economy, and,
3) Finally, your "Contingency planning" weakens the Kzinti capitol in terms of deployed MB and whatever EPs you squirreled away by not buying more capitol fixed defenses and/or ships.
>Just one point before I wander off to
>Discussion: the new capital could be one of the
>Kzinti minor planets (which allows the Major/SB
>to do the minor shipyards, but denies a major
>conversion (until a SB is built)).
Heavy carriers require a conversion in the main shipyard hex per (515.52 FO). This option makes it impossible to convert a DN to a CVA or to a SCS. That is why that is not a realistic Kzinti build alternative.
Note also, since that minor planet main shipyard is the capitol. The Eng Regiment's discount cannot be used to build the SB to get that major conversion back. So now you have the full cost of a MB->BATS->SB build to pay for to get your heavy carrier conversions back.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 05:38 pm: Edit
Trent: First, please read (511.31); if the Kzinti lose their capital then they must designate: “a new capital, which can be a planet or starbase. This must be in an off-map area…”
The Kzinti Barony off-map has the following:
Baron’s Starbase
Major Planet - Klarksa
Minor Planet - Kasparsa
Minor Planet - Telenkos
Any of which may be chosen to serve as the new Kzinti replacement capital.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
If after the capitol hex falls, the Kzinti cannot build minor shipyards off-map without having to build a new SB there first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not true, please read (450.13) again as MSYs can be built at any major planet or SB. The Barony has both so even if you designated a replacement SY at either the SB or major planet you can still construct a MSY at the other (outside of any evidence that any or all these sites are co-located -- I cannot find any).
By George Hoffman (Geh4th) on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 05:39 pm: Edit
A question about 540.25 (Strategic Operations, Diplomacy, Neutral Planets):
If you get the planet to join you, do you also get the EP's for the neutral zone hex that the planet is located in? Assuming so, is it .2 EP's (as if it's conquered) or .4 EP's (as if it's annexed)?
The planet did join up willingly, after all.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 06:44 pm: Edit
Chuck,
My point has always been that
1) If the Baron's SB is at Klarksa,
then
2) There is nowhere off-map for minor shipyards to be built
If
3) Either the SB or the major is chosen as the capitol.
Neither of the minor planets can have minor shipyards.
If either of the minor planets is chosen as the capitol rather than the possibly co-located Baron's SB and Klarksa. Then the Kzinti give up the ability to convert any ship to a Heavy carrier without building a SB.
The problem is the game incentive for the Coalition to take the Kzinti homeworlds if the SB and major are co-located.
The Kzinti will have pay to build an off-map SB to either
A) Build off-map minor shipyards or
B) Convert hulls to heavy carriers.
No other race faces that choice and making them face it is in the Coalition's interest.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 03:55 am: Edit
Hi Nick - sorry to chase -
Can EP's be moved twice in a turn? 435 doesn't say one way or another.
Basically - Op move - placed in partial grid - picked up and op moved (or even Strat Moved) again?
Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 03:53 am: Edit
Nick thought I better make the above clearer - example I gave isn't good.
Can Ep's be moved twice in a turn, by any means?
(Examples, Blockaid Run and Op Move, Op move and Op move, Op move and Strat Move or Blockaid Run and Strat move (Can't think of a reason to Strat Move and Strat Move, but I suppose it's possible).
Thanks
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 09:15 pm: Edit
Nick,
In the Errata: (302.133) Cloaks: If the chosen flagship successfully uses a cloaked evasion...
In the rule book: (302.133) Fighters and PFs cannot be left behind...
Cloaked ship rule in (302.1) "Withdrawal Before Combat" added through Errata should have a different rule number as the one given to it is all ready taken. Recommend using (302.136) as it is the next in sequence.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:42 am: Edit |
September - October 2007 Archive
By George Hoffman (Geh4th) on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 11:17 pm: Edit
Another question about EP's gained thru diplomacy:
Exactly WHAT can and cannot be done by a 'future belligerent' empire (still at peace) that has earned economic points thru diplomacy?
The diplomacy rules themselves appear to contradict 602.17 (in that they allow a future belligerent to gain/save EP's), at least in the case of the Federation as indicated in that rule.
As an example, can conversions be done on the ships of the 'empire-at-peace' using this new funding? It would seem that something should be possible, but it doesn't appear that this was specified (if anything.)
Thank you in advance for any replies.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 06:27 pm: Edit
Nick,
The Fed FBE, FBS, FBV, and Klingon F6J do not show 2 step conversion costs from the FF and F5 (respectively). Is this an oversite or intentional?
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 10:44 am: Edit
QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT
By John W. Lawton (Kyloth) on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 10:40 pm: Edit
Hi:
I am trying to figure out the Federation F-111 module for bases. If I add an F-111 to a base what is the right values when undamaged and when damaged?
For example a BATS with 2 FTRs and F-111 module has a value of 9H6 correct? If crippled is the reverse 9H3 or is it 4 triangle H3, or does it loose the 9H all together and only has the 3 left for the fighters?
Another question along the same lines is, if an SB with 2 F111 modules (18H) is damage what is the reverse values, 9H?
The only thing I found in the rulebook was it was to be treated the same as a PF Module.
Thanks in advance
John
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 05:02 pm: Edit
Nick,
Would a Kzinti CVL to a BCS conversion be considered a legal two-step conversion?
It is not listed on the Master SIT as one.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 08:36 pm: Edit
OK, I thought I knew this one, but a recent discussion got me thinking that maybe it had been modified since I last saw the printed rule.
I cannot use an Admiral on a Battletug, I know that. But the Admiral is not considered 'on the tug', but instead simply in the hex (presumably on one of my command cruisers). Can it give its +1 command rating to the battletug, or must it be on the ship to boost its command rating?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 09:43 pm: Edit
Kevin, an Admiral is not required to be on the command ship, but it must be in the battle force. (You can use a BT for command and ADM can be on a CC in the line and still get the +1)
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 10:17 pm: Edit
I was setting up for our latest game of F&E, and I decided to go over the Romulan OB in some detail. I especially focused on the PWC, looking to see if the PWC in the fleets matches the 704.1 Pre-War Construction.
For the most part, they matched up. Unfortunately, the 704.1 PWC only lists the base hulls, unlike the Gorns's and Federation's PWCs that list variants. This is undesireable because if the Roms go to war before turn ten for some reason, the player does not know which ships have been built. If desired I would be happy to come up with a reasonable schedule of PWC.
I found a few errors in the PWC. Two of them were regarding the Rom's free survey ship conversions when using SO. The home fleet should have two extra WE to convert to PE, and the SPC in the SO notes should be a SPS. The reason for the extra WEs is to make the ship count match what is in the Home Fleet OB. Before the SO conversion to PE, the 704.1 PWC of SP is two hulls short of what is necessary to generate the OBs for all fleets. With PEs it's just right with SP hulls, but now we'd have to take two WEs to convert to survey duty. In order to keep combat hulls the same, two extra WE should be added. Without SO, two SP hulls should be added to the 704.1 Pre-War Construction schedule.
The other was the 704.1 Spring 172 construction of a FFH. None of the fleets call for a FFH in their PWC, but all call for a FH. My guess is that the FFH should instead be a FH--that way all three fleets start with one.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 12:31 am: Edit
I found where the problem is. When AO was published, it added two SPF to the Rom PWC OB: One in the Home Fleet and one in the Fleet of the North. It did not at the same time increase the 704.1 Pre-War Construction Schedule to account for the extra hulls. Therefore I propose changing the last two turns of 704.1 to 4xSP/turn if not using SO. If using SO, I propose to instead add 1 WE to each of these two turns. Then all will balance.
I know that all this really isn't a question, but I thought that I'd post this here so it gets into the errata que for the next Captain's Log.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 07:38 am: Edit
Adam, you should put this in the Warbook topic to make sure it is fixed.
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 10:18 am: Edit
Will do.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, September 11, 2007 - 05:02 pm: Edit
I am aware of the Rom OOB goofyness. It was correct in F&E2K (PWC matches with the listed fleets for turn 10 entry), but got goofy when stuff was added in the expansions, so the OOB in Advanced Ops is not quite right.
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 08:13 am: Edit
I have two questions. I think from my reading of the procedures here that it's ok to put them in the same note.
1. Does the GVX lose its special X-ship powers if part of a carrier group or 3rd-Way combined group? 523.352 seems to be the applicable rule, and it could marginally be saying that. Obviously by my language, I think that it is pretty clearly talking only about X-ships acting in an ad-hoc escort role. I can't seem to find any other pertinent rules on the subject.
2. When I typed in the search engine, I didn't get any hits for '"Prime Team"+GCE+capture'. My question on the subject is if you have both a GCE and Prime Team in the battleforce, could they both contribute a -1 to the die role in a capture if they were assigned to that mission?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 11:17 am: Edit
Ahmad,
(522.43) specifically says, "This is not cumulative with the use of a GCE (521.5)." so you could not use a Prime Team and a GCE for capture roles.
You'll have to wait for Nick to answer the 3rd-Way GVX question. I don't know where to find that answer.
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Sunday, September 16, 2007 - 12:48 pm: Edit
Danke, Daniel! Would you believe that I read through that rule twice last night and missed it both times? lol
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 11:55 am: Edit
This was Nick's GVX ruling:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 07, 2007 - 04:08 pm: Edit
Bill Schoeller:
Fed GVX.
1) I see in 527.27 that the Feds can build the GVX on turn 29 (fall 182). The SIT lists it available in 182. Assuming that the GVX is NOT available on turn 28 (spring 182), the SIT should be changed to fall 182.
ANSWER: I moved this to the SIT topic.
2) 527.27 says that the GVX is escorted as a medium carrier, but can only be escorted by x ships. It also says that it can be operated as a single ship carrier. Can the GVX be used as a single ship carrier in a CVBG; therefore, being escorted by non x-ships in this configuration.
ANSWER: I don't think so. It looks like they cannot be mixed, normal escorts cannot escort the X ship, and X ships cannot escort the normal carrier, so you are stuck either way. I suppose you could pair the GVX with another non-X single ship carrier, i.e. a CVBG with no escorts.
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 01:58 pm: Edit
Trent, that's cool and all, but my question had to do with the GVX being absorbed as a single-ship carrier into a CVBG and whether in that case it would still keep it's special X-ship powers.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 03:57 pm: Edit
Ahmad,
I think it answers your questions. I am reading that answer as to say a GVX can only be in a CVBG of two single-ship carriers, i.e no escorts at all. Are you really going to put two carriers with no escorts either than each other on the line?
By Ahmad Abdel-Hameed (Madarab) on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 04:18 pm: Edit
Russell, I think that I see what you're saying now. It never seemed to me that the CVBG escorts were actually "escorting" the other ship as well, but I was just wrong. lol I think what triggered my wanting to use the SCS+GVX combination was that I'd seen people (Cfant comes to mind right now.) using it for creating hypothetical battle lines before the release of AO.
Trent, I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying. Thank you for your help!
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, September 17, 2007 - 10:24 pm: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
I am reading that answer as to say a GVX can only be in a CVBG of two single-ship carriers, i.e no escorts at all.
________________________________________
Or a regular CV that will take extra command slots for the missing escorts. Like a {SCS, GVX} CVBG that takes 4 command slots and only has 2 ships. That's how I read it.
Now, if the GVX didn't have that pesky 1 in service limit, it would be a nasty CVBG to see of all X-Ships: {GVX, GVX, DDX, DDX, DDX, DDX}.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 09:51 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Now, if the GVX didn't have that pesky 1 in service limit, it would be a nasty CVBG to see of all X-Ships: {GVX, GVX, DDX, DDX, DDX, DDX
________________________________________
.}
I just got shivers up the spine at facing that. I'm at work and don't have my books. How much compot would the DDX's lose as ad hoc's?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 10:01 am: Edit
Ad hoc's lose half or 3, whichever is greater. So an ad-hoc DDX is a 5-10. An ad-hoc FFX is 3-7.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 07:39 am: Edit
Nick...any news on answering my money question?
Thanks
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 08:48 am: Edit
" I am reading that answer as to say a GVX can only be in a CVBG of two single-ship carriers, i.e no escorts at all. "
That's not what it says.
It says a GVX (with no escorts), plus a normal, non-X carrier group, can be combined.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 09:57 am: Edit
What says that? The rule? Or Nick's ruling?
Because Nick's ruling (quoted above by Trent) says exactly the opposite.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 10:14 am: Edit
OK, so I got a question on supply tugs.
Can a tug abandon a "supply point" mission, in order to retreat from a battle?
Because unless I'm all screwed up in the rules (and I probably am), it seems like the Tug can declare itself a supply point on the player's turn, (and it's good that turn), then on the opposing player turn, simply retreat when attacked, then on the Tug's following turn, re-declare themselves a supply point.
It becomes the never-killable supply point, though it is slowly pushed back one retreat-hex per turn.
Or, as I previously suggested, is my rule interpretation all screwed up? Thanks in advance.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 10:51 am: Edit
Kevin,
Hehe. Looks like I misread it.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 11:00 am: Edit
Kevin,
Here's Nick's latest on the tug as supply point retreating issue:
________________________________________
Quote:
James Southcott (Yakface) on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 - 10:24 am:
What are the limitations on retereating a tug that is acting as a supply point?
412.2 says that a tug acting as a supply point cannot move by any means during the player turn. Then says if it is 'forced to retreat' it loses it's supply status. As far as I am aware a retreat is always voluntary and I can't see anything that allows it to abandon it's supply mission.
ANSWER: You can always choose to retreat the tug (giving up the supply status). Also, a raider could "force a retreat" on the small scale combat chart. Retreat is not strictly defined as movement, it is a function of combat.
________________________________________
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 11:49 am: Edit
Kevin
Nicks answer wasn't as specific as it could have been and the language is slightly misleading. The quote is this:
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: I don't think so. It looks like they cannot be mixed, normal escorts cannot escort the X ship, and X ships cannot escort the normal carrier, so you are stuck either way. I suppose you could pair the GVX with another non-X single ship carrier, i.e. a CVBG with no escorts.
________________________________________
The first part of his answer (in blue) only says that the CVs cannot be escorted properly, non-X CVs with ad-hoc X-ships and GVX with non-X escorts. The second part of his answer (starting in red) is only his musings and not really part of his "official" answer. And the third part of his answer (in green) gives an example that isn't exactly consistant with his musings.
He should have dropped out the "single ship" part for consistancy with the 1st and 3rd part of his answer. Or adjusted the 1st and 3rd part for consistancy with the "single ship" part. But, until he clarifies his answer, I would go with the fact that 2 parts of his answer suggest that you can put any other CV in the CVBG with the GVX and not have any escorts---and the third part of his answer doesn't really directly contradict this.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 02:37 pm: Edit
Thanks, Mathhew
But is there then anything that prevents me from re-declaring the Tug as a supply point at the beginning of my next player turn (and each and every turn thereafter)?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 02:58 pm: Edit
Kevin,
If you're asking for an official ruling, that has to come from Nick, which is why I tried to just point to the last time he answered the question you had.
If you're asking for an opinion from another totally neutral player, I'd say there's nothing in the rules to prevent declaring a tug a supply point each and every turn, with the intention to retreat if attacked.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, September 21, 2007 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Thanks again, Mathhew.
And yes, I'm looking for the official ruling, with no rush, so I'll check back later. But offering my own opinion, it seems a bit of a cheat to become a supply point each player turn, then retreat on the opposing player's attack, then go right back to being a supply tug like nothing happened (though one hex back).
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 11:54 pm: Edit
I thought there was a rule about at least half the ships in a battleforce needing to be the same race as the flagship, but I'm unable to locate it.
So I'm either blind or on crack. Not the best of choices... ;)
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 01:30 am: Edit
Ah, perhaps I was thinking of 507.5, which only applies to Reserve fleet composition.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 03:55 am: Edit
Ben
(302.321) 2K pg. 19.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 11:03 am: Edit
Aha! I was looking in my '89 rulebook, in which that rule did not yet exist.
Thank you.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 01:25 pm: Edit
Nick,
Request for confirmation: HDW-F (field repair) are allowed in Battle Groups, correct? (Rule (315.26) allows HDW that aren't in a configuration prohibited in (315.23), and ships capable of doing field repair aren't on the prohibited list.)
The confusion arises because "ships capable of doing field repair" (I use that phrase because "repair ship" refers to a specific unit in the game) isn't on the (315.24)'s allowed list.
This really only matters for capital assaults, but would also matter if the Romulan SpH-R ever had special rules written for it.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 01:47 pm: Edit
Nick,
There was, apparently, a ruling in CL#34 that the Fed DDX counts as a SC3 ship for Battle Groups. Does this also promote the SCX (which is the same hull, but with different "weapons") to "SC3 for BG" status?
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Sunday, September 30, 2007 - 12:06 pm: Edit
Kenny:
1. No. See 431.4
2. If you're at peace, the money just disappears. The government is spending it on things other than the military. The only exception would be WYN trade or diplomats, but you aren't playing with those rules right now.
3. See 431.3. You can overbuild any ship of 8 compot or less that is available for the current year. See 433.3. For example the Hydrans could overbuild Rangers or CUs even if they aren't on the schedule for that turn because they are available for the current year.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 07:49 am: Edit
Sorry to chase Nick...any chance of an answer on the Double Money Transfer question?
Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 02, 2007 - 11:36 pm: Edit
ANSWERS POSTED
This gets me partially caught up:
=======================================
Paul Howard:
Can EP's be moved twice in a turn? 435 doesn't say one way or another.
Basically - Op move - placed in partial grid - picked up and op moved (or even Strat Moved) again?
ANSWER: I don't see why not.
=======================================
Peter D Bakija:
Follow up, as what I'm looking for is still unclear--I have a Convoy in spot A. I want a Convoy in spot B which is too far away for the Convoy to get to via operational movement, and because I need the Convoy now, I can't wait till Strategic movement to get it there. In the general rules set, this isn't a problem, as I could just build a new Convoy and place it where I needed it. In the 4PW, due to the prohibition on using more than 1 Convoy at a time, I am kind of stuck--I could wait till the strategic movement phase, but that wouldn't help what I need helping (i.e. I need a supply source during operational movement, combat, and retrograde of this turn). If I could voluntarily disband (self destruct?) the convoy I already have and just pay to build a new one, that would do everything I need it to. Is this something I can do?
ANSWER: No, I don't think you can do that. There is no rule allowing you to scrap/disband convoys that I can find.
=======================================
Chuck Strong:
asked for appeal of YIS dates for minor shipyards.
ANSWER: Sure. Added to the list of things I have to go over with Jeff/Steve/Staff.
=======================================
Michael H.Oliver:
Can you give me a ruling on the Theater Transport......What is the Max number of Theater Transport (FF Hull type and DW Hull Type plus the E4 Hull type) that can be Substitution per turn.....mholiver
ANSWER: I don't know of any specific limit. If you build 6 DWs normally on your schedule, you could sub DW transports for all of them.
=======================================
Garth L. Getgen
At ORIGINS '06, SVC talked about a rule change that would require tug pods to be on-map at all times, and to swap a tug mission, you'd have to get tug & pod together somehow.
Did that ever make it into the game? If so, where's that published? If not, is it still expected to be added in a future publication?
ANSWER: It did not. I do not know if it will be published or not, but is certainly possible.
=======================================
Philippe le bas:
I just bought CL33, and I wonder if Craig Tenhoff' tactical note (BATS BUSTING BY ONE THOUSAND CUTS, page 102) is legal. Rule (320.344) says that ONLY one SIDS can be scored by a special raid against any one base on any one turn. The tac note scores one SIDS by commando raid (320.4) and one by drone raid (320.21). Is this legal ?
ANSWER: Well, a commando raid is not a special raid actually, it is a commando raid. Special raids only include drone raids and fighter/PF raids. We now have normal raids, special (drone/fighter/PF) raids, and commando raids.
=======================================
Robert Russell Lender-Lundak:
F&E has a maximum Operational Movement rating of 2 for Convoys. With that in mind we are wondering what the speed of certain individual ships would be when removed from a "Convoy".
Specifically we are wondering what the Operational Speed of the following are:
1. Armed Priority Transport (APT)
2. Free Trader (FT)
3. Freighters with NO pods
Please help with this info if it can be provided.
ANSWER: Robert, APTs and FTs are in the latest expansion, Strategic Ops. They have normal 6 hex movement.
Podless freighters are not defined, but I doubt it would be any faster than a tug with a pod.
=======================================
Robert Padilla:
Can a PRD be built by a race that is not at War?
ANSWER: No, you have to be at war, just like producing an FRD.
=======================================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
Can you please check the conversion costs for the Kzinti FDX. The SIT says you can convert a FFK to an FDX for only 5 EP as a two step conversion. FFK to FKX is 5 EP and FKX to FDX is 3. I think that the cost as a two step should be 7. Thanks for checking this out for me.
ANSWER: Please put this sort of thing in the SIT topic, as Steve Cole will fix the on-line SIT if he agrees with you. I asked it in that topic for you.
=======================================
Trent Telenko:
Is the off map Kzinti SB at the off map Kzinti major planet?
This is a major issue as minor shipyards may only be built at major planets. If the Kzinti SB is located there, it becomes the capitol shipyard and the Kzinti cannot build any minor shipyards off-map.
ANSWER: I believe the intent was to allow you to buildminor shipyards off-map without a second starbase, so I suppose the existing starbase is not at said major planet, but is at an independent location.
=======================================
By Dave Butler
How much money do the Romulans get for cancelling (431.42) the K4 hulls they're due on turns 2 and 3? I can see arguements for:
1 EP: They're considered activations (704.2);
2 EP: They're activations, but also need to be converted from Klingon to Romulan service;
2.5 EP: This is their build cost (and almost certainly the wrong answer).
If the answer is 2 EP, then can the Romulans take ownership of the E4 hulls, but not convert them to Romulan service (presumably paying for the conversion later), thereby collecting 1 EP/ship (which would be lost if not spent, per (431.42))?
ANSWER: Under (652.4) ships delivered from the Klingons are considered foreign ships until converted, there is no activation cost per se. Presumably any such cancelled ships would revert to the Klingon mothball fleet. If delivered but not converted they would count as foreign ships until converted as the rule says.
=======================================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
On any turn that an Alliance race goes to war with a Coalition race when are the Alliance race’s fleets released? At the beginning of that turn or at the beginning of that player turn?
As an example, during the General War the Hydrans may go to war with the Klingons and/or the Lyrans on turn 3. Are the Hydran fleets released at the beginning of turn three or at the beginning of Alliance turn 3? Could ships of the First and Second Fleets react to movement on the Klingon and Lyran borders during the Coalition half of turn 3? Could the Federation do the same on turn 10 if the Coalition does not attack (unlikely though that may be)?
ANSWER: The beginning of Alliance turn 3, that is when the Hydrans declare war. The fleets are unreleased on the coalition half of turn 3, and cannot react. But, remember that you don't have to set up the Hydrans at all until the alliance half of turn 3 so....
=======================================
Jason E. Schaff:
Situation for a rules question:
A BATS is attacked with overwhelming force. The defender has two crippled and two uncrippled ships present and declares withdrawal before combat, withdrawing the two cripples. The attacker does 24 points damage and lets it fall. The defender blows up the BATS and its fighters and declares retreat.
Question:
Can the attacker attempt to pursue the retreating defenders? i.e., Do the crippled ships withdrawn before combat count as part of the retreating force, allowing pursuit, or are they already gone from the hex before the retreat phase?
ANSWER: Rule (302.16) says if some of the ships withdraw, they are no longer in the battle hex, so no, they could not be pursued later during the resolution of that battle hex, they are no longer a part of that battle hex. The remaining ships that later retreat (and which must retreat to the same hex the withdrawn ships went to at the start of the whole thing) can be pursued normally.
=======================================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
In the Errata: (302.133) Cloaks: If the chosen flagship successfully uses a cloaked evasion...
In the rule book: (302.133) Fighters and PFs cannot be left behind...
Cloaked ship rule in (302.1) "Withdrawal Before Combat" added through Errata should have a different rule number as the one given to it is all ready taken. Recommend using (302.136) as it is the next in sequence.
ANSWER: No, I think it was written as an addition to that rule, it now covers fighters/PFs thing, command rating thing, and cloak thing.
=======================================
George Hoffman:
Another question about EP's gained thru diplomacy:
Exactly WHAT can and cannot be done by a 'future belligerent' empire (still at peace) that has earned economic points thru diplomacy?
The diplomacy rules themselves appear to contradict 602.17 (in that they allow a future belligerent to gain/save EP's), at least in the case of the Federation as indicated in that rule.
As an example, can conversions be done on the ships of the 'empire-at-peace' using this new funding? It would seem that something should be possible, but it doesn't appear that this was specified (if anything.)
ANSWER: Added to list of things to send up the chain. What can you do with diplomatic cash at peacetime?
=======================================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
The Fed FBE, FBS, FBV, and Klingon F6J do not show 2 step conversion costs from the FF and F5 (respectively). Is this an oversite or intentional?
ANSWER: Not a clue. This is another question for the SIT topic. I asked it there for you.
=======================================
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 01:14 am: Edit
I am just getting back into F&E after a long absence, and one of the rules I was pretty sure I remembered was pinning.
However reading the rule is frustrating me, so I am asking for some help here, I hope this is the correct place to ask such a thing.
(203.5) MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS CAUSED BY ENEMY UNITS, i.e. "PINNING"
While a player may move his units into a hex containing enemy units, the player cannot move units out of a hex containing enemy units unless there are a number of friendly ships remaining in that hex equal to the number of enemy ships. Exception (203.55).
(203.55) In the event that enough enemy ships are in the hex to completly pin (i.e. prevent the departure of) a friendly force, compare the command ratings of the ship with the largest command rating from each side. If the moving player's rating is higher, he may move a number of units equal to the difference in the command ratings out of the hex. (At least one ship must be left behind in the hex.) The moving force must include the command ship used in the calculation. Admirals and command points do not count.
Then there is an example given of a 13 ship taskForce headed by a command cruiser being reacted onto with 3 FF's.
At this point I am following everything, the 13 ship TF leaves behind any 3 ships (or SE's except fighters/PF's unless the CV/hybrid/tender remains also) and the remaining 10 ships go on. Then it invokes rule 203.55 as the TF left behind a CC and 2xFF. It compares command ratings... 9(phasing CC)-3(Reacting FF)= 6 so the CC can leave along with up to 5 other units, but required to leave 1 ship at least, it leaves just the single FF and the CC and FF rejoin the original TF and continue movement leaving 1FF facing 3 FF that reacted.
Okay I am really wondering what I am missing. the 203.55 exception seems it shouldn't be an exception at all but rather just part of the rule itself. I don't see what qualifies you for the exception. The text "In the event that enough" seems no matter how I read it to be never in effect. If you have more ships than are pinning you, it seems you always peel off an equal amount of ships to what is pinning you then invoke 203.55 to see if you can get anymore out of the pin. If you have an equal amount of ships you also invoke 203.55 to see how many can move on, and it also seems if you have less ships you once again appeal to 203.55 to see how many can move on. Certainly in the case of having more ships you want to carefully choose what you leave behind, but it seems you always have the option of the exception 203.55 which doesn't really make it an exception.
QUESTION 1: So firstly is there an example of a time where the phasing player is not permitted to invoke 203.55?
Next in the example the reacting player reacted all three FF's Seeing as he had such a small force without a good command rating, and seeing that the phasing player had a 9 rating ship and expendable frigates, why on earth would he react all 3 FF's? He knows the phasing player will end up leaving just one FF behind, wouldn't it make sense to react just one of his FF's and save the other two for other reactions? I keep telling myself it was done to make a good example, but in the back of my mind I wonder "Mike are you missing something here?" I can only think the reacting player really thinks his remaining 2 FF's wouldn't get another chance to react, and therefore might as well gang up at 3-1 odds and hope to score enough to kill the 1 enemy FF.
QUESTION 2: So the second question is rather, was the example presented done so to make a good example or was there another reason to react all 3 FF's instead of just 1?
Thanks
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 03:57 am: Edit
Michael P - Discussion part answered in the Discussion Topic
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 08:39 am: Edit
Paul Howard:
Can EP's be moved twice in a turn? 435 doesn't say one way or another.
Basically - Op move - placed in partial grid - picked up and op moved (or even Strat Moved) again?
ANSWER: OK, I Screwed that one up above. Let's say no, a given EP can only be carried by one ship on a given turn. Otherwise you get silliness like 3 tugs moving 10 EPs 18 hexes in one op move phase, or EPs moving both in op move and strat move, something that is clearly not intended in the rules in general. So again, no. EPs can only be moved by one ship per turn.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 10:44 am: Edit
Nick wrote:
>>ANSWER: No, I don't think you can do that. There is no rule allowing you to scrap/disband convoys that I can find.>>
I agree that there is no rule that allows you to do this. Which is a problem for the scenario (4PW).
The rulebook rules on convoys don't allow you to disband/scrap them as there is literally no reason in the world to ever need to, *unless* you are limited in how many convoys you can use. As no such limit exists in the basic rules, there is no need for such a disbanding rule. In the 4PW, however, such a limit exists (only 1 convoy at a time), and if you can't scrap them, having your opponents kill them becomes hugely advantageous, such that it becomes a bad idea to attack undefended convoys (as it allows your opponents to freely redeploy them). Which is kind of a questionable dynamic to create. And one that I suspect was not the intention of the scenario.
I'd suggest that a ruling allowing you to disband convoys would be a logical addition. It has no effect on the game 90% of the time, but in scenarios like the 4PW, it is very important.
-Peter
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, October 03, 2007 - 09:04 pm: Edit
Nick,
Not to seem ungrateful, but can we get answers a little more quickly henceforth? We've been waiting litterally months for answers.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 12:47 am: Edit
Nick
S.O., page 9, 540.29 Special:...only the arrival of the Expedition itself (with a diplomatic team on board, a team that traveled the entire distance on a warship of the Expedition) can trigger early Fed entry.
Does this mean that, with the diplomat, ANY Hydran warship that traveled the distance to the Federation can trigger Fed entry or one that belongs to the Expeditionary Fleet (the one that sets up in 0716 at the start of the game) that gets to the Federation?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 02:47 pm: Edit
No question here, just a thought to consider on the issue of disbanding convoys in the Four Powers War:
True, there is absolutely no rule enabling the disbanding of convoys. But there is the *implication* that such an option is already there.
Consider the comments in rule 414.3, strategic movement of convoys. Freighters are not actually moved in strategic movements, but instead are returned to civilian use, while others in another area are called into government service.
So the issue is not whether convoys can be disbanded - they clearly can and are, every time you 'move' a convoy by strategic movement - but it's whether you need to be on a strategic movement node in order to get that option of disbanding, or if you could do so 'in the open' (at the cost of having to re-purchase the convoy elsewhere).
Just thought this might help.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 04:04 pm: Edit
Nick,
A Tac Note has been posted suggesting that Conversion During Repair (425.2) can be used to reduce the number of X-tech points required to convert a ship into an X-ship. A quick check of (425.2) shows that the rule states, "If a ship under repair is converted to a variant at the same time, the cost of the conversion is reduced by one point (but never below a cost of 1) but still uses normal repair capability." The rule does not state that the point saved is an EP and some are interpreting this be mean that any one ‘point’ can be saved using CDR. Please confirm, can a player use CDR (425.2) to reduce the number of points required for a conversion by one X-tech point or is it limited to saving one Economic Point only as part of a conversion?
To argue the case against allowing the saving of X-tech points I would like to point out that (425.2) also states, “…and many of the items that would have to be removed have already been melted down by the helpful enemy.” A non-X-ship would not have any X-tech to be melted down, thus no X-points are being saved by not having to remove any X-tech from the ship prior to its conversion.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 08:18 pm: Edit
The reduction in XTP has been known since PO was printed, if not in development; the search function hates me, but I'm pretty sure one could find references that are at least couple of years old on the subject.
(I vaguely remember somebody (not me) arguing for the "one point" phrasing, precisely so that it would apply to EP, XTP, and any-other-P that might exist in a future product. I could be mistaken about that, however.)
The quote actually supports the reduction in XTP, because the parts being removed are still melted out. (E.g., having had your phaser banks blown out by the enemy, you just hatchet-job the slag out and put shiny new X-phasers in, the work crew having already been paid to wander the weapons area with cutting torches. There's a savings because the work isn't as fiddly.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 08:57 pm: Edit
However, the savings would be no different if the ship is being converted into a drone cruiser or an X-cruiser as the reduction in work and cost is the same for both ships. The X-points represent the value of advanced technology being installed on the ship. Removing slag and scrap would not change the value of the advanced tech being installed.
From an economic viewpoint, a technical viewpoint, and a logical viewpoint the value added isn't in the equipment being installed, it is in the effort to remove existing equipment.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 04, 2007 - 10:57 pm: Edit
I would have to agree with Daniel, the cost savings would logically be in regular EP. Your not saving anything XTP wise, as you still have the exact same manifest of X-Parts to install, as well as the same number of X-capable tech crews installing them.
However, whatever the ruling we will have to be careful how its worded, because IF the original ship HAD already been X-tech, and we were doing a repair and conversion I would think we would WANT to allow the 1 point deduction to be an XTP. That seems to me to be the logic behind the as-is wording now.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 04:08 am: Edit
If I remember correctly, the conversation when this came up during PO:
Me: Hey I know, CDR for CXs! I'll cripple my CCs and turn them into CXs and save an EP!
Someone else: Um, you just paid 2 EP to repair it to save 1 XTP. You know, you could have just bought another XTP for 2 EP.
Me: %$!#@&!
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 04:18 am: Edit
Actually you paid 2 EPs to resolve 9 damage points and saved 1 XTP in the process. Those 9 damage points were going to have to be resolved anyway and odd defense factor ships are the best ships to put them on.
Although if you still had 9+ fighters left to resolve damage on, THEN it would be a waste (unless you wanted to take some extra points into the pursuit battle).
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Friday, October 05, 2007 - 11:22 am: Edit
All this discussion should be in "general" to avoid nick having to wade through pages of personal views to find the questions people want answered.
By Marc Elwinger (Blades) on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 06:43 pm: Edit
This is probably asked and answered but my search did not find it.
Can a convoy carrying cargo move by strategic movement?
(414.3) says convoys may move by SM, and puts no restrictions on it.
But the concept it discribes is that of reassigning freighters arround the empire, not specific convoys moving.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Saturday, October 06, 2007 - 08:37 pm: Edit
I rather suspect that Nick will refer you to AO-(441.321): "A convoy [...] cannot use strategic movement or serve as a supply source while carrying EPs. [Except it can StratMove between Off-map Areas.]"
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 02:11 pm: Edit
>Although if you still had 9+ fighters left to
>resolve damage on, THEN it would be a waste (unless
> you wanted to take some extra points into the
>pursuit battle).
Yes, there are often times where trading a crippled cruiser to save fighters for a pursuit or retreat is required.
Most player reports I have seen show players do not plan for that.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 09:41 pm: Edit
ANSWER POSTED
This gets me caught up to the present. All Q&A to date sent to SVC for capt log. Apologies for the severe delays. I will try to do better. My next step is to get the appeals into order and sent to Jeff and SVC for cap log as well. And then get the Master Errata updated with the new items an sent to Matt to upload.
===============================
John W. Lawton
I am trying to figure out the Federation F-111 module for bases. If I add an F-111 to a base what is the right values when undamaged and when damaged?
For example a BATS with 2 FTRs and F-111 module has a value of 9H6 correct? If crippled is the reverse 9H3 or is it 4 triangle H3, or does it loose the 9H all together and only has the 3 left for the fighters?
Another question along the same lines is, if an SB with 2 F111 modules (18H) is damage what is the reverse values, 9H?
The only thing I found in the rulebook was it was to be treated the same as a PF Module.
ANSWER: Treat like PFs. So a BATS with one PF flotilla/F111 squadron does not lose any when crippled. A Starbase with two PF flotillas/F111 squadrons loses one flotilla/squadron when crippled.
===============================
Trent Telenko:
Would a Kzinti CVL to a BCS conversion be considered a legal two-step conversion?
It is not listed on the Master SIT as one.
ANSWER: Then it is not a two step conversion. You can make a case for it to be in the SIT topic if you like. SVC is who you have to convince, not me.
===============================
Kevin Howard:
I cannot use an Admiral on a Battletug, I know that. But the Admiral is not considered 'on the tug', but instead simply in the hex (presumably on one of my command cruisers). Can it give its +1 command rating to the battletug, or must it be on the ship to boost its command rating?
ANSWER: Rule (316.21) states that the admiral present in the battle force increases the command rating of the flagship, even when not present on the flagship itself. So if the Admiral is on another ship in the force, and the battle tug is the flagship, it gets the +1 to command rating. Note that (316.146) means that the admiral does not function if on the tug itself. If on another ship the admiral functions as described.
===============================
Adam Hickey:
Notes on Romulan OOB errors.
ANSWER: I believe the KE numbers are correct, there are 6 pre turn 10 WE to KE conversions listed in both the PWC OOBs (2 each in the Home, North, and West fleets), and the construction list (on turns 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8). No problem here.
In F&E2K the Sparrowhawks are also correct, there are 2 Sparrowhawks that they start the game with (pre-turn 1) leaving 25 more to account for. On the construction list there are 25 Sparrowhawks in the PWC, and three SP to SPC conversions, so they should end with 27 total Sparrowhawk hulls, 3 of which are SPCs. In the OOB there are 2 Sparrowhawks starting in the home fleet (pre-turn 1), and there are 25 sparrowhawk hulls in the various PWC lists, including 3 SPC scouts. So this is correct. Two SP hulls pre-turn 1, 25 SP hulls (3 of which become SPCs) built turns 1-9.
In the various supplements, more SP hulls were added to the PWC OOB lists, namely: SPF, SPG (Home PWC) and SPF (North PWC), but the construction list didn't change, so it is now short by 3 SP hulls. So turns 7, 8 and 9 on the construction list should show 4 SP hulls each, rather than 3 SP hulls, when playing with the extra ships from the expansions.
===============================
Ahmad Abdel-Hameed:
I have two questions. I think from my reading of the procedures here that it's ok to put them in the same note.
1. Does the GVX lose its special X-ship powers if part of a carrier group or 3rd-Way combined group? 523.352 seems to be the applicable rule, and it could marginally be saying that. Obviously by my language, I think that it is pretty clearly talking only about X-ships acting in an ad-hoc escort role. I can't seem to find any other pertinent rules on the subject.
2. If you have both a GCE and Prime Team in the battleforce, could they both contribute a -1 to the die role in a capture if they were assigned to that mission?
ANSWER: 1. the GVX can only be combined with another single ship carrier into a CVBG. It would retain its X-ship traits. You cannot pair it with anything that requires escorts.
2. Rule (522.33) says that the Prime Team effect is not cumulative with the GCE effect.
===============================
Kevin Howard:
OK, so I got a question on supply tugs.
Can a tug abandon a "supply point" mission, in order to retreat from a battle?
Because unless I'm all screwed up in the rules (and I probably am), it seems like the Tug can declare itself a supply point on the player's turn, (and it's good that turn), then on the opposing player turn, simply retreat when attacked, then on the Tug's following turn, re-declare themselves a supply point.
It becomes the never-killable supply point, though it is slowly pushed back one retreat-hex per turn.
ANSWER: That is correct, it can retreat, but loses its supply status until you can re-declare it a supply point on your next turn.
===============================
Kevin Howard:
But is there then anything that prevents me from re-declaring the Tug as a supply point at the beginning of my next player turn (and each and every turn thereafter)?
ANSWER: No, assuming it is still within supply range of your grid.
===============================
Ben Tilford:
I thought there was a rule about at least half the ships in a battleforce needing to be the same race as the flagship, but I'm unable to locate it.
ANSWER: Rule (302.321) is the correct rule as Dale stated.
===============================
Dave Butler:
Request for confirmation: HDW-F (field repair) are allowed in Battle Groups, correct? (Rule (315.26) allows HDW that aren't in a configuration prohibited in (315.23), and ships capable of doing field repair aren't on the prohibited list.)
The confusion arises because "ships capable of doing field repair" (I use that phrase because "repair ship" refers to a specific unit in the game) isn't on the (315.24)'s allowed list.
This really only matters for capital assaults, but would also matter if the Romulan SpH-R ever had special rules written for it.
ANSWER: Rule (315.26) allows you to include such a unit, i.e. it effectively adds to the (315.24) allowed list.
===============================
Dave Butler:
There was, apparently, a ruling in CL#34 that the Fed DDX counts as a SC3 ship for Battle Groups. Does this also promote the SCX (which is the same hull, but with different "weapons") to "SC3 for BG" status?
ANSWER: As far as I know it does not, it is a specific exception for the DDX.
===============================
Michael Parker:
I am just getting back into F&E after a long absence, and one of the rules I was pretty sure I remembered was pinning.
However reading the rule is frustrating me, so I am asking for some help here, I hope this is the correct place to ask such a thing.
QUESTION 1: So firstly is there an example of a time where the phasing player is not permitted to invoke 203.55?
ANSWER: No. It is always an option for the moving player to invoke this rule.
Next in the example the reacting player reacted all three FF's Seeing as he had such a small force without a good command rating, and seeing that the phasing player had a 9 rating ship and expendable frigates, why on earth would he react all 3 FF's? He knows the phasing player will end up leaving just one FF behind, wouldn't it make sense to react just one of his FF's and save the other two for other reactions? I keep telling myself it was done to make a good example, but in the back of my mind I wonder "Mike are you missing something here?" I can only think the reacting player really thinks his remaining 2 FF's wouldn't get another chance to react, and therefore might as well gang up at 3-1 odds and hope to score enough to kill the 1 enemy FF.
QUESTION 2: So the second question is rather, was the example presented done so to make a good example or was there another reason to react all 3 FF's instead of just 1?
ANSWER: He reacted the 3 FFs for the sake of the example, to show that it is a bad idea when the moving player has a superior command ships.
===============================
Paul Howard:
Can EP's be moved twice in a turn? 435 doesn't say one way or another.
Basically - Op move - placed in partial grid - picked up and op moved (or even Strat Moved) again?
ANSWER: Let's say no, a given EP can only be carried by one ship on a given turn. Otherwise you get silliness like 3 tugs moving 10 EPs 18 hexes in one op move phase, or EPs moving both in op move and strat move, something that is clearly not intended in the rules in general. So again, no. EPs can only be moved by one ship per turn.
===============================
Peter D Bakija: Can we get a ruling to allow disbanded convoys RE: 4 powers war?
ANSWER: I will send it up the chain.
===============================
Joe Stevenson:
Not to seem ungrateful, but can we get answers a little more quickly henceforth? We've been waiting literally months for answers.
ANSWER: I will definitly try to do so. I have indeed been lax lately and I apologize to everyone. I wish I had time to do them every week, but sometimes I do not, and under those circumstances it is easy to let several weeks or a month go by when I miss an opportunity to get caught up. Ungrateful putz.
===============================
Michael Lui:
S.O., page 9, 540.29 Special:...only the arrival of the Expedition itself (with a diplomatic team on board, a team that traveled the entire distance on a warship of the Expedition) can trigger early Fed entry.
Does this mean that, with the diplomat, ANY Hydran warship that traveled the distance to the Federation can trigger Fed entry or one that belongs to the Expeditionary Fleet (the one that sets up in 0716 at the start of the game) that gets to the Federation?
ANSWER: Any Hydran warship carrying the diplomatic team that arrives in Fed space will trigger the Feds. It does not have to be a ship from the "Expeditionary Fleet" that was set up under that title in the OOB. There is the "Expeditionary Fleet" counter which is an organizational title which has no real effect on game play. Then there are any ships which actually try to cross Klingon space under whatever title, they are all commonly referred to as Expeditionary Ships, even if you are using the 1st Fleet counter for them and using the Expeditionary Fleet counter to attack the Lyrans.
===============================
Daniel G. Knipfer:
A Tac Note has been posted suggesting that Conversion During Repair (425.2) can be used to reduce the number of X-tech points required to convert a ship into an X-ship. A quick check of (425.2) shows that the rule states, "If a ship under repair is converted to a variant at the same time, the cost of the conversion is reduced by one point (but never below a cost of 1) but still uses normal repair capability." The rule does not state that the point saved is an EP and some are interpreting this be mean that any one ‘point’ can be saved using CDR. Please confirm, can a player use CDR (425.2) to reduce the number of points required for a conversion by one X-tech point or is it limited to saving one Economic Point only as part of a conversion?
To argue the case against allowing the saving of X-tech points I would like to point out that (425.2) also states, “…and many of the items that would have to be removed have already been melted down by the helpful enemy.” A non-X-ship would not have any X-tech to be melted down, thus no X-points are being saved by not having to remove any X-tech from the ship prior to its conversion.
ANSWER: It makes sense that you could only save regular EPs, not XTPs.
===============================
Marc Elwinger:
Can a convoy carrying cargo move by strategic movement?
(414.3) says convoys may move by SM, and puts no restrictions on it.
But the concept it discribes is that of reassigning freighters arround the empire, not specific convoys moving.
ANSWER: Dave Butler is correct, rule (442.321) prevents this. Actually he stated the wrong rule number (441.321), but it is wrong in the book. The correct rule number is (442.321).
===============================
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 09:40 am: Edit
Huh. It looks like that in the most recent SIT, the Klingon FV carrier now only costs 1 (one) EP to convert from an F5. Is this actually the case, or is it an error? If it is the case, are there other escort carriers that only cost 1 to convert?
Edit: Never mind. Answered my own question. Apparently, all the escort carriers now cost 1 EP to convert. Except for the Kzinti CVE. Which is still 2. Which is strange, as it has fewer fighters than the F5V and has "escort carrier" in it's name...
Thanks,
-Peter
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 10:49 am: Edit
Peter:
IIRC, the reason the Kzinti CVE was left as a 2EP conversion was because it is an SC3 hull. All other CVEs are (I think) SC4 hulls.
Cheers,
Jason
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 10:54 am: Edit
Peter Bakija,
The Kzinti CVE is more useful due to the fact that it is the only carrier that is Battle Group capable (315.27) so the extra cost is probably justified. If you think that the cost for the Kzinti CVE is in error post a request for review in the SIT topic for SVC to check up on.
Edit: Oh, and what Jason said.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 02:25 pm: Edit
Just got my copy of Planetary Ops this weekend. Questions on (621.0) Demon of the Eastern Wind:
(621.113) PWC - Do races accumulate unspent EP's while at peace in this scenario? I'm not sure if that is implied by 'full control over their economies'. Can they perform ship conversions during this time? I've seen the list of activities allowable in Limited War - is there a comparable list for empires at Peace that happen to have 'full control' of their economies?
(621.123) Kestrels - How are payments made for the KC9R's? Abstracted into the econ, or do they need to be sent via normal transfer rules? If it is abstracted, are the EP both deducted from the Roms and credited to the Klinks in the same econ phases?
(621.132) Gorn Fighters - Is the deployment of the base fighter modules (this question would apply to PF deployment as well I suppose) restricted by 204.22 (no strat adjacent to enemy units)?
(621.142) Fed LW - The final paragraph indicates that the Feds will go to LW on T4 barring an earlier activation. It says that in this case they do not use the "early war" production schedule. Does this mean then that any of the earlier triggers (protected provinces entered etc) will push the Feds into their full ship production (per 702.5) in place of the listed PWC?
(621.153) Klingon War - There don't appear to be any provisions for the Klingons to invade Kzinti or Hydran territory unless those races declare war on the Klingons first. It looks to me like it is possible for the Kzintis to be at LW supporting the Feds inside Fed territory and both the Kzintis and Hydrans at full war with the Lyrans, WITHOUT giving the Klingons the option to invade either the Kzintis or Hydrans. The scenario schedule shows the Klingons invading the Kzin on T11, but barring a Kzinti DoW, I don't see a trigger for that. Is that intended, a mistake, or am I reading this wrong?
(621.163) Kzinti War - Under the conditions for a Kzinti Dow on the Klingons, one is "It is T10 (S173)". Should this be interpreted as "It is T10 or later" or is this strictly a one-time opportunity, and a later DoW requires a different condition to be met? It is the inclusion of the "ships in the ZoI for 4 turns" clause that made me question this, as the ZoI condition could not be met before T10 in any event, so it seems redundant if the T10 is "T10 or later". Similar situation with T14 DoW on the Lyrans (minus the overlap issue with the ZoI).
(621.172) Lyran War - If the Kzinti are only at LW supporting the Feds and have not declared war on the Klingons, is there a point at which the Lyrans can send ships to attack the Federation? I see the provision for the home fleet to assist inside Klingon territory if they are invaded, but nothing for the Lyrans to enter Fed space.
Thanks, Nick!
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Nick
________________________________________
Quote:
ANSWER: 1. the GVX can only be combined with another single ship carrier into a CVBG. It would retain its X-ship traits. You cannot pair it with anything that requires escorts.
________________________________________
I think this needs to be clarified some. Your ruling means that it can hide behind, say a NSRV (the cheapest SS CV they have at 13 EPs), and still maul for 10 points {GVX, NSRV}. I think it should have to be on the "outside" of the CVBG to be able to use X-mauling {NSRV, GVX}. Of course both ways are still vulnerable to mauling with LOTS of damage (need 54 points to kill both with a 10 point mauler), but if you put it against a small enough force that can't muster the damage to kill both CVs, the GVX would just need 13 EPs for a 16 point DD shield (against a mauler, 26 without).
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 02:17 am: Edit
If anyone other than Nick has feedback on my questions regarding the Demon of the Eastern Wind, I'd be happy to take those in the general discussion thread.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 05:09 pm: Edit
Another DotEW question:
450.13 restricts minor shipyards to any SB or Major Planet not in the capital. 621.123 says 'any Romulan planet or planets' which seems to both eliminate SB's and open up Minor Planets (and possibly the capital?).
So is this a case of specific overriding general, and the shipyards can go on any Rom planet? Does the non-capital restriction still apply?
Or is this a case of the specific further restricting the general, and the only legal hex for the shipyards is 4716?
Thanks.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 05:22 pm: Edit
Yet Another DotEW question:
When can the Tholians be attacked, and by whom? I don't see any specific triggers for that option.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 02:54 am: Edit
(425.3) Rapid Combat Repair
Can this be used in a non-battle hex? The rules say it has to be the combat phase, but actual combat doesn't seem to be required.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 12:48 am: Edit
...between rounds 00 and 0...
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Thursday, October 11, 2007 - 03:31 pm: Edit
Question on direct damage vs ground combat ships.
(521.373) Because they are moving to close range, directed damage attacks on ground combat ships making an assault (my emphasis) do not count against the one DD attack limit.
SoP shows direct damage as being assigned in step 5, referencing the above rule as an exception.
Units are not designated as participating in ground assaults until step 6x, however.
Does this mean that the 'making an assault' clause should be read as 'eligible to make an assault' (determined in Step 4)? That wouldn't entirely make sense, as those ships aren't necessarily 'moving to close range' like ones actually making an assault are.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 02:36 am: Edit
Ben:
See SoP Phase 5-4A5
By announcing these units are eligible, they are moving into position and can be fired on at one-to-one in phase 5-5C.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 02:54 am: Edit
Chuck, if that is the intent of the rule, then it was worded incorrectly. The rule just doesn't match up with the SoP. One or the other of them should be changed.
I've been giving the benefit of the doubt to the defender, and allowing them to DD any and all ground combat ships in the battle force. I believe that meets the spirit of the rule, if not the letter of it as written.
An attacker could very well include a ground combat ship to round out a battle group with no intent to use its GCE, yet that ship would be eligible to participate in troop assaults, if any valid targets are in the hex, and thus be available as an extra DD target by your (and my) interpretation.
Personally, I try to 'common sense' my way around issues like this in play, but to me it illustrates that either the rule or the SoP is in error here.
Ben
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 03:23 am: Edit
Nick,
After a back-and-forth discussion in my game report thread, it seems to be implied that the races at peace in DotEW (621.0) ARE allowed to spend their excess peace-time EP on widespread fleet conversions.
It is the combination of 621.113 with 652.212 (which is included by 651.1, which is included by 621.111) that seems to make this case.
Are the Feds REALLY supposed to be able to spend ~300 EP on fleet upgrades in the first few turns of the game? If so, I'll play it that way - it just seems a bit excessive how fast they upgrade their fleets that way compared to the 'historical' GW.
Ben
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 04:45 pm: Edit
Question on initial fleet setups:
I noticed recently while looking through AO, that the Hydran Home Fleet starts with 2xHR. In 2K, they don't have these 2xHR. All the other basic fleets in AO are identical to their 2K counterparts (as far as I could tell--it is possible that I missed something), and any significant starting fleet changes are listed under expansion upgrades--for example, the Kzinti Home Fleet gets 3 extra DDs added to it, but only if using the full AO expansion, so they are listed under "AO:..." upgrades to that fleet. Which makes perfect sense.
But the 2 Horsemen that the Hydrans get added into the Home Fleet aren't listed as expansion upgrades. Just basic parts of the basic Home Fleet. Which is strange, as all the other start fleets are identical to the 2K start fleets.
I looked in the errata file, and found no errata to this effect.
Is this errata to the 2K fleet setup that just got missed?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit
(621.142) says that the Federation will declare Limited War on T4 if nothing has triggered that earlier. Would this take place at the top of T4, or at the start of Alliance T4?
Thanks,
Ben
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 06:56 pm: Edit
Peter,
Both the Hydran and Kzinti fleets got a number of battle group combatants over F&E2K rules as a play balance for the Coalition's sustained battle line compot boost that (315.0) provided them.
The fact that the Coalition could suddenly put damage on seven and five compot hulls and keep CA class lines could only be balanced with more Alliance hulls.
This is also the same reason why the Kzinti can include their CVE's in a (315.0) battle group.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, October 12, 2007 - 10:32 pm: Edit
Hobbit
________________________________________
Quote:
Are the Feds REALLY supposed to be able to spend ~300 EP on fleet upgrades in the first few turns of the game?
________________________________________
Actually, if the Feds can't overbuild ships they can only spend ~60 EPs a turn during those three turns (not counting normal PWC). This comes out to 180 EPs, not 300. It IS still a lot of EPs however.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 12:01 am: Edit
Nick
Can I get an official ruling on this:
An ACS gets escorted as a Medium or Heavy CV at its owners option. You may NOT change this option until CV groups are disbanded/reformed.
By a strict reading of the rules an ACS could start the combat round escorted as a CVA with 4 escorts, lose 2 of them, and say it's being escorted as a Medium CV so the fleet doesn't lose any CR slots.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 02:17 am: Edit
Ben,
Think of it this way.... when you get to DirDam, the defender would ask if those ships are near the planet. If yes, they can be DirDam'd in addition to the normal attack, and are available for step 6.
If not, the defender doesn't get the attack, BUT the ships are not eligible for a GCE assault.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 02:36 am: Edit
Chuck and Joe,
I'm moving further discussion on this out of Nick's topic.
Ben
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 09:47 am: Edit
Trent wrote:
>>Both the Hydran and Kzinti fleets got a number of battle group combatants over F&E2K rules as a play balance for the Coalition's sustained battle line compot boost that (315.0) provided them.>>
Yes, I agree--but the Kzinti added battle group combatants are added as "AO expansion" units (i.e. they get the extra 3xDD and extra FFKs and whatever added on not in the basic fleet composition, but in the AO:3xDD appendix line below the basic fleets). The basic composition of all the Kzinti fleets as listed in AO are identical to the ones listed in 2K (just like all the other fleets except the Hydran Home fleet), and all the added units are listed as appendicies to the main fleets, not just added into the basic fleet composition.
This is why I am confused by the addition of the extra 2xHR in the Hydran home fleet. If they were added on like the Kzinti Home Fleet got the 3 extra DDs (i.e. as an appendix addition), I'd figure they were the same thing.
As it is, however, it seems like the intention is that the Hydran home fleet get 2xHR as errata to the 2K Home Fleet listing, and no one ever noticed that it was errata (or no one ever listed it as such).
-Peter
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, October 13, 2007 - 05:29 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have spotted a problem with the (675.69) set up in SO's Maelstrom (pg 16).
The Romulan MSY's are all listed as being at hex 4718. All that is there is a BATS. MSY's are only built at major planets or SB.
Are these MSY's supposed to be located at the Romulan major planet at 4716?
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 02:23 am: Edit
Supply Grid question
Gorn space is split by Romulan ships. The territory East of 47xx does not have an on-map supply path to the capital. Both the capital and the eastern provinces, however, have legitimate supply paths to the off-map area.
Is this then one single supply grid? Or are the eastern provinces considered to be in a partial grid with the offmap area? I would think its the former, but the text of 411.5 makes me a little uncertain.
Thanks,
Ben
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 08:22 pm: Edit
(302.321) starts "The flagship must be from the race which provided at least 50% of the total ships in the battle force." What happens if there are three (or more) races in the battle force, none of which has 50% of the ships?
I would assume that one chooses a ship from the race(s) with the most ships in the battle force, but a literal reading of the rules would bring the game to a screaching halt, as a flagship could not be chosen.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Sunday, October 14, 2007 - 10:36 pm: Edit
Courtnay,
[Edit: Should have put this in discussion]
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 15, 2007 - 05:37 pm: Edit
I was looking at what my DIP's could do in a WoF game I will be starting soon.
I was looking through all the possible missions and hit upon the one to sway neutral planets to your side.
What prevents the Gorn player from sending a DIP to planet 5109 "Circle Trigon" and swaying it to their side. The ISC as currently handled cannot respond with a DIP themselves, and even an unlucky roll would just delay the eventual gaining of that planet as the ISC can never go to war.
I assume there must be something that prevents it, else there would be a write-up recommending this tactic I would imagine.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 01:51 pm: Edit
Is Nick about? I haven't seen any official answers in here for awhile.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 03:07 pm: Edit
Ben,
He usually gets to them every week or two. Real life and all. Patience.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 03:19 pm: Edit
No worries. Was just hoping I hadn't caught him on honeymoon in Jamaica or anything.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 06:56 pm: Edit
I wrote:
>>The basic composition of all the Kzinti fleets as listed in AO are identical to the ones listed in 2K (just like all the other fleets except the Hydran Home fleet)>>
I went through the AO basic set up fleets with a fine tooth comb, and discovered the following differences between the AO basic set up and the 2K basic set ups:
-Romulans: +2xSPF
-Gorn: +1xCL
-Hydrans: +2xHR
Other than that, the basic fleets are identical to the 2K setups. All the extra ships from AO and to balance the battlegroups and whatever are not taken into account here, as they are all appended under a seperate line (i.e. "AO: +3xDD, DNL, etc.")
It seems more or less like a wash (2x war maulers for the Coalition vs 3x more or less cruisers for the Alliance), so not an issue, but it is weird that these ships got slipped into the basic set up fleets but didn't show up as errata.
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 07:55 pm: Edit
Nick
What are the limitations for an EWN node?
How far away does one have to be to count as a different location?
Can a MB set up over a Capital planet and excluded from the battle be treated as a separate location for an EWN? Or does it have to be so far away as not to be able to be excluded from the fight?
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 07:59 pm: Edit
Michael,
Bases are only excluded by the multiple bases rule, which only come into play when there are multiple bases at the same location. A MB set up over a different planet in the same system, or in a different system in the capital hex would count, however.
Ben
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 08:06 pm: Edit
But the PDUs of the other planets would already count as nodes. Would the MB be far enough away from those PDUs to qualify as being different nodes?
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 08:11 pm: Edit
Not if it were set up over a planet, no. A new base would have to be set up out of combat range of any other base in the hex to count as a new node.
So, for example, if the Gorns want an EWN, they could have their Major+SB, Minor, New Base, each at separate locations within the hex, and unable to support each other during combat.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 08:21 pm: Edit
Easier and cheaper to set up an FDU without fighters.
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 - 08:26 pm: Edit
Ayup. That would seem to qualify. I'd imagine it would be selected for the first location of attack, to eliminate the EWN bonus for the actual hard points, but it lived, it should provide that bonus.
By Jimi LaForm (Laform) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:30 am: Edit
Do not discuss in Q&A
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 10:34 am: Edit
If one has a mobile base and a BATS in the same hex, the MB can be the "excluded base" (302.2123A), which can not be attacked until the BATS is destroyed. Suppose that instead of a deployed MB, there is a BATS and a tug setting up a MB. May the tug/MB combo be chosen as the "excluded base"? My copy of (510.23) was written before "excluded bases" were invented, so does not address the issue.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 - 08:31 pm: Edit
Courtney originally brought this up, but after some discussions in General I thought it would be a good idea to distil some of the meat there to Q/A.
Nick,
There is a conundrum that needs your guidance that revolves around
________________________________________
Quote:
(302.321) The flagship must be from the race which provided at least 50% of the total ships in the battle force. If this is impossible (e.g., the top three command ships are Lyran, the only other ships are Klingon, and the Minimum Force rules require enough ships that the Lyran flagship would be outnumbered) then the "minority foreign flagships" are excused from the flagship selection process.
________________________________________
There exist examples of 4 different (and 5 different) races where it seems possible that it would be impossible to field a legal battleforce.
The details are laborious, and usually quite unlikely to occur, but it hinges upon how one interprets.
________________________________________
Quote:
(302.36)...Unchosen flagship candidates (302.32) may be excused from this calculation at the owning players option....
________________________________________
If one interprets "Minority Foreign Flagships" as a special group of "Unchosen flagship candidates" then all is well. The process goes on and all is well, at worst you end up being forced to throw a small line (of possibly one ship) up as your legal battleforce.
This is how I interpret that rule when someone pointed it out to me, however since it says
________________________________________
Quote:
"minority foreign flagships" are excused from the flagship selection process.
________________________________________
then one could be led to believe that the rule means you completly ignore them from the flagship process.. they are not Unchosen Candidates since they were found to never be eligible for the Flagship selection process and hence cannot be excluded from the 50% calculation detailed in (302.36)
I guess also on a technical note, if my assumption is correct and the minority flagships are indeed considered Unchosen flagship candidates, then the last wording should be clarified, as we wouldn't want an obstinant player saying "Well it says I can exclude them at my Option.. I won't exercise that option.. hence there can be no battle here" and then getting beat about the head and neck area repeatedly with a blunt weighted object.
Perhaps saying something to the effect of..
"may be excused from this calculation at the owning players option, provided the exercise of such option in whole or in part will result in a legal battleforce."
If however I am wrong, then indeed we have a problem I think, as there are combinations of ships legally allowed in a hex, that when they are attacked, cannot form a legal BattleForce, at which point, we do not know where to proceed.
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 06:23 pm: Edit
To complement Bakija's interest in magic additions to the Order of Battles pre and post AO, the Tholians got a DN added as well.
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 03:54 am: Edit
I have a question that utilizes a previously unthoughtof interaction. From what I have read, I cannot (currently) find a reason for an Operational Base (453.0) not to be in a RESV fleet.
RESV can include non-ship units (auxes, ADM, Prime, etc.). The reason this whole idea comes up is that OPB is the first truly mobile base. Now, (453.0) does not specifically deny OPBs from being in RESVs (by comparison (421.22) specifically denies a FRD from being in a RESV fleet and being dropped off in a similar manner). Some of those non-ship units do not count against command limits and thus I can't see this as being used to deny an OPB from being in a RESV fleet.
Now, (453.21) does state that an OPB cannot enter a hex containing enemy units. But, if the RESV moves, dropping off the OPB in a hex next to the battle hex, that 3-hex moving RESV can assure the allied forces in that battle hex of where they retreat to.
I would like to first see if other players can find a way to break my interpretation, and failing that, get a pre-emptive ruling by Nick as to this legality. While, many RESVs want the full 6 hex range, I have used RESVs as the Kzinti from the Barony with lots of Auxes (and have fought players who do the same) and this suffers from the same range limit while giving tactical options. In addition, this could be used for (203.732). I'm bringing up this idea here in the Q&A section first is that I don't want to surprise anyone with a TacNote about this. Plus I hope this will avoid the Rules Lawyering! cries I expect. The point is not to succumb to first gut impressions, but rather to consider 1) whether it is technically legal, and 2) whether it should be legal (i.e. issuing an erratum or ruling forbidding this, as in the 8xMB set up with the 6th Fleet SB TacNote).
[Edit: Aside from someone pointing out the specific rule or previous ruling that breaks this interaction, I ask that if you want to discus this, or cast doubts upon my parentage for even bringing this up, please do so in the General Discussion topic so Nick doesn't have to wade through the player comments.]
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 07:39 am: Edit
Dale:
Unless I am missing something in errata or a ruling by Nick, there is no provision for a reserve fleet to drop off ships/units during movement, except for the purpose of counter-pinning enemy units in a hex moved through on the way to the target hex. Specifically, rule 203.73 states, "The moving reserve fleet must have as its objective a specific battle hex ... in which it will end its movement, and it must move to that hex by the shortest legal path..." It seems to me that that would prohibit dropping off ships from the reserve fleet in empty hexes.
Cheers,
Jason
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 08:27 am: Edit
Dale - I agree with what Jason said.
As far as I know - you can't willingly drop units off on route - as they can't reach the intended battle hex (they would get left behind before the Reserve Fleet moves).
If the battle is within range 3 of where it starts though, I would guess it would be a legal tactic (although as you have pointed out, it's probably an unintended consequence - you could end up with both players have 'bases' in the battle - how would that work!?!).
I would suggest you do a Q&A and I am 'guessing' that Nick will say - can't be dropped off on route* and if the battle is within range 3, can't be included in the reserve fleet*.
I can though think of 1 additional required restriction* and 1 restriction would would allow the OPB in a reserve fleet.
* - The only way you are allowed to drop off forces on route, is to meet pinning requirements - is the OPB 'a ship equivalent' (I Don't know - Rules are not with me!) - if it is - it could be dropped off to help pin enemy forces.
The only reason I can think of (assuming Nick, SVC says, no the OPB can't be reserved into a battle!) is the 2nd option for Reserve Fleets - move somewhere to open the supply lines for another force involved in a battle, which is out of supply, which does not have enemy forces in it!
So summary
Can an OPB be dropped off - No (I doubt it!)
Can an OPB be used to 'pin' an enemy force in the only legal path, so the rest of the reserve can get to the intended target - yes, but I assume this will be disallowed by erata
Can be included in a Reserve and the Reserve Fleet moves to a Non-battle area (Supply rule on Reserves) - will be allowed
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 05:33 pm: Edit
Nick,
There is a problem between AO's sector F Winds of Fire Set up and the PO Sector raider allocation.
Sector F is the Romulan main effort and it gets three raid slots in AO while sector E gets two raid slots.
PO has Sector F getting only two normal raid slots, plus the commando, blockade and special raids.
Meanwhile Sector E gets three normal raids.
Given the geographic realities of the two sectors, the main effort -- Sector F -- should get three normal raid slots, the special raid and the commando raid, while Sector E gets two normal raider slots plus the blockade running slot to bring back more KR spare parts from the Klingons.
By Joshua Massey (Thnre) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 06:32 pm: Edit
There is probably an obvious answer to this, but I'm trying to teach myself the rules so be easy please. I'm playing a solo 4 powers scenario. The Hydrans have advanced a large fleet to 0411 in the hopes of reaching the starbase at 0412, the lyrans reacted out & met the hydrans at 0411. After 2 combat rounds the Lyrans withdraw with heavy casualties. Hydrans succusfully pursue & destroy a few frigates. My question is, can the Hydrans now advance to 0412 or must they wait until next turn?
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 07:06 pm: Edit
Nope, once the 'movement phase' is done, there's no more movement. Once you are even pinned, you can't move anymore, even if you move additional ships into the hex.
If you start w/ 10 ships, get pinned by 10 opposing ships, and 5 more ships come in (ie frigates), 5 of the 1st 10 ships don't get 'released' to move on. (or ship equivalents when you count fighters/pfs).
You can retrograde after all combat is complete (and paths are open, ie not blocked for some reason).
Of course I'm not Nick Blank-FEAR, but that's an easy one.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 07:08 pm: Edit
Dale, Jason, & Paul.
Bases and PDUs do not count as ships to pin enemy units (203.53). So an OPB would not count to open a Supply Path as it is a base.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 19, 2007 - 08:22 pm: Edit
As far as the OPB goes,
________________________________________
Quote:
(453.21) Self Movement
...It cannot enter a hex containing enemy units. If enemy units react into its hex, it is considered "set up". it cannot "pin"
________________________________________
Since we are talking about Reserve movement theoretically, its not going to be reacted upon.
Also there can be no leaving behind of a OPB during reserve movement, by
________________________________________
Quote:
(203.742) ...The moving reserve may only detach a number of ships to avoid being pinned as it moves to its destination...
________________________________________
Since the only provision for detaching ships is to avoid being pinned, and since there is no reaction during reserve movement, and under no circumstances can an OPB enter a hex with enemy units, then there is never an opportunity to detatch the OPB.
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 04:12 pm: Edit
There is a contradiction between the Sequence of Play and the rules.
The Sequecnce of play states:
PHASE 5 - STEP 3X: BATTLE INTENSITY (302.3X)
5-3X1: If fighting retreat, then set Battle Intensity Ratings of 0 for the retreating force and 10 for the blocking force (302.772).
5-3X2: Each player selects a Battle Intensity Rating (304.1). Attacker may raise intensity after a fourth combat round involving non-ship units (304.5). See exceptions for fighting retreats (302.771) and non-mobile defenses (304.4).
5-3X3: Offensive use of Cloaks (306.2) is resolved.
5-3X4: Determine Variable Battle Intensity (304.3).
Rule (304.5), Increasing Intensity, says:
The decision to increase the battle intensity is made after both battle forces are selected and announced and after the die roll (if any) is made for vairable battle intensity.
If the rule is correct, not the SoP, increasing the battle intensity should not be in 5-3X2, but in 5-3X4 (or a new 5-3X5). If the SoP is correct, then there should be errata for the rule; if not, the SoP should be changed. Is the SoP or the rule correct?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, October 20, 2007 - 10:16 pm: Edit
I think Michael Parker's logic with (203.742) kills it. But it does remind me of the project I started trying to find all the instances of "ship" or "unit" in the 2K rules so when the warbook went forward we could clarify which ones were meant since 2K does not have all the non-ship units that the expansions do (check out the pinning and counter-pinning rule for an example).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 03:02 am: Edit
Courtenay
I've been told previously that in any discrepancy between the SOP and the rules you go with the SOP. This is probably because the SOP is more recent and has been looked over as carefully as possible.
BTW, it also makes more sense that the attackers voluntary increase of BI is made before the roll for VBIR since no one can really plan on knowing what the conditions will be in advance, and that's exactly what you would have if you chose the increase after the VBIR roll.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 10:24 am: Edit
QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, October 21, 2007 - 11:42 pm: Edit
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
Just got my copy of Planetary Ops this weekend. Questions on (621.0) Demon of the Eastern Wind:
(621.113) PWC - Do races accumulate unspent EP's while at peace in this scenario? I'm not sure if that is implied by 'full control over their economies'. Can they perform ship conversions during this time? I've seen the list of activities allowable in Limited War - is there a comparable list for empires at Peace that happen to have 'full control' of their economies?
ANSWER: I belive this just allows races (Lyrans, Kzinti, Klingons, etc.) not yet at war to decide what to build from their build schedules. I.e. those races do not have designated pre war construction schedules like the Roms and Gorns do as they are historically at war from the beginning of a normal game. And since at peacetime economy you can't build it all, instead of the scenario providing a specific list, they leave it up to the players under this rule. You cannot of course do anything you could not normally do at peace, like convert ships, upgrade bases, overbuild, build FRDs, etc... ALL it lets you do is pick ships from the build schedule to build with your peacetime cash. It is a pick your own PWC instead of designated PWC.
(621.123) Kestrels - How are payments made for the KC9R's? Abstracted into the econ, or do they need to be sent via normal transfer rules? If it is abstracted, are the EP both deducted from the Roms and credited to the Klinks in the same econ phases?
ANSWER: The payments under this rule are abstracted into the economy, just deduct from the ROms sheet and add to the Klingon sheet when the payment is made in the production phase. No delivery required.
(621.132) Gorn Fighters - Is the deployment of the base fighter modules (this question would apply to PF deployment as well I suppose) restricted by 204.22 (no strat adjacent to enemy units)?
ANSWER: That restriction does not apply to the "special" out of sequence strat movement for PFs/fighters.
(621.142) Fed LW - The final paragraph indicates that the Feds will go to LW on T4 barring an earlier activation. It says that in this case they do not use the "early war" production schedule. Does this mean then that any of the earlier triggers (protected provinces entered etc) will push the Feds into their full ship production (per 702.5) in place of the listed PWC?
ANSWER: I belive it is normal limited war unless the automatic Turn 4 activation occurs.
(621.153) Klingon War - There don't appear to be any provisions for the Klingons to invade Kzinti or Hydran territory unless those races declare war on the Klingons first. It looks to me like it is possible for the Kzintis to be at LW supporting the Feds inside Fed territory and both the Kzintis and Hydrans at full war with the Lyrans, WITHOUT giving the Klingons the option to invade either the Kzintis or Hydrans. The scenario schedule shows the Klingons invading the Kzin on T11, but barring a Kzinti DoW, I don't see a trigger for that. Is that intended, a mistake, or am I reading this wrong?
ANSWER: The Klingons can declare war on the Federation on Turn 7, and can declare war on the Kzinti Turn 11 (621.2)
(621.163) Kzinti War - Under the conditions for a Kzinti Dow on the Klingons, one is "It is T10 (S173)". Should this be interpreted as "It is T10 or later" or is this strictly a one-time opportunity, and a later DoW requires a different condition to be met? It is the inclusion of the "ships in the ZoI for 4 turns" clause that made me question this, as the ZoI condition could not be met before T10 in any event, so it seems redundant if the T10 is "T10 or later". Similar situation with T14 DoW on the Lyrans (minus the overlap issue with the ZoI).
ANSWER: Looks like it is a one time thing, as it does not say "or later."
(621.172) Lyran War - If the Kzinti are only at LW supporting the Feds and have not declared war on the Klingons, is there a point at which the Lyrans can send ships to attack the Federation? I see the provision for the home fleet to assist inside Klingon territory if they are invaded, but nothing for the Lyrans to enter Fed space.
ANSWER: Right, under those conditions they could fight in Klingon space, but not in Federation space.
==========================================
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, October 08, 2007 - 03:15 pm: Edit
Nick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
ANSWER: 1. the GVX can only be combined with another single ship carrier into a CVBG. It would retain its X-ship traits. You cannot pair it with anything that requires escorts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this needs to be clarified some. Your ruling means that it can hide behind, say a NSRV (the cheapest SS CV they have at 13 EPs), and still maul for 10 points {GVX, NSRV}. I think it should have to be on the "outside" of the CVBG to be able to use X-mauling {NSRV, GVX}. Of course both ways are still vulnerable to mauling with LOTS of damage (need 54 points to kill both with a 10 point mauler), but if you put it against a small enough force that can't muster the damage to kill both CVs, the GVX would just need 13 EPs for a 16 point DD shield (against a mauler, 26 without).
ANSWER: I would say you cannot "maul" at all when in such a group, similar to the formation restriction (523.315).
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
Another DotEW question:
450.13 restricts minor shipyards to any SB or Major Planet not in the capital. 621.123 says 'any Romulan planet or planets' which seems to both eliminate SB's and open up Minor Planets (and possibly the capital?).
So is this a case of specific overriding general, and the shipyards can go on any Rom planet? Does the non-capital restriction still apply?
Or is this a case of the specific further restricting the general, and the only legal hex for the shipyards is 4716?
ANSWER: It means these specific starting shipyards can go on any Romulan planet (special scenario rule). Any further construction would follow the standard rules.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
Yet Another DotEW question:
When can the Tholians be attacked, and by whom? I don't see any specific triggers for that option.
ANSWER: Rule (621.191) says to use all the standard rules regarding the Tholians.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
(425.3) Rapid Combat Repair
Can this be used in a non-battle hex? The rules say it has to be the combat phase, but actual combat doesn't seem to be required.
ANSWER: Rule (425.31) has an example that shows it being used between combat rounds, so it can only be used in a battle hex. A non-battle hex does not have battle rounds applied to it.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
Question on direct damage vs ground combat ships.
(521.373) Because they are moving to close range, directed damage attacks on ground combat ships making an assault (my emphasis) do not count against the one DD attack limit.
SoP shows direct damage as being assigned in step 5, referencing the above rule as an exception.
Units are not designated as participating in ground assaults until step 6x, however.
Does this mean that the 'making an assault' clause should be read as 'eligible to make an assault' (determined in Step 4)? That wouldn't entirely make sense, as those ships aren't necessarily 'moving to close range' like ones actually making an assault are.
ANSWER: During the direct damage step, the owner of the troop ships has to reveal if he intends any such ships to be eligible for troop attacks, if so they can be directed on as you state. If not, they cannot be so directed on, but also they could not conduct ground assaults. The sequence is:
5-4A5, declare any troop ships that are eligible to make ground attacks.
5-5, any ships so declared can be directed on in addition to normal DD attack. Any ships not so declared are safe from the "extra" dd, but cannot make ground attacks.
5-6X3, any ships previously declared (and that survived to this point), may make ground attacks if you still desire they do so.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
After a back-and-forth discussion in my game report thread, it seems to be implied that the races at peace in DotEW (621.0) ARE allowed to spend their excess peace-time EP on widespread fleet conversions.
It is the combination of 621.113 with 652.212 (which is included by 651.1, which is included by 621.111) that seems to make this case.
Are the Feds REALLY supposed to be able to spend ~300 EP on fleet upgrades in the first few turns of the game? If so, I'll play it that way - it just seems a bit excessive how fast they upgrade their fleets that way compared to the 'historical' GW.
ANSWER: Rule (600.321) says in order to convert inactive ships you must be at War. It contradicts (652.212) but it has always been my understanding that (600.321) is the correct rule.
==========================================
Peter D Bakija:
Question on initial fleet setups:
I noticed recently while looking through AO, that the Hydran Home Fleet starts with 2xHR. In 2K, they don't have these 2xHR. All the other basic fleets in AO are identical to their 2K counterparts (as far as I could tell--it is possible that I missed something), and any significant starting fleet changes are listed under expansion upgrades--for example, the Kzinti Home Fleet gets 3 extra DDs added to it, but only if using the full AO expansion, so they are listed under "AO:..." upgrades to that fleet. Which makes perfect sense.
But the 2 Horsemen that the Hydrans get added into the Home Fleet aren't listed as expansion upgrades. Just basic parts of the basic Home Fleet. Which is strange, as all the other start fleets are identical to the 2K start fleets.
I looked in the errata file, and found no errata to this effect.
Is this errata to the 2K fleet setup that just got missed?
ANSWER: I am not aware of any change to 2K for the Hydrans, so I would suspect that it was an Advanced Ops addition to their OB. It should probably be on the AO line in that case.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
(621.142) says that the Federation will declare Limited War on T4 if nothing has triggered that earlier. Would this take place at the top of T4, or at the start of Alliance T4?
ANSWER: Start of Alliance T4.
==========================================
Michael Lui:
An ACS gets escorted as a Medium or Heavy CV at its owners option. You may NOT change this option until CV groups are disbanded/reformed.
By a strict reading of the rules an ACS could start the combat round escorted as a CVA with 4 escorts, lose 2 of them, and say it's being escorted as a Medium CV so the fleet doesn't lose any CR slots.
ANSWER: If you start combat with 4 escorts, you stay in that configuration until the very end of combat, when CV groups can be broken up again. You can "drop" escorts during retreat, but the escort slots are still there until combat is over.
==========================================
Trent Telenko:
I have spotted a problem with the (675.69) set up in SO's Maelstrom (pg 16).
The Romulan MSY's are all listed as being at hex 4718. All that is there is a BATS. MSY's are only built at major planets or SB.
Are these MSY's supposed to be located at the Romulan major planet at 4716?
ANSWER: Treat as a special scenario exception. Further construction would follow the standard rules.
==========================================
Ben Tilford:
Supply Grid question
Gorn space is split by Romulan ships. The territory East of 47xx does not have an on-map supply path to the capital. Both the capital and the eastern provinces, however, have legitimate supply paths to the off-map area.
Is this then one single supply grid? Or are the eastern provinces considered to be in a partial grid with the offmap area? I would think its the former, but the text of 411.5 makes me a little uncertain.
ANSWER: This is one supply grid.
==========================================
Courtenay Footman:
(302.321) starts "The flagship must be from the race which provided at least 50% of the total ships in the battle force." What happens if there are three (or more) races in the battle force, none of which has 50% of the ships?
I would assume that one chooses a ship from the race(s) with the most ships in the battle force, but a literal reading of the rules would bring the game to a screaching halt, as a flagship could not be chosen.
ANSWER: Looks like we have to treat Minority Foreign Flagships as Unchosen Flagship Candidates as was suggested by others.
I.e. if you had Fed/Kzinti/Gorn/Hydran (with the numbers being command rating):
F10, F8, F6, Z9, Z9, Z7, G6, G6, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5
Then to get a legal battleforce, you have to build:
H5, H5, H5, H5, H5, H5 with one of the Hydran 5 rated ships as the flagship. The Fed Kzinti and Gorn ships have higher command ratings, and are considered first, but as they cannot form a legal battleforce while meeting the minimum force rules, they cannot command and are thus excluded from the flagship selection process, and excluded from the minimum force calculations.
Another example, you have in the hex:
F10, F9, F9, G9, G9, G9, Z10, Z10, Z10, H10, H9, H9
Then you would end up with something like:
G9, G9, G9, H9, H9, (gorn flagship) with the other CR10 ships having been similarly excluded.
Does this solve the problem?
==========================================
Michael Parker:
I was looking at what my DIP's could do in a WoF game I will be starting soon.
I was looking through all the possible missions and hit upon the one to sway neutral planets to your side.
What prevents the Gorn player from sending a DIP to planet 5109 "Circle Trigon" and swaying it to their side. The ISC as currently handled cannot respond with a DIP themselves, and even an unlucky roll would just delay the eventual gaining of that planet as the ISC can never go to war.
I assume there must be something that prevents it, else there would be a write-up recommending this tactic I would imagine.
ANSWER: Probably something that was missed. I would say circle trigon is "out of play" unless the ISC is a player in the game. Alternatively, let the Gorns try it, but let the Romulans roll dice for the ISC diplomatic team that would arrive on scene.
==========================================
Peter D Bakija:
I wrote:
>>The basic composition of all the Kzinti fleets as listed in AO are identical to the ones listed in 2K (just like all the other fleets except the Hydran Home fleet)>>
I went through the AO basic set up fleets with a fine tooth comb, and discovered the following differences between the AO basic set up and the 2K basic set ups:
-Romulans: +2xSPF
-Gorn: +1xCL
-Hydrans: +2xHR
Other than that, the basic fleets are identical to the 2K setups. All the extra ships from AO and to balance the battlegroups and whatever are not taken into account here, as they are all appended under a seperate line (i.e. "AO: +3xDD, DNL, etc.")
It seems more or less like a wash (2x war maulers for the Coalition vs 3x more or less cruisers for the Alliance), so not an issue, but it is weird that these ships got slipped into the basic set up fleets but didn't show up as errata.
ANSWER: Again, should probably be on the AO line as the changes you list don't apply to F&E2K as far as I know.
==========================================
Michael Lui:
What are the limitations for an EWN node?
How far away does one have to be to count as a different location?
Can a MB set up over a Capital planet and excluded from the battle be treated as a separate location for an EWN? Or does it have to be so far away as not to be able to be excluded from the fight?
ANSWER: It must be a different location under (433.411) to count toward the EWN.
==========================================
Dale Lloyd Fields:
I have a question that utilizes a previously unthoughtof interaction. From what I have read, I cannot (currently) find a reason for an Operational Base (453.0) not to be in a RESV fleet.
RESV can include non-ship units (auxes, ADM, Prime, etc.). The reason this whole idea comes up is that OPB is the first truly mobile base. Now, (453.0) does not specifically deny OPBs from being in RESVs (by comparison (421.22) specifically denies a FRD from being in a RESV fleet and being dropped off in a similar manner). Some of those non-ship units do not count against command limits and thus I can't see this as being used to deny an OPB from being in a RESV fleet.
Now, (453.21) does state that an OPB cannot enter a hex containing enemy units. But, if the RESV moves, dropping off the OPB in a hex next to the battle hex, that 3-hex moving RESV can assure the allied forces in that battle hex of where they retreat to.
I would like to first see if other players can find a way to break my interpretation, and failing that, get a pre-emptive ruling by Nick as to this legality. While, many RESVs want the full 6 hex range, I have used RESVs as the Kzinti from the Barony with lots of Auxes (and have fought players who do the same) and this suffers from the same range limit while giving tactical options. In addition, this could be used for (203.732). I'm bringing up this idea here in the Q&A section first is that I don't want to surprise anyone with a TacNote about this. Plus I hope this will avoid the Rules Lawyering! cries I expect. The point is not to succumb to first gut impressions, but rather to consider 1) whether it is technically legal, and 2) whether it should be legal (i.e. issuing an erratum or ruling forbidding this, as in the 8xMB set up with the 6th Fleet SB TacNote).
ANSWER: Jason Schaff is correct, you can ONLY drop ships from a moving reserve fleet if NECESSARY for pinning purposes. Thus any ship/unit that cannot enter a hex with enemy ships cannot be part of a reserve fleet, pretty much by definition. Such a unit would have to be dropped from the reserve fleet before it moved its first hex.
==========================================
Trent Telenko:
There is a problem between AO's sector F Winds of Fire Set up and the PO Sector raider allocation.
Sector F is the Romulan main effort and it gets three raid slots in AO while sector E gets two raid slots.
PO has Sector F getting only two normal raid slots, plus the commando, blockade and special raids.
Meanwhile Sector E gets three normal raids.
Given the geographic realities of the two sectors, the main effort -- Sector F -- should get three normal raid slots, the special raid and the commando raid, while Sector E gets two normal raider slots plus the blockade running slot to bring back more KR spare parts from the Klingons.
ANSWER: As far as I know it is correct as is.
==========================================
Joshua Massey:
There is probably an obvious answer to this, but I'm trying to teach myself the rules so be easy please. I'm playing a solo 4 powers scenario. The Hydrans have advanced a large fleet to 0411 in the hopes of reaching the starbase at 0412, the lyrans reacted out & met the hydrans at 0411. After 2 combat rounds the Lyrans withdraw with heavy casualties. Hydrans succusfully pursue & destroy a few frigates. My question is, can the Hydrans now advance to 0412 or must they wait until next turn?
ANSWER: They must wait until next turn. Once you begin resolving combat hexes, there is no more Operational Movement allowed. You can retrograde, and strat move, but once you go to combat you cannot organize any more attacks. This is the advantage to having more ships, your ships can "pin" an attacker away from bases and other fixed targets.
==========================================
Courtenay Footman:
There is a contradiction between the Sequence of Play and the rules.
The Sequecnce of play states:
PHASE 5 - STEP 3X: BATTLE INTENSITY (302.3X)
5-3X1: If fighting retreat, then set Battle Intensity Ratings of 0 for the retreating force and 10 for the blocking force (302.772).
5-3X2: Each player selects a Battle Intensity Rating (304.1). Attacker may raise intensity after a fourth combat round involving non-ship units (304.5). See exceptions for fighting retreats (302.771) and non-mobile defenses (304.4).
5-3X3: Offensive use of Cloaks (306.2) is resolved.
5-3X4: Determine Variable Battle Intensity (304.3).
Rule (304.5), Increasing Intensity, says:
The decision to increase the battle intensity is made after both battle forces are selected and announced and after the die roll (if any) is made for vairable battle intensity.
If the rule is correct, not the SoP, increasing the battle intensity should not be in 5-3X2, but in 5-3X4 (or a new 5-3X5). If the SoP is correct, then there should be errata for the rule; if not, the SoP should be changed. Is the SoP or the rule correct?
ANSWER: I would say the rule is correct, and the SOP is wrong.
==========================================
Michael Lui:
I've been told previously that in any discrepancy between the SOP and the rules you go with the SOP. This is probably because the SOP is more recent and has been looked over as carefully as possible.
ANSWER: I think I did say that once upon a time, but was later proved wrong. Let's not have a blanket statement that the SOP is always correct, because it may not be true. Let's take any discrepency between the SOP and rules on a case by case basis.
==========================================
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 12:29 am: Edit
Nick,
Thanks for all the answers!
Ben
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 09:39 am: Edit
Nick,
>ANSWER: As far as I know it is correct as is.
The AO set is correct or the PO set up is correct?
By Ben Tilford (Hobbit) on Monday, October 22, 2007 - 11:42 pm: Edit
If one purchases PDUs for a capital planet, with no existing PDUs, 508.33 says they do not become active until the next turn.
So what happens if the planet is attacked in the intervening enemy turn? There is no tug involved like there would be outside the capital. Can the planet just be devastated by 10 points of DirDam? Would that then kill the 1-4 pdu's that were in the middle of setting up?
Thanks,
Ben
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 04:46 pm: Edit
Right, devastating the planet destroys any PDUs in the process of being set up. Can't quote a rule number at the moment.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 06:37 pm: Edit
Nick,
I habe the following question from the Romulan Sector F, Winds of Fire scenario set up:
Can the Romulans strip the PFs from the ISC border BATS to fight the Gorns?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, October 23, 2007 - 06:40 pm: Edit
Nick,
Regard this question and answer:
>There is a problem between AO's sector F Winds
>of Fire Set up and the PO Sector raider
>allocation.
>
>Sector F is the Romulan main effort and it gets
>three raid slots in AO while sector E gets two
>raid slots.
>
>PO has Sector F getting only two normal raid
>slots, plus the commando, blockade and special
>raids.
>
>Meanwhile Sector E gets three normal raids.
>
>Given the geographic realities of the two
>sectors, the main effort -- Sector F -- should
>get three normal raid slots, the special raid
>and the commando raid, while Sector E gets two \
>normal raider slots plus the blockade running
>slot to bring back more KR spare parts from the
>Klingons.
>
>ANSWER: As far as I know it is correct as is.
Does the PO set up supercede the AO set up for the Winds of Fire Sector F scenario, if played with all the rules?
Your answer was not clear as to that point.
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 03:06 am: Edit
Nick, I posted this earlier, but it was not answered in your most recent set of answers.
If one has a mobile base and a BATS in the same hex, the MB can be the "excluded base" (302.2123A), which can not be attacked until the BATS is destroyed. Suppose that instead of a deployed MB, there is a BATS and a tug setting up a MB. May the tug/MB combo be chosen as the "excluded base"? My copy of (510.23) was written before "excluded bases" were invented, so does not address the issue.
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 03:23 am: Edit
A Reserve fleet has 10 ships, including two carriers with three fighters each, for at total of 11 ship equivalents. To get to a battle hex it wants to pass through a hex with 16 enemy ships and 10 freindly ship equivalents with three extra fighters. May the reserve fleet pass throught this hex? (There is no route that does not pass through enemy ships.) It would have to leave five ships and three fighters to avoid being pinned. I am confused by (203.742), which says that a "fleet cannot leave more than half its ships (counting fighter and PF ship equivalents; round fractions down)" behind. I think it means that this fleet can not pass through, since it would only have five SEs get through (rounding down), and it started with eleven, but am just not sure. If it weren't for that "round fractions down", it could, because 5.5 is half of eleven, but with that phrase I think not. Help!
(It is possible that this is a double post; I got a "could not find web page" error the first time I posted, and it hasn't shown up. If this is a double post, my apologies.)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 01:08 pm: Edit
Salvage qeustion:
(439.13) says "Ships which are lost when out of supply..." do not generate salvage income.
Does this mean:
A) Ships that are out of supply *at the instant of combat*.
or
B) Ships that were out of supply for purposes of combat, as per (410.2).
i.e. if a ship was in supply at the start of the player turn, does it still counts as being in supply for salvage purposes even if at the moment of combat it can't trace supply back to a supply source (it moved too far away or it got surrounded)?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 02:33 pm: Edit
While you'll want for Nick to get the final word, but if you need a quick response I remember the answer is A. It is the same with drone bombardment. You can be in supply at the moment of movement, go and get into a fight 7 hexes away from your nearest supply source, be at full ComPot, lose all your salvage, and then retreat to get back into supply for next turn's fight. Logically the argument goes that you get the supplies you need to fight through your invisible freighters, and then go steaming off to pick a fight somewhere, but if you don't have that support at the moment of combat, you can't haul your wrecks off, nor get do you have enough replacement drones for full-on bombardment-level usage.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Saturday, October 27, 2007 - 10:18 pm: Edit
Dale wrote:
>>While you'll want for Nick to get the final word, but if you need a quick response I remember the answer is A.>>
Heh, I answered my own question by looking at the master errata file:
(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.
So the answer is in fact (A).
Thanks!
-Peter
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 01:38 pm: Edit
Must the defender take voluntary SIDS hits to resolve damage, if the damage is not enough to cripple or destroy a starbase? I had always assumed so, but can't find anything in the rules saying so. Example: A SB and a CC are the only defending units in a battle, and the attacker scores four points of damage. The CC need not take the damage; must the starbase take a SIDS hit?
Indeed, taken literally, the rules are very strange. Suppose a starbase that has taken seven SIDS hits, there are no other remaining defending units in the hex, and there are ten points of damage left to resolve. The attacker figures that he has crippled the starbase. The defender say "Nope. (302.61) says 'When the remaining number of unresolved Damage points is less than half of the smallest defense factor of the remaining units in the Battle Force, these Damage Points may be ignored.' (Further down there is a note refering to the plus or minus point rule.) Since ten is certainly less than half of 36, the starbase's defense factor, those ten points accrue as plus points, and the starbase is still uncrippled." Now neither I nor my opponent have ever played this way, nor have I ever thought this is how the rule should be read, but that is how a literal reading of the rule reads.
Another example of the problem is this: An attacker scores 60 points of damage on an undefended starbase. Twelve points destroy the fighters. The defender now takes seven voluntary SIDS hits, resolving 31 points of damage (6*4.5 + 4). There are 17 points of damage left, and the starbase sits there uncrippled.
If there were a rule saying that SIDS hits count as units for the purposes of damage allocation (this rule, (302.61)), this absurdity would not arrise, but there is no such rule that I can find, even though I have always played using such a rule. Is there one? If not, should there be?
(I had been intending to ask a _different_ question about SIDS, but found this problem as I was reading the rules, and would like to resolve it first.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - 01:57 pm: Edit
I believe it has been rules in the past that you have to take SIDS hits if the remaining damage is equal to 1/2 the points a SIDS resolves. I'm sure that somebody knows where and when that was rules upon in the past.
| By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 11:45 am: Edit |
November - December 2007 Archive
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 03:06 am: Edit
There's a ruling back on February 16th of 2005 which basically says that you have to take the SIDS on the base into account when resolving damage.
So a starbase with 7 SIDS, no fighters, and 17 damage points remaining has to cripple, because 17 >= half of 4 (which is all that the SB is good for). Then, the remaining 13 is >= 9 (half of the crippled side), so you have to resolve 2 SIDS (9 points). This leaves 4, which is less than half of the 9 points the SB is then worth, so you don't have to take them.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 08:25 am: Edit
Dave - I think the last 4 actually causes another SID, as 4 is greater than half of a SID.
So in your example, the SB takes 4 SIDS (being crippled) and has 3 of the required 4 SIDS to kill it. The SB is then 'owed' 1 (4 x 4.5 = 18)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 09:28 am: Edit
I will have to look for that ruling, I looked the rule up last night, and while I do not have the exact wording with me it said if I am remembering correctly that SIDS were never forced unless your opponent direct damaged. SIDS are basically supposed to be an option your opponent has to do some perm damage to a SB when they think they cannot take it down.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 10:30 am: Edit
Nick,
Please reconsider this question:
>There is a problem between AO's sector F Winds of
>Fire Set up and the PO Sector raider allocation.
>
>Sector F is the Romulan main effort and it gets
>three raid slots in AO while sector E gets two
>raid slots.
>
>PO has Sector F getting only two normal raid
>slots, plus the commando, blockade and special
>raids.
>
>Meanwhile Sector E gets three normal raids.
In light of (314.10) AO & (314.16) AO which states that the Romulans get regular six raid slots Y176+.
PO seems to have a Warbook level problem in that it assigns to few raids both pre Y176 and Y176+ to the Romulan fleet.
Please see page 3 of AO and page 9 of PO for the relevant rules.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 11:07 am: Edit
Silly question, since I'm so rusty. Back when the dinosaurs ruled the earth (circa 95 or so), I had proposed a "battleship incremental damage system" (BIDS) that basically worked in principle like SIDs - as a way of getting at a battleship sitting in the formation bonus. I remember it being published in an old Captain's log. Does anyone know if this proposal ever became a rule?
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 11:43 am: Edit
I have never seen it published anywhere. However, I do not have PO or SO
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 05:16 pm: Edit
No it did not.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 05:29 pm: Edit
Here is another weird little question:
I am the phasing player. As the Kzinti, I send an escortless CVE and 3xFF to go kill a province raiding E4. My opponent sends a reserve fleet to save the E4.
(302.36) says that when coming up with the minimum force, you can excuse unchosen flag candidates, but not if it is part of a group. Can you excuse the escortless CVE?
-Peter
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 06:27 pm: Edit
Paul,
You can go searching to see if Nick got overruled or changed his mind at some later date, but the Feb 16th, 2005 ruling specifically indicates that you are incorrect in this case.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 05:02 am: Edit
Dave - thanks, your right - I learn something every day!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 11:46 am: Edit
Peter,
I think you can. I assume since you have a CVE outside of a group that your using flexible carrier groups. Which means your allowed to fly the CVE escortless you just have to count it as two ships worth of CR. Once you agree to that, i.e. by not making it a [CVE FF] (adhoc) then the CVE is indeed NOT part of a group at all. So then you would choose CVE FF FF as your three Flagship candidates, choosing a FF as the flagship. The CVE and FF are then excused from the 50% calculation meaning you have 2 ships so at least ONE must show up in the battleforce, you put the hapless FF up for slaughter and retreat the CVE 2xFF.
Sorry I didn't quote rules but I am at work without rulebooks.
By Frank Brooks (Alskdjf) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 03:23 pm: Edit
Is there a difference between the following conversion costs:
From NCL‡: 1+6
From NCL: 1‡+6
From NCL: 1+6‡
How about:
From NCL‡: 1
From NCL: 1‡
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 04:52 pm: Edit
Michael wrote:
>>I assume since you have a CVE outside of a group that your using flexible carrier groups.>>
Heh, nope. Just a CVE that had its escort transfered off and not replaced (which the basic rules allow to happen).
>> Which means your allowed to fly the CVE escortless you just have to count it as two ships worth of CR. Once you agree to that, i.e. by not making it a [CVE FF] (adhoc) then the CVE is indeed NOT part of a group at all. So then you would choose CVE FF FF as your three Flagship candidates, choosing a FF as the flagship. The CVE and FF are then excused from the 50% calculation meaning you have 2 ships so at least ONE must show up in the battleforce, you put the hapless FF up for slaughter and retreat the CVE 2xFF. >>
Yeah, that is what I would think too, except that (302.36) explicitly states (in all capitals, mind you :-) that ships that are part of a group can't be excused as Flagships. The real question is if an escortless CVE counts as a group.
-If the CVE can't be excused from the CVE, 3xFF force, my choices are put the CVE on the line by itself, or put 2xFF on the line and leave the CVE and the other FF out of the line.
-If the CVE can be excused, I can just put the one hapless FF on the line.
-Peter
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 05:12 pm: Edit
Oh... if your not using flexible carrier groups, then I think the CVE minus its escort is indeed a group. I am pretty sure without the flexible carrier groups rule, that there is no such thing as a CVE not in a group. Your group just happens to be a CVE without its escort. BUT I admit I haven't thought about that in awhile, as I think flexible CV groups are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So without flexible CV groups I would think the CVE cannot be excused, I eagerly await Nick to untie this knot
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 06:00 pm: Edit
In this particular case:
2FF are rejected flagships. This will leave the option of 1FF or 1CVE to put on the line. I would pick the FF and keep the other ships alive.
If you had more ships the question would become more complicated, so the question does still need to be answered.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, November 02, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit
"2FF are rejected flagships. This will leave the option of 1FF or 1CVE to put on the line. I would pick the FF and keep the other ships alive."
Nope. If you have CVE, FF, FF as the three flagship candidates, and then rejected the two FF, then the CVE (as flagship) *must* be on the line. The other FF could escape.
But can you select the CVE as a rejected flagship candidate, then excuse it, that is the question - and without flexible carrier groups, to boot! Gotta wait for Nick on that one, I don't have a clue.
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 12:22 pm: Edit
Thank you for telling me about the 16 Feb 2005 ruling. I would like to make sure that I understand the rule; I believe I have been playing incorrectly. You have to take SIDS steps to resolve damage, except for the SIDS to cripple a base if that would produce minus points. Thus to cripple an undefended BATS would take 18 points, not the 16 that I have been using. If one inflicts 17 points, then 6 kill the fighters, 8 inflict two SIDS hits (which the defender must take), but since the three remaining points won't kill the last SIDS without creating a minus point, the BATS is still uncrippled. Is this correct?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 06:56 pm: Edit
Looks right. But if that had been 11 points of damage, the BATS wouldn't even have to take a single SIDS since killing the fighters leaves only 5 damage points, less than half of the 12 Defense factor.
And the BATS would still not be crippled until all 3 SIDS had been scored. Here's a nice little chart but without the fighters/PFs on it:
SIDS scored: Attack-Defense....Required amount to force a SIDS
0: 12-12....6
1: 12-8......4
2: 12-4......4
3: 6-6, crippled and cannot use SIDS
The same with SBs:
SIDS scored: Attack-Defense....Required amount to force at least one SIDS
0: 36-36.......18
1: 36-31.5....15.75
2: 36-27.......13.5
3: 36-22.5....11.25
4: 36-18........9
5: 36-13.5.....6.75
6: 36-9..........4.5
7: 36-4.5.......4.5
8: 18-18........9 (Crippled)
9: 18-13.5......6.75
10: 18-9.........4.5
11: 18-4.5......4.5
12: DEAD
However, for this chart, do note that to cripple/kill any BATS/SB with directed damage in one shot still takes the full amount of double the current attack factor, even if it only has one SIDS left to change it from one state to the other. IE: If it only has one SIDS left, DD the SIDS, not the "entire base".
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 12:16 am: Edit
I would like to chime in and in a parallel comment to whether you are forced to take SIDS, point out that whenever you are defending a doomed BATS, generally take BIDS first and fighters second. For example, 11 damage would be 2xBIDS and 3 fighters leaving you with 15 ComPot.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 11:26 am: Edit
Nick,
I have a number of questions regards the Romulan off-map area:
1) How does the Romulan fleet convert a HDW to the (525.23Q)AO survey mission without an off-map SB? Can it do so with on off-map HDW without one? Or does it use the 5318 SB as the off-map SB?
2) How do the answers to #1 square with the procedure in (542.32)SO for deploying a survey ship to the off-map survey area.
3) Can the Romulans build off-map colony bases as well as off-map colonies?
4) Since there are no off-map area Romulan bases, can the Romulans actually reach and return from their off-map area via strategic movement? Where is the strategic movement node for them to do so? Is there something tug like out there we have not seen in the game system?
5) By the time of the Winds of Fire, shouldn't neutral zone hexes 5919, 6018, 6019, 6118, and 6119 adjacent to the off-map area have all been annexed as Romulan territory per (448.21)PO
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 11:28 pm: Edit
QUESTIONS DOWNLOADED TO THIS POINT
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 10:37 am: Edit
Nick,
I have a question about the Gorn Hexes 6101 and 6102.
These are out of the supply range of 5403 so seemingly do not contribute to the gorn economy unless some method of extending the supply grid (a convoy in 5503 works I believe)
However, I think that the way things used to work is that NZ hexes were adhocly formed into 5 hex provinces. The thing I recall was that we would form 5801 5901 6001 6102 6101 into a province, then since the rule states a province provides its ep to the owner provided any hex of the province is in supply. Now I am not sure if we were correctly interpreting that rule as to forming these nominal provinces or not, but it seemed to me the answer to this dilema. However when the accounting changed to merely counting each NZ hex as .2 ep (a wise change) this is no longer possible.
So Firstly,
Is it still legal (if it ever was legel) to form up NZ hexes into these nominal 5-hex provinces for the purpose of putting them into/out of supply?
If it isn't is there an exception for 6101 and 6102 specifically when 5403 is owned. I have seen some vague references but nothing concrete.
Thanks
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 08:08 pm: Edit
Nick
The SITS and 542.11 show the Fed CVL (GSC carrying fighters and single ship CV) as a medium CV. Under 515.23 it is a light CV.
Does this mean that it is replaced counting as a Medium CV and is escorted as a light CV (if given escorts), or is it replaced and escorted as a medium CV?
515.42 is a little vague on this matter. Since you can give a SSCV 1 or 2 escorts, does this count as a light CV and you can lose 1 and not have it count against the Command Rating as long as you have 2 light escorts, or does any escort loss count against the CR.
After all, the Kzinti DDV is a Medium CV by 515.22 and is built as a medium CV, it is escorted as a light CV by 525.313 and the SITS, and is a SSCV by 525.313 as long as no more are built.
For that matter, the Romulan SUP (4 fighters) is listed as a Medium CV as well. Sadly it has its own production limit under CV production so I can't tell if it counts as a medium CV to replace and/or escort.
BTW, can the Long Lean default to 515.22 and be escorted as a medium CV?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 03:35 pm: Edit
Nick
Nevermind. Someone posted the errata for me.
Except for the Kzinti DDV Long Lean question.
Here's a new one though: Can you have the Errata link permanently put in at the top of this F+E Q+A page? And maybe do the same for the SFB Q+A page?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 03:51 pm: Edit
Here's a funny one: Normally by 305.47 you can't convert Lyran twin-hulled ships into the trimaran versions.
What if you captured both a Tiger CA and the "Golden Cub" DND (DN midsection)? Could you perform the trimaran conversion then or are you stuck with 2 different ships (and the Cub gets cashed in for EPs)?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 03:14 pm: Edit
OK, haven't had a question in a while, so here's two:
First, two Hydran ships are cut off from their main supply grid (which is the off-map area). Hydran forces currently hold 617. 519 was captured this turn by a lone E4. The two Hydran ships retreat from a battle in hex 418. Since this force is out of supply from the Main Grid (no hexes are in supply from it), Substep C would be ignored. Would Substep D be enforced, even though all remaining hexes are only in supply from a partial Supply Grid (and tonote, supply was not paid for from that Grid during the Hydran player's turn). Would Step 3 be ignored since there are no Main Grid supply hexes?
Second question:
The said ships from my first question decide to perform a Fighting Retreat onto planet 519. What happens? If the E4 declines the approach battle, do the Hydrans have to continue their Fighting Retreat, or can they stay in the hex and fight? Is the RDF present at this point since Friendly ships entered a hex with a captured planet?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, November 08, 2007 - 09:58 pm: Edit
To amplify Rob's immediately preceding question, partly on further reflection:
A) If an RDF is not a unit, then it cannot be the sole force on one side of a battle because combat is defined as being between units. That is not such a huge problem, however, as the definition of capture means that a planet can be captured and the RDF be left intact and irrelevant - it not being a unit its planet is captured regardless of its presence.
B) If an RDF can be the sole force in combat, then small scale combat rules should apply, with the RDF being a 0-3 force? My previous questions on the presence of RDF in small scale combat generated answers that a non-unit being present did not mean that the limit of three units was exceeded, so consistently the answer must be yes. The question whether an SAS should be equal to an E4 in combat was previously answered in the affirmative, as a quirk of the rules, and the only substantive difference between SAS and RDF when facing an E4 in small scale combat - if the RDF can generate small scale combat as the only force on a side - is that one is a unit and the other isn't, but that difference will already be being disregarded if the RDF is allowed to be the only force from a side in combat, so why not treat RDF as a 0-3 unit for purposes of combat?
C) I previously asked whether a ship passing through a province during opmove, there being no enemy units in the province, the province was immediately captured. The answer was that the province was only captured if the capturing player's units were the only ones present at the end of the phase. This answer being applied consistently would mean that in our question, the Hydran planet is not yet captured and therefore the only hex the Hydran force could possibly retreat to and be in supply. That being the case, the Hydrans would be forced to retreat there and thus not be conducting a fighting retreat.
D) I know that Nick has ruled that small scale combat is determined as to its applicability prior to battle lines being determined - the combat being applied to resolve the entire hex and not just committed forces. Is that determination made prior to or after the acceptance of an approach battle? I note that one would not have, and could easily be unable, to resolve a battle hex in one small scale combat if such is determined after approach acceptance. For example, PDU(6) and SF are being approached by 2x F5 and accept the approach battle, not expecting the F5's to want to fight at the planet and wanting a second chance to roll well if the first roll goes poorly. SSC is conducted with a modifier of 1 in favor of the Kzinti and results in the fighters being partly destroyed and the SF crippled and retreating. There is no pursuit because the PDU blocks it, but the hex is not resolved because the PDU is present. The only way I can figure around this sort of problem is to have SSC determination made before approach is offered, which would be the case anyway if the thematic text of the rule is correct in telling us to resolve the entire hex in one roll when three or fewer units of 14 or less compot (per side) are present.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 07:18 am: Edit
Zargan
1st question:
If the Hydrans still hold 0617 then the 2 Hydran ships just retreat to 0518 which is the shortest route to get/remain in supply.
If there are 3+ Coalition ships in 0518 they can go to 0417 if the Coalition doesn't have ships in 0517 AND if the Coalition doesn't control 0416 OR they have 3+ ships in 0417.
If 0618 is not occupied by at least one Coalition ship 0519 is being supplied by the Main Supply grid (the Capital). Since you are saying SubStep C is being ignored, I will presume that hex 0618 is being occupied.
Yes, SubStep D would be enforced under these conditions. However this would mean that 0416 is your partial supply grid and hex 0417 is clear of enemy units since if your planet is captured it cannot be part of your supply grid until liberated and 0519 has been captured.
The only thing that references the main supply grid is SubStep C, not the entire Step 3.
NOTE: It would be easier if you said what units were where instead of making people guess.
2nd question:
Step 1: Ignored.
Step 2: 0519 does not have more than 2 enemy ships, it has only 1.
Step 3:
A: 0519 is in supply as it is a supply point, however it has been captured.
B: You said these 2 Hydran ships were cut off from the off-map grid so 0319, 0318, and 0317 have to be occupied by Coalition ships OR not adjacent to friendly ships and adjacent to Coalition ships OR a lot of other things.
C: 0517, 0518, and 0618 have to be occupied by Coalition ships (0518 by 3+ ships) otherwise 0417 and 0519 would be in supply from the Capital grid. The Coalition must also be controlling access through 0719.
D: If 0416 is not controlled by the Coalition 0417 is a possible retreat hex. If it is then everything defaults to SubStep A where nothing is in supply and you ignore Step 3.
Step 4: If there are Coalition ships in 0417, 0319, 0318, 0518, and 0419 then you may enter 0519 as a normal retreat. Otherwise you must enter one of the other empty hexes. If there are 3+ Coalition ships in 0318, 0319, 0417, 0419, and 0518 (15+ ships) then you MUST enter 0519 as the combination of Steps 2 and 4 make you do so and it will also be a normal retreat. If any one of the 5 above hexes are empty and you want to enter 0519 anyway, then you are doing a fighting retreat.
If you are doing a normal retreat you can stay in the hex, kill the E4, and reclaim the planet. If you are doing a fighting retreat the planet counts as an enemy planet since it has been captured and the E4 does not have to accept the approach battle. If it doesn't want to come out and play then you must leave the hex as it is not yours and you are still in the middle of a fighting retreat. If it thinks that it can get away with its one "freebie" shot at you when you are a BIR of 0 you need to generate 5* points of damage to kill it and reclaim the hex as 508.23 means that it immediately reverts to your control. If you cannot generate the 5* points of damage to kill it then you must retreat as it is still not your hex.
The RDF will not be present at any time DURING this fight as it is not re-established until after it returns to its original owners. See: 508.16, 508.211, 508.23, and 508.24.
*: A lone E4 takes 4 points of damage to cripple and 1 more (half of its remaining 2 defense) to kill.
Todd
B: Because the SAS still has a Phaser-3 and can hurt a starship. The RDF is a few guys with some phaser PISTOLS or RIFLES but no anti-starship weapons.
C: See 508.22, page 57, F+E 2K.
D: The entire hex means everything in the hex. If you want to self-destruct your own PDU and only send a SF out to fight, the Klingons will be glad to let you.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 08:01 am: Edit
Michael - might I politely ask that you leave the answers to Nick?
(Mainly as I think you got two points wrong - RDU's always loose in combat - but they do force combat (so a Reserve Fleet could go there for example) - but could point about why a SAS can kill a ship, and a RDU can't - plus I think SSC can NEVER involve a base (which PDU's are)...but I might be wrong).
Nick - sorry for discussing in your topic!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 08:30 am: Edit
And Michael, I did say that 617 was a Partial Grid. The Hydran capital is now off-map. What is in each hex is not relevant, since we're talking retreat possibilities and nothing else. Hydran ships are only in 617 and the retreating ships for this question (There are other Hydrans, but they are near the off-map area and not relevant to the question). Coalition ships are in 617, one ship on every on-map Hydran planet, 418 and 417 (from memory). This results in the Main Grid being cut off from this force, forcing all possible retreat hexes to be in a Partial Grid only. I see no reason why anyone needs to know that the ships are D6's or F5's or whatever, it does not matter for the question.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 03:03 pm: Edit
Nick
Sorry.
And I put my responses to the last couple of posts in the "General Discussions" thread.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 02:50 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have some questions regards Romulan CV builds.
1) Does the Romulan FAK count against the SUP build limit or the SPB build limit?
2) What Romulan CV build limits does the Sunhawk BCV count against? The SUP build? The SPB build? The BCV build limit?
3) If either the FAK or SUN were built with heavy fighters per (530.221-530.222) exactly which CV and heavy fighter build limits would they count against?
4) The Romulan FAB has two fighter squadrons, one of which is oversized, per it's SIT entry. Can a Romulan player use (530.221-530.222) to convert the six factor normal fighter squadron to an eight factor heavy fighter squadron?
Please note that rule (R4.128) in SFB module R11 states that the 12 internal fighters of a FAK can be converted to six Tribune heavy fighters.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 05:09 pm: Edit
So here is a question that probably has come up before, and I suspect that the answer is "no", but I figure I'll ask anyway:
Can you choose to *not* block supply to an enemy unit?
My opponent is really good at totally squeezing every possible advantage out of the retreat priority rules (he is kind of a genius that way...). The current situation involves a couple Lyran FFs in hex 0218 that, by virtue of leaving SB 0215 alive and clever battle order, are going to be enabled to retreat into hex 0119 after fighting in 0218. The setup on the map is such that by retreating into 0119, the Hydran capital is going to be cutoff from the off map zone. The only reason that the FFs are going to be able to forward retreat and cut off the off map zone is 'cause the fighters on SB 0215 will end up blocking their supply path, which is going to leave them in a situation where no retreat will put them in supply, so retreating forward into 0119 is a major score.
If they Hydrans could choose not to block supply with those dumb fighters on that inconviniently alive SB, none of this becomes a problem. You'd think that Hydran high command would say "Hey--fighter squadron. Don't block supply to that FF. 'Cause if you do, we get cut off from 1/3 of our economy..."
-Peter
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 05:25 pm: Edit
And another one--my opponent and I both seem to remember some errata or ruling that states that you can't fix CEDS damage (i.e. crippled escorts or whatever) at allied repair points. But we can't find this anywhere. Anyone know what we are talking about and where it is?
Thanks,
-Peter
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 09:51 pm: Edit
Nick,
I have rather been wondering this for awhile, and think its time to get a clarification from you.
PDU's are required to be in the battleforce when the planet they are on is being attacked. They do not count against the CR of the flagship. The Fighters and/or PF's of those PDU's also would not count against the CR nor do they count against the attrition limit.
The question now becomes....
Are those PDU based attrition squadrons strictly REQUIRED to be present in the battleforce? or can the PDU just refuse to fly them even though they are free from CR constraints.
This question comes up because the current tactics during Capitol hex assaults is to work off the minus points from DDing PDU's at the capitol planet by DDing fighters at a side planet.
The implication of this question would be.. when the attacker came to 'soak off' at a side system, the defender if he knows this is the purpose, and is fairly certain that there is little to be done about preventing evantual devestation, refuses to fly his attrition units to prevent them being reduced to soak off fighters from another planet. With a corollary that he could also choose to take the PDU's voluntarily and form minus points that the attacker has to chew through, rather being a brat about the situation.
Since CV's and PFT's can be in the battleforce without their attrition units, it seems reasonable that the PDU's could keep their Squadrons out of the battleforce also.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:27 pm: Edit
Protagoras, you posted JUST a little too soon.
________________________________________
Quote:
With a corollary that he could also choose to take the PDU's voluntarily and form minus points that the attacker has to chew through, rather being a brat about the situation.
________________________________________
No, if you deliberately take CVs/PFTs/PDUs as self inflicted casualties you cannot count their fighters as minus points 302.614. You can only count them if the enemy cripples/kills them by DD.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:30 pm: Edit
Thanks Michael. I just looked that rule up. But the basic premise remains that there are times it could be advantageous to leave the PDU attrition squadrons out of the fight in order to deny the opponent an opportunity to direct on them.
At least I am learning
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 11:37 pm: Edit
Also I think each PDU counts a separate unit so that (302.334) would kick in...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 09:16 pm: Edit
That (302.334) was mentioned and I do not think it applies to PDU's the text (which I won't quote here for brevity) applies at once both towards the number of attrition squadrons allowed (the magic 3 limit) and then to what a carrier is allowed to do with regards to its fighter groups in order to get under that limit. PDU's are specifically excluded in the text of the rules as it applies towards the 3 sqd. limit, and PDU's are certainly not carriers under the second portion of the rule.
In addition if 302.334 applied to PDU's then I could exclude the PDU's fighters by including any three CV/PFT/Ind Sqd.
There might indeed be another rule that comes to bear on this, but I don't think 302.334 applies.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, November 15, 2007 - 11:45 pm: Edit
Eeeerrrr, that should be that (302.3334) is the only rule allowing fighters to be EXCLUDED from a battle force....
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 12:14 am: Edit
Nick,
Another clarification then.
Does rule 302.334 require that Fighters on a CV be present in the battleforce the CV is present in?
I had thought 302.334 spoke towards ways to keep yourself under the 3 attrition sqd limit, not requiring you to include your attrition sqd's.
I had thought you could exclude the fighters and just send the Carrier. There are rare times you would want to do this, but I can see it being occasionally useful.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, November 16, 2007 - 04:50 pm: Edit
Nick, por favor
A further clarification of the above:
Is there any rule requiring fighters based on carriers not in the battleline to be transfered to carriers currently in the battleforce?
Examples: I have a force of ships, including 2 CVA and 4 CV, a total of 48 fighters, go into battle.
I know if I set up an initial line of 2 CVA groups, I would have to leave half the fighters in the bay on one of the CVAs, and that rule 302.334 specifies exactly how to do this. But if I set up a line of 4 CV groups, this line would be illegal, because I could only keep half a CV's complement on board, which means I'd have 3 1/2 squadrons on the battleline, and thus be over-limit.
Fast forward to later in the battle, Where I've already lost 30 of the 48 fighters in combat. Now that 4 CV group line is legal, as 3 CV groups would carry the 18 fighters, and the fourth is simply missing any fighters (already destroyed).
So my question is, if I lost 6 fighters in the first round of combat, could I set up a 4 CV group line on the second round, and simply define three groups as carrying 18 fighters, while the fourth CV is the one that already lost his fighters. The fourth CV simply didn't bother to refill his bays with the spare fighters from the CVA in reserve. Is that legal? I see no rule requiring that I refill all carriers from the reserve.
If legal, once I had lost 18 fighters from a force, I could theoretically set up a battleline of 3 CVA groups, each CVA 'missing' 6 fighters from their usual complement, even though I might have over 100 fighters in reserve.
If not legal (meaning I *am* required to refill battle-line carriers with any fighters from the reserve), then is that also true with regards to any FCR fighters as well? If I had only 12 fighters, but 6 more in a FCR, and I put 3 CV groups on the line, am I required to use the FCR's fighters to bring the line to 18 fighters?
Thanks in advance!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 01:29 pm: Edit
Question about the advanced single combat rule. This rule seems to be poorly written, so I'd like to clarify what I think is the correct interpretation.
________________________________________
Quote:
(318.74) MODIFIERS: In the event of combat under (317.71) or (317.72), the following die roll modifiers and special
conditions are in effect:
In the event of a fighting retreat (302.77), the retreating
ship has a -1 die roll penalty.
If one side has (or is) a scout or X-scout, the other
ship/side has a -1 die roll penalty to reflect self-defense
jamming. Scouts on both sides cancel each other out unless
one is an X-scout and the other is not, in which case the Xscout
causes a -1 penalty for the enemy.
An X-ship receives a +1 die roll bonus. If there are Xships
on each side, they cancel each other out.
________________________________________
Per 318.74, if one side of "small combat" has a scout and the other doesn't, then "the other ship/side" has a -1 roll penalty.
However, per 310.0, "The Attacker rolls a single die (not one die per unit)." (emphasis added). The attacker is, by definition, the phasing player.
So, let's consider the following scenario. The phasing player (attacker) has a scout during an advanced single combat event. The non-phasing player does not.
Under the 318.74, as written, the "other side" has a -1 penalty. However, in this case, the "other side" is the non-phasing player (the "defender").
The non-phasing player doesn't roll the die, the phasing player ("attacker") does. As a result, the "-1 penalty to the other side" is meaningless under the rule as written. In other words, under the rule as written, the "-1 penalty" simply doesn't exist as it applies only to the player NOT rolling a die. As a result, no actual penalty occurs if the non-phasing player is the side to which the penalty is supposed to accrue.
I'm about 99% sure that this is NOT the intent of the rule. I think that the rule is SUPPOSED to say something like, "In the case that a first side has a scout and an opposing side does not, the die roll (made by the phasing player) is shifted by 1 in favor of the first side."
Please confirm.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 04:38 pm: Edit
You are right, the rule was written as if both players roll dice, but since only the attacker rolls, you have to change the various modifers or they don't make sense. Just change the sign of the modifier so it helps the appropriate side.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 04:56 pm: Edit
Nick,
Thanks for the confirmation. What's the appropriate way to tell ADB that a re-draft of this rule is needed?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - 09:45 pm: Edit
Ted, there is a Thread for the consolidated WarBook which will also clarify any rules that are ambiguous or need updating...
it can be found here
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 01:36 pm: Edit
Question about the Hydran Off Map Old Shipyard (511.321):
The old shipyard produces 3 free fighter factors (for hybrid ships)per turn during any turn that the primary shipyard is not operational; these can be accumulated but can only be used for ships built in the old shipyard. The old shipyard cannot perform any conversions.
The old shipyard can make substitutions. If the old shipyard substitutes a true carrier (UH or CV) for a base ship, can the free fighter factors be used (presuably at 2:1) for the CV's fighters? For example, the Hydrans lose their capital. T1 of new shipyard production, they generate 3FFF. Turn 2, they generate 3FFF. Turn 3, they generate 3FFF. They have banked up 9 free hybrid factors. Can they substitute a UH for the LN they are allowed to build, and use the 9 saved fighters for 4.5 of the UH's 8 fighters (or more realistically, wait till T4, and use 12 banked FFs for 6 of the 8 fighters on the UH or something?)
Thanks,
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 02:55 pm: Edit
I presume you're not using AO since the IC gets to use these FFFs and it's a True CV. There's also a question above somewhere that deals with this. The answer is yes, they can use these hybrid factors for true CVs at 2 for 1.
BUT, if you're only using the plain F+E2K rules, don't substitute the CV. Make the standard ship and convert it at the SB. It's cheaper and the Hydrans need every EP they can scrape up.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 05:29 pm: Edit
Michael wrote:
>>I presume you're not using AO since the IC gets to use these FFFs and it's a True CV. >>
Correct.
>>There's also a question above somewhere that deals with this. The answer is yes, they can use these hybrid factors for true CVs at 2 for 1.>>
Cool, thanks.
>>BUT, if you're only using the plain F+E2K rules, don't substitute the CV. Make the standard ship and convert it at the SB. It's cheaper and the Hydrans need every EP they can scrape up.>>
Is it really cheaper? You can't use the old shipyard FFFs for ships you convert at the SB--it says you can only use them for ships produced by the old shipyard. So if I sub the ship at the old shipyard (which is allowed), I can then use the FFFs to pay for the fighters. If I convert at the SB, not so much.
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 06:39 pm: Edit
The cost on the fighters is the same regardless of where the ship is produced, it just seems cheaper when you use FFFs. The CV cost is cheaper by 2 EPs when converted instead of being substituted.
Besides which, the ship IS being produced at the Old Shipyard. It's just being converted at the SB.
BTW, try to put any questions that aren't for Nick in the "General Discussions" thread.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 08:01 pm: Edit
Nick,
Question about the Errata on Selling ships to the Wyn and specifically Klingons on Turn one.
The errata states in part
________________________________________
Quote:
...While the ship is technically leaving Klingon Space, it is also technically no longer Klingon....
________________________________________
Was this just a justification for allowing the exception or is it force of rule itself? This errata suggests that at the Moment you Designate a ship for sale to the Wyn it becomes defacto a Wyn Vessel. Since there is no provision for fighting the Wyn nor any provision that I know of for intercepting or otherwise molesting ANY neutral power vessel, this means selling ships to the Wyn cluster cannot be stopped.
I am not complaining if this is a fair consequence.. I also want to take a captured Klingon vessel, paint 'colourful slogans' on the side such as "Kahless sucks eggs" and "Klingons the other other white meat" and travel through the klingon blockade of Wyn space.. and when Mr. Klingon Admiral McFussy Pants tries to atomize me I say "Nuh uh.. look at dis here bill o sale my foul smelling admiral.. this is Wyn property now.. so go find some Hydran cutie to dance with"
So seriously though, does this errata make ships traveling to the Cluster after being sold defacto Wyn vessels and therefore unmolestable?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:11 pm: Edit
Michael wrote:
>>The cost on the fighters is the same regardless of where the ship is produced, it just seems cheaper when you use FFFs. The CV cost is cheaper by 2 EPs when converted instead of being substituted.>>
Oh, I see where the math works out. Building a CV (i.e. the specific Hydran Carrier, not generic carrier) costs 10, but making a RN and changing it into a CV costs 8 (plus fighters). Check.
>>Besides which, the ship IS being produced at the Old Shipyard. It's just being converted at the SB.>>
Hmm. That seems like a questionable reading of the rules. But ok. If there is past precident.
>>BTW, try to put any questions that aren't for Nick in the "General Discussions" thread.>>
Well, these are all, more or less, for Nick. Or at least parts of the same question.
-Peter
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 05:17 am: Edit
________________________________________
Quote:
Hmm. That seems like a questionable reading of the rules. But OK. If there is past precedent.
________________________________________
There isn't necessarily past precedent, just what you can convince your opponent of. IE: Yes, it is a "questionable" reading, but the Hydrans are scraping the bottom of the barrel without any expansions and need everything they can get.
BTW, the Uhlan has the same "discount" as the Cavalier when converted instead of substituted.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 08:15 am: Edit
In regards to the question about using FFF to aid in the construction of a Hydran CV in the old colonies shipyard.
I do not think it is a very questionable read at all. I present the following in Amicus Curiae for Nick to consider during his ruling.
________________________________________
Quote:
(433.13)If a ship is converted during construction, the starbase performing the conversion must be in the same hex as the production facility.
________________________________________
Now its true the notion of being in the same hex is somewhat curious, but the offmap is both the same hex and not the same hex for most purposes. COE's can build there even when the capitol has been relocated as they are NOT the same hex, the offmap is not a hex at all. But likewise for other purposes the offmap is being treated as one hex, there is never any question if a vessel built with a MSY is in the same location as one built by the rebuilt shipyard, nor one converted by a starbase in the offmap.
So when one looks at the rule as written realizing that the starbase is colocated with the shipyard there for purposes of this rule, then Conversion during production is allowed. So indeed it makes complete sense to say the CV is constructed at the old colonies shipyard and converted at the starbase all at the same time, and hence you can use the FFF to build out its fighter squadrons.
For the sake of brevity I will cut this short, but there is much to be said regarding this oddness of how shipyards and attendant conversion facilities work.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 09:49 am: Edit
Nick:
Two rulings needed regarding the setup instructions for sector F of the Maelstrom scenario (SO rule 675.F):
1. The setup instructions list the Gorn as controlling province 4410, but list the Romulan BATS in 4310 as undestroyed. Since both cannot be simultaneously true, which is correct?
2. The setup instructions list NZ hexes 3911 and 3912 as being controlled by both the Gorn and the Romulans. Since only the Gorns are explicitly listed as controlling the minor in 3912, I assume the Gorns control both hexes. Is that interpretation correct?
Thanks, and have a happy turkey-day!
Jason
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 02:04 pm: Edit
Jason:
These were my errors during the scenario edit for SO.
1. The Rom base at 4310 is destroyed (my oversight).
2. All neutral zone hexes 3910-3912 are Gorn controlled (along with the planet at 3912).
By Courtenay Footman (Courtenay) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 03:17 pm: Edit
The errata for rule (302.775) states:
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.
If friendly forces with a base-like unit that are retreated onto have an equal number of ships as the total enemy forces, which case applies?
Also, if one retreats onto a friendly base, the first approach battle is conducted as a fighting retreat. Does this apply to base-like units? The rules do not say so, but I suspect they should. Otherwise it is better to retreat onto a friendly base-like unit, with no fighting retreat, than onto a friendly base, which starts off with a fighting retreat.
If one retreats onto a friendly base, the first approach battle is fought as a fighting retreat. Are all ships available in for the battle force, or only the retreating ships? I think that rule says use only the retreating ships, but am not sure. May the retreating player decline this approach battle? I think not, but again, am not sure.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 08:24 pm: Edit
Chuck:
Many thanks for the corrections! Are there any other known corrections for the Maelstrom scenario awaiting upload into the master errata file?
Cheers and happy Thanksgiving!
Jason
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 09:29 pm: Edit
Nick
Under 302.73, if a Lyran force retreating from 0519 after assaulting the planet has more ships than the Hydran has in 0518, the BATS at 0515 is dead, the planets and bases at 0416, 0617, and 0318 are under assault, and there is a convoy at 0514: Can the Lyran force retreat to 0518 without it being a fighting retreat or must he choose 0418 or 0618 since there are no Hydran ships in those hexes?
By Jeffrey T. Coutu (Jtc) on Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 06:10 am: Edit
Nick,
Does rule (442.91) apply to troop transports (FTL and FTS)? For example, could two FTLs be built in one year, one under (442.91) and one under (442.92)?
Thanks
By edward kroeten (Edkroeten) on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 02:00 pm: Edit
I have some questions.
1. Is there any limit on the number of Theater Transports (539.71) doesn't list seem to list any? So I could build three or four a turn if I wanted to and had the production compacity or hulls to convert them?
2. I have a FRD at a SB with 50+ other ships is there a way to block the special raid that goes after my FRD. It just doesn't seem realistic that the FRD parked at a SB should die from a drone raid or fighter raid. Wouldn't any commander worth his salt assign escorts (even a couple of lowly FFs to stop this if the FRD is in range of a raid)? Or for that matter what about a forward deployed FRD with a large force couldn't some forces be assigned as escorts to stay with this valuable unit? Maybe an idea for Captains log is to give an example of each type of raid.
3. I CEDS an EFF off a carrier group for 16 directed damage points destroying the frigate. If the carrier stays in combat the next round can I attack the whole group (CV + MEC) with directed damage ignoring the frigate which was destroyed in the prior round? I saw in an old captains log that if the escort was crippled you could ignore it but rereading (308.1b) It only discusses a crippled escort not a destoyed one.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, November 26, 2007 - 10:59 pm: Edit
Nick,
I am not sure if I should ask this here or in the SIT discussion. Pardon me if its misplaced.
The Kzinti LTT is listed in the online SIT as available Y170. However the Kzinti online OOB as well as (516.34) in CO list it as available in Y171. Which takes precedence? Is the SIT in error or was it a correction to CO and the OOB?
By edward kroeten (Edkroeten) on Saturday, December 01, 2007 - 01:35 am: Edit
I am reposting my questions, because I had an old e-mail address on my profile.
I have some questions.
1. Is there any limit on the number of Theater Transports (539.71) doesn't list seem to list any? So I could build three or four a turn if I wanted to and had the production compacity or hulls to convert them?
2. I have a FRD at a SB with 50+ other ships is there a way to block the special raid that goes after my FRD. It just doesn't seem realistic that the FRD parked at a SB should die from a drone raid or fighter raid. Wouldn't any commander worth his salt assign escorts (even a couple of lowly FFs to stop this if the FRD is in range of a raid)? Or for that matter what about a forward deployed FRD with a large force couldn't some forces be assigned as escorts to stay with this valuable unit? Maybe an idea for Captains log is to give an example of each type of raid.
3. I CEDS an EFF off a carrier group for 16 directed damage points destroying the frigate. If the carrier stays in combat the next round can I attack the whole group (CV + MEC) with directed damage ignoring the frigate which was destroyed in the prior round? I saw in an old captains log that if the escort was crippled you could ignore it but rereading (308.1b) It only discusses a crippled escort not a destoyed one.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, December 01, 2007 - 06:45 am: Edit
Edward:
#2 is a well-known problem in search of a good solution at this point. For some of the discussion on possible fixes, see the thread:
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Proposals Forum: A possible fix for the problem of drone raids auto-killing FRDs
Cheers,
Jason
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, December 01, 2007 - 07:33 am: Edit
Edward,
Look at 308.121. It includes the following: "however, the group's combat factors are reduced to reflect the destroyed or crippled escort."
So, yes, you take away the 4 defensive compot from the CV group and now you have a CV+MEC with factors like this 16-17(6) / 8-9(3). Such a group could be cripped (using a 10 pt. mauler) for 24 points, or destroyed for 42 (again, using a 10 pt. mauler.)
Oh, and just so you know, normally you will receive your answers on this board, not by e-mail. It just takes some time before Nick gets around to it. I'm about 99.9999% certain Nick won't overrule me on this one, so I gave it a shot.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, December 02, 2007 - 12:05 am: Edit
Edward, the resolution of the CV+MEC+eff depends on what you're going for, with the EFF crippled, you can cripple the group (CV+MEC), destroy the crippled eff, or destroy the group (CV+MEC+eff), you cannpt cripple the MEC by itself (even though the EFF is crippled). If the EFF is destroyed, then you could crippled the MEC (or the whole group) or destroy the MEC (or group).
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 02:32 pm: Edit
Nick,
This is a "was this an oversight" question. If I'm using Variable Admirals (316.22), should the admiral's modifier affect the BIR selection to use an SFG [(312.122) and (312.262)], SAF (520.4), or ground combat ship (521.33)?
(Currently they don't, because the rules don't reference each other; however, since two products are involved (CO and AO), it's possible that the lack of mention was just an oversight when the rules were written.)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 09:17 am: Edit
Nick
Query/clarification on a ruling you made in 2005 to Robert Padilla.
How can you kill a PGB being set up, on a captured planet, which has no other PGB's and PDU's already active?
Does it make a difference if the planet is captured (and how does Long Term Capture effect it) or owned by the original race?
Lastly, does a Tug doing the setting up, have to be included in the battle force, when a battle occurs at the location (I beleive the answer is Yes, as it is treated like the placement of a MB)
Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 10:03 am: Edit
Nick, for reference Paul is referring to:
Q&A Archive, 10 October 2005
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 01:33 pm: Edit
I would like to chime in with some rules references for the above mentioned setting up of ground bases.
________________________________________
Quote:
(508.32)if deployed outside the capitol hex, the defense battalion must be moved (operationally or strategically) by a tug, comprising its entire cargo. It is then set up as a mobile base [i.e. the tug must remain in that hex until the start of the next operational movement phase(510.2)]. (omitted parts definng Rom and Gorn capitol hex)
________________________________________
The key for me being the positive reference to (510.2)
________________________________________
Quote:
(510.232) If the tug is not included in the Battle Force, it is considered to have abandoned the undeployed base. If the tug is included in the Battle Force and destroyed, the incomplete base is also destroyed.
________________________________________
510.2 is the familiar rules about how MB setup works and all that. I quoted the part on combat as its the most relevant I think.
Since 508.32 positively references 510.2 then the rules herein should apply. So then they apply to the setting up of ground bases, and in particular the whole part about having to stay until the next friendly operational movement phase, and having to be in the battleforce etc. etc.
Remember this is the case when a ground base is being set up remotely not at the capitol where no tugs are needed. I am also more concerned with the case where an initial base is being setup, when ground bases already exist there is language about it being an upgrade, so perhaps that might work differently
In this case, the ground base has all the traits of a mobile base. The unit transporting it is required to remain until the next op movement phase, the base isn't active yet. If the TUG isn't needed (i.e. the base will set itself up in absence of the tug) why is there the requirement that the Tug be present through the enemies turn? It seems to me the requirement is because the tug is actively engages in setting up the base similarly to a mobile base. That also makes sense given the positive refernce to 510.2 the rule for setting up a mobile base.
If is clear the Tug has to remain in the hex for some reason if it leaves or is killed the base is destroyed. It shouldn't be sufficient that the Tug hang around its doing something, something similar to setting up a mobile base.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 03:39 pm: Edit
Nick another question - sorry!
441 - PGB's
441,12 confirms a PGB can only Self-generate PGB's.
441.13 confrims a PGB can't be used to use the upgrade rule, to add new PDU's via Upgrading.
The question is therefore - if the Delivery method (433.423) is used to add 1-4 PDU's to a planet with an existing PGB - do the PDU's automatically activate?
(441.112 confrims PGB's being added to a PDU planet DO operate immediatly).
i.e. it would seem to be a cheaper way of getting PDU's active, by using a PGB for the first 'unit' and PDU's later.
If the answer is 'yes', (alloing a PDU being delivered to a PGB planet to activate immediatly), there is a tactic note here, which I shall do!
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 05:58 pm: Edit
Where, I repeat, where is Nick Blank?
The World wonders.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 06:08 pm: Edit
Joe, it's almost X-mas, maybe he needs to be out making up for being naughty to his SO.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 10:51 pm: Edit
He was being naughty to his Strategic Operations?
By edward kroeten (Edkroeten) on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 05:36 pm: Edit
Paul,
That tacnote has already been done. In Captains Log #32.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:46 pm: Edit
Nick or somebody
Can someone clear something up for me on MINOR SHIPYARD (450.12)
the Conversion both the Minor and Major DO YOU NEED to build a minor shipyard first or is the Conversion yard a whole differt shipyard and if it is what year can you start building one
mholiver
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm: Edit
Although I am NOT Nick of course. I think its safe to say. The Minor and Major Conversion Facilities ARE a type of Minor shipyard. You build them where any other Minor Shipyard can be built (Starbase or Major Planet I believe) and they function to provide a Minor or Major Conversion each turn. They do NOT need other facilites present to function.
If you need an official ruling you should CERTAINLY wait for Nick to answer; however, reread the MSY rules with what I said above and I think you will see it clearly.
As for YIS its the same as the 'shipyard' entry on the SIT. It is available to BEGIN construction in Y170.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 01:00 pm: Edit
SO IN A WAY THEY ARE NOT A ADDED ON TO SAY A starbase ...SO THEY ARE TYPE OF SHIPYARD THEN AND THEM THE SHIPYARD CAN DO BOTH CONVERT AND BUID A NEW UNIT
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 01:02 pm: Edit
I did ask anyone to answer this issue ....
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 06:04 pm: Edit
Major and Minor Conversion facilities are independent entities like any other minor shipyard, they are not built as part of something else.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 07:32 pm: Edit
Nick
What Michael posted ...is that right
Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 12:54 pm:
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:02 pm: Edit
Hey Nick,
There's a question in General Discussions that it looks like there's a lot of disagreement on, so it sounds like a good one for a ruling.
If you have a carrier group with two cripples (say [CV, (MEC), (EFF)] for example), does the "multiple DD attacks during pursuit" rule allow you to kill the EFF and the MEC? How about the "combine the cripples for one DD mauler attack" rule?
And what if the group is [CV, (MEC), EFF]. Could you use the "multiple DD attacks during pursuit" rule to kill the EFF outright, and then kill the inner MEC?
Thanks
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:36 pm: Edit
I would like to add to Matthew's Question.
In the case of
[CV (MEC) EFF]
could you kill the MEC outright as part of(or all of) the Single DD on all Cripples in the pursuit combat rule without touching the EFF?
In the case of
[(CV) MEC EFF]
Could you kill the CV outright? Same schtick as above.
I think these questions boil down to Do the Carrier Escort Rules trump the Multiple Cripples in one DD rule for pursuit.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 03:08 pm: Edit
The "persued carrier group" question has already been asked and answered; most recently (that I can find) in the June 16/June 25, 2007 archives of this topic.
Perhaps a clarifying line in the errata would stop it from being asked in the future? (Or at least be an easily findable reference to point people to.)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 03:19 pm: Edit
Thanks Dave. I remember that now, but I had forgotten it.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 06:58 pm: Edit
Nick
If you only have 3 crippled ships and they are all small escorts in CV groups:
DN
CV,BCE,MEC,(EFF)
CV,MEC,(EFF)
CV,MEC,(EFF)
Can all the crippled escorts be targeted for directed damage in pursuit? Or can the pursuer only shoot one?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 02:13 pm: Edit
Nick,
A revisit question. I asked about Fed and Klingon SBX YIS dates about 5 months ago.
You said this:
________________________________________
Quote:
Feds and Klingons get X-tech Y180, most races Y182, a couple of races Y183.
Rule (523.413) gives each race a free SBX on the date given for each race.
The SIT date of Y182 is from the general SIT.
When that entry was copied to the racial SITs they perhaps for got to change some dates to Y180 or Y183 as appropriate.
As far as I know Klingons/Feds can build more X bases in Y180.
Obviously a race that doesn't get X tech until Y183 cannot build an x base in Y182.
________________________________________
Now SVC has redone the Fed SIT and all the factors clearly reflect a Fed SBX. (i.e., it's a 54(18H12)/27(9H6) unit.) But the YIS is still listed as Y182.
So, the revisit is this:
Could you check with the various powers that be and see if this was an oversight (i.e., it should have been Y180, but was missed) or intentional (i.e., yes, they get their first SBX in Y180, but can't upgrade any others until Y182.)
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 01:51 pm: Edit
[deleted--does not follow company policy for complaints. J.Sexton]
By Damon Robert Anderson (Rihan704) on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 07:00 pm: Edit
[No longer needed as triggering post is deleted. J.Sexton]
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 07:58 pm: Edit
Nick,
Question regarding Annualized FFF's (442.6) and replacement shipyards...
if a replacement shipyard is finished in the spring and goes active in the Fall for production, are any FFF's received?
By Dale Lloyd Fields (Dylkha) on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 10:10 pm: Edit
Tim
I asked this earlier and it was sent up to the Warbook for ultimate inclusion. Replacement shipyards follow the same rules as to FFF as Empires entering the war in the fall do (1/2, round up; Z=6, F=8...).
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 07:58 am: Edit
[No longer needed as triggering post is deleted. J.Sexton]
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 08:43 am: Edit
[No longer needed as triggering post is deleted. J.Sexton]
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:06 am: Edit
Gentlemen,
There is a way to make a complaint and doing via the BBS is NOT the proper way.
Extracted from SVC's post on Misbehavior on the BBS:
________________________________________
Quote:
EXAMPLE FOUR: Somebody has a complaint about somebody (an ADB employee or contractor, or a convention official, or a retailer, or whoever) not getting something done fast enough.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Quote:
WHAT TO DO? Email the person in question about not doing the job he undertook or which ADB assigned him. If you don't like his first three answers, email him again and CC someone (or more than someone) at ADB and note in your email to the person who had disappointed you that you have CCed the company about this.
________________________________________
(I snipped out parts that did not apply to this situation.)
From this it may be extrapolated that if you have a complaint, you start by emailing the person thrice. Then you bump it by email up a level. Do not post your complaint on the BBS.
I don't expect to see this sort of thing happen again in this topic.
Jean
WebMom
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Your topic was chosen for "WebMomming". All your old messages are archived here in your topic, but gathered up so you don't have so many to scroll past.
Jean
WebMom
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 04:59 pm: Edit
Got it..thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 03:49 pm: Edit
Nick,
There is a question going about in our From the Front discussion about survey ships and moving them from the map to survey duty. I contend that the SO rules require three turns (I will detail my argument) while others say two turns (because that was the time period in F&E 2K) If you already have this question in your Que I apologize for repeating.
In SO there was a huge change made. The entire rules for Survey were revamped with many options added. And we have some detailed rules for how moving ships to the Survey area work now.
________________________________________
Quote:
(542.21)Deployment: To send a ship from the board to survey duty, the ship is moved by any legal movement system to the off-map survey area of the owning race, then (on a later turn) moves to the separate survey ship record form. While in the off-map area, the survey ship operates as any non-survey ship would and does not count for survey purposes.
________________________________________
The key here being the parenthetical statement "on a later turn" why is that added? Its added so you know that you cannot move the Survey ship to the off-map area and then onto the Survey ship record form in the same turn. So the sequence of events for a survey ship on-map is this.
Turn n Ship is built (or decides it is to move to survey duty) and moves to the off-map Area by any legal movement system.
Turn n+1 Ship moves from the off-map to the Survey Ship Record form.
So now we ask ourselves, is it the intention that on n+1 that the ship rolls for survey? The SOP hasn't helped me as it doesn't indicate when the ships are moved onto the Survey Ship Record form (or moved off for that matter). However it does say when Survey ships roll. Here are the Steps from the SOP in PO (the latest one I have)
________________________________________
Quote:
Phase 1: Economics
The phasing player:
1A: Conducts first check to evaluate supply status for combat (410.22) (this also applies to the non-phasing player)
1B: Determines the total number of survey points generated (505.21) adds the effects of Survey Prime Teams and determines their survival (522.44); declares province annexation(488.23) and transfers (448.24)
________________________________________
So in order for Survey ships to count on n+1 the missing SOP step has to occur in 1A or 1B. There are approximately a hundred other SOP substeps after 1B that it could fall in although its probably somewhere in 2B production when there are alot of other bookeeping functions done, or during one of the various movement options of the turn. But the long and the short of it is simply that the SOP doesn't say exactly when so it doesn't help clarify the rule. So on SOP alone we can say that probabalistically the SOP is overwhelmingly in favour of the n+1 ships NOT rolling.
But lets look back at the rule itself, maybe it sheds more light on the situation. Again I point out the parenthetical "on a later turn" if the INTENTION was that the ship should survey on the turn AFTER it reaches the offmap.. why go through the business of mentioning "on a later turn"? Just say "Move the survey ship by any legal means to the offmap area and then place it onto the Survey Ship Record Form" as EVERY form of legal movement occurs AFTER 1B in the SOP you would be assured that the ship couldn't survey on turn n, it would begin on n+1. However, if your intention is that there is an additional delay, then the wording in the rule makes alot of sense and we have the following sequence.
Turn n Ship is built (or decides it is to move to survey duty) and moves to the off-map Area by any legal movement system.
Turn n+1 Ship moves from the off-map to the Survey Ship Record form.
Turn n+2 Ship is on the Survey Record form in Step 1B and now begins to roll.
It certainly could be the intention to have 1A or 1B in the SOP be where the ships are moved to the form, but its not declared, and given the wording of the rule it seems to indicate rather that an ENTIRE turn delay occurs in the process of moving from the off-map to the survey area.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 09:27 pm: Edit
Michael Parker,
You are reading a bit too much into it. When the ship is on the record form, it rolls dice.
I cite precedence. The Klingon send their survey ships to the Lyran offmap on T1. The Klingon begins rolling on T2.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 09:44 pm: Edit
Joe,
I agree when its on the Record form you roll the dice. The important issue is WHEN during 'the later turn' is the ship taken up and put onto the record form?
As for the precedent, that was established under the F&E 2K rules, and under those rules I agree there is no delay. It is when you consider the SO changes to survey that this added delay comes in. There are ALOT of changes there.
To be honest, I would PREFER it to be as you say, but I think its supposed to be as I say.
If you want to see more of my argument check out 'From the Front" 'Two guys blowin' stuff up a GW AAR' as I have more detail there.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 10:02 pm: Edit
Alligator
Go read 542.21 (SO, page 12) AND 542.32 (SO, page 12) before you try to cite "precedence". These 2 rules are specific changes to the previous rules. If you want to read the argument it is in "Reports from the Front: Two Guys Blowing Stuff Up! A GW AAR".
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 08:15 am: Edit
Michael Lui,
I did read it.
read also (542.22)
T1 Klingon ships move to Lyran off-map area
T2 Klingons start surveying (precedence I cited before, THAT question was asked and answered ages ago)
It doesn't state an exception for Klingons, just states that they move to the Lyran OMA (since they have none of their own).
As for (542.32), it does the same thing that (542.21) does in an important way. It takes ONE turn in limbo before switching roles.
Tn = move out from survey duty
Tn+1 = move on map
Note also in (542.32) that a ship moved from the survey area to the OMA CAN BE CONVERTED, which indicates that this happens BEFORE ECON.
My rulebook is chopped up, so I don't have the ASOP handy, but if it is consistent with the wording of the rules, it will support what I'm saying.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 09:26 am: Edit
Joe,
I would love to discuss this with you, but don't wanna do it in here. I would suggest my From the Front thread as alot of stuff is already there but we could go general too.
I tend to get rather long winded on this.
And I don't have my rules with me now at work, but I am certain (542.22) does NOT say the klinks begin survey on turn 2 I really wish it did.
Here is a copy of a quote of 542.22 I have in my From the Front thread.
________________________________________
Quote:
(542.22)Klingon: New ships move to the Lyran Far Stars offmap area... (omitted clarifications for free campaigns).. The original two ships (One D6E and one D7E) move to the Far Stars by free strategic movement on Turn #1.(no cost to the Lyrans or Klingons for movement or infrastructure.)
________________________________________
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 07:47 pm: Edit
(505.33) Ships are sent off the map by the off-map movement rules (207.2). Ships sent off the map to serve as survey cruisers can return on future turns. However, on the turn that the ship leaves the offmap area for on-map service, cannot be used as a survey ship.
It doesn't say, that the ship moves from the record for to the offmap area, then from OMA to on-map.
The whole point in the wording of the rules to to ensure that no one tries to survey on the same turn that the ship goes offmap (or comes on-map)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 08:46 pm: Edit
Since you don't want to do this in the other thread...
IF you read 542.32 and 542.34 you will notice that going from off-map survey to on-map survey takes 3 TURNS.
Turn 1: Survey form to Off-map
Turn 2: Off-map to on-map survey
Turn 3: Can start getting EPs
Going from On-map survey (or anything else on-map) to Off-map survey:
Turn 1: On-map to Off-map
Turn 2: Off-map to survey form
Turn 3: Can start rolling for survey points
Either way it takes 3 turns.
Anyone actually using SO instead of just the basic F+E book takes 1 extra turn before getting to roll for survey. This is balanced out by being able to make more survey ships, High-Risk survey, HDW-Qs, and On-map survey rules. Anyone NOT using the SO rules gets to roll for survey the turn after getting off-map (2 turns) but does not have all the other options.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 11:10 pm: Edit
Michael Lui,
I've read it, and responded to your references to them. I feel confident that you are misreading the rule. It does not say what you think it says.
I'm also fairly confident that SO did not increase the time it takes to get survey ships into action. You are, by my reading, misreading the rules.
The SO rules reference to existing rules, which are still in force, and the prior rules are quite clear, esp in the cases of the Feds and Klingons.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 11:25 pm: Edit
Michael,
(542.21) (which you referenced): To send a ship from the board to survey duty, the ship is moved by any legal movement system to the offmap survey area of the owning race, then (on a later turn) moves to the seperate survey ship record form
It is clear from the passage that you move to the offmap survey area on the first turn of movement. A record form is not an area; it's a form. That's the form used to record survey results. It's pretty cut and dried.
The sentence could perhaps be worded better, but it's quite a stretch to interpret it as you have.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 12:30 am: Edit
And the last sentence of that paragraph is:
________________________________________
Quote:
While in the off-map area, the survey ship operates as any non-survey ship would and does not count for survey purposes.
________________________________________
The question we have is WHEN is the ship "moved" from the OMA to the record form since the survey ship could theoretically stay in the off-map area forever and not be allowed to survey. The survey ship record form may not exactly be an area but it is definitely a different place because the ship must be moved there and is removed from the OMA. If Nick rules that it is moved before you roll for survey points in step 1B then you will be correct in that it only takes 2 turns. There are 18 other steps between 1A (where it would have to be in order to be only 2 turns before you roll) and 2B3 (where you can convert ships).
So we are going to patiently wait for Nick (or SVC/SPP/anyone else with the authority) to rule on it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 09:42 am: Edit
I have moved over to the General area with this. I think we should do that if we want to continue to debate this, and not completly clutter up this place.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 12:05 pm: Edit
We will be replacing Nick sometime soon as he moves to other duties. One of the staff has applied for the job, and one other is thinking of applying, and it may turn out that we try a system where I basically handle the questions with some staff support. Film at 11.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 12:08 pm: Edit
SO did not increase the time it takes to get survey ships into action.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 12:14 pm: Edit
Wonderful,
I honestly prefer that solution. It seemed too long from production till it could survey!
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 04:46 pm: Edit
That's good, sort-of. Now we have to wait for an updated SOP.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 04:50 pm: Edit
You can talk to Chuck about the SoP. He's the only one who can understand it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 04:57 pm: Edit
Is there an online version of the SOP?
Not that I am complaining if there isn't
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 05:14 pm: Edit
I don't know. Check the master site index.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 05:16 pm: Edit
Nope. I had checked before but I thought perhaps I had missed it.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 05:18 pm: Edit
The printed SoP is available as a spare part:
Sequence of Play
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 05:27 pm: Edit
And since it's print on demand (less than 20 copies in stock) it could easily be "replaced" by an "updated" version Chuck does after his family medical crisis is over.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 05:40 pm: Edit
I've seen an online SOP before. I know there's one around somewhere.
[edit] It's in the Q&A archive. It's updated with PO stuff, but not anything from SO.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 08:05 pm: Edit
Ahhh thanks SVC.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 08:40 pm: Edit
(705.1) The online errata says the Kzinti F&E2K construction schedule changed, but then gives the schedule including NCAs, DWs, and HDWs, which aren't 2K units. Is this errata supposed to mean that while playing just the 2K rules you get a 2nd BC slot starting in F169? Or is that just for the AO rules?
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 07:20 pm: Edit
In just 2K, ignore the NCA/DW/HDWs--they replace CM/FF/DW slots. So basically, the Kzinti get a second BC slot. The standard schedule is:
SP: 1xDN, 1xBC, 4xCM, 6xFF
FA: 1xCV, 1xBC, 1xCL, 1xMEC, 2xCM, 1xEF, 5xFF
Which might be flipped SP/FA if I am misremembering.
-Peter
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 08:21 pm: Edit
Peter,
Any history on that issue that you're aware of? (i.e., Do you know the background there?)
I'm the Kzinti in a 2K game we're starting up, and I'd really like a definitive on this before the third turn (the first turn it matters.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 09:04 pm: Edit
Matt,
NCAs replace a CM on the Kzinti construction schedule. So in this case when you see a NCA, it would be a CM. When you see a HDW or DW, it would just be a FF, and the FFK would just be a FF. IN the cases where you see things like DWE escorts, it would just be an EFF, as there is no DWE in 2K.
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 09:08 pm: Edit
It was originally in a CL (mid 20's?) as just errata to the Kzinti production schedule without the NCA/DW/HDW additions (i.e. they just added the BC to the 2K schedule).
The online errata incorporates the errata that was published in the CL with the AO production schedule. I often get the feeling that the folks who are in charge of this sort of thing forget that F+E2K and expanded F+E are different games...
-Peter
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 - 09:12 pm: Edit
You mean people play the game without all the extras?
By Adam Hickey (Ahickey) on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 11:36 am: Edit
The only errata that I could find was in CL#24, and it was printed just as shown in the master errata file.
NCAs replace CMs on the production schedule, so I would just go with that.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 10:40 am: Edit
In F&E2K, there's no such thing as a NCA.
So, my question was "What is the Kzinti Schedule starting in F169 when playing basic F&E2K?"
Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough.
It appears to be that the Kzinti, even when playing basic F&E2K, get the extra BC starting in F169, and if somebody has the CL that Peter's talking about, it'd be a good place to look.
And yes, some people play the game without all the extras.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 11:14 am: Edit
But the extras are sooo much fun, albiet they add additional rules to have to deal with.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 12:39 pm: Edit
Rob,
I probably should have read your response a little closer. I thought you were telling me to use the new units in place of the old, when in fact you were telling me just the opposite.
I'm good. And since you're coalition in the game, we'll just go with the plan that I get the errata'd build schedule, but with just the base units. The upshot of this is that I will have the ability to produce a CVS and a TGC on the same turn starting in F169. (Or a DN and CVS starting in S170.)
By Peter D Bakija (Bakija) on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 - 02:11 pm: Edit
Matthew wrote:
>>"What is the Kzinti Schedule starting in F169 when playing basic F&E2K?">>
From the master errata file:
Fall turns Y169-Y174: [CV+MEC+EFF], BC, CL, 2xCM, 5xFF
Spring turns Y170-Y175: DN, BC, 4xCM, 6xFF
And just use this forever. The later (post y175) production doesn't add any hulls, it just upshifts some hulls (CM>NCA, FF>DW)
This is the standard build schedule (which, really, is the same as the 2K schedule, with an extra BC added in to the mix).
If only they would do this for the Gorns...
-Peter
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 05:09 pm: Edit
Question about substituting Kzinti FFK hulls:
705.3 allows one FFK to be substituted for a FF or DW per turn, but then later says starting Fall Y175, production by any means is not limited except by the production schedule.
So how many FFKs can I sub for DW in Spring Y176? 450.4 seems to allow substituting 2 FF for CM. Can any of these be FFK?
If I built a minor FF shipyard, can I sub a FFK for the FF?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Saturday, December 29, 2007 - 10:24 am: Edit
Nick (or his replacement),
Can I use a (320.4) commando raid to strike a PDU or PGB that is being set up via (433.421-thru-443.423)?
Can I use a resistance group on a planet to destroy a PDU or PGB (537.11) being set up on a captured planet via (433.423)?
| Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation |