January - Feburary 2008 Archive

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Are the all the counters from DF&E still good or were there compot or other changes made?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:55 pm: Edit

That is the '89 release, right? If I recall correctly the only thing that was wrong there was the 3D5V group counter. It was one less than what it should be. I have used all versions of the game from 1986 on and the only version I have had to be careful incorporating into my counterset has been the 1986 version.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 01:36 pm: Edit

Ooops, not Delux. I have the 1993 version of F&E in a box.

I also have the F&E2K rule book and all 2K expansions (xx-operations) and a mess of extra counters from a grab bag deal.
By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Loren,

All except the D5V group
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Any word on whether Nick has died or what?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 06:23 pm: Edit

Nick has retired. I had somebody compile the recent questions and I answered them and sent them to the staff to be checked and got ... not enough staff reports to post the answers. The staff has been told to get a move on, but they were delayed by work on CL36 and by Chuck's family crisis.

NOBODY should answer any questions that require creating new rules material. If you can answer a question by sending them to a published rule or a rule number, go ahead, but nobody but me gets to "interpret" or "extend" rules, and I don't do it without staff checking it.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 07:36 pm: Edit

Thank you for the clarification on what was going on.

I'd like to thank Nick for the many hours of volunteer work he put forth to help us all out.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 09:13 pm: Edit

so does that mean he is going to play at Origins this year??
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 10:27 am: Edit

Prime Team Questions:

Regarding rule 522.2 Prime team movement:
1. How many Prime Teams can be carried/transported on a ship?
Can one ship transport multiple prime teams?
Rule 522.33 says that no ship can 'operate' more than one. I am looking at that as 'used in combat for designated missions' but what about simple carriage?
The only rule I found that references 'passengers' is APTs which is limited I would think due to their size.

2. Can prime teams be moved in a 'daisy chain'?
In other words: Can you move a ship with a prime team to a hex with a friendly ship of the same race (that has not yet moved), transfer the prime to that ship, then that ship moves with the prime team to another hex with a friendly ship of the same race (that has not yet moved), transfer the prime team, and then move again?
I could not find anything in a previous Q&A about this.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 11:29 am: Edit

Lar,

At least for point 2 I believe you can do that only if the first movement is via blockade running. I know it was said that a Hydran Diplomat blockade run to a Hydran ship could then operationally move on that turn and hence be eligible as the diplomat to activate the feds.

By extension a PT would be able to blockade run somewhere then operationally move.

I am almost certain daisy chaining PT's with multiple ships using operational movement would not be allowed.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Combat and Retreat:

We had a situation that came up that seemed to be 'one of those situations' where the rules arent quite crystal.

We have a combat where a Defender has a RESV force (10 ships) against a small attack force (3 ships) at the defenders colony (with a convoy). The combat hex is 4 hexes from the next closest planet/base.

The combat went as it should with the Attacker giving up 1 ship (a FF) to the superior force. The retreat options are then excercised as follows:
Defender Retreat? No
Attacker Retreat? Yes
Defender Retreat? Yes

The question comes with regard to the convoy.

The Slow Retreat rules (302.742) (although included at the end of Step 7) are completely presented in their writing as a Step 8 Pursuit combat situation. We have no such situation since there is no pursuit. What would kill the convoy?

1. Can the fleet of ships still retreat and the convoy remain with the colony?
2. Is the convoy allowed to retreat with the fleet to the designated retreat hex?
3. Shouldn't there be a note in the slow unit rule regarding post combat/non-combat retreat which allows the convoy to leave when there is no enemy there to destroy it?
4. This can mean that an attacker could pin a fleet to their base if there is a slow unit present by simply attacking and retreating. Should this remain as is as it does not seem to be the original intent for the Slow Retreat rules?

The Attacker maintains that if the Defender wants to retreat his forces that the convoy dies under the slow unit retreat rules. (The Defender would agree if there was any kind of pursuit but there is not.)

The Defender maintains that the step (Step 8) is ignored though as the Attacker left the hex and there is no pursuit battle for the convoy to be in or survive. The Defender also maintains that the convoy could either stay with the colony or go with the fleet unharmed as there is no further enemy threat.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Lar

My first thought would be it would die - but then I remember - slow retreat units do NOT retreat with the main force - and can only retreat when there are no 'base' type things left.

So on this occasion -

The main defending force retreats as normal. The Convoy can't retreat though - as the Colony still exists. The 'attacker' - also retreats as normal.

i.e. -
Hex A - Attacking Force
Hex B - Defender Force
Original Battle Hex - Convoy and Colony

If the Colony wasn't there (or died in the battle) - by retreaing, the Convoy would die.

Hope this helps!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 03:43 pm: Edit

We need to leave questions that need interpretation by a staff level person to SVC or his FEAR designee and resist posting answers to questions in this topic. Please feel free to discuss them in the General Discussions area.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Actually, I think this one was answered before.

Let me see. I'll edit if I find it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 04:18 pm: Edit

I should have stated it thusly.

It has already been ruled in this Q&A (August 5th 2007 thread) that a Hydran Expedition would be successful by Blockade Running a Diplomat to a ship that then operationally moved in that turn.

By extension one could conclude the following and be fairly certain.

Because Diplomats and Prime Teams have VERY similar movement restrictions (In fact each Diplomat presumes the inclusion of a prime team as part of its constituency) and because it was specified that you would need to Blockade run then Operationally move. It seems that previous ruling holds that one cannot Daisy-Chain the movement of a Diplomatic Team via two Operational movement in one turn.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 04:36 pm: Edit

Darn it. Can't find it, although I could swear I remember somebody else asking about survival of slow units if both sides retreat.

It turns out the one question I found (about a FRD not under tow) was dodged since the case was specific to a capital, and the answer was "just do a partial retreat, since it's a capital."

So, in keeping with Mike's prompting, no opinion offered.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 06:38 pm: Edit

I'll point out that (522.34) limits transfers of Prime Teams to "the start and end of any Combat Round". (Blockade Runs being a later exception.) As such, you probably can't "rail gun" them across space.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 01:33 am: Edit

In reference to transfers of Prime Teams...

My recommendation to ADB: Add line item to SoP Step 2B7 "Assign Prime Teams to co-located units."

Since this step is before operational movement, PTs can only move once during operational movement on a specific ship. This also permits newly built and depot repaired ships to receive a co-located PT before the ship moves.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 02:08 am: Edit

In reference to carriage of Prime Teams...

"How many Prime Teams can be carried/transported on a ship?"

My recommendation to ADB -- Add new line item;

(202.51) Support Personal Carriage Limits. Unless already restricted, a specific unit cannot carry or transport any combination of Prime Teams, Diplomatic Teams, Admirals or Marine Major Generals in excess of the unit’s uncrippled defensive factor. Any of these types of support personnel that exceed the available carriage capacity (i.e. after a battle) within a hex are lost at the discretion of the owning unit’s player.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 10:30 am: Edit

Add: If a player attempts to load a ship with Support Personnel units beyond the perscribed limit it is immediately attacked and destroyed/captured by pirates. No battle is fought, simply remove the ship from play.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 06:16 pm: Edit

Add to Loren's note: "...and the player is then subjected to 20 minutes of naked Bat'leth dancing per offense."
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Can someone walk me through using a mauler... on a support echelon ship?

I get the 3-1 ratio using normal ships... just not with maulers.

Thanks!
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 08:50 pm: Edit

You cannot use the Mauler on support echelon ships, just as you can't use it on the free scout. Formation bonus slot, yes you can, at 50% effectiveness. See (302.563)
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 10:21 pm: Edit

When using a mauler against a form bonus ship, simply figure out the regular 3-1 DD. Whatever that figure is, simply subtract the value of the mauler you are using. It's that simple..people want to complicate it with 50% effective, use 2-1 on the first 10 then 3-1 thereafter, etc. While all of those are true, if you simply subtract the value of the mauler, you arrive at the exact same figure every time. That's the basic principle of communitive math (Dale, chime in anytime).
But like Bill said, free scout box and echelon support can only be directed on...no mauler on them; only the form bonus can be mauled.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 11:32 am: Edit

Bill and Dave,

Thank you!
By Trab Kadar (Trab) on Sunday, February 03, 2008 - 06:01 pm: Edit

A question about FRDs with assigned towing units under (421.2) vs special raids

We have situation where the Klingons are moving some of their FRDs to the forward lines via tugs (421.21) and one FRD by two D5s under (421.23). The destination is five hexes away and we have towed the FRDs via the operational limit of three hexes on the first turn (we'll move the remain two hexes on the next turn). During the Federation player's turn he wants to drone raid the FRDs assigned to towing units.

Are each set of assigned unit(s)+FRD treated as a non-breakable group under (320.348) and targeted as a group?

If not, how are the FRDs attacked if they are assigned to a towing unit?

If this was a fighter/PF raid, could the assigned towing units protect their FRDs as 'defending' units under (320.342)?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 05:54 pm: Edit

(525.23H) In the SIT topic SVC said: "Hydran HDW(H): Z SVC: Taking the advice of the two senior F&E staffers, I must concur.....and assume APRs are used to power the fighter reloads." So the Hydran HDW(H) looks like: 5-7(8H)/3-4(4H) (instead of the 5-7(8H2)/3-4(4H1) it should be). We now need a note in the rulebook to have the Hydran HOG cost 10 EPs since it is swapping an extra 2 hybrid fighters for heavy fighters.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 06:15 pm: Edit

BTW, is there any chance of getting a 4IC group counter printed?
By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Over in General discussions there is some chat about pinning. I seam to recall that one standard ship can pin one x-ship if they are the sole units present as the x-ship can't leave half of it self behind to meet the pinning requirements
Another odd instance is if national guard ships have a SE of fighters. can these fighters pin a standard ship.
Possibly a table of what pins what might be useful such as To pin X one needs A, B or C
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 08:04 pm: Edit

"BTW, is there any chance of getting a 4IC group counter printed?"

Pretty much none. Nobody uses group counters any more and we don't print them on any new sheets.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 09:30 pm: Edit

"Nobody uses group counters"

I use group counters. :-)
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 11:21 pm: Edit

So do I (when using standard groups)... ;-b
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 12:43 am: Edit

Joe - you wanna buy some unused group counters? I probably have a zip-loc sandwich bag full of slightly loved counters...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 - 09:16 pm: Edit

Is anyone considering any kind of "generic" Fi-Con rule? I just proposed a BG in the SFB thread that would make an interesting use of one. And everyone *except* the Feds could use it.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 12:12 am: Edit

Basically, ficons are just too rare and too useless to be seen in F&E, except in the rare special case of that one kzinti counter.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 12:23 am: Edit

I don't know about that. If you group just 1 flotilla of Fi-cons at a SB with an empty PFT, the SB can influence a battle up to 6 hexes away with its flotilla of Fi-con PFs and all 12 of its fighter factors. If nothing else it can bring the fighters in as reinforcements for any CV/SCS group that also happens to be in that hex.

And an extra 12 to 24 defense factors of attrition units can make a real difference.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 09:15 am: Edit

Going to that much effort seems silly. Just take PFs. The odds that you have an empty PFT and just happen to have some Ficons handy are low, and the idea of taking the base's fighters with you is not happening.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, February 07, 2008 - 02:04 pm: Edit

Not really. When you're scraping around for EPs/XPs for ships 3 from not replacing PFs may be an attractive deal; especially when that's all you need. And SBs that aren't actively in combat don't have anything else to do with their fighters and get free replacements.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 02:24 pm: Edit

I am currently updating the Sequence of Play specifically for new additions from Strategic Operations.

While I’m at it, I’ll be addressing any other known issues, typos, corrections, omissions or clarifications needed to update the SoP. So now is the time to post your SoP issues or questions. Please post them here using line item format and with references if available. The SoP is a (105.0) series rule so the format would be:

(105.P) Phase XY-Z (if applicable). List your SoP issue or question (with reference if available). Your name and date.

Thanks,
Chuck
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 03:17 pm: Edit

Rambling note: I know that Q&A isn't being answered in a timely manner. I will try to attend to doing something about this at the earliest chance, but that will probably be after FCB1 goes to press in a week or so.

I will note that...

1. You guys asking questions are not helping things when you ask the same question over and over. That doesn't get an answer faster.

2. You guys aren't helping when you don't check the rulebook and the posted Q&A files before you ask. If you would do this, it would help a lot in cutting down the clutter and letting me answer only the real questions.

3. You guys aren't helping when you put questions in other topics, when you use Q&A for proposed-requested rules changes, or when you use Q&A for things that belong in general discussions (such as "does anybody use ficons?") I am particularly annoyed to see rules questions and proposed rules changes in the warbook topic, which was NEVER to have been used for that. If you put a question in warbook, you can pretty much assume it will never be answered. If you proposed a rules change in warbook (instead of proposed changes) you can pretty much assume it will never be given any consideration. Of course, SIT questions go ONLY in the SIT topic.

4. Nick did a great job, but Nick has moved on. I have asked the staff for a volunteer to be his replacement, but no takers (except one guy I cannot spare from his current task). Only one non-staffer applied and he thought he was going to dictate to me how his job worked, and, well, no, the FEAR follows instructions, he doesn't dictate the terms of his employment.

5. Anybody can answer a question in this topic as long as your answer merely points to a publish rule, published ruling, or published Q&A item. If it requires an extrapolation, expansion, or interpretation of rules, then only I can do it. If you see anybody try to do that, let me know and I'll come delete their pseudo-ruling and warn them not to do that again.

6. Anybody who wants to help move things along can take a question and write it into a case file, which means here is the question, here are the relevant rules and rulings, here is why no existing rule and ruling covers it, here are the possible answers, here are the implications of those answers. (Joe Stevenson did some of this and two of his questions are currently staff files 101 and 102, and I probably have all the staff reports by now, just not time to read them.) I will then review the matter, add my comments, send it to the staff, and when I get their reports, will process them into an answer or a ruling as needed. (On upcoming ruling will change the way pin fractions count, allowing you to have half-factors for pinning.) HOWEVER, this is not a real time service. I get a couple of hours per week to work on F&E and right now the SIT updates have priority, but I will get to case files as fast as I can. If you don't think you're getting your share of my time, talk to Jean, as she decides what is and is not on my schedule.

7. After I finish FCB1, I will see about reorganizing the topics, cleaning out and throwing away things in the wrong topics, and keeping the clutter down to zero. My current plan is to lock this topic, and start a new one, and keep that one up to date, and to delete questions after they are answered. Most of what's in this topic is questions that have already been answered, and we just do not need the already-answered messages cluttering up things.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 09, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Note to Joe Stevenson: thanks for reminding me that I haven't posted the F&E CapLog files in ferevuh. Giving you guys the files on the BBS let's you build your own searchable databases.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 04:35 pm: Edit

Example of Updates to the SoP

Here are examples of a few of the SoP updates I'm currently working-on:

PHASE 1: ECONOMICS
The Phasing Player:

OLD
1A: Conducts first check to evaluate supply status for combat (410.22) (this also applies to the non-phasing player).
NEW
1A: Adds captured (or recaptured) planet to supply grid (includes non-phasing player) (413.2); recovers eligible planets from devastation (508.25); notes captured (or recaptured) planets eligible for economic production (508.22); conducts first check to evaluate supply status for combat (410.22) (this also applies to the non-phasing player); conducts and applies results of diplomatic missions (540.2).

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

OLD
1B: Determines the total number of survey points generated (505.21); adds effect of survey Prime Team and determines their survival (522.44); declares province annexation (448.23) and transfers (448.24).

NEW
1B: Adds units to (542.21) or removes survey units from (542.32) the survey record form (including ships crippled as a result of High Risk Survey); conducts High Risk Survey actions (542.27); determines the total number of survey points generated (505.21); adds effect of survey Prime Team and determines their survival (522.44); declares province annexation (448.23) and transfers (448.24).

Note: Underlined portion is the old text folded into the new

So if you know of any additional updates beyond that of SO please post them per my request yesterday - this topic. Thanks.

Cheers,
Chuck
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 06:32 pm: Edit

Q&A Captain's Log #36, pg. 95, under "Scenario Questions":
"Q: Rule (603.5) Covering Gorn Limited War status, allows this under a variety of conditions mostly using the term "attack". Can the Gorns go to Limited War to support the Federation if the Klingons and/or the Romulans did not attack the Federation and the Federation used their option to attack the Klingons and/or Romulans?
A: The use of term "attack" is precise. If the Federation Started the war, the Gorns will stay out of it (unless or until the Gorns are attacked)"

Other important rules to note:
603.64-"The Federation can go to War with the Romulans if the Gorn capital is attacked by the Romulans or after the third complete turn of War between the Romulans and Gorns."
During those three turns the Fed would be able to support the Gorn at limited war status covered by 603.6

604.0- "This scenario is an extension of (603.0) it covers the six-turn period from the Springs of Y178(Turn 20) through the Fall of Y181(Turn 25)."

604.11-"The Alliance (Hydrans, Kzinti, Federation, Gorns) is at war with the Coalition (Klingons, Lyrans, Romulans). All their forces are available for use anywhere within the restrictions of other rules."

My Questions:
1. Is 604 correct in saying(excluding the Tholians of course) that on turn 20 all the Alliance is at war with all of the Coalition regardless of what has happened in the past?

2. The Klingons/Lyrans and Romulans do not attack the Federation on turn 10. The Federation uses its option to attack the Klingons on turn 10. The Romulans do not attack the Fed on turns 10, 11, 12, and 13. The Roms also pass on its option on turn 13 to attack the Gorns.(Though they may still attack at a later time and the Gorns immediately go to war if the Roms attack the Feds). How is the Gorn treated from turn 13+? Would they be at peace with no more Pre-War Construction? Would they be at a controlled peace time economy building what they could off their War production schedule? Or something else?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Grant, the Gorns have the (first) option to attack the Romulans on Turn 12 [(603.18) amd (603.2)] or if the Roms have attacked the Feds before, otherwise the Gorn can go to Limited War in Fed territory [against the klingons - (603.5)].

The ROmulans can attack the Gorns on Turn 13 (or later) with the Feds having a Limited War option until Turn 16 (or Rom capital attack on Ghdar).

(604.0) [all from (602-605] assumes historicsl entry...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 10, 2008 - 11:54 pm: Edit

SWF:

Grant's question was based on these conditions:

1. The Klingons/Lyrans have not attacked the Feds (this is a KEY point)
2. The Romulans have not attacked the Feds/Gorns at all
3. Per (603.18) the Gorns are at a peacetime economy turns 1-11

The question at hand is what are the Gorn economic options turn 12 and beyond if conditions 1 & 2 remain unchanged? IOW the Coalition doesn't start a war with the Feds or Gorns.

A very important point here is that the Romulan economy is released on turn 10 and beyond. The Romulans, in fact can continue to build its fleet on a released wartime economy without attacking anyone; the Gorn economy for turn 12 and beyond is NOT defined if conditions 1 & 2 remain unchanged.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, February 11, 2008 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Ahhhh, well in that case -

The Feds are free to support the Kzinti (Turn 7) or attack the Klingons (since Turn 10)...

The Gorns are free to choose (Peace / Limited / War) their economy and I think could attack the Roms anytime they wish (after Turn 12) or support the Feds in Kzinti space...
[though more likely to just sit back and watch]

The Roms have the same options as the Gorns (from Turn 13, attack Feds amd/or Gorns)...

and the Klingons could assault the Tholians...

The question then becomes, who's pulling the trigger?
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Monday, February 11, 2008 - 10:17 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The Gorns are free to choose (Peace / Limited / War) their economy and I think could attack the Roms anytime they wish (after Turn 12) or support the Feds in Kzinti space...
________________________________________
Stewart, Unless I missing something I think you need to cite a specific rule for that statement because SVC stated: "If it requires an extrapolation, expansion, or interpretation of rules, then only I can do it."

PAK
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 12:16 am: Edit

"A: The use of term "attack" is precise. If the Federation Started the war, the Gorns will stay out of it (unless or until the Gorns are attacked)" "

The thing that puzzles me about this is that nothing in (603.5) refers to the Feds attacking at all... only about whether the Romulans, Klingons, or Lyrans have attacked the Federation.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 12:23 am: Edit

Chuck,

looking at (603.5), it doesn't seem that the Gorns have any options other than Peacetime economy.... the conditions for Limited War are pretty specific, as are the conditions for the Gorns to go to War. If neither set of conditions are met, then neither course is possible.

So while it is not stated specifically, since F&E generally operates under the assumption that "if the rules don't allow it (generally or specifically), then you can't do it.

Now, as far as the Klingons and Lyrans not attacking the Feds.... neither of them has entered Fed space or declared war on the Feds?
By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 02:23 am: Edit

"looking at (603.5), it doesn't seem that the Gorns have any options other than Peacetime economy"

The problem is that the Gorns only have Pre-War Constuction turns 1-11. Come the Alliance portion of Turn 12 the Gorns in this situation have no established rules on how they are handled. And for how long this status can last.
My feable guesses at possible answers:
a. Gorns are at a controlled Peace Time economy and build off of their war schedule with their limited funds.
b. Gorns can go to a limited war ECONOMY, spending as above
c. Gorns can go to a full war ECONOMY, spending as above
d. Gorns are given an additional Pre-war construction schedule covering x through y turns.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 02:49 am: Edit

Joe:

We are trying to find the designer's intent here for the Gorn if conditions 1 & 2 above continue for a prolonged period.

One serious consequence is that the Coalition players "game" the scenario conditions where the Romluans have an unchallenged wartime economy and build schedule and the Gorns can do nothing turns 12+ with no income. Can you imagine the size of the Romulan fleet that has its full economy for turns 10-19 vs the stalled Gorn fleet?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 11:29 am: Edit

Official ruling from CL37

RELUCTANT GORNS
Q: What happens if, for some strange reason, the Gorns do not enter the General War on Turn #12? Their pre-war constrution schedule provides no data.
A: The Gorns would remain at a peacetime economy would would repeat the pre-war construction for Turn #10 on turn #12, #14, #16, and further Spring turns. On Fall turns, they would repeat the production of Turn #9 (not Turn #11).

By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 01:34 pm: Edit

SVC,

Thanks for solving the riddle :-)


Chuck,

"Can you imagine the size of the Romulan fleet that has its full economy for turns 10-19 vs the stalled Gorn fleet? "

True, but I can also see the Feds doing much better because they haven't been attacked.

Think of what the Fed could do in that time.... also, I have to verify this when I get home and look at the rulebook.... but I think the Dimitri wall may be valid from AT10 onward.

I would not want to face a Fed that had that respite for 10 turns!
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Chuck,
SoP issues:
(105.P) Phase 3B: The very first paragraph of the SoP (at least the ones in PO and the Q&A archive) says that the steps "must be completed in the precise order given". Therefore, step 3B2 (Phasing Player moves ships) must be completed before step 3B3 (Non-Phasing Player does Reaction Movement). This doesn't match the rules, which allow the NPP to react during the PP's movement.

I suspect that it'd be okay to simply merge 3B2 and 3B3 and renumber 3B4 and 3B5, but I haven't thought deeply on the matter (and may have missed a reason for having the two steps).

(105.P) Phase 3B: (nitpick) Step 3B2 allows the Phasing Player to move "ships and units within limitations of the rules". However, by (102.0), "all units are ships, [except for] 'non-ship units'". Therefore, it's possible to remove the words "ships and" from the first line of 3B2. (If you are permitted to move units, you're permitted to move ships (being a subset of 'units').)

Taken together, these would result in something like the following:
OLD:
3B2: Phasing Player moves ships and units within limitations of the rules; modular ships may be reconfigured by giving up movement and economic points [Romulan Modular Ships (433.432); HDWs (525.222) ]; conduct WYN trade transactions during movement (449.13).
3B3: Eligible Non-Phasing Player units may use Reaction Movement during this step (205.0).
3B4: Credit phasing player's account for any ships sold to WYN (449.23).
3B5: Phasing player pays for first turn of colonial development (446.13).

PROPOSED (changes in bold italics):
3B2: Phasing Player moves units within limitations of the rules; eligible Non-Phasing Player units may use Reaction Movement (205.0); modular ships may be reconfigured by giving up movement and economic points [Romulan Modular Ships (433.432); HDWs (525.222) ]; conduct WYN trade transactions during movement (449.13).
3B3: Credit phasing player's account for any ships sold to WYN (449.23).
3B4: Phasing player pays for first turn of colonial development (446.13).
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Eeep - [and the word from on-high has been given]

That MB wall looks doable but then so is the Romulan Limited War Gambit (but that only delays exhaustion to Turn 21 at best).

Of course, the Roms aren't part of the Coalition until they invade either the Feds or Gorns...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 08:19 am: Edit

OK, I have a bit of a strange situation here:

It is Alliance turn 3. The Alliance has just finished Operational Movement. This movement resulted in a pair of Klingon E4s in hex 1701 being out of supply. Kzinti ships in hexes 1601, 1702, 1504 and 1704 are blocking the supply path originating from 1506 (the closest Klingon supply point). The Coalition wishes to move their reserve forces in order to restore supply to these E4s. They are using rule number 203.731 as justification for this reserve movement. They have three reserve fleets in the area. a Klingon reserve fleet moves from 1107 to 1504. This opens up the supply route through hexes 1504 and 1503. A Lyran reserve fleet moves from 1001 to 1601, but it has to pass through 1502 on it's way (1401 would stop the fleet). This movement opens up hexes 1602 and 1601, which now allows the ships in 1701 to be in supply.

Now, my opponents think there is a rule that says I must create as few new battle hexes as possible, but I can not find that rule anywhere in the reserve movement section of the rules (203.7). They also think that since the wording of 203.731 says "friendly" units, that a Lyran reserve would have to be used to open supply to a Lyran ship, or a Klingon reserve would have to bee used to open supply for a Klingon ship, but a Lyran reserve could not open supply for a Klingon ship. I disagree with this, as the definition of "Friendly in the 102.0 section says "of the same race or allied".

So my questions are:
Was my reserve movement legal? By the wording of 203.731 (which specifically says a hex which contains enemy units), am I compelled to send my reserve to 1504, or may I choose an empty hex adjacent to 1504 that would still open the supply path? And finally, when my Lyran reserve moves through 1502, how many ships should I be leaving behind? 1502 has 4 PDUs on it, and my Lyran reserve is a full 12 ship reserve. By my reading of the 203.741 and 203.742, I have to leave as few ships as possible. So in my case I leave four ships, including a Lyran CA. Then I compare Command Ratings and can move three of those four ships out of the hex. Am I compelled to do so by the rules?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:19 am: Edit

Oh, by the way, unless somebody on staff pretty quickly says that "friendly or allied" as used in rule 203.73 DOESN'T mean the exact same thing as "friendly" (but no mention of "allied) as used in 203.731, then you can ignore Rob's second paragraph as I've already conceeded that point based on the definition section.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:30 am: Edit

OK, another bizarre question inspired frommy first (and with help from Matt):

I sent a reserve fleet to hex 1601, and it has to pass through hex 1502 which contains a major planet and 4 PDUs. The Lyrans leave behind 4 ships to cover the PDU fighters and the rest of the reserve moves on to 1601. Combat for 1502 comes up. Am I allowed to withdraw before combat two of those four ships? Or are they all stuck there fighting because they were part of a reserve fleet? Rule 302.11 is in question here beacuse 1502 was not the target hex, 1601 was, so in essence reserve forces were not "sent" to 1502, but rather were forced to be left behind.

I expect the ships can not do a withdraw before combat, but I did think it was an interesting situation.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Rob,

(203.74) If a resrve fleet can reach the target Battle Hex without entering a hex containing enemy units, it must do so.

You cannot create a battle hex unless absolutely necessary
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Jean, please delete duplicate post
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 01:46 pm: Edit

Joe,

I agree with that, but in this case by 203.731 there is no target battle hex. And 203.731 specifically states: "The moving Reserve Fleet could have as its objective a hex which is not a Battle hex, but which contains enemy units which are blocking a supply path to friendly units in combat..."

By that, it seems to me in order to use a reserve to open supply, you have to send the reserve to a hex with enemy units in it. I see no provision for sending a reserve fleet to an empty hex to open supply.

there was a post by Nick years ago that said basically while using 203.731, you can not use more reserves than are necessary to open the supply path (i.e. if one reserve can do it, you can't use 2). And in our case, I think we all agree that I need to use exactly two reserves to open up the supply path.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 04:16 pm: Edit

"By that, it seems to me in order to use a reserve to open supply, you have to send the reserve to a hex with enemy units in it. I see no provision for sending a reserve fleet to an empty hex to open supply. "

Correct.

The point is, when you do so, you can't use it to go on a fishing expedition.

I'm back at work and away from my rules.... you haven't included the entire text, so there may be more to the story.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 05:13 pm: Edit

Joe,

I understand there are things to prevent abuse. I am really not trying to do so in any way. If I was, I would be going way out trying to find a way to get my third reserve in there too. I will send you the rule reference to your email. let me know how much data you want. I am confident you'll agree with me after you've read all the rules.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 05:48 pm: Edit

Rob,

One important thing to note:

(203.731) states that "This exception is not allowed unless the action of the Reserve Fleet or several Reserve Fleets (each going to a separate hex) will be necessary and sufficient to open up the supply path"

You can't send two fleets if one will do the job. The rule is clear that only if that reserve fleet is necessary to open supply can it be moved in this way.

The idea is to use the exception as little as necessary.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Right, I understand that Joe. But what I am doing is going to two seperate hexes in order to open up a supply path. I'm getting the feeling that you think I am trying to do something else. I just want to make sure I'm doing it right, and so far I think I am.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 06:20 pm: Edit

Robert:

Just to make sure, are the E4's in 1701 in combat? If they aren't, then by 203.731 you can't use reserve fleets to open a supply path at all. Note the requirement that enemy units be"blocking a supply path to friendly units in combat"

Cheers,
Jason
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 06:41 pm: Edit

Yes they are in dire combat. And both of my reserves are going to seperate hexes that contain enemy units.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Rob,

Are BOTH moves required to open up supply? If yes, you are fine.

If there is another way to get it done with one, then it would violate the rule.... that's why I highlighted the part about "necessary".
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 06:56 pm: Edit

I just can't believe you are going to so much trouble for a couple of silly E4's, except that maybe it was your plan to kill more Kzinitis...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 07:09 pm: Edit

Joe,

I could do it with one, if the E4s were Lyran ships. If that was the case, then one reserve would open supply to 1001 (a Lyran supply point).

I see no way I can open supply to those E4s without using two reserves. I looked and looked, but I just don't see any other way. If you load up the file, let me know if you see something I do not. My post up above lays out the situation pretty well I think, as it calls out all relevant locations of Kzinti ships and Coalition supply points.

Mike,

Yeah it is a bit silly, but this way I do keep one E4 alive, instead of loosing two. The only reason I could do this was because the E4s had been surrounded. And that Kzinti ships were in 1504. If 1504 had no Kzinti ships (and one hex was open adjacent to the E4s), they'd have a valid supply path and none of this madness would be occuring
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Rob,

OK, I looked at the file. Assuming 1506 is a supply point, then yes, the moves are legal.

If not, then you are out of luck.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Yup, 1506 is a Klingon supply point.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 11:25 pm: Edit

Robert, I assume at the beginning of Z op mvt, the E4's in 1701 were out of supply at that point...correct?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 08:58 am: Edit

If you want, you can check out "Reports from the Front" - "Academic Operations" for more details.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 10:49 am: Edit

EB Total War 3.2.pdf

Somebody sent me a 32 page PDF file of 'early beginnings'. It's in my attachments folder, but I cannot find an email that goes along with it. Whoever sent it, and I supposed to read it, publish it, or have Matt put it on the website?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 11:22 am: Edit

Dave, one of them was, yes.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Robert,
Is an option then, withdrawing the 'in supply for purposes of combat' E4, sacrificing the out of supply E4 (you're losing one anyway, as you say), then performing a fighting retreat? I'm not sure how many ships(or what kind) are in 1601 or 1702. This may free up the Lyran reserve to wreek havoc elsewhere. Plus, when is the last time you saw an E4 survive a fighting retreat? Just thinking out loud. I usually have 2 good thoughts a year, and I've already had one in 2008, so not a good chance this is the second.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 07:49 pm: Edit

The Lyran reserve has no better place to go. Kzinti movement were prety good in keeping my reserve options down. And no, there would be no fighting retreat for the 2nd E4, as it has to retreat into a Kzinti CC.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 07:17 am: Edit

Yeah...that wouldnt be good.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 07:14 pm: Edit

FEAR QUESTION 101
Courtenay Footman asks:
Question: A Reserve Fleet has 10 ships, including two carriers with three fighter factors each, for at total of 11 ship equivalents. To get to a battle hex, it has to pass through a battle hex with 16 enemy ship equivalents and 10 friendly ship equivalents with three extra fighter factors. May the Reserve Fleet pass through this hex? (There is no route that does not pass through enemy ships.) It would have to leave five ships and three fighter factors to avoid being pinned. I am confused by rule (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!

Answer and Ruling: Rule (203.742) does indeed state that no more than one half of the Reserve Fleet may be left behind, fractions rounded down. However, Steve Cole is in a jolly mood, and has come to realize that sophisticated F&E players are more than capable of dealing with simple fractions. Therefore, the "round down" part is removed from the rule. You have to leave 5.5 to get through the hex, and glory be, you CAN leave 5.5 (since it’s half of 11, the fighters are half of a pin point, and that rounding thing that confused everybody went away), so you’re good to go.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Does anyone know if an F&E SoP that includes SO material has been posted somewhere on the board? Is there a PDF version also?

I can only find an on-line copy up to PO and it was a text version.

Thanx
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, February 29, 2008 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Chuck Strong is working on a new version of the SOP. I'd hope they'd post a PDF version of it when it is complete.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:43 pm: Edit

March - April 2008 Archive

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 01, 2008 - 11:54 am: Edit

I sent SVC an updated SoP on 13 Feb 2008 but he said he would get to it after other projects were completed.

I don't know if a PDF version will be available.

Please stand-by...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 01:34 pm: Edit

This came up in a recent game. And its only now percolating back to the top of my consciousness. Sorry I don't have the exact wording of the rules, but I don't think it will matter for this.

When a force executes a fighting retreat, the rules state the force fights a round then must immediatly retreat again.

This brought up the question did fighting retreat trump the attackers priviledge of resolving BattleHex's in any order he/she chooses?

Ex: Several battle hex's are to be resolved. The Attacker resolves one in which the defender declares his intention to fighting retreat, he moves his forces into the hex. MUST this newly created BattleHex be immediatly resolved in order to allow the defender to continue his retreat? Or is it just considered another battlehex amongst the others to be resolved (with the proviso we remember its a fighting retreat) in the order the phasing player decrees?
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 09:23 pm: Edit

It must be fought immediately from what I understand.
By Dal Downing (3dee) on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Hi all I bought a while ago a F&E2K Revision 4 Box set I think it is, but thats is not my question. I knew I had a F&E Deluxe from 1989 laying around and finally found my box of counters from it. I want to just dump both sets of counters together but I thought I read somewhere that the Stats for the D5V changed . Can anyone tell me if that is the case, and if it is are there another counters that I need to throw out?
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 05:42 pm: Edit

There's probably a list somewhere, but the biggies:

The Fed DN counters from the original are now DN+. (There are separate 10-point DN counters and 12-point DNGs now.) Find a good black pen, and mark a plus on all the old DNs and you're fine.

Gorn DD went from 4 to 5 points. You'll probably have to toss those.

Just about all the carrier group counters changed. I'd recommend that you go through them on a case-by-case basis. I know the Kzintis all changed, and the Fed CVS/CVBs went from three escorts to two. At least some Klingon groups changed, but I can't remember if they all did.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 06:03 pm: Edit

IIRC, most of those changes were between the original ('86) and deluxe ('89) editions of the game (I know the changes in the number of Fed CVS/CVB escorts were), but there may still have been some counter edits between 89 and 2K. At one point there was actually a F&E deluxe upgrade kit that included a sheet listing all the counter changes, but I seem to have ditched that sheet at some point. :-(

Cheers,
Jason
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 07:16 pm: Edit

Whoops! Right. Didn't realize he had deluxe already when he talked about counter changes.

There should be no counter changes from Deluxe on.

Actual changes:
2000 - Half-sheets A, B, C, D become full sheets A+B, C+D.
2004 - A+B & C+D reorganized into One and Two. The idea is that everything you may want more counters of is now on Two, and you can just order that as spare parts. One has stuff you need for setup, but you shouldn't build more of. The factors and number of each counter you get either way is the same.

Easy way to check if you have really old counters: Do you have a Hydran LC (Lord Commander) counter (without having Advanced Operations), and/or a double-sided Romulan K9R? If you do, you have the '86 counters that changed, if you do not, you're fine.
By Dal Downing (3dee) on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Just pulled the old rule book out, it is 1986 Rev.0-1 so I guess I will need to go through my counter one by one and check them out. Thanks for the heads up though.

Funny thing, the boxs says Deluxe... wonder if I have a 3rd rule book around here...
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Also check the on-line SITS...
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Question of Aux PFT production...

according to (526.47), you get 1 Free SAP on PF1, 1 free LAP on PF2 and 1 free ASC on PF3.

in the printed rules, it states that these are recieved outside of normal production limits.
The online Master Errata amends this to say that these are received outside of normal PFT limits.

However AuxPFT's are already outside of PFT limits according to (526.41).
what I want to know is:
1. Do these 3 free AUX count outside of the racial limits for the AuxPFT's?
2. Does Receiving these count against as your 1 AuxPFT production for the turn it was received?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 01:15 pm: Edit

Also, do these count against Auxilliary production rates?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 09:58 pm: Edit

Tim,

Aux PFTs count against Aux CV limits (526.41); LAP would be limited to 1 per year (442.9)

Since there is no exception listed, the free units would count against these limits.
By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 05:17 pm: Edit

Good day, F&E experts-a friend of mine dug up his Deluxe F&E game and we played a scenario from CL#10 as our first game--we were wondering; If the phasing player's reserve fleet is released, can that fleet use reserve rules to enter a battle hex to assist or can only the defending player use reserve movement with their reserve fleet?
We assumed either force could use their released reserve fleet as per the rules in the rule book.
Please help
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Reserve Movement is for the non-phasing player only. However there is nothing to stop the phasing player from moving his reserve fleet operationally, it would just then loose the reserve designation.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Reserves are not set until the end of the phasing players turn and can only be those that did not move operationally during the phasing players turn. Technically you don't have reserve fleets during your turn until the end when you set reserves.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 06:09 pm: Edit

Mike,

I do not have the scenario he is refering to me in front of him, but alot of times Scenarios list Reserve Makers along with the Fleet OOB, and it confuses folks just a little when they setup.

But what I do is at the end of reserve movement I pick up all my reserve markers (even if I didn't move them) and put them aside until such time as I am establishing reserves during my next turn.

At setup of a scenario, if your side is the first to be phasing player just do not put the reserve markers on the map for released fleets (inactive fleets usually the Resv Marker is stuck with that fleet so you can go ahead and establish a reserve with it in case the fleet is released during your opponents phase).

If an entire Empire is not at war, just establish reserves when you set them up, because its important to know once you are at war which reserves might be stuck with as yet to be released fleets, and which are available. And even though technically reserves disappear each times its your phasing turn, if your inactive you can just leave the established reserve sitting there turn by turn so your ready and 'setup' for when your active.
By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Thanks everyone-that really clears that issue for us.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 16, 2008 - 11:04 am: Edit

Also, the Klingon Northern and Southern Reserves are not Reserve Fleets for movement purposes. They are simply Fleets; though both have a Reserve as part of their initial deployment. That has caused some confusion for some people in the past.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 10:54 am: Edit

A question about 308.94. This rule describes how command points are used when fighting in a capital hex system, but do not mention much about approach. The only time approach is mentioned is :
"If four points are used in a multi-system capital hex, this counts as two points for each approach battle and two points for each battle in all systems."
"A player has the option of expending two command points which would only count in a single system but only one of these points would count in the approach battle and this selection must be announced the first time the points are used."

So what happens if I spend two command points during the approach battle? Do I get to add two ships to the approach battle if I accept the limitation of only having one extra ship at each system? Do I only get one ship in approach?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Spending 2 CPs would net two additional ships in the approach battle -and- one additional ship in each system battle.

Note that 3 CPs nets +2 in the approach, +2 in one system, and +1 in all others.
By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 11:33 am: Edit

Can someone please help? As mentioned before, I am new to F&E and playing that Gorn vs Romulan scenario in Captain's Log #10. It's called Reptilicon Revenged, and I am wondering how The Romulans can possibly win this one-any ideas?
I hope that this is the right topic.
Please give me any suggestions you can.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Art,

Ask this over in General. This is called Q&A but is more designed towards asking for official clarifications on rules.... we would be happy to answer questions like this over in general!
By ART TROTMAN (Drneuro) on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 11:10 pm: Edit

Thanks-I will do that now
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 01:18 pm: Edit

Captured ships and Pursuit.

Kzinit's capture a Lyran BC and retreat, the BC is their only cripple.
Lyrans pursue in hopes of re-gaining the lost BC...

The Kzinti want to use 305.21 to gain a +1 BIR on the battle, but how is the unit treated.

Since this is their only cripple, the Kzinti would need to put the unit on the line, but 305.21 states that the captured unit does not count against compot or command limits.
Would the Kzinti be able to add have the BC as an extra ship on the line (giving away their intent before selection of BIR) or do they just loose the slot and compot when making the "decision" to use 305.21 (which is at step 5-4C2 of the SOP)?

also 305.1 states that the captured ship is immediately destroyed (actually in step 5-4D), does that mean that the Lyrans would still be able to attempt to capture it?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 08:11 am: Edit

Why wouldn't the Kzinti want to keep it? The Lyrans in pursuit need to do 30 damage to recapture it, not an easy task with only 6 ships.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 08:54 am: Edit

Tim,

They can do either. In never counts against command limits if used for the Option 1, so no, they don't have to lose a slot. Since the determination takes place before damage is rolled, there is no opportunity to direct on it by the former owner, so their is no problem in giving away intent, since there is nothing that can be done about it.

The only way to recapture it is prescribed in Option 5; the capturing empire uses it as a normal ship with the crippled factors, and the original owner directs on it at 3:1 vs. it's uncrippled defense factor. This is a specific rule, and would trump the general capture rule.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 05:27 pm: Edit

The Lyrans could just kill it and roll for capture normally. That only takes 15. 5 with a mauler.

However, after the ship is destroyed under Option 1, does it count for 305.12 (or 305.11 for normal battles)?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Michael Lui,

That what Tim was trying to find out, and for the reasons I stated, the answer would be no.

How did you come up with 15.5? It would be 30 or 16 (assuming that you could even use a mauler in this special case)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 06:22 pm: Edit

Option 5 states that the crippled ship is treated as any other ship with the exception that the original owner could re-capture it by spending 3x the original uncrippled defense factor. This is an exception that lets the original owner have a 100% chance to recapture the ship WITHOUT going through the normal process. It does NOT say that it is the only way to recapture it. If the original owner wants to go through the normal process there is nothing in Option 5 saying he can't. That's why I'm asking about 305.11 and 305.12.

And that's not 15.5.

The "5" was the beginning of a different sentence. I suppose I could have put in a comma instead of a period and a space to make it one sentence.


BTW, has SVC decided who is going to replace Nick?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 09:16 pm: Edit

"And that's not 15.5."

"That only takes 15. 5 with a mauler"

Please reconcile these statements
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 09:54 pm: Edit

Two statements.

"That only takes 15."

"5 with a mauler"
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 01:28 am: Edit

Yeah, but he's wrong.

The rule says uncrippled defense factor, not the current crippled defense factor (to recapture)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 02:42 am: Edit

Apparently you didn't understand the 3 statements.

I was saying if they wanted to just kill the BC and roll for capture normally it would only take that amount. The other amount (3x uncrippled defense factor) is for the automatic recapture of the ship.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 08:10 am: Edit

Apparently, I did't! :-) (although I'm still not convinced that is the intent, either)

Regardless, is states more than once that if it is used for option 1, it is destroyed; see (305.31). It does not say in Option 1 that it is ever treated again as a normal ship.

The idea, Michael, is that the ship was already "destroyed", and it's being used for a special purpse (likely rigged with explosives, or set to self destruct in the middle of it's former fleet).

It was discuss this while the 2K rules were edited; perhaps we should have been more precise.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 09:20 am: Edit

Joe,
You seem not to be following the conversation.

Tim: "Can I do X [to prevent recapture, in part]? How does it work?"

Robert: "Why would you do X? It'd cost 30 to recapture if you did not do X but did Y instead."

Michael: "Well, technically, it'd only cost 15 [assumes target in form], or 5 with a mauler, to destroy the ship and get the normal die roll for capture during persuit if Y is chosen."
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 11:20 am: Edit

I am confused, and loathe to clutter up Q&A resolving confusion even without an active FEAR to holler at me.

Can we take this to General and discuss it there?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 11:46 am: Edit

Dave,

You may have missed my earlier answer to Tim.

He asked how the unit is handled. I explained it.

Time said:

"Would the Kzinti be able to add have the BC as an extra ship on the line (giving away their intent before selection of BIR) or do they just loose the slot and compot when making the "decision" to use 305.21 (which is at step 5-4C2 of the SOP)? "

It is clear that the ship can be used to gain the +1 w/o eating up a command slot, and the ship is then considered destroyed (Option 1). It is not considered a normal ship (as it is in Option 5), and its use is resovled during damage determination, which is before Directed Damage.

As to his question about recapturing it if used thusly, I answered no; at best, it could happen if used for Option 5 (which is why Todd chose to use Option 1, since he didn't want Tim to have a change to get it back).

What exactly did I miss?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Joe,
You, apparently, missed the third and fourth paragraphs of my previous post, which clearly (I thought) pointed out, by paraphrasing their conversation, that you had missed the fact that Robert and Micheal were having a second-order discussion about how the Lyrans might recapture the BC if the Kzinti had instead used Option 5.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 02:20 pm: Edit

No, I didn't miss it. Did you miss my comments about that same subject?

You may not agree with my conclusions, but clearly, I did not miss that.

Didn't refer to the recapture question in my last post to you, because I was trying to get back to the heart of the question.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 02:36 pm: Edit

Joe,
Let's just agree to ignore each other; it'll be far easier, at least on my blood pressure, than to try and translate between the two versions of English that we're apparently using.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Guys,

Come on. Everybody here is intelligent, even if we don't always write exceptionally clearly or read exactly what was intended when it's slightly unclear.

At the risk of involving myself in a hopeless situation, may I make a few observations?

1. There's a legitimate rule question. Rule 305.21, and the associated SOP step 5-4C2, seem to assume that the unit was never in the battleforce. However, rule 307.31 tells the retreating player that they must put all crippled ships into the retreating battle force.

2. Although the chances of the Lyrans re-capturing this ship by the automatic 3x uncrippled defense factor appear remote, the chance to recapture the ship by normal means could be as high as a 1 in 6 if they simply use a "G" ship or a PT in the capture roll. It could even be higher if they use a "G" ship on a capture mission AND use a PT on a mauler to make a 2nd capture attempt. (What that, 11/36? Those aren't terrible odds.)

3. Given that it's not terribly unlikely that the Lyrans can in fact recapture their ship, can we let Tim get an answer to his questions? And there seem to be two, neither of which I've seen answered in the bickering:

• Can I hold a captured, crippled ship out of the retreating battleforce if I'm planning to use it for the +1 die roll per 305.21?

• If I use a captured ship for the +1 die roll per 305.21, does it count as a "destroyed enemy ship" for purposes of a subsequent capture roll? (i.e., can the pursuing player roll for normal capture on that ship.)
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 03:16 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
They can do either. In never counts against command limits if used for the Option 1, so no, they don't have to lose a slot. Since the determination takes place before damage is rolled, there is no opportunity to direct on it by the former owner, so their is no problem in giving away intent, since there is nothing that can be done about it.
________________________________________


Joe,
actually, there is...
My intent on pursuit is to reclaim (or atleast deny to the enemy) the BC.. knowing that it is going to get sacrificed and I am already facing a fleet with superior fire power (since he can now field a full sized, healthy fleet to my 6 ships.. I now have the option of selecting a lower BIR to offset the increased damage I am going to take from the +1 BIR...
________________________________________
Quote:
The only way to recapture it is prescribed in Option 5; the capturing empire uses it as a normal ship with the crippled factors, and the original owner directs on it at 3:1 vs. it's uncrippled defense factor. This is a specific rule, and would trump the general capture rule.
________________________________________


actually, what I wanted to know is since the ship is stated as destroyed (as opposed to just removed from play)... can I roll for capture on it as I can for other destroyed ships?

All,
Please let SVC/Staff answer... lets not make the Q&A any more chaotic then it already is....
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 03:20 pm: Edit

"However, rule 307.31 tells the retreating player that they must put all crippled ships into the retreating battle force. "

(305.11) would constitute a specific rule; spefic trumps the general rule.


"Can I hold a captured, crippled ship out of the retreating battleforce if I'm planning to use it for the +1 die roll per 305.21?"

Matt,

Clearly yes; as per (305.11) it does not count against the command rating of the battleforce; it isn't, as you pointed out, really part of the battleforce. The retreating force is no different than any other legal battlefore.

Tim was attempting to assert that the ship would have to be included as a cripple as required by (307.31); if the ship were not used via (305.11), that would be the case. However, this specific rule would take precendence.

"• If I use a captured ship for the +1 die roll per 305.21, does it count as a "destroyed enemy ship" for purposes of a subsequent capture roll? "

This was the point of my comment to Michael Liu concerning discussion during 2K editing. The intent, as near as I remember it, was that no, the ship was destroyed, gone, for teh reasons I mentioned. However, the rule does not say so specifically.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 03:22 pm: Edit

I got an idea....EVERYBODY DRINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's Jimi?

{on the floor}

ah, there he is; do you think he's in for another round?


Now, what were we talking about?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 03:23 pm: Edit

"I now have the option of selecting a lower BIR to offset the increased damage I am going to take from the +1 BIR... "

True. What I'm saying is that you can stop Todd from using it in this manner, although as you point out, you could try to mitigate the effect.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

If the current owner of the captured ship wants to make the previous owner of the captured ship think he has a chance of recapturing the ship under Option 5 and choose a high BIR, he must count it as one of the ships under his command rating during Step 3, otherwise the previous owner will know whats up and choose a low BIR since the battleforce cannot exceed the CR of the flagship.


Two things:
1. HOW can he stop Todd from using Option 1 on a captured ship?

2. Who is Todd?
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Todd in this case is the Kzinti...
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 08:19 pm: Edit

SVC, down here please. This is a question that involves interpretation of the rules.

The question is as follows:

The player A captured a ship earlier in the combat phase in this hex. Player A is now retreating from the hex. Player A wants to use the captured ship per (305.21) but it needs to be in the battle force per retreat rules as it is crippled.

Questions are this:

1. Can the captured ship be used for the +1 to the BIR per (305.21) or must it be in the battle force per (307.31)?

2. If the captured ship can be used per (305.21), can the captured ship, now destroyed, be recaptured by Player B by normal capture rules?

Gentlemen, unless I have not summerized the questions in this discussion properly, let us not post any more on this issue as it is becoming heated.

Your Friendly Local F&E Staffer
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Who is Todd? That is only his daytime name.

At night, he befowls evil as he assumes his notorious double identity of....

"GOATBOY--Defender of the Hay"
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 05:26 am: Edit

Nashvillen

Actually question 1 isn't really an "or" question. The captured ship is in the battleforce per 307.31 AND 305.21. It's just that 305.21 gives the player that captured the ship the option to NOT count it under his command rating if he's going to use Option 1 (305.21). But under both rules the ship is in the battleforce until step 4 (5-4C1).


*EDIT*

SVC answered this in the General Discussion Thread. Basically yes, the pursuing player can roll for normal capture on it if 305.21 is used.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 02:23 pm: Edit

Let me look into that in more detail but what I said should work.

I am sorry that I'm not keeping up as well as I should, and that I haven't hired a new FEAR (I have some applications pending) but NOBODY gets to "interpret rules" in this topic ANY MORE except me and the future FEAR. If it's black letter rules, say so. If you have a theory with some evidence, post it, but it's not official, just contributing to the conversation. But nobody gets to "interpret" the rules. Got it?

If anybody sees anybody issuing rulings again, let me know and I'll delete some posts and slap some wrists.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Start of my part time term as FEAR. (So, I can see where to download questions from this point on.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 02:08 am: Edit

Mike:

Your first F&E question, what is the speed of the unladen Sparrow....*Hawk*"?


By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 04:43 am: Edit

Depends. Is that a Romulan or European, ah, Klingon Sparrowhawk?



Sorry, clutter, deleting myself.
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 07:51 am: Edit

Mike:

1) What is your name

2) What is your quest

3) What is your favorite color (trick question, be careful or you'll aaarrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 09:11 am: Edit

Mike,

Two real questions:

1. One ship of a reserve fleet was pinned while moving to a qualified objective hex. Does this ship count as "reserves sent to the hex" for purposes of withdrawal before combat?

2. The rules for command points spent in a capital assualt aren't entirely clear with respect to the approach battle. If a player spends two CPs to buy one extra ship in every system, how many extra ships are allowed in approach?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 12:51 pm: Edit

1. One ship of a reserve fleet was pinned while moving to a qualified objective hex. Does this ship count as "reserves sent to the hex" for purposes of withdrawal before combat?

The target hex for the reserve fleet is elsewhere. The ship(s) left behind are no longer reserve units since it (they) did not reach the designated reserve hex. The reserve movement rules state that if a reserve fleet cannot reach its any valid reserve requirements it cannot be used as a reserve force. Since the pinning ship(s) is(are) left behind in a non valid reserve hex it is no longer a reserve. As such they are eligible for withdrawal before combat.

2. The rules for command points spent in a capital assualt aren't entirely clear with respect to the approach battle. If a player spends two CPs to buy one extra ship in every system, how many extra ships are allowed in approach?

(309.94) is clear that if you are selecting two command points for one system in the capital you can use only one in the approach battle. It also states if you use four in the capital you have two in the approach battle. Using these examples we should have the following:
1 command point in one system equals 0 command points in approach
2 command points in one system equals 1 command point in approach
2 command points for one command point in every system equals 1 command point in approach
4 command points for two command points in every system equals 2 command points in approach

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Mike,

Question on setting up mobile bases in a combat zone.

I have consulted the rules, and as far as I can tell I can take a mobile base into a battle hex and initiate setting it up right then - as long as the tug setting up the MB is included in the battle force. If the tug survives through the opponent's phasing turn, the MB is setup.

Here are the kicker questions.

I assign a tug mission "C" and carry a mobile base into the Hydran capital, along with about 180 ship equivalents for a definitive assault. On a previous coalition turn I have wiped out all of the PDUs - except at the main capital, Hydrax.

I offer an approach battle, which the Hydran player declines.

I then want to do the following: form two battle forces - one attacking a residual defense force at another system in the capital hex (say Hydramax), and the other at the main capital. I want to start setting up the MB at Hydramax (the secondary system) and put up a battle fleet there.

The rules only say that the MB and tug must be in the battle force. The rules don't say where in multi-system battles.

Question 1: Can I bring a MB into a battle hex and begin setting it up on my turn? (I would be surprised if the answer were "no" because I find no countervening rule and I do find an enaling rule). Note that the rules explicitly say that an operational base cannot be brought into a battle hex; however, the rules appear silent on the issue of bringing in a MB into a battle hex - and the rules say that the tug with MB is moved as if the tug were carrying nothing. Hence the question.

Question 2: In a multi-system battle, can I begin setting up the MB in system B (and include the tug in THAT battle) while I'm also attacking system A? Again, I can find no reason why not.

Question 3: Once the residual defense force is destroyed, assuming the Hydran player does not put up a battle line at the secondary system, must I then include the tug and MB in the main capital battle - even though I started setting up the MB at the secondary system? The reason why I ask is because the rules say the tug must be in "the battle force." I think not, because it doesn't make sense that the MB is being setup in two places at once - how can the MB setup be moved from one system to the other? However, that is what the rules say.

Question 4: In a multi-system battle, if the opponent accepts the approach battle, must I include the tug in the battle force even though I'm not "setting up" the mobile base yet?

Question 5: Follow-up to question 3, assuming the answer to question 3 is "no" can I then proceed to choose which system I'm setting up the MB in.

Question 6: Follow up to question 3, assuming, the answer to question 3 is "yes", must I setup the MB in the "approach space" of the capital, or can I proceed to setup the MB in one of the systems of my choice?

If this works, I think I have a term paper!!!
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Ted - you might want to read 510.213... middle sentance.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Ted:

See (510.213) Mobile bases can be transported and placed only by tugs of the same race. Tugs transporting mobile bases cannot enter hexes containing enemy units.

You cannot enter with a TUG/MB combination into the Hydran Capital until all enemy units are eliminated. All your questions are moot.

[Third sentence edited per Mike's request. J.Sexton]
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 04:30 pm: Edit

The following a reprints of questions that The Long, Long War has been waiting on since early November 2007:

Rob Padilla, 8 NOV 2007, wrote:
"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 to note, 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?"

Todd Jahnke wrote 8 NOV 2007, immediately after Rob's questions above, in order to add further questions and context to the same situation:

"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. Is this string of thinking correct in its rules accuracy and cause and effect situations?

B) If an RDF can be the sole force in combat, then should small scale combat rules 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, even though a ship and a RDF is a data set that would not fit into a mathematical set that was allowed to contain up to three ships. 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? I note that I’ve never seen an RDF defined officially and have no reason to think that an RDF includes only ground troops without space capability; I would think an RDF would include commercial space infrastructure that includes some phasers, shuttles and the like.

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 Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Todd, I need more information:
Who's turn is it? Alliance or Coalition
Has the Hydran Capital been abandoned?
Where are the other forces in this area? (anything over three ships can be just designated as fleet of x ships)
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Mike, thanks for teaching me to read English!
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 07:56 pm: Edit

See..he has multiple talents.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 09:23 pm: Edit

It was a good idea except for that little rule...
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Aren't they all?!?!
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 07:33 am: Edit

Absolutely...I'd have a perfect record at Origins if it weren't for that silly rulebook getting in the way.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 08:19 am: Edit

...and convoys
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Mike,

Sorry I seem to be such a "regular customer" already, but this one has bugged me for a while and I just got reminded of it.

In a capital assault, the attackers strike a minor planet. The defenders do not send forces to this planet. As a result, the 37 damage is 9 more than is required to destroy both PDU, all 12 fighters and devastate the planet.

Two questions:

1 - Are these extra 9 points recorded as (+) points? (Meaning they follow the defending fleet into pursuit.)

2 - If they are, what do they represent? Normally, I would consider plus points to represent damage taken on a ship, but less than crippling. The plus points record this and "remember" that some damage is owed for the next round.

But once everything is destroyed? Plus points don't make sense in the context of the game after everything is destroyed.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Question:

On Coalition turn 6, the Coalition captures the Hydran capital.

On an Alliance turn 6, the Hydrans counter-attack the Hydran capital. The Coalition places all "defensive" ships at the capital planet (system) and all mobile forces at the capital planet (system). The Coalition does not defend the remaining planets in the capital hex. The Hydrans engage, but fail to drive off the Coalition from the capital hex.

1) On Coalition turn 7, are the non-capital planets in the Hydran capital still considered "captured" during the Coalition's economic phase (and thus generate income)?

2) If not, do I have to "recapture" them during the combat phase by attacking residual defense units.

Thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 05:49 pm: Edit

In amicus curia to Ted's question. I am his opponent in the game this is occoring and it is my thought that when he took all his ships and put them into the capital system statically he abandoned the garrison requirements of those planets so that they reverted to me at this time.

He would have to trivially destroy the RDF that popped and thus reset the timer for generation of income.

Edit: I think I found the answer its in the Warbook that I found it but it quotes a ruling by Nick Blank.
________________________________________
Quote:
By Tony Barnes (Tonyb) on Thursday, July 18, 2002 - 03:04 pm:
Also, at what point in the sequence of play does an abandoned planet rejoin the original side?

Examples:
- Coalition has captured 1105 and has a garrisoning frigate. The frigate reacts off to a passing ship. Does 1105 revert back to the Alliance at this point? Does it gain it's RDU? Does the planet no longer count as a valid supply point for retreat priority purposes?
- Coalition has 1105. The FF there is attacked and retreats. Later, another adjacent FF is attacked and wants to retreat to 1105 - does it face the RDU?
ANSWER: (Nick) RE: Abandoned Planets
See rule (508.23), it states that planets revert to their original owners if it is not garrisoned at the end of any phase. So if a garrison unit reacts off during the (opponent's) operational movement phase, at the end of that op move phase, if there is nothing on the planet it reverts to the original owner, gets its RDU (and rejoins their grid at the start of the next player turn (413.2)). If a garrisoned planet is abandoned during the combat phase, it reverts at the end of the combat phase (after all combat hexes are resolved, including retreats) if it is still not garrisoned then.
________________________________________
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 05:59 pm: Edit

Based on Nick's ruling, I'd say the anser to question 1 is "yes." I still could garrison all planets in the capital hex before the "end" of the combat phase.

Though I suppose you could argue that combat at the capital hex ended instantly upon Hydran retreat - and thereby did not avail me the opportunity to "re-garrison." However, this result seems artificial and strange.

Awaiting ruling with thanks.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 09:00 pm: Edit

>Todd, I need more information:

>Who's turn is it? Coalition

>Has the Hydran Capital been abandoned? No, the original capital hex was captured long ago by the Coalition, later recaptured by the Hydrans, and is currently in Hydran hands. The current capital is off-map.

>Where are the other forces in this area? (anything over three ships can be just designated as fleet of x ships)

Numerous Hydran and Coalition forces are in the original capital hex, where the battle remains to be resolved. This and all other battle hexes were in regular supply from the off-map capital until Coalition operation movement was completed.

718 contains E4. It may also contain RDF, depending on the answers to the questions I asked, though the intent was to resolve this battle before 418.

519 contains E4. It may also contain RDF, depending on the answers to the questions I asked, though the intent was to resolve this battle before 418.

416 contains E4.

417 contains L-DW.

217 contains fleets of Hydran and Lyran ships.

118 and 119 contain E4 each.

418 is the battle hex from which the Hydrans are retreating. It will contain three or four Klingon ships, depending upon how damage is resolved from the pursuit battle that the Hydrans fight as they flee the hex.

All other Hydran and Coalition space in the area is Coalition garrisoned, with no Hydran units or supply points. None of those garrison ships is near enough to matter to these questions.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Todd: Sorry, more questions:

Did 0718 and 0419 have the E4 over them at the beginning of the coalition turn?

Has the battle at been resolved?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 09:56 pm: Edit

The last should have been : Has the battle at 217 been resolved. Sorry.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 09:21 am: Edit

I can answer those questions being the Coalition player

No 0718 and 0519 (I assume you mean the planet and not open space) did not have an E4 over them at the beginning of the turn. They were both attacked and recaptured this combat phase.

The battle at 0217 has been resolved prior to the battle in 0418. The only battle hex left at this point if 0617, which the Hydrans controlled at the beginning of the turn.

A slight correction to Todd's information. hex 0118 had an E4 in it, but now it has a Hydran fleet in it, as that fleet (from 0217) retreated onto the E4 and destroyed it.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Mike,

A rules reference for my previous question:

308.25 says in the last sentence: "If there are no defending units in the battle (which could happen with an undefended devastated planet in a capital system), there can be no +/- points added, accumulated, or resolved."

My belief is that this applies even during damage allocation, and at the instant that all defending units are eliminated, and the planet is devastated, that this sentence then prohibits accumulation of + points.

Am I right?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Mike,

Thanks for taking up this mantle. Now for an issue.

In reference to Klingons selling a Ship to the Wyn on turn one, this statement was made I quote from the official online Errata.
________________________________________
Quote:
(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.
________________________________________


I understand what this is saying, its allowing the Klingons to sell a ship to the Wyn on turn one even though they are not allowed to send a ship outside of the empire that turn. A good ruling that makes sense.

Its the justification within and ramifications therein that concern me. The phrase
________________________________________
Quote:
it is also technically no longer Klingon.
________________________________________

By implication its a Wyn vessel now instead of a Klingon. It doesn't say Wyn specifically but if its no longer Klingon and your selling it to the Wyn?!

So it immediatly before it moves becomes a Wyn Vessel. It seems that is the mechanism for bypassing the Home Territory first turn restriction the Klingons have.

This means anytime one sells a ship to the Wyn it immediatly becomes a Wyn vessel.

This causes a few things to become apparent.

These Wyn vessels can freely move on the map, its not clear before this ruling what a Wyn vessel could do, as it never had an opportunity to be looked at or on the map even in this transitory manner. This means we know that they can move on the map regardless of anyones state of war.

There doesn't seem to be any general rule for handling what someone could do to a Wyn vessel moving. It doesn't seem you could react to it, even though its moving during your opponents phase, and it was previously owned by your opponent. Also it doesn't seem you would pin it or could do anything to molest it in any way whatsoever. Perhaps I am missing something but the Wyn are neutral, and the rules for dealing with all neutrals are specific and in various places such as how the ISC behave or the Tholians, the Wyn and the LDR for example.

So it seems to me by this justification, that one can sell a ship to the Wyn cluster and move it there by any legal movement system (although I think only Operational would be possible since its not apparent that the Wyn have a SMN in the cluster nor is it apparent they have the ability to use Strat movement in any case nor would retrograde or reserve be appropriate) completly ignoring enemy forces.

Question 1: Is it the intention of this ruling to make the travel of sold vessels to the Wyn unassailable?

If the answer to 1 is no.

Question 2: If a Wyn vessel en route to the cluster is reacted upon does it create a battlehex that the non-phasing player can reserve to.

Question 3: Such a Wyn battlehex would it be a 3 sided battle of some sort since the Wyn are Neutral or would the Wyn ship be a temporary ally in this hex of the original owners side?

Question 4: If the sale happens immediatly hence the vessel becomes Wyn immediatly ostensibly the EP's are transfered into the appropriate Wyncovia account before the ship begins movement. What happens to these EPs if the Wyn vessel is destroyed and/or crippled en route?

Question 5: Is it possible to sell the vessel when:
a: There is no path that exists where the vessel can reach the cluster (i.e. it would be pinned out because of enemy unit placement)
b: A path exists but enemy reaction could conceivably block this path (i.e does the path have to be an assured path)
c: A path exists as in a or b, but enough ships can travel along with to allow the Wyn ship to continue regardless of pinning.

Question 6: If a battlehex is formed by this Wyn vessel while en route:
a: Can it be given up to resolve damage voluntarily
b: What happens if it is directed upon to be destroyed or crippled
c: If it retreats and was the flagship in the last round (or is the last remaining ship) does it count the Wyn Cluster as a supply point for retreat purposes.

If the answer to Question 1 above is Yes, then while I know this isn't the appropriate place, but shouldn't this be changed? Its always seemed to me that the intention is for the player to move his ship to the wyn cluster by any legal method then provided its eligible to be sold (all the things in the rule) its sold instead of interned. I think the ruling was just supposed to allow the Klingons to sell on turn 1, not to make such sales or rather the movement there unassailable.

Thanks
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 07:18 pm: Edit

Mike and Rob, Continuing the Q&A about my and Rob's questions:

718 and 419 were Hydran owned at the start of the Coalition turn, with only RDF present for defense. One question addresses this specifically, because when the E4's show up they cannot according to the rules fight the RDF's, the latter not being units. The Coalition intent is to fight the RDF's before any other battles in Hydran space. This question is a quest for clarification of the unintended consequence of ruling the RDU to be the RDF. Of course, the E4's could capture the planets without destroying the RDF's, because the RDF is not a unit and does not prevent capture - the RDF's would simply cease to exist after the combat phase without there ever having been a combat. Unless the RDF acts as a 0-3 unit for purposes (but it is not a unit for any purpose, according to the RDF revised rule, IIRC) of preventing capture and triggering combat, in which case E4 vs RDF should be an even SSC.

My recollection is that 217 was resolved after 418-519 generated its question, as otherwise 418's Hydrans would have had to retreat toward the off-map area.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 08:53 pm: Edit

Please note: I am at a conference out of town and do not have access to all of my SFU material. I will get to these questions on the weekend. There are some very interesting questions here and it will take some extensive research on my part to sort through each case and give you an answer.

In a perfect world, where I did not have to work for a living, I would like to answer each of your questions within 24 hours of the posting. I will still attempt to do so, but please understand there may be times where I cannont.

Thank you for your patience.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 09:32 pm: Edit

424.0 Depot Level Repair, P.O., page 7

424.35 Unused Capacity: ....A player has the option to take one crippled ship per turn from the Depot hex and place it into the holding pool during the production phase to avoid wasting capacity.


Is this one crippled ship per holding box or one for the entire Depot?

Also, if you put a ship into the Depot that the empire has a counter for, but is not currently their tech, will it be converted and repaired while in the Depot or do you have to convert it first? (I just noticed that the new Hydran SIT has a listing for the D7H and I would presume the counter for it will be coming out in N.O.(?). This question would also apply to other empires that may have similar ships (like the TK5 or OK6).)
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Michael the second one is covered by 424.15 that says captured ships can not use the Depot. I would say that covers the D7H, TK5 and all other captured ships.

Edit

Also 424.37 states that foreign ships, captured ships can not use the depot.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 10:35 pm: Edit

But that may be for "normal" captured ships and not ones that have actual F+E counters and SIT listings of the empire that captured them. There's even a listing in the Hydran SIT for a D7X (D7HX I presume).

Besides which, the KR is technically a "foreign ship" also, yet has entries under the Romulan SIT and can be placed into the Depot. So there IS a precedent for the any foreign ship that has an empire specific listing to be placed into the Depot. So far the Romulans have this on their SIT, the Hydrans have it on their new SIT, and presumably the Tholians and Orions will have it when their new SITs get posted.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 11:02 pm: Edit

Mattsmith
________________________________________
Quote:
My belief is that this applies even during damage allocation, and at the instant that all defending units are eliminated, and the planet is devastated, that this sentence then prohibits accumulation of + points.
________________________________________
Were those units present in the battle that destroyed them? 308.2 makes no mention whatsoever about plus points not being carried over if everything is totally destroyed during the battle. Like if an attacking force has all their ships destroyed in the first shot against 20 PDUs, SB, and a maxed-out defending fleet, do any remaining plus points "go away"? Or do they remain for the next round? If they go away you will see capital planet battlefleets constructed around frigates and destroyers with a ship just big enough to command them and kill the necessary PDUs OR fleets just big enough to do the damage so the attackers don't lose very many ships at all.

It should work both ways. The plus/minus points always stay around (until the turn is over) or they never stay around.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 08:57 am: Edit

"Besides which, the KR is technically a "foreign ship" also"

It has already been converted to Romulan technology.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 09:36 am: Edit

And as to the KR ships they are another beast entirely it seems to me. I can only assume that Klingon technicians came with to explain/train the Romulan wrench guys.

Heck the Romulans can build MSY for the D5 and smaller hulls so they know a little bit more than others would about their foreign hulls.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 03:30 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Like if an attacking force has all their ships destroyed in the first shot against 20 PDUs, SB, and a maxed-out defending fleet, do any remaining plus points "go away"?
________________________________________


Michael Lui,

Yes, if my view of "the way things should work" prevails, this would also mean that any damage above that which completely destroys the opposing force just goes away, no matter who scores it, defender or attacker.

Why would they not? I mean, what's a + point represent in that case? An unfired disrupter that could have been fired if a target still existed? That's already the state of the weapons before the first shot is fired, and we don't give a "1st round" bonus to damage.

Plus points exist to make the game more realistic, not less so. They help ensure that somebody doesn't keep crippling nothing smaller than a F5 and always resolving 1 less damage point then damage taken. (With the 1 remaining point being too small to force a kill on one of the crippled F5.)

Anyway, like I said, that's just my idea of "how things should work." I'll stop here to prevent cluttering Mike's Q&A topic. Maybe I'm all hosed up and there's a really good game mechanic thing I'm missing that explains what + points actually represent and why they're needed in this case.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 04:50 pm: Edit

In the case of one force totally wiping out the other, I proposed a rule change that would cause the damage of the force that was wiped out to be reduced; the idea being that the overwhelming barrage of fire at the doomed force would in reality prevent the doomed force from getting in all of its fire before it were taken down; the idea was to prevent a chump attacking force from stripping away PDUs, when the reality is that they'd never make it close enough to the planet to do the job. I called it "withering fire"; to date, however, it has not be accepted.

(for an example of this in the real world, I refer people to the Battle of Midway; the torpdeo bombers the US sent in the first waves were doomed. See also the Iraqi army units during the 2003 invasion, which were often destroyed before they could close with US forces)

NOTE: none of what I just said is in the rules currently. I'm just responding to Matt, and referring him and everyone to my old proposal.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 05:06 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
It has already been converted to Romulan technology.
________________________________________
That goes to the second part of the question above, once you convert the D7H it is a Hydran technology vessel and should be eligible to go into the Depot.
________________________________________
Quote:
Heck the Romulans can build MSY for the D5 and smaller hulls so they know a little bit more than others would about their foreign hulls.
________________________________________
P.O., page 13, 450.16 Availability: A race cannot begin building a shipyard for a class (e.g., Hydran DW) unless that ship is on the current production schedule.

Since the K series of ships is not on the Romulan production schedule, making the shipyards for them would be an optional rule. Do note that in F+E the Romulans never built Klingon ships and currently have to have tugs go get spare parts for them. The D7H is actually a lot more Hydran than a K series ship is Romulan since the Hydrans make their own spare parts for it.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Michael,

I think we are missing each other on this. My opposition is to putting a captured D7? into the depot and coming out with the D7H. I thought that is what you were saying.

Although I will check the MSy rules. I am almost positive one of the published scenarios has Kestral yards. And I thought the Romulans got to pick their yards. There isn't much value in building kestral MSY's though.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Ah, you didn't read the sentence all the way through.

BTW, this also applies to a crippled ship that the Klingons might give to the Romulans during the game for some reason or another. Do they have to convert it BEFORE it goes into the Depot OR can it go in as a Klingon ship and come out as a Romulan one. After all, most/all of the systems that are going to be converted have been removed (destroyed) by a helpful enemy already and it might not be any extra work. It might even be easier.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 06:14 pm: Edit

"That goes to the second part of the question above, once you convert the D7H it is a Hydran technology vessel and should be eligible to go into the Depot."

That would be my take on it as well; once it's converted, it is your technology.

That said, if the ship has not yet been converted, it's foreign. As I understand the existing rules, such a ship would not be eligible for the depot.


Mike/SVC of course have the ultimate answer.
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 06:53 pm: Edit

The "Disallowed" ships in the Depot Rule clearly states "captured ships". (don't have rule number handy, proofing PDF)

So should their really be a question if a D7H/D7-captured can go to depot?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 07:32 pm: Edit

Scott,

I think it goes further than that. The issue is whether a a captured D7 and a D7H are both considered captured (clearly, the former is; my understanding on the latter is that it is not, since it has been converted)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 08:02 pm: Edit

I am with Joe on this. A ship is captured before its brought back to your facilities and repaired and converted.

So I am about 100% certain a captured D7 could NOT go into the Hydran repair depot but there is still a question on if a D7H could go. There is some weasliness in that you would have to know what track it goes on obviously the CA track in this case, but its not always so obvious.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 08:14 pm: Edit

Mike Curtis,

Another question coming up from the discussions here.

Can the Romulans build Kestral class Minor Shipyards without any special exception or agreement?

A Minor Shipyard cannot be built until the appropriate base hull is on the production schedule of a race (450.16). The Romulans never get the Kestral hulls specifically given on their schedule just that they are activated and converted from Klingon deliveries.

However rule (450.19) lists the Romulans as being able to build K4, K5+K5L, KD shipyards in lieu of the home grown hulls. Then goes on to say.

The Klingons and Romulans must specify which type the shipyard is for... ...The Romulan K4, K5, and KD shipyards cost 2 EP per construction turn in addition to the normal cost.

In addition Maelstrom in SO shows a Romulan K5L yard built. I know scenario's sometimes go out on their own but this one purports to be a portion of the General War itself.

These things lead me to believe that the Romulans should have the option of building these facilities without any other restrictions. I personally do not think its a wise choice, but it seems it should be a choice!

Thanks
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 - 09:38 pm: Edit

ML:

FYI -- Romulans have a specific track for KR ships; Hydrans don't have a specific track for the D7H.

Under (437.38) captured ships are disallowed (and we ALL know that the D7H is a captured ship -- the fact of converting it to your tech doesn't negate that it is still a captured ship in your service with your weapon systems).

Your burden is to show the enabling rule that says D7H, TK5 and other captured->coverted ships can use tracks not already specified in the rules.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 12:26 am: Edit

In addition to what Chuck has said, any captured ship converted to your tech used custom parts as part of the conversion. There is no assembly line or factory set-up to produce such parts. The Depot repairs ships for free that where built with your technology because you can get the parts in large numbers. At that point, time and manpower are the issue. Ships repaired outside the depot cost EPs because you are pushing to get the ship quickly. Ships repaired through the depot do not cost EPs because the cost is factored into the background economics of the game. The parts used are a part of the regular supply, maintenance, and repair cycle for the ships. The Hydrans do not have a large number of parts sitting around for D7H hulls or any factories set-up to produce such parts as this is not a general deployment ship. They may have plenty of Hellbores and Fusion Cannons to repair a D7H but they have to custom build the mounting brackets and power couplings for the Hellbores and Fusion Cannons on the D7H. There just isn’t a need for large numbers of such parts so they are not a part of the regular supply chain.
As to why the Roms can repair KR hulls in their Depot; because they produce or procure a large enough supply of parts for ships that they have in general deployment. That makes them a part of the regular supply chain. Many of the parts for KRs are possibly used on the newer Hawk class ships. How different are the mounting brackets for Plasma Torps on a KR and a FH? And even then, all KR ships must use the same depot path, except the K9R which can also use the DN path. This shows that there is a limit on the number of KR specific parts and that the Rom can choose to push the K9R through the Depot if it was in the pool with any KR cruisers if they wish.

I will have to insist that any ruling that allows any captured ships (except common Klingon / Romulan hulls) to be placed in the depot after it has been converted to that race’s tech be pushed up to SVC for review.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 04:49 am: Edit

Sorry to reply in the Q&A section, I think everyone has missed a key point.

The Romulan K-Series hulls, at no point in the rules are treated as Captured Ships.

Therefore the point is mute.

ANY ship that is captured - can't use Depot Repair (so the D7H from above, can't be converted to Hydran tech and the placed in the Deport Repair system).

Romulan K Ships are not captured - and so can use Depot Repair.

The only gray area I can see is whether the special 'handed over ships (IIRC the 3 CW's which get swopped over between the Romulans and Klingons late in the game) could in Klingon hands be counted as 'captured' ships - but as rules go - they are not captured either (I think though on the basis of the Depot Tracks, the new Klingon ships in Romulan service can go into the Depots, but the Romulan ships in Klingon service can't).

Hopefully this has helped
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 05:11 am: Edit

I think everyone has been trying to put a square in a round hole. I agree with Chuck, Dan, and Paul.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 07:29 am: Edit

Paul

If the Feds capture a D6, convert it to their tech, and then the Romulans capture it from the Feds, they would then have a captured D6, could convert it to a Romulan ship, but wouldn't be able to Depot it?
________________________________________
Quote:
And even then, all KR ships must use the same depot path, except the K9R which can also use the DN path.
________________________________________
If the K9R can use the "other DNs" part of the Romulan Depot tracks then the Hydrans can put the D7H in their "Any CA" track. For that matter, can the Klingons Depot a K series ship if it gets cut off from Romulan space? They don't happen to have a KR track in their Depot. Or would they have to do the "free unconversion to the base hull" thing to repair it? Or even have to convert it to their own technology first?
________________________________________
Quote:
FYI -- Romulans have a specific track for KR ships; Hydrans don't have a specific track for the D7H.
________________________________________
Interestingly enough the Hydrans have an "Any CA" on their Depot track. They also happen to have an "Any CL" on their Depot tracks without having a single CL in their entire fleet or SIT. Do you know of a Hydran CL in F+E that I don't? I would REALLY like to see it. And the Tholians also have "All Tholian Ships" on their Depot track (which probably means that they would have to convert the ship first to make it a "Tholian Ship").
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 09:10 am: Edit

Michael

I suppose the different is that a captured ship is in a different 'state' than gifted ship.

SVC might decide that Klingon ships captured by the Alliance and re-captured by the Romulans can be Depot's (assuming their is a K series of it - i.e. a C5 captured and re-captured wouldn't be - as, as far as I know there is no K(C)5 version (can't use K5 as the F5 becomes a K5 !) as a specific rule, which overides the general rule.

With regard to the Hydrans

'Any CA' - they have two versions (Fusions and Hellbore) of hulls...

...and there is a CL - or rather a NCL - the MCC.

Lastly - I assume the Tholians only have a single track, as they have so few ships.

Of course - I might be wrong
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 12:31 pm: Edit

The obvious intent of the Depot Rules is clear to any reasonable person. Attempts to twist the rules are at the very least infuriating and I have no idea why anybody would attempt to do so. Do we really need the rules for the Hydran Depot to say, 'ANY HYDRAN CA', 'ANY HYDRAN CL', 'ANY HYDRAN DW', and for the Rom Depot to say, 'OTHER ROUMULAN DNs'? It is very obvious that that IS the intent. Spelling it out like that should only need to be done for people who are unwilling to accept the obvious intent. Not unable, unwilling.

As for Klingon/Romulan common hulls captured by the Alliance, once recaptured by a coalition race I think it should be treated as a Klingon ship, not a captured ship. When the Alliance had it, it was a captured ship. I would recommend that once taken away from the Alliance it is a Klingon hull and the Roms could convert it to Romulan Tech for the appropriate EP cost. The Klingons could simply repair it as a Klingon ship. This would be regardless of who the ship was captured from in the first place (Klingon or Romulan). As a Rom player I may find this a little inconvenient but that’s part of the price I pay for getting to use Klingon hulls as native ships.

On a side note: should all non plasma races treat KR hulls as captured Klingon hulls? Should all plasma races treat captured Klingon hulls as KR hulls? Should all captured Hydran base hull ships be treated as the Hellbore variant, without the casual fighters, when converted? I think I'll bring this up in General Discussion. In fact this whole discussion should be moved over to General so as not to flood the Q&A topic.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 03:51 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
...and there is a CL - or rather a NCL - the MCC.
________________________________________
And I've been told, by several people, that NCL is just another term for CW. And the Hydrans have CW on their Depot tracks as well. Plus the MCC is a conjectural ship, not real (in the game sense). Where are the listings for the Klingon FFB, Lyran FFK, Kzinti E7, Fed C8, Gorn FH, Romulan DNC? The D7H is a real ship and has a separate SIT listing, unlike almost ALL of the other ships in F+E. The Depot rules are written the way they are because the G.O.D. DOESN'T want to put in counters for all of the possible types+combinations of captured ships, and I wouldn't expect him to either. BUT he did create a separate listing and eventual counter for this one (and maybe the TK5/OK6) because it is in SFB. All I'm saying is that any ship that has a specific counter and SIT listing should be able to use the Depot rules.
________________________________________
Quote:
and for the Rom Depot to say, 'OTHER ROMULAN DNs'? It is very obvious that that IS the intent.
________________________________________
The K9R does happen to be an "other ROMULAN DN". I'm arguing that the K9R is supposed to use the "any KR type" track like all the other KRs, NOT the "other DNs" track if the D7H can't use the "Any CA" track in the Hydran Depot. It's only fair.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Guys,

Can we take the bickering over to general please? I would love to comment/bicker but I won't do so in Q&A.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Michael Lui,

Horse Hockey. Your argument is full of crap and clearly violates the obvious intent of the rules. Your last post equates to a complaint that if you can't have the rules re-written to get what you want then you won't let others have what's in the rules all ready.

Moving to General Discussion.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 05:09 pm: Edit

Gentlemen, let us not bring down the wrath of Webmom or SVC.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 05:24 pm: Edit

The answer to Ted's implied question is Yes, don't go that direction.

Take this discussion elsewhere and behave there. There is a burning ban here and it extends to flames on the BBS.

Jean
WebMom
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Not a problem. We have to give Nashvillen time to answer the question(s) anyway.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Heh. Wouldn't want the permanent FEAR to claim the interim FEAR only got easy ones, would we?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 09:43 pm: Edit

Yes, get out of "my kitchen" until I get a chance to review the issue fully. I told you it would be the weekend before I got to it due to my work commitments.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Mike,

A few more questions. Debate swirling in here moved to General. And just to make sure we got questions in.

Question 1: Are ships that are captured then subsequently refit to your technology under option 4 still considered captured ships?

This is going mostly towards putting these refit ships into the repair depot.

I submit its no longer a captured ship. I offer as evidence

(305.23) ... A captured ship is refitted and put into use is considered a ship of the new owning player for all purposes (except that a DW...)

and

(534.245) Rescue a captured ship: On a successful mission, one specific size-3 ship previously captured by the enemy is returned to its owner (move to the nearest supply poing in the rescuing grid). The specific ship must be targeted; it must be within six hexes of one of the original owner's supply nodes (of the main grid) and must not have been converted to enemy technology. Any given ship can only be targeted once per turn. emphasis is mine

This can go either way. I think its tangentially saying the ship cannot be recaptured with E&S missions because its no longer a captured ship. However, it could also be a positive reference to it being a specially designated captured ship.. ie. one that cannot be recaptured this way (or with option 5 in 424) but still a type of captured ship.


Question 2: This is a bit nebulous so pardon me. But the debate has brought up questions of Kestral hulls. Are they considered captured vessels for the purposes of the various rules? On the same track what about the CW swap the Coalition does, the Klingons get some Rom SP's are those considered captured?

For this question I believe in neither case are they considered captured. They are a special specific rule that overrides the others. Although if I am right about this. Could you clarify which track the Klingon SP's hulls wold go if they entered the Depot (I would think the D5 track but its good to ask officially)


Question 3: Suppose a Kingon E F or D hull is captured by the Alliance and subsequently captured by the Romulans. Since these series of ships are the type delived to them, can they undergo the same process of activation/refit that klingon delivery would allow and thusly be treated as any other of the Kestrals? Conversly suppose a Kestral is captured by the Alliance and subsequently captured by the Klingons. Could they renativize it as it were and make it a general E4 F5 D5 D6 etc? How about an SP hull? Could they treat that just like one of the three SP (I believe optionally they can trade more than 3) hulls they swap with the Roms?

I hope that is all of the questions that have been going about on this issue.

Thanks
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Protagoras

534.244 is rescue a captured ship, not 534.245.

However you could use 534.245 to get back the converted captured ship. Of course 534.245 is "Hijack an enemy ship" so this would fit right in with your post.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, March 28, 2008 - 08:13 pm: Edit

Michael Lui,

Your right I borked on the Rule number I quoted 534.244 but put .245! Sorry about that!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 07:24 pm: Edit

FEAR comments in Blue
The following a reprints of questions that The Long, Long War has been waiting on since early November 2007:

Rob Padilla, 8 NOV 2007, wrote:
"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 to note, 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?

They do not appear to be cut off. See below.

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?"

Todd Jahnke wrote 8 NOV 2007, immediately after Rob's questions above, in order to add further questions and context to the same situation:

"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. Is this string of thinking correct in its rules accuracy and cause and effect situations?

B) If an RDF can be the sole force in combat, then should small scale combat rules 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, even though a ship and a RDF is a data set that would not fit into a mathematical set that was allowed to contain up to three ships. 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? I note that I’ve never seen an RDF defined officially and have no reason to think that an RDF includes only ground troops without space capability; I would think an RDF would include commercial space infrastructure that includes some phasers, shuttles and the like.

The Residual force on a planet that appears after it is no longer occupied by enemy forces is not a unit. It is only three defense factors that go away after the planet it devastated again. It has no offensive capability and as such cannot damage any ship. According to (508.16) and (508.21) once the occupying forces do enough to re-devastate the planet the Residual force is eliminated. As such, the force does not count for SSC or any other combat. A lone FF can take out a Residual force with no chance of damage to it. It should be noted that, since combat is taking place here, although one sided it will be, it is still combat, and a reserve could be sent here.

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.

The following is based on these force locations:
118: Hydran Fleet of more than one ship
119: E4
217: Lyran Fleet of more than one ship
416: E4 (captured planet)
417: Lyran DW
418: Hydran and Klingon ships in combat
519: E4 that has just retaken this planet
617: Both Hydran and Klingons ships, combat unresolved
718: E4 that has just retaken this planet

Provincial ownership is only needed for economic evaluation. Ownership of planets and other supply sources is evaluated at the time of the retreat (302.733). If the planet has been captured before the current combat then it is no longer a valid supply point. In this case, we have the following: Hexes 0417, 0519, and 0718 are in Coalition hands and not valid supply sources. 0617 is part of a partial supply grid and is excused per (302.733) substep –C if there is a valid supply path to the main grid, which in this case, is through 118, 218, and 319.

Let us go through all the retreat priorities in order to see what is available under the rules:
Step 1: No neutral hexes, so all six surrounding hexes still available
Step 2: There are two Hydran Ships retreating and none of the surrounding hexes have more than two coalition ships, all six surrounding hexes are still available
Step 3 substep –A: All six surrounding hexes are in supply
Step 3 substep –B: Not applicable
Step 3 substep –C: Voluntary elimination of 518, 519 since these are only supplied by a partial supply grid to keep the ships from ending up trapped with the rest of the ships at 617.
Step 3 substep –D: To shorten supply hexes 417 and 419 are eliminated, leaving 318 and 319 available.
Step 4: No ships in either 318 or 319.

318 and 319 are both valid retreat hexes tracing supply through 118, and 218

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."

The approach would be irrelevant. The Advanced Small Scale Combat would be the results in one roll. There would be the Planetary Defense Unit 3(6) and the SF 2-4 for 11 with scout capabilities against 2xF5 for 10. They would roll on (310.1), if the Klingons were the attackers they would have a -1 due to the scout difference, if the Kzinti were the attackers then they would roll with a +1 due to the scout difference. Yes, there could be a weird reaction situation where the Planetary Defense Unit could be involved as the attacker that round. Whatever the results from the one roll would apply to all units on each side. If the Kzinti force with the Planetary Defense Unit in it were required to retreat then the Planetary Defense Unit would be destroyed to satisfy the retreat. There would be no pursuit either.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 07:39 pm: Edit

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Mike,

Sorry I seem to be such a "regular customer" already, but this one has bugged me for a while and I just got reminded of it.

In a capital assault, the attackers strike a minor planet. The defenders do not send forces to this planet. As a result, the 37 damage is 9 more than is required to destroy both PDU, all 12 fighters and devastate the planet.

Two questions:

1 - Are these extra 9 points recorded as (+) points? (Meaning they follow the defending fleet into pursuit.)

2 - If they are, what do they represent? Normally, I would consider plus points to represent damage taken on a ship, but less than crippling. The plus points record this and "remember" that some damage is owed for the next round.

But once everything is destroyed? Plus points don't make sense in the context of the game after everything is destroyed.

1: No, only a maximum of 7 points can be recorded as (+) points outside of the planet they were generated in. (308.2) and (308.25)

2: N/A

Plus and Minus points are just another method of abstraction for combat that occurs over half a years time and the numerous battles this represents.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 08:49 pm: Edit

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 24, 2008 - 05:36 pm: Edit

Question:

On Coalition turn 6, the Coalition captures the Hydran capital.

On an Alliance turn 6, the Hydrans counter-attack the Hydran capital. The Coalition places all "defensive" ships at the capital planet (system) and all mobile forces at the capital planet (system). The Coalition does not defend the remaining planets in the capital hex. The Hydrans engage, but fail to drive off the Coalition from the capital hex.

1) On Coalition turn 7, are the non-capital planets in the Hydran capital still considered "captured" during the Coalition's economic phase (and thus generate income)?

2) If not, do I have to "recapture" them during the combat phase by attacking residual defense units.

Thanks.

(508.23) is very clear that you have until the end of the phase to show garrison units. At the end of the combat phase the Coalition needs a minimum of six units capable of garrisoning a planet left in the hex to show continuous garrison for that player turn.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 09:03 pm: Edit

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 01:05 pm: Edit

Mike,

Thanks for taking up this mantle. Now for an issue.

In reference to Klingons selling a Ship to the Wyn on turn one, this statement was made I quote from the official online Errata.
________________________________________
Quote:
(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.
________________________________________


I understand what this is saying, its allowing the Klingons to sell a ship to the Wyn on turn one even though they are not allowed to send a ship outside of the empire that turn. A good ruling that makes sense.

Its the justification within and ramifications therein that concern me. The phrase
________________________________________
Quote:
it is also technically no longer Klingon.
________________________________________

By implication its a Wyn vessel now instead of a Klingon. It doesn't say Wyn specifically but if its no longer Klingon and your selling it to the Wyn?!

So it immediatly before it moves becomes a Wyn Vessel. It seems that is the mechanism for bypassing the Home Territory first turn restriction the Klingons have.

This means anytime one sells a ship to the Wyn it immediatly becomes a Wyn vessel.

This causes a few things to become apparent.

These Wyn vessels can freely move on the map, its not clear before this ruling what a Wyn vessel could do, as it never had an opportunity to be looked at or on the map even in this transitory manner. This means we know that they can move on the map regardless of anyones state of war.

There doesn't seem to be any general rule for handling what someone could do to a Wyn vessel moving. It doesn't seem you could react to it, even though its moving during your opponents phase, and it was previously owned by your opponent. Also it doesn't seem you would pin it or could do anything to molest it in any way whatsoever. Perhaps I am missing something but the Wyn are neutral, and the rules for dealing with all neutrals are specific and in various places such as how the ISC behave or the Tholians, the Wyn and the LDR for example.

So it seems to me by this justification, that one can sell a ship to the Wyn cluster and move it there by any legal movement system (although I think only Operational would be possible since its not apparent that the Wyn have a SMN in the cluster nor is it apparent they have the ability to use Strat movement in any case nor would retrograde or reserve be appropriate) completly ignoring enemy forces.

Question 1: Is it the intention of this ruling to make the travel of sold vessels to the Wyn unassailable?

The ship is under automatic control in preparation for crossing the radiation zone. It would be difficult to “assail” one of these ships being delivered over a six month period of time in a strategic game. The sensors are turned off and the warp drives are at a minimum. Very difficult to detect at close range, let alone the distances we see on the F&E map.

If the answer to 1 is no.

Question 2: If a Wyn vessel en route to the cluster is reacted upon does it create a battlehex that the non-phasing player can reserve to.

Conditions of the ship prevent reaction.

Question 3: Such a Wyn battlehex would it be a 3 sided battle of some sort since the Wyn are Neutral or would the Wyn ship be a temporary ally in this hex of the original owners side?

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

Question 4: If the sale happens immediatly hence the vessel becomes Wyn immediatly ostensibly the EP's are transfered into the appropriate Wyncovia account before the ship begins movement. What happens to these EPs if the Wyn vessel is destroyed and/or crippled en route?

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

Question 5: Is it possible to sell the vessel when:
a: There is no path that exists where the vessel can reach the cluster (i.e. it would be pinned out because of enemy unit placement)
b: A path exists but enemy reaction could conceivably block this path (i.e does the path have to be an assured path)
c: A path exists as in a or b, but enough ships can travel along with to allow the Wyn ship to continue regardless of pinning.

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

Question 6: If a battlehex is formed by this Wyn vessel while en route:
a: Can it be given up to resolve damage voluntarily
b: What happens if it is directed upon to be destroyed or crippled
c: If it retreats and was the flagship in the last round (or is the last remaining ship) does it count the Wyn Cluster as a supply point for retreat purposes.

Answer to 1 & 2 make this not applicable.

If the answer to Question 1 above is Yes, then while I know this isn't the appropriate place, but shouldn't this be changed? Its always seemed to me that the intention is for the player to move his ship to the wyn cluster by any legal method then provided its eligible to be sold (all the things in the rule) its sold instead of interned. I think the ruling was just supposed to allow the Klingons to sell on turn 1, not to make such sales or rather the movement there unassailable.

None of the three surround neighbors want the WYN to mad at them. They all gain way too much by having them their neighbor.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 09:42 pm: Edit

Mike,

One last note for the Captured Ships and Depot Repair question.

If ships converted under (305.23) Option 3 are allowed to use Depot Level Repair then there is no point to the portion of rule (424.37) that disallows captured ships. There’s no rule that says you have to repair a ship before converting it. All you’d have to do is pay the 3EP cost to convert the ship to your tech and stick it into the Depot. So why does (424.37) say no captured ships if you could just convert it then stick it into the Depot?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 12:05 am: Edit

There is also the line (424.37) that foreign ships cannot use the depot system (though the Romulans have an exception in their KRs have their own depot chain) so that captured/converted ships wouldn't be able to use the depot. (This also means that the Romulan KC9 can only use the KR depot...)

Ohm one thing to remember about placing a crippled ship into the depot, that ship must be in the depot (capital/off-map) hex during the Production Phase (424.31) + (424.35)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 04:00 am: Edit

I would like to state regarding captured ships and 424.37.

Rule 424.37 is not rendered moot by any ruling that says a refit ship is no longer considered captured.

It would quite simply be interpreted to mean that before you exercise the refit option to convert it to your tech it cannot be put into the depot either through the 1/6 winnowing process nor voluntarily. In fact that is how I have been interpreting the rule all along!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 04:04 am: Edit

Mike,

In all the excitement of the captured ship stuff I had forgotten this question.

Colony creation states a Tug (or other eligible unit such as COE or Convoy etc) takes three turns to build a colony. It also states if it leaves/is destroyed during that time the effort is lost.

Is it possible to swap out units during the process as long as an eligible unit always begins your turn in the colony hex? I wish to put my COE there to begin the building.. then on the second turn move a tug or convoy there to take over so that on turn 3 I can use the COE elsewhere is this allowed?

Thanks
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Mike, just a friendly note:

The blue comments are very nice to read on the forum, good idea. But, this will be eventually cut & pasted into a black and white file for Cap Log. You will have to do extra editing at that point to go back and designate which parts are questions/comments, and which parts are your answers so that SVC can sort it out for publication. That could be a pain down the road. You might want to put "ANSWER", or "FEAR" or "FEAR of G.O.D. DECREE #4326" or something before each blue comment to save yourself time later, then you can simply cut & paste rather than having to do a buch of extra typing when you lose the blue color.

Nick
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 02:33 pm: Edit

Also, (305.23) says that a captured ship is considered a ship of the new owner. At no point does it say that it is no longer a captured ship.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Concur with Dan.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 04:25 pm: Edit

"The captured rules where written in 1986 and did not need to consider the interaction with the Depot rules. The Depot rules however did need to take into account the Captured Ship rules and clearly say no Captured Ships. The Specific rule (424.37) trumps the general rule (305.23)."

Dan,

Yes; however, I believe it is referring to the crippled and unconverted ship which is still considered captured at that point. So, you clearly cannot capture a ship and throw it into the depot. The question is, can you repair and convert a ship, and THEN put it into the depot. What I'm saying to you is that I beleive that you are overreaching on the definition of "captured"

"for all purposes" is pretty clear and unambiguous. It's telling your right there that the ship is not considered captured, IMO.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Thanks!
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Mike,

If you want your answers edited, please let me know and I'll be glad to fix them for you.

Jean
WebMom
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 05:31 pm: Edit

It is also a general rule. And as always, a general rule is trumped by a specific rule.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 05:58 pm: Edit

Even if this were the case there is no specified track that any captured ship could go down. And again there is no enabling rule that says you can place captured ship 'X' in track 'Y'. (And is anyone says that the D7H qualifies on Hydran Track-1 as "Any CA" -- that is B.S.; we all know that means hellbore/fusion/command variants of Dragoons/Rangers.)

We would have to create charts for every foreign base hull to specify which track they would travel down on another empire's track. And don't think for a minute that we really wouldn't need these charts because I can see already a Fed player claiming his captured F5L is really an earlier version of a war destroyer that can be placed in the Fed DW track (instead of the FF track).
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 06:06 pm: Edit

"It is also a general rule. And as always, a general rule is trumped by a specific rule. "

But it isn't trumped, Dan. Once converted, it is considered as any other ship; it isn't a "captured" ship anymore, at least the way the rule reads (IMO).

If I thought it were still considered captured, then I'd agree with you. I'm saying that the prohibition simply doesn't apply because it isn't "captured" anymore.


"(And is anyone says that the D7H qualifies on Hydran Track-1 as "Any CA" -- that is B.S.; we all know that means hellbore/fusion/command variants.)
"

Guess what, Chuck? The D7H has fusion/hellbore. So please illustrate the difference, and why it's "BS"

"I can see already a Fed player claiming his captured F5L is really an earlier version of a war destroyer that can be placed in the Fed DW track (instead of the FF track). "

They can't, because it is a frigate; it's not an FW, which is the Klingon DW. As you say, we all know that means FW and not F5L. That is clear from the SIT.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 06:12 pm: Edit

ML:

Since you have reference the latest Hydran SIT, I did see in the notes that the D7H is refered to as:

"Captured AND Converted ship"

but not as:

"Captured BUT Converted ship"

Or

"Captured THEN Converted ship"

I also did not that in the Build Cost or Substitution column of the SIT that the D7H is refered to as a "CAPTURED SHIP".
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 06:33 pm: Edit

Yes Joe, it is still a captured ship. It is considered your ship. Being considered your ship does not change the ship from being captured. It only allows you to use it as if was yours. As it is still a captured ship the line in (424.37) prevents it from being in the Depot. The Specific (424.37) trumps the general (305.23).
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 06:57 pm: Edit

Joe:

Tracks are defined by base hull (424.12) and the Hydran Track-1 base hull for this track is "CA" (see the SIT); all these hulls are listed as "base hull" CA on the Hydran SIT are: RN, DG, LC, LM, LB, RGR, THR, PIC, PIV, LE, and LHE. This means that any of the above listed hulls are included in the statement "any CA" (or stated another way: "any **Hydran base hull** CA"); it does not mean any kind of foreign built CRUISER whatsoever.

No where on the on the Hydran SIT is the D7H listed as a Hydran base hull "CA"; if anything it is listed as base hull "D7H" and there is no Hydran track that lists "base hull: D7H" track.

So to argue that a ship (the D7H in this case) is no longer captured once it is coverted is one thing; but to now say that it also goes on a track where one doesn't clearly exist is yet another. If anyone can show me the "base hull: D7H" depot track then enjoy the ride.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 07:20 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I also did not that in the Build Cost or Substitution column of the SIT that the D7H is refered to as a "CAPTURED SHIP".
________________________________________
Yep. Meaning that the Hydrans can't build any. Just like all the K-series hulls reference 431.6, of which the first rule 431.61 says the Roms can't build Klingon ships.
________________________________________
Quote:
Yes Joe, it is still a captured ship. It is considered your ship. Being considered your ship does not change the ship from being captured. It only allows you to use it as if was yours. As it is still a captured ship the line in (424.37) prevents it from being in the Depot. The Specific (424.37) trumps the general (305.23).
________________________________________
And under 534.244 and 534.245 your translation means that after a captured ship is converted, the original owner can NEVER get it back.
________________________________________
Quote:
The Rom KR rules are a Specific Rule not a General Rule. A specific rule allowing the Rom to treat Klingon hulls as Rom ships once converted (not refitted as captured ships are).
________________________________________
Nope. Go read 431.6 and be as meticulous as you are being with the Captured ship rules. The "Specific Rule trumping a General Rule" is 431.6.
________________________________________
Quote:
Once an alliance owned Klingon hull is captured by the Rom, it is a Klingon ship. The Rom could repair it for the Klingons in the same way any anybody can repair an allied ship.
________________________________________
Yes, that's right. The Romulans can repair it as a Klingon ship. They just can't convert it into a K-series Romulan ship until it's purchased/traded/whatever from the Klingons. And they can't do that either because, under your interpretation:
________________________________________
Quote:
Also, (305.23) says that a captured ship is considered a ship of the new owner. At no point does it say that it is no longer a captured ship.
________________________________________
And you can't convert it under 431.6 because you didn't get it from the Klingons. For that matter, the Klingons will always have to treat it as a captured ship even if the Romulans give it back.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 07:51 pm: Edit

I think I will continue as is and see how it goes for the month. Thank you.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Q: Can ships, captured by (305.0) be placed into Depot Level Repair (424.0)?
A: In all cases except the option 3 it is still enemy technology. Once Option 3 has been done (Conversion and Repair) significant portions of the enemy ship have been converted for use by your empire. But, to do this, quite a bit of the original ship is still left intact by the conversion process. The rules for Depot Level Repair say specifically that captured ships cannot go into the Depot. There are not enough parts in the Depot (Think giant space junkyard) to facilitate the repair of such a ship placed there. So, no captured ships, unconverted or converted to your technology in the Depot.

Q: How does the Romulan Depot Level Repair have a KR if the converted Klingon ships are essential converted foreign ships?
A: The Kestral ships the Romulans have bought from the Klingons came with a couple of things your run of the mill captured ship does not. Engineers that helped build the ship, a supply of spare parts, and the codes to unlock everything on the ship. These are necessary to convert them to Romulan technology and keep the running in the long term. This also provided a source of common parts in the Depot to repair these ships. It should also be noted that the Romulans had numerous Kestral class ships in service that could very easily provide the parts necessary to supply the Depot.

Q: What about a captured Klingon ship by the Federation that is subsequently captured by the Romulans? How is it handled?
A: No, once the Federation has converted the ship to their technology significant changes have been done to the ship that makes it too different from the Kestral class ships. The Romulans would have to do Option 3 of (305.0) to put this ship in service and if subsequently destroyed it would not be eligible for Depot Level Repair.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Mike,

If an original producing empire recaptures a ship converted to somebpdy else's tech can they restore it to their tech or is it considered a captured ship forever? How would they restore it to their tech (if allowed) and could it then use the Depot?

I would recommend that they have to Unconvert the captured ship for 1EP (like any unconversion), but their is no rule covering this. I would also recomend that only the Klingons can unconvert captured Klingon hulls, even those that where captured from the Rom. These could later be sold to the Rom but would have to be converted buy the Rom as any other ship traded to the Rom by the Klingons.

Is this something that can be ruled on here or does it need to go to the WAR BOOK topic?
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:26 am: Edit

And I would recommend that the (un)conversion of a recaptured ship costs the usual conversion rate, but from that point on, it is a normal ship, not a recaptured ship.

Ex: Klingons capture a Fed CA, convert it for 3 ep, it is not eligible to be put in depot. Feds recapture, convert to their tech for 3 ep, but at that point it is not a captured ship, it is by all means a Fed CA, and could be put in depot, or converted to a CVS, or anything else a newly-built CA could do.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:35 am: Edit

This definately has to be clarified in Warbook, because while I as a rule-designer would never write the rule to allow captured ships into the depot, I as the rule-interpreter would have to agree with those who say it could go into the depot. The rules, as written, are pretty clear that once you convert the ship, it is no longer a captured ship, and therefore can go into depot.

And while Mike did resolve the issue (thanks, Mike), I know that most players are not going to open up their rulebooks, then check all their CapLogs and hop online to read through 30 pages of archived questions to look for a clarification on every little issue. They are instead going to have a question, think it over, and then put that captured ship into the depot, as that is what the rule apparently means.

A quick line in Warbook would resolve that.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 01:21 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
They are instead going to have a question, think it over, and then put that captured ship into the depot, as that is what the rule apparently means.
________________________________________
Now that's a bit of a stretch. If anything we have had a handful of vocal players interpreting (or reading into) rules where none exist. We had no problems with the depot rules for a couple of years where no one attempted to put a captured ship into depot because the rules said you couldn't.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 06:56 am: Edit

Mike, in response to Matt's question about plus and minus points you replied the following:

>>1: No, only a maximum of 7 points can be recorded as (+) points outside of the planet they were generated in. (308.2) and (308.25)<<

I can not find anywhere that limits the amount of plus points that can be carried, only minus points. I had asked this question before years ago when the errata came out that only 7 minus points can be carried into pursuit (or 14 if a capital battle with no more than 7 from any one system), and was told that plus points have no limit. Is this something new?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 07:16 am: Edit

Here's another "interesting" one for you:

Under 442.83 The Romulans can't do any K series conversions and normal repairs cost double if they don't have any spare parts.
________________________________________
Quote:
This also provided a source of common parts in the Depot to repair these ships. It should also be noted that the Romulans had numerous Kestral class ships in service that could very easily provide the parts necessary to supply the Depot.
________________________________________
So, would the K series ships in the Depot stop moving down the track until they received more spare parts from the Klingons? Or would they be scrapped at that point since the techs wouldn't even know if they would ever be getting spare parts for them?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 07:59 am: Edit

That's an interesting question. I'd say that they should stop moving. Scrapping them should be up to the player.

At the same time, should scrapped KR hulls provide spare KR parts?
By Dave Whiteside (Ytside) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 08:10 am: Edit

Well let me ask this question...if the Hydran capture a L-CW and convert it, then put it back in a battle line somewhere and it gets 'recaptured' by the Lyran, could the Lyran put it in their depot...better yet, if the Klingons captured it...what could 'they' do with it?
If you're interpreting that a converted ship is no longer captured, then the above statement would say the Lyran could NOT put it in their depot until they 'reconverted' it. Is this what we want to say?
Likewise, if the Klingons captured the previously captured Lyran ship, wouldnt it automatically revert back to Lyran control?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 08:26 am: Edit

Implied question from David Whiteside in General Discussions:
________________________________________
Quote:
Well let me ask this question...if the Hydran capture a L-CW and convert it, then put it back in a battle line somewhere and it gets 'recaptured' by the Lyran, could the Lyran put it in their depot...better yet, if the Klingons captured it...what could 'they' do with it?
If you're interpreting that a converted ship is no longer captured, then the above statement would say the Lyran could NOT put it in their depot until they 'reconverted' it. Is this what we want to say?
Likewise, if the Klingons captured the previously captured Lyran ship, wouldnt it automatically revert back to Lyran control?
________________________________________
Now that it's ruled that a captured ship can't go in the Depot, even after conversion, what about a re-captured ship? Have the changes made by the enemy forever made that ship ineligible for depot repair?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:20 am: Edit

I have a fleet of ships that are retreating. There is no hex that will be in supply from the Main Grid after the retreat. There is also no neutral hexes adjacent to the fleet, nor do any of the six hexes contain more ships than the retreating fleet. There is one hex that can be supplied by a Partial Supply Grid after the retreat, but when the fleet started the turn it was in supply from the Main Grid, so Partial Supply Grid costs were not paid.

The question: Is my fleet of ships required to retreat toward the Partial Supply Grid, or may they retreat into any of the six adjacent hexes?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:32 am: Edit

Robert,

302.733) Step 3: Substep-C only allows you to ignore a partial supply grid if there is a retreat hex in the main grid. As there is no retreat hex in your example that is connected to the main grid Substep-B remains in effect and you have to retreat towards supply so yea, you'd have to retreat toward the Partial Grid.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:37 am: Edit

Q:I have a fleet of ships that are retreating. There is no hex that will be in supply from the Main Grid after the retreat. There is also no neutral hexes adjacent to the fleet, nor do any of the six hexes contain more ships than the retreating fleet. There is one hex that can be supplied by a Partial Supply Grid after the retreat, but when the fleet started the turn it was in supply from the Main Grid, so Partial Supply Grid costs were not paid.

The question: Is my fleet of ships required to retreat toward the Partial Supply Grid, or may they retreat into any of the six adjacent hexes?

A: What Dan said... (302.733) Step 3: Substep-C only allows you to ignore a partial supply grid if there is a retreat hex in the main grid. As there is no retreat hex in your example that is connected to the main grid Substep-B remains in effect and you have to retreat towards supply so yea, you'd have to retreat toward the Partial Grid.

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 10:43 am: Edit

Not trying to step on your toes Mike. I just knew that was spelled out plain and simple in the Retreat priorities, and had my book sitting right next to me.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:38 am: Edit

Fine with me. Any straight rules question can be answered with an appropriate reference to the rule. Saves me some time.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:09 pm: Edit

Test to see if sorting is off.

Jean
WebMom
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:12 pm: Edit

Test to see if Archiving is off.

Jean
WebMom
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:16 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
A: What Dan said... (302.733) Step 3: Substep-C only allows you to ignore a partial supply grid if there is a retreat hex in the main grid. As there is no retreat hex in your example that is connected to the main grid Substep-B remains in effect and you have to retreat towards supply so yea, you'd have to retreat toward the Partial Grid.
________________________________________


But Step 3: Substep A says: "If none of the potential retreat hexes would be in supply, Step 3 is ignored."
No supply was paid for, and there is no supply from the Main Grid, so technically none of the six hexes, including the hex that has the potential be be in supply, are in supply. So in this case is Step 3 just ignored?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Q: If an original producing empire recaptures a ship converted to somebpdy else's tech can they restore it to their tech or is it considered a captured ship forever? How would they restore it to their tech (if allowed) and could it then use the Depot?

I would recommend that they have to Unconvert the captured ship for 1EP (like any unconversion), but their is no rule covering this. I would also recomend that only the Klingons can unconvert captured Klingon hulls, even those that where captured from the Rom. These could later be sold to the Rom but would have to be converted buy the Rom as any other ship traded to the Rom by the Klingons.

A: If you recapture a ship of your technology that was previously captured and converted to enemy tech, then, yes you would need to spend another 3 eps and a conversion to put everything back the way your people need it to be for the ship to work in your navy. Once this has been done it is just like the ship came out of your shipyard and it would be eligible for Depot placement since all the foreign technology has now been removed and replaced with common parts that the Depot could provide.

I have posted this in the Warbook topic as it should be addressed there also.

Q: Follow up question: “1: No, only a maximum of 7 points can be recorded as (+) points outside of the planet they were generated in. (308.2) and (308.25) “

I can not find anywhere that limits the amount of plus points that can be carried, only minus points. I had asked this question before years ago when the errata came out that only 7 minus points can be carried into pursuit (or 14 if a capital battle with no more than 7 from any one system), and was told that plus points have no limit. Is this something new?

A: Yes, up to now there has not been a need for a limit on the number of plus (+) points. This should also be added to the Warbook topic for further review.

Q: Under 442.83 The Romulans can't do any K series conversions and normal repairs cost double if they don't have any spare parts. So, would the K series ships in the Depot stop moving down the track until they received more spare parts from the Klingons? Or would they be scrapped at that point since the techs wouldn't even know if they would ever be getting spare parts for them? Should scrapped KR hulls provide spare KR parts?

A: No, there should be enough parts from the “Space Junk Yard” that the Depot represents to provide the necessary parts.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Jean, this appears to have fixed the issue. Thank you!
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:28 pm: Edit

And that's an opening to segue in a couple of long-standing questions I've had (but never actually needed to know the answer to; I've tried very hard to avoid the situation):

When can you pay for supply for ships in a Partial Grid? (Any time? At any point you check your supply? Only during Economics 1A? Never, because it's not specified?)

How long does the purchased supply last? (Until the next check? Until the start of the next player turn? Until the start of your next turn? Until the same point in [the next player | your next] turn?)
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Also, while we're talking about captured ships, my understanding of the rulings thus far is that a KR captured by the Feds can only be converted to stuff (through (305.45)) that the Romulans could convert it to, and a similarly captured D6 could only be converted to things the Klinks could make from it. Have I got that right?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 03:03 pm: Edit

Q: And that's an opening to segue in a couple of long-standing questions I've had (but never actually needed to know the answer to; I've tried very hard to avoid the situation):

When can you pay for supply for ships in a Partial Grid? (Any time? At any point you check your supply? Only during Economics 1A? Never, because it's not specified?)

How long does the purchased supply last? (Until the next check? Until the start of the next player turn? Until the start of your next turn? Until the same point in [the next player | your next] turn?)

A. The supply for being in a partial supply grid is paid during the owning empire’s step 1A of the sequence of play. This is good for the entire turn (both players). If the partial supply grid is created during the turn then for combat you have two opportunities to be in supply for combat, one is in 1A, the other is in 5-3A. If you are now isolated in combat then certain things like salvage goes to the newly formed partial grid.

Q: Also, while we're talking about captured ships, my understanding of the rulings thus far is that a KR captured by the Feds can only be converted to stuff (through (305.45)) that the Romulans could convert it to, and a similarly captured D6 could only be converted to things the Klinks could make from it. Have I got that right?

A: Yes, that is correct. Kestral class ships can only be converted to kestral variants of the Romulan Empire. Klingon ships can only be converted to Klingon variants of the Klingon Empire.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Mike,
Thanks for those. Now, if you'd be so kind to resolve a poor phrasing in the rules:

(413.41) implies that Economic Points can be produced in a Partial Grid (note that this existed before the salvage rules); (430.12) says that "only those planets linked to a Supply Grid and provences that have one or more of their hexes linked to a Supply Grid produce Economic Points"; (413.1) indicates that a Supply Grid must include one or both of the Capital or Off-Map Area; (413.4) says that a Partial Grid contains neither the Capital nor the Off-Map Area.

So, Partial Grids are both permitted and absolutely prohibited from producing EP. Which is correct?

On a related note, is the intent of (413.43) to prohibit Expeditionary Fleets (411.7) from drawing supplies from their Supply Grid, through the Allied Supply Grid(s), then through their Partial Grid?

Also relating to Partial Grids: It's been ruled (by SVC, if memory serves) that, while units stacked with a base/planet in a Partial Grid are in supply, they still have to pay for their replacement fighters. Does this also apply to the base/PDU on the planet (i.e., do they have to pay for their fighters)?

What other components of "being in supply" don't apply to units "in supply because they're stacked with a base in a Partial Grid"?

Can Partial Grids use Deficit Spending? (It's unclear, they may have their own Treasury; they'd certainly be limited by (430.62)). How about Advanced Deficit Spending?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, March 31, 2008 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Somebody recently made a comment that FFT (Theater Transports) can set-up Mobile Bases. Rule (539.72) says' "Two theater transports, working together, can move a mobile base. A theater transport can carry (and deploy) one PDU or one base module." My read on this is no, FFTs cannot set-up MBs unless enabled by another rule (3CPC and 3FE acting as tugs). I'd like an official ruling on this please.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 12:57 am: Edit

Does a capture-converted-repaired ship get free strat? Does a recaptured-unconverted-repaired ship get free strat?

I would think yes under the repaired part of the rules but just looking for clarification (for the knitpickers)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 06:04 am: Edit

If a D6 is captured by the Feds and converted to their tech it is still a 7-8 ship. If they capture a KR and convert it, is it a 8 factor ship or a 7-8 like the D6?
________________________________________
Quote:
Under 442.83 The Romulans can't do any K series conversions and normal repairs cost double if they don't have any spare parts.
So, would the K series ships in the Depot stop moving down the track until they received more spare parts from the Klingons?
No, there should be enough parts from the “Space Junk Yard” that the Depot represents to provide the necessary parts.
It should also be noted that the Romulans had numerous Kestral class ships in service that could very easily provide the parts necessary to supply the Depot.
________________________________________
I don't know about this one. I think that whoever is responsible for keeping the KRs running would take all of the available spare parts. Even if it would keep the fleet running smoothly for only 1 month longer the KRs in the Depot will not be available for 1-2 YEARS while there are ships that need the parts NOW. And in the middle of the war they really want the parts NOW. Can you bump this one up to SVC?
________________________________________
Quote:
Should scrapped KR hulls provide spare KR parts for 442.84? (slightly modified)
________________________________________
I think that the Romulans should be able to scrap other K series ships for the salvage value in spare parts. After all, they will be destroying their own ships for what may possibly be a critical turns worth of repairs. Besides which, it would take quite a few dead ships to hit the required 5 or 10 EPs, something players WILL NOT DO unless it's REALLY CRITICAL. (Although the 5/10 EPs is the Orion markup and you may want to change the value since the ships you're scrapping are the ones that the parts you need actually come from. Maybe 2.5/5 EPs?)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:33 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I don't know about this one. I think that whoever is responsible for keeping the KRs running would take all of the available spare parts. Even if it would keep the fleet running smoothly for only 1 month longer the KRs in the Depot will not be available for 1-2 YEARS while there are ships that need the parts NOW. And in the middle of the war they really want the parts NOW. Can you bump this one up to SVC?
________________________________________

As an interested party I would comment that the Repair depot doesn't seem to me to be about spare parts so much.

There are hulks of ships bits and pieces of stuff here and there most of it quite simply junk in its current state. The hulk of a KR ship is brought in... remember it came to the Depot as the 1 in 6 destroyed ships that are able to be refit.

The procedure isn't to make a manifest of all the broken things and order spares broken out to be installed. Some few things might be done like that, but more likely the depot chief looks at what needs to get done and sends work gangs to scavenge anything that can be. These scavenged parts are likely in need of being refurbishing, as if they were in good shape they likely got pulled out and put into the supply chain for fleet.

While the parts are being refurbished anything unable to be scavenged and refurbed are fabricated in the many fabrication shops present in the depot, also I imagine alot of "Well this anti-matter injector is fubar.. but the DSY-1 freighter has one that if I put a little bondo here would work and we got a whole DSY-1 over there boss" goes on.

That is why it takes 2 years and only 1 in 6 make it. I am certain under the hood there are some hulls that sit in the depot being worked on for 3 months that they end up giving up on as their are parts they cannot refurb/fabricate/substitute to get it back in shape.

So I think its very reasonable that the depot could continue to work when spares aren't available because I don't see them using many spares in the traditional sense.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:44 am: Edit

I'll just point out that you can put crippled ships into the depot voluntarily.

(I think that Mike made the right call; the two year (plus) wait is surcharge enough, even if one wasn't limited to adding one ship/turn.)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:11 am: Edit

Dave,

True but only one KR a turn... so it isn't too bad.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:47 am: Edit

Appeal to Kestrals and Depot sent to Jeff Laikind for his review and adjudication. No further discussion necessary during this period of appeal.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 11:16 am: Edit

Q: Does a capture-converted-repaired ship get free strat? Does a recaptured-unconverted-repaired ship get free strat?

I would think yes under the repaired part of the rules but just looking for clarification (for the knitpickers)

A: Yes, Yes. Per (204.31) they have been repaired and are now part of your technology and can use your Strategic Movement Network and can move free the turn of repair.

Q: If a D6 is captured by the Feds and converted to their tech it is still a 7-8 ship. If they capture a KR and convert it, is it a 8 factor ship or a 7-8 like the D6?

A: If the Federation player keeps it as a vanilla D6 then per (305.4) it will be a 7-8 factor ship. If they capture a KR and keep it as a vanilla KR then per (305.4) it will be an 8 factor ship.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 11:42 am: Edit

Mike,

The new Hydran SIT has a listing for the D7H. I assume that other 'historically' captured special ships will be included as SVC gets to the SITS updates. A couple of questions regarding this (and by extension other special beasties like this that will crop up).

Question 1: Since the D7H is on the SITS, is it legal to convert D7's to this? Or do we need to wait till NO for it to be legal?

Question 2: Assuming Q1 is yes its okay. The SIT listing is From D7: 2+1. Is this from the still klingon tech D7 (costing just 2+1) or is this from a refit Hydran tech D7? i.e. Do I pay 3 EP to convert the D7 to Hydran Tech (getting an 8/4 unit) then do a conversion to the D7H for 2+1 to get the 9(1)/4(1/2 FF)for a total of 5+1 on the SIT? If so can this be done all together as a two step minor conversion? If not as a single major conversion?

Thanks
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 02:05 pm: Edit

Is there any way to check which planets and bases and provinces are associated with a particular Federation fleet?

I'll take an answer from anyone, as this is probably covered in the rules somewhere.

Thanks!
Ted
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Ted,

Read all of 600.33 in the 2K rulebook. It's the best that I can quickly find. See if that answers the question.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 02:54 pm: Edit

The new Hydran SIT has a listing for the D7H. I assume that other 'historically' captured special ships will be included as SVC gets to the SITS updates. A couple of questions regarding this (and by extension other special beasties like this that will crop up).

Q1: Since the D7H is on the SITS, is it legal to convert D7's to this? Or do we need to wait till NO for it to be legal?

A1: Yes, the SIT trumps the rules on captured ships.

Q2: Assuming Q1 is yes its okay. The SIT listing is From D7: 2+1. Is this from the still klingon tech D7 (costing just 2+1) or is this from a refit Hydran tech D7? i.e. Do I pay 3 EP to convert the D7 to Hydran Tech (getting an 8/4 unit) then do a conversion to the D7H for 2+1 to get the 9(1)/4(1/2 FF)for a total of 5+1 on the SIT? If so can this be done all together as a two step minor conversion? If not as a single major conversion?

A2: It is from the converted captured Klingon D7, you need to repair and convert the captured D7 in one turn costing 2 for the repair and 3 for the conversion. This is not changing the hull to a larger ship class so (437) is not applicable. Per (433.22) you can convert captured ships after they have been converted to your technology. The next turn you then convert the D7 (Hydran) to a D7H for 2+1, making the D7H. The whole process will take two turns to complete.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Just read 600.33 - the rules on piracy patrol are not terribly helpful.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Mike and others:

Reminder that the D7H has not been offically introduced in any F&E module to date. Not speaking for ADB, I'd think that this ship and others (marked in the SIT as NO?, DO?, TO?, etc.) are in the realm of playtest material until formally presented in a module (IOW play at your own risk).

May I also suggest that questions related to items marked 'xO?' be posted in the already existing F&E topic area: "Playtest Rules Questions"?

Rational: This topic is for rulings on official, formally published, F&E material.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Chuck,

That is why I asked as my first question. Was it official or did I have to wait for NO to come out to define the rules.

I won't ask this be sent to Jeff, but if others feel strongly about it I won't cry over it! Well maybe I would if my Hydrans had the EP to convert it next couple of turns but I got two D6M's to convert first.. yes I am gloating... Sorry Ted!
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 08:41 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The SIT listing is From D7: 2+1. Is this from the still klingon tech D7 (costing just 2+1) or is this from a refit Hydran tech D7? i.e. Do I pay 3 EP to convert the D7 to Hydran Tech (getting an 8/4 unit) then do a conversion to the D7H for 2+1 to get the 9(1)/4(1/2 FF)for a total of 5+1 on the SIT?
A2: It is from the converted captured Klingon D7, you need to repair and convert the captured D7 in one turn costing 2 for the repair and 3 for the conversion. This is not changing the hull to a larger ship class so (437) is not applicable. Per (433.22) you can convert captured ships after they have been converted to your technology. The next turn you then convert the D7 (Hydran) to a D7H for 2+1, making the D7H. The whole process will take two turns to complete.
________________________________________
But per 305.23:
________________________________________
Quote:
The race empire which captured the ship must perform a conversion costing 3 EPs before using the ship in combat. This installs weapons and other systems compatible with the race empire that captured the ship.
________________________________________
The 2+1 IS supposed to be the conversion to Hydran tech for the D7H. Note that per the background of the D7H (I don't know where offhand) the Hydrans used loyal Hydran empire Klingon (and other race) crews and it may be a cheaper conversion than normal. Or the G.O.D. may have broken up the 3 point conversion to account for the fighters specifically because hybrid fighters ARE "weapons and other systems compatible with the empire that captured the ship" and everyone would be asking about the hybrid fighters anyway. Fighters are the same to the Hydrans, as Drones are to the Kzinti, and Cloaks are to the Romulans. Unless you're going to make the Romulans have to pay a separate cost and extra turn for adding cloaks to captured ships.
________________________________________
Quote:
A: If the Federation player keeps it as a vanilla D6 then per (305.4) it will be a 7-8 factor ship. If they capture a KR and keep it as a vanilla KR then per (305.4) it will be an 8 factor ship.
________________________________________
But according to CL#27, page 45, "Brothers of the Anarchist, part IX: Fed vs Roms":
________________________________________
Quote:
ROMULAN KESTRELS: Any Rom-Klingon conversions will be identical to Klingon ships converted to Fed tech as in CL# 23, Brothers of the Anarchist Part V.
________________________________________
*Note* I just remembered these articles and looked them up. But I'd probably ask the question anyway just to make sure because of 305.23.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 08:48 pm: Edit

Raider

Sorry, cross-posted. But IS it still considered "playtest" or "official, but trying to decide the name of the module we're putting the counter in"? I don't think he'd put the counter on the official SITs if it was still in playtest.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:11 pm: Edit

There have been ships published in the SITS that when finally formally published have come out with different factors then what were orginally published.

So until it makes it into a F&E product I would consider it playtest.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Interesting. Which ones?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:27 pm: Edit

There was a Kzinti I think EBC instead of BCE. And a federation fast scout I think that had two versions. There were difference in the factors on the counter in those two cases I know of.

In both cases there was an unofficial then official listing. The EBC being a version of the BCE and two versions of the fed CFS. Check out the 06 SITS for each race and remember these were official at one time.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 09:36 pm: Edit

At a quick glance the Kzin FFT has two different listings.

I'd bet there are others.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:02 pm: Edit

I hope everything is caught and corrected for the 07 SITs. Instead of the G4V/E4V "It depends on how aggresive the Captains are."
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 10:56 pm: Edit

ML stated:

"I don't think he'd put the counter on the official SITs if it was still in playtest."

The "xO?" notation and the yellow highlighting of the SIT denotes the intent for that ship to be included in a possible future F&E module. I can tell you as a staffer that we have NOT vetted these ships through their formal F&E module process.

Interesting. Which ones?"

Hydran CAM, CMM, D7H, D7X, DNM, GR, PIG, LPF. All are listed in yellow and have not be published in a F&E module to date and some of these don't even have their notional stats listed.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 11:14 pm: Edit

The Klink E4T has two listings also. I am siding with Chuck on this one I think. Its likely this is a "let me put this here to remember to deal with it" rather than an attempt to make an official ship in the SITS.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Yes, I assumed that the ones that didn't have any stats weren't done yet. And the CAM and CMM were conjectural anyway. However, the PIGs stats (and PIC and PIV) are probably wrong. 6 P-2s (4 P-2s and 2 P-1s) usually come out to 3 offensive compot.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 07:28 am: Edit

If you have problems with what is in the SIT with the factors or other stats you need to post them in the SIT topic. Otherwise we, the staff and SVC, will never see it here.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 08:17 am: Edit

I've already posted this question, but I wanted to put a few comments on it. The question is: How do you determine, precisely, which provinces belong to a fleet for purposes of released fleets.

The context is the Federation 4th fleet, which is released on turn 7 if the Klingons do not attack the Federation. As a result, planets and bases in the "4th fleet area" can be upgraded - something that the Federation player has a strong incentive to do.

Several players have commented, in response to Michael Parker's thoughts as to where hardpoints should go, that certain planets are not in a released fleet's area. How did you know that? Where does the third fleet deployment area end and the fourth fleet deployment area begin. Where does the fourth fleet deployment area end and the home fleet deployment area begin?

Another player pointed me to 600.3 - but that only told me about anti-piracy operations without defining operations outside of the capital hex province.

If someone can point me to a ruling that defines, exactly, which provinces are parts of which fleets, that would help a lot for the game that Mike and I are currently playing.

As a side note, this situation also applies to the Klingons. 600.32 says that ships of an unreleased fleet can go to a starbase in their area and get upgraded. For the Klingon East Fleet that seems to definitely include 2318 - but how about 1716 or 1509?

Thanks!
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 09:54 am: Edit

As an Addenda to Ted's question. What is the status of bases and planets outside of any defined fleet area.

It seems almost everything is predicated upon the release of a fleet or not, but then there are areas that are not part of any fleet deployment area.

For th e Feds. All the fleets are well defined as to where their initial deployment area is. This leaves ALOT of territory in no specific deployment zone. Namely.

Provinces
2701 2603 2405 2509 2609 2911 2909 2905 2903 2901 3101 3203 3206 3209 3408 3306
Planets - Those contained in the above Provinces
3306 3210 2812 2811 3005 2705 2708 2509 2610
Bases - Again within the list of Provinces above
2901 3209 291 2905 3206 3203 2603 2606 2609

I have by reading (600.3) been assuming since it says the restrictions apply only to unreleased fleets, and that those provinces in which unreleased fleets are positioned that all of the above are fair game for Federation upgrades during limited war. Although a rule in FO that was pointed out says that you can only upgrade in released fleet zones. However that same rule says its not changing any rules, just defining undefined things about limited war.

So
Question 1: Are those places listed above (minus if I accidentally included some that are in 3rd-7th fleet deployment zones) outside of any fleet deployment zone?

Question 2: If they are indeed not in any fleet zone, since 600.3 says the restrictions only apply to provinces in unreleased zones are they eligible to have PDU's placed or Bases upgraded?
To be honest I must mention 602.49 and .49A in FO I believe. 49A in the allowed section says that you may do this in released fleet zones only. However 602.49 plainly states it is NOT changing any rules.

It has also been said to me that all the territory that isn't specifically doled out to other fleets belongs to the home fleet, but that the home fleet (besides the anti-piracy patrol) starts in the capital.

This would make things easier actually, and would tie up the whole issue of things not being defined well vis a vis released/unreleased.

Thanks
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 11:01 am: Edit

Mike, and everyone else,

I just slapped myself upside the HEAD. The master order of battle does specifically define the deployment zones of fleets. For example, the Federation 4th fleet deployment zone is as follows:
________________________________________
Quote:
4th FLEET: (22 Ships, 1 Aux, 2 Fast-ship, 6 Ftrs) Set up within three hexes of the Kzinti Neutral Zone and north of hex row xx05 inclusive, plus hex 2305.
________________________________________


By definition, any hex outside of a defined deployment zone is not covered. Thus, the answer to your question 1 is that all of those places outside the listed deployment zones are inelibile for updgrading.

Thus, the ONLY bases elibile for upgrade on turn 7 (no Klingon invasion) will be 2004, 2103, and 2201 (and technically the SB in 2204). The ONLY planet eiligible for upgrading (including the adding of bases) will be 2403.

All other planets and bases are outside the 4th fleet deployment area and thus are part of unreleased fleets.


One day, I really will learn to play this game right.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 11:16 am: Edit

As an interesting side note, the Klingon East fleet deploys within two hexes of the Federation Neutral Zone, not 1707-1708. There are no starbases in that deployment area.

However, 600.322 states that an inactive fleet without a starbase may send one ship per turn to the nearest friendly starbase to be converted.

So, here's what I think is not a dumb-arse question: what does "nearest" mean? Nearest to the deployment area or the ship?

The distinction is important. For example, the East fleet could only send East fleet ships for converstion to 2318 if the former interpretation applies. However, if I deploy my ships right, I could send East fleet ships for conversion to either 1716 or 1509 if the latter interpretation applies.

So, what does "nearest" mean in 600.322? Nearest to the deployment area or the ship?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 11:31 am: Edit

Ted,

I think there would have to NOT be a SB in the East Fleet Deployment zone. I do not have access to the map currently but I thought it did.

As for my question it relates to thwe wording of 600.3 not 602.49(A). However if nothing is forthcoming I think your right and the wording in 602.49A needs to be adhered to.

Edit: Your right no SB in the East Fleets zone.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 11:43 am: Edit

Ted and Michael,

When the Tholian Boarder Squadron is released the Klingon TBS deployment zone becomes part of the Eastern Fleet. Starting on turn two they have a SB as part of the Eastern Fleet.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 11:48 am: Edit

Dan, Thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 02:06 pm: Edit

Addenda to my Addenda (Sorry Mike)

I am really getting tied in knots over this issue.

It seems to me the difficulties lie in those places that are not specifically detailed as being in a fleet deployment zone.

I know for example even while a race is at full war, it might have unreleased fleets (Fed 6th fleet for example before the Roms attack). And that this unreleased zone has restrictions on what can be done inside it. That makes sense and is prudent.

With this fact. What happens to this territory when war comes? Provinces and the planets bases included seem to become released only when the fleet which includes them is released.

Note: these questions use the verbiage of a location being released when the rules deal with fleets being released and hence their deployment zones then being released. I just have no other way to express my issues.

Question 1: Are these locations considered released when the empire enters full war with any of its neighbors even though there is no attendant fleet releasal for them?

Question 2: If they are not released in that case, how do they become released?

Question 3: Rule 600.3 states that "the provinces occupied by an unreleased fleet are restricted by these rules as well as the fleet itself" This implies for example that since 2304 is within the federation 4th fleet deployment zone, that the entire province containing 2304 would be under the restrictions if 4th were unreleased. Does the contraposative apply. I.e. since province 2304 would be restricted if 4th were restricted is it released if 4th is released? I know the units of the 4th can only deploy in the one hex 2304.

Question 4: How are provinces that are in two seperate fleet zones with differing release status handled? I.e. Province 2204 is within 4th fleet since 2204 is contained within being the 4th fleet starbase as well as being 3 from the Kzinti neutral zone. However this same province is within the 3rd fleet deployment zone since 2206 2306 and 2307 are within 4 of the klingon neutral zone and not part of the 4th fleet zone. This ends up having the province both released and not released? Should be release those hexes within 4th fleet zone and unrelease those in 3rd? If so what about 2305 which is within the province but not within either fleet deployment zone? I guess a strict reading of the rules would say that there is only the condition of 3rd fleet that applies. Since we DO NOT directly say "the provinces occupied by an released fleet are released by these rules as well as the fleet itself" we must then conclude that province 2204 is unreleased including the 4th fleet starbase, even though its the 4th fleet starbase?!
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 03:41 pm: Edit

Mike,

(540.34) prevents a player from removing a diplomatic team from a D7N, DWN, or D5N. If the Ship is unconverted to it's base hull what happens to the Diplomatic Team(s)?
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Micheal,
I think that you're making to much of the subject. (And I'd have to rank myself as one of the more "rules critical" folks.)

Territories assigned to a fleet release with that fleet. (This is covered by (600.3), which is sloppy in its reference to provinces.) Note that the Errata covers the split involving the Marquis area and 1805 (which belongs to the Duke's fleet). (Errata for rule (601.12).)

Nick, I'm certain, ruled that territories that do not belong to any fleet (e.g., most of the northern expanse of the Federation) are released when the home fleet is. Presumably, and Mike would have to confirm if this is correct (bold/red so that he's more likely to notice), a given "non-fleet province" would also release when enemy units entered it (by (600.31)). (It seems unreasonable that all "non-fleet provinces" would release when any of them were violated. Of course, they might never release if the Home Fleet doesn't, but that prevents (re)building PDU on planets in an active war zone.)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Dave,

I looked for a ruling but couldn't find one.. but I cannot get the search to work well for me. I think what you said is probably the BEST answer.

As for being rule critical. I don't know what to say except this. In most games if a rule is unclear I usually just go with what my best idea of the spirit of the rules are. However this game makes a point that you have to read each rule and its wording carefully as slight changes of words are very meaningful (the whole ship vis a vis units thing) so I am very reluctant to cavalierly make assumptions. I try and read each rule carefully and completly literally. Perhaps that is a mistake on my part to do so, but I am a mathematician and logical consistency is something I am a stickler for.

I will say I try and come up with reasonable compromises when the letter of the rules seem odd. But I think its important to know what the letter is and if its meant to say something different or if me the human being is reading it/interpreting it wrongly.

In this case I am concerned how the rules interact here. It would be lovely to know.. especially considering I keep trying to find a rule or text blurb or ruling that will make it coalesce for me.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 04:39 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
If you have problems with what is in the SIT with the factors or other stats you need to post them in the SIT topic.
________________________________________
I actually have no problem with SVC NOT reducing the factors of the ships I said were probably wrong.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, April 02, 2008 - 05:43 pm: Edit

A planet, owned by an empire at the beginning of the game, is attacked and seized during an enemy combat phase. Later, during the same combat phase, the planet is liberated by a friendly fleet that retreats onto the planet and drives away the enemy forces.

Assuming the planet ceases to be a friendly supply point when the combat during which the enemy seizes it is complete, when does the planet again become a friendly supply point?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 08:30 am: Edit

A friendly tug with a pod begins a friendly player turn in a partial supply grid.

The tug drops the pod in order to carry some other pod that was available, or to carry none at all.

During the friendly movement phase, the partial supply grid is reconnected to the main grid. The grids remain connected until the enemy movement phase, whereupon the grids are again disconnected.

Is the pod destroyed or has it been absorbed into the main grid?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 11:04 pm: Edit

Mike,

The Errata list from 6/30/07 was never posted to the Errata Page. That page (http://starfleetgames.com/sfb/errata/New%20Master%20Errata.pdf) is still showing a file almost 2 years old and only covers information published through CapLog 32. Nick published new Errata here in the Q&A topic at the end of June last year that covers information through CapLog 35 but it was never updated with last years Origins rulings and posted to the Errata Page.

Who do I point this to so it gets fixed? You, SVC, or somebody else?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Hmmmm... Let me check into that.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 11:25 pm: Edit

thanks Mike.
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 10:58 am: Edit

Mike, if you need me to e-mail you the last version of the errata I updated I can, but it should be in one of the recent archives here as well.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 02:32 pm: Edit

It's in this one.

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E Q&A: Archive 2007: Archive through July 01, 2007.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 05:55 pm: Edit

As for the D7H as not having been published in a module and is still under playtest Q&A authority, I agree. My ruling on the D7H is suspended until such time as the D7H becomes official and we can then look at the issue again, if it is even necessary.

I apologize for the confusion.

It seems to me the difficulties lie in those places that are not specifically detailed as being in a fleet deployment zone.

I know for example even while a race is at full war, it might have unreleased fleets (Fed 6th fleet for example before the Roms attack). And that this unreleased zone has restrictions on what can be done inside it. That makes sense and is prudent.

With this fact. What happens to this territory when war comes? Provinces and the planets bases included seem to become released only when the fleet which includes them is released.

Note: these questions use the verbiage of a location being released when the rules deal with fleets being released and hence their deployment zones then being released. I just have no other way to express my issues.

Q1: Are these locations considered released when the empire enters full war with any of its neighbors even though there is no attendant fleet releasal for them?

A1: (600.3) specifically prohibits doing anything in an unreleased fleet area until it is released for the provinces which also includes the bases and planets.

Q2: If they are not released in that case, how do they become released?

A2: When the fleet is released.

Q3: Rule 600.3 states that "the provinces occupied by an unreleased fleet are restricted by these rules as well as the fleet itself" This implies for example that since 2304 is within the federation 4th fleet deployment zone, that the entire province containing 2304 would be under the restrictions if 4th were unreleased. Does the contraposative apply. I.e. since province 2304 would be restricted if 4th were restricted is it released if 4th is released? I know the units of the 4th can only deploy in the one hex 2304.

A3: If the deployment area of a fleet includes less than a full province, then only those hexes are released with the fleet.

Q4: How are provinces that are in two seperate fleet zones with differing release status handled? I.e. Province 2204 is within 4th fleet since 2204 is contained within being the 4th fleet starbase as well as being 3 from the Kzinti neutral zone. However this same province is within the 3rd fleet deployment zone since 2206 2306 and 2307 are within 4 of the klingon neutral zone and not part of the 4th fleet zone. This ends up having the province both released and not released? Should be release those hexes within 4th fleet zone and unrelease those in 3rd? If so what about 2305 which is within the province but not within either fleet deployment zone? I guess a strict reading of the rules would say that there is only the condition of 3rd fleet that applies. Since we DO NOT directly say "the provinces occupied by an released fleet are released by these rules as well as the fleet itself" we must then conclude that province 2204 is unreleased including the 4th fleet starbase, even though its the 4th fleet starbase?!

A4: If the deployment area of a fleet includes less than a full province, then only those hexes are released with the fleet.

Q5: (540.34) prevents a player from removing a diplomatic team from a D7N, DWN, or D5N. If the Ship is unconverted to it's base hull what happens to the Diplomatic Team(s)?

A5: (540.34) is clear. You cannot separate the Diplomatic Team from the ship.

Q6: A planet, owned by an empire at the beginning of the game, is attacked and seized during an enemy combat phase. Later, during the same combat phase, the planet is liberated by a friendly fleet that retreats onto the planet and drives away the enemy forces.

Assuming the planet ceases to be a friendly supply point when the combat during which the enemy seizes it is complete, when does the planet again become a friendly supply point?

A6: Empire A loses a planet to Empire B on Empire B’s turn. During combat and retreat Empire A arranges for a retreat onto the now conquered planet and liberates it from Empire B. According to (413.2) once a planet is recaptured it becomes part of your supply grid at the beginning of the next player turn after they are recaptured. So, at the beginning of Empire A’s turn the planet will be considered part of the supply grid.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Mike,

If I convert a D7N to an other variant does it keep the diplomatic teams or are the diplomatic teams lost?

And if a D7N goes into Depot Level Repair are the diplomats tied up in the Depot until the ship comes out?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Q:If I convert a D7N to an other variant does it keep the diplomatic teams or are the diplomatic teams lost?

A: (540.34) does not allow seperation of the diplomatic team from the ship. It cannont be another variant.

Q:And if a D7N goes into Depot Level Repair are the diplomats tied up in the Depot until the ship comes out?

A: Yes, they cannot be seperated from the ship.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 10:13 pm: Edit

Mike,

In reference to this question and answer.
________________________________________
Quote:
Q1: Are these locations considered released when the empire enters full war with any of its neighbors even though there is no attendant fleet releasal for them?

A1: (600.3) specifically prohibits doing anything in an unreleased fleet area until it is released for the provinces which also includes the bases and planets.
________________________________________


These locations are ones that are NOT assigned to any specific fleet. For example with the Federation. Each border has a defined area, not exactly but generally 3 hexes away from the border for each future ally 4 hexes from a future enemy. Then the 7th fleet is two provinces and the Home fleet is one province and the 2nd fleet is not given a deployment zone.

This leaves ALOT of territory that is not part of any defined fleet area. So there are planets and bases that never have a specific release since release is defined in terms of a fleet and its attendant deployment zone.

So this brings the questions that I asked in reference to these areas in question.

Thanks
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 11:07 pm: Edit

Follow Up:
These locations are ones that are NOT assigned to any specific fleet. For example with the Federation. Each border has a defined area, not exactly but generally 3 hexes away from the border for each future ally 4 hexes from a future enemy. Then the 7th fleet is two provinces and the Home fleet is one province and the 2nd fleet is not given a deployment zone.

This leaves ALOT of territory that is not part of any defined fleet area. So there are planets and bases that never have a specific release since release is defined in terms of a fleet and its attendant deployment zone.

So this brings the questions that I asked in reference to these areas in question.

A: The rules for Piracy patrol gives some hint as to what to do in this situation. The areas outside of the border fleet deployment areas are covered under the activation of the Home Fleet in a full wartime status. For a limited war situation for the Federation see (602.4).
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 09:08 am: Edit

I have received the current errata file and will be compiling the latest information into it and posting it soon.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 10:04 am: Edit

Questions on raids:

1) Per (320.42) in PO, only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship. I want to confirm that this means that effectively there's no point to reacting a ship to the commando raider, as the resulting combat uses only the fixed defenses (and hence not the reacting ship).

2) Assume that it's Coalition Turn #7 and that the Klingons are not going to attack the Federation. Assume that a Federation APT has carried a Federation diplomat to neutral planet 2214. Can the Klingons raid attack the APT as being a raid under "raiding the Federation?" Or, are such raids limited to Federation territory proper.

3) Follow up to #2. Assuming that the Federation can conduct the attack against the APT, and further assuming that the raid kills the APT - is the Diplomat also destroyed?

Thanks.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 11:42 am: Edit

Mike,
Did you miss the questions in my post from March 31, 2008 - 06:12 pm? (I ask because you've answered questions from before and after that post; I understand that you're busy, and may just have not had a chance to make the time.)
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Sorry, I missed those. I have noted the post and will get to it tomorrow as Real Life, and work, will prevent me from doing it today.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Mike,

Can the Klingons use Special and Commando raids vrs. the Federation during turns 7-9 when the limited war rules are in effect.

Ted showed me text that sure seems to strongly support that however it seems quite extaordinary that they can send marines over to SIDS Bats with Commando raids in federation territory while at peace. Standard raids make sense, in that it seems the Klingons could claim these are the actions of privateers or something like the Romulan's do, but Klingon Marines blowing up bases on the border?

Here is the enabling rule he showed me. 320.12 in part
________________________________________
Quote:
Romulan pre-war raids are limited to three ships (314.33)

including any from outside the raid pool used for the one

special raid.
________________________________________

While this says Romulans it would I think by easy extension include the Klingons during this time also.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 02:56 pm: Edit

Note that 314.28 does not allow the Alternative Attack to me made in an inactive fleet area (2nd to last sentence). So it looks like you are pretty much limited to just disrupting provinces unless you are raiding an active area.
By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 03:12 pm: Edit

I actually asked Nick some questions about pre-war special raids some time ago. Here's a link to the archive with his answers. (They don't quite cover the question currently under consideration, but they're related.)
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 08:53 pm: Edit

I would like to submit this as information regarding Ted Fay's questions about Raids since I am the prospective target of them. These are NOT answers these are my evidence for how I think they should be ruled and presented for Mike to use if he deems them worthwhile.

With Robert Padilla's information. It seems to me that (320.41 in PO) states a Commando Raid is a type of normal raid that uses a ship with a G to make an attack instead of an alternate attack.

In any case its a normal raid falling under 314.0 and hence 314.28. 314.28 states the alternate attack cannot be used in inactive fleet zones.

I believe then Commando Raids cannot be used by the Klingons or Romulans into any Federation Territory under limited war raids except 4th fleet (or any other released fleet zone). This hinges upon if this Commando Attack is a special type of Alternate attack (and hence prohibited from inactive zones by 314.28) or if its another beast entirely which may or may not be allowed in inactive fleet zones.

As for attacking the ship in the neutral hex. I cannot find any restriction on it. It suprises me that there isn't but 314.3 combined with the Raid rules seems to allow it.

As for the diplomat being destroyed. (540.132 in SO) states that a diplomat on a neutral planet when it goes to war rolls to see if it survives. this seems to suggest the team can be on the neutral planet. And while at a neutral planet it makes sense the Diplomat would be on that planet.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 - 09:22 pm: Edit

Mike, an interaction issue with one of your previous rulings...


does
________________________________________
Quote:
(540.34) STATUS: Klingon D7Ns, DWNs, and D5Ns are considered to be "ship with a diplomatic team on board" for these rules. The diplomatic team cannot be separated from the ship.
________________________________________


prevent the E&S mission to assassinate a Klingon diplomatic team on a Diplomatic Cruiser?
________________________________________
Quote:
(534.232) Assassinate a specific Prime Team: If the mission is successful, the targeted prime team is killed and removed from play. This can also be used to attack a Diplomatic Team (which is in a future product).
________________________________________
By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 - 06:50 pm: Edit

Hey FEAR, if I'm producing (w/ EPs) Police ships I can produce 1 per turn counting against frigate production (531.122).

So for the Fed's this is a 2.5EP Pol for an FF build.

Can I overbuild the POL for 5EP w/o using a FF-slot?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 12:15 am: Edit

I have been really busy at work this last week. Trying to catch up. Sorry for the delay.

(413.41) implies that Economic Points can be produced in a Partial Grid (note that this existed before the salvage rules); (430.12) says that "only those planets linked to a Supply Grid and provences that have one or more of their hexes linked to a Supply Grid produce Economic Points"; (413.1) indicates that a Supply Grid must include one or both of the Capital or Off-Map Area; (413.4) says that a Partial Grid contains neither the Capital nor the Off-Map Area.

Q: So, Partial Grids are both permitted and absolutely prohibited from producing EP. Which is correct?

A: Both, a Partial Supply Grid is not a Supply Grid and a Supply Grid is not a Partial Supply Grid. Each has their own definition and are treated separately.

Q: On a related note, is the intent of (413.43) to prohibit Expeditionary Fleets (411.7) from drawing supplies from their Supply Grid, through the Allied Supply Grid(s), then through their Partial Grid?

A: That appears to be one of the effects.

Q: Also relating to Partial Grids: It's been ruled (by SVC, if memory serves) that, while units stacked with a base/planet in a Partial Grid are in supply, they still have to pay for their replacement fighters. Does this also apply to the base/PDU on the planet (i.e., do they have to pay for their fighters)?

A: The cost for supply is stated for Units. A PDU is a Unit.

Q: What other components of "being in supply" don't apply to units "in supply because they're stacked with a base in a Partial Grid"?

A: You need to ask a specific question, not an open ended one.

Q: Can Partial Grids use Deficit Spending? (It's unclear, they may have their own Treasury; they'd certainly be limited by (430.62)). How about Advanced Deficit Spending?

A: Any type of Deficit Spending is only allowed in the Main Supply Grid. This represents the Central Government location where they can obtain credit. Can you see a bank loaning money to a cut off area and expecting that area to pay them back in a combat situation?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, April 13, 2008 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

Question about the OOB that I've updated and the base F&E2K build schedule.

http://www.starfleetgames.com/discus/messages/37/19183.html?1208108594#POST455083

Dan was wondering if the F&E2K schedule would update to the AO one by just adding the new schedule ships that are already in basic game.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 03:20 pm: Edit

Mike,

I'm not trying to be pushy and if your still considering these questions or are just being hammered at work its not a problem. But I wanted to make sure you hadn't missed these as Ted and I are holding up our game on an answer.
________________________________________
Quote:
Questions on raids:

1) Per (320.42) in PO, only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship. I want to confirm that this means that effectively there's no point to reacting a ship to the commando raider, as the resulting combat uses only the fixed defenses (and hence not the reacting ship).

2) Assume that it's Coalition Turn #7 and that the Klingons are not going to attack the Federation. Assume that a Federation APT has carried a Federation diplomat to neutral planet 2214. Can the Klingons raid attack the APT as being a raid under "raiding the Federation?" Or, are such raids limited to Federation territory proper.

3) Follow up to #2. Assuming that the Federation can conduct the attack against the APT, and further assuming that the raid kills the APT - is the Diplomat also destroyed?

Thanks
________________________________________

and my addenda
________________________________________
Quote:
I would like to submit this as information regarding Ted Fay's questions about Raids since I am the prospective target of them. These are NOT answers these are my evidence for how I think they should be ruled and presented for Mike to use if he deems them worthwhile.

With Robert Padilla's information. It seems to me that (320.41 in PO) states a Commando Raid is a type of normal raid that uses a ship with a G to make an attack instead of an alternate attack.

In any case its a normal raid falling under 314.0 and hence 314.28. 314.28 states the alternate attack cannot be used in inactive fleet zones.

I believe then Commando Raids cannot be used by the Klingons or Romulans into any Federation Territory under limited war raids except 4th fleet (or any other released fleet zone). This hinges upon if this Commando Attack is a special type of Alternate attack (and hence prohibited from inactive zones by 314.28) or if its another beast entirely which may or may not be allowed in inactive fleet zones.

As for attacking the ship in the neutral hex. I cannot find any restriction on it. It suprises me that there isn't but 314.3 combined with the Raid rules seems to allow it.

As for the diplomat being destroyed. (540.132 in SO) states that a diplomat on a neutral planet when it goes to war rolls to see if it survives. this seems to suggest the team can be on the neutral planet. And while at a neutral planet it makes sense the Diplomat would be on that planet.
________________________________________
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 04:26 pm: Edit

I hope to have them done tonight. I have some Kzintis to squash also this evening, but I will get them done.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 04:35 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I have some Kzintis to squash also this evening
________________________________________

Being the Alliance player in my current game. I have to ask.. anyone I know?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 04:43 pm: Edit

No, it is an NPR in a Early Beginnings game. I promise none of your relatives are involved.

BTW, I am the Kzinti/Hydran player in our local campaign. Just so no one complains about me being one sided. I enjoy playing the Alliance as much as I enjoy playing the Coalition.

Also, I am attacking with 70+ ISC ships in Echelon formation...
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 07:43 pm: Edit

and just so it doesn't confuse my players, he is not talking about the Blind game...
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 04:41 pm: Edit

OK, I didn't get these done as quickly as I liked, but there were some tough questions here and numerous rules to look up and cross reference.

If I have missed a question please let me know. I should be caught up now.

Q1: Per (320.42) in PO, only the fixed defenses at the target location are used in combat against the raiding ship. I want to confirm that this means that effectively there's no point to reacting a ship to the commando raider, as the resulting combat uses only the fixed defenses (and hence not the reacting ship).

A1: (314.241) allows a reaction to a (314) raid which is what this raid is. You can react according to this rule even if the ship would not be part of the combat. It will allow the defender to shift one ship in response to your raid.

Q2: Assume that it's Coalition Turn #7 and that the Klingons are not going to attack the Federation. Assume that a Federation APT has carried a Federation diplomat to neutral planet 2214. Can the Klingons raid attack the APT as being a raid under "raiding the Federation?" Or, are such raids limited to Federation territory proper.

A2: (314.32) limits the locations the Romulans can do pre-war raids to just the Federation territory. The rule for Klingon raids while not at war with the Federation is also in this section. The intent is clear, No, you cannot raid anything outside of the Federation.

Q3: Follow up to #2. Assuming that the Federation can conduct the attack against the APT, and further assuming that the raid kills the APT - is the Diplomat also destroyed?

A3: The APT in this case cannot be raided, but the question of what happens to a Diplomat if the ship it is on is destroyed is a valid question that is answered by (540.132).

Q4: Can the Klingons use Special and Commando raids vrs. the Federation during turns 7-9 when the limited war rules are in effect.

A4: I can find no exception that disallows using a Commando ship to conduct a standard Raid per (314) and (320.4) on bases in the Federation. Rule (314.3) allows the Klingons to do three pre-war raids plus one special raid into Federation Territory. The Command Raid (320.4) is a standard raid done by a ship with a G unit aboard be it an intrinsic unit or an Independent Ground Combat Element. A successful standard raid that gets past the defending ships, if any, has an opportunity to conduct a G attack on an applicable target. (324.28) does not apply to Commando Raids per (320.41).

Q5: Does the requirement that the Diplomatic team to not be separated from the Klingon Diplomatic ships prevent an assassination by an E&S mission?

A5: The requirement that the Diplomatic team cannot be separated from the Diplomatic ship is only for the Klingon player. If another player separates the Diplomatic team from the Diplomatic ship by an assassination by an E&S mission the Klingon player will have to build a new team to continue to use this ship as a Diplomatic ship. The D7N will operate as a normal Diplomatic ship while it has only one Diplomatic team.

Q6: Can I overbuild a Federation POL for 5EP w/o using a FF-slot?

A6: No, (531.22) specifically says the maximum of one produced POL counts against the Frigate production. Counting against the production means it takes one slot in the normal production schedule. You can over build a FF over the production schedule for 6 eps though to replace the one you have lost to produce the POL.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 05:19 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Q4: Can the Klingons use Special and Commando raids vrs. the Federation during turns 7-9 when the limited war rules are in effect.

A4: I can find no exception that disallows using a Commando ship to conduct a standard Raid per (314) and (320.4) on bases in the Federation. Rule (314.3) allows the Klingons to do three pre-war raids plus one special raid into Federation Territory. The Command Raid (320.4) is a standard raid done by a ship with a G unit aboard be it an intrinsic unit or an Independent Ground Combat Element. A successful standard raid that gets past the defending ships, if any, has an opportunity to conduct a G attack on an applicable target. (324.28) does not apply to Commando Raids per (320.41).
________________________________________

Mike we will certainly go with that for our game going forward. I will need to look at the rules references you made when I get home.

The main thing I wanted to know though is this.

Normal raids are allowed during limited war. However they are limited to province disruption when targeting unreleased areas, the alternate attack which allows your normal raider to instead attack a ship or base is disallowed in unreleased areas(sorry about no rules references).

A reading of Commando Raids sure seems to suggest it is a normal raid where instead of taking your alternate attack normally you instead make a G attack. So it seems the Commando attack is a special type of alternate attack but alternate attacks cannot be undertaken in unreleased fleet areas. I certainly believe the intention of the original rule was that the Klingons and Romulans couldn't come in tearing stuff up during limited war. So they shouldn't be able to land marines and tear up planets and BATS and such. However in opposition to that they sure can do CV or Drone raids.. and that is tearing stuff up, so I am unsure. In the original Raiding rules it made sense they could disrupt commerce but not blow stuff up.

So my position is that Commando raids can happen in limited war, but only in released fleet areas (usually only the 4th fleet zone) since they are a type of alternate attack normal raid.

Could you re-evaluate with that idea in mind please, although I am not so opposed to your ruling I won't follow it in the interum!

Thanks for the hard work Mike
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 09:43 pm: Edit

The operative rule Mike is referring to is 314.28 - However, I don't think it applies in this instance to pre-war commando raids.

314.28 states that "alternate attacks" cannot be conducted in the area of an inactive fleet. However, the 314.28 "alternate attack" is a regular attack by the raiding ship on a particular unit - which could include a PDU - in lieu of conducting province disruption.

While commando raids (320.4) are a "type" of normal raids, I don't think they are "alternate attacks" under 314.28. The reason is that 320.4 states that "If a ship conducting a regular raid (314.0) has a "G" factor, then instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a "G" attack on a qualified target. It could not then use (314.28).

Note that 320.4 (commando raids) specifically references 314.28 (alternate attacks) - and specifically states that the commando raider can't use alternate attacks. Still further, 314.28 states that, with respect to special attacks, "This type of attack cannot be conducted in the area of an inactive fleet." (emphasis added)

The "this type of attack" language in 314.28 makes clear that the limitation in 314.28 only applies to the alternate attacks in 314.28. Given that 320.4 is *not* an alternate attack and specifically disallows 314.28 attacks, I would say that the limitation against inactive fleet areas doesn't apply when conducting 314.3 pre-war raids.

Please confirm.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:19 pm: Edit

its my contention that the wording

If a ship conducting a regular raid (314.0) has a "G" factor, then instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a "G" attack on a qualified target. It could not then use (314.28). (bold mine) is inserted in order to clarify that this G attack is in fact this alternate attack and you cannot then do another alternate attack.

However I could be wrong! Yes the sun will come up tomorrow and I only want Mike to take another look when he has time. A simple statement that "I have looked at this and the G attack is not a type of alternate attack and therefore does not have the restrictions of (314.28)" would be fine. In the interum I have NO problem playing it as Mike ruled.

It just seems incongruent to me that the relatively harmless "alternate attack" in the AO rules for raids is disallowed in inactive fleet areas presumably because it would tick off the Federation but then G attacks which allows Marines to land on a planet and blow up installations or beam over to a BATS and blow parts of it up (SIDS) is allowed in that same unreleased fleet zone. But then again Drone/CV raids are allowed so that is another sort of inconsistency, BUT those are special raids which operate a bit differently I tend to think.

In any case my request is for Mike Curtis to look at it one more time with my additional info and if he still thinks its a correct ruling, I will be fine with it and no need to press a further appeal.

However this raises the question. If a G attack damages BATS (SIDS) can they be repaired even though its in a unreleased fleet zone? If a G attack destroys a PDU may it be replaced even though the planet is in an unreleased fleet zone.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:21 pm: Edit

Question: Can I conduct an on-map drone raid using multiple origin hexes but one attack hex (and one target of the attack). For example, I have a D6D in 1202 and two D6Ds in 1504. Can I move all three ships into 1402 and counduct one special raid (drone raid) into 1401? My guess is "no" because 320.21 specifies that the raiding player designates "the" origin hex; however, I thought it was worth a question just in case. Thanks.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:23 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
It just seems incongruent to me that the relatively harmless "alternate attack" in the AO rules for raids is disallowed in inactive fleet areas presumably because it would tick of the Federation but then G attacks which allows Marines to land on a planet and blow up installations or beam over to a BATS and blow parts of it up (SIDS) is allowed in that same unreleased fleet zone. But then again Drone/CV raids are allowed so that is another sort of inconsistency, BUT those are special raids which operate a bit differently I tend to think.
________________________________________
Yeah. We might have an "unintended consequence" here.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:37 pm: Edit

Question: Why does the F&E large scale map show an "extra" slot for commando raiders? From what I can tell, commando raiders are normal raiders. Thus, for example, the Klingons could put three "G" ships into their normal raid pool slots and then conduct three commando raids (320.4). I see no provision for an extra "commando" raider. I see no provision for limiting commando raids to a single commando raider; rather, the limitation is based on the number of slots in the raid pool (314.1). Am I missing something? Thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Ted,

In PO
________________________________________
Quote:
(320.14) Raid Pool: Raid pools are expanded from the limits of (314.1) by two ships, one of which must be a commando ship and the other of which must be a ship capable of carrying EPs (442.3). The commando ship could be used for regular raids or commando raids; the cargo ship can only be used for bockade running...
________________________________________

Omitted some text dealing with E&S teams.

So your ships in the Raid pool could all be G ships and could all be used for Commando raids (except the B raid pool which has to do a Blockade run). They would however be under the restrictions of normal raids as to where they can go.. I forget the exact restrictions now but its in AO detailing normal raids.

In reference however the restrictions of (314.33) will restrict you to 3 total ships raiding the Federation during this limited war period. Nick has ruled on that previously.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Mike P, thanks for the ref.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 08:54 am: Edit

Question: Under (534.243), assuming a successful mission, is the bonus used *before* or *after* you see the die roll during a combat round?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Mike,

I have had a PDU killed in the 6th fleet area by Romulan G attacks. This area is of course unreleased and normally could not erect defenses.

Q1: Can I replace these destroyed PDU's in unreleased fleet areas?

Q2: Can I repair SIDS steps (or crippled if SIDS accumulated) on bases in unreleased fleet areas?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Mike,
Question: Under (525.74) when does the Tholian player announce the use of a given web caster special ability? Each web caster special ability affects a different part of the SoP and is not defined as when they are declared by the rule or the SoP. As I was not involved in the creation of this rule I really don’t know what the actual intent of each mission was beyond what is in the rule. Here's is my initial take on when to announce each special ability;

Special Ability A: +2 ComPot. This could be declared after 5-4C1 giving the Tholian player a chance to bump his ComPot just after both sides reveal their base ComPot (added to 5-4C2). Or it could be added to 5-4B requiring the player to announce his use of the +2 ComPot along with shock ships. I could easily support either interpretation.
Special Ability B: Reduce enemy unit compot. This should be declared before shock ships announce which factor they will use giving shock ships a chance to adjust. Add it as step 5-4B1 and make shock selection 5-4B2 like so;
- 5-4B: Variable ship compot announcement.
- 5-4B1: Web Caster armed ships announce use of special ability A to add +2 to their Compot (525.74-A).
- 5-4B2: Shock ships (other than maulers) announce factors they will use (311.2).
Special Ability C: Reduce I.S.C. Battle Intensity. Should be added to Phase 5 as a new step;
- 5-3X5: Reduce battle intensity of an I.S.C. battle force (525.74-C).
Special Ability D: Pursuit Battle Capture Bonus. There is no step in 5-8E for declaring Prime Teams/GCEs, Maulers, or Web Caster assigned to capture. Recommend that the announcement be added to 5-8F right before rescue tugs and cloaked decoy escape. The result would be determined after rescue tug and cloaked decoy effectiveness is determined.
Special Ability E: Protect from Stasis. I have no idea what the original intent was. Was it to let the Tholian break a successful stasis role or to prevent certain units from being selected for stasis at all (a kind of limited Formation Bonus)? In SFB I can easily see Web Casters completely neutralizing the effectiveness of an SFG but I don’t think that is the intent. I have two possible recommendations on how to make this less confusing. If the intent was to prevent a unit from being selected change mission E to “Provide Formation Bonus”. That protects against stasis as they can’t target formation bonus ships (312.215) and makes the unit harder to direct against as the cast web is protecting it. Or change this rule to a penalty on the SFG success table. Apply a +1 penalty to the adjusted die role for Stasis Success. Allow up a maximum of three ships to use this mission making it very dangerous to use SFGs against the Tholian after Y178 (but still possible if you’re willing to take the risk). Either would have to be approved by SVC of course as it would be a rule change.

I’m playtesting my Fifth Power scenario which is why the Web Caster question came up. We’re not expecting to play again for a couple of weeks so I’d like to ask that you have the Staff look at Special Ability E to see what they say. As the rule is written now it’s really wide open to interpretation.

Thanks.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 05:02 pm: Edit

The webcaster in SFB is used DURING the battle like the extra weapons of ships with a shock rating without any pre-planning. Special Ability A should be revealed at the same time shock is announced. Same thing for Special Ability B and C. Actually, make that just after. The WC can seriously degrade the plasmas of a KH.

Special Ability E should be allowed to break the SFG field, just like it does in SFB. Think of it like 518.42 SWAC DB Disruption where the enemy still has to pay for the DB that was used. IE: Don't use a SFG ship when Webcasters are around.

As a matter of fact, you could put most of the WC functions in 5-4C1.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 05:23 pm: Edit

You can't use SFG with the web ANYWAY, so it's fairly irrelevant.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 05:29 pm: Edit

You can't use Webcasters to cast web inside a web either. This is mostly for open space use. You know, when they support the Feds by sending them a Neo-Tholian ship.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Or when assaulting the TBS Starbase. In the scenario we are play testing the Tholian are not restricted by (503.3) as they are not considered a Neutral Empire.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 12:45 am: Edit

Mike:

Let me review the Web Caster rules this weekend and give you and Jeff a SoP we can staff up the SVC.

(I can't believe I missed that...good catch Dan.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 01:53 am: Edit

Well, I only found it cause I was actually trying to use a Web Caster. I wouldn't have noticed them missing from the SoP otherwise.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 08:57 am: Edit

Thank you Chuck.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, April 17, 2008 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Mike,

A quick question for you. Rule 309.3 states that a drone ship can fire only some of it's factors.

Is this determination made before or after seeing the opposing battle line?

I looked at the SOP and here's what it states for step 5.3G:
________________________________________
Quote:
5-3G: Battle Force deployments are announced; designate unit receiving Formation Bonus (308.7); cloaked decoys providing a formation bonus (538.54) and Scout Bonus (308.53). Designate uncrippled ships to tow crippled units from web (512.32). Reveal use of Command Points (308.92) and Drone Bombardment (309.0); all done simultaneously.
________________________________________


edit:
Possibly also relevent is:
________________________________________
Quote:
5-4C1: Calculation of Combat Potential.
________________________________________

end edit:

It would seem that a drone user would have to declare number of drone factors fired before seeing the opponent's battle line. Am I correct?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, April 18, 2008 - 02:42 pm: Edit

Can the Gorn Special Marine Attack (308.87) be defended by a defending G unit? I know by the rule that the G can not affect the die roll (and any BIR can be selected), but can the G factor be taken as a casulty instead of a SIDS or PDU destroyed? 521.0 is silent on the matter, and does not even mention the Gorn Marine Attack.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 03:09 pm: Edit

Questions downloaded to this point
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Sorry for the delay, I had to ponder the Commando Raid issue quite a while.

Michael Parker:

Mike we will certainly go with that for our game going forward. I will need to look at the rules references you made when I get home.

The main thing I wanted to know though is this.

Normal raids are allowed during limited war. However they are limited to province disruption when targeting unreleased areas, the alternate attack which allows your normal raider to instead attack a ship or base is disallowed in unreleased areas(sorry about no rules references).

A reading of Commando Raids sure seems to suggest it is a normal raid where instead of taking your alternate attack normally you instead make a G attack. So it seems the Commando attack is a special type of alternate attack but alternate attacks cannot be undertaken in unreleased fleet areas. I certainly believe the intention of the original rule was that the Klingons and Romulans couldn't come in tearing stuff up during limited war. So they shouldn't be able to land marines and tear up planets and BATS and such. However in opposition to that they sure can do CV or Drone raids.. and that is tearing stuff up, so I am unsure. In the original Raiding rules it made sense they could disrupt commerce but not blow stuff up.

So my position is that Commando raids can happen in limited war, but only in released fleet areas (usually only the 4th fleet zone) since they are a type of alternate attack normal raid.

Could you re-evaluate with that idea in mind please, although I am not so opposed to your ruling I won't follow it in the interum!

Thanks for the hard work Mike
Ted Fay:
The operative rule Mike is referring to is 314.28 - However, I don't think it applies in this instance to pre-war commando raids.

314.28 states that "alternate attacks" cannot be conducted in the area of an inactive fleet. However, the 314.28 "alternate attack" is a regular attack by the raiding ship on a particular unit - which could include a PDU - in lieu of conducting province disruption.

While commando raids (320.4) are a "type" of normal raids, I don't think they are "alternate attacks" under 314.28. The reason is that 320.4 states that "If a ship conducting a regular raid (314.0) has a "G" factor, then instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a "G" attack on a qualified target. It could not then use (314.28).

Note that 320.4 (commando raids) specifically references 314.28 (alternate attacks) - and specifically states that the commando raider can't use alternate attacks. Still further, 314.28 states that, with respect to special attacks, "This type of attack cannot be conducted in the area of an inactive fleet." (emphasis added)

The "this type of attack" language in 314.28 makes clear that the limitation in 314.28 only applies to the alternate attacks in 314.28. Given that 320.4 is *not* an alternate attack and specifically disallows 314.28 attacks, I would say that the limitation against inactive fleet areas doesn't apply when conducting 314.3 pre-war raids.

Michael Parker:
Its my contention that the wording

If a ship conducting a regular raid (314.0) has a "G" factor, then instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a "G" attack on a qualified target. It could not then use (314.28). (bold mine) is inserted in order to clarify that this G attack is in fact this alternate attack and you cannot then do another alternate attack.

However I could be wrong! Yes the sun will come up tomorrow and I only want Mike to take another look when he has time. A simple statement that "I have looked at this and the G attack is not a type of alternate attack and therefore does not have the restrictions of (314.28)" would be fine. In the interum I have NO problem playing it as Mike ruled.

It just seems incongruent to me that the relatively harmless "alternate attack" in the AO rules for raids is disallowed in inactive fleet areas presumably because it would tick off the Federation but then G attacks which allows Marines to land on a planet and blow up installations or beam over to a BATS and blow parts of it up (SIDS) is allowed in that same unreleased fleet zone. But then again Drone/CV raids are allowed so that is another sort of inconsistency, BUT those are special raids which operate a bit differently I tend to think.

In any case my request is for Mike Curtis to look at it one more time with my additional info and if he still thinks its a correct ruling, I will be fine with it and no need to press a further appeal.

However this raises the question. If a G attack damages BATS (SIDS) can they be repaired even though its in a unreleased fleet zone? If a G attack destroys a PDU may it be replaced even though the planet is in an unreleased fleet zone.

A1: This is a rehash of a previous ruling about Commando Attacks (320.4). I understand Mr. Parker’s point about Commando Attacks in unreleased fleet areas. But, the rule, “(320.41) If a ship conducting a regular raid (314.0) has a "G" factor, then instead of making its attack (314.25) it can roll a "G" attack on a qualified target. It could not then use (314.28).” is very specific that a Commando Attack is a normal raid that has a different way of resolution. It specifically, does not allow an alternate attack to be performed by this type of raid. So, it is not an alternate attack. My ruling stands. If you wish to appeal to Jeff, please do.

Repairs of damage in an unreleased fleet area by a Commando Attack is not increasing the defenses of the unreleased fleet area so, by the spirit of the rules on unreleased fleet areas would be allowed.

Ted Fay:
Q2: Can I conduct an on-map drone raid using multiple origin hexes but one attack hex (and one target of the attack). For example, I have a D6D in 1202 and two D6Ds in 1504. Can I move all three ships into 1402 and counduct one special raid (drone raid) into 1401? My guess is "no" because 320.21 specifies that the raiding player designates "the" origin hex; however, I thought it was worth a question just in case. Thanks.

A2: (320.21) specifies the “origin hex” not hexes or hex(s), so it is from one hex for each raid.

Q3: Under (534.243), assuming a successful mission, is the bonus used *before* or *after* you see the die roll during a combat round?

A3: Before the combat die roll.

Matthew Smith:

Q4: A quick question for you. Rule 309.3 states that a drone ship can fire only some of it's factors.

Is this determination made before or after seeing the opposing battle line?

I looked at the SOP and here's what it states for step 5.3G:
Battle Force deployments are announced; designate unit receiving Formation Bonus (308.7); cloaked decoys providing a formation bonus (538.54) and Scout Bonus (308.53). Designate uncrippled ships to tow crippled units from web (512.32). Reveal use of Command Points (308.92) and Drone Bombardment (309.0); all done simultaneously.
Possibly also relevant is:
5-4C1: Calculation of Combat Potential.
It would seem that a drone user would have to declare number of drone factors fired before seeing the opponent's battle line. Am I correct?

A4: Correct, the number of drone factors expended is determined at the time of Battle Force deployments. You could use small 6 mm dice with the number of pips showing the number expended if less than what is shown on the counter.

Robert Padilla:
Q5: Can the Gorn Special Marine Attack (308.87) be defended by a defending G unit? I know by the rule that the G can not affect the die roll (and any BIR can be selected), but can the G factor be taken as a casualty instead of a SIDS or PDU destroyed? 521.0 is silent on the matter, and does not even mention the Gorn Marine Attack.

A5: It is just like a standard G attack, but with a different result table. An intrinsic or fleet G could be taken as a loss. Note that if the Gorns use this rule they cannot use regular G attacks and as such they will not be using them in major assaults.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 05:32 pm: Edit

Mike,

Thanks again for looking once more at this issue. I appreciate it, and there is no need to appeal that ruling.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 08:56 am: Edit

Mike,

Thanks for your quick responses.

As it turns out, we've come across another.

308.132A3 is the rule in question.
________________________________________
Quote:
Replacing escorts from future production is possible ONLY if the carrier has a valid strategic movement pathway from the hex where the escort is built (not including units adjacent to the carrier)... (Emphasis mine.)
________________________________________


I see one pretty outlandish interpretation, and two more reasonable ones. For the example, let's say that the Klingons have taken 1502 and have suffered CEDS damage and wish to replace 2 E4A escorts in the hex. The Kzinti have ships in 1401. Any potential strategic movement pathway will have to come through 1402 (the other possible hexes being blocked by units not mentioned.)

First, the outlandish interpretation:
• Units adjacent to the carrier don't count, at all. The Kzinti could even have units IN 1402, and the replacement E4A could get through.

Now the two more reasonable interpretations:
• Enemy units adjacent to the carrier don't block strat move through any adjacent hexes.

• Enemy units adjacent to the carrier continue to block strat move as normal through all adjacent hexes EXCEPT the one the carrier is in.

Could you please let us know which is the correct interpretation?

Thanks.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Matthew Smith:
Thanks for your quick responses.

As it turns out, we've come across another.

308.132A3 is the rule in question.
________________________________________
Quote:
Replacing escorts from future production is possible ONLY if the carrier has a valid strategic movement pathway from the hex where the escort is built (not including units adjacent to the carrier)... (Emphasis mine.)
________________________________________


I see one pretty outlandish interpretation, and two more reasonable ones. For the example, let's say that the Klingons have taken 1502 and have suffered CEDS damage and wish to replace 2 E4A escorts in the hex. The Kzinti have ships in 1401. Any potential strategic movement pathway will have to come through 1402 (the other possible hexes being blocked by units not mentioned.)

First, the outlandish interpretation:
• Units adjacent to the carrier don't count, at all. The Kzinti could even have units IN 1402, and the replacement E4A could get through.

Now the two more reasonable interpretations:
• Enemy units adjacent to the carrier don't block strat move through any adjacent hexes.

• Enemy units adjacent to the carrier continue to block strat move as normal through all adjacent hexes EXCEPT the one the carrier is in.

Q: Could you please let us know which is the correct interpretation?

A: The arrival of future production for CEDS replacement has to follow current strategic movement requirements. If you have a fleet adjacent to your enemy and you have more ships than he does in your hex you can use strategic movement to bring the future production ships into the hex. If you don’t then you can’t.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:39 am: Edit

Questions answered to this point have been downloaded for Captain’s Log inclusion.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 10:22 am: Edit

Question 1: Can the Federation add PDUs to a formerly neutral planet (went to Federation side as a result of diplomacy) when the Federation is at limited war after turn 7?

Question 2: Can the Federation, when at limited war after turn 7, add IGCEs to a planet that is in the area of an unreleased fleet.

Thanks.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 10:58 am: Edit

As for the PDU's on NZ planets..
________________________________________
Quote:
(540.253 in SO) If a Neutral Planet joins an empire, it produces income and can have PDU's added to it up to the normal limit, but it is not part of the supply or strategic movement.... (remainder deleted)
________________________________________


and IGCE's
________________________________________
Quote:
(521.83 in CO) ... This can only be done if your race is at war (not just on a wartime economy). It cannot be done on friendly planets during limited war.
________________________________________


So of course Mike C has the final answer but it seems pretty black letter. Yes on PDU's and a resounding No on IGCE? What sort of fast talking Fed player tried to install IGCE's during limited war on ya? *blush*

I swear sumtimes ah read real gudder!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:38 am: Edit

540.253 says that that a neutral planet can have PDUs added to it up to the normal limit. However, normally an empire may not upgrade planets in unreleased fleet areas if the race is at limited war. Thus, it seems to me that they can't, unless the nuetral planet is a released fleet area or if the race in question is at full war. Will defer to Mike C on this one, tho.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:43 am: Edit

Ted,

Here is the answer to that.
________________________________________
Quote:
(540.251 in SO).... Note that it the planet joins your empire it is treated as part of the adjoining fleet and that if that fleet is inactive the new planet is in an inactive fleet area, but defenses can still be added to the planet and it produces income....
________________________________________


I should have started quoting earlier!
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 11:44 am: Edit

OK, that's pretty black letter.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 04:26 pm: Edit

Hey Mike & Chuck,

Any progress on my Tholian Webcaster questions from 16 April? We're playing the next turn of our game this coming Saturday.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:46 pm: Edit

May - June 2008 Archive

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 07:45 am: Edit

Nashvillen

Why was the cost of Hydran hybrid X-ships made different from the standard hybrid costs?

I mean, 24 XPs for a RNX? It doesn't take any more directed damage than a Fed CX, Rom SPX, Kzinti BCX/CCX, or Lyran CCX and yet the RNX costs twice as much as these others that only cost 12 XPs. And SVC is going to be putting in DMXs, KRMXs, STXs and other large X-maulers.

I wouldn't mind having to re-purchase X-fighters for converted ships (RN->RNX), but having to pay "true CV" costs for the fighters and having the x-ships cost more than the "standard" hybrid rates is a little excessive. The RNX should only cost 16 XPs (9+7) not 24 XPs (10+14), still more than the CXs of the other empires but not ridiculously so.

Or is the theory: When making Hydran X-ships, "just say no".
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 07:52 am: Edit

This is a question for the SIT topic, please post it there. It is where it would be looked at. Make sure you post the questions in line item format for ease of reveiw.

Example: RNX why does it cost so much, 24 xtp, it should be 16 xtp (9+7), not 24 xtp (10+14)?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 11:28 am: Edit

On August 5, 2007 Nick ruled as follows:
________________________________________
Quote:
========================

Joe Stevenson:

Minor Shipyards have YIS of Y170. I could read this two ways; you can't START building one before Y170, or you can't FINISHED one until Y170 (which if started in Y168, would give you a Year In Service of Y170).

Which is it? The rule is mum, so it is hard for me to gauge the meaning (in this case) of the SIT.

ANSWER: You can start building them on Turn #4, Y170.
________________________________________


I believe this ruling is in error and am appealing it.

From what I can see in the rules and SITs, the only governing rule determining WHEN shipyards can be built comes from the SITs - which provide for a YIS of 170. If so, my contention is that the year IN service should control. It takes 4 turns to build a a major conversion facility or a CW shipyard. Thus, if you are building one of these, then you should be able to start 4 turns earlier - which would be spring of Y168 - because the shipyard would be IN service in Y170. The general war begins in F168; thus, you should be able to start building these units immediately. That being said, if you were building a FF shipyard (or a minor conversion facility), then you could start building two turns early (spring of Y169). In both cases, the year in which the shipyard is actually in service is Y170 - which complies with the SITs.

Please advise.

Thanks,
Ted
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:42 pm: Edit

Ted,

That was my position as well.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:46 pm: Edit

I agree with Joe and Ted on the ship yard issue.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 12:50 pm: Edit

Ted,

Its also my position as well.

Year in service in general naval nomenclature is the year in which the ship was commissioned.

There are several important dates for a Naval vessel, one of those is year in service (or date in service). Another would be the date the keel was lain in the shipyard.

A Vessel might spend a long time being built but the YIS (or Date in service) would be when it was ready to join the fleet, not when the keel was first lain down in the yard.

I suspect we will need to get SVC's thoughts on how he sees YIS and what it means for F&E.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 01:24 pm: Edit

"She’s got a point, Johnny." said Davey

"Davey’s got a point there, Johnny," said Louis

"Lou’s got a point about Davey’s point." said Goose



gold start to the person that catches the reference
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Joe,

Kablam!!!! Nukeloid War!!!!!!


By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 03:32 pm: Edit

Russel gets the gold star!!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:08 pm: Edit

I have forwarded the shipyard question to Jeff Laikind.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:08 pm: Edit

Question on infiltration (537.12). This rule requires the target to be one of the three ships with the lowest defense rating. Thus, you have to go with ships with the lowest defense rating. If there's three or more than three, you can pick any one of those three. If there's less than three, then you're forced to pick one of the ones that's lowest. If there's one ship with a defense rating of 5 and one with a defense rating of 4, you must pick the one with 4 because that's the only one in the pool of valid targets (lowest defense rating). Please confirm/deny.

Thanks,
Ted
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:16 pm: Edit

I thought I was the only one who actually liked that movie.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:34 pm: Edit

The references to the movie should be in another topic, not my room...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:42 pm: Edit

It's not just the RNX. All the Hydran X-ships with fighters cost too much. Mainly because of the fighters being paid for as "True CV" factors but also because of some of the ships costing differently than the normal fusion beam armed hybrid ship cost.

And I don't think the question of: "Why was the cost of Hydran hybrid X-ships made different from the standard hybrid costs?" belongs there as it is for ALL of them rather than just the RNX. The RNX was just an example.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 04:52 pm: Edit

"The references to the movie should be in another topic, not my room..."

But then, no one would understand it
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 06:07 pm: Edit

Edit to question above: If my interpretation is not right, then confirm that if I have 1 C8 and 2 E4s in a single hex that infiltration (537.12) can be used to attack the C8.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 08:10 pm: Edit

Obey the FEAR or face the flyswatter of WebMom.

Now shoo and take your movies with you.


By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 08:27 pm: Edit

My apologies in advance to Nashvillen, if I misinterpret his role and job description here. I don't mean to step on any toes here, it's just that I got big clumsy feet.

*~*

Michael Lui,

The problem with your question is that it's a 'WHY' question, when Mike's role is to answer 'WHAT' and 'HOW' questions, and the occasional 'WHEN' question.

You ask Mike about the Hybrid X-ships costs, and he's going to tell you what the costs are right out of the book. You ask him WHY they are that cost... well, that's not his department.*

Thus to know the WHY of it, you really do need to discuss it in the thread where the costs had been determined - that being the SIT topic.

Though to clarify, I agree with you fully. The X-fighters are way to expensive.


(*Of course, he might very well explain the reasoning behind a rule, but that's outside of his job description, and just a free extra. It's probably because we didn't want the Hydrans to do well at the end of the game. They don't deserve it, I tells ya. Low-down, dirty-rotten, methane-breathing, trashcan-looking Hydrans!)
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 09:19 pm: Edit

On teh Shipyard YIS question, there might be an unnoticed 'Y2' note attached...
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Where?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 01, 2008 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Kevin, right on target. No feet stepped on here.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, May 02, 2008 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Mike:

To address the web caster issues, here's what I'm going to recommend changed to the SoP:

5-3J: Web casters reduce enemy unit compot (525.74A).
5-3K: If applicable, resolve combat using single combat (310.0) or Advanced small combat (318.7).
NOTE: 5-3J is inserted and the old line is move down to 5-3K.

5-3X5: Reduce I.S.C. battle intensity via web caster (525.74C).

5-4A7B: Use web caster to protect a selected ship (525.74E); roll and determine each attempt on SFG Chart (312.222).

5-4B: Shock ships (other than maulers) announce factors they will use (311.2); web fists may increase attack factors (525.74A).

5-6X1: Resolve Captured Ships (305.1); die roll modified by pursuit (305.12), GCEs (521.5), web casters (525.74D) and Prime Teams (522.43). Maulers may make separate capture attempt in lieu of their directed damage use (308.47).

V/R,
Chuck
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, May 02, 2008 - 08:47 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck. Roger and I will use this mod in tomorrows playtest to see how it works. I will post a report in General Discussion so as not to clutter things here.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 12:31 am: Edit

Daniel, report back here, please. We may need to fast track this to SVC for CL37 and add it to the Errata.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 12:36 am: Edit

Okay.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 01:07 am: Edit

A pre-emptive set of questions to avoid silly arguments...

A. Can a single fighter of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

B. Can a fighter squadron of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

C. Can a single PF of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

D. Can a PF flotilla of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 01:39 am: Edit

C and D have to be yes. In SFB the PFL can carry and use one in place of its 2nd Boarding Party in combat since it has a transporter. The Ground Combat PF can also carry one but can only use it against targets it can dock-to/land-on since it doesn't have a transporter.

As far as A and B go, a PT is 5-10 individuals (G32.0) so cannot fit into just ONE fighter. So "A" is no. However, why can't a fighter squadron (or part/most of one) be piloted by a PT? And then "crash aboard" an enemy ship (or land on a planet) during a battle to do a mission? It would certainly surprise the enemy commander. At least once. Don't you train your PTs to fly fighters like the Hydrans do?


Of course Nashvillen may say differently, but all except A should be yes.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 02:13 am: Edit

Michael,

If the PT were just cargo, I'd agree with you re: A and B. But they aren't. They have to deploy and execute. It just doesn't seem practical that they could do that from fighters, even a sqn of them.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 02:29 am: Edit

So everybody wouldn't be running AWAY from the shuttle bay when 5 or more Stingers (or other armed fighter) crash-landed aboard their ship? And they couldn't land at a "remote location" on a planet?

And you think that they could cram themselves into just a few fighter Cargo Pods to be transported on 1 fighter?
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 10:58 am: Edit

I would think it reasonable that a PT could deploy on fighters but not in F&E because their mission would be highly limited, probably on planets and too risky. Deploying them against ships or bases risks killing key members. How would F&E handle the effectiveness of a PT when one or two, or more of it's members are killed? This would happen each time the squadron loses a portion of it's fighter factors.

Deploying on fighters would be fine for Prime Directive, but not for F&E. It would be too rare, and should be abstracted out of F&E.


Since an entire Prime Team can fit on ONE PF then you can lose PF factors and reasonably apply them to one the PT is not on and when that PF goes down the entire PT is killed. There is then no special circumstance to write rules for... except perhaps some random way knowing when they are killed as the flotilla takes damage.

Here's a thought:
When a PF flotilla carrying a PT is attacked the owning player writes down a number between 1 and 6 (or the number of PF's remaining) and places it upside down on the table. This is the number of the PF that the PT is on. Each time that flotilla loses two PF factors the attacker makes a guess which number the defender noted. If and until they guess correctly the PT is killed. The number may be changed each battle round.


Could move this to proposals if it's worth it.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 11:31 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
This would happen each time the squadron loses a portion of it's fighter factors.
________________________________________
Not necessarily. There are Over-sized Squadrons. And a PT could be as few as 5 members. You could lose half a normal squadron without losing any members. And you could lose MOST of an OS before losing any members too.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 11:33 am: Edit

I'd just say that the PT is on the last PF in the flotilla as they's be transported by the PFL to a surviving PF at the last second.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 02:28 pm: Edit

I believe the intent of the (522.3) was for Prime Teams to be employed on ships and units larger that PFs.

My recommendation as a staffer:

PFs and fighters in F&E should not employ Prime Teams. However, PFs should be able to rescue/transport PTs.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 04:59 pm: Edit

Well since PFs themselves cannot survive without a ship (in F&E) to support them what do you mean by 'rescue'? I would also say that since PFs cannot travel alone then they cannot 'transport' PT. We now have more units than ever before for transporting things/personnel in F&E and there is no real need to allow a PF to do it.

I support the PT operating on/from ships and not on fighters and/or PFs concept.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Lar: I was talking about the survival roll of PT after their ship was destroyed. Surviving PTs can transfer to any unit in the hex and if the only available unit is a PF on an offensive strike they should be able to return with the PF.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Saturday, May 03, 2008 - 08:42 pm: Edit

Can FCRs in the support line move fighter factors forward to the battle line that has a carrier? That is, can an FCR resupply a carrier during a battle?
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 07:09 am: Edit

Chuck: I know where you were going. No where in (319.0) does it say that PFs can carry a PT on a OS mission. (502.45 and 524.44) Do not allow for a PF to be the final survivor so if that is all that remains in normal combat (not 319.0 mission) then the PT would die as the PFs have to die. (522.0) makes no provision for PT to be on PFs either. I would suggest we not go down that road to add it...not in this separate (from SFB) game.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 07:28 am: Edit

It doesn't have to only be 319.0. A unit could react its PFs/Fighters to fight an enemy unit in an adjacent hex. Which could be attacking a planet or SB or any number of things.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 08:15 am: Edit

Yes these fighters and PFs could react but again no provision for carrying a PT.

(Note that I am discussing PFs as I believe fighters should never be able to do this in F&E)

Fighters on the line (supplied forward from their carrier) with a PT (making it 8AF-6DF) is where that would go...and to me that would be a mistake.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 12:44 pm: Edit

Lar:

I only raised the issue to clarify it. I wanted to prevent a silly arguement with those that think that PTs can be employed by PFs. The rule says "units" but I don't think that was the designer's intent.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Mike and Chuck,

Went over Chuck's recommended update to the SoP for Web Caster use. Game flow was good and no issues came up. Recommend that we go with Chuck's update as is.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 07:53 pm: Edit

But what if the CV/PFT is holding a PT and wants to get it into the battle but not go into the hex itself? What does it do? It loads the PT onto its fighters/PFs and reacts them into the hex.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Just say no to PTs on Attrition units.


Yes Lui, you could do that. And there's a very high chance that several members of your team will die from phaser fire before they reach their target.
By Christopher Scott Evans (Csevans) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 09:29 pm: Edit

Accounting for Prime Teams on PF and fighter factors is a level of detail that F&E does not need.

If such a system were ever deemed necessary and good for the game, then why not simply state that prime teams are all equipped with some form of hot-rod space transportation and that they can move independently of ships? [Cue Low Rider on your 8-track, here comes Commander Suave in his warp-powered Corvette.]
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Short of ADB saying so, no arguement will change my position: I will not support the combat employment of Prime Teams on fighters/PFs in F&E.

It is a silly arguement if the first place and most of us know it is.
By Loren Knight (Loren) on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Michael Lui,


I think that a Prime Team is too valuable to be risked in that way and no Admiral would do it. You might use a PF or fighters to transfer them but I don't see how that would be actually practical in F&E.

The PFT would have to bring the PT into battle. Now, the PFT might actually use a PF to deliver them but that tactic would be abstracted.

But if you can deliver a PT via PF then people will want to put the PFT in a reserve line and send the PF's to the battle line (or is that even possible?) with the PT. I don't think you should be able to risk a PT like that since the PF's would die like that.

Indeed, I'd support an F&E ban on PT's on attrition units all together and leave it as a RPG thing only.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 05:24 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The PFT would have to bring the PT into battle. Now, the PFT might actually use a PF to deliver them but that tactic would be abstracted.
________________________________________
And would result in a "+2" just being added to the PF flotilla.
________________________________________
Quote:
I think that a Prime Team is too valuable to be risked in that way and no Admiral would do it.
I don't think you should be able to risk a PT like that since the PF's would die like that.
________________________________________
There are lots of things that SHOULDN'T be done but are.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 07:13 am: Edit

I don't want to be a pest, but any idea when Jeff will rule on my appeal regarding minor shipyards? I'll happily shut up and wait if told to do so.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 07:23 am: Edit

The shipyard issue is going up the chain of command. SVC is the next stop. It will go to him today.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 08:49 am: Edit

If you are one of many players who have regular contact with me through other means of communication, please post any FEAR questions here. I will not answer any questions officially anywhere else but here or at Origins or other ADB sanctioned gaming events. Thank you.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 09:09 am: Edit

Mike - I have a FEAR question, but I'll wait til Origins to ask it.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 09:40 am: Edit

Online OOB Questions:

1. I show the limits for the LAS/SAS to be unlimited in the latest version posted. But it was pointed out to me that AO 762 has a limit for these ships. I know I wouldn’t have changed it without finding a change but I’ll be darned if I remember where I found it. Can you find/know of a change.

2. A question came up on the statement about Auxiliaries.

It currently reads:
Auxiliaries: Can produce two auxiliaries per year, no more than one per turn, no more than one large auxiliary per year. May produce one troop ship per turn when at war, including a maximum of large auxiliary per year. It is permissible to build two small ones per year (one per turn).

This is a bit confusing when you look at how the limits are written.
A rewrite suggested by Dave Butler was this:
Can produce one (non-FTS/FTL) auxiliary per turn; no more than one large (non-FTL) auxiliary per year.
May additionally produce one troop ship (FTS or FTL) per turn; no more than one FTL per year.

It’s a rewrite of the rules section to make it clearer. Something that should be in the Warbook, but since the OOB is being updated we can get this change done now.

3. I’d also recommend that the 702.5 section get rewritten to reflect the article in CL26 pg110. Maybe put the whole text of the CL26 article in.

Since these change the wording of the rules rather than put them all in one document I had to ask in this forum to get an official ruling.

Ryan
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 10:15 am: Edit

Mike, thanks for the update.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:00 pm: Edit

I will be getting current FEAR questions done this evening.
By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Question on Slow Pursuit and distribution of +/- points

302.742 states that the pursuer can allocate the points as they wish between slow pursuit and normal pursuit. But can a pursuer allocate any of the points to the normal pursuit force if he cannot form a legal pursuit force (and therefore can only perform the slow pursuit)?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 02:15 pm: Edit

Question on Pursuit,

If you do not do normal pursuit but only fight the slow units, does that count for pursuit in the sense that your no longer eligible to retreat yourself?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 04:54 pm: Edit

Ted Fay:
Q1: Can the Federation add PDUs to a formerly neutral planet (went to Federation side as a result of diplomacy) when the Federation is at limited war after turn 7?

A1: (602.49B) specifically disallows deployment of PDUs in unreleased fleet areas. (540.253) allows a neutral planet that joins your empire to have PDUs added to it up to the normal limit. It does not say you are limited by the war status of that PDU. It goes on to further say that the neutral planet is not part of the supply or strategic movement grid of until the turn after the race is at war with or allied to the other adjoining race. So, the neutral planet is a partial supply grid until war is declared or an alliance is signed. The neutral planet can save up its eps and buy PDUs from that supply of eps but, cannot have eps brought in for PDU or other base upgrades. (540.251) also attaches the planet to the adjacent neutral zone and activates the planet when the fleet goes active.

Q2: Can the Federation, when at limited war after turn 7, add IGCEs to a planet that is in the area of an unreleased fleet.

A2: No, this is along the same lines as deploying PDUs, see (521.83).

Daniel Knipfer:

Any progress on my Tholian Webcaster questions from 16 April? We're playing the next turn of our game this coming Saturday.

From Chuck Strong:
To address the web caster issues, here's what I'm going to recommend changed to the SoP:

5-3J: Web casters reduce enemy unit compot (525.74A).
5-3K: If applicable, resolve combat using single combat (310.0) or Advanced small combat (318.7).
NOTE: 5-3J is inserted and the old line is move down to 5-3K.

5-3X5: Reduce I.S.C. battle intensity via web caster (525.74C).

5-4A7B: Use web caster to protect a selected ship (525.74E); roll and determine each attempt on SFG Chart (312.222).

5-4B: Shock ships (other than maulers) announce factors they will use (311.2); web fists may increase attack factors (525.74A).

5-6X1: Resolve Captured Ships (305.1); die roll modified by pursuit (305.12), GCEs (521.5), web casters (525.74D) and Prime Teams (522.43). Maulers may make separate capture attempt in lieu of their directed damage use (308.47).

MINOR SHIPYARD appeal up to SVC:

The CL36 ruling is correct.

Ted Fay:
Q3: Question on infiltration (537.12). This rule requires the target to be one of the three ships with the lowest defense rating. Thus, you have to go with ships with the lowest defense rating. If there's three or more than three, you can pick any one of those three. If there's less than three, then you're forced to pick one of the ones that's lowest. If there's one ship with a defense rating of 5 and one with a defense rating of 4, you must pick the one with 4 because that's the only one in the pool of valid targets (lowest defense rating). Please confirm/deny.

A3: You find three ships with the lowest defense rating and choose one of them. Example: a Lyran CA, CL, DD, 2xFF occupy a planet. You could target the DD or one of the FFs. A C8 and 2xE4s would leave any one of them open to the attack.

Chuck Strong:
Q4: A pre-emptive set of questions to avoid silly arguments...

A. Can a single fighter of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

A4A: No.

B. Can a fighter squadron of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

A4B: No.

C. Can a single PF of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

A4C: No.

D. Can a PF flotilla of any type employ a PT under (522.3)?

A4D: No

Comment: Prime Teams on attrition units is a rare and unusual event for the tri-vids and novels. It is not a strategic level type of application and as such has no place in a strategic type of game as Federation and Empire.

Loren Knight:
Q5: Can FCRs in the support line move fighter factors forward to the battle line that has a carrier? That is, can an FCR resupply a carrier during a battle?

A5: (526.31) allows the FCR to transfer the fighters in the same hex at the end of each combat round. It is not allowed during a combat round.

Tim Losberg:
Q6: Question on Slow Pursuit and distribution of +/- points

302.742 states that the pursuer can allocate the points as they wish between slow pursuit and normal pursuit. But can a pursuer allocate any of the points to the normal pursuit force if he cannot form a legal pursuit force (and therefore can only perform the slow pursuit)?

A6: The pursuer can allocate the points as they wish between the slow units and the pursued units. If they have no ships to pursue with then the points would have to go the to the slow unit battle, either plus or minus.

Michael Parker:
Q7: Question on Pursuit,

If you do not do normal pursuit but only fight the slow units, does that count for pursuit in the sense that your no longer eligible to retreat yourself?

A7: (302.742A) states “The pursuing player…”, so you are pursuing and as such are not eligible for retreat or other non-pursuit options. The slow unit combat is still a form of pursuit.

Ryan Opel: I will have your answer done this evening. This will require my printed rulebooks which are not with me at this time.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, May 05, 2008 - 05:08 pm: Edit

The Tholian Webcaster SOP errata was sent to SVC for CL37 consideration.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Mike,

It's been a week, have you found your AO rulebook yet?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Yeah, I have it but I don't have a reference to section 762 in it.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Mike,

Annex 762 is on page 65. Have thier been any updates to it published in other documents, erratta or Q&A.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 09:35 pm: Edit

Ryan Opel:

Online OOB Questions:

Q1. I show the limits for the LAS/SAS to be unlimited in the latest version posted. But it was pointed out to me that AO 762 has a limit for these ships. I know I wouldn’t have changed it without finding a change but I’ll be darned if I remember where I found it. Can you find/know of a change.

A1. I have researched all the rulebooks up to the current Strategic Operations and cannot find anything to change (762.0). Go with that in the online OOB. Also, it should be noted that every player should look for (762.0). It is small and, for this writer, hard to find…

Q2. A question came up on the statement about Auxiliaries.

It currently reads:
Auxiliaries: Can produce two auxiliaries per year, no more than one per turn, no more than one large auxiliary per year. May produce one troop ship per turn when at war, including a maximum of large auxiliary per year. It is permissible to build two small ones per year (one per turn).

This is a bit confusing when you look at how the limits are written.
A rewrite suggested by Dave Butler was this:
Can produce one (non-FTS/FTL) auxiliary per turn; no more than one large (non-FTL) auxiliary per year.
May additionally produce one troop ship (FTS or FTL) per turn; no more than one FTL per year.

It’s a rewrite of the rules section to make it clearer. Something that should be in the Warbook, but since the OOB is being updated we can get this change done now.

A2. (442.91) and (442.92) are much clearer than what you have above. If you don’t think so, please post in the warbook topic what you would like it to read.

Q3. I’d also recommend that the 702.5 section get rewritten to reflect the article in CL26 pg110. Maybe put the whole text of the CL26 article in.

A4. This is more of a warbook issue, you can derive all of what is on page 110 of CL26 from the existing (702) section.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 - 10:59 pm: Edit

I don't think the Troop ship rules alter the limit on Aux ships. The FTS/FTL have to fit inside that limit, don't they?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 02:47 am: Edit

No,

(442.9) AUXILIARY SHIP PRODUCTION
This rule consolidates several others and gives players more flexibility over the production of auxiliary units.
(442.91) Each race can build one auxiliary per turn when at war, including a maximum of one large auxiliary per year. It is permissible to build two small ones per year (one per turn). This modifies (513.112) and includes auxiliary carriers, auxiliary scouts (317.1), auxiliary PFTs (526.41), and Kzinti auxiliary drone bombardment ships (526.51).
(442.92) Each race can build one troop ship per turn when at war, including a maximum of one large troop ship per year. It is permissible to build two small ones per year (one per turn). This modifies (521.6) and is in addition to (442.91).
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 09:38 am: Edit

What Ryan said...
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 06:51 pm: Edit

Cool. Doubt I'll build many more troop ships, but it's always nice to have the option.
By Bill Schoeller (Bigbadbill) on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 08:55 am: Edit

The Gorns are ready for PF deployment and have a neutral minor with a few pdu's on it. The first 5 PF squadrons go to the 2 existing SB's and Bats (only 1 left), the remaining PF's go into the PF replacement pool. Do the PF's require a tug to be placed on the pdu's in the neutral zone? The relevant rules passages are posted by Russ below.

502.63 says that free PF's for planets are produced only for original owner still owns. They are not produced (free) for planets you captured...
and

502.615 says If the initial deployment PFs cannot be placed on bases (because bases have been destroyed and not replaced) they must be placed on available PDUs within the limits thereon. Any remaining PFs go into a pool at the Capital and can be transferred to PFTs in the Capital Hex or shipped by free strategic movement to any base or PDU which has room to base them during the Production or Retrograde phase. Note all initial deployment PFs can only be placed on bases, ships or PDUs of the owning race...


502.63 appears to say I have to deploy via Tug since it is not an original Planet. However, 502.63 only applies to Free PF's for Planets. I think I can deploy w/o a tug via 502.615 when it says they can be "shipped by free strategic movement to any base or PDU which has room to base them..." I would say my first turn of deployment would go to fill out my 2xSBs in the capitals and the BatS is 3801. On the second turn of deployment the 6 Flotillas go into the pool and 2 Flotillas would automatically be free strated to the PDU's in 4308 during that production phase w/o the need for tugs since they were already in existence.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 11:29 am: Edit

Don't forget your off-map SB.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I have a question about reserve designation and use.

In 507.13, it says that a RESV must be designated entirely (by specific ships.)

Reserve movement rules talk about a flagship, which is apparently named when the RESV is designated.

203.76 talks about the possibility of a flagship moving by reaction movement, since it talks about designation of a new flagship.

203.72 talks about leaving the flagship behind in the origin hex, since it specifically mentions that a ship able to command the whole portion must be one of the ones which moves if only a portion of the reserve fleet moves. This theoretically allows changing the flagship selection just prior to actually moving the fleet, but only as long as the original flagship is left behind. (In other words, this rule would be useless if the flagship was required to be part of the fleet which moves.)

203.742 says that you cannot leave the flagship behind while moving to satisfy pinning requirements.

Ok, so here's the question: Is the flagship designated upon formation of the reserve and ONLY changed by the enabling rules above - or - Can the flagship selection be made just prior to moving the fleet as long as the new flagship can command the portion that moves?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 01:22 pm: Edit

I think I found my own answer. 302.33 says that (in a battle force) the highest rated command ship is the flagship.

So, I can't designate a lower-rated ship to be the flagship if a higher-rated one is also moving. Correct?

But that does leave open one little question. Say, for example, the Feds have a RESV of DNG, CVA group, CVB group, NVL group and using only 2K rules. The DNG was designated as the flagship when the reserve was created. This RESV is moving to a legal battle hex, but must take a path through an occupied hex containing a single E4.

Can they drop off the CVB group to satisfy pinning requirements against a single E4? Or must they redesignate the CVA as the flagship and drop off the DNG to meet the rule that they must drop off as few ships as possible?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, May 22, 2008 - 01:34 pm: Edit

I'm not sure why, if just using base 2K, you would not make the CVA the flagship just to cover such a situation. I only say that because you can't break down the CV groups and you could get stuck like your question outlines.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 - 06:46 pm: Edit

Mike,

Several of us asked for a review of the In Service Date for Minor Ship Yards to be sent up the chain. Any word on that or did I miss the final answer?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, May 29, 2008 - 07:47 pm: Edit

The final answer from SVC was that you could start building them on turn 4. Not before.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 - 06:44 pm: Edit

When the Hydran Y176/Y177 production schedule gets moved up to Y173 as a result of them holding on to the Capital, does the YIS of the variants of the NCA that can be made (no heavy fighter or PF variants until those introduction dates) also get moved up by 3 years or do they remain fixed at Y176+?
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, June 12, 2008 - 07:13 am: Edit

Withdraw before Combat question:

I have 6 ships in a battle hex. 5 are Lyran and 1 is Klingon. The top three CR ships are CV, CWE and D5S. The other three are DW and 2xDWE. When deciding to withdraw, the rule states that one of the three highest CR ships must remain to be the flagship.

The question is, does the D5S count as being one of the top 3 command ships? Clearly if there was no withdraw, it could not be a command ship as there would always be more Lyrans than Klingons. Is the decision for command ship made taking into consideration the forces in the hex before the withdraw, or after? This is a case where, if looking at it after ships withdraw, the D5S could be an eligible command ship, but if looking at it before the withdraw then the D5S would be considered a minority flagship and excused as such.

Todd, this is not going to hold up our game, I'm just curious as to the answer.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 10:43 am: Edit

Can a Federation CVF or DVL, after being escorted during combat rounds, shed its escorts in order to pursue with automatic success due to being fast ship(s) alone in a pursuit force?

Does the answer change depending on whether the shed escort is crippled or not?

I'm thinking that fast ship(s) in a pursuit force without normal ships automatically succeed in pursuing. The empty slots for the escorts are not normal ships - they don't slow the fast ship down - but they would prevent that many more fast ships from being added to the pursuit force.

I'm also thinking that carrier groups are allowed to rearrange or discard escorts in order to be eligible or safe from pursuit, leaving aside mandatory shedding for command rating purposes in a pursued force.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, June 13, 2008 - 09:54 pm: Edit

A retreating force is able to rearrange escorts. But I didn't know a pursuing force could do so. If so, that’s a big change in my damage allocation strategy.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Saturday, June 14, 2008 - 06:48 pm: Edit

Any chance of combining all the Q&A into a single searchable online document?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, June 14, 2008 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Yeah, in about a million years.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, June 16, 2008 - 12:01 am: Edit

Okay, I just got through doing a search through the Q+A section for rulings on the Hydran Supply Tug so I know this question hasn't been asked and answered before. It has previously been ruled that if the Hydran Supply Tug is crippled it loses the supplies it is carrying but can be refilled if it hasn't used its refill yet.


1. Can the Supply Tug use its supplies while carrying a CV/Battle pallet (or any of the others that don't use the internal cargo space)?

2. If not, will it still have its supplies since these 2 pallets don't use any of the internal cargo space on the tug, just like the FCP doesn't use any of the internal cargo space? There are actually only a few missions that might use the internal space on the tug: C, E, J, and K. Of those, E and K probably will never be used by this tug. (And no, none of the previous rulings actually say that the tug loses its supplies if you have it carry a different pallet. This is for clarification.)

3. If carrying another pallet besides the FCP makes it lose its supplies can it be refilled if it hasn't used its refill yet?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 16, 2008 - 10:13 am: Edit

I "think" that it's using a cargo pallet AND the internal supplies as well, so no.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, June 16, 2008 - 03:47 pm: Edit

SVC

No, the Supply tug can carry the FCP AND still use the internal supplies per 611.141, 611.143, and 611.145 in the original introduction of this ship (now CO, page 28). Subsequent addenda allowed the FCP pallet to be used by any tug (513.52, CO, page 12) but the supplies were tied to this specific tug. Further addenda clarified that this tug was could be used just like any other tug, it just had this special ability and was given a counter with an "S" on it to distinguish it from the others.

However, no one has ever addressed the issue of the supplies on the tug yet.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, June 16, 2008 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Give me a minute to change the rule so you can't. I have a blank spot on the CL37 rulings page.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 10:28 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
A retreating force is able to rearrange escorts. But I didn't know a pursuing force could do so. If so, that’s a big change in my damage allocation strategy.
________________________________________


I'm not even sure the rearranging of escorts is needed in most cases. I don't have rules handy at the moment, but don't you form a normal legal battleforce, then take up to 6 ships into pursuit? As long as the Flagship is able to handle the phantom slots for leaving escorts out you should be able to take CV's without their escorts into pursuit.

I know you can take a CV without escorts into a battle it just counts missing escorts as command slots.

I am not sure if you can take a CV group (ie CV that has been assigned escorts) and put it into a battleline without its escorts and just count its missing escorts against the command rating of the flagship. It would be very odd to do that however.

Even if you cannot do the above, it would seem you could pursue with only the CV if you wished but I am not certain.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 11:34 am: Edit

You could pursue with only the CV, but it would have to leave the pursuit slots for the escorts empty if they do not accompany it. You then count the actual number of ships for the pursuit die role. Kind of defeats the purpose of pursuing as it lowers your density.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Daniel,

I'll check my rules when I get home if I have a chance.

But pursuit slots are not command slots and command slots are not pursuit slots as far as I seem to remember. There are rules clarifying that to an extent when it talks about a CW being able to use a BG in order to COMMAND the pursuit force but BG's cannot increase a pursuit force to more than 6 ships. So it seems they are seperate things that you deal with together in the one rule on pursuit.

A valid pursuit force is up to six ships taken from a legal battleforce, you also have to be able to command this pursuit force. It has its own rules for many things. So take a Battleforce like

DN (Adm) [CVA ___ ___ ___] 2xCC 3xCW 3xFF SC(FS)

This is a legal battleforce. I think you can form legal pursuit forces like

DN (Adm) [CVA ___ ___ ___] 2xCC 3xCW
or other combinations of 6 ships provided one ship could command them all (the unfilled escort slots would have to fit under the command rating)

You of course couldn't use the
3xCW 3xFF BG along with another ship as although it counts as only 5 ships for command purposes it is 6 for pursuit slot purposes.

It might be in the rules somewhere however that a CV in pursuit must include its escorts if assigned, or that a missing escort counts as a pursuit slot. I just haven't had it come up before. I also don't know if its legal to have
[CVA HvyE HvyE LtE] and then put [CVA ___ ___ ___] onto the line. I don't think it is, otherwise you could drop crippled vulnerable escorts. Although I know if you initially had an unescorted CVA (not likely though) it sure would be legal to put it onto the line and it would cost 4 command slots. The question then is does it count as 4 pursuit ships or only one?

Important to note. Something like

DN (Adm) [CV ___ ___] [CV ___ ___] [CV ___ ___] [CVE ___] SC (FS)
would allow I think
DN (Adm) 3xCV to pursue but you couldn't get another ship in to round out your 6 because the FS cannot go, the CVE would put you over the DN's CR (the Adm will not work in Pursuit) and the blank escort slots took all the room in the original legal battleforce so you couldn't have had a stray ship to bring.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 03:37 pm: Edit

Mike,

Can we get a ruling on this ASAP. Can carriers be part of a pursuit force without their escort and if so do they count as only a single ship or do they count as a group equal to the carrier and the required number of escorts to determine how many pursuit positions they hold?

My view;

The Specific (carriers must be escorted) trumps the general (Pursuit can have up to 6 ships). Pursuit allows any 6 ships, but does not specify any rules or restrictions on those ships. As such, it is a general rule. The carrier escort rules govern the activities of all carriers and are specific to carriers and escorts. It requires carriers to be escorted and requires you to count the carrier group as the minimum number of ships required for that group if some are missing. In effect it is a penalty for not having all your escorts.

In addition, basic F&E2K does not allow you to break up carrier groups or remove the carriers from them. Fighter Ops gives you rules for building your own carrier groups and penalties for not having your own escorts, but does not give you any rules allowing carriers that normally require escorts to fight outside their group (even when all escorts are destroyed they count as a group). Only carriers specifically allowed to go unescorted can do so and only under the conditions allowed under their specific rule.

In terms understandable to the background of the SFU no carrier normally requiring escorts would go rushing off on its own because that will make the carrier vulnerable. Specific exempted carriers do exist (DVL & CVF come to mind), but are exempted only under their specific rules (used as raiders in the case of DVL and CVF). This idea of unescorted CVs in a pursuit force just seems absurd to me considering the rules on carriers and carrier escorts.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 04:13 pm: Edit

Michael

I think 307.22 is pretty clear - a Carrier Group with missing escorts counts as the original number of ships in the Persuit force.

(M is missing escort)

So DN CVA M M M , 2 x CC, 3 x CW is illegal, as it counts as 9 ships in persuit.

A DN, CVA M M M CW is legal - it counts as 6 ships, but only as 3 ships for catching the enemy.

i.e. a Persuit Force

Can not exceed 6 Ships including Missing Slots and must be within Command Rating

Edit - Oops, noticed this is Q&A...thought it was the Discussion topic - should we move there?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 04:54 pm: Edit

I will rule on the carrier and pusuit issue tonight. I am busy at work right now.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 10:28 pm: Edit

Questions Downloaded
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 12:16 am: Edit

Bill Schoeller:

Q: Can I deploy Free PFs from (502.62) to a captured planet via (502.615) specifically by “shipped by free strategic movement to any base or PDU which has room to base them”?

A: No, (502.63) does not let you use free PFs for planets not originally owned by your empire. You would need to use PTP pod on a Tug per (526.62) by usual Tug movement and deliver the PFs to any PDUs on planets by not originally owned by the empire in question.

Michael Lui:

Q: When the Hydran Y176/Y177 production schedule gets moved up to Y173 as a result of them holding on to the Capital, does the YIS of the variants of the NCA that can be made (no heavy fighter or PF variants until those introduction dates) also get moved up by 3 years or do they remain fixed at Y176+?

R: (709.0) states the production schedule for Y176-177 is moved up to Y173. This schedule includes the NCAs and the limited variants of technology currently available (MKE, MKV, MSR, MSV).

Robert Palilla:

Q: I have 6 ships in a battle hex. 5 are Lyran and 1 is Klingon. The top three CR ships are CV, CWE and D5S. The other three are DW and 2xDWE. When deciding to withdraw, the rule states that one of the three highest CR ships must remain to be the flagship. Does the D5S count as being one of the top 3 command ships? Clearly if there was no withdraw, it could not be a command ship as there would always be more Lyrans than Klingons. Is the decision for command ship made taking into consideration the forces in the hex before the withdraw, or after? This is a case where, if looking at it after ships withdraw, the D5S could be an eligible command ship, but if looking at it before the withdraw then the D5S would be considered a minority flagship and excused as such.

R: (302.133) states “One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship (302.32) of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round.” Since the D5S cannot be the flagship in the Battle Force it cannot be one of the three units considered in the command rating selection.

Todd Jahnke:

Q: Can a Federation CVF or DVL, after being escorted during combat rounds, shed its escorts in order to pursue with automatic success due to being fast ship(s) alone in a pursuit force per (523.391)?

A: The SIT specifically disallows the DVL to be used without escorts except when on a raid. As for the CVF, the SIT does not say it is a single ship carrier. It should be noted that (308.122) does not apply to the purser, only the retreating player since it refers to its exception to rule (307.3) which applies to retreating forces only. So, no, you cannot shed escorts as a pursuer to get the (523.291) automatic pursuit if they are present at the time of the formation of the pursuit force. If they are not present they will still take up part of the six ships allowed to pursue per (307.22).

This should take care of the pusuit force carrier group question.

Also, a new change to the way I answer questions and make rulings. I am putting a "A" for an answer to a question and a "R" for a ruling. This will help me sort things when it comes time to seperate questions and rulings for Captain's Log.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 06:31 am: Edit

Any chance that SVC was joking about my Supply Tug question?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 10:54 am: Edit

Mike,

Can a pursuing force include unescorted carriers (of any kind) that lost their required escorts in combat earlier and if so how many pursuit slots dose each carrier take up? M. Parker stated on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 01:33 pm that he believes that a force of DN, CVA, 2xCC, 3xCW is a legal pursuit force as it consists of only 6 ships. In his example none of the ships are acting as ad hock escorts. I contend that the CVA counts as four ships in the pursuit force even if the CVA's escorts have been previously destroyed as it is required to be escorted making this an illegal pursuit force. I also contend that any missing escorts in a carrier group that must be counted against the pursuit force six ship limit do not count for the die role as they are missing. Please confirm. Do the escort slots count against the 6 ship limit even if the escort is missing and do they in effect become a penalty in the die role if missing?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 11:25 am: Edit

Daniel Knipfer:

Q: Can a pursuing force include unescorted carriers (of any kind) that lost their required escorts in combat earlier and if so how many pursuit slots dose each carrier take up? M. Parker stated on Wednesday, June 18, 2008 - 01:33 pm that he believes that a force of DN, CVA, 2xCC, 3xCW is a legal pursuit force as it consists of only 6 ships. In his example none of the ships are acting as ad hock escorts. I contend that the CVA counts as four ships in the pursuit force even if the CVA's escorts have been previously destroyed as it is required to be escorted making this an illegal pursuit force. I also contend that any missing escorts in a carrier group that must be counted against the pursuit force six ship limit do not count for the die role as they are missing. Please confirm. Do the escort slots count against the 6 ship limit even if the escort is missing and do they in effect become a penalty in the die role if missing?

A: Sigh, I answered this above, or at least I thought I did. Maybe I was not clear enough. So, here it is again: (307.22) is very clear on this; a carrier will missing escorts count as the original number of ships in the pursuit force, but as the actual number of ships for die roll purposes. The pursuit force of DN, CVA, 2xCC, 3xCW is not legal since the CVA takes up four of the six slots with its missing escorts. A DN, CVA, CC would be a legal six unit pursuit force that would have to roll a 2 or less to catch the fleeing enemy.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Thank you.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 01:16 am: Edit

Mike, I think you've mis-read the rules concerning placing 'free' PFs on captured planets. While (502.63) does NOT allow such, (502.62) via (502.615) does! (502.612) states that original planets receive PFs in addition to the PFs given in (502.62). (502.615) notes tht after filling the bases (which can be in captured territory), remaining PFs are to be placed on any PDUs [which by definition have to be captured as original planets are covered by (501.63)] then any reminder afterwards go into the replacement pool.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 10:43 am: Edit

Mike, I agree with Stewart. That was the genus of Bill's question. I would like to ask for a review of the question and answer.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 10:47 am: Edit

I will review it this weekend. Thanks for checking!
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 02:56 am: Edit

Appeal:

>>Robert Palilla:

Q: I have 6 ships in a battle hex. 5 are Lyran and 1 is Klingon. The top three CR ships are CV, CWE and D5S. The other three are DW and 2xDWE. When deciding to withdraw, the rule states that one of the three highest CR ships must remain to be the flagship. Does the D5S count as being one of the top 3 command ships? Clearly if there was no withdraw, it could not be a command ship as there would always be more Lyrans than Klingons. Is the decision for command ship made taking into consideration the forces in the hex before the withdraw, or after? This is a case where, if looking at it after ships withdraw, the D5S could be an eligible command ship, but if looking at it before the withdraw then the D5S would be considered a minority flagship and excused as such.R: (302.133) states “One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship (302.32) of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round.” Since the D5S cannot be the flagship in the Battle Force it cannot be one of the three units considered in the command rating selection.It should be noted that (308.122) does not apply to the purser, only the retreating player since it refers to its exception to rule (307.3) which applies to retreating forces only. So, no, you cannot shed escorts as a pursuer to get the (523.291) automatic pursuit if they are present at the time of the formation of the pursuit force.<

308.122 "... Carrier groups can be broken down in Carrier War (515.15), allowing crippled escorts to be left behind,..."

The game in which this question was generated uses Carrier War.

308.122 "... (This could produce an uncrippled group able to pursue..."

These quotes would seem to indicate that 308.122 does apply to pursuing as well as to pursued forces and would seem to indicate that crippled escorts are allowed to be left behind.

308.122 "...and this must be done if it is the only way to meet the requirements of (307.3)."

This quote, in plain English, means that the thing MUST be done in one circumstance but that the thing has at least one other circumstance in which it can be done. As there is only one other possible circumstance, that of the pursuing force rather than of the pursued force for which the thing must be done, clearly the thing can be done for the pursuing force, which is why the quote above refers specifically to this rule allowing the creation of uncrippled carrier groups.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Saturday, June 21, 2008 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Todd, (308.122) is replacing a crippled escort with healthy a one for pursuit, not stripping escorts from the carrier. (note the wording on 'uncrippled' group)
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 08:27 am: Edit

Not sure this is a clarificaiton or an appeal (as the 'confirmation' came from SVC).

2006 Master Errata PDF Document

(509.5) The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.

Does this mean for example (all bases are intact), if the Expedition Supply Tug attacks 1214 with other ships - that it can retreat to 1314, as that would be 'in supply at range Zero', over say 1115 which would in 'in supply at range One'.

Also, if it does mean that, does the Expedition Supply Tug grant full supply, or counts as a partial supply grid?

Example - All bases are still intact, and the Expedition force is at 1714 - hex 1614 is in fully supply from the main grid - can the Hydrans retreat to 1814 saying the Expedition Supply Tug is the supply source at range zero and counts as 'full supply'- therefore making it a priority over 1614?

In other words - can the Expedition Supply Tug force retreat in any direction (I think the answer is 'no' - but as it reads, it seems that it can), as it will count for retreat priority hexes, as always been ay Range Zero and in Full Supply?

Thanks

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:59 pm: Edit

July - August 2008 Archive

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 04:30 pm: Edit

Typo in the 323.0 Enhanced Small Scale Combat. (Clarifies the rule)

323.34 "Each player applies the effects of the other player’s modified die roll to the another player. "

Should it read "...to the other player."
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 - 04:58 pm: Edit

Fixed in the original. Chuck might want to review that whole sentence.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 08:10 am: Edit

Mike, a quick question on 509.35 and SOP step 2B7.

Does this include newly built pods?

In other words, and for example: Can I designate an existing tug to carry a battle pod that I build that turn?

(Reasoning that I assign mission of "battle tug" and the pod is shipped out by those "dedicated staff officers" as soon as it's built.)
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 09:15 am: Edit

Matthew Smith:

Q: A quick question on 509.35 and SOP step 2B7. Does this include newly built pods?
In other words, and for example: Can I designate an existing tug to carry a battle pod that I build that turn? (Reasoning that I assign mission of "battle tug" and the pod is shipped out by those "dedicated staff officers" as soon as it's built.)

A: (509.35) refers to newly built Tugs, not pods which are covered under (431.22). Newly built pods are built in step 2B3 and are assigned in 2B7. So, yes, your “dedicated staff officers” will make sure they get to where they are assigned in time for them to be used by your Tug.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 10:50 am: Edit

Mike -

Hmm. That really wasn't what I was expecting you'd say, so I'm going to proceed to "step 1" above. (Yeah, I should have pointed out this evidence when I asked. My fault.)

If you can ship a newly built pod to the front line in time to use that turn, then why even have SOP step 1F (the existing Tug Mission declaration step)? Why not make ALL tug mission declarations after production, as that would eliminate the "special case" of 509.35 as well as make my question totally moot?

I believe that there must have been SOME reason that tug missions were put before production, and the only reason I can think of is this very situation. (Of course there might be others that I don't see.)

In that case, the 509.35 rule is there because a newly built tug probably has the pod sitting right there in the shipyard, so it's a no-never-mind to have the pod matched up with the tug.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 11:09 am: Edit

Let me look at it some more. You, and everyone else, need to include ALL information you have looked at with rules references. Otherwise, I will go with what I see. I am not a mind reader.
By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 11:13 am: Edit

Mike,

Have you had an oppurtunity to review the ruling on PF initial placement with PDU's on non-originally own planets.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 11:46 am: Edit

Well that's another reason we should get the Flexiable Tug Mission rule formally published.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:07 pm: Edit

Russell: Still working with staff on the PF issue. I haven't forgotten it.

Ryan: Absolutly correct, this would take care of this issue.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:24 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
You, and everyone else, need to include ALL information you have looked at with rules references. Otherwise, I will go with what I see. I am not a mind reader.
________________________________________


Yes. I agree. I was lazy since I thought this was going to be a quick one. I apologize and will try to be more complete in future questions, even if I think it's an easy one.

And actually, with the "Flexible Tug Missions" step, I'd have no problem with my opponent transporting a newly built pod to be used with the existing tug, provided he dedicates and actually uses a resource to do it. (I assume this is what the "flexible tug missions" rule will allow, when published.)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 06:19 pm: Edit

Mike,

One of the reasons for assigning tug missions before the production step is probably because some tug missions involve production. Missions like base upgrade, minor shipyard construction, and PDU upgrade would be assigned at the beginning of the production step. So even when the flexible tug/pod rules finish playtest there will still need to be a step for Tug assignment.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 08:12 pm: Edit

I am confused about the procedure for capitol re-assaults. The result I arrive at by reading 511.5 just seems "wrong".

I am the Kzinti. The Klingons are in posession of Kzintai and I am attempting to retake the hex. If I understand the rule correctly, the Klingons still have to divide their fleet roughly in two -- and one half goes into fixed forces. Now, suppose that I keep attacking a system where most of the fixed forces are not?

At most I will have to face 5/8 of his fleet -- the 1/2 in the mobile force, and the 1/4 of 1/2 in the fixed force in that system. And if I can defeat these forces, then 551.553 will require him to retreat from the hex, even if he still has large fixed forces in the other systems.

But that just seems wrong. Why should I be able to retake the hex by defeating 5/8 of the fleet he has there?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 08:34 pm: Edit

Re: William's question
+++++
From the Master Errata File

(511.53) If all bases and PDUs in the hex have been destroyed and all planets have been devastated, all “static ships” are transferred to the “mobile” fleet element.
+++++
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 08:45 pm: Edit

William, also remember 551.551:
The attacker cannot select a planet which was devistated on the current turn unless that planet has crippled units or other units assigned to it which must be in the battle force, or unless there are no planets which meet the above conditions in which case he can select any planet.

So if the Coalition has defenses in the system, as the Kzinti you are going to be forced into attacking them after the Coalition lets you devistate the planets for free. And if there are no defenses, then all of the Coalition ships are going to be mobile like Jason said.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 10:28 pm: Edit

OK -- that mostly handles my question. One thing that I'm still not clear on:

Command points. For example, suppose I don't spend any and he wants the 2-ship advantage all the way. He has to spend 4? Otherwise I just go to a system where he doesn't have them . . .

I will say that, unlike the other which just seemed way wrong, this one seems like a relatively mild advantage to the attacker that does not break the game.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 03:22 am: Edit

To add to what William said -

No planets have defences, and as we are not playing with long term capture - the planets remain devastated and can't be re-devastated.

Can the attacker declare an attack on a single planet constantly (and the defender is forced to defend it to avoid retreating)?

i.e. there is nothing stopping the attacker from avoiding the other planets (say where Command Points have been spent) to attack a planet where no CP's have been spent?

Thanks
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 08:45 pm: Edit

Paul, if all the planets are devastated, then it's no longer a multi-system hex (for combat purposes), the attacker must hit the system where the defender is or retreat (kind of like an approach battle once the defender heads back to the planet).
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Great, now we have mutually contradictory responses . . .
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 09:28 am: Edit

We should let Mike handle this, but given the black letter rules and previous Q&A rulings I think the answer is pretty straight forward, I will let Mike answer though to avoid making a fool out of myself if I am wrong!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 - 11:22 am: Edit

William Jockusch:
Q: I am confused about the procedure for capitol re-assaults. The result I arrive at by reading 511.5 just seems "wrong".

I am the Kzinti. The Klingons are in posession of Kzintai and I am attempting to retake the hex. If I understand the rule correctly, the Klingons still have to divide their fleet roughly in two -- and one half goes into fixed forces. Now, suppose that I keep attacking a system where most of the fixed forces are not?

At most I will have to face 5/8 of his fleet -- the 1/2 in the mobile force, and the 1/4 of 1/2 in the fixed force in that system. And if I can defeat these forces, then 551.553 will require him to retreat from the hex, even if he still has large fixed forces in the other systems.

But that just seems wrong. Why should I be able to retake the hex by defeating 5/8 of the fleet he has there?

A: The master errata file states: (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.

Since all the planets, by definition of capture, are devastated all “static”(511.53) ships become mobile ships. The attacker (Kzinti in this case) shows his attack locations to the defender (Klingon in this case) and the Klingon either defends at least one location or must retreat according to (551.553). It should be noted that (551.551) in this situation requires the attacker to select any system he chooses. He can attack more than one or just one.

A previous ruling also shows that garrison ships only need to be shown at the end of each phase. So garrison ships can be used in the mobile forces in this case and need to have enough left at the end of combat to occupy each planet in the Kzinti Capital Hex to maintain the garrison.

Q: Command points. For example, suppose I don't spend any and he wants the 2-ship advantage all the way. He has to spend 4? Otherwise I just go to a system where he doesn't have them . . .

I will say that, unlike the other which just seemed way wrong, this one seems like a relatively mild advantage to the attacker that does not break the game.

A: In this situation, he can just spend two (308.94) on one system and if you don’t defend there you must retreat from the hex per (551.553).
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 10:18 am: Edit

Can you used the anti-pirate rule ( 50 compt total with I think 5 or 6 ships Max and need to be 3 hexes apart) if you ARE not using the Orions in a rule
Can they be used against the Raiding Ships that are in the game now
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:06 am: Edit

On the New SIT Chart for the Kzinti
The CV combat factor says 10(6)...so its NOT 9 (6)now or was that a type-o
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:57 am: Edit

The Dec 06 SIT lists the CV(CVS) as 10(6) so it hasn't changed.

I think you might be confusing the CVS listed in the game as both the CV and CVS with the pre-refitted CV(R5.6) which is not in SFB with the refitted CVS(R5.7) which is the ship represented in F&E.

The CV is listed in the Cyberboard version of F&E but it is not in the game.
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 08:59 pm: Edit

SIT reports go in the SIT topic, not this one. If you put a SIT report here it will NEVER be used in editing/updating SITs. It will be lost and never used.
By Michael H.Oliver (Mholiver) on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 05:51 pm: Edit

Thank you Ryan and Steve
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 11:46 am: Edit

The following are questions based on Rule (530.0) published in CL #36:

1) Given that:
(a) Rule (530.0) states that F101's are covered by this rule,
(b) Rule (530.221) 'Carrier Types' states HDW use HOG rule (525.23H) to deploy (530.0) heavy fighters and
(c) Rule (530.223) 'Production' states the Federation's F101 deployment date is Turn #21 Fall Y178

Would the Federation be able to deploy F101 equipped HDW-HOG when they get HDW production in the spring of Y179 [AKA prior to the arrival of the A-20 HDW-HOG/AOG per (525.23H) on the Federation's PF2 turn date of turn 27, Fall Y181]?

2) Given the published HDW-Group production Q&A in CL #36 that established the "one HDW-Group instead of and one HDW-Group in addition to production limits" for carriers (COG), FCR (FOG), Heavy Fighters (HOG) & PFTs (POG); how does that square up with the following passage from (530.223):

"Once the PFT limit is in place (on PF2 turn) an empire can build heavy fighter carriers under the PFT limit _OR_ under the carrier limit and could even build one under _each_ limit on the same turn."

(a) Would that mean that the HDW-HOG could replace the HDW-COG under the separate carrier production build limits for all races?

(b) Would that mean that the Federation could build F101 HDW-HOG against it's HDW-COG carrier limits _in addition to_ the one A-20 carrier per turn and one A-20 HDW-HOG/AOG per turn limits?

(Note: While the Feds/Klng only produce three HDW per turn (and all other races can only build two) existing HDWs from previous turns production can be converted with new production -COG, HOG, and POG groups.)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, August 03, 2008 - 11:41 am: Edit

Ref (540.2) Missions for Diplomats

Q1: Are EPs generated by diplomatic actions affected by an empires economic status (ie peacetime, limited war, exhaustion)? See the last line of (540.2) which overarches the following:

Q1.1: Under (540.21) CAPTIVES: seems clear that income derived from a captured planet would be affected by economic status.

Q1.2: Under (540.22) ALLIES: the last line states that "ANY EPs generated in peacetime could be spent freely..."

Q1.3: Under (540.23) TRADE: the last line states that "ANY EPs generated under this rule in peacetime could be spent at the owner's discretion."

Q1.4: Under (540.253) NEUTRAL PLANETS: "If a Neutral Planet joins an empire, it produces income..."
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, August 09, 2008 - 05:27 pm: Edit

Mike

One question (was a second question, but found the answers in the archive!).

1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?

Example - Coalition Phase of the Turn
1001 has just been captured by the Coalition.
Battle in 902 is fought - and both sides retreat.

1001 is closest in supply for the Kzinti, and is a legal hex to normally retreat to.

1001 and 1002 are equal for the Coalition in line of supply, and so they can only retreat to 1001 if they fighting retreat into it (as it now contains the original Coalition force in the hex and the new Kzinti forces which just retreated there).

Our interpretation was -
Kzinti have to offer an Approach battle (as the hex is a Coalition hex with a 'base' in it) - the Coalition Fighting Retreat forces have to accept the approach battle (at 10/0 BIR).

The fighting retreat forces then move to the 'base', and further normal battles can be done (with the Coalition using the forces already in the hex).

Is our interpretation correct?

Thanks
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Saturday, August 09, 2008 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Paul, what happened to the Kzinti survivors of 1001?

If the Kzinti retreated off of (or were desttroyed over) 1001, it no longer counts as a Kzinti supply point (412.1) nor is it a Coalition supply point (413.2) but it can be used as a Coalition retrograde point (206.21).

However, assuming that the BATS on the Lyran border are destroyed, then the next supply points are 1202 and 1100 (offmap). 1001 could be selected if the retreating Kzinti force is larger than the Coalition force in 1001 (otherwise step 2 of retreat eliminates that hex).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 04:07 am: Edit

Stewart - the survivor had retreated to 1101.

We are on turn 5 now - and those bases are destroyed/captured.

1001 wasn't a supply point for either - it was just the shortest supply line hex for both (or equal for the Coalition) sides - Barony is the closest Supply point for the Kzinti and 1202 for the Coalition.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 09:16 am: Edit

Are Reserve Fleets required to use 203.55 to ensure that the minimum number of ships are left behind when using Reserve Movement (203.742)?

As an example:
The Reserve Fleet is in the Hydran off-map area.
Enemy ships are in hexes 0117 (F5,2xE4), 0118 (D7,F5,E4) and 0119 (D6,2xE4).
The Battle Hex is 0318.
The Reserve Fleet consists of: DG,RN,LN,6xHN (9 ships in the Reserve).

If 203.55 is required to be used, then the Reserve Fleet must go through hex 0117, as it will only have to leave one ship there. This is because at first three ships would be dispatched (say a RN and 2xHN). Then comparing CRs, the Hydrans could also move out the RN and one of the HN (CR 8 RN vs. CR 4 F5). Trying to move through hexes 0118 or 0119 would require the Reserve to leave behind 3 ships or ship-equivalents, as there is no CR difference.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 10:18 am: Edit

Robert - I beleive the answer is yes - the Reserve has to leave the minimum number behind, using all the rules on pinning - not just 1 of the 2 parts of the rules (i.e. Ship numbers or CR number - it is Ship numbers and CR ratings)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 - 12:04 pm: Edit

Paul, I believe that is so also, but I would like to know for 100% sure.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 07:15 pm: Edit

Can there be an approach battle in a hex where the only item with a fixed position is a planet that lacks any RDF, PDU, or base of any sort?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Monday, August 18, 2008 - 09:39 pm: Edit

TEJ:

Yes: see (302.211).
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 03:12 pm: Edit

A Kzinti force moves from the Barony to 1301. Can a Klingon force in 1101 react? [The intent here is to clarify whether or not this counts as "moving away" from 1101.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 03:55 pm: Edit

William Jockush:
Q: A Kzinti force moves from the Barony to 1301. Can a Klingon force in 1101 react? [The intent here is to clarify whether or not this counts as "moving away" from 1101.

A: If the Klingons have an eligible scout unit in 1101, then per (205.33) they do have an option to react into 1201. The move from the Barony into 1301 is movement into the outer reaction zone of the scout at 1101, hence the ability to react.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Other Questions downloaded to this point.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, August 26, 2008 - 09:17 pm: Edit

Michael Oliver:
Q: Can you used the anti-pirate rule ( 50 compt total with I think 5 or 6 ships Max and need to be 3 hexes apart) if you ARE not using the Orions in a rule
Can they be used against the Raiding Ships that are in the game now?

A: Which rule are you referring to? There are a couple of Piracy rules.

Trent Telenko:
The following are questions based on Rule (530.0) published in CL #36:

Q1: Given that:
a: Rule (530.0) states that F101's are covered by this rule,
b: Rule (530.221) 'Carrier Types' states HDW use HOG rule (525.23H) to deploy (530.0) heavy fighters and
c: Rule (530.223) 'Production' states the Federation's F101 deployment date is Turn #21 Fall Y178

Would the Federation be able to deploy F101 equipped HDW-HOG when they get HDW production in the spring of Y179 [AKA prior to the arrival of the A-20 HDW-HOG/AOG per (525.23H) on the Federation's PF2 turn date of turn 27, Fall Y181]?

A1: The rule in (525.23H) is specific, HDW HOGs cannot be deployed prior to PF2, which is turn 27, Fall 181. F101s can be deployed on standard carriers per (530.233).

Q2) Given the published HDW-Group production Q&A in CL #36 that established the "one HDW-Group instead of and one HDW-Group in addition to production limits" for carriers (COG), FCR (FOG), Heavy Fighters (HOG) & PFTs (POG); how does that square up with the following passage from (530.223):

"Once the PFT limit is in place (on PF2 turn) an empire can build heavy fighter carriers under the PFT limit _OR_ under the carrier limit and could even build one under _each_ limit on the same turn."

(a) Would that mean that the HDW-HOG could replace the HDW-COG under the separate carrier production build limits for all races?

A2a: It means you can build one HOG in addition to any other carrier builds on a given turn.

(b) Would that mean that the Federation could build F101 HDW-HOG against it's HDW-COG carrier limits _in addition to_ the one A-20 carrier per turn and one A-20 HDW-HOG/AOG per turn limits?

A2b: It means you can build one HOG in addition to any other carrier builds on a given turn.


Chuck Strong:
Ref (540.2) Missions for Diplomats

Q1: Are EPs generated by diplomatic actions affected by an empires economic status (ie peacetime, limited war, exhaustion)? See the last line of (540.2) which overarches the following: The economic status is different for each as I note after each part. This is based on the specific exception for (540.23) with regards to exhaustion.

Q1.1: Under (540.21) CAPTIVES: seems clear that income derived from a captured planet would be affected by economic status.

A1.1: Peacetime can be spent but not saved. Limited war can be spent and saved. Exhaustion affects this fully.

Q1.2: Under (540.22) ALLIES: the last line states that "ANY EPs generated in peacetime could be spent freely..."

A1.2: Peacetime can be spent and/or saved. Limited war can be spent and/or saved. Exhaustion affects this fully. [edited by J.Sexton by request of the FEAR. 8/28/08]

Q1.3: Under (540.23) TRADE: the last line states that "ANY EPs generated under this rule in peacetime could be spent at the owner's discretion."

A1.3: Peacetime can be spent but not saved. Limited war can be spent and saved. Exhaustion does not affect this ((540.23) first sentence).

Q1.4: Under (540.253) NEUTRAL PLANETS: "If a Neutral Planet joins an empire, it produces income..."

A1.4: Peacetime can be spent but not saved. Limited war can be spent and saved. Exhaustion affects this fully.

Paul Howard:
Q1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?

Example - Coalition Phase of the Turn
1001 has just been captured by the Coalition.
Battle in 902 is fought - and both sides retreat.

1001 is closest in supply for the Kzinti, and is a legal hex to normally retreat to.

1001 and 1002 are equal for the Coalition in line of supply, and so they can only retreat to 1001 if they fighting retreat into it (as it now contains the original Coalition force in the hex and the new Kzinti forces which just retreated there).

Our interpretation was -
Kzinti have to offer an Approach battle (as the hex is a Coalition hex with a 'base' in it) - the Coalition Fighting Retreat forces have to accept the approach battle (at 10/0 BIR).

The fighting retreat forces then move to the 'base', and further normal battles can be done (with the Coalition using the forces already in the hex).

A1: We need to know the number of ships on both sides to determine what happens per (302.775C). If there are more coalition ships than alliance ships then the fighting retreat is done by the Kzinti. Otherwise, it is still a valid retreat hex under (302.732), retreat step 2.

If the Kzinti are outnumbered by the coalition then they fight a battle away from the planet at a 0 BIR and the Coalition has a 10 BIR as per (302.775C).

Robert Padilla:
Q1: Are Reserve Fleets required to use 203.55 to ensure that the minimum number of ships are left behind when using Reserve Movement (203.742)?

As an example:
The Reserve Fleet is in the Hydran off-map area.
Enemy ships are in hexes 0117 (F5,2xE4), 0118 (D7,F5,E4) and 0119 (D6,2xE4).
The Battle Hex is 0318.
The Reserve Fleet consists of: DG,RN,LN,6xHN (9 ships in the Reserve).

If 203.55 is required to be used, then the Reserve Fleet must go through hex 0117, as it will only have to leave one ship there. This is because at first three ships would be dispatched (say a RN and 2xHN). Then comparing CRs, the Hydrans could also move out the RN and one of the HN (CR 8 RN vs. CR 4 F5). Trying to move through hexes 0118 or 0119 would require the Reserve to leave behind 3 ships or ship-equivalents, as there is no CR difference.

A1: Yes, the reserve fleet must choose the route that is the shortest and leave the least number of ships behind to counter-pin the enemy. This uses all rules for pinning, including command ships (203.55).

Todd Jahnke:
Q1: Can there be an approach battle in a hex where the only item with a fixed position is a planet that lacks any RDF, PDU, or base of any sort?

A1: Yes, see (302.211), the presence or lack thereof of defensive units does not affect the approach battle requirement.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 06:30 am: Edit

Mike,

You never completely answered this question:
"Q1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?"

Assuming that a fighting retreat will take the attacker into a hex that has an enemy base (or base-like) unit, can the approach battle, by the defender be declined, thus allowing the attacker a free pass through the hex?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 07:35 am: Edit

Paul Howard:
Q1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?

A1: We need to know the number of ships on both sides to determine what happens per (302.775C). If there are more coalition ships than alliance ships then the fighting retreat is done by the Kzinti. Otherwise, it is still a valid retreat hex under (302.732), retreat step 2.

If the Kzinti are outnumbered by the coalition then they fight a battle away from the planet at a 0 BIR and the Coalition has a 10 BIR as per (302.775C).

Mike - Additional Info

Numbers are as follows (Exact numbes not known, but larger/smaller in force size is correct).

1001 - Coalition 5 Ships
902 - Kzinti 20 Ships
902 - Coalition 25 ships

So - The Kzinti can retreat to 1001, as they outnumber the forces already there (as 'defenders' in 902 they retreat before the attacker does) and it is the closest in supply hex

Re-assess steps - 1001 and 1002 remain equal distance to supply

The Coalition can then also retreat to 1001, as the existing force, plus retreating force is larger than the Kzinti force.

As 1002 is empty though, they can only enter 1001 under a Fighting Retreat.

So at 1001

Q1 - What happens if the Kzinti don't want any battle - even if it's under a Fighting retreat in their favour?

Q2 - What forces are involved in the frist battle (Retreating Coalition or All Coalition?)

I think Q1 is they have to offer, and the Coalition have to accept, and Q2 is just the Retreating Coalition forces.

Thanks
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 09:50 am: Edit

Robert Padilla:

Q1: You never completely answered this question:
"Q1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?"

Assuming that a fighting retreat will take the attacker into a hex that has an enemy base (or base-like) unit, can the approach battle, by the defender be declined, thus allowing the attacker a free pass through the hex?

A1: Yes, I did. (302.775C) says it is an approach battle with no option listed for it to be optional. So, it is an approach battle no matter how much, or little, defense is at the planet. The only option to not engage is on the attacker’s forces at the planet. The retreating forces must engage the attacker if the attacker comes out to fight. Otherwise the retreating forces go onto the next hex.

Paul Howard:

Q1) - 302.775C: A literal interpretation of the errata file leads to a strange result. Could the friendly forces decline the approach battle and thus get out of the fighting retreat penalty?

A1: We need to know the number of ships on both sides to determine what happens per (302.775C). If there are more coalition ships than alliance ships then the fighting retreat is done by the Kzinti. Otherwise, it is still a valid retreat hex under (302.732), retreat step 2.

If the Kzinti are outnumbered by the coalition then they fight a battle away from the planet at a 0 BIR and the Coalition has a 10 BIR as per (302.775C).

Mike - Additional Info

Numbers are as follows (Exact numbes not known, but larger/smaller in force size is correct).

1001 - Coalition 5 Ships
902 - Kzinti 20 Ships
902 - Coalition 25 ships

So - The Kzinti can retreat to 1001, as they outnumber the forces already there (as 'defenders' in 902 they retreat before the attacker does) and it is the closest in supply hex

Re-assess steps - 1001 and 1002 remain equal distance to supply

The Coalition can then also retreat to 1001, as the existing force, plus retreating force is larger than the Kzinti force.

As 1002 is empty though, they can only enter 1001 under a Fighting Retreat.

So at 1001

Q1 - What happens if the Kzinti don't want any battle - even if it's under a Fighting retreat in their favour?

Q2 - What forces are involved in the frist battle (Retreating Coalition or All Coalition?)

I think Q1 is they have to offer, and the Coalition have to accept, and Q2 is just the Retreating Coalition forces.


Steps 5-7C and 5-7D of the SOP are simultaneous for both sides. The Kzinti will fight all 30 Klingon ships at 0902. That is why, as the defender they have the second option to retreat. They know that there are 30 Klingon ships waiting for them at 1001 if they deicide to do a fighting retreat there.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 02:52 pm: Edit

I was going to e-mail this, but then I remembered Mike's post that said he was only going to answer questions posted here:

Here goes:

--------------------------

Mike,

Could you go back and look at Paul Howard's question again?

I think you misread something he said:
________________________________________
Quote:
Example - Coalition Phase of the Turn
1001 has just been captured by the Coalition.
Battle in 902 is fought - and both sides retreat.
________________________________________


Since 1001 has only now been captured, it is not yet a coalition supply point until the start of the Alliance half of the turn.
________________________________________
Quote:
1001 is closest in supply for the Kzinti, and is a legal hex to normally retreat to.

1001 and 1002 are equal for the Coalition in line of supply.
________________________________________


The Kzinti will not be conducting the fighting retreat. By the information provided, 1001 is a legal "normal" retreat hex for the Kzinti, if it's allowed at all. (You mention in your answer that the Kzinti may be conducting a fighting retreat if outnumbered. This does not compute. The fighting retreat rules do not let you ignore retreat priority #2, just retreat priority #4. (302.771))
________________________________________
Quote:
1001 - Coalition 5 Ships
902 - Kzinti 20 Ships
902 - Coalition 25 ships

So - The Kzinti can retreat to 1001, as they outnumber the forces already there (as 'defenders' in 902 they retreat before the attacker does) and it is the closest in supply hex
________________________________________


Rule 302.72 states that the defender retreats first. I'm not aware of any changes to that, so this is what I believe the sequence of Paul's question was:

•Battle at 0902 results in both sides retreating.
•Alliance (Kzinti) retreat first, and have only one option, 1001 as it's the closest supply point, and there are only 5 coalition ships there.
•Klingons must chose between 1001 and 1002. Since 1001 now has Kzinti ships, (302.72 - Kzinti retreat first), and 1002 is equally close to supply, 1001 would be a "fighting retreat" for the Klingons, not the Kzinti.

You stated in your answer that SOP steps 5.7C and 5.7D are simultaneous for both sides. I don't believe that interpretation is correct, since 302.72 clearly says "the defender retreats first."

So, then the question becomes (and was) "Can the non-phasing player, as 'attacker' in the approach battle, be required to offer an approach battle?"

I believe the answer here is "of course, and in this case the phasing player, acting as 'defender' of the planet, is also required to accept the approach battle since he's conducting the fighting retreat."
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 02:58 pm: Edit

Oh, and p.s. -

Any response to my challenge regarding using tug pods on the turn they're built, even though you're past the "assign tug missions" step?

I was hoping when I saw the "questions downloaded to this point" that I was going to get that challenge answered.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 - 11:42 pm: Edit

A1.2: Peacetime can be spent but not saved. Limited war can be spent and saved. Exhaustion affects this fully.

Mike, I believe that the NOT wasn't deleted when you answered as (540.22) does state that the owner can spend or save at his discretion...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 07:26 am: Edit

Mike, I'm not completely understanding this:

"A1: Yes, I did. (302.775C) says it is an approach battle with no option listed for it to be optional. So, it is an approach battle no matter how much, or little, defense is at the planet. The only option to not engage is on the attacker’s forces at the planet. The retreating forces must engage the attacker if the attacker comes out to fight. Otherwise the retreating forces go onto the next hex."

So if I have the following for example:
Coalition is the phasing player.
20 Coalition ships on planet 1001 (Coalition Supply Point).
20 Kzinti ships retreating from hex 0902.
Hexes 1001 and 1002 are both two hexes from supply.

The Kzinti perform a Fighting Retreat onto 1001, and the Coalition must accept the Approach battle and fight one round. That's cool and I can understand that. What I don't understand is how the attacker could be in the position to get out of the Fighting Retreat by declining an approach battle? Does that mean if the Coalition were the non-phasing player, they have to fight, but if they are the phasing player they can decline the approach?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, August 28, 2008 - 11:56 am: Edit

Matthew Smith:
Could you go back and look at Paul Howard's question again?

I think everyone, including me, is confused. Paul Howard: EMAIL me everything within six hexes of 0902 and 1001 at the moment before the retreat from 0902. I need to look at the whole picture.

Matthew Smith:

Q: Any response to my challenge regarding using tug pods on the turn they're built, even though you're past the "assign tug missions" step?

I was hoping when I saw the "questions downloaded to this point" that I was going to get that challenge answered.

A: I have pushed this up to Chuck, since it is a SOP question, not a rule question. He has been busy with ISC Wars, so it may be a while on the answer.

Stewart Frazier:
A1.2: Peacetime can be spent but not saved. Limited war can be spent and saved. Exhaustion affects this fully.

Mike, I believe that the NOT wasn't deleted when you answered as (540.22) does state that the owner can spend or save at his discretion...

That is what I get for cutting and pasting too fast… Change to read:
A1.2: Peacetime can be spent and/or saved. Limited war can be spent and/or saved. Exhaustion affects this fully.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, August 30, 2008 - 04:42 pm: Edit

Mike - Email sent

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:51 pm: Edit

September - November 2008 Archive

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Supply Question for Paul Howard and company. I set this up on Cyberboard and then went through the retreat options. My comments, as usual, in blue:

OK summary of the Map - Coalition Turn 5

Coalition bases destroyed - 502
Alliance bases destroyed - All BATS (outside of Marquis) and SB 1401

SB 902 was destroyed after the Alliance retreated from 902.

Planets captured.
1001 - Lyran Captured on Coalition Turn 5 (prior to battle at 902)

1202 - Klingon Captured on Coalition Turn 3

1105 - Klingon Captured on Coalition Turn 2

1401 - Klingon Captured on Coalition Turn 3

1502 - Klingon Captured on Coalition turn 4

1504 - Lyran Captured on Coalition turn 4

On map forces
Kzinti 20 ship in 902 wishing to retreat before SB is destroyed
Kzitni 1 ship in 1101

Coalition (All planets sufficently garrisoned)
Coalition 20 ships in 902 wishing to retreat after SB is destroyed - under a Klingon Flagship
Coalition 5 Ship in 1001

So - Kzinti retreat to 1001 (in supply, closest and has more than the Coalition there, including the retreating force)

Coalition - Closest Klingon supply point is 1202 - so 1001 and 1002 equal.

1002 is empty, 1001 has less Kzinti in it than the retreating force and existing 1001 Coalition force.

When did the Kzinti decide to retreat? Before the base in 902 was destroyed? If so, they shall retreat to 1001 by the following elimination of hexes:
Step 1: all hexes available
Step 2: all hexes available
Step 3: Eliminates all hexes except 1001.

This puts 20 Kzinti ships in 1001, with 5 coalition ships at the planet. This creates another battle hex.

If the Coalition ships in 902 decide to retreat after destroying the base there then they would then follow the retreat steps:
Step 1: all hexes available
Step 2: all hexes available
Step 3: Klingon Command, closest supply point 1202, so all eliminated except 1001 and 1002
Step 4: Enemy ships present in 1001 so retreat to 1002, unless they want to do a fighting retreat in 1001.

Now, onto the new battle hex at 1001. You have 20 Kzinti ships against 5 coalition ships in a standard battle. Since step 4 eliminated the remaining hex, per (302.73), the Kzinti ignores it. The Kzinti will fight a normal battle here, offering an approach battle to the Klingons, if the Klingons decline the Kzinti may retreat again and will have a +1 to the Klingon’s pursuit dice roll per (302.23).

Now, per your questions below:

The Coalition can then also retreat to 1001, as the existing force, plus retreating force is larger than the Kzinti force.

As 1002 is empty though, they can only enter 1001 under a Fighting Retreat.

So at 1001

Q1 - What happens if the Kzinti don't want any battle - even if it's under a Fighting retreat in their favor?

Q2 - What forces are involved in the first battle (Retreating Coalition or All Coalition?)

I think Q1 is they have to offer, and the Coalition have to accept, and Q2 is just the Retreating Coalition forces.

If the Coalition does the fighting retreat into 1001, then all forces in the hex are under the fighting retreat rules per (302.771). This means the Kzinti must, per (302.221), offer an approach battle to the Klingons which would be under the fighting retreat rules (302.77). The Klingons will fight together (all 25 ships) at BIR of 0, and the Kzinti 20 ships will be at BIR of 10. After the one round, the Klingon ships will 1102, ending their fighting retreat. The Kzinti’s will then have the option to either retreat from 1001 to 1101 or stay on the planet.

I hope this answers all the questions on this issue.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 - 04:15 am: Edit

Mike - Thanks

I think you might have missed the effects of bases on fighting retreats though - I don't believe the Coalition must retreat from 1001 - but I'll double check my rules when I get home.

(P.S. Reason for the Kzinti retreat was tactical - their was several good crippled ships in their force and it was unlikely they would win the hex, and so they had to retreat while the SB blocked persuit!)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 - 06:52 am: Edit

Mike,

I still have a question. I know Paul originally asked, but your answer has prompted a question for me.

Q: Are retreats sequential as supported by rule 302.72 "... the defender retreats first." OR are they simultaneous as you've stated above? ("Steps 5-7C and 5-7D of the SOP are simultaneous for both sides".)

I can find no rule that states simultaneous, and no errata eliminating the "defender first" statement.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 - 02:52 pm: Edit

Hi Mike

From the Errate pages which I have just found -

(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).

Re-reading this, it seems to say the Fighting retreat forces are seperate to the base 'defending forces' - and do not have to retreat.

But, does the Fighting Retreat Force 'have to accept' the approach battle?
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Does a force at a friendly base or planet have a requirement to accept an approach battle if an enemy uses fighting retreat to enter the hex?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Paul, note that planet 1001 is NOT a 'friendly' planet (nor part of the Coalition supply grid) via (413.2). [Also, a captured planet becoming part of the supply grid is optional (508.233).]

Matthew, the 'defender retreats first' refers to the defender having two retreat options (before and after the attacker). Regardless of which option is taken, the defender goes through the retreat options first, then the attacker (unless the defender had retreated some forces earlier via withdrawal before combat, then his retreating forces joins those forces).
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 04:03 am: Edit

Stewart

I don't beleive there is no destincition between Friendly Planet and captured Planet - Quote 'A: If the hex contains a friendly base (e.g., SB, BATS, BS, MB, LTF) or planet'

The errate states friendly base OR planet (highlighting or, not shouting).

When combat in the hex is over, the planet is caputured (yes, supply grid occurs next turn etc) and so is a 'base' under the errate defintion.

So sorry, I am not sure what you are getting at or saying?

With regard to Mathews point, Mike stated that under the SOP, bot sides retreated simutanously, which is a change to the previous retreat process (i.e. - yes, Defender has option to declare a retreat before and after the attacker, but does the defender physically retreat first, or do both retreat simutanously)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, September 04, 2008 - 08:39 am: Edit

Stewart,

I fully understand that the defender has first and third retreat options, and that the attacker has second option.

That is part of rule 302.71 - "Who must retreat."

But it also includes something else, which is this: "If both players retreat, the defender conducts his retreat first." (302.712)

The other "defender retreats first" statement is part of rule 302.72 - "How retreats are conducted."

Yes, obviously the retreat options are sequential, as you mentioned.

But there are also multiple statements in the rules that indicate the actual retreat process is also sequential. (Until Mike's statement about the SOP step, which was the first I heard otherwise.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 02:13 pm: Edit

OK, I have a question about the new ESSC going into CL 37.

Rule 323.51 states: "If neither player retreats [either as retreat action (323.32) or normally under (302.7)], continue using the ESSC system for additional rounds if necessary. If one player
retreats and the other player elects to pursue, then follow the procedures for pursuit (307.0) normally but use these ESSC procedures for resolving any pursuit combat."

Now it makes perfect sense that in the Pursuit round, that a casualty could not be resolved by using retreat again becasue one side is already fleeing and other other side gave up the option to give chase. But, this is nowhere stated or explained in the new rule.

So is it the case that a casualty can not be resolved as a retreat if it is a pursuit round?
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Jean, could you update the about message to replace Jeff with Chuck?
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 05:21 pm: Edit

I read and obey.


By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, September 12, 2008 - 08:19 pm: Edit

Since there is no option to retreat during a pursuit round, the player suffering a casualty cannot take the 'retreat' option and must resolve the casualty on a valid unit.
By Jeffrey Coutu (Jtc) on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 07:18 am: Edit

I have a question about the ESSC rule in CL 37.

When using ESSC does the rule on using SFGs in single combat (312.45) apply at all (if so how), or is it now ignored. Rule (323.42) only covers how to handle SFGs if they have the two required consorts.
By Edward Kroeten (Ekroeten) on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 08:08 pm: Edit

Hi Mike,

I have a question for you as the FEAR, this came up during a tacnote and was transferred to the general discussion and SVC said I should ask you.

Here is the question a directed damage attack destroys 4 PDUs for 30 damage points; do the 4 remaining damage points get resolved on the fighters that are now homeless and will become minus points? One player says no, that they can select to damage a frigate, but this is just another way to increase minus points. Because you know he will just over cripple a larger ship to cause more minus points. I believe this is a perverse reading of rule 302.53 when it talks about end of the combat round. Especially when 501.7 says if the fighters cannot be transferred they are given up immediately at that point.

302.53 A player using Directed Damage against a unit is not required to destroy its fighters or PFs [see (501.7) and (502.45)]. However, any fighters/PFs remaining at the end of a Combat Round when their support unit is destroyed or crippled must be transferred [see (501.6) and (502.44)] to other units able to carry them (in the same hex), or they can be used to satisfy further damage requirements in that Combat Round. Exception: PFs may transfer (502.44) to a base/tender in an adjacent hex (arriving at the end of the Combat Phase). Fighters and PFs become "minus points" (308.2) only if transfer is impossible. In effect, it is "transfer or die" at the end of EACH Combat Round.


501.7 If the carrier is destroyed or crippled and the fighters cannot be transferred by (501.6) they are given up as casualties immediately at that point in the Combat Round; see (308.23).

Stewart Frazier said this and I agree with this interpretation:

OK, overall it means that the fighters would absorb the 4 left over damage, leaving 20 homeless fighters, possibly waiting for other capital (multi-system) battles for final resolution (i.e. fighter slots opening up in other systems) at the end of the Combat Phase in that Battle Hex.

It's not (quite) a contradiction, but 302.53 needs to ref 501.7 for priority ordering, any remainder still has to be resolved but must wait to the end of the Battle Round (which can be 1-3 more battles in multi-system hex)...

I appreciate your attention in the matter.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 03:05 pm: Edit

452 and 308.85. Can a uncrippled STB or STX utilize 308.85 to self repair SIDs steps?

308.85 states that BATS and BS are unable to self repair. 452 does not address whether or not the STB can self repair.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Mike,

Any chance on getting the PDF of the errata updated? The one that's posted runs through CL35. Or do you want to wait for CL38's rulings?

Ryan
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 05:52 pm: Edit

431.32 Carrier Group Overproduction.

The rule states that the Feds can overbuild thier F111 carrier that stands in for the PFTs and specifically mentions the NVH. Would this rule then also cover the following F111 carriers? CVH and NHV?
By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 07:28 pm: Edit

I know the different verions of the F & E rulebook have changed but have there been any changes on the counters? Can counters from 86, 89, 93 and 2000 be used in the current game?
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 08:04 pm: Edit

Many of the counters (mostly carrier groups) in 86 are radically different from those in later versions. Later versions also have a somewhat wider variety of ships (again, primarily carrier groups) than in 86. I am not aware of any gross differences in counter factors between 89, 93, and 2K, but there might be something somewhere.

Cheers,
Jason
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Check the SIT for each race to see what the counter value should be. If it is different put it aside. I have very large zip lock bags full of counters that don't have the right value. I can't force myself to throw counters away...
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 04:22 am: Edit

Do the neutral zone hexes between the Hydrans & LDR effectively count as Hydran/Lyran? Ie, in a free campaign would a Hydran ship entering such a hex be an act of war against the Lyrans?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Quick question about Retrograde & Supply.

Is a ship that is in supply at the start of its Operational movement automatically considered to be in supply for Retrograde movement? The rules seem to say this but they are a little bit hazy.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 03:50 pm: Edit

Reccomend that the references in the Master F&E errata be updated to reference to rule rewrites of (530.0) in CL36 and the superccesion of of (310.0) and (318.7) by (323.0) in CL37.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 05:30 pm: Edit

F&E Errata file dated 6/30/07

(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.

This does not seem to fit into the contents of 602.49 as published in Fighter Operations.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 07:48 pm: Edit

F&E Errata file dated 6/30/07

(621.13) These are "minor shipyards" rather than "auxiliary shipyards" and have no relation to the production of "auxiliary ships." These can produce ships at their normal rate if money is available.

(621.13) is the scenario rules for the Gorn. I think this refers to rule (621.123) which refers to the Kestral minor shipyards. Which already refers to them as "Minor" not "auxiliary" shipyards.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 07:59 pm: Edit

(414.6) Advanced Convoy Rules.

This was published in CL33 under a regular rule number. Is this an official rule for F&E?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - 08:19 pm: Edit

The ruling in the 6/30/07 Errata file for (709.1B) on the Pegasus states "... only a limit of one free Pegasus ship per turn..."

(525.318) stated that "...the Hydrans receive one Pegasus-class ship of their choice (PFT only when available) each year at no cost."

Obviously a error when the ruling was typed up.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 07:48 am: Edit

I pointed the "Pegasus discrepancy" out to the previous FEAR. You mean he didn't fix it?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 10:32 pm: Edit

How do independent fighters that have reacted into the hex work in capital assaults?
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 10:36 pm: Edit

302.732 step 2:

Are crips counted as half ships (as in the pinning rules)? This seems like a natural assumption, but it doesn't say . . .
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, September 19, 2008 - 09:26 am: Edit

A unit is a unit, be it a crippled or a uncrippled ship. So in that case either counts as one unit. A unit by definition from 102.0 is a ship, bases, PDUs, repair ships, convoys, FRDs, etc. There is no distinction for a crippled ship or uncrippled ship.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, September 26, 2008 - 06:30 pm: Edit

302.451 Option #1 should read 302.541 Option #1

302.452 Option #2 should read 302.542 Option #2
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 01:44 pm: Edit

I have a Kzinti 3CV counter, 18-21[6], which loses its EFF via CEDS.

If the counter occurs in a subsequent battle round with the EFF slot empty and is subject to DD as a whole group, does it have a DF of 21 (the counter's DF which DD says applies) or does it have a DF of 17 (the group counter's DF less the EFF's DF).
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 01:56 pm: Edit

Its DF is 17 in that situation, Peter. Rule (308.121) in F&E2K clearly states this. I don't know if this is included in earlier editions of the game, however.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, September 28, 2008 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Thanks. My F&E-2K is 'in the mail' and I'll have a look then (I guess I should be more patient).
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 12:44 am: Edit

"My F&E-2K is 'in the mail' "

Thank God.'
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 01:26 am: Edit

Amen.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:27 pm: Edit

This is not all of the current Q&A. Some have been sent to other staff for their comments. Some will be directly added to the Errata update of which I am woefully behind on and will be worked on next. Thank you to Ryan Opel for helping with this even though he is halfway around the world serving our country! Thank you Ryan!

Paul Howard:
Q: I think you might have missed the effects of bases on fighting retreats though - I don't believe the Coalition must retreat from 1001 - but I'll double check my rules when I get home.

(P.S. Reason for the Kzinti retreat was tactical - there were several good crippled ships in their force and it was unlikely they would win the hex, and so they had to retreat while the SB blocked pursuit!)

A: The question is whose planet is it for base purposes for the fighting retreat for the Klingons. Since the Klingon’s have captured the planet this phase they “own” it for the purposes of the fighting retreat. The 20 retreating Klingon ships fight an approach battle with the fighting retreat rules per the errata with rule (302.775) against the Kzinti. The next round the remaining Klingons ships move to the no “friendly” planet and stop their retreat with the five ships there. The remaining combat rounds are resolved normally.

Todd Jahnke:
Q: Does a force at a friendly base or planet have a requirement to accept an approach battle if an enemy uses fighting retreat to enter the hex?

A: No, they do not have the accept the approach battle and the fighting retreat forces will then fight against a 0 compot force arrayed against them and then retreat again.

Robert Padilla:

Q: Rule 323.51 states: "If neither player retreats [either as retreat action (323.32) or normally under (302.7)], continue using the ESSC system for additional rounds if necessary. If one player retreats and the other player elects to pursue, then follow the procedures for pursuit (307.0) normally but use these ESSC procedures for resolving any pursuit combat."

Now it makes perfect sense that in the Pursuit round, that a casualty could not be resolved by using retreat again because one side is already fleeing and other side gave up the option to give chase. But, this is nowhere stated or explained in the new rule.

So is it the case that a casualty can not be resolved as a retreat if it is a pursuit round?

A: (Chuck Strong) Since there is no option to retreat during a pursuit round, the player suffering a casualty cannot take the 'retreat' option and must resolve the casualty on a valid unit.

Jeffrey Coutu:

Q: When using ESSC does the rule on using SFGs in single combat (312.45) apply at all (if so how), or is it now ignored. Rule (323.42) only covers how to handle SFGs if they have the two required consorts.

A: The SFG unit has its consorts then it uses the standard SFG rules. If it does not then it does not have any SFG capability. If your Admiral is incompetent enough to have a SFG ship by itself then you deserve the results.

Ryan Opel:
Q: (443.32) The rule states that the Feds can overbuild thier F111 carrier that stands in for the PFTs and specifically mentions the NVH. Would this rule then also cover the following F111 carriers? CVH and NHV?

A: Yes.

Shawn Hantke:
Q: I know the different verions of the F & E rulebook have changed but have there been any changes on the counters? Can counters from 86, 89, 93 and 2000 be used in the current game?

A: Check the SIT for each race to see what the counter value should be. If it is different put it aside. I have very large zip lock bags full of counters that don't have the right value. I can't force myself to throw counters away...

Peter Hill:
Q: Do the neutral zone hexes between the Hydrans & LDR effectively count as Hydran/Lyran? Ie, in a free campaign would a Hydran ship entering such a hex be an act of war against the Lyrans?

A: It depends on if the LDR are in service or this territory is Lyran. Any hex adjacent to Lyran and Hydran territory will require a war time footing to enter by either side.

Q: Is a ship that is in supply at the start of its Operational movement automatically considered to be in supply for Retrograde movement? The rules seem to say this but they are a little bit hazy.

A: (206.31) is clear that a ship must be in supply to use retrograde movement at the instance of the retrograde movement, not the operational movement check.

William Jockusch:
Q: How do independent fighters that have reacted into the hex work in capital assaults?

A: They are grouped as independent squadrons and used per (205.7) and can be placed in either the mobile or static forces. If placed in the static they will need to return each round to that system.

Q: 302.732 step 2: Are crips counted as half ships (as in the pinning rules)?

A: (302.732) does not state ship equivalents, so it is the actual number of units/ships counted.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:47 pm: Edit

HEY MIKE.

You are welcome.

Now what about the rest of the questions I asked?


By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 03:53 pm: Edit

Q: Is a ship that is in supply at the start of its Operational movement automatically considered to be in supply for Retrograde movement? The rules seem to say this but they are a little bit hazy.

A: (206.31) is clear that a ship must be in supply to use retrograde movement at the instance of the retrograde movement, not the operational movement check.

Section (206.31) does indeed say that BUT (410.24) goes on to say:
Supply status for Retrograde Movement is determined at the start of that phase. Exception: if the ship was in supply at the time of combat, it is considered to be in supply for purposes of Retrograde Movement.

And a ship is considered to be in supply for combat if it started its Operational Movement phase in supply.

So my question still stands.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:03 pm: Edit

442.31 (probably a WarBook add) but the FFT/DWT/APT/PTR/FDX should be added to this list of ships able to transport EPs.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
And a ship is considered to be in supply for combat if it started its Operational Movement phase in supply.

So my question still stands.
________________________________________

FEAR has answered your question. This has been ruled on before also. Indeed a ship in Supply at the beginning of Operational Movement is in supply for combat, meaning it doesn't suffer all the penalties DURING combat (such as half attack factors etc). However at the MOMENT a ship attempts to retrograde it MUST check supply. The 'A ship in supply at the beginning of Operational movement is considered in supply for combat' will NOT use some transitive property to bootstrap for retrograde.

You can of course appeal Mike C's ruling, but this has been ruled the same way in the past by the previous FEAR.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:00 pm: Edit

From Q&A Aprill 22 2007
________________________________________
Quote:
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.
________________________________________
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:18 pm: Edit

Remember, before asking a question, it is the players responsibility to fully research the question at hand. It is your responsibility to check past rulings for answers to your question.

FEAR is not responsible for short, curt, or otherwise snide remarks for subject matters that have been asked time and time again or in a different way in an attempt to get an answer the player wants to hear instead of what has been ruled on in the past.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Jean: Please add the above message to the header once SVC has approved it. Thanks
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:40 pm: Edit

"You can of course appeal Mike C's ruling, but this has been ruled the same way in the past by the previous FEAR. "

And the three before that.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Shucks, Webmom didn't put in the part about "snide remarks".
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 05:53 pm: Edit

WebMom is innocent. This was an act of G.O.D.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Mike,

This basic question was asked down in the OOB topic. How can the Kzinti produce a DW or DWS in Y174 if the DW does not appear on the schedule until Y175? I believe they could be built by overproduction but am not sure. Can a ship that has a legal YIS date on the SIT be overbuilt even though it is not yet available on the production schedule for that year?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Dan,

I'm fairly certain they can be built by substitution for a FF, but on a limited basis
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Monday, September 29, 2008 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Joe,

DWEs can be built as a sub for FFs on a limited basis but not a DW or DWS.

Edit: OOB lets you sub a DWE once per year for an FF starting in Y173.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 12:31 am: Edit

Dan,

The question and a possible solution has been submitted to Mike and the Senior Staff.

Probably end up being a SVC answer.

Ryan
OOB Guy
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 08:13 am: Edit

It is your responsibility to check past rulings for answers to your question.

And the three before that.

I checked the "Q&A Archive File" and didn't find one relevant ruling (and certainly not three). Either I managed to miss an awful lot, or the rulings were elsewhere.

Please add the above message to the header

If there are other areas to research first (other than the "Q&A Archive File") then I think adding a suitable search list to the topic header would save time all round.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 09:44 am: Edit

I have the whole Q&A file (this topic) in a word document so I can use MS Words search tools.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 09:52 am: Edit

Ryan Opel:
Q: 452 and 308.85. Can a uncrippled STB or STX utilize 308.85 to self repair SIDs steps?

308.85 states that BATS and BS are unable to self repair. 452 does not address whether or not the STB can self repair.

Ruling: Yes, they have sufficient repair capacity to repair one SID on itself and no other repairs that turn. Note to self (Add to Errata)
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 10:10 am: Edit

"DWEs can be built as a sub for FFs on a limited basis but not a DW or DWS. "

Dan,

I seem to recall that you can always substitute a base hull for a variant, and I know you can sub for a sub.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 10:24 am: Edit

A possible solution to the Kzinti DW problem is currently with Mike.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 10:30 am: Edit

Q: 452 and 308.85. Can a uncrippled STB or STX utilize 308.85 to self repair SIDs steps?

308.85 states that BATS and BS are unable to self repair. 452 does not address whether or not the STB can self repair.

Ruling: Yes, they have sufficient repair capacity to repair one SID on itself and no other repairs that turn. Note to self (Add to Errata)


MIKE,

I would add this errata to both 452.12 and 308.85.
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 10:32 am: Edit

I agree.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 10:50 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
I checked the "Q&A Archive File" and didn't find one relevant ruling (and certainly not three). Either I managed to miss an awful lot, or the rulings were elsewhere.
________________________________________

I managed to find the ruling in about 8 minutes. I am not saying this to denigrate you in any way, I used to complain I could never find rulings either but Ted Fay showed me the trick at his house one day and ever since its been alot easier. Its not really a trick its just.. Mmmnn well anyway here is what I did.

Click the keyword search and make sure and restrict it to Federation and Empire. Then use
+Operational + Retrograde +Supply

And its like the first or second item that comes up, now its out of 147 or so possible but as yo restrict further it comes up to the top.

The method for choosing was just to pick the things important in the idea and put them in. Since we were dealing with Retrograde and supply those were a gimme, but when I used just those two I got 350 some odd hits. Then it seemed that Operational movement was important too, since we were trying to daisy chain Operational supply through to Retragrade, so I added +Operational and voila' there it was.

Also while I know this is a pain, spend a good 6 hours one day and just read the Q&A archives, its actually worthwhile in many areas, you will pick up some nice strategy/tactics in addition to the rulings!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 11:07 am: Edit

518.22 SWACS. Can the Sector Base use a SWAC?

A Starbase may use 2, a Defense Brigade may use 1, Base and Battle Stations may use 0.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 11:10 am: Edit

I think there's another problem.

It sounds like Peter checked the topic called "Q&A Archive."

That does have a bunch of the questions answered, but not all of them.

You also have to look at the Q&A itself (all 7 years worth.)

The Q&A archive is basically (I believe) a summary of what gets printed in the CLs. The Q&A topic (with 7 years of data) is MUCH bigger, and harder to search.

Another trick to searching this is if you have a question about a specific rule. This is easy. Just plug in the rule number.

If you plug in 410.24 in the keyword search, you can find that this very question has been asked in a number of different ways, and always answered consistantly. By plugging in the rule number to a keyword search, you narrow your search very quickly.

[edit]

Just as an example, I recently had a question about what happens if I leave my opponent with 2 points of damage after directed damage, and he's got nothing with a defense factor less than 5. Obviously, by the rules, he is not REQUIRED to cripple anything else. But may he? Plug in rule number 302.61 into a keyword search and voila, instant answer, the game goes on and Mike doesn't get involved.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Rules 532.2 has a numbering problem.

The rule numbers skips 532.221. I think 532.222->532.227 should be renumbered to 532.23->523.27.
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Tuesday, September 30, 2008 - 07:43 pm: Edit

I have a question on accelerated production and specficly its impact on Lyran carrier production.

431.37 lets me take a ship from the next production cycle and it counts against the current turns limits. Now if I take a CVL from Spring Y171 to use the free fighters that are about to be lost what happens in in Spring Y171? Is this accelerated production even allowed?

I'm assuming that the build rate has been reduced by one CW, but how has the carrier production been impacted? Lyran production on carriers are defined by the year not the turn.

This question could be applied to mauler builds just as well.

Charles Chapel
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Question for the FEAR:

On turn 1 of the general war, may the Lyrans use retrograde movement to Klingon bases and, in doing so, accept internment? Search of the rules and Q&A does not seem to produce a definitive answer. Lyrans are prevented from entering Klingon territory on turn 1 (general war restrictions), but the rules also allow ships to retrograde into a neutral power and accept internment. Other Q&A rulings seem to point that future beligerants *can* accept internment - so the answer appears to be "yes."

Obviously, the consequences of this answer could be significant, as the interned Lyrans are released on coalition turn 2. Thus, they're only unavailable for alliance turn 1.

Might be worth a tac note if I can do this....
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Hmmm...I can see where they may accept internment (to the closest base?) after withdrawal, but allowing retrograding would open up a can of worms. This could allow the Lyrans to repositiion their fleet - and thus allow a Turn 2 assault on the Kzinti capital.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 01:23 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Hmmm...I can see where they may accept internment (to the closest base?) after withdrawal, but allowing retrograding would open up a can of worms. This could allow the Lyrans to repositiion their fleet - and thus allow a Turn 2 assault on the Kzinti capital.
________________________________________
Yes, it does have broad implications. However, I'm not sure the T2 capital assault is viable due to supply issues. You'd have to have a convoy or a well placed supply tug that was placed in Zin territory on turn 1 - and that would have had to survive the Zin counter-offensive on turn 1. I'm not sure the Lyrans have enough ships to establish Lyran supply to the Kzinti capital on coalition turn 2. Maybe it could be done. For sure, you could have a Lyran expeditionary fleet joining a Klingon assault on the Zin homeworld by Northern fleet and Klingon new construction from turn 1. That would be enough of a threat to make the Zin pull back defenses from Count's SB, mabye Duke's SB, and thereby cause those SBs to go down earlier - or take out PDUs from teh Zin capital. Again, dunno.

Nevertheless, as I said, it does make life more difficult on the Zin if this will work.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Here are the rules I say are enabling:
________________________________________
Quote:
(503.12) Ships of any player can retrograde or retreat into a
neutral hex and accept internment. Supply cannot be drawn
through or from a neutral hex.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
Races which have not yet entered the War but which are
scheduled to do so in the future (or which may in a free scenario)
are treated as in (503.1). When (and if) these races
enter the War, any interned allied ships are released and any
interned enemy ships are considered immediately and automatically
captured (305.0), but the capturing race can use
only Options 2 (305.22), 3 (305.23), 4 (305.24), or 6 (302.26).
A released interned carrier could not obtain replacement
fighters until the next Retrograde Phase (308.131) or the
owning player's next Production Phase
________________________________________

(Emphasis supplied)


Here's the rule that may create the exception:
________________________________________
Quote:
(601.161) The Klingons on Turn 1 are at full wartime mobilization,
but are not at war with anyone. This is a unique
exception to several rules due to the in-motion war plans,
which called for the Lyrans to launch the first attack and the
Klingons to follow a few months later. During Turn 1, there
are no restrictions on the Klingons except that they cannot
leave their territory (and only new production and activated
mothball ships can leave their deployment zone) and their
Lyran allies cannot enter their territory. The Klingons on Turn
1 can build and convert ships (as well as non-ships such as
an FRO), use accelerated or overproduction, accumulate
economic points, activate mothball ships, receive and buy
command points, raise and buy prime teams, and anything
else that a race "at war" could do. All Klingon fleets are unreleased,
so the only ships that can move are new production.
Note that because they cannot leave their own territory, they
cannot begin survey operations.
________________________________________

(Emphasis supplied)
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 01:39 pm: Edit

This would also have broad implications on the Hydran expedition - make it much easier.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Related question on this rule:
________________________________________
Quote:
(503.12) Ships of any player can retrograde or retreat into a
neutral hex and accept internment. Supply cannot be drawn
through or from a neutral hex.
________________________________________
I take it that supply is not required when retrograding into a neutral hex?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 03:42 pm: Edit

And, in the case where the answers to the above don't actually make everything clear, then please answer the following: What are the requirements for retrograding into a neutral hex?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 04:14 pm: Edit

Ted:
I'm not sure the T2 capital assault is viable due to supply issues. You'd have to have a convoy or a well placed supply tug that was placed in Zin territory on turn 1 - and that would have had to survive the Zin counter-offensive on turn 1.

Couldn't you just send a tug in and retrograde it to the Klingons with the main force, then at the start of T2 (when the interned ships including the tug are released) declare the tug as a supply point?
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Peter, yes, that would work. Nice thinking.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 05:35 pm: Edit

Nick,

To aid you in your ruling, I have found the following prior rulings in the archives. I found them by searching F&E for +hydran, +expedition +retrogade.

From the look of it, you CAN retrograde into Fed space and activate them. Joe, if you know where the ruling is that says otherwise, please advise!
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 09:28 pm: Edit


Answers to questions:

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

John Conniff:

1. Are Police Ships ships or only units?

ANSWER: They are treated as ships.

2. Can a Police Ship be a flagship? If so, what's it's command rating?

ANSWER: Looks like this wasn't in the book as the police ships are not on the SIT. You could check Star Fleet Battles for the command ratings, as I believe that is listed on the master ship chart. I would post them here but I am without my SFB material at the moment.

3. The text of 302.36 says: "...must include at least half of the *ships* unless the Cmd Rating of the flagship can't control that many *units*..." - Does this mean that Aux's only count in filling the battle force to the Cmd Rating of a flagship but not in determining the min. size? That is, if I have 4 ships & 5 Aux's is my min. size 4 or 2?

ANSWER: I believe they would count for the minimum force purposes since rule (513.121) says that aux carriers function in combat as any other ship would (even though they are non-ship units for other purposes). In general the other aux ships use the aux carrier rules.

4. Can a captured ship be used as a 'normal' crippled ship, after the turn it was captured has passed? I know Option 5 allows it in the battle it was captured, but can it be used in subsequent battles.

ANSWER: So far as I know, option 5 can be used in later battles (assuming you haven't used one of the other options in the meantime).

5. After a Slow Unit retreat the slow units (& escorts) *must* retrograde 3 hexes or their destroyed. What if they're out of supply and can't retrograde? Do they get an exception retrograde or are they simply dead?

ANSWER: I believe that it automatically happens regardless. It uses some of the retro rules (you need a valid retrograde path), but it is retreat.

6. Clarification: To be in supply for Retrograding requires that the unit is in supply "at the time of retrograde" and/or in supply *at the time of combat* (not simply considered in supply for combat). Correct?

ANSWER: In order to retrograde, you must have either a valid supply path at the instant of retrograde, or have had a valid supply path (not just been "in supply") during combat
________________________________________


________________________________________
Quote:
y Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 06:47 am: Edit

OK - not sure if this question(s!) have been asked in this manner.

1) - Can you retrograde to a NEUTRAL/FUTURE ALLY base? (i.e. Can the Hydrans before the Federations are at War or limited war retrograde to a Federation base?)

2) Supply and retrograding

Hydrans are in supply at the Start of the Hydran player turn.

Hydrans move - before combat phase, they are still in supply.

Instant of Combat - Hydrans are OUT of supply.

As they was in supply at the start of the player turn, they are considered 'in supply for combat'.

Rule 410.24 - 'Ship was in supply at the time of combat, it is considered to be in supply for purposes of retrograde movement'.

So the ship in question, was considered out of supply at the moment of combat, but in supply for the combat phase.

Can the ship retrograde?

Thanks

Paul

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, August 01, 2002 - 09:22 pm: Edit


Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 10:58 am:

Answer: First note that homeless ships can only be supplied at the start of the Player Turn (410.56). Second, since all of the 6 adjacent hexes are out of supply, then you ignore supply for Klingon retreat (302.733-A). Since none of the adjacent hexes have enemy ships, the Coalition can retreat to any of the six hexes.

If (302.761) has been declared to be in effect, then the Lyrans retreat toward their supply. Since the Klingons could retreat into any of the adjacent hexes, they must retreat to the same hex as the Lyrans.

============
JohnColacito (Johncolacito) on Saturday, July 27, 2002 - 11:45 pm:

Answer: The ship is destroyed.

===========
Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 06:47 am:

1) Answer: Future Allies are Future Belligerents (503.4) and are treated as Permanent Neutrals (503.1) until they enter the war. Ships can always retrograde to a Neutral hex (503.12).


2) Answer: No. If the ships don't have a valid supply point at the time of combat or at the time of retrograde, they can't retrograde. Because they were in supply at the start of the turn, they were able to "load up" all of their supplies and fight at full strength during the combat phase. However, since they used their supplies in combat, they need to be able to draw additional supplies in order to retrograde.
________________________________________

________________________________________
Quote:
By John Smedley (Ukar) on Monday, February 17, 2003 - 04:56 pm: Edit


Nick -

If the expedition succeeds during alliance retrograde on turn 4, can the coalition attack the federation on turn 5? The Federation has not gotten an op move phase in this case, so they cannot possibly have attacked the Klingons.

601.14 states that the Feds can attack the Klingons immediately, but it does not say what happens if the Feds do not attack.


By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 06:45 pm: Edit


John Smedley, rule (601.14) says that Hydran entry allows the Feds to attack, it says nothing about the Klingons attacking or declaring war, so they cannot do so until the Feds attack. If entry happens on the alliance turn the Feds get 50% economy to spend immediately, 75% on the next alliance turn (when they can attack) and 100% after that.

The 75% turn is the turn that the Feds can join the alliance and attack, the Klingons cannot attack them before this happens.


Tim Losberg, again, if the Hydrans enter during an alliance turn, the Feds are still at 50% that turn (i.e. still at peace), but will be at 75% on the next alliance turn and able to attack then.


Martin Read, a tug can be assigned any mission when built since missions are assigned in the production step (509.31).

There are restrictions on tug missions assigned before the game starts (i.e. Kzinti starting tug missions assigned before the Lyrans attack on turn #1), see (509.32) which disallows missions C, D, K in this case.
________________________________________
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 06:54 pm: Edit

Psst,

Ted,


Nick's no longer the FEAR. The new guys name is Mike Curtis.

Just thought I'd let ya know.


By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Mike & Ryan,

Thanks.

Joe,

But as they never would without brain damage that's really a moot concept.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Rule 312.202. The reference in the last sentance to rule 321.222 should be 312.222.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 01:59 pm: Edit

Dan,

Huh?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 02, 2008 - 06:02 pm: Edit

Mike,

I am actually suprised this question never came up when we were discussing ESSC.
________________________________________
Quote:
(323.32) RETREAT: One (and only one) “casualty” may also be
resolved as a “Retreat” action using (302.72). This results in all
units belonging to that player retreating one hex. This is resolved
after all other “casualties” are resolved, so retreating does not
stop the resolution of such casualties.
________________________________________

Suppose you have a mixed force of ships and units ineligible for retreat. Simple a single PDU and a Frigate. Can you resolve one casualty to retreat the Frigate? The rule itself states "All units" well we know the PDU cannot retreat, so that could mean that no units can retreat, since the intent is to force the whole side in ESSC to run off. However for such immobile items like bases, as long as the base survives its allowed to retreat 'behind' the base and retreat without pursuit.

The most logical thing would be to allow you to resolve a single casualty to retreat all units able to retreat, but I think it deserves a ruling by you.

Corallary question.

Suppose you have a slow unit and a ship, if you resolve a casualty as retreat, I assume you would then retreat the ship and have a seperate slow unit retreat for the slow unit, and the winner would divide his forces as he wished for pursuit? Just clarifying here.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, October 03, 2008 - 04:13 pm: Edit

EP's transfered by Tug are normally collected and/or dropped off during movement (operational and/or strategic) at a capital or satellite stockpile.

IF a tug carrying ep arrives at a delivery node (capital, base or planet) during movement but decides not to deliver the ep at that time, when would its next opportunity to do so be? SPECIFICALLY, if a tug carrying ep is at a node during the start of a player turn, can it deliver its ep then (and prepare for a new mission) or does it need to wait until the end of operational movement?

PS: The only other Q&A question I found similar in nature to this (from 2006) received no answer.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, October 03, 2008 - 04:37 pm: Edit

Rule 320.332 reference to "slow unit (765.1) should be (756.1)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, October 03, 2008 - 09:26 pm: Edit

Joe,

Sorry, not posting fast enough. On the DW subject;

The Kzinti would never unconvert a DWE to a DW (then possibly convert it to a DWS) in Y174, or ever really, due to the need for escorts unless the player is seariously brain damaged. So it doesn't really matter that the Kzinti could potentially do this via the method you proposed. It does not create a realistic or viable method to produce a DW in Y174 even though the SIT shows that the DW is available.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 12:07 am: Edit

Dan,

I didn't say "unconvert"

I said substitute.

They aren't the same thing, grasshopper
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 12:35 am: Edit

You would never sub a DW for a DWE so it's just as invalid a concept. You need the escorts.
By Edward Kroeten (Ekroeten) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 02:23 am: Edit

I agree with Dan, Zin needs all the escorts he can get.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 07:21 am: Edit

Rule 502.45 reference to 302.45 does not exist. Believe the correct reference is 302.53 since that refers to homeless PFs being able to go to an available tender/base in an adjacent hex.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 08:07 am: Edit

Rule 503.4 reference to 302.26 should be 305.26.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Rule 513.23 reference to 303.334 should be 302.334.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 04:47 pm: Edit

Rule 515.43 reference to 515.123 should be 515.27.

Rule 515.44 "Battle Control Ships (525.5) and Battle Carriers (in advanced Operations)... should be "Battle Control Ships (525.54) and Battle Carriers (525.53)...
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 07:44 pm: Edit

"You would never sub a DW for a DWE "

I disagree.

And the question was "HOW CAN IT BE DONE"

I told you the answer. That doesn't mean there aren't other more enticing options. But it can be done.

As for the escorts, depending on the amount of enemy maulers present in theatre, getting a few DWE may not be as urgent as all that.

Dont' tell me it's "invalid", Dan. You're talking to the wrong guy.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, October 04, 2008 - 09:58 pm: Edit

It's invalid.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 04:43 am: Edit

when the Lyrans are allowed to attack the Federation/Tholian? turn 7 or 10?

anyone can help, pls.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 06:36 am: Edit

Per 602.14, the Lyrans are not allowed to operate in Federation space on turns 7-9, except for an expeditionary fleet.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 08:26 am: Edit

thanks.
By Peter A. Kellerhall (Pak) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 12:49 pm: Edit

Is this the same for attacking the Tholians?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Dan,

you're really looking to get whomped next year at Origins, huh?


By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 05:29 pm: Edit

Dale and Ken have all ready agreed to join my team next year. We're playing the alliance. I'm even playing Hydran.
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 05:45 pm: Edit

Dan: Line!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Rule 521.34 reference to (512.34) should be (521.34).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, October 05, 2008 - 06:40 pm: Edit

Rule 521.712 seems to be missing a couple of words in the first sentance. 521.711 says "The Federation, Tholians, and Hydrans are allowed to have two troop transport pods (each) at any one time." .712 says "The Klingons, Gorns, and Kzintis troop pods."

Our VP of Proofreading and Professionalization says that .712 is an incomplete sentance.

I think based on how .711 reads the rule should read "(521.712) The Klingons Gorns, and Kzintis are allowed to have four troop transport pods (each) at any one time."
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 12:34 am: Edit

Hey Ryan, shouldn't those references be in the Warbook topic?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 03:19 am: Edit

Maybe the last one, but the current errata file has a TON of this reference is actually this reference entries.

What suprises me is how many their still are on rulebooks that have been published for several years.

I do have other stuff I've been finding that I haven't put in this topic becuase they are more properly WarBook Questions.

Like change the Special Operations references to Combined Operations. Or this gadget (in Eco War) will... changed to the actual rule number.
By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Mike C.,

I know you're busy, but hopefully you can get to the Q&A soon. The answer on the Lyrans retrograding to neutral Klingon bases on C1 of the general war scenario will make a big difference to my opening moves for the new game that Mike Parker and I are starting up, and we're otherwise ready to go. Your work and attention are appreciated.

Thanks,
Ted
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 01:40 pm: Edit

I will get to them as soon as I get a serpentine belt that will stay on my van and not desinigrate after less than 50 miles of use...
By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Check the idler pulley
nudge... nudge... wink... wink...
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 02:16 pm: Edit

Naw, it is just over a year old...

The old belt was squeaking, they gave me a new fangled type and it just fell apart.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 06, 2008 - 02:19 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
The old belt was squeaking, they gave me a new fangled type and it just fell apart.
________________________________________

*frowns*
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Please note that Dale is playing the Neo-Tholian in our planned game. I think the Hydran will do fine.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 02:45 am: Edit

Question 1:
Partial Grids (unlike a capital-centred main grid) normally store their ep in a non-localised fashion (lost only when the last node falls).

Tugs can transfer ep's to and from a Partial Grid. However unlike delivery to a main grid, the rules don't state where a tug needs to go to deliver/collect ep to/from a partial grid. Can it do so just by being in supply range? Or being in a province? Or does it need to co-locate with any arbitrary node (base or planet) in the grid?

Question 2:
I think I may have been misinterpreting Stockpile rules. I've been assuming that a Partial Grid containing a Satellite Stockpile could use that ep to pay for grid activities. Closer examination of the rules doesn't seem to support this however. It *seems* that a stockpile is isolated. So, is it true that for a Partial Grid to use a Satellite Stockpile (located at one of its nodes) it would need to use a tug to 'collect' the ep from the stockpile then 'deliver' the ep to the decentralised grid as a whole?

I've checked the F&E-2K rules and previous Q&A and been unable to find clarification.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 04:42 am: Edit

Question:
Partial grids collect ep and store them in a non-localised fashion. IF a partial grid is split into two partial grids during a turn how are the decentralised (non-stockpile) ep's divided?

Question:
Can a partial grid pay the 1 ep (to supply 5 ships) at *any* time or only during the economic phase?

Question:
(511.35) Says that when a capital falls the treasury can be vacated if a base or planet can trace a supply path. Since this base/planet does not have to be the new capital, how are the ep's stored there treated? Eg, as a transfer into a partial grid? Or, since it actually says *to* the planet/base, as a Satellite Stockpile?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 06:53 am: Edit

As I read the rules (413.45) & (435.0): (i) an ally may freely transfer ep's into a partial grid regardless of where it is located (race's original territory or conquered/allied) and (ii) a race may transfer ep's into Stockpiles in any of their own partial grids under a similar lack of restriction but (iii) an ally may only transfer ep's to a Stockpile on a base/planet in the owning race's original territory.

Is that a correct interpretation?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 06:56 am: Edit

If a province is connected to two separate partial grids (of the same race) may it deliver its ep to one grid on one turn and the other grid on the next turn? Could it deliver 1ep to one grid and 1ep to the other on the same turn?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 09:15 am: Edit

Questions downloaded to this point
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 03:49 pm: Edit

Peter Hill:
Q: Is a ship that is in supply at the start of its Operational movement automatically considered to be in supply for Retrograde movement? The rules seem to say this but they are a little bit hazy.

A: (206.31) is clear that a ship must be in supply to use retrograde movement at the instance of the retrograde movement, not the operational movement check.

Section (206.31) does indeed say that BUT (410.24) goes on to say:
Supply status for Retrograde Movement is determined at the start of that phase. Exception: if the ship was in supply at the time of combat, it is considered to be in supply for purposes of Retrograde Movement.

And a ship is considered to be in supply for combat if it started its Operational Movement phase in supply.

So my question still stands.

A: See clarification by By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Saturday, December 20, 2003 at 09:28 pm AND on April 22, 2007:
6. Clarification: To be in supply for Retrograding requires that the unit is in supply "at the time of retrograde" and/or in supply *at the time of combat* (not simply considered in supply for combat). Correct?

ANSWER: In order to retrograde, you must have either a valid supply path at the instant of retrograde, or have had a valid supply path (not just been "in supply") during combat
AND
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.

********

Daniel Knipfer:

Q: This basic question was asked down in the OOB topic. How can the Kzinti produce a DW or DWS in Y174 if the DW does not appear on the schedule until Y175? I believe they could be built by overproduction but am not sure. Can a ship that has a legal YIS date on the SIT be overbuilt even though it is not yet available on the production schedule for that year?

A: This issue has been put together by FERT and forwarded to SVC. When he has time he will review it and give us some direction. There is some screwy things that have to be considered.

********

Ryan Opel:

Q: 452 and 308.85. Can an uncrippled STB or STX utilize 308.85 to self repair SIDs steps?

308.85 states that BATS and BS are unable to self repair. 452 does not address whether or not the STB can self repair.

Ruling: Yes, they have sufficient repair capacity to repair one SID on itself and no other repairs that turn. Note to self (Add to Errata)

********

Q: 518.22 SWACS. Can the Sector Base use a SWAC?

A Starbase may use 2, a Defense Brigade may use 1, Base and Battle Stations may use 0.

Ruling: Yes, it can use 1. Add to Errata.

********

Charles Chapel

Q: I have a question on accelerated production and specifically its impact on Lyran carrier production.

431.37 lets me take a ship from the next production cycle and it counts against the current turns limits. Now if I take a CVL from Spring Y171 to use the free fighters that are about to be lost what happens in in Spring Y171? Is this accelerated production even allowed?

I'm assuming that the build rate has been reduced by one CW, but how has the carrier production been impacted? Lyran production on carriers are defined by the year not the turn.

This question could be applied to mauler builds just as well.

A: First, there is no CVL on the construction schedule for the Lyrans for Spring of Y171.

Second, (431.27) allows you to pull a ship from the next turns schedule and produce it in the current turn. This does a couple things. One, it adds the hull selected to your current turns schedule and removes one from the next turns schedule. It does not transfer production limits specified in (711) for the Lyrans in this case, but could be said for any empire. You would need, in this case, a carrier build and/or conversion slot still open per (711.3) and a specific CVL slot open per (711.2) if you are doing a substitution.

This will cost if a conversion is done CW (5 ep) + Accelerated Production (3 ep) + CW > CVL conversion (2 ep) + Fighters (12 ep) – Free Fighters (-12 ep) = 10 + (-6) free fighters. If you do a substitution it will cost the same.

********

Ted Fay:

Q: On turn 1 of the general war, may the Lyrans use retrograde movement to Klingon bases and, in doing so, accept internment? Search of the rules and Q&A does not seem to produce a definitive answer. Lyrans are prevented from entering Klingon territory on turn 1 (general war restrictions), but the rules also allow ships to retrograde into a neutral power and accept internment. Other Q&A rulings seem to point that future belligerents *can* accept internment - so the answer appears to be "yes."

Obviously, the consequences of this answer could be significant, as the interned Lyrans are released on coalition turn 2. Thus, they're only unavailable for alliance turn 1.

Ruling: The Klingons and Lyrans are doing everything they can to keep the Kzinti from knowing they are actually allies instead of future belligerents. See (503.61) “While the Klingons are technically an armed Future Belligerent, in point of fact the Klingons and Lyrans are allies in all but name (as is reflected by a few special case rules, such as the prohibition against the Lyrans entering Klingon space or hexes 0805 and 0905, since this would provide overt proof that an alliance exists).”

And (601.161) ” During Turn 1, there are no restrictions on the Klingons except that they cannot leave their territory (and only new production and activated mothball ships can leave their deployment zone) and their Lyran allies cannot enter their territory.”

As such, they would prevent any situation where a Lyran ship would go into Klingon space during turn one.

********

Q: This would also have broad implications on the Hydran expedition - make it much easier.

A: A valid retrograde path would have to be determined to get a Hydran into Federation space. This would require a Hydran ship to be adjacent to a BATS blocking the path and they would have to have a valid supply point to draw from. The Hydran supply Tug is not a valid retrograde supply point. It is essentially an underway replenishment ship like in the current navy.

********

Q: I take it that supply is not required when retrograding into a neutral hex?

A: You need to be able to draw supplies to retrograde. See above answers.

********

Michael Parker:

Q: I am actually suprised this question never came up when we were discussing ESSC.

Quote:
(323.32) RETREAT: One (and only one) “casualty” may also be
resolved as a “Retreat” action using (302.72). This results in all
units belonging to that player retreating one hex. This is resolved
after all other “casualties” are resolved, so retreating does not
stop the resolution of such casualties.

Suppose you have a mixed force of ships and units ineligible for retreat. Simple: a single PDU and a Frigate. Can you resolve one casualty to retreat the Frigate? The rule itself states "All units" well we know the PDU cannot retreat, so that could mean that no units can retreat, since the intent is to force the whole side in ESSC to run off. However for such immobile items like bases, as long as the base survives its allowed to retreat 'behind' the base and retreat without pursuit.

The most logical thing would be to allow you to resolve a single casualty to retreat all units able to retreat, but I think it deserves a ruling by you.

A: If you take the casualty on the FF then you would not be resolving the hex and have to repeat the ESSC round. Resolving the damage on the PDU will allow the FF to retreat, even if it was crippled since the ESSC does not have pursuit.

********

Q: Suppose you have a slow unit and a ship, if you resolve a casualty as retreat, I assume you would then retreat the ship and have a seperate slow unit retreat for the slow unit, and the winner would divide his forces as he wished for pursuit? Just clarifying here.

A: No, the ESSC resolves all combat including slow combat. The slow unit would be then retreated to the nearest retrograde point within three hexes per (302.742C).

********

Peter Hill:

Q: EP's transfered by Tug are normally collected and/or dropped off during movement (operational and/or strategic) at a capital or satellite stockpile.

IF a tug carrying ep arrives at a delivery node (capital, base or planet) during movement but decides not to deliver the ep at that time, when would its next opportunity to do so be? SPECIFICALLY, if a tug carrying ep is at a node during the start of a player turn, can it deliver its ep then (and prepare for a new mission) or does it need to wait until the end of operational movement?

A: (442.323) says “EPs are unloaded at a valid strategic movement node on the main grid or any partial grid at the end of the Strategic Movement Step.” So, the EPs can be unloaded at the end of Phase 8.

********

Q: Partial Grids (unlike a capital-centered main grid) normally store their EP in a non-localized fashion (lost only when the last node falls).

Tugs can transfer EP's to and from a Partial Grid. However unlike delivery to a main grid, the rules don't state where a tug needs to go to deliver/collect EP to/from a partial grid. Can it do so just by being in supply range? Or being in a province? Or does it need to co-locate with any arbitrary node (base or planet) in the grid?

A: Delivery of EPs would be to a valid supply point in the partial grid per the same requirements as the main grid. (A base or Planet).

********

Q: I think I may have been misinterpreting Stockpile rules. I've been assuming that a Partial Grid containing a Satellite Stockpile could use that EP to pay for grid activities. Closer examination of the rules doesn't seem to support this however. It *seems* that a stockpile is isolated. So, is it true that for a Partial Grid to use a Satellite Stockpile (located at one of its nodes) it would need to use a tug to 'collect' the EP from the stockpile then 'deliver' the EP to the decentralized grid as a whole?

I've checked the F&E-2K rules and previous Q&A and been unable to find clarification.

A: The partial grid would use a satellite stockpile per (410.34) which allows them to use the resources of the Partial Grid to pay for expenses. A satellite stockpile within a partial grid is part of the resources of that grid.

********

Q: Partial grids collect EP and store them in a non-localized fashion. If a partial grid is split into two partial grids during a turn, then how are the decentralized (non-stockpile) are EP's divided?

Ruling: Take the number of existing bases and planets and divide the existing surplus EPs evenly between them. Example: a partial grid has a Starbase, 3 BATS, and one planet and 10 EPs in the grid. It is divided by enemy action by isolating the Starbase from the rest of the grid. The SB gets 2 EP and the rest of the grid gets 8 EP.

********

Q: Can a partial grid pay the 1 EP (to supply 5 ships) at *any* time or only during the economic phase?

Ruling: Only during the economic phase.

********

Q: (511.35) Says that when a capital falls the treasury can be vacated if a base or planet can trace a supply path. Since this base/planet does not have to be the new capital, how are the EP's stored there treated? E.g. as a transfer into a partial grid? Or, since it actually says *to* the planet/base, as a Satellite Stockpile?

Ruling: It would be a transfer to the partial grid.

********

Q: As I read the rules (413.45) & (435.0): (i) an ally may freely transfer EP's into a partial grid regardless of where it is located (race's original territory or conquered/allied) and (ii) a race may transfer EP's into Stockpiles in any of their own partial grids under a similar lack of restriction but (iii) an ally may only transfer EP's to a Stockpile on a base/planet in the owning race's original territory.

Is that a correct interpretation?

A: Give me a specific question, not a generalization of an interpretation. Break it into separate questions.

********

Q: If a province is connected to two separate partial grids (of the same race) may it deliver its EP to one grid on one turn and the other grid on the next turn? Could it deliver 1ep to one grid and 1ep to the other on the same turn?

A: Show me an specific example of what you are describing.

********

Fabio Poli:

Q: When are the Lyrans allowed to attack the Federation? Tholians? turn 7 or 10?

A: Federation: Per 602.14, the Lyrans are not allowed to operate in Federation space on turns 7-9, except for an expeditionary fleet.
A: Tholians: (603) allows the Lyrans to operate in any race that is in the War. This is turn 10. The Klingons can, per (602.11) attack the Tholians on turn 7, but specifically the Lyrans are only allowed in Klingon, Kzinti, Lyran, and Hydran territory with the expeditionary fleet (411.7) allowed in Federation space. So, turn 10 for the Lyrans to participate in any attacks on the Tholians.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 04:53 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: Suppose you have a slow unit and a ship, if you resolve a casualty as retreat, I assume you would then retreat the ship and have a seperate slow unit retreat for the slow unit, and the winner would divide his forces as he wished for pursuit? Just clarifying here.

A: No, the ESSC resolves all combat including slow combat. The slow unit would be then retreated to the nearest retrograde point within three hexes per (302.742C).
________________________________________

Mike,

Just to make sure I understand. You retreat and just run all the pursuit (provided the pursuer made his roll) as ONE round of ESSC slow and regular all together right?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 04:56 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
As such, they would prevent any situation where a Lyran ship would go into Klingon space during turn one.
________________________________________

Mike,

Are you certain of that? Here is a previous Q&A ruling
________________________________________
Quote:
Nick,

Can you give a clarification of the following rule?

"Ships can enter Neutral Zone hexes if they continue to move into the neutral power and accept internment ... If a unit spends its last movement point (or its only hex of retreat movement) entering the Neutral Zone it is allowed to move on into the first hex of the neutral country immediately and be interned immediately. (Actually, what happens, is the pursuing enemy force stops pursuit at the end of the Neutral Zone and the fleeing units enter the neutral country on the next turn, but it is more convenient to handle this immediately)"

So does this mean
A) Ships with movement points left (using operational or retrograde) must continue on into a neutral power immediately, and ships with no movement points left are ALLOWED to continue on immediately, or continue on the next turn at the players discretion.

The phrasing of the second sentence seems to imply that it is optional ('allowed') whether you continue on into the neutral powers territory that turn or the next (for those ships with no movement points left.) And there is nothing in the first sentence that indicates that the continuation of movement must be immediate.

B) All ships regardless of their remaining movement points MUST continue moving within that same phase into a neutral power who's NZ they violated.


Answer:

Mark Sayther: If you enter the NZ adjacent to a future beligerant, I.e. Lyran entering Klingon NZ on turn 1, then you IMMEDIATELY proceed into the next hex and become interned, regardless of whether you have legal moves left or not. Note that the last parenthetical part of the sentence says this is handled immediately at that point rather than on the next turn.
________________________________________

This is pretty definative that you move from the NZ hex into Klingon territory on T1 and are interned.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:22 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Q: This would also have broad implications on the Hydran expedition - make it much easier.

A: A valid retrograde path would have to be determined to get a Hydran into Federation space. This would require a Hydran ship to be adjacent to a BATS blocking the path and they would have to have a valid supply point to draw from. The Hydran supply Tug is not a valid retrograde supply point. It is essentially an underway replenishment ship like in the current navy.
________________________________________

From the Errata
________________________________________
Quote:
(509.5) The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.
________________________________________


Mike,

Pardon if I am being a pain but I don't see how these two jive together. Your in supply for retrograde provided you can trace a valid line if supply at the time of retrograde, or if you were in supply at the moment of combat. If the Hydran supply tug can be a source of supply for retreat how can it not be considered capable of providing supply at the moment of combat since retreat is part of combat? ergo then it satisfies the in supply portion of retrograde it seems to me. If the supply tug can do anything it should be able to supply ships for movement and combat purposes? Although perhaps I am being thick headed won't be the first.. nor the last!
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:26 pm: Edit

I think the first ruling is incorrect. If I were the Kzinti Ruler and I saw the Lyran fleet that had just invaded my empire enter Klingon space, thier allies in the war that just concluded, I'd attack the both the Klingons and Lyrans as soon as I could.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:41 pm: Edit

Ryan,

I don't know. This is the standard rule for how ships interned that enter the NZ behave. There is an exception for example for the Hydrans entering the Fed NZ on an expedition, but everybody else there is no exception. Its simply part of internment that they continue on and be interned. If they CANNOT enter Klingon territory even for internment then they should be prohibited from entering NZ adjacent to the klingons on T1, or an exception similar to the Hydrans should be granted allowing the Kzinti to attack Lyran ships in the NZ on A1 (provided the Kzinti do not remain in the NZ hex after combat).

It would actually make it MUCH worse on the Kzinti if the Lyrans could just sit in the NZ hex without being assailable.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:50 pm: Edit

Michael,

The Lyrans already have a rule stating they can't enter the Klingon-Lyran NZ's on T1 (601.161). The specific scenario rule would supercede the general rule (503.61).

Which is exactly what Mike said. We have several examples where scenario specific rules supercede the basic rules.

Nick got it wrong. Mike corrected the error.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Mike C:

In your answer regarding the ESSC situation with the PDU and FF, you said:
==========
A: If you take the casualty on the FF then you would not be resolving the hex and have to repeat the ESSC round. Resolving the damage on the PDU will allow the FF to retreat, even if it was crippled since the ESSC does not have pursuit.
========== (emphasis added)

Per 323.51 in CL37, pursuit is explicitly allowed against a force retreating from ESSC. (unless I misunderstood your answer)

Cheers,
Jason
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:55 pm: Edit

Ryan,

I just don't read it that way. It is saying they cannot enter Klingon Territory. It seems to be saying they can enter the NZ territory as you can ALWAYS enter NZ territory and be interned but that they would be prohibited from entering Klingon space proper.

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but if Mike C is going to countermand Nick's old ruling, I would like it clarified this would prevent the Lyrans from entering Klingo-Kzinti NZ hexes for internment, of course clarified thusly if that is what Mike meant of course
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Michael,
________________________________________
Quote:
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit

We hashed this out two years ago, under the current F&E2K rules.

(503.61) "While the Klingons are technically an armed Future Belligerent, in point of fact, the Klingons and Lyrans are allies in all but name (as reflected by a few special case rules, such as the prohibition against the Lyrans entering Klingon space of hexes 0805 and 0905, since this would provide overt proof that an alliance exists).
________________________________________
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 06:43 pm: Edit

There is not date given for Nick's ruling, but Jeff's ruling was a year into the Q&A file. I could easily see this rule being extended to include the Klingon-Kzinti NZ hexes.

That ruling came from one of the game designer/developers.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 08:00 pm: Edit

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but if Mike C is going to countermand Nick's old ruling, I would like it clarified this would prevent the Lyrans from entering Klingo-Kzinti NZ hexes for internment, of course clarified thusly if that is what Mike meant of course

It seems that allowing the Lyrans to do this would 'break the game' which seems reason enough to accept the 'why' behind the ruling.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 09:06 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 12:40 am: Edit

We hashed this out two years ago, under the current F&E2K rules.

(503.61) "While the Klingons are technically an armed Future Belligerent, in point of fact, the Klingons and Lyrans are allies in all but name (as reflected by a few special case rules, such as the prohibition against the Lyrans entering Klingon space of hexes 0805 and 0905, since this would provide overt proof that an alliance exists).
________________________________________

Ryan,

I am really not trying to be obtuse. I agree with everything in that quote. What I don't agree is that it says anything relevant to the issue at hand, namely can the Lyrans on C1 intern themselves in Klingon Territory. I have a VERY clear ruling from Nick that says they can.

It is possible Mike C's ruling above says they cannot, I hope it also says that therefore they may not enter NZ hexes along the Klingon/Kzinti border and 'wait there'

However Jeff's statement above just has nothing to offer rules wise about answering this question. It also specifies hexes 0805 and 0905, why didn't it name all the hexes I am talking about. All of that seems to me to be talking about claiming such NZ hexes!
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:04 am: Edit

It was my intent in the ruling of the Lyran's not entering the Klingon/Kzinti NZ hexes or Klingon territory not already specified. Doing so would alert the Kzinti to the ally status of the Klingons and Lyrans.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:38 am: Edit

Mike C,

Thanks for the clarification!
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:49 am: Edit

...ESSC situation with the PDU and FF...

Remember that the PDU does have six fighters that can take a hit...

Also remember that after any ESSC round all players can still choose to retreat using the tradition process.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:53 am: Edit

Chuck,

Ya know I forgot that, I was worried the FF would be forced to hang out till the PDU was dead, but I can soak the damage on the PDU and retreat using the normal retreat rules rather than trying to take a casualty as retreat.

I keep forgetting one can retreat in ESSC even without using a casualty to do so!
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 02:27 am: Edit

(442.323) says “EPs are unloaded at a valid strategic movement node on the main grid or any partial grid at the end of the Strategic Movement Step.”

What module is (442.323) in?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 02:39 am: Edit

Give me a specific question, not a generalization of an interpretation.

Question:
The current rules seem to prohibit delivery by an ally to a Stockpile in a grid that is located in foreign (captured/allied) territory (eg, a Klingon tug delivering to a stockpile at a Lyran controlled planet in Kzinti terriory) yet happily allows the same tug to do a general transfer to that same grid. Is that correct? It's not a contradiction per se but it does seem odd.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 02:49 am: Edit

Q: If a province is connected to two separate partial grids (of the same race) may it deliver its EP to one grid on one turn and the other grid on the next turn? Could it deliver 1ep to one grid and 1ep to the other on the same turn?

A: Show me an specific example of what you are describing.

BATS at 1205 destroyed (province is partial grid #1).

BATS at 1405 & 1605 destroyed; Planet at 1504 captured by Klingons (province contested).

SB at 1704 destroyed (province is partial grid #2).

Partial grids #1 and #2 are not connected (ie, separate grids) but both can draw income from the province between them. Which gets the ep?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:30 am: Edit

Peter,

You do not have any partial grids. See 413.4 again:
________________________________________
Quote:
A partial grid must have a base or a planet; it cannot consist of only provinces.
________________________________________


If the Kzinti still held the planet, that could be the basis for the grid, but since it's captured, there is no partial grid at all.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:31 am: Edit

"What module is (442.323) in?"

Advanced Ops
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:35 am: Edit

You do not have any partial grids. See 413.4 again:

Quote:
A partial grid must have a base or a planet; it cannot consist of only provinces.

Grid #1 has the planet at 1105.
Grid #2 has the BATS at 1803 & 1805.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:41 am: Edit

You said "(province is partial grid #1/2)" and I didn't have a map handy.

It's pretty late here (NJ)



Off-the-cuff, unofficial answer is that I believe you can chose which grid the disputed provice belongs to.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 07:58 am: Edit

Hydran Supply Tug - I asked this question, and I can't see that it has been answered -

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, June 22, 2008 - 08:27 am: Edit


Not sure this is a clarificaiton or an appeal (as the 'confirmation' came from SVC).

2006 Master Errata PDF Document

(509.5) The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.

Does this mean for example (all bases are intact), if the Expedition Supply Tug attacks 1214 with other ships - that it can retreat to 1314, as that would be 'in supply at range Zero', over say 1115 which would in 'in supply at range One'.

Also, if it does mean that, does the Expedition Supply Tug grant full supply, or counts as a partial supply grid?

Example - All bases are still intact, and the Expedition force is at 1714 - hex 1614 is in fully supply from the main grid - can the Hydrans retreat to 1814 saying the Expedition Supply Tug is the supply source at range zero and counts as 'full supply'- therefore making it a priority over 1614?

In other words - can the Expedition Supply Tug force retreat in any direction (I think the answer is 'no' - but as it reads, it seems that it can), as it will count for retreat priority hexes, as always been ay Range Zero and in Full Supply?

Thanks

--------------------

This is interlinked with this question.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Quote:
Q: This would also have broad implications on the Hydran expedition - make it much easier.

A: A valid retrograde path would have to be determined to get a Hydran into Federation space. This would require a Hydran ship to be adjacent to a BATS blocking the path and they would have to have a valid supply point to draw from. The Hydran supply Tug is not a valid retrograde supply point. It is essentially an underway replenishment ship like in the current navy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From the Errata


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
(509.5) The Hydran supply tug can be considered a source of supply for ships retreating in the same force.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mike,

Pardon if I am being a pain but I don't see how these two jive together. Your in supply for retrograde provided you can trace a valid line if supply at the time of retrograde, or if you were in supply at the moment of combat. If the Hydran supply tug can be a source of supply for retreat how can it not be considered capable of providing supply at the moment of combat since retreat is part of combat? ergo then it satisfies the in supply portion of retrograde it seems to me. If the supply tug can do anything it should be able to supply ships for movement and combat purposes? Although perhaps I am being thick headed won't be the first.. nor the last!

..................................

As it stands, the way I read the rules, a Hydran force with a Supply Tug can retreat in any direction, and can always retrograde.

This seems very wrong, and not wanting to put words in any mouths, I don't think was the designers intent?

My original thoughts on what the Supply Tug allowed, was that it only allows a force to receive supplies, so it counts in 'supply' for all purposes - not break the normal retreat, supply or or retrograde rules (and allow it to retreat away from normal full supply lines and retrograde etc).

As it stands, I can't see how the Expedition Fleet (with Supply Tug) can be stopped, without needing massive force multiples to stop it (as it can always fighting retreat forwards, unless the hex as more ship equivalents than the Hydran force).

Can we have a full rulling on what the Hydran Supply Tug allows, and when its status as a 'supply' source can be used??

Thanks
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 08:13 am: Edit

Wouldn't the ships using the tug as a supply point need to have drawn supplies from it? If it's not being used for supply in that turn, it doesn't make sense it could be considered a supply point.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 01:38 am: Edit

Q: Partial grids collect EP and store them in a non-localized fashion. If a partial grid is split into two partial grids during a turn, then how are the decentralized (non-stockpile) are EP's divided?

Ruling: Take the number of existing bases and planets and divide the existing surplus EPs evenly between them. Example: a partial grid has a Starbase, 3 BATS, and one planet and 10 EPs in the grid. It is divided by enemy action by isolating the Starbase from the rest of the grid. The SB gets 2 EP and the rest of the grid gets 8 EP.

When does this occur? When the grid is created or during the next income phase with whatever grids exist at that time?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 08:00 am: Edit

Robert - thats part of the problem/question - to act as a supply point, it doesn't say it has had to be used to give supples.

What happens if some ships was supplied, and others wasn't?

Giving the supply tug 'supply point status', I think opens a huge can of worms!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 09:03 am: Edit

Well, 412.1 does not list the Hydran Supply tug as being a supply point, only tugs acting as supply points (making them immobile).
509.52 says if the tug is out of supply, it can be used as a supply SOURCE for other out of supply ships which are stacked with the tug. This does not say the tug can use it's own supplies for itself.
509.53 says If the tug can ever re-establish a valid supply path to a supply point in Hydran space, it's stockpile is restored to it's original level. The tug itself requires supplies.

Supply points are self supplying, with the exception of Convoys and Tugs acting as supply points. And the rule calls the special tugs ability as acting as a supply SOURCE, not as a supply point. So in short I don't think there is anything in the rules that define the special Hydran tug as a Supply Point.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 10:57 am: Edit

I agree the Hydran Tug is not a supply point, it provides supply for a certain number of vessels.

So what it does do is allow a limited number (I forget is it 30 ship-turns?) of ships to behave as if they were in supply when they are not.

For retreat I think the point is moot. I mean whatever the Hydran Tug is it is not a point of supply I agree, so Hydrans ships not IN the hex with the Tug ignore it for supply determination. Ships IN the hex with it would also ignore it as you ignore the hex your in when evaluating supply for retreat, so in either case you ignore the supply tug for retreat purposes. To cut to the chase, on the expedition you will still have to put yourself out of supply to your border BATS in order to retreat towards the Federation!

What it DOES do it seems is allow a force that manages to cut itself from supply to be considered in supply at the time of combat via the Hydran Supply tug, and to therefore be eligible for retrograde.

But it might also be reasonable to say, the Hydran Tug only gives up its supply at a time when its needed to make an out of supply unit in supply. So it MIGHT be correct to say the Hydran Supply tug won't provide supply in my example because the units at the point of combat are not considered 'out of supply'. So in this interpretation the Hydran Supply Tug would then have an opportunity to supply ships next during the coalition combat phase (or whenver the next time supply is checked for the alliance which is I think combat perhaps it is operational movement but I am unsure).

Anyway I have clogged up Mike's Q&A area enough!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 03:05 pm: Edit

I believe you have to use the supplies at the beginning of the turn. You don't get to use them anytime you want, but they do last an entire Turn (rules don't say Player Turn, so I'm assuming they'd last until the Hydrans next turn).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 05:14 pm: Edit

Robert,

That is at the heart of it I suppose, when you get to use them.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 02:07 am: Edit

Question:
Rule (435.23) says that a tug carrying ep must be included in a battle force since "The enemy is certainly forcing the action toward the tug in an effort to intercept it".

If two (or more) such tugs are in a battle hex presumably the enemy can't "force the action" towards both of them simultaneously. In this case is only one tug required to be in the battle force or does it work like a multi-system battle with a tug as the focus of each battle? What if such a tug is in a hex with a real base/planet?

In a pursuit battle does the ep-carrying tug count as one of the three uncrippled ships even though it is required to be in the battle force?
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 03:15 am: Edit

Question:
When ep are transfered the amount is known publicly (presumably intelligence sources would spot such a large movement of resources).

But what about in combat?

If I sent two tugs on an inter-capital ep delivery, one tug with 10ep and a decoy tug with 0ep, then in a battle force would the opposing player know which of the two externally identical tugs had the cash? Ie, could they always direct damage the 10ep tug or would they need to roll randomly like is done with multiple maulers?
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 06:02 am: Edit

Peter

The phrase 'forcing the action' is just a phrase, and it not meant to indicate what the rule is for.

If it has Ep's it has to be included - if it's empty, it doesn't.

If you have 2 Tugs both with Ep's - they both are included. However the point about persuit battles is good - I think the answer is that it must be included, as 1 of the 3 uncrippled - but confirmation would be useful (alternatively, like excess crippled ships, they could be directed on, even if not in the battle force).
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 06:22 am: Edit

The phrase 'forcing the action' is just a phrase, and it not meant to indicate what the rule is for.

If the phrase didn't serve *some* purpose there would be no point including it in the official rules.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 06:26 am: Edit

I think the answer is that it must be included, as 1 of the 3 uncrippled - but confirmation would be useful (alternatively, like excess crippled ships, they could be directed on, even if not in the battle force).

If there were four tugs then I'd expect at least one of them probably couln't include its AF.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 01:24 pm: Edit

Questions:

Rule (413.44) says that when a partial grid is reconnected to a main grid the ep's can be sent back, or can "be treated as a Satellite Stockpile". Where would this stockpile be located?

Rule (435.0) allows ep transfer. Must the destination capital (or partial grid base/planet)(or Stockpile) be specified to the opposing player at the instant that the ep is collected? Or maybe at the start of the turn when the tug mission is assigned?

Are transfers from partial grids & Stockpiles bound by the same "return to sender" rule that transfers from capitals are? Eg, when removing ep's from a Stockpile with a tug, must the tug return (after delivery) to that same Stockpile to "change missions"?

If the target of a transfer needs to be specified at the time of loading the ep, then what happens if the destination becomes undesirable. Ie, is it permissable for a tug to abort its delivery mission and return to its source (with the ep) to "change missions"?

If the target of a transfer must be specified in advance and if the target of the transfer is a capital THEN if the capital falls before the delivery is complete (and a new capital is created) must the tug abort the mission and return to the source for a new mission, or is the new capital automatically accepted as the target for the same mission?
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 09:59 pm: Edit

Mike C.

Thank you for your answer, but I'm a bit confused by the CVL not available in Spring 171 bit.

My copy of the rules F&E2000rev.4 page 78 2nd half under (711.2) says " Can substitute[CVL+CWE+DWE} for CW+CW+DW once per year Y171 and later."

Has the Lyran carrier production been changed? If so in what product did that happen?

Charles Chapel
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 10:03 pm: Edit

Charles, you are welcome. There is no CVL on the construction scedule. There is a CVL allowable substitution within certain limits. There is a difference.
By Charles Chapel (Ctchapel) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 10:07 pm: Edit

Mike C.

As an aside, what promped this question was the rationalizations made to make the Federation carrier production work. There seemed to be a lot of "accelerations" to get those craft in service to cover the "history".

Charles Chapel
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Charles, Chuck is painfully aware of the agressive builds for several races based on the "History". We do what we can when we redo and make scenarios. Sometimes the history may be off a little...
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 09:34 am: Edit

Mike C,

Just a clarification when you put stuff in the blue type... that means your speaking 'ex cathedra' (No offense to any catholics) correct?

(waits for Mike C to answer "yes" NOT in blue and really confuce me)
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 09:41 am: Edit

Anything in blue is FEAR talking, anything in regular type is me talking. I do so much else with the SFU, I personally need to keep it seperate in my mind and the formating into blue actually helps me keep it seperate. It also helps me find what I have answered or ruled on in the archives.
By Roger Rardain (Sky_Captain) on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 04:47 pm: Edit

So it's not really a split personality, but it helps...


By Ezekiel P. Carpenter-Hyland (Admiral_Zekedak) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 02:31 am: Edit

A question you have probably addressed before (but I'm too lazy for looking through the 900+ results when I ran a search).

When a planet in the capital hex looses all PDUs, can new ones produced in the capital shipyard be added without a tug? If so, do they become active on the next turn? If on the next turn and no tug is needed, is there any way for an attacking force to destroy them before they become operational (short of capturing the hex)?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 04:16 am: Edit

Ezekiel,
________________________________________
Quote:
When a planet in the capital hex looses all PDUs, can new ones produced in the capital shipyard be added without a tug?
________________________________________


Correct you do not need a tug to deploy PDU/PGBs in the capital hex.
________________________________________
Quote:
If so, do they become active on the next turn?
________________________________________


They become active the turn after they are emplaced.
________________________________________
Quote:
If on the next turn and no tug is needed, is there any way for an attacking force to destroy them before they become operational (short of capturing the hex)?
________________________________________


Redevasate the planet.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 03:15 pm: Edit

226 Archives not counting 2002 as of today.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 05:54 pm: Edit

War Dreadnoughts were added with Strategic Operations. Sme races like the Hydrans have a limitation on the SIT that a War DN conversion counts against normal DN production. Other races like the Klingons just say on the SIT that it can be subbed for a DN build or a D5 build, but gives no limit. Rule 539.91 gives no instruction as to what limits, if any, exist for War DN builds.

So my question is, is there a limit to War DN builds, or can races like the Klingons just build 9 of them a turn (subs for D5s)?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Robert,

I am pretty sure the SIT lists all War Dreadnoughts as Conjectural. Meaning you cannot build them at all without agreement of your opponent. And if you get an agreement to build 9 of them a turn well.. good for you.

Edit
Checking the Racial SIT. The Lyran and Hydran War DN's are not listed as Conjectural however the build or conversion counts Against DN/PAL construction respectively. I couldn't find the Romulan War DN and every other race that has one lists it as conjectural.
By James Lowry (Rindis) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 07:20 pm: Edit

The Romulan war dreadnoughts would be the DMH/OMH/MGH modular dreadnoughts. Not conjectural, but do occupy the dreadnought slot in production.

So it seems that DNWs either count against DN production, or are imaginary, depending on race.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 08:24 pm: Edit

The Gorns use their CL instead of their CW. That one is in addition to the regular DN.

And technically all the Romulan modular DNs are unbuilt variants for the war. Rules 525.61, 525.62, and 525.63 all say so. (Although one Omnihawk was finished AFTER the war was over.)
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 08:25 am: Edit

How many PF Modules, if any, can a Sector Base carry? Rule 452.0 is silent on this point, as is rule 441.0.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 09:48 am: Edit

Robert,

1 PF Module according to the SSD.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 11:27 am: Edit

Thanks. I don't have the SSD
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 12:28 pm: Edit

I seem to recall that war destroyers are now allowed to be built at starbases, but I cannot find the pertinent rule. I've searched several times, and cannot find it on line. Anyone know where it is?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 12:53 pm: Edit

(442.53)Effective Y178, SBs gain the ability to produce one DW instead of one FF.
By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Ryan, thanks.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Is it legal to use Blockade Running (320.5) to send a ship to a friendly or neutral hex and leave it there, but it's not carrying anything? In other words the ship itself is the cargo.

Example: The Klingons want to use an F5 for a Blockade Run. They send it to a hex, with no other cargo, and it ends it's Blockade Run in that hex.
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:31 pm: Edit

On Alliance Turn 3, the Klingon Home Fleet is released if "the Hydrans enter Klingon territory." Is this fleet released if the Hydrans proceed along the Lyran-Klingon or Hydran-Klingon neutral zones without actually entering Klingon space? I'm specifically wondering whether the Home Fleet reserve can intervene in a battle taking place in these neutral zones.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:38 pm: Edit

RP:

To what end?

For example -- sending a blockade running E4T into the Orion Enclave will not make it go neutral.
By Todd E Jahnke (Tej) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:19 pm: Edit

A blockade running ship, by ending in a hex devoid of other stuff, could open or block supply lines.

It would be in place and thus an asset capable of pinning.

It would arrive in a place without the possibility of having been reacted to when it got there or along its way.

There are many plausible uses for movement to which the enemy cannot react before a phase in which other ships can move.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:21 pm: Edit

It could be for many reasons. You might want the ship there to open a supply path. you you may want to send a ship to aan empty hex to mess with your opponents supply. One could send an escort to a CV group, or many other things.
By Larry E. Ramey (Hydrajak) on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 01:30 pm: Edit

I've got a question about the Kzinti SIT.

Where the heckfire is the CD? I don't care all that much, as I just used all the stats for the D6D. (3EP conv ect ect)
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Larry,

22 Jul 2008 version of Kzinti SIT, pg 2, 1st line under the BC category.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 02:41 pm: Edit

Special Raids:

1) can hybrids fighters be used in fighter raids?

2) rule 515.26 say that tugs with carrier pods need not to be escorted but count as 2 ships for command rating purpose.
Special raids rule say that carriers in fighters raid need only their required escorts.
So, do a tug with carrier pods use only one space of the raiding pool?

3) if hybrids fighters could be used in a fighter raid, do a Hydran tug with carrier pod raid with 8 fighter factor?

4) could hybrids fighters on escort ships be used in the fighter raids along those of the carrier escorted?

5) what happen when the intended target of a special raid react in the "attack hex"?


i'm going to commando raid a BATS with 3CA:

6) i must fight one round against the fixed installation: if G survive i will do a G-attack

7) i must fight one round against the fixed installation: G-attack will go at the same time as combat damage.

8) i must fight the CA first, then i can throw my derbs in as point 6) or as pont 7)


Prime teams sabotage:

9) can a prime team do a mission against a neutral o future belligerant race? (can't find a "no" in the rules)

10) can a prime team do a mission IN a neutral or future belligerant race? (as point 9)

in regards of the last 2 points many questions arise if the answers are "yes":
-could i kill the hydran diplo team in the LDR?
-could i disrupt federation CVA prod?
-could i steal Feds some money so they will change their economic system (going to pay interest)?
etc etc etc

beg your pardon if someonelse already asked..
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 02:45 pm: Edit

also

11) can a future belligerant race (the feds) use prime teams for sabotage?

12) can the Hydran PGR (survey class of PGS) be taken for free?

P.S.: ok, fighters are just fighters. carriers could be hybrid carriers, but i suppose you have understood what i mean...
By Christopher Scott Evans (Csevans) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Is this a legal double conversion?

L-DND + L-CA to L-DNP
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 10:45 pm: Edit

Good question.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, October 26, 2008 - 11:40 pm: Edit

/i{Is this a legal double conversion?
L-DND + L-CA to L-DNP }

Yep, as the DND+CA>DN is a single conversion (3 EP, 751 CO) so adding the P package would make it a double conversion (CA>DNP allowed)...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 12:08 am: Edit

1. No. P.O, page 3, 320.347:....Hybrid fighters cannot be used.....

3. N/A, see number 1.

4. N/A, see number 1. (That would just be TOOOOOOO disgusting to have an IC,MKE,MKE,DWE,3 mega,and CPF fighter/PF raid with 45-39 compot. Of course it does still have a 36-30 compot under current rules.)

12. Under the current rules, yes. However, considering how nice these are, they will eventually put a limit on these like they have for the PGV.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 12:49 am: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
Is this a legal double conversion?

L-DND + L-CA to L-DNP
________________________________________


It should be. However the SIT now shows every legal two step conversion by use of the ++ notation. The CA=>DNP is listed but the CA+DND=>DNP is not listed as even a legal conversion on the Lyran SITS. You should put a request there to have it added and point out the logic of it being a two step conversion since the CA=>DNP is shown as a legel two step.

In the meantime you should probably ask your opponent what he/she wants to do. I am almost certain it will be declared legal and added, but until then according to Hoyle it is not allowed.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 02:15 am: Edit

Thank you Mr. Michael Lui.
The IC, being a dread, cannot raid but still there are plenty examples of abuse.
no hybrid fighters then.
For the PGR, i'm still not sure it can be done. errata say both.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 02:38 am: Edit

The IC isn't raiding, it's the fighters that it's carrying that are doing a Fighter/PF raid. It's an important distinction that you have to make and allowed by 320.22.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 03:27 am: Edit

Thank you again, i didn't know that.
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 09:31 am: Edit

Mike (or anybody if you can point to an already written answer):

The Feds are at limited war supporting the Kzinti. What restrictions do the Kzinti have for movement (op, retrograde, strat move) through Fed-Kzinti NZ hexes?

So, as a concrete example, the Marquis SB has fallen. The Kzinti have a slew of crippled ships, including some CEDS-eligible carrier groups. A retrograde path, valid in all other respects, exists that includes hex 1903, a NZ hex, but ends in the Barony.

Is this a legal path?

In support: Rules say that Kzinti can get ships repaired in Federation space, to the limit of 1 turn's repair capacity, so they must be able to retrograde move through the NZ. Rules also say that the Kzinti can build a base in the NZ, so they must be able to op-move into the NZ. Rules also say that they cannot capture NZ hexes, but this would also seem to support normal movement through or else the more restrictive "cannot enter" vice "cannot capture" would be specified. (All from the Fighter Ops section on Limited War.)

Against: The scenario rules say that Kzinti can operate in Kzinti, Lyran, Klingon and Hydran space within the limits of other rules. It does not mention the NZ hexes between Kzinti / Fed.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 03:38 pm: Edit

answering one of my own question (the "2") rule 320.347 specify that "Tugs cannot be used for fighter-PF raids unless assigned two carrier escort ships (that have the escort black square)".
This is quite enough definitive.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 11:43 am: Edit

Rules question:

I have a legal reserve of Lyran fast and X-ships that includes two DNL carrying CPF.

The Lyran reserve is moving to a battle hex containing enemy X-ships. I don't wish to have the DNL's in the battle force but I do want the CPF's to be there.

After moving six hexes, on the seventh movement I want to have both DNL's launch a CPF offensive PF/fighter strike at the reserves destination hex, which the rest of the reserve will move into.

Is this legal?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 12:21 pm: Edit

Trent,

Aren't offensive fighter strikes limited to the Phasing Player?
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 12:22 pm: Edit

Trent,

At first whiff I don't believe so. You are only allowed to drop off ships in an intermediate hex due to pinning when you reserve move. The rule is if I remember very specific on this point.

You could though provided the other ships had the capacity carry the casual PF's on the other ships and leave the pair of DNL's behind, nothing requires you to bring the whole reserve.

But then again I am thinking the point of the manouver is to leave a force outside of the battlehex for some reason, so I don't think leaving behind the DNL's is the solution you want in this case.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 12:25 pm: Edit

Joe,

Another good point!
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 01:30 pm: Edit

As I was working on the revised Special Raids rule, I came across the following:

(from 320.331)
"The listed units can be designated targets 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 damage at a 1:1 ratio). "

I'm not sure what the bold text is referring to.

Any clue? If it doesn't mean anything, I'll leave it out.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 02:07 pm: Edit

I believe it means that the fighters/PFs on the raid get to choose which target of the defender's has to take the damage. And since the damage would not be directed, the target would have to take the damage at 1:1. So the fighters/PFs will be slaughtered by the defense, but will maybe take a unit down with them.

For an example, say a raid hex had a BATS, FRD and 9 defending ships. A raid of 6 PFs is attacking the FRD. The PFs have to fight all of the defenses (and will be annihlated). The PFs will do damage, and can choose which defending target will take it (in this case the FRD).
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 02:12 pm: Edit

Joe,

I concur with Robert. Basically its says the battleforce for purposes of the Raid Damage is whatever the raid target you chose. So you inflict say 4 damage, it is in essence

"Okay I did 4 damage to you.. let it drop"
and the opponent looks at the FRD as the only unit eligible
Opponent says ">"
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Cool. Then I've already addressed it.

Revision is uploaded.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 11:34 pm: Edit

Robert, note that the rule (320.331) says 'fixed defenses' so that would be the BATS and FRD (plus any cripples and/or towing ships) not the defending ships...
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 09:03 am: Edit

True, my bad. Makes it slightly more possible that some fighters may come home.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Mike,

Here is a little problem coming up in my new game.

The Klingons pushed their National debt to 76ep for C3. On A3 I kicked him out of alot of Kzinti Provinces, as well as got ships adjacent to some NZ hexes. In any case I lowered what I think is his revenue to 150.2ep which would mean he would gain an extra half turn of economic exhaustion.

The question has come up, does the 6ep he gets for diplomatic income count towards his revenue, or is it the category of treasury add ons.

Here is an email I sent to Ted that I think sums up how I see it
________________________________________
Quote:
Ted,

The rule doesn't specifically mention ep from diplomacy. It refers you to the (430.0) section which is in the 2K rules which is silent because well Diplomacy did not exist in those rules.

it does however make some statements that might be relevant.

pg 10 in PO
(447.12)For purposes of this calculation, "current turn's revenue" does not include money received from salvage, other races, commercial convoys, or various bonuses in the rules such as Hydran Guild Treasury. These EPs are simply added to the treasury.

Diplomacy is not mentioned, however neither is income from Colonies. I would tend to think Colony income WOULD be added, as its much like planets provinces, captured NZ hexes etc. I would tend to think diplomatic income would be more like commercial convoys which is not counted.

At least we have the luxury of asking in Q&A about it. Since it won't come into effect for many more turns we can ask for a ruling in Q&A and see what Mike C says.
________________________________________

So what do you think on where Colony and Diplomatic income come into this calculation?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 11:11 pm: Edit

On Diplomatic Income: I think the big question is, are these EPs are subject to exhaustion? (540.22) is not affected by exhaustion. Presumably (540.23) is also not affected by exhaustion though it does not say. Because of that I would think that they are not "income" and do not count as part of the current turn's revenue.

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Friday, August 19, 2011 - 01:58 pm: Edit

November - December 2008 Archive

By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 04:13 am: Edit

Do a diplomatic team interfere (with its prime team) in the prime team sabotage mission against the ship carrying the diplo team itself? (i wish to cripple a D7N using sabotage rules and then special raid her)

I presume a diplomatic team should be always on a ship, base, planet.
Could be on a allied ship, base, planet or on a neutral (or future belligerant) base or planet?
(I mean, could i leave a diplo team at my ally capitol and move away the ship who carried it?)
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 11:07 am: Edit

Dip trade and allied cooperation income is a bonus form of revenue from 'other races" under (447.12) and is not affected by exhaustion.

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

The following forms of income are affected by exhaustion and are used in borrowing limits calculations:

Original Major Planets
Captured/Devastated Major Planets
Captured Major Planet Diplomat Bonus
Original Minor Planets
Captured/Devastated Minor Planets
Captured Minor Planet Diplomat Bonus
On-map Provinces
Captured/Disrupted Provinces
Off-map Provinces
Colony Income
On-Map Survey Income
Captured Neutral Zone Hexes
Annexed Neutral Zone Hexes
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Chuck,

That's basically my understanding as well. So does this count as an official ruling from FEDS to be added to the FEAR's official Cap Log Q&A section?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 03:17 pm: Edit

It will be added in my next report to SVC.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, November 03, 2008 - 05:22 am: Edit

F&E-2K lists raw SP's as standard escorts. Do these cost 1ep to create?

What's up with SPM's? They are in the old CW but not listed in F&E-2K.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, November 03, 2008 - 06:09 am: Edit

Peter,

The SPM's are in Fighter Operations (The expansion that Carrier War became). Also since the don't come out until Y175 you have to use SPs until they become available (see note for the (SUB) in the SIT.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Monday, November 03, 2008 - 07:51 am: Edit

I don't see a note on the F&E-2K sit but I do see that the conversion cost is only 4ep so I guess that means you don't need to pay the 1EP for the SP!

If using FO/CW does the SP count as as an ad hoc escort? What if not using FO/CW?
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, November 03, 2008 - 08:34 am: Edit

It's in the master online SIT here on the website.
________________________________________
Quote:
I don't see a note on the F&E-2K sit but I do see that the conversion cost is only 4ep so I guess that means you don't need to pay the 1EP for the SP!
________________________________________


I would say that is correct but would only apply to the basic F&E 2k.
________________________________________
Quote:
If using FO/CW does the SP count as as an ad hoc escort? What if not using FO/CW?
________________________________________


I would say yes to it counting as an ad hoc escort. It would be the same as the Kzinti CL's that start in the Baron and the Marquis' fleet in AO. Well no ad hoc escorts are in the rules for base F&E2K so the base escort is the SP. There is only 2 groups that would use the SPM in F&E2K.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 04, 2008 - 07:38 pm: Edit

Mike

Can a MMG be included in a battle that has a MB being set up (and some SAFs,FRDs,FTLs,LAVs, and their smaller cousins if it matters)?

NOTE: The Tug is still setting it up and must be in the battleforce if it doesn't abandon it.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 07:07 am: Edit

321.42: "A Marine Major General can only be used in a combat round in which at least one PDU or "base" (on either side) is available for a Marine attack."

The MB is not available for a Marine attack. Reference 510.23: "The only way to destroy an undeployed mobile base is to destroy the tug carrying/deploying it, or the base at which it is stored."
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 09:12 am: Edit

Robert,

I thought so too and as much said so until I read this.
________________________________________
Quote:
2K pg 59 under the Combat During Construction section

(510.231) The base, even though not functional, is treated the same as a functional base for purposes of approach battles. If the tug is sent to participate in the approach battle, it has abandoned the undeployed Mobile Base. After the approach battle, the base (combat factor 0) must be included in the Battle Force...
________________________________________

Its calling it a base as long as it hasn't been abandoned, and the operating condition in 321.42 is that there be a base on either side.

It could be that this was never intended and a ruling should be made that for the MMG rule it cannot include a MB being setup, but I think that ruling needs to be made given the above text.
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 09:18 am: Edit

Michael,

But a G attack can not hurt an undeployed mobile base. Again as per 510.23 you have to kill the tug setting it up to destroy it, and a G cannot do that.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 10:45 am: Edit

Robert,

I agree with you the spirit of the rule is that an MMG operates where he can use troops to make a G attack. However the letter of the rules say something else. And an MMG will allow you to bring an extra G ship for its COMPOT purposes into a battleforce, so it certainly is useful in this situation. In fact in the VAST mojority of times I use an MMG its to add an extra ship just for its compot.

Its why I think Mike C needs to make a ruling one way or another.
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 - 12:52 pm: Edit

>You could though provided the other ships had
>the capacity carry the casual PF's on the other
>ships and leave the pair of DNL's behind,
>nothing requires you to bring the whole
>reserve.

Mike,

X-ships are limited to carrying a single CPF, which is used either in the raid pool or on x-ships. That CPF counter cannot be in two places at once.

The Non-X CPFs are still able to go on fast ships that accompany X-ship forces. However, the fast ships must either be in the battle force, or the CPF's must OFS.

Hence my question about whether this could be done by a reserve.

The phasing player issue is the thing I missed.

Thanks.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 07:37 am: Edit

MMG Question

I think the quote actually answers it -

(510.231) The base, even though not functional, is treated the same as a functional base for purposes of approach battles.After the approach battle, the base (combat factor 0) must be included in the Battle Force...

So an approach battle must be offered - but as no base is involved in that battle round,the MMG can't be used.

After the approach battle, there technically is a base (Compot 0) so the MMG can be used here - although a G attack has no effect.

My interpretation though is the intention of the rule is that no MMG can be used, as the logical purpose of the MMG is to be able to do a G attack. No 'target' - no MMG benefit.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 01:56 pm: Edit

MMG Question

Yes, but you can use the "G" factors to help capture a ship destroyed in this battle under 521.5. So there are targets, just not the ones you are expecting.

And 521.5 also allows ground combat ships to be part of pursuit battles to help capture ships also.
By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Thursday, November 06, 2008 - 03:45 pm: Edit

I agree. In essence the wording of the rule as it exists allows it. I STRONGLY suspect the intention though is to not allow it. I believe that the MMG intention is to allow its use where it could theoretically help in a G-Attack. Maybe the G-Attack rules should be expanded to allow them to attack a MB being setup.

Its why I would like Mike C to make a ruling on it, just to clarify the issue.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, November 07, 2008 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Mike, here's another one:

Background: The Coalition has 3 tugs (2 LTTs towing FRDs and 1 Tug-B deploying a MB) and a LOT of slow units in a hex. The Alliance moves a reserve fleet into the hex to kill as much as he can, especially the MB and FRDs. There is a Strategic Node for the Coalition 3 hexes away (BATS) so any units surviving the Slow Unit Pursuit can get away (providing the FRDs are still being towed). The Coalition wants to accept the Approach Battle that the Alliance must offer on the first round and abandon the MB by sending the Tug-B on the Approach Battle, this is allowable in the rules.

Problem: After the Approach Battle the Coalition wants to declare retreat and not have a base battle because he no longer has the MB tying him down.

1. He is trying to say that since Step 3 (which Sub-Step 2A defaults to for combat) has a retreat option under Step 7 (because you have to go through all the other steps to do a complete round of combat), and there is no actual base under 302.741 to make him go back to Step 2B, he doesn't have to do a Base battle even though he just did an Approach battle.

2a. I have pointed out that the FRDs under 302.211 are also considered bases for Approach Battles, 302.21 says: "If there is a base (302.211), the following sub-steps must be performed.", and he just had an Approach Battle under Sub-Step 2A, so he also has to have a base battle under Sub-Step 2B since he took the Approach Battle and there are FRDs counting as bases.

2b. I'm also trying to point out that if he wants to retreat after the Approach Battle he can, but only the regular ships, not the slow units which must stay with the base being protected by the approach battle (the FRD).


Why: Basically he is trying to not have his FRDs and other important Slow Units in 2 battles (normal combat and pursuit combat), just one: the Slow Unit Pursuit. Now, the real chain around his neck is that MB that he wanted to set up in that hex. If there is a place in the SOP where he can abandon it without him having to go through all of this he would take it in an instant, but the only things we have been able to find is 510.231 and 510.232 which deal with Approach Battles and normal battles in the hex.


Questions:

1. Is what he wants permissible or must he also have the base battle?

NOTE: If he must have the base battle because of the FRDs he would NOT do an Approach Battle at all because he wouldn't want to do 3 combats in the hex.

2a. Can he abandon the MB under "Withdrawal Before Combat"?

2b. Or can the Attacker even do this since it is usually a Defender option?

3. Can he declare the MB is not being set up because of the fighters that managed to react into his hex?
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, November 07, 2008 - 10:35 pm: Edit

OK, now I know someone is selling something.

In any Battle Hex, there are two battles, the original and the pursuit, especially if there are slow units involved. (302.741) states that slow units have to stay with the 'base' and if there's an approach battle, there must be a 'base'.

(302.211) gives us the 'base' as a tug deploying a MB and/or FRDs (regardless of their state). So there is no wasy for the FRDs to escape without at least one battle (pursuit) or two (non-approach + pursuit).

He could, of course, just have the FRDs destroyed by being untowed...
By Christopher Scott Evans (Csevans) on Monday, November 10, 2008 - 06:44 am: Edit

Bill Stec and I played out the Coalition assault upon the Kzin home systems today from our Maelstrom in Hanover scenerio.

Here's a question that came up:

Can G units from ground assault ships devastate a planet if all of the PDU's have been destroyed?

If so, can this happen in the same round as when the fleet action destroys the last remaining PDU on the planet, or must it occur in the subsequent round?

We went through the rules and found nothing that would allow a G unit to deliver devastation to a planet, but we also weren't sure if this had been discussed or ruled upon before.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, November 10, 2008 - 07:57 am: Edit

Sorry to discuss this in Q&A.

I think the issue is that there are 'bases' which can't retreat and 'like bases', which can retreat.

As in this case, the only bases are 'like' bases, there is no need for the slow forces to stay until the 'bases' are destroyed - it all can retreat, which can occur after a single approach round is fought.

i.e. - The defender can declare a full retreat - therefore ending the status of 'like bases' and therefore it all retreats. The fact the enemy doesn't actually get to fight at the base is irrelevant - by the time they 'get there' - the enemy is already in full retreat.

(If it seems strange, it is no stranger than 100 ships pinning 100 ships, and then retreating after 1 round of combat - or as long as you have a single ship in the hex with a Tug on Supply duty - the supply tug can never be attacked!)
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 05:31 pm: Edit

Sorry, I can't seem to get the search function to work for me, so I can't find if this was ever answered.

Can the Romulan build a BEV in place of the WH carrier group. As in, instead of counting against the SPB build limit?

Nick was asked this long ago (May of 2007), and gave a quick answer of "go ahead until I figure it out". When pressed for a final answer, he auto-appealed it up the chain, but from there I can't find if we ever got that answer.

Argument for: The BEV is an old style ship, similar to the WH pair, and both are classified as medium carriers.

Argument against: The BEV built in the allowed WH slot would be a significant improvement to the Romulan carrier build program, replacing a carrier which needs two limited availability hulls with a carrier that needs only one hull (of a type which the Roms are swimming in). Of course, that same argument could also be used in support of this change.

Thanks, Mike.
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 05:35 pm: Edit

While searching for the above, I also found a question I'd asked previously, but Nick never answered before he retired. So, it's up to you, Mike!


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. (An alternative, 3 CVA groups on the line, one with 12 fighters, one with 6, one empty, same difference, different configuration.)

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 Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, November 14, 2008 - 10:27 am: Edit

deleted by author
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 02:01 pm: Edit

Kevin - Just to comment - it would seem legal to not replace/replace what you want BUT at the end of each combat 'round' you would need to confirm to your opponent,. which fighters have/have not been transfered (i.e. they would be aware you could in round 2 do a 4 3CV line - as 1 CV group has no fighters).

...Cloaks to await official answer...
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Saturday, November 15, 2008 - 06:15 pm: Edit

Paul - I don't see why I would. I don't have too now, if I decide to pull the fighters off the DDV and put them on a CV, I don't have to declare that to my opponent. I only do that as I set up the battleline.

Edit: Or maybe I'm wrong, and I do have to declare that - but if so, there's no change from before. If I had to declare I move the fighters from DDV to CV, then I have to now declare I'm not. But I've never heard of anyone ever having to declare which ships the fighters were on before.

It's always been assumed that the player transfers fighters to the carriers going into battle - but it's never been specified as being required, and I see no reason why it should.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Sunday, November 16, 2008 - 05:11 am: Edit

Kevin

IIRC Fighter transfer is at the End of each battle round (back page of AO is missing at the moment!) - and so it would be known (again IIRC!).

However, usually there is no or very little 'tactical' advantage of where the fighters are (although I have asked in capital assaults which Ships/bases have the fighters, if there is shortfall) , but when it could effect the possible line up - I think as the opponent, I would want to know.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 02:02 am: Edit

(501.6) allows transfers between Combat Rounds, doesn't specify the when (neither does the SoP) ... but it has to be done before the battleline is revealed...
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 03:09 am: Edit

P.O., page 40, SOP, Phase 5-Step 6: Damage Allocation (302.6), 5-6E: Conduct ship transfers of fighters (501.6) and PFs (502.45).


This is after right after mauler shock rolls and well before you have to decide if you want to stay for another combat round. Plan ahead.


(Note: 502.45 should be 502.44.)
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 10:42 am: Edit

Question re: (602.49)

The "clarification" seems to have changed a few things, added a few others, so I want to be clear on this....


The rule allows the Federation to send an FRD and a MB to territory of the supported empire, even using the ones in the Home Fleet. Can Home Fleet tugs be used? Thre is a later passage about using restriction only if the released fleet does not have one, but in the only cases where a fleet is released for limited war, they all have tugs, so it doesn't seem to make much sense. And as the lines concerning the moves say "from the Home Fleet", I'm wondering if that would include delivery of said units by Home Fleet tugs.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 05:03 pm: Edit

Amusing fighting retreat question.

The defending player is about to retreat. There is only one hex available at the end of step 3 in the retreat priority list. There is an opposing frigate in this hex, which we will call the "retreat hex".

The defender wants to force the retreat hex to be the next hex to resolve, and doesn't care about the impact on BIR. The defender would therefore like to do a fighting retreat to the retreat hex.

The attacker argues that that this is not allowed because there is only 1 hex available, so fighting retreat would have no effect. Therefore, the defender has to do a regular retreat -- thus giving the attacker freedom to decide in what order to resolve the remaining battle hexes.

The defender argues that it is allowed, relying on a literal reading of 302.771:

If the retreating player wants to conduct a fighting retreat, then he has the option to ignore 302.734 and retreat into any hex that is available at the end of step 3.

The defender further argues that nothing in the fighting retreat rule says it can only be used when step 4 would have an impact.

Who is right?
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 06:08 pm: Edit

If after priorities 1-3, there is only 1 hex left, priority 4 is ignored, and fighting retreat does not apply. It's a normal retreat.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:00 pm: Edit

Actually I think this one does need a ruling as there is nothing that says that you can't do a Fighting Retreat into the same hex that you would have done a normal retreat into. Now, 302.770 IMPLIES that you are not doing a Fighting Retreat into the same hex, but it doesn't actually say that you can't.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Michael,

The whole purpose of fighting retreat is to bypass retreat priority 4. Priorities 1-3 already excluded all remaining hexes, and left only 1, so by 302.73, if there are no other hexes remaining, priority 4 is already ignored.

Note that this whole line of "it doesn't say you can't, so maybe you can" is a fallacy. The rules say what you CAN do. They are exlusive. If something isn't specifically allowed, you cannot do it.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:32 pm: Edit

One more part of the rule I should have quoted:

From the retreat rule:

after all four steps, select one of the remaining hexes

This appears to imply that one goes through all four steps, regardless of how many hexes are available at the end of each step.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:35 pm: Edit

William,

Not exactly correct. Read (302.73), last sentence. Priorities that would eliminate all remaining hexes are ignored. Priority #4 is the last one; the process is over.

The whole purpose of Fighting Retreat is to skip priority #4, so one cannot be herded in a direction away from their main supply grid.

Let's move further discussion to General so we don't clutter things up on Mike.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:41 pm: Edit

Joe, the problem with your argument is that the rules say you CAN do this. They have to be specifically modified to say that you can't do this to disallow it.
________________________________________
Quote:
302.771: If the retreating player wants to conduct a fighting retreat, then he has the option to ignore 302.734 (Step 4) and retreat into any hex available at the end of Step 3.
________________________________________
This rule says when you CAN do it. The rule needs to be clarified that you can't do a fighting retreat into the same hex that you would normally retreat into.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 17, 2008 - 07:44 pm: Edit

moved response to General
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 10:22 pm: Edit

Mike,

I find an inconsistency in the 2K rulebook. The two rules do not exactly contradict one another, but pretty close. And they are not consistant with one another.

(433.453) allows a player to substitute up to 3 escorts beyond any carrier groups built, even if Fighter Ops (carrier war) is not used

however

(433.454) only allows a player to produce a partial carrier group by conversion if FO is used.

I'm not sure how one would use the extra escorts, since you can't make oversized groups unless using FO. It seem that one should at least be able to produce a partial group (the remainder of the group) if there are sufficient escorts to complete the group; for that matter, since there are 1 and 2 out markers, it seems that one should be able to do it.

Again, not exactly a contradiction, but certainly these are not really consistant with one another. My thought is that this should be made into a quandry file for SVC and the staff to review.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 10:59 pm: Edit

Pre-CEDS your CV groups.

Place the extra escorts in the stack with the CVs so to get replacement escorts they just absorb them into the groups where they are under 308.132B and don't have to go into deficit spending to pay the conversion cost, take ships from next turns production, leave extra EPs in the treasury, or even be in supply. Very similar to the FO system of bringing along extra escorts, just not to pad the CV groups.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:01 pm: Edit

Can PDU fighters be used in an approach battle over:
A) a capital hex?
B) a normal planet?

Reason to think yes:
302.222 says:
"Fighters and PFs from the base or PDUs used in the approach battle count against the command limits of the battle force."

Reasons to think no:

1) Scott Tenhoff, the PDU fighters would only be used if the raider attacked the planet (PDU fighters never leave their planet). -- Nick Blank in Q&A, 3/2/03
2) I never heard of anyone using capital PDU fighters in an approach . . .
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:01 pm: Edit

That's about it, but it is still odd.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:05 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
2) I never heard of anyone using capital PDU fighters in an approach . . .
________________________________________
That's because you would be doing the attackers job for him. You want all of those PDU fighters to generate minus points when he kills your PDUs so he must stay over your defenses longer and you get to hurt him that much more, especially in the Capital. However, if you think he's there just to pin your ships and retreat, 302.222 lets you send them forward to help absorb damage that you may not want on your ships.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Joe -- what about belated CEDS? In my current game, the Kzinti have no shipyard and are presently short about 8 EFF. Until the shipyard is done, they can only build one a turn. Once it is done, they may want to try to catch up. 433.453 appears to give them hope of doing just that, even though they will only have one starbase.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:10 pm: Edit

That cuts both ways.

There is something to being about to use the liberated PDU fighters a 2nd time.

It all depends on the circumstances.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:13 pm: Edit

William,

I guess the issue is, if the rules allow a piece of a carrier group to exist, why not allow partial carrier groups to be created if the carrier is one of the units?

It would allow people to convert a carrier and one escort at a SB, then move an extra escort to join the gruop.

At the very least, if the spare escort is already at the SB, you should be able to do the conversion
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:23 pm: Edit

Joe, I don't see it as an inconsistency, 453 is by substitution while 454 is by conversion.

453 allows for that rare happenstance of a group (with destroyed escort) being out of supply/retrograde range (or partial grid without a starbase that can't be strated to)...

WilliamJ, that would depend on whether you think that an independent fighter squadron or two would make a large difference is keeping the enemy away from the planet (plus your 'no' statement is from a raid, which does not have an approach battle)...
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:24 pm: Edit

Joe --

I'm making no case one way or the other about your issue.

What I am saying is that regardless of how it is resolved, 403.453 does have a purpose -- namely, to help out my poor Kzinti.
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:32 pm: Edit

I'm not sure how one would use the extra escorts, since you can't make oversized groups unless using FO.

A Kzinti wants to convert a BC+CM+FF into a 3CVL [CVL+MEC+EFF] at a non-capital Starbase but this would cost 4ep (2+1+1) which would exceed the 3ep conversion limit. So instead they convert the BC+CM to CVL+MEC (3ep conversion) and substitute build an EFF at the same SB (one frigate per SB build limit; one of the three allowed extra escort substitutions) for a full 3CVL group.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:34 pm: Edit

"and substitute build an EFF at the same SB "

I forgotten we put in an exception for escorts at SBs.

The funny part of that, is that I was most likely the one that pushed for it!

Double dumb ass on me
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 11:38 pm: Edit

Actually, if you read 431.52, it specifically allows an escort FF to be substituted without counting against the conversion limits under basic F+E 2K.

It's a pity they changed that in F.O.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 07:52 am: Edit

To add to what William said -

302.222 does confirm PDU's - IIRC this was stated as being an error, when 2K was published (although my memory could be failng me).

On the next page of the rules, under Independent Squadrons (Rules not with me, so I can't state the rule number) it confirms what can form Independent Squadrons - and PDU's are not stated (and IIRC bases are (or was in 2K) defined as MB/BATS/SB) - and so I think PDU fighters (and PF's) can only be used in a battle at the planet.

Hope this helps!
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 09:18 am: Edit

If it's an error, fine, but then please put it in the errata!
By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 10:17 am: Edit

In 302.222 (last sentence):

"Fighters and PFs from the base or PDUs use din the approach battle ocunt against the command limits of the Battle Force"

Seems to me this says PDUs can send fighters forward to fight.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 10:31 am: Edit

That's pretty explicit
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:24 am: Edit

Questions downloaded to this point
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, November 21, 2008 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Question:

Presuming a non-historical scenario where the Hydran Front is attacked first, and the Kzintis are left at peace, what would their Pre-War Construction rates look like?


Been looking for four days thorugh everything and I can't find that answer. If it doesn't exist anywhere, a rough estimate would be appreciated.

Thank you.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, November 21, 2008 - 06:35 pm: Edit

BACKUP MADE TO THIS POINT
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Friday, November 21, 2008 - 08:24 pm: Edit

JJ, pre-war construction for what time frame?

If it's pre-GW, I don't think the Hydrans have any as they were in the midst of fleet-wide refits (+ refit), designing their CL (HR/TR) and upgrading their EDNs (TEM to PAL)...
By Jonathan Jordan (Arcturusv) on Friday, November 21, 2008 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Ah, sorry. To clarify, what I'm looking for is Kzinti Pre-War Construction (Or should I say Peacetime?) rates, for if the Hydrans were attacked at the historical start of the war, and not the Kzintis (Who are being left alone for the time being and there is no apparent plans for the Coalition to attack them yet)
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, November 21, 2008 - 08:35 pm: Edit

JJ,

it doesn't exist. I suspect it would be similar to what it is now; note that they scale up their production over 3 turns.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Saturday, November 22, 2008 - 11:16 pm: Edit

JJ, aahhhh, the only ting I can think of yo be added would be finishing the CL/CLE conversions for those the need them (over two turns I believe)...

hmmmm, if the peace lasted long enough, the DW might be introduced by Y171, maybe Y170F...
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 12:13 am: Edit

Stew...When did you move to da islands, man?
By Trent Telenko (Ttelenko) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 01:12 pm: Edit

>That's because you would be doing the attackers job for
>him. You want all of those PDU fighters to generate minus
> points when he kills your PDUs so he must stay over your
> defenses longer and you get to hurt him that much more,
>especially in the Capital.

Not necessarily.

PDUs making use of fighter storage depots (FSD) (or FCRs, if available) during approach battles on the attacker's turn are a really good idea for the defender. Especially if you expect to lose the PDU's in one combat round at the planet. The more often you can use a PDU fighter squadron before it is destroyed, the better.

There is also the minor point that PDU fighters sent forward don't subject their PDUs to 3-to-1 directed damage attacks the way fighters sent forward from carriers or monitors do.

This is less of an issue at the capitol hex of where you have enough carriers to fill out the "three squadron limit" in terms of attrition units, but a really important one outside the capitol hex at planets with few PDUs and small squadrons defending them.

The ISC will be absolutely a pain in that regard with a lot of FSD. Since they are built into every ISC BATS, STB and SB.

The Kzinti, with their small theater of operations and adjacent to the map edge capitol, are a close second.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 02:29 pm: Edit

Is there any rule or errata that stops an attacker from killing as many PDUs as possible in the first round over a planet and then retreating or offering another approach battle, assuming it will be declined?

The goal of this "Retreat" would be to avoid having to chew through all the minus points in round two of the fight over the planet.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 06:47 pm: Edit

"Not necessarily. "

Agreed.

I'm also not sold on the idea of always generatin minus points. I often do, but sometimes I like to make use of those fighters a second time.

Having someplace to land lets you extend the usage of your carriers. That has value, too.


William,

"The goal of this "Retreat" would be to avoid having to chew through all the minus points in round two of the fight over the planet. "

Re-read the rule. This tactic no longer works (was fixed in 2K, and subsequently)
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Stew...When did you move to da islands, man?

Wha, never hear of va-ca-tion mon, spend some time on the island to unwind a bit before headin back ta work...
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Sunday, November 23, 2008 - 09:14 pm: Edit


By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 04:58 am: Edit

Joe,

When you say, "This tactic no longer works (was fixed in 2K, and subsequently)" are you saying it was fixed by ensuring minus points are carried into the following pursuit battle?

If so, this I get. My intent is to keep damage recieved low enough to absorb predominately on fighters. I'm not under intense time pressure that requires me to take down the target planet/fixed defenses in one or two turns. If I can keep damage low enough to avoid having my command ships DD'd then I'm ahead.

Any round in an assault that I spend over intact defenses or chewing through minus points while over a base (and remaining PDUs) is another command ship dead.
By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 08:02 am: Edit

Jean how much of this will you be deleting, if any?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 08:50 am: Edit

Ryan has fully backed up this topic.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Jean is not going to prune here unless SVC gives her direct orders, in writing, to do so. Even then she will probably get sick for a day or so to see if SVC really meant it.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Monday, November 24, 2008 - 01:15 pm: Edit

"are you saying it was fixed by ensuring minus points are carried into the following pursuit battle? "

Correct. Those points are tied to the specific planet. If the battles moves away then back to the planet, the outstanding points come back to where they were.
By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 03:10 am: Edit

Quick question - Are the operations bases and operational auxiliaries detailed in SFB Module R7 already in Fed and Empire, and if not are they set to be added to any particular future module?
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 06:44 pm: Edit

Ops Bases are. I don't think the Ops Auxes are yet.
By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar1) on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 11:21 pm: Edit

(453.2) covers the aux part by giving the OpB movement...
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, December 01, 2008 - 08:03 am: Edit

Silly question

Is there anything to stop you Retrograding to a Base, which priot to Retrogrades isn't part of the main Supply Grid?

(Reason, I can cut a SB of from forces retrograding back to it)..

I don't think supply of the retrograde point is an issue and as all other requirements are met, I think retro can be done - but thought I would just check, as my mind has been failing me recently!

Thanks
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Wednesday, December 03, 2008 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Per SVC: Yes, the new shipyard is assumed to be in the new capital hex. Somebody tell FEAR to put this in the CL39 rulings please.

So I don't forget...
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 07:15 am: Edit

I seem to recall that somewhere, there is a rule that says CVAs can only built (through either substitution or conversion) at the capital shipyard. That is not the question. Does this extend to the CVA->SCS conversion? Or could these be completed at a major conversion facility? Related to this, does that restrict the 2 (by my count) ???->SCS conversions that cost 3 or less? Specifically I am referring to the ROC->PHX conversion (3 ep + fighters) or the Fed CVA->SCS convsersion (2 ep + fighters).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 08:17 am: Edit

(433.454)...CVAs can only be produced in a hex with a working capital shipyard (515.52).
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 08:41 am: Edit

John,

(502.72) Says that SCSs count against CVA limits (in addition to the SCS limits).
By Kevin Howard (Jarawara) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 10:28 am: Edit

But what you're asking is can a CVA be converted into a SCS at any starbase, as long as the conversion cost is less than 3 ep? Right?

I dunno the answer, but it doesn't appear to be disallowed, as the CVA is not being 'built', only upgraded, and as long as that upgrade is the only one you're doing that year (one per year limit).
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 10:36 am: Edit

That's the thing, Kevin. It counts against the CVA built limit, just as if a CVA were built. That indicates (to me) that the same restrictions would apply.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 11:27 am: Edit

I agree with Joe on this one.

Converting a CVA to SCS counts against the CVA build limit (502.72) so therefore can only be produced in the capital shipyard (433.454).
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 05:27 pm: Edit

But does that cover the ROC? The ROC is just a big PFT, not a CVA or SCS. Is there anything saying that the ROC or the Lyran DNL/BCL count against CVA/SCS limits?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 05:47 pm: Edit

How about if the Hydrans convert a Paladin to an Iron Duke in Y173 if/when they're off-map and they're still paying the 15 points a turn for their "normal" (read: modern) Capital Shipyard?

During this time their off-map SB can do 4+ EP major conversions and it's in the Old Colonies Shipyard, which is a "working shipyard" (515.52, FO, page 8), and it just so happens to be a Capital Shipyard (just an old and obsolete one).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 05:51 pm: Edit

No (525.42) states the the DNP/BCP count against PFT builds. (525.67) states the ROC is treated the same as the DNP.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 06:06 pm: Edit

I would say yes to the PAL>ID it's a valid combination. Working shipyard at the capital.
By John Robinson (John_R) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 07:53 pm: Edit

In the case of the Fed, it is only adding fighter factors. There are numerous examples of additional fighter factors not counting against the carrier limits, correct?

There are obvious strategic advantages to the Fed if they can do the conversion at any SB as versus having to pull it back to the homeworld. That effectively takes the CVA/SCS out of the fight for a full year (as it does with everyone else).
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, December 05, 2008 - 08:02 pm: Edit

Ryan asked that his answer be noted as unofficial. -- Jean

Fed is a CVA to SCS conversion. Covered under
________________________________________
Quote:
Converting a CVA to SCS counts against the CVA build limit (502.72) so therefore can only be produced in the capital shipyard (433.454).
________________________________________


CVA goes from 15 (F-14(8) and A10(7)) to 10V14 (A10(10V) F14(8) F18(6)). Plus a 3 point conversion.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 01:51 am: Edit

If there is a SB at the newly designated capital, then one major conversion per turn is possible even if the shipyard has not been rebuilt; see (533.11).
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 05:35 am: Edit

Raider

I think you meant 511.33. However, what you are quoting doesn't really apply in this case. We are talking about converting a ship into a CVA, and CVA production is limited to the capital shipyard, regardless of Major Conversion facilities. 511.33 says: "During the period when no shipyard exists...", so you can do Major conversions except for CVAs because you don't have a capital shipyard.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 03:29 pm: Edit

Mike Curtis: Please note that medium SYs can count toward this requirement for CVA production.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Yes, they should be able to as it specifies under 450.21: "...include all production of the original capital shipyard except for FFs, DWs, and CWs."

However, Minor shipyards (and Major conversion facilities are listed here) do not.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 05:31 pm: Edit

ML:

A major conversion facility at a replacement capital shipyard WITHOUT a SB could build or CONVERT to a CVA.

Please post only what is factual; not what you think is factual.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 06:30 pm: Edit

Yes, but it satisfies the requirement that it is being converted at the capital shipyard.

However, the conversion facility would have to be built before the replacement capital shipyard was even started as 450.13 prohibits "Minor shipyards" from being built in the capital "hex".


Which begs the question:

The Old Colonies SY is shut down when a Medium SY OR Replacement Capital SY is built. What about a Minor shipyard that is functioning in the hex that a Replacement Capital SY or a Medium SY is built? Does it get shut down like the Hydran one or does whatever race that has it get a bonus?
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 07:14 pm: Edit

ML: I don't dispute that the MCF would have to be in place first, but your earlier statement that MCFs do not qualify was not wholly correct and ask that you refrain making these types of incorrect statements in the Q&A section.

My concern is that others may mistakenly think that your statement was correct when it was not.

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

Apologies to Mike Curtis...I'll take this one...

ML:
________________________________________
Quote:
The Old Colonies SY is shut down when a Medium SY OR Replacement Capital SY is built. What about a Minor shipyard that is functioning in the hex that a Replacement Capital SY or a Medium SY is built? Does it get shut down like the Hydran one or does whatever race that has it get a bonus?
________________________________________
Please do some basic research first before you go fishing for rule problems.

See (450.13) as it CLEARLY says that minor shipyards cannot be BUILT in a capital hex. This is NOT a bonus -- it is the way the rule is written.

See (450.23) as it is very EXPLICIT; ONLY the OC shipyard upon completion of the medium SY.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Yes, I know what 450.23 says. I'm asking if Minor SYs ALSO get shut down or if they continue to function in a capital hex, especially as 450.13 doesn't allow them to be built in one. For that matter, will designating the hex that a Minor SY is IN as your capital result in shutting down the Minor SY?

Please leave this question to Mike Curtis.


And I do apologize for not clarifying my statement about Minor SYs when I was posting it. We were talking about things in the capital hex without a Capital SY and I should not have presumed that someone reading it would have put it together with the previous postings.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Mr Lui:

My ruling is that pre-existing MINOR shipyards are NOT removed if a capital is relocated to their position. There is no enabling or specified rule that states that this must be done.

Please sir, read ALL the header of this topic (to include the second paragraph) before you jump to any more false conclusions.

I'm exerting Juditium Dereptus...(judicial reach)
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 08:29 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
My ruling is that pre-existing MINOR shipyards are NOT removed if a capital is relocated to their position.
________________________________________
Fair enough.
By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 12:44 am: Edit

I concur with Col. Strong. No need to go further since he is the source of any appeal beyond my jurisdiction.

Also, please note my new username when I am doing FEAR duties. A byproduct of WebMom having a manual for the BBS! YEAH!
By Peter Hill (Corwin) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 02:42 am: Edit

CL38: Rules & Rulings
(413.44) If a partial grid is divided into two partial grids by some event, divide the EPs in the partial grid in proportion to the number of bases and planets in each half.

Does this happen immediately (so one needs to keep an eye on grids during movement) or later?

If the division loses a node is this counted in the total or excluded? Eg, a partial grid with 10 nodes is split into a (i) 5 node and a (ii) 4 node grid (with 1 node lost to enemy fire during the split). Does (i) get 5/9 and (ii) get 4/9 of the original grid's ep? Or is it split 5/10 and 4/10 with 1/10 lost?
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 07:03 am: Edit

Is there a restriction on the number of minor ship yards or conversion facilities in the off-map area?

My assumption is that, even if the capital/ship yard have been relocated/built in the off-map area, the off-map area is larger than a single hex and could support such facilities.

Also, can PRDs be constructed at planets in the off-map area?

My assumption is that planets would be the limiting factor, as it is on map.

Thank you!

William
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 07:29 am: Edit

Ryan asked that his answer be noted as unofficial. -- Jean
________________________________________
Quote:
Is there a restriction on the number of minor ship yards or conversion facilities in the off-map area?
________________________________________


Only limit is the number that cen be built per empire.
________________________________________
Quote:
My assumption is that, even if the capital/ship yard have been relocated/built in the off-map area, the off-map area is larger than a single hex and could support such facilities.
________________________________________


I usually put the minor yards at the major planet. The new capital shipyard goes to the SB.
________________________________________
Quote:
Also, can PRDs be constructed at planets in the off-map area?
________________________________________


Yes. The number of planets/colonies is the limiting factor.
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 01:20 pm: Edit

Ryan,

I agree with all of your answers above but would like to ask that you mark your answers as unofficial in some way due to this being the official Q&A. I too sometimes post answers to easy questions but always try to mark them as my oppinion in some way because 1st, I might be wrong and 2nd, I don't have official authority to post answers. Not trying to pick on you but I know that confusion can result from too many of us throwing in our 2 cents.
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 01:29 pm: Edit

and I only have 1.7 cents! (SVC fined me the other 0.3 cents)
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 01:32 pm: Edit

I'll cut you a loan Joe.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 01:57 pm: Edit

I'll see if Jean can edit it.

Done on the two that sounded officialish. Jean
By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Ryan,

Just a reference for the future. Lets not get crazy re-editing the board.

Jean; speaking of editing, if you get a chance everything from my 7 Dec, 08 - 01:20 PM post to this one in no longer required and could go away to clean up FEAR's Q&A topic.
By William E. Wood (Wxmanwill) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 04:04 pm: Edit

thanks for the unofficial answer. I'm playing Alliance and I'm trying to mitigate the anti-escort strategy that my opponent is employing.
By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Dan, I don't edit this topic, unless the author contacts me and asks me to do so and I think there is a possibility of a post getting people confused. Mike has to kick people out of his kitchen.

Jean
WebMom
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 05:00 pm: Edit

RE: Rule (509.5) Hydran Tug:

I always assumed this rule worked one way, but after reading Mike Parker's tactical note "Tac Into a Northerly Wind" in Captain's Log 37, I'm not so sure anymore.

Rule (509.5) states that the Hydran special tug starts with the Expeditionary Fleet, which deploys in 0716 according to the Hydran setup rules (709.0). By Rule (509.52), this tug "...can be used as a supply source for other out-of-supply ships WHICH ARE STACKED WITH [my emphasis] the tug."

However, Mike Parker's aforementioned tactical note states that a Hydran force in 1009 "...will be able to retrograde [to Kzinti territory] as you can supply yourself with the special Hydran tug, and if in supply you are allowed to retrograde to an allied retrograde point."

Something does not make sense here, and either the tactical note violates the rules, or my interpretation of the rules regarding the Hydran special tug are incorrect. As I see it, the tug starts in 0716, so cannot conceivably get to 1009 to make the suggested tactic feasible. The tug can reach 1011, but even so cannot supply a force in 1009, since they are not stacked with the tug.

On the other hand, I could be wrong about my interpretation of the rules. Perhaps errata that I don't know about allows the special tug to be deployed with any of the fleets? Or errata allows the tug to supply units it is not stacked with?

Can anyone help me out here? I'm contemplating a Hydran expedition, and looking at various tactical notes over the years, but it's not helpful if the notes violate the rules as I understand them, or if the rules have changed without making it into the errata.
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Mike Curtis
________________________________________
Quote:
By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 12:31 pm
The Demonhawk/Megahawk/Omnihawk modular rules (525.64) say that putting B modules on a modular dreadnought is treated as a heavy carrier. The same rule says that when building the modules with the dreadnought you must count the modules against the "relevant limits" (if you use existing modules from storage they don't count as you counted them against some limit when they were built previously). If you get one medium SPB per turn, and only one heavy SUB per year, then a dreadnought heavy carrier of course counts against the one per year limit, not the one per turn limit. You can build an SPB and an SUB on the same turn, or you can build an SPB and a CNV on the same turn, or you can build an SPB and a Demonhawk-B on the same turn, but you can't build a Demonhawk-B and a SUB on the same turn (or even in the same year) unless you are using existing B modules that were built on previous turns.
________________________________________
But under 433.432, page 45, F+E 2K (Romulan Modular Ships):
________________________________________
Quote:
...Any conversions are under the normal SB limits unless the modules were paid for previously. This could be....a set of modules produced on a previous turn without performing a conversion, the modules being stored....Note that such pre-produced conversion modules would count as the conversion allowed by that SB (and possibly the one major conversion) for the turn they were produced.
________________________________________
Therefore converting a modular DN to carry SPB modules is still illegal during the same YEAR that you produce any other CVA. (NOTE: It's easier to say "when you convert" rather than "when you construct the modules that you intend to place on".)

Most of this problem comes from the fact that most DNs are treated as CVAs when carrying non-hybrid fighters except for the Fed DVL. And all of the rest are SCSs or 12 factor CVAs (although the Tholian only has 6 factors).
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 09:32 pm: Edit

"for the turn they were produced"

just sayin'
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 09:38 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
"for the turn they were produced"
________________________________________
Yes, that's right. But you would be counting the SPB modules as a CVA conversion on that turn and so could not also make another CVA during that year. Even if you do not make a M-DN into a CVA during that year, if you intend to put a set of SPB modules on a M-DN those modules count as a CVA build. That's why I put "(NOTE: It's easier to say "when you convert" rather than "when you construct the modules that you intend to place on".)" in my last post.
By Kosta Michalopoulos (Kosmic) on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 01:13 am: Edit

So is anyone willing to comment on my question regarding the Hydran tug?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 04:54 pm: Edit

You're not wrong. Unless "someone" put in errata that we don't know about. That paper should have never made it into CL#37 without being changed/fixed. But it's not too late for them to publish corrections.
By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 13, 2008 - 05:43 pm: Edit

Mike

Question on PDU's

Could a PDU be a 'Flagship'?

302.33, 754.0 and 790.1 seem to indicate a PDU could be a Legal Flagship (302.323 seems to preclude some Zero Command Rating units, but PDU's and others are not mentioned - so as these other units are not mentioned, Command Zero does not preclude the unit being a Flagship).

There is a tactical reason for this , it could allow up to 2 other units (3 or more ships would mean Command Zero units would not be in the top 3 CR rated units, so 2 is the limit) - ships for example, to be excluded Flagships, should the defending forces be massively outnumbered - and they oculd safely withdraw.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 06:06 pm: Edit

Another PDU question:

An enemy fleet is adjacent to a friendly planet. The planet has PDUs with fighters. There are no friendly ships on or next to the planet. Can a friendly fleet retro there?

(Example: Klingon fleet in 2307. Feds want to retro to 2306.)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 10:48 am: Edit

OK, my "general discussions" question is now a FEAR question.

(For now, we're moving on since I think the "limited war" rules would limit if nothing else.)

Mike, here's the situation:

Fed ships are in the Kzinti Capital and out of range of their own supply grid. The Feds are at limited war. The Kzinti have not adopted any Fed ships.

The Coalition attacks the Kzinti Capital. Are the Fed ships "out of supply" and fight at 1/2, or are they considered "stacked with a friendly planet" and fight at full strength?

Relavent rules:

410.25: Units stacked in the same hex as a friendly starbase, planet or battle station (and the base or planet itself) are always in supply; see (410.4).

410.4: Units stacked with a friendly planet, starbase, or battle station (and the base itself) are always in supply regardless of whether or not that base has a supply path. (Mobile bases are not self supplying.) This includes captured planets as long as a PDU has been deployed there. Exception: see (410.54) for bases in allied territory. (Emphasis mine.)

102.0: Friendly: This refers to a unit or hex which is owned by forces of the same race or an allied race.
102.0: Allied: An allied race is one that is on the same side as the race in question; both races must be at war with the same enemy to be allies. For example, the Hydrans and the Kzinti become allies when both fight they Lyrans.


Based on my reading, the Fed ships are unsupplied for this situation.

What if the Feds were "at war?" Would the Fed ships be supplied then? My reading is yes.

(By the way, this question was asked back in 2003, but I can't find the FEAR answer. I see other players' answers, and they appear to say "not in supply" in both cases.)
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 03:33 pm: Edit

Mike, also perhaps applicable is 413.1.

"The Supply Grid is a network of bases and planets. It consists of a friendly capital hex (or off-map area), and friendly (i.e. same race) bases or planets..."

"Friendly" is specifically defined in 102, but then here it's specifically re-defined to mean something else. Is that just for the grid, or for 410.4 as well?
By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 04:16 pm: Edit

Mike, another question, prompted by Paul's Tacnote:

During the withdrawal before combat step, flagship selection for the first round is performed as part of that step.

302.133:
________________________________________
Quote:
One of the three units with the largest Command Rating must remain behind and must be the flagship (302.32) of the Battle Force in the first Combat Round.
________________________________________


Question: Is the flagship selection step for the defender skipped for the first round following withdrawal before combat, since it's already done.

OR

Is the flagship selection step done again, but with a predetermined result, allowing the defender to choose another 2 "rejected flagships?

Other rules which may apply:

302.16:
________________________________________
Quote:
If some of the defending ships withdrew before combat,these ships are no longer in the battle hex and are ignored when calculating required battle force size, the three best flagships, etc. See 302.133 for the first battle force only.
________________________________________


Also, from the previous F&E Dept Head:
________________________________________
Quote:
By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit


(Nick's)ANSWER: According to the advanced sequence of play, withdrawal is done in step 1 of the combat phase, while flagship selection, being part of battleforce determination, is not done until step 5-3D of step 3, so determine your three flagship candidates after withdrawal.

Nick, did you miss Step 5-1D: "Non-phasing player selects flagship of non-withdrawing force; this unit MUST serve as flagship in the first combat round (302.133)."
________________________________________
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Is there any reason we cannot delete the 2002-2006 folders without bothering to archive them? The questions that were something other than "look in the rulebook HERE" were put into CapLog, right? Were any "rulings" in the topic NOT put into CapLog?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:48 pm: Edit

That is what I am going to research over the Christmas Holidays.
By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 06:45 am: Edit

Some of the stuff might be useful for the WarBook if/when that ever happens. I'm thinking of questions where the answer was explicitly in the rules, but split in more than one place. That sort of info would be useful for adding rules cross-references and clarifying language.

I would suggest deleting everything _except_ FEAR's posts of answers to questions. (which should kill off the vast majority of stuff)
By Joe Stevenson (Ikv_Sabre) on Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 07:58 am: Edit

Definitely glad to hear Mike is going to look over things just in case.
By Jon Berry (Laz_Longsmith) on Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:32 pm: Edit

Is it possible to (through some dint of insanity) convert a CA-tug, like the Hydran or Gorn tugs back into normal CAs?
By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 06:16 am: Edit

You can always "base hull" the Hydran tug.
By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 08:49 am: Edit

A lot of players don't have access to back issues of Captain's Log. A keyword search is the only way for us to get at the rulings.

What about archiving them in a blog?
By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Monday, December 22, 2008 - 09:41 am: Edit

I am working on a way to limit the number of posts yet still keep the rulings and Q&A searchable. I will be doing this over the Christmas Holidays. But, be aware, this will take time. It may be months before it is done as I have to go through each individual post and determine if it is appropriate to save.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 - 05:26 pm: Edit

About Hydran Kiowa war dreadnought.

the SIT say that conversion counts against Paladin production.

Does it mean:
1) You can only build/convert one at year
2) You can convert any number of them but you forego Paladin production.
3) You can convert any number but if you do that in a turn which a PAL is scheduled you lose it.

Obviously you are limited by major conversion rules and... money!
By Clell Flint (Clell) on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 08:57 am: Edit

Base on how these things normally work I would say that the Kiowa would be in place of the Paladin. So you could do one anytime a Paladin was scheduled instead of producing the Paladin.
By Fabio Poli (Gambler) on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 02:45 pm: Edit

you mean choice 1) is your guess.

I can say: conversions are not limited by schedule (until you put a special rule for kiowa: i.e.: DNW can only built/converted on a turn a PAL is scheduled)

tbh, lyrans gets DN by conversions without any limit... aside major conversions limits, so the other two choices can't be excluded yet.
IMHO
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Clell:

Please don't post your opinions in this topic as this is an official Q&A topic -- Mike will answer soon enough. Please feel free to discuss this issue in the General Discussions topic -- thank you.
By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 04:58 pm: Edit

________________________________________
Quote:
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, December 31, 2008 - 04:27 pm: Edit

Concur with Ryan; ISC PF1 to begin Y182F.
________________________________________


This should be adressed in the Q&A file as a change since the dates are listed in the current rulebook.